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.
Already covered that in my previous reply. The target would take their share and their max hp would be reduced by that much (because it's damage taken - not dealt) and the fighter wouldn't have their max hp reduced because the reduction only applies to the target as per the wording of the ability.
And an Abjuration ward is not anything other than THP of the wizard, it’s tracked in his own hit point area of his character sheet, It is not a separate creature, and the wizard “takes” all the damage dealt to his ward.
Let's consider concentration checks. Would you require the full check for the damage done to the Thp or Ward? Again, I hear your argument for the thp (whether or not I agree with it) but the ward I'm not so keen on as it's mean to actually be a separate entity.
There's nothing in the rules that says that you don't make concentration checks as normal when damage is taken to your THP, be that THP from a spell, a class ability, a feat like Inspiring Leader, whathaveyou. THP are just HP that don't stack from multiple sources, and which aren't restored with healing spells. Feel free to houserule otherwise.
For argument's sake, let's agree with Thp. Now going with the Ward:
Sage Advice:
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.
And here's another forum discussing the ward in regards to concentration checks: (the 7th post down links another sage advice verifying that Thp damage is still considered 'taking damage'
So that being said, the specific damage soaked by the ward would have no effect on the targeted wizard as it's not Thp
Edit: Another Sage advice verifies that Thp is irrelevant when calculating concentration checks. I'm still uncomfortable reducing the max hp for the vampire bite while you still have thp remaining but if this is what I'm using to back my argument, it seemed to bite me back (but when the next line does agree that the ward is not the same as thp and is not a buffer but different than the wizard's total);
If I have 10 temporary hit points and I take 30 damage from an attack while concentrating on a spell, what is the DC of the Constitution save to maintain my concentration? The DC is 15 in that case. When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you’re still taking damage, just not to your real hit points.
In contrast, a feature like the wizard’s Arcane Ward can take damage for you, potentially eliminating the need to make a Constitution saving throw or, at least, lowering the DC of that save.
SAC is not rules, and nothing in the Aburation Wizard's class features creates the ward as a seperate creature or a non-creature with THP.
However, I will concede that I have been 100% incorrect up to this point. Chapter 9 is quite clear, if I had bothered to read it instead of acting like I know what I'm talking about:
Temporary Hit Points
Some spells and special abilities confer temporary hit points to a creature. Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.
When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points. For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage.
Because temporary hit points are separate from your actual hit points, they can exceed your hit point maximum. A character can, therefore, be at full hit points and receive temporary hit points.
Healing can't restore temporary hit points, and they can't be added together. If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. For example, if a spell grants you 12 temporary hit points when you already have 10, you can have 12 or 10, not 22.
If you have 0 hit points, receiving temporary hit points doesn't restore you to consciousness or stabilize you. They can still absorb damage directed at you while you're in that state, but only true healing can save you. Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration, they last until they're depleted or you finish a long rest.
Mia culpa, I should have read the text. Damage dealt to THP is not damage that you "take", it is THP that you have "lost." I am shook, to my very core, this changes almost everything.
Somewhat similar - Say you're a Monk targeted with a ranged attack that deals piercing and poison damage. A Monk can use Deflect Missiles to reduce the incoming damage. Let's say the attack would deal 9 piercing damage and 7 poison damage. The Monk rolls a d10 and adds Dex mod and Monk level and ends up with 10. Would you say the Monk takes 0 piercing damage and 6 poison damage or no damage at all? This happened on Critical Role and Matt Mercer ruled that since the attack did no piercing damage it couldn't deal the poison damage. I'm fairly certain he house-ruled that because I found nothing in RAW to support it but I also don't have the monster's stat block so there may be something in it that says deals X poison damage if the target took the piercing damage.
SAC is not rules, and nothing in the Aburation Wizard's class features creates the ward as a seperate creature or a non-creature with THP.
However, I will concede that I have been 100% incorrect up to this point. Chapter 9 is quite clear, if I had bothered to read it instead of acting like I know what I'm talking about:
Temporary Hit Points
Some spells and special abilities confer temporary hit points to a creature. Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.
When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points. For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage.
Because temporary hit points are separate from your actual hit points, they can exceed your hit point maximum. A character can, therefore, be at full hit points and receive temporary hit points.
Healing can't restore temporary hit points, and they can't be added together. If you have temporary hit points and receive more of them, you decide whether to keep the ones you have or to gain the new ones. For example, if a spell grants you 12 temporary hit points when you already have 10, you can have 12 or 10, not 22.
