Multiple vulnerabilities

[Infiniti2000]

Arggh! Bad, bad, very bad!

 

[keterys]

Heh, I'm asking this because I was running some swarms (vulnerable 10 close and area attacks) that were then made vulnerable to all and vulnerable to... something else... I forget what.

And I was like 'Wait, does all of this apply?' and I let it do so for the game cause whatever, but I still figured I'd bring it up here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heh, I'm asking this because I was running some swarms (vulnerable 10 close and area attacks) that were then made vulnerable to all and vulnerable to... something else... I forget what.

And I was like 'Wait, does all of this apply?' and I let it do so for the game cause whatever, but I still figured I'd bring it up here.

Yeah, this is where it does get kind of ugly. I think I'd do the same thing since basically these cases are all ones where the PCs used a power to stack on vulnerability and I'm never in favor of saying to the player "Oh, due to a technical interpretation of rule 14.6.3 subsection 2 you just wasted your power, haha."

 

[Ryujin]

Heh, I'm asking this because I was running some swarms (vulnerable 10 close and area attacks) that were then made vulnerable to all and vulnerable to... something else... I forget what.

And I was like 'Wait, does all of this apply?' and I let it do so for the game cause whatever, but I still figured I'd bring it up here.

My gut instinct is to simply apply the worst, for reasons of speed and playability. Sort of the inverse of having to have all keyworded resistances in order to resist a multi-keyworded attack.

 

[eamon]

My gut reaction is: doesn't this just work just like resistances?

Balance-wise, I expect stackable vulnerabilities aren't as bad as they sound. I mean, we're comparing them to resistances here, but just as apt a comparison is ongoing damage... which stacks if it's of differing type.

Resistances have the potential to be much more powerful since a resistance only needs to go a short way to complete invulnerability - on the other hand, each successive vulnerability simply adds a bit of extra damage. Sure, that can add up - but relatively speaking, you run into decreasing returns (in contrast to resistances, where, after just resist 10/15/25 or whatever depending on your enemies you become invincible).

And, specifically for powers that grant vulnerabilities - the extra damage from the vulnerability is probably somewhat accounted for in the power's strength. In that sense, it's not too crazy to let em stack. For that matter, given the choice, it's possibly suboptimal to stack em since there's a good chance a vulnerable target will go down quickly and the vulnerability will have less effect than when used on a target that can still survive more hits.

Is there any reference or rule backing for this discussion?

 

[keterys]

Mostly, it makes nova-ing much easier if they stack. It also makes admixture and weapons which add an energy type even more powerful.

Which is one thing that makes it far different from ongoing damage, since using a Frost weapon while inflicting ongoing 5 fire doesn't mean you take 10 damage when it becomes ongoing 5 fire and cold. It just means it gets past resistance more easily.

It's enough of a corner case that it likely won't break anyone's game no matter which way you go on it.

 

[Diirk]

Which is one thing that makes it far different from ongoing damage, since using a Frost weapon while inflicting ongoing 5 fire doesn't mean you take 10 damage when it becomes ongoing 5 fire and cold. It just means it gets past resistance more easily.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd run it like that. Cold weapons convert all damage done by the weapon into cold damage (if desired). However ongoing damage isn't damage done by the weapon, its a status effect.

So given a theoretical at will that does 1d8 + str damage and applies 5 ongoing damage, with a cold weapon I'd have it do 1d8 + str cold damage and apply 5 untyped ongoing. This way you can't turn your cold weapon on and off to stack the ongoing damage (untyped + cold ongoing damage will stack, whereas untyped + untyped or cold + cold wouldn't).

 

[Rothe_]

Multiattacks are also getting much more powerful with vulnerabilities. They are too powerful already.

 

[eamon]

Multiattacks are also getting much more powerful with vulnerabilities. They are too powerful already.

Well, other powers give allies bonuses to damage rolls, which comes down to the same thing. Whether it's balanced or not depends on the situation and the granting power. Frankly, I can't imagine this actually occurs very commonly: how often will you add multiple vulnerabilities to a creature? And a single (applicable) vulnerability functions straightforwardly.

I think the balance argument isn't strongly relevant to this rules matter - it's too specific, too situationally dependent on various combo's and the details of the powers involved.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So given a theoretical at will that does 1d8 + str damage and applies 5 ongoing damage, with a cold weapon I'd have it do 1d8 + str cold damage and apply 5 untyped ongoing. This way you can't turn your cold weapon on and off to stack the ongoing damage (untyped + cold ongoing damage will stack, whereas untyped + untyped or cold + cold wouldn't).

Huh? So, you're suggesting that cold changes the ongoing FIRE to ongoing untyped? How does that work?