Can someone explain to me where in the Damage Rules it explains where multiple weaknesses can not be trigger if you deal multiple types of damage? As far ashow i read "Instant of Damage" is that ever damage is it's own Instant meaning you need to go through
Here you go. Weakness
The last two sentences of paragraph 2 seem to be what you are looking for,
We would need to look up damage instances, to better understand how the game is defining it, but I think NorrKnekten might be correct.
The example given is a cold iron axe (which deals slashing damage) hitting a creature with weakness to cold iron and slashing. That axe dealing damage is only one instance of damage, and thus only activates the greater of the weakness to cold iron or slashing, you don't get both on a single damage instance.
What's slightly unclear to me at this time, is if you have the same axe with fire damage rune on vs a creature with weakness to slashing (5), cold iron (10), and fire (6).
I think the axe's physical damage counts as one damage instance, and the fire counts as a separate instance (but I'm not 100%).
Thus the axe should deal an extra 10 damage for cold iron weakness and an extra 6 for fire damage weakness.
Wasn't there a part of the Damage Rules where each different Damage Type is it's own check/Go through the steps of Damage Rolls again? I know this is a thing but I can not find the rules for it and i know they use to exist unless I am going insane which I could be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, there isn't a formal definition of "instance of damage", in the book.
There is the symmetry with resistance, and Resist All showing that each damage type is addressed separately.
And there was this confirmation way back in the PF2 playtest that weaknesses really work that way. The playtest was working with the same rule as the release for this, specifically, so I still consider it valid.
So for the original question
Can someone explain to me where in the Damage Rules it explains where multiple weaknesses can not be trigger if you deal multiple types of damage? As far ashow i read "Instant of Damage" is that ever damage is it's own Instant meaning you need to go through
The answer is simply "they don't say that, and it's been confirmed that they don't mean that since before day 1".
There are edge cases that are unclear, because of the lack of a formal definition of "instance of damage". And I'd like for that to be cleared up. But this isn't one of them.
|
It would make sense if we are talking about multiple types of damage, like a lot of Tree creatures are weak to both axes and fire, so if you use a battle axe with a flaming rune, they would be weak to BOTH the slashing damage of the battle axe and the fire damage of the flaming rune. I think the provision is to prevent them from taking DOUBLE weakness to the fire damage of the Flaming Battle axe. Eg: the weapon normally deals 1d8+strength Slashing and 1d6 Fire,and the weakness in both cases is 5, they would take 1d8+5+strength slashing and 1d6+5 Fire, not 1d8+5+strength slashing and 1d6+5+5 fire.
Wait so why would Weakness only trigger once? IF Resist all effects reach damage type then wouldn't Slashing 10 and Fire 5 Weakness trigger both from the Fire Rune Greataxe mentioned above? For an additional 15 damage, that seems odd that if you had Resist 10 all you would negate any damage rune because 10 is greater then 6 and then this also makes Elemental Instinct (Assuming Fire/Energy Damage) Barbarian weaker because your Rage damage is now reduced by 10 as well as your normal physical attack by 20 instead of just 10 if it was all one damage type. this doesn't sound right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as was pointed out in that old thread, Mark's conclusion does not match the written rules. In order to get the behavior he describes, there are one or two "missing steps" that do not exist in the RaW.
Imo, the "community norm," which is mostly due to Foundry running it w/ that old thread's stated output, does not match RaW. Imo, it's written so that each swing is one "instance" and should only apply the single highest weakness/resistance.
This is especially obvious with "combine these hits for sake of weakness/ resistance" actions like Flurry of Blows. The procedure for getting to "community norm" of both separating & combining by type is some serious nonsense in the "each type is its own instance" ruling.
.
As brief as I can, aside from the wording of the Flurry-style abilities, the main evidence against that ruling is weak/resist all text, which specifically say that you apply that for every damage type in the swing.
But in the "norm" ruling, you already do that.
.
You have to decide if you really want to go against the grain on this issue. Imo the unused "each swing is an instance" version is also better in terms of game design / consequences upon the system, but the "every type is an instance" ruling is very deeply ingrained in the community. And if you use Foundry, I straight up say it's not worth whatever effort would be required to alter that code.
In play, this ruling most seriously effects martials once elemental runes come online. There are a lot of opponents with wide swaths of resistance (but not resist all), and they get hella screwed by all the resistance stacking.
