RAW if a target is immune to paralyzed but not stunned, then it is advantageous for the target to fail or critically succeed a saving throw against the Paralyze spell. The only bad result is a noncritical success, which inflicts stunned 1.
How do you handle this situation? Should the target be able to ignore the success effect, too? Should the target suffer stunned 1 on a failure?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i would just handle it RAW
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that if a creature was immune to paralyzed condition (not sure how but I'm sure there's some creature that simply has it), then if they were targeted by the paralyze spell they would be better off failing or crit failing than succeeding.
RAW, they could end up stunned 1 on a success.
Personally I find that result weird, so I'd probably just say they're immune to the whole spell.
However, if you were to rule that the creature is susceptible to stunned on a success (the arguably more RAW ruling) then I would also say the target could "choose to fail" in the sense that I would allow them to reduce their degree of success in this case by one step, but they would need to know they're being targeted by paralyze (which is unlikely as they would need to be able to identify a spell as a reaction).
I don't believe by RAW you can intentionally fail a save.
In the Immunity rules it says that "You can still be targeted by an ability that includes an effect or condition you are immune to; you just don't apply that particular effect or condition."
So a creature immune to the paralyzed condition can still be effected by the spell, if not the condition.
Strict RAW, I think the creature rolls a save and if they succeed, they are stunned 1, if they get any other result they ignore the spell.
From an RAI standpoint, I think it is not unreasonable for a GM to rule that you should at least get some negative effect from a failed save and therefore apply the success result(stunned 1) instead of the failure result (no effect) on a failure or critical failure.
I think this should be on a case by case basis though. If I were GMing I would not apply the success effect to a creature even on a success. The way I see it is the stunned 1 is being psudo-paralyzed. You fight off the spell effects, just not 100%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reducing your degree by one step... Ah, like the Gliminal rule.
There aren't default rules for a creature choosing to be hit (to avoid exploding from a gliminal's healing), but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those cases where RAW doesn't make much sense, especially if you're using the Bestiary suggestion about voluntarily lowering degree of success/voluntarily being hit (which is useful for PCs trying to do Reposition or throw Healing bombs). Because in this case the creature WANTS to fail as it's a better outcome for it, which the spell doesn't really handle.
So you can handle this one of two ways:
1. RAW. PCs who do recall knowledge should find out about this situation and can simply deal with it.
2. House rule that if the creature is immune to the failure effect but not the success effect, it takes the success effect even on a failure. That at least means the effect does something on a failure, as "the enemy failed and that's actually a worse outcome than if it succeeded" is just not something players will expect and will feel bad.
I'd probably do #2 because I tend to want stuff to feel good for players more than I worry about RAW, but if your players really value RAW then it's consistent to stick with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell called Paralyze causes paralysis. I wouldn't roll a save if the target is immune to paralysis. I would tell the caster they're completely unaffected so it's clear. Trying to argue the target would be stunned by this spell on a successful save is classic rules lawyering.
There really is an argument that the stunned effect is trying to simulate mostly fighting off the effects or paralysis, but not 100%. In my mind, this specific case is just a space where the spell was written trying to use existing rules, but it leads to a weird edge case/interaction.
Like you could think of the success effect for paralysis as "you lose 1 action on your next turn". But we already have conditions for that, it's called slowed or stunned (and let's not get on how they're basically the same thing aside from some dubious around whether or not you lose reactions and whether you would completely lose your turn even if you have actions remaining). But remember, thematically it's only happening because you're righting off the effects of paralysis. Your muscles tighten and your body doesn't listen to your commands, but only for a second or two.
To me, the most correct answer is that someone immune to paralysis is completely immune to the Paralysis spell. Or any paralysis effect, including "lesser effects" that may be called slowed or stunned as long as they're clearly a reduced effect of the paralysis.*
*There are probably at least some examples of abilities or spells that inflict paralyzed, and also slowed or stunned at various levels of success/failure and it may not always be clear cut if those effects are a "reduced impact" of paralysis or something else, and in such a scenario GMs will simply have to make a judgement call.
