Jwguy
July 28th, 2018, 07:55
I only just noticed this while testing on a Swarm Subtype enemy in the 3.5e Ruleset, so forgive me if this has already been reported.
Basically, Fantasy Grounds typically uses damage types in determining how resistance, immunity, and weakness apply when damage is taken. Given the way the damage type variable is setup, it makes sense that using a comma to separate damage types would apply them as if using the 'AND' conjunction in text. For example, the following two items should be identical, mechanically, with the latter being how it's represented in Fantasy Grounds:
Bludgeoning and Piercing
Bludgeoning,Piercing
However, while testing this on a Rust Mite Swarm in 3.5e's Ruleset, I found that this doesn't appear to work properly. For clarity's sake, here is the monster I'm using:
https://i.imgur.com/0PUFXxI.png
As you can see, the Rust Mite Swarm is immune to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage. This means it ought to not take any damage from these damage types, but composite damage types, such as "bludgeoning and fire" or "bludgeoning,spell" should work against the creature according to 3.5e rules:
Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon.
In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation when the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.
However, as I tested, comma'd damage-types do not seem to be considered against immunity, at least. Furthermore, adding the 'And' conjunction seems to cause fantasy grounds to see the entire string as a new damage type, or at least acts as if it is able to bypass the immunity. See the following attacks:
https://i.imgur.com/F22WdJd.png
https://i.imgur.com/nfdgaGA.png
In these two, I setup the attack with the three damage types; It is resisted, as it should be, as the target is immune to all three damage types.
https://i.imgur.com/goeC58b.png
https://i.imgur.com/GndkvPF.png
https://i.imgur.com/VOKHF8z.png
With these three, I added the fire damage-type and tried again; It is also resisted. In the third one, I tried to add the fire to the very beginning to see if it was possibly only using the first word. It seems to not be the case.
https://i.imgur.com/VuPkP1R.png
Finally, with this last one, I determined that spacing does not seem to matter.
From all of this, I've been able to determine that it appears to consider itself immune to damage so long as the damagetype string entered in the effect is present, at all, in the damage being applied. (IMMUNE: damagetype) This also applies to spells, from my experience.
Basically, Fantasy Grounds typically uses damage types in determining how resistance, immunity, and weakness apply when damage is taken. Given the way the damage type variable is setup, it makes sense that using a comma to separate damage types would apply them as if using the 'AND' conjunction in text. For example, the following two items should be identical, mechanically, with the latter being how it's represented in Fantasy Grounds:
Bludgeoning and Piercing
Bludgeoning,Piercing
However, while testing this on a Rust Mite Swarm in 3.5e's Ruleset, I found that this doesn't appear to work properly. For clarity's sake, here is the monster I'm using:
https://i.imgur.com/0PUFXxI.png
As you can see, the Rust Mite Swarm is immune to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage. This means it ought to not take any damage from these damage types, but composite damage types, such as "bludgeoning and fire" or "bludgeoning,spell" should work against the creature according to 3.5e rules:
Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon.
In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation when the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.
However, as I tested, comma'd damage-types do not seem to be considered against immunity, at least. Furthermore, adding the 'And' conjunction seems to cause fantasy grounds to see the entire string as a new damage type, or at least acts as if it is able to bypass the immunity. See the following attacks:
https://i.imgur.com/F22WdJd.png
https://i.imgur.com/nfdgaGA.png
In these two, I setup the attack with the three damage types; It is resisted, as it should be, as the target is immune to all three damage types.
https://i.imgur.com/goeC58b.png
https://i.imgur.com/GndkvPF.png
https://i.imgur.com/VOKHF8z.png
With these three, I added the fire damage-type and tried again; It is also resisted. In the third one, I tried to add the fire to the very beginning to see if it was possibly only using the first word. It seems to not be the case.
https://i.imgur.com/VuPkP1R.png
Finally, with this last one, I determined that spacing does not seem to matter.
From all of this, I've been able to determine that it appears to consider itself immune to damage so long as the damagetype string entered in the effect is present, at all, in the damage being applied. (IMMUNE: damagetype) This also applies to spells, from my experience.