Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Welcome to the boards, DungeonMaester- you've picked a nice sedate topic to jump into!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Again with this?

Indeed.

Unlike the enchantment, the weapon itself is subject to the rules of the special attack as a subset of the normal combat/weapons rules.

How so?

I'm not referring to the special attack rules or the normal combat rules; they're not relevant, beyond the fact that the special attack allows for the possibility of 'a successful hit'.

I'm simply referring to the weapon rules, which, like the Flaming ability, notes that damage is dealt on 'a successful hit'. Not on 'a successful hit with a normal melee attack' or 'a successful hit except when tripping'.

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.

Trips as a special attack don't deliver weapon damage by virtue of being a Trip, no. But weapons deliver weapon damage on a successful hit, and Trips allow for a successful hit with a weapon.

If the Trip rules were to state "The weapon deals no damage", there'd be a case for a specific rule taking precedence. But rather, the Trip rules are silent on the matter of damage, which means the only rule we have to adjudicate the matter is found under Weapons - they deal the indicated damage on a successful hit.

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.

You state "normal combat/weapon rules" as though it's a single entity. Combat is a separate chapter to Equipment. The rule that weapons deal the indicated damage on a successful hit is as separate a rules section to Combat as Magic Weapon Special Abilities is.

The wording is the same. The separateness of the rules sections is the same. One can't in good conscience argue that the readings are different. If a flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage on a successful hit when tripping, then a flail deals 1d8 damage on a successful hit when tripping. To argue that one is true but not the other is inconsistent.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

But, the rules for both use the same wording. Melee touch for trip and Vampiric Touch. Successful hit for claw damage and energy damage.

The problem for your POV is that you claim that successful hit means successful touch for energy weapons, but for no other attacks in the game that use the phrase successful hit.

That's arbitrary.

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.

My analogy was not about touch spells during normal attacks (which you went off on a tangent on), rather it was about normal damage during melee touch attack spells. So, getting back on my analogy:

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.

1) Vampiric Touch = melee touch explicitly written, Claw Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly written

versus

2) Trip = melee touch explicitly written, Energy Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly written


The examples are virtually the same.

According to a "successful hit" argument, attempting to touch with one melee touch attack (trip or spell) should result in the "successful hit" of the weapon (claw or energy).

So by extension, you would have to claim that attempting to use a claw to melee touch attack with the Vampiric Touch spell (i.e. you are not attempting to attack with the claw, you are attempting to melee touch with the spell) would result in Claw damage. But, you have stated that you are not stating this. Why not? The wording of the these examples are nearly identical.


I suspect that you are not quite understanding why some of us think that your POV does not follow RAW.

For your POV to have any RAW validity, energy weapons would have to state somewhere that they transfer their energy damage on a touch attack.

The phrase "successful hit" is not "successful touch", but you appear to be claiming that it means "successful touch", but only for energy weapons and not for any other rules where the phrase "successful hit" is stated. Seems kind of arbitrary to do this, doesn't it?


The bottom line is that you do not have solid rules that support that an Energy Weapon does its damage during a touch attack. But, your arguments (like your most recent one) all indicate that.

Let's break down the post I quoted above:

You compared the Vampiric Touch spell (melee touch) with Energy Weapon (successful hit) and claimed (i.e. "Likewise") they were similar. If one game ability states melee touch and the other states successful hit, how can you claim that they work in a similar manner when they use different trigger phrases on when they occur?


On the other hand, you have repeatedly claimed that "successful hit" for normal weapons does not occur on touch attacks?

What is so special about the Energy Weapons that you see "successful touch" in the "successful hit" phrase for them, but you do not see that anywhere else in the rules? That is what is totally confusing about this conversation.

What rule implicitly or explicitly gives the touch property of spells like Vampiric Touch to Energy Weapons? The "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder." statements?

Your POV is really perplexing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the Trip rules were to state "The weapon deals no damage", there'd be a case for a specific rule taking precedence. But rather, the Trip rules are silent on the matter of damage, which means the only rule we have to adjudicate the matter is found under Weapons - they deal the indicated damage on a successful hit.

We agree that he more specific rules trump the general.

