Is the Necrotic damage of a vampire bite reliant on the piercing damage?
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is grappled by the vampire, incapacitated, or restrained. Hit: (1d6 + 3) piercing damage plus (2d6)necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the vampire regains hit points equal to that amount. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0
Specific question: A player has 24 HP, and 10 HP from Armor of Agathys. A vampire bite deals 7 piercing + 9 Necrotic damage. The piercing damage does not cut through the Armor (temp HP) does this prevent the Necrotic damage, or how would this be tabulated RAW? Thank you!
Sounds like a decent houserule, but no, by RAW all the various damage of an attack is simulltaneous and doesn't require one type to trigger another. Also, taking damage to your THP is considered taking damage just like out of your regular HP, no intrinsic difference unless an ability provides otherwise. Now, if you wanted to rewrite it to do what you're describing, I'd suggest:
Bite: 1d6+3 piercing damage. A creature who takes any piercing damage from Bite to their regular hit points suffers an additional 2d6 (7) necrotic damage.
As a follow up question. In the example above, is the PC's HP max reduced by 0, 6, or 9? My thought is that RAW it should be 9, but that doesn't sit well with me. If that's the case, then the THP didn't do much for the character.
As a follow up question. In the example above, is the PC's HP max reduced by 0, 6, or 9? My thought is that RAW it should be 9, but that doesn't sit well with me. If that's the case, then the THP didn't do much for the character.
Sure it does. Because of the THP, the character still has 15 hp. Without the THP, they’d only have 1.
As a follow up question. In the example above, is the PC's HP max reduced by 0, 6, or 9? My thought is that RAW it should be 9, but that doesn't sit well with me. If that's the case, then the THP didn't do much for the character.
Sure it does. Because of the THP, the character still has 15 hp. Without the THP, they’d only have 1.
How do you get 1? 24 - 16 = 8, They take 7+9 damage from a total of 24, leaving them with 8 HP. They have their maximum reduced from 24 to 15. So without THP, they'd be at 8/15.
With THP, they lose all 10 THP, and 6 HP, plus their maximum is reduced by 9. I would take this as all occuring at once, so they are left with 15/15 HP (they would be left with 18/15, but cannot have more HP than their maximum, so that is reduced to 15/15). The 10 THP only prevented 7 damage, which I think is what pwhimp is asking about.
Yes, apparently according to the rules, the more THP you have, the more that HP reducing effects are able to double-count in lowering your current effective hit points: You loose the hit points (from THP first) and you loose the hit points again (since you can't have more than your max regular HP).
If the player in the example would have had 16 THP, then he would have lost them all AND lost 9 from the HP reduction, losing 25 total effective HP from an attack that did 16 damage.
Edit: I think I would likely houserule this because it seems somewhat harshly penalizing players who try to use THP as protection. If you are subject to a HP reducing effect, then both that damage and the HP reduction related to that effect come from your regular HP only. That way you wouldn't lose the THP and lose the excess HP from your maximum from a single effect. Essentially, the rule could be stated as "HP reducing effects bypass THP." That sounds like it is a buff, but it ends up just bringing them back in line with their expected damage.
Honestly the math is confusing me too, partially because it doesn't line up with the Vampire stat block anyway?
Bite. (Bat or Vampire Form Only).Melee Weapon Attack:+9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is grappled by the vampire, incapacitated, or restrained. Hit: 7 (1d6 + 4) piercing damage plus 10 (3d6) necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the vampire regains hit points equal to that amount.
So an average bite does 7 piercing and 10 necrotic (17 total damage), and then reduces max HP by 10. A player with 24 HP would normally be left at 7 HP with a 14 HP max, or with Armor of Agathys providing 10 THP, would be left at 14 HP with a 14 HP max and would have deprived the vampire of its healing (since it would take 10 damage from the spell before healing itself 10). With the proposed houserule, this character would be left at 24 HP with a 24 HP max, and also still have 3 THP left over, and also the vamp would have taken 7 damage from biting the THP but not triggered any necrotic to heal itself, so note that it is a signifigant nerf to the Vampire if you're considering it.
I misread the OP. I thought the 24 included the THP, so 14 normal hp +10. I see now it means 24+ 10 so 34. I also screwed up other math. That’s what I get for posting before I finish my coffee.
Sorry that I'm extremely confused but why don't you just do the operations consecutively, in order.
PC has 24/24+10thp = 34 hp.
PC takes 7p + 10n damage. Resolve it in order: the piercing first (I guess.. It's listed first). Reduce 7 -- 24/24+3thp.
Now the necrotic: 10-3=7. Now you take the 7 and reduce that from the main hp pool: 7-24=17hp.
Total necrotic damage that the PC took would come out to 7 so the vampire would recover 7hp and the new Hp max of the pc would be 17.
Noxx, it's not an order of operations thing: you took 10 necrotic damage. Sure 3 of that came from THP and 7 from real HP, but the phrase "damage taken" doesn't mean "damage taken to your real non-temporary HP," it means something like "damage dealt, after vulnerabity/resistance/immunity."He could be biting an Abjuration Wizard's arcane ward with 30+ THP still left in the pool, but the wizard has still "taken" 10 necrotic damage regardless.
Sorry that I'm extremely confused but why don't you just do the operations consecutively, in order.
PC has 24/24+10thp = 34 hp.
PC takes 7p + 10n damage. Resolve it in order: the piercing first (I guess.. It's listed first). Reduce 7 -- 24/24+3thp.
Now the necrotic: 10-3=7. Now you take the 7 and reduce that from the main hp pool: 7-24=17hp.
Total necrotic damage that the PC took would come out to 7 so the vampire would recover 7hp and the new Hp max of the pc would be 17.
Noxx, it's not an order of operations thing: you took 10 necrotic damage. Sure 3 of that came from THP and 7 from real HP, but the phrase "damage taken" doesn't mean "damage taken to your real non-temporary HP," it means something like "damage dealt, after vulnerabity/resistance/immunity." He could be biting an Abjuration Wizard's arcane ward with 30+ THP still left in the pool, but the wizard has still "taken" 10 necrotic damage regardless.
Exactly. It would make sense to reduce by the damage taken. Bottom line. If you have the goliath shrug or monk's catch and you reduce the damage. the damage is gone with the wind. If it's absorbed by a temp health shield bubble or Abjurer's ward it would be irrelevant.
If the temp health/abjurer ward completely negates health. Say you have thp/AW of 100 but only take 2 necrotic damage to the ward and still have full health, that would STILL reduce your max hp? I really don't think it would
I don't know what to tell you man, you "take" the damage that you are dealt. You may take some of it from THP, and some of it from real HP, but either way you were dealt/took 10 necrotic damage. Its a common houserule to say otherwise, makes a lot of sense, but it isn't how the rules work as written.
This time I agree with Chicken_Champ. Jeremy Crawford seems to agree with him too. Damage you take is damage you take.
This is why I suggested my houserule: You wouldn't loose the THP and the HP from the HP reduction effect using it, but you would still end up losing the same total number of effective hit points.
I hear where you're coming from and it is damage taken but you're not taking it yourself. You're separate entity thp or ward is..
What would you say if the thp/ward absorbed all of it and no necrotic damage actually harmed the Pc's real health?
Think of the new psionic fighter where he can use a reaction to ward to protect someone else. If the necrotic damage is taken partially by the fighter but the remainder by the target who would have their max reduced? And by how much each?
When you or a creature you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to roll a d10 and reduce the amount of damage taken by the number rolled. When you reach 10th level in this class, the die changes to a d12.
The ability you're referencing "reduces the amount of damage taken," it doesn't throw a THP pool in there that takes the damage. The fighter is not taking damage, and the target it only taking whatever damage is beyond the amount that's been reduced. But even if it did work how you described (the Abjuration Wizard's level 6 ability does work that way), then yes if the Vampire manages to do Necrotic damage to two people simultaneously with one bite, both of their HP would be reduced by the amount they took, and he would heal as much as he dealt total.
If I am dealt 10 damage, I have taken 10 damage.
If I am dealt 10 damage while I have 5 extra THP, I have taken 10 damage
If I am dealt 10 damage but have resistance to the damage, I have taken 5 damage.
If I am dealt 10 damage but a feature (like the Psionic Fighter's above, or an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian's Spirit Shield) "reduces the amount" by 5, I have taken 5 damage
If I am dealt 10 damage but have vulnerability to the damage, I have taken 20 damage
If I am dealt 10 damage but someone else has an ability that lets them take that damage for me, they have taken 10 damage instead of me.
Think of the new psionic fighter where he can use a reaction to ward to protect someone else. If the necrotic damage is taken partially by the fighter but the remainder by the target who would have their max reduced? And by how much each?
If the ability worked like you described, this is a doubly messed up situation also. If you read the abilities for vampires and specters they both say that the target of the attack has their HP reduced by the amount of necrotic damage taken. In this case the fighter could "protect" someone. But since the damage is still taken, the target of the attack (and only the target of the attack) has their HP max reduced by the total equal to the total necrotic damage taken by both the fighter and the target.
Think of the new psionic fighter where he can use a reaction to ward to protect someone else. If the necrotic damage is taken partially by the fighter but the remainder by the target who would have their max reduced? And by how much each?
If the ability worked like you described, this is a doubly messed up situation also. If you read the abilities for vampires and specters they both say that the target of the attack has their HP reduced by the amount of necrotic damage taken. In this case the fighter could "protect" someone. But since the damage is still taken, the target of the attack (and only the target of the attack) has their HP max reduced by the total equal to the total necrotic damage taken by both the fighter and the target.
The vampire's ability says the target's HP is reduced by the damage taken. Specifically the target and specifically taken. If the target only took 5 of the 10 necrotic damage dealt (because fighter protected against some of it) they still only took 5 damage. Damage dealt and damage taken are two very separate things. It's why resistance to necrotic would reduce the damage taken and max HP reduction. The fighter would be fine because the ability - again - only refers to the target.
Well damage dealt and taken ARENT really different, though I used them differently above for ease of explanation. If you roll 10 damage against a target with resistance , you deal 10 damage, reduced by half, and ultimately “deal 5” just like target “takes 5.”
I hadn’t noticed the vamp limitation on damage to the target instead of “any creature damaged by this attack.” Nice.
So I agree with you on all accounts. I'll admit that I misread the augmented defense and thought it was split but going in the same vein, the Ward is considered a separate entity. I forgot where exactly it said this but I think even Crawford doesn't consider it 'part' of the wizard so you can say that Thp is either here or there but if damage is taken by the ward then I would NOT include that as damage taken by the wizard.
The next question would be if the augmented defense (or another feature) would take some of the damage, would the max hp reduction be maxed on each target? If 10n damage is taken. 7 to the fighter but 3 to the defended, we all agree the vampire recovers 10 health but then would they both get a 10 hp reduction or 7 and 3 respectively? I'm thinking the latter, which would also mean that the Abjuration Ward's damage doesn't affect the wizard's max hp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is the Necrotic damage of a vampire bite reliant on the piercing damage?
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one willing creature, or a creature that is grappled by the vampire, incapacitated, or restrained. Hit: (1d6 + 3) piercing damage plus (2d6)necrotic damage. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the necrotic damage taken, and the vampire regains hit points equal to that amount. The reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0
Specific question: A player has 24 HP, and 10 HP from Armor of Agathys. A vampire bite deals 7 piercing + 9 Necrotic damage. The piercing damage does not cut through the Armor (temp HP) does this prevent the Necrotic damage, or how would this be tabulated RAW? Thank you!
Sounds like a decent houserule, but no, by RAW all the various damage of an attack is simulltaneous and doesn't require one type to trigger another.
