Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[RigaMortus2]

Tripping is irrelevant, since no damage is dealt at any point. The verbiage talks about what happens if DR negates damage, and if there's no damage in the first place, then there's nothing to negate....

But it doesn't mention negating damage at all. You can assume that is what is meant, but that's all it will be, an assumption.

 

[Sithobi1]

What, other than damage, could be not negated by DR in the case of energy damage?

 

[Bagpuss]

What, other than damage, could be not negated by DR in the case of energy damage?

And what other than damage, could be not negated by DR in the case of a touch attack that only does damage?

 

[Nail]

This one's a toughy.....especially with that silly word "negates".

Here's the (offending) SRD text again:
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks..."

The first time it says "negates" it's in the phrase "negates the damage from an attack". What I think I hear some (like Hyp.) saying is that the third time it says "negates" in that paragraph, it means "negates the damage of".

Is that right? (..or are we *way* past this part of the thread? Sorry; I take weekends off!)

And yet the second time it says "negates", it's not talking about damage, but about "special effects that accompany the attack."

Since touch attacks are often (at least from the PC's point of view) accompanied by a special effect, doesn't it make sense to interprete the touch attack reference to be included as a "special effect"?


Hmmmmm.....

 

[Hypersmurf]

Since touch attacks are often (at least from the PC's point of view) accompanied by a special effect, doesn't it make sense to interprete the touch attack reference to be included as a "special effect"?

The touch attack isn't a special effect accompanying an attack, though; it's the attack that a special effect might or might not accompany.

-Hyp.

 

[Cabral]

Generally, disagreeing with Hypersmurf on rules interpretations is a bad idea, but along with my vote for "No", here's my rationale:

Context matters.
Touch attacks are not always delivered along with a melee attack (such as inflict this being delivered with an unarmed strike). However, they can be.

There are two opportunities for touch attacks to be addressed in Damage Reduction:
Paragraph 1

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

and Paragraph 12

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

The fact that it's addressed in paragraph 12 rather 1, indicates to me (though not conclusively proves) that it was not intended for touch attacks to get a sweeping immunity to DR. The use of "negate" rather "reduce" or some synonim futher supports this view.

IMO, it's saying that if your unarmed strike does not surpass DR, your spell is not negated. If the text was not present, perhaps we would hear questions about how a touch attack is really an attack that deals no damage and thus DR makes you immune to touch attacks. Perhaps they got that in play testing and thus included the funky wording.

Regardless, it says the DR does not negate touch attacks, not the creature takes full damage from touch attacks. I'm going to have to say ... ... I think Hyp's wrong ...

 

[tylermalan]

From Dictionary.com...

Negate, verb -

1) to nullify or cause to be ineffective; Progress on the study has been negated by the lack of funds.

2) To make ineffective or invalid; nullify.

3) make ineffective by counterbalancing the effect of; This action will negate the effect of my efforts

DR does not negate touch attacks.
DR does not make touch attacks ineffective, or it doesn't nullify them, or it doesn't make them invalid.

That sentence does not mean that damage from touch attacks ignores damage reduction, nor does it say that touch attacks bypass DR. As much as many people would like to think that "DR does not negate touch attacks" means the exact same thing as "Touch attacks bypass DR," or "Damage from touch attacks bypasses DR," they do not.

Therefore, if you attack someone who has DR with a touch attack, their DR does not make your touch attack ineffective. However, if you damage them with a type of damage that is not listed in the DR entry (among the listed types are energy damage and ability damage) or attack them with a listed type of attack that does different kinds of damage that isn't listed (among the listed are energy draining attacks, types of damage that are not listed include slashing damage), then DR still applies.

I think.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Touch attacks are not always delivered along with a melee attack (such as inflict this being delivered with an unarmed strike). However, they can be.

Inflict Light Wounds is not a touch attack if you deliver it with an unarmed strike. It is a touch spell, delivered by an unarmed strike, or a touch spell, delivered by a touch attack, but it is not a touch attack delivered by an unarmed strike.

A melee touch attack isn't delivered along with a melee attack; a melee touch attack happens instead of a melee attack.

Therefore, if you attack someone who has DR with a touch attack, their DR does not make your touch attack ineffective. However, if you damage them with a type of damage that is not listed in the DR entry (among the listed types are energy damage and ability damage) or attack them with a listed type of attack that does different kinds of damage that isn't listed (among the listed are energy draining attacks, types of damage that are not listed include slashing damage), then DR still applies.

Replace the phrase 'touch attack' in the above paragraph with 'melee attack', or with 'ranged attack'.

"If you attack someone who has DR with a melee attack, their DR does not make your melee attack ineffective. However, if you damage them with a type of damage that is not listed in the DR entry (among the listed types are energy damage and ability damage) or attack them with a listed type of attack that does different kinds of damage that isn't listed (among the listed are energy draining attacks, types of damage that are not listed include slashing damage), then DR still applies."

That was already true. So why is there a special note to say "Touch attacks are not negated by damage reduction", if that note isn't necessary for melee attacks or ranged attacks?

-Hyp.

 

[tylermalan]

That was already true. So why is there a special note to say "Touch attacks are not negated by damage reduction", if that note isn't necessary for melee attacks or ranged attacks?

-Hyp.

I see what you mean, but its as if you're saying its LESS true or NOT true simply because it doesn't say "melee attack" elsewhere. That doesn't really make sense... yes, its a little odd that they would point out touch attacks and not melee attacks for the purposes of this argument, but I don't see how that negates (ha... ha... right?) my point.

Plus, I can't access the SRD right now, but I'm pretty sure that earlier in the text for DR, they talk about what DR actually does, and they say something that address melee attacks and ranged attacks. If I'm not wrong about that, then they DO specifically point out melee attacks - in the same way that they point out touch attacks here.

 

[irdeggman]

I was originally in the camp that states DR does not negate (or apply) to touch attacks. Since that is the very specific text (from the DMG)

I then found (and posted) other DR text from the MM and PHB that do not address this (touch attacks) and instead states (paraphrase):

"The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."

And the offending text does not address "supernatural abilities" at all.

Using the order of precendence here, the DMG is last no matter how you view it.

When it comes to combat - the PHB is the prime.

When it comes to monsters - the MM is prime.

So I guess I have to lean with preponderance of evidence and the order of precedant sources here and go with "touch attacks" are affected by DR - unless they are spells, spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities.