Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Bagpuss]

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.

So a Ghost's touch attack would not be affected by DR since Corrupting Touch is a supernatural ability.

Wraithstrike is still arguable since it's a spell, does SR work with Wraithstrike?

But what about a Wraith - Its Con drain is supernatural so no issue there, but the damage from the incorporeal touch attack? Incorporeal creatures by their nature are supernatural, also they can't normally effect the real world so to my mind any incorporeal touch attack is a supernatural ability.

 

[The_Ditto]

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 ?

"Negated" <> "reduced damage" ...

Under normal situations, a touch attack is a spell ... (or spell-like ala energy drain, etc.)
So yeah .. if I touch you ... I don't have to do damage, for the special effect to kick in ...

... which ... according to DR, is normally the case ... "if DR prevents all damage, than it negates most special effects of the attack" ...

Some good example of what it cannot prevent:

- shocking grasp
- inflct light wounds
- energy drain

Some good examples of what DR can prevent:

- poison from a scorpion's tail attack .. (if the stinger damage doesn't get through the DR, than the poison's effect is "negated" ... )
- Monk's stunning fist ...

 

[Bagpuss]

Okay say my Wraithstrike weapon is a poisoned blade.

And we go with your theory that the damage can be reduced by DR, the damage is reduced to zero in this theoretical case.

Does the poison take effect because it's part of a touch attack, which seems to be the only other use of not negated that I can see.

 

[Slaved]

Does the poison take effect because it's part of a touch attack

Injury poison is part of doing damage, not part of the touch attack.

If, instead, you have a weapon with an effect that says something like "upon a successful attack with this weapon ......" then that part would still work just fine, even if the damage was reduced to 0.

Contact poison works just fine, so long as you make a successful attack.

 

[Nifft]

Does the poison take effect because it's part of a touch attack, which seems to be the only other use of not negated that I can see.

IMHO: yes, that's exactly the one illogical case that is allowed by this rule.

The passage lists the sort of things that can be negated, and then it says that touch attacks are not negated:

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.

So, a Monk could Stun a high-DR critter with a touch attack (even if he failed to damage it). That's not entirely useless.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Bagpuss]

IMHO: yes, that's exactly the one illogical case that is allowed by this rule.

Illogical case that is allowed by that particular reading of the rule.

Which to me goes to help the case than when they refer to touch attacks they are talking about touch attacks that cause damage.

 

[Nifft]

Nifft's Full Personal Opinion On This Topic:

Why it's a topic at all: because the language around making a regular attack as a touch attack is convoluted.

Why is the language convoluted? It revolves around "resolved". Using the [Psionic] feat Deep Impact, you can resolve a melee attack as a touch attack. Why does the word "attack roll" not appear anywhere in this, if it's really only meant to modify your attack (and not damage)?

Well, it may be because treating an attack (not damage) as a touch attack has nothing to do with the attack roll. It modifies the opponent's effective armor class, not your attack per se. I don't know of a cleaner way to say this except "resolve the attack".

- - -

Convoluted language point #2: the passage uses the word "negates" three times, the last of which clearly cancels one of the previous two uses. Our debate here seems to hinge on whether we think the last use of "negates" is meant to negate the first or second use.

- - -

Additional Point: there actually are some critters who deal untyped melee damage using touch attacks (e.g. the wraith, whose attack is "Incorporeal Touch (1d4 plus 1d6 Con drain)"). I'd guess that these attacks shouldn't be reduced by DR, since (1) they are very rare; and (2) the incorporeal critters don't have access to a Strength bonus for extra damage, or to Power Attack for more extra damage, or to weapons which might penetrate DR.

- - -

Final point: I think the rule was originally put in so that special touch attacks like the one required for a Trip maneuver could not be "negated" by a foe with DR.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Li Shenron]

Why it's a topic at all: because the language around making a regular attack as a touch attack is convoluted.

That would be the simple truth.

I think that >90% of the people would have agreed about the answer to this topic, if they had answered by heart before actually reading the RAW. We just know how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately when authors write books, they also know, and because of that they forget about how words can be dangerous and confuse people.

The only thing that makes all this fuss about the topic is that damn "negate" added to the description of DR. Just a word that who knows what was the writer thinking about when he wrote that sentence, but certainly he wasn't secretly thinking about the subtle difference between the in-game meaning and the dictionary meaning, nor he was purposefully diabolically concealing an important rule (that otherwise wouldn't been mentioned anywhere else) within ambiguous words

But then just a simple little word is enough to make us keep bashing our heads against the RAW and hate each other

 

[Cabral]

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.

From the SRD, Graft Weapon power* "For instance, the grafted weapon is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of delivering a touch attack with a power in conjunction with the weapon attack. As with any power (or spell) melee touch attack made in conjunction with a natural weapon attack, the touch attack effect is not delivered unless the natural weapon strikes normally; on a failed attack, the touch power (or spell) is wasted. "

*Sorry, it was a quick search.

Thus, a touch attack can still be delivered with a melee attack.

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?

Because the most common touch attacks are from spells which are already exempted due to the first paragraph. However, in the case of touch attacks delivered with a melee attack, it's an effect delivered by a melee attack that is not negated if the damage from the melee attack is reduced to 0. Additionally, if touch spells was used instead of touch attacks, it would exempt touch attacks that could be delivered with a melee attack such as touch range powers.

 

[Nifft]

But then just a simple little word is enough to make us keep bashing our heads against the RAW and hate each other

That's actually not why I hate you all.

Cheers, -- N