Also, taking damage to your THP is considered taking damage just like out of your regular HP, no intrinsic difference unless an ability provides otherwise.Now, if you wanted to rewrite it to do what you're describing, I'd suggest:Edit: Was wrong about THP, see Chapter 9.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree with everything Chicken_Champ said.
As a follow up question. In the example above, is the PC's HP max reduced by 0, 6, or 9? My thought is that RAW it should be 9, but that doesn't sit well with me. If that's the case, then the THP didn't do much for the character.
RAW, however much necrotic is dealt after resistance or vulnerability (
be that to THP or HP), that’s what it reduces/recovers.Edit: Was wrong about THP, see Chapter 9.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sure it does. Because of the THP, the character still has 15 hp. Without the THP, they’d only have 1.
How do you get 1? 24 - 16 = 8, They take 7+9 damage from a total of 24, leaving them with 8 HP. They have their maximum reduced from 24 to 15. So without THP, they'd be at 8/15.
With THP, they lose all 10 THP, and 6 HP, plus their maximum is reduced by 9. I would take this as all occuring at once, so they are left with 15/15 HP (they would be left with 18/15, but cannot have more HP than their maximum, so that is reduced to 15/15). The 10 THP only prevented 7 damage, which I think is what pwhimp is asking about.
Yes, apparently according to the rules, the more THP you have, the more that HP reducing effects are able to double-count in lowering your current effective hit points: You loose the hit points (from THP first) and you loose the hit points again (since you can't have more than your max regular HP).
If the player in the example would have had 16 THP, then he would have lost them all AND lost 9 from the HP reduction, losing 25 total effective HP from an attack that did 16 damage.
Edit: I think I would likely houserule this because it seems somewhat harshly penalizing players who try to use THP as protection. If you are subject to a HP reducing effect, then both that damage and the HP reduction related to that effect come from your regular HP only. That way you wouldn't lose the THP and lose the excess HP from your maximum from a single effect. Essentially, the rule could be stated as "HP reducing effects bypass THP." That sounds like it is a buff, but it ends up just bringing them back in line with their expected damage.
Honestly the math is confusing me too, partially because it doesn't line up with the Vampire stat block anyway?
So an average bite does 7 piercing and 10 necrotic (17 total damage), and then reduces max HP by 10. A player with 24 HP would normally be left at 7 HP with a 14 HP max, or with Armor of Agathys providing 10 THP, would be left at 14 HP with a 14 HP max and would have deprived the vampire of its healing (since it would take 10 damage from the spell before healing itself 10). With the proposed houserule, this character would be left at 24 HP with a 24 HP max, and also still have 3 THP left over, and also the vamp would have taken 7 damage from biting the THP but not triggered any necrotic to heal itself, so note that it is a signifigant nerf to the Vampire if you're considering it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry that I'm extremely confused but why don't you just do the operations consecutively, in order.
PC has 24/24+10thp = 34 hp.
PC takes 7p + 10n damage. Resolve it in order: the piercing first (I guess.. It's listed first). Reduce 7 -- 24/24+3thp.
Now the necrotic: 10-3=7. Now you take the 7 and reduce that from the main hp pool: 7-24=17hp.
Total necrotic damage that the PC took would come out to 7 so the vampire would recover 7hp and the new Hp max of the pc would be 17.
I misread the OP. I thought the 24 included the THP, so 14 normal hp +10. I see now it means 24+ 10 so 34. I also screwed up other math. That’s what I get for posting before I finish my coffee.
Noxx, it's not an order of operations thing: you took 10 necrotic damage. Sure 3 of that came from THP and 7 from real HP, but
the phrase "damage taken" doesn't mean "damage taken to your real non-temporary HP," it means something like "damage dealt, after vulnerabity/resistance/immunity."He could be biting an Abjuration Wizard's arcane ward with 30+ THP still left in the pool, but the wizard has still "taken" 10 necrotic damage regardless.Edit: Was wrong about THP, see Chapter 9.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Exactly. It would make sense to reduce by the damage taken. Bottom line. If you have the goliath shrug or monk's catch and you reduce the damage. the damage is gone with the wind. If it's absorbed by a temp health shield bubble or Abjurer's ward it would be irrelevant.
