Multiple Resistances vs Single & Multi-typed damages

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
So my character is building into multiple resistances, and there are a number of cases that don't make much sense according to RAW.  The issues surround the fact that they only give specific cases with respect to damage types, but not for resists that aren't associated directly with damage types such as Resist All, Resist Ongoing, Resist against OA's, Resist against Ranged, Resist against Areas etc...

My Character at some point in a battle has the following resistances
- Resist 10 All (Battlemind Daily)
- Resist 3 ongoing (Superior Fort)
- Resist 5 Cold (Frostwolf Pelt)
- Resist 5 Psychic (Closed Mind - Secret of the Way)

Scenario A:
- Take 15 cold damage
- Highest Applies - Resist 10 All - Take 5 Damage

Scenario B:
- Take 15 cold & psychic damage
Outcome X) Resist 5 - Take 10 Damage
Outcome Y) Resist 10 All - Take 5 Damage

In scenario B - the outcome seems to depend on if you can apply one portion of the resist rules before the other
Outcome X)
- If you go in order and look at (#2) "all the resistances that could apply to the attack" and take the weakest one, then you would find the lowest being cold or psychic for a total of 5 resist.
Outcome Y)
- If you skip to rule #3 to look at the "Not Cumulative" Portion of the rules (#3), then you first have to assume (not defined in RAW) that "Resist All 10" is equivalent to "Resist 10 cold and psychic", which overrides resist 5 cold and resist 5 psychic.  As such, you have resist 10 cold and resist 10 psychic, which when you go back to rule #2, the lowest is 10 for a total of 10 resist for the attack.

Scenario C:
- Take 15 Ongoing Fire Damage
- Take Highest - Resist 15 All - Take 5 Damage

Scenario D:
- Take 15 Ongoing Fire & Radiant Damage
Outcome X) Resist 3 ongoing - Take 12 Damage
Outcome Y) Resist 10 All - Take 5 Damage

In Scenario D we have something similar to Scenario B, but I'm not sure how it works again as the rules just don't cover these things?  Does the resist ongoing actually cause me to be worse off in this case when we look at finding the worst resistance as a result of "combined damage types"?

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything in RAW that actually defines these cases.

Here's a reference of the latest version of Resist from the compendium

  1. A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type. For example, a creature that has resist 10 fire takes 10 less damage whenever it takes fire damage.

  2. 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. For example, if you have resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder and an attack deals 15 lightning and thunder damage to you, you take 10 damage, because the resistance to the combined damage types is limited by the lesser of the two resistances.

  3. Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest resistance applies. For example, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 10 cold, you have resist 10 cold, not resist 15 cold. Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 2 to all damage, you still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.


The only way I can truly fix this is by treating the non-typed resists as if they were explicitly a resist of each type.  But doing this is defined nowhere in RAW.  The RAW afaik actually has no rules regarding non-typed resistance keywords, and requires what is essentially a house rule to even use "All" to begin with.  I mean, what is resist All?  What rule in the compendium states this?

I) If I have Resist 10 all, resist 5 cold, resist 5 psychic and resist 3 ongoing, treat it as:


  • Resist 10 Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Poison, Psychic, Thunder


II) If I have resist 5 cold, resist 5 psychic and resist 3 ongoing, treat it as:


  • Resist 5 Cold, Psychic

  • If the damage is ongoing, gain the following: Resist 3 Acid, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Poison, Thunder


III) If I have Resist 10 all, Resist 15 Cold, Resist 3 ongoing


  • Resist  15 Cold

  • Resist 10 Acid, Fire, Force, Lightning, Necrotic, Poision, Psychic, Thunder

  • Resist 3 ongoing serves no effect and is automatically overruled by Resist 10 All.


