Strand of Fate and other "vulnerability to all attacks"

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Is there a difference between a vulnerability to all damage and vulnerability to all attacks? Strand of Fate is the latter. Does this mean that it isn't triggered by, say, Slashing Wake or Winter Winds (neither appear to be technically attacks)? If the "to all attacks" is taken seriously, it seems that ongoing damage might not trigger it either?

On the other hand, the rules for vulnerable only admit of two parameters: a damage type and a number. Perhaps the "to all attacks" is just loose language to be disregarded? Vulnerability is vulnerability?
Correct.

Sources of damage that are not attacks, such as Slashing Wake, ongoing damage, environmental damage, falling, etc., will not cause extra damage to a target affected by strand of fate.
Just thought I'd bump this to check everyone is on the same page with this.

..and to add another example.

Hell's Burning Mark and Consuming the Weak.

You mark a guy and hit him with a fire power. Does the ongoing 5 damage inflict 5 damage? Or 5+5=10? 
Just thought I'd bump this to check everyone is on the same page with this.

..and to add another example.

Hell's Burning Mark and Consuming the Weak.

You mark a guy and hit him with a fire power. Does the ongoing 5 damage inflict 5 damage? Or 5+5=10? 

In that particular case, I'd say the ongoing damage would be just 5 fire.  The target will take 5 additional damage from the arcane attack, but the ongoing damage is not actually part of the attack power, it's added by the feat due to the condition that he is vulnerable to fire from your attack.

Additionally, the target actually has to have been vulnerable to fire from the arcane attack, so if a Tiefling in the party has Hell's Burning Mark and marks the target, and then a different character with Consuming the Weak hits him with an arcane fire attack, Consuming the Weak would not trigger because the target did not have vulnerability to fire from that attack.
I share your intuition.

If the attack power itself had dealt the ongoing fire damage (rather than it coming from a feat), then the ongoing damage should be affected by the fire vulnerability. Correct?
"If the attack power itself had dealt the ongoing fire damage (rather than it coming from a feat), then the ongoing damage should be affected by the fire vulnerability. Correct?"

You'd get the vulnerability against the fire attack power itself, but the ongoing is an effect of that power.

I would determine that in the negative.  Hell's Burning Mark states vulnerability specifically to your attack powers, not general vulnerability - so the ongoing, being damage resulting from an effect (even though an effect laid on by a fire attack power), isn't an attack power itself.  

That said, some DMs might call the ongoing part of the attack and rule in favor.  

  T 
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?