Damage Reduction vs spells

[martixy]

Splitting off the discussion from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445027-Spells-that-simply-shouldn-t-be-at-that-high-a-level/page6), so as not to hijack it
...on how Damage Reduction interacts with spells that deal physical damage.



The whole thing seems like an oversight. A mistake.

And the difficulty in pointing to an instance "bludgeoning resistance" or similar in printed material is just another nail in the coffin.

Therefore I shall unanimously completely ignore that sentence in favor of common sense.

Oh, it's quite intentional. It even says so in the FAQ, which, although it may not be authoritative, should at least give some insight into the rules' intent.

Right. So I get the RAW, and I get the intent. I won't dispute the interpretation.

I still believe that the whole thing is an utter failure of consistent and sensible design.

And is in fact an oversight.

Let's start with some actual RAW to the contrary - Complete Psionics p.79 - there is a sidebar that addresses precisely Damage Reduction and powers that specifically deal one of the physical damage types.
This can reasonably be extended to spells.
Now, it is specifically for Metacreativity powers(its arcane counterpart being Conjuration). And it makes sense - the spell or power may summon an arrow or a crystal or a rock to deal damage, but the thing that deals that damage is not magical in itself.
Another commonality is that these spells/powers are always with Instantaneous duration and offer no SR/PR (there are a couple of exceptions for SR, but those again seem like an oversight).
And this "spell prototype" makes sense.

Ice Storm has SR(and is Evocation).
Therefore what would make sense there is for the damage simply to be untyped.

Something else worth noting is that DR's elemental counterpart - energy resistance does not make provisions about the source of the damage - just its type.
Fire resistance does not care if you're being burned by a fireball or lava - it will protect you equally in both cases.

Lastly - would anything about how Ice Storm behaved change if the word "bludgeoning" was omitted? Under RAW - no. It serves no purpose. And yet usually "bludgeoning" is actually a functional word within D&D - it has definite, observable gameplay effects. In general, the only sensible reason to explicitly specify a type of damage is because there exists something that counters said damage type - in this case DR. Otherwise why bother even including it. More to the point, invalidating what is essentially a keyword in D&D's functional language should most definitely be considered a "bug", as it were - a mistake.

[BowStreetRunner]

The Infinite Monkey theorem posits that if you let a monkey randomly hit keys on a typewriter for an infinite amount of time he will eventually create the entire works of Shakespeare. This theory was conclusively debunked in the year 2000 when the results of testing with real monkeys and typewriters instead resulted in the creation of 3rd Edition D&D.

Seriously though, far too many people give the game designers far too much credit for actually intending even half of the actual rules interactions within this system. The truth of the matter is that there was little consistency. Simple fixes like standardized design templates and use of predefined keywords that other games employ to retain consistency were never implemented here. The fact that RAW so often fails to stand up to common sense and can even be seen to be contradictory should be sufficient for most DMs to fall back on Rule 0 and just go with what works for their game.

[Curmudgeon]

I recommend a simple house rule for this: DR applies normally to all spells which inflict damage, unless that damage is of the type which bypasses the DR. (It's not like spellcasters really need yet another point of superiority in the game.)

[torrasque666]

I recommend a simple house rule for this: DR applies normally to all spells which inflict damage, unless that damage is of the type which bypasses the DR. (It's not like spellcasters really need yet another point of superiority in the game.)
I'm only now realizing that this is not RAW. This is how my group plays. If it's not untyped, or energy typed, it's considered some sort of physical damage and DR applies normally.

[martixy]

I'm only now realizing that this is not RAW. This is how my group plays. If it's not untyped, or energy typed, it's considered some sort of physical damage and DR applies normally.

That's what I thought and that's how I and everyone I've played with as always played it.
But apparently RAW either disagrees or is contradictory. Which prompted the rant above.

[eggynack]

I disagree with one of the core premises of your argument, that the type is pointless if magic automatically bypasses DR. While ice storm doesn't care about DR at all, it does seem to care very much about, say, the kelp angler's immunity to bludgeoning. Thus, in at least one case, and perhaps others, the type has a function in spite of ice storm being a spell. And actually, moving backwards, I don't think you're right about fireballs and lava either. By the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#lavaEffects), any fire resistance provides perfect immunity to the damage inflicted by lava, while it obviously only provides the more limited numerical protection against magical fire. This reinforces the distinction between magic and mundane damage sources, instead of breaking it down, though I think mundane fire lacks this provision for some reason.

That basically leaves your argument with just the complete psionic citation and the presence of SR. To the former point, it's worth note that complete psionic is one of the least accepted first party sources in terms of its editing and construction, so if we're hanging out in the realm of bringing up conflicts between sources to show that one source is silly, I'd be inclined to claim that it is complete psionic that is the silly source. Though, of course, neither source has to be silly, because you can't just "reasonably extend" psionic rules to the realm of magic, at least not when psionic-magic transparency doesn't specifically allow it. They're just two separate rules for two separate cases. As for SR, I'm not sure what the issue there is at all. The presence of SR, or lack thereof, doesn't really alter the typing of magic damage. They're mostly separate game objects.

[Telok]

So... Launch Bolt bypasses all DR?

I may need to revisit Telekinesis and see how it interacts.

[Curmudgeon]

So... Launch Bolt bypasses all DR?
Nope. The target of the spell is the bolt, not the enemy. (You would bypass any DR the bolt had, for what that's worth. :smallwink:)

[Aleolus]

Ah, but what about a spell like Splinterbolt from the SC, which specifies it overcomes DR as both a Piercing and Magic weapon?

I say to ask the following questions:
1. Does the spell specify that some/all the damage is bludgeoning/slashing/piercing? (Eg: Meteor Swarm)
2. Does the spell specify it overcomes or interacts with DR as though it were slashing/piercing/bludgeoning? (Eg: Splinterbolt).

If the answer to both of those is No, then the spell ignores DR.

[RolkFlameraven]

The way my group has played with Ice storm being the one that brought it to the front in the first place, is that DR applies to the bludgeoning damage, because bludgeoning. Why wouldn't it?

[Curmudgeon]

Ah, but what about a spell like Splinterbolt from the SC, which specifies it overcomes DR as both a Piercing and Magic weapon?
That's not all that it says.
A creature’s damage reduction, if any, applies to the damage from this spell. The damage from splinterbolt is treated as magic and piercing for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Without that first sentence, the usual rule for DR and spells would apply.
Damage Reduction

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

[eggynack]

Ah, but what about a spell like Splinterbolt from the SC, which specifies it overcomes DR as both a Piercing and Magic weapon?

I say to ask the following questions:
1. Does the spell specify that some/all the damage is bludgeoning/slashing/piercing? (Eg: Meteor Swarm)
2. Does the spell specify it overcomes or interacts with DR as though it were slashing/piercing/bludgeoning? (Eg: Splinterbolt).

If the answer to both of those is No, then the spell ignores DR.
I think you're overcomplicating this by a lot. The thing which makes DR apply to splinterbolt isn't that it says that it overcomes certain DR. It's that it explicitly says that DR works against it. To cite the text, "A creature’s damage reduction, if any, applies to the damage from this spell." D&D, like most games, operates by general rules and specific exceptions. DR doesn't work against spells, because the rules say it doesn't, but if a spell says that DR works against it, then that's a specific exception, and DR does apply in that case. There aren't two questions. There is only the one question, whether my cited text exists in any particular case.

Edit: Swordsage'd

[Aleolus]

...Ok, I had forgotten that first sentence. My mistake

[Telok]

Nope. The target of the spell is the bolt, not the enemy. (You would bypass any DR the bolt had, for what that's worth. :smallwink:)

Hmm. Magic Stone? The spell lists the damage without giving a type.

[Zanos]

Most spells that deal physically typed damage deal much less damage than other spells of the same spell level that traffic in elemental damage, leading me to believe that this behavior is intentional and I leave it "unpatched" in my games.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I recommend a simple house rule for this: DR applies normally to all spells which inflict damage, unless that damage is of the type which bypasses the DR. (It's not like spellcasters really need yet another point of superiority in the game.)

Except that blasters are widely regarded as useless unless heavily optimized. Nerfing it further will make it even less useful while doing nothing to actual mundane-caster balance.
I think it does quite a bit for practical balance to help a caster find a point where blasting is actually a worthwhile use of spells but not so optimized that it oneshots everything.

Because blasting is fun. It's so much fun that most newbies naturally gravitate towards it, only to find out that it sucks unless you have a certain amount of system mastery.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm. Magic Stone? The spell lists the damage without giving a type.
Seeing as it seems too weak without bypassing DR, sure.

[Curmudgeon]

Except that blasters are widely regarded as useless unless heavily optimized.
You're exaggerating; blasters are less effective, not useless. Anyway, that house rule is specifically to address optimized blasters.

[nyjastul69]

Except that blasters are widely regarded as useless...

Blasters may be suboptimal, but they are far from useless. This is in regards to high op games. In low-mid op games, blasting works pretty well IMO. YMMV.

[Troacctid]

Blasters hit baseline level-appropriate damage outputs without even trying, which puts them well above most weapon-users.

[P.F.]

The only hitch with damage from spells bypassing DR is that physical-damage-dealing spells with the SR: No entry don't allow SR because the damage-dealing effect is not itself magical.

Now that's fine when the effect of the spell is ordinary, non-magical fire, or an ordinary, non-magical cloud of acid gas. But when it's an ordinary, non-magical solid iron plate falling on your head; why shouldn't your damage reduction apply equally to that as to my ordinary non-magical iron wrecking ball thrown at you with a trebuchet?

[martixy]

Blasters are far from useless.

They're fun to play and their power ceiling is only relevant if the majority of everyone else in a game is above it. This is a very unlikely scenario.

And throwing DR in there does very little to alter that, as their limit is determined by lack of options, not limited power.

For magic stones, just because of the way it is written, I'd say it would bypass DR even with the houserule.

@eggy: I'm just really unlucky at picking examples, aren't I. :)
But the lava thing is weird.

Overall it seems to suggest that magic is somehow "extra special". I.e. a small magic defense defends against potent mundane assaults and a small magic assault still overcomes potent mundane defences.
Eh... I'm just gonna go with what Bow said.

[Flickerdart]

Unoptimized blasters get hosed by DR. Optimized blasters put out the kind of damage that doesn't care about DR 20/whatever. Making DR apply to spells nerfs the people that are not a problem, which makes it a bad house rule.

[Curmudgeon]

Unoptimized blasters get hosed by DR.
Then so do unoptimized archers, and there's no out for them. Why should spellcasters get preferential treatment?

[Flickerdart]

Then so do unoptimized archers, and there's no out for them. Why should spellcasters get preferential treatment?
Shouldn't you then make houserules that boost archers to suck less, rather than nerf the worst kind of caster?

[Curmudgeon]

Shouldn't you then make houserules that boost archers to suck less, rather than nerf the worst kind of caster?
Oh, boosting archers is a good thing, too. However, nerfing spellcasters is a general good, and blasters are stronger than most other classes at dealing damage, so making blasters play by the same rules as every non-spellcaster is perfectly fair. Also, blasters are definitely not the worst kind of spellcaster. The worst kind of spellcaster might be Enchantment specialists, because when faced with enemies immune to mind-affecting magic their best option is to turn on their party members and make them sacrifice themselves for the spellcaster.