Damage Dealt and Keywords.

144 posts / 0 new
Last post

There has been a lot of discussion here and elsewhere in regards to damage and how it works in regards top combining damage types, per-combined damage types and how it all relates to vulnerability etc.


I picked up the new Essentials Rule Compendium today and on page 114, the first thing stated under Damage Types:


"If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage."


This means that as some of us assumed previously, adding a damage type to an attack infers the damage keyword and thus the rest of the attack deals the associated damage type - adding 1 point of cold damage makes the entire attack deal cold damage, as well as any other type of damage being dealt with the exception of specific instances such as the elemental weapons, weapons that specifically deal half of a type and powers such as Blazing Starfall (Although technically given this rule the entire thing is Radiant and Fire... the general doesn't quite get around the specific.)


So, we can trigger multiple vulnerabilities (which we knew) but also, an enemy (or player) must resist every type of damage being dealt in an attack in order to resist any, and then only the value of the lowest resist counts.


This, obviously has an impact in terms of Optimization as we know have a definitive answer.


Thoughts? Does this make anything much better, worse?


Wolf.



"If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage."


Logically, it doesn't mean adding a certain type of damage adds the power the associated keyword.
It just means that if the power does not deal the type of damage, it does not have the associated keyword.

No, adding damage adding the keyword is already established in the rules - it was key words adding damage that was not set in stone.


Wolf.

This statement is false from the start, because there are already powers with a keyword (that have not been errataed to be in-line with Essentials) that have multiple typed keywords and do not deal combined damage of two types at once.

For example, Blazing Starfall.

It was likely intended as a general standby description of what damage keywords mean, not as a hard rule, and will recieve errata to cement that fact.


If it does work, it completely breaks the game, because dealing damage of more than one type would be wildly overpowered in every single vulnerabilty-use scenario.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

No, adding damage adding the keyword is already established in the rules




While people kept saying that, I haven't found anything established.
Please specify the book and page if you don't mind.

This is not part of an example, it is literally the first sentence under Damage Types in the Rules Compendium  - this is a compendium of rules, not general descriptions. As it stands this is hard and fast RAW.


Until changed this is simply how it is.


Wolf.


This is not part of an example, it is literally the first sentence under Damage Types in the Rules Compendium  - this is a compendium of rules, not general descriptions. As it stands this is hard and fast RAW.


Until changed this is simply how it is.


Wolf.




Yes, I understand that fact.

I was saying that it is also clearly not the RAI, and I gave two reasons why I think it will be errataed near-instantly.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

No, adding damage adding the keyword is already established in the rules




While people kept saying that, I haven't found anything established.
Please specify the book and page if you don't mind.




Give me 40 minutes to get home and I'll provide a link if nobody beats me to it.


 


Wolf.


While people kept saying that, I haven't found anything established.
Please specify the book and page if you don't mind.



It wasn't in a book.  It's in one of the updates.  April or March, I think.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects).


Perhaps is this what you are referring to?
But it is about changing damage type - like when you have a fire power deal cold damage with a frost weapon, not adding some extra damage of other types.
You don't lose any damage type/keyword, when you deal additional 1 cold damage.

You already found it, cool.


The ERC (Essentials Rule Compendium) offers an update:


Page 115 under "Adding and Removing Damage Types."


"If a power gains or loses damage types, the power gains the keywords for any damage types that are added, and loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed."


 Adding 1 point of cold damage adds the damage type to the attack, as it is part of the attack, conferring the keyword which confers the damage type to the entire attack.


Ankiyavon - sorry, I was very snippy with you... I apologise. It's just that this debate ran for ages on and off (as you're aware!) and it bugs the hell out of me. 'No excuse though.


Wolf.

It seems pretty clear to me that "additional" damage is, well, additional. There are definitely triggered powers worded like, "the affected attack does 1dWhatever additional Foo damage, and the original attack also gains the Foo keyword." None that I can name off the top of my head, but I'm positive I've seen them. Why would the second clause be necessary if it's implied to be the case whenever additional damage is granted?

If it does happen, and I can't think of an instance, then it is a legacy from earlier rule incarnations.


Erratas have happened since.


Wolf.

I hadn't seen the post just above mine with the line from page 115. That definitely clarifies things a bit.

I'm obviously going to need to spend some quality time with the ERC after I visit the local gaming shop on Thursday. Tongue out
Thanks Wolf. That clears up the final bit of doubt left in me.

But that is kinda funny. Waltzing along the rule update;
Add 1 cold damage -> add Cold keyword -> the whole damage is cold now.

The fact that (so far) everyone in the thread is in agreement provides me with an absurd amount of joy.


I'm so happy that this debate has finally been put to rest (for now)!!!


Wolf.


I picked up the new Essentials Rule Compendium today and on page 114, the first thing stated under Damage Types:


"If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage."


This means that as some of us assumed previously, adding a damage type to an attack infers the damage keyword and thus the rest of the attack deals the associated damage type - adding 1 point of cold damage makes the entire attack deal cold damage, as well as any other type of damage being dealt with the exception of specific instances such as the elemental weapons, weapons that specifically deal half of a type and powers such as Blazing Starfall (Although technically given this rule the entire thing is Radiant and Fire... the general doesn't quite get around the specific.)




Is there more to that quote?  What you've quoted doesn't mean what you're saying it means.  The power dealing damage type X doesn't mean every attack has to deal damage type X (or any attack, if Damage type X is dealt by an effect instead), nor does it mean that 10 fire +1 cold damage becomes 11 cold and fire damage.  All it means is that if a power has a damage keyword, it should deal that type of damage somewhere in the power.

I picked up the new Essentials Rule Compendium today and on page 114, the first thing stated under Damage Types:


"If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage."


This means that as some of us assumed previously, adding a damage type to an attack infers the damage keyword and thus the rest of the attack deals the associated damage type - adding 1 point of cold damage makes the entire attack deal cold damage, as well as any other type of damage being dealt with the exception of specific instances such as the elemental weapons, weapons that specifically deal half of a type and powers such as Blazing Starfall (Although technically given this rule the entire thing is Radiant and Fire... the general doesn't quite get around the specific.)




Is there more to that quote?  What you've quoted doesn't mean what you're saying it means.  The power dealing damage type X doesn't mean every attack has to deal damage type X (or any attack, if Damage type X is dealt by an effect instead), nor does it mean that 10 fire +1 cold damage becomes 11 cold and fire damage.  All it means is that if a power has a damage keyword, it should deal that type of damage somewhere in the power.



I agree with Chaosmage.  I don't see how the RC is changing anything from that quote.  Blazing Starfall has the fire keyword because it does fire damage somewhere in the power.  It also has the radiant keyword because it does radiant damage somewhere in the power.  It specifically doesn't imply that all damage done by blazing starfall is radiant and fire damage.  It doesn't even imply that most of the damage is radiant and fire damage. 

I'm sorry ChaosMage, but you're being intentionally difficult now.


The quote is quite clear, in fact, it is absolute in that it lacks any ambiguity.


"The sky is blue." - This does not mean that the sky is partially blue, there may be green bits.


"I am male." - This does not mean I'm a hermaphrodite or possibly a cross-dresser.


If the attack has a damage keyword then the attack deals that damage type. Full. Stop.


Nowhere in 4th Edition does it instruct you to partition damage, in the ECS, on page 222 under "Modifiers to Damage Rolls.",


"A bonus to a damage roll is added to the damage as a whole, [not to each die roll within it]."


The damage is NOT segmented.


If I have a fire attack and deal 1 point of cold damage as a result of this attack, from any source then the attack gains the keyword - fact.


If the attack has the keyword, it deals that damage - fact.


The attack goes from dealing fire damage with extra cold damage to dealing cold and fire damage.


The only reason there was ever debate was because keywords and damage types were interpretable as being separate - this says they're not, they're inexorably linked.


A=B.


It is according to raw, 100%, 11 Fire and Cold damage.


Anything else is intentionally misreading more than one rule.


Wolf.


EDIT: As I said initially, there are specific exceptions as there are to all rules. I even mentioned Blazing Starfall specifically. Specific examples DO NOT invalidate the general rule in an exception based system.

