Whip, not enough there?

[MrUberGr]

I think that not enough effort has been put into the whip.

First, of all I think it should be light. It's a legnth of leather rope after all.

Secondly, since the main use of it, besides whipping people in the face, is using it for grabbing stuff. You should be able to do reach disarm, reach trip attacks etc.

Finally, I feelthat the rogue should be proficient with it. I can't see a warrior in full plate walking around whip in hand... It's most ideal for the rogue, yet he can't use it.

Opinions? Did I miss something when reading that covers what I've wrote?

[Ferrin33]

I think that not enough effort has been put into the whip.

First, of all I think it should be light. It's a legnth of leather rope after all.

Secondly, since the main use of it, besides whipping people in the face, is using it for grabbing stuff. You should be able to do reach disarm, reach trip attacks etc.

Finally, I feelthat the rogue should be proficient with it. I can't see a warrior in full plate walking around whip in hand... It's most ideal for the rogue, yet he can't use it.

Opinions? Did I miss something when reading that covers what I've wrote?

You can trip and disarm at a reach with the combat maneuvers from the Fighter. Also; it's not light because you can not wield two of them in concert. The rapier has the same issue, except worse still.

[CyberThread]

Have you actually ever handled a whip? The suckers are not light, and when you take into account how much skill you need to maneuver them for specific feats of skill tricks. The item clearly is not of the light category, as we have no exotic feat tax.

[Farner]

All good points but in the game milieu, being able to finesse a whip in these ways, is what one can reasonably expect.

That the Rogue cannot and the Tank (er... Fighter) is proficient with the whip seems an oversight by the devs. Or maybe they didn't want the hassle of ruling these obvious uses of the whip. In which case they should have left it out of the PHB equipment list.

In theory learning to use a whip is nothing compared to the devotion a Paladin would need in order to qualify for her orders or the years of arcane study a Wizard would need to be competent at his art.

Maybe the OP is suggesting something closer to a 3.x Prestige Class? At any rate the RAW on this is a little off given what it takes for many of the other classes to attain 1st level proficiency.

[rlc]

Maybe there needs to be a dominatrix background.

[Farner]

Maybe there needs to be a dominatrix background.
'Cause, you know, there is. Can you say, "Book of Erotic Fantasy"? :smallredface: Or maybe, "Naughty & Dice: An Adult Gamer's Guide to Sexual Situations".

Never used those supplements myself, nor personally known anyone who has, but they get referenced often enough here on the InterWebs that campaigns somewhere must be exercising this option. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

You can trip and disarm at a reach with the combat maneuvers from the Fighter. Also; it's not light because you can not wield two of them in concert. The rapier has the same issue, except worse still.

Two rapiers can be used in concert - it's not particularly effective, supplementing with a shield is generally a better idea (particularly as bucklers were often a civilian weapon), etc. but it does work okay. They're mainly thrusting, they don't interfere with each other much, and while there are efficacy concerns there are basically always efficacy concerns with dual wielding as a main approach.

[TheOOB]

Two rapiers can be used in concert - it's not particularly effective, supplementing with a shield is generally a better idea (particularly as bucklers were often a civilian weapon), etc. but it does work okay. They're mainly thrusting, they don't interfere with each other much, and while there are efficacy concerns there are basically always efficacy concerns with dual wielding as a main approach.

But the specialized nature of said fighting style(most two weapon styles of the time used a rapier and a dagger) means that it can be represented by a feat just fine.

[odigity]

I think that not enough effort has been put into the whip.

A few people have already made some good points in your response to your specific concerns, but I agree with your feelings in the more general sense. They've obviously greatly simplified the basic rules in the area of special weapon properties and actions, having removed the Exotic Weapons category entirely, as well as all weapon descriptions other than Lance and Net.

I can see why they'd want to, and I imagine that might change with supplements. Certainly simplifies things -- it avoids a lot of additional rules complications -- but it's disappointing to people who like to get funky with their mundane attacks.


'Cause, you know, there is. Can you say, "Book of Erotic Fantasy"? :smallredface: Or maybe, "Naughty & Dice: An Adult Gamer's Guide to Sexual Situations".

