# Flaming whip



## Coredump (Jul 5, 2005)

A whip does no damage to someone that has any armor bonus to AC.

What if it were a flaming whip, would the 1d6 still do damage?

What about flaming burst, if it can't do damage, can it crit?


There is a listing for a bullwhip that does slashing and bludgeoning, so it can have vorpal. If it does no damage, can the vorpal effect still work?


Etc for 

acidic
frost
disruption
brilint enrgey
enegy drain
life steeling


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> What if it were a flaming whip, would the 1d6 still do damage?



 Yes.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> What about flaming burst, if it can't do damage, can it crit?



 Yes.


			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> There is a listing for a bullwhip that does slashing and bludgeoning, so it can have vorpal. If it does no damage, can the vorpal effect still work?



 IMO, no.  For vorpal it must strictly be a 'slashing' weapon, not a 'slashing and bludgeoning' weapon.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 5, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> A whip does no damage to someone that has any armor bonus to AC.
> 
> What if it were a flaming whip, would the 1d6 still do damage?




I do belive an attack _has to do damage_ for any special effect to be applied. I am looking for the relevant text at the moment. Poison, fire damage, disrupting etc.

Now, I'll agree the fire should apply, but the rules might not suport it.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2005)

frank, you're thinking of attacks like poison.  The reason that occurs is because it specifically says "When a character takes damage..."  In the case of flaming, there's no such restriction that you must take damage first.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 5, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> frank, you're thinking of attacks like poison.  The reason that occurs is because it specifically says "When a character takes damage..."  In the case of flaming, there's no such restriction that you must take damage first.




This is true.

However the whip does say it deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. Flaming [most other enchants as well] is expressed as extra damage which doesn't apply since the weapon deals none. 


Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage.* It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. * The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).
Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon.
You can make trip attacks with a whip. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the whip to avoid being tripped.
When using a whip, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to keep from being disarmed if the attack fails).
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a whip sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.


----------



## Delemental (Jul 5, 2005)

I think the text that frank might be thinking about is this:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.




Now, this only dealing with damage reduction, not a weapon that deals no damage.  But as you can see, it doesn't affect energy damage or energy drains.  I'd say disruption works because it says the effect happens "when the undead is struck" not "when the undead takes damage".

Brilliant energy might be more a DM's call, but one interpretation could be it would allow the whip to do damage even against creatures with armor, since it would ignore that armor.

AS for vorpal... well, the description I see of the whip just says "slashing", not "slashing and bludgeoning" so technically it would qualify.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2005)

Delemental said:
			
		

> AS for vorpal... well, the description I see of the whip just says "slashing", not "slashing and bludgeoning" so technically it would qualify.



 I didn't even check, thanks for pointing that out.  It's slashing in both 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs.  It would be odd for the PH's to have a difference like that.   As slashing only, there's no reason why it couldn't be vorpal.


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 5, 2005)

*Related question*

As I can't post new threads and this seems related enough... can you add a flaming or shocking property to a net? 
If you can, does it apply damage every round someone is caught in it?


----------



## Coredump (Jul 5, 2005)

Wow... what an evil, evil, thought....

I LIKE it!!


----------



## Delemental (Jul 5, 2005)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> As I can't post new threads and this seems related enough... can you add a flaming or shocking property to a net?
> If you can, does it apply damage every round someone is caught in it?




I don't see any reason who you couldn't add those properties to a net - it is a weapon.

I'd say the extra damage only applies on the initial hit, though - it's not entirely logical, but the description of the abilities say they deal damage on a "successful hit".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 5, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> A whip does no damage to someone that has any armor bonus to AC.
> 
> What if it were a flaming whip, would the 1d6 still do damage?




My answer is no.

The flaming whip is a whip.  The fire damage is damage dealt by the flaming whip, and is thus damage dealt by a whip.  A whip cannot deal damage to an armored opponent.  Therefore a flaming whip cannot deal fire damage to an armored opponent.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 5, 2005)

Well, see, you just can't take out the word flaming.  Hyp, if you put flaming back in your sentences as follows, you'll see the error.

_The flaming whip is a whip. The fire damage is damage dealt by the flaming whip, and is thus damage dealt by a flaming whip. A flaming whip cannot deal damage to an armored opponent. Therefore a flaming whip cannot deal fire damage to an armored opponent._

Note that it's really the second underlined flaming I disagree with you omitting.  You are linking the idea of a whip not doing damage to an enhancement specifically categorized as bonus damage.  Aside from the argument of "you can't get a bonus to nothing", is there some other reason you would disallow it?  The argument for flaming bypassing DR strongly supports flaming applying to whips (unless you also say that flaming does not bypass DR).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 5, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The argument for flaming bypassing DR strongly supports flaming applying to whips (unless you also say that flaming does not bypass DR).




Fire damage certainly bypasses DR.

But this isn't DR.  This is Whips Cannot Deal Damage To An Armored Opponent.

It's the whip dealing the damage, whether it's slashing damage or fire damage.  No whip, no fire damage; and since the whip cannot deal damage, the opponent takes no damage - bonus or otherwise.

If an opponent has DR 10/Bludgeoning, the slashing damage dealt by the whip is protected against, but the fire damage dealt by the whip isn't.  If the opponent has armor, _all_ damage dealt by the whip is negated.



> Hyp, if you put flaming back in your sentences as follows, you'll see the error.




I'm looking at it, and I still don't see the problem...

-Hyp.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 6, 2005)

A bullwhip can slice flesh from cattle, cut lizards in half, and shatter glass bottles. I like to argue the absurdity of the rule that says that whips cannot hurt armored opponents by pointing out that fists can hurt armored opponents, and so can shuriken. 

I can understand that a whip should only do nonlethal damage. That's fair. But why can any other weapon hurt a creature, regardless of its armor, even if that armor's 6-inch thick dragon scale, but not whips?

By the way, Hyp, a net has no damage entry, but the rules do not specifically say that a net cannot hurt creatures. So can a flaming net hurt you on a successful hit? The rules certainly don't seem to contradict it, and if we allow a smidgen of logic to creep into our rules lawyering, wouldn't it make sense that the fire damage from a flaming weapon is not held to all the same standards as weapon's own damage?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 6, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> By the way, Hyp, a net has no damage entry, but the rules do not specifically say that a net cannot hurt creatures. So can a flaming net hurt you on a successful hit?




A net is a thrown weapon.  Str bonus is added to damage with thrown weapons.  Can a net hurt you on a successful hit if the thrower's Str is greater than 11?

_*Thrown Weapons:* Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and *nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his or her Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons* (except for splash weapons)._

Can a Rog9 deal 5d6 sneak attack damage with a net if he's within 30 feet and you're denied Dex bonus to AC?

-Hyp.


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 6, 2005)

That's ridiculous
*Snicker*


----------



## domino (Jul 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Can a Rog9 deal 5d6 sneak attack damage with a net if he's within 30 feet and you're denied Dex bonus to AC?
> 
> -Hyp.



Maybe he manages to throw the whole thing down the throat of the enemy, suffocating him?

And of course, there was the sneak attack with a ham sandwich conversation that came up a while ago.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 6, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> A bullwhip can slice flesh from cattle, cut lizards in half, and shatter glass bottles. I like to argue the absurdity of the rule that says that whips cannot hurt armored opponents by pointing out that fists can hurt armored opponents, and so can shuriken.
> 
> I can understand that a whip should only do nonlethal damage. That's fair. But why can any other weapon hurt a creature, regardless of its armor, even if that armor's 6-inch thick dragon scale, but not whips?
> 
> By the way, Hyp, a net has no damage entry, but the rules do not specifically say that a net cannot hurt creatures. So can a flaming net hurt you on a successful hit? The rules certainly don't seem to contradict it, and if we allow a smidgen of logic to creep into our rules lawyering, wouldn't it make sense that the fire damage from a flaming weapon is not held to all the same standards as weapon's own damage?




Well, the standard whip isn't really a bullwhip, just a whip. And you can deal lethal damage with it, by taking a -4 on the attack. Of course, this still doesn't help against an armored opponent.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Fire damage certainly bypasses DR.
> 
> But this isn't DR. This is Whips Cannot Deal Damage To An Armored Opponent.
> 
> It's the whip dealing the damage, whether it's slashing damage or fire damage. No whip, no fire damage; and since the whip cannot deal damage, the opponent takes no damage - bonus or otherwise.



 See, you're just not backing that up.  There's no rule that says that bonus damage does not apply.  Whip damage doesn't apply, sure.  Fire damage, sonic damage, holy damage?  They all apply (or not, depending on the creature's immunities).  You keep using the word 'cannot' and that has a significantly different connotation that 'does not.'

Does not deal damage - True.
Cannot deal damage - False (or at best unproven either way)

If the entirety of your stance is " It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus ..." then that is insufficient.


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm looking at it, and I still don't see the problem...



 It's your ... *counts* ... third sentence and is not different from the above, so I won't repeat myself.


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A net is a thrown weapon. Str bonus is added to damage with thrown weapons. Can a net hurt you on a successful hit if the thrower's Str is greater than 11?



 Good question.  What does the hypen mean?  Does it mean "this weapon deals no damage?"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 6, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> See, you're just not backing that up.  There's no rule that says that bonus damage does not apply.




It doesn't need to.

1.  A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2.  A flaming whip is a whip.  (Lemma)
3.  If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire," then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent
4.  This is a contradiction.

Ergo, a flaming whip does not do damage to an armored opponent.

EDIT: Forgot a step.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 6, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It doesn't need to.
> 
> 1.  A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
> 2.  A flaming whip is a whip.  (Lemma)
> ...




but you could also say:

1. A flaming weapon does 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit.
2. A whip does no damage on a successful hit on an armored opponent
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + no damge", a flaming weapon is doing no damage on a successful hit.
4. This is a contradiction

so why would the whip's "no damage to armored opponents" beat out the flaming property's "successful hit causes 1d6 fire damage"?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 6, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> so why would the whip's "no damage to armored opponents" beat out the flaming property's "successful hit causes 1d6 fire damage"?




And I'll ask the same questions about Str bonus and sneak attack as I did with the net.

If a rogue sneak attacks with a whip against an armored opponent, would you allow him to deal no damage, +7d6 sneak attack, for a total of 7d6?

-Hyp.


----------



## Ferret (Jul 6, 2005)

Doesn't 'Does not deal damage' = 0 damage? 0+1d6 fire damage equals.....1d6 fire damage.

I'd house rule it any way, different subject though.


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 6, 2005)

Sneak attack damage is the same type as the damage the weapon causes, right? So a shortsword sa does 1d6 + sa dice piercing, and a whip does 1d3+ sa dice slashing vs unarmored opponents... right?

Flaming, holy, shocking, etc. is not the same type.

What kind of damage does a sneak attack ray of frost do? Is it cold damage? Or can an arcane trickster do sa damage vs a cold immune creature with the ray of frost?


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 6, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> A whip does no damage to someone that has any armor bonus to AC.
> 
> What if it were a flaming whip, would the 1d6 still do damage?
> 
> ...




A flaming whip would deal 1d6 Fire dmg to someone in fullplate, while it would do 1d3 + 1d6 to someone unarmored.  The concept that the whip's "does no dmg vs someone armored" applies to the extra fire dmg is purely rediculous.  

However, a whip used with Sneak attack vs plate would do... no dmg?  Thats funny.


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 6, 2005)

can you apply sneak attack damage if it's a flaming whip? and in that case, would it be fire sneak attack dice?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 6, 2005)

Ferret said:
			
		

> Doesn't 'Does not deal damage' = 0 damage? 0+1d6 fire damage equals.....1d6 fire damage.




It's more likely that "Does not deal damage" = -- damage.

-- + 1d6 = N/A.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's more likely that "Does not deal damage" = -- damage.
> 
> -- + 1d6 = N/A.




Which follows the general rule that an N/A is different from a value of 0, unless otherwise stated (like it is in the case of Natural Armor bonuses).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 6, 2005)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> What kind of damage does a sneak attack ray of frost do? Is it cold damage? Or can an arcane trickster do sa damage vs a cold immune creature with the ray of frost?




Cold damage... so no, he can't.

-Hyp.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's more likely that "Does not deal damage" = -- damage.
> 
> -- + 1d6 = N/A.
> 
> -Hyp.




See, I'm not sure it matters to me whether the whip causes 0 or -- damage.  The flaming property doesn't care what the base weapon is, all it cares about is if it is a weapon, and if you hit with it.  If this is the case, then you do 1d6 extra fire damage.  The flaming property doesn't take on the characteristics of the weapon in the way that sneak attack does.  Or would you argue that a flaming sap does nonlethal-fire damage?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> If this is the case, then you do 1d6 extra fire damage.




_You_ don't; the flaming weapon does.  "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"

And the flaming weapon is a whip, which "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher". 



> Or would you argue that a flaming sap does nonlethal-fire damage?




The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably 

I'd certainly say that the fire damage dealt by a Merciful Flaming Longsword is nonlethal - is that so different?

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 7, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> Or would you argue that a flaming sap does nonlethal-fire damage?




A sap is not limited to nonlethal damage.  It may be used to do lethal damage by taking a -4 penalty on your attack roll, just like Unarmed Strikes (it has the same footnote).

A whip is limited to "does no damage" as soon as certain conditions are met, and there is no way to overcome this limitation.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably




Actually, it is.  

Martial, light melee weapon.  1d4 / 1d6 20/x2 damage, footnote 3: "The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage"


----------



## mvincent (Jul 7, 2005)

I think it is a DM's call, and a DM would be justified in ruling either way in his game. However, I personally feel the intent of the rules leans towards allowing the fire damage.

The rules set a precedence with the previously mentioned statement:
_"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains."_. DR is enough like armor (especialy in regard to whips) that this is enough for me.

Also, if the situation was reversed (i.e. a flaming whip against an unarmed opponent that was immune to fire), we would certainly rule that the fire damage does nothing even though the whip hit. Fair is fair.

But play as makes ya happy.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 7, 2005)

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to go along with those who say it does the flaming damage.

Touching a wall does not damage, right?  What about a flaming wall?  That would certainly hurt, I would think.  Merciful flames doing no real damage?  That's a stretch, for sure.  A sap doing subdual flaming damage -please, you MUST be joking.

I inclined to say this is very much like DR and so the flame damage applies.

Of course, a hyper-strict look at the rules could be read to say it does no damage, but that seems decidely lacking in common sense - which may have no place in D&D, pehaps.  .


----------



## mvincent (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably



I'm pretty sure that the fire damage from a flaming, (mundanely) non-lethal weapon should not also be non-lethal



> I'd certainly say that the fire damage dealt by a Merciful Flaming Longsword is nonlethal - is that so different?



Yes. A sap is non-lethal due to mundane reasons. A merciful sword is non-lethal because magic (i.e. the merciful enhancement) has made it so. 

*Assuming that you made the sword's flame non-lethal (which is a DM's call)


----------



## mvincent (Jul 7, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> a hyper-*strict* look at the rules could be read to say it does no damage, but that seesm decidely lacking on common sense.



You spelled 'smurf' wrong


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, it is.
> 
> Martial, light melee weapon.  1d4 / 1d6 20/x2 damage, footnote 3: "The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage"




Ah - I was looking for a text description.  There doesn't seem to be one.

Hmm.  Just like for club, mace, or morningstar... I guess some don't need it.

I would've though a sap would warrant one for the non-lethal aspect, though.



			
				mvincent said:
			
		

> Also, if the situation was reversed (i.e. a flaming whip against an unarmed opponent that was immune to fire), we would certainly rule that the fire damage does nothing even though the whip hit. Fair is fair.




If the creature was immune to 'damage dealt by a flaming weapon', he would take no damage from a flaming whip, which is a flaming weapon.  If he's immune to 'fire damage', he'd take no fire damage, but he would take the slashing damage as normal.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark Causey (Jul 7, 2005)

I think that the key point is that the description of flaming in the SRD is that on a successful hit it does a d6 of fire damage. Not slashing, piercing, or anything like that. It deals fire damage.  What if you were to set the whip on fire? Would the regular fire from the whip be prevented from hurting the person that was struck with it? Whip deals no damage, given. Flaming ability deals fire damage, and the whip deals no damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

adamantineangel said:
			
		

> Whip deals no damage, given. Flaming ability deals fire damage, and the whip deals no damage.




The flaming ability doesn't deal fire damage.  The flaming ability causes the flaming weapon to deal fire damage... but a whip can only deal damage against an unarmored opponent.

If someone is wearing armor, the whip is unable to deal damage against them, and therefore the fire damage that a flaming weapon deals is of no use.

If you set the whip on fire with oil and a torch, I'd still read it the same way - if the whip can't get past the armor, the fact that it's on fire doesn't help.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...If you set the whip on fire with oil and a torch, I'd still read it the same way - if the whip can't get past the armor, the fact that it's on fire doesn't help.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ah, but....

Throw a flask of oil at someone and it's no damage.  Throw it with a flaming rag in it and they get hurt by the resulting fire.

Hmm...  another example of how something does not do damage until it is flaming.

To make this really ludicrous, what if I wrap the flaming whip around the neck of a person in, say, leather armor?  He is somehow immune to the fire of the flaming whip?  How silly.  

Of course this all starts with the silly rule about a whip doing no damage to someone in armor.  That rule can be then blindly applied to prevent any sort of special weapon damage, but it stretches credibility way too far for me.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 7, 2005)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Well, the standard whip isn't really a bullwhip, just a whip. And you can deal lethal damage with it, by taking a -4 on the attack. Of course, this still doesn't help against an armored opponent.




There used to be a whip design that had a length of metal attached to the end. Wasn't a whip dagger (metal wasn't a blade) but it was designed to penetrate armor. Was rather difficult to use though.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _You_ don't; the flaming weapon does.  "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"
> 
> And the flaming weapon is a whip, which "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher".
> 
> ...




but a whip can successfully hit, regardless of the its lack of damage. Criting with a flaming burst whip would be the same a setting off a small firebomb in someone's face.

Hit someone in the chest with a burning torch, the face gets burnt by virtue of proximity. 

Aren't there examples, both for WotC and OGL, of whips that do shocking damage, or have the equivalnet of Shocking Grasp cast on them...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Aren't there examples, both for WotC and OGL, of whips that do shocking damage, or have the equivalnet of Shocking Grasp cast on them...




Quite probably.  But do they have any notes that this property overrides the normal rule for the whip?

I have no problem with a Shocking Whip.  I have a problem with a Shocking Whip that deals damage to an armored opponent, _unless_ there's a specific note that allows it to do so.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Quite probably.  But do they have any notes that this property overrides the normal rule for the whip?
> 
> I have no problem with a Shocking Whip.  I have a problem with a Shocking Whip that deals damage to an armored opponent, _unless_ there's a specific note that allows it to do so.
> 
> -Hyp.




Usually has the statement 'on a successful strike'. And WotC is pretty good at differenciating between striking and doing damage.


----------



## Sil (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The flaming ability doesn't deal fire damage. The flaming ability causes the flaming weapon to deal fire damage... but a whip can only deal damage against an unarmored opponent.



If the creature attacked is immune to the weapon base damage, but a hit is scored, does the magical flaming enhancement have an effect?

The problem is you are calling it a flaming whip, when it, like every other weapon is a weapon, with a flaming enhancement.  The damage nullification of a whip is the same as every other case of weapon damage nullification, and most all energy enhancements do not care about weapon base damage, or its nullification.


     The case is not about the whip.  It is about “what rule allows the nullification of weapon energy enhancement.” 

   That it is a whip is a red herring.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 7, 2005)

And let's not forget touch attacks. No damage done, but the spell energy still effects the target.


----------



## Felnar (Jul 7, 2005)

hooray, that halfling is wearing padded armor, so he's immune to a giantsized whip.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

Sil said:
			
		

> If the creature attacked is immune to the weapon base damage, but a hit is scored, does the magical flaming enhancement have an effect?




It depends why they're immune.

If they're immune to slashing damage, that has no effect on fire damage, so the fire damage applies.

That's not the case here.  They're not immune to slashing damage; they're effectively immune to damage dealt by a whip.  And the fire damage is damage dealt by a whip. 



> The problem is you are calling it a flaming whip, when it, like every other weapon is a weapon, with a flaming enhancement.




That's right.  And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'.  It is the _weapon_ that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability.  And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon _cannot_ deal damage, no damage is dealt.

There's a world of difference between a shocking grasp spell, which discharges on a touch attack, and a flaming whip, which cannot deal damage to an armored opponent.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's right.  And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'.  It is the _weapon_ that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability.  And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon _cannot_ deal damage, no damage is dealt.
> 
> There's a world of difference between a shocking grasp spell, which discharges on a touch attack, and a flaming whip, which cannot deal damage to an armored opponent.
> 
> -Hyp.




But that's the same as saying 'If I touch (as opposed to striking) someone with a red or white hot poker, they won't get burnt since the the poker itself did no damage.' For clarity, I say touch because, even with damage limitations, as successful attack roll with the whip means you touched something. Trips and disarming attacks wouldn't work otherwise.

If we compare this with the whips limitations, said poker won't go through Full Plate. However, that's not the case with leather or softer materials. It will definitely go through padded armor. Folks in Full Plate will feel it as well, and if that poker (or whip) rakes across the visor...

Another question: Setting fire to combustibles requires that fire damage be taken. You can do this with a torch, without actually hitting something (just touching; goes back to the attack roll). Since a torch is nothing more than a flaming club, does this mean that you can't set fire to a wooden door or wall with a touch? Your clubs damage (with a touch) didn't exceed the objects hardness (ie the 'attack' didn't do damage)...


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'.  It is the _weapon_ that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability.  And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon _cannot_ deal damage, no damage is dealt.
> -Hyp.




I don't separate 'flaming' from 'weapon' in that statement so, as I read it, the "flaming weapon" causes the damage.  Is a flaming whip a flaming weapon?  Yes, and therefore it does 1d6 fire damage when you hit with it, regardless of what the base weapon is.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 7, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> For clarity, I say touch because, even with damage limitations, as successful attack roll with the whip means you touched something. Trips and disarming attacks wouldn't work otherwise.



