8
\$\begingroup\$

I want to know if it's possible to damage a person who uses gaseous form with non-magic weapon.

From rules, which says it has resistance, it is possible and the damage is reduced to half.

On the other hand you cannot hurt something that is basically a cloud.

Or am I just misunderstanding what resistance in D&D means?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sure you can hurt something that is a cloud, if you are working the simulationist angle. You can disperse it with a powerful gust of wind. If it's water vapor, you can freeze it ... etc. Some gases are flammable, so being hit with fire may flash ignite the gas ... \$\endgroup\$
    – KorvinStarmast
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 18:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast: Yeah, IRL, something that's just a cloud should be trivial to hurt -- just wave a fan at it and watch it disperse. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ilmari Karonen
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 20:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
15
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, gaseous form is susceptible to non-magic damage

SRD page 146 has this to say about gaseous form:

The target has resistance to nonmagical damage, and it has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws.

And page 97 of the SRD says, "[i]f a creature…has resistance to a damage type, damage of that type is halved against it."

Therefore, any creature under the effect of gaseous form takes half damage from non-magical attacks.

On the other hand you cannot hurt something, that is basically cloud.

This is a dangerous line of thinking. D&D is a game, and thus has rules. The rules specifically say that a gaseous creature still takes some damage from non-magical attacks. The spell says you have resistance to non-magical damage. Therefore, you only have resistance and not immunity.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ "The name and description of the spell are just flavour text to the rules of the spell." There is some debate about this: rpg.stackexchange.com/q/78012 \$\endgroup\$
    – A. Foster
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 14:53
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ A byproduct of all the 4e I played, I guess. But the point stands: the spell grants resistance, not immunity. \$\endgroup\$
    – Christopher
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 14:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The word vulnerable might not be the best choice, given that it has a mechanical definition in 5e \$\endgroup\$
    – inthemanual
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ This sounds like a case where Rule 0 is prominently in play. \$\endgroup\$
    – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 2:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .