'So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."'
That's a fix, if that were to be published that'd be fine. I think my fix would be "when you deal (at least 1 point of) bludgeoning damage with an attack". The part in brackets is unnecessary in this wording, because it makes it clear that it's triggered by damage but that damage most come from an attack, but for a few words it keeps it crystal clear.
'So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."'
That's a fix, if that were to be published that'd be fine. I think my fix would be "when you deal (at least 1 point of) bludgeoning damage with an attack". The part in brackets is unnecessary in this wording, because it makes it clear that it's triggered by damage but that damage most come from an attack, but for a few words it keeps it crystal clear.
Not so. These feats also work with spell attacks that deal the appropriate types of damage, in this case things like Magic Stone and Arcane Hand/Bigby’s Hand.
Ok guys, no personal attacks. Keep it about rules.
The topic of whether 0 damage is not damage has been covered (it isn't damage).
Currently the topic of contention is whether an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is an attack the deals bludgeoning damage when it is made or after it deals damage
I'm of the opinion that an attack that deals bludgeoning damage is always so by definition. Urth seems to be of the opinion that it is in a quantum state of uncertainty until after it is measured, afterward it will have always been so.
The crusher feat says “when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage,” it does not say “when a creature takes bludgeoning damage from an attack you make.” The feat does not require that any damage actually be taken by the target of the attack, only that the attack has a damage type of bludgeoning.
Damage implies being hurt or 'damaged.' If you receive 0 damage, you weren't damaged. So the baby smacks you. But it deals no damage. Therefore, you weren't hit by bludgeoning damage.
Close. My opinion is that dealing damage is a part of the trigger of the effect and, per the DMG, it can only trigger if it causes at least 1 point of damage.
The crusher feat says “when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage,” it does not say “when a creature takes bludgeoning damage from an attack you make.” The feat does not require that any damage actually be taken by the target of the attack, only that the attack has a damage type of bludgeoning.
Damage dealt ≠ damage taken
But, again, the DMG says that an effect which happens "when you deal damage" requires that damage ≥ 1. In this case, depending on your reading of the condition, this could apply even given this.
The crusher feat says “when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage,” it does not say “when a creature takes bludgeoning damage from an attack you make.” The feat does not require that any damage actually be taken by the target of the attack, only that the attack has a damage type of bludgeoning.
Damage dealt ≠ damage taken
But, again, the DMG says that an effect which happens "when you deal damage" requires that damage ≥ 1. In this case, depending on your reading of the condition, this could apply even given this.
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
Close. My opinion is that dealing damage is a part of the trigger of the effect and, per the DMG, it can only trigger if it causes at least 1 point of damage.
But it triggers on hit not damage. As evidenced by "hit" in the the trigger. The trigger does not require damage amount.
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
Bingo. I don't think it is possible to answer this question from just the rules. It's going to be a DMs judgement call.
References to the text that are relevant (but still not helpful):
PHB195: "On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." - Implies that, even in the event of STR being negative, the strike still deals bludgeoning damage equal to 0.
PHB198: "Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury. [...] For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage." - Implies that any effect that triggers on doing/taking damage would be negated if the hit only takes away temporary HP, which does not seem to be the intent. Therefore, "damage" does not strictly mean "losing HP".
DMG242: "When an attack hits, it deals damage." - Straightforward, doesn't say can deal damage, just says it deals damage, period.
Others have referenced a passage that states abilities that trigger on successful attacks and abilities that trigger on dealing damage are distinct, but I cannot find them in the text. Page reference would be useful.
All in all, there's not a simple answer. It comes down to whether you/your DM feel that a damage type is inherent to an attack (ie warhammers do bludgeoning damage inherently, even if that damage is 0) or is predicated on the roll of the damage die (ie a warhammer that does no damage therefore does not do bludgeoning damage inherently). It all comes down to whether the TYPE or the AMOUNT of damage comes first, effectively.
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
That point is not one I find to be at all ambiguous. The text is clear: when you hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. That’s not hypothetical. It’s not an attack that could under some circumstances deal bludgeoning damage or an attack that would deal bludgeoning damage if the target weren’t immune, it’s an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. It’s hard to be any plainer than that.
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
That point is not one I find to be at all ambiguous. The text is clear: when you hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. That’s not hypothetical. It’s not an attack that could under some circumstances deal bludgeoning damage or an attack that would deal bludgeoning damage if the target weren’t immune, it’s an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. It’s hard to be any plainer than that.
Then the question comes down to whether 0 damage is damage. There's arguments both for and against. A longsword does not do bludgeoning damage, period. An unarmed strike from a 8 STR character does 0 bludgeoning damage. Are those the same thing? It is unclear.
A: Does a warhammer attack deal bludgeoning damage?
OR
B: Does a warhammer attack deal damage, which if greater than 0, is bludgeoning damage?
