How would these things combine?
Could the champion use his reaction to reduce the damage the tree took?
Then the tree absorbs the damage
Then the shield block take the remainder?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The tree is not a valid target but you could stack the resistance from a champions reaction with the reduced damage from protector tree since that doesn't actually give resistance, it just splits the damage.
Mellored wrote: How would these things combine?
Could the champion use his reaction to reduce the damage the tree took?
Then the tree absorbs the damage
Then the shield block take the remainder?
Oh god!
The the famous/infamous Champion + Timber Sentinel!
Responding the questions:
"Could the champion use his reaction to reduce the damage the tree took?":
No because the tree isn't your ally nor yourself:
Retributive Strike [reaction] - Trigger: "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you."
Glimpse of Redemption [reaction] - Trigger: "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you."
Liberating Step [reaction] - Trigger: "An enemy damages, Grabs, or Grapples your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you."
Shield Block [reaction] - Trigger: "While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack."
That said the tree absorves the damage before your ally/your take the damage. What's good for your [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5212]Shield Block [reaction]/url] once this will reduce the damage that shield will take but maybe not so good for champion reaction once that if the tree absorbs all damage you will be unable to trigger it to use its effects vs target (yet you can save your reaction to use against a greater damage).
Anyway is easier to regrown a tree then to repair a shield.
Powers128 wrote: The tree is not a valid target but you could stack the resistance from a champions reaction with the reduced damage from protector tree since that doesn't actually give resistance, it just splits the damage. So is it
Tree -> Champion -> Shield
Or
Tree-> Shield -> Champion.
Also, if the tree is not an ally, is it an object?
And thus can it be repaired? (Not necessarily faster than casting it again, but curious).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mellored wrote: Tree -> Champion -> Shield
Or
Tree-> Shield -> Champion.
It's unclear.
We have 2 interpretations that was discussed here.
One is RAI interpreted by logic and used by some designers that say that Shield hardness is applied before the resistances (champion reaction gives a resistance).
Other is RAW interpreted by the term "you would take physical damage" once that take damage is the last step of Damage Rolls rules some GMs and the FoundryVTT automation interprets that the resistance is applied before the Shield Hardness reduce the damage.
The main difference between them is how much damage the shield will take once that the final damage usually will be the same.
Mellored wrote: Also, if the tree is not an ally, is it an object?
And thus can it be repaired? (Not necessarily faster than casting it again, but curious).
No it's a spell/impulse effect.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mellored wrote: Also, if the tree is not an ally, is it an object?
And thus can it be repaired? (Not necessarily faster than casting it again, but curious).
The tree is just a spell effect.
It's neither an object, a creature, or an ally.
shroudb wrote: Mellored wrote: Also, if the tree is not an ally, is it an object?
And thus can it be repaired? (Not necessarily faster than casting it again, but curious).
The tree is just a spell effect.
It's neither an object, a creature, or an ally. The tree is a spell effect.
It is not specified that it is a minion or an ally. So the reasonble assumption most people are making in this thread is that it is not a minion or ally.
BUT that is an assumption. A particular GM could very reasonably decide that the tree is a temporary creature and choose to treat it as an ally. It will really depend on the style of your GM.
Personally I don't mind as long as the approach of the GM is somewhat consistent.
PF2 is a game that empowers the GM to make those sorts of decisions.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I really wish they explicitly called out the Protector Tree as a summoned creature with a more elaborate stat line. As it is written now is inviting a head-on collision between the fiction and game elements.
Sure, spells like Black Tentacles/Slither also conjure undefined stuff with just AC and hitpoints and nothing else, but it is also much more simple and obviously does its thing independent from the caster.
Protector Tree is much more complex. There are just so many messy edge-cases if it has no mind of its own and needs the caster to determine who are allies and enemies (on a round-to-round basis even because otherwise it can't protect eg. new summons).
Ok, sure, when confused you have no allies so Protector Tree can't do anything, but do unconscious or dead casters have allies? Do casters have allies and enemies in another plane of existence (eg. under the effect of Maze/Quandary?). Or less extreme, if it is a spell effect from the caster, and it isn't an aoe, does it target your ally when it prevents damage and suffers from miss-chance when the caster is dazzled/blinded?
