Touch Attacks and DR

[Scion]

Does the DM think that the intent of Master Thrower is to bypass DR?

Since the throw does not get to add str bonus to the damage then it very well may be that the designer intended it to work as such

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see a wraith's attack, see that it is typeless, and conclude the TYPE of damage is "touch" damage, which is not negated. Then I see Weapon Thrower, and see that the type is the weapon type, such as piercing... which is not on the list of things not negated by DR.

As you say, the wraith's attack is typeless. 'Touch' is not a type of damage, it's a type of attack... and that type is shared by the wraith's attack, and the Master Thrower's attack.

The line about touch attacks doesn't reference the type of the damage at all; that's irrelevant. It merely talks about touch attacks... which describes both the wraith's attack, and the Master Thrower's attack.

Does the DM think that the intent of Master Thrower is to bypass DR?

As a DM, I'd have no problem with it. It's a touch attack, so it's not negated by DR

-Hyp.

 

[Kilroy]

Can a master thrower with a + strength, throwing shuriken, only hurt someone wearing an adamantine breastplate if he doesn't try to avoid the breastplate? That seems stupid. I agree with Hypersmurf.

I also like the image of a halfling master rock thrower hitting a pit fiend in places that Eric's grandmother doesn't know about.

 

[Coredump]

If a wraith deals 1d4 damage that bypasses DR by virtue of its attack being a touch attack, then a Master Thrower or psionic character can do the same with his own touch attacks.

Agreed. But I see no reason to assume the wraith bypasses DR by virtue of being a touch attack. Can you show anyplace that demoonstrates that it does

If a Master Thrower or psionic character cannot, then neither can a wraith.

But be a little careful. The wraith may be able to bypass DR, but not just because it is a touch attack.

 

[Coredump]

Can a master thrower with a + strength, throwing shuriken, only hurt someone wearing an adamantine breastplate if he doesn't try to avoid the breastplate? That seems stupid. I agree with Hypersmurf.

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.

I also like the image of a halfling master rock thrower hitting a pit fiend in places that Eric's grandmother doesn't know about.

And you still can, because it would bypass his +23 natural armour that way.

Or does it make more sense to assume that the Pit fiend has DR, except in 'certain areas'?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can you show anyplace that demoonstrates that it does?

You're going to insist on "Apart from 'Touch attacks are not negated by DR'", aren't you?

But be a little careful. The wraith may be able to bypass DR, but not just because it is a touch attack.

Not as the wraith is written in the MM. The only thing that sets his 1d4 attack apart from a wolf's bite attack, for example, is that it's a touch attack.

If someone rules that the 1d4 is subject to DR, I don't mind them ruling that the Master Thrower's touch attack is as well. But if they rule that the 1d4 bypasses DR, then consistency demands that the Master Thrower also bypasses it.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

If the original poster is still reading, my ruling would be "No, the master thrower ability still needs to deal with damage resistance."

My reading is that that clause in the rules is meant to prevent argumentation along the lines of "your touch attack does no damage, so with my DR your inflict light wounds spell effect can't effect me". That is, DR does not automatically "negate" touch attacks just by virtue of there being no damage for the touching itself.

 

[Storm Raven]

You're going to insist on "Apart from 'Touch attacks are not negated by DR'", aren't you?

Sure, touch attacks are not negated by DR. The line you have quoted over and over again doesn't say anything about damage inflicted as a result of touch attacks, and that's the achilles heel of your argument.

 

[werk]

To sum up my stance (we're pretty far down the rat hole at this point):

Touch attacks are not affected by DR with regard to 'success' of the attack. This is important for magical effects, like wraith Con drain or spells, and for special attacks, like trip or grapple.

Touch attacks that deal damage as a result of the attack itself ARE subject to DR, like stunning fist or injury poison.


If the only reason you think that the above is incorrect is because the wraith's 1d4 damage from his touch attack, then I would look at the wraith instead of touch attack mechanics.

I don't think that a touch attack with a regular weapon should be able to circumvent DR/Epic. It smells like an exploit to me.

 

[Arnwyn]

Erk. This is weird. Hypersmurf is my sage,

Argh. I can't believe I'm disagreeing with Hypersmurf on a rules question! This is wrong!

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