Touch Attacks and DR

[Scion]

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

Think productive, not disruptive.

Given your comments to me in the past I figured you were just being as insulting as possible as quickly as possible.

Hence I responded with a joke to what I felt was your own joke. Sorry you missed it.


Again however, the question is about the damage of the attack, not the supernatural addition. That was what that whole portion of conversation was about. I am sorry that you didnt read all of it thoroughly enough to catch it. Next time perhaps.

As for constructive, please try to be on topic, that would be constructive and not disruptive also in general.

 

[werk]

Given your comments to me in the past I figured you were just being as insulting as possible as quickly as possible.

Hence I responded with a joke to what I felt was your own joke. Sorry you missed it.


Again however, the question is about the damage of the attack, not the supernatural addition. That was what that whole portion of conversation was about. I am sorry that you didnt read all of it thoroughly enough to catch it. Next time perhaps.

As for constructive, please try to be on topic, that would be constructive and not disruptive also in general.

If I've insulted in the past, I do apologize. You are not on my ignore list, so I value your input (even if it chafes).

I'm sorry that I missed the point that you were trying to make. I thought your were asking a different question, and thought I was being helpful (which is always my intent). I have editting my last post in this thread to include what I think the wraith's 1d4 damage comes from.

I thought that I was on topic... Defending that the wraith's Con drain would make it through the touch attack on creatures with DR. Obviously a misunderstanding.

There you have it.

 

[Scion]

sorry I was a bit gruff, I really did think you were either joking or taking pot shots.

internet sucks sometimes

 

[werk]

sorry I was a bit gruff, I really did think you were either joking or taking pot shots.

internet sucks sometimes

No worries!

This thread has shaken me to the core...I disagree with Hyp!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which also does not make any sense.

But it's all we've got to work from

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.

So by "DR does not negate touch attacks", you suggest what it means is "Touch attacks are treated exactly the same as what we've already described as the general rule"?

Let's say a monk uses the Deep Impact psionic feat to resolve his Stunning Fist attack with his Ki Focus kama coated in injury-type poision as a touch attack. He rolls 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-. Does he deal damage? Does his Stunning Fist take effect? Does his injury-type poison take effect? Or is his touch attack negated by DR?

Let's say a creature with Improved Grab makes a normal melee attack that hits, and deals 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-. Does he get to initiate the grapple per Improved Grab, even though his hit deals no damage?

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

Let's say a monk uses the Deep Impact psionic feat to resolve his Stunning Fist attack with his Ki Focus kama coated in injury-type poision as a touch attack. He rolls 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-.

Does he deal damage?

No

Does his Stunning Fist take effect?

yes, it is SU, and DR doesn't stop it (like a wraith's Con drain)

edit: whoops, that's wrong...'tis a feat, not SU. It does not take effect.

Does his injury-type poison take effect?

No, he didn't scratch him.

Or is his touch attack negated by DR?

The damage was negated.

Let's say a creature with Improved Grab makes a normal melee attack that hits, and deals 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-. Does he get to initiate the grapple per Improved Grab, even though his hit deals no damage?

Yes, Improved grab says the target must be 'hit' not damaged.

 

[Storm Raven]

So by "DR does not negate touch attacks", you suggest what it means is "Touch attacks are treated exactly the same as what we've already described as the general rule"?

In general yes. I think that the line was intended to clarify that, for example, if you were subject to a trip attack, having DR would not somehow negate the touch attack needed to initiate it. The line you quote here is merely a clarification that touch attacks are not subject to some odd rule that makes them ineffective against creatures with DR, but it doesn't add to the effectiveness of touch attacks against such creatures.

The basic rule is that DR doesn't affect attacks. DR affects damage. This is pretty simple. Saying "DR negates an attack" or "doesn't negate an attack" is nonsense, since DR has nothing to do with attacks, only damage.

Let's say a monk uses the Deep Impact psionic feat to resolve his Stunning Fist attack with his Ki Focus kama coated in injury-type poision as a touch attack. He rolls 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-. Does he deal damage? Does his Stunning Fist take effect? Does his injury-type poison take effect? Or is his touch attack negated by DR?

I would need to know what the Deep Impact psionic feat did before I could offer an opinion (I don't use the psionic rules, so I don't know how they function).

Let's say a creature with Improved Grab makes a normal melee attack that hits, and deals 3 damage against a creature with DR 5/-. Does he get to initiate the grapple per Improved Grab, even though his hit deals no damage?

The attack is not negated by DR, he still hit. His damage was negated by DR.

 

[Scion]

seems like it is about time to restate the same quote again, although slightly expanded

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. 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.

The whole thing uses the 'negates' terminology.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In general yes. I think that the line was intended to clarify that, for example, if you were subject to a trip attack, having DR would not somehow negate the touch attack needed to initiate it. The line you quote here is merely a clarification that touch attacks are not subject to some odd rule that makes them ineffective against creatures with DR, but it doesn't add to the effectiveness of touch attacks against such creatures.

A clarification that touch attacks are not subject to some odd rule that doesn't exist anywhere?

Saying "DR negates an attack" or "doesn't negate an attack" is nonsense, since DR has nothing to do with attacks, only damage.

Nevertheless, the line is there, so it must mean something...

I would need to know what the Deep Impact psionic feat did before I could offer an opinion (I don't use the psionic rules, so I don't know how they function).

Effectively, 'resolve one melee attack as a melee touch attack'.

The attack is not negated by DR, he still hit. His damage was negated by DR.

Right... so saying 'Touch attacks aren't negated means things like grapples sill happen' is still saying 'touch attacks work just like other attacks, but we felt a need to say it specially'.

I'm unconvinced

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

A clarification that touch attacks are not subject to some odd rule that doesn't exist anywhere?

It's a clarification of something. Clarifications reiterate stuff that has been said elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the line is there, so it must mean something...

Yes, it clarifies that touch attacks still work on creatures with DR. It doesn't, however, say that touch attacks bypass DR.

Effectively, 'resolve one melee attack as a melee touch attack'.

Then the damage is negated, the stunning fist attack does not take effect, since you have to deal damage for it to work, and the poison does not take effect.

Right... so saying 'Touch attacks aren't negated means things like grapples sill happen' is still saying 'touch attacks work just like other attacks, but we felt a need to say it specially'.

Yes, that is why I said it was a clarification. It repeats a general rule and applies it specifically. That's what clarifications do.