This came up on a session of mine. A troop with weakness 15 to area damage got hit by an Eclipse Burst and then a Frigid Flurry. Both are clearly area spells and deal damage in two types. The general rule is absolutely clear, the weakness applies per type of damage. But it does seem a little bit on the Too Good To Be True. I'd love that to be clarified.
Just for adding to the discussion, this rule exists:
If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.
It still doesn't perfectly answer my question, mainly because the definition of an "instance of damage" is not given at any point that I can recall.
'Area' isn't a damage type. Neither is 'splash'.
So if something has a weakness 5 to piercing and weakness 3 to cold and get hit with Purifying Icicle, then they might take an additional 5 piercing damage and 3 cold damage because of the two weaknesses. Depending on how "instance of damage" is defined.
But if something has a weakness to area damage, then it would only apply once for any particular area effect even if it does multiple different damage types.
It would apply to both Eclipse Burst and Frigid Flurry because those are two different effects.
And yes, it is rather annoying that "instance of damage" isn't defined.
Well, two different spells should both qualify.
The only question is if a spell has multiple damage types that provoke weakness should it get that damage "bonus" twice. Probably it was not considered that weakness to area damage wouldn't mix nicely with spells that did more than one kind of damage as an area effect.
As a GM, I'd probably rule the extra damage from weakness happens just once per casting of spell in this case.
'Area' isn't a damage type. Neither is 'splash'.
So if something has a weakness 5 to piercing and weakness 3 to cold and get hit with Purifying Icicle, then they might take an additional 5 piercing damage and 3 cold damage because of the two weaknesses. Depending on how "instance of damage" is defined.
But if something has a weakness to area damage, then it would only apply once for any particular area effect even if it does multiple different damage types.
It would apply to both Eclipse Burst and Frigid Flurry because those are two different effects.
And yes, it is rather annoying that "instance of damage" isn't defined.
I don't think anyone understood my point, I probably wasn't clear.
Eclipse Burst deals two types of damage. Negative and Cold. Does the area damage weakness then trigger twice?
The same is true for Frigid Flurry, which deals Cold and Slashing.
I know two separate spells count twice, my point is if the same spell can count twice because it deals two types of area damage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know two separate spells count twice, my point is if the same spell can count twice because it deals two types of area damage.
No. Because 'Area' isn't a type of damage. Area by itself doesn't deal damage, so it falls into the first sentence of this paragraph under weaknesses.
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value.
So each spell is only one area and only triggers the troop area weakness once.
I'm not sure it's explicit/clear breithauptclan, but I agree with your conclusion.
I know two separate spells count twice, my point is if the same spell can count twice because it deals two types of area damage.No. Because 'Area' isn't a type of damage. Area by itself doesn't deal damage, so it falls into the first sentence of this paragraph under weaknesses.
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value.So each spell is only one area and only triggers the troop area weakness once.
Well, the weakness is not to "Area", it's to "Area Damage", which is very clearly damage. I understand where you're coming from, and to be clear: I *agree* with you, I think it would be wrong to trigger twice. HOWEVER, I do not see it clearly, and there is a certain level of relevance, because Foundry VTT just automated Immunities, Weaknesses and Resistances, and the conclusion of the devs there was that it should trigger twice, once for each type of "area damage" in the spell.
*shrugs*
Yeah, the Pathbuilder2e dev also has some strange interpretations of how familiar abilities and gaining specific familiars works. Nothing I can do about that though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Instance of damage" is one of the outstanding mysteries of the CRB. The good book gives us rules for handling situations where one instance of damage triggers multiple weaknesses/resistances, but also heavily implies that it could be the other way around too, that not all events which trigger multiple weaknesses come from a single instance of damage.
So they were anticipating that both scenarios had some way of happening.
With a spell like Cataclysm the general vibe I'm getting is that these are separate instances, there's a lot of different bits of disaster all happening to people at the same time.
Eclipse Burst going by flavor feels much less like a multiple instance of damage kind of thing, it's described more like a single explosion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Instance of damage" is one of the outstanding mysteries of the CRB.
I’m more than a little frustrated that however many years into 2E we are, these relatively basic questions remain unanswered. Paizo’s policy of rarely offering clarifications regarding 2E is one of my very few complaints with this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't overthink the math of Weakness to Area Damage. Let me overthink the math.
A creature with the troop trait represents several individual creatures grouped together. The reason for grouping them is to create a manageable challenge at the correct level. For example, in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign, my players initially fought Hobgoblin Soldiers. The math of balancing encounters breaks down at more than 4 levels below the party level, so when the PCs reached 6th level, I created the 5th-level Hobgoblin Troop, a Large creature representing 4 Hobgoblin Soldiers. At 9th level, I created the 9th-level Hobgoblin Formation, a Gargantuan creature representing 16 Hobgoblin Soldiers. Soon I will need to create another higher-level troop, because at 17th level they are going to meet the Ironfang Legion again, and 9th-level Hobgoblin Formations are way below them.
Suppose a 5th-level druid throws a fireball at a group of four Hobgoblin Soldiers. The fireball deals 6d6 fire damage, basic Reflex DC 21, which the soldiers could make on a natural d20 roll of 15 or higher. If the fireball hit four Hobgoblin Soldiers, it would kill typically kill two of them, leave one with 2 hit points, and the last with 10 hit points. The rest of the adventuring party has a little mopping up afterwards. That is an average of 17 damage per soldier.
The Building Creatures rules recommends a Reflex saving throw of +12 to +15 for the 5th-level Hobgoblin Troop. I picked +12. That means the Hobgoblin Troop would save on a natural d20 roll of 9 or more. More than half the time it would take only half damage from the fireball. By grouping four Hobgoblin soldiers together into one troop creature, we cut the damage from about 70 to 15. Okay, that was a little bit of a fudge. With 4 individual soldiers, they might be so split up that the druid might not catch all four in a fireball. Still, the players would be disappointed that the Hobgoblin Troop takes less damage than a single Hobgoblin Soldier caught in the fireball. And lowering the Reflex save would mess up the balance of its saving throws against single-target spells. The 5th-level troop has to have 5th-level saving throws.
If we left the troop at that, the players would see that troops were single creatures rather than actual troops. The PCs would simply stop throwing area-of-effect spells and splash bombs at the troop creatures. We want the PCs to throw those area-of-effect spells at the troops to keep up the game-mechanic illusion that they are several creatures. The troop design needs to reward the PCs for throwing area-of-effect spells qand splash bombs on the troop. Hence, the Hobgoblin Troop gains Weakness 10 to damage from effects that target an area.
Actually, Table 2–8: Resistances and Weaknesses in the Building Creatures rules recommends Weakness 8 as the maximum weakness on a 5th-level creature. However, Weakness 8 does not build up to close to the 70 or 53 or 35 damage that would be dealt to 4, 3, or 2 Hobgoblin Soldiers caught in a fireball. So I went a little over the maximum. In actual games, my players tried to catch 2 or 3 Hobgoblin Troops in a single fireball, often with just one square of the Large troop caught at the edge of the fireball, so I did not need to return all the lost damage via the Weakness. Since the troops gathered into an army-like band of several troops, the party needed only a small reward to keep throwing fireballs at them.
Likewise, the official 5th-level City Guard Squadron has Weaknesses area damage 10, splash damage 5.
Weakness to area-of-effect damage is not about instances of damage. Instead, it is an incentive to treat the troop creature as if it were several creatures. Making the weakness act differently for a single spell with multiple damage types would undermine the illusion of several creatures, because the several creatures would not receive special treatment for multiple damage type. Just throw in the extra "Weakness area damage" once for each spell or ability that damages an area.
|
I think the default position is that a singular attack/spell/effect deals a singular instance of damage unless it specifies otherwise. It is completely possible for that singular instance of damage to be dealing multiple damage types.
For example; a zombie troll with weaknesses 5 fire and 8 slashing is hit by a fighter with a longsword with a flaming rune. The damage is 2d8+1d6+7. It is one instance of damage that is both fire and slashing. As both weaknesses are triggered by this instance of damage the zombie troll takes an extra 8 damage, not 13.
My reasoning is based in a lack of a reason to conclude different instances of damage occur. It seems much more supported that each attack/spell/effect is its own instance of damage.
"The flurry deals 9d6 cold damage and 9d6 slashing damage to all foes." (Frigid Flurry)
The key here is the wording "and" as opposed to "and then". The first implies a single occurrence of two types of damage. The second would imply two separate occurrences.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's make it a fey zombie troll with weakness to cold iron and slashing and fire.
You attack with a striking cold iron flaming longsword to do 2d8+4 cold iron slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage.
Now the quote from the CRB is:
If you have a weakness to a certain type of damage or damage from a certain source, that type of damage is extra effective against you. Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness. For instance, if you are dealt 2d6 fire damage and have weakness 5 to fire, you take 2d6+5 fire damage.
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.
I think what it's saying here is that the cold iron slashing damage is one instance. You can't say what part of the damage is cold iron and what part of the damage is slashing. But the fire damage is something you can count separately, you can point to the d6 and say that's where it's coming from.
The "This usually happens only" clause indicated that the flaming rune doesn't count as the same instance because "This usually happens only" can't be true if other pretty usual things like elemental runes (and disruptive, holy/unholy/axiomatic/anarchic, all from the CRB) also count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the weakness is not to "Area", it's to "Area Damage", which is very clearly damage. I understand where you're coming from, and to be clear: I *agree* with you, I think it would be wrong to trigger twice. HOWEVER, I do not see it clearly, and there is a certain level of relevance, because Foundry VTT just automated Immunities, Weaknesses and Resistances, and the conclusion of the devs there was that it should trigger twice, once for each type of "area damage" in the spell.
The problem of this logic is that you can then trigger weaknesses an incredible amount of time. Like the Dragon Barbarian under Energy Mutagen with a Smoking Sword with a Flaming Rune will trigger Fire weakness 4 times...
Damage is one of the worst defined area of the game. There are lots of bugs in there. I'd stick to RAI when interpreting it.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the smoking sword is a specific weapon so it won't take a property rune. So one less time at very least.
I can see a point for packing the same kind of damage together into one instance - all the fire damage as one instance.
I also think special material damage isn't a standalone thing, you pretty much never have (but there'll be some obscure spell in an AP) cold iron damage on its own, it's gonna be cold iron (slashing/bludgeoning/piercing).
But the fire damage and the slashing damage, I think those can stand apart from each other and should be considered separate instances.
And yeah, sometimes just sometimes you have all the right abilities for tearing a particular monster to shreds. And that's perfectly okay.
Well the smoking sword is a specific weapon so it won't take a property rune. So one less time at very least.
True, I forgot this one.
And yeah, sometimes just sometimes you have all the right abilities for tearing a particular monster to shreds. And that's perfectly okay.
I'm not that sure. What I just did can also be done for other energy types. Combining the Energy Mutagen and an Elemental Rune is easy. You can also easily use Elemental Assault + a resonant weapon. So you can just have a collection of Agile Resonant weapons with elemental runes, Doubling Rings, and you can now attack at full power while exploiting the same weakness four times. You deal 120 average damage with a Wish Knife Fighter against a Balor (15 cold damage, 25 physical damage and 80 weakness extra damage...). Considering that it has 480 hit points, the second highest level 20 hp pool of the game, you kill it in 4 hits on average.
If you add Agile Grace and Fighter higher chances of hitting, I'm pretty sure you can reach a situation where you can single-handedly kill anything with a weakness in 2 rounds.I think it's an exploit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason to consider "Instance of damage" to not mean the same thing for resistance and weakness. When you resist all damage, that applies the resistance to each type of damage. So one type of damage equals one instance.
