Evard's Black Tentacles and DR

[Pinotage]

KarinsDad, let me see if I have this straight. We have a Lich (DR 15/Bludgeoning and Magic) caught in an Evard's Black Tentacles. Since the tentacles deal bludgeoning damage, the Lich is immune to the damage. Since the listed damage is bludgeoning, and it's not magic, it takes not damage. That correct?

Pinotage

 

[jcfiala]

KarinsDad, let me see if I have this straight. We have a Lich (DR 15/Bludgeoning and Magic) caught in an Evard's Black Tentacles. Since the tentacles deal bludgeoning damage, the Lich is immune to the damage. Since the listed damage is bludgeoning, and it's not magic, it takes not damage. That correct?

DR: Magic is defined as:

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

I don't see how the description of the spell at all suggests that the tentacles would defeat the magic part of the DR, myself. The spell isn't directly hurting the lich, anyway - it's creating tentacles, which then hopefully grapple him while you come up with a better plan...

 

[Infiniti2000]

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

Read my "bah"

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.

If the bludgeoning damage is not spell damage, how can it be negated via SR? If the bludgeoning damage is spell damage, how can it be negated by DR? How is this not an inconsistency? I see you're just choosing to ignore it, and that's what I take issue with and why I think your definition requires a revision. I'm not overemphasizing my point, I just don't think it's being understood. Your disagreement is not based on understanding in my opinion.

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.

And then, someone brings up a lantern archon. Fortunately, its damage has an explicit wording on DR. Unfortunately, it's another example of "light" damage.

 

[schporto]

First I2K sorry I misunderstood with my 'double dipping' post. Now I understand your point. I still think there is a logical inconsistency either way though.
Either spells bring forth stuff and then DR applies - which leaves the question of how can something conjured be effected by SR? The Ice Storm example. Spell reisistance only applies to spells. This is a physical thing, so SR shouldn't apply.
Or spells are all bypassing DR - which leads to the summon monster inconsistency. Where even summoned that are physically present are not spell effects and therefore subject to DR. Or a sword with Magic Weapon cast on it would bypass all DR for that +1 of damage (that's the spell's damage) with all the rest of it's damage being subject to DR.
I think the best way is to balance the two. If it is creating something then the created part is subject to DR and no SR. Therefore the bludgeoning damage in a ice storm is subject to DR but no SR. The cold effect is subject to SR but bypasses DR (it is an energy effect). Damage with no type attached (horrid wilting, searing light) count as spell damage.
My only problem here is does Force count as energy? Because if it didn't, it would help with those steenkin orb of forces.
-cpd

 

[KarinsDad]

If the bludgeoning damage is not spell damage, how can it be negated via SR? If the bludgeoning damage is spell damage, how can it be negated by DR? How is this not an inconsistency?

It is only an inconsistency if you interpret that any damage received by a spell, directly or indirectly, is "spell damage" (which btw, does not have a game definition tmk).

To me, SR indicates if the spell can affect you or not at all.

If it does affect you, you could still not take damage due to a made saving throw, DR, Energy Resistance or Immunity, etc. I have no problem with multiple defenses applying against a spell.


The most inane part of this discussion is that damage types (e.g. slashing) are listed for spells, but who cares with the "literal" DR cannot stop any spell damage interpretation? There is no need for the damage type to be listed in the spell at all if you go with this interpretation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The most inane part of this discussion is that damage types (e.g. slashing) are listed for spells, but who cares with the "literal" DR cannot stop any spell damage interpretation. There is no need for the damage type to be listed in the spell at all if you go with this interpretation.

Slashing damage from a spell is relevant to a hydra. Regeneration X/bludgeoning makes an Ice Storm more effective than a fireball. Etc.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

Slashing damage from a spell is relevant to a hydra. -Hyp.

Only in VERY limited cases

Combat
Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.

