Post/Author/DateTime	Post
runewaybur 01-20-08, 05:16 PM	I posted this in another section, but then found this one. So I appologise now for the double posting. I hope you guys here can clear this up for me. According to DMG (Page 291) "A creature with cold immunity, such as a frost giant, never takes cold damage. It has a vulnerability to fire.." However, on page 307 of the MM, it states that "A creature with the Cold Subtype has immunity to cold. It has vulnerability to fore.." These two seem to be in contradiction to one another. The first states that the vulnerability comes from the Immunity, the second states that the Vulnerability comes from the subtype. My problem, I play a Saint with an immunity to cold. I was hit with an Orb of Fire, and it was believed at the time that I should take 1.5x damage. Is this correct, or do I not take the extra damage?
Salla 01-20-08, 05:21 PM	That's not contradictory at all. Both are true. If you have the cold subtype, or are immune to cold, you are vulnerable to fire. You can be immune to cold without having the cold subtype, but all creatures with the cold subtype inherently have immunity to cold (kind of like 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares'). So yes, you take extra damage.
runewaybur 01-20-08, 05:26 PM	So, then, does something with the Cold Subtype have the Vulnerability twice? By this, you get a Vulnerabilty from being the Cold Subtype, and then you get the Vulnerabilty against from the given Immunity to cold.
Salla 01-20-08, 05:51 PM	So, then, does something with the Cold Subtype have the Vulnerability twice? By this, you get a Vulnerabilty from being the Cold Subtype, and then you get the Vulnerabilty against from the given Immunity to cold. If nothing else, it would get filed under stacking identical effects and they would overlap, not stack. A creature with the cold subtype gains immunity to cold. A creature with immunity to cold takes extra damage from fire. And that's that. :)
runewaybur 01-20-08, 06:16 PM	Oh well, still doesn't seem right to me. You win some you lose some. Regardless, Thanks for the help!
LeeAlucard 01-20-08, 06:41 PM	In my opinion, a Cold Subtype creature is a creature that obtained its cold immunity from the environment in which it lives. Now, what makes me curious is what might happen if you took a creature that's normally immune to fire (such as the Tarasque) and made it immune to ice as well by giving it the Cold Subtype...
dawnbringer 01-20-08, 06:47 PM	I think you are wrong. Putting on a ring of cold immunity would then make you vulnerable to fire? I think not.
Eldritch_Lord 01-20-08, 06:52 PM	That's not contradictory at all. Both are true. If you have the cold subtype, or are immune to cold, you are vulnerable to fire. You can be immune to cold without having the cold subtype, but all creatures with the cold subtype inherently have immunity to cold (kind of like 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares'). So yes, you take extra damage. Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the rules, so far as I have read, has said that immunity to cold imposes vulnerability to fire or vice versa. The cold subtype, yes; cold immunity, no.
StevenO 01-20-08, 07:01 PM	Where are you getting this? Nowhere in the rules, so far as I have read, has said that immunity to cold imposes vulnerability to fire or vice versa. The cold subtype, yes; cold immunity, no. As noted in the original post Fire Vulnerability is stated for Cold Immunity in the DMG Glossary. Now while that may make some sense I've never considered basic "immunity" to one type of energy to imply vulnerability to its opposite although it does seem that it should according to the DMG. Gaining Immunity through subtype I see but otherwise I'd ignore the vulnerability.
Tedronai 01-20-08, 09:33 PM	According to DMG (Page 291) "A creature with cold immunity, such as a frost giant, never takes cold damage. It has a vulnerability to fire.." except that the frost giant has the cold subtype, and, as such, is not relevant to the discussion of whether having cold immunity without the cold subtype nevertheless imposes vulnerability to fire
runewaybur 01-20-08, 09:41 PM	It seems like there is no clear opinion on this. How does on go about getting an OFFICIAL ruling on something like this?
