I've been searching for an answer to this question and i haven't found one that really closes the debate.
Q: A character casts a spell while under an effect that gives him a bonus to damage rolls (such as Inspire Courage) or a bonus damage to spells (such as Unleash Psyche), and that spell deals two or more instances of damage like meteor swarm, wich deals bludgeoning with the meteor impact and then fire on the explosion. Then:
1) The bonus is added to the total damage.
2) The bonus is added to each separate damage roll.
I know there has been a discussion and a ruling regarding this issue and Magic Missile but i think this is an entirely different situation since that spell clearly states that you should combine the damage before adding any modifiers.
"instance of damage" is actually not defined.
There are things like Precision damage that explicitly say that they convert their type and are combined with other damage of that type from the same attack.
There are also things like Resist All that will affect each type of damage separately from the same attack.
There is a difference between area attacks that roll damage once and apply that damage amount to each target in the area, and multitarget spells like Magic Missile and Scorching Ray that will roll their damage separately for each target that they succeed at the attack roll for (with the caveat of automatically succeeding in the case of Magic Missile).
So I don't think that anyone actually can answer this particular question. At least not from an explicit logical analysis of the rules printed. So no RAW answer.
The best we can do is give a game balance recommendation - an RAI answer.
Personally I think that it would only boost one type of damage. The player casting the spell would choose which damage type to give the increase to. Having it double-dip or even triple-dip potentially and adding the damage boost repeatedly to the same casting of the same spell for the same target seems too powerful. Consider that boosts to healing (such as Healer's Blessing) usually say that for healing spells that do their healing repeatedly, that they only get the boost once.
This becomes a debate because there isn't a clear rule that specifies what to do when you have different damage types in the same damage instance.
Yet I don't believe that the bonus applies multiple times because this could end "too good to be true" this isn't how the game usually handles the things.
About to what damage type this bonus will be applied while this isn't clarified (maybe we can get some clarification in remaster). I suggest that you talk with you GM what's better. IMO I would allow the player to choose what of the damage types that the spell does to be applied to the bonus.
I've been searching for an answer to this question and i haven't found one that really closes the debate.
Q: A character casts a spell while under an effect that gives him a bonus to damage rolls (such as Inspire Courage) or a bonus damage to spells (such as Unleash Psyche), and that spell deals two or more instances of damage like meteor swarm, wich deals bludgeoning with the meteor impact and then fire on the explosion. Then:
1) The bonus is added to the total damage.
2) The bonus is added to each separate damage roll.
I know there has been a discussion and a ruling regarding this issue and Magic Missile but i think this is an entirely different situation since that spell clearly states that you should combine the damage before adding any modifiers.
If memory serves, that discussion was in regards to Dangerous Sorcery, which I believe applies only once per target, not once per missile (similar to a Fireball), and only answers multi-target/multi-damage effects. It doesn't answer multi-type attacks, such as a Flaming Sword.
We could look to the Resistance/Weakness rules for reference/precedence, but IMO these rules can bog the game down considerably, since it makes effects that provide Resist All (or enemies with multiple different weaknesses) much more resilient (or fragile), and requires players to acknowledge how much damage they did of which type, etc. to evaluate how much damage actually went through, etc. It also makes the game more complex than it should be, since a simple "minus X" to the total is both easier to track and probably more balanced, even if it is not RAW. This is how our groups run it, and we currently like how it is both tracked and balanced.
IMO, a standard cantrip like Inspire Courage is already strong enough by providing a bonus to attack and damage that is hard to come by and spammable all day; I would be more inclined to say it would apply to each if it was a limited resource. But granting a +5 damage boost just because somebody is walking around with 3 or 4 different weapon runes by the endgame isn't really fair or sensible. Plus, consider if this effect was greater than 1, such as with Inspire Heroics, or with other effects that provide bonus damage; would it be balanced if an attack does significantly more damage just because it has so many different types of damage? I don't think so.
I would simply limit it to once per activity/action. And before we state things like "But what about Twin Takedown/Flurry of Blows," this is also referring to subordinate actions, of which these abilities state they take two subordinate actions, which means it's two actions taking place (for the cost of one), which means two instances of bonus apply if they both hit, all exceptions enforced (such as only one instance of precision damage for Double Slice, only one instance of resistances/weaknesses applied, etc).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I handle it as a "too good to be true" to interpret a bonus to damage to increase multiple kinds of damage that might occur from one instance of an attack.
For you meteor example, I would let you choose between increasing the physical or fire damage if you cared but you wouldn't get a bonus to both the physical and fire damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for your answers!
Seeing tour opinions, after talking to my group we've decided that we are gonna add the damage once chosing what type of damage gets the bonus.
One player argued that each "damage roll" should get its own bonus (not weapon runes, because they somehow "add" dices to a damage roll). However in the end even he accepted that it would be Too Good To Be True if the Psychic in the group added +38 damage to a Meteor Swarm so we settled using that ruling.
I too have been searching for an answer to this question since I introduced a lava-leaping kineticist into a party with a bard.
I came to the opposite conclusion about RAW: each damage type is it's own damage roll. This is based on the 'damage' section of chapter 9 (Nethys Link).
In particular, the four steps of damage:
1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.
Step 2 indicates that a damage roll has a single damage type.
I'm far from confident that it is RAI, though, and a GM ruling the other would be quite reasonable.
A very important caveat:
Some effects like Inspire Courage modify damage rolls specifically, but others - like the Psychic's Unleash Psyche - add damage to a spell, strike, etc. The first group would add to each damage type as distinct damage rolls, but the latter would not.
In the example of the Unleash Psyche Meteor Swarm, for instance, there are two damage rolls but it is still just one spell. Thus per the wording on Unleash Psyche you would only add the extra damage once.
I too have been searching for an answer to this question since I introduced a lava-leaping kineticist into a party with a bard.
I came to the opposite conclusion about RAW: each damage type is it's own damage roll. This is based on the 'damage' section of chapter 9 (Nethys Link).
In particular, the four steps of damage:
1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.Step 2 indicates that a damage roll has a single damage type.
I'm far from confident that it is RAI, though, and a GM ruling the other would be quite reasonable.
A very important caveat:
Some effects like Inspire Courage modify damage rolls specifically, but others - like the Psychic's Unleash Psyche - add damage to a spell, strike, etc. The first group would add to each damage type as distinct damage rolls, but the latter would not.In the example of the Unleash Psyche Meteor Swarm, for instance, there are two damage rolls but it is still just one spell. Thus per the wording on Unleash Psyche you would only add the extra damage once.
That is the proper way to do it, but IMO, it bogs down the game and makes Resist All way too overpowered.
I've usually seen it doubled. For instance, in the case of volcanic eruption and Dangerous Sorcery.
The problem with this is that it makes effects which deal multiple types of damage spike in power unexpectedly, something which I am pretty sure the system didn't intend to allow to happen (the inverse is also true with Resist All and attacks that deal multiple damage types).
To put into perspective, if I were a Sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery who cast Cataclysm, a 10th level spell, on a group of enemies, that means each damage type gets a +10 damage bonus to its roll. Now, instead of it being 21D10 of seven differing types/effects, it's now 21D10+70. Meaning the spell does a minimum amount of 91 damage to any given target (or 40 damage on a save). If we averaged that out, it would be 130.5 damage per target in a 60 foot area.
This means that enemies instantly take another 70 points of damage, from a 10th level spell slot, and a 1st level class feat. Not only does that sound ridiculous, it's probably not intended by the system, because now an effect that used to do 21D10+70 now does 21D10-84 if an effect with Resist All is used on it (such as a Champion's Reaction). Yes, this includes the 10 Resistance ignorance it provides. You could also have Overwhelming Energy apply, meaning nothing short of Immunity, Anti-Magic Field, or an Indestructibility spell will save you from the damage, but in this case, I find the stuff falls under "Too Good to Be True."
Heck, even if we decide that all the Bludgeoning damage is the same (since it's specified to come from different sources, wouldn't that count as its own instance of damage? Let me know what you think on that one, because I can see it going both ways here), it's still a minimum of +50 damage per target (or is -60 if a Champion's Reaction is used).
