| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two related rules concerns that the community needs official guidance from Paizo to resolve. Both of these rules are ran differently at various tables, and the community cannot agree on the RAI since Player Core contradicts itself on Page 408.
Rule concern 1) Please define the phrase "instance of damage."
This phrase is only used two times, both times on Page 408, once under Weaknesses and once under Resistances. Unfortunately, Paizo has never defined this phrase. The two interpretations that the community uses for Instance of Damage are:
Definition A) A single strike/spell/ability that deals damage deals a single instance of damage. (i.e. a Flaming Longsword that deals 1d8 Slashing + 1d6 Fire is ONE instance)
Definition B) Each damage type dealt by a strike/spell/ability (i.e. a Flaming Longsword that deals 1d8 Slashing + 1d6 Fire is TWO instances)
For normal cases, everyone typically uses definition A, resulting in Weakness/Resistance only being applied one time per strike/spell/ability. The community (and PFS tables) become split when Holy/Unholy traits are brought into the equation, which leads us to the main contradictions we need Errata for.
Rule Concern 2A) How Weakness to Holy/Unholy is calculated against multiple damage types.
Consider a demon with the Unholy trait has a Claws Strike that deals Slashing + Spirit + Poison damage. The demon attacks a PC with Weakness 5 to Unholy. The relevant rule from page 408 says "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".
Weakness 5 to Unholy is ONE weakness, not "more than one weakness," so technically that rule doesn't even apply. Assuming is does apply though, we need a definition for "Instance of Damage" (See A or B above) to rule how to apply the Unholy Weakness; should it apply one time to the whole Strike, or three times - once for each damage type within the Strike?
The ruling I see most often for the Holy/Unholy Weakness is Definition A. However, the community primarily uses Definition B when dealing with Holy/Unholy Resistances!
Rule Concern 2B) How Resistance to Holy/Unholy is calculated against multiple damage types.
Consider the same Claws strike from the demon described above, hitting a PC with Resistance 5 to Unholy. There are two relevant, contradictory rules under Resistances on page 408, each one lending itself to a different definition of "instance."
The first rule supports Definition B of "instance": "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)." In this scenario, the Resistance 5 to Unholy would apply separately to all three damage types the demon deals. This is the same way that "Resistance to All" damage works.
Rule 2 supports Definition A of "instance": "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." In this scenario, the Resistance 5 to Unholy would only apply one time to the strike.
From what I can tell, the majority of the community uses the Rule 1 / Definition B interpretation for Resistance to Unholy, but uses the Definition A interpretation for Weakness to Unholy.
To fix these rule contradictions, we need errata the defines what an "instance" of damage is (Definition A or Definition B), and reiterates how the Holy/Unholy traits should apply.
Thank you for you time and consideration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite obviously definition A. Another rule that would be impacted (to ridiculous degree) by definition B being true is dying. If you're dying 1 and you get hit by a flaming shocking sword that would be 3 instances and bring you to dying 4 (or dying 7 if it was a crit). Who is seriously arguing for definition B? It seems ridiculous.
I agree definition A should be used across the board, but from what I've seen in online discussions, Definition B is favored for Resistances when Holy/Unholy is applied.
Foundry VTT uses this interpretation as well. Here is an image that shows how Foundry applies Definition A for Unholy Weakness and Definition B for Unholy Resistance. Anecdotally, from playing with different groups and participating in online discussions on the topic, this seems to be the most widely applied ruling. I found a GitHub ticket from two years ago that was opened for a PF2e Foundry rule change, but it was closed and disregarded in favor of Definition B.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule concern 1) Please define the phrase "instance of damage."
Bwahahaha! Best of luck with that. I've been asking for that for literally years.
I think they painted themselves into a corner on it. There isn't a consistent definition that can possibly be created that will work 'as intended' in all cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had it confirmed all the way back in the PF2 playtest that "Definition A" is not correct. And those specific rules didn't change in the release.
The lack of a formal definition DOES cause ambiguities and unaddressed edge cases (and there's a reason this has been one of the most frequently asked questions that Paizo has refused to answer for the last six years), but the different damage types on a Strike being different instances is one part that we do know for sure.
Traits like Holy/Unholy on a Strike (not on a specific damage type) and thaumaturge's Personal Antithesis are some of the most frequent offenders for the lack of a definition to cause issues, but stating that a whole Strike is obviously one instance is basically the only thing that we DO know is wrong.
