Damage of two types but immunity to one

[Black Knight Irios]

Does it though?

If a character is immune to fear and gets hit by the following attack:

Scarey Face - (minor, at will) - fear
Range 5; attack +X vs. Will; on hit target is immobilised until the end of scarey creatures next turn

Surely the PC immune to fear will not be immobilised.

Take a look at the last paragraph of the immune entry in PHB3 P221. No damage but effects can still "hurt" you.

There is this immunity fuzzyness:

• Immunity against a damge type protects from HP damage., like, 1d6 necrotic damage or 5 radiant damage, etc. but not against the effects of the power like push, stun, etc.
• Immunity against conditions protects only against those conditions, like stunned, slowed, etc.
• Immunity against poison protects against poison effects/conditions and damage
• Immunity against fear/charm/etc. protects against the effects of fear/charm powers but not against the damage b/c there is no 1d8 fear damage or 6 charm damage (except for immunity vs gaze attacks which negates the complete attack/power MM2).

Back to the topic wether 5 cold and fire damage get through immunity to fire or cold. I argue they do b/c cold and fire damage is not cold damage or fire damage it is both.
There are weapon enchants (like crusader's) that make half the damage you deal radiant/<damage type>! In this case I would say radiant immunity prevents half the damage. But not if the attack dealed fire and radiant damage which is not the same as 1/2 fire damage and 1/2 radiant damage.

 

[CovertOps]

CovertOps: I'd like to see textev there--that's the entire argument summarized in one sentence, both sides -- "immunity is infinite resistance" vs "no, it isn't, they never say that"

First: What is textev?
Second: Why would they need to include in the "rules" a truism?
If I have an automobile, then I have a car.
If I have infinite resistance then I have immunity.
They are the same thing. Anyway, based on 4e's exception based design they'd have to specifically call out if they were going to be treated differently as opposed to being treated the same.

I'd be really interested to see you defend immunity to a damage type protecting you from your vulnerability (in post #27).

 

[mneme]

CO: textev = "textual evidence".

There are no truisms -- there's only exception based design.

They never say that resistance and immunity are the same -- sometimes they clump them; usually not so much. More particularly, when they only say something about resistance or only about immunity, that clearly only affects one of them.

Re vulnerability--what's to defend? If you take 25 fire and cold damage, and you have vulnerability(cold) 10, you take an additional 10 damage. Not an additional 10 -cold- damage; the cold damages you more. If you -don't- take the damage (because you're immune to fire, or immune to gaze and it's a gaze attack), then you don't take the extra 10.

If you say "if you are

 

[unan oranis]

is anyone else going crazy reading the wrongest wrong people in all the lands of wrongdom just not get it?



edit: lol i just read this on another thread...

My first thought when I read this.

 

[Solvarn]

CO: textev = "textual evidence".

There are no truisms -- there's only exception based design.

They never say that resistance and immunity are the same -- sometimes they clump them; usually not so much. More particularly, when they only say something about resistance or only about immunity, that clearly only affects one of them.

Re vulnerability--what's to defend? If you take 25 fire and cold damage, and you have vulnerability(cold) 10, you take an additional 10 damage. Not an additional 10 -cold- damage; the cold damages you more. If you -don't- take the damage (because you're immune to fire, or immune to gaze and it's a gaze attack), then you don't take the extra 10.

If you say "if you are

If you take 25 fire and cold damage, and you have vulnerability(cold) 10, you take 35 damage. If you were immune to fire damage, you would still take 35 cold damage. In order to avoid damage, you need to have immunity to all of the keywords associated with the power.

Taking acid/poison damage, immunity to poison isn't going to stop your flesh being melted off.

The misconception you are operating under is that you are creating a new keyword, fire/cold, rather than treating fire and cold as separate keywords. It could get a little confusing.

What happens when you hit a creature with fire/cold that is immune to cold with the Arcane Fire feat twice for 10 damage each time?

The first hit would give the creature vulnerable 5 cold and do 10 points of damage.

