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: 3046800" data-attributes="member: 19675">We agree that he more specific rules trump the general.The general rule is that weapons deal damage on a successful hit.  The more specific rules under the special attacks tell you if and when you do damage on a case by case basis.  Bull Rush says you don't.  Grapple says you do.  Sunder says you do damage to the target of the sunder.Trip, like Disarm, is silent.  Most people I know have taken this to mean that, like Bull Rush, that damage is not dealt on these kinds of special attacks.If you don't take that position, then you must rule that Trip and Disarm- both silent- both allow the dealing of damage.  If that were the case, though, Disarm would effectively be "Sunder +" because it has the same mechanics as Sunder.  The difference between the 2 special attacks is that Sunder damages its target and doesn't disarm, while Disarm disarms (of course) but doesn't damage its target.If, as you argue, Trip does damage because its rules are silent, by the same logic Disarm must likewise damage its target.  Thus, on a successful hit, Disarm damages its target AND disarms the target's wielder, making it "Sunder +."  Sunder becomes obsolete.Thus, unless you're ruling that Disarm is doing damage (thus, neutering Sunder), its clear that the designers intended only those special attacks that expressly allow damage to occur allow damage to occur.  Those that say otherwise or remain silent negate the underlying weapon damage.I honestly and in good conscience do differ with you on this, and I don't think I'm being inconsistent.The wording is identical for a variety of non-damaging attacks as well- a melee touch attack does not damage its opponent despite "successful hits" unless the particular attack says otherwise (its a spell attack or some such)- you don't add your unarmed strike damage.  It is quite obvious (to me at least) the designers were not using precise language here.That is not my POV at all- frankly, I have no idea how you've reached that conclusion.To try to clarify, I'm arguing that:1)  Weapon damage is dealt upon a successful strike, unless a particular special attack or condition nullifies it, such as a trip or disarm or an ability like Damage Reduction.2)  Sneak attacks and similar non-magical effects that add to weapon strikes, while triggering on successful hits, have additional qualifiers (such as striking a "vital spot"), and rely upon the weapon doing damage unless otherwise stated.  A weapon coated with a contact poison might only require a touch attack to deliver its venom, but one coated with a poison that must reach the blood would require a regular damaging attack.  If a weapon coated with the latter type of poison was incapable of overcoming a particular target's DR, the poison would be ineffectual as well.3)  Held touch spells trigger on a successful hit, regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but also upon incidental contact, as per p141PHB.4) Effects from weapon enchantments trigger on a successful hit, and like Held Touch spells, this is regardless of the type of hit (normal attack, trip, etc), but not upon incidental contact.The energy of the held touch spell doesn't pay attention to the nature of the underlying attack and neither should the enchantment upon the weapon. Read my restatement above- that is exactly what my position is.If you use VT and do a touch attack, you do only the effects of the VT- there is no underlying damage.  If you use a claw attack to deliver the VT, you must make a regular attack to hit your target, and if you do, you do claw damage + VT effects.  That's what it says in the PHB and in Complete Arcane.  If you've held VT and you choose to do a Monk's Stunning Fist and succeed in hitting your foe, you'd do damage, the VT effects, and the Stunning Fist's stun effects.What I'm NOT claiming, and what it seemed you thought I meant, was that you do Claw damage regardless of how you choose to deliver VT. The problem here is that your analogy is flawed.The weapon enchantment on the whip or flail isn't analogous to the clawed hand delivering the VT- here, the analogue to the clawed hand is the weapon or unarmed attack that is doing the trip.  The weapon enchantment is the analogue of the spell, Vampiric Touch.Or to put it this way:and:I hope that clarifies things somewhat.</blockquote>

Verification