That seems very wrong to me, especially since they have much more in common with shillelagh and magic weapon in terms of their flavor.Neither of them have anything whatsoever in common with magic weapon so far as flavor is concerned. And, frankly, flavor is just that: flavor. It isn't rules. Flavor is mutable; it can change from DM to DM, campaign to campaign, or even player to player. One person's shillelagh may be a magical enchantment, one person's might cause the club to grow ultra-dense, etc. Because it's mutable, it's irrelevant to the rules.
The rules are explicit. Damage from spells bypasses DR. Period, end of story. Since this is the forum where questions are answered by the letter of the rules, that's all that matters. You can not like it all you like, but the answer is very explicit by the rules, and there is no errata on this subject. I respect James Jacobs, but he is not the rules guru on the Paizo staff; his answers are from a house rules perspective exclusively unless he says otherwise (he's said this more than once, himself). The only two people whose rulings are official by default are Jason Buhlman and Sean Reynolds. Until one of them makes an errata to the core rulebook (in two separate places, I might add), the rules stand that damage dealt by spells bypasses damage reduction.
All of that I respect and understand.
The point I keep trying to make, is that it is not clear what it means for damage to be "dealt by spells." Meteor swarm makes a meteor which deals bludgeoning damage when it hits someone. Summon monster can make an ape who does bludgeoning damage when it hits someone. Shillelagh makes a staff magic which does bludgeoning damage when it hits someone. Telekinesis throws stuff around, and it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage accordingly when it hits someone. All of this is damage being done by the spell. If the spell weren't there, the damage wouldn't be done.
It's not as clear cut as you are saying. There is no clear way to say what is being done by the spell and what is being done by the effects of the spell as the wording in the spells themselves seems inconsistent on this point. You are saying that the line exists where damage dice are included in spell text. I am saying that the line exists where damage is typed according to weapon damage.
Because if it is just damage dealt by a spell automatically gets past DR, I stand by the assertion that the +1 damage from magic weapon gets past. The sword deals it's d8+STR as normal, and then the magic weapon enchantment deals an extra +1. That's magic damage. Without the spell, it wouldn't happen. The spell is causing that +1 damage.
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?
The SRD says spells bypass DR. blanket statement.
Right... and because of that blanket statement the question is answered. Is it a spell? If so it by passes damage reduction. It's like saying the sun rises in the eastern half of the sky below the arctic circle. It is ALWAYS a yes. It doesn't matter if it's a rainy day, a sunny day, a cloudy day, a good day, a bad day, a Tuesday, or yesterday. Everyday, that simple. The SRD doesn't say "some spells" so hard stop.
@ Bascaria - Sorry if I sound mean, not trying too but I don't know if you just aren't getting it or don't like it or what but it's simple. Spells that deal damage have one phrase in common, they all have the word "deals x damage" in them.
You can use spells and magic to improve or simplify dealing non-spell damage (such as teleporting a sword) but it isn't spell damage since the spell didn't have the word their. Any sword that is unsupported over someone will fall, and if it hits them do damage as a falling object. Teleported in, dropped from a roof top, disarmed from a flying creature, whatever. Magic weapon is an example of this. In and of it self it does zero damage.
Magic Weapon
School transmutation; Level antipaladin 1, cleric/oracle 1, inquisitor 1, magus 1, paladin 1, sorcerer/wizard 1; Domain war 1CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DFEFFECT
Range touch
Target weapon touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)DESCRIPTION
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.
Magic Weapon, Greater
School transmutation; Level antipaladin 3, cleric/oracle 4, inquisitor 3, magus 3, paladin 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (powdered lime and carbon)EFFECT
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one weapon or 50 projectiles (all of which must be together at the time of casting)
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)DESCRIPTION
This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic.Alternatively, you can affect as many as 50 arrows, bolts, or bullets. The projectiles must be of the same kind, and they have to be together (in the same quiver or other container). Projectiles, but not thrown weapons, lose their transmutation after they are used. Treat shuriken as projectiles, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?The SRD says spells bypass DR. blanket statement.Right... and because of that blanket statement the question is answered. Is it a spell? If so it by passes damage reduction. It's like saying the sun rises in the eastern half of the sky below the arctic circle. It is ALWAYS a yes. It doesn't matter if it's a rainy day, a sunny day, a cloudy day, a good day, a bad day, a Tuesday, or yesterday. Everyday, that simple. The SRD doesn't say "some spells" so hard stop.
