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

[Nifft]

The problem is that the original wording for damage reduction did not contemplate touch attacks that themselves did damage.

Well, Deep Impact has been in the SRD for a while... they've got no excuse for leaving such an easily misquoted sentence in the midst of such a reasonable paragraph.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Terraism]

Well, Deep Impact has been in the SRD for a while... they've got no excuse for leaving such an easily misquoted sentence in the midst of such a reasonable paragraph.

Cheers, -- N

Other than "they update the SRD how often?" I mean, in all fairness, Nifft, it's not like it gets errata'd that often.

(For what it's worth, I play it like EyeOfTheMountain.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

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).

How about the Wraith from the core rules?

Incorporeal touch +5 melee (1d4 plus 1d6 Constitution drain)

How is the 1d4 damage affected by DR 5/Adamantine, for example?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

How is the 1d4 damage affected by DR 5/Adamantine, for example?

Damage would be ignored; attack would not be negated; roll your Fort save vs. Con drain.

Know what'd be funny to watch? A fight between a wraith and a flesh golem.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Damage would be ignored; attack would not be negated; roll your Fort save vs. Con drain.

The Con drain is not energy damage or energy drain, and the damage is (in this case) completely negated by the damage reduction (since 1d4 certainly won't exceed 5)... by what criterion are you determining that the Con drain is not a "special effect that accompanies the attack"?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

by what criterion are you determining that the Con drain is not a "special effect that accompanies the attack"?

What makes you think I'm determining that?

My chain of reasoning seemed fairly obvious: damage is ignored; attack is not negated; roll your Fort save.

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

The wraith's con drain is a su ability. Su abilities are not negated by DR.

DR:

Damage Reduction (Ex or Su): A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

Wraith:

Constitution Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a wraith’s incorporeal touch attack must succeed on a DC 14 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Constitution drain. The save DC is Charisma-based. On each such successful attack, the wraith gains 5 temporary hit points.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The wraith's con drain is a su ability. Su abilities are not negated by DR.

Not negated by virtue of being extraordinary, but can it be negated by virtue of being a special effect accompanying an attack?

For example, we know that:
"Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary."

If a creature had a supernatural injury-type poison, and the damage from the attack were reduced to zero, would the poison take effect (because it's supernatural), or not take effect (because it's a special effect accompanying the attack - specifically, injury-type poison)?

-Hyp.

 

[Shayuri]

I think it's fair to assume that 'damage reduction' reduces damage, and nothing else. Further, that 'damage' refers to hit point damage, not ability damage or similar. It doesn't affect rolls to hit, touch or otherwise. It explicitly doesn't reduce hit point damage from magical sources.

Thus a weapon modified, via feat, spell, power, or whatever, to strike as a touch attack would still do hit point damage as it usually would on a successful hit. That damage would, logically, still be subject to DR as it normally would. Making it a touch attack only changes what AC modifiers apply to it. DR has nothing to do with AC.

I realize other arguments can be made quite validly from RAW, but this interpretation seems to me to be the -spirit- of the rules, if not exactly clearly written down.

Edit - In the question of the wraith, it seems clear that an incorporeal attack would not be subject to the 'penetrating attack' clause of DR, but I agree it should be made explicit.

 

[irdeggman]

Not negated by virtue of being extraordinary, but can it be negated by virtue of being a special effect accompanying an attack?

For example, we know that:
"Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary."

If a creature had a supernatural injury-type poison, and the damage from the attack were reduced to zero, would the poison take effect (because it's supernatural), or not take effect (because it's a special effect accompanying the attack - specifically, injury-type poison)?

-Hyp.

Interesting question. It would appear from a strict reading of the rules that a supernatural ability is not negated by DR. (MM is precendent here since it is a monster ability).

The DMG seems to be going on "effects" and not the cause of them. How about the poison spell? It is delivered via melee touch attack and SR applies?

We know that spells are specifically not negated by DR but only SR.

For teh wraith you could say that to execute the con damage a successful touch attack is necessary.

DR doesn't negate that part, only the part that is equivalent to a weapon-like attack, unless I have read it all wrong.

The Con damage here is much more akin to the result of a touch spell, except of course that SR doesn't work on Su either.

The physical damage (i.e., hit point) part of the touch attack can be considered something completely different and still fall within all of the rules.

Also is Con drain considered "damage"? There is a disticntion in the text on that too:

Ability Score Loss (Su): Some attacks reduce the opponent’s score in one or more abilities. This loss can be temporary (ability damage) or permanent (ability drain).

Ability Damage: This attack damages an opponent’s ability score. The creature’s descriptive text gives the ability and the amount of damage. If an attack that causes ability damage scores a critical hit, it deals twice the indicated amount of damage (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice). Ability damage returns at the rate of 1 point per day for each affected ability.

Ability Drain: This effect permanently reduces a living opponent’s ability score when the creature hits with a melee attack. The creature’s descriptive text gives the ability and the amount drained. If an attack that causes ability drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the indicated amount (if the damage is expressed as a die range, roll two dice). Unless otherwise specified in the creature’s description, a draining creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) whenever it drains an ability score no matter how many points it drains. Temporary hit points gained in this fashion last for a maximum of 1 hour.

Some ability drain attacks allow a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). If no saving throw is mentioned, none is allowed.