Two damage types simultaneously

[rob2e]

Is it possible to code for two damage types for total damage simultaneously? So instead of 1d6 acid + 1d6 fire, I want 2d6 acid AND fire. Full damage of both types. Can we do that?

[Moon Wizard]

Just add 2d6 with a damage type of "acid,fire"

Cheers,
JPG

[rob2e]

Just add 2d6 with a damage type of "acid,fire"

Cheers,
JPG

So easy. NEVER would have figured it out. Ha!

ThanX Moon.

[Zacchaeus]

Is it possible to code for two damage types for total damage simultaneously? So instead of 1d6 acid + 1d6 fire, I want 2d6 acid AND fire. Full damage of both types. Can we do that?

Just make sure that you are aware that if you create a weapon or whatever with two damage types like this that if the creature being attacked has resistance or immunity to one of the damage types then all of the damage done will be resisted. This might not be what you intend but it will be the result. I find it's generally better to separate the two damage types so that this kind of situation doesn't occur.

[rob2e]

Just make sure that you are aware that if you create a weapon or whatever with two damage types like this that if the creature being attacked has resistance or immunity to one of the damage types then all of the damage done will be resisted. This might not be what you intend but it will be the result. I find it's generally better to separate the two damage types so that this kind of situation doesn't occur.

Darn. I am in fact looking to breath my fire/acid breath all over someone. If they are fire OR acid resistant I still want them to take full damage unless they are BOTH fire and acid resistant. Sounds like that won't work then?

[Zacchaeus]

No, indeed it won't This came up in another post recently when discussing a weapon which dealt say slashing and fire damage. If the damage is slashing, fire and the target is immune to slashing damage then it will take no damage. The addition of fire damage to the weapon doesn't change the weapons slashing property. So if you want the fire part to get through then you need the fire on a separate line so that the fire damage is calculated separately from the slashing.

In your case with breath weapon damage you'll want 1d6 fire plus 1d6 acid or whatever and each damage type will be discreetly checked against any resistances or immunities. Alternatively you could give the option of breathing acid OR fire damage rather than a combination of both. That might add a little frisson of chance into the whole proceeding :)

[rob2e]

Fire OR acid, great idea. That way the DM can just roll the one the PC doesn't resist. I suppose since it can't be completely automated, that's the best way for now.

[Minty23185Fresh]

Rob, I suspect the discussion Zacchaeus mentions is one I proposed for complete invulnerability to every form of damage. Suppose my spell caster has a scroll that adds the DMGTYPE: fire effect to another character or NPC. If the spell caster is IMMUNE: fire, because of the way DMGTYPE works he/she would become invulnerable to all damage. It's my opinion that the DMGTYPE effect should be eliminated from FG. I came away from our discussion believing it to be ambiguous and fraught with unforeseen affects with little or no applicability. Also from our discussion I came away with complete agreement with Zacchaeus, combining damage types brings a whole bag of worms with it. Personally I think combining damage types (in a single definition) should be avoided if at all possible.

[rob2e]

Rob, I suspect the discussion Zacchaeus mentions is one I proposed for complete invulnerability to every form of damage. Suppose my spell caster has a scroll that adds the DMGTYPE: fire effect to another character or NPC. If the spell caster is IMMUNE: fire, because of the way DMGTYPE works he/she would become invulnerable to all damage. It's my opinion that the DMGTYPE effect should be eliminated from FG. I came away from our discussion believing it to be ambiguous and fraught with unforeseen affects with little or no applicability. Also from our discussion I came away with complete agreement with Zacchaeus, combining damage types brings a whole bag of worms with it. Personally I think combining damage types (in a single definition) should be avoided if at all possible.

The reason I was asking about it was because I was converting a module for someone that had a dragon who breathed fire/acid breath. IT got me thinking, if someone is resistant to fire OR acid, but not both, they should take full damage. I still think that, although I believe in 5E (WotC material) there isn't anything that does two damage types. I just think it would be nice to have it coded that way. But Zacchaeus' solution seems workable. Although not fully automated, the DM can attack using either damage type the PC is not resistant to.

Still would be cool if you could have multiple damage types coded though.

[LordEntrails]

...
Still would be cool if you could have multiple damage types coded though.
You can :) But then resistance and immunity won't work they way you want them to :(

[Minty23185Fresh]

Does anyone know what the Custom definition in the Effects/Conditions Manager Utility is for? If one could define a custom effect, say "acid-fire" then one could use it, as in DMG: +5 acid-fire and IMMUNE: acid-fire. But I don't think this works. At some point, as part of my Combat Tracker Effect Visibility Options Extension (EVOE) I'd like to add the ability to attach effects to weapons, but adding support for real custom effects might flow hand in hand with that.

[Trenloe]

Does anyone know what the Custom definition in the Effects/Conditions Manager Utility is for?
It allows custom conditions to be created that can be applied to yourself or the target, and then the conditional operators (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/5E_Effects#Special_Components) IF: (condition on yourself) or IFT: (condition on target) can be used.

Some info here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?34368-Custom-Effects-Problem&p=292989&viewfull=1#post292989

[Minty23185Fresh]

Yikes, that's impressive, I think it is very near what I was asking for. Thanks Trenloe

[Zacchaeus]

The DMGTYPE keyword is really intended for situations where, for example, a weapon becomes temporarily magical or where a spell might allow a weapon to do fire damage in addition to it's normal damage. It's also used extensively to indicate that an NPCs attack is treated as magical. It's not, I think, really intended to add a permanent effect onto a weapon or a PC or an action.

[JasonYarnell]

On a similar note, one of players is playing an Artificer of the Armorer variety. He wants to use his Infuse ability to Enhance his Lightning Launcher on his armor.

So Infuse (Enhance Weapon) makes the targeted weapon magical and gives it a +1 bonus.

The Lightning Launcher is a Ranged +2 weapon that does 1d6 Lightning damage.

If he infuses it, does that make it Ranged +3 and 1d6+1 Lightning, Magical damage?

[LordEntrails]

On a similar note, one of players is playing an Artificer of the Armorer variety. He wants to use his Infuse ability to Enhance his Lightning Launcher on his armor.

So Infuse (Enhance Weapon) makes the targeted weapon magical and gives it a +1 bonus.

The Lightning Launcher is a Ranged +2 weapon that does 1d6 Lightning damage.

If he infuses it, does that make it Ranged +3 and 1d6+1 Lightning, Magical damage?
That's how I would do it. Though "Magical" is probably not needed since the only time that I'm aware of that Magical comes into play is for slashing, piercing, bludgeoning damage from non-magical sources.
edit:Actually, if the infusion is temporary, you could add an effect like;
ATK:1; DMG1, magical

[JasonYarnell]

That's how I would do it. Though "Magical" is probably not needed since the only time that I'm aware of that Magical comes into play is for slashing, piercing, bludgeoning damage from non-magical sources.
edit:Actually, if the infusion is temporary, you could add an effect like;
ATK:1; DMG1, magical
It lasts until the player cancels it, essentially, but I like this as it would apply to any weapon he uses (FGU mechanically speaking) and as an Effect, it can be turned on or off in the Combat Tracker as needed.

Thank you

[ColoradoGM]

Is there a way to remove/ replace a damage type, rather than add one? As in "your damage is radiant instead of its normal type"?

[LordEntrails]

Is there a way to remove/ replace a damage type, rather than add one? As in "your damage is radiant instead of its normal type"?
I'm not sure your use case, but from what I can imagine it is, not with an effect. You would have to change/edit the original attack. So, if the attack is defined as something like "2d6 fire damage" you would have to edit it to "2d6 radiant damage".