Would DR stop SA damage?

[Matt2VK]

If you do not do enough damage with your normal attack to by pass DR, would this also stop sneak attack damage?

Here's what happened -
Rogue made a attack against something with DR5. Rogue did 4 points of damage with his weapon. GM ruled that since the weapon did not penetrate, the rogue does not get the sneak attack damage in.

This was from a GM that usually knows the rules forward and backwards so I went by that ruling. Same situation then came up in a game I was running and this time I looked it up in the CRB. It say nothing about sneak attack damage for DR.

So did the GM get it wrong in that you get to add SA damage with normal attack before factoring DR?

If DR can stop SA damage, where can I look it up?
(What book)

[Lifat]

By RAW (and by RAI, if you ask me) the GM was wrong. Sneak attack damage is added to the rogues damage before checking for damage reduction.

[Matt2VK]

That's what I thought. Only asked in case there was a errata some where that the GM knew about and I couldn't find.

[Seranov]

I understand why he might think that's how it works (assuming that your first attack has to do damage in order to really strike home w/ the bonus precision damage) but that's not how it works. It's not one attack then the other, but the whole thing at once.

[Cheapy]

Developer commentary can be found here!

[boring7]

There was a rule in D&D 3.0 and (I think) 3.5 that said if you crit on an enemy with Damage Reduction but your first damage die can't cut through it, you don't actually get the crit. Crit = Sneak attack = rogues get screwed. This rule was thrown away because it's stupid and dicks over an already-weak class.

I honestly don't even remember where the rule was written down, I think it was some obscure section of the monster manual next to "how creature abilities work" describing in more detail what Damage Reduction was.

I'll check around since I'm OCD like that.

[Lifat]

boring7 wrote:

There was a rule in D&D 3.0 and (I think) 3.5 that said if you crit on an enemy with Damage Reduction but your first damage die can't cut through it, you don't actually get the crit. Crit = Sneak attack = rogues get screwed. This rule was thrown away because it's stupid and dicks over an already-weak class.

I honestly don't even remember where the rule was written down, I think it was some obscure section of the monster manual next to "how creature abilities work" describing in more detail what Damage Reduction was.

I'll check around since I'm OCD like that.

Wauw... I'd love to hear about it if you find that rule. I played 3rd for a long time and I NEVER heard about that rule. Not saying that it didn't exists, just that it must have been extremely obscure.

[Diego Rossi]

Lifat wrote:

By RAW (and by RAI, if you ask me) the GM was wrong. Sneak attack damage is added to the rogues damage before checking for damage reduction.

This.

Lifat wrote:

boring7 wrote:

There was a rule in D&D 3.0 and (I think) 3.5 that said if you crit on an enemy with Damage Reduction but your first damage die can't cut through it, you don't actually get the crit. Crit = Sneak attack = rogues get screwed. This rule was thrown away because it's stupid and dicks over an already-weak class.

I honestly don't even remember where the rule was written down, I think it was some obscure section of the monster manual next to "how creature abilities work" describing in more detail what Damage Reduction was.

I'll check around since I'm OCD like that.

Wauw... I'd love to hear about it if you find that rule. I played 3rd for a long time and I NEVER heard about that rule. Not saying that it didn't exists, just that it must have been extremely obscure.

A Lifat, I am curious as I never noticed a similar rule.

[taldanrebel2187]

I remember this houserule... The thought is that if the initial hit doesn't deal any damage -- it isn't really a hit. I don't think it's codified in the SRD though.

[boring7]

It is also possible that the DM made it up. It was over a decade ago.

Best I can find online is the line "Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack." which didn't come with a specific proviso for the extra damage dice of Sneak attack.

I'm giving up and saying I was wrong because I'm now bored with it. And because I don't even know if I HAVE my old books.

[wraithstrike]

That was never a rule .

[Finlanderboy]

CRB glossary damage resistence wrote:

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

[kinevon]

Matt,

As per Finlanderboy's quote, it sounds like that GM confused the extra, same type as the weapon damage from sneak attack damage, with the rider status effects that can come from other types of attacks, like a snake bite's poinson or a monk's Stunning Fist effect.

For example, if you use a poisoned dagger, with a 7 Str, and do 1 point of non-lethal from your 1d4-2, to someone who has DR5/Lethal, your poison doesn't get through, because none of the base dagger damage got through. Without that DR/Lethal or equivalent, though, the target would still get poisoned.

But that applies to ridfer effects, not additional damage sources. Sneak attack is handled in many ways like Flaming, where it does damage as long as the condition to get it is met. Like FLaming, it isn't multipled on a critical hit, but, per the sneak attack rules, it gets added to the regular weapon damage before DR is applied.

[The Saltmarsh 6]

No your DM was wrong all damage is totalled before DR is taken off

[concerro]

Show this to your GM