| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to put in one place my issues with the damage rules. Please critique if you get the time:
The rules are written in natural language. They are supposed to be interpreted by the GM as to what is reasonable. For the most part this works really well. The GM makes a ruling and everyone gets on with the game and has fun. It’s the right approach. There are a number of rules which can be read in different ways.
A good example is the Damage Rules. It looks really promising. It seems to be a nice 4 step process with detailed instructions. But it is a loose description of some things to help you determine how to resolve damage. It is full of undefined terms and natural language so while most people can get to a reasonable answer the edges are blurry and the timing is all over the place.
It starts with defining a procedure for 3 different damage rolls: melee, ranged and spell. Which is good. It talks about damage dice, modifiers, bonuses and penalties. It references the definition of those terms used elsewhere in checks.
OK so what's wrong? Well….the rules talk about damage sometimes being a fixed amount, but these steps 1-4 are mentioned as being for damage rolls. Ok so where is the step for fixed damage? If you look you are going to be disappointed because there isn’t one. So what does everyone do? They use the same procedure as for damage rolls, just don’t actually do a damage roll.
Then suddenly terms start showing up that are different: a Rogue's sneak attack does an extra 1d6 precision damage, a Precision Ranger does 1d8 additional precision damage, Weapon Specialization deals 2 additional damage, a Barbarian’s instinct can do additional damage of a different damage type. The terms extra and additional seem to be just natural language. The Precision Ranger uses both for the same feature, and there aren’t any definitions. But in natural language terms some of these are damage rolls. We know every term in the 3 different damage rolls provided (damage dice, modifiers, bonuses and penalties are well defined). Technically these extra dice and bits of damage don’t belong. But again there is nothing else so we just have to roll the extra dice and add them in too.
So we make it to Step 2: Damage Type with only a couple of issues that we decided a fix for. Now we have to determine the Damage Type. This is pretty good. It is reasonably defined. Damage Type singular? No, often enough our strike will be doing multiple types of damage at once. Then there are these other descriptive things called precious materials like silver, cold iron etc etc that are extra riders to colour the flavour of the damage. There are even some things like wood, and magical that aren’t really precious materials that get caught up in this anyway. So all those numbers we added together we now have to split into a few pools.
Now for Step 3: Apply Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances.and the follow up chapter. It can get complex here. You can be immune to a damage type, but also immune to an effect which might have caused damage of a different type so you end up immune to that bit of damage as well. The source of the damage, and other traits or properties of the damage can matter. Likewise with weakness and resistance. What is clear is every type of damage has to go through this procedure/step separately as resistance can apply to each instance.
The problem? Well damage type is well defined but it is clearly only mostly right as there are other things like precious materials and the trait magical and others that affect resistance so we may need to split apart everything even further if your target has special resistances.
Instance of damage? What is this? Then there is persistent damage and we realise that this damage, even though it all came off one strike, can be happening at different times. As it turns out persistent damage is not going to be very effective if it runs into resistance.
So how do we determine instances of damage? Mostly we guess and it is OK. Each simple strike or effect might be an instance of damage. But what about things like additional damage. Precision is explicitly added into the main damage type, but nothing else is. Does it matter if the additional damage is a different damage type. There is no real guidance here so most of us just lean into natural language and assume instance of damage is mostly about it all happening at once.
Putting some flesh on that. What about the additional damage from the support benefit of a bear animal companion. It is just listed as additional damage but it comes from the bear. Is it any different than extra damage from a spell like Draw the Lightning. Then there is SpellStrike: are the spell and the strike separate or together? For most people I think those are all included. So what about Foretell Harm which is free action damage, or a reactive strike? Those all seem to occur later and I think for most people are not included.
Finally we have all our different bits of damage and we get on to Step 4: Reduce Hit Points. We just subtract it all and we are done.
Er what happens with Shield Blocking. Well it triggers when you would take physical damage. (with Reflexive Shield, and some other abilities as well, you can block all types of damage).
When is that? Maybe Step 4, there are a lot of people who say that. Then there are those that say that damage type matters, and there are other abilities like Retributive Strike that trigger at the same time on damages your ally, and that grants resistance, so we are back in Step 3. Well rules wise I can’t tell who is right.
Balance wise it does make a difference as the shield block now becomes a resist all effect or not. The Champions reaction is a resist all so why can’t the shield be? The difference is not enough to make a compelling game balance argument.
The majority of the community think Step 4 claiming damage reduction and reducing damage from shield block are distinct effects. I can’t find anything significant within the limits of natural language. I guess I should go with the majority then.
Is this how other people see the damage rules?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It definitely wasn’t…until now. Thanks a lot Gortle.
This post of yours does two things for me:
A) it depresses me as it shows me that PF2/R despite claims of being “simpler” than PF1…in some ways….is just as absurdly complex. It’s enough to make me want to play OSR games where damage is damage and people are happy.
B) it takes the glimmer off my constant assertion that PF2/R is a robust and elegant system and the best RPG I have played, a ruleset that allows for awesome narratively satisfying storytelling.
The mix of “natural language” and “technical language” across the ruleset is endlessly frustrating and the much vaunted “editorial rigour” that was supposed to make the original PF2 released “simple and easy to understand” appears to be…not rigourous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mix of “natural language” and “technical language” across the ruleset is endlessly frustrating and the much vaunted “editorial rigour” that was supposed to make the original PF2 released “simple and easy to understand” appears to be…not rigourous.
Well, we could fix that by removing all that pesky "natural language" from it.
