Falling Damage and Stoneskin

[prospero63]

That's disingenuous.

Not only that, it's silly. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not only does he not think a spell called stoneskin gives you a stone skin, he probably thinks it, oh I don't know, does what the spell description says (which doesn't include making one's skin stone, or any such thing).

 

[Delta]

I wouldn't think it would, but I want to verify.
Stoneskin protects against weapon damage, including blunt weapons.
But it would not mitigate falling damage would it?

I asked Skip Williams this early in 3E (kept the FAQ at that time), by personal email he replied "yes", that's the intent of DR. If I remember I'll dig up the email when I get home.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm not so much worried about the DR reduction of 10 points (I'm not that much of a tightwad that I can't give a player the benefit of the doubt on a potential 10d6 fall)

It is not an issue of being ungenerous, Stoneskin gives DR and thus follows the rules of DR. The real matter is whether DR reduces falling damage.

 

[Delta]

So here's the reply from Skip "TSR Sage" Williams back on Jan-16, 2003:

In a message dated 1/14/03 5:21:53 PM, <email omitted> writes:

<< Something has just occured to me that seems rather ambiguous in the core rules. I'm wondering if damage reduction is supposed to serve as protection from non-magical, non-energy effects that have no attack roll, such as: falling, landslides, tornados, crushing wall traps, or creature constrict and swallow whole abilities (DMG ch. 3, MM Introduction).

Should DR help against these kinds of physical effects? >>

In a word, yes. (That's a departure form previous additions of the game, but once reason DR replaces the old immunity to non-magical weapons special defense is so that a long list of exceptions were no longer needed.)

 

[prospero63]

So here's the reply from Skip "TSR Sage" Williams back on Jan-16, 2003:

Cool, though my group and I have found much humor at asking "the sage" the same question and getting different answers...

I do happen to agree with this ruling however. Stone skin (in all the games I'm in at least) gives you that first 10 points on damage (no qualifiers aside from the obvious energy, simply damage).

 

[irdeggman]

I have to disagree with skip. It might have been the intent but the RAW states otherwise.

Rules Compendium (pg 41)

"A creature that has damage reduction (DR) ignores some of the hit point damage from weapons, natural weapons, and unarmed attacks that don't meet certain critieria."

Is falling a "Weapon" or a "natural weapon" or an "unarmed attack"?

The answer has to be no. The supporting information is that feats that apply to weapons can't be applied to "falling" - weapon focus, weapon specialization etc.


Rules Compendium (pg 42)

"Weapons and natural weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal, which can be bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing."

Rules Compendium (pg 52)

"A creature that falls takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6."

This is non-typed damage - that is it does not specify bludgeoning, slashing or piercing. Common sense may say it should be bludgeoning but then we are reading things into the rules that are not there. Only weapons have a damage type and falling does not have one.

 

[FEADIN]

No protection from falling damage, I totaly agree with the previous post.

 

[prospero63]

Common sense may say it should be bludgeoning...

God forbid we have any of that in the game...

 

[Infiniti2000]

And then you get ice storm, which is bludgeoning damage but is still not protected by stoneskin.

 

[Delta]

I have to disagree with skip. It might have been the intent but the RAW states otherwise.

Well, two problems with that argument. (a) You're quoting a source (RC) that didn't exist when Skip was writing. Rules Compendium is suspect in that it changed a lot of stuff at the end of 3.x. (b) If you're going to get rules-lawyerish, you're not quoting everything that the core rules say.

Here's what the SRD says at the start of Damage Reduction:

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks... The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities...

Okay, so falling isn't a weapon -- you argue that the creature can't ignore damage. But falling is also not an energy, spell, spell-like, or supernatural ability -- so I argue that the creature can't take normal damage, either, by this quote.

The truth is that the core rules don't say one way or the other, and falling (et. al.) fails to land in either category (hence my asking Skip about it in '03). If I had to decide for myself, it certainly looks more like the former (natural attacks) than the latter, so I'm happy with Skip's comment.

 

[irdeggman]

Well, two problems with that argument. (a) You're quoting a source (RC) that didn't exist when Skip was writing. Rules Compendium is suspect in that it changed a lot of stuff at the end of 3.x. (b) If you're going to get rules-lawyerish, you're not quoting everything that the core rules say.

But the Rules Compendium trumps other previous sources - so I quoted the "definitive" source.

 

[Ydars]

The really interesting thing about this discussion is not the actual topic but the disparate frames of reference that various people use to adjudicate D&D when there is no concrete rule.

I tend to use real-world physics to work things out and so do several other posters.

Whereas many more people tend to use the precidents set by existing rules.

Different strokes again.........................

