Energy damage on Trip touch attack?

[mvincent]

I haven't read all 120 post in this thread, but I've been privy to many of these threads both on this board and others. Has this been brough up yet?:
Elemental weapon damage is extra damage dice, somewhat like sneak attack extra damage dice. It's been previously established that you cannot add extra (sneak attack) dice without doing base damage. This seems like an applicable precedence.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Has this been brough up yet?

It's already been tried, unfortunately.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And Trip does not specify damage, hence, it does not do so.

I agree. I always have, but you seem to misunderstand my position even still.

And Energy Weapons do not state on a successful touch, so they do not do so.

I didn't say they did- my position is that on a successful hit, they deliver their energy damage.

However "a successful hit" is required for any kind of melee or ranged attack, even melee touch attacks.

There is no rule stating that weapons with a special ability that triggers on "a successful hit" do so ONLY when doing a regular melee attack.

No rule is being broken- rather, one is being enforced to its logical end.

On a successful hit, a weapon deals damage according to its type and size. On a successful hit, a weapon deals damage according to its special energy properties (if applicable). If a weapon deals energy damage because it has dealt a successful hit, it must also deal its normal weapon damage. Unless you are going to contend that a trip deals full weapon damage, you cannot argue that a trip deals energy damage. "Heirarchy" has nothing to do with it, nor does whether things are resolved in "parallel" or in "series".

Actually, heirarchy does matter- specific rules trump general rules.

Trips and other special attacks modify the damage a weapon deals. Magical enchantments are not weapons & they are not covered by ANY of the special attack rules.

The general rule is that a weapon deals damage when it scores a successful hit. The specific rule is that a trip attack prevents a weapon from doing damage normally.

There is no rule that says trip attacks modify magical damage in any way.

Again the text:

Flaming: 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 fire damage on a successful hit.

The second sentence of this entry reads "THE FIRE does not harm the wielder"- not "THE FLAMING WEAPON." This matters. The designers 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. That fire is the manifestation of the magical enchantment upon the weapon, but it is not dependent upon the weapon's doing damage.

Consider a martial artist PC with a touch attack spell (say, Shocking Grasp) cast upon his hands. That spell will trigger whenever that martial artist makes a successful attack, be it unarmed melee strike or a mere touch attack. Even if his unarmed strike does no damage, the spell will discharge and have its effect. It is no less an "extra damage" effect than the weapon's magical enhancement, but is not affected by the underlying failure of his unarmed attack to do damage. The underlying attack's damage is resolved in parallel to the magical damage.

Another hint that weapon damage and enchantment damage are resolved in parallel is what happens when the enchanted weapon crits. With a regular attack, a crit gets multiplied by the weapon's particular multiplier...but the enchantment damage is untouched. For those enchantments that are affected by crits, the damage isn't multiplied by the weapon's multiplier. Instead, additional dice of damage of a larger type are delivered, and they are added to the base enchantment damage.

In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extar 1d10 points of damage on a successful critical hit...x3, add and extra 2d10...x4, add an extra 3d10...

The flaming ability, not the weapon, is doing the fire damage. It has its own rules. It isn't dependent upon underlying weapon damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The general rule is that a weapon deals damage when it scores a successful hit. The specific rule is that a trip attack prevents a weapon from doing damage normally.

Which specific rule, specifically?

If I make a successful melee touch with a flail, does not the description of weapons tell me that since a successful hit was made, the weapon deals 1d8 damage? Is there anything in the Trip text that overrides this feature of weaponness?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Lets examine some of the special attacks:

If you Bull Rush, you give up the opportunity to do damage in order to shove your opponent.

When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him.

It is done as an attack, so it requires an attack roll. Yet despite giving up the ability to do damage with the underlying attack, you can still damage the target of a successful bull rush while holding the charge of a touch spell:

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. p141

A Disarm requires the attacker and the target to make "opposed attack rolls with (their) respective weapons." There is no mention of dealing damage.

If you Grapple, Step 2 requires you to make an attack roll, and further down the page, you are given the option of doing damage.

With an Overrun, you must once again interact physically with your target, though no attack roll is required. It does no damage, but like the Bull Rush, it should trigger a held touch spell. The only time the underlying Overrun attack does damage is if you are mounted and have the Trample Feat.

Trip, despite requring an attack roll, has no mention of doing damage, pro or con. Like Disarm, its silent on dealing damage. However, one could argue that since the other special attacks that definitely do damage tell you they do, that those that do not mention the possibility of dealing damage do not permit it.

