Ongoing

173 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hey Fellas,
A question came up last session about the stacking of Ongoing damage of various type, or their negation.

If you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic damage and later you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic and Psychic Damage, at the Start of Your Turn, how much damage will you get ? Some think you'll get 10 and others think you'll get 5 because the 2 Necrotic Damage won't stack, even if they are from a combined damage Ongoing.  I believe they are treated by the first paragraph Rule text while some friends think part of the second Ongoing Damage come and negate the first Ongoing, for same Damage type don't stack, as per the second paragraph of Rule text.

How are they treated finally ?


Thx.  For Reference:

PHB 278 Ongoing Damage

- Different Types of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of different types, you take damage from each effect every round. You make a separate saving throw against each damage type.
- The Same Type of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies. Example: You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

If you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic damage and later you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic and Psychic Damage, at the Start of Your Turn, how much damage will you get ?

10 (i.e. 5 Necrotic and 5 Psychic)

Example: if you had 3 ongoing effects: 5 Necrotic, 5 Psychic and 5 Necrotic and Psychic, then you would take 10... not 5, not 15.

Thanks mvincent. Humm....your exemple mix me up though.  The damage would be negated or split up and broken ?   Or it'd be 10 (i.e. 5 Necrotic and 5 Necrotic & Psychic)

As in ...

Ongoing 5 Necrotic
Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic

OR

Ongoing 5 Necrotic
Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Example: if you had 3 ongoing effects: 5 Necrotic, 5 Psychic and 5 Necrotic and Psychic, then you would take 10... not 5, not 15.




Why 10 and not 15 ? Aren't they 3 different damage type ?

Ongoing 5 Necrotic
Ongoing 5 Psychic
Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Ok got it. Only 2 Damage type total. Necrotic AND Psychic. So the 3rd Ongoing would not stack. (I though the Necrotic & Psychic was an exclusive damage type somehow...Laughing)

Thanks

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Ok got it.


That's a whole lot of solo posting. Are you... um... are you math-urbating?

Ok got it.


That's a whole lot of solo posting. Are you... um... are you math-urbating?




You're a funny guy.  Are you....um....are you 10 years old ?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Are you....um....are you 10 years old ?

Why 10 and not 15 ?

Example: if you had 3 ongoing effects: 5 Necrotic, 5 Psychic and 5 Necrotic and Psychic, then you would take 10... not 5, not 15.

There are two possibilities here, and neither at 10.

You might take 5 damage, and here's why:

5 Necrotic
5 Psychic
5 Necrotic and Psychic

That is, of course, assuming the damage of the last power is: 5 (Necrotic) and (Psychic).

If, instead, it is 5 (Necrotic and Psychic), i.e. a third different damage type, then the ongoing stack would deal the full 15.

I think strict RAW, it'd be 5.  I would personally run it as 15.  It's kind of your call, really.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
It must depend which Effects you get first, of what i understand.

If they were applied in this order it would be 10 :

1. Ongoing 5 Necrotic
2. Ongoing 5 Psychic
3. Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic


and if they were applied in this order it would be 5:

1. Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic
2. Ongoing 5 Psychic
3. Ongoing 5 Necrotic

With the Strikethrough showing which damage type doesn't get multiplied if i get everything right.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

It must depend which Effects you get first, of what i understand.

If they were applied in this order it would be 10 :

1. Ongoing 5 Necrotic
2. Ongoing 5 Psychic
3. Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic


and if they were applied in this order it would be 5:

1. Ongoing 5 Necrotic & Psychic
2. Ongoing 5 Psychic
3. Ongoing 5 Necrotic

With the Strikethrough showing which damage type doesn't get multiplied if i get everything right.

The order the effects were applied in does not matter. If you have multiple sources of ongoing damage you take whatever the highest amount of each type is. So, Ongoing 10 Fire, Ongoing 5 Necrotic, Ongoing 5 Fire, would deal 10 points of fire damage and 5 points of necrotic because those values are the highest amount of each type you are taking, fire & necrotic in that example. As per the compendium:
The Same Type of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies. Example: You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15.



Oh i see i see. Regardless of the number of Ongoing Damage Effects you have on you, you have to break them down by damage type that you'll take so you can take only the highest value on each. 

Merci Galkasaur.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


Oh i see i see. Regardless of the number of Ongoing Damage Effects you have on you, you have to break them down by damage type that you'll take so you can take only the highest value on each. 

Merci Galkasaur.


Exactly. That's why mixing enemies that deal lots of different types of ongoing damage can be very dangerous because you look at each type separately to determine damage each round.

I think strict RAW, it'd be 5.  I would personally run it as 15.  It's kind of your call, really.

Nope. It's 10.

I think strict RAW, it'd be 5.  I would personally run it as 15.  It's kind of your call, really.

Nope. It's 10.


It absolutely can't be 10.  The answer comes down to whether or not combined damage types count as a unique damage type, or whether they count as their constituent parts.

How could it be that 5X and 5Y can cancel out 5XY, but 5XY can't cancel 5X and 5Y?

Either 5 Necrotic and Psychic damage is the same as 5 Necrotic and 5 Psychic, or it isn't.

PHB 278: "If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies."

So, lets examine the ways this could be read.

I am taking ongoing 5 Necrotic and Psychic.

At the beginning of my turn, I check to see how much damage I am taking.  Either I

1) Check to see what the highest source of Necrotic and Psychic damage I am taking is, in which case it's 5, and I take 5 damage, or
2) Check to see what the highest source of Necrotic damage is (5) and the highest source of Psychic damage (5) and I take 10 damage.

Now, lets say I am also taking 5 ongoing Necrotic and 5 ongoing Psychic.

If #1 above is true, then there are two possibilities:

1a) I check to see what the highest source of Necrotic damage is (5), what the highest source of Psychic damage is (5), and what the highest source of Necrotic and Psychic damage is (5) and thus take 15. 
1b) I check to see what the highest source of Necrotic and Psychic damage is (5), and see that all the other damage I am taking is also either Necrotic or Psychic, and thus take only 5 total.

If #2 above is true, then, and only then can this happen:

2)I check to see the highest source of Necrotic damage is (5) and what the highest source of Psychic is (5), and thus take 10.

Surely, you don't think case number 2 is correct though, right?  Taking 5 onging Necrotic and Psychic doesn't actually deal you 10 damage, right?  It can't be 10.  It can only be 5 or 15, and I am pretty confident it is 15.


Actually, I think I'd like to change my previous answer:

I think strict RAW, it'd be 5.  I would personally run it as 15.  It's kind of your call, really.

I think strict RAW, it'd be 15, and that's also what I would personally run it as.  I could see a case for it being 5, but it absolutely can't be 10.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
The key to these situations is to identify the source(s) of the ongoing damage, ensure none of them have specific rules to exempt them from the general rules, identify the damage type(s), identify the largest instance of each damage type, and apply the damage.  So, for the above example:

1.  Three sources:  one applying 5 ongoing necrotic, one applying 5 ongoing psychic, and one applying 5 ongoing necrotic and psychic.

2.  While there are no exact sources given, let's presume there are no specific rules exempting any of these powers.  In doing so, we can fall back on the general rules.

3.  Therefore, we have two sources of ongoing 5 necrotic damage and two sources of ongoing psychic damage.

4.  The largest instance of ongoing necrotic damage is 5 and the largest instance of ongoing psychic damage is 5.

5.  Therefore, the ongoing damage IS 10 points per round.


I liked the way you walked through your logic; it helps clarify your arguement and provides an easy way to discuss the situation.  I only see 1 error in your logic:

The source of 5 ongoing necrotic and psychic damage is NOT a unique damage type.  That damage source is doing damage with both keywords; that does not equate to that damage having its own keyword.
4.  The largest instance of ongoing necrotic damage is 5 and the largest instance of ongoing psychic damage is 5.

5.  Therefore, the ongoing damage IS 10 points per round.


I liked the way you walked through your logic; it helps clarify your arguement and provides an easy way to discuss the situation.  I only see 1 error in your logic:

The source of 5 ongoing necrotic and psychic damage is NOT a unique damage type.  That damage source is doing damage with both keywords; that does not equate to that damage having its own keyword.

That's fine if it's not a unique damage type.  That was one possibility I gave (that's the one in which you take 5 damage total). 

By your logic, you'd take 10 damage if you were subject to a single source of 5 ongoing Psychic and Necrotic damage. When we get to your step four, we would find the same is true now as when you are also taking 5 Necrotic and 5 Psychic.  The highest source of Necrotic damage is 5, and the highest source of Psychic is 5, and thus, you'd take 10 damage.

I disagree with that logic because I don't think a single source of 5 ongoing damage can deal 10 damage.

Thus, if Psychic and Necrotic is not a unique damage type, then you'd take 5 damage total, because the highest source of each type of damage is the same source. 

Yes, in this way, it can sort of be considered detrimental to put extra keywords onto ongoing damage.  That is why I thought the most accurate reading would be the 15.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
it absolutely can't be 10.

It's 10.

it absolutely can't be 10.

It's 10.

Is there a reason, or did you just think it would be funny?

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
This is how I understand it:

Damages have types.

  • fire

  • cold


are all examples of simple damage types.

  • fire and cold

  • psychic and necrotic

  • foo and bar


are all examples of combined damage types.

fire is not the same damage type as fire and cold.

1d6 fire damage + 1d6 cold damage is not fire and cold damage.

Power keywords are often mistaken for damage types. If you have:

Hit: 1[W] fire damage
Effect: blah blah target gates 3 cold damage.

You have {power_source}, Cold, Fire, Weapon for keywords but you're only dealing with one damage type at a time.

So I guess I'm in the 15 camp for the mvincent example and 10 for the original example.


"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
Maybe I am/was confused, was the example talking about one effect that is Ongoing 5 Fire + Ongoing 5 Cold (save ends both) or Ongoing 5 Fire & Cold (save ends). If the former than I somewhat revise my earlier point as I believe that would indeed be its own type of admixtured damage because it is neither fire or cold, but rather, Fire/Cold.
Maybe I am/was confused, was the example talking about one effect that is Ongoing 5 Fire + Ongoing 5 Cold (save ends both) or Ongoing 5 Fire & Cold (save ends). If the former than I somewhat revise my earlier point as I believe that would indeed be its own type of admixtured damage because it is neither fire or cold, but rather, Fire/Cold.

There were two examples.

The original question was about someone with the following two conditions:
5 Ongoing Necrotic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic and Psychic Damage

The later example was someone with the following three:
5 Ongoing Psychic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic and Psychic Damage

My contention is that, for the latter example, you would probably tak 15, it could conceivably be 5 damage, but it absolutely could not be 10, and I explained why several times.
Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
FWIW, my interpretation of the rules indicates that damage of type (X and Y) is neither type X nor type Y, but an admixtured unique type of damage.  My position on this is based on the resistance rules; in order to resist damage of type (X+Y), you must have resistance to both X and Y, and the amount you actually resist is based on the lower resistance.

If you take ongoing 5 (psychic and necrotic), and you have 5 psychic resist, you don't take 0 damage, you take 5 damage because you have no necrotic resist.  If you have 5 psychic resist, and you have ongoing 5 psychic, ongoing 5 necrotic, and ongoing 5 (necrotic and psychic), you take 10 points of damage, resisting the 5 from the psychic.


So I'm in the 15 points of damage camp.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
This is a tricky one, but I think the right answer is indeed 10, and I think I can explain why.

I claim the place to start is with resistance and vulnerablity, because there we have specific examples for how multiple damage types work.  In particular, let's say an effect deals 10 points of (necrotic and psychic) damage.  Then:
- If you have resist 5 necrotic, you take 10 points of damage.
- If you have resist 5 psychic, you take 10 points of damage.
- If you have resist 5 necrotic and resist 5 psychotic, you take 5 points of damage.

That says a lot: we shouldn't treat (necrotic and psychotic) as its own unique damage type, since if that were the case, you would need resist 5 (necrotic and psychotic) to reduce the damage.  Also, the dual-type damage doesn't exactly count as both necrotic and psychotic at the same time, since then logically either type of resistance should work.  (If the damage is psychotic, then resist psychotic should logically apply, regardless of whether the damage is something else too.)

In fact, what it acts like is that the damage is treated as either type, whichever is most effective.  If you have necrotic resistance, you treat the damage as psychotic, and vice versa.*  As far as I can tell, that works perfectly.  For instance, if you have resist 5 psychic and vulnerabilty 5 necrotic, you would treat the damage as necrotic and take 15 points.  That certainly seems to be the easiest way to think about it that fits the examples.

