Weapon Enchant damage type

[Yogibear41]

Is the damage dealt by a bane weapon considered to be the same type of damage the base weapon does? or does it deal a different damage type. Then the same question for holy, unholy, anarchic, and axiomatic enchants.

Say a very weak person Strength 2 strikes a skeleton with a +1 undead bane dagger, 1d4 - 4 (str) + 1 (enh) +2 (bane enh) + 2d6(Bane) is the damage all calculated at once, therefore allowing the strength penalty to apply to the 2d6 damage, and does the 2d6 damage also get reduced by the creatures damage reduction since the weapon is not bludgeoning?


Same Question but using the Holy Enchant (+1 Holy Dagger) vs the Undead. 1d4 - 4(str) +1 (enh) +2d6(holy)

[Darg]

Well, the enhancement bonus is the same type as the weapon so I don't see why the additional damage is any different. The strength penalty applies to the total damage as you've expressed and the extra damage is indeed reduced by damage reduction in both cases.

[aglondier]

In the second case you are doing 2d6 holy damage, which would be calculated separately to the base weapon damage. The bane weapon just does way more of the regular damage and would be calculated all together.

[Fizban]

Note that the default assumption in DnD 3.x is that damage is damage. Damage type is only specified if the damage type matters, as in because it's supposed to interact with things that care about a certain damage type. There are many types like "force" and "holy" that aren't actually damage "types." They're descriptors, which are so commonly thought of as types that people drift into referring to them that way even in the published books, but there is no "force resistance" or "holy resistance," or DR/"holy", etc, in the base rules.

Damage from weapons and natural weapons can be any or all of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. DR only applies to weapon damage. Damage from magic is damage from magic first and foremost, and unless a defense such as Energy Resistance applies to a specified type of damage, magic just does whatever damage it does. Even if the magic uses a physical damage descriptor, DR does not apply, because DR does not apply to magic- a spell or magical effect must specifically say DR applies in order for it to matter (some writers seem to think otherwise, and in particular some psionic powers were errata's to allow DR when they didn't before, so more confusion).

The part I think starts confusing people the most is that unlike Damage Reduction, the Regeneration ability does apply to damage from any source, and Regeneration abilities often use more naturalized language which make it sound like there are all sorts of damage types that don't actually exist. Combine this with how much easier it is to say "force damage" or "holy damage" rather than "effects with the [force] descriptor" or "damage from Holy weapons and spells with the [good] descriptor," and the many video games that do have dozens of damage types including holy and force and bologna and whatever else, and yeah it's not surprising that's how people say it.

Say a very weak person Strength 2 strikes a skeleton with a +1 undead bane dagger, 1d4 - 4 (str) + 1 (enh) +2 (bane enh) + 2d6(Bane) is the damage all calculated at once, therefore allowing the strength penalty to apply to the 2d6 damage, and does the 2d6 damage also get reduced by the creatures damage reduction since the weapon is not bludgeoning?
I would rule that the damage dice from Bane and Holy weapons is clearly magic damage, not weapon damage, and thus ignores damage reduction. They function the same way a flaming weapon does, except instead of fire damage that can be reduced by fire resistance, it's just damage from a magical effect -which means it still does not care about damage reduction. Bane also increases the base enhancement, and that is added to weapon damage, so the low strength offsets the enhancement as normal.

The damage calculation is 1d4, -4 str, +3 enhancement w/bane, +2d6 bane= 1d4+1 vs DR, +2d6 bane. For holy: 1d4, -4, +1, = 1d4-3, +2d6 vs evil.

[Darg]

Note that the default assumption in DnD 3.x is that damage is damage. Damage type is only specified if the damage type matters, as in because it's supposed to interact with things that care about a certain damage type. There are many types like "force" and "holy" that aren't actually damage "types." They're descriptors, which are so commonly thought of as types that people drift into referring to them that way even in the published books, but there is no "force resistance" or "holy resistance," or DR/"holy", etc, in the base rules.

Damage from weapons and natural weapons can be any or all of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. DR only applies to weapon damage. Damage from magic is damage from magic first and foremost, and unless a defense such as Energy Resistance applies to a specified type of damage, magic just does whatever damage it does. Even if the magic uses a physical damage descriptor, DR does not apply, because DR does not apply to magic- a spell or magical effect must specifically say DR applies in order for it to matter (some writers seem to think otherwise, and in particular some psionic powers were errata's to allow DR when they didn't before, so more confusion).

