Flaming whip

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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.

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 )