Does DR apply to falling damage (or any other damage that is physical in nature but not caused by an attack, such as caused by a trap)?
CRB p. 12 says DR "is subtracted from any damage dealt to them from a physical source" which would seem to include something like falling damage.
On the other hand, the more extensive discussion of DR on CRB pp. 561-2 says that DR "is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks" which seems to indicate that falling damage, traps, etc., would not subtract DR because they are not attacks (unless, say, the trap included an attack roll).
Opinions?
It also applies to spells that do physical damage rather than energy damage.
I'd say it affects damage from traps.
I would probably apply it to falling damage in my games, but I doubt the official view would.
I'd rule it doesn't count against falling damage, as mentioned above it is more a combat stat. Even the old description of it was "tough hide" "skin heals over right after damage weapon damage" etc. Weapons and attacks are the most common source of damage, but far from the only source.
|
If you're a lawyer, falling damage is not reduced by DR, and neither is damage from a rock falling on you. If you're a normal sane person, falling damage is physical damage (bludgeoning), DR reduces physical damage, therefor falling damage is reduced by DR.
We're talking about core rulebook rules here, people. These things are famous for wonky wording, odd oversights, clumsy copy-paste, and laughable loopholes. Not as bad as 3.0e, but they still have their moments.
It's already been clarified that DR *does* apply to spells, but only to ones that deal physical damage, and that the line about spells ignoring DR is only because 99% of the time it's energy damage (or untyped, which is also non-physical).
If you're a lawyer, falling damage is not reduced by DR, and neither is damage from a rock falling on you. If you're a normal sane person, falling damage is physical damage (bludgeoning), DR reduces physical damage, therefor falling damage is reduced by DR.
We're talking about core rulebook rules here, people. These things are famous for wonky wording, odd oversights, clumsy copy-paste, and laughable loopholes. Not as bad as 3.0e, but they still have their moments.
It's already been clarified that DR *does* apply to spells, but only to ones that deal physical damage, and that the line about spells ignoring DR is only because 99% of the time it's energy damage (or untyped, which is also non-physical).
Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.
Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.
Of course he doesn't, he was using common sense. There's not much difference between a large blunt object striking you and you striking a large blunt object. They're both going to hurt due to the force of the impact and it is a hard argument to rationalise that you have DR one way round but not the other. Unless the entirety of your argument is raw, Raw, RAW RAW!!!!!.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course he doesn't, he was using common sense. There's not much difference between a large blunt object striking you and you striking a large blunt object. They're both going to hurt due to the force of the impact and it is a hard argument to rationalise that you have DR one way round but not the other. Unless the entirety of your argument is raw, Raw, RAW RAW!!!!!.Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.
No the argument is it states it protects against combat effects. As it certainly reads as that is the implication.
Saying it protects against things beyond that is just taking the " well it makes sense to me" or thankfully not in this case, " it doesn't say it can't work that way".
There are NUMEROUS things that could make sense one way or another, but aren't intended to happen in the game.
You obviously don't like it, but that is the way it is, like so many other things people don't like about the rules. Someone not liking something isn't really a reason for the rules to all the sudden start working differently than written.
As a RAW question I belive that falling is untyped, and how DR interacts with it is questionable.
For a Rule Zero take on it, I would say that adamantine armor is no help, but natural DR does protect, falling out a window doesn't slow a vampire down, or a werewolf, or a ...
The text specifies attacks... so falling damage would ignore DR.
In our games though we pretty much apply it to falling/physical/anything that would make sense in context (so no simple answer).
|
|
Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.
You're right that I don't have a source. Because there isn't one. It's not the rule and I wasn't attempting to say that falling damage is (as written) typed at all. What I was trying to say is that is what I think it should be because it's the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever, and it seems obvious to me that it being untyped is an oversight that is not considered worth the time to correct. It wouldn't be the only inconsistency left in the rules by far.
But I hope you note that I did say in my first post that the actual rule is that falling (or being fallen on) ignore DR, yes? I implied that it's insane, but it's still the rule.