| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey all,
Consider the case where a character has:
Stoneskin, DR10/Ada, maximum 10/CL negated
&
Spell Effect that grants DR10/whatever, let's say evil for example.
If struck by a non-evil, non adamantium source, could the character choose to count his non-stoneskin DR for that attack in order to conserve the maximum damage negated from stoneskin?
The rules don't cover this. Press the FAQ button. I doubt you will get to choose though. They will likely say what is affected first.
If you are a player this falls to the GM. If you're the GM I don't think its heartbreaking to allow the stoneskin to get checked last, no matter if it's a monster or a PC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would Stoneskin be better than DR/evil? In fact, because it has a duration and a cap on the damage it can stop, it's inferior until an Evil weapon hits.
Nice find Cuttler.
I think that makes Stonskin last since that's more beneficial.
In the situation where you have Stoneskin and another similar effect that's limited in duration, etc., I think I'd let the recipient of the damage decide which applies. The creature benefits from the "best" damage reduction, as noted. Since there's no clear-cut "best" in this scenario (non-ad weapon, non-evil weapon), I'd just let the player decide where to apply the damage.
YMMV, GM's call, make a decision and go with it.
Wraithstrike, if the intent is that you only get one source of DR, then why are there creatures that require two different means to bypass DR (such as Silver and Good)?
It ultimately depends on what the type of DR is. There are 3 categories of DR that I can find: Material, Damage Type, and Alignment. You have Cold Iron, Silver, and Adamantine for the materials, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, and "-" for damage type, and Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic for Alignment.
So, let's say we have a Demon Werewolf. Werewolves have DR 5/Silver, and because he's a Demon, he has DR 5/Good. In this instance, you need a Good-Aligned Silver weapon, or your attacks deal 5 less damage.
Because DR 5/good and silver is one source of damage reduction, not two.
Because DR 5/good and silver is one source of damage reduction, not two.
I don't understand what the issue is.
Obviously, whichever set of DR is "better" depends upon the circumstance.
For our hypothetical Demon-Werewolf, if I hit him with a silver (but unaligned) weapon, it's "better" for him that he use DR/good against it, since the silver weapon won't penetrate.
If I hit him with a good (but steel) weapon, then DR/silver is obviously better.
The effect is that DR/good plus DR/silver becomes DR/good and silver in this instance.
Because DR 5/good and silver is one source of damage reduction, not two.
You got any proof of that? It can very well be from two sources, because you need both types to bypass that DR, and if you don't have both, or only have one or the other, then you only take the 1 set of DR.
"Doesn't stack" can just as easily mean that if I had two sources of DR 10, one from Silver, one from Good-aligned, that just 10 damage is reduced, instead of it being 20 if I lacked both components.
Lichens have DR 15/magic and bludgeoning. Not DR 15/magic, DR 15/Bludgeoning. One source of DR, not two.
Lichens have DR 15/magic and bludgeoning. Not DR 15/magic, DR 15/Bludgeoning. One source of DR, not two.
And that's based off of what text?
Also consider the text verbiage for a moment:
Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation."
If I have two sets of Damage Reduction, DR 10/Good and DR 10/Silver, then that means if I'm fighting creatures with either a Good weapon or a Silver weapon, I use the Silver and Good DR, respectively, against them. The same is true for having, say, a Level 10 Invulnerable Rager with Stoneskin cast on him.
This translates to why you can see entries list DR 10/Good and Silver, meaning if an enemy has both types of DR of the same value, it makes sense (and saves space) to write them as requiring both. This means that you can have two sources of DR giving the same amount, but be of a different type, and effectively stack together, requiring both types to bypass both sets of DR (though if you lack either, only one set of DR applies).
(Lastly, for a second there, I thought it said Liches.)
Lichens have DR 15/magic and bludgeoning. Not DR 15/magic, DR 15/Bludgeoning. One source of DR, not two.
So what?
He was asking for proof DR that said 'and' was one source. I provided proof.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This translates to why you can see entries list DR 10/Good and Silver, meaning if an enemy has both types of DR of the same value, it makes sense (and saves space) to write them as requiring both. This means that you can have two sources of DR giving the same amount, but be of a different type, and effectively stack together, requiring both types to bypass both sets of DR (though if you lack either, only one set of DR applies).