In the case of A, then it triggers Crusher no matter what. In the case of B, then it needs to deal positive damage to trigger Crusher.
It all comes down to: Is the type of damage correlated to the method of doing damage (ie the weapon/attack) or to the damage itself (ie the value of the damage)?
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
That point is not one I find to be at all ambiguous. The text is clear: when you hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. That’s not hypothetical. It’s not an attack that could under some circumstances deal bludgeoning damage or an attack that would deal bludgeoning damage if the target weren’t immune, it’s an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. It’s hard to be any plainer than that.
Then the question comes down to whether 0 damage is damage. There's arguments both for and against. A longsword does not do bludgeoning damage, period. An unarmed strike from a 8 STR character does 0 bludgeoning damage. Are those the same thing? It is unclear.
That’s exactly what the question is, yeah. So if Urth can source their DMG statement about features that require damage dealt not working if damage is reduced to 0, that answers the question.
SA Compendium, page 13: "Can damage be reduced to 0 by resistance or another form of damage reduction? There is no damage minimum in the rules, so it is possible to deal 0 damage with an attack, a spell, or another effect." - Clearly states that 0 damage is a thing and that it is still considered "dealing damage".
PHB146: "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D [...and...] the damage they deal when they hit" - Implies that damage (value and type) are inherent to the weapon, not to the amount.
DMG247: "An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal." - Not directly relevant, but implies that you can do damage (and therefore a damage type) to something without necessarily doing harm to that something.
Unfortunately, it appears I have misread a previous post in this thread. That post has a quote which I believed was from the DMG, but which was actually taken from a Stackexchange post. I really should have looked it up first.
The quote was: "A feature that triggers "when you are hit/when you hit" and a feature that triggers "when you are damaged/when you deal damage" are not quite the same thing. The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0, whereas the "damage" kind would trigger only if the damage was 1 or greater."
I think this actually holds true, though. If a feature activates "when you deal damage", I don't think you could legitimately activate it on "dealing zero damage". But this is not from the DMG, so please accept my apologies.
With regards to the SA and PHB about zero damage, I don't feel they are as helpful as they appear. The intent of them seems to be to show that there is no minimum damage (you don't automatically deal at least 1 damage) and that you cannot have negative damage (restoring hit points to the target) instead of "dealing zero damage is still dealing damage". However, that's just my reading, a literal RAW reading would be different. But I've been told off for sticking to literal RAW readings before so I'm trying to consider intent and other angles, too.
No worries, Urth. I discovered the same thing. It was slightly unclear in the original reference.
(Removed because it asked a question already answered while I was typing.)
It's a very strange case. For instance, now there's an issue of whether Absorb Elements or Hellish Rebuke would activate when receiving 0 damage.
I'd say Absorb Elements can (don't know why you would), since it is phrased "when you take acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage", and 0 damage is an amount that can be dealt/taken.
I'd say Hellish Rebuke is more difficult to adjudicate, since it is phrased "which you take in response to being damaged by a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see", and taking 0 damage could be seen as different from "being damaged".
'So how about we just fix it to say this: "when you hit a creature with a weapon or an unarmed strike that deals bludgeoning damage..."'
That's a fix, if that were to be published that'd be fine. I think my fix would be "when you deal (at least 1 point of) bludgeoning damage with an attack". The part in brackets is unnecessary in this wording, because it makes it clear that it's triggered by damage but that damage most come from an attack, but for a few words it keeps it crystal clear.
Not so. These feats also work with spell attacks that deal the appropriate types of damage, in this case things like Magic Stone and Arcane Hand /Bigby’s Hand.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm just going to quote this because the thread is moving too fast and I doubt anyone had a chance to read the edit before the page turned...
The crusher feat says “when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage,” it does not say “when a creature takes bludgeoning damage from an attack you make.” The feat does not require that any damage actually be taken by the target of the attack, only that the attack has a damage type of bludgeoning.
Damage dealt ≠ damage taken
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Damage implies being hurt or 'damaged.' If you receive 0 damage, you weren't damaged. So the baby smacks you. But it deals no damage. Therefore, you weren't hit by bludgeoning damage.
Close. My opinion is that dealing damage is a part of the trigger of the effect and, per the DMG, it can only trigger if it causes at least 1 point of damage.
But, again, the DMG says that an effect which happens "when you deal damage" requires that damage ≥ 1. In this case, depending on your reading of the condition, this could apply even given this.
Where does the DMG say this?
Anyone speaking in absolutes here doesn't understand the issue, I think. It strictly comes down to whether "when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" means that the attack would cause bludgeoning damage (damage amount, even 0, agnostic), or whether it requires positive bludgeoning damage to be dealt.
"An attack that deals bludgeoning damage" could both imply that 0 bludgeoning damage qualifies since the emphasis is on the attack hitting OR it could imply that both hitting the attack and dealing some amount of bludgeoning damage is required.