@ Bascaria - Sorry if I sound mean, not trying too but I don't know if you just aren't getting it or don't like it or what but it's simple. Spells that deal damage have one phrase in common, they all have the word "deals x damage" in them.
You can use spells and magic to improve or simplify dealing non-spell damage (such as teleporting a sword) but it isn't spell damage since the spell didn't have the word their. Any sword that is unsupported over someone will fall, and if it hits them do damage as a falling object. Teleported in, dropped from a roof top, disarmed from a flying creature, whatever. Magic weapon is an example of this. In and of it self it does zero damage.
It's not that I'm not getting it. I completely understand your position. And it's not that I don't like that. It's not what I think was meant, but I can accept it. And to a certain extent, yes, I am being intentionally obtuse on this regard. But I maintain that it is not as clear cut as Fozbek (and you) insist. The SRD says that spell damage bypasses DR, but it isn't clearly defined at any point what "spell damage" is.
Nor is there a clear formula within the spells themselves for what the damage is. Some say "deals X damage" some say "target takes Y damage" some say "inflicts Z damage" some say "deals damage as X'"
And if spell damage is damage dealt by the spell, but things like teleporting a sword above someone isn't spell damage, because that isn't the spell itself dealing the damage, but the effects of the spell, then pit trap doesn't deal spell damage either.
It is a conjuration (creation) spell which makes a spiked pit. Anyone who falls into the pit takes 2d6 piercing damage against the spikes. Anyone climbing out, and any objects along the walls take 1d6 piercing damage per round. This is from the spikes doing their spiky thing against anyone who touches them.
If we look at conjuration (creation), we see:
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.
So, the spikes themselves are not magic. They are assembled by magic, and held together by magic, but THEY ARE NOT MAGIC. If you cast detect magic on them, you'll see the conjuration magic holding them in existence, but they are themselves as mundane as any other spikes in the world.
When you take damage from the spell, it is not from the spell itself hurting you, but rather from interaction with mundane objects created by the spell. YET, the spell still says, in it's text, the magic words (or one set of several magic words), which apparently means spell damage. So these mundane spikes deal spell damage.
At the same time, if you were to cast telekinesis on the spikes and hurl them at somebody (which causes them to deal damage as a weapon, then their damage would suddenly become subject to DR since they are dealing damage as weapons now and not as spells.
Just wanted to add this often overlooked clarification: DR only applies against ATTACKS (this is repeatedly stated in the DR rules). If they take damage from defensive thorns, or by some neutral cause (like falling damage) DR does NOT apply.
Also, the damage type effects far more than just DR (which, in v3.5, doesn't apply to spells unless specifically stated in the spell description, though this is no longer true in Pathfinder). Not only does it help you visualize the type of damage/wounds it is dealing, it changes the way a great number of feats and class/race abilities (and abilities yet to be written) might interact with them.
But I maintain that it is not as clear cut as Fozbek (and you) insist. The SRD says that spell damage bypasses DR, but it isn't clearly defined at any point what "spell damage" is.
Nor is there a clear formula within the spells themselves for what the damage is. Some say "deals X damage" some say "target takes Y damage" some say "inflicts Z damage" some say "deals damage as X'"
And if spell damage is damage dealt by the spell, but things like teleporting a sword above someone isn't spell damage, because that isn't the spell itself dealing the damage, but the effects of the spell, then pit trap doesn't deal spell damage either.
It is a conjuration (creation) spell which makes a spiked pit. Anyone who falls into the pit takes 2d6 piercing damage against the spikes. Anyone climbing out, and any objects along the walls take 1d6 piercing damage per round. This is from the spikes doing their spiky thing against anyone who touches them.