Even the Monk, who first has to get abnormally lucky to hit both Flurry hits, and even then, it rare for a 2d6 element to overcome 10 resist or meaningfully contribute.
I do not want to downplay that this actually does make a big difference. Basically any encounter with some uncommon crystal adjacent foes is much harder than written, as the multi-resistance stacking will cut martial hits down to way less than half their normal damage.
Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
I imagine it wouldn't come up enough to matter much even if it did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
Conversely does a fight drag out far too long when resistance is applied to each damage type individually?
Perhaps, but we know that to be the actual rule in the case of resist all.
I think for parity's sake, weakness should be applied in the same manner, with an exception where the same "damage instance" could have multiple weaknesses apply, you only apply the higher. Such as the cold iron (axe) example with a creature weak to cold iron and slashing damage.
I imagine it wouldn't come up enough to matter much even if it did.Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
And that's probably the biggest thing honestly.
The frequency that this comes up has got to be small. How many monster have multiple weaknesses/resistance that the party is also trying to avoid or capable of taking advantage of? I doubt it's often.
So if you have weakness to water, and are in constant contact with water (such as when being forcefully held under water), what is the frequency in which the damage takes effect?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incomplete envisioning detected.
"Instance of damage" not fully defined.
This causes anomalies in reality, primarily regarding weakness and resistance to damage types when an atomic action or ability deals multiple types of damage or multiple quantities of the same type of damage. The envisioning is unclear if the multiple damage types or multiple quantities are separate instances of damage or one single instance of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you have weakness to water, and are in constant contact with water (such as when being forcefully held under water), what is the frequency in which the damage takes effect?
Probably once per round.
But as a GM, if a creature had a weakness to water and was being forcefully completely submerged I would still apply damage once per round, but would likely increase the amount of damage.
Hmm if a living wildfire is submerged in water somehow I might give the players an insta kill, que explosion.
It would kind of be like putting a zombie through a meatgrinder, its not about damage numbers anymore its just applying a sensible outcome.
I mean how would you decide what happens in situations like this?
|
|
But creatures wouldn't have a weakness to "WATER" they would have a weakness to water EFFECTS. so if a weapon or spell or hazard has the water trait and applies damage that's when they take it. But Bluemagetim has the better point on the creature made of fire getting submerged.
So, I don't have rules to back this up, but this is my opinion and how I would rule it.
Each damage type triggers weakness. Simply because I think that would feel more awesome to the players. Resistance is applied Once per attack. For the same reason. This goes both directions and is true for enemies too. I don't have balance numbers to justify this and I recognize it is lop sided, but I think in the moment when this does rarely come up this would feel better to everyone involved.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
There's a mythic ability that gives "Weakness All 20". Treating that the same way as resist all where it applies to everything, a Flaming Corrosive Thundering Sword will get an extra 80 damage per hit.
That's obviously an extreme case, but it's an ability that explicitly exists and it will cause anything hit by it to absolutely melt. In fact there was a post on these forums where that happened to Treerazor.
With that ability, it's pretty clearly making things die too fast.
That said - IMO weakness should work the same way as resistance because it makes the rules easier to understand and apply if they're consistent. And you can do that, so long as there's some thought put into creature design and ability design such that you don't get situations where there's 4 separate weaknesses to trigger simultaneously.
The whole problem here is I don't think anyone can say with absolute certainty just how this is supposed to work in these more complicated scenario... but if it works this way, Weakness All just shouldn't exist.
(This whole "instance of damage" thing and how multiple weaknesses/resists interact is one of the most consistently confusing parts of the system and Paizo's adamant refusal to release a couple of complex examples showing what is supposed to happen is frustrating as hell.)
It is correct that instance is undefined.
When dealing with an undefined gap, a common approach is to work to fill that gap with a function / answer that most smoothly integrates with the system, one that causes the minimal number of secondary issues/questions. The more complex it is, the worse; the simpler, the better.
.
If you use "one type is an instance" then you have rules that are nonsense RaW, and need to invent yet more rules to make the primary rule function.
Chiefly, that the rule doesn't work in a system where you can have multiple sources of the same damage type.
In pf2, you can get many *different* buffs that inflict the same type of bonus damage. Every Alchemist in a game post- L8 can pass out Energy Mutagens for another puff that matches elemental runes.
