Immunity: Just how much protection does it provide?

[Tellerve]

Huh,good one. Although I think since as far as I know there are no damaging Fear effects, ie 1d10 fear damage, then the fact the rage drake is immune to fear is to let you know it can't be hit with an Intimidate check to cow it into submitting. And there may be some other power that based on the fear it stuns or something, but dire radiance just does radiant damage.


*shrugs* I dunno, that's my take but certainly open to debate.

 

[CubeKnight]

Just adding more fuel to the fire here: What exactly happens if I hit a bloodied Rage Drake (immune to fear while bloodied) with Dire Radiance?

At-Will * Arcane, Fear, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Constitution vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier radiant damage. If the target moves nearer to you on its next turn, it takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier damage.​

Hmmmm, tough one. Since the first 1d6+Con damage is typed (radiant) and the second 1d6+Con damage isn't (the conditional "If the target moves nearer"), I'd rule that it would take the radiant damage, but could close in to you and not take more damage, in effect, "typing" the second 1d6+Con damage to Fear damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just adding more fuel to the fire here: What exactly happens if I hit a bloodied Rage Drake (immune to fear while bloodied) with Dire Radiance?

At-Will * Arcane, Fear, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Constitution vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Constitution modifier radiant damage. If the target moves nearer to you on its next turn, it takes an extra 1d6 + Constitution modifier damage.​

I'd rule the Rage Drake is completely immune. Dire Radiance is a Fear power, and Immunity applies to keywords and not only damage types.

Had it gotten resistance only, I'd rule differently. Then it would not resist Dire Radiance simply by virtue of the keyword.

But Fear isn't a damage type, so "resistance to Fear" is a non-entity in the game. It would likely be implemented as something like "you get a +4 to all defenses against Fear powers" instead. This means your example is actually supporting this interpretation as advocated by me and others:

If immunity didn't key off keywords, then "Immunity to Fear" would be worthless.

 

[NMcCoy]

Unless immunity is "damage of that type and non-damage effects from a power with that keyword", in which case a reasonable interpretation is that the rage drake takes the initial hit but not the triggered effect. I've got a request out to WotC customer service regarding the Blazing Starfall question but not the Dire Radiance followup.

Edit: Looking over the fear-keyworded powers, I'm inclined to consider this interpretation - consider the cleric's Awe Strike power, for example. The enraged drake not being immobilized from fear makes plenty of sense; ignoring the cleric physically whacking the drake with a weapon makes rather less sense.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I'd rule the Rage Drake is completely immune. Dire Radiance is a Fear power, and Immunity applies to keywords and not only damage types.

Had it gotten resistance only, I'd rule differently. Then it would not resist Dire Radiance simply by virtue of the keyword.

But Fear isn't a damage type, so "resistance to Fear" is a non-entity in the game. It would likely be implemented as something like "you get a +4 to all defenses against Fear powers" instead. This means your example is actually supporting this interpretation as advocated by me and others:

If immunity didn't key off keywords, then "Immunity to Fear" would be worthless.

From the wording for it seems that:

(a) If the damage is typed the same as their immunity, they don't take the damage

(b) They take do non-damage effects from powers with that keyword

From the example "a monster with 'immune to poison' never takes poison damage and can't suffer other ill effect from a poison attack."

It does NOT say you take no damage from a poison attack, just that you don't take poison damage.

Otherwise, they could have simply said that you suffer no ill effects, damage or otherwise, if a power has that keyword. Clarifying what 'parts' of a power you are immune to seem to indicate you aren't just immune to the entire power.

Being immune to fear/charm is easier to hand out to a monster since there will rarely ever be fear/charm damage BUT those powers often have rider effects that the monster IS immune to.

 

[FireLance]

Well, if immunity to one of the keywords of a power means immunity to the entire power, then a creature that is immune to Cold, or Fire, or Lightning or Thunder is immune to both the initial attack of astral storm (Cleric Attack 29) which deals 6d10 + Wisdom modifier cold, fire, lightning, and thunder damage, and the attack the cleric gets when he sustains it (2d10 + Wisdom modifier lightning damage) since the power has all those keywords. Perhaps that's the hidden weakness of the power?

