Triggering two vulnerabilities with one attack?

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
This past Sunday, we had an interesting event. I need advice on how RAW works. I am a RAW follower, because I believe it is the most fair to all my players, some of whom are decade old power gamers, others are brand new to the game. However, I am no rule expert and often check the compendium for help in my ruling. I need help navigating the rules, so, if you can show me a current rule to answer this question, I would appreciate it.

In a fight with a BBEG, our Avenger Morninglord set up radiant vulnerability 10. Another player set up 1-round Vulnerability 10 All.

Then we had another pc hit with a Radiant and Fire power.

I ruled that it triggered BOTH vulnerabilities, giving an extra 20 damage. What do you all think? Was this an appropriate RAW decision, or is there a nuance of a rule of which I am unaware.

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you for your wisdom and respectful assistance.

I would have ruled it the other way around.

My reason for doing so is that Vulnerability 10 all is vulnerability 10 fire, radiant, cold, acid etc.

Also vulnerability do not stack (same with resistances).

If a monster gained resist 10 all and resist 10 fire and was then hit with a fire/radiant attack for 24 damaged, would be take 14 or 4 damage? I am pretty sure the answer is 14.

So I would rule that it works the other way as well.

Amazingly enough, in all of the debating both here and in Charop, no one bothered to look up the answer, and there is one.

From the Rules Compendium:


Not Cumulative
Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.
    Example: If a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 10 psychic, it has vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic. Similarly, if a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 2 to all damage, the creature still has vulnerable 5 psychic, not vulnerable 7 psychic.



So the correct answer is only one type.
 
Note to self, always have RC on hand to answer questions from perky PC's

Actually it is not clear by RAW about how two vulnerabilities function with one exception.

vulnerable x all does not stack with vulnerable x acid/cold/fire/etc and only one applies. For example, vulnerable 5 all and vulernable 10 fire would trigger 10 damage from fire and 5 damage from all other sources.

There is nothing in the RC about how vulnerable 5 cold and vulnerable 10 radiant function if hit with cold and radiant damage. 
Actually it is not clear by RAW about how two vulnerabilities function with one exception.

vulnerable x all does not stack with vulnerable x acid/cold/fire/etc and only one applies. For example, vulnerable 5 all and vulernable 10 fire would trigger 10 damage from fire and 5 damage from all other sources.

There is nothing in the RC about how vulnerable 5 cold and vulnerable 10 radiant function if hit with cold and radiant damage. 



Yes there is. Being vulnerable to a damage type means a creature takes extra damage from that damage type, even when that damage type is combined with another.

What is less clear is if the interaction from vulnerable 5 fire & vulnerable 10 all vs 10 fire and cold damage count as vulnerability to the same damage type  though, because vulnerable X all is poorly defined.. 


Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another. For instance, if a creature has vulnerable 5 fire, the creature takes 5 extra fire damage when it takes ongoing fire and radiant damage.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Actually it is not clear by RAW about how two vulnerabilities function with one exception.

vulnerable x all does not stack with vulnerable x acid/cold/fire/etc and only one applies. For example, vulnerable 5 all and vulernable 10 fire would trigger 10 damage from fire and 5 damage from all other sources.

There is nothing in the RC about how vulnerable 5 cold and vulnerable 10 radiant function if hit with cold and radiant damage. 



Yes there is. Being vulnerable to a damage type means a creature takes extra damage from that damage type, even when that damage type is combined with another.

What it not clear is the interaction  from vulnerable 5 fire & vulnerable 10 all vs 10 fire and cold damage.


Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another. For instance, if a creature has vulnerable 5 fire, the creature takes 5 extra fire damage when it takes ongoing fire and radiant damage.




It is clear about vulnerable 5 fire and vulnerable 10 all.  It does not stack based on the example given in the RC(relevent passage listed by another above).

What I stated was, using the example you posted and based on what I stated, is if the creature has vulnerable 5 fire AND vulnerable 10 radiant, would the creature take 5 extra fire AND 10 extra radiant or JUST 10 extra radiant while taking ongoing fire and radiant damage.  That is not clear by RAW.

Edit:  You are not wrong.  I think my initial statement was not completely clear.  I was not trying to correct you, just state where the rules are not clearly written.
I think RAW is sufficiently clear though. If you take 10 fire and cold damage and

1) You have vulnerable 5 fire; you take 5 extra fire damage because vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another.