.
Does a strike with 3 different fire damage buffs proc weak/res only once? Only some buffs combine, but not others? What determines exactly which fire buffs should get "grouped" with other fire damage for only a single "pop" of weak/res?
If the spell effect is a "secondary" puff of fire damage that only happens in reaction to the swing, that's allowed to proc weakness a 2nd time? (the Flame Wisp spell's main function) So even in the "one per type," it really comes down to "one per swing" / impact anyways.
Imo, the inability to escape the "one per impact" determining factor *inside of* the "one per type" ruling shows that "one per type" is the inferior choice that should be retired.
.
Players triggering multiple weaknesses almost never happens (in part because of the specific prevention already in the text, the type + material, etc weaknesses), but triggering multiple foe resistances is pretty common.
To be clear, interpreting the text is done separate from balance / power determinations, but the "one per type" ruling genuinely puts PCs at a disadvantage, which matters to a lot of tables. I've seen a lot of people presume it would be a nerf to change to "one per impact" but it really would be the opposite.
.
To repeat, "one per type" has to invent a set of nonexistent secondary rules/procedures out of thin air to handle arbitrary damage grouping, where "one per impact" does not.
"One impact is an instance" is imo the ruling that better matches the system's math, is simpler to run, and is easier to understand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To repeat, "one per type" has to invent a set of nonexistent secondary rules/procedures out of thin air to handle arbitrary damage grouping, where "one per impact" does not.
"One impact is an instance" is imo the ruling that better matches the system's math, is simpler to run, and is easier to understand.
Of course, "one impact is an instance" means that Resist All explicitly works differently than everything else because Resist All is actually defined in that it applies to all types of damage on a given attack and thus happens multiple times on "one impact".
So now you have this exception, and the situation that goes along with it where a Flaming Slashing weapon behaves differently against a foe with "Resist All 5" than it does against one with "Resist Slashing 5, Resist Fire 5" despite being effectively the same thing as every damage type mentioned in the attack is mentioned in both resistance lists.
That oddity goes away if you treat it in the other direction where each type of damage is an instance: all the fire damage gets lumped together, all the slashing damage gets lumped together, and you apply each one. Now resist all and multiple resists work exactly the same way and you have a simpler implementation. This does require making the assumption that two different sources of fire damage combine into a single "instance", but I don't mind making that assumption to get consistent outcomes.
For consistency, I like to apply weakness the same way, and until Prophesized Monarch came along that generally worked pretty well.
Is it what's intended by the rules? No idea. But it works, it's easy to explain to someone new at a convention game, and its how Foundry does it so if I want all that sweet automation I'm going to go along with it. :)
Ultimately there's never going to be a decisive outcome on this until Paizo actually gives us one, which they seem unwilling to do.
It makes perfect sense for the rules to explain when resist/weak all has a different mechanical outcome lol.
That is only further evidence that such "multiple proc" behavior should *not* be possible in normal resist/weaknesses, because that behavior is an exception that gets its own explanation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically any encounter with some uncommon crystal adjacent foes is much harder than written
I don't really think you can call it 'harder than written' when it's how the game is designed per every piece of evidence we have.
You can say your version of the game makes resistance less dangerous to these types of builds, but that's different.
Basically any encounter with some uncommon crystal adjacent foes is much harder than writtenI don't really think you can call it 'harder than written' when it's how the game is designed per every piece of evidence we have.
You can say your version of the game makes resistance less dangerous to these types of builds, but that's different.
I mean 'harder than written' as in likely intended for AP design.
The most recent example fresh on my mind is a random d20 encounter roll vs 4 crystalline foes with both phy and energy resistances. It was a total slog that seemed "much harder than was written" in regard to the intended fight difficulty.
We even had sonic to proc weakness thanks to Quick Bomber Thunderstones, but not very many.
And I'll repeat that the issue was the multi-proc resistances completely dumpster-ing the martial damage due to their 3d6 of non-matching energy runes getting nullified, on top of the phys res cutting their 3d_ + __ in roughly half.
Proccing resistances four times in every hit absolutely screws with the encounter balance.
That was not a fun fight, even when I was the Alchemist who *could* snipe the weakness.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
Conversely does a fight drag out far too long when resistance is applied to each damage type individually?
