Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7288442" data-attributes="member: 6778044">First, [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] - not harsh at all. Do I think it's nonsensical? Perhaps on a first glance. But then the way that you can move 30 feet, attack, and in many cases do something else while everybody else stands still is nonsensical to me too. If there's something that bothers me enough (like the combat thing), then I'll change it. Having said that, (and in part in response to [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and others), I'll try to clarify why I'm generally OK with this in a single post.I think the spirit of 5e is tilted towards simplicity, but also making things mean something. So the attack is meaningful - a successful attack almost always causes some damage - and the resistance is meaningful too. That's why there's advantage/disadvantage instead of a bunch of +1 modifiers, why the proficiency bonus starts at +2, and why it's usually resistance instead of damage reduction.So let's look at it from a different perspective. If your barbarian is using Spirit Shield, and is attacked by a flame tongue, does the damage type even matter? To that character, what is the difference between 2d6 slashing and 1d6 slashing + 1d6 fire? Nothing at all. It only matters if the target is immune, resistant, vulnerable, or has some other specific condition (like a troll) related to the damage type. SO in this case I think it's clear that you apply the reduction to the total damage caused by the single attack.For the sake of argument, let's assume they forgot to clarify that you divide it equally against the types of damage. So the attack is 3 points of slashing and 6 points of fire damage. You roll 8 points of reduction.If 3 points are applied to the slashing, and 4 to the fire, you might complain that you wasted 1 point against the slashing. I'd ask a different question. If you prevented the slashing damage, doesn't that mean you prevented the sword from hitting you? If so, then how did you still take fire damage? Otherwise I think they would have stated: if the attack deals multiple types of damage, divide the points amongst them. Or something like that. As for the resistance to a specific type of damage: I think it really depends on your preference. It's not that difficult to isolate that specific damage to modify by itself. On the other hand, simply dividing the entire damage in half due to resistance makes resistance more valuable, yet still ensures that you'll do some damage (unlike reduction). This to me is more a question of what the table things in terms of simplicty vs "accuracy." I'd probably only worry about it if there was a large discrepancy. For example, an attack that did 1d6 fire damage and 4d6 of other damage, and the creature was resistant only to fire. But for the most part I'm guessing it's probably not worth the trouble.This is related to the question [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] asks: Do I think that all damage should be rolled together. I think that in 5e that's the general assumption. That is, something like searing smite says the attack does an extra 1d6 fire damage. I start with the extra 1d6. That is, the player grabs an extra d6, then rolls. There is no indication in the rules that they are tracking each damage type separately, using different color dice, etc. There's also no indication that you can't do that, but again the only time the damage type matters is against certain targets. So I think the default for most attacks will be just to roll the dice together. And maintaining that approach seems logical for most attacks. So I think that what is described in XGtE is what I described. If the creature is resistant to any of the damage types, just divide the total damage in half and keep it simple. The times where it's a great benefit will be balanced out over time for when it's not. It's simple, and keeps things moving with the least amount of complexity. For a question like this I think that consistency - pick a method and stick to it - is more important than the actual rule used. I like that it would increase the benefit of resistance overall myself. And I also prefer less math while playing. In terms of the troll. If you're making an attack that deals fire damage, and the troll takes damage from that attack, then the damage is fire damage. That is, if you successfully hit a troll with a flame tongue, then that damage is fire damage in terms of its regeneration, even if it only takes 1 point of damage. So if it's a troll barbarian with Spirit Shield and it blocks all but 1 point of damage, it still can't regenerate in that round.YMMV, of course, but this all makes sense to me.</blockquote>

Verification