does immunity remove the effect you are immune to?


Rules Questions


title is question, here is an example

fails save to hold person you are not stunned. activate Liberation blessing is hold person gone for good??

liberation
At 1st level, for 1 round as a swift action, you can ignore impediments to your mobility and effects that cause paralysis (as freedom of movement). You can activate this blessing even if you’re otherwise unable to take actions, but not if you’re unconscious.

how about paladins and diseases, should they still roll disease saves? because they could still pass it on to other people even if they themselves are immune???


Immunity to an effect does not remove any active effects that you have gained immunity to, it prevents the application of the effect while you are immune. If you are already suffering from an effect at the time that you gain immunity to that same effect, you suppress the effect in its entirety until the effects duration runs out or your immunity ends, which ever comes first.

A paladin's immunity to diseases removes the need to roll a save vs the disease, because once they gain the immunity they can no longer contract the disease in the first place, nor can they become a carrier for any new diseases they may come in contact with. However, if they were infected prior to gaining immunity then, yes, they would continue to be a carrier while immune, and a GM may decide to continue to roll saves for them to see if the disease is still active in their system for the purpose of possibly infecting others. Certain curse bound diseases as well as other special exceptions also exist for causing a Paladin to contract a disease and act as a carrier after gaining immunity, for example a multiclass Paladin/Oracle with the Lycanthrope curse would gain the Lycanthrope disease as a carrier despite their immunity.


Chell Raighn wrote:

Immunity to an effect does not remove any active effects that you have gained immunity to, it prevents the application of the effect while you are immune. If you are already suffering from an effect at the time that you gain immunity to that same effect, you suppress the effect in its entirety until the effects duration runs out or your immunity ends, which ever comes first.

A paladin's immunity to diseases removes the need to roll a save vs the disease, because once they gain the immunity they can no longer contract the disease in the first place, nor can they become a carrier for any new diseases they may come in contact with. However, if they were infected prior to gaining immunity then, yes, they would continue to be a carrier while immune, and a GM may decide to continue to roll saves for them to see if the disease is still active in their system for the purpose of possibly infecting others. Certain curse bound diseases as well as other special exceptions also exist for causing a Paladin to contract a disease and act as a carrier after gaining immunity, for example a multiclass Paladin/Oracle with the Lycanthrope curse would gain the Lycanthrope disease as a carrier despite their immunity.

Lycanthropy isn't a disease in Pathfinder, only a curse. Mummy rot is an example of something that is both.


Paladins.

At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases, including mummy rot.

Vs Antipaladins

At 3rd level, the powers of darkness make an antipaladin a beacon of corruption and disease. An antipaladin does not take any damage or take any penalty from diseases. He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects.

I don't think a Paladin would be a carrier of the disease if they became immune to it. The condition would be supressed (including supressing the ability to infect others) for as long as you remain immune, but I don't think it "disspells" the effect.

So if you caught a disease as a 2nd level Paladin you'd have a disease.

If you then leveled up and got Divine Health you'd become immune (no longer make saves, take any penalties or pass on the disease).

If you then broke your vows one day later and lost your Divine Health class feature the disease would come back in full.

Note that while supressed the condition would still progress normally, you just wouldn't notice. If you managed to become immune to Paralysis for 1 round while under the effects if Hold Person you'd get to act for 1 round before becoming paralyzed again. If you got immunity for for 5 rounds and the spell only had 3 rounds left then by the time your immunity wore off the spell would have worn off as well. Likewise a Paladin who hit level 3 20 years ago can probably ignore the flu they had before they got Divine Health (although some disease that couod incubate for that long may survive I guess, that's probably purely GM-fiat territory though).

I'm sure there are exceptions to this (eg. PROTECTION FROM EVIL vs posession), but that seems like the usual way they work.

(Note: I'm saying all this from memory, so if I got anything majorly wrong let me know =P)


so lets say i use my swift action for the liberation ability while under the effects of hold person. do i still get a save at the end of my turn to break the effect?


Quote:
DOES IMMUNITY REMOVE THE EFFECT YOU ARE IMMUNE TO?

Yes. If you temporarily gained immunity to poison you'd be cured of any poisons that are affecting you. The Periapt of Proof against Poison refers to this rule by making the item an exception to the rule.

Periapt of Proof against Poison wrote:
This item is a brilliant-cut black gem on a delicate silver chain meant to be worn about the neck. The wearer is immune to poison, although poisons active when the periapt is first donned still run their course.

====

vhok wrote:
fails save to hold person you are not stunned. activate Liberation blessing is hold person gone for good??

No. Because the Liberation Blessing does not grant you immunity. It just allows you to ignore the effects. They are still there.

====

Chell Raighn wrote:
Immunity to an effect does not remove any active effects that you have gained immunity to, it prevents the application of the effect while you are immune. If you are already suffering from an effect at the time that you gain immunity to that same effect, you suppress the effect in its entirety until the effects duration runs out or your immunity ends, which ever comes first.

There is no "gradient of immunity". You're either immune, or you're not. What you're describing is suppressing effects, such as Remove Fear and the Padma Blossom. Neither of them grants immunity.

The Exchange

vhok wrote:
so lets say i use my swift action for the liberation ability while under the effects of hold person. do i still get a save at the end of my turn to break the effect?

Not exactly. But it's because of the specific wording of hold person.

If you activate the Liberation (minor) blessing as a swift action, you can act normally for one round, but it doesn't remove the condition. If you want to remove hold person, you can either
1. Use some magic, item, or ability that does remove the condition (like casting remove paralysis).
2. Wait for the duration to expire.
3. Make the saving throw that hold person allows.

The tricky part of your question is that you don't automatically get a free saving throw against hold person every round. You can choose to attempt a saving throw each round, but that takes a full-round action.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / does immunity remove the effect you are immune to? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions