Depends on whether the secondary effect is a result of taking fire damage or if it's unrelated.
Can you please list the specific example you have in mind.
With DR, secondary effects delivered by a weapon do not have an effect if the DR negates the damage completely, like poisons. Injury poisons wont work if the damage that would deliver the poison is completely negated.
But this is energy resistance....
I believe that if a spell does fire damage and has a specific separate effect that happens (I don't know, maybe it dazes?), then it's immune to the fire damage only.
For example, Elemental Assessor uses the four different energy types to deal damage with one spell. Just because a fire dragon is immune to the fire damage, that doesn't mean that he's immune to the spell itself.
However, if it specifically says that "targets who take damage suffer blah blah...", then yeah, they'll be immune to that.
Rime Spell (the metamagic feat) specifically states that creatures who take cold damage from a rime'd spell suffer an additional effect, and creatures immune to cold take no cold damage.
Really depends on the wording of the spell/damage effect. Some effects, such as some kineticist's blast infusions, have wording that specifically allows the secondary effect to happen regardless if the target doesn't take damage from the blast (such as burning and flash infusions) while some state it only works if the target got damaged by the blast.
I don't think you can apply a general rule here. Edit: If the spell doesn't mention anything specifically, I think the only sane option is to look at the spell and decide whether not taking damage from it would still let the seconary effect work or not.
If for example, there was a dessicating fireball that burns the water out of your body the red dragon should be immune because well.. its not burnable.
On the other hand if the fireball blasts someone back from the concussive blast that should still go into effect
The fireball blast knocking someone back is an example of a secondary effect.
Does the creature still have to make a save throw against the fireball spell if it is immune to the fire damage?
As was mentioned above, it depends upon the wording of the secondary effect.
There is, in fact, a "Concussive Spell" metamagic feat that does something like this, and it's worded as "A concussive spell causes creatures that take damage from a spell [...] to ..." Therefore, no damage, no rider effect.
Similar wording is found in the "Sicken Spell" feat: "When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become sickened..." Therefore, no damage, no rider effect. "Rime Spell" was already mentioned in this context.
On the other hand, the "Shadow Grasp" metamagic feat does not have this wording, and so it can still affect a creature that is naturally immune to the underlying spell with the rider effect.
So the answer is,.... it depends.
Yea and some alchemist bomb discoveries happen on a hit, whether or not a target takes damage, such as concussive bombs deafening a target or explosive setting a target on fire (doesn't matter if a target is immune to fire, it'll still be on fire; which could matter if the immunity is only temporary or if it's giving off a light source revealing it's location in the dark).
Xermaxm, do you have an example somewhere where it would be unclear?
Yea and some alchemist bomb discoveries happen on a hit, whether or not a target takes damage, such as concussive bombs deafening a target or explosive setting a target on fire (doesn't matter if a target is immune to fire, it'll still be on fire; which could matter if the immunity is only temporary or if it's giving off a light source revealing it's location in the dark).
Xermaxm, do you have an example somewhere where it would be unclear?
Apparently not. He was asked for a specific example and just said that it was just a thought experiment and he doesn't have a specific example in mind. Total waste of time debating how something that doesn't actually exists works.
Bombs are irrelevant because they don't work like spells. The primary effect of the bomb and any secondary effects are separated mechanically. You make an attack roll to see if the bomb's primary effect happens, i.e. damage and then the creature saves to see if the secondary effect works, i.e. concussion. The description he gave is a spell with two effects, creature makes one single saving throw but is immune to one effect would the other apply. Unless he can give a specific example of such a spell existing then the discussion is pointless.
If he is thinking on creating something like this custom for his home game then the house rules forum is the place for it.
Unless he can give a specific example of such a spell existing then the discussion is pointless.As this is a concept question relating to game mechanics, every spell is an example.
Actually, no. A spell, for example, that does not allow a saving throw (e.g. magic missile) is not an example, because there is no saving throw to be made.
A spell without a rider effect (again, magic missile is an example) is not an example because there is no secondary effect, so again the question would not arise.
I have, however, done your homework for you. An umbral shadow grasp fireball will entangle the target unless a saving throw is made. The wording of the "Shadow Grasp" feat does not make it conditional on the spell doing damage (unlike many other metamagic feats). Thus, based on the principle that the spell (and feat) do what the descriptions say they do, a red dragon would still need to succeed on a saving throw against such a spell, and if not, would be entangled.
... for all the good it does to entangle a dragon.
Unless he can give a specific example of such a spell existing then the discussion is pointless.As this is a concept question relating to game mechanics, every spell is an example. As the mechanics would apply to every spell it is not pointless to ask.