So, how does that apply to the ongoing damage question?  If you make the same argument, then ongoing damage 5 (psychotic and necrotic) is treated as either type, whatever does the most damage. So if you're suffering from:
5 (psychotic and necrotic) - take 5 damage/turn
5 (psychotic and necrotic) and 5 (necrotic) - treat the dual-type damage as psychotic, so it stacks and you take 10 points/turn
5 (psychotic and necrotic) and 5 (necrotic) and 5 (psychotic) - Now it doesn't matter how we treat the dual type damage... it still won't stack with the others.  So you would just take 10 points.

*
Show

If it bothers you that they say "psychotic AND necrotic" but we're supposed to think of it as "psychotic OR necrotic," it might help to know that in mathematical logic, the AND operator corresponds to multiplication (1 AND 0 = 0 = 1*0) while the OR operator applies to addition (1 OR 0 = 1 = 1+0).  Since we often use "and" in the sense of "plus", the two operators are more easily mixed up then you might think.

That says a lot: we shouldn't treat (necrotic and psychotic) as its own unique damage type, since if that were the case, you would need resist 5 (necrotic and psychotic) to reduce the damage.



Well, that's not true because it tells you that resist 5 necrotic and resist 5 psychic is sufficient against the combined necrotic and psychic damage type so I'm not sure how the second half of that sentence supports the first half.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

That says a lot: we shouldn't treat (necrotic and psychotic) as its own unique damage type, since if that were the case, you would need resist 5 (necrotic and psychotic) to reduce the damage.



Well, that's not true because it tells you that resist 5 necrotic and resist 5 psychic is sufficient against the combined necrotic and psychic damage type so I'm not sure how the second half of that sentence supports the first half.


Right.  But if "necrotic and psychotic" were it's own unique damage type (that stacked independently with necrotic and with psychotic), then why would independent necrotic and psychotic resistances affect it?

Maybe you're saying "they affect it because the rules tell us they do," which is fine.  But I think that we can take that rule and use it to understand what "psychotic and necrotic" damage means.
That is what I'm saying.

I can agree with you that combined damage types could be better documented.

I think its a simpler mechanic to understand if you treat combined types as a unique type but I'm not going to claim this or that reference to back it up, just a general sense from the weight of the rules.
 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
It absolutely can't be 10.  The answer comes down to whether or not combined damage types count as a unique damage type, or whether they count as their constituent parts.

How could it be that 5X and 5Y can cancel out 5XY, but 5XY can't cancel 5X and 5Y?




Apply this logic to resistance:  we know that 5X and 5Y (resist 5 psychotic and resist 5 necrotic) can negate 5XY (5 psychotic and necrotic damage).  But there is no resist 5 (psychotic and necrotic), so the second part of the question doesn't apply.



Either 5 Necrotic and Psychic damage is the same as 5 Necrotic and 5 Psychic, or it isn't.




Clearly they aren't the same thing, that is ruled out easily.



PHB 278: "If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies."

So, lets examine the ways this could be read.

I am taking ongoing 5 Necrotic and Psychic.

At the beginning of my turn, I check to see how much damage I am taking.  Either I

1) Check to see what the highest source of Necrotic and Psychic damage I am taking is, in which case it's 5, and I take 5 damage, or
2) Check to see what the highest source of Necrotic damage is (5) and the highest source of Psychic damage (5) and I take 10 damage.




We know the right answer is 5 damage, but a third option:


3) The damage I'm taking counts as either necrotic or psychic, whichever is worse.  In this case it doesn't matter, and I take 5 damage.


also gives the right answer.


My objection to (1) is that it leaves unexplained why resist 5 necrotic plus resist 5 psychic would stop the damage.  We have a source of "Necrotic and Psychic" damage, which you want to treat as a separate category from Necrotic and from Psychotic.  But the resist rule tells us that they are related.

I think its a simpler mechanic to understand if you treat combined types as a unique type but I'm not going to claim this or that reference to back it up, just a general sense from the weight of the rules.
 


This runs into trouble with vulnerablilty too.  If I have vulnerabilty 5 psychic and take 5 psychic and necrotic damage, I end up with 10 damage.  That doesn't make sense if psychic and necrotic is a unique type, since I'm not vulnerable to that type.

I guess you would say that it's a unique type which has special rules for how it interacts with resistance and vulnerability, but it seems to me the special rule is that you treat the mixed type as whichever type is more effective.  So why not apply that same special rule to the case of ongoing damage?