#define d4 "d4";
#define d6 "d6";
#define d8 "d8";
#define d10 "d10";
#define d12 "d12";int function roll(String expr);
int function roll(int fixedVal);
#define PIERCING 1
#define SLASHING 2
#define BLUDGEONING 4
#define ACID 8
#define COLD 16
#define ELECTRICITY 32
#define FIRE 64
#define SONIC 128
#define VITALITY 256
#define VOID 512
#define FORCE 1024
#define SPIRIT 2048
#define MENTAL 4096
#define POISON 8192
#define BLEED 16384
#define PRECISION 32768
#define MAGICAL 1
#define SILVER 2
#define COLD_IRON 4
#define WOOD 8
#include "dice.h"
#include "damage_types.h"
#include "traits.h"int function weapon_damage(String weapon_die, int striking_count, int attribute_bonus, int circumstance_bonus, int status_bonus, int damage_type, int traits, String rune_die, int rune_type, int target_weaknesses, int weakness_value int target_immunities, int target_resistances, int resistance_value) {
int weapon_damage_dealt = striking_count * roll(weapon_die) + attribute_bonus + circumstance_bonus + status_bonus;
int rune_damage_dealt = roll(rune_die);
int weakness_bonus = 0;
int resistance_penalty = 0;for (int type=0; type < 16; ++type) {
int type_enum = 1 >> type;
int weapon_deals_type = type_enum & damage_typeif (weapon_deals_type && (type_enum & target_immunity)) {
weapon_damage_dealt = 0;
break;
}if (weapon_deals_type && (type_enum & target_weaknesses)) {
weakness_bonus += weakness_value;
}if (weapon_deals_type && (type_enum & target_resistance)) {
resistance_penalty += resistance_value;
}}
if (weapon_damage != 0) weapon_damage = weapon_damage + weakness_bonus - resistance_penalty;
return weapon_damage;
};
There. Now everyone will be able to read it the same way and have no problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I myself have beef with "instances of damage"
If my PC takes a bite from an ice zombie that does both piercing and cold damage, that's clearly one instance of damage. If that bite gives them a disease that inflicts cold damage, sure, that's a different instance arising from the same bite.
But there is no way that single chomp is 2 different instances. It's one instance of split damage types.
This should mean that I only get my highest resistance to this attack, yet it seems the default ruling, and the one used by Foundry, is just to say "heck it" let resistances double dip for players.
It makes no sense for a single hit to count as 2 instances of damage. An example of when that *would* make sense is if there's something like the Flame Wisp spell active, where an extra flame reacts to the successful hit to fly over and join in on the damage. But the wisp is, ya know, a separate instance/hit unconnected from the triggering Strike.
I've said it before, but my guess as to why that seemingly erroneous default is used, is because of consistency and player favoritism.
If a single bite that does split phys/elemental damage counts as 2 instances, then this also means that a strike from a elemental runed weapon can trigger multiple weaknesses at once.
The norm gets even more obviously wrong as soon as you encounter the mechanic where a multi-hit attack combines them "for the sake of weaknesses and resistances," yet said combined single hit is still somehow allowed to trigger multiple weaknesses if it's due to runes/weapon buffs.
In general, this ruling significantly favors PCs both offensively and defensively.
==============
This one is thorny for the opposite reason of the rules being convoluted though; IMO "an instance of damage" is a pretty clear phrasing if you aren't already trained to accept the community reading.
One hit/blast is one instance. Sometimes hits can do pure damage of one type, sometimes they deal split damage of multiple types.
Sometimes you punch so fast, that flurry of hits? All one instance (this mechanic makes these rules super hecking obvious).
What makes this rule issue a big yikes is that the community is just (commonly) running it wrong, which might make it worse to fix/change.
Trying to convince others that the way they've been running things is counter to the rules, in the foe's favor, (and that their VTT is also doing it wrong) is one sheer cliff, that's for sure.
(and if your table just wants to keep their hands clean of this muk and have a VTT to handle things, no worries. It's a small gripe that makes tanking as a PC way too strong at times.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we could fix that by removing all that pesky "natural language" from it.
No need to reinvent the wheel
There is code here somewhere for foundry
Typescript is quite readable to most programmers. I think the abbreviation IWR will help you find the relevant bits.
More seriously though natural language doesn't have to mean vague. The issues I have identified in the rules could all be fixed by simple statements.
Like:
Step 1: Any stray bits of damage go though the same procedure as this. Be sure to add in everything that happens at the same time into the one bucket. But you will have to remember the type of damage if it is relevant. Damage that happens later like persistent damage or in response will have to go through separately when it gets resolved.
Step 4: Resolve shield block and any other damage prevention here.
There is no need to go to code or formal logic.
More seriously though natural language doesn't have to mean vague. The issues I have identified in the rules could all be fixed by simple statements.
Agreed. There is some room for improvement, certainly.
I just also am aware of the constraints that the developers are working under and wanted to show a spotlight on it. Writing rules in a way that it cannot be misunderstood is incredibly difficult - even in formal languages like programming languages. That is why software has bugs in it. It is in all seriousness impossible to do in a natural language like English. Things can be improved and there is nothing wrong with highlighting areas where the improvement is needed most. But let's be kind about it at the same time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been 5 years since I raised some of these. Still I try to be kind. Intent though, is one of the easiest things to misread in natural language.
I myself have beef with "instances of damage"
If my PC takes a bite from an ice zombie that does both piercing and cold damage, that's clearly one instance of damage. If that bite gives them a disease that inflicts cold damage, sure, that's a different instance arising from the same bite.
But there is no way that single chomp is 2 different instances. It's one instance of split damage types.
This should mean that I only get my highest resistance to this attack, yet it seems the default ruling, and the one used by Foundry, is just to say "heck it" let resistances double dip for players.
It makes no sense for a single hit to count as 2 instances of damage. An example of when that *would* make sense is if there's something like the Flame Wisp spell active, where an extra flame reacts to the successful hit to fly over and join in on the damage. But the wisp is, ya know, a separate instance/hit unconnected from the triggering Strike.
I've said it before, but my guess as to why that seemingly erroneous default is used, is because of consistency and player favoritism.
If a single bite that does split phys/elemental damage counts as 2 instances, then this also means that a strike from a elemental runed weapon can trigger multiple weaknesses at once.
The norm gets even more obviously wrong as soon as you encounter the mechanic where a multi-hit attack combines them "for the sake of weaknesses and resistances," yet said combined single hit is still somehow allowed to trigger multiple weaknesses if it's due to runes/weapon buffs.
In general, this ruling significantly favors PCs both offensively and defensively.
==============
This one is thorny for the opposite reason of the rules being convoluted though; IMO "an instance of damage" is a pretty clear phrasing if you aren't already trained to accept the community reading.
One hit/blast is one instance. Sometimes hits can do pure damage of one type, sometimes they deal split damage of multiple types.
Sometimes you punch so...
To be fair i dont think the problem is in instance of damage but rather how the resistance rules are written.
They mix language used, in some instance refer to one "instance of damage" and other time "when an effect deal multiple damage types" these are not necessarily the same.
Lets go over the resistance rule sentences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
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).
