D&D 5E How do you rule multiple damage types versus reductions

So, I already know what my DM rules, we haven't gotten into details about why he does but I know he isn't going to change it.

But I am curious, since he is so certain and adamant, if this is a common ruling based upon a rule I am not aware of, or just his interpretation of something. I DM as well, and I've run into a few things like this where I'm not sure if I've just been ignoring a rule or if there is no rule and it's just a houserule of that particular DM.


According to my DM when you use an ability that reduces damage (such as Ancestral Barbarians Spirit Shield or a Bard's Cutting words) you can only reduce the damage from a single source.

So, if an attack does 6 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, and my shield reduces 10 points of damage, I can only choose to reduce the 6 slashing or the 4 fire, not both. So I will be taking damage either way.

Now, I always thought you subtracted from the total damage for instance like this, so you could actually reduce that attack to zero damage.

Is there a rule here or a general consensus, or is this just this single DM's houserule?

Cutting words reduce a "damage roll", which I would personally rule as the total, but I could see as applying to one of the damage rolls.

Ancestral guardian is resistance to "the attack" which I would rule as the whole attack no matter the damage type. If you counted damage types separately, then 5 fire damage and 5 slashing damage would both round down 2, for 4 total damage.
Also, if someone delt 10 fire and 10 slashing, and you had fire resist and a 10 shield, you could use the shield on the slashing, and resist on the fire, and only take 5 damage.


So while I disagree with his ruling (mostly for simplicities sake), I don't see it as being unfair.

If you'd like the Official Rules, here it is from Xanathar's Guide (under "Ten Rules to Remember"):

Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any additions or subtractions to damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability.

Even if multiple sources give you resistance to a type of damage you're taking, you can apply resistance to it only once. The same is true of vulnerability.

So point (3) would seem to indicate that you DM is correct, RAW.

I would rule that the damage reduction applies to all damage from a single attack. I think your DM's rulings are marginal at best. I'd be curious to know how your DM handles concentration checks when a caster is hit by an attack with multiple damage types - does he require multiple concentration checks? (Of course, the danger in asking this if it hasn't come up is that your PC's life might get worse...)

I would rule that a flaming sword counts as a single source of damage, but I've also never been in a situation where it would matter. I also don't understand what your DM would have to gain by ruling otherwise.

Ilbranteloth said:

If you'd like the Official Rules, here it is from Xanathar's Guide (under "Ten Rules to Remember"):

Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any additions or subtractions to damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability.

Even if multiple sources give you resistance to a type of damage you're taking, you can apply resistance to it only once. The same is true of vulnerability.

So point (3) would seem to indicate that you DM is correct, RAW.

Click to expand...

I read it as saying something different from what you describe: you can't apply a specific type of resistance more than once to quarter or eighth damage. For instance, a tiefling couldn't use Fire Shield in order to double dip on fire resistance. This notion was actually mentioned in the Horizon Walker reveal video where they talked about how that archetype's capstone inadvertently stacked with resistance before they revised it for print.

I don't think it is saying you couldn't apply fire resistance to the fire damage of a flaming sword AND slashing resistance to the blade of a flaming sword.

Ilbranteloth said:

If you'd like the Official Rules, here it is from Xanathar's Guide (under "Ten Rules to Remember"):

Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any additions or subtractions to damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability.

Even if multiple sources give you resistance to a type of damage you're taking, you can apply resistance to it only once. The same is true of vulnerability.

So point (3) would seem to indicate that you DM is correct, RAW.

Click to expand...

To clarify the specific point (@Harzel and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] as well), I am not talking about resistance at all. Merely the shield.

It's come up a few times and I kept meaning to look up various rulings. Finally did tonight and realized I couldn't find anything that applied.

I don't think it is unfair per se, but the situation I keep running into is I reduce damage a player takes by 2d8, I roll and 11 and the damage was 3 slashing and 4 fire, I can only stop the slashing or the fire. So, no matter what I do my ally is taking either 3 or 4 damage and I'm wasting around 7 points of protection that has no hope of stopping them from taking that extra damage.

And no, concentration checks are dealt with as a single chunk of damage. It is only the player's ability to reduce damage taken via these abilities that seems to have this "multi-source" ruling.

