PDA

View Full Version : 4e DIS+whetstones Damage type



cupkeyk
2010-09-10, 01:37 AM
Hi guys,

I am looking for ways to add keywords to my attacks.

Say A Phiarlan Phantasmist with Dual Implement Spellcaster used a Mordant Dagger +3(primary) and a Githyanki Silver Longsword +2(offhand) using the spell Fireshroud (Assuming I have Arcane Implement Proficiency Dagger) and a frozen whetstone. Is the damage type acid/poison with an extra 2 psychic and another extra 2 cold?

Is the target then subject to Psychic Lock? what about Lasting Frost? Mindfire? What type is the ongoing damage? Does the target suffer save penalties for Persistent Poison?

The Phiarlan Phantasmist now casts Summon Succubus. What is the succubus' damage type?

cdrcjsn
2010-09-10, 02:15 AM
You don't add the weapon properties of your offhand weapon. I think Silver Longsword specifies attacks made with it.

But yeah, if you put a Frozen Whetstone on your dagger, then you can treat attacks as cold since it has the cold keyword and deals 2 extra cold damage. So you can use whatever feats or powers that have an extra effect with cold attacks.

Ongoing damage deals the same damage as the initial attack unless specified otherwise.

You use your attacks with summons and conjurations so yeah, your stuff will apply.

EDIT: Your mom says that which burns, rolls? What does that mean?

cupkeyk
2010-09-10, 02:24 AM
So the bonus damage from DIS is the same type as the base damage of the spell? Too bad. I was hoping the Gith silver sword can change the type to psychic, while mordant changes the base damage to poison/acid.

You are correct grammatically but contextually she meant: Those who are on fire should roll.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 04:26 AM
So the bonus damage from DIS is the same type as the base damage of the spell?
Yes, just like how the bonus damage from Weapon Focus would be. So no Psychic Lock for you, nor Mindfire Disciple. The whetstone does add the cold keyword to your power, so Lasting Frost would apply.

There is not, to my knowledge, any rule that "ongoing damage deals the same damage as the initial attack unless specified otherwise" (more to the point, this power does specify otherwise, in that the ongoing damage is explicitly "fire"). However I agree that this is the reasonable interpretation, so you would get 5 ongoing "acid/poison/cold" damage, and yes, Persistent Poison applies to that.

Regarding the succubus, yes, by RAW you would change her keywords too, although in my experience many DMs rule differently (because she is not the one wielding your mordant dagger).

For extra fun: consider how this interacts with "vulnerable 5 / all". No, this is not actually specified in the rules.

cupkeyk
2010-09-10, 04:54 AM
Are you implying, by semantics, that the vulnerable would apply three times? Lolz.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 05:24 AM
Are you implying, by semantics, that the vulnerable would apply three times? Lolz.

Well, personally I think it doesn't (because it gets pretty ridiculous if it does), but it I've seen some long arguments about the topic.

Pop quiz: the enemy has ongoing 5 fire, ongoing 5 cold, and ongoing 5 fire/cold. He has vulnerable 2 fire, vulnerable 3 cold, and vulnerable 4 all. How much damage does he take?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 10:08 AM
Well, personally I think it doesn't (because it gets pretty ridiculous if it does), but it I've seen some long arguments about the topic.

Pop quiz: the enemy has ongoing 5 fire, ongoing 5 cold, and ongoing 5 fire/cold. He has vulnerable 2 fire, vulnerable 3 cold, and vulnerable 4 all. How much damage does he take?
IIRC, you always apply the greatest vulnerability effect that applies. Also, Fire/Cold is applied maximally for gaining vulnerabilities (e.g. fire/cold trips a fire vulnerability) and minimally for avoiding resistances (e.g. a fire/cold avoids a fire resist) - it doesn't actually apply multiple times.

So here, he'd take 5+4 for Fire, 5+4 for Cold, and 5+4 for Fire/Cold.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 10:25 AM
IIRC, you always apply the greatest vulnerability effect that applies.
That's indeed how I would rule it. However, the rules compendium states that "vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative", but is silent on the issue of vulnerabilities to a different damage type.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that a creature with vuln 5 cold and vuln 5 fire, if hit by 5 fire/cold damage, would apply both vulnerabilities. If we say that only one of them applies, then the whetstones become ambiguous, because it is unclear whether "3 fire plus 2 added cold damage" is the same as "5 fire/cold damage". On the other hand, if we say that both of them apply, the question becomes whether "vuln 5 all" is the same as "vuln 5 cold and radiant and fire and foo and bar and flubble and gnyrp".

