Resist and Damage type

[Flipguarder]

First off Draco, Idk what foo is, but I want to eat it.

Second, You are completely and utterly correct

Immune: The monster has immunity to the stated kind of
damage or effect. For example, a monster with “immune
poison” never takes poison damage and can’t suffer any
other ill effect from a poison attack.

Meaning that even if TIAMAT HERSELF uses her chromatic breath on you point-blank, you do not feel a thing, because it is a poison attack.

 

[Mahali]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/257002-stealth-errata-alert-mm2-immunity.html

 

[Flipguarder]

This is what the MM2 says:
"A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not affected by it. A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not affected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword."

I don't understand how Firelance goes from that quote to:

"Similarly, a creature immune to poison would also take damage from a power with the poison keyword, unless the power only deals poison damage."

From the MM2 quote it sounds as though if you are immune to poison you don't take damage from a poison attack. It nowhere says anything about ONLY doing poison damage.

 

[Nifft]

First off Draco, Idk what foo is, but I want to eat it.

"Foo" is a metasyntactic variable. Like all metasyntax, it is delicious.

"So two foos walk into a bar...", -- N

 

[Thundershield]

This is what the MM2 says:
"A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not affected by it. A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not affected by the nondamaging effects of a power that has that keyword."

I don't understand how Firelance goes from that quote to:

"Similarly, a creature immune to poison would also take damage from a power with the poison keyword, unless the power only deals poison damage."

From the MM2 quote it sounds as though if you are immune to poison you don't take damage from a poison attack. It nowhere says anything about ONLY doing poison damage.

Yeah, the new stealth errata is a bit clearer than the old definition of immunity, but still a bit vague.

You can have immunity to a type of damage (Acid or Lightning, for instance), to a type of effects (such as Charm or Sleep), or to more specific game effects (such as Stun or Forced Movement).

Only two immunities are treated a little differently: Poison (as that is both a type of damage and a type of effects) and Gaze (having immunity to gaze makes you immune to all damage and all effects caused by attacks with the Gaze keyword).

So, if you have Immune Fire and no Immune or Resist Poison and get hit by an attack that deals, say, 3d8+12 fire and poison damage, you take full damage as your immunity only protects from the fire damage and the damage is also poison damage, for which you have no protection. In regard to damage types it works just like Resist.

Similarly, immunity to effects (Immune Charm, for instance) only protects you from the non-damaging effects. You still take the damage, no matter what type it is, and if you're hit by a power with the Illusion and Psychic keywords that causes you to be dazed and take ongoing 10 psychic damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the daze as that's the only non-damaging effect. You'd need Immune Psychic to ignore the ongoing damage.

And lastly, immunity to a specific mechanic does not protect against anything else, so if you have Immune Stun, and you're hit by an effect that stuns you and deals ongoing 5 damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the stun effect and still take the ongoing 5 damage.

In other words, immunity to a type of damage simply acts as infinite Resist (unless it's Poison, since that also is a type of effects, and then it also protects you against effects with the Poison keyword).

 

[Thundershield]

"Foo" is a metasyntactic variable. Like all metasyntax, it is delicious.

"So two foos walk into a bar...", -- N

"Pity the foo"...?

 

[N0Man]

Yeah, the new stealth errata is a bit clearer than the old definition of immunity, but still a bit vague.

You can have immunity to a type of damage (Acid or Lightning, for instance), to a type of effects (such as Charm or Sleep), or to more specific game effects (such as Stun or Forced Movement).

Only two immunities are treated a little differently: Poison (as that is both a type of damage and a type of effects) and Gaze (having immunity to gaze makes you immune to all damage and all effects caused by attacks with the Gaze keyword).

So, if you have Immune Fire and no Immune or Resist Poison and get hit by an attack that deals, say, 3d8+12 fire and poison damage, you take full damage as your immunity only protects from the fire damage and the damage is also poison damage, for which you have no protection. In regard to damage types it works just like Resist.

Similarly, immunity to effects (Immune Charm, for instance) only protects you from the non-damaging effects. You still take the damage, no matter what type it is, and if you're hit by a power with the Illusion and Psychic keywords that causes you to be dazed and take ongoing 10 psychic damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the daze as that's the only non-damaging effect. You'd need Immune Psychic to ignore the ongoing damage.

And lastly, immunity to a specific mechanic does not protect against anything else, so if you have Immune Stun, and you're hit by an effect that stuns you and deals ongoing 5 damage (save ends both), you're only protected from the stun effect and still take the ongoing 5 damage.

In other words, immunity to a type of damage simply acts as infinite Resist (unless it's Poison, since that also is a type of effects, and then it also protects you against effects with the Poison keyword).

I don't read it that way. The second sentence is an addition, not an exception. When poison damage is a type of damage, it is covered by the first sentence. When poison is a keyword, then the second sentence applies.

These statements are not created as an exceptions, and do not forbid both of these conditional statements being true and applied.

For example, the conjured wall from Prismatic Wall (with some portions not related omitted):

Prismatic Wall Attack
...
Arcane, Conjuration, Fire, Implement, Poison

...

Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude, Reflex, Will
...
Hit (Fortitude): 3d4 + Intelligence modifier poison damage, and you teleport the target 5 squares.
Hit (Reflex): 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and ongoing 10 fire damage (save ends).
Hit (Will): The target is dazed (save ends).

For example, if the target's 3 defenses are all hit by the attack of a Prismatic Wall, then:

• Hit(Fortitude) damage would not occur, because it's damage type is poison.
• The Teleport won't happen, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with a Poison Keyword.
• The fire damage still applies, because the damage type is fire, and it's not a non-damaging effect.
• The daze does not occur, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with the Poison Keyword.

 

[Thundershield]

For example, if the target's 3 defenses are all hit by the attack of a Prismatic Wall, then:

• Hit(Fortitude) damage would not occur, because it's damage type is poison.
• The Teleport won't happen, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with a Poison Keyword.
• The fire damage still applies, because the damage type is fire, and it's not a non-damaging effect.
• The daze does not occur, because it is a non-damaging effect of a power with the Poison Keyword.

Looks about right to me as well, so seems we agree, although I must say it's silly how a teleport can be a poison effect (translocating venom?).

As to the confusion about the Poison keyword, it appears as both a damage keyword and an effect keyword, meaning it figures among a power's keywords as soon as it either deals poison damage or has poison effects, and if the former is the case, then all non-damaging effects of that power automatically become poison effects as well (whether that was the designer's intention or not) as Poison also is an effect keyword. An unfortunate design, but it seems to be the case, going by RAW.