|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Wonder how many GMs actually apply this rule for DR/-, Damage Reduction, and anything else that mediates damage (such as a hit that is "absorbed" by a percentile ability).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
I don't think I have ever, nor ever had a GM keep track of this unless it was purposefully applied. And consider this for a rogue/sap master that must do non-lethal damage with an attack... can they then apply that non-lethal damage feat to the target with DR/-?
Probably more than the ones that says boiling water isn't fire damage. I will argue that DR isn't a penalty though.
"Boiling water deals 1d6 points of scalding damage, unless the character is fully immersed, in which case it deals 10d6 points of damage per round of exposure."
|
|
Ah yes, but what about this: Damage Reduction: If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.
So it is a "reduction" and something that "negates" damage... is "reduction" = a penalty to damage? What is a penalty if not something that reduces it? If it doesn't reduce the ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage - then does it negate the 1 non-lethal hit point from this "ignored rule"?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its the height of absurdity to say that a red dragon who can swim in lava can be damaged by a pot of hot tea
Red dragon sits in lava "ahhhhhhh"
Sips hot tea while doing it "ow ow ow thats hot!"
|
|
Its the height of absurdity to say that a red dragon who can swim in lava can be damaged by a pot of hot tea
Red dragon sits in lava "ahhhhhhh"
Sips hot tea while doing it "ow ow ow thats hot!"
If they sipped acid they would say "ow ow ow" - so if they "type" fits? But that is a "type of damage" question. What "type" is "scalding" - does it appear anywhere else? Is it acid(earth type)? No. Is it wind(air type)? No. Is it lightning(electrical type)? Is it loud(sonic type)? Well, there are only "five types" of elemental damage. So, in theory, the "absurdity" is to call it "untyped" just because it is "scalding". That implies "heat" which isn't any of the other four types of damage.
Does a red dragon take heat damage in the desert? Nope? The same "logic" applies, doesn't it?
|
|
Ah yes, but what about this: Damage Reduction: If damage reduction completely negates the damage from a called shot, the called shot has no effect. If hit point damage does get through, the called shot has normal effects. Damage reduction does not reduce any ability damage, ability drain, penalties, or bleed damage caused by the called shot.Bolded for emphases. In your example it specifically says that DR can completely negate the damage from an attack. Negate = 0 damage.
Right. Absolutely. And the "ignored rule" says that if damage is completely negated (less than 1, and zero is less than one, right?), they take one point of non-lethal damage. Thus why I say it is THE MOST IGNORED RULE. I don't think I have EVER seen it applied in ANY situation. Because most GMs (me included) say "oh, well, you didn't take any damage from that because of xyz" and completely ignore this rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example of application: A group of 100 archers fire at a 90 HP creature with DR 10/-. Every GM I have ever seen will say "this does nothing to the 90 HP creature, even if they all hit." Per the rule (which, incidentally, is the FIRST SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTED AND BOLDED PART OF DAMAGE, as important as adding your STR Bonus, or Getting your multiplier right, etc...) if all of them hit, the creature would be knocked unconscious by the force of 100 arrows (which didn't penetrate its skin, but did knock it out).
Which, is an interesting "never been applied" rule. Eh? The obvious discussion here is "what is a penalty" - is it only from the attacker themselves (as the d2-3 example theorizes) or is it ANY penalty (such as DR and resistances and negation abilities) to damage (where you still hit, which wouldn't count cover and concealment rolls)?
To say an ability that has "reduction" in its name doesn't "reduce damage" but instead "just makes it zero" is sort of silly, IMHO. I know that GMs have never really looked at this rule this way, which is why I pointed it out. Is it being completely ignored? Or applied right (to only attacks which negate themselves out like d2-3 attacks)? Seems like they wouldn't have to bother telling you that d2-3 does a minimum of 1 point elsewhere if they meant it did 1 point of non-lethal damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'll join in the chorus of people claiming that maouse is totally wrong on what the rule for DR says, I actually came here to cite my personal favourite for seldom applied rule.
