one more scorpion whip thread? (sorry)


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, so now the UE scorpion whip is no longer PFS legal and the Armory one is. I have gotten so confused with all of the various threads and such though, that I'm unsure where that leaves things. Can someone please summarize the current state of this weapon for PFS play?

Specifically: What is the reach, what area does it threaten, are there 'modes', and anything else that may be important to know?

Thanks!


As far as I've been able to tell, the general idea is that the Scorpion Whip is in all ways a Whip, except where it specifies otherwise.

Now we just need the other whip/chain weapons clarified.

-j

Liberty's Edge

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@DraK: the snarky answer would be: it has the stats that is has in AA, and you need to own AA to use it, so look it up. But I understand what you mean.

@Andrew: it's in the text in AA;

AA wrote:

Scorpion Whip: This whip has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.

It says "this whip". Then it points out that it deviates from normal whips with regard specifically to damage. That text would be completely unnecessary if it wasn't otherwise like a normal whip.


So basically its a whip that does lethal damage instead of nonlethal?

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.


Andrew Christian wrote:

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

I'm going off by what SK Reynolds said when the book came out:

"A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table."

Even without that, though, as pointed out by folks above, the item entry describes it as a whip, and then goes on to enumerate the differences between it and a normal whip.

-j


Ascalaphus wrote:
@DraK: the snarky answer would be: it has the stats that is has in AA, and you need to own AA to use it, so look it up. But I understand what you mean.

I appreciate the lack of snark. I both own the book and looked at it, but the enormously conflicting statements made in threads. I saw someone claim that it didn't say it didn't threaten, so that it does. I could see the "Reach" entry w/o further clarifications in the text other than "this whip" to be read to give it 10' rather than 15' reach. I figured better to be safe than sorry before making a scorpion whip a primary weapon for my character.


DrakeRoberts wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
@DraK: the snarky answer would be: it has the stats that is has in AA, and you need to own AA to use it, so look it up. But I understand what you mean.
I appreciate the lack of snark. I both own the book and looked at it, but the enormously conflicting statements made in threads. I saw someone claim that it didn't say it didn't threaten, so that it does. I could see the "Reach" entry w/o further clarifications in the text other than "this whip" to be read to give it 10' rather than 15' reach. I figured better to be safe than sorry before making a scorpion whip a primary weapon for my character.

I cannot find a link to the armory scorpion whip, i can only find UE version. If its anything like the UE version, then no it doesnt threaten and still provokes attacks ofoppertunities when u attack with it and is still finessable. Just because it does lethal damage now doesnt make it threaten because its still treated as using a range weapon hence why u get attacks of oppertunities against ya for using it even though it technically is a melee weapon, the game sees it as a range weapon sorta.


I think Scorpion Whip is the following:

Exotic One-Handed Melee Weapon
5gp
1d4 x2
3lbs.
Slashing
disarm, reach, trip
Scorpion Whip: This whip has a series of razorsharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.

Note that it does not finesse or have a 15ft reach, or work against adjacent targets, but it doesn't provoke, it damages targets with armor and has the trip keyword. Additionally if you are proficient in the whip you get the scorpion whip as well.

---

I also think it's unclear and that other conclusions are reasonable as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

With the quote of SKR which has been linked by Jason, there is no other conclusion possible than it functions as a whip (finessable, 15 ft. reach, provokes attack of oppertunities when used) but it can damage opponents with armor.

I don't understand what's so difficult about SKR's post?

1. It uses the same rules as a whip except it deals lethal damage even to creatures with armor bonuses, so we scratch that bit and we get:

whip rules:
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 a 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).

Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a whip sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. You can’t wield a whip in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier to damage rolls.


Add scorpion in front all words whip in the spoiler and you have the rules for a scorpion whip.

2. the stats in the table:
1d4 damage for the scorpion whip vs 1d3 from the normal whip.
3 lbs for the scorpion whip vs 2 lbs from the normal whip.
5 gp cost for the scorpion whip vs 1 gp cost for the normal whip.
No nonlethal entry for the scorpion whip.

