Post/Author/DateTime	Post
smrtgmp 08-27-05, 04:21 AM	I first saw this quoted on the psionics board, and figured I'd post it here for all of you who wont step foot over there. Does damage reduction help against powers that deal slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage, such as crystal shard (Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 89)? Spells (and powers), spell-like abilities, and energy attacks ignore damage reduction (DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide, page 292). Thus, even if a spell or power describes its damage as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power) effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise). Emphasis mine. So there ya go. Officially, black tentacles, ice storm, meteor swarm, etc all bypass DR.
Egres 08-27-05, 04:27 AM	Edited.
smrtgmp 08-27-05, 04:46 AM	now I'm dying to know what you edited out. :)
Bopple 08-27-05, 05:05 AM	As it is an instantaneous creation(not subject to AMF), it's a different case from those spells. And it can ignore DR, but Telekinesis cannot? Bleh. But then again, official is official.
Venom of the Yuan Ti 08-27-05, 06:00 AM	OK, so two questions (well one and a half cause one only exits if the other answers no) 1. What about swarms, does the differant type of damadge affect tehm differantly (ie half from slash/piercing) 2. If no, why bother with damadge types for spells AT ALL?
Egres 08-27-05, 06:34 AM	now I'm dying to know what you edited out. :) I didn't notice that bit, I first saw this quoted on the psionics board and I was claiming my "prize" for my quickness. :) :P
smrtgmp 08-27-05, 04:14 PM	Thats what I figured. :)
green_yawgmoth 08-27-05, 05:16 PM	OK, so two questions (well one and a half cause one only exits if the other answers no) 1. What about swarms, does the differant type of damadge affect tehm differantly (ie half from slash/piercing) 2. If no, why bother with damadge types for spells AT ALL? Because some creatures have immunity to a certain damage type, or take a fraction of damage from a certain type; skeletons for example take half damage from piercing and slashing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Vanigo 08-27-05, 06:19 PM	Because some creatures have immunity to a certain damage type, or take a fraction of damage from a certain type; skeletons for example take half damage from piercing and slashing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gifWell, in 3.0, they do. In 3.5 they have DR 5/bludgeoning. There are other creatures that react differently to different damage types, of course. Hydras, for instance.
FriendoftheDork 08-27-05, 11:40 PM	Seems to be the writer of the FAQ made a poorly thought response. Since what it says contradicts the rest of the rules. It's not the power that deals damage, it's the cystal shard. Thus it is piercing (which would otherwise be irrelevant in every case), and subject to DR. That the power ignores SR (PR) is also a point, which spells do you got that deals direct damage and ignores SR and DR?
redraven 08-28-05, 12:14 AM	Hmmm. So, a Crystal Shard, Orb of Acid, ect, is still a power/spell despite being an instantaneous conjuration effect? Does this imply that they cannot penetrate an Antimagic Field? As always, this raises more questions than it does answers.
ceord 08-28-05, 12:42 AM	spells can't (generally; see Initiate of Mystra) function inside the antimagic field. The general rule to use is that if the 'substance' dissapates after casting, it is magical, and won't work in the field. One might have an argument for a spell that bypasses SR and the substance 'conjured' remains.
ceord 08-28-05, 12:48 AM	oh, and considering all the errors in the errata over time, I expect the 'DR doesn't apply to spells even if they have a physical type' to be revoked eventually. The only reason I can think of to maintain the 'type' were the current errata logical would be on the chance that something is 'more vulnerable' to that type (but then, I'd argue that all others have 'DR' if you consider the vulnerable creature 'normal'...so if one species is 'vulnerable', then all are affected 'fully' as if vulnerable if DR is ignored...see the loop?). Now, let's discuss how silly the 'light ray' of ghaele is...note that a wizard can shapechange into a ghaele and then shoot the 'extrodinary' ray that 'no reduction exists for' into the anti-magic field at somethign like 200 feet away. I think that's very odd. What is the energy?!?! if it's 'positive energy', then there is resistance and it certainly is mystical, therefor magical so should be SU. But, it's extrodinary...making it somewhat 'god-like'...
sparkster4242 08-28-05, 01:02 AM	i think the main reason for a spell to include weapon-type damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) is to illustrate that some (but only some) of the spell's damage isnt subject to energy resistance/immunity.
smrtgmp 08-28-05, 02:15 AM	Seems to be the writer of the FAQ made a poorly thought response. Since what it says contradicts the rest of the rules. Does it now? Because the rules say:Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.Seems to me the FAQ and the rules agree impicitly. It's not the power that deals damage, it's the cystal shard. Thus it is piercing (which would otherwise be irrelevant in every case), and subject to DR. Um, no. You're welcome to house rule it any way you want, but its quite clear that the rules disagree with you. That the power ignores SR (PR) is also a point, which spells do you got that deals direct damage and ignores SR and DR?Uh, any damage dealing conjuration spell in the book? There are plenty. Any of the orb spells, acid arrow, etc.
FriendoftheDork 08-28-05, 03:19 AM	Does it now? Because the rules say:Seems to me the FAQ and the rules agree impicitly. Um, no. You're welcome to house rule it any way you want, but its quite clear that the rules disagree with you. Uh, any damage dealing conjuration spell in the book? There are plenty. Any of the orb spells, acid arrow, etc. well thats it. conjuration spells such as Melphs acid arrow only ignores DR because it does Acid damage - a type of energy damage. The rules says that spells ignore DR - fine. But does items and matter affected by spells ignore DR? I think not. If I use telekinesis to throw a builder against a demon, the demon's DR still applies to the damage even if a spell was involved. Now I realize this is my interpretation, so feel free to disagree. Quite a few also interpret this as I do, however, so it can't contradict the rules entirely. BTW do you think Summon monster spells ignore DR?
grndragon 08-28-05, 05:03 AM	Well I like the official answer because it make my druids quil blast spell WAY more useful, but i think dr should apply to specific types of damage especial conjured types. The item created is not a magical item, its just what is created, fire, ice, electricy etc. I would reason that it did more damage at higher level due to more potent elements or more of the elements or what ever. It makes stating what type of damage the spell does kind of useless in my opinon, why state it?
smrtgmp 08-28-05, 05:09 AM	The rules says that spells ignore DR - fine. But does items and matter affected by spells ignore DR? I think not. If I use telekinesis to throw a builder against a demon, the demon's DR still applies to the damage even if a spell was involved.Ahh, but therein lies the difference (at least as I see it). TK isnt doing any damage, the boulder is. Conversely, crystal shard does damage directly. Quite a few also interpret this as I do, however, so it can't contradict the rules entirely. Well, it could. ;) Multiple people agreeing on something doesnt make it any more true. Common belief once labled the earth as flat. And as the center of the solar system. BTW do you think Summon monster spells ignore DR? No, I dont. Summoning spells dont deal damage. They summon a creature. Conversely, crystal shard deals damage as a direct result of manifesting the power (assuming you hit). edit: ugh..I'm tired. Used conversely twice in the same post. sigh...
smrtgmp 08-28-05, 05:15 AM	It makes stating what type of damage the spell does kind of useless in my opinon, why state it?For flavor? Honestly, I always thought it was to seperate it from the energy damage (such as ice storm or meteor storm). Also, certain creatures are immune to certain damage types or react with them in strange ways. For instance, certain oozes (cant remember which at the moment) split in two when hit by piercing or slashing damage.
Lord shadow35 08-28-05, 09:35 AM	I think the gelatinus cube does that.
Zookeeper 08-28-05, 05:16 PM	Ahh, but therein lies the difference (at least as I see it). TK isnt doing any damage, the boulder is. Conversely, crystal shard does damage directly. I don't see a difference. You say it is the bolder doing the damage. With crystal Shard you manifest shards of crystals and propel them flying at your target. Where is the difference?
Vanigo 08-28-05, 06:50 PM	I don't see a difference. You say it is the bolder doing the damage. With crystal Shard you manifest shards of crystals and propel them flying at your target. Where is the difference? With telekinesis, you use a spell to use a weapon to do damage. With crystal shard you use a power to do damage; there's no actual weapon involved anywhere. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Bopple 08-28-05, 06:58 PM	Those shards are not power. They are the effect of a power. By definition, they are just mundane objects conjured by an instantaneous creation. As mundane as a boulder, they are.
Dragonsblood 08-28-05, 07:11 PM	I don't like the FAQ :P No, I dont. Summoning spells dont deal damage. They summon a creature. Conversely, crystal shard deals damage as a direct result of manifesting the power (assuming you hit). I'm confused. So the spell Melf's Acid Arrow....the magic only creates the acid and propels it. The spell doesn't deal damage. Is that right? And that's why it bypasses SR? How is this different than physical damage reduction types and powers like Crystal Shard?
smrtgmp 08-29-05, 01:39 AM	To be honest, I agree with you from a logical standpoint. However, we are playing a game with magic and the like, and logic was thrown out the window long ago. All I'm saying is that, by the RAW, no spell is subject to DR unless it says otherwise. Since the FAQ is cocidered official, there can really be no debate as to what the "official" ruling is. I dont blame you for disagreeing with it.
Dragonsblood 08-29-05, 02:23 AM	It's not lack of logic that bothers me, it's the lack of consistancy. It would be one thing if this was a balance issue - then this wouldn't bother me. But I hardly see any sort of balance problems with a reverse ruling. Instead they make arbitrary decisions that confuse the issue. I really wonder some times if they think things through with that FAQ. Kinda reminds me of their answer to Tenser's Floating Disk and being able to carry yourself. Unless I'm missing something, the spell description is clear as day, yet the FAQ is contricting for an arbitrary and ignorant reason. Makes me thankful for rule 0 :D
smrtgmp 08-29-05, 02:28 AM	Makes me thankful for rule 0 :D The ability to change the game to your liking is one of the reasons I like pen and paper games more than video games.
Bopple 08-29-05, 08:27 AM	As Dragonblood said, it's a matter of internal consistency. Anyway, official is official.
FriendoftheDork 08-29-05, 09:47 AM	The FAQ will never be more than semi-official to me. Don't tell me it can never make a mistake or has never been changed. Regardless, to me this IS a balance issue when it comes to crystal shard. This power deals alot of damage (up to 1d6/level), with no SR, as a ranged attack, no save. All that is good enough if you ask me. But if it also ignores DR, then there is really nothing that can stop it. Scorching ray and shocking grasp also deal alot of damage with no save and a touch attack, but SR applies to them both. Acid arrow ignores DR as it is acidic, and has no SR as the spell conjures and throws acid instead of trying to damage the target directly, but the damage is fairly low and even spread out over several rounds. So I think my interpretation makes the power less broken.
smrtgmp 08-29-05, 02:05 PM	Crystal Shard sucks. Spending 1pp/d6 of damage to a single creature is horribly inefficient, especially when you factor in an attack roll and a poor BAB. The only time its really worth using is when you are facing an enemy who is immune to eveything else you've got. Its a power to keep in your back pocket for a rainy day, and thats about it. Against anything that isnt immune to your other powers, there will always be a better use of your PP.
Vanigo 08-29-05, 07:55 PM	Those shards are not power. They are the effect of a power.And the big blast of heat created by fireball is the effect of a spell. Your point? By definition, they are just mundane objects conjured by an instantaneous creation. As mundane as a boulder, they are. But, strictly speaking, they aren't objects. They're part of a power, and they have no existance outside of that power. If they were as mundane as a boulder, they'd have range increments and increasing penalties at extreme range like every other mundane projectile, not spell-style absolute range with no penalties. Admittedly, it's kinda silly, but that's what a strict reading of the rules gives you.