Damage Reduction, Obscure Reference? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Damage Reduction, Obscure Reference? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Planeswalker Demosthenes
12-24-05, 05:32 PM A friend of mine once told me of a story where a fighter was fighting two Rakshasa, downed one, then started hitting the other one with the one he had just slayed in order to over come damage reduction. Supposedly there is a clause somewhere that says if a creature has damage reduction equal to or greater than the damage reduction of what it's attacking it gets to automaticly ignore the DR (apparently only on natural attacks). Also, this is supposedly in some bit of errata for either 3rd or 3.5 ed.

Now, I'm having trouble both finding a clause that relates something to this end as well as understanding how it works. I don't see how being better at taking less damage than something else lets you automaticly ignore it's ablilty to take less damage.

Could someone please clear this up for me?
savant_warlord13
12-24-05, 05:42 PM In theory that could work. Creatures can overcome the DR of creatures with the same type of DR as themselves using their natural weapons.
Derren S.
12-24-05, 05:46 PM Are you playing 3.0 or 3.5?
In 3.0 there is indeed a rule which says that a creature with DR can overcome any DR which is lower than what it has.

In 3.5 this only works for /magic DR, so the natural attacks of a creature with /magic DR are treated as magical.

But either way a dead Rakshasa isn't a creature anymore but an corpse without any DR so hitting a Rakshasa with the corpse of a dead Rakshasa would do nothing.
YasserYasserThreeBagsFull
12-24-05, 05:47 PM In theory that could work. Creatures can overcome the DR of creatures with the same type of DR as themselves using their natural weapons.

I was under the impression that that was true only regarding creatures with alignment sub-types. I mean, according to the definition of DR given in the Monster Manual, a creature with alignment sub-type(s) may bypass some DR as if their natural weapons were considered evil, chaotic, etc. Might be wrong, though.
Raven Dark
12-24-05, 05:48 PM A friend of mine once told me of a story where a fighter was fighting two Rakshasa, downed one, then started hitting the other one with the one he had just slayed in order to over come damage reduction. Supposedly there is a clause somewhere that says if a creature has damage reduction equal to or greater than the damage reduction of what it's attacking it gets to automaticly ignore the DR (apparently only on natural attacks). Also, this is supposedly in some bit of errata for either 3rd or 3.5 ed.

Now, I'm having trouble both finding a clause that relates something to this end as well as understanding how it works. I don't see how being better at taking less damage than something else lets you automaticly ignore it's ablilty to take less damage.

Could someone please clear this up for me?

I don't think that is true in v3.5

I remember that clause in v3.0 though.
savant_warlord13
12-24-05, 05:49 PM Are you playing 3.0 or 3.5?
In 3.0 there is indeed a rule which says that a creature with DR can overcome any DR which is lower than what it has.

In 3.5 this only works for /magic DR, so the natural attacks of a creature with /magic DR are treated as magical.

But either way a dead Rakshasa isn't a creature anymore but an corpse without any DR so hitting a Rakshasa with the corpse of a dead Rakshasa would do nothing.

not if the DR is an extraordinary ability
Planeswalker Demosthenes
12-24-05, 06:27 PM It's nice knowing that the clauses actually exist, but could I get a refference to where I could find the 3.5 clause? It's just that if anyone else asks me about this issue in the future I'd like to flip dirrectly to it in the text.

Thanks for clearing this up.
dok
12-24-05, 07:42 PM From the 3.5 SRD section on Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/naturalSpecialAbilities.htm#damageReduct ion):

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
...
Some monsters are vulnerable to chaotic-, evil-, good-, or lawful-aligned weapons... A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature.
Planeswalker Demosthenes
12-24-05, 09:12 PM Thanks for the source. Happy holidays, everyone!
lugnut71
12-25-05, 11:10 AM So in closing a Raksasha cannot be used to bludgeon another Raksasha.
Slagger the Chuul
12-25-05, 12:05 PM So in closing a Raksasha cannot be used to bludgeon another Raksasha.

