Touching a Creature with a Touch Attack: Very Bad Idea?

[Blackadder23]

In another thread a poster described a situation where a druid was using a grizzly bear "companion" to fight vampires. And in fact, the bear tore them to pieces. Apart from the issues I have with a druid using a so-called "companion" as a living shield against the undead, I have another problem with this scenario: I've always run it that touching a creature with your bare hands is exactly the same as it touching you. Grab a wight? Lose a level on the spot. Kick a ghoul? Save or paralyzed. Punch a shadow? Lose some strength. Claw/claw/bite a vampire? Say goodbye to six hit dice*. Needless to say, monks in my campaigns still carry weapons even at high levels!

I'm curious if anyone can quote some rule one way or another on this, or if this is more of a judgment call. Is touching a monster that has a touch attack the same as it touching you? Or not?

* - I know someone is going to argue that vampires drain levels by biting and draining blood. But in fact the Monster Manual entry for vampires mentions neither biting nor blood. It says the "powerful blows" of vampires cause damage and also drain two levels, and this effect is attributed to "negative energy". To my mind this indicates that the D&D vampire, much like the wight and wraith, is laced with power from the NMP and touching one isn't very healthy!

[Flambeaux]

I don't know BtB but that's how I've always run it. Seemed a reasonable inference from the explicit statements in the text.

[EOTB]

There is a one-liner somewhere very offhand in either the PHB or the DMG that says bare handed attacks on level draining undead are a bad idea. So I do believe that is the btb interpretation.


but I houserule it, because I think the draining involves a 2-part process:

1) establish physical contact between the undead and the living

2) the undead wills the drain

Otherwise, a vampire couldn't function in society. The draining can't be some involuntary effect. If the vampire is striking the blow, he is simultaneously willing the drain. But when he is struck, if he's defending himself, that instant of contact is a fleeting moment and then it is gone.

Now, if a vampire basically allowed himself to be hit and was anticipating the contact, then sure. Or if someone was stupid enough to hold onto a vampire against its will for a prolonged period (overbearing or wrestling, for example).

But that split-second of getting a chop suey round house kick to the head? No.

[T. Foster]

I've always ruled that any physical contact with a level-draining undead triggers a level-drain. My instinct right now is that a ghoul should need to make contact with its claws or teeth in order to paralyze, but I can't guarantee I've always been consistent about that in the past (or will be in the future).

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't think it's necessarily a one rule to govern them all kind of deal. I can see some undead acting like a sort of level-draining capacitor: any touch completes a "circuit" and the negative energy zaps you. I can see other undead only draining levels when attacking, as a consequence of their attack, more than their mere touch.

[Lord Cias]

Page 71 of the DMG, top left paragraph, says:

. . . (and an open hand hit on an undead creature could be very undesirable from the monk's standpoint in any event - especially if the creature causes damage by touch, for the monk touching the undead creature then is the same as the reverse).

So strictly BTB, yes, a vampire can drain levels when hit by a "touch attack" or natural weapon.

Personally, however, I agree with both EOTB and Philotomy in their interpretations.

[AxeMental]

Agreed, its an attack, so its willed (thats always been my take). Otherwise its the whole unworkable "Midas touch" dilemma, as pointed out. I think the intent of ghouls and weights was they have to scratch or penetrate the skin of the victim with teeth or claws (rather then a simple surface touch).