2) You have vulnerable 10 cold; you take 10 extra cold damage because vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Because vulnerabilities to different damage type are cumulative.

While vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.

 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

That is definitely RAI but not RAW.  I do agree with you about triggering both vulnerabilities but that is not listed anywhere is all I am saying.
Nothing prevents it from working like that RAW, it pretty much goes in line with how vuln works. Where do you think it break down?  To reiterate:


Being vulnerable to a damage type means a creature takes extra damage from that damage type. 

Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another.

Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

It is clear about vulnerable 5 fire and vulnerable 10 all.  It does not stack based on the example given in the RC(relevent passage listed by another above).

This assumes "all" means "Vuln Fire/Cold/Radiant/etc" iteratively. Which it doesn't, or other things don't work right. All is just all (and therefore always applies, because it isn't conflicting with any other vulns).

Where it gets muddy RAW is if in the OP's exemple the vulnerability 10 all (coupled with vulnerable 10 radiant) gets triggered against a radiant and fire damage, for the radiant damage part.

We know its not cumulative with fire vulnerability against fire damage, but not against radiant damage since vulnerable 10 all is not cumulated with another vulnerability to radiant damage and since being 
vulnerable to a damage type means a creature takes extra damage from that damage type even when it is combined with another i think both vulnerability would come up for an extra 20 damage RAW.

If radiant and fire damage trigger vulnerable 10 all for any of the the damage type, then it will even if it has another vulnerability to one of the damage type. IMO Where vulnerability 10 all would not be cumulative in the OP's exemple is if the target had vulnerable 10 radiant, vulnerable 10 fire and vulnerable 10 all.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

That still assumes all is iterative to every kind of vuln. Which fails to function in practice. Vulnerable to your radiant attacks is a kind of vulnerability that exists in the game and that is different from just "vuln. radiant." All is not iteratively stating you are vulnerable to xyz, it is just all. Which is why it always applies, but only applies once.

If "vuln all" was iterative, it'd just be a mess.

Yeah Vuln X all is poorly defined.

If vulnerable 10 all is a vulnerability to radiant damage since it take extra damage from it, then to which other vulnerability to radiant damage in the OP's exemple is the vulnerable 10 all cumulating with for it to not apply?


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I write this as humbly as possible. Particularly with names like Plaguescarred, Alcestis, and others here, I want to respect their long-earned and hard won authority. I feel a bit like my four-year-old, asking "Why? Yes, but why? But why?" Your patience is appreciated.

With all due respect to those who are quoting RC 225/6, this does not actually address the question. I understand that vuln 5 psychic and vuln 2 all do not stack for a psychic attack. But those rules do not address my original question. Masteraleph, thank you for bringing in the relevant section of RC (I had been using the compendium, so having the rulebook to reference is helpful), but I do not see that the sections you quoted actually addressed my question.

I am not asking how the vulnerabilities stack for a single damage type. I am asking how they stack for MULTIPLE damage types from a single attack.

Now, it has been demonstrated above that Vuln 10 fire and vuln 10 radiant will cause a "fire and radiant" power to deal an extra 20 damage from a single hit. Thank you to the honorable Plaguescarred for those posts.

Now, as I see it, there are two ways to read "Vuln x all," given how the rest of the conversation has gone. It also appears to me that this ruling is up to the DM, since the rules are not explicit at any given place. There are also concerns about each of these:

1) Vulnerability x all should be read "vulnerability x to any given attack that does not trigger another equal or smaller vulnerability from a separate power source, and overrides any lesser typed vulnerabilities that may have otherwise applied."  In this reading, vuln x all would not stack with any kind of damage specific vuln x. 

E.g., BBEG-1 has vuln 5 radiant and vuln 10 fire.  BBEG takes damage from a single attack that deals (fire and radiant) damage. BBEG takes an extra 15 (10 extra fire damage, 5 extra radiant) damage because two "typed" vulnerabilities are triggered.

HOWEVER, BBEG-2 has vuln 5 all and vuln 10 fire. BBEG2 takes damage from a single attack that deals (fire and radiant) damage. BBEG takes an extra 10 damage ONLY because the attack already had a "typed" vulnerabilitiy that overrides the vuln 5 all.