I've never seen this being an issue in actual gameplay, but it does strike me that this rule could have been worded better.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 10:43 AM
That's indeed how I would rule it. However, the rules compendium states that "vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative", but is silent on the issue of vulnerabilities to a different damage type.
Vulnerable 5 (all) is actually Vulnerable 5 (Fire, Cold, Acid, etc.); Vulnerable 5 (Fire) thus trumps Vulnerable 2 (Fire).

Also, the fire/cold question is explictly dealt with in the rules; I'm just away from the books right now.

Re: Whetstone
If the Cold Whetstone does additional typed damage, then it is an additional damage source.

If the Cold Whetstone adds a damage type to the triggering attack, then the attack becomes a mixed type attack.

shadowmage
2010-09-10, 10:50 AM
It is not unreasonable to suppose that a creature with vuln 5 cold and vuln 5 fire, if hit by 5 fire/cold damage, would apply both vulnerabilities. If we say that only one of them applies, then the whetstones become ambiguous, because it is unclear whether "3 fire plus 2 added cold damage" is the same as "5 fire/cold damage". On the other hand, if we say that both of them apply, the question becomes whether "vuln 5 all" is the same as "vuln 5 cold and radiant and fire and foo and bar and flubble and gnyrp".

On that I would say it is not 5 fire/cold. It is 3 fire damage and 2 cold damage. I would say that if a taget had Vuln fire 5 Vuln Cold 5 it would take Fire Damage 8 Cold damage 7. But thats just how I read things. Each is it's own damage and interacts with vulnabilities on thier own.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 11:00 AM
Vulnerable 5 (all) is actually Vulnerable 5 (Fire, Cold, Acid, etc.); Vulnerable 5 (Fire) thus trumps Vulnerable 2 (Fire).
I agree with this interpretation, but I don't think it's in the books anywhere.



Also, the fire/cold question is explictly dealt with in the rules; I'm just away from the books right now.
I would like to hear where.

But like I said, it's not a big deal in practice. I believe most DMs in my general area agree with the notion that Vulnerable 5 All should not trigger three times on an attack that does e.g. 10 fire/cold damage plus 2 extra poison. Both whetstones and vulnerability are quite good enough already without this particularly loophole.

shadowmage
2010-09-10, 12:11 PM
From the Rules compendium on DDI

A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type usually takes a specific amount of extra damage when it takes damage of that type, or it suffers a specific effect. For example, a creature that has vulnerable 10 radiant takes 10 extra radiant damage when an attack deals radiant damage to it or when it takes ongoing radiant damage.

Against Combined Damage Types: Vulnerability to a specific damage type applies even when that damage type is combined with another. For example, if you have vulnerable 5 fire, you take 5 extra damage when you take ongoing fire and radiant damage.

Not Cumulative: Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies. For example, if you have vulnerable 5 psychic and then gain vulnerable 10 psychic, you have vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-10, 12:24 PM
From the Rules compendium on DDI

Not Cumulative: Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies. For example, if you have vulnerable 5 psychic and then gain vulnerable 10 psychic, you have vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic.

Thank you, but this still doesn't say anything about vulnerabilities to a different damage type being cumulative, nor does it specify how to interpret "vulnerable to all".

Mando Knight
2010-09-10, 12:29 PM
I would apply the rule for Resistances here, since a Vulnerability is basically a negative Resistance. The largest vulnerability applies, regardless of how many damage types you stack onto the attack. However, some monsters have a "special" vulnerability with a not-damage effect. I would apply those vulnerabilities alongside any normal vulnerability, since they're different from simply dealing extra damage.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 12:40 PM
Thank you, but this still doesn't say anything about vulnerabilities to a different damage type being cumulative, nor does it specify how to interpret "vulnerable to all".
Feh, and my DDI search did not turn up anything else.

I could have sworn there was a rule about attacks with multiple damage types but I cannot find it online. I suspect it might actually be in a published book but - for whatever reason - they decided not to put it online.