Why would you try to treat it differently for weaknesses?
There's no reason to consider "Instance of damage" to not mean the same thing for resistance and weakness. When you resist all damage, that applies the resistance to each type of damage. So one type of damage equals one instance.
Why would you try to treat it differently for weaknesses?
And what would it be, then? You apply it only once or twice? Your answer is unclear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Resist All' is listed as being an exception and override of the normal Resistance rules.
'Resist All' is listed as being an exception and override of the normal Resistance rules.
It isn't. There's clarifying text that doesn't say anything about being an exception.
Thinking more about it, you can't apply multiple times the same weakness if a creature deals the same type of damage multiple times, as Critical Specialization, Rage, Overdrive, etc... are all extra damage of the same type than your main damage. Otherwise a Greatsword hit from a Barbarian would trigger the Slashing weakness 3 times.
So I'm definitely on the "once" side.
'Resist All' is listed as being an exception and override of the normal Resistance rules.It isn't. There's clarifying text that doesn't say anything about being an exception.
It lists every type of damage once, so do you mean that the weakness should be applied only once? Because I'm still not seeing the point you want to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Resist All' is listed as being an exception and override of the normal Resistance rules.It isn't. There's clarifying text that doesn't say anything about being an exception.
It is contradictory.
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.
When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately.
Those can't both be true unless resistance to all damage is an override to having resistance to the various types of damage individually.
Though I suppose it again depends on what exactly is an instance of damage.
If a creature has resistance to slashing 5 and resistance to fire 3 and gets hit with a flaming longsword, they should only apply the slashing 5 resistance because it is larger.
If a creature has resistance to all damage 5 and gets hit with that same flaming longsword, then they would apply the resistance 5 to both the slashing damage and the fire damage separately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Resist All' is listed as being an exception and override of the normal Resistance rules.It isn't. There's clarifying text that doesn't say anything about being an exception.It is contradictory.
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately.Those can't both be true unless resistance to all damage is an override to having resistance to the various types of damage individually.
Though I suppose it again depends on what exactly is an instance of damage.
If a creature has resistance to slashing 5 and resistance to fire 3 and gets hit with a flaming longsword, they should only apply the slashing 5 resistance because it is larger.
If a creature has resistance to all damage 5 and gets hit with that same flaming longsword, then they would apply the resistance 5 to both the slashing damage and the fire damage separately.
There's no conflict.
The slashing is one instance. The fire is one instance.
Resist all 5 is the same as Resist Fire 5 and Resist Slashing 5. The resist all rule is clarifying that Resistance to all damage and separately having resistance to every type of damage are treated the same. Nothing there is breaking the rule of applying two Resistances to one instance.
The same definition of one instance of damage per damage type is what should be applied all the way, here. So those spells in the original question could trigger twice. None of SuperBidi's "X sources of the same damage type in one strike" examples ever multiply the impact of weakness and resistance.
This also stays consistent with the confirmation of multiple damage types on one strike being multiple instances and being able to trigger separate weaknesses all the way back in the playtest days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The slashing is one instance. The fire is one instance.
Yeah, as I mentioned it depends on how 'instance of damage' is defined.
So it would be . Hint, hint spring errata.
Because it is really kind of counter-intuitive that a single sword strike is multiple instances of damage. And a bit undefined of exactly how to separate out those multiple instances.
And then leads to the question of if a single spell is multiple instances of damage. And when. And how. So if you have weakness to area damage and a spell with an area deals multiple damage types does the weakness trigger multiple times or only once?
What about having multiple sources of the same type of damage on a single attack? Like was mentioned with a flaming rune and an energy mutagen both being active - two separate instances of fire damage that can each trigger fire resistance, or only one? How about if it is instead a spell like Flame Wisp and a flaming rune - is that two separate instances of fire damage, or does that get combined together before weaknesses are applied? How about spellstrike with a spell like telekinetic projectile where both the strike damage and the spell damage are piercing damage? Does that change if the spellstrike strike damage is piercing, but the telekinetic projectile damage is bludgeoning?
