Do vulnerabilities stack?

[Jhaelen]

True, but in this particular instance, the Customer Service response makes sense to me.

You're clearly on the right track. The next step would be this:

Your opinion is the only one that counts. Thus, there's no longer any need to ask CS about anything:
If their answer disagrees with your interpretation they must be wrong, if they agree with your interpretation they're right.


Now, seriously, I've usually found the answers of EN board members more insightful than those from CS. Using CS as a final arbiter is a bad idea. The best approach is to treat their replies just like everyone else's, imho. It's simply another opinion that's just as likely to be right or wrong as everyone else's. They're not special in any way.

 

[The Little Raven]

You no longer divide the damage into separate "fire" and "cold", it's all just "fire and cold" and I would rule that a vulnerability to either is sufficient (but you need resistance to both) but vulnerabilities to both don't stack (use the higher) because there aren't separate damage types hitting you.

The first part of this is correct according to clarification from WotC. When an attack deals multiple kinds of damage, all points of damage are considered all of the types of damage. That's why you need resistances of each type to resist any of it. Customer Service is wrong about the dividing it up part, as that was the original text before it was errata'd.

The second part, however, doesn't seem right to me. Since the damage type is both fire and cold, then vulnerability to cold and vulnerability to fire should both play a part (and therefore stack). You are being hit by multiple damage types at the same time, even if they are all part of a single attack. That's the bitch about having multiple vulnerabilities.

 

[HighTemplar]

Using CS as a final arbiter is a bad idea.

Hmm wow, don't underestimate the infinite value of a CS answer. It has the ultimate power of letting you close this matter once and for all, so you can argue on the next issue. It's very reassuring to just get it over with sometimes

 

[StormHarbinger]

But the CS response to the 2nd question should be invalid due to current errata (or should I say updates). You no longer divide the damage into separate "fire" and "cold", it's all just "fire and cold" and I would rule that a vulnerability to either is sufficient (but you need resistance to both) but vulnerabilities to both don't stack (use the higher) because there aren't separate damage types hitting you. CS is not a definitive authority sadly, since they can't even follow their own updates (unless that response predates the update that changed that, but in that case, the question should be reasked).

Note that the CS response deals solely with Vulnerabilities, not Resistance, and that the quoted errata is for Resistance. Different mechanics.

 

[HighTemplar]

Note that the CS response deals solely with Vulnerabilities, not Resistance, and that the quoted errata is for Resistance. Different mechanics.

Could be that, or it could be that the CS ignored it's own errata

 

[StormHarbinger]

Could be that, or it could be that the CS ignored it's own errata

Granted. CS has been at best unreliable thus far. Which is crazy. But also another thread entirely.