|
3 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2010 - 6:46PM
#161
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
Chaosmage wrote:
Why are you limiting yourself to universes with Euclidean geometry? In 4E, each edge of a square is equidistant from a point in the center- the definition of a circle. Therefore, in 4E, a square is actually a circle, not a rectangle.
You just blew my mind man!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 05, 2010 - 6:55PM
#162
|
|
|
Gameplay/Story segregation people.
Learn it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 12:56AM
#163
|
|
|
Such as 1d10+5 fire +5 cold and you have resistance 5.
You have 1d10+10 fire and cold, -5 for the resist if it was resist all. If that was resist to either fire or cold, you don't get to resist at all.
No, this is wrong. It's not "fire and cold" damage, it's some Fire damage and some Cold damage.
If it is an instance each, you have 1d10-5, 5-5 cold, and 5-5 fire ).
This is also wrong. Remember, 1d10+5 is Fire damage, and 5 is Cold damage. You've applied the same Resistance (5 All) *three times* to this single incoming damage source, which is wrong.
IF the example damage was 1d10 untyped + 5 Fire + 5 Cold, AND the example character had Resist 5 Fire, Resist 5 Cold, and Resist 5 All, you'd be correct. It isn't and he doesn't, so you're not.
Sigh.
You add an amount of damage to an attack, the attack gains that keyword. The damage is therefore a mix of both w/regard to the resist, which only gets to act once against the single attack.
In the second case, I think you missed my "if it is an instance each" - i.e., the three types are delivered through separate channels, whether being ongoing, attacks, extras triggered after the attack, etc. The resist would get an opportunity to kick in against each.
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 5:13AM
#164
|
|
|
No, this is wrong. It's not "fire and cold" damage, it's some Fire damage and some Cold damage.
Sigh.
You add an amount of damage to an attack, the attack gains that keyword. The damage is therefore a mix of both w/regard to the resist, which only gets to act once against the single attack.
Once again, this is not correct. The attack gains the keyword, but the damage types are not admixed unless they SAY they are admixed.
A Frozen Whetstone causes you to do 2 extra Cold damage per attack when activated. This gives your power the Cold keyword, but does not change the *rest* of the damage you're doing to cold. If you hit someone who has Resist 10 Cold for 15 untyped damage and an extra 2 Cold damage, they resist *2* because their Resist only applies to Cold, and you're only doing 2 Cold, not 10.
Changing damage types changes keywords. Changing keywords DOES NOT change damage types.
This is not complicated.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 6:39AM
#165
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Sigh.
You add an amount of damage to an attack, the attack gains that keyword. The damage is therefore a mix of both w/regard to the resist, which only gets to act once against the single attack.
In the second case, I think you missed my "if it is an instance each" - i.e., the three types are delivered through separate channels, whether being ongoing, attacks, extras triggered after the attack, etc. The resist would get an opportunity to kick in against each.
T
No, this is not the case. Yes, if you add damage to an attack, the attack gains the keyword.
"Any attack that deals [type] damage has the [type] keyword" is not the same as "Any attack that has the [type] keyword deals [type] damage."
They explicitly changed the rules for mixing damage types in I think PHB3.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 6:49AM
#166
|
|
|
Fair enough. So this leaves us in the case of 1d10 damage (untyped), +5 of X, +5 of Y.
If Creature A has resist X 5, resist Y 5, and resist all 5, half the time A will take zero damage from the attack.
But we're now beginning to diverge from the original point...
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 7:14AM
#167
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that that's not true.
Resist All will only apply once per damage instance.
1d10 (untyped) +5 fire + 5 cold is still one damage instance.
Let's try it this way
1d10 damage + 5 fire + 5 cold + 5 lightning.
Resist All 10: 1d10 +5 damage. SOMEONE has to decide which damage type isn't negated.
Resist Fire 10, Resist cold 10, Resist Lightning 10: 1d10 damage.
Yikes.
The alternative is that Vulnerable all would apply for each sub-instance, and I'm pretty sure that's not how the game works.
Obviously, the game is in direct self-contradiction here.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 7:47AM
#168
|
|
|
Let's try it this way
1d10 damage + 5 fire + 5 cold + 5 lightning.
Resist All 10: 1d10 +5 damage. SOMEONE has to decide which damage type isn't negated.
Why?
No, seriously, why? All resistances and vulnerabilities, etc, trigger simultaneously. You're NEVER going to get a situation where "I use my Resist 10 All to reduce the fire and cold damage, therefore I get a different result" is going to happen.
Fundamentally, when it passes through the resistances and reductions and whatever, it's all Just Plain Damage by the time it hits your Totally Generic Hitpoints. Everything else has already been accounted for.
The alternative is that Vulnerable all would apply for each sub-instance, and I'm pretty sure that's not how the game works.
You are correct, that's not how the game works. Vuln All is just like Resist All: If any damage hasn't already hit a different vulnerability or resistance, you take Whatever extra/less damage.
Obviously, the game is in direct self-contradiction here.
Really, no, it isn't.
Apply all resistances and vulnerabilities simultaneously to a damage source.
Apply each resistance and vulnerability only once, and only to a type of damage that it applies to, and only to a type of damage that is not affected by another, higher, applicable Resist or Vulnerability.
Once you're done all that, you've got a number. Types are now COMPLETELY irrelevant. Take this number, and subtract it from your hitpoints.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 7:53AM
#169
|
|
|
If you apply resistance 5 to an attack that deals 5 fire, 5 cold, and 5 lightning damage either
A.) You totally negate fire
B.) You totally negate cold
C.) You totally negate lightning
D.) You partially negate all three.
However, if left with the situation of
2 fire, 2 cold, 2 lightning
It is impossible to equally negate all three.
So: Who is it that determines what the remaining point of damage is?
Oh I see what you mean.
Ancient soul, that's why. Namely, any case in which you suffer damage of a certain type after applying resistances, and that triggers some kind of effect.
I'll confess that there are very few cases where that occurs, mind you, since most of those involve having high resistance values in the first place.
Let's see... you're a dragonborn sorcerer. Monster removes your fire resistance, and deals the aforementioned 2, 2, 2 damage schema to you. You have resistance 5. Do you get to decide that the 1 point of damage is fire? Or does the monster? Because it determines whether you get your breath weapon back.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 7:59AM
#170
|
|
|
Ancient soul, that's why. Namely, any case in which you suffer damage of a certain type after applying resistances, and that triggers some kind of effect.
I'll confess that there are very few cases where that occurs, mind you, since most of those involve having high resistance values in the first place.
Ah! That makes more sense.
Okay, then. Apply the same rule every other setup for resistances, order of saves, etc uses: Most favourable to the person doing the math, which is to say the person with the resistances.
This is why, by the way, Resist 5 All + Resist 5 Cold + "1d10+5 Fire and 5 Cold damage" gives "1d10 Fire damage", not "1d10+5 Fire damage" - it's more favourable to the defender to apply his Resist Cold to the Cold and leave his Resist All free to handle the fire, so that's what happens.
|
|
|