It is pointless though, because it unfortunately depends on the specific spell and the wording of the spell.
If we combed through all the spells we could in fact tell you for each individual spell whether or not the rider effect would happen whether or not the creature takes damage.
But it will not be the same for all spells.
So without a specific spell in mind, we can only tell you it depends on the specific spell and its wording.
The fireball blast knocking someone back is an example of a secondary effect.
Does the creature still have to make a save throw against the fireball spell if it is immune to the fire damage?
If so, then would a failed save allow that secondary effect (knock-back) to take effect?
It is a concept question that should be able to be applied to any spell.
There are multiple angles of approach to the concept going on here, though, and you need to make sure you're getting that. How exactly a spell with more than one effect should interact with someone immune to one of those effects depends on how those effects are designed to work - and that varies from spell to spell.
If a secondary effect is dependent on the first, then immunity to the first would render the second one just as moot.
If the secondary effect is independent of the first, then immunity to one effect doesn't change how the other one affects the spell target.
Unless he can give a specific example of such a spell existing then the discussion is pointless.As this is a concept question relating to game mechanics, every spell is an example. As the mechanics would apply to every spell it is not pointless to ask.
No, every spell is not an example. No spell has the characteristics that you describe. If I ask a question about AoEs you can't say that magic missile is an example, because well it is a spell and spells have mechanics. Only AoE spells are relevant to questions about AoEs. Only force spells are relevant to questions about spells with force effects. Only spells that fit your description are relevant to your questions about spells that fit your description and such spells do not exist. Upon such a time as the dev team develops such a spell then the question can be asked and answered based upon the wording of that spell's text. Until then it can't be answered because there are no relevant rules to look up.
It is pointless to single out a particular spell unless you have a base mechanic of how spells effects apply and are negated.
The base mechanics are that the spell does what the spell says it does. Conditions are negated individually, unless otherwise noted.
For example, the holy word spell inflicts a combination of "[k]illed, paralyzed, blinded, [and] deafened" on low-level creatures in the area of effect. A creature immune to paralysis is not automatically immune to blinding and deafening -- or dying.
The base game mechanics is "read and do what that specific spell says when it comes to any potential secondary effects."
Your "mechanics question" and "concept question" is asking for a universal answer that isn't provided with the Pathfinder rules. There is no blanket mechanic ruling applying to all spells because each spell IS different because different writers wrote different spells with differing regards to wording.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am asking what the base mechanics are. So that any particular spell can be compared to those mechanics.
The base mechanic is 'the spell does what it says it does'. There is no general rule governing the interaction you are describing. Thus, we must look at the specific cases.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question now arises mechanically, what comes next?
5) ?
These are game mechanics, they function the same for every spell cast.
Here you are.
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes "see text," this is where the explanation is found.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question now arises mechanically, what comes next?5) ?
These are game mechanics, they function the same for every spell cast.
Step 5) Read the spell.
The same game mechanic for every spell cast.
Actually you know what, I'm throwing in "Read the Freaking Manual" as the universal game mechanic here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game mechanics are independent of the spell, and apply the same for every spell.
This was wrong the first time you suggested it, and continues to be wrong. Different spells have different mechanics.
Repeating a wrong statement will not make it suddenly become correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game mechanics are independent of the spell,
No. They're not. Many spells have conditions, special abilities, rules, exceptions, and their own rules about how things work that don't follow your flowchart. Not agreeing with your flowchart in the face of evidence that says that its clearly wrong is not rules ignorance.
As others have said, there is no general or blanket rule for what you're asking about, and the text of any individual spell is all that matters in this case.
The concept that's being referred to but hasn't been explicitly stated to you in this thread is "specific trumps general". In the general case of spells, each and every spell is its own specific case when dealing with the interactions of saves, immunities, and resistances. Everything depends on the wording of the spell(s) in question.
You can accept that the application of the primary effect can differ from spell to spell (ranged attack, auto-hit, saving throw or no saving throw) etc, so why's it so hard to accept that application of secondary effects differ too?
In the spirit of Inigo Montoya:
You keep using that phrase "game mechanics", I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
If this is the case then I ask that Paizo lay out the mechanics for resolving spells.
Paizo will tell you 'read the spell'. And point you to the Magic section of the Core rules.
Actually, no. A spell, for example, that does not allow a saving throw (e.g. magic missile) is not an example, because there is no saving throw to be made.Okay, this is how game mechanics work.
You cast a spell.
1) does it pass any spell resistance?
The creature does not have spell resistance. (this step still applies mechanically).2) does it pass it's save throw?
