So I'm running a game in curse of strahd. A player's monk has 45hp normally. another player gave her 11 temp HP. She was bitten by a vampire spawn. The damage was 4 piercing and 7 necrotic,
Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is Grappled by the Vampire, Incapacitated, or Restrained. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the Vampire regains hit points equal to that amount. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0.
What is the result?
Also if it was 15 necrotic what would be the result?
The monk took 11 damage. After taking that damage they're left with no temporary HP and 45/45 HP. 7 of that damage was necrotic, so their max HP decreases by 7; that leaves them with 38/38 HP since their current HP can't exceed their max HP.
If the necrotic damage was 15 instead, their max HP would decrease by 15.
The monk took 11 damage. After taking that damage...
You miss read what I wrote. The monk had 11 temporary hit points and only took 7 necrotic. But the argument the player was trying to make is that since all the damage was temporary hit ponts it wouldn't reduce his max but your line from the handbook answers that.
The major question is is it doing double damage in reality.
if I have 40 hp max. and I have 60 temporary hit points and the bite does 20 necrotic. The handbook says damage is first taken from temp HP so that means I have 40 HP and 40 Temp HP after dmg. But the bite reduces my max hp to 20 so now I have 20 HP and 40 temporary HP. Am I right in saying that it effectively does 40 damage in total? 20 from necrotic dmg as usual and 20 from changing my real HP max.
My honest opinion would be to remove the main hitpoints and ignore that the necrotic SHOULD hit the temp points first, leaving them with the temp hitpoints but still losing their max hp for later on. No way were they thinking that is how it would/should interact when they wrote it that way.
Personal opinion honestly, it feels like punishment to the person with temp hitpoints and getting double dipped for damage like that is, not going to be fun in game.
I see arguments for the necrotic damage not affecting the player because of the temp hit points and the drain being ignored entirely, as the hitpoints it was draining were temporary anyway.
Three roads, They get double hit for the single attack as mentioned above (most punishing), they get their max hp reduced the drain portion ignores temp hp (middle ground), or Temporary hitpoints were already drained so no additional drain occurs (least punishing).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Agreed with HeroZero. I don't think the player should be punished for having temporary hit points.
Personally I like the middle of his suggestions and would use that if I were the DM - the draining portion of the attack (necrotic damage) hits their regular health pool and reduces their maximum hitpoints by its damage. The regular piercing damage would hit their temporary hit points. That way the entire damage is done overall, the temporary hit points have still helped them and the drain has still affected their maximum hit points as intended.
Playing devil's advocate here, but I don't think this necessarily means the player is punished for having temp hit points. No matter what scenario you could possibly come up with, the vampire's bite cannot reduce the player's non-temp hp (ie. their real hp) by more than the attack's damage, and for that reason alone I wouldn't say that players are being punished. Rather, generating temp hit points is a less-effective strategy against monsters that can reduce max hp.
And by the way, I don't think we should say that being on the receiving end of a vampire's bite (or similar effect) while having temp hit points effectively doubles the damage. In the example given by the OP, the vampire's attack wasn't actually doubled, it did 11 damage and reduced total hp by 18. The temps still did something, since they nullified the piercing damage from the incoming attack. A lot of max-hp-reducing attacks are like that, combining the necrotic damage with some other type of damage. The worst case is the life drain abilities of specters and wraiths--which deal only necrotic damage--so yeah, in that case the player may as well not have any temps. But like I said, it's not a punishment, it's an ineffective strategy.
Playing devil's advocate here, but I don't think this necessarily means the player is punished for having temp hit points. No matter what scenario you could possibly come up with, the vampire's bite cannot reduce the player's non-temp hp (ie. their real hp) by more than the attack's damage, and for that reason alone I wouldn't say that players are being punished. Rather, generating temp hit points is a less-effective strategy against monsters that can reduce max hp.
And by the way, I don't think we should say that being on the receiving end of a vampire's bite (or similar effect) while having temp hit points effectively doubles the damage. In the example given by the OP, the vampire's attack wasn't actually doubled, it did 11 damage and reduced total hp by 18. The temps still did something, since they nullified the piercing damage from the incoming attack. A lot of max-hp-reducing attacks are like that, combining the necrotic damage with some other type of damage. The worst case is the life drain abilities of specters and wraiths--which deal only necrotic damage--so yeah, in that case the player may as well not have any temps. But like I said, it's not a punishment, it's an ineffective strategy.
