Resist 5 - how does it work

[NewJeffCT]

I posted on the WotC 4E rules forum to get more input, since I'm curious as to the answer.

 

[mudlock]

Resistances should never stack. Having resist 5 x and resist 5 y against an attack that does damage of type x and y means you only resist 5.

We all agree on that, yes?

So, having resist 5 x and resist 5 x _again_ shouldn't stack either.

I think we can agree on that.

Now, say you take 5 fire + 5 cold and have resist 5 fire and resist 5 all. Some of the comments here suggest you should apply the resist all only once, to the cold damage, and you'd have to apply the fire resist to the fire damage, so that you can take no damage.

What if you have two separate sources of resist 5 all?

That shouldn't work. You can't stack resistances, and there isn't suppose to be any added benefit from having multiple instances of the same effect.

And yet, if the "apply each resist to any part of the attack once" theory is correct, then having multiples of resit all SHOULD help. I think that's wrong by RAI, and so I'm drawn to the argument that resist 5 all, versus a 5 fire + 5 cold attack, deals 0 damage, because you can only benefit from one resist all and so it should apply to every damage group. It's the only thing that's consistent.

A similar argument can be made from the opposite side, for an attack that does the same damage type twice, such as 5 fire + 5 fire: could you use MULTIPLE resist 5 fires to negate it? Because you're not suppose to get more than one.

So I say, an attack that does 5 cold + 5 fire + 5 acid + 5 lightning, does zero damage to a target with resist 5 all.

(But to reiterate a half dozen other comments, this style of damage has seriously fallen out of favor since MM1, so it's probably not a big deal in practice.)

 

[Dedekind]

My guess is the intent is that you get the DR per attack.

Anybody send this to WotC as a question?

 

[FireLance]

Personally, I'd rather apply Resist all once per damage type rather than once per attack because the per attack interpretation can result in some odd corner cases.

For example, consider the power invoked devastation (Invoker Attack 29, Divine Power). The user makes a single attack roll and compares the result against each target's Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Fortitude, it takes force damage and ongoing cold damage. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Reflex, it takes lightning damage and ongoing fire damage. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Will, it takes radiant damage and ongoing psychic damage. Is this considered one or three attacks? If this is considered one attack, than you get the odd case that the attacks would be resisted separately if the power had been worded so that the user made a separate attack roll against each defense.

Compare this example with the deathrattle viper (L5 Brute, MM), which has a bite attack that deals untyped damage and the target is subject to a secondary attack which deals poison damage. Is this considered one or two attacks? If it is considered two attacks, then you get the odd case that resistance would have been applied only once if the viper's bite dealt untyped damage plus poison damage, such as an ixitxachitl demon ray's (L3 Skirmisher, Demonomicon) tail barb.

 

[the Jester]

I think the whole point of all these various cases is that they interact with resistances differently. So "X fire damage plus Y cold damage" is supposed to be less effective than "X+Y cold and fire damage" and easier to resist (in pieces). Likewise with followup attacks.

 

[NewJeffCT]

My guess is the intent is that you get the DR per attack.

Anybody send this to WotC as a question?

I posted it on the WotC rules forums, but got no official response.

Most responders agreed the rule is not clear, but tended to believe the resist all should apply to each attack once. So, my example of a Fire Giant's Searing Greatsword attack that did 13 points of weapon damage and 9 points of fire damage would mean the 22 total damage is reduced to 17 and not 12.

However, that is in no way official.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28278867/Question_on_Resist_All_damage

 

[Nullzone]

Personally, I'd rather apply Resist all once per damage type rather than once per attack because the per attack interpretation can result in some odd corner cases.

For example, consider the power invoked devastation (Invoker Attack 29, Divine Power). The user makes a single attack roll and compares the result against each target's Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Fortitude, it takes force damage and ongoing cold damage. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Reflex, it takes lightning damage and ongoing fire damage. If the attack roll exceeds the target's Will, it takes radiant damage and ongoing psychic damage. Is this considered one or three attacks? If this is considered one attack, than you get the odd case that the attacks would be resisted separately if the power had been worded so that the user made a separate attack roll against each defense.

Compare this example with the deathrattle viper (L5 Brute, MM), which has a bite attack that deals untyped damage and the target is subject to a secondary attack which deals poison damage. Is this considered one or two attacks? If it is considered two attacks, then you get the odd case that resistance would have been applied only once if the viper's bite dealt untyped damage plus poison damage, such as an ixitxachitl demon ray's (L3 Skirmisher, Demonomicon) tail barb.

It's "odd" sure but certainly not errant. Some powers do it all with one attack, others use two. It's a flavor difference, sometimes with mechanical motivations to give the target a fighting chance when both effects are potentially very punishing.

 

[Argyle King]

I prefer to use the PHB1 way of doing it due to a lot of the issues brought up in this thread. It tends to be more consistent with how it interacts with other rules. However, it does carry its own baggage as well.


On the topic of the OP and the current RAW, I'd say there is indeed a difference between an attack saying it does (for sake of example) 5 fire and 5 cold and an attack saying it does 10 fire & cold. It's my opinion that someone with Resist 5 All would take 0 damage from the former, and 5 from the latter. Yes, that does lead to some strange edge and corner cases, but -as others have already said- that's a side effect of the design.

 

[thewok]

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.

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.

 

[DracoSuave]

Resistances should never stack. Having resist 5 x and resist 5 y against an attack that does damage of type x and y means you only resist 5.

We all agree on that, yes?

Nope.

So, having resist 5 x and resist 5 x _again_ shouldn't stack either.

I think we can agree on that.

Only because resist foo doesn't stack with itself.

Now, say you take 5 fire + 5 cold and have resist 5 fire and resist 5 all. Some of the comments here suggest you should apply the resist all only once, to the cold damage, and you'd have to apply the fire resist to the fire damage, so that you can take no damage.

If the damage is 5 fire and 5 cold, and you have resist 5 fire, and resist 5 cold, you will take zero damage.

If, however, the damage is 10 fire and cold, and you have resist 5 fire, and resist 5 cold, you will take five damage.

What if you have two separate sources of resist 5 all?

Resist all doesn't stack with resist all.

That shouldn't work. You can't stack resistances, and there isn't suppose to be any added benefit from having multiple instances of the same effect.

You can't stack the -same- resistance.

And yet, if the "apply each resist to any part of the attack once" theory is correct, then having multiples of resit all SHOULD help. I think that's wrong by RAI, and so I'm drawn to the argument that resist 5 all, versus a 5 fire + 5 cold attack, deals 0 damage, because you can only benefit from one resist all and so it should apply to every damage group. It's the only thing that's consistent.

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.

A similar argument can be made from the opposite side, for an attack that does the same damage type twice, such as 5 fire + 5 fire: could you use MULTIPLE resist 5 fires to negate it? Because you're not suppose to get more than one.

There's no such thing as 5 fire + 5 fire. You're taking 10 fire damage in that single incident.

So I say, an attack that does 5 cold + 5 fire + 5 acid + 5 lightning, does zero damage to a target with resist 5 all.

No, you're taking 20 damage. 20 - 5 = 15. This is one incident of damage. Resist only applies once per -incident.-

However, if you had resist 5 all, resist 5 fire, and resist 5 acid, then you'd only end up taking 5 damage. Each resist can apply, as they are not the same resist.

(But to reiterate a half dozen other comments, this style of damage has seriously fallen out of favor since MM1, so it's probably not a big deal in practice.)