Life Clerics and mass heals question.

[Mr.Spastic]

Does the bonus hp from Disciple of Life apply to every creature healed from spells like Mass Healing Word and Mass Cure Wounds?

[Man_Over_Game]

Does the bonus hp from Disciple of Life apply to every creature healed from spells like Mass Healing Word and Mass Cure Wounds?

"Also starting at 1st level, whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell's level. "

So, yes. It applies to every creature, every cast. According to Jeremy Crawford, it even works with something like Goodberry. It's why Life Clerics are pretty coveted in teams. Not every team wants a Barbarian, but nobody says no to a Life Cleric.

-------

Also, completely off topic, but I want to mention it whenever life clerics and healing comes up. Check out Warding Bond (Spell) and Heavy Armor Master (Feat). Combine them both and make an amazing healing tank. With the Life Cleric's level 6 feature, this is what happens:

You cast Warding Bond (Level 2 spell) on your ally.

Ally takes 11 damage in a single blow. That is halved to 5 damage. You both take 5 damage.

You mitigate that by 3 damage, reducing it to 2 damage.

Ally takes a second hit of equal damage. He's lost 10 HP, you've lost 4.

It comes up to your turn. You cast Healing Word on your ally. Healing Word heals 6 HP, cleric features bump this to 9 HP. Cleric feature now heals you for 3 HP.

You and your ally together took 22 damage, and reduced that to 1 damage apiece with a level 1 spell and a sustained level 2 spell that lasts for the entire fight. They can target you, sure, but you'll still mitigate 3 of their damage and you have heavy armor (AC ~17 or so).

[No brains]

"Also starting at 1st level, whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell's level. "

So, yes. It applies to every creature, every cast. According to Jeremy Crawford, it even works with something like Goodberry. It's why Life Clerics are pretty coveted in teams. Not every team wants a Barbarian, but nobody says no to a Life Cleric.

-------

Also, completely off topic, but I want to mention it whenever life clerics and healing comes up. Check out Warding Bond (Spell) and Heavy Armor Master (Feat). Combine them both and make an amazing healing tank. With the Life Cleric's level 6 feature, this is what happens:

You cast Warding Bond (Level 2 spell) on your ally.

Ally takes 11 damage in a single blow. That is halved to 5 damage. You both take 5 damage.

You mitigate that by 3 damage, reducing it to 2 damage.

Ally takes a second hit of equal damage. He's lost 10 HP, you've lost 4.

It comes up to your turn. You cast Healing Word on your ally. Healing Word heals 6 HP, cleric features bump this to 9 HP. Cleric feature now heals you for 3 HP.

You and your ally together took 22 damage, and reduced that to 1 damage apiece with a level 1 spell and a sustained level 2 spell that lasts for the entire fight. They can target you, sure, but you'll still mitigate 3 of their damage and you have heavy armor (AC ~17 or so).

I like that combo in theory, but are you sure Heavy Armor Master would stop that magic damage? Not only is it magic, but doesn't Warding Bond have some rider that the damage to you can't be reduced?

[Man_Over_Game]

It's valid, but it can seem ambiguous to some.

Warding Bond does not say that the damage cannot be reduced, which is unlike how the Redemption/Crown paladins have their abilities written. To me, this states that the ability was intended to allowed to be reduced.

Additionally, Jeremy Crawford has said this about Warding Bond:

If the cleric has resistance, nothing in the rules says it doesn't work.
Which I'd assume also applies to something like Damage Reduction.

And while Warding Bond says nothing about damage types, leading some to assume that it's "typeless" damage, he also said this:

All damage has a type. #DnD
Which means that the only real damage type that we have to refer to in this instance is the original source, with no mention of any changes by Warding Bond.


So while a DM can make the call that it's "typeless" because the damage is received via Warding Bond, officially it's as magical as the original attack was.

For me, I make the call that Warding Bond is an abjuration spell, which often deals with physical elements. I like the idea that it's warping reality to cause the same attack as it is on you. The imagery of identical scars and strikes against us just seems really flavorful, and making the damage into some kind of generic psychic/force/typeless effect just doesn't seem nearly as cool. Abjuration is full of weird effects, with Shield (a deflecting barrier), Aid (a life enhancing cure), and Sanctuary (a blessing that protects you via the holy power of pacifism) all being in the same boat. So creating a semi-portal that splits damage between you and your ally doesn't seem that weird to me.

------

Lastly, balance wise-who cares? Most people prefer the style of healing of hitting 0 HP and reviving someone before their turn to mitigate the most damage, and this build incentivizes damage on the healer to keep people healthy. It's not exactly game breaking, and requires a level 2 spell with very limited range to work with non-magical attacks. It'll be useful up to level 10 (when most things deal magical damage), and that feat won't seem nearly as useful.

Is it better than a generic PAM GWM Fighter?

Flavorfully: Yes. Mechanically: No. Which is perfect enough criteria for me to let it fly when I DM.

[JackPhoenix]

So while a DM can make the call that it's "typeless" because the damage is received via Warding Bond, officially it's as magical as the original attack was.

Counterpoint: The damage is caused by the Warding Bond. Any damage caused by a spell counts as magical.

[KorvinStarmast]

Counterpoint: The damage is caused by the Warding Bond. Any damage caused by a spell counts as magical. Wrong edition.

Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
Damage is done by attack type. So, if the attack was with fire, it is fire that comes through, not this mythical "magical" damage you refer to. ( The only purely magical damage type is Force. ) If the warded party member takes poison damage, the cleric takes poison damage, etc. Piercing, piercing ... fire bolt may be a magical attack, but it's damage type is still fire. Thunderwave may be a magical effect,area of effect, no attack roll) and its damage is thunder. Etc.

It's actually really straightforward, one of the least complicated parts of the game.

Magical attacks are what pass by resistances.

Leave old edition knowledge at the door. The damage types are explicitly described here:
Note, even spells don't do "magical" damage that you refer to.

Damage Types
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types. The damage types follow, with examples to help a
DM assign a damage type to a new effect.
Acid. The corrosive spray of a black dragon’s breath and the dissolving enzymes secreted by a black pudding deal acid damage.
Bludgeoning. Blunt force attacks—hammers, falling, constriction, and the like—deal bludgeoning damage.
Cold. The infernal chill radiating from an ice devil’s spear and the frigid blast of a white dragon’s breath deal cold damage.
Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.
Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon.
Lightning. A lightning bolt spell and a blue dragon’s breath deal lightning damage.
Necrotic. Necrotic damage, dealt by certain undead and some spells, withers matter and even the soul.
Piercing. Puncturing and impaling attacks, including spears and monsters’ bites, deal piercing damage.
Poison. Venomous stings and the toxic gas of a green dragon’s breath deal poison damage.
Psychic. Mental abilities such as a mind flayer’s psionic blast deal psychic damage.
Radiant. Radiant damage, dealt by a cleric’s flame strike spell or an angel’s smiting weapon, sears the flesh like fire and overloads the spirit with power.
Slashing. Swords, axes, and monsters’ claws deal slashing damage.
Thunder. A concussive burst of sound, such as the effect of the thunderwave spell, deals thunder damage. If you look carefully at the above list, no type called "magical" is there.

A more detailed exposition on this is here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/134279/22566).

[JackPhoenix]

Wrong edition.
Damage is done by attack type. So, if the attack was with fire, it is fire that comes through, not this mythical "magical" damage you refer to. ( The only purely magical damage type is Force. ) If the warded party member takes poison damage, the cleric takes poison damage, etc. Piercing, piercing ...

Magical attacks are what pass by resistances.

Leave old edition knowledge at the door. The damage types are explicitly described here:
Note, even spells don't do "magical" damage that you refer to.
If you look carefully at the above list, no type called "magical" is there.

You know what I mean. Magical piercing/bludgeoning/slashing, if you want to be a pedant. It comes from a spell, it ignores Heavy Armor Master. And any other source of resistance to non-magical P/B/S damage. Only P/B/S cares if the source is magical or not.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know what I mean. Magical piercing/bludgeoning/slashing, if you want to be a pedant.
It comes from a spell, it ignores Heavy Armor Master.
And any other source of resistance to non-magical P/B/S damage. Only P/B/S cares if the source is magical or not. I can't agree Jack, and I am not sure why you think that it coming through the warding bond matters.
A kind of damage is done and reduced by 3. And HAM is an edge case, though I completely appreciate what you are getting at. (I'll go and check the feat again and see if I missed something).
Damage reduction isn't resistance.


