Rule Clarifications

[webrunner]

Should multi-elemental attacks inherently better than single-element attacks, as they can get around immunities, or inherently worse as they can be easier to be immune to?

Take Tiamat's Chromatic Breath, it's an "acid cold fire lightning poison" attack. If a player is immune to Acid, cold, fire, and lightning, the rules support either interpretation (whether they take the damage and slowed or not)

Which is 'balanced' really is the only choice.

 

[Gruns]

Not quite.

poison damage, or any other ill effect.

Actually, that comma isn't there in the Immunity description. As small as it seems, it makes a difference in how the sentence should be read. If the comma WERE there, then yes, damage would appear to be a subset of the "ill effects". But it isn't. It's no less important than the inclusion of the word "other" when talking about damage plus effects.

I still think there's too much redundancy in the immunity description for damage to be counted among the power's "ill effects". There's no reason for them not so use the more simple sentence "A creature immune to poison is completely unaffected by a poison attack". The fact that they took the effort to differentiate between "damage" and "other effects" when it could have been done in simpler, more obvious ways must mean something.

Later!
Gruns

 

[Gruns]

Well...

Should multi-elemental attacks inherently better than single-element attacks, as they can get around immunities, or inherently worse as they can be easier to be immune to?

Take Tiamat's Chromatic Breath, it's an "acid cold fire lightning poison" attack. If a player is immune to Acid, cold, fire, and lightning, the rules support either interpretation (whether they take the damage and slowed or not)

Which is 'balanced' really is the only choice.

If you see damage the way I see it, it works like resistance (when it comes to the damage) but reduces it completely to 0. Therefore, you'd need immunity to all 5 types to reduce the damage to 0. As for the effects, immunity to any of the 5 would stop it, even though it may be clear that the Slow is coming from the cold, etc. The RAW doesn't allow immunity to break down the sources of effects "logically". Perhaps they could have labled every effect thusly: "...and is Slowed[Cold] until end of turn." but things would get too messy when dealing with such things like Cause Fear: "...the target moves away from you up to its move speed[Fear].". In this case, the Keywords of the attack power suffice, for simplicity's sake.

But again, the issue is really whether or not damage was intentionally differentiated from the "other ill effects" as I and a few others interpret it.

Later!
Gruns

 

[crantastic]

I think it's a very optimistic interpretation of immunity to say that immunity to one thing means an immunity to everything. let me try putting it another way:

"I'm allergic to peanut butter, but i'm not allergic to jelly or bread. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is composed of peanut butter, jelly and bread."

the optimistic interpretation of immunity is: "I'm not allergic to jelly or bread, therefore, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is safe for me to eat."

whereas the pessimistic interpretation is: "I'm allergic to peanut butter, therefore, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is unsafe for me to eat."

 

[Kordeth]

I think it's worth noting that the rules never explicitly talk about how to define a power with multiple keywords, except to say that multi-typed damage is half one type and half the other. A power which inflicts poison damage is a poison effect, and a power that inflicts acid damage is an acid effect, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a power that inflicts poison and acid damage is a poison effect and an acid effect. I'd argue that a power which inflicts poison and acid damage is a poison and acid effect.

Per the rules on PHB p. 55, acid immunity would protect you from the half of the damage that is acid damage (because that damage is an acid effect), but not any effects of the power that aren't explicitly called out as acid effects. That handily resolves the apparent contradiction between PHB p. 55 and MM p. 282: immunity to poison means you take no damage or ill effects from poison effects, but not, for example, poison and acid effects.

 

[crantastic]

Hey all,
As i was afraid this debate would become circular, i "Asked the Sage" over at WotC. I just received their official response on our current dilemma:

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support!

Damage is not an "ill effect" as per the intended rules definition. (The literal argument that damage is a bad thing, therefore it should be considered an "ill effect" doesn't apply.)

Resistance and Immunity are not different degrees of the same thing.

Resistance applies only to damage.

Immunity, however, applies to two things. First, the "ill effects" of powers that have the specified keyword you are immune to. Second, if the power deals damage of a type that you are immune to, then you are immune to the damage as well. (This is because some keywords are also damage types.)

Example 1: A power with the Lighting and Thunder keywords that deals 10 lightning and 10 thunder damage and stuns the victim for one round:
Answer: Immunity to thunder negates the stun effect, negates the thunder damage, but does not negate the lightning damage.

Example 2: A power with the Lighting and Thunder keywords that deals "20 lightning and thunder damage" and stuns the victim for one round:
Answer: Immunity to lightning (or thunder) negates the stun effect and negates all of the mixed "lightning and thunder damage."

Example 3: Banish to the Void, Warlock 27 Encounter Power with the Fear and Teleportation keywords (deals untyped damage and teleports the victim, then makes the victim attack others.)
Answer: Having an immunity to either fear or teleportation negates the teleportation and forced attacking effects of the power, but does not negate the untyped damage.

Hopefully this clarifies things for you!


Take Care and Good Gaming!

i think they've done a good job of providing an elegant answer in a limited space by expanding upon the examples i provided them.

i'm most surprised by the resolution of Example 3. i would have totally botched the interpretation of that power.

thank you all for a thoughtful, civil discussion of some very ambiguous rules!

 

[Hypersmurf]

... except to say that multi-typed damage is half one type and half the other.

Per the errata, multi-typed damage is all one type and all the other.

Pre-errata, Resist Lightning 5 would be useful against 20 Thunder and Lightning damage, because this would be considered 10 Thunder damage and 10 Lightning damage, so you'd end up taking 10 Thunder damage and 5 Lightning damage.

Post-errata, the 20 Thunder and Lightning damage is 20 damage which is both thunder and lightning, and if you only have resistance to one type, you take the full amount.

Immunity is not resistance, however... and crantastic's Sage response notes that immunity to one type prevents all of the mixed damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Kordeth]

Per the errata, multi-typed damage is all one type and all the other.

Pre-errata, Resist Lightning 5 would be useful against 20 Thunder and Lightning damage, because this would be considered 10 Thunder damage and 10 Lightning damage, so you'd end up taking 10 Thunder damage and 5 Lightning damage.

Post-errata, the 20 Thunder and Lightning damage is 20 damage which is both thunder and lightning, and if you only have resistance to one type, you take the full amount.

Immunity is not resistance, however... and crantastic's Sage response notes that immunity to one type prevents all of the mixed damage.

-Hyp.

You're right, I forgot about the errata. That actually strengthens my point, then. A power that has the thunder and lightning keyword inflicts thunder and lightning damage and is a thunder and lightning effect, not a thunder effect and a lightning effect. Ergo, both PHB p. 55 (resistance or immunity to one keyword does not protect you from any other ill effects) and MM p. 282 (Immunity to a keyword negates all damage and ill effects) can be true: Immunity to poison negates all ill effects from poison attacks, but doesn't, by itself, negate all ill effects from a poison and acid effect.

The custserv answer cranktastic quoted, however, still directly contradicts the PHB, as the only part of p. 55 that was errata'd was the part about splitting the damage equally across all keywords. The sentence "Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects." remains untouched.

 

[crantastic]

The custserv answer cranktastic quoted, however, still directly contradicts the PHB, as the only part of p. 55 that was errata'd was the part about splitting the damage equally across all keywords. The sentence "Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects." remains untouched.

hey Kord, i know my posts are addictive, but it's CRAN-TASTIC, not CRANK-TASTIC!

i agree, the answer regarding effects does seem to fly in the face of what's written regarding effects in the PHB & errata. I think what's key to the concept is the difference between damage and effect immunities is where in the power's description the immunity is evaluated.

damage immunities are evaluated in event texts, and damage (not considered an ill effect in game terms) is nullified by an immunity if and only if the immunity's keyword appears on the damage description. Any damage not containing that keyword is still applied, including untyped.

effect immunities are evaluated at the keywords line of the power. if there's an ill effect other than damage, and the keyword of the immunity is on the keyword line, ignore all such effects. of course, we also need to be mindful that the "ill effects" are ones that are applied directly to the target, not indirectly. i.e. a power granting the attacker temporary hp is not good for the target, but since it doesn't directly affect the target, the immunity does not apply.

 

[Gruns]

Yes but...

"A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect..."

-Hyp.

Yes. The power is an acid effect. But this doesn't mean the acid damage is an effect of that, err, effect...

Later!
Gruns