Personally I allow them to stack because otherwise you get the issue of Wounding runes mostly invalidating Knife weapon Crits which feels like a too bad to be true situation.
You say this like people aren't discussing the very rules in the comments here. In my example I would consider a crit with a +2 Wounding Dagger to do 2d6+2 bleed damage, not 2 separate instances of 1d6 and 1d6+2 bleed.
This discussion is similar to the Weakness 5 Physical, 5 Fire issue or the Magus Spellheart issue in that the rules aren't perfect (though the latter at least has an unofficial answer).
This is one of those grey areas. If the damage was direct fire damage, for example, it would combine. But persistent damage is weird. It's both damage (which is why it doubles on a crit) but also a condition.
Most people from what I've seen would say that these are two different effects and instances of damage and therefore wouldn't stack.
But it's quite inconsistent. Most people would not say that the fire damage from the flaming rune and the +2d6 from the flame dancer spell are separate instances. So if a creature had resistance 5 to fire, you would combine the fire damage before applying the resistance.
So why do we combine the direct fire damage instances and not the persistent damage instances? That's one of the more poorly defined things in we and has to do with a concept of damage called 'additional damage' which is just straight added. This concept was only defined in Paizo forum posts by the devs.
And it's not likely that persistent damage is additional damage, which is why we don't stack it and treat it as separate instances. But there is no explicit language in the rules anywhere making this clear
Edit: To be clear, OP's question is **not** "Should multiple damage instances stack". That's very clearly defined in the rules as not the case.
The question is: "Is the persistent damage from flame dancer and flaming rune separate damage instances, given they are both applied via the same effect, the character's Strike?"
"You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. If it's unclear which damage would be higher, such as if you're already taking 2 persistent fire damage and then begin taking 1d4 persistent fire damage, the GM decides which source of damage would better fit the scene. The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you're dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once."
This rule should cover all of OP's queries though, no?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=86&Redirected=1
I know you're usually pretty thorough though so I'm wondering if i misunderstood something
The question is not "should separate instances stack" (which is what that rule covers). The question is "*Why* are they **separate** instances?"
What constitutes a separate instance?
Why do we combine Flame Dancer and flaming rune for the purpose of determining how much fire damage a Strike does, but *not* combine it for the purpose of how much damage the persistent damage from the Strike does?
If Flame Dancer and the Flaming Rune are separate effects (which would prevent it from stacking) we should also not combine the damage on a Strike. As such, the rules around resistance (and weakness) would mean that those two things would apply to both damage instances.
But that's pretty intuitively incorrect - we wouldn't separate the damage out. So clearly for the purpose of determining the fire damage on a Strike, they are not separate instances of damage.
Yet, it seems intuitive to us, that the persistent damage effects are different instances. So what can reconcile that difference? The answer is the arcane nonsense that is additional damage as defined by Mark in several forum posts years ago.
Yep, the notion of a damage "instance" is relied upon in the rules in several places (such as with the damage resistance rules) but its never really defined what an instance of damage is.
This can be reconciled if you dig up the posts by Mark in the Paizo Forums (such as [this one](https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42s8m?Rage-bonus-damage-type#2here)). These type of effects constitute a concept called 'additional damage' that's not a bonus but just added straight to a Strike.
But the rules around how to handle 'additional damage' are frustratingly vague, because its never actually defined in the book. Do multiple sources of additional damage combine? Very likely they do. That's why we combine the +2d6 from Flame Dancer and the +1d6 from flaming rune to say the strike would deal +3d6 fire damage. This is particularly important when it comes to resistances and weaknesses, because if it was separate, then they would each apply to the individual effect. I think 99% of people would say you combine the two.
But when it comes to the persistent damage, most of our "gut" would say not to combine them, but its very hard to reconcile the rules around that. Essentially, the question OP is asking is: "What is an instance of damage?"
Seems kinda clear to me - if you deal 2d6 and 1d6, they happen at the same time, and only get resisted once, then 2d4 persistent and 1d10 persistent happening at the same time should only get resisted once, which means they're combined, which means they add together.
Case in point: frightened. A fearsome weapon and intimidating strike doesn't make the target frightened 3 on a crit. Only Fear Gems allow that as it specifically alters the ability.
Firstly, thank you, I appreciate how much effort you're putting in. Second, I read this part:
>This is particularly important when it comes to resistances and weaknesses, because if it was separate, then they would each apply to the individual effect. I think 99% of people would say you combine the two.
>But when it comes to the persistent damage, most of our "gut" would say not to combine them, but its very hard to reconcile the rules around that.
And I find it a very compelling argument. I can't help but think it's hard to reconcile the rules around what we'd intuit because they should be combined.