Only with these cases, I do not have to worry about #2 and #3 conflicting because we are removing any gray area surrounding Rule #3.
(PS. I wish this editing box could be expanded {Chrome 12}... such a tiny window... so much scrolling to type this post upFrown )



Insufficient rules.  More than one damage type within an attack that is not a combined damage type is currently not covered by the rules in any way whatsoever.  Resist X, where X is not a damage type, is not sufficiently defined.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I wrote a document on this that tries to unify resists/vulnerability mechanics such that all situations are covered:

docs.google.com/document/d/1Njkn2GQD_OHn... 

This isn't explicit RAW, but its an "acceptable" interpretation of the rules. 
In every scenario Resist 10 All should take over as it is the highest to apply.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Nice link curiousdragon

My question in these kinds of topics has always been why 'resist all' needs to be explictly defined in order for these scenarios to be ruled on.  Perhaps the reason why the Rules Compendium does not explicitly explain what 'resist all' does is because the authors did not expect confusion.  For example, the word 'all' is not ambiguous to me.  There are 10 damage types and you have resistance to all of them.


My rulings in red:

   Scenario A:
- Take 15 cold damage

You have resist 10 all = take 5 damage

Scenario B:
- Take 15 cold & psychic damage

You have resist 10 all = take 5 damage

 Scenario C:
- Take 15 Ongoing Fire Damage

You have resist 10 all = take 5 damage

Scenario D:
- Take 15 Ongoing Fire & Radiant Damage

You have resist 10 all = take 5 damage



Comments: the resist 10 all is from a daily power, so you've got limited access to that kind of resistance (in case the above strikes someone as 'too good', say).  Most of the time you will be suffering the following

Take 15 cold damage = reduced to 10 from pelt

Take 15 cold & psychic damage = reduced to 10 from pelt and closed mind.  Note if you just had the pelt, you'd take full damage
 
Take 15 Ongoing Fire Damage = reduced to 12 from feat

Take 15 Ongoing Fire & Radiant Damage = reduced to 12 from feat
  

Cheers  
Scenarios A-D are the easy cases.  You have singular damage types, and you have combined damage types.  Both of those cases are covered explicitly in the resistance rules.  The issue comes from multiple damage types.

Target:
Resist 5 All
Resist 5 Fire
Resist 5 Cold

You attack with a power that deals 10 Cold and 5 Fire damage.  How many hitpoints does the target lose?  Answer:  Not defined by RAW.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
RAW Answer   (Again Resist 5 All takes over)

If it's 1 instance of damage: 10

If it's 2 instance of damage: 5


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Bleh, bad example.  New one:

Target:
Resist 2 All
Resist 5 Fire
Resist 10 Cold

Attack:  15 Cold damage and 5 Fire damage.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Are they Combined damage ?

If not 10 Cold damage is a damage that get resisted  by Resist 10 Cold and 5 Fire damage is a damage that get resisted by Resist 5 Fire.


If they are then 10 Cold & Fire damage, then only 5 is resisted  by Resist 10 Cold and Resist 5 Fire.



EDIT You confuse with Ongoing Combined damage vs Resistance i think where the complextity of the problem may go up Wink


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


My question in these kinds of topics has always been why 'resist all' needs to be explictly defined in order for these scenarios to be ruled on.  


in RAW, there is no definition for "All".
As such, "All" != "Cold", or "All" != "Fire".  Therefore the rules regarding "Not Cumulative" do not apply, and thus has further effects on how "Combined Damage Types" gets ruled.


For example, the word 'all' is not ambiguous to me.  There are 10 damage types and you have resistance to all of them.


I would love to agree, but I was hoping for a reference to a rule that explains what "All" is in RAW.

The problem is that in our group, RAW always takes precendence.  If I don't have a RAW reference (or the group is unsure and RAW can't be located on the fly) our DM is prone to taking the decision that simply goes against the player.  (this is a years long history where the DM is essentially bitter against the overpowering characters and combos made by the min/maxers of our group who try and abuse every loophole in the rules)  While I'm far from min/maxing myself, I definitely come across odd situations which get ruled against what I know is RAW (I investigate post-session) but those situations almost never come up again after I've been able to prove to the DM.

