D&D 5E Rule question: Temporary HP and concentration checks

[jgsugden]

You can read that last line in multiple ways. If you focus on the first half of that sentence, it says you take 7 damage. Insert the word "more" before that last damage and it clearly, beyond doubt, means that the temp hp loss is also damage. If you think about what that more would be doing, it would just be clarifying the language... not explicitly changing anything.

It seems pretty clear to me that the intent, and actual wording, of these passages aims to do is make you factor in Temp HPs when determining when, and how hard, a concentration check should be.

 

[Oofta]

RAW suggests that damage to temporary hit points are not actually damage to you, as clarified by the Temporary Hit Point rules that specify how much damage you actually take at the end of the calculation. However, Sage Advice has suggested the opposite of this. So it may be possible that they intended for THP to count as actual damage to you and they just goofed the RAW.

I've been in groups that played it both ways, and... while the implications are pretty massive, it doesn't slow down play or anything. Actually works in the monsters favor more.

Tweets or actual rules? Because the tweets have been decreed unofficial. Not that I always follow the sage advice column either of course.

I think the most straightforward interpretation is that damage is damage whether it comes from temp or "real" HP.

 

[Ancalagon]

My instinctive response was "yes, you have to roll," but when I went to look up the rules, I found it was not as clear-cut as I originally thought. Here are the concentration rules:



And the temporary hit points rules:


Note the phrasing of the final sentence: "If you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage... then take 2 damage." The way this is phrased suggests that the temporary hit points are intervening before the damage actually hits: "Take 7 damage" is replaced with "lose the temporary hit points and take 2 damage." So "take 4 damage" would be replaced with "lose 4 temporary hit points and take no damage," which would mean no Concentration save.

Purely based on the text of the temporary hit point rules, this is the logical reading. However, this has somewhat far-reaching implications. It means that any time a PC with temporary hit points gets hit by something with a rider effect (e.g., poison), you have to consider whether preventing the damage should prevent the rider effect as well.

It also makes temporary hit points far more valuable to spellcasters. Armor of Agathys, for example, would be a must-have spell for bladelocks. That isn't necessarily a bad thing--bladelocks kinda need the help--but it's something to be aware of.

Ultimately, I think I would go with my original response, but that is my personal ruling, based less on the RAW than on a sense of "do not open a can of worms if you don't have to."

(If you put stock in Sage Advice, Jeremy Crawford says you have to make the save. However, he does not justify this with any citations from the rules.)

I had exactly the same concern. But I think that I will follow Crawford's ruling. I guess you could see it like this - the arrow hits you in the neck and you are startled! The magical defense protects you, but the scare means a concentration check is required.

*HOWEVER* I would make it a flat DC 10 unless actual damage bleeds through. So I'm following his ruling, but I'm not all in.

Thank you everyone who posted

 

[Harzel]

When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points. For example, if you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage, you lose the temporary hit points and then take 2 damage.

Note the phrasing of the final sentence: "If you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage... then take 2 damage." The way this is phrased suggests that the temporary hit points are intervening before the damage actually hits:

I guess it might suggest that. But only if you ignore the previous sentence. The second sentence is an example that uses the phrase "take damage" ambiguously. The first sentence is a clear statement of the general rule. It doesn't seem sensible to me to put more stock in the second.

"Take 7 damage" is replaced with "lose the temporary hit points and take 2 damage." So "take 4 damage" would be replaced with "lose 4 temporary hit points and take no damage," which would mean no Concentration save.

Purely based on the text of the temporary hit point rules, this is the logical reading.

I'm not sure how one can say that a statement that asserts both that you "take 7 damage" and that you "take 2 damage" in the same situation has any logical reading. Although if you just append "to your normal hit points" to make it a proper instantiation of the general rule, then all the problems would seem to go away.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

My instinctive response was "yes, you have to roll," but when I went to look up the rules, I found it was not as clear-cut as I originally thought. Here are the concentration rules:



And the temporary hit points rules:


Note the phrasing of the final sentence: "If you have 5 temporary hit points and take 7 damage... then take 2 damage." The way this is phrased suggests that the temporary hit points are intervening before the damage actually hits: "Take 7 damage" is replaced with "lose the temporary hit points and take 2 damage." So "take 4 damage" would be replaced with "lose 4 temporary hit points and take no damage," which would mean no Concentration save.

Purely based on the text of the temporary hit point rules, this is the logical reading. However, this has somewhat far-reaching implications. It means that any time a PC with temporary hit points gets hit by something with a rider effect (e.g., poison), you have to consider whether preventing the damage should prevent the rider effect as well.

It also makes temporary hit points far more valuable to spellcasters. Armor of Agathys, for example, would be a must-have spell for bladelocks. That isn't necessarily a bad thing--bladelocks kinda need the help--but it's something to be aware of.

Ultimately, I think I would go with my original response, but that is my personal ruling, based less on the RAW than on a sense of "do not open a can of worms if you don't have to."

(If you put stock in Sage Advice, Jeremy Crawford says you have to make the save. However, he does not justify this with any citations from the rules.)

To me that sounds like a very “rules lawyery” way to read it. As in “I’m going to parse the language to my favor” rather than what is truly logical.

And to me, that means you can’t look at only the final sentence, you look at it as a whole. Starting with: “When you have temporary hit points AND TAKE DAMAGE...” then “... any LEFTOVER DAMAGE...”

Right in the first sentence it’s already saying you take damage. And how can you have leftover damage if you didn’t take damage?

But, to be fair, looking at the complete rule, it starts off by saying “...they are a buffer to damage...” and at the end it says “...they can still absorb damage...”

So it then is a question of intent, and the simplest answer is yes, it’s damage and you need to make a check, and intent is also clear by the Sage Advice answer.

In the end, if your table wants to allow it there is obviously nothing wrong with it as long as you are consistent. Recognizing that it complicates other things as you noted.

I guess it’s partially a question of what you think hit points are. Aside from those you get at 1st level, I consider them a mix of skill and stamina, with a little luck mixed in. So temporary hit points could be like an adrenaline boost and a bit of extra luck. In which case you wouldn’t need to make a check.

A different case - what if they have Heavy Armor Master and they are hit for 2 points of damage? In that case you are hit, but take no damage.

I didn’t find a Sage Advice answering that.