3.5e: DR Limitation or Bug? Damage Passing Unresisted

[therealSamael7]

Hi, folks. I'm not sure if this is a game mechanic limit, a parsing error on my part (too many ANDs or ORs?), or a bug.

Is there a limitation on the number of damage types one can include in a DR statement? 2 types seems to be the upper limit. Add any more, and no reduction occurs regardless of the conditions or weapon damage types.

Ex: I have 3 critters in the tracker. They have the following effects:
DR: 5 slashing and fire and force
DR: 5 bludgeoning or cold or acid
DR: 5 piercing or fire

Ragnar the Ranger slices them with his greatsword, typed as "slashing." All damage goes through the first two, but is properly resisted by 5 on the third. I would expect all three to resist.

Is it me, or a limitation of either rules or parsing rules? Thanks.

10724

[kane280484]

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10724&d=1439359960 Attachment not working for me.

[Nickademus]

I'm not aware of DR being affected by more than slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. When you get into reducing fire, cold, acid or force damage, you are dealing with the Resist notation in 3.5e. The Monster Manuals have it detailed this way as well.

[Trenloe]

I don't think FG makes any differentiation between damage types for DR - as long as a valid damage type is used (listed under the modifiers table in the 3.5E Effects wiki (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/3.5E_Effects))

The limitation here is that FG will only recognize two different damage types in a DR statement, not three - which actually invalidates the whole DR statement and it is effectively ignored.

[therealSamael7]

Thank you, Trenloe. Your analysis is consistent with my experimentation. I can use any damage type after DR up to two, and incoming typed damage will be resisted or not accordingly. Chained types with "or" will allow either damage type to pass through unresisted, and chained types with "and" will demand that incoming damage must be of BOTH listed types.

The breaking point is adding the third type, which will completely invalidate the DR and allow everything to pass unresisted. I will learn to live with this limitation, and at least I won't pull my hair out wondering why damage is going through that shouldn't.

As a side note, behaviorally in FG, DR works for all FG-listed damage types, which don't appear to be sub-differentiated beyond "damage type." Functionally, DR construction seems to be used for "resists all (EXCEPT for these)" whereas RESIST seems to be used for "resists this specific type (or all)."

Given the large number of damage types FG supports (22), it's a shame that DR can't chain more than two, since specifying a RESIST for all damage types other than the exceptions seems . . . like a lot of specification for something that is only damageable by bludgeoning, acid, or fire, as my custom ooze is. I'm curious, too, if FG can even handle that many RESIST statements for something like that.

In any case, thanks, all, for your input.

[Trenloe]

Functionally, DR construction seems to be used for "resists all (EXCEPT for these)" whereas RESIST seems to be used for "resists this specific type (or all)."
That is correct - this is based off the 3.5E RPG functionality of DR and resistance. It isn't something specific to FG, it's automation of the 3.5E RPG functionality. The one difference here is that you can use DR in FG for non weapon damage types (fire, cold, etc.) which isn't specifically by the RPG rules which state regarding DR: "A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks."


I'm curious, too, if FG can even handle that many RESIST statements for something like that.
Yep it can.

[darrenan]

I don't think FG makes any differentiation between damage types for DR - as long as a valid damage type is used (listed under the modifiers table in the 3.5E Effects wiki (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/3.5E_Effects))

The limitation here is that FG will only recognize two different damage types in a DR statement, not three - which actually invalidates the whole DR statement and it is effectively ignored.

That explains why "DR: epic and good and cold iron" was not working the other night. Thanks.