No, you can't, because there is no rule saying you can.
And I've never seen the question raised before, so I'm unconvinced it's Frequently Asked.
Along the same lines you can argue that you can because there is no rule saying you can't...No, you can't, because there is no rule saying you can.
And I've never seen the question raised before, so I'm unconvinced it's Frequently Asked.
That isn't the way that the rules are written. If "it doesn't say they can't" was the underlying principle then you would have constant arguments along the lines of "it doesn't say that humans can't fly and don't have heat vision."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope.
For the same reason you don't get to use those effects (Flaming, etc) or vanilla weapon bonuses when using a sword as an improvised weapon to deal Bludgeoning damage. Because you are then no longer using the weapon in the manner it was designed for, so effects which modify the weapon's normal attack and damage don't apply. Trying to make a Touch Attack with the weapon no more trigger's the weapon's "triggered on attack" functions than touching the weapon to pick it up does, because the "attack" it references is the WEAPON attack of the item as it is designed to be used as a weapon, if you are doing anything else with it, then it is just treated as an object for which none of the weapon enhancements apply.
And because Flaming etc grant bonus damage (+1d6) which is premised on making an attack that already does some base damage (if only by the minimum 1 non-lethal rule). If the base attack doesn't do any damage, then one cannot apply "extra" damage on top of nothing.
The only time you get to target Touch AC and make a Touch Attack is when you have an ability (rules assume spell, but could be Su etc) which explicitly says so. Otherwise there are plenty of effects (Stunning Critical, Medusa's Wrath, etc) which would be more reliable to trigger by "choosing" to make a Touch Attack. That doesn't work, because you can't just "choose" to make a Touch Attack without explicitly having a Touch Attack to make in the first place. And neither conventional weapons nor Flaming etc quality give you a Touch Attack.
Problem is that nowhere it states that it has normal vision, nor do the rules anywhere state that if it isn't stated that you have low light or darkvision that you then have normal vision... But still they doThat isn't the way that the rules are written. If "it doesn't say they can't" was the underlying principle then you would have constant arguments along the lines of "it doesn't say that humans can't fly and don't have heat vision."Along the same lines you can argue that you can because there is no rule saying you can't...No, you can't, because there is no rule saying you can.
And I've never seen the question raised before, so I'm unconvinced it's Frequently Asked.
This is also not the way the rules are written. If they had to list every default condition for every situation then the rulebooks would be too heavy to carry.
The rules are structured as specific changes layered on top of default assumptions. What you are referring to as 'normal vision' is the default. Since the descriptions for Humans do not list any specific changes to the default, Humans have 'normal vision.'
Take a look at deliquescent gloves, these explicitly give you a touch attack and make your weapons and nat attacks corrosive. If corrosive gave you the option of touch attacks it would not need to mention that this item gives you one. So I say no touch attacks for corrosive, flaming or whatnot weapons.
Considering how often you might find yourself or your allies or things you like brushing against the weapon when it's flaming/frigid/fizzling/fwazapping, I think the magic enchants it so it doesn't actually burn/ice/melt/zap unless you 'really' attack. Which it can tell because magic.
A torch, which is essentially a much weaker version of this same practice, actually requires you to make a normal attack against AC in order to do it's 1 point of fire damage, and is treated as an improvised weapon for doing this. To actually hurt someone with it by pressing it against someone probably would require the creature not being able to actively avoid the damage.
There is a magic item, the Demonic Smith's Gloves does provide some method of utilizing touch attacks to deliver fire damage, but these are separate from the weapon abilities themselves and specific to the gloves.
Similarly, using the phrase 'Where does it say that I can't do this' is absolutely disgusting munchkining and is not a legitimate argument for this. Not FAQ worthy.
Just dropped by to say "It doesn't say I can't" isn't a valid argument.
The rules are (primarily developed) to say what you can do, not what you can't do.
Otherwise you end up having something like this conversation:
Player: I have infinite wishes!
GM: How did you get that?
Player: The rule book doesn't say I don't get a wish for looking at the stars, so I do.
GM: *Defenestrates player*
Sometimes the rules remind us what you can't do for clarification purposes, but that is not their primary role.
No, you can't, because there is no rule saying you can.
And I've never seen the question raised before, so I'm unconvinced it's Frequently Asked.
I know I for one have asked it before, and have seen it asked before by others.
Take a look at deliquescent gloves, these explicitly give you a touch attack and make your weapons and nat attacks corrosive. If corrosive gave you the option of touch attacks it would not need to mention that this item gives you one. So I say no touch attacks for corrosive, flaming or whatnot weapons.
I don't think that really follows; lots of rules have clarifying text when it would otherwise be redundant/unnecessary.
I have no problem using a flaming weapon as a torch, or to clear webs out of the way, or to light other torches or fuses...
You totally can't do that because the rules don't say you can. You're fine if you're using torches, but the rules say nothing about similar magical weapons, so you're totally out of luck there, buddy. /sarcasm