The next attack would do 10 point of damage. Any of the cold damage is negated by the immunity. The fire damage goes through as normal. If the creature did not have cold immunity, it would have been hit with 15 points of cold damage.

Under the definition you are using, vulnerability wouldn't work with powers using more than one keyword, which is not the case.

 

[the Jester]

If I have an automobile, then I have a car.
If I have infinite resistance then I have immunity.
They are the same thing. Anyway, based on 4e's exception based design they'd have to specifically call out if they were going to be treated differently as opposed to being treated the same.

Well, no.

If you have an automobile, you might have a car, but you also might have a van, truck or other non-car.

Likewise, let's say you were fighting two monsters, one with fire immunity and one with fire resistance.

Let's say you have a power that removes the target's fire resistance until the end of your next turn. Only one of the creatures will be hurt when you follow up with a fire attack, even if both the suppression power and the attack power target both creatures. Likewise, if you have a power that suppresses fire immunity until the end of your next turn, you're going to be able to deal fire damage to one but not the other.

 

[the Jester]

Hey mneme, am I reading your position correctly in that it makes "10 points of cold and fire damage" easier to take extra damage from, harder to resist, but easier to completely ignore than just "10 points of cold damage" or "10 points of fire damage" or "5 points of cold and 5 points of fire damage"?

If I'm not misunderstanding you, your position seems to have some weird implications.

 

[mneme]

Hey mneme, am I reading your position correctly in that it makes "10 points of cold and fire damage" easier to take extra damage from, harder to resist, but easier to completely ignore than just "10 points of cold damage" or "10 points of fire damage" or "5 points of cold and 5 points of fire damage"?

Yes.

(actually, it's got a more complicated relationship than that with that last one. equivalent to take extra damage from, harder to resist, and easier to ignore completely than 5 of each).

Mechanically, I think that's about right anyway. Resistance is common enough that you don't want players getting hosed on resistance just because they picked up the wrong damage type. But adding damage types is absurdly powerful if you can manage it, so it's really a-o-k if massively stacked damage hates immunity. I mean, you've got this firey poison, or poisonous fire--whatever, that uses fire to make an entrance and then burns its way down. So if you're immune to poison, it gets cleaned out of your system and don't care. If you're immune to fire, again, sure, it's in your system, but it does its damage via fire--don't care.

It both does and doesn't make sense -- but more importantly, it's what the rules say. At the table, I might very well go with "immunity to a damage type is infinite resistance to it" as that's pro-player -- but the only way to get there from RAW is to interpret the hell out of what you think the rules -should- say rather than what they actually do (similarly, I'd probably rule that "bag of effects" type effects with multiple nondamaging effects would tag each of those with the appropriate keyword rather than giving each of them all the keywords, but there's no way to get there via strict rules interpretation).

Does anyone (particularly those on the opposite side of the debate than yours truly) wnat to take a crack at my comment about effects with multiple immunities in #29? If you're immune(fear) and you're hit with a Fear, Poison effect, do you take it or ignore it according to your interpretation?

 

[mneme]

The misconception you are operating under is that you are creating a new keyword, fire/cold, rather than treating fire and cold as separate keywords. It could get a little confusing.

Er, no. I'm reading the rules literally.
They don't say "if you're immune to all keywords of a power, you're not affected by that power". There's no "fire/cold" keyword -- there's a fire keyword, and if you're immune to it, you don't take any damage with the fire keyword (even if that damage has other keywords). The same for the "cold" keyword.

The only thing the eratta to immunity did was separate out what keywords were counted for immunity to effects, which ones were counted for immunity to damage, and which stopped powers entirely (gaze only).

Under the definition you are using, vulnerability wouldn't work with powers using more than one keyword, which is not the case.

Please don't project your own interpretations onto me.

 

[Solvarn]

Does anyone (particularly those on the opposite side of the debate than yours truly) wnat to take a crack at my comment about effects with multiple immunities in #29? If you're immune(fear) and you're hit with a Fear, Poison effect, do you take it or ignore it according to your interpretation?

"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 yeah, they would take damage.