dust stuffed DR errata? [Archive] - Wizards Community

dust stuffed DR errata? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
heirodule
03-11-08, 05:02 PM Soemwhere I recall someone noting that some D&D supplements seem to have gotten DR backwards.

Is that the case with teh Explorer's Handbook dust-stuffed template?

I ask because the template gives DR 15/bludgeoning, which means that S and P weapons have a tough time getting through the DR.

But then it also says that if you do 20 points of S or P damage in one round, you cause dust to spew out (harming attackers). But if the DR is 15 versus those, you'd have to do ALOT of damage.

So does that make sense?
Edymnion
03-11-08, 08:44 PM Yeah, there was a period there where WotC apparently got a whole new writing staff, or at least let a bunch of new guys write books, because those are everywhere within a certain timeframe.

Apparently they didn't understand that the word that came after the slash is what overcame the DR, not what it blocked.

When the DR X/Whatever says one thing, and the description says another (especially when its the exact opposite of the DR X/Whatever), use what is written in the description.

Dust Stuffed should be, accourding to what you put there (I haven't checked), DR 15/Slashing or Piercing, not DR 15/Bludgeoning.
Syltorian
03-12-08, 06:25 AM Dust Stuffed should be, accourding to what you put there (I haven't checked), DR 15/Slashing or Piercing, not DR 15/Bludgeoning.

I haven't checked either, but I believe Edy is correct. Beyond the effects of Slashing and Piercing weapons as Heirodule describes, it just does not make sense that a creature that is essentially a doll, skin stuffed with dust and animated, should be vulnerable to bludgeoning...

I doubt this will ever get officially errata'ed, along with so many other things, now that they focus on 4E. In this circumstances, if some of us got together to put up an 'unofficial errata' (say, on an Eberron wiki, cf. my sig which I have not had time to check out for ages), would that be a copyright infringement?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
heirodule 03-11-08, 05:02 PM	Soemwhere I recall someone noting that some D&D supplements seem to have gotten DR backwards. Is that the case with teh Explorer's Handbook dust-stuffed template? I ask because the template gives DR 15/bludgeoning, which means that S and P weapons have a tough time getting through the DR. But then it also says that if you do 20 points of S or P damage in one round, you cause dust to spew out (harming attackers). But if the DR is 15 versus those, you'd have to do ALOT of damage. So does that make sense?
Edymnion 03-11-08, 08:44 PM	Yeah, there was a period there where WotC apparently got a whole new writing staff, or at least let a bunch of new guys write books, because those are everywhere within a certain timeframe. Apparently they didn't understand that the word that came after the slash is what overcame the DR, not what it blocked. When the DR X/Whatever says one thing, and the description says another (especially when its the exact opposite of the DR X/Whatever), use what is written in the description. Dust Stuffed should be, accourding to what you put there (I haven't checked), DR 15/Slashing or Piercing, not DR 15/Bludgeoning.
Syltorian 03-12-08, 06:25 AM	Dust Stuffed should be, accourding to what you put there (I haven't checked), DR 15/Slashing or Piercing, not DR 15/Bludgeoning. I haven't checked either, but I believe Edy is correct. Beyond the effects of Slashing and Piercing weapons as Heirodule describes, it just does not make sense that a creature that is essentially a doll, skin stuffed with dust and animated, should be vulnerable to bludgeoning... I doubt this will ever get officially errata'ed, along with so many other things, now that they focus on 4E. In this circumstances, if some of us got together to put up an 'unofficial errata' (say, on an Eberron wiki, cf. my sig which I have not had time to check out for ages), would that be a copyright infringement?