defining "immunity"

[Segev]

And yet, "because sugar is high in calories, this diet forbids cake and ice cream," is a factual augment with a rule rooted in truth. If you look at what it suggests, you can tell how to apply it. The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written. You can argue all you like that the text doesn't say that, but it does say who is providing the power and what they demand for it.

[Vaern]

This is in the ballpark of my next question:

Is the static planar trait which prevents outsiders from affecting residents essentially the same? Just an area of "this cant happen" which affects the visitors, rather than an immunity given to residents?

The description of static planes in Manual of the Planes says that the effect preventing you from affecting residents or objects on the plane is similar to casting a time stop spell, so it would be a case of "this can't happen" rather than actual immunity.

[Drelua]

A court might get mad at someone for using a legal loophole, but if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean they can be convicted for it. (I think devils would understand legal loopholes better than anyone. Folktales are full of exploits where people cheat the devil of his due.)

For powerful requests, miracle and wish explicitly rely upon DM adjudication. This doesn't.

A DM decides a good-aligned god refuses to grant a cleric PC a spell with the [evil] descriptor. That's "reasonable", right? After all, the context has been established that the source of the spells is a good-aligned being with a certain moral outlook. Whether you think that's a good rule or not, there's no textual justification for it -- it's a house rule, and doesn't belong in a discussion of what's rules-legal. That a house rule is based on the DM's personal interpretation of the lore doesn't make it any more official.

I'm pretty sure the rule is that a good cleric can't cast [evil] spells, so that's not really a "DM decides" situation, but that's beside the point.

What I'm saying is that the feat says that this is a transaction. It's not really comparable to a court being mad about a loophole, because the person on trial isn't expecting the court to give them something. In that situation, the court can't do anything about it. But in this situation, saying the devil lords or whatever can't do anything about it is a huge assumption. It's not a case of "I did an illegal thing but this outdated, forgotten old law says it was technically fine because it was the 12th Thursday of a leap year." It's more like "hey, I know I was supposed to pay all those parking tickets, but when you tried to cash the cheque my account was empty so, can I have my driver's license back now?"

Interpreting that bit as flavour text is completely understandable, but so is interpreting it as a rule. This isn't just a case of establishing rules with "if x, then y" statements, but of establishing how things work in-universe. The text can be interpreted as saying you have to pay for the hellfire, that's not twisting things because it seems unfair, that's looking at how things are stated to work in the setting. If you have to pay the devil a price every time you use a certain power, and you don't pay, it's fair to say you don't get the power.

[Herbert_W]

The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written. You can argue all you like that the text doesn't say that, but it does say who is providing the power and what they demand for it.

Can we at least acknowledge that the people who wrote that text goofed?

The problem here is that the writers wanted the players to not be able to do a certain thing - which is getting hellfire without meaningful ability damage - so they tried to enforce that by banning two specific ways to accomplish that thing. They failed to consider that there are other ways to do that thing.

By analogy, suppose that person A needs person B to stay out of a room. If person A says "Please don't go through that door" and then person B enters through another door, then person A goofed. Sure, person B is in the wrong as well - they disregarded A's clear intent, which is a not-nice thing to do even if it isn't technically against A's stated wishes - but that doesn't change the fact that A should have said "Please stay out of that room."

This situations sucks, because it's not possible to say in advance how any particular DM will rule when mechanics directly contradict lore. When mechanics and lore align (or with strict-RAW games such as MtG or chess) you don't need to plan around a given DM or judge; you are guaranteed to get what the rules say that you get. That guarantee breaks here.

Personally, I'd be inclined to rule that the fiends who demand payment for the use of hellfire made the same mistake in-universe as the writers made IRL. Fiends have a reputation for being geniuses who'll twist every bargain they make in their favor - but that's mostly just propaganda. I'm envisioning the trade-life-for-hellfire system as an automated one that was made deliberately difficult to change so as to prevent other forms of abuse, so the fiends won't be able to do anything to directly stop the players besides setting up high-CR encounters. These fiends might even be persuaded to regard the use of this loophole as an acceptable loss, since it relies on a combination of abilities that are each quite rare, so long as the PCs don't teach this technique to others.

Of course, that's just a solution. It's not the solution to the general problem that players can't predict what a given GM who hasn't seen this trick yet will say. Short of a way to send a message back in time to the writers, that's an unsolvable problem.

[Drelua]

Can we at least acknowledge that the people who wrote that text goofed?