Never used those supplements myself, nor personally known anyone who has, but they get referenced often enough here on the InterWebs that campaigns somewhere must be exercising this option. :smallwink:

I don't know anyone who's used it either, but it's an amusing concept for a book, and was an impressive amateur product at almost 200 pages (with artwork). And it was the only attempt at providing a real disease table to go along with all those "remove disease" and "bonus vs disease" spells and powers. Plus, sexual energy is as interesting a source/method of channeling magical power as any other (draconic bloodline, service to a deity, pact with a being, etc).

In a world without sex/nudity taboos, the game having an erotic component would be a no-brainer.

[Madfellow]

Really the only issue I see with the whip is that it seems slightly underpowered compared to other finesse weapons. I feel like it should be a d6, not a d4. If one of my players asked for a house rule to change it I'd say yes, and if I wanted to make a character that used one, I'd ask for the same house rule.

And I think making a character with the Dual Wielder feat wielding a pair of whips would be AWESOME. :smallbiggrin: I'm imagining a Vengeance Oath Paladin running around with those right now.

[Easy_Lee]

Whip should be either light or a D6 going off of the weapons table.

Typically you subtract D2 when adding a feature. Great axe is D12, halberd is reach and D10. Rapier is D8 finesse one hand, longsword is D8 one hand versatile, scimitar is D6 finesse light one hand. Ranged seems to have a cost of D4, and thrown a cost of D2.

This logic also works for weapons with limitations. The lance is one hand and has reach (two boons), but is two handed when not mounted and always has disadvantage with 5' (two flaws). Thus it works out to 1D12.

Note that the observations above are very useful for homebrew weapons. If you want a two handed reach finesse weapon (spiked chain), make it a D8.

With that in mind, whip has finesse, one hand and reach. It should be D6, or have an additional feature. This isn't the only mistake they made on the weapons table; heavy seems to be applied at random and non-martial weapons are all over the place. Also it's unclear why mauls and greatswords are slightly stronger than greataxes (2D6, 0.5 extra damage average).

In short, I think houseruling light is very reasonable. As for rogues using them, up to the DM, though I'm not sure why a rogue wouldn't just dual wield a shortsword and hand-crossbow.

[Santra]

Only things I did were make it a monk weapon and make it a d6 damage.

[TheOOB]

Only things I did were make it a monk weapon and make it a d6 damage.

So instead of monks being able to choose what weapon they want to use you make one weapon that is vastly superior to all the others?

[Sartharina]

I don't get why rogues aren't proficient with whips, given the most iconic rogue of all time.

[Easy_Lee]

Only things I did were make it a monk weapon and make it a d6 damage.

Making it a monk weapon is adding a boon (monk). Weird as that sounds, it's consistent with the other monk weapons. Monk whips should be D4 (and monk sickles really ought to be D6, but that's another story).

[MaxWilson]

I don't get why rogues aren't proficient with whips, given the most iconic rogue of all time.

He's not a Rogue, he's a Fighter with the Sage background (History, Religion) and a Stealth proficiency from being human.

[hymer]

He's not a Rogue, he's a Fighter with the Sage background (History, Religion) and a Stealth proficiency from being human.

Uh, James Bond? Just kidding. Ali Baba! No, just kidding that time too.

About the whip, its low price and it being the only one-handed reach weapon that doesn't suffer from lance problems could have something to do with its stats. But I think that d4 damage is actually quite generous. Killing people by whipping them is not likely to be so easy. It'd probably be faster to choke them with it.
Personally, I have no problems with its stats from a gamist perspective. From a simulationist perspective, it's several degrees of weird.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I have no problems with its stats from a gamist perspective.

Please read my post as to why the whip is either weaker than it should be or lacks a feature, from a gamist perspective.

[Santra]

So instead of monks being able to choose what weapon they want to use you make one weapon that is vastly superior to all the others?

Well the damage of it balances out by level 5 and its arguable a staff is a better since they can combine it with polearm master and wield it two handed for d8 damage.

[hymer]

Please read my post as to why the whip is either weaker than it should be or lacks a feature, from a gamist perspective.

Please stop making assumptions about what I have read or commands about what I must read, from a forum-user's perspective.

[Easy_Lee]

Please stop making assumptions about what I have read or commands about what I must read, from a forum-users perspective.

