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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3046744" data-attributes="member: 2011">But, the rules for both use the same wording. Melee touch for trip and Vampiric Touch. Successful hit for claw damage and energy damage.The problem for your POV is that you claim that successful hit means successful touch for energy weapons, but for no other attacks in the game that use the phrase successful hit.That's arbitrary.My analogy was not about touch spells during normal attacks (which you went off on a tangent on), rather it was about normal damage during melee touch attack spells. So, getting back on my analogy:1) Vampiric Touch = melee touch explicitly written, Claw Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly writtenversus2) Trip = melee touch explicitly written, Energy Weapon = no melee touch explicitly written, only a successful hit explicitly writtenThe examples are virtually the same.According to a "successful hit" argument, attempting to touch with one melee touch attack (trip or spell) should result in the "successful hit" of the weapon (claw or energy).So by extension, you would have to claim that attempting to use a claw to melee touch attack with the Vampiric Touch spell (i.e. you are not attempting to attack with the claw, you are attempting to melee touch with the spell) would result in Claw damage. But, you have stated that you are not stating this. Why not? The wording of the these examples are nearly identical.I suspect that you are not quite understanding why some of us think that your POV does not follow RAW.For your POV to have any RAW validity, energy weapons would have to state somewhere that they transfer their energy damage on a touch attack.The phrase "successful hit" is not "successful touch", but you appear to be claiming that it means "successful touch", but only for energy weapons and not for any other rules where the phrase "successful hit" is stated. Seems kind of arbitrary to do this, doesn't it?The bottom line is that you do not have solid rules that support that an Energy Weapon does its damage during a touch attack. But, your arguments (like your most recent one) all indicate that.Let's break down the post I quoted above:You compared the Vampiric Touch spell (melee touch) with Energy Weapon (successful hit) and claimed (i.e. "Likewise") they were similar. If one game ability states melee touch and the other states successful hit, how can you claim that they work in a similar manner when they use different trigger phrases on when they occur?On the other hand, you have repeatedly claimed that "successful hit" for normal weapons does not occur on touch attacks?What is so special about the Energy Weapons that you see "successful touch" in the "successful hit" phrase for them, but you do not see that anywhere else in the rules? That is what is totally confusing about this conversation.What rule implicitly or explicitly gives the touch property of spells like Vampiric Touch to Energy Weapons? The "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder." statements?Your POV is really perplexing.</blockquote>

Verification