A specific spell wording still beats a general (if not common) rule of immunity.
The spell says you take damage that can't be reduced in any way.
Resistance or immunity are more general rules than this specific spell since they apply to more than one thing (immunity to fire, weapons, cold, poison and so on).
Same thing for warding bond, doesn't matter how immune you are to anything, if they take damage you do too. Specific beats general.
The question being raised though is whether the two rules are actually in conflict. If you think immunity is damage reduction (as in it takes damage and reduces it to 0), then yes, specific beats general. But if you think immunity is an exemption from that damage in the first place, then the rules are no longer in conflict and Specific v. General doesn’t apply; the damage is not being reduced, it’s being ignored, so the aura rule doesn’t override it.
the problem is that nothing in the rules defines immunity one way or the other, so it’s on us to guess
Rav, 1) see every spell in the game, they all say take (thanks Wolf for pointing that out). 2) a PC is not a character sheet. Don’t confuse a bookkeeping abstraction with what happens to the PC. If a PC gets hit by a fireball, they don’t lose 28, they get burned, from fire damage that they took. This game is not a computer program…Character sheets, damage processes, dice rolls, movement speeds are a means to the end of describing a character in an imaginary world. They are not an end to themselves. The writers know this, and they expect us to know that too.
People have questions like this thread because of an imprecise understanding of how the rules work. You may not be clued in on how the mechanics function and interact with one another, that is ok, not everyone is expected to. It is a lot to keep clinking around in your head and 'close enough' is often more efficient than actually following the rules closely and with precision. I'll never fault someone for not having precision in the rules while they running a game.
But we're not running a game right now, we're actually discussing the rules themselves. Yes, the mechanics are all just tools to support the narrative. But we can discuss those mechanics with precision, especially here, on the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. Scolding me that the narrative is king is the weirdest take you put forward... here.
D&D is first and foremost an exercise in narrative collaboration. It says so on the first page of the PHB. I said it because it is true, and it shouldn't be a "weird" take to think so. Further, it is impossible to discuss mechanics with precision when the mechanics are not precise to begin with. This is not chemistry, it is not physics, it is a game. The rules leave a lot undefined, and a lot more to the convention of standard language. As such, they must be interpreted, often with a degree of uncertainty. The only wrong approach, IMO, is to say that there is only one way to do so, or a "precise" way to do so, which is what you have tried to do in multiple threads now. You seem to want this to be like chemistry, but it is really more like cooking. One requires exactness, repeatability, and precision...the other has some room for interpretation and invention.
That said, the PHB describes what "Take damage" means. It means "subtract HP". As always, you're welcome to deviate from what the PHB says if that suits your game's narrative. But that isn't especially a helpful way to take the conversation when discussing the mechanics specifically.
The fact that multiple instances of the rules use "take" in reference to typed damage should indicate that "dealt" and "take" are interchangeable, and relate to the perspective of who is being associated with the damage in that sentence. Dealt references the attacker, Take references the attacked. the damage itself is unchanged, only the perspective of who is interacting with it is.
Also, the lack of a reference to Type in the PHB regarding damage taken is not a conscious omission of type, it is a common language convention, where you don't repeat identical information when that information doesn't change. It works that way in english: If I say "iconarising works as an architect" do I then, every time I mention my job in the future, have to say that i am an architect? If I don't, does that mean I'm no longer an architect? Of course not! It can be assumed that I am until I say it is changed.
For another example, look at music. Convention of musical language says that, for a given song of music, if the B is noted to be flat, any other B is also flat, unless/until something changes it. In notation, they will mark the B line with a flat sign (ironically, a lower case "b") at the start of the piece, but the Bs in that piece will not get that mark individually. That doesn't mean they aren't flat, because convention says they are. But I digress.
the rules of the game use common language conventions. it is a common language convention not to repeat identical information throughout a passage (in fact, that would be considered bad writing, even in academic settings). The passage in the PHB lists damage dealt as having a type, because that is the first step of processing damage. subsequent steps in that passage, because of the convention of language, are assumed to still have that typing, even if it isn't explicitly mentioned, unless it is explicitly changed.
