Damage Reduction and effects such as Rattling Strike


Rules Questions


My questions relates to damage reduction and effects not based on damage. Are effects not based on damage affected by damage reduction?

Let's see the definitions:

CRB p. 561: Damage reduction
...Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison,a monk’s stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage
dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation,ingestion, or contact.

APG p. 128:
Rattling Strike (Ex): The ranger can use this trick as a free action before he makes a melee attack. If the attack hits, the target is shaken for 1d4 rounds.

So, in this case, Rattling Strikes indicates that if the attack hits, target is shaken. Damage reduction indicates that if it complety negates the damage, it negates MOST special effects that accompany the attack. It is quite vague (as it cannot list all possible effects) but the negated effects listed all seemed to be damaged-based (injury poison, stunning fist which requires damage, and injury-based disease).

On the other hand, it doesn't affect poisons or disease that are contact-based.

So, it appears that RAI, non-damaging effects would still work, but not so sure RAW.

Rattling strike only requires that the attack hits (not damage-related, but if the damage of the attack is totally cancelled /negated by damage reduction, would the effect of rattling strike still works?

Thanks


The effect would apply. DR only applies to damage, not effects. The trick specifies that the attack has to hit, but doesn't say it has to actually damage the opponent. If it said "if the attack damages", I'd say differently.


ya...that's what i think so...My though being that if touch attacks still work, then effects based on succesful hit (and not damage) should work also


We've had further discussions about this in our group....the fact that it says "it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack"
seems to indicate that even effects not damaged-based might be negated (RAW)...

so even though Rattling strike doesn't need to damage the target, if the damage related to the rattling strike attack is completly negated, it technically could also negate the effect.

But, since the exemple refers to damaged-related effects, not so sure.

is there anything else in the rules i'm missing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those abilities that I would say would be negated. It should have to hurt just like stunning fist IMO.

From a flavor perspective I don't see anyone being shaken by an attack that did you no harm.

Reversal: Stunning Fist calls out damage and this one only calls out the attack landing. I don't like it that way, but it seems to work even without damage.


So, even though both interpretation could potentially be good here, Rattling strike (because only requires that the attack hit) probably goes more in line with the DR' aspect of not negating touch attacks or contact poison...

thanks


wraithstrike wrote:

This is one of those abilities that I would say would be negated. It should have to hurt just like stunning fist IMO.

From a flavor perspective I don't see anyone being shaken by an attack that did you no harm.

Reversal: Stunning Fist calls out damage and this one only calls out the attack landing. I don't like it that way, but it seems to work even without damage.

This is opening a giant can of worms because "hits" is most often used to mean "defeated AC and dealt more damage than DR"

There are clear instances where it means "after defeating AC", but (RAI) I don't think this is one of those cases.

Rattling Strike is clearly a rider imo.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Damage Reduction and effects such as Rattling Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.