| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even more fun is if the multiple damage sources are doing the same damage type.
A Magus drinks an Energy Mutagen (fire); casts Blazing Armory and Runic Impression to put a Flaming rune on it; casts Flame Wisp; enters Arcane Cascade from one of those spells that deal fire damage ... and then makes a Strike.
How many instances of damage are all of those fire damage values that are being created by that one Strike action?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from precision damage which is as Baarogue states, the rules are vague on this.
In practice people tend to treat the total damage of each damage type as an instance.
Yes it would be really nice if Paizo were specific.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo in demonstration games and developer commentary treat different damage types as separate for the purposes of weakness and such.
But they've never come out and explicitly spelled out how the interaction is supposed to work and never defined what an instance of damage is meant to be.
People have been asking as long as the game has been out.
The most common method I see, and the method used in said demonstration games and by most VTT automation systems is to add together damage by type and then resolve each for weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty solidly in the camp that "additional damage" and Strike-boosting effects are all one instance of damage, while some things that happen in reaction to the Strike, like that Flame Wisp spell, are separate instances.
Main support is in all the multi-hit "combine these for the sake of dmg/resistance" abilities, and the way resist all needs multiple types and chunks of damage inside of one single instance for its text to make sense. If every type of dmg in one hit is a separate instance, that rule makes no sense and is impossible to trigger.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4zc8c?The-Damage-Rules#42
For more explanation and rules quotation.
.
Unfortunately, the Foundry VTT does not seem to rule this way, and allows players to stack multiple resistances when taking single hits. (or pop multiple weaknesses in single hits)
That alone will have a whole hecking lot of tables thinking that's the "normal" ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Paizo partners with Foundry directly, and given that we've seen developers run the game similarly or describe mechanical interactions in the past similarly, it probably is, yeah.
Now, if we treat it as a combined damage instance, this means that if the rogue is attacking an enemy with precision immunity, the attack would deal 0 damage, since the instance has the precision type.
No, the damage being one instance would not result in that full nullification, which may help you sort this out.
Weakness / resistance may only use the highest per instance of damage, but that does not mean that all the damage of that "single instance" is some sort of "fused type" of damage, each chunk is still separate, and not mixed.
A piercing resist of 10 for that multi type example would only be able to 0 out the piercing portion of the damage. The 4 fire would be unaffected, and precision says it mirrors the type it's attached to, meaning that +3 more piercing via precision would also be resisted.
Even if the hit is all one instance, it's still dealing 3 2 discrete chunks of damage with varying type. And when multiple resistances apply, only use the highest (else things get unbalanced super quick in my experience).
This is demonstrated best via the exception; resist all has the extra mechanic of reducing every chunk of damage of a different type, even if they are all one instance.
Resist all 2 would mean the example attack only deals 6 piercing, and 2 fire damage. (precision is a jank "type" to use for the example)
This has interesting implications for Thaumaturges. Let's say the thaumaturge used Personal Antithesis to grant a creature weakness 5 to it's strikes. If the strike is doing multiple damage types, which damage type does it apply the damage to? The Personal Antithesis feature doesn't specify, just that they have weakness to your strikes. RAW, I would think this means that the weakness gets applied to each damage type separately, given that we are treating them as distinct damage instances.
I would say from the rules that for the purposes of weaknesses (and resistances) you can only apply the extra damage from one weakness. So in this example you would be applying the highest value of weakness that applies. For example: if you have succeeded in applying Personal Antithesis with an attack that also does slashing and fire damage, the extra damage applied would be the highest of Personal Antithesis, Weakness to Slashing Weapons or weakness to Fire.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Paizo partners with Foundry directly, and given that we've seen developers run the game similarly or describe mechanical interactions in the past similarly, it probably is, yeah.
That's a super yikes way to look at things, imo. Especially when there's so many areas of the rules that lack clarification.
Thanks to the whole dying rules "clarification" in the remaster where it turns out that almost everyone was "doing it incorrectly", we can say w/ 100% certainty that Paizo's understanding of the rules does not match Foundry's implementation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Even the concept that there is one unified Paizo understanding of the rules is a stretch.
The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.
The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Paizo partners with Foundry directly, and given that we've seen developers run the game similarly or describe mechanical interactions in the past similarly, it probably is, yeah.That's a super yikes way to look at things, imo.
Is it really? I mean, in the face of rules ambiguity, looking at the way its been presented by semi-official sources consistently across years of play seems like a fairly decent way to figure out intent. At the very least it's a little more compelling than "just trust me everyone else is wrong"
Obviously clear and concise rules clarifications in an official capacity would be best, but we don't have that and there's no indication we'll get that anytime soon.
The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up. What about spells that do multiple damage types, like Cataclysm: https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1460
All those damages are applied from the same save. Are they the same instance of damage? If not, why is this different from strikes with multiple damage types?
Yes, if the damage all happens at one instance in time, if the damage happens in same hit / explosion / etc, then that is precisely what "one instance" of damage is attempting to convey.
.
At one point in an AP I was fully surrounded by 9 ice zombies (one poor guy had to wait his turn) because the rest of the party popped flight. These creatures did split cold & piercing dmg in each singular bite instance. There is no way to think that the cold and pierce damage happened at different moments in time. They just had supernaturally cold teeth.
.
I had cold resist from a rune, and chugged a mutagen to gain phys resist before they closed the gap. Even though there were 9 zombie full attack turns between each of my own, and my flying friends were focused on the boss, I was literally able to face tank that encounter with no problem in large part thanks to Foundry stacking the resistances for double flat dmg reduction. (and every attack was flanking!)
Our Gunslinger had more HP troubles after his shooting duel started with getting a crit in the face, so the NPC had their hands full helping over there.
.
The entire point of the "only use the highest" rule is to avoid balance problems like the little Alchemist tanking the entire zombie horde by themself. Pretty sure the boss was supposed to fall back and make a full event out of it... but that did not happen, lol.
It only takes resist 3 to essentially delete a d6 from every single incoming attack. That's a whole lot of damage prevention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cold iron isn't a distinct damage type from the slashing. It's a modifier to it. See the rules for precious materials: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.
Cold Iron is still a distinct weakness from a weakness to Slashing hence why only the highest weakness applies. I cannot find anything in the core rules to supports the view that each damage type constitutes a separate instance of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cold Iron is still a distinct weakness from a weakness to Slashing hence why only the highest weakness applies. I cannot find anything in the core rules to supports the view that each damage type constitutes a separate instance of damage.Cold iron isn't a distinct damage type from the slashing. It's a modifier to it. See the rules for precious materials: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.
Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All.
And we did get official confirmation that yes, one Strike really can trigger multiple weaknesses that way all the way back in the PF2 playtest. That isn't a statement made under current core rules, but these specific rules about weakness and resistance were written the same back then. If the text hasn't changed, it would be strange to think the meaning has.
It doesn't answer every question and edge case like a rigorous formal definition might, and you can find awkward interactions that you need to make a ruling on, but it answered the basic "are multiple damage types in one Strike multiple instances" simply and directly.
LOL, holy crap.
Did not expect so many people to immediately question the dev and "ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?"
And yeah, I've got to agree with them. The way it's written does not support each damage *type* being a separate instance (but not separate dmg effects). There's 0 instruction in there to group up all the dmg effects of each type into instances, which would be required.
And that type-grouped ruling still causes all the jank and edge case nonsense that has been mentioned previously.
Unfortunately, the Foundry VTT does not seem to rule this way, and allows players to stack multiple resistances when taking single hits. (or pop multiple weaknesses in single hits)
That alone will have a whole hecking lot of tables thinking that's the "normal" ruling.
As stated in another thread on the resistans and weakness rules you can read everything that way, its just messily written. but since even the developers are running it that way i say its RAI
the instace of damage part of resistance and only applying one resistance refers to weakness that talks about things like "silver physical" damage. all other parts of the text dont care about instances of damage, so i support the ruling that you apply all resistances to eatch damage type you have, and only make exceptions when something have several types for the same damage type as in the example silver slashing damage from a silver sword.
And that type-grouped ruling still causes all the jank and edge case nonsense that has been mentioned previously.Not grouping by type is way worse and is barely playable in a lot of cases.
The only thing lost by each hit / impact being one instance is the double-dipping on weakness/resistance.
I honestly have no concept of how this could be problematic or "barely playable" and suspect there might be some 3rd ruling going on here.
"One hit = one instance" also ensure that the genuinely "separate instance" buffs like Flame Wisp are allowed to double dip even when the PC already has a Flaming rune.