RAW is unclear on this, since the only rules that qualify abilities that trigger on attacks or trigger on damage use different language that is plainer that this.
But it triggers on hit not damage. As evidenced by "hit" in the the trigger. The trigger does not require damage amount.
Actually, I would like to know too. I can't find it by searching the quoted rule.
Bingo. I don't think it is possible to answer this question from just the rules. It's going to be a DMs judgement call.
References to the text that are relevant (but still not helpful):
PHB195: "On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." - Implies that, even in the event of STR being negative, the strike still deals bludgeoning damage equal to 0.
PHB198: "Temporary hit points aren't actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury. [...] For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage." - Implies that any effect that triggers on doing/taking damage would be negated if the hit only takes away temporary HP, which does not seem to be the intent. Therefore, "damage" does not strictly mean "losing HP".
DMG242: "When an attack hits, it deals damage." - Straightforward, doesn't say can deal damage, just says it deals damage, period.
Others have referenced a passage that states abilities that trigger on successful attacks and abilities that trigger on dealing damage are distinct, but I cannot find them in the text. Page reference would be useful.
All in all, there's not a simple answer. It comes down to whether you/your DM feel that a damage type is inherent to an attack (ie warhammers do bludgeoning damage inherently, even if that damage is 0) or is predicated on the roll of the damage die (ie a warhammer that does no damage therefore does not do bludgeoning damage inherently). It all comes down to whether the TYPE or the AMOUNT of damage comes first, effectively.
That point is not one I find to be at all ambiguous. The text is clear: when you hit with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. That’s not hypothetical. It’s not an attack that could under some circumstances deal bludgeoning damage or an attack that would deal bludgeoning damage if the target weren’t immune, it’s an attack that deals bludgeoning damage. It’s hard to be any plainer than that.
Then the question comes down to whether 0 damage is damage. There's arguments both for and against. A longsword does not do bludgeoning damage, period. An unarmed strike from a 8 STR character does 0 bludgeoning damage. Are those the same thing? It is unclear.
Put another way:
A: Does a warhammer attack deal bludgeoning damage?
OR
B: Does a warhammer attack deal damage, which if greater than 0, is bludgeoning damage?
In the case of A, then it triggers Crusher no matter what. In the case of B, then it needs to deal positive damage to trigger Crusher.
It all comes down to: Is the type of damage correlated to the method of doing damage (ie the weapon/attack) or to the damage itself (ie the value of the damage)?
That’s exactly what the question is, yeah. So if Urth can source their DMG statement about features that require damage dealt not working if damage is reduced to 0, that answers the question.
More relevant sources:
SA Compendium, page 13: "Can damage be reduced to 0 by resistance or another form of damage reduction? There is no damage minimum in the rules, so it is possible to deal 0 damage with an attack, a spell, or another effect." - Clearly states that 0 damage is a thing and that it is still considered "dealing damage".
PHB146: "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D [...and...] the damage they deal when they hit" - Implies that damage (value and type) are inherent to the weapon, not to the amount.
DMG247: "An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal." - Not directly relevant, but implies that you can do damage (and therefore a damage type) to something without necessarily doing harm to that something.
Unfortunately, it appears I have misread a previous post in this thread. That post has a quote which I believed was from the DMG, but which was actually taken from a Stackexchange post. I really should have looked it up first.
The quote was: "A feature that triggers "when you are hit/when you hit" and a feature that triggers "when you are damaged/when you deal damage" are not quite the same thing. The "hit" kind of feature would trigger on a hit even if the damage is 0, whereas the "damage" kind would trigger only if the damage was 1 or greater."
I think this actually holds true, though. If a feature activates "when you deal damage", I don't think you could legitimately activate it on "dealing zero damage". But this is not from the DMG, so please accept my apologies.
With regards to the SA and PHB about zero damage, I don't feel they are as helpful as they appear. The intent of them seems to be to show that there is no minimum damage (you don't automatically deal at least 1 damage) and that you cannot have negative damage (restoring hit points to the target) instead of "dealing zero damage is still dealing damage". However, that's just my reading, a literal RAW reading would be different. But I've been told off for sticking to literal RAW readings before so I'm trying to consider intent and other angles, too.
No worries, Urth. I discovered the same thing. It was slightly unclear in the original reference.
(Removed because it asked a question already answered while I was typing.)
It's a very strange case. For instance, now there's an issue of whether Absorb Elements or Hellish Rebuke would activate when receiving 0 damage.
I'd say Absorb Elements can (don't know why you would), since it is phrased "when you take acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage", and 0 damage is an amount that can be dealt/taken.
I'd say Hellish Rebuke is more difficult to adjudicate, since it is phrased "which you take in response to being damaged by a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see", and taking 0 damage could be seen as different from "being damaged".
Sigh. Language.