Edit: Also, everyone stop looking at the mess that is the scorpion whip in the Ultimate Equipment book. It's a completely different table entry with nearly the same text from the Adventurer's Armory.

The UE scorpion whip is a light exotic weapon with the Performance special quality according to the table. No reach, no trip, no disarm.

Sczarni

There's another problem with the current state of the Scorpion Whip.

On one hand, if it is considered to function exactly as a standard Whip except that it can do lethal damage to opponents with armor bonuses, then it is likely incompatible with the Whip Mastery chain of feats and Weapon Focus (Whip), which specify they function with Whips, not Scorpion Whips or any weapon with the name "whip" in it. Think of it as though Whips are Muskets rather than Whips are Firearms.

Best case scenario, it will work with the Whip Mastery line but you have to waste a feat on Weapon Focus (Whip) that provides no benefit with a Scorpion Whip. You would still need to burn through two feats (Weapon Focus [Whip], Whip Mastery) just to be able to not provoke with a Scorpion Whip and a third feat (Improved Whip Mastery) just to be able to threaten under this interpretation. At that point, the only real point to using a Scorpion Whip over a standard Whip is being able to have it made with special materials such as Adamantine or Cold Iron.

Worst case scenario, it is incompatible with the Whip Mastery Line and you have a weapon that can never threaten and always provokes AoOs.

Now, going on to the other interpretation based on the RAW AA stat block and ignoring the intentions of SKR, you have what amounts to a low damage One-Handed reach weapon that you can coil up when not in use. Not too impressive, frankly. =(

Don't get me wrong, I personally want the Scorpion Whip to work in all ways like a normal Whip that just does lethal damage, can be made of special materials and is compatible with Weapon Finesse, and any feat that uses just "Whip" as a prerequisite. I just also recognize that there are far too many GMs who take a more pedantic and punitive reading of the rules, especially in PFS where the AA precedent has the most effect.

Liberty's Edge

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.

So then, for other than RP reasons, why would anyone ever, buy a standard whip?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

@DraK: the snarky answer would be: it has the stats that is has in AA, and you need to own AA to use it, so look it up. But I understand what you mean.

@Andrew: it's in the text in AA;

AA wrote:

Scorpion Whip: This whip has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.

It says "this whip". Then it points out that it deviates from normal whips with regard specifically to damage. That text would be completely unnecessary if it wasn't otherwise like a normal whip.

But when you read about a Bastard Sword, when it says, "this sword" it isn't referring to all swords.

The FAQ about the various sling feats, racial abilities and traits not working with a Halfling Sling Staff, also seem to indicate that if it doesn't specifically say "sling" and only "sling" then it doesn't work either.

So this language is certainly not indicative of what you are saying it is, because of the precedence of past clarifications on similar situations.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Wu wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

I'm going off by what SK Reynolds said when the book came out:

"A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table."

Even without that, though, as pointed out by folks above, the item entry describes it as a whip, and then goes on to enumerate the differences between it and a normal whip.

-j

In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.

Grand Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.

What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Jason Wu wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

That is not necessarily the consensus.

I do not see anywhere that would lead one to believe that the Scorpion Whip is anything but exactly what its stat block says it is. I don't see any language that says what you say it says Jason.

I'm going off by what SK Reynolds said when the book came out:

"A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table."

Even without that, though, as pointed out by folks above, the item entry describes it as a whip, and then goes on to enumerate the differences between it and a normal whip.

-j

In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.

There are no later FAQs or clarifications. At all. Anywhere.

The closest thing is a post I can't locate right now from James Jacobs, but he's not a rules team member.

-j

Liberty's Edge

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.
What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.

Later FAQs and clarifications on other issues that use similar language.

This rules set does not allow you to consider a single rule in a vacuum. You have to look at the entire thing in context with itself.

So you have to consider later FAQs and clarifications on similar subjects and how they made the ruling and why.