In many situations, this actually does end up in the PCs favor due to some types of monsters being loaded w/ a wide range of resistances. The rune rules mean that a huge % of martials will have 2 or 3 types of dmg in their attacks w/ elemental runes. There's even the "no doubling/stacking" that further spreads out the dmg types.
.
.
And as I mentioned before with the ice zombies, once a player has one of those "holy crap, resistance is busted" moments of discovery, it's really easy to abuse the "type-group instances" ruling.
PCs are the ones that can dynamically edit their stats in ways foes cannot. It's really easy, and really strong, to plan to stack a phys resist + a (in-combat reactive) elemental resist.
As stated in another thread on the resistances and weakness rules you can read everything that way, its just messily written. but since even the developers are running it that way i say its RAI
the instance of damage part of resistance and only applying one resistance refers to weakness that talks about things like "silver physical" damage. all other parts of the text dont care about instances of damage, so i support the ruling that you apply all resistances to eatch damage type you have, and only make exceptions when something have several types for the same damage type as in the example silver slashing damage from a silver sword.
I take 0 issue w/ anyone who wants to run it that way, especially w/ word of dev.
Thanks to the dev explaining the formula/steps, we know there is literally no possible way to read the text and reach his explained method.
At minimum, there needs to be an extra sentence or two explaining that you take each hit, group up all the damages & buffs of matching types into one instance per type, then resolve the weakness/resistance of that one hit/smack/etc.
The only way tables seem to know Mark's method is by learning about it from others, or blind guessing.
Because without that extra instruction, you are either popping X # of fire weaknesses in a single swing due to stacked bits of fire dmg (each effect is it's own instance), or you consider each single hit as an instance and only pop once. That "yes, but also no" method from the dev just does not exist in the text.
Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All.
It states that resistance is applied in the same way as weaknesses with only the highest resistance being used. With the exception of Resist All which is called out at the end as a possible ability, the section on resistance does not provide any example or subsequent text to support the statement that you would apply both fire and slashing.
With regards to Mark's quote the main problem with using that is that the rules text has been changed for the remaster.
The text has changed to:
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 text has now specifically changed to included traits in the rule. If we take the flaming longsword again, the damage types are slashing and fire as the fire component has a trait (Fire) the sentence applies. The example which also points towards the flaming long sword only effecting the highest weakness was also added after the remaster and as a result there is now additional text supporting a different interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
However, giving this some more thought I think my initial statement about Thaumaturges specifically is incorrect in most cases.
As Personal antithesis has no trait, damage type, or material type; I think you can also make a good claim that the multiple weakness rule doesn't apply to it.
Mortal Weakness is also similar. That ability too doesn't add traits to the attack so unless your triggering the same weakness (Attacking a werewolf with a silver weapon and using Mortal Weakness) again a good argument can be made that the highest weakness only rule doesn't apply here either.
Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All.
It states that resistance is applied in the same way as weaknesses with only the highest resistance being used. With the exception of Resist All which is called out at the end as a possible ability, the section on resistance does not provide any example or subsequent text to support the statement that you would apply both fire and slashing.
With regards to Mark's quote the main problem with using that is that the rules text has been changed for the remaster.
The text has changed to:
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 text has now specifically changed to included traits in the rule. If we take the flaming longsword again, the damage types are slashing and fire as the fire component has a trait (Fire) the sentence applies. The example which also points towards the flaming long sword only effecting the highest weakness was also added after the remaster and as a result there is now additional text supporting a different interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
However, giving this some more thought I think my initial statement about Thaumaturges specifically is incorrect in most cases.
As Personal antithesis has no trait, damage type, or material type; I think you can also make a good claim that the multiple weakness rule doesn't apply to it.Mortal Weakness is also similar. That ability too doesn't add traits to the attack so unless your triggering the same weakness (Attacking a werewolf with a silver weapon and using Mortal Weakness) again a good argument can be made that the highest weakness only rule doesn't apply here either.
the trait part they are talking about are for example holy from champion and follow the same rules as a weapon material. the swords damage would be holy and slashing and therefor only activate one of holy or slashing weakness/ressistance,
i do not believe the change is anything more then a clarification for cases like that.a flaming sword would deal slashing + fire damage, not slashing fire damage so the special rule segment would not apply and the normal resistance rule would be applied, (ie: "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")
My take is that it is all a single instance of damage, but is treated as multiple instances when checked against resistances.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.
I think what they're saying in that example is that there is a difference between an attack that does two different types of damage, and an attack that does one type of damage that also happens to have a material or trait.
