Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Nifft]

Do you consider that the Irresistible Blows ability allows the deity's attacks to ignore shield bonuses?

Yes. The parenthetical following "resolve..." is explanatory, not exclusionary. Touch attack is explained clearly (and completely) in its own section.

The important bit isn't the parenthetical. It's the last paragraph of the Benefit section, which specifies that, as a benefit, the touch attack additionally penetrates certain kinds of DR.

Do you consider that the Irresistible Blows ability allows the deity's attacks to ignore DR other than Adamantine?

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

The parenthetical following "resolve..." is explanatory, not exclusionary.

Right.

Do you consider that the Irresistible Blows ability allows the deity's attacks to ignore DR other than Adamantine?

Since they're resolved as melee touch attacks, I consider that they aren't negated by damage reduction.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Since they're resolved as melee touch attacks, I consider that they aren't negated by damage reduction.

Really? The one time I've seen you wrong, this is how you choose to react? Isn't this a bit passive-aggressive, if not downright disingenuous?

C'mon, Hyp. Let's see some straight talk. I'm trying to work with you here.

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's see some straight talk. I'm trying to work with you here.

Either touch attacks don't ignore DR, and the 3.5 Core Rules contain a sentence which is overly specific, redundant, and essentially meaningless in the section defining Damage Reduction.

Or touch attacks do ignore DR, and a 3E Supplement contains a sentence which is overly specific, redundant, and essentially meaningless in a section that includes a tangential reference to Damage Reduction.

Which do I think is the more likely to be inaccurate? I'll bet on the outdated supplement getting a tangential reference wrong, personally.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Uh... right. It is indeed lethal.

Now, is it piercing, slashing or bludgeoning? None of the above.
Is it silver, cold iron, or adamantine? None of the above.

It penetrates DR as a touch attack, not as any of the above.

Unlike a magic sword wielded by a guy who's just cast wraithstrike, which remains magical slashing and steel.

Cheers, -- N

Piercing, slashing, bludeoning are subtypes of weapon damage and not types of their own and natural weapons (see MM) also have the same subtypes and an unarmed strike does bludgeoning damage and when using natural weapons you are supposed to find the closest match (when it matters) - what type of weapon damage is the portion of the attack that doesn hit point damage doing here in your opinion.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't this a bit passive-aggressive, if not downright disingenuous?

Please, don't get personal. If you cannot leave your fellow poster's state of mind out of the discussion, you should probably reconsider your post.

 

[Nifft]

Either touch attacks don't ignore DR, and the 3.5 Core Rules contain a sentence which is overly specific, redundant, and essentially meaningless in the section defining Damage Reduction.

Or touch attacks do ignore DR, and a 3E Supplement contains a sentence which is overly specific, redundant, and essentially meaningless in a section that includes a tangential reference to Damage Reduction.

Which do I think is the more likely to be inaccurate? I'll bet on the outdated supplement getting a tangential reference wrong, personally.

Or, and this is the position that I take, "negate" in the DR section does not mean "reduces damage", but refers to things that go along with an attack -- like delivering injury poison. That's how it's used in the rest of that passage. I think you're just over-interpreting "negate".

Which outdated supplement are you talking about? The SRD? I'd say that any reference to DR Adamantine is pretty darn up to date, at least with respect to 3.5e. It's the same language used through the rest of the SRD, like the Psionic feats Deep Impact and Fell Shot.

There's no contradiction.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Li Shenron]

Here is something interesting - 2 different descriptions of DR.

...

MM (pg 307) has the following text under Damage Reduction (same text in MM III pg 210):

...

While the DMG (pg 292) has:

...

So which one is correct?

Both seem correct to me

DR helps against physical damage (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), including the rare case when it comes from touch attacks. It otherwise doesn't interfere with armor, thus doesn't protect from the touch attack roll, but still protects from its damage.

I don't know how the description of Wraithstrike looks like, but I got the impression that this spell helps you to ignore someone's armor, not someone's DR, otherwise it would have clearly said so since for the PC is even a greater benefit on the average.

 

[The_Ditto]

Melee type physical damage should still be subject to DR. Spell or energy should as per rules ignore DR with regards to touch attacks.

Ditto ..
I agree with this ..

Here's a similar question:

Does SR apply to a ranged attack?

depends ... on whether it's a spell or not ... there are a couple spells out there that require an actual (ranged) attack roll .. but obviously DR does not apply, as it's a spell.
For something like a normal arrow, however, yes.

Similarly with a touch attack ... it depends ... on the underlying type of the attack.

 

[Bagpuss]

Here's a similar question:

Does SR apply to a ranged attack?

depends ... on whether it's a spell or not ... there are a couple spells out there that require an actual (ranged) attack roll .. but obviously DR does not apply, as it's a spell.
For something like a normal arrow, however, yes.

Similarly with a touch attack ... it depends ... on the underlying type of the attack.

Okay if that's the cause why to the rules actually mention touch attack as not being negated by DR, but don't mention ranged attack?

Why going to the trouble of mentioning touch attack if it isn't important or actually can be negated ?