So then you'd consider the extra damage from devil wounds "infernal" damage as a type? Interesting.
This is just my opinion but the mechanism for the damage HP loss seems to be blood loss is those two cases as well, judging by the slashing/piercing damage of the attack and the mention of stanching the wound with a Medicine check.
I do think referring to it as an "infernal wound" adds a level of specificity that'd theoretically let some rule target it, but in practice I think it's just meant to highlight that there's something unnatural about the injury. You normally don't suffer wounds until you hit 0 hit points, yet these devils seem to be able to bleed you out with what should be scratches and flesh wounds.
That's the sort of "drop to 0" effect that I'm talking about, which essentially sets your HP at a certain value and may not be the same thing as "losing" hit points? I agree that suffocating doesn't cause you to take damage, so maybe that is the pathway to recognizing that a stirge's blood loss doesn't either... but I see a clearer line between the language of suffocation and Chapter 9, than I do between the Stirge and Chapter 9.
Yup, it's not a perfect answer to your question but I wanted to throw it out there. Personally I don't see how having your hit points set to 0 when they're not currently 0 isn't a loss of hit points. You had hit points and now you don't. The only thing special about it is that the amount is variable.
Well, in the same way that if you were to go into or out of a Wild Shape and had a new HP amount that was different than your old HP amount, that isn't "healing" or "gaining" hit points, or "taking" damage or "losing" HP, it's "assuming" or "returning to" a new HP value.
When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. However, if you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. For example, if you take 10 damage in animal form and have only 1 hit point left, you revert and take 9 damage. As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious.
Is "drop to" more similar to "assume"/"return to", or more similar to "lose"?
We now have deal, take, assign, lose, drop to, and assume/return to in the list of descriptions of negative HP changes. I suppose we could add heal/gain as well, though healing is really a whole separate system and not just negative damage, so I'd rather leave that out of it.
I can only find one monster in the general rules with necrotic immunity and the spellcasting chops for Life Transference: if your DM fields a mummy lord with Life Transference. So would the mummy lord take the damage from the spell or not? I have no idea.
I'd say no. The damage recieved would be 0, and the healing granted would be 0.
It is specifically dependent on damage being taken, not the damage delivered. (The magic simply gets lost in the arcane postal service.)
So you think immunity trumps "can't be reduced"? That would resolve the Oath of Redemption question in this thread, if everyone agrees that makes the most sense for a mummy lord with life transference.
Well, the first version of the spell I looked at didn't have that clause. I should have stuck with dndbeyond.
However, yes. I think immunity trumps that clause and renders the spell useless for a Mummy Lord. It doesn't matter if the damage is increased or reduced, the result is still 0.
I have to agree in this case. The damage is specified as necrotic and the Mummy Lord doesn't take necrotic damage so no healing is done.
In the case of the Paladin Aura of the Guardian It says " to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it". So in the example with fireball damage and fire immune Paladin, the Paladin would still suffer damage because the damage is not necessarily fire damage. The same could be said for a normal sword cut (if the Paladin were immune to normal slashing damage), it is not slashing, it is magical (possible non-type) damage.
But generally speaking even if a PC somehow became immune to all damage and tried this, I'd either make them take damage anyway or have the ability not work at all. Mostly for RP reasons. You can't take the stand of "I'll sacrifice my life for yours" when you lose nothing. It could be great RP too as the Paladin is opening up his soul for the good of another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The question the poll is asking is not relevant to the question posed in the example of the Paladin's Aura of the Guardian.
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.
This ability triggers after the target's immunity/resistance/additions has already been applied on their side. It triggers when they take the damage, not when they're hit by a damaging attack. At this point in the creature-being-injured-game-mechanics process, that is just a number. It is no longer even a type of damage at all, just an abstract number of non-typed damage that needs to be subtracted from current HP. And that... "can’t be reduced in any way."
Example: So if your buddy is hit by a fireball that deals 32 fire damage, but he saves and drops that to 16 fire damage, but has fire resistance so drops that 16 fire damage to just 8 damage. Now: He takes 8 damage. You activate your Palli Power and you take that 8 damage instead. You could be immune to Fire damage but you're not taking fire damage. You're just taking 8 damage which cannot be reduced in any way.
____ Edit: Just for reference this is an example provided in the PHB.
Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage. For example, a creature has resistance to bludgeoning damage and is hit by an attack that deals 25 bludgeoning damage. The creature is also within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. The 25 damage is first reduced by 5 and then halved, so the creature takes 10 damage.
