61

Wizard is currently concentrating on a spell. Wimpling has a -1 Strength modifier, and makes a melee attack on Wizard. The attack hits, but Wimpling rolls a 1 on the damage roll, meaning that after applying his Strength modifier, he deals 0 damage.

Per the SRD, Damage Rolls (and in more recent Player's Handbook printings):

With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.

From the Spellcasting chapter, Concentration:

The following factors can break concentration:

…

Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.

But I'm not sure if "dealing 0 damage" means that the target "takes damage". Does Wizard need to make a Constitution saving throw to continue concentrating on the spell?

I'd prefer official sources or references if available. If there aren't any, then I would accept any semi-official or well-informed well-reasoned arguments, preferably backed up by whatever evidence is available.

4 Answers4

58

No saving throw is triggered

I found two relevant Q&A twitter posts from Jeremy Crawford (the Lead Designer and Managing Editor for DnD 5e) that shed some light on this. However, Jeremy's tweets are no longer considered official, but they can provide some guidance into his thought process at the time he wrote the tweet.

Question:

if a raging barbarian makes no attack, but takes one damage that is reduced to zero, does rage drop?

Answer:

Taking 0 damage is the same as taking no damage.

If you took no damage, you didn't take any damage.

Taking 0 damage does not count as taking damage, therefore it shouldn't trigger any effect conditioned upon taking damage.

I also found a specific example of a different effect that triggers on damage (in this case, drow poison from the DMG):

Question:

If the Battlemaster maneuver parry, reduce the weapon Drow damage to zero, the poison damage still work ?

Answer:

Drow poison in the DMG is delivered by piercing/slashing damage (0 dmg = 0 poison).

To me, this lays out a clear line of logic. Dealing damage applies Drow poison. If you deal 0 damage, it does not apply the poison according to Jeremy Crawford. Therefore, dealing 0 damage does not count as dealing damage for effects that trigger on dealing/taking damage. This would logically include concentration checks.

NotArch
  • 125,044
  • 39
  • 506
  • 804
Dacromir
  • 10,291
  • 4
  • 44
  • 73
38

No concentration saving throw is required.

Fifth Edition strives to use natural language whenever possible. This was a stated design philosophy from the writers of the game. From the D&D Podcast, Jan. 2017 at approximately the 11:39 mark, Lead Designer Jeremy Crawford says:

"This is a general principal in our rules. If the rules do not specifically add meaning to an English word, or take meaning away, or completely change the meaning it simply means what it means in idiomatic English"

Web searches on "5e" "design philosophy" and "natural language" will turn up many other hits, and Crawford and Mearls will often use similar language when answering rules questions.

In this case, "0 damage" is the functional equivalent of "no damage". The saving throw is not contingent on being hit, but upon taking damage. Since "no damage" was taken, no saving throw is required.

Keep in mind that the rules allow a DM to impose saving throws for other circumstances. From the same section:

The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm—tossed ship. require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell

It is unlikely that Wimpling is sufficiently distracting, but a DM could require a saving throw whenever he feels it appropriate to the circumstance. In the case of straight out damage though, Wizard is safe.

keithcurtis
  • 32,074
  • 13
  • 98
  • 167
  • 1
    Do you have a citation, even a citation for a similar case where 0 becomes not at all, or is this an example of "ought"? – Yakk Dec 15 '17 at 18:35
  • 1
    @Yakk, There are other answers on this page now that give examples. I won't add them to mine since the other answerer is answering the question in a slightly different way, and I don't see the need to inflate this one. – keithcurtis Dec 15 '17 at 19:28
4

Taking 0 damage is taking damage: the DC 10 saving throw is triggered.

The Sage Advice Compendium explicitly clears up that you can take 0 damage. 0 is the damage minimum.

Sage Advice Compendium V.2.3 (11):

Can damage be reduced to 0 by resistance or another form of damage reduction? There is no damage minimum in the rules, so it is possible to deal 0 damage with an attack, a spell, or another effect.

The rules on concentration state, in part (PHB 203-204):

Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. [...]

Taking 0 damage still counts as taking damage and thus interrupts your concentration. The DC is 10.

Dealing 0 damage might sound unintuitive because the outcome is that you are at the same Hit Points (PHB 196) that you have had before:

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points.

