Posed this question in the Wizard class forum, thought I’d try here as well, see if I can get a few more opinions. I have an Abjuration Wizard who just picked up the Telekinetic Reprisal ability with an 8th level feat(re-skinned Gift of the Gem Dragon). My question is, the telekinetic reprisal reaction is triggered by taking damage from an opponent within 10 feet. Can the reaction be triggered if that damage is fully soaked by my Wizard’s Arcane Ward?
I would say so long as damage die are rolled against you, it counts. The attack did still land, and damage die were rolled. The fact that a temp HP pool soaked it doesn't really seem relevant.
"Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. "
Doesn't really read like you're taking damage to me.
Found a tweet from JC ruling temp HP loss as damage. Note that this does mean you also have to make a concentration save on a temp HP hit as well, so it does balance out as a negative as well as a positive.
How does Arcane Ward interact with temporary hit points and damage resistance that an abjurer might have?
An Arcane Ward is not an extension of the wizard who creates it. It is a magical effect with its own hit points. Any temporary hit points, immunities, or resistances that the wizard has don’t apply to the ward.
The ward takes damage first. Any leftover damage is taken by the wizard and goes through the following game elements in order: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any relevant damage resistance, (3) any temporary hit points, and (4) real hit points.
"Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. "
Doesn't really read like you're taking damage to me.
I would argue that with this wording there is an event at some moment in time where you are taking damage which can trigger this Telekinetic Reprisal for the purposes of the OP. The triggering event is "Whenever you take damage". This damage is then resolved by taking into account the existence of a magical effect which is already in place from the ward such that "the ward takes the damage instead".
Compare this with the wording in a spell such as Shield:
"you take no damage from magic missile"
Or Resilient Sphere:
"the sphere is immune to all damage" . . . "a creature or object inside can't be damaged by attacks or effects . . . "
I'm a big abjuration wizard fan, myself. When your ward takes the damage, you do not. Anything that triggers on you taking damage would not trigger if the ward absorbed it all.
But what allows the ward itself to absorb any damage? It seems like it will only ever absorb damage "whenever you take damage". So, this event must exist in order for the ward to have any effect, right? At that same moment it would seem like other effects that are triggered by taking damage could also occur before this damage is actually resolved by being transferred to the ward. It seems to me that the exact wording of the ward allows for this although I can see that that's not a popular opinion or ruling.
Ok very good. That Sage Advice ruling seems to support your interpretation, RAI at the very least.
Their ruling refers to the concentration mechanic, which has the following rule:
The following factors can break concentration: . . . Taking damage . . . [Con save to see if concentration is maintained]
and Save Advice says: "a feature like the wizard’s Arcane Ward can take damage for you, potentially eliminating the need to make a Constitution saving throw" in which case the interpretation must be that you never "took damage".
In that case, I think that the text for Arcane Ward is written poorly. There are many ways that it could have been written to make it clear that you never take damage at any point in the process besides starting with "Whenever you take damage", but oh well, what are you gonna do. Carry on!
"Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. "
Doesn't really read like you're taking damage to me.
I would argue that with this wording there is an event at some moment in time where you are taking damage which can trigger this Telekinetic Reprisal for the purposes of the OP. The triggering event is "Whenever you take damage". This damage is then resolved by taking into account the existence of a magical effect which is already in place from the ward such that "the ward takes the damage instead".
Compare this with the wording in a spell such as Shield:
"you take no damage from magic missile"
Or Resilient Sphere:
"the sphere is immune to all damage" . . . "a creature or object inside can't be damaged by attacks or effects . . . "
Correct, it works the same way as those two. None of them would trigger the feat, because you don't take damage. It's not written poorly. The word "instead" isn't ambiguous.
In that case, I think that the text for Arcane Ward is written poorly. There are many ways that it could have been written to make it clear that you never take damage at any point in the process besides starting with "Whenever you take damage", but oh well, what are you gonna do. Carry on!
It is somewhat poorly written perhaps. When they wrote "whenever you take damage" they really meant "when you are about to take damage". And that it is an issue that comes up in several places, that they aren't great at differentiating between something that is about to imminently happen and something that is happening right this second, here they use "take" for both and it takes a bit of rules parsing to know which is what.
"Whenever you would otherwise take damage, the ward takes the damage instead."
It's nice when rules lay everything out in a way that you don't even have to think about them. But sometimes we have to use our human brains to bridge that last 1% of ambiguity when a statement is only 99% clear. Luckily, we have each other in this thread to help out and assure ourselves that when the arcane ward takes damage instead, you don't actually take the damage.
It's not written poorly. The word "instead" isn't ambiguous.
It's not a matter of whether "instead" is ambiguous or not -- that is irrelevant. Clearly the end result is that the Ward is losing the hit points instead of the target creature. What I believe is open to interpretation is whether there is a cause and effect sequence to what is going on -- is the damage "prevented" or is it "transferred"? Unfortunately, the wording in question does not use any precise words like this in the description.