Sovereign Court

The Adventurer's Armory incarnation of the Scorpion Whip never mentions that it has 15' reach. Its stat block does mention that it has un-modified reach, however. So this would suggest 10' reach, and not usable on adjacent targets, as normal for reach weapons.

The special rules text is quoted in its entirety:

Adventurer's Armory, Scorpion Whip wrote:


This whip has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creature with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.

The first sentence is pure fluff, and I'd agree with those who say the use of "whip" is descriptive only. Just as there is a difference between "clothing" and "clothing" in the clarification for Sleeves of Many Garments.

The second sentence provides indirect support that the scorpion whip is supposed to be otherwise treated like a whip. Why else invoke the reference about damage and armor? However, this is RAI stuff and the RAW IS LAW folks can safely dismiss that.

The third sentence, by RAI, "clearly means" that if one is proficient with a whip then one can use a scorpion whip without nonproficiency penalty. RAW IS LAW will point out that the italicized portion is not actually there, and that makes the last sentence essentially meaningless.

So, going completely by RAW, the scorpion whip only has the 10' reach since its reach quality is not otherwise modified. Taking RAW to an extreme, there are no special rules at all for a scorpion whip beyond the stat block (since damage is assumed by default to already be lethal).

RAI might argue that the AA "obviously left out" the 15' reach and other unique attributes of the standard whip. As "a whip that deals lethal damage" it'd be completely up to your GM as to whether a scorpion whip can be used to inflict nonlethal damage (as a standard whip) without the usual penalties.

Paizo has had about 4 years to rule on this and has chosen to not do so in all that time. I'm not sure we're going to see any clarification, so embrace table variation!

Grand Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.
What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.

Later FAQs and clarifications on other issues that use similar language.

This rules set does not allow you to consider a single rule in a vacuum. You have to look at the entire thing in context with itself.

So you have to consider later FAQs and clarifications on similar subjects and how they made the ruling and why.

Can you please quote the FAQs and clarifications made on other things that somehow directly counter a previous developer quote on this specific issue?

Liberty's Edge

Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


In all fairness, that was a post in 2010. Later FAQ's and clarifications are inconsistent with this clarification based on the language present.
What later FAQ's and clarifications? The only thing I'm aware of is the fact that the clarification wasn't included in the reprint, which isn't the same thing.

Later FAQs and clarifications on other issues that use similar language.

This rules set does not allow you to consider a single rule in a vacuum. You have to look at the entire thing in context with itself.

So you have to consider later FAQs and clarifications on similar subjects and how they made the ruling and why.

Can you please quote the FAQs and clarifications made on other things that somehow directly counter a previous developer quote on this specific issue?

I discussed them upthread already.

Grand Lodge

The FAQ you referenced is about an ability that specifically named slings, not an item that has a developer quote saying "this works differently."

Also, I need to find it, but I'm pretty sure Mark or another recently stated that FAQs do exactly what they say they do, and nothing more.

Edit: Found it!

Mark Seifter wrote:
A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I really, really don't understand why people are trying to make the scorpion whip as useless as possible?

Is this some kind of languagegame that I as a non-native english speaker don't understand??

PFS has ruled that the AA version is the one that is legal and the UE one is not. So everyone referring to the UE version get out of the PFS thread and go back to the Rules thread. That was rude from me, but I'm leaving it in anyway.

SKR has made the clarification that it uses the same rules as a whip with some minor adjustments, so why is everyone so intend on reading it as differently as possible?

The only valid complaint I'm seeing is the one from MrRetsej about the interaction with the Whip Mastery feat line. This is the point where I now would expect table variation. My personal preference would be that the scorpion whip is valid for the whip mastery feat line, but I can fully understand when people say it doesn't :)

Sovereign Court

Amusingly, once you get into the Whip Mastery line, normal whips are actually better than scorpion whips. Because then you have a free option to do lethal or nonlethal depending on your current needs. I don't think you can do nonlethal without the usual -4 to hit penalty with a scorpion whip.


