|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 1:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2011
|
If I'm taking 10 ongoing acid damage, but have superior Fortitude (epic level) and resist 10 acid, I take 0 acid damage per round.
What happens if I then gain vulnerable 20 acid damage? I know this overrides my resist 10 acid, but does it affect my resist 9 ongoing? Does the vulnerability factor in, and then the resist 9, for 21 acid damage? Does the resist 9 get completely destroyed for 30 acid damage per round? If I had resist 10 ongoing, would I resist all the ongoing, and just be vulnerable to direct acid attacks?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 1:47PM
#2
|
|
|
It doesn't "override." You still have the resist 10 Acid. If you took 1 acid damage you'd increase it by 20 and then reduce it by 10 (total 11). The actual rule says you subtract the larger value from the smaller and apply the total result. So Vuln 20-10 resist = vuln 10. You don't get to then resist 9 from Superior Fort, because you'd be stacking resists and that doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 1:48PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
If you have both resistance and vulnerability to the same type of damage, they both continue to work.
For example, if you have resist 10 acid, vulnerable 20 acid, and you take 10 acid damage, you would calculate damage as follows:
10 (base damage) - 10 (resistance) + 20 (vulnerable) = 20 acid damage
Because resistances don't stack, the damage would be the same if you also have Superior Fortitude. When you take your ongoing acid damage, look at your resistances and choose the best resistance that applies.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 1:49PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Since Resist 3 Ongoing is a Resistance against the same type as Resist 10 Acid when taking Ongoing 10 Acid damage, they wouldn't cumulate. Only the highest would apply. (Resist 10 Acid)
So you'd take: 10 additional Acid damage everytime you'd take Acid damage from Ongoing Acid damage.
If you had Resist 10 Ongoing and Resist 10 Acid, you'd still only Resist only 10 damage when taking Ongoing Acid damage.
Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest resistance applies.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 2:02PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2011
|
Oh! My DM's always said that vulnerability completely negates resistance, and then applies itself. Nevermind, then. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 4:33AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Oh! My DM's always said that vulnerability completely negates resistance, and then applies itself. Nevermind, then. Thanks!
As a lifelong DM I feel like I need to chime in on this one. DMs customizing rules for their own preferences and campaigns is a time-honored tradition. The folks above have very correctly stated the rules for combining resistances and vulnerabilities. Just make sure your DM hasn't knowingly altered the rules to fit his or her personal style. Doing so is very much in the spirit and tradition of Dungeons & Dragons.
Personally, I don't alter a rule on a whim. I only do so if I feel there is a very compelling reason to do so, which is why my list of houserules is relatively small. But some DMs really like to tinker around under the hood, and that's perfectly legitimate.
=====================================================
"Your life is an occasion. Rise to it." -Mr. Magorium
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 6:17AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Not so much in the spirit of 4e, though.
DMs should play by the rules too. Now, I myself do have some overrides, but those are specific, targeted changes. Most of the "My DM said this and it doesn't make sense, what's the rule?" questions here involve things that the DMs changed almost whimsically, rather than to serve any specific purpose. The latter is much, much more rare.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 3:43PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Or the DM just doesn't understand how the rules work. (This is particularly common for those just coming in from an earlier edition - and not limited to DMs in that case!)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 10:34AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Not so much in the spirit of 4e, though.
DMs should play by the rules too. Now, I myself do have some overrides, but those are specific, targeted changes. Most of the "My DM said this and it doesn't make sense, what's the rule?" questions here involve things that the DMs changed almost whimsically, rather than to serve any specific purpose. The latter is much, much more rare.
"DMs should play by the rules too." + "Now, I myself do have some overrides, but those are specific, targeted changes." = "I'm wise and capable enough to make changes to the rules as I see fit but you guys are not so you should play by the rules." 
=====================================================
"Your life is an occasion. Rise to it." -Mr. Magorium
=====================================================
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 10:43AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Not really.
I should play by the rules, and if anyone challenges me on it I can explain why I don't. The rules aren't perfect, but I don't fault anyone for insisting on them. The default assumption is that I'm playing by the rules. Then when I say things like "you gain a +1/2/3 inherent bonus to attack rolls" I have a rational, defensible position that I can speak from fully understanding the impact my change has on the system as a whole.
And I am wise and capable enough to make changes to the rules as I see fit, and quite honestly most people aren't. Sounds arrogant, yes? Well, it probably is. But quite frankly, it is the truth. I, and most of the other RQ&A regulars, know the 4e ruleset better than pretty much everyone else on the planet. Changing rules when you know exactly what the impact is on the game? Fine. Changing rules badly when you don't know any better? Problem. Many times people have come here or over to CharOp and said "How can I do this, so that doesn't happen?" and "that" ended up being a wacky, system-shattering houserule that their ignorant DM came up with with no idea what the consequences would be. And our answer was "Get your DM to not do that, here's why it's against the rules and why it's bad for the game." That's what having a full knowledge of the rules tends to avoid.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
