Vicious combo

[Xeovke]

Say a fighter wears an adamantine heavy armor, then he gains DR 3/-. If he uses a Vicious weapon, every hits he makes deals an additional 2d6 to his target, and he himself receives 1d6. The question is, does his DR apply to the 1d6 he receives himself?

Cheers!
Xeovke

(As a side note isn't 15,000gp a little cheap to get DR 3/-?)

 

[Drasmir]

In a word, Yes.

I've also thought of this idea, but in 3.0 my problem was that I was weilding a sure striking weapon and didn't want to give up my Mithral Chain Shirt (for Dex reasons) in order to go with the Adamantine. In essence, my having the sure striking weapon meant I sliced through any damage reduction I would have.

 

[Caliban]

In a word, Yes.

I've also thought of this idea, but in 3.0 my problem was that I was weilding a sure striking weapon and didn't want to give up my Mithral Chain Shirt (for Dex reasons) in order to go with the Adamantine. In essence, my having the sure striking weapon meant I sliced through any damage reduction I would have.

In a word, No.

DR doesn't stop the magical damage delivered along with an attack.

Besides, how is your armor going to stop damage coming from the sword in your hand?

 

[Drasmir]

DR doesn't stop the magical damage delivered along with an attack.

So you're telling me that if I, as an example, attack a monster in 3.0 who has damage reduction 20/+5 with my +1 Vicious short sword and I do 3 points of damage with the sword and 12 points of damage from the Vicious that the monster will still take 12 points of damage?!? Where did you come up with that? If you look at the description of Vicious enhancement it states that it is damage... not magical damage.

Besides, how is your armor going to stop damage coming from the sword in your hand?

Armor protects you... all of you, plain and simple. Saying that the sword in your hand will bypass your armor because it's in your hand is like saying you can do a called shot to a guy in a chain shirt. "I shoot him in the legs where his armor is not protecting him." I respectfully disagree Caliban.

Other opinions?

 

[gfunk]

So you're telling me that if I, as an example, attack a monster in 3.0 who has damage reduction 20/+5 with my +1 Vicious short sword and I do 3 points of damage with the sword and 12 points of damage from the Vicious that the monster will still take 12 points of damage?!? Where did you come up with that? If you look at the description of Vicious enhancement it states that it is damage... not magical damage.

Yes, the monster will take the 12 points of damage. Remember that Vicious weapon is, by definition, magical. Its powers go away in an Anti-magic field.

The same is true of other swords that add 2d6 or 1d6 of extra damage such as flaming, screaming, aciding, holy, unholy, axiomatic, etc.

Under the description of Bigby's Clenched Fist it doesn't say that the damage is magical because it is assumed.

Similarly, when you are reading about "magical properties of weapons" it seems rather redundant to say that the damage is magical.

 

[Drasmir]

I concede that I was wrong. I just found the appropriate text regarding damage reduction. Man, I've been playing this wrong for a long time I guess it goes to show that one can never know everything about D&D. Thanks for the enlightenment everyone.

 

[TuDogz]

It is like Caliban and Gfunk say.

There is another thread "What is more effacious +3 or +2 with a bonus" that is active right now that goes into this concept in more depth. I'd put in a link but ignorance prevents it. Go look.

edit: Too late.

 

[Caliban]

So you're telling me that if I, as an example, attack a monster in 3.0 who has damage reduction 20/+5 with my +1 Vicious short sword and I do 3 points of damage with the sword and 12 points of damage from the Vicious that the monster will still take 12 points of damage?!?

Yup.

Where did you come up with that? If you look at the description of Vicious enhancement it states that it is damage... not magical damage.

It's a magcial ability that causes extra damage. What did you think it was, mechanical spikes that popped out?

Armor protects you... all of you, plain and simple.

Not really. It doesn't protect your eyes from blinding light, it doesn't protect your head from a vorpal attack, and it doesn't protect any part of you from magical damage.

Saying that the sword in your hand will bypass your armor because it's in your hand is like saying you can do a called shot to a guy in a chain shirt. "I shoot him in the legs where his armor is not protecting him." I respectfully disagree Caliban.

Except that it's not like that at all. It's like saying "if you stick a scorpion inside your helmet, your armor isn't going to help you".

Your armor is irrelevent if the source of damage is already inside your defenses.

But forgive me for trying to use a little bit of logic instead of just rules mechanics. (Even though the rule mechanics agree with logic in this instance.)

Other opinions?

It's not an opinion. DR has no effect against energy damage, magical damage, or touch attacks.

The "vicious" damage is entirely created by a magical ability. It's magic. It ignores DR.

 

[Drasmir]

Perhaps you missed my earlier reply Caliban?

 

[Caliban]

Perhaps you missed my earlier reply Caliban?

Well, obviously. It came while I was still typing my reply.

One of the hazards of posting while at work, it can take me 5 minutes or longer to complete a response. Sorry.