And here are other examples where the book says "take damage"
"When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points. For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage."
"A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing."
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points."
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A key issue for this is the spell Invulnerability, but if all of the stars line up to let the players combine 9th level magic with a Paladin's aura for a minute, then let them have the epic moment.
A key issue for this is the spell Invulnerability, but if all of the stars line up to let the players combine 9th level magic with a Paladin's aura for a minute, then let them have the epic moment.
Mmmmm Some sort of magic item?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Why is it assumed that the damage loses it's type when it transfers? the rule as written says "that" damage, which implies specificity that can include both amount and type (which are the only two attributes of damage). the language certainly doesn't exclude type, anyway
Aura of the Guardian
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
So that said, I'd say the type transfers with the amount, and I also say immunity presents an exemption to damage, so it is not that (damage = 0), but is instead (damage = n/a).
There are very few ways a Paladin PC can be granted immunity to a damage type (being Yuan-Ti, being the target of a wish worded to grant immunity, maybe from a few magic items), so in general I would say this is a rare occurrence, and would not want to diminish the player by saying their immunity doesn't work if they have gotten to the level where that immunity has been granted.
I suppose damage type isn't an effect, per se. RAI is almost certainly referring to rider effects (e.g., poisoned), as opposed to modifiers/attributes (e.g., damage type).
A key issue for this is the spell Invulnerability, but if all of the stars line up to let the players combine 9th level magic with a Paladin's aura for a minute, then let them have the epic moment.
That's what I was getting at it with #21... assuming that what we're talking about is players casting spells, and not whatever encounter the DM has crafted with a Life Transference-casting Mummy, then this gray area should be interpreted in the favor of the player to permit their cool moment, not in the favor of telling them they've wasted resources. There are no ways to get immunity early enough in a character's life or often enough for the permissive ruling to jeopardize game balance.
I suppose damage type isn't an effect, per se. RAI, is almost certainly referring to rider effects (e.g., poisoned), as opposed to modifiers/attributes (e.g., damage type).
Damage type is not an effect, it is a descriptor of damage (damage itself is an effect). Assuming the ability wasn't written to exclude the damage itself, I'd say the type is not a separate effect to be excluded
Well, in the same way that if you were to go into or out of a Wild Shape and had a new HP amount that was different than your old HP amount, that isn't "healing" or "gaining" hit points, or "taking" damage or "losing" HP, it's "assuming" or "returning to" a new HP value.
Wild Shape is pretty clear about the fact that you temporarily use a different HP pool and that terms like "taking" damage now apply to your new HP. I don't think "complete HP pool replacement" is in the same category as all the other things you listed.
Wild Shape is pretty clear about the fact that you temporarily use a different HP pool and that terms like "taking" damage now apply to your new HP. I don't think "complete HP pool replacement" is in the same category as all the other things you listed.
Wild shape sets your current HP to a new value, without dealing you damage. So does suffocating. I'd put those pretty squarely in the same category...
... but I acknowledge that reasonable minds could differ.
Why is it assumed that the damage loses it's type when it transfers?
Taking Damage is to process of subtracting HP.
"A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.
Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
There is no means to subtract fire HP. Or bludgeoning HP. Etc.
the rule as written says "that" damage, which implies specificity that can include both amount and type (which are the only two attributes of damage). the language certainly doesn't exclude type, anyway
"that damage" is the "damage taken" and "Taken" damage has no type. It is just a number you subtracted from your HP.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I suppose damage type isn't an effect, per se. RAI, is almost certainly referring to rider effects (e.g., poisoned), as opposed to modifiers/attributes (e.g., damage type).
Damage type is not an effect, it is a descriptor of damage (damage itself is an effect). Assuming the ability wasn't written to exclude the damage itself, I'd say the type is not a separate effect to be excluded
Dealt damage has a type. Takendamage doesn't. You cannot subtract 10 Fire HP. Or 6 Acid HP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The question the poll is asking is not relevant to the question posed in the example of the Paladin's Aura of the Guardian.
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.
This ability triggers after the target's immunity/resistance/additions has already been applied on their side. It triggers when they take the damage, not when they're hit by a damaging attack. At this point in the creature-being-injured-game-mechanics process, that is just a number. It is no longer even a type of damage at all, just an abstract number of non-typed damage that needs to be subtracted from current HP. And that... "can’t be reduced in any way."
