D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Keywords [Revision] Player’s Handbook, page 55
Replace the second and third sentences of the fourth paragraph with the following: “Also, resistance doesn’t reduce damage unless the target has resistance to each type of damage from the attack, and then only the weakest of the resistances applies. For example, a character who has resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder who takes 15 lightning and thunder damage takes 10 damage because the resistance value to the combined damage types is limited by the lesser of the two resistances.”
Thank you, I scoured the PHB, the DMG and the MM, did it real quick during a game and was like, ok ok quick rulling the resist works, and I'll go back over it later
Didn't even think to check errata, Thanks everyone
No problem. There were two total changes from the printed PH book. The Resistance thing was a complete 180 degree turn. The other was a 100% total re-write of how the Stealth skill works. This in turn lead to changes with Invisible Creatures and Stealth. The rest or the PH erratta modifies powers with about 2/3 of the changes meant to fight off rule's lawers and the rest important.
While this rarely is relevant, I should point out that immunity likely is intended to count as Resist (infinite) for purposes of this.
Otherwise being hit by an attack dealing fire and poison damage while having Immune Poison and Resist 10 Fire would still deal full damage as you're not resistant to both and not immune to both either.
That's just me pointing out a minor flaw in the wording, but it's good to know in case one of your players turns out to be a rules lawyer.
While this rarely is relevant, I should point out that immunity likely is intended to count as Resist (infinite) for purposes of this.
Otherwise being hit by an attack dealing fire and poison damage while having Immune Poison and Resist 10 Fire would still deal full damage as you're not resistant to both and not immune to both either.
That's just me pointing out a minor flaw in the wording, but it's good to know in case one of your players turns out to be a rules lawyer.
Ok you lost me on how you reached that conclusion. Consider each a different entity but only take the lower common denominator. In your example, 10 fire resist.
Actually, something with immunity poison and resist fire hit with a Poison, Fire power would take zero damage and have zero negative effects, because immunity to foo completely negates foo effects, which means powers with foo keyword.
So, the damage never -happens- for the resistance to Fire to matter.
Resistance and Immunity are not the same rule, and are not related.
Immunity to foo means you do not take foo damage -and- you suffer no ill effect from a foo effect. That means if someone uses a Fire, Poison power on you, the damage types do not matter, because you are immune to the entire power. All effects of a power share its keywords
First off Draco, Idk what foo is, but I want to eat it.
Second, You are completely and utterly correct
Immune: The monster has immunity to the stated kind of
damage or effect. For example, a monster with “immune
poison” never takes poison damage and can’t suffer any
other ill effect from a poison attack.
Meaning that even if TIAMAT HERSELF uses her chromatic breath on you point-blank, you do not feel a thing, because it is a poison attack.
This is what the MM2 says:
"A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not affected by it. A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not affected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword."
I don't understand how Firelance goes from that quote to:
"Similarly, a creature immune to poison would also take damage from a power with the poison keyword, unless the power only deals poison damage."
From the MM2 quote it sounds as though if you are immune to poison you don't take damage from a poison attack. It nowhere says anything about ONLY doing poison damage.
This is what the MM2 says:
"A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not affected by it. A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not affected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword."
I don't understand how Firelance goes from that quote to:
"Similarly, a creature immune to poison would also take damage from a power with the poison keyword, unless the power only deals poison damage."
From the MM2 quote it sounds as though if you are immune to poison you don't take damage from a poison attack. It nowhere says anything about ONLY doing poison damage.
Yeah, the new stealth errata is a bit clearer than the old definition of immunity, but still a bit vague.
You can have immunity to a type of damage (Acid or Lightning, for instance), to a type of effects (such as Charm or Sleep), or to more specific game effects (such as Stun or Forced Movement).
Only two immunities are treated a little differently: Poison (as that is both a type of damage and a type of effects) and Gaze (having immunity to gaze makes you immune to all damage and all effects caused by attacks with the Gaze keyword).
So, if you have Immune Fire and no Immune or Resist Poison and get hit by an attack that deals, say, 3d8+12 fire and poison damage, you take full damage as your immunity only protects from the fire damage and the damage is also poison damage, for which you have no protection. In regard to damage types it works just like Resist.