If we look at conjuration (creation), we see:
SRD wrote:
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.So, the spikes themselves are not magic. They are assembled by magic, and held together by magic, but THEY ARE NOT MAGIC. If you cast detect magic on them, you'll see the conjuration magic holding them in existence, but they are themselves as mundane as any other spikes in the world.
When you take damage from the spell, it is not from the spell itself hurting you, but rather from interaction with mundane objects created by the spell. YET, the spell still says, in it's text, the magic words (or one set of several magic words), which apparently means spell damage. So these mundane spikes deal spell damage.At the same time, if you were to cast telekinesis on the spikes and hurl them at somebody (which causes them to deal damage as a weapon, then their damage would suddenly become subject to DR since they are dealing damage as weapons now and not as spells.
Yeah it is that simple.
Telekinesis says it causes damage, so it ignores SR. Hard stop.
If teleport (or any other spell) isn't listed as dealing damage and it somehow adds you in doing damage it's not spell damage. The SRD doesn't say spell damage has to be directly from the spell, magical energy, or anything else. Damage from spells (those that have a term about how much damage they do) ignore DR. Beyond that is a house rule. But there isn't an argument kind of thing, there literally isn't anyway to rule anything else without a house rule.
As for the semantics, you got me I missed that some spells use a different word. Spells that deal damage use a phrase "Word-or-words-that-can-be-exchanged-for-deals x damage", with the most common form being "deals x damage". It doesn't change the substance of the effect, spells that tell you how the deal damage ignore DR. Unless you think that the game terms "causes", "inflict", and "deals" are different.
Seplls do indeed ignore damage reduction entirely UNLESS the damage has a type such as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.
Yeah it is that simple.
Telekinesis says it causes damage, so it ignores SR. Hard stop.If teleport (or any other spell) isn't listed as dealing damage and it somehow adds you in doing damage it's not spell damage. The SRD doesn't say spell damage has to be directly from the spell, magical energy, or anything else. Damage from spells (those that have a term about how much damage they do) ignore DR. Beyond that is a house rule. But there isn't an argument kind of thing, there literally isn't anyway to rule anything else without a house rule.
As for the semantics, you got me I missed that some spells use a different word. Spells that deal damage use a phrase "Word-or-words-that-can-be-exchanged-for-deals x damage", with the most common form being "deals x damage". It doesn't change the substance of the effect, spells that tell you how the deal damage ignore DR. Unless you think that the game terms "causes", "inflict", and "deals" are different.
But see, the confusion comes from the fact that with telekinesis, it is unclear where the damage is coming from. Here is the section:
Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.
So the spell is causing the weapons to cause damage. Is that spell damage? Is that weapon damage? If it's spell damage, how is it any different from teleporting a sword except that the damage formula is spelled out here where in teleport you have to reference the relevant "dropping an item on someone" section (which, random side note, since it requires an attack roll, IS subject to DR, where if an item just FALLS on someone it does NOT require an attack roll, so it is NOT subject to DR... this is getting confusing).
It gets to the point where we are each drawing lines for what is or is not spell damage. For you, that line is if the spell explicitly states a damage amount somewhere in it's description. For me, and Ravingdork (hooray for some support here!), the line is if the spell calls out weapon-typed damage and requires an attack roll.
Both of those are house-rules, because the rules themselves are unclear as they never define what counts as spell damage.
And I'm going to go back to magic weapon here because I don't think you have sufficiently shown that it doesn't do damage.
Damage from spells (those that have a term about how much damage they do) ignore DR.
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.
The spell causes the weapon to inflict +1 damage on all damage rolls. If telekinesis counts as spell damage even when it causes weapons to inflict damage, then magic weapon is spell damage as well. That means that that +1 is going to completely ignore DR, which means that the rogue can slap magic weapon on his mundane daggers and all of a sudden start poisoning and sneak attacking the guy with DR 1000/epic. Since that 1 point of damage is going through (it is explicitly written out in the spell that it deals 1 damage... that's spell damage), his sneak attack and poisons work as well.
