Flaming whip

[Ridley's Cohort]

As Danny points out, though, that's an incorrect interpretation. Fire should never be nonlethal. Thus, this creates an inherent inconsistency in that interpretation.

Not a contradiction. Merely ridiculous.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Now you are getting away from the RAW and starting to think for yourself. Be careful, that can get you in trouble around here. That's right up there with using terms like "common sense", "spirit of the rules", and "intent" to support you interpretation.

What part is getting away from RAW? Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.

 

[IcyCool]

What part is getting away from RAW? Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.

I must have missed this, where did Danny provide a quote that fire damage must be non-lethal?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Post #336:

#4)Furthermore, ignoring the fire damage because of the armor/natural armor problem with whips would also violate p28DMG- "Certain types of damage, however, should never be nonlethal damage...such as fire"

However- one thing I think we can ALL agree on is: Don't use your Vorpal Whip against Trolls unless its a Flaming Vorpal Whip.

 

[Caliban]

What part is getting away from RAW? Danny provides the page number in the DMG for it.

Putting my rules lawyer hat back on for a minute: Note that it says "should never", not "can never".

 

[IcyCool]

Putting my rules lawyer hat back on for a minute: Note that it says "should never", not "can never".

Ditto.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For the record, I'm of the opinion that since certain non-magical fires will not ignite flesh- indeed, low-temp fires are part of what makes certain fire juggling acts possible- then you can also make non-lethal magical fires.

However- that cooler magical flame would be based on slightly different enchantments than, and thus, be a different power than Flaming/Flaming burst.

 

[Caliban]

For the record, I'm of the opinion that since certain non-magical fires will not ignite flesh- indeed, low-temp fires are part of what makes certain fire juggling acts possible- then you can also make non-lethal magical fires.

However- that cooler magical flame would be based on slightly different enchantments than, and thus, be a different power than Flaming/Flaming burst.

Oh, I agree. I think it's incredibly silly to suggest that the flaming ability will do different damage (or no damage) based solely on what type of weapon you put it on. I can see how certain people have reached that conclusion, but it's pretty obvious that that is not the intent of the rules, and isn't anywhere close to the spirit of the rules, and is thus clearly the "wrong" interpretation. The rules are intended to make sense within the framework of the game. When they don't, then you are probably dealing with a situation the game designers didn't foresee, or you are taking an imprecise phrasing of the authors and using it as if it were a defined game term (which is what I believe we have here). The game designers weren't writing a technical manual, they were writing a game manual, and didn't always use precise terms (heck, they don't always use defined game terms consistently).

But that's the whole "thinking for yourself" thing that can get you in trouble around here. I'm guilty of that a lot these days.

This thread has been very amusing.

 

[Maraur]

Flaming whip, burst alight!

I've read most of the posts in this thread, and I have to say it was an interesting discussion, and very very amusing. Yet there is one thing I believe hasn't been covered. So sorry folks, I'll bring back this issue. And if you know any FAQ or errata that says something decicive on this, please give me a link.

Anyway, PHB, p. 114: "Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. ... Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. ... If a weapon is of two types, the damage it deals is not half one type and half another; all of it is both types."

Fire is not mentioned, so weapons cannot deal fire damage. The list is restrictive, there is no indication that the three types serve merely as examples. (That's just the literal reading of this passage, leaving no room for interpretation) Also, it is said that a damage dealt by a weapon of two types is of both damage types. So, if you go as far as to believe that a +1 Flaming longsword deals two types of damage, you'd have to accept that a troll hit with that weapon suffers all of the damage as fire damage. But we all know it's not part of the slashing damage - the only type of damage a longsword is capable of dealing. Sneak attacks, str bonuses, enhancement bonuses and such add to the slashing damage, fire is energy damage. As someone else proved, the energy deals the damage, how else could ranged weapons bestowthe energy to ammunition?

It could also be said that PHB does not cover magical enhancements, so the DMG rules override the PHB rules. Also, the whip is "slashing" and does not damage armored opponents. The PHB does not cover situations where the weapon has an enchantment that deals damage in addition to the slashing damage.

Still, I'd like to see some official ruling..

And there is no such thing as nonlethal fire. I can't recall any reference to such damage anywhere in the core set. For example, environment dangers deal "nonlethal damage" not "nonlethal [energy type] damage". Please, show me where it is said that something deals "nonlethal [energy type damage? "Should" means it is at DM's discretion to decide otherwise. DM's discretion is in effect using house rules. For example, the area of "Entangle" can vary, at DM's discretion, depending on the terrain. Since no rules for different terrains are given, it's a house rule.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And there is no such thing as nonlethal fire.

...In any WOTC or D20 product that anyone can point to, yes.

In the Real World, there IS such a thing as a low-temperature fire...although, as far as I have seen, even those require caution to handle because they could still ignite things like hair.