Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4761962" data-attributes="member: 71571">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, ArcaneAttack: BlahHit: 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.</blockquote>

Verification