That's accurate, apart from the whole "special materials" thing. So, trade the ability to do nonleathal damage for the ability to (spend some extra money to) bypass some sort of DR.

On that note, is an adamantine scorpion whip adamantine for the purposes of being sundered, or, since presumably only the blades on the tip are adamantine, can you sunder it as easily as a normal whip? I guess you could ask the same about scorpion whips in general - metal or leather for the purposes of sundering? I think the answer is probably leather, but I'm curious...

Liberty's Edge

Jeff Merola wrote:

The FAQ you referenced is about an ability that specifically named slings, not an item that has a developer quote saying "this works differently."

Also, I need to find it, but I'm pretty sure Mark or another recently stated that FAQs do exactly what they say they do, and nothing more.

Edit: Found it!

Mark Seifter wrote:
A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.

You still have to look at precedent when there is something ambiguous.

If its ambiguous, you look at how they ruled other similar things, and use that to help inform you on how you will adjudicate this thing.

In this case, precedent of FAQs is not consistent with SKR's clarification from 2010.


Everyone, just remember that SKR's post isn't an official clarification. All posts in these threads are considered the opinions of that person only. For it to be official, it must be in the FAQ's or errata. As such, the default weapon is as Pirate Rob said. It has none of the special text the whip has (no damage vs armor, weapon finesse-able, 15' reach, as ranged attack, attack adjacent).

Looks like a one handed reach weapon which is far from useless.

Exotic One-Handed Melee Weapon
5gp
1d4 x2
3lbs.
Slashing
disarm, reach, trip
Whip prof allows use.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.

So then, for other than RP reasons, why would anyone ever, buy a standard whip?

Why, other than RP reasons, would anyone ever buy a standard shortsword?

I'm not sure where I land on this topic yet, but I wanted to point out that X being better than Y does not mean that you must be misinterpreting X. Sometimes they deliberately make new things that are better than old things.

Sczarni

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.

So then, for other than RP reasons, why would anyone ever, buy a standard whip?

Why, other than RP reasons, would anyone ever buy a standard shortsword?

I'm not sure where I land on this topic yet, but I wanted to point out that X being better than Y does not mean that you must be misinterpreting X. Sometimes they deliberately make new things that are better than old things.

Huh... I never noticed that the Gladius was a piercing and slashing weapon. That's actually pretty cool! I just wonder if it's text means someone with only Shortsword Proficiency (coughRoguecough) qualifies as being proficient in the Gladius.

Grand Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:

The FAQ you referenced is about an ability that specifically named slings, not an item that has a developer quote saying "this works differently."

Also, I need to find it, but I'm pretty sure Mark or another recently stated that FAQs do exactly what they say they do, and nothing more.

Edit: Found it!

Mark Seifter wrote:
A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.

You still have to look at precedent when there is something ambiguous.

If its ambiguous, you look at how they ruled other similar things, and use that to help inform you on how you will adjudicate this thing.

In this case, precedent of FAQs is not consistent with SKR's clarification from 2010.

I think you misunderstood Mark's statement. By saying that FAQs have the scope that they say they have and nothing more, that means you are explicitly not supposed to use them as precedent for other rulings.

Grand Lodge

Damanta wrote:

I really, really don't understand why people are trying to make the scorpion whip as useless as possible?

Because the more powerful you make a scorpion whip, the less powerful you make the regular whip and vise versa. Game balance wise, both should have trade offs that make them useful in some ways but not in other ways that the other one is useful in.

The only reason I favor a generous ruling on scorpion whip is because a regular whip is useless at entry level. If you want to use a whip effectively, you need Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Whip (which requires a +1 BAB), Weapon Focus - Whip (which requires a +1 BAB), and Whip Mastery (which requires Weapon Focus - Whip and a +2 BAB). So you can't effectively fight with a whip at 1st level no matter what your build is. If you are a Fighter or a human with a class that gets a combat feat at second level and full BAB progression, you can become effective at 2nd. If you are a human with a full BAB class that doesn't get bonus feats, you can get it at 3rd. If you are a bard or full BAB class you can get it at 5th. And if you are anyone else, you can't get it until 7th and you had to spend your 3rd & 5th level feats on something you can't really use very well until you get there. That is incredibly annoying.