The part I think starts confusing people the most is that unlike Damage Reduction, the Regeneration ability does apply to damage from any source, and Regeneration abilities often use more naturalized language which make it sound like there are all sorts of damage types that don't actually exist. Combine this with how much easier it is to say "force damage" or "holy damage" rather than "effects with the [force] descriptor" or "damage from Holy weapons and spells with the [good] descriptor," and the many video games that do have dozens of damage types including holy and force and bologna and whatever else, and yeah it's not surprising that's how people say it.

I would rule that the damage dice from Bane and Holy weapons is clearly magic damage, not weapon damage, and thus ignores damage reduction. They function the same way a flaming weapon does, except instead of fire damage that can be reduced by fire resistance, it's just damage from a magical effect -which means it still does not care about damage reduction. Bane also increases the base enhancement, and that is added to weapon damage, so the low strength offsets the enhancement as normal.

The damage calculation is 1d4, -4 str, +3 enhancement w/bane, +2d6 bane= 1d4+1 vs DR, +2d6 bane. For holy: 1d4, -4, +1, = 1d4-3, +2d6 vs evil.

What about a valorous weapon? Is the doubled damage magical too? An enhancement bonus is magical and is yet the same type as the weapon itself. I don't think the rules support your view on this.

[Clementx]

Bane and aligned weapons deal "extra xd6 damage" without a descriptor. Such damage is added onto the weapon damage, and has only the weapons properties. Meaning are help overcome the Str penalty and DR.

[Powerdork]

There are many types like "force" and "holy" that aren't actually damage "types." They're descriptors, which are so commonly thought of as types that people drift into referring to them that way even in the published books ...

Yes, like magic missile, the iconic 1st-level wizard spell, which in the 3.5 Player's Handbook specifies it deals "force damage". Are you saying that THE primary source on spells and their casting, and of magic missile, is simply wrong?

If you were talking about 3.0, you'd be right.

[Fizban]

What about a valorous weapon? Is the doubled damage magical too? An enhancement bonus is magical and is yet the same type as the weapon itself. I don't think the rules support your view on this.
The enhancement bonus is not separate damage, it's part of the "attack" damage formula. Specifically, if you hit you "roll damage for your weapon," which is the weapon die, plus str (plus enhancement). The enhancement part is not mentioned in the PHB, but can be found at the start of the magic weapon section in the DMG, "They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." PHB says it's weapon die+str+modifiers, DMG adds enhancement, there's your weapon damage, that's what DR applies to. And nothing else.

Though if you've played say, Neverwinter Nights (and possibly other crpgs based on dnd), I wouldn't be surprised at the confusion, because they either get it wrong or deliberately changed it. Along with many, many other things.

Valorous is not a separate magical effect, it's a multiplier of the attack. Just like a lance charge or spirited charge or crit against a foe that is not crit-immune (I'm pretty sure the general rules for multiplying weapon damage refer back to the critical hit section directly, or if not, are FAQ'd so hard people actually accept it). You "roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the results together" and the exclusion of certain bonuses is "Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit." Flaming and sneak attack and holy and so on add extra dice beyond a weapon's normal damage, as called out by the fact that you need a Flaming Burst weapon to get extra damage on a crit for them. Enhancement bonus is part of the weapon's normal damage. Valorous is a mulitiplier, not bonus dice.


Yes, like magic missile, the iconic 1st-level wizard spell, which in the 3.5 Player's Handbook specifies it deals "force damage". Are you saying that THE primary source on spells and their casting, and of magic missile, is simply wrong?

If you were talking about 3.0, you'd be right.
The alternative reading is that there are as many types of damage as all the writers ever casually mention. But even then, most of them don't matter because they're never referenced by anything. 3.x has no grand list of all available damage types in the base rules, certainly not in the PHB or DMG that I recall, and there is no balancing act going on where that list would matter (like you'd find in a game with say, six pairs of opposed elements where all magic and foes have an automatic weakness/resistance to a pair, or just in any video game since instituting any sort of a type system means everything needs to have a Type).

There is the weapon damage and DR system, which works one way. The energy damage and Energy Resistance system, which works another way. The regeneration system, which works yet a third (and often casually phrased) way. And the hardness system which works yet another way.

Force damage is not mentioned in any of those. It is not mentioned under incorporeality- that says magic and force effects. If you wrote a non-magical effect that dealt "force" damage, it would not work on an incorporeal creature, because a damage type is not the same thing as an effect (an X effect is something with the X magical descriptor tag). It's not even used by Force dragons, which have immunity to effects with the force descriptor, not "force damage."

It's funny that you point out they changed the wording from 3.0 to 3.5, because it only highlights the fact that even if they made Magic Missile deal "force" damage, none of the existing rules that they did not change the wordings of mention force damage. So it doesn't matter.