A specific spell wording still beats a general (if not common) rule of immunity.
The spell says you take damage that can't be reduced in any way.
Resistance or immunity are more general rules than this specific spell since they apply to more than one thing (immunity to fire, weapons, cold, poison and so on).
Same thing for warding bond, doesn't matter how immune you are to anything, if they take damage you do too. Specific beats general.
The question being raised though is whether the two rules are actually in conflict.
The question itself doesn't apply. The damage being taken by the palli doesn't have immunity applied to it.
It is like arguing if it is safer to fly or drive, meanwhile, you're actually sailing a boat.
If you think immunity is damage reduction (as in it takes damage and reduces it to 0), then yes, specific beats general. But if you think immunity is an exemption from that damage in the first place, then the rules are no longer in conflict and Specific v. General doesn’t apply; the damage is not being reduced, it’s being ignored, so the aura rule doesn’t override it.
the problem is that nothing in the rules defines immunity one way or the other, so it’s on us to guess
Lets examine the situation where your ally has fire resistance. You, the palli, have fire Immunity.
Your Ally gets hit by a fire attack and is dealt 20 damage. His resistance kicks in and halves that, so he takes 10 damage. This is the stage the Palli Power kicks in, during the taking portion. After resistance/immunity/vulnerability have already been applied. The Palli takes that 10 damage, which cannot be reduced in any way.
You don't apply the Palli's resistances, his immunities, his vulnerabilities, etc, because it is too late in the damage calculation process for that now.
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.
A specific spell wording still beats a general (if not common) rule of immunity.
The spell says you take damage that can't be reduced in any way.
Resistance or immunity are more general rules than this specific spell since they apply to more than one thing (immunity to fire, weapons, cold, poison and so on).
Same thing for warding bond, doesn't matter how immune you are to anything, if they take damage you do too. Specific beats general.
The question being raised though is whether the two rules are actually in conflict.
The question itself doesn't apply. The damage being taken by the palli doesn't have immunity applied to it.
It is like arguing if it is safer to fly or drive, meanwhile, you're actually sailing a boat.
If you think immunity is damage reduction (as in it takes damage and reduces it to 0), then yes, specific beats general. But if you think immunity is an exemption from that damage in the first place, then the rules are no longer in conflict and Specific v. General doesn’t apply; the damage is not being reduced, it’s being ignored, so the aura rule doesn’t override it.
the problem is that nothing in the rules defines immunity one way or the other, so it’s on us to guess
Lets examine the situation where your ally has fire resistance. You, the palli, have fire Immunity.
Your Ally gets hit by a fire attack and is dealt 20 damage. His resistance kicks in and halves that, so he takes 10 damage. This is the stage the Palli Power kicks in, during the taking portion. After resistance/immunity/vulnerability have already been applied. The Palli takes that 10 damage, which cannot be reduced in any way.
You don't apply the Palli's resistances, his immunities, his vulnerabilities, etc, because it is too late in the damage calculation process for that now.
I was literally describing the question posed in the thread. If you disagree with that question, then don't take it up with me. Also, this is probably the 5th time you've said this (or a variation of it) and you've yet to convince most anyone that you are right...I'm not going to respond to you further unless you come up with a new argument.
No, Chicken_Champ is spot on. The aura isn't damaging you, you're taking damage that was meant for someone else. The aura is just how the damage gets to you, just like the mage hand example.
To be fair, it isn't 100 percent clear whether the original source is doing the damage and Aura is simply re-directing it (in which case there's no reason for the damage to lose its type), or if the Aura is dealing equivalent damage to what the ally would have taken (which opens the door for "typeless" damage).
The first interpretation is how I'd play it at this point, just as I'd rule warding bond is mirroring (for lack of a better term) the damage taken by the original target, type and all, but it isn't explicit in the RAW.
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)
A specific spell wording still beats a general (if not common) rule of immunity.
The spell says you take damage that can't be reduced in any way.
Resistance or immunity are more general rules than this specific spell since they apply to more than one thing (immunity to fire, weapons, cold, poison and so on).
