I was checking a combo for Flame Druid with Fiery Body so I notice a thing that made a doubt.
The Fiery Body says:
...
Your unarmed attacks deal 1d4 additional fire damage, and your fire spells deal one additional die of fire damage (of the same damage die the spell uses). You can cast produce flame as an innate spell; the casting is reduced from 2 actions to 1.
...
And reading Combustion I noticed:
You ignite a creature in lasting flames. The fire deals 4d8 fire damage and 2d6 persistent fire damage to the creature, which must attempt a Fortitude save.
So cast Combustion during Fiery Body will give a 1d8 additional fire damage but what about the persistent fire damage? This increases too?
I'm asking because if i'm remember right the persistent receives all benefits from normal damages. If you critic a persistent damage it doubles, if your opponent have weakness/resistance to same damage type of your persistent damage this applies too for each time the persistant damage does damage. So if I RAI it right this "one additional die of fire damage" will be applied to both damage instances too? Giving also an additional 1d6 persistant damage dice too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the unclear thing really is the spell having multiple damage types. The spell says "one additional die of damage" which makes me believe that giving two dice would not be allowed even if they are both fire.
If so, which one to choose? My gut instinct of how it is intended is peobably the initial damage but I can see choosing as well.
Sorry but I don't understand your statement. Can you clarify?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PCs do not deal Persistent Damage at all, instead, they only ever apply the Persistent Damage (Fire) Condition which itself deals damage on its own and is never subject to bonuses to damage dice rolls to your attacks/spells/etc.
I don't know about that the Goblin feat Burn It says You also gain a +1 status bonus to any persistent fire damage you deal
So even if you are technically true, the common english stype Paizo uses, says otherwise
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PCs do not deal Persistent Damage at all, instead, they only ever apply the Persistent Damage (Fire) Condition which itself deals damage on its own and is never subject to bonuses to damage dice rolls to your attacks/spells/etc.
Sorry but I don't understand your statement. Can you clarify?
This also ties in to other questioned rulings. Especially a status bonus to all rolled damage from Inspire Courage. Does Inspire Courage's +1 status bonus to damage apply to persistent damage?
One common ruling is that the bonus does not apply because the character is not dealing the damage. The character is instead only applying a condition.
The persistent damage condition is applying the damage, and it does so on that afflicted character's turn.
If you critically succeed at a Strike, your attack deals double damage.
For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1.
I don't believe in the "you don't deal persistent damage" at all, and to me it is clearly not how the game parses it either. Burn It as shown above is another example.
In fact, if you look at feats that apply persistent damage (alchemical shot, artoku's fire) they say "you deal X persistent damage".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe that any effect that modifies the damage of a characters attacks should effect persistent damage unless specified. I follow the, "the character is not dealing the damage, the condition is," philosophy there.
As to the Goblin's Burn It and similar abilities that do specify effecting persistent damage, I see them as modifying the "Condition" that the character places on the opponent.
Say a Goblin with an effect that inflicts Persistent Damage Fire (1d6) gains Burn It. In my opinion, they no longer deal PD Fire (1d6). They now deal PD Fire (1d6+1).
A thought experiment: A goblin with Burn It inflicts PD Fire (1d6) to a creature. They are then subjected to a Disintegrate and hit 0, turning them into a "was". In other words, they no longer exist. What fire damage would that creature they lit on fire take from then on? 1d6+1? Or just the standard 1d6?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a strike a critical success is defined as doubling all the damage you deal and we know that you double persistent damage on crits.
I don't think the disintegration example is good because they deal the damage when it is applied rather when it damages them so the goblin would need to be alive for the effect to work.
I do not believe that any effect that modifies the damage of a characters attacks should effect persistent damage unless specified. I follow the, "the character is not dealing the damage, the condition is," philosophy there.
I just view that persistent damage is a separate thing to regular damage and increases to damage aren't increases to persistent damage unless its called out specifically.
As to the Goblin's Burn It and similar abilities that do specify effecting persistent damage, I see them as modifying the "Condition" that the character places on the opponent.
I'd be happy to go with this line of reasoning. I've probably even used this line of reasoning before. But the wording is quite simple in this case.
2 takeaway pointsa) this could just be a natural language problem
b) we don't have fully defined damage terminology and procedure so there is little chance of resolving this.
