Flaming whip

[Hypersmurf]

And if the morningstar were flaming, it would still take the flaming damage, since it is not morningstar damage, but magical enchantment damage.

He's immune to damage dealt by a morningstar, and the fire damage is damage dealt by a morningstar.

The whip in this example isn't what is doing the damage, the ability states that it is dealing 1d6 fire damage...as in, the damage is coming from fire. We can thusly state that the rules pretty clearly say the damage is not coming from the weapon, and thus applies.

The rules specifically state that the weapon is dealing the damage.

Actually, it does. Per the rules. a critter has to be immune to Elf damage and said energy type, if an elf attacks with an energy enchanced weapon (I don't Elf Defense AND immunity to fire listed )

He's not immune to Elf damage. If he's attacked by an elf, no damage is dealt. You're calling 'Elf damage' a damage type, which is not how the Elf Defense ability was phrased. If the attack was made by an elf, no damage is dealt. The attack with the flaming longsword is made by an elf. 'Elf damage' doesn't come into it at all.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The rules specifically state that the weapon is dealing the damage.

No, the rule specifically states that a weapon can "have one or more of the special abilities listed below" (DMG p223) and then lists & explains the abilities (DMG p224-226).

"Flaming" is the special ability listed, and it allows the weapon to do fire damage upon a successful strike, not upon doing weapon damage. Thus, if you use a flaming flail to do a trip- an attack that does NO damage- and you succeed- you still do +1d6 fire damage.

The only sense in which the "weapon" is doing damage is in the fact that it delivers the enchantement into contact with a target. The fire damage is entirely predicated upon the power of the enchantment. The special ability does the fire damage.

The enchantment is even sophisticated enough to distinguish between wielder and target- the fire CANNOT damage the wielder, even if he crits himsel!

 

[3d6]

The rule specifically states that the weapon deals the damage. That's the important part.

A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

Thus, a flaming whip deals 1d3 slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage.

[The whip] deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher.

A whip cannot deal damage to a creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. Because the fire damage is damage dealt by the whip, and a whip cannot deal damage to the aformentioned targets, then a flaming whip doesn't deal any fire damage to those targets because it can't deal any damage at all.

 

[Storyteller01]

This is by far the best thing to come from this thread.

Yea, but it's like being on a merri-go-round. Sometimes you just go in circles for the fun of it...

 

[Hypersmurf]

The rule specifically states that the weapon deals the damage. That's the important part.Thus, a flaming whip deals 1d3 slashing damage and 1d6 fire damage.A whip cannot deal damage to a creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. Because the fire damage is damage dealt by the whip, and a whip cannot deal damage to the aformentioned targets, then a flaming whip doesn't deal any fire damage to those targets because it can't deal any damage at all.

Couldn't have put it better myself

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry 3d6 and HypS, but that reading of the flaming special ability defies logic.

1) A creature with +3 natural armor cannot be damaged by a whip's normal damage

2) Trolls have +5 natural armor, and Mummies have +10 NA, making it immune to a whip's normal damage.

3) Because of this immunity to the normal damage, you then extrapolate that the magical fire damage is nullified.

By your interpretation, you could hang a flaming whip around a troll's or Mummy's neck like a tie and it wouldn't bother him...but a non-magical torch (even if it were not used as an improvised weapon (1d3 x2 B)) would do a point of fire damage upon contact, negating the troll's regeneration and setting the mummy afire.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By your interpretation, you could hang a flaming whip around a troll's or Mummy's neck like a tie and it wouldn't bother him...but a non-magical torch (even if it were not used as an improvised weapon (1d3 x2 B)) would do a point of fire damage upon contact, negating the troll's regeneration and setting the mummy afire.

Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.

-Hyp.

So by your interpretation, magical fire weapon enhancements will not harm a critter if it wears armor, provided the weapon cannot penetrate the armor.

Assuming normal (nonmagical) fire isn't quite so discerning:
Suppose a whip is treated with pitch or some other combustible liquid, lit on fire, and used to attack said troll? Is it still not receiving damage?

Is the mummy also immune to this nonmagical equivalent?

 

[Storyteller01]

Torches don't have a restriction on damaging armored opponents.

-Hyp.

Ignore this. Got carried away....

 

[Demoquin]

I think that the fire would still penetrate the armor from a whip. The actual whip needs to find that weak spot in the armor to do the (1d3 S dmg) but the flaming part ... i see it as a touch attack, meaning it does not have to go THROUGH the armor but just touch it. If you are a near a furnace .. you will feel the heat through your full plate so that is how i would look at it.