They don't even have to be the same amount; it's just that it doesn't abbreviate as clearly.
If I have DR 10/adamantine, 5/silver, and 20/piercing, then we have the following situations.
* If someone hits me for 30 damage with a steel warhammer, I take 10.
* If someone hits me for 30 damage with a silver warhammer, I still take 10, because the 20/piercing provides me with the best protection in this situation.
* If someone hits me (for 30 damage) with a steel arrow, I will take 20 points, because the arrow will overcome the piercing DR, but my best protection is the DR 10/adamantine.
* If someone hits me (...) with an adamantine arrow, my best protection is the 5/silver (because nothing else offers protection) and I take 25.
* Finally, if someone manages to hit me with a piercing weapon that is both adamantine and silver (I'm not sure how, but... whatever), I would take full damage.
The question for the presented situation though is what happens when you have two sources of temporary DR and you're hit with an attack that penetrates neither? Which DR pool is affected?
That's what there are no rules for. Only one of them applies to reduce the damage. The question is, which one? Neither of them is necessarily more beneficial. If one is (for instance, one is permanent and the other is Stoneskin), have the permanent one apply.
This translates to why you can see entries list DR 10/Good and Silver, meaning if an enemy has both types of DR of the same value, it makes sense (and saves space) to write them as requiring both. This means that you can have two sources of DR giving the same amount, but be of a different type, and effectively stack together, requiring both types to bypass both sets of DR (though if you lack either, only one set of DR applies).They don't even have to be the same amount; it's just that it doesn't abbreviate as clearly.
If I have DR 10/adamantine, 5/silver, and 20/piercing, then we have the following situations.
* If someone hits me for 30 damage with a steel warhammer, I take 10.
* If someone hits me for 30 damage with a silver warhammer, I still take 10, because the 20/piercing provides me with the best protection in this situation.
* If someone hits me (for 30 damage) with a steel arrow, I will take 20 points, because the arrow will overcome the piercing DR, but my best protection is the DR 10/adamantine.
* If someone hits me (...) with an adamantine arrow, my best protection is the 5/silver (because nothing else offers protection) and I take 25.
* Finally, if someone manages to hit me with a piercing weapon that is both adamantine and silver (I'm not sure how, but... whatever), I would take full damage.
Most of the time, it won't matter if you have two sources of DR with different weaknesses or one with both. If you have two sources of DR with the same reduction number, you apply one or the other, whichever is most beneficial (so if you have a weapon that bypasses one but not the other, only the helpful one applies). In that regard, it's functionally equivalent to DR/Type 1 & Type 2.
However, if someone is trying to dispel your Stoneskin, suppress your DR-granting magic item, etc., having two sources is different than having one "and" source.
* Finally, if someone manages to hit me with a piercing weapon that is both adamantine and silver (I'm not sure how, but... whatever), I would take full damage.
A +4 rapier should do the trick!
|
CRB p. 562 from Damage Reduction
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one
source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack.
Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage
reduction in a given situation."So from your example, the best damage reduction for the given situation would be the stoneskin...
you don't have to choose anything, the best one apply....
While better does often mean 'higher score', it doesn't have to mean that.
In this case...DR 10/ada
DR 5/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is higher DR, thus you must use this.
DR 10/ada
DR 15/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is lower DR, thus you must use the other.
DR 10/ada
DR 10/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is equal, thus not 'better', but the other does not use up a limited resource and is 'better'.
Expect table variation, though. The definition of 'better' in this case is left up to the GM.
|
|
DR can have an OR between damage types or an AND.
OR means that the reduction can be defeated with EITHER damage type.
AND means that the reduction must be defeated with BOTH types.
Night HAG : 10/cold iron and magic : damage dealt must be both cold iron and magic to penetrate.
Rakshasa, Raktavarna : DR 5/good or piercing : damage dealt can be either good or piecing to penetrate.
Suffice it to say the Night Hags DR is obnoxious. But the Raktavarna's is not too bad.
The question for the presented situation though is what happens when you have two sources of temporary DR and you're hit with an attack that penetrates neither? Which DR pool is affected?
That's what there are no rules for. Only one of them applies to reduce the damage. The question is, which one? Neither of them is necessarily more beneficial. If one is (for instance, one is permanent and the other is Stoneskin), have the permanent one apply.
