| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For flurry of blows you only combine the damage for the purposes or resistances and weakness, not immunity.
So if the creature is immune to one type of damage, I would simply pull that out separate from the damage calculation from the rest of FOB.
If it was merely resistant, and the resistance didn't exceed the damage, then there's nothing to worry about.
If the resistance exceeds the damage (not impossible at low levels) I would probably again pull that out separate and let that be negated but not reduce the rest. The pulling together of damage for resistance is supposed to be a benefit, and so as a GM I will treat it in whatever way is most beneficial to the player while also still being logical.
For flurry of blows you only combine the damage for the purposes or resistances and weakness, not immunity.
That is a pointless distinction to make. Zero is zero.
How does the combined damage of FoB work when the Strikes have different damage types? Specifically, I'm asking about a situation where he target is resistant/immune to one of the damage types but not the other.
E.g. a monk hits with a Visous Ooze with a fist (bludgeoning) and a dogslicer (slashing). Does the slashing immunity block all the damage, just the dogslicer damage, or none of the damage? Does the fact that its an immunity and not a resistant change the answer? If the target were a skeleton (resistance 5 to non-bludgeoning) would the damage be reduced by 5 or not at all?
Speaking as a GM with a decent but mit perfect grasp in the Rules Here
In case of the immunity i would simply ignore the dogslicer, but not the fist
Two instances of damage, but one is irrelevant so you can just ignore it
Resistances are a bit more complicated, technically the skill days combine all the damage for resistances, which would mean that your Fist does No damage because the enemy is reaistant to swords, which makes little Sense
RAW you could still have your damage Blockes by that, a generous and lenient GM might of course say only as much damage as that particular source of damage causes
Would probably mit upset the Game Balance too much but of course favors the Offensive and should then of course be applied to Monsters the same way
For flurry of blows you only combine the damage for the purposes or resistances and weakness, not immunity.That is a pointless distinction to make. Zero is zero.
It's not, because someone will argue that because you dealt any fire damage in Flurry of blows, that a fire immune monster is immune to all damage from Flurry of Blows.
It's completely illogical, but it's necessary to state so someone doesn't try to go down that route.
I'm curious. How would a monk be making a Flurry of Blows with a dog slicer in the first place as Flurry says 'Make two unarmed strikes..." A dog slicer is a weapon, not an unarmed strike. Is there a feat that allows Flurry with weapons?
As for the OPs question, I'd have the player always tell me the damage types separately, in case of immunities, and combine them myself if there was none.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious. How would a monk be making a Flurry of Blows with a dog slicer in the first place as Flurry says 'Make two unarmed strikes..." A dog slicer is a weapon, not an unarmed strike. Is there a feat that allows Flurry with weapons?
As for the OPs question, I'd have the player always tell me the damage types separately, in case of immunities, and combine them myself if there was none.
Monastic weaponry into ancestral weaponry feats
|
You add up all the damage types, but keep the types separate. So in this case, you do X Slashing and Y Bludgeoning. The target is immune to slashing so all that drops to 0, leaving only the X bludgeoning damage.
If they have Resist Slashing 5, and you do 4 Slashing damage, all 4 of that would be reduced, but none of the bludgeoning would be reduced because why would it?
If the target has something like "Resist Physical 5", you would add up all the physical damage, so X+Y, and subtract 5, so you would do X+Y-5 damage.
It's not as complicated as you are thinking, it's all just simple math.
Hardness on the other hand is a completely different beast...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You add up all the damage types, but keep the types separate. So in this case, you do X Slashing and Y Bludgeoning. The target is immune to slashing so all that drops to 0, leaving only the X bludgeoning damage.
If they have Resist Slashing 5, and you do 4 Slashing damage, all 4 of that would be reduced, but none of the bludgeoning would be reduced because why would it?
If the target has something like "Resist Physical 5", you would add up all the physical damage, so X+Y, and subtract 5, so you would do X+Y-5 damage.
It's not as complicated as you are thinking, it's all just simple math.
Hardness on the other hand is a completely different beast...
Strange still. Because, by this reasoning, if I have Resist Slashing 5 and Resist Bludgeoning 5, I resist a total of 10 damage, whereas Resist Physical 5 (which gives a wider resistance than Resist Slashing + Resist Buldgeoning) would only resist 5 damage.
For flurry of blows you only combine the damage for the purposes or resistances and weakness, not immunity.That is a pointless distinction to make. Zero is zero.
It's not, because someone will argue that because you dealt any fire damage in Flurry of blows, that a fire immune monster is immune to all damage from Flurry of Blows.
It's completely illogical, but it's necessary to state so someone doesn't try to go down that route.
The rules express it differently. It is better to stick with their terminology or you are going to be misleading people.
You can be immune to fire damage, or you can be immune to fire the effect. The first is just damage, the second is the whole ability and all the effects if the ability has the fire trait plus fire damage.
