I wouldn't think it would, but I want to verify.
Stoneskin protects against weapon damage, including blunt weapons.
But it would not mitigate falling damage would it?
My ruling would be that DR protects against falling (bludgeoning) damage, but I can't find any official word on the matter. Physically, falling is no different than being struck by a blunt weapon.
We have ruled that it gets by passed like energy damage (Potential Energy Damage :P).
|
Can't find it in 1st Ed.
It seems to first appear as a 4th level Wiz spell in 2nd edition. I invoke the old in case it helps shed light on the "spirit" of the spell...
It says, "When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile, or the like. Even a sword of sharpness cannot affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor can a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magical attacks, from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth have their normal effects. The limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical."
For what its worth... please don't laugh me out of DM-Court...
I would rule that it must be an "attack" as defined above. Area spell magic seems to overcome the stoneskin, and likewise I would rule in favor of falling damage.
HOWEVER, in v.3.5 I see that what was formerly defined as "attacks" are now simply listed as "resistance to blows, cuts, stabs, and slashes." Although the type of damage is defined, it does not necessarily pigeon hole the source to an "attack," but it says "...reduction of 10/adamantine. (It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction.)
For what its worth.... please don't laugh me out of DM-Court...
I would STILL rule that it must be an attack as defined above and I probably would rule in favor of falling damage occuring despite the stoneskin.
Example Rationale: A Yeth Hound has DR 10/silver. Does this mean we see Yeth Hounds leaping 20 feat to the ground because of their DR, or any other beast with DR for that matter?
I am open to reason on this. Are we generally saying that creatures with DR are IMPERVIOUS to damage in the game so long as its under the DR threshold and not of the overcoming substance property...? If so, I'd like to know.
Tough call. Anyone disagree?
I would make the damage occur, and let the spell absorb the first ten points unless the surface that the character fell onto was made of adamantine. The wording makes it tricky but I think the idea of chaging the word from attacks to blows, stabs, cuts, slashes indicates that the spell is in effect all the time. Yes it says a "weapon' of adamantine to explain the DR part but I think that is just an example of clarification. Most instances of the spell will be combat so it is described in combat. Damage from falling is being hit by the ground and damage from a thrown rock and damage from the ground is still blunt damage.
EDIT: I just reread your points in the DR vs silver and I have to agree that just having DR dosn't allow for the ability to ignore falling damage. As the DM you have to make a ruleing and I think you have to look at to why the DR is in place. A creature with a DR agianst silver gets it becasue of the magic or unique nature of the beast. If the creature had DR Blunt becasue of its physical makeup I would allow it to cover falling damage. Stoneskin changes the physical makeup of the protected character so I still think it should cover protecting the first 10 points of falling damage. Thats not much depending on the height of the fall.
|
I would to tend to think that falling damage would not be affected by the Stoneskin spell.
The reasoning behind it is that its not only getting bruised and beat up as you land from falling, but broken bones as well. You will still suffer trauma to your body from things like whiplash as your body is being jolted around.
I am willing to concede that maybe the spell will reduce the damage by one die, but I dont think Stoneskin can prevent damage.
|
|
I see the reasoning.
And I see the simulationism too. Thrown rocks... blunt. Check-check. Hard floor... blunt also. Check-check.
I'm just wondering about the "magic" involved. Perhaps Stoneskin was a spell designed against attacks?
Even as falling damage, minus the DR of 10 - I think as long as you count the fall as one occurrence (and maybe reduce just a bit), you'd be okay to grant the stoneskin, but my thought is falls are a whole different intention, broken bones inside and under the skin, etc. Again, tough call.
Tough call. Anyone disagree?
I do. Not stringently mind you, but still.
Using your "Earlier Edition" rationale (which is a good one, I think) a giant hurling a rock would "trigger" Stoneskin. So, that would make me think that a falling boulder would "trigger" Stoneskin. And along those lines, if the character was the falling rock...
Limiting Stoneskin to only attacks makes the spell unusually intelligent. Does a rock falling off an overhang trigger the spell? How about if someone pushed the rock first? How does the spell know?
I see the reasoning.
And I see the simulationism too. Thrown rocks... blunt. Check-check. Hard floor... blunt also. Check-check.
I'm just wondering about the "magic" involved. Perhaps Stoneskin was a spell designed against attacks?
Even as falling damage, minus the DR of 10 - I think as long as you count the fall as one occurrence (and maybe reduce just a bit), you'd be okay to grant the stoneskin, but my thought is falls are a whole different intention, broken bones inside and under the skin, etc. Again, tough call.