The spell does not allow a save throw. (this step still applies mechanically).3) Spell resistance has been passed, and the save has failed (automatically). the effects of the spell apply.
4) apply damage reduction effects of the energy type
The creature is Immune to the damage type and all damage is reduced to zero. (This step still applies).The question now arises mechanically, what comes next?
5) ?
These are game mechanics, they function the same for every spell cast.
That is usually the order in which things are performed because it makes logical sense to do those things at that time because of the rules text.
There is rules text about spell resistance that tells you when and how to apply it. There is rules text about saving throws. There is rules text about applying energy resistances. There is no rules text for what you are describing.
The question you ask would only arise mechanically if there were rules text that explicitly or implicitly indicate a next step. Such rules text does not exist so there is no next step.
Your question is like a 5 year old asking their father "Daddy, what if I sneezed and my head exploded." Dad replies, "That would never and could never happen." Then the kid says, "Yeah, but what if."
Your question is like a 5 year old asking their father "Daddy, what if I sneezed and my head exploded." Dad replies, "That would never and could never happen." Then the kid says, "Yeah, but what if."No, this question is the result of a group of engineers who play D&D.
We dissect every spells wording and how it applies mechanically.
Many spells are self resolving, many are not.
The base question of this thread is a question that arose when we could not find anything mechanical in the game that would resolve the issue clearly.
Like he said, 5 year olds.
Source: Am chemical engineer, many of my friends are chemists, chemical engineers, and computer engineers.
For future reference, anyone who insist on being a pedant about the rules is going to be a problem.
Remember this and resolves 90% of problems, the rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't. If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.
Your question is like a 5 year old asking their father "Daddy, what if I sneezed and my head exploded." Dad replies, "That would never and could never happen." Then the kid says, "Yeah, but what if."No, this question is the result of a group of engineers who play D&D.
We dissect every spells wording and how it applies mechanically.
Many spells are self resolving, many are not.
The base question of this thread is a question that arose when we could not find anything mechanical in the game that would resolve the issue clearly.
Because the dev team doesn't just make rules up for things that don't exist and that they don't intend to ever develop.
Also you are not dissecting the wording of a spell and determining how it applies mechanically. No such spell exists.
Edit: Ahhh, engineers...the oompa loompas of science. Its not that you are not good at what you do. Its that what you do is not worth doing. (Just kidding, Sheldon Cooper quotes just sprang to mind lol)
Yes, such spells do exist. There are several spells that this applies directly to. I am not giving a spell because it is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the games mechanics for resolving spells and spell effects. If I were to name a particular spell then any response would not be on the game mechanics, but instead on the interpretation of that particular spell.
Load of crap. You aren't giving an example of a spell that it applies to because you can't. If you could you would just to prove those of us saying such spells don't exist wrong.
You: How do such spells work.
Everyone Else: Such spells don't exist.
You: Uh huh.
Everyone Else: Give us an example.
You: I don't have to but they exist.
Yep, just like a 5 year old.
There is no spell wording that needs to be read to resolve this question. Only an explanation of the game mechanics can do so.
Shoveling on more crap.
No, they are subject to game mechanics.Spells ARE game mechanics. So there is no need for a general rule about this.
The general rule would be 'the secondary effects apply if the spell says they apply'.
What you're saying is that they're subject to overarching, consistent rules.
While that's true in some cases (polymorph spells for example, have most of their rules in the magic chapter, not with the individual spells) its not true here.
No, they are subject to game mechanics.Spells ARE game mechanics. So there is no need for a general rule about this.
The general rule would be 'the secondary effects apply if the spell says they apply'.
You pulled up a google search definition but you're demonstrating a very vague and apparently different interpretation of how it's applied to spells compared to everyone else. Everyone that's actually read the rules don't expect universal game mechanic to apply to spells and potential spell effects.
You and your friends are needing game mechanics to fully interpret rules on your own seems like Pathfinder (and probably D&D 3.5 and earlier) is new to you if you expect such uniformity of spell wording.
No, they are subject to game mechanics.Spells ARE game mechanics. So there is no need for a general rule about this.
The general rule would be 'the secondary effects apply if the spell says they apply'.
You are starting from an incomplete/incorrect assumption.
Certain parts of every spell are subject to general rules based on the Magic section of the Core Rulebook, yes, but each and every spell is it's own set of game mechanics that either confirm or specifically overrule the Magic section, or can add additional rules that don't otherwise exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear to me at this point that it will take someone at Paizo to answer my question.
It will take someone from paizo for you to believe the answer. Thats not the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear to me at this point that it will take someone at Paizo to answer my question.It will take someone from paizo for you to believe the answer. Thats not the same thing.
This!