Armor of Agathys

[Spankinstein]

My Conquest Paladin just learned that we most likely be dealing with oozes and slimes in the near future. I’m the tank and dread having my plate or shield damaged. I may purchase some temp lesser armor for this part of the adventure if I can.
But I was looking at Armor of Agathys.

Armor of Agathys
PHB p215
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a cup of water)
Duration: 1 hour
A protective magical force surrounds you, manifesting as a spectral frost that covers you and your gear. You gain 5 temporary hit points for the duration. If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, both the temporary hit points and the cold damage increase by 5 for each slot level above 1st.

Is it a stretch to say that the the spectral frost that covers the caster and it’s gear is essentially a shield of temp hit points, that wears away when hit? And if so, while it is active it would prevent being affected by the armor damaging acid effects?

[RSP]

My Conquest Paladin just learned that we most likely be dealing with oozes and slimes in the near future. I’m the tank and dread having my plate or shield damaged. I may purchase some temp lesser armor for this part of the adventure if I can.
But I was looking at Armor of Agathys.

Armor of Agathys
PHB p215
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a cup of water)
Duration: 1 hour
A protective magical force surrounds you, manifesting as a spectral frost that covers you and your gear. You gain 5 temporary hit points for the duration. If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, both the temporary hit points and the cold damage increase by 5 for each slot level above 1st.

Is it a stretch to say that the the spectral frost that covers the caster and it’s gear is essentially a shield of temp hit points, that wears away when hit? And if so, while it is active it would prevent being affected by the armor damaging acid effects?

Not an unreasonable assumption, however, there is no RAW (or even RAI, so far as I know) on this: it’ll be completely up to your DM.

I’d recommend discussing it up front and pitching your reasoning to see what they think.

[Unoriginal]

Is it a stretch to say that the the spectral frost that covers the caster and it’s gear is essentially a shield of temp hit points, that wears away when hit? And if so, while it is active it would prevent being affected by the armor damaging acid effects?

I would say it is a stretch to say that Armor of Agathys protects against the oozes' acid, given that said acid effect is *not* something linked to HPs (temporary or otherwise), and that it'd be giving additional powers to the spell.

That being said, can you acquire magic armor? It's likely to cost you less than your plate and be immune to the acid effect. Even if it's enchanted as a Common magic item.


Not an unreasonable assumption, however, there is no RAW (or even RAI, so far as I know) on this: it’ll be completely up to your DM.

I wouldn't call "give more power to an already very useful spell" a reasonable assumption, personally.

[Spankinstein]

Yeah. I’m leaning toward it not being allowed too.
I don’t think I’ll be able to get magic armor. But there is a market we haven’t explored yet, so maybe we’ll find some options. Thanks

[Lord Vukodlak]

Yeah. I’m leaning toward it not being allowed too.
I don’t think I’ll be able to get magic armor. But there is a market we haven’t explored yet, so maybe we’ll find some options. Thanks

You could always leave your platemail behind for that adventure and use some cheaper armor. Also anyone in the party know the mending cantrip?

[Tanarii]

If something takes effect on a hit or doing damage, it works even if the temp has come off off Armor of Agathys.

[Unoriginal]

Alternatively, I would be looking if an alchemist of the like can't coat the metal in a protective layer.

[patchyman]

Alternatively, I would be looking if an alchemist of the like can't coat the metal in a protective layer.
From a DM perspective, I like this solution the best. It shows that the player is thinking ahead and engaging with the world, and it doesn’t increase the power of a spell that (like Tanarii suggests) could have a bunch of unexpected side effects.

[RSP]

I would say it is a stretch to say that Armor of Agathys protects against the oozes' acid, given that said acid effect is *not* something linked to HPs (temporary or otherwise), and that it'd be giving additional powers to the spell.

That being said, can you acquire magic armor? It's likely to cost you less than your plate and be immune to the acid effect. Even if it's enchanted as a Common magic item.



I wouldn't call "give more power to an already very useful spell" a reasonable assumption, personally.

I wouldn’t call AoA a very useful spell, but, obviously, opinions vary.

If a character has AoA up and takes 1 point of damage that has a 10 hit point poison rider on it, I’d rule the character doesn’t take that 10 poison damage because the character wasn’t damaged, only the tHPs were. The character, in game, did not take an injury, so I don’t see how the poison made it into their system.

I tend to play by the narrative, though, others may rule differently for different reasons.

[Tanarii]

Alternatively, I would be looking if an alchemist of the like can't coat the metal in a protective layer.


From a DM perspective, I like this solution the best. It shows that the player is thinking ahead and engaging with the world, and it doesn’t increase the power of a spell that (like Tanarii suggests) could have a bunch of unexpected side effects.

Yeah that's not a bad idea. Probably needs to either be careful to limit its scope (Grey oozes and/or black puddings only), feasibility for use (wears off after N minutes or X hits, takes 1 min to apply) and give it some decent cost (it is saving very valuable plate mail).

[cutlery]

I wouldn’t call AoA a very useful spell, but, obviously, opinions vary.



AoA could be a bonus action cast and I still don't think I'd use it.

[Tanarii]

AoA could be a bonus action cast and I still don't think I'd use it.
Why not? It's a really good spell for Warlocks. Especially when upcast, which all warlocks get for 'free'.

I mean, if you know you're not going into melee that's one thing. But warlocks are Gish full caster.
(Edit: okay so are Clerics and V/S Bards, but they play a different party role. Warlocks are the Gish 'nuke' full caster.)

[RSP]

Why not? It's a really good spell for Warlocks. Especially when upcast, which all warlocks get for 'free'.

I mean, if you know you're not going into melee that's one thing. But warlocks are the Gish full caster.

I’ve been playing a melee Hexblade to 13 and maybe I’ve used it a half dozen times, and at least one of those times I didn’t end up getting hit.

It has its place, but with limited slots on a Warlock it’s a tough spell to dedicate half your capabilities to.

Can it be useful? Sure, but I don’t call that a “very useful” spell.

If you’re set up Darkness/SoM it’s a waste (my PC isn’t). If you’re set up for blasting then its probably not used. If you’re set up for melee not using SoM or Darkness, it’s still 1/2 to 1/3 your slots that could be Synaptic Static, Far Step, ES, Dimension Door, Hex, Sickening Radiance, Fear, HP,...

[cutlery]

Why not? It's a really good spell for Warlocks. Especially when upcast, which all warlocks get for 'free'.

I mean, if you know you're not going into melee that's one thing. But warlocks are Gish full caster.
(Edit: okay so are Clerics and V/S Bards, but they play a different party role. Warlocks are the Gish 'nuke' full caster.)

It isn't a great use of a slot when you can smite, SoM, or thunderstep/misty step. Early on I'd much rather use Fiendish Vigor or rely on the Fiend patron dripfeed for temp hp.

Even later, 25 temp hp just isn't exciting for how precious the spell slots are; and you are very likely to get more reflection damage from SoM. If for some reason you want to use Tomb of Levistus, that wipes out the AoA temp hp, too (it wouldn't wipe out Blink or Mirror Image; both of which cost the same action and spell slot to cast).

And later than that (but not much later) you can use Soul Cage for some healing if that's really critical, as a bonus action (once a soul is collected, of course).

If AoA wasn't as expensive in action economy as it is in spell slots, maybe. But with it as-is? I'd need a round of precasting to consider it, or to be playing games with rage (which isn't a bad use, for what that's worth).

[Frogreaver]

If AoA wasn't as expensive in action economy as it is in spell slots, maybe. But with it as-is? I'd need a round of precasting to consider it, or to be playing games with rage (which isn't a bad use, for what that's worth).

If you are in a situation where you are pretty sure you will be hit the next turn then using it and being hit will both prevent damage to you and deal about the damage you would have done by attacking or eldritch blasting back to the enemy. That seems fairly efficient to me. It's just a matter of how often that circumstance will arise.

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn’t call AoA a very useful spell, but, obviously, opinions vary.

If a character has AoA up and takes 1 point of damage that has a 10 hit point poison rider on it, I’d rule the character doesn’t take that 10 poison damage because the character wasn’t damaged, only the tHPs were. The character, in game, did not take an injury, so I don’t see how the poison made it into their system.

