am i reading this right?

[death390]

so i was looking over Damage reduction again looking for a way to bypass it for a ranged build.

"A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

The entry indicates the amount of damage ignored (usually 5 to 15 points) and the type of weapon that negates the ability.

Some monsters are vulnerable to piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage (Ex).

Some monsters are vulnerable to certain materials, such as alchemical silver (Su), adamantine (Ex), or cold-forged iron (Su). Attacks from weapons that are not made of the correct material have their damage reduced, even if the weapon has an enhancement bonus.

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons (Su). Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons; that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Some monsters are vulnerable to chaotic-, evil-, good-, or lawful-aligned weapons (Su). When a cleric casts align weapon, affected weapons might gain one or more of these properties, and certain magic weapons have these properties as well. A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature. Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).

When a damage reduction entry has a dash (–) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction (Ex).

A few creatures are harmed by more than one kind of weapon. A weapon of either type overcomes this damage reduction.

A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction. A weapon must be both types to overcome this damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction.

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.

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

If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation. "



so by this reading TOUCH ATTACKS completely bypass DR. that means the 2nd level spell wraithstrike (which is easy enought get/make wands of) is a way to 100% bypass DR for melee, as well as the psionic feats: deep impact (melee weapons), unavoidable strike (natural/ unarmed), and FELL SHOT (ranged) all of which say that you resolve your Attack as a touch attack. this is extreemly useful at all levels (well after BaB +5) for a ranged build since DR is the main problem. the trick would be to build for single attack damage (or find a full attack touch attack) mind you that you can use a feat to psionic focus as move action so similar to fire/load a crossbow.

but before i go down to rabbit hole am i reading this right?

[Segev]

Damage reduction doesn't negate touch attacks. It still negates damage of the types it negates. What this means, however, is that your DR doesn't mean that you ignore the paralyzing touch of a ghoul or lich, even if you do ignore the damage from the attack. I think wraithstrike still fails to allow an inappropriate weapon to bypass DR, because it hasn't negated the touch attack...just the weapon damage.

[Falontani]

I believe by RAW you are correct, however by RAI and common sense you would be incorrect here. (RAI/Common Sense in the same way that human monks are proficient with unarmed strikes)

[Anthrowhale]

Another example is 'Weak Spot' from Master Thrower.

RAI is ambiguous to me. If Weak Spot represents throwing a dagger into a monster's eye, should damage reduction apply?

Segev's raw reading seems incorrect to me because DR 5/- negates a 1d4 dagger with that understanding, explicitly counter to the RAW.

[Deophaun]

Segev's raw reading seems incorrect to me because DR 5/- negates a 1d4 dagger with that understanding, explicitly counter to the RAW.
RAW specifically limits itself to the "damage from an attack." It does not say it negates the attack. Your attack with the 1d4 dagger would happen. You could still trigger things that key off a hit. But the damage itself is negated. It's the same with the touch attack. The damage can be negated, but the attack itself and everything else that rides on it still counts.

So no, definitely not explicitly. Your conclusion can certainly be inferred from it, but that's only one interpretation.

[Uncle Pine]

Damage reduction doesn't negate a touch attack made with wraithstrike even if it happens to reduce the damage dealt to 0. For example, if you critted with wraithstrike while using the Blood in the Water stance you'd still get +1 to-hit and damage even if your critical hit dealt 0 damage. By landing additional crits against that same creature you'd eventually accrue enough bonuses to start dealing damage to it, which would not happen if DR negated those attacks to begin with.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wraithstrike:
While this spell is in effect, your melee
attacks are resolved as melee touch attacks
rather than normal melee attacks.

Fell Shot:
You can resolve your ranged attack as a ranged touch attack.

Neither of those actually converts your attack into a touch attack, they just allow you to resolve your attack roll as though it were a touch attack.

