Okay, I'll spell out all the exact rules with quotes and highlight in blue the process the book has us using. Please follow along.
Making an Attack
Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
^ When our limp wristed puncher has hit his target we will be finding ourselves here in this process. At the step 3, "Resolve the attack". We must now follow its direction and look up the specific rules for this attack: Unarmed Strike.
Melee Attacks
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
^ here we find the rules for what happens when we hit with an unarmed strike. We deal damage. It says as much. How much? Equal to 1 + your strength modifier. Okay, but now that we know this, what do we do with this damage? Is there a rule for that? Indeed there is:
Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.
If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
^ This rule tells us 2 very important things. The first is that you roll damage, you then add modifiers, and then you apply that damage to the target. No exception is made for if the total is 0 here. If you fail to apply the damage from your successful hit attack, you are violating this rule. You cannot ignore it simply because you don't like the resulting value of the damage. The damage must be applied to the target. You simply apply the damage, after adding the modifier. Easy.
But, speaking of modifiers, that is what the second bit of information this rule excerpt tells us; that if the modifier is negative, the damage total can be 0, but not lower.
So, these rules show this process:
When hit we roll damage for the attack.
Unarmed strikes use damage of 1+str.
Damage is applied to the target after we apply the modifier.
The negative modifier can drop the total of that damage to 0.
So, we apply the damage of 0 to the target. They make a DC10 concentration check.
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
If I rolled a Sleight of Hand check, to rob you. Succeeded at my check. But then you just didn't have anything in your pockets for me to steal.
I still committed a crime and could be jailed. Yes. That's attempted theft.
Plenty of people have been jailed for attempting to, but failing to, steal stuff. They stole 0$ and are jailed for it.
The attempt is what matters.
Much like the Attack. He rolled a successful attack. His attack succeeded. So, his damage result gets applied. That's just how the rules work.
Yes, so when you apply damage to the target, if the final number is 0, then 0 damage is caused to the target. They roll a DC10 concentration check for having taken 0 damage. Since 10 is greater than half of 0.
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
If I rolled a Sleight of Hand check, to rob you. Succeeded at my check. But then you just didn't have anything in your pockets for me to steal.
I still committed a crime and could be jailed. Yes. That's attempted theft.
Plenty of people have been jailed for attempting to, but failing to, steal stuff. They stole 0$ and are jailed for it.
The attempt is what matters.
Much like the Attack. He rolled a successful attack. His attack succeeded. So, his damage result gets applied. That's just how the rules work.
Except taking damage has literally nothing to do with intent. Otherwise you would make a concentration check any time someone rolled an attack against you, hit or miss.
Would you also rule that the 8 Str Wizard slapping the Barbarian on the butt keeps up his rage? If it doesn't affect your HP, it doesn't require a concentration check. And don't tell me that subtracting zero is an affect. Or would you be okay with your employer writing you a check for $0.00 and claiming he paid you a wage?
I kind of rolled my eyes when I first read Ravnodaus' argument that 0 isn't the same as no damage. It seemed overly pedantic and lawyerly. But I feel like he's made his case and I am persuaded.
I think from a more flavor perspective rather than rules, it does make sense that a fairly insignificant hit could be enough of a distraction to cause someone to make a concentration check for their spell.
Bardic Inspiration: When your strength modifier is -2
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
If I rolled a Sleight of Hand check, to rob you. Succeeded at my check. But then you just didn't have anything in your pockets for me to steal.
I still committed a crime and could be jailed. Yes. That's attempted theft.
Plenty of people have been jailed for attempting to, but failing to, steal stuff. They stole 0$ and are jailed for it.
The attempt is what matters.
Much like the Attack. He rolled a successful attack. His attack succeeded. So, his damage result gets applied. That's just how the rules work.
Except taking damage has literally nothing to do with intent.
I agree it is a bad analogy. I didn't make it, just responded to it. I'll have you note though, for the record, I didn't say "intent". So I'm not truly sure what this objection is going on about.
Otherwise you would make a concentration check any time someone rolled an attack against you, hit or miss.
Only when hit. Because the rules for hitting someone with an attack say we apply the damage, after we apply modifiers.
You seem to wanna apply modifiers and then just stop. But the rules don't tell you to stop. They say apply the damage to the target after applying the modifier.
I really dont care what you do in your games. But the rules tell us how to do this very clearly in a sequence. If youre not finishing it, then youre homebrewing the process.
And more power to you if you do. Homebrew is fantastic.
Would you also rule that the 8 Str Wizard slapping the Barbarian on the butt keeps up his rage?
