Energy Weapons vs Damage Reduction

[Rashak Mani]

Its probably been asked before... but last night this came up and I need to convince my DM about it.

Arrow energized with Cold hits Salamander. No physical damage occurs due to damage reduction. DMG says "energy damage dealt with an attack" is not negated, but gives the example of an elemental attacking.

We figured the damage would get thru... DM thinks not. (see example below) So would the cold bearing arrow do the d6 cold damage or not ?

If I see a 50/+5 Damage reduction demon and I have a +1 Screaming sword (sonic) I can still damage it d6 per round ? (Burst effect too if I do "critical" ?
(I hardly thinking giving d6 damage to this demon can be called abusive... My DM thinks it might. )

 

[Hypersmurf]

DR has no effect on energy damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

We figured the damage would get thru... DM thinks not. (see example below) So would the cold bearing arrow do the d6 cold damage or not ?

By the rules, it would do the d6 cold damage regardless of DR because DR does not protect against energy damage. This is explicitly stated in the DMG under Damage Reduction. It's in one of the bullet points. Your DM is either misunderstanding the rule, or he is using a house rule.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I can already see the scene... big Demons comes out from planar gate... all the PCs get their trustworthy "+d6 Cold/Sonic" swords. Whacking away with touch attacks....

Oh... so a melee touch attack is enough to discharge the energy ? Or you have to earnestly hit them ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You still need to penetrate their AC... but if you do, the DR doesn't matter against the energy damage.

Otherwise you could use your cold damage against the guy in +5 plate and +5 shield as a touch attack as well.

-Hyp.

 

[melkoriii]

You still need to penetrate their AC... but if you do, the DR doesn't matter against the energy damage.

Otherwise you could use your cold damage against the guy in +5 plate and +5 shield as a touch attack as well.

-Hyp.

Actualy I dont see any real problem with that.

Say I have a Torch and instead of hitting you with it as a Mace, I just try and touch you with it to burn you.

You will get burned if I touch you with it, you just wount get the melee damage since Im not hitting you hard.

Why would a Flaming Sword be any different?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Say I have a Torch and instead of hitting you with it as a Mace, I just try and touch you with it to burn you.

You will get burned if I touch you with it, you just wount get the melee damage since Im not hitting you hard.

I won't get burned if you touch my shield.

I will take damage if you touch my shield with an Inflict Wounds spell.

There's a difference.

-Hyp.

 

[Rashak Mani]

oh ok... we shouldnt get DR mixed with Armor.

Side Question: So a sword of spell storing with inflict in it can be discharged with a melee touch attack ?

 

[melkoriii]

I won't get burned if you touch my shield.

I will take damage if you touch my shield with an Inflict Wounds spell.

There's a difference.

-Hyp.

More reasone to make Shield give cover rather then AC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So a sword of spell storing with inflict in it can be discharged with a melee touch attack ?

No.

"Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it..."

-Hyp.