[RPG] Does something count as “dealing damage” if its damage is reduced to zero

damagednd-5e

An example of a feature where this sort of thing matters is the Optional Favored Foe feature for the Ranger from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (emphasis mine):

[…] The first time on each of your turns that you hit the favored enemy and deal damage to it, including when you mark it, you can increase that damage by 1d4. […]

This clearly means that if you hit with an attack that never deals damage, you would not trigger Favored Foe, but what happens if you hit with an attack that can deal damage but that damage was reduced to zero by either damage reduction, resistance, immunity or some other sort of feature; have you still dealt damage?

This question is different from the following:

As Constitution saving throws result from a creature taking damage, not from a creature dealing damage.

Best Answer

RAW, yes it does.

The rules for damage say:

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

This is pretty straightforward, and reconfirmed in the Sage Advice Compendium:

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.

Alternatively, this weirdness could have been avoided by saying something like:

With a penalty, damage can be eliminated, but never negative.

This would clearly communicate that with a penalty, damage is eliminated instead of creating this "0 damage is still damage" oddity.

RAF, probably not.

Probably isn't going to be fun for the wizard when they reduce the damage from an incoming attack to 0 and then fail a concentration save. See the high scoring answers here: Does dealing 0 damage to a concentrating spellcaster require a saving throw?

I'd rule that dealing 0 damage is mechanically equivalent to not dealing damage, even though the rules appear to make a distinction.

Related Topic