Anything else is intentionally misreading more than one rule.


I think you mean "accidentally or mistakenly misreading", and not "intentionally".  Well, that's what I think you should mean, anyway, before this incessant debate goes off the rails into personal attacks, like every other keyword interactivity discussion has gone to.
Ankiyavon - sorry, I was very snippy with you... I apologise. It's just that this debate ran for ages on and off (as you're aware!) and it bugs the hell out of me. 'No excuse though.

Wolf.




Don't worry about it, no offense taken.  I was more of a douche than normal too (I always am when I'm still working on setting up the day's caffeine IV).

For clarity, I agree fully with your interpretation of the RAW.  I just think it's wildly overpowered errata-bait, so we shouldn't get used to it.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Without delving deeply into "why?", I'm curious what each of you think happens in the follow situations:

1) Stormsoul Genasi with Shocking Flame makes a melee attack with a generic magic weapon which has a Frozen Whetstone applied to it:
-What are keywords of this attack?
-What amount of each kind of damage does it deal?

2) Similar to above, with a twist!  Stormsoul Genasi Monk who somehow has Bows as an implement type (I'm sure this is possible somewhere).  Shocking Flame + Frozen Whetstone + Screaming Bow making a melee implement attack that has no damage type:
-What are the keywords for this attack?
-What amount of each kind of damage does it deal?

For reference:
Shocking Flame = all melee attacks do 2 extra lightning damage (if Stormsoul)
Frozen Whetstone = all attacks with weapon deal X extra cold damage (lets say 2 in this case)
Screaming Bow = when you use this weapon to make an attack that doesn't have a damage type, the attack deals thunder damage...
Anything else is intentionally misreading more than one rule.


I think you mean "accidentally or mistakenly misreading", and not "intentionally".  Well, that's what I think you should mean, anyway, before this incessant debate goes off the rails into personal attacks, like every other keyword interactivity discussion has gone to.




You're right, Tilobin. Again, this particular subject just really grinds my gears.


I apologise to ChaosMage too.


Ankiyavon - sorry, I was very snippy with you... I apologise. It's just that this debate ran for ages on and off (as you're aware!) and it bugs the hell out of me. 'No excuse though.

Wolf.




Don't worry about it, no offense taken.  I was more of a douche than normal too (I always am when I'm still working on setting up the day's caffeine IV).

For clarity, I agree fully with your interpretation of the RAW.  I just think it's wildly overpowered errata-bait, so we shouldn't get used to it.



I don't know, this seams to be the direction they've been going in for a while now.


The bit I mentioned in my last post from page 222 seams to bolster the fact that this interpretation is RAI as well as RAW.


Of course, it's WotC, so we'll just have to wait and see if they change their minds.


I must say though, that if they do I will be very upset - this is supposed to be a unified and comprehensive rule reference and to have it errata's even in the first year would make it only VERY slightly more convenient than simply carrying around my laptop - which I do anyway.


 


 


Without delving deeply into "why?", I'm curious what each of you think happens in the follow situations:

1) Stormsoul Genasi with Shocking Flame makes a melee attack with a generic magic weapon which has a Frozen Whetstone applied to it:
-What are keywords of this attack?
-What amount of each kind of damage does it deal?

2) Similar to above, with a twist!  Stormsoul Genasi Monk who somehow has Bows as an implement type (I'm sure this is possible somewhere).  Shocking Flame + Frozen Whetstone + Screaming Bow making a melee implement attack that has no damage type:
-What are the keywords for this attack?
-What amount of each kind of damage does it deal?

For reference:
Shocking Flame = all melee attacks do 2 extra lightning damage (if Stormsoul)
Frozen Whetstone = all attacks with weapon deal X extra cold damage (lets say 2 in this case)
Screaming Bow = when you use this weapon to make an attack that doesn't have a damage type, the attack deals thunder damage...


It would be deal X lightning and Cold damage in both instances; the screaming bow wouldn't make any difference as the damage becomes typed by the other two.


Although, having said that, did I read somewhere that you decide in which order effects resolve? Or am I having flash backs to CCGs?


Wolf.


I don't know, this seams to be the direction they've been going in for a while now.


