A quick (but possibly challenging) Vicious question

[Caliban]

Actually, it matters quite a bit - especially if you have Damage reduction. Damage which has a "valid energy type" bypasses Damage Reduction. Damage that doesn't have such a type is treated as any other "normal" damage directed at you.

In your opinion. Do you have any rules that actually support it? (And what exactly is the smiley face at the end of your little pronouncements supposed to mean?)

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack ...

The problem is what follows this line later on.

"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains."

"Energy" has a type - Cold, Fire, Electricity, Sonic, or Acid.


If you want to apply a "realism" rule - damage from the average sword swing is of an "energy type" - Kinetic, and the ability of DR is utterly useless. There is a difference between the word "energy" as you and I use it and "Energy" as defined in the context of the game. Unfortunately, WotC writers have a bad habit of using the same word to describe both items. We just have to deal with it.

Another scenario - if this Viscious weapon is Ghost Touched, and you are Ethereal - does the extra 1d6 hit you if you are striking a corporeal opponent?

Now, as for an explanation: When I asked the question

ok - but here's a question for you. What type is the "energy", if it's "energy damage dealt along with an attack".

I was laying a little bit of a trap - ok, a whole lot of a trap, that Caliban walked right into.

If you want to state that when you use a viscious weapon to deal damage, the target takes an extra 2d6 damage and you take an extra 1d6 damage that can't be negated by any means because that is the intent of the weapon, thats fine. It is the best argument you have, and you can do it. I would also agree with you.

However, we are dealing with RAW or Rule As Written. With WotC products *especially MagictheGathering* the designers have a history of writing an effect or rule and not fully anticipating its impact on the game. If you want to interpret the RAW however, the 2d6 and 1d6 "extra damage" are just that "extra". They add on to whatever damage the sword is dealing and thus acquire the type of damage the weapon deals. This is how you get to negate some sneak attack damage if you have a high enough DR, and also how sneak attack damage can sometimes bypass DR.

@ Hyp - There is a principle in Law which states that when you get an answer right, but for the wrong reason, you made the correct decision. I also like your question about "positive and negative energy damage", because turnabout is fair play. The danger is when you take a single instance and attempt to set a precedent.

I am also of the camp that said damage is untyped and thus bypasses pretty much anything.

In actuality, if your damage has no type it would be blocked by DR. DR requires that damage be of a specific type in order to bypass it. This is why Damage Reduction is listed in a form #/something. There are cases where damage reduction is listed as #/- in which case there is no substance or condition(s) that bypass the DR defence.

This, of course, is believed by many (myself included) to include energy damage from a Flaming weapon and such- if you aren't able to damage the Slaad with the sword itself, it takes no Fire damage either. That's all fine and dandy too.

In the case of a flaming weapon, the "damage dealt" from the flaming feature has the fire energy descriptor (emphasis bold) - and therefore:

Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains."

The words "energy damage" here clearly refer to the five typed energies, that are negated by the feature energy resistance as opposed to the feature damage reduction.

going to the first post question -

So you attack the creature. (A slaad or something.) You roll damage, and you deal 14 damage to the creature (7 from the weapon, 7 from the Vicious quality) and 4 to yourself. That's all fine and dandy.

But then let's say you deal less than 5 damage with the sword itself. That is, you roll a 1 on the sword's damage and the total comes up to 4 or something.

The fact that you made the statement I quoted and bolded correctly added the damage from the weapon and the vicious quality together is the reasoning behind what I stated above.

If you want to interpret the RAW however, the 2d6 and 1d6 "extra damage" are just that "extra". They add on to whatever damage the sword is dealing and thus acquire the type of damage the weapon deals.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most of your positive or negative energy effects fall under "touch attack" as a rule - and therefore bypass DR, not because they are "energy damage".

I'm talking about a non-touch attack, like the natural weapons of a Ravid, for example.

And how about, for example, the Ring of Vengeance from the BoED?

If the wearer of the ring dies, an arc of divine energy leaps from the ring and deals 15d6 points of damage to the creature that dealt the killing blow. The damage is of divine origin and of a nonspecific energy type.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Another scenario - if this Viscious weapon is Ghost Touched, and you are Ethereal - does the extra 1d6 hit you if you are striking a corporeal opponent?

Ghost Touch grants no ability to cross between the Ethereal and Material planes. It only affects incorporeal/corporeal interactions, not Ethereal/Material. If you're Ethereal, you can't hit someone Material.

If you want to interpret the RAW however, the 2d6 and 1d6 "extra damage" are just that "extra". They add on to whatever damage the sword is dealing and thus acquire the type of damage the weapon deals. This is how you get to negate some sneak attack damage if you have a high enough DR, and also how sneak attack damage can sometimes bypass DR.

The damage isn't dealt by the sword. The damage is dealt by the flash of disruptive energy.

In actuality, if your damage has no type it would be blocked by DR. DR requires that damage be of a specific type in order to bypass it. This is why Damage Reduction is listed in a form #/something. There are cases where damage reduction is listed as #/- in which case there is no substance or condition(s) that bypass the DR defence.

DR only affects damage from weapons and natural attacks.

If I fall off a cliff, DR does not reduce the damage from impact at the bottom. If I go without water too long, DR does not reduce the nonlethal damage I incur.

The Flaming quality causes the weapon to deal extra damage:
A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

The Vicious quality does not cause the weapon to deal extra damage; rather, the extra damage is dealt by the flash of energy:
This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.

Since DR affects damage from weapons and natural attacks, and since the Vicious quality does not impose damage from a weapon or natural attack (but rather damage from a flash of disruptive energy), DR is inapplicable.

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Specific to the Ravid:

Positive Energy Lash (Su): A ravid can make a touch attack or hit with a claw or tail slap attack to infuse a target with positive energy. The energy produces an unpleasant tingle in living creatures and against undead foes (even incorporeal ones) it deals 2d10 points of damage.

If the Ravid is using the touch attack - DR doesn't apply because it is a touch. If the attack is made by a claw or tail slap this "touch attack" is delivered along with the tail slap as part of the Ravid's regular attack action.

Note that the "even incorporeal foes" part applies only to the positive energy - not that of the tail slap or claw attack.

Accordingly, this follows the rules along the lines of "touch attacks are not negated by DR"

Specific to the Ring of Vengance:

If the wearer of the ring dies, an arc of divine energy leaps from the ring and deals 15d6 points of damage to the creature that dealt the killing blow. The damage is of divine origin and of a nonspecific energy type.

Because of the bolded language especially the last three words - it is energy damage, and thus bypasses DR. This is the kind of language that you would be required to have on the viscious weapon flag to support your argument that the attack bypasses DR because it is "energy dealt along with an attack". You lack it in the RAW. Accordingly:

If you want to state that when you use a viscious weapon to deal damage, the target takes an extra 2d6 damage and you take an extra 1d6 damage that can't be negated by any means because that is the intent of the weapon, thats fine. It is the best argument you have, and you can do it. I would also agree with you...

If you want to interpret the RAW however, the 2d6 and 1d6 "extra damage" are just that "extra". They add on to whatever damage the sword is dealing and thus acquire the type of damage the weapon deals. This is how you get to negate some sneak attack damage if you have a high enough DR, and also how sneak attack damage can sometimes bypass DR.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Specific to the Ravid:



If the Ravid is using the touch attack - DR doesn't apply because it is a touch. If the attack is made by a claw or tail slap this "touch attack" is delivered along with the tail slap as part of the Ravid's regular attack action.

No, if he's delivering it with a claw or tail slap, it isn't a touch attack. What it is, on the other hand, is energy damage dealt along with an attack.

Because of the bolded language especially the last three words - it is energy damage, and thus bypasses DR. This is the kind of language that you would be required to have on the viscious weapon flag to support your argument that the attack bypasses DR because it is "energy dealt along with an attack". You lack it in the RAW. Accordingly:

So energy damage must be of a certain type, except when it isn't?

-Hyp.

 

[UltimaGabe]

In actuality, if your damage has no type it would be blocked by DR.

What happens when a Barbarian with DR of 3/- is hit by a Horrid Wilting?

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

No, if he's delivering it with a claw or tail slap, it isn't a touch attack. What it is, on the other hand, is energy damage dealt along with an attack.

The Attack summary line reads:

Tail Slap +4 melee (1d6+1 plus postive energy) or tail touch +4 melee touch (positive energy)

The RAW wording you require to sustain your position would require the following:

Tail Slap +4 melee (1d6+1 plus 2d10 positive) or tail touch +4 melee touch (2d10 positive)

Note the differences in bold.

So energy damage must be of a certain type, except when it isn't?

A specific item can be explicitly declared to break even the most general of rules. Congrats, you have found such a case. You need this wording to force the item to work according to the rules for "energy damage" as opposed to "untyped damage" because of DR/-.

Specifically, "energy damage" bypasses DR, regardless of what is behind the slash. Other types of "damage" don't as a general rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The RAW wording you require to sustain your position would require the following:

Tail Slap +4 melee (1d6+1 plus 2d10 positive) or tail touch +4 melee touch (2d10 positive)

Why? The description of the Positive Energy quality states that it can be a touch attack, or delivered with a tail slap. You're saying it's a touch attack even when it's delivered with a tail slap. What's your support?

Specifically, "energy damage" bypasses DR, regardless of what is behind the slash. Other types of "damage" don't as a general rule.

Other types of damage from a weapon or natural attack don't.

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

What happens when a Barbarian with DR of 3/- is hit by a Horrid Wilting?

Easy if this is from the Barbarian's class ability.

Subtract X From the damage the barbarian takes each time he is dealt damage from a weapon or a natural attack.

This rule is specific to Barbarians dealing with their class ability DR - Not DR in general

For DR in general

Damage Reduction (DR): A special defense that allows a creature to ignore a set amount of damage from most weapons, unarmed attacks, or natural weapons, but not from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities. The number in a creature's DR is the amount of hit points of damage the creature ignores. The information after the slash indicates the type of weapon (such as magic, silver, or evil) that overcomes the DR. Some DR, such as that of a barbarian, is not overcome by any type of weapon.

The above is the rule for DR in general, and horrid wilting falls under the category "spell".

The Ravid's ability - in addition to being a supernatural ability in the first frigging place - is either delivered by a touch attack or is suffered by the target as a result of a sucessful attack if the ravid chooses to inflict the "positive energy" part of its attack.

@ Hypersmurf - I never said that DR applied, it just doesn't apply because you are dealing with a supernatural ability, a touch attack, or a supernatural component of a natural attack above and beyond that of "ordinary" damage. To get the clause you want working as you do - you need to have "positive energy" as an explicit type.

energy damage: Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive or negative energy): Acid, cold, fire, electricity, and sonic.

Positive energy: A White luminous energy that originates on the positive material plane. In general, positive energy heals the living and hurts undead creatures.

Your Ravid's ability is worded as it is so his smacks don't automatically heal the living creatures he strikes. This is another one of those reasons your damage is worded as is and is NOT "energy damage dealt along with an attack". If it were "damage" with the descriptor "positive energy", a living creature would actually get healed by the attack as opposed to simply having an unpleasant sensation.

Positive and Negative energy get their own rule set for the same reason that if you "add a negative number" you are actually "subtracting". The end result is the same - but the true mathematical logic you go to get your result is slightly different.

As I said before - right conclusion, wrong reason