1
\$\begingroup\$

Abalative Armor provides damage reduction 15/- at 10th level, once the infused item has prevented damage from a single attack even if not all the damage reduction is needed, the magic fades.

Stone Construct provides damage reduction 10/adamantine. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per artificer level you possess (maximum 150 points) it is discharged.

If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.

My question is does the damage reduced by the Abalative Armor also reduce the total provided by Stone Construct?

Apologies if this question has been asked in the past by another.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Let’s focus on the descriptions of these two infusions:

Once the infused item has prevented damage

(Ablative armor infusion description, Magic of Eberron pg. 93)

Once the spell has prevented [...] damage

(Stone construct infusion description, Eberron Campaign Setting pg. 116)

Ablative armor refers to “the infused item” doing the damage prevention; stone construct refers to “the spell” doing it. That matters, maybe—ablative armor might be discharged by the first attack against the one wearing the infused item, even if the damage is blocked entirely by something else about “the infused item”—for example, perhaps, another infusion. By contrast, only damage stone construct itself prevents counts against stone construct’s limit, because “the spell” refers to stone construct itself.

Ultimately, I don’t really recommend anyone take this wording that seriously. It’s fairly unlikely that the authors were thinking about such a combination, really. They probably meant for “the infused item” to refer to ablative armor itself, rather than anything else that item happens to have going on. And even if the authors did mean that intentionally, I don’t think that makes for the best gameplay: ablative armor should actually do something, not just be discharged by something that was already blocked anyway. But for this particular combination, as described in the question, it may not matter—ablative armor has the higher value anyway, so it will block damage first, and that won’t affect stone construct.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think you have the right of it there, the wording is important. The Stone Construct spell hasn't prevented anything when the first damage occurs and can't because the Ablative Armor is the more encompassing damage reduction and has a greater value of damage it reduces. I'll leave this open for a day or two to see if there are any other answers. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 19 '20 at 1:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelDorf Yeah, but if you did have some other infusion that blocked more than ablative armor, or your armor itself blocked more damage for some reason, like I dunno, you have an armor with DR 50/magic or something and actually got attacked by a non-magical weapon, I wouldn’t have ablative armor discharge from that, regardless of what the rules say. Because 1. they probably didn’t mean it, and 2. if they did, they were wrong anyway. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Aug 19 '20 at 3:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think we're getting a bit side tracked from the original question of whether the total of 10/ per artificer level provided by Stone Construct is also reduced but in any case you'd be right because of this 'If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.' The 50 / magic attacked by a non magical weapon is clearly the best damage reduction in the given situation. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 19 '20 at 3:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelDorf Right, but if you have an armor that provides DR 50/magic, and it’s got ablative armor infused on it, and you are attacked with a non-magic weapon, the DR 50/magic applies, reduces the damage, and ablative armor’s DR 15/– doesn’t apply—but “the infused item” (the armor) “has prevented damage,” which strictly speaking means ablative armor should end, despite not actually having done anything. I’m saying that you should ignore that “strictly speaking” and say ablative armor has to actually prevent damage before it ends, in the same way that stone construct does. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Aug 19 '20 at 4:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.