Perception and distance modifiers.
In the dungeon, yeah they're pretty universally applied.
But outside? They're almost never applied. GMs actually let players see the city from a mile away and let them see the Sun despite it being probably thousands of miles away (its fantasy, I'm guessing its a chariot of fire or something :-)).
Example of application: A group of 100 archers fire at a 90 HP creature with DR 10/-. Every GM I have ever seen will say "this does nothing to the 90 HP creature, even if they all hit." Per the rule (which, incidentally, is the FIRST SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTED AND BOLDED PART OF DAMAGE, as important as adding your STR Bonus, or Getting your multiplier right, etc...) if all of them hit, the creature would be knocked unconscious by the force of 100 arrows (which didn't penetrate its skin, but did knock it out).
Depending on the creature's type, nonlethal damage doesn't apply. It really depends on the creature references. But yes, I do believe it is an underused rule.
|
|
If damage reduction doesn't reduce your damage, why do you have to roll damage at all?
Think about that.
If I roll d6 versus DR5/- then what happens? I have to roll to see if I do enough damage to get past it (a 6). That damage starts at 6, and 5 is subtracted from it. You didn't roll a 1, and ignore the DR. You did 6-5 = 1 point.
So in the event that you roll a 1-5, what happens? You have 5(or less) - 5 = 0 (or less). Thus, you incur the damage of 1 non-lethal hit point, per they ignored rule, anyway. Why? Because the "penalty" from the DR reduces the damage to less than 1.
Right. Absolutely. And the "ignored rule" says that if damage is completely negated (less than 1, and zero is less than one, right?), they take one point of non-lethal damage. Thus why I say it is THE MOST IGNORED RULE. I don't think I have EVER seen it applied in ANY situation. Because most GMs (me included) say "oh, well, you didn't take any damage from that because of xyz" and completely ignore this rule.
No! the ignored rule says that 'if penalties reduce the damage to 0'. It does not say anything about the damage being negated.
Reduction and penalty are two different things. They have different meanings in plain English, they are used to refer to different and distinct terms in the game.
most ignored rule in any game I've played: encumbrance.
|
|
For the record: found the definition of "penalty" - Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So that opens up that can of worms: Is damage a check? Or a statistical score?
If yes (to either), what is a "numerical value that are subtracted from" them? Damage REDUCTION subtracts the number from each attacks... so DR would count.
If no (to both), why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all?
Here is the thing dr is applied after all my penalties and then the damage is reduced. Its not parr of determining how much damage I do. If I hit a creature and do 13 damage I have done 13 damage. That the creature has dr is not relevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most ignored rule in any game I've played: encumbrance.
I use encumbrance all the time. In fact, I have often checked over a sheet and laughed at someone trying to carry 400 pounds of gear. Then I have asked if they are really going to go adventuring with it all... then I ask how. Then I make them drop stuff (no 2000' of rope for you!). Then I ask for the modified character sheet. And I check it over again. Then, if possible, I copy it prior to gaming so the butthurt player doesn't just write in some crap they need on the fly and try to "pass it by" me. I might also mention to them Bags of Holding are available for the relatively reasonable price of about the same as their magic weapon (if any).
Yeh, I do encumbrance like that (unless all the players are well under their thresholds or are Dwarves).
DR only reduces damage that would be taken, not negates it. If you have DR 5/- and you were attacked by someone with a dagger and a 16 str, at max, it's 7 damage. 7-5=2. You would take 2 damage. But if they roll a 2, they would deal 5 damage exactly. 5-5=0.
Now, if it's as above, where the damage is 1d2-3= 1 non-lethal, 1 non-lethal damage is reduced to 0 by the DR5/-. Since the damage being done is the non-lethal, the non-lethal damage is reduced by the damage reduction.
