Mixing
Are your resistances optional?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I'm looking to use life transference as a healing spell, but I don't want my resistance to necrotic damage to get in the way.
The School of Necromancy wizard has the Inured to Undeath feature:
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.
The description of life transference, a 3rd-level necromancy spell, says:
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature you choose and can see regains hit points equal to twice the damage you take.
Life transference is one of the very few ways that Wizards can heal.
Can I choose to shut off my resistance to necrotic damage to cast life transference at full power? Without doing so, it would heal a total profit of a 9 health average, and be great waste of a level 3 spell.
(Personally, I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Mass healing word is a level 3 spell, uses a bonus action, and with a +4 mod heals 39 average, my suggestion for LT heals 27. But I'd still like to know what the actual answer is.)
Note: I am fairly certain there was an official statement that class features are optional to use, and players can choose to ignore them, but I don't remember the exact statement or where it was, but it would help provide a solution to this question.
dnd-5e spells damage-resistance
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I'm looking to use life transference as a healing spell, but I don't want my resistance to necrotic damage to get in the way.
The School of Necromancy wizard has the Inured to Undeath feature:
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.
The description of life transference, a 3rd-level necromancy spell, says:
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature you choose and can see regains hit points equal to twice the damage you take.
Life transference is one of the very few ways that Wizards can heal.
Can I choose to shut off my resistance to necrotic damage to cast life transference at full power? Without doing so, it would heal a total profit of a 9 health average, and be great waste of a level 3 spell.
(Personally, I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Mass healing word is a level 3 spell, uses a bonus action, and with a +4 mod heals 39 average, my suggestion for LT heals 27. But I'd still like to know what the actual answer is.)
Note: I am fairly certain there was an official statement that class features are optional to use, and players can choose to ignore them, but I don't remember the exact statement or where it was, but it would help provide a solution to this question.
dnd-5e spells damage-resistance
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpretthe damage you taketo mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).
– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
1
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
I'm looking to use life transference as a healing spell, but I don't want my resistance to necrotic damage to get in the way.
The School of Necromancy wizard has the Inured to Undeath feature:
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.
The description of life transference, a 3rd-level necromancy spell, says:
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature you choose and can see regains hit points equal to twice the damage you take.
Life transference is one of the very few ways that Wizards can heal.
Can I choose to shut off my resistance to necrotic damage to cast life transference at full power? Without doing so, it would heal a total profit of a 9 health average, and be great waste of a level 3 spell.
(Personally, I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Mass healing word is a level 3 spell, uses a bonus action, and with a +4 mod heals 39 average, my suggestion for LT heals 27. But I'd still like to know what the actual answer is.)
Note: I am fairly certain there was an official statement that class features are optional to use, and players can choose to ignore them, but I don't remember the exact statement or where it was, but it would help provide a solution to this question.
dnd-5e spells damage-resistance
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
I'm looking to use life transference as a healing spell, but I don't want my resistance to necrotic damage to get in the way.
The School of Necromancy wizard has the Inured to Undeath feature:
Beginning at 10th level, you have resistance to necrotic damage, and your hit point maximum can't be reduced. You have spent so much time dealing with undead and the forces that animate them that you have become inured to some of their worst effects.
The description of life transference, a 3rd-level necromancy spell, says:
You take 4d8 necrotic damage, and one creature you choose and can see regains hit points equal to twice the damage you take.
Life transference is one of the very few ways that Wizards can heal.
Can I choose to shut off my resistance to necrotic damage to cast life transference at full power? Without doing so, it would heal a total profit of a 9 health average, and be great waste of a level 3 spell.
(Personally, I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Mass healing word is a level 3 spell, uses a bonus action, and with a +4 mod heals 39 average, my suggestion for LT heals 27. But I'd still like to know what the actual answer is.)
Note: I am fairly certain there was an official statement that class features are optional to use, and players can choose to ignore them, but I don't remember the exact statement or where it was, but it would help provide a solution to this question.
dnd-5e spells damage-resistance
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
edited Aug 7 at 21:44
V2Blast
13.3k23286
13.3k23286
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
asked Aug 7 at 15:42
Daniel Zastoupil
3,7461045
3,7461045
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpretthe damage you taketo mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).
– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
1
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08
 |Â
show 2 more comments
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpretthe damage you taketo mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).
– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
1
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpret the damage you take to mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpret the damage you take to mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
1
1
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08
 |Â
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
By RAW, No.
5E generally uses a plain-English approach to explaining things. When it speaks of optional abilities, it uses words like Can or May. When it speaks of things that are non-optional, it uses words like Must or Is.
With regards to resistance, the rules say...
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
By Thematics, still No.
Resistance is an innate attribute of a creature, so even looking at it thematically, it doesn't make sense that it could be turned off.
A Vampire is resistant to Necrotic Damage because that's the same sort of magic that animates them in the first place. It makes no more sense for them to decide that they want to take full damage from Necrotic damage, than it does for a Red Dragon to decide they feel like taking Fire Damage today. Their resistance to the damage is part of their physical being.
If you want Resistance you can turn on or off, well...that's what spells like Protection from Energy are for.
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
No, resistance is always on
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
Nothing lets you choose to turn resistance off in general so a specific ability would have to allow it. Inured to Undeath does not have such a clause.
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
No Rules Specifically Allow for Opting out of Resistance.
There is no rule that provides an opt out for resistance and there are no secret rules.
Similarity to Saving Throws
Resistances, immunity, and saving throws are similar in that they negate or ameliorate effects or damage. Using saving throws as a ortholog of resistance, the statement of optional failing for some effects indicate that it is a specific exception.
There is no rule that allows you to opt out of a save. As such allowing it is DM fiat.
With saving throws, some spells, such as scrying, specifically have provisions for optional failing.
If a target knows you're casting this spell, it can fail the saving throw voluntarily...
Theme of Necromancer
Thematically, this could be explained as the wizard schools change the nature of the wizard. The necromancer is fundamentally different in some small way from a diviner. In the same way a fire elemental cannot defy its nature and choose to be burned by fire, the necromancer cannot choose to defy their nature and not resist necrotic damage.
Another way to thematically explain it is that the necromancer has developed an immunity in the same way a person might become immune to the effects of allergens or irritants they work with for a long time.
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
30
down vote
By RAW, No.
5E generally uses a plain-English approach to explaining things. When it speaks of optional abilities, it uses words like Can or May. When it speaks of things that are non-optional, it uses words like Must or Is.
With regards to resistance, the rules say...
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
By Thematics, still No.
Resistance is an innate attribute of a creature, so even looking at it thematically, it doesn't make sense that it could be turned off.
A Vampire is resistant to Necrotic Damage because that's the same sort of magic that animates them in the first place. It makes no more sense for them to decide that they want to take full damage from Necrotic damage, than it does for a Red Dragon to decide they feel like taking Fire Damage today. Their resistance to the damage is part of their physical being.
If you want Resistance you can turn on or off, well...that's what spells like Protection from Energy are for.
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
add a comment |Â
up vote
30
down vote
By RAW, No.
5E generally uses a plain-English approach to explaining things. When it speaks of optional abilities, it uses words like Can or May. When it speaks of things that are non-optional, it uses words like Must or Is.
With regards to resistance, the rules say...
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
By Thematics, still No.
Resistance is an innate attribute of a creature, so even looking at it thematically, it doesn't make sense that it could be turned off.
A Vampire is resistant to Necrotic Damage because that's the same sort of magic that animates them in the first place. It makes no more sense for them to decide that they want to take full damage from Necrotic damage, than it does for a Red Dragon to decide they feel like taking Fire Damage today. Their resistance to the damage is part of their physical being.
If you want Resistance you can turn on or off, well...that's what spells like Protection from Energy are for.
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
add a comment |Â
up vote
30
down vote
up vote
30
down vote
By RAW, No.
5E generally uses a plain-English approach to explaining things. When it speaks of optional abilities, it uses words like Can or May. When it speaks of things that are non-optional, it uses words like Must or Is.
With regards to resistance, the rules say...
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
By Thematics, still No.
Resistance is an innate attribute of a creature, so even looking at it thematically, it doesn't make sense that it could be turned off.
A Vampire is resistant to Necrotic Damage because that's the same sort of magic that animates them in the first place. It makes no more sense for them to decide that they want to take full damage from Necrotic damage, than it does for a Red Dragon to decide they feel like taking Fire Damage today. Their resistance to the damage is part of their physical being.