This in itself is quite clear, if you take fire damage and have fire ress you reduce it. and so on,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------Resistance can specify combinations of damage types or other traits. For instance, you might encounter a monster that's resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage, meaning it would take less damage from bludgeoning attacks that weren't magical, but would take normal damage from your +1 mace (since it's magical) or a nonmagical spear (since it deals piercing damage). A resistance also might have an exception. For example, resistance 10 to physical damage (except silver) would reduce any physical damage by 10 unless that damage was dealt by a silver weapon..
This part is also quite straight forward and deals with the special cases some monsters have
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, as described in weakness
This is the most problematic part, you can easy assume that RAI this is intended to be for Coldiron Bludgeoning damage (that would in all cases be "one instace" that could trigger 2 resistances/weaknesses)
but some also use it for an attack that deals slashing and fire damage, and i dont think that how rai is intended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The last part looks like it deals with only all ress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
So we can ignore the 2:nd paragraph most of the time.
So we have one paragraph that say reduce damage by resistance straight off.
One that give a special case with "one instance of damage" and references weakness, this is the explanation for that in weakness
This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.
reaffirming my take that this special case is only for cases where the "on instance of damage" is from material weapons(and also holy/unholy trait) combined with its damage, not multiple different elements
and a Third paragraph that clarifies how all ress would work, since with only paragraph 1 someone could think it only applies to one damage type/effect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
But the main part of OP still remains that some effects are unclear how instance of damage are handled. having one attack that deal physical and cold is not (in my mind) one of them and foundry are doing it right with resistance there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a substantial amount of the OP. The way I see it is that Paizo innovated significantly with PF2e by defining many of its mechanics around a consistent system of traits, bonuses and penalties, and immunities, resistances, and weaknesses, but didn't lean into that far enough. Specifically:
In an ideal world and with a blank slate, I'd like to get rid of damage types entirely and base resistances, immunities, and weaknesses entirely on traits, while adjusting so that Strikes don't get hard-countered just by adding a rune. Similarly, I'd like extra damage to be better-defined, whether as status and circumstance bonuses to damage or something else (for example, precision damage could be a circumstance bonus to damage that adds dice rather than a fixed amount and the precision trait, and stuff that's currently immune to precision damage would instead resist the precision trait). That ship has sailed long ago for 2e, but there's likely still room for smaller improvements:
I'd say that if damage types were to be removed and everything came down to traits, the only things that would be majorly affected would be a few multi-type damage spells and Strikes with damage property runes, both of which would be affected much more harshly by immunity and would need adjustments. It's strange that all of this has been left unaddressed in the remaster, and for so long in general, so I'd be keen to see a bit more clarity on this from Paizo when possible.
Yeah, this addressed exactly what I thought it would address and then some. I agree; damage calc is not nearly clear enough at the moment. I've found the phrase "instance of damage" infuriatingly vague, especially. I've personally never thought about the question you raised wrt shield block, but now that you've raised it, I find it extremely annoying. I would really, really, really like to see all of this made clear. This stuff has been one of my major pet peeves with the rules.
FWIW, my other major pet peeves are
1) the senses and detection rules in their entirety, which are not clear enough for my tastes, and
2) the way the rules often have weird holes when applying effects to objects, like how a scrying sensor is invisible but there's no explanation of what its perception DC should be if someone seeks it, or how the Strike action doesn't say it can target objects even though everything implies that it should be able to.
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, as described in weakness
The example they use could have been more applicable, but the wording never strays from the "one hit is one instance" concept.
Silver is a type of damage, and so is splash, area, fire, and cold.
The common bizarre exception ruling to maintain the double-dips, but not break the example of "but materials types can only trigger one" is yet another flag that something is wrong with that base reading.
======================
If a single bite is 2 "instances of damage" that makes the term completely worthless, an "instance of damage" no longer can have meaning. In order for split damage type hits to have a distinction, the [1 bite = 2 instance] interpretation would require the use of a "combine for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses" phrase for every split damage type attack.
Which leads directly to ~99% of the function of "only the highest" being completely gone in that reading. Only the edge-most cases where it's genuinely impossible to ignore that some attacks are multi type, like a sliver slashing sword, can survive that reading. That in and of itself is yet another flag that "hey, maybe I'm reading this wrong"
========================
And once more, I'll say that it outright does not compute for a Monk/etc to do a flurry attack that 100% has that combine phrase, yet *still* allows double dipping on weakness procs.
For this incorrect reading to be used consistently, doing any attack with that "Combine..." phrase would collapse *all* the damage into one instance, and only trigger the single highest.
But because that Flurry quirk calls attention to the fact that common reading is already clearly incorrect, that 100% single instance multi hit is not run as a single instance (if you have dmg runes), because bad readings require exceptions upon exceptions to remain halfway coherent.
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, as described in weaknessThe example they use could have been more applicable, but the wording never strays from the "one hit is one instance" concept.
Silver is a type of damage, and so is splash, area, fire, and cold.
The common bizarre exception ruling to maintain the double-dips, but not break the example of "but materials types can only trigger one" is yet another flag that something is wrong with that base reading.
======================
If a single bite is 2 "instances of damage" that makes the term completely worthless, an "instance of damage" no longer can have meaning. In order for split damage type hits to have a distinction, the [1 bite = 2 instance] interpretation would require the use of a "combine for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses" phrase for every split damage type attack.
Which leads directly to ~99% of the function of "only the highest" being completely gone in that reading. Only the edge-most cases where it's genuinely impossible to ignore that some attacks are multi type, like a sliver slashing sword, can survive that reading. That in and of itself is yet another flag that "hey, maybe I'm reading this wrong"
========================
And once more, I'll say that it outright does not compute for a Monk/etc to do a flurry attack that 100% has that combine phrase, yet *still* allows double dipping on weakness procs.
For this incorrect reading to be used consistently, doing any attack with that "Combine..." phrase would collapse *all* the damage into one instance, and only trigger the single highest.
But because that Flurry quirk calls attention to the fact that common reading is already clearly incorrect, that 100% single instance multi hit is not run as a single instance (if you have dmg runes), because bad readings require exceptions upon exceptions to remain...
