Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
This is exactly why the types explicitly don't have any inherent rules or traits associated with them. Creature types don't confer any abilities or features like immunity or vulnerability. The problem you're describing is already solved, because there's nothing to "inherit".
There is no need to homebrew anything when the official rules are already quite clear on what would happen if creatures with multiple types existed.
pronouns: he/she/they
No, the traits doesn't combine to create any new effect because nothing in the rules say they do. If a creature have both traits then they simply have both traits and thus both apply.
But this isn't a problem.
There is an order of operations for damage (that includes vulnerability) but Immunity isn't in it, it has its own definition that comes just after.
That still means your point is correct though as the definition of Immunity is that "Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type" so the end result is no damage.
Never having even heard of combining multispecies traits until this thread. What is the purpose of combing them? Is this all about power gaming like one poster referenced above? Is there some other reason?
Doesn't the 2024 rules try eliminate multi species traits by no longer having any half species?
And in case of doubt, we have this explanation from XGtE:
PS. IMO, another possible reading is that "Immunity" is part of "adjustments such as bonuses, penalties, or multipliers are applied first".EDIT: see #33The order of operations for immunity doesn't actually matter; you can apply immunity, resistance, vulnerability, and damage negation in any order and the final damage is still 0.
No it really isn't. Immunity has its own section in the rules just after the section that details the order of operations and it is very clear on what immunity does.
No damage taken means no damage taken, there really is no way to argue ones way around that simple fact.
And even if you try to it changes nothing. Applying immunity first just means that there is no damage that you are about to take so being vulnerable to it still nets you no damage to take.
This is called the "Stacking Method" and most people found it to be VERY abusive. People would find creatures that were to everything except X and Y and then apply something that gives it immunity to X and Y.
D&D prefers the non stacking, cancellation method - advantage + disadvantage = nothing.
The game does not multiply, it replaces.
In other words, this is a game, do not do abusive things to break the power balance.
The claim as "RAW means no damage" is the battle cry of the foolish munchkin. No one I know wants to play that way.
Instead, most people use RAI (Rules as intended) and make the game fun to play. Fun to play means immunity plus vulnerability cancel out to either resistance or normal damage.
Ok, ok, you're right. I've just updated my answer.
D&D is not a video game. It's a TTRPG. Programming principles that we're used to see in video games don't apply (and before you play the "I'm an engineer" card, I've been a software engineer for 15 years).
And since we're speaking of intent, the rules are pretty clear about what's intended regarding things cancelling out:
They went out of their way to setup a complete example of how Vulnerability and Resistance cancel out, but NOT Immunity.
If they had wanted Immunity to also be cancelled out by something, they would have said so.