Man I think you are not being realistic, so you say the temp hitpoints absorb the bite and that now the necrotic damage bypasses the temporary hitpoints going straight for their real hitpoint max, so since it would be bypassed by the drain then don't involve the temporary hitpoints at all in the necrotic damage. Like the second option I listed the bite is reduced by the TempHP and the necrotic does its max health reduction, leaving the majority of the TempHP intact for the next incoming bite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
This happened to my Paladin on the weekend. Thanks Strahd! At least my guy is resistant to necrotic damage. Small mercies.
It’s a horrible feeling when those wonderful temp hit points don’t work like you’d planned, but on closer reading of the rules I think it’s unclear. The rules say:
1st para - “...they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.”
2nd para - “..if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage.”
If it said in para two that you are dealt 7 damage there could be no argument. I believe this to be consistent with the description in the first para. But it doesn’t say dealt, instead it says you take 7 and that you take 2. Hence it’s unclear.
So it’s up to your DM (as always).
Though even at it’s harshest you I don’t see how anyone can say it’s a punishment, it’s just that an advantage you thought you had has been rendered ineffective.
A character with just 45 hit points taking the 4 piercing and 7 necrotic from a vampire bite would be left with 34/38 hitpoints. A character with 45 hit points and at least 4 temporary hitpoints would be left with 38/38. The temporary hitpoints helped - just not as much as they might expect.
Yep I think that is totally a legit interpretation Emmber. But I also think, because it is not clearly written, an equally legit interpretation is available.
As an example I think Armor of Agathys illustrates the idea well, the temporary hit points of the armour are a buffer. The armour’s temporary HP tracks down until they are all gone and then anything remaining is taken as damage. A mechanic for damage reduction similar but different (obviously) to resistance.
DM says: You character takes 14 points of bludgeoning damage Player says: Actually I have resistance so I take 7
How much damage was taken? 14 or 7? Well if you want be literal it’s both. This is why I think it there (should be) a distinction between damage dealt and damage taken ... and damage dealt can be mitigated/prevented by immunity, resistance and temporary hit points etc that’s what I think might be intended when it says temporary hit points act as “a buffer against injury”.
Mind you, I just reread the text on resistance and it does say “... hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage” so I have to presume there is a reason deals is not used in the temporary hit point rule and that consequently I should find another hill to die on.
(I still think the rule could be better described however).
edit: someone pinged a response from Jeremy Crawford on this (from Twitter I presume) ... so that’s some additional closure right there ... loss of temporary hit points isthe same as taking damage.
Question if you receive temporary hit points what's to say 10 and your health is let's say 50 out of 60 does the 10 temporary hit points heal you or do you just have to in temporary hit points and 50 actual hit points
Question if you receive temporary hit points what's to say 10 and your health is let's say 50 out of 60 does the 10 temporary hit points heal you or do you just have to in temporary hit points and 50 actual hit points
Temporary hitpoints are entirely separate. You would have 50/60 hitpoints and 10 temporary hitpoints.
So I'm running a game in curse of strahd. A player's monk has 45hp normally. another player gave her 11 temp HP. She was bitten by a vampire spawn. The damage was 4 piercing and 7 necrotic,
Bite: Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is Grappled by the Vampire, Incapacitated, or Restrained. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the Vampire regains hit points equal to that amount. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a Long Rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0.
What is the result?
Also if it was 15 necrotic what would be the result?
From the Player's Handbook, Chapter 9, Combat, Damage and Healing:
"When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you're still taking damage, just not to your real hit points."
The monk took 11 damage. After taking that damage they're left with no temporary HP and 45/45 HP. 7 of that damage was necrotic, so their max HP decreases by 7; that leaves them with 38/38 HP since their current HP can't exceed their max HP.
If the necrotic damage was 15 instead, their max HP would decrease by 15.
In this instance, yes. Also, this should be in the Rules forum.
My honest opinion would be to remove the main hitpoints and ignore that the necrotic SHOULD hit the temp points first, leaving them with the temp hitpoints but still losing their max hp for later on. No way were they thinking that is how it would/should interact when they wrote it that way.