[Remuko]

Wraithstrike:
While this spell is in effect, your melee
attacks are resolved as melee touch attacks
rather than normal melee attacks.

Fell Shot:
You can resolve your ranged attack as a ranged touch attack.

Neither of those actually converts your attack into a touch attack, they just allow you to resolve your attack roll as though it were a touch attack.

I'd argue that without further specifications "as [a] touch attack" would mean 100% as a touch attack with all the bells and whistles attached. I see no reason that a distinction should be made. The text doesn't lend itself toward that interpretation either, imo.

[Anthrowhale]

RAW specifically limits itself to the "damage from an attack." It does not say it negates the attack.

Reading
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks as still reducing damage seems like a badly contorted interpretation to me. Maybe "negate" could be interpreted as different from reduction (possibly to zero) in this context, but that's a real stretcher.

This reminds me of interpreting Initiate of Mystra spells as suppressed in an AMF since when
your spell functions normally in an AMF they are suppressed. I've been there at times, but it just seems contorted and contrived on reflection.

Incidentally, Rapier of Puncturing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#rapierofPuncturing) is another source of touch attacks.

[Deophaun]

Reading as still reducing damage seems like a badly contorted interpretation to me. Maybe "negate" could be interpreted as different from reduction (possibly to zero) in this context, but that's a real stretcher.
I am not saying you're wrong. I am saying that it is not explicit. I find your interpretation valid, but I also find Segev's valid (and personally that's how I've treated it).

[Mordaedil]

I believe by RAW you are correct, however by RAI and common sense you would be incorrect here. (RAI/Common Sense in the same way that human monks are proficient with unarmed strikes)

Wait. Does this mean druids and wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes? Or does it fall under the natural weapons rule in that every creature is proficient in their natural weapons?

[Segev]

Wait. Does this mean druids and wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes? Or does it fall under the natural weapons rule in that every creature is proficient in their natural weapons?

Touch spells are not "unarmed strikes." I know that seems a finicky thing, but it's important. Powers that let you "make a touch attack" don't require proficiency. You're literally just reaching out to touch somebody. Which would fall under the 'natural weapons' clause, if it falls anywhere, since we all know how to reach out and touch someone even if we wouldn't know the first thing about making it do damage if the touch weren't imbued with a magical effect.

[Mordaedil]

Touch spells are not "unarmed strikes." I know that seems a finicky thing, but it's important. Powers that let you "make a touch attack" don't require proficiency. You're literally just reaching out to touch somebody. Which would fall under the 'natural weapons' clause, if it falls anywhere, since we all know how to reach out and touch someone even if we wouldn't know the first thing about making it do damage if the touch weren't imbued with a magical effect.

I know, I was just wondering if this meant my wizard going barefisted would not actually qualify him for wielding his fists for some strange reason.

Of course, a wizard resorting to fisticuffs is a soon to be dead wizard.

[SangoProduction]

I know, I was just wondering if this meant my wizard going barefisted would not actually qualify him for wielding his fists for some strange reason.

Of course, a wizard resorting to fisticuffs is a soon to be dead wizard.

Do I need to remind you???
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/e/e4/Muscle_wizard.jpg/300px-Muscle_wizard.jpg

[Mordaedil]

Do I need to remind you???
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/e/e4/Muscle_wizard.jpg/300px-Muscle_wizard.jpg

Classic. But that's a different class altogether. (You know, I kinda wish 3.0 psionics were a bit better designed so we could have strength-based casters).

[NineInchNall]

but before i go down to rabbit hole am i reading this right?

The text in question is actually a copy-and-paste from the 3.0 DMG. When it was written, there was no wraithstrike, no Fell Shot, no Deep Impact. The only touch attacks were those of spells and various class features, monster abilities, and magic items. Thus there was no need to make a distinction between chill touch and emerald razor.

That paragraph's first sentence is specifically about damage reduction negating special effects that accompany an attack. Subsequent sentences provide exceptions, given that damage reduction has completely negated the damage from an attack. The idea they're apparently addressing is, "my DR was greater than the wizard's touch attack damage (i.e., zero), so his chill touch should be negated." So they clearly are operating within the paradigm that damage reduction applies to the damage of a touch attack itself, since they felt the need to make it explicitly not apply to the special effects that touch attack carries in this context.

The meaning becomes even clearer when you note that it tells you that energy damage dealt along with an attack is not negated, when the very next section states that energy attacks ignore damage reduction. If energy attacks ignore damage reduction anyway, there should be no need to mention energy damage above, so why bother mentioning it? In order to show that special effects accompanying the attack that don't depend on an attack's actually dealing damage still trigger.

[death390]

anyone who is proficient in simple weapon are proficient in unarmed strike (still provokes AoO's unless have "improved" unarmed strike). while yes the DR bit was directly ripped from 3.0 for 3.5 that doesn't mean that it is not reasonable to use it. It is THE Damage reduction text. doesn't matter that it didn't change.

also there are 2 kinds of touch attacks: touch range attacks, and TOUCH attacks. the former simply has a range of touch (Aka melee), while the latter touch attack ignores armor bonuses. This latter one is what i am thinking would not be reduced by DR, because DR is generally either reistance to all but a single type of material or magic, or type of damage. generally when depicted in media the weapon has no effect glancing off or just does less damage than would be normally done. but if the attack is not resisted if you will then why would DR come into effect?

[NineInchNall]

anyone who is proficient in simple weapon are proficient in unarmed strike (still provokes AoO's unless have "improved" unarmed strike). while yes the DR bit was directly ripped from 3.0 for 3.5 that doesn't mean that it is not reasonable to use it. It is THE Damage reduction text. doesn't matter that it didn't change.

also there are 2 kinds of touch attacks: touch range attacks, and TOUCH attacks. the former simply has a range of touch (Aka melee), while the latter touch attack ignores armor bonuses. This latter one is what i am thinking would not be reduced by DR, because DR is generally either reistance to all but a single type of material or magic, or type of damage. generally when depicted in media the weapon has no effect glancing off or just does less damage than would be normally done. but if the attack is not resisted if you will then why would DR come into effect?

Of course it's valid to use it. You just have to keep in mind what the writers could possibly have understood "touch attack" to mean at the time of writing. The text you keep quoting is part of a paragraph. That paragraph is about damage reduction's effect on rider effects. The things it lists are meant as examples of rider effects. At the time of writing, the only thing a touch attack could do was deliver a special effect, specifically referred to in the text as a "special effect that accompanies an attack". You know, a rider effect.

Here's the thing, understood in its context, that line about damage reduction not negating touch attacks, energy damage along with an attack, or energy drains can only even make sense at all if damage reduction applies to the attack in the first place. The paragraph isn't about what things damage reduction doesn't effect. It's about which things work or don't after damage reduction has reduced an attack's net damage to zero. If DR doesn't reduce the net damage to zero, that paragraph doesn't even apply.

And as to the flavor/fluff argument, DR is specifically not just resistance to damage. It is also instantaneous healing.

[PacMan2247]

"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks" =/= "Damage reduction does not negate damage from touch attacks".

[Anthrowhale]

"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks" =/= "Damage reduction does not negate damage from touch attacks".

Let's look.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack... Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks... The first sentence sets up 'negate' as a shorthand for 'negate the damage'.

More generally, the second sentence says that


Damage reduction does not negate [the damage from]

touch attacks,
energy damage dealt along with an attack,
or energy drains.


where I've added [...] implied by the first sentence and broken out the elements to make the parse clearer.

I also see one argument upthread that the some of this is redundant with rules elsewhere so it can't possibly mean what it says. In my experience this is fallacious reasoning because the rules often repeat.

[NineInchNall]

where I've added [...] implied by the first sentence and broken out the elements to make the parse clearer.