HOWEVER, BBEG-3 has vuln 10 all and vuln 5 fire. BBEG3 takes damage from a single attack that deals (fire and radiant) damage. BBEG takes an extra 10 damage ONLY because the attack triggered ONLY the "all" vulnerability and the typed vulnerability is overridden.

2) Vulnerability x all should be read as a separate "type," like "cold" or "radiant" that can be triggered by any damage type that does not trigger a separate vulnerability. In this reading, vuln x all would not stack with any single type of a vulnerability on an attack that has only one damage type (see the RC reference above) but it WOULD trigger on an attack that has two damage types.

E.g., BBEG-A has vuln 5 radiant and vuln 10 fire.  No different from BBEG-1 example above.

HOWEVER,  BBEG-B has vuln 5 all and vuln 10 fire. BBEG2 takes damage from a single attack that deals (fire and radiant) damage. BBEG takes an extra 15 damage, 10 extra fire damage, 5 extra not-fire damage, but not an extra 15 fire damage.

HOWEVER, BBEG-3 has vuln 10 all and vuln 5 fire. BBEG3 takes damage from a single attack that deals (fire and radiant) damage. BBEG takes an extra 15 damage, 5 extra fire damage, 10 extra not-fire damage, but not an extra 15 fire damage.

Now, two concerns.  In option 1, vulnerability x all is weaker, but more versatile, than a typed vulnerability. In option two, vulnerability x all is more powerful than a typed versatility ONLY if the PCs use multiple damage type powers.

SO, does this make sense?

How does this slide with Resistances? If we replaced "resistance" with "vulnerability," how would that affect the  damage types? 

Thank you, I appreciate your help in getting to the bottom of this. 
We all got your question.  However, discussions of this question always end up going along the other path as well though, because quite simply RAW is not clear, purely because its not clear if Vulnerable All is the same saying "Vulnerable to Fire + Vulnerable to Cold + Vulnerable to Thunder, etc" or not, and additionally the rules are not clear on how to handle multiple pieces of damage within the same instance of damage which each have their own damage type.

  Other special resistance and vulnerabliity types (vulnerable close or area attacks, resist weapon attacks, etc) are equally unclear because those aren't actually damage types and so they don't follow the damage type rules.

For resistances, the rules are generally more clear, at least in the case of combined damage types.  You must be resistant to all of the types of the combined damage type in order to resist any of it.
    So using your BBEG examples above but with resistances instead of vulnerabilies:
 BBEG-A = Resist 5 Radiant and Resist 10 Fire.  It resists 5 from any Radiant damage, resists 10 from any fire damage, and resists 5 from any damage that is "radiant and fire"
  BBEG-B = Resist 5 all and Resist 10 Fire.  It resists 10 from any fire attack and 5 from any other attack.
 BBEG-C = Resist 10 all and Resist 5 Fire.  The Resist 5 fire never comes into play, and it resists 10 from any instance of damage.
  
     The case that isn't clear for resist all, is what happens if the damage is "4d6 cold + 2d6 Thunder + 10 poison".  Does it resist 10 total damage, or 10 from each type of damage within the total instance (30 total)?  If the damage was instead "6d6+10 cold and thunder and poison damage", then its clear it would resist only 10.


  For vulnerability it seems that the vulnerable all should always be in addition to any other vulnerability, even if its a single damage type. Similarly, if I was fighting a swarm (vulnerable close and area attacks) and gave it "vulnerable 10 fire", I would expect a close or area fire attack to have both vulnerabilities apply.
   So for the example BBEGs you give above:
  BBEG-1 - known case. Takes 5 extra from any radiant attack, 10 extra from any fire attack and 15 extra from any "fire and radiant" attack
  BBEG-2 - I would say it takes 5 extra damage from any attack, and an additional 10 damage from any fire attack.
  BBEG-3 -  Takes 10 extra damage from all attacks and an extra 5 damage from any fire attack...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
  In my opinion, this is the most consistent, specifically because "all" is not a damage type and there fore should not follow any rule related to applying vulnerabilies or resistances based on single or combined damage types.
      It's the honey badger of keywords. 

 
Your #2 is the most consistent way to handle it, imo. Anything else can make certain game elements odd.
It's the honey badger of keywords.

+1

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

This discussion seems to come up regularly. Would anyone like to propose the wording for an addition for the FAQ for it?
This discussion seems to come up regularly. Would anyone like to propose the wording for an addition for the FAQ for it?

