| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the hypothetical weakness/ resistance situations around an instance of damage have lead to as much confusion as they have clarity, so I thought it might be useful to have a thread dedicated to a concrete example. My concrete example is a level 5 fighter with a witch multiclass fighting a level 4 ghost commoner. I will build the example up from a most basic attack, to a relatively complex but feasible buffing scenario.
My interest here is in trying to discuss what happens from the perspective that the new instance of damage errata is capturing the developers full and intentional ruling, and if there are points of confusion with that errata, we identify where the confusion is. My interest is not in trying to rewrite the instance of damage rules to what we individually would want it to be. Below is my attempt to interpret the errata ruling as closely to the given example as possible. I am sure people will disagree and I want to hear your interpretation if it is different, but please try to relate your reading back to the errata example as best you can so we can all see each other’s line of reasoning as clearly as possible. The goal is to see what is getting interpreted differently, not to prove that we are right or can read the developers minds or write a better game mechanic.
The examination case:
The ghost commoner has resist 5 all except force, ghost touch, spirit, and vitality. Against nonmagical, the resistance is doubled.
A. A fighter using a regular short sword hits the ghost commoner: the short sword does 1d6+4 damage. It’s a non magical attack so even rolling a 6, the fighter’s 10 damage is all resisted and the ghost takes no damage.
B. A fighter using a +1 short sword: as A. above, except the potency rune makes the sword attack magical. The fighter rolls a 6+4 is 10 points of magical slashing damage. The ghost takes 5 damage.
The rules on the magical trait and weapon runes make it clear to me that this is all one magical attack, including the bonus damage from STR.
C. A fighter using a +1 short sword with a weapon siphon activated alchemist fire:
As above in example B. The +1d4 fire damage is non magical and a separate instance of damage that will all be resisted by resistance 10. Being attached to a magic weapon doesn’t make the weapon siphon damage magical as far as anything I can read and my reading of the errata example is that the damage from a weapon siphon is not a part of the same damage instance as the sword attack.
D. As C, but the ghost has been previously targeted with a rank 3 elemental betrayal:
Exactly as example C. 3 points of fire weakness will not bring the d4 alchemist fire damage above the 10 resist.
E. As D, but the fighter (now a MC witch) has cast flame wisp from a scroll before making the strike:
Since the flame wisp is a separate instance of damage from the weapon or the weapon siphon, all the weapon and weapon siphon damage resolves as above. The flame wisp is magical fire damage (since it is from a spell), so if the fighter rolls a 4 on the damage, we add 3 from the imposed fire weakness to make it 7 magical fire damage. 5 points of that is resisted by resist all, so 2 goes through, adding to the 5 damage from the sword. the total strike is responsible for 7 total points of damage to the ghost with the one attack.
Since additional spell damage is called out in the example, I feel like the flame wisp damage has to be a separate instance from the weapon siphon even though they are both adding fire damage.
What do you think?
One thing that I am still not really sure about is whether runes would fall inside the weapon instance of damage or out of it.
My personal guess is that runes are supposed to be inside it. Ghost touch, for example would make the weapon attack ignore the ghost’s resistance, and that only really works from inside the damage instance. If that is the case, then all the eventual property runes combined can only trigger 1 weakness per strike. This is an area that seems most contested and uncertain by the community.
The errata gave us 2 spells and said each should trigger, so many people are reading that as runes should be separate too, but spells are discrete things, so I think it is possible they work differently, and that makes things smoother and harder to exploit, in my opinion. I really wish the errata example had included 2 runes that could have triggered weaknesses so that we could have gotten more clarity there.
Or even one rune that has a different damage type than the base weapon it is etched on.
If a sword with a Striking rune is still one instance of damage, is a sword with a flaming rune one instance of damage or two?
And Ghost Touch is an interesting case as well. Ghost Touch isn't a damage type. It wouldn't fall under the instance of damage rules in the same way as damage types do. It might fall under the instance of damage rules in the same way as Holy does, but that is harder to adjudicate because Ghost Touch it is not triggering a weakness, it is overcoming a resistance.
My instinct and interpretation of the errata example is that all runes fall inside the weapon damage instance and are subject to the one highest weakness, like the example of the cold iron and the slashing.
That is not clearly codified anywhere yet though ( and avoided by the errata example) but it feel like it would curtail a lot of the 0 action abuse of triggering the same weakness multiple times.
I'm pretty sure a weapon can trigger multiple weaknesses/resistances if it deals all those types of damage. For instance, a +3 major striking flaming frost shock rapier should be able to trigger weakness/resistance to piercing, fire, cold, and electricity damage. That seems to be how it works for resist all.
If a sword with a Striking rune is still one instance of damage, is a sword with a flaming rune one instance of damage or two?How could they possibly be one instance of damage if they are of different types? The errata shows that even damage chunks of the same type are different instances if they are from different sources.
So I think this is actually an unresolved question in the errata example. I read that example as saying spells are discrete instances of damage, even in the same strike or attack even when they do the same damage type, but not that something that was one instance of damage would trigger weakness twice or even two separate weaknesses with different damage types.
It would be really awesome if they could have added some runes to the weapon that trigger weakness, not just meet resistance to help clarify whether runes are part of the damage instance or unique instances by them selves. Does ghost touch make rune damage bypass a ghost’s resist all? If so, that reads like one big instance of damage to me.
How could they possibly be one instance of damage if they are of different types? The errata shows that even damage chunks of the same type are different instances if they are from different sources.
By your argument, if they are still part of the damage roll, they are the same instance because:
Each damage roll is only one number by definition.
How could they possibly be one instance of damage if they are of different types? The errata shows that even damage chunks of the same type are different instances if they are from different sources.By your argument, if they are still part of the damage roll, they are the same instance because:
Each damage roll is only one number by definition.You don't understand my argument then. Damage rolls are for one damage type and for one effect (because each effect potentially, and sometimes practically, can have its own damage bonuses and penalties).
Adding up of course still eventually happens because chars don't have different types of hit points, but it doesn't change what individual damage rolls are.
You're literally just making up your fan fiction of the rules. Damage rolls are clearly not for only one damage type because bonuses can be of a different damage type, and spells can deal multiple damage types. One damage roll can have multiple instances for the purpose of weakness and resistance in this errata.
You keep making these definitive statements that aren't backed up by the rules of the game.
I struggle to understand your argument because you either are not communicating it effectively, or it's just nonsensical.
Isn't the clarification given to the foundry people by paizo enough?
From my understanding that is:
"An instance of damage is a source of damage with a discrete damage type".So:
"+5 damage" not an instance.
"+5 cold damage" an instance.
I'm mainly talking about the errata itself. The discord clarification is not part of the errata. Most people who use the errata won't even be aware of these discord messages for their games.
Also this discord screenshot just really highlights the issue with the errata. It doesn't actually tell us what an instance actually is, and it's so needlessly convoluted that it needs further clarification from unofficial discord screenshots. This is excluding the balance issues it's creating.
Remember, this thread is for presenting how you directly interpret the rules around an instance of damage now that we have the given errata and example, not to argue about whether someone else’s reading of those rules is correct. We want to see how many different ways people are reading this here, as I think that will help us, the community, ask for clarification that will address the points of divergence. There are other places for debating how it should work best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, this thread is for presenting how you directly interpret the rules around an instance of damage now that we have the given errata and example, not to argue about whether someone else’s reading of those rules is correct. We want to see how many different ways people are reading this here, as I think that will help us, the community, ask for clarification that will address the points of divergence. There are other places for debating how it should work best.
It's important when people are making hard claims about the rules without supporting it with evidence, but sure I'll stop.
I pretty much agree with your example and conclusions. Though I disagree that runes are part of the same instance, this isn't indicated anywhere in the rules, and considering it is additional damage and not a modification of the weapon damage I don't think it can be considered the same instance. Cold Iron modifies the weapon's physical damage, whereas the Flaming rune is adding an additional 1d6.
The errata did not differentiate between spells and other sources of damage, it merely used spells as an example. I feel if it were only intended for spells the errata would've made that clear.
My reasons for thinking spells are specifically called out in the errata example is from this sentence: “ The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually for an additional 30 damage.” I understand and can see that a lot people don’t find the “different spells” to be the compelling rules language and that it is possible that the word spell could be exchanged with any variable like runes. More clarity there would be excellent.
It's important when people are making hard claims about the rules without supporting it with evidence, but sure I'll stop.I was citing the rules from the start and you just non-stop claim that I don't. I won't waste any more of my time on you.
I'm making an exception for this thread because this person is spreading misinformation.
I didn't say you didn't cite any rules, just that none of the rules you cited actually back you up, but sure, lets examine exactly what rules you cited and pretend like I didn't already address it.
Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
Spell (or similar effect) damage roll = damage die of effect + bonuses + penalties
A rule about how to break down a damage roll. Where does it say that named bonuses aren't a separate instance? Where does it say that "damage rolls are for one damage type and one effect"?
As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type. Again like checks, you may also apply circumstance, status, item, and untyped penalties to the damage roll, and again you apply only the greatest penalty of a specific type but apply all untyped penalties together
A quote referring to multiple bonuses of the same type, and saying that you can add or subtract different named or unnamed bonuses to a roll. Again nothing here backs up anything you've been saying.
My reasons for thinking spells are specifically called out in the errata example is from this sentence: “ The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually for an additional 30 damage.” I understand and can see that a lot people don’t find the “different spells” to be the compelling rules language and that it is possible that the word spell could be exchanged with any variable like runes. More clarity there would be excellent.
I'd like stronger language there to make that conclusion. I feel that if your interpretation was intended it would've been much more explicit.
well, now it seems like the whole errata on this is getting walked back so this whole example is off and I am not sure I understand the informal advice enough to be sure about things like combining magical and non-magical fire together before applying weaknesses. I will revisit this after the new errata has been worked out.
Well, now it seems like the whole errata on this is getting walked back.
Good! To be honest, that seemed pretty much inevitable from the jump, but has Paizo made a statement to this effect?
Yeah, there is a thread about it in the general discussion. The errata has been removed and a statement of intent exists, but the new fix hasn’t t been formalized.