 I'm sure Hyp will say that tripping with a flaming guisarme does no damage.  If tripping does not cause damage, then the flaming can't.  While we're at it, you can sheathe your flaming sword without risking harm to yourself and even others can grasp the flaming blade without harming themselves.  Remember that the flames only do damage if the weapon does damage.  Sheathing a weapon does not deal damage so adding 1d6 to that is N/A.  Right?



			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Another question: Setting fire to combustibles requires that fire damage be taken. You can do this with a torch, without actually hitting something (just touching; goes back to the attack roll). Since a torch is nothing more than a flaming club, does this mean that you can't set fire to a wooden door or wall with a touch? Your clubs damage (with a touch) didn't exceed the objects hardness (ie the 'attack' didn't do damage)...



 To be consistent with the flaming whip dealing no damage, you (meaning whoever views that a flaming whip deals no damage) would have to rule that you deal 1d6 bludgeoning + 1 fire whether or not the torch is lit.  After all, it (the SRD), doesn't actually specify that you have to light the torch first.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 7, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I'm sure Hyp will say that tripping with a flaming guisarme does no damage.  If tripping does not cause damage, then the flaming can't.  While we're at it, you can sheathe your flaming sword without risking harm to yourself and even others can grasp the flaming blade without harming themselves.  Remember that the flames only do damage if the weapon does damage.




I would disagree with this.  The flames don't do damage only if the weapon does damage; they do damage when the weapon successfully hits.  A trip attack with a flaming weapon requires you to hit.  If you hit with a flaming weapon, you do 1d6 fire damage.  So I would rule that a trip attack with a flaming weapon does do fire damage.  Sheathing and grasping the weapon don't cause damage, because they don't require you to hit with the weapon.


----------



## Sil (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's not the case here. They're not immune to slashing damage; they're effectively immune to damage dealt by a whip. And the fire damage is damage dealt by a whip.



The fire damage is delt by the magical enhancement, weather or not the whip does damage, just like every other magically enhanced weapon.







			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's right. And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'. It is the weapon that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability. And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon cannot deal damage, no damage is dealt.



The text says "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit."  This text does not say it is the weapon that does the damage, but the weapon, magically enhanced, has the ability to do flaming damage in addition (not multiplicative, so can’t be zeroed) to the weapons damage.


 Flaming damage is not contingent on weapon damage; it is only contingent on weapon hit.

 You must find a source that suggests flaming damage cannot be applied if the weapon cannot do damage.  Until then it must be assumed it does, just like every other weapon.


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 7, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> I would disagree with this. The flames don't do damage only if the weapon does damage; they do damage when the weapon successfully hits. A trip attack with a flaming weapon requires you to hit. If you hit with a flaming weapon, you do 1d6 fire damage. So I would rule that a trip attack with a flaming weapon does do fire damage. Sheathing and grasping the weapon don't cause damage, because they don't require you to hit with the weapon.




Hmm... so maybe you can deal your flaming whip damage on a successful trip attempt, but not on a successful hit?


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 7, 2005)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> Hmm... so maybe you can deal your flaming whip damage on a successful trip attempt, but not on a successful hit?





No, you would do flaming damage in both cases, because both require a successful hit, and a successful hit with a flaming weapon causes fire damage.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 7, 2005)

Interestingly, if we're rules-lawyering here, the rules for whips only prohibit them from hurting _creatures_ with armor or natural armor. So if you have a steel door, a high strength, and are power attacking with a whip, you can cut through that door. You can also sunder shields made from iron or dragonscales, and you can sunder weapons made of adamantine, but that whip just can't manage to hurt a dude wearing full plate armor.

By the way, do you realize you can use a whip two-handed?  A 20th level barbarian with Weapon Focus,  a +5 whip, and a 36 Strength while raging could power attack for full, have a +19 attack bonus, and deal 1d3+64 points of nonlethal damage with a whip. He could take a -4 penalty to his attack to make that lethal damage. As a full-round action that's 4 attacks, enough to cut through 7 inches of steel.

But he just can't hurt a halfling in padded armor.

So the moral of the story is, if you're going to be a whip-wielder, focus on sundering. _That_ makes sense.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 7, 2005)

Its the age-old debate between strict and loose constructionists.


----------



## Sil (Jul 7, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> Its the age-old debate between strict and loose constructionists.



Oddly, i think it is more of the age old problem of people being assigned to write  who have no clue, editors with no clue, and consumers who do not hold providers of crappy products to account.

But perhaps i am just grumpy.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 7, 2005)

I think they have a clue.  And I think we do hold them accountable...at least in these forums.  I think that when you're working on such a massive mechanical scale, there are bound to be a few items that are overlooked however.  But by raising the concern on these forums hopefully they're being alerted to the errors, and they're making a list of "bugs" to fix on the next incarnation.

But perhaps I'm just optimistic.  

The original question was quite a valid Rules question.  Now we're treading into the territory where this thread isn't such a Rules thread.  People are weighing in with how they interpret the Rules (thus my loose vs. strict constructionist comment).  Each interpretation can be validated through reference to the SRD or PHB or whatnot.  But, in the end, I fear we're all just going to do it our own way.

Maybe we could get someone to step in here from the WoTC.  But, maybe that's too optimistic.

Remember, this is all just my opinion.  I'm not a Rules lawyer.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 7, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> I would disagree with this.  The flames don't do damage only if the weapon does damage; they do damage when the weapon successfully hits.  A trip attack with a flaming weapon requires you to hit.  If you hit with a flaming weapon, you do 1d6 fire damage.  So I would rule that a trip attack with a flaming weapon does do fire damage.




So if I have a flaming, shocking, frost sickle, and my opponent is wearing +5 plate armor, a +5 large shield, and an amulet of natural armor +5...

... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?

-Hyp.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf, are you okay? Are you . . . are you _bringing common sense_ into a rules discussion? Why would anyone ever want to do that?


----------



## mvincent (Jul 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?



Excellent illustration. I probably would (and RAW seems to imply this) but I don't have an answer on how it _should_ be resolved. DM call.

Note: Since the *Balor* demon (i.e. Balrog) has a flaming whip, I'd be interested in seeing how that is resolved. It'd be amusing to see a Huge, power-attacking Balor unable to harm a hobbit (in padded armor) with his flaming whip.

Also note: the rules also state that whips do non-lethal damage. Using Hypersmurfs method _would_ seem to imply that the flame damage would be non-lethal (as he mentioned)

However, I believe that applying all whip damage rules to a flaming whip (since it is a subset of 'whip') is not a logical truism in D&D (especially in regard to enhancements). Example: the rules say that longswords have an 18-20 threat range, but this does not mean (for example) that keen longswords have that threat range, despite keen longswords being a subset of longswords.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 7, 2005)

Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack?  I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 8, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack?  I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.




That's why I chose a sickle 

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 8, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack?  I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.



To clarify: sickles can be used for trip attacks (which only require a touch attack to initiate).


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 8, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if I have a flaming, shocking, frost sickle, and my opponent is wearing +5 plate armor, a +5 large shield, and an amulet of natural armor +5...
> 
> ... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?
> 
> -Hyp.




Yep!  It even makes sense to me that if you are bringing something that is enchanted with that much energy into close enough contact to trip someone, you will cause energy damage to the person touched.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2005)

> Flaming:  Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire...A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of *fire damage* on a *successful hit*.  Bows...bestows the *fire energy* upon their ammunition. DMG p224



 (emphasis mine)

The damage done by the magical enhancement to a weapon isn't dependent on the weapon doing damage, but on scoring a successful hit- the weapon isn't doing the damage- the _magical fire_ (or whatever enchantment) is.

If you could enchant a marsmallow with Flaming, (not only would it be a tasty -if dangerous- treat) it wouldn't hurt anyone from striking them, but it sure would ignite anything flammable it touched!

As for non-lethal fire...I could see that go either way.  After all, materials burn at different temperatures- and with magic involved there's no logical reason why a spellcaster couldn't make a non-lethal weapon have a "cooler" fire than a lethal one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 8, 2005)

jabberwocky said:
			
		

> Yep!  It even makes sense to me that if you are bringing something that is enchanted with that much energy into close enough contact to trip someone, you will cause energy damage to the person touched.




And yet if I trip someone by hooking a scythe blade behind their unarmoured leg and pulling, I don't cause slashing damage.

Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The weapon isn't doing the damage- the _magical fire_ (or whatever enchantment) is.




That's in direct contradiction to the quote you gave.  It states explicitly that the flaming weapon deals the fire damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 8, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And yet if I trip someone by hooking a scythe blade behind their unarmoured leg and pulling, I don't cause slashing damage.
> 
> Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?
> 
> -Hyp.





Not really - the reason the flaming weapon does damage is because of the line in the flaming property description that says how it does damage, not because I can visualize how a flaming whip or sickle could cause damage.  I can assume that a trip with a sickle against an unarmored opponent is tangling in the clothes or what have you - the point is you're not primarily attempting to cause damage with the weapon, but instead knock the other person down somehow.  Because causing damage is not the goal of a trip attack, the rules don't have it cause damage in the normal way, but a trip attack can still involve having a successful hit, which is sufficient to activate the fire damage from the flaming property.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 8, 2005)

Mispost... sorry 'bout that...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2005)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire...A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows...bestows the fire energy upon their ammunition. DMG p224
> 
> ...




No H-Smurf, its not contradictory.

Yes, the weapon is the vehicle by which the fire comes into contact with the target, but it doesn't say that must injure the target.

The enchantment says that the damage is dealt on *a succcessful strike*, not if the weapon *does damage*.

Further evidence of this is in the statement "The fire does not harm the wielder." (DMG p224)  If that statement were NOT there, the implication is that mere contact with the flame could ignite an incautious warrior.  A critical fumble or a suicide attempt would light the wielder...but the flame "knows its master" and will not harm the person who wields the weapon.  The equivalent to that phrase is present in Shock and Frost as well, but is absent from enchantments like Brilliant Energy or the Alignment based powers.

Its not the weapon doing the additional 1d6, but the magical enchantment within it.

Think of it like a grenade.  If someone is hit by a live grenade they may or may not be injured by the impact.  Then comes the ADDITIONAL damage from the explosion.

Or consider a Taser.  A person struck by a taser may or may not be injured by contact with the darts or nodes (dependino on the model), but regardless of that, they will be damaged by the 50,000 volt discharge that follows the contact.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 8, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's why I chose a sickle



 Okay, then, that makes more sense.  Yeah, that's the way I see it.  But, you can't leave out the rest of the Trip maneuver.  It doesn't just stop at the touch attack.  You may in fact lose your weapon (or be tripped).  Could the sickle-wielder trick himself out with feats to help?  Sure.  Could the target trick himself out with resistances to energy?  Sure.  It all evens out in the wash -- you just need to add the right amount of bleach.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No H-Smurf, its not contradictory.
> 
> Yes, the weapon is the vehicle by which the fire comes into contact with the target, but it doesn't say that must injure the target.
> 
> The enchantment says that the damage is dealt on *a succcessful strike*, not if the weapon *does damage*.




That's right.  The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike.  Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip _deals no damage_.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 8, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's right.  The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike.  Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip _deals no damage_.
> 
> -Hyp.




Which goes back to the torch/flaming club/hot poker example. How can you set fire to something it you don't do weapons damage to it?


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 8, 2005)

Would be funny to see a Balrog's face when his flaming whip does nothing to a padded-armored commoner.   

The starting rule that whips cannot damage a target in armor comes from the assumption that armor is only about absorbing damage. But of course a RL armor absorbs damage when the strike hits the part of your body which it is actually covered by the armor, and it rarely covers all of it.

In fact, D&D uses armor as an armor bonus to AC, which is more in line with the "covering" idea than the "absorbing" idea. It's a simplification that not everyone likes, given how many groups use an "armor as DR" variant.

I agree that by the rules, if you had an armor in the form of a helm (e.g. giving a +1 AC by the fact that it protects your head), and you were otherwise naked, a whip could not hurt you at all. (Because that's obviously ridiculous, I would not hesitate to overrule)


----------



## interwyrm (Jul 8, 2005)

The rules about whips are just inconsistant in general because as stated before, armor makes you harder to hit, not take less damage. I mean... the same logic would say that if someone is wearing plate male with padding underneath, they should take no damage from a club. Hmm... I think next time I run a campaign I will houserule out the restrictions on whips doing damage.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's right.  The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike.  Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip _deals no damage_.
> 
> -Hyp.




Rught.  Any reason why you cannot have a successful strike even if you cannot do any damage?  Note that dealing no damage in not the same as not being able to hit, right?

Thus you could have a successful strike, deal no damge, but have the fire damage added in anyway since it cares not whether the weapon itself did any damamge, only that you made a "succesful strikje."

Right?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 9, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Rught.  Any reason why you cannot have a successful strike even if you cannot do any damage?  Note that dealing no damage in not the same as not being able to hit, right?
> 
> Thus you could have a successful strike, deal no damge, but have the fire damage added in anyway since it cares not whether the weapon itself did any damamge, only that you made a "succesful strikje."




The flaming property certainly applies, since the hit is successful.  Except that since the weapon dealing that fire damage is a whip, _no damage is dealt_ to an armoured opponent.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The flaming property certainly applies, since the hit is successful.  Except that since the weapon dealing that fire damage is a whip, _no damage is dealt_ to an armoured opponent.
> 
> -Hyp.





Sure there is... fire damage upon a successful strike   (the ability doesn't say that the weapon has to damage a target, just strike it).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2005)

If there is a puddle of oil on the ground and a big haystack in front of me, and I hit them with a whip, I cannot in any way be said to have damaged either one despite my successful strikes.

If the whip is flaming, the oil will ignite, as would the hay, despite the fact that the whip-strike still did no damage to either target.

In fact, I daresay that I could ignite EITHER target while simply TOUCHING them with a flaming whip.

(This, of course, could give rise to a "new" tactic: if you know X creature is vulnerable to a particular kind of attack, you could eschew a regular attack and try for a touch attack in order to increase your chances of exposing X Creature to that power.)

Look at the mummy:  DR 5/, but vulnerable to fire.  A halfing with a +1 flaming dagger and 8STR fighting a mummy can't overcome the Mummy's DR with his weapon.  And yet he can still hurt the sucker _despite doing no damage_ because (tah-dah!) his weapon is a flaming weapon.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 9, 2005)

I have to disagree with Hyp on this one. The flaming ability does damage independent of the weapons damage (if any).


----------



## Raduin711 (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The flaming property certainly applies, since the hit is successful.  Except that since the weapon dealing that fire damage is a whip, _no damage is dealt_ to an armoured opponent.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ok, chew on this one...

Monster has damage Reduction 20/fire.  You have a flaming club.  You hit, roll damage.  Your club cannot do over 20 damage, so no matter what you roll on your bludgeoning damage roll "no damage is dealt".  Since no damage is dealt, you can't apply the fire damage.


----------



## Raduin711 (Jul 9, 2005)

Ok, never mind... the description of Damage Reduction specifically allows for it.


----------



## Raduin711 (Jul 9, 2005)

Ok, gonna try some Errata Logic...

*The flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst
weapon powers require a critical hit to trigger the burst.
What happens when you attack a foe that isn’t subject to
critical hits? Will the burst power work? A flaming burst,
icy burst, or shocking burst weapon also is a flaming, frost,
or shock weapon, respectively. What happens when the
burst power is triggered? Does the burst damage augment
or replace the damage from the energy power?*

A burst power has its normal effect against foes that aren’t
subject to critical hits. If you strike such a foe and your attack
roll is good enough to threaten a critical hit, go ahead and roll
to confirm the critical. If you confirm the critical, the burst
power is activated, but the foe doesn’t take any extra weapon
damage....

From the DMG:



> *Flaming Burst*:  A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit.




So the errata contradicts the description of the Magic Weapon Special Ability.  

You can use the same logic provided here for the whip question.  Which is: just because the weapon itself is unable to do damage, does not mean that any special abilities associated with that are also negated.  The damage reduction rules also follow this same logic.  I think this is a situation where the spirit of the rules should be followed, over a rather strict interpretation of the rules.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 9, 2005)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> So the errata contradicts the description of the Magic Weapon Special Ability.




How so?

The critical hit was successful; it just happened that the creature was immune to it.

The extra damage from the flaming burst is not part of the critical hit (to which the creature is immune); it's something that happens along with the critical hit, whether the creature is immune to the critical hit itself or not.

The flaming damage from the flaming whip, however, is damage dealt by the whip, which is what a whip can't do against an armored opponent - deal damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The flaming damage from the flaming whip, however, is damage dealt by the whip, which is what a whip can't do against an armored opponent - deal damage.




Hyp, you are, as always, far smarter and more educated in these matters than I so no fancy rules questions from me just this:

Do you really think that is how the flaming in conjunction of the whip is suppose to work or do you think the rule as written is wrong?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2005)

Y'know, I have never seen a whip set someone on fire.  I HAVE seen fires set people on fires, but never just a whip...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Do you really think that is how the flaming in conjunction of the whip is suppose to work or do you think the rule as written is wrong?




Hmm.

A dagger can damage someone in plate armour.  It can find a way to get past the protection to reach the person underneath.

A whip can't.  It's incapable of breaching that protection to reach the person.

Why should the flames of the whip hurt someone if the whip never actually gets to them?

-Hyp.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Why should the flames of the whip hurt someone if the whip never actually gets to them?




Cause metal transfers heat rather well.   

Edit: added a  cause it was meant to be funny.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 9, 2005)

A person in full plate is very hard to hit. Maybe even +8 to hit. To injure him with a dagger, you've gotta get your weapon to go through a vulnerable spot, and there aren't many.

A whip, by normal logic, can't get through that armor. I mean, sure, it _can_ -- it could snap inside the visor, or lash spot where there's only chainmail and no plate -- but really, the chances of that happening are slim. I'd probably say the person gets a _+8_ bonus to AC to avoid being hurt by that whip. Whoo boy, is it hard to hurt someone in full plate or what?

Unless of course they run through a fire. Then they take fire damage, even though the full plate covers their whole body.

Oh, and flaming gauntlets can hurt people in full plate. Flaming gauntlets worn by pixies can hurt people in full plate.  But whips can't hurt them at all. A little illogical.


----------



## Shadeus (Jul 9, 2005)

An interesting thread.  Would using a whip against someone in full-plate be different than using it against someone with damage reduction?  If you hit someone with DR 20/- with a flaming whip with no armor on (assuming you do less than 20 pts of damage), do you do the extra +1d6?  I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.  I guess I don't see how that instance of "no damage" is different than using a flaming whip against a guy in full plate.


----------



## Selenim (Jul 9, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I inclined to say this is very much like DR and so the flame damage applies.
> 
> Of course, a hyper-strict look at the rules could be read to say it does no damage, but that seesm decidely lacking on common sense - which may have no place in D&D, pehaps. .




I agree, fire will burn you even if it's a flaming towel.  The armor bonus limits for a whip are also pretty stupid since armor is not supposed to duplicate dr.  The other light weapons are not similarily penalized so maybe it's some balance tweak for the extra reach.  

Common sense is always a good bet when the rules of the game fail.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For the same reason that the burst properties will effect those immune to critical hits.

By definition, those wearing armor are 'immune' to whip damage. Just as the burst properties carry though to a critter that deosn't normally take critical damage, energy properties will carry though even though the whip does no damage. 


Besides, as mentioned earlier, metals have a nasty habit of transmitting fire/eelectricity/cold rather well.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> A dagger can damage someone in plate armour. It can find a way to get past the protection to reach the person underneath.
> 
> ...




Because it's the flame that's doing the damage, not the whip. The weapon just has to make a successful strike to bring the magical flames close enough to do damage, it doesn't matter whether the weapon itself does damage. 

I simply don't buy the arguement that the magical flames are suddenly incapable of doing damage because of the mundane weapon they are emanating from.

The "whip" part of the "flaming whip" weapon does not negate the "flaming" part of the "flaming whip" weapon. The "flaming" part does not require that the "whip" part do damage before it will function.  The whip part may not do damage, but the flame part will, because they are seperate sources of damage. That's why the flaming part is not multiplied on a crit, and why it's a different damage type than the weapon.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Because it's the flame that's doing the damage, not the whip.




That's not what the ability states.  It says the flaming weapon deals the damage, and the flaming weapon is a whip.

If the flaming weapon is anything but a whip, I have no issue with the fire damage being dealt to an armoured opponent.

But it isn't.  It's a whip.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> By definition, those wearing armor are 'immune' to whip damage.




No, they're 'immune' to damage dealt by a whip.

Which in this case includes the fire damage, since it is damage dealt by a whip.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, they're 'immune' to damage dealt by a whip.




Same thing with different wording...



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Which in this case includes the fire damage, since it is damage dealt by a whip.
> 
> -Hyp.




Which is not neccesarily the case. The ability give +1d6 fire damage, not +1d6 to weapon damage. If it were the other way around, others on the board might be willing to see things the other way...


Isn't it stated in the description of DR that even a flaming (normal flame as opposed to magical) torch can ignore DR, even though a club could not? Wouldn't this fall under the same catagory, where the original implement wouldn't normally damage a target, but the fire can on a successful strike?


EDIT: Per the SRD;
_Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, *energy damage dealt along with an attack*, or energy drains._ 

Empahsis mine

Since armor is acting as afor of damage reduction in this case, the same rules would apply. Notice that it states attack as opposed to damage.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 10, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Interestingly, if we're rules-lawyering here, the rules for whips only prohibit them from hurting _creatures_ with armor or natural armor. So if you have a steel door, a high strength, and are power attacking with a whip, you can cut through that door. You can also sunder shields made from iron or dragonscales, and you can sunder weapons made of adamantine, but that whip just can't manage to hurt a dude wearing full plate armor.
> 
> By the way, do you realize you can use a whip two-handed? A 20th level barbarian with Weapon Focus, a +5 whip, and a 36 Strength while raging could power attack for full, have a +19 attack bonus, and deal 1d3+64 points of nonlethal damage with a whip. He could take a -4 penalty to his attack to make that lethal damage. As a full-round action that's 4 attacks, enough to cut through 7 inches of steel.
> 
> ...




