Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[Wavern]

KarinsDad you will never convense any of these people that A + B = C and D + F = G and then saying this means C = G is true. They dont see how false this statment is.

I agree with you though I explained further up how I would allow the possibility of energy damage to be transfered they do not understand that fact that if something has armor and natural armor say being 20 points that if they deside to do a touch attack they bypass that 20 points of AC but are still trying to do damage. This is them trying to take advantage of a situation that shouldnt allow it.

Anyways to those that understand thanks and to those that dont sorry.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

No, it does not. According to any by the rules "weapon special damage with a successful hit" theory, the successful melee touch attack is all that is needed because THAT is the successful hit with the 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.

The opposed check is not a "to hit" roll and hence cannot result in a successful hit. It is an opposed roll which dictates the successful trip, but not the successful hit.

Opposed Checks
An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result. In an opposed check, the higher result succeeds, while the lower result fails. In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie.

There are two rolls made here. One is a "to hit" melee touch attack and the other is a "str vs. str" or "str vs. dex" opposed check.

Opposed checks are not to hit (i.e. attack) rolls and hence cannot result in successful hits.

PHB 309

hit: Make a successful attack roll.

So, your theory here is making up brand new rules that an opposed check is a successful hit as opposed to a successful melee touch attack being a successful hit.

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:


...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."

Total semantics and not based anywhere in the rules. Nowhere is there an "instead of damage rule".

You totally made that up.

Instead, there is a "what happens when you trip" rule. Or, what happens when you grapple rule, etc.


Could we stick to the actual rules please? An opposed check is not a to hit roll and there are no instead of damage rules.

It's one thing to interpret rules differently. It's another to make up brand new rules out of whole cloth and pretend that your interpretation has any bearing within the rules at all.

 

[Artoomis]

......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."

Nope. Bull Rush uses no attack roll - only opposed STR.
Disarm uses opposed attack rolls, there is no "succesful hit" here.
Grapple uses an melee touch attack roll to grab the target - but that's unarmed, so it's not an issue here.

Only Trip leaves the door open for the energy "extra damage" on a touch attack. It's hardly conclusive that it is allowed, and hardly conclusive that it is not.

Most agree that the regular damage is replaced by getting an opposed roll to trip (though that's not conclusively proven, but any other ruling would be a ludicrous abuse by giving normal weapon damage on a touch attack), but that does NOT mean that "Extra Damage" from energy sources does not happen - in fact, those on my side of the debate maintain that you cannot avoid doing the "extra damage" in the same way you cannot turn the energy damage into subdual damage.

Anyway, it ought to be clear by the two sides of this debate that there are two ways of looking at this.

I wonder, sometimes, why I seem to be the only one in these arguments who points out that BOTH sides are correct.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad you will never convense any of these people that A + B = C and D + F = G and then saying this means C = G is true. They dont see how false this statment is.

I know. I just like to argue with people who are so blatantly mistaken and cannot see it. It's one of my character flaws.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anyway, it ought to be clear by the two sides of this debate that there are two ways of looking at this.

I wonder, sometimes, why I seem to be the only one in these arguments who points out that BOTH sides are correct.

Except that both sides are not correct in this case. One side allows a Vorpal weapon to chop off heads or a Wounding weapon to deal Constitution damage with a Trip touch attack unless they distort the rules even further.


There are a lot of topics where the rules are unclear. This is not one of them.

 

[Artoomis]

Except that both sides are not correct in this case. One side allows a Vorpal weapon to chop off heads or a Wounding weapon to deal Constitution damage with a Trip touch attack unless they distort the rules even further.


There are a lot of topics where the rules are unclear. This is not one of them.

NO, NO, NO.

Some on my side do say that, perhpas, but I most certainly did NOT.

The reason energy weapons work is partly the nature of energy weapons. I would not allow these other effects to work: Some common sense needs to be applied along with RAW.

It makes perfect sense for an Energy weapon to work on a Trip Attack's Touch Attack. You do make a "succesful hit" and it makes sense for a flaming word to affect the "victim."

On the other hand, it makes no sense for wounding, vorpal, et.al to happen when using the weapon in "trip" mode. If the weapon did not penetrate the armor (this is a Touch Attack), then it makes no sense at all to allow these special effects to work.

The rules ABOLUTELY, POSITIVELY require a DM with some common sense to run the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

NO, NO, NO.

Some on my side do say that, perhpas, but I most certainly did NOT.

The reason energy weapons work is partly the nature of energy weapons. I would not allow these other effects to work: Some common sense needs to be applied along with RAW.

It makes perfect sense for an Energy weapon to work on a Trip Attack's Touch Attack. You do make a "succesful hit" and it makes sense for a flaming word to affect the "victim."

On the other hand, it makes no sense for wounding, vorpal, et.al to happen when using the weapon in "trip" mode. If the weapon did not penetrate the armor (this is a Touch Attack), then it makes no sense at all to allow these special effects to work.

The rules ABOLUTELY, POSITIVELY require a DM with some common sense to run the game.

Precisely.

But, there is a difference between common sense and unclear rules.

The rules here are clear. However, there is nothing wrong with adding such a house rule in for energy weapons because it does make plausible sense that energy could affect a creature with a touch.

But, that is not the actual rules.

The rules state what happens on a Trip. Adding damage to Trip is a house rule and is nowhere in the RAW. Having Energy Weapon affect on a touch attack is a house rule and is nowhere in the RAW. If you could touch attack with a Trip and do Energy Weapon damage, you could touch attack anytime you wanted to do so with an Energy Weapon. And, how about a Holy Weapon? How about a Bane weapon? Do you get the +2 to hit for the Bane touch attack, but not get the +2D6+2 of damage for a Bane touch attack? Where does the line get drawn?

And, I am positive that you are aware of this, but I suspect you are looking for wiggle room to support your common sense "energy should damage on a touch" POV with the actual RAW.

A DM is totally justified in adding such a rule. He has a harder time justifying it as an adjudication within RAW and this is what it sounds like you are looking for. It sounds like you want these rules to be considered unclear so that it is just an interpretation in your game, not a house rule. At least, that is what it sounds like to me. IMHO.

 

[glass]

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)."

This at least implies:

To me it imples that the FAQ writers made up an answer without actually consulting the books...again.


glass.

 

[pawsplay]

Bane simply says it deals an extra 2d6 damage to the foe. Nothing about a successful hit.

Vorpal says "when it strikes," not on a hit. Further, it must be a slashing weapon, and trip attacks do not deal slashing damage.

Wounding is perhaps ambiguous, as it says the Con damage is from "blood loss." I personally would rule that this is not spontaneous loss of blood, but rather, blood loss from a wound, but by the RAW, I guess you are free to interpret otherwise. It doesn't offend all sense for a wounding whip to cause bleeding on a touch.

 

[KarinsDad]

Bane simply says it deals an extra 2d6 damage to the foe. Nothing about a successful hit.

How does that matter? Isn't someone you are attacking with a Trip a foe? Doesn't all successful hits in the game do damage (according to the flaming weapons can burn with a touch theory)?

Vorpal says "when it strikes," not on a hit. Further, it must be a slashing weapon, and trip attacks do not deal slashing damage.

Doesn't "strike" and "hit" have the same meaning in the game? Isn't it assumed that any extra damage from a special ability occurs on a successful hit if all other conditions are met?

And, btw, a Guisarme is a slashing weapon that can trip.


Finally, if a tripping attack can do fire damage, how come it cannot do slashing damage? Weapons do damage on a successful hit. What is the difference? Once you start ignoring the "effects of a trip" and start adding your own rules that all successful hits can cause damage, where does it stop?