Immunity Questions

[Ignashis]

I'm using the Pathfinder rules for this game.

So I'm just curious about this, but when a creatures ability states that it is both paralysis and mind-affecting (I'm using the Mummy's despair ability for the example). And the player is Immune to paralysis, but not the mind affecting ability would they be frozen in fear anyway or would they still be immune to it. My take is that yes you're immune to paralysis from toxins and poisons and such, but you're not immune to being frozen in place out of shear terror.

I would just like to know some of your opinions on this matter.

[yougi]

I'm using the Pathfinder rules for this game.

So I'm just curious about this, but when a creatures ability states that it is both paralysis and mind-affecting (I'm using the Mummy's despair ability for the example). And the player is Immune to paralysis, but not the mind affecting ability would they be frozen in fear anyway or would they still be immune to it. My take is that yes you're immune to paralysis from toxins and poisons and such, but you're not immune to being frozen in place out of shear terror.

I would just like to know some of your opinions on this matter.

Don't know what RAW would state, even less so for PF, but I'd say if you're immune to one of the two types, you would still get affected, as per two-damage-type weapons (morningstars) and DR/piercing

[Xervous]

For damage, a piercing and bludgeoning weapon deals half its damage as piercing with the other half being bludgeoning.

On the other hand, a spell or ability is never divided up by its component descriptors unless specifically called out in the spells descriptions. So if you are immune to any of the descriptors, you are immune to the whole shebang.

[SLOTHRPG95]

My take is that yes you're immune to paralysis from toxins and poisons and such, but you're not immune to being frozen in place out of shear terror.
Although I'm no expert with Pathfinder's mechanics, this would seem to be a sensible conclusion. It is dangerous to try and explain how everything fundamentally works in any system (let alone a high magic one), but it seems to me here that the immunity to paralysis deals only with actual physical paralysis (nasty things requiring fortitude saves) and not terror-induced actions (nasty things requiring will saves).

[Vhaidara]

I would side with immune to one, immune to whole thing. here's my logic

Paralysis effect is the outcome. Immunity to paralysis makes you immune to paralysis, regardless of the source. Thy can affect your mind, but your body is fundamentally protected from the outcome of paralysis.

Mind affecting is a means. Immune to that, obviously the ability does nothing.

Maybe, as a compromise, have it slow instead of paralyze. Slow seems like it would be a step up the chain from paralysis, so it would show that they are resisting part of the effect, (the paralysis) but not all of it (the mind affecting)

[Ignashis]

Alright thanks for your opinions I was just wondering what your guys' takes on the matter was.

[Necroticplague]

The RAW is tat being immune to any part of it makes you immune to the whole things; immune to mind-effecting effects you whether it's effecting your mind to read or make you see things, and immunity to paralysis helps you resist a paralytic poison just as much as being scared into stillness. That's why effects with a lot of descriptors (like wail of the phantasmal killer) are considered a bit weaker than those with less.

[Abithrios]

For damage, a piercing and bludgeoning weapon deals half its damage as piercing with the other half being bludgeoning.


If that is the case, then Pathfinder is different than 3.5 in which a weapon that does piercing and bludgeoning would bypass both DR/piercing and also DR/bludgeoning completely.