More Keyword mess...

Bagpuss said:
But the point is they could have easily cleared it up by linking the keywords to the effects, like in Prismatic Spray, as it is it seems to be up to the individual DM.

WotC Customer support seems to confirm that's the case.
Oh, I agree they could have made it much easier. I'm just pointing out that, given that the rules require a judgment call, in most cases it's not going to be that difficult to make one.

The hardest ones seem to be powers where there's a keyword that isn't obviously tied to any effect in the power, like "fear" with Dire Radiance or Doom of Delban. There, it's probably easiest to rule that immunity to that keyword doesn't help against that particular power. As Jagdcarcajou points out, the keyword in that case might be added to interact with class abilities or feats rather than with resistances.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bagpuss said:
But the point is they could have easily cleared it up by linking the keywords to the effects, like in Prismatic Spray, as it is it seems to be up to the individual DM.

WotC Customer support seems to confirm that's the case.

The problem is, as many people love to point out, 4E goes from effect, but doesn't describe cause, leaving that to the imagination. So a DM really has nothing to base whether or not one of the effects of a power comes about from a cause that a creature is immune to. It leaves the DM at the oh-so-wonderful Games Workshop mechanic of flipping a coin, which WotC seems to have adopted for saving throws, to-hits and, apparently, rules.
 


drquestion said:
This kind of effect is where it gets complicated. I agree, it's not clear, but the DM is going to have to make a judgment call. It seems reasonable to assign the proneness to the illusion (because he thinks he just fell down a pit) and the stun to the fear (he's too afraid to do anything during his next turn).

So, I'd say, he takes the damage and falls prone, but isn't stunned. It seems like that would be a reasonable interpretation of both the RAW and the power.

My take on this as well.
 

Oompa said:
But it is also arcane right? So he would get half damage?

I thought i readt somewhere in the books, if someone is immune for acid, and an power does acid and fire, they would still get fire.. does this also work with arcane and illusion?

No such thing as "arcane" damage. "Arcane" is a power source.

I really don't see much confusion here. Perhaps "psychic" should have been in the keyword line, but it wouldn't matter if it was. It's an ILLUSION that does PSYCHIC damage, the cyclops is immune to illusions, end of story. (Same if a target was immune to psychic damage -- the fact it's an illusion doesn't matter.) If you're immune to illusions, you are unaffected by any illusion effect, no matter what form the damage it deals. There is (currently) no such thing as "illusion" damage.

It's easy to imagine a spell called "Phantom Flames", which would be an illusion which did fire damage. A creature immune to either fire OR illusion would be unaffected. The illusion is HOW, the fire (or psychic) is WHAT.

Sorry, not seeing the "mess" here. Maybe it's 'cause I've been playing M:TG since 1993, but the keywording in 4e is very simple and clear to me.
 


cyclopses and illusions

They "automatically see through" illusions: that might not be the same thing as immunity. i'd go with them taking damge from damage dealing illusions, but not suffering any other effects.
 


As was asked before where does it say Truesight equals immunity to illusions?

All I can find about Truesight is in the glossary in the back of the MM:

Truesight: The monster can see invisible creatures or objects within the specified range and within its line of sight.
 

SableWyvern said:
OTOH, if your tree was immune to fire (say, because it was made out of asbestos), you would expect it to not burst into flames or take fire damage. The fact that the attack was electrical doesn't change that.

Edit: IOW, if an attack deals psychic damage, it shoud include the Psychic keyword, and be affected by psychic defences.

In the case of the tree, which is Immune: Fire, it would
a) be hit by the lightning attack, dealing whatever damage it's supposed to deal (let's say 3d6 thunder damage)
b) be given an ongoing effect 'on fire', which it can save from. If the effect, however, is specified as fire, it's immune to it.
c) not take damage from the fire because, glossary in the MM says 'The monster has immunity to the stated kind of damage or effect'.

It's an odd sort of situation, but it does come up as per rules.. it's possible for a tiefling to be set on fire and take no damage from it as well.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top