This is by far the best thing to come from this thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
> Hmm.
> 
> A dagger can damage someone in plate armour. It can find a way to get past the protection to reach the person underneath.
> ...




Its not a bad point, but I have to say I have no problems with arcane fire (or frost, or electricity, etc.) penetrating a thin sheath of metal, either ignoring the armor or (more cinematically), dancing across the armor like a living thing, seeking an entrance, like a joint or visor.

After all, arcane fire will still damage someone using mundane fire protection, and arcane frost will still damage someone wrapped in fur...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Which is not neccesarily the case. The ability give +1d6 fire damage, not +1d6 to weapon damage.




It says the weapon deals the extra damage.



> Isn't it stated in the description of DR that even a flaming (normal flame as opposed to magical) torch can ignore DR, even though a club could not?




Yup.



> Wouldn't this fall under the same catagory, where the original implement wouldn't normally damage a target, but the fire can on a successful strike?




Nope.



> Since armor is acting as afor of damage reduction in this case...




No, it isn't.  If it were, the whip text would say "a creature with at least a +1 armor bonus or +3 natural armor bonus gains infinite DR against the whip's attacks", or something similar.

The whip doesn't reference the DR mechanics at all; it just says the whip deals no damage.  Thus the DR mechanics are irrelevant.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

Compare:



> The flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 of fire damage on a successful hit.  DMG p224.




with:



> Some weapons deal damage of multiple types...If a weapon is of 2 types, the damage it deals is not half of one type and half of another; all of it is of both types.  Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon...In a situation when the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.  PHB p114.




While not a perfect analogy, it illustrates that different damage types on a single weapon can be distinguished by type.  The flaming weapon, regardless of type, has its base kind of damage (B/S/P weapon damage) and a second kind of damage (magical fire).

Yes, the weapon damage of a flaming whip is nullified by the armor, but the magical fire damage is not, unless the target is also immune to the fire damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yes, the weapon damage of a flaming whip is nullified by the armor, but the magical fire damage is not, unless the target is also immune to the fire damage.




The damage dealt by a whip is nullified by the armor.  Both the slashing damage and the fire damage are damage dealt by the whip.

-Hyp.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's not what the ability states. It says the flaming weapon deals the damage, and the flaming weapon is a whip.
> 
> If the flaming weapon is anything but a whip, I have no issue with the fire damage being dealt to an armoured opponent.
> 
> ...




I respectfully disagree.   I think you are focusing on the RAW to the point where it no longer makes any sense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

> The damage dealt by a whip is nullified by the armor. Both the slashing damage and the fire damage are damage dealt by the whip.




I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water.

If a creature were immune to piercing damage, it could still be killed by a morningstar, which does B/P.  The quote from the PHB about damage by weapon type explicitly contemplates immunity (nullification) of a type of damage:



> Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons...a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage from such a weapon. PHB p 114.




An armored character is immune to damage from the whip, effectively it has "Immunity: whip."  But unless it is still immune to the arcane fire, it still takes damage from the fire.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If a creature were immune to piercing damage, it could still be killed by a morningstar, which does B/P.




Certainly.  But if it were immune to damage dealt by a morningstar, it would be immune to both the B _and_ P components.



> An armored character is immune to damage from the whip, effectively it has "Immunity: whip."  But unless it is still immune to the arcane fire, it still takes damage from the fire.




Let's say we have a creature with the special quality Elf Defense (Ex): When the creature is attacked by an elf, the attack deals no damage.

Does it matter if the elf attacks with a longsword or with a flaming longsword?  Or does the creature take no damage in either case?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

> Certainly. But if it were immune to damage dealt by a morningstar, it would be immune to both the B and P components.




And if the morningstar were flaming, it would still take the flaming damage, since it is not morningstar damage, but magical enchantment damage.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 10, 2005)

The whip in this example isn't what is doing the damage, the ability states that it is dealing 1d6 *fire* damage...as in, the damage is coming from fire. We can thusly state that the rules pretty clearly say the damage is not coming from the weapon, and thus applies.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Certainly.  But if it were immune to damage dealt by a morningstar, it would be immune to both the B _and_ P components.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Actually, it does. Per the rules. a critter has to be immune to Elf damage and said energy type, if an elf attacks with an energy enchanced weapon (I don't Elf Defense AND immunity to fire listed  )


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And if the morningstar were flaming, it would still take the flaming damage, since it is not morningstar damage, but magical enchantment damage.




He's immune to damage dealt by a morningstar, and the fire damage is damage dealt by a morningstar.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The whip in this example isn't what is doing the damage, the ability states that it is dealing 1d6 fire damage...as in, the damage is coming from fire. We can thusly state that the rules pretty clearly say the damage is not coming from the weapon, and thus applies.




The rules _specifically_ state that the weapon is dealing the damage.



			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Actually, it does. Per the rules. a critter has to be immune to Elf damage and said energy type, if an elf attacks with an energy enchanced weapon (I don't Elf Defense AND immunity to fire listed  )




He's not immune to Elf damage.  If he's attacked by an elf, no damage is dealt.  You're calling 'Elf damage' a damage type, which is not how the Elf Defense ability was phrased.  If the attack was made by an elf, no damage is dealt.  The attack with the flaming longsword is made by an elf.  'Elf damage' doesn't come into it at all.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

> The rules specifically state that the weapon is dealing the damage.




No, the rule specifically states that a weapon can "have one or more of the special abilities listed below" (DMG p223) and then lists & explains the abilities (DMG p224-226).

"Flaming" is the special ability listed, and it allows the weapon to do fire damage upon a _successful strike_, not upon doing weapon damage.  Thus, if you use a flaming flail to do a trip- an attack that does NO damage- and you succeed- you still do +1d6 fire damage.

The only sense in which the "weapon" is doing damage is in the fact that it delivers the enchantement into contact with a target.  The fire damage is entirely predicated upon the power of the enchantment.  The special ability does the fire damage.

The enchantment is even sophisticated enough to distinguish between wielder and target- the fire CANNOT damage the wielder, even if he crits himsel!


----------



## 3d6 (Jul 10, 2005)

The rule specifically states that the weapon deals the damage.  That's the important part.







			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.



Thus, a _flaming whip_ deals 1d3 slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage.







			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> [The whip] deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.



A whip cannot deal damage to a creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. Because the fire damage is damage dealt by the whip, and a whip cannot deal damage to the aformentioned targets, then a flaming whip doesn't deal any fire damage to those targets because it can't deal any damage at all.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 10, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> This is by far the best thing to come from this thread.





Yea, but it's like being on a merri-go-round. Sometimes you just go in circles for the fun of it...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

3d6 said:
			
		

> The rule specifically states that the weapon deals the damage.  That's the important part.Thus, a _flaming whip_ deals 1d3 slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage.A whip cannot deal damage to a creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. Because the fire damage is damage dealt by the whip, and a whip cannot deal damage to the aformentioned targets, then a flaming whip doesn't deal any fire damage to those targets because it can't deal any damage at all.




Couldn't have put it better myself 

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2005)

I'm sorry 3d6 and HypS, but that reading of the flaming special ability defies logic.

1) A creature with +3 natural armor cannot be damaged by a whip's normal damage

2) Trolls have +5 natural armor, and Mummies have +10 NA, making it immune to a whip's normal damage.

3)  Because of this immunity to the normal damage, you then extrapolate that the magical fire damage is nullified.

By your interpretation, you could hang a flaming whip around a troll's or Mummy's neck like a tie and it wouldn't bother him...but a non-magical torch (even if it were not used as an improvised weapon (1d3 x2 B)) would do a point of fire damage upon contact, negating the troll's regeneration and setting the mummy afire.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> By your interpretation, you could hang a flaming whip around a troll's or Mummy's neck like a tie and it wouldn't bother him...but a non-magical torch (even if it were not used as an improvised weapon (1d3 x2 B)) would do a point of fire damage upon contact, negating the troll's regeneration and setting the mummy afire.




Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.
> 
> -Hyp.




So by your interpretation, magical fire weapon enhancements will not harm a critter if it wears armor, provided the weapon cannot penetrate the armor.

Assuming normal (nonmagical) fire isn't quite so discerning:
Suppose a whip is treated with pitch or some other combustible liquid, lit on fire, and used to attack said troll? Is it still not receiving damage?

Is the mummy also immune to this nonmagical equivalent?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ignore this. Got carried away....


----------



## Demoquin (Jul 10, 2005)

I think that the fire would still penetrate the armor from a whip. The actual whip needs to find that weak spot in the armor to do the (1d3 S dmg) but the flaming part ... i see it as a touch attack, meaning it does not have to go THROUGH the armor but just touch it. If you are a near a furnace .. you will feel the heat through your full plate so that is how i would look at it.


----------



## Sil (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf

     The flaming weapon enhancement modified the weapon.  The whip may deal no damage against an armored opponent, but the flaming enhancement overrides the no damage rule and adds 1d6 flaming.

 You have mis-ordered the precedents.  Weapon rules are modified by magical enhancement rules, not the other way around.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 10, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The rules _specifically_ state that the weapon is dealing the damage.
> 
> -Hyp.




Because the RAW is the only thing that matters when interpretting the rules, forever and ever, amen.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 10, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Because the RAW is the only thing that matters when interpretting the rules, forever and ever, amen.




Does this mean someone sending off a question to the sage wouldn’t end this debate?


----------



## Fieari (Jul 10, 2005)

Correct.  When the Sage contradicts the RAW (and he's been known to) the RAW trumps the Sage.  The RAW trumps the FAQ too, for that matter.  The RAW trumps everything except:

1) House Rules (which are perfectly fine, but here we have a seperate forum to discuss them)

and

2) Errata (which then are made part of the RAW)

(As a side note, I agree with Hypersmurf, but since he's doing a fine job of explaining the situation, I really have little to add in that respect.  Granted, in _my_ game I might disagree with the RAW, and house rule it otherwise, but I'd recognize it as a house rule)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 10, 2005)

Fieari said:
			
		

> Correct.  When the Sage contradicts the RAW (and he's been known to) the RAW trumps the Sage.  The RAW trumps the FAQ too, for that matter.  The RAW trumps everything except.




So it’s officially nothing, huh?  (I would imagine a real reply would be for another thread.  )


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Assuming normal (nonmagical) fire isn't quite so discerning:
> Suppose a whip is treated with pitch or some other combustible liquid, lit on fire, and used to attack said troll? Is it still not receiving damage?




It depends on how the DM phrases the ruling on setting a whip on fire with pitch.

If he says that the fire deals 1d3 (say) fire damage, it works.  If he says that the whip deals +1d3 fire damage, it doesn't.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 10, 2005)

Demoquin said:
			
		

> I think that the fire would still penetrate the armor from a whip. The actual whip needs to find that weak spot in the armor to do the (1d3 S dmg) but the flaming part ... i see it as a touch attack, meaning it does not have to go THROUGH the armor but just touch it. If you are a near a furnace .. you will feel the heat through your full plate so that is how i would look at it.




So if someone has an AC of 18 and a touch AC of 10 (full plate, say), and I roll a 14 with my Flaming Longsword, do they take the fire damage, since my attack roll beat their touch AC?

-Hyp.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Fieari said:
			
		

> Correct. When the Sage contradicts the RAW (and he's been known to) the RAW trumps the Sage. The RAW trumps the FAQ too, for that matter. The RAW trumps everything except:
> 
> 1) House Rules (which are perfectly fine, but here we have a seperate forum to discuss them)
> 
> ...




Of course, none of this is necessarily true, just what certain people want to be true.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Does this mean someone sending off a question to the sage wouldn’t end this debate?




It would end it for some people.  For others, the Sage means nothing.    Some people have this peculiar view of the rules as a sort of holy text that must be taken in the most literal and narrow view in all cases.   If that means the rules allow bizarre loopholes that fly in the face of reason,  you just have to accept it.

Not all of us view the rulebooks as quite so set in stone.  The rules are there for a reason, but the game designers are not prophets, and they are not infallible.  Some of us have the heretical belief that our sense of how the world works is just as important as the RAW when it comes to running the game.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It depends on how the DM phrases the ruling on setting a whip on fire with pitch.
> 
> If he says that the fire deals 1d3 (say) fire damage, it works. If he says that the whip deals +1d3 fire damage, it doesn't.
> 
> -Hyp.




Because what he actually means doesn't matter, just how he happened to write it down.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if someone has an AC of 18 and a touch AC of 10 (full plate, say), and I roll a 14 with my Flaming Longsword, do they take the fire damage, since my attack roll beat their touch AC?
> 
> -Hyp.




If you state your intention ahead of time, and negated the aspects of damage that come from the weapon itself (in this case 1d8 + Str bonus + enhancement bonus), and only do the 1d6 fire damage, then I don't have a problem with it. 

You lose well over half your damage output, and anyone wearing full plate is likely to have an equally impressive weapon--- and power attack, but if that is how you wish to attack.

Example: Hold soemthing that hot (it does 1d6 damage while passing through a target. That's near instant sun burn ) near said full plates cod piece, and your bound to do some damage.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 11, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> It would end it for some people.  For others, the Sage means nothing.    Some people have this peculiar view of the rules as a sort of holy text that must be taken in the most literal and narrow view in all cases.




What if someone asked the sage if his/her/their answers where considered errata?  (or has someone asked?)


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> What if someone asked the sage if his/her/their answers where considered errata? (or has someone asked?)




This has come up before.   At one time,  the Sage could issue errata in his column.   That is no longer the case.  There have been times when the Sage answer was clearly wrong, and other times when they are not so much "wrong" as creating new rules for situations not covered in the books.   The person fulfilling the role of the Sage has also changed  (used to be Skip Williams, now it's Andy Collins).  

The official FAQ is made up of answers from the Sage Advice column, and it's status as potential errata is unclear.   It is supposed to be vetted by a "rules council" at WOTC before it is updated, but from the quality of answers it seems unlikely.   Some of the answers in FAQ have also been clearly wrong, and were later corrected.   Some are still incorrect or contradictory. 

Still for some people the FAQ is still considered defacto errata (especially people who play the Living Greyhawk RPGA campaign). 

In any case, the upshot is that the Sage Advice column, or personal answers from the sage, are not supposed to be errata, unless they are clearly marked as such.  (And some people won't accept it even then,  the only errata that counts is that in the official errata documents.  And there is some validity to this viewpoint.)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 11, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> In any case, the upshot is that the Sage Advice column, or personal answers from the sage, are not supposed to be errata, unless they are clearly marked as such.  (And some people won't accept it even then,  the only errata that counts is that in the official errata documents.  And there is some validity to this viewpoint.)




Yeah I would agree except for one thing it’s not like the errata ever gets update, correct?


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah I would agree except for one thing it’s not like the errata ever gets update, correct?




It does get updated occasionally. I think the errata for the 3.5 PHB and DMG have been updated 2 or 3 times since the initial release. Each non-core book usually get's an official errata document within 3-6 months of release. 

But the errata usually doesn't change after it's been released, unless new errata needs to be added. 

And you are right in that they avoid updating errata as much as possible.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 11, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Some of the answers in FAQ have also been clearly wrong, and were later corrected.   Some are still incorrect or contradictory.
> 
> Still for some people the FAQ is still considered defacto errata (especially people who play the Living Greyhawk RPGA campaign).




So in the still-incorrect-or-contradictory cases, what applies in LG?

For example - do acid and sonic attacks ignore hardness (FAQ p46), or does hardness apply (FAQ p34)?

-Hyp.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So in the still-incorrect-or-contradictory cases, what applies in LG?
> 
> For example - do acid and sonic attacks ignore hardness (FAQ p46), or does hardness apply (FAQ p34)?
> 
> -Hyp.




Whatever the judge at the table decides. Most judges go with the most recent update, or with whatever the most knowledgeable ruleslawyer at the table tells them.

For your specific question, I believe the most common ruling is that hardness does apply, as that was the most recent one. (At least it is in my area. I'm generally acknowledged as the "Rules Monkey" and most judges trust me to be as fair as possible.  If I think it's ambiguous I will tell them it is, and then give my opinion.)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 11, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> And you are right in that they avoid updating errata as much as possible.




2-3 times really isn’t all that much…  I know that GR keeps really up to date on M&M…  but I guess as a 3rd party they would have to.  (Trust be told I’ve never once looked for errata on D&D but do so on M&M quite regularly.)


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if someone has an AC of 18 and a touch AC of 10 (full plate, say), and I roll a 14 with my Flaming Longsword, do they take the fire damage, since my attack roll beat their touch AC?
> 
> -Hyp.





Not if you're attempting a normal attack, where the definition of a successful hit is beating your opponent's AC.  But, if you're attempting a manuever where a successful hit involves a touch attack, than you will do fire damage after hitting their touch AC.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 11, 2005)

This argument is out and out dumb. Smurf, you are arguing based on RAW in the most rediculous fashion, and ignoring half of the SRD in the process:

Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).
Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon.
You can make trip attacks with a whip. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the whip to avoid being tripped.
When using a whip, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to keep from being disarmed if the attack fails).
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a whip sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.

Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.

ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

So, from our rules lesson, we learn that when you make an attack and roll above the AC you hit and deal damage So, when you hit, flaming activates because a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Now then the weapon sees if it does damage, and against an armored opponent, it deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.

So now, you have your attack: Hit = 1d6 + 0

Done. Stop being pointless.

Zero


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

The Smurf's right, folks.  That's really the end to it.

The rules say that a whip - no matter how fancy you make it - can't deal damage to an armored target.  Therefore, a flaming, shocking, frost whip can't deal damage to an armored target.

Them's the RAW.

Feel free to House Rule it in your own campaigns, however.  In fact, that's what House Rules are for - to make the other rules act the way you want them to.


----------



## Xael (Jul 11, 2005)

What Patryn said.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The Smurf's right, folks. That's really the end to it.
> 
> The rules say that a whip - no matter how fancy you make it - can't deal damage to an armored target. Therefore, a flaming, shocking, frost whip can't deal damage to an armored target.



 No, he's not, and the underlined part of your post is where you're wrong.  Nothing in the mundane equipment section says "no matter how fancy you make it."



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Them's the RAW.
> 
> Feel free to House Rule it in your own campaigns, however. In fact, that's what House Rules are for - to make the other rules act the way you want them to.



 Exactly, and that's what we say to you and Smurf.  Feel free to houserule that a flaming whip deals no damage to an armored opponent, but recognize it's a houserule.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The Smurf's right, folks.  That's really the end to it.



No. I've said before, this is subject to DM interpretation. The rules are not cut and dried on this (or else there wouldn't be a discussion). Most of the DM's I know would rule opposite of Smurf's viewpoint, but I've never said his interpretation was completely invalid. However, your dismissive treatment of a different _valid_ (and preferred) interpretation has certainly not persuaded me of your viewpoint (and has likely done damage to your argument).



> The rules say that a whip - no matter how fancy you make it - can't deal damage to an armored target.



I'll make sure my PC's explain this to the next Balor they see. Still, I'm pretty certain any of us could make a decent Spell-Storing whip (or Brilliant Energy, etc.) that could damage an armored opponent even by your rules interpretation. So your statement seems incorrect.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, he's not, and the underlined part of your post is where you're wrong.  Nothing in the mundane equipment section says "no matter how fancy you make it."




Except it does.  "It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher."

Seriously.

A flaming, shocking, frosting whip is a *whip* that does 1d3 Slashing + 1d6 Fire + 1d6 Lightning + 1d6 Cold damage.

A whip is a whip is a whip.

This is so blindingly obvious that I wonder over the amount of discussion it has engendered.

However, as many people have pointed out, it's potentially unpalatable rule, given the interaction of daggers and AC.  So house rule it.

It's not a crime to make House Rules, you know - and it's OK to say, "I've looked over the RAW, and they say 'X,' but I'm going to change that.  X is weird."  In fact, that's how all House Rules should be made, IMO.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I'll make sure my PC's explain this to the next Balor they see.




Who'll likely use his whip to trip and disarm your PCs - which, as you may notice, does no damage and therefore doesn't matter in this case.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> This is so blindingly obvious that I wonder over the amount of discussion it has engendered.



 Something is so blindingly obvious -- on that we agree.  What is so blindingly obvious is what we differ on.  To whit:

A whip is a whip except when it is a _flaming_ whip.  At that point, it's a _flaming_ whip.

Really, I have no idea why people keep ignoring the _flaming_ part of the whip. Obviously, your snarky line of argumentation is not helping your case.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

*<sigh>*

Originally posted in the SRD (emphasis mine):



> BALOR
> Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
> Hit Dice:	20d8+200 (290 hp)
> Initiative:	+11
> ...



...etc. etc. etc.

I really didn't want to get into this.  But...it looks like the Balor's "flaming whip" does damage.  So, maybe this means the correct interpretation is that a flaming whip does damage?  hmmm?


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

And I'd just like to add that I still agree with the "it should be houseruled" idea.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> A whip is a whip except when it is a _flaming_ whip.  At that point, it's a _flaming_ whip.




Which is still a whip.  And, per the description of the flaming ability:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.




What deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit?  A flaming *weapon* does.

Not, "The flaming enhancement does 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit with a weapon so enhanced."

If it were so written, then, yes, you'd have the rules behind you - the whip would do no damage, and the flaming enhancement would do 1d6 Fire.

It is not so written, so, no, you do not have the rules behind you - the whip tried to do 1d3 slashing and 1d6 fire, but is prevented by the armor, as per the rules on whips.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> I really didn't want to get into this.  But...it looks like the Balor's "flaming whip" does damage.  So, maybe this means the correct interpretation is that a flaming whip does damage?  hmmm?




Of course it does damage and has damage statistics!  No one is saying that it doesn't!

The problem is that whips have, built into them, an additional limitation: if the whip is used against a creature with a +1 or greater Armor bonus or +3 or greater Natural Armor bonus, it deals no damage.

Accordingly, when the Balor attempts to do damage to the knight in full plate (or, ironically, the peasant in padded) armor, the whip can't be used to do damage.  It can be used to trip, or disarm, or whatever, but it deals no damage.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

This is why I didn't want to get into this.  Its silly.  House rule it and move on.  

I'm of the opinion (and I would houserule it this way were any of my players to desire the use of a whip) that the enchantment still does damage against those with +1 or greater Armor or +3 or greater Nat. Armor.  It only makes *sense*.  Common or otherwise.  This is one thing Wizard's definitely needs to fix if/when they get around to 4E.  If only to prevent the re-emergence of this thread.

It just makes no sense whatsoever that the enchantment would not still damage someone.  Most Armor is metal.  You're going to feel the heat.  You're going to get burned.  

On top of that, its magic folks.  An enchantment is magic.  The flaming enchanment is nullified by the mundane material present in a whip?  That doesn't make sense.

How about a Vorpal whip?  Would you allow the vorpal whip to rip off a creature's head?  If so, don't you consider the loss of one's limb (in this case the head) to be damaging?  Or does the whip nullify the vorpal ability as well??

I'm done here.  I need a cigarette.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 11, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> ...it looks like the Balor's "flaming whip" does damage.  So, maybe this means the correct interpretation is that a flaming whip does damage?



To be perfectly fair, that doesn't really seem to support my "flaming damages armor" interpretation that much. It might even hurt it a bit because the write up does not specifically mention to treat the fire damage separately. 

However, since most people facing a Balor will certainly have _some_ sort of armor on, it's strange that the writers of the Balor's description didn't bother to remind the reader at _all_ about the whip's 'no damage' clause.

I'm inclined to believe that the developers actually intended for _all_ the Balor's damage to be applicable to people in armor, but that they themselves forgot about whip special attributes.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

Well, I understand what Patryn was saying when they said: 







> Of course it does damage and has damage statistics!



.

Duh.  Every attack has damage statistics.  I just fail to see the *logic* in the idea that the damage is nullified by the armor.  And it makes no sense that the Balor would utilize a weapon that could not damage the majority of its foes (i.e. the stereotypical armor-clad paladin).


----------



## mvincent (Jul 11, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> This is one thing Wizard's definitely needs to fix if/when they get around to 4E.



Since the whip has far too many special rules associated with it, I'd prefer they simplified it and removed the armor clause entirely (even if they had to reduce the damage or range to balance it). It's not like the clause was actually adding suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

That would help to resolve the issue.  Or if they added another clause within the whip definition that states: Magical Enhancements upon a whip add no extra damage in the event that the target is wearing amor with at least a +1...blah blah blah.  More clarification, more clarification. 

I find that sadly, this is the first time I've ever disagreed with Hypersmurf or Patryn.  

Channeling the spirit of Ned Flanders: "I've done everything the [SRD] says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> However, since most people facing a Balor will certainly have _some_ sort of armor on, it's strange that the writers of the Balor's description didn't bother to remind the reader at _all_ about the whip's 'no damage' clause.




I don't understand this logic.  Why is it strange that they didn't specifically call out the whip's limitations in a statblock?

One of the cardinal design goals of 3.0E is to *limit* the number of specific call outs you need to make.  If I say a creature's an Angel, it gets all the angel stuff pre-listed elsewhere, which doesn't need to be rewritten in the descriptions of the 14 flavors of angel.  If I say a weapon is a whip, it includes all the whip stuff written elsewhere, so I don't have to rewrite it any time I give a creature a whip.

And a whip is still useful to a balor because he can use it to trip, disarm, etc., at a phenomenal range.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> I just fail to see the *logic* in the idea that the damage is nullified by the armor.




To be honest, neither do I.  But then, that's neither here nor there, since it's very easily house-ruled away with a, "Huh, that's funny!"



> And it makes no sense that the Balor would utilize a weapon that could not damage the majority of its foes (i.e. the stereotypical armor-clad paladin).




Why is damage so important?  It seems to me that a flaming whip is a great way to trip those obnoxious paladins so that you can get your free AoO with your vorpal sword when they stand up.  It's also a good way to snatch those holy avenging swords right out of their hands!


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Does this mean someone sending off a question to the sage wouldn’t end this debate?





Nah. We had a debate about the lance and the bonuses it receives not too lang ago. FAQ answering the question was brought in to clarify, and summarily thown out because it was FAQ.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 11, 2005)

Hyp's got it right.  That doesn't mean it makes sense.



			
				Funeris said:
			
		

> This is why I didn't want to get into this.  Its silly.  House rule it and move on.




Exactly.  See, the thing that people aren't grasping here is that the RAW does indeed say that a whip can't deal damage to opponents with a certain amount of armor or natural armor bonus.  That includes magical whips with whatever enchantments.  Now, this is so blatantly silly and idiotic that most GMs will house rule it.  But they won't call it a house rule, they'll say that it doesn't make any sense otherwise, so this must be the correct interpretation.

*The RAW does not always make sense.  Sometimes it is down right moronic.  But it is still RAW.*

Take a look at that statement.  Then understand that some people play this game strictly by the RAW, no house rules.

Abandon all logic and reason, ye who enter the ruels forum.  Don't try to argue against the RAW with logic or reason, you will be wrong.  Call your reasoning what it is, a house rule.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Funeris (Jul 11, 2005)

I will agree that what Patryn, Hyp, et. al. say is the RAW.  I know (from my experience reading the boards) that they are dead on with the rules.  They are *rules-lawyers*.
And I'll agree that IcyCool is quite right in the fact that you need to abandon logic whilst trying to interpret said RAW (thus the Ned Flanders channeling invoked above).

However, I still want them to fix the RAW so its logical   But this has been house-ruled now.  Its in my permanent 3.5 fixes file.  So I'm moving on.  The rest of you, enjoy the debate.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 11, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> See, the thing that people aren't grasping here is that the RAW does indeed say that a whip can't deal damage to opponents with a certain amount of armor or natural armor bonus.  That includes magical whips with whatever enchantments.



As mentioned, that is still just an interpretation. Many people don't read it that way at all, which implies that the wording is not as conclusive as you believe. If you cannot even _see_ that this might be subject to interpretation, then we have little hope for discourse (which might indeed be the case).

Also note: the rules also say (for example) _"Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small."_. I believe this is much more conclusive wording than the whip wording, but _no-one_ would play with that exact wording (and cause say, a barbarian or fast flyer to lose their extra movement while wearing elven chain). No would say "this is RAW" either.

Lastly: it seems that you are saying that (by RAW) a brilliant energy whip cannot damage an armored opponent. Nor could a spell-storing whip with inflict-moderate wounds. Is this correct?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 11, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> I will agree that what Patryn, Hyp, et. al. say is the RAW.
> 
> ...
> 
> But this has been house-ruled now.  Its in my permanent 3.5 fixes file.




And that's really the important part.

I believe that, before you start tossing house rules around, you should have a decent understanding of what it is you're house ruling - which includes "How does this currently work?" and "How does this interact with the rest of the rules?"

After you understand that, you're in a good position to make the changes you want while minimizing unexpected fallout.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 11, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Lastly: it seems that you are saying that (by RAW) a brilliant energy whip cannot damage an armored opponent. Nor could a spell-storing whip with inflict-moderate wounds. Is this correct?




Definitely, on the Spell Storing.

"_Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can cast..._"

If the creature is wearing armour, it won't take damage from the whip, so the Spell Storing ability can't activate.  That's explicit.

On the Brilliant Energy front, no, I'd allow it to work.

"_Armor bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor._"

So as far as the whip is concerned, the creature does not have 'an armor bonus of +1 or higher'.  Armor bonuses do not count against the whip.

(Obviously, a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher would still defeat the brilliant energy whip.)

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 11, 2005)

Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?

Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> As mentioned, that is still just an interpretation. Many people don't read it that way at all, which implies that the wording is not as conclusive as you believe. If you cannot even _see_ that this might be subject to interpretation, then we have little hope for discourse (which might indeed be the case).




Well, I would argue that the RAW is so inane on this issue, that your brain is reading the sentence the wrong way, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense to you. 

You see, the wording is conclusive, but the people reading it, being intelligent, rational folks, are reading it so it makes sense.

This section of the *Rules As Written* doesn't make sense.  House rule away!



			
				mvincent said:
			
		

> Also note: the rules also say (for example) _"Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small."_. I believe this is much more conclusive wording than the whip wording, but _no-one_ would play with that exact wording (and cause say, a barbarian or fast flyer to lose their extra movement while wearing elven chain). No would say "this is RAW" either.




Not at all.  It states that Speed while wearing elven chain is 30ft. for medium creatures, or 20ft. for small.  Take a look at what Speed means.  Its on pg. 122 of the PHB.

However, you are partially correct.  By RAW, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes have a 20ft. move, and so use the 20ft. move column.

Elven Chain allows all Medium creatures 30ft. move, and all Small creatures (like Kobolds) 20ft. move.  That's the RAW.  Silly?  Doesn't make sense?  They must have meant that the Speed columns for Elven Chain were 30ft. (for 30ft. base move) and 20ft. (for 20ft. base move)?  You bet.  House rule it, like most folks do.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?
> 
> Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.




If a weapon, per RAW, states that all damage it deals is non-lethal, then yes.  Would I rule like that in my campaign?  Heck no, that's silly.  House rule time!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?




Flaming, Frost, Holy, yes.  Vicious, no.



> Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.




The Vicious ability states that the energy deals the damage, not the weapon.  The Flaming, Frost, and Holy abilities state that the weapon deals the damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The Vicious ability states that the energy deals the damage, not the weapon.  The Flaming, Frost, and Holy abilities state that the weapon deals the damage.



(_btw: Excellent counter-arguing. You're winning me over here). _ 

So the line:
_"This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent"_ changes it for you? If that had been in the flaming description, we would not be having this conversation? 

I'm thinking that it is very similar wording to the flaming ability (which is indeed energy damage). Also, the damage is later referenced as coming from the flaming ability (in the flaming burst description):
_"In addition to the extra *fire damage from the flaming ability * (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit."_


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> So the line:
> _"This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent"_ changes it for you? If that had been in the flaming description, we would not be having this conversation?




Right 



> I'm thinking that it is very similar wording to the flaming ability (which is indeed energy damage). Also, the damage is later referenced as coming from the flaming ability (in the flaming burst description):
> _"In addition to the extra *fire damage from the flaming ability * (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit."_




The extra fire damage from the Flaming ability is dealt by the flaming weapon.  The extra 1d10 points of fire damage from the Flaming Burst ability is dealt by the flaming burst weapon.  The extra 2d6 points of damage from the Vicious abiilty is dealt by the flash of disruptive energy.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 12, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Elven Chain allows all Medium creatures 30ft. move, and all Small creatures (like Kobolds) 20ft. move.  That's the RAW.



Ah. Ok, we're likely arguing semantics then. I don't actually view this as "RAW" nor truly needing a house-rule because we all know what was actually meant, and I don't expect perfection from the writer's. Literal meanings can be taken too far. 

We all know what the correct interpretation of the above text is. But if you dismiss this (correct) interpretation as invalid, then our definitions are disimilar enough that debate would not be of use.


----------



## mvincent (Jul 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right



Ok. Fair enough. While I cannot dismiss my side as an invalid interpretation, I can now see your ("RAW") side.

This might be inapplicable, but since non-lethal flaming damage is apparently also RAW, this makes the following line from the FAQ seem odd:
_"a fighter wielding a +1 flaming sword can’t choose for the fire damage to be nonlethal (even if the base weapon damage is nonlethal)."_


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> This might be inapplicable, but since non-lethal flaming damage is apparently also RAW, this makes the following line from the FAQ seem odd:




Lots of lines from the FAQ seem odd.

As written, you can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

A flaming longsword is a melee weapon that deals lethal damage (1d8 slashing + 1d6 fire).

As written, you can use it to deal non-lethal damage (1d8 slashing + 1d6 fire).

If the flaming ability stated "This energy deals 1d6 fire damage", rather than "A flaming weapon deals...", I'd agree with the FAQ, and I'd agree that the flames can hurt an armored target even when it's a whip that's flaming, and I'd agree that the flames on a flaming whip deal lethal fire damage.

... but it doesn't.

-Hyp.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's also a good way to snatch those holy avenging swords right out of their hands!




Or, since the rules allow it, sunder their holy avenger. Because whips can snap steel in two.

Unless you're wearing it.

*grin* Man, I love this thread. It's so amusing.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The Smurf's right, folks. That's really the end to it.




Hehe,  you're funny.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *grin* Man, I love this thread. It's so amusing.




  Yeah you cannot help but watch...  Sadly it looks like it's slowing down now.  

Can anyone flame the fires of this thread? 

Yes, the pun was on purpose...


----------



## Sil (Jul 12, 2005)

Sil said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf
> 
> The flaming weapon enhancement modified the weapon. The whip may deal no damage against an armored opponent, but the flaming enhancement overrides the no damage rule and adds 1d6 flaming.
> 
> You have mis-ordered the precedents. Weapon rules are modified by magical enhancement rules, not the other way around.



Did i miss where this point was addressed?


----------



## mvincent (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Can anyone flame the fires of this thread?



I can provide an obligatory troll posting:

What happens if you are fighting a troll with a flaming sap?


----------



## Jack Simth (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I can provide an obligatory troll posting:
> 
> What happens if you are fighting a troll with a flaming sap?



 You have trouble typing, as you have burning pitch on your hands.

That, or you have two trolls fighting....


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Sil said:
			
		

> Did i miss where this point was addressed?




Again, if the fire dealt 1d6 fire damage, it wouldn't be a problem.  But the Flaming ability adds +1d6 fire damage to the damage dealt by the weapon.  The whip doesn't deal zero damage; it deals no damage.  The two are treated very differently in D&D.

A character who can cast 0 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets a total of one spell.  0 + 1 = 1.

A character who can't cast 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets no 3rd level spells.  -- + 1 = --.

An 8th level ranger with the Mageslayer feat has a caster level of 0.  With an orange ioun stone, which grants +1 caster level, he has a caster level of 1.  An 8th level fighter has no caster level.  An orange ioun stone does nothing for him.

A character who has his Dex permanently damaged to 0, then reads a Manual of Quickness of Action +3 (by telekinesis, perhaps  ) has a Dex of 3.  0 + 3 = 3.  A Formian Queen who reads the same book gets no benefit.  -- + 3 = --.

A whip deals no damage.  No damage +1d6 fire damage is -- + 1d6.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I can provide an obligatory troll posting:
> 
> What happens if you are fighting a troll with a flaming sap?




Regeneration automatically heals non-lethal damage.  Fire damage does not convert to non-lethal for a troll.

If you hit a troll with a flaming club, the lethal bludgeoning damage converts to non-lethal (which regenerates), and the lethal fire damage doesn't.

If you hit a troll with a flaming sap, the bludgeoning damage would convert to non-lethal, but it's already non-lethal (which regenerates), and the fire damage wouldn't, but it's already non-lethal (which regenerates).

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 12, 2005)

Brief, nonsnarky highjack:

Hype, do you play by this interpretation, or are just stating that this is RAW?

Just wanting to know if the ultimate rules lawyer plays this strictly. 


Or: even if it's RAW, would you personally house rule it...
(Not conceeding that this is correct, but the other route is getting nowhere  )


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Again, not being snary. Just wanting to know if the ultimate rules lawyer plays this strictly.




You should be fine.  I asked the same question, basically, a few pages ago.  Of course mine wasn't worried quite the way you did it.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> You should be fine.  I asked the same question, basically, a few pages ago.  Of course mine wasn't worried quite the way you did it.




The human is a wierd critter, and e-mail is not an effective means of expression. 

EDIT: But an adjustment was in order. Thanks!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Hype, do you play by this interpretation, or are just stating that this is RAW?




I think the only whip being used in a game I'm currently involved with is a whip-dagger, which doesn't have the whip's limitations 

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think the only whip being used in a game I'm currently involved with is a whip-dagger, which doesn't have the whip's limitations
> 
> -Hyp.




Missed the point. If there were a whip (flaming, icy, shocking, sticky, slobbering, whatever) would you play by your current interpretation, or would you house rule another application?  

EDIT: Just to be clear; if you were DMing a game where a whip was involved...

No copping out by saying your only playing.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think the only whip being used in a game I'm currently involved with is a whip-dagger, which doesn't have the whip's limitations
> 
> -Hyp.




But in a game you are running, would you really have a flaming sap do "non-lethal" fire damage?


----------



## Sil (Jul 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Again, if the fire dealt 1d6 fire damage, it wouldn't be a problem. But the Flaming ability adds +1d6 fire damage to the damage dealt by the weapon. The whip doesn't deal zero damage; it deals no damage. The two are treated very differently in D&D.
> 
> A character who can cast 0 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets a total of one spell. 0 + 1 = 1.
> 
> ...



Can you find an example that uses weapon damage?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Sil said:
			
		

> Can you find an example that uses weapon damage?




Haven't we been discussing it for the last five pages?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> But in a game you are running, would you really have a flaming sap do "non-lethal" fire damage?




Quite possibly not.  But if I didn't, I'd consider it a house rule 

-Hyp.


----------



## Andre (Jul 12, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *grin* Man, I love this thread. It's so amusing.




Yeah, no offense to anyone intended, but this thread reminds why I've stopped taking the rules so seriously.  I'm trying to play a game, not do my taxes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2005)

> Dannyalcatraz
> By your interpretation, you could hang a flaming whip around a troll's or Mummy's neck like a tie and it wouldn't bother him...but a non-magical torch (even if it were not used as an improvised weapon (1d3 x2 B)) would do a point of fire damage upon contact, negating the troll's regeneration and setting the mummy afire.






> Hypersmurf
> Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.




That still doesn't address what I said.  I described an attack with a lit torch "*even if it were not used as an improvised weapon*"- in other words, in a situation when all that is being done is a touch attack with the lit torch.

A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy.  Meanwhile, by your interpretation, the flaming necktie whip will just crackle harmlessly because the whip can't penetrate their natural armor.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That still doesn't address what I said.  I described an attack with a lit torch "*even if it were not used as an improvised weapon*"- in other words, in a situation when all that is being done is a touch attack with the lit torch.
> 
> A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy.  Meanwhile, by your interpretation, the flaming necktie whip will just crackle harmlessly because the whip can't penetrate their natural armor.





Have to make this clear:

The torch, when not used as an improvised weapon, does -- damage with a touch attack. It has no weapon statistics beyond the improvised damage listing. 

It doesn't do 0 damage, it does no damage... 


*and it continues*


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy.




What's your source for that?

_If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage._

A mummy has the Vulnerability to Fire special quality.  It takes 50% more damage from fire attacks.

If you use a torch in combat against a mummy, you treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1.5 points of fire damage... which rounds down to 1 anyway.

If you use a torch in combat against a troll, you treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals non-lethal bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of lethal fire damage.

Where do you find that you can damage either of them by making a touch attack with the torch... let alone 'ignite' a mummy?

The rules for catching on fire state "_Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire._"  A torch is neither burning oil, a bonfire, nor a noninstantaneous magic fire... so how does touching a mummy with one 'ignite' it?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2005)

> Hypersmurf
> The rules for catching on fire state "Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire." A torch is neither burning oil, a bonfire, nor a noninstantaneous magic fire... so how does touching a mummy with one 'ignite' it?




My goodness- you really ARE a strict constructionist!

There are other fires than those- that list was clearly meant to be a non-exhaustive list.  Otherwise a Character could pleasantly stroll through a burning building, a small campfire, could place a match in their hair, wander through a forest fire, hold a candle to their crotch, cover themselves with burning alcohol, read a burning book or scroll, or touch red-hot metal or coals without fear of being set on fire.

AND, since the rule says "Characters" and not "Characters and Creatures" there are going to be some monsters that are immune to fire without even having that immunity listed (the definitions of the 2 terms in the PHB (p306) say there is an overlap, but not *identity*, between the 2 terms).

Somehow, I think the writers expect readers to use a modicum of common sense, what we lawyers call the "Reasonable Person" rule of reading a law.

Lets be real here- *Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it, and a lit torch clearly is a live, open flame.*

BTW- you now have an inconsistency in the RAW- the mummy has vulnerability to fire, and can be ignited by a "noninstantaneous magic fire"...which is the kind of fire that the flaming abiltiy grants.

Furthermore, you haven't adequately addressed the "Flaming Burst"-fu that someone dropped a bit earlier:



> Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
> Flaming: "... A flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 ponts of fire damage on a successful hit."
> 
> followed shortly by
> ...




(emphasis mine)

The writer clearly points out that  #1)Flaming Burst is an improved version of the Flaming ability, and 2) the damage _comes from the flaming ability_.

And the same phraseology is used in the descriptions for Frost Burst and Shocking Burts weapons- the extra damage comes from the magical ability.


----------



## Ketjak (Jul 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Lets be real here- *Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it, and a lit torch clearly is a live, open flame.*




I can't recall the last time someone touched a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind and reported the results. I wish I had a LexisNexis (http://www.lexis.com/) account.

However, I also agree with Hyp. By the RAW, he's spot on.

And FWIW:



> Flaming Burst
> 
> A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals




At that point, the question is answered WRT the whip.  Since the FB weapon deals the damage, and the weapon is a whip, no damage is dealt to armored or natural armor +3 targets. No one has yet shown using the RAW how there's an exception to the whip rule - though lots of people _wish _hard that the magic enhancement on those special abilities contradicts the whip damage rule.

- Ket


----------



## glass (Jul 12, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> This argument is out and out dumb. Smurf, you are arguing based on RAW in the most rediculous fashion, and ignoring half of the SRD in the process:




Several people have made comments like that, in this thread and others. Why do you consider it to be rediculous to argue based on the RAW in a Rules forum? What would you suggest using instead?


glass.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Lets be real here- *Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it.*




Why?



