Can you use retaliation for delayed/continual damage attacks?

[holywhippet]

Can a barbarian use retaliation for things that cause damage over time? For example, if they are hit with acid arrow or heat metal they will take damage after the inital casting of the spell. If they are standing next to the caster, can they still use retaliation every time they take more damage?

[JackPhoenix]

Assuming they still have reaction available, yes.

[nickl_2000]

"When you take damage from a creature that is within 5 feet of you..."


This one is very specific in it's wording by being generic (yes, that's an odd sentence), but a continuing spell effect would certainly trigger this as you are taking damage from a creature within 5 feet of you.

[MrStabby]

It is one of those sliding scale questions with "probably" being the answer.

If someone uses heat metal on your breastplate are they doing you damage or is it your armour doing you damage. If someone casts reverse gravity and you hit the ceiling, is it the ceiling doing you damage or the spell, if a caster summons a bear then does the bear damage you or is it the caster through the summon spell? What about magic weapon - is a caster responsible for that extra damage and therefore damaged you when someone else attacked you?

So probably, but check with the DM where they draw the line.

[nickl_2000]

It is one of those sliding scale questions with "probably" being the answer.

If someone uses heat metal on your breastplate are they doing you damage or is it your armour doing you damage. If someone casts reverse gravity and you hit the ceiling, is it the ceiling doing you damage or the spell, if a caster summons a bear then does the bear damage you or is it the caster through the summon spell? What about magic weapon - is a caster responsible for that extra damage and therefore damaged you when someone else attacked you?

So probably, but check with the DM where they draw the line.

JC just tweeted today about the summon option. With this
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1009573805415489537

A rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity offers no protection against a summoned creature. The creature's presence is a spell effect. The creature itself is not a spell effect. #DnD
So, you could retaliate against the bear but not the summoner.



My personal call as a DM would be if the spell effect directly does damage or an consequence of the spell does damage. An example of a spell effect doing damage over time Acid Arrow, Heat Metal, Flaming Sphere, Create Bonfire, etc. An example of a consequence causing damage Gust pushing someone off a ledge and the fall damages them, dispelling someones flight spell, reverse gravity, a summoned creature attacking, Firebolt starting a fire in a building and the fire hurting them, etc. But's that's my call.

[MrStabby]

JC just tweeted today about the summon option. With this
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1009573805415489537

So, you could retaliate against the bear but not the summoner.



My personal call as a DM would be if the spell effect directly does damage or an consequence of the spell does damage. An example of a spell effect doing damage over time Acid Arrow, Heat Metal, Flaming Sphere, Create Bonfire, etc. An example of a consequence causing damage Gust pushing someone off a ledge and the fall damages them, dispelling someones flight spell, reverse gravity, a summoned creature attacking, Firebolt starting a fire in a building and the fire hurting them, etc. But's that's my call.

My approach is to guide by "school" although not strictly.

Evocation is obviously direct damage
Transmutation is changing an existing object and I would attribute the damage to that changed object - be it making a weapon magical, armour hot or objects animated
Necromancy is also usually direct effect although things like animate dead I don't count as direct
Summoned creatures I treat as a direct effect, be it conjured bears or insect plague