I tend to play by the narrative, though, others may rule differently for different reasons.

I can see the logic for your poison example, but the ooze's acid effect doesn't depend on damage at all. If the creature that's being hit loses 0 HPs but still get it, then the ooze still sols she's against the armor and still damage it.

[Tanarii]

It isn't a great use of a slot when you can smite, SoM, or thunderstep/misty step. Early on I'd much rather use Fiendish Vigor or rely on the Fiend patron dripfeed for temp hp.
Smite requires a +1, does roughly the same damage, and doesn't absorb any damage. It is targeted though. I've honestly never understood why a warlock would choose to take this invocation, there are far better uses for your invocations and spell slots.

Shadow of a Moil requires a +1 and isn't available until level 9. It's a great spell, but it doesn't absorb any damage.

Misty step is a bail out spell, and also a blown upcastable slot. Personally, I think it's useful but massively overrated.

Fiend Patron dripfeed is awesome. So is the Fiendish Vigor Invocation, especially at lower levels. Can't disagree with that. :smallamused:

Certainly overall though you have a point. Armor of Agathys has definitely gone down in value as more content has been released.


I can see the logic for your poison example, but the ooze's acid effect doesn't depend on damage at all. If the creature that's being hit loses 0 HPs but still get it, then the ooze still sols she's against the armor and still damage it.
If poison is applied on a successful hit, then it definitely also applies. That's the case even if damage is otherwise reduced to 0 (ie by Arcane Ward).

If it's applied on damage, IMO it should apply to someone who takes temp hp damage. (As opposed to reduced to 0 damage.) But if a DM ruled it didn't ... well, I'd probably want to sit carefully and think about if my character was being nerfed or not. Unlike many not very carefully thought out ruling players want DMs to make, this one would probably help PCs more than their enemies. smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn’t call AoA a very useful spell, but, obviously, opinions vary.

If a character has AoA up and takes 1 point of damage that has a 10 hit point poison rider on it, I’d rule the character doesn’t take that 10 poison damage because the character wasn’t damaged, only the tHPs were. The character, in game, did not take an injury, so I don’t see how the poison made it into their system.

I tend to play by the narrative, though, others may rule differently for different reasons.

I can see the logic for your poison example, but the ooze's acid effect doesn't depend on damage at all. If the creature that's being hit loses 0 HPs but still get it, then the ooze still sols she's against the armor and still damage it.

[Frogreaver]

Smite requires a +1, does roughly the same damage, and doesn't absorb any damage. It is targeted though. I've honestly never understood why a warlock would choose to take this invocation, there are far better uses for your invocations and spell slots.


A few things on smites.
1. Targeted
2. The guaranteed prone is often greatly underrated
3. Smites don't requires concentration and when used right can keep your damage just slightly behind SOM and GWM setups, without having to also spend feats on concentration boosts.

Personally, I've never understood why anyone would build a melee warlock that relies on concentration spells. The risk of losing 1 early with such limited slots is too great and the investment need to prevent that really slows down charisma and other feat progression which is a really big deal since at level 12+ your damage mod portion of your damage is doubled.

[Valmark]

Question: which ooze harms armors/shields? From a quick search (very quick) I found the Gray Ooze that harms weapons, not armors.

[SpanielBear]

Quick note on something AoA has that’s not being mentioned is its duration- 1 hour, no concentration. I use it a lot as a tomepact GOOlock, as it can be cast reliably before a fight and then it helps as a nasty surprise against anything that breaks through our frontline- and our DM is fond of summoned enemies, foes with misty step, things from the ceiling and the ever popular ‘Out of the God-D*mn walls!’.

I agree casting it in combat isn’t the best use of action economy, but it’s a pretty decent option if you know a fight is coming but you don’t know where from.

[Satori01]

The game theory calculations have to be considered. Having a Concentration spell active, is a subtle way to entice a DM to target your character. This is especially true for DMs that run all creatures like well informed, tactical savants, and whom can't resist attacking characters with Concentration duration spells active.

Create Bonfire + Repelling Blast is a simple, spell slot free control combo.

[cutlery]

Smite requires a +1, does roughly the same damage, and doesn't absorb any damage. It is targeted though. I've honestly never understood why a warlock would choose to take this invocation, there are far better uses for your invocations and spell slots.


Action economy. It lets you decide, after you've already hit, whether you want to spend a slot to deal damage and knock most enemies prone.





Shadow of a Moil requires a +1 and isn't available until level 9. It's a great spell, but it doesn't absorb any damage.


I assume you mean a spell slot?

It's a 4th level spell, available at 7th.



Misty step is a bail out spell, and also a blown upcastable slot. Personally, I think it's useful but massively overrated.


uses a bonus action; so you can still use your full action to put down damage that round.


I would like for AoA to be useful, but I just don't see casting it much, particularly once combat has already begun - there are other ways I can use those spell slots without using my action, or ways to use that action and that slot to get more use (blink, SoM).

I'd probably not use SoM in melee until I had war caster, FWIW, but blink is still pretty solid. SoM and AoA is a lot of reflection damage, but you burn through the temp HP from AoA too fast in this use.

I suppose if AoA was any stronger, it would be on the bard must have secrets lists.





Personally, I've never understood why anyone would build a melee warlock that relies on concentration spells. The risk of losing 1 early with such limited slots is too great and the investment need to prevent that really slows down charisma and other feat progression which is a really big deal since at level 12+ your damage mod portion of your damage is doubled.

We are in agreement there. Non-concentration is the best thing AoA has going for it, I think.

If/when I am stats-blessed enough to be able to take res:con and war caster I expect I'd use SoM more often. Maybe; I dunno.


The game theory calculations have to be considered. Having a Concentration spell active, is a subtle way to entice a DM to target your character.

Yep, see also one hour buffs and an hour and a minute of relative quiet :/

[Unoriginal]

Question: which ooze harms armors/shields? From a quick search (very quick) I found the Gray Ooze that harms weapons, not armors.

It's part of the Grey Ooze's attack, not of its abilities. Can't check which other Ooze has it, but I know Juiblex does damage armors too.

[Valmark]

It's part of the Grey Ooze's attack, not of its abilities. Can't check which other Ooze has it, but I know Juiblex does damage armors too.

Oh, thank you, overlooked that.

[Tanarii]

I suppose if AoA was any stronger, it would be on the bard must have secrets lists.

It often is. The only thing is that warlock spell slots automatic scale, which devalues spells that don't scale, you keep them for (at most) 2 levels before swapping out, or they're pure out of encounter utility. Bard slots aren't like that. But the scaling of AoA gives it good value for certain Bard builds, since Magical Secrets also can't be swapped out. (Technically they can but only for other Bard spells.)

[cutlery]

It often is. The only thing is that warlock spell slots automatic scale, which devalues spells that don't scale, you keep them for (at most) 2 levels before swapping out, or they're pure out of encounter utility. Bard slots aren't like that. But the scaling of AoA gives it good value for certain Bard builds, since Magical Secrets also can't be swapped out. (Technically they can but only for other Bard spells.)

I'm still not seeing it, given all the gaps on the Bard list.

If I had to have temp hp, I'd take AoA over false life, sure. But if you are actually in a position to use it you burn through them fast; and while it is concentration you've already got access to heroism

I mean, if you're going to use a secret, why not get Aid instead? Or Moil, or...

[Spankinstein]

What about casting Magic Weapon on my shield? A shield could be used as an improvised weapon, and making it magical would protect it from the acid effects

[RSP]

I can see the logic for your poison example, but the ooze's acid effect doesn't depend on damage at all. If the creature that's being hit loses 0 HPs but still get it, then the ooze still sols she's against the armor and still damage it.

The spell has a magic barrier of frost which is the tHP. The in-game reasoning is, if the ooze’s Attack doesn’t get through that magic frost barrier (the tHP), it doesn’t contact the armor.

[Valmark]

The spell has a magic barrier of frost which is the tHP. The in-game reasoning is, if the ooze’s Attack doesn’t get through that magic frost barrier (the tHP), it doesn’t contact the armor.

If you are a heavy armor user the in-game reasoning is that the attack managed to get through your armor. Usually.

I don't think in-game reasoning holds much weight in this specific discussion.

[RSP]

If you are a heavy armor user the in-game reasoning is that the attack managed to get through your armor. Usually.

I don't think in-game reasoning holds much weight in this specific discussion.

I’m not sure why you’d ever discount in-game reasoning for any 5e discussion: you’re basically saying “I don’t care about the role playing aspect” in a role playing game. I mean, that literally leaves you with “I only care about out of game stuff.”

But to each their own.

[Valmark]

I’m not sure why you’d ever discount in-game reasoning for any 5e discussion: you’re basically saying “I don’t care about the role playing aspect” in a role playing game. I mean, that literally leaves you with “I only care about out of game stuff.”

But to each their own.

Alright, then how can the attack get through your armor without touching your armor? Because you said that the in-game reasoning is that if the attack doesn't get through the frost armor it doesn't reach your armor, except that in order for the attack to strike your frost armor in the first place it needs to hit your armor first (in heavy armor users at least).

I wasn't saying to discard it because I don't care about roleplay (quite the opposite), I'm saying to discard it because it doesn't make sense.

[Hael]

AoA is really a pretty great spell, that's unfortunately relegated to primary classes that can't use it very well. Otoh its very powerful in certain builds, for instance the wizard abjurer or various paladin/warlock multiclasses. It really wants a class that has resistance to damage and possibly a class that can refresh the temphp in various ways.

[Amnestic]

The spell has a magic barrier of frost which is the tHP. The in-game reasoning is, if the ooze’s Attack doesn’t get through that magic frost barrier (the tHP), it doesn’t contact the armor.

Temp HP isn't a separate barrier except for Arcane Ward for abjurer wizards, which is why taking temp HP damage still provokes a full concentration roll even if there's temp HP remaining.

Likewise, if you get hit by an attack which has a poison rider, the poison isn't blocked by the temp HP. It's not a bubble shield.

You could argue that since HP is a combination of actual damage, luck and stamina* that even getting hit on your normal HP wouldn't necessarily have your armour take damage, because you weren't really hit, it was just some 'luck' being expended. And that's not how it works.

*PHB 196:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.

[elyktsorb]

Protip: If you fight oozes/slimes while wearing no armor, it can't be damaged.

[Tanarii]

You could argue that since HP is a combination of actual damage, luck and stamina* that even getting hit on your normal HP wouldn't necessarily have your armour take damage, because you weren't really hit, it was just some 'luck' being expended. And that's not how it works.

*PHB 196:
Yeah hit points in D&D are descriptively problematic that way when it comes to armor/shield damage and conditions or effects that really should only take place when some kind of physical contact is made. An attack that is turned away due to the PCs parrying skill can have the same effect as one that scratches them, because both hit and do damage.

That's why you absolutely cannot depend on what's going on in-game to determine how the abstract mechanical resolution works when it comes to attacks, hits, and loss of hit points. You just resolve it, then try your best to make the description of what happens in game match up. Not the other way around.

There's a term for that kind of mechanic that was popular in 4e era, but I forget what it was. But it's always held true for hit points.

[Unoriginal]

What about casting Magic Weapon on my shield? A shield could be used as an improvised weapon, and making it magical would protect it from the acid effects

Wouldn't Shield of Faith be more logical?

[Mr Adventurer]

In Xanathar's Guide to Everything there is Smouldering Armour, Cast-off Armour, and Gleaming Armour. All are Common magical items of extremely little power. However, they are magic armours. Your DM may be amenable to your being able to get hold of some.

[MaxWilson]

(B) I would like for AoA to be useful, but I just don't see casting it much, particularly once combat has already begun - there are other ways I can use those spell slots without using my action, or ways to use that action and that slot to get more use (blink, SoM).

I'd probably not use SoM in melee until I had war caster, FWIW, but blink is still pretty solid. SoM and AoA is a lot of reflection damage, but you burn through the temp HP from AoA too fast in this use.

(A) I suppose if AoA was any stronger, it would be on the bard must have secrets lists.

(A) Why waste a Magical Secret when you already got a ton of benefits from dipping Hexblade 1? You can pick up e.g. Shield and Armor of Agathys if those are the two you want most. Plus armor and shield prof, Booming Blade and Eldritch Blast, and Hexblade's Curse for novas. Even if Armor of Agathys were simply AMAZING you still wouldn't Magical Secrets it.

(B) If you precast Armor of Agathys, it's not bad. You can even Blade Ward and then dare an enemy or two into making an opportunity attack on you just to show off the futility of attacking you. Much like illusions, the effectiveness of this will vary with how your DM runs enemies: do they refuse to attack you from then on, or focus fire to kill you as quickly as possible, or just ignore the AoA damage and treat you normally?

It's not one of my top two picks for a Bardlock (I prefer Shield, Expeditious Retreat, then Hex for ability check shenanighans or Wrathful Smite for cheap control). But if I had it, I'd get some use of of it in big fights just because of the no-concentration long duration. (Mirror Image and Blink aren't comparable, only last a minute so tough to precast.)


AoA is really a pretty great spell, that's unfortunately relegated to primary classes that can't use it very well. Otoh its very powerful in certain builds, for instance the wizard abjurer or various paladin/warlock multiclasses. It really wants a class that has resistance to damage and possibly a class that can refresh the temphp in various ways.

Barb/Hexblade is a really fun multiclass.

[Unoriginal]

In Xanathar's Guide to Everything there is Smouldering Armour, Cast-off Armour, and Gleaming Armour. All are Common magical items of extremely little power. However, they are magic armours. Your DM may be amenable to your being able to get hold of some.

If there's time it may even be possible to enchant the plate armor OP's character already has.

[Vogie]

If you're just trying to get your stuff magical real quick, a single level of Forge Cleric or 2 levels in artificer allows you to flexibly make your armor and/or other things magical as you go.

[RSP]

Temp HP isn't a separate barrier except for Arcane Ward for abjurer wizards, which is why taking temp HP damage still provokes a full concentration roll even if there's temp HP remaining.

Likewise, if you get hit by an attack which has a poison rider, the poison isn't blocked by the temp HP. It's not a bubble shield.

You could argue that since HP is a combination of actual damage, luck and stamina* that even getting hit on your normal HP wouldn't necessarily have your armour take damage, because you weren't really hit, it was just some 'luck' being expended. And that's not how it works.

*PHB 196:

Im aware. I’m also aware it doesn’t make sense for a DM to say “the scorpion’s stinger misses you, but was close enough to affect your confidence” and then follows that up with “you feel pain as the poison runs through your veins.”

What you’re missing is I don’t run my games as HPs as luck or “hero points” or whatever.

If that’s how you want to play, great. I hope your players enjoy the confusion of not getting hit by injury poison, but getting poisoned.

For the OP’s case, the Attack hit the PC, but didn’t get through the tHP. Logically that infers the Attack didn’t get through the AoA, described as “a protective magical force surrounds you, manifesting as a spectral frost that covers you and your gear”; as the Attack didn’t get though said protective force, it didn’t come in contact with the armor.


Alright, then how can the attack get through your armor without touching your armor? Because you said that the in-game reasoning is that if the attack doesn't get through the frost armor it doesn't reach your armor, except that in order for the attack to strike your frost armor in the first place it needs to hit your armor first (in heavy armor users at least).

I wasn't saying to discard it because I don't care about roleplay (quite the opposite), I'm saying to discard it because it doesn't make sense.

From my answer above:

The Attack hit the PC, but didn’t get through the tHP. Logically that infers the Attack didn’t get through the AoA, described as “a protective magical force surrounds you, manifesting as a spectral frost that covers you and your gear”; as the Attack didn’t get though said protective force, it didn’t come in contact with the armor.

Up to you if you, as DM, want to describe the Attack as getting though that protective force covering the PC and the gear, but it’s counterintuitive to the spell’s effects. I find doing so, at the very least, changes what tHP are. If the Attack actually damages the PC, but they only lose tHP, what is the damage to the PC described as? A cut that then magically heals?

