Does the Vicious Weapon Enchantment's damage bypass DR?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

29 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The section on DR says this:

Quote:
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

The vicious weapon ability is this:

Quote:

Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.

Moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Price +1 bonus.

The enervation spell says this:

Quote:
You point your finger and fire a black ray of negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes.

It seems pretty clear to me that the type of damage from vicious is energy, and due to that, it ignores DR.

FWIF, the description of vicious doesn't qualify the damage. The first part of the sentence says it's energy, but it would be more clear as:

"This energy deals an extra 2d6 energy damage to the opponent and 1d6 energy damage to the wielder."


I know that you prefere an official answer, but I should totally say no, RD doesn't work. Two reasons: first, general rules are pretty clear, and doubt comes just because there's some update that state different.
Second, if you let RD work with it we know that this raise a problem of game balance.
I think that there's no reason to let RD function that way.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

AlecStorm wrote:

I know that you prefere an official answer, but I should totally say no, RD doesn't work. Two reasons: first, general rules are pretty clear, and doubt comes just because there's some update that state different.

Second, if you let RD work with it we know that this raise a problem of game balance.
I think that there's no reason to let RD function that way.

"RD"?


Jiggy wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

I know that you prefere an official answer, but I should totally say no, RD doesn't work. Two reasons: first, general rules are pretty clear, and doubt comes just because there's some update that state different.

Second, if you let RD work with it we know that this raise a problem of game balance.
I think that there's no reason to let RD function that way.
"RD"?

Social commentary on RavingDork. Apparently AlecStorm really doesn't want RavingDork to work.

Or Damage Reduction.

Dark Archive

I would say that it does bypass DR (as an untyped energy attack), Also since it is an untyped energy attack, it also bypasses damage resistance like fire, ice, etc. I cannot think (at least right now, no books) of a single creature that has protection vs a vicious weapon.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

I know that you prefere an official answer, but I should totally say no, RD doesn't work. Two reasons: first, general rules are pretty clear, and doubt comes just because there's some update that state different.

Second, if you let RD work with it we know that this raise a problem of game balance.
I think that there's no reason to let RD function that way.
"RD"?

Apparently Ravingdork is very bad at stopping untyped energy damage..

I wonder if RD knows that whenever someone says RD, they think of him.. :P


Sorry, I'm not english, this is the acronym we use in Italy for damage resistance.

Dark Archive

AlecStorm wrote:
Sorry, I'm not english, this is the acronym we use in Italy for damage resistance.

No worries, was not making fun of you. Just picking lightly on RD.


Np, I forgot to add thee smile ;) I took it easy.

Silver Crusade

Also, RD for "Réduction de Dégâts".
And no smiley because you picking on it made me sad. Sad like a sad kitten.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AlecStorm wrote:

I know that you prefere an official answer, but I should totally say no, RD doesn't work. Two reasons: first, general rules are pretty clear, and doubt comes just because there's some update that state different.

Second, if you let RD work with it we know that this raise a problem of game balance.
I think that there's no reason to let RD function that way.

I'll have you know that I work just fine thank-you-very-much!

:P

Happler wrote:
I wonder if RD knows that whenever someone says RD, they think of him.. :P

My work here is done. *ascends to a new plane of awareness*

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Ravingdork wrote:
My work here is done. *ascends to a new plane of awareness*

Say "hi" to Cordelia for me.

The Exchange

I concur that DR is not relevant in this case, although that's not based so much on the actual text of the vicious entry as on my understanding of the theme: "You want tons of bonus damage? Go right ahead... but there's a price."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Just to mention:

In PFS scenario, Eyes Of The Ten Part III, Red Revolution, a certain...

Spoiler:
Skelg The Ripper

Has DR /- and the combat notes point out specifically that his weapon has the vicious property, but due to his DR, he does not take damage.

Dark Archive

Austin Morgan wrote:

Just to mention:

In PFS scenario, Eyes Of The Ten Part III, Red Revolution, a certain...

** spoiler omitted **

Has DR /- and the combat notes point out specifically that his weapon has the vicious property, but due to his DR, he does not take damage.

But not all the scenarios NPC's follow the rules..

Liberty's Edge

Happler wrote:
Austin Morgan wrote:

Just to mention:

In PFS scenario, Eyes Of The Ten Part III, Red Revolution, a certain...

** spoiler omitted **

Has DR /- and the combat notes point out specifically that his weapon has the vicious property, but due to his DR, he does not take damage.

But not all the scenarios NPC's follow the rules..

Oh I'm aware, I was just pointing it out.

Dark Archive

In this case, the only place where it says it's energy damage is in the flavor text. The rules say 2d6 damage to target, 1d6 damage to user. Every other enchantment that deals not normal damage is specified in the rules (e.g. flaming deals an extra 1d6 fire damage.)

It does mean that someone with dr 6+ would almost always want a vicious wepon. But, dr 6+ is hard to get (for most PCs, at least.)

I think this would be a DM call thing. I would (and did) say that dr applies, unless the weapon can bypass the dr anyways.

Sczarni

I built a PFS character off of the idea that DR blocked the returning 1d6 from Vicious, citing that BBEG as an example in print, but I encountered incredible table variation when I finally got to that point.

He's retired now, so it doesn't affect me anymore, but when I GM I allow the tactic to work for any PCs that built their character similarly, out of sympathy.

Liberty's Edge

nefreet wrote:
I encountered incredible table variation when I finally got to that point.

And what about bypassing hardness, as in what if it was wielded by a stone golem that has hardness 8. Would a vicious weapon bite the stone hand that wields it, and do damage? think hardness trumps resistance in this incident.

Nefreet, you should have made a construct barbarian, instead. ... tee hee.

Grand Lodge

Wait, Vicious bypasses Hardness?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, Vicious bypasses Hardness?

I didn't think so. Then again, I didn't think it bypassed the wielder's DR either.

Have there been any recent insights/rulings on this?


I guess here's how I've been wondering about it:

1: Does the vicious weapon's bonus damage count as weapon damage or energy damage?
2: Is the 2d6 added to the initial weapon attack before DR, or is it two 'attacks'--the normal big ouch, then an extra 2d6? (I know it's not going to multiply on a crit.)
3: Is it going to be totally cool when my invulnerable-archetype barbarian sticks this on an axe and uses her own DR to negate the 1d6 backlash?

My guess?
1: Looks like you guys are counting it as weapon damage.
2: If that's the case, it's like a backstab so it adds in but doesn't multiply.
3: Unknown?


It appears to be untyped energy damage, thus wouldn't be affected by DR. Further, the rules for Damage Reduction imply to me that it works only versus weapon attacks. Either way, it doesn't multiply on a crit.

Hardness, on the other hand, you may have a case for... however, I'd be inclined to rule it as "particularly effective", thus bypassing hardness.

In general, when a spell or effect causes you to damage yourself, the rules typically try to ensure that it either can't be prevented or that the effect can't be used at all if the target can't take damage. While this is by no means universal, it makes sense for balance reasons for this to be the usual case.

Grand Lodge

Hardness of creatures is what I am curious about.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Giggity!

Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Hardness of creatures is what I am curious about.

We'd need further clarification.

As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations:

  • It's added physical damage and is lowered by DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR, but is halved before Hardness is factored (as with other forms of energy damage).

Since I only do PFS, I rule it as option #1, since a PFS scenario tells me to do so, and since I view Hardness as simply DR for objects.

YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

Æthernaut wrote:
Nefreet, you should have made a construct barbarian, instead. ... tee hee.

I practically did. Tiefling Armor Master in Adamantine Full Plate, with a Tower Shield in one hand and an Adamantine Greatsword in the other (thanks to 2 levels of Titan Mauler).

I think you even played a few games with him. He was my 2nd character.

His specialty was a high AC and an 11d6 Vital Strike.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Nefreet wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Hardness of creatures is what I am curious about.

We'd need further clarification.

As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations:

  • It's added physical damage and is lowered by DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR, but is halved before Hardness is factored (as with other forms of energy damage).

Since I only do PFS, I rule it as option #1, since a PFS scenario tells me to do so, and since I view Hardness as simply DR for objects.

YMMV.

+1. I too would like PFS clarification. Vicious is, as written, a double-edged sword.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
[Translation: goose=target, gander=wielder, good=bad=painful, what=Unpreventable Damage]

Liberty's Edge

It doesn't list a type, but isn't explicitly untyped. Bonus damage dice without a listed type are typically assumed to be of the type they are adding damage to rather than untyped. So yes, DR matters. If it were somehow on a weapon that dealt energy damage as its base type (like Flame Blade), DR wouldn't matter, but I'm not away of any such weapons that can be enchanted.

Holy and Bane would work the same way. As do other things that add bonus damage, like Sneak Attack.

Note that the "spells ignore DR" rule isn't really a rule. If it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage then it must deal with DR. Full stop. However, spells always bypass /magic for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, vicious' blowback effect is NOT bonus damage, it is its own instance of damage against the wielder, and as such the return damage would be untyped and ignore DR.

All that said, I'm pretty sure it was intended to be untyped energy both directions.

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Hardness of creatures is what I am curious about.

We'd need further clarification.

As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations:

  • It's added physical damage and is lowered by DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR, but is halved before Hardness is factored (as with other forms of energy damage).

Since I only do PFS, I rule it as option #1, since a PFS scenario tells me to do so, and since I view Hardness as simply DR for objects.

YMMV.

Actually given the PFS ruling that halving energy damage is a factor of being an object, not hardness (and robots are actually creatures), id say the options are:

  • It's added physical damage and is lowered by DR and Hardness.
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR and Hardness, getting halved if its an object
  • It's untyped energy damage and bypasses DR, but not Hardness (getting halved before hardness if its an object).


What about 'we treat it like sneak attack damage' as an option?

Sczarni

It's not called out as precision damage.

Sneak Attack has quite a few limitations that likely shouldn't apply to Vicious.

Grand Lodge

How the damage effects the wielder, should effect enemies damaged, in the same way.

