Lobster creature immunity and gm ruling

[Aroth Khashar]

My players recently encountered a "Globster" (Bestiary 3, p131), which is immune to both bludgeoning and piercing damage. Unfortunately two of the players are ratfolk that use natural attacks (bite and claws) that deal bludgeoning damage AND slashing (and piercing in the case of the bite). I ruled that since the attacks deal a type of damage the creature was immune to, they were ineffective. The players both approached me after the session and expressed their opinion that since the attacks ALSO did slashing they should have bypassed the immunity.

I am curious if other GMs agree with my ruling in this situation, or if (and how) they would have ruled differently.

[yukongil]

it should have bypassed their immunity because the attack inflicts a type of damage that they are not immune to. You could read it like infinite DR/slashing. As long as the attack does slashing, it's ignoring the DR, just like if a creature had DR 10/Silver or Good, the weapon doesn't need both, just one or the other.

As GM though, depending on how tough I wanted to make the fight, I think it would have been alright to half their damage, though I don't think claws normally do bludgeoning at all, so that'd be moot.

[Scavion]

yukongil wrote:

As GM though, depending on how tough I wanted to make the fight, I think it would have been alright to half their damage, though I don't think claws normally do bludgeoning at all, so that'd be moot.

Claws are Slashing/Bludgeoning.

But yeah, for stuff like that, if any component contains slashing, it all bypasses for melee attacks unless it specifically says otherwise.

[Ryze Kuja]

Yeah there are weapons and natural attacks that deal B, P, and/or S damage, and when these weapons deal two damage types like B & P, they would bypass a creature’s like DR/ B or P. It sounds like your players are correct.

[Quixote]

Weapons with multiple damage types are better than those with just one. It's considered an advantageous feature. If DR/immunities worked like you ruled, this would not be the case. The more types of damage an attack deals, the higher the chances it could be nullified.

[zza ni]

do notice that there is a difference between having 'damage type x or type y' (say a dagger for example) and having 'damage type x & damage type y' (not common in normal weapons but some, like a morning-star, has that).

in the first case the user can only inflict one type with each attack. so if he doesn't know and use the wrong type dr matter (he need to decide before hand which type of damage he uses in each attack). in the 2nd case it count as both types at the same time and so it bypasses dr if any of them bypass the dr.

natural attacks specifically is called out to be of the latter kind ('&'):
"The Damage Type column refers to the sort of damage that the natural attack typically deals: bludgeoning (B), slashing (S), or piercing (P). Some attacks deal damage of more than one type, depending on the creature. In such cases, all the damage is considered to be of all listed types for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

[Claxon]

Zza ni's quote really cinches this, as it specifies that all damage is of all listed types for natural attacks.

Meaning if the natural attack did 20 damage, and it was with a natural attack that did slashing & bludgeoning, then all 20 damage is both slashing and bludgeoning. And because it's slashing, it bypasses the DR.

In this case it looks like you ruled incorrectly.

[yukongil]

where is the chart that lists what kind of damage natural attacks are? I can't seem to find it in Masterwork Tools.

[Scavion]

yukongil wrote:

where is the chart that lists what kind of damage natural attacks are? I can't seem to find it in Masterwork Tools.

It's under Universal Monster Rules - Natural Attacks. The chart is named "Natural Attacks by Size".

[Artofregicide]

I'm not immune to lobster creatures but I am immune to GM rulings.

[UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm]

Artofregicide wrote:

I'm not immune to lobster creatures but I am immune to GM rulings.

You are not immune to the Might of the Swarm, come, face your DOOM, you are NOTHING before the Perfection of Undeath!

[yukongil]

Scavion wrote:

yukongil wrote:

where is the chart that lists what kind of damage natural attacks are? I can't seem to find it in Masterwork Tools.

It's under Universal Monster Rules - Natural Attacks. The chart is named "Natural Attacks by Size".

ah, thank you! I was looking under monster creation and advancement, didn't think they'd hide the chart in there.

[Artofregicide]

UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm wrote:

Artofregicide wrote:

I'm not immune to lobster creatures but I am immune to GM rulings.

You are not immune to the Might of the Swarm, come, face your DOOM, you are NOTHING before the Perfection of Undeath!

I am already undead?

[Thread Necromancers' Guild]

Artofregicide wrote:

UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm wrote:

Artofregicide wrote:

I'm not immune to lobster creatures but I am immune to GM rulings.