To move away from the dr issue. I'd say the most one ure rule is applying hasete effects to a creature with reduce ed movement. There is a table but I can never find it.
|
|
Here is the thing dr is applied after all my penalties and then the damage is reduced. Its not parr of determining how much damage I do. If I hit a creature and do 13 damage I have done 13 damage. That the creature has dr is not relevant.
"all my penalties" - see, this right here is the problem I have. All of us GMs have always added that "my penalties" crap. Where does it say "only my penalties apply to damage" ... um. No. Damage is resolved to a creature's HP after all penalties, not just "mine" (the attacker's). It also requires you to resolve defensive penalties to damage, such as DR and resistances.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
maouse, you are welcome to run DR at your table as you please. But my reading of the rule is in accord with others here: Striking a monster for 6 points, and having all the damage negated by DR, does not bestow a point of non-lethal damage. (For what it's worth, part of the rule sentence is a word-for-word import from the 3.5 ruleset, where it appears under the Strength attribute. The Pathfinder Design Team brought it out under "Damage" in the combat section, where people would expect to find it, and added the restriction that only penalties to the damage have the rider.) As others have said, DR is not a penalty.
My candidate for least-used rule is the distinction among which effects occur when attributes are altered temporarily, versus permanently. If my wizard cast bull's strength on your ranger, does the ranger's carrying capacity change? If I cast bear's endurance, does the thresh-hold for dying change? In both cases, no.
|
|
DR only reduces damage that would be taken, not negates it. If you have DR 5/- and you were attacked by someone with a dagger and a 16 str, at max, it's 7 damage. 7-5=2. You would take 2 damage. But if they roll a 2, they would deal 5 damage exactly. 5-5=0.
Now, if it's as above, where the damage is 1d2-3= 1 non-lethal, 1 non-lethal damage is reduced to 0 by the DR5/-. Since the damage being done is the non-lethal, the non-lethal damage is reduced by the damage reduction.
If you hit someone, regardless of damage penalties, you do 1 point of (non-lethal) damage. Yes, if you do 1-5 non-lethal, that is 1 non-lethal, even with 5 DR. Just like if you do 1-5 lethal, that becomes 1 non-lethal (ie. you don't break the skin).
My point being that DR does not mitigate non-lethal damage (completely), as when it is a penalty that reduces (damage REDUCTION) the damage done to less than 1, the defender takes 1 point of non-lethal damage, per the (highly ignored, but there) rule.
Its the height of absurdity to say that a red dragon who can swim in lava can be damaged by a pot of hot tea
Red dragon sits in lava "ahhhhhhh"
Sips hot tea while doing it "ow ow ow thats hot!"
The sad thing is, RAW, that's exactly how it would work.
Because there is no damage type as "scalding," nor does the Dragon in question have resistance or damage reduction against a "scalding" damage type.
The worst part is, since we don't know if it's an energy type or a physical kind of damage, you can't truly say if DR/- is applicable.
I think the reason why people don't bother with those kinds of rules is because not only does it unnecessarily bog down the game (for most tables, anyway), it also has major rule inconsistencies, as we have stumbled upon here with these rules for cooking and deserts...
For the record: found the definition of "penalty" - Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So that opens up that can of worms: Is damage a check? Or a statistical score?
If yes (to either), what is a "numerical value that are subtracted from" them? Damage REDUCTION subtracts the number from each attacks... so DR would count.
If no (to both), why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all?
There is no mention of damage reduction functioning as a penalty in the damage reduction entry. Even if it had implied it, words such as "negated" would have no place there. If it doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. Anything else beyond that would be a house rule.
MAOUSE NOT AGAIN!
even if the 1 non-lethal point is added, it is then negated by the DR.
|
|
maouse, you are welcome to run DR at your table as you please. But my reading of the rule is in accord with others here: Striking a monster for 6 points, and having all the damage negated by DR, does not bestow a point of non-lethal damage. (For what it's worth, part of the rule sentence is a word-for-word import from the 3.5 ruleset, where it appears under the Strength attribute. The Pathfinder Design Team brought it out under "Damage" in the combat section, where people would expect to find it, and added the restriction that only penalties to the damage have the rider.) As others have said, DR is not a penalty.