Meaning, what protections are bypassed when damaging the wielder, should be bypassed against the creatures it is used to damage.

It shouldn't be more effective against the wielder.

Sczarni

I believe that to be true as well.

I built my Fighter towards DR 6/- in order to negate the 1d6 backlash from Vicious and expected that the 2d6 to the enemy would be lowered by their DR as well. For the price of a mere +1 Enchantment, I thought it was totally worth it.

Likewise, if my DR doesn't stop the backlash, it should bypass the enemy's DR as well.

Hardness is where it gets wonky.

Liberty's Edge

Check the text of teh ability:

PRD wrote:

Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.

Moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Price +1 bonus.

so it is energy damage.

DR don't stop energy damage.

Hardness:

PRD wrote:

Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).

- * -

Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

So if a creature has hardness it is applied against energy attacks (but as it is a creature and not an object, the damage isn't halved).

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:


So if a creature has hardness it is applied against energy attacks (but as it is a creature and not an object, the damage isn't halved).

Are you saying that an animated object no longer counts as an object?


Nefreet wrote:

It's not called out as precision damage.

Sneak Attack has quite a few limitations that likely shouldn't apply to Vicious.

I meant similarly in how it's applied--it's just straight added to the damage roll from the weapon.

So say two DR3 Barbarians with vicious greataxes chop at each other.

Barb 1 would take d6-3 (min 0) damage from the backlash, and barb 2 would take d12 + all the other damage mods, factor in any crits, then + 2d6, and after all the damage is added up subtract 3. Does that sound right?

Liberty's Edge

Æthernaut wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So if a creature has hardness it is applied against energy attacks (but as it is a creature and not an object, the damage isn't halved).
Are you saying that an animated object no longer counts as an object?

The creature abilities don't say anything about it being a object, so, no it is not an object for the game rules.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

It doesn't list a type, but isn't explicitly untyped. Bonus damage dice without a listed type are typically assumed to be of the type they are adding damage to rather than untyped. So yes, DR matters. If it were somehow on a weapon that dealt energy damage as its base type (like Flame Blade), DR wouldn't matter, but I'm not away of any such weapons that can be enchanted.

Holy and Bane would work the same way. As do other things that add bonus damage, like Sneak Attack.

Note that the "spells ignore DR" rule isn't really a rule. If it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage then it must deal with DR. Full stop. However, spells always bypass /magic for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, vicious' blowback effect is NOT bonus damage, it is its own instance of damage against the wielder, and as such the return damage would be untyped and ignore DR.

All that said, I'm pretty sure it was intended to be untyped energy both directions.

I agree with this analysis.


There is nothing ambiguous here. It's energy damage and follows the energy damage rules.

Besides, how the hell the feedback could be anything but magical? Are there blades on the grip that comes out anytime you strike something?

Sczarni

Dekalinder wrote:

There is nothing ambiguous here. It's energy damage and follows the energy damage rules.

Besides, how the hell the feedback could be anything but magical? Are there blades on the grip that comes out anytime you strike something?

This debate has been had many times over several years. Just because you're on one side does not mean the other side doesn't have valid points.

There are two pieces of evidence in favor of DR stopping Vicious.

One, it's actually "the weapon" dealing the extra damage, as stated in the ability. The visual effect is a flash of energy, and could easily be interpreted as a fluff effect of the weapon rather than "untyped energy damage".

But that's equally countered by the other side, as it's a matter if interpretation.

Two, there is an encounter in a PFS scenario written to include this sort of interaction. The tactics state that the wielder is immune to the backlash, because of his DR.

But, obviously, many people point out that statblocks should not be used as "official rules clarifications".

There are no further arguments, on either side, that I am aware of.

So, it's a wash either way. Expect table variation, and don't expect your interpretation to always be the way it's run.

Sczarni

Oh, and click the FAQ button ;-)


One does not hold water. Even with flaming, is "the weapon" that is dealing the damage. That doesn't mean anything but the fact that is the weapon who is delivering the damage. Tha nature of the damage is specified in the actual special ability description. In this case, energy.

Two, well, everybody knows the accuracy of stat blocks.

Really, the only reason is even asked is because some PC could benefit from it, so someone is trying to climb on whatever glass they can find to get it working. And that is the sad story of it.

Edit: i'll do it just because you asked it politely, but honestly i'd rather have a FAQ on anything else than this.

Sczarni

Dekalinder wrote:

One does not hold water. Even with flaming, is "the weapon" that is dealing the damage. That doesn't mean anything but the fact that is the weapon who is delivering the damage. Tha nature of the damage is specified in the actual special ability description. In this case, energy.

Two, well, everybody knows the accuracy of stat blocks.

Two absolutely valid counterpoints, as I already mentioned in that same post =)


I always looked at it as untyped energy damage. But really, there shouldn't be any such thing in order to make the rules function properly. I've encountered enough table variation on it that I just avoided it on my rage prophet, but since I'd like to play another character with DR in pfs, I'd certainly like a FAQ to put it to bed.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does the Vicious Weapon Enchantment's damage bypass DR? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.