I would be very surprised if there were very many, if any, people on this board not willing to acknowledge this. WotC routinely failed to consider various ways words could be interpreted, which is understandable since they were putting out quite a lot of books when 3.5 was active, but still annoying.

Paizo might be even worse, they expect everyone to read everything they wrote exactly how they intended, and if you ask for clarification there's a decent chance they'll call you a munchkin and say it's obvious. I don't really use the paizo boards, I don't know that I've ever gotten a useful answer there. Any time a google search leads me there, my question is not answered and I'm if anything more confused than I was before I got there. Or I get an answer that makes no sense and ruins the fun thing I thought I could do.

[icefractal]

Paizo might be even worse, they expect everyone to read everything they wrote exactly how they intended, and if you ask for clarification there's a decent chance they'll call you a munchkin and say it's obvious.

Oh man, I hate that. Like, I'm fine with:
"Yeah, that's technically broken, but it's almost always houseruled as ___, which works fine." or "The interpretation that's the most functional is ___, so that's the one you should use." or anything of that nature.

But "No it's obvious, it has to work like ___ or it'd be broken, so clearly it does work that way and you'd have to be crazy to think it worked any other way."
Because apparently the writers are perfect and could never make a mistake? You see it in 5E discussions sometimes too - not "this can be fixed by changing ___ slightly" but "since the GM has the power to make rulings, obviously they rule it this way and there is no problem, there was never a problem, there's nothing to discuss here, go away."

Is this something people like? They'd rather have the GM maintain kayfabe and act like the rules are a perfect system passed down from Saint Gygax which can never fail, only be failed? Maybe so.

[Darg]

When going between tables it's nice to have consistency so you don't make costly mistakes. In general though, I don't see these rule lawyering discussions really happen personally. Then again my circles are small. I only ever experience these things online. Awhile back I posited that ki whirlwind and spring attack worked together on the forum here, got a lot of resistance to it, and my DM said that it sounded cool.

Though, sometimes the original quirks in the rules make things interesting. My groups have been playing with charging overruns for years and I learned recently that they were completely removed. We also play with the you can touch up to 6 willing targets as a full-round action rule for touch spells which has been nice. It was kind of a culture shock learning that most people don't play that way even though the rules say you can.

[Drelua]

When going between tables it's nice to have consistency so you don't make costly mistakes. In general though, I don't see these rule lawyering discussions really happen personally. Then again my circles are small. I only ever experience these things online. Awhile back I posited that ki whirlwind and spring attack worked together on the forum here, got a lot of resistance to it, and my DM said that it sounded cool.

Though, sometimes the original quirks in the rules make things interesting. My groups have been playing with charging overruns for years and I learned recently that they were completely removed. We also play with the you can touch up to 6 willing targets as a full-round action rule for touch spells which has been nice. It was kind of a culture shock learning that most people don't play that way even though the rules say you can.

I don't think that's a bad thing, it's useful to have a place to look things up/ask questions where people are very good at interpreting rules and debating them without getting mad. These forums in particular are great for civilized discussion about weird, overly complicated rules. Now, for something like this I'd probably just go with whatever I thought was most fair, but it's good to know what the "right" answer is, or if there even is one.

Rules lawyers are like real lawyers. You may not like them, and you probably don't want to deal with them most of them time, but when you need one you'll be very happy if you can find a good one.

[MR_Anderson]

Immunity does not have to be tied to type, and also someone earlier in the thread found the in game definition for immunity (which i can edit into my post later when i find it), and 100% fortification falls squarely into that definition

“immunity - 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.“

Notice that immunity is defined as a characteristic of a creature. It is not an ability, it is innate.

Is "protection" a defined game term like immunity is? If so, and it is a mutually exclusive state from protetion then sure. If it isnt mutually exclusive, it still is an immunity by definition.

Protection does not have an entry, or more accurately, I did not find one.

Also, spells that grant immunity to things may be mostly or even only transmutatoon school spells, but that wouldn't mean that only transmutation spells get to grant immunity to things

Transmutation spells change the physical characteristics of things, and since immunity is an innate characteristics this is the school that can provide physical immunities.

You may find an immunity in Abjuration or other schools for non-physical immunities, but the majority come through Transmutation.

Remember, the definition of Immunity says a creature can not suppress their immunity. yet writers use the example of elves suppressing immunity to sleep.

That would be immunity to damage, not critical hits

I was trying to show that immunity isn’t only a characteristic of a creature type or subtype, but also can be an innate characteristic of an object, and how to present Fortification to a DM to argue immunity and not protection.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the difference between Immunity and Protection...

