Does Damage Reduction Actually NOT Negate Damage from Touch Attacks???

[Atavar]

Hello Everyone,

I was reading up on damage reduction in the SRD and came across the following:

Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks....

I had NEVER read that before. Is this how it is written in the core rulebooks, too?

If correct, this concerns me. There are now magic items and abilities (Book of 9 Swords, I'm looking at you) that can turn the next melee attack into a touch attack. If the above is correct, then it looks like not only is the attack a touch attack, but the attack can also totally overcome damage reduction, regardless of the properties of the weapon.

So, two questions:

1. Is the above actually correct per RAW?

2. Even of the above is RAW, do you think it is too powerful and, thus, would you justify house-ruling that a touch attack can still be subject to damage reduction?

Thanks,

Atavar

 

[Drowbane]

My primary group sees alot of Touch vs DR abuse in the form of Wraithstrike and more recently Bo9S maneuvers.

As far as we know, this is RAW.

Some of the DMs have been contemplating nerfing the S outta this though.

 

[Nifft]

IMHO, quoting that sentence out of context is your problem. It's modifying the previous sentence. Altogether, the paragraph reads:

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.

Note how the "does not negate" bit comes after the "special effects" bit.

Without the "does not negate" bit, anyone with any DR could ignore almost any Touch spell... because Touch spells often don't deal any damage!

PC: Touch of Idiocy! Eat it, fiend!
DM: Ooo, you failed to overcome his DR, so your special effect is negated.

This is my interpretation, and IMHO it yields maximum sanity.

Cheers, -- N

 

[szilard]

DR doesn't negate touch attacks. DR still applies to any weapon damage delivered through a touch attack, though.

I mean, DR doesn't negate melee attacks, either...

-Stuart

 

[Mort]

There was a longish thread on this exact subject a while back. You can find it here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

DR doesn't negate touch attacks. DR still applies to any weapon damage delivered through a touch attack, though.

I mean, DR doesn't negate melee attacks, either...

I have to wonder - if the ability stated "Damage reduction does not negate ranged attacks", would anyone rule that "Oh, it doesn't negate the ranged attack, but it can negate the damage from the ranged attack..."?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

I have to wonder - if the ability stated "Damage reduction does not negate ranged attacks", would anyone rule that "Oh, it doesn't negate the ranged attack, but it can negate the damage from the ranged attack..."?

Strictly speaking, DR isn't the ability to negate damage. It is the ability to ignore damage.

The word "negate" comes up when the text describes what happens when DR allows a creature to ignore all damage from an attack.

Cheers, -- N

 

[SteveC]

IMHO, quoting that sentence out of context is your problem. It's modifying the previous sentence. Altogether, the paragraph reads: Note how the "does not negate" bit comes after the "special effects" bit.

Without the "does not negate" bit, anyone with any DR could ignore almost any Touch spell... because Touch spells often don't deal any damage!

PC: Touch of Idiocy! Eat it, fiend!
DM: Ooo, you failed to overcome his DR, so your special effect is negated.

This is my interpretation, and IMHO it yields maximum sanity.

Cheers, -- N

Always listen to the penguin, for he is wise. Your interpretation is exactly my idea. For issues like this, WotC is very good about providing explicit examples. If touch attacks always negated DR, there would be an example of the rule in use. Seriously. That's generally my response when I hear a rules question that has huge repercussions but is never spelled out in the rules: take the simplest answer that doesn't make huge changes to how the game is played.

--Steve

 

[Mort]

I have to wonder - if the ability stated "Damage reduction does not negate ranged attacks", would anyone rule that "Oh, it doesn't negate the ranged attack, but it can negate the damage from the ranged attack..."?

-Hyp.

The problem is that the original wording for damage reduction did not contemplate touch attacks that themselves did damage. Touch attacks were for things like tripping, grappling etc. And of course for touch spells, which because they are spells explicitly ignore damage reduction (and the touch attack didn't do the damage, the spell did).

The DR does not negate touch attacks language is necessary because otherwise if you have DR, mechanically you could not be tripped, grappled etc and it seems clear this is all that was meant.

If the design had been for touch attacks to bypass DR the wording would be: touch attacks ignore damage reduction, same as the wording for spells, spell like abilities and energy attacks.
Regardless, DR affecting touch attacks is the only way to play it that's remotely balanced, otherwise touch attacks that do damage become better than they already are.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

That is how I play it. DR does not negate the successful touch attack for the purposes of feats, spells and such that require or trigger off a successful tough attack. So you get your successful touch attack, even if there is no actual damage or the damage is negated anyway.

In other words, the spiked chain dude can still trip a creature with high DR, but the free attack when the baddie go down probably won't scratch the BBEG.