In this case, it changes that AoA is a protective force covering the caster.

So, no, the Attack doesn’t “need to hit your armor first.”

[Frogreaver]

Im aware. I’m also aware it doesn’t make sense for a DM to say “the scorpion’s stinger misses you, but was close enough to affect your confidence” and then follows that up with “you feel pain as the poison runs through your veins.”

What you’re missing is I don’t run my games as HPs as luck or “hero points” or whatever.

If that’s how you want to play, great. I hope your players enjoy the confusion of not getting hit by injury poison, but getting poisoned.


HP In the mostly luck/skill/divine intervention concept are not there for the DM to narrate non-plausible results. Instead he should either wait till he has all the info (ie the poison hit or missed) or he should adopt a narrative that makes sense in any possible scenario remaining.

It’s only when you hypothesize an incompetent DM that this kind of hp description gets illogical.

[Amnestic]

What you’re missing is I don’t run my games as HPs as luck or “hero points” or whatever.

If that’s how you want to play, great.

That's literally what the rules say. I quoted them *with a page reference*. If you want to change the rules for your table, great. But that's not what the rules as written are.

Your example doesn't even necessarily work - just because it's protected your HP from damage doesn't mean it's protected your armour, and *all* of your armour is covered in the frost, so a single piercing attack oozing through one spot narratively would still damage what you're wearing, while still leaving the rest of the armour covered in your frost protection.

Right?

[Valmark]

So... The attack needs to hit the PC to not hit the PC.

Think I'll end it at that.

[Mr Adventurer]

D&D combats are in many ways abstract, so treating the terminology as always literal is a mistake.

[Reynaert]

So... The attack needs to hit the PC to not hit the PC.

Think I'll end it at that.

The Grey Ooze armor-damage only applies on a hit. Which is what the OP was talking about, wasn't it?

[Valmark]

The Grey Ooze armor-damage only applies on a hit. Which is what the OP was talking about, wasn't it?

Yes? I was talking about Rsp's stance that an attack that hits a PC in heavy armor doesn't need to hit the armor. I probably should have quoted.

[cutlery]

(A) Why waste a Magical Secret when you already got a ton of benefits from dipping Hexblade 1? You can pick up e.g. Shield and Armor of Agathys if those are the two you want most. Plus armor and shield prof, Booming Blade and Eldritch Blast, and Hexblade's Curse for novas. Even if Armor of Agathys were simply AMAZING you still wouldn't Magical Secrets it.



Well, it isn't amazing, and if it isn't amazing I don't think it's worth a one level dip to pick up.

You don't dip hexblade for AoA specifically.

[RSP]

That's literally what the rules say. I quoted them *with a page reference*. If you want to change the rules for your table, great. But that's not what the rules as written are.

Your example doesn't even necessarily work - just because it's protected your HP from damage doesn't mean it's protected your armour, and *all* of your armour is covered in the frost, so a single piercing attack oozing through one spot narratively would still damage what you're wearing, while still leaving the rest of the armour covered in your frost protection.

Right?

So you start losing regular HPs on a short sword attack, after AoA absorbs 1 point of damage, because now that one spot is no longer protected? After that 1st point, the rest is regular HP, because the sword clearly pierced the AoA and the punctured the PC’s skin; regardless that AoA is still up with 14 more tHPs. That’s what you’re saying here?

I know the RAW on describing HPs. I, personally, dislike anything other than physical damage. That’s how I play.

Regardless of that, as I originally posted, there is no RAW answer to how a protective magical force interacts with an ooze’s attack. Does the protective magical force that’s surrounding your gear prevent it from damage? Ask your DM. I’ve stated how I see it making logical sense that it does.

You don’t have to agree with me; that’s fine, it’s how the game works. But quoting the RAW on how HPs can be described doesn’t in anyway interact that AoA very well could prevent the ooze’s armor damage while being completely compatible with RAW.

[RSP]

Yes? I was talking about Rsp's stance that an attack that hits a PC in heavy armor doesn't need to hit the armor. I probably should have quoted.

