| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need help understanding Damage Reduction on the monsters. I will use the Intellect Devourer as an example. It defense has DR 10/adamantine and magic. So lets say a fighter runs up and slashes it with a normal sword for 1d8 + 5 and gets a 2 on the roll, making it a 7.. Does that hit go all the way through and hurt the monster with 7 damage as oppose if his sword was made of Adamantine having none of the damage go through?
The hit won't do any damage, at all. It would do damage if the sword was a magical adamantine sword, but given it isn't and it did less than 10 damage, the Intellect Devourer will probably make a psionic laugh and then proceed to maul the Fighter in question.
The hit won't do any damage, at all. It would do damage if the sword was a magical adamantine sword, but given it isn't and it did less than 10 damage, the Intellect Devourer will probably make a psionic laugh and then proceed to maul the Fighter in question.
Thanks. So if a monster had DR/10 magic.. Anyone without magic or low casting spells is literally going to be screwed?
DR / Magic is not that bad. Once you have at least one sword or axe with a +1 enchant or the spell Magic Weapon (a level 1 spell that is open to both arcane and divine casters), you're going to have a much easier time with such beings.
Heck, it saved mine and a pal's life once in 3.5e when the DM decided we could handle a Gargoyle (CR 4) while we were both level 2, a Ranger and a Cleric. We got very lucky in that encounter...
DR / Magic is not that bad. Once you have at least one sword or axe with a +1 enchant or the spell Magic Weapon, you're going to have a much easier time with such beings.
LOL! Well, I did not understand that too well. We have a gunslinger in the group with no magical weapons and all. So not knowing the DR rule, I allowed him to do damage. Then when I told the group about DR, they started to cast Magic Weapon on their stuff to do damage.
Indeed damage reduction is the reverse of your example. The entry details the material/alignment/condition that overcomes that damage reduction, and all else is reduced.
Not to be confused with energy resistance, which operates in the other way. Also, damage reduction applies to non-energy types of damage, while energy resistance applies.
Hope that clears things up.
Thanks. So if a monster had DR/10 magic.. Anyone without magic or low casting spells is literally going to be screwed?
As said, any magic weapon will overcome the damage reduction. But do note that damage reduction never reduces damage from spells. All spells ignore all damage reduction, as damage reduction only works against weapons (both manufactured and natural weapons).
|
All spells ignore all damage reduction, as damage reduction only works against weapons (both manufactured and natural weapons).
This is an arguable point at best. If it does a physical damage type (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) then DR applies, otherwise it does not. There is a statement that magic bypasses DR, but it is taken as RAI that this refers to the fact that almost no spells deal physical damage. Without that statement you'd be applying DR to damage sources that are untyped, like disintegrate.
If you argue that spells ignore DR, then telekinesis would ignore it despite lifting and throwing an existing object that may well be nonmagical, and this makes no sense whatsoever as there would be no magic from the spell in the object once it makes contact.
By strictest RAW spells always ignore DR, but by RAI that cannot be so. See this post by James Jacobs.
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).
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).
Well of course it would work differently in Pathfinder. Seems that everything that requires a ruling from a developer works the exact opposite way in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5.
I need help understanding Damage Reduction on the monsters. I will use the Intellect Devourer as an example. It defense has DR 10/adamantine and magic. So lets say a fighter runs up and slashes it with a normal sword for 1d8 + 5 and gets a 2 on the roll, making it a 7.. Does that hit go all the way through and hurt the monster with 7 damage as oppose if his sword was made of Adamantine having none of the damage go through?
Note that it is DR 10/adamantine and magic so the weapon has to be both adamantine and magical in order to overcome the damage reduction. In order for the Magic Weapon spell to be beneficial against that damage reduction, it would have to be cast on an adamantine weapon.
I know he said it would have to be a magical adamantine sword in the second post, but the conversation switched to just 10/magic after that so I wanted to make sure it isn't overlooked.
|
|
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).Well of course it would work differently in Pathfinder. Seems that everything that requires a ruling from a developer works the exact opposite way in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5.
I think that stuff like this is in the category of "one of those seemingly common sense things we forgot to make clear when we copy-pasted the core rule book."
In short, if a spell hits you by first conjuring a piece of now-non-magical matter, then throwing it at you in such a way that the matter, upon contact with the target, is no different in form than matter being thrown by a creature or object instead of a spell, then that damage should follow all the rules that the mundanely thrown rock does. To be even more brief: If a mundane rock hits you in the face, why should one launching method follow different resistance rules than the other?
Anyway, @OP: DR/X means that it works against everything but X. You need a weapon that is both adamantine and magical. However, a +3 weapon is treated as being cold iron and silver, a +4 weapon is treated as adamantine, and a +5 is treated as all alignments (cumulative, so a +5 is all of those lists). This means a +4 weapon is treated as magic and adamantine and bypasses the DR.
Anyway, @OP: DR/X means that it works against everything but X. You need a weapon that is both adamantine and magical. However, a +3 weapon is treated as being cold iron and silver, a +4 weapon is treated as adamantine, and a +5 is treated as all alignments (cumulative, so a +5 is all of those lists). This means a +4 weapon is treated as magic and adamantine and bypasses the DR.
What he said. Except also note that Greater Magic Weapon, that grants +x (up to +5), does not also grant the emulation of various materials.
If a mundane rock hits you in the face, why should one launching method follow different resistance rules than the other?
To be fair, the rock is treated differently if it's fired from a magical sling.
|
However, a +3 weapon is treated as being cold iron and silver, a +4 weapon is treated as adamantine, and a +5 is treated as all alignments (cumulative, so a +5 is all of those lists). This means a +4 weapon is treated as magic and adamantine and bypasses the DR.
I remember seeing this information compiled in a table in 3.0 or 3.5 (or likely both) but I thought this added complexity was removed in PF, at least in the core book.
Where is the "+x emulates type/material" information? I swear I've looked for it a few times, couldn't find it, and figured they tossed it for a simple "meet the requirements or deal with the DR" method.
I'd love to mark that page in the rulebook so once I find it I won't lose it again.
|
|
If a mundane rock hits you in the face, why should one launching method follow different resistance rules than the other?To be fair, the rock is treated differently if it's fired from a magical sling.
That's because the rock is explicitly granted magical properties by the sling (it becomes a +X _properties_here_ rock). This means it is no longer mundane. Spells do not (generally) do this.
EDIT: And this only lets it bypass *some* DR, not all DR.
Where is the "+x emulates type/material" information?
Glossary, under Damage Reduction.
However, a +3 weapon is treated as being cold iron and silver, a +4 weapon is treated as adamantine, and a +5 is treated as all alignments (cumulative, so a +5 is all of those lists). This means a +4 weapon is treated as magic and adamantine and bypasses the DR.I remember seeing this information compiled in a table in 3.0 or 3.5 (or likely both) but I thought this added complexity was removed in PF, at least in the core book.
The other way around, actually. 3.0 had a system where magical DR was based around how many +'es the weapon had (DR/+1, DR/+2, etc). 3.5 simplified magical DR to just be DR/magic, but changed some of the old DR/+N's to DR/material or alignment.
Pathfinder then added the part where a +3 or higher weapon would be able to overcome DR/materials and DR/alignment.