|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just wondering if any progress on the Spells that deal damage vs. Damage Reduction front has been made. as in spells and supernatural abilities that deal a typed damage, and how the type is irrelevant since spells and supernatural abilities bypass DR.
for instance a bard in the ruby phoenix torunament, attacking a barbarian invulnerable rager 8 who has DR 4/- , would deal full damage with his Weird Words, as they're a supernatural ability and automatically bypass DR even though they're typed as either bludgeoning/piercing or slashing.
or how damage from an Ice Storm on a pack of zombies and skeletons would deal 3d6 bludeoning ( and 2d6 cold but the skeletons have resistance, so we'll stay on topic to physically typed damage from spells and how it intereacts with DR), to both equally, because the spell would bypass DR.
Spells and Supernatural abilities continue to be written as though the damage type should matter. We know not all developers/writers are infallable ( ::cough:: Monk Flurry fiasco ). So. I want a concrete answer from pathfinder game , not just how you would rule it in your home game: DO spells and supernatural abilites bypass DR?
if sp/su abilities don't bypass DR, I want an FAQ and errata for Damage Reduction that changes the text and makes it clear once and for all. and for you to remind writers before submitting things of a caveat like that.
As far as I recall it, those few times when a developer has chimed in on this issue, they've said that in their own games they would play it according to DR functioning against the bludgeoning/piercing/slashing part of a spell's damage.
That's also how I play it.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
just wondering if any progress on the Spells that deal damage vs. Damage Reduction front has been made. as in spells and supernatural abilities that deal a typed damage, and how the type is irrelevant since spells and supernatural abilities bypass DR.
for instance a bard in the ruby phoenix torunament, attacking a barbarian invulnerable rager 8 who has DR 4/- , would deal full damage with his Weird Words, as they're a supernatural ability and automatically bypass DR even though they're typed as either bludgeoning/piercing or slashing.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
or how damage from an Ice Storm on a pack of zombies and skeletons would deal 3d6 bludeoning ( and 2d6 cold but the skeletons have resistance, so we'll stay on topic to physically typed damage from spells and how it intereacts with DR), to both equally, because the spell would bypass DR.
Spells and Supernatural abilities continue to be written as though the damage type should matter. We know not all developers/writers are infallable ( ::cough:: Monk Flurry fiasco ). So. I want a concrete...
Yeah, you're totally right about this. I think what was probably intended, for example with the wierd words ability, was that the ability is treated as a ranged weapon and not a spell-like or supernatural ability, so that if the enemy has DR 5/bludgeoning and you used piercing words, the DR would still apply. You could say that any spell with an attack roll is affected by DR, but then you'd be reducing damage from ray spells and such too. I don't think there's any good answer to this question, even if the devs do chime in, honestly.
just wondering if any progress on the Spells that deal damage vs. Damage Reduction front has been made.
The FAQ requests on the post James Jacobs made that says DR applies to spells that deal typed damage was flagged "Staff response: no reply required." The same as your original thread on the subject. That seems fairly concrete.
I suspect your other demands will go unmet.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no point in a magical ability calling out whether it's B, P, or S damage unless the intent is that DR/B, DR/P, or DR/S resists it.
If the magical ability wasn't affected by any kind of DR, the ability would just say it deals damage, and not list a type of damage at all.
Because the magical ability lists a damage type, effects that block that damage type apply. If it doesn't list a damage type, then the "creature takes normal damage from spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities" rule applies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the only point of including B, P, or S in weird words wasn't specifically to help overcome obscure oozes' Regeneration?
I'm shocked.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no point in a magical ability calling out whether it's B, P, or S damage unless the intent is that DR/B, DR/P, or DR/S resists it.
If the magical ability wasn't affected by any kind of DR, the ability would just say it deals damage, and not list a type of damage at all.
Because the magical ability lists a damage type, effects that block that damage type apply. If it doesn't list a damage type, then the "creature takes normal damage from spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities" rule applies.
I am confused. As I understand it having a DR/type means that type bypasses DR. It seems that you are saying it works the opposite. So if a spell does slashing damage does DR/slashing block it or allow it to overcome that DR?
Also how does that interact with material DR? will a creature with DR/Adimantium, be harmed by a slashing spell for instance?
