Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Ilium]

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.

That seems like a reasonable ruling, though it's an extra step in the middle of combat of course. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Artoomis]

That seems like a reasonable ruling, though it's an extra step in the middle of combat of course. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, I think per RAW you get the energy damage on the touch attack because you "hit" - though this is, perhaps, the only way to get a touch attack with a weapon.

To be completely logical and fit in with the concept of touch attacks from spells, I think that the way this ought to work is:

Any time you use a weapon that does energy damage, you do the energy damage if your attack would have hit the Touch Attack AC, whether or not the actual AC is hit. This represents, for example, the cold penetrating right through the armor as you might expect it would and as spells with touch attacks work.

Of course, I would not play it that way due to the increased complexity and it's not RAW at all, it's just a natural extension of the whole Touch Attack concept.

It sure makes sense, though - and I guess it would not be THAT hard. Still, definately NOT going to happen in our group.

 

[Wavern]

Well, I think per RAW you get the energy damage on the touch attack becasue you "hit" - though this is, perhaps, the only way to get a touch attack with a weapon.

To be completely logical and fit in with the concept of touch attacks from spells, I think that the way this ought to work is:

Any time you use a weapon that does energy damage, you do the energy damage if your attack would have hit the Touch Attack AC, whether or not the actual AC is hit. This represents, for example, the cold penetrating right through the armor as you might expect it would and as spells with touch attacks work.

Of course, I would not play it that way due to the increased complexity and it's not RAW at all, it's just a natural extension of the whole Touch Attack concept.

It sure makes sense, though - and I guess it would not be THAT hard. Still, definately NOT going to happen in our group.

If thats the case then if I had an energy sword and was having trouble hitting a target I would just start making attacks to hit their armor not bypass it. I'm sure you can see the slippery slope that poses. And its a pretty simple you go what AC did you hit. Play says X. DM goes ok you miss, ok you hit and trip or okay you trip and you notice some frost form at the spot you hit. Pretty simple as most DM's should have AC for Flat-footed, touch and normal AC for all NPC's and creatures at a minimum. Basicly it just requires reading that extra line or taking litteraly about 2 more secs to go yeah you hit this.

Frost: Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A frost weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition.
Moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.

Successful hit implies that you hit including hitting past armor other wise sorry dude you missed even if by one, your blow glances off bobs armor and you notice a light frost left behind but no other effect. Simple.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hmmmmmm...

Damage

The Damage columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. The column labeled "Dmg (S)" is for Small weapons. The column labeled "Dmg (M)" is for Medium weapons. If two damage ranges are given then the weapon is a double weapon. Use the second damage figure given for the double weapon’s extra attack. Table: Larger and Smaller Weapon Damage gives weapon damage values for weapons of various sizes.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Artoomis]

If thats the case then if I had an energy sword and was having trouble hitting a target I would just start making attacks to hit their armor not bypass it....

Certainly. That fits perfectly with the concept of how Touch Attacks work.

That's not RAW and I do not expect anyone to play that way, though.

Trip just is laid out in such a way that you must first get a successful hit (Touch Attack) to trip, and that's why you get the energy damage.

RAW does not allow one to simply declare a Touch Attack with a weapon.

When you get right down to it, Fire Shield ought to work anytime someone hits your Touch AC. But, of course, RAW does not work that way and it would make the game more complex.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Trip just is laid out in such a way that you must first get a successful hit (Touch Attack) to trip, and that's why you get the energy damage.

Apparently you also get full weapon damage as well.

 

[Artoomis]

Apparently you also get full weapon damage as well.

I think not. YOu COULD rule it that way, but that seesm more than a little abusive, and, besides, I read Trip as happening instead of normal damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think not. YOu COULD rule it that way, but that seesm more than a little abusive, and, besides, I read Trip as happening instead of normal damage.

So the weapon damage that occurs on a successful hit is replaced, but the energy damage that occurs on a successful hit is not?

Does this not seem inconsistent?

Surely, either, the Trip mechanic replaces what normally happens on a successful hit (weapon damage plus energy damage) with the opposed Str check, or the Trip mechanic enhances what normally happens on a successful hit (weapon damage plus energy damage) with the opposed Str check.

How can the Trip mechanic replace some of what normally happens on a successful hit, but not all?

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

So the weapon damage that occurs on a successful hit is replaced, but the energy damage that occurs on a successful hit is not?

Does this not seem inconsistent?

Surely, either, the Trip mechanic replaces what normally happens on a successful hit (weapon damage plus energy damage) with the opposed Str check, or the Trip mechanic enhances what normally happens on a successful hit (weapon damage plus energy damage) with the opposed Str check.

How can the Trip mechanic replace some of what normally happens on a successful hit, but not all?

-Hyp.

The trip attack does replace what normally happens, BUT one of the steps of trip is to make a melee touch attack. And that step triggers the elemental damage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

You're missing the important question- "Are legs vital organs?"

If you want to do Sneak Attack damage, the rules explicitly state that you must strike a vital organ or similarly vulnerable area. IMHO, "legs"- the target of a trip attack- do not meet that criterion, making them an invalid target for SA damage on a trip.

If you want to include "legs" as vital organs, then you might as well drop the requirement that vital organs be struck.

Experiment:

Make a mock tripping weapon- a weight on the end of a rope or string.

Strike with it at a target, intending to hit that target's legs in such a way as to entangle them. If you can't get a target, use your forearm.

You'll note that the weapon takes a lot of time to wrap around the target, and that by the time the weapon has finished wrapping up its target, its kinetic energy is exhausted- it will not hurt to have a limb struck this way (though you may get a rope burn). The weapon will either wrap a large surface area, or it will wrap over its own length, dampening the blow.

So the weapon damage that occurs on a successful hit is replaced, but the energy damage that occurs on a successful hit is not?

Does this not seem inconsistent?

Not to me.

Most weapons harm their targets by transferring kinetic energy from the attacker to the target by slashing, piercing or bludgeoning- quickly, in a single vector and over a relatively small area.

An attack from a tripping weapon does away with that damage by substituting the ability to tangle the limbs of the target in such a way that the target is immobilized in some way. The attack itself does no damage because the force is distributed over a larger area over multiple vectors and takes more time.

In contrast, energy from an enchanted weapon is not kinetic in nature- it is an energy discharge...fire energy, cold energy, electrical energy, whatever. All that is required to discharge the energy is contact- a successful hit.

Experiment:

Buy a nightstick and an electric cattle prod.

Hit someone with the nightstick. Hit someone with the charged cattle prod.

Touch someone with nightstick. Touch someone with charged cattle prod.

Note results. The person hit or merely touched by the cattle prod will experience pain.

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.

I'm not missing the weapon description quote. What you are missing is that the DMG also states that fire is never non-lethal damage in 3.x. I would take this to mean that a weapon sheathed in fire is capable of dealing fire damage whenever it is in contact with something.

Thus, if you set a flaming sword upon a stack of paper, you simply check this list:

1) Is paper flammable- vulnerable to damage from flame? (check)

2) Is the sword in contact with the paper? (check)

3) Is the sword flaming? (check)

4) Is fire normal damage? (check)

As an object the paper should take the damage from the flame. Because of its nature, it should ignite.

An as you have no doubt noticed, I support the position that a flaming (or similarly enchanted) weapon can deal its enchantment damage upon contact with something vulnerable to that damage type. Physics doesn't care which target hits what- energy gets transferred when 2 objects come into contact. A foe grabbing your flaming sword is no less endangered by it than the foe you strike with it.

I'll reply this way- if you run your combats in such a way that a torch used in combat as an improvised weapon can ignite flammables, then there is no logical or mechanical reason that a flaming sword should be run differently- it is no more "instantaneous" than the mundane weapon; its flame is no less lethal.

If, OTOH, you run your combats in such a way that a torch used in combat cannot ignite flammables, then neither should your flaming weapons.