Same thing for warding bond, doesn't matter how immune you are to anything, if they take damage you do too. Specific beats general.
The question being raised though is whether the two rules are actually in conflict.
The question itself doesn't apply. The damage being taken by the palli doesn't have immunity applied to it.
It is like arguing if it is safer to fly or drive, meanwhile, you're actually sailing a boat.
If you think immunity is damage reduction (as in it takes damage and reduces it to 0), then yes, specific beats general. But if you think immunity is an exemption from that damage in the first place, then the rules are no longer in conflict and Specific v. General doesn’t apply; the damage is not being reduced, it’s being ignored, so the aura rule doesn’t override it.
the problem is that nothing in the rules defines immunity one way or the other, so it’s on us to guess
Lets examine the situation where your ally has fire resistance. You, the palli, have fire Immunity.
Your Ally gets hit by a fire attack and is dealt 20 damage. His resistance kicks in and halves that, so he takes 10 damage. This is the stage the Palli Power kicks in, during the taking portion. After resistance/immunity/vulnerability have already been applied. The Palli takes that 10 damage, which cannot be reduced in any way.
You don't apply the Palli's resistances, his immunities, his vulnerabilities, etc, because it is too late in the damage calculation process for that now.
I was literally describing the question posed in the thread. If you disagree with that question, then don't take it up with me.
This is all for the benefit of any reader here. Posted publicly. Sure, I'm quoting you, but I didn't DM you or anything... I'm not "taking it up with you" You're free to not respond.
Also, this is probably the 5th time you've said this (or a variation of it) and you've yet to convince most anyone that you are right...
Convince? Hmm, I wasn't really trying to convince, I was trying to explain. If someone posts something I know to be incorrect, I just aim to help educate them.
And some people here seem to be under the notion that you check for immunity on the redirected damage. But you don't. I've tried to explain it in several ways hoping it can help people understand this process better. This isn't a debate for me, even if it for you. I'm 100% aware of how it works and was simply trying to help people reach that same understanding.
Explanation rephrased yet another way:
You only check an instance of damage against resistances/immunity/vulnerability once. If you do so more than once you're not following the RAW.
Hypothetically, new but similar example: you, the Palli and your ally both have fire resistance. And, you can swap the damage with a slightly modified version of the palli ability, but in this hypothetical it just doesn't have the "cannot be reduced clause". They get damaged for 20 fire, their resistance drops that to 10 damage taken. You take it instead of them now. Do you drop it, again, with your resistance too? No. You've already checked the damage against resistances and you just take the 10 damage. If it was dropped to 5 from your resistance you'd have applied resistance twice, strictly against the RAW.
If you don't understand it just say which part is giving you trouble and we can focus on that specifically. Or... if you "disagree" which step do you disagree with?
I'm not going to respond to you further unless you come up with a new argument.
That's just it, it isn't an argument. I mean, I could radically change goals and strategies here and treat this like some sort of debate-off but that doesn't seem like a valuable use of my time to me. Help educate, sure, yeah totally. I'll spend my time trying to help educate. But simply argue with you? Pass. If that is what you wanted, then yes, no need to respond.
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.
Rav, to break it down a little more clearly, your hypothetical has these steps:
An attacker makes an attack (or caster casts a spell) that would deal fire damage
That attack (or spell, etc.) hits its target
Damage is rolled for the attack, and totals 20 fire damage
The target's resistances are checked, and with fire resistance, the damage is reduced to 10 fire damage.
The target takes 10 fire damage The paladin's aura is triggered, so that the paladin magically takes "that damage" (10 fire damage) which "can't be reduced in any way"
The issue is... PHB Chapter 9 does not describe checking resistances (which is arguably the step where immunities are checked as well in the same way, but that's sort of begging the question that this entire thread is about... put that aside for now) as a step that is part of resolving an attack, or a spell, etc.... it's described as a step that is part of taking damage. The super-heading that it is part of is "Damage and Healing", not "Making an Attack." The intro of that section, the other sections, this section.... none of them limit themselves to describing the phases of an attack, the damage roll of a spell, or anything else discrete like that (though they do occasionally provide examples that are parts of attacks or spells). Instead, they address "Whenever a creature takes damage."
Some creatures and objects are exceedingly difficult or unusually easy to hurt with certain types of damage.
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has vulnerability to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it.
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.
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
After all other damage modifiers were calculated for the attack, resistance was applied by the first target to reduce damage against "it." That's fine, and we got to 10. But when that 10 fire damage is now moved to the paladin, we have a new "it", and no matter what other modifiers we've applied already... we now have to check resistance and then vulnerability against this new "it." Not as a step in the attack that caused the damage... as a step in this creature taking damage.
Now, if the Paladin had fire resistance, ordinarily this 10 would drop to 5. The specific language of this feature says "no don't do that, the damage can't be reduced in any way", so we don't. The question of the whole thread is "is immunity a different version of that same resistance/vulnerability check, and thus stopped by that language, or something totally different which applies anyway because it isn't "reducing" but "avoiding"?" There is disagreement on that, but either way... it is not "too late" to ask that question, because we are asking it at precisely the right time when this creature is being asked to take damage from a damage source. The step hasn't passed, that was a different creature's damage calculation. If the step had so obviously passed, then one would also wonder why the paladin aura even bothered to describe that it couldn't be reduced further, it might as well have said that the attacker couldn't reroll its attack or damage or any other obviously-already-passed phase? No, the wording of the feature itself shows that the damage reduction phase is not passed for this paladin, its just not able to accept any reductions (from resistance? from resistance OR immunity? arguments!).
If the Paladin had fire vulnerability instead of fire resistance, then they would indeed take 20 damage not 10, because their resistances and vulnerabilities would be checked prior to taking damage, and the feature doesn't prevent increasing damage just reducing it.
Rav, to break it down a little more clearly, your hypothetical has these steps:
An attacker makes an attack (or caster casts a spell) that would deal fire damage
That attack (or spell, etc.) hits its target
Damage is rolled for the attack, and totals 20 fire damage
The target's resistances are checked, and with fire resistance, the damage is reduced to 10 fire damage.
The target takes 10 fire damage The paladin's aura is triggered, so that the paladin magically takes "that damage" (10 fire damage) which "can't be reduced in any way"
The issue is... PHB Chapter 9 does not describe checking resistances (which is arguably the step where immunities are checked as well in the same way, but that's sort of begging the question that this entire thread is about... put that aside for now) as a step that is part of resolving an attack, or a spell, etc.... it's described as a step that is part of taking damage. The super-heading that it is part of is "Damage and Healing", not "Making an Attack." The intro of that section, the other sections, this section.... none of them limit themselves to describing the phases of an attack, the damage roll of a spell, or anything else discrete like that (though they do occasionally provide examples that are parts of attacks or spells). Instead, they address "Whenever a creature takes damage."
I agree with your reasoning here, generally. You've captured the exact chain of events correctly. And, I see what you're saying, that the rules don't discuss it as a codified ordered series of events, and I'd agree entirely except that the way they're written those do effectively become the order they must be done in. If you stick strictly to the RAW, that HAS to be the order.
Even look at the example of how damage resistance is applied in the below quoted rules you posted. At what point in the text does it actually start using the phrase "take" damage? Because whenever this starts being phrased this way is the exact point in the process the Palli Power kicks in, when the rules call it "takes damage". I'll highlight it blue in your below quoted rules.
Some creatures and objects are exceedingly difficult or unusually easy to hurt with certain types of damage.
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it. If a creature or an object has vulnerability to a damage type, damage of that type is doubled against it.
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.
Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance. For example, if a creature has resistance to fire damage as well as resistance to all nonmagical damage, the damage of a nonmagical fire is reduced by half against the creature, not reduced by three-quarters.
After all other damage modifiers were calculated for the attack, resistance was applied by the first target to reduce damage against "it." That's fine, and we got to 10. But when that 10 fire damage is now moved to the paladin, we have a new "it", and no matter what other modifiers we've applied already... we now have to check resistance and then vulnerability against this new "it." Not as a step in the attack that caused the damage... as a step in this creature taking damage.
