@JeremyECrawford Contagion spell, Flesh Rot: "vulnerability to all damage" cancels Immunities to damage of the creature? Which applies/wins?
— Draconis (@DerynDraconis) February 16, 2017
A game effect deprives you of a feature, such as damage immunity, only if the deprivation is explicit in the effect or in another rule. #DnD https://t.co/Qnfq0bhKXr
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 16, 2017
@Miztuh_JConvoluted begets convolution…? Which part do you find convoluted?
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 16, 2017
@JeremyECrawford I think the ? was if that effect of Contagion overrides latent creature immunities. Spell strength vs natural traits.
— Joshua Frost (@Miztuh_J) February 16, 2017
Contagion doesn't say it nullifies immunities, so it doesn't nullify them. No rule causes vulnerability to nullify immunity. #DnD https://t.co/33raKJCdTS
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 16, 2017
@Miztuh_JSo unless stated precisely otherwise, Immunity is always > forces trying to impose Vulnerability? If I got that right…? That's correct. One effect doesn't turn off another unless a rule says it does.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 16, 2017
@JeremyECrawford so then the ? remains. Flesh rot=vulnerability, but racial immunities=immune in place. So does damage happen?
— Joshua lambert (@Jlambert384) February 16, 2017
If you're immune to an instance of damage, you take 0 damage. If you're also vulnerable to that damage, you take no damage: 0 x 2 = 0. #DnD https://t.co/w4pxueIxNf
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 16, 2017