Flaming whip

[Fieari]

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with Immunity to Slashing Damage but no natural armor or regular armor, 0 + 1d6 = 1d6 damage is dealt.

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with a natural armor of 3, no damage is dealt, because it's a whip.

As hypersmurf said earlier, there is a difference between -- and 0 in D&D. Mathematically, the value (number, even) -- has the following traits:

-- +/- x = --
A bonus added to -- is still --

x +/- -- = x
Hitpoints minus -- is still Hitpoints.

Multiplication and division have never come up with regards to --, but I suspect they'd work the same as with addition and subtraction.

Note how this differs from zero. With zero, the rules are:

0 +/- x = x
x +/- 0 = x

-- DOES NOT EQUAL 0, they are not the same value, they don't work the same, they don't equate with each other. Heck, -- doesn't even follow all the rules of arithmatic, it's not associative, reflexive, communitive, etc... it has different rules and properties.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's a question I've asked a variety of ways and not gotten a satisfactory answer to:

If the damage from a flaming weapon is done by the weapon and not the enchantment- the basis for denying the fire damage for a whip striking an armored opponent- what happens when the flaming weapon is flaming but not being used as a weapon?

That is:

#1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword gently lays the flat of the flaming sword's blade on the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) and says the command word? Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?

I'm thinking the answer is yes. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns. Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

#2) Considering your answer to question #1, would the same happen to Vic if the weapon was a Flaming whip? (or a Flaming net? A Flaming Man-Catcher?)

I'm thinking the answer is yes in each case. The weapon is on fire, and fire burns. Vic takes 1d6 fire damage.

#3) Would you change your answer to #1 or #2 if the same happened to a creature with natural armor or if Vic was wearing gauntlets?

In case you can't guess, my answer is no. The whip's non-damaging characteristic doesn't come into play-it is utterly immaterial. Vic and the naturally armored creature would still take damage in both situations.

It doesn't matter that the weapon isn't doing damage because its the enchantment- the weapon's magical enhancement-doing the damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

Isn't there a WotC example out there where a flaming net (-- damage, regardless as to what it attacks) does do fire damage to a target? Seems relavent to this debate (which seems to be degrading rather quickly... )

 

[Storyteller01]

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with Immunity to Slashing Damage but no natural armor or regular armor, 0 + 1d6 = 1d6 damage is dealt.

If a person with a flaming whip successfully attacks someone with a natural armor of 3, no damage is dealt, because it's a whip.

As hypersmurf said earlier, there is a difference between -- and 0 in D&D. Mathematically, the value (number, even) -- has the following traits:

-- +/- x = --
A bonus added to -- is still --

x +/- -- = x
Hitpoints minus -- is still Hitpoints.

Multiplication and division have never come up with regards to --, but I suspect they'd work the same as with addition and subtraction.

Note how this differs from zero. With zero, the rules are:

0 +/- x = x
x +/- 0 = x

-- DOES NOT EQUAL 0, they are not the same value, they don't work the same, they don't equate with each other. Heck, -- doesn't even follow all the rules of arithmatic, it's not associative, reflexive, communitive, etc... it has different rules and properties.

But you have yet to prove that the whips damage against armor is --, or that the authors intended this. In most folks eyes, damage reduced by any factor (in this case, whip damage reduce to no damage due to armor) becomes the lesser number; in this case 0.

I do prefer DannyA's example though. Math is not the end all/be all of any existence. It's been wrong, cjanged, or added to far too many times...

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

Isn't there a WotC example out there where a flaming net (-- damage, regardless as to what it attacks) does do fire damage to a target? Seems relavent to this debate (which seems to be degrading rather quickly... )

I recall there being a Shocking Net in the Arms and Equipment guide. Not 100% sure on that.

Zero

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

RAW occasionally guides us to ridiculous situations. This is one, and I am therefore house-ruling that flaming whips can deal damage to armored opponents.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The point would seem to be that you've lost the perspective on this thread Patryn. If you are getting so upset its time to take a step back.

You've obviously never "met" Caliban.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Does that equation actually apply to the net question, though?

-Hyp.

I would imagine so... You quoted it earlier. You add your strength modifier to damage with thrown weapons and unlike the whip there is no clause that says nets do no damage only a table that says – but its trumpeted by the written rules correct? (The last part you didn’t say but someone else suggested it and no one objected to it.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

I would imagine so... You quoted it earlier. You add your strength modifier to damage with thrown weapons and unlike the whip there is no clause that says nets do no damage only a table that says – but its trumpeted by the written rules correct? (The last part you didn’t say but someone else suggested it and no one objected to it.)

Tables are only trumpeted by text when there's a conflict. There's no apparent conflict with the net. However, there's no definition of "-" for damage either. And, there's no rule that says that "no damage" means "-" instead of "0". No could just as easily mean 0. You might counter with, "Well, if they meant 0, they would've written 0." To which, the obviously counter is, "Well, if they meant - they would've written -."

Am I correct in assuming that if the whip description were written along the lines of that a whip deals 0 damage to an opponent in armor, then the 1d6 fire would apply? Indeed, would a strength bonus, enhancement bonus, or even weapon specialization apply?

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Tables are only trumpeted by text when there's a conflict. There's no apparent conflict with the net.

So then a net still does it's strength modifier in damage, correct?