You can power attack with the whip. I've seen enough professional lashers to know there are ways of adding extra oomph.
The fire damage will allow you to bypass the "no damage to armored targets" rule, though I'm sure other posters will disagree with me.
One must be careful with such interpretations, though. After all, when one goes that far, how much farther is it to allowing all energy weapons to deal just their energy damage with a touch attack? or to allow just the energy damage while tripping one's opponent? After all, wrapping a person's leg in a burning whip will burn them, right? Right?
Just some food for thought. :P
You can power attack with the whip. I've seen enough professional lashers to know there are ways of adding extra oomph.
The fire damage will allow you to bypass the "no damage to armored targets" rule, though I'm sure other posters will disagree with me.
One must be careful with such interpretations, though. After all, when one goes that far, how much farther is it to allowing all energy weapons to deal just their energy damage with a touch attack? or to allow just the energy damage while tripping one's opponent? After all, wrapping a person's leg in a burning whip will burn them, right? Right?
Just some food for thought. :P
+1
Now I could not find this, but I thought I read somewhere once that a weapon must damage the opponent for the special ability to take affect. Anyone else read that anywhere or know where to look? And you (Ravingdork) are saying you rule that with a successful attack the fire still damages, but the normal damage does not? I am just not quite sure what you mean. "to assume makes... out of you and me" :-)
I have read that rule myself, though I don't recall where it was at.
And that was exactly what I was saying, though you should take it with a grain of salt as I have little to no support for that interpretation.
Personally, I've found it both intuitive and reasonable to allow energy damage to get by on a touch attack, and to allow the energy damage on touch based manuvers like trip and such, and to likewise consider all energy damage to be lethal unless the merciful property (or a similar magical effect) is in play.
Many times, this has lead to complications, as many players often forget it is a standard action to turn off energy damage (and to turn it on). Players seeking to do subdual or otherwise non-lethally down a foe find energy weapons to be aggravating if not managed correctly.
This approach has worked for me probably due to a combo of A: varied encounters and challenges, B players who play well and don't try to break the system just because they can and C the generally accepted math that energy properties are inferior to a flat extra +1.
|
Now I could not find this, but I thought I read somewhere once that a weapon must damage the opponent for the special ability to take affect. Anyone else read that anywhere or know where to look? And you (Ravingdork) are saying you rule that with a successful attack the fire still damages, but the normal damage does not? I am just not quite sure what you mean. "to assume makes... out of you and me" :-)
The only thing I know of off-hand that requires damage to be dealt is injury poison. Other effects (such as flaming or contact poison) only require a successful attack roll.
The rule was/is(whatever) extra damage does not go through unless the weapon's damage (Weapon+Strength Bonus+Magic Bonus) can penetrate the DR... I believe it was actually a 'sneak attack' rule that got carried over to other types of damage (energy, etc.) by extreme house ruling in 3.5E.
It gets certain people's feathers ruffled when you then tack on something like TRIP and/or WHIRLWIND(feat). It's when the Fighter sitting beside you thinks it's a cool idea and decides he'll just spend gobs on money on energy types to also do touch attacks (at a much higher BAB/Strength) that makes it kind of cheesy, IMO. Not to mention unfun for your DM who is eventually just going to make everything DEX/Deflection based to prevent said cheese.
I see both points, I go with whatever the DM tells me he wants to run with. Currently our energy/extra damage only goes off if weapon damage breaks the DR... including poison, sneak attacks, skirmish, etc.
EDIT: I would just show the DM the lethal versions of the whip(Scorpion Whip or Whip Dagger) and use one of those if he/she is leary about the whole touch attack thing.
Currently our energy/extra damage only goes off if weapon damage breaks the DR... including poison, sneak attacks, skirmish, etc.
Just so we're clear since we are here on the Rules Questions forum, this is true of injury poison (it's in the RAW) but not true of Sneak Attacks:
Here is an official cite from the Bulmahn himself.
Also note that "getting through DR" is different than "hitting the AC". As far as houserules go, saying "the flames don't hurt the barbarian because the whip failed to penetrate his DR" is a bit awkward but arguably believable (there's just as much fire slapping into his body as there would be if the whip also sliced open a welt on his flesh).
Even more awkward is saying "You missed, but the flames still burn the enemy anyway."
What you're looking for is this:
The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
That second paragraph is the relevant part. So if you hit a golem with a flaming sword, and the golem's DR stops all damage, it will still take 1d6 from the fire (unless that golem is also resistant/immune to fire).
Now, in the case of a whip, we're not talking about DR specifically. We're merely talking about armor, since a whip is a terribly weak weapon, incapable of even inflicting non-lethal damage to anyone wearing armor with with moderately thick natural armor.
However, though it is not explicit in the RAW, I think it's a safe extrapolation that, since a flaming non-whip can burn an enemy it otherwise fails to injure, then a flaming whip can also burn an enemy it otherwise fails to injure.