I actually like that google document, and will propose it to the group to use as RAW since it was made by a neutral 3rd party and truly tries to address in a solid fashion the holes in the ruleset. 
in RAW, there is no definition for "All".


It doesn't matter what Resist 5 ALL means so much than what it actually really does. Is Resist 5 All a Resistances against the same damage type  as Resist 5 Lightning ? If yes, then they are not cumulative

RC 225 Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest Resistance applies. 


Also, ALL either means every damage type or the mechanic just doesn't work, since All is obviously not a damage type of it's own.

RC 225 Resistance: A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type.  Resistance appears in a stat block or Power as ¨
Resist x¨ where x is the ammount that the damage is reduced, followed by the type of damage that is being resisted. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Also, ALL either means every damage type or the mechanic just doesn't work, since All is obviously not a damage type of it's own.

RC 225 Resistance: A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type.  Resistance appears in a stat block or Power as ¨
Resist x¨ where x is the ammount that the damage is reduced, followed by the type of damage that is being resisted. 



So would you say things like "Resist X Critical Hits" and "Resist X Dragon Breath" don't work, since they aren't damage types?  I'd say that they, like Resist X All, are specific things that override the general rule that resistance is to damage types. 
No i say they work for what they say they work for.

So someone who has

Resist 10 All 
Resist 20 Critical Hit
Resist 15 Dragon Breath
Resist 5 Cold

And get Crit by a White Dragon Breath for 40 Cold damage will only take 20 damage.   


The way i understands it, when you take damage, you have to ask yourself:

Do i have a Resistance to this damage damage type ? Wether it applys to it damage type or encompasses it being some form of Resistance applying to a category (All, Critical Hit, Dragon Breath, Miss, Aura etc..)

If Yes and you possess more than one that can Resist this damage type (or that can apply to the category you have), then you choose only the highest one since Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative.

  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Are they Combined damage ?

If not 10 Cold damage is a damage that get resisted  by Resist 10 Cold and 5 Fire damage is a damage that get resisted by Resist 5 Fire.


If they are then 10 Cold & Fire damage, then only 5 is resisted  by Resist 10 Cold and Resist 5 Fire.



EDIT You confuse with Ongoing Combined damage vs Resistance i think where the complextity of the problem may go up 





Now to add another layer to this discussion... what if a target has vulnerability and receives non-combined damage?

Attacker deals:
1 Untyped Weapon Damage plus 10 Fire Damage plus 4 Radiant damage

Victim has:
"Vulnerabilty 18 all" (received through a cleric's "Sever the Source" power)


Now how much damage does he get?

69 points of damage?

Or 33 points of damage?
The only way All (either version) doesn't break the game horribly is if it only applies once to the entire damage instance.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Now to add another layer to this discussion... what if a target has vulnerability and receives non-combined damage?

Attacker deals:
1 Untyped Weapon Damage plus 10 Fire Damage plus 4 Radiant damage

Victim has:
"Vulnerabilty 18 all" (received through a cleric's "Sever the Source" power)


Now how much damage does he get?

69 points of damage?

Or 33 points of damage?




IMO It would take 69 damage because Vulnerability apply to each damage type once in a Combined Damage.  (19+28+22)  For exemple, if Vulnerable 18 All and Vulnerable 15 Fire was the case, the Vulnerable 15 Fire would not cumulate with Vulnerable 18 All against Fire damage.

1 damage + 18 Vulnerable All (19 damage)

10 Fire damage +18 Vulnerable All (28 damage)

4 Radiant damage + 18 Vulnerable All (22 damage)

Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies  even when that  amage type is combined with another.

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

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

This is not a combined damage type.  The rule you quoted does not apply.  What would happen in combined damage types is the following:

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 5 All:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage.

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 5 Fire:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage.

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 2 Fire, Vuln 5 Cold:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage.

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 2 Fire, Vuln 5 Cold, Vuln 5 All:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage.