I think its a simpler mechanic to understand if you treat combined types as a unique type but I'm not going to claim this or that reference to back it up, just a general sense from the weight of the rules.
 


This runs into trouble with vulnerablilty too.  If I have vulnerabilty 5 psychic and take 5 psychic and necrotic damage, I end up with 10 damage.  That doesn't make sense if psychic and necrotic is a unique type, since I'm not vulnerable to that type.



A unique type that has elements of both components.


I guess you would say that it's a unique type which has special rules for how it interacts with resistance and vulnerability, but it seems to me the special rule is that you treat the mixed type as whichever type is more effective. 



Not sure this is how I would characterize it but I'm not saying you're wrong. Just giving my angle.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387

Hey Fellas,
A question came up last session about the stacking of Ongoing damage of various type, or their negation.

If you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic damage and later you get an Ongoing 5 Necrotic and Psychic Damage, at the Start of Your Turn, how much damage will you get ? Some think you'll get 10 and others think you'll get 5 because the 2 Necrotic Damage won't stack, even if they are from a combined damage Ongoing.  I believe they are treated by the first paragraph Rule text while some friends think part of the second Ongoing Damage come and negate the first Ongoing, for same Damage type don't stack, as per the second paragraph of Rule text.

How are they treated finally ?


Thx.  For Reference:

PHB 278 Ongoing Damage

- Different Types of Ongoing Damage:
If effects deal ongoing damage of different types, you take damage from each effect every round. You make a separate saving throw against each damage type.
- The Same Type of Ongoing Damage: If effects deal ongoing damage of the same type, or if the damage has no type, only the higher number applies. Example: You’re taking ongoing 5 damage (no type) when a power causes you to take ongoing 10 damage. You’re now taking ongoing 10 damage, not 15.





The answer is 7.  This is how and why, iirc:

Ongoing damage of the same type is by highest of that type.

You have 2 sources of damage which are Necrotic 5 and Necrotic and Psychic 5 which broken down according to the rules (PHB pg 55) is Necrotic 3/Psychic 2 as you split the damages equally with the first keyword rounded up and the subsequent keywords rounded down.

The Necrotics do not stack (PHB pg 278) so you have 5 Necrotic and 2 Psychic.
That says a lot: we shouldn't treat (necrotic and psychotic) as its own unique damage type

For ongoing damage?  Are you sure?  Of course it is not it's own unique damage type for resists, but ongoing damage does its own check.

Edit: actually, answering the guy before me made me remember that when the errata about dual damage types came through, it explained not that it was treated as either one or the other, but rather that it was treated as being fully both.

since if that were the case, you would need resist 5 (necrotic and psychotic) to reduce the damage.  Also, the dual-type damage doesn't exactly count as both necrotic and psychotic at the same time, since then logically either type of resistance should work.

I don't think so.  (Forgive me, my office just did a fire safety in-service). 

If you have a fire consisting of both burning combustables (Class A) and an electrical fire (Class C) [perhaps some flammable paper is near or on a faulty outlet], using an Extinguisher that only puts out Class A fires won't do anything at all.  But the fire doesn't suddenly decide that it's really a Class C fire in that instant.  It's still both a Class A and C fire at the same time, and it's just that taking care of half of it is insufficient.

(If the damage is psychotic, then resist psychotic should logically apply, regardless of whether the damage is something else too.)

Another crazy example: you have a flame retardent shirt on, and you get shot with a flaming arrow.  It rips through the shirt and you get burned anyway.  If it can't stop both, it can't stop any of it.

In fact, what it acts like is that the damage is treated as either type, whichever is most effective.

This is an interesting hypothesis, I just disagree with it, and don't find your proof compelling.

5 (psychotic and necrotic) and 5 (necrotic) and 5 (psychotic) - Now it doesn't matter how we treat the dual type damage... it still won't stack with the others.  So you would just take 10 points.

The interesting part of this argument here, is the direction this answer came from.  Let me make some conjecture.

Your intuition told you it should probably be 10 damage.  I'm sure it did, because my intuition told me the same thing.  The difference was, you seem to have gone through your logical processes trying to justify why it should be 10, and the only real way to do so was to treat the "and" damages as actually being "or" damages.

I just don't see that as being terribly well supported by the rules or examples, and working "frontwards," going from the rules on to the situation, it looks pretty clear to me that it's 15 damage, which honestly I found surprising.

