Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3028116" data-attributes="member: 19675">NecroequipugilismOK...covering a lot of ground in this one (apologies in advance if something comes out disjointed):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.My way around this conundrum: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: 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.</blockquote>

Verification