Except I didn’t say it hit the armor: that was all you.

If you want to see it as hitting the armor through the AoA, great. I obviously don’t.

We can disagree on this: you believe the wording of AoA and the tHPs mean something different. I go with the description as meaning what’s covered by AoA is protected, because that, to me, is what a “protective magical force” would do.

You’re free to go with a different meaning.

[Amnestic]

So you start losing regular HPs on a short sword attack, after AoA absorbs 1 point of damage, because now that one spot is no longer protected? After that 1st point, the rest is regular HP, because the sword clearly pierced the AoA and the punctured the PC’s skin; regardless that AoA is still up with 14 more tHPs. That’s what you’re saying here?

According to your *narrative* way of dealing with it, such an argument could very easily be made, yes. I don't think it does or should work that way but if I were a player in your game where AoA creates a frosty cover as a form of temp HP, I could make that argument, and I don't see how you could argue against it.



Regardless of that, as I originally posted, there is no RAW answer to how a protective magical force interacts with an ooze’s attack.

Yes there is - it doesn't. Temp HP all operates the same, regardless of its source. It doesn't protect from any damage riders or special effects on hit. That's RAW.

[Valmark]

Regardless of that, as I originally posted, there is no RAW answer to how a protective magical force interacts with an ooze’s attack. Does the protective magical force that’s surrounding your gear prevent it from damage? Ask your DM. I’ve stated how I see it making logical sense that it does.

You don’t have to agree with me; that’s fine, it’s how the game works. But quoting the RAW on how HPs can be described doesn’t in anyway interact that AoA very well could prevent the ooze’s armor damage while being completely compatible with RAW.

Wait, are we actually discussing if RAW Armor Of Agathys protects from a ooze's attack?

[RSP]

According to your *narrative* way of dealing with it, such an argument could very easily be made, yes. I don't think it does or should work that way but if I were a player in your game where AoA creates a frosty cover as a form of temp HP, I could make that argument, and I don't see how you could argue against it.



Yes there is - it doesn't. Temp HP all operates the same, regardless of its source. It doesn't protect from any damage riders or special effects on hit. That's RAW.

RAW: AoA creates “a protective magical force” around the caster, and the caster’s gear.

We know that protective force is also composed of tHP.

So if AoA is cast with a 3rd level spell slot, that protective magical force is 15 tHPs in absorption strength. And if that protective magical force is hit with 14 points of damage, the PMF takes it and is still in place. If it takes 15+ points of damage, then it’s no longer in place.

I don’t know why you’re arguing RAW and suggesting if that 15 tHP PMF takes 6 damage, then 5 is carried over to the PC. That is not how it works.

So, if the PMF takes 14 of its 15 tHP, it’s still in place. For me, that means it wasn’t penetrated. Obviously, you play it as you want though.

[Tanarii]

According to your *narrative* way of dealing with it, such an argument could very easily be made, yes. I don't think it does or should work that way but if I were a player in your game where AoA creates a frosty cover as a form of temp HP, I could make that argument, and I don't see how you could argue against it. Not to mention that an attack that does actual hit point damage to a PC may not have scratched the character at all ... unless there's a reason they did. HPs are wonky.


Yes there is - it doesn't. Temp HP all operates the same, regardless of its source. It doesn't protect from any damage riders or special effects on hit. That's RAW.Technically there's no RaW (written rule) that explicitly states this. But it's implicit interpretation. Because temp hit points tell you what they do, and don't reference any prevention of 'on hit' effects.
"When you have temporary hit points and take damage, the temporary hit points are lost first, and any leftover damage carries over to your normal hit points." p198.

I agree with you, but it comes from the combination of what tHP say they do, and not adding in something different because of descriptive text of the spell. However, some folks do add stuff in because of descriptive text of spells, and sometimes you can't even tell if it's descriptive or not, because 5e doesn't clearly delineate which is which.

[RSP]

I agree with you, but it comes from the combination of what tHP say they do, and not adding in something different because of descriptive text of the spell.

Well, if we discount the descriptive parts of spells, then we have no spells and only general rules...