Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

KarinsDad said:
...Trip tells you the type of attack to make AND it tells you what happens if that 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....

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 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.

An excellent argument, no doubt. Slightly flawed in that it makes some assumptions about the rules without anything real to back them up, but you can't really analyze the rules without doing that anyway.

However, I stand by my position. Certainly normal damage is replaced by the trip results. I still maintain there is a legitimate argument that ends up with energy damage happening on a Trip. I'll not repeat the argument here, as I have nothing new to add.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sorry I've been absent- like the old curse goes, lately I've been living in "interesting times," so I've been unable to even get time to go online, much less participate in the fun here. I have a few minutes, so here goes...(if I skipped anybody's direct questions to me, its not intentional, its just a time thing- just remind me):

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.

Apparently, there IS some confusion.

A melee touch attack IS an attack- it is a subset of "all attacks." Indeed, the first line of the section on Touch Attacks (they even CALL them that!) on page 136 reads:

"Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor."

And successful attacks require successful attack rolls which result in "hits." Melee touch attacks merely redefine the difficulty of the task of making offensive contact with your target by recalculating the AC of the opponent.

A critical hit is a hit, once again, its just one of a subset of all hits.

If you use Venn diagrams, this is easy enough to see- you cannot get a critical hit without first making a successful hit. The category of "critical hits" is completely within the Venn circle of successful hits.

According to the PHB glossary, damage is defined thus (p307):
Damage:
a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, nonlethal damage, and ability damage. In additon, wherever it is relevant, the type of damage an attack deals is specified, since natural abilities, magic items, or spell effects may grant immunity to certain types of damage. Damage types include weapon damage, (subdivided into bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing) and energy damage (positive, negative, acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic). Modifiers to melee damage rolls apply to both subcategories of weapon damage (melee and unarmed). Some modifiers apply to both weapon and spell damage, but only if so stated. Damage points are deducted from whatevcer charcter attribute has been harmed- lethal and nonlethal damage from current hit points, and ability damage from the relevants abiliyt score. Damage heals naturally over tiem, but can also be negated wholly or partially by curative magic.

Emphasis mine.

No special attack listed in the PHB specifically states that it modifies magical damage, therefore no special attack listed in the PHB modifies damage from magic.
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.

Except that's not what the energy weapons state. They don't say to add the damage if you hit and deal damage, they say to add the damage if you hit.

When you make a successful hit, you have to figure out what kind of damage you're allowed to do at that point.: lethal or nonlethal, HP or ability, weapon or magical, or mixes of the various kinds.

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 rules don't distinguish between touches and hits, merely in the difficulty in doing either.

But lets take a look at the effects of a RW weapon that is as close as I can think of to a flaming sword: the Red Hot poker.

If I'm swinging one of these at you and hit you, you'll be damaged, not just by the force of my swing as transmitted by the metal bar, but also by the heat of the metal.

If I'm merely trying to touch you with the weapon while you evade, but I still succeed, you still get burned.

You can check out the severity of such burns by using a slab of meat...

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.

Common sense here takes us only so far because "magic" is the mechanic the game uses to bend, break or otherwise warp rules that would ordinarily apply. One could just as easily ask why the magical energy of a spell can penetrate armor without a weapon, but can't when bound to a weapon. If you look at each of the energy weapon enchantments, they each require a specific short list of spells to make the weapons. Not a one is stopped by armor.

The best example of how magic weapons bend or break the rules is the Vorpal enchantment, as placed upon a seemingly inappropriate but still qualified weapon- the whip. (Vorpal requires a slashing weapon, which a whip is.)

On a successful critical hit, a Vorpal weapon beheads a creature (assuming it's subject to beheading. This happens even if you're using a Vorpal whip against a heavily armored opponent, even though a whip can't normally damage such an opponent. A whip wielder can swing a whip at such an opponent all day and not harm him one bit...but if its a Vorpal Whip, 1 time in 20, it will behead him.

Gotta go- my life just got interesting again- but I'll be back!
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
When you make a successful hit, you have to figure out what kind of damage you're allowed to do at that point.: lethal or nonlethal, HP or ability, weapon or magical, or mixes of the various kinds.

And for both the energy abilities, and attacks with a weapon, the language is the same - the weapon deals the stated damage on a successful hit, and the flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage on a successful hit.

So when I make a successful hit on my trip attempt, there are two questions that need to be asked.

1. Was the successful hit made with a weapon? If so, the weapon deals the stated damage. Nothing in the Trip text denies this.

For a comparison, let's say I have the Improved Trip feat. The Trip text doesn't state that if I succeed in tripping my opponent, and have the Improved Trip feat, that I can make an immediate melee attack on him. But it doesn't have to; that information is contained in the description of the feat.

The Trip text doesn't state that if I make a successful hit with a weapon, I deal the stated damage. But it doesn't have to; that information is contained in the description of weapons.

