Surging Flame vs Lasting Frost

[Thyrwyn]

They still have the trait "Resist Fire", it just happens to have a value of "0". It is the same as with Vulnerable 5, Resist 5 - the damage suffered by the creature does not change, but the creature still has both traits.

 

[CapnZapp]

It would be fine if they left off the last clause of the last sentence which is just nonsense. Both the resistance and the vulnerability are applied (and thus one can cancel out the other).

Well, no, because neither the resistance nor the vulnerability is "canceled".

5-5=0

...but not in this case a more relevant comparison would be...

v(5)-r(5)=0

This doesn't allow you to ignore the fact that the functions v() and r() are still there, fully active. You would see that it's just in this special case the resulting numerical modifier would be zero.

 

[Storminator]

Yup, surging flame sucks, and you'd have to be an idiot to ever use it UNLESS you had a plenitude of attacks that have two elements that include fire (ie fire + frost) AND a way of giving fire resist to your foes that had a minimal opportunity cost.

Basically: either you don't know whether the foes you face will have fire resistance, so the feat isn't worth having, OR you know that your foes will have fire resistance and you're stupid for having fire-dealing powers.

Isn't the point of Surging Flame to make your endless list of fire powers viable when you meet fire resistant foes? If you've got a nice flavor thing going Surging Flame lets you stick to it instead of breaking out some cold powers (and thereby going off theme).

It might also be a nice feat to pick up for a level during the fire themed adventure, then training out of when you move on. In that case the "situation" it applies in might be an entire level's worth of adventuring.

PS

 

[jester_gl]

There are many reasons why resistance and vulnerability don't cancel each others.

1. Resistance is applied first. If the damage is reduced to 0, vulnerable won't do anything.

2. In the case of a power with multiple damage type (e.g. cold and necrotic), the resistance will only be applied if the monster as resistance to BOTH damage type. Thus, an Ice Archon with resist 20 ice and vulnerable 5 ice would take +5 damage from a cold and necrotic attack.

Surging Flame become useful when using power that have both fire and another keyword (cold would be the best for many reasons). Multiple type means his resistance to fire is ignored, but you still get the bonus damage.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Isn't the point of Surging Flame to make your endless list of fire powers viable when you meet fire resistant foes? If you've got a nice flavor thing going Surging Flame lets you stick to it instead of breaking out some cold powers (and thereby going off theme).

It might also be a nice feat to pick up for a level during the fire themed adventure, then training out of when you move on. In that case the "situation" it applies in might be an entire level's worth of adventuring.

PS

The question would have to be asked: if making elementally-themed characters viable regardless of opposition is the target, why is it a fire-specific feat? And why does it increase damage when faced with a resistant foe instead of simply reducing the resistance?

It DOES seem like a good feat to swap in/swap out when you know you'll be facing fire creatures for a level and all your powers are fire. But there are a lot of other more effective ways of coping with that scenario.

 

[abyssaldeath]

There are many reasons why resistance and vulnerability don't cancel each others.

1. Resistance is applied first. If the damage is reduced to 0, vulnerable won't do anything.

Says who? Not according to the FAQ.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I have read and re-read that. Its weird, how can you apply by vuln and res and NOT have them cancel each other? Now Im just confused!

If there's an effect that keys off of resistance or vulnerability, it will still occur, even if the two numerically cancel each other out. For a made up example, an ability that raised a creature's fire resistance by five would still be able to affect the target.

 

[jester_gl]

Looking at the MM faq, seems like I was wrong about point 1. Vulnerability and resistance are both applied, basically "cancelling" each other. But, point 2 still apply. A power having two damage type can benefit from vulnerability while "probably" ignoring resistance.

 

[CapnZapp]

Looking at the MM faq, seems like I was wrong about point 1. Vulnerability and resistance are both applied, basically "cancelling" each other.

Well, yes. But no.

The results of vulnerability and resistance might cancel each other out, but there is a reason the text did not use the phrase "cancel out each other".

In fact, the designer went some way to express that vulnerability and resistance do not negate each other.

In the rest, you're right.


Zapp

---
Number of times in this thread I had to clarify resistances and vulnerabilities does not "cancel" each other: 2 (and counting, I guess)

 

[eamon]

They still have the trait "Resist Fire", it just happens to have a value of "0". It is the same as with Vulnerable 5, Resist 5 - the damage suffered by the creature does not change, but the creature still has both traits.

It's not clear to me that "resist fire 0" actually has "fire resistance". I'd say that it doesn't; if you manage to reduce an resistance to 0, then it no longer resists that damage type.