Flaming whip

[Krelios]

I can't believe there is even an argument here...

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

It doesn't matter whether your weapon deals damage or not. If your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC, they take 1d6 fire damage--even if it was a +1 Flaming Cotton Ball. The argument that a weapon must deal its own damage to deal the fire damage might be a reasonable houserule, but it's clearly not the way it works in the RAW.

 

[jabberwocky]

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.

No on both counts. The way that makes the most sense to me is to think of the whip as doing 1d3+str+enhancement+(sneak attack,weapon specialization, etc) of whip damage. A flaming whip does 1d3+str+enhancement+(sneak attack/weapon specialization, etc) of whip damage + 1d6 of fire damage. The 1d6 fire is not "whip damage" (even though it is dealt by a whip), and is not subject to negation by the whip rules in the way that the rest of the damage may be.

 

[Fieari]

I can't believe there is even an argument here...
It doesn't matter whether your weapon deals damage or not. If your attack roll equals or exceeds your target's AC, they take 1d6 fire damage--even if it was a +1 Flaming Cotton Ball. The argument that a weapon must deal its own damage to deal the fire damage might be a reasonable houserule, but it's clearly not the way it works in the RAW.

You forgot a bit.

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.

More specific rules override less specific rules. The whip is an exception. It deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.

 

[Infiniti2000]

More specific rules override less specific rules. The whip is an exception. It deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.

How could the mundane whip be an exception to magical enhancements? Whip in that case is the less specific rule, while a flaming whip is the more specific rule. So, by your own statement, a flaming whip does 1d6 fire damage against armored opponents.

 

[Krelios]

How could the mundane whip be an exception to magical enhancements? Whip in that case is the less specific rule, while a flaming whip is the more specific rule. So, by your own statement, a flaming whip does 1d6 fire damage against armored opponents.

Beaten to it, Infiniti is exactly right. Nowhere does it say your weapon must deal damage in order for the flame to damage your opponents.

 

[IcyCool]

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

Your sig only appears in your first post on a page.

 

[Fieari]

Nono, the ganeral rule I was referring to is that a weapon does damage on a successful hit, which you quoted to support your argument. The specific rule is that whips do no damage on a successful hit against a target with +1 armor bonus or +3 nat armor bonus. Not that they deal no slashing damage, they deal no damage.

The flaming weapon is still a whip. It is a subset of whip, inheriting all the rules and restrictions of a whip. Nowhere does adding a magical enhancement remove the qualities of the base weapon. A whip does no damage to those targets.

It's not that the whip has to do damage to deal fire damage (it doesn't... immunity to slashing for instance, would cause the whip to deal no physical damage but still deal fire damage. DR as well could cause this situation), it's that the whip, which would be the thing dealing fire damage, deals NO damage. Specific rule.

Again.

Rule: A whip deals no damage to armored targets.
Lemma: A flaming whip is a whip.
Statement: If a flaming whip deals fire damage to an armored target, it has dealt damage to an armored target.
Statement: This is a contradiction.

And also again, the flaming property could have been worded differently to make a flaming whip deal damage even against armored targets. It could have read "The fire deals..." instead of "The weapon deals..."

Because it is the whip dealing the fire damage, and the whip cannot deal damage to armored targets, the whip deals no fire damage to armored targets.

This is stupid, and idiotic. It is also RAW. (Personally, whips only doing non-lethal damage is also stupid... it hasn't come up in any of my games so far, but I'd house rule all kinds of these restrictions away.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

9 pages of this ?

Wow. This must be some kind of record.

Oh.. something thread related..

Poor wording of the Whip entry has led to "This is stupid, and idiotic. It is also RAW."

Thanks Fieari, if my sig was not already useful, I would probably steal that!

 

[Krelios]

This is stupid, and idiotic. It is also RAW. (Personally, whips only doing non-lethal damage is also stupid... it hasn't come up in any of my games so far, but I'd house rule all kinds of these restrictions away.)

So whether or not we agree on what the RAW says, we'd both handle it the same way... I can live with that.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Already mentioned, but no on both counts. The above examples add to the whips damage (ie is the same type[slashing/subdual]). The flame enhancement would do fire damage on top of these.

Anyway folks, I'm out of here. It was pleasant, but the answer seems apparent:

It can go either way. The RAW cannot be directly quoted to prove either case.

Take care folks, and good gaming.