|
| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed a trend in some spells to list a damage type. ( piercing, slashing, etc. ). I know energy type is reasonable to list because some creatures might be vulnerable to it. But when attacking creatures with damage reduction , spells are supposed to overcome all DR as they're a magic attack. so specific damage types seem... superfluous? like the spell designer though they were giving the spell a boost or an edge for casters to use creatively... when they're just muddying the waters.
ex. Thorn Body from the APG. creatures attacking you take 1d6 +1 piercing damage / level.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/thornBody.html#thorn-bod y
from the glossary on Damage Reduction:
"Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction. "
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html
there's other spells, i've seen the rules-creep slowly moving in. sometimes in attack spells that deal typed damage. i think to myself "what is the point of typing damage (other than energy) from a spell??".
does anyone know a reason ? or do some spell developers / writers just not realize the rules conflict in what they're writing?
or does it just sound cooler to say piercing/slashing/bludgeoning ?
the old standbys don't have it. blade barrier doesn't add to its description by trying to say it does slashing damage.
but stone fist is a spell that turns your fist into a lethal bludgeoning weapon. its personal, and so doesn't list SR. so i dont know what'll happen if you hit a creature with SR with it. but its a spell. wouldn't the damage bypass DR ? without the spell energy, your fist would just be a normal fleshy nonlethal bludgeoning tool. doesn't doing it with magic mean you get to bypass DR ?
and i know magic weapon just adds an enhancement bonus to a weapon. i'm not advocating for any magic weapon to bypass DR. that's not how the rules say it works.
Stone Call likewise specifies that its 2d6 bludgeoning damage.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/stoneCall.html#stone-cal l
is there a methodology that's omitted from the Damage Reduction entry? do spells of the conjuration or transmutation schools not bypass DR because they don't deal energy damage? is that why developers include them? if so, i'd like to know. the next time a construct with DR 10/adamantine gets hit with a Stone Call, i'd like to know whether the spell bypasses DR or not.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The key, Seraphimpunk, is in a certain commonality among the types of spells (like the ones you listed) that are dealing the damage in question.
See, unlike Burning Hands which magically deals damage directly, spells like Thorn Body manipulate objects in such a way as to allow the objects to deal damage, rather than the spells themselves. Thorn Body doesn't deal damage - it creates spikes, and those spikes deal damage. See the difference?
|
|
Spells normally inflict damage by the magic of the spell working directly against the target of the damage (magic missile, lightning bolt, anything else that creates harmful energy) - those spells are subject to energy resistance instead of damage reduction, and many of them allow for spell resistance.
In some cases spells break from that standard and target something other than the creature meant to be damaged (stone fist, stone call, anything else that creates, changes, or summons physical objects) - those spells are subject to damage reduction instead of energy resistance, and not a single one allows for spell resistance because the spell doesn't affect the damaged creature, a physical object does.
The glossary entry is simply an oversight that opens up confusion on an otherwise simple matter.
I enjoy pointing out oversites so they get fixed or errata'ed =D
I've noticed a trend in some spells to list a damage type. ( piercing, slashing, etc. ). I know energy type is reasonable to list because some creatures might be vulnerable to it. But when attacking creatures with damage reduction , spells are supposed to overcome all DR as they're a magic attack. so specific damage types seem... superfluous? like the spell designer though they were giving the spell a boost or an edge for casters to use creatively... when they're just muddying the waters.
I can think of a few non-DR corner cases.
Some objects are invulnerable to certain types of damage.
Ochre Jelly immune to slashing and piercing. Black puddings split with slashing weapons.
Swarms of tiny creatures take half damage from slashing or piercing weapons.
There are the really odd ones like sundering a hydra's head, or boggard's tongue, or roper's tentacle with slashing damage.
stone fist is a spell that turns your fist into a lethal bludgeoning weapon. (...) wouldn't the damage bypass DR ? without the spell energy, your fist would just be a normal fleshy nonlethal bludgeoning tool. doesn't doing it with magic mean you get to bypass DR ?
Nope.
Transmutation spells change the properties of some creature, thing, or condition.
The magic isn't damaging the goblin's face, your fist is. Your fist made of living rock. Just like anything else made of living rock. The magic just transformed it.
Stone Call likewise specifies that its 2d6 bludgeoning damage.
Conjuration: Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
It's creating real, non-magical rocks, that fall on people. Afterwards they vanish. Would teleporting a bunch of rocks into the air above someone make the rocks deal magic damage? Nope.
the next time a construct with DR 10/adamantine gets hit with a Stone Call, i'd like to know whether the spell bypasses DR or not.
It does not. The damage is bludgeoning, and the construct has DR vs bludgeoning.
|
I've noticed a trend in some spells to list a damage type. ( piercing, slashing, etc. ). I know energy type is reasonable to list because some creatures might be vulnerable to it. But when attacking creatures with damage reduction , spells are supposed to overcome all DR as they're a magic attack. so specific damage types seem... superfluous? like the spell designer though they were giving the spell a boost or an edge for casters to use creatively... when they're just muddying the waters.
ex. Thorn Body from the APG. creatures attacking you take 1d6 +1 piercing damage / level.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/thornBody.html#thorn-bod yfrom the glossary on Damage Reduction:
"Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction. "
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.htmlthere's other spells, i've seen the rules-creep slowly moving in. sometimes in attack spells that deal typed damage. i think to myself "what is the point of typing damage (other than energy) from a spell??".
does anyone know a reason ? or do some spell developers / writers just not realize the rules conflict in what they're writing?
or does it just sound cooler to say piercing/slashing/bludgeoning ?
the old standbys don't have it. blade barrier doesn't add to its description by trying to say it does slashing damage.
but stone fist is a spell that turns your fist into a lethal bludgeoning weapon. its personal, and so doesn't list SR. so i dont know what'll happen if you hit a creature with SR with it. but its a spell. wouldn't the damage bypass DR ? without the spell energy, your fist would just be a normal fleshy nonlethal bludgeoning tool. doesn't doing it with magic mean you get to bypass DR ?
and i know magic weapon just adds an enhancement bonus to a weapon. i'm not advocating for any magic weapon to bypass DR. that's not how the rules say it works.
Stone Call likewise specifies that its 2d6 bludgeoning damage....
Flavor. I'ts for flavor. So that the GM can describe what happens to the enemy. Some people like to know things that do not impact combat mechanics in any meaningful way.
So, did I get it right? The Wind Oracle's revelation Thunderburst is subject to DR, as it creates Bludgeoning damage, and is flagged as (Ex)... which of course means it is still usable in anti magic zones?
On a similar note... if a person is subject to a damage penalty, do their spells get reduced as well? What about physical ones, such as thorn body?
We had a weird case where a cleric used consecrate
This spell blesses an area with positive energy. The DC to resist positive channeled energy within this area gains a +3 sacred bonus. Every undead creature entering a consecrated area suffers minor disruption, suffering a –1 penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves...
And then we fought a modified wraith in the consecrated area that did negative energy damage + bleed damage... and we weren't sure if the consecration's penalty would apply to both, just the negative energy, or neither.
Sort of wandering off topic a bit, but I damage reduction seems roughly in the same bag as damage penalties.
|
|
meteor swarm : evocation[fire] - creates rocks that deal 2d6 bludgeoning damage at a ranged touch, and then detonate for 6d6 fire damage.
its all spell damage. its from an evocation spell. so again why does some spell damage evade DR and some doesn't?
it seems more like Spells don't bypass DR at all. Energy damage bypasses DR, and 9 times out of 10 a spell deals untyped or energy damage.
If the spell does physical(bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) then that is affected by DR. Most spells don't do that type of damage though.
|
|
another weird one: an evocation spell that does 2d6 piercing damage in a cone: Chord of Shards.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/chordOfShards.html# chord-of-shards
I'm of the opinion that spells are magic.
they should just bypass DR.
I know they're created by developers, and flavor is added. but if you think about it from a rules standpoint / research standpoint: would a wizard or bard Ever WANT to develop a spell that is less effective against a certain creature because of damage reduction? there's no advantage to it.
i could understand from a developer standpoint, if it dealt a typed damage like piercing, and had some advantage like a chance for more damage somehow b/c of that. but when a spell could just be called Chord of Shards, and deal 2d6 force damage from the magic music thats been turned into force... and not piercing, ( or slashing even. a lot of shards of music would , to me, conjure up the idea of slashing damage )
Magic is supposed to be that utility card. Oh zombies? crap, the fighter only has bludgeoning weapons? the archer is useless? let me cast a spell at it because magic will hurt it better than anything else i have at my disposal.
When you start introducing typed damage spells, you take that away from casters.
would a wizard or bard Ever WANT to develop a spell that is less effective against a certain creature because of damage reduction? there's no advantage to it.
But there's a pretty huge advantage in having spells that bypass DR and/or resistances.
when a spell could just be called Chord of Shards, and deal 2d6 force damage from the magic music thats been turned into force...
That would be quite powerful, since force spells hit incorporeal creatures.
Magic is supposed to be that utility card.
Which is why having more options is good. More damage types means more utility. 6 spells dealing the same type of damage is worse than 6 spells that each deal a different type of damage.
When you start introducing typed damage spells, you take that away from casters.
Nothing is being taken away. More things are being given.
|
|
scroll up to where i started this thread, in the DR section of the glossary, where it says "Spells bypass DR".
if you need 6 spells to overcome 6 DRs, that certainly is taking away, because now 1 utility spell to memorize or select as a spell known is replaced with six.
I'd rather they kept it so that magic bypasses DR. period.
so i don't have to wonder if those briar/thorns that a spell creates would count as magic and piercing, or just piercing.
In home games, I say that those thorns were created with magic. they can be dispelled, there's a duration, so the magic that created them is still active. That spell effect bypasses DR.
These spells could also be used to over come Regeneration that required that type of damage to kill the creature, all though I don't know if that type of regen requirement is currently written.
the spells bypass damage reduction. but the type of damage is given for Hardness =)
think thats what the developers intended?
Nope. I think they intended to give people options of what kind of damage their spells deal. Instead of having one spell that shoots fire, you can choose from six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, acid, or kittens.
Magic that simply deals damage (Phantasmal Killer, Nightmare, Disintegrate) bypasses DR. Magic that deals slashing damage is affected by DR/anything-but-slashing.
These spells could also be used to over come Regeneration that required that type of damage to kill the creature, all though I don't know if that type of regen requirement is currently written.
Stone Call would be quite handy against a Tendriculos, if you're adverse to fire.
Holy crap... this is a revelation to me. I thought DR/- applied to EVERYTHING, spell damage included. Wow, barbarians aren't as good as I thought (and people on the forums hate on barbarians).
Gonna have to direct my players here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of having one spell that shoots fire, you can choose from six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, acid, or kittens.
PRODUCE KITTENS
School: Conjuration [kittens]; Level druid 1
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Kitten in your palm
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: none; Spell Resistance: yes
A kitten as big as a torch appears in your open hand. The kitten harms neither you nor your equipment (aside from the occasional pee).
In addition to providing cuteness, the kitten can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing kitten damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the kitten up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the kitten than a new kitten appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
|
|
the spells bypass damage reduction. but the type of damage is given for Hardness =)
think thats what the developers intended?
Nope. I think they intended to give people options of what kind of damage their spells deal. Instead of having one spell that shoots fire, you can choose from six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, acid, or kittens.
Magic that simply deals damage (Phantasmal Killer, Nightmare, Disintegrate) bypasses DR. Magic that deals slashing damage is affected by DR/anything-but-slashing.
Why?
Why do you need six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, or kittens coated in acid? ( i took elemental spell: acid, to mix the damage from my produce kittens spell ). when as you've note: magic that simply deals damage bypasses DR.so one spell that deals untyped damage replaces all six of those spells in damage dealing and versatility.
And why has no one come up with a spell like needle-ball that deals 1d6 piercing damage / level in a 20 ft. spread ? because fireball gets it done better and it bypasses DR.
one spell that deals untyped damage replaces all six of those spells in damage dealing and versatility.
Unless the monster has SR instead of DR. Or regeneration (bludgeoning). Or vulnerability to acid, but not fire.
And why has no one come up with a spell like needle-ball that deals 1d6 piercing damage / level in a 20 ft. spread ?
Good idea.
Pin BallSchool conjuration (creation) [metal]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a rusty sewing needle)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance no
A pin ball spell generates an explosion of tiny metal pins that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of piercing damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the pin ball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the pin ball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The pin ball bypasses DR/piercing but not DR/magic, and does not normally affect incorporeal creatures. The pins are harmless after the explosion and dissolve one round later.
"The surest way for a Wizard to win a crown." -King Walker
the spells bypass damage reduction. but the type of damage is given for Hardness =)
think thats what the developers intended?
Nope. I think they intended to give people options of what kind of damage their spells deal. Instead of having one spell that shoots fire, you can choose from six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, acid, or kittens.
Magic that simply deals damage (Phantasmal Killer, Nightmare, Disintegrate) bypasses DR. Magic that deals slashing damage is affected by DR/anything-but-slashing.
Why?
Why do you need six spells that shoot fire, needles, blades, boxing gloves, or kittens coated in acid? ( i took elemental spell: acid, to mix the damage from my produce kittens spell ). when as you've note: magic that simply deals damage bypasses DR.so one spell that deals untyped damage replaces all six of those spells in damage dealing and versatility.
And why has no one come up with a spell like needle-ball that deals 1d6 piercing damage / level in a 20 ft. spread ? because fireball gets it done better and it bypasses DR.
All spells and all mundane energy by pass all DR.
Damage ReductionSpells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.
@ Grick - Pin ball would be less powerful then other spells by doing this since it would be a special exception that ANY type of damage reduction affected it.
The other major benefit of weapon-damage-typed spells (those that deal blugeoning/piercing/slashing) aside from helping with regeneration (weapon damage type-X) creatures is that since they do not deal spell damage and thus affect the target directly, but rather alter some third-party object (create a boulder, turn a fist to stone), they bypass all SR.
You open yourself up to being affected by DR, yes, but you get around SR, so if you are fighting something with nasty SR but DR which you can bypass, then these spells are incredibly nice.
And again, as has been pointed out, it isn't taking options away from spell casters, it is giving them more options. They get to chose whether they want to go up against their opponent's DR or their SR.
RAW, and I believe RAI, all spells ignore all DR. This is stated in multiple places in the Core Rulebook, and there is nothing that leads me to believe these statements are in error or unintended.
As mentioned, physical damage types are useful to know for non-DR purposes: sundering hydra heads, splitting oozes, causing spurting effects from piercing damage on certain creatures, bypassing regeneration, etc. Just because a spell includes a physical damage type doesn't mean it's susceptible to DR. It isn't.
But if spells ignore damage reduction, how do you handle the person who teleports a boulder above his enemies? The boulder is there because of a spell, so does its falling damage bypass all DR the enemies might have?
If it doesn't bypass DR, how is that different from somebody summoning a boulder above their enemies and letting it drop? The only difference is that we know where the teleported boulder started, but not the conjured boulder.
An evoked boulder (meteor swarm) or hail (ice storm) might bypass DR, I'll give you that, as it is a magic boulder where the conjured and teleported boulders are not. In that case, its being bludgeoning damage is really only important against monsters with regeneration (bludgeoning). But I can't see a difference between a teleported and a conjured boulder, or between either and a boulder which someone just drops off a cliff at the enemies.
And if you say that it is because the dropped boulder wasn't brought there by magic... well, what if a boulder is teleported to the top of a cliff, then pushed off by someone who otherwise would not have been able to if not for his belt of giant strength and casting of bull's strength?
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?
The question is:
Do spells which incidentally cause weapon typed damage (blunt, piercing, or slashing) through the creation of nonmagical objects and the interaction of those objects with the world automatically bypass DR?
That is, if a spell summons a boulder and that boulder inflicts bludgeoning damage upon hitting someone and the target has DR 5/Slashing, is the boulder's bludgeoning damage reduced?
Is this changed at all if the boulder, rather than being summoned, is created wholecloth. If it comes from an evocation spell rather than a conjuration or transmutation spell, does this have an effect on its interaction with DR?
My argument is that this damage is not spell damage, but an indirect result of the spell. That is why it is typed as weapon damage, and it is subject to DR accordingly. A steel longsword with magic weapon cast on it cannot bypass DR 5/bludgeoning. Not even the +1 damage which the spell creates can bypass that DR. The damage is an indirect result of the spell and is not spell damage. Thus it does not bypass DR.
Fozbek's argument is that if the spell says it deals X damage, then its type has no bearing on DR because it is spell damage, regardless of how it is brought about, and so it automatically bypasses DR.
RAW, and I believe RAI, all spells ignore all DR. This is stated in multiple places in the Core Rulebook, and there is nothing that leads me to believe these statements are in error or unintended.
As mentioned, physical damage types are useful to know for non-DR purposes: sundering hydra heads, splitting oozes, causing spurting effects from piercing damage on certain creatures, bypassing regeneration, etc. Just because a spell includes a physical damage type doesn't mean it's susceptible to DR. It isn't.
But if spells ignore damage reduction, how do you handle the person who teleports a boulder above his enemies? The boulder is there because of a spell, so does its falling damage bypass all DR the enemies might have?
If it doesn't bypass DR, how is that different from somebody summoning a boulder above their enemies and letting it drop? The only difference is that we know where the teleported boulder started, but not the conjured boulder.
You're trying to apply logic to magic. Stop. Logic does not apply to magic. The rules say that damage that comes from a spell bypasses DR. Teleporting a boulder above someone's head is not damage that comes from a spell--although falling damage also bypasses DR, so it's a bad example.
Quick guide to answer all of your questions that matter: does the spell say that it deals XdY+Z damage? If yes, then that damage bypasses DR. If no, then there's no damage from the spell to bypass DR in the first place.
To be fair, I am trying to apply logic to glean the intentions of the designers. They typed the damage for a reason, I am curious what that is.
Let's keep talking about meteor swarm because I think it is a great example.
Here's the text:
meteor swarm[/i]]Meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell that is similar to fireball in many aspects. When you cast it, four 2-foot-diameter spheres spring from your outstretched hand and streak in straight lines to the spots you select. The meteor spheres leave a fiery trail of sparks.
If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by a sphere takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and takes a -4 penalty on the saving throw against the sphere's fire damage (see below). If a targeted sphere misses its target, it simply explodes at the nearest corner of the target's space. You may aim more than one sphere at the same target.
Once a sphere reaches its destination, it explodes in a 40-foot-radius spread, dealing 6d6 points of fire damage to each creature in the area. If a creature is within the area of more than one sphere, it must save separately against each. Despite stemming from separate spheres, all of the fire damage is added together after the saves have been made, and fire resistance is applied only once.
So someone hit by a 2'x2'x2' meteor takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage, thenit explodes for 6d6 fire damage.
We both agree the 6d6 fire damage bypasses DR, but is subject to fire resistance. That much is obvious.
You say that since the 2d6 is included in the spell description, it is spell damage. I say that it is incidental damage, not spell damage. As a bit of proof, if I were to pick up a 2'x2'x2' rock (a small object), and chuck it at somebody, assuming I was a barbarian with the hurling, ability, then it would deal damage as a small falling object. That damage happens to be 2d6 bludgeoning. That, to me, suggests that this isn't spell damage. It's just plain old getting hit in the face with a rock damage.
|
|
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?
The SRD says spells bypass DR. blanket statement. Spells say they deal typed damage ( the thread has a few examples. most of the ones that break this are transmutation or conjuration spells. but some evocation spells break this guideline. chord of shards for example which deals piercing damage in a cone. ( * and does bypass SR thanks i hadn't noticed that line of commonality * )
We want to know which statement in the rules is correct: do all spells bypass DR? or do SOME spells bypass DR.
Since this is mostly something that happens with spells form the APG and other sources ( Black Tentacles deals spell damage. it doesn't type the grapple damage as Bludgeoning for example, but also bypasses SR and has no typed damage ). It seems to be a direction that spell development is creeping, and I want to make sure : all developers know spells bypass DR, or I ask that the designers update the SRD in a FAQ to clarify what they mean when they say that all spell and spell like abilities bypass DR.
Q: I cant help but notice there are some spells that deal damage types other than energy. For example, you cast ice storm on a group of undead, lets say in this instance, a mixed group of zombies and skeletons. Zombies have Damage Reduction 5/slashing and skeletons have Damage Reduction 5/bludgeoning AND have Immunity to cold. What would suffer damage and from what source?
