Retributive Amulet Question

[Yogibear41]

Got no answer in simple question thread so will try my luck here :smallsmile:


My character is wearing a Retributive Amulet (BOED pg. 116) and has a Damage reduction of 10. If a monster attacks me for 20 points of damage prior to applying my DR, does the 20 points get divided into 10 points to me, which is negated by my DR and 10 points to the monster, or is the 10 points of the DR subtracted first resulting in 5 points of damage to me and 5 points of damage to the monster?

[Zanos]

In addition, when the wearer takes damage from a melee attack made with a natural or hand-held weapon, the damage is divided equally between the attacker and the target.
My reading is that you need to take the damage, therefore retributive amulet applies second.

[LTwerewolf]

Agree, it would be after whatever mitigating factor right before you actually take the damage.

[XionUnborn01]

My reading is that you need to take the damage, therefore retributive amulet applies second.

I'd agree with that. It gets lowered from reduction and then when you would actually take damage, it's halved.

[Jowgen]

My intital thought was in line with everyone else: it is the actual damage taken that gets divided, you can't divide damage that you don't take. If the attacker in question were to only hit for 10 damage, which would have no effect, it makes no sense that the attacker would take 5 damage.

On the other hand, one could make a RAW order of operation argument. When the order in which effects are applied isn't specified, the default is to apply them in whatever order is most beneficial to the receiving creature. It is clearly more beneficial to first divide the damage in two and then reduce it.

I think one also must consider what happens if both creatures have damage reduction. As the damage dealt by the Amulet is described as identically typed, an attacker should be able to apply his own damage reduction against it; which he would naturally be doing after the damage is halved. I doubt there is a balance issue, but it just seems way more streamlined if both attacker and defender got to apply their damage reductions 2nd.

Alternatively, one might make it dependent on the fluff of the damage reduction, as in whether its "Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly". If its immediate healing, then it makes sense that damage reduction gets applied second, so 0-5 damage split from the first example would make sense.

[LTwerewolf]

The next part of what you quoted was "in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective." It being called and for all reasons considered ineffective indicates that that damage was never taken. If the damage was never taken, it cannot properly be reflected.


Also the order of operations thing is not actually a rule, simply a very common house rule taken out of the faq.

[Starkeeper]

On the other hand, one could make a RAW order of operation argument. When the order in which effects are applied isn't specified, the default is to apply them in whatever order is most beneficial to the receiving creature. It is clearly more beneficial to first divide the damage in two and then reduce it.

Alternatively, one might make it dependent on the fluff of the damage reduction, as in whether its "Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly". If its immediate healing, then it makes sense that damage reduction gets applied second, so 0-5 damage split from the first example would make sense.

I feel like taking less damage is more important than taking normal damage but dealing a bit more to the opponent, you probably won't be activating this amulet for minor hits so it's going to hurt, might as well use that DR.


I think one also must consider what happens if both creatures have damage reduction. As the damage dealt by the Amulet is described as identically typed, an attacker should be able to apply his own damage reduction against it; which he would naturally be doing after the damage is halved. I doubt there is a balance issue, but it just seems way more streamlined if both attacker and defender got to apply their damage reductions 2nd.

You can activate a retributive amulet imme*diately after another creature has dealt damage to you with a melee attack. That creature takes damage equal to half the damage it dealt to you. This damage is of the same type (or types).

If the other creature has appropriate DR/Energy Resistance, then yes, it would take lessened damage.


Alternatively, one might make it dependent on the fluff of the damage reduction, as in whether its "Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly". If its immediate healing, then it makes sense that damage reduction gets applied second, so 0-5 damage split from the first example would make sense.
I'm not sure what sort of creature has DR that is fluffed as near-instantaneous healing though, usually Trolls and the like just have Fast Healing/Regeneration.

[Campbellk8105]

I would vote the prior over the latter.

Creature strikes you for 20 damage. You reflect half for 10, and your DR mitigates the 10 you would take.

To me, 20 points of damage is 20 points of damage. Hit another creature without DR, and it should be no different.


Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

I retract my previous statement.