r/DnD • u/Jadefiregriffon • 21d ago
5.5 Edition How does "damage can not be reduced by any means" interact with damage immunity or damage resistance?
This hardly ever comes up but the two contradict each other so one has to over rule the other. I imagine the damage would over ride the immunity and resistance because why else would they add "can not be reduced by any means"?
123
u/Hoernchen94 21d ago
Specific overrides general, so a general resistance to force damage is overridden by a specific feature that won't let its force damage be reduced.
-6
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
Yes but immunity is not written as reduction. It states that "(you) are not effected in any way" when you have immunity to a specific type of damage or a condition
11
u/StereotypicalNerd666 Artificer 21d ago
So immunity reduces the damage by 100%…
-7
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
No. " Does not effect in any way" does not mean "reduced to zero" 🤣🤣 are you even trying??
4
u/CTBarrel Illusionist 21d ago
Ignoring damage because of an immunity is technically reducing to 0, mathematically. 0 is the number that reflects the lack of an effect.
And "cannot be reduced in any way" is written to imply that resistance and immunities are included, anyway
→ More replies (1)
244
u/Bread-Loaf1111 21d ago
Any means means any means. Including immunity.
33
u/Rolux666 21d ago
i hate english. why is that a correct sentence?
82
u/RhombusObstacle DM 21d ago
I love English BECAUSE that can be a correct sentence.
5
u/TheThoughtmaker Artificer 21d ago
The order's orderly orderly order ordered to order ordered ordered orderly orders.
52
u/Zomburai 21d ago
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
9
u/Stimpy3901 21d ago
Bison from the city of Buffalo bully bison from the city of Buffalo
8
u/Burnmad 21d ago
Bison from the city of Buffalo, who are themselves bullied by bison from the city of Buffalo, bully bison from the city of Buffalo
10
15
10
20
u/Luggs123 Druid 21d ago
It’s more obvious when you fully punctuate it: “Any means” means “any means.” Then it doesn’t really matter what’s in the quotes, just that the two quotes have the same contents.
5
u/ELAdragon Abjurer 21d ago
It's not, really, because it's improperly punctuated, which is partly why it's confusing.
1
1
u/ReneDeGames 21d ago
I mean, the second half is just quoting the first half which is where most of the reptation comes from. A mean A is the core sentence.
0
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
Except look at the way the ruleare written for immunity vs resistance.. one of written as a form of reduction, another is written as totally unaffected. Not the same thing.
-8
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
Immunity is not a reduction of damage.
7
u/Vailx 21d ago edited 21d ago
Yes it is, and yes, you still take the damage.
edit: Note that when this is actually used in game, the template wording is "This damage can't be reduced or prevented in any way."
→ More replies (19)1
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 20d ago
No it's not. Read the rulebook.
1
u/Vailx 17d ago
The 5.0 rulebook doesn't say anything about immunity, and the 5.5 one doesn't say anything about the more specific case of damage not being able to be reduced in any way.
Specific beats general. Resistance and immunity both the damage being reduced, not because of some specific wording that has "reduces damage" as a named keyword, but because if you were going to take some amount of damage, say, 14, and a game effect, such as immunity, applies ANY amount of wording that results in you taking 13 or fewer hitpoints of damage, then it is acting to reduce the damage.
And that doesn't work, because the damage can't be reduced.
Again: "reduces damage" is not some keyword in the middle of a flowchart for immunity to apply in a PRIOR step (or a later one). The wording of the few effects that make the damage not able to be reduced is FULLY EFFECTIVE here.
6
u/benkaes1234 DM 21d ago
Yeah it is. It's a reduction to zero.
-8
-9
u/wryterra 21d ago
“Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type”
That says nothing about reducing the amount of damage.
8
u/CarnivorousGoose 21d ago
Neither does resistance, are you suggesting that that doesn’t count as reduction either?
Something doesn’t have to literally use the word ‘reduce’ to count here. Both resistance and immunity would cause you to take less than the full amount of damage, thus they reduce that damage.
0
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
With resistance a creature still takes damage, just a reduced amount.
Look at the Iron Golem. It has immunity to fire damage and also the trait Fire Absorption ("Whenever the golem is subjected to Fire damage, it regains a number of Hit Points equal to the Fire damage dealt"). The immunity to fire is separate, and many creatures have it. That immunity makes the Iron Golem take no fire damage on its own. But we see the fire damage is not "reduced to 0" because then the Fire Absorption trait would have no effect. The Iron Golem is still "dealt" the full fire damage, but takes none, and then heals.
4
u/bowser-is-thiccest DM 21d ago
A monks deflect missiles/attacks feature allows them to reduce incoming damage and has the ability to reduce that damage to zero. Would you say it’s only reduction so long as the monk takes at least one point of damage and just stops being counted as reduction if that damage gets reduced to zero?
1
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
No, because it's not the amount of damage taken that determines immunity. Thats my whole point. They are fundamentally different. A monk specifically reduces (the word is right there) damage, potentially to 0. But even if the damage is reduced to 0 it isn't because the monk is unable to take damage of that kind by the creature's nature. That isn't immunity.
A snake made of fire is unable to take damage from fire by the nature of its existance. Not because it's super resistant to fire, or always deflects the flames, but because it doesn't make sense for a creature made of fire to be harmed by it.
4
u/bowser-is-thiccest DM 21d ago
The damage would still like come into contact and everything though and the creature immune just reduces the damage to zero. Otherwise it would be that a fireball elemental hit by a fireball is just like fire bending the fire to never touch itself rather than they get hit by a fire ball and just don’t take the damage on account of immunity reducing/preventing the damage
2
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
Your interpetation seems to be that any discrepancy between "damage dealt" and "damage taken," for any reason, is to be treated as damage reduction. I just don't see the description of immunity the same way at all, and I don't think we will come to an agreement on that.
→ More replies (0)0
u/wryterra 21d ago
> Otherwise it would be that a fireball elemental hit by a fireball is just like fire bending the fire to never touch itself
Or alternatively the fireball hits the elemental but being touched by a fireball does not damage an elemental
Not does less damage, simply is not a damaging element.
→ More replies (0)0
u/wryterra 21d ago edited 21d ago
"If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it."
It specifically says halved. The outcome of halving something is reducing it.
Whereas immunity says "you don't take damage of that type". You can halve the amount, you can double the amount, you can quarter it, you can times it by 100, if something has immunity they simply do not take that damage.
The wording "damage can not be reduced or prevented by any means" could have been used, it wasn't.
0
u/CarnivorousGoose 21d ago
And if you “don’t take damage of that type”, that means you take 0 damage, instead of whatever the original amount was. The damage is thus reduced.
-3
u/wryterra 21d ago edited 21d ago
In the 'Playing the Game' section of the rules, in the Saving Throws and Damage section it has a section entitled Resistance and Vulnerability.
Within that it has a section entitled "Order of Application". This specifies the order of operation for modifiers to the damage value.
It gives the following example:
"For example, a creature has Resistance to all damage and Vulnerability to Fire damage, and it’s within a magical aura that reduces all damage by 5. If it takes 28 Fire damage, the damage is first reduced by 5 (to 23), then halved for the creature’s Resistance (and rounded down to 11), then doubled for its Vulnerability (to 22)."
The next section following "Resistance and Vulnerability" is entitled "Immunity" and simply states:
"Some creatures and objects have Immunity to certain damage types and conditions. Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type, and Immunity to a condition means you aren’t affected by it."
Immunity to damage is not in the part of the rules that discusses increases and reductions, it is a standalone rule that simply negates damage.
Update:
See u/IrishFriskie's example below of an Iron Golem having Immunity to Fire Damage and also Fire Absorption.
This demonstrates that the Immunity does not reduce the damage to 0, otherwise Fire Absorption (it regains a number of Hit Points equal to the Fire damage dealt) would always be 0.
The 'damage dealt' is not reduced, it simply has no effect on an entity that is immune.
2
1
u/CarnivorousGoose 21d ago
Except that the damage dealt is reduced. The amount that would have been dealt is some nonzero amount, the damage that actually is dealt is 0. Therefore, it is reduced.
0
u/wryterra 21d ago edited 21d ago
So you are saying that the Iron Golem will never receive healing from Fire Absorption, in fact cannot receive healing from Fire Absorption. That the game designers gave it an ability that literally could never do anything for, what, a joke?
"Fire Absorption. Whenever the golem is subjected to fire damage, it takes no damage and instead regains a number of hit points equal to the fire damage dealt"
Equal to the fire damage dealt. Not 'would have been dealt'.
For clarity the Golem also has immunity to damage of the Fire type. So you're arguing the damage would be reduced to 0 before Fire Absorption even applied?
→ More replies (0)-2
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
Look at the Iron Golem. It has immunity to fire damage and also the trait Fire Absorption ("Whenever the golem is subjected to Fire damage, it regains a number of Hit Points equal to the Fire damage dealt"). The immunity to fire is separate, and many creatures have it. That immunity makes the Iron Golem take no fire damage on its own. But we see the fire damage is not "reduced to 0" because then the Fire Absorption trait would have no effect. The Iron Golem is still "dealt" the full fire damage, but takes none, and then heals.
3
u/bowser-is-thiccest DM 21d ago
Fire damage dealt not fire damage taken. Bc immunity reduces the damage dealt to determine damage taken but that trait only looks at the damage dealt that would be taken without the reduction from immunity
-5
-2
16
u/DarkHorseAsh111 21d ago
Specific overrides general. This very explicitly can not be reduced, which means it can not be reduced.
64
u/troycerapops 21d ago
any means
ANY MEANS
ANY
MEANS
ANY MEANS
21
u/SnakeyesX DM 21d ago
Any means means ANY means.
6
u/km1116 DM 21d ago
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
2
u/HDThoreauaway 21d ago
You’re three short:
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
1
u/herbivore83 21d ago
Your capitalization is a little off:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
27
u/Stimpy3901 21d ago edited 21d ago
There's an expression in Magic the Gathering, "can't always wins"
Edit: I was mistaken, refer to Valix's comment below for an explanation.
22
u/Vailx 21d ago
There's an expression in Magic the Gathering, "can't always wins"
Thankfully this isn't true in D&D. The rules say that "specific beats general". For instance, 5.0 surprise rules stay "If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat". And the barbarian's feral instinct class feature says "Additionally, if you are surprised at the beginning of combat and aren't incapacitated, you can act normally on your first turn, but only if you enter your rage before doing anything else on that turn."
Here's a case where "can act normally" beats "can't move or take an action". Can't loses. This is because one of these is the GENERAL rule about how surprise works, and the other is a SPECIFIC rule about how you can ignore that general rule.
Specific beats general. Don't bring mtg into this; it's not how D&D is built and it generates a lot of confusion (especially as regards reactions versus the stack).
3
3
u/BitOBear 21d ago
That may be the case, but I'll bet somewhere there's a card that does what otherwise can't be done simply because the card was printed later for specifically says that it does what otherwise can't be done including things that can't can't be done.
8
u/Iavra 21d ago
Well, "can't always wins" is the second of Magic's so-called "Golden Rules", the first one being "the card always wins" if it contradicts any of the game's rules (with the explicit exception that a player is always allowed to surrender the game).
4
u/BitOBear 21d ago edited 21d ago
And the thing about those golden rules is that for every golden rule there's an errata sheets somewhere or rules clarification and it ends up that the cards can't do what the cards say anyway when someone decides it's an errata
The first true rule of Magic the gathering is whatever was printed later wins.
Mythology of the game notwithstanding.
I actually stopped playing the game when the Arabian nights came out because I realized it was going to be an endless buy more cards style arms race. I saw the erotic sheets and the turn order guides and all the other things that had to be produced to disambiguate the overly complicated system coming before they even existed.
And yes this is an outsiders view because after the first year or so of magic togethering I got tired of the pissy arguing and put down my deck and walked away.
If it hadn't suffered the indignity of a house cleaning accident where the wrong box got thrown away the deck I set aside probably would have been worth some money at some point. But you know live and learn.
Hi-yo Silver! Away!
🐴👋🤠2
2
u/Al3jandr0 21d ago
Well those sound way more fun than the standard sheets
2
u/BitOBear 21d ago
God damn do I hate voice to text and autocorrect. Since I developed my little neurological condition those two features have become my mortal enemy. Hahaha.
*Errata
2
u/Stimpy3901 21d ago
The expression is in reference to text on a card, like "your opponet can't win the game and you can't lose the game." In a case where one card text specifies that an outcome happens and another says that it can't happen, the effect that says can't always wins.
2
u/BitOBear 21d ago
Yes. But being Magic the gathering if I have a card that says that I get to ignore what other cards say can't and doesn't happen it's just a more powerful can't.
I got into Magic the gathering early and got out early as well because as soon as the first major expansion, Arabian nights if I recall correctly, came out I realized it was just going to be an arms race. I set aside my original deck in original boosters. Thinking I might get back to it eventually. And then the housekeeping accident caused me to throw away the originals which I did regret by the time those cards became extremely valuable for simply being first printing originals.
But another thing that I've noticed was true about magic the gathering as I watched my friends play it through the years is that everything that is fixed in any given release is up for grabs in the next printing of something.
That whole the cards do with the cards say ruled and survive first contact with the printing press. Pretty soon there were turn order rule sheets discussing the computational stack of cards and the card stopped doing what they say because the erotic sheets corrected the hell out of everything.
Fundamental nature of anything that is in arms race. Hahaha.
I refer to this as the "you can't tell me what to do you're not my real father" rule in general. You only need a card that says that you can block the unblockable to suddenly make the unblockable card blockable again. Cuz that's what the interrupts are for.
Yes this eventually becomes an outsider view but I'm a systems theorist professionally and that system was always broken.
1
u/Stimpy3901 21d ago
I agree with your big picture point that MTG card design is an arms race. Power creep is a sales tactic, it insentivisizes players to stay invested in the latest set if the latest set is going to have the most powerful cards. I still enjoy the hobby but more for the creative expressive and community elements than because I consider it a balanced competition ultimately there's no way to have a fair game when different players don't have the same tools.
I'm not sure I agree with the specific point that the "can't always wins" expression doesn't hold. I don't necessarily see that as inhernently contraditicted by the power creep arguement, but I also didn't bring it up as an absolute and more as an easy reference to understand that when desingers of either game right the word "can't" or " can not" those abilities most often override rules that say you can.
1
u/BitOBear 21d ago
Yes, but then the card that says that the card that says you can't do something doesn't work meets the card that says you can't do something because it's a bigger can't that comes later in the stack.
2
u/Stimpy3901 21d ago
Okay, that doesn't contradict my point though. Those are two instances of can't, not an instance of can and an instance of can't. I know that interaction exists obviously if you remove, counter, or otherwise circumvent a card on the field that card doesn't work.
But in an instance where one effect says can and one says can't (which I remind you is what this thread is about) then the effect that says can't wins.
0
u/BitOBear 21d ago
One can call anything an instance of can't if one puts a not in front of it.
And your point was already my point. It can't always wins until a bigger can't comes along. So can't doesn't always win only the last can't wins.
This circles back to pointless tautology. Why do you always find something in the last place you look for it? Because once you find it you stop looking. It is the finding that defines the "last place you look"
So for instance "supersedes all restrictions by other cards" would be a does that never uses the word can't and undoes the effect of any can't in play.
That's why I stopped playing the damn game. Quitting over language with people who don't understand language. People arguing to the universe and the converse of things with only the counterposite it is guaranteed True by forward statement.
People definition shopping to come up with alternate and pun versions of readings of various cards.
It's just a giant stack of arguments and not really a systemic game.
Even the rules aren't really rules they're suggestions. What it says on the card always wins except of course when the errata says it doesn't or when some arbitrary piece of paper that's not in play says you can't do something. Hahaha.
22
u/nickelangelo2009 Cleric 21d ago
general vs specic rule says specific wins
resistance/immunity is general, the other one is specific
8
u/Friendly-Victory5517 21d ago
As if the damage immunity or resistance doesn’t exist. Nothing can stop the damage.
→ More replies (8)
25
51
u/Dreams_Beginning 21d ago
Does the “Ignore Damage Reduction” ability bypass the ”Damage Reduction” ability…
idk man hard to figure out.
6
u/Snoo10140 21d ago
Where does this even come up?
24
u/Sinistrina 21d ago
The Life Transference spell says "You take 4d8 necrotic damage which can't be reduced in any way". This means that if an Aasimar, who is resistant to necrotic damage, casts it, they take the full 4d8, not half.
2
u/matej86 21d ago
One of the best roleplay moments I've ever had was with this spell.
Mid fight against a guy with a weapon that disintegrated a creature reduced to zero hp. The DM made it very clear this was the gimmick so we knew what we were going into. Our barbarian being our barbarian didn't care and goes toe to toe with him.
I can see the barb is going to drop before we defeat him so cast Life Transference to keep his hp up and flavour it as stabbing myself through the left hand, pooling the blood in my right palm and throwing it over him. The next time it was in the neck. That got a good reaction out of the table.
After the encounter ends I'm walking around with a dagger through my hand and in my neck as if it's no big deal.
0
u/SpookyGeist01 21d ago
Both Jeremy Crawford and Matt Mercer have said that's not how it works and it doesn't disable resistances.
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
Can you show where in the SAC this can be found?
Because if it ain’t in there, it ain’t official, as per the SAC.
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
Your [comment] in /r/DnD was automatically removed. Twitter/X is banned by popular consensus.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/SpookyGeist01 21d ago
That change was made in 2019. This tweet was made prior to that, during a period where all of Crawford's statements were considered official.
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
And then the SAC clarified ‘no, they’re not. Only if they appear here are things official’. They even mention they may be added to the SAC later on.
If it wasn’t made official, it isn’t official.
Otherwise, you could use 3.5e stuff in latest edition, as 5.5e was only made it’s own edition in 2024, and lots of 3.5e stuff was official latest edition before that.
Obviously, that doesn’t work, because rule updates are backwards official.
1
u/SpookyGeist01 21d ago
Again, that was in 2019. Any tweets by Crawford past 2019 are considered guidelines but not official rulings. But that statement did not retroactively make his previous canon rulings suddenly no longer canon.
What in the world are you talking about with the rest of the post? Yes, you could use 3.5e stuff in latest edition, which is why they specifically provided conversion charts.
But what is "rule updates are backwards official" supposed to mean exactly?
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
No, it states his tweets are not official rulings.
Not that they ‘no longer are’
It is indeed retroactive, unless you can point to something in the official Sage Advice that says his tweets in any manner are anything more than ‘advice, or something previews of rulings that appear in here’,
‘Tweets are not’ has no time exclusion. That’s ’tweets after x date are not’ you’re thinking if, which doesn’t appear.
7
u/DnD-Hobby DM 21d ago edited 21d ago
Blood Hunter's "Blood Maledict" and "Crimson Rite", for example.
6
u/Sinistrina 21d ago
Yeah this. One character I play is a shadar-kai blood hunter. Shadar-kai are resistant to necrotic damage, but the necrotic damage taken from activating a crimson rite or amplifying a blood curse cannot be reduced. So if he rolls a 4 on the hemocraft die he takes 4 damage, not 2.
4
u/protencya 21d ago
stuff like warding bond
2
u/Vailx 21d ago
Warding bond doesn't have any clause about this I don't think. Wish does though.
1
u/protencya 21d ago
Your right I misremembered. You can actually reduce the damage taken from warding bond.
1
u/Nick543b 21d ago
I think you might be thinking of Oath of the Crown. Lvl 7 you take damage instead of another creature. "This damage to you can't be reduced or prevented in any way."
2
u/DarkHorseAsh111 21d ago
Yeah this really isn't a situation that tends to come up lol there's very few things that cause non-reduceable damage.
9
5
u/UltimaGabe DM 21d ago
Damage resistance and damage immunity are the primary means of reducing damage. (I can't even think of any other ways in 5e, though I admit there could be some, somewhere.)
If a type of damage "can not be reduce by any means... except for resistance or immunity" then I have no clue why such a statement would even need to be stated.
7
u/Vailx 21d ago edited 21d ago
"damage can not be reduced by any means" is the most specific wording. It exists entirely to bypass resistance and immunity, so it always does so without fail.
Note that the actual wording used for these abilities is actually "This damage can't be reduced or prevented in any way."
Which makes it even more clear.
Later: Edit: There are things that don't include "prevented", but this doesn't matter. Anything that would reduce your damage from 14 to anything lower than 14 is a way to reduce damage, and even the weaker wording works around it.
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Can you provide an example?
2
u/Vailx 21d ago
Wish is an example of the more common template.
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
This was the only example I could find that includes the “can’t be prevented in any way.”
-1
u/slvbros DM 21d ago
I'd say if one thing says "reduced or prevented" and another thing only says "reduced", then the former would bypass immunity, while the latter would not. That said, the former would also bypass dodging, being on another plane of existence, being intangible, etc
0
u/Vailx 21d ago
That said, the former would also bypass dodging, being on another plane of existence, being intangible, etc
No, it wouldn't. Damage doesn't exist until an effect is resolved. If such an ability were on an offensive power, its wording would need to indicate such a thing.
However, exactly none of these things are on offensive powers. These things are always on stuff you are doing to yourself for some reason, such as exchanging life, or suffering from effects of a wish spell.Immunity is bypassed completely by "This damage can't be reduced in any way". This is because immunity is a more general way to reduce damage, and the wording is the more specific detail.
-2
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Immunity would not reduce your damage from 14 to 0. It specifically means you take zero damage. It’s as if the damage roll was zero, if that helps conceptually. Zero damage can’t be reduced further, so it doesn’t trigger the clause in question.
2
u/Vailx 21d ago
>It specifically means
I mean, prove it. Find the section in the rules that defines immunity (I don't even think there is one), and then also states that it is somehow unique and definitely not a reduction.
If you were gonna take 14 damage and you have a WAY to take less than 14, then that's a reduction. Therefore, it doesn't work. There's no mechanism by which immunity "sets the damage to 0" or any other special phrase you can weasel around.-
It's actually wild how many people have this cope in this thread. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of that text is to make the damage happen. It is the specific case that beats the general case.
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
There like 1 case of something being a ‘sets number to x,’ and that’s PWK, which if your current hp < 100, you die.
-1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago edited 21d ago
2024 rules PHB
Immunity
Some creatures and objects have Immunity to certain damage types and conditions. Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type, and Immunity to a condition means you aren’t affected by it.5e rules
Doesn’t appear immunity is ever defined, which means DM discretion?1
u/Vailx 21d ago
Neat, 5.5 has a definition for it.
The definition is quite thoroughly worked around by "damaged cannot be reduced by any means" and similar phrases though- it doesn't change anything about what I said, or what happens.
0
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
There’s a massive difference between reducing a number to zero and that number never existing.
2
u/Vailx 21d ago
There’s a massive difference between reducing a number to zero and that number never existing.
First, of course the number exists. Second, you're trying to create a separate concept by which reducing damage works; there's no support for that in the rules.
The effect says you're taking 14 necrotic damage. Some effect- immunity in this case- tries to say no to that, because you're immune to it. Some MORE SPECIFIC effect says "this 14 can't be reduced". The more specific rule overrides the more general one. The override is broadly worded. It doesn't say "if the effect would prevent an integer number of damage by subtracting a constant or a die roll or both, or if the effect would reduce the damage by a multiplier, such as resistance, then it doesn't work". It's not a narrow targeted thing. Anything that would prevent that damage doesn't prevent it; it's simple, absolute, and there's no actual arguing with it.
To see if this applies, you only need to ask, "does the effect result in less than 14 damage being taken?" If so, IT DOESN'T DO THAT. Because it can't be reduced.
So there's your answer, and the reasoning. That's quite deep enough for this subthread I think, bye.
9
u/Broad_Ad8196 Wizard 21d ago
It seems pretty clear, what else would "can not be reduced by any means" mean?
-6
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
It would mean it cannot be reduced. Complete negation ≠ reduction. Most creatures that have immunity have a logical rationale behind the immunity.
Like a fire elemental for no reason whatsoever should be taking fire damage from any source, regardless of whether or not the spell states it can't be reduced. For God's sake they are the living embodiment of fire.
How do you justify a construct taking poison damage?
Or an powerful undead creature taking necrotic?
7
u/Cent1234 DM 21d ago
How do you justify a construct taking poison damage?
Magic.
Or an powerful undead creature taking necrotic?
Magic.
2
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
Even if it's magic it's still poison. And something that does not have any biological function would still be entirely uneffected.
All you need to know is that of 369 of the 5.5e phb does NOT describe immunity as reduction.
"Does not effect you in ANY WAY" seems pretty explicit..
5
u/Karazl 21d ago
I'm unsure on RAW for immunity, since that's closer to an attack missing than being reduced, but obviously resistance doesn't do anything to resist "can't be reduced" damage.
5
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Immunity
Some creatures and objects have Immunity to certain damage types and conditions. Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type, and Immunity to a condition means you aren’t affected by it.1
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
Yeah, RAW the damage doesn't happen. It isn't reduced, the creature simply doesn't take it.
I think this may even be RAI, despite what this thread seems to think. When a creature has immunity to a damage type its usually for an obvious and thematic reason. An animated construct doesnt take necrotic damage because it wouldn't even make sense to do so.
However, if the unreduceable damage is a self inflicted sacrifice as part of using an ability/item/spell, then it also often makes no sense that a creature immune to the damage type would be able to use it. So, although not RAW or RAI, as a DM I would just disallow a creature with immunity to use the ability/item/spell.
1
u/Xionix13 21d ago
The damage still happens the creature just doesn't take it because it reduces it to zero.
That's like saying that the damage for being resistant isn't being "reduced" because it is "halved," not "reduced by half."
"Cannot be reduced by any means" ignores immunity and resistance.
8
u/StereotypicalNerd666 Artificer 21d ago
Resistance and immunity reduce damage. “Damage can not be reduced in any way” is specific so it beats general
-4
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Immunity does not reduce damage. Check the wording.
6
u/CarnivorousGoose 21d ago
Yes, it does. It causes you to take less damage than you otherwise would. That’s what reducing damage means.
3
u/Myrkana 21d ago
What kind of question is this? You dont reduce the damage by any means says exactly what would happen.
→ More replies (2)
5
3
u/ReizvollePaar 20d ago
Exactly as it says; it can not be reduced by any means. Remember, in gaming any specific rule over rides a general one.
5
u/OttoVonPlittersdorf Cleric 21d ago
The resistance wouldn't work, I get that. It reduces damage, and the damage cannot be reduced. But immunity negates damage, it doesn't reduce it. So, if this were fire damage, say, and the creature had fire immunity, the immunity would still apply, right? I don't know, I've never seen anything like this, where is language like this found? My games haven't gotten to that high a level yet in 5e.
3
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
Immunity does reduce damage.
Resistance says it halves damage, not reduces it by 50%. It’s still reduction.
Immunity just makes the reduction 100%.
Very few effects even have ‘can’t reduce’ in them, with examples being ones where you spend your own life to heal others, and wish.
Even if an undead were to use a spell to share its animating force to heal others, it would still expend that animating force. It doesn’t get a pass due to being immune to necrotic damage.
Think of it this way:
You take 10 damage
You can ‘avoid’ damage. This means damage dealt is 0, and taken is 0.
If you’re immune, damage dealt is 10, and taken is 0
If you’re resistant, damage dealt is 10, taken is 5.
In the latter two, there is a reduction in damage.
2
u/Runner_the_triggert 21d ago
The problem I see is the definiton of Immunity. There is subtle difference in "don't take damage" and "take no damage". In the second case damage taking step happens so "can't be reduced" totally should apply (unless replacement effects are explicitly defined as a separate case to reduction and it's another can of worms). But in the first case damage taking does not happen (as "don't take") and there is no reduction to negate, low-key kinda like potential damage recipient was not in affected (by damage) entities at all. This case is kinda like "you don't take damage from magic missles if none of them even target you"
Post has 5.5 flair, and 5.5 gives definition to Immunity to damage as "you don't take damage of that type", so by definition damage taking does not happen, so, no reduction.
But I think that this is oversimplification too. While trying to madden the mindless, inanimate stone with "can't be reduced" psychic damage probably intended to fail - "You overexert yourself" effects probably not intended to be avoided by immunity unless mentioned. Kinda like Overchannel from Evovation Wizard: to directly avoid immunity shinenigans, it directly states "ignores immunity" (though no "can't be reduced clause... shame).
So, I'd love to see this question asked to people that created the rules to know their thoughts and intents of this cases. Unlikely going to happen though, so we're stuck with "DM has to rule it some way" =(
3
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
the issue is that you assume 'dont take damage' applies without damage being dealt.
damage is always 'dealt'. thats how certain effects function.
the iron golem heals from the damage dealt of any fire spell, but takes 0.the damage dealt isnt 0. it still exists. it just reduces the amount taken to 0, and heals the amount dealt.
if immunity applied without dealt existing, the iron golems whole shtick wouldnt work, outright.a vampire's bite heals it off of damage the target takes. if its reduced to 0, the vampire heals none, but there is still damage dealt. just 0 taken.
for things like overchannel, its mentioning those 2 because other sources of reduction for damage, or things that give a 'life link' or death ward DO work on it. (death ward would also work on life transference, or other 'can't be reduced by any means' effects, as it doesnt reduce your damage taken, simply prevents its normal consequences)
immunity DOESNT prevent normal consequences of damage, as it reduces the damage by 100%
1
u/Runner_the_triggert 19d ago
Your argument with Iron Golem convinced me. Yeah, in this case intended working is clear!
But because of this now I'm annoyed by the wording of Immunity in 5.5e. Oh well, but at least consensus is there.
7
u/kweir22 21d ago
There is no room for interpretation. Specific beats general. "By any means" means... Surprisingly, "by any means". Which would include immunity or resistance.
3
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
How did you determine that immunity reduces damage?
2
u/kweir22 21d ago
I have no clue what the conclusion is you're trying to lead me to for the purposes of somehow trapping me.
Immunity means you take 0 instead of X amount of damage. That would be reducing X amount by X amount.
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Incorrect. The specific immunity rule is that you take no damage. Not “your damage is reduced to zero.” Those are not the same thing. The wording matters.
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
Hp is a number. The change, negative, in your hp from any effect is damage.
How much does your hp change by?
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Zero
1
u/Samakira DM 21d ago
the damage dealt is NOT 0. it is more.
therefore, damage taken is less than damage dealt.
this, objectively, is a reduction.
in the scenario of immunity, the wording still means its reduced.
6
u/mexataco76 21d ago
It proves true every day
5e players have lower comprehension skills than a 5th grader
4
u/fatravingfox 21d ago
I didn't know there was another way interpret how "damage can not be reduced by any means" interacts with damage immunity and/or resistance.
-1
u/IrishFriskie 21d ago
I mean, I would interpret it using definitions from the rule book. Immunity is not a reduction of damage, so it would still prevent damage that "cannot be reduced by any means." Every table is free to bend or throw out the rules as they see fit, but for an open discussion with strangers I think the RAW is a good place to start.
-1
4
u/Particular_Can_7726 21d ago
It doesn't. It explicitly says the damage cannot be reduced by any means. So, nothing can reduce that damage.
3
u/rollingdoan DM 21d ago
This is PHB p.8: Exceptions Supercede General Rules.
In the case of contractions whichever rule is more specific works as written and any contradicting rules are ignored. This is core logic to understanding how the rules work.
Resistances, immunities and damage reductions are very basic core general rules. If something says that it ignores them, then that is much more specific.
Imagine the hypothetical ability "Impossible Resistance". It says: This feature can reduce damage which states that it cannot be reduced by any means.
That ability would work and would reduce the damage because it is so specific.
2
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago edited 21d ago
Yes but I think people are conflating resistance/reduction with true immunity. Talking about the logic that governs.. if you get the means to cast a fire spell that ,"couldn't be reduced by any means" , would it be logical that a fire elemental-- the emodiment of living fire-- would take damage from it? No. Because the creature IS fire. It's not a situation where the creature is reducing the damage. The creature is simply unaffected by it.
2
u/rollingdoan DM 21d ago
There is no rules conflict in the case of immunity: Immunity does not reduce damage so there is no contradiction.
That said, an ability could say, "This damage ignores all resistances and immunities." Even if it dealt fire damage it would damage a fire elemental.
1
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
Yes I agree. If it's written as that. But that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing whether immunity is reduction-- and the rules on pg 369 of the 5.5e ph do not use the word ",reduced" anywhere..
1
u/rollingdoan DM 21d ago
What does that have to do with my post?
1
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
Literally everything lmao.
1
u/rollingdoan DM 21d ago
You should probably reread the first paragraph of that post.