The same definition of one instance of damage per damage type is what should be applied all the way, here. So those spells in the original question could trigger twice. None of SuperBidi's "X sources of the same damage type in one strike" examples ever multiply the impact of weakness and resistance.
So if a Dragon Barbarian with a Cold Iron Greatsword strikes a Fey, we should apply Cold Iron Weakness twice as we deal both Slashing and Fire damage with the Greatsword?
There's no more logic in what you say than considering that Resistances and Weaknesses should be applied only once. RAW is unclear on this specific case. You'll always find weird situations that don't exactly work.
The same definition of one instance of damage per damage type is what should be applied all the way, here. So those spells in the original question could trigger twice. None of SuperBidi's "X sources of the same damage type in one strike" examples ever multiply the impact of weakness and resistance.So if a Dragon Barbarian with a Cold Iron Greatsword strikes a Fey, we should apply Cold Iron Weakness twice as we deal both Slashing and Fire damage with the Greatsword?
There's no more logic in what you say than considering that Resistances and Weaknesses should be applied only once. RAW is unclear on this specific case. You'll always find weird situations that don't exactly work.
No. The slashing is cold iron. The fire is not. In this case, both are area.
The fire is not.
Why? Any line to quote?
Moonbeam has Fire Silver damage, so there's nothing preventing energy damage to benefit from Cold Iron bonus.Another example, a Weapon Innovator can add Momentum to its Innovation to deal Bludgeoning damage. If it does that on a Cold Iron Greatsword, would you apply Cold Iron weakness twice?
I don't say you're wrong, just that this is just another interpretation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the discussion has evolved to a point where more people are as frustrated as me.
When it comes to weapons with runes, I don't see any issue. If I strike a creature with weakness Slashing 5 and Fire 3 with a Flaming sword, the creature takes 8 extra damage.
If the creature is also weak 10 to cold iron and my sword is made of it, the Slashing weakness gets replaced by the material one, making the total damage 13.
So far, nothing seems to step on the rules, even if some conclusions are a product of deduction.
But it still stumps me if a creature is weak to Area Damage and takes damage from Eclipse Burst or Frigid Flurry, and apparently no one in this thread can answer confidently backed up by rules text. Which means this is a very good case for errata in what an Instance of damage is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fire is not.Why? Any line to quote?
Moonbeam has Fire Silver damage, so there's nothing preventing energy damage to benefit from Cold Iron bonus.Another example, a Weapon Innovator can add Momentum to its Innovation to deal Bludgeoning damage. If it does that on a Cold Iron Greatsword, would you apply Cold Iron weakness twice?
I don't say you're wrong, just that this is just another interpretation.
Because that question is backwards. Moonbeam has something to make the energy be a metal. A monk with Rain of Embers stance and Metal Strikes has a reason for their fire damage to be Cold Iron. A rune does not have anything to suggest it would be, so there's no need for a quote to say it isn't.
Because that question is backwards. Moonbeam has something to make the energy be a metal. A monk with Rain of Embers stance and Metal Strikes has a reason for their fire damage to be Cold Iron. A rune does not have anything to suggest it would be, so there's no need for a quote to say it isn't.
From your interpretation, you'd apply Physical Resistance (except Cold Iron) on the Bleeding damage done with a Bleeding Finisher or a Wounding Rune even if it had been inflicted by a Cold Iron weapon.
Sorry, but your interpreation is far from perfect. But more importantly, it's not really backed up by anything. It's just an interpretation. You make it sound as if it was obvious when it's not.Instance of damage is not clearly defined.
And area of effet damage neither.
And to answer OP's question, what I personally do is:
I consider that instance of damage = damage type. So when you take multiple times the same damage, I sum it up before applying Weaknesses and Resistances. I think it's more fair.