> Furthermore, you haven't adequately addressed the "Flaming Burst"-fu that someone dropped a bit earlier:




Sure I did - in my reply to that message.

The damage, which comes from the flaming ability, is dealt by the flaming weapon.

The primary source for information on the flaming ability is the flaming ability, not the flaming burst ability.  The text of the flaming ability elaborates and clarifies what's alluded to in the text of the flaming burst ability.

Yes, the damage comes from the flaming ability - if there were no flaming ability, the damage wouldn't exist.  But it is _dealt by the weapon_.

-Hyp.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 12, 2005)

By Smurf:

Again, if the fire dealt 1d6 fire damage, it wouldn't be a problem. But the Flaming ability adds +1d6 fire damage to the damage dealt by the weapon. The whip doesn't deal zero damage; it deals no damage. The two are treated very differently in D&D.

A character who can cast 0 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets a total of one spell. 0 + 1 = 1.

A character who can't cast 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets no 3rd level spells. -- + 1 = --.

An 8th level ranger with the Mageslayer feat has a caster level of 0. With an orange ioun stone, which grants +1 caster level, he has a caster level of 1. An 8th level fighter has no caster level. An orange ioun stone does nothing for him.

A character who has his Dex permanently damaged to 0, then reads a Manual of Quickness of Action +3 (by telekinesis, perhaps  ) has a Dex of 3. 0 + 3 = 3. A Formian Queen who reads the same book gets no benefit. -- + 3 = --.

A whip deals no damage. No damage +1d6 fire damage is -- + 1d6.

Didn't you say earlier that a net gains a damage bonus from Strength when thrown? Isn't it a -- as well?

My aguement is in when the weapon damage negation occures. To me a round goes like this:

Determine all attack modifiers -> Roll -> Check for hit -> Roll Damage -> Check for Negation -> Determine final damage.

But I think any damage source triggered in that progression gets its own progression, thus:

Whip: Determine all modifiers-> Roll -> Check for hit, is a hit flaming triggers -> Roll Damage -> Check for Negation, whip damage negated -> Determine final damage, whip damage none.

Flaming: Check for hit (triggered, was not involved in rolling) -> Roll damage, 1d6 -> Check for Negation (none) - > Damage dealt (1d6).

I'd use a similar branching structure for any combat ability, thus I don't see a distinction between the damage Vicious deals or the damage Flaming deals... it might be a house rule but it makes a better resolution system in my opinion. I'd note that if the Flaming text read "adds +1d6 extra fire damage when the weapon deals damage" then I would agree with you on how it should be executed.

Zero


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 12, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Ah. Ok, we're likely arguing semantics then. I don't actually view this as "RAW" nor truly needing a house-rule because we all know what was actually meant, and I don't expect perfection from the writer's. Literal meanings can be taken too far.




There is NOTHING MORE in the RAW than Literal Meanings.  That is what is discussed in the Rules forum.  I can understand your confusion on this issue.  You are 100% certain you know what the authors intent was on this.  However, the RAW says differently.  We are not arguing semantics here, you are reading more into the RAW than is there.  I'm not saying you are wrong with your house rule, I rule it the same way.  But it *is* a house rule.



			
				mvincent said:
			
		

> We all know what the correct interpretation of the above text is. But if you dismiss this (correct) interpretation as invalid, then our definitions are disimilar enough that debate would not be of use.




No, we do not 'know what the correct interpretation is'.  We are *very* sure what the intent of the above text is.  The 'correct' interpretation is what Hyp's been saying.  Because that's what the rule says.  This is important to know, because then you can correctly identify your house rules, and inform your players.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 12, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> Didn't you say earlier that a net gains a damage bonus from Strength when thrown? Isn't it a -- as well?




No, he asked whether or not a net - as a thrown weapon - would get a Strength bonus to damage (like all thrown weapons do).

The answer, of course, is no - nets deal no damage; their damage statistic is --, not 0.  Similarly, a whip, when used against an armored target, gains a damage statistic of --, not 0.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2005)

> The primary source for information on the flaming ability is the flaming ability, not the flaming burst ability. The text of the flaming ability elaborates and clarifies what's alluded to in the text of the flaming burst ability.
> 
> Yes, the damage comes from the flaming ability - if there were no flaming ability, the damage wouldn't exist. But it is dealt by the weapon.




By RAW under Flaming Burst- " fire damage from the flaming ability" the damage is not done by the weapon, it is done by the flaming ability- it is delivered by contact with the weapon.  Nothing in any of those abilities says that damage has to be done with the base weapon- the additional damage is delivered upon a "successful hit"- not upon the dealing of damage.  A successful hit occurs when you equal or exceed your opponent's AC.

And no response as yet to the rest of that post- you know, about burning alcohol or forest fires?  *RAW, they don't ignite characters because they're not on the list,* much like the torch you pointed out is not.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> By RAW under Flaming Burst- " fire damage from the flaming ability" the damage is not done by the weapon, it is done by the flaming ability- it is delivered by contact with the weapon.




It is damage from the flaming ability, but it is dealt by the weapon.

Much like the damage bonus from Weapon Specialization is dealt by a longsword.



> And no response as yet to the rest of that post- you know, about burning alcohol or forest fires?  *RAW, they don't ignite characters because they're not on the list,* much like the torch you pointed out is not.




Forest fires can ignite characters.

_*Forest Fires (CR 6)*
Within the bounds of a forest fire, a character faces three dangers: heat damage, catching on fire, and smoke inhalation. 

Catching on Fire: Characters engulfed in a forest fire are at risk of catching on fire when the leading edge of the fire overtakes them, and are then at risk once per minute thereafter (see Catching on Fire)._

Burning alcohol doesn't appear in the rules, so the DM would have to adjudicate the situation if it arose.

Torches _do_ appear in the rules, and the result of using them in combat is defined - one point of fire damage, not setting creatures alight.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"
> 
> And the flaming weapon is a whip, which "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher".




Just in case no one else pointed it out: You just demolished your own position.

A successful hit does not equal a hit that does damage. It equals an attack roll that matches or exceeds the target's AC. Can you successfully hit someone in full plate armor with a whip? Certainly.

And, as you note: "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> And, as you note: "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"




Right, and a whip: "_deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher._"


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Right, and a whip: "_deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher._"




Which does nothing to contradict that a flaming weapon deals damage on a successful hit, not on whether the weapon itself does damage with that hit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

> A successful hit does not equal a hit that does damage. It equals an attack roll that matches or exceeds the target's AC. Can you successfully hit someone in full plate armor with a whip? Certainly.






> Right, and a whip: "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher."






> Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
> Flaming: "... A flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 ponts of fire damage on a successful hit."
> 
> followed shortly by
> ...




The whip (or any weapon with this enchantment) isn't doing the fire damage- the flaming ability is.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Which does nothing to contradict that a flaming weapon deals damage on a successful hit, not on whether the weapon itself does damage with that hit.




To which I say, go back and read the past ten pages or so.

That point of view has already been shot down many, many times.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm thinking it still has wings.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> To which I say, go back and read the past ten pages or so.
> 
> That point of view has already been shot down many, many times.




There is a difference between denied, ignored, and shot down. I've seen the point of view denied and ignored. Shot down? Hardly.

What do the rules say? 

* A flaming weapon (without any note of exceptions based on weapon type) does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

This is a delightfully perfect syllogism. Both the premises are true. The conclusion follows directly from the premises.

But, some say, the rules also say that a whip cannot damage a target with such-and-such AC bonus. Admittedly. That rule is talking about whips as whips. It isn't talking about flaming whips. "Flaming" isn't a mere adjective. It is a quality, and the rule for that quality is stated above.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm thinking it still has wings.



I'm thinking you're still wrong.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> ** A flaming weapon* (without any note of exceptions based on weapon type)* does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
> 
> * A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.
> 
> Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.






> That rule is talking about whips as whips. It isn't talking about flaming whips. "Flaming" isn't a mere adjective. It is a quality, and the rule for that quality is stated above.




Unless, somehow, a flaming whip is no longer a whip, it follows all the rules for whips.

Unless you care to rule that someone with Weapon Focus (Whip) does not get a bonus on attack rolls when using a Flaming Whip?

* Note that it doesn't need to make any exceptions based on weapon types.  D&D is a system based on inheritance.  If I make a new kind of Baatezu, I don't need to specify all his basic traits.  All I do is note that he's an Outsider with the Lawful and Evil subtypes and the Baatezu traits, and he's covered.

Similarly, if I make a flaming whip, I don't need to specifically call out all the whip rules - they're inherited based on the fact that it's a flaming *whip* and not a flaming *sword*.

Consider the magic weapon creation process.  In order to even make a flaming whip, you must start with a masterwork whip.

Does a masterwork whip follow all the rules for whips?  Yes.

You then must enhance it with at least a +1 enhancement bonus before it can be given any special abilities at all.

Does a +1 whip follow all the rules for whips?  Yes.

You may then add the flaming special ability to the +1 whip.

Does a flaming whip +1 follow all the rules for whips?  Yes.

If it doesn't, why doesn't it, and where did the change occur?


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Remember: There is a difference between ignored, denied, and shot down. Your list of questions ignores and denies. It does nothing to demonstrate that this syllogism is defective:
* A flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.​Are the two premises above accurate according to the rules? Yes. Then the conclusion necessarily follows from them.

The only way the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow is if there is a specific rule that says the flaming enhancement only does fire damage if the weapon itself does damage. Is there such a rule? No.

Therefore, the conclusion stands.

Now the enormous flaw in your key question:



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Does a flaming whip +1 follow all the rules for whips?  Yes.




You ignore key pieces of evidence, namely that weapon must also follow the rules for flaming weapons. What are the rules for flaming weapons? See my syllogism above.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> You ignore key pieces of evidence, namely that weapon must also follow the rules for flaming weapons. What are the rules for flaming weapons? See my syllogism above.




Then read mine, which I posted along while back in this thread.  Since I posted it first, it is incumbent upon you to refute mine before I'll even worry about yours.  It's post 20 in this thread.



			
				Me said:
			
		

> It doesn't need to.
> 
> 1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
> 2. A flaming whip is a whip. (Lemma)
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm with you on this Mark...

Magical Fire is a common exeption to being immune to damage from fire.  The fact that the fire is magical overcomes the fire immunity.  Magic is the rulebreaker.  It breaks a general rule with a specific exception.

Here, the flaming ability is the modifier, the rulebreaker as it were, to the whips not damaging armored opponents.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Then read mine, which I posted along while back in this thread.  Since I posted it first, it is incumbent upon you to refute mine before I'll even worry about yours.




There goes more ignoring. 

Your argument:

1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. A flaming whip is a whip. (Lemma)
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire," then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent
4. This is a contradiction.

The refutation of your argument: #1 is true. #2 is true only insofar as "flaming whip" is a subset of "whip". The opposite of #2, however, is not true. A whip is not a flaming whip. Your third premise equivocates with the terms by switching the specific term "flaming whip" for the general term "whip". This is not valid*. In #3, you start with "flaming whip" but then change to "whip" in the subordinate clause.

(*For a textbook example, consider the following true statement: All husbands are men. This is true not because "husbands" and "men" are identical properties, but because "Husbands" is a subset of "men". The opposite -- All men are husbands -- is false in the same way and for the reason as your #3.)

Now, then:
* A flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.​


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Magical Fire is a common exeption to being immune to damage from fire.




Really?  Where do you see that?  Because, as near as I can tell ...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> FIRE IMMUNITY
> A creature with fire immunity never takes fire damage. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.




And ...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Fire Subtype: A creature with the fire subtype has immunity to fire. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.




If you're immune to fire, you're immune to mundane *and* magical fires.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> (*For a textbook example, consider the following true statement: All husbands are men. This is true not because "husbands" and "men" are identical properties, but because "Husbands" is a subset of "men". The opposite -- All men are husbands -- is false in the same way and for the reason as your #3.)




Bullpuckey.

1.  It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
2.  All husbands are men. (Lemma)
3.  If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
4.  This is a contradiction.

Ergo, husbands cannot ovulate.

To restate:

1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. All flaming whips are whips. (Lemma)
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire" against an armored opponent, then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent.
4. This is a contradiction.

The only way you can escape this logic is if a flaming whip is no longer a subset of whips - in which case, do you allow someone to apply their bonus from Weapon Focus (Whip) to a flaming whip?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

Oops!  My bad!  That was a bit of HR for a particular campaign...there was a distinction between fire immunity and magical fire immunity.

(Sometimes, I hate what my brain dredges up...)


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Bullpuckey.
> 
> 1.  It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
> 2.  All husbands are men. (Lemma)
> ...










It doesn't work because it doesn't take into account the addition of any quality that distinguishes the subset from the set. You're still refuted. You're still ignoring the rules that govern flaming weapons.

Your turn.
* A flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.​


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

>



Cute.  They banned the rolleyes smiley for a reason, you know.  Going around that ban just to bring it back in isn't a terribly bright idea.



> It doesn't work because it doesn't take into account the addition of any quality that distinguishes the subset from the set.




More bullpuckey.  If there is a trait which distinguishes it from the set, causing it to no longer behave like a member of the superset, then it is no longer a member of the superset.

In other words, you're arguing that a flaming whip is no longer beholden to the rules on whips because it isn't a whip any more.

Goodnight, Gracey!


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> More bullpuckey.  If there is a trait which distinguishes it from the set, causing it to no longer behave like a member of the superset, then it is no longer a member of the superset.




As I stated: There's a difference between ignored, denied, and shot down. What we have here is more ignoring.

A flaming whip is a whip. A flaming whip is a flaming weapon. It falls into two different subsets, one of whips, and the other flaming weapons. Neither subset can be legimitately ignored, no matter how hard you try to do so with the latter subset.

Your turn.
* A flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

> 1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
> 2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
> 3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
> 4. This is a contradiction.
> ...




If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.

(For those who don't know: Lemma: A subsidiary proposition assumed to be valid and used to demonstrate a principal proposition)

The syllogism for this thread's question is:

1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dannyalcatraz*
> _I'm thinking it still has wings._
> 
> I'm thinking you're still wrong.





I'm still thinking your funny.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I'm still thinking your funny.




And your point would be?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.




True.  Which means, what in this case?

That either the rule on whips is wrong - a whip *can* do damage to an armored target - or that a flaming whip is not a whip.

Your choice.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Ketjak said:
			
		

> I can't recall the last time someone touched a mummy with a live




every time an embombed person (or organ doner; them crazy organ harvesters  )gets cremated?


----------



## Ace (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> There used to be a whip design that had a length of metal attached to he end. Wasn't a whip dagger (metal wasn't a blade) but it was designed to penetrate armor. Was rather difficult to use though.




Is that  an urumi? The urumi is a fairly stupid indian weapon that is a whip sword. It is used in Kalipuryat


----------



## Ace (Jul 13, 2005)

The fun and easy thing to do is to allow Mr. Balrog wanna-be to do 1d6 with his flaming whip -- even if it not specifically RAW -- its fun and won't break the game 

A whip should also be allowed to be vorpral -- simply because its cool to see a whip wrap around a neck and pop off a head with a twist fo the wrist

besides the whip is worthless in D&D anyway -- who cares if you give a magic one a little boost


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The syllogism for this thread's question is:
> 
> 1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
> 2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
> 3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.




#2 in your post here is incorrect.  The enhancement doesn't deal the fire damage, the weapon does.  And that is what is causing the whole problem.  House rule it and be done, I say.  It certainly isn't the first time the letter of the rules was idiotic.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

WOW!!!  This is getting outright rude and unproductive, even by my standards.   

I'll agree that, for some, it's  ahouse rule. Me, and my interpretation of it, it that while the weapon is the delivery system the energy type is separate from the weapon.


Another question: If someone uses a +5 flaming Keen greatsword against a red dragon (for whatever reason, life does not give optimal choices), is it completely immune to all the weapon damage?


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> WOW!!!  This is getting outright rude and unproductive, even by my standards.
> 
> I'll agree that, for some, it's  ahouse rule. Me, and my interpretation of it, it that while the weapon is the delivery system the energy type is separate from the weapon.
> 
> ...




No, because not all of the weapon damage is flaming.  The greatsword would do 2d6+str mod lethal, +1d6 lethal fire damage.  The dragon is immune to fire damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Another question: If someone uses a +5 flaming Keen greatsword against a red dragon (for whatever reason, life does not give optimal choices), is it completely immune to all the weapon damage?




Not at all.  Fire immunity grants immunity to fire damage.  The greatsword deals slashing damage and fire damage.  The red dragon is immune to the fire damage, but not to the slashing damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> No, because not all of the weapon damage is flaming.  The greatsword would do 2d6+str mod lethal, +1d6 lethal fire damage.  The dragon is immune to fire damage.




Same with the whip; it's 1d3 subdual +1d6 fire damage.

By your latest definition, there is a distinction between weapon damage and enchanted fire damage...

By the previous definition, all damage is delivered by the weapon, regardless of its type. If it can ignore some damage, it could ignore all damage.

A whip does no damage against an opponent with +1 armor or +3 natural armor. Fire does no damage against something with fire immunity. 

So which is it?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Same with the whip; it's 1d3 subdual +1d6 fire damage.
> 
> By your latest definition, there is a distinction between weapon damage and enchanted fire damage...
> 
> ...




It's both.

The fire damage (A) is dealt by the weapon.  The slashing damage (B) is dealt by the weapon.

If you're immune to fire damage, you take damage B, but not damage A.
If you're immune to slashing damage, you take damage A, but not damage B.
If you're immune to damage dealt by the weapon, you take neither damage A nor damage B.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's both.
> 
> The fire damage (A) is dealt by the weapon.  The slashing damage (B) is dealt by the weapon.
> 
> ...




But you stated earlier the a whip (which does no damage) cannot deal it's enhancement damage. It's all weapon damage.

By that statement the above sword, with it's flaming enchantment, is still doing weapon damage regardless of type.

Assuming that all damage is dealt by the weapon; If a weapon blocked by armor cannot do damage, why is a weapon that is blocked by energy immunity doing damage?


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Right, and a whip: "_deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher._"



 Sorry for jumping into this late in the game, but I have a related question. Hopefully it hasn't been asked already.

Does a Flaming, Brilliant Energy weapon deal fire damage to undead, constructs or objects? Or to put it another way, does the Flaming quality a part of the Brilliant Energy or is it seperate? Do all qualities of the weapon have to affect the target for any quality to affect the target?

On a side note, the whole "husbands cannot ovulate" thing doesn't work in Canada.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> Sorry for jumping into this late in the game, but I have a related question. Hopefully it hasn't been asked already.
> 
> Does a Flaming, Brilliant Energy weapon deal fire damage to undead, constructs or objects? Or to put it another way, does the Flaming quality a part of the Brilliant Energy or is it seperate? Do all qualities of the weapon have to affect the target for any quality to affect the target?
> 
> On a side note, the whole "husbands cannot ovulate" thing doesn't work in Canada.




A variation was asked. Didn't help.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Assuming that all damage is dealt by the weapon; If a weapon blocked by armor cannot do damage, why is a weapon that is blocked by energy immunity doing damage?




The weapon isn't blocked by energy immunity.  The energy damage that the weapon deals is blocked by the energy immunity.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The weapon isn't blocked by energy immunity.  The energy damage that the weapon deals is blocked by the energy immunity.




But the energy damage is inflicted by the weapon. If the whip cannot pass on fire with a failed subdual attack, why is the sword passing slashing damage on a failed fire attack?

By your whip description, damage blocking one source negates the other by virtue of it all being weapon damage.

The only way that slashing and fire damage can do damage separately is if they ARE considered different types of damage responding to differing immunities.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 13, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with Hyp on this one. The flaming ability does damage independent of the weapons damage (if any).




I refuse to believe that Hyp actually believes what he is saying.  This is an obvious Troll.
Simply too rediculous.  Of course, if I'm wrong...

n/m that'd been too much like bashing. lays nice:


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> But the energy damage is inflicted by the weapon. If the whip cannot pass on fire with a failed subdual attack, why is the sword passing slashing damage on a failed fire attack?




Could you clarify this?  I've got no clue what you just said.  Fire attack whatnow?



			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> By your whip description, damage blocked one source negates the other by virtue of it all being weapon damage.




Ah.  I see the confusion now.  The fire damage is dealt by the weapon, it is not *weapon damage*.  Clear? 

The description states: "A whip deals no damage ...", not "a whip deals no _weapon_ damage...".


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> I refuse to believe that Hyp actually believes what he is saying.  This is an obvious Troll.
> Simply too rediculous.  Of course, if I'm wrong...
> 
> n/m that'd been too much like bashing. lays nice:




Read the whip description in the SRD.  Really read it.  Don't interpret, read what it *actually says*.  It is ridiculous, but that's what it *actually says*.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> By your whip description, damage blocking one source negates the other by virtue of it all being weapon damage.




No, that's not what we said at all.

There are two qualities of each damage quantity that must considered.

1. What type is the damage?
2. What was the damage dealt by?

We have damage A which is 1. fire and 2. dealt by the whip.
We have damage B which is 1. slashing and 2. dealt by the whip.

Immunity to fire prevents damage dependent on value 1.
+1 Armor or +3 natural armor prevents damage dependent on value 2.

Damage A is prevented by fire immunity, since value 1 is 'fire'.
Damage B is not prevented by fire immunity, since value 1 is not 'fire'.

Damage A is prevented by armor, since value 2 is 'dealt by the whip'.
Damage B is prevented by armor, since value 2 is 'dealt by the whip'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Ah.  I see the confusion now.  The fire damage is dealt by the weapon, it is not *weapon damage*.  Clear?
> 
> .




Nope.  

whip damage is blocked by armor. fire damage is blocked by fire immunity. All damage is done by the weapon per previous description, regardless of its type. By said definition, weapons with fire immunity do no damage to critters with fire immunity. Part of the damage done by the weapon is blocked.

EDIT: Meant 'weapons with fire enhancement'


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> whip damage is blocked by armor.




Close enough.



> Fire damage is blocked by fire immunity.




