Touch Attacks and DR

[irdeggman]

Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly but it seems to me that

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

When combined with the "examples listed beneath it- that natural weapons' types are along the lines of Bite/claw or talon/gore etc.

Other than the fact that it is prefaced with "these are the most common" that the types are not S/P/B (like weapons) but rather more along the lines of bite or gore with the addition (when applicable) of the type of damage they do (e.g, S/P/B).

The wording is poor but the intent seems to be that natural weapons are classified in broader terms than are standard weapons.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yup - as written, touch attacks are not negated by DR.

You could always house-rule it for silliness if it bothers you.

And really, in the context of the original question, who wouldn't?

(That's rhetorical, BTW - I don't really care if you wouldn't. And I'm sure there's at least one wacko out there like that... but then, I personally only feel scorn and pity for him and his players. There's my value judgment of the day.)

 

[werk]

So if I make a normal attack with a longsword, dealing 3 points of damage against DR 5/-, you'd say the attack wasn't negated, just the damage, right?

So why mention touch attacks at all if they work exactly like normal attacks?

-Hyp.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but my answer is touch AC.

edit: good, someone caught it

 

[werk]

I would love to know where you found this data as I have been looking for it for awhile for a different problem

A wraith's Con drain is a supernatural ability.

Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and...

 

[Scion]

A wraith's Con drain is a supernatural ability.

Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and...

Yes, yes it is.

Of course it has nothing to do with my comment.

In other news water is wet, the sun is hot!

So, does this mean that you dont have any info about my actual question either?

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm afraid it's pretty unambiguous.

From the DMG, under Damage Reduction:

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.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

DR does not negate touch attacks.

It doesn't negate touch attacks, because DR has nothing to do with whether an attack hits or not, but it may reduce the damage from touch attacks. Most touch attacks deliver damage (such as magical attacks) which would not be subject to DR. Or don't deal damage in the traditional sense (such as grapples, trips or disarms), which DR would not affect. However, if you had a touch attack that inflicted normal damage (such as some sort of weapon that inflicted damage via a touch attack) that would be subject to DR.

 

[werk]

Yes, yes it is.

Of course it has nothing to do with my comment.

In other news water is wet, the sun is hot!

So, does this mean that you dont have any info about my actual question either?

I don't know what your problem is, but I don't appreciate it.

Hyp said:
Wraith
Medium Undead (Incorporeal)
Attack: Incorporeal touch +5 melee (1d4 plus 1d6 Constitution drain)

Juhlae said:
And that damage, which is magical undead, negative energy, chill of the grave, whatever, isn't affected by DR. Because it's magical.

You said:
(quote juhlae) Because it's magical.(/quote)
I would love to know where you found this data as I have been looking for it for awhile for a different problem

OK, what's your question? I seem to have missed it.

 

[Scion]

You seemed to have missed the other comments, along with the bolding.

The entry in the SRD says that the con damage is (su), that is easy enough. The other part of the damage though is much more complicated.

 

[werk]

You seemed to have missed the other comments, along with the bolding.

The entry in the SRD says that the con damage is (su), that is easy enough. The other part of the damage though is much more complicated.

Wouldn't it have been much nicer to have said this instead of insulting people?

Think productive, not disruptive.

Edit: I would think that the wraith's 1d4 from his touch attack is derived from the damage type of the base creature transformed into the incorporeal undead, like ghost.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's the same wording they used in describing DR!

Which also does not make any sense.