Hi there, I joined specifically to ask this question to settle a debate with another party member of mine. I apologize if I'm doing this wrong.
TL;DR - how does damage from thunder step get applied when a cloaker is wrapped around a player?
We had a situation at our table today where our player (Bann) had his head wrapped by a cloaker. Our wizard (Maki) thought it would be a clever idea to go up to Bann and the cloaker and use thunder step to damage the cloaker (yeah, smart move).
Now, cloakers have the ability to damage transfer: "Damage Transfer. While attached to a creature, the cloaker takes only half the damage dealt to it (rounded down), and that creature takes the other half."
The debate was how much damage Bann would actually take from the Thunderstep.
Lets say Maki rolled 10 damage for his thunderstep. Which situation would occur? A) Bann takes 10 damage and then an additional 5 damage because of the damage transfer from the cloaker B) Bann and the cloaker share the damage, causing only 5 damage to each
The DM ruled option A, because both "creatures" were in Maki's 10ft radius.
Our player was unhappy with this and ruled that the damage would be shared between the creatures because the cloaker is wrapped around his body and would "have to go through him to cause damage to me".
Can anyone give me insight as to what the right answer would be? Its been debated all night and no one can agree on an answer.
I'm pretty sure A is right, with the caveat that Bann and the cloaker would both get saving throws.
Both Bann and the cloaker are creatures within 10 feet of the caster, so they both make saving throws and both take damage. The cloaker has the special ability that half of its damage is passed on to its victim.
Note that the cloaker's damage is one-way. It describes how when the cloaker is dealt damage, half of that damage is passed on to its victim. It does NOT say the reverse - that half of the damage of the victim is passed on to the cloaker. It does NOT say anything about how the cloaker's victim can't be attacked without going through the cloaker. ALL that ability does is take half of the damage dealt to the cloaker, and move it to the victim. That's it.
Of course, this is D&D, so the DM can always override the rules if they think something else makes more sense. But by the rules-as-written, A is correct, and that's how the DM ruled it in your situation as well.
In my mind, a better question is why didn't the mage try to use the teleportation aspect of the spell to try to free his ally while also damaging the cloaker?
In my mind, a better question is why didn't the mage try to use the teleportation aspect of the spell to try to free his ally while also damaging the cloaker?
This. Everything about this.
This was an "oh no, the fighter is surrounded. I cast fireball on him," level of idea, except somehow worse.
In my mind, a better question is why didn't the mage try to use the teleportation aspect of the spell to try to free his ally while also damaging the cloaker?
This. Everything about this.
This was an "oh no, the fighter is surrounded. I cast fireball on him," level of idea, except somehow worse.
I mean, it could have been a descriptive misinterpretation. I don't see the cloaker as 100% body wrapping it's victim, just the head for sure, while it suffocates and attacks the victim.
Thanks for the advice! I tend to agree with this as well.
Both did make saving throws and both failed, which I think further proves this argument.
I just see it as they have their own separate damage counts, meaning Bann takes his damage and also half of the Cloakers damage.
Bann got upset and thought that because he is getting some sort of "cover" from the cloaker, it doesn't make sense that he would take more damage than the cloaker itself.
The DM ruled it that Bann took 15 and the cloaker took 5.
He could have taken the Goliath with him. They are both medium sized creatures. When the spell refers to size, it means size category, not weight/mass.
FWIW, I’d also agree with the way damage was handled.
He could have taken the Goliath with him. They are both medium sized creatures. When the spell refers to size, it means size category, not weight/mass.
FWIW, I’d also agree with the way damage was handled.
Wow, good catch. I never even bothered to check. I guess being 7 to 8 ft tall and over 300 pounds is still medium according to the Goliath page.
He could have taken the Goliath with him. They are both medium sized creatures. When the spell refers to size, it means size category, not weight/mass.
FWIW, I’d also agree with the way damage was handled.
Wow, good catch. I never even bothered to check. I guess being 7 to 8 ft tall and over 300 pounds is still medium according to the Goliath page.
It is because large creatures have trouble fitting in certain spaces and WotC wanted to simplify it. So there are no large or tiny player races. So every PC takes up the same amount of space (5ft).
In my mind, a better question is why didn't the mage try to use the teleportation aspect of the spell to try to free his ally while also damaging the cloaker?
This. Everything about this.
This was an "oh no, the fighter is surrounded. I cast fireball on him," level of idea, except somehow worse.
