DR vs. spells that do "physical" damage

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: DR vs. spells that do "physical" damage

The one or the other arguement is flawed for non-spells, though. Only spells and spell like abilities are affected by SR. Not supernatural or extrodanary effects (dragon breath, acid, lava et cetera).

I knew I'd screw up the definition! Substitute "spell or spell-like" in my definition for "magical." And you're right: a conjured flask of acid would probably be a spell effect subject to neither SR or DR. Weird, but there ya go.

One clarification on my interpretation of the SR/DR dichotomy: where a spell causes damage which is not subject to SR, it's almost always subject to DR. You should subtract the damage reduction once from the total damage caused by the spell, unless instructed otherwise.

If Transmute Rock to Mud does 28 points of damage to a creature that has DR10/+1, then the creature should take 18 points of damage. You should not rule that the damage is caused by 28 1-point rockfalls and is therefore entirely negated, any more than you'd rule that a tiger's claw attack for 15 points of damage is caused by 5 3-point claw slashes and is therefore entirely negated.

Certain spells (creeping doom being the best-known example) instruct you to consider it otherwise: every point of damage from that spell should be considered as having come from a separate source. Without such instructions in a spell, however, the total damage should be considered as coming from one source.

This is my simple interpretation of the rules.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

I would say that SR applies regardless of whether the guy is the direct target or just a bystander in the spell's area of effect.
1st edition MR worked this way and it should not be changed now.

Yes, you do get SR vs non-targeted spells such as fireball. That was my point: you don't need to be targeted.

I could understand the mithral grade below a +1 because it would be unrefined enchanted metal in that state.

Refined mithral does not defeat +1 DR. Mithral is always below magic on the 3e hierarchy of DR penetration.

 

[Ferret]

I think the ceiling thing is indirect, and I agree with the simulated damage, like the holograms on star trek are force fields.

 

[LokiDR]

It has always seem strange to me to apply DR to certain effect, like falling. Can you really resist the ground? In game terms, yes, but I don't know if that make logical sense. Should an iron golem really fall 140 feet without damage on average?

 

[LordAO]

Can you really resist the ground? In game terms, yes, but I don't know if that make logical sense. Should an iron golem really fall 140 feet without damage on average?

Well in the new 3.5 edition DR values have been significantly reduced. So yes, an Iron Golem which fell that far would indeed take lots of damage.

 

[Nareau]

It seems to be the consensus that spells that cause damage "indirectly" are not subject to SR, and are subject to DR (like my Rock to Mud example.) What about Wall of Thorns? Blade Barrier? Evard's Black Tentacles? Also, why on earth is Blade Barrier an Evocation spell? Seems to me that it'd be a Conjuration spell.

Here's the part I'm beginning to question:
"Magical attacks and energy attacks (even mundane fire) ignore damage reduction."

Anybody got a MM handy, and can check for the exact wording of the DR ability?

Also, just a note to whomever asked about force spells: There aren't many [Force] spells out there. Those that are force, say so explicitly.

Spider

 

[Hypersmurf]

Don't forget Ice Storm...

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

It seems to be the consensus that spells that cause damage "indirectly" are not subject to SR, and are subject to DR (like my Rock to Mud example.) What about Wall of Thorns? Blade Barrier? Evard's Black Tentacles?

I would say that anything a spell does which acts in some way contrary to natural law is fundamentally magical. In other words, if the spell is temperary, it is really magic. Wall of Thorns isn't really thorns. You can't take a clipping and plant them. They only exist by magic, so the damage is fundamentally magic. Blades don't normally hover in the air, spinning, so that must be magic damage.

Rock to mud is a special case. The change may be temperary, but it is simple physics that produces the damage, not the spell itself.

 

[Pielorinho]

I would say that anything a spell does which acts in some way contrary to natural law is fundamentally magical. In other words, if the spell is temperary, it is really magic. Wall of Thorns isn't really thorns. You can't take a clipping and plant them. They only exist by magic, so the damage is fundamentally magic. Blades don't normally hover in the air, spinning, so that must be magic damage.

Are you suggesting, then, that Wall of Thorns should be subject to spell resistance? By the book it isn't, any more than magically conjured creatures can be resisted by spell resistance.

If that's not what you're saying, my apologies; but the way the rules are written, the distinction you describe doesn't have much utility that I can see.

Daniel

 

[LokiDR]

Are you suggesting, then, that Wall of Thorns should be subject to spell resistance? By the book it isn't, any more than magically conjured creatures can be resisted by spell resistance.

If that's not what you're saying, my apologies; but the way the rules are written, the distinction you describe doesn't have much utility that I can see.

Daniel

Ooops, I thought Wall of Thorns did allow SR. Yes, it should be SR or DR.