It is just so much more elegant when it is just a summoned creature with a mind of its own...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Angwa wrote: I really wish they explicitly called out the Protector Tree as a summoned creature with a more elaborate stat line. As it is written now is inviting a head-on collision between the fiction and game elements.
Sure, spells like Black Tentacles/Slither also conjure undefined stuff with just AC and hitpoints and nothing else, but it is also much more simple and obviously does its thing independent from the caster.
Protector Tree is much more complex. There are just so many messy edge-cases if it has no mind of its own and needs the caster to determine who are allies and enemies (on a round-to-round basis even because otherwise it can't protect eg. new summons).
Ok, sure, when confused you have no allies so Protector Tree can't do anything, but do unconscious or dead casters have allies? Do casters have allies and enemies in another plane of existence (eg. under the effect of Maze/Quandary?). Or less extreme, if it is a spell effect from the caster, and it isn't an aoe, does it target your ally when it prevents damage and suffers from miss-chance when the caster is dazzled/blinded?
It is just so much more elegant when it is just a summoned creature with a mind of its own...
I mean, there are a lot of spell effects that call out Allies or Enemies and have duration.
Most of the things you describe (extra allies spawning, caster going unconsious, and etc) also apply to them.
Take the Incarnate series of spells as an example, same deal.
Making it a "creature" would be beyond weird imo. Since it's just a tree, without any intelligence of its own.
Furthermore, since we're talking about the kineticist version, that just makes it permanent if not destroyed, how would a "thinking creature" even work? Would you spawn a village of tree creatures? Would they be smart for a minute and then their intelligence would go poof away and they would revert to normal trees afterwards? And etc.
It would just be messy without any real upside imo.
Eh, Incarnate spells are just spells which last 2 turns and not a minute, with an 'arrival' and 'departure' effect. Whatever manifests does not have AC or hitpoints. Much less chance, though not zero %, to run into weirdness or the fiction and game-elements being at odds.
And yes, I would have Protector Tree revert to being an ordinary tree when the spell ends and the animating spirit departs.
The Protector Tree reverts to an ordinary tree if it is called onto soil. Call on top of a boulder/cobbled road and it vanishes after the duration expires.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gortle wrote: The tree is just a spell effect. You say that like it couldn't be both.
Disregarding thoughts about using Champion Reaction on the tree itself.
Lets begin with the steps required in an attack and the damage.
Starting on p.400 of Player Core. These steps are described for both Checks and Damage rolls combined, Along with the order of Immunity,Weakness and Resistance.
Target
Attack Roll
Degree of success
Roll Damage
Determine types - Immunity
Would take damage - Weaknesses
Takes Damage - Resistance
Reduce hitpoints.
The language Immunity,Weakness and resistance is presented in follow this order, Which is relevant to the order.
Ignore damage of which you have immunity,
If you would take damage you have a weakness against, Take X additional damage
if you take damage you have resistance against, take X less damage.
Protector tree(Timber sentinel) triggers when hit, so upon degree of success.
Shield block triggers when the character would take damage. so before weaknesses.
Champion Reaction triggers when an ally is damaged (takes damage) so before resistances.
Lets say a level 8 character takes a nasty 60 damage crit, Has a shield with 5 hardness and a champion of level 8.
Timber sentinel is a 4th rank protector tree absorbing 40 of the incoming damage.
Shield block reduces it by 5, Meaning 15 damage passed trough.
Champion reaction gives resistance equal to 2+lvl which is 10.
The target of the attack only takes 5 damage.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I mostly agree that this is the best way to deal yet RAW shield block doesn't exists in Damage Rolls - Rules and the IWR is pretty clear in it's text:
Weakness wrote: 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. Resistance wrote: If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage). Shield Block wrote: Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack. That's why many games including foundry's automation calculates the entire IWR before apply the shield block.
It's senseless? Yes it is. Yet PF2e is full of unrealistic senseless rules that's there due balance or to help the gameplay flux and that's the most RAW read once that the natural text of "you take damage" is used there so makes sense in natural english and means that the shield will share all your resistances and weakness.
I fully understand and agree with those that doesn't rules in this way yet it will be a homebrew and not RAW (there's no mention that you would take the damage before the IWR) and even some of the designers doesn't uses this full rules it still not RAW.
