Thank you for the new decision, it looks good!
There is just one thing that is odd regarding resistances:
...For resistances, you still apply only the highest resistance if more than one resistance would apply to a single source and type of damage. This primarily happens with weapons that have a special material; a Strike with a cold iron spear against a creature with resistance 10 to cold iron and resistance 5 to piercing would reduce the damage by 10.
Is the intention that resistances to something other than a damage type should exist outside of a few exceptions that override general rules?
The resistance rules texts so far have only accounted for resistances to damage types, and I saw the Kineticist's "Elemental Resistance" gate junction as one of a few special cases giving resistance to damage that comes from a creature or effect with a certain trait.
Cases like the remastered Polished Demon Horn's resistance to Unholy seemed like errors to me, but will a new wording of the rules give guidance on how to make it work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I approve this message.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what's the rule to chose what's the bigger persistent damage when dealing with something like 2d10 ( min 2, max 20, avg 11 ) and 5d4 ( min 5, max 20, avg 12.5 )
That one does already have an answer.
Page 621 (Clarification): How can I tell which multiple persistent damage value is higher when it's not obvious?
Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions notes that you keep only the highest amount of persistent damage. How do you choose between 3 persistent fire damage and 1d6 persistent fire damage (which is usually, but not always higher)? In these cases, the GM should quickly use their best guess to decide which applies. Don’t worry about doing all the math of average damage, just follow your heart to which seems most severe.
And my understanding of persistent damage is that the damage type is also part of the condition, not the value. So you can have multiple persistent damage types such as persistent bleed and persistent electricity at the same time. Otherwise feats like Root To Life affecting each source of persistent damage don't make much sense.
How does this interact with the thaumaturge's mortal weakness? If a thaumaturge has mortal weakness active, and a damage rune which would trigger the same weakness, does it only trigger weakness once on a strike? Even before the first weakness clarification, I'd have thought it would trigger twice, I'm unsure now.
Mortal Weakness activates a weakness. If you're already activating that weakness, you can't activate it again. So they won't stack.
In this case, use Personal Antithesis. That is a distinct, unique weakness you're adding to the creature that your strike does activate in addition to the existing weaknesses.
So the Thaumaturge player does need to know not to activate Mortal Weakness Fire if they have a Flaming weapon. Use Personal Antithesis in that case and they'll both work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maya - can you please express my appreciation to the team for how they handled this? I know the reaction wasn't what they were expecting to finally answering a long-standing question, but this correction is absolutely the right call and I'm really grateful they took the feedback to heart.
Everyone wants PF2 to be a great game, and the net result of all this is a positive step forward for the game.
Thanks. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has all been a bit messy, but I am glad to see them taking feedback and responding quickly.
Seen more than my share of dev teams that stick to their guns, either in a misguided attempt to save face or out of sheer stubbornness. It's refreshing to see something else for a change.
Seen more than my share of dev teams that stick to their guns, either in a misguided attempt to save face or out of sheer stubbornness. It's refreshing to see something else for a change.The change is better than no change.
It does make me wonder, however, how it came bout. Surely the errata authors play the game enough to understand the game impact of allowing weaknesses to stack up from different sources...
I can definitely see how they came to that decision.
"Hey, we're adding a bunch of class features, items, and spells that tack on sources of typed damage. We've been balancing those assuming they can trigger weaknesses, but that benefit might get overwritten by easily obtained sources of typed damage. What if we ruled in a way to err in favor of the players, allowing all these features to reliably contribute against weaknesses?"
I do have concerns that creature weaknesses and HP were mostly calibrated around an understanding of instance of damage that is no longer accurate, but that will probably be pretty minor, with most resistant all creatures a little easier now, and thus less likely to get complaints. I guess small creature errata can be dolled out as creatures pop up as too easy or too hard. This just seems like a relatively massive change to embark on at this point in the game’s life span, so it feels like there could be a lot of knock on effects that will manifest in play.
Does this also mean that “use only the highest weakness” is pretty much only going to apply to trait based weaknesses like weapon material? That whole rule might need some revising too to make sure it isn’t over applied and every instance of damage can only ever have one weakness applied to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, I am mostly interested in having a good baseline definition and understanding of what the rules are. The details of how this particular ruling go are less important to me because it can always be houseruled by tables that don't like it - even if that is the vast majority of tables.
