Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General stacking resistences

Do resistences stack?

Say, Tiefling natural fire resisance and fire resistence from somewhere else?

Would you have base 25% damage from a fire source or is just 50% and a waste of a resource?

I think they should stack from my understanding of D&D rules. But you should be able to test it out by trying the build and looking at the combat log if you're on PC: mouse over each entry, and if I remember rightly it shows the amount of damage before and after resistance is applied. You could also have one of your party cause fire damage to the guinea pig to test it.

Resistance doesn't stack. It's a binary state of having it or not.

Getting Resistance from multiple sources does nothing, you will still just have 50% damage reduction.

I might be wrong but I think the only way you can sort of make it "stack" is by being the caster of Warding Bond. The target of the WB gets resistance against all damage types and transfers the damage they take to the caster of the bond, if the caster then also has resistance against a specific damage type they should be doubly protected, but only against the damage they soak from their ward. (Chain-casting WB doesn't work afaik.)

That is most certainly not how is this supposed to work.

Which part do you mean?

Warding Bond target is hit by, say 20 fire damage. The WB gives resistance, so they take 10 damage, these 10 are then transferred to the caster, if the caster also has fire resistance, it is again halved and they take 5 fire damage. (Unless this has been changed at some point.) If our WB caster with their independent resistance is directly hit with the 20 fire damage they will take 10 instead. It's super niche but might be helpful in special circumstances.

That is it working RAW.

"While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage. Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage."

Damage is taken only after mitigating factors have been applied. So things like Resistance, damage reduction (From things like Heavy Armour, Heavy Armour Mastery, Arcane Ward etc) reduce the damage of an attack and you only receive the end result.

This is then transferred via the Warding Bond to the caster of the Bond. Where again, mitigating factors apply before taking the damage.

The skill does not make both parties take the same attack, it does not mention that the transferred damage bypasses mitigation, it does not change the damage in any way.

It simply takes whatever damage that is taken by the recipient of the Bond and creates a new source of damage of the same value as was taken and directs it to the caster of the Bond.

Hence the caster of the Bond can "Double Dip" into Resistance/Damage Reduction effects by having their bonded target have them as well as using them themselves.

In reality, the actual quirk of this spell is that the damage to the caster is counted as if it came from the Bonded target. So if the Bonded target has effects like the Caustic Band, Callous Glow Ring, Elemental Adept etc. These effects are applied to the damage that gets sent to the caster. Which is more of a Larian coding quirk than a RAI scenario.

Weird. I 've rarely used this spell but always assumed that it simply passed the damage to the caster, without any further fiddling.If it means the protected person becomes a new source of damage, then what would happen if the caster -- for instance -- had the "armour of agathys" condition. Would they damage the one protected by the spell for cold damage which would then turn back on themselves also ?

Nothing would happen with Armour of Agathys, since it specifies a "Melee" attack. While Warding Bond is considered a Spell.

But something like say, Cindermoth Cloak will trigger and yes, you can set your bonded target on fire, dealing damage, which goes back to the caster... Which triggers Cindermoth Cloak...

It's a pretty odd interaction to say the least.

Well, that's already an inconsistency. If it changes the attack from melee to magic, but keeps the damage type for resistance... Because one can have resistance to normal damage and not to magical damage. It looks kinda messy. For a human DM this seems quite horrible to track.
I guess that, if I was a 5E DM, I'd just make the houserule that it transfers the damage from the victim to the protector, as it is. That's also what it says literally in the BG3 description.

For a human DM, they'd be using RAI. In which this interaction doesn't occur.

RAI states that only the damage gets transferred over and no additional effects from the original damage source, with the only interaction being the "Double Dip" of mitigations because of the two pronged instances of damage still working on regular damage rules (I.e. Damage received is the net result of incoming damage modified by resistances/vulnerability then modified by negations)

The quirk in regards to "It becoming a spell from the target of the bond" is just spaghetti code. Wherein because the source of the new "Damage" is technically the bonded target (Because the instance of damage that creates it occurs from the target receiving damage) then it starts to get modified by that allies effects as if they cast the damage spell. Essentially, Larian forgot to code in rule exceptions for this damage to not benefit from character modifiers (Which it shouldn't anyway, not even if it was sourced directly from an enemy as Warding Bond only transfers damage, not additional effects)

This quirk shouldn't exist. Especially since even IF the separate instance of damage was supposed to be "As if cast from the ally" then it'd be based off the Cleric's modifiers since THEY cast the Warding Bond spell that is dealing the damage, not the bonded target.