Ki Strike( Elemental Fist Fire) or a Flaming Rune on Handwraps just make the damage fire, not the whole ability.
Very few creatures are just immune to fire damage and not fire effects.
Strange still. Because, by this reasoning, if I have Resist Slashing 5 and Resist Bludgeoning 5, I resist a total of 10 damage, whereas Resist Physical 5 (which gives a wider resistance than Resist Slashing + Resist Buldgeoning) would only resist 5 damage.You add up all the damage types, but keep the types separate. So in this case, you do X Slashing and Y Bludgeoning. The target is immune to slashing so all that drops to 0, leaving only the X bludgeoning damage.
If they have Resist Slashing 5, and you do 4 Slashing damage, all 4 of that would be reduced, but none of the bludgeoning would be reduced because why would it?
If the target has something like "Resist Physical 5", you would add up all the physical damage, so X+Y, and subtract 5, so you would do X+Y-5 damage.
It's not as complicated as you are thinking, it's all just simple math.
Hardness on the other hand is a completely different beast...
The rule is clear you only get the highest resistance for each instance of damage. Though it is not totally clear about what each instance of damage is. But most people conclude it is the sum of the damage of each type of damage.
So if you are taking about slashing and bludgeoning damage, and something has physical and slashing and bludgeoning resistance. Then you would look at the slashing damage and subtract the higher of the physical or slashing resistance, then the bludgeoning damage and subtract the higher of the physical or bludgeoning resistance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strange still. Because, by this reasoning, if I have Resist Slashing 5 and Resist Bludgeoning 5, I resist a total of 10 damage, whereas Resist Physical 5 (which gives a wider resistance than Resist Slashing + Resist Buldgeoning) would only resist 5 damage.You add up all the damage types, but keep the types separate. So in this case, you do X Slashing and Y Bludgeoning. The target is immune to slashing so all that drops to 0, leaving only the X bludgeoning damage.
If they have Resist Slashing 5, and you do 4 Slashing damage, all 4 of that would be reduced, but none of the bludgeoning would be reduced because why would it?
If the target has something like "Resist Physical 5", you would add up all the physical damage, so X+Y, and subtract 5, so you would do X+Y-5 damage.
It's not as complicated as you are thinking, it's all just simple math.
Hardness on the other hand is a completely different beast...
The fair way to handle this is to do exactly what the ability says, and "combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses." So, combined that would be 5 slashing and 5 bludgeoning damage for a total of 10 damage in the same instance. "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." In your example that would be 5, resisting 5 damage and taking the rest. Keep in mind you still have two TYPES of damage, but only one instance. If the target's highest resistance exceeds the amount dealt by one type, you simply reduce the damage by the amount dealt by that type and no more. It makes no sense and is not fair to reduce the damage by more than is dealt by one type just because you combined it. Everything I just said is basically what Cordell said, but I reworded it to use the term "instance" from the resistance rules as it would apply to this situation
On the flipside, I would only apply the highest weakness to this instance...
I am OK with this. I felt Cordell was saying something different because of the "keeping the types separated" wording.
|
|
If you Flurry a Skeleton with a Cold Ki Strike with Flaming Hand Wraps, and used a Slashing and Piercing attack, how much would it resist? Just 5? Or would it resist 5 from all damage types?
What if an enemy monk Flurried you, using two different damage type strikes, and then a champion used their reaction on you? Would you resist both damage types equally? Or only apply resistance once? Resist All literally gives you every individual damage type resistance possible after all, so why wouldn't you resist both of them?
The questions are unanswered. I run it as every damage type is a separate thing, and things like "physical" and "magical" are add-ons to existing damage types (since you can never have just "physical" damage, for example). So if something has resist Physical and Slashing, you would determine the larger of those two to apply, but if they have Piercing and Slashing they both would apply.
If you Flurry a Skeleton with a Cold Ki Strike with Flaming Hand Wraps, and used a Slashing and Piercing attack, how much would it resist? Just 5? Or would it resist 5 from all damage types?
What if an enemy monk Flurried you, using two different damage type strikes, and then a champion used their reaction on you? Would you resist both damage types equally? Or only apply resistance once? Resist All literally gives you every individual damage type resistance possible after all, so why wouldn't you resist both of them?
The questions are unanswered. I run it as every damage type is a separate thing, and things like "physical" and "magical" are add-ons to existing damage types (since you can never have just "physical" damage, for example). So if something has resist Physical and Slashing, you would determine the larger of those two to apply, but if they have Piercing and Slashing they both would apply.
The answer is relatively clear. But it goes to the heart of the damage instance definition problem.