But it is hard to have constructive discussions about the rules and the balance considerations that it causes if the rules are not understood the same way by everyone.
Here we have a case where the rules were not defined and there was a large amount of table variation in how the game was played. So the devs defined the rules better. So, of course, the community analyzed those rules and came up with possible builds to use it, and balance concerns that this may cause - because we can now have those discussions with the rules being consistently understood.
The devs looking at the community discussion and potentially having to revise the rules definition, while it may be unfortunate, feels like a healthy thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have concerns that creature weaknesses and HP were mostly calibrated around an understanding of instance of damage that is no longer accurate, but that will probably be pretty minor, with most resistant all creatures a little easier now, and thus less likely to get complaints. I guess small creature errata can be dolled out as creatures pop up as too easy or too hard. This just seems like a relatively massive change to embark on at this point in the game’s life span, so it feels like there could be a lot of knock on effects that will manifest in play.
Does this also mean that “use only the highest weakness” is pretty much only going to apply to trait based weaknesses like weapon material? That whole rule might need some revising too to make sure it isn’t over applied and every instance of damage can only ever have one weakness applied to it.
If this was always intended then mid-late game pathfinder as well as early game munchkinism was always intended to melt enemies exceedingly quick provided the right set up. I'm choosing to think that wasn't the case, and if it was, I'm glad the general understanding among us plebs was decidedly NOT that.
Yeah, the core issue is that even this revised ruling is genuinely not compatible with the actual rules text.
The weakness text itself needs to be edited, you cannot make that "each weakness triggers once per ___" ruling work via errata interpretation. The moment one attempts to claim a rules procedure for how to make multiple instances inside of one Strike, they are screwed; that's just a complete fantasy invention that's not in the rules, and it's doomed to result in edge-case nightmares.
The base text assumes each contact, impact, Strike, spell zap, etc is one instance of damage, one that can contain many different types of "additional damage." It is only because of a (rules contradicting) dev post before the game launched that no one who was tuned into the forums played that way, and instead popped multiple per hit.
Worse, if Paizo insist on doing this just via errata interpretation, and they make a mistake like saying "group all *types* of damage into instances" instead of fixing the core problem, they are going to create stupid edge cases where trait/custom kind of weaknesses & resistances can still multi pop, and only type-based weak/resistance will be fixed.
(which is a problem the Foundry devs have been unable to wrangle)
______________
I've been talking about the Imm/Weak/Res problem for a long time, way before the errata. For those online, it's always been played in contradiction to the text.
If Paizo textually defines "instance of damage" by the impact, Strike, etc, while also replacing the textual rule for "only the single highest" with "each weakness once," that is the only way to get to their chosen outcome.
You cannot errata your way out of ignoring that "only the single highest ___" rule, which has ALWAYS contradicted how people have been attempting to play ever since the nonsense dev post in 2018. The existing RaW needs to be textually replaced.
Attempting to screw with instances of damage to get around that "only the highest" rule will NEVER work. It's like pulling out your .22 pistol to pop a zit; no matter how you execute the idea, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage, and you shouldn't have attempted it.
Over-complicating the definition of an instance of damage, and especially using messy wording like "group all sources of a *type* of damage..." will only result in further problems.
|
And what's the rule to chose what's the bigger persistent damage when dealing with something like 2d10 ( min 2, max 20, avg 11 ) and 5d4 ( min 5, max 20, avg 12.5 )That one does already have an answer.
And my understanding of persistent damage is that the damage type is also part of the condition, not the value. So you can have multiple persistent damage types such as persistent bleed and persistent electricity at the same time. Otherwise feats like Root To Life affecting each source of persistent damage don't make much sense.Page 621 (Clarification): How can I tell which multiple persistent damage value is higher when it's not obvious?
Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions notes that you keep only the highest amount of persistent damage. How do you choose between 3 persistent fire damage and 1d6 persistent fire damage (which is usually, but not always higher)? In these cases, the GM should quickly use their best guess to decide which applies. Don’t worry about doing all the math of average damage, just follow your heart to which seems most severe.