Agreed! Except, of course, when the fighter is resistant to fire damage and says, “Hit me with a fireball, I can take it!” like I’ve done before. It worked, so it was the right strategy at the time even though it could have been suicidal.
I agree with the DMs ruling and that the wizard goofed and should have pulled the fighter out with him when he retreated.
Hi there, I joined specifically to ask this question to settle a debate with another party member of mine. I apologize if I'm doing this wrong.
TL;DR - how does damage from thunder step get applied when a cloaker is wrapped around a player?
We had a situation at our table today where our player (Bann) had his head wrapped by a cloaker. Our wizard (Maki) thought it would be a clever idea to go up to Bann and the cloaker and use thunder step to damage the cloaker (yeah, smart move).
Now, cloakers have the ability to damage transfer:
"Damage Transfer. While attached to a creature, the cloaker takes only half the damage dealt to it (rounded down), and that creature takes the other half."
The debate was how much damage Bann would actually take from the Thunderstep.
Lets say Maki rolled 10 damage for his thunderstep. Which situation would occur?
A) Bann takes 10 damage and then an additional 5 damage because of the damage transfer from the cloaker
B) Bann and the cloaker share the damage, causing only 5 damage to each
The DM ruled option A, because both "creatures" were in Maki's 10ft radius.
Our player was unhappy with this and ruled that the damage would be shared between the creatures because the cloaker is wrapped around his body and would "have to go through him to cause damage to me".
Can anyone give me insight as to what the right answer would be? Its been debated all night and no one can agree on an answer.
Thanks for the help.
I'm pretty sure A is right, with the caveat that Bann and the cloaker would both get saving throws.
Both Bann and the cloaker are creatures within 10 feet of the caster, so they both make saving throws and both take damage. The cloaker has the special ability that half of its damage is passed on to its victim.
Note that the cloaker's damage is one-way. It describes how when the cloaker is dealt damage, half of that damage is passed on to its victim. It does NOT say the reverse - that half of the damage of the victim is passed on to the cloaker. It does NOT say anything about how the cloaker's victim can't be attacked without going through the cloaker. ALL that ability does is take half of the damage dealt to the cloaker, and move it to the victim. That's it.
Of course, this is D&D, so the DM can always override the rules if they think something else makes more sense. But by the rules-as-written, A is correct, and that's how the DM ruled it in your situation as well.
Harsh but, I agree with the DM is well.
In my mind, a better question is why didn't the mage try to use the teleportation aspect of the spell to try to free his ally while also damaging the cloaker?
This. Everything about this.
This was an "oh no, the fighter is surrounded. I cast fireball on him," level of idea, except somehow worse.
I mean, it could have been a descriptive misinterpretation. I don't see the cloaker as 100% body wrapping it's victim, just the head for sure, while it suffocates and attacks the victim.
Haha I definitely expected this story to be about Maki using thunder step to try to rescue Bann from the cloaker.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thanks for the advice! I tend to agree with this as well.
Both did make saving throws and both failed, which I think further proves this argument.
I just see it as they have their own separate damage counts, meaning Bann takes his damage and also half of the Cloakers damage.
Bann got upset and thought that because he is getting some sort of "cover" from the cloaker, it doesn't make sense that he would take more damage than the cloaker itself.
The DM ruled it that Bann took 15 and the cloaker took 5.
Thanks again for the help! :)
Yeaaahhhh.... We were all questioning this. :P
I should've mentioned that Bann is a goliath and Maki is a human so unfortunately Maki couldn't take Bann with him in the thunder step.
However, our dummy of a wizard only used it for the damage while also gtfo of the room lol!
He could have taken the Goliath with him. They are both medium sized creatures. When the spell refers to size, it means size category, not weight/mass.
FWIW, I’d also agree with the way damage was handled.
Wow, good catch. I never even bothered to check. I guess being 7 to 8 ft tall and over 300 pounds is still medium according to the Goliath page.
It is because large creatures have trouble fitting in certain spaces and WotC wanted to simplify it. So there are no large or tiny player races. So every PC takes up the same amount of space (5ft).
Agreed! Except, of course, when the fighter is resistant to fire damage and says, “Hit me with a fireball, I can take it!” like I’ve done before. It worked, so it was the right strategy at the time even though it could have been suicidal.
I agree with the DMs ruling and that the wizard goofed and should have pulled the fighter out with him when he retreated.
Professional computer geek