Must a Coup-de-Grace deal damage?

Ballard_Alvar said:
The reason why "injury" would need to be defined is that it is a term used to define "damage" and ["injury"] could mean "when there is a successful attack roll and/or an attack hits." Being that the definitions of "Damage Dealt" and "Damage Reduction are contradictory or at least inconsistent, we are unable to yield a sound result with RAW-- basically making it a judgment call by the DM, which it seems to b anyway.

IMO Damage is clearly defined as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character".

PHB 3.5 page 307

"Deal Damage: Cause Damage to a target with a successful attack. How much damage is dealt is usually expressed in terms of dice (fore example, 2d6+4) and may have a situational modifier as well. However damage dealt by a weapon or spell does not necessarily equal damage taken by the target, because the target may have special defenses that negate some or all of the damage."

I am not sure how this definition is inconsistent with the DR rules. You deal damage then apply Damage Reduction or Energy Resistance and then the target takes the remaining damage. At this point the target actually suffers a decrease in hit points or damage. As I see it if you deal damage less than the targets Damage Reduction then the target would not suffer a decrease in hit points so there would be no damage.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No save necessary, IMO.

My reasoning is this: There was no damage dealt. Sure, it was only because the warforged's DR prevented that from happening, but how is that any different from, say, a spell effect? If a human that is subject to a spell granting DR would be hit with something causing damage that is insufficient to overcome that DR, then no actual damage is taken. "Damage", IMO, is not the hypothetical number that is applied before any effects, but the end result. If none is dealt in the end, then there is no way that the warforged would have to make a save.

(save maybe because of shock :D)
 

Camarath said:
IMO Damage is clearly defined as "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character".

PHB 3.5 page 307

"Deal Damage: Cause Damage to a target with a successful attack. How much damage is dealt is usually expressed in terms of dice (fore example, 2d6+4) and may have a situational modifier as well. However damage dealt by a weapon or spell does not necessarily equal damage taken by the target, because the target may have special defenses that negate some or all of the damage."

I am not sure how this definition is inconsistent with the DR rules. You deal damage then apply Damage Reduction or Energy Resistance and then the target takes the remaining damage. At this point the target actually suffers a decrease in hit points or damage. As I see it if you deal damage less than the targets Damage Reduction then the target would not suffer a decrease in hit points so there would be no damage.

The Def for DR States: "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."





Explination: 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."

this definition is inconsistent with the def for both deal/take damage deal damage varies from take damage because of special defences-- DR, but the DR entry says that DR modifies Damage delt, not damage taken. they cannot both be correct, thus it is a pure judgment call by the dm.




[font=&quot] [/font]
 

Now, Don't get me wrong. obviously Camarath is making a strong argument, but, just like mine, there are "holes" in both arguments that I feel can not be wholely filled because of holes in the rules, not the arguments. another thing to consider is that this Realy won't come up that often due to DR in living creatures being low, and CdG damage usually being very high. This has been fun and I have enjoied this debate. But until next time. . . may the force be with you all on this issue (which ever end you remain on). :)
 

Ballard_Alvar said:
this definition is inconsistent with the def for both deal/take damage deal damage varies from take damage because of special defences-- DR, but the DR entry says that DR modifies Damage delt, not damage taken. they cannot both be correct, thus it is a pure judgment call by the dm.

I had not noticed that line before.

The DMG entry for DR does contradict the entries in the PHB. But the PHB is the primary rule source for rules for playing the game (as per DMG errata) so its explanation that DR reduces damage taken should precedence IMO. Also the MM (primary rule source on supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities) DR entry does not have the line about DR reducing the amount of damage taken so I think it is safe to assume that the DMG is in error in this case.

I do agree that this issue like many others in the rules is in no way remotely clear enough to avoid confusion and differing interpretations. I think that when dealing with issues like this in game constancy is much more improtant than correctness.
 

Camarath said:
I had not noticed that line before.

The DMG entry for DR does contradict the entries in the PHB. But the PHB is the primary rule source for rules for playing the game (as per DMG errata) so its explanation that DR reduces damage taken should precedence IMO. Also the MM (primary rule source on supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities) DR entry does not have the line about DR reducing the amount of damage taken so I think it is safe to assume that the DMG is in error in this case.

I do agree that this issue like many others in the rules is in no way remotely clear enough to avoid confusion and differing interpretations. I think that when dealing with issues like this in game constancy is much more improtant than correctness.

Word.

addendum: there was no doubt in 3.5 pre errata but the wording was changed post errata. I'm glad I've never had to deal with it, I think my group would handle it the same as you had explained. also it would help if WotC actually had a set definition of "Attack" instead of having the 5+ undefined definitions, but thats for another thread.

so, with that, I wholeheartedly agree with the above quote. This has been a fun debate.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top