Personally I stopped to care about it since I begin to use FoundryVTT and I use it's automation instead if they change how the rule it in the future it will be how my ganes will work. Anyway I still want that someday the designers clarify when we have to apply the Shield Block damage reduction in the FAQ.
Sadly the only clarification the designers have given regarding the ordering that I can find is that it is up to the GM.
And that is just a short snippet from the initial release.
Designer Q&A and Pathfinder 2E Launch - Pathfinder Fridays!
tbf, the game does explicitly allow the player to manipulate the "order of operations" that happen in other circumstances that stuff happen simultaneously like on Start of Turn, so i don't think it's a big deal to manipuate the order of operation in how shield block works when paired with Resistances in order to give the players a bit more oomph out of their feats and features.
The game is deadly enough as it is, if someone wants to build defensively, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't allow him to feel more powerful.
Even if it makes little narrative sense (you being resistant makes your shield take less damage is kinda... weird, I do agree).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Lets say a level 8 character takes a nasty 60 damage crit, Has a shield with 5 hardness and a champion of level 8.
Timber sentinel is a 4th rank protector tree absorbing 40 of the incoming damage.
Shield block reduces it by 5, Meaning 15 damage passed trough.
Champion reaction gives resistance equal to 2+lvl which is 10.
The target of the attack only takes 5 damage.
I tend to just find it easier to do what Foundry is doing, both because I'm using Foundry but also because it doesn't wind up with situations like this, where "you take 5 damage but your shield takes 15" happens. Players in my experience just tend to find this confusing and frustrating, since it tends to explode their shield very quickly with damage that they themselves were never going to take.
It does make the combo a bit better (Champion using their reaction on someone else who is using Shield Block), but I actually see relatively few shield users in my games that aren't Champion/Fighter already, so that doesn't bother me much.
Is it what the rules intended? Quite possibly not, though I think it does fit RAW better. But it works pretty well and gives consistent outcomes that players understand without needing a deep dive into the math, and that's got a lot of value in my eyes.
YMMV. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: tbf, the game does explicitly allow the player to manipulate the "order of operations" that happen in other circumstances that stuff happen simultaneously like on Start of Turn, so i don't think it's a big deal to manipuate the order of operation in how shield block works when paired with Resistances in order to give the players a bit more oomph out of their feats and features.
The game is deadly enough as it is, if someone wants to build defensively, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't allow him to feel more powerful.
Even if it makes little narrative sense (you being resistant makes your shield take less damage is kinda... weird, I do agree).
I'm not so sure that is a good idea, we know the order of IWS is explicitly stated and when there is any vagueness its supposed to be the GM that decides, This typically only happens when multiple creatures use reactions with the same trigger simulantaniously and more often than not its a result of player cooperation.
You cant really implement a good flow reducing damage before IWR either in Foundry, You would need a way for the system to decide which damage types to block. or have player/GM decide which just messes with the flow.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: shroudb wrote: tbf, the game does explicitly allow the player to manipulate the "order of operations" that happen in other circumstances that stuff happen simultaneously like on Start of Turn, so i don't think it's a big deal to manipuate the order of operation in how shield block works when paired with Resistances in order to give the players a bit more oomph out of their feats and features.
The game is deadly enough as it is, if someone wants to build defensively, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't allow him to feel more powerful.
Even if it makes little narrative sense (you being resistant makes your shield take less damage is kinda... weird, I do agree).
I'm not so sure that is a good idea, we know the order of IWS is explicitly stated and when there is any vagueness its supposed to be the GM that decides, This typically only happens when multiple creatures use reactions with the same trigger simulantaniously and more often than not its a result of player cooperation.
You cant really implement a good flow reducing damage before IWR either in Foundry, You would need a way for the system to decide which damage types to block. or have player/GM decide which just messes with the flow. The explicitly stated order actually has the shield trigger happen AFTER resistances, so it actually checks out:
Shield Block Trigger is when you would "take damage" which is the LAST step, AFTER calculating Resistances/weaknesses.
Damage steps:
1: roll dices
2: Damage type
3: Weaknesses/resistances
4: Apply damage
Shield Block trigger:
Quote: Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack. You would take damage on step 4, which is after step 3 which is the weaknesses/resistances.
p.s.
Why do you think that when things collide it's the GMs job to sort them out when explicitly when player things collide in other circumastances, like the Start of Turn, it is explicitly the Player who gets to decide?
