Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raduin711" data-source="post: 2408608" data-attributes="member: 15303">My original post:Depends on your definition of &quot;successful&quot;.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That precedence being if your weapon is prevented from doing damage, special abilities of the weapon are still considered.&nbsp; It is never explicitly stated, however.&nbsp; But OTOH, neither is it explicitly stated that no special abilities of the whip get through when the whip itself cannot.&nbsp; It just says that the whip does no damage against armored opponents*.&nbsp; If you read that &quot;the whip does no damage&quot; it suggests that a flaming whip would do damage; because it is just the whip part that does no damage.&nbsp; If you read it &quot;The whip does no damage&quot; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raduin711, post: 2408608, member: 15303"] My original post: 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 [B]whip[/B] does no damage" it suggests that a flaming whip [B]would[/B] do damage; because it is just the whip part that does no damage. If you read it "The whip does [B]no[/B] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification