Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Artoomis]

...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? ...

It's very simple, really.

The player uses a flaming whip (for example) and attempt a trip.

The players says something like, "Gee whiz, GM, does my whip do any fire damage when it hits? It's flaming right now, after all."

GM says: What does it say in the desciption.

Player: "It says... on a successful hit."

GM: "Well, Trip uses a Touch Attack, and you "hit" even though you do no damage becasue you are tripping, so the faming damage applies."

THAT"s how a DM decides this.

I never, ever said my case is overhwelmingly right or anything like that, only that it's one legitimate reading of the rules.

The rules do NOT make it clear that a "touch" is not a type of "hit." In act, it is - a very special type of "hit." You can even get a "Critical Hit" - NOT a "Critical Touch" - there is no such beastie!

 

[Hypersmurf]

The player uses a flaming whip (for example) and attempt a trip.

The players says something like, "Gee whiz, GM, does my whip do any fire damage when it hits? It's flaming right now, after all."

GM says: What does it say in the desciption.

Player: "It says... on a successful hit."

GM: "Well, Trip uses a Touch Attack, and you "hit" even though you do no damage becasue you are tripping, so the faming damage applies."

THAT"s how a DM decides this.

The player uses a whip (for example) and attempt a trip.

The players says something like, "Gee whiz, GM, does my whip do any slashing damage when it hits? It's a weapon, after all."

GM says: What does it say in the desciption.

Player: "It says... 'The Damage columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit'."

GM: "Well, Trip uses a Touch Attack, and you "hit" with the weapon, so the weapon damage applies."

THAT"s how a DM decides this...?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Player: "It says... 'The Damage columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit'."

GM: "Well, Trip uses a Touch Attack, and you "hit" with the weapon, so the weapon damage applies."

THAT"s how a DM decides this...?

It's a slippery slope once one decides that all successful touch attacks are hits as opposed to touches.

 

[Artoomis]

It's a slippery slope once one decides that all successful touch attacks are hits as opposed to touches.

There certainly is a potential slippery slope here.

On the other hand, if one restricts oneself to ONLY energy type weapons, then there is no slippery slope but one exception due to the oddity of Trip requiring a Touch Attack.

You'd have trouble talking ME into anything else because nothing else really makes sense and would not pass the "smell test."

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the other hand, if one restricts oneself to ONLY energy type weapons, then there is no slippery slope but one exception due to the oddity of Trip requiring a Touch Attack.

But Weapons use the same language... so there are two exceptions right there. On what basis does one restrict oneself to allowing one exception, but not the other, when the wording is the same?

"Why do you allow the fire damage on a Trip?"
"There's a quirk in the rules that lets it work."
"Isn't that the same quirk in the rules as weapon damage?"
"Oh, we don't use that quirk."

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

There certainly is a potential slippery slope here.

On the other hand, if one restricts oneself to ONLY energy type weapons, then there is no slippery slope but one exception due to the oddity of Trip requiring a Touch Attack.

So, you are in agreement that this is an exception to RAW?

Would you then allow a PC with a flaming weapon to declare a touch attack against a dragon with his weapon and just have him do the energy damage?

 

[Artoomis]

But Weapons use the same language... so there are two exceptions right there. On what basis does one restrict oneself to allowing one exception, but not the other, when the wording is the same?

"Why do you allow the fire damage on a Trip?"
"There's a quirk in the rules that lets it work."
"Isn't that the same quirk in the rules as weapon damage?"
"Oh, we don't use that quirk."

-Hyp.

Some level of common sense needs to be applied. The rules, as written, are a bit loose and do NOT contain thd kind of precision some would like or some would have us believe is present in them today.

Taking everything into account, I think that:

The opposed roll of Trip certainly replaces the normal damage result. Common sense, please!

The energy damage from weapons may or may not apply for Trip - DM call. It's really more than a quirk in the rules - it's the ONLY time *that I know of) that a touch attack with a weapon is permitted. The rules simply don't allow for it otherwise - even though it acually may make sense to allow a touch attack for energy weapons.

