Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Aura of the Guardian against damage that drops the paladin to 0?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 7451869" data-attributes="member: 17607"><p>You could certainly rule this at your table, but it wouldn't be correct based on the published rules:</p><p></p><p>"[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.)</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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 "<em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>--</em></p><p><em>Pauper</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pauper, post: 7451869, member: 17607"] 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 "[i]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[/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Aura of the Guardian against damage that drops the paladin to 0?
Top