The answer is 7.

Wow, that's something you don't see every day.  You're actually going by what the PHB says.  That's kind of neat.  I hate to tell you, though, that this was errata'd a long time ago.  It is not longer split like that, it is treated as being fully both types of damage, so if you only resist one type, you still take the full damage.

The issue is really not about resist, though, it's about how the ongoing damage check differentiates damage types.
Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
They errata'd that too?  Cry

It's sort of a chore keeping up with all the changes now I gotta go check that mess out.
They errata'd that too?  Cry

It's sort of a chore keeping up with all the changes now I gotta go check that mess out.

I can understand this sentiment to a small degree, but seriously, that was in the very first set of errata they released.  It has to be at least a year or two ago at this point.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
Found it.


Thanks for the information.  I suppose the answer would be 10 then. 
I'm suffering from 3 types of ongoing damage:

5 Ongoing Psychic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic and Psychic Damage

How much damage do I take? Wow, a lot of people have a lot of different theories on this.

Before you start saying 5 damage, 10 damage, or even 15 damage, let's throw in some resistance. (I think someone even said 7 damage, that's just silly).

Now, I have Resist Necrotic 5.

5 Ongoing Psychic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic and Psychic Damage

5 ongoing psychic + 5 ongoing psychic = 5 ongoing psychic damage

I just resisted 5 ongoing damage. If I didn't have the resistance, then I should tack on 5 more ongoing damage. So the answer to the first question, "How much damage do I take?" from all 3 ongoing damage types should be 10.

Put me in the "10" boat.

Now, I have Resist Necrotic 5.

5 Ongoing Psychic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic Damage
5 Ongoing Necrotic and Psychic Damage

5 ongoing psychic + 5 ongoing psychic = 5 ongoing psychic damage



Is there anything to support this? As far as I can tell, having 5 Resist to Necrotic doesn't turn 5 ongoing necrotic and psychic damage into straight ongoing psychic damage. You would need both psychic and necrotic resistance to overcome combined necrotic and psychic damage.

From the compendium on Resist:
"Against Combined Damage Types: Your resistance is ineffective against combined damage types unless you have resistance to each of the damage types, and then only the weakest of the resistances applies...the resistance to the combined damage types is limited by the lesser of the two resistances."

If you have necrotic res 5 and psychic res 0 (no resist) then your resistance against the combined damage is limited to the lower amount, which is 0. You have 0 resistance against necrotic and psychic damage. No where I can find says that having one resistance is partially effective against combined damage or in any way changes the type of damage.  

I think mplindustries has the right of it. You would take 15 damage (or possibly 5) but certainly not 10. 
I just wanted to throw out that just because you look at your individual resists to calculate how you resist damage that is of multiple types doesn't mean you don't consider a multiple damage power to be its own type. That's one of the major benefits of arcane admixture, making it incredibly difficult to resist your power because enemies need two types of resistance to even have a chance of resisting your power.

So you you have:

5 Ongoing Psychic
5 Ongoing Necrotic
5 Ongoing Necrotic & Psychic (a multiple damage type ongoing, not just 5 of each)

And you have Resist 5 Necrotic.

Ok, so right away you knock out the 5 Ongoing Necrotic because your resist is equal to it. You do not knock out the 5 Ongoing Necrotic & Psychic because you only resist multiple damage types by the lowest resistance you have. Since you don't have resist psychic you take that full 5 damage.

Now, we try to figure out how much ongoing to take. Psychic is its own type, clearly, but the multiple damage type one ought to be its own as well because it's neither psychic or necrotic, it's a fusion of both. So, in this example, 10 damage.

I can appreciate the argument why that might not be the case but I don't think there's any clear RAW behind it either way.

The interesting part of this argument here, is the direction this answer came from.  Let me make some conjecture.

Your intuition told you it should probably be 10 damage.  I'm sure it did, because my intuition told me the same thing.  The difference was, you seem to have gone through your logical processes trying to justify why it should be 10, and the only real way to do so was to treat the "and" damages as actually being "or" damages.


Actually, I went back and forth for a long time between thinking it was 10, 15, and that the rules just didn't say.  (I ruled out 5 because it seemed unreasonble to lower the damage you take by adding a third damage effect.)


