DM's call.
Mr. Fishy would rule yes because the whip is flaming and striking the creature to be tripped.
But if the DM ruled no Mr. Fishy would only curse the DM and call him a Facist. That is not a "Stick" offense.
Yar!
Personally, I say yes. And this is why:
d20pfsrd.com[/url]]that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
The bold is mine. If it said "...when you inflict damage, you deal an extra..." then I would say no, but it does not say that. It says "successful hit", and in order to trip someone, you must hit them with your whip.
That's the way I've been rulling it so far.
~P
The Fury's Snare feat also says that while entagled by your whip apply any flamming/ forst etc damage to the entangled foe
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.
your weapon has to make contact in order to perform the manuver how is that not a hit ?
You dont always apply logic to how the game works, do bear in mind, How would you trip with a scythe? Big curvy blade hooked behind the leg and pull.....why does it not do damage? Because that would be excessively powerful for the game in general. Same logic applies, but ask your GM for an exception as per current rules it does not. <sarcasm> (while your at it ask him for the energy damage if you hit its touch ac and the weapon and energy damage if you get their actual ac, same logic applies)((gl)) </sarcasm>
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.your weapon has to make contact in order to perform the manuver how is that not a hit ?
Because its a touch.
In D&D hits are all or nothing. Armor prevents you from being hit, it doesn't do what their real world counterparts do: make you EASIER to hit but absorb a lot of the damage.
You cannot make a +1 shocking flaming Frosty whip and then just make touch attacks with it to set off the 3d6 damage. You have to HIT the person in order to get the ability to go off, and in D&D thats nearly synonomous with damage.
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.your weapon has to make contact in order to perform the manuver how is that not a hit ?Because its a touch.
In D&D hits are all or nothing. Armor prevents you from being hit, it doesn't do what their real world counterparts do: make you EASIER to hit but absorb a lot of the damage.
You cannot make a +1 shocking flaming Frosty whip and then just make touch attacks with it to set off the 3d6 damage. You have to HIT the person in order to get the ability to go off, and in D&D thats nearly synonomous with damage.
guy with a flammign torch dosent need to "hit" you to burn you he merely touches you with the torch and you burn
same with a flamming whip its on fire where it touches you it burns
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.your weapon has to make contact in order to perform the manuver how is that not a hit ?Because its a touch.
In D&D hits are all or nothing. Armor prevents you from being hit, it doesn't do what their real world counterparts do: make you EASIER to hit but absorb a lot of the damage.
You cannot make a +1 shocking flaming Frosty whip and then just make touch attacks with it to set off the 3d6 damage. You have to HIT the person in order to get the ability to go off, and in D&D thats nearly synonomous with damage.
A CMB roll isn't a touch attack tho, it's an attack roll using your CMB modifier.
A CMB roll isn't a touch attack tho, it's an attack roll using your CMB modifier.No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.your weapon has to make contact in order to perform the manuver how is that not a hit ?Because its a touch.
In D&D hits are all or nothing. Armor prevents you from being hit, it doesn't do what their real world counterparts do: make you EASIER to hit but absorb a lot of the damage.
You cannot make a +1 shocking flaming Frosty whip and then just make touch attacks with it to set off the 3d6 damage. You have to HIT the person in order to get the ability to go off, and in D&D thats nearly synonomous with damage.
if the whip is going to contact your opponent then the flaming damage would apply doesn't matter why type of roll it is
|
RAW: No, it doesn't work that way. Weapons very clearly only apply damage on a successful attack--no damage inflicted, no bonus damage added.
My reasoning: A flaming weapon is on fire, sure, but that fire coalesces and discharges when it makes a really solid THWACK against an opponent. The rest of the time, the fire is just sort of seething around, like a special effect; it might sting if it taps against you, but it doesn't discharge a big, honking gout of flame.
This is all just rationalization, of course. The reason that it doesn't do fire damage on a trip is because that's the way the rules work. Nothing else. Accept and embrace the rules abstractions; you'll feel better in the long run. =3
Jeremy Puckett
RAW: No, it doesn't work that way. Weapons very clearly only apply damage on a successful attack--no damage inflicted, no bonus damage added.
My reasoning: A flaming weapon is on fire, sure, but that fire coalesces and discharges when it makes a really solid THWACK against an opponent. The rest of the time, the fire is just sort of seething around, like a special effect; it might sting if it taps against you, but it doesn't discharge a big, honking gout of flame.
This is all just rationalization, of course. The reason that it doesn't do fire damage on a trip is because that's the way the rules work. Nothing else. Accept and embrace the rules abstractions; you'll feel better in the long run. =3
Jeremy Puckett
if you look at fury's snare feat for a whip you let the whip go it entangles your foe and applies flamming to him if the whip had the flaming property , no attack roll required it just auto applies the damage each round of entanglement
|
|
if you look at fury's snare feat for a whip you let the whip go it entangles your foe and applies flamming to him if the whip had the flaming property , no attack roll required it just auto applies the damage each round of entanglement
I'm not familiar with that feat. But if it works the way you say, then it's an exception to the usual rules. In fact, if flaming worked the way you thought it did, there wouldn't be a need to call that out in the text. In short: energy from weapons only applies when the weapon would normally do damage, unless some other circumstance specifically allows it.
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
Forget the whip for a minute.
let's go with a more generic example. Fighter has a Weapon (does not matter what). Weapon is +1 flaming.
The "+1" means he adds +1 to his attack rolls when he makes an attack, and +1 damage to the weapons base damage if he hits. Not if he touches the opponent, or if his opponent touches the weapon during a disarm attempt.
Likewise, the "flaming" means he adds +1d6 fire damage to his attack if he strikes his opponent. It does not apply if he enemy attempts a disarm, it cannot be used as a touch attack; in 3rd edition, it didn't even apply if the weapon's base damage was negated by Damage Reduction, though I believe that had to be changed when swarms were added.
A Flaming weapon is not the Flame Blade spell, it is not a torch or alchemist fire. It is it's own, separate, unique thing.
Why does it matter if he is using a Whip versus a Greatsword versus Brass Knuckles?
According to the Rules As Written, a Flaming weapon does not gain the ability to be used as a touch attack, nor does it apply the 1d6 fire damage to successful (or failed) combat maneuvers.
Nothing prevents a person from house ruling this, if they feel it should work differently. But when offering rules advice it's important to differentiate between what the rules actually say and how you think they should work, even - especially - if you don't like it.
|
Can you enchant a net? If so, can you make it a +1 Flaming net?
I see no reason why the answer to either of those questions would be no. Nets require a touch attack to hit and cause no physical damage, but I'm fairly certain it would be a b#*+$ to get entangled in one. Is there an actual rule that states elemental properties don't work with a touch attack weapon? If so it's never come to my attention, but then I've never considered it either.
I have to say it is very confusing due to the changes in how "combat maneuvers" now work.
You are not actually performing an attack against your opponent's, touch or otherwise, you are attacking their CMD. However, it is stated combat maneuvers are attack rolls.
Likewise, the "flaming" means he adds +1d6 fire damage to his attack if he strikes his opponent. It does not apply if he enemy attempts a disarm, it cannot be used as a touch attack; in 3rd edition, it didn't even apply if the weapon's base damage was negated by Damage Reduction, though I believe that had to be changed when swarms were added.A Flaming weapon is not the Flame Blade spell, it is not a torch or alchemist fire. It is it's own, separate, unique thing.
Why does it matter if he is using a Whip versus a Greatsword versus Brass Knuckles?
According to the Rules As Written, a Flaming weapon does not gain the ability to be used as a touch attack, nor does it apply the 1d6 fire damage to successful (or failed) combat maneuvers.
A touch attack is an attack. You hit or miss your opponent. That's why touch and ranged touch spells are treated as weapons for all points and purposes - they can critical and can be used in place of a weapon for weapon feats. unless that was explicitly changed in Pathfinder.
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.
Combat maneuvers are still attack rolls and thus can still "hit" a target.
As far as I can tell, the OP's trick would work just fine.
EDIT: A word of warning though, from this point, it's not a terribly large logical leap to then ask "Can I make touch attacks with my short sword in order to deal just the flaming damage?" Considering 1d6 isn't much damage at any level, this is hardly broken--until the player who asked the question makes a rogue with sneak attack.
No, you're not hitting the target you're performing a combat maneuver on them.Combat maneuvers are still attack rolls and thus can still "hit" a target.
As far as I can tell, the OP's trick would work just fine.
The problem is you don't actually hit the target the same as you would with a normal attack. You are opposing their CMD, not their AC and whether or not that counts as a "hit" if you beat it is something the designers are going to have to explicitly state.
Its not an attack roll. Its a Combat maneuver check.
Its not an attack roll. Its a Combat maneuver check.
It's explicitly an attack roll, but that's neither here nor there.
