Community

Jun 21, 2010 -- 6:31AM, Kilaro_Guillard_III wrote:

I have to agree with the point that states ALL is the same as writing down every source of damage available, so Resist Poison is included in Resist all.

If that were true, then effects which increase your resistance to specific damage would stack with just part of your Resist All.  That'd be a little awkward, wouldn't it?

Imagine if you had a power or something that says, "Increase your Fire Resist by 5" and you have Resist All 5 already.  Would that mean you'd gain something like, "Resist All (except Fire) 5, Resist Fire 10?"  Or "Resist All 5 (Except Fire which is 10)?"

Resist All means that all damage is resisted regardless of type.  It does not mean that you have Resist against every individual type of damage it means that all damage dealt to you is reduced.

Jun 21, 2010 -- 6:31AM, Kilaro_Guillard_III wrote:

In the PHB there is an item called Gloves of Piercing:
"Until the end of the encounter, your attacks ignore any resistance of 10 or lower"
Is ANY resistance the same as ALL resistance? Isn't this RAW?

Resist All is a resistance, so the Gloves, which reduce any kind of resistance would reduce Resist All.

The problem here really seems to be people thinking of Resist All as some kind of shortcut to writing a comprehensive list of damage resistances for each individual type, rather than something else entirely.  For the record, it is something else entirely.

Jun 21, 2010 -- 8:37AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

But that's not what he's talking about.  He's talking about having Resist 5 All and then getting a "Increase any Resist Fire you have by 5", which does NOT result in Resisting 10 Fire.  Why?  Because you dont' have any Resist Fire.  You have Resist All, and things that affect Resist Fire do not affect Resist All because "All" is not the same as "Fire".

Similary, Gloves Of Piercing allow you to ignore any Resistance.  "Resist All" is a resistance, so Gloves Of Piercing can ignore it.  "Resist Poison" is a Resistance, so Gloves Of Piercing can ignore it.   "Immune Fire" is not a Resistance, so Gloves Of Piercing cannot ignore it.  "Resist Cold" or "Resist Necrotic" or "Resist All" are not "Resist Poison", so things that only affect "Resist Poison" do not affect them.

"But LoW," he asked, "does 'resistance to X' in a description equate to 'Resist X' as an attribute?"

I lean towards yes.  Resist All is, certainly, "resistance to X" by definition; for any value of X, Resist All is resisting it.  I know I'm just restating my earlier post here, but if one thing is phrased "resistance to X" and another "Resist X" do you honestly think that the game designers thought about whether Resist All was being penetrated or not?  I doubt it, people just write differently.  So as a kind of aside I would argue that you treat both statements the same when adjudicating the rules, whichever way you choose to go, as that slight rephrase could cause confusion or disputes between players and/or DMs.

And bringing up Resist Necrotic or Resist Cold being affected by something which works on Resist Poison is kinda a straw man, no one would argue that...  Instead it's the idea that either All is a type unto itself, thus Resist Poison is not the same, or All is a simple catch-all shorthand used rather than writing every damage type out.  It's muddy as muddy can be, and could easily be interpreted either way.

Jun 21, 2010 -- 9:21AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

See, I *do* think people are basically arguing that, here - "All" is no more "Poison" than "Cold" is.

It's like saying that an untyped bonus is a "Power" bonus because it comes from a power.  Well, no, it *does* come from a power, but it's untyped, because it doesn't have a type.  Or saying that a Power bonus to damage is an Enhancement bonus instead because it "enhances" the damage done by the power.  These are all, to me, equally as meaningless as saying "something that affects Resist Fire specifically should also affect Cold or Poison or All".  Those things are not Fire, so things that only affect Fire do not affect them.  This seems simple, clear, unambiguous, and transparently follows the "rules only do exactly what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less" rule that defines how to read D&D rules.

But Cold does not include Poison in what is resists, All does, which is the confusion (and why it's a completely different argument, Cold Resist does not and cannot affect Poison Resist by any stretch of the rules).  "Nothing more, nothing less," doesn't really lend itself to either interpretation since the two Resist overlap in effect.  And I still don't agree with the idea that Resist All simply wins out over anything other than compelte untyped resistance penetration, it makes already situational benefits even less useful for both PCs and monsters.