If you had a weapon that had some ability to inflict fire damage, would the weapon still deal damage just not inflict fire?
Essentially, yes. It would still count as a magical weapon, and benefit from any other features it has. The extra fire damage from whatever its trigger happens to be simply would not be able to do damage versus the creature with immunity to fire.
If you had a weapon that had some ability to inflict fire damage, would the weapon still deal damage just not inflict fire?
Essentially, yes. It would still count as a magical weapon, and benefit from any other features it has. The extra fire damage from whatever its trigger happens to be simply would not be able to do damage versus the creature with immunity to fire.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Example:
Against a Fire Giant, a Flame Tongue long sword would still deal 1d8+STR slashing damage.
However, against the same monster, a lit Torch would do no damage because it exclusively deals fire damage.
Okay so if its a Bludgeoning weapon with a element, the element wouldn't do damage and it would still bludgeon
Contrast with something like the sun blade that actually replaces the base damage type. In that case, immunity would completely negate the damage.
Funny thing about immunity. It's never actually defined anywhere in the rules. We just assume it means you don't take damage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's funny how the English language isn't clear enough on the subject.
What else would damage immunity do, though? There aren't many relevant definitions for the word.
The end result either way is "take no damage", but is that "ignores damage", "takes 0 damage", or something else?
Some abilities that have rider effects will operate differently depending on the hair-splitting technicality.