Black Tentacles and DR?

[hangedman1984]

I know damage reduction doesn't usually apply to damage from spells, is that still true with the damage from Black Tentacles? Or does the fact that they are mundanely crushing the caster's opponent mean damage reduction now applies?

[Essence_of_War]

From the SRD:

Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage. The tentacles continue to crush the opponent until the spell ends or the opponent escapes.


Damage from the tentacles is bludgeoning damage. Any relevant DR should apply. As you said, they are mundanely crushing their victims.

Note: The tentacles can still grapple people even if they can't penetrate its DR.

[Keld Denar]

Damage reduction only applies where it specifically states it does. Contrast Cloud of Knives (PHBII) or Ring of Blades (SpC). Otherwise, regardless of the fact that the damage is "bludgeoning", it is still spell damage and falls under that blanket of assumptions.

[Toliudar]

Interesting! I don't often disagree with Keld - it is dangerous and unwise to do so - but I'd suggest that in this case the tentacles formed by the spell act as natural weapons, and therefore DR applies. In the same way that summoned monsters or a Spiritual Weapon are simultaneously a spell effect and subject to DR.

[Yuki Akuma]

Interesting! I don't often disagree with Keld - it is dangerous and unwise to do so - but I'd suggest that in this case the tentacles formed by the spell act as natural weapons, and therefore DR applies. In the same way that summoned monsters or a Spiritual Weapon are simultaneously a spell effect and subject to DR.

That's a perfectly valid house rule, but isn't at all how the rules actually work.

[Keld Denar]

Spiritual Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm) does not check DR, only SR. As I stated, unless a spell (like Cloud of Knives or Ring of Blades) specifically states that it is affected by DR, it isn't.

[kardar233]

I thought that DR is usually only ignored by energy attacks, and thus a bludgeoning attack, even one produced by a spell would be affected by DR.

I'm probably wrong though.

[SleepyBadger]

I thought that DR is usually only ignored by energy attacks, and thus a bludgeoning attack, even one produced by a spell would be affected by DR.

I'm probably wrong though.
I would agree. Why would they type the damage as bludgeoning otherwise? At least I always interpreted this as a weapon type damage that would be subject to say DR x / slashing or DR x / -.

[JBento]

By RAW, no damage from spells is subject to DR, unless otherwise specified. If I were you, I'd alter it (and, in fact, I do - spell damage is subjected to DR like all other damage when I DM).

On a sidenote, this does nto hold true of psionics - damage dealt by psionics is subjected to appropriate DR by RAW, as of Complete Psionics.

[kharmakazy]

Does that mean that monsters summoned with summon monster can ignore DR too? It doesn't specify and it is also a spell from the conjuration school.

If I use major creation to make a longsword, does it ignore DR? Its from the exact same school and subschool. (conjuration creation)

EDIT: Blah...



How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage?

Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction.

I don't like it, but there it is.

My hobby: Proving myself wrong on the internet.

[Ernir]

Mentioning that EBT deals bludgeoning damage is completely superfluous, as far as I know. There's more to slashing/piercing/bludgeoning than bypassing DR, but I can't think of anything that depends on it and actually affects spells...

AD&D relic, maybe?


Does that mean that monsters summoned with summon monster can ignore DR too? It doesn't specify and it is also a spell from the conjuration school.

If I use major creation to make a longsword, does it ignore DR? Its from the exact same school and subschool. (conjuration creation)

Not quite the same. EBT is a spell that deals damage. The Summon Monster spells and the Major Creation spell are not spells that deal damage, as can be seen from the complete lack of any references to dealing damage in their respective spell descriptions. They can conjure things that deal damage, but that is a function of the thing they create, not the spell itself.

[kharmakazy]

The problem, I think, lies in the fact that the flavor of the spell makes it sound like the tentacles are a creature/s.

"Treat the tentacles attacking a particular target as a Large creature" For example. Had I summoned a creature there is no doubt that it would not ignore DR. If we ACTUALLY treat the tentacles as a large creature, they would too.

Instead, you have to think of it as a 20 foot radius area of arbitrary grapple checks and magical crushing damage.

[Divide by Zero]

The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities

Note that energy attacks and spells are listed separately, implying that non-energy spells still bypass it.

[kharmakazy]

Edit: Can't read. Words are a foreign concept that eludes me. I don't even know what this says, I have just been trained to type the corresponding keys with a series of treats and lashes.

[hangedman1984]

By RAW, no damage from spells is subject to DR, unless otherwise specified. If I were you, I'd alter it (and, in fact, I do - spell damage is subjected to DR like all other damage when I DM).

On a sidenote, this does nto hold true of psionics - damage dealt by psionics is subjected to appropriate DR by RAW, as of Complete Psionics.

WHAT!! I knew there was a(n additional) reason i didn't like that book. Absolutely worse of the complete series.

[olentu]

Note that energy attacks and spells are listed separately, implying that non-energy spells still bypass it.

That looks more like a rather direct statement rather then an implication to me.

[kharmakazy]

That looks more like a rather direct statement rather then an implication to me.

:facepalm: I clearly misread that.

[SleepyBadger]

By RAW, no damage from spells is subject to DR, unless otherwise specified. If I were you, I'd alter it (and, in fact, I do - spell damage is subjected to DR like all other damage when I DM).
Well thank you all for clarifying this. This is how I've always played it as to me this was the most logical interpretation. I guess I will have to state explicitly that it is a houserule then.

[Yora]

I'd call it a DMs descision how to interpret an insufficiently explained rule. Both interpretations are viable, so the DM has to state which one will be used in the campaign.

[Runestar]

I thought grappling damage normally ignores dr to begin with?