Here's where the common sense part comes in. If a burning whip, for instance, is wrapped around your leg, how could you NOT take damage from the fire? It makes no sense. Since the rules arguably allow for it, common sense should rule the day and allow it.

 

[Artoomis]

So, you are in agreement that this is an exception to RAW?

Would you then allow a PC with a flaming weapon to declare a touch attack against a dragon with his weapon and just have him do the energy damage?

1. No. The RAW is poorly written and can be read either way. The RAW needs to be read with a filter of common sense applied.

2. No, despite the fact that it would make a lot of sense to allow this. The rules simply do not allow for it. Trip is a special exception that specifically allows for a touch attack.

I think it would be a fine house rule to allow a touch attack with an energy weapon as, among other things, it's a very sub-optimal way to attack with them. If one did go that way, then it should be kept simple. Either you swing normally or you make a touch attack - no wierdness of when you miss you check to see if you hit the touch AC. This is for simplicity in the same way that touch attacks work for spells - you can make an unarmed attack, but you only get the spell to go off if you hit the full AC then, not the touch AC.

Then again, I also think that a flaming whip does fire damage even if it does no regular damage because the opponent has too much armor.

 

[Slaved]

Some level of common sense needs to be applied. The rules, as written, are a bit loose and do NOT contain thd kind of precision some would like or some would have us believe is present in them today.

Taking everything into account, I think that:

The opposed roll of Trip certainly replaces the normal damage result. Common sense, please!

The energy damage from weapons may or may not apply for Trip - DM call. It's really more than a quirk in the rules - it's the ONLY time *that I know of) that a touch attack with a weapon is permitted. The rules simply don't allow for it otherwise - even though it acually may make sense to allow a touch attack for energy weapons.

Here's where the common sense part comes in. If a burning whip, for instance, is wrapped around your leg, how could you NOT take damage from the fire? It makes no sense. Since the rules arguably allow for it, common sense should rule the day and allow it.

Deep impact and wraith strike both allow for weapons to make touch attacks.

It would seem that the base rules dont care about the mode with which you hit. It would appear to be up to the type of attack you are making what qualifies as a successful attack.

Take a normal weapon and attack with it. Normally you need to make a successful attack against the full AC. However, if you make it a brilliant energy weapon you get to ignore some of the armor, does this mean that it no longer gets the energy damage? Or you could use deep impact and make it a touch attack, does it no longer get the energy damage?

I think that it is worded as it is so that it can be worked in any way that the rules come up with. Successful hit is just that, a successful hit. You only need to know what it takes for the attack you are making to be successful. Is it against the normal AC? touch AC? something else? Figure that out and you will know if it is successful or not, and if it is successful then everything which happens for a successful hit will also happen.

Quoting myself from earlier I think that my comment is becoming more and more viable. The rules state how attacks are made and how each weapon or spell or item or they are silent. If it is silent we assume it is a normal roll otherwise you use whatever special conditions that apply. For each type of hit if there are reasons why certain damage types wont apply or other effects will not apply then it should say so.

Default would be having to hit normal AC and having the weapon or item or spell do whatever. After that the special conditions of the situation and item in question apply.

As far as I can tell that fits all of the rules conditions in the thread along with making sense in the common sense realm.

 

[Neverwill]

Here's where the common sense part comes in. If a burning whip, for instance, is wrapped around your leg, how could you NOT take damage from the fire? It makes no sense. Since the rules arguably allow for it, common sense should rule the day and allow it.

The common sense argument feels not so common. If I attack a full plate, low Dex fighter with a flaming whip normally, I need to make an attack roll against his AC, which includes an armor bonus. Common sense dictates that the flames have to penetrate his armor (otherwise, it would be a melee touch attack). When I try to trip him, why do the flames no longer have to penetrate his armor? Did the whip somehow cut through his greaves?