Blade Barrier and Stoneskin

[Caliban]

LOL

This is just one of those things where I'm so 100% convinced, I just don't see any point to further explaining it. Well, ok, that and I knew that Caliban would find his way to this post eventually.

Ya' see, there are two different opinions on this, and it has been argued to death in a previous thread. So technically, if someone was to come to this thread, they would inevitably be drawn to the previous thread, which would illustrate that there are two very solid arguments for either option. Thus, they would make their decision based upon that. So I didn't figure it was required of me to regurgitate the entire argument yet again.

But, I will go ahead and explain why I believe that blade barrier negates damage reduction. First of all, it just doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't negate damage reduction, for if that were the case, you can bet your life that I'd be dropping that spell level down. Secondly, and most importantly, every time I have ever seen blade barrier illustrated in any kind of fictional work, it seemed to be a pretty powerful spell, not one that had a hard time with tough creatures. The most notable example I can think of is in R. A. Salvatore's The Silent Blade, in which a particular cleric shreds the hell out of a Balor, a creature that has really nice damage reduction. I don't remember reading anything in that passage that suggested the spell was having any difficulty in bypassing the Balor's tough hide. In fact, that poor Balor got sliced and diced with ease. There was even mentioning of the extensive "cleaning" that would need to be done in the cleric's summoning room.

Put both of those two reasons together, and that's where I draw my opinion from. I suppose you could say, I don't think it was in the "spirit" of the spell for it to not bypass DR, neither do I think it wouldn't bypass DR if you just read the spell description and take a close look at the spell level. Just my opinion though, and it's pretty much rooted in stone, for now anyway.

You make a good point. It may very well be intended for blade barrier[/i] to bypass DR. It just seems ambiguous to me, mainly because it's "Slashing" damage. *shrug*

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You make a good point. It may very well be intended for blade barrier[/i] to bypass DR. It just seems ambiguous to me, mainly because it's "Slashing" damage. *shrug*

After thinking about this this morning, I finally decided that the only appropriate thing to read into the "slashing" damage was that it was a descriptor of the kind of damage. No different, in fact, than if it said, "1d6 points of holy damage per caster level" or chaotic or fire or what-have-you.

I realize that slashing isn't a "Descriptor" as normally used to adjudicate spells, but it is a kind of damage that is specified in the rules.

Skeletons and such would get half damage from blade barrier, since their description mentions specifically that they take half damage from slashing weapons.

As near as I can tell, that is the only appropriate use of the term "slashing" within the rules. I can't find anything in the reading of either DR or Stoneskin that would seem to indicate that the term "slashing" meant anything with respect to the ruleset that governs them.

The rules support this as magical damage far more heavily than they support any interpretation that DR would apply. You basically have to ignore a lot of existing evidence and read into a description of the spell's special effect to arrive on the side of DR. I find it is always a mistake to let the author's colorful descriptions get in the way of existing rules that govern the mechanics.

Wulf

 

[Caliban]

After thinking about this this morning, I finally decided that the only appropriate thing to read into the "slashing" damage was that it was a descriptor of the kind of damage. No different, in fact, than if it said, "1d6 points of holy damage per caster level" or chaotic or fire or what-have-you.

I realize that slashing isn't a "Descriptor" as normally used to adjudicate spells, but it is a kind of damage that is specified in the rules.

Skeletons and such would get half damage from blade barrier, since their description mentions specifically that they take half damage from slashing weapons.

As near as I can tell, that is the only appropriate use of the term "slashing" within the rules. I can't find anything in the reading of either DR or Stoneskin that would seem to indicate that the term "slashing" meant anything with respect to the ruleset that governs them.

The rules support this as magical damage far more heavily than they support any interpretation that DR would apply. You basically have to ignore a lot of existing evidence and read into a description of the spell's special effect to arrive on the side of DR. I find it is always a mistake to let the author's colorful descriptions get in the way of existing rules that govern the mechanics.

Wulf

Well, my point is that it's not doing Fire, Acid, Cold, Lightning, Positive Energy, Negative Energy, or Force damage. And it's not doing raw magical damage, it's doing physical slashing damage, with no enhancement bonus.

On the other hand, it's not a Conjuration effect, and Spell Resistance does apply. While those aren't absolute indicators that the damage is magical damage, they are pretty strong indicators that it is.

Take it for what you will.

 

[kreynolds]

Ah for crying out loud! How many of these frickin' Blade Barrier threads are there!?

From: Reynolds,Kelly
Posted At: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:17 PM
Conversation: blade barrier
Subject: blade barrier

Does Blade Barrier bypass damage reduction since it's "slashing" damage? I would think so, since it's like, you know, a spell and all, but I wanted to be sure.

It's a spell, DR does not apply (but it also doesn't t work against foes immune to slashing damage).

Skip Williams
RPG R&D

 

[hong]

Ah for crying out loud! How many of these frickin' Blade Barrier threads are there!?

If you're going to dig out month-old posts, as many as you want, I guess.

 

[kreynolds]

If you're going to dig out month-old posts, as many as you want, I guess.

LOL

 

[LGodamus]

I just felt the need to agree with mr. Reynolds...........feel free to return to your regularly scheduled argument

 

[Artoomis]

While I agree there is some ambiguity, I present the followinf from Damage Reduction:

Magical attacks and energy attacks (even mundane fire) ignore damage reduction.

The damage from, this spell certainly seems to be from a magical attack.

 

[kreynolds]

The damage from, this spell certainly seems to be from a magical attack.

Well, yeah, but that's not exactly a new discovery, and you run the risk of getting Caliban all fired up again.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, yeah, but that's not exactly a new discovery, and you run the risk of getting Caliban all fired up again.

I live dangerously

My point, though, is that it does NOT need to be "raw magical damage", just damage from a magical attack for DR to apply.

It's a close call, though, and could go either way.