But we don't have a new damage. It is the same damage. Why? The ability itself says so. "you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it." The Palli takes THAT damage instead of the target. And, TAKING damage is merely subtracting HP. "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
The power, in effect, is just: Subtract the damage taken by another creature from your character sheet's HP instead of their 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 was just asking me a similar question with the Illriggers Infernal Conduit class feature.
Both Versions have the "cannot be reduced" I was looking at devour for enemies with necrotic resistance/immunity.
I found this post here in DnDBeyond, the last part states that it ignores resistances/immunity's. Which would confirm the Specific beats general rule.
Now whether you find a post here from a person that is writing guides for DnDBeyond credible, is another question, but at least it is a source you can quote, to make you feel that handling it that way is okay.
Infernal Conduit
At level 6, Infernal Conduit allows you to drain Hit Points from an enemy and give them to yourself, or you can give your own Hit Points to an ally. Using this feature, you touch a creature, expend Infernal Conduit dice from your pool, and roll them. If you choose the Invigorate feature, the target regains Hit Points equal to the total you rolled, and you take Necrotic damage equal to the Hit Points gained. The target has a chance to save against this effect, though that might not be in their best interest if they want the Hit Points, so they can choose to fail.
If you choose the Devour option, the target must make a saving throw and takes Necrotic damage equal to the total you rolled on a failed save, or half as much on a successful save, and you regain Hit Points equal to the damage inflicted.
The Necrotic damage from this feature can't be reduced in any way, so it's very useful against creatures with Resistance or Immunity to Necrotic damage.
I was just asking me a similar question with the Illriggers Infernal Conduit class feature.
Both Versions have the "cannot be reduced" I was looking at devour for enemies with necrotic resistance/immunity.
I found this post here in DnDBeyond, the last part states that it ignores resistances/immunity's. Which would confirm the Specific beats general rule.
Now whether you find a post here from a person that is writing guides for DnDBeyond credible, is another question, but at least it is a source you can quote, to make you feel that handling it that way is okay.
Infernal Conduit
At level 6, Infernal Conduit allows you to drain Hit Points from an enemy and give them to yourself, or you can give your own Hit Points to an ally. Using this feature, you touch a creature, expend Infernal Conduit dice from your pool, and roll them. If you choose the Invigorate feature, the target regains Hit Points equal to the total you rolled, and you take Necrotic damage equal to the Hit Points gained. The target has a chance to save against this effect, though that might not be in their best interest if they want the Hit Points, so they can choose to fail.
If you choose the Devour option, the target must make a saving throw and takes Necrotic damage equal to the total you rolled on a failed save, or half as much on a successful save, and you regain Hit Points equal to the damage inflicted.
The Necrotic damage from this feature can't be reduced in any way, so it's very useful against creatures with Resistance or Immunity to Necrotic damage.
I am going to say Resistance and Immunity do not reduce damage. The damage multiplication may result in a reduced damage amount, but mechanical effect is not reduction. The Goliath's Stone Endurance and similar effects reduce it. Immunity and Resistance, IMO, are not affected by Infernal Conduit or Aura of the Guardian.
The question being raised though is whether the two rules are actually in conflict. If you think immunity is damage reduction (as in it takes damage and reduces it to 0), then yes, specific beats general. But if you think immunity is an exemption from that damage in the first place, then the rules are no longer in conflict and Specific v. General doesn’t apply; the damage is not being reduced, it’s being ignored, so the aura rule doesn’t override it.
the problem is that nothing in the rules defines immunity one way or the other, so it’s on us to guess
D&D is first and foremost an exercise in narrative collaboration. It says so on the first page of the PHB. I said it because it is true, and it shouldn't be a "weird" take to think so. Further, it is impossible to discuss mechanics with precision when the mechanics are not precise to begin with. This is not chemistry, it is not physics, it is a game. The rules leave a lot undefined, and a lot more to the convention of standard language. As such, they must be interpreted, often with a degree of uncertainty. The only wrong approach, IMO, is to say that there is only one way to do so, or a "precise" way to do so, which is what you have tried to do in multiple threads now. You seem to want this to be like chemistry, but it is really more like cooking. One requires exactness, repeatability, and precision...the other has some room for interpretation and invention.
