A quick (but possibly challenging) Vicious question

[Hypersmurf]

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

So if I fall off a cliff and take 10d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

If the ceiling falls on my head and I take 5d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

If I'm struck by a Spell Storing weapon which discharges an Inflict Moderate Wounds spell dealing 2d8+3 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

And if there's a flash of disruptive energy that deals 2d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

So if I fall off a cliff and take 10d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

If the ceiling falls on my head and I take 5d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

It isn't the fall that does the damage, it's the impact at the end of the fall.

If I'm struck by a Spell Storing weapon which discharges an Inflict Moderate Wounds spell dealing 2d8+3 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

That 2d8+3 is from a spell.

And if there's a flash of disruptive energy that deals 2d6 damage, is this damage from a weapon, unarmed attack, or natural weapon?

Insufficent information in and of itself - elaborate.

 

[Caliban]

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

Oh, please. Get over yourself. You asked a simple question that I gave a flippant answer too.

Pretending that you were utilizing some clever gambit impresses no one.

You have since made several statements that you claim are "RAW", yet have failed to suppoort. Adding smileys to your statements does not make them more authorative, and only serves to give them a negative emotional connotation.

I ask you again - do you actually have any rules to support your statement about there only being 5 "valid" types on energy? Because as far as I can see, nothing limits the game to only those 5 types.

There are positive, negative, and various "untyped" sources of energy damage in the game.

 

[James McMurray]

nevermind, the discussion progressed well past what I responded to.

 

[James McMurray]

When will people learn that Hypersmurf doesn't dive into a situation like this unless he already knows he's right? And that unlike the vast majority of people that "think" they're right, he knows it?

I'll reiterate, because it's a very important question:

do you actually have any rules to support your statement about there only being 5 "valid" types on energy?

It seems very odd to me that there can only be five types of energy, except there's actually 7 (if you include +/-), plus that pesky untyped energy from the halo, but somehow "disruptive" doesn't count, despite quite clearly being labelled as aburst of energy.

I'm beginning to think Gerion may be one of the best trolls I've ever seen.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

When will people learn that Hypersmurf doesn't dive into a situation like this unless he already knows he's right? And that unlike the vast majority of people that "think" they're right, he knows it?

My response to this would be extremely political - I'm not going there despite people repeatedly trying to bait me into flaming them.

It seems very odd to me that there can only be five types of energy, except there's actually 7 (if you include +/-), plus that pesky untyped energy from the halo, but somehow "disruptive" doesn't count, despite quite clearly being labelled as aburst of energy.

The WotC reasoning behind separating Positive and Negative energy from the "other 5" has to do with the fact that some people would always call "adding a negative number subtracting".

8 + -4 = 4 is not an identical statement to 8 - 4 = 4; It is an equivalent one.

When you argue that damage falls into a given "type" it must conform to ALL of the characteristics of that type, otherwise it is "something else". The Ravid's ability doesn't meet that criterion as defined in the glossary. If it did, the Ravid's blows would heal living creatures. That clearly doesn't happen.

damage: A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, ilness or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, non-lethal damage, and ability damage. In addition, whenever it is relevant, the type of damage an attack deals is specified, since natural abilities, magic items, or spell effects may grant immunity to certain types of damage. Damage types include weapon damage (subdivided into bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing) and energy damage (subdivided into positive, negative, acid, cold, fire, electricity and sonic). Modifiers to melee damage rolls apply to both subcategories of weapon damage (melee and unarmed). Some Modifiers apply to both weapon and spell damage, but only if so stated. Damage points are deducted from whatever attribute has been harmed - lethal and nonlethal damage from current hit points, and ability damage from the relevant ability score. Damage heals naturally over time, but can also be negated wholly or partially by curative magic.

Emphasis Italics.

1. There are seven energy damage types by RAW. Positive and Negative "energy" get special treatment, because they may not be "damage" in ALL cases to ALL creatures.

2. Whenever potentially relevant to the rules, the damage type is explicitly specified as far as it needs to be specified.

2b. The "energy" damage from the "disruptive flash" is just damage by definition. It has no category which is or could potentially be relevant to a damage reducing/immunizing effect, because if it did, they would have listed it. It is thus simply added onto whatever other damage your "weapon" deals.

3. IF this "disruptive energy" it were INTENDED to be "energy damage" it would contain language like what follows:

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.

Which IS an instance where you have "energy damage" WITHOUT a type.

4. Definitions, in rules lawyering "legalistic" arguments are givens. To support Hyp - you have to violate the "given" of energy damage.

Of course, you can state that WotC make a boo boo and:

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.

Of course, we aren't considering what WotC intended, we are considering what they wrote.

As I said, right conclusion, wrong reasoning.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It isn't the fall that does the damage, it's the impact at the end of the fall.

FALLING
Falling Damage: The basic rule is simple: 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.

The damage is from falling 100 feet.

Is it reduced by DR?

How about the damge from the collapsing ceiling? Reduced by DR?

That 2d8+3 is from a spell.

And not from a weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon?

Insufficent information in and of itself - elaborate.

Insufficient? How so?

Someone gets hit with a Vicious longsword, dealing 1d8+4 slashing damage. This also creates a flash of disruptive energy dealing 2d6 damage.

The weapon does not deal the 2d6 damage; the flash of disruptive energy does. It is not damage from a weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

You specify that I fall 100 feet - ok, got you there.
If I fall 100 feet, but the ground is still 600 more feet down - have I taken damage yet?

IIRC It's not the fall that deals the damage, its the impact at the end. Falling itself is kinda fun, the fine art of skydiving. Having an abrupt landing at the end is a bone breaking proposition, and is usually more memorable than the proceeding skydive.

And not from a weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon?

Is a Wand that casts "fireball" considered a weapon by the King's bodyguards when you try and bring it into the throne room? Oops, I'm confusing the word "weapon" with the term weapon. Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are specific subcategories of the general term weapon... or is my logical trapsense detecting a pitfall, specifically that "weapon" isn't a glosssary term?

Weapon Focus: Ray - legal or illegal?
Weapon Specialization: Ray - legal or illegal? (presuming I took the 4 levels of fighter after I became a spellcaster of course)
Is a Ray a weapon and a spell?
Are the terms mutually exclusive or not?

Someone gets hit with a Vicious longsword, dealing 1d8+4 slashing damage. This also creates a flash of disruptive energy dealing 2d6 damage.

The "Disruptive energy" comes out of the weapon IF AND ONLY IF the weapon strikes the target. It is therefore damage which comes from the use of a weapon, in the quantity of 1d8+4 +2d6 slashing damage. If it were some OTHER kind of damage, the damage would have been specified, since a spell effect, natural ability, or a magic item might grant me immunity somehow - after all, that's the definition of damage, unless WotC made a mistake of course, and they NEVER do that, do they?

 

[Caliban]

As I suspected, no actual rules to back up his statements.

 

[James McMurray]

The WotC reasoning behind separating Positive and Negative energy from the "other 5" has to do with the fact that some people would always call "adding a negative number subtracting".

Source?

Of course, we aren't considering what WotC intended, we are considering what they wrote.

First you argue based on what WotC intended, then you say we're not concerned with what WotC intended? LOL