Yup.



> All damage is done by the weapon per previous description, regardless of its type.




Overgeneralising, but true in the case of a flaming whip.  'dealt' rather than 'done' is more precise.



> By said definition, weapons with fire immunity do no damage to critters with fire immunity.




Not the case.  Weapons with fire immunity deal no _fire_ damage to creatures with fire immunity.  That's the benefit the ability provides.



> Part of the damage done by the weapon is blocked.




True.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Not the case.  Weapons with fire immunity deal no _fire_ damage to creatures with fire immunity.  That's the benefit the ability provides.
> 
> -Hyp.




But by this example, fire damage is a separate type of damage _dealt_  in addition to the weapons damage. The same would go for the whip. It's fire enhancement is a separate type of damage not limited to the restrictions of the weapon damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> But by this example, fire damage is a separate type of damage _dealt_  in addition to the weapons damage.




No, it's a separate type of damage dealt, in addition to the slashing damage.

Both the fire damage and the slashing damage are the 'weapon's damage', since they're both damage dealt by the weapon.

The fire damage is not subject to restrictions on slashing damage.  It is subject to restrictions on damage dealt by the weapon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

> Patryn
> 1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
> 2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
> 3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
> ...



.



> Dannyalcatraz
> If #3 actually occured, it would not support your conclusion, but would rather refute either the rule or the lemma.






> Patryn
> True. Which means, what in this case?




In this case, it means either your Rule is untrue and it IS possible for men to ovulate OR your Lemma is flawed and not all husbands are men.



> Dannyalcatraz
> 1. A whip is a weapon does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
> 2. "Flaming" is a magical enhancement to weapons that deals fire damage upon a successful hit (Lemma)
> 3. Therefore, if a flaming whip scores a successful hit against an armored opponent, it does no whip damage + 1d6 fire damage from the Flaming enhancement.






> IcyCool
> #2 in your post here is incorrect. The enhancement doesn't deal the fire damage, the weapon does. And that is what is causing the whole problem. House rule it and be done, I say. It certainly isn't the first time the letter of the rules was idiotic.




No, #2 IS correct.

While unclear (at least to some) in the base power:


> Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
> Flaming: "... A flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 ponts of fire damage on a successful hit."




it is quickly followed by (emphasis mine):


> Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
> Flaming Burst "A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes wtih flame upon striking a successul critical hit...In addition to the *extra fire damage from the flaming ability* (see above), a flaming burst deals and extra 1d10 fire damage on a successful critical hit..."




Flaming Burst is utterly clear- the "extra damage from the flaming ability" means that the magical enhancement deals damage, not the weapon.  The only difference between Burst and mere flaming is the burst on crit itself.  The power's mechanism does not change.

It is akin to a permanent _Symbol_ spell- the object that the Symbol is upon doesn't matter- just its trigger.  Here, the trigger is a "successful hit."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Flaming Burst is utterly clear- the "extra damage from the flaming ability" means that the magical enhancement deals damage, not the weapon.




Despite the fact that the Flaming ability actually states that the weapon deals the damage?

I wouldn't have killed the orc, had it not been for the extra damage from the bard's Inspire Courage ability.  But it was me who dealt the damage.

Flaming Burst doesn't say that the magical enhancement deals damage.  It notes that the damage - which we know from the text is dealt by the weapon - comes from the flaming ability.

The two statements ("damage from the flaming ability" and "weapon deals damage") are not contradictory.  As soon as you say "the ability deals damage", however, you're introducing a statement that contradicts something in the rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, it's a separate type of damage dealt, in addition to the slashing damage.





Which would mean that fire damage is a separate type of damage, in addition to the damage caused by the whip. Given that they are separate damage types, why do limitations to the whip restrict that damage? Also given that this separate damage is inflicted on a successful strike, and not successfully delivering damage, per the enhancement description, why does the whips lack of damage effect this _separate_ type of damage.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 13, 2005)

And your point would be?

The point would seem to be that you've lost the perspective on this thread Patryn. If you are getting so upset its time to take a step back. I've been known to get in over my head with silly arguements and it looks like you just hit your limit with this one.

Its just a thread, no need to get snappy at someone trying to lighten the tense mood.

Every one acknowledges that the RAW can be silly. If the rules are are vague or contradictory is a matter of opinion. I think every one knows how its supposed to work. I think every one knows how they would run it in their game. I think every one here is loosing track of those facts because they like to argue, myself included.

Its a dead horse, I'm enjoying watching you guys beat it some more, but hey thats my thing.

 

Zero


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Which would mean that fire damage is a separate type of damage, in addition to the damage caused by the whip.




No, it isn't.  The fire damage is damage dealt by the whip as well.

It's separate from the slashing damage dealt by the whip, but it's still damage dealt by the whip.



> Given that they are separate damage types, why do limitations to the whip restrict that damage?




See above.



> Also given that this separate damage is inflicted on a successful strike, and not successfully delivering damage, per the enhancement description, why does the whips lack of damage effect this _separate_ type of damage.




See above.

At the canteen, they serve a plate of peas.  You can ask for carrots as well, which get put on the plate beside the peas.  If you eat a serving of carrots, you get a glass of orange juice.  If you eat all the food on your plate, you get dessert.

If I get a plate of peas, and eat them all, I get dessert.

If I get a plate of peas and carrots, and eat all the peas, I don't get dessert, because I have not eaten all the food on my plate.

If I get a plate of peas and carrots, and eat all my carrots, I get a glass of orange juice, even though I didn't eat any of the peas.  But I don't get dessert.

The carrots are a separate type of food from the peas.  But they are not a separate type of food from 'food on my plate'.

The fire damage is a separate type of damage from the slashing damage.  But it is not a separate type of damage from 'damage dealt by the whip'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The fire damage is a separate type of damage from the slashing damage.  But it is not a separate type of damage from 'damage dealt by the whip'.
> 
> -Hyp.




Your food example, while good, doesn't include the fact that fire spreads and acts on its own volition once you set it. Regardless of the delivery system, it follows its own rules. 

It may be damage dealt by the whip, but it is a separate type of damage operating on a differing sets of rules, or else the fire immunity would also have blocked the slashing damaged that accompanied it. Whip damage is blocked by armor. Fire damage from the enhancement is dealt on a successful strike (I'm guessing that the authors worded irt this way for just this reason).

By the way, you never answered my earleir question: If you were DMing a game with a flaming whip involved (say you throw a balrog at your players. Might as well use a familiar example), would you play by your interpretation?


----------



## Ketjak (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> But by this example, fire damage is a separate type of damage _dealt_  *in addition* to the weapons damage. The same would go for the whip. It's fire enhancement is a separate type of damage *not limited to the restrictions of the* weapon damage.




You're not equating the same conditions. Is the quality you're trying to isolate one that's _in addition to_ or _restricted by_ the weapons damage? For that matter, what does it mean to be "restricted by weapons damage?"

Regardless:

Flaming: ... A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.

It doesn't matter if the extra damage is a separate type - sneak attack, weapon specialization, flaming, and other extra damage that modifies the damage dealt by the whip. The flaming (and shocking, and frost) enhancement causes the whip to *deal *an extra 1d6 points of fire damage. Excellent if the target is unarmored or has only a little (+1 or +2) natural armor!

If the target _is_ armored in that way, then it is *dealt* no damage - extra or otherwise. It doesn't matter that the extra damage *dealt* is triggered on a successful hit - or in any other way.

The flaming/frost/shocking rules do not contradict the whip rules. In fact, they _support_ them by using "deals extra damage" regardless of the next clause. If someone can show that a flaming/frost/shocking whip does not follow the rules for a whip - as all rules are always assumed to be inherited from the base weapon unless noted otherwise - I'll agree. But no one has shown that, they just argue that the rules as written don't apply to flaming/f/s weapons. Unfortunately, they do, and they're pretty clear... if a tad in need of errata.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> It may be damage dealt by the whip, but it is a separate type of damage operating on a differing sets of rules, or else the fire immunity would also have blocked the slashing damaged that accompanied it.




A set of rules differing from that for slashing damage?  Yes, certainly!



> Whip damage is blocked by armor. Fire damage from the enhancement is dealt on a successful strike.




In the form of a bonus to a non-value, which yields a non-value in D&D.



> By the way, you never answered my earleir question: If you were DMing a game with a flaming whip involved (say you throw a balrog at your players. Might as well use a familiar example), would you play by your interpretation?




Prevented by armor?  Yup.  Non-lethal fire damage?  Possibly not.

But I rather suspect my balrog would use a whip-dagger, if he were serious about hurting people with it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ketjak (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Your food example, while good, doesn't include the fact that fire spreads and acts on its own volition once you set it. Regardless of the delivery system, it follows its own rules.




Non-sequitur and irrelevant. We're discussing the rules as written, not the rules as we wish them to be.



> It may be damage dealt by the whip, but it is a separate type of damage operating on a differing sets of rules, or else the fire immunity would also have blocked the slashing damaged that accompanied it.




Don't be silly.  A flaming whip _deals_ slashing damage and it _deals_ fire damage. However, it doesn't _deal_ slashing damage to a target immune to slashing damage; it doesn't _deal_ fire damage to a target immune to fire damage. It _deals_ no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.



> Whip damage is blocked by armor. Fire damage from the enhancement is dealt on a successful strike (I'm guessing that the authors worded irt this way for just this reason).




Not if it's fire damage _dealt_ by the whip, which flaming damage is.



> By the way, you never answered my earleir question: If you were DMing a game with a flaming whip involved (say you throw a balrog at your players. Might as well use a familiar example), would you play by your interpretation?




Not relevant to a discussion of the rules as written.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Actually they have, but it is a point that has been ignored as irrelevant. The enhancement deals the extra damage on a successful strike. Not damage, but strike. This also seems clear in intent. 

Even if a whip does no damage to armor (this is not -- damage; this is 1d3 subdual reduced to nothing [mathematically represented as 0] due to armor), the fire damage will still carry over on a successful strike.

Seems the problem is the interpretation of 'no damage' means...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Even if a whip does no damage to armor (this is not -- damage; this is 1d3 subdual reduced to nothing [mathematically represented as 0] due to armor)...




It's not zero damage.  The damage isn't reduced.  It doesn't deal 1d3, minus some number, to equal zero.  It simply doesn't deal damage.  The 1d3 is completely inapplicable when the target is armored.

Nothing is represented as 0 in mathematics, perhaps, but the two values are distinct in D&D.

(Even in mathematics, nothing and zero are not necessarily equivalent.  {} and {0} are two very different sets.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's separate from the slashing damage dealt by the whip, but it's still damage dealt by the whip.



 No, it isn't. It's extra damage dealt by the Flaming ability of the weapon.



> A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.



 No where does it say that the weapon itself has to do damage. The only caveat mentioned is "on a successful hit." An Artificer could add the Flaming ability to a Monk/Wizard, and the monk could just make a touch attack to deal the extra 1d6 fire damage even though the monk/wizard's fist would deal no damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. It's extra damage dealt by the Flaming ability of the weapon.




As you just quoted - it's not the ability that deals the damage.  It's the weapon.  The ability means that the weapon deals extra damage.  The ability does not deal the damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As you just quoted - it's not the ability that deals the damage. It's the weapon. The ability means that the weapon deals extra damage. The ability does not deal the damage.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Buh? I'm not following you. The SRD says that Flaming weapons deal 1d6 on a HIT. Nothing about "when damage is done, add 1d6 fire damage." Therefore, a Flaming weapon merely must contact the target for fire damage to be added. The weapon itself does not have to do any damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> Buh? I'm not following you. The SRD says that Flaming weapons deal 1d6 on a HIT. Nothing about "when damage is done, add 1d6 fire damage." Therefore, a Flaming weapon merely must contact the target for fire damage to be added. The weapon itself does not have to do any damage.




It deals +1d6 damage on a successful hit.  There's a difference between 1d6 damage, and +1d6 damage.

See the net and Str bonus, for example.

-Hyp.


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There's a difference between 1d6 damage, and +1d6 damage.



 Where can I find reference to this in the SRD? And where can I find what you're refering to regarding the net and Str bonus? I reread both and don't see how they apply to the Flaming Whip issue.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> Where can I find reference to this in the SRD? And where can I find what you're refering to regarding the net and Str bonus? I reread both and don't see how they apply to the Flaming Whip issue.




What damage does a net do, when thrown by someone with 14 Str?

-Hyp.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What damage does a net do, when thrown by someone with 14 Str?




0 + 2 = 2????


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

I think that a little too much emphasis has been placed on the phrase "flaming weapon."

I read EVERY ability in that section.  EACH (except Keen, Ki Focus, Seeking, Throwing) describes a weapon with "X" power as an "X" weapon- a weapon with bane is a bane weapon, a weapon with spell-storing is a spell-storing weapon, etc.

Its a simple, English language shorthand for describing an object with a certain property.  (Its moments like this when I realize what linguists mean when they talk about the imprecision of the English language.)


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What damage does a net do, when thrown by someone with 14 Str?
> 
> -Hyp.



 None. But now we're comparing the net which can never do damage to the whip which can do damage. Also, doing damage is not part of my argument. That's yours. You'll have to convince me that the weapon has to do damage for the Flaming part to be able to affect the target. I propose that it does not.

And I'd still like to know where in the SRD it makes a distinction between 1d6 and +1d6.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> None. But now we're comparing the net which can never do damage to the whip which can do damage.




The whip can never do damage against an armored opponent.

What about a net used with a sneak attack?



> You'll have to convince me that the weapon has to do damage for the Flaming part to be able to affect the target. I propose that it does not.
> 
> And I'd still like to know where in the SRD it makes a distinction between 1d6 and +1d6.




+1d6 is a modifier.  It modifies a value.  If there's no value to modify, it can't apply.

When a whip is used against an armored opponent, there's no value to modify.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> 0 + 2 = 2????




Does that equation actually apply to the net question, though?

-Hyp.


----------



## Fieari (Jul 13, 2005)

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with Immunity to Slashing Damage but no natural armor or regular armor, 0 + 1d6 = 1d6 damage is dealt.

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with a natural armor of 3, no damage is dealt, because it's a whip.

As hypersmurf said earlier, there is a difference between -- and 0 in D&D.  Mathematically, the value (number, even) -- has the following traits:

-- +/- x = --
A bonus added to -- is still --

x +/- -- = x
Hitpoints minus -- is still Hitpoints.

Multiplication and division have never come up with regards to --, but I suspect they'd work the same as with addition and subtraction.

Note how this differs from zero.  With zero, the rules are:

0 +/- x = x
x +/- 0 = x

-- DOES NOT EQUAL 0, they are not the same value, they don't work the same, they don't equate with each other.  Heck, -- doesn't even follow all the rules of arithmatic, it's not associative, reflexive, communitive, etc... it has different rules and properties.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

Here's a question I've asked a variety of ways and not gotten a satisfactory answer to:

If the damage from a flaming weapon is done by the weapon and not the enchantment- the basis for denying the fire damage for a whip striking an armored opponent- what happens when the flaming weapon is flaming but not being used as a weapon?

That is:

#1)  What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword gently lays the flat of the flaming sword's blade on the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) and says the command word?  Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?

I'm thinking the answer is yes.  The weapon is on fire, and fire burns.  Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

#2)  Considering your answer to question #1, would the same happen to Vic if the weapon was a Flaming whip?  (or a Flaming net?  A Flaming Man-Catcher?)

I'm thinking the answer is yes in each case. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns.  Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

#3) Would you change your answer to #1 or #2 if the same happened to a creature with natural armor or if Vic was wearing gauntlets?

In case you can't guess, my answer is no.  The whip's non-damaging characteristic doesn't come into play-it is utterly immaterial.  Vic and the naturally armored creature would still take damage in both situations.

It doesn't matter that the weapon isn't doing damage because its the enchantment- the weapon's magical enhancement-doing the damage.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Isn't there a WotC example out there where a flaming net (-- damage,  regardless as to what it attacks) does do fire damage to a target? Seems relavent to this debate (which seems to be degrading rather quickly...    )


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 13, 2005)

Fieari said:
			
		

> If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with Immunity to Slashing Damage but no natural armor or regular armor, 0 + 1d6 = 1d6 damage is dealt.
> 
> If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with a natural armor of 3, no damage is dealt, because it's a whip.
> 
> ...





But you have yet to prove that the whips damage against armor is --, or that the authors intended this. In most folks eyes, damage reduced by any factor (in this case, whip damage reduce to no damage due to armor) becomes the lesser number; in this case 0.

I do prefer DannyA's example though. Math is not the end all/be all of any existence. It's been wrong, cjanged, or added to far too many times...


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 13, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Isn't there a WotC example out there where a flaming net (-- damage,  regardless as to what it attacks) does do fire damage to a target? Seems relavent to this debate (which seems to be degrading rather quickly...    )




I recall there being a Shocking Net in the Arms and Equipment guide. Not 100% sure on that.

Zero


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jul 13, 2005)

RAW occasionally guides us to ridiculous situations. This is one, and I am therefore house-ruling that _flaming whips_ can deal damage to armored opponents.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> The point would seem to be that you've lost the perspective on this thread Patryn. If you are getting so upset its time to take a step back.




You've obviously never "met" Caliban.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Does that equation actually apply to the net question, though?
> 
> -Hyp.




I would imagine so...  You quoted it earlier.  You add your strength modifier to damage with thrown weapons and unlike the whip there is no clause that says nets do no damage only a table that says – but its trumpeted by the written rules correct?  (The last part you didn’t say but someone else suggested it and no one objected to it.)


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I would imagine so... You quoted it earlier. You add your strength modifier to damage with thrown weapons and unlike the whip there is no clause that says nets do no damage only a table that says – but its trumpeted by the written rules correct? (The last part you didn’t say but someone else suggested it and no one objected to it.)



 Tables are only trumpeted by text when there's a conflict.  There's no apparent conflict with the net.  However, there's no definition of "-" for damage either.  And, there's no rule that says that "no damage" means "-" instead of "0".  No could just as easily mean 0.  You might counter with, "Well, if they meant 0, they would've written 0."  To which, the obviously counter is, "Well, if they meant - they would've written -."

Am I correct in assuming that if the whip description were written along the lines of that a whip deals 0 damage to an opponent in armor, then the 1d6 fire would apply?  Indeed, would a strength bonus, enhancement bonus, or even weapon specialization apply?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Tables are only trumpeted by text when there's a conflict.  There's no apparent conflict with the net.




So then a net still does it's strength modifier in damage, correct?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Tables are only trumpeted by text when there's a conflict.  There's no apparent conflict with the net.  However, there's no definition of "-" for damage either.  And, there's no rule that says that "no damage" means "-" instead of "0".  No could just as easily mean 0.  You might counter with, "Well, if they meant 0, they would've written 0."  To which, the obviously counter is, "Well, if they meant - they would've written -."




You mean like they did?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Net	20 gp	—	—	10 ft.	6 lb.	—




And there is a general definition of a trait which has a value of " - " - it's "N/A", not "0."

A creature with a Dex of 0 is different than a creature with a Dex of -.

EDIT:

There's also:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage
> Medium Weapon Damage	Tiny Weapon Damage	Large Weapon Damage
> 1d2	—	1d3


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You mean like they did?



 Oops, actually, I intended that part for whips, not nets.  Please reconsider my post starting with the sentence, "And, ..." to be about whips.  


			
				Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> So then a net still does it's strength modifier in damage, correct?



 No, because a net clearly has "-" listed.  It's unambiguous as to whether it's "-" or "0".


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, because a net clearly has "-" listed.  It's unambiguous as to whether it's "-" or "0".




Well a bastard sword has "-" on its range even though by the rest of the RAW you can throw it in ranger increments of 10 feet...

So what's the difference between throwing a bastard sword and a net doing damage?  The rules both say something the chart doesn't.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Well a bastard sword has "-" on its range even though by the rest of the RAW you can throw it in ranger increments of 10 feet...
> 
> So what's the difference between throwing a bastard sword and a net doing damage?  The rules both say something the chart doesn't.




A Bastard Sword has no range increment.

A Bastard sword used as an Improvised ranged weapon has a range increment of 10ft. at a -4 to the attack roll.

See the difference?


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If the damage from a flaming weapon is done by the weapon and not the enchantment- the basis for denying the fire damage for a whip striking an armored opponent- what happens when the flaming weapon is flaming but not being used as a weapon?




Then it cannot get a successful "hit".  Check the combat rules for a definition of this.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That is:
> 
> #1)  What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword gently lays the flat of the flaming sword's blade on the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) and says the command word?  Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?
> 
> I'm thinking the answer is yes.  The weapon is on fire, and fire burns.  Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.




By the RAW, nope.  Why exactly are you trying to use logic and common sense here?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> #2)  Considering your answer to question #1, would the same happen to Vic if the weapon was a Flaming whip?  (or a Flaming net?  A Flaming Man-Catcher?)
> 
> I'm thinking the answer is yes in each case. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns.  Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.




No again.  And again you are attempting to use logic and common sense.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter that the weapon isn't doing damage because its the enchantment- the weapon's magical enhancement-doing the damage.




No, it isn't.  Show me where in this statement that it says the flaming enhancement (and not the weapon) is doing the damage:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.




And to answer your post about the Flaming Burst ability.  That is a reference to the Flaming ability.  So you refer to the Flaming ability.  Which says the weapon deals the damage.

To those of you trying to use logic and reason, don't, it will only hurt your head.  Take a breath, read what the SRD *actually says*, say "Huh, that's dumb", and house rule it.

RAW means "Rules As Written".  Not "What The Authors Intended", not "What Makes Sense".  Hopefully these things can be brought to the attention of folks in power and given an Errata entry.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 13, 2005)

Longbow: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below) but not a regular longbow.

Longbow	75 gp	1d6	1d8	x3	100 ft.	3 lb.	Piercing
Arrows (20)	1 gp	—	—	—	—	3 lb.	—
Longbow, composite	100 gp	1d6	1d8	x3	110 ft.	3 lb.	Piercing
Arrows (20)	1 gp	—	—	—	—	3 lb.	—

So, if you use a longbow as an improvised melee weapon you don't get your strength bonus to attack, but you do if you use a composite longbow as an improvised melee weapon. There is clearly something wrong with that.