It's much simpler to say: when player things collide, the player decide, when gm things collide, the gm decides. Which is how the game also treats those most of the time.
shroudb wrote:
The explicitly stated order actually has the shield trigger happen AFTER resistances, so it actually checks out:
Shield Block Trigger is when you would "take damage" which is the LAST step, AFTER calculating Resistances/weaknesses.
Damage steps:
1: roll dices
2: Damage type
3: Weaknesses/resistances
4: Apply damage
Shield Block trigger:
Quote: Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack. You would take damage on step 4, which is after step 3 which is the weaknesses/resistances.
Read the pages on "Immunity,Weakness and resistance" again. PC p.408 wrote: 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. ... pc p.408 wrote: If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage). If "would take damage" and "Takes damage" is step 4 but both weakness and resistance is applied upon these two conditions then it follows that "Would take damage" and "Takes damage" arent in step 4 but rather it must be located in 2 or 3 where damage types are determined and IWS is calculated.
Same with Champion reaction. It needs to resolve before resistances are calculated otherwise we would go from step 4 back to step 3. Its trigger is "An enemy damages your ally" and the only interpretations where this is appropriatly placed and makes sense, is directly after step 2 or right before resistances are calculated.
Which makes sense when we consider that step 4 is not "Apply damage" it is "Reduce hitpoints" or "Any remaining damage is removed from your hitpoints at a 1-to-1 basis"
shroudb wrote: Why do you think that when things collide it's the GMs job to sort them out when explicitly when player things collide in other circumastances, like the Start of Turn, it is explicitly the Player who gets to decide? For the same reason as when multiple actions/reactions happen.
In these cases its explicitly the GM that determines the order based on narrative.
Limitations on Triggers wrote: If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.
NorrKnekten wrote: shroudb wrote:
The explicitly stated order actually has the shield trigger happen AFTER resistances, so it actually checks out:
Shield Block Trigger is when you would "take damage" which is the LAST step, AFTER calculating Resistances/weaknesses.
Damage steps:
1: roll dices
2: Damage type
3: Weaknesses/resistances
4: Apply damage
Shield Block trigger:
Quote: Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack. You would take damage on step 4, which is after step 3 which is the weaknesses/resistances.
Read the pages on "Immunity,Weakness and resistance" again. PC p.408 wrote: 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. ... pc p.408 wrote: If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage). If "would take damage" and "Takes damage" is step 4 but both weakness and resistance is applied upon these two conditions then it follows that "Would take damage" and "Takes damage" arent in step 4 but rather it must be located in 2 or 3 where damage types are determined and IWS is calculated.
Same with Champion reaction. It needs to resolve before resistances are calculated otherwise we would go from step 4 back to step 3. Its trigger is "An enemy damages your ally" and the only interpretations where this is appropriatly placed and makes sense, is directly after step 2 or right before resistances are calculated.
Which makes sense when we consider that step 4 is not "Apply damage" it is "Reduce hitpoints" or "Any remaining damage is removed from your hitpoints at a 1-to-1 basis" Read the detailed chart on "Damage".
regardless what a place tells to abrevviate/simplify a mechanic, since it's written in casual language, there's a dedicated order chart step by step to calculate when and how to do Damage, then if you need the exact finesse of rules, you check that.
weakness/resistance is step 3, taking damage is step 4.
RAW youalways calcuate weakness/resistance BEFORE taking the damage, and RAW you apply the Shield Block at step 4.
Champion's Reaction retroactively changing the amount of Weakness/Resistance is irrelevant to this discussion, since some Reactions are indeed there to mess up with what triggered them to begin with (like a reaction stopping the movement action that triggered it in the first place as an example).
But Shield block doesn't change anything retroactively, it stright up applies to the Damage that you would take, which is Step 4.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Read the detailed chart on "Damage". I have!
Where is the RAW that you apply Shield Block at step 4?
Where does it say that you "Take damage" at step 4?
One can use the same standard you just used for IWR to state that the text in hitpoints, healing and dying is also in casual language.
But the RAW as currently presented and written, states that damage you would take is affected by weakness. And damage you take is reduced by resistance. If any damage remains subtract that from your HP, The last step mentions nothing about taking damage, Just that remaining damage is subtracted from your health.
Infact... Here is the clip I posted earlier, where both Mark,Jason and Logan describe and support the exact order which I've been presenting here!