A hydra can be killed either by severing all its heads or by slaying its body. To sever a head, an opponent must make a successful sunder attempt with a slashing weapon. (The player should declare where the attack is aimed before making the attack roll.) Making a sunder attempt provokes an attack of opportunity unless the foe has the Improved Sunder feat. An opponent can strike at a hydra’s heads from any position in which he could strike at the hydra itself, because the hydra’s head writhe and whip about in combat. An opponent can ready an action to attempt to sunder a hydra’s head when the creature bites at him. Each of a hydra’s heads has hit points equal to the creature’s full normal hit point total, divided by its original number of heads. Losing a head deals damage to the body equal to half the head’s full normal hit points. A natural reflex seals the neck shut to prevent further blood loss. A hydra can no longer attack with a severed head but takes no other penalties.

Each time a head is severed, two new heads spring from the stump in 1d4 rounds. A hydra can never have more than twice its original number of heads at any one time, and any extra heads it gains beyond its original number wither and die within a day. To prevent a severed head from growing back into two heads, at least 5 points of fire or acid damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before the new heads appear. A flaming weapon (or similar effect) deals its energy damage to the stump in the same blow in which a head is severed. Fire or acid damage from an area effect may burn multiple stumps in addition to dealing damage to the hydra’s body. A hydra does not die from losing its heads until all its heads have been cut off and the stumps seared by fire or acid.

A hydra’s body can be slain just like any other creature’s, but hydras possess fast healing (see below) and are difficult to defeat in this fashion. Any attack that is not (or cannot be) an attempt to sunder a head affects the body.

Targeted magical effects cannot sever a hydra’s heads (and thus must be directed at the body) unless they deal slashing damage and could be used to make sunder attempts.

 

[Infiniti2000]

To me, SR indicates if the spell can affect you or not at all.

If it does affect you, you could still not take damage due to a made saving throw, DR, Energy Resistance or Immunity, etc. I have no problem with multiple defenses applying against a spell.

I do. You should not be able to block a magical source of damage and then turn around and say that it's non-magical. True enough that there's no definition of "spell damage", but my assumption is that it's magical. The opposite therefore is non-magical.

Two methods would alleviate this inconsistency.

1. Change ice storm (or other similar spells) to read "SR: see text" and then modify the description to let SR block the cold damage, but not the non-magical bludgeoning damage.

2. Change DR to remove any vague term such as spell damage and identify explicitly the forms that ignore DR.

As another hypothetical example. Let's say I create a spell which allows me to make a melee touch attack that deals 1d6 + 1/L (max +10) bludgeoning damage. Make it whatever level you want (irrelevant, but e.g. 3rd) and name it whatever want (also irrelevant, but e.g. Skeleton Crush). Even if you don't consider this spell damage because I typed it, it still overcomes DR because it's a touch attack.

 

[mvincent]

By RAW, the tentacles are evidently unaffected by DR.

This rather conclusive thread should help illustrate why.

Some of the points it brings up include:
1) If Evard's Black Tentacles were affected by DR, it would say so in the spell description.
2) The rules say "Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction", and the damage portion of EBT is a function of (i.e. a direct product of) the spell.
3) In 3.0 the tentacles were almost like seperate creatures, but in 3.5 they are quite clearly a spell effect (can't be targeted or attacked, affect all creatures in range etc.)
4) Bludgeoning damage does not matter. The FAQ says:
"even if a spell or power describes its damage as
bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power)
effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the
spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise)."
5) Black tentacles can be empowered or maximized to increase the damage
6) The FAQ also says: "The spell actually works something like an entangle spell that’s capable of dealing bludgeoning damage. "
7) I've witnessed several other discussions on this with the same result.

 

[KarinsDad]

Slashing damage from a spell is relevant to a hydra.

How? I am not aware of any spells which are considered weapons and which make sunder attempts. Spiritual Weapon, for example, is considered a spell, not a weapon.

Regeneration X/bludgeoning makes an Ice Storm more effective than a fireball. Etc.

Only against a tendriculos (out of the core rules monsters).

But, there are no core rules monsters that have Regeneration X/Slash or X/Piercing. I doubt very much that the designers put the type descriptions into so many spells for Regeneration and with the other interpretation, they didn't put them in for DR either. What's left?