If you have 0 hit points, receiving temporary hit points doesn't restore you to consciousness or stabilize you. They can still absorb damage directed at you while you're in that state, but only true healing can save you. Unless a feature that grants you temporary hit points has a duration, they last until they're depleted or you finish a long rest.
Mia culpa, I should have read the text. Damage dealt to THP is not damage that you "take", it is THP that you have "lost." I am shook, to my very core, this changes almost everything.
Wait, so you're saying that vampire bites to Thp DON'T reduce your max? (what I originally had thought too)
Somewhat similar - Say you're a Monk targeted with a ranged attack that deals piercing and poison damage. A Monk can use Deflect Missiles to reduce the incoming damage. Let's say the attack would deal 9 piercing damage and 7 poison damage. The Monk rolls a d10 and adds Dex mod and Monk level and ends up with 10. Would you say the Monk takes 0 piercing damage and 6 poison damage or no damage at all?
The general rule is "it does what it says it does unless some other effect overrides". Thus, it reduces 16 damage to 6 (it is not specified the order in which effects are reduced, but I would assume in the same order they're applied in the stat block. This could be relevant if the target is resistant to only one of the damage types of the attack).
Yes Noxx, I am saying that the THP rules I quoted seem to suggest that damage dealt to THP is not damage you have "taken." The Vampire still has "dealt" 10 necrotic damage, but you have only "taken" the amount of necrotic that hit your true HP.
This is not at all how I have ever understood this to work, but when I went to read it closer I was surprised. I'm pretty sure its the case that all other sections of the rules contradict this and treat all damage dealt as damage taken, but I'm inclined to think that the THP section is the more specific exception to the general rule.
There's still the problem that 5e has no system for order of operations for damage types, so if you're dealt 10 piercing+10 necrotic and you have THP and really want to avoid "taking" the necrotic damage due to an ability like that of the Vampire... I'm just not really sure what the DM would decide there, or whether they'd let you dictate which damage the THP absorbed.
There's still the problem that 5e has no system for order of operations for damage types, so if you're dealt 10 piercing+10 necrotic and you have THP and really want to avoid "taking" the necrotic damage due to an ability like that of the Vampire... I'm just not really sure what the DM would decide there, or whether they'd let you dictate which damage the THP absorbed.
I wouldn't let players dictate that, but you're right there are no rules for a damage order of operations. In the case of vampires, I'd rule that the piercing damage comes first. It seems the most fair and logical to me. If the player decides, they just choose the necrotic to reduce the THP and then take the remainder of the bite damage. Applying the piercing damage then the necrotic damage doesn't allow for such shenanigans, but also doesn't double penalize the character with THP.
There's still the problem that 5e has no system for order of operations for damage types, so if you're dealt 10 piercing+10 necrotic and you have THP and really want to avoid "taking" the necrotic damage due to an ability like that of the Vampire... I'm just not really sure what the DM would decide there, or whether they'd let you dictate which damage the THP absorbed.
The obvious order is "the order they're listed in the stat block".
Okay, but what about player abilities? If I hit a creature with my sword, the following seperate damage types happen:
Magical or nonmagical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage (e.g. 1d6)
Magical damage from the static magic modifier, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon
Magical damage from a weapon's typed damage die, like a flaming sword that does a bonus 1d6 fire
Attribute damage from attack stat, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, presumably magical if the weapon is magical.
Bonus untyped static damage from class features and feats like Rage bonus, Dueling, Hexblade's curse, or Great Weapon Master, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, presumably only magical if the weapon is magical.
Bonus static damage from class features and feats with damage types, like the Lifedrinker invocation's +5 necrotic damage. Only magic if the weapon is magic, or inherently?
Bonus untyped die from features like Sneak Attack, presumably same p/s/b, presumably same magic if weapon magical
Bonus die with damage types from features, like the Gloomstalker's 1d8 of same p/s/b, or Horizon Walker's 1d8 force. Only magic if the weapon is magic?
Bonus die with damage types from spells, like Hex, inherently magical
Bonus untyped die from spells, like Hunter's Mark, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, inherently magical.
All, some, or none of these could apply to a character's attack. If/when it matters, do the characters get to micromanage to the DM which go to the creature's THP ward, and which to its base HP?
Okay, but what about player abilities? If I hit a creature with my sword, the following seperate damage types happen:
Magical or nonmagical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage (e.g. 1d6)
Magical damage from the static magic modifier, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon
Magical damage from a weapon's typed damage die, like a flaming sword that does a bonus 1d6 fire
Attribute damage from attack stat, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, presumably magical if the weapon is magical.
