I run a character who is not physically strong enough to cause damage to others, using unarmed strikes. I'm fine with that, but it does lead to a question regarding game play.
If this character were to engage in unarmed combat with another, a mage for example, would successful hits impede that opponent's concentration enough to prevent or ruin the opponent's casting?
This particular issue has not come up yet in a game; just being proactive.
If that's how the rules call it, that's how I'll play it. I'll file this particular action under "Don't bother, it'll never work".
With my 'role player first, die roller second' playing style, I come up with these kinds of questions often. It's all good. For what it's worth, I've been known to ignore stuff beneficial to the character; simply because that particular thought, and resulting action, is outside 'what this character would know and do'.
Only causing damage will cause a spellcaster to roll for concentration.
Only is a strong word. This is not technically true due to this clause in the PHB:
The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.
That being said, a 0 damage unarmed strike is probably not in the same tier as a wave crashing over you.
I had an easily-offended wizard that would go around slapping people, especially his teammates. They'd always just laugh off his weak attempts, but it's the thought that counts, right?
The unarmed smack might not do anything, but you could maybe try and grapple them or knock them prone. That might be enough for the DM to call for a check. Granted, if your unarmed strike isn’t doing much, you’re probably not much of a grappler, but you can take a shot.
You could always use your attacks as a diversion. Be as loud and aggressive as you can, throw insults to draw an opponent's attention to you while you're buddy sneaks up from behind.
Here's an idea: Instead of unarmed strikes, grapple or shove.
With your low strength, you're less likely to win, but if you successfully shove someone prone, you will grant an ally who CAN deal damage Advantage on their melee attack rolls. Grappling has less to be said for it, but if you need to prevent someone from moving (or, on the other hand, drag them somewhere), you could be the one to do it.
Also, if your character happens to have any features, such as the paladin's Divine Smite or the ranger's Hunter's Mark spell, which activates when you hit the target with a weapon attack, you can still activate that, even if the unarmed strike itself deals no damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
I run a character who is not physically strong enough to cause damage to others, using unarmed strikes. I'm fine with that, but it does lead to a question regarding game play.
If this character were to engage in unarmed combat with another, a mage for example, would successful hits impede that opponent's concentration enough to prevent or ruin the opponent's casting?
Ravnodaus is correct and everyone else in this thread is at least one of incorrect or off-topic. A 0-damage attack causes a DC 10 Concentration save.
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
If an attack deals 0 damage, then you aren't taking damage from that attack.
In here with Farling. If you take 0 damage you do not take damage, so the whole "Taking Damage" section does not apply. It does not matter if you are hit by an attack that deals damage, you need to take damage. Small difference but important one.
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
If an attack deals 0 damage, then you aren't taking damage from that attack.
In here with Farling. If you take 0 damage you do not take damage, so the whole "Taking Damage" section does not apply. It does not matter if you are hit by an attack that deals damage, you need to take damage. Small difference but important one.
This is the standard Null vs 0 misunderstanding. Null means there is no answer, no value. 0 is a value, a number. If you take "no damage" you're taking Null damage. But if you take 0 damage, you've taken an amount of damage, that amount is 0.
When you get unarmed attacked the damage is 1. But applying the strength modifier it results as 1-1=0 damage. But you must still apply that damage because thats the next step of the damage rules, and they make no exceptions for if the total is 0. So yeah, you take 0 damage. 0 is the number of damage you take.
Type 0 onto your character sheet HP dodad, hit the damage button, roll concentration check. DC10. Since 10 is higher than half of 0.
Your boy just got decked in the face. Even if he isn't mortally wounded that is going to be distracting.
This is the key rule text that highlight that distinction. Are we dealing "no damage" or are we dealing "0 damage"? PHB Combat says:
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
If an attack deals 0 damage, then you aren't taking damage from that attack.