It occurs to me that there are plenty of other actions where this can happen.
Among the more notorious of them is Scare to Death, which inflicts a death effect on a critically successful Intimidation check and the target's critically failed saving throw. If either isn't achieved, the target is merely frightened and maybepetrified. So RAW, it's best not to achieve both against a creature that is immune to death but not fear.
There's also the Petrify spell (formerly Flesh to Stone). Most enemies that are immune to petrified are not also immune to slowed, so such an enemy could be forced to make multiple saves. If they fail enough saves, the spell would end in a flash of gray light, replacing the slowed condition with petrifed.
I (re-)stumbled upon Goblin Pox last night, another spell where this could happen. Goblin saves, they're Sickened 1. Goblin fails/crit fails their save, they're immune.
But like with the Paralysis example, the save result represents a lesser version of the fail result/overall theme of the spell, so it seems a no-brainer that Goblins would be immune to it too. With it too, the thing they're immune to is right in the name.
RAW Petrify is already kind of a troll ruling as is. It says the spell ends and petrifies the target when the slowed condition renders them fully unable to act. This is not a thing. Even if you become slowed 100, you can still use reactions and free actions.
RAW Petrify is already kind of a troll ruling as is. It says the spell ends and petrifies the target when the slowed condition renders them fully unable to act. This is not a thing. Even if you become slowed 100, you can still use reactions and free actions.
Yeah, it's a weird area where there's obviously an assumption that at slowed 3, which would normally cause you to have no normal actions remaining, that you would petrify.
Of course, if you're hasted (or similar) it doesn't actually work out that way.
They should have just written it as when you reach slowed 3 you become petrified.
RAW Petrify is already kind of a troll ruling as is. It says the spell ends and petrifies the target when the slowed condition renders them fully unable to act. This is not a thing. Even if you become slowed 100, you can still use reactions and free actions.Yeah, it's a weird area where there's obviously an assumption that at slowed 3, which would normally cause you to have no normal actions remaining, that you would petrify.
Of course, if you're hasted (or similar) it doesn't actually work out that way.
They should have just written it as when you reach slowed 3 you become petrified.
The wording is a bit less clumsy for vampires. Sunlight kills them only if they lose all their actions due to the slowed condition caused by sunlight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing two ways to run this and I think it needs to be ruled on a case-by-case basis rather than as a blanket general ruling.
1) If you get the 'worse' results on the degree of success outcome and you are immune to that, but are not immune to the 'better' degree of success outcome, you get the better outcome rather than the one you are immune to. Example: You still get Frightened 2 and Fleeing if you critically fail the save against an enemy's crit success Scare to Death while immune to Death effects.
2) If the effect is tightly themed and the target is immune to the 'worse' result, they are also immune to the 'better' result. Example: If you are immune to Petrified condition, then you are also immune to the slowed effect of the Petrify spell (even though you are still not immune to the slowed effect of other things such as the Slow spell).
I think that both of those rulings are fair and valid and which one is chosen will vary based on circumstances even in the same campaign with the same group of players.
Personally I only see option 2 (as you list it) as the valid one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I only see option 2 (as you list it) as the valid one.
So... You are fighting a Thanadaemon. Which is immune to Death effects, but is otherwise a normal living Daemon outsider creature.
If you use Demoralize on them and get a success result, they become Frightened 1.
If you use Demoralize on them and get a critical success result, they become Frightened 2.
If you use Scare to Death on them and get a failure result, they become Frightened 1.
If you use Scare to Death on them and get a success result, they become Frightened 2.
If you use Scare to Death on them and get a critical success result, they get a save:
* If they critically succeed, succeed, or fail their save, they become Frightened 2 and Fleeing for 1 round.
* If they critically fail, they completely ignore your Scare to Death attempt.
