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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 1843829" data-attributes="member: 1704">So my players tossed a fireball at a Frost Giant that was wearing a ring of fire resistance (minor).  Here's how I processed it:Player rolled 5d6 and came up with 17 pts for damage.The FG made its save, reducing that to 8 pts of damage.The Ring absorbed all 8 of those pts.There was no damage left to be multiplied by 1.5 for the vulnerability to fire.The player accepted the ruling (i.e. wasn't excessively argumentative) but put forth the position that the vulnerability should have applied before the ring subtracted damage, i.e. 17 (/ 2 for save)  = 8 (* 1.5 for vulnerability) = 12 (- 10 for ring) = 2 pts damage.How would you run it?  As this example demonstrates, the order in which you apply these elements can lead to a variety of results.  My logic was:First, save reflects how well you avoid the fireball, which determines the amount of fire to which you are initially exposed.Second, the ring "continually protects the wearer from damage...Each time the wearer would normally take such damage, subtract the ring’s resistance value from the damage dealt" (from SRD).  I take this to mean that the damage is subtracted before the target is subjected to it, so that the last thing to apply is...Third, the vulnerability applies to the damage that you don't avoid and that isn't absorbed by the ring.The players and I agreed in the end that it depends on whether you see the ring as preventing 10 pts of damage in the first place versus negating damage that is taken, for instance by instantly regenerating it.  The former suggests the ring goes first while the latter suggests that the vulnerability applies first.I wanted to know what people on the board think.Thanks,MC</blockquote>

Verification