Perhaps there is something along the "no duplicate powers" line in which a damage source can only trip one Vulnerability no matter how many keywords are stacked on it.

shadowmage
2010-09-10, 01:11 PM
Found this over on EnWorld http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/243537-do-vulnerabilities-stack.html
It is supposedly from a Wizard CSR. ABout the only thing I have found searching teh web.


I got a ruling from Wizards customer support. Looks like TheLordWinter is doing it correctly.

1) What happens if a target has several vulnerabilities to a single attack? Do they all apply, or does only to greatest vulnerability apply?
-- They all apply. In your example, Lance of Faith would do +10 damage.

2) A wizard is fighting a monster with cold vulnerability 5 and fire vulnerability 5. The wizard hits the monster with Frostburn (cold and fire damage). Does the monster take +5 or +10 damage?
-- When the damage of a power is described as more than one type (like the Frostburn), divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others) For example a power that deals 25 Fire and Cold Damage, deals 13 Fire damage and 12 Cold damage. Since the monster has vulnerability to both damage types, it would take an additional 5 damage for EACH vulnerability totaling +10 damage.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 02:19 PM
I got a ruling from Wizards customer support. Looks like TheLordWinter is doing it correctly.

1) What happens if a target has several vulnerabilities to a single attack? Do they all apply, or does only to greatest vulnerability apply?
-- They all apply. In your example, Lance of Faith would do +10 damage.

2) A wizard is fighting a monster with cold vulnerability 5 and fire vulnerability 5. The wizard hits the monster with Frostburn (cold and fire damage). Does the monster take +5 or +10 damage?
-- When the damage of a power is described as more than one type (like the Frostburn), divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others) For example a power that deals 25 Fire and Cold Damage, deals 13 Fire damage and 12 Cold damage. Since the monster has vulnerability to both damage types, it would take an additional 5 damage for EACH vulnerability totaling +10 damage.
Which just goes to show you that Wizards' CSR isn't worth the paper its not printed on :smallsigh:

#1 is flatly contradicted by the rules and #2 describes dividing up the damage for reasons that are frankly impossible for me to understand.

I will say that the final conclusion for #2 (triggers both vulnerabilities) is in line with the RC info we have already, but that makes Vulnerable (all) deeply problematic. Dropping a 3-4 keyword attack on Vulnerable All means an extra 15-20 damage; heaven help you if you can make a multi-attack with multiple keywords :smalleek:

EDIT: Also, that thread is from 2008.

Reverent-One
2010-09-10, 02:51 PM
Which just goes to show you that Wizards' CSR isn't worth the paper its not printed on :smallsigh:

#1 is flatly contradicted by the rules

Actually no. Like Kurald said, the rules don't describe what happens when a creature has vulnerabilities to a different damage types. And while you may consider Vulnerable (All) to mean a creature has each Vulnerable (Fire)/(Radiant)/ect simulantiously, if Vulnerable (All) just means Vulnerable to all damage it takes regardless of type (which I think is the simpler interpertation), than that's different from Vulnerable (Radiant).


and #2 describes dividing up the damage for reasons that are frankly impossible for me to understand.

I'm away from books at the moment, but I'm reasonably certain that's RAW. Doing 10 fire and cold damage means the target takes 5 cold damage and 5 fire damage.


I will say that the final conclusion for #2 (triggers both vulnerabilities) is in line with the RC info we have already, but that makes Vulnerable (all) deeply problematic. Dropping a 3-4 keyword attack on Vulnerable All means an extra 15-20 damage; heaven help you if you can make a multi-attack with multiple keywords :smalleek:

Only if we go with your interpertation that Vulnerable (All) means they have each seperate type of Vulnerabilty simultaniously as opposed to having one vulnerablity that applies to all damage they take.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 03:02 PM
Actually no. Like Kurald said, the rules don't describe what happens when a creature has vulnerabilities to a different damage types. And while you may consider Vulnerable (All) to mean a creature has each Vulnerable (Fire)/(Radiant)/ect simulantiously, if Vulnerable (All) just means Vulnerable to all damage it takes regardless of type (which I think is the simpler interpertation), than that's different from Vulnerable (Radiant).
That's not what #1 says. Read the thread - it is a Zombie (inherent Vulnerable Radiant 5) affected by a Cleric Power that grants Vulnerable (Radiant 5). CSR says he takes +10 damage if he then gets hit with Lance of Faith.


