Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Dannyalcatraz]

To zero. The extra damage is triggered on a successful hit, not successfully dealing damage.

True, but it is extra damage, and it is +1d6, not 1d6. You're not dealing zero damage with your Trip, so why are you adding the +1d6 to zero?

Well, other than being algebraically correct?

The extra damage is not dependent upon there being any underlying damage at all. It is triggered by a successful hit.

If I agree to give you X(Baby Seals) + 1DN(Baby Seals), and X equals zero for any reason, I still owe you 1DN Baby Seals.

They are independent variables, not interdependent variables. If they were interdependent, the extra damage could not be dealt without the underlying damage, which would be expressed by a phrase like:

"...A (insert energy type) weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit if and only if the weapon does damage on a successful hit."

Besides, if we really want to play with semantics, PHB p134 says of Attack Rolls:

If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

(emphasis mine)

Similar language on p135 says:

To score a hit that deals damage on your attack roll, your result must equal or exceed the target's Armor Class (AC)

So a successful hit, by definition, deals damage...even if it doesn't actually deal damage! It doesn't matter if that zero damage is because its a trip attack, or the damage is reduced to zero, or whatever- it still "damage" by the rules of the game. By RAW.

Of course, what they REALLY mean is that to have an attack have a successful result, you must have an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC...in other words, you must hit your opponent. Once you hit your opponent, you may do damage...or trip, or disarm, or stun, or sunder... And, as I pointed out, the extra damage of energy enhanced weapons is triggered by a hit, not by dealing damage.

I'd say no SA damage when tripping- Sneak Attack damage is precision damage based upon the rogue's knowledge of anatomy and vitals, and applying that knowledge by striking those vital areas.

The cold damage, in contrast, is merely the result of an enchantment doing its job. No special knowledge needed, no requirement of exact placement...just a successful hit.

The rogue has the knowledge of vital areas, she's making an attack, her opponent has a discernible anatomy, and her opponent is denied his Dex bonus to AC. The 'exact placement' is taken care of by those factors.

So given that both are extra damage, and the requirements for both are met, why should one work and not the other?

PHB p50

Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself...she can strike a vital spot for extra damage

Arguably, "legs" are not true vital spots. If they were, then logically SA damage should apply to anything with legs, including constructs and undead- the rogue would be messing up joints or breaking off chunks of her target's legs...

Vital spots would be vital organs or nerve clusters. For example, if I strike your vagus nerve correctly, I can disrupt your heartbeat, possibly your breathing, or perhaps you'll just go unconscious. But it is a smaaaaaaall target located along the jaw. Striking it takes skill and either precision or great force. The precision strike hits that spot and only that spot. The forceful strike is what we'd call a knockout blow- you hit the head hard enough and at the right angle to displace the jaw, driving the bone into the nerve.

Are there nerve clusters in the legs? Sure. And if I were to slash or punch them a certain way, I might make your leg go numb, causing you to fall.

But to strike that way, I must jab or slash a very small target- a very different kind of strike from wrapping a whip around your ankles to trip you up. For one thing, the force of the blow is distributed over a broader area of flesh and over a longer period of time (the time it takes to wrap around both legs).

 

[pawsplay]

But with the dagger, you deal 1d4+1 Slashing (or Piercing) and +1d6 extra cold damage, and the creature ignores up to 10 points of the Slashing damage. There was damage dealt by the weapon to add the Cold damage to; it was just ignored.

With a Trip attack, there's no damage to start with, so what does the extra +1d6 get added to?

If a rogue trips a flat-footed creature, does her +3d6 extra damage from Sneak Attack apply? She's making an attack, and her foe is denied his Dex bonus to AC and thus 'unable to defend himself effectively from her attack'. Is there a difference between the Sneak Attack +3d6 extra damage when the rogue attacks, and the +1d6 extra cold damage when she successfully hits?

-Hyp.

Sneak attack states specifically that you must strike a vital spot. Tripping someone is not striking a vital spot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Succinctly put!

 

[Hypersmurf]

They are independent variables, not interdependent variables. If they were interdependent, the extra damage could not be dealt without the underlying damage, which would be expressed by a phrase like:

"...A (insert energy type) weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit if and only if the weapon does damage on a successful hit."

But the +1d6 tells us that anyway.

What is the resulting Dexterity score when I cast Cat's Reflexes on someone with a Dex of 0? What is the resulting Dexterity score when I cast Cat's Reflexes on someone with a Dex of --?

The damage is extra, and added to something. It's not 1d6, it's +1d6, and it's not merely damage, it's extra damage. If there's 0 to add it to, we're fine. If there's nothing to add it to, the operation cannot be performed.