Beyond that, your logic leads to a result I can't accept.  It makes both Vulnerable All and Resist All far too powerful.  It is strongly suggested that All only applies once, though the specifics of how it reduces/increases damage in multiple (not combined) damage types is undefined.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Mand12, you're right it's not a Compined damage. But it's very similar in the way it will interact with Vulnerability. 1 damage + 10 extra Radiant damage will Trigger a Vulnerability to Radiant damage or a Vulnerability to All anyway. Add in the mix an extra Fire damage and a Vulnerability to Fire damage or All will factore in as well.

The result remain the same.  Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.  In the given exemple, the damage deal deal Untype, Radiant and Fire damage and thus is applied Resistance or Vulnerability for each damage type.


  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 5 All:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage. 10 Fire and Cold damage + 5 + 5

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 5 Fire:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage. Correct.

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 2 Fire, Vuln 5 Cold:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage. 10 Fire and Cold damage + 2 + 5

10 fire and cold damage, against target with Vuln 2 Fire, Vuln 5 Cold, Vuln 5 All:
Result:  15 fire and cold damage. 10 Fire and Cold damage + 5 + 5  (Vuln 5 All or 5 Cold will only take the highest to apply against Cold damage)



You shouldn't roll them into the damage roll you're dealing i think because ¨A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type usually takes a specific amount of extra damage when it takes damage of that type¨. Its extra damage it suffer from taking a specific damage type that you deal. Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies  even when that  damage type is combined with another. So if a Power deal Fire and Cold damage, then those 2 specific damage type are susceptible of being affected by a Vulnerability.

  
Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies  even when that  damage type is combined with another.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I keep wanting to weigh in on this, and then realising that whilst I'm pretty sure some of the interpretations are outright wrong, there IS NO RAW on the correct interpretation for some damage expressioins.

The whole area of the interaction between multiple typed resists/vulns, resist/vuln all, and multiple typed/combined type/untyped damage is a freaking minefield, and cannot be decided by pure RAW because not enough rules have been written to govern it.

I come to the same conclusion every time the discussion comes up.

It might even bring about some rules rewrites/errata before the end of the year...
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

I don't understand thespaceinvader why a rewrite would be necessary. The entry on Resistance and Vulnerability flat out says how to treat with Combined Damage type. Mand12 can't accept that result saying it's my logic. I only apply what the Rules As Written says it is supposed to be. I don't say its not broken or anything and rarely put opinion on the Rules i address.


But to say there is no correct RAW interpretation to answer a question on Vulnerability vs Combined Damage is simply untrue.  


In short:

A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type takes a  specific amount of extra damage when it takes damage of that type even when that damage type is combined with another.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

So, what happens when a creature is hit by an attack that deals:

10 fire and cold damage + 10 cold damage + 4 untyped damage + 4 radiant damage

and has:

Vulnerable 2 all, resist 5 fire, vulnerable 5 cold?

This is a situation which simply isn't covered in adequate detail by the rules.  They're clear on what happens if a creature takes, say, 10 cold and fire damage with those resists and vulnerables, but not what happens when it takes damage of both combined and multiple types, and has resists and vulnerables to multiple types and to all damage.

The rules really aren't clear, and that is demonstrated effectively by the number of times even in the last month, that this thread or threads like it, have come up, and gone on for pages and pages without firm conclusions.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
So, what happens when a creature is hit by an attack that deals:

10 fire and cold damage + 10 cold damage + 4 untyped damage + 4 radiant damage

and has:

Vulnerable 2 all, resist 5 fire, vulnerable 5 cold?



You keep providing more and more complex exemple which can all be applied the Rules As Written

RAW It would take: 

10 Fire & Cold damage +7 (Vulnerable 5 against Cold and Vulnerable 2 All against Fire not Resisted because of no Resistance to Cold)
10 Cold damage +0 (Vulnerability against Cold already applied)
 4 Untype +2 (Vulnerable 2 All against Untyped )
 4 Radiant  +2 (Vulnerable 2 All against Radiant)

   

This is a situation which simply isn't covered in adequate detail by the rules.  They're clear on what happens if a creature takes, say, 10 cold and fire damage with those resists and vulnerables, but not what happens when it takes damage of both combined and multiple types, and has resists and vulnerables to multiple types and to all damage.

