Irresistable Force Paradox in D&D

[virgil]

When a damage reduction entry has a dash (-) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction.

Mace of Ruin

This +7 heavy mace ignores the hardness or damage reduction of any object or creature it strikes.

I'm certain that the answer to this event is that the Mace overrides DR/-, but I don't know how to go about arguing said point.

Or is this going to be answered by "an indescribable event"?

[Jacob_Orlove]

They talk about special materials "overcoming" or "negating" DR, but not "ignoring" it. Maybe that'd be the way to argue it.

[Talisman]

My opinion: DR/- trumps mace.

My logic: There are many kinds of DR in D&D: /magic, /silver, /alignment, /epic, /etc. Only ONE of them has no bane: DR/--. If the mace were intended to bypass DR/-, it would have a tag specifying "...bypasses all hardness and DR, including DR/-."

[Maxus]

1204232285[/unixtime]]My opinion: DR/- trumps mace.

My logic: There are many kinds of DR in D&D: /magic, /silver, /alignment, /epic, /etc. Only ONE of them has no bane: DR/--. If the mace were intended to bypass DR/-, it would have a tag specifying "...bypasses all hardness and DR, including DR/-."

I disagree. Saying it ignores the hardness or DR of any object or creature is enough of a blanket effect I'd rule the Mace overcomes DR/-, too.

The tag would be confirmation, but the current wording seems to make it redundant.

[Quantumboost]

I'd argue that the mace overrides DR/-. The DR example cited says that no weapon can *negate* DR/-. However, the Mace of Ruin says that it *ignores* DR/-. This is effectively the same as, say, hitting a barbarian with a dragon's breath weapon or acid flask. The DR isn't negated, but it simply doesn't matter - it's ignored.

So, the mace doesn't make the DR go away, but damage reduction doesn't reduce its damage anyway.

[Talisman]

Ignore / Negate / Overcome / Penetrate / Bust Through / Pretend Isn't There

Semantics. Irrelevant to this discussion, since none of these are a defined term in D&D.

DR/- is pretty unique in that it is the only defense that has no counter. Even hardness can be beaten with adamantine. I think the ability to negate such a unique and potent defense deserves to be specifically called out.

But I really don't care enough to argue about it.

[Cynic]

1204238011[/unixtime]]Ignore / Negate / Overcome / Penetrate / Bust Through / Pretend Isn't There

Semantics. Irrelevant to this discussion, since none of these are a defined term in D&D.

DR/- is pretty unique in that it is the only defense that has no counter. Even hardness can be beaten with adamantine. I think the ability to negate such a unique and potent defense deserves to be specifically called out.

But I really don't care enough to argue about it.

That is ridiculous. Do you expect every word in D&D to be defined?

"In effect, the bard "loses" the old spell in exchange for the new one." ~ Spells, Bard, SRD.

Are we going to quibble over semantics because there is no defined term called "loses" which also includes the quotation marks around it.

Hell, there is no defined word for lose in d&d. Not everything in the book has to be defined in the book.

[RandomCasualty]

1204238011[/unixtime]]
DR/- is pretty unique in that it is the only defense that has no counter. Even hardness can be beaten with adamantine. I think the ability to negate such a unique and potent defense deserves to be specifically called out.

There are lots of way to beat it. Elemental damage, negative energy damage, force damage, untyped damage, sacred damage, etc.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

"When a damage reduction entry has a dash (-) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction."

I would argue that this is for an ordinary weapon, or magical weapon, and not a Mace of Ruin, which is a weapon that is built to bypass all forms of DR and forged in the fires of hell itself or whatever.

Mace is a special instance of weapon that does not obey some rules normally in place (such as hardness).

[JonSetanta]

IMO: Mace beats DR.

It's like that in Magic as well as many D&D spell interactions.
There are defenses and rules by default, but many bypasses and counters to the norm.
In sum, every defense has a weakness and if there wasn't one before, there will be in the next splat book.

[Talisman]

1204238421[/unixtime
That is ridiculous. Do you expect every word in D&D to be defined?

No, and that's my point. Other posters were pointing out that the DR entry says "negates" and the mace's entry says "ignores," as if that proved anything. If either of those words had a specific, defined meaning in D&D (as words such as shaken, fatigued and stunned all do, for example), this would be a valid argument. They don't, so it's not.

