If a creature is immune to spirit damage (e.g. construct) and also has a weakness Holy 20, and is hit by a Divine Lance (Holy trait) that causes 10d4 (=17 points) of spirit damage with the Holy trait, what damage does the creature take?
37 points (i.e., the spirit damage + the damage from the weakness) or only 20 points (= damage from the weakness)?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Holy;
- Divine Lance does spirit damage; it strikes at the 'soul'.
- You shoot a demonic construct with a Holy divine lance, doing xd4 spirit damage.
- The holy weakness adds 20 more spirit damage; nothing in the rules allow weaknesses to deal a different type of damage than the attack which triggered them. It would only be untyped if the attack dealt no damage but still triggered a weakness.
- So you deal xd4+20 spirit damage, which the construct ignores due to its immunity; it has no 'soul' to strike.
Generally speaking, sources of "holy damage" are things that deal spirit damage and have the holy trait.
But this instance is confusing because this creature has immunity to spirit damage, but also has a weakness to holy (which is basically a subtype of spirit damage).
How is this supposed to work? I'm honestly not sure.
Do you have an actual creature that has immunity to spirit and weakness as an example?
If it was merely a resistance to spirit damage and a weakness to holy, my ruling would be that it still triggers the weakness and grants that additional damage, regardless of if the resistance fully negates the spirit damage.
But with immunity....I'm not sure how it should function, since it the immunity should stop any spirit damage from happening.
It honestly mostly seems to me like an editing error that should have been caught creating a contradiction. Because spirit is basically a combination of the old "good and evil" damage types, which weren't really damage types but dealt damage based on a creatures alignment. But with alignment removed, and the damage types rework not everything works quite as intended if you didn't pay close attention.
Likely such a creature pre-remaster would have has a resistance to evil aligned damage and a weakness to good aligned damage. And when editing it, someone just simply replaced the evil aligned resistance to spirit. And didn't notice the contradiction they create in giving a weakness to holy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would only be untyped if the attack dealt no damage but still triggered a weakness.I guess the argument stems from the fact that this is actually not 100% clarified anywhere. It uses the phrase "If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water" which could also apply to this situation - "holy" does not normally deal damage, and a construct does not normally take spirit damage so you could also consider spirit to be "something that doesn't normally deal damage" in this instance.
I disagree. Spirit damage does 'normally deal damage'. The immunity blocks it in this specific instance. It's not the same.
Also, with your reading of a holy weakness; would this construct take damage for being in the aura of an Angelic Halo spell?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=2093
I would say no. But it's in the area of effect of a Holy spell (that doesn't normally deal damage, and in fact normally does nothing at all to foes); should it take 20 untyped damage? Each round?
|
|
Also, with your reading of a holy weakness; would this construct take damage for being in the aura of an Angelic Halo spell?https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=2093
I would say no. But it's in the area of effect of a Holy spell (that doesn't normally deal damage, and in fact normally does nothing at all to foes); should it take 20 untyped damage? Each round?
I would say in this case no, because the creature is not targeted by and thus not "affected by" the spell.
That does call to mind some other weird interactions though. If a Witch used Elemental Betrayal to give a creature a weakness to Wood, and then cast Entangling Flora, when would the weakness trigger? Each time it fails a save? Each time it moves in the difficult terrain? Every round regardless of both?
Weakness to traits could really use some better wording...
From my POV easiest would be to rule that weaknesses can only trigger on damaging effects, and inherit the damage type of the triggering effect. Would mean RAW you could no longer do some 'thematic' things like hurting a fire elemental with a non-damaging water spell, but would make the rules a lot easier to adjudicate.
I was able to find one Unholy Construct the Levaloch. No weakness to Holy though.
I think you may have crossed some wires, because the stat block you linked does have weakness to holy.
It doesn't call out specifically having an immunity to spirit, but I'm not sure there's a creature that actually does in the stat block.
Many Constructs have immunity to Spirit listed like the new MC2 Golem. Some do not because they have a spirit/soul/whatnot, like the Levaloch above or Soulbound Doll for another example. Of course Spirit being a new damage type, the pre-Remaster Constructs don't even know to list it.
As for OP, I side with saying it's a bump to the damage, and if the creature's immune to all the damage, it still is. Water explicitly states it works differently, doesn't it?