Slashing from a spell would be blocked by DR. What SKR is saying is that it does not matter if the DR is EX or SU, it still works the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriphim: I am not saying the opposite. DR is DR. Typed damage is typed damage. They work together exactly how they do for swords and such, regardless of the nature of the source (as wraithstrike said).
(and it wasn't a demand, it was a poorly worded request, to solve a long standing rules contradiction that came up wednesday during a running of the Ruby Phoenix tournament module)
Sorry, I wasn't intending to sound so harsh. I blame my own frustration with FAQ's sometimes being flagged no response needed in cases where it's still unclear how it's supposed to work. I apologize for being a jerk.
So it sounds like this has been mostly answered, but I wonder about types of DR other than Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. Namely, if I hit a bunch of Dretches with an Ice Storm, how does that deal with their DR 5/cold iron or good and Resist cold 10?
My current understanding is that the 2d6 cold would be reduced by 10 and the 3d6 bludgeoning would be reduced by 5, as ice is neither cold iron nor good. Is that right?
That is correct.
|
|
So it sounds like this has been mostly answered, but I wonder about types of DR other than Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. Namely, if I hit a bunch of Dretches with an Ice Storm, how does that deal with their DR 5/cold iron or good and Resist cold 10?
My current understanding is that the 2d6 cold would be reduced by 10 and the 3d6 bludgeoning would be reduced by 5, as ice is neither cold iron nor good. Is that right?
sounds good to me.
|
|
(and it wasn't a demand, it was a poorly worded request, to solve a long standing rules contradiction that came up wednesday during a running of the Ruby Phoenix tournament module)Sorry, I wasn't intending to sound so harsh. I blame my own frustration with FAQ's sometimes being flagged no response needed in cases where it's still unclear how it's supposed to work. I apologize for being a jerk.
lets drink a lot of sugar and see if we can get answers to the unanswered =) is there a list somewhere?
So it sounds like this has been mostly answered, but I wonder about types of DR other than Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. Namely, if I hit a bunch of Dretches with an Ice Storm, how does that deal with their DR 5/cold iron or good and Resist cold 10?
My current understanding is that the 2d6 cold would be reduced by 10 and the 3d6 bludgeoning would be reduced by 5, as ice is neither cold iron nor good. Is that right?
Yes, just treat the spell's damage like weapon damage.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, just treat the spell's damage like weapon damage.So it sounds like this has been mostly answered, but I wonder about types of DR other than Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. Namely, if I hit a bunch of Dretches with an Ice Storm, how does that deal with their DR 5/cold iron or good and Resist cold 10?
My current understanding is that the 2d6 cold would be reduced by 10 and the 3d6 bludgeoning would be reduced by 5, as ice is neither cold iron nor good. Is that right?
This seems to contradict the PRD text on Damage Reduction, which states (in part): Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
Is this errata to how DR works, and those things now no longer ignore DR?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tvarog, please read Sean's first post.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheapy, I think the point Tvarog is making is this:
What Sean says is good and makes sense and is a sensible way to play.
However, Tvarog suggests it's not what the rules say. Even if a developer says you should play a certain way, until it's FAQ'd or errata'd in, it's not official rules. It's house rules.
Is that right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lets drink a lot of sugar and see if we can get answers to the unanswered =) is there a list somewhere?
I have a Wishlist of things I'd personally like to see addressed, but SKR and the other Paizo folks have a record of all the FAQ requests which they can deal with as they choose.
Dogpiling on SKR when he makes an appearance is probably not the best way to keep him posting =)
Is this errata to how DR works, and those things now no longer ignore DR?
I believe it's currently at the "comment from Paizo" stage and not the "errata" stage.
Tvarog, please read Sean's first post.
I did read it. It flatly contradicts the rules in my CRB and in the PRD regarding DR. Which is fine, if that's the way it was always intended to work, or if it's a balance change or something. Then it's basically errata, and I'd like to be sure whether that's the intent. This is the sort of change/clarification that has wide-ranging ramifications in other areas of play, and will have a fairly large impact on the Sunday game I play in, where we're facing things with DR and Resistances on a daily basis.
