Would you allow for a character to detect effects he's immune to?

[Lombra]

Let's say this character is immune to poison damage and the poisoned contition, would he notice if the animal he got bit by was poisonous?

Example: 10th level monk getting bit by poisonous snakes he's never seen before, would he completely ignore the poison or would he notice it?

That's obviously a "in your opinion" question, as there are no rules to support this, so I'm curious about how you think it should work.

I think that it woud be a nice perk to "detect poison" in first person without any risks, but I can see that if you can't feel something then you can't really know if it's there or not.

[Gungor]

How do you picture the immunity working? If you picture it as the character’s ki actively kicking in when poisoned to neutralize the effects, then it seems that the character would know that happened and could detect that s/he was poisoned.

If you picture it more as a passive thing - the body no longer interacting with the poison so no effects, then the character probably wouldn’t know.

I’d probably say that the monk’s ability would allow detection, because I picture it working in more of an “active response” capacity. In contrast, I picture the paladin’s immunity to disease as a more passive thing, so I wouldn’t let a paladin “detect disease” in the same way.

[Crgaston]

The way I see it is that the Monk feels the poison but can control his body enough to counteract it before he suffers the poisoned condition or poison damage. It’d be like an ant bite or a bee sting for a normal person.

[Angelalex242]

Depends. If a 20th level bard with expertise in intimidation 20 charisma and a natural 20 on the die tries to intimidate the aura of courage paladin, the Paladin finds his attempts about as scary as a 5 year old girl and probably laughs at his antics.

The Dragon flapping his wings and showing his teeth trying to look intimidating with Frightful Presence equally just inspires a chuckle out of the Paladin.

And when Count Strahd looks the Devotion Paladin in the eye, she asks him why he's staring at her.

[Armored Walrus]

In OP's specific example I would probably describe the venom dripping from the wound but having no impact. For other effects, I do try to let them know that they resisted something. For two reasons, first, if the rest of the group is paying attention, they now know something about their foe that they didn't before. Second, I like the players to know that their characters' abilities are being useful. This is one situation where I think the DM keeping the effects secret has more drawbacks than benefits.

[Tanarii]

Depends. If a 20th level bard with expertise in intimidation 20 charisma and a natural 20 on the die tries to intimidate the aura of courage paladin, the Paladin finds his attempts about as scary as a 5 year old girl and probably laughs at his antics. Intimidation via skill still (potentially) works just fine on a Paladin with Aura of Courage. They're only immune to the Frightened condition.

[Armored Walrus]

Intimidation via skill still (potentially) works just fine on a Paladin with Aura of Courage. They're only immune to the Frightened condition.

And certainly in all the situations described in that post, they'd be aware of the threat, just not daunted by it. I agree, though, both mechanically and in reality intimidation and fear are not the same thing. I may be brave or confident or foolish enough to face a dragon without fear, but I can still be impressed by the threat enough to decide that the encounter would cost myself and my party too many resources to be worth facing. (intimidated)

[Angelalex242]

Intimidation via skill still (potentially) works just fine on a Paladin with Aura of Courage. They're only immune to the Frightened condition.

It shouldn't. Immune to fear is immune to fear. Whether it's fear by skill, fear by torture, or fear by effect. Funniest part of the Oath of Conquest is that the whole oath is completely no sold by every other Paladin out there. Including other Conquest Paladins.

[Tanarii]

It shouldn't. Immune to fear is immune to fear. Whether it's fear by skill, fear by torture, or fear by effect. Funniest part of the Oath of Conquest is that the whole oath is completely no sold by every other Paladin out there. Including other Conquest Paladins.
fear =\= Frightened
Intimidate =\= fear

There are too many leaps that don't line up in your assumption.

[Angelalex242]

fear =\= Frightened
Intimidate =\= fear

There are too many leaps that don't line up in your assumption.

Eh. 3.5 Paladins were Intimidate proof. I hadn't seen anything in this edition to change it.

[sir_argo]

Let's say this character is immune to poison damage and the poisoned contition, would he notice if the animal he got bit by was poisonous?