Many Constructs have immunity to Spirit listed like the new MC2 Golem. Some do not because they have a spirit/soul/whatnot, like the Levaloch above or Soulbound Doll for another example.
I see in the Soulbound Doll's stat block that it says that it is not immune to Spirit damage. I am not seeing anything like that in the Levaloch stats.
One of the things that I do expect to see persist after the re-errata regarding instance of damage is how a weakness to something that is not a damage type (such as the Holy trait or Area effects) would only apply once to the entire attack.
The difficulty here is because the interaction is not defined. None of the rules fully apply in this case.
Spirit damage is something that normally does deal damage. So the rule in Weakness regarding things that don't normally deal damage, doesn't accurately apply.
And the rule for complex effects in Immunity to a trait is backwards. The Levaloch is not immune to Holy, it is immune to the Spirit damage type and weak to the Holy trait. So that doesn't accurately apply either.
As with most things that are not fully defined in the rules, it is best to just make a ruling at your particular table that the players there will be happy with. And if this thread is coming from a PFS forum question, then PFS leadership is going to need to make the ruling for their tables.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spirit damage doesn't harm creatures that have no spirit, such as constructs.There are a few exceptions, like poppets etc, that have souls.
Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness.
As no damage is taken (immunity is applied first), the weakness is not applied.
a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage
I think that does not apply here, as the spell does normally deal damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually rule with those in the "does not trigger weakness" camp on this one.
The way the Immunity part is written imo has the default functionality to be that when triggered, that reaction is to induce immunity to all the effects, not just damage.
And the holy-ness of the spell is very much a creation of the spell, it is not an outside effect that the spell somehow inherited from elsewhere. The spell is creating the holy lance of spirit energy.
The spell is not an arrow that you strap a holy payload onto. The entire arrow is created by the spell.
As such, I'd rule the immunity to spirit does mean that method of delivering holy to the target flat out does not work.
You need to overcome the immunity and affect the creature first, then effects/attributes carried by the spell can take effect.
If a spell's text called out the telekinetic delivery of a preexisting holy ____, or similar, that would be enough for me to consider the "processed separately" idea.
_________________
For the sake of consistency, try to imagine a different immunity mix with Holy weakness. Like a bleed or mind spell. If a mindless construct were to be targeted with a holy mind control spell, it is perhaps more intuitive as to why you do not trigger that Holy weakness.
I agree with the idea that you need to breech the immunity first; when you fail to do so, you don't even check for weaknesses.
I'm mostly reaching my conclusion by the immunity text, not weakness text.
When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you ignore all damage of that type. If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can't be affected by that condition or any effect of that type. 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.
If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect both has a trait and deals that type of damage (such as a lightning bolt spell). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire.
The only time you get to bypass immunity's "full nullification" is if a complex effect deals damage that a GM would see as outside the immunity. Such as a spell dealing mental + bldg damage VS a construct. The construct would still take the bldg.
That's it. All other default cases of immunity being triggered, the entire effect is nullified. The "holy" part of the equation is nullified at that step, before the weakness procedure is even reached.
Which is why I'm focusing on checking if the holy is an effect of the spell, or if it's independent of the spell. Due to sanctification, you do need to think about it for a sec, but I think the answer is still clear.
_____________________
as far as the weakness text:
"you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it."
I read that "touch or affected" as two mutually exclusive types of event. You don't "touch" an effect like a spell. Those affect you.
And due to immunity, the all the spell's effect, make no affect upon the target. They were never affected by it, so weakness never pops.
Do we even have an actual creature with an immunity to spirit damage and a weakness to holy or unholy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the exact rules about all of this are up in the air right now, with the clear admission that the existing definition of instance of damage is incomplete. What will the answer be? Who knows. The current answer is very much “your GM is going to make a call based on their own ideas and game expectations.
But that immunity just makes the spell like a bucket of water or a holy symbol; it is now a spell that has no combat effect on the opponent except for the weakness.
Not it does not, you just made that up.
The werewolf example points the opposite direction you claim. The werewolf was not immune to the improvised attack, so the weakness could trigger.
Immunity is a rather inflexible mechanic, but the text is rather black and white. If you trigger immunity, the entire thing is rendered null. Damage and other effects.
Unless, you meet the specific criteria for an exception. Which, this does not match.
Full immunity nullification is in effect.
_____________________
Think of a breathless creature that is immune to [inhaled] and similar effects, that is then exposed to an inhaled toxin that "burns the lungs" and deals fire damage.
Whether or not the creature is weak to fire is irrelevant; they are immune to the cloud, and you don't even need to check weakness/resistance.
That cloud exposure does not count for [fire] trait 'contact' weakness, rubbing up against something carrying a ____ effect is not the same as "being affected" by it, nor does it count for contact weakness.
The mechanism of the poison, that breathing in the toxin mechanic, needs to function for the weakness to be triggered, delivered.
That's why those texts keep listing "contact" and "affected by" as two different things. Spells, alchemy, etc, "contain effects" packaged inside them, and they need to actually take effect to deliver them.
Other weaknesses, like water contact, are a lot easier to trigger. Most water spells also throw actual water at the foe, which can trigger the contact weakness. But just because something has the trait, doesn't mean it's exposed on contact.
Also note that the mechanic to deal 2x weakness per round is in the trait itself, because the base rules do NOT do that.
Some [fire] creatures even have specific text to add more mechanics like this;
"If a gallon or more of water touches the lava otter, or if it's affected by a water effect, ..."
Because those are distinct, different things. Aside from the gallon+ option, some [water] spell, etc, needs to actually "affect" the lava otter for that to trigger. Immunity could block that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah this thread has gone down in a pretty unnecessary hypothetical train derailment. "How would rules we don't really know yet handle a situation that has never happened?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah this thread has gone down in a pretty unnecessary hypothetical train derailment. "How would rules we don't really know yet handle a situation that has never happened?"
It is a legacy creature from Age of Ashes that triggered the discussion
Animated DragonstormsThe legacy spell would have worked, but the remastered does not, my suggestion was to either apply the legacy spell effect in this case or rework the monster (a lot of effort though for a single case)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surely the most obvious answer to "this legacy creature needs to be weak to sanctified damage" is that its not immune to spirit? It wouldn't be the first construct thats not immune to spirit, and narratively if it had a weakness to Good damage in the pre-master, it makes sense it might have enough spiritual aspect to be worth attacking.
--
As for this hypothetical, while it feels strange that a spirit immune creature should take a holy weakness from a spirit attack, I have to admit if I imagine holy as akin to silver, it does seem strange that one material rider can hurt a target by touch but another wouldn't, just because its immaterial. Perhaps these two *shouldn't* act analogously to one another but that seems to be the only guidance we have.
|
According to AoN, it is the only creature which has Weakness to Good while not being Evil.
A very special case then. I would adjudicate that it is immune to Spirit damage except when said damage is Holy.
I feel this should apply to the other 2 Constructs listed on AoN that have Weakness to Good (and are both Neutral Evil).
I feel it is necessary to counterbalance the higher HPs they get from having a weakness to Good.
|
|
I don't see immunity to spirit damage mentioned there (unsurprisingly, as I don't think spirit damage existed prior to the Remaster). Does it inherit it from somewhere?yeah this thread has gone down in a pretty unnecessary hypothetical train derailment. "How would rules we don't really know yet handle a situation that has never happened?"It is a legacy creature from Age of Ashes that triggered the discussion
Animated Dragonstorms
The definition of Spirit damage which explicitly excludes Constructs.
I don't see immunity to spirit damage mentioned there (unsurprisingly, as I don't think spirit damage existed prior to the Remaster). Does it inherit it from somewhere?yeah this thread has gone down in a pretty unnecessary hypothetical train derailment. "How would rules we don't really know yet handle a situation that has never happened?"It is a legacy creature from Age of Ashes that triggered the discussion
Animated Dragonstorms
Spirit damage doesn't harm creatures that have no spirit, such as constructs.
A construct doesn't have to list Spirit Immunity to have it, though they typically do list it in remaster material for clarity. They often use Spirit damage as a replacement for alignment damage, but they're not exactly the same because alignment damage only worked against that alignment and otherwise had no restrictions while spirit damage doesn't work on things with no spirit. (Unlike Positive/Vitality and Negative/Void, which are functionally identical replacements.)
So you could rule this a couple of ways:
1. This particular construct isn't immune to spirit damage because it's powered by spirit energy (or something like that).
2. The construct is immune to spirit damage, but as it's weak to holy, it still takes the Holy weakness from the attack.
3. The construct is immune to spirit damage and since the attack itself doesn't harm it, the holy trait also does nothing.