• You can be immune to something, and you’re safe.
• I can protect you from something, and you’re safe.
• You can possibly protect yourself.
• However, I can not protect you just because I happen to be immune.

Immunity is an innate characteristic, where as protection can come from many sources and means.

I said at the beginning of my last post, RAW will not answer this, so you have to use critical thinking to bring an understanding to interpretation.

This is how I run immunity and protection when I DM, it falls perfectly within how the game works and makes sense. Players can argue against it, but there is a method behind it that brings structure to the game, and they don’t need question things, as it is a pretty clear standard.

[Elves]

And yet, "because sugar is high in calories, this diet forbids cake and ice cream," is a factual augment with a rule rooted in truth. If you look at what it suggests, you can tell how to apply it.

If someone uses a legal tax loophole, it's factual that they're paying fewer taxes than the law suggests they really should be. But if the loophole is legal, that doesn't mean you can convict them of tax evasion. To make what they're doing illegal, you have to change the law (in this case, create a house rule).

The diabolic powers refusing to grant you the power if you don't pay them is within the text as written.

It's not. It's a story you're telling about what you feel might happen based on the flavor text. In your view, the fact that you're using a legal loophole in the terms the devils have set out would result in them terminating your service. (That explanation is itself full of assumptions -- that this works like cable TV, rather than an ancient pact with limits that were graven in stone three thousand years ago, or any other explanation you could make up).

To myself and Herbert_W, the story is that, like a good warlock, you've made a pact with Hell and then used a loophole to outsmart the devils at their own game (the oldest recorded folktale, The Smith and the Devil, is about doing just that). Someone else might tell the story that because your strongheart vest doesn't make you immune to Con damage, the devils actually are skimming soul energy from you, but the strongheart vest prevents you from suffering any physical detriment from it. Someone else might agree with you that the devils would be mad, but say the result is that they'd send bounty hunters after you and blacklist you from making any further pacts.

It's not about which of us is "right" -- it's that we've moved outside of the rules and into the realm of narrative conjecture. The text states the specific limits the devils have set. You may feel that those limits are inadequate to achieve their purpose, but a house rule isn't RAW just because [you feel] it fulfills the RAI. That's rules lawyering 101.

The problem here is that the writers wanted the players to not be able to do a certain thing - which is getting hellfire without meaningful ability damage - so they tried to enforce that by banning two specific ways to accomplish that thing. They failed to consider that there are other ways to do that thing.

It's a lesson in rule writing. Tell people what the destination is instead of trying to close every road that doesn't lead there. It's more efficient and less open to loopholes. Of course, exploitability also makes for interesting character building.

[Drelua]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text. It's in the middle of an ability description, sandwiched in between the rule that says you take 1 con damage and the con damage immunity clause. If you read that as rules text, clarifying the previous statement as well as setting up the next, then the ability doesn't function unless you actually pay for it.

You're certain it's not rules text, which is fine, but you're also saying anyone that says it is rules text is saying so in bad faith, out of some bias against that I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrate. If it cannot possibly be rules text, why? What rule is there that something like that phrase cannot be a rule?

The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact." The story I'm telling is that the diabolical forces demanding your essence in exchange for this power is a thing that happens every time you use this power. The reason I can see this interpretation working is because that phrase is in the middle of the paragraph describing what happens when you activate the power. Whether or not their demand must be met for the ability to function isn't entirely clear, but it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the text.

Personally, I'd probably allow the Strongheart Vest to work, Eldritch Blast damage doesn't scale great so 3 levels and a feat for +6d6 isn't too unfair. You're still probably behind 1d6/level, so it's not like you'll be oneshotting everything, or likely anything level appropriate. So I'm definitely not biased against it working. I just think you're deciding something is flavour text when that's very rarely where flavour text goes.

[Crichton]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text. It's in the middle of an ability description, sandwiched in between the rule that says you take 1 con damage and the con damage immunity clause. If you read that as rules text, clarifying the previous statement as well as setting up the next, then the ability doesn't function unless you actually pay for it.

You're certain it's not rules text, which is fine, but you're also saying anyone that says it is rules text is saying so in bad faith, out of some bias against that I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrate. If it cannot possibly be rules text, why? What rule is there that something like that phrase cannot be a rule?

It doesn't matter if it's rules text or not. That sentence doesn't say 'if you mitigate or otherwise don't pay the price demanded, this ability doesn't work.' But even if you take that entire sentence as rules text (which I think it is), it doesn't prohibit mitigation of the Con damage, aside from the specific means it lists.

