| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If a creature is immune to a condition, does it still gain the condition? Say I have the antipaladin's aura of cowardice which removes immunity to fear while opponent is within 10 feet. I cast cause fear on an android. It is frightened for 4 rounds and runs away. It is now immune to fear. I run to it. Is it frightened again? Or did it lose the condition when it left?
|
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.
That's the closest I can find to a definition of immunity, and it's not 100% conclusive to me.
My take is that an immune creature simply cannot have the condition it is immune to, so if the android leaves your aura the fear effect ends.
This is different from effects that merely suppress or suspend harmful effects for some time.
Yeah, IMO the definition is lacking, so the most logical interpretation (yours) is the one I will go with. Thanks.
better ask about a paladin.
there was a discusion (don't remmber the link) about this before and some argued that there is a difrence betwin someone who gained an imunity to fear, like a paladin, and something that is imunne to all feeling as it has non (undaed construct etc).
constructs/undead are immune to fear because they are immune to mind effecting effects so even near an anti paladin they are still immune as the anti paladin only suppresses fear specific immunity
Yes. James Jacobs confirmed this. Aura of Cowardice only applies to immunity to fear.
I'm on the side of "if you are immune to a condition you can never ever have that condition, period" so even a temporary immunity clears your condition unless stated otherwise.
I'm 99% sure I've seen a dev/FAQ state as much, but I can't find it now, dammit....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Characters and creatures that are immune to disease can still act as carriers of the disease and can still spread the disease to others.
I don't see why this wouldn't extend to other conditions as well. You still have the condition, you are just wholly unaffected by it (which would make the distinction moot in the vast majority of cases).
|
Are you sure? I think it makes sense in some cases, but not others. is there a specific rule for this somewhere?Characters and creatures that are immune to disease can still act as carriers of the disease and can still spread the disease to others.
There's the Antipaladin's Plaguebringer ability, but the ability to act as a carrier is specifically called out (and possibly unique) in that ability.
|
There's the Antipaladin's Plaguebringer ability, but the ability to act as a carrier is specifically called out (and possibly unique) in that ability.Are you sure? I think it makes sense in some cases, but not others. is there a specific rule for this somewhere?Characters and creatures that are immune to disease can still act as carriers of the disease and can still spread the disease to others.
Yeah, I get that with a specific ability that allows it that it would fall into a specific trumps general situation, but it sounds like RD was saying that this is part of immunity to disease in general
Yeah, I get that with a specific ability that allows it that it would fall into a specific trumps general situation, but it sounds like RD was saying that this is part of immunity to disease in general
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Even though a character or creature might be immune to a given disease, they could still be a carrier of said disease, infecting those around them. (Exceptions abound, due to the wide variety of diseases and disease defenses out there.)
Yeah, I get that with a specific ability that allows it that it would fall into a specific trumps general situation, but it sounds like RD was saying that this is part of immunity to disease in generalYes, that's exactly what I was saying. Even though a character or creature might be immune to a given disease, they could still be a carrier of said disease, infecting those around them. (Exceptions abound, due to the wide variety of diseases and disease defenses out there.)
RD, are you asserting that this is true in game or IRL? For the latter you are undoubtedly correct, but the former needs a cite since it's what we're arguing. :)
immunity to diseases means that the disease cant even enter the creature thus they cannot pass it on to another as its not on the 1st creature in question in the 1st place
Many diseases don't need to "enter the creature" in order to spread. Some are spread by something as simple as touch. Though it likely wouldn't last long without a suitable non-immune host, an immune creature touching an infected creature with such a disease could easily transfer the disease via touch to another.
RD, are you asserting that this is true in game or IRL? For the latter you are undoubtedly correct, but the former needs a cite since it's what we're arguing. :)
I'm asserting both.
In pathfinder, most diseases are transferred via various attack forms. Those diseases likely won't spread in the above manner, but those spread in other ways certainly could.
I don't need to cite a rule. It's common sense. If you need a rule, look at the rules for immunity. Nothing in the immunity description says your immunity prevents you from spreading the disease. It just makes you immune; the same can't be said of others interacting with you. Your immunity protects only you. Saying it can't spread through you under any circumstances is akin to saying that a limited form of your immunity applies to others, which obviously isn't the case.
Immunity does exactly what it says it does, nothing more and nothing less. Diseases can still "go for the ride" at least for short periods.
One again, exceptions abound.
If you still get conditions you're immune to and just ignore their effects, immunity to fatigue is much less impressive, because the second time you get hit by fatigue you become exhausted, which you're probably not immune to. Means all those rage-cycling barbarians with the Lame curse or whatever have been doing it completely wrong and nobody noticed.
If you still get conditions you're immune to and just ignore their effects, immunity to fatigue is much less impressive, because the second time you get hit by fatigue you become exhausted, which you're probably not immune to. Means all those rage-cycling barbarians with the Lame curse or whatever have been doing it completely wrong and nobody noticed.