If the temp health/abjurer ward completely negates health. Say you have thp/AW of 100 but only take 2 necrotic damage to the ward and still have full health, that would STILL reduce your max hp? I really don't think it would
Here are some other forums that seem to think the same as me
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/120274/do-temporary-hit-points-count-as-part-of-the-hp-for-resisting-certain-magical-ef
enworld.org/threads/spectres-hit-point-loss-and-temp-hp.383165/
I don't know what to tell you man,
you "take" the damage that you are dealt.You may take some of it from THP, and some of it from real HP, but either way you were dealt/took 10 necrotic damage.Its a common houserule to say otherwise, makes a lot of sense, but it isn't how the rules work as written.Edit: Was wrong about THP, see Chapter 9.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This time I agree with Chicken_Champ. Jeremy Crawford seems to agree with him too. Damage you take is damage you take.
This is why I suggested my houserule: You wouldn't loose the THP and the HP from the HP reduction effect using it, but you would still end up losing the same total number of effective hit points.
I hear where you're coming from and it is damage taken but you're not taking it yourself. You're separate entity thp or ward is..
What would you say if the thp/ward absorbed all of it and no necrotic damage actually harmed the Pc's real health?
Think of the new psionic fighter where he can use a reaction to ward to protect someone else. If the necrotic damage is taken partially by the fighter but the remainder by the target who would have their max reduced? And by how much each?
The ability you're referencing "reduces the amount of damage taken," it doesn't throw a THP pool in there that takes the damage. The fighter is not taking damage, and the target it only taking whatever damage is beyond the amount that's been reduced. But even if it did work how you described (the Abjuration Wizard's level 6 ability does work that way), then yes if the Vampire manages to do Necrotic damage to two people simultaneously with one bite, both of their HP would be reduced by the amount they took, and he would heal as much as he dealt total.
I have taken 10 damageEdit: Was wrong about THP, see Chapter 9.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If the ability worked like you described, this is a doubly messed up situation also. If you read the abilities for vampires and specters they both say that the target of the attack has their HP reduced by the amount of necrotic damage taken. In this case the fighter could "protect" someone. But since the damage is still taken, the target of the attack (and only the target of the attack) has their HP max reduced by the total equal to the total necrotic damage taken by both the fighter and the target.
The vampire's ability says the target's HP is reduced by the damage taken. Specifically the target and specifically taken. If the target only took 5 of the 10 necrotic damage dealt (because fighter protected against some of it) they still only took 5 damage. Damage dealt and damage taken are two very separate things. It's why resistance to necrotic would reduce the damage taken and max HP reduction. The fighter would be fine because the ability - again - only refers to the target.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Well damage dealt and taken ARENT really different, though I used them differently above for ease of explanation. If you roll 10 damage against a target with resistance , you deal 10 damage, reduced by half, and ultimately “deal 5” just like target “takes 5.”
I hadn’t noticed the vamp limitation on damage to the target instead of “any creature damaged by this attack.” Nice.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So I agree with you on all accounts. I'll admit that I misread the augmented defense and thought it was split but going in the same vein, the Ward is considered a separate entity. I forgot where exactly it said this but I think even Crawford doesn't consider it 'part' of the wizard so you can say that Thp is either here or there but if damage is taken by the ward then I would NOT include that as damage taken by the wizard.
The next question would be if the augmented defense (or another feature) would take some of the damage, would the max hp reduction be maxed on each target? If 10n damage is taken. 7 to the fighter but 3 to the defended, we all agree the vampire recovers 10 health but then would they both get a 10 hp reduction or 7 and 3 respectively? I'm thinking the latter, which would also mean that the Abjuration Ward's damage doesn't affect the wizard's max hp.