I'm away from books at the moment, but I'm reasonably certain that's RAW. Doing 10 fire and cold damage means the target takes 5 cold damage and 5 fire damage.
Which is wholly irrelevant to the question of vulnerabilities and resists - see the above RC quote.


Only if we go with your interpertation that Vulnerable (All) means they have each seperate type of Vulnerabilty simultaniously as opposed to having one vulnerablity that applies to all damage they take.
Well, I guess that is a point in the favor of it acting like a wildcard vulnerability.

Reverent-One
2010-09-10, 03:16 PM
That's not what #1 says. Read the thread - it is a Zombie (inherent Vulnerable Radiant 5) affected by a Cleric Power that grants Vulnerable (Radiant 5). CSR says he takes +10 damage if he then gets hit with Lance of Faith.

Ah, sorry about that, I mis-read. I could have sworn they mentioned the cleric power granted Vulnerablity (All).


Which is wholly irrelevant to the question of vulnerabilities and resists - see the above RC quote.

From what you said, it sounded like you were confused over why they seperated the damage at all. And it does matter for vulnerabilities and resists, if you divide the damage up into each of it's types, then you can easily check it against the creatures vulnerablities and resistences.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-10, 03:37 PM
From what you said, it sounded like you were confused over why they seperated the damage at all. And it does matter for vulnerabilities and resists, if you divide the damage up into each of it's types, then you can easily check it against the creatures vulnerablities and resistences.
Ah, looks like the RC text on Resist wasn't quoted.


A creature that has resistance takes less damage from a specific damage type. For example, a creature that has resist 10 fire takes 10 less damage whenever it takes fire damage.

Against Combined Damage Types: Your resistance is ineffective against combined damage types unless you have resistance to each of the damage types, and then only the weakest of the resistances applies. For example, if you have resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder and an attack deals 15 lightning and thunder damage to you, you take 10 damage, because the resistance to the combined damage types is limited by the lesser of the two resistances.

Not Cumulative: Resistances against the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest resistance applies. For example, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 10 cold, you have resist 10 cold, not resist 15 cold. Similarly, if you have resist 5 cold and then gain resist 2 to all damage, you still have resist 5 cold, not resist 7 cold.
EDIT: To clarify - since you only take the lowest Resist that qualifies for a multi-keyword attack, it doesn't matter how much of a multi-keyword attack is from one source or another one. Likewise, since only taking 1 point of damage from a Vulnerable power source is enough to trigger the full Vulnerable effect, it makes no sense to bother to break down the damage there either.

Reverent-One
2010-09-11, 10:46 AM
EDIT: To clarify - since you only take the lowest Resist that qualifies for a multi-keyword attack, it doesn't matter how much of a multi-keyword attack is from one source or another one. Likewise, since only taking 1 point of damage from a Vulnerable power source is enough to trigger the full Vulnerable effect, it makes no sense to bother to break down the damage there either.

I see now, and this is where the age of the question affects the response. The section of the PHB that mentioned splitting damage was errata'd to what the RC says now at some point, so whenever what-his-face asked CustServ about it in 2008, it was likely before the errata.

cupkeyk
2010-09-12, 07:50 PM
I have another question. A Whetstone of Venom adds an effect, not extra damage. So can it be used with spells with attack rolls but have no damage, eg illusory wall, sleep and visions of avarice?

Mando Knight
2010-09-12, 08:37 PM
I have another question. A Whetstone of Venom adds an effect, not extra damage. So can it be used with spells with attack rolls but have no damage, eg illusory wall, sleep and visions of avarice?

Yes... if the attack was delivered using a weapon. By default, a weapon used as an implement would count. (An orb, wand, etc. would not)

cupkeyk
2010-09-12, 09:04 PM
Yes... if the attack was delivered using a weapon. By default, a weapon used as an implement would count. (An orb, wand, etc. would not)


Yes, my OP illustrates a wizard MC Assassin using a mordant dagger.

Excuse me while I cream myself violently.

(Whetstones of Venom can add persistent poison penalties to Sleep and Visions of Avarice and Face of Death, right? I am beside myself in delight/malice.)