Then define what you mean by "gamist perspective", because by my definition of the term, the whip is weaker than it should be. If you disagree from a gamist (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) perspective, I'm guessing you don't actually know what that term means.

[hymer]

Then define what you mean by "gamist perspective", because by my definition of the term, the whip is weaker than it should be. If you disagree from a gamist perspective, I'm guessing you don't actually know what that term means.

I'm done talking with you now.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm done talking with you now.

You never talked with me in the first place. "To" maybe, but I'd hardly call it a discussion.

[Sartharina]

Then define what you mean by "gamist perspective", because by my definition of the term, the whip is weaker than it should be. If you disagree from a gamist (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory) perspective, I'm guessing you don't actually know what that term means.Your analysis faulitly places all perks/drawbacks as equal to each other,when they're not.

The whip is a 1-handed Finesse Reach weapon. Reach is extremely powerful, especially on a Finesse weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

Your analysis faulitly places all perks/drawbacks as equal to each other,when they're not.

The whip is a 1-handed Finesse Reach weapon. Reach is extremely powerful, especially on a Finesse weapon.

I just quoted the weapons table. There was no analysis to it beyond pointing out stuff that doesn't fit with the rest of it. I never said all perks and drawbacks are equal, merely that the weapons table treats them that way (save ranged).

And I don't see how finesse makes reach any more powerful, care to explain?

[Sartharina]

I just quoted the weapons table. There was no analysis to it beyond pointing out stuff that doesn't fit with the rest of it. I never said all perks and drawbacks are equal, merely that the weapons table treats them that way (save ranged).If that were the case, there wouldn't be as many 'errors' in the math as you seemed to indicate.


And I don't see how finesse makes reach any more powerful, care to explain?It's a monopoly power.

[Nadevoc]

I just quoted the weapons table. There was no analysis to it beyond pointing out stuff that doesn't fit with the rest of it. I never said all perks and drawbacks are equal, merely that the weapons table treats them that way (save ranged).

And I don't see how finesse makes reach any more powerful, care to explain?

You drew a conclusion (whip is underpowered) based on a rule you believed to be in place through your analysis of the table (one perk is equal to one die size adjustment).

I really think that rule oversimplifies things by ignoring the fact that perks can be more valuable when other perks are already present, thus your conclusion that the whip is underpowered is invalid. So saying "read my post!" at people who suggest the whip is fine from a gamist perspective isn't really helpful. I suspect the combination of one-handed, reach, and finesse are plenty to justify its damage die. Yes, it will be a niche weapon, but that's not a bad thing - in fact, I think it's a good thing.

[Easy_Lee]

I really wish rest of you would use more than "I think" to back up your opinions. I've shown why the whip is one example of a weapon from the weapons table that's weaker than it should be. It's not the only example, but that does not mean the writers had some secret balance reason that can only be hinted at through passive-aggressive dismissal. More likely they just assigned the numbers that seemed okay at the time with little to no consideration for balance. Otherwise we wouldn't have the problem that quarterstaves are superior to great clubs in every possible way.

Just because it's written one way does not make it balanced; level requirements for warlock invocations are proof of that. If you think the whip should be mechanically weaker than other reach weapons, say why, but please show some evidence.

I don't see how there's nothing about reach combined with finesse that inherently makes a weapon stronger. It doesn't do any more damage, and the reach benefit is the same regardless of star used.

[Nadevoc]

If it's enough for you to say "I think that weapons should follow these rules" without going into detail about why those rules are balanced (and no, saying "some but not all of the weapons follow my rules" is not enough), then there's no reason you should expect us to have to give detailed proof of what we think.

You HAVEN'T shown why the whip is underpowered. You've shown that it would be if your specific set of rules were in place and true - which isn't the case.

When you say "because A is true, B is true", it says nothing about B if A is not true.

[Easy_Lee]

I have shown how the weapons table is inconsistent in the damage it quotes for certain weapons. That's evidence. If you have evidence of how reach + finesse is more powerful than higher damage options without reach, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, making the whip stronger or light like OP suggested are both valid house rules.