Please don't misunderstand; I am speaking solely in regards to diseases, not other game rules.
If you still get conditions you're immune to and just ignore their effects, immunity to fatigue is much less impressive, because the second time you get hit by fatigue you become exhausted, which you're probably not immune to. Means all those rage-cycling barbarians with the Lame curse or whatever have been doing it completely wrong and nobody noticed.Please don't misunderstand; I am speaking solely in regards to diseases, not other game rules.
But the thread is on the general question. You're addressing one particular case of it; I've switched to addressing another.
|
|
I am speaking solely in regards to diseases, not other game rules.
Really, because from this
I don't see why this wouldn't extend to other conditions as well. You still have the condition, you are just wholly unaffected by it (which would make the distinction moot in the vast majority of cases).
It sure sounds like you are using it as a precedent for other conditions
From the wording "creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect." I'd say that they can gain a condition but it doesn't affect them. For instance, a creature that's immune to fire could catch fire" it just doesn't hurt them. Much the same an Sickened could sicken you for rds/level. If the immunity happens to drop off before the duration, the effects kick in.
The difference in many of the conditions is duration though. For instance, poison/disease it's based on saves and the character never has to make them. As such, they never contract it and there is no onset. I guess you could pass on contact type poison/disease though.
Means all those rage-cycling barbarians with the Lame curse or whatever have been doing it completely wrong and nobody noticed.
I'd be inclined to think they either #1 read it differently such as 'the condition doesn't take hold' vs 'the penalties don't take effect' or #2 reading immunity in a natural way.
*shrug* I could be wrong but I look at the section "any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect" and think 'how can you get any secondary effects if the primary effect is just ignored'?
|
I would argue that the fact that Plaguebringer specifically states that the antipaladin can still spread diseases they are exposed to implies that other creatures with disease immunity do not spread disease.
It's not a slam dunk because the rules can be redundant at times, but it seems to me that whether or not you are able to spread disease is intended to be an important distinction between how the antipaladin and the paladin - with its unmodified disease immunity - operate.
Many diseases don't need to "enter the creature" in order to spread. Some are spread by something as simple as touch. Though it likely wouldn't last long without a suitable non-immune host, an immune creature touching an infected creature with such a disease could easily transfer the disease via touch to another.
Realistically, this makes some amount of sense, but I don't see the need to complicate the game system by trying to figure out how long the disease can survive on a paladin's skin.
*shrug* I could be wrong but I look at the section "any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect" and think 'how can you get any secondary effects if the primary effect is just ignored'?
I think it means that for example if you are immune to cold and are hit with an effect that deals cold damage and also causes fatigue, you ignore the fatigue as well as the cold damage.
I think it means that for example if you are immune to cold and are hit with an effect that deals cold damage and also causes fatigue, you ignore the fatigue as well as the cold damage.
In that case it calls into question what is a secondary effect and what's a primary one. For instance, Polar Ray deals cold damage and 1d4 points of Dexterity drain. How do you figure out which effect is primary, secondary or if both are primary? For instance, would immunity to dex drain make you ignore the cold damage?
I think secondary effects refers to poisons as that is about the only time the phrase "secondary effect" comes up in a search. The only time it comes up with anything related to spells it's for the Elemental Commixture (Teamwork) feat that allows two spells to be mixed together. As far as I can tell 'secondary effect' is not listed under ANY spell, effect, ability or item that doesn't deal with poison. And that is kind of my point: how do you ever get to secondary effects if poisons are ignored wholesale from the get go.
It would be better if they expanded immunity a bit like Developed Poison Immunity from Heroes of the Wild. "select a single animal or plant poison that the rogue has been poisoned with but survived. The rogue automatically succeeds at all Fortitude saves against exposure to the selected poison." Simple and easy as it explains everything: a success means never contracting the poison meaning you never have to get into secondary effects and such.
Automatically succeeding in all related Fort saves is less than full immunity. Many poisons have effects that happen even on a successful save. I don't think this supports what you are trying to make a case for. It actually does nothing to prevent Some secondary effects, though many simple poisons are fully negated.
Ravingdork, perhaps you can show us which of your characters are going to be nerfed out by these rule interpretations, and people can come up with work-arounds.
Automatically succeeding in all related Fort saves is less than full immunity. Many poisons have effects that happen even on a successful save. I don't think this supports what you are trying to make a case for. It actually does nothing to prevent Some secondary effects, though many simple poisons are fully negated.
What I've seen doesn't match what you are saying. A Success means You resist being poisoned. You do not suffer any ill effects and you need not make any further saves.
For secondary saves, Any subsequent saves are made against the secondary effect: since you made the first save you never get to the secondary effects.
