Attacking a Fire Elemental

[Panask]

According to the MM:

"Creatures hitting a fire elemental with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the elemental’s attack, and also catch on fire unless they succeed on a Reflex save."

Do you actually have to hit (get past its AC and do some damage) the fire elemental to be subject to this, or is attacking it bad enough?

Thanks in advance.

Panask
Servitar to Baldur

 

[Drowbane]

According to the MM:

"Creatures hitting a fire elemental with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the elemental’s attack, and also catch on fire unless they succeed on a Reflex save."

Do you actually have to hit (get past its AC and do some damage) the fire elemental to be subject to this, or is attacking it bad enough?

Thanks in advance.

Panask
Servitar to Baldur

If the MM says "hitting", its hitting.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Do you actually have to hit (get past its AC and do some damage) the fire elemental to be subject to this, or is attacking it bad enough?

You have to touch the elemental to burn yourself. You do not need to actually deal damage (you may not overcome it's DR). But, you also do not "hit" if you merely beat it's touch AC (which is where I usually see this question lead). It is not a good houserule either.

 

[frankthedm]

It is not a good houserule either.

And why do you say that? Biting onto something hot and firey is a bad thing. A monster's teeth not ripping into the elemental does not mean the flame should not roast the monster gums. The touch AC is the perfect representation of contact without damage to the victim. It might be a slight bit complex to track, but I think it would be worthwhile. But then again I like seeing beings dumb enough to punch or bite firey or sparky critters suffer.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The touch AC is the perfect representation of contact without damage to the victim.

No, the damage reduction does that.

But, to answer your question, I think it's a bad houserule (but this is my opinion, so you do what you think is best for your game) because

1. It's complex. Sure, it's not difficult, but it's extra work, especially for the DM. This complexity (albeit minor) is probably why there aren't "levels" to AC. Let's say the elemental has cover. How does that affect whether or not you take the fire damage on a lack of a hit?

2. There's a slippery slope to consider. Does this houserule apply to fire shield? Even more importantly, how about a vampire's slam attack; why don't you allow damage on a successful hit against the full AC and then energy drain vs. touch AC?

I don't think it's consistent if you allow this houserule and not the corollary from #2.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Similarly, held touch spells delivered via an unarmed strike. Per the rules, if you use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell, you roll against their normal AC, and a miss is a miss. If you introduce the Hot Gums house rule, consistency demands that an unarmed strike that misses normal AC but beats touch AC should still deliver the spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Hot Gums Houserule!