And you are perfectly fine with that last line there? Considering all of the lines before it.
The problem I take with your example is that demoralize is not normally a death effect, in fact only a Critical Success by the player followed by a Critical Failure by the NPC results in a death effect. In this scenario, I would rule that the NPC skips the roll to die, and gets the effect as though they succeeded on the save (which is frightened 2 and fleeing 1).
Perhaps it was your phrasing, or the way I parsed it but I don't think scare to death is an appropriate example, but I think it's because of the inversing of the NPC rolling the save and the player rolling to effect the NPC and the verbiage of success and failure.
So I guess, ignoring perhaps my confusion or the phrasing, I agree with the specifics that if a player uses Scare to Death on something immune to Death Effects, they could still Critically Succeed and get those effects, but it's a weird case because the NPC has to make an additional save to be impacted by the thing its immune too.
This particular example is interesting because the Death trait is explicitly only on the Critical Failure state of the NPCs roll against the Intimidation DC.
It stands in contrast to the petrify example in which the lesser effect of stunned is meant to stand in as a "lesser version of petrified (which isn't actually a condition).
The problem I take with your example is that demoralize is not normally a death effect, in fact only a Critical Success by the player followed by a Critical Failure by the NPC results in a death effect. In this scenario, I would rule that the NPC skips the roll to die, and gets the effect as though they succeeded on the save (which is frightened 2 and fleeing 1).
Scare to Death is a complicated example because it involves both the skill check from the user (which is not part of the example) and the save from the target (which is the example).
But it does illustrate the idea effectively.
This particular example is interesting because the Death trait is explicitly only on the Critical Failure state of the NPCs roll against the Intimidation DC.
It stands in contrast to the petrify example in which the lesser effect of stunned is meant to stand in as a "lesser version of petrified (which isn't actually a condition).
Yes, Petrify and Paralyze are tightly themed and may very well fall into option #2 where they are immune to the entire effect. Other spells like Vision of Death the entire effect has the Death trait and the Thanadaemon would be immune to all of it (unless the player successfully argues that it is a Complex Effect).
My point is that it is possible that Scare to Death is not the only case where the effect is not so tightly themed. Where we aren't using one condition as a stand-in for a 'lesser' version of the critical failure effect.
In those cases, option #1 is a reasonable ruling. We remove the critical failure effect (or critical success effect if the attacker is the one rolling) because of the immunity, but keep the failure effect (or success effect) and follow the standard rule for if an effect does not list a critical result entry - they get the standard result entry rather than nothing.
My point is that it is possible that Scare to Death is not the only case where the effect is not so tightly themed. Where we aren't using one condition as a stand-in for a 'lesser' version of the critical failure effect.
In those cases, option #1 is a reasonable ruling. We remove the critical failure effect (or critical success effect if the attacker is the one rolling) because of the immunity, but keep the failure effect (or success effect) and follow the standard rule for if an effect does not list a critical result entry - they get the standard result entry rather than nothing.
I guess this is where I may disagree, but again I may be getting confused with phrasing and my parsing.
Can you provide an example that isn't as complicated as Scare to death that illustrates what you're trying to say. I think we're in agreement on Scare to Death, but I'm not sure we are on other potential examples.
Just some food for thought, a creature that is immune to the paralyzed condition more than likely has very good fortitude. But it does show how maybe there needs to be a ruling that makes it that instead of paralyzed, the target can be given stunned 3 (on failure) and stunned 12 (on crit fail)
Just some food for thought, a creature that is immune to the paralyzed condition more than likely has very good fortitude. But it does show how maybe there needs to be a ruling that makes it that instead of paralyzed, the target can be given stunned 3 (on failure) and stunned 12 (on crit fail)
I assume you mean stunned 12 with the saving throw each turn to reduce the condition by 3. But I still think that's too severe. Immunity should do much more than that to protect against the thing it's designed to counter. A target immune to paralyzed shouldn't be more than stunned 1 even on a critical failure.