Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[moritheil]

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


glass.

Actually, that strikes me as consistent - hence the feats in BoED that one must take in order to make the extra damage from smite and holy weapons nonlethal.

 

[Bagpuss]

Where does it say that in the rules?

In case this hasn't been cleared up....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm

Scroll down to Catching on Fire. Persistant magical fires like Flameblades, Flaming Spheres and the like require a saving throw or you catch on fire.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nope. Bull Rush uses no attack roll - only opposed STR.
Disarm uses opposed attack rolls, there is no "succesful hit" here.

and other quotes...

This is my error... Almost nobody in our current group uses ANY of those rules, so they seldom come up. They're all listed as attacks, and know they didn't do damage, so that's where my reading stopped last night. I forgot that those don't require an actual melee attack.

However...

Grapple uses an melee touch attack roll to grab the target - but that's unarmed, so it's not an issue here.

Is still an issue somewhat- KD has already stated

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.

As if this is where we should look to determine whether damage is done by such attacks, when it is obvious that we should look to the particular attack instead.

And a Grapple could deliver a similar attack as a flaming weapon in the form of a held touch spell.

Further, it must be a slashing weapon, and trip attacks do not deal slashing damage.

Actually, besides the Guisarme, the Whip is considered a slashing weapon as well, thus is a valid weapon for the Vorpal enchantment.

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?

I admit- some of us are looking at the way the RW works and trying to interject this into the game.

When you're using a flail, a guisarme or a whip to trip, you're not using the attack surface of the weapon in the same way as you use it to attack for damage.

With a flail, you're not striking flesh & bone with the heavy head, you're wrapping the chain around a limb. The last portion of the weapon to strike the target is the head, at which point its momentum (the reason it does damage) is exhausted.

With a whip, you are once again wrapping the limb. When a whip does slashing damage, it is being drawn across the skin at a high rate of speed. The other way a whip does damage (not reflected in the rules) is by striking with the tip which is travelling at supersonic speed- it can pierce metal doing so. I've personally seen people whip wet hand-towels and puncture aluminum cans- a whip with a metal tip can do that and more.

With a guisarme, you're using the curved, hooklike backside of the weapon's head to trip, not the sharpened blade.

The rules state what happens on a Trip.

Yep! Trips have the following steps:

1) You declare a particular attack will be a trip attack.

2) This action lets the target take an AoO against you.

3) You make an attack roll. If you are successful and hit your target, you make an opposed strength roll to see if you trip.

4) If you successfully trip, the target is prone.

5) If you have Improved Trip, you do not provoke the AoO and you make an additional attack against the prone target at the BAB of the attack you used to make the 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.

Yes it is in the RAW- the weapon description itself says that:

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.

emphasis mine.

That successful hit that triggers the dealing of energy damage is the same one that is absolutely required in step 3 to do a successful trip attack.

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.

Yes- and as I said, most of the time, that would be a less than efficient use of the 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?

Not having the books in front of me, I can't say how those enchantments are described. I'll assume they're similarly worded.

Personally, having seen and read fiction in which a Holy Symbol can do damage certain beings with mere contact, I have no problem with a Holy Weapon doing so.

Bane weapons, by their nature, are supposed to be anathema to the creatures they target. Once again, I have no problem with that.

Someone else mentioned Vorpal weapons. In another thread, Hypersmurf pointed out that the rules don't state that the Vorpal weapon doesn't do damage, just that on the requisite die roll, the target is beheaded. This is important if you're dealing with a creature like an Ettin or Hydra- sometimes, beheading isn't enough.

However, with such an enchantment, I would draw a line. Vorpal weapons are required to be slashing...presumably for the reason of the nature of what it takes to behead something. If you were trying to make a mere touch attack, you're not really trying to use the mechanical advantages of an edged weapon- you're just trying to make contact.

Dannyalcatraz
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.

Amusing, but wrong- its entirely in accord with:

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

 

[KarinsDad]

In case this hasn't been cleared up....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm

Scroll down to Catching on Fire. Persistant magical fires like Flameblades, Flaming Spheres and the like require a saving throw or you catch on fire.

This is very debatable.

From the link you gave us:

Catching On Fire

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

The issues with this sentence are the words/phrases "exposed" and "noninstantaneous magic fires".