I'm also curious, since the example given was using ice storm, how the two types of DR interact with this rule (also from PRD section on DR):
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
It seems like, since spell damage is treated "like weapon damage" for purposes of DR, then only the Resist Cold 10 would apply, since it's higher than the DR 5/ cold iron and good, and the spell is a single source of damage (the bludgeoning and the cold are not separate).
If the ice storm was cast on an area that included a Gelugon (ice devil), would they be completely immune to all the damage (including the bludgeoning) due to their immunity to cold?
(ETA: Thanks, Umbral Reaver, that's exactly it. I'm not trying to "dogpile", I just want to make sure I'm understanding the intention behind this change.)
It seems like, since spell damage is treated "like weapon damage" for purposes of DR
Typed damage resulting from spells is still typed damage, and it's treated like typed damage.
If the spell deals cold damage, then anything affecting cold damage applies.
If the spell deals piercing damage, then anything affecting piercing damage applies.
then only the Resist Cold 10 would apply, since it's higher than the DR 5/ cold iron and good, and the spell is a single source of damage (the bludgeoning and the cold are not separate).
Resistance is not Damage Reduction. They have no relation to each other.
The cold damage from Ice Storm is affected by resist cold.
The bludgeoning damage from Ice Storm is affected by DR/anything-but-bludgeoning.
Tvarog, as far as I can tell Sean is not contradicting the rules he's clarifying an exception.
"Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction."
Still true^^
However, spells that call out specific typed damage behave like weapon damage and are reduced by DR unless they bypass the relevant DR with the specific damage type they use.
Perhaps it's me just thinking that the way the game was intended to be played are the actual rules rather than the written word.
What probably happened when that section was being written was that they didn't consider physical damage, or more likely, they assumed that since that's a general rule, the exception of the spell / supernatural ability dealing a type of damage that was mitigated by DR would be clear. In any event, coupled with the dev clarification, it's now clear that that line is referring to spells like Destruction, or things that just deal untyped damage.
What Grick said.
I fully agree that it's the intended way to play, and do play it that way.
It's just nice if the rules say the same thing as the intent, instead of brushing it under the rug and relying on (perfectly reasonable) GM fiat every time it comes up.
I see it as something that was already implicit in the "specific trumps general" assumption.
It was implied strongly enough for me that if a spell lists a type of damage, it must be subject to resistances and DR that effect that type of damage. It doesn't bother me that there is a general rule elsewhere that seems to contradict part of that assumption.
These kind of apparent incongruities in the rules don't bother me, while other weird little things do. I think everyone's mind works differently regarding these kind of issues.
I personally would find it more cumbersome in this case if caveat's were written into the entries for these rules referencing the other rules they are an exception to, or are superseded by. It would increase word count and tedium. I'm more comfortable with the exception being implicit. I can always fall back on "specific trumps general."
Of course having Sean explicitly clarify it here was a best-case scenario, and as always I thank the devs for making themselves available to us this way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An easy fix would be to say:
Damage reduction applies against piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage, regardless of source.
All physical damage falls into P, S or B already. There's no need to call out spells.
Yeah, that's true.
Would bludgeoning DR perhaps apply to falling damage as well?
Falling damage is untyped, so DR that reduces bludgeoning damage does not apply. I think I can see the reasoning, but I'm not sure I can express it well enough to explain: essentially it's the difference between "blunt force trauma" and "impact".
That said, I'm not sure how game-breaking it would be to apply DR to falls.
It does seem strange that a barbarian's toughness wouldn't negate any damage when it came from a falling branch, but if a mace hit him, it would.
It does seem strange that a barbarian's toughness wouldn't negate any damage when it came from a falling branch, but if a mace hit him, it would.
Gravity is a tricksy devil, and ancient, it understands how to bypass all of your DR's.
or y'know it's just pure Neutral Malice and teams up with the floor to break the rules.but
glad to see SKR's ruling on DR and non-weapon sourced typed damage.
On the off chance, will this be clarified further in the next printing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noted it for errata, so, yes.
Thank you.
The DR would apply. Eventhough Supernatural, the bombs would need at least a + 1 enhancement bonus, since dealing typed physical damage. Better would be to deal energy damage.
It has DR magic itself, so even if it wasn't specifically called out, would fall under this:
Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures' natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Oops....no it would not, since it's not a natural weapon, thus why they needed to specifically list it.