I thought (maybe because of the clarifications Hammerjack references that it was not A) and have operated that sets of damage with different traits were different instances. But instances of damage could occur at the same time, which is why I wouldn't have taken the approach that taking damage while dying would count as two or three from one source. Different instances are ways of sub-counting your damage, which in the end gets added up after dealing with the appropriate modifiers to it.
So a creature with Resistance: Slashing 5, Fire 5; Weakness: Bludgeoning 5, Holy 5 would have the following happen:
When struck by a flaming longsword for 8hp damage, and 6 fire damage, would take a total of (8-5) + (6-5) or total of 4 HP of damage. After which if they are struck by a Holy Mace for 4hp from the mace with 5hp of holy spirit damage would take a total of (4+5) + (5+5) or 19hp damage. If the holy mace only made the weapon damage holy, not adding a block of spirit damage that was holy, it would have meant they would only take 9hp of damage (losing the5 hp spirit damage from the other instance, and losing the weakness the other instance triggered).
Things like double-slice have you combine damage for purposes of damage instance (affecting weakness and resistance to have them affected collectively) Now, I have to admit, I hadn't considered what would happen if you double-sliced with the flame sword, does that combine both instances within that one weapon, or would it only merge similar type weapons (physical to physical). That does bring up questions I hadn't considered.
But for me I wasn't handling holy differently than other types of damage.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm fairly sure that a creature with the Unholy trait doesn't automatically pass that trait on to its attacks. (Can't find anything in a quick search that says it does.)
There is nothing automatic about the trait passing on, no. It needs to be a specific ability, like how Sanctified Champions apply their Sanctification to their Strikes.
Me everytime someone walks through more than one square of hazardous terrain: is each square an instance of damage, or is one move action through an arbitrarily large number of squares one instance? (I know it's the latter, and why, but I don't feel it's for a good, principled reason.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had it confirmed all the way back in the PF2 playtest that "Definition A" is not correct. And those specific rules didn't change in the release.
...
And we had folk even back at that time politely tell Mark that the rules do NOT match with his explained procedure, and that, at minimum, there is a missing instruction or two. You literally cannot follow the RaW to get to his method without extra rules on what does get chunked into the same "instance" bucket, and what is put into a separate instance of damage.
________________
This issue of "A was right all along" is further unavoidable when it comes to Alchemist bombs.
After the remaster, Bomber is able to freely select energy type and include metal flakes for targeting weaknesses.
This is a single bomb throw, no runes. This is rather unavoidably all "one instance" of damage, and therefore only the highest weakness should trigger, not both a metal and energy.
Except, if we actually avoid double-think / hypocrisy, it's not so simple. The flaming silver longsword example pretends that the rune's fire being bonus damage is why it's a separate instance from the Strike it's directly empowering.
For that to truly be a "separate instance," then all bonus damage has to be a separate instance.
Meaning, the Alch feat for Expanded Splash, which explicitly adds bonus status damage to the splash, would now trigger weakness independent of the rest of the bomb; it's bonus damage, same qualification as a rune. But we all know that's arbitrary bullshit, and that bonus damage to a Strike is definitionally adding damage into that Strike's "instance" of damage.
________________
The "different instance, so double pop weakness" elemental rune was never legit, even back then. Devs can misspeak, or houserule their own way.
Folks just shut down their brains upon hearing a word of dev response, and didn't question it enough at the time.
I'm happy to see that the community is coming around these days.
(And no, Foundry is not an excuse. It'll allow double weakness/resistances to proc even with that single bomb example.)
Wait so resistence is applying multiple times in the image? I am confused because as far as I know weakness 5 unholy with a 2 on the 1d6 spirit damage becomes 2 unholy damage which you add 5 weakness is now 7 but the resistance 5 unholy in the example should be only -2 not -11... That would make resistance grossly overpowered, meaning the 17 should be 15 damage not only 6...Since only the Spirit Damage becomes Unholy, right?
Where is this rule for sanctified Spirit Damage becoming Holy/Unholy?
Dude, you are inventing a rule out of thin air.
There is no rule that says to "instance silo" certain kinds of weakness from any other. There is no text saying that non-damage weaknesses are put into a different instance. It just says that contact procs those kinds of weakness. That's it. It's required instruction, because otherwise those weaknesses would have no way to activate, as "water damage" does not exist.
The only time the text discusses a specific kind of weakness to treat differently is resist/weakness all, which does mean you apply the resist/weakness to each type separately.
Water could essentially trigger both blunt weakness and water weakness.