"At the most simple level, this means that when a character comes into contact with the poison, she gets a save. If the save succeeds, the poison has no effect, regardless of the cure entry." Secondary effects are for failed saves after the first save is fails, something that never happens if the first is made and you avoid the initial effect.
You appear to be right on poisons.
I guess I was going on old data.
|
|
I think it means that for example if you are immune to cold and are hit with an effect that deals cold damage and also causes fatigue, you ignore the fatigue as well as the cold damage.In that case it calls into question what is a secondary effect and what's a primary one. For instance, Polar Ray deals cold damage and 1d4 points of Dexterity drain. How do you figure out which effect is primary, secondary or if both are primary? For instance, would immunity to dex drain make you ignore the cold damage?
I think secondary effects refers to poisons as that is about the only time the phrase "secondary effect" comes up in a search. The only time it comes up with anything related to spells it's for the Elemental Commixture (Teamwork) feat that allows two spells to be mixed together. As far as I can tell 'secondary effect' is not listed under ANY spell, effect, ability or item that doesn't deal with poison. And that is kind of my point: how do you ever get to secondary effects if poisons are ignored wholesale from the get go.
I agree it's not clear. Keeping in mind that the full text for Immunity is:
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.
I think it's similar to this rule from DR:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
...in that it's meant to specify that if you are immune to a damage source and there are 'rider' conditions attached to that damage source then you are generally immune to the riders as well as the actual damage. It does require a little GM discretion to determine if, for example, a creature that is immune to cold is also immune to being entangled by ice.
If you're immune to fatigue for whatever reason... you don't become fatigued. Regardless of what's causing you to become fatigued. If we'd wanted Furious Finish to be able to fatigue creatures immune to fatigue, we would have phrased the bold highlight above like this:
If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you are normally immune to fatigue).
Yeah, he's Not A Rules Guy (TM). If we believe him anyway then that particular immunity, at least, renders you unable to acquire the condition, not just ignore its effects. (So the rage-cycling barbarians are fine.) I see no reason why other immunities should be different, since they all trace back to the same lines in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, he's Not A Rules Guy (TM). If we believe him anyway then that particular immunity, at least, renders you unable to acquire the condition, not just ignore its effects. (So the rage-cycling barbarians are fine.) I see no reason why other immunities should be different, since they all trace back to the same lines in the rules.If you're immune to fatigue for whatever reason... you don't become fatigued. Regardless of what's causing you to become fatigued. If we'd wanted Furious Finish to be able to fatigue creatures immune to fatigue, we would have phrased the bold highlight above like this:
If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you are normally immune to fatigue).
James is a dev and helps build the rules - the difference is he will answer a question with a common sense answer - and (help us all) the official dev team doesn't do that - they argue the back and forth and come up with what they believe is the way the rule should work that doesn't break anything else in the game.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, his answers tend to be easier to run at a table 99% of the time.
Yeah, he's Not A Rules Guy (TM). If we believe him anyway then that particular immunity, at least, renders you unable to acquire the condition, not just ignore its effects. (So the rage-cycling barbarians are fine.) I see no reason why other immunities should be different, since they all trace back to the same lines in the rules.If you're immune to fatigue for whatever reason... you don't become fatigued. Regardless of what's causing you to become fatigued. If we'd wanted Furious Finish to be able to fatigue creatures immune to fatigue, we would have phrased the bold highlight above like this:
If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you are normally immune to fatigue).
James is a dev and helps build the rules - the difference is he will answer a question with a common sense answer - and (help us all) the official dev team doesn't do that - they argue the back and forth and come up with what they believe is the way the rule should work that doesn't break anything else in the game.
Personally, and this is just my opinion, his answers tend to be easier to run at a table 99% of the time.
It's happened before that you get answers like 'well of course it works that way' until you get everyone to dig into the actual rule wording. Take constructs and neg/pos energy. Dev's said 'of course they don't take neg energy damage' so I'd asked why and nothing could be produced to back that up. In fact, a positive energy plane way the best place ever for undead and constructs as they gained infinite temp hp. It took an FAQ for the rules to catch up to the "of course it works that way' answer.
So how the Dev's want the rules to work isn't always reflected in the actual wording. James might be 100% correct but without all the devs getting together we wouldn't know that as some other Dev might be thinking the 'of course the opposite way is the way it works'.
PS: As a side note, back in the 3.5 days I had a running debate with Baker, the creator of eberron, about mithral/adamantine and warforged. It seems that he had a house rule that special material metals were only able to be forged once and the metal couldn't be reforged to recover/remake items made of it. He'd been using it so long he thought it was an actual rule and was arguing based on his house-rule and not the actual rules. It took 6 months to get him to realize he was wrong. Moral of the story: just because someone makes the rules doesn't mean they can't make mistakes.