Flaming whip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

No, he asked whether or not a net - as a thrown weapon - would get a Strength bonus to damage (like all thrown weapons do).

The answer, of course, is no - nets deal no damage; their damage statistic is --, not 0. Similarly, a whip, when used against an armored target, gains a damage statistic of --, not 0.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

By RAW under Flaming Burst- " fire damage from the flaming ability" the damage is not done by the weapon, it is done by the flaming ability- it is delivered by contact with the weapon. Nothing in any of those abilities says that damage has to be done with the base weapon- the additional damage is delivered upon a "successful hit"- not upon the dealing of damage. A successful hit occurs when you equal or exceed your opponent's AC.

And no response as yet to the rest of that post- you know, about burning alcohol or forest fires? RAW, they don't ignite characters because they're not on the list, much like the torch you pointed out is not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By RAW under Flaming Burst- " fire damage from the flaming ability" the damage is not done by the weapon, it is done by the flaming ability- it is delivered by contact with the weapon.

It is damage from the flaming ability, but it is dealt by the weapon.

Much like the damage bonus from Weapon Specialization is dealt by a longsword.

And no response as yet to the rest of that post- you know, about burning alcohol or forest fires? RAW, they don't ignite characters because they're not on the list, much like the torch you pointed out is not.

Forest fires can ignite characters.

Forest Fires (CR 6)
Within the bounds of a forest fire, a character faces three dangers: heat damage, catching on fire, and smoke inhalation.

Catching on Fire: Characters engulfed in a forest fire are at risk of catching on fire when the leading edge of the fire overtakes them, and are then at risk once per minute thereafter (see Catching on Fire).

Burning alcohol doesn't appear in the rules, so the DM would have to adjudicate the situation if it arose.

Torches do appear in the rules, and the result of using them in combat is defined - one point of fire damage, not setting creatures alight.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark Chance]

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

And the flaming weapon is a whip, which "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher".

Just in case no one else pointed it out: You just demolished your own position.

A successful hit does not equal a hit that does damage. It equals an attack roll that matches or exceeds the target's AC. Can you successfully hit someone in full plate armor with a whip? Certainly.

And, as you note: "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit."

 

[IcyCool]

And, as you note: "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit."

Right, and a whip: "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher."

 

[Mark Chance]

Right, and a whip: "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher."

Which does nothing to contradict that a flaming weapon deals damage on a successful hit, not on whether the weapon itself does damage with that hit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A successful hit does not equal a hit that does damage. It equals an attack roll that matches or exceeds the target's AC. Can you successfully hit someone in full plate armor with a whip? Certainly.

Right, and a whip: "deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher."

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..."

The whip (or any weapon with this enchantment) isn't doing the fire damage- the flaming ability is.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which does nothing to contradict that a flaming weapon deals damage on a successful hit, not on whether the weapon itself does damage with that hit.

To which I say, go back and read the past ten pages or so.

That point of view has already been shot down many, many times.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm thinking it still has wings.

 

[Mark Chance]

To which I say, go back and read the past ten pages or so.

That point of view has already been shot down many, many times.

There is a difference between denied, ignored, and shot down. I've seen the point of view denied and ignored. Shot down? Hardly.

What do the rules say?

* A flaming weapon (without any note of exceptions based on weapon type) does +1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

* A successful hit is an attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

Therefore, any flaming weapon does +1d6 points of fire damage with any attack roll that equals or exceeds the target's AC.

This is a delightfully perfect syllogism. Both the premises are true. The conclusion follows directly from the premises.

But, some say, the rules also say that a whip cannot damage a target with such-and-such AC bonus. Admittedly. That rule is talking about whips as whips. It isn't talking about flaming whips. "Flaming" isn't a mere adjective. It is a quality, and the rule for that quality is stated above.