Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Dracandross]

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...

Well at least my legs have some major arteries that can cause severe bleeding if cut and death even with treatment. Also they cant constrict themselves always enough to stop bleeding.

Besides trip attack doesnt specify you need to hit legs to trip. You could whip enemys eyes so that hes so distracted and falls or you could ram his torso and make him fall, or just cut his achilles tendon. All is covered by hitpoints and even 1 hp is enough to run around so why not causing severe damage while making one fall.

-Dracandross

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

You do not have a rule to back this up, so this does not happen.

There is not a single rule that states that touching at all with an energy weapon does energy damage. There is a rule that touching a Flaming Weapon to a Web spell sets the web on fire, but that is specific to the Web spell and a Flaming weapon, it is not a general rule on all Energy weapons.

The closest rule is not explicit. It states that the wielder is not harmed by the energy of the weapon. Some DMs could make an inference that the energy of the weapon therefore harms anything it touches, but that is not an explicit rule. It is just an inference that some DMs could make.

Your statement here extrapolates beyond what RAW states.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

You do not have a rule to back this up, so this does not happen.

Certainly he does. The +1d6 extra damage happens on a successful hit. The RAW do NOT say you must have some base damage also. You could, as some have done, see an implied rule for that in that the damage is "+" 1d6, but that's a pretty weak argument at all and could be legitimately seen either way

There is not a single rule that states that touching at all with an energy weapon does energy damage.

No - the rules do not actually state either way on this one. It's s HUGE stretch, though, to think that a flaming weapon could not set a piece of parchment, for example, on fire if touched to it.

Your statement here extrapolates beyond what RAW states.

Not the statement you quoted. You are referring, I presume, to statements made by Dannyalcatraz about a touch is all that's needed to set something on fire, I presume, in which case you are correct, the RAW never explicitly says that anything flammable will be set on fire if a flaming weapon touches it. It's strongly implies that this is the case, but never clearly stated.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

No inconsistency at all. The trip certainly replaces the normal damage, I think we all agree on that. However, the extra energy damage requires only a succesful hit, and that's what happens here. In addition, one cannot cause the energy damage to [n]not[/i] happen (if it's been activated), so it logically makes sense in the same way that a subduing weapon cannot convert such energy into subdual damage.

The only potential consistency is sneak attack damage, but that's easily dealt with when one look at Sneak Attack holistically. It's not really a question of vital areas as it is what is going on here. The potential Sneak Attack is attempting to strike a vital spot whereas a trip is an entirely different kind of attack. I could see the argument for allowing Sneak Attack, but it would not fly with me, at least.

The thing one needs to do is look at the whole picture here.

Does a flaming weapon held to a piece of parchment set it afire?

If yes, then I would think you get energy damage when tripping.

If no. then I would think you would not.

Think about it. A flaming whip (for example) wraps around one of your legs (or arms, it does not matter). Do you take fire damage or not?

If nothing else, this area of the rules could use a little work, it seems.

 

[Deset Gled]

Hmmmmmm...



Emphasis mine.

I think this quote wraps up the arguement for me. On a successful hit, the weapon deals damage according to the table. The contra-positive of this statement is that if the weapon does not deal the damage according to the table (such as in a trip), the weapon has not made a successful hit.

 

[Artoomis]

I think this quote wraps up the arguement for me. On a successful hit, the weapon deals damage according to the table. The contra-positive of this statement is that if the weapon does not deal the damage according to the table (such as in a trip), the weapon has not made a successful hit.

Well, that's one legitimate RAW-based approach.

I have a little trouble with understanding how a sucessful Melee Touch Attack is anything other than "a successfull hit," though. Note that the "Damage" quote does NOT define "succesful hit."

It states you do damage on a successful hit. It does not state what else may happen on a succesful hit, nor that every succesful hit results in damage.

You did, however, inspire me to look up all instances of "successful hit" and the definition of "Attack Roll" in the SRD. It seems the term "succesful hit" is never actually defined, though, when looking at every time it's used, it seems to mean whenever an attack roll meets or exceed the opposing AC.

Bottom line, this approach of looking to game definitions is not particularly helpful to either side of this discussion.

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. 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.

Of course we know that EVERY time you roll and attack roll you do NOT deal damage as sometimes the attack is not a daamge-dealing attack - such as in some spells.

Here's every instance of "successful hit" in the SRD. I do not have my PHB handy. Is "successfiul hit" in the glossary?

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

(I'll forge quoting the other energy weapons or psionic as they are all similar)

Flame Tongue
This is a +1 flaming burst longsword. Once per day, the sword can blast forth a fiery ray at any target within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The ray deals 4d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

Damage
The Damage columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit...

Halberd
If you use a ready action to set a halberd against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character.

(A similar statement exists for "longspear," "spear," and "trident")

Energy Attacks
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit.

If a trap (either mechanical or magic) does hit point damage, calculate the average damage for a successful hit ...

Weapon Afire (Ps)
At 4th level and higher, a pyrokineticist can activate this ability as a move-equivalent action. Flames that harm neither her nor the weapon engulf one weapon she holds (which can be a projectile such as a stone, bullet, arrow, or bolt). The weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

-2 Sword, Cursed
This longsword performs well against targets in practice, but when used against an opponent in combat, it causes its wielder to take a -2 penalty on attack rolls.

All damage dealt is also reduced by 2 points, but never below a minimum of 1 point of damage on any successful hit.

Claw of Energy
...The claw attack deals an extra 1d6 points of cold, electricity, or fire damage (as chosen by you at the time of manifestation) on a successful hit.

