Damage of two types but immunity to one

[Aegeri]

The funniest thing with that XP text is I couldn't work out why you were calling his post "Bold or Stupid: You". Until I read what you wrote I was wondering if you intended to call him either bold, stupid or both.

 

[Solvarn]

Bad example.

The rules for immunity in the PHB3 specifically tell you that immunity to poison specifically makes you immune to non-damaging parts of the power.

If you get hit with a power with the Fear and Poison keywords:

If you are immune to fear, you take damage, but nothing else happens
If you are immune to poison, you do not take any poison damage, no non-damaging parts of the power apply, but you'd take any non-poison damage the power has
If you are immune to fear AND poison, it works exactly as if you were only immune to poison.

Prismatic Ray, for instance, would still deal its fire damage.

The only keyword you can be immune to and avoid -everything- is gaze.

Doesn't happen often.

immune: If you are immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire). you don't take that type of damage. lf 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.

Per the RAW there correct on all counts, thanks for the correction.​

 

[Gradine]

it strikes me that a rule that is printed only once, buried in a magic item power in a splatbook, parentheses or no, is likely closer to an exception than a rule. This appears to be cooroborated by the only other non-wand magic item in the same book that deals multiple damage types: the Ring of Shadow Guard (AV, pg 159), which deals cold and necrotic damage but leaves out the "reminder text" that the Storm Shield contains. The argument could be made that the Storm Shield is printed earlier in the book, but who's opening the Adventurer's Vault at page 1 and reading it cover to cover? Said "reminder text" could simply be a special inherent trait of the Storm Shield's power. Sure, the parentheses seem to indicate otherwise, but trying to draw a definitive claim out of a buried parenthetical not mirrored later in the same book (or anywhere else in the RAW) is as much reading the tea leaves as trying to draw a definitive claim out of the oft-quoted vague errata'd PHB text.

Not trying to be too terribly difficult here, I also believe the RAI is that you need immunity to both types otherwise you take full damage, but it's not clearly stated and I frankly think you can infer whatever you want out of the vague offerings as written. It's not something I agree with on principle, personally, but at this point I think we can all (mostly) that whatever leads to creatures taking more damage is probably for the best. In a perfect world I'd house-rule in half-damage for immunities and stacking resistances (or at least using the highest resist value rather than the lowest), but once we start getting to the level where resistances and immunities start becoming commonplace, do we really need to make creatures tougher to kill? I tend to think not.

 

[Aulirophile]

It is clearly clarified in the errata, which was posted on page 1.

 

[DracoSuave]

AV, pg 121 - Storm Shield daily power:

"Power (Daily ✦ Lightning, Thunder): Immediate Reaction.
Use this power when you are hit by a melee attack.
Deal 2d6 lightning and thunder damage to the attacker.
(The attacker must have resistance or immunity to both
damage types to reduce or ignore this damage.)"

Since it's written in parenthesis I believe it's reminder text, which should indicate a general rule and not a specific exception.

Since it contradicts the general rule, I'd say it's not reminder text, given there's NO RULE IN EXISTANCE TO REMIND YOU OF. This is not Magic: The Gathering. -That- game has the rule where text in perentheses is reminder text. This game is not Magic: The Gathering. Applying Magic: The Gathering rules to Dungeons and Dragons makes as much sense as applying Dungeons and Dragons rules to Monopoly. (which could be awesome) I've seen people confusing 'resistance' with 'immunity', it should not surprise me that there would be confusion between 'Magic: The Gathering' and 'Dungeons and Dragons.'

Anyways:

Using the PHB 1 rules to adjudicate it (and no other book) means that if you have immunity to something, and you get hit with a power with that keyword, nada happens. No damage occurs. This is because the PHB1 rule is that foo effects do not affect someone who is immune to foo. And while 25 fire and cold damage is both fire and cold damage, if the power in question has the Fire keyword, then all effects of that power including damage are Fire effects, and therefore immunity to fire is a blanket NO to all of it.

That means Dire Radiance doesn't deal damage to creatures immune to fear.

And so on.

This is why we do not apply only the PHB1 wording.

That is not the rule you apply anymore, as it is superceded by the PHB3 rule which is more exact about what immunity actually means.

Now, in the case of damage with multiple types:

Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects.

That's the ONLY part of the rule on multiple damage types that applies to or even MENTIONS immunity. Then you follow immunity.

15 cold and fire damage is fire damage. Immunity says you are not affected by fire damage. It is not resistance infinity. It is 'The Damage Does Not Happen.'

Therefore we search for any rule that says that damage with multiple types is not affected by immunity to only one.

THIS EXCEPTION DOES NOT EXIST.

In exception-based rules systems, when you have a general rule, if an exception exists, you follow the exception.

The corrolary of that is, if the exception does not exist, you DO NOT FOLLOW THE NON-EXISTANT EXCEPTION.

Also:

Vulnerability is -still- not 'negative resistance' and doesn't behave as resistance does. It hasn't been for the entirety of the existance of fourth edition. Immunity has never been resistance, in ANY edition. This isn't difficult to grok.

A is not B.

Stop trying to apply the rules for resistance involving multi-typed damage to every other rule in the game.

 

[mneme]

Bad example.

The rules for immunity in the PHB3 specifically tell you that immunity to poison specifically makes you immune to non-damaging parts of the power.

If you get hit with a power with the Fear and Poison keywords:
...

