Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Slaved]

No, by DR.

Energy damage dealt along with an attack is not negated by DR... but you're suggesting that damage can be reduced to 0 while not being negated, so what's preventing DR from reducing energy damage dealt along with an attack to 0 without negating it?

-Hyp.

Damage reduction does not effect energy damage, as is stated up thread.

Damage, not energy damage or poison damage or whatever else you would like to come up with, is reduced by damage reduction. Energy damage is not only covered by a different mechanic but specifically called out as not being effected.

Damage, not energy damage, can be reduced to 0 by damage reduction. This does not negate the touch attack if it was one though. The touch attack was still successful, it just did not do damage sufficient to get past the damage reduction. Energy damage however bypasses damage reduction just fine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Damage, not energy damage or poison damage or whatever else you would like to come up with, is reduced by damage reduction. Energy damage is not only covered by a different mechanic but specifically called out as not being effected.

Energy damage is damage; the term 'damage' covers slashing damage, negative energy damage, sonic damage, untyped damage...

Energy damage is specifically called out as not being negated... just like touch attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Slaved]

If the problem you are having is with the term and not actually what is behind my explination then go ahead and say so. The run around is not any fun.

If you would like to define each type of damage with its own terms I'll be happy to pick out which are appropriate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the problem you are having is with the term and not actually what is behind my explination then go ahead and say so. The run around is not any fun.

Hmm? I'm saying that if "is not negated" prevents damage being reduced (as in the case of energy damage dealt along with an attack), then that's applicable to touch attacks as well.

If "is not negated" does not prevent damage being reduced, then when someone uses a flaming shortsword to deal 3 piercing damage and 2 fire damage, then DR 5/- not negating the energy (fire) damage doesn't stop the damage (piercing and fire) being reduced.

I'm firmly of the opinion that "is not negated" prevents the fire damage being reduced, which means that it prevents the damage of a touch attack being reduced as well.

-Hyp.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Hmm? I'm saying that if "is not negated" prevents damage being reduced (as in the case of energy damage dealt along with an attack), then that's applicable to touch attacks as well.

If "is not negated" does not prevent damage being reduced, then when someone uses a flaming shortsword to deal 3 piercing damage and 2 fire damage, then DR 5/- not negating the energy (fire) damage doesn't stop the damage (piercing and fire) being reduced.

I'm firmly of the opinion that "is not negated" prevents the fire damage being reduced, which means that it prevents the damage of a touch attack being reduced as well.

-Hyp.

Hyp,

The way you are terming your responses are leaving at least me confused.

If I cast a fireball, DR vs physical melee attacks does not stop the fire damage. However, the DR if taken from a flaming sword, 4 points slashing and 3 points fire for DR 5/-. Would the result be the DR 5 reduces the slashing damage and the monster takes 3 points fire damage, or since the slashing damage didn't exceed the DR, the fire damage does nothing.

Then let us take that same Fighter/mage who casts wraithstrike doing 70 points of damage. Since this is a touch attack, will the DR first subtract 5 off the 70 leaving 65 point to penetrate and harm the creature or would the full 70 be applied as damage?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I cast a fireball, DR vs physical melee attacks does not stop the fire damage. However, the DR if taken from a flaming sword, 4 points slashing and 3 points fire for DR 5/-. Would the result be the DR 5 reduces the slashing damage and the monster takes 3 points fire damage, or since the slashing damage didn't exceed the DR, the fire damage does nothing.

Then let us take that same Fighter/mage who casts wraithstrike doing 70 points of damage. Since this is a touch attack, will the DR first subtract 5 off the 70 leaving 65 point to penetrate and harm the creature or would the full 70 be applied as damage?

I would say that the 3 points fire damage is dealt, since energy damage is not negated, and the 70 points is dealt, since touch attacks are not negated.

The fire damage would be subject to the DR were it not for the "energy damage dealt along with an attack is not negated" clause, since it is damage from a weapon.

("A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks..." and "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.")

The Wraithstrikified damage would be subject to the DR were it not for the "touch attacks are not negated" clause, since it is damage from a weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[tylermalan]

Sorry if most of this has been said already, but...

I voted "Other", and here is my explanation!

"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..."

It depends on the type of damage. Let's take a few examples...

1) A character has DR 10/magic. He gets hit with a claw attack that does poison damage and regular damage. It only does 9 points of damage, which means it doesn't actually do any damage at all, and the additional poison damage doesn't apply because its delivered through damaging (injuring) an opponent.

2) The same character gets hit with a Monk's stunning attack, which only does 9 damage, and so isn't stunned because he has to be damaged to be stunned (and is never actually damaged because his DR kicked in).

3) The same character gets hit with an incorporeal touch attack that does strength damage. He doesn't actually get hit, just touched, and the attack damages his strength. DR does not apply here because DR prevents you from being injured (damaged) unless you're being attacked with something that overcomes your DR - in this case, magic.

4) The same character gets hit by an opponent with Wraithstrike. It allows his opponent's regular attacks, which are physical swings of a sword or whatever, to bypass armor (which is basically what you're losing when your touch AC applies instead of your regular AC) and only require his opponent to "touch" him with his weapon in order to inflict damage. In this case, DR still applies because he is still being touched with a weapon. The same reasoning would apply if the weapon used with Wraithstrike was also poisoned - just because the weapon touches a creature with DR doesn't mean he's automatically poisoned. He is only poisoned if the attack still does enough damage to negate the damage reduction. Just being a touch attack is not enough.

 

[Bagpuss]

Okay how in example 4 is the term "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks..." being applied?

If it is actually negating both the touch attacks damage and the touch attacks poison? That would seem to be to be a clear example of "Damage reduction does negate touch attacks."

 

[Bagpuss]

Here's where I'm trying to go with this. 20th level F/W/EK, has a BA +16 ect. The character uses power attack. With other add's they have about a +13 to hit and doing average damage about 70 points a hit. To totally bypass DR make this spell so much overpowered for it's level.

Unfortunately if this ruling makes Wraithstrike totally over powered or not is neither here nor there. The Damage Reduction rules weren't written with Wraithstrike in mind, and by the looks of it Wraithstrike wasn't written with DR in mind (or even any remote sense of game balance).

Since the damage is mainly melee based, even though the spell allows the attacks to hit the touch AC, shouldn't they be subject to the DR?

No since the damage comes from a touch attack and DR doesn't negate touch attacks like it doesn't negate energy damage or energy drain (mentioned in exactly the same sentence).

 

[tylermalan]

Okay how in example 4 is the term "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks..." being applied?

If it is actually negating both the touch attacks damage and the touch attacks poison? That would seem to be to be a clear example of "Damage reduction does negate touch attacks."

It's being applied in the sense that DR does not just negate a touch attack because its a touch attack. Damage reduction reduces physical damage to a lower value unless that damage is being done by a source that DR does not apply to, for instance DR 10/silver. You never see DR 10/touch attacks. Granted, you never see DR 10/energy drain either, but touch attacks and energy drain are not sources, they are different types of damage. In fact, touch attacks aren't even a type of damage, its a type of damage dealing that isn't hindered by the recipient wearing armor in the same way that a corporeal sword or arrow would be. I don't see why only having to touch someone with your sword to make them bleed would get rid of their (usually) innate ability to reduce physical damage done.