Back in 3.5, Weapon Finesse required a +1 BAB. This meant that anyone wanting to be a Dex-based melee rogue couldn't actually do this until 3rd level. Until then, they were relegated to being 3rd rate archers. Paizo realized how annoying this was and removed the +1 BAB prerequisite for Weapon Finesse. And then they went and repeated the mistake with whip (and to a lesser extent, Swashbuckler).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Because the more powerful you make a scorpion whip, the less powerful you make the regular whip and vise versa.

This is not true.

If I'm driving down the highway at 70mph and expecting to arrive at my destination in 20 minutes, then I see somebody pass me at 80mph, that doesn't cause me to suddenly be going slower than I was or arrive at my destination later than planned. I'm still going 70mph and arriving in 20min, no matter how fast anyone else is going.

The only thing that might have changed is my relative speed; perhaps I went from being the fastest guy on the road to being the second-fastest. Maybe you think the whip was the best at something, and now it's only second-best? But if so, why is that a problem?

Quote:
Game balance wise, both should have trade offs that make them useful in some ways but not in other ways that the other one is useful in.

First, "shoulds" are for designing something that's not finished yet, not for figuring out how a finished product works. However it is that it works, it works that way regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks it "should".

Second, your premise that Pathfinder options are different-but-equal (rather than one thing being superior to another) is completely wrong. Just look at the weapon and armor charts: see all those items that nobody ever uses? For any given category there's a small number of "best" items that are just plain old better than similar options. Having the whip and scorpion whip follow this same paradigm that's existed in the system for decades shouldn't be throwing up any red flags for anyone who's looking at the big picture. Like Andy always says, you have to look at the issue in the context of the whole game: an obvious power gap between weapon X and weapon Y is par for the course; it's Pathfinder's "normal".

"Yet another weapon that's better/worse than a different weapon" shouldn't be making anyone familiar with Pathfinder go "Hey, wait a minute, that can't be right!"

Grand Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Because the more powerful you make a scorpion whip, the less powerful you make the regular whip and vise versa.

This is not true.

If I'm driving down the highway at 70mph and expecting to arrive at my destination in 20 minutes, then I see somebody pass me at 80mph, that doesn't cause me to suddenly be going slower than I was or arrive at my destination later than planned. I'm still going 70mph and arriving in 20min, no matter how fast anyone else is going.

The only thing that might have changed is my relative speed; perhaps I went from being the fastest guy on the road to being the second-fastest. Maybe you think the whip was the best at something, and now it's only second-best? But if so, why is that a problem?

You are correct. It is a relative issue. But relative is important in game balance. Or, at least the perception of game balance. And if you think about it, perceived game balance is actually more important than actual game balance. The point being, if a Scorpion Whip is always a better choice than a regular Whip, why bother having a regular Whip?

Quote:
Quote:
Game balance wise, both should have trade offs that make them useful in some ways but not in other ways that the other one is useful in.
First, "shoulds" are for designing something that's not finished yet, not for figuring out how a finished product works. However it is that it works, it works that way regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks it "should".

One should always follow RAW, but RAW is often not clear. When RAW is not clear then you have to interpret RAW through the lens of RAI. "Shoulds" are one means of determining RAI. The rules for Scorpion Whip are grey. So people have no choice but to use RAI, which is always a lot more subjective than RAW.

Quote:

Second, your premise that Pathfinder options are different-but-equal (rather than one thing being superior to another) is completely wrong. Just look at the weapon and armor charts: see all those items that nobody ever uses? For any given category there's a small number of "best" items that are just plain old better than similar options. Having the whip and scorpion whip follow this same paradigm that's existed in the system for decades shouldn't be throwing up any red flags for anyone who's looking at the big picture. Like Andy always says, you have to look at the issue in the context of the whole game: an obvious power gap between weapon X and weapon Y is par for the course; it's Pathfinder's "normal".

