If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Nah, the rules for how to apply resistances and Vulnerabilities would resolve this sort of thing just fine.
Those rules don’t resolve it. They work as they do because Vulnerability and Resistance are, counterintuitively, two independent binary conditions. That is, you can be resistant or not and vulnerable or not to an instance of damage. Providing a method for resolving the effects of being resistant and vulnerable to the same instance of damage does not provide a method for resolving being both resistant and not resistant.
Force would become the 'normal damage type' from Shillelagh, when you look to resolve True Strike it's now a choice between Force or Radiant.
What you still don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that the spells are cast in a certain order. The two effects from the two spells are happening at the same time from the same trigger. Your assumption that they will be applied in that order is arbitrary.
you have to go with the strict reading in that True Strike over-rides Shillelagh and the options are Bludgeoning or Radiant, there is no force option, in that situation.
There is no such strict reading. This interpretation is incorrect.
Second, on page 28, Damage Types, "Each instance of damage has a type." Note that "type" is singular.
These establish the General Rule, by precedence and by printed rule.
Yes, I pointed out this rule earlier as well. But in my opinion this wording is not enough to establish a general rule that damage cannot have more than one type, although I agree that it might be the intent or at least an unwritten assumption based on what's been officially published so far.
You cast Shillelagh and you can replace the normal damage type with Force. You cast True Strike and you replace the normal damage type with Radiant. Replacement + replacement never becomes addition.
And again (yet again), your ordering of events here is arbitrary. It does not matter at all that the spells were cast in a certain order. It only matters that two events are happening at the same time as a result of the same trigger.
And the problem with that is that the "simultaneous events" rule from Xanathar's Guide to Everything is an optional rule from an optional rule book. As far as I know this rule was not made standard in the new 2024 ruleset although it's possible that I missed it.
If we are not using optional rules, then one very reasonable ruling is simply that both of these things just happen at the same time. And since spells do what they say, one of them creates one damage type and the other one creates another, at the same time, resulting in damage that has two types. As noted earlier, there is no slam dunk rule that prevents this possibility.
Now, if we ARE using the optional rule from Xanathar in which we insist that there must be an ordering for how and when to apply the results of simultaneous events, then this order is NOT dependent on the order in which the spells were cast -- it is decided by the player or DM that is controlling the creature whose turn it is. Assuming that True Strike is being cast by a PC on that PC's turn, then the player who controls that PC decides the order -- the end result being that he can choose Bludgeoning damage OR Force Damage OR Radiant damage.
Force would become the 'normal damage type' from Shillelagh, when you look to resolve True Strike it's now a choice between Force or Radiant.
What you still don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that the spells are cast in a certain order. The two effects from the two spells are happening at the same time from the same trigger. Your assumption that they will be applied in that order is arbitrary.
He isn't assuming they are applied in that specific order but he is assuming that they are applied in a specific order. And that is correct because the rules tells us that even for things that triggers at the same time we still need to decide on an order for it. And as both spells tells us to make a choice we have to make the choice for one and then for the other leaving us with one final damage type.
If we accept that a single instance of damage can have, simultaneously, two types of damage then we have to accept that a creature can simultaneously be resistant and not resistant to the same instance of damage. To me, that looks like a reductio ad absurdum.
Nah, the rules for how to apply resistances and Vulnerabilities would resolve this sort of thing just fine.
Those rules don’t resolve it. They work as they do because Vulnerability and Resistance are, counterintuitively, two independent binary conditions. That is, you can be resistant or not and vulnerable or not to an instance of damage. Providing a method for resolving the effects of being resistant and vulnerable to the same instance of damage does not provide a method for resolving being both resistant and not resistant.
I disagree. The rules go into a bunch of detail about how to handle multiple instances of resistances as well as vulnerabilities all at the same time, as well as applying any flat bonuses or penalties that might or might not also exist. If there is any instance of just not being resistant or vulnerable then that just doesn't factor in. For all of those factors, they are put into a specific order by rule. When to add and subtract, when to multiply and when to divide are all detailed.
