34
\$\begingroup\$

My character is immune to a specific type of damage, and an opponent attacks him with that type of damage. I know my character will not be getting any damage from that attack.

My opponent successfully lands his attack (his controller succeeded his attack roll). But for reaction purposes, does he hit my character?

\$\endgroup\$
50
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, It Hits Your Character

Per page 194 of the PH (bold added for emphasis):

When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. lf the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC),the attack hits.

Regardless of the damage done (or not, in this case) a successful attack roll is indeed a hit.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer implies that the effect of immunity is “the damage dealt is zero” rather than something else like “the attack automatically fails” or similar. This is probably the case but the answer would be greatly improved if you can quote the definition of immunity to demonstrate this. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 10 '17 at 18:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'll see if I can find the book quote that defines immunity. \$\endgroup\$ – Christopher May 10 '17 at 18:46
36
\$\begingroup\$

Yes

If the total of the [attack] roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. (PHB p.194, emphasis mine)

That's all you need to hit: nothing mentioned about damage.


The (excellent) question was raised: is it possible that immunity actually prevents the hit? Looking for a definition, today I learned that none of the PHB, MM, or DMG actually define immunity--it's just used in a plain-language sense.

That said, your scenario mentioned "immunity to damage" of a certain type. You're not immune to the attack, you're not immune to all effects, just to one particular effect: the damage. All else triggered on a hit--like your reaction or a lycanthrope's curse--is still viable.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Missed first by mere moments! \$\endgroup\$ – Christopher May 9 '17 at 10:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks @nitsua60, but I selected Christopher's answer because it was published 8 seconds earlier. (You got +1 though ;) ) \$\endgroup\$ – Olivier Grégoire May 9 '17 at 11:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ No worries, and no explanation needed! You select whichever answer was most useful to you. Happy gaming! \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 9 '17 at 11:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, wow, I thought @nitsua60 posted first. \$\endgroup\$ – Christopher May 9 '17 at 21:48
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ It's a nice verification of our FGitW nature. First, let's stipulate we basically have the same answer. Which we posted simultaneously (close enough that you thought I had been first, but that I thought you had been first). For a minute we were both at 0 score, displayed in random order to readers. For some unknown reason I grabbed the first upvote and after tens of minutes my score was well above yours (IIRC). Then OP went ahead and accepted yours, and we see the score-reversal. Methinks there's a dissertation in there somewhere =) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 10 '17 at 1:03

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.