Bonus untyped static damage from class features and feats like Rage bonus, Dueling, Hexblade's curse, or Great Weapon Master, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, presumably only magical if the weapon is magical.
Bonus static damage from class features and feats with damage types, like the Lifedrinker invocation's +5 necrotic damage. Only magic if the weapon is magic, or inherently?
Bonus untyped die from features like Sneak Attack, presumably same p/s/b, presumably same magic if weapon magical
Bonus die with damage types from features, like the Gloomstalker's 1d8 of same p/s/b, or Horizon Walker's 1d8 force. Only magic if the weapon is magic?
Bonus die with damage types from spells, like Hex, inherently magical
Bonus untyped die from spells, like Hunter's Mark, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, inherently magical.
All, some, or none of these could apply to a character's attack. If/when it matters, do the characters get to micromanage to the DM which go to the creature's THP ward, and which to its base HP?
Player abilities are a bit of a mess, though I think some of your cases are overly complicated. For consistency with how monster stat blocks are written, I'd go with
Apply all damage that is of the base type of the weapon, as as single block; it matches the magical state of the weapon. This is
Magical or nonmagical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage (e.g. 1d6)
Magical damage from the static magic modifier.
Attribute damage from attack stat.
Bonus untyped static damage from class features and feats like Rage bonus, Dueling, Hexblade's curse, or Great Weapon Master.
Bonus untyped die from features like Sneak Attack, presumably same p/s/b
Bonus untyped die from spells, like Hunter's Mark, presumably of the same p/s/b as weapon, inherently magical.
Bonus damage that explicitly matches the base type, such as Gloomstalker
Apply additional typed damage. Generally irrelevant if it's magic, resistances other than p/s/b rarely care, but should match the source where it matters.
Magical damage from a weapon's typed damage die, like a flaming sword that does a bonus 1d6 fire
Bonus static damage from class features and feats with damage types, like the Lifedrinker invocation's +5 necrotic damage.
Bonus die with damage type from features, except where the damage type matches the weapon as above.
Bonus die with damage types from spells, like Hex, inherently magical.
Unfortunately, the order of effects in step 2 is not terribly obvious, and is the kind of thing card games spend quite a bit of verbiage on. I would generally apply in the order I list them above (weapon effects, then character effects, then spell effects) but we don't have anything giving hints about what is intended.
Are there other abilities in the game for which damage order matters? If not, it doesn't matter how many damage types you can do or what order.
I'm not aware of any player abilities that would cause an issue. Outside of abilities that reduce max HP, I can't think of any monster abilities that damage order matters.
Are there other abilities in the game for which damage order matters?
It matters in cases where an ability prevents X damage (in a way other than temporary hit points) without a type restriction, the trigger causes multiple damage types, and the target is resistant to one or more of the types. This is a fairly rare case.
It matters in cases where an ability prevents X damage (in a way other than temporary hit points) without a type restriction, the trigger causes multiple damage types, and the target is resistant to one or more of the types. This is a fairly rare case.
That's a pretty succinct way to put it.
Barbarian/Abjuration Wizard multiclass
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Already covered that in my previous reply. The target would take their share and their max hp would be reduced by that much (because it's damage taken - not dealt) and the fighter wouldn't have their max hp reduced because the reduction only applies to the target as per the wording of the ability.
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).
And an Abjuration ward is not anything other than THP of the wizard, it’s tracked in his own hit point area of his character sheet, It is not a separate creature,
and the wizard “takes” all the damage dealt to his ward.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.
Let's consider concentration checks. Would you require the full check for the damage done to the Thp or Ward? Again, I hear your argument for the thp (whether or not I agree with it) but the ward I'm not so keen on as it's mean to actually be a separate entity.
There's nothing in the rules that says that you don't make concentration checks as normal when damage is taken to your THP, be that THP from a spell, a class ability, a feat like Inspiring Leader, whathaveyou. THP
are just HPthat don't stack from multiple sources, and which aren't restored with healing spells. Feel free to houserule otherwise.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.
For argument's sake, let's agree with Thp.Now going with the Ward:Sage Advice:
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.
And here's another forum discussing the ward in regards to concentration checks: (the 7th post down links another sage advice verifying that Thp damage is still considered 'taking damage'
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3fg9im/concentration_checks_and_the_abjuration_wizard/
So that being said, the specific damage soaked by the ward would have no effect on the targeted wizard as it's not Thp
Edit: Another Sage advice verifies that Thp is irrelevant when calculating concentration checks. I'm still uncomfortable reducing the max hp for the vampire bite while you still have thp remaining but if this is what I'm using to back my argument, it seemed to bite me back (but when the next line does agree that the ward is not the same as thp and is not a buffer but different than the wizard's total);
If I have 10 temporary hit points and I take 30 damage from an attack while concentrating on a spell, what is the DC of the Constitution save to maintain my concentration? The DC is 15 in that case. When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you’re still taking damage, just not to your real hit points.