[Sartharina]

I have shown how the weapons table is inconsistent in the damage it quotes for certain weapons. That's evidence. If you have evidence of how reach + finesse is more powerful than higher damage options without reach, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, making the whip stronger or light like OP suggested are both valid house rules.If it's inconsistent, how are you getting your idea that 1 trait=1 damage die size, when that's clearly not the case?

[Easy_Lee]

If it's inconsistent, how are you getting your idea that 1 trait=1 damage die size, when that's clearly not the case?

Because that is the case for most of the table. The whip and great club are outliers.

We're talking about fixing a mistake in the PHB. There's no way to do that if you assume everything in the book is already balanced.

[Nadevoc]

I'm not assuming everything is balanced, but I'm also not assuming the rule you whipped up is true. Such simplifications often aren't. I don't think there are enough data points to say "this rule is true, the instances that don't follow it are flukes."

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not assuming everything is balanced, but I'm also not assuming the rule you whipped up is true. Such simplifications often aren't. I don't think there are enough data points to say "this rule is true, the instances that don't follow it are flukes."

Then please come up with a balanced rule, because random assignment of damage and features is not good for game balance.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, I have no problems with its stats from a gamist perspective.


Please read my post as to why the whip is either weaker than it should be or lacks a feature, from a gamist perspective.

I think you missed Hymer's point. Hymer said that the whip is overpowered from a simulationist perspective, but for the sake of the game (gamist perspective) he's okay with it being unrealistically strong.

This is the opposite of your argument, that the whip is unusually weak and needs to be buffed to be more in line with other weapons.

Hymer's statement is about gamism vs. simulationism, yours is about balance within a particular gamist analytical model (which not all gamists share).

[Ferrin33]

Then please come up with a balanced rule, because random assignment of damage and features is not good for game balance.

Who said it was random? Perhaps the Reach and Finesse were powerful enough to warrant a low damage die?

[Easy_Lee]

Who said it was random? Perhaps the Reach and Finesse were powerful enough to warrant a low damage die?

Show how. That's what I've been trying to get detractors to do this whole thread.

[TheThan]

All I really want is the ability to swing from things with it like Indiana Jones. That’s my only criteria for a whip in an RPG.

[Nadevoc]

You continually insist that we have to provide a bunch of proof when you've shown none for your side. It's a blatant double standard.

I can't prove that the combination is extremely strong because I don't have a ton of experience with the game.

I am fairly certain that "having finesse is worth exactly one die step of damage" is false, though. If you have a character with 8 strength and 16 dexterity, finesse is equal to a +4 to hit - quite significant. I would say much more significant than the rough +1 damage the higher die size provides. If you're unwilling to prove why that's not the case, why do you expect me to drop everything to disprove your arbitrary set of rules?

[Easy_Lee]

All I really want is the ability to swing from things with it like Indiana Jones. That’s my only criteria for a whip in an RPG.

Probably a dex check. Also awesome.

[Ferrin33]

Show how. That's what I've been trying to get detractors to do this whole thread.

The extra reach is a great boon for a mobile character and the only way to get reach with a finesse weapon. It's also unique as the only one-hander with reach without situational penalties that defensive builds can benefit from. It's uniqueness and versatility over raw power warrant the lower damage dice.

[Easy_Lee]

The extra reach is a great boon for a mobile character and the only way to get reach with a finesse weapon.

That implies that finesse means mobile. A fighter with the mobile feat is more mobile than finesse, and he gets reach with polearms. That's to say nothing of horseback combat with a lance (free dash and disengage with mount).

[Ferrin33]

That implies that finesse means mobile. A fighter with the mobile feat is more mobile than finesse, and he gets reach with polearms. That's to say nothing of horseback combat with a lance (free dash and disengage with mount).

Ah no, I meant the reach helps with mobility because you stay out of your opponent's reach while attacking and moving.

[Sartharina]

That implies that finesse means mobile. A fighter with the mobile feat is more mobile than finesse, and he gets reach with polearms. That's to say nothing of horseback combat with a lance (free dash and disengage with mount).

What's that about a 400 GP sink and a weapon that has disadvantage if it ever gets an OA?

And - a whip is only one-handed.

[Easy_Lee]

What's that about a 400 GP sink and a weapon that has disadvantage if it ever gets an OA?

And - a whip is only one-handed.