My candidate for least-used rule is the distinction among which effects occur when attributes are altered temporarily, versus permanently. If my wizard cast bull's strength on your ranger, does the ranger's carrying capacity change? If I cast bear's endurance, does the thresh-hold for dying change? In both cases, no.
Good to know where it came from. Explains why it is ignored RAW (because it never applied like that in 3.5).
I guess from what I see the "penalties" don't have to originate from the attacker only. When you resolve damage, any numerical subtraction from damage would count as a penalty (per the definition of penalty). So when you apply the "end damage", if it less than 1 (ie. completely negated by DR or resistance), per the rule, you should apply 1 point of non-lethal damage.
I don't know if this is what the PFS devs meant to do, but it certainly seems to be a logical understanding of the rule as written.
If intent were still to only apply to STR damage modifiers, then it would still have been there in PF (one would think). The PF devs wanted it to apply to all damage modifiers, it would seem. So, does DR subtract 5 damage? Yep.
I know its an interpretation that isn't popular (even I, as I have said, have never run it this way/ever noticed what the rule actually states). I do think it is more logical to use the non-lethal damage rule (especially for damage reduction) against large quantities of foes. If fifty people attack you, I don't care if they can cut you, they can still beat you down... one would think. I know DR is a "special ability". And maybe that shouldn't be the case (maybe you can laugh off attacks forever, from everyone not attacking with magical weapons). Seems like the way the people run it has more to do with what Damage Reduction says, so I guess I should look there.
Under the common terms.
Damage Reduction (DR): Creatures that are resistant to harm typically have damage reduction. This amount is subtracted from any damage dealt to them from a physical source. Most types of DR can be bypassed by certain types of weapons. This is denoted by a “/” followed by the type, such as “10/cold iron.” Some types of DR apply to all physical attacks. Such DR is denoted by the “—” symbol. See Special Abilities for more information.
So according to that I deal damage its then subtracted. Its not part of the damage teteemination portion of combat. The universal monsternsecrion implies dr can be...
Instant healing
Blows bouncing off harmlessly.
It also implies damage is just ignored.
Really the 1 pt of nl damage rule is for when a mouse bites you (or your little sister)
|
|
There is no mention of damage reduction functioning as a penalty in the damage reduction entry. Even if it had implied it, words such as "negated" would have no place there. If it doesn't mention it, it doesn't exist. Anything else beyond that would be a house rule.
" For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic." Is 5 a numerical reduction? Yep. Is a penalty a numerical reduction? Yep.
"Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced," Numerical reduction = a penalty to damage? Yep.
For the record: found the definition of "penalty" - Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So that opens up that can of worms: Is damage a check? Or a statistical score?
If yes (to either), what is a "numerical value that are subtracted from" them? Damage REDUCTION subtracts the number from each attacks... so DR would count.
If no (to both), why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all?
Because there are penalties that affect damage. They are clearly called out as penalties (such as the shaken or sickened conditions). Damage Reduction is not a penalty, no where in the DR rules is the term penalty used.
It's kind of a fingers and thumbs situation. a penalty can cause a reduction, but that does not mean that a reduction is a penalty.
DR only reduces damage that would be taken, not negates it. If you have DR 5/- and you were attacked by someone with a dagger and a 16 str, at max, it's 7 damage. 7-5=2. You would take 2 damage. But if they roll a 2, they would deal 5 damage exactly. 5-5=0.
Now, if it's as above, where the damage is 1d2-3= 1 non-lethal, 1 non-lethal damage is reduced to 0 by the DR5/-. Since the damage being done is the non-lethal, the non-lethal damage is reduced by the damage reduction.
If you hit someone, regardless of damage penalties, you do 1 point of (non-lethal) damage. Yes, if you do 1-5 non-lethal, that is 1 non-lethal, even with 5 DR. Just like if you do 1-5 lethal, that becomes 1 non-lethal (ie. you don't break the skin).
My point being that DR does not mitigate non-lethal damage (completely), as when it is a penalty that reduces (damage REDUCTION) the damage done to less than 1, the defender takes 1 point of non-lethal damage, per the (highly ignored, but there) rule.
Damage reduction is something belonging to the creature that is attacked.
Penalties on the damage roll are things belonging to the creature that attacked.Damage reduction is not applied to the attacker's damage roll the same way a penalty is applied. Damage reduction applies after the damage is rolled and the penalties are applied. The reduction is not an effect on the attacker. It's a property of the creature being attacked.
And if there's any question as to what a "penalty" is in game terms, please turn your attention to the language in the glossary section of the PRD.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
A penalty is something that is based on you. Whether it be from low or lowered ability scores, or from a curse affecting your damage rolls, the penalty is yours. As well, the Damage Reduction section of the glossary has no mention of the word "penalty."
As one final note, it would seem bizarre to think that some human child could eventually kill a dragon or some other creature that, to quote from the glossary, "instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable."
|
|
Penalties on the damage roll are things belonging to the creature that attacked.
Only? Really? Please enlighten me to where it says this ANYWHERE? That would definitely convince me I am wrong. But so far, RAW, have not found it ANYWHERE. A link / quote would be nice. I quoted the definition of a "penalty" and nowhere in that part does it mention an "originates only from the attacker" vibe. It says "any numerical reduction." Which indicates to me that the attacker does not need to be the origin. ANY source that reduces it (the damage check/ statistical score) = a penalty.
Because of when the reduction in damage is applied.
spell a causes all creatures in its radius by 5 pfs.
So bob is 1d8+8 dmg normally. In the spells effect he is 1d8+8-5 or 1d8+3. His damage is reduced.
If a spell caused all creatures in an area to receive 5 less damage it shiftz things to the defender.
Bib says he does 12 damage his damage calculation is done.
Dr is not parr of bobs damage calculation.
"Penalties" are solely mentioned in reference to effects on a character.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
Careless rogues plundering a tomb, drunken heroes insulting a powerful wizard, and foolhardy adventurers who pick up ancient swords all might suffer from curses. These magic afflictions can have a wide variety of effects, from a simple penalty to certain checks to transforming the victim into a toad... While some curses cause a progressive deterioration, others inflict a static penalty from the moment they are contracted, neither fading over time nor growing worse.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks.
Etc.
|
|
Because of when the reduction in damage is applied.
spell a causes all creatures in its radius by 5 pfs.
So bob is 1d8+8 dmg normally. In the spells effect he is 1d8+8-5 or 1d8+3. His damage is reduced.
If a spell caused all creatures in an area to receive 5 less damage it shiftz things to the defender.
Bib says he does 12 damage his damage calculation is done.
Dr is not parr of bobs damage calculation.
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties (numerical reductions) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5. When the attack is over, the person takes 5? No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties ( which is not the same thing as numerical reductions ) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5, the attack is over, the person takes 5. No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.
fixed that
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties (numerical reductions) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5. When the attack is over, the person takes 5? No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.Because of when the reduction in damage is applied.
spell a causes all creatures in its radius by 5 pfs.
So bob is 1d8+8 dmg normally. In the spells effect he is 1d8+8-5 or 1d8+3. His damage is reduced.
If a spell caused all creatures in an area to receive 5 less damage it shiftz things to the defender.
Bib says he does 12 damage his damage calculation is done.
Dr is not parr of bobs damage calculation.
