Flaming whip

[Andre]

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

Yeah, no offense to anyone intended, but this thread reminds why I've stopped taking the rules so seriously. I'm trying to play a game, not do my taxes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

That still doesn't address what I said. I described an attack with a lit torch "even if it were not used as an improvised weapon"- in other words, in a situation when all that is being done is a touch attack with the lit torch.

A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy. Meanwhile, by your interpretation, the flaming necktie whip will just crackle harmlessly because the whip can't penetrate their natural armor.

 

[Storyteller01]

That still doesn't address what I said. I described an attack with a lit torch "even if it were not used as an improvised weapon"- in other words, in a situation when all that is being done is a touch attack with the lit torch.

A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy. Meanwhile, by your interpretation, the flaming necktie whip will just crackle harmlessly because the whip can't penetrate their natural armor.

Have to make this clear:

The torch, when not used as an improvised weapon, does -- damage with a touch attack. It has no weapon statistics beyond the improvised damage listing.

It doesn't do 0 damage, it does no damage...


*and it continues*

 

[Hypersmurf]

A touch attack with the torch will do 0 damage as a weapon, but still do permanent damage to a troll or ignite a mummy.

What's your source for that?

If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage.

A mummy has the Vulnerability to Fire special quality. It takes 50% more damage from fire attacks.

If you use a torch in combat against a mummy, you treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1.5 points of fire damage... which rounds down to 1 anyway.

If you use a torch in combat against a troll, you treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals non-lethal bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of lethal fire damage.

Where do you find that you can damage either of them by making a touch attack with the torch... let alone 'ignite' a mummy?

The rules for catching on fire state "Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire." A torch is neither burning oil, a bonfire, nor a noninstantaneous magic fire... so how does touching a mummy with one 'ignite' it?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hypersmurf
The rules for catching on fire state "Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire." A torch is neither burning oil, a bonfire, nor a noninstantaneous magic fire... so how does touching a mummy with one 'ignite' it?

My goodness- you really ARE a strict constructionist!

There are other fires than those- that list was clearly meant to be a non-exhaustive list. Otherwise a Character could pleasantly stroll through a burning building, a small campfire, could place a match in their hair, wander through a forest fire, hold a candle to their crotch, cover themselves with burning alcohol, read a burning book or scroll, or touch red-hot metal or coals without fear of being set on fire.

AND, since the rule says "Characters" and not "Characters and Creatures" there are going to be some monsters that are immune to fire without even having that immunity listed (the definitions of the 2 terms in the PHB (p306) say there is an overlap, but not identity, between the 2 terms).

Somehow, I think the writers expect readers to use a modicum of common sense, what we lawyers call the "Reasonable Person" rule of reading a law.

Lets be real here- Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it, and a lit torch clearly is a live, open flame.

BTW- you now have an inconsistency in the RAW- the mummy has vulnerability to fire, and can be ignited by a "noninstantaneous magic fire"...which is the kind of fire that the flaming abiltiy grants.

Furthermore, you haven't adequately addressed the "Flaming Burst"-fu that someone dropped a bit earlier:

Weapon Special Abiltiies Descriptions from the DMG p224
Flaming: "... A flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 ponts of fire damage on a successful hit."

followed shortly by

Flaming Burst "...In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst deals and extra 1d10 fire damage on a successful critical hit..."

(emphasis mine)

The writer clearly points out that #1)Flaming Burst is an improved version of the Flaming ability, and 2) the damage comes from the flaming ability.

And the same phraseology is used in the descriptions for Frost Burst and Shocking Burts weapons- the extra damage comes from the magical ability.

 

[Ketjak]

Lets be real here- Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it, and a lit torch clearly is a live, open flame.

I can't recall the last time someone touched a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind and reported the results. I wish I had a LexisNexis (http://www.lexis.com/) account.

However, I also agree with Hyp. By the RAW, he's spot on.

And FWIW:

Flaming Burst

A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals

At that point, the question is answered WRT the whip. Since the FB weapon deals the damage, and the weapon is a whip, no damage is dealt to armored or natural armor +3 targets. No one has yet shown using the RAW how there's an exception to the whip rule - though lots of people wish hard that the magic enhancement on those special abilities contradicts the whip damage rule.

- Ket

 

[glass]

This argument is out and out dumb. Smurf, you are arguing based on RAW in the most rediculous fashion, and ignoring half of the SRD in the process:

Several people have made comments like that, in this thread and others. Why do you consider it to be rediculous to argue based on the RAW in a Rules forum? What would you suggest using instead?


glass.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lets be real here- Touching a mummy with a live, open flame of any kind should ignite it.

Why?

Furthermore, you haven't adequately addressed the "Flaming Burst"-fu that someone dropped a bit earlier:

Sure I did - in my reply to that message.

The damage, which comes from the flaming ability, is dealt by the flaming weapon.

The primary source for information on the flaming ability is the flaming ability, not the flaming burst ability. The text of the flaming ability elaborates and clarifies what's alluded to in the text of the flaming burst ability.

Yes, the damage comes from the flaming ability - if there were no flaming ability, the damage wouldn't exist. But it is dealt by the weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

By Smurf:

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.

Didn't you say earlier that a net gains a damage bonus from Strength when thrown? Isn't it a -- as well?

My aguement is in when the weapon damage negation occures. To me a round goes like this:

Determine all attack modifiers -> Roll -> Check for hit -> Roll Damage -> Check for Negation -> Determine final damage.

But I think any damage source triggered in that progression gets its own progression, thus:

Whip: Determine all modifiers-> Roll -> Check for hit, is a hit flaming triggers -> Roll Damage -> Check for Negation, whip damage negated -> Determine final damage, whip damage none.

Flaming: Check for hit (triggered, was not involved in rolling) -> Roll damage, 1d6 -> Check for Negation (none) - > Damage dealt (1d6).

I'd use a similar branching structure for any combat ability, thus I don't see a distinction between the damage Vicious deals or the damage Flaming deals... it might be a house rule but it makes a better resolution system in my opinion. I'd note that if the Flaming text read "adds +1d6 extra fire damage when the weapon deals damage" then I would agree with you on how it should be executed.

Zero

 

[IcyCool]

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.

There is NOTHING MORE in the RAW than Literal Meanings. That is what is discussed in the Rules forum. I can understand your confusion on this issue. You are 100% certain you know what the authors intent was on this. However, the RAW says differently. We are not arguing semantics here, you are reading more into the RAW than is there. I'm not saying you are wrong with your house rule, I rule it the same way. But it is a house rule.

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.

No, we do not 'know what the correct interpretation is'. We are very sure what the intent of the above text is. The 'correct' interpretation is what Hyp's been saying. Because that's what the rule says. This is important to know, because then you can correctly identify your house rules, and inform your players.