Even with the concise example used in the Resistances page, which seems fine on a low scale, it breaks apart by the endgame when you're tossing around Cataclysms or you have enemies that inflict numerous types of damage (there are certain enemies in certain APs that do 5+ different types of damage for each hit). The same can be said for characters walking around with Orichalcum weapons and 4 different energy runes; you're now dealing at least 5 different damage types, should they all get the bonuses from Inspire Courage? If you have a bonus to damage rolls, affecting all of them makes it infinitely more powerful. If you have a resistance to all damage rules, it makes the resistance infinitely more powerful as well.
That's why I don't think it's intended. Not only does it bog down the game figuring out the math (for a game designed to simplify the system, it didn't do itself any favors with this one), it also makes these effects way more powerful in certain situations compared to others where they are far less potent.
Does someone has a link to AON, where it says roll each damage type one at a time? Also isn't this just the wording of Inspire Courage messing with people where it is mentioning Damage Rolls? Which should just be total damage, did Paizo ever answer this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope this gets cleared up in the remaster.
I really hope this gets cleared up in the remaster.
I 100% agree
I really hope this gets cleared up in the remaster.
The issue isn't that it's unclear (for the most part), the issue becomes that it breaks scaling the more damage types you possess on a given activity, so the idea of it functioning as it is written feels too good to be true in those cases, whereas if you have only a singular damage type, it's balanced.
I also vaguely remember some clarification about damage boosts and spells or abilities that can target multiple creatures. It may have just been YouTube errata though.
The example given was Magic Missile. If you damage boost and cast Magic Missile targeting three different creatures, then the damage gets boosted for each creature - same as if you damage boost and use a save-based AoE spell. But if you damage boost and have all of the Magic Missile damage go to one target, then the damage boost only applies once.
And this is for the same balance reason. Increasing damage once is expected. Even if it is against multiple different enemies. But multiplying a damage boost against a single target is not expected. So if an effect has a damage boost, then that boost only gets applied to a single target once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also vaguely remember some clarification about damage boosts and spells or abilities that can target multiple creatures. It may have just been YouTube errata though.
The example given was Magic Missile. If you damage boost and cast Magic Missile targeting three different creatures, then the damage gets boosted for each creature - same as if you damage boost and use a save-based AoE spell. But if you damage boost and have all of the Magic Missile damage go to one target, then the damage boost only applies once.
And this is for the same balance reason. Increasing damage once is expected. Even if it is against multiple different enemies. But multiplying a damage boost against a single target is not expected. So if an effect has a damage boost, then that boost only gets applied to a single target once.
The source is from the Ask a Developer youtube Playlist, which asks one of the Paizo devs for clarifications on some cornercase (and not so cornercase) questions, I remember it pretty well.
But the question was in regards to multiple targets v.s. same targets for a given spell, not singular damage types v.s. multiple damage types on a given spell.
To be clear, I do agree with the answer, but it doesn't clarify if the damage boost double-taps, like with a spell that does both Cold and Slashing damage.
Ah yes. That was where it was.
And yeah, not official errata or anything RAW that we can use to formally settle a disagreement. But it does make a pretty good indicator of balance considerations involved.
I really hope this gets cleared up in the remaster.The issue isn't that it's unclear (for the most part), the issue becomes that it breaks scaling the more damage types you possess on a given activity, so the idea of it functioning as it is written feels too good to be true in those cases, whereas if you have only a singular damage type, it's balanced.
Right now I run it as adding to the spell once not per damage type. Doubt I'll change it as that seems too good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example given was Magic Missile. If you damage boost and cast Magic Missile targeting three different creatures, then the damage gets boosted for each creature - same as if you damage boost and use a save-based AoE spell. But if you damage boost and have all of the Magic Missile damage go to one target, then the damage boost only applies once.
Here is the Link with Logan Bonner
Anyway it is basically the same problem that occurs with Battle Forms.We now what a damage bonus and penalty is.
But we don't knopw exactly what a damage instance is.
We need clear rules when there is additional damage of multiple damage types. Is it another instance of the damage equation or do we just bundle it all together into one instance? Or are we just supposed to somehow know when to add it together and when to separate it?
Totally unclear.
I've been complaining about it since the beginning of PF2.