Strength of My Enemy
... One of your natural or manufactured weapons becomes the instrument of your desire, and deals 1 point of Strength damage on each successful hit.

Entangling Ectoplasm
...You draw forth a glob of ectoplasmic goo from the Astral Plane and immediately throw it as a ranged touch attack at any creature in range. On a successful hit, the subject is covered in goo and becomes entangled...

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, that's one legitimate RAW-based approach.

I have a little trouble with understanding how a sucessful Melee Touch Attack is anything other than "a successfull hit," though. Note that the "Damage" quote does NOT define "succesful hit."

It states you do damage on a successful hit. It does not state what else may happen on a succesful hit, nor that every succesful hit results in damage.

The point that you sidestepped here is that both rules sections use the exact same wording:

1) Normal damage is done "on a successful hit".
2) Energy damage is done "on a successful hit".

Hence, either both of these are done on a Trip attack, or neither of these are done on a Trip attack. You cannot have your cake and eat it too and consider that you are following the rules on this.

Since the Trip attack does explicitly state what happens during a Trip and does not mention either of these, then neither of these are done on a Trip attack. Anything else is trying to rules lawyer the rules into something they do not state.


Again, the "Energy Weapons damage anything they touch" interpretation appears to be a "this is what should happen" type of interpretation, not a "RAW states that this is what does happen" type of interpretation.

 

[Artoomis]

The point that you sidestepped here is that both rules sections use the exact same wording:

1) Normal damage is done "on a successful hit".
2) Energy damage is done "on a successful hit".

Hence, either both of these are done on a Trip attack, or neither of these are done on a Trip attack. You cannot have your cake and eat it too and consider that you are following the rules on this.

Since the Trip attack does explicitly state what happens during a Trip and does not mention either of these, then neither of these are done on a Trip attack. Anything else is trying to rules lawyer the rules into something they do not state.

I see your point. I do.

However neither your argument (nor mine) in really conclusive. The rules simply leave this as a bit of a gray area. If Energy weapons could ONLY damage something if also doing some other damage that would be one thing, but I do not think this is so and I am supported by the RAW example of WEB and a flaming sword.

On the flip side is:

Energy Attacks
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit.

Again, the "Energy Weapons damage anything they touch" interpretation appears to be a "this is what should happen" type of interpretation, not a "RAW states that this is what does happen" type of interpretation.

No - this is a "gray area," too. The RAW does NOT state this either way, leaving it open. The bit about WEB and flaming weapons certainly leaves the door wide open for a RAW interpretation that supports Energy Weapona damaging what's "touched." The RAW absolutely does NOT, however, open the door for Touch Attacks for this except perhaps for Trip which specifically allows a Touch Attack with a melee tripping weapon (or unarmed, of course).

I kind of amuses me when folks attempt to apply so much precision to an imprecise set of rules that they cannot see that there is more than one "right answer."

Hmmm... Maybe I shoud include some form of that remark in my signature.

 

[KarinsDad]

I see your point. I do.

However neither your argument (nor mine) in really conclusive. The rules simply leave this as a bit of a gray area. If Energy weapons could ONLY damage something if also doing some other damage that would be one thing, but I do not think this is so and I am supported by the RAW example of WEB and a flaming sword.

It's not as gray as you claim.

In order for Energy Weapon damage to work via touch attacks and for you to be supported by the Web spell, the Web spell would have to state that it takes the damage of the flaming weapon via a touch attack. It does not state this. It states that the web is flammable.

A candle does not do fire damage to anyone, but it can set flammable objects on fire.

The only thing that the Web spell supports is that:

1) The web if flammable.
2) A Flaming Weapon can slash them away (presumably with a free action via the "as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs", but this is not explicit and is open to debate).

This states nothing about what else a Flaming Weapon sets on fire (it might only be a Web spell and nothing else) and it definitely says nothing about a Flaming Weapon doing touch damage.

Now, I can see someone using the Web spell to support that a Flaming Weapon sets flammable objects on fire. I have no problem with that since the Flame Weapon ability states that the weapon is covered with fire. But, this is TOTALLY different than claiming that the damage done on a successful hit also occurs on touch attacks. The ability states exactly when the damage occurs and it does not state that it occurs on touch attacks.

This is not a gray area. It is an extrapolation of rules which do not exist.

No - this is a "gray area," too. The RAW does NOT state this either way, leaving it open. The bit about WEB and flaming weapons certainly leaves the door wide open for a RAW interpretation that supports Energy Weapona damaging what's "touched."

The Flaming Weapon rule is explicit. It does damage on a successful hit. The game mechanics of this is not gray. The effect is listed and when the effect occurs is listed.

I kind of amuses me when folks attempt to apply so much precision to an imprecise set of rules that they cannot see that there is more than one "right answer."

The rules are precise. They say when a Flaming Weapon does damage.

This is not the answer you want, so you are claiming that the rules are imprecise.

You are using the phrase "successful hit" to mean something other than a normal attack roll when that is the default and any exception to the default would have to be clearly stated.

 

[pawsplay]

The point that you sidestepped here is that both rules sections use the exact same wording:

1) Normal damage is done "on a successful hit".
2) Energy damage is done "on a successful hit".

Hence, either both of these are done on a Trip attack, or neither of these are done on a Trip attack. You cannot have your cake and eat it too and consider that you are following the rules on this.

That is not the situation. Tripping does replace the benefits of a normal attack, but one of the steps OF A TRIP ATTACK is a melee touch attack, which uses the language "on a successful hit."