Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Artoomis]

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...

Hmmm...

Attack Rolls
An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.

Damage Rolls
If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage. Roll the appropriate damage for your weapon. Damage is deducted from the target’s current hit points.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally

Critical Hits
When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a threat. The hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make a critical roll—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the critical roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit. It doesn’t need to come up 20 again.) If the critical roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit. ...

Spells and Critical Hits
A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit.

Reading all that it seems to me that a Touch Attack also generates a "successful hit," which, by the way, is actually an undefined term.

 

[Artoomis]

I haven't read all 120 post in this thread, but I've been privy to many of these threads both on this board and others. Has this been brough up yet?:
Elemental weapon damage is extra damage dice, somewhat like sneak attack extra damage dice. It's been previously established that you cannot add extra (sneak attack) dice without doing base damage. This seems like an applicable precedence.

Ah, but it is indeed only "somewhat like" sneak attack extra damage dice. It's really not the same and is entitled to its own analysis.

 

[KarinsDad]

Reading all that it seems to me that a Touch Attack also generates a "successful hit," which, by the way, is actually an undefined term.

Successful hit is a hit that is successful. The word successful is not the game mechanic word here, the word "hit" is.


Hit is defined (successful attack roll).
Attack roll is defined (roll, equal to or greater than AC, hit and damage)


A critical hit is not a hit, it is a critical hit. It is a specific term with specific usage. It can be done after (some) normal attacks (hits) and after (some) touch attacks (touches). But, this does not mean that hits are touches.


There really is no confusion here.

An attack roll is not a touch attack roll. They are two different yet similar game mechanics.

A critical hit is not a hit. They are two different yet similar game mechanics.

A hit is not a touch. They are two different yet similar game mechanics.


It is only when someone attempts to read a touch attack roll as an attack roll, a hit as a touch, or a critical hit as a hit when confusion seeps in. But, if you keep them as distinct game terms and game mechanics and not try to say that one is equal to another when they are not, the rules then become crystal clear.

 

[Artoomis]

...

An attack roll is not a touch attack roll. They are two different yet similar game mechanics.
...

It is only when someone attempts to read a touch attack roll as an attack roll, a hit as a touch, or a critical hit as a hit when confusion seeps in. But, if you keep them as distinct game terms and game mechanics and not try to say that one is equal to another when they are not, the rules then become crystal clear.

And yet:

Spells and Critical Hits
A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit.

(Emphasis mine)

"Attack Roll" NOT "Touch Attack Roll"

edit (added): Per the "Critical Hit" definition you cannot have a "Critical Hit" without an "Attack Roll" - or to put in another way, a "Successful Hit" is required for a "Critical Hit."

A successful Touch Attack Roll certainly is a "successful hit." Natuarlly, what happens on that "successful hit" is generally quite differnt than when using a weapon, but Trip is VERY interesting.

It is using a "Touch Attack" for something OTHER than a spell. One could argue that this is a rule violation, but of course it's in the rules so it cannot be.

I think you are tyring to provide a level a precision in the rules that simply does not exist. This is a DM's call based upon how they envision this working combined with a general understadning of all applicable rules.

There either is:

1. No clear, defintive rules answer

or

2. More than one correct answer.

I am, quite frankly, satisfied with that. This is i]far[/i] from the only instance of either no clear, defintive rules answer or more than one correct answer.

 

[KarinsDad]

And yet:

(Emphasis mine)

"Attack Roll" NOT "Touch Attack Roll"

So, your claim is that since they were not crystal clear with the spell critical hit rules (which have nothing to do with whether a weapon is a successful hit), that the energy weapon hit rules are unclear?

Apples and oranges.

edit (added): Per the "Critical Hit" definition you cannot have a "Critical Hit" without an "Attack Roll" - or to put in another way, a "Successful Hit" is required for a "Critical Hit."

A successful hit is required for a normal critical hit.

A successful touch is required for a touch critical hit.

A successful Touch Attack Roll certainly is a "successful hit."

A successful Touch Attack Roll is a "successful touch". It is not a successful hit.

This is the start of Danny's slippery slope argument. Touches are not hits, but people keep claiming that.

That is where the opposing POV has no solid rules support. No rules explicitly state that touches are hits.

Natuarlly, what happens on that "successful hit" is generally quite differnt than when using a weapon, but Trip is VERY interesting.

It is using a "Touch Attack" for something OTHER than a spell. One could argue that this is a rule violation, but of course it's in the rules so it cannot be.