The rules really aren't clear, and that is demonstrated effectively by the number of times even in the last month, that this thread or threads like it, have come up, and gone on for pages and pages without firm conclusions.



This is all written how to adjucate. Even what to do when a Resistance and a Vulnerability to the same Damage type  is addressed.
 
In short:

- A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type unless it is combined with another and you don't have resistance to each.
 
- A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type takes a  specific amount of extra damage when it takes damage of that type even when that damage type is combined with another.  

- If a creature has vulnerability and resistance to the same damage type, they both apply. Substract the smaller value from the larger one and apply the result. 

- vulnerability (and resistance) against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest applies.
 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Please do quote the rule that says that the vulnerable all will apply more than once (and note, this is a single instance of damage, with multiple types including combined types.  Absent any vulnerabilities and resistances, this is just 28 damage).

Also, please quote the rule that says it doesn't.

There is no rule that clarifies that point, one way or the other.

My interpretation is that you can only apply vulnerable all once per damage expression, or powers that apply even relatively small hits of vulnerable all are VERY exploitable with things which add small amounts of differing damage types.  But my interpretation has no rules backing.  Nor does yours that says the opposite.

The rules are simply not complete when it comes to complex interactions between multiple vulnerabilities, multiple damage types, and multiple resistances all applying to one single damage roll.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

Your interpretation has no backing because Resistance or Vulnerability are not applied once per damage expression but once per damage type and nothing in All come modify how it interact in general.

Please do quote the rule that says that the vulnerable all will apply more than once


Sure.  Is Vulnerability 2 All a Vulnerability against Radiant damage type ? Yes Against Cold damage type ? Yes.  So they both apply. 
 
Vulnerability: A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type usually takes a  specific amount of extra damage when it takes damage of that type

Also, please quote the rule that says it doesn't.


I can't since none says it does, so it doesn't. If there was one you would have already quoted it to counter my arguments.  :P


My interpretation is that you can only apply vulnerable all once per damage expression, or powers that apply even relatively small hits of vulnerable all are VERY exploitable with things which add small amounts of differing damage types.  But my interpretation has no rules backing.  Nor does yours that says the opposite.




My interpretation violate no RAW, while yours restrict it in a way that is not written. Nowhere does it restrict Vulnerability to apply once per damage expression so it shouldn't.

On the other hand, Vulnerability 2 All applied once per damage type in a damage expression is flat out written so it should.

EDIT If you're Vulnerable to All damage type and takes Multiple damage type, expect to suffer lot more pain.

My rule of thumb, when you take damage, ask yourself, do i have a Resistance/Vulnerability against that type of damage ? (This for any type it might contain) Yes/No then apply accordingly.    

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter


 Is Vulnerability 2 All a Vulnerability against Radiant damage type ? Yes Against Cold damage type ? Yes.  So they both apply. 
 




No and no.  Vulnerable All is vulnerabilty to all damage, not to each type individually.  Vulnerable All 2 means you take 2 more points of damage when you take damage, not 2 more per type.

 Is Vulnerability 2 All a Vulnerability against Radiant damage type ? Yes Against Cold damage type ? Yes.  So they both apply. 
 




No and no.  Vulnerable All is vulnerabilty to all damage, not to each type individually.  Vulnerable All 2 means you take 2 more points of damage when you take damage, not 2 more per type.



Really ? If you take it to the letter Vulnerability 2 All does nothing because All is not a damage type.

Read again. I didn't asked if Vulnerability 2 All was a Vulnerability to Radiant damage type ? 

I said, Is Vulnerability 2 All a Vulnerability against Radiant damage type ? The answer is Yes. If no, then taking Radiant damage will not make one take more.  

All is not really well defined, but one let it work, the other doesn't at all. Pick. It's not Vulnerability 2 Any. It's All like in all damage type.