Its not an attack roll. Its a Combat maneuver check.
ALL combat maneuver checks are considered attack rolls. That, at least, is absolutely clear in the rules.
|
I'd be inclined to say no. The way my group plays it, if you make an attack and miss, but hit the targets touch AC, you actually made contact with the target, but it clanged off the armor or harmlessly bounced off the thick hide doing no damage.
If you're using a combat maneuver, you aren't trying to aim for a vulnerable spot to deal damage. You're going for the legs to trip or going for the weapon to disarm, etc. In those cases, the armor or hide make no difference and it's just ability and skill you're up against.
Can you enchant a net? If so, can you make it a +1 Flaming net?
Yes, it's a weapon.
Nets require a touch attack to hit and cause no physical damage, but I'm fairly certain it would be a b!##% to get entangled in one. Is there an actual rule that states elemental properties don't work with a touch attack weapon? If so it's never come to my attention, but then I've never considered it either.
I find it 'interesting' that this post didn't get replied to and passed over as if simply invisible. Don't forget about the +1 Electric Lasso or the +1 Acidic Mancatcher. How about grappling with +1 Frost Gauntlets(not spiked)? You have to hold them with something, traditionally your hands if humanoid. ;)
As far as I can tell, the OP's trick would work just fine.
EDIT: A word of warning though, from this point, it's not a terribly large logical leap to then ask "Can I make touch attacks with my short sword in order to deal just the flaming damage?" Considering 1d6 isn't much damage at any level, this is hardly broken-- until the player who asked the question makes a rogue with sneak attack.
This is why we as a group have decided to rule it depending upon the weapon and/or situation. No one in OUR group is trying to be that brazen or bring down that kind of heat from the DM. Keep in mind... What the DM says is 'okay' for the players, WILL work for the monsters.
Its not an attack roll. Its a Combat maneuver check.ALL combat maneuver checks are considered attack rolls. That, at least, is absolutely clear in the rules.
Quote it or it didn't happen. Combat maneuver are attacks, but if you're going to say that the rules are clear on something being debated thats heavily reliant on the wording you should quote them. Its conceivable i could quote 3 or 4 sections that DON"T refer to CM rolls at attack rolls, and miss the one that does.
With a +1 flaming sword its no big deal. What happens when its a +1 flaming shocking icy thundering acidic sword?
Quote it or it didn't happen.
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls
Its conceivable i could quote 3 or 4 sections that DON"T refer to CM rolls at attack rolls, and miss the one that does.
It's more than conceivable you couldn't because you haven't actually looked.
|
|
PRD:
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Its conceivable i could quote 3 or 4 sections that DON"T refer to CM rolls at attack rolls, and miss the one that does.It's more than conceivable you couldn't because you haven't actually looked.
really?
p 199: -make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your attack bonus
The line i missed a few paragraphs later clears it up stating explicitly that they are attack rolls.
This made it sound to me as if it was something other than an attack. I'm sorry if asking for a citation somehow offended you, but i don't know who knows what around here. Without something in writing its some random mook spouting their opinion.
and in case i didn't spell it out, i was... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Without something in writing its some random mook spouting their opinion.
Random mook am I?
Without something in writing its some random mook spouting their opinion.Random mook am I?
Yes. Random mook #47. It seems here you're set to be run over by a steam roller in act 5, just as the hero is rescuing the damsel in distress.
I've discussed this with my friends who happen to be hanging around. We agree that this has major broken potential, but it is logical to say that the flaming damage takes place.
However, I see a difference in that the whip functions very differently from a longsword with the same property. One swings a longsword and it either makes contact with something that causes harm (1d8+1d6 fire as normal) or it misses/bounces off armor. A whip used for a trip wouldn't just make contact for a moment, it would linger, and the fire would have longer than momentary contact.
Countering that though, is the fact that unless you leave your whip attached for multiple rounds, the trip attempt doesn't remain in contact long enough for the flame to deal damage more than non-lethal. A discomfort at most.
I would rule that unless the player uses the bind maneuver to hold an enemy's arm or something with the whip (maybe grapple?) then the damage would not apply, and then only if the checks continued in subsequent rounds.
Yes. Random mook #47. It seems here you're set to be run over by a steam roller in act 5, just as the hero is rescuing the damsel in distress.Without something in writing its some random mook spouting their opinion.Random mook am I?
Damn steamrollers, just popping out of nowhere.
One minute standing around picking flowers, next minute *POW*, run over by a steamroller.