If some damage was both Force and Radiant and a creature is resistant to Force but neutral to Radiant, then he would be resistant to this damage. If instead he is neutral to Force but vulnerable to Radiant then he would be vulnerable to this damage. If instead he was resistant to Force and vulnerable to Radiant then you use the rule to apply the resistance and the Vulnerability in the oder described by the rule.
In terms of order of effects, there was a discussion about the interaction of Shillelagh and Pole Arm Master. In that discussion, the consensus was that the specific instance of Pole Strikes overrode the general effect of Shillelagh, so that the damage die for a Pole Strike using a quarterstaff with Shillelagh active would be d4, not d8 (or whatever damage die Shillelagh used at that character level). If we accept up2ng’s contention that the order of effects doesn’t matter and that both effects apply, then we seem to have to accept that the damage die is simultaneously both a d4 and a d8.
Force would become the 'normal damage type' from Shillelagh, when you look to resolve True Strike it's now a choice between Force or Radiant.
What you still don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that the spells are cast in a certain order. The two effects from the two spells are happening at the same time from the same trigger. Your assumption that they will be applied in that order is arbitrary.
He isn't assuming they are applied in that specific order but he is assuming that they are applied in a specific order. And that is correct because the rules tells us that even for things that triggers at the same time we still need to decide on an order for it. And as both spells tells us to make a choice we have to make the choice for one and then for the other leaving us with one final damage type.
Where is this rule? The one that I keep thinking of is the optional one from Xanathar's. Is there a more general rule somewhere that just says that such events must be ordered but without specifying how to do so? Buried somewhere in the DMG perhaps?
In terms of order of effects, there was a discussion about the interaction of Shillelagh and Pole Arm Master. In that discussion, the consensus was that the specific instance of Pole Strikes overrode the general effect of Shillelagh, so that the damage die for a Pole Strike using a quarterstaff with Shillelagh active would be d4, not d8 (or whatever damage die Shillelagh used at that character level). If we accept up2ng’s contention that the order of effects doesn’t matter and that both effects apply, then we seem to have to accept that the damage die is simultaneously both a d4 and a d8.
Schrödinger’s quarterstaff perhaps? 🤔😜
Sorry, but the Shillelagh vs Pole Arm Master debate has nothing to do with simultaneous events.
Sorry, but the Shillelagh vs Pole Arm Master debate has nothing to do with simultaneous events.
My apologies for my confusion, but I thought that Shillelagh plus Pole Strike was closely analogous to Shillelagh plus True Strike, as in both cases you have attacks which trigger two different sets of rules about damage.
[...] And the problem with that is that the "simultaneous events" rule from Xanathar's Guide to Everything is an optional rule from an optional rule book. As far as I know this rule was not made standard in the new 2024 ruleset although it's possible that I missed it.
If we are not using optional rules, then one very reasonable ruling is simply that both of these things just happen at the same time. And since spells do what they say, one of them creates one damage type and the other one creates another, at the same time, resulting in damage that has two types. As noted earlier, there is no slam dunk rule that prevents this possibility.
Now, if we ARE using the optional rule from Xanathar in which we insist that there must be an ordering for how and when to apply the results of simultaneous events, then this order is NOT dependent on the order in which the spells were cast -- it is decided by the player or DM that is controlling the creature whose turn it is. Assuming that True Strike is being cast by a PC on that PC's turn, then the player who controls that PC decides the order -- the end result being that he can choose Bludgeoning damage OR Force Damage OR Radiant damage. [...]
Then, I think this debate is over, since the rule you're referring to was included in the 2024 PHB. From the Glossary:
Simultaneous Effects
If two or more things happen at the same time on a turn, the person at the game table—player or DM—whose turn it is decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the start of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the effects happens first.
Ah, the Glossary! Very nice, thank you for that. There may have also been something in the old DMG as well but now we have this, which is much better.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible to have more than one damage type in general, but it cannot happen in this case. The player will choose the order of effects resulting in any of the three types.
