Immunity: Just how much protection does it provide?

[WalterKovacs]

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.

From the PHB:

Keywords help to determine how, or if, a power works when the target has resistance, vulnerability, or immunity to a damage type or an effect type​

See “Attacks and Defenses,” page 269, for how to make attack rolls, how to deal damage, and how to apply various effects, including conditions and forced movement.

Also, in terms of keywords, there are damage type keywords and effect type keywords.

Now, there are problems with looking at the word effect, because it is used multiple ways. For example, there is the "effect" line in a power which is what occurs regardless of a hit or a miss, which is not the kind of effect being talked about here. There is also area of effect and line of effect, which also don't count. However, it seems very clear when they talk about damage and effects from powers that they see damage as being something other than an effect. At what point do they say that damage is just another effect?

Most of the the time the refer to damage, and to effects. On a couple of occaisions they refer to them as 'other effects'. Ongoing damage is refered to as being caused by an effect​

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.

And you have interpreted damage as being the same rule space as effects.

Also, in the case of burning blade, the fire damage on other powers without the fire keyword is caused by the fire effect from burning blade.

An effect can do things like modify other powers. It just so happens that the fire effect is a damage effect.

It is possible for damage to not watch with the keyword. However, their are keywords that are defined as EITHER damage keywords OR effect keywords. It is possible for their to be damage that is of a type that doesn't match the keyword of the power, but that just means that damage is not subject to resistance or immunity of that type.

Immunity is to a keyword. If that is a damage keyword, it means immunity to damage of that type. If it is to an effect keyword, it means immunity to effects of that type (which, since non-damage effects do not state what type of effect they are, it must be assumed they are tied to the power's keyword).

Immunity applies to damage and effects. If damage were just another effect, than there would be no need to make immunity complicated, it would simply ignore all effects of powers with that keyword. That would include ingoring the fire damage caused by burning blade as even though a new power hitting you is dealing damage, the extra fire damage is still from a power with the fire keyword.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Resistance -only affects damage- and -damage types-. So Resistance to poison 10 would only apply to the poison damage, and not to the ongoing damage.

Is this true? I have searched through the books trying to find something to back it up, but the best I can find is that resistance effects damage, and ongoing damage is damage, so resist poison 10 would negate any ongoing poison damage of 10 or less...?

 

[NMcCoy]

If a target with "Resist Poison 5" has "Ongoing 5 Poison Damage And Slowed (Save Ends Both)", the target effectively negates the poison damage but is still slowed until they make the save.

 

[DracoSuave]

From the PHB:
Cut for brevity

I agree that immunity protects from the fire damage, absolutely, as immunity -explicitly- negates damage, and the bonus damage is a fire effect. What makes it a fire effect, tho, is not the fire type on the damage, but the Fire keyword on the power that creates it. What you have yet to prove, or disprove, is that powers that do not explicitly say so segregate keywords by effect, or the rules used to determine which affects which.

So, let's use occam's razor here. What is more likely, that they (without explicitly saying so, mind you) would segregate keywords mid-power without -telling anyone- or that when they say that -powers with foo keyword have foo effects- that they -actually mean it-?

Imagine this power:
Encounter - Fear, Charm, Arcane
Attack: Blah
Hit: Target is weakened and immobilized until the end of their next turn.

So, are they weakened from the charm and immobilized by the fear? Which immunity applies to which? And could you please point out where in the PHB or DMG it says how to divide this?

Or, is it more likely that in cases where different parts of the power have different keywords, they would say so? Like on Warden's Form powers. Like on a handful of Sorcerer powers. Like on a couple powers in Martial power?

The PHB says, -explicitly- that effects of a power with a keyword have that keyword. The powers mentioned above are exceptions to that rule.

Or, are you -truly- going to insist that the game has a rule that is not mentioned anywhere, does not have guidelines to adjudication anywhere?

I mean, come on. If they can put 'This is a fear effect' on powers that have effects other than the keywords, then they can do it for -all- powers that have divided effects. They did not. The only rational conclusion to make is that when they do not mention exceptions, exceptions do not exist, and keyword seperation does not exist.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Keywords are one of the most important mechanics in the game. They are more important than Stealth rules, more important than skill DCs. The entire framework of the game is centered around how keywords work. Do you -honestly- believe that if they intended keyword segregation that they might, I don't know, actually bother to put out a damn errata or clarification on it? Or perhaps, I don't know, set up rules on how to adjudicate it?

Do you -honestly- believe that such a thing would be an oversight? I mean they -did- do a rules update to keywords, put it in the PHB2. Nothing about Keyword segregation is in there -at all-. The only thing that's changed, keyword-wise, is that 'At-Will,' 'Encounter,' and 'Daily' are no longer keywords, but are Usages. That's -it-.

But I could be wrong. Could you please locate the guidelines and rules that say that they are seperated? I can't find them, anywhere.

 

[DracoSuave]

Is this true? I have searched through the books trying to find something to back it up, but the best I can find is that resistance effects damage, and ongoing damage is damage, so resist poison 10 would negate any ongoing poison damage of 10 or less...?

In that example, the ongoing damage was untyped, and that was the important point there. Had it been -typed- damage, yes, resistance would have applied.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I agree that immunity protects from the fire damage, absolutely, as immunity -explicitly- negates damage, and the bonus damage is a fire effect. What makes it a fire effect, tho, is not the fire type on the damage, but the Fire keyword on the power that creates it. What you have yet to prove, or disprove, is that powers that do not explicitly say so segregate keywords by effect, or the rules used to determine which affects which.

There are damage type keywords and there are effect type keywords. If something does damage, it can only have a damage type keyword. If it doesn't do damage, it can only have an effect type keyword. If it is 'normal damage' it will have a type, and thus it will specify what keyword it uses.

So, let's use occam's razor here. What is more likely, that they (without explicitly saying so, mind you) would segregate keywords mid-power without -telling anyone- or that when they say that -powers with foo keyword have foo effects- that they -actually mean it-?

Of course, you've oversimplified the problem so that it can be occam's razored. You've ignored that they have two types of keywords, one related to damage type, and one related to effect type.

Imagine this power:
Encounter - Fear, Charm, Arcane
Attack: Blah
Hit: Target is weakened and immobilized until the end of their next turn.

So, are they weakened from the charm and immobilized by the fear? Which immunity applies to which? And could you please point out where in the PHB or DMG it says how to divide this?

It is both a fear and charm effect. Both of the keywords are effect type keywords, and both of the effects are non-damaging, so it would apply.

You are making a non sequitor as the division of damage and non-damage is IN the PHB. Page 55. There are keywords tied to damage, and there are keywords tied to effects.

Or, is it more likely that in cases where different parts of the power have different keywords, they would say so? Like on Warden's Form powers. Like on a handful of Sorcerer powers. Like on a couple powers in Martial power?

The PHB says, -explicitly- that effects of a power with a keyword have that keyword. The powers mentioned above are exceptions to that rule.

Or, are you -truly- going to insist that the game has a rule that is not mentioned anywhere, does not have guidelines to adjudication anywhere?

There are guidelines. There is a list of damage type, and a list of effect type keywords.

I mean, come on. If they can put 'This is a fear effect' on powers that have effects other than the keywords, then they can do it for -all- powers that have divided effects. They did not. The only rational conclusion to make is that when they do not mention exceptions, exceptions do not exist, and keyword seperation does not exist.

Except for the part where they defined that keywords can either be damage type or effect type which is keyword seperation that does exist. The argument that "they could have done it but they didn't" doesn't really work. There is a lot of stuff they could have done to make things clearer but they didn't.

They have created seperate lists for damage type and effect type. Thus a power with psychic and fear as keywords, the damage is psychic, the effect is fear.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Keywords are one of the most important mechanics in the game. They are more important than Stealth rules, more important than skill DCs. The entire framework of the game is centered around how keywords work. Do you -honestly- believe that if they intended keyword segregation that they might, I don't know, actually bother to put out a damn errata or clarification on it? Or perhaps, I don't know, set up rules on how to adjudicate it?

There are 4 types of keywords: Power Source, Damage Type, Effect Type and Accessories. This is in the PHB. This seems like a very clear definition of how to adjudicate.

Damage type has to do with damage and effects that deal damage (either ongoing damage, or dealing additional/constant damage when conditions are triggered). Effect Type has to do with all other non-damage effects.

Do you -honestly- believe they created two seperate types of keywords if they worked identically?

Do you -honestly- believe that such a thing would be an oversight? I mean they -did- do a rules update to keywords, put it in the PHB2. Nothing about Keyword segregation is in there -at all-. The only thing that's changed, keyword-wise, is that 'At-Will,' 'Encounter,' and 'Daily' are no longer keywords, but are Usages. That's -it-.

They have made a lot of oversights in the book. The fact that effect is important, but ALSO that they use the word oversight to mean a ton of different things indicates they haven't been clear in that regard.

But I could be wrong. Could you please locate the guidelines and rules that say that they are seperated? I can't find them, anywhere.

Could you please locate the rule that says that damage is an effect? I can't find that anywhere either.

Also page 55 of the PHB.

 

[Piratecat]

Guys, a quick note. Please don't make a habit of disparaging someone else's rule interpretation by labelling it as a "house rule". It's something we particularly dislike.

Thanks.

 

[NMcCoy]

I think, going off the CS response as well as my own exploring of powers, I've figured out something like the intent of how this is supposed to work (the key is "immune to Foo damage" and "any other ill effect":

A creature immune to lightning takes no lightning damage from Lightning Serpent (lightning damage) and isn't affected by the poison (ill effect). A creature immune to poison does take the lightning damage but not the save-ends effect.

A creature immune to fear takes the initial radiant damage but not the movement-penalizing ill effect from Dire Radiance. A creature immune to radiant ignores it completely.

A creature immune to fire or poison does not take any of the save-ends effects from Prismatic Beams, though they will be damaged by the type they're not immune to.

For Prismatic Explosion, on the other hand, immunity only applies if the D6 results in a type the creature's immune to, as the power inherits only the keyword of the damage type it tries to deal.

RAW, I believe a creature immune to one of the types of multi-typed damage is immune to all of it.