Especially not since the DR of a rakshasa is penetrated by good piercing weapons. :)
Count Arioch the 28th
12-26-05, 11:26 AM Pssht. You can bludgeon a rakshasa to death with another rakshasa. You just need to apply the proper force, that's all.
Raven Dark
12-26-05, 02:45 PM Pssht. You can bludgeon a rakshasa to death with another rakshasa. You just need to apply the proper force, that's all.

By that logic, I could bludgeon a skeleton to death with the broadside of my longsword. The rules simply don't allow for that (by the RAW at least).
InkBlot
12-26-05, 02:52 PM The RAW does allow for bludgeoning a creature to death with a corpse. The corpse is an improvised weapon. The character wielding the corpse takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls, and the DM and the player must come up with an agreement on how much damage a corpse deals and wether it is a light, one handed, or two handed corpse.
KhalaKyRelai
12-26-05, 02:59 PM Bludgeoning a rakshasa with a dead rakshasa is out of the question, because the rakshasa's skin/fur/whatever is not his natural weaponry. If you cut the dead rakshasa's head in half and hit the living rakshasa with the other's jawless head, therefore using his teeth against him, that could counter his damage reduction. Or using the claw of the rakshasa against the other, like the lion that Hercules killed with his own claw because his damage reduction was too high; but I don't know where the bludgeoning idea came from.
Raven Dark
12-26-05, 03:27 PM The RAW does allow for bludgeoning a creature to death with a corpse. The corpse is an improvised weapon. The character wielding the corpse takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls, and the DM and the player must come up with an agreement on how much damage a corpse deals and wether it is a light, one handed, or two handed corpse.

You got a point there, but you still wouldn't get past the Rahkshasa's DR that way.
Derren S.
12-26-05, 03:29 PM Bludgeoning a rakshasa with a dead rakshasa is out of the question, because the rakshasa's skin/fur/whatever is not his natural weaponry. If you cut the dead rakshasa's head in half and hit the living rakshasa with the other's jawless head, therefore using his teeth against him, that could counter his damage reduction. Or using the claw of the rakshasa against the other, like the lion that Hercules killed with his own claw because his damage reduction was too high; but I don't know where the bludgeoning idea came from.

No this does not work.

Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities.
So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR.
Vanigo
12-27-05, 01:27 AM No this does not work.

Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities.
So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR.
I actually agree with Derren on this one. Plus, even if it did still have its special qualities, it certainly wouldn't be a good-aligned weapon. A creature with DR/evil has no special ability to penetrate other creatures' DR/evil; only a good-aligned weapon or a creature with the (good) subtype can do that.
Grug the Just
12-27-05, 02:00 AM When in doubt full power attack. It's the only proper way to bludgeon someone to deal with their friends or relatives. Also, agreeing with Derren here.
Shemeska the Marauder
12-27-05, 04:06 AM No this does not work.

Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities.
So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR.

I have to disagree to some extent. By strict rules-lawyering it might not work, but by the spirit of the rules, and the rationale behind DR and like DR creatures being able to pierce one another's DR, it should work.

A Rakshasa has its DR by virtue of its own spiritual essence and composition as an outsider of its particular alignment.

If you allow for its corpse to exist once it dies (which is questionable for most outsiders) then it's still the same thing of spiritual force taken flesh and it should still be able to pierce like DR regardless.

And for anyone who'll claim that only its claws and fangs, or whatever is specifically noted as a natural weapon for it, are the only parts of its body capable of piercing like DR, that's seriously lame.
Derren S.
12-27-05, 05:06 AM If you allow for its corpse to exist once it dies (which is questionable for most outsiders) then it's still the same thing of spiritual force taken flesh and it should still be able to pierce like DR regardless.

And for anyone who'll claim that only its claws and fangs, or whatever is specifically noted as a natural weapon for it, are the only parts of its body capable of piercing like DR, that's seriously lame.