"Yet another weapon that's better/worse than a different weapon" shouldn't be making anyone familiar with Pathfinder go "Hey, wait a minute, that can't be right!"

I am looking at the weapons and armor chart and I am seeing something completely different than what you are. In fact, I have been looking at them since the game first came out in '74. And they all demonstrated a consistent basic design philosophy of game balance through trade-offs. I suppose it was clearer back when there weren't quite so many weapons, but it should still be obvious if you just look.

Want to do 1d8 damage? Use a Heavy Mace.
Want to increase the threat range to 19-20? Use a Longsword instead of a Heavy Mace with the trade-off that you need to have Martial Weapon proficiency.
Want to instead do 3x damage on a crit? Use a Battleaxe instead of a Heavy Mace with the same trade off.
Want to do more base damage and still crit on a 19-20? Use a Greatsword instead of a Heavy Mace with the trade-off that you need to have Martial Weapon proficiency and you have to wield the weapon in two hands.
Want to do more base damage with a 1-handed weapon and keep the 19-20 threat range? Use a Bastard Sword with the trade off that you need Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Want to do both 3x damage and have a threat range of 19-20? Use a Falcatta with the trade off that you need Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Want to increase your threat range to 18-20? Use a Scimitar with the trade off that you need Martial Weapon proficiency and reduce the damage to 1d6.
Want to be able to throw your weapon and wield it in melee? Get a Club instead of a Heavy Mace with the trade off of reducing the damage to 1d6.

And the list goes on and on an on. I don't see how you can look at those things and not see a basic weapon design intent towards balance through trade offs. Are there exceptions? Sure, especially if you go beyond the Core rules. But exceptions don't make the rules.

Basic design philosophy is very important in determining RAI.

Sovereign Court

Once you get Whip Mastery, the only advantage to a scorpion whip vs a normal whip would be an extra .5 damage & being able to make it out of mithril etc. The advantage of the whip would be the ability to do nonlethal damage at no penalty.

And you can't really consider Whip Mastery to be an extra cost of using a regular whip as every character who uses a whip often would still get it to not provoke, and as a pre-req for Improved Whip Mastery.

Would most whip characters choose the scorpian whip for that extra damage? Probably. But .5 damage for the ability to deal non-lethal for free isn't nothing, especially when a whip build would likely spend much of their time doing manuvers anyway. Heck - there's a feat which does nothing but allow bludgening to be non-lethal at no penalty, and a feat which did nothing but add .5 damage would be very weak.

And frankly - even if you consider a scorpian whip to be nothing but a stealth buff for a whip wielding style - it wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly wouldn't be amiss. It's not exactly top tier.

Shadow Lodge

The whip is not even intended as a combat weapon, hence those silly rules of nonlethal damage and natural armor. The whip is designed to inflict pain not to kill, of course this is a fantasy game and options are presented so to make this viable. The existence of scorpion whips is also an attempt to make this VIABLE.

There is also a very stupid herarchy of weapons and its certaintly very arbitrary, for example:

Club> Heavy Mace > Morningstar

Weapons are not created all with equal power, this has been true since 3.5 or earlier. I dont think this is good desing however but the whip is a very weak weapon, no reason you can have a viable whip for combat. Heack you can name it "combat whip" and that would probably make people happier.

Grand Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Once you get Whip Mastery, the only advantage to a scorpion whip vs a normal whip would be an extra .5 damage & being able to make it out of mithril etc. The advantage of the whip would be the ability to do nonlethal damage at no penalty.

Agreed. My problem is the steep cost in getting to Whip Mastery. Strike that. My problem isn't the steep cost. It's the long delay. Weapon choices are frequently part of character concepts. Not being able to fully realize your basic character concept until 7th level is silly.