I see what you are saying, but that is not what I am asking.
The question the poll is asking is not relevant to the question posed in the example of the Paladin's Aura of the Guardian.
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.
This ability triggers after the target's immunity/resistance/additions has already been applied on their side. It triggers when they take the damage, not when they're hit by a damaging attack. At this point in the creature-being-injured-game-mechanics process, that is just a number. It is no longer even a type of damage at all, just an abstract number of non-typed damage that needs to be subtracted from current HP. And that... "can’t be reduced in any way."
I see what you are saying, but that is not what I am asking.
For the question to be relevant you'd need Immunity to all Damage. In which case, the damage would be ignored. Immunity to a specific type of damage could never protect against nontyped damage. But if you have full immunity to ALL damage? Then, yes, this would absolutely protect against the transferred damage. Invulnerability for example could prevent it.
Edit: actually no, I still thin it couldn't be prevented even by immunity to all damage since it is being taken at the damage is taken stage after immunity would have already been applied, so it cannot be applied again even if the paladin was immune, since that stage of the process is already passed.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why would the damage you take no longer be the same type of damage that was inflicted to the original target?
Edit: But really, it's one thing to be bludgeoned, and another to have a bruise. Being bludgeoned causes extensive damage beyond the obvious wound, so if the entity sharing damage were taking the "effects" of the damage, rather than experiencing the source themselves, it could look the same, but not carry the same consequences. e.g., sharing fire damage with gunpowder could "consume"(damage) it without "igniting"(vulnerability) it.
A key issue for this is the spell Invulnerability, but if all of the stars line up to let the players combine 9th level magic with a Paladin's aura for a minute, then let them have the epic moment.
That's what I was getting at it with #21... assuming that what we're talking about is players casting spells, and not whatever encounter the DM has crafted with a Life Transference-casting Mummy, then this gray area should be interpreted in the favor of the player to permit their cool moment, not in the favor of telling them they've wasted resources. There are no ways to get immunity early enough in a character's life or often enough for the permissive ruling to jeopardize game balance.
I guess it depends on the kind of campaign going on, and whether the "cool combo" is a better character moment than the "heroic sacrifice".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is just my opinion but the mechanism for the
damageHP loss seems to be blood loss is those two cases as well, judging by the slashing/piercing damage of the attack and the mention of stanching the wound with a Medicine check.I do think referring to it as an "infernal wound" adds a level of specificity that'd theoretically let some rule target it, but in practice I think it's just meant to highlight that there's something unnatural about the injury. You normally don't suffer wounds until you hit 0 hit points, yet these devils seem to be able to bleed you out with what should be scratches and flesh wounds.
Yup, it's not a perfect answer to your question but I wanted to throw it out there. Personally I don't see how having your hit points set to 0 when they're not currently 0 isn't a loss of hit points. You had hit points and now you don't. The only thing special about it is that the amount is variable.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Well, in the same way that if you were to go into or out of a Wild Shape and had a new HP amount that was different than your old HP amount, that isn't "healing" or "gaining" hit points, or "taking" damage or "losing" HP, it's "assuming" or "returning to" a new HP value.
Is "drop to" more similar to "assume"/"return to", or more similar to "lose"?
We now have deal, take, assign, lose, drop to, and assume/return to in the list of descriptions of negative HP changes. I suppose we could add heal/gain as well, though healing is really a whole separate system and not just negative damage, so I'd rather leave that out of it.
Clear as mud.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I have to agree in this case. The damage is specified as necrotic and the Mummy Lord doesn't take necrotic damage so no healing is done.
In the case of the Paladin Aura of the Guardian It says " to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it". So in the example with fireball damage and fire immune Paladin, the Paladin would still suffer damage because the damage is not necessarily fire damage. The same could be said for a normal sword cut (if the Paladin were immune to normal slashing damage), it is not slashing, it is magical (possible non-type) damage.
But generally speaking even if a PC somehow became immune to all damage and tried this, I'd either make them take damage anyway or have the ability not work at all. Mostly for RP reasons. You can't take the stand of "I'll sacrifice my life for yours" when you lose nothing. It could be great RP too as the Paladin is opening up his soul for the good of another.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The question the poll is asking is not relevant to the question posed in the example of the Paladin's Aura of the Guardian.
