Quick cold vulnerability question.

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
If I hit with a power that deals cold damage while having the feet Lasting Frost, which give the target vulnerable 5 cold after i hit with a cold attack. And then I activate an aura utility power that also gives vulnerable 5 cold to ever enemy within 2 squares. Does the enemy I hit have vulnerable 10 cold while within 2 of me, or does it not stack?
No Vulnerabilities to the same damage do not stack.  

RC 225 Not Cumulative: Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.
 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Note, I assume that vulnerability to cold is from Feywarden, which is "Any enemy in the aura has vulnerable 5 to your attacks that deal the chosen damage type."

Does that change the answer?  Is "your attacks that deal the chosen damage type" a different vulnerability than "cold"?

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I'd say having ''vulnerable 5 to your attacks that deal cold damage" and ''vulnerable 5 cold damage''  are not vulnerabilities to the same damage type and thus should be cumulative since since Sarifal's Blessing is a vulnerability to your attack rather than to a damage type. 


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Is "your attacks that deal the chosen damage type" a different vulnerability than "cold"?


No.  It's a vulnerability to cold that is further limited to being only your attacks.

Of course, my answer to this (given the utter vagueness of the resistance/vulnerability rules) is to say that it's the type of the damage that matters, not the type of the resist/vuln.  It results in a much more self-consistent application of the rules than interpreting it as the other way around.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
My points were:
1: It's hard to get a reasonable answer if you omit pertitent details of the question
2: It's hard to correctly answer a question when you don't know what question they actually asked.

To give you and Plague's answers in slightly more formal terms:
The rule is  ' Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative'.  Damage types are defined by RC p. 310 as one of "acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, or thunder".  So any futher limiters on vulnerability not relevant to the RC rule about vulnerabilities combining.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Nobody knows what question was asked when the question is about resist/vuln.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
True, but "And then I activate an aura utility power that also gives vulnerable 5 cold to ever enemy within 2 squares." is, to me, pretty clearly talking about Sarifai's Blessing.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I didn't initially think about Feywarden personally.

Is "your attacks that deal the chosen damage type" a different vulnerability than "cold"?


No.  It's a vulnerability to cold that is further limited to being only your attacks.

You have it backward. Its a vulnerability to your attack that is further limited to being cold damage.

It's no different than ''vulnerable 5 dragon breath'', which is cumulative with any damage type regardless of its own damage type since the vulnerability is against the attack, not the damage type of the attack. Same for Sarifal's Blessing Aura IMHO.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Er.  You're saying you disagree, but then you say something I agree with.  But "vulnerable X (thing that's not a damage type)" is a very different case altogether, and is not something covered by the resist/vuln rules in any way.

Resist 5 dragon breath isn't ignored just because the dragon breath is also fire.  If "dragon breath" were a type it would be, though.

This is why I stand by my statement that the resist/vuln rules are an utter mess, and any attempt at a logical, self-consistent application of them as they are written is doomed to failure.  I can only present my adjustments as good advice, while indicating that there is no RAW answer to nearly any of the hard questions.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition