Gaining immunity while already affected

[weckar]

So, in 3.5, what happens when you (temporarily) gain immunity to an effect you're already being affected by?

This came up in a game last night when a party member affected by a Geas got polymorphed into a plant-type - so immune to mind-affecting. DM ruled that the Geas didn't work for the duration of the polymorph, but would resume afterwards.

Still, I couldn't find any useful rules references regarding this at all. So, what should have happened here?

[Necroticplague]

So, in 3.5, what happens when you (temporarily) gain immunity to an effect you're already being affected by?

This came up in a game last night when a party member affected by a Geas got polymorphed into a plant-type - so immune to mind-affecting. DM ruled that the Geas didn't work for the duration of the polymorph, but would resume afterwards.

Still, I couldn't find any useful rules references regarding this at all. So, what should have happened here?

Immunity is only checked when the effect starts. Otherwise, quite a few things would create paradoxes as the spell makes you unable to be targeted by the spell itself.

[Jowgen]

Immunity is only checked when the effect starts. Otherwise, quite a few things would create paradoxes as the spell makes you unable to be targeted by the spell itself.

One more light-weight alternative that I've read is that specific effects can not interfere with their own function. For example, PrCs benefits can not disqualify themselves, even though another effect doing the same thing as the benefit could.

But, afaik, there is no clear RAW support for either or any other views on the matter. It's all extrapolation to avoid rule conflict.

[aeauseth]

You could use extrapolate from Delay Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/delayPoison.htm).

[Necroticplague]

One more light-weight alternative that I've read is that specific effects can not interfere with their own function. For example, PrCs benefits can not disqualify themselves, even though another effect doing the same thing as the benefit could.

But, afaik, there is no clear RAW support for either or any other views on the matter. It's all extrapolation to avoid rule conflict.

Actually, there is some rule support, under the rules for spells.


Casting Time
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

So none of the pertinent decisions are made after it comes into effect. Not exactly the most clear-cut, but it's some support.

[unseenmage]

Greater Humanoid Essence is my go-to. It changes a Construct to a Humanoid for the duration.

If changing type made spells stop working then G. H. Essence would end its own duration as soon as it changed its target's type.

[Zanos]

Greater Humanoid Essence is my go-to. It changes a Construct to a Humanoid for the duration.

If changing type made spells stop working then G. H. Essence would end its own duration as soon as it changed its target's type.
As mentioned previously, delay poison and protection from evil both set a precedent that despite bestowing immunity, the effect still happens after the immunizer fades. I think the DM called it correctly, and the geas fails to function during the polymorph, but later resumes. A plant creature is not an invalid target for a geas anyway, as it targets a living creature, it's simply immune to the effects of the spell. You could stack 30 geas spells on a normal plant creature if you wanted and then cast remove curse 30 times to get rid of them, but while they're on the plant they don't do anything because it's immune to the effects.

[Deophaun]

As mentioned previously, delay poison and protection from evil both set a precedent that despite bestowing immunity, the effect still happens after the immunizer fades.
Actually, they do the opposite by being specific in that function.

[Jowgen]

Actually, they do the opposite by being specific in that function.

I concur with Deophaun. If it were the general rule, it is not likely that these spells would have specific text on the matter.

[Echch]

Actually, they do the opposite by being specific in that function.

How does that relate to the fact that Empyreal Ecstasy specifically states that the previous mind-affecting effects still work despite it granting immunity?

...I'm confused now.

[Deophaun]

How does that relate to the fact that Empyreal Ecstasy specifically states that the previous mind-affecting effects still work despite it granting immunity?

...I'm confused now.
You got all the way to the spell list in BoED before becoming confused. That's impressive!

[Zanos]

Actually, they do the opposite by being specific in that function.
Spells restate the general rules pretty frequently.

[Deophaun]

Spells restate the general rules pretty frequently.
But where is your general rule stated? We know that all decisions are made when the spell is cast is a general rule, because it is cited generally. Meanwhile, none of the spells cited talk about a general behavior, but rather just what that spell does. Delay poison doesn't say poisons are suppressed because the creature is now immune; the spell suppresses them itself. Same for protection from evil: the spell cites no general rule about immunity to mind-affecting suppressing existing effects.

So, where's the general rule that you think these spells are restating? Because to restate a rule, the rule must first have been stated.

[Zanos]

But where is your general rule stated? We know that all decisions are made when the spell is cast is a general rule, because it is cited generally. Meanwhile, none of the spells cited talk about a general behavior, but rather just what that spell does. Delay poison doesn't say poisons are suppressed because the creature is now immune; the spell suppresses them itself. Same for protection from evil: the spell cites no general rule about immunity to mind-affecting suppressing existing effects.

So, where's the general rule that you think these spells are restating? Because to restate a rule, the rule must first have been stated.
Making decisions about a spell is irrelevant. Any enemy being immune to the effect of your spell is not a decision that the caster makes. Since that's non-applicable, you can find the general rule in the glossary definition of immunity, which states that:
A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect.

[Jowgen]

Making decisions about a spell is irrelevant. Any enemy being immune to the effect of your spell is not a decision that the caster makes. Since that's non-applicable, you can find the general rule in the glossary definition of immunity, which states that:

A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect.

Interestingly, this stands in contradiction to PHB p. 177


creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

Elves have Immunity to magic sleep effects. Hurray for RAW inconsistency!

[weckar]

So this whole issue seems a little more complicated than I initially figured...