Sorry, but the Shillelagh vs Pole Arm Master debate has nothing to do with simultaneous events.
My apologies for my confusion, but I thought that Shillelagh plus Pole Strike was closely analogous to Shillelagh plus True Strike, as in both cases you have attacks which trigger two different sets of rules about damage.
It's all good. That other case was different in a subtle way that had to do with the wording involved. The d8 was applied to the weapon ahead of time, not at the moment of the attack. This property was then overridden by the Pole Arm Master feature which was applied during the attack.
In this case here we actually have two effects attempting to modify a property of the damage at the same time so we need to use the rule for simultaneous effects.
Ah, the Glossary! Very nice, thank you for that. There may have also been something in the old DMG as well but now we have this, which is much better. [...]
No problem at all! It's always nice to be able to contribute.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible to have more than one damage type in general, but it cannot happen in this case. The player will choose the order of effects resulting in any of the three types.
Do you see the way you're trying to force us to prove a negative, so every bit of evidence against the idea in intent - and there have been several - does not convince you?
You're proposing that an attack can have two damage types. There is no spell that does this, no magic item that does this, no feature in the written rules that does this.
The burden is on you to prove that this is possible, not on us to disprove it. It's just not a thing unless you can give hard evidence that it is a thing. You haven't even provided intent that it could be a thing.
For me, the spells in question are pretty hard evidence on intent. If attacks could be two types, Shillelagh would do bludgeoning and force.
Do you see the way you're trying to force us to prove a negative, so every bit of evidence against the idea in intent - and there have been several - does not convince you?
In fact, there has been no such evidence -- which is probably why it's not convincing.
You're proposing that an attack can have two damage types. There is no spell that does this, no magic item that does this, no feature in the written rules that does this.
The burden is on you to prove that this is possible, not on us to disprove it. It's just not a thing unless you can give hard evidence that it is a thing. You haven't even provided intent that it could be a thing.
And yet, this is all incorrect. One does not follow from the other. Sometimes, like in this case, a particular mechanic has not been seen so far in published materials while at the same time it would require an actual written rule to prevent it from being possible.
For me, the spells in question are pretty hard evidence on intent. If attacks could be two types, Shillelagh would do bludgeoning and force.
This is false. The spells in question only provide intent on what the spell is meant to do. It has no bearing whatsoever on the intent of a more general rule.
Let's pick another core rule that could potentially be subject to a similar debate and see how the written rules handle it:
Question: If I have access to more than one Feature that modifies my die roll in such a way that I am allowed to add my proficiency bonus to the roll, does this mean that I can add my proficiency bonus for every such feature?
Initial Thought: Hmm, that seems pretty reasonable. Why wouldn't you be able to do this? Well, no single published feature seems to add the bonus more than once -- but what if many such features apply at the same time? We probably just add these together and end up with multiple bonuses being added to the die roll . . . right?
Well, just in case, let's double check to see if there's actually a written rule somewhere that restricts this in some way:
The Bonus Doesn’t Stack
Your Proficiency Bonus can’t be added to a die roll or another number more than once. For example, if a rule allows you to make a Charisma (Deception or Persuasion) check, you add your Proficiency Bonus if you’re proficient in either skill, but you don’t add it twice if you’re proficient in both skills.
Occasionally, a Proficiency Bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before being added. For example, the Expertise feature (see the rules glossary) doubles the Proficiency Bonus for certain ability checks. Whenever the bonus is used, it can be multiplied only once and divided only once.
In 2014, there was even this extra clarification:
For example, if two different rules say you can add your proficiency bonus to a Wisdom saving throw, you nevertheless add the bonus only once when you make the save.
That's an example of how a rule is written when it is crystal clear, no nonsense, absolutely, positively restricting the number of something to a maximum of ONE when it might otherwise seem reasonable to end up with more than one in certain situations. That's a slam dunk, hard and fast, black and white rule for how such situations should be adjudicated.
