Flaming whip

[Hypersmurf]

If this is the case, then you do 1d6 extra fire damage.

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

And the flaming weapon is a whip, which "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher".

Or would you argue that a flaming sap does nonlethal-fire damage?

The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably

I'd certainly say that the fire damage dealt by a Merciful Flaming Longsword is nonlethal - is that so different?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or would you argue that a flaming sap does nonlethal-fire damage?

A sap is not limited to nonlethal damage. It may be used to do lethal damage by taking a -4 penalty on your attack roll, just like Unarmed Strikes (it has the same footnote).

A whip is limited to "does no damage" as soon as certain conditions are met, and there is no way to overcome this limitation.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably

Actually, it is.

Martial, light melee weapon. 1d4 / 1d6 20/x2 damage, footnote 3: "The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage"

 

[mvincent]

I think it is a DM's call, and a DM would be justified in ruling either way in his game. However, I personally feel the intent of the rules leans towards allowing the fire damage.

The rules set a precedence with the previously mentioned statement:
"Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains.". DR is enough like armor (especialy in regard to whips) that this is enough for me.

Also, if the situation was reversed (i.e. a flaming whip against an unarmed opponent that was immune to fire), we would certainly rule that the fire damage does nothing even though the whip hit. Fair is fair.

But play as makes ya happy.

 

[Artoomis]

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to go along with those who say it does the flaming damage.

Touching a wall does not damage, right? What about a flaming wall? That would certainly hurt, I would think. Merciful flames doing no real damage? That's a stretch, for sure. A sap doing subdual flaming damage -please, you MUST be joking.

I inclined to say this is very much like DR and so the flame damage applies.

Of course, a hyper-strict look at the rules could be read to say it does no damage, but that seems decidely lacking in common sense - which may have no place in D&D, pehaps. .

 

[mvincent]

The sap isn't in the SRD, and I'm away from my PHB, but probably

I'm pretty sure that the fire damage from a flaming, (mundanely) non-lethal weapon should not also be non-lethal

I'd certainly say that the fire damage dealt by a Merciful Flaming Longsword is nonlethal - is that so different?

Yes. A sap is non-lethal due to mundane reasons. A merciful sword is non-lethal because magic (i.e. the merciful enhancement) has made it so.

*Assuming that you made the sword's flame non-lethal (which is a DM's call)

 

[mvincent]

a hyper-strict look at the rules could be read to say it does no damage, but that seesm decidely lacking on common sense.

You spelled 'smurf' wrong

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, it is.

Martial, light melee weapon. 1d4 / 1d6 20/x2 damage, footnote 3: "The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage"

Ah - I was looking for a text description. There doesn't seem to be one.

Hmm. Just like for club, mace, or morningstar... I guess some don't need it.

I would've though a sap would warrant one for the non-lethal aspect, though.

Also, if the situation was reversed (i.e. a flaming whip against an unarmed opponent that was immune to fire), we would certainly rule that the fire damage does nothing even though the whip hit. Fair is fair.

If the creature was immune to 'damage dealt by a flaming weapon', he would take no damage from a flaming whip, which is a flaming weapon. If he's immune to 'fire damage', he'd take no fire damage, but he would take the slashing damage as normal.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark Causey]

I think that the key point is that the description of flaming in the SRD is that on a successful hit it does a d6 of fire damage. Not slashing, piercing, or anything like that. It deals fire damage. What if you were to set the whip on fire? Would the regular fire from the whip be prevented from hurting the person that was struck with it? Whip deals no damage, given. Flaming ability deals fire damage, and the whip deals no damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Whip deals no damage, given. Flaming ability deals fire damage, and the whip deals no damage.

The flaming ability doesn't deal fire damage. The flaming ability causes the flaming weapon to deal fire damage... but a whip can only deal damage against an unarmored opponent.

If someone is wearing armor, the whip is unable to deal damage against them, and therefore the fire damage that a flaming weapon deals is of no use.

If you set the whip on fire with oil and a torch, I'd still read it the same way - if the whip can't get past the armor, the fact that it's on fire doesn't help.

-Hyp.