A: (James Jacobs 3/27/10) When a spell mentions that a specific type of damage caused is bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, that DOES have to overcome a creature's DR. Some spells create magic effects, while others use magic to create physical effects; that's a major theme of conjuration magic (and creation magic in particular). If you hit an ooze with the Split ability with the appropriate type of damage, be that from a spell or weapon, it will split. And if you drop a spell that, say, does piercing damage on something with damage reduction like 5/bludgeoning, that piercing damage will get offset by the damage reduction. Casting ice storm on a mix of zombies and skeletons would indeed be complex. The zombies would reduce the damage taken from the bludgeoning portion of the spell but take full damage from the cold, while the skeletons would just ignore the cold damage entirely and take full damage from the bludgeoning. MOST spells don't inflict bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage at all. And most spells don't inflict multiple types of damage either. Lightning bolt, for example, just causes electricity damage. It bypasses DR entirely but not electricity resistance or electricity immunity. And unless the spell description says so specifically, bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage it inflicts is not automatically also treated as bypassing magic. Again; the damaging object is CREATED by magic and PROPELLED by magic, but is not in and of itself magic. A spell that conjures a flight of arrows that deals piercing damage should be reduced by DR/bludgeoning or slashing. If it doesn't, then that spell's damage type shouldn't be listed as piercing at all, but untyped damage. Spells and effects that do untyped damage are pretty rare in Pathfinder, since these spells are quite powerful since their damage can't be stopped by any form of immunity, resistance, or damage reduction. [Source]
Here's the link to BigNorseWolf's Source. (Nice find!)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's the link to BigNorseWolf's Source. (Nice find!)
In before "JJ's not official enough".
You say that since the 2d6 is included in the spell description, it is spell damage. I say that it is incidental damage, not spell damage. As a bit of proof, if I were to pick up a 2'x2'x2' rock (a small object), and chuck it at somebody, assuming I was a barbarian with the hurling, ability, then it would deal damage as a small falling object. That damage happens to be 2d6 bludgeoning.1. How is the damage incidental ("happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else")? It's a direct and explicit result of the spell. That's spell damage, full stop.
2. Please cite a rule that would lead you to the conclusion that throwing a 2' rock at someone deals 2d6 damage.
3. Please illuminate how the answer to #2 negates the fact that the damage from meteor storm is explicitly dealt by the spell and is thus spell damage.They typed the damage for a reason, I am curious what that is.This has already been explained more than once in this thread. Some creatures react differently to different types of damage, outside of the damage reduction system. There's a creature in one of the Adventure Paths that spurts poisonous ichor if it takes piercing damage, for example.
(1) The damage is incidental because the spell makes a huge explodey boulder. The spell damage is the explodey bit of it. The boulder hitting somebody is incidental to the spell damage.
(2) 2 rules. The first is the barbarian's lesser hurling rage power, which lets him throw an object which deals damage as a falling object of the size category thrown. A 2' cube is a small object. A small object deals 2d6 falling damage. The second source is the monster ability rock throwing, which allows the monster to throw objects 2 size categories smaller than it (thus a large critter could throw our 2' cube). It deals damage equal to twice the creature's slam damage. Slam for a large creature is 1d6, so the rock deals 2d6.(3) As JJ said, the rock is created and propelled by magic, but it isn't magic which deals the damage. It is physics (f=ma). You stop a big rock with your face, and the rock hurts you.
(Unnumbered final point) Yes, that is a possible reason. But as has been pointed out, it is pretty rare that a monster will have something like that, and growing more common for spells to deal weapon-typed damage. So it seems awfully corner-casey to me.
My points: You still haven't addressed the question of magic weapon. The spell explicitly states that the weapon enchanted with it deals +1 damage. So that is spell damage. So, by your reasoning, that bypasses DR, irrespective of anything else going on with the weapon? Or what about shillelagh? It causes a cudgel to be a +1 magic weapon which deals 2d6 bludgeoning damage. It is a spell which deals xd6 damage on a successful attack roll, so that must be spell damage! Druids can now bypass any DR with only a 1st level spell!!
|
It's not the only peculiarity.
Why is scorching ray an evocation subject to SR while acid arrow is a conjuration (creation) exempt from SR?
acid spells tend to ignore SR.
evocation fire is "magical fire" that only exists for a moment. Acid conjuration is "i just made a bunch of acid, now i launch it at you and it melts you for a while.
I like to energy substitution heat metal to acid. its mean.
(1) The damage is incidental because the spell makes a huge explodey boulder. The spell damage is the explodey bit of it. The boulder hitting somebody is incidental to the spell damage.You're creating an artificial distinction with absolutely no rules support. Spell damage is damage from a spell. Meteor swarm deals damage of two types: bludgeoning and fire. Both are spell damage because they are both the direct result of a spell.
As is a teleported sword falling on someone's head. That's the direct result of a spell. It also doesn't deal spell damage. Or the violent thrust ability of the telekinesis spell.
