Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Nail]

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

-Hyp.

Sorry, Hyp, but I just don't understand what you're saying here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

 

[Nifft]

I think what's going on here is:

Normally, an attack either deals damage or doesn't (by virtue of missing or failing to penetrate DR). There are a variety of secondary effects which can trigger on damage, like poison or energy drain.

DR can negate an attack entirely. The secondary effects (like poison) do not trigger if the attack is negated.

DR can not entirely negate a touch attack. The secondary effects trigger normally, even if no damage occurs.

That's my reading anyway.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nail]

That's my reading anyway.

Mine too. ....And more clearly stated!

 

[Bagpuss]

"Usually"? No they don't.

Do you need me to list the number of creatures (at least from the SRD) that have touch attacks that do damage? How many do you need to show that they usually for creatures they do?

Ghost, Wraith, Spectre, Unbodied, Caller in Darkness, Shadow of the Void, Shape of Fire,

compared with the Allip, Shadow which only do an energy drain.

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

Look at the monster manual none of the attacks mention damage, it is damage by default effect for attacks, unless it is listed as something else.

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

Is it 1d4 bannanas?

Ankheg
Attack: Bite +7 melee (2d6+7 plus 1d4 acid)

Is it 2d6+7 fruit cakes?

Let look at the sentence without the paragraph with the phrase touch attacks in it.

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 energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Reading that you'll see that Damage reduction does not negate

a) energy damage.
b) energy drain.
c) Poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion or contact.

If they were the only things that Damage reduction did not negate there would be no need to mention touch attacks at all.

A sword that does normal attack and fire damage has it's normal damage negated by DR, but because it's listed in the bold sentence above it's energy damage is not negated. The normal attack isn't mentioned so DR can negate it.

If you wanted touch attacks to be negated by DR that is how the sentence need to be written.

But that isn't how it's written, they specifically list "touch attacks" as one of the things DR doesn't negate so a touch attack that does 2d6 + 1d8 fire would not be negated and neither would it's energy damage, as they are both listed in the same sentence no less.

How can you ignore one case of negating DR and not the other? They are even written right next to each other.

 

[Bagpuss]

DR can negate an attack entirely. The secondary effects (like poison) do not trigger if the attack is negated.

DR can not entirely negate a touch attack. The secondary effects trigger normally, even if no damage occurs.

That's my reading anyway.

By that reading you are now tying the touch attack phrase to the accompanying energy damage and energy drain.

So if I attacked someone with a flameblade and the DR stopped all the normal damage then the energy damage would also be negated.

 

[Nail]

Do you need me to list the number of creatures (at least from the SRD) that have touch attacks that do damage? How many do you need to show that they usually for creatures they do?

I'd be convinced by 33% in the SRD, including PCs.

Reading that you'll see that Damage reduction does not negate

a) energy damage.
b) energy drain.
c) Poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion or contact./quote]Completely agreed. No argument whatsoever.

If they were the only things that Damage reduction did not negate there would be no need to mention touch attacks at all.

Why do you think this must be true? Are there no other places in the rules where a similar structure occurs (name things, then state general rule)?

A sword that does normal attack weapon damage and fire damage has it's normal weapon damage negated by DR, but because it's listed in the bold sentence above it's energy damage is not negated. The normal attack isn't mentioned so DR can negate it.

Fixed that for you.

Let's be clear:

Even if the flaming sword does no weapon damage, it still does its fire damage. We agree on that, eh? The DR entry says this is so.

If you wanted touch attacks to be negated by DR that is how the sentence need to be written.

But that isn't how it's written, they specifically list "touch attacks" as one of the things DR doesn't negate so a touch attack that does 2d6 + 1d8 fire would not be negated and neither would it's energy damage, as they are both listed in the same sentence no less.

The part you are missing is whether of not the damage is weapon damage.

Since touch attacks do not usually cause weapon damage (especially WRT to PCs and their SRD spells!), there's a need to call out the fact that the special effects of touch attacks are not negated even though the touch attack does no damage. If this were NOT the case, then many touch attacks would be ineffective, as they cause no weapon damage, therefore can't over-come DR, therefore can't have their special effect.

You must take the sentence in context.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry, Hyp, but I just don't understand what you're saying here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

I have a touch attack that deals 4 damage. I use it against a creature with DR 5/--.

DR does not negate touch attacks.

Does this mean "DR does not negate any special effect of a touch attack, but can reduce the damage of the touch attack as if it were a weapon?" If so, then my touch attack does nothing because of the DR. DR negated my touch attack.

And if this is the correct reading, then surely "DR does not negate energy damage dealt along with an attack" must by the same logic mean "DR does not negate any special effect of energy damage dealt along with an attack, but can reduce the damage of the energy damage dealt along with an attack as if it were a weapon"?

So a critical hit with a thundering weapon would still apply the deafness (a special effect), but the sonic damage would be reduced (since the "DR does not negate" language excludes damage for some reason)?

I think it's obvious that the Sonic damage is unaffected by DR; therefore, by the same logic, the damage of my touch attack in the first paragraph also is unaffected by DR, else "DR does not negate touch attacks" is proven false.

-Hyp.

 

[wildstarsreach]

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

-Hyp.

Hyp,
This thread was kind of started dealing with the problems from wraithstrike which makes melee attacks touch attacks. How do you view how this spell interacts with DR and touch physical melee attacks?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp,
This thread was kind of started dealing with the problems from wraithstrike which makes melee attacks touch attacks. How do you view how this spell interacts with DR and touch physical melee attacks?

I think Wraithstrike lets you treat your melee attacks as touch attacks, and I think DR does not negate touch attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks

The way I read it, it seems like all it is stating is the actual touch attack is not negated (and is thus resolved normally). Which might seem kind of funny, since DR has nothing to do with Armor Class or resloving if you were hit. But that's how I read it. The actual DAMAGE however, is different. You have to follow how each damage type is resolved via DR.

It doesn't state that DR does not negate damage from a touch attack. Not sure how you can extrapolate that from the quote. A touch attack is first and foremost an attack type (IMHO). You have to actually hit first before you can even start to determine if the type of damage is applied or negated.