...the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
So if you're a level 10 Invulnerable Rager with Stoneskin going on, you have DR 5/- and DR 10/Adamantine.
If a creature with a non-Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 10, as the DR 10/Adamantine is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 5, as the DR 5/- is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon that possesses the Greater Penetrating Strike feat attacks you, there is no damage reduction to be applied as Greater Penetrating Strike reduces DR/- by 5 (minimum 0), and he is using the proper material with the associated weapon, meaning neither DR pool is applicable.
Now, if the Invulnerable Rager was level 20 and had DR 10/- with Stoneskin going on, in all cases, unless there was an effect that could bypass DR/- (and not DR/Adamantine), it's most beneficial to use DR/-'s pool, as the DR/Adamantine is limited by a certain amount of HP before it wears away. In any other case, it doesn't really matter which one is used.
|
|
* Finally, if someone manages to hit me with a piercing weapon that is both adamantine and silver (I'm not sure how, but... whatever), I would take full damage.
What comes to mind immediately are both 'Silversheen' and the spell 'Heart of the Metal'. There are other ways to do this, though. Especially with 'counts as' abilities in the mix.
So if you're a level 10 Invulnerable Rager with Stoneskin going on, you have DR 5/- and DR 10/Adamantine.
If a creature with a non-Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 10, as the DR 10/Adamantine is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 5, as the DR 5/- is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon that possesses the Greater Penetrating Strike feat attacks you, there is no damage reduction to be applied as Greater Penetrating Strike reduces DR/- by 5 (minimum 0), and he is using the proper material with the associated weapon, meaning neither DR pool is applicable.
Now, if the Invulnerable Rager was level 20 and had DR 10/- with Stoneskin going on, in all cases, unless there was an effect that could bypass DR/- (and not DR/Adamantine), it's most beneficial to use DR/-'s pool, as the DR/Adamantine is limited by a certain amount of HP before it wears away. In any other case, it doesn't really matter which one is used.
Again, that's not really the question here. These situations are rather clear in how they work. I'm asking about (and the OP is asking about) two temporary sources of DR. Neither is permanent. When one is permanent, how they interact is rather obvious.
Specifically, you have a character who is the beneficiary of both Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine) and Protection from Arrows (DR 10/Magic v. Ranged Attacks). What happens when this character gets attacked by a non-magic, non-adamantine ranged attack? Which pool gets affected? Which DR applies? In the situation, neither is clearly more beneficial. Now how do you decide which applies and using which criteria?
CRB p. 562 from Damage Reduction
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one
source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack.
Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage
reduction in a given situation."So from your example, the best damage reduction for the given situation would be the stoneskin...
you don't have to choose anything, the best one apply....
While better does often mean 'higher score', it doesn't have to mean that.
In this case...DR 10/ada
DR 5/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is higher DR, thus you must use this.DR 10/ada
DR 15/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is lower DR, thus you must use the other.DR 10/ada
DR 10/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is equal, thus not 'better', but the other does not use up a limited resource and is 'better'.
Expect table variation, though. The definition of 'better' in this case is left up to the GM.
Did you mistype or do you mean that you'd have to use DR 15/evil in the second scenario? Because clearly DR 10/Adamantine is the better DR for that circumstance, meaning Stoneskin should apply, not DR 15/evil.
Hey all,
Consider the case where a character has:
Stoneskin, DR10/Ada, maximum 10/CL negated
&
Spell Effect that grants DR10/whatever, let's say evil for example.
If struck by a non-evil, non adamantium source, could the character choose to count his non-stoneskin DR for that attack in order to conserve the maximum damage negated from stoneskin?
By the rules, since stoneskin is still acting to reduce damage, the points still get knocked off. the fact that another form of DR is assisting is irrelevant.
Specifically, you have a character who is the beneficiary of both Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine) and Protection from Arrows (DR 10/Magic v. Ranged Attacks). What happens when this character gets attacked by a non-magic, non-adamantine ranged attack? Which pool gets affected? Which DR applies? In the situation, neither is clearly more beneficial. Now how do you decide which applies and using which criteria?
More information is needed. Remember that this is decided on a situation-by-situation basis, so if there's any reason in that specific situation that one would be better, that's the one that would apply.
