Resistance to a keyword

[DracoSuave]

Immunity and Resistance aren't even related.

Resistance only works on damage, nothing else, and only subtracts damage, not affecting other aspects of a power, regardless of the power's keywords.

Immunity keys off the keywords of a power, so for example, you could have a monster that has Vulnerability to Radiant 5, and Immunity to Fear (not an unthinkable idea), and it'd take no damage from Dire Radiance because Dire Radiance (a Fear power) cannot affect it at all. Not only would it not take damage from the initial blast, it wouldn't take damage for moving closer to the Starlock. However, without the Immune to Fear, it would actually take the damage, and Vulnerability would trigger on the damage.

That's the difference between damage types and keywords. Damage types affect only singular instances of damage, whereas keywords affect the entire power, regardless of damage types.

Another example of how this works:

If a creature has resistance thunder 5, and you hit it with booming blade, it'll take the initial 1[W]+Int Mod damage because that's untyped damage. However, the damage it deals if the monster moves away (1d6+Con Mod thunder damage) will be reduced by resistance.

Keywords don't give the power damage-types, damage-types define the power's keywords, if that makes sense.

 

[Nikosandros]

However, the Monster Manual (p. 282) says that a creature with immunity cannot suffer any harmful effect from an attack with that keyword.

So this is in direct contradiction with the statement in the PHB?

 

[James McMurray]

So this is in direct contradiction with the statement in the PHB?

Yep.

Since the MM rule is a definition of how immunities works, and is newer, whereas the PHB rule is in the section about keywords, we use the MM one.

 

[tiornys]

However, the Monster Manual (p. 282) says that a creature with immunity cannot suffer any harmful effect from an attack with that keyword.

You're missing the fact that there are two types of keywords. Some keywords apply to damage only. Others apply to effects only. Poison is, I think, the only keyword that is both a damage type and an effect type, and poison is the keyword used in the MM example.

So, a creature that is resistant to fire takes less fire damage from a fire power. A creature that is immune to fire takes no fire damage from a fire power, but still suffers other effects from that power because fire is a damage type, not an effect type. A creature that is immune to fear is immune to all effects from a power with the fear keyword, but still takes whatever damage that power deals.

t~

 

[Nikosandros]

You're missing the fact that there are two types of keywords. Some keywords apply to damage only. Others apply to effects only. Poison is, I think, the only keyword that is both a damage type and an effect type, and poison is the keyword used in the MM example.

Upon reading the specific passage, I agree with you. It makes sense and it doesn't really contradict the PHB.

 

[James McMurray]

You're missing the fact that there are two types of keywords. Some keywords apply to damage only. Others apply to effects only. Poison is, I think, the only keyword that is both a damage type and an effect type, and poison is the keyword used in the MM example.

So, a creature that is resistant to fire takes less fire damage from a fire power. A creature that is immune to fire takes no fire damage from a fire power, but still suffers other effects from that power because fire is a damage type, not an effect type. A creature that is immune to fear is immune to all effects from a power with the fear keyword, but still takes whatever damage that power deals.

t~

I don't see where I'm missing anything. The rule is exceptionally clear. If an attack has the fire keyword, it is a fire attack, and cannot cause any ill effects to creatures immune to fire. That's what the MM says. It contradicts the PHB, so you're free to choose whichever rule you want (or make up a new one of your own), but there's no ambiguity. Attacks with keyword "x" are "x" attacks. Creatures with immunity to "x" do not suffer ill effects from those attacks. (assuming you use the MM of course).

 

[Morrus]

Thanks, guys! That's what we thought (and went with). Good to know we got it right!

 

[tiornys]

I don't see where I'm missing anything. The rule is exceptionally clear. If an attack has the fire keyword, it is a fire attack, and cannot cause any ill effects to creatures immune to fire. That's what the MM says. It contradicts the PHB, so you're free to choose whichever rule you want (or make up a new one of your own), but there's no ambiguity. Attacks with keyword "x" are "x" attacks. Creatures with immunity to "x" do not suffer ill effects from those attacks. (assuming you use the MM of course).

The MM doesn't contradict the PHB, because the MM is referring to what happens with the Poison keyword, which is both a damage keyword and an effect keyword. My reading is reconciled with both books, while yours requires a more liberal than necessary interpretation of the MM to supercede the PHB. Occam's Razor says I'm correct.

t~

 

[James McMurray]

The poison example is only an example. The rule refers to all keyword immunities. You're generalizing from a specific case. Occam would be ashamed.

 

[tiornys]

The poison example is only an example. The rule refers to all keyword immunities. You're generalizing from a specific case. Occam would be ashamed.

I'm not generalizing from a specific case. I'm interpreting the example in a fashion that doesn't contradict other sources.

t~

edit: consider the consequences of your interpretation. All Angels are immune to fear. By your interpretation, they're immune to all damage from powers that have the Fear keyword. That includes powers like Fearsome Smite, Lion of Battle, and Terrifying Smite, which are all weapon based attacks that are flavored as strikes with the weapon.