The GM eyeball the severity is not a "ruling", but my real problem is that the definition of instance of damage should reverberate into persistent damage. It doesn't make sense that a knife critical specialization with bleeding finisher and a wounding rune does the same persistent damage, then a critical bleeding finisher with a regular weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
my real problem is that the definition of instance of damage should reverberate into persistent damage. It doesn't make sense that a knife critical specialization with bleeding finisher and a wounding rune does the same persistent damage, then a critical bleeding finisher with a regular weapon.
Well, then I think you are going to have to houserule it for your table then.
Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed = highest of the three Persistent Bleed damage values.
That isn't even up for errata at this point. That is from the redundant conditions with values rules that have been in place and stable for a long time.
The previous iteration of the definition of 'instance of damage' was sort-of heading in the direction that you want (where each source of Bleed damage would count separately). But with the change in direction announced by this thread, it is not doing so any more.
|
|
my real problem is that the definition of instance of damage should reverberate into persistent damage. It doesn't make sense that a knife critical specialization with bleeding finisher and a wounding rune does the same persistent damage, then a critical bleeding finisher with a regular weapon.Well, then I think you are going to have to houserule it for your table then.
Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed = highest of the three Persistent Bleed damage values.
That isn't even up for errata at this point. That is from the redundant conditions with values rules that have been in place and stable for a long time.
The previous iteration of the definition of 'instance of damage' was sort-of heading in the direction that you want (where each source of Bleed damage would count separately). But with the change in direction announced by this thread, it is not doing so any more.
I think it's the opposite, the multi stack weakness errata address each effect as a distinct thing, the new errata lead us to bundle everything before applying, persistent it's an odd gray area because it's both damage ( and doubled by critical for example ) and a condition where it doesn't stack. A Double Slice with 2 wounding runes is hard to say if it stack or not because it says to sum for resistance and weakness but persistent is neither.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the opposite, the multi stack weakness errata address each effect as a distinct thing, the new errata lead us to bundle everything before applying, persistent it's an odd gray area because it's both damage ( and doubled by critical for example ) and a condition where it doesn't stack. A Double Slice with 2 wounding runes is hard to say if it stack or not because it says to sum for resistance and weakness but persistent is neither.
It's very clear: it's applying conditions and conditions don't stack unless they explicitly say they do. Wounding applies 1d6 persistent bleed. Doing that again applies the same condition, and they don't stack. So you end up with 1d6 bleed.
I do not envy the developers trying to write a clear description of this. It sounds like quite the challenge.
I can’t be sure, but it sounds like we will be totaling by damage type, applying immunities, applying resistances, total the remainder, then applying weaknesses. I’m not sure that is the plan.
I will say that generally if someone is doing a small enough amount of damage that they can not get through a resistance (such as Flaming rune vs Resist 10 fire), I will generally have the player not even bother rolling the fire damage on a normal hit. That can speed things up quite a bit. I do hope that the final version will allow for that sort of thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh wonderful. Another glorious 'clarification' from on high to strip away the last scraps of joy from this wretched game.
Back in my day, weaknesses meant something. You'd hit a troll with fire and watch the beautiful extra damage pile up like a dragon's hoard--instance after delicious instance, because why not? It was CHAOS. It was GLORIOUS. Monsters actually felt dangerous instead of these pathetic participation-trophy bags of hit points.
But noooo. The Design Team--may their dice always roll natural 1s--decides 'instance of damage' needs to be parsed like some infernal contract written by lawyers who hate fun. Now everything's one tidy little package, weakness applied once, and poof! There goes the math that made my evil GM heart sing.
I hope you're all happy with your sanitized, balanced, boring little game. Me? I'm going to sit here in my trashy basement of despair, clutching my outdated printings like the precious relics they are, muttering 'Bah! Errata!' every time someone mentions 'consistency.'
Go ahead, pat yourselves on the back for 'clarity.' I'll be over here, in the dark, resenting every last one of you for ruining a perfectly good exploit.
Humbug.
;P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more i think on it the more i think the community was in the wrong. I will say the bookkeeping could have become a pain in the but, but i still think we were wrong.
Listening to what people people where complaining about, and looking at the actual abilities i was begging to feel like Inspector Finch after Larkhill. All the small things in the rules where becoming clear and i was seeing that the trees actually had individual leaves instead of a green blob.
