Triggering two vulnerabilities with a single attack?

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
(This same question was posted on the Rules Q&A boards, but I wanted to get your advice as well. I have added a small amount of information here.)

I am a DM, not a player. 

This past Sunday, we had an interesting event. I need advice on how RAW works. I am a RAW follower, because I believe it is the most fair to all my players, some of whom are decade old power gamers, others are brand new to the game. However, I am no rule expert and often check the compendium for help in my ruling. I need help navigating the rules, so, if you can show me a current rule to answer this question, I would appreciate it.

In a fight with a BBEG, our Avenger Morninglord set up radiant vulnerability 10. Another player set up 1-round Vulnerability 10 All (Remorse, the Cleric power). 

Then we had another pc hit with a Radiant and Fire power (think Stellar Debris). 

I ruled that it triggered BOTH vulnerabilities, giving an extra 20 damage. What do you all think? Was this an appropriate RAW decision, or is there a nuance of a rule of which I am unaware. 

Your help would be appreciated. Thank you for your wisdom and respectful assistance. 
It's one of those things that's not covered at all in the rules.

The general concensus (by which I mean, like 5 of us) is that Vulnerable All is not the same as Vulnerable Any, so either Vuln All or Vuln Radiant would apply, but not both.

It's certainly acceptable to let both apply, however, given it would kinda suck to have used Remorse to no real effect (dazing I guess)
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Personally, I would allow the Vulnerability All to apply once (to, for instance, the fire damage) and still apply the radiant vulnerability as well since they are from different sources. I may be in the minority with that, however.
Vulnerable/Resist All doesn't stack with Vulnerable/Resist Some. If both would apply, you get whichever one of the two is higher.
If, on the other hand, he had had Vulnerable 10 Radiant and Vulnerable 10 Fire, he would correctly take an additional 20 damage from a Radiant and Fire typed attack.

 
BTW, I replied to this on his thread in Rules Q&A- the RC specifically deals with this issue, and the answer is that they don't stack.
If, on the other hand, he had had Vulnerable 10 Radiant and Vulnerable 10 Fire, he would correctly take an additional 20 damage from a Radiant and Fire typed attack.
 


Vulnerable/Resist All doesn't stack with Vulnerable/Resist Some. If both would apply, you get whichever one of the two is higher.


Wait wait.

Are both posts correct? If so, am I reading it right?
"If it is vulerable to fire & radiant, and someone attacks with a fire & radiant ability, then they take 20 extra damage"
and
"If it is vulerable to fire & everything, and someone attacks with a fire & radiant ability, then they take 10 extra damage"?


BTW, I replied to this on his thread in Rules Q&A- the RC specifically deals with this issue, and the answer is that they don't stack.

Correct.  RC 226:

"Not Cumulative

Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative.  Only the highest vulnerability applies.
Example:  If a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 10 psychic, it has vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic.  Similarly, if a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 2 to all damage, the creature still has vulnerable 5 psychic, not vulnerable 7 psychic.

Also, RC 225 states under the Vulnerability section:

"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."        

In this case, the creature has Vulnerable 10 Fire and Vulnerable 10 All.  He was hit with a Fire and Radiant power, so he takes an extra 10 Fire damage.
   

 

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

The rule you bolded actually doesn't address the issue at all, but the 2nd one is the rule that kinda sorta covers it.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
BTW, I replied to this on his thread in Rules Q&A- the RC specifically deals with this issue, and the answer is that they don't stack.



With all due respect, RC is not clear.

The passage from RC 225/6 you referenced (and RedS quoted, above) discusses a single damage type. My question is specifically about multiple damage types on a single attack.

I am sorry to have started this post on two separate threads, but I was hoping to get the best lawyers out of the woodwork. I will be posting my reply there. 
If, on the other hand, he had had Vulnerable 10 Radiant and Vulnerable 10 Fire, he would correctly take an additional 20 damage from a Radiant and Fire typed attack.
 


Vulnerable/Resist All doesn't stack with Vulnerable/Resist Some. If both would apply, you get whichever one of the two is higher.


Wait wait.

Are both posts correct? If so, am I reading it right?
"If it is vulerable to fire & radiant, and someone attacks with a fire & radiant ability, then they take 20 extra damage"
and
"If it is vulerable to fire & everything, and someone attacks with a fire & radiant ability, then they take 10 extra damage"?





Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
Yes, both posts are correct, the way the rules are written, regardless of whether they are good rules.
The rule you bolded actually doesn't address the issue at all, but the 2nd one is the rule that kinda sorta covers it.



To which other vulnerability to radiant damage in the OP's exemple is the vulnerable 10 all cumulating with for it to not apply?

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

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

The rule you bolded actually doesn't address the issue at all, but the 2nd one is the rule that kinda sorta covers it.



To which other vulnerability to radiant damage in the OP's exemple is the vulnerable 10 all cumulating with for it to not apply?