So my Summon Monster spells are supposed to be bypassing DR? D'oh! I've been underpowering them. I'll inform my GM at the next session.
That would seem to be the case.
It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability.
Hmm... "attack" can very easily be read as a deal damage word (since there is no standardized spell damage language, any word that means deal damage means spell damage) and since telekinesis gives us precedent for having to look up damage elsewhere and it still counts as spell damage, your summoned monster has his damage laid out in the spell. AND pit trap gives us precedent for conjuration magic which does not make magic material, but just magically rearranges mundane material having that mundane material bypass DR as spell damage... It seems like your summons should be bypassing DR with their spell-damage attacks.
Hmmm... I wonder if that also lets them affect incorporeal creatures?
You see why this gets kind of absurd, right?
Please cite where it states that any summon monster spell deals damage. The spell does not deal damage. Nowhere in the spell is damage even mentioned. Please stop setting up straw men. Magic weapon at least has the word "damage" in it.So my Summon Monster spells are supposed to be bypassing DR? D'oh! I've been underpowering them. I'll inform my GM at the next session.
It says "attack" which implies damage. There is no standardized language for what means spell damage and what doesn't. As has been established we are already on our own for saying what is and isn't. If you say "attack" isn't, that's you making a value judgement, not a rules judgement.
Also, telekinesis gives us a precedent for a spell dealing spell damage which does not state the damage amount in the spell, but rather tells you to refer to the relevant page rather than reprint every damage stat for every weapon there. So too with Summon Monster. They can't reprint every monster's stat block there, so instead it just says "the monster attacks to the best of its ability." We look up how much damage that attack deals and apply it accordingly. As spell damage.
|
What exactly are you guys asking in the FAQ? If the SRD is right?The SRD says spells bypass DR. blanket statement.Right... and because of that blanket statement the question is answered. Is it a spell? If so it by passes damage reduction. It's like saying the sun rises in the eastern half of the sky below the arctic circle. It is ALWAYS a yes. It doesn't matter if it's a rainy day, a sunny day, a cloudy day, a good day, a bad day, a Tuesday, or yesterday. Everyday, that simple. The SRD doesn't say "some spells" so hard stop.
OK so i'm supposed to sum up for you the question for the FAQ because you can't read the rest of this forum like us?
The SRD says spells bypass DR. Blanket Statement. BUT some spells include a type of damage ( piercing, slashing, bludgeoning ) on their effects. This isn't limited to just conjuration spells dealing typed damage,but it pops up in evocation spells like Chord of Shards, where evocation, a traditionally blasty / energy damage school, deals piercing damage.
Now. If all spells bypass DR. WHY do some spells include typed damage. To me it seems like some Designers aren't cogent and familiar with the rule that all spells bypass DR. They get too nitty gritty that this spell deals x piercing damage b/c magic is simulating an arrow.
I want the designers / developers to get ON THE SAME PAGE with whats in the rules, and realize they should errata spells dealing typed damage to untyped damage, or they need to errata and expand on the rule that spells bypass DR.
|
|
"All spells and all mundane energy by pass all DR." – dunelord3001
"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." – Fozbek
. "The rules are explicit. Damage from spells bypasses DR. Period, end of story." – Fozbek
"Because of that blanket [SRD] statement the question is answered. Is it a spell? If so it by passes damage reduction. It's like saying the sun rises in the eastern half of the sky below the arctic circle. It is ALWAYS a yes…. that simple. The SRD doesn't say "some spells" so hard stop." – dunelord3001
This is very clear to me. Summon Monster [X] is a spell. It deals damage. Therefore its damage bypasses DR.
stop being silly you're sidetracking the point of this thread.
summon monster spells don't deal damage. they conjure creatures, those creatures deal whatever type of damage they normally deal. thats why summon nature's ally spells have feats like Moonlight Summons , so the creatures can deal silver damage or other types of damage to bypass dr.Magic Weapon just adds an enhancement bonus of an item. If the creature doesn't have DR/magic, then whatever DR the creature has still will apply when you hit them with a magic weapon, the same as if you'd hit the creature with a permanent +1 sword.