You are doing so many backflips to justify the old word of dev that you are directly contradicting the text's instruction.
If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value.
Most of the time, non-energy type contact weaknesses are still triggered via attacks or damaging effects. Such as a water blast spell triggering both weakness to cold & water at the same time.
In that circumstance, both do activate, but you still hit the "only the highest" rule, and you do NOT double up on weakness damage. Those sentences are directly next to each other, ffs.
The rules make no exception for contact weaknesses, so none exists.
I am still confused by this thread. So, does resistance still apply multiple times somehow?
We had it confirmed all the way back in the PF2 playtest that "Definition A" is not correct. And those specific rules didn't change in the release.
...
And we had folk even back at that time politely tell Mark that the rules do NOT match with his explained procedure, and that, at minimum, there is a missing instruction or two. You literally cannot follow the RaW to get to his method without extra rules on what does get chunked into the same "instance" bucket, and what is put into a separate instance of damage.
________________
This issue of "A was right all along" is further unavoidable when it comes to Alchemist bombs.
After the remaster, Bomber is able to freely select energy type and include metal flakes for targeting weaknesses.This is a single bomb throw, no runes. This is rather unavoidably all "one instance" of damage, and therefore only the highest weakness should trigger, not both a metal and energy.
Except, if we actually avoid double-think / hypocrisy, it's not so simple. The flaming silver longsword example pretends that the rune's fire being bonus damage is why it's a separate instance from the Strike it's directly empowering.
For that to truly be a "separate instance," then all bonus damage has to be a separate instance.Meaning, the Alch feat for Expanded Splash, which explicitly adds bonus status damage to the splash, would now trigger weakness independent of the rest of the bomb; it's bonus damage, same qualification as a rune. But we all know that's arbitrary b!&~@#&*, and that bonus damage to a Strike is definitionally adding damage into that Strike's "instance" of damage.
________________
The "different instance, so double pop weakness" elemental rune was never legit, even back then. Devs can misspeak, or houserule their own way.
Folks just shut down their brains upon hearing a word of dev response, and didn't question it...
Almost none of this is correct
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still confused by this thread. So, does resistance still apply multiple times somehow?
Foundry does stack them by default.
In an AP, the party got ambushed by a mob of foes that dealt hybrid piercing and cold damage.
Everyone else but me had, and activated, their flight during that opening turn.
I instead drank something for phys resist, and already had a cold resist charm on.
It was absurd. I was literally surrounded, with a 9nth foe unable to get into melee with me because it did not have reach. I got grabbed, tripped, and bit many, many times.
They could not properly damage me, and would barely break through the numbing tonic each turn.
Stacking resistances is very easy for players to do, and it really should never be allowed. It genuinely does break the game's math.
Especially considering pf2 has items that grant "resistance to attacks by demons" which would be completely dumb if allowed to stack.
I still think resistance triggering more then once depending on source is the "Too Good To Be True" because I feel like this should be the same at weaknesses. If you got weakness 10 fire and weakness 5 slashing and you do 1d8 Slashing and 1d6 Fire you should trigger both weaknesses but if the creature has resistance 10 slashing and resistance 5 Fire and you deal 1d8 slashing + 1d6 Fire you have a chance, a very large chance to deal 0 damage which feels wrong to me but eh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the biggest problem is that different people won't even agree on what the intended result is in some cases.
Take the example of a Magus with a shortsword who casts Runic Impression to get a Flaming rune on it, drinks an Energy Mutagen (fire), and casts Flame Wisp - then makes a successful attack with that weapon.
So we have:
slashing damage from the sword itself.
Fire damage with the magical trait from the Flaming rune.
Fire damage without the magical trait from the alchemical mutagen.
Fire damage with the magical trait from the Flame Wisp spell effect.
How much of that should be the same instance of damage?
* All of it is one instance of damage?
* Two instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage and one instance of fire damage?
* Two instances of damage: one instance of slashing and fire damage from the sword, rune, and mutagen, but the Flame Wisp is a separate instance of damage because of its narrative description?
* Three instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage, one instance of magical fire damage, and one instance of non-magical fire damage?
* Three instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage, one instance of fire damage from the rune and mutagen combined, and the Flame Wisp is a separate instance of damage because of its description?
* Four instances of damage: all of those are separate?
At this point I am not even asking about what the rules actually say about it . Because I am well aware that the game rules don't specify any one of those ruling options as being more correct than the others.