If you want Resistance you can turn on or off, well...that's what spells like Protection from Energy are for.
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
By RAW, No.
5E generally uses a plain-English approach to explaining things. When it speaks of optional abilities, it uses words like Can or May. When it speaks of things that are non-optional, it uses words like Must or Is.
With regards to resistance, the rules say...
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
By Thematics, still No.
Resistance is an innate attribute of a creature, so even looking at it thematically, it doesn't make sense that it could be turned off.
A Vampire is resistant to Necrotic Damage because that's the same sort of magic that animates them in the first place. It makes no more sense for them to decide that they want to take full damage from Necrotic damage, than it does for a Red Dragon to decide they feel like taking Fire Damage today. Their resistance to the damage is part of their physical being.
If you want Resistance you can turn on or off, well...that's what spells like Protection from Energy are for.
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
answered Aug 7 at 16:07
guildsbounty
29.2k5121147
29.2k5121147
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
No, resistance is always on
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
Nothing lets you choose to turn resistance off in general so a specific ability would have to allow it. Inured to Undeath does not have such a clause.
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
No, resistance is always on
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
Nothing lets you choose to turn resistance off in general so a specific ability would have to allow it. Inured to Undeath does not have such a clause.
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
No, resistance is always on
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
Nothing lets you choose to turn resistance off in general so a specific ability would have to allow it. Inured to Undeath does not have such a clause.
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
No, resistance is always on
If a creature or an object has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it.
Nothing lets you choose to turn resistance off in general so a specific ability would have to allow it. Inured to Undeath does not have such a clause.
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
edited Aug 7 at 17:16
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
answered Aug 7 at 16:00
David Coffron
23.6k279168
23.6k279168
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
No Rules Specifically Allow for Opting out of Resistance.
There is no rule that provides an opt out for resistance and there are no secret rules.
Similarity to Saving Throws
Resistances, immunity, and saving throws are similar in that they negate or ameliorate effects or damage. Using saving throws as a ortholog of resistance, the statement of optional failing for some effects indicate that it is a specific exception.
There is no rule that allows you to opt out of a save. As such allowing it is DM fiat.
With saving throws, some spells, such as scrying, specifically have provisions for optional failing.
If a target knows you're casting this spell, it can fail the saving throw voluntarily...
Theme of Necromancer
Thematically, this could be explained as the wizard schools change the nature of the wizard. The necromancer is fundamentally different in some small way from a diviner. In the same way a fire elemental cannot defy its nature and choose to be burned by fire, the necromancer cannot choose to defy their nature and not resist necrotic damage.
Another way to thematically explain it is that the necromancer has developed an immunity in the same way a person might become immune to the effects of allergens or irritants they work with for a long time.
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
No Rules Specifically Allow for Opting out of Resistance.
There is no rule that provides an opt out for resistance and there are no secret rules.
Similarity to Saving Throws
Resistances, immunity, and saving throws are similar in that they negate or ameliorate effects or damage. Using saving throws as a ortholog of resistance, the statement of optional failing for some effects indicate that it is a specific exception.
There is no rule that allows you to opt out of a save. As such allowing it is DM fiat.
With saving throws, some spells, such as scrying, specifically have provisions for optional failing.
If a target knows you're casting this spell, it can fail the saving throw voluntarily...
Theme of Necromancer
Thematically, this could be explained as the wizard schools change the nature of the wizard. The necromancer is fundamentally different in some small way from a diviner. In the same way a fire elemental cannot defy its nature and choose to be burned by fire, the necromancer cannot choose to defy their nature and not resist necrotic damage.
Another way to thematically explain it is that the necromancer has developed an immunity in the same way a person might become immune to the effects of allergens or irritants they work with for a long time.
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No Rules Specifically Allow for Opting out of Resistance.
There is no rule that provides an opt out for resistance and there are no secret rules.
Similarity to Saving Throws
Resistances, immunity, and saving throws are similar in that they negate or ameliorate effects or damage. Using saving throws as a ortholog of resistance, the statement of optional failing for some effects indicate that it is a specific exception.