Tedronai 01-20-08, 10:24 PM	It seems like there is no clear opinion on this. How does on go about getting an OFFICIAL ruling on something like this? Normally one would read the book or SRD, then read the errata, but since none of those fix this issue, those really aren't options. The FAQ and/or CustServ are options, but aren't generally considered 'official' sources due to their prolific errors and confusion. What I, personally, would consider the nail in the coffin of this issue is the simple shear number of typos/omissions that one must assume if applying vulnerability to fire as a product of immunity to cold (and vice versa, since both are specified in the DMG and SRD). All Angels, Balors, all Baatezu, Kytons, Dragon Turtles, all Formians, all Half-dragons of Red, White, Gold, Silver, and Brass varieties, Liches, Nightcrawlers, Nightwalkers, Nightwings, Ravids, Skeletons, theTarrasque, and Tojanidas would need errata. Just a note, but that's all the creatures in the MM1 with either Fire or Cold Immunity without the appropriate subtype (except for a few with both Fire AND Cold Immunity, since that essentially negates vulnerability). And that's just in core. How many omissions are you willing to accept before assuming that the text you're quoting is actually the error, and not the creature entries noted above?
Eldritch_Lord 01-21-08, 11:40 AM	Normally one would read the book or SRD, then read the errata, but since none of those fix this issue, those really aren't options. The FAQ and/or CustServ are options, but aren't generally considered 'official' sources due to their prolific errors and confusion. What I, personally, would consider the nail in the coffin of this issue is the simple shear number of typos/omissions that one must assume if applying vulnerability to fire as a product of immunity to cold (and vice versa, since both are specified in the DMG and SRD). All Angels, Balors, all Baatezu, Kytons, Dragon Turtles, all Formians, all Half-dragons of Red, White, Gold, Silver, and Brass varieties, Liches, Nightcrawlers, Nightwalkers, Nightwings, Ravids, Skeletons, theTarrasque, and Tojanidas would need errata. Just a note, but that's all the creatures in the MM1 with either Fire or Cold Immunity without the appropriate subtype (except for a few with both Fire AND Cold Immunity, since that essentially negates vulnerability). And that's just in core. How many omissions are you willing to accept before assuming that the text you're quoting is actually the error, and not the creature entries noted above? My thoughts precisely. Add to that list any magic item or spell granting immunity to cold, as well as non-Core creatures, and the answer should be obvious.
runewaybur 01-21-08, 08:28 PM	I got a responce from CustServ "The DMG entry is explaining the Cold Immunity ability. In the case of the Frost Giant, Cold Immunity ability comes from having the Cold Subtype. If a creature or template has Immunity to Cold damage and does not have Fire Vulnerability it would say so. Good Gaming!"
Tedronai 01-22-08, 01:19 AM	Wow, three consecutive sentences that manage, cumulatively, to say absolutely NOTHING relevant on this issue. But then, what did I expect from CustServ? The point is that NONE of the instances of this problem that I have EVER encountered actually 'say so' as CustServe suggests they should. Customer Service, in this instance, can ONLY be assumed to be wrong. Anything else would require an ABSURD degree of incompetence by the developers, writers, and editors of the various monster manuals.
Merestil Haye 01-22-08, 06:14 AM	I got a responce from CustServ "The DMG entry is explaining the Cold Immunity ability. In the case of the Frost Giant, Cold Immunity ability comes from having the Cold Subtype. If a creature or template has Immunity to Cold damage and does not have Fire Vulnerability it would say so. Good Gaming!"Unfortunately, it is well-established that Customer Services can be "led" into a conclusion by the way the question is phrased. Therefore the response is worthless, since we don't know what you asked.
Maliseth Tyranis 01-22-08, 10:09 AM	Unfortunately, it is well-established that Customer Services can be "led" into a conclusion by the way the question is phrased. Therefore the response is worthless, since we don't know what you asked. Whether Customer Service is right or wrong on this, it's really up to the DM in the end which take he wants to use....the right one or the wrong one...and then the players must abide by that. This came up in a recent game we had, I benefited in one area and suffered in another due to the DM's rulings.
