Damage Reduction #/- [Archive] - Wizards Community

Damage Reduction #/- [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ogiwan
05-09-06, 08:30 PM Greetings all. I'm reading the DMG blurb on DR on page 291-292, and what i'm getting out of it is contrary to my previous understanding. Previously, i thought DR 3/- means that no matter what, 3 damage is deducted from the damage roll. However, after reading the entry on the DMG, it appears as if any weapon that would ignore any type of damage reduction will deny that /- DR. So, Thag the Barbarian can get hit by a silvered weapon, and he wouldn't get his DR. When hit by a normal weapon, he does.

Is this correct?
Aniona_Amakiir
05-09-06, 08:40 PM Nope DR x/- is against all physical damage (not acid, fire and such).
Shadowfax7
05-09-06, 08:55 PM Physical damage from weapons and natural atacks . . . not falls ans such.
teclis
05-10-06, 02:33 AM DR/- reduces damage from physical attacks.

thus, attacks by weapons or natural weapons gets reduced, likewise constrict damage from grapple checks, or non-leathal damage by unarmed strkes.

damage that does not get reduced: spell damage, energy damage (fire, frost, lightning, acid) negative or positive energy damage, falling damage.

any questions?
Bulletproof_Condom
05-10-06, 04:17 AM However, after reading the entry on the DMG, it appears as if any weapon that would ignore any type of damage reduction will deny that /- DR.
Nonono... Any attack that ignores any type of damage reduction (meaning all of them) bypasses DR/—. They didn't mean "if a weapon is capable of bypassing a form of damage reduction, then it is also capable of bypassing —." They were trying to say that "attacks that aren't subject to DR in the first place get around —." This means that energy damage and spell damage apply normally on creatures with DR/—, but physical weapon attacks have their damage reduced normally.

Where exactly is the passage that confused you? Be as specific as possible.

The —em dash— is ALT+0151 by the way.
Terraneaux
05-10-06, 04:45 AM Why does DR reduce falling damage? It's physical damage, right?
Pegasos989
05-10-06, 07:07 AM I can't understand not reducing falling damage either. I have always just treated is a bludgeoning damage, sor of like you would have been hit to your feet witha warhammer. :/
Terraneaux
05-10-06, 07:15 AM I don't treat it as bludgeoning but I treat it as something that is affected by DR.

Mainly because I like the idea of being able to fall at terminal velocity and land on your feet if your DR is high enough.
Wonton2006
05-10-06, 08:02 AM Not with a WEAPON that can bypass DR. With an ATTACK than can bypass DR. So, for example, if your flaming shortsword hits something with DR 10/-, unless you have a pretty high strength bonus, you have no chance of doing actual slashing damage. The 1d6 fire gets through, though, easily. Spells that don't mimc weapons or say they do a specific type of damage (bludgeoning, peircing, or slashing) aren't affected either. For example, Ice Storm deals 3d6 bludgeoning and 2d6 cold. Let's say you rolled 13 on 3d6 and 5 on 2d6. Against something with DR 5/- or DR 5/Slashing, you'd do 8 bludgeoning damage, and 5 cold.

Clear enough for ya?
runestar
05-10-06, 08:11 AM There are certain attacks which eschew dr, such as the light rays of the ghaele and lantern archon. :)

Basically, text trumps rules. Normally, no physical attack can overcome dr X/-, unless the damage source states otherwise, then, it can. ;)
Toran_A_Sunder
05-10-06, 08:14 AM Ok, so to expand on the OP, if fire, acid, etc is not reduced through DR, does that mean a char with DR #/- doesn't take the 1d8 a longsword deals out, but DOES take the extra 1d6 cus the longsword is flaming?
Merestil Haye
05-10-06, 08:34 AM Ok, so to expand on the OP, if fire, acid, etc is not reduced through DR, does that mean a char with DR #/- doesn't take the 1d8 a longsword deals out, but DOES take the extra 1d6 cus the longsword is flaming?It means that the character's DR applies against the weapon's normal damage, but not against the fire.

An example : A character with Str 17 wielding a +1 Flaming longsword goes up against a creature with DR5/- and no protection from fire. On a successful hit, the attacker rolls 1d8, adds his Str modifier and +1 for the weapon, for a total of 1d8+4 damage, plus an additional 1d6 fire damage. On a roll of 1 the sword does no damage, but the fire still burns for 1d6 damage. If the attacker rolled a 7 on the d8, the target would take 7 damage from the sword plus 1d6 fire damage.

On DR and spells, Wonton2006 is in error. It does not matter in the slightest whether a spell's damage has a physical type or not. DR does not apply, ever except in very restricted circumstances. The rules on DR do not say "if damage from spells has a physical type then DR applies." it saysThe creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.There is no clause that reduces damage from spells if the spell does a physical type of damage. It is still damage from a spell, and bypasses all DR.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ogiwan 05-09-06, 08:30 PM	Greetings all. I'm reading the DMG blurb on DR on page 291-292, and what i'm getting out of it is contrary to my previous understanding. Previously, i thought DR 3/- means that no matter what, 3 damage is deducted from the damage roll. However, after reading the entry on the DMG, it appears as if any weapon that would ignore any type of damage reduction will deny that /- DR. So, Thag the Barbarian can get hit by a silvered weapon, and he wouldn't get his DR. When hit by a normal weapon, he does. Is this correct?
Aniona_Amakiir 05-09-06, 08:40 PM	Nope DR x/- is against all physical damage (not acid, fire and such).
Shadowfax7 05-09-06, 08:55 PM	Physical damage from weapons and natural atacks . . . not falls ans such.
teclis 05-10-06, 02:33 AM	DR/- reduces damage from physical attacks. thus, attacks by weapons or natural weapons gets reduced, likewise constrict damage from grapple checks, or non-leathal damage by unarmed strkes. damage that does not get reduced: spell damage, energy damage (fire, frost, lightning, acid) negative or positive energy damage, falling damage. any questions?
Bulletproof_Condom 05-10-06, 04:17 AM	However, after reading the entry on the DMG, it appears as if any weapon that would ignore any type of damage reduction will deny that /- DR. Nonono... Any attack that ignores any type of damage reduction (meaning all of them) bypasses DR/—. They didn't mean "if a weapon is capable of bypassing a form of damage reduction, then it is also capable of bypassing —." They were trying to say that "attacks that aren't subject to DR in the first place get around —." This means that energy damage and spell damage apply normally on creatures with DR/—, but physical weapon attacks have their damage reduced normally. Where exactly is the passage that confused you? Be as specific as possible. The —em dash— is ALT+0151 by the way.
Terraneaux 05-10-06, 04:45 AM	Why does DR reduce falling damage? It's physical damage, right?
Pegasos989 05-10-06, 07:07 AM	I can't understand not reducing falling damage either. I have always just treated is a bludgeoning damage, sor of like you would have been hit to your feet witha warhammer. :/
Terraneaux 05-10-06, 07:15 AM	I don't treat it as bludgeoning but I treat it as something that is affected by DR. Mainly because I like the idea of being able to fall at terminal velocity and land on your feet if your DR is high enough.
Wonton2006 05-10-06, 08:02 AM	Not with a WEAPON that can bypass DR. With an ATTACK than can bypass DR. So, for example, if your flaming shortsword hits something with DR 10/-, unless you have a pretty high strength bonus, you have no chance of doing actual slashing damage. The 1d6 fire gets through, though, easily. Spells that don't mimc weapons or say they do a specific type of damage (bludgeoning, peircing, or slashing) aren't affected either. For example, Ice Storm deals 3d6 bludgeoning and 2d6 cold. Let's say you rolled 13 on 3d6 and 5 on 2d6. Against something with DR 5/- or DR 5/Slashing, you'd do 8 bludgeoning damage, and 5 cold. Clear enough for ya?
runestar 05-10-06, 08:11 AM	There are certain attacks which eschew dr, such as the light rays of the ghaele and lantern archon. :) Basically, text trumps rules. Normally, no physical attack can overcome dr X/-, unless the damage source states otherwise, then, it can. ;)
Toran_A_Sunder 05-10-06, 08:14 AM	Ok, so to expand on the OP, if fire, acid, etc is not reduced through DR, does that mean a char with DR #/- doesn't take the 1d8 a longsword deals out, but DOES take the extra 1d6 cus the longsword is flaming?
Merestil Haye 05-10-06, 08:34 AM	Ok, so to expand on the OP, if fire, acid, etc is not reduced through DR, does that mean a char with DR #/- doesn't take the 1d8 a longsword deals out, but DOES take the extra 1d6 cus the longsword is flaming?It means that the character's DR applies against the weapon's normal damage, but not against the fire. An example : A character with Str 17 wielding a +1 Flaming longsword goes up against a creature with DR5/- and no protection from fire. On a successful hit, the attacker rolls 1d8, adds his Str modifier and +1 for the weapon, for a total of 1d8+4 damage, plus an additional 1d6 fire damage. On a roll of 1 the sword does no damage, but the fire still burns for 1d6 damage. If the attacker rolled a 7 on the d8, the target would take 7 damage from the sword plus 1d6 fire damage. On DR and spells, Wonton2006 is in error. It does not matter in the slightest whether a spell's damage has a physical type or not. DR does not apply, ever except in very restricted circumstances. The rules on DR do not say "if damage from spells has a physical type then DR applies." it saysThe creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.There is no clause that reduces damage from spells if the spell does a physical type of damage. It is still damage from a spell, and bypasses all DR.