Fire AND Cold

[Mesh Hong]

No, check Ryujin's post above.
A Radiant Smite with a Flaming Weapon (activated) deals radiant AND fire damage.

That doesn't make any sense.

Flaming weapon states:
Power (at will - fire)
Free action. All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal.

In what way does the above say that all damage dealt by the weapon is fire damage in addition to its previous damage? I don't think the power could be written any clearer "All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage". Surely that tells you everything you need to know?

 

[Mesh Hong]

If you use a magic item's power in conjunction with a power granted to you by your race or class, that item's keywords are added to the regular keywords of the power you are using. For example, if you are have a Flaming Weapon, and you use an at-will power to attack an enemy along with the at-will power of the Flaming Weapon, your attack will have the Fire keyword in addition to the normal keywords of your attack. You have to be using the powers of the weapon for those keywords to be added; simply using the magic item does not necessarily mean every keyword attached to a power of that item will be added.

Well I certainly admit that the FAQ has made a staight forward and logical ability into an inaccurate and seemingly overpowered mess.


Well then, looking about I found this on page 55 of the PHB.

Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the
damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others). For example, a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage deals 13 fire damage and 12 thunder damage.​

This seems to fly in the face of everything I thought I understood about resistances to multiple energy types.​

The above would state that if a power did 20 fire and cold damage and you had 10 fire resistance and 5 cold resistance it would work like:​

20 fire and cold = 10 fire damage and 10 cold damage
10 fire damage is cancelled by 10 fire resist
10 cold damage is reduced to 5 cold damage​

total damage = 5 damage​

Where as I had thought:-​

20 fire and cold damage
take the lowest of the two resistances (in this case 5)​

total damage = 15 damage​

So if I have this straight it means that attacks with more than one keyword are possibly worse than attacks with a single keyword? Because the damage is split so that a smaller amount of resistance is actually required.​

eg: in the above example if you had resistance 10 fire and resistance 10 cold then you would take no damage at all.​

​

​

 

[Wepwawet]

In what way does the above say that all damage dealt by the weapon is fire damage in addition to its previous damage? I don't think the power could be written any clearer "All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage". Surely that tells you everything you need to know?

That's why there is a FAQ...
I know it doesn't sound clear, but it is also very easy to read that as "in addition". It doesn't say "instead" or "becomes" explicitly, either.

"All radiant damage from your attack is fire damage" = radiant damage + fire = radiant fire damage.

But never mind, this is just semantics. The FAQ is pretty clear.

 

[Wepwawet]

So if I have this straight it means that attacks with more than one keyword are possibly worse than attacks with a single keyword? Because the damage is split so that a smaller amount of resistance is actually required.​

Nooo! But you had it right the first time!
20 fire and cold damage is fire and cold damage at the same time!

That's what happens when one tries to read the rules as if it was legal text

 

[Rothe_]

FAQ and errata (rules update) are two separate things. There is an update on the PHB rule about multiple damage types, so you have to ignore the PHB's rule about splitting fire and thunder into two separate damage totals. You in fact only do 25 thunder and fire in the example case and you'd need to resist both to resist any of the damage.

Some people don't agree with FAQ being equal to official rules update. FAQ text seems to get some things right, and some others are still left ambiguous. Updates are quite specific and tend to settle things for good.

 

[Mesh Hong]

EDIT:
ROTHE has come to the rescue I reminded me that the the section in the PHB has been updated. I was using the right rule originally and had forgotten where it had come from!

Nooo! But you had it right the first time!
20 fire and cold damage is fire and cold damage at the same time!

That's what happens when one tries to read the rules as if it was legal text

I am sorry I must seem like a fool to you but I really don't get it.

I will take the example step by step so you can tell me where I am going wrong!

Example: A Radiant Smite attack dealt with a flaming longsword dealing 20 damage against a target that has 10 Fire resistance and 5 Radiant resistance.

Assumptions:-
stated case that flaming weapon adds Fire keyword to the Radiant keyword of Radiant Smite.