1 bite wont fall under the "one instace of damage" clause its more under "When an effect deals damage of multiple types" clause.
the "one instance of damage" clause is for when you have something additional that triggers resistance/weakness, like holy,unholy, silver, aoe and sutch that is not a damage type just something added on top of other damages.
so it wont be a problem with flurry or any multi damage attacks.
but since the text is not perfectly written its hard to say for sure what rai is and i can be wrong, but this interpretation i feel leaves least problems without twisting the text they written to mutch.
Silver is a type of damage, and so is splash, area,No, no and no.
fire, and cold.Yes, yes.
Damage
Ugh, damn it, I am technically incorrect. Materials are :
Precious Materials
While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses. For instance, silver weapons are particularly effective against werecreatures and bypass the resistances to physical damage that most devils have.
These weaknesses are (imo appropriately) a little different because they interact with other existing resistances. If that silver sword hits a slash resistant, silver weak foe, it gets to proc the silver weakness more like a trait weakness effect, *and* that silver trigger disables the slashing resist for the hit.
Materials are always a modifier (while still also being a type). (effects that "deal silver damage" still exist, meaning it kinda has to be both (else the "silver dmg" is actually untyped beneath the material effect))
.
I hate not reviewing closely enough to catch errors like that, especially when it actually further helps my claim (and after the post hits the 1hr edit lockout).
Materials not being damage types makes the issue of instances of damage even more clear.
The small remaining edge case of a slashing silver sword being the one time "single instance of damage" triggers the "only the single highest res/weakness" clause is greatly diminished by materials primarily being modifiers to other (typed) damage.
-
==============================
==============================
-
To repeat/rephrase my prior point:
If a single bite dealing pierce + cold is treated as 2 instances of damage, then the entire system looses the ability to have split type damage as a base rule concept (for the rule of "single highest weakness/resistance" rule to ever matter).
If every bit of "additional damage" gets to add a separate instance (such as a Flaming rune), then I don't even know of a case where you can be consistent with that and still trigger that "only single highest" rule anymore.
It's only when things are clearly separate "instances" (separate hits), like the multi-attack abilities, does the presumption change into being multiple instances, hence how common it is for those Flurry-type abilities to feature a "combine" phrase.
.
IMO, the rules assume you consider one hit = one instance across the board.
Aside from the multi-hit flurries, another example is splash.
In all respects, splash is a separate instance of damage inflicted by the bomb outside of and in reaction to the Strike. Bonuses to Strike damage doesn't boost it, splash hits foes indirectly via the AoE, etc.
Because splash *would* be a separate instance that could double-dip on weaknesses, there's a "Combine" rule baked in.
[...] Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.[...]
I encourage you to think on the specific mechanics, spells, etc that you are personally familiar with and see if you can remember another one that has a "Combine" phrase, and perhaps share them.
So far, every single "Combine" phrase I've seen is there exactly when the damage could be read to be a separate instance triggered by something, and this "Combine" phrase does *not* happen when it's a booster / bonus damage to the hit itself.
.
If multiple types and "additional damage" effects add more instances to a single hit, then Draw the Lighting would need to use a "Combine" phrase to stop your already lighting typed strikes from double-dipping into a single electricity weakness/resistance (such as that weapon already carrying a shock rune).
Otherwise, you now have multiple instances of the same type in the same hit.
Instead, the system assumes you know that a boosted strike is all one hit, and all one instance.
[...]For the rest of the spell's duration, your first Strike each round with the weapon you held aloft (or with your unarmed attacks if you held an empty hand aloft) deals an additional 1d12 electricity damage.
.
And as an Alchemist, you can already reach this issue w/o spells.
Energy Mutagen + Weapon Siphon means your weapon already has 2 sources of additional elemental damage.
And because the rules only really make sense if you presume one hit = one instance, there's no "Combine" phrase like there is for splash damage in any of these "additional damage" runes/spells/alch effects.
.
As far as I can see, there's no valid way to cling to the double-dip ruling that elemental runes get to be a separate instance, yet things like the Weapon Siphon or the Energy Mutagen are somehow not separate instances and must combine.
IMO, the reason to claim new special exemption is because the position of being able to pop a fire weakness three times in a single strike is an indefensible position, not because there's real merit or evidence to support it.
.
If you rule that Strike enhancements like runes get to be separate instances, the consistent conclusion is that other similar boosters like spells/siphons/etc must also be separate instances.
But, I think it's safe to say that's clearly a non-viable ruling, so you get wide field of contradictions and new special cases for each little thing that have 0 textual basis. I honestly don't even know how one would wiggle out of the siphon & mutagen issue when set directly next to the Flaming rune, as the "additional damage" wording is nearly exactly the same.
.
IMO, this dissonance should trigger a reevaluation to then understand that one hit = one instance of damage.
Hit boosting effects ("Additional damage") are added into that instance, while things that happen in reaction to and outside of the smack are separate instances (Flame Wisp, etc).
Materials are always a modifier (while still also being a type). (effects that "deal silver damage" still exist, meaning it kinda has to be both (else the "silver dmg" is actually untyped beneath the material effect))No, they are more like a 'hidden' trait. "Silver damage" abilities always have an actual primary damage type as far as I know. So for example it could be 'fire silver' or 'spirit cold iron' like 'silver slashing'.
I'm an Alchemist first, which means I guess I'm the front line for bizarre edge cases.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1930
Secondary Effect [two-actions] Effect A ray of light descends on a 5-foot square of your choice within 120 feet. Any creature in that space takes positive damage with a basic Reflex save and is dazzled until the end of its next turn on a failed save. This is treated as silver for the purposes of weaknesses, resistances, and the like. The silver crescent becomes inert.
Silver Crescent (Lesser) Item 6
Source Treasure Vault pg. 50 1.1
Price 35 gp
The bonus is +1, the DC is 20, and the ray deals 4d6 damage
There's no other type in there, just "silver".
I do agree that silver is a *modifier* for B/P/S physical damage, but the best way I can think to handle this item is for silver to also be type of its own, similar to the other oddballs like area and splash.
Splash is even an entire mechanic unto itself, while also being a damage type/property.
Materials aren't traits. Pathfinder simply has a flexible enough system of resistances, weaknesses, and immunities that it can cover natural language terms, whether it's materials or axes in the case of some tree-like creatures. Arguably, though, they ought to be traits, which would make for better clarity.
Amazing how you can read and re-read something, explicitly looking for a word like that, and still miss it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this how other people see the damage rules?