And so, I end up wasting a significant chunk of my 6th level ability when enemies do multiple types of damage, and I'm not sure if that is intended or not and it is kind of irritating to see a high roll to reduce a low amount of damage because I cannot effect the entire attack, only part of it.

Reading the text of the ability, it seems very non-specific. In other words, not identifying any specific kinds of damage, rather just reducing overall damage from an attack by the amount you roll on the dice. So in my ruling, it would work on all damage that is applied from one successful attack, regardless of how many sources of damage are applied with that roll. I would also say that the damage blocked should be done in a logical order. Say the attack deals slashing and fire damage, the shield would block the slashing first and then the fire, if there are any leftover points to apply.

Ilbranteloth said:

If you'd like the Official Rules, here it is from Xanathar's Guide (under "Ten Rules to Remember"):

Here's the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any additions or subtractions to damage, (3) one relevant damage resistance, and (4) one relevant damage vulnerability.

Even if multiple sources give you resistance to a type of damage you're taking, you can apply resistance to it only once. The same is true of vulnerability.

So point (3) would seem to indicate that you DM is correct, RAW.

Click to expand...

but also note #2 which listed additions and reductions with the word any... seems to me you could have multiple additions and subtractions at work.

i also don't see it as restricting you to only one type of resistance, just only one application of a given one.

barring more info, i would not agree with the Gm ruling about the reduction. the mindset seems to be thinking that a damage roll is a discrete part of the overall damage done.

But for instance when a 1d8 sword with +2d6 sneak hits, i consider that a 1d8+2d6 damage roll, not two different damage rolls.

5ekyu said:

but also note #2 which listed additions and reductions with the word any... seems to me you could have multiple additions and subtractions at work.

i also don't see it as restricting you to only one type of resistance, just only one application of a given one.

barring more info, i would not agree with the Gm ruling about the reduction. the mindset seems to be thinking that a damage roll is a discrete part of the overall damage done.

But for instance when a 1d8 sword with +2d6 sneak hits, i consider that a 1d8+2d6 damage roll, not two different damage rolls.

Click to expand...

I don't see how "one relevant resistance" could be read "all relevant resistances, but only one application of each one," I think it's pretty clear. But to dig a bit further:

The fact that it says "any" relevant damage immunity (so if you are attacked with fire and lightning, and have immunity to both, both apply); "any" additions and subtractions (again, all apply), and then switches to "one" relevant damage resistance gives me the impression that even if there are several relevant resistances, you only pick one.

The reason is that based on this description, the expectation is that the damage from a single attack is treated as a single pool of damage.

For example, an attack that causes 8 points fire and 8 points slashing, and you're resistant to fire and slashing, is addressed by:

Totaling the damage (16) applying immunity and modifiers (none), and one source of resistance (halve the damage), which leaves you with 8 points of damage.

The other method, treat each separately, ends up with the same result: 8 fire halved (4) + 8 slashing halved (4) = 8.

Or the OP numbers: half of 6 (3) + half of 4 (2) and you end up with the same amount as 10 halved. It's just easier to total the numbers and divide by half.

Note that the actual math can vary if you're only resistant to one thing (as normal). So, 9 fire 1 slashing, resistant to fire = 5 points of damage. However, 1 fire 9 slashing is also only 5 poits of damage, even though the resistance was "really" against 1 point of fire damage.
[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] - The real problem is that your shield blocks x amount of damage. That type of DR is a 3e thing, not 5e, which uses resistance to halve the damage caused by a specific type of damage. So you're stuck on the idea that there's "wasted" DR.

In 5e terms, the shield could provide resistance to everything. In that case, you'd simply take half damage from every attack. This, as far as I know, was intentional in the design of 5e. They seem to be of the opinion that if an attack hits, it should generally do some damage, and not be negated because of DR. There are some exceptions, of course, but in most cases they stuck with the resistance approach rather than DR.

However, now that I look at it, the official answer comes to your rescue because of that very fact. Point #2 says you apply ANY additions and subtractions to damage. That means that you apply the 10 point reduction to damage. The attack would still be figured with all damage types added together first. I suspect that your DM won't like that, and the better answer would be to simply switch the shield to resistance instead of the DR approach.