Flaming whip

[Raduin711]

My original post:

Ok, gonna try some Errata Logic...

The flaming burst, icy burst, and shocking burst
weapon powers require a critical hit to trigger the burst.
What happens when you attack a foe that isn’t subject to
critical hits? Will the burst power work? A flaming burst,
icy burst, or shocking burst weapon also is a flaming, frost,
or shock weapon, respectively. What happens when the
burst power is triggered? Does the burst damage augment
or replace the damage from the energy power?

A burst power has its normal effect against foes that aren’t
subject to critical hits. If you strike such a foe and your attack
roll is good enough to threaten a critical hit, go ahead and roll
to confirm the critical. If you confirm the critical, the burst
power is activated, but the foe doesn’t take any extra weapon
damage....

From the DMG:

Quote:
Flaming Burst: A flaming burst weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit.


So the errata contradicts the description of the Magic Weapon Special Ability.

You can use the same logic provided here for the whip question. Which is: just because the weapon itself is unable to do damage, does not mean that any special abilities associated with that are also negated. The damage reduction rules also follow this same logic. I think this is a situation where the spirit of the rules should be followed, over a rather strict interpretation of the rules.

How so?

The critical hit was successful; it just happened that the creature was immune to it.

The extra damage from the flaming burst is not part of the critical hit (to which the creature is immune); it's something that happens along with the critical hit, whether the creature is immune to the critical hit itself or not.

The flaming damage from the flaming whip, however, is damage dealt by the whip, which is what a whip can't do against an armored opponent - deal damage.

-Hyp.

Depends on your definition of "successful". Errata aside, a harsh reading of the description of flaming burst would suggest that a flaming burst is useless against constructs; as they are immune to critical hits, you cannot trigger the flaming burst ability.

My point was, there is something of a precedence with the errata. That precedence being if your weapon is prevented from doing damage, special abilities of the weapon are still considered. It is never explicitly stated, however.

But OTOH, neither is it explicitly stated that no special abilities of the whip get through when the whip itself cannot. It just says that the whip does no damage against armored opponents*. If you read that "the whip does no damage" it suggests that a flaming whip would do damage; because it is just the whip part that does no damage. If you read it "The whip does no damage" then it takes the opposite meaning; that the whip, no matter what special abilities it may have, the whip is incapable of doing any kind of damage against certain targets.

I prefer a looser interpretation, but thats just my opinion.

*edit

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here is the proof that your whole "- + X = -" theory is a load of bunk. The ability clearly says that it adds the energy to the ammunition. The energy clearly says it adds damage to the weapon, in this case the ammunition. By your arguement Flaming, Frost, Shocking, etc add damage to - and do nothing. +1 flaming bow firing an arrow fires a normal arrow.

If you check the text of the Enlarge Person spell, you'll find: "Projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them."

So while an arrow has a damage of --, an arrow fired from a Medium Longbow deals 1d8 damage, to which the extra fire damage can be added.

-Hyp.

 

[IcyCool]

Are you guessing or quoting the rules? If quoting, please provide the source. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

Also, where in the SRD does it say that "no damage" equates with "--" and not "0 damage"?

I don't have a quote for that, but I do have a quote for -- isn't the same as 0 in regards to ability scores:

Having a score of 0 in an ability is different from having no ability score whatsoever.

I'm fairly certain that this isn't the only place in the rules that 0 and -- are specified as not being the same thing. I don't have the time to look for it right now though, maybe tonight.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To those of you trying to use logic and reason, don't, it will only hurt your head. Take a breath, read what the SRD actually says, say "Huh, that's dumb", and house rule it.

RAW means "Rules As Written". Not "What The Authors Intended", not "What Makes Sense". Hopefully these things can be brought to the attention of folks in power and given an Errata entry.

The original poster didn't limit responses to RAW. Nor, for that matter did he limit the question to flaming/burst powers. More on that later...

Dannyalcatraz
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?

IcyCool
Then it cannot get a successful "hit."

Actually, I'll accept that as a valid critique- by rule.

However, since the Flaming description also points out that the flame cannot harm the weapon wielder, I'll stand by my assertion that the flame still burns ( :\ ) non-wielders who touch it, and I'll just consider it my houserule.

Still, for purposes of this thread, I'll rephrase my series of questions.

That is:

#1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? 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.

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

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

and

...In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability.

IcyCool
No, it isn't. Show me where in this statement that it says the flaming enhancement (and not the weapon) is doing the damage:

and

And to answer your post about the Flaming Burst ability. That is a reference to the Flaming ability. So you refer to the Flaming ability. Which says the weapon deals the damage.