The bit I mentioned in my last post from page 222 seams to bolster the fact that this interpretation is RAI as well as RAW.


Of course, it's WotC, so we'll just have to wait and see if they change their minds.


I must say though, that if they do I will be very upset - this is supposed to be a unified and comprehensive rule reference and to have it errata's even in the first year would make it only VERY slightly more convenient than simply carrying around my laptop - which I do anyway.


Wolf.




*shrug*  Typos happen.

As long as it was an honest mistake, errata never bothers me.  (Updates made in an attempt to make the game better only bother me if I think it was a stupid idea; but fixing an honest mistake never bothers me, even if I think the intention is a stupid idea, because I understand that proofreading can't catch everything.  The rule might bother me, but the errata wouldn't.)


 


The reason I don't think it's RAI is because they've been working for all of 4E so far with the basic design that only very specific powers get to deal multiple damage types, and the resistance and vulnerability rules were set in place to be balanced against these powers being very rare.  If you can get multi-typed damage effectively at-will, you can basically ignore resistances and trigger multiple vulnerabilites on a single attack, every attack.  It just breaks some fundamental assumptions that the resist + vuln system makes.  And the r + v system wasn't changed in any meaningful way in the RC; if it had been, I could see a design shift, but it wasn't.


In addition, powers like Blazing Starfall were not updated, and the rule makes no mention of them being an exception to it.  It might just be an oversight, but it seems like they'd have noticed it; I mean, these powers aren't rare, there's tons of powers that have a particular keyword and don't deal damage of that type.  At least half the powers with the poision keyword don't deal poison damage.  Now they do?  Or are they all specific exceptions?


 



It would be deal X lightning and Cold damage in both instances; the screaming bow wouldn't make any difference as the damage becomes typed by the other two.



Although, having said that, did I read somewhere that you decide in which order effects resolve? Or am I having flash backs to CCGs?



Wolf.




The order in which effects like this resolve is undefined by the rules; there is no clear RAW.  I think pretty much every DM in existence would rule that it's X (lightning and cold) in both situations, though, as the intent of the screaming bow is pretty clear.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

I'm sorry ChaosMage, but you're being intentionally difficult now.




I disagree.  You're inserting meaning that isn't in the text.



The quote is quite clear, in fact, it is absolute in that it lacks any ambiguity.




This I agree with.  The only ambiguity is what you yourself are inserting.



If the attack has a damage keyword then the attack deals that damage type. Full. Stop.




Reread your quote.  If the POWER has a damage keyword, the power will deal that damage type.  Nothing about attacks.



Nowhere in 4th Edition does it instruct you to partition damage, in the ECS, on page 222 under "Modifiers to Damage Rolls.",


"A bonus to a damage roll is added to the damage as a whole, [not to each die roll within it]."


The damage is NOT segmented.




That's specifically about not adding bonuses multiple times if you roll multiple dice and has nothing to do with what we're discussing.  Again, you're trying to add meaning that isn't there.



If I have a fire attack and deal 1 point of cold damage as a result of this attack, from any source then the attack gains the keyword - fact.




The power gains that keyword.



If the attack has the keyword, it deals that damage - fact.




False.  If the power has a keyword, some part of it will deal that damage- all you need is a single attack or effect that deals fire damage for the statement "this power deals fire damage" to be true.



The attack goes from dealing fire damage with extra cold damage to dealing cold and fire damage.


The only reason there was ever debate was because keywords and damage types were interpretable as being separate - this says they're not, they're inexorably linked.


A=B.


It is according to raw, 100%, 11 Fire and Cold damage.


Anything else is intentionally misreading more than one rule.


Wolf.


EDIT: As I said initially, there are specific exceptions as there are to all rules. I even mentioned Blazing Starfall specifically. Specific examples DO NOT invalidate the general rule in an exception based system.



I won't go so far as to say you're intentionally misreading the rules, but you certainly do have a talent for making up rules that aren't in the text anywhere.  If I use a power with the fire keyword to deal 10 fire damage and add 1 cold damage from something else, the cold keyword is added to the power.  I will then deal 10 fire +1 cold damage to my target,  and "If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage" will be true; I used a power with the cold keyword and I dealt cold damage.  That's the only requirement.  This requirement that existing damage types be changed is one you've added; it's clearly not in the text.

