Touch Attacks and DR

[Drowbane]

As a partial recant of my previous position...

I suppose the Master Thrower could be hitting in such a way as to avoid the DR completely. Consider the scene from Ninja Scroll, when Jubei nails (tries to remember the name...?) um... the Rock-devil-guy in the Eye with a well thrown shuriken.

Or the moment in the Hobbit when that archer guy nails Smogg in the soft-scale with his Black Arrow.

Or that scene in Record of Lodoss War when Woodchuck nails a Dragon in the eye with his dagger.

Or...

Perhaps this *was* the intent of the Master Thrower's ability.

 

[Coredump]

Or the moment in the Hobbit when that archer guy nails Smogg in the soft-scale with his Black Arrow.

Or that scene in Record of Lodoss War when Woodchuck nails a Dragon in the eye with his dagger.

Or...

Perhaps this *was* the intent of the Master Thrower's ability.

Thats not passing DR, that is passing Nat Armour. (which MT ability does do.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thats not passing DR, that is passing Nat Armour. (which MT ability does do.)

It does it by making the attack a touch attack... and therefore not negated by DR.

If I have a magical weapon:

Biter: This +1 evil-outsiderbane longsword glows with a blue light when fiends are within 60 feet. Attacks made with this longsword are not negated by the DR of evil outsiders.

... would one assume that a demon's DR 10/good applies or not?

-Hyp.

 

[apesamongus]

Quite simply, House Rule that Master THrowers touch-attack throw BS does not negate DR... as it makes no sense. Its just rediculous. An obvious Loophole.

If we were meant to go 100% by RAW, we wouldn't need DMs.

It makes sense to me. The ability acts as a touch attack - in other words, it ignores armor, shield and natural armor bonuses. Since it's not a supernatural ability, the easiest explanation for this is that is strikes a particularly vulnerable and unprotected spot. Well, it makes sense that if you can precisely hit a spot not protected by natural armor, you'd also be able to hit a spiot not protected by DR. It's a case of an ability that gets more specific than the abstraction of the system normally allows, but nothing is unreasonable about having that ability ignore DR.

 

[moritheil]

Why bother calling them out specifically?

-Hyp.

Hyp, you are the man - err, smurf - but I have to say that this particular line of thought isn't really compelling. There are many examples (that I regrettably don't recall the specifics of, as I've been away from the boards for a month or two) of completely redundant statements being made due to poor writing that seemed to imply things that weren't true. It's how the rules are.

 

[Xiam]

Well, it makes sense that if you can precisely hit a spot not protected by natural armor, you'd also be able to hit a spiot not protected by DR.

This cannot be the correct definition of damage reduction. For a creature with DR 5/good, why should there be a spot which could be hit with a good-alligned blade but not with all other weapons? This does not make any sense to me. DR is no kind of armor, which could be bypassed. It's an ability, which allows a creature to reduce / ignore a certain ammount of "normal" damage, because "normal" damage does not harm it that much from whatever reason. A creature with DR 5/good has e.g. a thick skin which reduces the effectiveness af any weapon except good alligned ones. There is no weak spot, but actually it has a vulnerability to good alligned weapons, so this kind of weapon deals normal damage to it. That's what I imagine how DR works. There is no reason, why damage from a touch attack should bypass a DR uneffected.
Maybe there is a loophole in the rules with the Master Thrower's ability because the designer of the MT has got another imagination of DR.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no reason, why damage from a touch attack should bypass a DR uneffected.

You mean apart from the line under DR that says...

... ah, forget it

-Hyp.

 

[Xiam]

Okay, I'm no native English speaker, but I think there is a difference in the words negate and affect. DR does not negate touch attacks does not mean it does not affect them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Okay, I'm no native English speaker, but I think there is a difference in the words negate and affect. DR does not negate touch attacks does not mean it does not affect it.

So how would you adjudicate the weapon I described above?

-Hyp.

 

[Xiam]

I don't know this weapon. Does it have other abilities apart from dealing weapon-damage? If that's the case, I think these abilities are not affected by the DR. "DR does not negate" means it does not make a hit via touch attack totally ineffective but it reduces the damage dealt with this weapon (except of the damage stated with the DR, of course )