Since you asked.
I don't find things as problematic as you do. Yes, there's a lot of natural language. Doesn't bother me.
Step 1: rolling damage dice.
So what's the problem with fixed damage? You just don't roll anything, just process a static value. Treat it as 0d0+X if that makes you feel better.
Step 2: damage types
We have a pretty comprehensive list of damage types now. Pretty much all (except for some oddball spells and abilities) has a damage type, and perhaps a couple of traits sprinkled on top of it.
Step 3: I/W/R
Immunities are mostly not that complex, it's only the ones where you might be immune to part of the effect that need thinking about. Most of the time a fire elemental is just immune to fire and it's not difficult to run.
Now with weaknesses and resistances we run up against the "instance of damage" which is a term only used on that one page in the book and never properly defined. But I still believe the same thing I've believed for the last couple years, and only feel more confirmed by the clearer distinction in the remaster between damage types and extra traits on that damage. The key section is this one:
If more than one weakness would apply to the
same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable
weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature
is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait,
such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness
to cold iron and slashing.
The "this usually only happens when" part suggests that this doesn't happen a lot for other reasons. Such as the old flaming axe against the tree monster (two damage TYPES) or the slashing weapon with Infuse Vitality doing both slashing (type) and vitality (type) against a zombie.
So for me the conclusion is that separate type = separate instance. When you roll 1d8 slashing plus 1d6 fire, you can easily look at the dice and say "that 7 there is an instance of slashing damage, and that 3 there is an instance of fire damage". You could not however easily "that 7 there is two instances of damage, some of it is slashing and some of it is cold iron". Separate instances happen when you can clearly point out separate numbers. That's why the example of a single instance is about a type+trait or type+material. Because traits or materials don't do damage on their own. (Yes, a few random rare aberrant abilities notwithstanding.)
So, going through your examples:
- Draw the Lightning: separate instance.
- Bear companion: separate instance.
- Spellstrike: separate instance.
For each of them you can clearly point out which damage came from that thing.
Step 4: reduce HP
Well you couldn't do Shield Block until step 2 is completed, because you wouldn't know what type of damage it was going to be. Step 3 is concerned with I/W/R, the amount of damage you're going to take is still in flux at this point. You might end up taking none. Allowing Shield Block to happen in this step would be really capricious, because it might be very different if you then did it before or after weaknesses. There wasn't strong reason to do it in this step, and figuring out when exactly within step 3 is clearly problematic. So step 4 it is.
At this point you know if the requirements are true (physical damage), the question is if you're going to be blocking all of the damage or only the physical part. That's a bit fuzzy, I don't see strong evidence to rule one way or the other. It also doesn't keep me up at night which one a GM chooses, as long as it's consistent.
- Draw the Lightning: separate instance.
Are you willing to say that all effects that match the "___ additional damage" also are separate instances?
An Alchemist with a lightning energy mutagen, loaded siphon, Shock rune, and that spell will proc the same weakness 4 times per strike if that ruling is used.
Does that seem reasonable and intended?
What happens when that becomes part of a flurry attack with a "combine them..." phrase?
Do both Strikes now proc weakness 8 times? 7? 4? 1?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
#define PIERCING 1
#define SLASHING 2
#define BLUDGEONING 4
#define ACID 8
#define COLD 16
#define ELECTRICITY 32
#define FIRE 64
#define SONIC 128
#define VITALITY 256
#define VOID 512
#define FORCE 1024
#define SPIRIT 2048
#define MENTAL 4096
#define POISON 8192
#define BLEED 16384
#define PRECISION 32768
BAD Programmerer. Code rejected. Please, Please use hex for this. It is MUCH clearer. Oh, and you also need parentheses to eliminate some edge cases.
eg,
#define ACID (0x8)
#define COLD (0x10)
#define ELECTRICITY (0x20)
etc
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this really a practical issue?
I play a lot of PFS with lots of different GMs.
As far as I can recall I've NEVER had a GM rule that the final damage taken was a different value than I expected. Now, some of that can be because I don't see the entire process. But certainly at the tables where I see the final result its pretty much spot on with what I expect. I often sort of go "Ah, he has resistance 10 to something" and the value that I calculate seems to be almost correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you asked.I don't find things as problematic as you do. Yes, there's a lot of natural language. Doesn't bother me.
Step 1: rolling damage dice.
So what's the problem with fixed damage? You just don't roll anything, just process a static value. Treat it as 0d0+X if that makes you feel better.
Because the text acknowledges other damage exists, but says this procedure is for a damage roll
Damage is sometimes given as a fixed amount.....When making a damage roll, you take the following steps, explained in detail below.So what for we do for just 2 damage. From say the Wildfire spell. Or splash damage from an item. It is not covered here?
Yes this is just poor wording. We can get over it because we just don't have any other choice.
But this opens the door to treating every bit of damage separately, and every extra dice roll. It also means maybe it is a separate roll that we can add status bonuses to etc???
It is right at the top just as we get started. It is the title of the whole section.
Step 2: damage types
We have a pretty comprehensive list of damage types now. Pretty much all (except for some oddball spells and abilities) has a damage type, and perhaps a couple of traits sprinkled on top of it.
The text defines damage type and category. Then defines other things like precious material that are relevant but aren't really a damage type but they are damage modifiers. It also doesn't describe any of the other things that can modify damage like details of the effect that produced it or whether it is magical or not.
These are all relevant for Immunity Resistance and Weakness (IWR).
Step 3: I/W/R
...
So for me the conclusion is that separate type = separate instance. When you roll 1d8 slashing plus 1d6 fire, you can easily look at the dice and say "that 7 there is an instance of slashing damage, and that 3 there is an instance of fire damage". You could not however easily "that 7 there is two instances of damage, some of it is slashing and some of it is cold iron". Separate instances happen when you can clearly point out separate numbers. That's why the example of a single instance is about a type+trait or type+material. Because traits or materials don't do damage on their own. (Yes, a few random rare aberrant abilities notwithstanding.)So, going through your examples:
- Draw the Lightning: separate instance.
- Bear companion: separate instance.
- Spellstrike: separate instance.
Except that is is quite possible for spearate instances to have the same damage types. The spell you use to spell strike can give the same damage type as the weapon. The draconic barbarians rage damage can be the same damage type as the weapon. Do you still make it a separate instance?