2. Was the successful hit made with a flaming weapon? If so, the flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage. Nothing in the Trip text denies this.

----

The resolution of the two questions is identical. If the successful hit was made with a weapon that is also a flaming weapon, the answers to the questions "Does the weapon deal the stated damage?" and "Does the flaming weapon deal +1d6 extra fire damage?" must also be identical.

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
And for both the energy abilities, and attacks with a weapon, the language is the same - the weapon deals the stated damage on a successful hit, and the flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage on a successful hit.

So when I make a successful hit on my trip attempt, there are two questions that need to be asked.

1. Was the successful hit made with a weapon? If so, the weapon deals the stated damage. Nothing in the Trip text denies this.

For a comparison, let's say I have the Improved Trip feat. The Trip text doesn't state that if I succeed in tripping my opponent, and have the Improved Trip feat, that I can make an immediate melee attack on him. But it doesn't have to; that information is contained in the description of the feat.

The Trip text doesn't state that if I make a successful hit with a weapon, I deal the stated damage. But it doesn't have to; that information is contained in the description of weapons.

2. Was the successful hit made with a flaming weapon? If so, the flaming weapon deals +1d6 extra fire damage. Nothing in the Trip text denies this.

----

The resolution of the two questions is identical. If the successful hit was made with a weapon that is also a flaming weapon, the answers to the questions "Does the weapon deal the stated damage?" and "Does the flaming weapon deal +1d6 extra fire damage?" must also be identical.

-Hyp.


You know, you really are right. Both physical damage AND energy damage should be done by the most narrow reading of the rules. Looking a little more broadly and applying some logic, it would appear the physical part of the damage, at least, is overidden by the fact that one has not penetrated full AC and to allow it would really be a gross violation of the intent of other attack rules and even touch attack rules, read as a whole.

Furthermore, drawing a parallel between this touch attack and other touch attack rules regarding "touch" spells, the energy damage should be allowed, but not the physical damage.
 

Artoomis said:
Furthermore, drawing a parallel between this touch attack and other touch attack rules regarding "touch" spells, the energy damage should be allowed, but not the physical damage.

It's not a touch spell. It's a weapon ability.

The closest parallel, given the 'successful hit' language, is the weapon's damage... so if you're disallowing the weapon's damage on the basis of 'applying some logic', the same logic should exclude the energy damage.

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
It's not a touch spell. It's a weapon ability.

The closest parallel, given the 'successful hit' language, is the weapon's damage... so if you're disallowing the weapon's damage on the basis of 'applying some logic', the same logic should exclude the energy damage.

-Hyp.

No, it's not a touch spell. Quite right. (duh!)

However, a touch spell is a very useful parallel as that is where this sort of situation is fully explored. That being physical damage with energy damage and regular attack and touch attacks.

The biggest real difference is that melee touch attacks are simply not permitted any time you want them and trip attacks give you the ONLY touch attack normally allowed for a melee weapon - and even then ONLY for a "tripping" weapon.

Honestly, I think it would be a useful thing for the game if:

1. Touch attacks were eliminated.

or

2. Energy weapon effects (and maybe some other specific ones) were allowed on a touch attack that could be done at any time instead of a regular attack. Of course, like a spell, you'd ONLY get the energy damage, not physical damage, and, also, like a spell, you'd ONLY get the energy damage on a regular attack with a regular hit.
 

Artoomis said:
However, a touch spell is a very useful parallel as that is where this sort of situation is fully explored. That being physical damage with energy damage and regular attack and touch attacks.

The touch attack doesn't deal energy damage; the touch attack delivers a spell. That spell might cure, or paralyze, or stun, or, indeed, deal energy damage... but it's not the touch that deals the damage.

The spell is not a parallel to the flaming weapon.

The biggest real difference is that melee touch attacks are simply not permitted any time you want them and trip attacks give you the ONLY touch attack normally allowed for a melee weapon - and even then ONLY for a "tripping" weapon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real difference". There are any number of differences between a touch spell and a flaming flail.

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
The touch attack doesn't deal energy damage; the touch attack delivers a spell. That spell might cure, or paralyze, or stun, or, indeed, deal energy damage... but it's not the touch that deals the damage.

The spell is not a parallel to the flaming weapon.



I'm not sure what you mean by "real difference". There are any number of differences between a touch spell and a flaming flail.

-Hyp.

Oh for goodness sakes - I'm drawing a parallel, not saying one is exactly like the other. I'm looking for something in the rules that looks most like this - an effect that happens on a touch attack only.

The way touch attacks for spells work is very much like the way I think this really works, thus the parallel.

Not that I expect you to agree, but I thought you might at least see my point, the way I see yours.
 

(for those that desire) It looks like Sage advice (in the most recent Dragon magazine) finally answered this issue :
Base damage must be done before extra damage can be added.
 


Remove ads

Top