Again (wishing I had my PHB here to quote). The only reference to immunities in PHB is p55 under the heading Keywords. I know this because I searched my PDF version thereof. There is only one sentence there about immunity and it has been quoted many times in this thread already. Immediately following the line about immunity it tells you how to resolve damage with multiple keywords by splitting the damage among the keywords. Unless there is a rules reference somewhere else I am unaware of (other than PHB3).
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Damage of two types but immunity to one
- Thread starter Hazard_53188
- Start date
Again (wishing I had my PHB here to quote). The only reference to immunities in PHB is p55 under the heading Keywords. I know this because I searched my PDF version thereof. There is only one sentence there about immunity and it has been quoted many times in this thread already. Immediately following the line about immunity it tells you how to resolve damage with multiple keywords by splitting the damage among the keywords. Unless there is a rules reference somewhere else I am unaware of (other than PHB3).
*looks at p55* Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, if you took PHB p55 as gospel, it did imply that 1. damage was divided up between types, and 2. that even if you were immune to one type, you'd still take the other damage.
The problem was, while said books are no long as easily searchable due to eratta, phb 55 directly contradicted other texts that said that immunity meant you were immune to all effects of a power and that you didn't divide up multi-typed damage.
As such, one could either ignore phb 55 -- or ignore other rules. Mostly, people here ignored p55--it didn't fit as well into the overall structure.
The problem was, while said books are no long as easily searchable due to eratta, phb 55 directly contradicted other texts that said that immunity meant you were immune to all effects of a power and that you didn't divide up multi-typed damage.
As such, one could either ignore phb 55 -- or ignore other rules. Mostly, people here ignored p55--it didn't fit as well into the overall structure.
Since you are citing rules text other than the PHB (which frankly ought to be the place for all rules..not hidden somewhere in a DMG or MM) could you kindly post what/where?
CO: as I said, one aspect of compendium moving with the rules is that it becomes harder to identify the bases of earlier rulings without extensive research -- research that isn't actually worth doing any more.
Note that MM1 had a definition of Immune, though: (p282)
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.
That does actually, read literally, imply that attacks with the keyword don't affect the target even if they're doing the wrong damage type.
The custserv ruling is a fine one in concept. I've got an idea -- they should put it into the rules.
Note that MM1 had a definition of Immune, though: (p282)
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.
That does actually, read literally, imply that attacks with the keyword don't affect the target even if they're doing the wrong damage type.
The custserv ruling is a fine one in concept. I've got an idea -- they should put it into the rules.
CO: as I said, one aspect of compendium moving with the rules is that it becomes harder to identify the bases of earlier rulings without extensive research -- research that isn't actually worth doing any more.
The custserv ruling is a fine one in concept. I've got an idea -- they should put it into the rules.
Here here! If immunity was originally defined in the MM then IMO they messed up. The PHB should have been the complete rules text the way they set it up and the MM should only have been stats/fluff/ecology stuff. I'm sure an extra 20 pages wouldn't have hurt them and the rules text use they could have gotten out of it would have been enormous.
DracoSuave
First Post
This is the problem:
You are confusing 'damage types' with 'keywords.' They are not the same thing, in the same way an implement is not the same thing as the Implement keyword, the Beast Form is not the same thing as the Beast Form keyword, and a Spirit companion is not the same thing as the Spirit keyword.
Are they all related? Yes. The keyword indicates there is a relation, with varying rules to determine how they relate. But the keyword and the game element they relate to are not the same thing.
The same thing occurs with keywords relating to damage, and damage types. Take, for instance:
Blazing Starfall - Sorcerer Attack 1
At-Will - Arcane, Fire, Implement, Radiant, Zone
Standard Action - Area burst 1 within 10 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d4 + Charisma modifier radiant damage.
Level 21: 2d4 + Charisma modifier radiant damage.
Cosmic Magic: The burst creates a zone bounded by
burning ground that lasts until the end of your next turn.
Whenever an enemy within the zone leaves it, that
enemy takes fire damage equal to your Strength modifier.
Let's assume for sake of argument you are not a Cosmic sorcerer. This being your only Area at-will option, you might take it anyways because an Area at-will is good in the hands of -any- sorcerer.
The power only deals radiant damage. Ever. It can never deal a single point of fire damage.
HOWEVER
The effects of the power are still Fire effects, because the power has that keyword. The radiant damage? A fire effect. Also, a zone effect, an arcane effect, and an implement effect.
Abilities that interact with such effects will interact with ALL those effects regardless of the fact that all the power can do is a burst of radiant damage.
In the PHB, immunity states you cannot take damage from foo effects, and that is why someone immune to fire (pre-PHB3) would never take damage from this power. The entirety of it is a Fire effect. It just doesn't deal fire damage.
-------------------------------
Damage does not have a keyword, it has a damage type. If you do '4 fire damage' that is not '4 damage with the fire keyword.' Keywords are things powers have, and all effects of a power share that keyword.
keterys
First Post
So... for clarity, are you saying that Blazing Starfall still deals no damage to a creature Immune to Fire?
Or has the PHB3 sufficiently worded the errata for you to allow the power to work?
immune: If you are immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), you don't take that type of damage. If you are immune to a condition or another effect (such as the dazed condition or forced movement), you are unaffected by it. If you are immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep, you are unaffected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword.
Immunity to one part of a power does not make you immune to other parts of the power. For example, if you are immune to thunder, a power can deal no thunder damage to you, but the power could push you.
Or MM2:
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. A creature that is immune to gaze is not affected by powers that have that keyword.
Obviously enough, the rules have changed since the first PHB or MM.
Or has the PHB3 sufficiently worded the errata for you to allow the power to work?
immune: If you are immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), you don't take that type of damage. If you are immune to a condition or another effect (such as the dazed condition or forced movement), you are unaffected by it. If you are immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep, you are unaffected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword.
Immunity to one part of a power does not make you immune to other parts of the power. For example, if you are immune to thunder, a power can deal no thunder damage to you, but the power could push you.
Or MM2:
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. A creature that is immune to gaze is not affected by powers that have that keyword.
Obviously enough, the rules have changed since the first PHB or MM.
DracoSuave
First Post
No, I'm saying that the PHB1 wording allows that ruling but....
...the rules have clearly changed since then.
In fact, it is because of the 'powers with foo keyword are foo powers with foo effects' rule that the PHB3 was required.
Otherwise the 'immunity does not apply to other effects' line applies in the very rare instance where you have sub-effects of a power that do not have the keyword of the whole power.
That's what I'm saying... with the caveat that at no point have vulnerability nor immunity ever acted like resistance ever has.
(That's why I mentioned it in the past tense, and remarked that was how things worked 'pre-PHB3')
Last edited:
Similar Threads
