Can a Whip be 'Vorpal'

[Dannyalcatraz]

The logical consequence of the first line is that if a weapon does not deal its normal weapon damage (listed on the table), it has not made a successful hit.

I disagree with your conclusion.

Damage is a consequence of a successful hit.

This is the sequence: successful attack=> hit=> damage|no damage

Your assertion changes this to: successful attack=> hit=> damage|no damage; if no damage, then no successful hit.

Damage nullification by a condition subsequent- a spell, a target's resistant defenses, a foe's armor- does not make the hit unsuccessful, it just means a successful hit has had its damage reduced to zero. The hit has still occurred, there is merely no damage.

 

[Deset Gled]

I disagree with your conclusion.

Damage is a consequence of a successful hit.

This is the sequence: successful attack=> hit=> damage|no damage

Your assertion changes this to: successful attack=> hit=> damage|no damage; if no damage, then no successful hit.

Damage nullification by a condition subsequent- a spell, a target's resistant defenses, a foe's armor- does not make the hit unsuccessful, it just means a successful hit has had its damage reduced to zero. The hit has still occurred, there is merely no damage.

Well, suffice it to say that I disagree with your conclusion to. The sequence of events that you give is a postulate that has no meaning to me. I am asserting the statement: If a hit is successful, it will cause damage. I then reach my conclusion by asserting the contra-positive of that statement: If there is no damage, there is not a successful hit. FWIW, I also agree with Hypersmuf's earlier assertion that damage of "0" is different than damage of "--", and that a whip deals damage of "--" to an armored target.

But really, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you on this subject. There was a 25 page long thread on it that didn't reach a solid consensus, and I don't expect to reach one here. The important thing that I'm trying to argue for the purposes of this thread is that, even if you don't think that a flaming whip can damage an armored opponent, you can still believe that a Vorpal whip can behead an armored opponent.

 

[kitcik]

Well, suffice it to say that I disagree with your conclusion to. The sequence of events that you give is a postulate that has no meaning to me. I am asserting the statement: If a hit is successful, it will cause damage. I then reach my conclusion by asserting the contra-positive of that statement: If there is no damage, there is not a successful hit.

Your logic is flawed:
1) In D&D specific rules override general rules. The general rule is that the damage on the table is dealt by a successful hit. The specific rule is that this damage is reduced by damage reduction.
2) You are asserting that the contra-positive of the general rule, after it has been impacted by the specific rule, must be true. This is not the case.

For instance:

General rule: If I get bitten by a rabid dog (i.e. successful hit), I will get rabies (i.e. receive damage).

Specific rule: If I have a rabies vaccination (damage reduction), I will not get rabies from being bitten.

Your contra-positive: If I do not have rabies, I have not been bitten by a rabid dog.

This is most un-vulcan.

 

[Greenfield]

I was just browsing the SRD to see if there was anything definitive on the subject of "No damage equals a miss".

Here's what I found:

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.

That's it. You roll over the AC and you hit and deal damage. It doesn't say, "Roll over the AC and do damage, and you hit."

Equally interesting (or perhaps more) is the section that immediately follows:

DAMAGE
When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

In the spirit of intellectual honest, I will point out that the highlighted section refers to penalties to damage, and that DR isn't described as a "penalty". I suspect that it's referring to things like silver weapons (which do 1 point less than normal versions), or damage from characters with Strength scores below 10.

I only bring that up because it highlights that DR isn't a damage penalty. You hit that Stone Golem with a 2x4 (makeshift weapon), you still deal damage. He gets to reduce that damage by his DR, which probably drops it to zero, but you did in fact roll for damage, so any argument that no damage equals no hit is bogus.

Consider this scenario: You use Disintegrate on the floor at the feet of a Golem, turning the formerly solid earth into a 10 foot pit. He falls, as if into a 10 foot pit, taking damage appropriate for falling into a 10 foot pit (i.e. a D6 of damage). Since the floor wasn't Adamantine, his DR applies and he takes no damage.

Does that mean he didn't actually hit the bottom of that pit? Has he mastered Flight by throwing himself at the ground and missing?

(If you say Yes, I have a Barbarian who's going to just love this ruling )

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just briefly, I agree completely with Danny.

You hit whether or not you succeed in doing damage. Vorpal whip by RAW would decaptitate and Flaming Whip would do fire damage.

And I am perfectly fine with both of those.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Just briefly, I agree completely with Danny.

You hit whether or not you succeed in doing damage. Vorpal whip by RAW would decaptitate and Flaming Whip would do fire damage.

And I am perfectly fine with both of those.

My 2 year old cousin can hit me, his little fist right into my shin, without dealing me any damage. He definitely connects, it just isn't enough to do me and injury.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

My 2 year old cousin can hit me, his little fist right into my shin, without dealing me any damage. He definitely connects, it just isn't enough to do me and injury.

Yet if his fist was sheathed in white hot flames, I'm pretty sure you'd still experience first degree burns.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yet if his fist was sheathed in white hot flames, I'm pretty sure you'd still experience first degree burns.

Just Saiyan...

 

[TanithT]

A bullwhip in the for-real world can cut metal. A pretty standard show demo is slicing a soda can neatly in half with a relatively small whip (4' to 6' throws). If done correctly, the whip cut looks like it was made by a knife, and you can drink the remaining liquid in what is now a standing open cup.

I've also seen heavy steel cans get hard-used for larger bullwhip target practice. I don't recall if they ended up with slashes or just substantial dents and abuse, but remember that we're talking about show whips constructed with the intent NOT to cause fatal injury in case someone is accidentally struck.

We know that thin metal cutting and substantial damage to thicker metal can easily be inflicted with a bullwhip made of soft materials (leather and a synthetic nylon cracker, usually) in a world where there is no magic, and where nobody puts metal blades in their crackers because they're for fun and show rather than combat.

Add metal to the cracker and the assumption of perpetual magical sharpness, and I have absolutely no problem believing in enough slashing power to open armor plates like a tin can. I'm not sure you'd even need magic for a blade moving at the speed of sound to have insane cutting power. If you haven't seen what a bullwhip can do in real life and you want to stat them up more realistically for RPG combat, check out some of the performance artist bullwhip videos on YouTube.

I also recommend having your Safe Search filter on. What you want to see are the serious performance artist demos, not the, um, other stuff that is amusing but not particularly relevant to statistics for bullwhip combat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A bullwhip in the for-real world can cut metal. A pretty standard show demo is slicing a soda can neatly in half with a relatively small whip (4' to 6' throws). If done correctly, the whip cut looks like it was made by a knife, and you can drink the remaining liquid in what is now a standing open cup.

I've also seen heavy steel cans get hard-used for larger bullwhip target practice. I don't recall if they ended up with slashes or just substantial dents and abuse, but remember that we're talking about show whips constructed with the intent NOT to cause fatal injury in case someone is accidentally struck.

Having knowledge of people who put holes in commercial food-service sized cans by snapping wet towels, I have no problem believing that a proficient whip wielder acting with malice might be able to punch a small hole in some of the weaker points of steel armor.