Ok, a rules argument appeared in our game last night. When applying damage reduction to damage from a critical hit, do you first total up the damage from all the extra damage dice, then subtract DR from the total, or do you subtract DR from each damage die?
My DM is convinced that the latter interpretation applies, but this doesn't make sense to me. When I DM, I've always used the first interpretation (total all damage and subtract DR from it). However, I have been unable to find a definitive answer in the rulebooks.
Since the damage is all from one blow, an especially strong or lucky blow should be able to pierce strong damage reduction and do a significant (if somewhat reduced) amount of damage. Otherwise, you are really nerfing axes and picks, feats that improve one's critical hits, and by logical extension the rogue's sneak attack ability (since it functions in a manner analogous to critical hits, you would end up subtracting DR from each sneak attack d6, effectively negating virtually all sneak attacks that can't bypass DR). Conversely, you are making creatures with DR tougher.
So, I'd appreciate hearing how other people apply the rules in this situation, and if you've got a specific scriptural reference, I'd appreciate it.
I've always used your explanation as well, you total the damage then you subtract the damage reduction.
The other explanation makes no sense.
I've always used your explanation as well, you total the damage then you subtract the damage reduction.
The other explanation makes no sense.
Proof:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#damage
If you also consult the DMG on damage reduction all becomes clear.
Darkjoy--thanks, but I couldn't find anything in the SRD website you posted that directly answers this question. Also, I read all of the indexed entries in PHB, MM and DMG on critical hits and damage reduction twice through, and couldn't find an explicit statement that backs my position.
Darkjoy--thanks, but I couldn't find anything in the SRD website you posted that directly answers this question. Also, I read all of the indexed entries in PHB, MM and DMG on critical hits and damage reduction twice through, and couldn't find an explicit statement that backs my position.
Correct,
But logically it follows that if we must calculate the total damage as described in the link then damage reduction must be applied after that calculation.
it's just common sense, your dm is wrong, you are right.
Edited to add:
Multiplying Damage
Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
it's just common sense, your dm is wrong, you are right.
Edited to add:
Multiplying Damage
Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
I agree that it's common sense, but obviously my DM doesn't, and in the absence of clear wording to the contrary, I doubt I'll convince him. He's a good DM, but pretty stubborn.
The quote you added in your edit isn't worded very clearly, but I'm pretty sure that it is meant to indicate that when you multiply a critical multiplier, you merely add n-1 to that multiplier (i.e. two x2's equal x3, etc.)
Oh well, maybe I'll just have to argue with him in private based on common sense. I didn't want to derail our combat last night at 1 a.m. over a matter that wasn't game-breaking.
Besides common sense, you could also point out that adding always happens before subtracting. It's one of those international math rules ;>
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You might also ask about energy resistance. If this is his stance, it only stands to reason that a creature with fire resistance 5 resists 5 points on every single die of a fireball. Also, question whether DR applies to every single die for sneak attack, to both dice for weapons like the Greatsword, etc. If he is applying DR on a per dice basis, I would question as to why some dice are grouped together and some are not and where he can find support for that difference in the rules. If he believes a greatsword should be handled differently from a crit, you should ask him to show you the rule that differentiates the two.
Your kind of toast. Your DM is asking you to find the negation of a rule that does not exist. No where is it going to say anything about seperate dice because number of dice are irrelivent.
You might put the onus on to him. P. 307 of the Monster Manual has a long section on Damage Reduction explaining how it works. Absolutely nowhere in that long speal does it talk about individual dice. Their simply not a factor in the calculation whatsoever. Get him to show you where it mentions anything about individual dice. You take X less damage from an attack - period.
I agree that it's common sense, but obviously my DM doesn't, and in the absence of clear wording to the contrary, I doubt I'll convince him. He's a good DM, but pretty stubborn...
I fear Jeremy is right -- it's sounds like you're hosed. I'd challenge him to find criticals and DR even mentioned in the same paragraph, much less in the way he's suggesting.
On the other hand, I applaud any player that can put disagreements with the DM aside to keep the game running -- nicely done.