Say a Goblin with an effect that inflicts Persistent Damage Fire (1d6) gains Burn It. In my opinion, they no longer deal PD Fire (1d6). They now deal PD Fire (1d6+1).
A thought experiment: A goblin with Burn It inflicts PD Fire (1d6) to a creature. They are then subjected to a Disintegrate and hit 0, turning them into a "was". In other words, they no longer exist. What fire damage would that creature they lit on fire take from then on? 1d6+1? Or just the standard 1d6?
The higher amount. Is there a rule that stops effects just because their source no longer exists. The effect has a duration and there is no sustain cost. It just burns itself out naturally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a strike a critical success is defined as doubling all the damage you deal and we know that you double persistent damage on crits.
Sure. I don't see how that is relevant. The crux of the argument is not whether or not a character can deal Persistent Damage. It is whether or not the character counts as dealing the damage suffered from a Persistent Damage that they inflicted. A slight, but important, distinction.
I say the character inflicted Persistent Damage, the condition, but not necessarily the damage inflicted by that persistent damage.
In other words, Burn It! works because it alters the Persistent Damage condition that the goblin inflicts, and not the actual damage dealt by that condition.
I don't think the disintegration example is good because they deal the damage when it is applied rather when it damages them so the goblin would need to be alive for the effect to work.
I don't think I am catching your point here. Are you saying that Persistent Damage was meant to be applied to the Goblin in my example? Or that the disintegrate was inflicting it?
Or were you saying that if the Goblin dies, then the creature with Persistent Damage would take the standard amount of damage (1d6 in the examples case)?
Sure. I don't see how that is relevant. The crux of the argument is not whether or not a character can deal Persistent Damage. It is whether or not the character counts as dealing the damage suffered from a Persistent Damage that they inflicted. A slight, but important, distinction.
Ok, I now understand what you are getting at. But then it is not relevant for the OP, is it?
In my reasoning: because we can deal persistent damage and it is treated as damage (shown in the critical rules). If we have something that increases damage it can also increase persistent damage (shown by persistent damage doubling on crits) so Fiery Body or a similar effect should be able to increase the persistent damage. Even if it doesn't count as dealing damage whenever it hurts the one under the effect of persistent damage.
So basically if we take this
Say a Goblin with an effect that inflicts Persistent Damage Fire (1d6) gains Burn It. In my opinion, they no longer deal PD Fire (1d6). They now deal PD Fire (1d6+1).
then any effect that would increase damage would also change the PD to the new value (e.g. from 1d6 to 2d6).
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear in my language.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1. If you miss, the target and all creatures within 5 feet take only 1 splash damage. If you critically fail, no one takes any damage.
Persistent damage is still another type of damage, and so the double damage dealt on a critical hit applies. To the original point, combustion doesn't call out persistent damage as being excepted so the 2d6 would increase to 3d6.
Immunities, resistances, and weaknesses all apply to persistent damage. If an effect deals initial damage in addition to persistent damage, apply immunities, resistances, and weaknesses separately to the initial damage and to the persistent damage.
|
Immunities, resistances, and weaknesses all apply to persistent damage. If an effect deals initial damage in addition to persistent damage, apply immunities, resistances, and weaknesses separately to the initial damage and to the persistent damage.
I guess this was an answer to my post about Paladin's reaction, but I do not understand what you mean.
Does it apply ?
Does it not apply ?
Why ?
No, it is most definitely not another type of damage (only bleeding is a kind of exception, but still is actually physical damage) and not even a part of instant attack damage roll which is doubled on crit. It's a condition.
Your quote is only enough to give a very feeble hint that Alchemical bombs may work this way. Even though there's nothing written for crit effects for them explicitly. But that is not a contradiction because they are a separate special kind of equipment and attack, they could work like that. But in general? No.
So you think that the example in the splash trait was actually written as a way to tell that alchemical bombs have an exception when it comes to persistent damage?
Alchemical bombs uses Strike for the record so the Strike rules applies to them and they work exactly like other weapons.
Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.
Very strange to write that the flaming rune's persistent fire damage is not doubled on crits due to it being a crit effect if you do not double persistent damage on crits.
Immunities, resistances, and weaknesses all apply to persistent damage. If an effect deals initial damage in addition to persistent damage, apply immunities, resistances, and weaknesses separately to the initial damage and to the persistent damage.I guess this was an answer to my post about Paladin's reaction, but I do not understand what you mean.
Does it apply ?