The designers seem to think it is an irrelevant edge case.
They are wrong.
Right now I run it as adding to the spell once not per damage type. Doubt I'll change it as that seems too good.I really hope this gets cleared up in the remaster.The issue isn't that it's unclear (for the most part), the issue becomes that it breaks scaling the more damage types you possess on a given activity, so the idea of it functioning as it is written feels too good to be true in those cases, whereas if you have only a singular damage type, it's balanced.
Same, and I run Resist All the same way; applies to the total damage once, no matter how many different damage types the attack consists of. It makes the gameplay faster, and doesn't make the feature overpowered. (Otherwise ghosts and similar creatures become extremely OP against non-Ghost Touch/Force/Positive effects, and Champion reactions are already very strong without it; would prefer Champion reactions just be a flat damage reduction value similar to Shield Block hardness.)
I do run separate resistances differently than Resist All, since these feel more exceptional than Resist All, being as they are listed differently from one another.
The bolded sentence imo makes it clear that 1 instance of damage can have multiple damage types.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.
It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.
Mmmm. Not really. The bolded sentence only states that 'effect' and 'attack' can have multiple damage types.
But it doesn't fully make the determination of if an effect or an attack only creates one instance of damage (no matter how many damage types there are) or if an effect or attack can have multiple instances of damage that it causes (one for each damage type or even one for each pile of damage dice listed separately even if they are the same type).
Resist All works the way that it does - applying the resistance to each damage type once and separately - because that is what it says that it does.
If an attack has multiple piles of fire damage, for example a Flaming rune on the weapon and under the effects of an Energy Mutagen (moderate, fire), then Resist All would resist both the physical weapon damage and the combined fire damage. But it wouldn't resist the fire damage piles separately even though one is magical fire and the other is not.
But if the damage is being boosted and we are looking at instances of damage, is that one instance of damage because it is one Strike attack, Two instances of damage because there is two types (physical and fire), or three instances of damage because there are three different dice piles (weapon damage, Flaming rune fire damage, Mutagen fire damage)?
I've usually seen it doubled. For instance, in the case of volcanic eruption and Dangerous Sorcery.
Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
Dangerous Sorcery on NethysDoes someone has a link to AON, where it says roll each damage type one at a time? Also isn't this just the wording of Inspire Courage messing with people where it is mentioning Damage Rolls? Which should just be total damage, did Paizo ever answer this?
There is no rule that specifically says to roll damage types one at a time. However, it is implied in the "Damage" section of Chapter 9 in the CRB, specifically that step 2 "Determine the damage type" implies a singular type of damage. However, this implication may not have been intended.
Damage on NethysInspire courage is the most common effect I know of off the top of my head that modifies damage rolls specifically, but there are other things that reference them, for instance the Kineticist's Elemental Blast:
"Add your Strength modifier to the damage roll for a melee Elemental Blast. If you make a 2-action Elemental Blast, you gain a status bonus to the damage roll equal to your Constitution modifier."
Elemental Blast on Nethys
Which now that I think about it makes Two-Element Infusion a lot stronger, as it says "Determine the damage amounts before altering the amount due to halving, doubling, resistances, weaknesses, and other calculations." Probably not intended, but also not totally busted for a 6th level feat. Regardless, not something I am going to push for with my GM.
Two-Element Infusion on Nethys
I've usually seen it doubled. For instance, in the case of volcanic eruption and Dangerous Sorcery.Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
Dangerous Sorcery on Nethys
I personally agree with it from a balance standpoint, but the problem is that it is functionally no different than Inspire Courage, since both offer status bonuses to the damage of the spell, meaning they shouldn't stack whatsoever.
But that comes with more questions than answers. If you have the bonus apply to multiple damage types, but is limited at the given spell level, how is it applied? Are you forced to pick one type? Does it split evenly among the different types available? It gets even more confusing if Inspire Courage et. al. get thrown into the mix, since now we have to determine if those apply to the different damage types, or if Dangerous Sorcery overwrites it entirely.
The Magic Missile example in the Ask a Dev video is lacking in important depth largely because the spell description already tells you how it interacts, which is that bonuses, penalties, weaknesses, resistances, etc. to damage are combined and applied once to the total number of assigned missiles, meaning it's not a very insightful question. (It is an issue with several of those videos in my opinion, but there are a few that are good questions, so I can't harp on it too badly.)
It doesn't determine instances of damage for non-specific spells, it doesn't determine if the bonus applies to one damage type, or to each damage type a spell does, etc. I would like to think that it needs to be assigned to a type of your choice, applying once per target total, but that is neither RAW or even RAI, given the rules of Resistances/Weaknesses.
I've usually seen it doubled. For instance, in the case of volcanic eruption and Dangerous Sorcery.Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
Dangerous Sorcery on NethysI personally agree with it from a balance standpoint, but the problem is that it is functionally no different than Inspire Courage, since both offer status bonuses to the damage of the spell, meaning they shouldn't stack whatsoever.
But that comes with more questions than answers. If you have the bonus apply to multiple damage types, but is limited at the given spell level, how is it applied? Are you forced to pick one type? Does it split evenly among the different types available? It gets even more confusing if Inspire Courage et. al. get thrown into the mix, since now we have to determine if those apply to the different damage types, or if Dangerous Sorcery overwrites it entirely.
I agree that a clarification on how to apply Dangerous Sorcery and similar abilities to effects with multiple damage types would be helpful. When I GM I let the player decide how to divide the extra damage between damage types. Usually it doesn't matter, but in some cases it will (mostly regarding resistances and immunities). In the case of both Dangerous Sorcery and Inspire Courage, then any damage type not assigned damage from Dangerous Sorcery would get the Inspire Courage bonus, as that damage roll does not have a status bonus to 'overwrite' Inspire Courage.
Again though this is all based on a logical inference from a grammatical detail in a broadly-applying rule. There is no evidence that it is RAI - it is solidly in the realm of GM discretion.
Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
That is is misleading and inherently contradictory. Dangerous Sorcery provides a status bonus to damage for the spells damage. A status bonus to damage is something we know about in the context of a damage roll. However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular. It could quite well reasonably apply to multiple damage rolls if the spell did multiple lots of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular.
Does such a clarification need to exist? The ability tells you what it does. It says it increases the damage of a spell by a certain amount. There's nothing there talking about applying it multiple times.
It doesn't even use the phrase 'damage rolls' so there isn't even that argument.
That is is misleading and inherently contradictory. Dangerous Sorcery provides a status bonus to damage for the spells damage. A status bonus to damage is something we know about in the context of a damage roll. However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular. It could quite well reasonably apply to multiple damage rolls if the spell did multiple lots of damage.Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
My Sorcerer Cataclysm post says otherwise.
However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular.Does such a clarification need to exist? The ability tells you what it does. It says it increases the damage of a spell by a certain amount. There's nothing there talking about applying it multiple times.
It doesn't even use the phrase 'damage rolls' so there isn't even that argument.
It uses the term status bonus.
Explain to me how to apply a status bonus to damage without doing a damage roll? There is only one process to do damage.
My Sorcerer Cataclysm post says otherwise.That is is misleading and inherently contradictory. Dangerous Sorcery provides a status bonus to damage for the spells damage. A status bonus to damage is something we know about in the context of a damage roll. However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular. It could quite well reasonably apply to multiple damage rolls if the spell did multiple lots of damage.Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
That is a balance argument based on the specifics of a particular spell. The definitions themselves don't require that interpretation. A similar argument could be made with how Resist All interacts with that spell and you could claim that was over powered too.
We have to get through the rules discussion about the general rule before we apply the TGTBT test. Because the TGTBT test is not always obvious either.
The underlying damage rule mechanic is a mess.
A similar argument could be made with how Resist All interacts with that spell
Not really, because Resist All is explicit, whereas "add the damage bonus as many times as you want" isn't.
A similar argument could be made with how Resist All interacts with that spellNot really, because Resist All is explicit, whereas "add the damage bonus as many times as you want" isn't.
The similar argument is refering to the balance arguement from the sentence before.
TGTBT for Resist All has been argued a lot in the forums. So that is just a statement of fact.
Your statement is misaligned
|
However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular.Does such a clarification need to exist? The ability tells you what it does. It says it increases the damage of a spell by a certain amount. There's nothing there talking about applying it multiple times.
It doesn't even use the phrase 'damage rolls' so there isn't even that argument.
If a spell does damage multiple times, the bonus is added multiple times. Because it's all spell's damage(s). It doesn't need to be talking about it. If a spell does X amount of instant damage to target, then Y for area, then Z persistent damage, then W damage on sustain next turns, and the bonus is B, then the resultant spell damage(s) will be X+B, Y+B, Z+B, W+B.
The algorithm is simple: "Is this effect a damage from this spell? Yes - then add B".
Not talking about different types of damage in the same (sub-)effect.
Or the bonus is added once (per target) to the total damage of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... If someone has a bonus to damage and throws a bomb, he gets that bonus on the primary damage, that bonus again on the persistent damage, and that bonus again on the splash damage?
If so, alchemist suddenly tripledibs on all damage buffs...
Isn't that Burn It!
Resist All even has an explicit example how it applies to multiple damage types out of the same attack.
I don't see how it can be argued that it doesn't work exactly as it says it does.
How about because it trivializes/overpowers encounters. Saying imbalance and game simplicity is not a reason to reconsider how the rule should work really calls into question the mission goal of streamlining the system.
Throw a Ghost Dragon after people and you will TPK 9 times out of 10 because they can't reasonably affect them a majority of the time.
My Sorcerer Cataclysm post says otherwise.That is is misleading and inherently contradictory. Dangerous Sorcery provides a status bonus to damage for the spells damage. A status bonus to damage is something we know about in the context of a damage roll. However Dangerous Sorcery is not clear enough to be exclusively singular. It could quite well reasonably apply to multiple damage rolls if the spell did multiple lots of damage.Dangerous Sorcery does not work that way. It adds damage to the spell, not to damage rolls.
That is a balance argument based on the specifics of a particular spell. The definitions themselves don't require that interpretation. A similar argument could be made with how Resist All interacts with that spell and you could claim that was over powered too.
We have to get through the rules discussion about the general rule before we apply the TGTBT test. Because the TGTBT test is not always obvious either.
The underlying damage rule mechanic is a mess.
Good thing I already acknowledge that as a balance consideration.
As for the rules discussion, it's pretty concise. It's just complicated for numerous damage types, and op.
If a spell does damage multiple times, the bonus is added multiple times. Because it's all spell's damage(s). It doesn't need to be talking about it. If a spell does X amount of instant damage to target, then Y for area, then Z persistent damage, then W damage on sustain next turns, and the bonus is B, then the resultant spell damage(s) will be X+B, Y+B, Z+B, W+B.
Okay, but again where in the rules are you deriving this?
Because plainly, you're taking an ability that says "add 10 damage to the spell" and deciding instead you want to add 40 damage, which is clearly contradictory. So like... where are you coming up with this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's no real discussion, mostly questions.
How bonuses to damage interact with multiple damage types is just not written anywhere. One can read intentions or whatever, in the end, there's no clear RAW (and intention is in the eye of the beholder).
Burn It! clearly separate damage and persistent damage, so it's rather clear persistent damage is not supposed to benefit from the same bonuses than damage.
There's also the situations where multiple damages are added. Burn It! for example improves both the direct damage and the splash damage of bombs. But when you sum them on the main target, is it intended to count a Status bonus twice when it's explicitly stated in the rules that you can't benefit twice from the same bonus type? But if you don't, then what about other effects suming damage like Double Slice.
What is a damage roll? Spells like Inspire Courage speak about damage rolls but others just state Status bonus to damage. Is there a reason they are different or not? If not rolling implies not adding Inspire Courage bonus, then Certain Strike doesn't add it... Which makes the feat weird at best considering how it is written.
So many questions and no answers... And strangely I don't expect the Remaster to answer these questions much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run resist all as the book indicates because a lot of creatures with resist all tend to have lower hit points. There must be some kind of balancing formula in monster construction where certain defenses tend to lead to hit points or some other defense like AC being on the lower end of the scale like with oozes.
But the bonus to damage per type of damage would add too much to the overall damage and make spells with multiple damage types more valuable in a way that I don't feel like they should be.