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

[Wolf72]

DR doesn't negate touch attacks. DR still applies to any weapon damage delivered through a touch attack, though.

I mean, DR doesn't negate melee attacks, either...

-Stuart

sooo ... If I hit a critter with DR 10/Magic, with a dagger that has shocking grasp (like a wizard using Shocking grasp through the weapon attack) and only do 3 points of dmg with the dagger my spell wouldn't go off?

I'd think that the hit would let the spell do dmg but the dagger did not

 

[Nifft]

(like a wizard using Shocking grasp through the weapon attack)

Wait, what?

-- N

 

[Shayuri]

A spell Storing weapon, perhaps. Or a duskblade channeling. *shrug*

Could happen.

 

[Darklone]

Houserule IMC no 43: No touch attacks that deliver normal weapon damage.

Aaaah, life is sooo calm, quiet and comfy to me now.

 

[Nifft]

A spell Storing weapon, perhaps. Or a duskblade channeling. *shrug*

Could happen.

Not so much, no.

Spell Storing

A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.

(Don't recall the Duskblade mechanics. But if you think they can do it, please post how.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Shayuri]

whoops, my bad on Spell Storing then. Sorry bout that.

The Duskblade ability to channel touch spells is contingent on "a successful melee attack." Basically, they make a normal (nontouch) melee attack, and if it's successful the spell effect is resolved as if it had hit with the usual melee touch.

What constitutes a successful melee attack has some wiggle room, I suppose. I interpreted it as an attack roll that beat the opposing AC...and that whether or not the weapon did damage through DR wasn't relevant. It doesn't say specifically the attack has to do damage. On the other hand, you could make an argument that an attack that doesn't do damage isn't successful.

So there we go. Nothing resolved, onward into the infinite night.

 

[eamon]

whoops, my bad on Spell Storing then. Sorry bout that.

The Duskblade ability to channel touch spells is contingent on "a successful melee attack." Basically, they make a normal (nontouch) melee attack, and if it's successful the spell effect is resolved as if it had hit with the usual melee touch.

What constitutes a successful melee attack has some wiggle room, I suppose. I interpreted it as an attack roll that beat the opposing AC...and that whether or not the weapon did damage through DR wasn't relevant. It doesn't say specifically the attack has to do damage. On the other hand, you could make an argument that an attack that doesn't do damage isn't successful.

So there we go. Nothing resolved, onward into the infinite night.

The MM definition of Damage reduction doesn't refer to touch attacks at all. In the DMG, the re is a sentence stating "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." If you read the entire section however, it's clearly more a descriptive kind of thing thing trying to give you a feel for what damage reduction means. It's of note that the the DMG (and SRD) only says "most" special effects. The special effects mentioned have one thing in common; in their description, it always explicitely mentions the fact that you need to deal damage to be considered successful.

According to the DMG, most abilities have that limitation. Some do not, and if they don't say, they don't have the limitation. Therefore, I think your interpretation is correct. A Duskblade can channel his "touch" spells on a "successful melee attack", where successful simply means that the d20 roll is successful.

Incidentally, since the touch attack section is in the "descriptive" DMG section and not the "definitive MM" section, I'd say that touch attack damage, if it's normal weapon damage, is effected by damage reduction. It so happens that this is only rarely the case (that a touch attack deals normal damage), but wraithstrike should. Clearly, it's not the intent of wraithstrike to bypass all damage reduction - if such a powerful yet non-obvious ability were intended, they'd come out and say so in the text.