Touch pierces DR?!

[Avigor]

From SRD: Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains.

It doesn't specify spell touch attacks. Does this mean that using any ability that converts an attack into a touch attack can technically pierce any DR, even /- or /epic? O_o

I know this would never work at a real table but still the theoretical RAW reading is ridiculous!

[Anxe]

That does appear to be the correct RAW of the rule. Huh.

Nice find! And as you said, I don't think any DM is going to allow that interpretation.

[KillingAScarab]

Nice find! And as you said, I don't think any DM is going to allow that interpretation.I would allow it, but I would also like everyone to meet my next campaign's new main antagonists. It's a combination ninja clan/wizard order named M.C. Hammer.

[Coretron03]

So Wraithstrike kicks even more ass then the spell would have you believe? 95% hit rate and passing damage reduction makes the spell even more powerful for gishes.

[Bronk]

From SRD: Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains.

It doesn't specify spell touch attacks. Does this mean that using any ability that converts an attack into a touch attack can technically pierce any DR, even /- or /epic? O_o

I know this would never work at a real table but still the theoretical RAW reading is ridiculous!

No, that's both how it works and how it's supposed to work.

Armor prevents you from being hit, while DR ameliorates some of the weapon damage if it does hit.

DR actually never works against any damage from any spell, touch or otherwise.

[Ashtagon]

No, that's both how it works and how it's supposed to work.

Armor prevents you from being hit, while DR ameliorates some of the weapon damage if it does hit.

DR actually never works against any damage from any spell, touch or otherwise.

DR totally works against spell damage, provided the spell inflicts a physical damage type. If it inflicts energy or force damage, DR is always ignored.

[Zombimode]

From SRD: Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains.

It doesn't specify spell touch attacks. Does this mean that using any ability that converts an attack into a touch attack can technically pierce any DR, even /- or /epic? O_o

I know this would never work at a real table but still the theoretical RAW reading is ridiculous!

If you try to argue RAW refer to what is actually written:


Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks

Do you notice what is missing? Damage. Damage Reduction does negate touch attacks, meaning that regardless of DR effects of touch attacks can still happen (you can be grappled for instance). It does not say "Damage Reduction does not reduce damage from touch attacks". If you want to add this in you are leaving RAW.

[weckar]

It's odd, though. Why WOULD one assume DR would negate non-damaging effects of touch attacks?

[peacenlove]

Rules Compendium clarifies that DR stops damage from touch attacks if they aren't spell based.


Damage reduction doesn’t reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation,ingestion, or contact.

Page 41

The clause for Touch attacks is missing.

[Gnaeus]

It's odd, though. Why WOULD one assume DR would negate non-damaging effects of touch attacks?

I would imagine it’s talking about the interaction of touch attacks with damaging attacks. Like if a monk with shocking grasp hits you, and the DR blocks the punch damage, it doesn’t block the touch spell. Or if I hit you with a bite attack with grab, the touch occurs even if the DR blocks the bite damage.

[Jormengand]

DR totally works against spell damage, provided the spell inflicts a physical damage type. If it inflicts energy or force damage, DR is always ignored.

"The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."

[Nifft]

From SRD: Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains.

It doesn't specify spell touch attacks. Does this mean that using any ability that converts an attack into a touch attack can technically pierce any DR, even /- or /epic? O_o

I know this would never work at a real table but still the theoretical RAW reading is ridiculous!

I think the RAI here is that monsters which have damaging touch attacks, like the Specter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/spectre.htm) or Wraith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wraith.htm), deal damage which ignores DR -- and their touch attacks inflict other effects, as well.

The RAW appears to be just as you said.

-- -- --

A house-rule to make RAW more harmonious with RAI:


Wraithstrike et al. do penetrate DR, just as god and RAW intended, but you attack just like a Wraith -- no ability score added to the dice, no Power Attack -- your only damage is dice.

That's still open to abuse via size and whatnot, of course, but at least that's a slightly different trick.

The [Psionic] touch-attack feats are only 1/round, so they can stay brutal.

[Lazymancer]

A creature that has damage reduction (DR) ignores some of the hit point damage from weapons, natural weapons, and unarmed attacks that don’t meet certain criteria. ...
Damage reduction doesn’t reduce the damage from energy attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.
According to Rules Compendium Wraithstrike wouldn't work, since it is still weapon-based.

[Mordaedil]

DR totally works against spell damage, provided the spell inflicts a physical damage type. If it inflicts energy or force damage, DR is always ignored.

Actually, this is the vital difference between Damage Reduction and Damage Resistance.

[Ashtagon]

Actually, this is the vital difference between Damage Reduction and Damage Resistance.

Damage reduction is a thing. Energy resistance is a thing. Damage resistance is not a thing in core D&D.

tbh, I think the two terms are confusing, and were destined to cause confusion. The game mechanics should have been unified in some way.

[weckar]

Reduction is defined by what penetrates it, resistance by what doesn't. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[Mordaedil]

Damage reduction is a thing. Energy resistance is a thing. Damage resistance is not a thing in core D&D.

tbh, I think the two terms are confusing, and were destined to cause confusion. The game mechanics should have been unified in some way.

Whoops, right. Doesn't help that I was inaugurated to D&D vis-à-vis Neverwinter Nights, which called Energy Resistance, Damage Resistance and even made belts that had resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing, leading to further confusion.

It's been hard to discard that reference when discussing D&D, just glad you guys are patient with my mistakes.