Iron Command and immunity


Rules Discussion


When the Champion Reaction, Iron Command, is used and an enemy has immunity to one of the effects but not both, are they forced into the remaining option, or can they choose the one they are immune to as a means to avoid consequence?

For example, a swimming enemy cannot be knocked prone. If you used Iron Command on a swimming enemy would it:

A. Be forced to take the damage, since it cannot be knocked prone?

or

B. Be able to choose to "drop prone" even though it technically cannot?

p.s. To clarify, I couldn't think of a case in the opposite direction. It makes sense to me that an enemy with Resistance or Immunity to a damage type could still choose to take that damage even if it's 0, and I'm not trying to trick anyone into saying they can't. :)


Seems that you can choose Either A or B.

Similarly to a redeemer using it's glimpse of redemption

Quote:

The ally is unharmed by the triggering damage.

The ally gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level. After the damaging effect is applied, the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.

on a tarrasque ( I suppose there might be other creatures ), which is immune to the enfeebled condition.


Quote:
You can't be knocked prone when Swimming.

It seems a tad silly, but they just can't be knocked prone. The prone condition doesn't say anything about dropping prone, nor does aquatic combat. And since they choose to drop prone... it technically works?

But yes, the enemies' choice is entirely up to them, including cheaping out :D


User6263 wrote:

When the Champion Reaction, Iron Command, is used and an enemy has immunity to one of the effects but not both, are they forced into the remaining option, or can they choose the one they are immune to as a means to avoid consequence?

For example, a swimming enemy cannot be knocked prone. If you used Iron Command on a swimming enemy would it:

A. Be forced to take the damage, since it cannot be knocked prone?

or

B. Be able to choose to "drop prone" even though it technically cannot?

p.s. To clarify, I couldn't think of a case in the opposite direction. It makes sense to me that an enemy with Resistance or Immunity to a damage type could still choose to take that damage even if it's 0, and I'm not trying to trick anyone into saying they can't. :)

In my opinion, an enemy can't choose to drop prone if it can't drop prone. The enemy is compelled to drop prone, but it can't, as such it takes the damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Normally my argument would be based on the fact that creatures are clearly allowed to choose the most beneficial effect, so being stronger (not being able to be knocked prone) shouldn't make their options worse (now they must take the damage).

However, since we seem to be getting more into the details of the exact wording of the reaction as opposed to consistency with other abilities. So, let's take a look at the wording. The reaction only gives the creature 2 options:
1. The enemy kneels
2. The enemy refuses

It then explains the mechanics behind each of those choices. If they kneel, that means they're dropping prone. That makes sense. If they refuse to kneel (not can't, but refuse), then you punish them for their disobedience and they take mental damage.

How does that change in the water?
Well, what does kneeling look like in the water? Honestly, I don't know. But I also don't know what kneeling looks like for something without traditional legs, and some of those can be knocked prone and can therefore kneel, so the concept of "kneeling" seems to be pretty broad. Perhaps they can purposefully kneel in the water. As to whether that gives them the prone condition or not... idk, ask the GM, ig. Personally I'd say no. But what about the second option: Refusing to kneel? Well, even if it's ruled that they can't kneel, then... would they really be refusing to? It's like the paladin says "Touch the sun!" and the creature goes. "Uhhh... what? I can't do that." and then the paladin replies "So you DARE to disobey me? Suffer!" Idk, just seems weird to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
It's like the paladin says "Touch the sun!" and the creature goes. "Uhhh... what? I can't do that." and then the paladin replies "So you DARE to disobey me? Suffer!" Idk, just seems weird to me.

If you refuse because you can't, you still refuse.

If the Champion asks the creature to kneel while in water and the creature accepts, it will do what it can to do it (like getting out of the water to be able to kneel).
But accepting to do something to not do it at all shouldn't be allowed.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If this happened in one of my games I would say they go into a position where they are flat-footed until they spend an action with the Move trait to not be in that position. Then again, I wouldn't let my PCs play as a Tyrant either.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From a flavor perspective, kneeling before someone is an act of submission that leaves you vulnerable, throwing yourself upon their mercy. I'd say that either you have to do something equivalent to that, effectively making yourself prone regardless of the anatomy and environment, or you are refusing and take the mental damage.


They could easily fix it by adding "until the end of its next turn" like they did with the redeemer

Quote:
The ally gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level. After the damaging effect is applied, the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Iron Command and immunity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.