Conditions when all damage is negated

[wedgeski]

Hi all, I had a situation over the weekend where my PC resisted all of the damage from an attack which also had a Poison effect.

My claim that I shouldn't be poisoned because I resisted all the damage was summarily and reasonably dismissed, and I couldn't find any appropriate reference in the rule-books later-on.

Did I invent this rule in my head? Or is it an errata or Essentials addition?

 

[ffy]

As a general rule, resisting damage doesn't save you from the effects of the attack. You have to be resistant to the effect itself to ignore it. If by poisoned you mean that you were affected by ongoing 5 poison damage, even when you can resist it all I would still let it apply.

Mechanically, it works out better that way - for example some abilities might deal 5 ongoing damage and 10 ongoing damage after the first failed saving throw, or there might be monsters among the enemies who can reduce your poison resistance. Even if that isn't the case in the fight in question being used to doing things mechanically correctly might save you from some headaches and arguments later on.

 

[pippenainteasy]

Is this ongoing poison damage? I would say by RAW you would still take the damage even if you negated the attack damage.

 

[Will Doyle]

As a general rule, conditions are not dependent upon dealing damage - and to rule so would mess with a number of PC powers.

However, Poison does have this specific rule when applied to weapons (from the Compendium):

--

Poisoned Weapon Attacks: You must apply a poison to a weapon. The poison takes effect the next time the weapon hits and deals damage. The poison’s effect is a secondary attack against the same target. If a poisoned weapon hits multiple targets, the poison attacks only the first target hit.

--

So really it depends on the attack in question. In the unlikely corner case that this was a NPC wielding a weapon coated in contact poison, I'd rule that damage should have been dealt to apply the condition. If it was a spell, or a special monster attack, I'd say that negating the damage wouldn't negate the condition.

 

[DracoSuave]

As a general rule, conditions are not dependent upon dealing damage - and to rule so would mess with a number of PC powers.

However, Poison does have this specific rule when applied to weapons (from the Compendium):

--

Poisoned Weapon Attacks: You must apply a poison to a weapon. The poison takes effect the next time the weapon hits and deals damage. The poison’s effect is a secondary attack against the same target. If a poisoned weapon hits multiple targets, the poison attacks only the first target hit.

--

So really it depends on the attack in question. In the unlikely corner case that this was a NPC wielding a weapon coated in contact poison, I'd rule that damage should have been dealt to apply the condition. If it was a spell, or a special monster attack, I'd say that negating the damage wouldn't negate the condition.

Only a certain subset of consumable items work this way. Other poisons, including poisons applied to weapons will work as damage does normally.

For example, many executioner poisons do damage and have an additional condition. If the damage is negated, then the non-damaging portion of the effect will still happen.

Basically... if you negate the push part of a power, will the damage occur? Yes. The reverse is also true.

 

[Will Doyle]

Only a certain subset of consumable items work this way. Other poisons, including poisons applied to weapons will work as damage does normally.

True, true, that's sort what I meant. Really I should have said "in the unlikely corner case that this was a NPC wielding a weapon coated in consumable contact poison..."

A monster (such as a drow), with a weapon attack with poison keyword wouldn't be bound in such a way.

 

[wedgeski]

Thanks for all replies, it looks like my DM was 100% correct.

 

[DracoSuave]

True, true, that's sort what I meant. Really I should have said "in the unlikely corner case that this was a NPC wielding a weapon coated in consumable contact poison..."

A monster (such as a drow), with a weapon attack with poison keyword wouldn't be bound in such a way.

I was being specific to that case. It would have to be a monster using a specific subset of consumable items that follow the rules heading you described. Monsters that are not using those specific items are not and should not be beholden to those rules, even if their power is 'coat weapon in poison and then attack' because those specific rules do not even include the totality of consumable poisons. Assassins being an excellent example.

 

[Mengu]

Did I invent this rule in my head?

Just to throw this in, you were perhaps confusing resisting all damage with immunity. If you are immune, you do ignore all effects as well.

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.

So the rule you're thinking of exists for immunity only.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Did I invent this rule in my head? Or is it an errata or Essentials addition?

You didn't invent it, but you remembered it from 3.X. That rule doesn't exist in 4E.