Keywords vs Damage Types

Do the keywords of a power change to reflect the damage that is actually being dealt?

The PHB has this to say about keywords and damage types:
However, what about damage types that aren't defined by the power itself? There are multiple ways to either change the damage type of an attack, or to add extra damage of a different type to the attack. Do those also add their damage type to the keywords of a power?

For example, if I'm using a power with the Fire keyword that deals 2d10 Fire damage and I'm using an effect that changes all damage I deal to Cold damage. Does this mean the power counts as having the Cold keyword because that's the damage I'm dealing, or does it stay Fire because that's what the power itself says it is?

Alternatively, I'm casting the same 2d10 Fire spell, except this time I have an external effect that adds 1d4 Lightning damage to all my attacks. Does this mean the power counts as having both the Fire and the Lightning keywords because I deal both damage types with that attack, or does it stay Fire because of the base power?

I think, unless the effect allowing you to replace a damage type with a different one or adding a damage type actually says so, it doesn't affect the power's keywords.

E.g. there are powers that can have a random effect, each with a different damage type. This doesn't mean that the power loses any keywords of damage types you didn't happen to roll when actually using the power. I guess, in a sense, keywords describe a spell's _potential_ damage types.

My view is that there are two approaches to this.

One I'm not very sympathetic to myself, which I would call the "mechanics but no fiction" approach - keywords don't change unless you find a rule that says otherwise.

The other, which I personally think is much truer to the way 4e keywords are meant to work - ie as the anchors of mechanics to fiction - is that the keywords change to match what is actually going on with the power. So eg the Chaos sorcerer in my game who uses Blazing Starfall doesn't have the Fire keyword, because (not being a Cosmic sorcerer) the power doesn't deal any fire damage.

So I would say your swapped power becomes Cold, and you amplified power is Fire and Lightning.

It can get trickier if there are other effects that clearly follow the keyword - eg a Cold power that inflicts Slow. If you make that into a Fire power instead, does it still Slow (how? why? clearly it's not freezing anyone anymore) or (say) cause OG 5 Fire?

I haven't really had to deal with very much of that in my game - the only instance I can think of is the sorcerer who turned Cloak of Winter Storm into a lightning storm - there is nothing too weird about being Slowed by being zapped by lightning.

Jhaelen said:

I think, unless the effect allowing you to replace a damage type with a different one or adding a damage type actually says so, it doesn't affect the power's keywords.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

One I'm not very sympathetic to myself, which I would call the "mechanics but no fiction" approach - keywords don't change unless you find a rule that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that mean that popular damage-type focused combos like the old "Frostcheese" (Wintertouched + Lasting Frost + Frost Weapon) don't actually work by RAW? After all, Frost Weapon only changes the damage dealt, while Wintertouched and Lasting Frost both only apply to powers with the Cold keyword, not to actual cold damage.

No-Mouse said:

Wouldn't that mean that popular damage-type focused combos like the old "Frostcheese" (Wintertouched + Lasting Frost + Frost Weapon) don't actually work by RAW? After all, Frost Weapon only changes the damage dealt, while Wintertouched and Lasting Frost both only apply to powers with the Cold keyword, not to actual cold damage.

Click to expand...

Well, yes - unless the proponents of "Frostcheese" managed to find a ruling somewhere. My knowledge of 4e rules is quite rusty at this point in time...

Personally, I don't like any kind of cheese in my RPGs. It's why I'm rather strict in my rule interpretations and don't allow all of the published material (notably: dragon articles). My rule of thumb is "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't."

Jhaelen said:

Personally, I don't like any kind of cheese in my RPGs. It's why I'm rather strict in my rule interpretations and don't allow all of the published material (notably: dragon articles). My rule of thumb is "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't."

Click to expand...

Frostcheese isn't actually that cheesy in my opinion. You're locking in two feats and a weapon enchant (and more, if you're facing enemies with cold resistance or immunity) just to get an effect that isn't usually very hard to get otherwise (combat advantage). It's just the most popular example, as far as I know, of people assuming that damage types and keywords are linked.

What I have found is that the power mechanics kind of vary all over the place. Some powers specifically require the player to designate the type of damage at selection. In that case I would say the power takes on the keyword selected. Some feats and items allow you to change damage types when the power is used. In that case the power's keywords don't change, but damage type itself is a keyword. FIRE Damage, and COLD Damage are two distinct keywords with separate mechanical assumptions and repercussions.

What I have found works best in my game is to attempt, as much as possible, to go with the interpretation that has the least consequences. The least abusive interpretation. A power that adds a damage type now has 2 keywords. This has an impact on vulnerabilities/resistances and makes it more difficult to resist. A power that only changes damage type takes on the new keyword and drops the previous one. This changes what vulnerabilities/resistances come into effect, but it is still one of them rather than combined damage types. Which is also plausible.

It also helps when the powers/feats/items are read/parsed almost in a pedantic plain language. AND, OR, etc. become important to that parsing. If it does not say AND then it does not combine. If it says OR, it is one option OR the other, not both. When something says ALL it means ALL. It sounds silly at times but for parsing the mechanical aspects it works rather well.

Ahhhh, yes, the refreshing smell of burning RAW!

It has been a number of years now since I did my stint on ye old Q&A forum, but if my rusty brain is correct, there's a clause, possibly in AV1, maybe also reiterated in PHB2? Somewhere, in any case, there is a statement that says that keywords 'follow' damage types.

THAT BEING SAID, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has certainly brought up the most obvious related issue, and there are plenty of other quirks. My recollection is that the actual phraseology of the statement was itself also not entirely clear about all cases. If memory serves it particularly mentioned the Flametongue (which has a power that can add fire damage to attacks) and its doppleganger, the very popular Frostbrand (cheeze on a stick so to speak). I believe the verbiage is something about an attack having 'all the keywords' of the damage types it inflicts. I think this also didn't address what happens when a damage type is REMOVED, though certainly we can speculate (and again [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does so).

Still, this is all old memories. I don't tend to bother to consult 4e books much anymore when I run things. 'rules questions' being answered as it pleases us (and I really don't play with people who aren't cool with that in my old age).

I think [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] has it about right. Just go with whatever is cool and not absurd and seems to put the fiction and the rules on the same track. Gygax was, off course, totally correct, the rules are only there to make it more fun, its an RPG, not a board game.

AbdulAlhazred said:

It has been a number of years now since I did my stint on ye old Q&A forum, but if my rusty brain is correct, there's a clause, possibly in AV1, maybe also reiterated in PHB2? Somewhere, in any case, there is a statement that says that keywords 'follow' damage types.

Click to expand...

Ah, you're right. I did some digging, and it's in the PHB3.


That answers my original question in detail.

Huh, XP isn't working now. I wonder if that is a FF 57 thing. OT, but its REALLY fast!