So, a situation came up in a session last night, and caused a bit of confusion. After some quick searching, we think we found the answer to the first part, but I don't see anything anywhere that deals with Part 2.
Part 1: Character A has 70 Real HP (both Max and Current) and 21 Temp HP. Vampire Bites this character and deals 6 Piercing Damage and 14 Necrotic Damage. This would bring the Temp HP to 1 (20 Total Damage), and also reduce Max Real HP to 56 (14 Necrotic Damage), which effectively reduces the Current Real HP to 56 too, since Current HP cannot be above Max HP. Effectively, the Necrotic Damage is doubled because the reduction to Max HP doesn't care about Temp HP. We've seen many posts, tweets, etc. to back this up. This is not an issue, it just means Temp HP is not as effective a strategy against creatures that reduce Max HP.
Part 2: This is where the question lies. Same situation - Character A has 70 Real HP and 21 Temp HP. Vampire Bites this character and deals 6 Piercing Damage and 14 Necrotic Damage. This time, however, Character A uses Stone's Endurance to reduce Damage taken by 1d12 + CON Mod (3). Roll the d12, get a 2, total damage reduction is 5. Who decides what damage type is reduced? Does the player get to say "I'm reducing the Necrotic Damage"? Or does the DM get to rule that the damage reduction applies to Piercing?
Either way, the Temp HP is being reduced to 6. But the Max HP Reduction could either be down to 56 (as above) if the Piercing Damage is reduced, or 61 if the Necrotic Damage is reduced.
The PC is already taking twice the amount of Necrotic Damage since it's reducing their Temp HP AND their Max (and therefore Current) HP. So should they be given some slack and allowed to reduce the Necrotic Damage? Or, should the Piercing Damage be reduced as it's thematic to the ability being used (Vamp trying to pierce skin, which you use a reaction to make it as hard as stone, therefore harder to pierce)?
I don't think there's much debate to be had with Part 1 - Temp HP is just not as effective against Max HP Reducing enemies. But really want to know what you all think about Part 2 - does the player decide what damage they're reducing when there are multiple damage types from one attack, or does the DM decide?
No guidelines exist in the rules for this specific case so it'd be up to the DM to determine the outcome. Any substraction to the damage happen before it's taken so while a Vampire's Bite is a damage composed of two damage types Stone Endurance can reduce it which can either be;
1) A substraction from each of two damage type equally
2) A substraction from any of two damage type chosen by the player or DM
I’d say the player. If two things are supposed to happen simultaneously, it’s up to the person doing it to choose the order. This isn’t identical, but it’s about as close an analogy as I can think of. Also, the player is choosing to use stone’s endurance, seems it should be up to them which damage they are trying to endure. This is pretty interesting. What if the character has HAM and is hit by a flaming sword? Can they choose to stone’s endurance the fire damage, and let HAM take care of the slashing? Again I’d say yes. But I’m also generally inclined to let players make the most of their character’s abilities.
I’d say the player. If two things are supposed to happen simultaneously, it’s up to the person doing it to choose the order. This isn’t identical, but it’s about as close an analogy as I can think of.
I'm afraid it's the person whose turn it is who resolves the order of simultaneous events, which is unlikely to be the player in this scenario. NB: It's the player or DM who resolves this, not the characters in game. It's absolutely fine for the DM to resolve it in the player's favor.
(That said, I agree the rule isn't exactly on point but is a good basis for a decision.)
I’d say the player. If two things are supposed to happen simultaneously, it’s up to the person doing it to choose the order. This isn’t identical, but it’s about as close an analogy as I can think of.
I'm afraid it's the person whose turn it is who resolves the order of simultaneous events, which is unlikely to be the player in this scenario. NB: It's the player or DM who resolves this, not the characters in game. It's absolutely fine for the DM to resolve it in the player's favor.
(That said, I agree the rule isn't exactly on point but is a good basis for a decision.)