Designer Q&A and Pathfinder 2E Launch - Pathfinder Fridays!
They even say at 44:05,
Quote: Logan: I've seen people asking the question what if the attack deals multiple types of damage, does the shield work against all of them like if its a flaming sword or something. Generally what order it all applies in is going to be driven by your GM based on the story that is happening. Like it can block any type of damage in a situation like that but if you have to figure out in what order its up to GM
Jason:If that is relevant then it is up for the GM to decide, In most cases its not going to be but if you have some energy resistances or such you might be incentivized to let the fire trough.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I continue to find this response from the designers to be frustrating.
I fail to see why natural language rules can't be clear.
Why won't they clarify fundamental rules? Dropping it on the GM means that everyone will do it differently.
For sure that is just mental load on the GM. It doesn't especially matter what the GM decides.
It is annoying when discussing the game.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: shroudb wrote: Read the detailed chart on "Damage". I have!
Where is the RAW that you apply Shield Block at step 4?
Where does it say that you "Take damage" at step 4?
One can use the same standard you just used for IWR to state that the text in hitpoints, healing and dying is also in casual language.
But the RAW as currently presented and written, states that damage you would take is affected by weakness. And damage you take is reduced by resistance. If any damage remains subtract that from your HP, The last step mentions nothing about taking damage, Just that remaining damage is subtracted from your health.
Infact... Here is the clip I posted earlier, where both Mark,Jason and Logan describe and support the exact order which I've been presenting here!
Designer Q&A and Pathfinder 2E Launch - Pathfinder Fridays!
They even say at 44:05,
Quote: Logan: I've seen people asking the question what if the attack deals multiple types of damage, does the shield work against all of them like if its a flaming sword or something. Generally what order it all applies in is going to be driven by your GM based on the story that is happening. Like it can block any type of damage in a situation like that but if you have to figure out in what order its up to GM
Jason:If that is relevant then it is up for the GM to decide, In most cases its not going to be but if you have some energy resistances or such you might be incentivized to let the fire trough.
You take damage when you reduce your hit points.
If an ability says "If the Sting deals damage then the target is also poisoned." you don't say "the sting deals 5 damage, you get poisoned, and THEN I check your piercing resistance 10, so you take 0 piercing but the full Poison.".
If you hit with a fireball a fire elemental, you don't say "the fire elemental takes damage, 0 damage!", you say "the fire elemental doesn't take damage".
3rd step is figuring weaknesses/resistances/immunities.
4th step is reduce hit points.
it's only at 4th step that damage is actually DEALT.
So cry as loud as you want, but the RAW does align with how the VTTs are doing it: First do the resistances, then do the shield block.
p.s.
So, unless you want everything that triggers when damage is taken, like poisons, effects, and such, to trigger even when you hit a fully resistant/immune target, since by your logic you "take damage" before checking for immunities/resistances, go ahead and Houserule it that way in your games, but this is NOT what the rules say. The rules very explicitly call out when you reduce your hit points, which is when you actually "take damage".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
YuriP wrote: Anyway is easier to regrown a tree then to repair a shield. Especially if there’s a damned Wood Kineticist in the party.
shroudb wrote: So, unless you want everything that triggers when damage is taken, like poisons, effects, and such, to trigger even when you hit a fully resistant/immune target, since by your logic you "take damage" before checking for immunities/resistances, go ahead and Houserule it that way in your games, but this is NOT what the rules say. The rules very explicitly call out when you reduce your hit points, which is when you actually "take damage". Fine, last post for the night and probably thread.
I'm trying really hard to see where your stance lies and what is convincing you that your interpretation is RAW or even RAI. Something that isn't being presented in anything but your own words. Words which yet again ascribe logic to me of which I am not presenting.
I am stating things can occur within or even in the middle of these 4 steps, IWR is even presented as three separate steps just like reducing temp HP before HP. My logic is once again, from the sources quoted earlier.
step 1-2
A damage dealing effect gets it's value and types determined.
As in this is how much of what the effect "deals".
Step 3,
Immunity comes first,
Anything covered by immunity is ignored so you cannot "take" these damage types they are negated fully before damage is taken,
Anything passing immunity is damage you "would take"
Damage you "would take" passes trough Weakness and turns into damage you "take".