Does this mean that if you are hit with a normal attack from a Flaming Weapon that you have to make a DC 15 Reflex save every time or catch on fire? If so, why does the Flaming Weapon not explicitly specify this? If so, why does the Flaming Weapon have more combat utility than the equivalent +1 Cold, Acid, and Electricity special ability weapons?

If this is the case, why does Flaming Sphere not mention it?

If this is the case, why does Flame Blade mention "A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth", but does not explicitly mention creatures, their hair, their clothes, their equipment, etc.?


I opine that "exposed" means that you are "continuously exposed" (i.e. noninstantaneous) to these magical fire effects, not that you are quickly (i.e. with an attack) exposed. It seems unlikely that if the designers meant that these types of attacks could catch a creature on fire, that they never mentioned it in the pertinent spells / special abilities.


But, interpreting it that it does require the saving throw is perfectly legitimate as well (as I stated earlier in the thread). I just do not believe for a second that this is designer intent.

 

[moritheil]

If any magical fire can be used to make an enemy catch on fire, what's the point of the Burning enhancement (which explicitly causes a Ref save or catch on fire)?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yep! Trips have the following steps:

1) You declare a particular attack will be a trip attack.

2) This action lets the target take an AoO against you.

3) You make an attack roll. If you are successful and hit your target, you make an opposed strength roll to see if you trip.

...

That successful hit that triggers the dealing of energy damage is the same one that is absolutely required in step 3 to do a successful trip attack.

Yes, the successful attack roll in step 3 (which should have been broken out into a step 3 and 4 since the opposed check is a different step) is what allows you to hit the target.

And yes, this means that if you allow extra damage from special weapon abilities, then Vorpal Weapons could auto-kill an opponent with a melee touch attack Trip attempt, regardless of whether the opposed check is made or not because the opposed check is not the successful hit.


The problem with your side of the fence here is that all weapon damage occurs in the game on a successful hit. Hence, all Trip attacks do all weapon damage the moment the melee touch attack successfully occurs.

Breaking it out so that Energy Weapons do their energy damage, but no other weapon damage (including normal weapon damage) is done is skewing the RAW for one set of goals, while ignoring other RAW with the exact same successful hit wording.

 

[Artoomis]

...Breaking it out so that Energy Weapons do their energy damage, but no other weapon damage (including normal weapon damage) is done is skewing the RAW for one set of goals, while ignoring other RAW with the exact same successful hit wording.

Well, yes and no. Regular weapon damage clearly requires that you penetrate ALL AC, not just a Touch AC. Energy damage does not necessarily require this.

So it could be allowed (or disallowed, I suppose) within RAW.

However, you absolutley, positively cannot simply declare a Touch Attack to do this - that's not allowed anywhere in the RAW and I see no reason to allow it.

 

[Nail]

So, do the rules clearly state that melee touch attacks do NOT do weapon damage? Artoomis, I'm not sure you can claim "Regular weapon damage clearly requires that you penetrate ALL AC".

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, yes and no. Regular weapon damage clearly requires that you penetrate ALL AC, not just a Touch AC. Energy damage does not necessarily require this.

As extra damage on a weapon, Energy damage does require a normal to hit precisely because regular weapon damage requires a normal to hit.

And, it is not only the extra damage phrase of Energy damage that limits this.

It is also the Trip attack. It is a special attack that explicitly states what happens if successful.

For Energy damage to occur on a Trip attack, either the Trip attack or the Energy weapon special ability would have to call out that Energy damage from a weapon is an exception to the normal Trip attack result rules. No rules in the game explicitly call out that this is allowed, instead a Slippery Slope "successful hit" argument is being used.

There is no way a DM could figure this out on his own without massive discussions with other people precisely because it is not explicitly stated anywhere.

 

[Liquidsabre]

If this is the case, why does Flaming Sphere not mention it?

It does:

"It ignites flammable substances it touches..."

I believe this runs exactly along the same lines as other spells and effects that make use of similar wording to achieve the effect of catching things on fire.

If this is the case, why does Flame Blade mention "A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth", but does not explicitly mention creatures, their hair, their clothes, their equipment, etc.?

I believe "cloth" audequately describes a creatures clothing.

As for folk mentioning the flaming special quality for magical weapons being able to set things on fire, I don't see any edivence for it. The special property certainly isn't a persistant magical fire in that sense. It's simply a magical property that adds bonus damage dice for a particular energy type. That's why another magical property is required to produce the effect such as Flame Blade.