Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Souljourner" data-source="post: 142018" data-attributes="member: 1622">OK, so I think it's fairly clear from all the Blade Barrier vs. Damage Reduction threads I've been seeing in the Rules forum that damage reduction is quite vaguely worded.&nbsp; It &quot;prevents damage from each attack&quot;.&nbsp; What defines an attack?&nbsp; Natural weapons and wielded weapons obviously qualify, but what about spells?&nbsp; Generally, most DMs rule that spells go right through damage reduction because they're not attacks in a strict sense of the word.&nbsp; However, certain spells seem like they should be affected by damage reduction, such as spells that use force or ones like Blade Barrier that say they do slashing or piercing damage.What's the solution?&nbsp; As I was responding to one of these Blade Barrier threads, I had a thought.&nbsp; Why *not* have DR work against spells?&nbsp;&nbsp; Bear with me a minute.Give each spell a number of &quot;pluses&quot; equal to its level.&nbsp; Thus, a level 5 spell would count as a +5 weapon for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction.&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course, for high level spells, only absolute DR (e.g. 4/-) would affect it, but that's ok because high level spells should be able to blast right through DR.&nbsp; After all, they're still affected by Spell Resistance, right?&nbsp; It would just mean that spells like Magic Missile would be less useful against monsters with DR x/+2 or better.&nbsp; Is this a good thing?&nbsp; I don't know.Give me your thoughts on this.&nbsp; It seems like a good idea, since it really only affects lower level spells, which by all rights should be less effective against powerful monsters.&nbsp; But maybe it negatively affects spellcasters too much.&nbsp; I mean, when no one in the party has a +3 weapon, you rely on the spellcaster to get through enough damage to kill the stupid monster.&nbsp; Would this make those monsters too difficult to kill for parties that don't have access to spells of that high a level?-The Souljourner</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Souljourner, post: 142018, member: 1622"] OK, so I think it's fairly clear from all the Blade Barrier vs. Damage Reduction threads I've been seeing in the Rules forum that damage reduction is quite vaguely worded. It "prevents damage from each attack". What defines an attack? Natural weapons and wielded weapons obviously qualify, but what about spells? Generally, most DMs rule that spells go right through damage reduction because they're not attacks in a strict sense of the word. However, certain spells seem like they should be affected by damage reduction, such as spells that use force or ones like Blade Barrier that say they do slashing or piercing damage. What's the solution? As I was responding to one of these Blade Barrier threads, I had a thought. Why *not* have DR work against spells? Bear with me a minute. Give each spell a number of "pluses" equal to its level. Thus, a level 5 spell would count as a +5 weapon for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction. Of course, for high level spells, only absolute DR ([i]e.g.[/i] 4/-) would affect it, but that's ok because high level spells should be able to blast right through DR. After all, they're still affected by Spell Resistance, right? It would just mean that spells like Magic Missile would be less useful against monsters with DR x/+2 or better. Is this a good thing? I don't know. Give me your thoughts on this. It seems like a good idea, since it really only affects lower level spells, which by all rights should be less effective against powerful monsters. But maybe it negatively affects spellcasters too much. I mean, when no one in the party has a +3 weapon, you rely on the spellcaster to get through enough damage to kill the stupid monster. Would this make those monsters too difficult to kill for parties that don't have access to spells of that high a level? -The Souljourner [/QUOTE]

Verification