"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Your DM is certainly free to rule that vulnerable - default - resistant - immunity are "steps" and that imposing vulnerability moves you down a step and imposing resistance moves you up a step. It may have implications you don't want though, such as giving a Tiefling fire resistance from an outside source resulting in fire immunity.
This is one of those things where, if the players took the time to spend a spell slot or resource to give weakness to a creature for an element that creature is normally immune to, even though I know that's now how it's supposed to work, I would still bump it down from Immunity to Resistance, but I would do so knowing fully that I'm doing it "wrong" according the rules as written.
Wording is particular. It would. help if you gave an example of the thing you are talking about. With a spell like Elemental Bane, the target loses any resistance to the elemental damage type for the duration of the spell. So in that case the resistance is gone gone until the spell is over, regardless of who deals that damage. With the Elemental Adept feats, spells you cast ignore elemental resistance of the specified type, so the creature retains its resistance, but your spells deal normal damage.
However, those are both specific in wording. They address resistance, not immunity. If you used them on a creature with immunity, nothing would change for that creature; it's immunity holds against your attacks. I do not know if there are items, feats, or spells that breach immunity. Maybe Wish? I'm not well versed enough here, to be honest.
To me, vulnerability, resistance, and immunity are incompatible attributes. You can be one at a given time. Despite what you might have intended, the question in your title says that the. creature would be immune and also gain vulnerability, implying it is somehow both at the same time. To me that is like simultaneously having 4 AC and 18AC at the same time—it doesn't make sense.
Channel Divinity: Path to the Grave
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
As an action, you choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you, cursing it until the end of your next turn. The next time you or an ally of yours hits the cursed creature with an attack, the creature has vulnerability to all of that attack’s damage, and then the curse ends.
I think this ability could be why the question was asked.
I see. I might have been wrong about mutual exclusivity anyway. This wording is not great though:
Some creatures and objects are exceedingly difficult or unusually easy to hurt with certain types of damage.
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has vulnerability to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it.
Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
I don't necessarily have any issue with being both vulnerable and resistant, as long as they are the result of different circumstances.
For a semi-real world example: a Tiefling may be naturally resistant to fire, but if they are wearing a suit of metal armor, they're going to be taking more damage from that fire than they normally would due to conduction. Anyone else would be even worse off.
So, induced "vulnerability" could represent an added conductive medium, rather than compromising the creature's physical structure.
I could see this happening in exceptional circumstances and not as a general rule. I can't see this being applied to beings whose immunity stems from being of an elemental nature with the type of damage. I could see some high powered magic stripping other creatures of powers, but again it wouldn't be universal. I'm not sure what I would do about the Grave domain example, Golaryn brings up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
See Title. Oh, and I meant the same damage type the creature is immune to.
Nothing,the damage is null.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Ok, I thought the creature would be treated as resistant to that damage type.
Immunity means you take 0 damage.
Vulnerability doubles the damage you take.
0 x 2 = 0
Confirming that Immunity reigns. [SageAdvice]
Your DM is certainly free to rule that vulnerable - default - resistant - immunity are "steps" and that imposing vulnerability moves you down a step and imposing resistance moves you up a step. It may have implications you don't want though, such as giving a Tiefling fire resistance from an outside source resulting in fire immunity.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This is one of those things where, if the players took the time to spend a spell slot or resource to give weakness to a creature for an element that creature is normally immune to, even though I know that's now how it's supposed to work, I would still bump it down from Immunity to Resistance, but I would do so knowing fully that I'm doing it "wrong" according the rules as written.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Channel Divinity: Path to the Grave
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your Channel Divinity to mark another creature’s life force for termination.
As an action, you choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you, cursing it until the end of your next turn. The next time you or an ally of yours hits the cursed creature with an attack, the creature has vulnerability to all of that attack’s damage, and then the curse ends.
I think this ability could be why the question was asked.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Any interpretation that could lessen a Fire Elemental's immunity to fire should be taken with extreme skepticism.
It's often much easier to use something like Transmuted Metamagic to change the damage type altogether.
Yeah, the rules can be a bit ambiguous some times, but I think Brian_Avery's answer in post #4 is the most logical.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't necessarily have any issue with being both vulnerable and resistant, as long as they are the result of different circumstances.
For a semi-real world example: a Tiefling may be naturally resistant to fire, but if they are wearing a suit of metal armor, they're going to be taking more damage from that fire than they normally would due to conduction. Anyone else would be even worse off.
So, induced "vulnerability" could represent an added conductive medium, rather than compromising the creature's physical structure.
I could see this happening in exceptional circumstances and not as a general rule. I can't see this being applied to beings whose immunity stems from being of an elemental nature with the type of damage. I could see some high powered magic stripping other creatures of powers, but again it wouldn't be universal. I'm not sure what I would do about the Grave domain example, Golaryn brings up.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.