Energy Immunity and Saving Throws [Archive] - Wizards Community

Energy Immunity and Saving Throws [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
waynemarkstubbs
07-03-06, 07:24 AM I can't find a description of what it means to be 'immune' to energy anywhere. Specifically, does it extend to equipment. I know the Immunity to Energy spell does, but what about natural abilities?

An example. Three adventurers, Fred, Joe and Bill are all hit by a fireball spell for 40 damage, and all roll 1s on their saves.

Fred has no resistance to fire, and takes 40 damage.

Joe has fire resistance 10. He takes 40-10=30 damage. One of his items has to make a saving throw. If it fails, does it take
a) 20 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire)
b) 10 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire, less Joe's resistance)
c) 15 damage - hardness (40, less Joe's resistance, halved for fire)

Bill has immunity to fire from a source other than the spell. Maybe he's an azer or something.
a) Does one of his items have to make a saving throw?
b) If so, how much damage does it take?
SteveMND
07-11-06, 08:07 AM Presumably it should extend to worn equipment, seeing as many of the creatures in the MM that are immune to a particular energy type are listed as using equipment that would be otherwise destroyed if they weren't, just by virtue of their natural surrounding.
Arvagor
07-11-06, 03:43 PM Unfortunately, I think you really have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and how a particular creature's immunity is described. I know that there are also items, notably certain dragoncraft items, that themselves have energy immunity/resistance, but that the resistance is not conferred upon the wearer. It seems perfectly valid to therefore say that a creature's immunity/resistance is not automatically conferred upon his equipment.
JJeff
07-11-06, 10:39 PM Personally I say that if the resistance is from apells or an item (Ring, mantle, etc) I would allow the resistsance to extend to the items and you would get the result (c) 15 damage - hardness (40, less Joe's resistance, halved for fire)

If the Resistance is racial, the you would get (a) 20 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire)

For the Immunity case, I think the answer is (a) Yes, it makes a save, (b) Damage - hardness (halved for fire)...

Although if the item is being wielded by a creature that obviously can't wield the item without the item being subject to elemental damage (Like a Fire Elemental holding a sword for some reason), then assume the item can resist or is immune to that element...
thorinXXX
07-12-06, 05:03 PM In general, equipment is treated as part of a creature. So the default rule would be that a creature's equipment would benefit from its immunity. Unless there is a specific exception to that rule there is no need to even roll a save against an attack of the specified type.

In the original example both Fred and Joe are treated exactly the same. An item may be destroyed. If the item selected is not magical, it is destroyed; no save. If it is magical it gets a save, the better of its or its wearer's. If it fails it is destroyed, if it suceeds it is unharmed.
waynemarkstubbs
07-13-06, 06:45 AM Not automatically destroyed, ThorinXXX, surely? And there doesn't seem to be any difference between magic and mundane items.

From the SRD:

If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

So, in my first example, Fred's shield (say) would make a save, using its save, or Fred's, whichever was better. It would take 40 damage if it failed, 20 if it passed, then that damage would be halved (for being fire vs. an object) and then its hardness applied.
thorinXXX
07-13-06, 01:49 PM Not automatically destroyed, ThorinXXX, surely? And there doesn't seem to be any difference between magic and mundane items.

From the SRD:

So, in my first example, Fred's shield (say) would make a save, using its save, or Fred's, whichever was better. It would take 40 damage if it failed, 20 if it passed, then that damage would be halved (for being fire vs. an object) and then its hardness applied.

You are correct.
I think the auto destruction was 3.0.

The big differnce between mundane and magical items is the possibility of better saves and better hardness and hitpoints.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
waynemarkstubbs 07-03-06, 07:24 AM	I can't find a description of what it means to be 'immune' to energy anywhere. Specifically, does it extend to equipment. I know the Immunity to Energy spell does, but what about natural abilities? An example. Three adventurers, Fred, Joe and Bill are all hit by a fireball spell for 40 damage, and all roll 1s on their saves. Fred has no resistance to fire, and takes 40 damage. Joe has fire resistance 10. He takes 40-10=30 damage. One of his items has to make a saving throw. If it fails, does it take a) 20 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire) b) 10 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire, less Joe's resistance) c) 15 damage - hardness (40, less Joe's resistance, halved for fire) Bill has immunity to fire from a source other than the spell. Maybe he's an azer or something. a) Does one of his items have to make a saving throw? b) If so, how much damage does it take?
SteveMND 07-11-06, 08:07 AM	Presumably it should extend to worn equipment, seeing as many of the creatures in the MM that are immune to a particular energy type are listed as using equipment that would be otherwise destroyed if they weren't, just by virtue of their natural surrounding.
Arvagor 07-11-06, 03:43 PM	Unfortunately, I think you really have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and how a particular creature's immunity is described. I know that there are also items, notably certain dragoncraft items, that themselves have energy immunity/resistance, but that the resistance is not conferred upon the wearer. It seems perfectly valid to therefore say that a creature's immunity/resistance is not automatically conferred upon his equipment.
JJeff 07-11-06, 10:39 PM	Personally I say that if the resistance is from apells or an item (Ring, mantle, etc) I would allow the resistsance to extend to the items and you would get the result (c) 15 damage - hardness (40, less Joe's resistance, halved for fire) If the Resistance is racial, the you would get (a) 20 damage - hardness (40, halved for fire) For the Immunity case, I think the answer is (a) Yes, it makes a save, (b) Damage - hardness (halved for fire)... Although if the item is being wielded by a creature that obviously can't wield the item without the item being subject to elemental damage (Like a Fire Elemental holding a sword for some reason), then assume the item can resist or is immune to that element...
thorinXXX 07-12-06, 05:03 PM	In general, equipment is treated as part of a creature. So the default rule would be that a creature's equipment would benefit from its immunity. Unless there is a specific exception to that rule there is no need to even roll a save against an attack of the specified type. In the original example both Fred and Joe are treated exactly the same. An item may be destroyed. If the item selected is not magical, it is destroyed; no save. If it is magical it gets a save, the better of its or its wearer's. If it fails it is destroyed, if it suceeds it is unharmed.
waynemarkstubbs 07-13-06, 06:45 AM	Not automatically destroyed, ThorinXXX, surely? And there doesn't seem to be any difference between magic and mundane items. From the SRD: If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt. So, in my first example, Fred's shield (say) would make a save, using its save, or Fred's, whichever was better. It would take 40 damage if it failed, 20 if it passed, then that damage would be halved (for being fire vs. an object) and then its hardness applied.
thorinXXX 07-13-06, 01:49 PM	Not automatically destroyed, ThorinXXX, surely? And there doesn't seem to be any difference between magic and mundane items. From the SRD: So, in my first example, Fred's shield (say) would make a save, using its save, or Fred's, whichever was better. It would take 40 damage if it failed, 20 if it passed, then that damage would be halved (for being fire vs. an object) and then its hardness applied. You are correct. I think the auto destruction was 3.0. The big differnce between mundane and magical items is the possibility of better saves and better hardness and hitpoints.