What is interesting is how each of those rulings interacts with other rules regarding resistances and weaknesses.
If all of the damage is one instance of damage, then that is a good ruling for a creature with multiple weaknesses - only one of the weaknesses would be triggered. It would similarly be good for an attacker if the target has multiple resistances (but not resist all) because only one of the resistances would take effect.
If each damage type is a separate instance of damage, then that is also good for the target with a fire weakness since only one instance of fire damage is present to trigger weakness with. If it is ruled that those fire damage entries are separate instances, then the same attack will trigger a fire weakness multiple times. And the opposite for a creature with fire resistance - they want the ruling that each of those fire damage line items is a separate instance of damage because then their fire resistance would apply to all of them separately.
Bonus damage adds damage into an existing effect/hit. Very clearly adding damage into the same instance. Great for triggering a weakness at all, but does not allow for multi-popping of weaknesses.
Flame Wisp specifies that a wisp follows after the attack to then impact the target. Its damage was set rather low because it's designed around being a separate instance, and would enable one to double up on a fire weakness.
Flame Wisp is not adding damage onto an existing attack, the spell watches and reacts to hits to then send a wisp that does its own damage. There's really not a way to argue this is bonus damage to the Strike. The spell is designed so that when the hit lands, the wisp is still idling, and only once the hit is completed does the wisp begin to fly.
________________
The line in the sand to look for is if some effect is adding damage onto another existing attack/hit/spell/etc, or if it's generating it's own impact.
Spells like Flame Wisp, where delayed damage is triggered by a Strike, are honestly pretty dang rare.
Instant Minefield may be another point to reference. The spell does split damage, so not allowed to pop both a fire & pierce weakness via a single mine.
But because the mines each create an independent boom triggered by movement, each mine will invoke it's own weakness pop.
If a Large+ creature steps on two at once, it's always up to the GM, but I think it would be fair to let each mine trigger its own weakness despite being chronologically triggered at the same time.
I would consider if multiple weakness are present and a strike has the damage types for more than one, what is the effect on gameplay. Do monsters with multiple weakness have stats and abilities to compensate for interpretation B playing out? If not then maybe interpretation A was intended.
If there is no pattern in how monsters with multiple weaknesses are build then maybe it wasnt planned out the same or properly coordinated by the designers.
I stil think Resistance All is still "To Good To Be True" when it comes to applying multiple times no matter how you look at it possibly. It feels like the Weakness/Resistance rules do not work evenly in both directions which I think feels wrong from a balance point of view. Why can my Resistance 5 (Expect Force) apply to my Flaming Thundering Short-sword three times but If the monster had Weakness 10 sonic, Weakness 5 Fire and Weakness 5 Slashing, it only takes the 10 sonic weakness? How is this even or fair?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stil think Resistance All is still "To Good To Be True" when it comes to applying multiple times no matter how you look at it possibly.
Resist All is the one case that is explicitly defined in the rules. It's not "too good to be true": it's flat out the rule that it applies to every type of damage you take.
It feels like the Weakness/Resistance rules do not work evenly in both directions which I think feels wrong from a balance point of view. Why can my Resistance 5 (Expect Force) apply to my Flaming Thundering Short-sword three times but If the monster had Weakness 10 sonic, Weakness 5 Fire and Weakness 5 Slashing, it only takes the 10 sonic weakness? How is this even or fair?
I mean, maybe it should? The whole problem is that this stuff isn't well defined and no one really knows how it should work when you apply multiple resists (except resist all) or multiple weaknesses. (fun fact: we also don't know for sure what weakness all does, either.)
If we had a FAQ list, "instances of damage and how resistences/weaknesses work with it" would be the #1 question since 2020.
I think it should work the same way because consistency is good in rules. It's easier to understand if they do the same thing and follow the same rules. So how I think it should work:
- If something is resistant to fire and slashing, both resists apply.
- If something is weak to both fire and slashing, both weaknesses apply.
- If you have a trait like Holy being applied, apply that resist/weakness only once to the entire attack (because the outcomes become absurd if you apply Holy weakness four times when someone uses a flaming corrosive shock weapon).
That's consistent with how resist all works and keeps the two functioning roughly the same way. Is it RAW? I have no idea, lol. But it works and players can understand what the outcome is going to be, so that's good enough for me.
IIRC, that's pretty close to what Foundry is doing. "Foundry does it" also doesn't mean it's RAW, but it does mean any table using Foundry with IWR on is getting that implementation, so it's something of a defacto community standard and if you "do what Foundry does", you'll at least get a consistent outcome with a lot of other tables.