[Leress]

I would say that the Mace of Ruin over comes DR/-.

Since it says it ignores hardness and damage reduction, and DR/- is still damage reduction, it would ignore this as well. There is no DnD term for ignore so we use the dictionary's definition of the word.

• 1 : to refuse to take notice of
  
• 2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

[Crissa]

This is a case of narrow trumps wider rule.

Else there wouldn't be specifics.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I vote for the mace.

[Draco_Argentum]

What Crissa said. The specific rules for a magic item are allowed to override the general rules for how the game works. Just be glad its not magical armour granting special DR that always works. Then theres no way to know what happens.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Can God create a DR so powerful that even he can't penetrate it?

[Fwib]

1204267135[/unixtime]]This is a case of narrow trumps wider rule.

Else there wouldn't be specifics.

-Crissa

1) Every single weapon cannot penetrate DR/-
2) Every single DR/ is penetrated by the mace.

Which is the narrower one and why?

[RandomCasualty]

The mace says it ignores damage reduction.

DR X/- is damage reduction.

Therefore, the mace ignores DR X/-.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Alright, for the next question:
Which are in the wrong position, the legs or the feet?


And for that matter, is this a rabbit or a duck?



Actually, I'd bet that the 'lega'/RAW answer to the Mace question is that the DR is unbeatable, because it's from a core book. But nobody follows that rule, least of all Wizards.

[Crissa]

One rule applies to all DR.

The other rule applies to only the mace.

Which is more narrow?

-Crissa

PS: The feet. The legs correspond to the remainder of the body, and so represent a larger percentage of the image.

PPS: Neither. It's a white squiggle with a black and orange blob in the middle.

[Talisman]

1204304291[/unixtime]]The mace says it ignores damage reduction.

DR X/- is damage reduction.

Therefore, the mace ignores DR X/-.

DR/- says no weapon can negate it.

The mace of ruin is a weapon.

Therefore, a mace of ruin cannot negate DR/-.

IMO, it comes down to a GM's call.

@Catharz: That's not an elephant; it's a Five-Footed Paradoxyderm. Very rare.

The second picture is of the infamous Duckbunny.

[Fwib]

1204309708[/unixtime]]One rule applies to all DR.

The other rule applies to only the mace.

Which is more narrow?

-Crissa

PS: The feet. The legs correspond to the remainder of the body, and so represent a larger percentage of the image.

PPS: Neither. It's a white squiggle with a black and orange blob in the middle.

One rule (Mace penetrates DR) applies to all DR
One rule (DR/- has no counter) applies to all weapons

alternatively:

One rule (DR/- has no counter) only applies to DR/-
One rule (Mace penetrates DR) only applies to the mace.

Either both rules apply to all of a group, or both only apply t one member of a group - or you can mix and match to suit the way you want the ruling to go....

[Bigode]

Fwib: DR/- isn't ignored by any type of damage (remember, the slash says which kind of damage works), while the mace ignores any DR, and not by virtue of its damage type. Therefore, mace wins.

[Manxome]

1204315932[/unixtime]One rule (Mace penetrates DR) applies to all DR
One rule (DR/- has no counter) applies to all weapons

alternatively:

One rule (DR/- has no counter) only applies to DR/-
One rule (Mace penetrates DR) only applies to the mace.

Either both rules apply to all of a group, or both only apply t one member of a group - or you can mix and match to suit the way you want the ruling to go....

The issue isn't whether they apply to an "entire group" or "one member."

One of them defines the effect of a label that can be attached to a variety of items and objects.

The other defines a special effect that is unique to one weapon.

Take a more homogenous example:

Rule A: Any weapon with the "flaming" property adds 1-6 fire damage to any target it strikes.
Rule B: Plottius DeVice's Flaming Longsword of Uberness adds 2-12 fire damage to any target it strikes.

Both rules define the effect for one member of a set (one property or one item) and both effects apply to all members of a set (any targets). But it's pretty obvious that Rule B is more specific than Rule A.

[Fwib]

Bigode: It says 'no weapon' not 'no damage type'

One of them defines the effect of a label that can be attached to a variety of items and objects.

The DR? only creatures get DR.

I'd just let the DM rule on it. I don't think any player would ever waste his gold on the Mace of Ruin, so that's treasure I don't want to argue him out of giving me.