Touch Attacks and DR

[Kilroy]

Sure, but now you are getting into edge cases. And it seems very reasonable to assume that since that particlar DR is a function of the armor, if you bypass the armor, you also bypass the DR.

Wouldn't it make sense then to assume that if you bypass the natural armor of a creature, you bypass the DR there too?

 

[Storm Raven]

Wouldn't it make sense then to assume that if you bypass the natural armor of a creature, you bypass the DR there too?

Is DR a function of natural armor? There are creatures that have DR, but no natural armor (for example, 7th+ level human barbarians), which would seem to refute that line of thinking.

 

[Coredump]

Wouldn't it make sense then to assume that if you bypass the natural armor of a creature, you bypass the DR there too?

Um, why? Does it state anywhere that the DR is a function of the Natural armor?

DR seems to be a natural resistance the creature has (or a natural weakness) such as werewolves and silver. NA has to do with how tough their skin is for physical attacks.

 

[Darth Malakh]

Thanks...so far

Thanks Jhulae & Xiam

Malakh

 

[Jhulae]

Oh! I just came up with a scenario that could explain that one rule Hyp has been quoting again and again!

Lets say a Monk/Wizard has Shocking Grasp on her fist and she makes an attack against something with DR. The attack hits but the damage doesn't overcome the DR. The spell would still go off because it only needs a touch attack (even though the monk gave up her touch attack for a 'normal' attack), even though the attack itself did no 'damage'.

Anyway, that's a scenario that would fit that one rule and why it might be quoted separately.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You (clearly) give him far more credit than he deserves.

I'm not sure why you think it's okay to make a jab at Hyp like that. Being a mod, I'm guessing he wrestled with whether or not he should even respond, or whether he just ignored your dig like water off a duck's back. But, it was not funny, and not necessary. I disagree with Hyp probably as much as the next person, but always trusting Hyp's interpretation on the rules will rarely lead one astray. Arguably, never.

 

[Jhulae]

I'm not sure why you think it's okay to make a jab at Hyp like that. Being a mod, I'm guessing he wrestled with whether or not he should even respond, or whether he just ignored your dig like water off a duck's back. But, it was not funny, and not necessary. I disagree with Hyp probably as much as the next person, but always trusting Hyp's interpretation on the rules will rarely lead one astray. Arguably, never.

I agree, I2k.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lets say a Monk/Wizard has Shocking Grasp on her fist and she makes an attack against something with DR. The attack hits but the damage doesn't overcome the DR. The spell would still go off because it only needs a touch attack (even though the monk gave up her touch attack for a 'normal' attack), even though the attack itself did no 'damage'.

That would work anyway - it's energy damage delivered along with an attack.

It wouldn't work in the case of a Spell-Storing weapon, because the stored spell is only triggered when the attack deals damage.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

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

-Hyp.

No, that is exactly what a clarification is.

I'm not really interested in arguing over the semantics of whether something is a "clarification" that is needed or a simple "reiteration" (or some other term) that is unneeded, but it seems that a lot of other people are. Let me just point out for everyone still going at it that trying to second guess the deep, hidden meaning of a shoddily edited document is the first step down the path to madness.