I think you are tyring to provide a level a precision in the rules that simply does not exist. This is a DM's call based upon how they envision this working combined with a general understadning of all applicable rules.

There either is:

1. No clear, defintive rules answer

or

2. More than one correct answer.

I am, quite frankly, satisfied with that. This is i]far[/i] from the only instance of either no clear, defintive rules answer or more than one correct answer.

When you can illustrate that you hit when you touch (as opposed to you touch when you hit), then you have rules support.

The entire argument boils down to one side allowing the word "hit" to mean "touch" and saying that since the designers were not totally precise in other rules (such as spell critical hits), that hit means any time you roll a D20 for a weapon and are successful.

That's just not RAW true.


A hit occurs when you roll greater than or equal to the normal AC.

A touch occurs when you roll greater than or equal to the touch AC.

An opposed touch occurs when you roll greater than (or equal to if you have the higher modifiers) the opposed touch attack roll (presumably, the rules here rely on the opposed skill rules).


Truthfully answer me the following questions:

Do you honestly believe that the designers wanted energy weapon damage to occur on touch attacks?

Do you honestly think they wanted you to say "Hey, I cannot hit this guy with my weapon, but I can touch him with a touch attack and still burn him."?

Do you honestly believe that Energy Weapons were meant as touch weapons? How about torches?

 

[Artoomis]

...
When you can illustrate that you hit when you touch (as opposed to you touch when you hit), then you have rules support.

The entire argument boils down to one side allowing the word "hit" to mean "touch" and saying that since the designers were not totally precise in other rules (such as spell critical hits), that hit means any time you roll a D20 for a weapon and are successful...

What is a "Successful Hit?"

Well, first, it's an undefined term that, presumably, means a "hit" that is successful. Now the question is when you "touch" an opponent are you, in fact, getting a "hit?"

Yes, not the least because you can get "critical hits" and you can ONLY get a "critical hit" if you first have a "hit" - that is, a successful attack roll.

I submit that a "touch" is a subset of the more generic "hit." You do indeed "hit" when you touch, but it's in the context of the attack being made. For a spell, it's a mere touch that discharges the spell, for "Trip" it's the succesful attack roll you need to get to the opposed roll for tripping.

What is a "Touch Attack?"

That is a term ONLY defined in the context of spells. Thus, outside of spells, it's an undefined term (in the same sense that using "Attack Roll" within the context of spells and Critical hits is not presuasive to you).

Thus, once again, there is rules support for either position.

Touches ARE "hits," but you can also find rules support for a view that Touches are NOT "hits."

And, even I were to grant you that a Touch Attack as defined with the context of "touch" ranged spells gives you a "touch" vs. a "hit," I will not grant you that this can be universally applied when the attack has nothing to do with spells.

Trip is very, very special. It's a mechaninc that give a weapon a way to "hit" with a "Touch Attack." What that REALLY means is subject to interpretation.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is a "Successful Hit?"

Well, first, it's an undefined term that, presumably, means a "hit" that is successful. Now the question is when you "touch" an opponent are you, in fact, getting a "hit?"

Yes, not the least because you can get "critical hits" and you can ONLY get a "critical hit" if you first have a "hit" - that is, a successful attack roll.

I submit that a "touch" is a subset of the more generic "hit." You do indeed "hit" when you touch, but it's in the context of the attack being made. For a spell, it's a mere touch that discharges the spell, for "Trip" it's the succesful attack roll you need to get to the opposed roll for tripping.

Game mechanic-wise, a hit does touch. A touch does not hit.

Can you make a touch attack with a torch and burn someone?

What is a "Touch Attack?"

That is a term ONLY defined in the context of spells. Thus, outside of spells, it's an undefined term (in the same sense that using "Attack Roll" within the context of spells and Critical hits is not presuasive to you).

You are mistaken:

Touch Attacks

Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). 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.

This does not just apply to spells and this quote is found in the combat section.

Thus, once again, there is rules support for either position.

If you say so. But, you wrote this sentence after your previous sentence which was in error, hence, this sentence is suspect.

Touches ARE "hits," but you can also find rules support for a view that Touches are NOT "hits."

There are no explicit rules that touches are hits. You tried to make a critical hit extrapolation, but that is not an explicit rule. Critical hits for touch attacks are still touches. Critical hits for normal attacks are still hits.

