TOPIC: Question about Horn of Blasting

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: I am slightly confused by damage-inflicting magic line. It seems FoP: Reaver and Horror invoke some time of magic to cause damage to a target, however does defining them as damage inflicting magic now make them possible susceptible to Magic Resistance? Were they always?

1) I don't understand how closing a eyeroll-inducing loophole on the definition of hostile actions has any bearing on whether or not FoP: Horror/Reaver are subject to Magic Resistance.

2) FoP: Horror/Reaver have always said, "There is no saving throw to mitigate the damage, but if the target has resistance/immunity to Darkrift, that resistance/immunity would apply." so why would Magic Resistance not apply?

Is there an official ruling regarding FoP: Horror/Reaver's resistability that I have overlooked? (serious question)

My question is: what is damage inflicting magic?

Because, honestly, your post of the updated offensive actions made me think that the horn and FoP are NOT offensive actions. But, the way you and Jedi are responding, these items somehow qualify as 'damage inflicting magic'?

Now I am wondering if magic resistance and spell resistance are different things. Spell resistance being what I thought both were (a resistance applied to spells).

kurtreznor wrote:

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: I am slightly confused by damage-inflicting magic line. It seems FoP: Reaver and Horror invoke some time of magic to cause damage to a target, however does defining them as damage inflicting magic now make them possible susceptible to Magic Resistance? Were they always?

1) I don't understand how closing a eyeroll-inducing loophole on the definition of hostile actions has any bearing on whether or not FoP: Horror/Reaver are subject to Magic Resistance.

2) FoP: Horror/Reaver have always said, "There is no saving throw to mitigate the damage, but if the target has resistance/immunity to Darkrift, that resistance/immunity would apply." so why would Magic Resistance not apply?

Is there an official ruling regarding FoP: Horror/Reaver's resistability that I have overlooked? (serious question)

My question is: what is damage inflicting magic?

Because, honestly, your post of the updated offensive actions made me think that the horn and FoP are NOT offensive actions. But, the way you and Jedi are responding, these items somehow qualify as 'damage inflicting magic'?

Now I am wondering if magic resistance and spell resistance are different things. Spell resistance being what I thought both were (a resistance applied to spells).

That may be were my confusion lies I am thinking of spell resistance and conflating/confusing it with magic resistance. So maybe that needs cleared up.

kurtreznor wrote: My question is: what is damage inflicting magic?

Magic that inflicts damage. What about that is not clear? (serious question)

---

(addressing everyone, not just kurtreznor)
Do we really have to spell each and every possible source from which preternatural damage can be caused? Must we bog down the definition of hostile action by explicitly stating "magic" encompasses damage emanating from spells, spells cast as a scrolls, scrolls, wands, medallions, necklaces, pendants, baubles, trinkets, boots, shoes, belts, girdles, gloves, gauntlets, finger rings, thumb rings, toe rings, shoe laces, socks, shin guards, knee pads, pantaloons, kilts, pants, shorts, long-sleeve shirts, short-sleeve shirts, tank tops, muscle shirts, glasses, lenses, monocles, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, ear rings, ear cuffs, ear wraps, hats, helms, diadems, caps, crowns, coronets, coifs, hoods, ioun stones, charms, figurines, et al.?

kurtreznor wrote: Because, honestly, your post of the updated offensive actions made me think that the horn and FoP are NOT offensive actions. But, the way you and Jedi are responding, these items somehow qualify as 'damage inflicting magic'?

FoP: Horror and Reaver inflict damage via magic. Therefore, using FoP: Horror or Reaver counts as a hostile action.

kurtreznor wrote: Now I am wondering if magic resistance and spell resistance are different things. Spell resistance being what I thought both were (a resistance applied to spells).

from the PHB:
Magic Resistance: See Spell Resistance. (They’re synonymous, but don’t confuse either of them with Combat Magic Resistance, q.v.)

Spell Resistance: A percentage chance for a monster to ignore spells cast by characters, scrolls, or wands. It does not negate magic that is not "cast." E.g., spell resistance does not prevent a +1 Short Sword from damaging a monster, it does not prevent the special ability of a +2 Rod of Disjunction from functioning, nor does it negate Retribution Damage.
A monster with SR 100% cannot be affected by spells. However, there are tokens that reduce SR or eliminate it entirely.

Damage Resistance (Reduction): This special ability absorbs (nullifies) a certain amount of damage. It’s typically written as DR X, where X is the quantity of damage absorbed. Sometimes it absorbs all forms of damage, sometimes it’s restricted to a specific type of damage. DR 5 means that the first 5 points of damage from any (except Eldritch or Push) are negated. DR 5 Fire means that the first 5 points of Fire damage are negated, but all other forms of damage are unaffected.

This whole thread baffles me. Granted, I can see how a rules lawyer would try to exploit the loophole that using a FoP isn't technically a spell or scroll, but in what universe is intentionally causing damage to a monster not considered a hostile action? How does that bypass the "Come On" rule?

What am I not seeing here? Please enlighten me. (not intended to be sarcastic)

Druegar wrote: ...

