| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Skeletons have Immunity to cold attacks.
Are they vulnerable to fire?
The text is pretty clear about it, but it's not sitting right with me.
Wait, aren't there creatures with immunity to both fire and cold (demons?)? So, wouldn't that mean they are both immune and vulenrable? I know, immunity would overwrite the vulnerability, but that seems a little to black and white. I would think, since vulnerablity is a defined weakness, unless it is stated under a creature's weaknesses, it is not vulnerable to the opposite enrgy type. At least, that's how I am going to interpret it. Sometimes, the critters need all the help they can get (poor demons).
Demons are immune to electricity, not fire or cold. Devils, on the other hand, are immune to fire.
Mr. Lincoln, I think you've come to the proper legal conclusion. On the other hand, my common sense just tells me that skeletons being vulnerable to fire makes no sense; flesh burns more easily than bone, after all. *shrug*
“Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
LOL! A good M:tG quote from the best character they ever made!
Evil DM thought for the day...
Give the players a ring of cold immunity, then hit them with fire spells....
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Skeletons have Immunity to cold attacks.
Are they vulnerable to fire?
The text is pretty clear about it, but it's not sitting right with me.
No way! That's got to be a mistake.
In my games, they are not vulnerable unless their stat block specifically says they are.
|
Would the ring trick really work? *plots* I've been trying to kill this one greedy player for quite a while ...
If you want them dead just do it already. Make it seem tangentially plausible and it's okay. Maybe some big bad rushes in and stabs them in the heart, but suddenly some kind of crippling injury catches up to them so they run away afterward. This could also give the party something fun to chase.
Then again, killing the player before you've discussed with them the problems you're having is never an okay thing to do.No way! That's got to be a mistake.
In my games, they are not vulnerable unless their stat block specifically says they are.
+1
Immune to cold does not equal having the cold subtype.
"Cold Subtype: A creature with the cold subtype is immune to cold and vulnerable to fire. (Bestiary pg 311)
"Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect." (Bestiary pg 301)
Nothing in the description of the Immunity monster ability says that it automatically grants an appropriate subtype.
A creature that is immune to cold does not automatically have the cold subtype, nor does it automatically have vulnerability to fire.
Thanks Sean for the clarification!
Now, i must develop a "Bestow Subtype Spell" *Plots*
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Skeletons have Immunity to cold attacks.
Are they vulnerable to fire?
The text is pretty clear about it, but it's not sitting right with me.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/skeleton.html
Just look down the list at the Burning Skeleton. I think they just left it off the description, but Skeletons are in fact vunerable to fire.
A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.
Skeletons have Immunity to cold attacks.
Are they vulnerable to fire?
The text is pretty clear about it, but it's not sitting right with me.
No way! That's got to be a mistake.
In my games, they are not vulnerable unless their stat block specifically says they are.
Just because it's not in the stat block doesn't mean that it isn't part of the creature, as it obviously states that immunities have vulnerabilities. It's just an added redundancy to include it in the stat block.
Not sure where the OP got their quote from, but here is the Immunity from the universal monster rules section of the SRD
Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.
Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Nothing there about vulnerability
|
|
Just because it's not in the stat block doesn't mean that it isn't part of the creature, as it obviously states that immunities have vulnerabilities. It's just an added redundancy to include it in the stat block.
Immune to cold does not equal having the cold subtype.
"Cold Subtype: A creature with the cold subtype is immune to cold and vulnerable to fire. (Bestiary pg 311)
"Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect." (Bestiary pg 301)
Nothing in the description of the Immunity monster ability says that it automatically grants an appropriate subtype.
A creature that is immune to cold does not automatically have the cold subtype, nor does it automatically have vulnerability to fire.
@Marrak: I think it's pretty clear that (sans the subtype) it has to be explicitly stated, and should be explicitly stated even with the subtype.
Immune to cold does not equal having the cold subtype.
"Cold Subtype: A creature with the cold subtype is immune to cold and vulnerable to fire. (Bestiary pg 311)
"Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect." (Bestiary pg 301)
Nothing in the description of the Immunity monster ability says that it automatically grants an appropriate subtype.
A creature that is immune to cold does not automatically have the cold subtype, nor does it automatically have vulnerability to fire.
So wait, does the Bestiary supersede the CRB in this case?
I understand the Bestiary description, but the CRB is quite literal and says nothing about subtypes at all.
@ Stabbity: They are using two different Immunity statements. If you look at both of them here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html
and just use the search function, you will be able to see that the OP references the specific statement for the Elemental Immunity, not Immunity (Ex or Su). They are two separate rules.
There is a disagreement among the staff about the linking of immunities, vulnerabilities, and subtypes.
Of course, I am right, as are those who agree with me. :)
There is a disagreement among the staff about the linking of immunities, vulnerabilities, and subtypes.
Of course, I am right, as are those who agree with me. :)
This disagreement is not agreeable.
I have always run it so that merely having Immunity to Cold/Fire does not automatically give you Vulnerability Fire/Cold. Having the cold or fire subtype (and does being a creature strongly aligned with a given element) gives you vulnerability to the opposing element.
In Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which uses a slightly different elemental system, this also works for creatures of the earth and air subtype, with earth creature being immune to earth damage and vulnerable to air damage and vice versa.
|
|
I actually do agree with SKR on this one. Immunity to fire does not necessitate vulnerability to cold. If you're immune to it because your god said so (domains) or because of a magic item designed to prevent the damage, there's no reason to be vulnerable to the opposite. If you're immune because you're made of the stuff, then you have the subtype and it's only naturally you're vulnerable.
Basically, there should not necessarily be a difference between "resistance: just enough" and immunity.
FWIW,
I definitely think that Cold Immunity should not automatically confer Fire Vulnerability.
However, at the moment, the words in my book unambiguously declare that this is how it works.
We'll see if this is, in fact, an erratum.
There is a disagreement among the staff about the linking of immunities, vulnerabilities, and subtypes.
Of course, I am right, as are those who agree with me. :)
I think you are spot on here, Sean.
Cold subtype is cold immunity and fire vulnerability.
Cold immunity is not the same at all. Not all creatures immune to cold have the Cold subtype.
I think cold immunity should be able to exist aside from the cold subtype.
On a sidenote I think that the fire subtype is either used too liberal in some cases or should not also include cold vulnerability by default.
A red dragon or white dragon while certainly fire/cold immune I think 50 % extra cold/fire damage is a bit overkill. I didn't particulary like that change from 2nd to 3rd edition.
Neither do I think the subtype should be particulary vulnerable to the opposite element by default, looking at how fireshield/chillshield works for example. I can well imagine a fiery aura actually shielding the creature from cold based attacks.
As it seems now the entry is just a mistake, confused with the fire and cold subtype rules. (which I think is a bad rule anyway)