And this is the main point of contention. Your side is trying to find ways to prove that a touch is a hit and you have yet to do that convincingly.

And, even I were to grant you that a Touch Attack as defined with the context of "touch" ranged spells gives you a "touch" vs. a "hit," I will not grant you that this can be universally applied when the attack has nothing to do with spells.

Trip is very, very special. It's a mechaninc that give a weapon a way to "hit" with a "Touch Attack." What that REALLY means is subject to interpretation.

Again, this is a false conclusion.

Just because a trip allows a touch attack with a weapon does not mean that it allows a hit with a weapon.


Tell you what. Go home. Touch your wife. Then, hit your wife. Then, see if she has the same opinion as you that a touch is the same as a hit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Tell you what. Go home. Touch your wife. Then, hit your wife.

Disclaimer: The above does not represent the views of EN World or the EN World Admins and Moderators.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Artoomis]

[/quote]Touch Attacks

Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). 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. [/quote]

This does not just apply to spells and this quote is found in the combat section.

Interesting. I did miss this earlier. This section says NOTHING about a "touch" being different form a "hit" - it only talks about how the AC is different. The ONLY place a "touch" is specified as being a distinct thing is for spells.

There are no explicit rules that touches are hits. You tried to make a critical hit extrapolation, but that is not an explicit rule. Critical hits for touch attacks are still touches. Critical hits for normal attacks are still hits...

Actually, there is no explicit rule that a touch is not a type of hit. Let's draw from the SRD and the "Combat Statistics" section:

Attack Roll
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.

Damage
When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

Armor Class
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you...

Touch Attacks
Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). 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.

There you have it. The actual use of the word "hit" is used twice - the second time in regard to "It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you" under that armor section This section also points out that "some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee)..."

The wrod "hit" is not actually used in the Touch Attack section here, but as it was used above, and this section clearly is to differentiate the AC needed for a Touch Attack, it seems clear that a successful Touch Attack is a "hit" in the sense that the attack roll used exceeded the applicable AC.

In other words, either a results or Touch Attack results in a "hit." There is, of course, a difference. A "hit" from a Touch Attack has not penetrated physical armor (etc.) and so no normal weapon damage can be done. Whether or not other kinds of damage (such as energy damage) form a weapon might be done is certainly a matter for debate due to the use of the "succesful hit" language - as this very topic illustrates.

I have now pointed out no fewer than two instances where a successful Touch Attack results in something called a "hit." A "succesful hit" is not a techincal, narrow term in D&D, it's simply when an attack roll (of any type) is successful.

At the very least, this topic ought to make it clear that the rules can be read to support either point of view, so a even a "No House Rule" DM should decide which way to rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

The wrod "hit" is not actually used in the Touch Attack section here, but as it was used above, and this section clearly is to differentiate the AC needed for a Touch Attack, it seems clear that a successful Touch Attack is a "hit" in the sense that the attack roll used exceeded the applicable AC.

It's amazing that your realize that they only talk about hits with regard to normal AC and normal attack rolls, but still think that "hit" means "touch". The only cases of the word "hit" you could find were under Armor Class (not touch Armor Class) and Attack Rolls (not Touch Attack Rolls) rules.

Yet, you still persist that a hit means a successful roll of any D20 attack, regardless of whether it is used for a normal attack roll, a touch attack roll, or an opposed touch attack roll.

It boggles my mind that the rules support that you yourself posted here shows no examples of the word hit being used in the any instance of a touch attack rules, but that "a hit" still occurs on all successful D20 touch attacks to you.


You roll a D20 for skills as well. When they are successful, are they "hits" too (even though the word hit is not used in the skill section)?


How about saves?

DM: "Roll a Will save."
Player: "20. I hit!!!"


Ok, I am being a bit facetious here, but I suspect you understand my point. If the touch attack rules do not use the phrase "a hit", why should they be considered hits and not touches?

And more importantly, how can the vast majority of DMs come to your conclusion without reading 100+ posts about "successful hits" and "critical hits", etc., etc., etc.?

The point is, your POV is not only not explicit in the rules, you have to really stretch all over the rules in order to even come up with some (extremely suspect) support for it. How is a DM supposed to be able to do that?

How is a DM supposed to know that he can use a Touch Attack to touch with his Flaming Sword and do the energy damage, but not the regular damage? Or, is this only for Trip touch attacks? How does a DM know if he should allow one or the other or both or neither according to RAW if your conclusion jumps into 8 different RAW rulesets in order to make its point?