The general rule is that weapons deal damage on a successful hit. The more specific rules under the special attacks tell you if and when you do damage on a case by case basis. Bull Rush says you don't. Grapple says you do. Sunder says you do damage to the target of the sunder.

Trip, like Disarm, is silent. Most people I know have taken this to mean that, like Bull Rush, that damage is not dealt on these kinds of special attacks.

If you don't take that position, then you must rule that Trip and Disarm- both silent- both allow the dealing of damage. If that were the case, though, Disarm would effectively be "Sunder +" because it has the same mechanics as Sunder. The difference between the 2 special attacks is that Sunder damages its target and doesn't disarm, while Disarm disarms (of course) but doesn't damage its target.

If, as you argue, Trip does damage because its rules are silent, by the same logic Disarm must likewise damage its target. Thus, on a successful hit, Disarm damages its target AND disarms the target's wielder, making it "Sunder +." Sunder becomes obsolete.

Thus, unless you're ruling that Disarm is doing damage (thus, neutering Sunder), its clear that the designers intended only those special attacks that expressly allow damage to occur allow damage to occur. Those that say otherwise or remain silent negate the underlying weapon damage.

The wording is the same. The separateness of the rules sections is the same. One can't in good conscience argue that the readings are different. If a flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage on a successful hit when tripping, then a flail deals 1d8 damage on a successful hit when tripping. To argue that one is true but not the other is inconsistent.

I honestly and in good conscience do differ with you on this, and I don't think I'm being inconsistent.

The wording is identical for a variety of non-damaging attacks as well- a melee touch attack does not damage its opponent despite "successful hits" unless the particular attack says otherwise (its a spell attack or some such)- you don't add your unarmed strike damage. It is quite obvious (to me at least) the designers were not using precise language here.

But, the rules for both use the same wording. Melee touch for trip and Vampiric Touch. Successful hit for claw damage and energy damage.

The problem for your POV is that you claim that successful hit means successful touch for energy weapons, but for no other attacks in the game that use the phrase successful hit.

That is not my POV at all- frankly, I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion.

To try to clarify, I'm arguing that:

1) Weapon damage is dealt upon a successful strike, unless a particular special attack or condition nullifies it, such as a trip or disarm or an ability like Damage Reduction.

2) Sneak attacks and similar non-magical effects that add to weapon strikes, while triggering on successful hits, have additional qualifiers (such as striking a "vital spot"), and rely upon the weapon doing damage unless otherwise stated. A weapon coated with a contact poison might only require a touch attack to deliver its venom, but one coated with a poison that must reach the blood would require a regular damaging attack. If a weapon coated with the latter type of poison was incapable of overcoming a particular target's DR, the poison would be ineffectual as well.

3) Held touch spells trigger on a successful hit, regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but also upon incidental contact, as per p141PHB.

4) Effects from weapon enchantments trigger on a successful hit, and like Held Touch spells, this is regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but not upon incidental contact.

The energy of the held touch spell doesn't pay attention to the nature of the underlying attack and neither should the enchantment upon the weapon.

1) Vampiric Touch = melee touch explicitly written, Claw Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly written

versus

2) Trip = melee touch explicitly written, Energy Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly written


The examples are virtually the same.

According to a "successful hit" argument, attempting to touch with one melee touch attack (trip or spell) should result in the "successful hit" of the weapon (claw or energy).

So by extension, you would have to claim that attempting to use a claw to melee touch attack with the Vampiric Touch spell (i.e. you are not attempting to attack with the claw, you are attempting to melee touch with the spell) would result in Claw damage. But, you have stated that you are not stating this. Why not? The wording of the these examples are nearly identical.

Read my restatement above- that is exactly what my position is.

If you use VT and do a touch attack, you do only the effects of the VT- there is no underlying damage. If you use a claw attack to deliver the VT, you must make a regular attack to hit your target, and if you do, you do claw damage + VT effects. That's what it says in the PHB and in Complete Arcane. If you've held VT and you choose to do a Monk's Stunning Fist and succeed in hitting your foe, you'd do damage, the VT effects, and the Stunning Fist's stun effects.

What I'm NOT claiming, and what it seemed you thought I meant, was that you do Claw damage regardless of how you choose to deliver VT.

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.