Also get ready for the barbarian to start saying his damage reduction applies when he falls too.
I see the reasoning.
And I see the simulationism too. Thrown rocks... blunt. Check-check. Hard floor... blunt also. Check-check.
I'm just wondering about the "magic" involved. Perhaps Stoneskin was a spell designed against attacks?
Even as falling damage, minus the DR of 10 - I think as long as you count the fall as one occurrence (and maybe reduce just a bit), you'd be okay to grant the stoneskin, but my thought is falls are a whole different intention, broken bones inside and under the skin, etc. Again, tough call.
The magic is abjuration. From the 3.5 Players Handbook:
Abjurations are protective spells. They create phyiscal or magical barriers, negate magical abilites, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existance.
I think I have to change my position. After looking up the aubjuration and comparing the spell to barkskin (a transmutation) I find I have been miss interprating the spell for a long time. I have always viewed it as a tougher version of barkskin which actual changes the subjects skin. I find reading the spell again that stoneskin does not. So my arguments based on the idea that the subjects skin was stonelike are now void. Since the effect is on DR and not added to AC I will now agree that the spell has no effect on falling damage.
Despite what the spell should be protectign against or not, I don't think it is unreasonable to allow the DR to count against falling, even for werewolves or barbarians.
Personally, I think it is the low falling damage itself that is the problem, not the potential defenses against it, but thats another topic.
DR is applied to falling damage. DR is applied to any non-energy damage or non-magical damage. Werewolves and Yeth Hounds CAN drop 20-30 feet and ignore some of the damage...up to their DR limit. Why wouldn't it? They're tough creatures; that's what DR represents.
And if you're worried about your Level 7+ wizard taking 10 points of damage less from a fall, you aren't using high enough cliffs!!! Or enough adamantine caltrops.
|
And if you're worried about your Level 7+ wizard taking 10 points of damage less from a fall, you aren't using high enough cliffs!!! Or enough adamantine caltrops.
Really? I woulda thought that the character wasn't using Feather Fall enough. :P
Anyway, let's test this.
*Fabricates a boulder*
*Casts Stone Skin*
*beats his head against the rock*
Whoa, a little woozy here, but I seem to be mostly okay in regards to hitpoints.
Maybe as an alternative, you could rule that the DR provided by the spell is bypassed by falling damage, but the damage becomes Subdual damage instead of Lethal damage.
Extra wrinkle here for you wise folks to consider:
I'm not so much worried about the DR reduction of 10 points (I'm not that much of a tightwad that I can't give a player the benefit of the doubt on a potential 10d6 fall), I'm interested in whether this uses up the hundred or so points of absorbed damage that the spell conveys.
But I guess the two go hand in hand? If I let the PC reduce the spell damage by 10 points of DR, then their spell buff is going to absorb the rest. They could walk away unharmed but that spell is going to take a beating.
I do appreciate all the time and energy this question has garned though. I'm not asking just to ask, I forsee somebody with a high level stoneskin falling a hundred feet next game session.
Extra wrinkle here for you wise folks to consider:
I'm not so much worried about the DR reduction of 10 points (I'm not that much of a tightwad that I can't give a player the benefit of the doubt on a potential 10d6 fall), I'm interested in whether this uses up the hundred or so points of absorbed damage that the spell conveys.
But I guess the two go hand in hand? If I let the PC reduce the spell damage by 10 points of DR, then their spell buff is going to absorb the rest. They could walk away unharmed but that spell is going to take a beating.
I do appreciate all the time and energy this question has garned though. I'm not asking just to ask, I forsee somebody with a high level stoneskin falling a hundred feet next game session.
If you allow the DR the spell reads that it is discharged after it prevents 10 points of damage per caster level to a maximum of 150. One fall from any height is only going to stop 10 points. So if the character is level 10 the spell can absorb 100 points. If the spell is new and a character takes 30pts from a fall the DR would stop 10. The character is hurt for 20 and the spell can still work for another 90 points of damage.
|
|
If you allow the DR the spell reads that it is discharged after it prevents 10 points of damage per caster level to a maximum of 150. One fall from any height is only going to stop 10 points. So if the character is level 10 the spell can absorb 100 points. If the spell is new and a character takes 30pts from a fall the DR would stop 10. The character is hurt for 20 and the spell can still work for another 90 points of damage.Extra wrinkle here for you wise folks to consider:
I'm not so much worried about the DR reduction of 10 points (I'm not that much of a tightwad that I can't give a player the benefit of the doubt on a potential 10d6 fall), I'm interested in whether this uses up the hundred or so points of absorbed damage that the spell conveys.
But I guess the two go hand in hand? If I let the PC reduce the spell damage by 10 points of DR, then their spell buff is going to absorb the rest. They could walk away unharmed but that spell is going to take a beating.
I do appreciate all the time and energy this question has garned though. I'm not asking just to ask, I forsee somebody with a high level stoneskin falling a hundred feet next game session.
Yes. If a GM is going to allow Stoneskin as a fall-breaker, the benefit should be counted as a single occurrence attack to MythrilDragon's point. Thus the benefit from a generous GM could be 10 for the fall with more in reserve... er, if the character stands up.
Thanks guys!
I did misunderstand how Stoneskin works... Thanks for clearing that up!
It still comes down to whether I let it the spell mitigate the falling damage for 10 points or not..
Seems like there are mixed opinions.
I wouldn't think it would, but I want to verify.
Stoneskin protects against weapon damage, including blunt weapons.
But it would not mitigate falling damage would it?
Interesting. Gray area I had never considered. I would say falling no protection, since it's clear there's no attack. Having hard skin wouldn't protect you from force breaking your whatever, just like wearing armor wouldn't. But, having Shak's 'JC' on the brain all the time, what if you tried to fall on your own sword? Would you be rebuffed?
Thats going to come down to your own opinion. When all else fails the DM makes the final call. Don't stress it too much it's just a game. Remeber to check out the falling damage rules in the DMG. There are some instances for making the first points of damage non-lethal by using Tumbling or Jump skills.
DR is applied to falling damage. DR is applied to any non-energy damage or non-magical damage. Werewolves and Yeth Hounds CAN drop 20-30 feet and ignore some of the damage...up to their DR limit. Why wouldn't it? They're tough creatures; that's what DR represents.
I concur... kinda. The DM has to ask himself how DR works in his game. It could be that it simply prevents damage to the skin/hide/etc., so that falling or other situations which create hazardous internal forces in the real world still affect creatures in the game world and cause them to behave in the same way. Or the DM could say that DR, particularly the magical kind, doesn't work this way (though, as an aside, I would rule either all DR or no DR did this, because keeping track of and even determining what is magical and non-magical could become a royal headache). The DM may not think that it's a big deal if barbarians can ignore a small amount of falling, or that lycanthropes tossed from a rooftop are unhurt many times. After all, a high level fighter can, by the rules, survive a few rounds in a nice bath of lava. Tell me about realism there. :)
I think my players would like the latter option more, as would I. It seems more consistent to me, and I like the possibilities it opens up. In the end, it has to come down to such DM calls, because the RAW gives no indication of which interpretation is correct (if it can even be called "correct" and "incorrect.")
Anyway, let's test this.
*Fabricates a boulder*
*Casts Stone Skin*
*beats his head against the rock*
Whoa, a little woozy here, but I seem to be mostly okay in regards to hitpoints.
Did you factor in the tent? And is it adamantine?
I wouldn't think it would, but I want to verify.
Stoneskin protects against weapon damage, including blunt weapons.
But it would not mitigate falling damage would it?
Skip Williams is taking rules questions like this at the Kobold Quarterly site.
Skip Williams is taking rules questions like this at the Kobold Quarterly site.
Ah good Avidreader514, my old friend..
I am so already there. This is better than the Blindness/Deafness question. ;)
|
|
Did you factor in the tent? And is it adamantine?Anyway, let's test this.
*Fabricates a boulder*
*Casts Stone Skin*
*beats his head against the rock*
Whoa, a little woozy here, but I seem to be mostly okay in regards to hitpoints.
Yes, the tent was what the test was performed in. Just in case the reaction between my head and the boulder caused some sort of catastrophic, world-ending event, the tent would shield the rest of the universe from the damage.
I dont think it was the original intent of DR, but I like to rule it does decrease damage suffered through falling, collapses and the like.
ok... Did I misunderstood Stonesking and Protection from arrows?
You're Saying that a 10th-level doesn't get a bonus 100 hp against cuts, etc, except magic? That would be strange for a Wizard defensive spell of 4th level. Come on, preventing only 10 points of damage when a 10th level fighter would gladly do around 20-30 points of damage per attack. A 10th-level wizard with 40 hp, would'nt last long! But if he gets a 100 hp buff from Stoneskin, he's being as good as a fighter.
I believe samething would apply to protection from arrows, because otherwise the spell would be useless when you equip the opponent with a magic bow!
For the falling, I would apply the rule of blunt damage, so DR would reduce damage that would be absorbed in the stoneskin.