Resistances and Weaknesses

[Weissrolf]

Hello.

Is there a chance that we will get an (optional?) overhaul of the resistances and weaknesses implementation anytime soon? Currently FGU interprets each line of damage as a different instance of damage even when they are all part of a single roll. This not only weakens resistance to "all" tremendously, but also disagrees with how the example of resistance to all underlines a different interpretation of "damage instance" than what FGU currently does.

Current implementation:

Flaming sword (7 slashing + 4 fire) vs. resistance 5 fire + 5 slashing = 2 damage
Flaming sword (7 slashing + 4 fire) vs. resistance to all = 2 damage

According to the CRB only resistance to all should very specifically apply to each type of damage, while the former should only apply resistance once.

And I am very aware that many people interpret the "damage instance" to only apply to combinations of weapon material + physical damage, but the example of physical slashing + energy fire is directly taken from the CRB itself (page 453) and weapon runes specifically make "the weapon deal" the damage (not the rune as extra instance).

[Trenloe]

That's working as designed, based off a Paizo developer statement. Details here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post610569

An extension will be needed to change the standard functionality.

[Weissrolf]

Ouch. Thanks for the link. My players probably won't like that, because it feels more stone, scissor, paper and everyone is already carrying an arsenal. But here goes nothing.

[Weissrolf]

It's worth mentioning that Mark does not give an answer to the "multiple instances of same damage type" question in that thread and that he gives a strange example for why weaknesses do not double on crit (1 splash damage against weakness 30 would be better than 3D6 fire damage with 50/50 safe). The latter is strange, because yes, 1 point of splash damage is better when weakness triggers.

Paizo writers really need to learn to make themselves more clear on rules.

[Weissrolf]

I checked how precision damage is interpreted in FGU/PF2: precision damage is added to the original damage into a single instance. Personally I currently prefer this interpretation myself, so good to have that.

Unfortunately precision damage is *not* automatically added when the flat-footed modifier is used instead of the flat-footed condition. Will this be implemented in the future?

PS: Is there a way to automate incorporeal creatures' double resistance vs. non-magical?

[Trenloe]

Unfortunately precision damage is *not* automatically added when the flat-footed modifier is used instead of the flat-footed condition. Will this be implemented in the future?

The current flat-footed modifier button is specific for attacks not damage (as indicated by the modifier window section it's in). I'll investigate expanding that to damage in a future release.

PS: Is there a way to automate incorporeal creatures' double resistance vs. non-magical?

This is handled in the ruleset if the wording of the resistances adheres to the same format used in Bestiary 1. Add a ghost commoner to the combat tracker to see the RESIST effects added.

[Weissrolf]

That would be nice, yes. I taught my players to use the flat-footed modifier for temporal flanking and such. Currently we don't have a rogue in our group, so it's something for when the occasion occurs.

[Weissrolf]

This is handled in the ruleset if the wording of the resistances adheres to the same format used in Bestiary 1. Add a ghost commoner to the combat tracker to see the RESIST effects added.

Unfortunately this is not properly working. For one thing creatures in (older?) sold adventure modules are not created like that (Agents of Edgewatch "Binumir" vs ghost commoner):



And for another thing the ghost commoner format checks for "magic" damage, which not only does not exist in PF2, but also does not exist in magical weapons in FGU PF2 adventures I own.

So the incorporeal RESISTance should check for the existing "magical" weapon trait instead of the non-existing "magic" weapon damage. As a result both the creatures in the above screenshot don't work properly, the first misses non-magical resistances, the second misses magical resistances.

[Trenloe]

Please report any issues with DLC data in the DLC issue reporting thread.

FG must have a damage type to be able to handle resistances/immunities/weaknesses etc.. Please refer to the Wiki Effects [damage type] section under the Modifiers table - where there is a note on the "magic" damage type. The traits aren't checked as these aren't a reliable way of identifying a weapon that doesn magical damage - this is based off early Paizo products; if that's changed and is a more reliable method, I can look into it. But for now, if you have a weapon that does magical damage ensure it has the magic damage type set.

[Weissrolf]

Not sure I understand the traits not being reliable part?! Any weapon with the magical trait is just that. And every non-magical weapon gets the magical trait by applying runes to it. So if it doesn't have the magical trait then it is not magical.

Have you seen a non-magical weapon with magical trait in Paizo's 2E material to come to the reliability conclusion?

Checking the magical trait instead of testing for "magic" damage would fix all the FGU adventures I own in one go. None of the weapons in the adventures uses magic damage, but every one I checked had the magical trait except for a single dagger.