Reasonable GMs are going to go both ways on this and it can make a big difference to a character.Your interpretation makes resistance very powerful, and weakness very very weak. Personally I find that too swingy. Have you every GMed a Thaumaturge? Be careful.
I tend to go the other direction and add together all the bits of damage of the same type together - unless one distinctly happens after the other.
It all comes down to instance of damage. What is it?
Shield Block
Well you agree this one is fuzzy.
It matters for me when I build a defensive character (which I enjoy) and then I get people saying it is a cheater build because shields don't work like that. This is why I need to know clearly what the rules say.|
|
- Draw the Lightning: separate instance.Are you willing to say that all effects that match the "___ additional damage" also are separate instances?
An Alchemist with a lightning energy mutagen, loaded siphon, Shock rune, and that spell will proc the same weakness 4 times per strike if that ruling is used.
Does that seem reasonable and intended?
My general principle is to say that if you can clearly identify which thing caused which part of the damage, then it's probably a separate instance.
On a cold iron sword, I can't say which part of the damage is cold iron and which part is slashing. They must be one instance then.
On a flaming sword, I can clearly say which damage was flaming and which was slashing. Those are separate instances.
In this one example, is it really powerful? Yes. But you also really specialized for this one type of enemy. Sometimes you just have a really good day.
What happens when that becomes part of a flurry attack with a "combine them..." phrase?Do both Strikes now proc weakness 8 times? 7? 4? 1?
I'd go with 4. 8 is clearly wrong because then you wouldn't be doing any of the merging the ability tells you to. 1 is also nonsense because then you'd be merging more than you would on even a single attack.
4 and 7 could both be argued, but 4 seems more reasonable. For each instance of damage that occurs in both attacks, you merge them together.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I'm not going to do quote-in-quote-in-quote otherwise this will become unreadable.
Regarding step 1: I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Most of the time we really can just treat fixed and rolled damage the same way. Since damage with random variance (die roll) is far more common than completely fixed damage, that's just what they call the whole section.
Step 2: I just don't see your problem. 99.99% of all things that do damage have one type, and maybe a material and some other traits. There's a few things that do something weird like "silver damage" without any underlying type. I'd treat that as just a localized design mishap and not a reason to worry about the integrity of the whole rule system.
Step 3;
Yeah, an attack could contain multiple chunks of damage with the same type from different sources. I'd generally treat them as separate instances if you can clearly identify which damage came from which thing. For example, if you had Burning Ember Stance and a flaming rune on your handwraps, you really can separately tell that the d4+x came from the style and the d6 came from the rune.
Your interpretation makes resistance very powerful, and weakness very very weak. Personally I find that too swingy. Have you every GMed a Thaumaturge? Be careful.
I've GMed and played thaumaturges yeah. I don't think this makes resistance stronger than weakness or vice versa. They actually both become much more important.
If you're fighting an enemy weak to fire and your attack contains three different instances of fire damage, that's going to cause a lot of bonus damage. But if you're fighting a fire resistant enemy, they're going to resist a lot.
It's up to the player if they really want to put all of their eggs into that one basket and really specialize in one energy type. I think it's a risky idea.
If they're really good at having access to many energy types and can always adapt to the situation - well that's good, you're playing the game the intended way. Setting yourself so that you can adapt to and exploit any situation.
---
But yeah, instance of damage is an annoying term, and they've had so many opportunities to really clarify it.
I'm still pretty comfortable with my rule of thumb. If you can't clearly say how much of the damage is one thing and how much is the other, then it can't be separate instances. You can't say which part of a cold iron sword hit is slashing and which part is cold iron. That has to be one instance.
That to me is the thing the book talks about when it defines the "usually only" case of two weaknesses/resistances applying to the same instance, because this is typically a case of type+trait or type+material.
But on a burning ember style + flaming rune hit, you can say which part of the damage came from the unarmed strike dice + strength, and which part came from the flaming rune. So those can be separate instances.
I think there’s a bit of the point being missed here: the point isn’t that the game’s fundamental rules are unparsable, because we’re all game-literate people who can grok what dealing damage in a tabletop RPG ought to generally look like. The problem is that there’s a bit of ambiguity to these rules that’s causing us experienced players and GMs even now to disagree on how to handle damage rolls, particularly in certain edge cases. It is not unreasonable to criticize this ambiguity and ask for better, because clear, straightforward, and balanced rules are what PF2e aims for, and it is to the benefit of us all to give constructive, actionable feedback. It does not need to be a world-ending or game-breaking problem to merit discussion.
|
|
Yeah, the rules are ambiguous, that's not news at this point. It's reasonable to ask for clarity but realistically, I wouldn't hold my breath for it. There's been time and opportunity enough for it.
Gortle started this topic very doom and gloom as if the ambiguity were crippling, and then asked how other people handle it.
I don't find the ambiguity crippling, I'm comfortable making a decision about which interpretation to pick. And I have a practice of running things which has worked pretty well for years. So I shared that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the rules are ambiguous, that's not news at this point. It's reasonable to ask for clarity but realistically, I wouldn't hold my breath for it. There's been time and opportunity enough for it.
Gortle started this topic very doom and gloom as if the ambiguity were crippling, and then asked how other people handle it.
I don't find the ambiguity crippling
To me it makes a major impact on certain builds. It is a really core mechanic.
I'm comfortable making a decision about which interpretation to pick. And I have a practice of running things which has worked pretty well for years. So I shared that.
Thanks.
Just be aware other people do it differently. For some it is about different reading of the rules. For others it is a judgement call about multiple weakness triggers getting out of hand, or resistance becoming very strong or not being strong enough.
Oh, and the "each additional damage buff is an instance" ruling also clashes with how the system immediately follows the "single highest" rule with the resist all rule.
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, as described in weakness.
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.
The system clearly, unambiguously, communicates that one damage effect can deal multiple damage types with their own damage values.
After ruling that you get the single highest resistance (for a multi-type dmg effect), it then shows the exception to that limitation via resist all.
The presentation shows that invoking resistance multiple times inside one effect is abnormal, and afaik the resist all case is the only example of double-dipping a resistance/weakness.
If the "each additional..." reading of what "instance of damage" meant was correct, resist all would repeat that term here, with something like: "apply the resistance to each instance of damage separately"
.
