Resist 5 - how does it work

[S'mon]

Per attack.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Resistance works whenever you take damage, not whenever a power functions or whenever you are attacked. Thus, if an attack/power does 1d10 weapon damage and 1d10 fire damage, resist 5 all would resist 5 from the first damage and 5 from the second. This is merely an artifact of bad design in the attack/power, not of the resistance mechanic. The simple solution to this if you have a problem with it like [MENTION=59182]Colmarr[/MENTION] is to change the damage to 2d10 weapon/fire damage.

The fire giant trooper (a minion) has this attack:

Searing Longsword (standard, at-will)

Fire, WeaponReach 2; +23 vs AC; 10 damage plus 1d8 fire damage.

Note that the damage is split out, so in fact it does 10 untyped damage and 1d8 fire damage. Let's assume he rolls an 8 on 1d8, so with resist 5 all the target would take 5 untyped and 3 fire. With resist 5 fire, he would take 10 untyped and 3 fire. This is clearly (IMO) within the scope of a minion. The fire damage is an extra rider effect and resisting it "twice" is okay. If the design wanted it to be a combo-effect, then it should have been 1d8 + 10 fire damage.

 

[Oldtimer]

Note that the damage is split out, so in fact it does 10 untyped damage and 1d8 fire damage. Let's assume he rolls an 8 on 1d8, so with resist 5 all the target would take 5 untyped and 3 fire. With resist 5 fire, he would take 10 untyped and 3 fire. This is clearly (IMO) within the scope of a minion. The fire damage is an extra rider effect and resisting it "twice" is okay. If the design wanted it to be a combo-effect, then it should have been 1d8 + 10 fire damage.

That might be RAW or it might not be. I don't have the books here at work, so I can't check the fine print.

But it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. "10 damage plus 1d8 fire damage" is one single damage expression, some of which is fire. You can apply your resistance whenever you take damage from an attack. One attack, one damage expression, one resist.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I wouldn't sign my life away on it, either, so the point is certainly arguable. The two places I checked were the on-line compendium glossary on "damage type" and "resist." However, I do argue that it does make sense. Specifically, that is not one single damage expression, it's two. It's "10 damage" and "1d8 fire damage." The word damage is used twice, not once. For your point to hold water, IMO, it would need to say 10 plus 1d8 weapon/fire damage. In other words, if it's one expression then I would argue that the damage must be a combined type.

 

[Selganor]

Resist kicks in on each damage type affected by the resist.

So in the example with X normal (weapon) damage and Y fire damage you would reduce up to 10 points (up to 5 weapon and up to 5 fire). If you only take 1 fire damage and 9 weapon damage you would take no fire damage and 4 weapon damage.

Usually "normal" (i.e. untyped/unnamed) damage like normal weapon damage is only resisted by "resist X all" resists.

But if you get hit with an attack that does multiple damage types at once (like "cold and necrotic" or "fire and acid") the lowest of your resistances will apply.
If you got a "Resist X all" you needn't worry as all types are at X, but if you only got "Resist 5 cold" and would get hit with "8 cold and necrotic" you would take the full 8 points as your lower resistance (in this case "Resist 0 Necrotic") would apply.

 

[Oldtimer]

I wouldn't sign my life away on it, either, so the point is certainly arguable. The two places I checked were the on-line compendium glossary on "damage type" and "resist." However, I do argue that it does make sense. Specifically, that is not one single damage expression, it's two. It's "10 damage" and "1d8 fire damage." The word damage is used twice, not once. For your point to hold water, IMO, it would need to say 10 plus 1d8 weapon/fire damage. In other words, if it's one expression then I would argue that the damage must be a combined type.

Well, a combined type has its own very specific rules (eg "10 necrotic damage plus 10 cold damage" is very different from "20 necrotic and cold damage"), so I see that as something else entirely.

Let's reason around the case of "10 necrotic damage plus 10 cold damage". With Resist 5 Cold, I would take 15 points of damage (10 necrotic and 5 cold). With Resist 5 Necrotic, I would also take 15 points of damage (5 necrotic and 10 cold), but with Resist 5 All you're saying that I only take 10 points of damage (5 necrotic and 5 cold). So Resist X All gets more effective the more (separate) components the damage consist of?

Two things, though:

1. I still think that it can be considered a single damage expression, even though it has two parts. A price of four dollars and 50 cents is still a single price. A man of six foot two inches only has a single height.

2. Would you also apply the resist multiple times if the damage consist of both weapon damage and sneak attack damage? Fire damage and curse damage?

 

[the Jester]

Two things, though:

1. I still think that it can be considered a single damage expression, even though it has two parts. A price of four dollars and 50 cents is still a single price. A man of six foot two inches only has a single height.

2. Would you also apply the resist multiple times if the damage consist of both weapon damage and sneak attack damage? Fire damage and curse damage?

1. A more appropriate analogy would be a book costing four dollars and ten dollars, or a man of 6'2" and 5'10" height.

2. Weapon and sneak attack damage are the same type of damage (untyped). Curse damage adds to the existing damage of a power IIRC (IDHMBIFOM). If your curse did "1d8 psychic damage" on top of the normal damage inflicted by the power, then yes, it would apply twice.

 

[wedgeski]

Yup. Glad I stayed out of this man-trap!

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

It would depend on the resistance that is in question. If you are resistant 5 to fire you'd remove that from just the fire damage taken.

Say the DM rolled 2d6 for the fire damage and rolled a 1/2 (3 points fire damage) and 2d8 for the weapon damage for rolls of 3/5 (8 points weapon damage)

In the case of resist 5 FIRE I'd rule that since you only took 3 points of fire damage and could resist UP TO 5, you would not be subject to any fire damage, but you'd still be subject to the entire 8 points of weapon damage.

If you are resist 5 ALL, then you'd take the sum of 2d6 (3 points fire) + 2d8 (8 points weapon) for a total of 11 - 5 (resist all) = 6 points total damage after resistance taken.

So as you can see the "all" is better, but it doesn't (IMHO) from my understanding of the readings take 5 points from each source (weapon & fire) and give you a total of 10 resistance and only give you 1 point of damage taken. That would only be the case if you were resist 10 ALL.

 

[the Jester]

Another point to consider:

Let's say you have resist 5 cold and resist 5 fire.

If you take 20 points of cold and fire damage, you end up taking 15 points of damage.

However, if you take 10 points of cold and 10 points of fire damage, you end up taking only 10 damage (each resistance cuts out its own damage type separately).

This is why the way the damage is expressed matters here. The fire damage is separate. The question becomes whether to apply the resist 5 all to each damage type separately (including the 'untyped' damage) or only once. I can see an argument either way.