If a person was weilding a +1 flaming whip, then the +1 portion should be non lethel, (dealing the same type of damage as the whip). However, I am wondering if it still does not harm enemies with +1 Armor bonus or a Nat armor bonus of +3.
See my post above. Yes, it still burns the enemies it fails to injure, though that is an extrapolation of RAW and is not explicitly stated.
The flaming is fire damage and should cause harm to those enemies, right?
And does it still not threaten anywhere?
It's been said before in this thread, but I'll reiterate for thoroughness:
The flames are lethal damage even if the whip is not. However, I don't believe it is the non-lethality of a whip that causes it to be unable to threaten (I'm pretty sure a blackjack/sap can still threaten adjacent squares). I believe it is the necessity of recoil/lash that takes too much time to be useful as an essentially free action AoO.
Nope, not explicitly stated in the RAW, but neither is letting a flaming whip threaten, so this one is up to DM Judgment Call. However, I do believe that having a more-or-less 6x6 square threat area is a bit overbalanced.
power attack with a whip?
By the strictest interpretation of the RAW, I would say that you cannot.
Whips do not deal damage. They deal non-lethal damage which is quite different. Damage is subtracted from your HP total. Non-lethal damage is tracked separately. Damage can kill you when you take enough of it. Non-lethal damage merely renders you unconscious. One cure spell heals both normal damage and non-lethal damage at the same time. Etc.
Two different things.
Power Attack says you cannot use it with weapons that do not deal HP damage. That would seem to exclude whips.
However, I doubt that most players/DMs make that distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage, and it's likely that the wording in Power Attack was meant to prevent increasing damage of Energy Drains or such other non-HP attacks.
That said, I also don't see any reaason to deny Power Attack to someone using a whip. After all, they've already gimped themselves by their weapon choice, might as well let them do a few extra non-lethal HP damage while they're at it.
This changes when we look at a Scorpion Whip (lethal damage). There is no reading of the RAW that I can find that would prevent using Power Attack with a lethal whip. It's still a weak weapon (when it comes to dishing out damage) and probably needs Power Attack to just have a chance of being useful anyway.
Me, I would forego Power Attack and look at taking feats to improve my Trip and Disarm CMBs, especially if I'm simultaneously inflicting flaming damage while I do it.
|
|
If I were to make a whip-based character, I'd main-hand a whip for tripping and disarming and offhand a light weapon for actual damage. I'd probably get catch off-guard just for the ability to flat-foot unarmed opponents when using the off-hand weapon to deal an inappropriate damage type so that it counts as improvised (hell, improvise the whip handle). Rogue would probably work. It would take at least level 3 to make it work (Human for the extra feat; Weapon Finesse, TWF, Catch Off-Guard and Exotic WP). Level 4+ would be for getting the improved maneuver feats and getting Acrobatic Maneuvers (range on the whip prevents the AoO until then).
And does it still not threaten anywhere?It's been said before in this thread, but I'll reiterate for thoroughness:
The flames are lethal damage even if the whip is not. However, I don't believe it is the non-lethality of a whip that causes it to be unable to threaten (I'm pretty sure a blackjack/sap can still threaten adjacent squares). I believe it is the necessity of recoil/lash that takes too much time to be useful as an essentially free action AoO.
Nope, not explicitly stated in the RAW, but neither is letting a flaming whip threaten, so this one is up to DM Judgment Call. However, I do believe that having a more-or-less 6x6 square threat area is a bit overbalanced.
Being that a scorpion whip does lethal damage, and still does not threaten, I would agree.
power attack with a whip?By the strictest interpretation of the RAW, I would say that you cannot.
Whips do not deal damage. They deal non-lethal damage which is quite different. Damage is subtracted from your HP total. Non-lethal damage is tracked separately. Damage can kill you when you take enough of it. Non-lethal damage merely renders you unconscious. One cure spell heals both normal damage and non-lethal damage at the same time. Etc.
Two different things.
Power Attack says you cannot use it with weapons that do not deal HP damage. That would seem to exclude whips.
However, I doubt that most players/DMs make that distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage, and it's likely that the wording in Power Attack was meant to prevent increasing damage of Energy Drains or such other non-HP attacks.
That said, I also don't see any reaason to deny Power Attack to someone using a whip. After all, they've already gimped themselves by their weapon choice, might as well let them do a few extra non-lethal HP damage while they're at it.
This changes when we look at a Scorpion Whip (lethal damage). There is no reading of the RAW that I can find that would prevent using Power Attack with a lethal whip. It's still a weak weapon (when it comes to dishing out damage) and probably needs Power Attack to just have a chance of being useful anyway.
Me, I would forego Power Attack and look at taking feats to improve my Trip and Disarm CMBs, especially if I'm simultaneously inflicting flaming damage while I do it
That is like saying that permanent ability damage is ability damage, while temporary ability damage isn't ability damage. When in truth, they both are.
Non-lethal damage is hp damage. It is recorded against your HP track, and compared to you current HP to determine results. I think you are trying to split that hair a little too fine.
Either way, you can power attack with a scorpion whip, which make the idea that you can't power attack with a normal whip seem kinda silly.