If you take 5 Fire & Cold damage  and you have Vulnerability 2 All, 

Are you Vulnerable to Fire damage ? Yes
Are you Vulnerable to Cold damage ? Yes 

Is it a Vulnerability to the same damage type ? No. So they each apply

Look all good to me.  Wink

RC 224 Resistance: Resistance means a creature takes less damage from a specific damage type. Resistance appears in a stat block or power as Resist X where X is the ammount that the damage is reduced, followed by the type of damage that is being resisted.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Except the damage type is neither Fire nor Cold, but rather the combined type Fire and Cold.

I ask you the reverse question, since resistances use the exact same wording.  Would you claim that a target with Resist 5 Fire and Resist 5 Cold would lose no hitpoints from a 10 Fire and Cold attack?  Because that's very much not how the rules work, and in fact how they used to work in the original PHB when combined damage types were automatically split before it got errata'd into the current rules.

These are the wrong questions:
Are you Vulnerable to Fire damage ? Yes
Are you Vulnerable to Cold damage ? Yes

These are the right questions:
The target has Vulnerable 5 Fire.  Is this a vulnerability to my Fire and Cold attack?  Yes.
The target has Vulnerable 5 Cold.  Is this a vulnerability to my Fire and Cold attack?  Yes.

This is where the Not Cumulative rule applies, which is the basis for my argument.  Two different vulnerabilities to the same type: Fire and Cold.

The resist/vuln rules break down if combined damage types aren't treated as a unique, new damage type that includes both but cannot be interpreted as a simple addition of two damage types.  The rules on combined damage types literally support no other interpretation.

Combined damage types is the easy case, folks.  Really.  It's multiple types that is the true rules quandary.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I ask you the reverse question, since resistances use the exact same wording.  Would you claim that a target with Resist 5 Fire and Resist 5 Cold would lose no hitpoints from a 10 Fire and Cold attack? 



No it really is not the exact same wording.  You need to have a Resistance to each of the damage type to resist any, while Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is  combined with another. Vulnerability is a lot more easier to work against Combined Damage type.

A  target with Resist 5 Fire and Resist 5 Cold would take only 5 damage from a 10 Fire and Cold attack and 10 damage if it has only one or the other.  

Resistance: 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.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

So you are claiming that Not Cumulative never applies to combined damage types?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So you are claiming that Not Cumulative never applies to combined damage types?



Not necessarly.

Combined damage type are still two different damage type combined and not a single unique damage type.

If you have Vulnerability 5 Cold and you're attacked by an attack that deal 10 Fire & Cold damage, even if the Cold damage is combined with another damage type, it will be sufficient to trigger it. See exemple:

Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies  even when that damage type is combined with another. For example, if you have  vulnerable 5 fire, you take 5 extra damage when you take ongoing fire and radiant damage   

 If you have Vulnerable 2 All and Vulnerable 5 Cold and take 10 Fire & Cold damage, the two will not cumulate into a Vulnerable 7, Only the highest vulnerability will apply. So the vulnerability to Cold damage here will be 5.

Not Cumulative: Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative.  Only the highest vulnerability applies.For example, if you have vulnerable 5 psychic and then gain vulnerable 10 psychic, you have vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic
 
Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest resistance applies. For example, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 10 cold, you have  resist 10 cold, not resist 15 cold. Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and  then gain resist 2 to all damage, you still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

So your claim is that only Vulnerable All and any potential Vulnerable (not-a-damage-type, like say Dragon Breath) is the only vulnerability that is affected by Not Cumulative?

I'm not arguing that vulnerability does not trigger against combined damage types.  But I'm very confused as to why you think Vulnerable All gets hit by the Not Cumulative rule but not any Vulnerable Type when applied to combined damage types.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think your confusion comes from Combined damage and how you perceive them as unique. 

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

Because it's the only 2 Vulnerability that i know (Critical and Dragon Breath) and they are exceptions, that can apply with a different Vulnerability against the same damage Type since those two are really not a damage type but a damage category.