Well, there are only two options. Either "Resist/Vuln All" is literally saying "Resist X, Y, Z" or it is essentially another "Type" that simply applies to anything. So in the first case it needs a damage type that hasn't pinged a vulnerability yet, which is trivial because technically even "Vulnerable to your Radiant attacks" is different from "Vulnerable to Radiant attacks" and if you want to be iterative, you have to be iterative and account for every possible type of Vulnerability that is possible within the rules. This is tiresome, particularly for resists. The second option, treating it as essentially another type, will basically always apply if there is damage because you are essentially saying "Vulnerable to all damage." But it can only ever apply once.

So...

"Vulnerable (or resist) All is essentially 'vulnerable (or resist) to all damage.' So long as there is damage, it will be triggered, even if the damage has already pinged a different vulnerability. 'All' is not iterative, it does not mean Vuln X, Y, Z, it just maens 'All'. The rules do not spell this out, but the other options result in some game elements not functioning correctly."

Something like that?
This discussion seems to come up regularly. Would anyone like to propose the wording for an addition for the FAQ for it?

Well, there are only two options. Either "Resist/Vuln All" is literally saying "Resist X, Y, Z" or it is essentially another "Type" that simply applies to anything. So in the first case it needs a damage type that hasn't pinged a vulnerability yet, which is trivial because technically even "Vulnerable to your Radiant attacks" is different from "Vulnerable to Radiant attacks" and if you want to be iterative, you have to be iterative and account for every possible type of Vulnerability that is possible within the rules. This is tiresome, particularly for resists. The second option, treating it as essentially another type, will basically always apply if there is damage because you are essentially saying "Vulnerable to all damage." But it can only ever apply once.

So...

"Vulnerable (or resist) All is essentially 'vulnerable (or resist) to all damage.' So long as there is damage, it will be triggered, even if the damage has already pinged a different vulnerability. 'All' is not iterative, it does not mean Vuln X, Y, Z, it just maens 'All'. The rules do not spell this out, but the other options result in some game elements not functioning correctly."

Something like that?

Something like that (thanks!), but brutally simple if possible. Maybe something like:
"Does 'Resist All' count as Resist fire (plus resist cold, resist radiant, etc.)? The concensus is that it does not count as the exact same thing as Resist fire, and it only applies once (or else it could conflict with other game elements, like "Resist 3 ongoing" and such). Same with Vulnerable All."

Will that suffice? Since I'll be linking to this thread, maybe the nuances of the subject could discussed more completely here? Or maybe I should provide links to similar threads (like this one)?

That works.
Im good with that

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

"consensus"!
Ok. I've added it to the FAQ
Would it be possible to generate a RQ&A-approved "houserule" to answer it properly, in ways that don't break the game in various ways?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Would it be possible to generate a RQ&A-approved "houserule" to answer it properly, in ways that don't break the game in various ways?

Can you elaborate?

Something that would establish what "All" means, how multi-typed (not combined type) damage works, that sort of thing.  Something that's not RAW, but what RAW would be if they let us write it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think what Mand means is we should have a single post - well revised and edited and based on our consensus - that lays out exactly how Resist All works and how Vulnerable All works in the scenarios of:
1) Combined damage types
2) Multiple separate damage types in the same instance of damage
3) Combined with other resistances and vulnerabilities, for single damage types and in the two scenarios above.
 
 With specific examples for each.

  We might want a separate post for Resist All and Vulnerable All.



Something that would establish what "All" means, how multi-typed (not combined type) damage works, that sort of thing.  Something that's not RAW, but what RAW would be if they let us write it.

So... if they let you write RAW, what would you write?

I'll take a stab at it, if I understood the consensus correctly.  Just wish there was an easy way to do tables in here.



Resistance and vulnerability to damage not based on damage type.

 
Sometimes a creature may have resistance or vulnerability based on a keyword other than a damage type.  Examples include Resist 5 All, Resist 3 ongoing damage, Resist 10 weapon  damage, etc.
   These keywords work a bit differently than the other damage type keywords, but the basic principles are still they same.