PHB p55

"Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the
damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others). For example, a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage deals 13 fire damage and 12 thunder damage."​

1: damage 20 fire and radiant​

"When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others)."​

20 fire and radiant (2 keywords) is divided between damage types.
= 10 fire damage + 10 radiant damage​

2: Apply resistances
10 fire damage vs. 10 fire resistance = 0 damage
10 radiant damage vs. 5 radiant resistance = 5 damage
TOTAL = 5 damage​

That seems to be what the PHB + the FAQ are saying?​

 

[Mesh Hong]

FAQ and errata (rules update) are two separate things. There is an update on the PHB rule about multiple damage types, so you have to ignore the PHB's rule about splitting fire and thunder into two separate damage totals. You in fact only do 25 thunder and fire in the example case and you'd need to resist both to resist any of the damage.

Ah thank you. I thought I was going MAD!

Some people don't agree with FAQ being equal to official rules update. FAQ text seems to get some things right, and some others are still left ambiguous. Updates are quite specific and tend to settle things for good.

I think this might be a case where I will stick to my and my groups own sense of logic. Because it makes a lot more sense to me that the FAQ response!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well.... Let me throw another monkey wrench into your calculations here. This discussion needs to distinguish between damage type and effect type. An attack for example can have an effect type keyword of "fire" and still be doing entirely untyped (or some other type) of damage as a damage type.

In this case the fire keyword is an effect type keyword only. It applies to things like immunity. A creature that was "immune to fire" or got "+2 on all saves vs fire" would get those bonuses vs the attack because it is a fire effect. If the creature had "resist 5 fire" that would not help the creature at all because the damage type is not fire, its untyped.

Now, in the specific case of a flaming weapon the damage acquires the damage type fire and the attack acquires the effect type keyword fire as well (due to the quoted text of the general rule for magic weapons which adds the keywords of their powers when used with an attack). This is the normal case and generally you won't run into situations where something like fire is only an effect keyword. You will however run into this in certain other cases. An example (one that I got hammered on for in that other forum recently) is the Grell. I quote the text of one of its powers:

Tentacle Rake (standard; at-will) * Poison
Reach 2; +12 vs AC; 3d8+4 damage, and the target is slowed and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends both).

Notice how the power has an effect keyword of poison, but does only untyped damage. A character with "resist 5 poison" will gain nothing from his resistance against this attack because he is being hit with untyped damage. A dwarf on the other hand will get a +5 to his save to end the power's effects because of his racial benefit against poison effects.

I'm pretty sure that poison is the only keyword that normally shows up as both/either a damage type or an effect keyword though. In general if something does fire damage it will have the fire keyword for example and if it has the fire effect keyword, then it will be because its doing some sort of fire damage, but there are a lot of ways to add damage types and effect keywords to powers, so you may still run into this situation with various types/keywords.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in to make the discussion even more fun!

 

[Mesh Hong]

Abdulalhazred I completely understand that, and whats more it seems logical (unlike the flaming longsword keyword situation).

the Damage is untyped, but the additional effect is a poison effect. So anything other than resistance still applies, which can be bonues or even immunity.

For example an undead creature hit by the attack would take the damage but not the secondary effects as it is immune to poison damage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Abdulalhazred I completely understand that, and whats more it seems logical (unlike the flaming longsword keyword situation).

the Damage is untyped, but the additional effect is a poison effect. So anything other than resistance still applies, which can be bonues or even immunity.

For example an undead creature hit by the attack would take the damage but not the secondary effects as it is immune to poison damage.

Yeah, what's sad is that the actual 4e power description rules (PHB55) are miserably poorly written, never actually mention that damage type is always part of the text (and it really isn't even a keyword even though it is plopped into the keyword section). Its no wonder that people can't figure this stuff out. It actually makes sense IF you figure it out, but that's just sad. WotC seriously needs to look at the people they have writing the rules text because they could do 100x better.