The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact."

You're incorrect here. In order to become a Hellfire Warlock and to have this particular ability, you have to come from the Warlock base class, which states "Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power." (Complete Arcane pg 5)

So any user of this ability is indeed chained by a pact, as is the extraplanar entity that grants them their abilities. As has been mentioned, finding loopholes in 'deals with the devil' is a very very common plot point in virtually all myths about the subject.

Not that it matters, since the rules text of the Hellfire Blast class ability, including the sentence you referenced above, is ironclad in that it doesn't prevent mitigation from negating its function. ONLY being immune to Con damage or not having a Con score at all can prevent this ability from function, and nothing else can, unless the rules text is altered.

Whether or not their demand must be met for the ability to function isn't entirely clear, but it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the text.

Again, incorrect. It IS entirely clear from the text, and thus is not a reasonable conclusion. The text says only 2 different and specific conditions can prevent the ability from functioning, and reduction of Con damage isn't one of those conditions.

The reasons why those stated conditions prevent it are described in the text, but that doesn't allow the rules to be extended to allow other conditions to prevent it from functioning, no matter how much those other conditions are in the spirit of the reasons given. Those reasons do provide ample justification for an alteration to the text via a houserule, but by the text itself, it does not and cannot prevent Hellfire Blast from functioning if the Con damage is reduced (even if it's reduced to zero, since that's not the same as immunity, according to the listed definition of immunity quoted earlier)

[Darg]

I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?

[Crichton]

I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?

That's a tricky issue, and one whose ruling is irrelevant to the RAW of the hellfire warlock debate, since there's no comparable rules language in BoED to compare to the Hellfire Blast wording. The trick is, most components have to be provided as/before the spell is cast, but the Sacrifice component of Sanctified spells explicitly doesn't occur until AFTER the spell's duration expires, which means that the spell has already happened before the check to see if you're capable of paying that cost.

[Elves]

The story you're telling is that it's a contract, so even if the forces behind it know they're being ripped off, they can't do anything about it. But there is no mention anywhere in that class of a "contract" or a "pact." The story I'm telling is that the diabolical forces demanding your essence in exchange for this power is a thing that happens every time you use this power.

My point is that once you're telling stories, you've gone past RAW and into speculation.

I have to ask, how many people here think that strongheart vest would allow someone to bypass the the sacrifice component of exalted spells?

A sanctified spell usually has no material compo-nents (exceptions are noted). Instead, it drawspower from the sacrifice of the spellcaster in theform of ability damage, ability drain, or occasion-ally greater sacrifices (a level or even the caster’slife). The sacrifice occurs when the spell’s durationexpires.

The vest applies "any time" you take ability damage, so it should apply.

The counterargument would have to be that a "sacrifice in the form of ability damage" means not just taking the ability damage but actually suffering it. While that's an iffy distinction to draw, "sacrifice" isn't a formal term so it's not against RAW.

The problem is the ability damage comes at the end of the spell's duration, so you could hardly stop someone from casting the spell on that account.

In order to do so, you'd have to rule either that the sacrifice damage ignores the strongheart vest or that you can't cast the spell at all if you have the vest shaped or have some other form of immunity. Both of which do go beyond RAW.

- Eh, ninja'd.

[Drelua]

You're incorrect here. In order to become a Hellfire Warlock and to have this particular ability, you have to come from the Warlock base class, which states "Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power." (Complete Arcane pg 5)

Yes, Warlocks have a contract, but I don't think it's fair to assume that contract encompasses a prestige class representing "a secretive group of specialist warlocks." Their contract gives them the ability to be a Warlock, I don't think it encompasses everything that can be done with the abilities they get from that. They're chained by a contract, yes, but I don't see how that contract applies to the class features of a specific prestige class, even one tailored for Warlocks. I have a lease agreement, doesn't mean that contract does much of anything when I'm buying furniture except give me a place to put the furniture.

My point is that once you're telling stories, you've gone past RAW and into speculation.

I have to disagree with that, some abilities are complicated enough that they can't be interpreted in a way that doesn't involve complex interaction with a specific NPC or other entity. Geas/quest, planar binding, dominate person, all involve a series of situation-specific interactions and commands that I would say form as much of a story as this. If telling stories is automatically not RAW, then neither is making a Paladin fall for committing an evil act. D&D is largely about telling stories, something so integral to the point of the system can't be entirely separated from the rules. Well, in theory it's about story telling, in practice it's about violence and dice.

