Resist 5 - how does it work

[Infiniti2000]

If the hit does '5 fire and 5 cold' damage, it's one incident of damage, and resist 5 all will only affect that one incident of damage.

No, it's not. The confusion here is because you wrote it incorrectly. Count the number of times "damage" appears in the sentence and that tells you how many "incidents" are present. That said, I have no new arguments to make, but just making sure you're not trying to present a straw man.

 

[Ryujin]

Or do what I do and combine all damage types, and keywords, then apply the resistance once (if applicable). Splitting everything up, into separate damage types and resistances, isn't conducive with easy and fast play. I really don't like bogging things down any more, than they already are.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, it's not. The confusion here is because you wrote it incorrectly. Count the number of times "damage" appears in the sentence and that tells you how many "incidents" are present. That said, I have no new arguments to make, but just making sure you're not trying to present a straw man.

Alright. Here's a hypothetical excerpt of a power with a single incident of damage. Damage occurs as a single event, and is thus a single incident.

Attack: Charisma vs Reflex
Hit: 1d6 fire damage and 1d6 cold damage.

Here's an excerpt of a power with multiple incidents of damage.

Attack: Charisma vs Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier lightning damage.
Effect: 1d6 thunder damage and push the target 4 squares.

Resist 5 all would only work once in the first power, because its one damage incident. In the second case, it's two damage incidents, and thus would work twice.

Another example of a single damage incident:

Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Special: If you are raging, the target takes 1[W] additional thunder damage.


If I would have meant 'damage roll' I would have said 'damage roll.' I'm more precise in my game language than that.

 

[Nullzone]

Draco: Do you realize that, by your interpretation, the Arcane Admixture feat actually makes your powers *weaker* for using it? More keywords means more chances to apply resistance, and thus less damage.

Sense, it makes none.

 

[Mengu]

Draco: You're equating single hit line with single damage instance. I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. Also monster powers often don't have the same clarity of PC powers, which makes rules applications a bit more vague.

If the hit line said something like:

Hit: 1d6 fire damage and if the target is undead, 1d6 extra radiant damage.

Then I would say that's 1 instance of damage. But if the word "and" is used instead of "extra" (like in your example: 1d6 fire damage and 1d6 cold damage) I'm tempted to interpret that as 2 instances of damage.

In the case of the Fire Giant Trooper, it says (paraphrased for brevity):

Hit: 10 damage plus 1d8 fire damage.

So in that case, I can see it as a single damage instance because of the word "plus".

It still seems open to interpretation, based on what words were used for the exact power in question.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If I would have meant 'damage roll' I would have said 'damage roll.' I'm more precise in my game language than that.

I didn't say damage roll, either, but you created a new term "incident" and suddenly act like that proves your point somehow. I'd say that using the word "damage" twice in the same line makes it two separate incidents. Even in your explanation you create a new word "event" to corroborate your unsupported premise. I could say that one power is equal to one event, thus completely negating your argument. If you're more precise in your game language then please make your points in game language.

The fact is that the ruling on this issue is not clear. As was said, this is a corner case that may not even exist anymore, but I still have two pieces of advice for any DM's reading this:

1. Whatever your ruling, I urge you to not make "resist all" be a worse option than "resist <specific damage>." I really don't think that the intent of resist all is to be a worse option.
2. When you design new monsters that deal multiple types of damage in one power, be aware of this issue and design accordingly. I strongly recommend you use a very clear design approach on this.

 

[mudlock]

There's already a mechanic for "Resist 5 fire, cold, acid, lightning, thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison." It's listed as "Resist 5 fire, Resist 5 cold, resist 5 acid, resist 5 lightning, resist 5 thunder, resist 5 radiant, resist 5 necrotic, resist 5 poison."

Resist all is a special case, and nowhere do the rules support separating "all" into discrete damage types. That would make "untyped" a type, which is not the case.

What about resist weapon, resist melee, resist attacks of target creature; all effects that exist in the game.

If a fire giant makes its melee weapon attack that deals "damage + fire damage" and I have resist 5 all and resist 5 weapon, I should take the same amount of damage if I only have resist 5 all; only the "all" should matter. And resist 5 fire should be no different.

I can (now) see two ways to be consistent here: either the "resist 5 all" applies twice (to the damage and the fire damage), or you combine all the types together (so all the damage from the giant's attack is fire (and melee and weapon)) and apply the resistance once. (Wait, weren't fire giants rewritten in MV? What did they do for their damage expressions?)

But this pick-and-choose thing, where you're encouraged to have multiple resistances that normally wouldn't stack... and then you have to say "well, the _precise_ type won't stack" (so now I want resist 5 fire & ice, and also resist 5 fire) just seems fraught with contradictions.

 

[Oldtimer]

That's actually a really good analogy and I yes I think that's what we're saying. I think you were right earlier and the interpretation on this point really comes down to deciding if the damage expression is combined or not. I'm arguing for only two types of damage expressions: combined or not combined. I'm inferring from your comments that you're arguing for three types of damage expressions by separating out this specific example of "X <type> damage plus Y <other_type> damage."

Is this a correct inference?

Well, yes. There are three different kinds of expressions. Single type damage (including untyped damage) which presents no problems. Then there is split damage (1d10 damage plus 1t6 fire damage) and combined damage (2d8 cold and necrotic damage). The combined one gives no problems, but the split one obviously does.

 

[Oldtimer]

Draco: Do you realize that, by your interpretation, the Arcane Admixture feat actually makes your powers *weaker* for using it? More keywords means more chances to apply resistance, and thus less damage.

How on earth do you figure that? If you admixture fire into an attack that does 2d6 acid damage, you get 2d6 acid and fire damage. The first one can be resisted with Resist X Acid, but against the second one you need both Resist X Acid and Resist X Fire. How does that make the power weaker?

 

[Oldtimer]

Whatever your ruling, I urge you to not make "resist all" be a worse option than "resist <specific damage>." I really don't think that the intent of resist all is to be a worse option.

I don't even see how that is possible with any of the rulings. Even with Dracos ruling, which I have argued for also, Resist X All is vastly superior to Resist X <specific damage type>, since you can apply it against any type of damage, even untyped damage. What kind of ruling would make it worse? And who has been arguing such a ruling?