Hitting the barbarian with an unarmed strike is going to sustain his rage, yes. Being punched tends to make people angry, regardless of how many teeth you do or don't knock out.
If it doesn't affect your HP, it doesn't require a concentration check.
This isnt a thing. Like at all.
And don't tell me that subtracting zero is an affect. Or would you be okay with your employer writing you a check for $0.00 and claiming he paid you a wage?
Ah, yet another analogy, now youve chosen the topic of Wage Garnishment. You make 100 dollars. Your employer pays you that 100 dollars. The guvment subtracts that 100 dollars. You get paid 0 dollars, and your employer paid you your wages.
I kind of rolled my eyes when I first read Ravnodaus' argument that 0 isn't the same as no damage. It seemed overly pedantic and lawyerly. But I feel like he's made his case and I am persuaded.
I think from a more flavor perspective rather than rules, it does make sense that a fairly insignificant hit could be enough of a distraction to cause someone to make a concentration check for their spell.
Bardic Inspiration: When your strength modifier is -2
So what if a Cleric with 18 AC due to chain mail and a shield is targeted and the attacker rolls a 17. Clearly, his shield is what absorbed that blow, causing it to not affect his HP. He had to use his shield to deflect that warhammer, so clearly he should make a concentration check, right? Except the rules say no.
You make a concentration check when you take damage. Taking 0 damage is nottakingdamage.
Let's say you had a Monk/caster multiclass concentrating on a spell and he is shot with an arrow. He rolls high with Deflect Missile and catches the arrow before it hits him by reducing the damage to 0. Now, the attack still hit, it just did 0 damage because he caught the arrow. Does he make a concentration check? I bet nobody would make him as the arrow never impacted him because he reduced the damage of the attack to 0.
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
If I rolled a Sleight of Hand check, to rob you. Succeeded at my check. But then you just didn't have anything in your pockets for me to steal.
I still committed a crime and could be jailed. Yes. That's attempted theft.
Plenty of people have been jailed for attempting to, but failing to, steal stuff. They stole 0$ and are jailed for it.
The attempt is what matters.
Much like the Attack. He rolled a successful attack. His attack succeeded. So, his damage result gets applied. That's just how the rules work.
Except taking damage has literally nothing to do with intent.
I agree it is a bad analogy. I didn't make it, just responded to it. I'll have you note though, for the record, I didn't say "intent". So I'm not truly sure what this objection is going on about.
Otherwise you would make a concentration check any time someone rolled an attack against you, hit or miss.
Only when hit. Because the rules for hitting someone with an attack say we apply the damage, after we apply modifiers.
You seem to wanna apply modifiers and then just stop. But the rules don't tell you to stop. They say apply the damage to the target after applying the modifier.
I really dont care what you do in your games. But the rules tell us how to do this very clearly in a sequence. If youre not finishing it, then youre homebrewing the process.
And more power to you if you do. Homebrew is fantastic.
Would you also rule that the 8 Str Wizard slapping the Barbarian on the butt keeps up his rage?
Hitting the barbarian with an unarmed strike is going to sustain his rage, yes. Being punched tends to make people angry, regardless of how many teeth you do or don't knock out.
If it doesn't affect your HP, it doesn't require a concentration check.
This isnt a thing. Like at all.
And don't tell me that subtracting zero is an affect. Or would you be okay with your employer writing you a check for $0.00 and claiming he paid you a wage?
Ah, yet another analogy, now youve chosen the topic of Wage Garnishment. You make 100 dollars. Your employer pays you that 100 dollars. The guvment subtracts that 100 dollars. You get paid 0 dollars, and your employer paid you your wages.
Taking your wage garnishment example, lets say someone is hit with an attack but a nearby ally has the Interception fighting style and reduces the damage to 0. Do you make a concentration check there? Clearly the fighter was able to deflect the blow completely. Why should I make a concentration check?
Or say a level 17 Forge Cleric (fire immunity) is hit with Fire Bolt. The attack beat his AC, but he is completely immune to fire damage (reduces it to 0). Does he make a concentration check?
I would believe that if you take 0 damage (by any plain English reading, no damage) for any reason, a concentration check should not even be considered as it did not affect your HP (health, focus, endurance, etc.).
I kind of rolled my eyes when I first read Ravnodaus' argument that 0 isn't the same as no damage. It seemed overly pedantic and lawyerly. But I feel like he's made his case and I am persuaded.
