Whats up with 10/magic damage reduction?

[Sparafucile]

The only problem I've ever had as a player Regarding DR is this:

To aid in research

from the SRD:

In either case, characters can see that conventional attacks don’t work.

I've seen plently of bad DMs treat DR like their own little secret . . . something for them to chuckle about behind their cardboard screen. This is super annoying, and it's broken several encounters because the player's weren't given the proper information regarding the effectiveness of their own attacks.

 

[billd91]

There is a problem with this, however. As long as the character is doing some damage, it's clear that the conventional attack does work. This is especially true when fighting a barbarian character with a low DR. Can a character really tell that the barbarian is taking 1 or 2 points less damage than anyone else the PC would be fighting?

I can understand the statement in the rules in the case where the DR truly does make the attack ineffective. But in cases where it's just less (in some cases a little less) effective?

 

[irdeggman]

I usually say that the blow doesn't seem to do as much damage as you think it should or something like that. Most DM's I've gamed with do something similar. Nothing specific (like the first 5 points are negated) but a vague hint that there is more going on.

Sometimes the color that the wound seems to heal almost immediately is added in.

 

[Sparafucile]

There is a problem with this, however. As long as the character is doing some damage, it's clear that the conventional attack does work. This is especially true when fighting a barbarian character with a low DR. Can a character really tell that the barbarian is taking 1 or 2 points less damage than anyone else the PC would be fighting?

I can understand the statement in the rules in the case where the DR truly does make the attack ineffective. But in cases where it's just less (in some cases a little less) effective?

Less effective is still ineffective to me, and I'd say that the spirit of the SRD comment above suggests that the characters will have some clue what's going on. Otherwise, the halfling dagger weilder will find their attacks overcome by something mysterious every time, while the greatsword weilding half-orc has no clue that his attacks are less effective. Suddenly, the DM is providing inconsistent information, leading to frustration.

Now I'm not saying that one should provide the exact stats or anything like that, but once the party blows a round attacking, why hide that the creature has some general quality that the player's will recognize as DR? There there are plently of flavorful, in-game ways to illustrate that your attack is slightly less effective, and I see nothign wrong with giving the player's such a hint.

What's the downside?

 

[Nifft]

I usually say that the blow doesn't seem to do as much damage as you think it should or something like that. Most DM's I've gamed with do something similar. Nothing specific (like the first 5 points are negated) but a vague hint that there is more going on.

Usually IMC, that's what the players get on the first round.

The second round, if they hit more than twice, or if they crit, they learn the exact DR.

The third round they get the exact DR for free. After which I expect them to do the math themselves.

There are occasionally critters that I want to remain more mysterious (like critters with DR/epic); I keep the exact DR secret for those critters.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

Less effective is still ineffective to me, and I'd say that the spirit of the SRD comment above suggests that the characters will have some clue what's going on. Otherwise, the halfling dagger weilder will find their attacks overcome by something mysterious every time, while the greatsword weilding half-orc has no clue that his attacks are less effective. Suddenly, the DM is providing inconsistent information, leading to frustration.

Now I'm not saying that one should provide the exact stats or anything like that, but once the party blows a round attacking, why hide that the creature has some general quality that the player's will recognize as DR? There there are plently of flavorful, in-game ways to illustrate that your attack is slightly less effective, and I see nothign wrong with giving the player's such a hint.

What's the downside?

It's not a question of there being a downside, but when the half-ogre with the heavy flail is regularly doing 30 points of damage and the target has DR 1, 2, or even 5, is it really necessary to bring up? Would that PC even notice the resistance? It's not like he's a halfling doing something like 2-7 points of damage, who I would expect to notice the DR more easily since it's blunting his damage substantially.

I generally don't describe the effect of the DR if the damage is overwhelming it easily, but I will tell the players that the monster is more resilient to their attacks when the DR is a substantial amount of the damage they're doing. Nor do I see a problem with inconsistent information because the information is going to different characters. I let the players figure out how to reconcile the differences.

I just don't see it as a problem for players if the DM doesn't come right out and say the creature has DR. When the PC is blasting through the resistance without having the right weapon, why would it be an issue?

 

[irdeggman]

To make it clear that DR only works against weapons and the like

From the Rules Compendium (pg 41):

"A creature that has damage reduction (DR) ignores some of the hit point damage from weapons, natural weapons, and unarmed attacks that don't meet certain criteria."

That pretty much specifies what it will work against.

Combined with the latter entry:

"Damage reduction doesn't reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact."

 

[moritheil]

10/magic DR isn't completely useless to smart monsters. For example, a dragon can disarm a fighter, or dispel his weapon. Dispelling a single magic item is normally painfully easy, and then the fighters is far weaker against the dragon.

Yes. It only lasts a couple rounds, but a dragon usually only requires a couple rounds to shred a typical adventurer.

I just don't see it as a problem for players if the DM doesn't come right out and say the creature has DR. When the PC is blasting through the resistance without having the right weapon, why would it be an issue?

Information control is a hotly disputed issue, as it gets into metagame dynamics.

Now tell me again that i don't need a 'sword caddy' to be an effective player?

I haven't seen all that many characters with true sword caddies . . . plenty of players have two melee magic weapons and one ranged, but DR based on silver, jade, or crystal tends to be very rare or campaign-specific. Adamantine and cold iron tend to take care of ~80% of cases in terms of materials.

Arguably the best solution is to make your attacks incorporeal. It's pretty easy to do if you play a fighter-mage type.

 

[starwed]

one more question, is falling damage subject to DR ?

As others have mentioned, the rules-lawyer answer is no, because falling damage is not caused by a weapon attack.

However, I know many DMs feel that's kind of silly, and that falling is more analogous to being hit by a club than it is to "energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, poisons or diseases." (Note also that Complete Psionic has a ruling that if a power deals, for example, slashing damage, that DR can overcome it. )

 

[ThunderQuill]

Huh. Threads from over a decade ago helping me out today. Cheers!