This ability triggers after the target's immunity/resistance/additions has already been applied on their side. It triggers when they take the damage, not when they're hit by a damaging attack. At this point in the creature-being-injured-game-mechanics process, that is just a number. It is no longer even a type of damage at all, just an abstract number of non-typed damage that needs to be subtracted from current HP. And that... "can’t be reduced in any way."
Example: So if your buddy is hit by a fireball that deals 32 fire damage, but he saves and drops that to 16 fire damage, but has fire resistance so drops that 16 fire damage to just 8 damage. Now: He takes 8 damage. You activate your Palli Power and you take that 8 damage instead. You could be immune to Fire damage but you're not taking fire damage. You're just taking 8 damage which cannot be reduced in any way.
____ Edit: Just for reference this is an example provided in the PHB.
And here are other examples where the book says "take damage"
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A key issue for this is the spell Invulnerability, but if all of the stars line up to let the players combine 9th level magic with a Paladin's aura for a minute, then let them have the epic moment.
Mmmmm Some sort of magic item?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Why is it assumed that the damage loses it's type when it transfers? the rule as written says "that" damage, which implies specificity that can include both amount and type (which are the only two attributes of damage). the language certainly doesn't exclude type, anyway
So that said, I'd say the type transfers with the amount, and I also say immunity presents an exemption to damage, so it is not that (damage = 0), but is instead (damage = n/a).
There are very few ways a Paladin PC can be granted immunity to a damage type (being Yuan-Ti, being the target of a wish worded to grant immunity, maybe from a few magic items), so in general I would say this is a rare occurrence, and would not want to diminish the player by saying their immunity doesn't work if they have gotten to the level where that immunity has been granted.
I suppose damage type isn't an effect, per se. RAI is almost certainly referring to rider effects (e.g., poisoned), as opposed to modifiers/attributes (e.g., damage type).
That's what I was getting at it with #21... assuming that what we're talking about is players casting spells, and not whatever encounter the DM has crafted with a Life Transference-casting Mummy, then this gray area should be interpreted in the favor of the player to permit their cool moment, not in the favor of telling them they've wasted resources. There are no ways to get immunity early enough in a character's life or often enough for the permissive ruling to jeopardize game balance.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Damage type is not an effect, it is a descriptor of damage (damage itself is an effect). Assuming the ability wasn't written to exclude the damage itself, I'd say the type is not a separate effect to be excluded
Wild Shape is pretty clear about the fact that you temporarily use a different HP pool and that terms like "taking" damage now apply to your new HP. I don't think "complete HP pool replacement" is in the same category as all the other things you listed.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Wild shape sets your current HP to a new value, without dealing you damage. So does suffocating. I'd put those pretty squarely in the same category...
... but I acknowledge that reasonable minds could differ.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Taking Damage is to process of subtracting HP.
"A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.
Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
There is no means to subtract fire HP. Or bludgeoning HP. Etc.
"that damage" is the "damage taken" and "Taken" damage has no type. It is just a number you subtracted from your HP.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Dealt damage has a type. Taken damage doesn't. You cannot subtract 10 Fire HP. Or 6 Acid HP.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I see what you are saying, but that is not what I am asking.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
For the question to be relevant you'd need Immunity to all Damage. In which case, the damage would be ignored. Immunity to a specific type of damage could never protect against nontyped damage. But if you have full immunity to ALL damage? Then, yes, this would absolutely protect against the transferred damage. Invulnerability for example could prevent it.
Edit: actually no, I still thin it couldn't be prevented even by immunity to all damage since it is being taken at the damage is taken stage after immunity would have already been applied, so it cannot be applied again even if the paladin was immune, since that stage of the process is already passed.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why would the damage you take no longer be the same type of damage that was inflicted to the original target?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Edit: But really, it's one thing to be bludgeoned, and another to have a bruise. Being bludgeoned causes extensive damage beyond the obvious wound, so if the entity sharing damage were taking the "effects" of the damage, rather than experiencing the source themselves, it could look the same, but not carry the same consequences. e.g., sharing fire damage with gunpowder could "consume"(damage) it without "igniting"(vulnerability) it.
I guess it depends on the kind of campaign going on, and whether the "cool combo" is a better character moment than the "heroic sacrifice".
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The only heroic sacrifice I see here is "you cast a 9th level spell but it didn't work" :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.