|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 9:50PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Resist all is an entity that is never clearly defined. We can only extrapolate its functionality based on a couple of references that don't cover its full interaction with other resistances and vulnerability. I was hoping the rules compendium would update it, but sadly it seems unlikely given they already presented the new resist/vuln/immune rules.
Until it is actually stated what resist all means, the best we can hope for is some logical self-consistency. Which, as evidenced by this thread, is difficult at best.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 10:37PM
#182
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2005
|
Ok I have been scouring my resources since TheyCallMeTomuReborn's last post because I thought of something, There are some things and give "Resist All" and some things that provide "Resistance to all damage" and I have not found anything that specifies or even hints that "Resist All" incudes "Untyped" so unless someone can link me or quote me a source I as a DM shall no longer provide resistance to untyped damage for things that have Resist All because the way I am interpreting the rule after reading this is Resist All provides resistance to all Damage Types of which Untyped damage is not included, also that anything that bypasses damage resistance would bypass it for the purposes of that attack. But in the case of providing a resistance to all damage there is no indication that it is a reference of damage time it just says all damage thus something that bypasses a damage type will not bypass that.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 25, 2010 - 11:44PM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
Ok I have been scouring my resources since TheyCallMeTomuReborn's last post because I thought of something, There are some things and give "Resist All" and some things that provide "Resistance to all damage" and I have not found anything that specifies or even hints that "Resist All" incudes "Untyped" so unless someone can link me or quote me a source I as a DM shall no longer provide resistance to untyped damage for things that have Resist All because the way I am interpreting the rule after reading this is Resist All provides resistance to all Damage Types of which Untyped damage is not included, also that anything that bypasses damage resistance would bypass it for the purposes of that attack. But in the case of providing a resistance to all damage there is no indication that it is a reference of damage time it just says all damage thus something that bypasses a damage type will not bypass that.
So along this same line of reasoning are you saying that, in your games, vulnerable all will not work on damage with no type?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 12:24AM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2005
|
Have you ever seen something that was vulnerable to all or vulnerable to no type? Logically speaking we will keep this is line with Assassins, an Assassin in Shade Form has Vulnerable 5 Radiant so if they get hit by an attack that does Radiant damage they take 5 additional damage but if they take damage from an attack that has no type to it such as a melee basic attack using a non-magical weapon then of course vulnerable will not work.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 12:30AM
#185
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
Have you ever seen something that was vulnerable to all...
I have, in fact every monday when I sit down to play my runepriest I use a power that does just that:
Word of Diminishment
At-Will  Divine, Runic, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. Rune of Destruction: Until the end of your next turn, the target has vulnerable 2 to all damage, but vulnerable 5 against opportunity attacks.
Level 11: Vulnerable 4, but 7 against opportunity attacks.
Level 21: Vulnerable 6, but 10 against opportunity attacks. Rune of Protection: Until the end of your next turn, the target takes a penalty to damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier.
I have never actually even used the Rune of Protection feature of this ability. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 12:40AM
#186
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2005
|
This is where attention to words play in, That power provides the target with vulnerable 2 to all damage not vulnerable 2 all. By saying vulnerable 2 to all damage it clearifys any confusion that may pop up by wondering does it mean damage type or damage which is the issue we are having here with the topic of resistance. where vulnerable 2 all is confusing and with the way that is writen could easily imply it means all damage types because of the way resist is often writen.
Now what I would like to point out is that the way people are saying that resist all will resist a specific damage type also means that vulnerable all will not give the bonus to a specific damage type. It is at give and take on this either it works the same for both ways or well I don't know what to say beyond that.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 1:13AM
#187
|
|
|
The presence of absence of the word "damage" in the portion reading "vulnerable 2 to all [damage]" is only relevant if the word "types" follows it, since the presence or absence of "types" would have a direct impact on whether the rider includes or excludes untyped damage.
For example (and I'm not including vulnerable, because vulnerability will only count once): Hit a creature with 8 untyped, 4 fire;
Creature has:
Resist 5 all: Creature takes 7 points damage, it may choose some of that to be fire
Resist 5 all damage: Creature takes 7 points damage, it may choose some of that to be fire
Resist 5 all damage types: Creature takes 8 points untyped damage.
In your case of saying "vuln 2 to all damage" vs. "vuln 2 all", there is no difference, because vulnerability only exists in relation to damage. "All" means just that - "all".
