2

Unlike Arcane Ward, Projected Ward is a reaction triggered by seeing a creature "take damage". Injury Poison exposure is also triggered by a creature taking (certain types of) damage.

The text of Arcane Ward (an ongoing effect) says that the ward "takes the damage instead", but Projected Ward pointedly does not restate that. It's clear that if the ward takes the damage instead, that a spell effect isn't affected by poison.

But for Projected Ward's reaction to trigger, a creature (not a spell effect) must have already taken damage, and creatures who take damage from a poisoned weapon have been exposed to injury poison.

Unless the trigger "takes damage" is to be read as "is about to take damage", how does that work with a reaction? If not, should "absorbing" the damage work like a prepared healing spell triggered by seeing someone take damage?

Laurel
  • 4,105
  • 1
  • 19
  • 43
Jon Gilliam
  • 21
  • 2

1 Answers1

6

Reactions can prevent their own triggers; Projected Ward can prevent an Injury Poison

A reaction preventing its own trigger is rather rare, but not unheard of and it is discussed at length in the above post. The most notable example of this is the shield spell which is a reaction to being hit by an attack (other examples include absorb elements, feather fall, and opportunity attacks):

[...] Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack [...]

This explicitly benefits against the triggering attack and even though you were hit, you can become, for lack of a better phrase, "un-hit". Similarly, the Projected Ward feature can stop, even undo the damage. For all intents and purposes, the character protected by Projected Ward did not take any damage.

To have Projected Ward do anything else leads to nonsense. For example, if a character with 5 HP was about to take 10 damage and Projected Ward happens after they actually take the damage, then they would actually take 10 damage, be reduced to zero hit points, and thus fall unconscious, prone, etc... After all of that, Projected Ward would trigger and reduce the damage they took. So we'd have a creature take damage, and that damage is reduced to zero yet the creature is now prone and has lost their concentration. Projected Ward must, in some way, prevent the target from actually taking damage in the first place.

Also of note, Projected Ward does state that the ward takes the damage:

[...] you [...] cause your Arcane Ward to absorb that damage. [...]