If I get a greatsword enchanted with merciful, can I still power attack with it?
[thread derail] What about frost damage? ... or would that just be Cool Whip?[/thread derail]
If I am using a greatsword to deal non-lethal damage, can I still power attack?
Some would say no, some would say yes.
The simulationists might say that if you wind up and swing that hard, then you're not simply bruising them with non-lethal damage anymore; instead you're breaking bones and crushing skulls.
The rules lawyers might split the same hair I did and say that non-lethal damage is not HP damage since it's tracked and healed differently.
The gamists might say "whatever dude, just roll the dice and let's play this game already!"
Either way it's arguable.
Me, I'd allow it - HP & AC are abstract enough, our whole combat system is abstract enough, that I don't think this hair must be split.
If I am using a greatsword to deal non-lethal damage, can I still power attack?Some would say no, some would say yes.
The simulationists might say that if you wind up and swing that hard, then you're not simply bruising them with non-lethal damage anymore; instead you're breaking bones and crushing skulls.
The rules lawyers might split the same hair I did and say that non-lethal damage is not HP damage since it's tracked and healed differently.
The gamists might say "whatever dude, just roll the dice and let's play this game already!"
Either way it's arguable.
Me, I'd allow it - HP & AC are abstract enough, our whole combat system is abstract enough, that I don't think this hair must be split.
Well if you want to be that technical...
A whip can deal lethal damage. If the target is already at the maximum non-lethal damage they can take, then any further non-lethal damage becomes lethal damage.
You do threaten squares adjacent to you with a whip, just not the square into which you attack.
Regardless whether the physical damage takes effect, energy damage always applies, unless the creature has resistance to that type of energy.
You can power attack with a whip, albeit with a -4 penalty to hit for switching to lethal damage.
|
|
That is like saying that permanent ability damage is ability damage, while temporary ability damage isn't ability damage. When in truth, they both are.
That depends on what you're referring to as temporary. If by temporary damage you mean things like ray of enfeeblement, then no. That is explicitly an ability penalty and never mentions damage anywhere in its entry. If by temporary you mean ability damage and by permanent you mean ability drain, then yes.
Sorry to nitpick :). The main reason for this nitpick is that it means you can't crit with a ray of enfeeblement (a penalty is not damage), but you can with something that does actual damage.A better argument (in my mind) would have been to say "if nonlethal damage isn't damage, then how come it becomes lethal damage if they have already taken too much nonlethal." Nonlethal is not actually subtracted from your HP and doesn't turn into lethal until it exceeds your max hp.
Anyway, "nonlethal" is just one more on a long list of damage types/modifiers.
What?You do threaten squares adjacent to you with a whip, just not the square into which you attack.
+1
What?You do threaten squares adjacent to you with a whip, just not the square into which you attack.
Whips can attack out to 15' like a range or reach weapon but do not threaten that square. Unlike most reach weapons, they can also attack adjacent foes. The rules are saying you threaten adjacent squares normally but not the extended 15' into which you can attack.
Doesn't look like you can threaten at all.
+1
You don't threaten with a flaming whip ever.
Do you threaten with flaming lips?
I certainly felt threatened by it...
Description: A whip deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).Doesn't look like you can threaten at all.
It looks to me like you just don't threaten the area you attack, in reference to the 15' reach. If you don't threaten with this weapon at all, it would say that.
|
It looks to me like you just don't threaten the area you attack, in reference to the 15' reach. If you don't threaten with this weapon at all, it would say that.Description: A whip deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).Doesn't look like you can threaten at all.
you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack.
but the area you can make an attack into are 5',10', and 15'. you don't threaten any of those because they are the areas into which you can make an attack.
It looks to me like you just don't threaten the area you attack, in reference to the 15' reach. If you don't threaten with this weapon at all, it would say that.Description: A whip deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).Doesn't look like you can threaten at all.
It says "don't threaten the area into which you attack".
It does not say "into which you do make an attack" or any other such thing.
You "CAN" attack a whole bunch of squares with a whip. You do not threaten any of them.
Note that this is the opposite of the wording about how normal weapons threaten squares. This wording says "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". So when they wrote the descirption of the whip, they literally are adding just one word ("don't") to the standard threat rule and leaving all the rest of the wording alone.
So with other (normal) weapons, "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack", but with a whip, you don't threaten those squares.
It's really just as easy as that.
Also under the description of a whip it states that you provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking with a whip as if it were a ranged weapon, which do not threaten.
You do not threaten with a whip when you wield a whip.
However, you can still threaten adjacent squares.
But, not with the whip.
You can threaten adjacent squares with :
1) Your fist (unarmed, or monk-armed) or your gauntlet (armed).
2) Your feet (monk-armed).
3) Your off-hand weapon (Armed).
4) Your shield (shield bash).
5) Your buckler (shield bash, I think you can bash with a buckler).
You cannot shield bash with a buckler, even though the bucklers edges were sharpened for just this reason in real life.