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

[5ekyu]

Librantheloth. Because the resistance and vulnerability have the same wording, either approach is going to play out between them in a more or less balanced way if vulnerabilities and resistances are equally common. If its all one mish mesh simple, vulnerabilities will do more for mixed attacks just like resistances reduce more.

I dont have a problem sering the difference in wording as saying #1 and #2 can stack (+1 +1 +1 = +3) all together but #3 and #4 can only,multiply once (x2 x2 = x2) and that making sense and being significant without also reading into it (regardless of type vs type as long as one type matches.)

It seems inherently sensible that vuln to shock will not multiply bludgeon damage just because it comes in with some shock damage as well.

But that is an added bit of work that not all would find worthwhile..


Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[cbwjm]

If it is a shield that absorbs damage then I'd say it would apply against the total damage not just one type. I'm not sure how I would resolve a bard's cutting words, probably the total final damage after resistances and vulnerabilities have been applied.

 

[Chaosmancer]

[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.

I think that there is no way the DM would switch to "as a reaction give an ally resistance to the damage they just took" when I greatly suspect that they aren't going to switch to allowing my shield to prevent the full damage of an attack and I also think that the possibility of completely canceling an attack is better than giving resistance anyways.

Even if that means I'm going to constantly be juggling the damage types and trying to decide which one is worth reducing to get as much use out of my abilities as I can.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think that there is no way the DM would switch to "as a reaction give an ally resistance to the damage they just took" when I greatly suspect that they aren't going to switch to allowing my shield to prevent the full damage of an attack and I also think that the possibility of completely canceling an attack is better than giving resistance anyways.

Even if that means I'm going to constantly be juggling the damage types and trying to decide which one is worth reducing to get as much use out of my abilities as I can.

Fair enough. If it were my campaign, I don't have an issue with multiple resistances and/or DR. We have resistance due to armor, and allow double resistance (but no more) because we're looking for a bit more granularity. That resistance can result in no damage on a hit, and that's by design.

But yes, if that's the way your DM is going to run it, best to just make sure you're on the same page and go with it. That way you know what to expect.

 

[CapnZapp]

At first I too was confused. Then I realized this wasn't about the resistance/vulnerability rules, but about some specific spell.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Dausuul]

For those not familiar with Spirit Shield, it's a barbarian ability that says (paraphrasing slightly), "When a creature within 30 feet takes damage, you can use your reaction to reduce that damage by 2d6."

The question: If a creature gets hit by a flame tongue sword for 5 slashing and 4 fire damage, does that count as a single instance of taking 9 damage, which could be entirely negated with a good roll on the 2d6? Or does it count as two separate instances of taking damage, and the barbarian has to pick one to reduce, while letting the other through?

I'm inclined to say it should count as one instance of taking damage. That's how these attacks are generally worded: "You take X slashing and Y fire damage." Or, in the case of flame tongue weapons, "The attack deals X extra fire damage." Both imply a single damage "event."

(Of course, that brings up another question: Say you roll a 7 on the 2d6. Do you negate all of the slashing and some of the fire? Or all of the fire and some of the slashing? Or split the reduction evenly between both? Or do you get to pick? Most of the time it won't matter, but there are corner cases where it might: Maybe you've talked a troll into helping the party, and you want to prevent it taking fire damage. For simplicity's sake, I'd just let the barbarian pick.)

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.

I don't see how any of that is relevant. That tells you how to adjudicate multiple damage modifiers. There's only one damage modifier here; the question is how to apply a single modifier to multiple types of damage.

 

[cooperjer]

I'm on the same page as Dausuul. I would let the player pick which damage is reduced first. I don't think dividing the damage reduction evenly would be good because of rounding. If the selection of damage were taking longer than I felt needed to occur during game play, I would take hint from the Sleep spell. The damage reduction would occur first to the lowest quantity and then apply to the next lowest quantity. In the example given by Dausuul, 5 slashing and 4 fire damage is done. If 7 points of damage are reduced, then the 4 fire damage is negated and the 5 slashing is reduced by 3 points. Another way to look at it is to use the theme of the spirits protection. Maybe the spirits are more familiar with bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing, so they block that first. Maybe the spirits see non-bludgeoning, non-slashing, and non-piercing as a greater threat and block that first.

 

[Satyrn]

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

I think I'd have both the fire and slashing reduced, but I see how your DM would rule the way he does.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you.

Yes, obviously the devs will have to tell us how to adjudicate this case.

Where you have fire resistance, are taking a single 12 damage hit consisiting of 7 fire and 5 blunt, and roll 9 on your 2d6. Do you get to choose to negate all of the 5 blunt (end result you take 1 damage) or does spirit shield make resistance relatively worthless (if fire damage is negated first, you end up taking 3 damage).

For Heavy Armor Master, they found the time for a clear wording "While you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from non magical weapons is reduced by 3."

I'm sure one will be forthcoming here too, once the devs realize the issue.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

For those not familiar with Spirit Shield, it's a barbarian ability that says (paraphrasing slightly), "When a creature within 30 feet takes damage, you can use your reaction to reduce that damage by 2d6."

The question: If a creature gets hit by a flame tongue sword for 5 slashing and 4 fire damage, does that count as a single instance of taking 9 damage, which could be entirely negated with a good roll on the 2d6? Or does it count as two separate instances of taking damage, and the barbarian has to pick one to reduce, while letting the other through?

I'm inclined to say it should count as one instance of taking damage. That's how these attacks are generally worded: "You take X slashing and Y fire damage." Or, in the case of flame tongue weapons, "The attack deals X extra fire damage." Both imply a single damage "event."

(Of course, that brings up another question: Say you roll a 7 on the 2d6. Do you negate all of the slashing and some of the fire? Or all of the fire and some of the slashing? Or split the reduction evenly between both? Or do you get to pick? Most of the time it won't matter, but there are corner cases where it might: Maybe you've talked a troll into helping the party, and you want to prevent it taking fire damage. For simplicity's sake, I'd just let the barbarian pick.)


I don't see how any of that is relevant. That tells you how to adjudicate multiple damage modifiers. There's only one damage modifier here; the question is how to apply a single modifier to multiple types of damage.

It’s relevant because it answers your questions.

First, thanks for identifying the ability. They helps.

RAW, you total all of the damage first from a single attack. Then you apply all immunities, then all modifiers, then one resistance, then (in your case with the troll) one vulnerability.

The resistance and/or vulnerability applies to all of the damage that makes it through the other steps.

Likewise, the barbarian ability reduces the damage from the entire attack (apply all modifiers). So the DM in question is “doing it wrong” RAW.

This is for simplicity best I can tell. The times where the different damage types really make that much of a difference are few, and starting with the total for the single attack and then adding modifications streamlines things.