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

[CapnZapp]

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.

You know, I read your post three times, and I still don't understand.

Where in your post do you even address the issue. (Granted, I'm late to this party so maybe you have already stated your position earlier, I didn't reread the whole thread, it got too confusing)

In my example, do you end up with 3 or 1 damage? Does fire resistance help or not? What page do you point to for your answer?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Harzel]

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.

Context matters. Here is the section in its entirety.

Resistance and Vulnerability

Here’s the order that you apply modifiers to damage: (1) any relevant damage immunity, (2) any addition or subtraction to the 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.

To me, it seems clear that the last two sentences indicate the (sole) intent of 'one' in (3) and (4): if you have, for instance, fire resistance from two sources, you still take 1/2 damage from fire, not 1/4 damage. Also, the phrase 'a type of damage' indicates to me that the entire protocol is probably intended to apply only to damage of a single type.

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.

Not meaning to be harsh, but doesn't that seem just a little bit nonsensical to you? The rule text is ambiguous, but your suggested reading subverts the nice, simple underlying concept that X resistance reduces damage of exactly type X. Given there is a reading that preserves that concept, I would certainly choose that one over one that introduces a complicating exception for no particular benefit.

 

[CapnZapp]

Context matters. Here is the section in its entirety.



To me, it seems clear that the last two sentences indicate the (sole) intent of 'one' in (3) and (4): if you have, for instance, fire resistance from two sources, you still take 1/2 damage from fire, not 1/4 damage. Also, the phrase 'a type of damage' indicates to me that the entire protocol is probably intended to apply only to damage of a single type.



Not meaning to be harsh, but doesn't that seem just a little bit nonsensical to you? The rule text is ambiguous, but your suggested reading subverts the nice, simple underlying concept that X resistance reduces damage of exactly type X. Given there is a reading that preserves that concept, I would certainly choose that one over one that introduces a complicating exception for no particular benefit.

I really feel typing out the words would really help in such a complicated case like this.

So, you argue for the interpretation "allow resistance to count as much as possible"?

But what does this mean for immunity (as opposed to resistance)? The immediate resolution is, I guess, that fire immunity stops the fire damage, which lets the spirit shield be free to work on the slashing damage.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

I really feel typing out the words would really help in such a complicated case like this.

So, you argue for the interpretation "allow resistance to count as much as possible"?

But what does this mean for immunity (as opposed to resistance)? The immediate resolution is, I guess, that fire immunity stops the fire damage, which lets the spirit shield be free to work on the slashing damage.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Yes, immunity first then adders.

I am also firmly in the camp of resistance to type only applies to that type.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, immunity first then adders.

I am also firmly in the camp of resistance to type only applies to that type.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

But there is no resistance that we are talking about. This is about an ability that prevents a certain amount of damage, and if you can only prevent "one source" of damage.

Maybe the simple example of a flaming sword is confusing people?

Let's say that the DM homebrews a spell that deals 1 fire, 1 cold, 1 lightning, 1 acid, 1 force, and 1 necrotic damage. That is 6 damage each with a different damage type.

I activate spirit shield and roll a 6, allowing me to prevent 6 damage from an attack.

However, according to my DM, I can only prevent 1 source of damage, so I will take 5 damage, I just get to choose the one element to ignore.

I just wanted to see if this was a common ruling, based on some RAW that I was unaware of, or my DMs houserule that is separate from how people normally run the game.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Trolls don't have fire vulnerability. They care about fire damage because it shuts down their regeneration. You did this same thing with the OP's question, assuming it was talking about resistance when it wasn't.

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

Of course you apply all modifiers. Nobody is suggesting that Spirit Shield should not be applied.

The question is what it applies to. If a fighter hit you with a sword for 5 slashing, and then a wizard fire bolted you for 4 fire, you certainly could not apply Spirit Shield to both. You'd have to pick one. The OP's DM argues that a flame tongue sword is the same thing: Two separate instances of damage dealing and you have to pick one to shield against. Based on how such hits are typically described in the rules, I'm inclined to disagree; I think a flame tongue hit is a single event and you can apply Spirit Shield to both the slashing and the fire damage. But the RAW is not 100% clear and the passage you quoted does nothing to clarify it. You've found a very nice hammer; but this question ain't a nail.

And there remains the secondary question: Say your troll buddy is hit for 5 slashing and 4 fire (total 9), and you reduce the total by 7. We agree that you can apply the reduction to the entire hit. So the troll will take 2 damage. That's all well and good, but the question is: Of the 2 points of damage that get through, is any of it fire damage? If yes, the troll can't regenerate. If no, it can regenerate as normal. So far as I can tell, RAW doesn't even hint at an answer to this one.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am also firmly in the camp of resistance to type only applies to that type.

Sorry to harp on about clarity, but I really don't understand what this means.

(I am not facetious. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Words of razor-sharp clarity

Thank you.

 

[5ekyu]

Sorry to harp on about clarity, but I really don't understand what this means.

(I am not facetious. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say.)

Some seem to have been arguing that an attack doing wd6 flamr and 1d6 bludgeon would be one large pool of damage cut all in half by fire resistance. They seem to read the "one resistance" differently than i do.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

But there is no resistance that we are talking about. This is about an ability that prevents a certain amount of damage, and if you can only prevent "one source" of damage.

Maybe the simple example of a flaming sword is confusing people?

Let's say that the DM homebrews a spell that deals 1 fire, 1 cold, 1 lightning, 1 acid, 1 force, and 1 necrotic damage. That is 6 damage each with a different damage type.

I activate spirit shield and roll a 6, allowing me to prevent 6 damage from an attack.

However, according to my DM, I can only prevent 1 source of damage, so I will take 5 damage, I just get to choose the one element to ignore.

I just wanted to see if this was a common ruling, based on some RAW that I was unaware of, or my DMs houserule that is separate from how people normally run the game.

Since "from one source" is nowhere in the barbarian spirit shield, nor is "from one type" i would apply the damage shield vs each of the types in turn, evenly as possible. So six or more on the shield roll would be full coverage. If you rolled 4 i would likely allow defender to pick two that get thru along the simultaneous event rule lines. It will cut both ways.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app