D&D 5E Aura of the Guardian against damage that drops the paladin to 0?

[Hatox]

Hey everyone,

I have a redemption paladin in my game, and he had a theoretical question that I couldn´t answer.
This is probably one of those "just do it as you wish at your table"-things but just wanted to know if anybody had an idea how to handle it RAW.

Lets say we have the redemption paladin and his friend the fighter who both have only 20/60 hit points left.
Now they both stand in a fireball that deals 25 damage, is the paladin allowed to use his reaction to activate aura of the guardian or would it only be allowed if he took <20 damage?

Could be an interesting way to keep a friend standing.

 

[Salthorae]

Fun question!

I would say only if the paladin took less than 20 points of damage because the Aura of the Guardian ability says “when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage” you get to do a reaction to activate.

Since they are taking the damage at the same time as you, I’d say the paladin can’t react to the damage of someone else if they took enough damage to fall unconscious and start dying from the same attack they are trying to shield.

It’s one of those hard questions of simultaneity that action/round based games generate. If the trigger for Aura of Guardians was somehow related to seeing a “spell caster cast a spell you throw up a warding shield” or something then I would allow it, but because the trigger is based on someone else taking damage and you’re taking the same damage at the same time, it it knocks you out you can’t react.

That’s how I’d rule it at my table.

 

[CAFRedblade]

Players can take their reaction in response to attacks, or other stimuli. But that is an excellent question. Does he drop to 0 hp, and as he is doing so shield his friend and ally, saving him. Or do they drop simultaneously. The trigger says taking damage, might work, may rule it gives an automatic death save failure, as you take on additional damage outside of you going to 0hp...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the Paladin is left with more than 0 hp, they can use their reaction to take damage for the other character, even if they subsequently fall below 0. If the paladin is dropped below 0, they are incapacitated, and therefore cannot use their reaction.


It has to work this way, otherwise a paladin on 0hp can reduce the damage of another character without paying the cost.

 

[jaelis]

If the Paladin is left with more than 0 hp, they can use their reaction to take damage for the other character, even if they subsequently fall below 0. If the paladin is dropped below 0, they are incapacitated, and therefore cannot use their reaction.


It has to work this way, otherwise a paladin on 0hp can reduce the damage of another character without paying the cost.

Certainly you can't use your reaction if you are incapacitated. But it isn't clear in the OP situation whether the paladin becomes incapacitated first or uses their reaction first.

I don't think there's a black and white answer, but I'd argue it should work. We can infer a few things about the timing:
- The paladin and the fighter both take damage at the same time since it is from the same effect
- The aura effect occurs before the fighter actually takes the damage, since the effect is described as the paladin taking the damage instead rather than healing damage already taken

I'd conclude that the aura effect takes place before the paladin takes any damage, and therefore before they become incapacitated. But if you disagreed with either assumption, you might come to a different conclusion.

At the table I would let it work because it's thematic, cool, and I generally try to let players do what they want. I would probably give the paladin a failed death save though, for taking damage when already at 0 hp.

 

[the Jester]

By the RAW, unless an ability says otherwise, reactions trigger *after* the trigger resolves. I'm not sure which Oath this particular aura is a part of and IDHMBIFOM, but if the wording doesn't say otherwise, the paladin is unconscious after the trigger resolves and therefore can't use his reaction.

 

[jaelis]

By the RAW, unless an ability says otherwise, reactions trigger *after* the trigger resolves. I'm not sure which Oath this particular aura is a part of and IDHMBIFOM, but if the wording doesn't say otherwise, the paladin is unconscious after the trigger resolves and therefore can't use his reaction.

The ability says "when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it." I would say that wording requires the reaction to happen before the damage actually occurs.

 

[the Jester]

The ability says "when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it." I would say that wording requires the reaction to happen before the damage actually occurs.

When the creature takes damage sounds like the trigger has to resolve first, to me, but obviously, YMMV.

 

[Pauper]

The ability says "when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it." I would say that wording requires the reaction to happen before the damage actually occurs.

You could certainly rule this at your table, but it wouldn't be correct based on the published rules:

"[W]hen a reaction has no timing specified, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes (DMG, p.252). In contract, an opportunity attack specifically takes place before its trigger finishes--" (Sage Advice Compendium, p.8) (The rule for Opportunity Attacks does say, "The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." This makes it an explicit timing specification, and an exception to the general rule.)

There are a couple of possible arguments to justify allowing the paladin to use her reaction on this ability, but I'm not sure they're persuasive:

1) The phrase "instead of that creature taking it" implicitly specifies that the ability goes before the 'taking damage' trigger. However, nothing in the ability says whether the original creature simply doesn't take the damage (the mundane meaning of 'instead') or takes the damage but has it immediately removed by the ability (which would explain why the ability says the paladin "magically takes that damage". "Because magic" can be used to support either interpretation here, so it may as well support the one that fits with the existing rules. (I'm assuming this is Jaelis's argument.)

2) Just because a spell deals damage to multiple targets doesn't mean that the spell deals that damage to all the targets simultaneously. The Basic Rules note that "f a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them" (BR, p.75), which implies that the damage is dealt simultaneously, but doesn't explicitly say so. (Note that there may be some rule in the DMG or other source that specifies this timing; if so, that ruling takes precedence over this interpretation.) So, for instance, if a spell's description implies that not all targets of that spell would take damage simultaneously (Burning Hands: "[A] thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips."), a DM might rule a creature closer to the origin of such a spell takes damage slightly sooner than one standing farther away, but still in the area of effect. Similarly for Fireball, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." Someone closer to the point of origin of the explosion could be considered to take the damage slightly sooner than someone farther away but still in the area of effect.

This becomes something of a complicated ruling, though, as it requires the player and DM to review every area-of-effect damage spell to determine how the damage is delivered, then interpret battlefield position (which might not be simple, given theater-of-the-mind play) to determine the precise order in which characters are damaged by the spell. (This becomes even more complicated at higher levels, when characters are more likely to be making use of three-dimensional combat via Fly and similar effects; take a gander at the description of Flame Strike versus Fireball to get a clearer picture of the complexity.) A DM would certainly be within her rights to say that the extra bookkeeping isn't worth the benefit and that all targets of an area spell take damage simultaneously simply to keep the game moving.

One final caveat: If a DM is allowing the paladin to perform this trick, keep in mind that this effectively makes the damage from the spell into two separate instances of damage, not just one big blob of damage. This means that in the original example, the paladin is in no danger from death by massive damage, because the damage from the spell on the paladin is occurring after the paladin has already been incapacitated by the redirected damage, and as such the second 'wave' of damage causes the paladin to automatically fail a death saving throw. (BR, p.76)

--
Pauper

 

[jaelis]

Yes if you read the ability as saying the paladin actually heals the damage after it is dealt, then the timing would be different. I think it is better to read "instead" in the ordinary way, but if you don't like that you don't have to.