12
\$\begingroup\$

Redemption Paladins get an “Aura of the Guardian” :

Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn't transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can't be reduced in any way.

The Berserker Axe comes with a curse:

Whenever a hostile creature damages you while the axe is in your possession, you must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or go berserk.

Now, say that Robert the Redemption Paladin is close to Fred the Fighter, who receives an arrow from Gabby the Hostile Goblin. Robert decides to use his reaction to absorb the damage that Fred would take. But! Robert is attuned to a berserker axe. Must Robert make the berserk saving throw?

In more general terms: Does absorbing damage from an ally hurt by a hostile creature counts as being (indirectly) hurt by the hostile creature?

\$\endgroup\$
1
9
\$\begingroup\$

Robert must make a saving throw.

you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it.

The damage that Robert takes originates from Gabby. The source is not replaced by Aura of the Guardian - the aura only changes the recipient, so Gabby, and not the Aura of the Guardian is the source of the damage. Gabby is a hostile creature, so Robert must make a saving throw.

This feature doesn't transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage

The hostility persists outside of the attack, so the convoluted modality of "is hostility an effect of an attack" does not come into consideration.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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