Chill Touch:"On a hit, the target takes 1d8 Necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn."
Necrotic Absorption: "If the creature is subjected to Necrotic damage, it takes no damage and instead regains a number of Hit Points equal to the Necrotic damage dealt."
If Chill Touch was cast on a creature with Necrotic Absorption, would the creature gain the Necrotic damage and then not be able to recover any more Hit Points until the start of the casters turn?
Ah, the worst named spell (does not chill and does not require you to touch).
In that situation the target takes no damage but is prevented from healing. Chill Touch prevents healing on a HIT, even if the creature takes no damage.
Agreed, the weird highlights are incredibly distracting.
Also agreed, the rider of chill touch is not dependent on the damage but on the hit, so even if it hits but deals no damage it would prevent the healing.
By the rules in XGtE for simultaneous effects, whoever's turn it is gets to decide what happens in what order. In almost every case this will mean the caster of chill touch gets to decide what happens first, and they will almost always say the healing prevention applies first, which will mean no damage and no healing.
Well, the chill touch effect has two parts, so either they both go or they both don't. You, as the "decider of the order" don't get to take those apart. They both occur on a hit, and I think that is what the OP was trying to accentuate with all the highlighting.
If it was just some other necrotic damage spell without the rider, there would be no question, would there? The damage of inflict wounds would be turned into healing on the creature with necrotic absorption, right? Do you think that the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects come into play there?
If the spell were radiant spirit shroud, then there would still be no question, right? The creature wouldn't be able to gain hit points until its next turn. Do you think the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects comes into play there?
From my personal answers to those questions, I'm sure of my own ruling on this. But I'd sure think about those questions before you jump to any conclusions (or use rules that... probably aren't serving the game being invoked here).
Well, the chill touch effect has two parts, so either they both go or they both don't. You, as the "decider of the order" don't get to take those apart. They both occur on a hit, and I think that is what the OP was trying to accentuate with all the highlighting.
If it was just some other necrotic damage spell without the rider, there would be no question, would there? The damage of inflict wounds would be turned into healing on the creature with necrotic absorption, right? Do you think that the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects come into play there?
If the spell were radiant spirit shroud, then there would still be no question, right? The creature wouldn't be able to gain hit points until its next turn. Do you think the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects comes into play there?
From my personal answers to those questions, I'm sure of my own ruling on this. But I'd sure think about those questions before you jump to any conclusions (or use rules that... probably aren't serving the game being invoked here).
The question comes up because the damage and blockage of healing come into effect simultaneously, which is why the rules on simultaneous effects are relevant.
Inflict wounds doesn't have a second simultaneous effect so there's no reason to question what happens. In the case of spirit shroud, the creature would gain the health and could still regain hit points from other sources as well, because the effect that would block this is dependent on them taking the damage, not on the spell hitting.
Chill touch has two simultaneous effects that aren't dependent on each other to happen. In this particular case, the order in which they happen is actually important, if the damage happens first, the target gains life, if the blockage of healing happens first the target neither gains nor loses life. Since the effects are simultaneous based on the same trigger, the rules from XGtE come into play, so whoever's turn it is when the spell is cast (usually the caster) gets to decide which comes first.
So you're saying that because they take damage and are prevented from healing, it works differently than if they took damage or were prevented from healing each individually? That the single sentence is two separate effects? I think I disagree.
So you're saying that because they take damage and are prevented from healing, it works differently than if they took damage or were prevented from healing each individually? That the single sentence is two separate effects? I think I disagree.
So you're saying that both happen, they heal and are prevented from healing resulting in their hp being both higher and not higher?
I am saying that single sentence is one effect that would behave as if it were any other necrotic damage and any other spell that prevents healing: the creature takes no damage but cannot regain any hit points until its next turn. Because I think the answers to those two questions I posted above were fairly trivial.
Saying that a caster can choose to have their damage apply before the resistance/absorption of a monster is nonsensical in my book.
I am saying that single sentence is one effect that would behave as if it were any other necrotic damage and any other spell that prevents healing: the creature takes no damage but cannot regain any hit points until its next turn. Because I think the answers to those two questions I posted above were fairly trivial.
Saying that a caster can choose to have their damage apply before the resistance/absorption of a monster is nonsensical in my book.
No one suggested that the caster be able to apply their damage before resistance/absorption. The question was whether the damage happened first or the healing prevention because in a particular case the damage becomes healing.
So you're saying that because they take damage and are prevented from healing, it works differently than if they took damage or were prevented from healing each individually? That the single sentence is two separate effects? I think I disagree.
Well, yes. "And" and "or" are different words with different meanings and applications in language and logic.
Also, yes. A single sentence that says "effect 1 and effect 2 happen" is a single sentence with 2 separate effects.
Schoolhouse rock explains it pretty well. 🎶Conjunction junction, what's your function?🎶
So you're saying that because they take damage and are prevented from healing, it works differently than if they took damage or were prevented from healing each individually? That the single sentence is two separate effects? I think I disagree.
Well, yes. "And" and "or" are different words with different meanings and applications in language and logic.
Also, yes. A single sentence that says "effect 1 and effect 2 happen" is a single sentence with 2 separate effects.
Schoolhouse rock explains it pretty well. 🎶Conjunction junction, what's your function?🎶
But that wasn't really the point. The point was that absorbing damage and being prevented from healing from one source should fundamentally work the same as being prevented from healing and also absorbing damage by two sources. And that stupid XGtE rule apparently makes it so that isn't the default answer anymore.
But I guess you’re right, we’re stuck with it being this way now.
But that wasn't really the point. The point was that absorbing damage and being prevented from healing from one source should fundamentally work the same as being prevented from healing and also absorbing damage by two sources. And that stupid XGtE rule apparently makes it so that isn't the default answer anymore.
But I guess you’re right, we’re stuck with it being this way now.
Without the XGtE rule it's DM's choice instead of caster's choice.
Also, it does fundamentally work the same as if it were two different sources. If two different sources cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on the same trigger, they fall under the simultaneous rule. If they cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on different triggers, whichever trigger comes first is the one that happens first.
I don't think Simultaneous Effects rule apply to the effect order of a single source like a spell, but more when multiple sources apply their effect simultaneously such a spell and a feature all occuring at the same time.
For Necrotic Absorbtion vs chill touch, i'd say the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn only, similar to how an immunity to a damage type generally doesn't prevent other riders from taking effect.
But that wasn't really the point. The point was that absorbing damage and being prevented from healing from one source should fundamentally work the same as being prevented from healing and also absorbing damage by two sources. And that stupid XGtE rule apparently makes it so that isn't the default answer anymore.
But I guess you’re right, we’re stuck with it being this way now.
Without the XGtE rule it's DM's choice instead of caster's choice.
Also, it does fundamentally work the same as if it were two different sources. If two different sources cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on the same trigger, they fall under the simultaneous rule. If they cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on different triggers, whichever trigger comes first is the one that happens first.
I mean, a DM is free to rule however they like. But it is still completely foreign to me to say that a triggered effect wouldn't occur immediately after the triggering part, and therefore after anything else that occurs simultaneously with that trigger. That seems trivial to me, and any other ruling is necessarily more complicated.
Anyway, luckily, the XGtE rule gives the same outcome most of the time.
Oh, and I’m just going to add this as an edit to not bump the thread, but there is a SAC entry on chill touch: the intention is that it prevents healing, whether or not the creature takes damage.
Chill Touch: "On a hit, the target takes 1d8 Necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn."
Necrotic Absorption: "If the creature is subjected to Necrotic damage, it takes no damage and instead regains a number of Hit Points equal to the Necrotic damage dealt."
If Chill Touch was cast on a creature with Necrotic Absorption, would the creature gain the Necrotic damage and then not be able to recover any more Hit Points until the start of the casters turn?
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....
Ah, the worst named spell (does not chill and does not require you to touch).
In that situation the target takes no damage but is prevented from healing. Chill Touch prevents healing on a HIT, even if the creature takes no damage.
Why have you randomly highlighted words from the quotes? That is painful to read.
I agree with Mog, both the damage and the healing prevention happen at the same time.
But there is enough wiggle room that a DM could rule otherwise.
Agreed, the weird highlights are incredibly distracting.
Also agreed, the rider of chill touch is not dependent on the damage but on the hit, so even if it hits but deals no damage it would prevent the healing.
By the rules in XGtE for simultaneous effects, whoever's turn it is gets to decide what happens in what order. In almost every case this will mean the caster of chill touch gets to decide what happens first, and they will almost always say the healing prevention applies first, which will mean no damage and no healing.
