PDA

View Full Version : Damage reduction issue



viresanimi
November 2nd, 2011, 14:57
Hello all.

I have noticed that DR entries with multiple things that negate them, doesn't seem to work.

Example: A vampire has DR: 10 magic and silver and the entry in the bestiary doesn't work at all. I have tried every possible way of fixing this, but I am just coming up short.

What am I missing here? How to I make an effect that will allow me to have DR with multiple entries that ignores DR?


I hope you can help.


Vires Animi

Trenloe
November 2nd, 2011, 22:17
The entry:

DR/10 magic and silver

means that it will only take damage from attacks that deal both magic and silver damage. DR will work in FG if the damage type is "magic, silver".

viresanimi
November 3rd, 2011, 00:44
I tried that before (as that is how it is written up in the bestiary) and that does not work for sure.


EDIT:

Actually during the response of this, I figured it out:

"DR: 10 magic or silver"

I was trying for "DR: magic and silver" but I guess the reason why I couldn't get it to work, was the fact that the hitting weapon should probably have had both entries to work and not just one of them.

Ah well... the "insignificance" of a single little words. I guess there is a reason why I am not a coder *grins*


That makes me think though. If a creature has more than one note behind its DR, should a weapon fulfill both criterea in order to overcome DR according to the Pathfinder rules, or just one of them?


Vires Animi

Trenloe
November 3rd, 2011, 00:58
That makes me think though. If a creature has more than one note behind its DR, should a weapon fulfill both criterea in order to overcome DR according to the Pathfinder rules, or just one of them?

If the DR is listed as X and Y then it needs both damage types to negate the DR.

If it is listed as "X or Y" then either damage type will negate DR.

For the Vampire it is "magic and silver" so the weapon needs to be both magic and silver to negate the DR 10 defence.

For an example of DR with an "or" entry look in the Bestiary for Demon, Succubus:

DR 10/cold iron or good;
With this a weapon of cold iron or good will negate the DR - it doesn't have to be both damage types.

So, change your Vampire back to "DR 10/magic and silver"! :)

viresanimi
November 3rd, 2011, 01:02
Aha... now that makes a whole lot of sense.

I reread the core rulebook yet again, but I couldn't find a clear description of it anywhere.

Thanks a lot!


Vires Animi

Trenloe
November 3rd, 2011, 01:20
I reread the core rulebook yet again, but I couldn't find a clear description of it anywhere.

It's under "universal monster rules" in the back of the bestiary. Although it doesn't specifically mention the AND or OR keywords, it does mention that some monsters require both damage types and some require either to negate DR.

viresanimi
November 6th, 2011, 15:37
A little follow up to my saga of learning the mechanics of the Pathfinder ruleset.

One of my players have a ranger, that loves his bow, got the Improved Precise Shot feat, which states:

"Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks"

Now. I read this as the ranger is making ranged touch attacks. What I am curious about, is there a way to make an effect that makes his ranged attack touch attacks, and saving the time to press the "touch" button each and every time?

Vires Animi

Trenloe
November 6th, 2011, 21:23
One of my players have a ranger, that loves his bow, got the Improved Precise Shot feat
Nice to have a pretty high level Ranger to be taking that feat! :)


Now. I read this as the ranger is making ranged touch attacks.
This doesn't make ranged attacks touch attacks with this feat. It ignores AC bonuses due to soft cover, partial cover and improved cover - and the 20% miss chance of concealment. Check pages 195 - 197 Core Rulebook.

Where this is really handy for the Ranger is that it ignores the +4 AC bonus for soft cover that is provided by allies and creatures getting in the way of his arrows. It's a common rule that gets forgotten/ignored in Pathfinder (especially if people are used to playing 4E) - "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with soft cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC."

As an aside - the Precise Shot feat (a pre-req for Improved Precise Shot") ignores the -4 to hit for firing into melee combat (another rules that sometimes is ingored/forgotten - but not as much as the Soft Cover one). So, with this feat (and it's pre-reqs) you ignore all the usual penalties for firing into a crowded melee (-4 for firing at someone engaged in melee and the +4 AC for people in the way providing soft cover).


What I am curious about, is there a way to make an effect that makes his ranged attack touch attacks, and saving the time to press the "touch" button each and every time?
Now, to actually answer your question... :)

I can't find an effect to make an action (ranged/melee attack) a touch attack. However, the ruleset does parse " [TOUCH]" (with a space before the [) out of the attack name (mainly for NPCs but it can be used for PCs too). So, if you enter the weapon name as "Longbow [TOUCH]" then attacks will be made as touch attacks.

viresanimi
November 7th, 2011, 00:05
Thanks for the reply Trenloe. Ever the man to help me here *smile*


I can see now that it is all about cover and concealment, but honestly, the actual description is pretty darn weak if you ask me. "Anything but total cover..." If taken literally, I would read this as "unless this dude is hiding behind a very thick wall and you can see him, you pretty much ignore his armour".

This is obviously not right and I am pretty happy that I have been corrected, because otherwise this feat would be ridiculously overpowered.

Thank you for the correction and good feedback.


Vires Animi

Trenloe
November 7th, 2011, 00:17
I can see now that it is all about cover and concealment, but honestly, the actual description is pretty darn weak if you ask me. "Anything but total cover..." If taken literally, I would read this as "unless this dude is hiding behind a very thick wall and you can see him, you pretty much ignore his armour".
I agree - learning the rules I frequently have to read, re-read, cross reference, find examples, etc. to fully understand a rule.

I've frequently seen the quote "Pathfinder was written by gamers for gamers" - which I think is very true. It's a little hard to get into if you didn't play 3.5E before and/or try to pick it up without playing in a group with experienced PF people. Hence, one of the main reasons behind Paizo releasing the Beginner Box.

I love the one massive Pathfinder tome of the Core rulebook and understand that it would be even bigger if rules were expanded on, examples given etc. and so I understand the terseness of some entries. Just sometimes I have the odd :confused: moment, which I'm sure we all do at some point with any RPG rulebook... :)