Actually, deliberately crafted example (on my part), but yeah.

Also, realistically, how often does immunity to a damage type happen that you'd EVER need to adjudicate this rule? ARE there monsters common enough immune to any damage type other than Poison?

Nope. I've looked around for immunty to see how hosed some types are (who can pierce resistance, but would be hosed by immunity to their damage types), and they're -really- rare.

There are some, in nearly every common damage type (don't remember finding immune radiant or necrotic -- but the western elements? sure.) But mostly as you get into the Epic zone, where you have the option of getting abilities that pierce immunities if you're woried about it.

 

[Aegeri]

The one I can think of off hand is the Shambling Mound, which is a lowish level monster that is immune to lightning.

 

[hvg3akaek]

mneme: One thing I cannot grasp from your take on this rule is as follows:

A "Fire and Cold" power, by your ruling, would be weaker than a "Fire" or a "Cold" power.

A simple "Fire" or "Cold" power would be effective against anyone not immune to Fire or Cold, whereas one that does both damage types would now not be effetive against either group.

But, as they are stated, multiple damage type powers are meant to me more potent than single damage type powers.

Not only is there a feat that can add another type of damage to your powers, but tehy had to change how such items as a "flaming dagger" worked, to limit the potential abuse of said items. And then there's the clerical power of Astral Storm, which, by your reasoning, has to be an incredibly sucky power... anyone immune to Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder ignores it all? Wow, what an underwhelming power...



But - if the rules are meant to support the mechanics, if additional damage types is meant to make things more potent (as, with the resistance rules, they are), then it would mean that immunities had to be in the same boat. Multiple damage-type powers have multiple damage types so they can get around those resistances and those immunities. Sure, the fire elemental is immune to fire, but this is fire *and* lightning - it still damages him!

Anything else, and the powers and feats seem most crazy!

 

[CovertOps]

Ok...having just read and reread PHB p55 and the errata (sorry I don't have a PHB3 so feel free to jump in if something there modifies what I've read) I still think the whole rule hinges on how you read "...does not protect you from the power's other effects." Here is my reasoning.

That partial sentence comes from the rules text under the heading "Keywords". The very next heading is "Keyword Categories" that has subheadings of "Power Source", "Damage Type", and "Effect Type". Since no one is immune to "Power Sources" I'll ignore that for now.

"Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power's other effects." I can see only two ways to read this. Either damage IS or IS NOT an effect.

Damage IS an "effect"
In this reading (using the fire/cold example) it can be clearly read as "Resistance or immunity to (fire) does not protect a target from the power's other (damage types or non-damaging effects)." This reading supports my position because the power also does cold damage and immunity fire does not protect you from other (damage types or non-damaging effects) so you clearly take full damage.

Damage is NOT an "effect"
With this stance I'm going with the idea that effects ("Effect Type" sub-heading p55) are all about the non-damaging parts of the power. In other words immunity fire does not protect you from being pushed. This is supported by the text on p57 under "Hit" in the first paragraph that says "...page 269, for how to make attack rolls, how to deal damage, and how to apply various effects, including conditions and forced movement." This clearly separates "damage" and "effects" as separate things. Since this makes the immunity rule completely silent on powers doing damage with multiple types and with no other rule to follow it is then left to the DM to decide. To further clarify why this make the immunity rule silent..."Immunity...does not protect...from other (non-damaging) effects". Since we are discussing damage this rule has no impact.


Of these two possibilities I'm leaning more towards the second reading if I was attempting to discern RAW.

Let the debate continue!

 

[DracoSuave]

Damage IS an "effect"
In this reading (using the fire/cold example) it can be clearly read as "Resistance or immunity to (fire) does not protect a target from the power's other (damage types or non-damaging effects)." This reading supports my position because the power also does cold damage and immunity fire does not protect you from other (damage types or non-damaging effects) so you clearly take full damage.

Except there's a problem with this logically.

The power isn't doing an instance of fire damage and an instance of cold damage. If this were the case, then of course immunity to fire damage would not affect the cold damage.

What is occuring is that there is only one instance in question.

Now, because that instance IS fire damage, immunity protects you from it. And because there are no other effects under discussion, the idea that other effects are not affected by immunity is not even a valid point of discussion.

---------------------

If I have an element called 'X', then if I say 'X has a quality' and 'other elements do not have that quality' than 'other elements' does not and cannot refer to X.

---------------------

So:

If you have a power:

Elements in Opposition
Daily - Arcane, Implement, Fire, Cold, Fear

....

Hit: 1[W] + Intelligence fire and cold damage, and the target is weakened and has ongoing cold damage 5 (save ends both).
Effect: The target is pushed 1 square.

Immunity to weakened would prevent that condition, but not the ongoing cold damage nor the primary damage.
Immunity to fear would prevent the weakened condition, and the push, but not the damage.

Now:

Immunity to fire.

Obviously this doesn't prevent the weakened, the ongoing cold damage, or the push. But what about the 1[W] + Intellegence fire and cold damage?

Well, this IS fire damage. So it is negated. The cold damage aspect of it is not another effect. It is the -same- effect as the fire damage, and there is no rule that says that immunity must double down on double-damage type abilities. Because the damage cannot be an effect other than itself, it cannot be negated by the 'other effects' rule.

Therefore, it is negated.

Unless you can some how explain how something is a thing other than itself, your logic doesn't make sense, and requires some more explanation.