The quote from page 222 may not be specifically about this and part of a rule regarding damage roles, but it does specifically say that damage bonuses are applied as a whole. 1 number.


"1d4+3 Int + 3 Enhance" is 1d4+6. Dealing 1 cold damage would make it 1d4+7. Because it's a whole.


It is not segmented ANYWHERE in the rules.


You're not going to agree though.


Wolf.


The quote from page 222 may not be specifically about this and part of a rule regarding damage roles, but it does specifically say that damage bonuses are applied as a whole. 1 number.


"1d4+3 Int + 3 Enhance" is 1d4+6. Dealing 1 cold damage would make it 1d4+7. Because it's a whole.


It is not segmented ANYWHERE in the rules.


You're not going to agree though.


Wolf.



I've pointed out a number of powers, both from PCs and monsters, that have them "segmented" in the past.  Multiple damage types done simultaneously aren't combined ANYWHERE in the rules, so I don't know why you assume it happens.  If a power tells me to do 10 damage +5 fire damage, I'm going to do exactly that; without some other rule, that doesn't become 15 fire damage.  Likewise, if something tells me to do 10 fire damage and something else tells me to do 1 cold damage, I'm going to do 10 fire damage and 1 cold damage; I need a rule to tell me to make that 11 fire and cold damage.  Since that rule doesn't exist, I'm not going to combine the damage types.

Keywords:  A power's keyword summarize important aspects of that power.  With a glance at a power's keywords, a reader can learn various things about the power: what it's power source is, whether it has any damage types, and what special rules are required to use it.

(Page 110 ERC)

Damage types
- many attacks deal a specific type of damage, and each damage type has an associated keyword with it.

(lists all the damage types)

If a power has one of these keywords, it deals the associated type of damage. 

Adding and removing Damage types:  If a power gains or loses damage types, the power gains the keywords for any damage types that are added, and it loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed.


Example: If Albanon casts a lightning power through a magic staff that changes the damage to fire, the power gains the fire keyword and loses the lightning keyword for that use, since the power is dealing fire damage instead of lightning damage.  That use of the power can therefore benefit from game elements, such as feats, that affect fire powers, but not those that effect lightning powers.
(pages 114-115 ERC)

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

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.

(page 225 ERC)

Does this help?  I'm running my game tonight this way.

MC-Drowbane's summary of the rules seems pretty clear. Maybe it's a mistake on Wizard's part, maybe it's how they want things working, but it seems difficult to make the argument that RAW shouldn't be interpreted the way Wolf_in_the_Meadow suggests.

For what it's worth, ChaosMage, I think the fact that certain powers have a segmentation explicitly spelled out while few explicitly spell out combined damage hurts your case. The reason you explicitly spell out something like that in the power text is because it operates differently from the standard case; i.e., those powers are an exception to the general rule that adding typed damage to an attack causes the attack to behave as if the whole attack had both damage types.
In addition this is an important item as well.

Extra Damage: Many powers and other effects grant the ability to deal extra damage.  Extra damage is always in addition to other damage, unless otherwise noted.

(Page 223 ERC)

The key of this is in addition

So seeing as how I can not find any instances that specifically state Sword of Flame(whatever) adds damage then I will have to rule in my game that a Hellfire Staff with the Daily Free Action power of:

Trigger: You hit an enemy with an attack power using this staff.
Effect: That enemy takes 1d8 extra fire damage and you push the enemy 3 squares

translates to

extra damage=add damage=add keyword
MC-Drowbane's summary of the rules seems pretty clear. Maybe it's a mistake on Wizard's part, maybe it's how they want things working, but it seems difficult to make the argument that RAW shouldn't be interpreted the way Wolf_in_the_Meadow suggests.

For what it's worth, ChaosMage, I think the fact that certain powers have a segmentation explicitly spelled out while few explicitly spell out combined damage hurts your case. The reason you explicitly spell out something like that in the power text is because it operates differently from the standard case; i.e., those powers are an exception to the general rule that adding typed damage to an attack causes the attack to behave as if the whole attack had both damage types.


