Bullwhip [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Bullwhip [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JimProfit
02-09-08, 06:45 PM I discussed this at psionics forum with a motivational poster, but what exactly was wotc thinking when they made the bullwhip?

1d4 subdual damage is understandable. It's a painful, not a lethal weapon.

The +2 to disarm checks and trip attempts gives it the stereotypical indiana jones purpose.

But it only can damage creatures with an AC bonus of +1 or less or a natural armor bonus of <+3?

So bassicaly it doesn't harm anyone...

Cause anyone with even a slightly good dexterity is immune to damage (specialy if they're wearing even the most mudane of armor..)

Pretty much all creatures INCLUDING ANIMALS are immune to it's damage.

Evidently the bullwhip just seems to be there to look pretty. I'm sure I could get the GM to ignore this rule but the fact remains, it's like D&D rules are just a bunchof randomly generated ideas jumbled up into a couple of handbooks.

Nethack has a balanced spell system. (Not that anyone lasts long enough to notice..)
Diablo has a balanced weapons system.
World of Warcraft has a balanced class system.

D&D has none of these. I know that's not something you wanna hear, but im sorry, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Cause it sure as hell wasn't the bullwhip!)

D&D rules suck. I don't know how AD&D was but it probably made more sense then this.

4th Edition sounds better by rumors, most likely because it's just copying from WoW...
RavenDrake
02-09-08, 08:02 PM I'm still kind of curious how you mentally sequed from "whips are substandard" to "thank god for 4th edition cause everything in 3rd SUCKS!" but whatever.

What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that, whips are lousy as weapons because(and try to follow me) THEY'RE LOUSY AS WEAPONS! They're not intended to inflict damage. Used for animal training you don't even STRIKE the animal with them, you use the incredibly loud whipcrack as a chastisement for poor behaviour. They were never, at point in history, designed for any form of combat. They're included as a trick weapon for flashy displays like tripping and disarming. That's like complaining that tanglefoot bags are substandard damage dealers. You have to evaluate an item in the context of optimal use.

If you want to inflict REAL damage, there are numerous lethal whips in D&D (the whip-dagger, nagaika, scorpion whip, etc) which follow the same rules as the whip for special attacks, but do not have it's failing against armour. They don't even require a seperate weapon proficiency, sharing the whip's existing Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Kouk
02-10-08, 01:51 AM Seriously.

I haven't seen them recently, but I don't remember which movie Indiana used his whip to chop people in half or slaughter cattle.

...

By the way, which book is the "bullwhip" statted in?
Illithid Tentacles
02-11-08, 01:29 AM D&D rules suck.

Then go play something else and quit complaining.
Fireclave
02-11-08, 01:41 AM I'm still kind of curious how you mentally sequed from "whips are substandard" to "thank god for 4th edition cause everything in 3rd SUCKS!" but whatever.

What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that, whips are lousy as weapons because(and try to follow me) THEY'RE LOUSY AS WEAPONS! They're not intended to inflict damage. Used for animal training you don't even STRIKE the animal with them, you use the incredibly loud whipcrack as a chastisement for poor behaviour. They were never, at point in history, designed for any form of combat. They're included as a trick weapon for flashy displays like tripping and disarming. That's like complaining that tanglefoot bags are substandard damage dealers. You have to evaluate an item in the context of optimal use.

If you want to inflict REAL damage, there are numerous lethal whips in D&D (the whip-dagger, nagaika, scorpion whip, etc) which follow the same rules as the whip for special attacks, but do not have it's failing against armour. They don't even require a seperate weapon proficiency, sharing the whip's existing Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

+1 :thumbsup:
Belkar
02-11-08, 10:50 AM Yeah, it's very clear that whips are designed to trip/disarm at a range of 15'. That's about it.

And - interestingly enough - this can make for a very powerful character. DM'd a Swashbuckler once, who was a Weapon Finesse expert. He'd start combat with his rapier in one hand, and a whip in the other. He'd open up with a single attack (a trip or disarm with the whip), then drop it before the enemy closed, and would stick 'em with his rapier. He also learned the skill trick from Complete Scoundrel that let him use his whip like a grappling hook. He had fun with it. It was a flavorful choice.

