Why would the damage you take no longer be the same type of damage that was inflicted to the original target?
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."
"Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
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 only heroic sacrifice I see here is "you cast a 9th level spell but it didn't work" :p
If they're casting invulnerability, why not just cast it on the original target... ? Why involve the Aura at all?
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)
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?
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."
"Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
The game makes no meaningful distinction between the two that would change the type of damage throughout the process. Damage is damage, and has a type throughout the process; no rule removes type from damage during the process
And see my rainbow colored posts earlier- it is not clear that the deal versus take versus assign versus lose steps even are separate steps in the first place, so much as they are just shifting vocabulary as chapter 9 meanders through talking about damage. I would be very suspicious of a claim that says an attacker truly “ deals” 10 damage when the defender only ends up losing five points after resistance is applied, and I think that either none of these really are separate steps at all, or they should be thought about more like a giant ring that swallows its own tail and keeps going around and around in a circle until all the numbers equalize (your deal 10 damage when you first attack, until you realize that the target only takes five damage, at which point you loop back around to be considered to have dealt five damage after all)
Why would the damage you take no longer be the same type of damage that was inflicted to the original target?
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."
"Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
So the assumption would be that fire damage remains fire damage, unless there is something to dell me that fire damage is no longer fire damage. Changing damage type of even more extreme, stripping the type entirely from the damage, is something nearly unheard of in D&D, so why would you think this would happen without something to tell you explicitly that it happens?
You're going to have to come at this argument with a lot more firepower than that.
And see my rainbow colored posts earlier- it is not clear that the deal versus take versus assign versus lose steps even are separate steps in the first place, so much as they are just shifting vocabulary as chapter 9 meanders through talking about damage. I would be very suspicious of a claim that says an attacker truly “ deals” 10 damage when the defender only ends up losing five points after resistance is applied, and I think that either none of these really are separate steps at all, or they should be thought about more like a giant ring that swallows its own tail and keeps going around and around in a circle until all the numbers equalize (your deal 10 damage when you first attack, until you realize that the target only takes five damage, at which point you loop back around to be considered to have dealt five damage after all)
The vocabulary changes mainly because the perspective does. to the attacking creature, they deal damage. To the attacked creature, they take damage. It's two sides of the same coin (the coin being damage). The reason it gets convoluted is because, this being a game, the process of figuring out "damage" as a game concept involves steps that would be innate and instant in real life. If I strike a bear with an axe in real life, the damage "process" occurs instantly based on physics/anatomy/etc. If I then strike a rock (ignoring the angry bear for a moment, to my peril), that damage "process" occurs instantly based on physics/geology/etc. The fact that I do less damage to the rock than to the bear (presumably) is due to the rock being resistant to that kind of strike, which in real life just happens, instantly, because said physics/geology/etc, but in game has steps we follow that break up the "dealt" damage and "taken" damage, when in reality, i have slashed a bear and a rock, who take damage based on that slashing.
Rav's problem is he is saying the process, which is meant to replicate the real life examples above, creates a different set of outcomes regarding "damage" because of the process itself, which is certainly not the intent of the game, and definitely more meta than needed to effectively understand what to do here.
I get that we do that, in much the same way that we roll a d20 and see “17,” and then look at our attack bonus +5 to conclude “22.” That is not to say that in 5E, the “17” roll and “22” total are two meaningfully different “steps” in an attack.
I get that we do that, in much the same way that we roll a d20 and see “17,” and then look at our attack bonus +5 to conclude “22.” That is not to say that in 5E, the “17” roll and “22” total are two meaningfully different “steps” in an attack.
Oh I know you do...I'm not sure Rav does though. But its the same thing, yes, a process that in the game replicates swinging a sword or firing a bow, which would be meaningless in real life because it just happens the instant you swing or fire. Making the process more important than the story and intent leads to wonky reasoning, like saying that the fire damage dealt becomes typeless damage taken, or that teleportation isn't moving.
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.
I think we're disagreeing on the "your current HP" part. Case in point, the rules say "a creature's hit points can't exceed its hit point maximum," but I think we both agree that a 2nd level Moon druid transforming into a brown bear gets to keep the bear's 34 HP despite that. That makes it fundamentally different from healing/gaining hit points, and by that same token losing/dropping to hit points.
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.
That's all well and good, but the Redemption Aura transfers the damage itself, so the type is retained. "It's magic, lol" is exactly correct if you're explaining to someone why Warding Bond changes the type to typeless, as it says it does, but the Redemption Aura doesn't block some damage and then deal you damage, like the Bond does - the Aura magically has you take the damage instead, meaning type is retained. This thread started about immunity, and that's a fine question, but you know what isn't a fine question? If the paladin has fire absorption, like an iron golem, Aura-transferred fire damage will heal them. I don't know how they'd get that outside of a direct DM boon, but regardless, the ban on damage reduction certainly doesn't stop type-based healing.
If you think that “your HP” while you are a bear is… someone else’s? Than yes, we disagree.
Your HP can’t exceed your HP maximum. Your HP max is X when humanoid, then you wildshape, and “your” max and current HP are now set to Y (without healing or taking damage to go from X->Y). But it is still “your” HP, no one else’s, you are still the same creature even though your form has changed. “The bear” is just you, just as “the elf” is.
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.
That's all well and good, but the Redemption Aura transfers the damage itself, so the type is retained. "It's magic, lol" is exactly correct if you're explaining to someone why Warding Bond changes the type to typeless, as it says it does, but the Redemption Aura doesn't block some damage and then deal you damage, like the Bond does - the Aura magically has you take the damage instead, meaning type is retained. This thread started about immunity, and that's a fine question, but you know what isn't a fine question? If the paladin has fire absorption, like an iron golem, Aura-transferred fire damage will heal them. I don't know how they'd get that outside of a direct DM boon, but regardless, the ban on damage reduction certainly doesn't stop type-based healing.
I don't think it is fair to say that a rule interpretation or ruling is wrong because a homebrew effect that has no published way of occurring would be a bridge too far.
The game makes no meaningful distinction between the two that would change the type of damage throughout the process. Damage is damage, and has a type throughout the process; no rule removes type from damage during the process
If the Paladin is also a werewolf, and he uses his ability to transfer a hit from a normal sword, the damage is no longer non-magic slashing. It becomes magical slashing so he takes damage.
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?"
It’s an interesting question, whether a spell can inflict non magical damage. I was wondering it today when looking at Conjure Barrage, which seems like it strays awful close to (unintentionally?) declaring itself to do the “same type” of nonmagical damage as its ammunition…
That aside, why are you so sure that the Paladin “magically substituting” their health for “that damage” transforms the nonmagical damage into magical damage? The health is what is called out as magical, not the damage… or am I looking at the wrong Paladin aura? Crown’s Divine Allegiance, right?
The game makes no meaningful distinction between the two that would change the type of damage throughout the process. Damage is damage, and has a type throughout the process; no rule removes type from damage during the process
If the Paladin is also a werewolf, and he uses his ability to transfer a hit from a normal sword, the damage is no longer non-magic slashing. It becomes magical slashing so he takes damage.
I was referring, of course, and based on context, to the damage type (acid, fire, cold, slashing, etc...). Magical / Non-Magical is a rider that gets applied also to damage, but it is not a type, at least not one defined in the PHB. My comment was that types are not removed by this ability (and in general), not that they couldn't be changed in some way. Any mundane damage would technically become magical damage by this effect, because the effect is magical.
But this wouldn't work as you describe anyway, as the the werewolf is only immune to that damage from non-magical attacks. The damage in this case is dealt due to a class ability, not an attack, so it would take the damage whether or not it was magical.
Why would the damage you take no longer be the same type of damage that was inflicted to the original target?
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."
"Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
So the assumption would be that fire damage remains fire damage, unless there is something to dell me that fire damage is no longer fire damage. Changing damage type of even more extreme, stripping the type entirely from the damage, is something nearly unheard of in D&D, so why would you think this would happen without something to tell you explicitly that it happens?
You're going to have to come at this argument with a lot more firepower than that.
You can't subtract 5 fire from your HP. That is nonsensical parsing.
Damage Type don't have their own rules. And rules only do what they say they do. At no point does the book say damage taken has a type. Only damage dealt has a type.
And, if damage remained typed after applying resistance you'd need to apply resistance again, and again, and again, until it was gone. Because if it stayed typed the resistance would apply to the new result each time.
Eh, honestly that is semantics call it whatever you want. The important part is the stage of the damage mechanics the damage is getting swapped at.
It happens as damage is taken.
THAT is at the very end of the damage process.
After damage is dealt. After immunity applied, after +/- modifiers applied. After resistance applied. the very last step is for that damage to be taken. (Ie the HP going down)
THAT is the step where the Palli power kicks in. All the way at the stage where HP is going down by a number value.
That number value cannot be reduced in any way, per the ability itself.
And so it is already too late to apply the Palli's resistances and etc because we're already past that point in the damage process.
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?
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."
"Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
"Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
So the assumption would be that fire damage remains fire damage, unless there is something to dell me that fire damage is no longer fire damage. Changing damage type of even more extreme, stripping the type entirely from the damage, is something nearly unheard of in D&D, so why would you think this would happen without something to tell you explicitly that it happens?
