Flaming whip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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?