What you do between 2 and 3 should be consistent IMO with other types, so if the same thing happens with some other edge case like a cold iron scimitar hitting a slashing immune creature that is weak to cold iron (if such a thing existed), you should run it the same way.
Personally I favour #2 both because it gives a player some options even if they are otherwise shut down, but also because it works for oddball cases like the Water trait where a spell may not do damage at all but the weakness can still apply. And I really favour consistency in how these rules work.
We'll see how it plays out when the new errata comes.
|
|
I don't see immunity to spirit damage mentioned there (unsurprisingly, as I don't think spirit damage existed prior to the Remaster). Does it inherit it from somewhere?The definition of Spirit damage which explicitly excludes Constructs.Well, that's a silly place to hide the rule...why is it not under the Construct keyword, with all the other stuff Constructs are immune to?
(Rhetorical question - I know you guys did not decide to put it there.)
I guess because, as mentioned earlier, some constructs are not immune to Spirit damage.
I think y'all may be focusing too much on the spirit tree and not seeing the general rules forest.
The general scenario is: there is a strike that hits, with a damage [type] and a [trait]. The victim is immune to the [type] but weakness 5 to the [trait]. Does this mean:
1. It takes no damage at all, using the logic: because the immunity prevents the strike from doing anything at all, the weakness does not trigger. This is Trip's the weakness is part of the effect definition; if the effect never takes hold, the weakness is simply never adjudicated.
2. It takes the weakness damage, using the logic: while the [type] damage does nothing due to immunity, the weakness adjudication is. This is the weakness is independent of the effect definition; the weakness triggers so long as you merely hit.
I favor the latter, Trip favors the former. Folks can review our posts to see why. Thoughts on 1 vs. 2?
#2 for me, I explained why above. That's how a weakness that doesn't do damage works like the Water trait weakness. It's more consistent if it always works that way.
#2, Immunity even states that having immunity to fire doesn't stop acid damage from an ability that does both. Just like divine immoliation still affects targets with either spirit or fire immunity despite it haivng both traits.
It's more clear when an attack does multiple kinds of damage, that the immunity should only block the type of damage that the creature is immune to.
What's not clear, is if an attack that deal one kind of damage, and a creature is immune to that damage, if other "rider" effects should still happen.
But I admit, in light of the whole "water weakness" when water doesn't normally deal damage makes a compelling argument that despite being immune to spirit damage, the creature could still take damage from holy weakness for being exposed to an attack with the holy trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A construct creature written before spirit damage was a thing, but intended to be weak against holy makes no sense unless you don’t give it immunity to spirit damage, but especially not Holy Spirit damage. Worst case scenario would be to treat it like a precious material. So give the creature resistance equal to their weakness to good, or even immunity to spirit damage, but have Holy Spirit damage ignore that immunity or resistance.
Extrapolating out on all of this, much to the ire it will cause Trip, Damage (especially complex damage effects) in PF2 has always been a thing you have to think through narratively and discuss with your table/GM and not be able to follow a precise formula that will cover all cases. That is something that the developers can work on, but it comes with a cost of flexibility and letting things work on a naturalistic way for the best possible story. I think it will end up flattening the game significantly if all instances of damage always have to work the same way and you can’t sometimes have water that is blessed by a specific god do its own thing because that sounds really cool in your story and not just be holy water the item that has to work xyz way. Or a fountain of the elemental plane of metal that is just liquid cold iron and functions like water on that plane.
Hopefully adventure designers are intentional and thorough in explaining these situations in their adventures, but when you are converting material or making stuff up for yourself, it is ok to try to center fun and story telling over mechanical precision. A creature that was weak to good damage not taking holy damage doesn’t feel very fun or narratively consistent to me. sometimes it’s good to go with the rule of cool. And sometimes players are getting annoying trying to stretch that too far and the GM is well within their place to say no in those circumstances.
But I admit, in light of the whole "water weakness" when water doesn't normally deal damage makes a compelling argument that despite being immune to spirit damage, the creature could still take damage from holy weakness for being exposed to an attack with the holy trait.
This is the easiest way to run it because it just works and you don't wind up with an exception.
So in this case the construct is immune to the spirit damage but not immune to Holy stuff hitting them, no matter what the Holy stuff is. They take 0 Spirit + Holy weakness damage. Easy.