In here with Farling. If you take 0 damage you do not take damage, so the whole "Taking Damage" section does not apply. It does not matter if you are hit by an attack that deals damage, you need to take damage. Small difference but important one.
This is the standard Null vs 0 misunderstanding. Null means there is no answer, no value. 0 is a value, a number. If you take "no damage" you're taking Null damage. But if you take 0 damage, you've taken an amount of damage, that amount is 0.
When you get unarmed attacked the damage is 1. But applying the strength modifier it results as 1-1=0 damage. But you must still apply that damage because thats the next step of the damage rules, and they make no exceptions for if the total is 0. So yeah, you take 0 damage. 0 is the number of damage you take.
Type 0 onto your character sheet HP dodad, hit the damage button, roll concentration check. DC10. Since 10 is higher than half of 0.
Your boy just got decked in the face. Even if he isn't mortally wounded that is going to be distracting.
This is the key rule text that highlight that distinction. Are we dealing "no damage" or are we dealing "0 damage"? PHB Combat says:
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
Humans are not computers, there's no null vs 0 argument.
In common English someone saying 0 damage will always equate that with no damage.
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
If an attack deals 0 damage, then you aren't taking damage from that attack.
In here with Farling. If you take 0 damage you do not take damage, so the whole "Taking Damage" section does not apply. It does not matter if you are hit by an attack that deals damage, you need to take damage. Small difference but important one.
This is the standard Null vs 0 misunderstanding. Null means there is no answer, no value. 0 is a value, a number. If you take "no damage" you're taking Null damage. But if you take 0 damage, you've taken an amount of damage, that amount is 0.
When you get unarmed attacked the damage is 1. But applying the strength modifier it results as 1-1=0 damage. But you must still apply that damage because thats the next step of the damage rules, and they make no exceptions for if the total is 0. So yeah, you take 0 damage. 0 is the number of damage you take.
Type 0 onto your character sheet HP dodad, hit the damage button, roll concentration check. DC10. Since 10 is higher than half of 0.
Your boy just got decked in the face. Even if he isn't mortally wounded that is going to be distracting.
This is the key rule text that highlight that distinction. Are we dealing "no damage" or are we dealing "0 damage"? PHB Combat says:
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
Humans are not computers, there's no null vs 0 argument.
In common English someone saying 0 damage will always equate that with no damage.
The rules make a distinction even if you don't. 0 is a number, and it is how much damage the hit actually does. They take 0 damage. <-- These are the steps you'd follow if you followed the guidance in the PHB Combat rules for taking damage. Which you have to follow, since that is where it tells you how to apply a negative modifier anyway.
You also take 0 damage from not being attacked, so by that logic you should have to make an infinite number of DC 10 concentration check from all the damage you never took.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You also take 0 damage from not being attacked, so by that logic you should have to make an infinite number of DC 10 concentration check from all the damage you never took.
You do not take 0 damage from not being attacked; you don't take any damage.
Seriously just follow the steps outlined in the PHB in the combat chapter IDK what there is to go back and forth over. It is in the PHB.
Only causing damage will cause a spellcaster to roll for concentration.
Thanks for your input, Farling,
This particular issue has not come up yet in a game; just being proactive.
If that's how the rules call it, that's how I'll play it. I'll file this particular action under "Don't bother, it'll never work".
With my 'role player first, die roller second' playing style, I come up with these kinds of questions often. It's all good. For what it's worth, I've been known to ignore stuff beneficial to the character; simply because that particular thought, and resulting action, is outside 'what this character would know and do'.
Only is a strong word. This is not technically true due to this clause in the PHB:
That being said, a 0 damage unarmed strike is probably not in the same tier as a wave crashing over you.
I had an easily-offended wizard that would go around slapping people, especially his teammates. They'd always just laugh off his weak attempts, but it's the thought that counts, right?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The unarmed smack might not do anything, but you could maybe try and grapple them or knock them prone. That might be enough for the DM to call for a check.