The problem here is that your analogy is flawed.

The weapon enchantment on the whip or flail isn't analogous to the clawed hand delivering the VT- here, the analogue to the clawed hand is the weapon or unarmed attack that is doing the trip. The weapon enchantment is the analogue of the spell, Vampiric Touch.

Or to put it this way:

Delivery system: Clawed Hand
Magical Effect: Held touch spell, Vampiric Touch
Result: If melee touch attack, only VT damage. If normal Claw attack, then VT + Claw damage.

and:

Delivery system: Flail
Magical Effect: Weapon Enchantment, Flaming
Result: If tripping (melee touch attack), only Flaming damage. If normal Flail attack, then Flaming + Flail damage.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Welcome to the boards, DungeonMaester- you've picked a nice sedate topic to jump into!

>Thanks Danny. Im no stranger to conflict and agruments, coming form a strong political backround. In any agrument, you have to be liberal and accepting, or else nothing is accomplished by agruing. Other wise two people agruing will think there right even after all points are made and you are right back where you started.

> So what kinmd of welcome is this? No one debating my ideals?

> in 99% of the forums for D&D Ive (use to go to) gone to, I end up agruing against the whole forum, and there lack of exposure to some of the more basic rules becomes aparent, and I think to my self: 'Wow..These guys play D&D? It cant be...' Well, something alot more malgein then that.

Sorry for typos in advance.

---Rusty

 

[Hypersmurf]

The general rule is that weapons deal damage on a successful hit.

That's a general rule, yes.

The more specific rules under the special attacks tell you if and when you do damage on a case by case basis.

They tell you if the special attack deals damage. They don't tell you if the weapon deals damage on a successful hit. The rules for weapons tell you that.

Trip, like Disarm, is silent. Most people I know have taken this to mean that, like Bull Rush, that damage is not dealt on these kinds of special attacks.

And yet you've been arguing for several pages that damage can be dealt on these kinds of special attacks, with a Flaming weapon, despite Trip being silent about damage being dealt.

Out of curiosity, do you rule that a Flaming weapon deals fire damage on a successful Disarm?

So what kinmd of welcome is this? No one debating my ideals?

I think the reason nobody's responded yet is that you haven't presented a rules argument, merely an opinion.

You've said "You can't sneak attack on a Trip", but you haven't addressed the rules argument against it - that Trip requires a successful attack, and that according to the Rogue description, a successful attack against an opponent denied his Dex bonus allows sneak attack damage.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

That is not my POV at all- frankly, I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion.

Because you claim that Energy Weapons do touch damage with no rule to back it up.

You even admitted earlier in this thread that this is interjecting Real World into the game (post #83).

To try to clarify, I'm arguing that:

1) Weapon damage is dealt upon a successful strike, unless a particular special attack or condition nullifies it, such as a trip or disarm or an ability like Damage Reduction.

2) Sneak attacks and similar non-magical effects that add to weapon strikes, while triggering on successful hits, have additional qualifiers (such as striking a "vital spot"), and rely upon the weapon doing damage unless otherwise stated. A weapon coated with a contact poison might only require a touch attack to deliver its venom, but one coated with a poison that must reach the blood would require a regular damaging attack. If a weapon coated with the latter type of poison was incapable of overcoming a particular target's DR, the poison would be ineffectual as well.

3) Held touch spells trigger on a successful hit, regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but also upon incidental contact, as per p141PHB.

So far we agree.

4) Effects from weapon enchantments trigger on a successful hit, and like Held Touch spells, this is regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but not upon incidental contact.

But, you have stated earlier in the thread (post #83) that this is not the case for Vorpal weapons due to it being required on a slashing weapon.

This is why you appear inconsistent from a RAW perspective.

You are including Real World physics to the game mechanics.

1) Vorpal means you must do damage for it to occur.
2) Energy weapons mean you must touch for it to occur.

These are opposing interpretations (from a strictly game mechanics POV). Both of these are additional effects of the weapon with explicit rules for when they occur. For the one, you indicate that "successful hit" means "successful touch". For the other, you indicate that "strike" means "damaging atttack".

You then tried to back up your Vorpal adjudication with more Real World physics (post # 92) of:

3) Vorpal chops off the head but trips are done on the legs, hence, Vorpal is not allowed.