We're trying to get Paizo developers to clarify damage dealt by typed spells like meteor swarm, chord of shards, thorn body, etc. spells from a myriad of schools that sometimes say they conjure a physical object and should bypass DR because its a real rock taken from elsewhere, or because the force is shaped like jagged pieces of glass.
they're adding flavor in the development of spells that is muddling the rules. I agree James Jacob's ruling is a nice house rule, however i'm a frequent GM for pathfinder society, so i'd like a regular ruling for the system so that it can be applied more consistently.
Whether you're hand waving that a rock was teleported from somewhere by magic and flung at high speeds, or that its just magical force shaped an looks like a rock, i want to consistently know when i sit down at a table whether spells i cast will bypass DR, and likewise want to consistently know when i'm running a game that spells will bypass or not bypass the DR of monsters i'm running.
we're not questioning summon monster, or magic weapon spells.
To me it seems like some Designers aren't cogent and familiar with the rule that all spells bypass DR.
I want the designers / developers to get ON THE SAME PAGE with whats in the rules, and realize they should errata spells dealing typed damage to untyped damage, or they need to errata and expand on the rule that spells bypass DR.
The other option is that maybe you're misinterpreting the rule.
The SRD says spells bypass DR. Blanket Statement.
General rule
BUT some spells include a type of damage ( piercing, slashing, bludgeoning ) on their effects.
Specific rule
Thus, the rules agree with the Creative Director's clarification that when a spell deals B/P/S it is affected by DR.
If they wanted to officially clarify that in the FAQ, that would be nice, since it seems to be causing a bit of confusion. I suggest hitting the FAQ button on James Jacob's post and hopefully it will get caught.
This is very clear to me. Summon Monster [X] is a spell. It deals damage. Therefore its damage bypasses DR.
It says "attack" which implies damage. There is no standardized language for what means spell damage and what doesn't. As has been established we are already on our own for saying what is and isn't. If you say "attack" isn't, that's you making a value judgement, not a rules judgement.You're just being pigheaded. If the spell doesn't say it deals damage, it doesn't deal damage. There very much is standardized language for a spell dealing damage: it will say outright, explicitly, in the text, that the target takes x damage or the spell deals x damage. Summon monster lacks that. Magic weapon lacks that. Bull's strength lacks that.
Any attempt to say otherwise is sheer sophistry with no basis in logic, reason, or fact. It's very, very easy, and you have even said that you understand that what I say is the truth, Bascaria. The spell says it deals damage? That damage bypasses DR. The spell doesn't say anything about dealing damage? Then there's no spell damage because the spell isn't a damaging spell.
Fozbek, I have acknowledged that I am being intentionally obtuse and Axl has acknowledged that he is engaging in reductio ad absurdum (as am I). What you haven't acknowledged is that there isn't a clear delineation for when a spell deals damage and when one doesn't. You are insisting that it lies at the point where a specific and exact number is called out in the spell description itself with "damage language" associated with it. You had provided a general rubric for what that language might look like. But you haven't shown a rules document to back that up, insisting only on common sense, which is completely beside the point of a rules argument as you yourself pointed out in accusing me of applying logic to spells.
I am led to wonder about a spell like telekinesis which says that, if used in it's violent thrust type, deals "standard weapon damage" according to what weapon is thrown with it. This pretty clearly follows your damage language rubric, and a very reasonable, common sense argument could be made that it forwent the inclusion of specific damage dice and types because that would require far too much space and would just be a reprint of the weapons table (plus what happens if you are throwing a weapon which was released after the CRD; would it deal no damage then?). So instead, they just refer you to the table. But it is still dealing spell damage, so it still bypasses DR.
From there, it is a small step to say that Summon Monster, which "attacks to the best of it's ability" which is ALSO damage language, is just referring you to the relevant pages of the beastiary for what that damage is, and so Summon Monster bypasses DR. Everyone here agrees that that is wrong, but there isn't a single rules document to say so beyond common sense. This means that we are houseruling.
