Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cabral" data-source="post: 3310975" data-attributes="member: 1193">Generally, disagreeing with Hypersmurf on rules interpretations is a bad idea, but along with my vote for "No", here's my rationale:Context matters.Touch attacks are not always delivered along with a melee attack (such as inflict this being delivered with an unarmed strike). However, they can be.There are two opportunities for touch attacks to be addressed in Damage Reduction:Paragraph 1and Paragraph 12The fact that it's addressed in paragraph 12 rather 1, indicates to me (though not conclusively proves) that it was not intended for touch attacks to get a sweeping immunity to DR. The use of "negate" rather "reduce" or some synonim futher supports this view. IMO, it's saying that if your unarmed strike does not surpass DR, your spell is not negated. If the text was not present, perhaps we would hear questions about how a touch attack is really an attack that deals no damage and thus DR makes you immune to touch attacks. Perhaps they got that in play testing and thus included the funky wording.Regardless, it says the DR does not negate touch attacks, not the creature takes full damage from touch attacks. I'm going to have to say ... ... I think Hyp's wrong ...  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>