Flaming whip

[Storyteller01]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.