Damage Reduction - non-energy spell damage

[Pentar]

Hi everyone,

I'm sure this question has been asked in various forms thoroughout the ages since the intro of DR, but here goes once more:

If a spell causes an effect that deals physical damage, does Damage Reduction apply?

For example, the spell Spike Growth causes vegetation to become sharp and pointy - that is the effect of the spell. The damage that is caused as a result of traversing the affected area is defined as "Piercing damage" in the spell description:

Quote:

Any creature moving on foot into or through the spell's area takes 1d4 points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked area

.

Does the rule of spell damage by-passing DR apply in this case? Or in any other case where similar effects were to occur (e.g. Spike Stones). My argument in favour of DR applying is that the damage is not a direct result of the spell itself and that the damage specifically indicates a physical type of damage (in this case "piercing").

In game play, I stuck with the strict interpertation of the rules itself; that is the spell "caused the damage" so the damage ignored DR... but upon further reflection, I do not think that is the correct ruling.

Thoughts?

[James Jacobs]

When a spell specifically says it does piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage, I always treat that as weapon damage—and thus, it's subject to DR.

Whether or not there's an actual rule buried in the books somewhere that confirms this I can't actually say off the top of my head, but it's certainly the way I interpret the rules and it seems to have worked pretty well for games I've run over the past 10 years or so.

[Bascaria]

There was a HUGE (several hundred, I want to say about 700 or so) argument in the rules forum about this a few months back, and came to absolutely no resolution.

I'm with Jacobs that the reason for typing the damage as B/P/S would be to indicate that it is subject to DR as it is physical damage rather than spell damage. However, by strict RAW, it doesn't appear to be subject to DR.

FAQing your original post, because this issue has been bugging me for a while.

And thanks for the continued input, James!

[Talonhawke]

Also FAQING and i agree witht the T-rex.

[Vrecknidj]

The PRD glossary is pretty clear, I think.

Quote:

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

Though I agree there's room for interpretation.

[Pentar]

Vrecknidj wrote:

The PRD glossary is pretty clear, I think.

Quote:

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

Though I agree there's room for interpretation.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I am aware of what the rule says and I followed them to the T. However, I do believe there is room for interpertation and I tend to agree with the others who rule that damage that is caused as an indirect result of a spell, is subject to DR.

I.e. Someone collapsiing a Wall of Stone on someone could try to argue that since the wall was created by magic, any damage done as a result of that wall is also magic - but that seems flawed and a misinterpertation of the intent of the rule.

Thus I believe I will rule as others have; Any spell effect that causes indirect non-energy physical-type damage will be subject to DR.

[James Jacobs]

Look at it this way:

If spells that cause slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage aren't subject to DR... why would we bother saying the spell does slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage in the first place? It's not like there's a lot of other rules elements that need to know about that type of damage, really.

[King of Vrock]

James Jacobs wrote:

Look at it this way:

If spells that cause slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage aren't subject to DR... why would we bother saying the spell does slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing damage in the first place? It's not like there's a lot of other rules elements that need to know about that type of damage, really.

In 3.5 the reasoning from the Sage was those damage types were typically mixed with energy damage spells, ex. ice storm. The reason it was specified was not for creatures with DR, rather it was for creatures with energy resistance. So a Polar Worm on the butt end of an ice storm would ignore the cold but still take the pummeling from the hail.

--Wild Pazuzu on the Vrocks

[wraithstrike]

I think the sage made a bad call on that one.

I also think the quote on spells is a general because spells don't generally do weapon type damage.

It will be interesting to see what Sean or Jason rule on officially.

[Talonhawke]

I know in 3.5 that if a spell did slashing and you had dr/bludgeoning then your DR applied.

[Remco Sommeling]

While I do not think it is an official ruling, I think DR should apply, I have a hard time imagening how vulnerabilities or resistance to bludgeon, slashing and piercing would play out otherwise. If I have a plant creature that consists mostly of vines I expect summoning a big sword of force to be a proper answer to the threat while a clenched fist will do little.

I also apply DR to falling damage by the way..