A general statement such as "Each instance of damage has a type" sort of misses the mark when it comes to this standard of clarity and lack of ambiguity.
So, does it seem like the game is currently designed in such a way that assumes that damage has exactly one type? Yes, it does seem that way.
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
I'm not up2ng, but the Resistances and Vulnerability describe the order using an example where a creature reduces damage by 5, then has resistance to all damage, and vulnerability to fire. If they take 28 fire damage, it is reduced by 5 damage first to 23 before being halved to 11, and then doubled to 22 (if I remember the numbers correctly).
Edit: page 28 has the above example. Interestingly, it round downs after applying the resistance before doubling for the vulnerability.
When I have a chance, I'll have to see if it explicitly handles immunity and vulnerability overlapping.
Edit: Immunity does not call out any interaction with vulnerability which means that it vulnerability does not apply if immunity also applies.
Do you see the way you're trying to force us to prove a negative, so every bit of evidence against the idea in intent - and there have been several - does not convince you?
In fact, there has been no such evidence -- which is probably why it's not convincing.
You're proposing that an attack can have two damage types. There is no spell that does this, no magic item that does this, no feature in the written rules that does this.
The burden is on you to prove that this is possible, not on us to disprove it. It's just not a thing unless you can give hard evidence that it is a thing. You haven't even provided intent that it could be a thing.
And yet, this is all incorrect. One does not follow from the other. Sometimes, like in this case, a particular mechanic has not been seen so far in published materials while at the same time it would require an actual written rule to prevent it from being possible.
<SNIP>
Is there an actual restriction?
I'll just unmake Vecna and take his place at level 1. There is no actual written rule to prevent it. Is there an actual restriction?
It's not possible because the rules tell you what is possible
There are areas that the rules don't cover (like when you realize that your character hasn't pooped - Viva la Dirt League), but damage is not one of those areas. You need a rule, general or specific, to say that you can. The absence of the rule is the absence of the possibility.
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
I'm not up2ng, but the Resistances and Vulnerability describe the order using an example where a creature reduces damage by 5, then has resistance to all damage, and vulnerability to fire. If they take 28 fire damage, it is reduced by 5 damage first to 23 before being halved to 11, and then doubled to 22 (if I remember the numbers correctly).
Edit: page 28 has the above example. Interestingly, it round downs after applying the resistance before doubling for the vulnerability.
When I have a chance, I'll have to see if it explicitly handles immunity and vulnerability overlapping.
Edit: Immunity does not call out any interaction with vulnerability which means that it vulnerability does not apply if immunity also applies.
Thanks.
The rules cover being Resistant and Vulnerable to the same damage. However, the question was whether the rules covered the situation of being Resistant and not Resistant to the same damage. In my example, the Aasimar would usually take the full 15 HP of Force but only 7 HP of Radiant: how much damage would they take overall if that instance of damage inflicts both types simultaneously? Up2ng’s reading of the rules was that the damage could potentially have more than one type and felt that the rules on interactions between Resistance and Vulnerability would apply. My contention is that the rules for resolving that hypothetical situation don’t exist; from that I infer that the developers did not intend for an instance of damage to have more than one type.
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
I'm not up2ng, but the Resistances and Vulnerability describe the order using an example where a creature reduces damage by 5, then has resistance to all damage, and vulnerability to fire. If they take 28 fire damage, it is reduced by 5 damage first to 23 before being halved to 11, and then doubled to 22 (if I remember the numbers correctly).
Edit: page 28 has the above example. Interestingly, it round downs after applying the resistance before doubling for the vulnerability.
When I have a chance, I'll have to see if it explicitly handles immunity and vulnerability overlapping.
Edit: Immunity does not call out any interaction with vulnerability which means that it vulnerability does not apply if immunity also applies.
Thanks.
