It is clear to me at this point that it will take someone at Paizo to answer my question.
Xermaxm - I doubt very much you will get Paizo to answer this to your satisfaction either, since it is already answered in the rule book. The game has a GM. GMs adjudicate any such "grey areas" of the rules. This is the lightest shade of grey imaginable, but as such your GM will adjudicate it if it ever comes up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When this many people agree, in this forum, you really have to look hard what is being said. There is a lot of experience here telling you how it is. I'd listen.
Then the GM should make something up.
What effect is the GM adjudicating?
He won't say. Just keeps saying that is irrelevant lol. It is kind of weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Then you're the kind of engineers who ban electrical cars for not having particle filters in the emission. You have saving throws ass-backwards and your methodology is sloppy as hell. Seriously, what kind of liberal arts major equates "n/a" to "failed"?
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As many here have noted, I don't believe there is a universal rule stating immunity to energy damage imparts immunity to secondary effects. I don't think that you'll find a universal ruling because there is some variation in how different spells and supernatural effects work as well as their wording. At least part of that is intentional.
Why? It's often a matter of flavor. If I hit someone with fiery glue (made-up spell), I imagine that even if the target is immune to the fire damage, it's not immune to being glued in place. If the spell burning sensation (also a made-up spell) causes its target to gain the sickened condition because of how much the fire damage hurts, I imagine the spell is worded in such a way that those immune to fire wouldn't be subject to penalties from pain they cannot experience.
As others note, the wording "if a creature takes [energy] damage from this effect" suggests that any immune creature is not subject to the secondary effect—a valid, albeit strict, interpretation. It seems a little weird to me that a spell augmented with the Concussive Spell metamagic feat would not push away fire-immune creatures, but I can accept that as a valid balancing factor.
If you don't agree with interpreting the wording in this way, that's perfectly fine; Pathfinder RPG doesn't require players and GMs to follow the rules exactly if a different interpretation would make their game more fun**. If you and your GM can come to an agreement on which secondary effects should affect immune creatures, you've done things right. If you and your GM can't agree—or just want some help deciding—bring the community a few specific examples, and the fine people here can weigh in.
But to answer the original question, if the immunity in question is from a creature statblock, it's the Immunity universal monster rule, and that provides immunity to secondary effects as well. If it's Energy [specifically] Immunity, from a different source, it only protects against damage, and you'll have to check the rules for the individual secondary effect. Or, have the GM make a decision.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quoting the relevant text the very manly teapot mentioned.
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.
Oh interesting. Didn't know the monster immunity covers secondary stuff.
Oh interesting. Didn't know the monster immunity covers secondary stuff.
Just the stuff thats triggered, which is back to the DM's hands about whats triggered.
Then as was said before, "specific trumps general" (also the card game says this for cards that overwrite the basic rules).
(i.e. "... unless the spell description specifically says it can...", or "...Unless otherwise noted...")
If it says in a spell/feat/elephant's thick skull Description that you need to take damage first (i.e Dazing Spell: "When a creature takes damage from this spell...") then the Spell Description is what happens. (so Immunity kicks in first)
However, if you cast an Unholy Spell (I know it's 3pp but it's the one I could come up with quickly) for example, the creature would still take damage even if it were fire immune, as that's the whole point...("In addition, if the spell deals damage, half the damage is considered unholy damage, which bypasses any resistances the target might possess.")
It's like no-one would actually assume "all burst spells are circular"... or "all Spells have 100 feet +10'/lvl range"... You'd go check. There are so many spells now that skimming the spells you want to use is a must; you can't assume anything any more...
(case in point, when a player at the table keeps thinking the "Boon" works differently than it does, for good or ill...)
Oh, Fire may still "hurt" even though technically no damage? What about Burning Disarm?
Anyhow, if you want mind-bending rules, there's the old Death poison effect from Prismatic Spray which has a secondary effect of Con damage... (rolls eyes)
Anyhow, if you want mind-bending rules, there's the old Death poison effect from Prismatic Spray which has a secondary effect of Con damage... (rolls eyes)
Well yes - but Con damage with death was something that actually mattered - where each time you were raised you lost a point of con - so it had a hard limit on how many times you could come back from the dead.
That made the poison pretty nasty if you died from it - as you not only died but you lost more chances at being brought back to life.
A general rule would specify whether an effect occurred irrespective of damage, or whether damage had to be inflicted. So the general rule would be that you have to identify which of the two types of spell you were dealing with.
I am sure if you were sufficiently motivated, you could make a spreadsheet of all spells that inflict damage with a rider, and divide them into the two types.
Spells in Pathfinder are not like cards in a game like Magic the Gathering, where they're objects that operate under an external set of comprehensive rules. There is no 'stack'. They themselves often contain actual mechanical rules that operate in non-standard ways and cannot be separated from the process the way you seem to want, OP. The game is just not designed that way.
Oh interesting. Didn't know the monster immunity covers secondary stuff.
It's one of the reasons that I called out that some pyro stuff still works even if the creature is immune to fire (since all the abilities have the [fire] descriptor).
It depends on the spell. Immunity from the energy type is not immunity to the secondary effect.
As an example, Icy prison will trap you in ice even if you are immune to cold damage, but being immune to cold damage will stop you from taking ice damage while trapped. In this case the damage is a secondary effect however.