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/forums/showthread.php?68642-Pathfinder-2-Release-18-information-thread&p=610569&viewfull=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):

https://i.imgur.com/QSXqe3K.png

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.

[Trenloe]

As I said - FG has to use damage types rather than traits, otherwise the whole damage system would have to be redesigned - and that's high risk for very little reward. So there *has* to be some form of damage type that represents magical damage - the design decision for that is to use a damage type called magic.

I'm not going to trawl back through all of the PF2 material I went through when designing this - but there were enough exceptions that made it, in my eyes, an unreliable approach. One example of a weapon that doesn't have the magical trait, but does magical damage, is the Holy Avenger. I'm not ruling out any future changes, but to make things work right now you'll need to ensure the magic damage type is added to the damage action of any weapons that do damage and are also magical.

Note: the magic damage type will automatically be added to a weapon damage entry if a weapon has a +1 or higher bonus when it is added to the PC sheet (if the weapon is identified).

[Weissrolf]

I wasn't aware that identifying automatically adds the "magic" damage, so that's a relief and at least useful against those creatures that have proper resistances. Thanks for the hint!

I tried this with a couple of weapons and it worked for all weapons except for the "+1 Greater Staff of Necromancy (Large)" in Age of Ashes 3. But this seems to be a database error of the item, because after identifying it also gets the "(large)" part doubles in its name on the Action tab (not in the inventory) and after multiple tries I cannot even drag it to the Action tab from the items list anymore. Maybe the name is too long?

The Holy Avenger includes a "Divine" magical tradition trait, which indicates it to be magical just the same as having the "Magical" trait, just by identifying its specific tradition. So that's not an example of traits being unreliable.

[Trenloe]

The Holy Avenger includes a "Divine" magical tradition trait, which indicates it to be magical just the same as having the "Magical" trait, just by identifying its specific tradition. So that's not an example of traits being unreliable.

We were specifically discussing the "magical" trait being able to identify magical weapons:


Not sure I understand the traits not being reliable part?! Any weapon with the magical trait is just that.


So the incorporeal RESISTance should check for the existing "magical" weapon trait instead of the non-existing "magic" weapon damage.

The example I gave was a magical weapon that didn't have the "magical" trait. So my statement that using the "magical" trait to identify all magical weapons is unreliable is still a valid statement.

With this example, the scope is now expanded to be the following traits: "magical", "arcane", "divine", "occult" and "primal" (adding in the four magical traditions). This is something I may consider in the future (adding the "magic" damage type based off traits), but I don't want to add new checks for five traits without doing further investigation into the implication. To make things work right now you'll need to ensure the magic damage type is added to the damage action of any weapons that do damage and are also magical.

[Weissrolf]

We were specifically discussing the "magical" trait being able to identify magical weapons:
Our powerful computers of the 21st century cannot deal with handling 5 traits (strings) meaning the same thing instead of just 1? Have computer degenerated back to being less powerful than a Commodore C64 or everyday smartphone? Or is the FGU/PF2 codebase just to badly optimized in other places that you have to fight me over semantics for a 1 vs. 5 string if clause?

Trying to pin me down on the one word of "magical" for "reliability" reasons while you know very well that the magic tradition words mean exactly the same is questionable at best. What kind of argument was that supposed to be in favor of the point you were only writing down in your very last sentence of your very last post ("I don't want to add new checks for five traits")?! Next time just write that down from the start and don't fight customers for words please, it's rude.

And so that others know what we are talking about here:

Some items are closely tied to a particular tradition of magic. In these cases, the item has the arcane, divine, occult, or primal trait instead of the magical trait. Any of these traits indicates that the item is magical.

[Trenloe]

Our powerful computers of the 21st century cannot deal with handling 5 traits (strings) meaning the same thing instead of just 1? Have computer degenerated back to being less powerful than a Commodore C64 or everyday smartphone? Or is the FGU/PF2 codebase just to badly optimized in other places that you have to fight me over semantics for a 1 vs. 5 string if clause?

