Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hsien 06-05-07, 02:09 PM	Background: I've got a Fighter/Rogue/Master Thrower, feat of significance is Telling Blow ( apply sneak damage when he confirms criticals ). Fighting some sort of Devil, not sure, but it had DR 20/+2 I figured out pretty quick, as my +2 Returning dagger worked fine but my +1, silver or cold iron did not overcome it's DR. My base damage is not enough to overcome that DR, no problem, but when I critical my damage goes to 18 ( after multipling ) + 3d3 ( small daggers ) + 5d6 (Telling Blow ) which is more then enough to exceed the DR, it's better then nothing anyway. My crit multiplier is x 3 with daggers from MT trick. My DM thinks that since the base damage is not enough overcome the DR, then therefore the critical cannot apply. After some discussion he confirmed that yes the monster could be criticalled and did not have any fortification like ability to ignore crits/sneaks. Just that the non-crit damage must exceed the DR in order to get to add in the critical damage. Appreciate any advise on how I can better explain this, checked the FAQ and the closest thing I could find is where it talks about "burst" weapons still triggering and doing the extra "burst" damage on creatures that cannot be criticalled...such as undead.
Tempest Stormwind 06-05-07, 02:15 PM	Your DM is full of it. And using 3.0 damage reduction, by the way (which is often "DR Don'tEvenTry/YouDon'tHaveIt". Case in point, 20/+2. Chances are that would be DR 10/Good or similar in 3.5.) DR reduces a given amount of damage. On its own, it doesn't mean you're immune to critical hits. It NEVER says anything related to crits, so normal rules apply -- that is, if you roll a crit, you roll additional damage, and then reduce it by the fixed DR value. What it means is that the devil has a particularly hard carapace, but if you're lucky you just might be able to punch through it and hurt it if you hit a particularly sensitive spot.
Light_Colonel 06-05-07, 02:21 PM	Well, it sounds like you are playing 3.0 Thats mistake #1. And your DM is full of ****. My DM thinks that since the base damage is not enough overcome the DR, then therefore the critical cannot apply. After some discussion he confirmed that yes the monster could be criticalled and did not have any fortification like ability to ignore crits/sneaks. Just that the non-crit damage must exceed the DR in order to get to add in the critical damage. Yeah, your DM has a perfectly valid point there. The rules don't say that if your base damage can't exceed the DR of your opponent you aren't allowed to crit.... The rules also don't say that anything bad happens to you when you die. In many cases the only way a party *can* defeat a monsters is via critical hits. Look at the Grick. It's like CR3 with DR 15/magic. You most likely won't have a magic weapon at that level. If your mages are out of spells, that just leaves the warriors to deal with it. All they can do is roll til they crit. I cannot count how many battles we have fought like that over our D&D lives.
cypherx 06-05-07, 02:43 PM	your dm is full of it, but if he doesn't change his mind, you have 3 options. try energy attacks: acid and fire won't likely hurt but cold will. there are alchemical items that do cold damage in some expansions should you have them. use your sneak attack: the total damage should overcome the damage reduction. use massive environmental damage: cave-ins, bull rushes off cliffs, the likes. keep in mind, demons are always subject to the spell "dismissal". you may have to hire a wizard to come and do that. (or is it a cleric?) you could sneak around the demon or avoid it all together.
Thubby 06-05-07, 04:05 PM	there are 2 main explainations for DR. 1) the creature can heal very fast for a short period (i.e. when it gets stabbed) this wouldnt stop crits because you just did too much to heal, the hole was too big, or deap, or w/e. 2) the weapon just bounces off, the creatures hide is so tough that it is harder to even damage. a crit could be thought of hitting a vital area no harder than norm, just a bad spot, but if you cant get past the outside, the inards are in no danger (this is probably what the dm thinks). the counter to this is that you find a chink in the plating, or a soft spot.
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 06-05-07, 08:37 PM	Don't try to justify bad DMing. Rule zero is fine and all but completely disregarding RAW really hurts the player/DM relationship.
Thubby 06-05-07, 10:03 PM	Don't try to justify bad DMing. Rule zero is fine and all but completely disregarding RAW really hurts the player/DM relationship. im not justifying it, hes still completely wrong. i just think he has a logical (if only to him) reason. and when a person wont just be proven wrong (by the RAW, for example), working through their logic is often the only way to convince them.
Kouk 06-06-07, 12:54 AM	If you roll enough damage to overcome the DR, then you subtract the DR from that amount and the rest is damage. In 3.0 there was damage like 10/+2 or 10/+1, but in 3.5 there is only 10/magic for instance. It doesn't matter what the actual enhancement bonus is, as long as it is at least +1 it can overcome DR/magic. There is DR/Epic stuff also but that probably isn't a concern if your +2 worked.
Hsien 06-06-07, 08:55 AM	Thanks for the advice. We are playing 3.5 but I've avoided looking at the Monster Manuals so didn't realize the 3.0 vs 3.5 difference there. I'll talk to him somemore. Even if it doesn't work out, the party can handle the encounter. Just for future encounters I want to make sure we're on the same page...or version of D&D apparently.
northern_bear 06-06-07, 09:40 AM	According to the rules, your DM is wrong. The way DR works is you add up all the damage you do, subtract the DR value, and then apply damage. So by the rules, he is wrong. But unlike everyone else who thinks he's full of ****, I think he may actually have a valid point. Think of it this way. What does it mean when you actually get sneak attack damage. To me, it would mean that you have struck a blow in a particularly vulnerable part of the body. Instead of stabing them in the chest, you got them in the throat. Instead of the shoulder blade, you got them in the kidney. The eye, instead of the forehead, etc. So a sneak attack doesn't actually hit any harder then a normal blow, it just strikes a more critical part of the body. Now take a wherewolf. It has DR 15/silver. I would interpret this as it having an extremely tough hide. Most attacks just don't have the power to push through the hide. A barbarian who hits for 25 points of damage, is striking with such force that he is able to power through that tough hide. But the hide does slow down the blow so that the wherewolf only takes 10 points of damage. But consider trying to stab the wherewolf in the kidneys with a knife. I would say that the skin covering his kidneys is just as tough as the skin covering the rest of his body. It's just as hard to get through. If you stab him hard enough to drive the knife through his hide, then it will go into his kidneys and cause him tons of damage. But if you can't hit him hard enough that the knife can actually penetrate his hide, then the knife will never actually get to his kidney. Sneak attack means you've got his kidneys lined up with your strike. But if something (like a realy tough hide) prevents your knife from actually getting through to strike his kidneys, then I don't think you should do any extra damage. So in this case, I think the DM's ruling makes a bit of sense. If your base damage, due to the sheer force of the blow, is insufficient to get you through the monster's skin, then you shouldn't be entitled to any extra damage for striking "vital" parts of the body. It may not be according to RAW, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is full of ****.
Tempest Stormwind 06-06-07, 11:03 AM	Northern Bear: As silly as it sounds, the rules are the rules. Under the rules, if he's dealt enough damage to bypass the DR, that damage goes through -- nothing whatsoever about "the weapon's base damage must be capable of breaching DR". The critical hit is just a very finely placed hit that happens to hurt a hell of a lot more and the DR isn't as readily able to defend against it. Saying the DM's in the clear because he can change the rules isn't exactly being helpful.
northern_bear 06-06-07, 11:16 AM	Saying the DM's in the clear because he can change the rules isn't exactly being helpful. The DM screwed up. He screwed up by not knowing what the rules actually are. I'm not saying he is in the clear. All I'm doing is defending him from all the people who are insulting him, including you. He didn't know the correct rules, so he implemented a house rule. There's nothing wrong with that. And what's more, the house rule that he implemented is not particularly unreasonable. It is in fact a very reasonable rule, although it is clearly no RAW. Neither ignorance of the rules, nor implementation of a reasonable house rule, should be justificaiton for all the people trashing this DM.
Hsien 06-06-07, 11:42 AM	He didn't know the correct rules, so he implemented a house rule. There's nothing wrong with that. And what's more, the house rule that he implemented is not particularly unreasonable. It is in fact a very reasonable rule, although it is clearly no RAW. Neither ignorance of the rules, nor implementation of a reasonable house rule, should be justificaiton for all the people trashing this DM. I have to agree, I was looking more for reasonable arguements to use, rather then trash talk, which won't help my case. I can understand his viewpoint, I just thought that the rules / game mechanics didn't support that reasoning. I do appreciate everyone's input though.