Since Paizo is allergic to explaining things, that's kind of the best we have.
Rule concern 1) Please define the phrase "instance of damage."Bwahahaha! Best of luck with that. I've been asking for that for literally years.
I think they painted themselves into a corner on it. There isn't a consistent definition that can possibly be created that will work 'as intended' in all cases.
Yeah it's absurd that they have left this in this state for so long. I think it's a victim of their unwillingness to do anything except issue official errata.
One of the few things PF1 did better than PF2 is that PF1 had a big FAQ that was willing to explain things and give examples without it having to get into a book as errata. That is what this problem needs: concrete examples where Paizo takes a couple of complex scenarios and tells us what the expected outcome is.
I don't know why they refuse to sort stuff like this out, but it's really unhealthy for the game that six years later we still don't actually know how a core mechanic works, let alone that they've abdicated sorting it out to the Foundry team.
I think the whole thing makes more sense if immunities are instance of damage agnostic, by which I mean they apply to damage types not instances of damage and
An instance of damage is the total damage calculated at the end of step 2 that will go into step 3.
With immunities being applied first based on type not concerned with instances.
After what is left from the instance of damage from step 2 is checked for types determined in step 2.
If were following this logic and using the rules on applying multiple weaknesses on pc core page 408 then everything left from step 2 gets increased as a whole by only the highest value of weakness triggered by types and then the highest value resistance triggered by types.
Whats left goes to step 4.
Immunities feel like the odd factor here since they care about the type of damage not the instance of damage as I have assumed in my example.
In which case maybe immunities should have been set up to apply either as its own step or applied as part of step 2
"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."
To me this makes it clear one of the few times you run into this (only apply weakness once) is when you have a different damage type, and some other trait or material affecting the damage. This sounds to me like damage has to be grouped together by like types to interact with weakness and resistance.
To me the line:
"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." is a clarifying example, not an exception.
So if you get hit by a STEAM attack and have weakness to fire and water. Since the damage you take may be FIRE damage which is delivered by water, so it has the water material trait. You have one instance of damage, namely lets say 7hp (fire,water) and so your weakens: water 5, fire 4 would only get effected by weakness 2 because it is one consistent instance with both traits. If they were resistances, you'd have the same effect. Only the 5 would count because it is one common set of damage.
If you bundle all the pieces into one damage, and then apply only the highest triggered resistance, you could have weird things happen like a flame tongue hitting a fire resistant creature for 12hp slashing and 1hp fire damage, and the creature having resist: fire 10 so it only takes 3 hp damage, despite if struck by a non-magical sword, it would have taken 10 damage.
More complicated scenarios can come up where you have resistance cold 4 and resistance piercing 5 and they take 3 cold damage and 2 piercing damage. If you limit it to only the highest (piercing 5) and then decide to say that because you only took 2 piercing damage, you are going to limit the piercing resistance to 2, then you are taking full damage from the cold damage, so maybe then you have to limit the resistances before you find which one is higher, then the cold resistance is higher, and the piercing resistance is irrelevant. Even though it is higher, you end up taking full damage from the piercing damage, and the cold damage is mitigated. Or do you have to take all the instances of damages that can be mitigated, and add them up and that becomes the new max for your highest resistance being applied.
(Well, if we are already treating these different instances, as different instances, why don't we treat them like different instances like the rules say? well that is the Gist of my interpretation and reasoning.)
I'll confess trying to add in the abilities that say to combine damage from multiple attacks together for purposes of weakness and resistance to complicate things, since before thinking it though, I would have without thinking of it might have combined any physical damage together without respect to slashing, piercing or bludgeoning if they were being resisted, irrespective of which they were. But how would I have handled the non-physical damage, and that begins to break down the consistency.
It clearly indicates that damage between the two attacks are to be combined before application of resistance and weakness, but are they all tossed into one giant instance irrespective of type. Or are common types combined? Slashing with slashing, fire with fire, etc. Or are all physical supposed to be combined. I'll confess that becomes less clear after throwing that in the mix. Since it seems likely that double-slice is supposed to let you use two physical weapons to better bypass a physical resistance, likely even if they are two different physical types. But if you allow that, what stops your from combining other damage like fire damage or others traits into the single pool for passing through resistances. It however would make having such an ability worthwhile if it only was using one weapon, yet as far as I know we only have instances of abilities like it showing up that involve multiple weapons.