Trying to pin me down on the one word of "magical" for "reliability" reasons while you know very well that the magic tradition words mean exactly the same is questionable at best. What kind of argument was that supposed to be in favor of the point you were only writing down in your very last sentence of your very last post ("I don't want to add new checks for five traits")?! Next time just write that down from the start and don't fight customers for words please, it's rude.

And so that others know what we are talking about here:
You started with specific statements regarding the "magical" trait. Now, it's been proved that using just the magical trait is not reliable. I understand how the different traits works within PF2 - but computers don't, they need to be told how to do their processing. What I don't want to do, from a data perspective, is blindly add code to now assume five different traits will reliably work and not cause other issues. Like I said, there were issues when I first looked at this, and so I need to check there won't be other issues if I go ahead with something like this now. It's not about code performance, it's not about me using a Commodore 64, it's not about my statements being "questionable at best" - it's about me wanting to ensure code changes don't cause other issues in the ruleset, in existing campaigns and in new data.

My last response was "This is something I may consider in the future (adding the "magic" damage type based off traits), but I don't want to add new checks for five traits without doing further investigation into the implication." Why you start to throw around weird anecdotes and "questionable" accusations is beyond me.

Please try and have a civil discussion otherwise I will avoid having any discussions with you in future - engaging you in this discourse has been draining and I have much better things to do than try to have a discussion with someone who reacts as you did above. You seem to just want to argue for the sake of argument.

I've made the current state very clear - you can still have magical weapon damage work correctly if you manually add the "magic" damage type to magical weapons. Any changes to the current code to automatically add the magic damage type based off traits will be investigated for possible future inclusion.

[Weissrolf]

You started with specific statements regarding the "magical" trait. Now, it's been proved that using just the magical trait is not reliable.
Nothing of the sort has been proven. All that has been proved is that you rather obsess over me not specifically listing the four magic traditions word alongside "magical" while we both know about them anyway. Instead of arguing with me about the one word thing you could just have noted that alongside magical there would have to be checks for the four traditions words and that's it.

if (trait = magical) or (trait = arcane) or (trait = divine) or (trait = occult) or (trait = primal) then do something magical

[Trenloe]

Nothing of the sort has been proved. All that has been proved is that you rather obsess over me not specifically listing the four magic traditions word alongside "magical" while we both know about them anyway. Instead of arguing with me about the one word thing you could just have noted that alongside magical there would have to be checks for the four traditions words and that's it.
The discussion evolved. If you read post #13 above you should realise that I have expanded the discussion to include five traits. The initial discussion, and my statement about "magical" being unreliable, brought us to that point - the "magical" trait being unreliable to identify all weapons that do magic damage is still a 100% valid statement (from a FG programming perspective). But our discussion brought us to the realisation that there could be at least 4 other traits to also cover this - I didn't have that information at my fingertips when the discussion started. I have already noted "that alongside magical there would have to be checks for the four traditions words" (see post #13) and have said I'd need to investigate the implications of that change in the ruleset. It was you who then decided to take a 90 degree turn and start throwing around wild statements and call me rude. Instead of arguing with me about this, why couldn't you have accepted me saying I needed to investigate this in future "and that's it"???

[Weissrolf]

Ok, let's start anew. What did you try to communicate when you wrote?


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
It reads as if you are pointing to a Paizo based problem outside of FGU and outside of your control. It does not read like: "I don't want to write an if clause with 5 conditions that all lead to the same result".

[Trenloe]

Ok, let's start anew. What did you try to communicate when you wrote?


It reads as if you are pointing to a Paizo based problem outside of FGU and outside of your control. It does not read like: "I don't want to write an if clause with 5 conditions that all lead to the same result".
Way to pick and choose parts of a sentence. Please read the whole sentence:


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.

You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm refusing to make a change; I'm not - I've said many times that I need to investigate. Yes, an if clause would be used to do what we're discussing in relation to this case in isolation - I need to investigate other implications in terms of product data and existing campaign data.