But this is merely from a mathematical mindset, from a plain English standpoint you still take damage (and subtract it). That your hit point total doesn't have to change is emphasised by looking at receiving damage to temporary hit points Sage Advice Compendium V.2.3 (13):

If I have 10 temporary hit points and I take 30 damage from an attack while concentrating on a spell, what is the DC of the Constitution save to maintain my concentration? The DC is 15 in that case. When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you’re still taking damage, just not to your real hit points. In contrast, a feature like the wizard’s Arcane Ward can take damage for you, potentially eliminating the need to make a Constitution saving throw or, at least, lowering the DC of that save.

So unless a game effect specifically calls out that it absorbs damage like the Arcane Ward does (PHB 115) or changes the recipient like the Aura of the Guardian (XGtE 39) et cetera eliminating the need to make a saving throw, then you still need to make a saving throw even when the damage does not change your actual hit points.

V2Blast
  • 49,864
  • 10
  • 220
  • 304
Akixkisu
  • 19,584
  • 13
  • 80
  • 138
  • 1
    @Medix2 this is a raw answer, not guessing at intentions. The THP supports the argument that there is no need of change in your actual hp required for you to take damage while also addressing absorbing damage and showcasing that those kinds of effects are always explicit which targets arguments that would go against that reasoning. The 0 damage quote is necessary to define whether all damage that is 0 is not taking damage or taking damage (it is the latter). Taking damage is by tautology taking damage. – Akixkisu Apr 07 '20 at 11:38
  • 4
    Okay that males more sense now. Still seems like a rather strange argument to suddenly be making and I don't really see the support because if I receive zero apples I simply did not receive apples. The rules use standard English and if somebody told me "I received zero dollars, thus I received money" I would be bewildered. I honestly disagree with the claimed tautology that taking zero damage means you took damage at all. I can eat zero apples without eating apples, and so forth – Exempt-Medic Apr 07 '20 at 13:02
  • @Medix2 that is a faulty analogy. Taking damage is a binary state, you either take damage or you don't take damage; It is possible to take 0 damage by raw. The amount of damage merely doesn't change your life total. While you either eat or don't eat apples, you can also eat 0 apples, for instance, two bites. If you don't eat apples, then you don't. There is no 0$ banknote, but if there was one you could easily receive that banknote. – Akixkisu Apr 07 '20 at 13:22
  • @Medix2 A better analogy would be someone hits you on the head, but lucky you wear a helmet, and they are pretty weak - there is no arguing that they hit you, but usually, you care little about that, but damn is it annoying. – Akixkisu Apr 07 '20 at 13:22
  • 3
    Contrary to your view, I am confused about how anyone could conclude that not taking damage counts as taking damage. Taking damage is a binary state, either you did or you did not, there is not "only took two bites". It only comes in wholes. You have an apple, or you don't have an apple. – RevanantBacon Dec 17 '20 at 19:29
  • 1
    @RevenantBacon I don't think you are adding anything new to the argument. I introduced a proper analogy instead of the faulty apple analogy, that as I have demonstrated doesn't work out. – Akixkisu Dec 17 '20 at 19:34
  • 1
    This answer seems to hinge on the choice of the SRD and sage advice wording to describe what happens with damage reduction. If we accept the other Sage Advice ruling that taking 0 damage is the same as not taking damage, then it seems your first quote is just an unfortunate (wrt. the other rules you quote) choice of wording to describe the fact that damage reduction can turn a "hit" into no damage, but not turn it into a heal (negative damage). i.e. they're trying to say that effects can reduce damage all the way to 0, and didn't mean to emphasize "dealing 0 damage" in that sense. – Peter Cordes Dec 18 '20 at 18:52
  • 3
    @PeterCordes there are two Sage Advices, one Sage Advice is for official rulings, this is the one I cite here. The other is for rulings by a lead designer - which are officially unofficial (and harbour many contradictions), this is the one that the top answer cites. See this meta: How should we handle answers that use Jeremy Crawford's now unofficial tweets? – Akixkisu Dec 18 '20 at 20:13
  • 2
    Oh right, yes I forgot that you were citing an official published sage advice, not a now-unofficial tweet. The "Taking 0 damage is the same as taking no damage." quote is only from a now-unofficial ruling, but I think most people agree it's what makes most sense. I still think the intent was for the SRD quote in the question to mean "it is possible to deal no damage", as part of making the point that you can't be healed (negative damage). You do make a well-argued case for this interpretation taking the rules as literally written, and it can make some narrative sense. – Peter Cordes Dec 18 '20 at 20:23
  • 4
    @PeterCordes It's bold to assume most people think that. Nobody expects to kill anyone by just hitting them with a fist (it would take an unlucky hit to internal organs or weak spot in the head) or slapping their cheek. Any peasant should be able to take hundreds of weak hits and slaps before going unconscious. Common sense says, this is 0 damage to HP. Yet common sense also says, it will make concentrating pretty darn hard (unless you're quite special, ie. CON save +9), and even a pacifist would have trouble keeping their cool for long, let alone a hot-headed bsrbarian. – WakiNadiVellir Aug 31 '21 at 18:21
  • 2
    I think this answer leaves an edge case. What if your Arcane Ward has 10 hit points and you take 10 damage? Obviously the Arcane Ward absorbs all 10 hit points, leaving... 0 damage to apply to your own HP. Does this trigger a save for concentration, or does it not because the ward absorbed "all" the damage? What if the Arcane Ward has 11 HP? – Ryan C. Thompson Aug 31 '21 at 18:40
  • 1
    @WakiNadiVellir: That's a good point about the ultimate question of whether a concentration check should still be required. Things other than damage can trigger checks, like Sleet Storm, or the classic example of the deck of a ship in a storm. – Peter Cordes Aug 31 '21 at 18:41
  • 1
    @Medix2 if I send you an invoice for $10, discounted by 100%, you pay me $0, but the invoice is still paid, not unpaid. So there are common situations where (verb 0) means that something is (verbed). In this case, weakling slapping a wizard for 0 damage seems pretty distracting, so the risk to lose concentration is narratively reasonable (though I'd probably say not for a ranged attack that did 0 damage) – Dan W Sep 01 '21 at 08:45
  • @WakiNadiVellir no-one expects to kill with a single punch, but it does happen in real life, and is far more common than people would expect. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38992393 – Dan W Sep 01 '21 at 08:47
  • @DanW Oh indeed, no argument there, and I'm glad you raise the point! But it's still very rare, especially if you consider that in the context of the question, the hitter has below average strength and isn't something like a former bouncer like one killer in the article. – WakiNadiVellir Sep 01 '21 at 09:25
  • @WakiNadiVellir agreed – and these cases probably represent a "crit" in real life. – Dan W Sep 01 '21 at 09:30
  • 1
    -1, this answer conflates losing temporary hp with not losing hp. Temporary hp are still hp. Losing them is still 'taking damage'. If you have not lost any hp, temporary or otherwise, that is a different scenario to losing hp. Conflating game terms in an artificial way is not a good answer. If you believe the design philosophy of the game is such that a wizard 'should' still roll concentration even if not supported directly by the rules, then say that like that. Don't try to get there via a specious argument. – user2754 Sep 02 '21 at 04:35
  • See also Can other damage from class abilities and feats be added to net attacks? for the difference between zero damage and no damage. – Kirt Sep 02 '21 at 21:03
  • @Kirt I hope that every DM will let you apply the sharpshooter feature to your piercing ranged attack when Heavy Armor Master reduces that damage by -3, even if your initial damage comes out to 3-3. – Akixkisu Sep 02 '21 at 21:29
0