Are there nerve clusters in the legs? Sure. And if I were to slash or punch them a certain way, I might make your leg go numb, causing you to fall.

But to strike that way, I must jab or slash a very small target...

... exactly the way rogues are trained to do against opponents denied Dex bonus?

-Hyp.

 

[Xath]

So in this case if the "Whip" roll an attack and scored say 20 but need 18 to "Trip" but would need a 25 to hit normaly no damage no game. If they had rolled 25 or higher I'd give them the little extra juice for a good roll for the energy damge but no physical damge from the whip contact as its not lashing but raping around the leg.

I agree with this, except for the raping the leg part. That's just wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

Where does it say that in the rules?

It has been the case (since 1Ed), for instance, that merely brushing flammables with a flaming sword will ignite them- you don't have to strike a parchment scroll, a pool of spilled oil, a bale of hay or a Web, for instance, to ignite any of them. Mere contact with the flame is sufficient to ignite flammables.

Where does it say that in the rules?

(you have to admit, it's funny when someone asks for a rules quote and then states supposed rules that do not have rules quotes )


The problem is that it states it in the Web spell.

It does not state it under Oil.

It does not state this under a Flame weapon special ability.


The problem is that of extrapolating touch burning damage from a Flame weapon that is not written in the rules. One could extrapolate that since a Flame weapon does not burn the wielder, it must burn other things but that is not explicitly stated, that is a personal inference.

I agree that a Flaming weapon SHOULD burn things, but according to RAW, the only thing it burns (tmk) is a Web spell or a creature hit with a damaging attack by the weapon.


The closest rules for allowing touch of fire catching someone on fire are:

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

So, if you allow the extra damage from magical fire to do damage with a touch attack, you also have to allow the target the DC 15 Reflex save to avoid it.

Course, the opposing camp could interpret that a touch attack is instantaneous and not a continuous effect. So, you would have to grapple with the whip, not trip with it to do this. YMMV.

 

[werk]

Where does it say that in the rules?

(you have to admit, it's funny when someone asks for a rules quote and then states supposed rules that do not have rules quotes )

I thought it was pretty funny...

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, now that the debate is raging, I'll let you know how we ruled.

Energy damage (the +1d6 cold, in this example) applies because a trip relies upon a touch attack roll, which is a "successful hit," and because of the nature of the damage. The discussion on whether there is any base damage to be modified was considered a red herring as the "+1d6" does NOT require any base damage to be modified, it only requires a "successful hit."

Note that this ONLY applies to Trip because Bull Rush, Disarm, Overrun and Sunder all use opposed. Of all of those, only Trip begins with a touch attack. Of course, this also ONLY applies if you use a tripping weapon.

All in all, this works well in our game, but we do have some mitigating factors:

1. The character involved is a bard, so he is hardly a front-line fighter. It does allow him to get in a few licks from time-to-time.

2. Base damage is pitiful. 1d4+1 (this is a rather special whip), with no strength bonus (in this case) or special feats to increase damage.

3. The opposed STR check is kind of scary as this character's strength is ony 10 - as is his DEX should he be counter-tripped.

4. To use this most effectively requires four feats: Exotic Weapon (Whip), Combat Expertise, Improved trip and Precise Strike (ignore less than full cover when using a melee weapon). That's a lot of combat feats for Bard, even taking into account the free Exotic Weapon (Whip).

This would be more effective with a high STR fighter, of course, but by the time they get a fancy weapon like this they often are relying upon various other ways of increasing damage (multipliers of various sorts and additional damage that can be multiplied) and would rather have other magical weapon properties like Keen, or Ghost Touch, or Speed, or others.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Note that this ONLY applies to Trip because Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Sunder all use opposed rolls or a "grapple check." Of all of those, only Trip begins with a touch attack.

You don't use the normal mechanic for grappling? How do you resolve Step 2 if you don't use:

Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target. If you fail to hit the target, the grapple attempt fails. If you succeed, proceed to Step 3.

Actually, grappling is the only one that uses the word hit. I personally think there's a huge difference between hitting something and simply touching something. And, allowing for touch attacks with any weapon is not supported in the rules.

 

[Ilium]

Ok, I'm doing something I never do: Posting without reading the whole thread. {ducks}
Now having said that I would not allow the damage. The reason is that by this logic I should be able to take my +1 flaming shock sword and say, "I can't get through this guy's armor. I'll just do a touch attack for the 1d6 fire and 1d6 electric damage."

I certainly wouldn't allow that, and I don't see a difference in the logic.