"Each instance of damage has a type... " it's not "one or more types"; it's "a type", singular.
No. As explained before, there are two equally valid ways to read this statement. In fact, this way that you are describing is less likely to be the correct interpretation, because in almost every other place in the game where that meaning is articulated, they would write it as "Each instance of damage has one type" or "each instance of damage has a type, but never more than one at a time". Or something similar.
Obviously, the other way to read this is that it has a type -- as opposed to not having one.
For example, this is a perfectly valid conversation:
"Hey pal, do you own a car?"
"Yes, I do."
"What was that? I couldn't hear you."
"Yes! Yes, I own a car!"
"Oh, that's good. How many do you own?"
"Six."
So when I say I own a car, or I say that I have a type, I might just be talking about the general concept that I possess that particular type of thing -- not necessarily referring to the object itself. And not necessarily referring to a specific quantity of that particular type of object.
One might ask a college student: "Do you have to go and sit in a classroom today"? Answer: "Yes, I have to sit in a classroom today". And yet, this gives you no actual information about how many classrooms this student has to sit in today except that it's not zero.
You don't have resistance to damage because the rules don't say that you don't. You have it when they say that you do.
What in the world is this word salad? I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you want to know more about the rules for damage resistance, they are located in the PHB at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability. It's all explained in there.
That's the underlying principle. In the areas governed by the rules, you need the rules to tell you that you can do it. Once it tells you that you can, then, if any limits apply, it needs to tell you.
This is incorrect. Some rules tell you what you can do and some rules tell you what you can't do.
Example:
While you have the Incapacitated condition, you experience the following effects.
These are rules that are discussing things that you can't do. There are plenty of examples of this.
The fact is, when the rules establish a game concept and create mechanics for executing that concept, then any restrictions on that would have to be explicitly written. Otherwise, they don't exist.
But once again (yet again), this situation currently cannot exist at this time based on what is actually currently published, so the discussion is extremely moot. Are we done yet?
No, this is basic English. The use of "a" and "an" are singular. Period. It's an indefinite article that indicates that the noun it precedes is singular and nonspecific.
Definite article
the (before a singular or plural noun)
the berry
the berries
Indefinite article
a (before a singular noun beginning with a consonant sound)
a berry
an (before a singular noun beginning with a vowel sound)
an apple
So:
Each instance of damage has a (singular) type, like Fire or (emphasis mine) Slashing.
If you cast a spell that changes a weapon's damage type, and then cast a second spell that changes a weapon's damage type, it's not additive. The second spell takes effect and replaces the damage type from the previous spell for the duration of the second spell.
RAW does not support an instance of damage having 2 types.
"Each instance of damage has a type... " it's not "one or more types"; it's "a type", singular.
No. As explained before, there are two equally valid ways to read this statement. In fact, this way that you are describing is less likely to be the correct interpretation, because in almost every other place in the game where that meaning is articulated, they would write it as "Each instance of damage has one type" or "each instance of damage has a type, but never more than one at a time". Or something similar.
Obviously, the other way to read this is that it has a type -- as opposed to not having one.
For example, this is a perfectly valid conversation:
"Hey pal, do you own a car?"
"Yes, I do."
"What was that? I couldn't hear you."
"Yes! Yes, I own a car!"
"Oh, that's good. How many do you own?"
"Six."
So when I say I own a car, or I say that I have a type, I might just be talking about the general concept that I possess that particular type of thing -- not necessarily referring to the object itself. And not necessarily referring to a specific quantity of that particular type of object.
One might ask a college student: "Do you have to go and sit in a classroom today"? Answer: "Yes, I have to sit in a classroom today". And yet, this gives you no actual information about how many classrooms this student has to sit in today except that it's not zero.
"Hey pal, do you own one car?"
"Yes, I do."
"Oh, that's good. How many do you own?"
"Six."
The conversation is still valid. The tense is still singular.
"Hey pal, do you own one cars?" "Hey pal, do you own a cars?"
Make "car" plural and the tenses no longer match. "A damage type" is singular. "A damage types" is poor grammar. "Each instance of damage has one or more damage types" or "Each instance of damage has at least one damage type" would both support the possibility of damage types being multiple damage types.
That establishes the general rule. Any new spell, weapon, or form of damage could override it with specific rules, but if it's not explicitly clear ("The boop stick deals 1d6 psychic and bludgeoning damage" or "boop sticks deal damage is psychic in addition to their normal damage type"), err on the side of the general rule.
You don't have resistance to damage because the rules don't say that you don't. You have it when they say that you do.
What in the world is this word salad? I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you want to know more about the rules for damage resistance, they are located in the PHB at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability. It's all explained in there.
Right. The rules tell you when you have resistance. Your original argument included the assertion that a damage can have multiple types because the rules don't say it can't. You need the rules to tell you that you can resist damage and you need the rules to tell you that damage can have multiple damage types. The absence of a rule, in an area governed by the rules (in this case damage), is the absence of the possibility.