Trips can trigger a held touch spell if done without a weapon- unarmed trips satisfy the requirements listed on p141- and if it can trigger a held touch spell unarmed, then it can trigger an enchantment's damage if done armed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you Bull Rush, you give up the opportunity to do damage in order to shove your opponent.

It is done as an attack, so it requires an attack roll.

Not performed with a weapon, so the fact that weapons deal damage on a successful hit is irrelevant.

But apart from that - where do you find that Bull Rush requires an attack roll?

If you Grapple, Step 2 requires you to make an attack roll...

Likewise - not performed with a weapon.

A Disarm requires the attacker and the target to make "opposed attack rolls with (their) respective weapons." There is no mention of dealing damage.

It's an opposed attack roll, but it's not an attempt to hit your opponent, so there's no 'successful hit' on which the weapon would deal damage.

With an Overrun...

Not performed with a weapon.

Trip is the only one of the special attacks that can result in a succesful hit with a weapon... which is the condition required in the Equipment section for a weapon to deal the damage listed on the table.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First, while you are correct that many of the special attacks don't involve weapons, that point is itself irrelevant.

It is possible to 1) do damage while unarmed and 2) perform those attacks while unarmed, so 3) the fact that there is no damage allocation step in those other maneuvers would imply that you cannot do damage with those special attacks even if you are capable of dealing damage while fighting without a weapon- like, say, a monk.

Second, your point about Disarm's opposed attack rolls is without merit, since the same opposed attack rolls mechanic is used in the Sunder special attack, in which damage is dealt, albeit to the targeted weapon or object instead of a creature. Since there is a damage dealing stage, the designers of this section obviously consider these opposed attack rolls no less "successful hits" than normal melee attacks...which would also mean that the weapon enchantment should trigger and do damage (assuming the target object is vulnerable to such damage).

Third, while I must admit that I misread the parenthetical in "You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a Charge." as "(as an attack)," the sentence immediately following would imply that you must still make an attack roll.

When you make a bull rush, you attampt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him.

To push your opponent, you must at least make physical contact- here, intentionally, since it is a special attack (and thus triggering a held spell)- and to make intentional contact with your foe in combat, you would have to make at least a melee touch attack.

To do a Bull Rush during a Charge, you get modifiers to your successes, but no real changes to the mechanics of the Bull Rush.

Fourth:

Trip is the only one of the special attacks that can result in a succesful hit with a weapon... which is the condition required in the Equipment section for a weapon to deal the damage listed on the table.

Incorrect- Unarmed strike and Gauntlets are both listed on the weapons table in the Equipment section, and can be used during many of these maneuvers.

 

[KarinsDad]

A Disarm requires the attacker and the target to make "opposed attack rolls with (their) respective weapons." There is no mention of dealing damage.

It's an opposed attack roll, but it's not an attempt to hit your opponent, so there's no 'successful hit' on which the weapon would deal damage.

Not according to the definition of a "hit":

PHB 309

hit: Make a successful attack roll.

Whether it is an opposed attack roll or a normal attack roll would not appear to be relevant to the definition of a "hit".


Did I actually find Hyp making a rules mistake?

<Doing the happy dance>

 

[Infiniti2000]

Whether it is an opposed attack roll or a normal attack roll would not appear to be relevant to the definition of a "hit".

Did I actually find Hyp making a rules mistake?

No. A hit may require a successful attack roll, but a successful opposed attack roll does not guarantee a hit. The attack roll is defined, but trying to apply that to opposed attack roll is impossible because there's no armor class involved.

So, the only definition of "opposed attack roll" (and not just "attack roll") we have is in the disarm description, which does not include the text "successful hit" or even "hit".

 

[KarinsDad]

No. A hit may require a successful attack roll, but a successful opposed attack roll does not guarantee a hit.

Is an attack roll successful? Then it is a hit according to the PHB.


An opposed attack roll is still an attack roll. It is the use of an attack roll for a specific purpose, but it is still an attack roll (i.e. you roll the dice, you add modifiers, you come up with a total, it is still used for an attack).

Hits occur on successful attack rolls (by PHB definition).

The definition of hit is not limited to types of successful attack rolls (as per your implication here), therefore, the sentence here that you wrote is false which leads to the rest of your conclusion which is based on this sentence being false.

A successful opposed attack roll does guarantee a hit (just like all other successful attack rolls). It does not guarantee some other result (just like a successful hit from a normal attack roll does not guarantee that damage will be done), but it guarantees a hit by the definition of a hit.