Thanks all for your input. As the player in this scenario, I would have obviously chosen to reduce the Necrotic Damage. The DM chose to reduce the Piercing Damage, and I didn't argue, as I generally just go with their decisions in their game. I was just wondering if there was anything in the rules that states who chooses, and if not, what way y'all would rule it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, a situation came up in a session last night, and caused a bit of confusion. After some quick searching, we think we found the answer to the first part, but I don't see anything anywhere that deals with Part 2.
Part 1: Character A has 70 Real HP (both Max and Current) and 21 Temp HP. Vampire Bites this character and deals 6 Piercing Damage and 14 Necrotic Damage. This would bring the Temp HP to 1 (20 Total Damage), and also reduce Max Real HP to 56 (14 Necrotic Damage), which effectively reduces the Current Real HP to 56 too, since Current HP cannot be above Max HP. Effectively, the Necrotic Damage is doubled because the reduction to Max HP doesn't care about Temp HP. We've seen many posts, tweets, etc. to back this up. This is not an issue, it just means Temp HP is not as effective a strategy against creatures that reduce Max HP.
Part 2: This is where the question lies. Same situation - Character A has 70 Real HP and 21 Temp HP. Vampire Bites this character and deals 6 Piercing Damage and 14 Necrotic Damage. This time, however, Character A uses Stone's Endurance to reduce Damage taken by 1d12 + CON Mod (3). Roll the d12, get a 2, total damage reduction is 5. Who decides what damage type is reduced? Does the player get to say "I'm reducing the Necrotic Damage"? Or does the DM get to rule that the damage reduction applies to Piercing?
Either way, the Temp HP is being reduced to 6. But the Max HP Reduction could either be down to 56 (as above) if the Piercing Damage is reduced, or 61 if the Necrotic Damage is reduced.
The PC is already taking twice the amount of Necrotic Damage since it's reducing their Temp HP AND their Max (and therefore Current) HP. So should they be given some slack and allowed to reduce the Necrotic Damage? Or, should the Piercing Damage be reduced as it's thematic to the ability being used (Vamp trying to pierce skin, which you use a reaction to make it as hard as stone, therefore harder to pierce)?
I don't think there's much debate to be had with Part 1 - Temp HP is just not as effective against Max HP Reducing enemies. But really want to know what you all think about Part 2 - does the player decide what damage they're reducing when there are multiple damage types from one attack, or does the DM decide?
No guidelines exist in the rules for this specific case so it'd be up to the DM to determine the outcome. Any substraction to the damage happen before it's taken so while a Vampire's Bite is a damage composed of two damage types Stone Endurance can reduce it which can either be;
1) A substraction from each of two damage type equally
2) A substraction from any of two damage type chosen by the player or DM
I’d say the player. If two things are supposed to happen simultaneously, it’s up to the person doing it to choose the order. This isn’t identical, but it’s about as close an analogy as I can think of.
Also, the player is choosing to use stone’s endurance, seems it should be up to them which damage they are trying to endure.
This is pretty interesting. What if the character has HAM and is hit by a flaming sword? Can they choose to stone’s endurance the fire damage, and let HAM take care of the slashing? Again I’d say yes. But I’m also generally inclined to let players make the most of their character’s abilities.
Personally, as DM i try to favor the player character whenever possible and would thus let him or her choose too.
I'm afraid it's the person whose turn it is who resolves the order of simultaneous events, which is unlikely to be the player in this scenario. NB: It's the player or DM who resolves this, not the characters in game. It's absolutely fine for the DM to resolve it in the player's favor.
(That said, I agree the rule isn't exactly on point but is a good basis for a decision.)
Good point. It is the turn.
So in general, if the piercing damage had been reduced to zero, does necrotic damage still get through or no?
Yes in such case Bite would deal 0 piercing damage plus 3d6 necrotic damage.
Thanks all for your input. As the player in this scenario, I would have obviously chosen to reduce the Necrotic Damage. The DM chose to reduce the Piercing Damage, and I didn't argue, as I generally just go with their decisions in their game. I was just wondering if there was anything in the rules that states who chooses, and if not, what way y'all would rule it.