Interesting: tHP and the rules

[RSP]

I find it interesting that tHPs have the opposite rules if going RAW vs “official” (that is, Sage Advice).

RAW: “Temporary hit points aren’t actual hit points; they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.”

Sage Advice: “When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you’re still taking damage, just not to your real hit points.”

So, RAW, tHPs are a “buffer against damage”, that is, you’re not taking damage if you only lose tHPs. This is important with Concentration: “Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration.” RAW, tHPs buffer against you taking damage, therefore, you aren’t taking damage.

Obviously the SA goes explicitly against this, but I’m surprised it hasn’t been errata’d as the two rule sets are in direct conflict.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Is there any in game mechanical difference here?

[stoutstien]

Is there any in game mechanical difference here?

I think what he's trying to say is damage temporary hit points ?shouldn't? Call for a concentration check because they're not literal damage to the character's Heath?

[Eragon123]

Is there any in game mechanical difference here?

Well, aside from the aforementioned concentration rules, there are also attacks that have riders depending if you have taken damage. Notably, vampire bite attacks. Let's say a vampire attacks a warlock who has Armor of Agythys (AoA) up. Let's say for sake of argument that the vampire rolls low and is unable to get through all of the THP. The vampire will take the AoA damage but does the warlock suffer a reduction in maximum hit points? RAW says no, SA says yes.

[stoutstien]

I know it would prevent it stacking but if temporary hit points were worded like the aid spell it would make it super clear.

[Shuruke]

That means temp hp spells that are concentration could be lost before tHP is gone X.X

Tbh that's a sage advice I've always ignored XD theirs a few of them.

[RSP]

I know it would prevent it stacking but if temporary hit points were worded like the aid spell it would make it super clear.

Not just the wording of tHP: there’s a pretty big narrative difference between tHPs gained from Inspiring Leader and AoA: one appears to be solely a morale boost while the other creates a force field around you akin to Star Trek space ships.

Aid does do a much better job of conveying the intent behind the RAW.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't see how the SA is incorrect. The rules say: "When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage ..." Clearly the damage is taken but the result is modified.

[stoutstien]

Not just the wording of tHP: there’s a pretty big narrative difference between tHPs gained from Inspiring Leader and AoA: one appears to be solely a morale boost while the other creates a force field around you akin to Star Trek space ships.

Aid does do a much better job of conveying the intent behind the RAW.
I mean the whole concept of health is pretty mystic *finger wiggly* to begin with.
inspiring leaders funny because it affects things that don't necessarily have the ability to be inspired. You can inspire a bunch of skeletons.

[Foxhound438]

Surprisingly I've never considered this. Taking damage is taking damage as far as I've ever considered it, having THP just means that your proper hit points don't change.

I'll admit that taking THP damage and then losing max HP is a weird thing though, but that's never come up in any of my games... Not sure why, maybe the players in my group just don't use abilities that provide THP as often as they probably should. I'm a big advocate of taking Inspiring Leader on any sort of charisma character but my friends seem to always skip it.

[Foxhound438]

I don't see how the SA is incorrect. The rules say: "When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage ..." Clearly the damage is taken but the result is modified.

This is probably the "crunch" part of the mechanic. The rules starting out saying it's a "buffer against damage" is a description, and doesn't mean you aren't taking damage when you get hit.

[TripleD]

I mean the whole concept of health is pretty mystic *finger wiggly* to begin with.


This right here. It’s still not 100% clear when a hit is a “hit”, and tempHP further muddles it.

When a vampire bites you we have to assume that it is actually biting you, otherwise the effect makes no sense. Not sure what tempHP could represent in that scenario.

When a dragon bites you? We have to assume some sort of luck pool is being depleted otherwise it seems ridiculous to assume you aren’t being crunched like a Dorito. In this case the tempHP is just giving you more luck.

[RSP]

Surprisingly I've never considered this. Taking damage is taking damage as far as I've ever considered it, having THP just means that your proper hit points don't change.

I'll admit that taking THP damage and then losing max HP is a weird thing though, but that's never come up in any of my games... Not sure why, maybe the players in my group just don't use abilities that provide THP as often as they probably should. I'm a big advocate of taking Inspiring Leader on any sort of charisma character but my friends seem to always skip it.

