Resist 5 - how does it work

[Nullzone]

No, you are right that if you have DR 2 fire and DR 7 cold and get hit by a fire and cold attack, you're only going to resist 2
BUT I'm not talking about post-MM style "20 fire and cold" damage attacks; I'm talking about MM-style "10 fire damage and 10 cold damage" attacks. Kapeesh?

Gotcha, misunderstood the distinction you were making.

 

[Mengu]

Each type of DR only applies once each per attack.

DR 5 (untyped) applies once, to any.
DR 5 (fire) applies once, to fire damage.
DR 5 (cold) applies once, to cold damage.

If you have all three, and you take 8 cold, 8 fire and 8 untyped damage from 1 attack, you can apply them all and take 3+3+3=9 damage.

If you have only DR 5 (untyped) you can ony apply it once, and take 3+8+8=19 damage.

I don't understand this logic... There is no such thing as "DR 5 (untyped)". It's Resist All. "All" means all encompassing. If I was going to just take 8 cold damage, and I had Resist 5 All, I would apply the resistance would I not? In this example, I'm taking 8 cold damage, I apply resist 5. I'm taking 8 fire damage, I apply resist 5. I'm taking 8 untyped damage, I apply resist 5. I take 3+3+3=9 damage.

If there was such a thing as "Resist Untyped" I could agree, but such is not the case.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Each type of DR only applies once each per attack.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, this isn't necessarily true. Below is the wording from the compendium. It doesn't use the word attack until it talks about combined types. The section on not cumulative resistances also doesn't mention attacks, so I think your interpretation isn't technically supported on two counts.

A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type. For example, a creature that has resist 10 fire takes 10 less damage whenever it takes fire damage.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The suggested rule for Resist X All, however, goes the other way and consider it like white light that can be split up into its constituent resistances before applying it to the damage.

So it comes down to whether you consider Resist X All to be an amalgam of all different resistances (and so can be split up into several when needed) or if it's just a single resistance that can be applied against any type of damage.

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?

 

[NewJeffCT]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, this isn't necessarily true. Below is the wording from the compendium. It doesn't use the word attack until it talks about combined types. The section on not cumulative resistances also doesn't mention attacks, so I think your interpretation isn't technically supported on two counts.

True, but the wording doesn't make it entirely clear, either.

The example given in my hard copy says "a creature has resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder, and an attack deals 15 lightning & thunder damage to it. The creature takes 10 lightning & thunder damage, because the resistance to the combined damage types is limited to the lesser of the two (in this care, 5 thunder). If the creature had only resist 10 lightning, it would take all 15 damage from the attack."

 

[Ryujin]

Not quite.

Originally, when an attack specifically did two types of damage (not the "1d10+4 damage + 1d6 cold damage" sort of thing being discussed here, but stuff like "2d10+4 fire and radiant damage"), you had to arrive at the total damage, then divide it amongst the various damage types equally. If the numbers didn't divide equally, the first listed type got the remainder. Which was a mess and a hassle. Especially when you encountered damage that had more than two types.

That got simplified down into all of the damage of an attack with multiple types on it being combined, as you said. But that's still specifically for damage that is "x and y damage", not for things that split "damage + x damage". If the damage is already split like that, there was never a need to figure out how to split it afterwards, so it's not covered by the revision.

Apparently there's a reference, in the Rules Compendium, as follows:

"If a power gains or loses damage types, the power gains the keywords for any damage types that are added, and loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed."

To me, this would imply that (for example) additional cold damage (say from Gloves of Eldrich Admixture), to a power having the Fire keyword, would then result in the power having both the Cold and Fire keywords.

Unfortunately I don't have the Companion, myself, to verify this. It's how I play it though.

 

[the Jester]

Unfortunately I don't have the Companion, myself, to verify this. It's how I play it though.

The printed word trumps the Compendium every time (unless there's errata for that printed word), so play it by the RC and don't worry about it.

 

[S'mon]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, this isn't necessarily true. Below is the wording from the compendium. It doesn't use the word attack until it talks about combined types. The section on not cumulative resistances also doesn't mention attacks, so I think your interpretation isn't technically supported on two counts.

Well maybe not, but (a) your interpretation turns DR 5 into DR 15 when an attack has 3 separate damage types and (b) My approach does not, so I will be sticking with it.

 

[Ryujin]

The printed word trumps the Compendium every time (unless there's errata for that printed word), so play it by the RC and don't worry about it.

Sorry, I mis-typed it once. I meant to write "Rules Companion", whenever I referenced the apparent source of this comment, which is a printed book. I could find no errata to reference this either.

 

[Xris Robin]

The book is the "Rules Compendium". And that is the rule, but that's about keywords, which is not exactly the same thing as damage types.