When I accept that I am being pigheaded, I do not accept the validity of your argument, only its existence. I see the line you are drawing. I even understand the line you are drawing and acknowledge the logic behind its being placed where it is. But I also see a flaw in it (outlined above), which leads to this entire disagreement. The rules are unclear, and no amount of brash declarations will change that.
Or perhaps, the rules are not unclear, but the rules, if interpreted strictly as written, lead to the absurdities of Summon Monster and Magic Weapon bypassing DR, which clearly is not right.
As Seraphim keeps trying to point out, our arguments are tangential to the key thrust of the thread, which I think all of us would like clarified: How are we to rule when a spell includes weapon typed damage? Do the spell rules or the DR rules take precedence?
Reductio ad absurdum requires that following the logic out the extreme becomes a unbearable position. An example of this would be a RAW use of the dead condition.
Even with the most liberal interpretation of spell damage (that Magic Weapon, Summon Monster, and such) deal spell damage and thus by pass DR the position that all spells by pass all DR is not game breaking. It would change the action economy of spells, weaken Stone Skin, and Barbarians but it doesn't bring the game to a grinding halt.
If anything reductio ad absurdum shows that the idea of questioning every rule just doesn't work. There isn't anything that contradicts that part of the SRD so just run with it.
Reductio ad absurdum requires that following the logic out the extreme becomes a unbearable position. An example of this would be a RAW use of the dead condition.
Even with the most liberal interpretation of spell damage (that Magic Weapon, Summon Monster, and such) deal spell damage and thus by pass DR the position that all spells by pass all DR is not game breaking. It would change the action economy of spells, weaken Stone Skin, and Barbarians but it doesn't bring the game to a grinding halt.
If anything reductio ad absurdum shows that the idea of questioning every rule just doesn't work. There isn't anything that contradicts that part of the SRD so just run with it.
But for many of us, the idea that a spell which creates a +1 enhancement bonus automatically bypasses DR X/epic or DR X/- is itself an unbearable position. Or the idea that the critters called by a Summon Nature's Ally I can bypass that same DR. It also calls into question the existence of spells like Moonlight Summons, which are specifically designed to allow summons to bypass different types of DR. If summons already do, then why do these new feats exist?
Clearly, at some point, there was a disconnect between the developers. Three options:
(1) All spells, including summons, bypass all DR, in which case Moonlight Summons and its ilk were a mistake.
(2) All spells with specifically stated damage formulas in the spell text according to some unknown damage language rubric bypass DR, in which case, why are some spells typed as weapons and what is that rubric?
(3) Spells with weapon-typed damage do not bypass all DR automatically, in which case, the relevant sentence from the spells section of the SRD should be updated.
Whichever of the 3 it is, there is an issue which needs correction.
Perhaps it isn't a reductio ad absurdum so much as a proof by contradiction.
Proof: See above regarding summon monster, moonlight summons. In each of the three possible situations, the hypothesis is contradicted.
Conclusion: The rules are unclear and could stand revision. (which is pretty much where we started)
Fozbek, I have acknowledged that I am being intentionally obtuse and Axl has acknowledged that he is engaging in reductio ad absurdum (as am I). What you haven't acknowledged is that there isn't a clear delineation for when a spell deals damage and when one doesn't.If you have to be intentionally obtuse just to find something that really doesn't change anything (but might if you look at it in a mirror facing another mirror out of the corner of your eyes), then I have nothing to acknowledge. You've proven my point by failing to disprove it even after going to extremes. You've pointed out spell after spell that you say isn't clear, then admit that you're being obtuse about it--in other words, that you're intentionally making problems.
I can intentionally make problems with any rule in the book and say that the rule isn't clear. That doesn't make the rule unclear, it makes me silly.
I am acknowledging that my extreme cases (magic weapon, summon monster) are extreme, but that doesn't make them any less correct. The RAW says that spell damage bypasses, so they should too. If people want to play it otherwise, alright, but that's no different from giving a 3.5 monk proficiency in his fists. IT IS A HOUSE RULE. I am picking the extreme examples because they are extreme to illustrate the absurdity of the position.