That's the underlying principle. In the areas governed by the rules, you need the rules to tell you that you can do it. Once it tells you that you can, then, if any limits apply, it needs to tell you.
This is incorrect. Some rules tell you what you can do and some rules tell you what you can't do.
Example:
While you have the Incapacitated condition, you experience the following effects.
These are rules that are discussing things that you can't do. There are plenty of examples of this.
The fact is, when the rules establish a game concept and create mechanics for executing that concept, then any restrictions on that would have to be explicitly written. Otherwise, they don't exist.
You are not looking at the complete scenario.
The general rules say that you can take actions, bonus actions, and reactions. They tell you that some effects require concentration. They tell you that you can speak.
The Incapacitated condition is a specific rule that overrides the general. It is an area governed by the rules. The general rules tell you that you can do it. The incapacitated condition is a specific rule that applies limits and tells you what they are.
But once again (yet again), this situation currently cannot exist at this time based on what is actually currently published, so the discussion is extremely moot. Are we done yet?
If you aren't enjoying the discussion, sure. We agree on the example scenario, but I think polite discourse on the underlying logic is healthy and helpful. I do not wish to antagonize you, but I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. If you do not, I'll leave you to it. May the dice be with you.
Yup. I agree with this.
No. As explained before, there are two equally valid ways to read this statement. In fact, this way that you are describing is less likely to be the correct interpretation, because in almost every other place in the game where that meaning is articulated, they would write it as "Each instance of damage has one type" or "each instance of damage has a type, but never more than one at a time". Or something similar.
Obviously, the other way to read this is that it has a type -- as opposed to not having one.
For example, this is a perfectly valid conversation:
"Hey pal, do you own a car?"
"Yes, I do."
"What was that? I couldn't hear you."
"Yes! Yes, I own a car!"
"Oh, that's good. How many do you own?"
"Six."
So when I say I own a car, or I say that I have a type, I might just be talking about the general concept that I possess that particular type of thing -- not necessarily referring to the object itself. And not necessarily referring to a specific quantity of that particular type of object.
One might ask a college student: "Do you have to go and sit in a classroom today"? Answer: "Yes, I have to sit in a classroom today". And yet, this gives you no actual information about how many classrooms this student has to sit in today except that it's not zero.
What in the world is this word salad? I have no idea what you're talking about here. If you want to know more about the rules for damage resistance, they are located in the PHB at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability. It's all explained in there.
This is incorrect. Some rules tell you what you can do and some rules tell you what you can't do.
Example:
These are rules that are discussing things that you can't do. There are plenty of examples of this.
The fact is, when the rules establish a game concept and create mechanics for executing that concept, then any restrictions on that would have to be explicitly written. Otherwise, they don't exist.
But once again (yet again), this situation currently cannot exist at this time based on what is actually currently published, so the discussion is extremely moot. Are we done yet?
No, this is basic English. The use of "a" and "an" are singular. Period. It's an indefinite article that indicates that the noun it precedes is singular and nonspecific.
So:
If you cast a spell that changes a weapon's damage type, and then cast a second spell that changes a weapon's damage type, it's not additive. The second spell takes effect and replaces the damage type from the previous spell for the duration of the second spell.
RAW does not support an instance of damage having 2 types.
"Hey pal, do you own one car?"
"Yes, I do."
"Oh, that's good. How many do you own?"
"Six."
The conversation is still valid. The tense is still singular.
"Hey pal, do you own one cars?" "Hey pal, do you own a cars?"
Make "car" plural and the tenses no longer match. "A damage type" is singular. "A damage types" is poor grammar. "Each instance of damage has one or more damage types" or "Each instance of damage has at least one damage type" would both support the possibility of damage types being multiple damage types.
That establishes the general rule. Any new spell, weapon, or form of damage could override it with specific rules, but if it's not explicitly clear ("The boop stick deals 1d6 psychic and bludgeoning damage" or "boop sticks deal damage is psychic in addition to their normal damage type"), err on the side of the general rule.
Right. The rules tell you when you have resistance. Your original argument included the assertion that a damage can have multiple types because the rules don't say it can't. You need the rules to tell you that you can resist damage and you need the rules to tell you that damage can have multiple damage types. The absence of a rule, in an area governed by the rules (in this case damage), is the absence of the possibility.
You are not looking at the complete scenario.
The general rules say that you can take actions, bonus actions, and reactions. They tell you that some effects require concentration. They tell you that you can speak.
The Incapacitated condition is a specific rule that overrides the general. It is an area governed by the rules. The general rules tell you that you can do it. The incapacitated condition is a specific rule that applies limits and tells you what they are.
If you aren't enjoying the discussion, sure. We agree on the example scenario, but I think polite discourse on the underlying logic is healthy and helpful. I do not wish to antagonize you, but I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake. If you do not, I'll leave you to it. May the dice be with you.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.