Immobilized v Restrained

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
A PC has a power that works against immobilised creatures, e.g. Ice Heart Reaper.
Will this power also work against restrained creatures?

The RC does not include immobilised in the Restrained condition however a restrained creature is clearly also not able to move.
To follow RAW I would have to say it does not work against restrained creatures only immobilised creatures.

If I, as DM, allowed this PP feature to work against restrained creatures then the PC would have a cause to ask it to also work against any creature that can not move, i.e. unconscious, helpless, stunned.

Comments. 
They are different conditions as far as game rules go. So an effect that affects an immobilized enemy would not affect a restrained one.
I don't know if it was a deliberate change, but restrained used to include the immobilized condition (a restrained creature was also an immobilized creature), but as of RC they removed the immobilized condition from the effects of restrained and just wrote out the effect itself. So as of RC, a restrained creature is NOT an immobilized creature, as silly as that is.
Is there a case where this is a problem? Like a power that lets you affect an immobilized creature, but not a restrained one?
Since conditions are distinct game elements, unless one is specifically mentioned it wont be affected. Some will rather mention both conditions (ex. Disciple of Freedom, Thief's Getaway, Fey Escape etc..)

I don't know if it was a deliberate change, but restrained used to include the immobilized condition (a restrained creature was also an immobilized creature), but as of RC they removed the immobilized condition from the effects of restrained and just wrote out the effect itself. So as of RC, a restrained creature is NOT an immobilized creature, as silly as that is.

It appear it was deliberate and the RC below Restrained explain they are similar (rather than identical) but with more restrictions. 

RC 233 Restrained: This condition is similar to the Immobilised condition (see above) but it puts more restrictions on the creature's ability to attack abd defend itself. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

A PC has a power that works against immobilised creatures, e.g. Ice Heart Reaper.

What's that from?

A PC has a power that works against immobilised creatures, e.g. Ice Heart Reaper.

What's that from?




11th level Paragon Path feature, Barbarian's Winter Fury, Primal Power.  Gives an attack roll and damage roll bonus against immobilized targets.

(It is incorrect to refer to this as 'a power', of course.)
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
11th level Paragon Path feature, Barbarian's Winter Fury, Primal Power.  Gives an attack roll and damage roll bonus against immobilized targets.
(It is incorrect to refer to this as 'a power', of course.)

Thanks. fwiw: the PHB update for the restrained condition states "This revision divorces the immobilized and restrained conditions, making other game elements interact more cleanly with the condition."

However, since Primal Power came out before this update (and before the RC) a case could be made that Ice Heart Reaper was intended (i.e. RAI) to use the original definition (especially since the PP's daily power inflicts the restrained condition). An errata request for the ability was submitted here.
I would certainly consider that a valid house rule.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm pretty sure Primal Power came out before the RC, so it was written as those conditions were defined at that time and this Paragon Path (as well as others, I'm sure) was never updated post RC.  In that way, while the current RAW means it applies to immobilized only, since WOTC will probably not update the paragon path it would seem RAI would be to match it with the definitions of the conditions at the time Primal Power came out, which should be close to the original PHB.