Evard's Black Tentacles and DR

[KarinsDad]

Sure. But keep in mind my response was predicated on the clause from Pinotage, "If it's spell damage...."

I agree with Hyp that the real question is defining spell damage and you mention the main concerns in that regard.

Your #3 is a little lacking IMO because it would mean that a fireball does not deal spell damage. I can't think of a use for that off hand, but there might be other spells out there which could be more easily exploited. The fact is that we must all agree that a fireball is spell damage.

No, a fireball is fire damage.

Perhaps you should amend it by saying that any spell that deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage is not considered spell damage for that portion unless the spell description explicitly says so. Thus, ice storm deals 3d6 bludgeoning non-spell damage and 2d6 cold spell damage.

I should amend it to say "unnamed damage caused by a spell is spell damage".

That then only leaves the problem of having SR and DR/not bludgeoning. If your SR works, you take no damage, but if your SR doesn't work, your DR applies. Does this mean magical damage need not be spell damage? I think that's somewhat of an inconsistency.

I do not understand your question here.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I should amend it to say "unnamed damage caused by a spell is spell damage".

And anything else is therefore not spell damage? So, if a fireball is fire damage and not spell damage, then DR/(anything other than fire) stops it? I hope you agree that DR does not block a fireball, so therefore you should see why I'm saying that definition is lacking.

I do not understand your question here.

It was with respect to the ice storm example and my suggested amendment. If you amend your #3 based on my suggestion, then you still have a little issue with ice storm due to the fact that DR is only bypassed by spell damage, and then NOT ice storm, but ice storm could be negated by SR which implies directly that it's spell damage (though not termed spell damage for SR).

 

[Sithobi1]

Energy damage also bypasses DR, but I agree with I2K.

 

[schporto]

Well, the fireball deals fire damage. Fire is an energy type. Which is listed as bypassing DR. Same for the cold damage. I think typeless damage (the divine energy half of a flamestrike, or the 1d6 from horrid wilting) would be 'spell damage'.
Icestorm does cold damage (bypasses DR), and bludgeoning (bypasses DR/bludgeoning but not DR/slashing).
As for the case of a double dip, well yeah. If the caster overcomes your SR, then your DR steps up. If the damage would bypass your DR, you loose, otherwise reduce your damage.
-cpd

 

[Anthraxus]

The more important question is "Is it spell damage, or not?"

"Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction."

-Hyp.

Man, I hate that ruling. Especially when they write spells that mention Bludgeoning/Slashing/Silver/Cold Iron, and the above sentence makes it moot.

It seems like spells should either do some sort of Energy or Physical damage, which would be stopped by Energy resistance or DR, respectively.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Bah , okay then, change my example to magic missile. It's still typed as [Force] and is not energy damage. Unless it is "spell damage" then DR blocks it (according to that definition).

As for the case of a double dip, well yeah. If the caster overcomes your SR, then your DR steps up. If the damage would bypass your DR, you loose, otherwise reduce your damage.

It's not a case of double dipping, it's a case of "How can it be a spell (negated by SR) and yet not be a spell (not bypassing DR)?"

 

[Pinotage]

Thanks. This has been really useful. I think KarinsDad's suggestion makes sense.

Thanks.

Pinotage

 

[Votan]

Bah , okay then, change my example to magic missile. It's still typed as [Force] and is not energy damage. Unless it is "spell damage" then DR blocks it (according to that definition).
It's not a case of double dipping, it's a case of "How can it be a spell (negated by SR) and yet not be a spell (not bypassing DR)?"

It is an orb spell?

But those are energy damage . . .

I actually like KarinsDad's view on this as well. In my pure opinion, spells should either be susceptible to Spell Resistence or Damage Resistence or have some interesting drawback to prevent a single spell from being brutally effective in every situation.

 

[KarinsDad]

And anything else is therefore not spell damage? So, if a fireball is fire damage and not spell damage, then DR/(anything other than fire) stops it? I hope you agree that DR does not block a fireball, so therefore you should see why I'm saying that definition is lacking.

DR does not block fire anyway, even normal fire. I think you are overemphasizing your point.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

No additional definition needed. If the type of damage is defined, use it. If it is not defined, it is spell damage if from a spell, spell-like damage if from a spell-like ability.

It was with respect to the ice storm example and my suggested amendment. If you amend your #3 based on my suggestion, then you still have a little issue with ice storm due to the fact that DR is only bypassed by spell damage, and then NOT ice storm, but ice storm could be negated by SR which implies directly that it's spell damage (though not termed spell damage for SR).

There is no issue for ice storm. The spell is negated via the SR. What type of damage the spell has is irrelevant if the SR roll is failed. If the roll is made, DR can minimize the bludgeoning damage, but not the cold damage.

The nice thing about this interpretation is that it is precise. There is no question about whether a given spell qualifies or not. Spiritual Weapon is force damage. Telekinesis is bludgeoning damage. Scorching Ray is fire damage. Searing Light is spell damage (since there is no "light" damage in the game). Summon Monster does damage based on what the monster is doing, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's not a case of double dipping, it's a case of "How can it be a spell (negated by SR) and yet not be a spell (not bypassing DR)?"

Summon Monster fails for the alternative interpretation.

DR/Slashing minimizes the mace damage from a given creature unless the creature is summoned. What?!?