Negating damage negates effects

[Max1mus]

While DMing, I was told by one of my players that if a character trait negates damage from a power, that the additional effects of that power are also negated. Here is the example:

A Theurge attacks a tiefling with Brimstone Hail which causes fire damage and knocks the target prone on a hit. The tiefling negates all the damage with his fire resistance.

The player assumes that the tiefling would NOT be knocked prone because all the damage was negated. Is this true? Please reference your source if you find any evidence.

 

[im_robertb]

I feel like I used to know the answer, but then it was stealth errataed two or three times. I also feel like it might work differently for PCs than it does for Monsters, but that probably isn't right.

In short, I'm also hanging on for the answer.

 

[Feelitmon]

In my quick review of the Rules Compendium I found the rule (see page 225) that covers those situations where a target is immune to the damage type of an attack that also imposes non-damage effects. This is not strictly the same situation as a target who has such high resistances that it takes no damage from an attack, but it's good enough for government work. Here's the rule:

"Immunity to one part of a power does not make a creature immune to other parts of the power. For example, when a creature that is immune to thunder is hit by a power that both deals thunder damage and pushes the target, the creature takes no damage, but the power can still push it."


There are some powers where I could see where your player is coming from,
but gee whiz, being resistant to fire doesn't necessarily mean being resistant to being pounded to the ground by a hail of large brimstones!

--
Feelitmon
"In the faculty of writing nonsense,
stupidity is no match for genius." - Walter Bagehot

 

[Sunseeker]

A hit with a power causes everything within that power to happen to the target.

Example:
You attack with power A.
Power A hits.

Power A has two effects.
1: it does damage.
2: it makes the target dazed.

Target has damage resistance, and takes no damage.
Target is dazed.

Each effect, while part of the same power, applies seperately. Unless the power has a specific phrasing stating that without damage, it's effects won't happen, the effects will happen.

 

[BobTheNob]

Been playing this game since 4.0 came out and have encountered this situation many times. We have always played it that damage negation has nothing to do with additional effects.

TO THE OP : Before we go trying to find a quote that sais you should apply effects even though the attack does no damage, have you found a quote that sais you shouldnt? Be very wary in interpretations of rules in 4e, most of the time the way things are meant to work are very clearly documented, and when you start applying your interpretations of situation (the "real world" dilemma) you can unwittingly end up nerfing good powers that were never meant to be nerfed.

4e has to be, to the greatest degree possible, played as read. DR sais reduce the damage, it does NOT say "...and remove associated effects from power". If players start the "If it doesnt do damage, I shouldnt suffer the secondary" point out 2 things to them

a) Find me the ruling which back your arguments
b) Interpretation of rules and situation is the DM's job, not the players. They can contribute a position, but the buck stops with the DM

 

[DracoSuave]

The above is correct. Prevention of damage does not effect things that are not damage. The reason is simple: There's no rule saying you can. That means no rule overrides the rule (the power in question) telling you that you take that non-damaging condition or effect.

The converse is also true: Preventing a non-damage effect does not prevent the damage. The logic here is exactly the same.

Also, re: 'real word arguments'. If I entwine you in vines that constrict you to death, but you have powers that prevent them from hurting you, you're still entwined in vines. If I freeze you in a block of ice, and you're immune to the effects of cold, you're still in a block of ice. If I trip you and punch you in the neck, and you're not even bruised by the trip or the punch in the neck, your ass is still on the floor.

 

[TerraDave]

I was also running it as not taking damage from poison meant no poison effects. Then realized I had made that up.

Glad to see I was right...eventually.

 

[brehobit]

I believe there was such a rule (negating damage negates effect) in 3.x. That may be where the confusion is coming from.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I was also running it as not taking damage from poison meant no poison effects. Then realized I had made that up.

Glad to see I was right...eventually.

Poison, I believe, is a wierd one, because it's a keyword on both the effects AND the damage. All the other keywords are one or the other.

So if you have immunity to poison, and get hit by a poison attack that deals poison damage and slows, then you are indeed immune to both the slow AND the damage.

However if you have resistance to poison, then you will take reduced damage but still be slowed even if the damage is reduced to zero.

That's all IIRC

 

[DracoSuave]

Poison, I believe, is a wierd one, because it's a keyword on both the effects AND the damage. All the other keywords are one or the other.

So if you have immunity to poison, and get hit by a poison attack that deals poison damage and slows, then you are indeed immune to both the slow AND the damage.

However if you have resistance to poison, then you will take reduced damage but still be slowed even if the damage is reduced to zero.

That's all IIRC

Incorrect.

While you're correct in that immunity only deals with some aspects of a power, keywords are not themselves selective, and a power with a keyword applies its keyword to the entire power.

If you have a power that deals fire damage, and then poison ongoing damage, no part of that power is not a fire effect, nor is any part of that power not a poison effect.