Regards,
Jack
Some of the reference material for Manyshot could be useful, as it EXPLICITLY says that damage reduction is applied separately, unlike everything else.
But yeah, if your DM doesn't relent after a mental beat-down of righteous common sense, well, you don't have much luck.
Ask him this, if that were the case, why would anyone ever roll with a light pick when they could wield a longsword. Any creature with DR would be immune to a light pick, regardless of crit.
Oh, and arrows. All projectile launching weapons short of ballista become laughable.
Your DM is wrong, but you can't prove that, you can only prove that he might not be right. Best of luck!
Thanks, all. Looks like it's so obvious no one ever thought of needing to spell it out explicitly. I guess I'll shoot my DM an e-mail outlining my reasoning and ask him to reconsider in a forum where his authority isn't being challenged. As a DM, I know my first impulse is always, "of course my way is right, how dare you challenge my supreme command of the rules."
I was arguing in behalf of our party ranger, who critted a wizard buffed with protection from arrows and got a wopping 3 points of damage to show for it after rolling an 8 damage and adding his +3 strength bonus. (The other thing he does that departs from RAW is to multiply the roll for the initial damage die, rather than roll two or three separate dice, but I don't object to this as much as I do to the other ruling).
I tend to do the multiply-rather-than-reroll too, for a variety of reasons, though I always feel bad when the player gets a 1 on their damage roll. It keeps the game moving and the players don't complain when they roll high. ;)
Creative Director
|
Although a DM is certainly free to include any sort of house rules he and his players wish... damage reduction only applies once per hit. If you crit a creature with damage reduction, well, often that's the only way to hurt it with a normal weapon. Think of all the scenes in fantasy fiction where the hero has to hit the monster's weak spot (Smaug, anyone) in order to hurt it; that's basically what damage reduction is aiming at reproducing.
You don't apply damage reduction to each of a rogue's sneak attack dice either.
By the same extension, you don't apply energy resistance to each die of a spell's damage.
The amount of dice used to determine damage inflicted is pretty much always irrelevant as far as damage reduction is concerned.
If he doesn't go for it, you definitely need to get your hands on any amount of DR, and 5 pts. of Fire Resist. You'll be immune to most minor attacks (poison needle traps), and fireballs of ANY level. Sweet!
|
I tend to do the multiply-rather-than-reroll too, for a variety of reasons, though I always feel bad when the player gets a 1 on their damage roll. It keeps the game moving and the players don't complain when they roll high. ;)
Either way is fine, though multiplying one die provides a flat probability (the chance of max or min result is the same as the chance of average result), whereas using multiple dice leads to a 'bell-curve' distribution, where the average result is much more likely.
I tend to the latter, as I feel it reduces the 'randomness' of crits, and better reflects a character's skill. But either way is justifiable, depending on how you visualise the event.
What is absolutely certain, though, is that, whatever method is used, it should be revealed at the start of a campaign and adhered to, no matter what.
|
|
Some of the reference material for Manyshot could be useful, as it EXPLICITLY says that damage reduction is applied separately, unlike everything else.
The text states that only the first shot (hit or miss) is capable of sneaking or critting. Damage reduction is applied vs each hit.
If the firer scored multiple hits in such a case, it is obvious that DR would be applied vs each hit; but in such a case, it is quite clear that the multiple damage is as a result of MANY shots (hence the name).None of which clears up the issue of whether a crit is reduced multiple times...however...
I think it is vital to find out how your DM visualises crits in his mind's eye. A lot of groups in 1st and 2nd Edition had house rules, where, if you rolled a natural 20, you hit your target normally, and then had a 'free shot' at the same bonuses. This could be imagined like 'knocking your foe prone, then pressing the advantage' or 'doubling your foe over then swatting him again with your back-swing', or 'flying into a frothing rage, my arms become a crimson blur!.
This is a very evocative, powerful image, which appealed to a lot of players, and was reflected in their 'flavour text'.
But, one has to bear in mind, it was a lot harder in 1st and 2nd Edition to gain multiple attacks/round (only warrior-types of level 7+; anyone else of any level, forget it), and there was no Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc. Therefore, the only way players could achieve the dervish-like flurry of blows, which lived in their fantasies, was to link it to the rare and valued 'nat 20 crit + re-roll'.
Now, in D&D3.5, it's far easier to see PCs loosing off multiple attacks as regular actions; heck, any fool with base attack +6 can do it. Even a wizard can do it nowadays(albeit at level 12). Add 3 feats (and a haste spell), and a 6th level fighter can often dish out 1 attack every second. Clearly, there's simply no time in a round for crits to consist of 'free attacks', which is where the second interpretation comes in...
The other justification for the extra damage, is the 'weak spot', or 'mighty blow' idea, where the extra damage is dealt as part of one, almighty, devastating strike, which either avoids the foes defences, or smashes them apart. These too, are very evocative, and which one you prefer depends one whether one is playing the cool sniper or the raging brute.
I prefer this latter reasoning, for several reasons;
It explains why Power Attack/smite,etc bonuses are multiplied (it is part of the same hit, rather than a follow-up).
It allows for/explains crits from missiles (clearly an arrow crit is based on accuracy, rather than a 'free shot'). What if you had used your last arrow? Or the last arrow of that type? Telling a player he can't claim his newly-rolled (x3 crit) on the demon unless he has (and uses) 3 holy arrows will hardly go down well...
Most importantly; it justifies why DR is only applied once per hit...since an arrow crit must only be one arrow hit...
Let us suppose the attack deals 20hp damage; it's irrelevant whether it is an arrow crit, a giant's javelin, or a ballista bolt, the target's tough skin/forcefield/rejuvenation/lack of pain, etc doesn't distinguish between them. It simply helps the creature take X less damage than it would have done.
So DR5=15hp damage taken.
Think of all the scenes in fantasy fiction where the hero has to hit the monster's weak spot (Smaug, anyone) in order to hurt it; that's basically what damage reduction is aiming at reproducing.
Thanks for reminding me of this literary reference, James. It will help me defend my position more eloquently.
If he doesn't go for it, you definitely need to get your hands on any amount of DR, and 5 pts. of Fire Resist. You'll be immune to most minor attacks (poison needle traps), and fireballs of ANY level. Sweet!
Right, I'll have to remind him that my Sohei starts getting DR in a couple of levels. Maybe he'll change his tune.
As people have noted the logical consequences of your DM's interpretation of the rules would quickly turn against him, so you should really emphasize that. It sounds like he was trying to save a favored NPCs from instant death and made a bad ruling to do it, and is now too stubborn to admit it.
Maybe you should ask him to pose the question to the folks at ENWorld. They would dismantle it in short order.
When I DM, I've always used the first interpretation (total all damage and subtract DR from it). However, I have been unable to find a definitive answer in the rulebooks.
That's because the proper interpretation is so obvious :/
The more I think about this issue, the more puzzled I am by it. Tomorrow this DM might decide the rules require you to read numbers off the bottom of the dice when you roll -- unless you can find where they say otherwise. And only humans can use whips, because it doesn't say otherwise. And female half-orcs have to speak in rhymes...
Yeah, I'm being silly, but so is this DM.
Erm, explain the concept like this, maybe he likes it, or understands it better:
Damage: 1-8
Critical Multiplier x3
DR: 3/-
Let's assume that there are no other modifiers.
If dmg rolled is 4 on a critical hit, total damage is 3x4=12 hp
Now, if you apply DR as your DM says, the damage inflicted is (4-3)x3=3 hp for a total reduction of damage of 9!
If you apply it after it's 12-3=9 hp, for a DR of, well 3.
Probably you will find the answers you seek in the description of "critical multiplier" that states that damage inflicted is multiplied BEFORE applying any modifier. And DR, my friend IS a modifier! And only after you apply all modifiers (bonuses from magic weapons, strength, DR, etc, etc etc...)
Good luck with your DM. He just had a critical failure with his reasoning about this issue, that's all!
Interestingly, in the Wounds and Vitality variant, critical hits ignore damage reduction.
But yeah, in the standard rules there's nothing that says damage reduction is applied on a per-die basis, nor does it say that damage reduction is applied before a multiplier.