Saying Magic Resistance is synonymous Spell Resistance does not seem accurate now. And I think that is where my confusion lies. "A percentage chance for a monster to ignore spells cast by characters, scrolls, or wands." If they were synonymous then neither would affect FoP, and I think the intent is for MR to affect FoP and not SR. Correct? Or are they truly synonymous because if so there is nothing cast by character, scrolls or wands. Or maybe I am still confused.

To clarifiy: If a monster has a SR of 100% are you saying that Reaver would do 0 damage to them? Not arguing that just attempting to understand.

Druegar wrote: Do we really have to spell each and every possible source from which preternatural damage can be caused? Must we bog down the definition of hostile action by ... et al.?

No, you probably don't have to list every single one. However, a template, keyword, and table solution would be welcome.

For example, let create this token:
Bear Trap
Charm
Rogue
Deal 10 damage to monster as a free action 1/game.

This certainly would trigger anything dealing damage. Because its a trap, we would <implicitly> assume you could use a trap without breaking cloak of blending, because our rogue is sneaky and could plant the trap without being noticed.

However, since there is a lack of keywording and templating to cover such a situation, we would end up with confusion, because explicit is generally better than implicit.

Druegar wrote: FoP: Horror and Reaver inflict damage via magic. Therefore, using FoP: Horror or Reaver counts as a hostile action.

How did you make the jump that the damage is inflicted via magic? I see nothing in the token db entry to state this is a magic attack. Is it implicitly that using any token that deals damage, besides a weapon, magic? If so, would the example "Bear Trap" token be a magic attack, even if it just looks like a metal bear trap?

Endgame wrote: How did you make the jump that the damage is inflicted via magic?

How is it making a jump to know that it is using magic to do damage. You aren't attacking with the Reaver. You in fact are not using any action with it to do damage. I don't know how else you could explain the damage down besides magic.

Thank you jedibcg, I think I see the issue here. (I knew there was something I was overlooking.) But as always, please correct me if I got something wrong.

Before I go on, know that Spell Resistance is something we've moved away from. Nowadays we use Damage Reduction, be it universal, physical, magic, or something more specific like Fire or Cold.

Spell Resistance--were it still being used--would apply to Horror/Reaver because it's an activated effect. The user of the figurine activates the figurine quite similarly (granted, not precisely) to how a wand or scroll is activated. I recognize that casting a Spell from your character card is not 100% analogous to using a scroll or wand, but if a character activating magic from a scroll or wand is subject to SR, activating magic from a slightly different magic item should also be subject to SR. But honestly, it's effectively moot because we haven't used Spell Resistance in quite a while.

So yes, if a monster has 100% SR (which it almost certainly won't), that monster would be immune to FoP: Horror/Reaver.

I suspect some folks will seek to argue that SR should not apply to FoPs. There's probably nothing I can do to dissuade you from going on about that. All I can say is that it's a meaningless argument because we've moved past using SR.

Endgame wrote: How did you make the jump that the damage [from FoP Horror/Reaver] is inflicted via magic?

Because it deals Darkrift damage. Darkrift is magical energy.

Druegar wrote: Thank you jedibcg, I think I see the issue here. (I knew there was something I was overlooking.) But as always, please correct me if I got something wrong.

Before I go on, know that Spell Resistance is something we've moved away from. Nowadays we use Damage Reduction, be it universal, physical, magic, or something more specific like Fire or Cold.

Spell Resistance--were it still being used--would apply to Horror/Reaver because it's an activated effect. The user of the figurine activates the figurine quite similarly (granted, not precisely) to how a wand or scroll is activated. I recognize that casting a Spell from your character card is not 100% analogous to using a scroll or wand, but if a character activating magic from a scroll or wand is subject to SR, activating magic from a slightly different magic item should also be subject to SR. But honestly, it's effectively moot because we haven't used Spell Resistance in quite a while.

So yes, if a monster has 100% SR (which it almost certainly won't), that monster would be immune to FoP: Horror/Reaver.

I suspect some folks will seek to argue that SR should not apply to FoPs. There's probably nothing I can do to dissuade you from going on about that. All I can say is that it's a meaningless argument because we've moved past using SR.

Thank you that makes sense (and why I was confused). Should Spell and Damage Resistance be removed from the PHB's and replaced with Damage Reduction verbiage? Maybe it has already and I am looking at an old version.

jedibcg wrote: Should Spell and Damage Resistance be removed from the PHB's and replaced with Damage Reduction verbiage?

Because those terms are used on tokens, we need to account for them. So unfortunately, we're pretty much stuck with keeping them around.

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: Should Spell and Damage Resistance be removed from the PHB's and replaced with Damage Reduction verbiage?

Because those terms are used on tokens, we need to account for them. So unfortunately, we're pretty much stuck with keeping them around.

Fair enough. Thank you again.

You could just add that using a token/item/ability that causes damage is considered an offensive action. Yeah, my question was eye-rolling, and in the vein of nit picky, rules lawyering, but I don't believe the list of offensive actions included the Horn.