For Area of effect damage or Cold Iron, all these things that are not damage types per se, I apply the rules from Water and apply them once.
|
|
If you want to treat area damage like water and just add the weakness to the final damage dealt, what if they're undead and resistant to cold damage? The negative damage wouldn't apply, and they could possibly resist away all the cold damage. You're now deducting unspecified "area damage" from their hit points, which seems more absurd than treating each damage instance (viz. damage type) individually as area damage.
|
|
In this case, immunity kicks in [...]
Undead being unaffected by negative damage isn't an immunity, exactly, but for the most part it works out like one. And the point isn't the I-W-R order of application, it's that treating the area damage like water or salt means it doesn't have a corresponding damage type:
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it.
Hence you could resist away the remaining cold damage, but due to the weakness application beforehand you're now taking "area damage" of no particular type despite not actually being damaged. Linking the area damage to each damage instance (read: damage type) may occasionally yield large numbers, but it doesn't generate absurdities like the aforementioned one.
Because that question is backwards. Moonbeam has something to make the energy be a metal. A monk with Rain of Embers stance and Metal Strikes has a reason for their fire damage to be Cold Iron. A rune does not have anything to suggest it would be, so there's no need for a quote to say it isn't.
Just to (playfully) annoy you a bit more, how would you handle a Cold Iron Fire Poi meeting a Weakness to Cold Iron :)
If you want to treat area damage like water and just add the weakness to the final damage dealt, what if they're undead and resistant to cold damage? The negative damage wouldn't apply, and they could possibly resist away all the cold damage. You're now deducting unspecified "area damage" from their hit points, which seems more absurd than treating each damage instance (viz. damage type) individually as area damage.
Area of effect damage supposes damage. If you don't take damage, then you haven't taken Area of effect damage.
Also, Water weakness generates unspecified damage. So it's not an issue.I don't think my interpretation has any RAW issue. I won't say it's the only one (it's not) or the best one. It's just that I don't like the concept of having multiple times the same weakness applied by the same spell/attack. Especially because we haven't even started speaking about Energy Fusion or other feats to add another type of energy that would trigger the weakness once again for no logical reason.
You have a generic flaming club. You are striking a creature with weakness to bludgeoning 10 and fire 5. You made one attack so that is one instance of damage. You apply the biggest weakness in this case bludgeoning 10.
You have a rules citation for that?
You made one attack so that is one instance of damage.
I mean this is the sticking point here. The rules aren't explicit in this regard and what advice we do have suggests that you don't treat these as one solid component.
You hit someone with your club for 12 bludgeoning damage and 4 fire damage, not 16 bludgeoning and fire damage.
Additional Damage, and what exactly is an Instance of Damage is just not defined in the games rules. Mostly you can work it out reasonably but sometimes with complex weakness and battleforms rules it is just not clear at all.
Yeah. There are several reasonable interpretations. The problem is getting a consistent interpretation.
Wait is this really an issue?
You have a generic flaming club. You are striking a creature with weakness to bludgeoning 10 and fire 5. You made one attack so that is one instance of damage. You apply the biggest weakness in this case bludgeoning 10.
Now you take the same club and strike a creature with resistance bludgeoning 10 and fire 5. You made one attack so that is one instance of damage. You apply the biggest resistance in this case bludgeoning 10.
If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.
This suggests it is two instances of damage and that the only time that changes is when something would make something trigger twice with the same damage type.
Which would be cases like a trait applied to the damage (water bludgeoning comes to mind), a material type (like the example), or something like Area weakness or splash weakness (if something was weak to say acid and splash, and they only took acid splash damage they would only take the highest value)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait is this really an issue?
You have a generic flaming club. You are striking a creature with weakness to bludgeoning 10 and fire 5. You made one attack so that is one instance of damage. You apply the biggest weakness in this case bludgeoning 10.
This specific part I have no doubt whatsoever that your interpretation is wrong. If you hit a creature with weakness to both bludgeoning and fire with a bludgeoning flaming weapon, they take both weaknesses, because you're dealing different types of damage. The doubt only remains on what to do with spells with multiple damage types triggering weaknesses not directly associated with those types of damage.