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




The argument would be that radiant is a subset of "all". Well, really any damage type would be a subset of "all". Which would significantly devalue the "all" vulnerability, except in the flexibility anybody who deals damage can ping the "all" vulnerability.
Fire is also a subset of "all". Hence it should trigger.
To make sure I understand before commenting...

Monster A has Vulnerable 10 fire, Vulnerable 10 radiant

Monster B has Vulnerable 10 fire, Vulnerable 10 all

PC hits A with 20 fire damage = deals 30 fire damage

PC hits A with 20 fire and radiant damage = deals 40 fire and radiant damage

PC hits B with 20 fire damage = deals 30 fire damage*

PC hits B with 20 fire and radiant damage = deals 30 fire and radiant damage*

---------------------------------------

That is the general ruling as far as I see it. If the only given reason is the rule that state "vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative" then I think this is an incorrect ruling.

Fire =/= All, ergo, it is not the same. Just because Fire is a subset of All does not make it the same damage type.

A truck is a vehicle, but not all vehicles are trucks. I think the same logic applies here.  

The wording is atrocious, however, and reasonable minds can disagree. 
To make sure I understand before commenting...

Monster A has Vulnerable 10 fire, Vulnerable 10 radiant

Monster B has Vulnerable 10 fire, Vulnerable 10 all

PC hits A with 20 fire damage = deals 30 fire damage

PC hits A with 20 fire and radiant damage = deals 40 fire and radiant damage

PC hits B with 20 fire damage = deals 30 fire damage*

PC hits B with 20 fire and radiant damage = deals 30 fire and radiant damage*



Correct.


That is the general ruling as far as I see it. If the only given reason is the rule that state "vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative" then I think this is an incorrect ruling.

Fire =/= All, ergo, it is not the same. Just because Fire is a subset of All does not make it the same damage type.

A truck is a vehicle, but not all vehicles are trucks. I think the same logic applies here.  

The wording is atrocious, however, and reasonable minds can disagree. 


Not quite correct. "All damage" = the sum of all damage types that can possibly be dealt, so

"All damage"=cold,fire,lightning,thunder,acid,psychic,necrotic,radiant,poison,force and untyped.

That's why "vulnerability to all damage" doesn't stack with any other vulnerability that doesn't explicitly say otherwise.

I get that interpretation. My issue is this: it includes untyped damage, which is not a damage type. The fact that it also includes untyped damage indicates to me that it is its own separate category. At least, that's how I'd rule it in my games. 
Does Vulnerable All count as Vulnerable specific for the purpose of triggering an effect?  Thinking specifically of Wintertouched CA.
I get that interpretation. My issue is this: it includes untyped damage, which is not a damage type. The fact that it also includes untyped damage indicates to me that it is its own separate category. At least, that's how I'd rule it in my games. 


Why is the fact that it includes untyped relevant in this case? "All damage" is the sum of all damage, that's all.


Does Vulnerable All count as Vulnerable specific for the purpose of triggering an effect?  Thinking specifically of Wintertouched CA.


Mhm, interesting question. It would be either


a) Vul. Cold = Vul [All - [fire,lightning,thunder,acid,psychic,necrotic,radiant,poison,force and untyped]]

or

b) Vul. Cold = Vul. Cold (and nothing else).


My feeling clearly says that in this case it doesn't work like the other way around and it has to be b).

No. Vulnerable All is not the same thing as Vulnerable everything (fire, radiant, cold, etc)
10/10 Would Flame Again: An Elite Paladin|Warlock The Elemental Man (or Woman): A Genasi Handbook The Warlord, Or How to Wield a Barbarian One-Handed The Bookish Barbarian Fardiz: RAI is fairly clear, but RAZ is different That's right. Rules According to Zelink!
Vulnerable all = vulnerable everything would be a (briefly) funny interpretation. Creature has vulnerable all 10, I hit and do fire and radiant damage with a melee weapon power, triggering the vulnerability 4 times because target is vulnerable to fire, radiant, melee, and weapon.
No. Vulnerable All is not the same thing as Vulnerable everything (fire, radiant, cold, etc)



This exact logic is why I believe "all" is distinct from "fire/radiant/etc"

Otherwise, by your logic (Vulnerable All = Vulnerable Fire/Radiant/Poison/Untyped/etc."), then Mengu74's hypothesized possible outcome would hold water. 

Vulnerable all = vulnerable everything would be a (briefly) funny interpretation. Creature has vulnerable all 10, I hit and do fire and radiant damage with a melee weapon power, triggering the vulnerability 4 times because target is vulnerable to fire, radiant, melee, and weapon.

It gets more absurd than that. Remember "Vulnerable to your attacks that do X" is a thing, it exists in other game elements. Basically it becomes a "How many ways can I phrase things" game. So double that. Then consider: combinations! "Vulnerable to my weapon and arcane attacks" "Vulnerable to my Fire and Arcane attacks." Etc.

