Silencing a Whip CRACK

[Byronus]

A whip makes that loud crack when it strikes. Is it possible to make it so a whip can be used quietly, so it can be used by Roguish types? I have a Bard character in an intrigue-heavy campaign, and want to be able to utilize whips without granting Perception checks each time I do so.

Thanks,

:Byronus

[Jericho Graves]

As far as I knew, actually using a whip doesn't make it crack. In fact making the crack noise is something you specifically have to learn to do.

[Crayon]

Not being familiar with the use of a whip as an actual weapon, I can't say for sure, but it seems reasonable that you could be able toreduce the noise by either omitting the final wrist action or, if that action is necessary to inflict damage, at least reduce it enough that the tip won't be moving fast enough to break the sound barrier (similar to using a silencer with a pistol)

[Bandw2]

to be clear any type of attack grants a perception check with a DC of -10. :3 i'd definitely look into some scrolls of silence when it's absolutely necessary to attack someone.

if you're forgoing that rule, then you could probably strangle people with a whip.

also, @ jericho, the crack is what makes a whip strike hurtful, otherwise it will do no damage.

[Lincoln Hills]

Whips do make a lot of noise (although as Jericho points out, the really loud bullwhip-crack you hear is more like a Dazzling Display attempt than anything you'd get while making an attack roll). If you really want to reduce the noise without reducing damage, a knotted or weighted whip loses some of its aerodynamic qualities without reducing the amount of pain involved. At higher budgets you could probably make use of the silence spell, perhaps built in as a weapon quality so you don't suffer the drawbacks of carrying an object with that spell on it.

[Byronus]

I was considering a permanent Silence spell, but I'm not sure if Permanency will work.

There's also the Oil of Silence, which is used for firearms. Perhaps the GM can make an exception and say it can be used on Whips.

Thanks, again, for the help, guys. :)

:Byronus

[Gwen Smith]

Since Silence is an area effect, it should work to keep the whip crack silent. I don't think that Oil of Silence on the whip itself will work (assuming your GM allows you use it on a non-gun), since it's actually a small sonic boom that makes the noise.

[Claxon]

What are you ultimately trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to make it so that when you attack enemies that they don't notice? Or that people around them don't notice?

I can tell you that it simply isn't possible, as attacking breaks stealth.

[Byronus]

Claxon wrote:

What are you ultimately trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to make it so that when you attack enemies that they don't notice? Or that people around them don't notice?

I can tell you that it simply isn't possible, as attacking breaks stealth.

I'm thinking about attacking/capturing someone in a room that, potentially, has guards outside, or patrols nearby. I wouldn't want the Whip crack to alert anyone nearby, who would hear and react accordingly.

[Ithnaar]

The crack of the whip is created by the very tip of it actually breaking the sound barrier. It's a tiny sonic boom.

If you lash someone without cracking it, you are more or less beating them with a leather rope.

I'd think that if you want to do damage, you'd have to crack the whip. For other uses like tripping or entangling, I'd think you could get away with a subsonic lash.

[Claxon]

Byronus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

What are you ultimately trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to make it so that when you attack enemies that they don't notice? Or that people around them don't notice?

I can tell you that it simply isn't possible, as attacking breaks stealth.

I'm thinking about attacking/capturing someone in a room that, potentially, has guards outside, or patrols nearby. I wouldn't want the Whip crack to alert anyone nearby, who would hear and react accordingly.

So, regardless of your whip making sound, which it doesn't by the rules of the game because it isn't stated to, noticing combat is a -10 DC perception check. There's pretty much now way to avoid it if the enemy is close.

[Torbyne]

RAW there is no distinction between weapon attacks, a crossbow, a whip a dagger and a blunderbuss all make the same volume of noise with the same DC to perceive. Effectively what you want to do is up to the GM to decide. You could suggest all kinds of mitigating factors (something as simple as a +1 whip being quiet by virtue of the embedded magic would work) but it will be a table variation at the end of the day.

Houserule a static cost magical benefit between 750-1000GP that reduces or cancels the auditory signal of the enchanted weapon?

[Claxon]

Or, rather than using house rules, an oil (potion) of silence would do the trick.

Of course, technically silence doesn't actually do anything to the perception check by RAW, but I think most GMs would say that if they door is closed there is no possible visual stimulus to detect so only auditory stimulus are applicable. If you use oil of silence to prevent the sounds of combat from being able to reach the guards they should never be granted a check to know anything is happening.

That however, is not actually in the rules despite being quite reasonable.

[GinoA]

Claxon wrote:

Of course, technically silence doesn't actually do anything to the perception check by RAW, but I think most GMs would say that if they door is closed there is no possible visual stimulus to detect so only auditory stimulus are applicable. If you use oil of silence to prevent the sounds of combat from being able to reach the guards they should never be granted a check to know anything is happening.

That however, is not actually in the rules despite being quite reasonable.

The DC=-10 check is for "Hear the sound of battle". That is definitely sound-based and would be affected by Silence.

[Claxon]

I know what you're sawing GinoA, and I agree with you in principle, but there isn't actually a rule that specifies that the "sound of battle" means the check is based on sound only. This is part of the reason why I tell people that RAW is irrelevant in this game, and that we should care for more about what is intended or balanced for the game.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it is technically how the rules would work. If you were trying to process it like a computer.

[Keith Apperson]

Claxon wrote:

I know what you're sawing GinoA, and I agree with you in principle, but there isn't actually a rule that specifies that the "sound of battle" means the check is based on sound only. This is part of the reason why I tell people that RAW is irrelevant in this game, and that we should care for more about what is intended or balanced for the game.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it is technically how the rules would work. If you were trying to process it like a computer.

But it is specified. The Rules do not define 'sound' because they do not have to. Sound is sound. Sound is heard. An argument might be made that sound could be felt (tremorsense and all).

It is to everyone's benefit that rules interpretations do not reach a point of 'is sound sound if it's not defined as sound?'