Vicous weapon damage

[Hypersmurf]

I say they are stopped by DR unless the damage type is the one which bypass that certain DR by RAW. DR, in general, work against even Su abilities if which are not energy attacks.

. Energy or not
. Spell-like ability or not
. The damage is the type specified that will bypass that certain DR or not

Those are the things counted.

Su abilities - no DR. "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."

And there's one other thing that's counted which you've left out:

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

Falling damage? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.
Suffocation or starvation? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.
Avalanche or rock slide? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.
Extreme heat (not fire damage)? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.
Psionic Disintegrate? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.
Flash of disruptive energy? Not a weapon or natural attack. No DR.

-Hyp.

 

[Shin Okada]

Su abilities - no DR. "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."

And there's one other thing that's counted which you've left out:

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

I see what is going, the grossary in PHB mentioning about Su, DMG P.291-292 does not say Su bypass DR. In this case, which one is the primal source?

EDIT: Also, DAMAGE REDUCTION entry in DMG does not clearlly limit the application of DR to weapon/ntural weapon attacks. So I have been thinking that DR is effective against something such as falling.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see what is going, the grossary in PHB mentioning about Su, DMG P.291-292 does not say Su bypass DR. In this case, which one is the primal source?

Check the Monster Manual description of the ability as well. And it's only going to matter for the unusual case of a weapon or natural attack which is also a Su ability, because a Su ability which isn't a weapon or natural attack has no relationship to DR in the first place.

-Hyp.

 

[Shin Okada]

So Concussion Blast and Psionic Disintegrate, for example, are subject to DR?

-Hyp.

I think so, Psionic powers (in EPH) are not spells, spell-like abilitis, or supernatural abilities. They are psionic powers (or psi-like abilitiy if some monster has it in that form).

If psionics automatically bypass DR, Mental Resistance feat's DR does nothing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If psionics automatically bypass DR, Mental Resistance feat's DR does nothing.

Wouldn't be the first time - see the Exotic Weapon Master's Uncanny Blow class feature from Complete Warrior, which allows him to treat a one-handed exotic weapon he wields in two hands as a two-handed weapon for purposes of calculating Power Attack damage.

See the Eagle Claw Attack feat from 3E Sword and Fist, which allowed a character to use a specific bludgeoning weapon to Sunder.

-Hyp.

 

[Shin Okada]

Ok, I found this in PHB errata,

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D(R) rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

So, it seems that either PHB (because some class has DR) or MM (because some monsters have DR as Su/Ex abilities), is the primal source for DR. Hmm, useless DMG.

 

[Thurbane]

Here's my view:

When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder.

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

So no chance of DR helping the wielder of a Vicious weapon, no matter how you read it.

IMHO, untyped damage is a very bad idea in a system like 3.5 - it is way to open to exploitation, but alas, it does exist (Disintegrate, Searing Light etc.)


...and for what it's worth:

How do spells like Evard’s black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage?
Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction.

Does damage reduction help against powers that deal slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage, such as crystal shard (Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 89)?
Spells (and powers), spell-like abilities, and energy attacks ignore damage reduction (Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 292). Thus, even if a spell or power describes its damage as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power) effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise).

 

[s-dub]

So the typed damage listed in the spells description is just fluff eh?

I always thought that the idea behind a vicious weapon was the idea of sacrificing some of your own hit points to do greater damage.

I'd either a) make it unable to be avoided, or b) make it avoidable, but the weapon doesn't function as Vicious for a character immune to the extra damage.

 

[Shin Okada]

Here's my view:

So no chance of DR helping the wielder of a Vicious weapon, no matter how you read it.

IMHO, untyped damage is a very bad idea in a system like 3.5 - it is way to open to exploitation, but alas, it does exist (Disintegrate, Searing Light etc.)


...and for what it's worth:

Regarding that is "energy" or not, vicious weapon's additional damage is not "energy" by the rule. 3.0e/3.5e has very strict definition on what is "energy" and what is not. Even "Positeve Energy" and "Negative Energy" are not energies.

Regarding FAQ, today, that is the things which has low credibility. For example that "power" part is adding completely new rule and thus somethin must be added in an errata and not in FAQ.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here's my view:

The issue with the energy attacks language, as Shin Okada noted, is that RC states that 'energy' refers to acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic, and notes that negative energy and positive energy are not, in fact, energy.

In the case of the Vicious weapon, it doesn't matter for DR purposes, since the damage is dealt by the flash of disruptive energy; it is not damage dealt by a weapon or natural attack, and is thus not subject to DR.

-Hyp.