Damage types have no rules > there is no rule against typeless damage.
Damage resistances rely on types > there is no resistance against typeless damage.
Exactly as i said ...
Thank you.
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)
And?
What weapon is Warding Bond using to deal you that damage?
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/727306599576952832So, we cant really know the question wich was asked ...
Question might aswell be about if Warding Bond will work on someone who allready had a resistance (for example if i cast it on Raging Barbarian, or a Tiefling) ... in wich case, i 100% agree, there is nothing in the rules saying it doesn't work.
Even if i would be willing to believe that question was indeed if damage is halved twice ...
I dont see him saying yes, the damage is halved twice ... i see him stating that "Warding Bond works", of wich there was no doubt on my mind ... the question was how, not if.
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?
And how else would you define double diping?
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.
