7
\$\begingroup\$

If I have an active Draconic Malice spell taking away the fear immunity of all creatures around me, and say I inflict the Panicked condition for 20 rounds on a paladin in my aura. The paladin then turns tail and runs.

What happens to that condition when the creature leaves that aura?

  • Is the condition cured entirely? Or just suppressed?
  • If they are mindless (vermin), will they take one step away, then turn back and re-engage next turn?
  • If it just suppressed, will they instantly become panicked again when re-entering my aura?

If no official ruling can be found, how can this be handled in a mechanically balanced and fair way?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I can see how they are related but neither answer my question. I am not questioning if the aura effect itself wears off. I understand that it does. Im asking what happens to the different effect when their immunity returns. I updated my question to reflect the "Living creatures" aspect of the spell better. \$\endgroup\$ – Erudaki Jul 31 at 0:58
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Game Designers: If your RPG allows removing then regaining immunity, tell readers what happens to appropriate effects when that immunity is regained! Your RPG needs to tell players if constant targeting is a thing! Asker: You may be interested in this question and in this 3.5 question. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Jul 31 at 5:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hmmm. Seems to be grounds enough to say it is still there but they are immune to its effects until losing their immunity. That also can lead to some pretty odd behavior in combat tho where fearless creatures turn tail and run. And any mindless living creature then stops running 15ft away from me because they leave my aura and come back lol. I 100% second your first point. \$\endgroup\$ – Erudaki Jul 31 at 11:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related (possible duplicate?): What happens when a creature under an effect gains immunity to that effect \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Aug 14 at 1:50
2
\$\begingroup\$

It depends on your DM.

If it were my game, I'd say "Fear-immune" just means "immune to infliction" and not "immune to effects".

This means that when they leave the Malice's radius, and regain their "immunity to infliction", they would still suffer from the panicked condition's effects until they wore off; but after leaving, then nobody could inflict another instance of panicked on that creature until it lost it's "immunity to infliction" again.
Once the effects wear off though; upon re-entering the Malice again, they'd be granted another Will Save to negate it's effects, at which point (if passed) it no longer concerns that creature.

However: If your DM interprets "Fear-immune" as "Immune to effects", then upon leaving the Malice, the condition could be removed entirely (unless the DM says otherwise).

If you're going strictly by the book: It seems as though the condition would remain and would run its course, though you'd never experience any negative effects from it while immune.
Therefore: Should you become panicked while in the Malice, you'd "recover" from it the moment you left it; but you would still have the condition. Should you re-enter the field before the condition wears off, you would experience its effects once more. In that scenario, though, it could be argued that you're prepared; and you may be allowed to make a Will Save to resist it long enough to act normally for that round.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.