Instead, that "instance" reading is incompatible with how resist all functions.
There is no explanation for what happens if you resist all and are dealt multiple "instances" of bonus fire damage. Resist all explicitly reduces each *type* inside a single effect (instance) once. But if every source of additional damage is it's own separate instance, it's not possible for any instance to ever be capable of holding more than one chunk of the same type. The entire wording of resist all makes no sense if each distinct type was its own instance. Because
Resist all's wording assumes and requires that a single damage effect is a "single instance" that can contain multiple independent damage chunks of differing types. In that scenario, the rule is complete because you can have as many chunks of fire damage as you want and there's no issue. Because resist all is a mechanic that interacts with multi type damage, and multi type damage cannot exist as a concept if the "each additional damage effect = new instance" reading.
Oh, and the "each additional damage buff is an instance" ruling also clashes with how the system immediately follows the "single highest" rule with the resist all rule.
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, as described in weakness.
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.
The system clearly, unambiguously, communicates that one damage effect can deal multiple damage types with their own damage values.
After ruling that you get the single highest resistance (for a multi-type dmg effect), it then shows the exception to that limitation via resist all.
The presentation shows that invoking resistance multiple times inside one effect is abnormal, and afaik the resist all case is the only example of double-dipping a resistance/weakness.
If the "each additional..." reading of what "instance of damage" meant was correct, resist all would repeat that term here, with something like: "apply the resistance to each instance of damage separately"
.
Instead, that "instance" reading is incompatible with how resist all functions.
There is no explanation for what happens if you resist all and are dealt multiple "instances" of bonus fire damage. Resist all explicitly reduces each *type* inside a single effect (instance) once. But if every source of additional damage is it's own separate instance, it's not possible for any instance to ever be capable of holding more than one chunk of the same type. The entire wording of resist all makes no sense if each distinct type was its own instance. Because
Resist all's wording assumes and requires that a single damage...
Again you are ignoring the explanation part of that paragraph in your reasoning.
"as described in weakness."
and Weakness say in that context:
"If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing."
so that entier paragraph is not for attacks that deal for example physical + cold from a rune that i covered by the other 3 paragraphs and would apply both types of resistance or apply to both in the case of all res
also the resist all paragraph intentionally uses another phrasing it call for an "effect deals damage of multiple types", like a spell or a strike. it dont talk about "instance of damage"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
Il go over it again:
Paragraph 1, tell you how you apply a resistance dont limits in any way that you cant apply all you have.
Paragraph 2, tell you how to deal with the monster that have special cases and exceptions in its resistance.
Paragraph 3, tell you how to handle when one damage typ gets other resistance and weakness triggers added to it, sutch as with material
Paragraph 4, tell you in more detail how you handle all ress, since paragraph 1 could be unclear on exactly how to apply that
you are ignoring the explanatory text for Paragraph 3 (that they hid inside weakness, but references to) and think it always applies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if a source of bonus damage inside an effect was already a separate instance, the resist all rules would have no reason to explain you apply the resistance to each type separately. If they were all separate instances, that would be the only possibility.
Instead, the rules would explain wtf it means by "to each type", because while a single chunk can be multiple types a la traits/materials, it's not possible to have more than one chunk in that instance with different types.
"to each type of damage separately" makes no sense because in that version, it's impossible to have single instances contain split damage. So instead, this "each type" rule seems to direct one to group up multiple instances of the same type, such as stacking +fire dmg effects, and only trigger the reduction of resist all once for that whole grouping (and I'm pretty sure that "only reduces each type once" detail is how that reading is commonly played out).
.
That ruling is self-contradictory; the notion of each instance applying weakness/resistance separately directly conflicts with resist all grouping up what should be separate instances into a single batch.
Which only happens because in this version you no longer can genuinely have single instances of damage that carry different dmg chunks of various types.
The "all separate instances, but group them up for resist all anyways" ruling also breaks the damage effects that are genuinely separate hits/instances.
If that fire-stacked "all separate, but also grouped" strike triggers a reactive-followup like Flame Wisp, this version means that Flame Wisp will get grouped into the same bucket as the strike boosts.
The entire notion of sometimes grouping, sometimes separating becomes stuck with contradiction.
That full fire combo would trigger pops of fire-specific weakness for each and every bit of fire damage. This would also be resisted by that same multiple, yet a weakness/resist all only pops once? Even when the last bit of fire via Flame Wisp is clearly disconnected?
.
That doesn't compute.
I do not know why the baseline example using a material + phys is a considered sticking point. There is no conflict with that and the "one hit = one instance" reading. If you think there is, I'd like to know how/why you think so.
.
also the resist all paragraph intentionally uses another phrasing it call for an "effect deals damage of multiple types", like a spell or a strike. it dont talk about "instance of damage"
That supports my point. If "each additional dmg source & type add instances" were true, then resist all should re-use instance of damage instead of saying "each type".
Because saying "each type" instead of instance would leave that big rule hole above.
However, if "one hit = one instance", then resist all leaves no hole for the fire-stacking cases. Such pieces of damage are already grouped inside each individual strike/hit, which is how you avoid contradictions when you need to consider genuinely separate reactive damage effects like Flame Wisp.
In that world, neither regular fire resist/weakness nor resist all require house rules to adjudicate the fire-stacked Monk doing a Flurry, with a Flame Wisp spell active.
You combine what would be 2 instances into one, and only the single highest weakness & resistance add & subtract from the final damage, and you then do that + & - twice more for each for Flame Wisp that then hits the foe, for 3 instances total (the spell triggers per strike, Flurry only combines for res/weakness --> still 2 strike hits for 2 Wisps).
.
.
On that note, I would like to ask what you think happens and why in the following scenario:
Monk with 2 fire additional dmg sources on their B-type fists, say Flaming + Siphon, does a Flurry on a foe that has weakness all and hits with both swings. A fresh Flame Wisp is active.
How many times does that weakness all trigger?
|
|
Oh, and the "each additional damage buff is an instance" ruling also clashes with how the system immediately follows the "single highest" rule with the resist all rule.
The system clearly, unambiguously, communicates that one damage effect can deal multiple damage types with their own damage values.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, as described in weakness.
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.
Not that in the second paragraph it does NOT say "when an instance deals damage of multiple types", it says "when an effect deals damage of multiple types".
