Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[moritheil]

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.

So, just for consistency, KD, what do you assert should happen when one takes a portable hole into a Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Necroequipugilism

OK...covering a lot of ground in this one (apologies in advance if something comes out disjointed):

Various consolidated relevant quotes from the PHB, DMG, & SRD mostly from various posts in the old Flaming Whip thread (some original quoters gave no page info)

1) PHB: When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus.<snip>If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

2) PHB: "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage...<snip>Damage reduces a target's current hit points."

3) SRD: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

4) From the 3.5 FAQ (page 55): a fighter wielding a +1 flaming sword can’t choose for the fire damage to be nonlethal (even if the base weapon damage is nonlethal)

5) DMG p28: Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire

6) PHB p136: Touch Attacks Some attacks disregard armor, including shield and natural armor.

7) PHB: Dealing Nonlethal Damage," which reads, in part: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to use the flat of the blade, strike at nonvital areas, or check your swing.

The above all quoted in no particular order to support the following (also in no particular order):

Several of the quotes essentially state that damage is the consequence of a successful hit. Indeed, going by the combat rules alone, damage is the only possible consequence of a successful hit.

Me, in that Flaming Whip thread
When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. (Rule)
Damage reduces a target's current hit points. (Lemma)
A successful trip attack results in the target being tripped.

Nowhere in the trip attack rules (PHBp158) does it state that a trip attack does or doesn't do damage... so either trips do normal damage for the method in which the trip is delivered OR (see Conclusion below).
...
So we have a conundrum.

Conclusion- Either not all successful attacks deal damage- contradicting the very first Rule under the Dealing damage section, and thus the RAW- or the Lemma is false, also contradicting the RAW.

My way around this conundrum:

Me, in that Flaming Whip thread
The NATURE of the damage may vary- it may be regular damage like a sword-blow, non-lethal like a stunning fist, it may be insta-kill like a Vorpal beheading, it may even be a special effect substituted for damage like a trip- but RAW ()- the result of a successful attack roll is damage.

Now, most people assume that a trip attack does not do damage, I among them. The reason is twofold:

1) If you successfully trip your opponent, he falls prone- this is the only result. The specific rules section does not mention dealing damage as the result of a successful trip attack.

2) If you have Improved Trip, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent (as if you had not used the successful attack to Trip), presumably to do damage while he is prone. That would mean that with the feat, you'd get to Trip + Do damage + Attack again to do damage- a formulation most would probably consider overpowered.

Besides, we have other kinds of post-attack effects- some even referring to "damage" other than reduction of hit points- like attacks that damage (reduce) ability scores, grapples get initiated, targets get tripped...or affected by a variety of spells. In other words, "damage" != reduction of hit points. They may say it does, but they clearly don't use the word with any real precision. "Damage" is just their semi-efficient codeword for "the weapon (or other attack) has its stated effect."

Re #6 & 7:

Now, while it is true that the rules do not explicitly state that you can make a "touch attack" with a melee weapon, neither do the rules specifically EXCLUDE making touch attacks with melee weapons. See #6 above- that section tells you the mechanics, and even gives two examples based upon a wizard using Shocking Grasp- but it does not even start to delineate what is and what is not capable of being used for such an attack. That is left open.

Similarly, #7 above notes that there is at least one other way to use a normal weapon- dealing non-lethal damage.

So, since its not explicitly excluded, it is up to your DM to rule whether you can make a touch attack with a melee weapon. IMHO, its completely fair since it would at least reflect the custom of "counting coup"- the practice of striking an opponent in melee, but without intention to do damage, only to touch them in an exposed area, as a measure of a warrior's bravery & skill...and mercy. Since it is a successful strike in melee, such a strike should trigger the bonus damage from a weapon such as we've been discussing. (Of course, one could argue that using such a weapon to count coup violates the spirit of the practice, and a warropr should not be credited with coup using such a weapon...but the fire still gets triggered.)

Re #3 & 4 above:

Me, in that Flaming Whip thread
It seems to me, and to others, that the reading of the Flaming power is being tortured. Some feel that the damage is being done by the weapon, not the enchantment. "A flaming weapon deals..." has been much discussed, but read on.

The second sentence of this entry reads "THE FIRE does not harm the wielder"- not "THE FLAMING WEAPON." This matters. They have already made a distinction between the weapon and the power granted by the magic. "A flaming weapon" is nothing more than a description of a weapon wrapped in a shroud of magical fire.

Me, in that Flaming Whip thread
Lets assume that the game's writers are rational human beings, the statement:

The fire does not harm the wielder.

must have a rational meaning.

1) They mentioned that the Fire doesn't hurt the wielder for a reason.

2) The reason is to point it out as an exception to the general rule that fire burns those in contact with it.

3) That the class of persons not burned by the fire on the weapon is limited to a single class- the "Set of People Wielding the Firey weapon" would indicate that persons OUTSIDE that class are not immune to damage by the fire.

and, in the context of the sentence immediately precedent to which it refers:

Quote:

... a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire.

4) The fire damage that would normally be done to the wielder comes from the fire enchantment- not the weapon.

And #4 specifically states that he cannot make the FIRE portion of his damage non-lethal (an option he has with the blade of his weapon). It distinguishes between what is doing the damage- some is the weapon, not the fire, the other is the fire, not the weapon.

 

[KarinsDad]

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."

Not quite. In the Trip section, it states:

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). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.

So, the Trip Special Attack does not use the "on a successful hit" language.

In the melee touch section:

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.

And the melee touch attack language does not use the language "on a successful hit".

None of the PHB melee touch attack sections (be it glossary or spell section or elsewhere) uses the language "on a successful hit" TMK.


The point you appear to be missing is the "if your attack succeeds" portion of the Trip attack. It tells you what happens under that condition. It does not include normal damage in that section. It does not include energy damage in that section.

The sections on melee touch attacks do not state that you do normal damage with them.

The sections on melee touch attacks do not state that you do energy damage with them.


"Successful hits" or "successful attacks" occur all over the game system. But, they also tell you what the result of success means and none of them add energy damage to attacks which do not do normal damage unless the power, spell, or special ability explicitly states that they do.

The Trip section does not state this.

The rules are clear what happens and the position that Energy Weapons do touch damage exceeds anything that the rules explicitly state.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh, come ON!

PBB p134 An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round....If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

A trip attack is just one of the subset of all melee touch attacks.

A melee touch attack is just one of the subset of all melee attacks.

For a melee attack to succeed, you must make an attack roll...and as we already know, the result of a successful attack roll is a hit.

And a flaming (or similar weapon) deals damage on a successful hit.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And a flaming (or similar weapon) deals damage on a successful hit.

In which case, it does normal weapon damage and elemental damage on the touch attack to begin a trip.

If the rules language is the exact same in both cases, it cannot be argued that, in one case, they meant one particular set of attacks, and in the other, a different.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now, while it is true that the rules do not explicitly state that you can make a "touch attack" with a melee weapon, neither do the rules specifically EXCLUDE making touch attacks with melee weapons.

...

So, since its not explicitly excluded, it is up to your DM to rule whether you can make a touch attack with a melee weapon

Anything is possible with any given DM, but not everything is a rule.


Your statements here are argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. something can be true because nobody can prove it false). This is a logical fallacy.


The Trip attack states what happens when you get tripped. This does not include damage of any sort.

The Energy Weapons do not state that they can add damage when damage is not already applied. In fact, they explicitly state that they do extra damage.

The Melee Touch Attack rules do not state that weapon energy damage is ever added to a melee touch attack or to a non-damaging attack.

You are extrapolating inferences from the rules which are not explicitly stated. Not only that, but you are pulling from a disparate set of rules in order to infer a conclusion that none of those individual rules even hint at.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except as I pointed out, there are certain attacks that specifically do not do HP damage on a successful hit, despite the similar language.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your statements here are argumentum ad ignorantiam (i.e. something can be true because nobody can prove it false). This is a logical fallacy.