Which is why that interprtation is silly.
Let's recap.

The rules say that with two vulnerabilities of the same damagetype do not stack. (vuln. psychic 5 and psychic 10 for example means only 10 extra damage)
The rules also say that vulnerable all works in the same way with another vulnerability of a specific damagetype. (vuln. all 5 and psychic 10 means only 10 extra damage)

It doesn't seem to be in dispute that vulnerabilities do stack when they are of different damagetypes. (vuln fire 5 and radiant 10 means 15 extra damage)


Now the question is how Vulnerable all stacks with other vulnerabilities if you hit with two damagetypes. Ofcourse the rules aren't clear about it becuase the only real mention I have seen about it is about how it works with one damagetype similarly to how two vulnerabilities of the same type work.

Therefor any answer will be conjecture.

However lets see how far the current rules can take us

We already agree that damage with two damage types can have both damage types trigger a vulnerability.
With a radiant/fire attack on a creature that has 10 radiant and 5 fire vulnerability both vulnerabilities are triggered.
Radiant triggers Radiant vuln. for 10 extra damage and Fire triggers Fire vuln. for 5 extra damage

Now we do the same attack, but this time the creature has vulnerable 10 radiant and vuln 5 all.
Radiant triggers Radiant vuln. for 10 extra damage and now the question is does Fire trigger vuln. all for 5 extra damage?

I can't really see anything in the rules that says it does not.
The rules only say it doesn't stack with radiant vulnerability effectively turning it to 15 vuln radiant.

I don't see anything in the rules where it says it does trigger in that way either, but if it doesn't, shouldn't there be something in the rules that says vuln. all acts differently from the other vulnerabilties in this case. If there is no exeption to the rules it should be concidered to act the same way the other vulnerabilities do.

All still conjecture ofcourse ;)
BTW, I replied to this on his thread in Rules Q&A- the RC specifically deals with this issue, and the answer is that they don't stack.

Correct.  RC 226:

"Not Cumulative

Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative.  Only the highest vulnerability applies.
Example:  If a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 10 psychic, it has vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic.  Similarly, if a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 2 to all damage, the creature still has vulnerable 5 psychic, not vulnerable 7 psychic.

Also, RC 225 states under the Vulnerability section:

"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."        

In this case, the creature has Vulnerable 10 Fire and Vulnerable 10 All.  He was hit with a Fire and Radiant power, so he takes an extra 10 Fire damage.
   

 




Wouldn't a creature vunerable to 10 fire and 10 radiant (coming for a vunerable all either one of them or both, or to vunerable anys this part doesn't matter this one issue of two of which the answer is when combining vunerabilities you do not stack same types take strongest) the second issue is when attacking some one vunerable to two seperate types of damage and your attack is two seperate types you should be able to deal 10 extra damage from each source so a +10 fire, +10 radiant (+20 total, but 2 different types of damage) all from same power that deals fire radiant damage of lets say normally 10, so this creature would suffer 30 damage because of its two different multiple vunerabilities.

AD&D 1st Edition Character (Simplified)

BIOGRAPHY
Name: Brother Michael
Adventuring Class: Cleric
Adventuring Experience: 1446 out of 1501
Bonus Experience: 10%
Languages Known: Common, Orc, Elven.
Alignment: Lawful/Neutral Good
ABILITY SCORES
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 10
Intelligence: 11
Charisma: 11
Constitution: 14
Wisdom: 16
WEAPONS: HIT; MEDIUM; LARGE
Footman’s Flail: 1d20; 1d6+1; 1d4
Hammer (Thrown): 1d20; 1d4+1; 1d4
Sling: 1d20-3; 1d4+1; 1d6+1
MAGIC
Today’s Prepared Spells: Cure Light Wounds x2, Command x1
Spells Spent: Cure Light Wounds x1
Other Cleric Abilities: Turn Undead
Spell Failure: 0%
Magical Attack Adjustment: +2
DEFENSES
Armor: 5 (-4 Armor, -1 Shield)
Maximum Health: 10
Current Health: 9
CONSUMABLE ITEMS
Water Skin
7 Days of Trail Rations
7 Pints (Flasks) of Oil
1 Ounce (Vial) of Holy Water
4 Parchments
12 Sling Bullets
6 Pieces of Silver
8 Pieces of Twine

The RC line is confusing, because, well, yeah you aren't Vuln 7 Psyhic. You are Vuln 5 Psychic and Vuln 2 All. Stating the "Vuln All" doesn't increase other Vulnerabilities is nigh pointless, but that is all that sentence does....
The RC line is confusing, because, well, yeah you aren't Vuln 7 Psyhic. You are Vuln 5 Psychic and Vuln 2 All. Stating the "Vuln All" doesn't increase other Vulnerabilities is nigh pointless, but that is all that sentence does....


You mean to tell me that WotC put in an example that only covers a singular, and obvious, possible rule dispite? Sayitaintso
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.