I can see that if you can't feel something then you can't really know if it's there or not.

You kinda went against your own premise. In the first quote, you are asking [paraphrased], "If I'm immune, can I feel it?" Then in your second quote you make an assumption that technically answers your first, "If you can't feel something." I'm doing to disregard the second quote entirely and just answer the first quote.


Being immune doesn't mean you don't feel it.

Maybe you're immune to fire damage, but you still feel temperature. You literally know if something is hot or cold, and probably how hot and how cold... you're just not taking damage from it.

Maybe you're immune to non-magical weapons, but you still feel them hitting you.

So just because you're immune to poison doesn't mean you don't feel an odd sensation, or a chill running through your veins.


Now an exception.

I think that if you literally don't interact with the effect/substance, then maybe you'd be unaware of it. A construct has no circulatory system and would not be aware if the weapon that just hit them was poisoned. A skeleton doesn't breath and would be unaware that the fog cloud he's in is actually a cloud kill.


Your example of a monk is one that I would clearly say he "feels" the poison. He's just doesn't take the effects.


A more difficult example would be, suppose you are immune to charm and a sorcerer uses subtle spell to try and charm you. Do you "feel" that? It's just my opinion... I'd say yes. I'm sure you can make an argument for no. If I was the DM, I'd tell the player that someone tried to charm them, but it had no effect.




edit: cloudkill doesn't require you to breath, but you get the idea anyway

[Armored Walrus]

A more difficult example would be, suppose you are immune to charm and a sorcerer uses subtle spell to try and charm you. Do you "feel" that? It's just my opinion... I'd say yes. I'm sure you can make an argument for no. If I was the DM, I'd tell the player that someone tried to charm them, but it had no effect.

This is a scenario where I'd alter my position from above, and from yours. The whole point of burning the resources to use Subtle Spell was to avoid detection. At my table, I'd probably have the player roll a saving throw, but never tell them what it was for. If it was a player using subtle spell to charm a foe, I'd do the same - save or fail, but the foe doesn't detect it. They certainly do after it ends if the spell description says so (not looking at a spell rn, but I think some effects say it and some don't).

[sir_argo]

This is a scenario where I'd alter my position from above, and from yours. The whole point of burning the resources to use Subtle Spell was to avoid detection. At my table, I'd probably have the player roll a saving throw, but never tell them what it was for. If it was a player using subtle spell to charm a foe, I'd do the same - save or fail, but the foe doesn't detect it. They certainly do after it ends if the spell description says so (not looking at a spell rn, but I think some effects say it and some don't).

Subtle spell does only this (full text): "When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal components."

The only thing it does is remove the V and S components. It says nothing about making the effects undetectable. I would only tell the target that a spell hit them, have them roll a save if appropriate, but not reveal from whom or where the spell was cast. But in my opinion, they do know a spell was cast at them.

[Armored Walrus]

The only thing it does is remove the V and S components. It says nothing about making the effects undetectable.

As far as I know, no rule says anything about making an effect detectable either, except the ones that specifically say they are. That's what makes it a ruling.

[Slipperychicken]

Here's how I see it: Humans are functionally immune to being dissolved by water, but if you get splashed with it or put your hands in it, you still feel that it's there. If you have a baking glove on and stick it into fire, you might still feel a bit of heat, but obviously not enough to immediately injure you.

For a poison bite, I think it might be a thing where it still hurts or causes numbness, but just not enough to count as damage in game terms. He might also feel the substance forced into his body, but I'd consider a low perception check to notice that (DC 10? 15?) depending on what's going on.


A more difficult example would be, suppose you are immune to charm and a sorcerer uses subtle spell to try and charm you. Do you "feel" that? It's just my opinion... I'd say yes. I'm sure you can make an argument for no. If I was the DM, I'd tell the player that someone tried to charm them, but it had no effect.


I don't remember what the lore says in 5e, but I prefer when people feel hostile forces probing or forcing their minds. Since willpower is what fends it off, that would require some mental exertion from the affected character; their minds are fighting off intrusion.