# Whats up with 10/magic damage reduction?



## magnusmalkus (Apr 6, 2008)

Damage Reduction

I understand that 10/+1 means that the first 10 points of damage dealt by a weapon are ignored unless that weapon has a +1 or better enhancement bonus.

10/silver means that the first 10 points of damage dealt by a non-silver weapon are ignored even if that weapon has a +5 enhancement bonus on it.

In the SRD, for Damage Reduction it states "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), *spells*, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."  

Considering that, *if spells bypass magic resistance, what does 10/magic mean?* Does it mean that any weaons magically enchanted will bypass the spell resistance?  I don't know of any weapons that are simply 'magical' without having an enhancement bonus, in which case, why doesn't it simply say 10/+1?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 6, 2008)

You're used to 3.0e, and 3.5e changed DR significantly.

Because in 3.5e there is no longer any such thing as DR 10/+1 (or /+2, or /+3, or ...). Any degree of magic will penetrate DR 10/magic.

Also, in 3.5e, you need an actual Silver weapon to penetrate DR 10/silver. Magic iron is just as reduced as the regular stuff.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Set (Apr 6, 2008)

10/+1 was replaced in 3.5 with 10/magic or 10/silver, etc.

10/magic means that magic weapons are required (of any plus).

Other options include 10/silver, 10/bludgeoning, 10/slashing, 10/piercing, 10/cold iron, 10/epic, 10/good, 10/evil, 10/lawful, 10/chaotic, 10/adamantine and 10/jade.

This change from 3.0s 10/+1, 10/+2, etc. system was said to be because the designers didn't like 'golf bag syndrome' in which a Fighter might need a 'sword caddy' following him around with an assortment of weapons needed to overcome this or that DR.

Raise your hand if this argument makes no sense, since a 3.0 Fighter would just need one sword, of as high a plus as he could find, while a 3.5 Fighter might well need a sword caddy to carry the 13 or so types of weapons he would need to overcome the 13 or so types of DR that were added to the system...

"Let's invent an imaginary problem, and literally *create* the problem with the 'fix' for said imaginary problem!"

It's like going to the mechanic for a check-up and he breaks six things in the process of determining that nothing *was* wrong with your car...


----------



## Nifft (Apr 6, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> This change from 3.0s 10/+1, 10/+2, etc. system was said to be because the designers didn't like 'golf bag syndrome' in which a Fighter might need a 'sword caddy' following him around with an assortment of weapons needed to overcome this or that DR.



 Could you provide a cite for that?

I thought the opposite was true -- DR in 3.0e was largely ignored, while in 3.5e your weapon choice actually matters. 3.5e did lower DR quite a bit, so you can triumph in spite of DR, but the fight will be noticeably harder. (As opposed to 3.0e, where it would be damn near impossible to fight a golem whose DR you couldn't exceed, for example.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 6, 2008)

DR/magic is garbage in 3.5 and might as well be gotten rid of entirely. For any PC above 1st-level, it's totally irrelevant.

We house ruled needing a +1 weapon for every 5 DR just to give DR/magic some usefulness.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 6, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> DR/magic is garbage in 3.5 and might as well be gotten rid of entirely. For any PC above 1st-level, it's totally irrelevant.



 Not quite. Summoned monsters (particularly elementals) suffer from it. It's also the reason you can't just hire 40 level 1 archers to take down a dragon.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## eamon (Apr 6, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> DR/magic is garbage in 3.5 and might as well be gotten rid of entirely. For any PC above 1st-level, it's totally irrelevant.
> 
> We house ruled needing a +1 weapon for every 5 DR just to give DR/magic some usefulness.




It's still quite relevant for animal companions, summoned creatures, wild-shaped druids and the like.  In my not too low power campaign, the 11th level party is still not entirely equipped with magic weapons (admittedly, it's just a weird quirk of how the campaign went that one player never gets around to collecting one).  Of course, at 11th level, they could easily afford them, but are just too busy to do so (and due to magic weapon and similar spells, in no great hurry), but at 5th level, they actively chose their equipment and due to limited (to the DMG-recommended level) funds, they avoided expensive magic weapons.

So, DR/magic isn't a problem for parties of 5th level and higher, it remains relevant.  And until 4th level or so, a magic weapon is a significant chunk of cash for a PC, so then it definitely remains relevant.  It is, however, not very powerful indeed.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 7, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> This change from 3.0s 10/+1, 10/+2, etc. system was said to be because the designers didn't like 'golf bag syndrome' in which a Fighter might need a 'sword caddy' following him around with an assortment of weapons needed to overcome this or that DR.




I think you've got the reason completely wrong.

They believed that the structure of the DR system had made it insufficiently different from the 1e/2e version in which you could not affect the monster unless you have the right plus. So they set the numbers substantially lower so that there was a reasonable chance to damage the creature even without the weapon quality in question.

They also decided that there was no inherent reason for magic to trump other properties like silver, nor was there a sufficient reason to require a substantially more expensive plus on the weapon to affect certain kinds of creatures. So they lumped all magic together and got rid of the weapon property hierarchy.