- Calling out identical damage type Vulnerability is easy. Having Vulnerable 5 Fire and Vulnerable 8 Fire only the highest Vulnerable to the same damage type (Vulnerable 8 Fire) will be taken against Fire damage.

 - Having Vulnerable 5 Fire and Vulnerable 8 All only the highest Vulnerable to the same damage type (Vulnerable 8 All) will be taken against Fire damage.
  
When falling on category like Vulnerable 5 Dragon Breath or Vulnerable 5 Critical, then thing become much less clear since the Core Rules don't address that. But business as usual in absence of other directions I'd say.

If you have Vulnerable 5 Fire, Vulnerable 10 Dragon Breath and Vulnerable 15 Critical then can we agree that none of these is a Vulnerability to the same damage type and thus should cumulate. (Just like if it was Vulnerable 5 Fire, Vulnerable 10 Cold and Vulnerable 15 Poison)

    

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

There is no rule that says vulnerable all is the same as separate vulnerabilities to each damage type AND untyped.  There's also no rule that says it's not.  Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise, yourself included, Plague, is providing RAI, not RAW.

And this is why I shouldn't have bothered getting into this argument in the first place.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
I see All is a totally different issue and debate.

There is no well defined definition to All but if we just read how it is explained to meant and by applied, What we know is that Resist X where X is the ammount of damage resisted, followed by the type of damage being resisted. In Resist 5 All, All is the damage type being resisted. All is not a damage type. It appear to work only if taken to mean All of them (Fire, Cold, Poison etc..) since the opposite breaks it. Vulnerability 5 All is meant to be rare in 4E i think. Wink

 Is Vulnerable 5 All a Vulnerability to Fire damage ? Then you will takes a specific amount of extra damage when taking Fire damage, this even when that damage type is combined with another. Also only the highest Vulnerability will apply if other Vulnerabilities to Fire damage are gained since they are not cumulative.

Is Resist 5 All a Resistance against Fire damage ? Then you will takes less damage from Fire damage, unless that damage type is combined with another damage types to which you don't have Resistance. Also, only the highest Resistance applies if other Resistances against Fire damage are gained, since they are not cumulative.

The only thing i can see it stepping out of context is if i apply to All the definition of a Category, rather than a damage type, like I'd do for Vulnerable 5 Dragon Breath or Vulnerable 5 Critical.

Is Vulnerable 5 All a Vulnerability to Fire damage ? No it's a Vulnerability to all damage
Then you will takes a specific amount of extra damage when taking damage, regardless if that damage type is combined with another. Also only the highest Vulnerability will apply if other Vulnerabilities to a damage type are gained since they are not cumulative.
   
Is Resist 5 All a Resistanceto Fire damage ? No it's a Resistance to all damage
Then you will takes less damage when taking damage, regardless if that damage type is combined with another. Also only the highest Resistance will apply if other Resistnces to a damage type are gained since they are not cumulative.

EDIT I see that Post 14 the answer would be either 69 or 33 depending on the your take on the following definition for All.

I's be tempted to think 33 is more reasonable if you remove the plus, plus... and simply say its 15 damage total (of which 10 are Fire and 4 Radiant) where you'd then apply either a Resisit X All or Vulnerble X All.... Compared to if say they were specifically Resistance or Vulnerabilities to Fire or Radiant damage.  I think that's how i ran it in the past.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Agreed.  IMO, vulnerable/resist all makes no assumptions either way about damage type in my interpretation.  It is simply applied to damage.  It is less specific than other resists/vulns - if you take any damage, of any type, from any source, it triggers it.  But one instance of damage will only ever trigger it once, regardless of how many types comprise that instance of damage.

Otherwise, it breaks things fairly comprehensively when you have someone dropping multiple small amounts of different types of damage in one damage instance vs a mob who has been given vulnerable all - and that unbalances things significantly in favour of those classes who are able to do that, such as a Mindiron Weapon using Radiant Hunter ranger, who can drop 3 types of damage at will 1/round, and would therefore trigger the vulnerable three times in your method, and once in mine.