 

[DracoSuave]

This line seems to contradict what Draco is saying and conflicts somewhat with the MM entry for Immune. Let's take out the part about Resistance because the "or" means it should still be logically valid

A contradiction means a situation where two premises taken in concert prove to be impossible. My interpretation is -far- from impossible, in fact, I've named two examples where it applies without houseruling that Keywords do not apply to the entire power. (which itself is contradicting the PHB) As far as I can tell, my interpretation is the only one what does not contradict all applicable rules.

A power with Foo Keyword is a Foo Power and has Foo Effects. That doesn't mean that every damage it deals is foo damage (damage types and keywords are different, if related, animals.) A Fire power can deal non-fire damage, for example. That doesn't make it a non-Fire effect.

Also, what of this hypothetical power:

Minor Weird Wizard Attack 1
Channeling your target's worst fears, you attack him with the essense of his own nightmare.
Encounter - Arcane, Fear, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action, Close Blast 3
Target: Every creature in blast
Attack: Intellegence vs Will
Hit: Target takes 1d10+Intellegence psychic damage.


The flavor of the power is that you attack him with his own fear. But, there's no non-damage component to plant down as the 'fear' part. So, under your interpretation this is a fear power with no fear effect. Under my interpretation, it's a fear power and gives a fear effect.

The simple fact is, there exists powers where specific effects have keywords other than the entire power. (Again, look at the Warden level 1 Dailies for proof) Thusly, it is reasonable to conclude that when the RAI that a power will have different keywords for different parts of a power, it will be explicitly written.


Also, according to PHBII, 'Encounter' is no longer a Keyword, it's a Usage.

 

[WalterKovacs]

PHB has a list of damage types AND effect types

There is no fear listed under damage types, only effect types. The list clearly indicates that:

(a) Damage and effects are different
(b) Some keywords only apply to one or the other, while some (like poison) can apply to both

It would indicate that someone immune to fear or charm would still take damage, while someone immune to cold or fire, would still take secondary effects of a power (such as a cold immune character still being slowed by the ice formed around him even if he doesn't take any damage from it, for example).

 

[DracoSuave]

If that is the case, then why would there exist powers which explicitly make the distinction for its effects that -that- effect has a keyword, but the rest of the power does not?

Also, damage is an effect, just so you know.

But look at Burning Blade. It deals damage, and then adds bonus fire damage to future attacks. That future fire damage IS a fire effect, because the -power- that creates it is a fire power. -However-... the power that it adds damage to does -not- gain the fire keyword, even tho it is now dealing fire damage. Therefore, damage types and keywords are -seperate rulespaces- and are -not the same thing-. The problem is that you've interpreted them as the same thing when they are not. Just like an Implement power is not an implement, and a Spirit power is not a spirit. But Implement powers do have implement effects, and spirit powers do have spirit effects.

Spirit's truly interesting because the power that creates the necessary spirit does not have the Spirit keyword. So, the conjuration power that makes the spirit for Spirit is not a Spirit power nor a Spirit effect, and the Spirit powers that require the spirit do not create spirits yet are Spirit effects. And yet, it's all effects of the spirit.

If -that- can make sense to you, then you can conceptuallize a fire effect that is not fire damage, or a fear effect that deals damage.

 

[NMcCoy]

For the record, here's WotC's CS response:

The scenario you laid out is a great way to fully understand how this will work.

In this case you are doing lightning damage (2d12+Int) and then you are doing poison damage (ongoing 5 and slowed). As the ongoing and slowed require 1 save to remove both they are 1 ill effect. In this case, if you were immune to poison, you would take the 2d12+Int lightning damage and would be immune to the ongoing poison and slowing effect, so you would never take damage from the poison, or have to make a save to remove it.

Make of that what you will.