The rules cover being Resistant and Vulnerable to the same damage. However, the question was whether the rules covered the situation of being Resistant and not Resistant to the same damage. In my example, the Aasimar would usually take the full 15 HP of Force but only 7 HP of Radiant: how much damage would they take overall if that instance of damage inflicts both types simultaneously? Up2ng’s reading of the rules was that the damage could potentially have more than one type and felt that the rules on interactions between Resistance and Vulnerability would apply. My contention is that the rules for resolving that hypothetical situation don’t exist; from that I infer that the developers did not intend for an instance of damage to have more than one type.
In that scenario, the damage is fully radiant and fully force. The Aasimar has resistance and takes 7 HP of damage.
The lack of resistance to force damage doesn't cancel the resistance to radiant damage just like in the PHB example, the vulnerability to fire doesn't negate the resistance to all damage.
I don't think damage being multiple damage types will ever come up outside of homebrew or maybe third-party content, but the resistance, vulnerability, and immunity rules will cover it.
I'll just unmake Vecna and take his place at level 1. There is no actual written rule to prevent it. Is there an actual restriction?
It's not possible because the rules tell you what is possible
There are areas that the rules don't cover (like when you realize that your character hasn't pooped - Viva la Dirt League), but damage is not one of those areas. You need a rule, general or specific, to say that you can. The absence of the rule is the absence of the possibility.
No, I'm not buying any of this. We're talking about a game concept that is already established with rules in place for it. A whole section of rules in fact. These can be found at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Types as well as Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability and Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Immunity. Any restrictions for how this mechanic works would be detailed in those sections of the rules.
I've already given an example of what a rule looks like when it clearly restricts the number of times that something can apply to a maximum of 1 which is demonstrated in the rules for the Proficiency Bonus. That rule creates a slam dunk super obvious restriction.
In contrast, this rule just says: "Each instance of damage has a type . . .". To be clear, that's not nothing. It actually does pretty clearly indicate a restriction that damage cannot have zero types. It always has a type. So, there is always a chance that the entity taking the damage might be immune to it or resistant to it or vulnerable to it. There is no "typeless" damage in this game.
Now, does that phrase also indicate that there is always a maximum of 1 type for every instance of damage? Maybe it could be read that way. Or maybe not. It's not a slam dunk in the same way that was demonstrated by the other rule that I mentioned earlier. That's all that I'm saying.
I've already agreed that the game probably should and probably does work the way that you are saying. It's just not clear to me that there's an actual written rule that enforces that design.
This discussion is mostly moot anyways as we've already established that there is currently no published material that explicitly creates more than one type for any instance of damage and we can see now that interactions like the one in this thread are now resolved via the simultaneous events rule where one type will end up overwriting the other -- so there isn't really any obvious scenario where multiple types will occur at this time.
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
I've already answered this question directly earlier in the thread. You simply use the rules that are in place, which appear in the section of rules at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability. In the scenario proposed, Albert the Aasimar takes 7 points of damage. The damage dealt was halved (rounded down) because he is resistant to Radiant damage.
I'll just unmake Vecna and take his place at level 1. There is no actual written rule to prevent it. Is there an actual restriction?
It's not possible because the rules tell you what is possible
There are areas that the rules don't cover (like when you realize that your character hasn't pooped - Viva la Dirt League), but damage is not one of those areas. You need a rule, general or specific, to say that you can. The absence of the rule is the absence of the possibility.
No, I'm not buying any of this. We're talking about a game concept that is already established with rules in place for it. A whole section of rules in fact. These can be found at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Types as well as Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability and Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Immunity. Any restrictions for how this mechanic works would be detailed in those sections of the rules.
I've already given an example of what a rule looks like when it clearly restricts the number of times that something can apply to a maximum of 1 which is demonstrated in the rules for the Proficiency Bonus. That rule creates a slam dunk super obvious restriction.
In contrast, this rule just says: "Each instance of damage has a type . . .". To be clear, that's not nothing. It actually does pretty clearly indicate a restriction that damage cannot have zero types. It always has a type. So, there is always a chance that the entity taking the damage might be immune to it or resistant to it or vulnerable to it. There is no "typeless" damage in this game.