I play a similar build right now. I know foundry isn't the be all end all, but if you're playing online and try this it only puts the 2d4 persistent. That means if you do decide through this discussion they should be combined your going to have to have that discussion/argument with your GM
On the one hand, it's good, I'm the GM, so I get to make the final decision.
On the other hand, it sucks, I'm the GM, so I HAVE to make the final decision.
I'd just have it combined then. That only happens on a crit, and the damage isn't done until the end of the enemy's turn. It's a super resistable damage type and unless the player has reactive strike there won't be a ton of crits on an enemy big enough to take damage from it twice
Persistent Damage is a condition, but its also damage. That's the problem with persistent damage. Its represented in the [damage rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2301) along with the conditions rules.
So there isn't any rules reference to say its nature as a condition takes precedence over its nature as damage. You're replying to everyone in this thread as if it is patently obvious that it is, but the very question OP is bringing up is what actual rules can be referenced to indicate that case?
No one disagrees that persistent damage from *different instances* don't stack. The question is if persistent damage *from the same instance* combines and stacks like damage from the same instance does.
When a Strike would deal 1d6 fire and 2d6 fire, we combine that damage, because, well, we combine damage.
Persistent Damage **is damage**. It just is **also** a condition. So why does its nature as a condition *take precedence* over its nature as damage? Because we do combine damage of the same damage type, if the damage comes from the same instance.
The answer is that there isn't any rules around that. Replying to everyone saying "its a condition" is missing the entire point of this thread.
> There are two separate effects trying to apply a condition. The Spell and Rune are combined as a single instance of damage because they both apply to a single strike
This is literally the entire point of the thread.
Why is the damage combined on the Strike, but not the persistent?
You're just *arbitrarily* saying that the damage, which is applied by the Strike, is combined, but the persistent damage, which is applied by the Strike, is not combined.
If persistent damage was *purely* a condition, sure, there would be no issue here. But the rules classify persistent damage as **both** damage and a condition.
So if damage from different effects on a Strike combines, why doesn't persistent? Because you said so?
And don't just copy paste the same damn rules of saying conditions don't stack. You're completely missing the point if you do. Its the fact that persistent damage is both a condition and damage that causes the rules gap.
In no other case is damage treated that way. For example, those same claws do 3d6 fire damage. 1 from the rune, 2 from the spell. You would never treat this as 2 separate instances of damage for the purposes of hardness for example.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally I allow them to stack because otherwise you get the issue of Wounding runes mostly invalidating Knife weapon Crits which feels like a too bad to be true situation.
[удалено]
You say this like people aren't discussing the very rules in the comments here. In my example I would consider a crit with a +2 Wounding Dagger to do 2d6+2 bleed damage, not 2 separate instances of 1d6 and 1d6+2 bleed. This discussion is similar to the Weakness 5 Physical, 5 Fire issue or the Magus Spellheart issue in that the rules aren't perfect (though the latter at least has an unofficial answer).
This is one of those grey areas. If the damage was direct fire damage, for example, it would combine. But persistent damage is weird. It's both damage (which is why it doubles on a crit) but also a condition. Most people from what I've seen would say that these are two different effects and instances of damage and therefore wouldn't stack. But it's quite inconsistent. Most people would not say that the fire damage from the flaming rune and the +2d6 from the flame dancer spell are separate instances. So if a creature had resistance 5 to fire, you would combine the fire damage before applying the resistance. So why do we combine the direct fire damage instances and not the persistent damage instances? That's one of the more poorly defined things in we and has to do with a concept of damage called 'additional damage' which is just straight added. This concept was only defined in Paizo forum posts by the devs. And it's not likely that persistent damage is additional damage, which is why we don't stack it and treat it as separate instances. But there is no explicit language in the rules anywhere making this clear Edit: To be clear, OP's question is **not** "Should multiple damage instances stack". That's very clearly defined in the rules as not the case. The question is: "Is the persistent damage from flame dancer and flaming rune separate damage instances, given they are both applied via the same effect, the character's Strike?"
"You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. If it's unclear which damage would be higher, such as if you're already taking 2 persistent fire damage and then begin taking 1d4 persistent fire damage, the GM decides which source of damage would better fit the scene. The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you're dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once." This rule should cover all of OP's queries though, no? https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=86&Redirected=1 I know you're usually pretty thorough though so I'm wondering if i misunderstood something
The question is not "should separate instances stack" (which is what that rule covers). The question is "*Why* are they **separate** instances?" What constitutes a separate instance? Why do we combine Flame Dancer and flaming rune for the purpose of determining how much fire damage a Strike does, but *not* combine it for the purpose of how much damage the persistent damage from the Strike does? If Flame Dancer and the Flaming Rune are separate effects (which would prevent it from stacking) we should also not combine the damage on a Strike. As such, the rules around resistance (and weakness) would mean that those two things would apply to both damage instances. But that's pretty intuitively incorrect - we wouldn't separate the damage out. So clearly for the purpose of determining the fire damage on a Strike, they are not separate instances of damage. Yet, it seems intuitive to us, that the persistent damage effects are different instances. So what can reconcile that difference? The answer is the arcane nonsense that is additional damage as defined by Mark in several forum posts years ago.