(2) 2 rules....It deals damage equal to twice the creature's slam damage. Slam for a large creature is 1d6, so the rock deals 2d6.Ah, but you're ignoring several things here. First, falling damage is untyped, not bludgeoning (and in 3.5, falling damage automatically bypassed DR; I can't find the same rule in PF). Second, objects that "fall" (or are thrown via Lesser Hurling) more than 30 feet deal double damage, whereas meteor swarm deals the same damage whether your target is 5 feet from you or 1200. Third, there is no standardized slam damage; Basidronds are medium creatures with a 1d8 slam, Black Puddings are huge with a 2d6 (1d6 advances to 1d8, not 2d6), Balors are large with a 1d10 slam, etc.
I am using slam damage as determined by the Universal Monster Rule table. Yes, there are exceptions. But base slam damage for a large creature is 1d6. Nowhere in lesser hurling does it say that objects thrown more than 30' deal double damage. Falling objects do, but not thrown objects.
And whether or not falling objects are subject to DR isn't really relevant. The question is is the boulder subject to DR. It deals bludgeoning damage, so I say it is. JJ agrees.
Physics is a house rule. F=MA very blatantly does not apply to any D&D or Pathfinder game ever. Heck, 3E and PF are even less physics-compliant than older editions; originally, fireball obeyed the rules of physics that define how confined explosions propagate; throwing a fireball into a room that was smaller than the explosion was a seriously bad idea. That isn't true in 3E. Specific physics formulas simply do not apply. Hell, you can prove that just by using the rules you've already cited: a barbarian throwing a 2' sphere deals the same damage regardless of the density of the sphere, as long as it's made of stone or metal. A mithral sphere deals the exact same damage as an adamantium sphere, even though its mass is less and the force is equal.
Putting in the formula was flippant of me, and clearly distracted from the point I was trying to make, which is a distinction between MAGIC damage and MUNDANE damage. The MAGIC is creating the boulder, but it hitting you in the face deals MUNDANE damage, just like getting hit with a non-magic rock would. JJ agrees on this point. Any response to that (besides the inevitable "JJ isn't official!")?
Incorrect. In both those cases, it isn't the spell doing the damage (which I highlighted for you earlier). Does shillelagh state that it deals 2d6 damage? No, it states that the modified weapon does. That means it's weapon damage, not spell damage, because the damage is coming from the weapon. Explicitly. Same with magic weapon and greater magic weapon; neither spell deals damage.
I agree with you completely in your analysis of why these two spells are subject to DR. I also think the exact same argument can be applied to meteor swarm. In all three cases the magic is manipulating the world (making a weapon strike truer, making a cudgel denser, summoning an explodey boulder), and then that manipulation indirectly causes damage (the weapon strikes true, the cudgel cudgels, the explodey boulder smacks somebody in the face). If my distinction between the boulder's face-smacking damage and it's explodey damage is artificial or arbitrary, so is your distinction between the shillelagh and the boulder. Both deal damage according to a formula stated in the spell. Why is one different from the other?
They're different because they're worded differently. What more do you want? Meteor swarm says it deals damage. Magic weapon and shillelagh don't. Neither does teleport. I'm not making an artificial distinction, here. It's explicit in the spell. One says IT deals damage, the others don't. That's a distinction in the way the spells function. Are you really incapable of seeing that some spells state that they deal damage and other spells do not?
EDIT: And re: Lesser Hurling, it says to use the rules for falling objects. In those rules are the distance damage calculations, although I misspoke. It's 1/2 damage if it travels less than 30 feet and 2x damage if it travels more than 150 feet. The point remains, however.
So by your logic, spiked pit and thorn body, which use identical wording to meteor swarm (any creature who fulfills condition X takes Y typed damage) would also bypass damage reduction?
That seems very wrong to me, especially since they have much more in common with shillelagh and magic weapon in terms of their flavor. Both alter the surrounding world in some way, and then when creatures interact with the now-altered objects, they take damage.
Effectively, you are drawing a line at "If the spell says creatures take X damage from the spell" then it bypasses all DR, even if the damage is typed. It seems much more consistent (especially in light of JJ's comments) to consider that the designers wanted to let casters have some things which interacted with DR in interesting ways, and they indicated this by typing that damage with weapon-types. If they hadn't wanted it to interact with DR, they wouldn't have used those words.