We have a morninglord cleric that has sever the source and multiple people in the party have pervasive light...

If a creature is given vulnerability 10 to radiant damage and vulnerability 17 to all damage and is attacked by a player with the pervasive light feat not dealing radiant damage does the player deal.

  1. An additional 27 damage because the creature has vulnerability 10 radiant and then vulnerability 17 all and pervasive lights damage is only based on the vulnerability.

  2. An additional 17 because vulnerable all counts as radiant and the attack is already taking advantage of the vulnerability.

  3. An additional 34 damage because the creature technically has vulnerability radiant included in the "all" and then vulnerability to the other damage as well meaning it takes the 17 damage from the vulnerability radiant like in answer 1 then the attack deals an additional 17 because the creature is vulnerable to it.

My gut says 1. is correct though I'd like to get a second opinion before the question comes up in game.


27 extra damage

There are two conditions on the targeted creature:

  • Vulnerable 10 radiant
  • Vulnerable 17 all

Your attack deals a number of points of damage, and the vulnerability gets applied. In addition you have an extra feat feature that is invoked because the target has radiant vulnerability and you are attacking with a non-radiant power.

It is true that the vulnerabilities do not stack, however, each condition that causes the vulnerability is tracked and applied.

So since you are attacking, you get the extra damage from the vulnerable all and because your attack is non-radiant you get the extra damage equivalent to the vulnerability from Pervasive Light.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This is an important distinction that's easy to miss. The damage from Pervasive Light isn't actually the vulnerability, it's just "extra damage equal to the vulnerability." In this regard, it has more in common with Pelor's Sun Blessing than it does with typed damage against a mob with multiple vulnerabilities. \$\endgroup\$ – webbcode Jan 27 '15 at 15:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes. It's extra damage not vulnerability. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Jan 27 '15 at 16:01

Rule compendium, p225:



Not Cumulative

Vulnerabilities to the same damage type are not cumulative. Only the highest vulnerability applies.

Example: If a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 10 psychic, it has vulnerable 10 psychic, not vulnerable 15 psychic. Similarly, if a creature has vulnerable 5 psychic and then gains vulnerable 2 to all damage, the creature still has vulnerable 5 psychic, not vulnerable 7 psychic.

As you can see from the example, vulnerable to all damage does not stack with vulnerable to a specific damage type.

  • \$\begingroup\$ They don't stack, but the condition is present. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Jan 27 '15 at 15:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.