Now, does that phrase also indicate that there is always a maximum of 1 type for every instance of damage? Maybe it could be read that way. Or maybe not. It's not a slam dunk in the same way that was demonstrated by the other rule that I mentioned earlier. That's all that I'm saying.
"Each instance of damage has a type... " it's not "one or more types"; it's "a type", singular.
You don't have resistance to damage because the rules don't say that you don't. You have it when they say that you do.
That's the underlying principle. In the areas governed by the rules, you need the rules to tell you that you can do it. Once it tells you that you can, then, if any limits apply, it needs to tell you.
As always, you can do what you want in your games, but I always advocate for understanding the rules (and reason for them) before making changes.
Those rules don’t resolve it. They work as they do because Vulnerability and Resistance are, counterintuitively, two independent binary conditions. That is, you can be resistant or not and vulnerable or not to an instance of damage. Providing a method for resolving the effects of being resistant and vulnerable to the same instance of damage does not provide a method for resolving being both resistant and not resistant.
What you still don't seem to be getting is that it doesn't matter that the spells are cast in a certain order. The two effects from the two spells are happening at the same time from the same trigger. Your assumption that they will be applied in that order is arbitrary.
There is no such strict reading. This interpretation is incorrect.
Yes, I pointed out this rule earlier as well. But in my opinion this wording is not enough to establish a general rule that damage cannot have more than one type, although I agree that it might be the intent or at least an unwritten assumption based on what's been officially published so far.
And again (yet again), your ordering of events here is arbitrary. It does not matter at all that the spells were cast in a certain order. It only matters that two events are happening at the same time as a result of the same trigger.
And the problem with that is that the "simultaneous events" rule from Xanathar's Guide to Everything is an optional rule from an optional rule book. As far as I know this rule was not made standard in the new 2024 ruleset although it's possible that I missed it.
If we are not using optional rules, then one very reasonable ruling is simply that both of these things just happen at the same time. And since spells do what they say, one of them creates one damage type and the other one creates another, at the same time, resulting in damage that has two types. As noted earlier, there is no slam dunk rule that prevents this possibility.
Now, if we ARE using the optional rule from Xanathar in which we insist that there must be an ordering for how and when to apply the results of simultaneous events, then this order is NOT dependent on the order in which the spells were cast -- it is decided by the player or DM that is controlling the creature whose turn it is. Assuming that True Strike is being cast by a PC on that PC's turn, then the player who controls that PC decides the order -- the end result being that he can choose Bludgeoning damage OR Force Damage OR Radiant damage.
No, this is not reasonable. In fact, this would be an incorrect RAW ruling.
He isn't assuming they are applied in that specific order but he is assuming that they are applied in a specific order. And that is correct because the rules tells us that even for things that triggers at the same time we still need to decide on an order for it. And as both spells tells us to make a choice we have to make the choice for one and then for the other leaving us with one final damage type.
I disagree. The rules go into a bunch of detail about how to handle multiple instances of resistances as well as vulnerabilities all at the same time, as well as applying any flat bonuses or penalties that might or might not also exist. If there is any instance of just not being resistant or vulnerable then that just doesn't factor in. For all of those factors, they are put into a specific order by rule. When to add and subtract, when to multiply and when to divide are all detailed.
If some damage was both Force and Radiant and a creature is resistant to Force but neutral to Radiant, then he would be resistant to this damage. If instead he is neutral to Force but vulnerable to Radiant then he would be vulnerable to this damage. If instead he was resistant to Force and vulnerable to Radiant then you use the rule to apply the resistance and the Vulnerability in the oder described by the rule.
In terms of order of effects, there was a discussion about the interaction of Shillelagh and Pole Arm Master. In that discussion, the consensus was that the specific instance of Pole Strikes overrode the general effect of Shillelagh, so that the damage die for a Pole Strike using a quarterstaff with Shillelagh active would be d4, not d8 (or whatever damage die Shillelagh used at that character level). If we accept up2ng’s contention that the order of effects doesn’t matter and that both effects apply, then we seem to have to accept that the damage die is simultaneously both a d4 and a d8.