Again, this is not a game rule. It is a DM adjudication where the rules do not explicitly state this.


This is why I am having such a problem with your POV. It does not follow RAW.

It effectively is "fire burns" hence "fire weapons do their damage on touch attacks" (your #4 above). No rules to back this up, just a Real World POV.


Nothing wrong with interpreting game rules with real world glasses on. But, there is a difference between that and declaring such an adjudication is RAW.

That's the issue I have with your interpretation. It does not appear to be even close to either RAW or designer intent. It appears to totally be a (real world inspired) house rule.

 

[ThirdWizard]

4) Effects from weapon enchantments trigger on a successful hit, and like Held Touch spells, this is regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but not upon incidental contact.

Can you give any rules quote to back that up? Any at all?

 

[KarinsDad]

Danny,

To distill my POV, we have 3 rules:

1) A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

What is a hit?

2) hit: Make a successful attack roll.

What is an attack roll?

3) 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.


Simply put, you can only do the extra damage from an energy weapon if you roll a D20, add the attack bonus, equal or beat the target's AC, and you hit and deal damage.


If you are attempting to make a melee touch attack, you are not attempting to hit, you are attempting to touch. Attempting to hit allows for a successful touch (you touch if you hit), attempting to touch does not allow for a successful hit (you do not hit if you merely touch).

The term hit means that you are attempting to attack and do damage. Rules #2 and #3 here explicitly state that.


Or as stated many times:

A "successful hit" is not a "successful touch". These are two different game mechanics and not a single rule has been listed that one can make a hit on a melee touch attack.

These are the rules concerning what "succcessful hit" means. Your POV ignores these rules.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't want to be rude, Danny, but I see no way in which any of this bit you wrote has anything to do with the arguement at hand.

On a successful hit, a weapon deals damage according to its type and size. On a successful hit, a weapon deals damage according to its special energy properties (if applicable). If a weapon deals energy damage because it has dealt a successful hit, it must also deal its normal weapon damage. Unless you are going to contend that a trip deals full weapon damage, you cannot argue that a trip deals energy damage. "Heirarchy" has nothing to do with it, nor does whether things are resolved in "parallel" or in "series".

(Smilies to keep things friendly.)

Well, no I am not saying I agree or not, but I at least understand what Danny is trying to say.

The rules for weapon damage are in a different place that the rules for weapon special ability triggering.

Thus even the same language (on a successful hit) might work differently depending upon context.

I think that's what he is saying, more or less.

Personally, I think the rules as written are a little messed up in this area and each DM need to decide what should happen You could, within the rules as written and exercising some DM judgment, rule that, on a Trip some combination of the below could happen (of course, if unarmed, a held Touch Attack charge will be triggered):

1. Base Weapon Damage (very inadvisable and seems contrary to intent for sure, but supported by a very strict reading of the rules)

2. Sneak Attack and other extra damage OTHER than from a magical weapon's special properties.

3. A Weapon's extra energy damage.

4. A weapon's other special properties such as Vorpal, Wounding, etc. But note that ONLY Flaming, Frost and Shock contain "successful hit" language, though the "Burst" varieties of these function "as a (energy) weapon that also explodes with (energy) upon striking a successful critical hit," so that it is reasonable to draw a line between the energy-type weapons properties and others.

My personal opinion is that the base damage, as well as Sneak Attack and other examples of on-magical damage, do not occur on a Trip's Touch Attack. This is a matter of common sense as much a rules-reading, but the energy damage from weapons is "different" and does indeed function on ANY successful hit in much the same way that Touch Attacks for spells works.

For spells:

Either you make a Touch Attack OR you make an unarmed attack. On the Unarmed attack either you hot the full AC or you miss.

I see a parallel here.

For Energy Weapons:

Either you make a regular attack and hit or miss, or you make a Trip Touch Attack and, if you hit, the energy damage (only) happens. Note that you cannot CHOOSE to make a Touch Attack with an Energy Weapon to get only the energy damage (even though this would make sense and generally be sub-optimal), there simply is no provision within the rules for doing so, but Trip gives you a Touch Attack as part of its mechanism for resolving the attack.