Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Hypersmurf]

So.....if the touch attack does damage, DR applies. If the touch attack has a special effect tied to it, the special affect happens, even if the DR "soaks up" the normal damage.

So if energy damage dealt along with an attack deals damage DR applies, but if it has a special effect, that happens?

-Hyp.

 

[brehobit]

Other.

RAW? Probably.
Any sane ruling? No.

 

[AuraSeer]

I don't think there is such a thing as "a type of attack roll." you roll a d20 and there you have it. A touch attack is a specific type of attack.

There are different types of types of attacks. (That's not a typo.) If I just said "type of attack" I could have been talking about the damage type, or the melee/ranged distinction, or the difference between a normal attack and a special attack like Disarm. My point is that the "touch-ness" of an attack modifies only the roll to hit, not any of the attack's other qualities.

And yes, I know that "touch-ness" is not a defined game term either. The point is that there is no game term that refers to precisely this concept.

 

[IanB]

Yes, it does. A wraith can do d4 damage to anybody it wants to.

...with a house ruling that touch attacks dealt by anything I as DM think should have to overcome DR, like a manufactured weapon, must still overcome DR.

I personally think the rule was intended for stuff like the wraith's touch attack, and that the people who wrote the later touch-attack-with-a-weapon abilities were not aware of the rule.

 

[Bad Paper]

I said Yes because any spell that allows melee-as-touch is stupid, broken, suckass, and not in my game.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Where was that thread a few days ago where Hyp said that...?

IMHO: when the core rules have been written, touch attacks were supposed to be spells and alchemical substances or charged electricity. Abilities that allow to attack with a weapon by making a touch attack haven't been taken into account. Honestly, I don't think the game needs them.

Brilliant energy weapon is in the DMG. I would guess they did that intentionally. Now, IIRC it's a +4 weapon enhancement, and future spells probably did not take it into account.

 

[Darklone]

Brilliant energy weapon is in the DMG. I would guess they did that intentionally. Now, IIRC it's a +4 weapon enhancement, and future spells probably did not take it into account.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#brilliantEnergy

No touch attacks, it only ignores the armor and shield bonus, not the natural armor bonus to AC.

That's a +4 enhancement and Wraithstrike is a level 2 spell... go figure.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Interestingly this came up for us last Sunday in a game, when commanded spectres attacked a golem, and the DM ruled that the spectres 1d8 damage melee touch attack couldn't penetrate the golems DR.

Cheers

 

[Bagpuss]

In context, it's refering to the fact that normally, when DR "soaks up" all of the damage, no special effect tied to the damage is effective. Since "normal" touch attacks don't (usually) do damage,

But they do. A Ghost's Corrupting Touch (su) does 1d6 damage as a touch attack, and it isn't energy damage it's just listed as damage, there are various other creatures with Incorporeal touch attacks that do damage or damage and some other effect.

Hence to me the sentence "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.." shows that DR does not negate the damage of a touch attack.

If they wanted DR to apply against normal damage delievered by a touch attack but not the other stuff, why mention the touch attack at all.

Look at the Wraith's attack for example.

Incorporeal touch +5 melee (1d4 plus 1d6 Constitution drain)

"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains."

To me that means neither the touch attack (1d4 damage) or the energy drain (1d6 Constitution drain) are negated

They could have said.

"Damage reduction does not negate energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains."

Now to me that would mean the Constitution drain isn't negated even if the touch attack damage is. Just as a flameblade doing 1d8 normal and 1d6 fire has the 1d8 normal damage countered by DR but the 1d6 energy damage not because of the sentence above.

Again: Don't take the troublesome sentence out of context. I'll get you in trouble.

You are doing worse you are not even taking the whole sentence, your ignoring the stuff about energy damage and drains, why would touch be mentioned along with them unless like them DR does not negate them?

Touch is mentioned because like inhaled poisons, energy damage and energy drains it doesn't need to defeat external barriers Damage Reduction like armor or touch skin to effect the target.

The fact this makes Wraithstrike even more broken is neither here nor there.

 

[Nail]

But they do.

"Usually"? No they don't.

Hence to me the sentence "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.." shows that DR does not negate the damage of a touch attack.

...even though the sentence *doesn't* say that? How strange.