Heck, even Rules Compendium, which does compile a list of damage types on the Damage page, only has the three physical, five energy, positive+negative, and the Precision classification used to cover sneak attack and friends.

Even fire damage does not start fires unless the ability specifically says or the DM decides that it does. If "force" damage exists, it still doesn't do anything.

But sure, if you want to argue semantics, you can say "force damage" exists, because people say it exists. And it will then proceed to make things even more confusing for people trying to figure out how the four+ defensive ability systems and dozens of different sources of damage and bonuses and multipliers work together, by implying there is a deeper meaning and accounting of how each "damage type" works. When there isn't, because damage type only matters when a defense specifically asks about it.

Well, until they started pushing the umbrella "precision damage" term. Those have a whole long list of their own special rules.

[Darg]

It's like sneak attack. Additional dice take on the characteristics of that which is causing it unless specified as something else. A sneak attack eldritch blast has the SA damage as magic. A SA with a dagger would be piercing. Weapon abilities work the same way.

[ShurikVch]

The alternative reading is that there are as many types of damage as all the writers ever casually mention. But even then, most of them don't matter because they're never referenced by anything. 3.x has no grand list of all available damage types in the base rules, certainly not in the PHB or DMG that I recall, and there is no balancing act going on where that list would matter (like you'd find in a game with say, six pairs of opposed elements where all magic and foes have an automatic weakness/resistance to a pair, or just in any video game since instituting any sort of a type system means everything needs to have a Type).

There is the weapon damage and DR system, which works one way. The energy damage and Energy Resistance system, which works another way. The regeneration system, which works yet a third (and often casually phrased) way. And the hardness system which works yet another way.

Force damage is not mentioned in any of those. It is not mentioned under incorporeality- that says magic and force effects. If you wrote a non-magical effect that dealt "force" damage, it would not work on an incorporeal creature, because a damage type is not the same thing as an effect (an X effect is something with the X magical descriptor tag). It's not even used by Force dragons, which have immunity to effects with the force descriptor, not "force damage."

It's funny that you point out they changed the wording from 3.0 to 3.5, because it only highlights the fact that even if they made Magic Missile deal "force" damage, none of the existing rules that they did not change the wordings of mention force damage. So it doesn't matter.

Heck, even Rules Compendium, which does compile a list of damage types on the Damage page, only has the three physical, five energy, positive+negative, and the Precision classification used to cover sneak attack and friends.

Even fire damage does not start fires unless the ability specifically says or the DM decides that it does. If "force" damage exists, it still doesn't do anything.

But sure, if you want to argue semantics, you can say "force damage" exists, because people say it exists. And it will then proceed to make things even more confusing for people trying to figure out how the four+ defensive ability systems and dozens of different sources of damage and bonuses and multipliers work together, by implying there is a deeper meaning and accounting of how each "damage type" works. When there isn't, because damage type only matters when a defense specifically asks about it.
The force damage (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=) is defined in the Player's Handbook:

A special type of damage dealt by force effects, such as a magic missile spell. A force effect can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality.
Thus, if it does force damage - it's a force effect; if it isn't a force effect - then it doesn't inflicts force damage
For the "defense" angle - there are Forceward spell, Force Dragon (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/dragonEpic.htm#forceDragon), and Void Incarnate (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20030418a) 9+
Also, information about the force was expanded in Dragon #323:

FORCE EFFECTS
This article presents the spells that use the force descriptor. Force effects have a number of rules you should keep in mind. Force is not an energy type. Spells with the force descriptor ignore a creature's damage reduction and an object's hardness, and they deal full damage to objects. Force effects reach into the Ethereal Plane and always affect incorporeal and ethereal creatures (force effects ignore the chance of not affecting such creatures, and spells such as wall of force block incorporeal and ethereal creatures). Nothing can damage a force effect, including other force effects.

[Gruftzwerg]

There are damage types and damage types in D&D... o.0

when you deal damage with a weapon the following types can apply. Multiple things can be active at the same time. Have a look at DR rules for multiple DR types and how they interact. This here is similar. Damage can have multiple dmg type properties depending on the attack/weapon.

As such a weapons damage can counts as:
- physical damage
- piercing / slashing / bludgeoning
- weapon damage
- melee attack damage
- magic damage (as soon as you have a +1 weapon) (this includes higher modifiers from bane weapons)
- alignment damage (as soon as it has an alignment enhancement on it)
- "extra" elemental damage (if it has elemental enhancements) (doesn't change the base dmg type)

[Fizban]

The force damage (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=) is defined in the Player's Handbook:
Well hot diggity dang, someone actually has a rules quote for it, never seen that before. And since the glossary is not present in easy-access SRDs that I can see, it's not surprising.

I will amend future statements to include this information.