But the question at hand is regarding VHM.
In any case, "resist all", "resist all damage", and "resist all damage types" are each singular, unique entities separate from "resist poison" or "immune to poison". They are not conglomerates, they simply are capable of producing an effect (among many other possible effects) that will have a similar result to resist poison. This outcome does not by itself classify them as "poison resistance," though I can certainly understand given a broader view of what 'poison resistance' means in English (as opposed to the more specific game definition) why you might conflate VHMs definition to include this.
VHM: "Benefit: Your attacks ignore poison resistance and poison immunity."
These aren't referring to general concepts, they are referring to specific in-game qualities of a target. This thread has attempted to describe this in many places. As an extra, I'll also add that had VHM been intended to bypass any resistance that could get in the way of poison attacks, it would have had a description that said so, in a form such as "...ignores all resistance..." or "...cannot be resisted in any way."
T
Yeah. I did just kill your BBEG with a vorpal frisbee. Problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 1:20AM
#188
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
Well said thomas.
Also, for what it's worth, from what I can find they seem to have moved away from using the terminology "Vulnerable # All" in most of the books beyond the PHB and Dragon Magazine 369 and now tend to just use plain english. IE: The powers in the newer books use statements like, "vulnerable to all damage, vulnerable to all attacks, vulnerable to your damage," etc.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 1:34AM
#189
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2005
|
The biggest point I am trying to make (no matter how theatrical I attempt to make posting fun for myself and try to burn a few rear ends into looking at it from other points of views) is quite simple. Resitance to a damage type, given by a specific resistance or a generalistic resistance is still resistance to that damage type therefore should something lower, increase, or bypass that resistance type it does so no matter the source. The same applys to the vulnerable trait, if one has vulnerable to poison they take extra damage from poison but if they have vulnerable to all they guess what take extra damage but if in this case where people are arguing that resist all does not equal resistance to any specific damage types when it is resistance to all damage types including untyped they are applying a double negative to their arguement in the case as I was doing with my arguements against them. It is a rather simple thing to think about really if you have resistance to all damage you have resistance to specific damages as well and and if you have vulnerable to all damages well you at the same time have vulnerable to specific damages as well. Here is the math as I see it as opposed to the math I am seeing people argue
What I see
Resist All = Resistance to all Damage Types + Untyped Damage
Vulnerable All = Vulnerablity to all Damage Types + Untyped
What I see being used
Resist All = Resistance to Damage but is not typed by Damage Type
Vulnerable All = Vulnerablity to all Damage Types + Untyped
In proper sense the second of these ideas does not make sense because Resist is the opposite of Vulnerable therefore Resist and Vulnerable should be the same thing regardless of the math to it, their effect should equal the same but opposite effect. but the way Resist All is being argued as an end all effect does not make the two effects same but opposite. Simply put if Resist All can not be bypassed by abilities that bypass Specific resistance then Vulnerable All does not provide it's bonus to Specific Damages
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 26, 2010 - 2:39AM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2006
|
This essentially boils down to the same old argument that you find page after page of in this thread and others.
The two sides are:
A. Resist all = Resistance to all damage
B. Resist all = Resistance to poison, necrotic, acid, thunder, lightning, fire, cold, radiant, psychic, force, and untyped damage
There is a major fallacy with the reasoning of B. Believers of B base their interpretation on the fact that the rules for resistance speak specifically of types, so they feel that resist all has to mean resist all types, but they then want to add untyped (or as it is also known in the PHB: damage with no type) as well. Some of them even go so far as to say: untyped (or damage with no type) is a type of damage. There is no arguing with people who reason this way because they are trying to use a logical argument to prove an illogical interpretation.
The interpretation that you presented earlier (let's call it C), that Resist all = Resistance to poison, necrotic, acid, thunder, lightning, fire, cold, radiant, psychic, and force damage but not resistance to untyped damage at least still maintains a logical framework, even if I don't agree with it. For what it's worth, I think C has much more weight to it as a plausible interpretation of the rules than B.
Sadly, it seems that you have reverted to B in an effort to prove that VHM will overcome Resist All. I personally think that you should stick with C if it's what you truly believe, because B is illogical. Better yet, try A out for awhile and if you really want VHM to override Resist All: Houserule it!
|
|
|
