So me and my friend are fairly new to the game and where theory crafting builds when he came across potential for thaumaturge mixed with either rouge and swashbuckler.
essentially what I want to know are two things: one: if a creature is weak to, say, piercing and precision dmg (for some reason), would a rouge sneak attack trigger both, or just whatever one's bigger? and two: let's say a creature weak to fire is hit with the Thaumaturge's exploit weakness- would this be triggered by both the weapon's normal dmg and the rouge's sneak attack precision? and does Personal weakness and mortal weakness work the same way here? is Precision dmg weapon dmg (when dealt in this way)?
|
Here's a previous post I made about damage types: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43t3a?weaknesses-rules#6
Precision is a sub-type of damage, so if a creature somehow has weakness to both, and an attack does both types, only the highest weakness would apply.
A personal antithesis would only apply if it's higher than an already existing weakness.
Mortal Weakness only allows your attacks to count as a damage type the enemy is weak to. For example, if a creature was weak to Fire and you apply your mortal weakness, your strikes would trigger that weakness. It would not trigger Fire weakness twice if you happened to have a flaming sword. But if you apply a mortal weakness to another damage type, and also happened to have a flaming sword, you would trigger both weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shortest answer to this is the rule for Applying Weaknesses.
If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value.
Weakness to both piercing and precision damage is a strange case, but you would go with the higher weakness.
------
One problem with that rule is that 'instance of damage' is not actually defined. So if an attack does both piercing damage and fire damage and the target has weakness to both piercing damage and fire damage, is that one instance of damage or two?
A sword with a flaming rune is not exactly unexpected, so the statement, "This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material." seems to imply that the two damage types are two different instances of damage and you would take weakness damage for both of them separately.
But that ruling doesn't mesh well when talking about resistances and the specific rule for resist all. There would be no need for resist all to apply to all damage types separately if each damage type was a separate 'instance of damage' that would automatically have the various resistances apply separately.
|
|
Resist All doesn't apply in the same instances as the "two weaknesses" rule. For example, a Ghost would not resist the damage from a Cold Iron sword twice. It would only lower the Slashing Damage by the resistance amount.
This is why I made a simple breakdown of the damage types and sub-types. While it's not RAW it's a good way to visualize the types and makes it a lot easier to figure out when some weaknesses and resistances would stack or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Breithauptclan is saying it isn't needed as a special rule, of that's the normal interaction. Which is true. I'd say that it ISN'T a special rule overriding the normal interaction, though, but a clarifying statement. There's no conflict in having it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There would be no need for resist all to apply to all damage types separately if each damage type was a separate 'instance of damage' that would automatically have the various resistances apply separately.O_o but you still need 'resist all' to apply to all damage types separately because that's exactly the wanted effect? So, yes, there would be definitely the need for that?
If each damage type was defined as a separate instance of damage, then Resist All would simply have to say that it resists each type of damage. It could simply be stated that Resist All (7) is equivalent to Resist Fire (7) and Resist Piercing (7) and ...
It wouldn't need to specify that it resists each type of damage separately for the same effect.
Like HammerJack mentioned, this reasoning isn't proof. If anything, it muddies the waters more than it clarifies things. It shows how ambiguous the current rules are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also how the Foundry's automations deals with multiple damage types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if an attack does both piercing damage and fire damage and the target has weakness to both piercing damage and fire damage, is that one instance of damage or two?
That kind of comes down to how the ability is described. If an attack does 6d6 piercing and fire damage, it would be one... but 3d6 piercing and 3d6 fire would be two.
That's the most consistent with the rules, and something that has been literally spelled out as correct in the past by developer comments.