Level 1-2: Greetings! I am Renaldo, Master of the Sword.
Level 3-4: Greetings! I am Renaldo, not quite Master of the Sword because I had to take a Whip feat that I can't use yet instead of a Sword feat.
Level 5-6: Greetings! I am Renaldo, even less of a Master of the Sword because I had to take two Whip feats that I can't use yet instead of Sword Feats.
Level 7+: Greetings! I am Renaldo, Master of the Whip.

On the other hand, if you choose to use Scorpion Whip until you get Whip Mastery, then switch to regular Whip you can still keep most of the concept intact, provided two conditions are met:

1) The interpretation of Scorpion Whip is not so greatly nerfed that it is not a viable option prior to getting Whip Mastery.
2) The interpretation of Scorpion Whip is not so generous as to make a regular whip a non-choice even after you get Whip Mastery.

Quote:
And you can't really consider Whip Mastery to be an extra cost of using a regular whip as every character who uses a whip often would still get it to not provoke, and as a pre-req for Improved Whip Mastery.

I don't understand what you are saying. A regular Whip is useless in 90% of combats until you get Whip Mastery. A Scorpion Whip is not. The fact that both gain benefit from Whip Mastery doesn't change that.

Quote:

Would most whip characters choose the scorpian whip for that extra damage? Probably. But .5 damage for the ability to deal non-lethal for free isn't nothing, especially when a whip build would likely spend much of their time doing manuvers anyway. Heck - there's a feat which does nothing but allow bludgening to be non-lethal at no penalty, and a feat which did nothing but add .5 damage would be very weak.

And frankly - even if you consider a scorpian whip to be nothing but a stealth buff for a whip wielding style - it wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly wouldn't be amiss. It's not exactly top tier.

Arguably, the Scorpion Whip also allows for the inclusion of special materials like Adamantine and Mithral. That is not trivial. Mostly, however, I agree with your point.

Grand Lodge

ElementalXX wrote:

There is also a very stupid herarchy of weapons and its certaintly very arbitrary, for example:

Club> Heavy Mace > Morningstar

You are using your <> backwards.

I will give you Heavy Mace < Morningstar but Club at least has the advantage of being a thrown weapon over Heavy Mace.

Quote:
Weapons are not created all with equal power, this has been true since 3.5 or earlier.

Equal power? No. But when they aren't equal, you need to have a reason to choose one other than just flavor. Otherwise there is no point in having the weapon. Because there is not point in having any rule in a game if no one ever has a reason to use that rule.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I just saw someone try to argue "game balance" by saying that 1d8/19-20 versus 1d6/18-20 is a "trade-off".

Grand Lodge

Jiggy wrote:

I just saw someone try to argue "game balance" by saying that 1d8/19-20 versus 1d6/18-20 is a "trade-off".

How is it not a trade off?

Sovereign Court

trollbill wrote:

Level 1-2: Greetings! I am Renaldo, Master of the Sword.

Level 3-4: Greetings! I am Renaldo, not quite Master of the Sword because I had to take a Whip feat that I can't use yet instead of a Sword feat.
Level 5-6: Greetings! I am Renaldo, even less of a Master of the Sword because I had to take two Whip feats that I can't use yet instead of Sword Feats.
Level 7+: Greetings! I am Renaldo, Master of the Whip.

On the other hand, if you choose to use Scorpion Whip until you get Whip Mastery, then switch to regular Whip you can still keep most of the concept intact, provided two conditions are met:

That I think would be the main advantage of the scorpion whip being used as a whip that can do lethal damage and isn't useless against those in armor.

Though I think you could focus on the while once you get to level 3-4. It would make for a pretty decent swashbuckler/daring cavalier build, though you wouldn't get your panache recharged often. (They actually get less damage out of crits anyway, as much of their damage is precise.)


trollbill wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I just saw someone try to argue "game balance" by saying that 1d8/19-20 versus 1d6/18-20 is a "trade-off".

How is it not a trade off?

