Multiple vulnerabilities

[Markn]

I was getting that too!

 

[Neuroglyph]

Weirdly enough, resistances are not the same as vulnerabilities. For instance, even aside from this -- if you're hit with "fire and lightning" damage, it will blow straight through fire resistance; you need fire resistance -and- lightning resistance to avoid it, and only the lowest will apply. By contrast, fire -vulnerability- will happily increase the damage; you favor the attack. Similarly, yes, you use the highest vulnerability in a category, but stack all the categories. If someone is vulnerable fire (5), all (5) and psychic (5), they'll take +15 points from fire,psychic damage. But if they're vulnerable all (5) and all(10), they only take +10 damage, not +15.

I see your point but am unhappy with the interpretation of the all (5) - since all (5) would suggest that they are vulneralbe to all effects, it would seem like "double-dipping" to say that fire (5) and all (5) mean you take +10 from a fire attack.

I see how it works logically, but at what point would this actually happen? I mean when are you going to see these vulnerabilities stacked like this?

 

[Wepwawet]

This is somewhat offtopic; but is it just me or do these links redirect to the logout page?

Is this the new Rick Roll?

 

[Diirk]

A target has vulnerable 10 radiant and vulnerable 5 all, and is hit by a radiant sunstrike for 7 radiant. How much damage does it take, 17 or 22? Rules or FAQ or CS citation?

Potentially more complex. A creature has vulnerable 5 thunder and vulnerable 5 lightning and vulnerable 5 cold and is hit by a power that deals 7 thunder and lightning and cold damage. Same questions.

Oddly I find the first question more complex, since I'm not really too sure about the whole vulnerable all bit...

For the second question, while the latest version of the glossary for resistance clarifies that multiple damage types are subject to the lowest of the targets resistances to those damage types, for vulnerabilties all it says is 'if the creature takes damage of a type its vulnerable to then it takes extra damage' or something similar.

So it has vulnerable 5 fire and vulnerable 5 cold... if it takes 10 fire and cold damage, then a. It took fire damage so it takes 5 extra, b. it took cold damage so it takes 5 extra = total of 10 fire and cold damage, 5 fire damage and 5 cold damage (I think).

However, if something is vulnerable 5 all and took 10 fire and cold damage, I'd say its only 1 vulnerability to the damage (the previous example being 2 different vulnerabilities to the damage) so it takes 15 damage total in this case.

 

[Rothe_]

The above post is why I don't agree with dealing the bonus damage multiple times.
I consider it to be logical that resist all contains all the other resistances, so if you have resist 5 all, any resistance that is 5 or less is not doing you any more good. In effect, resist 5 all = resist 5 fire, resist 5 cold etc.

Why would I do something else for vulnerabilities?
IF someone has vulnerability 5 all, and gets dealt cold and fire damage, I would not trigger that twice, would I? So, why should I then trigger vulnerable to cold 5 and vulnerable 5 fire separately for one instance of damage? I don't see any reason to do it.

 

[keterys]

Interesting.

So if something has vulnerable 10 close and area attacks, and gains vulnerable 5 all, would it be +10 or +15 when hit by a close cold attack.
If it has vulnerable 10 close and area attacks and gains vulnerable 5 cold, would it be +10 or +15 when hit by a close cold attack.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, mechanically they are different is all. Resist 5 all and Vulnerable 5 all are not the same as being resistant/vulnerable to every type of damage individually. They're similar, but not the same.

The MM glossary explains it pretty clearly. You always take the weakest type of resistance. However resist all isn't resistance against a type of damage, so it only applies when nothing else does (which isn't discussed in the MM but if you really carefully analyze the resistance rules it turns out to be true, trust me you can get the full ugly on the WotC boards if you REALLY want it...).

As for vulnerability it is dirt simple. IF damage has a damage type keyword and the creature has vulnerability to that type, then it takes the extra damage, period. Thus if you have multiple vulnerabilities and get hit with damage of several types, EACH vulnerability kicks in and you take extra damage for all of them. So 5 fire and lightning damage would do 15 damage to a creature with vulnerable 5 fire and vulnerable 5 lightning.

Neither resistance nor vulnerability ever stack. Any effect that gives a higher value for either of them simply IS the value in effect at that time. If you have resist 5 fire and get another resist 5 fire, you still have resist 5 fire. Same for vulnerability.

Now, in the case of "vulnerable all" I'd have to say I think that would only apply in cases where no greater specific vulnerability exists, but I don't think there is any RAW support for that opinion. In fact RAW doesn't EVER discuss "all", its not even mentioned as a possibility.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'd actually have a problem with "vulnerable 5 all" in the first place. That makes no sense and would challenge the design of anything that had that or gave it at as condition to someone. Does anything do this? If so, let me know so I can keep an eye out and avoid that crap.

Regardless, I don't see anything wrong with stacking vulnerabilities like that. If someone has a problem with it, I'd suggest looking more closely at why those multiple vulnerabilities exist and that maybe your problem should be there. Come up with actual examples and see if it works as you'd like. I'd wager that trying to negate the stacking vulnerabilities will actually be nerfing some powers. For example, a monster has vulnerable 5 cold. You know this somehow (knowledge check, experience, whatever). You then use a power (or an ally does) to grant him also vulnerable 5 thunder until the end of your next turn and then hit him with another power that deals cold and thunder damage. How is this broken? Why shouldn't the player be rewarded for this?

 

[Ryujin]

I'd actually have a problem with "vulnerable 5 all" in the first place. That makes no sense and would challenge the design of anything that had that or gave it at as condition to someone. Does anything do this? If so, let me know so I can keep an eye out and avoid that crap.

Avatar of Death ED 26th level - vulnerable 10 all + no healing, save ends
Devils Trade Warlock Utility 2 - receive vulnerable 5 all in exchange for automatically succeeding on a saving throw

There are others.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I'd actually have a problem with "vulnerable 5 all" in the first place. That makes no sense and would challenge the design of anything that had that or gave it at as condition to someone. Does anything do this? If so, let me know so I can keep an eye out and avoid that crap.

The Sorcerer PP Dragon Guardian power Guardian's Breath gives vulnerability 5 to all your attacks. Invoker power Rain of Blood and the Avenger power Nine Souls of Wrath give vulnerability 5 all. To name a few.