Does it not apply ?
Why ?
If you are hit by a strike that does X damage and Y persistent damage your resistance applies to both as said in the bolded part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extremely assertive language when all you're saying is "all the text is wrong actually".
Here are the facts:
Persistent damage is mentioned as damage in the damage chapter of the book, It's also called damage which might give a clue that it is damage.
In the rules about doubling damage they mention that persistent damage is not doubled on a crit, like this parking sign it implies that it would be doubled if it was not added as part of a critical hit.
In the splash trait, a chapter that has nothing to do with persistent damage, an example is mentioned where a critical hit is scored to show that you do not double the splash damage but that you do double persistent damage. Bombs need no general rules for critical damage because they use Strike (which is the significance of them using Strike).
Strike says this:
Critical Success As success, but you deal double damage.
Success You deal damage according to the weapon or unarmed attack, including any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you have to damage.
Whenever you apply persistent damage it is referenced as "you deal X persistent damage".
Basic Saving Throws says this:
Critical Failure You take double the listed damage from the effect.
Lingering Flames say this:
When you cast fireball, you can modify its effects, decreasing the base damage to 5d6 and causing it to deal 2 persistent fire damage to creatures that fail their save, doubled as normal on a critical failure.
So persistent damage is doubled as normal and Basic Saving Throw only mentions that you double the listed damage. So clearly when you double damage you also double persistent damage.
Persistent damage is referred to as damage in many cases in the rules and you have shown no rule reference that it is not damage yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I use my Paladin's reaction, do I reduce the persistent damage too ?
TBH I have never seen it ruled this way.
Yeah, that is another interesting and noteworthy case to consider.
An enemy within range of a Paladin casts Blistering Invective on an ally also within range of the Paladin. The spell deals no initial damage - it only applies persistent fire damage.
Can you use Paladin's Champion reaction at that point? The enemy hasn't damaged the ally yet. The ally is still at full HP.
Your ally's turn then comes up and ends. Persistent damage triggers. Can the Paladin use Champion reaction now? How about if the enemy is currently outside of the 15 foot range? How about if the enemy is currently dead? How about if the ally is currently dead?
|
|
If you are hit by a strike that does X damage and Y persistent damage your resistance applies to both as said in the bolded part.Immunities, resistances, and weaknesses all apply to persistent damage. If an effect deals initial damage in addition to persistent damage, apply immunities, resistances, and weaknesses separately to the initial damage and to the persistent damage.I guess this was an answer to my post about Paladin's reaction, but I do not understand what you mean.
Does it apply ?
Does it not apply ?
Why ?
Is the persistent damage part of the triggering damage, even if it only reduces HP later ?
Really, I play PFS and I have NEVER seen it used this way (ie reducing persistent damage).
The english language have a few quirks in it, it seems
Is taking damage the same as being damaged? My first thought was yes but maybe it is not the same after all.
Because if you are hit by an attack that deals X damage and Y persistent damage you are taking damage from both those sources but you are only damaged by the persistent damage later on .
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Persistent damage is damage, but inflicting persistent damage to someone isn't the same as damaging them. They'll likely be damaged by the condition at some point in the future, but they could just put out the fire on their turn before reaching the point where they would actually take damage.
All the good champion reactions trigger on an enemy damaging your ally, so they wouldn't trigger on inflicting persistent damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The english language have a few quirks in it, it seems
Is taking damage the same as being damaged? My first thought was yes but maybe it is not the same after all.
Because if you are hit by an attack that deals X damage and Y persistent damage you are taking damage from both those sources but you are only damaged by the persistent damage later on .
The way that I see it, taking damage and being damaged are the same thing. The difference is the source.
In the case of Scorching Ray - which only has initial instantaneous damage - the damage is being caused by the character casting the spell. The Champion can react to it, and status bonuses (or other typed bonuses) to that character's damage apply.
In the case of Blistering Invective - which only has persistent damage - the damage is not being done by the spell or the spellcaster character directly. The damage is being caused by the condition. It is a step removed from a direct damage situation. So the Champion can't react to it, but you also don't get to add status bonuses from the character to it. Unless a feat, feature, or ability specifically overrides that. Like the Goblin's Burn It feat that says that it increases persistent fire damage that you cause.
I'm sure there are a lot of edge cases. But this seems like a good general ruling that works for most things and makes the players not get surprised by things too often.