Because 1d8 19-20 just isn't as good. ;)

Sovereign Court

NikolaiJuno wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I just saw someone try to argue "game balance" by saying that 1d8/19-20 versus 1d6/18-20 is a "trade-off".

How is it not a trade off?
Because 1d8 19-20 just isn't as good. ;)

It's still a trade off. Not all trade offs are equal trades.

At lower levels 1d8 19-20 is superior. Before improved crit or keen you need an average damage of more than 20 with the scimitar to be superior, or a static bonus of 17.

Grand Lodge

I have two PFS characters that use a whip.

The first is a bard whose character concept I based on the picture of Master Scourge from Skull & Shackles. He used a Rapier until 5th level because of table variation on whether or not you could Finesse a Scorpion Whip. He also liked the idea of a Scorpion Whip because he could potentially use Dazzling Blade with it. But, again, that is subject to table variation.

The second is a human Warpriest of Jalaijatalee. She was designed with the knowledge she would be playing the first 2 levels of Emerald Spire under the same GM, so there was no table variation until it became a moot point when she got Whip Mastery at 3rd, and she had Slashing Grace (whip) at 1st so Scorpion Whip was definitely the way to go until 3rd. The Whip became a better option at 3rd since the base damage was 1d6 either way, and I now had the choice of dealing non-lethal and there was no table variation.

Grand Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I just saw someone try to argue "game balance" by saying that 1d8/19-20 versus 1d6/18-20 is a "trade-off".

How is it not a trade off?
Because 1d8 19-20 just isn't as good. ;)

It's still a trade off. Not all trade offs are equal trades.

At lower levels 1d8 19-20 is superior. Before improved crit or keen you need an average damage of more than 20 with the scimitar to be superior, or a static bonus of 17.

The number crunchers also never seem to take into account the fact that not everything is critable, albeit, a lot more than in 3.5.


On my end it was not number crunching, just sarcasm and a personal preference for high crit ranges.


Crits are worth more even if your average damage will be less. A crit can end a fight/enemy a round early, an average 1 dmg/hit is very unlikely to do that (more unlikely than the 5% increase in crit chance).

Grand Lodge

NikolaiJuno wrote:
On my end it was not number crunching, just sarcasm and a personal preference for high crit ranges.

Well, I admit crits are fun. I suppose that is an added bonus over the numbers.

Sovereign Court

LoneKnave wrote:
Crits are worth more even if your average damage will be less. A crit can end a fight/enemy a round early, an average 0.5 dmg/hit is very unlikely to do that (more unlikely than the 5% increase in crit chance).

Actually - mathamatically you're wrong on several counts.

First - d8 is a full point more damage than d6 on average (4.5 vs 3.5), not .5 more damage.

Second - at low levels that extra point of damage is more likely to end a fight earlier than the increased crit change is. (Not by coolness factor - but by math.)

Third - If the damage averaged exactly the same, the build not relying upon a larger crit chance would be superior as the extra crit damage is often nothing but overkill (not even counting things which can't be critted). Basically for the same reason that 18-20 crit is generally better than x4 crit. (With exceptions on that front for when a buddy has Butterfly Sting etc.)

Grand Lodge

LoneKnave wrote:
Crits are worth more even if your average damage will be less. A crit can end a fight/enemy a round early, an average 0.5 dmg/hit is very unlikely to do that (more unlikely than the 5% increase in crit chance).

The average base damage difference between a long sword and a scimitar is 1, not 0.5. The average base damage difference between a scorpion whip and a whip is 0.5.

Suffice to say that there is enough difference of opinion that scimitar is not clearly always a better choice than long sword.


I've edited that before you guys replied, but yes, brainfart on the 1 damage.

However, Charon:

Say, guy has 20 HP, lvl 3-ish. You only have a damage bonus of +8-ish (Stat(5)+power attack(2)+misc(1)). Would you take the weapon with +5% to crit or the one with +1 average dmg?

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / one more scorpion whip thread? (sorry) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.