Flaming whip

[Caliban]

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."

Ah, so it's not actually RAW. Thought so.

 

[IcyCool]

Keep your RAW rules out of my house

Zero

Agreed

*Surveys the scene, noticing only small parts of the horse corpse from several pages back.* Well, that about wraps up my involvement. I've beaten this horse enough.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Now, that one, I'm not convinced of.

How much damage does the blunt head of a Flaming +1 / Flaming +1 Gnome Hooked Hammer deal?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Patryn of Elvenshae
Which is funny, because of the four things you listed, only half are actually damage. The other two are not damage.

EDIT:

Note that damage is actually a well-defined game term, being a reduction in hit points or in an ability score. Anything which does not do either of those has not actually done damage.

And yet, RAW- "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage." PHB p134.

Yes... I know that farther down the page, you get "Damage reduces a target's current hit points."

But all that just gets us to this point:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. (Rule)
Damage reduces a target's current hit points. (Lemma)
A successful trip attack results in the target being tripped.

Nowhere in the trip attack rules (PHBp158) does it state that a trip attack does or doesn't do damage... so either trips do normal damage for the method in which the trip is delivered OR (see Conclusion below).

And:

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. (Rule)
Damage reduces a target's current hit points. (Lemma)
A successful Vorpal attack results in the target being beheaded.

Nowhere in the Vorpal attack rules (DMGp226) does it state that a vorpal attack does or doesn't do damage... so either vorpal attacks do normal damage OR (see Conclusion below).

So we have a conundrum.

Conclusion- Either not all successful attacks deal damage- contradicting the very first Rule under the Dealing damage section, and thus the RAW- or the Lemma is false, also contradicting the RAW.

Furthermore, the PHB only has 2 definitions of death- reduction to -10 hp or death by massive damage (50+points in a single strike followed by failing a Fort save); the DMG adds the reduction of Con to 0, Death Attacks, or death by accumulation of negative levels.

And even then, the DMG (p292) states "In case it mattes, a dead character, no matter how he died, has -10 HP," thus collapsing all definitions of death into the first one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And even then, the DMG (p292) states "In case it mattes, a dead character, no matter how he died, has -10 HP," thus collapsing all definitions of death into the first one.

But you can be reduced to -10 hit points without taking damage.

If I have 10 hit dice, with a max of 40 hit points and a current total of 10 hit points, then when my Bear's Endurance wears off and my Con returns from 10 to 6, my current hit points are reduced from 10 to -10 (and dead) without my taking damage in the process.

A Vorpal whip can thus reduce you to -10 (and dead) by cutting off your head without the need to deal damage in the process. You don't deal damage sufficient to reduce them to -10, thereby killing them; rather, you kill them, giving them the 'dead' condition, which includes -10 hit points as an effect of that condition.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hypersmurf
A Vorpal whip can thus reduce you to -10 (and dead) by cutting off your head without the need to deal damage in the process.

and

The Vorpal effect bypasses the whip's restriction on dealing damage, since it does not, in fact, deal damage; it merely kills people. The whip is not prohibited from harming an armored opponent, only from dealing damage to him.

Nothing in the RAW says that the vorpal weapon doesn't do damage, and the power's description does not say that a creature decapitated by this power will die. Indeed, it glosses over this on the assumption that most creatures the power can effect WOULD die. However, a multi-headed creature could survive and even function aggressively sans one head...Ettins & Hydras (esp. Learnean Hydras) spring to mind, and a troll would ONLY die from mere decapitation (ie- no fire or acid involved) if it took sufficient damage to kill it. (Regeneration DMG p298)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nothing in the RAW says that the vorpal weapon doesn't do damage...

Oh, certainly. And in most cases, it will - the critical damage of the slashing weapon.

The whip's an exception.

... and the power's description does not say that a creature decapitated by this power will die.

True - I was assuming one-headed PCs.

If you use the vorpal whip to chop one head off an ettin, it would lose the head, but the whip would deal no damage.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

This may have been covered already but...

If we are talking about a Flaming Whip here, it is safe to say it is at least a +1 Flaming Whip. If the whip part does no damage, but the flaming part does +1d6), wouldn't the +1 part do damage as well? Why or why not?

 

[Storyteller01]

To Riga: It will go back to a whip doing -- damage, regardless of enchantment. We've tried variations on that theme.

But as has already been established, there is no proof per the RAW that this is the case. Hype (no insult intended, but you ARE the leader of this rebellion... ) and others are using rules written for attribute assessment (the difference between Con 0 and Con --) to justify the arguement that the whip, doing no damage to armor wearing targets, does -- damage.

To date there has been no rule quoted that says the rules for the lack of an attribute apply to weapons damage. Nor has there been a quote stating that a weapon doing no damage is doing -- damage, as opposed to 0 damage.

As mentioned earlier, it's a POV issue. Seriously though, I doubt rules designed to aid a DM when dealing with specialized monsters apply to weapons damage (intelligent weapons physical traits is a different story).


EDIT: Why is everyone's sig past post 300 missing?

 

[Hypersmurf]

To Riga: It will go back to a whip doing -- damage, regardless of enchantment. We've tried variations on that theme.

No, I think his is a question for you.

If you feel that the +1d6 flaming damage applies even if the 1d3 does not, then would a +1 whip deal +1 point of damage to an armored opponent?

Would a character with 14 Str deal +2 damage with a whip to an armored opponent (+3 if he wields the whip in two hands)?

-Hyp.