Perhaps, but we know that to be the actual rule in the case of resist all.
I think for parity's sake, weakness should be applied in the same manner, with an exception where the same "damage instance" could have multiple weaknesses apply, you only apply the higher. Such as the cold iron (axe) example with a creature weak to cold iron and slashing damage.
I imagine it wouldn't come up enough to matter much even if it did.Better questions would be does a fight end far to fast if you apply each weakness as extra damage?
And that's probably the biggest thing honestly.
The frequency that this comes up has got to be small. How many monster have multiple weaknesses/resistance that the party is also trying to avoid or capable of taking advantage of? I doubt it's often.
More often if you have a Thaumaturge (or someone else with an ability that creates a weakness).
Imo, it's blatantly more of a hassle to do the "once per type" due to it adding yet more asterisks the "once per impact" lacks.
I don't know why this is specific point is even being argued. A ruleset that requires fewer questions/answers is outright simpler to run, there's no real opinion there.
A hit happens: is weakness / resistance activated?
Yes --> multiple weaknesses are proced --> no, don't get 2x fire, only once per type per impact --> no, don't get the silver dmg because that was same impact as fire --> end: 1 fire weakness pop.
vs
Yes --> multiple weaknesses are proced --> single highest in the impact --> end: 1 fire weakness pop.
.
Again, the number of "steps" is just shorter when you don't need to distinguish type from material/special.
Because the "once per type" is in truth "once per type per impact" anyways, there's not even an apples vs oranges trade on which questions may be smoother.
It's just outright fewer.
In a procedure like this, you still have to ask the questions with "no" answers every time.
"By type" adds extra questions around grouping and materials, etc, that "by impact" does not have.
.
And you are inventing false claims about my statements, it makes no sense to reduce slashing dmg because of a fire resistance.
"largest single resistance" means to take the largest effect against that impact, not the biggest "on paper number".
.
5 fire res on a 1 fire + _ slashing damage impact is not "-5 final dmg" that's nonsense.
It's -1 fire damage.
If that -1 was a smaller number than a simultaneous "3 res to physical" then the 5 fire resist would be ignored in favor of the 3 phys resist.
The idea is more described as "single highest weakness | resistance to that impact of damage;" think of each impact / swing as a fused whole. Imo this is understanding / approach to weak/resistance is *why* the text uses the "instance of damage" wording to begin with.
Your mind frame is very deeply in the "each type of dmg in a swing is a separate chunk" presumption.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feel like peopel stop reading half way
they prob have not updated it since to them everything is there.
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.
you cant stop reading here, you need to go to Weakness and read the rest.
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 only way for this rules to even matter is Material and/or Holy/Unholy attacks.
Since they use natural language and the usage of the word "usually only" make its oblivious that this is something rare and not something that would occur with virtually all runes and class features that add damage to a strike.
so only the truly "overlapping" damage types (as the example showed) slashing cold iron cares about that rule, everything else that is just added damage of a singular type is just added damage
So a [1d12 slashing] + [1d6 fire] + [1d6 cold] + [1d6 acid] + [2d6 precision]
that dont have Holy, Unholy, or a material type would trigger all the listed Resistances and weaknesses
atleast i dont need to do any mental gymnastics to understand what they wrote and came to the same conclusion as both Foundry and the developers.
Nailed it.
Feel like peopel stop reading half way
they prob have not updated it since to them everything is there.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.you cant stop reading here, you need to go to Weakness and read the rest.
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 only way for this rules to even matter is Material and/or Holy/Unholy attacks.
Since they use natural language and the usage of the word "usually only" make its oblivious that this is something rare and not something that would occur with virtually all runes and class features that add damage to a strike.
so only the truly "overlapping" damage types (as the example showed) slashing cold iron cares about that rule, everything else that is just added damage of a singular type is just added damage
So a [1d12 slashing] + [1d6 fire] + [1d6 cold] + [1d6 acid] + [2d6 precision]
that dont have Holy, Unholy, or a material type would trigger all the listed Resistances and weaknessesatleast i dont need to do any mental gymnastics to understand what they wrote and came to the same conclusion as both Foundry and the developers.
If I'm interpreting your statement correctly, you seem to agree with my general view which is that each "type" of damage is it's own instance.
Apply resistance and weakness to each type as appropriate.