I'd assume it makes any creature that is normally immune vulnerable, including those that are immune to mind-affecting.
Anti-Paladins are expected to be final bosses or at least elite enemies, so they're strong for a good reason.
I would only have it remove immunity to fear specifically. If a creature is immune to all mind-affecting effects, the aura wouldn't affect the overlying immunity.
Specific trumps general. It's a guideline for most things around here.
I know how the rules tend to work, and I don't believe this is a case of "specific trumps general".
Even if it is, in my opinion creatures who have no mind and thus can't feel any emotion at all (for instance: mindless constructs, mindless oozes, mindless undead) shouldn't suddenly be able to feel one emotion just because a 3rd-level antipaladin shows up.
Let me state my reasoning in a different way, using an example.
Look at the first part of the fear spell:
School necromancy [fear, mind-affecting]
It has both the fear descriptor and the mind-affecting descriptor, meaning the two are separate things (even though most, probably all, spells with the fear descriptor also have the mind-affecting descriptor).
So you can be immune to the spell in several ways:
- You can be immune to fear
- You can be immune to mind-affecting
- You can be immune to necromancy
- Or any combination of multiples of those (plus certain other ways, such as a golem's immunity to magic)
These all work separately. If you're immune to the spell because of method 1, you're still immune even if you lose immunity to method 2 (which you may not have had an immunity to in the first place).
If they all work separately, would the opposite not be true? That is to say, you may well be immune to it as fear, but not as mind effecting - therefore you need to have both immunities?
I don't think that sounds right, but I think that is where the line of reasoning leads.
If they all work separately, would the opposite not be true? That is to say, you may well be immune to it as fear, but not as mind effecting - therefore you need to have both immunities?
I don't think that sounds right, but I think that is where the line of reasoning leads.
I don't see how that follows at all.
You only need one immunity in order to be immune.
***
Perhaps I explained poorly. Let me try again:
Let's call "immunity to fear" A, and "immunity to mind-affecting" B.
- If you have A, then you are immune. If you lose A, you will be affected. However, losing B will do nothing, because you didn't have B.
- If you have B, then you are immune. If you lose B, you will be affected. However, losing A will do nothing, because you didn't have A.
- If you have both A and B, then you are doubly immune. Losing A or B will do nothing, because you still have the other. You would need to lose both A and B in order to be affected.
Does that explain it better?
I'll even try an analogy (and I'll spoiler it to avoid cluttering the page).
Let's say that the only thing you need in order to drive your car is a pair of glasses and a set of car keys (everything else is already in order).
In this case, you can be "immune to driving your car" by either losing your glasses (ie; "immunity to glasses"), or by losing your car keys (ie; "immunity to car keys").
In both cases, a single "immunity" is sufficient to prevent you from driving.
And in both cases, eliminating one problem (ie; "losing one immunity") won't matter if the reason you couldn't drive was the other.
For instance, if the reason you can't drive is that you have lost your car keys, someone giving you a second pair of glasses doesn't help.
***
Now, is it possible that the antipaladin's ability is supposed to work the way Icyshadow suggests? Certainly. But as written, I don't believe it does.
Why is nobody tossing an FAQ flag on the first post?
I know this is an old thread but for anyone still wondering I asked James Jacobs and here is his answer http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1312?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#65586
You know, this is something that has me curious. If a paladin and antipaladin met, what would happen since they have two conflicting auras? Apologies for the necro, this is something that my DM and other players in a homebrew campaign we are in have been curious about.
Other than the fact that both of them would try to kill each other?
The Paladin's Aura of Courage says the paladin is immune to fear, and each ally within 10 feet gain a +4 morale bonus on saves versus fear.
Antipaladin's Aura of Cowardice says all enemies within 10 feet take a -4 penalty on saves versus fear, and that creatures immune to fear lose that immunity.
So, first, the paladin loses their immunity to fear. Then, they take a -4 penalty to saves against fear. However, they also gain a +4 bonus on saves against fear, because this is one of those instances where it makes sense for them to count as their own ally.
End result, the penalty and bonus cancel each other out, and the Paladin is not immune to fear, until such time that he defeats the antipaladin (or dies trying) or moves more than ten feet away.
You know, this is something that has me curious. If a paladin and antipaladin met, what would happen since they have two conflicting auras? Apologies for the necro, this is something that my DM and other players in a homebrew campaign we are in have been curious about.
Since there is no specific rule about this, the only sensible choice according to the rules, in my opinion, is that both would take effect. The +4 bonus and -4 malus would cancel each other out, but creatures in the overlapping area who normally have fear immunity would still lose it due to Aura of Cowardice.