... a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source (Basic Rules, p. 112; under Vulnerabilities, Resistances, and Immunities).
OK, so let's look at this.
Heavy Armor Master


While you are wearing Heavy Armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from non-magical Weapons is reduced by 3. The warding bond isn't a weapon. It's a magical effect that transfers a kind of damage to you; it's not a source of an attack, the weapon hitting your party member is.
You may feel that I am hair splitting, but going back to "magical attacks as that which bypasses" is consistent as the theme.

If the Paladin you are warding takes the slashing damage from a magical weapon, I'm with you. If it was a mundane weapon, the warding bond does not turn the enemy's weapon into a magical one.

As I understand your post, you are considering the bond as a source of a magical attack-but no attack roll is made by warding bond. What is an attack, magical or not? It is some thing that makes an attack roll. WB does not make an attack roll.

I understand that as a ruling, I can see how you get there, but I disagree and I believe that the mechanics as presented are clear enough ... but I confess, it took a bit of working with that spell and going over related issues to arrive at this position.

[Teaguethebean]

Counterpoint: The damage is caused by the Warding Bond. Any damage caused by a spell counts as magical.

But it's not from a magical weapon so it should still totally be reducing damage

[Sidson]

In my opinion, Warding Bond cannot be used with HAM that way.
Assuming the original attack on the ally was made by nonmagical weapon:
1. (Logically) The damage which are dealt to the caster are not hitting the armor, therefore the armor does not reduce it.
2. (RAW) The caster is not struck by the weapon, she/he is struck by the effect of his own spell and the type of damage is the same as the type of damage which was dealt to original target. For that reason this damage is subjected to resistance.

On my table it would not work.

[JackPhoenix]

The warding bond isn't a weapon. It's a magical effect that transfers a kind of damage to you; it's not a source of an attack, the weapon hitting your party member is.
You may feel that I am hair splitting, but going back to "magical attacks as that which bypasses" is consistent as the theme.

If the Paladin you are warding takes the slashing damage from a magical weapon, I'm with you. If it was a mundane weapon, the warding bond does not turn the enemy's weapon into a magical one.

In that case, HAM doesn't work ANYWAY, because the P/B/S damage you take from Warding Bond isn't "damage from non-magical weapon" anymore. The target takes damage from the original weapon attack, the caster takes damage from Warding Bond. If there was a condition attached to the original attack, it doesn't get transfered through the bond either.

Oh, and that reading means unarmed strikes ignore HAM, because while it's weapon attack, it's not damage *from a weapon*. You can also kick/punch werewolves to death.

[Chronos]

Quoth Man_Over_Game:

So, yes. It applies to every creature, every cast. According to Jeremy Crawford, it even works with something like Goodberry.
Thereby quadrupling the power of that already very good spell. Sure, it'd take a Magical Initiate or multi-class, but that's quite impressive.

And might I remind everyone that the OP didn't ask anything about Heavy Armor Mastery or Warding Bond?

[Man_Over_Game]

Thereby quadrupling the power of that already very good spell. Sure, it'd take a Magical Initiate or multi-class, but that's quite impressive.

And might I remind everyone that the OP didn't ask anything about Heavy Armor Mastery or Warding Bond?

Well, somewhat quadrupling. Quadrupling the healing numbers, yes, but Goodberry is usually used to refresh a character from dying (akin to a Paladin's use for Lay On Hands), or to sustain someone nutritionally for the entire day. The extra healing is nice, but it doesn't do much more than a Short Rest couldn't provide. I'd say that eating a goodberry takes as much time as quaffing a potion, so both would take an action, and taking an action to heal 4 HP isn't usually ideal in the middle of combat.

Also, found the relevant ruling by Jeremy Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/805222825183219712), to put the prior discussion to a close:

Q: Is warding bond the source of its generated damage instance? If so what damage type is it? Is it still spell damage? thanks

A: When you take damage via warding bond, you're taking damage from whatever caused damage to the target of warding bond.

[Citan]

You know what I mean. Magical piercing/bludgeoning/slashing, if you want to be a pedant. It comes from a spell, it ignores Heavy Armor Master. And any other source of resistance to non-magical P/B/S damage. Only P/B/S cares if the source is magical or not.