The logic you are using is flawed. Penalties are reductions, not all reductions are penalties.
|
|
It most certainly is part of the hit resolution. What? You just hit and say "I did five" and then the GM applies "five damage"? No. The GM reduces the damage from the attack which hit to less than one (0). Per the rule, this attack, which was reduced to zero, should do 1 non-lethal damage. It doesn't say "only penalties from the attacker" anywhere. It says "any penalty" - which means penalties ( which is not the same thing as numerical reductions ) from any source, should apply. Including a numerical 5 point reduction from DR. The attack did (0) damage to the person, not 5, the attack is over, the person takes 5. No. The attacked person takes 0. After all penalties are applied.fixed that
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
So again, no, you didn't "fix that."
Damage isn't a check or a statistical score.
|
|
The logic you are using is flawed. Penalties are reductions, not all reductions are penalties.
Well, that is the question, isn't it? In my original post, I asked if DR and other things that reduce damage, pursuant to the Damage rule in question, count as penalties.
Then I asked if they fit the definition of a penalty; a numerical reduction in a statistical score or check.
Then I asked, if they don't fit this definition, because a damage calculation isn't a statistical score or check (which, honestly it seems like it is not either).
Then I asked; if damage isn't either of these, why mention a penalty at all in the damage section?
Working backwards, and presuming "penalty" was used in the damage section because damage is a "statistical score", I surmised that ANY PENALTY in the damage section meant "any numerical reduction" in that "statistical score." Thus DR, as a numerical reduction, counts as a penalty to damage.
While the logic may be suspect, as "all numerical reductions might not be penalties" - "any penalties" in the damage section would indicate "all numerical reductions" in the penalties definition. Though I see your "logical point", I hope you see how it came about "backwards" given that there is no reason to mention penalty in the damage section, much less "any penalty", if they only meant one kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things that are penalties are called out as penalties. DR is not. Penalties in this case is the game specific usage and definition of the word. The common definition cannot be used here.
DR applies to both lethal and non-lethal damage. The "underused" rule on your incorrect (and lone) interpretation would invalidate this. Given nothing is called out in this regard, then the non-lethal damage rule doesn't apply here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage isn't a check or a statistical score.Right? So this begs the question of why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all (since it doesn't apply EVER to damage). Per RAW and the definition of a "penalty".
Yep. None of these creatures have a penalty to their damage rolls. Honest.
Damage isn't a check or a statistical score.Right? So this begs the question of why mention "penalty" in the damage section at all (since it doesn't apply EVER to damage). Per RAW and the definition of a "penalty".
A low strength score gives you a strength penalty to melee attacks and melee damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
maouse, you are getting worked up. Your posts are coming off as sarcastic. As I say, you are welcome to GM as you please.
For what it's worth, you're not the first person to be tripped up by the terminology. Indeed,over at The Gaming Den, there is a pretty rude thread about how "Pathfinder is still bad" and how some terms in Pathfinder are ill-defined, and "penalty" is one of their objects of scorn.
|
|
Things that are penalties are called out as penalties. DR is not. Penalties in this case is the game specific usage and definition of the word. The common definition cannot be used here.
DR applies to both lethal and non-lethal damage. The "underused" rule would invalidate this.
Can you find an example of a "penalty to damage"? That is part of the problem. Quote?
I found: silver bullets and sickened, etc... so yeh. OK. Those spell out a "penalty to damage rolls" (not damage result, mind you).
Can you find me an example of a "penalty to damage"? That is part of the problem. Quote?Things that are penalties are called out as penalties. DR is not. Penalties in this case is the game specific usage and definition of the word. The common definition cannot be used here.
DR applies to both lethal and non-lethal damage. The "underused" rule would invalidate this.
Sickened: The character takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Can you find an example of a "penalty to damage"? That is part of the problem. Quote?Things that are penalties are called out as penalties. DR is not. Penalties in this case is the game specific usage and definition of the word. The common definition cannot be used here.
DR applies to both lethal and non-lethal damage. The "underused" rule would invalidate this.
Combat chapter, section on damage (the irony).
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.