But yeah, in 5e and how it should work in BG3, is simply take the damage bonded target received (Which is what it took after mitigation) and deal that to the Cleric (Who then receives damage after their own mitigations).

This is where you are wrong ...

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2296-warding-bond

As you can see the description says:
"Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage."

Notice, that there is not a single word about "type" of damage, wich is important ...
Bcs this damage have no type, you have no "mitigating factors" to apply.

Its a common misstake.
But there is a point for "no type" damages ... one of their strengths is that they cannot be resisted in any way ... from top of my head, i remember Hunter's Mark, or Sneak Attack ...

The BG3 Warding Bond also doesn't end if the caster drops to 0 HP (It's such a hassle to get a downed WB caster back on their feet.) and most players seem to use it with a camp follower or a companion they leave behind so the 60 ft rule also does not seem to apply.


Thank you, I hadn't even considered this. ^^;

All damage has a type.

Hunter's Mark and Sneak Attack both deal the damage type of your weapon used to do the attack.

Force damage is the DnD version of "Untyped" damage in that it is more "Pure damage" with no element or specific weapon shape attached to it and of course its lack of available resistances (Besides things like Warding Bond) but even still, it it still subject to the few sources of Force Resistence and all forms of negation.

The damage type of Warding Bond follows the same rules as Hunter's Mark and Sneak Attack, where unspecified damage type means its type is based off what caused it. I.e. It will be the same damage type as whatever dealt damage to the bonded target.

This damage will then follow the standard damage rules and be modified by all damage modifiers on the target (Resistances/Vulnerability and negations). This is the basis of all damage in the entire game and the explicit reason why "Untyped" damage doesn't exist. Any attempts to utilize some form of "Untyped" damage will simply resort to using one of the 2 exotic damage types, Force or Psychic due to their much less common resistances/vulnerabilities.

Show me the rule.


Nope ... Force is Force, that is why its called Force ... duh. :-/

What are you even talking about here?


Exactly ...
Wich prooves even futher it is a type.


Yes.


Aaaaand nope.
Again, show me the rule ...


Nope ...
1) The tooltip says clearly "you take the same amount of damage" ... applying mitigations and modifiers would mean X =/= Y ... it is that simple.
2) The PH Page 197 also states "Multiple instances of resistance or vulnerability that affect the same damage type count as only one instance." >> By applying second resistance, you would broke this rule.


That is quite litteraly what that tooltip say ...



Feel free to houserules such nonsence as much as you want ...
Just dont represent it as RAW ... since its not.

//Edit:
But dont take just my word for it ... feel free to educate yourself more:

> 1:04 ... exact quote: "If you take 4 damage, you also take 4 damage"


> 1:37 ... exact quote: "you yourself are taking a full damage"


> 1:47 ... exact quote: "you take half, i take half"
> 4:05 ... exact quote: "fighter gets 11 damage, means fighter gets 5 damage and then caster gets 5 damage aswell"
AND VERY IMPORTANT ONE!
> 5:40 ... exact quote: "resistance to damage does not stack"
Etc.


I didnt listen to this one ... but the point is still the same.

"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."

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/d...lNrWCeYN253OusM6XDGxQZJs1hyy#DamageTypes


When damage is not better described by either a physical or elemental source, it is instead Force damage.

Of all the damage types that exist in the universe, "Force" is the "This doesn't have an actual type" damage type.

There is no "Untyped" or "Unresistable" damage.


"Hunter's mark uses the same damage type as the attack that triggers it. If the attack has more than one damage type, choose one."

https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/808824943299264512

"Sneak Attack causes the weapon it uses to deal more damage. The intent is that an unusual weapon like the net that deals no damage doesn't magically start dealing damage with Sneak Attack. But a DM is free to override that intent. The RAW certainly isn't entirely clear here."

https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956930977795735552

@Plaguescarred About Warding Bond spell if target and cleric has resistance, is damage halved twice or only once? Resistance is applied only once to any instance of damage. See the Player's Handbook, page 197.

@JeremyECrawford If the cleric has resistance, nothing in the rules says it doesn't work.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/warding-bond/


As mentioned by the actual Lead Rules Designer, Warding Bond is 2 instances of damage.

There's the initial damage to the target of the bond. Then a second, separate instance of damage that occurs on the Cleric.

If we go by the basic Damage Rolls guide:

"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."

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/d...lNrWCeYN253OusM6XDGxQZJs1hyy#DamageRolls

The "Damage Roll" itself is being determined by the damage taken by the target of Warding Bond rather than a dice roll. But then the second part of damage is adding in the modifiers.