I also see one argument upthread that the some of this is redundant with rules elsewhere so it can't possibly mean what it says. In my experience this is fallacious reasoning because the rules often repeat.

Good idea to break it out for better visualization.



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,
injury type disease. It does not negate
touch attacks,
energy damage dealt along with an attack (such as fire damage from a fire elemental),
energy drains.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.


(a-c) only apply when (1) obtains.

There is no need to add an implied [the damage from], as that is actually not implied. The argument is not that the words don't mean what they say. They just mean something different from what has been claimed.

[PacMan2247]

The first sentence sets up 'negate' as a shorthand for 'negate the damage'.

It does no such thing. The first sentence of the paragraph says what damage reduction does negate. The rest of the paragraph says what it doesn't negate.

[NineInchNall]

It does no such thing. The first sentence of the paragraph says what damage reduction does negate. The rest of the paragraph says what it doesn't negate.

Or rather, the rest of the paragraph says what it doesn't negate, given that it's already negated the damage from the attack.

[PacMan2247]

Or rather, the rest of the paragraph says what it doesn't negate, given that it's already negated the damage from the attack.

Indeed.

Perhaps it would be relevant here (since the feats and spells being tossed around are paths to touch attacks, rather than pertaining to damage reduction) to visit the definition of a touch attack (PHB 136):"When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally."

So in addition to the definition of damage reduction explicitly stating that it applies to damage from manufactured and natural weapons (whatever anyone may feel is implied by other parts of the definition), the definition of touch attack provides a concise list of what defenses don't apply and a statement that "all other modifiers" do apply.

EDIT: If you're really concerned about damage reduction on ranged attacks, the Force magic property is a +2 bonus. Not cheap, and it does leave you useless against anything immune to force damage (is that anything other than force dragons? Nothing comes to mind), but it explicitly negates all other damage reduction and carries most of the benefit of a Ghost Touch weapon (+1 bonus) to boot. Melee weapons don't have anything quite so comprehensive, but they also carry many more ways to increase damage in the first place.

[ericgrau]

The paragraph is about preventing a special effect such as injury poison by reducing damage to 0. It does not however negate touch attacks in this way because touch attacks don't require damage to trigger them and are not "a special effect that accompanies an attack". If you somehow deal physical damage via a touch attack, DR still won't negate the ability but it can still reduce the damage.

[death390]

Indeed.

Perhaps it would be relevant here (since the feats and spells being tossed around are paths to touch attacks, rather than pertaining to damage reduction) to visit the definition of a touch attack (PHB 136):"When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally."

So in addition to the definition of damage reduction explicitly stating that it applies to damage from manufactured and natural weapons (whatever anyone may feel is implied by other parts of the definition), the definition of touch attack provides a concise list of what defenses don't apply and a statement that "all other modifiers" do apply.

EDIT: If you're really concerned about damage reduction on ranged attacks, the Force magic property is a +2 bonus. Not cheap, and it does leave you useless against anything immune to force damage (is that anything other than force dragons? Nothing comes to mind), but it explicitly negates all other damage reduction and carries most of the benefit of a Ghost Touch weapon (+1 bonus) to boot. Melee weapons don't have anything quite so comprehensive, but they also carry many more ways to increase damage in the first place.

i was mostly looking for a way to get past DR on an E6 character. there are several monsters who have significant DR that in some cases just can't be bypasses realistically easy. in most E6 game a +3 weapon is Amazing and are the top of the line magic items only surpassed by god and crafters of legend. admittedly DR that it would negate would be about 15 points at most but DR is just difficult to work around for ranged users. but some of the most problematic are the undead enemies who have DR/5 slashing or DR 5/Bludgeoning (skeletons and zombies usually). a thrower could get around that with daggers and hammers to throw but an archer really can't do much. there are bludgeoning arrows but they are non-lethal, slashing actually works at least though.

