Flaming whip

[Ketjak]

The way the rules as written read, a flaming whip is a type of whip. The only exception is that it is flaming.

All whips deal no damage to creatures with +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater.

Since the flaming enhancement clearly reads the whip deals an extra 1d6 damage on a successful hit, the rule governing damage dealt by a whip kicks in whenever a situation in which the flaming whip might cause damage arises. Using the flaming whip to trip? Good! The flaming whip generates extra 1d6 damage unless the target has +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater. Using the flaming whip to try to damage a foe? Good! The flaming whip generates extra 1d6 damage unless the target has +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater.

While a non-wielder holding a flaming weapon (including whips) is not in the RAW (correct me if I'm wrong), I'd rule in a strict situation that the flaming whip can deal damage to someone holding it, as long as they do not have +1 armor bonus or greater or +3 natural armor bonus or greater (since the damage the flaming enhancement provides is dealt by the whip, and all rules governing damage dealt by the whip are in effect.

It's pretty simple and straightforward, actually. Whether or not it needs a house rule is up to the individual.

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.

Can we make it four responses to the thread since you posted that, ST01?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DMG
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.[/B]

What possible conclusions can we reach from the phrase "The fire does not harm the wielder."

1) The fire cannot harm the wielder in any case- and it harms everyone else capable of taking fire damage except the wielder.

2) The magical fire- not the weapon- is the instrument of the fire damage.

and of course

3) Someone on this thread will argue that the fire doesn't harm the wielder because its the weapon harming him.

 

[Storyteller01]

Can we make it four responses to the thread since you posted that, ST01?

Since you asked so nicely...

Respond-yes, debate-no

Ridley's C has it covered pretty well...

 

[Ketjak]

What possible conclusions can we reach from the phrase "The fire does not harm the wielder."

How about concluding that the fire does not harm the wielder? Anything else is speculation, not RAW.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Lets assume that the game's writers are rational human beings, the statement:

"The fire does not harm the wielder.

must have a rational meaning.

1) They mentioned that the Fire doesn't hurt the wielder for a reason.

2) The reason is to point it out as an exception to the general rule that fire burns those in contact with it.

3) That the class of persons not burned by the fire on the weapon is limited to a single class- the "Set of People Wielding the Firey weapon" would indicate that persons OUTSIDE that class are not immune to damage by the fire.

and, in the context of the sentence immediately precedent to which it refers:

... a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire.

4) The fire damage that would normally be done to the wielder comes from the fire enchantment- not the weapon.

 

[Runesong42]

I wonder... (all RAW and copy/pasted from d20srd.org)

a. 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. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach. [...]

b. You can make trip attacks with a whip.

c. Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target.

(from systemreferencedoucments.org)

Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Now...

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 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

So, IMO, a "successful hit" is one that connects with a melee "touch attack", which ignores armor for sake of determining whether the hit is successful or not.

Now, consider Shocking Grasp, a spell that "enchants" an unarmed attack:

Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6).

If a whip is flaming, and a shocking grasp spell both accomplish their intended damage through a successful melee touch attack, I put forward that the flaming whip can do its 1d6 damage on a successful trip.

Now, whether a whip can do the flaming damage on a regular attack seems to be the debate at hand... I'm with the school that a whip dealing no damage is the same as a whip dealing '0' (zero) damage. Hence, the flaming whip does 0 + 1d6 flaming damage.

Combat:

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.

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. In the whip's case, it does 1d2 nonlethal damage, or no damage on an armored opponent.

Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes [referencing the trip attack that is considered an 'armed' unarmed touch attack]and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

So....
The special ability 'flaming' modifies the whip's damage. If the whip's damage is modified on a trip attack, why would it not modify the damage on a regular attack?

I'm no lawyer, but I thnk the 0 + 1d6 rule is correct.

 

[Krelios]

A whip deals nonlethal damage.

So, for those of you saying that because the description of a whip says it deals no damage to armored opponents, you must rule that the fire damage is non-lethal on unarmored opponents, right? I mean, for your arguments to be consistent, the whip text must overrule any all other text.

 

[Caliban]

So, for those of you saying that because the description of a whip says it deals no damage to armored opponents, you must rule that the fire damage is non-lethal on unarmored opponents, right? I mean, for your arguments to be consistent, the whip text must overrule any all other text.

They do indeed reach that conclusion.

Which really shows the value of strict RAW interpretations. Kinda funny, but not much use in a real game.

 

[Infiniti2000]

As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation. Fire should never be nonlethal. Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.

 

[Caliban]

As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation. Fire should never be nonlethal. Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.

Now you are getting away from the RAW and starting to think for yourself. Be careful, that can get you in trouble around here. That's right up there with using terms like "common sense", "spirit of the rules", and "intent" to support you interpretation.