Flaming whip

[jabberwocky]

And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'. It is the weapon that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability. And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon cannot deal damage, no damage is dealt.
-Hyp.

I don't separate 'flaming' from 'weapon' in that statement so, as I read it, the "flaming weapon" causes the damage. Is a flaming whip a flaming weapon? Yes, and therefore it does 1d6 fire damage when you hit with it, regardless of what the base weapon is.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For clarity, I say touch because, even with damage limitations, as successful attack roll with the whip means you touched something. Trips and disarming attacks wouldn't work otherwise.

I'm sure Hyp will say that tripping with a flaming guisarme does no damage. If tripping does not cause damage, then the flaming can't. While we're at it, you can sheathe your flaming sword without risking harm to yourself and even others can grasp the flaming blade without harming themselves. Remember that the flames only do damage if the weapon does damage. Sheathing a weapon does not deal damage so adding 1d6 to that is N/A. Right?

Another question: Setting fire to combustibles requires that fire damage be taken. You can do this with a torch, without actually hitting something (just touching; goes back to the attack roll). Since a torch is nothing more than a flaming club, does this mean that you can't set fire to a wooden door or wall with a touch? Your clubs damage (with a touch) didn't exceed the objects hardness (ie the 'attack' didn't do damage)...

To be consistent with the flaming whip dealing no damage, you (meaning whoever views that a flaming whip deals no damage) would have to rule that you deal 1d6 bludgeoning + 1 fire whether or not the torch is lit. After all, it (the SRD), doesn't actually specify that you have to light the torch first.

 

[jabberwocky]

I'm sure Hyp will say that tripping with a flaming guisarme does no damage. If tripping does not cause damage, then the flaming can't. While we're at it, you can sheathe your flaming sword without risking harm to yourself and even others can grasp the flaming blade without harming themselves. Remember that the flames only do damage if the weapon does damage.

I would disagree with this. The flames don't do damage only if the weapon does damage; they do damage when the weapon successfully hits. A trip attack with a flaming weapon requires you to hit. If you hit with a flaming weapon, you do 1d6 fire damage. So I would rule that a trip attack with a flaming weapon does do fire damage. Sheathing and grasping the weapon don't cause damage, because they don't require you to hit with the weapon.

 

[Sil]

That's not the case here. They're not immune to slashing damage; they're effectively immune to damage dealt by a whip. And the fire damage is damage dealt by a whip.

The fire damage is delt by the magical enhancement, weather or not the whip does damage, just like every other magically enhanced weapon.

That's right. And when a weapon has a flaming enhancement, 'a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage'. It is the weapon that deals the fire damage, according to the text of the flaming ability. And since it is the weapon dealing the damage, if the weapon cannot deal damage, no damage is dealt.

The text says "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." This text does not say it is the weapon that does the damage, but the weapon, magically enhanced, has the ability to do flaming damage in addition (not multiplicative, so can’t be zeroed) to the weapons damage.


Flaming damage is not contingent on weapon damage; it is only contingent on weapon hit.

You must find a source that suggests flaming damage cannot be applied if the weapon cannot do damage. Until then it must be assumed it does, just like every other weapon.

 

[interwyrm]

I would disagree with this. The flames don't do damage only if the weapon does damage; they do damage when the weapon successfully hits. A trip attack with a flaming weapon requires you to hit. If you hit with a flaming weapon, you do 1d6 fire damage. So I would rule that a trip attack with a flaming weapon does do fire damage. Sheathing and grasping the weapon don't cause damage, because they don't require you to hit with the weapon.

Hmm... so maybe you can deal your flaming whip damage on a successful trip attempt, but not on a successful hit?

 

[jabberwocky]

Hmm... so maybe you can deal your flaming whip damage on a successful trip attempt, but not on a successful hit?

No, you would do flaming damage in both cases, because both require a successful hit, and a successful hit with a flaming weapon causes fire damage.

 

[RangerWickett]

Interestingly, if we're rules-lawyering here, the rules for whips only prohibit them from hurting creatures with armor or natural armor. So if you have a steel door, a high strength, and are power attacking with a whip, you can cut through that door. You can also sunder shields made from iron or dragonscales, and you can sunder weapons made of adamantine, but that whip just can't manage to hurt a dude wearing full plate armor.

By the way, do you realize you can use a whip two-handed? A 20th level barbarian with Weapon Focus, a +5 whip, and a 36 Strength while raging could power attack for full, have a +19 attack bonus, and deal 1d3+64 points of nonlethal damage with a whip. He could take a -4 penalty to his attack to make that lethal damage. As a full-round action that's 4 attacks, enough to cut through 7 inches of steel.

But he just can't hurt a halfling in padded armor.

So the moral of the story is, if you're going to be a whip-wielder, focus on sundering. That makes sense.

 

[Funeris]

Its the age-old debate between strict and loose constructionists.

 

[Sil]

Its the age-old debate between strict and loose constructionists.

Oddly, i think it is more of the age old problem of people being assigned to write who have no clue, editors with no clue, and consumers who do not hold providers of crappy products to account.

But perhaps i am just grumpy.

 

[Funeris]

I think they have a clue. And I think we do hold them accountable...at least in these forums. I think that when you're working on such a massive mechanical scale, there are bound to be a few items that are overlooked however. But by raising the concern on these forums hopefully they're being alerted to the errors, and they're making a list of "bugs" to fix on the next incarnation.

But perhaps I'm just optimistic.

The original question was quite a valid Rules question. Now we're treading into the territory where this thread isn't such a Rules thread. People are weighing in with how they interpret the Rules (thus my loose vs. strict constructionist comment). Each interpretation can be validated through reference to the SRD or PHB or whatnot. But, in the end, I fear we're all just going to do it our own way.

Maybe we could get someone to step in here from the WoTC. But, maybe that's too optimistic.

Remember, this is all just my opinion. I'm not a Rules lawyer.