Does this mean you need a golf bag of weapons? No. You are well advised to have a few weapons of different qualities and/or a number of scrolls/wands capable of extending your own weapons' properties. But a whole bunch of weapons? Not really.


----------



## Goolpsy (Apr 7, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> 10/+1 was replaced in 3.5 with 10/magic or 10/silver, etc.
> 
> 10/magic means that magic weapons are required (of any plus).
> 
> Other options include 10/silver, 10/bludgeoning, 10/slashing, 10/piercing, 10/cold iron, 10/epic, 10/good, 10/evil, 10/lawful, 10/chaotic, 10/adamantine and 10/jade.




Now tell me again that i don't need a 'sword caddy' to be an effective player?


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 7, 2008)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> Now tell me again that i don't need a 'sword caddy' to be an effective player?





Nope just a raging barbarian with power attack and a magic two handed weapon and a spell(or item) enhanced strength should do nicely.  Enlarge person will have a nice effect too.

It is not all that hard for a such a character to do sufficient damage to get past that DR with effect.


----------



## Selganor (Apr 7, 2008)

Maximum DR was reduced from 30 to 15, so even if you don't have the required type of weapon you can still do some damage (unless the creature is undead or otherwise immune to critical hits)


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2008)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> Now tell me again that i don't need a 'sword caddy' to be an effective player?



 You don't need a sword caddy, because 10 is a small number. (To compare: 3.0e had DR up to 50.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 7, 2008)

I am tagging this on here. Cause now this has got me thinking. When is DR applied..before crit multiplier or after? And the extra damage due to an energy aura around a weapon...does that bypass the DR?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> I am tagging this on here. Cause now this has got me thinking. When is DR applied..before crit multiplier or after? And the extra damage due to an energy aura around a weapon...does that bypass the DR?



 DR is applied last. Energy damage is not reduced. Did you read the section on DR? This last bit should be fairly obvious.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Evilhalfling (Apr 7, 2008)

one more question, is falling damage subject to DR  ?


----------



## Set (Apr 7, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> You don't need a sword caddy, because 10 is a small number. (To compare: 3.0e had DR up to 50.)




And the boards were replete with builds that did 200 damage or more.  It's not like players couldn't *always* find ways to blow through DR, no matter the number.


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 7, 2008)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> one more question, is falling damage subject to DR  ?





To aid in research

from the SRD:



> 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.
> ...




So is falling an attack?

The D&D combat answer is "no" so it does not get reduced by DR.

Why - because there is no attack roll.

The simple answer is that DR appies to weapons only (including natural attacks).

SR applies to spells (and spell-like abilities/effects).

And PR applies to psionic powers (and psionic-like abilities/effects).


----------



## magnusmalkus (Apr 7, 2008)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> one more question, is falling damage subject to DR  ?




I'd guess it was.  It could count as bludgeoning or perhaps piercing depending on what you landed upon (flat ground or perhaps spikes).  Maybe that could bypass DR/bludgeon or DR/Piercing...


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 7, 2008)

10/magic DR isn't completely useless to smart monsters. For example, a dragon can disarm a fighter, or dispel his weapon. Dispelling a single magic item is normally painfully easy, and then the fighters is far weaker against the dragon.


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 7, 2008)

magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> I'd guess it was.  It could count as bludgeoning or perhaps piercing depending on what you landed upon (flat ground or perhaps spikes).  Maybe that could bypass DR/bludgeon or DR/Piercing...





It's not the type of damage it does that determines whether or not DR applies (in the first place) but the source of the damage.  The type of damage only applies if DR is applicable in the first place.


DR only applies to "attacks".  Is falling an "attack"?


----------



## Sparafucile (Apr 7, 2008)

The only problem I've ever had as a player Regarding DR is this:



			
				irdeggman said:
			
		

> To aid in research
> 
> from the SRD:
> 
> *In either case, characters can see that conventional attacks don’t work.*




I've seen plently of bad DMs treat DR like their own little secret . . . something for them to chuckle about behind their cardboard screen. This is super annoying, and it's broken several encounters because the player's weren't given the proper information regarding the effectiveness of their own attacks.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 7, 2008)

There is a problem with this, however. As long as the character is doing some damage, it's clear that the conventional attack _*does*_ work. This is especially true when fighting a barbarian character with a low DR. Can a character really tell that the barbarian is taking 1 or 2 points less damage than anyone else the PC would be fighting?

I can understand the statement in the rules in the case where the DR truly does make the attack ineffective. But in cases where it's just less (in some cases a little less) effective?


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 7, 2008)

I usually say that the blow doesn't seem to do as much damage as you think it should or something like that.  Most DM's I've gamed with do something similar. Nothing specific (like the first 5 points are negated) but a vague hint that there is more going on.

Sometimes the color that the wound seems to heal almost immediately is added in.