Mearls already confirmed that reach works with OA's, so disadvantage is not always the case. Both a whip and lance are one-handed; are you saying finesse and ability to attack within 5' without disadvantage are worth D8? Seems ludicrous to me, especially since there's virtually no downside to being mounted save the larger size.

[MaxWilson]

Whip should be either light or a D6 going off of the weapons table.

Typically you subtract D2 when adding a feature. Great axe is D12, halberd is reach and D10. Rapier is D8 finesse one hand, longsword is D8 one hand versatile, scimitar is D6 finesse light one hand. Ranged seems to have a cost of D4, and thrown a cost of D2.

This logic also works for weapons with limitations. The lance is one hand and has reach (two boons), but is two handed when not mounted and always has disadvantage with 5' (two flaws). Thus it works out to 1D12.

Note that the observations above are very useful for homebrew weapons. If you want a two handed reach finesse weapon (spiked chain), make it a D8.

I don't think this actually works. You're counting "heavy" as not a feature, so to start off with I'd make my hypothetical OptimalMeleeWeapon a D10 one-handed heavy weapon so I can use Shield + Great Weapon Mastery at the same time. (Also, it's kind of odd to count "versatile" as a boon worth D2, since it costs you an extra hand to grant you back that same D2 you just gave up.) Alternately I could take an existing heavy weapon like a halberd, make it one-handed but two-handed when not mounted (they cancel out as boon/flaw) and wind up with an Ultimate Cavalry Halberd.

I think the weapons table works better with as a discrete optimization problem (which it is today) as opposed to some kind of custom point-buy using damage dice. To me that also implies that the Whip as written is better and more interesting than the hypothetical Uberwhip which point-buy would produce (D12 - three boons = D6), because it has actual downsides (low damage) to go with its unique upside (only one-handed reach weapon, only DEX-based reach weapon). This isn't GURPS and not every formula is linearizable.

YMMV.

[Hytheter]

I don't think the Whip should be stronger, but I do think they should give it some cool tricks. Maybe a feat similar to PF's Whip Mastery tree.


(and monk sickles really ought to be D6, but that's another story).

They are, from level 5.

:)

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think this actually works. You're counting "heavy" as not a feature, so to start off with I'd make my hypothetical OptimalMeleeWeapon a D10 one-handed heavy weapon so I can use Shield + Great Weapon Mastery at the same time. (Also, it's kind of odd to count "versatile" as a boon worth D2, since it costs you an extra hand to grant you back that same D2 you just gave up.) Alternately I could take an existing heavy weapon like a halberd, make it one-handed but two-handed when not mounted (they cancel out as boon/flaw) and wind up with an Ultimate Cavalry Halberd.

I think the weapons table works better with as a discrete optimization problem (which it is today) as opposed to some kind of custom point-buy using damage dice. To me that also implies that the Whip as written is better and more interesting than the hypothetical Uberwhip which point-buy would produce (D12 - three boons = D6), because it has actual downsides (low damage) to go with its unique upside (only one-handed reach weapon, only DEX-based reach weapon). This isn't GURPS and not every formula is linearizable.

YMMV.

That's fair, though heavy is not really a weapon limitation so much as a race limitation. It's the penalty for being small. You can fit in smaller spaces, and you weigh less, but your weapons aren't as big. It's a classic example of a penalty that isn't really a penalty depending on class and build choice. Your point about versatile is appreciated; I made the original post on my phone from memory. I'll see if I can rework the logic now that I can sit down and think about it with the book in hand.

[MaxWilson]

That's fair, though heavy is not really a weapon limitation so much as a race limitation. It's the penalty for being small. You can fit in smaller spaces, and you weigh less, but your weapons aren't as big. It's a classic example of a penalty that isn't really a penalty depending on class and build choice. Your point about versatile is appreciated; I made the original post on my phone from memory. I'll see if I can rework the logic now that I can sit down and think about it with the book in hand.

Heavy is a penalty to small folk and a pure bonus to anyone of Medium size. It lets you benefit from GWM to get +10 to damage for -5 to hit. If there were a one-handed heavy weapon you can bet it would be more popular than a longsword even if it were only D8.

Thanks for doing the math--it certainly is an interesting idea you have there.