I'm being told that line has to be flavour text because there's no way to interpret it as a rule, but I've already said how I can see it being interpreted it as a rule. It's an exchange that happens every time. Strongheart Vest prevents the exchange from occurring. Not how I'd rule it, but I can see how some people would see it that way. I tend to take rules as a suggestion for actual play anyway.

But I think at this point it's clear we're not about to suddenly see eye to eye on this, so I'm gonna try not to repeat myself too much more than I already have.

[Zombimode]

Regarding "flavour text": can you guys point me to book and page where this is defined?

Something like "This part of the description is flavour text. It has no bearing on the functioning of the spell/ability."

Because I can't find it in my D&D 3.5 rule books. I can find it in D&D 4e, and in MTG. But not in 3.5.


To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.

[Crichton]

I'm being told that line has to be flavour text because there's no way to interpret it as a rule, but I've already said how I can see it being interpreted it as a rule.

No, you're not being told that. Did you read my earlier post? Even when you read that line as rules text, it still ONLY prevents Hellfire Blast from function in two specifically listed circumstances, neither of which is reduction or mitigation of the ability damage.

What specific clause in that text is leading you to believe it can prevent the function of Hellfire Blast for a character who has a Con score and isn't immune to Con damage?

[Drelua]

No, you're not being told that. Did you read my earlier post? Even when you read that line as rules text, it still ONLY prevents Hellfire Blast from function in two specifically listed circumstances, neither of which is reduction or mitigation of the ability damage.

What specific clause in that text is leading you to believe it can prevent the function of Hellfire Blast for a character who has a Con score and isn't immune to Con damage?

People are saying it's flavour text, so yes, I am being told that. I didn't say you said it. If you interpret the line saying it's an exchange as rules text, then it's reasonable to think that exchange isn't occuring if you don't give anything. Getting something for nothing is, by definition, not an exchange.

Is there a clear rule anywhere on what happens if you're protected from paying the cost of activating an ability? Not that I'm aware of, but there could be one somewhere. Unless there is, I still think this could go either way.

[Darg]

Regarding "flavour text": can you guys point me to book and page where this is defined?

Something like "This part of the description is flavour text. It has no bearing on the functioning of the spell/ability."

Because I can't find it in my D&D 3.5 rule books. I can find it in D&D 4e, and in MTG. But not in 3.5.


To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.

If it isn't italicized it is all part of how an effect works (quote at the bottom). The spell with the most egregious example of descriptive text with influence and minimal mechanical advantage would be the spell Foresight. It has 3 lines of mechanical benefit and 20 others describing what the spell allows you to do without mechanical reinforcement.

This idea that part of the descriptive text has no bearing because another part has a contentious reading has no basis in RAW. As RAW points out:

DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
This portion of a soulmeld description details what the soulmeld does and how it works in its most basic form. The effect can be enhanced or modified by investing essentia into the meld or binding it to a chakra.

There is no flavour text in that.

Descriptive Passages: The first thing you’re likely to note is a descriptive passage in italics. This serves much the same purpose as the italicized descriptions of monsters in the Monster Manual: It lets you know what the spell looks like, sounds like, or feels like to cast. The text in this section presents the spell from the spellcaster’s view and describes what its typically like to cast the spell. The descriptive passages shouldn’t be considered to be binding rules. A grand gesture indicated by a spell’s descriptive passage is unnecessary if you use the Still Spell feat to cast it, and even though a descriptive passage describes you casting a spell on another creature, it might be possible to cast the spell on yourself, depending on the spell’s target entry and the rules for spellcasting in the Player’s Handbook.

The only non-rules text is italicized. Even if something doesn't have a direct mechanical benefit, it still shapes how it can be used.

[Herbert_W]

Yes, under the strictest possible interpretation of the rules text, it's true that a Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause. But there is no way to be sure that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is not also rules text.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.

[Raishoiken]

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.

Isn't essentia like.. soul energy or something? i haven't read incarnum in a minute, but i think tricking the fiends with that energy instead of their normal stuff should fit thematically. Chronos ate a rock and didnt notice so maybe it could be something similar

[Elves]

People are saying it's flavour text, so yes, I am being told that.

It's not "ignore that text". It's that it doesn't support the extrapolated consequences Segev argued for, because its consequence is clearly stated.

To me it seems there is no flavour text. Just rules text that is sometimes more mechanical in nature and sometimes less.