Schrödinger’s quarterstaff perhaps? 🤔😜
Where is this rule? The one that I keep thinking of is the optional one from Xanathar's. Is there a more general rule somewhere that just says that such events must be ordered but without specifying how to do so? Buried somewhere in the DMG perhaps?
Sorry, but the Shillelagh vs Pole Arm Master debate has nothing to do with simultaneous events.
My apologies for my confusion, but I thought that Shillelagh plus Pole Strike was closely analogous to Shillelagh plus True Strike, as in both cases you have attacks which trigger two different sets of rules about damage.
Then, I think this debate is over, since the rule you're referring to was included in the 2024 PHB. From the Glossary:
Ah, the Glossary! Very nice, thank you for that. There may have also been something in the old DMG as well but now we have this, which is much better.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible to have more than one damage type in general, but it cannot happen in this case. The player will choose the order of effects resulting in any of the three types.
Carry on!
It's all good. That other case was different in a subtle way that had to do with the wording involved. The d8 was applied to the weapon ahead of time, not at the moment of the attack. This property was then overridden by the Pole Arm Master feature which was applied during the attack.
In this case here we actually have two effects attempting to modify a property of the damage at the same time so we need to use the rule for simultaneous effects.
No problem at all! It's always nice to be able to contribute.
Do you see the way you're trying to force us to prove a negative, so every bit of evidence against the idea in intent - and there have been several - does not convince you?
You're proposing that an attack can have two damage types. There is no spell that does this, no magic item that does this, no feature in the written rules that does this.
The burden is on you to prove that this is possible, not on us to disprove it. It's just not a thing unless you can give hard evidence that it is a thing. You haven't even provided intent that it could be a thing.
For me, the spells in question are pretty hard evidence on intent. If attacks could be two types, Shillelagh would do bludgeoning and force.
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
In fact, there has been no such evidence -- which is probably why it's not convincing.
This is all correct.
And yet, this is all incorrect. One does not follow from the other. Sometimes, like in this case, a particular mechanic has not been seen so far in published materials while at the same time it would require an actual written rule to prevent it from being possible.
This is false. The spells in question only provide intent on what the spell is meant to do. It has no bearing whatsoever on the intent of a more general rule.
Let's pick another core rule that could potentially be subject to a similar debate and see how the written rules handle it:
Question: If I have access to more than one Feature that modifies my die roll in such a way that I am allowed to add my proficiency bonus to the roll, does this mean that I can add my proficiency bonus for every such feature?
Initial Thought: Hmm, that seems pretty reasonable. Why wouldn't you be able to do this? Well, no single published feature seems to add the bonus more than once -- but what if many such features apply at the same time? We probably just add these together and end up with multiple bonuses being added to the die roll . . . right?
Well, just in case, let's double check to see if there's actually a written rule somewhere that restricts this in some way:
In 2014, there was even this extra clarification:
That's an example of how a rule is written when it is crystal clear, no nonsense, absolutely, positively restricting the number of something to a maximum of ONE when it might otherwise seem reasonable to end up with more than one in certain situations. That's a slam dunk, hard and fast, black and white rule for how such situations should be adjudicated.
A general statement such as "Each instance of damage has a type" sort of misses the mark when it comes to this standard of clarity and lack of ambiguity.
So, does it seem like the game is currently designed in such a way that assumes that damage has exactly one type? Yes, it does seem that way.
Is there an actual restriction?
No. Not at this time.
Up2ng: I’m still curious how you propose the rules on Vulnerability and Resistance resolve the hypothetical situation of an instance of damage having two simultaneous damage types. Say Albert the Aasimar is hit with 15 HP of damage which is simultaneously both of Force and of Radiant type. He is resistant to the Radiant damage but not Force: by how many hit points is his current total reduced?
I'm not up2ng, but the Resistances and Vulnerability describe the order using an example where a creature reduces damage by 5, then has resistance to all damage, and vulnerability to fire. If they take 28 fire damage, it is reduced by 5 damage first to 23 before being halved to 11, and then doubled to 22 (if I remember the numbers correctly).