If there's no reason to believe either is better, flip a coin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule that in the case of having both stoneskin (DR 10/adamantine; CL5, prevents up to 50 damage) and protection from arrows (DR 10/magic ranged; CL5, prevents up to 50 damage) that the damage is deducted from both.
If you are hit by a normal arrow for 12 damage, you take 2 damage after DR. Both stoneskin and protection from arrows lose 10 points from their damage prevention regardless of which one is more beneficial.
That's completely unjustifiable. Only one of them actually prevented damage; that's not only not "best," but that's actively worst.
By the rules, since stoneskin is still acting to reduce damage, the points still get knocked off. the fact that another form of DR is assisting is irrelevant.
That's an, er, "innovative" interpretation of the rules -- "Once the spell [stoneskin has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 150 points), it is discharged." That's a causal statement; if the spell didn't cause the damage not to be applied, it doesn't count towards discharge.
Has stoneskin prevented the damage? If the other ability prevented the damage, then the points are not ablated.
Specifically, you have a character who is the beneficiary of both Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine) and Protection from Arrows (DR 10/Magic v. Ranged Attacks). What happens when this character gets attacked by a non-magic, non-adamantine ranged attack? Which pool gets affected? Which DR applies? In the situation, neither is clearly more beneficial. Now how do you decide which applies and using which criteria?More information is needed. Remember that this is decided on a situation-by-situation basis, so if there's any reason in that specific situation that one would be better, that's the one that would apply.
If there's no reason to believe either is better, flip a coin.
That's pretty much the conclusion I came to earlier, too. Likely whatever additional information that might be relevant is likely very much specific to the encounter or adventure in which the encounter is occurring.
So my default in that case is "let the player decide". Maybe they put up Protection from Arrows because they're in the process of hunting down that Archery Style Ranger, so right now they want to go through their Stoneskin. Whatever.
This is one of those "make a decision and roll with it things".
|
|
Did you mistype or do you mean that you'd have to use DR 15/evil in the second scenario? Because clearly DR 10/Adamantine is the better DR for that circumstance, meaning Stoneskin should apply, not DR 15/evil.CRB p. 562 from Damage Reduction
"If a creature has damage reduction from more than one
source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack.
Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage
reduction in a given situation."So from your example, the best damage reduction for the given situation would be the stoneskin...
you don't have to choose anything, the best one apply....
While better does often mean 'higher score', it doesn't have to mean that.
In this case...DR 10/ada
DR 5/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is higher DR, thus you must use this.DR 10/ada
DR 15/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is lower DR, thus you must use the other.DR 10/ada
DR 10/evil
Struck by something evil...
Stoneskin is equal, thus not 'better', but the other does not use up a limited resource and is 'better'.
Expect table variation, though. The definition of 'better' in this case is left up to the GM.
I mistyped for the whole thing. I meant 'not evil' >.<
Wraithstrike, if the intent is that you only get one source of DR, then why are there creatures that require two different means to bypass DR (such as Silver and Good)?
It ultimately depends on what the type of DR is. There are 3 categories of DR that I can find: Material, Damage Type, and Alignment. You have Cold Iron, Silver, and Adamantine for the materials, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, and "-" for damage type, and Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic for Alignment.
So, let's say we have a Demon Werewolf. Werewolves have DR 5/Silver, and because he's a Demon, he has DR 5/Good. In this instance, you need a Good-Aligned Silver weapon, or your attacks deal 5 less damage.
That is not what I was saying at all.
My earlier post was about which one applied first. The rules specifically allow you to have more than one source of DR.
Cuttler's post should have been the end of this. If you have two or more sources of DR, only the best one is applied. If two different DRs are coming in with the same number, then the order of priority should be Dash -> Alignment-based -> Adamantine -> Cold Iron/Silver -> Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. That priority is from the Overcoming DR table.
If two different DRs both have the same number and both all into the same category, let the player pick.
|
|
Cuttler's post should have been the end of this. If you have two or more sources of DR, only the best one is applied. If two different DRs are coming in with the same number, then the order of priority should be Alignment-based -> Adamantine -> Cold Iron/Silver -> Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing. If two different DRs both have the same number and both all into the same category, let the player pick.
That's not a definitive answer, which is what is being looked for. That is a reasonable answer.
The real answer is... better trumps worse numberswise, but anything else is up to the GM or get a dev response/FAQ.
Something being situationally better doesn't mean it's categorically better. If I'm fighting somebody using an adamantine longsword, I would rather have DR 5/bludgeoning than DR 50/adamantine. But that doesn't matter, the DR 50/adamantine is still categorically better, even if it just so happens to be worse in that particular situation.
So if you're a level 10 Invulnerable Rager with Stoneskin going on, you have DR 5/- and DR 10/Adamantine.
If a creature with a non-Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 10, as the DR 10/Adamantine is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon attacks you, you reduce the damage by 5, as the DR 5/- is the best damage reduction in that situation.
If a creature with an Adamantine melee weapon that possesses the Greater Penetrating Strike feat attacks you, there is no damage reduction to be applied as Greater Penetrating Strike reduces DR/- by 5 (minimum 0), and he is using the proper material with the associated weapon, meaning neither DR pool is applicable.
Now, if the Invulnerable Rager was level 20 and had DR 10/- with Stoneskin going on, in all cases, unless there was an effect that could bypass DR/- (and not DR/Adamantine), it's most beneficial to use DR/-'s pool, as the DR/Adamantine is limited by a certain amount of HP before it wears away. In any other case, it doesn't really matter which one is used.
Again, that's not really the question here. These situations are rather clear in how they work. I'm asking about (and the OP is asking about) two temporary sources of DR. Neither is permanent. When one is permanent, how they interact is rather obvious.
Specifically, you have a character who is the beneficiary of both Stoneskin (DR 10/Adamantine) and Protection from Arrows (DR 10/Magic v. Ranged Attacks). What happens when this character gets attacked by a non-magic, non-adamantine ranged attack? Which pool gets affected? Which DR applies? In the situation, neither is clearly more beneficial. Now how do you decide which applies and using which criteria?
From there, I'd go based off of the physics of each spell in relation to the attack. Risky stuff, I know, but since you said there's nothing clear in the rules about whatever effect applies, our only other alternative is to configure how each effect reduces damage, and which one would be affected in a chronological course of events.
Let's take Stoneskin, which is self-explanatory in its effect; your skin becomes stone, ergo you have DR 10/Adamantine for anything that hits you. Next, we have Protection from Arrows, which places a ward (effectively a barrier) around you that reduces the effectiveness of any non-magical arrows shot at you.
In terms of physics, when an arrow (or other projectile ranged attack) is shot towards the target, chronologically speaking, it would affect the ward that Protection from Arrows applies before it would even touch you (i.e. your stone skin), meaning that technically speaking, the Protection from Arrows would take the absorption, and the Stoneskin would actually do nothing, per the rules. Obviously this is open to GM FIAT, but quite frankly if the rules are silent, GM FIAT is the closest thing to a rule answer you can get.
Even so, remember the rule is that you must apply the best DR in a given situation. In this situation, DR 10/Magic would be more beneficial to the creature, primarily because DR 10/Adamantine applies to more than just ranged weapons, and since the DR 10/Magic applies only to ranged attacks, its the most beneficial option to the creature.
Something being situationally better doesn't mean it's categorically better. If I'm fighting somebody using an adamantine longsword, I would rather have DR 5/bludgeoning than DR 50/adamantine. But that doesn't matter, the DR 50/adamantine is still categorically better, even if it just so happens to be worse in that particular situation.
It's a good thing that DR being categorically better (i.e. DR/- versus DR/Evil) doesn't matter when you're applying it to an attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's completely unjustifiable. Only one of them actually prevented damage; that's not only not "best," but that's actively worst.It is justifiable, since effects that provide 'ablative' or deducted protection are reduced or discharged despite in-place resistances. This is seen in completely similar cases like protection from energy and resist energy. Even, and especially, in the case where the resisted damage type might have been negated by the resistance.
Only if you are implying that long standing rule and interaction only functions specifically for protection from energy and resist energy can you claim it's unjustifiable. You could try and claim that resistance isn't damage reduction, but I think you'd have a harder time pointing out the differences. They are both damage reduction, one is just used to differentiate energy and the other weapon damage.
It is not justifiable.
Only one source of DR can prevent the damage. They do not stack. Thus, do not stack to 20, and do not cooperatively reduce damage.And, you apply 20 points of penalty to the player while only giving 10 points of benefit.
What COULD be justifiable is taking 5 points from each. As that equals 10 points of benefit for 10 points of penalty. Though, that would require their effects stack even if their numbers do not.
Also, resist energy and protection from energy are not the normal case. Protection from energy is specifically written to go first. You can't take a specific case and apply it as a general rule. Simply because it is a specific case about a specific thing. You are also missing the specific point here... one overlaps the other in that relationship. DR does not do that. It just merely doesn't stack, and only the 'best' applies in a situation.
Protection from energy overlaps (and does not stack with) resist energy.
But, even if you did assume they work the same way, you're getting how they interact wrong. Protection from energy goes first. Thus there is no energy damage left to protect against until the spell ends. But if you take 10 damage, there is 5 damage left of protection... resist energy will take care of that last 5 points. As it goes second, and is not bypassed.
Though, it would not be unreasonable for a GM to say it comes off Stoneskin first because it is limited use, and cite protection from energy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something being situationally better doesn't mean it's categorically better. If I'm fighting somebody using an adamantine longsword, I would rather have DR 5/bludgeoning than DR 50/adamantine. But that doesn't matter, the DR 50/adamantine is still categorically better, even if it just so happens to be worse in that particular situation.
Adamantine greatsword swings at you...
Can DR 50/adamantine protect me? No. Is not good in this situation.Can DR 10/good protect me? Yes. Is good in this situation.
Can DR 5/bludgeoning protect me? Is good in this situation.
Is DR 10/good 'better' than DR 5/blugeoning? Yes.
DR 10/good is used. Reduce 10 from the total damage.
So, I'm not sure of your point. As this is how DR works, on situational basis.
It is justifiable, since effects that provide 'ablative' or deducted protection are reduced or discharged despite in-place resistances.
Not really. Stoneskin says "once the spell has prevented a total of 10 damage per caster level".
By definition, that means that if stoneskin is not preventing damage it can't be discharged, because how long it lasts is explicitly based on how much damage the spell prevents.
I was defining what 'best' meant for both category and situational purposes.
Read the 2nd post again. That should have been the last post said on the matter.
|
|
wrote a bunch of stuff
You wrote a very very long apples and oranges comparison.
Ablative barrier is not DR(when the damage is lethal). So, of course there is no 'apply one or the other' logic.
Also, since the game uses ambiguous order of operations logic, most of the time, you must apply both at the same time. Ablative converts, and stoneskin applies. There is no overlapping rules here, and no 'only one applies' rule.
DR has a specific way to be handled. In this case it came from a spell, and has a limited use... but that doesn't matter. The rules for DR still apply. There is no text in the spells to say they should be handled differently. They do not stack, only one is used. That's part of the basics for DR.
It is unreasonable to subtract more damage from protective sources than is prevented when there is no direct text saying you should. Simply put. You are just punishing the players at that point.
Choose one or split the difference... the rules for DR say choose one. But I can understand handling the ambiguity by splitting the difference. Like the DR was oscillating.
As for ambiguous cases... you can give the 'player' a choice in ambiguous cases. Such as the Stoneskin / protection from arrows issue. He is not the 'character'. This isn't representing the character knowing something. It is just a quick way to handle it. You can also make the choice yourself, as GM.
Because DR 5/good and silver is one source of damage reduction, not two.You got any proof of that? It can very well be from two sources, because you need both types to bypass that DR, and if you don't have both, or only have one or the other, then you only take the 1 set of DR.
"Doesn't stack" can just as easily mean that if I had two sources of DR 10, one from Silver, one from Good-aligned, that just 10 damage is reduced, instead of it being 20 if I lacked both components.
Are you trying to say that DR 10 Silver from one source and DR 10 Good from another source stack to negate 20 points of damage?
Are you also saying that DR 10 Good and Silver negate 20 points of damage?
I really think the book quote means you should use whichever DR negates the most damage after reading it again, but until we get something official I would let it affect stoneskin last.
Now I will go press the FAQ button.
I somehow missed they both came from spells. In that case I agree with most recent effect taking precedent. I don't know if that is right, but it seems like the best answer for now.