[Anthrowhale]

Good idea to break it out for better visualization.
I've been trying to think of an argument that's convincing, but I'm skeptical---I expect we just disagree. Nevertheless, I'll point out two things.

The claim (upthread) that this was not an issue in the core books is incorrect. A Ghost (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghost.htm) using Corrupting Touch on a Barbarian 20 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm) does how much damage? I'd say 1d6.
Your parsing the paragraph as if it is a sentence. Paragraphs are more flexible than that. In particular, my parse of the paragraph is:



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.



In particular the 'nor does it affect' clause contradicts your parse because it implies that damage reduction does not affect items in the prior sentence.
Paragraph scale shorthands are a real thing that I don't think should be dismissed so easily. if you say:
I walked into town for lunch. While walking a saw a deer. you really mean:
I walked into town for lunch. While walking [into town for lunch] a saw a deer. Ignoring these kinds of implications makes most writing unreadable.

[hamishspence]

The Rules Compendium section on Damage Reduction doesn't provide the "Touch Attacks" exemption:


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.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison and injury disease.

[death390]

rules compendium is often debated if it should be even considered due to the massive number of issues it has, whoever wrote/edited it created more mistakes than it fixed. leaving out things, improper wording ect.

example p 139 "LEARNING NEW SPELLS Spontaneous casters gain spells by attaining levels in their class. They never gain spells any other way. When your spontaneous spellcaster gains a new level, consult the class table that details the number of spells the character knows. Select new spells known to fill your repertoire according to the restrictions for your class. Some spontaneous spellcasters know only a specific list of spells, and know all those spells, while others can choose with more flexibility. " by this statement sorcerers can never gain the benefits of extra spell feat.

[emeraldstreak]

Negating an attack =/= negating the damage from the attack.

[NineInchNall]

1. The claim (upthread) that this was not an issue in the core books is incorrect. A ghost using Corrupting Touch on a Barbarian 20 does how much damage? I'd say 1d6.

We agree on that for different reasons. It's not using a weapon or a natural attack, and thus damage reduction does not apply. It's using a supernatural ability, so damage reduction does not apply. Thus, this is no counterexample, which would require that the attack per se be otherwise subject to damage reduction.


In particular the 'nor does it affect' clause contradicts your parse because it implies that damage reduction does not affect items in the prior sentence.

Why are you splitting "poisons" from "diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact"?

As the first sentence lists injury-type poison and injury-type disease, the third sentence should be read as, "(Poisons or diseases) delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact." The three types listed are injury-type's relative complement, so the contradiction you point to disappears. If one reading leads to contradiction, we should prefer the one that doesn't.


2. Your parsing the paragraph as if it is a sentence. Paragraphs are more flexible than that.
...
Paragraph scale shorthands are a real thing that I don't think should be dismissed so easily.

Ignoring these kinds of implications makes most writing unreadable.

You are absolutely right: implications of the sort you describe should not be ignored. However, in this case, the elision is not equating "negate" to "negate the damage". It can't be: the first sentence immediately uses "negate" such that "negate the damage from" is incoherent. Specifically, such a reading would entail "damage reduction negates the damage from a monk's stunning." A modified version of your example shows the problem: "Whenever I walk into town for lunch, I also walk through my meditation exercises. While walking [through my meditation exercises / into town for lunch] I see clearly."

Instead, the initial DR sentence here determines the universe of discourse for the paragraph as a whole. The context of discussion is restricted to "whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack". I'm parsing the paragraph as though each sentence in the paragraph is linked in the development of that concept.

Lemme see if I can draw that out with some help from Suzy.


Suzy records stuff on TV, in whole or in part.

...

Whenever Suzy completely records the premiere of a TV show, she also records most commercials and stuff that accompany the show, such as car commercials. Suzy doesn't record drug commercials. Nor does she record infomercials.