Edit: page 28 has the above example. Interestingly, it round downs after applying the resistance before doubling for the vulnerability.
When I have a chance, I'll have to see if it explicitly handles immunity and vulnerability overlapping.
Edit: Immunity does not call out any interaction with vulnerability which means that it vulnerability does not apply if immunity also applies.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'll just unmake Vecna and take his place at level 1. There is no actual written rule to prevent it. Is there an actual restriction?
It's not possible because the rules tell you what is possible
There are areas that the rules don't cover (like when you realize that your character hasn't pooped - Viva la Dirt League), but damage is not one of those areas. You need a rule, general or specific, to say that you can. The absence of the rule is the absence of the possibility.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Thanks.
The rules cover being Resistant and Vulnerable to the same damage. However, the question was whether the rules covered the situation of being Resistant and not Resistant to the same damage. In my example, the Aasimar would usually take the full 15 HP of Force but only 7 HP of Radiant: how much damage would they take overall if that instance of damage inflicts both types simultaneously? Up2ng’s reading of the rules was that the damage could potentially have more than one type and felt that the rules on interactions between Resistance and Vulnerability would apply. My contention is that the rules for resolving that hypothetical situation don’t exist; from that I infer that the developers did not intend for an instance of damage to have more than one type.
In that scenario, the damage is fully radiant and fully force. The Aasimar has resistance and takes 7 HP of damage.
The lack of resistance to force damage doesn't cancel the resistance to radiant damage just like in the PHB example, the vulnerability to fire doesn't negate the resistance to all damage.
I don't think damage being multiple damage types will ever come up outside of homebrew or maybe third-party content, but the resistance, vulnerability, and immunity rules will cover it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No, I'm not buying any of this. We're talking about a game concept that is already established with rules in place for it. A whole section of rules in fact. These can be found at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Damage Types as well as Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability and Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Immunity. Any restrictions for how this mechanic works would be detailed in those sections of the rules.
I've already given an example of what a rule looks like when it clearly restricts the number of times that something can apply to a maximum of 1 which is demonstrated in the rules for the Proficiency Bonus. That rule creates a slam dunk super obvious restriction.
In contrast, this rule just says: "Each instance of damage has a type . . .". To be clear, that's not nothing. It actually does pretty clearly indicate a restriction that damage cannot have zero types. It always has a type. So, there is always a chance that the entity taking the damage might be immune to it or resistant to it or vulnerable to it. There is no "typeless" damage in this game.
Now, does that phrase also indicate that there is always a maximum of 1 type for every instance of damage? Maybe it could be read that way. Or maybe not. It's not a slam dunk in the same way that was demonstrated by the other rule that I mentioned earlier. That's all that I'm saying.
I've already agreed that the game probably should and probably does work the way that you are saying. It's just not clear to me that there's an actual written rule that enforces that design.
This discussion is mostly moot anyways as we've already established that there is currently no published material that explicitly creates more than one type for any instance of damage and we can see now that interactions like the one in this thread are now resolved via the simultaneous events rule where one type will end up overwriting the other -- so there isn't really any obvious scenario where multiple types will occur at this time.
I've already answered this question directly earlier in the thread. You simply use the rules that are in place, which appear in the section of rules at Playing the Game --> Damage and Healing --> Resistance and Vulnerability. In the scenario proposed, Albert the Aasimar takes 7 points of damage. The damage dealt was halved (rounded down) because he is resistant to Radiant damage.
"Each instance of damage has a type... " it's not "one or more types"; it's "a type", singular.
You don't have resistance to damage because the rules don't say that you don't. You have it when they say that you do.
That's the underlying principle. In the areas governed by the rules, you need the rules to tell you that you can do it. Once it tells you that you can, then, if any limits apply, it needs to tell you.
As always, you can do what you want in your games, but I always advocate for understanding the rules (and reason for them) before making changes.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.