But there is no RAW.  THerefore, anybody, ANYBODY, who rules one way or another is house-ruling.  You are.  I am.  Mine make more sense to me, just as yours do to you.  But neither of us is speaking to the RAW, because they don't exist.

I'm not saying I'm right.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying neither of us can be either, because there is no right or wrong in this instance.

And there really should be.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
I think your confusion comes from Combined damage and how you perceive them as unique. 

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

Because it's the only 2 Vulnerability that i know (Critical and Dragon Breath) and they are exceptions, that can apply with a different Vulnerability against the same damage Type since those two are really not a damage type but a damage category.

- Calling out identical damage type Vulnerability is easy. Having Vulnerable 5 Fire and Vulnerable 8 Fire only the highest Vulnerable to the same damage type (Vulnerable 8 Fire) will be taken against Fire damage.

 - Having Vulnerable 5 Fire and Vulnerable 8 All only the highest Vulnerable to the same damage type (Vulnerable 8 All) will be taken against Fire damage.
  
When falling on category like Vulnerable 5 Dragon Breath or Vulnerable 5 Critical, then thing become much less clear since the Core Rules don't address that. But business as usual in absence of other directions I'd say.

If you have Vulnerable 5 Fire, Vulnerable 10 Dragon Breath and Vulnerable 15 Critical then can we agree that none of these is a Vulnerability to the same damage type and thus should cumulate. (Just like if it was Vulnerable 5 Fire, Vulnerable 10 Cold and Vulnerable 15 Poison)

    



I completely understand your argument, and which rules you're using to back it.  You still aren't addressing the Not Cumulative rule.  Simple question:

Under what circumstances would the Not Cumulative vulnerability rule apply?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

I completely understand your argument, and which rules you're using to back it.  You still aren't addressing the Not Cumulative rule.  Simple question: Under what circumstances would the Not Cumulative vulnerability rule apply?



Since Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative and only the highest Resistance applies, then the Non-Cumulative Rule will only be factored in when you have 2 Resistance against the same damage type, which is unlikely with Typed damage Resistance and more with All or other Category Resistance like Critical.  

In the exemple the PHB provides below Resist 5 Cold and Resist 2 All are two Resistance against Cold damage and thus only the highest would apply.
  
For example, if you have resist 5 cold and  then gain resist 10 cold, you have resist 10 cold, not resist 15 cold.  Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 2 to all damage, you  still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I didn't ask about resistance, I asked about vulnerability, which also has a Not Cumulative rule.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Here.
 
Since Vulnerability to the same damage type are not cumulative and only the highest Vulnerability applies, then the Non-Cumulative Rule will only be factored in when you have 2 Vulnerability to the same damage type, which is unlikely with Typed damage Resistance and more with All or other Category Vulnerability like Critical.

Unfortunatly both the PHB and RC are avoiding the mention of All in each exemples provided throughout the Vulnerability Chapter....  

For example, if you have vulnerable 5 psychic  and then gain vulnerable 10 psychic, you have vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic. 

 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Proposed sensible rule - NOT suggesting that this is RAW:


  1. Which vulnerabilities CAN apply is determined per damage instance. If there is a two-way vulnerability (Fire or Cold, for example), only the way(s) that fit the damage instance are relevant and others are ignored.

  2. No matter what, any one vulnerability can be applied only once per damage instance. So if there's a "Fire or Cold" vulnerability, and the damage instance includes both Fire damage and Cold damage (including combined-type damage), that vulnerability can be applied to Fire damage or to Cold damage, but not both.

  3. Only one typed vulnerability (or All) can be applied to each damage type (including untyped) in the damage instance. For purposes of this rule, combined-type damage is considered to be of each of its constituent types separately and thus can interact with multiple typed vulnerabilities.

  4. Only one vulnerability of a given category (Dragon Breath, Critical) applies in one damage instance.

  5. Vulnerabilities to different damage types, or to different categories, stack.

  6. If there are still ambiguities, decide against the creature taking the damage.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose