DR Vs DR

[kreynolds]

It would be a special effect that accompanies the attack.

Flaming is a special effect that accompanies an attack, and it doesn't require that you deal damage with said attack. Venemous is a special effect that accompanies an attack, and I'm pretty sure that you must deal damage with said attack, like normal with poisons.

 

[Oogar]

Hmmm, How about a Monk under a stoneskin with his natural attacks? Effective +5 fists?

 

[Mahali]

Flaming is extra dice of damage so the base weapon doesn't have to deal damage to use such effects.

Unlike Vorpal which requires you to do damage.

Oogar,
No, Stoneskin doesn't apply.

 

[Stalker0]

So does wounding work even if I don't actually hurt the guy?

I think I'm going to go with the common sense route on this one, if your not doing damage to the creature, your not cleaving its head off.

 

[Zhure]

Flaming is a special effect that accompanies an attack, and it doesn't require that you deal damage with said attack. Venemous is a special effect that accompanies an attack, and I'm pretty sure that you must deal damage with said attack, like normal with poisons.

Both flaming and poison are spelled out in the text as exceptions to the rule. Vorpal is not an exception to the rule because it doesn't meet any of the exception criteria.

 

[Zhure]

Hmmm, How about a Monk under a stoneskin with his natural attacks? Effective +5 fists?

No. Read the DMG, page 74. It specifically excludes spells which grant DR from allowing the user to offset the DR of others.

Greg

 

[kreynolds]

Both flaming and poison are spelled out in the text as exceptions to the rule.

Exactly, so the answer to these two is quite definitive.

Vorpal is not an exception to the rule because it doesn't meet any of the exception criteria.

There is no definitive answer for this one (in regards to the types on page 74 of the DMG), and it's not spelled out either. It does not state that it functions as bonus damage die, and neither does it state that requires damage, such as poison. What it does in fact state, however, is that it functions on a critical hit. Period.

If it was spelled out so clearly in support of your argument, I would imagine you would have quoted it by now. I stated my opionion, which was just that, an opinion. You keep saying that I'm wrong, yet you haven't quoted a rule to prove it. I looked through the books before my game today, but I still couldn't fine anything that lent credence to your argument. If you have found something else, point me to it.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I swear. Honestly, if there is a rule that states otherwise, I'd like to know. That's all.

 

[kreynolds]

So does wounding work even if I don't actually hurt the guy?

I'd definately have to say no, only because the description of the enhancement is pretty clear about it...

A weapon of wounding deals damage to a creature such that a wound it inflicts

...so if you don't inflict a wound...well...there you go.

EDIT: It's worth noting that the Vorpal descriptive text says nothing of the sort...at all.

 

[Darklone]

Well, I wouldn't care. If vorpal cuts the head off with a critical anyways, use a vorpal scythe or greataxe and you'd cause at least one point of damage anyhow with your critical and a decent strength.

Now vorpal scimitars dualwielded are another part of the story

 

[Zhure]

There is no definitive answer for this one (in regards to the types on page 74 of the DMG), and it's not spelled out either.

As cited earlier, DMG, page 74.

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

edit - and in Vorpal, it says "The DM may have to make judgment calls about this sword’s effect." If you as the DM judge this effect to be poison, or a touch effect, or an energy attack, then it will work if the weapon doesn't do any damage through the DR, otherwise it's a pretty clear case.

Greg