Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 969746" data-attributes="member: 259">Re: Re: DR vs. spells that do "physical" damageI knew I'd screw up the definition! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  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</blockquote>

Verification