Also - it's not an "AC bonus" of +1 - it's an "Armor Bonus" of +1. Dex doesn't even factor into it. Many things add to your AC; including Dex, Armor Bonus, Shield Bonus, and Natural Armor. If the foe has an "Armor Bonus" of +1 or better (ie: they're wearing any physical armor), or a "Natural Armor Bonus" of +3 or better (ie: they've got really, really, thick skin) - it doesn't do damage to them. Most animals don't actually fall into this category, since they recieve no "Armor Bonus" to AC at all, and have "Natural Armor" bonuses of less than +3.

Baboon, Badger, Bat, Black Bear, Camel, Cat, Cheetah, Dog, Donkey, Eagle, Hawk, Hyena, Leopard, Lizard, Monkey, Octopus, Owl, Pony, War Pony, Porpoise, Rat, Raven, Snake (Constrictor, Tiny Viper), Toad, Weasel, Wolf, and Wolverine.
This is over half of the animals listed in the SRD. Just an FYI.
Mindolin
02-11-08, 10:56 AM Funny thing is that deflection bonuses don't even stop it. But yeah, whips have NEVER been intended to be used against an armored foe. They are mostly either used to trip or disarm, or flavor weapons for enemies with lots of slaves that they use the whips on. If you want a whip that is useful against people who are a threat to you, you go to the Whip Dagger, especially since the two are used with the same proficiency.
JimProfit
02-11-08, 07:51 PM I understand armor negating whip effects, but most if not all animals in the monster manual have a natural armor bonus of +3 or more.

Furthermore, I assumed the whip should be a decent enough combat weapon, as whips were used as toture devices (flogging?)

Evidently that's why i didn't mind subdual damage, as they were not intended to kill, just be painful.
Kouk
02-12-08, 11:00 AM Torture tools rarely would make effective weapons, because their job is not to kill, it is to inflict the maximum amount of pain on a trapped subject.

A dentist's drill might hurt a lot without Novocaine, but you aren't going to win many bar fights with one.

And for flogging, didn't EDIT: Kunta Kinte in Roots take like 20+ shots before he gave up? It hurts, and the wounds can get infected, but a whip isn't much of a weapon.