You are not immune to the Might of the Swarm, come, face your DOOM, you are NOTHING before the Perfection of Undeath!

I am already undead?

Don't worry, they're cool. One of the founding members of the TNG.

[UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm]

Artofregicide wrote:

UD Sentient Squirrel Swarm wrote:

Artofregicide wrote:

I'm not immune to lobster creatures but I am immune to GM rulings.

You are not immune to the Might of the Swarm, come, face your DOOM, you are NOTHING before the Perfection of Undeath!

I am already undead?

The swarm inches closer and sniffs you. After a brief moment, it seems the swarm approves.

"Ah, greetings my Compatriot in Undeath."

The Swarm of Undead Sentient Squirrels scurries forward along the path before you, while three of the squirrels climb your back and perch themselves on your shoulders, observing the surroundings for potential danger.

[Pizza Lord]

I would only add a caveat that while the Universal Monster rules for Natural Attacks do indeed state that claws are Bludgeoning and Slashing and that Bites are Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing that these are only general, universal go-tos.

There are far too many creatures and even more variations on claws and bites and mouths and teeth for one simple table to cover every variation. Again, while everyone is correct that in the case that an attack that does all three will bypass DR if even one form would, you must also be prepared to make a ruling or a call based on actual physical properties of the creatures at hand, using common sense and fairness.

You are fully within your purview (and it's actually expected of you), to be able to declare that a cow's bite is, in fact, only considered bludgeoning.

You are also perfectly within your rights and it could be fairly stated that a viper's bite is only piercing, since they (or even this particular, specific viper) does not have rending or slashing incisors or bring in enough bite force to cause bludgeoning damage from either blunt, grinding teeth or the sheer force of biting down (whereas a hippo would , even without its large teeth that clearly would do slashing and piercing or even its blunt teeth, just the sheer strength of clamping down even with toothless gums).

In the case of ratfolk, if their teeth are described as being sharp and needle-like, you could absolutely fairly say that they do not do slashing damage. This kind of thing is better off ruled on and explained before it becomes an issue, as few players would want to be blindsided with it (even if they agree and understand). Their claws would still have damaged the creature most likely, in any case.

[Sysryke]

Pizza Lord wrote:

I would only add a caveat that while the Universal Monster rules for Natural Attacks do indeed state that claws are Bludgeoning and Slashing and that Bites are Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing that these are only general, universal go-tos.

There are far too many creatures and even more variations on claws and bites and mouths and teeth for one simple table to cover every variation. Again, while everyone is correct that in the case that an attack that does all three will bypass DR if even one form would, you must also be prepared to make a ruling or a call based on actual physical properties of the creatures at hand, using common sense and fairness.

You are fully within your purview (and it's actually expected of you), to be able to declare that a cow's bite is, in fact, only considered bludgeoning.

You are also perfectly within your rights and it could be fairly stated that a viper's bite is only piercing, since they (or even this particular, specific viper) does not have rending or slashing incisors or bring in enough bite force to cause bludgeoning damage from either blunt, grinding teeth or the sheer force of biting down (whereas a hippo would , even without its large teeth that clearly would do slashing and piercing or even its blunt teeth, just the sheer strength of clamping down even with toothless gums).

In the case of ratfolk, if their teeth are described as being sharp and needle-like, you could absolutely fairly say that they do not do slashing damage. This kind of thing is better off ruled on and explained before it becomes an issue, as few players would want to be blindsided with it (even if they agree and understand). Their claws would still have damaged the creature most likely, in any case.

Fair reasoning, except that rat teeth (and rodent teeth in general) are oversized incisors. Those are cutting (slashing) teeth. Rodents are also notorious gnawers. While ratfolk may not exactly be there true animal kin, their teeth should closely match. Since your average human doesn't get a bit attack, our teeth can be considered negligible. The ratfolk's bites should absolutely do slashing damage, maybe piercing (like how nuts get cracked). Bludgeoning is the only damage type I'd think could be houseruled out of their bites.

Either way, mistake was made, in this case GM was incorrect. Sorry.

[Quixote]

(Sysryke, I responded to that message, by the way. Not sure if you saw. I didn't notice for a long time, since these forum's PM functions don't do very well on a mobile device, etc)

[Sysryke]

Quixote wrote:

(Sysryke, I responded to that message, by the way. Not sure if you saw. I didn't notice for a long time, since these forum's PM functions don't do very well on a mobile device, etc)

Appreciate it, I did see.

Carry on, sorry for the momentary derail.