Like fury of blows, people complaining it would be worse than attacking twice for triggering weaknesses. Yeah, it is worse, would of been worse under the clarification, and will be worse under the errata. But, it was not designed to be better at triggering weaknesses it was designed for action compression and overcoming resistance.
The problem with Flurry had nothing to do with it being worse at triggering weaknesses: it was going to be flat out worse total damage because it was triggering weakness once while just attacking twice could easily trigger weakness six times.
The damage from weakness when you could double dip it could add up so fast that it became the primary source of damage. Especially with the clarification the Foundry folks got that you'd actually collapse all the instances as part of combining the damage so Flurry would trigger weakness once while just a single strike could trigger it three times.
"Flurry of blows is a trap option" doesn't make any sense. The new update fixes that. Weakness is supposed to be a thing you aim for because its bonus damage, not a thing you just stack up a single element for, create a weakness, and then trigger it multiple times every hit.
|
I feel this clarification makes things more confusing. What is a "source" ? How is it different from an effect ?
Many posters say it makes things clearer. I can't help but wonder if it's just because they disliked the errata, are happy it is no more and feel they were finally understood.
The example of Spellstrike is very confusing to me.
I was happy that we got a definition of instance, but now I feel even this is getting lost in the ruckus.
We need clear rules that cover existing cases : Holy, weakness to water ...
I feel this clarification makes things more confusing. What is a "source" ? How is it different from an effect ?
Many posters say it makes things clearer. I can't help but wonder if it's just because they disliked the errata, are happy it is no more and feel they were finally understood.
The example of Spellstrike is very confusing to me.
I was happy that we got a definition of instance, but now I feel even this is getting lost in the ruckus.
We need clear rules that cover existing cases : Holy, weakness to water ...
As far as I understand it, what was posted by the design team is just an explanation that they've removed the recent clarification and giving an overview of their intended solution. It sounds like the actual errata verbiage will follow with the rest of the Spring errata. I am hoping that that wording will factor in the scenarios like you've described, but I don't think it's particularly surprising that this initial non-errata statement/summary doesn't cover all those details.
That said, I feel like they do provide enough info here in the Spellstrike example. I was initially puzzled by it also, because I've always thought of a Spellstrike as being a Strike followed by the spell going off (which I would read as two separate batches of damage, triggering weaknesses or resistances separately). But the actual description of Spellstrike says "You imbue its effects into an attack instead of executing the spell normally."; i.e., the effects of the spell (including the damage it deals) gets bundled together with the effects of the Strike. This all pending any adjustments to that which may happen in the magus remaster, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Flurry of Blows and Double Slice are doing the same thing as this new interpretation.
With the new Spellstrike example, you would combine the electricity damage of the rune and the thunderstrike spell, and the weapon's physical damage would be separate from that.
My understanding of Double Slice and similar abilities is that you are combining the damage even across types. So a sword dealing 9 slashing damage and a dagger doing 3 piercing damage, if they both hit, would combine to create 12 damage that counts as both slashing and piercing. That one instance of damage would trigger only weakness to piercing or slashing, whichever is higher, and only resistance to piercing or slashing, whichever is higher.
When I claim that "the RaW was written with the understanding that each contact, Strike, etc, was one instance of damage"
this is exactly what I'm talking about. There are a whole lot of rules across the system that don't quite make sense anymore if one hit can be split into many independent instances. Flurry V Double Slice changes, a lot of odd custom resistances & weaknesses that will multi-pop for every instance inside one attack; "attacks by demons," etc.The real 'smoking gun' though has always been the text on Resist All. The way it's written, that mechanic only exists if one instance contains damage chunks of multiple *types* at the same time. That's literally impossible if new types spawn new instances, lol.
... 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 the system had intended split instances as claimed, the text would have been written very differently. This only makes sense if Resist All is overriding the "only the single highest" rule.
I'm actually a little salty that no one at Paizo (including Mark) ever addressed this before now, and just let Mark's one erroneous forum post in 2018 fester into this issue today.
Personally I'll stick to using the previous clarification, as that is how I was already reading the rules. But this new clarification seems pretty simple and will work fine if I need to use it ever (PFS or others tables)
Nothing has changed regarding the recent clarification on instances/sources of damage. eg, base weapon is still one instance, flaming rune is one instance, fire buff spell another, and Rage yet another, and so on.
