Bear Totem damage resistance & Infernal wound

[Swimbley]

Would a Bear Totem Barbarian be resistant to the bleeding damage of an infernal wound inflicted by a bearded devil?

[stoutstien]

Raw no. In a weird round about way it's not even damage as much as just a reduction of HP every failed con save. The stirge auto blood sucking action after the first round is simiar.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's silly is that most instances of "typeless" damage are from some kind of bleeding effect. Bleeding effects don't work on Undead or Constructs.

You know what also doesn't work on Undead or Constructs? Necrotic damage. If they just changed all "bleed" damage to necrotic, it'd solve so many problems and nobody would bat an eye.

[quindraco]

Would a Bear Totem Barbarian be resistant to the bleeding damage of an infernal wound inflicted by a bearded devil?

You mean while raging, right?

Being a Bear Totem Barbarian, as opposed to a normal Barbarian, has no relevance here - there's no evidence the Bearded Devil's wound deals any of the additional damage types the Bear Totem grants resistance to.

There is evidence (i.e. Jeremy Crawford tweets) that the RAI is that all damage always be typed, which is why sneak attack, hunter's mark, the damage from your attack stat with a weapon, etc are supposed to always be pegged to one of the types of the weapon (there's no actual RAW covering this, which is why it's technically up to your DM what happens when you sneak attack with a flame tongue rapier). The description of the bearded devil's infernal wound explicitly refers to the hp loss it causes as damage, removing any plausibility that it deals some sort of non-damage hp loss.

Accordingly, I would presume that for the same reason the devil's glaive deals +3 slashing damage (not +3 untyped), the intent is that since the infernal wound is delivered by the glaive specifically, the wound's damage is typed to the glaive - so it's slashing. That means all raging Barbarians are resistant to it, as they have Slashing resistance.

If your GM wants to allow untyped damage, you should clarify under what conditions you can deal it, as damage that ignores all resistance and all immunity is tremendous. For example, you may be able to deal untyped damage by combining Hunter's Mark with a net. Bear in mind, down this path lies madness - 5E's rules will rapidly break down if you don't force all damages to have a type based on what delivered them, as untyped damage sources are abundant and we know their RAI is not to let them ignore resistances - like Sneak Attack. Certainly, at a bare minimum, you could summon a bearded devil, take his glaive, hand it to the party barbarian, and stare into your DM's soul. The devil's only CR 3, I seriously doubt it's intended to be able to murder things immune to slashing damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

What's silly is that most instances of "typeless" damage are from some kind of bleeding effect. Bleeding effects don't work on Undead or Constructs.

You know what also doesn't work on Undead or Constructs? Necrotic damage. If they just changed all "bleed" damage to necrotic, it'd solve so many problems and nobody would bat an eye.
*golf clap*
well played.
A lot of mechanics from previous editions keep trying to contaminate 5e: fight the good fight! :smallcool:

[quindraco]

Raw no. In a weird round about way it's not even damage as much as just a reduction of HP every failed con save. The stirge auto blood sucking action after the first round is simiar.

The infernal wound on the glaive is explicitly described as damage, unlike Stirge blood drain:


Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (1d10).

[stoutstien]

The infernal wound on the glaive is explicitly described as damage, unlike Stirge blood drain:

True but it also doesn't have a source other than it's an infernal wound. We can extrapolate and base it on the glaive but it's not a traditional damage rider.

MoG has a good point about these weird edge cases regardless of how they are ruled because they are annoying. Personally I just added bleeding as a damaged type in its own right.

[ciopo]

You mean while raging, right?

Being a Bear Totem Barbarian, as opposed to a normal Barbarian, has no relevance here - there's no evidence the Bearded Devil's wound deals any of the additional damage types the Bear Totem grants resistance to.

But raging bear totem barbarian wording is "resistance to all damage except psychic".

So... even typeless damage is resisted by raging bears? :)

[ProsecutorGodot]

But raging bear totem barbarian wording is "resistance to all damage except psychic".

So... even typeless damage is resisted by raging bears? :)

Seems pretty cut and dry, if it's "damage" and not "psychic" you have resistance to it, assuming it doesn't have anything that explicitly prevents resistance.

Or rather, it would be simple if the Bearded Devil feature was clear on whether it would be "damage". The first instance seems to imply it isn't traditional damage, but the clause saying it worsens says that it is. I would say you would be resistant to it, we know it's supposed to be damage because the attack tells us it is, despite it being formatted strangely. We can't say the same about Stirge though because it never lists that hit point loss as damage.

[JackPhoenix]

You know what also doesn't work on Undead or Constructs? Necrotic damage. If they just changed all "bleed" damage to necrotic, it'd solve so many problems and nobody would bat an eye.

Necrotic works just fine on most constructs and good number of undead. Notably, skeletons.

[Valmark]

Would a Bear Totem Barbarian be resistant to the bleeding damage of an infernal wound inflicted by a bearded devil?
Seems to me like it would- it's damage and it isn't psychic, so it falls within the bear totem's field.


You mean while raging, right?

Being a Bear Totem Barbarian, as opposed to a normal Barbarian, has no relevance here - there's no evidence the Bearded Devil's wound deals any of the additional damage types the Bear Totem grants resistance to.

There is evidence (i.e. Jeremy Crawford tweets) that the RAI is that all damage always be typed, which is why sneak attack, hunter's mark, the damage from your attack stat with a weapon, etc are supposed to always be pegged to one of the types of the weapon (there's no actual RAW covering this, which is why it's technically up to your DM what happens when you sneak attack with a flame tongue rapier). The description of the bearded devil's infernal wound explicitly refers to the hp loss it causes as damage, removing any plausibility that it deals some sort of non-damage hp loss.

Accordingly, I would presume that for the same reason the devil's glaive deals +3 slashing damage (not +3 untyped), the intent is that since the infernal wound is delivered by the glaive specifically, the wound's damage is typed to the glaive - so it's slashing. That means all raging Barbarians are resistant to it, as they have Slashing resistance.

If your GM wants to allow untyped damage, you should clarify under what conditions you can deal it, as damage that ignores all resistance and all immunity is tremendous. For example, you may be able to deal untyped damage by combining Hunter's Mark with a net. Bear in mind, down this path lies madness - 5E's rules will rapidly break down if you don't force all damages to have a type based on what delivered them, as untyped damage sources are abundant and we know their RAI is not to let them ignore resistances - like Sneak Attack. Certainly, at a bare minimum, you could summon a bearded devil, take his glaive, hand it to the party barbarian, and stare into your DM's soul. The devil's only CR 3, I seriously doubt it's intended to be able to murder things immune to slashing damage.

How do you think devils have been able to hold the demons back despite sucking that much? Untyped damage!

Jokes aside yeah, I would say that if somebody is immune to its damage the bearded devil can't apply a wound. Since the enemy supposedly didn't get wounded.

Like it has already been said though, the bear totem's resistance doesn't give you some kind of list of resisted damage. You resist all damage but psychic, and untyped isn't psychic (at least this one doesn't appear to be).

[Keravath]

Raw no. In a weird round about way it's not even damage as much as just a reduction of HP every failed con save. The stirge auto blood sucking action after the first round is simiar.

I'd disagree.

1) the bear totem barbarian states "While raging, you have resistance to all damage
except psychic damage." ... so it would apply to all damage except psychic whether typed or not.

2) Bearded devil states "If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1dl0) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (ld10)."

This refers to losing hit points each turn and this is later referred to in the same description as damage. So trying to argue that hit point loss isn't damage also doesn't work.

So, yes, a raging bear totem barbarian would be resistant to the damage from the bearded devil.

[stoutstien]

I'd disagree.

1) the bear totem barbarian states "While raging, you have resistance to all damage
except psychic damage." ... so it would apply to all damage except psychic whether typed or not.

2) Bearded devil states "If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1dl0) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (ld10)."

This refers to losing hit points each turn and this is later referred to in the same description as damage. So trying to argue that hit point loss isn't damage also doesn't work.

So, yes, a raging bear totem barbarian would be resistant to the damage from the bearded devil.

That's fair. Actually misread the original post and thought it was just speaking about normal barbarian rage which is more of a puzzle with this mechanic.

[Swimbley]

I'd disagree.

1) the bear totem barbarian states "While raging, you have resistance to all damage
except psychic damage." ... so it would apply to all damage except psychic whether typed or not.

2) Bearded devil states "If the target is a creature other than an undead or a construct, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or lose 5 (1dl0) hit points at the start of each of its turns due to an infernal wound. Each time the devil hits the wounded target with this attack, the damage dealt by the wound increases by 5 (ld10)."

This refers to losing hit points each turn and this is later referred to in the same description as damage. So trying to argue that hit point loss isn't damage also doesn't work.

So, yes, a raging bear totem barbarian would be resistant to the damage from the bearded devil.

That’s how we reasoned it, but interestingly enough we wiped, TPK from a Banshee the very next game. 😂

[LudicSavant]

What's silly is that most instances of "typeless" damage are from some kind of bleeding effect. Bleeding effects don't work on Undead or Constructs.

You know what also doesn't work on Undead or Constructs? Necrotic damage. If they just changed all "bleed" damage to necrotic, it'd solve so many problems and nobody would bat an eye.

That’s not true though. Necrotic damage works on plenty of undead (usually zombies and skeletons of some description). You’re telling me skeletons should bleed?

[loki_ragnarock]

That’s not true though. Necrotic damage works on plenty of undead (usually zombies and skeletons of some description). You’re telling me skeletons should bleed?

The sun will come out to marrow! Bet your bottom dollar that to marrow!

EDIT
I don't know why this happened either.