I think from a more flavor perspective rather than rules, it does make sense that a fairly insignificant hit could be enough of a distraction to cause someone to make a concentration check for their spell.
Bardic Inspiration: When your strength modifier is -2
So what if a Cleric with 18 AC due to chain mail and a shield is targeted and the attacker rolls a 17. Clearly, his shield is what absorbed that blow, causing it to not affect his HP. He had to use his shield to deflect that warhammer, so clearly he should make a concentration check, right? Except the rules say no.
There is no way to know if the Shield is what caused it to miss or if it was any of the other many components of his AC that caused it to miss. You cannot assume any single contributing factor is the one responsible for something that was only possible with all of them. Had he not been wearing the armor it would have hit. So, did it hit the armor? Had he not had the shield it would have hit. So did it instead hit the shield? The actual answer: The attack missed.
You make a concentration check when you take damage. Taking 0 damage is nottakingdamage.
Taking 0 damage, is taking 0 damage.
Let's say you had a Monk/caster multiclass concentrating on a spell and he is shot with an arrow. He rolls high with Deflect Missile and catches the arrow before it hits him by reducing the damage to 0. Now, the attack still hit, it just did 0 damage because he caught the arrow. Does he make a concentration check? I bet nobody would make him as the arrow never impacted him because he reduced the damage of the attack to 0.
The monk ability specifically spells out that if he reduces the damage to 0, he can instead catch the projectile. So he isn't actually hit by it because his ability works the way it says it does.
No similar text exists for damage being reduced to 0 as a result of the attackers negative modifier.
Taking your wage garnishment example, lets say someone is hit with an attack but a nearby ally has the Interception fighting style and reduces the damage to 0. Do you make a concentration check there? Clearly the fighter was able to deflect the blow completely. Why should I make a concentration check?
It was your example. Anyway: Yes. If an Intercepted attack is reduced to 0 damage it still deals 0 damage. DC10 concentration check.
Or say a level 17 Forge Cleric (fire immunity) is hit with Fire Bolt. The attack beat his AC, but he is completely immune to fire damage (reduces it to 0). Does he make a concentration check?
You got a rules quote that says immunity reduces damage to 0? I thought it just was immunity, ie has no effect. This is, ironically, an example of "deals no damage". Since the target is just immune, ie ignore it.
I would believe that if you take 0 damage (by any plain English reading, no damage) for any reason, a concentration check should not even be considered as it did not affect your HP (health, focus, endurance, etc.).
You are free to implement this is any of your games. If it makes sense to you your players will probably go along with it, even if they cared enough to know the difference in the first place. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach to me. It just doesn't happen to be the approach the game rules use. "Affecting your HP" isn't a requirement for concentration checks, not per the PHB anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I got quotes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, I'll spell out all the exact rules with quotes and highlight in blue the process the book has us using. Please follow along.
^ When our limp wristed puncher has hit his target we will be finding ourselves here in this process. At the step 3, "Resolve the attack". We must now follow its direction and look up the specific rules for this attack: Unarmed Strike.
^ here we find the rules for what happens when we hit with an unarmed strike. We deal damage. It says as much. How much? Equal to 1 + your strength modifier. Okay, but now that we know this, what do we do with this damage? Is there a rule for that? Indeed there is:
^ This rule tells us 2 very important things. The first is that you roll damage, you then add modifiers, and then you apply that damage to the target. No exception is made for if the total is 0 here. If you fail to apply the damage from your successful hit attack, you are violating this rule. You cannot ignore it simply because you don't like the resulting value of the damage. The damage must be applied to the target. You simply apply the damage, after adding the modifier. Easy.
But, speaking of modifiers, that is what the second bit of information this rule excerpt tells us; that if the modifier is negative, the damage total can be 0, but not lower.
So, these rules show this process:
So, we apply the damage of 0 to the target. They make a DC10 concentration check.
I got quotes!
Yes, so when you apply damage to the target, if the final number is 0 then no damage is caused to the target.
I think Ravnodus should go to prison because he robbed $0 from me. It doesn't matter that stole nothing, the fact that he stole means he goes to prison.
If I rolled a Sleight of Hand check, to rob you. Succeeded at my check. But then you just didn't have anything in your pockets for me to steal.
I still committed a crime and could be jailed. Yes. That's attempted theft.
Plenty of people have been jailed for attempting to, but failing to, steal stuff. They stole 0$ and are jailed for it.
The attempt is what matters.
Much like the Attack. He rolled a successful attack. His attack succeeded. So, his damage result gets applied. That's just how the rules work.
I got quotes!
Fixed.