Exactly. Everything is read "as rules text". To say something is flavor text isn't an assertion that it's invalid, but an observation on its lack of import as rules text. In the bluesteel bracers example I quoted: "Because war has always been a part of mortal history, warrior souls are plentiful." This doesn't have any effect on the in-game use of the bracers, but that's not because I say so, I say so because it doesn't. In this case, the clause under discussion serves to justify the clause that follows; there's no basis in the text for extending its import; and because it could therefore be trimmed without affecting the game-mechanical use of the ability, it can fairly be called flavor text, but that's not actually a tenet of my argument.

[Drelua]

Let's grant for the sake of argument that "the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power" is rules text (which, incidentally, I happen to agree that it is). I'm going to be super nitpicky here, because we're interpreting RAW.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't say that these fiends must actually get what they demand. Rather, the rules reference this demand as being the reason why two specific "cheats" won't work. Nothing in the rules precludes the possibility of other ways of evading the cost being possible, such as ways that the fiends did not anticipate and/or could not prevent. Given that the Strongheart Vest doesn't trigger the con damage immunity clause, nothing in the rules prevents this cheat.

I think this interaction works by RAW. One plausible interpretation for why it works is that it cheats the fiends out of their due; another is that the fiends still get a bit of "life essence" (whatever that is) but in such a way that this does not manifest as ability damage. However, regardless of whatever story we choose to tell about why it works, it remains true that it works.

Of course, whether it's RAI, good for game balance, or acceptable at any given table are all separate questions.

That's probably the most reasonable interpretation. I just don't think it would be wrong, strictly speaking, to argue that since it says 'diabolical forces demand in exchange...' in the section describing what happens when you activate the ability, in the same sentence that says you take 1 con damage when you use hellfire it doesn't work if you're immune to con damage, I can see room for an argument that it doesn't work unless there is an exchange. Since an exchange requires a give and take, if you take no con damage I don't think it can accurately be called an exchange.

Not how I'd rule it, but I can see it being a viable interpretation. I wouldn't argue with a GM for going with that reasoning.

[Raishoiken]

That's probably the most reasonable interpretation. I just don't think it would be wrong, strictly speaking, to argue that since it says 'diabolical forces demand in exchange...' in the section describing what happens when you activate the ability, in the same sentence that says you take 1 con damage when you use hellfire, I can see room for an argument that it doesn't work unless there is an exchange. Since an exchange requires a give and take, if you take no con damage I don't think it can accurately be called an exchange.

Not how I'd rule it, but I can see it being a viable interpretation. I wouldn't argue with a GM for going with that reasoning.

with quotes like:
incarnum being

very literally, the
essence of all creatures

and

esentia being

the substance of a character’s personal soul energy

i think it may be fair to say the fact that it's a field of essentia/incarnum covering your booty when it comes to the con damage, that the powers at be may just be getting their dues through that means rather than through a more harmful method. Since it's in a conveniently manifested field and all, its probably a much less painful process

[Drelua]

with quotes like:
incarnum being

and

esentia being

i think it may be fair to say the fact that it's a field of essentia/incarnum covering your booty when it comes to the con damage, that the powers at be may just be getting their dues through that means rather than through a more harmful method. Since it's in a conveniently manifested field and all, its probably a much less painful process

That's more of a justification than an interpretation. But it's also sort of like saying "I tried to give you that money I owe you, but there was an impenetrable barrier between us that I made out of money, so I couldn't get it to you. So we're even right?" It might be made of the stuff they want, but if they aren't getting any of it, then it doesn't really matter what it's made of. There's still no exchange happening.

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

[Herbert_W]

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

One should always CYA when working with fiends.

[Raishoiken]

That's more of a justification than an interpretation. But it's also sort of like saying "I tried to give you that money I owe you, but there was an impenetrable barrier between us that I made out of money, so I couldn't get it to you. So we're even right?" It might be made of the stuff they want, but if they aren't getting any of it, then it doesn't really matter what it's made of. There's still no exchange happening.

And on a lighter note... covering your what?

i'm positing that it's possible that they're taking what they want from the barrier made of soul bits, rather than from your inner soul bits still inside you

One should always CYA when working with fiends.

Precisely

[Drelua]

i'm positing that it's possible that they're taking what they want from the barrier made of soul bits, rather than from your inner soul bits still inside you

It works as an explanation, but since no rule says that you lose anything when your Strongheart Vest protects you it isn't really supported in the text. It works, but there's nothing in the rules that says it should be true.

[Elves]

But it shows you that once we're arguing about the fluff implications surrounding an ability, there are many possible explanations. None of them are right or wrong -- that's for the DM to decide -- but none of them are based in the text, even if they're extrapolated from it.