Damage of two types but immunity to one

[Mand]

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.

That would make the most sense, and remove all doubt as to what affects what. But apparently they decided to be more vague and let us try to guess in the name of simpler power stat blocks.

 

[Gradine]

The Dracolich thread made me notice something else as well. All Dracolichs have an ability that causes the target to lose all all necrotic (save ends.) There seems to be some debate as to whether damage immunity is just resist infinity or its own special case. Does the Dracolich's ability (or any similar ability) affect immunity as well?

 

[mneme]

Shouldn't think so, even if you choose to treat immunity(damage type) as resist damage type (infinity). The keyword is different.

Obviously, if Wizards makes a rules change to say that the two are equivalent, this changes.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I personally think that immunity (damage type) == resistance infinite (damage type) is perfectly fine. And I will play it like this at my table.

We will see what WotC really wants or thinks it wants or seems to think it wants...

 

[pemerton]

given the 'everything is a foo effect' not two paragraphs beforehand.

Are you referring to this paragraph?

The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword. A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways.

This says that a power that deals damage type X is an X effect and hence has the X keyword. It also indicates that a power that has keyword Z might deal damage of Z type or have some other effect that is Z-ish in character. But it does not say that every effect of a power with keyword K is a K effect. Nor does it come anywhere near implying that. In fact, at least as I read it, it strongly implies that each keyword of a power is associated with one or more discrete components of a power - for example, that a power with the acid and poison keywords that does acid damage and inflicts the slowed condition has two effects, one an acid effect (the damage) and the other a poison effect (the slowed condition).

 

[pemerton]

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.

In my view this is what page 55 of the PHB strongly implies.

 

[DracoSuave]

Are you referring to this paragraph?


This says that a power that deals damage type X is an X effect and hence has the X keyword. It also indicates that a power that has keyword Z might deal damage of Z type or have some other effect that is Z-ish in character. But it does not say that every effect of a power with keyword K is a K effect. Nor does it come anywhere near implying that. In fact, at least as I read it, it strongly implies that each keyword of a power is associated with one or more discrete components of a power - for example, that a power with the acid and poison keywords that does acid damage and inflicts the slowed condition has two effects, one an acid effect (the damage) and the other a poison effect (the slowed condition).

Let's look at this thing:

'A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword.'

Using that phrase, we then examine this power:

Caustic Rebuttal DracoSuave Feature Power
Encounter - Acid, Implement, Psionic, Psychic, Fear
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 2d6 + Charisma modifier acid damage, and the target is pushed 3 spaces. The target is slowed (save ends)
Aftereffect: 2d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage.

Alright. That's a cluster%%%% of different effects, and so it makes a good example.

Now, does this power deal acid damage? Yes. Therefore, VERBATIM ACCORDING TO THE RULES, the POWER is an acid effect.

Is the aftereffect part of that power? Yes. Is the aftereffect part of an acid effect? Yes. Therefore, the aftereffect IS an acid effect.

A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways.

This here says that a power could have the poison keyword, and that keyword could be dealing with all sorts of different things. BUT, it's a poison effect. The POWER is a POISON effect.

That means that effects of that power are themselves poison effects.

I don't see how 'But the poison keyword indicates it's a poison effect' means 'it is not a poison effect except for the parts that are likely poison' as opposed to 'the keyword means its a poison effect.'

As for the caveat that immunity == infinite resistance, that is no where mentioned nor implied in the rules.

Let's make this clear: Customer Service is often wrong, and has given two different interpretations in this thread. They've come out with rules interpretations before that are diametricly opposite to that mentioned in the rules. They've made claims that spirit companions are creatures, that weapon focus does not work on staffs, and that fighter's marks can stack with each other.

In fact, here's a misconception you need to clear up swiftly.

Customer Service is NOT WIZARDS OF THE COAST.

wizards.custhelp.com is a subset of custhelp.com, which is how the company RightNow deals with customers on behalf of their clients.

It isn't a room in the WoTC office where gamers gather to playtest the latest D&D stuff and play magic between responding to emails. It's a place where a -third party agency- hires people to take care of this, who may or may not be experts, or may just be people making 8 bucks an hour and have no knowledge of D&D short of what training they get in the door.

They are NOT a primary rules source, and it's irrational to think they are, or depend on them. My guess is that they are Rightnow employees who play D&D and are about as well versed in the rules as anyone here. That makes them as much an authority as anyone posting in this thread. No more than that.

 

[Markn]

DS,

Not sure if this is relevant but if you take no damage (because of immunity or somethign else) you still suffer additional effects.

Also, I'm not sure that effects are classified the same as damage. Taking poison damage and getting pushed does not mean it is a poison based push.

Edit: Interesting, MM3 specifically points out that poison is a damage type AND and an effect type. It is the only one like this though. Others are damage type ONLY.

 

[DracoSuave]

DS,

Not sure if this is relevant but if you take no damage (because of immunity or somethign else) you still suffer additional effects.

Also, I'm not sure that effects are classified the same as damage. Taking poison damage and getting pushed does not mean it is a poison based push.

1) Damage is an effect. There are non-damaging effects, and those would be your 'additional effects' but that doesn't mean that damage is magically not an effect.

2) Yes, immunity to poison does make you immune to the push. Even by the PHB3 rules. And yes, the psychic damage is a poison effect. It just isn't poison damage. Why is that? Damage types are not keywords.

3) Powers have keywords, and that power IS that keyword effect, therefore all effects of that power are themselves that keyword effect. This is the very reason why the PHB3 rules for immunity are the way they are.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

DS,

Not sure if this is relevant but if you take no damage (because of immunity or somethign else) you still suffer additional effects.

Also, I'm not sure that effects are classified the same as damage. Taking poison damage and getting pushed does not mean it is a poison based push.

The problem is effects don't have keywords incorporated in the text like damage has damage types.

So a power that pushes and deals 1d8 damage has the fear keyword. What would be the fear effect if not the push itself. So immunity fear prevents the push.

But a power that has looks like this, 1d8 damage and push 1 with the fear and charm keywords does what(?) if you have immunity fear? If you follow DS reasoning then it would deal just 1d8 damage b/c immunity to one of the two keywords is enough to stop the effect. OTOH, the two keywords allow more feats/PP features/etc. to apply to the power.

Still the current immunity rules don't make me happy.