Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Artoomis]

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

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.

Okay, okay, I missed step 2. I'll edit out grappling above - though you don't use a weapon for it, so it is pretty much a moot point.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

We thought about that, and, although it actually does make sense and aligns well with the concept of Touch Attacks, we decided that it is not within the rules and so we do not allow it. We only allow this for Trip as it is the only way (I think) to get a touch attack with a weapon.

 

[RangerWickett]

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

"Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place, Captain."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Its a different situation.

With Cat's Reflexes, you are adding to something that must already be there. Having a Dex score is a neccessary precondition for benefiting from the spell. The benefit of the spell is dependent upon there being something to add to. Cats could be expressed as X +1d4 if and only if X is a real number>0 spell.

With energy damage, the rules state its +1d6. But unlike the spell, its not a +1d6 dependent upon something else like doing damage- its only prerequisite is that contact be made. Energy damage is XdN + 1d6, where X can be 0 or even nonexistent. They are not interdependent.

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

A trip attack is NOT a precision strike by any stretch of the imagination, especially when using a tripping weapon that wraps around a limb.

Now to the Karinsdad section of my response:

(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

Recheck my context- I was referring back to the 1Ed rules.

Unless the 3.x rules explicitly change the way fire works, I see no reason to change things.

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.

The rules under flaming weapon say explicitly that the weapon is sheathed in fire and that the fire "does not harm the wielder." The ONLY reason to make that distintion is to distinguish the wielder from any other object or person that may come in contact with the fire.

As for 3.X, considering the section you quoted from the DMG (p303 Catching on Fire), in which non-instantaneous magical fire is listed as a source that can ignite flammables- do you actually consider the weapon's flame instantaneous? Its no more instantaneous than a torch. If you can light something with a torch, you can light it with a flaming sword.

 

[Hypersmurf]

With energy damage, the rules state its +1d6. But unlike the spell, its not a +1d6 dependent upon something else like doing damage- its only prerequisite is that contact be made. Energy damage is XdN + 1d6, where X can be 0 or even nonexistent. They are not interdependent.

Let's say I have a Rod of Antinimbleness. On a successful hit, it deals damage equal to the target's Dexterity score, and +1d4 extra points of damage.

What is the result if I successfully hit a creature with a Dex of 0? With a Dex of --?

A trip attack is NOT a precision strike by any stretch of the imagination, especially when using a tripping weapon that wraps around a limb.

Then you're obviously not tripping precisely enough. You should take a level in Rogue.

Is it an attack? Is the target denied Dex? Does the target have a discernible anatomy?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now to the Karinsdad section of my response:


Recheck my context- I was referring back to the 1Ed rules.

Unless the 3.x rules explicitly change the way fire works, I see no reason to change things.

Recheck your context "It has been the case (since 1Ed),"

You were inferring that the 3.5 rules for this topic are the same as the 1E and they are not. This is the rules forum and we typically discuss 3.5 (or 3E) rules here. If you are going to question someone else on where their rules are written and then turn around and write non-supportive old 1E rules down yourself, you are going to sound pretty darn inconsistent and funny.

The rules under flaming weapon say explicitly that the weapon is sheathed in fire and that the fire "does not harm the wielder." The ONLY reason to make that distintion is to distinguish the wielder from any other object or person that may come in contact with the fire.

From a strictly logical point of view, this is an invalid argument. If is an inference, but it is not a fact.

The weapon affects A (hitting someone). The weapon does not affect B (the wielder). Neither of these indicate what happens for C (touching something or someone with the weapon).

The quote you are missing when you talk about "sheathed in fire" and "does not affect the wielder" is:

A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

No other time. Only on a successful hit and arguably, only when the damage is extra damage.

This is the explanation of what the weapon does. This is the explanation of the game mechanics effect. This explanation does not include what happens on something were there is no hit or where there is no damage.

For example, setting the sword on a stack of papers. There is no "to hit roll" involved with this action. So, what happens?

Again, this is the rules forum where we often distinguish between RAW (explicit rules) and inference (implicit or possibly even intent rules). You do not have an explicit rule here that states that anything touched by the Flaming weapon takes fire damage.

And btw, I 100% agree with you that this is what should happen, but this is not what definitely and explicitly happens by RAW.

You appear to be confusing the two and letting your plausibility override what is actually written.

As for 3.X, considering the section you quoted from the DMG (p303 Catching on Fire), in which non-instantaneous magical fire is listed as a source that can ignite flammables- do you actually consider the weapon's flame instantaneous? Its no more instantaneous than a torch. If you can light something with a torch, you can light it with a flaming sword.

If you use the word instantaneous to refer to the term for spell duration, then no.

If you use the word instantaneous to refer to how long the flame is held against a creature with a trip (e.g. not continuous), then yes.

Again, it is not explicit, so it is interpreted differently by different people.

But, show me in the rules where the exact word "non-instantaneous" is defined as a game mechanic.

 

[3d6]

Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon[…]

In a trip, you make a melee touch attack with a weapon.

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.

A melee touch attack is a melee attack that ignores certain kinds of AC bonus. It is otherwise a normal melee attack.

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

When an attack succeeds, you deal damage based on the weapon.

No rule in the trip special attack specifically changes any of these normal rules for melee attacks. Therefore, one can conclude that, when tripping with a weapon, you deal weapon damage with your attack. (One wouldn’t deal damage with an unarmed melee attack, as that has no defined damage value. An unarmed strike is an unarmed attack, but the reverse is not necessarily true.)

You’ll notice that no one actually runs trip this way, even though I don’t think there’s a real argument against what I’ve said. What this means is that there’s an implied rule that everybody’s following, one that says something like “trip attacks don’t deal damage”. Because there's no real rule that states that, the only correct answer is the one given by a DM in his or her own game, because this is essentially a question of house rules.

 

[Festivus]

That would make trip attacks incredibly overpowering in my opinion. But... if my players want it run that way they need to be aware that they could get tripped and killed before they even had a chance to think about it from that BBEG.

I suspect that the odds would be against the PCs in the long run, given many more creatures out there have the ability to trip yet are immune to trip themselves.

The way we run it is as you said, trip does no damage on the attempt. And IMC I would probably rule that the effect on a weapon deals no damage on a trip as well... though this does sound like something I want to address before it comes up in game.

 

[pawsplay]

TRIP
You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.
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). ...

It says that you may trip your opponent "as an unarmed melee attack." Not that you are making a trip, not making a standard attack. The part starting with "If your attack succeeds," replaces what ordinarily happens on an attack.

Notice the line after "Making a Trip Attack." It says, "make an unarmed melee touch attack." So part of your special attack is making an attack. That's when the extra damage kicks in. Although tripping is not defined as doing damage, you do hit your target in this step of tripping and thus do "extra" damage.

 

[Wavern]

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.

Basicly what I was implying if you read up a few posts in mine, baring any bad spelling should come across like this. Though leaving the option open to deal the damage if the attack roll actually would have been a hit thru the armor. Reason being that to preform the trip you give up your standard damage dice but if you do it well enough imo you could still inflict elemental damge. If you dont do it well enough well then your SOL and maybe dont even get the trip if you didnt even make the touch attack.