Well, the chill touch effect has two parts, so either they both go or they both don't. You, as the "decider of the order" don't get to take those apart. They both occur on a hit, and I think that is what the OP was trying to accentuate with all the highlighting.
If it was just some other necrotic damage spell without the rider, there would be no question, would there? The damage of inflict wounds would be turned into healing on the creature with necrotic absorption, right? Do you think that the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects come into play there?
If the spell were radiant spirit shroud, then there would still be no question, right? The creature wouldn't be able to gain hit points until its next turn. Do you think the XGtE rules on simultaneous effects comes into play there?
From my personal answers to those questions, I'm sure of my own ruling on this. But I'd sure think about those questions before you jump to any conclusions (or use rules that... probably aren't serving the game being invoked here).
The question comes up because the damage and blockage of healing come into effect simultaneously, which is why the rules on simultaneous effects are relevant.
Inflict wounds doesn't have a second simultaneous effect so there's no reason to question what happens. In the case of spirit shroud, the creature would gain the health and could still regain hit points from other sources as well, because the effect that would block this is dependent on them taking the damage, not on the spell hitting.
Chill touch has two simultaneous effects that aren't dependent on each other to happen. In this particular case, the order in which they happen is actually important, if the damage happens first, the target gains life, if the blockage of healing happens first the target neither gains nor loses life. Since the effects are simultaneous based on the same trigger, the rules from XGtE come into play, so whoever's turn it is when the spell is cast (usually the caster) gets to decide which comes first.
So you're saying that because they take damage and are prevented from healing, it works differently than if they took damage or were prevented from healing each individually? That the single sentence is two separate effects? I think I disagree.
So you're saying that both happen, they heal and are prevented from healing resulting in their hp being both higher and not higher?
I am saying that single sentence is one effect that would behave as if it were any other necrotic damage and any other spell that prevents healing: the creature takes no damage but cannot regain any hit points until its next turn. Because I think the answers to those two questions I posted above were fairly trivial.
Saying that a caster can choose to have their damage apply before the resistance/absorption of a monster is nonsensical in my book.
No one suggested that the caster be able to apply their damage before resistance/absorption. The question was whether the damage happened first or the healing prevention because in a particular case the damage becomes healing.
Well, yes. "And" and "or" are different words with different meanings and applications in language and logic.
Also, yes. A single sentence that says "effect 1 and effect 2 happen" is a single sentence with 2 separate effects.
Schoolhouse rock explains it pretty well. 🎶Conjunction junction, what's your function?🎶
??? That would be nonsensical. Good thing no one even considered that let alone said it.
Spell does 2 things. No specific order is given to these 2 things. Caster decides order. That's it.
The damage absorption still applies when the damage is taken, they just can't increase their HP.
But that wasn't really the point. The point was that absorbing damage and being prevented from healing from one source should fundamentally work the same as being prevented from healing and also absorbing damage by two sources. And that stupid XGtE rule apparently makes it so that isn't the default answer anymore.
But I guess you’re right, we’re stuck with it being this way now.
Without the XGtE rule it's DM's choice instead of caster's choice.
Also, it does fundamentally work the same as if it were two different sources. If two different sources cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on the same trigger, they fall under the simultaneous rule. If they cause absorbed damage and healing blockage based on different triggers, whichever trigger comes first is the one that happens first.
I don't think Simultaneous Effects rule apply to the effect order of a single source like a spell, but more when multiple sources apply their effect simultaneously such a spell and a feature all occuring at the same time.
For Necrotic Absorbtion vs chill touch, i'd say the target
takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and itcan't regain hit points until the start of your next turn only, similar to how an immunity to a damage type generally doesn't prevent other riders from taking effect.I mean, a DM is free to rule however they like. But it is still completely foreign to me to say that a triggered effect wouldn't occur immediately after the triggering part, and therefore after anything else that occurs simultaneously with that trigger. That seems trivial to me, and any other ruling is necessarily more complicated.
Anyway, luckily, the XGtE rule gives the same outcome most of the time.
Oh, and I’m just going to add this as an edit to not bump the thread, but there is a SAC entry on chill touch: the intention is that it prevents healing, whether or not the creature takes damage.
Noted, and fixed
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....