Damage you "take" passes trough Resistance; if a damage type is reduced to 0 it is "negated" and thus fails to "deal" damage.
As written in that exact language on Page 408.
Then in Hitpoints, Healing and Dying, which describes step 4 in detail.
Player Core pg. 410: Hitpoints, Healing and dying wrote: When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt. So yes, by my logic you can take damage and still be dealt 0 damage, If resistance negates it. Taking damage and being dealt damage is an important distinction. You are absolutely dealt damage in step 4.
But we have rules for poisons, persistent damage and the likes when an effect fails to deal damage.
GM Core pg. 248: Injury wrote: If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected. Player Core pg. 445: Persistent damage wrote: 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. Usually, if an effect negates the initial damage, it also negates the persistent damage, such as with a slashing weapon that also deals persistent bleed damage because it cut you. The GM might rule otherwise in some situations. The character takes 5 damage from the sting, resistance negated it, It fails to deal damage, the character is not poisoned.The fire elemental ignores fire damage and effects, It can't take fire damage and never "would take" fire damage.
RAW: If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage).
RAW: Damage and effects can be negated, deal less damage, or deal more damage due to the recipient’s immunity, weakness, or resistance.
RAW: When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt.
Not RAW but may be RAI: Resistance is calculated before taking damage.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: shroudb wrote: So, unless you want everything that triggers when damage is taken, like poisons, effects, and such, to trigger even when you hit a fully resistant/immune target, since by your logic you "take damage" before checking for immunities/resistances, go ahead and Houserule it that way in your games, but this is NOT what the rules say. The rules very explicitly call out when you reduce your hit points, which is when you actually "take damage". Fine, last post for the night and probably thread.
I'm trying really hard to see where your stance lies and what is convincing you that your interpretation is RAW or even RAI. Something that isn't being presented in anything but your own words. Words which yet again ascribe logic to me of which I am not presenting.
I am stating things can occur within or even in the middle of these 4 steps, IWR is even presented as three separate steps just like reducing temp HP before HP. My logic is once again, from the sources quoted earlier.
step 1-2
A damage dealing effect gets it's value and types determined.
As in this is how much of what the effect "deals".
Step 3,
Immunity comes first,
Anything covered by immunity is ignored so you cannot "take" these damage types they are negated fully before damage is taken,
Anything passing immunity is damage you "would take"
Damage you "would take" passes trough Weakness and turns into damage you "take".
Damage you "take" passes trough Resistance; if a damage type is reduced to 0 it is "negated" and thus fails to "deal" damage.
As written in that exact language on Page 408.
Then in Hitpoints, Healing and Dying, which describes step 4 in detail.
Player Core pg. 410: Hitpoints, Healing and dying wrote: When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt. So yes, by my logic you can take damage and still be dealt 0 damage, If resistance negates it. Taking damage and being dealt damage is an important distinction. You are absolutely dealt damage... It's pretty simple: nothing "bunches toghether" the steps as you have.
there are 4 distinct called out steps.
Only in the last, 4th, step the target loses HP.
There are myriad of abilities that specifically activate when you take damage, like a poison on a blade, that specifically trigger on the "take damage" step.
If someone is immune to the damage, if the blade can't pierce his skin, then he doesn't get poisoned. If you throw a fireball to a fire elemental, then it doesn't take fire damage. If you cast Daze on a construct, then it doesn't take Mental damage. And etc.
All those examples NEED the "take damage" to be after the "check immunities/resistance" step. Which tracks with the RAW presented, that you only reduce HP AFTER the "check immunities/resistance" step.
Saying that "take damage" is different than "lose HP" is what you are saying, which is completely opposite to what is written (check your own quote about "when you take damage you lose HP").
Furthermore, the examples provided, how the game is run, is broken if you start to disregard that very common language used here. Again, you are saying that you are doing Mental damage to a mental Immune creature, and you are doing Fire damage to a Fire elemental. And after that creature actually "takes" this damage, THEN it is reduced to 0. Which is the most convoluted way I've ever heard anyone calculating damage...
So yes, "lose hp" = "take damage" as far as RAW goes.
You are arguing from intent, not RAW. Ignoring what you think don't fit because you presume it to be natural or casual language while following what you think does fit. Litterary the only thing that changes is the position of a trigger while "deal damage" remains the same in both interpretations.
I already shown how poisons and persistent damage rules relate to my interpretation and why it works as such abilities and effects define either a hit or dealing damage. While providing clear wording what happens if an effect fails to deal damage or if the damage is negated. We also know that "lose hitpoints" does not neccessitate taking damage as we can see from the existance of Drained, Blood Component Substitution, Life oracle, Spirit link and so on.
It would be far easier to agree if you yourself quoted the rules which support your interpretation or better yet, Developer/Designer weighing in on a similar issue like the clip I provided.
Resistance wrote: each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage). Is pretty clearly written that you take damage for your resistance to reduce it, This coincides with the quoted rule about hitpoints.
hitpoints wrote: When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt. The intent is up for debate but the text itself is not.
Losing hitpoints is a result of taking damage, you lose hp equal to how much it dealt (not neccesarily equal to the damage you took, Can also be 0 from seen in resistance)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: You are arguing from intent, not RAW. Ignoring what you think don't fit because you presume it to be natural or casual language while following what you think does fit. Litterary the only thing that changes is the position of a trigger while "deal damage" remains the same in both interpretations.
I already shown how poisons and persistent damage rules relate to my interpretation and why it works as such abilities and effects define either a hit or dealing damage. While providing clear wording what happens if an effect fails to deal damage or if the damage is negated. We also know that "lose hitpoints" does not neccessitate taking damage as we can see from the existance of Drained, Blood Component Substitution, Life oracle, Spirit link and so on.
It would be far easier to agree if you yourself quoted the rules which support your interpretation or better yet, Developer/Designer weighing in on a similar issue like the clip I provided.
Resistance wrote: each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage). Is pretty clearly written that you take damage for your resistance to reduce it, This coincides with the quoted rule about hitpoints.
hitpoints wrote: When you take damage, you reduce your current Hit Points by a number equal to the damage dealt. The intent is up for debate but the text itself is not.
Losing hitpoints is a result of taking damage, you lose hp equal to how much it dealt (not neccesarily equal to the damage you took, Can also be 0 from seen in resistance)
The Raw is there.
You only reduce HP at step 4
You take damage when you reduce HP
Both the above are straight up quotes listed time and time again that you choose to ignore.
On the other hand, you literally have nothing stating that you "take damage before step 3" which is your position.
The only grounds you stand upon is 1 specific interaction (shield block) making less narrative sense when your Houserule will make EVERY immunity interaction make absolutely 0 sense (poisoning walls, igniting fire elementals, dazing golems, etc).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There's another point that justify why the shield block happens after IWR that was due simplicity.
I remember some old Mark Seifter's post explaining that the idea is to keep the Shield Block simple. Just reduce the damage by hardness and them apply it to both character and shield. If the shield block was happen before the IWR not only the shield would become too fragile but also we have to made 2 damage calculations, one for the shield and another for the character what would add more drag to the damage roll.
shroudb wrote: The Raw is there.
You only reduce HP at step 4
You take damage when you reduce HP
Both the above are straight up quotes listed time and time again that you choose to ignore.
On the other hand, you literally have nothing stating that you "take damage before step 3" which is your position.
The only grounds you stand upon is 1 specific interaction (shield block) making less narrative sense when your Houserule will make EVERY immunity interaction make absolutely 0 sense (poisoning walls, igniting fire elementals, dazing golems, etc).
That is a strawman, I have not said anything about placing take damage before step 3.
You say the quoted text about resistances is something I ignore but it clearly says that whenever you take damage, reduce the amount by the listed number. That happens in step 3. You are the one saying the text is Casual Language, and it might aswell be but how are we going to determine that without designer intent or clarification?
I believe this is the correct method because of the various sources of gaining resistances as a reaction to being damaged, taking damage, or being struck by an effect that deals a type of damage.
Any of the weird immunity interactions you present here does not happen from the position I take. Immunity still happens first and you still need to deal a non-zero amount of damage after resistances or you would be ignoring other rules.
YuriP wrote: There's another point that justify why the shield block happens after IWR that was due simplicity.
I remember some old Mark Seifter's post explaining that the idea is to keep the Shield Block simple. Just reduce the damage by hardness and them apply it to both character and shield. If the shield block was happen before the IWR not only the shield would become too fragile but also we have to made 2 damage calculations, one for the shield and another for the character what would add more drag to the damage roll.
Do you have any memory of where it was or a link? I can absolutely understand the simplicity of that being a more ideal case for edge cases or that they realized the extra survivability this would grant to classes who has access to resistances. Especially considering that the video I linked was a rather dated one so having a fresher insight would be welcome.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: shroudb wrote: The Raw is there.
You only reduce HP at step 4
You take damage when you reduce HP
Both the above are straight up quotes listed time and time again that you choose to ignore.
On the other hand, you literally have nothing stating that you "take damage before step 3" which is your position.
The only grounds you stand upon is 1 specific interaction (shield block) making less narrative sense when your Houserule will make EVERY immunity interaction make absolutely 0 sense (poisoning walls, igniting fire elementals, dazing golems, etc).
That is a strawman, I have not said anything about placing take damage before step 3.. You literally say that target "takes damage" before you calculate resistance (step 3).
NorrKnekten wrote:
You say the quoted text about resistances is something I ignore but it clearly says that whenever you take damage, reduce the amount by the listed number. That happens in step 3. You are the one saying the text is Casual Language, and it might aswell be but how are we going to determine that without designer intent or clarification?
No?
You reduce hp at step 4.
What are you even talking about?
NorrKnekten wrote:
I believe this is the correct method because of the various sources of gaining resistances as a reaction to being damaged, taking damage, or being struck by an effect that deals a type of damage.
What you believe is irrelevant.
What is written is that the only time you reduce HP is step 4.
And that when you take damage you reduce hp.
NorrKnekten wrote:
Any of the weird immunity interactions you present here does not happen from the position I take. Immunity still happens first and you still need to deal a non-zero amount of damage after resistances or you would be ignoring other rules.
You can't have your cake and eat it too:
You either "take damage" before (your houserule) or after IWR (the Raw).
P.s.
I still wait for even a shred of a sentence that says you take damage before resistances btw.
I've already linked the straight up written sentences that:
A)you reduce hp at step 4
B)you take damage when you reduce hp.
NorrKnekten wrote: YuriP wrote: There's another point that justify why the shield block happens after IWR that was due simplicity.
I remember some old Mark Seifter's post explaining that the idea is to keep the Shield Block simple. Just reduce the damage by hardness and them apply it to both character and shield. If the shield block was happen before the IWR not only the shield would become too fragile but also we have to made 2 damage calculations, one for the shield and another for the character what would add more drag to the damage roll.
Do you have any memory of where it was or a link? I can absolutely understand the simplicity of that being a more ideal case for edge cases or that they realized the extra survivability this would grant to classes who has access to resistances. Especially considering that the video I linked was a rather dated one so having a fresher insight would be welcome. Sorry it was a long time ago in a interview but I don't recall where I saw it (probably was in a live but maybe it could be in some of How It's Played interviews (sorry but I'm to lazy now to search maybe if you google about it you may find it) when he was speaking about how they made some design decision and he exemplified with Shield Block as a thing they made to be simple (like many others rules) to avoid to slow down the game. Was after this that I stoped to complain about shield block because I understood that the idea was never to be realistic in anyway.
YuriP wrote: Sorry it was a long time ago in a interview but I don't recall where I saw it (probably was in a live but maybe it could be in some of How It's Played interviews (sorry but I'm to lazy now to search maybe if you google about it you may find it) when he was speaking about how they made some design decision and he exemplified with Shield Block as a thing they made to be simple (like many others rules) to avoid to slow down the game. Was after this that I stoped to complain about shield block because I understood that the idea was never to be realistic in anyway. Absolutely understandable, I know there are plenty of clarifications and such that have been absolutely buried underneat tens of thousands of posts. Some threads just no longer exist or otherwise are forgotten by any search engine. And some things were as said in live interview or on specific discord servers. It is a shame such things have not been properly gathered.
The best argument i've seen is that triggers or events are arbitrarily defined because it makes more sense to evaluate them on a narrative basis. This also makes more sense in actual play. trying to actually define them now means a wide sweeping change of existing books.
Lets use Resist Energy as an example,It is described as a shield of elemental energy enveloping a creature. Makes sense that it would affect the shield aswell, While a Charm of Resistance is entirely personal.
In a VTT you can't really have this unless you abandon the automation. Well.. you could, but would it be worth the time spent on such a system?
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
