Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Artoomis]

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?

I disagree. Common sense says if I burn him it will hurt!

The whip itself does not hurt him - it's the fire (or cold, or whatever) only. That's the point.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

I agree that there are different ways to read the RAW. However, the solution you suggest is not any of those ways. Either a touch attack is a successful hit, and gets full weapon damage and energy damage, or its not a successful hit and you don't get either. There is no RAW interpretation that gives you one without the other. You're making things more confusing than they really are.

From a common sense standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to me that I can bash a weapon against an armored opponent and not be able to hurt him because the armor protects him, but that I would be able to damage the same opponent by simply touching him with the weapon. If touching with an energy weapon causes damage, all regular attacks that fail to beat full AC but beat touch AC should cause energy damage as well.

 

[Artoomis]

I agree that there are different ways to read the RAW. However, the solution you suggest is not any of those ways. Either a touch attack is a successful hit, and gets full weapon damage and energy damage, or its not a successful hit and you don't get either. There is no RAW interpretation that gives you one without the other. You're making things more confusing than they really are.

From a common sense standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to me that I can bash a weapon against an armored opponent and not be able to hurt him because the armor protects him, but that I would be able to damage the same opponent by simply touching him with the weapon. If touching with an energy weapon causes damage, all regular attacks that fail to beat full AC but beat touch AC should cause energy damage as well.

Actually, it makes just as much sense as being able to attack someone two different ways with a touch spell.

Touch attack against touch AC or a regular attack against regular AC - and in the latter case the spell only is triggered on a hit - and not just if you beat the touch AC.

That makes just as much sense, and, is pretty much my precedent for viewing things as I do.

I view the energy weapon rules as being very similar, but touch attack is only allowed in one specific instance - a Trip.

There is no particular reason why, from a logical standpoint, an energy weapon should need to penetrate the full AC to deliver it's energy damage. That does not really makes sense when touch spells require beating only the touch AC. If a Flameblade spell (or any of a number of other weapon-like spells that deal energy damage) requires only a Touch Attack, why should not the energy weapon damage of an energy weapon?

Logically, energy weapon should work the same as touch spells. The only thing really holding that back is that one does not get to choose to swing a weapon against only the Touch AC normally. Trip gives you just that opportunity.

Yes, it's a bit of a loophole. It really ought to be one of two ways, if the rules were written better:

1. Energy weapon should be allowed to damage on a touch attack, if desired, but then, of course, ONLY the energy damage would be done. This language would open up this loophole and make it more logically parallel to touch spells.

or

2. Energy weapons should "deal an extra 1d6 points of (energy) damage against the foe" - this language would pretty much close this loophole.

The rules and logic allow energy weapon damage on a Trip's Touch Attack, but only arguably so - there is certainly a legitimate argument for the opposing view.

Finally, here's a real-word example. Let's say I electrify a sword (fully insulated for me, of course) and attack someone in armor. Now let’s further say I hit the armor, but not hard enough to do any damage. Will my opponent get zapped by the electricity? I should think so! What difference does it make if the sword does any physical damage?

This is very much like a touch spell in D&D, except that, for simplicity, you EITHER attack the Touch AC or Regular AC with a touch spell - you don't get to attack normally and then see if you only hit the Touch AC, even though that makes the most sense.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. Common sense says if I burn him it will hurt!

The whip itself does not hurt him - it's the fire (or cold, or whatever) only. That's the point.

Actually, the point is:

Why does attacking normally with the flaming whip not do the energy damage if you roll the touch AC or higher, even if you do NOT roll the normal AC?


Neverwill's point is pretty valid. The armor, shield, and natural armor stops the energy on normal attacks. Why should it not do so on a trip? Did the armor just disappear?

These are just as much common sense questions as "why does fire not burn on a touch attack?" (which appears to be the main reason you support your interpretation, for a common sense reason, not really for RAW reasons).

 

[KarinsDad]

Finally, here's a real-word example. Let's say I electrify a sword (fully insulated for me, of course) and attack someone in armor. Now let’s further say I hit the armor, but not hard enough to do any damage. Will my opponent get zapped by the electricity? I should think so! What difference does it make if the sword does any physical damage?

Question: You do understand that when your examples say "should" and when you state that trip touch damage should occur for energy weapons, but not other special weapon abilities like Vorpal, that you are giving the impression that you are not so much following RAW as picking and choosing from RAW those situations which you think SHOULD BE exceptions?

In other words, your argument does indeed appear to be a common sense one as opposed to a rules one.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, the point is:

Why does attacking normally with the flaming whip not do the energy damage if you roll the touch AC or higher, even if you do NOT roll the normal AC?

Why does attacking normally with a touch spell not do the effect if you roll the touch AC or higher, even if you do NOT roll the normal AC?

Neverwill's point is pretty valid. The armor, shield, and natural armor stops the energy on normal attacks. Why should it not do so on a trip? Did the armor just disappear?

These are just as much common sense questions as "why does fire not burn on a touch attack?" (which appears to be the main reason you support your interpretation, for a common sense reason, not really for RAW reasons).

Why does the armor, shield, and natural armor stop the spell effect on normal attacks with a "touch" spell?

As for my support in RAW - it's there. It's just backed up with common sense - and it takes a little judicious use of common sense to seperate out regular physical damage from the energy damage in that it's OBVIOUS that a Trip causes no normal, physical damage as you are not using the weapon in the normal way to do that kind of damage.

It causes energy damage both because the rules say so ("on a succesful hit") and because it makes sense and meshes well with the way touch spells already work.

 

[Artoomis]

Question: You do understand that when your examples say "should" and when you state that trip touch damage should occur for energy weapons, but not other special weapon abilities like Vorpal, that you are giving the impression that you are not so much following RAW as picking and choosing from RAW those situations which you think SHOULD BE exceptions?

In other words, your argument does indeed appear to be a common sense one as opposed to a rules one.

It's BOTH. There is a solid (albiet not completeley convincing to everyone) rules argument backing me up along with common sense.

Vorpal, etc. do NOT have the same "succesful hit" language and, logically, do not fit in the same category as energy damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's BOTH. There is a solid (albiet not completeley convincing to everyone) rules argument backing me up along with common sense.

Actually, your rules argument is not very solid. It's almost non-existent.

Not to make this an Argumentum ad Populum, but there are many "on the fence" type of people here who analyze the rules and would agree with you that there is support for both interpretations if there truly was.

I am such a person. I often see both sides and sometimes change my position if one side comes up with good or obscure rules reasons for an issue to go one way or the other.

But, I do not see it here at all. The opposing point of view has not really written down any significant rules support for their position. The position that all successful attack rolls result in a "hit" and that "hit" means success with any attack just does not appear to be a reasonable interpretation. Especially when you consider that there is no "hit" language anywhere in any of the touch attack rules. The game term "hit" is just not used by the designers when they write about touch attacks.

You see the two sides, but quite frankly, I do not. I'm not sure if Hyp or anyone else here who disagreed with you sees both sides.

Vorpal, etc. do NOT have the same "succesful hit" language and, logically, do not fit in the same category as energy damage.

No, Vorpal has Strike language. Not quite sure how a strike is different than a hit, but you seem to think there is a difference. I do understand how a touch is not a hit.

 

[Artoomis]

.... I'm not sure if Hyp or anyone else here who disagreed with you sees both sides.

Hyp rarely see two sides with both legitimate.

He is the master of pulling apparent precision out of our imprecise set of rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

The real issue I have with this entire discussion is that the rules text of the Trip Special Attack is mostly ignored in favor of miscellaneous text in other parts of the rules:

Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier).

Trip tells you the type of attack to make AND it tells you what happens if that is successful.

Just like touching with Cure Light Wounds tells you what happens if the touch attack is successful.


Damage is something that occurs if a damaging attack is successful. Weapon energy damage is something that occurs if a normal weapon attack is successful.

But, this is not a normal weapon attack (e.g. like with a Charge). It is a Trip. It is a special attack using a weapon. The weapon damage (of any type) is totally irrelevant to the conversation AT ALL unless that weapon explicitly states that xyz weapon damage occurs on a trip.

For example, a flail explicitly states that you can drop the flail instead of the countertrip rules in the Trip Special Attack. In order to get past the rules in trip, the weapon has to explicitly state it is doing so.

If the weapon or the weapon special ability does not explicitly state that it does anything special for a trip, it does not. Just like all other rules.


The trip rules are the core rules for tripping, not the weapon damage rules, the weapon energy damage rules, etc.


The proponents of the Energy Weapons deal their damage on a touch POV are basically flat out ignoring the fact that Trip tells you what success means for a trip and that Energy Weapons do not explicitly call out an exception to the normal Trip success rules.

And, that is why there really is no significant or explicit rules support for that position. The proponents of that position are adding to the Trip success rules for their POV to work where none of their rules text explicitly adds to those success rules.