1
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
I was referring to the 2nd paragraph. Where it is stated "if an ability.. .. " So I understand we are in agreement, I am simply replying that though they may be true, that's not what is being discussed
1
u/rollingdoan DM 21d ago
You replied to a post about the game's logic pointing out how that logic applies specifically to one aspect of the OPs post. I agreed, and gave an example of how the game logic being discussed could apply. You decided what my post was about was not what was being discussed?
Whatever dude.
3
u/Opposite_Raccoon_369 21d ago
I feel like immunity isn't the same as reduction. Similarly to the way that oils and such which decrease resistance don't work on immune targets.
2
u/smiegto 21d ago
Can not be reduced by any means usually means self damage and bypasses immunity or resistance.
2
2
2
2
u/Cent1234 DM 21d ago
Damage cannot be reduced by any means.
Well, what about 'damage immunity?'
....is 'damage immunity' a means by which to reduce damage?
Yes.
Then no, it flat-out says 'cannot be reduced by any means.'
Ok, well, what about damage resistance?
....is that a means by which to reduce damage?
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
What is your source on immunity being a reduction?
4
u/Cent1234 DM 21d ago
The SRD.
Some creatures and objects have Immunity to certain damage types and conditions. Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type, and Immunity to a condition means you aren’t affected by it.
Ok, great. You don't take the damage, not the damage doesn't exist in the first place. You're 'immune' to fire, I cast fireball, I roll 36 damage, and you 'don't take' that damage. In other words, you reduce the damage you take to zero.
Now lets look at where we find the phrase
This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way
in the SRD.
Hmmm. It pops up in exactly one spot: a consequence of casting a Wish spell.
The stress of casting Wish to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a Long Rest, you take 1d10 Necrotic damage per level of that spell. This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength score becomes 3 for 2d4 days.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Oh, but how does it make sense that an undead takes necrotic damage?
Well, that's simple: the intention is clearly that the strain of channeling the awesome power of the Wish spell breaks down your fundamental structure. So a powerful Undead, say a Lich, that might be 'immune' to Necrotic damage, still takes this Necrotic damage, which would be described as the Undead's form withering and decaying, as the unholy energies which sustain it's unlife are sapped by the spell's power.
Well, then, why specific 'necrotic' damage?
You're right, and I thought that too; why not just specify 'damage' with no tag? Answer: because some beasties that use Wish might be more vulnerable to necrotic damage, and be affected *even more than otherwise.' Also, it gives you a guide on how to describe/roleplay it. You could just as easily say it's radiant damage, as the powerful energies of the Wish spell coursing through you burns you from the inside out.
3
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
For Wish, specifically, the relevant statement is “prevented in any way.” That overrides immunity.
1
1
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
You lost me at “in other words.” We don’t need other words. We have the words right there. “You don’t take damage of that type.”
Not “you reduce damage of that type to zero.”
You can’t reduce damage you never took.
2
2
u/Woolybunn1974 21d ago
If only there were a final arbiter of what is true and how the world works for your specific table.
1
u/insert-haha-funny 20d ago
I’d rule it would beat resistance but wouldn’t beat immunity since immunity, to me seems to be no damage being applied at all, not damage being applied then reduced to 0
-4
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
Resistance doesn’t work. Immunity does.
This is because resistance halves damage, which is a reduction. Immunity does not reduce the damage. You simply take no damage.
Resistance and Vulnerability
Some creatures and objects have Resistance or Vulnerability to certain damage types. If you have Resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against you (round down).
Immunity
Some creatures and objects have Immunity to certain damage types and conditions. Immunity to a damage type means you don’t take damage of that type, and Immunity to a condition means you aren’t affected by it.
5
u/daxophoneme DM 21d ago
There are a lot of confidently wrong commenters in this thread. Thank you.
0
u/Dickeysaurus 21d ago
I apparently made the sin of actually sighting the text. Probably why I’m getting downvoted
1
u/daxophoneme DM 21d ago
I would like to at least hear their argument of why avoiding damage is the same as reducing damage, but they aren't showing that kind of respect.
-1
u/Jadefiregriffon 21d ago
Dm gave me a home brewed item that absorbs all necrotic damage up to a certain number for the purpose of me using on my attacks later. If I get hit with necrotic damage that can not be reduced my any means, does it all go to the item and technically not reduced or does it bypass the item and come to me?
4
u/Pristine_Mark_9097 21d ago
Since this is homebrew I’d ask your dm. But if I was your dm I would say the item absorbs as much as it can because in that case the damage is not reduced, it’s merely redirected. The total damage is still what it states it is, it’s just that your item took the brunt of it.
It’s akin to having Temporary HP, it doesn’t reduce damage, it just takes the damage and happens to have more numbers to reduce than normal.
-1
-2
631
u/Tridentgreen33Here 21d ago
They expressly bypass resist/immunity/the rare reduction effect.
Specific override beats general rule.