 

[prospero63]

The really interesting thing about this discussion is not the actual topic but the disparate frames of reference that various people use to adjudicate D&D when there is no concrete rule.

I tend to use real-world physics to work things out and so do several other posters.

Whereas many more people tend to use the precidents set by existing rules.

Different strokes again.........................

Eh, in this case the groups I'm in tend to ask "is it physical damage, if yes then damage reduction applies". So being pelted by ice storm? Yep. Falling? Yep. It's a simple delineation and tends to keep the game as what we want it to be, namely a role playing game not an exercise in dissecting the rule books... YMMV.

 

[Delta]

But the Rules Compendium trumps other previous sources - so I quoted the "definitive" source.

So we disagree about that.

 

[Kask]

If it works like plate armor, it should give Armor bonus instead of DR.

Exactly. If a giant swung and hit you with a wood plank the size of a floor, would the spell protect you?

Once you answer that, the OP will have his answer.

 

[SuperGnome]

I'd say it wouldn't help at all (unless there were spikes in addition to falling armor). If you're in a safe and someone shoots at you, you're fine. If you're in that safe and fall 20 feet, the safe does you zero good from the trauma. If there is something that would cause additional physical problems (spikes\glass\whatever) then I could see it helping.

 

[Kask]

I'd say it wouldn't help at all (unless there were spikes in addition to falling armor). If you're in a safe and someone shoots at you, you're fine. If you're in that safe and fall 20 feet, the safe does you zero good from the trauma. If there is something that would cause additional physical problems (spikesglasswhatever) then I could see it helping.

So, it matters if you hit the wooden board rather than the wooden board hitting you? the Formula is F=(M*A).

 

[Starbuck_II]

And then you get ice storm, which is bludgeoning damage but is still not protected by stoneskin.

Well, it is a spell.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have to disagree with skip. It might have been the intent but the RAW states otherwise.

Rules Compendium (pg 41)

"A creature that has damage reduction (DR) ignores some of the hit point damage from weapons, natural weapons, and unarmed attacks that don't meet certain critieria."

Is falling a "Weapon" or a "natural weapon" or an "unarmed attack"?

The answer has to be no. The supporting information is that feats that apply to weapons can't be applied to "falling" - weapon focus, weapon specialization etc.

I disagree. I think that's an extremely weak argument.

Rules Compendium (pg 42)

"Weapons and natural weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal, which can be bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing."

Rules Compendium (pg 52)

"A creature that falls takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6."

This is non-typed damage - that is it does not specify bludgeoning, slashing or piercing. Common sense may say it should be bludgeoning but then we are reading things into the rules that are not there. Only weapons have a damage type and falling does not have one.

That doesn't matter if you have DR x/-. This type of damage reduction will ignore damage, no matter if it's bludgeoning, slashing or piercing.

Unless someone is able to dig up an explicit quote that DR cannot protect someone from falling damage, I'm inclined to believe that it does.

It doesn't even have to be true that falling damage is automatically bludgeoning damage. Actually, it probably depends on the kind of surface that is hit on impact. If I drop on a spiked fence, I'll probably take piercing damage...

Which reminds me: Would anyone argue that stoneskin reduces damage from falling into a spiked pit but not from falling into a 'normal' pit?

 

[irdeggman]

I disagree. I think that's an extremely weak argument.

Yet I have provied several examples of supporting evidence to be countered by essentially the following argument

Unless someone is able to dig up an explicit quote that DR cannot protect someone from falling damage, I'm inclined to believe that it does.

Which "case" is stronger?

That doesn't matter if you have DR x/-. This type of damage reduction will ignore damage, no matter if it's bludgeoning, slashing or piercing.

It doesn't even have to be true that falling damage is automatically bludgeoning damage. Actually, it probably depends on the kind of surface that is hit on impact. If I drop on a spiked fence, I'll probably take piercing damage...

Falling damage has no type. That was the point of the original arguement. Falling onto spikes is more along the line of weapon-like damage. More specifically a trap that is weapon-like in nature. Not falling in general - which was the original question.

Falling is never weapon-like in nature. That seems to be thething people are missing. DR does not work for damage (in general) it works against weapons (and weapon-like objects. etc.). If it worked against damage in general then it would by its very nature apply to spells (which it specifically does not).

Traps, because of their very nature, are much more difficult (and individually specific) to handle. They are also usually considered "weapon-like".

Which reminds me: Would anyone argue that stoneskin reduces damage from falling into a spiked pit but not from falling into a 'normal' pit?

It depends on how it is written up - but in general I think it would apply since the spikes are doing the damage (i.e., weapon-like) and not falling in general (not weapon-like). Again - logically unsound, but rules-wise it fits and follows them.