If you have a fire consisting of both burning combustables (Class A) and an electrical fire (Class C) [perhaps some flammable paper is near or on a faulty outlet], using an Extinguisher that only puts out Class A fires won't do anything at all.  But the fire doesn't suddenly decide that it's really a Class C fire in that instant.  It's still both a Class A and C fire at the same time, and it's just that taking care of half of it is insufficient.


I came to my conclusion through just this kind of argument.  We have our fire that is both class A and class C.   The question is, what exactly do we mean by that? 

Take it from a formal logic point of view:  There is a set of fires we call class A, and a set of fires we call class C.  My extinguisher will put out fires in class A, but not in class C.  If this particular fire is in both classes, then it is in class A, and the extinguisher should put it out.  To be more concrete: my extinguisher puts out any type of fire that involves burning paper, and no other kind of fire.  But if our fire is both class A (paper) and class C (electrical) then logically we are saying that it involves burning electrical paper.  Electrical paper is still paper, so our extinguisher should work.  

Or you could say that our fire consists of both a class A fire and a class C fire at the same time... ie, it's really two fires.  This probably corresponds best to the real world.  But in that case, our extinguisher should put out the class A part, leaving the class C part.  We would expect though, that this would decrease the damage done by the fire, maybe by half.  In reality, that probably does happen, since right after using our extinguisher, there should be less stuff burning.

But our rules say that's not what happens.  Maybe instead you say that the fire is limited by oxygen uptake, so when I put out the burning paper, the electrical wiring burns more fiercely to make up for it.  Conversely, if I put out the wiring, the paper would burn more fiercely.  But that means exactly what I claimed: the fire can act as either class A or class C, whichever is more effective.

The other option is that when you get a class A fire and a class C fire together, it forms a unique thing, call it class AC.  Maybe the burning paper and burning wires interact to form some new type of fire that is neither class A nor class C.  But then why would it be susceptible to using both class A and class C extinguishers on it at the same time?  It it now neither class A nor class C, so neither should work.
I just wanted to throw out that just because you look at your individual resists to calculate how you resist damage that is of multiple types doesn't mean you don't consider a multiple damage power to be its own type. That's one of the major benefits of arcane admixture, making it incredibly difficult to resist your power because enemies need two types of resistance to even have a chance of resisting your power.

So you you have:

5 Ongoing Psychic
5 Ongoing Necrotic
5 Ongoing Necrotic & Psychic (a multiple damage type ongoing, not just 5 of each)

And you have Resist 5 Necrotic.

Ok, so right away you knock out the 5 Ongoing Necrotic because your resist is equal to it. You do not knock out the 5 Ongoing Necrotic & Psychic because you only resist multiple damage types by the lowest resistance you have. Since you don't have resist psychic you take that full 5 damage.

Now, we try to figure out how much ongoing to take. Psychic is its own type, clearly, but the multiple damage type one ought to be its own as well because it's neither psychic or necrotic, it's a fusion of both. So, in this example, 10 damage.

I can appreciate the argument why that might not be the case but I don't think there's any clear RAW behind it either way.


You're right that the rules don't say, and if you want to leave it at that, I can't say you're wrong.

But the rules do spell out reasonbly clearly how it works with resistance and vulnerability, and I think that we can extend those same rules to the case of ongoing damage.  That's not RAW, but it does give us an answer.


Now, we try to figure out how much ongoing to take. Psychic is its own type, clearly, but the multiple damage type one ought to be its own as well because it's neither psychic or necrotic, it's a fusion of both. So, in this example, 10 damage.


But what if you have resistance to both necrotic and psychic damage?  Why should that work against the combined damage type?
The other option is that when you get a class A fire and a class C fire together, it forms a unique thing, call it class AC.  Maybe the burning paper and burning wires interact to form some new type of fire that is neither class A nor class C.  But then why would it be susceptible to using both class A and class C extinguishers on it at the same time?  It it now neither class A nor class C, so neither should work.

The reason AC is susceptible to A & C used together is that that's just the mechanical way the rules create Resist AC. Obviously, you don't go out looking for Resist X AC or BD or XY because it's way too situational so the rules effectively create a hybrid out of your actual resistances when you are taking damage of multiple types.

So, I don't think the real world example of using A & C extinguishers is correct. The rules are more along the lines of 'if you have A & C you can create Resist AC' which would be more like taking extinguisher A & C then funneling them through some retrofit sprayer that mixes the two together to create an AC extinguisher.