Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Inkedmsd 08-12-07, 04:09 PM	Does Damage Reduction come into effect when you are using any crystal shard attack?
kyeudo 08-12-07, 04:13 PM	Depends, Do you use the CompPsi "errata" or do you ignore it? Most people on these forums have crystal shard ignore DR, but a few use the CompPsi's nerf to metacreativity damage powers or are forced to use it.
Nephlite 08-12-07, 04:14 PM	Does Damage Reduction come into effect when you are using any crystal shard attack? Complete Psionics says yes. DR applies. Should it? No. But they decided it does anyway.
Rhonin the Big 08-12-07, 06:45 PM	Complete Psionics isn't RAW, so its upto your DM. Does he rule that spells that obviously deal bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage like Evard's Black Tentacles or Blade Barrier are subject to appropriate DR? Than piercing crystal powers should be no different.
CrimsonDeath 08-12-07, 08:03 PM	Complete Psionics isn't RAW, so its upto your DM. Does he rule that spells that obviously deal bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage like Evard's Black Tentacles or Blade Barrier are subject to appropriate DR? Than piercing crystal powers should be no different. Since Complete Psionics is definitely written and arguably contains rules, I'd say that it could be considered "RAW". Doesn't mean you have to use anything from it, though. Technically, Blade Barrier doesn't specify the type of damage that it deals. I didn't notice earlier that Evard's does, though.
Jaid 08-12-07, 08:08 PM	magic spells of the exact same concept do not (according to RAW). for some mind-numbingly stupid reason, psionic metacreativity powers do (according to the RAW as found in CPsi). that being said, CPsi is widely considered to have dragged the quality of psionics down, for the most part... there's some worthwhile stuff in there, but that doesn't mean you should put up with all the garbage you find in your campaign. so long as you rule it the same either way, you're fine, imo (that is, you make it so that psionics and magic use the same rule, rather than using different rules just because someone was dumb enough to contradict the rules)
Rhonin the Big 08-12-07, 08:16 PM	Since Complete Psionics is definitely written and arguably contains rules, I'd say that it could be considered "RAW". Doesn't mean you have to use anything from it, though. The nerfs to specific powers in Complete Psionics are NOT official changes to the powers as written. They do not count as errata because errata is by definition "free;" were errata not "free" one could circumvent the rules change by not purchasing the errata. They do not count as official reprints because official reprints need to do just that -- reprint it officially. A reprint that says "Its exactly like it says over there, except as noted here." Is no reprint at all. So contrary to popular belief, using these nerfs is a houserule rather than choosing not to. Anybody else disagree? Technically, Blade Barrier doesn't specify the type of damage that it deals. I didn't notice earlier that Evard's does, though. You are creating a Abattoir made out of force, you are creating blades of magical energy which slash passers-through; wtf else could the damage type be other than slashing? A creatures' tentacle attacks deal bludgeoning, so why shouldn't "Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion" follow suit? More importantly, why should magically-created tentacles bypass DR/bludgeoning when my Tentacruel does not?
AntiDjinn 08-12-07, 08:19 PM	The nerf isn't so bad if you extend its logic and also apply it to all arcane and divine creation effects. This is what my group ruled: An effect that ignores Anti-magic/Null-psionics does not ignore DR and vice-versa. If you are not allowing DR vs. spells with similar descriptors and special effects, then it makes no sense to apply it to Crystal Shard. Not that DR generally amounts to a big difference vs. such powers; when you are dropping 8d6 Empowered of slashing damage, a character with DR of 2-5 is still going to get hurt. It only really makes a huge difference when a creature has immunity vs. a specific form of damage, which follows different rules than DR anyway.
InkBlot 08-12-07, 09:19 PM	For the sake of balance and verisimilitude, I make anything that deals slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage subject to DR. Crystal Shard, and Black Tentacles, both.
Rhonin the Big 08-12-07, 10:03 PM	Does Crystal Shard bypass DR like spells do, or is it subject to DR like piercing weapons? This topic is debatable by RAW, though complete psionics says so complete psionics did not officially change the rules. In the end its up to your DM. Should crystal shard be subject to DR? Yes, there is rules precedent for spells that deal weapon damage being subject to DR/weapon. The question at hand is not whether its subject to DR, but whether or not it is subject to null psionics fields.
