Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mudlock" data-source="post: 5685205" data-attributes="member: 95211">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.)</blockquote>

Verification