I’ve always hated that a character takes up to double damage when they have tHPs and take damage that has an effect of lowering max HP as well. It’s not bad enough that you lose your tHP; or you lose normal HPs and your max HPs goes down; no you need to have both happen.

That rule alone makes me want to toss out the SA ruling and just treat tHPs as it’s own seperate pool that prevents damage to the character and any accompanying effects (assuming no overflow).

You used a spell slot on AoA? Ha, jokes on you, Warlock! You used one of the two slots you had, all your tHP and still take full damage from the attack!


This right here. It’s still not 100% clear when a hit is a “hit”, and tempHP further muddles it.

When a vampire bites you we have to assume that it is actually biting you, otherwise the effect makes no sense. Not sure what tempHP could represent in that scenario.

When a dragon bites you? We have to assume some sort of luck pool is being depleted otherwise it seems ridiculous to assume you aren’t being crunched like a Dorito. In this case the tempHP is just giving you more luck.

Per the RAW, this is incorrect (though I agree the RAW isn’t 100% compatible with the narrative it supposedly represents). RAW states that HP loss between 100% and 50% max HP, is non-bodily damage; while HP loss less than 50% max HP is bodily damage.

Which makes for a very odd narrative when a character barely dodges an arrow, but still gets the Poisoned condition (or the Vamp bite effect you mentioned).

[RSP]

Another odd interaction with tHP is a Warlock with AoA up (or any tHP effect) who also has the Tomb of Levistus invocation.

Can they choose the have a damaging effect draw from all their AoA tHP (which, as it’s just tHP, isn’t damaging the Warlock, RAW), and then put ToL into effect only when they would start taking actual HP damage? The trigger for ToL is “when you take damage” so, RAW, if tHPs prevents damage to the character, then they wouldn’t be taking damage until the first tHPs are used up, and it would seem like it works.

For example, a level 7 Warlock at max HP (say 45 for this example) casts AoA. Then takes 44 damage. Can they have AoA (20 tHPs) eat the first 20 points of damage, then use ToL to gain 70 tHP and using those to absorb the remaining 24 danage, leaving the Warlock with 46 tHPs, and 45 HPs?

[Shuruke]

Per the RAW, this is incorrect (though I agree the RAW isn’t 100% compatible with the narrative it supposedly represents). RAW states that HP loss between 100% and 50% max HP, is non-bodily damage; while HP loss less than 50% max HP is bodily damage.

Which makes for a very odd narrative when a character barely dodges an arrow, but still gets the Poisoned condition (or the Vamp bite effect you mentioned).

You could always do the trope of

The arrow barely misses you and as you turn to laugh at the enemy you fail the con save and your knees go weak as you realize the poison tip barely cut you.


Or

You push strahd away barely evading his claws and bite. You feel weaker though as you realize that in the distraction of hos claws his teeth barely dragged along your skin and the necromatic touch sears your soul.

Generally I don't go this route and I go through everything beong wounds of varying degrees such as cuts on arms stab in shoulder etc. And dropping to 0 is a more serious wound.

Temp HP I generally flavor as you being bolstered and ignoring pain and shrugging pff wounds to an extent where if u had temp HP when attack hit that concentration check isnt needed.

[Samayu]

The way I play it, Temporary hit points are a named hit point boost. They're named so that the boost doesn't stack. Also, they can exceed your max hit point limit. Offhand, I can't think of any other differences between HP and tHP (aside from all the possible rule-fuzziness discussed here).

[JackPhoenix]

I’ve always hated that a character takes up to double damage when they have tHPs and take damage that has an effect of lowering max HP as well. It’s not bad enough that you lose your tHP; or you lose normal HPs and your max HPs goes down; no you need to have both happen.

That rule alone makes me want to toss out the SA ruling and just treat tHPs as it’s own seperate pool that prevents damage to the character and any accompanying effects (assuming no overflow).

You used a spell slot on AoA? Ha, jokes on you, Warlock! You used one of the two slots you had, all your tHP and still take full damage from the attack!

Um... what?


Per the RAW, this is incorrect (though I agree the RAW isn’t 100% compatible with the narrative it supposedly represents). RAW states that HP loss between 100% and 50% max HP, is non-bodily damage; while HP loss less than 50% max HP is bodily damage.

Which makes for a very odd narrative when a character barely dodges an arrow, but still gets the Poisoned condition (or the Vamp bite effect you mentioned).