Jaid 08-13-07, 12:34 AM	Should crystal shard be subject to DR? Yes, there is rules precedent for spells that deal weapon damage being subject to DR/weapon. The question at hand is not whether its subject to DR, but whether or not it is subject to null psionics fields. actually, there is no precedent for spells that deal slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage being subject to DR, and there *is* an explicit ruling in the other direction (or was, at least... not sure if they've change the FAQ, since it mostly consists of answers that could come from reading the books and incorrect answers, though there is some good stuff in there... point being, i haven't checked it in a while.) also, there is no question whether or not crystal shard is subject to DR. it isn't. that just so happens to be right in the core rulebooks, in fact. as an instantaneous duraction [creation] effect, once created it is not magical, and it is therefore not subject to spell resistance, nor is it subject to antimagic/antipsionic effects. which is why it makes sense that it would be subject to damage resistance, because *by definition* it isn't magical anymore. it's a psionically created pointy object that's going to stab people who don't get out of the way fast enough.
CrimsonDeath 08-13-07, 04:04 AM	You are creating a Abattoir made out of force, you are creating blades of magical energy which slash passers-through; wtf else could the damage type be other than slashing? Force.
Racinante 08-13-07, 11:09 AM	For the sake of balance and verisimilitude, I make anything that deals slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage subject to DR. Crystal Shard, and Black Tentacles, both. I agree completely... Anything that deals weapon type damage (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) should be (and in our game is) subject to DR.
Racinante 08-13-07, 11:11 AM	The nerfs to specific powers in Complete Psionics are NOT official changes to the powers as written. They do not count as errata because errata is by definition "free;" were errata not "free" one could circumvent the rules change by not purchasing the errata. They do not count as official reprints because official reprints need to do just that -- reprint it officially. A reprint that says "Its exactly like it says over there, except as noted here." Is no reprint at all. So contrary to popular belief, using these nerfs is a houserule rather than choosing not to. Anybody else disagree? Actually, they are changes to the rules as written. They are not changes to the SRD, however. The most recent publication always trumps previous versions for all official games.
SlanderPanic 08-13-07, 12:26 PM	I agree completely... Anything that deals weapon type damage (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) should be (and in our game is) subject to DR. I always thought that's how it was supposed to work. Seeing the mention in Complete Psionic bewildered me for that reason. Up until then, the idea of magic or psionics that deal weapon damage bypassing DR was foreign to me. If DR protects you from a club, it should protect you from being pounded by a tentacle. It's logical.
The_Ditto 08-13-07, 01:35 PM	I've always looked at it this way .. After manifesting crystal shard ... are there any crystals on the ground left over?? If Yes, than they are non-magical, not sustained by magic, are not suppressed by anti-magic or null-psionics, not affected by SR/PR and ARE affected by DR. If No, then they are magical, were sustained by magic (despite being an instantaneous creation effect) and are suppressed by anti-magic or null-psionics, (should be) affected by SR/PR and are not affected by DR. Obviously there's always the exceptions ... but if you play strict on that instanteous creation effect, and allow DR to affect it, you better be allowing the "harvesting" of the "non-magical permantely created" items for whatever reason the player may have for harvesting them ... :D (how much is a pound of raw crystal worth anyway ... :confused: ) Personally, in the past, I have played Crystal shard as not-affected by DR .. but I'm probably going to do more thinking on it ... gotta look over some of the other spells/powers that are similar ... not that it makes much difference really ... just make sure you're being consistent in your games ... :tiphat:
Bukowski 08-13-07, 03:40 PM	I agree completely... Anything that deals weapon type damage (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning) should be (and in our game is) subject to DR. Likewise. My home group has any metacreativity (creation) power, conjuration (creation) spell, or equivalent effect that deals weapon-type damage subject to DR. Not that it's RAW, but since metacreativity and conjuration are equivalent for transparency this ruling works for us. A crystal shard power or splinterbolt spell both deal magic piercing damage. We do, however, have psychokinesis and evocation effects bypass DR regardless of their damage type. but if you play strict on that instanteous creation effect, and allow DR to affect it, you better be allowing the "harvesting" of the "non-magical permantely created" items for whatever reason the player may have for harvesting them ... We treat the effects as having created substances with unique properties that are not stable enough to hold together for more than the couple seconds needed for an instantaneous (not permanent) duration. They don't need to be "sustained by magic" any more than an alchemical item.
CrimsonDeath 08-13-07, 03:56 PM	I'd like to preemptively apologize for the semantic gymnastics I'm about to employ. Actually, they are changes to the rules as written. They are not changes to the SRD, however. The most recent publication always trumps previous versions for all official games. Really? I thought we used the Primary Source rule. From the errata of the three core rulebooks: When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Damage reduction is either an Extraordinary ability or a Supernatural ability (depending on what, if anything, penetrates it), making the Monster Manual the primary source. Essentially the same information is included in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction), reworded only sightly and, I believe, retaining its original meaning: The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. So, assuming that we're using the Primary Source rule, spells are never subject to DR, even if they deal slashing, peircing, or bludgeoning damage, nor even if they are instantaneous Conjuration (creation) effects. Regarding psionics, it is not explicitly stated that the Expanded Psionics Handbook is the primary source, but since it provides rules for power manifestation, PP recovery, acquisition and expenditure of psionic focus, and pretty much all the other rules that are necessary for using psionics as it currently operates (and Complete Psionics does not), I believe it's a reasonable assumption. On page 65, the Expanded Psionics Handbook states the following, which is also duplicated in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psiLikeAbiliti es): The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability, as is the manifestation of powers by creatures without a psionic class (creatures with the psionic subtype, also simply called psionic creatures). Then, on page 184, the Expanded Psionics Handbook goes into more detail regarding psi-like abilities, and the relevant portion is duplicated in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/overview.htm#psiLikeAbilities): Most psionic monsters have some number of psi-like abilities. These are very similar to spell-like abilities. Naturally, they are psionic and work just like powers or spells. Interaction with damage reduction is not specifically called out as a difference between Psi-Like and Spell-Like Abilities, so one could easily conclude that it is, instead, one of the similarities. If this is the case, and the Primary Source rule has not been overturned, then the sidebar in Complete Psionics is a variant rule and powers-- including instantaneous Metacreativity powers-- overcome DR. On the other hand, one could instead conclude that the complete list of similarities and differences between Psi-Like and Spell-Like abilities is ambiguous, and the sidebar in Complete Psionics is merely a clarification... Not the clear-cut answer I'd been hoping for... But at least Evard's Black Tentacles are safe.
Witch 08-13-07, 04:00 PM	Regarding the claim that "errata is per definition free". I've tried to defend that myself. It can't be maintained. Prove me a number of encyclopedic references that claim errata is by definition free, and I'll accept it. Until then, I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that the Complete Psionic errata are valid.
Racinante 08-13-07, 04:10 PM	but if you play strict on that instanteous creation effect, and allow DR to affect it, you better be allowing the "harvesting" of the "non-magical permantely created" items for whatever reason the player may have for harvesting them ... We treat the effects as having created substances with unique properties that are not stable enough to hold together for more than the couple seconds needed for an instantaneous (not permanent) duration. They don't need to be "sustained by magic" any more than an alchemical item. Not a bad solution. Another possiblity is considering that these powers frequently create what in effect is ammunition, then the ammunition rules should apply, i.e. An arrow (bolt, bullet, and by extension shuriken) that hits its target is destroyed; one that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost. Furthermore, the result is a crystal with no stated intrinsic value, so outside of Crystal, Mundane: Mundane crystal can be used in place of metal in weapons or armor, using a special forging process. The fortified crystal possesses the properties of a similar masterwork steel weapon or armor, except for visual appearance. Weapons and armor made of mundane crystal cost the same amount to make as their masterwork counterparts. Any item could potentially be made with mundane crystal. Because mundane crystal armor is considered to be made out of metal, druids cannot wear it. Mundane crystal properly forged has 25 hit points per inch of thickness and a hardness of 8. Why would anyone collect it? To feed a crysmal or xorn?
The_Ditto 08-13-07, 05:15 PM	Why would anyone collect it? To feed a crysmal or xorn? Only things that leap to my mind are material components, or even distraction for folugub .. .or even "enchant" it via Nystul's Magic Aura ... :P (of course, I suppose you could that to any shiny rock and get similar results ... *shrug* I didn't say it was big .. just that the crystal should remain if you treat it as non-magical ... :D )
DM Zoc 08-13-07, 09:35 PM	Instantaneous spells and powers create nonmagical objects, so DR would apply and maximize/empower would not. The spell doesn't deal damage; it creates a weapon which deals damage. Like most projectiles, it is ruined upon hitting the target. It's no different than a very large arrow, made of crystal instead of wood.
CrimsonDeath 08-13-07, 10:11 PM	Instantaneous spells and powers create nonmagical objects, so DR would apply and maximize/empower would not. Fireball is instantaneous, as are Cure Light Wounds and Energy Ray. I think we can all agree that none of those spells create objects, none of them have nonmagical effects, and all of them can be Maximized or Empowered.
DM Zoc 08-13-07, 10:13 PM	Fireball is instantaneous, as are Cure Light Wounds and Energy Ray. I think we can all agree that none of those spells create objects, none of them have nonmagical effects, and all of them can be Maximized or Empowered. Sorry, I knew I was missing something. I meant instantaneous creations.
CrimsonDeath 08-14-07, 04:16 AM	Sorry, I knew I was missing something. I meant instantaneous creations. Still, Acid Splash (level 0 Sor/Wiz spell from the PHB) is an instantaneous Conjuration (creation) effect. I can't think of any reason it couldn't be empowered or maximized, and since it deals energy damage (acid, specifically) I can't think of a reason it should be subject to DR either.
Mercurius 08-14-07, 06:56 AM	It seems to me that, statistic-wise, if Crystal Shard was unaffected by Damage Reduction, it would be inherently superior to Energy Ray, which allows saves and does energy damage (which is negated by the also very common Energy Resistance/Immunity). Making it affected by DR means that you actually might not choose it over Energy Ray, which is a good thing, IMHO. Honestly, I figured DR applied even before the Complete Psionics ruling for that reason, and because they declared what type of damage it dealt. Similarly, if any other damage was typed as slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, I'd have followed the DR-applies logic, too. Otherwise, what does it matter what type of damage is inflicted?
Kouk 08-14-07, 10:36 AM	Honestly, I figured DR applied even before the Complete Psionics ruling for that reason, and because they declared what type of damage it dealt. Similarly, if any other damage was typed as slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, I'd have followed the DR-applies logic, too. Otherwise, what does it matter what type of damage is inflicted? I agree, it specifically states it deals Piercing damage. Piercing damage is subject to DR. If the Power said it dealt some kind of energy, or didn't say anything at all about the type, then it wouldn't be subject to DR.
The_Ditto 08-14-07, 12:35 PM	Similarly, if any other damage was typed as slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, I'd have followed the DR-applies logic, too. Otherwise, what does it matter what type of damage is inflicted? The problem you get, however, with that line of thinking, then Ice Storm is affected by DR .. Ice Storm Evocation [Cold] Level: Drd 4, Sor/Wiz 4, Water 5 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: Cylinder (20-ft. radius, 40 ft. high) Duration: 1 full round Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Great magical hailstones pound down for 1 full round, dealing 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area. A –4 penalty applies to each Listen check made within the ice storm’s effect, and all land movement within its area is at half speed. At the end of the duration, the hail disappears, leaving no aftereffects (other than the damage dealt). Arcane Material Component: A pinch of dust and a few drops of water. a) it's not a creation effect b) it's not even an instantaneous effect c) it's certainly not a permanent effect. Conclusion: It must be pure magical effect. By the rules: spells bypass DR. (period). But by your logic, since it lists "bludgeoning", it is affected by DR .. That's the main reason most people argue that just because it lists the damage type, it's not (necessarily) meant to have DR applied. The one thing I know of that is not DR-related, and that DOES care what the damage type is whether it's magical or mudane?? Oozes: Split (Ex): Slashing and piercing weapons deal no damage to a black pudding. Instead the creature splits into two identical puddings, each with half of the original’s current hit points (round down). A pudding with 10 hit points or less cannot be further split and dies if reduced to 0 hit points. So just case in point: - Just because it lists a damage type is not enough to determine if it's affected by DR. You've got to look at the spell/power type (ie instantaneous/permanent creation types and such ...) and go from there ... Either way, as I said before, doesn't much matter how you rule, just be consistent ... if you allow DR, than you're ruling it'sa real, physical item, and resides in the material world. Ergo, it will leave "shards" of crystals and such behind, which may (or may not) have an impact on your world ... (ie material components, whatever ....) Just because an arrow breaks, doesn't mean it disintegrates . if anyone wanted to, the raw materials are there to be harvested if (for whatever reason) they wanted to retrieve them ... (ok, shot overboard at sea - maybe not ... lost in a forest, ok ... but certainly some pieces may still be around ...)
CrimsonDeath 08-14-07, 03:54 PM	Note that the Split ability of various oozes refers specifically to slashing and piercing weapons. It doesn't mention spell effects that do slashing or piercing damage.
DM Zoc 08-14-07, 05:41 PM	My main issue with crystal shard actually isn't with crystal shard; it's with swarm of crystals. Swarm of crystals has no defense. There is nothing you can do to not take full damage from a swarm of crystals. Most area spells allow a reflex save for half; even the cold-energy area powers allow a fort save for half, and energy resistance if you have some. Crystal shard requires a ranged touch attack. Even magic missile is foiled by SR. If DR applies to crystal shard, then it applies to swarm of crystals. If it doesn't, then swarm of crystals is literally unstoppable.
Salla 08-14-07, 06:33 PM	For the sake of balance and verisimilitude, I make anything that deals slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage subject to DR. Crystal Shard, and Black Tentacles, both. Ditto. I keep coming very, very close to ruling Force damage to be magical bludgeoning damage, but not sure it'd be worth the headaches.
The_Ditto 08-15-07, 10:58 AM	My main issue with crystal shard actually isn't with crystal shard; it's with swarm of crystals. Swarm of crystals has no defense. There is nothing you can do to not take full damage from a swarm of crystals. Most area spells allow a reflex save for half; even the cold-energy area powers allow a fort save for half, and energy resistance if you have some. Crystal shard requires a ranged touch attack. Even magic missile is foiled by SR. If DR applies to crystal shard, then it applies to swarm of crystals. If it doesn't, then swarm of crystals is literally unstoppable. Agreed .. but bump it up to d6/pp first ... then add that reflex save .. with d4/pp is effectively giving you an automatic "I saved already" effect to the power ... (kinda - sorta ... :rolleyes: )
Jaid 08-15-07, 03:31 PM	crystal shard does relatively low damage (d4, not d6) in a relatively small area (15 ft) in what is probably the worst of the area shapes (cone) you're hitting something like 6 squares with it, up to a maximum of 3 squares away. i'm not particularly concerned.
Racinante 08-15-07, 04:06 PM	crystal shard does relatively low damage (d4, not d6) in a relatively small area (15 ft) in what is probably the worst of the area shapes (cone) you're hitting something like 6 squares with it, up to a maximum of 3 squares away. i'm not particularly concerned. Crystal shard does d6 damage to one target. Swarm of crystals deals d4 damage in a cone. Guess you were thinking swarm and wrote shard.
DM Zoc 08-15-07, 05:54 PM	Agreed .. but bump it up to d6/pp first ... then add that reflex save .. with d4/pp is effectively giving you an automatic "I saved already" effect to the power ... (kinda - sorta ... :rolleyes: ) Except it ignores both evasion and mettle. I could create the biggest, baddest monster imaginable: AC 5000 (touch 5000, flatfooted 5000), DR 5000/-, Fort/Ref/Will + 5000, SR 5000, Energy resistance to all elements: 5000, with both Evasion and Mettle. Swarm of Crystals would still hit it for full damage, every time.
CrimsonDeath 08-15-07, 09:10 PM	Except it ignores both evasion and mettle. I could create the biggest, baddest monster imaginable: AC 5000 (touch 5000, flatfooted 5000), DR 5000/-, Fort/Ref/Will + 5000, SR 5000, Energy resistance to all elements: 5000, with both Evasion and Mettle. Swarm of Crystals would still hit it for full damage, every time. Assuming the psion is no more than fifteen feet away-- not a very good place for the average psion. And Swarm of Crystals deals damage in d4s-- not a big die for a direct damage power.
Psyrus 08-16-07, 05:26 PM	Slightly off topic, but would Crystal Shard/Swarm go through a Globe of Invulnerability? Since they are instantaneos creation affects and can penatrate an Antimagic field (since they are no longer magical after they're created) wouldn't they also pass through a Globe spell?
The_Ditto 08-16-07, 05:45 PM	Except it ignores both evasion and mettle. I could create the biggest, baddest monster imaginable: AC 5000 (touch 5000, flatfooted 5000), DR 5000/-, Fort/Ref/Will + 5000, SR 5000, Energy resistance to all elements: 5000, with both Evasion and Mettle. Swarm of Crystals would still hit it for full damage, every time. Good .... at 15 ft range, at least you can do SOMETHING!! (Orb of Force is the arcane equivilent of poking that thing ... ) *shrug* . I'm not seeing the big "Oh my gawd, it's breaking my game!" Personally, a creature like that is a bigger concern than what anyone can do to them ... hehe ;) Slightly off topic, but would Crystal Shard/Swarm go through a Globe of Invulnerability? Since they are instantaneos creation affects and can penatrate an Antimagic field (since they are no longer magical after they're created) wouldn't they also pass through a Globe spell? If you treat it as instantaneous creation and it persists becomes it's non-magical ... yes - as long as it was manifested outside the globe. If you treat it more as an instantaneous "power" - and the crystals vanish after they hit ... no ...
CrimsonDeath 08-17-07, 04:38 PM	Slightly off topic, but would Crystal Shard/Swarm go through a Globe of Invulnerability? Since they are instantaneos creation affects and can penatrate an Antimagic field (since they are no longer magical after they're created) wouldn't they also pass through a Globe spell? I'd say no, regardless of the DR issue. The Globe excludes spells of the Swarm's level from its area. Since you're not inside the power's area, it can't affect you.
Jaid 08-17-07, 09:58 PM	i disagree. it's an instantaneous creation effect, and we have rules for those. if antimagic fields don't do anything, neither does a globe of invulnerability.