Flaming whip

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm thinking it still has wings.

I'm thinking you're still wrong.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

* 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.

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.

Unless, somehow, a flaming whip is no longer a whip, it follows all the rules for whips.

Unless you care to rule that someone with Weapon Focus (Whip) does not get a bonus on attack rolls when using a Flaming Whip?

* Note that it doesn't need to make any exceptions based on weapon types. D&D is a system based on inheritance. If I make a new kind of Baatezu, I don't need to specify all his basic traits. All I do is note that he's an Outsider with the Lawful and Evil subtypes and the Baatezu traits, and he's covered.

Similarly, if I make a flaming whip, I don't need to specifically call out all the whip rules - they're inherited based on the fact that it's a flaming whip and not a flaming sword.

Consider the magic weapon creation process. In order to even make a flaming whip, you must start with a masterwork whip.

Does a masterwork whip follow all the rules for whips? Yes.

You then must enhance it with at least a +1 enhancement bonus before it can be given any special abilities at all.

Does a +1 whip follow all the rules for whips? Yes.

You may then add the flaming special ability to the +1 whip.

Does a flaming whip +1 follow all the rules for whips? Yes.

If it doesn't, why doesn't it, and where did the change occur?

 

[Mark Chance]

Remember: There is a difference between ignored, denied, and shot down. Your list of questions ignores and denies. It does nothing to demonstrate that this syllogism is defective:

* A flaming weapon 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.​

Are the two premises above accurate according to the rules? Yes. Then the conclusion necessarily follows from them.

The only way the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow is if there is a specific rule that says the flaming enhancement only does fire damage if the weapon itself does damage. Is there such a rule? No.

Therefore, the conclusion stands.

Now the enormous flaw in your key question:

Does a flaming whip +1 follow all the rules for whips? Yes.

You ignore key pieces of evidence, namely that weapon must also follow the rules for flaming weapons. What are the rules for flaming weapons? See my syllogism above.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You ignore key pieces of evidence, namely that weapon must also follow the rules for flaming weapons. What are the rules for flaming weapons? See my syllogism above.

Then read mine, which I posted along while back in this thread. Since I posted it first, it is incumbent upon you to refute mine before I'll even worry about yours. It's post 20 in this thread.

It doesn't need to.

1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. A flaming whip is a whip. (Lemma)
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire," then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent
4. This is a contradiction.

Ergo, a flaming whip does not do damage to an armored opponent.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm with you on this Mark...

Magical Fire is a common exeption to being immune to damage from fire. The fact that the fire is magical overcomes the fire immunity. Magic is the rulebreaker. It breaks a general rule with a specific exception.

Here, the flaming ability is the modifier, the rulebreaker as it were, to the whips not damaging armored opponents.

 

[Mark Chance]

Then read mine, which I posted along while back in this thread. Since I posted it first, it is incumbent upon you to refute mine before I'll even worry about yours.

There goes more ignoring.

Your argument:

1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. A flaming whip is a whip. (Lemma)
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire," then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent
4. This is a contradiction.

The refutation of your argument: #1 is true. #2 is true only insofar as "flaming whip" is a subset of "whip". The opposite of #2, however, is not true. A whip is not a flaming whip. Your third premise equivocates with the terms by switching the specific term "flaming whip" for the general term "whip". This is not valid*. In #3, you start with "flaming whip" but then change to "whip" in the subordinate clause.

(*For a textbook example, consider the following true statement: All husbands are men. This is true not because "husbands" and "men" are identical properties, but because "Husbands" is a subset of "men". The opposite -- All men are husbands -- is false in the same way and for the reason as your #3.)

Now, then:

* A flaming weapon 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.​

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Magical Fire is a common exeption to being immune to damage from fire.

Really? Where do you see that? Because, as near as I can tell ...

FIRE IMMUNITY
A creature with fire immunity never takes fire damage. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.

And ...

Fire Subtype: A creature with the fire subtype has immunity to fire. It has vulnerability to cold, which means it takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from cold, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed, or if the save is a success or failure.

If you're immune to fire, you're immune to mundane and magical fires.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

(*For a textbook example, consider the following true statement: All husbands are men. This is true not because "husbands" and "men" are identical properties, but because "Husbands" is a subset of "men". The opposite -- All men are husbands -- is false in the same way and for the reason as your #3.)

Bullpuckey.

1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
4. This is a contradiction.

Ergo, husbands cannot ovulate.

To restate:

1. A whip does no damage against an armored opponent. (Rule)
2. All flaming whips are whips. (Lemma)
3. If a flaming whip does "no damage + 1d6 fire" against an armored opponent, then a whip is doing damage against an armored opponent.
4. This is a contradiction.

The only way you can escape this logic is if a flaming whip is no longer a subset of whips - in which case, do you allow someone to apply their bonus from Weapon Focus (Whip) to a flaming whip?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oops! My bad! That was a bit of HR for a particular campaign...there was a distinction between fire immunity and magical fire immunity.

(Sometimes, I hate what my brain dredges up...)

 

[Mark Chance]

Bullpuckey.

1. It is impossible for a man to ovulate. (Rule)
2. All husbands are men. (Lemma)
3. If a husband ovulates, then a man has ovulated.
4. This is a contradiction.

Ergo, husbands cannot ovulate.

It doesn't work because it doesn't take into account the addition of any quality that distinguishes the subset from the set. You're still refuted. You're still ignoring the rules that govern flaming weapons.

Your turn.

* A flaming weapon 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.​