See the rules for dragoncrafted weapons.
A dagger made out of the talon of a dragon doesn't have the ability to pierce /magic DR. Likewise a armor made out of dragonhide does not have /magic DR.
When a creature dies the DR it had when it was alive stops to exist.
Shemeska the Marauder
12-27-05, 10:47 AM See the rules for dragoncrafted weapons.
A dagger made out of the talon of a dragon doesn't have the ability to pierce /magic DR. Likewise a armor made out of dragonhide does not have /magic DR.
When a creature dies the DR it had when it was alive stops to exist.

And there's a distinct difference in a dragon and an outsider, wouldn't you agree?

A dragon is a living flesh and blood creature, and I'll accept that its DR vanishes when it dies and becomes only so much decaying organic matter with a faint odor of reptile and ammonia. An outsider is getting its DR as a function of the raw spiritual essence that it exists as a manifestation of, not as a function of physical biology. Big difference.

So sure, the dragon loses that DR when it gives its death rattle and expires, but an outsider's physical corpse, if one is present, is still composed of that same abstract concept made flesh, which is where its DR is coming from in the first place, ergo the corpse is still going to have that DR. If the rules as written fail to explore the topic in depth and thus fail to address the question, it's still not appropriate to imply otherwise using an example that has nothing to do with the specific case at hand.
Tower_of_Pain
12-27-05, 04:36 PM A creature with DR/evil has no special ability to penetrate other creatures' DR/evil; only a good-aligned weapon or a creature with the (good) subtype can do that.

DR /evil stops all but evil. Said outsider's ability to penatrate /evil would not work on other said outsider because it hase /good piercing.
General_Ridley
12-27-05, 05:35 PM And there's a distinct difference in a dragon and an outsider, wouldn't you agree?

A dragon is a living flesh and blood creature, and I'll accept that its DR vanishes when it dies and becomes only so much decaying organic matter with a faint odor of reptile and ammonia. An outsider is getting its DR as a function of the raw spiritual essence that it exists as a manifestation of, not as a function of physical biology. Big difference.

So sure, the dragon loses that DR when it gives its death rattle and expires, but an outsider's physical corpse, if one is present, is still composed of that same abstract concept made flesh, which is where its DR is coming from in the first place, ergo the corpse is still going to have that DR. If the rules as written fail to explore the topic in depth and thus fail to address the question, it's still not appropriate to imply otherwise using an example that has nothing to do with the specific case at hand.

when the creature is killed, the soul dies (if an outsider, which a Rakshasa is). Without a soul, I could hardly imagine the corpse having any of that spiritual essence remaining. sure, the body is still there, but the essence which gave it DR, and life, is gone.
Shemeska the Marauder
12-27-05, 05:53 PM when the creature is killed, the soul dies (if an outsider, which a Rakshasa is). Without a soul, I could hardly imagine the corpse having any of that spiritual essence remaining. sure, the body is still there, but the essence which gave it DR, and life, is gone.

Which is why I said the argument only applies if you allow a body to remain after their death. For an outsider their body and soul are the exact same thing, without seperation or dichotomy between them. When you kill them there isn't a true physical body left in the same way (though how you handle this is entirely open to DM interpretation. I generally have them spontaneously turn to ashes, or pools of acid, or insects, or burning insects, etc etc).

If there's no body left behind, it's a moot poot. But if there is a body left behind, it's still that same spiritual essence as before since there's no seperation of physical body and soul for an outsider, and thus the DR should still be present.
kalstrand
12-27-05, 07:06 PM Reread the quote from the SRD.

If the creature has DR /magic its natural attacks count as magical.

If a creature has an alignment subtype it can penetrate its subtype of DR for example if something has the (Evil) subtype it can penetrate DR /Evil.

Take a Vrock for example. It has DR 10/Good the (Chaotic and Evil) subtypes. It could penetrate DR /evil and chaotic but could not penetrate its own DR /good because it doesn't have the (Good) subtype.

The Rakasha has no alignment subtype and using its corpse would cause bludgeoning damage so neither part of its DR since it has DR /piercing and good

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Planeswalker Demosthenes 12-24-05, 05:32 PM	A friend of mine once told me of a story where a fighter was fighting two Rakshasa, downed one, then started hitting the other one with the one he had just slayed in order to over come damage reduction. Supposedly there is a clause somewhere that says if a creature has damage reduction equal to or greater than the damage reduction of what it's attacking it gets to automaticly ignore the DR (apparently only on natural attacks). Also, this is supposedly in some bit of errata for either 3rd or 3.5 ed. Now, I'm having trouble both finding a clause that relates something to this end as well as understanding how it works. I don't see how being better at taking less damage than something else lets you automaticly ignore it's ablilty to take less damage. Could someone please clear this up for me?
savant_warlord13 12-24-05, 05:42 PM	In theory that could work. Creatures can overcome the DR of creatures with the same type of DR as themselves using their natural weapons.
Derren S. 12-24-05, 05:46 PM	Are you playing 3.0 or 3.5? In 3.0 there is indeed a rule which says that a creature with DR can overcome any DR which is lower than what it has. In 3.5 this only works for /magic DR, so the natural attacks of a creature with /magic DR are treated as magical. But either way a dead Rakshasa isn't a creature anymore but an corpse without any DR so hitting a Rakshasa with the corpse of a dead Rakshasa would do nothing.
YasserYasserThreeBagsFull 12-24-05, 05:47 PM	In theory that could work. Creatures can overcome the DR of creatures with the same type of DR as themselves using their natural weapons. I was under the impression that that was true only regarding creatures with alignment sub-types. I mean, according to the definition of DR given in the Monster Manual, a creature with alignment sub-type(s) may bypass some DR as if their natural weapons were considered evil, chaotic, etc. Might be wrong, though.
Raven Dark 12-24-05, 05:48 PM	A friend of mine once told me of a story where a fighter was fighting two Rakshasa, downed one, then started hitting the other one with the one he had just slayed in order to over come damage reduction. Supposedly there is a clause somewhere that says if a creature has damage reduction equal to or greater than the damage reduction of what it's attacking it gets to automaticly ignore the DR (apparently only on natural attacks). Also, this is supposedly in some bit of errata for either 3rd or 3.5 ed. Now, I'm having trouble both finding a clause that relates something to this end as well as understanding how it works. I don't see how being better at taking less damage than something else lets you automaticly ignore it's ablilty to take less damage. Could someone please clear this up for me? I don't think that is true in v3.5 I remember that clause in v3.0 though.
savant_warlord13 12-24-05, 05:49 PM	Are you playing 3.0 or 3.5? In 3.0 there is indeed a rule which says that a creature with DR can overcome any DR which is lower than what it has. In 3.5 this only works for /magic DR, so the natural attacks of a creature with /magic DR are treated as magical. But either way a dead Rakshasa isn't a creature anymore but an corpse without any DR so hitting a Rakshasa with the corpse of a dead Rakshasa would do nothing. not if the DR is an extraordinary ability
Planeswalker Demosthenes 12-24-05, 06:27 PM	It's nice knowing that the clauses actually exist, but could I get a refference to where I could find the 3.5 clause? It's just that if anyone else asks me about this issue in the future I'd like to flip dirrectly to it in the text. Thanks for clearing this up.
dok 12-24-05, 07:42 PM	From the 3.5 SRD section on Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/naturalSpecialAbilities.htm#damageReduct ion): Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. ... Some monsters are vulnerable to chaotic-, evil-, good-, or lawful-aligned weapons... A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature.
Planeswalker Demosthenes 12-24-05, 09:12 PM	Thanks for the source. Happy holidays, everyone!
lugnut71 12-25-05, 11:10 AM	So in closing a Raksasha cannot be used to bludgeon another Raksasha.
Slagger the Chuul 12-25-05, 12:05 PM	So in closing a Raksasha cannot be used to bludgeon another Raksasha. Especially not since the DR of a rakshasa is penetrated by good piercing weapons. :)
Count Arioch the 28th 12-26-05, 11:26 AM	Pssht. You can bludgeon a rakshasa to death with another rakshasa. You just need to apply the proper force, that's all.
Raven Dark 12-26-05, 02:45 PM	Pssht. You can bludgeon a rakshasa to death with another rakshasa. You just need to apply the proper force, that's all. By that logic, I could bludgeon a skeleton to death with the broadside of my longsword. The rules simply don't allow for that (by the RAW at least).
InkBlot 12-26-05, 02:52 PM	The RAW does allow for bludgeoning a creature to death with a corpse. The corpse is an improvised weapon. The character wielding the corpse takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls, and the DM and the player must come up with an agreement on how much damage a corpse deals and wether it is a light, one handed, or two handed corpse.
KhalaKyRelai 12-26-05, 02:59 PM	Bludgeoning a rakshasa with a dead rakshasa is out of the question, because the rakshasa's skin/fur/whatever is not his natural weaponry. If you cut the dead rakshasa's head in half and hit the living rakshasa with the other's jawless head, therefore using his teeth against him, that could counter his damage reduction. Or using the claw of the rakshasa against the other, like the lion that Hercules killed with his own claw because his damage reduction was too high; but I don't know where the bludgeoning idea came from.
Raven Dark 12-26-05, 03:27 PM	The RAW does allow for bludgeoning a creature to death with a corpse. The corpse is an improvised weapon. The character wielding the corpse takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls, and the DM and the player must come up with an agreement on how much damage a corpse deals and wether it is a light, one handed, or two handed corpse. You got a point there, but you still wouldn't get past the Rahkshasa's DR that way.
Derren S. 12-26-05, 03:29 PM	Bludgeoning a rakshasa with a dead rakshasa is out of the question, because the rakshasa's skin/fur/whatever is not his natural weaponry. If you cut the dead rakshasa's head in half and hit the living rakshasa with the other's jawless head, therefore using his teeth against him, that could counter his damage reduction. Or using the claw of the rakshasa against the other, like the lion that Hercules killed with his own claw because his damage reduction was too high; but I don't know where the bludgeoning idea came from. No this does not work. Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities. So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR.
Vanigo 12-27-05, 01:27 AM	No this does not work. Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities. So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR. I actually agree with Derren on this one. Plus, even if it did still have its special qualities, it certainly wouldn't be a good-aligned weapon. A creature with DR/evil has no special ability to penetrate other creatures' DR/evil; only a good-aligned weapon or a creature with the (good) subtype can do that.
Grug the Just 12-27-05, 02:00 AM	When in doubt full power attack. It's the only proper way to bludgeon someone to deal with their friends or relatives. Also, agreeing with Derren here.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-27-05, 04:06 AM	No this does not work. Whe a rakshasa is killed, it stops beeing a creeature and becomes an object (corpse) which also means loosing all DR or other special qualities. So the corpse of a rakshasa has no special qualities and can't be used to penetrate DR as the corpse itseld has no DR. I have to disagree to some extent. By strict rules-lawyering it might not work, but by the spirit of the rules, and the rationale behind DR and like DR creatures being able to pierce one another's DR, it should work. A Rakshasa has its DR by virtue of its own spiritual essence and composition as an outsider of its particular alignment. If you allow for its corpse to exist once it dies (which is questionable for most outsiders) then it's still the same thing of spiritual force taken flesh and it should still be able to pierce like DR regardless. And for anyone who'll claim that only its claws and fangs, or whatever is specifically noted as a natural weapon for it, are the only parts of its body capable of piercing like DR, that's seriously lame.
Derren S. 12-27-05, 05:06 AM	If you allow for its corpse to exist once it dies (which is questionable for most outsiders) then it's still the same thing of spiritual force taken flesh and it should still be able to pierce like DR regardless. And for anyone who'll claim that only its claws and fangs, or whatever is specifically noted as a natural weapon for it, are the only parts of its body capable of piercing like DR, that's seriously lame. See the rules for dragoncrafted weapons. A dagger made out of the talon of a dragon doesn't have the ability to pierce /magic DR. Likewise a armor made out of dragonhide does not have /magic DR. When a creature dies the DR it had when it was alive stops to exist.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-27-05, 10:47 AM	See the rules for dragoncrafted weapons. A dagger made out of the talon of a dragon doesn't have the ability to pierce /magic DR. Likewise a armor made out of dragonhide does not have /magic DR. When a creature dies the DR it had when it was alive stops to exist. And there's a distinct difference in a dragon and an outsider, wouldn't you agree? A dragon is a living flesh and blood creature, and I'll accept that its DR vanishes when it dies and becomes only so much decaying organic matter with a faint odor of reptile and ammonia. An outsider is getting its DR as a function of the raw spiritual essence that it exists as a manifestation of, not as a function of physical biology. Big difference. So sure, the dragon loses that DR when it gives its death rattle and expires, but an outsider's physical corpse, if one is present, is still composed of that same abstract concept made flesh, which is where its DR is coming from in the first place, ergo the corpse is still going to have that DR. If the rules as written fail to explore the topic in depth and thus fail to address the question, it's still not appropriate to imply otherwise using an example that has nothing to do with the specific case at hand.
Tower_of_Pain 12-27-05, 04:36 PM	A creature with DR/evil has no special ability to penetrate other creatures' DR/evil; only a good-aligned weapon or a creature with the (good) subtype can do that. DR /evil stops all but evil. Said outsider's ability to penatrate /evil would not work on other said outsider because it hase /good piercing.
General_Ridley 12-27-05, 05:35 PM	And there's a distinct difference in a dragon and an outsider, wouldn't you agree? A dragon is a living flesh and blood creature, and I'll accept that its DR vanishes when it dies and becomes only so much decaying organic matter with a faint odor of reptile and ammonia. An outsider is getting its DR as a function of the raw spiritual essence that it exists as a manifestation of, not as a function of physical biology. Big difference. So sure, the dragon loses that DR when it gives its death rattle and expires, but an outsider's physical corpse, if one is present, is still composed of that same abstract concept made flesh, which is where its DR is coming from in the first place, ergo the corpse is still going to have that DR. If the rules as written fail to explore the topic in depth and thus fail to address the question, it's still not appropriate to imply otherwise using an example that has nothing to do with the specific case at hand. when the creature is killed, the soul dies (if an outsider, which a Rakshasa is). Without a soul, I could hardly imagine the corpse having any of that spiritual essence remaining. sure, the body is still there, but the essence which gave it DR, and life, is gone.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-27-05, 05:53 PM	when the creature is killed, the soul dies (if an outsider, which a Rakshasa is). Without a soul, I could hardly imagine the corpse having any of that spiritual essence remaining. sure, the body is still there, but the essence which gave it DR, and life, is gone. Which is why I said the argument only applies if you allow a body to remain after their death. For an outsider their body and soul are the exact same thing, without seperation or dichotomy between them. When you kill them there isn't a true physical body left in the same way (though how you handle this is entirely open to DM interpretation. I generally have them spontaneously turn to ashes, or pools of acid, or insects, or burning insects, etc etc). If there's no body left behind, it's a moot poot. But if there is a body left behind, it's still that same spiritual essence as before since there's no seperation of physical body and soul for an outsider, and thus the DR should still be present.
kalstrand 12-27-05, 07:06 PM	Reread the quote from the SRD. If the creature has DR /magic its natural attacks count as magical. If a creature has an alignment subtype it can penetrate its subtype of DR for example if something has the (Evil) subtype it can penetrate DR /Evil. Take a Vrock for example. It has DR 10/Good the (Chaotic and Evil) subtypes. It could penetrate DR /evil and chaotic but could not penetrate its own DR /good because it doesn't have the (Good) subtype. The Rakasha has no alignment subtype and using its corpse would cause bludgeoning damage so neither part of its DR since it has DR /piercing and good