That hatchet on the other hand...
Mindolin
02-12-08, 12:30 PM Oh yes, the whip is a decent torture device. Thing is, it is intended to be used against people who are not wearing armor. If it's intended to be used agaisnt bare skin, why the heck should it work as well against someone in a metal suit?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JimProfit 02-09-08, 06:45 PM	I discussed this at psionics forum with a motivational poster, but what exactly was wotc thinking when they made the bullwhip? 1d4 subdual damage is understandable. It's a painful, not a lethal weapon. The +2 to disarm checks and trip attempts gives it the stereotypical indiana jones purpose. But it only can damage creatures with an AC bonus of +1 or less or a natural armor bonus of <+3? So bassicaly it doesn't harm anyone... Cause anyone with even a slightly good dexterity is immune to damage (specialy if they're wearing even the most mudane of armor..) Pretty much all creatures INCLUDING ANIMALS are immune to it's damage. Evidently the bullwhip just seems to be there to look pretty. I'm sure I could get the GM to ignore this rule but the fact remains, it's like D&D rules are just a bunchof randomly generated ideas jumbled up into a couple of handbooks. Nethack has a balanced spell system. (Not that anyone lasts long enough to notice..) Diablo has a balanced weapons system. World of Warcraft has a balanced class system. D&D has none of these. I know that's not something you wanna hear, but im sorry, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Cause it sure as hell wasn't the bullwhip!) D&D rules suck. I don't know how AD&D was but it probably made more sense then this. 4th Edition sounds better by rumors, most likely because it's just copying from WoW...
RavenDrake 02-09-08, 08:02 PM	I'm still kind of curious how you mentally sequed from "whips are substandard" to "thank god for 4th edition cause everything in 3rd SUCKS!" but whatever. What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that, whips are lousy as weapons because(and try to follow me) THEY'RE LOUSY AS WEAPONS! They're not intended to inflict damage. Used for animal training you don't even STRIKE the animal with them, you use the incredibly loud whipcrack as a chastisement for poor behaviour. They were never, at point in history, designed for any form of combat. They're included as a trick weapon for flashy displays like tripping and disarming. That's like complaining that tanglefoot bags are substandard damage dealers. You have to evaluate an item in the context of optimal use. If you want to inflict REAL damage, there are numerous lethal whips in D&D (the whip-dagger, nagaika, scorpion whip, etc) which follow the same rules as the whip for special attacks, but do not have it's failing against armour. They don't even require a seperate weapon proficiency, sharing the whip's existing Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Kouk 02-10-08, 01:51 AM	Seriously. I haven't seen them recently, but I don't remember which movie Indiana used his whip to chop people in half or slaughter cattle. ... By the way, which book is the "bullwhip" statted in?
Illithid Tentacles 02-11-08, 01:29 AM	D&D rules suck. Then go play something else and quit complaining.
Fireclave 02-11-08, 01:41 AM	I'm still kind of curious how you mentally sequed from "whips are substandard" to "thank god for 4th edition cause everything in 3rd SUCKS!" but whatever. What you seem to be failing to comprehend is that, whips are lousy as weapons because(and try to follow me) THEY'RE LOUSY AS WEAPONS! They're not intended to inflict damage. Used for animal training you don't even STRIKE the animal with them, you use the incredibly loud whipcrack as a chastisement for poor behaviour. They were never, at point in history, designed for any form of combat. They're included as a trick weapon for flashy displays like tripping and disarming. That's like complaining that tanglefoot bags are substandard damage dealers. You have to evaluate an item in the context of optimal use. If you want to inflict REAL damage, there are numerous lethal whips in D&D (the whip-dagger, nagaika, scorpion whip, etc) which follow the same rules as the whip for special attacks, but do not have it's failing against armour. They don't even require a seperate weapon proficiency, sharing the whip's existing Exotic Weapon Proficiency. +1 :thumbsup:
Belkar 02-11-08, 10:50 AM	Yeah, it's very clear that whips are designed to trip/disarm at a range of 15'. That's about it. And - interestingly enough - this can make for a very powerful character. DM'd a Swashbuckler once, who was a Weapon Finesse expert. He'd start combat with his rapier in one hand, and a whip in the other. He'd open up with a single attack (a trip or disarm with the whip), then drop it before the enemy closed, and would stick 'em with his rapier. He also learned the skill trick from Complete Scoundrel that let him use his whip like a grappling hook. He had fun with it. It was a flavorful choice. Also - it's not an "AC bonus" of +1 - it's an "Armor Bonus" of +1. Dex doesn't even factor into it. Many things add to your AC; including Dex, Armor Bonus, Shield Bonus, and Natural Armor. If the foe has an "Armor Bonus" of +1 or better (ie: they're wearing any physical armor), or a "Natural Armor Bonus" of +3 or better (ie: they've got really, really, thick skin) - it doesn't do damage to them. Most animals don't actually fall into this category, since they recieve no "Armor Bonus" to AC at all, and have "Natural Armor" bonuses of less than +3. Baboon, Badger, Bat, Black Bear, Camel, Cat, Cheetah, Dog, Donkey, Eagle, Hawk, Hyena, Leopard, Lizard, Monkey, Octopus, Owl, Pony, War Pony, Porpoise, Rat, Raven, Snake (Constrictor, Tiny Viper), Toad, Weasel, Wolf, and Wolverine. This is over half of the animals listed in the SRD. Just an FYI.
Mindolin 02-11-08, 10:56 AM	Funny thing is that deflection bonuses don't even stop it. But yeah, whips have NEVER been intended to be used against an armored foe. They are mostly either used to trip or disarm, or flavor weapons for enemies with lots of slaves that they use the whips on. If you want a whip that is useful against people who are a threat to you, you go to the Whip Dagger, especially since the two are used with the same proficiency.
JimProfit 02-11-08, 07:51 PM	I understand armor negating whip effects, but most if not all animals in the monster manual have a natural armor bonus of +3 or more. Furthermore, I assumed the whip should be a decent enough combat weapon, as whips were used as toture devices (flogging?) Evidently that's why i didn't mind subdual damage, as they were not intended to kill, just be painful.
Kouk 02-12-08, 11:00 AM	Torture tools rarely would make effective weapons, because their job is not to kill, it is to inflict the maximum amount of pain on a trapped subject. A dentist's drill might hurt a lot without Novocaine, but you aren't going to win many bar fights with one. And for flogging, didn't EDIT: Kunta Kinte in Roots take like 20+ shots before he gave up? It hurts, and the wounds can get infected, but a whip isn't much of a weapon. That hatchet on the other hand...
Mindolin 02-12-08, 12:30 PM	Oh yes, the whip is a decent torture device. Thing is, it is intended to be used against people who are not wearing armor. If it's intended to be used agaisnt bare skin, why the heck should it work as well against someone in a metal suit?