Resistance
  
For Resistance, the highest applicable resistance to the damage is the only one that applies.  
   First, determine if the creature has any resistance to damage based on the damage type of the power.  Then, compare the highest resistance based on damage type against each resistance not based on damage type keywords. Only the highest applies. The non-damage keywords will always apply regardless of combined damage types, as long as the condition (i.e. ongoing, weapon, melee, etc) is met. Resistance All will always apply if no other resistance is greater. If a creature gets two Resistances of this type from two different sources (ex: Resist 3 All and Resist 10 all), then only the highest resistance with that non-damage keyword (ex: Resist 10 all) is applied.

   For example, Bob the Fighter has
        Resist 5 Fire, Resist 10 Necrotic, Resist 6 Ongoing and Resist 3 All


















































Damage dealt to BobApplicable ResistanceBob takes...
10 untyped damageResist 3 all7 Untyped Damage
10 Fire damageResist 5 Fire5 Fire Damage
10 Ongoing Fire damageResist 6 Ongoing4 Ongoing Fire Damage
10 Fire and Necrotic damageResist 5 Fire + Resist 10 Necrotic = Resist 5 Fire & Necrotic5 Fire and Necrotic Damage
10 Ongoing Fire and Necrotic damageResist 5 Fire & Necrotic < Resist 6 Ongoing4 Ongoing Fire and Necrotic Damage
10 Thunder damageResist 3 All7 Thunder damage
10 Thunder and Lightning damageResist 3 All7 Thunder and Lightning damage
10 Ongoing Thunder and Lightning damageResist 6 Ongoing4 Ongoing Thunder and Lightning Damage



Vulnerability
For Vulnerability, all applicable Vulnerabilities stack. Two vulnerabilities with the same keyword do not stack, and only the highest with that keyword applies. So for example, if a creature has Vulnerable 5 All, and then gains Vulnerable 10 All, then it takes 10 extra damage whenever it takes damage, not 15. If the creature has Vulnerable 5 all and Vulnerable 10 Fire, then it will take 5 extra damage whenever it is damaged of the same type as the base damage, and 10 additional Fire damage whenever it takes Fire damage.  If the damage is just fire damage, both the vulnerable all and the vulnerable fire apply.  For example, Harold the Peasant currently has Vulnerable 5 all, Vulnerable 10 Fire and Vulnerable 3 Ongoing:




























Damage dealt to HaroldApplicable VulnerabilityHarold takes...
10 untyped damageVulnerable 5 All15 untyped damage (10 + 5 Extra)
10 Ongoing damageVulnerable 5 all, Vulnerable 3 Ongoing18 Ongoing Damage (10 + 8 extra)
10 Fire and Necrotic damageVulnerable 5 all, Vulnerable 10 fire15 Fire and Necrotic Damage (10+5 extra) + 10 extra Fire damage ‡
10 Ongoing Fire and Necrotic damageVulnerable 5 all, Vulnerable 3 Ongoing, Vulnerable 10 fire18 Fire and Necrotic Damage (10+8 extra) + 10 extra Fire damage ‡



‡ - Note that the Vulnerable 10 Fire adds extra Fire damage where as the Vulnerable All and Ongoing add the combined "Fire and Necrotic" damage. So in this case, if Harold managed to gain Resistance to Fire, it could reduce or eliminate the extra damage due to his Vulnerable 10 Fire, but not from Vulnerable 5 all. If a creature has Vulnerable All (or other special keyword) and also some resistances, the resistances will apply to the extra damage if they applied to the base damage. For example, if Harold had Vulnerable 5 All, Vulernable 5 Fire and Resist 20 Fire, and an attack did 10 Fire damage, Harold would take 0 damage total (10 Fire + 5 Extra Fire (Vuln all) + 5 Extra Fire (Vuln Fire) - 20 (Resist Fire) = 0). If the attack did 10 Fire and Necrotic Damage, then the Resist 20 Fire would negate the Vulnerable 5 Fire, but not the vulnerable 5 All; (10 Fire and Necrotic + 5 extra Fire and Necrotic (vuln all) + 5 extra Fire (vuln Fire) - 20 fire damage = 15 Fire and Necrotic damage) There are two cases I left out above, because I'm not sure what the consensus is for these:













10 Thunder damage + 6 Fire damageResist 5 All5 Thunder + 1 Fire = 6 total?
Or
should it be 11 total, with the 5 from either type?
10 Thunder damage + 6 Fire damageVulnerable 5 All, Vulernable 10 Fire15 Thunder damage + 16 Fire damage?
OR
15 Thunder Damage + 21 Fire Damage?