I doubt it are designed to be able to be casted on one self. As it is a bond with another. But the only cast requirements are A) willing creature and B) with in 60ft. Both will apply to yourself.

So it would be working as just +1 ac and saving throw for 1 hour, which are pretty nice, special for a none-concentrate spell. Trouble just is that it is a 2nd level spell, so you are very limited in spell slots.

It also does not state that you can't have multiply version of this active. So example one on yourself, and one on another person. Then effective reducing overall damage from second target by 25%, as you will have resistance to damage taken from the other person (they take 50% due to resistance, then you take 50% of the transferred with resistance on yourself too, meaning 50%=25%).

I would argue that you aren't able to cast it on yourself. As it are against the idea of the spell.

However, if you are a rule bender (or what ever term you are using), there are nothing per say there say you can't cast it on yourself.

Quote from Lungo >>

 

It also does not state that you can't have multiply version of this active. So example one on yourself, and one on another person.

 

 

Beyond 20

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it does. It says "It also ends if the spell is cast again on either of the connected creatures."

So if you cast it on someone first, you are considered the other creature within the "either of the connected creatures" option, and thus casting it on anyone else, yourself included, would cancel the spell. 

I'm pretty sure the intent was to have the spell target someone that isn't yourself, but they could have added that correction with tasha's and did not. So I guess you could target yourself as long as you wear two platinum rings?

Reread the spell bud

Shame that not all paladins get access to this spell it'd be perfect for redemption paladin.

Tasha added it to the paladin's spell list. It should be accessible to all paladins now

What is the benefit of this regarding damage? Both take the same resisted damage. So if surrounded by a lot of enemies if your bonded creature takes X amount of hits in one round you'll also take all of them, plus X amount of hits on your turn. You're basically doubling the amount of hits you take per round. 

Ever been in a situation where you'd gladly drop yourself to 0 just to have that teammate that just got zeroed not be zeroed any longer?

It is built on the assumption that treating the party's HP ad one big bar instead of the separate pools they are would cause Problems.

Jeremy Crawford has explicitly answered this question. You can not target yourself.

Quote from neveruseanamerequired >>

What is the benefit of this regarding damage? Both take the same resisted damage. So if surrounded by a lot of enemies if your bonded creature takes X amount of hits in one round you'll also take all of them, plus X amount of hits on your turn. You're basically doubling the amount of hits you take per round. 

You are essential sharing health pools. For example, a squishy caster with very low HP now has an higher effective health pool. Couple that with increased AC and Save, to help migration of damage.

Think it of a way to transfer HP from the paladin to the caster. That also means that healing done on the paladin (with his touch healing) indirect can benefit the second target. 

munke

What do y'all think of the Battle Smith casting this on his steel defender?  I'm hitting 5th level after the next couple sessions and I'm trying to make the defender a little more durable.   I've only had to revive him once after a battle, and abandon him once when we went all Brave Sir Robin in the last encounter.

Since it doesn't cost anything to replace him, I'm not sure it's worth it.  We are in Barovia, so it's hard to find a safe haven to rest in.  

The only downside I can envision is both of us getting hit by an AOE spell or ability.   In that case,  I could potentially take a fireball x1.5 

For the ring material for this spell, when it states "...which you and the target must wear for the duration", does this mean you specifically have to wear it on your finger (or toe I guess) or could you put it on a rope or chain and wear it like a necklace?

Since it doesn't specifically say, you and your DM would have to make that determination. There are many tables that likely ignore that requirement, though it makes for fun RP! I do recommend not ignoring the gold cost, though it is one time only and does not use up the material components (meaning you can continue to use the same rings).

But have fun with it if the DM allows! Doesn't necessarily have to be rings.

Quote from Jyanga >>

'Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage'. If I have resistance that damage type, my resistance applied?

Bear Totem Barbarian, Oath of the Crown Paladin ... casts this on a squishy Party Member, and then Rages. 

If the Squishy gets hit for 20 damage it resists it and takes 10 damage, and then you take 10 damage and resist that down to 5, allowing you to actively Tank, protecting other party members whilst barely taking any damage yourself.

EDIT: Or just get the Barbarian a ring of Spell Storing and whack one of these in there. First Round the Cast this and Rage, whilst charging into the fray.

Me an Artificer, my buddy a Cleric. We cast it on each other and then go skipping into the melee. The increased AC outweighs the damage debuff and is very well worth it.

Situation:

- A wizard drinks a potion of invulnerability. This gives resistance to damage to the wizard.

- A paladin casts warding bond on the wizard. This gives resistance to damage to the wizard. Also, each time the wizard takes damage, you take the same amount of damage.

As always resistences do not stack nor count twice (this is not what the question is about). The question is about rules as written versus intended. 

A damage dealer deals 50 damage to the wizard.

Resistance only counts once. So I am expecting that 25 damage will be resisted, and nothing more. 

Rules as written:

- The wizard is dealt 50 damage. Because it has resistance, the wizard takes only 25 damage. 

- The paladin takes the same amount of damage.

Total damage taken: wizard 25, paladin 25 = total 50

If the paladin did not cast warding bond, the wizard would also take 25 damage, because of the rrsistance granted by the potion of invulnerability. Total damage would be 25.

But now, because warding bond is cast, the paladin also takes 25 damage and the total damage to the party taken is 50.

Netto effect of the warding bond: 25 extra damage.

Is this the intention of the warding bond spell?

Or is the intention of warding bond that the damage taken by the wizard, so 25 (the damage that reduces the wizard's hitpoints), is distributed (split) over the wizard and the paladin, so they each take 12.5 damage?

My take on the matter is the latter. The paladin absorbs half of the hitpoints loss because of his bond. That is what is intended (and the original spell in earlier additions got a bit botched by an ill chosen application of the resistance mechanism). 

We're not the first ones, it appears: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/32022-do-resistances-stack ;-)

RAW, resistances of the same type don't stack (effects that say "damage is halved" do, on the other hand). Otherwise, you could end up acquiring resistances from different sources (one from a ring, one from a spell, one from a class ability, etc. etc.), and it wouldn't make sense if it kept on halving and halving the damage, as D&D 5E is build towards bounded accuracy (and the stacking in 3.5 and Pathfinder kinda got out of hand, especially at higher levels). It's as with (dis)advantage: either you have it, or you don't.

In this particular case (at which I was present, lol), I'd probably argue (after a good night's rest and some re-thinking ;-)) that the wizard would be able to choose which resistance effect he would like to absorb the damage with. In this case, choosing the resistance from the potion of invulnerability would then be the most logical one to pick, since it would halve the damage without redirecting some of the damage to the paladin. In other cases, it's usually the case that the "bigger" bonus / penalty prevails, but that's hard to apply here, since both effects basically give the same effect. I'd agree with you that it wouldn't make sense to automatically deal damage to the paladin, since that would mean more damage was dealt in total then when the Warding Bond hadn't been cast and the wizard would only have the invulnerability. But IMHO, I don't think damage should be halved twice, since RAW, resistances don't stack.

Warding Bond is "only" a 2nd level spell; if you'd allow it to stack with other things, you can easily get some unwanted combos IMHO. Regardless, there are still some uses to put it on an already protected recipient. There's things like Dispel Magic, which might cause the potion's effect to be dispelled, so the Warding Bond could function as a safety net in specific situations.

One of my players is an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, and Warding Bond isn't showing up as a choice for him to take. He has 2nd level spells. Are we missing something? 

I just used my forge cleric to make the rings with his channel divinity, since it can make anything of non magical from metal. so i took my 100 Gp in gold and turned it in to 2 rings worth of 50 gp.