Exempt-Medic
  • 75,986
  • 11
  • 289
  • 534
  • I'm noting though that shield explicitly calls out the exception : "including against the triggering attack." Arcane Ward calls out that "whenever you take damage the ward takes the damage instead", but Projected Ward doesn't say that. In 5e general rules apply unless over-ridden by specified exceptions, and the general rule for a reaction is that it's a response to a trigger, implying the trigger has already happened. – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 14:55
  • Projected Ward says that it absorbs the damage, but it doesn't say that it takes the damage instead - a change of language from Arcane Ward above it. A sponge absorbs water by taking it from somewhere else and pulling it into itself. With Arcane Ward it's clear that the damage is absorbed before it reaches the wizard. But Projected Ward is a response to a trigger - the creature has already taken the damage, and ward is absorbing it from the creature. – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 15:06
  • @Exempt-Medic: I think normally reactions trigger only right AFTER the causing effect, unless there is specific wording of the mechanic tells you otherwise, as per in Shield. DMG p 252: the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes – Nobody the Hobgoblin Feb 17 '22 at 15:08
  • @GroodytheHobgoblin Numerous reactions must break that rule for example, absorb elements. Having Projected Ward occur after its trigger leads to utter nonsense. It would mean the target would take damage and all the additional effects that might come with that damage and then have the damage be reduced (potentially to zero). An example: A character with 5 HP taking 10 damage would take 10 damage, fall unconscious and thus fall prone, and then the damage would be reduced, they would regain hit points and still be prone. Projected Ward does not truly occur after damage is taken – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 15:18
  • @JonGilliam your opinion is that the damage is done to the target, then un-done, and done to the ward? That seems over complicated to me, and prone to fiddly awkward edge cases, like this one. The cleaner, much more obvious solution is this answer. Remember that 5e is NOT meant to be read in an entirely legalistic way, but in the natural, obvious one. – Tal Feb 17 '22 at 15:19
  • @Exempt-Medic: Absorp elements has the casting time of "1 reaction, which you take when you take acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage", not simply "1 reaction"; that seems quite similar to Shield's "1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell", instead of just "1 reaction". I am not debating the overall conclusions here (and not submitting alternate answer), just wanted to clarify Reaction timing – Nobody the Hobgoblin Feb 17 '22 at 15:24
  • @GroodytheHobgoblin And Projected Ward is not "1 reaction" either. It is, explicitly, "when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you takes damage" this is, for all intents and purposes, identical to absorb elements' "when you take acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage" – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 15:25
  • @GroodytheHobgoblin ah, but that trigger indicates the damage is already taken, by your own logic.
    Honestly, you should just write your own answer here. I doubt that you're going to change Exempt-Medic's opinion, so you should make an answer and let votes fall where they will     – Tal Feb 17 '22 at 15:28
  • @Exempt-Medic, yes, I am not downvoting or debating the answer is incorrect. It might be worthwhile to rememark that Shield is not the typical case for reaction timing. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Feb 17 '22 at 15:29
  • @Exempt-Medic What if a cleric on their turn readies an action to cast Cure Wounds triggered by seeing someone take damage. If a character with 5 HP took 10 damage, would you say in this case that the target would fall unconscious and therefore prone? Or would you say that since healing occurs immediately after the damage is taken, that the target recovers without falling? Not to bring in the real world, but I'll note that seriously injured creatures often are momentarily unaffected by their wounds. – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 15:41
  • @JonGilliam A Readied reaction will always occur after its trigger, which would be entirely after the damage (and any of its effects) occur; so you would fall unconscious/prone and then be healed. The cure wounds spell is not a reaction that reduces the damage taken; it heals. These are fundamentally different effects. If you want to houserule such that reactions that reduce damage occur after actually taking damage, you may do so but it can lead to some unusual circumstances – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 15:43
  • @Exempt-Medic I wasn't seeing a difference in kind between a readied action and a reaction because the description of the Ready action seems to say it's implemented with a reaction. The only other case I can find where the word "absorb" is used in the rules is for Temporary Hit Points. Having sufficient temp HP to cover the damage from an injury doesn't prevent poison exposure. Why wouldn't Projected Ward be analogous to that? – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 15:58
  • @JonGilliam If you want Projected Ward to occur after actually taking damage, you may do so. At my own tables I will not be doing this for the reasons I have already stated above – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 16:15
  • @Exempt-Medic What I want is a clear an unambiguous definition of what the trigger for a reaction is. What I'm left with is trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance this is causing me lol. I'll likely reverse my initial ruling made on the spot during session play (to the consternation of the wizard) , but I was hoping to find better clarity on why apart from that's just the interpretation that's got traction in the community. – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 16:20
  • 1
    @JonGilliam There are very few reactions that interrupt their trigger and 5e was not written in a way to make determining the outcomes of those edge cases clear. It's going to be up to the GM how they interpret reactions that impact their own trigger but I have found, in my own experience, that having them occur after their trigger leads to nonsensical results. So, when I see a reaction that in some way impacts its own trigger, I have it occur immediately before its trigger (but after the trigger was certain, some time travel may be required) – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 16:25
  • What I do not let happen, is say there are multiple things that happen on a hit; I have shield happen first. Anything that is going to change whether or not something happened, I houserule to have to be first; otherwise you end up with things like the powerful combination of shield and armor of agathys which is not something I want to deal with. – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 16:28
  • @JonGilliam FWIW, Crawford has commented on a similar case: "Crawford has commented on a similar case, though his word is just intent: "If the attack has a special effect that relies on it hitting, that effect doesn't occur if the attack is turned into a miss." So while his word doesn't mean much to most people here, you could use it to show some intent. If shield (which prevents its trigger) is meant to prevent other things that happen on its trigger then Projected Ward (which prevents is trigger) would also prevent other things that happen on its trigger (like an injury poison) – Exempt-Medic Feb 17 '22 at 16:31
  • @Exempt-Medic Thank you, that was helpful! – Jon Gilliam Feb 17 '22 at 16:37