The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement." Instead, in that power and EVERY one except Keen, Ki Focus and Throwing, all weapons with enhancement "X" are called "X" Weapons- the weapon enhancement texts were all written in a similar style. This matters because of what follows below.

NOW- The OP also asked about the Vorpal power, which requres that the weapon enchanted be a slashing weapon...which a whip is. The Vorpal power triggers when a natural 20 plus a crit confirmation roll is made, which has the result of: "...the weapon severs the opponent's head (if it has one) from its body." DMGp226.

Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?

Answer: the enchantment overcomes the normal limitations of the base weapon.

And since it is an enhancement that does this (what kind of weapon does not matter), the "weapon does _____" language should all be understood the same way, since the enhancement descriptions were all written the same way.

Or are you going to rule that a vorpal whip cannot behead an armored creature despite there being no requirement of doing damage?

 

[IcyCool]

The original poster didn't limit responses to RAW. Nor, for that matter did he limit the question to flaming/burst powers. More on that later...

I was under the impression that if we were arguing or proposing house rules, that belonged in the house rules forum.

#1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? 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.

Where is the "trying to strike without doing damage" special attack in the rules? I don't see it.

The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement."

There you go making things up again. How do you know why the writer chose to write that ability that way. Is it written in there somewhere and we're all missing it? No? Then you just made it up. Granted, you are probably right, but that isn't the point here.

Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?

It's Magic!

And I know how strange this is about to sound, but beheading via Vorpal isn't damage.

Or are you going to rule that a vorpal whip cannot behead an armored creature despite there being no requirement of doing damage?

Unless I'm missing something, a Vorpal whip can indeed behead an armored creature. It just can't do any damage to it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The adjective "Flaming" needed a noun to modify- the writer likely chose "weapon" because it is extremely conceptually awkward to refer to "wielding a flaming enhancement."

No, it didn't. The ability could have been written like Vicious.

Vicious: When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.
Moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Price +1 bonus.

Like so:

Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. This fire deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.

It wasn't written like that, however.

 

[Hypersmurf]

#1) What happens when the weilder of a Flaming sword says the command word, then smacks the palms of a human (call him Vic Timm) with the flat of the flaming sword's blade as counting coup (ie-trying to strike without doing damage)? Does Vic get burned and take 1d6 flame damage?

You're talking about called shots, now.

Can I attack Vic's head with my spear, and ignore the armor bonus for his chain shirt?

Yet how can a weapon that cannot harm an armored opponent BEHEAD him?

That's an excellent question.

If the weapon failed to harm the opponent due to damage reduction, there's a definite case to argue that the vorpal effect - as a 'special effect that accompanies the attack' - is negated.

But as we've noted in this thread, the behaviour of the whip is separate from the DR rules.

The Vorpal effect bypasses the whip's restriction on dealing damage, since it does not, in fact, deal damage; it merely kills people. The whip is not prohibited from harming an armored opponent, only from dealing damage to him.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Where is the "trying to strike without doing damage" special attack in the rules? I don't see it.

The closest you'll get is "Dealing Nonlethal Damage," which reads, in part:

You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to use the flat of the blade, strike at nonvital areas, or check your swing. (PHB 146)

Re: Flaming damage from weapons that don't deal lethal damage-
Looked at damage- p28DMG- and it said "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"

That was in response to a MUCH earlier proposal that weapons that deal only non-lethal damage, like saps, should do non-lethal damage with their enhancements- like a flaming sap.

(Now, back to our regularly scheduled Necroequipugilism...)

And the first line under "Damage" in the PHB (p134) is:

"When your attack succeeds, you deal damage."

The NATURE of the damage may vary- it may be regular damage like a sword-blow, non-lethal like a stunning fist, it may be insta-kill like a Vorpal beheading, it may even be a special effect substituted for damage like a trip- but RAW ( )- the result of a successful attack roll is damage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"When your attack succeeds, you deal damage."

The NATURE of the damage may vary- it may be regular damage like a sword-blow, non-lethal like a stunning fist, it may be insta-kill like a Vorpal beheading, it may even be a special effect substituted for damage like a trip- but RAW ( )- the result of a successful attack roll is damage.

Which is funny, because of the four things you listed, only half are actually damage. The other two are not damage.

EDIT:

Note that damage is actually a well-defined game term, being a reduction in hit points or in an ability score. Anything which does not do either of those has not actually done damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

No, it isn't. Show me where in this statement that it says the flaming enhancement (and not the weapon) is doing the damage:

First, please show us where '-' damage, or whip's damage against armor (as you describe as --) has no numerical value.

Short version: Show a rule from the RAW or SRD that specifically states that a weapon that does no damage isn't doing 0 damage.