I can't agree Jack, and I am not sure why you think that it coming through the warding bond matters.
A kind of damage is done and reduced by 3. And HAM is an edge case, though I completely appreciate what you are getting at. (I'll go and check the feat again and see if I missed something).
Damage reduction isn't resistance.


OK, so let's look at this.
Heavy Armor Master
The warding bond isn't a weapon. It's a magical effect that transfers a kind of damage to you; it's not a source of an attack, the weapon hitting your party member is.
You may feel that I am hair splitting, but going back to "magical attacks as that which bypasses" is consistent as the theme.

If the Paladin you are warding takes the slashing damage from a magical weapon, I'm with you. If it was a mundane weapon, the warding bond does not turn the enemy's weapon into a magical one.

As I understand your post, you are considering the bond as a source of a magical attack-but no attack roll is made by warding bond. What is an attack, magical or not? It is some thing that makes an attack roll. WB does not make an attack roll.

I understand that as a ruling, I can see how you get there, but I disagree and I believe that the mechanics as presented are clear enough ... but I confess, it took a bit of working with that spell and going over related issues to arrive at this position.
Hey guys ;)

Can't help but chime in, because I think there is a middle ground here.

What can we agree upon?
Warding Bond says "X has resistance against all damage, and You take the same amount of damage".
- There is no mention of "damage cannot be reduced in any way" like in other abilities.
-> Damage suffered through Warding Bond can be reduced whenever you have an ability that matches the type of damage suffered.
Yes? I'll consider yes.

So, if for example you Warded a Fighter that was just catched into a Fireball, which dealt 32 damage overall, Fighter would actually suffer 16. You would suffer the same 16 amount. If you happen to be a Fire Genasi, you'd be resistant to fire damage, so you'd actually suffer only 8.

"Oh, wait, what's that holdup? How can you determine that the damage warder suffers would be fire"?
Well, that is actually, and precisely, the whole crux of the problem.

Warding Bond just says "you suffer the same amount of damage". So either we consider that 5e allows "typeless" damage, or we don't.
Actually, we know (from memory, plz someone provide reference I'm AFB ^^) that there is no such thing as "typeless damage".
We can stress that by compulsing all spells: there is absolutely NO, 0, NADA spell that would just deal "magic damage". It's always one of fire, cold, lightning, bludgeoning etc. Actually, the "magical" keyword is just here to distinguish the source of the damage type when such damage can originate either from a purely magical source (like spell) or a natural/physical source (like weapon attack, natural hazard, trap), but it's not a type per se.
So we can also agree that "magical" is not a "damage type", but simply a subcategorization applied to some damage types.

Agreed? I'll consider yes.
Then, since there is no such thing as typeless damage, it means that if Warding Bond does not precise anything, it's because it logically is of the same type than what was inflicted on the warded creature.

So, at least, for all elemental damage, you can clearly use whatever way of damage reduction you have.

Now for the most complex use-case: damages that can come from either a natural or magical source: the three "physical" of course but also fire, cold, and possibly poison or lightning.

Should we consider that, irrelevant of whether the original damage source is physical or magical, the "damage transference forces the warder end to be magical"?

I don't think there is anything in the spell description that would allow a definite opinion one way or another. Simply because (sadly imo, YMMV), in Warding Bond as in 99% other spells in 5e, there is no fluff description, so no clue whatsoever as to how designers envisioned the spell to work "in real (DD obviously ^^) life".

So it's up to each DM to decide. Period. ;) It's one of those gray areas that simply have no RAW and little RAI (AFAIK but I don't follow Twitter). ^^

[JackPhoenix]

Also, found the relevant ruling by Jeremy Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/805222825183219712), to put the prior discussion to a close:

Doesn't make sense, but fair enough. Discussion closed.

[Chronos]

Well, true, when you're using it to get a downed party member back on their feet, there isn't much difference between 1 HP and 4 HP: Either way, they're probably going down again the next time they take a hit. And you're right that it won't affect the "sustain a creature for a day" usage, but a single casting is already enough to cover the entire party for that, and how often does that even come up in your games? That's mostly just a flavor thing (though I have made use of them for that purpose a few times). But 40 total points of healing from a single 1st-level spell is still an awful lot, especially when it's a first-level spell that you cast from your leftover slots last night, without even needing to use any of today's resources.