So, hypothetically speaking, if one had the ability to become immune to blindness for 1 round as an immediate action, and a wizard tried to cast blindess on you and you use this ability in response, would you need to make the save? Or does your immunity sort of negate the effects of the spell entirely since you couldn't be affected that round? Or does it still effect you, and would kick in the round after the immunity drops if they failed the save?
The immunity negates the need for a save. The save is rolled upon the casting of the spell so you would be ok.
If you are asking about a specific situation then it may have a different answer even if it is similar to the question you just asked though.
Would the target of the blindness spell first have to make a spellcraft check in order to recognize the spell being cast on him/her?
Or knowledge: Arcana to identify the spell he is being targeted with.
Knowledge: Arcana wouldn't be any help. Knowledge in PF is used to identify spells that have already been cast and/or have had their effects take place. (The entry in the CRB specifies identifying a spell that just targeted you, as opposed to one the casting of which you are presently the target of.)
Spellcraft is the proactive identifier. If you're using K:A, the spell has already taken effect, you've made or failed your save, and the preventative immediate action is irrelevant (though you'd get some respite for a round under this hypothetical).
Identify a spell that just targeted you | Arcana | 25 + spell level
The immunity negates the need for a save. The save is rolled upon the casting of the spell so you would be ok.
I am not sure this is correct.
In the hypothetical we aren't talking about immunity to magic or anything similar, we are talking about immunity to a condition.
So the way I see it, the spell, which we don't have to immunity to, would require a save or it would take effect. If we fail the save, we gain the condition: blind which we are immune to, and thus it has no effect. Once we lose the immunity to blindness the penalties would apply.
That said, I am not 100% sure on this.
Yeah, I see it as Dave Justus sees it.
You're immune to the effects of blindness for 1 round. Not to the general effect of the spell, which causes blindness for multiple rounds.
You might get to act unhindered for 1 round but the next you'll be taking those penalties.
|
But the spell Blindness/Deafness is instantaneous with permanent duration. It's cast, then it's done. If the target was immune at the time of casting, then they're safe.
Now, if we were talking Glitterdust, which causes round by round blindness, but only if you fail the first save, then we've got a conversation that could get weird.
Identify a spell that just targeted you | Arcana | 25 + spell level
Right. I noted that. Knowledge: Arcana is to figure out what spell "just targeted you", as in past tense. The targeting already occurred, the saving throw has been made (if relevant), and the effects of the spell have gone off.
If you're trying to preempt a casting or identify the spell prior to it affecting you, you use Spellcraft. If you want to know what just affected you (or tried to), you use K:A.
Point being, if you're trying to decide whether to activate your immediate action defense to a spell, you need to use Spellcraft. Using K:A means you're too late because the spell's effects have already occurred.
So, hypothetically speaking, if one had the ability to become immune to blindness for 1 round as an immediate action, and a wizard tried to cast blindess on you and you use this ability in response, would you need to make the save? Or does your immunity sort of negate the effects of the spell entirely since you couldn't be affected that round? Or does it still effect you, and would kick in the round after the immunity drops if they failed the save?
You're asking a rules question about an ability that does not exist in rules.
In all such cases, expect GM variation. Or logical sense. Casting Blindness on a creature that doesn't use sight, is also not going to have any effect.
Yeah, I see it as Dave Justus sees it.
You're immune to the effects of blindness for 1 round. Not to the general effect of the spell, which causes blindness for multiple rounds.
You might get to act unhindered for 1 round but the next you'll be taking those penalties.
I understand the argument, but I don't think it should work that way. As Fromper noted, all the magic happens at once. If you're immune to the condition when the condition would be applied to you, how can you be subject to the condition later when your immunity wears off?
For instance, if you get hit by a Fireball when you have Protection from Energy (Fire) up, you don't take the damage from the Fireball 30 minutes later when the Protection spell expires. Similarly, you don't later late temporary or permanent negative levels from being hit by energy drain attacks while you had Death Ward up.
It makes the most sense to me that if you're immune to the condition at the time it would be applied, you are immune to that application of the condition. In essence, you automatically succeed on the saving throw (to over-simplify).
I guess that is the question, is immunity to the condition at time of application immunity to the magic?
Blindness deafness is duration permanent, not duration instantaneous. So if you walk into an antimagic field it goes away (while you're in it). So the magic stays on you if you fail your save until it's removed.
If blindness deafness were instant then I could definitely agree that being immune for 1 round would prevent it from occurring at all. But as it is lingering magic causes prolonged blindness.
I guess that is the question, is immunity to the condition at time of application immunity to the magic?
No... it's immunity to the effect. The distinction makes a difference.
Immunity to the effect would be immunity to the thing that causes blindness, not the blindness itself. That is the distinction I'm seeing here.
Let me say, I'm not sold that this my position is correct it simply that neither side seems to have strong rules support in my opinion.
To me, its a very rare occurrence to end up with a temporary immunity to something anyways.
Immunity to the effect would be immunity to the thing that causes blindness, not the blindness itself. That is the distinction I'm seeing here.
Let me say, I'm not sold that this my position is correct it simply that neither side seems to have strong rules support in my opinion.
To me, its a very rare occurrence to end up with a temporary immunity to something anyways.
Again, you're asking for strong rules support for an ability that does not exist in rules. Weird corner questions are going to yield corner answers.
Hypothetical questions always yield wrong answers. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to move to Theory. Everything works there.
Lot of interesting answers and suggestions. Thanks everyone!
To chime in though, there is such an ability (although the actual ability grants 1 round immunity to several negative effects, not just blindness), but it's for a 3pp class. I was curious about the interactions of such an ability in these kind of situations.
Since it's 3pp though, and not paizo made, I suppose it could technically "not exist" to a fair amount of DMs that don't allow 3rd party materials.
Anyways, thanks again. :)
Again, you're asking for strong rules support for an ability that does not exist in rules. Weird corner questions are going to yield corner answers.Immunity to the effect would be immunity to the thing that causes blindness, not the blindness itself. That is the distinction I'm seeing here.
Let me say, I'm not sold that this my position is correct it simply that neither side seems to have strong rules support in my opinion.
To me, its a very rare occurrence to end up with a temporary immunity to something anyways.
Yeah I didn't think there was any such ability with Paizo printed rules.
And there is no strong rules support for it because of that.
As such, its probably best to ask the 3PP how they intend it to function.