Touch Attacks and DR

[Coredump]

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..

Yes, but it also says it negates *damage* from an attack.

And then clarifies that it does *not negate* a touch attack, energy damage, etc.

Why not just say that it negates physical attacks? because what it negates is damage from physical attacks. Some things that accompany the attacks are ineffectual if damage is not dealt, like injury poisen. Notice that DR does *not* negate the injury poison, it negates the damage, and if all of the damage is negated, then the poison doesn't work

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's a clarification of something. Clarifications reiterate stuff that has been said elsewhere.

It's not a clarification! It was never unclear!

"Bob can't drink fruit juice. Just to clarify - that includes orange juice."

You can't 'clarify' something unless there's doubt!

If DR doesn't negate attacks, only damage, then saying 'By the way, when DR doesn't negate attacks, that includes these attacks' isn't clarification, it's pointless.

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's not a clarification! It was never unclear!

"Bob can't drink fruit juice. Just to clarify - that includes orange juice."

You can't 'clarify' something unless there's doubt!

If DR doesn't negate attacks, only damage, then saying 'By the way, when DR doesn't negate attacks, that includes these attacks' isn't clarification, it's pointless.

No, that is exactly what a clarification is. So, to use your example, "Bob can't drink drink fruit juice" is clarified by the statement "This includes lime juice, lemon juice, orange juice, and grapefruit juice." It may not be a clarification you think is needed, but it is a clarification just the same.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, but it also says it negates *damage* from an attack.

And then clarifies that it does *not negate* a touch attack, energy damage, etc.

Note that it does not say that it doesn't negate damage from a touch attack. It just says it doesn't negate touch attacks.

 

[Gansk]

So again - why mention touch attacks, if you're going to treat them exactly the same as melee attacks?
-Hyp.

There are some monsters with touch attacks that do unspecified damage. Most of them are undead that cause negative energy damage or have a corrupting touch, but the type of damage is not specified, only implied. It is the damage from these touch attacks that are meant to bypass DR. Other touch attacks have specified damage types, either energy or spell effects that are specifically listed to bypass DR.

At the time the DMG was written, there were no feats or special abilities that converted normal weapon attacks to touch attacks. These weapons should follow the normal rules for DR - either they bypass DR because they cause a specific type of damage, or they bypass DR because they are made from a special material or are aligned.

 

[ElectricDragon]

So, inessence, a touch attack is much more powerful than I originally thought. It not only negates armor bonuses, shield bonuses, and natural armor bonuses; but it also negates DR.

Incorporeal creatures and those with touch attacks just got a lot meaner IMC.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are some monsters with touch attacks that do unspecified damage. Most of them are undead that cause negative energy damage or have a corrupting touch, but the type of damage is not specified, only implied. It is the damage from these touch attacks that are meant to bypass DR. Other touch attacks have specified damage types, either energy or spell effects that are specifically listed to bypass DR.

If a wraith deals 1d4 damage that bypasses DR by virtue of its attack being a touch attack, then a Master Thrower or psionic character can do the same with his own touch attacks.

If a Master Thrower or psionic character cannot, then neither can a wraith.

It's not possible for the rules as written to mean that a wraith deals unmodified damage but a Master Thrower does not.

-Hyp.

 

[Fieari]

Erk. This is weird. Hypersmurf is my sage, I've never disagreed with him before, ever. But this time, I'm just not convinced. I read the line, and it looks like a clarification to me, aka, a redundant statement. I see a wraith's attack, see that it is typeless, and conclude the TYPE of damage is "touch" damage, which is not negated. Then I see Weapon Thrower, and see that the type is the weapon type, such as piercing... which is not on the list of things not negated by DR.

I do see a difference between "does not negate touch attacks" and "does not negate damage from touch attacks". If it had been the latter, I would agree with you Smurf.... but not negating touch attacks seems to either be refering to the fact that you can in fact touch someone with DR, or refering to a wraith's otherwise typeless attack, or both. Are there any other arguments you could use to fortify your position? The fact that it doesn't say damage, but just the attack itself, has me pretty convinced towards Storm's position.

Argh. I can't believe I'm disagreeing with Hypersmurf on a rules question! This is wrong!

 

[Gansk]

If a Master Thrower or psionic character cannot, then neither can a wraith.
-Hyp.

What type of damage does the wraith do? Piercing, bludgeoning, slashing? Is its natural weapon made out of a special material? How else is it supposed to bypass DR without getting a special exception? Why does this special exception have to include attacks that cause piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage?

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's not possible for the rules as written to mean that a wraith deals unmodified damage but a Master Thrower does not.

Sure, it can. The fact is that the Master Thrower does not exist in the rules as written. It exists in a supplement, outside the rules as written and if it perverts the meaning of the rules as written, then it cannot be the rules' fault. So, when a DM goes to include the supplement for Master Thrower, he has to make sure that every single rule meshes cohesively with the rules as written. In this case, there's a problem. Does the DM think that the intent of Master Thrower is to bypass DR? I think not.