You're going to have to come at this argument with a lot more firepower than that.
You can't subtract 5 fire from your HP. That is nonsensical parsing.
You can take 5 fire damage though, which is the obvious route normal english would end up with
Damage Type don't have their own rules. And rules only do what they say they do. At no point does the book say damage taken has a type. Only damage dealt has a type.
Damage is damage, and damage has a type, dealt vs taken is only a shift of perspective from the attacker to the attacked. Its two sides of the same coin
And, if damage remained typed after applying resistance you'd need to apply resistance again, and again, and again, until it was gone. Because if it stayed typed the resistance would apply to the new result each time.
nope, because the rules say resistances don't stack...or did you forget?
Eh, honestly that is semantics call it whatever you want. The important part is the stage of the damage mechanics the damage is getting swapped at.
It happens as damage is taken.
THAT is at the very end of the damage process.
After damage is dealt. After immunity applied, after +/- modifiers applied. After resistance applied. the very last step is for that damage to be taken. (Ie the HP going down)
THAT is the step where the Palli power kicks in. All the way at the stage where HP is going down by a number value.
That number value cannot be reduced in any way, per the ability itself.
And so it is already too late to apply the Palli's resistances and etc because we're already past that point in the damage process.
you (incorrectly) assume the damage type disappears at some point, but where in the rules does it say that? If I take fire damage, am i not burned? If cold, am I not frozen? if necrotic, am I not withered? the damage you take still has a type, because the description of the damage taken is specific to the damage dealt. I don't get burned by thunder damage. If you remove typing, then all damage becomes simple numbers, which are meaningless to narrative and description. That doesn't track in a game built around narrative and description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can Deal different Types of Damage. Damage Taken rules don't at all say they rely on the types.
The Take Damage step happens after resistances, immunities, and etc have all been dealt with already. It is the final portion of getting damaged where you actually drop the HP numbers. See:
Damage is subtracted. Thus it is just a number (at this point, as it is "taken").
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.
If they're casting invulnerability, why not just cast it on the original target... ? Why involve the Aura at all?
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)
Self..
Unlikely the Paladin has a 9th level slot.
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.
That's what I was trying to say earlier.
"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 game makes no meaningful distinction between the two that would change the type of damage throughout the process. Damage is damage, and has a type throughout the process; no rule removes type from damage during the process
And see my rainbow colored posts earlier- it is not clear that the deal versus take versus assign versus lose steps even are separate steps in the first place, so much as they are just shifting vocabulary as chapter 9 meanders through talking about damage. I would be very suspicious of a claim that says an attacker truly “ deals” 10 damage when the defender only ends up losing five points after resistance is applied, and I think that either none of these really are separate steps at all, or they should be thought about more like a giant ring that swallows its own tail and keeps going around and around in a circle until all the numbers equalize (your deal 10 damage when you first attack, until you realize that the target only takes five damage, at which point you loop back around to be considered to have dealt five damage after all)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So the assumption would be that fire damage remains fire damage, unless there is something to dell me that fire damage is no longer fire damage. Changing damage type of even more extreme, stripping the type entirely from the damage, is something nearly unheard of in D&D, so why would you think this would happen without something to tell you explicitly that it happens?
You're going to have to come at this argument with a lot more firepower than that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The vocabulary changes mainly because the perspective does. to the attacking creature, they deal damage. To the attacked creature, they take damage. It's two sides of the same coin (the coin being damage). The reason it gets convoluted is because, this being a game, the process of figuring out "damage" as a game concept involves steps that would be innate and instant in real life. If I strike a bear with an axe in real life, the damage "process" occurs instantly based on physics/anatomy/etc. If I then strike a rock (ignoring the angry bear for a moment, to my peril), that damage "process" occurs instantly based on physics/geology/etc. The fact that I do less damage to the rock than to the bear (presumably) is due to the rock being resistant to that kind of strike, which in real life just happens, instantly, because said physics/geology/etc, but in game has steps we follow that break up the "dealt" damage and "taken" damage, when in reality, i have slashed a bear and a rock, who take damage based on that slashing.
Rav's problem is he is saying the process, which is meant to replicate the real life examples above, creates a different set of outcomes regarding "damage" because of the process itself, which is certainly not the intent of the game, and definitely more meta than needed to effectively understand what to do here.
