Flaming whip

[IcyCool]

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.

I couldn't let this one go before you left. The RAW has been directly quoted to prove that a flaming whip will do no damage to a sufficiently armored target. No quote from the RAW has been given that proves otherwise.

 

[Storyteller01]

I couldn't let this one go before you left. The RAW has been directly quoted to prove that a flaming whip will do no damage to a sufficiently armored target. No quote from the RAW has been given that proves otherwise.

Nope. The RAW has been quoted stating that a whip does no damage to an armored opponent. A flaming whip, while a type of whip, has another set of rules that do not apply to the standard whip. If the two weapons were the same, we wouldn't be wasting bandwidth.

For reference:

The RAW has been quoted saying that there is a difference between a 0 attribute and a -- attribute. No such statement has been made that it also pertains to weapons. This has been assumed as fact without proof.

The text of the whip states that it does no damage to an armored target. This has not been defined as 0 or -- damage by the RAW.

The enhancement states that it adds +1d6 damage to the weapon. It does not state that this damage is subject to the special rules of that weapon, only that a strike must be made. One can surmise that there is a distinction between weapon damage (damage dealt by the weapon as a whole) and whip damage (damage inflicted only by the whip itself, due to its peculiar nature).

The flaming enchantment states that the additional 1d6 fire damage is applied on a successful strike, not damage.



So it depends on your interpretation:

If a whip does 0 damage to an armored target on a successful strike, then the fire damage adds 1d6 given that, while it is 'weapon damage' (ie damage inflicted by the weapon), it isn't whip damage (that whole fire thingy).

If a whip does -- damage (as yet to be proven) then it doesn't matter what else you add to the mix.


If a critter is immune to slashing damage, and attacked with a flaming sword, is it immune to all damage (including fire)?

If I'm wrong, then please show the quote. I'm officially out, but that doesn't mean I won't watch.

 

[IcyCool]

If a whip does 0 damage to an armored target on a successful strike, then the fire damage adds 1d6 given that, while it is 'weapon damage', it isn't whip damage (tyhat whole fire thingy).

I disagree. But I'll agree to disagree.

If a critter is immune to slashing damage, and attacked with a flaming sword, is it immune to all damage (including fire)?

No, and you have been given quotes to show you why. I'm not entirely sure why you feel your statement is relevant.

Enjoy your lurking! I will return to that myself.

 

[Asmo]

My hat of Flaming Whips knows no limit.

Asmo

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The heart of the RAW fight is which rule is more specific and therefore which takes precedence. There is no basis within the RAW for deciding in this case.

Is a flaming whip a special kind of whip with special exceptions directly from the flaming ability? If yes, d6 fire damage.

Or is a flaming whip a specific kind of flaming weapon? If yes, zero damage.

The RAW does not tell us how to resolve this.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More specific rules override less specific rules. The whip is an exception.

#1) No it isn't an exception. Where does it say that it is an exception?

There is the GENERAL rule that weapons do a certain #D whatever upon a successful strike.
There is a more specific rule that the whip deals no damage on a successful hit against a foe with a +3 nat armor bonus or a +1 armor bonus.
But there is an EVEN MORE specific rule that the whip with the Flaming enhancement does 1d6 fire damage.

Why is it more specific than the rule about whips? Because there is the "Set of All Whips," which contains (obviously) all whips. Then, within that set is the "Set of Magical Whips," within which is the "Set of Magical Whips with Special Abilities," and within that, the "Set of Magical Whips with the Flaming Special Ability"- and some other subsets besides...

#2) Hyps' formulation of the problem essentially violates the principle that a weapon that deals 2 kinds of damage can damage a target that is not immune to both. Here, the second type is magical fire.

#3) It seems to me, and to others, that the reading of the Flaming power is being tortured. Some feel that the damage is being done by the weapon, not the enchantment. "A flaming weapon deals..." has been much discussed, but read on.

Once more:

Flaming: 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 fire damage on a successful hit.

The second sentence of this entry reads "THE FIRE does not harm the wielder"- not "THE FLAMING WEAPON." This matters. They have already made a distinction between the weapon and the power granted by the magic. "A flaming weapon" is nothing more than a description of a weapon wrapped in a shroud of magical fire. And if the wielder tried to kill himself with this weapon's flames, he would fail.

#4)Furthermore, ignoring the fire damage because of the armor/natural armor problem with whips would also violate p28DMG- "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"

However- one thing I think we can ALL agree on is: Don't use your Vorpal Whip against Trolls unless its a Flaming Vorpal Whip.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

You don't; the flaming weapon does. "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit."
-Hyp.

A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and sucessfully hit target opponents AC. So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.

Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

Dannys got it on lockdown.

 

[Storyteller01]

A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and sucessfully hit target opponents AC. So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.

Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.

Many times... so, so many times....

 

[IcyCool]

A successful hit doesnt mean it has to do damage. A sucessfull hit is when you make an attack roll and sucessfully hit target opponents AC. So the whip itself does no damage versus an armored opponent, but the fire damage still does, because its a sucessful hit.

Note: i only read the first page of this arguement. i hope this hasnt been quoted already.

I'd recommend that you read the whole thread, but that way lies madness and despair. Suffice it to say, it goes something like this:

The flaming weapon enhancement says that the weapon deals 1d6 fire damage on a successful hit. A whip states that if the opponent has a sufficiently high armor or natural armor bonus, the whip does no damage. Since a flaming whip is a whip, and since it is the weapon that deals damage if it is enchanted with the flaming ability, a flaming whip can do no damage to a sufficiently armored opponent. If the flaming ability simply stated: "This energy deals 1d6 points of fire damage ..." this arguement wouldn't be happening.