As with the DR entry, this introduces a condition, a category of "most" with an example, and then lists things that don't fall into that category. By your reading, Suzy never records drug commercials or infomercials. But that may or may not be true: she simply doesn't while completely recording the premiere a TV show. Now replace the ellipsis with these two paragraphs:


Whenever Suzy records movies, she also records all infomercials.

Suzy never records drug commercials.


The first tells us that there are in fact times when she records infomercials.

The second tells us that the premiere paragraph was merely clarifying that "most commercials" does not include the things that are already excluded by the general rule.

The fact that, [I]"Nor does she record infomercials," is in the paragraph it's in determines its meaning. Specifically, to use your notation, "Nor does she record infomercials [when she completely records the premiere of a TV show]."

The fact that, "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks," is in the paragraph it is in determines its meaning. Specifically, to use your notation, "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains [whenever it completely negates the damage from an attack]."

[Sleven]

To me threads like these feel like people defending why house rules they've been using all these years are correct interpretations of the rules.

I'm a simple person. If the rules say damage reduction doesn't negate touch attacks, it doesn't negate touch attacks. The rest is speculation.

There are some areas of the rules that require further examination (such as having conflicting rules text in back to back sentences) but this is not one of them. Play however you want, but trying to get overly technical about something presented so plainly with no other contradictory rules text is what makes an already rules intensive system a nightmare for some people.

[emeraldstreak]

"Negate" is not an officially defined 3.5 term. At its utmost it would nullify the very action being negated. At its least it will nullify only parts of the consequences of the nullified action, ie hit point damage.

[hamishspence]

Damage reduction reduces damage - hence the name.

I see it as working on all Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing damage (except where specified otherwise) - even when such damage is coming from a less "weapon-ish" source, like a falling object that was not intentionally dropped on you.

[death390]

a falling object has to hit AC not touch AC though. and a TOUCH ATTACK which hits TOUCH AC is what we are talking about.

[Anthrowhale]

The Rules Compendium section on Damage Reduction doesn't provide the "Touch Attacks" exemption:

"The rules have changed" seems like a real argument modulo supremacy of the Rules Compendium.


... It's using a supernatural ability, so damage reduction does not apply. ...
This is correct.


Why are you splitting "poisons" from "diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact"?

That's a fair complaint but it doesn't weigh on the conclusion. Let me restate:



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.


In particular 'nor does it affect' still implies damage reduction does not affect things in the prior sentence as well.

I read through your long Suzy parse. It seems like an explanation which is coherent but far from Occam's Razor. I'm with Sleven here on the simple reading modulo the RC issue hamishspence points out.

[Mordaedil]

I wonder if touch attack being mentioned at all is due to "the touch itself" doesn't deal damage and some clever munchkins at the board argued "aha, well then you can't deal damage to me with your spell, as your touch failed to do damage to me".

[NineInchNall]

In particular 'nor does it affect' still implies damage reduction does not affect things in the prior sentence as well.

Oh. I thought you meant the first sentence with "prior sentence" and thus got a different potential contradiction.


I read through your long Suzy parse. It seems like an explanation which is coherent but far from Occam's Razor. I'm with Sleven here on the simple reading modulo the RC issue hamishspence points out.

To me the "simple" reading is willful disregard of a linguistic norm. It is disregarding data (i.e., paragraph structure) without an independently justified motivation. I simply cannot understand how you justify reading these not as parts of a concept-bound paragraph--a paragraph that appears with other concept-bound paragraphs--but instead as utterly independent sentences, such that they could be shuffled around in the entire DR entry without altering their meaning. I mean, yes, that is potentially "simpler" in some sense, but the razor is not a blanket preference for parsimony.


I wonder if touch attack being mentioned at all is due to "the touch itself" doesn't deal damage and some clever munchkins at the board argued "aha, well then you can't deal damage to me with your spell, as your touch failed to do damage to me".

