Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fieari" data-source="post: 2411901" data-attributes="member: 16221">Nono, the ganeral rule I was referring to is that a weapon does damage on a successful hit, which you quoted to support your argument.  The specific rule is that whips do no damage on a successful hit against a target with +1 armor bonus or +3 nat armor bonus.  Not that they deal no slashing damage, they deal no damage.The flaming weapon is still a whip.  It is a subset of whip, inheriting all the rules and restrictions of a whip.  Nowhere does adding a magical enhancement remove the qualities of the base weapon.  A whip does no damage to those targets.It's not that the whip has to do damage to deal fire damage (it doesn't... immunity to slashing for instance, would cause the whip to deal no physical damage but still deal fire damage.  DR as well could cause this situation), it's that the whip, which would be the thing dealing fire damage, deals NO damage.  Specific rule.Again.Rule: A whip deals no damage to armored targets.Lemma: A flaming whip is a whip.Statement: If a flaming whip deals fire damage to an armored target, it has dealt damage to an armored target.Statement: This is a contradiction.And also again, the flaming property could have been worded differently to make a flaming whip deal damage even against armored targets.  It could have read "The fire deals..." instead of "The weapon deals..."Because it is the whip dealing the fire damage, and the whip cannot deal damage to armored targets, the whip deals no fire damage to armored targets.This is stupid, and idiotic.  It is also RAW.  (Personally, whips only doing non-lethal damage is also stupid... it hasn't come up in any of my games so far, but I'd house rule all kinds of these restrictions away.)</blockquote>

Verification