A trip made with a weapon with an active enhancement that deals extra damage on attacks. (Flaming, frost, corrosive, merciful, vicious etc)
Or a trip made with an unarmed strike by a monk wearing an amulet of mighty fists with the same enhancement(s)?
I guess my basic question is are Combat Maneuvers attacks that trigger these special bonuses? ie trip and take 1d6 fire damage?
(Clearly this could be double edged - a flaming monk might have trouble if he deals damage while trying to say drag a fallen ally away from danger...)
As a DM (and as a player) I can see multiple answers and don't have a strong sense of what is RAI or RAW. I'm wondering specifically for PFS play as I have a maneuver master monk and those could be an interesting way to add to his effectiveness via dealing an extra power as he makes maneuvers.
However, my intuition is telling me that since you don't do any attack damage on a combat maneuver and you don't roll the extra dice unless you're rolling weapon damage, that you would not roll the extra fire damage when you are performing a trip CM, or any other such CM
shock:
Upon command, a shock weapon is sheathed in crackling electricity that deals an extra 1d6 points of electricity damage on a successful hit. The electricity does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
However an argument could be made that when you successfully complete the trip combat maneuver you are inflicting a hit.
so lets take a look at the combat maneuver text
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.
I've bolded an important phrase in that wall of text.
Combat Maneuver Determine Success:
If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect. Some maneuvers, such as bull rush, have varying levels of success depending on how much your attack roll exceeds the target's CMD. Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
In the determine success it never says you inflict a 'hit' it just checks for success.
while the term 'hit' can be taken as "i actually hit the guy with my sword, i was just trying to trip him, so he should take the D6 fire damage" we need to look at the classification in game rules. In game rules a "hit" is defined as attacking an opponent and rolling the attack die, If the amount rolled + your attack bonus >= opponent's AC then you've scored a hit. However, for combat maneuvers it's slightly different.
when performing a Combat Maneuver, you announce your intention, then roll a die, add your CMB If CMB + Die rolled >= Opponents CMD then the Combat Maneuver is a success. You have never 'hit' the opponent for the purposes of the game rules. While you may have struck your opponent with your weapon, it wasn't in such a way that the weapon would discharge it's energy to cause the extra damage.
This is an important distinction that must be recognized when reading the rules. Sometimes words are used in a way that specifies a condition in game, not a real world scenario.
Based on this information, I would rule that No the extra damage is not applied during a combat maneuver.
Based on the following evidence:
-The weapon effect states that the damage is applied on a 'hit'
-a combat maneuver only checks for success
-you never actually 'hit' the opponent when performing a combat maneuver.
I don't have everything with me right now, but I seem to remember some feats that let you do damage on a successful maneuver, if those exist, there is precedence that normal maneuvers, even with a weapon, don't do damage. You are in fact trading damage for a condition.
My general rule is...if you target their touch AC...you get nothing. If you target their normal AC...then you get the weapon enchantment extras. You of course decide which you are targeting before you roll of course. This is very much a houserule.
Officially, I don't believe you get anything...but I'm not reading all the maneuver rules right now to answer why exactly :P .
Maneuvers don't target any AC at all... they target CMD, which is based on dex/str/BAB/and magic... so... ???
Humm...guess I houseruled in the old touch attacks from 3.5 as well it seems :P . Ah well...my players actually kinda still like that option. So touch or normal attack, then CMB roll (other then disarm or sunder and the like...but I don't see how the weapon effect would even work on the wielder for those maneuvers so meh).
But yeah, rolling CMB which is raised differently and targeting a different defense then a normal attack would lead towards the no, it doesn't trigger side of it I think.
