bear shamans, +2 d to resist physical damage. Options

[fool]

OK so bear shamans get +2 d to resist physical damage, that seems pretty straight forward, until you start talking about magic. FOr instance, how does that apply to spells that deal physical damage. Indirect spells seems pretty straight forward. They get +2 d to resist the damage after making their reaction roll. But what about direct combat spells like manabolt. I see two possible ways to resolve this. A mage rolls 12 d and gets four successes on a force 4 spell. The target rolls 10 d (5 will and 5 counterspelling) and gets 3 successes takes dv5 then rolls 2 d to reduce the 5 boxes fo damage. Or the mage rolls his 12 d and get 4 hits; the target rolls 12 d (5 will 5 contersp[ell and 2 for bear shaman resistance to physical damage) and gets 4 hits so no damage is done.

Who wants to coment?

Another point at which some abusive players would try to bring this up is in resisting physical drain. Saying that since it's physical damage, they should get +2 d to resist overcasting/summoning drain. Personally I wouldn't allow that, but by the raw I could see someone making that argument

[Demerzel]

I would rule that you get two dice to Damage Resitance Tests. I would claim that is my reading of the intent of the rule and let that stand.

That means spell resistance tests bypass this even though they may deal physical damage and not allow a damage resistance test.

It may be a valid argument to allow spell resistance tests where you're resisting physical damage to count, and it may be a valid argument that a drain resistance test vs. physical counts. But I'd call it plain and simple: They meant to say damage resistance tests.

[Jaid]

drain isn't damage (you cannot, for example, magically heal drain). therefore, resisting drain is not resisting damage.

[Waterlog Thistle...]

How can you consider drain to not be damage? It fills up your damage track. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Nim]

Seems like the internally-consistent thing to do would be to give them the +2d bonus to any roll to resist damage that's going to cause them to make the check to avoid going berserk. If a player says 'I should get +2d to resist physical drain' then tell them 'Okay. You'll now be resisting going berserk every time you take physical drain, too.'

Oh, and point out that if the character goes berserk from Physical drain on a summoning or binding attempt, it's not going to be pretty....

[FrankTrollman]

[Thanee]

+2 dice to Body when making a Damage Resistance Test against physical damage.

i.e. like Bone Lacing or Bone Density Augmentation, but only when damage is physical (not stun).

Bye
Thanee

[Nim]

[Tomothy]

Resisting drain seems to be refered to as a "Drain Resistance Test" whereas Bear Shamans get +2 dice to resist Physical damage.

I think it's basically open to interpretation but I'd be inclined to say no, because I don't think that's what the intention was.

[fool]

yeah the whole drain thing was just tongue in cheek, and I wouldn't allow it, but the other question is more important. To simply say that they don't get any extra dice to resist spell damage seems a little silly since it is definitely causing physical damage.

[Demerzel]

Problem there is a mechanics issue. I'd give them the dice on indirect combat spells. But being at one with Bear does not make you more likely to fully resist a manabolt. If you give the dice to allow resistance to Manabolt then you're doing that. If you only give the two extra dice when you will take damage you're adding an extra roll and complexifying things. That's something I'm not willing to do for the sake of matching the rules to your personal intuition.

[Fastball]

From a pure rules standpoint, I would lean toward no bonus for resisting spells. There is no such thing as a damage resistance test for direct combat spells, and you can't add 2 to something that doesn't exist.

From a flavor standpoint, it makes sense to allow an extra damage resistance roll. The +2 die is clearly a mana-based ability (it applies to physical damage in astral combat) so it could theoretically reduce spell damage.

Also, one could apply the Berserk test to physical damages sustained from a spell, which would also suggest the +2 bonus should apply.

This flavor context suggests the intent of the rules is to provide extra resistance whenever the bear shaman is in danger of receiving damage that might cause him to go beserk.

It seems like an area where the GM should house rule either both the bonus and the beserk test should apply, or neither should apply. The rules tend to support the latter.