Evard's Black Tentacles and DR

[KarinsDad]

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.

You mean like a magical weapon?

From a rules perspective, magical weapons are really semi-non-magical in many ways (e.g. cannot be permanently dispelled, cannot be area dispelled, damage from them can be stopped by DR, etc.). If magical weapons were truly magical, then the "magic part" of their damage (e.g. 2 damage from a +2 weapon) would bypass all DR.

There is a difference between spells and magic.


Or, how about the Orb spells which according to the rules, have their orbs last indefinitely and they are non-magical and cannot be dispelled?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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?

Well, "so many spells" is Wall of Thorns for Slashing, and Spike Stones, Spike Growth, and (arguably) Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound for Piercing.

Wall of Thorns is a Conjuration (Creation) that doesn't allow SR, like the Hound and like Evard's Black Tentacles.

Ice Storm, on the other hand, does allow SR.

I was going to suggest that perhaps these spells were cut'n'paste holdovers from 3E, where skeletons (for example) took half damage from slashing and piercing... but interestingly, in 3E, Spike Stones and Spike Growth dealt 'damage', rather than 'piercing damage'

I think I'd be inclined to say that as a rule of thumb, if variable damage can be affected by Empower Spell, it's spell damage. So the damage dealt by a monster Summoned by an Empowered Summon Monster III is not increased; it is not spell damage. The bludgeoning damage dealt by an Empowered Ice Storm is increased; it is spell damage.

So... would the damage dealt by an Empowered Black Tentacles be increased? Empowered Faithful Hound? Empowered Transmute Rock to Mud? Empowered Spike Growth? Empowered Wall of Thorns?

I'd say that if the damage in any of those cases is increased, it will bypass DR; if it isn't, it won't.

If magical weapons were truly magical, then the "magic part" of their damage (e.g. 2 damage from a +2 weapon) would bypass all DR.

Don't you mean "If magical weapons were truly spells, spell-like abilities, or energy attacks, then the "magic part" of their damage (e.g. 2 damage from a +2 weapon) would bypass all DR"?

'Magical' doesn't bypass all DR; 'spells, spell-like abilities, or energy attacks' does.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You mean like a magical weapon?

From a rules perspective, magical weapons are really semi-non-magical in many ways (e.g. cannot be permanently dispelled, cannot be area dispelled, damage from them can be stopped by DR, etc.).

That's a strawman, and not a very good one at that.

The fact that they can be suppressed at all makes them magical.

A magic weapon with the spell on it can, in fact, be area dispelled.

Damage from other sources cannot be stopped by DR, but that does not make those sources non-magical (which befuddles me how you came up with this).

If magical weapons were truly magical, then the "magic part" of their damage (e.g. 2 damage from a +2 weapon) would bypass all DR.

That's reaching, and it's what makes this a bad strawman. If "magic" is the be all and end all for DR, why does a normal torch ignore it? The reason is because there's more to it than that. If you merely agree that there's more to it than that, then you will have agreed with everything I've said (or tried to say, given a possible miscommunication).

Or, how about the Orb spells which according to the rules, have their orbs last indefinitely and they are non-magical and cannot be dispelled?

Not true, as explained in this website.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not true, as explained in this website.

Er... okay.

-Hyp.

 

[reanjr]

My opinion is that any spell that allows SR is spell damage. Any spell that does no, is some other kind of damage. In this case, the DR 5/bludgeoning would work.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think I'd be inclined to say that as a rule of thumb, if variable damage can be affected by Empower Spell, it's spell damage. So the damage dealt by a monster Summoned by an Empowered Summon Monster III is not increased; it is not spell damage. The bludgeoning damage dealt by an Empowered Ice Storm is increased; it is spell damage.

Interesting. This is drawing the line beyond the literal "if it is a spell, DR does not stop the damage". It is just drawing the line in a different place than where I did.

For example, Earthquake. As an Earth Domain spell, it can be Empowered to 9th level and would not be minimized by DR with your rule of thumb here. But to me, it doesn't make sense that bludgeoning falling rock would damage someone with DR/Slash or DR/Silver more because the rock got knocked down with a spell as opposed to knocked down by a giant.


There is also the "direct versus indirect" (i.e. does the spell make your Invisibility spell go away) type of argument as well. This would be another place to draw the line.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is drawing the line beyond the literal "if it is a spell, DR does not stop the damage".

Well, it has to be... or Summoned Monsters will bypass DR with their attacks.

For example, Earthquake. As an Earth Domain spell, it can be Empowered to 9th level and would not be minimized by DR with your rule of thumb here.

Only if the 8d6 is considered to be a variable numeric effect of the spell.

If I use Mage Hand to pull a string that releases a landslide that deals 8d6 damage, the 8d6 damage is not a numeric effect of the Mage Hand spell.

So is the 8d6 an effect of the Earthquake spell? Or is it an effect of the landslide, which is an effect of the Earthquake spell?

My other "keep it simple" rule of thumb is that if a figure is defined in the text of the spell, it's affected by Empower, but if it isn't, it isn't. That has its disadvantages, though - it means that Faithful Hound's bite damage can be Empowered, where if it said "creates a phantom dog that attacks as a dire wolf", or whatever, it couldn't be. It means that Transmute Rock to Mud and Earthquake can be Empowered. It means that one needs to decide whether the damage dice quoted in the Shillelagh spell are a definition or a repetition. But it does, at least, give me a foundation to work from.

I don't think Earthquake or TRtM should have their damage affected by Empower. But if I start drawing distinctions like that, then I need to figure out whether, say, Orb of Fire can have its damage Empowered. Is the damage a variable numeric effect of the spell, or is the effect "One orb of fire", which deals 5d6 damage? Spiritual Weapon? Flame Blade? And I have to remember what ruling I made on those spells last time they came up, for consistency.

There is also the "direct versus indirect" (i.e. does the spell make your Invisibility spell go away) type of argument as well. This would be another place to draw the line.

It's another line that's hard to pin down, of course If I Summon a monster and make it hit you, that's an indirect attack. So what if I Evoke a Flaming Sphere and make it roll into your square? Direct or Indirect?

If I cast an Earthquake so that the spell's area includes a foe, that's a direct attack per the definition in the Invisibility spell... but so is Detect Magic.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, "so many spells" is Wall of Thorns for Slashing, and Spike Stones, Spike Growth, and (arguably) Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound for Piercing.

I forgot that Blade Barrier went from Slashing to Force in 3.5.


What I do not like about the (literal) DR rules is the lack of consistency with other damage rules.

Energy Resistance Fire protects against fire from spells, fire from other magical sources, and fire from non-magical sources. Anything fire based it protects against.

DR Slashing protects against non-slashing (physical attack) damage from other magical sources (like a magic weapon), and from non-magical sources, but not from spells (or spell-like abilities).

Regeneration Slashing protects against all non-slashing damage from spells, from other magical sources, and from non-magical sources.


DR really should be "If you get hit with a physical attack, the damage is reduced unless the attack is of the type the DR does not protect against. Any physical attack, regardless of source.". IMO. YMMV.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it has to be... or Summoned Monsters will bypass DR with their attacks.

What is wrong with this? Aren't they spells?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What is wrong with this? Aren't they spells?

Well, to be fair, there's some support for it... hedged by PfE, wink out in an AMF, dispellable... there is something 'different' between a Dire Wolverine, and a Summoned Dire Wolverine. The Summoned creature is a spell effect.

-Hyp.