The fact that multiple instances of the rules use "take" in reference to typed damage should indicate that "dealt" and "take" are interchangeable, and relate to the perspective of who is being associated with the damage in that sentence. Dealt references the attacker, Take references the attacked. the damage itself is unchanged, only the perspective of who is interacting with it is.
Also, the lack of a reference to Type in the PHB regarding damage taken is not a conscious omission of type, it is a common language convention, where you don't repeat identical information when that information doesn't change. It works that way in english: If I say "iconarising works as an architect" do I then, every time I mention my job in the future, have to say that i am an architect? If I don't, does that mean I'm no longer an architect? Of course not! It can be assumed that I am until I say it is changed.
For another example, look at music. Convention of musical language says that, for a given song of music, if the B is noted to be flat, any other B is also flat, unless/until something changes it. In notation, they will mark the B line with a flat sign (ironically, a lower case "b") at the start of the piece, but the Bs in that piece will not get that mark individually. That doesn't mean they aren't flat, because convention says they are. But I digress.
the rules of the game use common language conventions. it is a common language convention not to repeat identical information throughout a passage (in fact, that would be considered bad writing, even in academic settings). The passage in the PHB lists damage dealt as having a type, because that is the first step of processing damage. subsequent steps in that passage, because of the convention of language, are assumed to still have that typing, even if it isn't explicitly mentioned, unless it is explicitly changed.
The question itself doesn't apply. The damage being taken by the palli doesn't have immunity applied to it.
It is like arguing if it is safer to fly or drive, meanwhile, you're actually sailing a boat.
Lets examine the situation where your ally has fire resistance. You, the palli, have fire Immunity.
Your Ally gets hit by a fire attack and is dealt 20 damage. His resistance kicks in and halves that, so he takes 10 damage. This is the stage the Palli Power kicks in, during the taking portion. After resistance/immunity/vulnerability have already been applied. The Palli takes that 10 damage, which cannot be reduced in any way.
You don't apply the Palli's resistances, his immunities, his vulnerabilities, etc, because it is too late in the damage calculation process for that now.
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 was literally describing the question posed in the thread. If you disagree with that question, then don't take it up with me. Also, this is probably the 5th time you've said this (or a variation of it) and you've yet to convince most anyone that you are right...I'm not going to respond to you further unless you come up with a new argument.
To be fair, it isn't 100 percent clear whether the original source is doing the damage and Aura is simply re-directing it (in which case there's no reason for the damage to lose its type), or if the Aura is dealing equivalent damage to what the ally would have taken (which opens the door for "typeless" damage).
The first interpretation is how I'd play it at this point, just as I'd rule warding bond is mirroring (for lack of a better term) the damage taken by the original target, type and all, but it isn't explicit in the RAW.
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 all for the benefit of any reader here. Posted publicly. Sure, I'm quoting you, but I didn't DM you or anything... I'm not "taking it up with you" You're free to not respond.
Convince? Hmm, I wasn't really trying to convince, I was trying to explain. If someone posts something I know to be incorrect, I just aim to help educate them.
And some people here seem to be under the notion that you check for immunity on the redirected damage. But you don't. I've tried to explain it in several ways hoping it can help people understand this process better. This isn't a debate for me, even if it for you. I'm 100% aware of how it works and was simply trying to help people reach that same understanding.
Explanation rephrased yet another way:
You only check an instance of damage against resistances/immunity/vulnerability once. If you do so more than once you're not following the RAW.
Hypothetically, new but similar example: you, the Palli and your ally both have fire resistance. And, you can swap the damage with a slightly modified version of the palli ability, but in this hypothetical it just doesn't have the "cannot be reduced clause". They get damaged for 20 fire, their resistance drops that to 10 damage taken. You take it instead of them now. Do you drop it, again, with your resistance too? No. You've already checked the damage against resistances and you just take the 10 damage. If it was dropped to 5 from your resistance you'd have applied resistance twice, strictly against the RAW.
