Anything that can remove an opponent's fire immunity?

[sorcererlover]

I'm not interested in how to make my fire spells unresistable. I want to lower my opponent's fire resistance so my friend's fire spells can affect them.

[The Glyphstone]

your friend needs the Searing Spell metamagic feat. It makes Fire spells ignore fire resistance and deal half damage to fire immune targets.

[heavyfuel]

Bestow Curse could work.


You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above.


I'd say that reducing a creature's fire resistance by, say, 20 points is definitely weaker than making it lose 50% of its rounds or having its Constitution reduced by 6.

It does require your DM to be up for it.

[Deophaun]

Energy vulnerability might help, as that makes them take 50% more. I'm not sure if that gets applied before or after the resistance, however.

[heavyfuel]

Energy vulnerability might help, as that makes them take 50% more. I'm not sure if that gets applied before or after the resistance, however.

I know most people hate the FAQ (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) with good reason, but it does provide what I consider a very good ruling for these situations:


As a general guideline, whenever the rules don’t stipulate an order of operations for special effects (such as spells or special abilities), you should apply them in the order that’s most beneficial to the “controller” of the effect.


The caster is the controller of the effect, so we should apply the 50% before applying Fire Resistance

[sorcererlover]

Energy vulnerability might help, as that makes them take 50% more. I'm not sure if that gets applied before or after the resistance, however.

The exact language of the RAW suggests it doesn't overcome fire immunity. But it is a good spell against fire resistant enemies.

[Deophaun]

I would recommend the other way around :p
Scorching Ray versus 10 resist fire.

4d6 averages to 14 damage.

If 50% before fire resistance, that would be 14+(14/2)-10, or 11 damage.
If 50% after fire resistance, that would be 14-10+(14-10)/2, or 6 damage.

Applying before is definitely the way to go.

[Zombulian]

3rd level of Spellthief gives you Steal Energy Resistance 10.

[Deophaun]

it was regarding the quoted faq. spellcaster isnt controller, the effects are both of the target
Wuh? It's the spellcaster that controls everything about the spell: target, strength, often dismissal and can certainly dispel it without issue. The target controls nothing about it.

The problem is that the spellcaster controls the spell while it may be argued the creature controls its fire resistance. Applying them in order of what is beneficial to the controller thus doesn't solve anything as there are two controllers with opposing definitions of beneficial.

[sorcererlover]

If a fireball becomes 50% hotter, it makes no sense that the fire resistance increases to block more damage. So in this case applying fire resistance after the 50% vulnerability makes sense.

If you have a fire shield that is separate from your flesh, and your flesh become 50% more vulnerable to fire, then applying fire resistance before the 50% vulnerability makes sense.

So I think if you have energy resistance cast on you, you'd apply the resistance before the vulnerability, and if its your skin that is resistant to fire, you'd apply the vulnerability before the resistance.

[heavyfuel]

it was regarding the quoted faq. spellcaster isnt controller, the effects are both of the target


Applying them in order of what is beneficial to the controller thus doesn't solve anything as there are two controllers with opposing definitions of beneficial.

You don't control your resistance. It's something passive that exists whether you want to or not. If a gold dragon for whatever reason wanted to kill himself by diving into a volcano, he'd have to wait until he ran out of air because he cannot exert control over his immunity.

Resistances aren't "effects" either. For something to be an effect, it needs to be subject to "line of effect" rule, and resistances, unlike spells, aren't.


Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can reach a creature. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except line of effect ignores restrictions on visual ability.

[Deophaun]

Resistances aren't "effects" either. For something to be an effect, it needs to be subject to "line of effect" rule, and resistances, unlike spells, aren't.
Well, that's a new argument for effect being a game term. Unfortunately, effect is used throughout the rules in ways where treating it as such wouldn't make sense.

And then there's the issue that you're applying it to the FAQ, whose relationship with RAW is already tenuous.

Anyway, it now strikes me that the true controller here is the person who cast scorching ray, which solves that problem.

[heavyfuel]

And then there's the issue that you're applying it to the FAQ, whose relationship with RAW is already tenuous.


I understand this, and I know full well that the FAQ is not RAW, just suggestions. In this case, however, a very good one.

Applying other aspects of RAW to rulings is something very common though. If you rule that monks are proficient with their Unarmed Strikes, which is not RAW, you don't need to change how Unarmed Strikes, proficiency, or the monk class work. You can continue to apply the rules despite having made a ruling.

[Feantar]

You don't control your resistance. It's something passive that exists whether you want to or not. If a gold dragon for whatever reason wanted to kill himself by diving into a volcano, he'd have to wait until he ran out of air because he cannot exert control over his immunity.

I think you're wrong in this. There's the example (in the PHB IIRC) of elves lowering their immunity to sleep - I don't see why immunity to fire is any different.

[heavyfuel]

I think you're wrong in this. There's the example (in the PHB IIRC) of elves lowering their immunity to sleep - I don't see why immunity to fire is any different.

It only work for saving throws. Lava and many spells (Scorching Ray for example) don't offer a save, so in those situations there would be nothing to control.

If you argue that the saving throw only part is stupid, then it still doesn't work because resistances are still not effects.

[Deophaun]

If you argue that the saving throw only part is stupid, then it still doesn't work because resistances are still not effects.
You're still using effect as if it's a defined term. It is not.

All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.
If you had a spell that gave you 1d6 fire resistance, Empower Spell would increase that by 1/2, because that is an effect of the spell. Any other reading that hinges on applying Line of Effect would mean the feat did nothing, because it's the spell itself that needs Line of Effect, not resistances, not damage, not healing, not number of creatures summoned, not anything else.

[heavyfuel]

You're still using effect as if it's a defined term. It is not.


It is defined. If it has more than one definition, it's no problem. But for it to work, need an example of energy resistance/immunity being referred to as an effect.

[Deophaun]

It is defined. If it has more than one definition, it's no problem.
Line of Effect only defines Line of Effect, it doesn't provide a definition for an effect.

But for it to work, need an example of energy resistance/immunity being referred to as an effect.
As stated, we have "effects of [a] spell," for which energy resistance would qualify (see resist energy).

But no, you don't need a specific example of something having been called an effect to make it officially an effect. You just need the capacity to reason based on what is in the game already.

[heavyfuel]

But no, you don't need a specific example of something having been called an effect to make it officially an effect. You just need the capacity to reason based on what is in the game already.

If that's all we need, then why are we even arguing when I agreed with you on this:


Anyway, it now strikes me that the true controller here is the person who cast scorching ray, which solves that problem.

?

[Anthrowhale]

W.r.t. the OP, "Mantle of the Icy Soul" suppresses the fire subtype so if immunity to fire is derived through the fire subtype this provides a mechanism.

Obviously, Searing Spell+Incantatrix 2 also works.

[Eldariel]

W.r.t. the OP, "Mantle of the Icy Soul" suppresses the fire subtype so if immunity to fire is derived through the fire subtype this provides a mechanism.

Obviously, Searing Spell+Incantatrix 2 also works.

Or any Polymorph-spell. Just make the subject willing or use Baleful/PAO.