I started out pretty confident in my answer, but I suppose I can see how it can seem controversial and worthy of clarification.
I do agree, Paizo should not limit their feedback to the 'masses' to only official Errata, but should also insure it provides a FAQ to include clarifications. While often, simply errata applied to rules can solve misconceptions, the reality is that in some cases, without getting too wordy, any set of rules put in print might leave room for misinterpretations, so having published FAQ's clarifying the 'presumed/official' interpretation of the rules (because anyone could homebrew something if they prefer a different take). And this seems like a perfect example of something that would deserve a FAQ. Simply perhaps publishing an example of a multi-part strike's damage getting calculated when it involves more than one damage set, along with extra relevant traits involved.
If they don't want to effectively 'publish' what are seen as rules in the manner, leave such FAQ situations as examples where the 'rules' from the books are shown how they apply. Effectively a publicly available 'sidebar' article like one might see in a book, but one that is put on the website, and added to the front of some errata document as a FAQ. I actually, thought I saw something that was officially answered as a FAQ recently, and was happy with the response, but I can't remember exactly what it was.
This is exactly why my one time of saying "no, it's the [word of dev comment] that is wrong" in pf2 is for this topic, and that forum post.
As you have learned, there literally is no RaW path to get to the cited outcome, it just does not compute.
There are missing steps as to how to get from A to B.
________
The Flurry of ___ style abilities that combine for resist/weakness purposes reveal the common situation in which you would otherwise get multiple weakness pops; multiple swings / impacts.
Those abilities also really crank the "this type-as-instance ruling is insane" up to 11.
If you swing 2 clones of the same attack, combining looks silly, but does not create any new edge cases. Both slashing hits are treated as one bigger slashing hit before weak/resist pops, etc.
But as soon as you think about 2 different weapons of differing types being swung, it gets that much more nasty. If wep L is slash + fire rune, and R is blunt + Acid, wtf do you do vs a foe that's both fire & acid weak?
Does popping the fire weakness with L mean that R's acid cannot pop? There's no RaW procedure for it. If you use the common asspull invention of using dmg types to group "instances," then you cannot combine bonus fire & acid, and it still double-pops weakness. Allowing one swing to pop multiple weaknesses fundamentally does not work.
_____________
It's really, really silly (and exhausting) that you get this endless headache of needing to invent new rules / procedures out of thin air to keep fixing the problems caused by attempting to crowbar the word-of-dev outcome into rules it does not match.
If you simply treat each impact / swing / etc as the "instance" then all these problems vanish. Doesn't matter how many dmg types and special traits a hit pops. You check the numbers, and then use the highest value weakness as extra damage. Done.
If an effect like Flame Wisp is determined to not be bonus damage added into a hit/etc, but happens separately as its own impact, then it's a new instance.
And allll the bullshit special conditions and contradictions vanish. Flurry of Blows adds 0 headache edge cases.
Except it doesn't eliminate all the mess... Because then you have to deal with bonus damage of a new type causing the main damage to be less that if you didn't have the bonus damage. Or you have to start looking at the individual damages, and looking to make sure you don't run the damage of specific types into negative.
Theoretically, you could add up all the 'potentially resisted' damage into one pile, and all non-resisted (nothing tagged could cause resistance) and compare each type of resistible damage to their resistance. That gives you an the adjusted resistance numbers, as if any resistances are higher than the damage done, they get reduced to the damage of that type done. Add up the different values of combinations of damage that qualify, and compare the sum to the largest triggered resistance. Any damages that are smaller than the resistance, the resistance needs to be reduced to the damage done. Then you have to compare all the adjusted resistances.
Then you need to decide, if one component triggers the exception to a resistance, doe it apply to all components? Does hitting a incorporeal creature with a magic weapon, cause the other weapon which is not magical bypassing the higher resistance. Does a spell count as magic for purposes for triggering the reduction of the level pf physical resistance provided? Does hitting a ghost with a weapon that grants Vitality Damage due to a spell on the wielder, cause the whole weapon damage to be considered magic. There are still plenty of questions.
And it makes the question of All even more of an outlier. Depending on how you look at it is All Physical, a resistance to all damage, just limited to Physical damage. The example given for how to handle All damage flies in the face of otherwise doing it this way.
You also point out that things like the wisp damage, like the bonus damage from support benefits of animal companions etc. will all fly in the face of this simplification of just treat it like one instance if it comes from one attack/swing, as other things adjust those damages.
