-4
\$\begingroup\$

From DND Beyond entry on Black Pudding: (bold italics are mine)

Damage Immunities acid, cold, lightning, slashing

At the bottom of the stat block, under Reactions, it has the ability Split:

Split When a pudding that is Medium or larger is subjected to lightning or slashing damage, it splits into two new puddings if it has at least 10 hit points.

If it's immune to lightning and slashing damage, how can it be 'subjected' to lightning or slashing damage in order to activate 'Split'? It's clear that 'is subjected to' means that it takes the damage. If you're immune to something you by definition cannot be 'subjected' to it.

\$\endgroup\$
13
\$\begingroup\$

It's clear that 'is subjected to' means that it takes the damage. If you're immune to something you by definition cannot be 'subjected' to it.

I think this is the crux of your misunderstanding. 'Subjected to' doesn't have to mean that you actually take damage such that your HP is reduced.

From the cambridge dictionary (as an adjective):

be subject to sth
​to have or experience a particular thing, especially something unpleasant

In this context, being 'subjected to' actually means that a certain amount of damage was dealt, and being immune, the pudding would be unaffected by it, hence its HP remains the same. However, since it was 'subjected to' that damage, even though it had no effect, it may now use it's reaction to split.

\$\endgroup\$
23
\$\begingroup\$

No, that's exactly why it says 'when subjected to' rather than 'when damaged by' or similar language that we see in other monster blocks. They don't mean the same thing. The damage doesn't need to actually occur; the creature is "subjected to" the damage type even if they're immune, which triggers the ability. (You can see this in normal English use of the word -- "The giant robot was subjected to freezing cold, intense flames, and even a direct nuclear blast, but its armor was completely undamaged." Clearly there is no contradiction between 'subjected to' and 'undamaged'.)

In any case, this is a situation where the intent of the monster is pretty clear, I feel, so quibbling about the language used to describe it is not all that useful.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 for that last paragraph, I think that's the true answer here. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Dec 24 '18 at 15:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.