It's just now that for any given action/activity you add up all like types of damage before accounting for resistances and weaknesses?
Am I understanding that correctly?
They have to shop their erratum with the community now so we can find all the issues with this update (like Spellstrike) before they roll it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is going to be a problem getting to a true community consensus around the “right way” to get the instance of damage rules to be consistent and easy to parse around defined terms.
Combining everything that causes damage from one action or activity into one instance of damage is going to mean spell strike, flurry, flame wisp, etc. is going to work exactly the same. This will make resistances much weaker and make triggering weaknesses via hitting the right, different weaknesses the optimization/tactics game. Giving fire weakness for example will be less useful than giving a less common weakness, for the purpose of multi triggering weaknesses on creatures. It could be fine this way, but it will take players adjustment time to figure out that they need to do different kinds of the right damage types to beat weaknesses, but that will be terrible if you hit multiple resistances. Many players might just choose to stack the same damage type as much as possible to trivialize resistances, but watch out for immunities.
If it does go this route, a lot of text in a lot of rule books is going to be redundant and possible confusing to leave in place. All the “combine for…” text of abilities like twin strike and flurry and in spells should probably be removed or it will continue to look like the exception to the rule instead of the baseline. Also, the whole “apply only the highest” should be completely removed. Weakness to slashing and cold iron should just both trigger once. If it is left in, then it will be applied to entire attacks and only one weakness would ever trigger. That would be bad. If it also meant only one resistance triggered, that would be awful. Might as well remove resistances and just give out more immunities.
It is possible to do this, but implementing it across everything consistently is going to take a lot of work.
For a third edition, I think creating a trait hierarchy for damage that tells you how to group different kinds of damage situations will be the best way to have the kind of granularity the original game was shooting for and have it be consistently parsable without confusion.
|
|
I think it's the opposite, the multi stack weakness errata address each effect as a distinct thing, the new errata lead us to bundle everything before applying, persistent it's an odd gray area because it's both damage ( and doubled by critical for example ) and a condition where it doesn't stack. A Double Slice with 2 wounding runes is hard to say if it stack or not because it says to sum for resistance and weakness but persistent is neither.
It's very clear: it's applying conditions and conditions don't stack unless they explicitly say they do. Wounding applies 1d6 persistent bleed. Doing that again applies the same condition, and they don't stack. So you end up with 1d6 bleed.
A critical hit with wounding does 2x1d6 instead of 1d6, that's not so different to hit twice with double slice, except for persistent damage... that's my whole point.
Now that we have the spellstrike example, a spell that does persistent bleed and a weapon with persistent bleed should stack the persistent DAMAGE before applying, and for sanity, that should be de default for everything not just one more exception| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the opposite, the multi stack weakness errata address each effect as a distinct thing, the new errata lead us to bundle everything before applying, persistent it's an odd gray area because it's both damage ( and doubled by critical for example ) and a condition where it doesn't stack. A Double Slice with 2 wounding runes is hard to say if it stack or not because it says to sum for resistance and weakness but persistent is neither.
It's very clear: it's applying conditions and conditions don't stack unless they explicitly say they do. Wounding applies 1d6 persistent bleed. Doing that again applies the same condition, and they don't stack. So you end up with 1d6 bleed.
A critical hit with wounding does 2x1d6 instead of 1d6, that's not so different to hit twice with double slice, except for persistent damage... that's my whole point.
Now that we have the spellstrike example, a spell that does persistent bleed and a weapon with persistent bleed should stack the persistent DAMAGE before applying, and for sanity, that should be de default for everything not just one more exception
The game will fall apart with stacking conditions. You cant have the fear from a fearsome rune add to the fear from a feat that gives frightened 1 on a critical hit. Persistent damage is a condition, it is just a condition with a variable value that is resolved on the turn of the character with the condition. The "instance" of persistent damage happens on the character who has the persistent damage's turn, not when the strike occurs. There is nothing to stack by the time bleed damage occurs.