[Weissrolf]

My original reply: "Not sure I understand the traits not being reliable part?!"

What needs to change then? What is wrong with traits currently that we players/users need to be aware of? And what does that have to do with your later explanation that you don't want to check for 5 traits?

Look, I am not even opposed to using the "magic" damage work-around if it works as expected and enables development time to be stent on other things (like automatically adding a "magic" damage string after identification). But then just tell us and don't give cryptic answers about "reliability" of traits without proper explanation (plural used by you, so it never was about a single word to begin with).

[Trenloe]

What needs to change then? What is wrong with traits currently that we players/users need to be aware of? And what does that have to do with your later explanation that you don't want to check for 5 traits?
I don't know how many more times I can say this - I need to investigate implications before making any changes!!! I'm not saying I don't want to make changes, I'm saying I need to investigate any possible implications. There were reasons I didn't do this originally - that was over two years ago and I can't remember details; so I need to check through my notes and code, check campaign/DLC data, check Paizo products, etc., etc..


But then just tell us and don't give cryptic answers about "reliability" of traits without proper explanation (plural used by you, so it never was about a single word to begin with).
I've been very open and detailed in my explanation to you in this thread. The only thing giving you details seems to do is provoke argument and then accusations - saying I'm rude and basically accusing me of being a liar (and more?). You obviously don't take what I say at face value. So in future I'm not going to waste my time giving you detailed information of how the ruleset works and design decisions made in the past and present, as you won't believe me.

[Weissrolf]

I do believe you and can follow the arguments except for the "but you only said magical, here is a divine example instead" argument. That was unnecessary bean counting and then even throwing the blame towards me when we both knew that divine is just another word for magical and you well understood that we were talking about magical traits (plural <- your own wording).

My question: I don't understand the "unreliable" part.
Your answer: Here is a divine sword that is not magical.
Your real answer: Something didn't work out when I last checked it, so I went for a route working better in FGU for the sake of making it work...
The missing part: ... despite the possible confusion regarding the PF2 system implications (where magic damage does not exist).

That choice of pushing me in a semantic corner to get rid of the inconvenience is what I do not agree with. (not that I don't like discussing semantics, but the original discussion was sidelined by that)

[Weissrolf]

And to clarify that here, too: I am not debating design choices at this point, I am debating support choices.

[Weissrolf]

So let's end on a positive note: The implementation of magic weapons automatically having their special traits removed while unidentified and then automatically added after being identified is a nice one.

[dsaraujo]

The fact that other VTTs can't yet do proper resistance and vulnerability automatically is a statement of how FG is a step ahead of the competition, and one of the reasons for that is Trenloe consistent vision on building the rulesets on layers that don't break everything that was there before (also consistent with Smiteworks general approach).

[Weissrolf]

To clarify this again: the current implementation seems to work in practice once we players know about the automation with identification and once DLC developers learn how to properly implement NPCs. But it does also cause some confusion for players, including this one here, because the PF2 FGU system then works different from the PF2 book system. At one point I put "magic" damage type on my players action tabs, only to remove it again later, now I may or may not have to add it back again.

I think systems in VTTs should come with user manuals, especially when you pay for them. These kind of VTT specific idiosyncrasies need better documentation.

[Weissrolf]

I loaded all PF2 modules that I bought from the Smitework store. None of them includes any weapon with "magic" damage type.

[Milke]

Bro.. why are you antagonizing Trenloe?
He is not a Smiteworks employee. He's contracted out, and does this because he loves the game. He is quite often on the boards, answering questions and helping people. For free.
Without him, we wouldn't have near the functionality we do.
Are you trying to make him decide it's not worth it and quit?

[Weissrolf]

Meanwhile I tested the automated functionality of FGU adding magic damage type when a weapon is added to the inventory. It seems to work for weapons that match the requirements, which most (but not all) weapons seem to do. It would be good if documentation of these things were more accessible rather than having to manually find a wiki page.