A saving throw is triggered

Damage Rolls [..] You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.

Hit Points [..] Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. (PHB 196)

The case of damageValue=0 is not called out as an exception anywhere and produces no contradiction. Thus RAW you can take 0 damage, and it should trigger any effect that depends on taking damage.

In the scenario you mention, it could be described as the weakling waving his arms in the wizard's face quite annoyingly, thus distracting him.

Szega
  • 61,571
  • 9
  • 246
  • 297
  • 9
    If I take 0 apples from you have I taken any apples? Similarly, if I take 0 damage from you, have I taken any damage? I don't think it needs a specific call out. 0 is NULL. – LegendaryDude Dec 15 '17 at 17:09
  • 3
    @LegendaryDude That is the competing interpretation, yes. I urge you to write a competing answer :) – Szega Dec 15 '17 at 17:28
  • 9
    @LegendaryDude to be super-pedantic, I think the relevant construction would be "if I take 0 apples from you have I taken apples?" It's the distinction (possibly without a difference) between taking no apples and not taking apples that seems (to me) to be at play. – nitsua60 Dec 15 '17 at 19:58
  • 4
    Dealing damage is not taking apples, these comparisons in the comments make no sense. – WakiNadiVellir Aug 31 '21 at 18:34
  • 2
    "the weakling waving his arms in the wizard's face", it's more than that. The weakling actually hit the wizard. Maybe fist to ribs, slap on cheek, glancing blow to forehead, tip of the boot to the shin... weakly, but still making solid contact. – WakiNadiVellir Sep 01 '21 at 06:19