Ran into a Rug of Smothering the other night, bad encounter.
Another character hit the Durn Thing that was wrapped around me and I took half the damage, as I expected.
But when my [restrained condition] disadvantage attack hit as I tried to cut my way out, I TOOK HALF THAT DAMAGE TOO!
I can understand attacks on an enveloping creature from outside dealing half the damage to the enveloped, because the damage is directed inwards. But if directed outwards it shouldn't transfer damage any more than being restrained by webs or a drunk barbarian.
RAW for damage transfer doesn't discriminate. If the enveloping takes damage, from whatever source, half that damage goes to the enveloped.
You can come up with all sorts of logical explanations.
My favorite at the moment - the rug is naturally resistant to all damage but when hit the rug convulses constricting the restrained creature even more. The strength of the additional constriction is proportional to the damage taken. The damage transfer mechanic is just a much more concise way to try to describe it.
This might be a particularly good way to describe it since normally creatures engulfed (or swallowed) by another creature are considered to have total cover so they can't be hit and don't take damage. (Giant toad, behir, kraken etc).
The only other creature in the monster manual with the ability is the cloaker and similar reasoning could be applied.
You could come up with different reasons why the smothered player also takes half damage while attacking the rug but I think the idea behind the creature is the smothered target is supposed to use their action to end the grapple, not attack the rug (unless you know it's very close to death). Better to try and escape to avoid taking more damage at the start of your turn plus half the damage you would have dealt to the rug.
I don’t necessarily think there’s any conflict here because you can rationalize it with any of the reasons listed above. That being said, if I was DM in a session and somebody who is wrapped up in the rug tried to fight their way out, I would not make use of damage transfer in that case
The mechanic works better with the description of how the cloaker attaches...to your head only. That way, 99% of even the attacks from the grappled creature are coming from outside the cloaker (unless you happened to have a bite attack). So RAW and RAI probably line up there.
Its a little murkier with the rug; how the creature smothers the victim is only described in the description, not the trait/ability. If the rug rolled up completely around the victim, I see the issue and would probably rule that the victims attacks did not trigger the damage transfer, but if it just covered the victims face and torso leaving the arms free I could see most attacks still coming from "outside" the rug, even from the victim. In that case, the victims attacks still would trigger the damage transfer
Ran into a Rug of Smothering the other night, bad encounter.
Another character hit the Durn Thing that was wrapped around me and I took half the damage, as I expected.
But when my [restrained condition] disadvantage attack hit as I tried to cut my way out, I TOOK HALF THAT DAMAGE TOO!
I can understand attacks on an enveloping creature from outside dealing half the damage to the enveloped, because the damage is directed inwards. But if directed outwards it shouldn't transfer damage any more than being restrained by webs or a drunk barbarian.
RAW for damage transfer doesn't discriminate. If the enveloping takes damage, from whatever source, half that damage goes to the enveloped.
I have to ask, is this the RAI?
And if so, what's the logic behind it?
You can come up with all sorts of logical explanations.
My favorite at the moment - the rug is naturally resistant to all damage but when hit the rug convulses constricting the restrained creature even more. The strength of the additional constriction is proportional to the damage taken. The damage transfer mechanic is just a much more concise way to try to describe it.
This might be a particularly good way to describe it since normally creatures engulfed (or swallowed) by another creature are considered to have total cover so they can't be hit and don't take damage. (Giant toad, behir, kraken etc).
The only other creature in the monster manual with the ability is the cloaker and similar reasoning could be applied.
You could come up with different reasons why the smothered player also takes half damage while attacking the rug but I think the idea behind the creature is the smothered target is supposed to use their action to end the grapple, not attack the rug (unless you know it's very close to death). Better to try and escape to avoid taking more damage at the start of your turn plus half the damage you would have dealt to the rug.
So you guys think in this case RAW reflects RAI? No conflict?
I don’t necessarily think there’s any conflict here because you can rationalize it with any of the reasons listed above. That being said, if I was DM in a session and somebody who is wrapped up in the rug tried to fight their way out, I would not make use of damage transfer in that case
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The mechanic works better with the description of how the cloaker attaches...to your head only. That way, 99% of even the attacks from the grappled creature are coming from outside the cloaker (unless you happened to have a bite attack). So RAW and RAI probably line up there.
Its a little murkier with the rug; how the creature smothers the victim is only described in the description, not the trait/ability. If the rug rolled up completely around the victim, I see the issue and would probably rule that the victims attacks did not trigger the damage transfer, but if it just covered the victims face and torso leaving the arms free I could see most attacks still coming from "outside" the rug, even from the victim. In that case, the victims attacks still would trigger the damage transfer
Hrm. Well, I'm still gonna run my games the same way I have been. As always, anyone else's game is a throw of the dice.