Post/Author/DateTime	Post
chris7476 01-30-04, 01:57 AM	How do you determine if a creature's DR is Ex or Su? Is it just a judgement call? My gut feeling is that if the DR is alignment-based, it's most likely Su whereas if it's based on a weapon type, it's Ex. A Ex DR seems more likely to be based on the creature's natural "armor", etc (like a golem). Any thoughts?
d_nychus 01-30-04, 06:52 AM	The only Su DR I know of is the vampire. Personally, unless it says otherwise, I would say all DR is Ex. Otherwise, said creature would be too weak in an Antimagic field.
WizO_Pony 01-30-04, 08:24 AM	Although it is unclear in the 3.5 rules (DMG 291 and MM 307), in 3.0 creatures with damage reduction always had the (Su) type (3.0 MM, page 9) , but some class abilties, such as that of the BBN offered (Ex) damage reduction. I've always run my games so that DR which could be overcome by attack types(10/+1, 15/Magic, 5/Silver or Good, etc) is (Su) and DR which can only be bested by raw damage (2/-, 10/-, etc) is (Ex).
DM Zoc 01-30-04, 08:33 AM	As WizO was saying. I think that any DR resulting from being tough (X/- or X/adamantine) is Ex, while anything that has to do with mystical properties (silver, cold iron, alignment, magic) is Su. Of course, Werewolf was Ex is 3.0, but I prefer to think that a Fighter with a continual Anti-Magic Field rock should be a valid choice.
d_nychus 01-30-04, 08:35 AM	The problem with that is that when a demon or devil steps into an antimagic field, they suddenly lose their DR. That just does not seem right to me.
cwslyclgh 01-30-04, 10:54 AM	actually in 3.0 I could swaer that all DR was Su except the tarrasques which was Ex... hmmm....
was_fired 01-30-04, 02:31 PM	As a rule of thumb DR is Su when the attack which can negate it can only be magically placed into weapons. DR is ex when the attack which negates it works in an anti-magic field.
chris7476 01-30-04, 02:53 PM	As a rule of thumb DR is Su when the attack which can negate it can only be magically placed into weapons Well what about silver and cold iron? Werewolves are traditionally "supernatural" creatures. Although you could argue there is something about their physiology that wouldn't be negated in an antimagic field. I don't know, it's a tough call. Magic and alignment-based DR's are easy enough to justify as Su though.
Josh_Kablack 01-30-04, 07:38 PM	Originally posted by cwslyclgh actually in 3.0 I could swaer that all DR was Su except the tarrasques which was Ex... hmmm.... Close, but not quite, wes. Unless they changed something in the errata, the 3.0 Tarrasque's damage reduction (25/+5) is listed under Special Qualities the same as all other creatures DR was, and there is no specific mention made of it being (Ex). Nor is there any such reference for the 3.0 Werewolf. Page 9 of the 3.0 Monster Manual lists Damage Reduction as an (Su) ability, and this presumably applies to all monsters with this ability and also presumably applies to all damage reduction which does not note otherwise. However, in 3.0, (as in 3.5) the barbarian class's damage reduction ability is specifically noted as being an extraordinary ability. In the 3.5 MM, the definition of Damage Reduction notes merely that it is "(Ex or Su)" and neither the definition in the MM, nor the listing in the DMG, nor specific creature entries differentiate between the two types. This really is something that the revision team should probably have noticed during playtesting, as it has massive ramifications for the effectiveness of AntiMagic Field, Dead Magic Zones and numerous similar effects. So somebody should ask Skip and/or custserv about it to get an "official" clarification. (or is that an official "clarification" ?)
Boondoggle 01-31-04, 02:46 AM	The biggest problem I see with having metal based DR being Ex and alignement/magic based Su are creatures with both, such as demons, devils and celestials. Is their DR both Su and Ex? A balor has DR 15/Cold Iron and Good. What does that become in an AMF under the aforementioned rules? DR 15/Cold Iron? Something less than DR 15? None at all? I'm inclined to treat all DR that can be overcome as Su, just as it was in 3E.
chris7476 01-31-04, 01:09 PM	I'm inclined to treat all DR that can be overcome as Su, just as it was in 3E. Me too...I think. But I would still keep DR X/- and those based on weapon type (like Zombies) as Ex.
Derren S. 01-31-04, 01:59 PM	Imo with the new DR rules in 3.5 all DR except /magic and /<alignment> should be Ex so a AM field can't be used as universal DR suppressor except when it would also supress the thing which penetrates the DR (magic). As for AND DR I wouls suggest that the magic or alignment part goes away but the material DR stays and the DR amount doesn't decrease.
Boondoggle 01-31-04, 02:21 PM	Originally posted by chris7476 But I would still keep DR X/- and those based on weapon type (like Zombies) as Ex. Er, yeah, I forgot about those... I think I would keep those Ex.