I don't actually feel like the combining abilities need to be reworded. I don't think this erratum means that the two strikes from Flurry would automatically be combined, its one activity that let's you make two separate strikes for one action. That reads to me as two instances of damage which are then combined per specification. It's not like spellstrike where two things land together as a single strike.
At the very least, I don't feel like something being one activity is going to be where the line is drawn for adding together damage and it doesn't seem to be in the clarification above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A critical hit with wounding does 2x1d6 instead of 1d6, that's not so different to hit twice with double slice, except for persistent damage... that's my whole point.
Now that we have the spellstrike example, a spell that does persistent bleed and a weapon with persistent bleed should stack the persistent DAMAGE before applying, and for sanity, that should be de default for everything not just one more exception
It's very different hitting twice with double slice. That's not how double slice works. Letting it stack stuff would be a dramatic power boost to what is already a good feat.
Conditions don't stack. They never have. I don't honestly understand what the issue is here, but it's always worked that way and will continue to work that way because letting conditions stack opens up some absurd possibilities like having 3 casters all cast Fear in round 1 and having a BBEG with Frightened 7, at which point the fight is over because it's now a trivial encounter.
This is literally not an exception, and I honestly do not understand why you think it is one. You're trying to argue FOR an exception.
I don't actually feel like the combining abilities need to be reworded. I don't think this erratum means that the two strikes from Flurry would automatically be combined, its one activity that let's you make two separate strikes for one action. That reads to me as two instances of damage which are then combined per specification. It's not like spellstrike where two things land together as a single strike.
At the very least, I don't feel like something being one activity is going to be where the line is drawn for adding together damage and it doesn't seem to be in the clarification above.
That's how I'd think it would work, yeah: Flurry/etc take both attacks, combine the damage into one attack, and resolve that. But you can do that the same way it happens anyway: if both attacks have fire damage, the combined attack has fire damage, so can trigger fire weakness. If it has bludgeoning weakness and you're punching, you trigger that. etc. There's no particular special treatment needed.
That works just fine since the benefits are worth it in a lot of cases.
The issue with the previous errata was that when you can quadruple dip on a single weakness, losing that is a lot more harmful, which made these abilities work (especially with the clarification the Foundry devs got in regards to flattening it out). But we don't have that errata anymore so that's not an issue now.
I mean, I'd just want to see this as "add both sets of damage numbers together and resolve it as if one attack did all that damage." You do everything else normally and it works fine.
Conditions don't stack. They never have. I don't honestly understand what the issue is here, but it's always worked that way and will continue to work that way because letting conditions stack opens up some absurd possibilities like having 3 casters all cast Fear in round 1 and having a BBEG with Frightened 7, at which point the fight is over because it's now a trivial encounter.Seems unlikely for multiple PCs to crit a higher level enemy in the same round. But BBEGs typically have a very good chance to hit the PCs; how'd you like to get hit two-three times in round 1 for double or triple bleed damage on top of the base damage? Yikes. Yeah...hey Samir, let's NOT ask Paizo for that change. :)
Tell that to my SoT PCs. I rolled nat 1 on Fear two rounds in a row. Talk about an anticlimatic boss fight!
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. If you can stack it, even successes will leave it Frightened 3 and landing failures is a lot easier at that point. (But yes, it'd be real bad on PCs with some of the conditions creatures can put out!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the plan is for Hardness. Once all the damage is totaled up and immunities, weaknesses, and resistances have all been applied, is it then that we should apply Hardness to the remaining total once (regardless of damage types)? I seem to recall that Foundry treats it more like resist all, making attacking hazards a pain in the butt for anyone relying on more than one damage type.
Paizo should throw out damage types altogether and just go all in on their trait system.
For example, a special attack that has the holy, fire, and slashing traits would have the total sum of its damage be all of those things simultaneously. None of these complex hair-splitting hoops to jump through.
Weakness would trigger once for each trait triggered per action or activity. A creature weak against fire and holy 5 would take 10 extra damage.
Resistance would trigger once per action or activity. If you did 20 damage against a creature with Resistance fire 5, slashing 5; you would deal 15 damage.
If you rolled 20 damage against a creature with Resistance fire 5, slashing 5, and Weakness holy 10, you would deal 25 damage.
I'm not sure how it could get more simple than that. Maybe in 3e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Immunity is the bugbear to trait only damage.