• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Flaming whip

IcyCool said:
Elven Chain allows all Medium creatures 30ft. move, and all Small creatures (like Kobolds) 20ft. move. That's the RAW.
Ah. Ok, we're likely arguing semantics then. I don't actually view this as "RAW" nor truly needing a house-rule because we all know what was actually meant, and I don't expect perfection from the writer's. Literal meanings can be taken too far.

We all know what the correct interpretation of the above text is. But if you dismiss this (correct) interpretation as invalid, then our definitions are disimilar enough that debate would not be of use.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hypersmurf said:
Ok. Fair enough. While I cannot dismiss my side as an invalid interpretation, I can now see your ("RAW") side.

This might be inapplicable, but since non-lethal flaming damage is apparently also RAW, this makes the following line from the FAQ seem odd:
"a fighter wielding a +1 flaming sword can’t choose for the fire damage to be nonlethal (even if the base weapon damage is nonlethal)."
 

mvincent said:
This might be inapplicable, but since non-lethal flaming damage is apparently also RAW, this makes the following line from the FAQ seem odd:

Lots of lines from the FAQ seem odd.

As written, you can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal non-lethal damage.

A flaming longsword is a melee weapon that deals lethal damage (1d8 slashing + 1d6 fire).

As written, you can use it to deal non-lethal damage (1d8 slashing + 1d6 fire).

If the flaming ability stated "This energy deals 1d6 fire damage", rather than "A flaming weapon deals...", I'd agree with the FAQ, and I'd agree that the flames can hurt an armored target even when it's a whip that's flaming, and I'd agree that the flames on a flaming whip deal lethal fire damage.

... but it doesn't.

-Hyp.
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
It's also a good way to snatch those holy avenging swords right out of their hands!

Or, since the rules allow it, sunder their holy avenger. Because whips can snap steel in two.

Unless you're wearing it.

*grin* Man, I love this thread. It's so amusing.
 



Sil said:
Hypersmurf

The flaming weapon enhancement modified the weapon. The whip may deal no damage against an armored opponent, but the flaming enhancement overrides the no damage rule and adds 1d6 flaming.

You have mis-ordered the precedents. Weapon rules are modified by magical enhancement rules, not the other way around.
Did i miss where this point was addressed?
 


mvincent said:
I can provide an obligatory troll posting:

What happens if you are fighting a troll with a flaming sap?
You have trouble typing, as you have burning pitch on your hands.

That, or you have two trolls fighting....
 

Sil said:
Did i miss where this point was addressed?

Again, if the fire dealt 1d6 fire damage, it wouldn't be a problem. But the Flaming ability adds +1d6 fire damage to the damage dealt by the weapon. The whip doesn't deal zero damage; it deals no damage. The two are treated very differently in D&D.

A character who can cast 0 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets a total of one spell. 0 + 1 = 1.

A character who can't cast 3rd level spells, with an ability score that grants 1 3rd level bonus spell, gets no 3rd level spells. -- + 1 = --.

An 8th level ranger with the Mageslayer feat has a caster level of 0. With an orange ioun stone, which grants +1 caster level, he has a caster level of 1. An 8th level fighter has no caster level. An orange ioun stone does nothing for him.

A character who has his Dex permanently damaged to 0, then reads a Manual of Quickness of Action +3 (by telekinesis, perhaps ;) ) has a Dex of 3. 0 + 3 = 3. A Formian Queen who reads the same book gets no benefit. -- + 3 = --.

A whip deals no damage. No damage +1d6 fire damage is -- + 1d6.

-Hyp.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top