Frost: Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A frost weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition.
Moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.

Here is the proof that your whole "- + X = -" theory is a load of bunk. The ability clearly says that it adds the energy to the ammunition. The energy clearly says it adds damage to the weapon, in this case the ammunition. By your arguement Flaming, Frost, Shocking, etc add damage to - and do nothing. +1 flaming bow firing an arrow fires a normal arrow.

The rules say it doesn't as does all common sense.

Zero


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 13, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> So, if you use a longbow as an improvised melee weapon you don't get your strength bonus to attack, but you do if you use a composite longbow as an improvised melee weapon. There is clearly something wrong with that.



 There is.  You don't use the bow or composite bow description when you use it as an improved weapon.  You look up an appropriate weapon (e.g. club) on the weapon list to use as a guideline.  That's specifically called out in the improvised weapon rules.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> So, if you use a longbow as an improvised melee weapon you don't get your strength bonus to attack, but you do if you use a composite longbow as an improvised melee weapon. There is clearly something wrong with that.





True, but that _is_ what is written in the RAW, correct?  And that is what we are arguing here.  Not what makes sense, not what seems wrong, but what is acutally written in the Rules.  A weapon used as an improvised weapon uses the improvised weapon rules.

_Edit - Just saw Infiniti's post.  Nice catch!_



			
				ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> Frost: Upon command, a frost weapon is sheathed in icy cold. The cold does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A frost weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the cold energy upon their ammunition.
> Moderate evocation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm; Price +1 bonus.






			
				ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> Here is the proof that your whole "- + X = -" theory is a load of bunk. The ability clearly says that it adds the energy to the ammunition. The energy clearly says it adds damage to the weapon, in this case the ammunition. By your arguement Flaming, Frost, Shocking, etc add damage to - and do nothing. +1 flaming bow firing an arrow fires a normal arrow.
> 
> The rules say it doesn't as does all common sense.
> 
> Zero




Interesting point, and I was wondering when someone would bring up bows.


----------



## Octal40 (Jul 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> +1d6 is a modifier. It modifies a value. If there's no value to modify, it can't apply.



 Are you guessing or quoting the rules? If quoting, please provide the source. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

Also, where in the SRD does it say that "no damage" equates with "--" and not "0 damage"?


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There is.  You don't use the bow or composite bow description when you use it as an improved weapon.  You look up an appropriate weapon (e.g. club) on the weapon list to use as a guideline.  That's specifically called out in the improvised weapon rules.




From the equipment section of the SRD:

Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range Increment column on Table: Weapons), but a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

It is not specifically called out that the bow's strength adding limitations are ignored, just as a whip does not. If you believe a flaming whip deals no damage to armored targets because normal whips deal no damage to armored targets, then a thrown longbow does not extra strength damage because normal longbows deal no extra strength damage. One used as an improvised melee weapon wont deal any extra stength damage unless you are meleeing with a composite longbow.


All of that is besides the point that according to Smurf and Patryn's view of how the mechanics work flaming bows deal no extra damage at all, unless used as an improvised melee weapon with no Strength bonus to damage.

Zero

Edited for readability.


----------



## Raduin711 (Jul 13, 2005)

My original post:



> Ok, gonna try some Errata Logic...
> 
> The flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst
> weapon powers require a critical hit to trigger the burst.
> ...






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How so?
> 
> The critical hit was successful; it just happened that the creature was immune to it.
> 
> ...




Depends on your definition of "successful".  Errata aside, a harsh reading of the description of flaming burst would suggest that a flaming burst is useless against constructs; as they are immune to critical hits, you cannot trigger the flaming burst ability.

My point was, there is something of a precedence with the errata.  That precedence being if your weapon is prevented from doing damage, special abilities of the weapon are still considered.  It is never explicitly stated, however.  

But OTOH, neither is it explicitly stated that no special abilities of the whip get through when the whip itself cannot.  It just says that the whip does no damage against armored opponents*.  If you read that "the *whip* does no damage" it suggests that a flaming whip *would* do damage; because it is just the whip part that does no damage.  If you read it "The whip does *no* damage" then it takes the opposite meaning; that the whip, no matter what special abilities it may have, the whip is incapable of doing any kind of damage against certain targets.

I prefer a looser interpretation, but thats just my opinion.

*edit


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> Here is the proof that your whole "- + X = -" theory is a load of bunk. The ability clearly says that it adds the energy to the ammunition. The energy clearly says it adds damage to the weapon, in this case the ammunition. By your arguement Flaming, Frost, Shocking, etc add damage to - and do nothing. +1 flaming bow firing an arrow fires a normal arrow.




If you check the text of the Enlarge Person spell, you'll find: "_Projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them._"

So while an arrow has a damage of --, an arrow _fired from a Medium Longbow_ deals 1d8 damage, to which the extra fire damage can be added.

-Hyp.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Octal40 said:
			
		

> Are you guessing or quoting the rules? If quoting, please provide the source. Otherwise, you're just guessing.
> 
> Also, where in the SRD does it say that "no damage" equates with "--" and not "0 damage"?




I don't have a quote for that, but I do have a quote for -- isn't the same as 0 in regards to ability scores:



			
				pg. 290 DMG said:
			
		

> Having a score of 0 in an ability is different from having no ability score whatsoever.




I'm fairly certain that this isn't the only place in the rules that 0 and -- are specified as not being the same thing.  I don't have the time to look for it right now though, maybe tonight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2005)

> To those of you trying to use logic and reason, don't, it will only hurt your head. Take a breath, read what the SRD actually says, say "Huh, that's dumb", and house rule it.
> 
> RAW means "Rules As Written". Not "What The Authors Intended", not "What Makes Sense". Hopefully these things can be brought to the attention of folks in power and given an Errata entry.




The original poster didn't limit responses to RAW.  Nor, for that matter did he limit the question to flaming/burst powers.  *More on that later...*



> Dannyalcatraz
> If the damage from a flaming weapon is done by the weapon and not the enchantment- the basis for denying the fire damage for a whip striking an armored opponent- what happens when the flaming weapon is flaming but not being used as a weapon?






> IcyCool
> Then it cannot get a successful "hit."




Actually, I'll accept that as a valid critique- by rule.

However, since the Flaming description also points out that the flame cannot harm the weapon wielder, I'll stand by my assertion that the flame still burns ( :\ ) non-wielders who touch it, and I'll just consider it my houserule.

Still, for purposes of this thread, I'll rephrase my series of questions.

That is:

#1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?

I'm thinking the answer is yes. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns. Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

#2) Considering your answer to question #1, would the same happen to Vic if the weapon was a Flaming whip? (or a Flaming net? A Flaming Man-Catcher?)

I'm thinking the answer is yes in each case. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns. Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

It doesn't matter that the weapon isn't doing damage because its the enchantment- the weapon's magical enhancement-doing the damage.




> A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
> 
> and
> 
> ...In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability.






> IcyCool
> No, it isn't. Show me where in this statement that it says the flaming enhancement (and not the weapon) is doing the damage:
> 
> and
> ...




The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement."  Instead, in that power and EVERY one except Keen, Ki Focus and Throwing, all weapons with enhancement "X" are called "X" Weapons- the weapon enhancement texts were all written in a similar style.  This matters because of what follows below.

*NOW*- The OP also asked about the Vorpal power, which requres that the weapon enchanted be a slashing weapon...which a whip is.  The Vorpal power triggers when a natural 20 plus a crit confirmation roll is made, which has the result of: "...the weapon severs the opponent's head (if it has one) from its body." DMGp226.

Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?

Answer: the enchantment overcomes the normal limitations of the base weapon.

And since it is an enhancement that does this (what kind of weapon does not matter), the "weapon does _____" language should all be understood the same way, since the enhancement descriptions were all written the same way.

Or are you going to rule that a vorpal whip cannot behead an armored creature despite there being no requirement of doing damage?


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The original poster didn't limit responses to RAW.  Nor, for that matter did he limit the question to flaming/burst powers.  *More on that later...*




I was under the impression that if we were arguing or proposing house rules, that belonged in the house rules forum.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> #1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?
> 
> I'm thinking the answer is yes. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns. Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.




Where is the "trying to strike without doing damage" special attack in the rules?  I don't see it.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement."




There you go making things up again.  How do you know why the writer chose to write that ability that way.  Is it written in there somewhere and we're all missing it?  No?  Then you just made it up.  Granted, you are probably right, but that isn't the point here.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?




It's _Magic_!    

And I know how strange this is about to sound, but beheading via Vorpal isn't damage. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Or are you going to rule that a vorpal whip cannot behead an armored creature despite there being no requirement of doing damage?




Unless I'm missing something, a Vorpal whip can indeed behead an armored creature.  It just can't do any damage to it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement."




No, it didn't.  The ability could have been written like Vicious.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. *This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.* Only melee weapons can be vicious.
> Moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Price +1 bonus.




Like so:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. *This fire deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.* Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
> Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.




It wasn't written like that, however.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> #1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?




You're talking about called shots, now.

Can I attack Vic's head with my spear, and ignore the armor bonus for his chain shirt?



> Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?




That's an excellent question.

If the weapon failed to harm the opponent _due to damage reduction_, there's a definite case to argue that the vorpal effect - as a 'special effect that accompanies the attack' - is negated.

But as we've noted in this thread, the behaviour of the whip is separate from the DR rules.

The Vorpal effect bypasses the whip's restriction on dealing damage, since it does not, in fact, deal damage; it merely kills people.  The whip is not prohibited from harming an armored opponent, only from dealing damage to him.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2005)

> Where is the "trying to strike without doing damage" special attack in the rules? I don't see it.




The closest you'll get is "Dealing Nonlethal Damage," which reads, in part:



> You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to use the flat of the blade, strike at nonvital areas, or check your swing. (PHB 146)




Re: Flaming damage from weapons that don't deal lethal damage-
Looked at damage- p28DMG- and it said "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"

That was in response to a MUCH earlier proposal that weapons that deal only non-lethal damage, like saps, should do non-lethal damage with their enhancements- like a flaming sap.

(Now, back to our regularly scheduled *Necroequipugilism*...)

And the first line under "Damage" in the PHB (p134) is:

"When your attack succeeds, you deal damage."

The NATURE of the damage may vary- it may be regular damage like a sword-blow, non-lethal like a stunning fist, it may be insta-kill like a Vorpal beheading, it may even be a special effect substituted for damage like a trip- but RAW (  )- the result of a successful attack roll _is damage_.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 14, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage."
> 
> The NATURE of the damage may vary- it may be regular damage like a sword-blow, non-lethal like a stunning fist, it may be insta-kill like a Vorpal beheading, it may even be a special effect substituted for damage like a trip- but RAW (  )- the result of a successful attack roll _is damage_.




Which is funny, because of the four things you listed, only half are actually damage.  The other two are not damage.

EDIT:

Note that damage is actually a well-defined game term, being a reduction in hit points or in an ability score.  Anything which does not do either of those has not actually done damage.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  Show me where in this statement that it says the flaming enhancement (and not the weapon) is doing the damage:




First, please show us where '-' damage, or whip's damage against armor (as you describe as --) has no numerical value.

Short version: Show a rule from the RAW or SRD that specifically states that a weapon that does no damage isn't doing 0 damage.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I don't have a quote for that, but I do have a quote for -- isn't the same as 0 in regards to ability scores:





But we aren't talking ability scores, we're talking about damage done by a weapon. 

Critters without ability scores exist due to specialized reasons (undead, construct, etc). Weapons damage reduced to nothing is regarded as 0, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Weapons damage reduced to nothing is regarded as 0, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise.




Mistype on your part.  And, anyway:

"Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Mistype on your part.  And, anyway:
> 
> "Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."




Then it becomes a matter of interpretation, since neither case can specifically quote the RAW.

So it isn't a house rule; it's just a POV issue. Either view is valid by the letter, if not the spirit, of the RAW.

Although, I would like to see the stats on that flaming/shocking net if anyone has them...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Although, I would like to see the stats on that flaming/ shocking net if anyone has them...




Well, it isn't D&D, but I've got the d20 StarWars Revised Core Rulebook here, and it has a Net and Electro-Net in the equipment list.  Both have damage entries of "See description."

The electro-nets don't do any damage, but they do subject anyone entangled by them to make a DC 12 Fortitude save when the net is "fired" or be knocked out for 1d4+1 rounds.  A successful Fort save means you are only stunned for one round.


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 14, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you check the text of the Enlarge Person spell, you'll find: "_Projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them._"
> 
> So while an arrow has a damage of --, an arrow _fired from a Medium Longbow_ deals 1d8 damage, to which the extra fire damage can be added.
> 
> -Hyp.




I'll by that, although not with out a little grumbling. It still doesn't come close to the fact that by the RAW a normal bow used as an improvised weapon deals no extra damage for high strength. I don't think that this was an intentional implication, as it makes so little sense as to be ridculous (more so even then the whip), but it doesn't change the RAW that says they don't.



			
				Arms and Equipment Guide said:
			
		

> *Electric Lash:* The blue-tinged leather of this +2 shock whip seems to spark with small motes of electric energy. Three times per day, the wielder of the _electric lash _ may make an arcing strike. This attack deals an additional +2d6 points of electricity damage (3d6 total) to the target if the attack is successful. Furthermore, the electric jolt arcs to any one creature within 5 feet of the target. That target gets half as much electricity damage as teh first target did. If more then one creature is within 5 feet of the target, roll randomly to see which one is affected by the arc of electricity. Arcing strike damage is not multiplied by critical hits.
> _Caster Level: 8th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and ARmor, lightning bolt; MArket Price: 50,301 gp; Cost to Create 25,301gp + 2,000 xp._




This does not prove either view on resolution of how much damage any one with +1 AC does. It seems rather pointless though to bother putting anything more then +2 on a whip if its only gonna be able to trip... hell the +2 damage is wasted too. A masterwork whip gets half the total benefit at 50k gp less cost. It would be farm more effective to by the _grasping_ ability at a +2 equivalent bonus (+2 on trip or disarm attempts).

Then net in the book is a +4 net made of pure force, able to entangle incorporeal creatures.

Another interesting point from this book is that other then _vicious_, as far as I can see, all the weapons have the same "weapon deals +X damage" terminology used in the SRD. What this means, I think, is that _vicious _ is actually the exception to the rule rather then the rule.

All that doesn't change the fact that I still feel the intent of the rules is different from the actual implications of the RAW. I feel I'm supported in this by the description of the _electric lash_, although it doesn't prove anything either way.

Keep your RAW rules out of my house 

Zero


----------



## Caliban (Jul 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Mistype on your part. And, anyway:
> 
> "Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."




Interesting.  And where is this little gem stated in the RAW?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, it isn't D&D, but I've got the d20 StarWars Revised Core Rulebook here, and it has a Net and Electro-Net in the equipment list.  Both have damage entries of "See description."
> 
> The electro-nets don't do any damage, but they do subject anyone entangled by them to make a DC 12 Fortitude save when the net is "fired" or be knocked out for 1d4+1 rounds.  A successful Fort save means you are only stunned for one round.




S0, even though it is circumstantial the additional effect applies even with a weapon that does -- damage, per previous definitions.

The  only problem with this is that it isn't RAW, nor does it specifically do damage (I can see the arguement now, 'adding an effect is not the same as adding additional damage...'). It will most likey be ignored or deemed irrelevant to a D&D discussion. 


Such is life...


----------



## ZeroGlobal2003 (Jul 14, 2005)

I'd also point out that my above statements don't conceed or support the "no damage is -- is not 0" thing. I think that for this purpose it would be easier to think of "no damage" as 0 this case and be done with it.

Zero


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 14, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Interesting.  And where is this little gem stated in the RAW?




Exactly the same place Storyteller got his quote from.    

At any rate, assume it doesn't follow the general rule, and when it says "no damage" (analagous to "no Intelligence score"), it really means "0 damge."

In that case, you still have a whip which does 0 damage against a foe in armor.

And a flaming whip, which is a whip, must still do 0 damage against a foe in armor, to the tune of: 1d3 Slashing + 1d6 Fire = 0.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> The  only problem with this is that it isn't RAW, nor does it specifically do damage (I can see the arguement now, 'adding an effect is not the same as adding additional damage...'). It will most likey be ignored or deemed irrelevant to a D&D discussion.




Actually, it applies in exactly the same way in which a vorpal whip does.  A vorpal whip doesn't do any damage to an armored target, but has a possibility of cutting of the target's head anyway.

And electro-net does no damage to a target entangled by it, but has a chance to knock it out or stun it.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Exactly the same place Storyteller got his quote from.
> 
> At any rate, assume it doesn't follow the general rule, and when it says "no damage" (analagous to "no Intelligence score"), it really means "0 damge."




Ah, so it's not actually RAW.   Thought so.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 14, 2005)

ZeroGlobal2003 said:
			
		

> Keep your RAW rules out of my house
> 
> Zero




Agreed 

*Surveys the scene, noticing only small parts of the horse corpse from several pages back.*  Well, that about wraps up my involvement.  I've beaten this horse enough.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And a flaming whip, which is a whip, must still do 0 damage against a foe in armor, to the tune of: 1d3 Slashing + 1d6 Fire = 0.




Now, that one, I'm not convinced of.

How much damage does the blunt head of a Flaming +1 / Flaming +1 Gnome Hooked Hammer deal?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2005)

> Patryn of Elvenshae
> Which is funny, because of the four things you listed, only half are actually damage. The other two are not damage.
> 
> EDIT:
> ...




And yet, RAW- "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage." PHB p134.

Yes... I know that farther down the page, you get "Damage reduces a target's current hit points."

But all that just gets us to this point:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. (Rule)
Damage reduces a target's current hit points. (Lemma)
A successful trip attack results in the target being tripped.

Nowhere in the trip attack rules (PHBp158) does it state that a trip attack does or doesn't do damage... so either trips do normal damage for the method in which the trip is delivered OR (see *Conclusion* below).

And:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. (Rule)
Damage reduces a target's current hit points. (Lemma)
A successful Vorpal attack results in the target being beheaded.

Nowhere in the Vorpal attack rules (DMGp226) does it state that a vorpal attack does or doesn't do damage... so either vorpal attacks do normal damage OR (see *Conclusion* below).

So we have a conundrum.

*Conclusion*- Either not all successful attacks deal damage- contradicting the_ very first_ Rule under the Dealing damage section, and thus the RAW- or the Lemma is false, also contradicting the RAW.

Furthermore, the PHB only has 2 definitions of death- reduction to -10 hp or death by massive damage (50+points in a single strike followed by failing a Fort save); the DMG adds the reduction of Con to 0, Death Attacks, or death by accumulation of negative levels.

And even then, the DMG (p292) states "In case it mattes, a dead character, no matter how he died, has -10 HP," thus collapsing all definitions of death into the first one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And even then, the DMG (p292) states "In case it mattes, a dead character, no matter how he died, has -10 HP," thus collapsing all definitions of death into the first one.




But you can be reduced to -10 hit points without taking damage.

If I have 10 hit dice, with a max of 40 hit points and a current total of 10 hit points, then when my Bear's Endurance wears off and my Con returns from 10 to 6, my current hit points are reduced from 10 to -10 (and dead) without my taking damage in the process.

A Vorpal whip can thus reduce you to -10 (and dead) by cutting off your head without the need to deal damage in the process.  You don't deal damage sufficient to reduce them to -10, thereby killing them; rather, you kill them, giving them the 'dead' condition, which includes -10 hit points as an effect of that condition.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2005)

> Hypersmurf
> A Vorpal whip can thus reduce you to -10 (and dead) by cutting off your head without the need to deal damage in the process.




and



> The Vorpal effect bypasses the whip's restriction on dealing damage, since it does not, in fact, deal damage; it merely kills people. The whip is not prohibited from harming an armored opponent, only from dealing damage to him.




Nothing in the RAW says that the vorpal weapon doesn't do damage, and the power's description does not say that a creature decapitated by this power will die.  Indeed, it glosses over this on the assumption that most creatures the power can effect WOULD die.  However, a multi-headed creature could survive and even function aggressively sans one head...Ettins & Hydras (esp. Learnean Hydras) spring to mind, and a troll would ONLY die from mere decapitation (ie- no fire or acid involved) if it took sufficient damage to kill it.  (Regeneration DMG p298)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nothing in the RAW says that the vorpal weapon doesn't do damage...




Oh, certainly.  And in most cases, it will - the critical damage of the slashing weapon.

The whip's an exception.



> ... and the power's description does not say that a creature decapitated by this power will die.




True - I was assuming one-headed PCs.

If you use the vorpal whip to chop one head off an ettin, it would lose the head, but the whip would deal no damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jul 14, 2005)

This may have been covered already but...

If we are talking about a Flaming Whip here, it is safe to say it is at least a +1 Flaming Whip.  If the whip part does no damage, but the flaming part does +1d6), wouldn't the +1 part do damage as well?  Why or why not?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

To Riga: It will go back to a whip doing -- damage, regardless of enchantment. We've tried variations on that theme. 

But as has already been established, there is no proof per the RAW that this is the case. Hype (no insult intended, but you ARE the leader of this rebellion...  ) and others are using rules written for attribute assessment (the difference between Con 0 and Con --) to justify the arguement that the whip, doing no damage to armor wearing targets, does -- damage. 

To date there has been no rule quoted that says the rules for the lack of an attribute apply to weapons damage. Nor has there been a quote stating that a weapon doing no damage is doing -- damage, as opposed to 0 damage.

As mentioned earlier, it's a POV issue. Seriously though, I doubt rules designed to aid a DM when dealing with specialized monsters apply to weapons damage (intelligent weapons physical traits is a different story). 


EDIT: Why is everyone's sig past post 300 missing?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> To Riga: It will go back to a whip doing -- damage, regardless of enchantment. We've tried variations on that theme.




No, I think his is a question for you.