There are other examples which are less extreme (telekinesis, meteor swarm, ice storm) which have been cited which you have dismissed out of hand. I brought up the extreme ones because there isn't a meaningful difference between them besides you saying "that's not what the rules say," which doesn't change the fact that "spell damage" is never defined by the rules.
I am being obtuse because you are arguing logic, not rules. I am being obtuse to your logic. Bring on the rules which define spell damage and I will be as acute as you want me to be.
|
Which is more likely:
1) the spells listing damage type are correct, DR applies as appropriate, and the designers simply failed to consider the implications of making one hasty blanket statement that 'all spell damage bypasses DR', when they meant 'all untyped spell damage bypasses DR'?
2) All spells bypass DR, the designers intended for all games to come to a crashing halt, every session, as each and every spell gets picked to death by rules-lawyers (for and against), and whole teams of designers (both staff and freelancers), proofreaders and editors have fouled up, over and over and over, when writing every single spell that lists a damage type?
Occam's Razor says 1).
For those who can't access that link, or don't like reading about philosophy, it can be summed up as follows;
For Bascaria to be correct, one designer needs to have goofed up once.
For Fozbek to be correct, dozens of designers and editing staff need to have goofed up hundreds of times.
I like the designers, they are nice people, and some are my friends off-site, so I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, so for that reason, I also choose 1).
Which is more likely:
1) the spells listing damage type are correct, DR applies as appropriate, and the designers simply failed to consider the implications of making one hasty blanket statement that 'all spell damage bypasses DR', when they meant 'all untyped spell damage bypasses DR'?
2) All spells bypass DR, the designers intended for all games to come to a crashing halt, every session, as each and every spell gets picked to death by rules-lawyers (for and against), and whole teams of designers (both staff and freelancers), proofreaders and editors have fouled up, over and over and over, when writing every single spell that lists a damage type?
Occam's Razor says 1).
For those who can't access that link, or don't like reading about philosophy, it can be summed up as follows;
For Bascaria to be correct, one designer needs to have goofed up once.
For Fozbek to be correct, dozens of designers and editing staff need to have goofed up hundreds of times.
I like the designers, they are nice people, and some are my friends off-site, so I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, so for that reason, I also choose 1).
RAI is pretty much always pointless. I think that they meant for it to work, you think they didn't and there isn't anyway to prove it. But if you want to bring logic into it -
1) Nice doesn't make you right or wrong.
2) Occam's Razor has is not something that has been proven, it's an idea.
3) It has not been established that everything else is equal.
4) Even if it does apply the simplest application is that the rules mean what they say.
5) You have presented a false dichotomy. There is no need for anyone to have made any mistake. For flavor purposes, or whatever, you can have a spell deal any type of damage and it in no one needs for the first designer to have made a mistake.
Let me put it this way - besides the one statement by James Jacobs are there any rules that support what you saying? Is their any thing in damage types, the descriptions of spells, the description of damage, PFS, or anything at all that supports that DR should slows down the damage from these spells?
Or is it just that spells sometimes do the same damage as weapons sometimes?
If it is Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing, DR applies. That is what DR means. 'Spells are unaffected by DR' is a general rule. Giving the damage from the spell one of those physical damage types is a specific rule, and thus an exception to the general rule.
There are over 80 posts in this thread.
There are less than 10 FAQ flags on the OP.
Everyone stop arguing and start clicking. Seriously, you guys should've made that shift about fifty posts ago.
Seconded. We're repeating ourselves at this point. I don't think I'll be satisfied that so many spells type their damage as B/P/S solely for the benefit of oozes and the oddball regeneration (bludgeoning) monster. I also don't think you'll be satisfied that the rule saying spells bypass DR doesn't apply when the spell is merely impetus behind the object, but not the damaging object itself, which is the situation in every B/P/S typed spell.
Let's FAQ and move on.
Lets take the Forest Dragon's Breath Weapon as an example, what happens if a guy with DR 10/Magic is in the area? since the damage isnt caused by a massive piercing object, would it be correct to apply the damage reduction several times effectively negating the damage taken?
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/dragon.html
