Damage of two types but immunity to one

[sigfile]

When you have Immunity to a keyword and a damage source deals multiple types of damage you do not break down the damage. To be immune from an attack that has 2 types of damage you would need to have immunity from both.

As promised for what it's worth.

This recently came up for me, as well (in my case, Painful Oath versus a creature immune to Necrotic damage). Customer Service had a different response.

So, in your example, if your character is immune to Necrotic damage and takes five points of Radiant and Necrotic damage (from the Painful Oath feat), your character does not take any Necrotic damage, but does take the radiant damage.

So, the damage still happens, but one damage type gets removed.

 

[Solvarn]

CustServ

Do you guys think they show up to work with character sheets, and answer emails on their iPad while they play? In order to familiarize with rules and all. That would be the coolest job ever.

 

[mneme]

Solvarn: amusing, but probably not. roleplaying at work is for after-work or lunch breaks, methinks.

sigfile: Methinks custserv is still smoking something. Based on those two responses, at least, they've got an idea of what the PTB want the -result- to be (you still take the damage unless you have both immunities--though oddly the "remove a damage type" ruling, despite coming out of literally nowhere, would let immune: fire and resist cold (10) play well with, say, 9 fire and cold damage. (on the other hand, so would the "immune to a damage type is identical to having resist: all to that damage type" idea, which seems to be the direction things are actually going -- and -that- would play well with a creature that was immune: fire, vulnerable: fire (5), resist: cold(10) and got hit with 9 fire and cold damage (my answer, -if- one assumes the above rule rather than the literal rules: the creature takes 4 fire and cold damage).

 

[eamon]

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.

In pre-errata PHB, it's says that immunity to one keyword of a power doesn't protect from the power's other effects. Interpreted over-literally, that's just fine, albeit meaningless: by definition the power has no other effects. That's missing the forest for the trees, however: clearly, we're aiming to use the rules, not merely the words in which they are written. Imperfection and incompleteness are inevitable, both in the concept of the rules and in the text.

This rule is obviously problematic in that it is not generally specified which part of a power's effect is attributable to which keyword - and obviously that flaw was one they had in mind in the errata. But even pre-errata, it's possible to do much better (as in much more reasonably likely to make sense) - particularly in terms of damage, which is explicitly labelled with a type.

Just because the rules are inconsistent or incomplete in a particular area does not generally mean that all interpretations are thus equal - or that, in particular, a mechanistic interpretation is somehow superior. Often there's indirect evidence as to the intent, and a player's (DM or otherwise) common sense as to what works - which are much more likely to result in reasonable rulings.

The errata that eventually appeared underlines this: that errata is much closer to the "obvious" interpretation that infers effect types for damage based on damage keywords than the pre-errata mechanistic interpretation.

The rules are not a computer program. In human language, common sense, intent and implied context are real and usable - and we can use those to read more accurately - more correctly - than a mechanical, blinkered reader that doesn't see or interpret the context.

 

[Mand]

I'd say this is where we call the RAI as a closed subject.

 

[eamon]

When you have Immunity to a keyword and a damage source deals multiple types of damage you do not break down the damage. To be immune from an attack that has 2 types of damage you would need to have immunity from both.

This recently came up for me, as well (in my case, Painful Oath versus a creature immune to Necrotic damage). Customer Service had a different response.

So, in your example, if your character is immune to Necrotic damage and takes five points of Radiant and Necrotic damage (from the Painful Oath feat), your character does not take any Necrotic damage, but does take the radiant damage.

So, the damage still happens, but one damage type gets removed.

They may have explained it a little differently, but it comes down to the same thing: you take the damage unless immune to all types.

I'd say this is where we call the RAI as a closed subject.

My thoughts exactly; summing up this thread in my view then:

• The rules are not clear on how immunity interacts with multiple damage types.
• They are clear on how resistances interact with multiple damage types.
• Immunity & resistance are related concepts and it makes sense to treat immunity like resistance when faced with multiple damage types - and that's what Customer Service is doing: in this view immunity to a damage type is like arbitrarily high resistance to that damage type.
• However, clearly this isn't literally specified by the text; it's just a reasonable inference.

 

[DracoSuave]

In pre-errata PHB, it's says that immunity to one keyword of a power doesn't protect from the power's other effects. Interpreted over-literally, that's just fine, albeit meaningless: by definition the power has no other effects. That's missing the forest for the trees, however: clearly, we're aiming to use the rules, not merely the words in which they are written. Imperfection and incompleteness are inevitable, both in the concept of the rules and in the text.

Actually that's not -entirely- true.

There exist a small handful of powers that have sub-effects that have different keywords than the power... for example 'Effect: Push the target 4 squares, this effect has the fear keyword' and such effects would have had the sub-effect gibbled by immune to fear, but the entire power itself is otherwise unaffected.

But I do agree that the need for inference to determine such things is insufficient, given the 'everything is a foo effect' not two paragraphs beforehand.

However, I still disagree that immunity is like resistance; it is not. Immunity is 'you are not affected by the property' and resistance is 'you take less damage but are otherwise fully affected by the property.' Immunity can include pushes, prones, dazes, and all sorts of other nasty works. Resistance can never touch those things, and is -only- related to the calculation of damage.

In otherwords, I can envision something that is difficult to resist being completely shrugged off by someone who cannot in any way be touched by that property.

As an analogy:

You can have a watch that is water-resistant (it is less likely to be affected by water, but succumbs to enough water pressure) or one that is water-proof (water does not affect its workings at all in any way, shape, or form)

 

[Knowme]

You can have a watch that is water-resistant (it is less likely to be affected by water, but succumbs to enough water pressure) or one that is water-proof (water does not affect its workings at all in any way, shape, or form)

The problem with a real-life analogy is that Immunity is solely a game construct - nothing in reality actually has it. "Water-proof" is just a term for a certain level of resistance (water-proof for a certain amount of time or to a certain depth, for example). If you throw a water-proof watch into the deep ocean it's not going to survive just fine.

Or take a diamond... you might call it fire-proof or force-proof, but get it hot enough and it will still melt. And put it under enough pressure and you can still break it.

 

[CovertOps]

@DS: To be fair this whole discussion was mainly about the damage. With the caveat that we are only discussing damage, then the interpretation that Immunity == Infinite Resistance is a valid statement. It is also consistent with the 2 rulings from CS.

If this is the path that is being taken then it almost behooves Wizards to assign Keywords to "effects" instead of the power for adjudication of immunities. For example:

Hit: 1d8 + Int fire damage and fear/charm push 3.

Boy will that be brutal.

 

[Solvarn]

I'd say this is where we call the RAI as a closed subject.

I definitely think there is enough information on both sides for someone with a lot of time on their hands to read and make an informed decision.