This. Exactly. Except it was probably at a playtest table. The same sort of thing is what led to the line in alter self about extra limbs. Someone tried to take a form with multiple limbs and get multiple attacks, so we've had to deal with years of arguments over whether you can use a form's whole natural attack routine.

Why, oh why could the Rules Compendium not have been written like the Comprehensive Rules for Magic: the Gathering?

[DarkSoul]

Why, oh why could the Rules Compendium not have been written like the Comprehensive Rules for Magic: the Gathering?I don't think it would matter if it were written that way; people around here would still say it doesn't/can't supersede the Player's Handbook for some ridiculous reason involving a primary source rule, errata, and the FAQ. In fact, since the RC has been quoted already I'm surprised no one's said anything like that yet.

[NineInchNall]

I don't think it would matter if it were written that way; people around here would still say it doesn't/can't supersede the Player's Handbook for some ridiculous reason involving a primary source rule, errata, and the FAQ. In fact, since the RC has been quoted already I'm surprised no one's said anything like that yet.

That's certainly possible. In a perfect world, WotC would have modified the official statement of the primary source policy to reflect our hypothetical Comprehensive Rules document to avoid such arguments.

[DarkSoul]

Another example is 'Weak Spot' from Master Thrower.

RAI is ambiguous to me. If Weak Spot represents throwing a dagger into a monster's eye, should damage reduction apply?Weak Spot doesn't represent anything like that. If anything, Deadeye Shot is the most accurate analog to what you describe, pun and all. Weak Spot is finding a place to ignore a large part of the target's armor: slipping a blade between two scales, striking under the arm where the leather is still supple, or getting under a plate on a suit of armor.

To the OP: No you're not reading it right. It doesn't matter how the attack is delivered, it it deals piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage then DR will apply unless other properties of the weapon allow it to bypass said DR.

[death390]

if the rule compendium was better written i think everyone would be fine with it, Specific would still supersede general but rule comp would superseded core. that being said it is a horribly written book which causes more problems that it "fixes".

also the thrower trick "weak spot" is the perfect example of a touch attack ignoring damage resistance. why the hell would damage resistance apply if you found a spot to slip between the scales?

[DarkSoul]

It doesn't ignore DR, it ignores armor class and deals physical damage, which DR applies to. It may not be the scales that provide anything more than armor. Are a red dragon's scales the reason it's immune to fire? If so then they run the risk of cooking their own eyes, tongues, etc. Every time they use their breath weapons.

The same goes for DR. If you can be sure the reason the DR exists is because of the scales, great. Rule that bypassing the scales bypasses DR. If you can't though, then it could be the density of the flesh under the scales that creates the DR.

[NineInchNall]

also the thrower trick "weak spot" is the perfect example of a touch attack ignoring damage resistance. why the hell would damage resistance apply if you found a spot to slip between the scales?

That argument is not particularly cogent.


Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

Also: https://youtu.be/FLN3dPMyXeg?t=40s

[Anthrowhale]

To me the "simple" reading is willful disregard of a linguistic norm.


W.r.t. the SRD phrasing, the 'Nor does it affect' still seems to imply the simple interpretation to me.

Given the RC rewording, I regard the interpretation as in doubt which means I'll try to avoid it in thinking about builds. That's to bad---it makes the set of viable mundane builds even narrower.

[death390]

That argument is not particularly cogent.



Also: https://youtu.be/FLN3dPMyXeg?t=40s

of the known creatures with DR which in mythology auto-heal at an incredible rate that is NOT regeneration and is negated by some singular/dual weakness. only ones i can think of are the Werewolf, vampire, and MABYE Fey. even then the werewolf often has blades/bullets just deflect not actually harming (some variations do harm then heal though)

add to the fact the vampire HAS fast healing, and Fey are often "more hurt" by iron than resistant to other forms of damage and you are down to 1 maybe 0 on version of werewolf you use. to be honest all the Fey type should have cold iron vulnerability rather than DR.