Wait, so you're saying that because some powers say things like "1[W] + Wisdom modifier damage plus 1d10 thunder damage" and some attacks say things like "2d6 + Wisdom modifier cold and fire damage" that it somehow follows that it's an exception to a rule on combining damage that's never stated?  That doesn't make any sense.  You still need a rule that says adding two amounts of damage of different types causes them to become one combined type.

@MC-DrowBane: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with your last post, since the keyword being added to the power isn't something that anyone's arguing against.  The power gains the keyword; that just doesn't go back and change any damage types the power was already dealing.  The untyped damage + thunder damage power I quoted earlier, Thunder and Echo, has the thunder keyword and deals thunder damage, which is all the rules require.  The fact that not all the damage it deals is thunder is immaterial, because the rules don't say all its damage has to be thunder.  So if you use that Hellfire Staff power on Ray of Frost, you effectively end up doing this:
Ray of Frost

A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target.


At-Will   bullet.gif     Arcane, Cold, Fire, Implement
Standard Action      Ranged 10


Target: One creature


Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude


Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier cold damage plus 1d8 fire damage, and the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.


Just like Thunder and Echo, you'll do two different damage types added together.  You'll end up doing something like "7 cold damage pluse 4 fire damage."  It has the cold keyword and the fire keyword and it's done both cold damage and fire damage, exactly like the rule quote that started the thread suggests should be the case.
absolutely Chaos Mage, in fact I'm not arguing anything.  I am merely putting the ERC maeterial out there in hopes we can finally resolve this.  As far as I can tell "losing damage type" only happens when an effect specifically states a damage type is replaced.

I just think we are micro managing by breaking the damage down into specific numbers when the rules state it is both damage types.  Therefore it is irrlevant the value of the initial damage type because after all damage and keyword/damage type effects are accounted for you still have the same result.

If it's 7 fire damage and 1 cold damage it's still 8 fire/cold damage.  Which means if your vulnerable to 5 fire you take 5 fire.  If you are vulnerable to 5 cold you take 5 cold.

You resist the lower of your resistances if the power shares equal damage types of both resistances.

If I have a dog that is black and white (ie - a black and white dog), I don't expect it to be some sort of superimposed state of color, simultaeneously black and white all over.

Now, if we have a power that is fire and ice, it is at least possible (in D&D anyway) that the power is producing fiery ice, but it's far from certain. And if the power specifically says that it's nose is fire while it's wagging tail is ice, why would you expect the keywords should change that? Doubly so when making that change causes balance issues.
And if the power specifically says that it's nose is fire while it's wagging tail is ice, why would you expect the keywords should change that? Doubly so when making that change causes balance issues.



This thread is specifically about the cases where the power doesn't specifically say that. I.e., the case where I've got a dog made of fire that I magically encase in an icy sabot or something.

I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense, but that seems to be what the new ERC rules are saying, like it or not.

Edited to add... How is that supposed to work? A wizard did it! Tongue out
At least one of the posts is about blazing starfall.

Regardless, if I take my black dog and put white on it, then once again it doesn't need to end up as a superposition of black and white all over to match the description "a black and white dog". I could simply paint it's tail, or it's nose, or spots.

So if a power says "add 1d6 frost damage to your power", then you don't add 1d6 damage and retype the entire power so it deals firey frost damage: you just deal 1d6 frost damage in addition to the damage it already deals, and that satisfies it's new keywords.

I just think we are micro managing by breaking the damage down into specific numbers when the rules state it is both damage types.  Therefore it is irrlevant the value of the initial damage type because after all damage and keyword/damage type effects are accounted for you still have the same result.

If it's 7 fire damage and 1 cold damage it's still 8 fire/cold damage.  Which means if your vulnerable to 5 fire you take 5 fire.  If you are vulnerable to 5 cold you take 5 cold.

You resist the lower of your resistances if the power shares equal damage types of both resistances.




