|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:05AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
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.
But cold damage does and will always affect Poison damage when the 2 types of damage are added together. So when the 2 types of Resistance are added together where is your leg to stand on. If you want to infure rules that aren't there you need a better argument rather than I feet it should work but don't have a rules source to back me up. This is a Rules Q&A not a "Houserules what I would do because I don't understand the rules Q&A"
You can see LoW is stating the rules, yet you continue to argue without giving a rules based reason. "I feel Resist All is short hand" is just that a feeling not following what the rules state or don't state. Nowhere does it say Resist All is all types of resistance because it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist but not the same as either.
Diabalos
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:11AM
#42
|
|
|
...snip... not following what the rules state or don't state. Nowhere does it say Resist All is all types of resistance because it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist but not the same as either.
Where does it state this? Not fair to play the "you're making up rules" card and then make up a rule.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:16AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
...snip... not following what the rules state or don't state. Nowhere does it say Resist All is all types of resistance because it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist but not the same as either.
Where does it state this? Not fair to play the "you're making up rules card" and then make up a rule.
As witten, I believe "Resist All" resists any and all damage but is not defined as the same as having all resistances.
It's not a bad interpretation to treat it that way, but it most certainly is not RAW.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:22AM
#44
|
|
|
Well, as written, it says "All" not Resist "any and all damage but is not defined as the same as having all resistances." Unless you are referring to another location in the rulebook?
Its not RAW if you go beyond what is written.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:24AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
...snip... not following what the rules state or don't state. Nowhere does it say Resist All is all types of resistance because it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist but not the same as either.
Where does it state this? Not fair to play the "you're making up rules" card and then make up a rule.
Your saying Resist's stack?
Sigh...
PHB3 p223
Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest resistance applies. For exapmle, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 10 cold, you have resist 10 cold, not resist 16 cold. Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 2 to all damage, you still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.
Now why was that nessasary when I thought we all knew the rules and could read/had books/compendium...
Diabalos
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:28AM
#46
|
|
|
I didn't say resists stack. You said:
" it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist "
with the admonition that
" you continue to argue without giving a rules based reason "
I want to know where it says Resist All "is its own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist." In fact, I'd like to know where it says *anything* other than just "All" when referring to Resist All. In other words, I'd like to see the rule that you based this on.
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:31AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
I want to know where it says Resist All "is its own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist." In fact, I'd like to know where it says *anything* other than just "All" when referring to Resist All. In other words, I'd like to see the rule that you based this on.
Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 2 to all damage, you still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.
Thus, resist all does not stack with other resistances; you take the better reduction.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:34AM
#48
|
|
|
The same result as if you'd replaced the All in "Resist 2 All" with "Resist 2 (Fire, Cold, Psychic, etc)." This doesn't eliminate either interpretation of All. (edit) I suppose you could make a claim that they purposefully said "to all damage" instead of "to all types of damage."
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:35AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
I didn't say resists stack. You said:
" it's not it is it's own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist "
with the admonition that
" you continue to argue without giving a rules based reason "
I want to know where it says Resist All "is its own damage reduction not stackable with Elemental damage Resist." In fact, I'd like to know where it says *anything* other than just "All" when referring to Resist All. In other words, I'd like to see the rule that you based this on.
More to the point, where do the rules state that Resist All = anything other than "resist all damage," or, perhaps "resist damage regardless of type." For example, when petrified "You gain resist 20 to all damage," which is not, as written, the same as "Resist Cold + Resist Fire, + ..."
Nowhere do the rules state that Resist All = Resist Cold + Resist Fire, + ...
As written, Resist All is its own thing and not the same as "Resist Cold + Resist Fire, + ...," though, as I stated, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to treat it that way.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2010 - 11:45AM
#50
|
|
|
More to the point, where do the rules state that Resist All = anything other than "resist all damage," or, perhaps "resist damage regardless of type."
Heck if I know, but I'm not trying to play the RAW card.
As written, Resist All is its own thing and not the same as "Resist Cold + Resist Fire, + ...," though, as I stated, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to treat it that way.
Yes, as written, there are 3 letters instead of 234 or whatever.
But the second half of the sentence is the important one: Should we treat it as Resist Cold and Resist Fire and etc or not. Can you trump "penetrating damage" by having Resist All? I think there are some interesting arguments on either side. Given the responses I saw from WotC in regards to Combined Damage Types, I'm inclined to think treating "All" as "Cold, Fire, etc" is the way to go. (edit) It also happens to align with the word "All" as it can be used in common speech. If your class said Weapon Proficiencies: All, you wouldn't go looking for listing of weapons under All any more than you would press the Any Key to continue. 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
