Does damage from a touch attack ignore Damage Reduction

[Nifft]

Hyp,

Could you explain what "can be shown by usage" means, please?
It's pivotal to one of your points, and I'm not sure what you mean.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Treacherous_B]

I'm not going to pretend I have as full a grasp on the rules of the game as some of the people already in this discussion, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

As far as touch attacks using the Wraithstrike spell are concerned - balance issues aside - I feel that from a "flavor" standpoint it would make sense for those attacks to ignore DR. Why? It's in the name. "'Wraithstrike" implies "striking as a wraith", which is an incorporeal creature that in the strictest sense of the word couldn't do actual bodily harm to a person. The damage a wraith deals isn't the same thing as, say, a sword because there's no action of solid matter cutting into flesh. It doesn't make sense (at least to me) that a person being inherently more tough would prevent that sort of damage.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If I make a trip against someone with DR, that attack is not negated. If it were, then anyone with DR would effectively be immune to trip attacks, since you need to make a melee touch attack in order for the opposed Str vs. Str/Dex attempt to work. It would never get that far.

Thankfully they spell out that DR does not negate touch attacks. And since DR does not negate touch attacks, you can resolve the touch attack as normal, then you can proceed with the opposed Str vs. Dex/Str roll to see if your opponent falls prone.

 

[hong]

If I make a trip against someone with DR, that attack is not negated. If it were, then anyone with DR would effectively be immune to trip attacks, since you need to make a melee touch attack in order for the opposed Str vs. Str/Dex attempt to work. It would never get that far.

Tripping is irrelevant, since no damage is dealt at any point. The verbiage talks about what happens if DR negates damage, and if there's no damage in the first place, then there's nothing to negate....

 

[Nifft]

it would make sense for those attacks to ignore DR. Why? It's in the name. "'Wraithstrike" implies "striking as a wraith"

So, would Fell Shot, Unavoidable Strike, or Deep Impact likewise ignore DR? They use the exact same mechanism, but they don't have "wraith" in their name.

(Also, they're in the SRD, so they significantly pre-date wraithstrike.)

-- N

 

[RainOfSteel]

I voted other because I think the wording of the existing rules is terrible.

The following is strictly my opinion.

-----------------------------------------

1) I think the RAW's intent is to have the damage from touch attacks ignore damage resistance.

2) I do not think that the RAW actually says this. I think the RAW uses the wrong game terms in the wrong way in the wrong place in this case.

3) I think writers with less than a total understanding of the rules have unadvisedly expanded the game into areas such as Wraithstrike (a broken piece of garbage if there ever was one), though this is a separate matter from the poor wording of the core rules.

-----------------------------------------

What does the RAW actually say?

Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks [...]

An absolutely true, and absolutely useless, statement.

Of course DR doesn't negate touch attacks, it negates no attacks of any kind, never has, never will. DR reduces damage, it does not negate attacks.

The wording should say that damage from touch attacks ignores damage resistance, just like it does a few lines down for spells (etc.).

 

[Nifft]

A "penalty to attacks" and a "bonus to attacks" can be shown by usage to have the meaning of "penalty to attack rolls" and "bonus to attack rolls".

Hyp,

When you have a chance, I'm still very interested in knowing what "can be shown by usage" means.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp,

When you have a chance, I'm still very interested in knowing what "can be shown by usage" means.

In much the same way that the phrase "your next action" is sometimes used in such a fashion as to mean "your next turn in the initiative order", even if you take a move, standard, free, swift, or immediate action before that event occurs... the usage has shown a non-literal definition of the phrase to exist.

There are places where a single penalty is described in one section as a 'penalty to attacks' and in another as a 'penalty to attack rolls', for example - secondary natural weapons are one such. So we know from how the phrase is used that 'penalty to attacks' refers to the attack roll, not to both attack and damage rolls.

The same doesn't hold for 'resolve your melee attacks as melee touch attacks'. Until it no longer makes a difference whether the attack is a melee attack or a melee touch attack, treat it as the latter, because while that distinction remains pertinent, the attack can't have been resolved...

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

There are places where a penalty is described in one section as a 'penalty to attacks' and in another as a 'penalty to attack rolls', for example - secondary natural weapons are one such. So we know from how the phrase is used that 'penalty to attacks' refers to the attack roll, not to both attack and damage rolls.

So, examples of identically worded rules are good enough?

Please direct your attention here, then, where it spells out what "resolve as a touch attack" actually means: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#irresistibleBlows

Thanks, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, examples of identically worded rules are good enough?

Do you consider that the Irresistible Blows ability allows the deity's attacks to ignore shield bonuses?

-Hyp.