Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Infiniti2000]

Is an attack roll successful? Then it is a hit according to the PHB.

Absolutely. But, not necessarily an opposed attack roll (I say not necessarily because the exact definition of opposed attack roll is not given as it is for attack roll).

An opposed attack roll is still an attack roll.

This is demonstrably false. From the definition of attack roll: "In either case, the attack hits if the result is at least as high as the target's Armor Class." The opposed attack roll is not vs. an armor class, thus it is not equal to an attack roll and any assumption to that effect, such as when back-referencing from another definition, is wrong.

A successful opposed attack roll does guarantee a hit (just like all other successful attack rolls).

No, it doesn't. It guarantees success and nothing more.

 

[KarinsDad]

Absolutely. But, not necessarily an opposed attack roll (I say not necessarily because the exact definition of opposed attack roll is not given as it is for attack roll).

This is demonstrably false. From the definition of attack roll: "In either case, the attack hits if the result is at least as high as the target's Armor Class." The opposed attack roll is not vs. an armor class, thus it is not equal to an attack roll and any assumption to that effect, such as when back-referencing from another definition, is wrong.

This is a good point.

But, does it illustrate that an opposed attack roll is not an attack roll? Opposed attack rolls do not compare against Armor Class, so are they then not attack rolls?

If so, how do you resolve an opposed attack roll? Which rules apply? Strength modifiers? BAB?

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

What if you are attempting a melee touch attack for a Cure Light Wounds spell? This is not damage. Does that mean that melee touch attacks do no use attack rolls?

Opposed Checks

An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result. In an opposed check, the higher result succeeds, while the lower result fails. In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie.

hit: Make a successful attack roll.

Since we do not have a definition of opposed attack roll, we have to use the rules we have in order to determine if it hits.

We have rules for opposed checks. Do you not use the higher modifier wins on a tie rule of opposed checks for opposed attack rolls?


The real question comes down to: is a successful attack roll always a hit. If you mean "hit" with regard to striking your opponent and doing damage, than the answer is no. If you mean "hit" as per the PHB definition of a successful attack roll (i.e. you rolled the dice, added modifiers, and the result is high enough to be successful), then the answer is yes.

The real issue is that an attack roll merely determines a number. The determination of the success of that number and the results of what that number means is based on what you are using the attack roll for. But, the attack roll (including modifiers) itself does not dictate success, only when you compare it to some other number can you make this determination.

Since we do not have a definition for opposed attack rolls, it is debatable. Just like how you resolve ties with opposed attack rolls is debatable unless you use the opposed skill rules.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But, does it illustrate that an opposed attack roll is not an attack roll?

Perhaps, but that is the conundrum. We are left with a decision on how to interpret the opposed attack roll. Clearly, the armor class part of the attack roll definition doesn't apply, but does the "hit" part of it where damage occurs also not apply? I think we can argue that either way (as evidenced by this huge thread), but it would be based entirely on flavor. In this situation, when we look at disarm, however, we don't see the words 'hit' anywhere, so there's an inclination that damage does not occur (unlike with a sunder, which explicitly mentions damage). At the risk of sounding like a straw man, if disarming causes damage, then sundering causes damage twice, n'est-ce pas?

If so, how do you resolve an opposed attack roll? Which rules apply? Strength modifiers? BAB?

Quite naturally, this devolves into a slippery slope, so by no means am I suggesting that none of the rules on attack rolls apply.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Look, we all know that this game has some sloppy language in its rules. While the combat section says that a successful attack roll results in damage, everyone in this thread knows for a fact that there are actions in this game that require an attack roll- even if its just a melee touch attack- that have non-damaging conseqences. We were talking about that 2 pages ago.

What is left is either a conundrum that we have been playing this game completely incorrectly, and that (for instance) melee touch attacks to deliver non-damaging spells in combat must also do unarmed attack damage, OR that the designers mean for "successful hit deals damage" in the context of the variety of effects that can be the result of such an action that the action taken has its intended result- a creature is polymorphed; its characteristic drained, etc., completely independent of whether there is underlying damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is left is either a conundrum that we have been playing this game completely incorrectly, and that (for instance) melee touch attacks to deliver non-damaging spells in combat must also do unarmed attack damage, OR that the designers mean for "successful hit deals damage" in the context of the variety of effects that can be the result of such an action that the action taken has its intended result- a creature is polymorphed; its characteristic drained, etc., completely independent of whether there is underlying damage.

I think you hit the nail on the head (no offense Nail ) with this phrase: "intended result".

The intended result of Vampiric Touch is to do damage with the spell. It is not to do natural weapon claw damage with a touch attack in addition to Vampiric Touch damage, just because you happen to be using your claw to touch (or successfully hit) the opponent.

The intended result of Trip is to make an opponent prone. It is not to do energy weapon damage with a touch attack in addition to making an opponent prone, just because you happen to be using your energy weapon to touch (or successfully hit) the opponent.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The intended result of Vampiric Touch is to do damage with the spell. It is not to do natural weapon claw damage with a touch attack in addition to Vampiric Touch damage, just because you happen to be using your claw to touch (or successfully hit) the opponent.

