Falling Damage and Stoneskin

[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.

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



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.

How about the rest of the pertant information for the SRD (which by the way you should go to the MM for the "actual" text instead - but following your path)

The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction is the amount of hit points the creature ignores from normal attacks.

Since when is falling considered a "normal attack"?

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

Since when is falling considered "a weapon" or even a "blow"?

Here is the full SRD text and not parts taken out of context.

DAMAGE REDUCTION
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature’s damage reduction is the amount of hit points the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment. If a dash follows the slash then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

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

Sometimes damage reduction is instant healing. Sometimes damage reduction represents the creature’s tough hide or body,. In either case, characters can see that conventional attacks don’t work.

If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.

I've bolded the parts of the text that refer to "weapons" or "attacks" (since attacks are part of the supporting case for the arguement too) to make it clearer that DR is only refering to weapons (and weapon-like) objects.

IMO, the reason that spells and such are specifically called out is that spells can be "weapon-like" and the authors did not want to allow any confusion as to whether a spell that is weapon-like should not count as a "weapon" for DR purposes.

 

[akbearfoot]

If people want to say that the ground counts as a weapon, then can I cast Magic weapon on the ground and swing people at it? A natural 20 always hits


Falling is neither an attack, nor a weapon...It is a side effect of your feet unexpectedly leaving the ground while you're not able to fly. If you leave the ground on purpose, it's called jumping, and that too turns into a fall eventually.


It's probably untyped damage because 'massive internal trauma' isnt a recognized damage type. Damage from broken bones that pierce other internal organs...TBIs, internal bleeding....doesen't really fit into a neat category of bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.


So I agree that by RAW damage reduction does NOT reduce falling damage. But I also think it probably should, based simply on the loose ideal that 'having an extrordinarily tough hide' or being able to 'instantly heal some wounds' could reduce the damage...Afterall we're only talking about a few hitpoints, in a short fall the tough hide could leave you unscathed. But in a larger fall, that 10 points isnt going to matter.

 

[aboyd]

Which "case" is stronger?

Actually, Jhaelen sounds more convincing.

Since when is falling considered "a weapon" or even a "blow"?

Wow, as a DM, I would totally consider falling to be quite a blow. That convinces me further that DR does apply.

 

[Delta]

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

That is what Supergnome said in post #36.

"For any crazy idea, someone believes it."

 

[Delta]

IMO, the reason that spells and such are specifically called out is that spells can be "weapon-like" and the authors did not want to allow any confusion as to whether a spell that is weapon-like should not count as a "weapon" for DR purposes.

So we have different opinions.