Damage Reduction Questions

[StarSlayer]

After 2300 questions posted about this, don't you think it is time for the designers to step in? IF they have Please for the love of something, link me if possible.

General problem.
I read the rules on page 562 core book.
Spells, Spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

Now the easiest way to read this. Did it come out of the section of the book called Spells? Yes = Ignore Damage reduction.

I have seen lots of arguments when a spell lits a damage type (S/B/P) but the cleanest rule I see is they use those as a fluf text to give a creative GM detail to describe what the spell is acting like.

SO a couple SPELLS to ask about, If you think it should not ignore DR, why? (Keeping in mind that I will not use fluf text to overcome rules).

0 level ray of frost.
1+ Summon Monster
1 Magic Stone
1 Produce Flame
1 Magic Missile
1 Magic Weapon
Wall of x spells
all the way up to Meteor Swarm, Wish, Elemental Swarm.

I see several rules in all directions, and really think it needs to be added into the FAQ which the design team seems not to have done yet. Does anyone know the handles the officials use here?

[spalding]

Dude, you are thinking too much:

IS it a spell? Then DR is ignored. Is it a spell-like ability? Then DR is ignored. Is it energy damage? Then DR is ignored.

A flask of acid or an alchemist fire would both ignore DR as would magic missile. An attack from a summoned creature would not however since the creature is dealing the damage not the spell (except for lantern archon's light rays, but that's a specific exception).

Magic Weapon doesn't deal damage, it enhances the damage a weapon does -- the weapon causes the damage and therefore DR isn't bypassed.

Produce flame is both a spell and deals energy damage so it bypasses DR too.

[StarSlayer]

I read the rule as it is stated. Spell= ignore. HOWEVER my GM thinks othewise. these are some of the spells we are arguing over that we have to use DR for by the way he reads the rule.

I do think the summon monster would make sense to follow DR as normal, afterall, it is a real beast and it does the attack.

Thanks for backing up the way I feel about them.

[blahpers]

There have been RAI clarifications posted that some spells do not ignore DR. It's an unofficial JJ ruling, so take it for what you will. If you're that obsessed with RAW, then any spell that deals damage (read: spell, not thing that follows as a result of the spell) bypasses DR.

Next we'll be debating whether a frying pan created via major creation bypasses DR.

[Name Violation]

if some thing does Bludgeoning, piercing, crushing (some traps), or slashing damage DR applies.

Summon monster hits with a claw? DR applies.

Ray of frost? cold damage so no DR

acid arrow? acid damage, no DR.

[StarSlayer]

Thanks for the link to JJ's post. That post confims my worst fear. EVERY spell needs a week of litigation to cast. Nothing like the rule in the core book.

Ice storm, shows it does damage 2 ways, some creatres get recuctions from each type? Why? it is spell damage?

Guess i'm done with this game. RPG days are over.

[Sir Ophiuchus]

StarSlayer wrote:

Guess i'm done with this game. RPG days are over.

Thanks for sharing. Alternately, you could have a sensible GM and an experienced group who play a style that isn't wrapped up in the minutiae of every possible rules-gripe?

[Rocky Williams 530]

The best possible answer in the world is.. Ask your GM. If you don't like his/her answer, find another GM.

[CBDunkerson]

Summon Monster does not DO any damage. It summons a monster... which then does damage AS A MONSTER. Claiming otherwise would be the same as arguing that falling into a big hole in the ground does not do damage if the big hole was created with 'Move Earth' rather than shovels.

Spells that do damage directly (e.g. Cause Minor Wounds) do not have DR applied. Spells which create something which then does damage DO apply DR unless they are energy attacks.

If a Wall of Iron falls on you... DR applies. The spell did not do damage... it created a wall. That wall falling on you did the damage... which isn't a spell.

Not at all unclear or arbitrary unless you want to rules lawyer over very tenuous interpretations of what the written rules might theoretically mean... but were clearly never intended to.