Similarly, immunity to effects (Immune Charm, for instance) only protects you from the non-damaging effects. You still take the damage, no matter what type it is, and if you're hit by a power with the Illusion and Psychic keywords that causes you to be dazed and take ongoing 10 psychic damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the daze as that's the only non-damaging effect. You'd need Immune Psychic to ignore the ongoing damage.
And lastly, immunity to a specific mechanic does not protect against anything else, so if you have Immune Stun, and you're hit by an effect that stuns you and deals ongoing 5 damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the stun effect and still take the ongoing 5 damage.
In other words, immunity to a type of damage simply acts as infinite Resist (unless it's Poison, since that also is a type of effects, and then it also protects you against effects with the Poison keyword).
Last edited by Thundershield; 28th June 2009 at 08:08 PM..
Yeah, the new stealth errata is a bit clearer than the old definition of immunity, but still a bit vague.
You can have immunity to a type of damage (Acid or Lightning, for instance), to a type of effects (such as Charm or Sleep), or to more specific game effects (such as Stun or Forced Movement).
Only two immunities are treated a little differently: Poison (as that is both a type of damage and a type of effects) and Gaze (having immunity to gaze makes you immune to all damage and all effects caused by attacks with the Gaze keyword).
So, if you have Immune Fire and no Immune or Resist Poison and get hit by an attack that deals, say, 3d8+12 fire and poison damage, you take full damage as your immunity only protects from the fire damage and the damage is also poison damage, for which you have no protection. In regard to damage types it works just like Resist.
Similarly, immunity to effects (Immune Charm, for instance) only protects you from the non-damaging effects. You still take the damage, no matter what type it is, and if you're hit by a power with the Illusion and Psychic keywords that causes you to be dazed and take ongoing 10 psychic damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the daze as that's the only non-damaging effect. You'd need Immune Psychic to ignore the ongoing damage.
And lastly, immunity to a specific mechanic does not protect against anything else, so if you have Immune Stun, and you're hit by an effect that stuns you and deals ongoing 5 damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the stun effect and still take the ongoing 5 damage.
In other words, immunity to a type of damage simply acts as infinite Resist (unless it's Poison, since that also is a type of effects, and then it also protects you against effects with the Poison keyword).
I don't read it that way. The second sentence is an addition, not an exception. When poison damage is a type of damage, it is covered by the first sentence. When poison is a keyword, then the second sentence applies.
These statements are not created as an exceptions, and do not forbid both of these conditional statements being true and applied.
For example, the conjured wall from Prismatic Wall (with some portions not related omitted):
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude, Reflex, Will
... Hit (Fortitude): 3d4 + Intelligence modifier poison damage, and you teleport the target 5 squares. Hit (Reflex): 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and ongoing 10 fire damage (save ends). Hit (Will): The target is dazed (save ends).
For example, if the target's 3 defenses are all hit by the attack of a Prismatic Wall, then:
Hit(Fortitude) damage would not occur, because it's damage type is poison.
The Teleport won't happen, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with a Poison Keyword.
The fire damage still applies, because the damage type is fire, and it's not a non-damaging effect.
The daze does not occur, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with the Poison Keyword.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
For example, if the target's 3 defenses are all hit by the attack of a Prismatic Wall, then:
Hit(Fortitude) damage would not occur, because it's damage type is poison.
The Teleport won't happen, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with a Poison Keyword.
The fire damage still applies, because the damage type is fire, and it's not a non-damaging effect.
The daze does not occur, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with the Poison Keyword.
Looks about right to me as well, so seems we agree, although I must say it's silly how a teleport can be a poison effect (translocating venom?).
As to the confusion about the Poison keyword, it appears as both a damage keyword and an effect keyword, meaning it figures among a power's keywords as soon as it either deals poison damage or has poison effects, and if the former is the case, then all non-damaging effects of that power automatically become poison effects as well (whether that was the designer's intention or not) as Poison also is an effect keyword. An unfortunate design, but it seems to be the case, going by RAW.
Last edited by Thundershield; 29th June 2009 at 12:19 AM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