----------



## Sparafucile (Apr 7, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> There is a problem with this, however. As long as the character is doing some damage, it's clear that the conventional attack _*does*_ work. This is especially true when fighting a barbarian character with a low DR. Can a character really tell that the barbarian is taking 1 or 2 points less damage than anyone else the PC would be fighting?
> 
> I can understand the statement in the rules in the case where the DR truly does make the attack ineffective. But in cases where it's just less (in some cases a little less) effective?




Less effective is still ineffective to me, and I'd say that the spirit of the SRD comment above suggests that the characters will have some clue what's going on. Otherwise, the halfling dagger weilder will find their attacks overcome by _something mysterious _ every time, while the greatsword weilding half-orc has no clue that his attacks are less effective. Suddenly, the DM is providing inconsistent information, leading to frustration.

Now I'm not saying that one should provide the exact stats or anything like that, but once the party blows a round attacking, why hide that the creature has some general quality that the player's will recognize as DR? There there are plently of flavorful, in-game ways to illustrate that your attack is slightly less effective, and I see nothign wrong with giving the player's such a hint.

What's the downside?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 7, 2008)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> I usually say that the blow doesn't seem to do as much damage as you think it should or something like that.  Most DM's I've gamed with do something similar. Nothing specific (like the first 5 points are negated) but a vague hint that there is more going on.



 Usually IMC, that's what the players get on the first round.

The second round, if they hit more than twice, or if they crit, they learn the exact DR.

The third round they get the exact DR for free. After which I expect them to do the math themselves. 

There are occasionally critters that I want to remain more mysterious (like critters with DR/epic); I keep the exact DR secret for those critters.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## billd91 (Apr 7, 2008)

Sparafucile said:
			
		

> Less effective is still ineffective to me, and I'd say that the spirit of the SRD comment above suggests that the characters will have some clue what's going on. Otherwise, the halfling dagger weilder will find their attacks overcome by _something mysterious _ every time, while the greatsword weilding half-orc has no clue that his attacks are less effective. Suddenly, the DM is providing inconsistent information, leading to frustration.
> 
> Now I'm not saying that one should provide the exact stats or anything like that, but once the party blows a round attacking, why hide that the creature has some general quality that the player's will recognize as DR? There there are plently of flavorful, in-game ways to illustrate that your attack is slightly less effective, and I see nothign wrong with giving the player's such a hint.
> 
> What's the downside?




It's not a question of there being a downside, but when the half-ogre with the heavy flail is regularly doing 30 points of damage and the target has DR 1, 2, or even 5, is it really necessary to bring up? Would that PC even notice the resistance? It's not like he's a halfling doing something like 2-7 points of damage, who I would expect to notice the DR more easily since it's blunting his damage substantially.

I generally don't describe the effect of the DR if the damage is overwhelming it easily, but I will tell the players that the monster is more resilient to their attacks when the DR is a substantial amount of the damage they're doing. Nor do I see a problem with inconsistent information because the information is going to different characters. I let the players figure out how to reconcile the differences.

I just don't see it as a problem for players if the DM doesn't come right out and say the creature has DR. When the PC is blasting through the resistance without having the right weapon, why would it be an issue?


----------



## irdeggman (Apr 7, 2008)

To make it clear that DR only works against weapons and the like

From the 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 criteria."

That pretty much specifies what it will work against.

Combined with the latter entry:

"Damage reduction doesn't reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact."


----------



## moritheil (Apr 9, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 10/magic DR isn't completely useless to smart monsters. For example, a dragon can disarm a fighter, or dispel his weapon. Dispelling a single magic item is normally painfully easy, and then the fighters is far weaker against the dragon.




Yes.  It only lasts a couple rounds, but a dragon usually only requires a couple rounds to shred a typical adventurer.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> I just don't see it as a problem for players if the DM doesn't come right out and say the creature has DR. When the PC is blasting through the resistance without having the right weapon, why would it be an issue?




Information control is a hotly disputed issue, as it gets into metagame dynamics.



			
				goolspy said:
			
		

> Now tell me again that i don't need a 'sword caddy' to be an effective player?




I haven't seen all that many characters with true sword caddies . . . plenty of players have two melee magic weapons and one ranged, but DR based on silver, jade, or crystal tends to be very rare or campaign-specific.  Adamantine and cold iron tend to take care of ~80% of cases in terms of materials.

Arguably the best solution is to make your attacks incorporeal.  It's pretty easy to do if you play a fighter-mage type.


----------



## starwed (Apr 9, 2008)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> one more question, is falling damage subject to DR  ?



As others have mentioned, the rules-lawyer answer is no, because falling damage is not caused by a weapon attack.

However, I know many DMs feel that's kind of silly, and that falling is more analogous to being hit by a club than it is to "energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, poisons or diseases."  (Note also that Complete Psionic has a ruling that if a power deals, for example, slashing damage, that DR can overcome it. )


----------



## ThunderQuill (Nov 15, 2020)

Huh. Threads from over a decade ago helping me out today. Cheers!


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 15, 2020)

_golf clap_

A very nicely executed thread necromancy. Well done!


----------

