Flaming whip

[Funeris]

I will agree that what Patryn, Hyp, et. al. say is the RAW. I know (from my experience reading the boards) that they are dead on with the rules. They are rules-lawyers.
And I'll agree that IcyCool is quite right in the fact that you need to abandon logic whilst trying to interpret said RAW (thus the Ned Flanders channeling invoked above).

However, I still want them to fix the RAW so its logical But this has been house-ruled now. Its in my permanent 3.5 fixes file. So I'm moving on. The rest of you, enjoy the debate.

 

[mvincent]

See, the thing that people aren't grasping here is that the RAW does indeed say that a whip can't deal damage to opponents with a certain amount of armor or natural armor bonus. That includes magical whips with whatever enchantments.

As mentioned, that is still just an interpretation. Many people don't read it that way at all, which implies that the wording is not as conclusive as you believe. If you cannot even see that this might be subject to interpretation, then we have little hope for discourse (which might indeed be the case).

Also note: the rules also say (for example) "Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small.". I believe this is much more conclusive wording than the whip wording, but no-one would play with that exact wording (and cause say, a barbarian or fast flyer to lose their extra movement while wearing elven chain). No would say "this is RAW" either.

Lastly: it seems that you are saying that (by RAW) a brilliant energy whip cannot damage an armored opponent. Nor could a spell-storing whip with inflict-moderate wounds. Is this correct?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I will agree that what Patryn, Hyp, et. al. say is the RAW.

...

But this has been house-ruled now. Its in my permanent 3.5 fixes file.

And that's really the important part.

I believe that, before you start tossing house rules around, you should have a decent understanding of what it is you're house ruling - which includes "How does this currently work?" and "How does this interact with the rest of the rules?"

After you understand that, you're in a good position to make the changes you want while minimizing unexpected fallout.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lastly: it seems that you are saying that (by RAW) a brilliant energy whip cannot damage an armored opponent. Nor could a spell-storing whip with inflict-moderate wounds. Is this correct?

Definitely, on the Spell Storing.

"Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can cast..."

If the creature is wearing armour, it won't take damage from the whip, so the Spell Storing ability can't activate. That's explicit.

On the Brilliant Energy front, no, I'd allow it to work.

"Armor bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor."

So as far as the whip is concerned, the creature does not have 'an armor bonus of +1 or higher'. Armor bonuses do not count against the whip.

(Obviously, a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher would still defeat the brilliant energy whip.)

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?

Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.

 

[IcyCool]

As mentioned, that is still just an interpretation. Many people don't read it that way at all, which implies that the wording is not as conclusive as you believe. If you cannot even see that this might be subject to interpretation, then we have little hope for discourse (which might indeed be the case).

Well, I would argue that the RAW is so inane on this issue, that your brain is reading the sentence the wrong way, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense to you.

You see, the wording is conclusive, but the people reading it, being intelligent, rational folks, are reading it so it makes sense.

This section of the Rules As Written doesn't make sense. House rule away!

Also note: the rules also say (for example) "Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small.". I believe this is much more conclusive wording than the whip wording, but no-one would play with that exact wording (and cause say, a barbarian or fast flyer to lose their extra movement while wearing elven chain). No would say "this is RAW" either.

Not at all. It states that Speed while wearing elven chain is 30ft. for medium creatures, or 20ft. for small. Take a look at what Speed means. Its on pg. 122 of the PHB.

However, you are partially correct. By RAW, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes have a 20ft. move, and so use the 20ft. move column.

Elven Chain allows all Medium creatures 30ft. move, and all Small creatures (like Kobolds) 20ft. move. That's the RAW. Silly? Doesn't make sense? They must have meant that the Speed columns for Elven Chain were 30ft. (for 30ft. base move) and 20ft. (for 20ft. base move)? You bet. House rule it, like most folks do.

 

[IcyCool]

Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?

Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.

If a weapon, per RAW, states that all damage it deals is non-lethal, then yes. Would I rule like that in my campaign? Heck no, that's silly. House rule time!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Along these lines: do you similarly believe that (per RAW) all damage from a flaming (or frost, holy, viscious, etc.) whip, sap or bola would be non-lethal?

Flaming, Frost, Holy, yes. Vicious, no.

Note: I'd think this could present a problem with a creature that is immune to non-lethal damage wielding a viscious sap... since (by one interpretation), they might be immune to the counter-damage associated with a viscious weapon.

The Vicious ability states that the energy deals the damage, not the weapon. The Flaming, Frost, and Holy abilities state that the weapon deals the damage.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

The Vicious ability states that the energy deals the damage, not the weapon. The Flaming, Frost, and Holy abilities state that the weapon deals the damage.

(btw: Excellent counter-arguing. You're winning me over here).

So the line:
"This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent" changes it for you? If that had been in the flaming description, we would not be having this conversation?

I'm thinking that it is very similar wording to the flaming ability (which is indeed energy damage). Also, the damage is later referenced as coming from the flaming ability (in the flaming burst description):
"In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit."

 

[Hypersmurf]

So the line:
"This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent" changes it for you? If that had been in the flaming description, we would not be having this conversation?

Right

I'm thinking that it is very similar wording to the flaming ability (which is indeed energy damage). Also, the damage is later referenced as coming from the flaming ability (in the flaming burst description):
"In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit."

The extra fire damage from the Flaming ability is dealt by the flaming weapon. The extra 1d10 points of fire damage from the Flaming Burst ability is dealt by the flaming burst weapon. The extra 2d6 points of damage from the Vicious abiilty is dealt by the flash of disruptive energy.

-Hyp.