Rule Clarifications

[Gruns]

I'm not sure why some people are categorizing damage as an "effect" and not simply as damage... Or when listing the things immunity prevents, the MM would list damage twice: "Immune to damage and other effects, such as damage". It's just really, really reaching and doesn't make any sense to read it this way. Especially when the books make several indications that damage is NOT an effect...
Meh.
Later
Gruns

 

[Hypersmurf]

Especially when the books make several indications that damage is NOT an effect...

"A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect..."

-Hyp.

 

[crantastic]

If we have a power with the Thunder and Lightning keywords, which deals 10 thunder damage and 10 lightning damage, Thunder Immunity per MM282 says that since this is a Thunder attack (it has the Thunder keyword), the creature suffers no thunder damage nor any other ill effect from the power.

10 lightning damage is an other ill effect from the power; MM282 says he doesn't suffer it.

Likewise, if we have a power with the Thunder and Lightning keywords, which deals 10 thunder and lightning damage, Thunder Immunity per MM282 says that since this is a Thunder attack (it has the Thunder keyword), the creature suffers no thunder damage nor any other ill effect from the power.

Even though Resist Thunder gives no benefit vs the 'thunder and lightning' damage, the 'thunder and lightning' damage is an ill effect of the Thunder attack, and MM282 says Thunder Immunity prevents him suffering it.

The first sentence of PHB pg55, pg4, which i've quoted twice already, directly refutes your claim: "Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power's other effects." Immunity should be considered a really, really high resistance. All rules for resistances against mixed damage and effect types apply to immunities as well.

The definition of "immune" on MM 282 does not in any way explicitly state immunity to one type of damage or effect will nullify damage from an attack of mixed types, whereas the PHB is quite clear that this is not the case.

You're also continuing to equate "damage and effects" with "power" ("...nor any other ill effect from the power"). While related, they are not the same. Powers are composed of damage and effects. The various damage and effect types are where the keywords are applied.

Finally, all interpretations of the Spined Devil's "Rain of Spines" have been incorrect. Let's start by reading the actual text (MM 66):

Rain of Spines + Fire, Poison
The spined devil flings spines that ignite as they fly through the air. Ranged 10; +9 vs. Reflex; 1d10 damage plus 1d6 fire damage, and the spined devil makes a secondary attack against the same target. Secondary Attack: +9 vs. Fortitude; the target takes ongoing 5 poison damage and is slowed (save ends both).​

The primary attack is not strictly fire damage. As with all immunities, if you're not immune to physical, you'll take the 1d10 physical damage. If you're immune to fire, you'll ignore the 1d6 fire damage, but you still take the 1d10 physical, and are subject to the poison attack. if you're immune to poison, you're immune to the entire secondary attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You're also continuing to equate "damage and effects" with "power" ("...nor any other ill effect from the power"). While related, they are not the same.

"A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect."

Rain of Spines is a power that deals fire damage. Rain of Spines is a fire effect.

Rain of Spines is a power that deals poison damage. Rain of Spines is a poison effect.

-Hyp.

 

[N8Ball]

"A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect."

Rain of Spines is a power that deals fire damage. Rain of Spines is a fire effect.

Rain of Spines is a power that deals poison damage. Rain of Spines is a poison effect.

-Hyp.

Hyper, you've been around here forever and I've been reading you for a really long time and I have a lot of respect for your judgment on all these matters, but I would humbly submit that if you would consider that damage not to be "other ill effects", but a separate thing, several confusions and contradictions resolve themselves.

A have but a few points in my to support my humble offer before you smite me under the might of your 25,000 posts.

1. The description of immunity in the DMG talks about "damage or other ill effects". This would be redundant if "ill effects" were interpreted as you propose, but completely necessary if they were distinct things.

2. The line you quote from the PHB 55 calls "a power..is an acid effect."
You are right to quote the text and your argument is not misunderstood, but I believe this to be a confusing and unintended use of the term "effect" on the part of the writers as it becomes problematic to talk about Effects (powers) that cause effects (status conditions). I believe the more appropriate use of the term "effect" is exemplified as seen in power descriptions.

3. In all the text of power descriptions in the game, the terms "Effect:" and "effects" refer exclusively to things other than damage. This is not exactly the most definitive point, but the sheer weight of precedence bears noticing.

3a. Paladin 29 "Even hand of Justice" - Whenever the target makes an attack, its attack works as usual but it takes the full damage and effects of the attack as well.

3b. PHB 226 "Like racial powers and class powers, magic item powers have keywords that indicate their damage or effect types."


I will now eviscerate myself with a butterknife for disagreeing with Hyper.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1. The description of immunity in the DMG talks about "damage or other ill effects". This would be redundant if "ill effects" were interpreted as you propose, but completely necessary if they were distinct things.

Strictly, in the case of Poison Immunity, it talks about poison damage, or any other ill effect.

Note the use of the word 'other'. The implication is that poison damage is an ill effect; otherwise, it would be phrased as "poison damage, or any ill effect". If poison damage were not an ill effect, the word "other" isn't appropriate.

("I don't understand Sam, or any other woman for that matter." Does the sentence give you enough information to know if Sam is male or female?)

And if poison damage is an ill effect, then so is fire damage... which would make fire damage an "other ill effect".

3. In all the text of power descriptions in the game, the terms "Effect:" and "effects" refer exclusively to things other than damage. That's not exactly the most definitive point, but the weight of precedence bears noticing.

Exclusively?