If you feel that the +1d6 flaming damage applies even if the 1d3 does not, then would a +1 whip deal +1 point of damage to an armored opponent?

Would a character with 14 Str deal +2 damage with a whip to an armored opponent (+3 if he wields the whip in two hands)?

-Hyp.


----------



## Krelios (Jul 14, 2005)

I can't believe there is even an argument here...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) *If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit* and deal damage.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. *A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit*. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.



It doesn't matter whether your weapon deals damage or not. If your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC, they take 1d6 fire damage--even if it was a +1 Flaming Cotton Ball. The argument that a weapon must deal its own damage to deal the fire damage might be a reasonable houserule, but it's clearly not the way it works in the RAW.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jul 14, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, I think his is a question for you.
> 
> If you feel that the +1d6 flaming damage applies even if the 1d3 does not, then would a +1 whip deal +1 point of damage to an armored opponent?
> 
> ...




No on both counts.  The way that makes the most sense to me is to think of the whip as doing 1d3+str+enhancement+(sneak attack,weapon specialization, etc) of whip damage.  A flaming whip does  1d3+str+enhancement+(sneak attack/weapon specialization, etc) of whip damage + 1d6 of fire damage.  The 1d6 fire is not "whip damage" (even though it is dealt by a whip), and is not subject to negation by the whip rules in the way that the rest of the damage may be.


----------



## Fieari (Jul 14, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> I can't believe there is even an argument here...
> It doesn't matter whether your weapon deals damage or not. If your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC, they take 1d6 fire damage--even if it was a +1 Flaming Cotton Ball. The argument that a weapon must deal its own damage to deal the fire damage might be a reasonable houserule, but it's clearly not the way it works in the RAW.



You forgot a bit.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Whip: A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.



More specific rules override less specific rules.  The whip is an exception.  It deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 14, 2005)

Fieari said:
			
		

> More specific rules override less specific rules. The whip is an exception. It deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.



 How could the mundane whip be an exception to magical enhancements?  Whip in that case is the less specific rule, while a flaming whip is the more specific rule.  So, by your own statement, a flaming whip does 1d6 fire damage against armored opponents.


----------



## Krelios (Jul 14, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How could the mundane whip be an exception to magical enhancements? Whip in that case is the less specific rule, while a flaming whip is the more specific rule. So, by your own statement, a flaming whip does 1d6 fire damage against armored opponents.



Beaten to it, Infiniti is exactly right. Nowhere does it say your weapon must deal damage in order for the flame to damage your opponents.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> EDIT: Why is everyone's sig past post 300 missing?




Your sig only appears in your first post on a page.


----------



## Fieari (Jul 14, 2005)

Nono, the ganeral rule I was referring to is that a weapon does damage on a successful hit, which you quoted to support your argument.  The specific rule is that whips do no damage on a successful hit against a target with +1 armor bonus or +3 nat armor bonus.  Not that they deal no slashing damage, they deal no damage.

The flaming weapon is still a whip.  It is a subset of whip, inheriting all the rules and restrictions of a whip.  Nowhere does adding a magical enhancement remove the qualities of the base weapon.  A whip does no damage to those targets.

It's not that the whip has to do damage to deal fire damage (it doesn't... immunity to slashing for instance, would cause the whip to deal no physical damage but still deal fire damage.  DR as well could cause this situation), it's that the whip, which would be the thing dealing fire damage, deals NO damage.  Specific rule.

Again.

Rule: A whip deals no damage to armored targets.
Lemma: A flaming whip is a whip.
Statement: If a flaming whip deals fire damage to an armored target, it has dealt damage to an armored target.
Statement: This is a contradiction.

And also again, the flaming property could have been worded differently to make a flaming whip deal damage even against armored targets.  It could have read "The fire deals..." instead of "The weapon deals..."

Because it is the whip dealing the fire damage, and the whip cannot deal damage to armored targets, the whip deals no fire damage to armored targets.

This is stupid, and idiotic.  It is also RAW.  (Personally, whips only doing non-lethal damage is also stupid... it hasn't come up in any of my games so far, but I'd house rule all kinds of these restrictions away.)


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 14, 2005)

9 pages of this ?

Wow. This must be some kind of record.

Oh.. something thread related..

Poor wording of the Whip entry has led to "This is stupid, and idiotic. It is also RAW."

Thanks Fieari, if my sig was not already useful, I would probably steal that!


----------



## Krelios (Jul 14, 2005)

Fieari said:
			
		

> This is stupid, and idiotic. It is also RAW. (Personally, whips only doing non-lethal damage is also stupid... it hasn't come up in any of my games so far, but I'd house rule all kinds of these restrictions away.)



So whether or not we agree on what the RAW says, we'd both handle it the same way... I can live with that.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, I think his is a question for you.
> 
> If you feel that the +1d6 flaming damage applies even if the 1d3 does not, then would a +1 whip deal +1 point of damage to an armored opponent?
> 
> ...




Already mentioned, but no on both counts. The above examples add to the whips damage (ie is the same type[slashing/subdual]). The flame enhancement would do fire damage on top of these.

Anyway folks, I'm out of here. It was pleasant, but the answer seems apparent:

It can go either way. The RAW cannot be directly quoted to prove either case.

Take care folks, and good gaming.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Anyway folks, I'm out of here. It was pleasant, but the answer seems apparent:
> 
> It can go either way. The RAW cannot be directly quoted to prove either case.




I couldn't let this one go before you left.  The RAW has been directly quoted to prove that a flaming whip will do no damage to a sufficiently armored target.  No quote from the RAW has been given that proves otherwise.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 14, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I couldn't let this one go before you left.  The RAW has been directly quoted to prove that a flaming whip will do no damage to a sufficiently armored target.  No quote from the RAW has been given that proves otherwise.




Nope. The RAW has been quoted stating that a _whip_ does no damage to an armored opponent. A flaming whip, while a type of whip, has another set of rules that do not apply to the standard whip. If the two weapons were the same, we wouldn't be wasting bandwidth.  

For reference:

The RAW has been quoted saying that there is a difference between a 0 attribute and a -- attribute. No such statement has been made that it also pertains to weapons. This has been assumed as fact without proof.

The text of the whip states that it does no damage to an armored target. This has not been defined as 0 or -- damage by the RAW.

The enhancement states that it adds +1d6 damage to the weapon. It does not state that this damage is subject to the special rules of that weapon, only that a strike must be made. One can surmise that there is a distinction between weapon damage (damage dealt by the weapon as a whole) and whip damage (damage inflicted only by the whip itself, due to its peculiar nature).

The flaming enchantment states that the additional 1d6 fire damage is applied on a successful strike, not damage. 



So it depends on your interpretation:

If a whip does 0 damage to an armored target on a successful strike, then the fire damage adds 1d6 given that, while it is 'weapon damage' (ie damage inflicted by the weapon), it isn't whip damage (that whole fire thingy).

If a whip does -- damage (as yet to be proven) then it doesn't matter what else you add to the mix.


If a critter is immune to slashing damage, and attacked with a flaming sword, is it immune to all damage (including fire)?

If I'm wrong, then please show the quote. I'm officially out, but that doesn't mean I won't watch.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 14, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> If a whip does 0 damage to an armored target on a successful strike, then the fire damage adds 1d6 given that, while it is 'weapon damage', it isn't whip damage (tyhat whole fire thingy).




I disagree.  But I'll agree to disagree. 



			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> If a critter is immune to slashing damage, and attacked with a flaming sword, is it immune to all damage (including fire)?




No, and you have been given quotes to show you why.  I'm not entirely sure why you feel your statement is relevant.

Enjoy your lurking!  I will return to that myself.


----------



## Asmo (Jul 15, 2005)

My hat of Flaming Whips knows no limit.

Asmo


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 15, 2005)

The heart of the RAW fight is which rule is more specific and therefore which takes precedence.  There is no basis within the RAW for deciding in this case.

Is a flaming whip a special kind of whip with special exceptions directly from the flaming ability?  If yes, d6 fire damage.

Or is a flaming whip a specific kind of flaming weapon?  If yes, zero damage.

The RAW does not tell us how to resolve this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2005)

> More specific rules override less specific rules. The whip is an exception.




#1) No it isn't an exception.  Where does it say that it is an exception?

There is the GENERAL rule that weapons do a certain #D whatever upon a successful strike.
There is a more specific rule that the whip deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.
But there is an EVEN MORE specific rule that the whip with the Flaming enhancement does 1d6 fire damage.

Why is it more specific than the rule about whips?  Because there is the "Set of All Whips," which contains (obviously) all whips.  Then, within that set is the "Set of Magical Whips," within which is the "Set of Magical Whips with Special Abilities," and within that, the "Set of Magical Whips with the Flaming Special Ability"- and some other subsets besides...

#2) Hyps' formulation of the problem essentially violates the principle that a weapon that deals 2 kinds of damage can damage a target that is not immune to both.  Here, the second type is magical fire.

#3) It seems to me, and to others, that the reading of the Flaming power is being tortured.  Some feel that the damage is being done by the weapon, not the enchantment.  "A flaming weapon deals..." has been much discussed, but read on.

Once more:


> Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire.  The fire does not harm the wielder.  The effect remains until another command is given.  A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit.




The second sentence of this entry reads "_*THE FIRE*_ does not harm the wielder"- not "*THE FLAMING WEAPON*."  This matters.  They have already made a distinction between the weapon and the power granted by the magic.  "A flaming weapon" is nothing more than a description of a weapon wrapped in a shroud of magical fire.  And if the wielder tried to kill himself with this weapon's flames, he would fail. 

#4)Furthermore, ignoring the fire damage because of the armor/natural armor problem with whips would also violate p28DMG- "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"

However- one thing I think we can ALL agree on is: *Don't use your Vorpal Whip against Trolls unless its a Flaming Vorpal Whip.*


----------



## RithTheAwakener (Jul 15, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _You_ don't; the flaming weapon does.  "_A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit._"
> -Hyp.




A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and _sucessfully hit_ target opponents AC.  So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.

Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.


----------



## RithTheAwakener (Jul 15, 2005)

Dannys got it on lockdown.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 15, 2005)

RithTheAwakener said:
			
		

> A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and _sucessfully hit_ target opponents AC.  So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.
> 
> Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.



Many times... so, so many times....


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 15, 2005)

RithTheAwakener said:
			
		

> A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and _sucessfully hit_ target opponents AC.  So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.
> 
> Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.




I'd recommend that you read the whole thread, but that way lies madness and despair.  Suffice it to say, it goes something like this:

The flaming weapon enhancement says that the *weapon* deals 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit.  A whip states that if the opponent has a sufficiently high armor or natural armor bonus, the whip does no damage.  Since a flaming whip is a whip, and since it is the weapon that deals damage if it is enchanted with the flaming ability, a flaming whip can do no damage to a sufficiently armored opponent.  If the flaming ability simply stated: "This energy deals 1d6 points of fire damage ..." this arguement wouldn't be happening.


----------



## Ketjak (Jul 15, 2005)

The way the rules as written read, a flaming whip is a type of whip. The only exception is that it is flaming.

All whips deal no damage to creatures with +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater.

Since the flaming enhancement clearly reads the whip deals an extra 1d6 damage on a successful hit, the rule governing damage dealt by a whip kicks in whenever a situation in which the flaming whip might cause damage arises. Using the flaming whip to trip? Good! The flaming whip generates extra 1d6 damage unless the target has +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater. Using the flaming whip to try to damage a foe? Good! The flaming whip generates extra 1d6 damage unless the target has +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater. 

While a non-wielder holding a flaming weapon (including whips) is not in the RAW (correct me if I'm wrong), I'd rule in a strict situation that the flaming whip can deal damage to someone holding it, as long as they do not have +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater (since the damage the flaming enhancement provides is dealt by the whip, and all rules governing damage dealt by the whip are in effect.

It's pretty simple and straightforward, actually. Whether or not it needs a house rule is up to the individual.



			
				Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Anyway folks, I'm out of here. It was pleasant, but the answer seems apparent:
> 
> It can go either way. The RAW cannot be directly quoted to prove either case.
> 
> Take care folks, and good gaming.




Can we make it four responses to the thread since you posted that, ST01?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2005)

> DMG
> Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit.[/B]




What possible conclusions can we reach from the phrase "*The fire does not harm the wielder.*"

1) The fire cannot harm the wielder in any case- and it harms everyone else capable of taking fire damage except the wielder.

2) The magical fire- not the weapon- is the instrument of the fire damage.

and of course

3) Someone on this thread will argue that the fire doesn't harm the wielder because its the weapon harming him.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jul 15, 2005)

> Can we make it four responses to the thread since you posted that, ST01?




Since you asked so nicely... 

Respond-yes, debate-no

Ridley's C has it covered pretty well...


----------



## Ketjak (Jul 15, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> What possible conclusions can we reach from the phrase "*The fire does not harm the wielder.*"




How about concluding that the fire does not harm the wielder? Anything else is speculation, not RAW.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2005)

Lets assume that the game's writers are rational human beings, the statement:



> * "The fire does not harm the wielder.*




must have a rational meaning.

1) They mentioned that the Fire doesn't hurt the wielder for a reason.

2) The reason is to point it out as an exception to the general rule that fire burns those in contact with it.

3) That the class of persons not burned by the fire on the weapon is limited to a single class- the "Set of People Wielding the Firey weapon" would indicate that persons OUTSIDE that class are not immune to damage by the fire.

and, in the context of the sentence immediately precedent to which it refers:


> ... a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire.




4) The fire damage that would normally be done to the wielder comes from the fire enchantment- not the weapon.


----------



## Runesong42 (Jul 15, 2005)

I wonder... (all RAW and copy/pasted from d20srd.org)

a. A whip deals nonlethal damage. It deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach. [...]

b. You can make trip attacks with a whip.

c. Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target.

(from systemreferencedoucments.org)

Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Now...

Flaming
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

So, IMO, a "successful hit" is one that connects with a melee "touch attack", which ignores armor for sake of determining whether the hit is successful or not.

Now, consider Shocking Grasp, a spell that "enchants" an unarmed attack:

Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). 

If a whip is flaming, and a shocking grasp spell both accomplish their intended damage through a successful melee touch attack, I put forward that the flaming whip can do its 1d6 damage on a successful trip.

Now, whether a whip can do the flaming damage on a regular attack seems to be the debate at hand... I'm with the school that a whip dealing no damage is the same as a whip dealing '0' (zero) damage.  Hence, the flaming whip does 0 + 1d6 flaming damage.

Combat: 

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.  In the whip's case, it does 1d2 nonlethal damage, or no damage on an armored opponent.

*Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes * [referencing the trip attack that is considered an 'armed' unarmed touch attack]and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

So....
The special ability 'flaming' modifies the whip's damage.  If the whip's damage is modified on a trip attack, why would it not modify the damage on a regular attack?

I'm no lawyer, but I thnk the 0 + 1d6 rule is correct.


----------



## Krelios (Jul 15, 2005)

SRD said:
			
		

> A whip deals nonlethal damage.



So, for those of you saying that because the description of a whip says it deals no damage to armored opponents, you must rule that the fire damage is non-lethal on unarmored opponents, right? I mean, for your arguments to be consistent, the whip text must overrule any all other text.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 15, 2005)

Krelios said:
			
		

> So, for those of you saying that because the description of a whip says it deals no damage to armored opponents, you must rule that the fire damage is non-lethal on unarmored opponents, right? I mean, for your arguments to be consistent, the whip text must overrule any all other text.




They do indeed reach that conclusion. 

Which really shows the value of strict RAW interpretations.   Kinda funny, but not much use in a real game.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 15, 2005)

As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation.  Fire should never be nonlethal.  Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 15, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation. Fire should never be nonlethal. Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.




Now you are getting away from the RAW and starting to think for yourself.  Be careful, that can get you in trouble around here. That's right up there with using terms like "common sense", "spirit of the rules", and "intent" to support you interpretation.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 15, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation.  Fire should never be nonlethal.  Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.




Not a contradiction.  Merely ridiculous.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 15, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Now you are getting away from the RAW and starting to think for yourself. Be careful, that can get you in trouble around here. That's right up there with using terms like "common sense", "spirit of the rules", and "intent" to support you interpretation.



 What part is getting away from RAW?  Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 15, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What part is getting away from RAW?  Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.




I must have missed this, where did Danny provide a quote that fire damage must be non-lethal?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 15, 2005)

Post #336:







			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> #4)Furthermore, ignoring the fire damage because of the armor/natural armor problem with whips would also violate p28DMG- "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"
> 
> However- one thing I think we can ALL agree on is: *Don't use your Vorpal Whip against Trolls unless its a Flaming Vorpal Whip.*


----------



## Caliban (Jul 15, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What part is getting away from RAW? Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.




Putting my rules lawyer hat back on for a minute: Note that it says "should never", not "can never".


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 15, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Putting my rules lawyer hat back on for a minute: Note that it says "should never", not "can never".




Ditto.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2005)

For the record, I'm of the opinion that since certain non-magical fires will not ignite flesh- indeed, low-temp fires are part of what makes certain fire juggling acts possible- then you can also make non-lethal magical fires.

However- that cooler magical flame would be based on slightly different enchantments than, and thus, be a different power than Flaming/Flaming burst.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm of the opinion that since certain non-magical fires will not ignite flesh- indeed, low-temp fires are part of what makes certain fire juggling acts possible- then you can also make non-lethal magical fires.
> 
> However- that cooler magical flame would be based on slightly different enchantments than, and thus, be a different power than Flaming/Flaming burst.




Oh, I agree. I think it's incredibly silly to suggest that the flaming ability will do different damage (or no damage) based solely on what type of weapon you put it on. I can see how certain people have reached that conclusion, but it's pretty obvious that that is not the intent of the rules, and isn't anywhere close to the spirit of the rules, and is thus clearly the "wrong" interpretation. The rules are intended to make sense within the framework of the game. When they don't, then you are probably dealing with a situation the game designers didn't foresee, or you are taking an imprecise phrasing of the authors and using it as if it were a defined game term (which is what I believe we have here). The game designers weren't writing a technical manual, they were writing a game manual, and didn't always use precise terms (heck, they don't always use defined game terms consistently). 

But that's the whole "thinking for yourself" thing that can get you in trouble around here. I'm guilty of that a lot these days. 

This thread has been very amusing.


----------



## Maraur (Nov 14, 2005)

*Flaming whip, burst alight!*

I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I have to say it was an interesting discussion, and very very amusing. Yet there is one thing I believe hasn't been covered. So sorry folks, I'll bring back this issue. And if you know any FAQ or errata that says something decicive on this, please give me a link.

Anyway, PHB, p. 114: "Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. ... Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. ... If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types."

Fire is not mentioned, so weapons cannot deal fire damage. The list is restrictive, there is no indication that the three types serve merely as examples. (That's just the _literal _reading of this passage, leaving no room for interpretation) Also, it is said that a damage dealt by a weapon of two types is of both damage types. So, if you go as far as to believe that a +1 Flaming longsword deals two types of damage, you'd have to accept that a troll hit with that weapon suffers all of the damage as fire damage. But we all know it's not part of the slashing damage - the only type of damage a longsword is capable of dealing. Sneak attacks, str bonuses, enhancement bonuses and such add to the slashing damage, fire is energy damage. As someone else proved, the energy deals the damage, how else could ranged weapons bestow_the energy_ to ammunition?

It could also be said that PHB does not cover magical enhancements, so the DMG rules override the PHB rules. Also, the whip is "slashing" and does not damage armored opponents. The PHB does not cover situations where the weapon has an enchantment that deals damage in addition to the slashing damage.

Still, I'd like to see some official ruling..

And there is no such thing as nonlethal fire. I can't recall any reference to such damage anywhere in the core set. For example, environment dangers deal "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal [energy type] damage". Please, show me where it is said that something deals "nonlethal [energy type damage? "Should" means it is at DM's discretion to decide otherwise. DM's discretion is in effect using house rules. For example, the area of "Entangle" can vary, at DM's discretion, depending on the terrain. Since no rules for different terrains are given, it's a house rule.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2005)

> And there is no such thing as nonlethal fire.




...In any WOTC or D20 product that anyone can point to, yes.

In the Real World, there IS such a thing as a low-temperature fire...although, as far as I have seen, even those require caution to handle because they could still ignite things like hair.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 14, 2005)

Maraur said:
			
		

> And there is no such thing as nonlethal fire. I can't recall any reference to such damage anywhere in the core set. For example, environment dangers deal "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal [energy type] damage".




Interesting - Resist Cold, apparently, won't stop you from freezing to death unless you're wearing metal armor.

Extreme cold deals 'lethal damage' and 'non-lethal damage', not 'cold damage'... but if you're wearing metal armor, you're affected as though by a _chill metal_ spell, which deals cold damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Nov 14, 2005)

Maraur said:
			
		

> if you know any FAQ or errata that says something decicive on this, please give me a link.



From the 3.5 FAQ  (page 55)
_"a fighter wielding a +1 flaming sword can’t choose for the fire damage to be nonlethal (even if the base weapon damage is nonlethal)."_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2005)

> From the 3.5 FAQ  (page 55)
> "a fighter wielding a +1 flaming sword can’t choose for the fire damage to be nonlethal (even if the base weapon damage is nonlethal)."




Which would also tend to imply my answer about the whip is on track as well...

In addition, there is this language in the similar type power from the Rod of Thunder and Lightning:


> _<edit>_
> Lightning: Once per day, when the wielder desires, a short spark of electricity can leap forth when the rod strikes an opponent to deal the normal damage for a +2 light mace (1d6+2) and an extra 2d6 points of electricity damage. *Even when the rod might not score a normal hit in combat, if the roll was good enough to count as a successful melee touch attack hit, then the 2d6 points of electricity damage still applies*. The wielder activates this power as a free action, and it works if he strikes an opponent within 1 round.
> _<edit>_




(emphasis mine)

And as Hyp's last post points out...the energy restistance/energy damage rules are a mess.

Perhaps we need to stage a revolution and take over the WOTC offices!


----------