I see why you feel it is simpler, but it would seem like to go with that method they need to get rid of the All damage line from the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are not inventing new rules and just taking what is written at face value then the intended consequence is that situation where two weaknesses only allow the highest. Where 1 fire and 8 slashing hitting 5 fire resist stops 5 damage anyway.
And maybe thats ok.
The specific rules overide the general in some cases.
Resist to all has its own rule listed right after what to do when there are multiple resistances. So I would think its not the way you treat 2 resistances its only the way you treat resistance to all.
Double slice like effects that combine what would normally be two separate instances into one do exactly that.
So if you have a flaming long sword and a frost pick using dual slice you end up with one instance of damage with all the damage types from the two weapon strikes.
Remove any damage types from immunity
Apply the highest numerical value among weaknesses
Apply the highest numerical value among resistances
This is not the only abstraction in the games rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if we are to take it at face value then we need to take the entire paragraph in full.
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 we still end up with the same ambiguity that still hints towards each damage type being its own instance when it is presenting two weaknesses applying to the same "instance" as an exception to the norm, Resistance also just references this paragraph.
Theres a reason to why people kept asking for those clarifications during the playtests when these rules had even more paragraphs and special considerations with how weakness and resistance interacted. So people did take it at face value before those posts were made but couldnt figure out what the correct method was.
This and shieldblock are essentially the two topics of which nobody can agree on because its written in such loose and undefined language.
For all we know, that text could have been written before elemental property runes were created. It is absurd to point at that as evidence of a phantom type-as-instance mechanic.
I'm sorry, but saying the specific wording "hints toward" an entirely non-textual mechanic is just vapid and fanciful. The text is mechanical instruction, there's no "hinting" rules procedures, they are either there or not. This is not a case of rules contradicting itself and needing adjudication, this is outright adding new text that changes the mechanic into a very messy affair.
______________
It's especially silly to claim that it was the text's RaI when we know exactly why folk argue for type-as-instance of dmg, and it's not because of the rules text.
People only point to that "usually only happens" line as 'evidence' because they are working backward from Mark's forum post.
I can promise you that, because no one who reads the rules without contacting the community ever thinks to invent an arbitrary multi-step procedure from thin air.
People only run type-as-instance because they have been told to do so from another source, these days Foundry may be the most common source.
There really is just no way to read the text and think:
"I know, I'll group up the fire rune damage as a different instance from the sword's slashing damage, and that acid, that's it's own 3rd instance. But that Energy Mutagen:fire, that gets combined into that 2nd instance."
_____________________
I'll repeat my own example again, because I've never had a type-as-instance advocate be able to answer that Flurry problem.
Genuinely, wtf do you do when you have two different weapons triggering different weaknesses when they are used in a Flurry? A creature's got both fire/acid weakness. One weapon has fire damage, the other acid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it doesn't eliminate all the mess... Because then you have to deal with bonus damage of a new type causing the main damage to be less that if you didn't have the bonus damage. Or you have to start looking at the individual damages, and looking to make sure you don't run the damage of specific types into negative.
...
It's got a RaW answer, and if you can clear your head and read it fresh, it's right there without ambiguity.
You "use the highest applicable resistance value"
That translates to using whichever resistance reduces the most damage in that moment.
This can mean ignoring the res 10 if that type is only dealing 1 dmg.
Resist 10 vs 1 incoming damage means that only 1 resist is actually being applied.
"Highest applicable" and not highest number. That language is imo well-written instruction.
____________
And type-as-instance only makes adjudicating resistances far worse, if not impossible to do.
If you split a Holy weapon's strike into types-as-instance, wtf do you do when a foe is resistant to the base Holy?
If that procedure is being run without special pleading hypocrisy, then every type-instanced bucket is genuinely a separate instance, and each one gets reduced by the Holy resist independent of each other.
That slash, fire, acid all are Holy, and all get reduced. The only way they don't is if you invent a new rule to prevent that, which is how you know it's nonsense.
The same thing happens when you wear a single Pickled Demon Tongue to get "resistance to attacks by demons"
Any time a demon does damage, you have to subtract that resistance from every type-separated instance. That's what it means to separate them into their own instances.
Type-as-instance genuinely doesn't work yall.
Except if we are to take it at face value then we need to take the entire paragraph in full.
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 we still end up with the same ambiguity that still hints towards each damage type being its own instance when it is presenting two weaknesses applying to the same "instance" as an exception to the norm, Resistance also just references this paragraph.
Theres a reason to why people kept asking for those clarifications during the playtests when these rules had even more paragraphs and special considerations with how weakness and resistance interacted. So people did take it at face value before those posts were made but couldnt figure out what the correct method was.
This and shieldblock are essentially the two topics of which nobody can agree on because its written in such loose and undefined language.
That second line didn't change anything for me.
The first sentence still regulates the how no matter which situations are usual for application.Maybe you can give me an example and I can run it through what I see as the process based on how I am reading the rules.
The example previously said "This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and the material the weapon is made of". it changed the final part to "a given material" in the release.
So if we want to understand the example of "This usually only happens when . . ." we obviously want to know how materials interact here which it already explained to us on the previous page.
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.This is also the only example we get for two weaknesses applying to the same "instance". When a Creature has two weaknesses that apply to the same damage type.
Which again, There's no concrete consensus, official clarification or even wholly agreed upon unambigious RAW(or else this wouldnt be a topic 7 years in the making)
Theres lots of topics that a fresh look can resolve. its just I think that certain outcomes are looked at as not possibly what was intended like the point about 1 fire damage and 8 slashing still losing 5 damage to fire resist of 5.
I dont know I think its just a cost of having a simple way to resolve weaknesses and resistances.As for the materials issue i am not sure it is one. It doesn't seem to me to have any affect on how resistance or weakness is resolved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that procedure is being run without special pleading hypocrisy, then every type-instanced bucket is genuinely a separate instance, and each one gets reduced by the Holy resist independent of each other.
I think one of the reasons you tend to have so much difficulty with the rules is that you like to get away from arguing the actual point of contention and instead create these fanciful edge cases that do not actually exist to debate instead.
Like, nobody does this and there's no RAW or RAI anywhere to suggest you should apply the same resistance ten times to a single attack or whatever. It's not a thing.
When a major component of your rhetoric involves inventing positions that nobody made to argue against, it might be worth reconsidering your approach, because it means you're either building a strawman or fundamentally misunderstanding the entire topic. Neither of these are great things for building understanding of the game.
ISTM that the whole thing is a big old mess, and it needs errata whatever the devs originally intended. Both to confirm what an instance of damage is, and fix the rules that only work with the other definition (of which there appear to be examples in both directions).
I'd rather have some examples instead of errata, because the errata would have to be really long to actually cover every case and they won't do that due to it being impossible to fit into the book's current layout.
But they can much more easily create a FAQ page (or hell, even a blog post using their existing system!) that runs through a couple of complex scenarios and tells us what the expected outcome is and more importantly: show the work of how they got that answer.
Link the blog post on the AoN rules page for IWR and we've got something to work with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly my point.
The Foundry devs have had to invent a rather convoluted and absurd procedure to try to ape Mark's forum post from ages ago when it makes no sense.
(btw, I still have had no one claim to resolve what happens with flurry-combine attacks and mis-matched bonus elementals. )
_______________
Holy runes are L11 btw, so they are easier to get than you might think.
Holy and all the ~"trait" type weaknesses just do not work when each type is made separate instance.
For fiend swarms/hordes/troops, it's even rather easy to shoot a Holy crossbow with splashing elemental ammunition to proc 2 trait weaknesses for holy & splash upon every type bucket instance simultaneously. It makes no damn sense.
Trying to run "each type is an instance" is an exercise in frustration and special pleading edge cases where you constantly stack new rules on top as you invent them so that it doesn't break horribly.
The king irony is that Foundry essentially does have to give up and only let you proc trait weakness once per impact, explicitly contradicting and abandoning the "every type is a new instance" nonsense.
These "edge cases" are extremely common in L11-20 campaigns. The main reason they are not a show-stopping frustration is because tables are happy to let Foundry do its thing without questioning it. If the damage appears fine on the surface, it'll just get used without double-checking.
(And that doesn't help everyone who is not playing via Foundry, they are just screwed; told by the community to use a procedure that contradicts the text, and doesn't bloody work.)
____________
And once again, all of these issues completely vanish if we just redact a single dev forum post and have bonus damage *not* create separate instances.
If each impact is the instance, then all these problems are gone. Bonus damage adds into an existing attack, and into that existing instance.
This is why the trait weakness was written to proc "when touched or affected by it" because *that* is what an "instance" means in pf2. Every discrete impact is one instance.
Using two different kinds of instance for trait contact and type-based-bonus instances really is nonsense.