Per RAW, this is incorrect. RAW doesn't state that HP loss between 100% and 50% max HP isn't bodily damage, it states that "When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury". That's not the same thing.

[Provo]

Um... what?

Yeah he is right (sage advice supports him). Suppose you have 20 HP and ten temp HP. You take 5 damage from a wraith (5 temp HP left), and your max HP is reduced by 5 (so your max hp is 15). You now have 15 HP and 5 temp, so your health has dropped by 10! It is an upsetting ruling that most people wouldn’t want to follow.


Outside of disliking the ruling above, I agree that THP doesn’t prevent you from taking damage. The wording “buffer against damage” doesn’t strictly mean you don’t take damage. You are reading too much into words that are not strictly defined.

Real world example: someone might put extra funds into a budget as a “buffer” against surprise events. That buffer doesn’t stop you from paying when a surprise comes, but it is still a “buffer against” those issues.

Since buffer is poor, easily misunderstood wording we have to look at the surrounding text to understand the meaning. As someone else pointed out, other RAW text states that you “DO” take damage as normal, but it comes from a different health pool.

[RSP]

Outside of disliking the ruling above, I agree that THP doesn’t prevent you from taking damage. The wording “buffer against damage” doesn’t strictly mean you don’t take damage. You are reading too much into words that are not strictly defined...

Since buffer is poor, easily misunderstood wording we have to look at the surrounding text to understand the meaning. As someone else pointed out, other RAW text states that you “DO” take damage as normal, but it comes from a different health pool.

Use the full wording from the rules: “...they are a buffer against damage, a pool of hit points that protect you from injury.”

Buffer could mean some slightly different things but the follow-on “that protect you from injury” helps define how they’re using “buffer”.

In Star Trek, for instance, the shields on the ships protect the ships from damage. This is the same use if you said “the shields buffer the ships against damage,” similar to the wording for tHPs. In 5e, per the RAW, tHPs protect the body of the character from injury in the same way: they prevent actual damage from occuring.

Similarly, if a character is at max HP, they’re not damaged, or their undamaged. So if a character is at max HP and has 15 tHP and takes a hit that does 15 damage, do you now say their damaged even though they’re at full HP? I wouldn’t: in my opinion the character is still undamaged in that situation, so I find it odd to say “they just took damage, but are undamaged.”

I admittedly, though, prefer the RAW to the official (in large part due to preferring narrative over mechanics and hating the “tHP/lower max HP rule”).

[RSP]

Per RAW, this is incorrect. RAW doesn't state that HP loss between 100% and 50% max HP isn't bodily damage, it states that "When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury". That's not the same thing.

Injury is damage to the body. An uninjured body is an undamaged body.

[JackPhoenix]

Injury is damage to the body. An uninjured body is an undamaged body.

"Typically" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, and "showing signs of injury" isn't the same thing as being unijured.

[RSP]

"Typically" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, and "showing signs of injury" isn't the same thing as being unijured.

Sure, that’s why it’s the general rule. I find it difficult to see how Psychic damage can do physical injury, for instance (outside of exploding heads).

[Boci]

Sure, that’s why it’s the general rule. I find it difficult to see how Psychic damage can do physical injury, for instance (outside of exploding heads).

And on the flipside, the afore mentioned vampire bite is likely going to have physical marks regardless of what % of HP you have.

[Shuruke]

Sure, that’s why it’s the general rule. I find it difficult to see how Psychic damage can do physical injury, for instance (outside of exploding heads).

Bloody noses
Popped blood vessels in the eyes
Bleeding out of ears
Left eye twitching
Right side of face hanging loosely like someone who had a stroke.

Their are options ^.^

[RSP]

Bloody noses
Popped blood vessels in the eyes
Bleeding out of ears
Left eye twitching
Right side of face hanging loosely like someone who had a stroke.

Their are options ^.^

Could. It could also just be fatigue. Some of these (like the stroke symptom) probably are more representative of other types of damage, but I wouldn’t object to a DM using them.

I think of it more interns of Phantasmal Force or Shadow Blade: neither of those would create the injuries you’d suppose they would if you saw what’s causing them. The SB just passes through the person (cutting them would be slashing damage), the illusory fire doesn’t burn, etc.