Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Silvermoon 11-26-07, 11:43 AM	If a cockatrice attacks you and hit you but you have damage resistance 2/-. Does the paralyze attack work if the damage are 0? The damage for a cockatrice is 1d4-2+paralyze. Before answering anything, just keep in mind that if the attack still paralyze without having to deal damage, then why they are not attacking only with touch attack. Thanks you for your time. Silvermoon
sapient 11-26-07, 11:56 AM	No, if the damage is reduced to 0, DR effectively negates the attack and paralysis will not occur. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Silvermoon 11-26-07, 12:08 PM	Just to be sure of anything here is the description of the attack... can you confirm that the paralysis do not occur. Petrification (Su) Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based. Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally.
Hsien 11-26-07, 03:05 PM	I can easily see it interpretted that since the description simply says "hit" and therefore a Touch attack could be used for the bite to effectively deliver it, that DR would not prevent the Paraylsis effect. It's unlikely the creature would think to use a Touch Attack.
Tordak 11-26-07, 03:29 PM	What DR prevent when reducing damage to 0 is attacks that rely on injury to work. Injury poison work like that, but not contact poison. Stunning fist works like that because you need to deal damage to the creature to use stunning fist. Any attack that stated 'if the opponent takes damage from the attack, ...' or similar entry in it's description will be negated by the DR (if damage is reduced to 0). It is usually specified in either the creature's description or the special ability's description. The cockatrice's ability relies only on the hit, so even if DR reduces the damages to 0 the victim must make the save or be turned to stone.
tyrecian 11-26-07, 04:10 PM	I think i have to agree with Tordak, since its worded "hit" then it simply hits. If the cockatrice were brighter it could use a touch attack, but its also using its attack to deal damage, which your DR might negate, but still the save must be made v/s petri.
sapient 11-26-07, 08:08 PM	While I wouldn't say that an interpretation such as "the cockatrice only needs to hit, not to do any damage" is necessary illegal, it seems very strange to me. If it had need only to - effectively - touch the subject, why would it not be a touch attack? It makes no sense to me, the way the combat system is designed, that a special attack would use the full AC and still deliver its special quality if the attack was effectivley negated by DR (in just the way that the rules for DR describe). There's no need inventing arguments such as: It's unlikely the creature would think to use a Touch Attack. This is not how monsters work. They may have low Int, but no matter how low their Int-score they have the means and understanding to use their natural weapons. (If nothing else, evolution takes care of that - those that find out by trial and error, survives. Those that don't won't be around.) I can't find a single example like that. With semi-intelligent monsters, sure. Then they can use equipment and such - but not realize their full potential (or lack the abilities to utilize them at peak efficiency). But we're not talking that here. (EDIT:) Also, as an afterthough - the whole system with different AC:s is to strengthen the idea that hits/hit points and damage is not necessarily representing physical damage. A fighter with high AC can get hit easier then is reflected by his AC - but won't lose HP unless the hit is effective enough. Hence touch AC. So there's not even something in the monsters make up - low intelligence or other factor - that would prevent it from using touch AC. It is not a choice. If the effect is taking place on a successful touch then it should be Touch AC. So, in the end, yes I think that this interpretation IS illegal - it constitutes an entirely new battle system. It's not how the rules work.
Hsien 11-26-07, 09:07 PM	Actually that was a response to part the OP's initial question...why don't they use Touch attacks? And I stand by that same statement, with an addendum added below. Touch AC use is a matter of 2 things, from game mech perspective. 1: Nature of the attack...most notably incorporeal attacks 2: Choice by a "creature" to deliver a specific or special attack type Addendum: Plus from a game mech perspective, it may make the 'Trice too powerful to allow it's Paralyze to activate by it using a Touch attack as it's standard method. imo you'd have to increase it's CR because it would hit much more often.
strenoth 11-27-07, 01:38 AM	I'm going to have to go with this quote: Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact. and rule that the change to zero damage inflicted means it is effectively not a hit. It's not one of the specifically described things that bypass the rule like energy damage or energy drain, and it's not a touch attack. the writer simply did not take into account that a player character might take a 'hit' and not be damaged. as it does nto specifically get aroudn this clause in DR, then it does not effect the character if the damage is reduced to zero
Merestil Haye 11-27-07, 07:31 AM	"To hit" means "Make a successful attack roll." (Source : D&D Glossary.) A successful attack roll is one that equals or exceeds the DC - in that case the target's AC. Whether or not it does any damage is irrelevant; it's still a successful attack roll. The ability could have been worded "Whenever the cockatrice deals damage, [effect]". It wasn't. The test is whether the Cockatrice hit. The target needs to make the save. Strenoth's suggestion makes a lot of sense in flavour terms, but strictly speaking it's not what the text says when interpreted in the light of the terms used.
sapient 11-27-07, 09:26 AM	"To hit" means "Make a successful attack roll." (Source : D&D Glossary.) A successful attack roll is one that equals or exceeds the DC - in that case the target's AC. Whether or not it does any damage is irrelevant; it's still a successful attack roll. The ability could have been worded "Whenever the cockatrice deals damage, [effect]". It wasn't. The test is whether the Cockatrice hit. The target needs to make the save. No, now you are selectively disregarding parts of the SRD. "To hit" is a condition that any attack needs to fulfill before dealing damage (a necessary condition). That part you have right - but it is not a sufficient condition. That's when the rules about DR (and some similar rules in analogous situations) come in. The rules about DR states, that when DR reduces damage made to zero the attack is effectively a failure and therefore any special effects (unless they are of certain types mentioned) also fail. As I said before - if you invent this new version, you circumvent parts of the battle system. That can be a houserule of course. But be very clear about it - it is not RAW and it changes the battle system considerably.
Merestil Haye 11-27-07, 12:30 PM	No, now you are selectively disregarding parts of the SRD. "To hit" is a condition that any attack needs to fulfill before dealing damage (a necessary condition). That part you have right - but it is not a sufficient condition. That's when the rules about DR (and some similar rules in analogous situations) come in.I disagree. It is a sufficient condition, because the test is "did it hit", not "did it do damage". The idea that a hit was a blow that dealt damage is a legacy of 1e and 2e that the game has discarded. If the blow fails to overcome DR, then nothing that depends on the creature dealing damage will happen. But that isn't the test, and has not been since August 2000. The test is "did it hit" - was the attack roll successful. The game has templates for wording abilities that depend on damage being done (Injury poisons are an example). These were not used. If the intention was that damage being dealt was a necessary condition, they could have used such a template. They did not.
StevenO 11-27-07, 02:47 PM	I'd go with the DR prevents the damage and thus the added effect. If the Cockatrice only need to "make contact" then a touch attack would work in theory. The thing is that if a touch attack is all that is needed you'd better believe that is what the creature WOULD use. If a touch attack could deliver the petrifiaction effect then natural selection would quickly favor the beasts using the easier means of disabling threats.
Hsien 11-27-07, 03:13 PM	Evolution, in general, is a ongoing process. If your making the "natural selection" arguement, it can just as easily be argued that this 3.5 version is the current stage of the Trices evolutionary development. Therefore a "would use" argument is unsupported. Game mechanically, the increased difficulty in hitting balances the paralytic effect; for it's CR.
gotbrain 11-28-07, 09:52 AM	I think I would side with the "if it hits", even if no damage is done, side because it's not a touch attack. Remember touch attacks ignore armor and shield, you just have to touch the object but a cockatrice needs to penetrate armor and touch the actual creature; thus it must successfully hit, but not necessarily do damage. And I'm curious, what do cockatrices eat if everything they touch turns to stone?
sapient 11-28-07, 12:50 PM	Evolution, in general, is a ongoing process. If your making the "natural selection" arguement, it can just as easily be argued that this 3.5 version is the current stage of the Trices evolutionary development. Therefore a "would use" argument is unsupported. You're right, I didn't think of that. It COULD be, but it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. The individual cockatrice would still notice quite early in its life that things it attack become petrified. If it had a way to attack Touch AC, wouldn't it find out even with Int 2? Game mechanically, the increased difficulty in hitting balances the paralytic effect; for it's CR. Sure, that is probably the reason for it not being a attack against Touch AC. That would make it a higher CR. But, also game mechanically, if DR prevents any physical damage it should prevent the special attack, as the rules say.
Hsien 11-28-07, 01:11 PM	Not necessarily, it also depend so the description of the attack. The 'Trice apparently indicates any creature hit..which there is no arguement against that the 'Trice did literrally "stick it's neck out" for the attack, which makes even more sense for it not to be a Touch AC. With limbs it's much easier to perform a Touch Attack, trying to do that with a beak does lead to a much more aggressive attack, and not simply a Touch. There is perhaps some relevent precedant in the FAQ, not diffinative since...well it's the FAQ and not the absolute resource, but still a precedent. Not sure if we're allowed to copy here so I'll ref and summerize. FAQ: Page 72, bottom of page, deals with ToB Manuevers and Damage Reduction. ~Maneuvers that simply require a hit or successful attack to apply its effect, then the effect occurs, even if you don’t deal damage with the actual attack. Since the 'Trice specifies only that a hit is needed, the interpretation that the Paralytic effect still occurs is supported. Sidenote: Rock Soup, lots of Rock Soup...dang Land of the Lost show
sapient 11-28-07, 01:24 PM	This answer is directed to all those who defend that a person hit by a Cockatrice attack should have to make a Fortitude save or be petrified - even if they have DR that eliminates all physical damage - not only the one post that I reply to. I think I would side with the "if it hits", even if no damage is done, side because it's not a touch attack. Remember touch attacks ignore armor and shield, you just have to touch the object but a cockatrice needs to penetrate armor and touch the actual creature; thus it must successfully hit, but not necessarily do damage. Well, any DM is free to house rule so - but it IS a violation of the Rules As Written. It is not even interpreting a shady wording, as far as I'm concerned. There's no mistaking the rules, if you read them - It's all there: If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. (There's absolutly no need to speculate about 1st or 2nd edition. This is here and now.) Then there's the rule of Damage Reduction: Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact. (Emphasis added.) Now, interpreting a cockatrices petrification as due to a contact type poison, is still against RAW but maybe not quite obviously so. It doesn't say anything about that in the monsters description (it doesn't say anything about HOW petrification come about at all, not even if it is to be considered a supernatural or spell like ability, which would counter such an interpretation). So, it might seem more attractive - since the SRD only mentions three ways to induce paralysis (by SU, SP abilities or by poison, it could be said that petrification should be the same.) There is some merit to this. Consider the SRD once more: Merely touching this type of poison necessitates a saving throw. It can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack. Even if a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison can still affect it. So, it COULD be consistent with the interpretation, since contact type poison indeed will have effect even if DR negates physical damage (if it is delivered by weapon). BUT if it were a contact type poision, it should be an attack against Touch AC. Because that is what makes contact poision different from injury type poison. That is also stated in the same sentence: "or a touch attack" So what it boils down to is: You can't claim it is a contact type poison that creates this effect, as long as a Cockatrice can't deliver it through a touch attack. And there ARE no other attacks in the battle system that are contingent on penetrating armor but otherwise works as a touch attack (as in gotbrains post qouted above: "a cockatrice needs to penetrate armor and touch the actual creature"). Maybe there should be - is a realistic claim that there should be. But, this being DnD that particular piece of realism is sacrificed for playability and therefore there are only either an attack against full AC OR a touch attack - no in-betweens. Creating them would be just that - creating, not interpreting.
sapient 11-28-07, 01:36 PM	FAQ: Page 72, bottom of page, deals with ToB Manuevers and Damage Reduction. ~Maneuvers that simply require a hit or successful attack to apply its effect, then the effect occurs, even if you don’t deal damage with the actual attack. No. That part deals with beneficial effects that are the result of a successull attack (hit) against an enemy - such as (the FAQ mentions) rising morale. Acording to ToB, Martial powers such as manuevers are "extraodinary or supernatural effects". We already knew from the SRD that they bypass DR even if the physical damage is reduced to zero. This entry only clarifies that which is a consequence of the rules and was not explicitly mentioned.
gotbrain 11-28-07, 01:38 PM	BUT if it were a contact type poision, it should be an attack against Touch AC. Because that is what makes contact poision different from injury type poison. That is also stated in the same sentence: "or a touch attack" So what it boils down to is: You can't claim it is a contact type poison that creates this effect, as long as a Cockatrice can't deliver it through a touch attack. But that is my point that contact poison WOULDN'T be a touch attack but a normal attack (and we are assuming it works like contact poison because only a hit is needed). Remember touch attacks ignore armor. Are you saying that touching the guy's full plate (a successful touch attack) is going to poison him?
sapient 11-28-07, 01:50 PM	But that is my point that contact poison WOULDN'T be a touch attack but a normal attack (and we are assuming it works like contact poison because only a hit is needed). Remember touch attacks ignore armor. Are you saying that touching the guy's full plate (a successful touch attack) is going to poison him? Yes. You are very welcome to that interpretation. It makes a lot of sense. But, that sense was sacrificed by the rules. Most likely (in my opinion) in order to reduce the number of special circumstances in combat and focus on a few easy-to-learn ways of attack. It doesn't make much sense to me either, that a Lich's touch can paralyze a person, even if it only touches his or her armor. But it does: Paralyzing Touch (Su): Any living creature a lich hits with its touch attack must succeed on a Fortitude save or be permanently paralyzed. That's the way things are - playability sometimes make the rules less intuitive, but simpler and with fewer special conditions. EDIT: Just to clarify, since this has already turned into a long discussion. That part in the first parenthesis in the quote above, "(and we are assuming it works like contact poison because only a hit is needed)". Is NOT a part I think make sense - that is the part I object to. :)
Merestil Haye 11-28-07, 03:31 PM	Now, interpreting a cockatrices petrification as due to a contact type poison, is still against RAW but maybe not quite obviously so. It doesn't say anything about that in the monsters description (it doesn't say anything about HOW petrification come about at all, not even if it is to be considered a supernatural or spell like ability, which would counter such an interpretation). So, it might seem more attractive - since the SRD only mentions three ways to induce paralysis (by SU, SP abilities or by poison, it could be said that petrification should be the same.) The SRD is quite explicit in labelling the Cockatrice's petrification ability as a Supernatural ability. That's what the (Su) in brackets after the name of the ability means. It is not, in any way shape or form, a poison. If it was a poison, it would (a) say it was a poison (as, for example, the wyvern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wyvern.htm) does, (b) list secondary damage and (c) probably be an Extraordinary ability. None of these are true. The various methods of petrification are too disparate to permit a coherent description of how one becomes petrified. You must go to the description of the source of the petrifying effect. For the cockatrice, this means it must hit the victim, which must then fail a save. That's all we are told. Thus pretty much everything depends on the D&D definition of "hit." Hits in D&D do damage. DR can reduce that damage to 0, but it doesn't undo the fact that damage was rolled.
gotbrain 11-28-07, 03:33 PM	Hmmm, Sapient, you make a good point. But lots of times RAW is subjective to a persons point of view (meaning it has different interpretations) so I don't think its so clear cut as to say "this way is right but you can play that way". It seems better to say, "RAW could mean this or that, depending on how you look at it." For instance I can see how a Lich's paralyzing attack works by touching armor (its magical and a negative energy attack) but not contact poison. I wouldn't even think twice about treating them differently and would believe I'm justified by the rules.
sapient 11-28-07, 04:21 PM	The SRD is quite explicit in labelling the Cockatrice's petrification ability as a Supernatural ability. That's what the (Su) in brackets after the name of the ability means. Oh, yes. You're right. That means a person hit by a Cockatrice, should roll a fortitude save or be petrified, as (su) bypass DR. My bad. It was NOT labeled (su) in my downloaded copy of SRD, that I use most often. That's why I couldn't find it before, as I said. But now that you said it was (su) I checked with http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cockatrice.htm an lo! (And that also means I should check to see if there's a newer version of the SRD to download...) It is not, in any way shape or form, a poison. I quite agree. I only commented on that, since it was brought up as a suggestion to explain the effect. For the cockatrice, this means it must hit the victim, which must then fail a save. That's all we are told. Thus pretty much everything depends on the D&D definition of "hit." Hits in D&D do damage. DR can reduce that damage to 0, but it doesn't undo the fact that damage was rolled. No, that is quite irrelevant reasoning. Now we know that a Cockatrice special attack is a supernatural ability - then it bypass DR. If it hadn't been, and if DR had reduced the damage to zero, no save would have been needed. All this is explicitly stated in the rules about DR. There's no way that petrification would have been acomplished if DR absorbs the physical damage, unless it was the effect of one type of attack that is explicitly mentioned in the DR rules.
tyrecian 11-28-07, 05:30 PM	A completely irrelevant aside :schemes: And I'm curious, what do cockatrices eat if everything they touch turns to stone? I have long enjoyed the flavor (perhaps from the early basilisks and 'trices?) that they have glands that essentially act, over time, as small secretions of stone to flesh spell. The stone is a magical effect by which they preserve their meat. (think of their origin being really harsh environs where meat might immediately be destroyed, extreme heat , extreme cold [wouldn't affect stone], water, storms, etc... perhaps they were brought here by an evil wizard long ago, or maybe thrust violently into the world by a god shifting parts of the PM around... who knows?) I allow crafty players (pun intended) to preserve the glands [I]post mortem and attempt to brew a special oil from them that can be a one use Stone to Flesh application. It takes a while, bit it can be really useful, especially if the 'lisk or 'trice has made one of the party stone. The local temple will often make a scroll trade for an elixir in the future... :)
sapient 11-28-07, 06:38 PM	I have long enjoyed the flavor (perhaps from the early basilisks and 'trices?) that they have glands that essentially act, over time, as small secretions of stone to flesh spell. (...) I allow crafty players (pun intended) to preserve the glands post mortem and attempt to brew a special oil from them that can be a one use Stone to Flesh application. That's actually very good flavour. It gives that nice, alchemical-magic backstory. Myself I'm far to much into a modern scientific mindset to come up with these, I guess. :) I've always favoured the explanation that unlike carnivores, that have enzymes and bacteria to break down flesh and extract nutriens inside their guts, or herbivores that have enzymes and bacteria to break down plant matter, Cockatrices, Basilisks and the like carry bacteria that feed on minerals. Ordinary stone is not enough, because they also need trace elements that are too rare in ordinary rocks. So they have to convert their food into stone first. A far less useful explanation gamewise.