So if I fall in an elemental pool and take 8 fire, 8 cold, 8 acid damage, and have resist 5 fire and cold, I take 3+3+8=14 damage, but if I have resist 5 fire, cold, acid, lightning, thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, and everything else under the sun (i.e. resist 5 all), I take 3+8+8=19 damage? I don't think that's right. Resist 5 all means resist 5 all, not resist 5 one out of three.
Resist 5 - how does it work
- Thread starter Istar
- Start date
So if I fall in an elemental pool and take 8 fire, 8 cold, 8 acid damage, and have resist 5 fire and cold, I take 3+3+8=14 damage, but if I have resist 5 fire, cold, acid, lightning, thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, and everything else under the sun (i.e. resist 5 all), I take 3+8+8=19 damage? I don't think that's right. Resist 5 all means resist 5 all, not resist 5 one out of three.
No, you subtract 5 from any type of damage you take, so if you take the 19 damage from falling in the pool of elemental evil (8 fire, 8 cold, 8 acid)
Then, you're later hit by an attack that does 10 necrotic damage. That attack does 5 points to you, but the person that has resist 5 fire & cold takes the full 10.
Nowhere does it say to subtract from any *one* type of damage. I don't think this is a rule. I guess we just have to disagree on our interpretation of resist all.
Infiniti2000
First Post
And if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 5 all, when you fall into this pool of elemental evil, you take 14 damage instead of 19, right? The cold applies to one and then you can choose which to apply the "all" to, right?
That really doesn't make sense to me. While I understand and appreciate the position [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is taking, I think the only part he has a problem with is the corner case where I think the real problem lies in the description of the attack damage. I think it's a rare case and not common at all. As [MENTION=10503]Oldtimer[/MENTION] pointed out, the issue is more about how you interpret the damage expression. I think a single attack should a single damage expression, and thus the type of damage should be either a single type (possibly untyped) or a combined type. Not what we kind of have here. For our current problem, though, I prefer to view them as multiple single types and therefore rule that resist All applies to each. I don't like viewing them as a third category of neither a single type nor combined type, but rather a "multi-type" where resist All actually becomes a resistance that is WORST case. How does that make sense? "No, don't give me resist all, give me resist cold because I can resist more damage that way." Huh? Really?
That really doesn't make sense to me. While I understand and appreciate the position [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is taking, I think the only part he has a problem with is the corner case where I think the real problem lies in the description of the attack damage. I think it's a rare case and not common at all. As [MENTION=10503]Oldtimer[/MENTION] pointed out, the issue is more about how you interpret the damage expression. I think a single attack should a single damage expression, and thus the type of damage should be either a single type (possibly untyped) or a combined type. Not what we kind of have here. For our current problem, though, I prefer to view them as multiple single types and therefore rule that resist All applies to each. I don't like viewing them as a third category of neither a single type nor combined type, but rather a "multi-type" where resist All actually becomes a resistance that is WORST case. How does that make sense? "No, don't give me resist all, give me resist cold because I can resist more damage that way." Huh? Really?
Traveon Wyvernspur
First Post
In the case of the acid/cold/fire 8+8+8 if someone had resistance 5 ALL, I'd go with -5 off each of those damages so that it would be 3+3+3 = 9 pts of damage.
If that person just had Resistance 5 on cold/fire then they'd take 3+3+8 = 14.
ALL is ALL to me, which means it's a much better type of resistance to have compared to specific resistances. Now in the case of it being say a combined damage of 24 acid/fire/cold not broken up, then you'd only get 5 resistance total.
I think people make this way too complicated when (to me) it's rather simple how I do things at my table and how I interpret it. To each their own though, this is a game of a lot of different personalities and opinions, I won't tell you that you are wrong, just different from my game.
If that person just had Resistance 5 on cold/fire then they'd take 3+3+8 = 14.
ALL is ALL to me, which means it's a much better type of resistance to have compared to specific resistances. Now in the case of it being say a combined damage of 24 acid/fire/cold not broken up, then you'd only get 5 resistance total.
I think people make this way too complicated when (to me) it's rather simple how I do things at my table and how I interpret it. To each their own though, this is a game of a lot of different personalities and opinions, I won't tell you that you are wrong, just different from my game.
Nullzone
Explorer
???
Your own post shows DR 15, or am I totally missing you again?
8+8+8 = 24?
24-15 = 9?
Nullzone
Explorer
DR 5x3=15 from 3 separate resistances. IMO 3 separate resist-5s should potentially be better than a blanket DR 5. I think that an effect that grants Res 5 (Fire) should sometimes be useful alongside DR 5 (all). But obviously some people disagree. And I can understand not wanting them ever to stack; I can't understand people who think DR 5 should apply 3 or more times to a single damage effect though.
Luckily this is all pretty theoretical since WoTC no longer do the "1d12+5 weapon damage + 1d10 Fire damage" thing!
true, they don't do that type of damage anymore, but I don't think the old MM1/MM2 monsters that had that sort of damage have been superseded. They're kind of just there without any updates/changes to them. So, it's certainly possible that you could have those monsters in a published adventure, or if somebody pulls them out of the Monster Builder. (I think the older monsters have not been updated for the new damage iterations, either, unless there was a new book that updated them.)
They've been running a series of Monster Manual Updates through Dungeon (not behind the paywall, even!), which may eventually resolve the issue entirely, but it's slow going. They're tackling a handful of monsters a month... and they haven't listed one for September.
So far they've updated Ghosts & Wights, Kuo-Toa & Sahuagin, and Aberrations (Gibbering Beasts, Chuuls, and Grells).
Also, some of the MM1 monsters (and possibly MM2? Not sure...) have been over-written by versions printed in Monster Vault.
So far they've updated Ghosts & Wights, Kuo-Toa & Sahuagin, and Aberrations (Gibbering Beasts, Chuuls, and Grells).
Also, some of the MM1 monsters (and possibly MM2? Not sure...) have been over-written by versions printed in Monster Vault.
Similar Threads