Personal opinion honestly, it feels like punishment to the person with temp hitpoints and getting double dipped for damage like that is, not going to be fun in game.
I see arguments for the necrotic damage not affecting the player because of the temp hit points and the drain being ignored entirely, as the hitpoints it was draining were temporary anyway.
Three roads, They get double hit for the single attack as mentioned above (most punishing), they get their max hp reduced the drain portion ignores temp hp (middle ground), or Temporary hitpoints were already drained so no additional drain occurs (least punishing).
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Agreed with HeroZero. I don't think the player should be punished for having temporary hit points.
Personally I like the middle of his suggestions and would use that if I were the DM - the draining portion of the attack (necrotic damage) hits their regular health pool and reduces their maximum hitpoints by its damage. The regular piercing damage would hit their temporary hit points. That way the entire damage is done overall, the temporary hit points have still helped them and the drain has still affected their maximum hit points as intended.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Playing devil's advocate here, but I don't think this necessarily means the player is punished for having temp hit points. No matter what scenario you could possibly come up with, the vampire's bite cannot reduce the player's non-temp hp (ie. their real hp) by more than the attack's damage, and for that reason alone I wouldn't say that players are being punished. Rather, generating temp hit points is a less-effective strategy against monsters that can reduce max hp.
And by the way, I don't think we should say that being on the receiving end of a vampire's bite (or similar effect) while having temp hit points effectively doubles the damage. In the example given by the OP, the vampire's attack wasn't actually doubled, it did 11 damage and reduced total hp by 18. The temps still did something, since they nullified the piercing damage from the incoming attack. A lot of max-hp-reducing attacks are like that, combining the necrotic damage with some other type of damage. The worst case is the life drain abilities of specters and wraiths--which deal only necrotic damage--so yeah, in that case the player may as well not have any temps. But like I said, it's not a punishment, it's an ineffective strategy.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
This happened to my Paladin on the weekend. Thanks Strahd! At least my guy is resistant to necrotic damage. Small mercies.
It’s a horrible feeling when those wonderful temp hit points don’t work like you’d planned, but on closer reading of the rules I think it’s unclear. The rules say:
1st para - “...they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.”
2nd para - “..if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage.”
If it said in para two that you are dealt 7 damage there could be no argument. I believe this to be consistent with the description in the first para. But it doesn’t say dealt, instead it says you take 7 and that you take 2. Hence it’s unclear.
So it’s up to your DM (as always).
Though even at it’s harshest you I don’t see how anyone can say it’s a punishment, it’s just that an advantage you thought you had has been rendered ineffective.
A character with just 45 hit points taking the 4 piercing and 7 necrotic from a vampire bite would be left with 34/38 hitpoints. A character with 45 hit points and at least 4 temporary hitpoints would be left with 38/38. The temporary hitpoints helped - just not as much as they might expect.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yep I think that is totally a legit interpretation Emmber. But I also think, because it is not clearly written, an equally legit interpretation is available.
As an example I think Armor of Agathys illustrates the idea well, the temporary hit points of the armour are a buffer. The armour’s temporary HP tracks down until they are all gone and then anything remaining is taken as damage. A mechanic for damage reduction similar but different (obviously) to resistance.
DM says: You character takes 14 points of bludgeoning damage
Player says: Actually I have resistance so I take 7
How much damage was taken? 14 or 7? Well if you want be literal it’s both. This is why I think it there (should be) a distinction between damage dealt and damage taken ... and damage dealt can be mitigated/prevented by immunity, resistance and temporary hit points etc that’s what I think might be intended when it says temporary hit points act as “a buffer against injury”.
Mind you, I just reread the text on resistance and it does say “... hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage” so I have to presume there is a reason deals is not used in the temporary hit point rule and that consequently I should find another hill to die on.
(I still think the rule could be better described however).
edit: someone pinged a response from Jeremy Crawford on this (from Twitter I presume) ... so that’s some additional closure right there ... loss of temporary hit points is the same as taking damage.
Question if you receive temporary hit points what's to say 10 and your health is let's say 50 out of 60 does the 10 temporary hit points heal you or do you just have to in temporary hit points and 50 actual hit points
Temporary hitpoints are entirely separate. You would have 50/60 hitpoints and 10 temporary hitpoints.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).