I want to point out that as far as I know, this is the only thread talking about this particular "change."  I don't see the text in the RC as a change, and that other threads talking about changes aren't mentionning it I think is telling.  The RC is using the same wording that started in CS around 6 months ago.  I also believe it was mentionned in some errata or FAQ entry about that time as well.  The way the op is interpreting things is how powers were interpreted 1 year or so ago, which I will call the "origianal reading".  Then the new wording came around, about 6 or so months ago, which is the wording that is now in the RC.  Around 6 months ago powers started to have damage type breakdowns (as per CS rulings) and you could more easily add keywords.  For example Silvery Arrow can give your charisma (let's say is 3) in extra radiant damage.  Let's say your are using Silvery Arrow with an ally using a 20 damage fire power, which would have the fire keyword.  Original reading said your power with  Silvery Arrow would do 23 fre/radiant damage, and had the fire keyword (as keywords were only added if the power specified they were added).  Current reading says 20 fire+3 radiant, and the power has the radiant and fire keywords. 

This interpretation implies very different things, especially for resists.  For example, if a creature had resist fire 10 and resist radiant 5, the creature would take 18 damage in the original reading (smaller of the two resists) and 10 damage (both apply to the typed damage done) with the current one.   That's a 80% difference in damage taken.

In short, the RC wording was being using by CS about 6 months ago.  If a power has fire and radiant keywords, it means that somewhere in the power fire damage is dealt and somewhere in the power radiant damage is dealt.  For example, a radiant/fire power may specify that it does 1d8 untyped damage, your chariama radiant, and 2 extra fire damage.  Having the fire and radiant keywords doesn't mean it does 1d8+charisma+2 fire/radiant damage unless the power says it does 1d8+charisma +2 fire and radiant damage. 

If you believe I'm wrong, please submit it to CS.  I've 99.9% sure they will support my interpretation (or will do so on further proding, CS being CS), as they were giving it out for around 6 months now using the same wording as now is in the RC.
And if the power specifically says that it's nose is fire while it's wagging tail is ice, why would you expect the keywords should change that? Doubly so when making that change causes balance issues.



This thread is specifically about the cases where the power doesn't specifically say that. I.e., the case where I've got a dog made of fire that I magically encase in an icy sabot or something.

I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense, but that seems to be what the new ERC rules are saying, like it or not.

Edited to add... How is that supposed to work? A wizard did it!



First, that's not what the ERC rule says.  It says that if a power has the Thunder Keyword, it does thunder damage.  Echoes of Thunder has the thunder keyword and does thunder damage.  The modified Ray of Frost I posted above has the fire keyword and does fire damage.  Doing fire damage does not mean ALL of the damage done by the power is fire, and it is patently not an instruction to change existing damage done to be combined fire and whatever existing type it had.

Second, it's not a new rule.  It's a slight rephrasing of the PHB3 wording on how to read a power.  PHB3 wording: "If a power has such a keyword, the power deals that type of damage."  RC wording: "If a power has one of these keywords, it deals the associated type of damage."  It wasn't an instruction to change damage types then and it isn't now; it's an instruction on what keywords tell you- as the opening paragraph of the section it's in tells us: "A power's keywords summarize important aspects of the power.  With a glance at a power's keywords, a reader can learn various things about  the power:  what it's power source is, whether it has any damage types, and what special rules are required to use it."

Second, it's not a new rule.  It's a slight rephrasing of the PHB3 wording on how to read a power.  PHB3 wording: "If a power has such a keyword, the power deals that type of damage."  RC wording: "If a power has one of these keywords, it deals the associated type of damage."  It wasn't an instruction to change damage types then and it isn't now; it's an instruction on what keywords tell you- as the opening paragraph of the section it's in tells us: "A power's keywords summarize important aspects of the power.  With a glance at a power's keywords, a reader can learn various things about  the power:  what it's power source is, whether it has any damage types, and what special rules are required to use it."



Thanks for indentifying the official rules source.  Yes, the PHB 3 came out in March, which was 6 months ago.  I believe CS was using it a bit before that, as I remember the hoopla that CS started on the Rules forums. 

In short, it's not a rules change. 

I'm in agreement with furious_kender and ChaosMage.  I.e.: If a power has a damage type keyword, it deals (or can deal) at least one point of damage of that damage type.  I say "can deal" for cases like Blazing Starfall used by a non-Cosmic sorc, or powers that deal typed ongoing damage used against, say, a hobgoblin.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

So, to be clear, what the naysayers are saying is this:


If a power states 1d6+int mod fire damage, and you have +6 int and +6 enhance, only 6 points of the damage is fire, 'cos the power doesn't specify that the other bonus is fire damage?


The quote I provided from page 222 specifically states how damage bonuses apply to damage rolls - as a whole. It may be in the context of multiple damage rolls, but this actually helps the case  - all the damage of an attack is treated as a single peice of damage at the end.


1d6+6 int Fire damage + 6 Enhance + 1 Cold from random power + 6 From Staff of ruin + 3 from Implement Focus isn't 1d6 + 6 Fire Damage + 14 Untyped Damage + 1 cold damage, it's 1d6+22 Fire and Cold Damage.


Bonuses from damage are treated as a whole in any given power.


The fact that the rule states that you don't add damage bonuses to each separate dice does not detract from the fact that right there, under damage rolls it states:


"Modifiers to Damage Rolls: Many powers, feats and other game features grant bonuses or penalties to damage rolls. A bonus to damage rolls is added to the damage as a whole, [not to each damage die roll within it.]"


1) Specific examples DO NOT invalidate the general rule - just 'cos you can point out a power that works in opposition to my supposition does not invalidate it. Specific>General.


2) Perhaps these powers are older than erratas that have changed the rules?


Meh!


Wolf.


 


So, to be clear, what the naysayers are saying is this:


If a power states 1d6+int mod fire damage, and you have +6 int and +6 enhance, only 6 points of the damage is fire, 'cos the power doesn't specify that the other bonus is fire damage?




Of course not.  "Extra damage is always in addition to other damage and is of the same type or types as that damage, unless otherwise noted."  (RC 223)  All 1d6+12 of that is fire damage.  And before you bring it up, "+1 cold damage" does have another damage type noted, so it will not change to match an existing damage type.


The quote I provided from page 222 specifically states how damage bonuses apply to damage rolls - as a whole. It may be in the context of multiple damage rolls, but this actually helps the case  - all the damage of an attack is treated as a single peice of damage at the end.

1d6+6 int Fire damage + 6 Enhance + 1 Cold from random power + 6 From Staff of ruin + 3 from Implement Focus isn't 1d6 + 6 Fire Damage + 14 Untyped Damage + 1 cold damage, it's 1d6+22 Fire and Cold Damage.


Bonuses from damage are treated as a whole in any given power.


The fact that the rule states that you don't add damage bonuses to each separate dice does not detract from the fact that right there, under damage rolls it states:


"Modifiers to Damage Rolls: Many powers, feats and other game features grant bonuses or penalties to damage rolls. A bonus to damage rolls is added to the damage as a whole, [not to each damage die roll within it.]"



I like how you keep putting brackets around the last clause of that sentence so that you can try to take half of it out of context to support your argument.  The context isn't multiple damage rolls, as you state, it's multiple damage dice in one roll; that sentence means that if you have a +6 enhancement bonus that applies to a 3[W] power, you only add +6, not +18.  The fact that you have to remove part of a sentence to get it to say what you want should tell you that you're not reading it right.

That said, it doesn't matter; for the example you give you'd do 1d6+21 fire damage +1 cold damage, which is applied as one whole amount.  It's not two seperate damage instances; it's one damage instance that happens to have some damage of one type and some damage of another.


1) Specific examples DO NOT invalidate the general rule - just 'cos you can point out a power that works in opposition to my supposition does not invalidate it. Specific>General.


2) Perhaps these powers are older than erratas that have changed the rules?


Meh!


Wolf.


 



1) And if you could provide a general rule, that would matter.  The point of the example powers I've brought up is that they DON'T break the rule you quoted to start this thread.  Since they don't combine damage and still don't break the rule, the rule certainly doesn't cause you to combine damage in any other power.

2) Nope.  There are monster powers from the Demonomicon fitting that pattern, well after any keyword update.  Again, the RC matches the PHB3 on how to read keywords; this isn't a new rule.
Sign In to post comments