Slashing and fire damage are two separate damage types. You can say "that d8 was slashing and that d6 was fire". Slashing cold iron you can't split like that, you can't say what part of the cold iron sword hit was slashing and what part was cold iron.
The example talks about how a single instance of damage "usually only" touches multiple weaknesses in the case of a type+material or type+trait. Because of the "usually only", you can infer that an attack with two separate types is a different story, with separate damage instances that both really trigger a weakness (or get held up by resistance).
The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies.The issue at the heart of this is "What is an instance of damage". You seem to be thinking that the fire damage is the same instance of damage as the slashing, but I don't think that holds up.
I think what they're saying in that example is that there is a difference between an attack that does two different types of damage, and an attack that does one type of damage that also happens to have a material or trait.
Slashing and fire damage are two separate damage types. You can say "that d8 was slashing and that d6 was fire". Slashing cold iron you can't split like that, you can't say what part of the cold iron sword hit was slashing and what part was cold iron.
The example talks about how a single instance of damage "usually only" touches multiple weaknesses in the case of a type+material or type+trait. Because of the "usually only", you can infer that an attack with two separate types is a different story, with separate damage instances that both really trigger a weakness (or get held up by resistance).
Exactly could not have said it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do not match up on each other, or even give a clear answer behind what an "instance of damage" is, so it's really up to interpretation, and there are two common ones that I've noticed throughout the messageboards. The first is "source = instance", where a given effect providing a damage value counts as an instance of damage, and the second is "activity = instance," where a given action, reaction, environmental effect, etc. causing damage counts as the instance of damage.
To me, though, it makes the most sense that "activity = instance" is the correct interpretation, as the damage comes from a given activity or response (in case of a reaction-based instance of damage), and this is both the simplest as well as the most balanced. For example, if I make a Strike against an enemy with a sword, that is one instance of damage. Then, if I make a Strike against an enemy with a flaming sword, that is still one instance of damage, as the thing that is causing the instance of damage is the Strike action, citing my sources for where the damage values and types are coming from. Adding more riders onto a similar subject (such as if the sword was left in an open flame for a round, then was enhanced with Blazing Armory, while having a Flaming rune on it) would still make it one instance of damage, because all of that damage is tied to the Strike you made. Also, each time you hit with a Strike is a time you roll (and consequently apply) damage, meaning that basic definition would count as an "instance of damage" as well. Just because you have multiple sources of damage combining into one Strike, the point being is that if you were to miss, then there would be no instance of damage taking place, further reinforcing the idea of "activity = instance" being the correct interpretation. After all, even walking into a Wall of Fire still counts as an activity, with the Wall of Fire being the source of damage being used.
And before we get into the "What about actions that have multiple Strikes/damaging effects within itself?" That is where it gets more tricky, because it isn't always the case that you must spend actions to get instances of damage. For example, Flurry of Blows (and by proxy, Twin Takedown, Double Slice, et. al.) specify that you "combine the damage before applying resistances, weaknesses, and the like," implying that this clause designates that these count as a singular instance of damage, meaning that if you were to have two hits for those given actions, the damage type only applies once. Meaning that if you have a multi-attack ability that doesn't have such a clause, each hit counts as a separate instance of damage. Similarly, if you travel through a Wall of Fire multiple times in the same turn, you will suffer that Fire damage each time (with a save of course), and you will apply your Resistances to each "instance of damage" that creates.
Now, the biggest point of confusion comes from the rules for Resistances and Weaknesses, since Resistances specify they apply to every "instance of damage" that they are given. If we took this rule and applied it to each applicable source, it would make having Resistance to that kind of effect overpowered, not unlike Resist All being able to curtail every damage type by the set value. However, if we go with the "activity = instance" interpretation instead of the "source = instance" interpretation, that means that if I am doing 2D6+1D4 Fire damage from a Strike, which has 3 different sources of Fire damage (one from rune, one from spell, one from environment), the Resistance applies to that total damage, not to each separate source, meaning if I did an average of 9 damage, but have Resistance 5 to Fire, it reduces the value to 4, not to -6, since it seems like you are applying the Resistance value multiple times to the same instance. This would also make Resist All even more broken than what it is, because now you're applying that value to every source of damage, and not every type of damage that activity possesses, and since Resistances go based off of type, and not source, it makes the most sense that "activity = instance" is the correct interpretation.