I disagree.

My statement:

There is no rule stating a melee weapon cannot deliver a touch attack.

is easy enough to disprove- produce a rule that says melee weapons cannot be used for touch attacks.

There is no logical reason why they cannot, as the RW example of counting coup illustrates.

The only section that says anything about them just tells you the mechanics of calculating the AC for such an attack.

At this point, all we have is an assumption that melee weapons cannot be used to deliver a touch attack- an assumption as yet unsupported by ANYTHING.

In truth, this would be a suboptimal use of such a weapon 99.9% of the time. But suboptimal doesn't mean impossible or illegal.

The Trip attack states what happens when you get tripped. This does not include damage of any sort.

I agree, and I pointed out that is why most people assume that they do not normally do damage.

However, damage from enchantments are triggered by successful hits, not by the damage from the underlying weapons they enchant.

The Energy Weapons do not state that they can add damage when damage is not already applied. In fact, they explicitly state that they do extra damage.

I have already illustrated why the enchantment damage is seperate from the underlying damage- it is not dependend upon damage being dealt, it is dependent only upon there being a successful hit. And a successful hit is a prerequisite of a trip attack.

The Melee Touch Attack rules do not state that weapon energy damage is ever added to a melee touch attack or to a non-damaging attack.

Of course not- the Melee Touch attack rules state nothing about damage, only about how to calculate AC for such attacks.

You are extrapolating inferences from the rules which are not explicitly stated. Not only that, but you are pulling from a disparate set of rules in order to infer a conclusion that none of those individual rules even hint at.

The rules cited are all Core, and thus interact to shape the environment in which we play.

If we eliminated all inferences, if we eliminate rules interpretation, we will inevitably wind up with some kind of conundrum that is insoluable.

For instance, you complained that the "The Melee Touch Attack rules do not state that weapon energy damage is ever added to a melee touch attack or to a non-damaging attack"

But as I pointed out- that section says NADA about damage. Not Strength bonuses, not spell damage, nothing.

By your logic, NO damage can be dealt by a melee touch attack because I'm making an inferrence that such attacks are capable of doing damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

And a flaming (or similar weapon) deals damage on a successful hit.

In which case, it does normal weapon damage and elemental damage on the touch attack to begin a trip.

This is worth repeating.

If Danny is right about weapon energy damage, then the same applies to normal weapon damage (since it uses the exact same terminology about successful hits) and therefore Trip attacks can be used to do normal weapon damage with a successful touch attack whenever you want to make a Standard Action attack with a tripping weapon.

With Improved Trip, the opponent does not even get an AoO in return.

All of your standard action (i.e. not full round attacks) can be resolved with a Trip Action and you would be doing melee touch attacks.


DM: "You are facing the Colossal Draqon."

Player: "I tumble in. I made my DC 15 tumble roll. I use Improved Trip to melee touch attack him with my Guisarme and I do 45 points of damage. Oh and look, I rolled a natural 20 with my attack, so the Vorpal portion of it cuts off the head of the dragon if I roll a 2 or higher. A 3 on the threat. That hits. Yeah! The dragon's dead. Take that you sleezy Wyrm! HA HA. You are dead, so your Strength and Dexterity are zero, so I win the Trip opposed roll as well and trip you!"


How did you phrase it Danny?

Oh, come ON!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I already pointed out, the language of the trip section substitutes a different result (making your opponent prone) for weapon damage.

It does NOT, however, redefine "successful hit," and in fact, requires one to successfully resolve a trip attack.

The benefit of the Improved Trip attack is thus twofold- elimination of the AoO that would normally be triggered, and allowing the tripper to deliver a second attack on that target.

To continue to read:

When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus.<snip>If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

...with a RAW interpretation means you're going to have to figure out the underlying damage for the list of attacks that currently don't do underlying damage: Bull Rush, Grapple, Disarm, Grapple and Trip.

These attacks have effects INSTEAD of underlying damage.

However, since they still require successful attacks, they should still trigger weapon special abilities dependent upon "successful hits."