I get that we do that, in much the same way that we roll a d20 and see “17,” and then look at our attack bonus +5 to conclude “22.” That is not to say that in 5E, the “17” roll and “22” total are two meaningfully different “steps” in an attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh I know you do...I'm not sure Rav does though. But its the same thing, yes, a process that in the game replicates swinging a sword or firing a bow, which would be meaningless in real life because it just happens the instant you swing or fire. Making the process more important than the story and intent leads to wonky reasoning, like saying that the fire damage dealt becomes typeless damage taken, or that teleportation isn't moving.
I think we're disagreeing on the "your current HP" part. Case in point, the rules say "a creature's hit points can't exceed its hit point maximum," but I think we both agree that a 2nd level Moon druid transforming into a brown bear gets to keep the bear's 34 HP despite that. That makes it fundamentally different from healing/gaining hit points, and by that same token losing/dropping to hit points.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That's all well and good, but the Redemption Aura transfers the damage itself, so the type is retained. "It's magic, lol" is exactly correct if you're explaining to someone why Warding Bond changes the type to typeless, as it says it does, but the Redemption Aura doesn't block some damage and then deal you damage, like the Bond does - the Aura magically has you take the damage instead, meaning type is retained. This thread started about immunity, and that's a fine question, but you know what isn't a fine question? If the paladin has fire absorption, like an iron golem, Aura-transferred fire damage will heal them. I don't know how they'd get that outside of a direct DM boon, but regardless, the ban on damage reduction certainly doesn't stop type-based healing.
If you think that “your HP” while you are a bear is… someone else’s? Than yes, we disagree.
Your HP can’t exceed your HP maximum. Your HP max is X when humanoid, then you wildshape, and “your” max and current HP are now set to Y (without healing or taking damage to go from X->Y). But it is still “your” HP, no one else’s, you are still the same creature even though your form has changed. “The bear” is just you, just as “the elf” is.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't think it is fair to say that a rule interpretation or ruling is wrong because a homebrew effect that has no published way of occurring would be a bridge too far.
If the Paladin is also a werewolf, and he uses his ability to transfer a hit from a normal sword, the damage is no longer non-magic slashing. It becomes magical slashing so he takes damage.
"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
It’s an interesting question, whether a spell can inflict non magical damage. I was wondering it today when looking at Conjure Barrage, which seems like it strays awful close to (unintentionally?) declaring itself to do the “same type” of nonmagical damage as its ammunition…
That aside, why are you so sure that the Paladin “magically substituting” their health for “that damage” transforms the nonmagical damage into magical damage? The health is what is called out as magical, not the damage… or am I looking at the wrong Paladin aura? Crown’s Divine Allegiance, right?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I was referring, of course, and based on context, to the damage type (acid, fire, cold, slashing, etc...). Magical / Non-Magical is a rider that gets applied also to damage, but it is not a type, at least not one defined in the PHB. My comment was that types are not removed by this ability (and in general), not that they couldn't be changed in some way. Any mundane damage would technically become magical damage by this effect, because the effect is magical.
But this wouldn't work as you describe anyway, as the the werewolf is only immune to that damage from non-magical attacks. The damage in this case is dealt due to a class ability, not an attack, so it would take the damage whether or not it was magical.
Redemptions Aura of the Guardian
Edit: response to CC's post 79
You can't subtract 5 fire from your HP. That is nonsensical parsing.
Damage Type don't have their own rules. And rules only do what they say they do. At no point does the book say damage taken has a type. Only damage dealt has a type.
And, if damage remained typed after applying resistance you'd need to apply resistance again, and again, and again, until it was gone. Because if it stayed typed the resistance would apply to the new result each time.
Eh, honestly that is semantics call it whatever you want. The important part is the stage of the damage mechanics the damage is getting swapped at.
It happens as damage is taken.
THAT is at the very end of the damage process.
After damage is dealt. After immunity applied, after +/- modifiers applied. After resistance applied. the very last step is for that damage to be taken. (Ie the HP going down)
THAT is the step where the Palli power kicks in. All the way at the stage where HP is going down by a number value.
That number value cannot be reduced in any way, per the ability itself.
And so it is already too late to apply the Palli's resistances and etc because we're already past that point in the damage process.
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.
You can take 5 fire damage though, which is the obvious route normal english would end up with
Damage is damage, and damage has a type, dealt vs taken is only a shift of perspective from the attacker to the attacked. Its two sides of the same coin
nope, because the rules say resistances don't stack...or did you forget?
you (incorrectly) assume the damage type disappears at some point, but where in the rules does it say that? If I take fire damage, am i not burned? If cold, am I not frozen? if necrotic, am I not withered? the damage you take still has a type, because the description of the damage taken is specific to the damage dealt. I don't get burned by thunder damage. If you remove typing, then all damage becomes simple numbers, which are meaningless to narrative and description. That doesn't track in a game built around narrative and description.