This includes changing damage type to being Magical because it is coming from the Warding Bond spell.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-resistance-against-physical-damage/

This is why I refer to the Cleric "Double Dipping" in quotes, because it's not actually double dipping. It is only applying its mitigation against a singular source of damage once. It just happens that that source of damage is determined by the damage taken by another target whom themselves can mitigate that damage with their own mitigations.

This is not one singular instance of damage being mitigated twice, but 2 separate instances of damage being mitigated once. Since again, this isn't the attack hitting both the target and the Cleric, this isn't damage becoming "Untyped", this isn't some new mechanic like the Cleric suffering "Health Loss" instead of taking damage. This is Target A takes damage. The damage they receive (After mitigations) is then turned into a new instance of damage on Target B.

//Edit:
But you know what? W/E ...

We are one Reply from Red Queen storming here anyway, so im throwing a towel ...

You have your interpretation, i have mine ...
As it seems we are unable to find any solid source that would proove wich is wrong, so ... that would be it i gues.

If you didn't snip out the relevant part of it, sure.

Let me reiterate it:

"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage."

There are no rules inherent to damage types. Fire damage doesn't intrinsically do anything different to Cold damage.

But this doesn't mean that there are no rules against typeless damage. (Or better yet, find me the rule for typeless damage. This one explicitly states effects deal types of damage. So where's the ruling for typeless)


The original source of damage.

You know, the one that is creating this damage instance?

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

https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/727306599576952832


He literally brings up "If the Cleric has resistance"

Why would he bring up "If the Cleric has resistance" and note that he misunderstood the question when referring to Resistances working twice on damage if the question itself was not to do with the Cleric receiving damage from Warding Bond and having Resistances?


I would define it as what it is. When you double dip into a singular pool.

In this case, it's not double dipping because the damage is going through 2 separate pools. The Bond Target's mitigation and the Cleric's mitigation.

If it was double dipping then it would mean either the Bond Target's mitigation or the Cleric's mitigation was being utilized twice. Which is not the case.

We have examples of double dipping in the game, such as a Warlock with Agonizing Blasts invocation and Potent Robes will double dip on their Charisma bonus to damage on their Eldritch Blast.

Paladin can also double dip on CHR from having a Pact weapon which uses CHR for both attack and damage as well as Aura of Hate providing CHR modifier to damage.

Tavern Brawler just outright provides double your STR modifier to related damage rolls.

Calling Warding Bond double dipping is like calling it double dipping when a Fireball hits multiple enemies and they each use their own stats and mitigations to deal with it.

The only reason Warding Bond is considered "Double Dipping" is because the secondary damage is based on the primary damage. This secondary damage isn't part of the actual initial attack, it's not that someone is targeting the Cleric with an attack and then the Cleric is first getting it transferred through the Bonded target. It's simply that this secondary damage exists only because the target did take damage and the value of this secondary attack is based on the value that the Bonded target took.

[quote=RagnarokCzD]The problem here is, that tooltip of that spell itself says, clearly as day "you take the same amount of damage".
How can you take half of that damage and think its perfectly fine and corect, is just beyond me.
[/spoiler]

Player A is affected by Warding Bond. They get hit for 100 Fire damage. Warding Bond's resistance kicks in and they take 50 Fire damage.

Player B is the caster of Warding Bond. They now have an instance of damage worth 50 points of Fire damage. They have Fire Resistance because they're a Tiefling. This 50 Fire damage is then mitigated by the Fire Resistance making it 25 Fire damage.

It's perfectly reasonable. They're taking the "Same amount of damage" but only "Receive" half because of their resistance. Just like the original target "Took" 100 damage but only "Received" 50 because of Resistances.

Like, the literally basic rule of damage is that the damage value of a roll is not the actual damage it will deal. Modifiers exist that will change the value of damage.

You can cast a Fireball and roll 8x 6 for a full 48 damage on every enemy in its radius. But if one of the targets has Resistance they would take 24 damage. If another target had 3 damage negation they'd take 45 damage. If another target had Vulnerability they'd take 72 damage.

Damage is subject to mitigations. The exact mitigation (I.e. Resistances/Vulnerabilities) is determined by its Type.

The damage one takes is not always what they receive due to modifiers.

Im not falling for that ...
You have your response.

I'm not aware of "typeless damage" being a thing in D&D.

Every weapon attack and combat spell is typically defined by what type of damage it is.