In contrast, a feature like the wizard’s Arcane Ward can take damage for you, potentially eliminating the need to make a Constitution saving throw or, at least, lowering the DC of that save.
I would note that max hp reduction doesn't actually say that it reduces current hp if above max, so the vampire bite might be:
You can't have more HP than your max. They would be 15/15.
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).
SAC is not rules, and nothing in the Aburation Wizard's class features creates the ward as a seperate creature or a non-creature with THP.
However, I will concede that I have been 100% incorrect up to this point. Chapter 9 is quite clear, if I had bothered to read it instead of acting like I know what I'm talking about:
Mia culpa, I should have read the text. Damage dealt to THP is not damage that you "take", it is THP that you have "lost." I am shook, to my very core, this changes almost everything.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Somewhat similar - Say you're a Monk targeted with a ranged attack that deals piercing and poison damage. A Monk can use Deflect Missiles to reduce the incoming damage. Let's say the attack would deal 9 piercing damage and 7 poison damage. The Monk rolls a d10 and adds Dex mod and Monk level and ends up with 10. Would you say the Monk takes 0 piercing damage and 6 poison damage or no damage at all? This happened on Critical Role and Matt Mercer ruled that since the attack did no piercing damage it couldn't deal the poison damage. I'm fairly certain he house-ruled that because I found nothing in RAW to support it but I also don't have the monster's stat block so there may be something in it that says deals X poison damage if the target took the piercing damage.
Wait, so you're saying that vampire bites to Thp DON'T reduce your max? (what I originally had thought too)
I am so confused
The general rule is "it does what it says it does unless some other effect overrides". Thus, it reduces 16 damage to 6 (it is not specified the order in which effects are reduced, but I would assume in the same order they're applied in the stat block. This could be relevant if the target is resistant to only one of the damage types of the attack).
Yes Noxx, I am saying that the THP rules I quoted seem to suggest that damage dealt to THP is not damage you have "taken." The Vampire still has "dealt" 10 necrotic damage, but you have only "taken" the amount of necrotic that hit your true HP.
This is not at all how I have ever understood this to work, but when I went to read it closer I was surprised. I'm pretty sure its the case that all other sections of the rules contradict this and treat all damage dealt as damage taken, but I'm inclined to think that the THP section is the more specific exception to the general rule.
There's still the problem that 5e has no system for order of operations for damage types, so if you're dealt 10 piercing+10 necrotic and you have THP and really want to avoid "taking" the necrotic damage due to an ability like that of the Vampire... I'm just not really sure what the DM would decide there, or whether they'd let you dictate which damage the THP absorbed.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I wouldn't let players dictate that, but you're right there are no rules for a damage order of operations. In the case of vampires, I'd rule that the piercing damage comes first. It seems the most fair and logical to me. If the player decides, they just choose the necrotic to reduce the THP and then take the remainder of the bite damage. Applying the piercing damage then the necrotic damage doesn't allow for such shenanigans, but also doesn't double penalize the character with THP.
The obvious order is "the order they're listed in the stat block".
Okay, but what about player abilities? If I hit a creature with my sword, the following seperate damage types happen:
All, some, or none of these could apply to a character's attack. If/when it matters, do the characters get to micromanage to the DM which go to the creature's THP ward, and which to its base HP?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Player abilities are a bit of a mess, though I think some of your cases are overly complicated. For consistency with how monster stat blocks are written, I'd go with
inherently magical.Unfortunately, the order of effects in step 2 is not terribly obvious, and is the kind of thing card games spend quite a bit of verbiage on. I would generally apply in the order I list them above (weapon effects, then character effects, then spell effects) but we don't have anything giving hints about what is intended.
Are there other abilities in the game for which damage order matters? If not, it doesn't matter how many damage types you can do or what order.
I'm not aware of any player abilities that would cause an issue. Outside of abilities that reduce max HP, I can't think of any monster abilities that damage order matters.
Probably true, no point knowing how something "works" if it doesn't actually "do anything" :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It matters in cases where an ability prevents X damage (in a way other than temporary hit points) without a type restriction, the trigger causes multiple damage types, and the target is resistant to one or more of the types. This is a fairly rare case.
That's a pretty succinct way to put it.
Barbarian/Abjuration Wizard multiclass