Flaming whip

[jabberwocky]

And yet if I trip someone by hooking a scythe blade behind their unarmoured leg and pulling, I don't cause slashing damage.

Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?

-Hyp.

Not really - the reason the flaming weapon does damage is because of the line in the flaming property description that says how it does damage, not because I can visualize how a flaming whip or sickle could cause damage. I can assume that a trip with a sickle against an unarmored opponent is tangling in the clothes or what have you - the point is you're not primarily attempting to cause damage with the weapon, but instead knock the other person down somehow. Because causing damage is not the goal of a trip attack, the rules don't have it cause damage in the normal way, but a trip attack can still involve having a successful hit, which is sufficient to activate the fire damage from the flaming property.

 

[Storyteller01]

Mispost... sorry 'bout that...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire...A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows...bestows the fire energy upon their ammunition. DMG p224

The weapon isn't doing the damage- the magical fire (or whatever enchantment) is.


That's in direct contradiction to the quote you gave. It states explicitly that the flaming weapon deals the fire damage.

-Hyp.

No H-Smurf, its not contradictory.

Yes, the weapon is the vehicle by which the fire comes into contact with the target, but it doesn't say that must injure the target.

The enchantment says that the damage is dealt on a succcessful strike, not if the weapon does damage.

Further evidence of this is in the statement "The fire does not harm the wielder." (DMG p224) If that statement were NOT there, the implication is that mere contact with the flame could ignite an incautious warrior. A critical fumble or a suicide attempt would light the wielder...but the flame "knows its master" and will not harm the person who wields the weapon. The equivalent to that phrase is present in Shock and Frost as well, but is absent from enchantments like Brilliant Energy or the Alignment based powers.

Its not the weapon doing the additional 1d6, but the magical enchantment within it.

Think of it like a grenade. If someone is hit by a live grenade they may or may not be injured by the impact. Then comes the ADDITIONAL damage from the explosion.

Or consider a Taser. A person struck by a taser may or may not be injured by contact with the darts or nodes (dependino on the model), but regardless of that, they will be damaged by the 50,000 volt discharge that follows the contact.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's why I chose a sickle

Okay, then, that makes more sense. Yeah, that's the way I see it. But, you can't leave out the rest of the Trip maneuver. It doesn't just stop at the touch attack. You may in fact lose your weapon (or be tripped). Could the sickle-wielder trick himself out with feats to help? Sure. Could the target trick himself out with resistances to energy? Sure. It all evens out in the wash -- you just need to add the right amount of bleach.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No H-Smurf, its not contradictory.

Yes, the weapon is the vehicle by which the fire comes into contact with the target, but it doesn't say that must injure the target.

The enchantment says that the damage is dealt on a succcessful strike, not if the weapon does damage.

That's right. The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike. Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip deals no damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

That's right. The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike. Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip deals no damage.

-Hyp.

Which goes back to the torch/flaming club/hot poker example. How can you set fire to something it you don't do weapons damage to it?

 

[Li Shenron]

Would be funny to see a Balrog's face when his flaming whip does nothing to a padded-armored commoner.

The starting rule that whips cannot damage a target in armor comes from the assumption that armor is only about absorbing damage. But of course a RL armor absorbs damage when the strike hits the part of your body which it is actually covered by the armor, and it rarely covers all of it.

In fact, D&D uses armor as an armor bonus to AC, which is more in line with the "covering" idea than the "absorbing" idea. It's a simplification that not everyone likes, given how many groups use an "armor as DR" variant.

I agree that by the rules, if you had an armor in the form of a helm (e.g. giving a +1 AC by the fact that it protects your head), and you were otherwise naked, a whip could not hurt you at all. (Because that's obviously ridiculous, I would not hesitate to overrule)

 

[interwyrm]

The rules about whips are just inconsistant in general because as stated before, armor makes you harder to hit, not take less damage. I mean... the same logic would say that if someone is wearing plate male with padding underneath, they should take no damage from a club. Hmm... I think next time I run a campaign I will houserule out the restrictions on whips doing damage.

 

[Artoomis]

That's right. The whip deals +1d6 fire damage on a successful strike. Except if if you use a whip against an armored opponent, the whip deals no damage.

-Hyp.

Rught. Any reason why you cannot have a successful strike even if you cannot do any damage? Note that dealing no damage in not the same as not being able to hit, right?

Thus you could have a successful strike, deal no damge, but have the fire damage added in anyway since it cares not whether the weapon itself did any damamge, only that you made a "succesful strikje."

Right?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Rught. Any reason why you cannot have a successful strike even if you cannot do any damage? Note that dealing no damage in not the same as not being able to hit, right?

Thus you could have a successful strike, deal no damge, but have the fire damage added in anyway since it cares not whether the weapon itself did any damamge, only that you made a "succesful strikje."

The flaming property certainly applies, since the hit is successful. Except that since the weapon dealing that fire damage is a whip, no damage is dealt to an armoured opponent.

-Hyp.