If you don't understand it just say which part is giving you trouble and we can focus on that specifically. Or... if you "disagree" which step do you disagree with?
That's just it, it isn't an argument. I mean, I could radically change goals and strategies here and treat this like some sort of debate-off but that doesn't seem like a valuable use of my time to me. Help educate, sure, yeah totally. I'll spend my time trying to help educate. But simply argue with you? Pass. If that is what you wanted, then yes, no need to respond.
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.
Rav, to break it down a little more clearly, your hypothetical has these steps:
The target takes 10 fire damageThe paladin's aura is triggered, so that the paladin magically takes "that damage" (10 fire damage) which "can't be reduced in any way"The issue is... PHB Chapter 9 does not describe checking resistances (which is arguably the step where immunities are checked as well in the same way, but that's sort of begging the question that this entire thread is about... put that aside for now) as a step that is part of resolving an attack, or a spell, etc.... it's described as a step that is part of taking damage. The super-heading that it is part of is "Damage and Healing", not "Making an Attack." The intro of that section, the other sections, this section.... none of them limit themselves to describing the phases of an attack, the damage roll of a spell, or anything else discrete like that (though they do occasionally provide examples that are parts of attacks or spells). Instead, they address "Whenever a creature takes damage."
After all other damage modifiers were calculated for the attack, resistance was applied by the first target to reduce damage against "it." That's fine, and we got to 10. But when that 10 fire damage is now moved to the paladin, we have a new "it", and no matter what other modifiers we've applied already... we now have to check resistance and then vulnerability against this new "it." Not as a step in the attack that caused the damage... as a step in this creature taking damage.
Now, if the Paladin had fire resistance, ordinarily this 10 would drop to 5. The specific language of this feature says "no don't do that, the damage can't be reduced in any way", so we don't. The question of the whole thread is "is immunity a different version of that same resistance/vulnerability check, and thus stopped by that language, or something totally different which applies anyway because it isn't "reducing" but "avoiding"?" There is disagreement on that, but either way... it is not "too late" to ask that question, because we are asking it at precisely the right time when this creature is being asked to take damage from a damage source. The step hasn't passed, that was a different creature's damage calculation. If the step had so obviously passed, then one would also wonder why the paladin aura even bothered to describe that it couldn't be reduced further, it might as well have said that the attacker couldn't reroll its attack or damage or any other obviously-already-passed phase? No, the wording of the feature itself shows that the damage reduction phase is not passed for this paladin, its just not able to accept any reductions (from resistance? from resistance OR immunity? arguments!).
If the Paladin had fire vulnerability instead of fire resistance, then they would indeed take 20 damage not 10, because their resistances and vulnerabilities would be checked prior to taking damage, and the feature doesn't prevent increasing damage just reducing it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree with your reasoning here, generally. You've captured the exact chain of events correctly. And, I see what you're saying, that the rules don't discuss it as a codified ordered series of events, and I'd agree entirely except that the way they're written those do effectively become the order they must be done in. If you stick strictly to the RAW, that HAS to be the order.
Even look at the example of how damage resistance is applied in the below quoted rules you posted. At what point in the text does it actually start using the phrase "take" damage? Because whenever this starts being phrased this way is the exact point in the process the Palli Power kicks in, when the rules call it "takes damage". I'll highlight it blue in your below quoted rules.
But we don't have a new damage. It is the same damage. Why? The ability itself says so. "you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it." The Palli takes THAT damage instead of the target. And, TAKING damage is merely subtracting HP. "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points."
The power, in effect, is just: Subtract the damage taken by another creature from your character sheet's HP instead of their 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 am going to say Resistance and Immunity do not reduce damage. The damage multiplication may result in a reduced damage amount, but mechanical effect is not reduction. The Goliath's Stone Endurance and similar effects reduce it. Immunity and Resistance, IMO, are not affected by Infernal Conduit or Aura of the Guardian.
How to add Tooltips.