You need specifics. I'll use your example:
Creature is a Skeletal Soldier with Immunities death effects, disease, mental, paralyzed, poison, unconscious; Resistances cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5, piercing 5, slashing 5
Hit with Flurry of Blows
combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses
with weapon eg Long Sword(which you can get via ancestral weaponry)
versatile S can be used to deal piercing or slashing damage
Using Flaming Rune
an additional 1d6 fire damage
and Ki Strike
the Strikes deal 1d6 extra damage. This damage can be any of the following types of your choice
Each of these are separate damage types. Note that it is piercing or slashing choose one. It is not both at the same time.
As long as you don't choose to add the different damage types together then you can work it out correctly. The instruction in flurry of blows is really meaning to add damage of the same types together so total piercing, total fire and total cold. 3 different totals. It is adding the two strikes together but maintaining it's constituent types. Not all of it together as one total damage.
I have to make a judgement call to do this as the language is not tight enough. Paizo should fix it. Natural language can be clear and unambiguous, but this has an alternative reading.
|
|
The point of contention here is "what is an instance of damage", as that is not clearly defined anywhere. Basically, since it's very easy and common to add additional damage types to weapons, do single strikes or spells that do multiple damage types count as one instance of damage, or does each damage type count as a separate instance?
A post from Mark Seifter suggests it's the latter, where multiple damage types count as separate instances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not "clearly defined" in the rulebook we'll have to use the dictionary. An instance is "an example or single occurrence of something" according to Oxford Languages. So yes, single strikes or effects that do multiple damage types count as one instance of damage unless they state otherwise. Since Flurry of Blows directs us to "combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses" I'd say that's a pretty clear signal we're supposed to treat the combined damage as one instance
That post by Mark Seifter is nice and all, but it appears he's in "writing cool fiction" mode and not "accurate to the rules" mode there. I wouldn't depend on it as a source
Here is a clearer quote from Mark
You are reading the opposite way to what he does. He is treating each damage type as a different instance even though it is coming from the one strike.Mark is/was the most precise of the Paizo writers.
|
|
If it's not "clearly defined" in the rulebook we'll have to use the dictionary. An instance is "an example or single occurrence of something" according to Oxford Languages. So yes, single strikes or effects that do multiple damage types count as one instance of damage unless they state otherwise. Since Flurry of Blows directs us to "combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses" I'd say that's a pretty clear signal we're supposed to treat the combined damage as one instance
That post by Mark Seifter is nice and all, but it appears he's in "writing cool fiction" mode and not "accurate to the rules" mode there. I wouldn't depend on it as a source
Here is a clearer quote from Mark
You are reading the opposite way to what he does. He is treating each damage type as a different instance even though it is coming from the one strike.Mark is/was the most precise of the Paizo writers.
Thank you for that quote. Much clearer.
For flurry of blows you only combine the damage for the purposes or resistances and weakness, not immunity.That is a pointless distinction to make. Zero is zero.
It's not, because someone will argue that because you dealt any fire damage in Flurry of blows, that a fire immune monster is immune to all damage from Flurry of Blows.
It's completely illogical, but it's necessary to state so someone doesn't try to go down that route.
The rules express it differently. It is better to stick with their terminology or you are going to be misleading people.
You can be immune to fire damage, or you can be immune to fire the effect. The first is just damage, the second is the whole ability and all the effects if the ability has the fire trait plus fire damage.
Ki Strike( Elemental Fist Fire) or a Flaming Rune on Handwraps just make the damage fire, not the whole ability.
Very few creatures are just immune to fire damage and not fire effects.
I'm not exactly following the point you're making. It seems like you care about a distinction between immune to fire damage vs immune to "fire trait (including damage). I don't care about the distinction at all.
I'm saying regardless of which your opponent has, if you attack with elemental fist or a fire rune only the extra fire damage from either should be reduced, while someone might interpret the rules otherwise to say that all damage should be combined together and that the other physical damage gets negated too. I'm just trying to make it clear that it should not happen that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's treating different energy types as separate instances (he says so higher in that thread), but that was also during the playtest. The wording hasn't changed though, so I could accept that as a source. It is a flawed one though. Three posts after his is someone complaining that he's treating resistances/weaknesses opposite what the rules said and I agree
It has been on my list of rules problems for years now.
Paizo seem to think their rules are obvious. They aren't. There are quite a lot of inconsistances like this. What is natural language and obvious to one person is not to another. I totally understand your reading of the rules. I am reading it this way because of the similarity to the resist all scenario, and because this is the way Mark does. Not because the wording is requries it.But even if we accept his quote as the rule, that still supports treating at least the physical damage from Flurry of Blows as one instance because in that thread he repeatedly says the damage from the weapon, even if it's multiple types, only triggers weakness/resistance once. I still read Flurry of Blows as directing us to treat the combined damage that way
Also reasonable because there is a specific rule here to tell you to do that.
I think it is better to assume that the object of the sentence is the strikes, not bringing together the damage all in one lot, but rather just add together the damage of each type.
The rules are open enough to allow either reading but I prefer mine as it seems closest to the normal damage procedure.