I got quotes!
Except taking damage has literally nothing to do with intent. Otherwise you would make a concentration check any time someone rolled an attack against you, hit or miss.
Would you also rule that the 8 Str Wizard slapping the Barbarian on the butt keeps up his rage? If it doesn't affect your HP, it doesn't require a concentration check. And don't tell me that subtracting zero is an affect. Or would you be okay with your employer writing you a check for $0.00 and claiming he paid you a wage?
Concentration isn't broken when someone attempt to damage you, it does whenever you do take damage.
I kind of rolled my eyes when I first read Ravnodaus' argument that 0 isn't the same as no damage. It seemed overly pedantic and lawyerly. But I feel like he's made his case and I am persuaded.
I think from a more flavor perspective rather than rules, it does make sense that a fairly insignificant hit could be enough of a distraction to cause someone to make a concentration check for their spell.
Bardic Inspiration: When your strength modifier is -2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpHI1_1E6Ps
I agree it is a bad analogy. I didn't make it, just responded to it. I'll have you note though, for the record, I didn't say "intent". So I'm not truly sure what this objection is going on about.
Only when hit. Because the rules for hitting someone with an attack say we apply the damage, after we apply modifiers.
You seem to wanna apply modifiers and then just stop. But the rules don't tell you to stop. They say apply the damage to the target after applying the modifier.
I really dont care what you do in your games. But the rules tell us how to do this very clearly in a sequence. If youre not finishing it, then youre homebrewing the process.
And more power to you if you do. Homebrew is fantastic.
Hitting the barbarian with an unarmed strike is going to sustain his rage, yes. Being punched tends to make people angry, regardless of how many teeth you do or don't knock out.
This isnt a thing. Like at all.
Ah, yet another analogy, now youve chosen the topic of Wage Garnishment. You make 100 dollars. Your employer pays you that 100 dollars. The guvment subtracts that 100 dollars. You get paid 0 dollars, and your employer paid you your wages.
I got quotes!
So what if a Cleric with 18 AC due to chain mail and a shield is targeted and the attacker rolls a 17. Clearly, his shield is what absorbed that blow, causing it to not affect his HP. He had to use his shield to deflect that warhammer, so clearly he should make a concentration check, right? Except the rules say no.
You make a concentration check when you take damage. Taking 0 damage is not taking damage.
Let's say you had a Monk/caster multiclass concentrating on a spell and he is shot with an arrow. He rolls high with Deflect Missile and catches the arrow before it hits him by reducing the damage to 0. Now, the attack still hit, it just did 0 damage because he caught the arrow. Does he make a concentration check? I bet nobody would make him as the arrow never impacted him because he reduced the damage of the attack to 0.
Taking your wage garnishment example, lets say someone is hit with an attack but a nearby ally has the Interception fighting style and reduces the damage to 0. Do you make a concentration check there? Clearly the fighter was able to deflect the blow completely. Why should I make a concentration check?
Or say a level 17 Forge Cleric (fire immunity) is hit with Fire Bolt. The attack beat his AC, but he is completely immune to fire damage (reduces it to 0). Does he make a concentration check?
I would believe that if you take 0 damage (by any plain English reading, no damage) for any reason, a concentration check should not even be considered as it did not affect your HP (health, focus, endurance, etc.).
There is no way to know if the Shield is what caused it to miss or if it was any of the other many components of his AC that caused it to miss. You cannot assume any single contributing factor is the one responsible for something that was only possible with all of them. Had he not been wearing the armor it would have hit. So, did it hit the armor? Had he not had the shield it would have hit. So did it instead hit the shield? The actual answer: The attack missed.
Taking 0 damage, is taking 0 damage.
The monk ability specifically spells out that if he reduces the damage to 0, he can instead catch the projectile. So he isn't actually hit by it because his ability works the way it says it does.
No similar text exists for damage being reduced to 0 as a result of the attackers negative modifier.
I got quotes!
It was your example. Anyway: Yes. If an Intercepted attack is reduced to 0 damage it still deals 0 damage. DC10 concentration check.
You got a rules quote that says immunity reduces damage to 0? I thought it just was immunity, ie has no effect. This is, ironically, an example of "deals no damage". Since the target is just immune, ie ignore it.
You are free to implement this is any of your games. If it makes sense to you your players will probably go along with it, even if they cared enough to know the difference in the first place. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach to me. It just doesn't happen to be the approach the game rules use. "Affecting your HP" isn't a requirement for concentration checks, not per the PHB anyway.
I got quotes!