Bless Weapon and Vulnerability

[Meeble]

Bless Weapon (Paladin Utility 2 from Divine Power) among other things increases the crit range of the Weapon to 18-20 against creatures that are vulnerable to radiant damage.

Does this bonus apply when a creature is vulnerable to *all* damage, such as creatures under the effect of Exacting Utterance? Or does it have to be specifically vulnerable to radiant to get the bonus?

I would think that if a creature is vulnerable to all damage, it would stand to reason that it is vulnerable to radiant damage, so the crit range bonus should apply. I don't really see this distinction in the rules anywhere, though, and the question came up during a recent play session, so I thought I would ask for some additional opinions.

 

[keterys]

Good question. You should probably direct it CS-wards so it gets on the wotc radar for FAQ and such.

Depending on how it's worded, the same might apply to the abilities that trigger when an enemy has fire resistance, and a creature has resist all. I suspect that vulnerability all does not count as vulnerability radiant, for this purpose though. For instance, I don't think Solar Enemy's 'give vuln radiant 5 or increase existing vuln radiant by 5' would increase such a creature... it would give it radiant 5. Ergo it didn't have vuln radiant 5, etc. If it were worded 'expanded crit range if the creature would take extra damage from radiant' then technically vuln all would apply... but then you'd have an odd question for things like swarms which are vuln close/area

 

[Jhaelen]

I would think that if a creature is vulnerable to all damage, it would stand to reason that it is vulnerable to radiant damage, so the crit range bonus should apply.

I think, as per the RAW you're correct. I'm unsure if that's the way the power's supposed to work, but I'd probably allow it for the time being.

 

[Starfox]

This raised many questions.

I don't think Solar Enemy's 'give vuln radiant 5 or increase existing vuln radiant by 5' would increase such a creature... it would give it radiant 5.

By RAW, I think you are wrong. I think Solar Enemy would give Vulnerable all: 5, Radiant: 10. By the same token, I think the OP is right.

To me, vulnerable: All 5 is the same as Vulnerable Fire 5, Vulnerable cold 5, etc... But there is a marked difference. Vulnerable (or resistance) All includes untyped damage, which is not a damage type in itself. So maybe All is a separate damage type after all?

Mightily confusing. I think untyped damage is a pretty bad idea.

 

[keterys]

By RAW, I think you are wrong. I think Solar Enemy would give Vulnerable all: 5, Radiant: 10.

Weirdly, if that were true, radiant would deal 15 extra damage to someone in that case, since both vulnerabilities would apply.

To me, vulnerable: All 5 is the same as Vulnerable Fire 5, Vulnerable cold 5, etc... But there is a marked difference. Vulnerable (or resistance) All includes untyped damage, which is not a damage type in itself. So maybe All is a separate damage type after all?

Yeah, as far as I can tell, Vuln All is its own thing, just like how Vuln Area and Close attacks is its own thing and Vuln 'the cleric's damage' is its own thing.

Mightily confusing. I think untyped damage is a pretty bad idea.

Agreed - I'd have preferred if they'd at least called generic damage Physical or something.

 

[DracoSuave]

Agreed - I'd have preferred if they'd at least called generic damage Physical or something.

Eldritch Blast isn't a physical attack, it's an untyped damage the same as most weapon attacks.

'untyped' is fine as it is. It's the hardest to resist type, and the one that has the least vulnerabilities. As the default, it's best to have just a default name, i.e. nothing.

And how is it confusing?

Vulnerable close and area attacks. Is that a close or area attack? Yes? Vulnerable.
Vulnerable all damage. Is it damage? Yes. Vulnerable.

I don't understand how anything that comes down to a simple yes-no question can be confusing to anyone.

That said.

"Vulnerable all" is not "vulnerable to radiant". Effects that key off of vulnerability to radiant damage don't trigger of other things that one can be vulnerable to, even of those would apply.

I mean, in a technical sense, there's no way that a creature with vulnerable all wouldn't take extra damage from attacks of yours that happen to be radiant... but let's look at it this way:

If you had an effect that could change a damage type a creature was vulnerable from one thing to another, could it affect this creature? The answer is no, because the creature doesn't have vulnerability to any damage type. If V:All worked like that, you could use that power to remove the 'radiant' part of their vulnerability.

 

[renau1g]

So if something has vulnerability all, Wintertouched works?

 

[Infiniti2000]

And how is it confusing?

...

I don't understand how anything that comes down to a simple yes-no question can be confusing to anyone.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but you're surely being hypocritical!

I mean, ask your yes/no question again: "Vulnerable all damage. Is it damage? Yes. Vulnerable." and then look at your comment: '"Vulnerable all" is not "vulnerable to radiant".' How do these statements not conflict or at least not seem confusing?

Fwiw, I agree with Jhaelen and would allow it to work. I see no issue with it. The only issue I see is with powers like Exacting Utterance. Granting "V: All" is the problem, if there is any problem.

 

[keterys]

So if something has vulnerability all, Wintertouched works?

Not as far as I know... but yes, as far as some other posters are concerned. This would be an FAQ-worthy topic.

 

[Turtlejay]

Vulnerable All != Vulnerable Radiant, Cold, etc.

Vulnerable represents a particular creature's weakness. A Cold based creature, for example, might be Vulnerable 5 Fire because Fire damage is extra damaging to his Cold based anatomy.

An Undead creature might have Vulnerable 5 Radiant because that type of damage is fundamentally opposed to his Necrotic nature.

No creature that I know of has an innate Vulnerablity to *all* damage. It is an assigned vulnerability from an outside source.

So if you have a power that is extra useful against a creature that is Vulnerable to a certain type of damage, being Vulnerable to *all* types of damage is not necissarily the same thing. I'd not allow it to work.

Jay