Flaming whip

[Hypersmurf]

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.

So if I have a flaming, shocking, frost sickle, and my opponent is wearing +5 plate armor, a +5 large shield, and an amulet of natural armor +5...

... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?

-Hyp.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hypersmurf, are you okay? Are you . . . are you bringing common sense into a rules discussion? Why would anyone ever want to do that?

 

[mvincent]

... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?

Excellent illustration. I probably would (and RAW seems to imply this) but I don't have an answer on how it should be resolved. DM call.

Note: Since the Balor demon (i.e. Balrog) has a flaming whip, I'd be interested in seeing how that is resolved. It'd be amusing to see a Huge, power-attacking Balor unable to harm a hobbit (in padded armor) with his flaming whip.

Also note: the rules also state that whips do non-lethal damage. Using Hypersmurfs method would seem to imply that the flame damage would be non-lethal (as he mentioned)

However, I believe that applying all whip damage rules to a flaming whip (since it is a subset of 'whip') is not a logical truism in D&D (especially in regard to enhancements). Example: the rules say that longswords have an 18-20 threat range, but this does not mean (for example) that keen longswords have that threat range, despite keen longswords being a subset of longswords.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack? I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack? I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.

That's why I chose a sickle

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Can you choose to make a touch attack that isn't already a defined special attack? I don't think you can, so I'm not sure that example holds water.

To clarify: sickles can be used for trip attacks (which only require a touch attack to initiate).

 

[jabberwocky]

So if I have a flaming, shocking, frost sickle, and my opponent is wearing +5 plate armor, a +5 large shield, and an amulet of natural armor +5...

... you'd allow either an attack roll against AC 35 for 4d6 damage, or a touch attack roll against AC 10 for 3d6 damage?

-Hyp.

Yep! It even makes sense to me that if you are bringing something that is enchanted with that much energy into close enough contact to trip someone, you will cause energy damage to the person touched.

 

[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

(emphasis mine)

The damage done by the magical enhancement to a weapon isn't dependent on the weapon doing damage, but on scoring a successful hit- the weapon isn't doing the damage- the magical fire (or whatever enchantment) is.

If you could enchant a marsmallow with Flaming, (not only would it be a tasty -if dangerous- treat) it wouldn't hurt anyone from striking them, but it sure would ignite anything flammable it touched!

As for non-lethal fire...I could see that go either way. After all, materials burn at different temperatures- and with magic involved there's no logical reason why a spellcaster couldn't make a non-lethal weapon have a "cooler" fire than a lethal one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yep! It even makes sense to me that if you are bringing something that is enchanted with that much energy into close enough contact to trip someone, you will cause energy damage to the person touched.

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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.