eamon 01-22-08, 10:31 AM	The DMG is not the primary source on monster abilities. Clearly, the dmg glossary quote concerning "A creature with cold immunity..." is about monster abilities. Cold Immunity is not an explicit monster ability in the MM; however, the Cold Subtype does exist and works as the DMG describes. Clearly, that's what the DMG is talking about, and the naming got confused. In any case, the MM - the primary source here - doesn't back up this rule, nor even define the concept of "cold immunity" (as opposed to "immunity to cold"). Note that in 3.0, "cold immunity" did exist, and perhaps that section wasn't changed in the DMG. I don't remember 3.0's rules on cold immunity, but nomenclature and rules did change, so it's probably a conversion mistake somewhere. Unless you explicitly have Vulnerability to fire (such as any creature with the Cold subtype), "immunity to cold" does not imply "vulnerability to fire"
Maliseth Tyranis 01-22-08, 10:55 AM	Unfortunately, it is well-established that Customer Services can be "led" into a conclusion by the way the question is phrased. Therefore the response is worthless, since we don't know what you asked. Also, here is what he asked... According to the Dungeon Master Guide (Pg. 291), "A creature with cold immunity, such as a frost giant, never takes cold damage. It has vulnerabilyt to fire..." Now, in the Monster Manual (Pg. 207), It states that "A creature with the Cold Subtype has immunity to cold. It has a vulnerability to fire.." Is it then, correct that if you gain an immunity to cold damage through any means (Saint Template, Magical Item, etc) that you are indeed vulnerable to fire and take 1.5x fire damage? Or, since the Frost Giant mentioned in the first quoting has the Cold Subtype, is the immunity and vulnerability both coming from that? Thanks for any clarification.
Maliseth Tyranis 01-22-08, 10:58 AM	If you want to be technically correct going by the books, both are correct. The DMG says creatures with Cold Immunity are Vuln to Fire and The MM says that a creature with the Cold Subtype have Cold Immunity and are therefore Vuln to Fire. See, Everyone wins... :-)
runewaybur 01-22-08, 07:43 PM	This came up in a recent game we had, I benefited in one area and suffered in another due to the DM's rulings. You hush, you're the one that started this :D I've heard that in the newer publishings of the DMG, that this "Cold Immunity" definition isn't even there, and instead there is a blanket definition of "Immunity" instead. Can anyone confirm this? Oh, and Maliseth is correct in how I worded the question. He's a member of my group, and got a forward of the email I recieved.
Maliseth Tyranis 01-22-08, 07:54 PM	You hush, you're the one that started this :D I've heard that in the newer publishings of the DMG, that this "Cold Immunity" definition isn't even there, and instead there is a blanket definition of "Immunity" instead. Can anyone confirm this? Oh, and Maliseth is correct in how I worded the question. He's a member of my group, and got a forward of the email I recieved. Most likely they just made the subtypes when they tried to fix Polymorph "again" and just left out the part about ignoring the wording in the DMG.
weasel0 01-22-08, 11:41 PM	I have all 3 of the leather bound reprints. "Immunity" is only in the MM. It's listed as something that can never be supressed. (my own examples)EX: Undead are immune to mind affecting effects. Blind persons are immune to illusions. Exceptions: Elves-immune to sleep but can supress said immunity. Both the DMG and MM both have the same rulings, and both are XXXX Subtype. No more XXXX Immunity.
runewaybur 01-23-08, 12:43 AM	So, in the DMG, there is no Cold Immunity listing? Hrm..
runestar 01-23-08, 06:19 AM	In my opinion, a Cold Subtype creature is a creature that obtained its cold immunity from the environment in which it lives. Now, what makes me curious is what might happen if you took a creature that's normally immune to fire (such as the Tarasque) and made it immune to ice as well by giving it the Cold Subtype... They would just cancel each other out. For example, a creature with both the fire and cold subtypes are technically vulnerable to both cold and fire, but any damage they do take from these sources will ultimately be reduced to zero from their fire/cold immunity respectively.:) Nor do the rules expressly prohibit a creature from possessing both cold and fire subtypes at the same time (for those trying to argue this point).:)
weasel0 01-23-08, 07:40 PM	So, in the DMG, there is no Cold Immunity listing? Hrm.. Nopers. Oh, and to clarify Immunity. They're not allowed to suppress it for beneficial effects. So I sorta wrote that wrong. Apparently, anyone with an immunity can suppress it to harm themselves.