Granted, if your unarmed strike isn’t doing much, you’re probably not much of a grappler, but you can take a shot.
Thanks, Xalthu,
This character is small and highly acrobatic. Hopping onto the opponent and latching onto an arm, or maybe even hooking a lip might be possible.
There's a fun thought. If nothing else, it gives me ideas for stories.
You could always use your attacks as a diversion. Be as loud and aggressive as you can, throw insults to draw an opponent's attention to you while you're buddy sneaks up from behind.
Here's an idea: Instead of unarmed strikes, grapple or shove.
With your low strength, you're less likely to win, but if you successfully shove someone prone, you will grant an ally who CAN deal damage Advantage on their melee attack rolls. Grappling has less to be said for it, but if you need to prevent someone from moving (or, on the other hand, drag them somewhere), you could be the one to do it.
Also, if your character happens to have any features, such as the paladin's Divine Smite or the ranger's Hunter's Mark spell, which activates when you hit the target with a weapon attack, you can still activate that, even if the unarmed strike itself deals no damage.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Using the help action gives your ally advantage on the next attack. You could flavor it as wimpy slaps.
Your unarmed attack doesn't deal "no damage" it deals "0 damage". 0 damage is a number, of damage.
Thus you follow the normal rules:
DC10 concentration check. Since half of 0 is 0, and 10 is greater than 0.
I got quotes!
Ravnodaus is correct and everyone else in this thread is at least one of incorrect or off-topic. A 0-damage attack causes a DC 10 Concentration save.
If an attack deals 0 damage, then you aren't taking damage from that attack.
Whilst there's no RAW/SAC that agrees in either rule interpretation, we do have JC tweets
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859637863188713472
Or you can see the comment about the podcast in https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/111856/does-dealing-0-damage-to-a-concentrating-spellcaster-require-a-saving-throw which refers to a general principle of following the English language, where "0 damage" is equivalent to "no damage".
In here with Farling. If you take 0 damage you do not take damage, so the whole "Taking Damage" section does not apply. It does not matter if you are hit by an attack that deals damage, you need to take damage. Small difference but important one.
This is the standard Null vs 0 misunderstanding. Null means there is no answer, no value. 0 is a value, a number. If you take "no damage" you're taking Null damage. But if you take 0 damage, you've taken an amount of damage, that amount is 0.
When you get unarmed attacked the damage is 1. But applying the strength modifier it results as 1-1=0 damage. But you must still apply that damage because thats the next step of the damage rules, and they make no exceptions for if the total is 0. So yeah, you take 0 damage. 0 is the number of damage you take.
Type 0 onto your character sheet HP dodad, hit the damage button, roll concentration check. DC10. Since 10 is higher than half of 0.
Your boy just got decked in the face. Even if he isn't mortally wounded that is going to be distracting.
This is the key rule text that highlight that distinction. Are we dealing "no damage" or are we dealing "0 damage"? PHB Combat says:
I got quotes!
Whenever you take damage...does not occur when an attacker deals 0 damage as nothing is taken.
Humans are not computers, there's no null vs 0 argument.
In common English someone saying 0 damage will always equate that with no damage.
The rules make a distinction even if you don't. 0 is a number, and it is how much damage the hit actually does. They take 0 damage. <-- These are the steps you'd follow if you followed the guidance in the PHB Combat rules for taking damage. Which you have to follow, since that is where it tells you how to apply a negative modifier anyway.
I got quotes!
You also take 0 damage from not being attacked, so by that logic you should have to make an infinite number of DC 10 concentration check from all the damage you never took.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You do not take 0 damage from not being attacked; you don't take any damage.
Seriously just follow the steps outlined in the PHB in the combat chapter IDK what there is to go back and forth over. It is in the PHB.
I got quotes!
No, in the PHB there is a line about dealing 0 Damage, which might trigger "when you deal damage" effects.
Taking damage is another thing, and everything that does not reduce your HP pool is not damage.