Flaming whip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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]

What Patryn said.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<sigh>

Originally posted in the SRD (emphasis mine):

BALOR
Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 20d8+200 (290 hp)
Initiative: +11
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 90 ft. (good)
Armor Class: 35 (–1 size, +7 Dex, +19 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 28
Base Attack/Grapple: +20/+36
Attack: +1 vorpal longsword +33 melee (2d6+8/19–20)
Full Attack:
+1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+8/19–20)
AND
+1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+4 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle);
OR
2 slams +31 melee (1d10+7)

...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]

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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:

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.