Tarrasque Question

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, that STILL wouldn't work, since Constructs (if I'm not mistaken) are immune to Necromantic effects. Ray of Enfeeblement is a Necromantic Effect. You could very easily, however, hit a Zombie with Ray of Enfeeblement, however.

Supporting UG:

Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects.

 

[moritheil]

Well its definately a penalty, not damage/drain, but it seems a little silly that something immune to damage/drain would be susceptible to mere penalties. I guess its something I just assumed rather than bothered worrying about rules for.

Ahh, time to torment some constructs with Ray of Enfeeblement !

You are not injecting poison in its veins with a curse spell; you are altering the fundamental underpinnings of reality to be less favorable for the victim.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Actually, that STILL wouldn't work, since Constructs (if I'm not mistaken) are immune to Necromantic effects. Ray of Enfeeblement is a Necromantic Effect. You could very easily, however, hit a Zombie with Ray of Enfeeblement, however.

Just had to mention that I realize I used the word "however" twice in the same sentence. Oops.

 

[Diirk]

Hmm, well I'm sure there's some stat penalty spell in some splat book somewhere that isn't necromancy or mind affecting, that isn't really the point tho. Undead are just as good an example. Its just as well undead aren't immune to necromancy effects in 3.5; control undead, undeath to death etc are all necromantic spells.

You are not injecting poison in its veins with a curse spell; you are altering the fundamental underpinnings of reality to be less favorable for the victim.

You aren't with alot of ability damage/drains either; poison is very specifically defined in the rule set and is far from the only way to take ability damage.

 

[moritheil]

You aren't with alot of ability damage/drains either; poison is very specifically defined in the rule set and is far from the only way to take ability damage.

Do you truly expect me to sit here long enough to look out and write up an exhaustive list dealing with each possible method of taking ability damage? If so, pay me.

Perhaps it should read, "You are not injecting poison in its veins or undertaking any similarly physical act with a curse spell; you are altering the fundamental underpinnings of reality to be less favorable for the victim." I think, however, that most people can understand the gist of the original form regardless of its failure to be exhaustive.

 

[Bad Paper]

greater bestow curse isn't necromancy

it's transmutation. That's not necromancy. It's also kinda broken.

 

[Diirk]

Hey thats weird, bestow curse was necromancy, you'd presume the greater version would be too.

Do you truly expect me to sit here long enough to look out and write up an exhaustive list dealing with each possible method of taking ability damage? If so, pay me.

Perhaps it should read, "You are not injecting poison in its veins or undertaking any similarly physical act with a curse spell; you are altering the fundamental underpinnings of reality to be less favorable for the victim." I think, however, that most people can understand the gist of the original form regardless of its failure to be exhaustive.

Well basically your rationalization was completely irrelevant to my complaint as there are quite a few creatures that are immune to poison yet able to have abilities damaged via other means. Moreover your modified statement still falls over because Ray of Enfeeblement seems alot more likely to fit 'similarly physical act' rather than 'alter the fundermental underpinnings of reality'.

See as far as I can tell, the decision of whether something is a penalty or damage comes down to 1 factor: Do we want it to disappear when the spell expires? In which case the situation that arises of if yes, then undead aren't immune , if no, then undead are immune (assuming its a physical ability, not a mental one) seems a bit contrived.

 

[moritheil]

Well basically your rationalization was completely irrelevant to my complaint as there are quite a few creatures that are immune to poison yet able to have abilities damaged via other means. Moreover your modified statement still falls over because Ray of Enfeeblement seems alot more likely to fit 'similarly physical act' rather than 'alter the fundermental underpinnings of reality'.

See as far as I can tell, the decision of whether something is a penalty or damage comes down to 1 factor: Do we want it to disappear when the spell expires? In which case the situation that arises of if yes, then undead aren't immune , if no, then undead are immune (assuming its a physical ability, not a mental one) seems a bit contrived.

Weren't you asking for a rationalization, rather than a rules citation? I fail to see how it's irrelevant. Maybe Ray of Enfeeblement just alters reality in a such a way that the victim produces less force when he flexes his muscles, rather than altering the composition of said muscles. You're telling me it absolutely doesn't, and that you can be absolutely certain that it doesn't. How do you know that? Are you Boccob, or Mystra?

If you don't like my rationalization, that's one thing, but to argue that my rationalization unequivocally does not work is ludicrous.

Something is a penalty or damage if it is a penalty or damage. Your argument that all things must fall into those categories, when you yourself have pointed out that there are things that do not fall neatly into those categories, is counterproductive. It is akin to saying that all slippery surfaces must have water, or else not be slippery, and that some "decision" must be made about it, when you already know that oil exists and can make surfaces slippery without itself being water.

 

[Diirk]

I wasn't asking for a rationalization, I was just griping And as far as I'm aware there isn't any rules citation; they simply forgot ability penalties existed. I don't think there's anything in thats immune to ability penalties, even tho basically any other effect in the game system has creatures with corresponding immunities.

Its like racial ability modifiers stacking: the DMG says they don't (or rather, fails to mention that they do, but stacking is the exception not the rule), whilst the PHB states that they do. Sloppy writing.

As far as your rationalization goes tho, I asked "Why do penalties work where damage doesn't?" and you replied "because some things are immune to poisons but not bestow curse". While what you wrote is quite possibly true, it doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.

If you don't like my rationalization, that's one thing, but to argue that my rationalization unequivocally does not work is ludicrous.

Meh, thats just putting words in my mouth. Your rationalization wasn't wrong, just too specific and thus fairly irrelevant. (as noted above)

 

[moritheil]

I wasn't asking for a rationalization, I was just griping

As far as your rationalization goes tho, I asked "Why do penalties work where damage doesn't?" and you replied "because some things are immune to poisons but not bestow curse". While what you wrote is quite possibly true, it doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying.

1. Fair enough.

2. That's not exactly precise. What I said was more along the lines of, "I can think of a very plausible reason that an ability penalty is a very different thing from ability damage," in response to your question about the need for differentiation. I gave a reason why things could be immune to poisons, but not bestow curse, as opposed to simply assuming it for unspecified reasons. Evidently, you do not agree that the reasoning is plausible enough to sway your opinion. I can respect that.

3. As a separate but related issue, by the rules, the two are different things. I happen to think that this is entirely plausible (see #2), but for anyone who doesn't, I'm sure it's a very easily explained house rule to consider them the same thing.

4. I can extend my rationalization to cover any example you present, as I have shown, so I'm still going to take issue with your calling it "irrelevant," because you are essentially stating that there is no rationalization at all for separating the two categories.