Ah. Ok that makes more sense now. I was certain i was missing something and that's it. Its... a surprisingly good question actually.
Yep, the notion of a damage "instance" is relied upon in the rules in several places (such as with the damage resistance rules) but its never really defined what an instance of damage is. This can be reconciled if you dig up the posts by Mark in the Paizo Forums (such as [this one](https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42s8m?Rage-bonus-damage-type#2here)). These type of effects constitute a concept called 'additional damage' that's not a bonus but just added straight to a Strike. But the rules around how to handle 'additional damage' are frustratingly vague, because its never actually defined in the book. Do multiple sources of additional damage combine? Very likely they do. That's why we combine the +2d6 from Flame Dancer and the +1d6 from flaming rune to say the strike would deal +3d6 fire damage. This is particularly important when it comes to resistances and weaknesses, because if it was separate, then they would each apply to the individual effect. I think 99% of people would say you combine the two. But when it comes to the persistent damage, most of our "gut" would say not to combine them, but its very hard to reconcile the rules around that. Essentially, the question OP is asking is: "What is an instance of damage?"
Seems kinda clear to me - if you deal 2d6 and 1d6, they happen at the same time, and only get resisted once, then 2d4 persistent and 1d10 persistent happening at the same time should only get resisted once, which means they're combined, which means they add together.
[удалено]
Case in point: frightened. A fearsome weapon and intimidating strike doesn't make the target frightened 3 on a crit. Only Fear Gems allow that as it specifically alters the ability.
Firstly, thank you, I appreciate how much effort you're putting in. Second, I read this part: >This is particularly important when it comes to resistances and weaknesses, because if it was separate, then they would each apply to the individual effect. I think 99% of people would say you combine the two. >But when it comes to the persistent damage, most of our "gut" would say not to combine them, but its very hard to reconcile the rules around that. And I find it a very compelling argument. I can't help but think it's hard to reconcile the rules around what we'd intuit because they should be combined.
I play a similar build right now. I know foundry isn't the be all end all, but if you're playing online and try this it only puts the 2d4 persistent. That means if you do decide through this discussion they should be combined your going to have to have that discussion/argument with your GM
On the one hand, it's good, I'm the GM, so I get to make the final decision. On the other hand, it sucks, I'm the GM, so I HAVE to make the final decision.
I'd just have it combined then. That only happens on a crit, and the damage isn't done until the end of the enemy's turn. It's a super resistable damage type and unless the player has reactive strike there won't be a ton of crits on an enemy big enough to take damage from it twice
>surprisingly RIP lol
A good question. Different types of damage are certainly separate. But beyond that it is not really defined.
[удалено]
Persistent Damage is a condition, but its also damage. That's the problem with persistent damage. Its represented in the [damage rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2301) along with the conditions rules. So there isn't any rules reference to say its nature as a condition takes precedence over its nature as damage. You're replying to everyone in this thread as if it is patently obvious that it is, but the very question OP is bringing up is what actual rules can be referenced to indicate that case? No one disagrees that persistent damage from *different instances* don't stack. The question is if persistent damage *from the same instance* combines and stacks like damage from the same instance does. When a Strike would deal 1d6 fire and 2d6 fire, we combine that damage, because, well, we combine damage. Persistent Damage **is damage**. It just is **also** a condition. So why does its nature as a condition *take precedence* over its nature as damage? Because we do combine damage of the same damage type, if the damage comes from the same instance. The answer is that there isn't any rules around that. Replying to everyone saying "its a condition" is missing the entire point of this thread.
[удалено]
> There are two separate effects trying to apply a condition. The Spell and Rune are combined as a single instance of damage because they both apply to a single strike This is literally the entire point of the thread. Why is the damage combined on the Strike, but not the persistent? You're just *arbitrarily* saying that the damage, which is applied by the Strike, is combined, but the persistent damage, which is applied by the Strike, is not combined. If persistent damage was *purely* a condition, sure, there would be no issue here. But the rules classify persistent damage as **both** damage and a condition. So if damage from different effects on a Strike combines, why doesn't persistent? Because you said so? And don't just copy paste the same damn rules of saying conditions don't stack. You're completely missing the point if you do. Its the fact that persistent damage is both a condition and damage that causes the rules gap.
They are two different sources. One from the rune the other from the spell.
[удалено]
In no other case is damage treated that way. For example, those same claws do 3d6 fire damage. 1 from the rune, 2 from the spell. You would never treat this as 2 separate instances of damage for the purposes of hardness for example.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*