There is no rule that allows you to opt out of a save. As such allowing it is DM fiat.
With saving throws, some spells, such as scrying, specifically have provisions for optional failing.
If a target knows you're casting this spell, it can fail the saving throw voluntarily...
Theme of Necromancer
Thematically, this could be explained as the wizard schools change the nature of the wizard. The necromancer is fundamentally different in some small way from a diviner. In the same way a fire elemental cannot defy its nature and choose to be burned by fire, the necromancer cannot choose to defy their nature and not resist necrotic damage.
Another way to thematically explain it is that the necromancer has developed an immunity in the same way a person might become immune to the effects of allergens or irritants they work with for a long time.
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
No Rules Specifically Allow for Opting out of Resistance.
There is no rule that provides an opt out for resistance and there are no secret rules.
Similarity to Saving Throws
Resistances, immunity, and saving throws are similar in that they negate or ameliorate effects or damage. Using saving throws as a ortholog of resistance, the statement of optional failing for some effects indicate that it is a specific exception.
There is no rule that allows you to opt out of a save. As such allowing it is DM fiat.
With saving throws, some spells, such as scrying, specifically have provisions for optional failing.
If a target knows you're casting this spell, it can fail the saving throw voluntarily...
Theme of Necromancer
Thematically, this could be explained as the wizard schools change the nature of the wizard. The necromancer is fundamentally different in some small way from a diviner. In the same way a fire elemental cannot defy its nature and choose to be burned by fire, the necromancer cannot choose to defy their nature and not resist necrotic damage.
Another way to thematically explain it is that the necromancer has developed an immunity in the same way a person might become immune to the effects of allergens or irritants they work with for a long time.
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
edited Aug 8 at 3:25
duskwuff
1053
1053
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
answered Aug 7 at 18:53
Grosscol
3,836633
3,836633
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
add a comment |Â
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
1
1
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
Regarding that JC quote about failing saves, it is important to note that he does not say you cannot intentionally fail. He just says there are no rules about it and therefore it is a DM call. So is that your conclusion here as well?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:55
1
1
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
Which is why I offered the example of the spell with a specific provision for it. I assume if it were always an option, it would not need to be stated.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 18:56
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
I find that logic actually not very compelling at all. There are plenty of examples of specific things in the rules restating general effects as part of their descriptions. It is not really logically sound to deduce general rules from perceived specific exceptions.
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 18:58
3
3
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
I concur, but if it were restating a general rule, there would be a general rule to cite.
– Grosscol
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
More relevantly though, I'm still unclear what point you are making by using that ruling as part of your logic. Could you maybe elaborate on it in your answer?
– Rubiksmoose
Aug 7 at 19:00
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129139%2fare-your-resistances-optional%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I'd rather let the wizard take half damage and still heal for full, because why not. Just interpretthe damage you taketo mean damage dealt, so before resistance, and that's exactly what you get. I'd allow it (but check with your DM, obviously).– Jorn
Aug 8 at 14:28
@Jorn It could have been easily written that way if that was the intent. "Heal for double the value of what you rolled for damage", or "regain 8d8 hitpoints", but instead it says "twice the damage you take", which is mitigated by resistance. RAW, it deals less damage and heals less, but I don't think it should be that way.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:30
1
@DanielZastoupil By that logic, the spell description was written with the intention of clashing with one of its own school's arcane tradition features; it does not make sense for a Necromancy arcane tradition feature to make Necromancy spells less effective
– Jared Goguen
Aug 8 at 16:48
@JaredGoguen That's what make sense, but take a look at Concentration: "Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your Concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher." It makes more sense for Life Transference to be just a bad spell for necromancers than it does for resistance to not help you concentrate. If "damage you take" didn't take resistance into account, resistance wouldn't help damage-concentration checks.
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 16:53
@JaredGoguen The impact of "damage-you-take" clauses ignoring resistance to damage is a much bigger deal across the board than assuming a single bad healing spell that nobody uses is even worse than what everyone thought. You could be right, though, in the thought that "damage-you-take" doesn't care about resistance, and I'll investigate that. (Edit) Got the answer, from Health in the books: "Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its Hit Points." or, in other words, "damage you take is what you lose in health", and so LT is worse for necromancers, RAW
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 8 at 17:08