Remember, a held touch spell is triggered by any contact with another valid target, either accidentally or on purpose.

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. p141

So, if you use a touch spell, the touch spell resolves if:

1) you touch your target (melee attack roll- no damage)

2) you use unarmed strike on your opponent (regular attack roll- deals damage)

3) you use a special attack like a stunning fist, grapple or trip, stunning fist (regular attack roll- deals damage according to particular attack.

4) you slip and collide into somebody or something (no attack roll, no underlying damage)

The spell's effects are resolved completely without regard to any other question other than "did the attacker make contact with" something else.

In the same vein, weapon enchantments effects that are triggered by "a successful hit" are unaffected by the nature of the underlying attack and its results other than "did the attacker make intentional contact with his target?" (there must be a successful attack roll).

In your example, if the creature with claws used Vampiric Touch as a touch attack, there would be no underlying damage, but the spell would still resolve. If it used its claws naturally while holding the charge of that spell, the attacker would deal both claw damage AND Vampiric Touch effects to the target if he makes a successful attack roll. If it did a trip attack, it would trip the target and do Vampiric touch effects. If it grappled, it would do its claw damage and VT effects.

There is a dichotomy between resolving the intended results of the attack type and the other kinds of magical stuff that may be stacked on top of it. The magic doesn't care if its a standard attack or a trip- it resolves by its own rules, namely, "on a successful hit."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Remember, a held touch spell is triggered by any contact with another valid target, either accidentally or on purpose.

If I'm holding the charge on a Shocking Grasp, and someone punches, grapples, or trips me, do you consider that person to immediately become the target of the spell?

The magic doesn't care if its a standard attack or a trip- it resolves by its own rules, namely, "on a successful hit."

My flail has rules that say it deals 1d8 damage "on a successful hit", too... and it doesn't mention caring if it's a standard attack or a trip.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Remember, a held touch spell is triggered by any contact with another valid target, either accidentally or on purpose.

What does this have to do with my statement?

Where is the rule that the claw attack does its damage on a successful Vampiric Touch melee touch attack?

Everyone knows that a spell touch attack can occur on other attacks, but where is the rule that a claw natural attack occurs on a successful melee touch attack for Vampiric Touch?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Where is the rule that the claw attack does its damage on a successful Vampiric Touch melee touch attack?

There isn't one- what you're asking of me isn't what I'm stating.

Everyone knows that a spell touch attack can occur on other attacks, but where is the rule that a claw natural attack occurs on a successful melee touch attack for Vampiric Touch?

Again, that isn't what I'm stating.

The additional wrinkle to the touch attack, here, a held Vampiric Touch spell, resolves independently of the underlying nature of the attack. The touch attack, regardless of its characteristics- a mere touch, a stunning fist, a grapple, a trip, a claw...no damage, some damage- its all immaterial to the effect of the VT spell. That spell will trigger even if the attack in question cannot do damage, such as on a bull rush. It pays no attention to the underlying nature of the attack, only whether the condition of physical contact has been met.

Likewise, the enchantment on the weapon "pays no attention to" the particular kind of attack made by the weapon- trip, strike, disarm- beyond whether "a successful hit" has been made. Trip, strike or whatever are all immaterial to the triggering of the enchantment's damage.

If I'm holding the charge on a Shocking Grasp, and someone punches, grapples, or trips me, do you consider that person to immediately become the target of the spell?

That's what the rules would seem to indicate, don't they?

My flail has rules that say it deals 1d8 damage "on a successful hit", too... and it doesn't mention caring if it's a standard attack or a trip.

Again with this?

Unlike the enchantment, the weapon itself is subject to the rules of the special attack as a subset of the normal combat/weapons rules. Its a physical limitation on the weapon and the way it is used in the delivery of the trip. Trips as a special attack don't deliver weapon damage, but some do.

Weapon enchantments, like other magic rules, are a seperate rules section. Like a held touch spell, they have their own triggering rules, independent of the normal combat/weapon rules.

If you want to play with weapons doubling up their damage on special attacks, that's your business as a DM.

 

[DungeonMaester]

First post here!

>From my view point im not sure where the agruments stem from. I always seen extra damage types tied to one attack/ability and one only

Rending-Grapple (besides weapon rending feats and such)
Sneak attack-Sneak attack
magic power-Normal attack

The grey render does not get rending damage from a unarmed strike, triping or bull rushes, only grappling.

The Ninja doesnt get extra sneak attack damage from triping, or grappling when a enemy is flat footed, one when attacking a flat footed enemy.

Magic power- The same logic, you get the bonus damage only when making a normal attack.

>The other point I wanted to touch on was the nat armor vrs whip. I have had read the rules extenivly, and there is always a flux in my memory, but the only thing I can remember off hand where the "In oder to get effect, damage must be done" (or what ever you call it) Rule is in Poison that is denoted as enjected (Not sure on enjected, but there is a exanded entry in Book of exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness) in order to gain the effect.

Sorry for any typos in advance

---Rusty