Rain of Steel - the only thing the Effect does is damage. Flames of Phlegothos - the only thing the Effect does is damage. There are plenty of examples...

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Dragonborn's Dragon Breath (PHB p34):
When you create your character, choose Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity as the ability score you use when making attack rolls with this power. You also choose the power's damage type: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or poison. These two choices remain throughout your character's life and do not change the power's other effects.

Ability score and damage type are contrasted with the power's "other effects". Not the power's effects, but "other effects".

PHB p55:
A power's keyword entry gives you important rules information about the power. The first keyword indicates whether the power is an at-will, encounter, or daily power. (One example of each type is given above.) The color used in the line containing the power name also conveys this information: At-will powers have a green bar, encounter powers have a red bar, and daily powers have a black bar. The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power.

All the damage keywords are 'other keywords', so the damage keywords are some of the keywords that define the fundamental effects of a power.

The Psychic damage keyword applies to Effects that target the mind. If damage keywords do not describe effects, how is this one explained?

PHB p57:
The ongoing damage doesn't increase, because it's a static effect.

Ongoing damage is an effect. Does that mean it is not damage?

Martyr's Smite, PHB p98:
The target's intended victim takes no damage but is subject to any other effects of the attack.

Not "is subject to any effects of the attack", but "any other effects", distinguishing them from the effect of taking damage.

PHB p269:
Deal damage and apply other effects.

PHB p276:
When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect.

PHB p310:
A phantom steed is immune to any effect other than damage.

Immune to any effect. Apart from damage. That's an effect it isn't immune to.

-Hyp.

 

[N8Ball]

Exclusively?

Rain of Steel - the only thing the Effect does is damage. Flames of Phlegothos - the only thing the Effect does is damage. There are plenty of examples...

You're right, of course, it's not exclusive. I spoke too hastilly and with only a cursory glance at the powers.

We would agree though that whether because of the fact that they are effects or because they cause damage to the enemy, any immunities would be in full effect in either case. Now that you have splintered this part of my argument these examples are not in contension.

Strictly, in the case of Poison Immunity, it talks about poison damage, or any other ill effect.

Note the use of the word 'other'. The implication is that poison damage is an ill effect; otherwise, it would be phrased as "poison damage, or any ill effect". If poison damage were not an ill effect, the word "other" isn't appropriate.

Point taken, but the implication of the wording is somewhat less definitive than your excellent example. More difinitive would be if they had said something like "any ill effects, including damage" but that's just wishful thinking and not additive to any conclusion here.

It may also be helpful to quote the full definition from MM since some parts include the notorious "other" and some don't.

MM 282 "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 effects from a poison attack."

First, before the example there is no use of the word "other". "Damage" and "effects" are suggested to be different. If damage was an effect you might as well say something like , "I know how to fix Honda's and cars".

But then they go and confuse things with the example. But still separate damage from "other effects". Why? Perhaps you're right, it is an effect, but even the example suggests that it needs to be treated separately.

Lastly, if immunities were as comprehensive as you say, wouldn't it just be simpler to say that "Monster with immunity are completely unaffected by powers with the stated keyword"?

I think the subtlety of denoting "damage and (other) effects" was deliberate and allows powers with multiple keywords to be at least partially useful in those situations. If you're right, (and I'm leaning that way as I write) then I think the "other" is there to note that it's effects "other than damage" that it's talking about.

I think I can get onboard with your position that damage is an effect of a power, but I don't agree that a power that does 3 seperate damage types (like Rain of Spines) can be completely neutralized with only 1 immunity.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lastly, if immunities were as comprehensive as you say, wouldn't it just be simpler to say that "Monster with immunity are completely unaffected by powers with the stated keyword"?

The way I read it, that's pretty much what MM282 does say.

It's not what PHB55 says, of course.

I think the subtlety of denoting "damage and (other) effects" was deliberate and allows powers with multiple keywords to be at least partially useful in those situations. If you're right, (and I'm leaning that way as I write) then I think the "other" is there to note that it's effects "other than damage" that it's talking about.

Effects other than poison damage.

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

The primary attack is not strictly fire damage. As with all immunities, if you're not immune to physical, you'll take the 1d10 physical damage. If you're immune to fire, you'll ignore the 1d6 fire damage, but you still take the 1d10 physical, and are subject to the poison attack. if you're immune to poison, you're immune to the entire secondary attack.

There's no such damage type as 'physical'. There is only 'untyped' damage. See Eldritch Rain.

Immunity cares about Keywords, resistance cares about damage types. Keywords are only selective on effects if they explicitly say so. Otherwise, there's no 'This is this, and that is that.'

Here's an example why it can't be selective. Let's say you have a power:

Dynophobia
Encounter - Arcane, Thunder, Fear, Implement.
Ranged 10
Attack: Intellegence vs Fortitude
Hit: Target takes 2d10 thunder damage, is pushed a number of squares equal to your wisdom modifier, and is immobilized (save ends)

Now... which part is the fear part, which part is the thunder?

The thunder damage is obviously 'thunder' by your interpretation, but what about the push? Both thunder powers and fear powers have push effects as part of their milieu.

But let's say thunder is restricted to damage only... then wouldn't feats or items that increase the number of squares of pushing a thunder effect does be useless?

See, it -can't- work that way, because there's too many holes, and the rules give zero guidelines on how to even begin to adjudicate it.

It's messy, and puts too much in the hands of the DM to interpret without -any guidance what-so-ever.-

You cannot interpret the rule that way without inventing rules of your own to cover the holes, therefore, it cannot be the rule.