For example, "whenever you take damage, [something happens]". That something is that "the Ward takes the damage instead". Cause and effect. This happens, which causes that to happen. And if this happens, things can trigger. How is it a stretch to read and interpret the words as written in this way?
Whenever you would otherwise take damage, the ward takes the damage instead.
Yes! If only it was actually written this way! Or any number of other ways! But it wasn't!
Anyways, I have already conceded that all of you are likely correct in your interpretation in light of the Sage Advice ruling linked above, at least in terms of RAI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Posed this question in the Wizard class forum, thought I’d try here as well, see if I can get a few more opinions. I have an Abjuration Wizard who just picked up the Telekinetic Reprisal ability with an 8th level feat(re-skinned Gift of the Gem Dragon). My question is, the telekinetic reprisal reaction is triggered by taking damage from an opponent within 10 feet. Can the reaction be triggered if that damage is fully soaked by my Wizard’s Arcane Ward?
I would say so long as damage die are rolled against you, it counts. The attack did still land, and damage die were rolled. The fact that a temp HP pool soaked it doesn't really seem relevant.
"Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. "
Doesn't read like you're taking damage to me.
Found a tweet from JC ruling temp HP loss as damage. Note that this does mean you also have to make a concentration save on a temp HP hit as well, so it does balance out as a negative as well as a positive.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/503958007177166848
Yea I have to agree with Kizzoap, the ward and you are different things.
And the SAC has a section about it that also agrees.
Ah, I see the distinction I missed. My bad, was thinking of it as temp HP.
Only if the damage reduces your Arcane Ward to 0 hit points and you take any remaining damage, then Telekinetic Reprisal could trigger.
I would argue that with this wording there is an event at some moment in time where you are taking damage which can trigger this Telekinetic Reprisal for the purposes of the OP. The triggering event is "Whenever you take damage". This damage is then resolved by taking into account the existence of a magical effect which is already in place from the ward such that "the ward takes the damage instead".
Compare this with the wording in a spell such as Shield:
"you take no damage from magic missile"
Or Resilient Sphere:
"the sphere is immune to all damage" . . . "a creature or object inside can't be damaged by attacks or effects . . . "
I'm a big abjuration wizard fan, myself. When your ward takes the damage, you do not. Anything that triggers on you taking damage would not trigger if the ward absorbed it all.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But what allows the ward itself to absorb any damage? It seems like it will only ever absorb damage "whenever you take damage". So, this event must exist in order for the ward to have any effect, right? At that same moment it would seem like other effects that are triggered by taking damage could also occur before this damage is actually resolved by being transferred to the ward. It seems to me that the exact wording of the ward allows for this although I can see that that's not a popular opinion or ruling.
Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead. That means you don't take damage :) Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. If your hit points don't go down, you have not taken damage.
EDIT: Also https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA167
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ok very good. That Sage Advice ruling seems to support your interpretation, RAI at the very least.
Their ruling refers to the concentration mechanic, which has the following rule:
and Save Advice says: "a feature like the wizard’s Arcane Ward can take damage for you, potentially eliminating the need to make a Constitution saving throw" in which case the interpretation must be that you never "took damage".
In that case, I think that the text for Arcane Ward is written poorly. There are many ways that it could have been written to make it clear that you never take damage at any point in the process besides starting with "Whenever you take damage", but oh well, what are you gonna do. Carry on!
Correct, it works the same way as those two. None of them would trigger the feat, because you don't take damage. It's not written poorly. The word "instead" isn't ambiguous.
It is somewhat poorly written perhaps. When they wrote "whenever you take damage" they really meant "when you are about to take damage". And that it is an issue that comes up in several places, that they aren't great at differentiating between something that is about to imminently happen and something that is happening right this second, here they use "take" for both and it takes a bit of rules parsing to know which is what.
"Whenever you would otherwise take damage, the ward takes the damage instead."
It's nice when rules lay everything out in a way that you don't even have to think about them. But sometimes we have to use our human brains to bridge that last 1% of ambiguity when a statement is only 99% clear. Luckily, we have each other in this thread to help out and assure ourselves that when the arcane ward takes damage instead, you don't actually take the damage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's not a matter of whether "instead" is ambiguous or not -- that is irrelevant. Clearly the end result is that the Ward is losing the hit points instead of the target creature. What I believe is open to interpretation is whether there is a cause and effect sequence to what is going on -- is the damage "prevented" or is it "transferred"? Unfortunately, the wording in question does not use any precise words like this in the description.
For example, "whenever you take damage, [something happens]". That something is that "the Ward takes the damage instead". Cause and effect. This happens, which causes that to happen. And if this happens, things can trigger. How is it a stretch to read and interpret the words as written in this way?
Ah, "they really meant . . . "! That sounds an awful lot like RAI as opposed to RAW to me!
Yes! If only it was actually written this way! Or any number of other ways! But it wasn't!
Anyways, I have already conceded that all of you are likely correct in your interpretation in light of the Sage Advice ruling linked above, at least in terms of RAI.