Flaming whip

[Storyteller01]

I don't have a quote for that, but I do have a quote for -- isn't the same as 0 in regards to ability scores:

But we aren't talking ability scores, we're talking about damage done by a weapon.

Critters without ability scores exist due to specialized reasons (undead, construct, etc). Weapons damage reduced to nothing is regarded as 0, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Weapons damage reduced to nothing is regarded as 0, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise.

Mistype on your part. And, anyway:

"Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."

 

[Storyteller01]

Mistype on your part. And, anyway:

"Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."

Then it becomes a matter of interpretation, since neither case can specifically quote the RAW.

So it isn't a house rule; it's just a POV issue. Either view is valid by the letter, if not the spirit, of the RAW.

Although, I would like to see the stats on that flaming/shocking net if anyone has them...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Although, I would like to see the stats on that flaming/ shocking net if anyone has them...

Well, it isn't D&D, but I've got the d20 StarWars Revised Core Rulebook here, and it has a Net and Electro-Net in the equipment list. Both have damage entries of "See description."

The electro-nets don't do any damage, but they do subject anyone entangled by them to make a DC 12 Fortitude save when the net is "fired" or be knocked out for 1d4+1 rounds. A successful Fort save means you are only stunned for one round.

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

If you check the text of the Enlarge Person spell, you'll find: "Projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them."

So while an arrow has a damage of --, an arrow fired from a Medium Longbow deals 1d8 damage, to which the extra fire damage can be added.

-Hyp.

I'll by that, although not with out a little grumbling. It still doesn't come close to the fact that by the RAW a normal bow used as an improvised weapon deals no extra damage for high strength. I don't think that this was an intentional implication, as it makes so little sense as to be ridculous (more so even then the whip), but it doesn't change the RAW that says they don't.

Electric Lash: The blue-tinged leather of this +2 shock whip seems to spark with small motes of electric energy. Three times per day, the wielder of the electric lash may make an arcing strike. This attack deals an additional +2d6 points of electricity damage (3d6 total) to the target if the attack is successful. Furthermore, the electric jolt arcs to any one creature within 5 feet of the target. That target gets half as much electricity damage as teh first target did. If more then one creature is within 5 feet of the target, roll randomly to see which one is affected by the arc of electricity. Arcing strike damage is not multiplied by critical hits.
Caster Level: 8th; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and ARmor, lightning bolt; MArket Price: 50,301 gp; Cost to Create 25,301gp + 2,000 xp.

This does not prove either view on resolution of how much damage any one with +1 AC does. It seems rather pointless though to bother putting anything more then +2 on a whip if its only gonna be able to trip... hell the +2 damage is wasted too. A masterwork whip gets half the total benefit at 50k gp less cost. It would be farm more effective to by the grasping ability at a +2 equivalent bonus (+2 on trip or disarm attempts).

Then net in the book is a +4 net made of pure force, able to entangle incorporeal creatures.

Another interesting point from this book is that other then vicious, as far as I can see, all the weapons have the same "weapon deals +X damage" terminology used in the SRD. What this means, I think, is that vicious is actually the exception to the rule rather then the rule.

All that doesn't change the fact that I still feel the intent of the rules is different from the actual implications of the RAW. I feel I'm supported in this by the description of the electric lash, although it doesn't prove anything either way.

Keep your RAW rules out of my house

Zero

 

[Caliban]

Mistype on your part. And, anyway:

"Weapons reduced to 'no damage' is regarded as --, unless a specific quote for weapons states otherwise."

Interesting. And where is this little gem stated in the RAW?

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, it isn't D&D, but I've got the d20 StarWars Revised Core Rulebook here, and it has a Net and Electro-Net in the equipment list. Both have damage entries of "See description."

The electro-nets don't do any damage, but they do subject anyone entangled by them to make a DC 12 Fortitude save when the net is "fired" or be knocked out for 1d4+1 rounds. A successful Fort save means you are only stunned for one round.

S0, even though it is circumstantial the additional effect applies even with a weapon that does -- damage, per previous definitions.

The only problem with this is that it isn't RAW, nor does it specifically do damage (I can see the arguement now, 'adding an effect is not the same as adding additional damage...'). It will most likey be ignored or deemed irrelevant to a D&D discussion.


Such is life...

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

I'd also point out that my above statements don't conceed or support the "no damage is -- is not 0" thing. I think that for this purpose it would be easier to think of "no damage" as 0 this case and be done with it.

Zero

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interesting. And where is this little gem stated in the RAW?

Exactly the same place Storyteller got his quote from.

At any rate, assume it doesn't follow the general rule, and when it says "no damage" (analagous to "no Intelligence score"), it really means "0 damge."

In that case, you still have a whip which does 0 damage against a foe in armor.

And a flaming whip, which is a whip, must still do 0 damage against a foe in armor, to the tune of: 1d3 Slashing + 1d6 Fire = 0.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The only problem with this is that it isn't RAW, nor does it specifically do damage (I can see the arguement now, 'adding an effect is not the same as adding additional damage...'). It will most likey be ignored or deemed irrelevant to a D&D discussion.

Actually, it applies in exactly the same way in which a vorpal whip does. A vorpal whip doesn't do any damage to an armored target, but has a possibility of cutting of the target's head anyway.

And electro-net does no damage to a target entangled by it, but has a chance to knock it out or stun it.