Also, at this point it's talking about different types while the weakness rules were talking about how a single instance usually only triggers multiple weaknesses if you have both a type and a trait/material going on. So the weakness rules are NOT talking about multiple types.
So those two rules are handling entirely different situations.
After ruling that you get the single highest resistance (for a multi-type dmg effect), it then shows the exception to that limitation via resist all.
The presentation shows that invoking resistance multiple times inside one effect is abnormal, and afaik the resist all case is the only example of double-dipping a resistance/weakness.
If the "each additional..." reading of what "instance of damage" meant was correct, resist all would repeat that term here, with something like: "apply the resistance to each instance of damage separately"
.
Instead, that "instance" reading is incompatible with how resist all functions.
There is no explanation for what happens if you resist all and are dealt multiple "instances" of bonus fire damage. Resist all explicitly reduces each *type* inside a single effect (instance) once. But if every source of additional damage is it's own separate instance, it's not possible for any instance to ever be capable of holding more than one chunk of the same type. The entire wording of resist all makes no sense if each distinct type was its own instance. Because
Resist all's wording assumes and requires that a single damage...
If I put aside the Battle Form issue with damage (that can be accounted to Battle Forms instead of damage rules), the main issue I see in the damage rules is what happens when a Golem gets hit by a spell doing multiple types of damage, especially if one of these damage types is physical. The way both of their resistances have to be applied is entirely unknown.
If I put aside the Battle Form issue with damage (that can be accounted to Battle Forms instead of damage rules), the main issue I see in the damage rules is what happens when a Golem gets hit by a spell doing multiple types of damage, especially if one of these damage types is physical. The way both of their resistances have to be applied is entirely unknown.
Now there is more confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Regarding step 1: I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Most of the time we really can just treat fixed and rolled damage the same way. Since damage with random variance (die roll) is far more common than completely fixed damage, that's just what they call the whole section.
Yes the writers have made an intuitive leap and assume we do as well. But it is not uncommon. There is additional damage on most damage that a player deals beyonds a certain level. Every Barbarian deals additional damage while raging. Rogues, Swashbucklers, Investigators and some Rangers deal extra precision damage. Every character deals additional damage with weapon specialization from a particular level.
The problem is that they gave us 3 formulae with well defined terms but common obvious stuff missing. There is a whole category of extra things that just don't appear in the formula. It is the wierd mix of natural langauage a formula which is the problem.
Step 2: I just don't see your problem. 99.99% of all things that do damage have one type, and maybe a material and some other traits.
That is false. If you do a simple count. I can get to 10 in my head and there are only around 10-20,000 things in the game. But really your statement is tangential.
From mid level most characters will have runes on their weapons. The overwhelmingly popular ones are the ones that do extra damage, most of another damage type. It is rare to see a player choose not to take one. So from a certain point in the game most strike damage will have multiple damage types. I did a quick count 1463 out of 2864 creatures ie half have a resistance or weakness
So I think it is a pretty common scenario.
There's a few things that do something weird like "silver damage" without any underlying type.
I'm pretty sure Moonbeam and Moonlight Ray are just poorly written. They are expressed in an odd way.
[more single hit = single instance VS each type & additional dmg = additional instance talk]
I think I've been able to crystalize this down to be more easier to convey:
If one insists on the "each type & additional dmg adds an instance" then resist/weak all cannot function without contradiction.
At baseline, the resist/weakness rules mean that every separate instance of damage is fully isolated from other instances; it's as if the hits occurred on different attacks, or even different turns.
That's what it means to be a separate instance. If one throws a 2nd bomb, that attack is isolated from the first. No resistance nor weaknesses, not even resist all, that one had to consider for the first bomb can affect the damage of the 2nd bomb.
That's what it means for them to be separated instances.
If one insists each type + additional dmg source add new instances capable of each popping a weakness, the full meaning of that decision is that each and every one of those "instances" are as isolated from each other as much as independent bomb throws.
If they are separate instances, it's not possible for them to interact with each other.
Resist/weak all's mechanic of applying multiple times inside one bucket/group of damage chunks, but only once per type, requires the system to have instances/buckets that can hold multiple chunks of different types. If every chunk is a new instance, this is not possible, you have no >1 size buckets.
Again, if you remove the ability for "one attack = one instance" grouping, there is no textual replacement for that required concept.
And if you try to invent a new rule to "group up" all the chunks of a matching type, you are both breaking what it means for those instances to be separate, and have no rule-based way to properly construct the boundary of said bucket, meaning spells like Flame Wisp don't function correctly and are grouped in like Flaming runes.
.
Even the play-out absurdity of that fire-fisted Flurry example is worth considering.
A fire-specific weakness on a foe would cause them to crumple instantly via 6+ pops, while the weak-all foe would only incur 2 pops (1 fire 1 bludgeoning) and is barely affected. If each bonus damage effect is indeed separate and viable to pop weakness, there is no logic that a "Weak All" foe should work that way and incur fewer pops than the fire-only weak foe.
.
.
In conclusion, the "each dmg type & additional dmg adds a new instance" is not a reading compatible with the rules.
The reading that naturally groups each individual attack/swing/blast/etc into it's own single instance, with all the bonus damage chunks grouped inside each attack/blast/etc bucket, is the compatible interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To give you an idea what Paizo thinks about instance of damage, by which I really mean a pass through the IWR procedure. Look at what exceptions they make:
Some specific things which are clearly two separate actions have special rules to combine them for IWR purposes.
Twin Takedown, Converge, Double Slice, Paired Shots, Flurry of blows specifically combine the damage of both strikes for weaknesses and resistance purposes.
Fulminating Synergy, Two-Element Infusion do similar things.
Spash Damage is specifically called out as being included with the strike damage before applying the target’s weaknesses or resistances. Which mean Paizo thought spash damage which is secondary damage caused as part of one action needed to be clarified.
Spellstrike has no such language. Leaving it open for the spell and the strike to be separate instances.
But the special Devastating Spellstrike which causes spash damage has the splash damage added to the spell's splash damage.
If I put aside the Battle Form issue with damage (that can be accounted to Battle Forms instead of damage rules), the main issue I see in the damage rules is what happens when a Golem gets hit by a spell doing multiple types of damage, especially if one of these damage types is physical. The way both of their resistances have to be applied is entirely unknown.
What's a golem?