Is a whip with Combat Reflexes the uber-comination that my player thinks it is?

[Azlan]

Another way to foil the whip-weilder is to launch a high Str NPC at him. If he fails his trip or disarm, the ranger would have to face a trip or disarm from the NPC, or let go of the whip to avoid the trip. Give that NPC a few feats like Improved disarm or Improved Trip and she gets a +4 bonus to yank that whip out of his hand.

True. But then the ranger-player would probably take Quick Draw and carry a few extra whips.

 

[KarinsDad]

The 3.5 SRD says for Combat Reflexes, "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn?t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." (Again, italics added for emphasis.)

However, I find the wording of that last sentence rather ambiguous. I originally took it to mean that, if a character with a whip has a 15' reach, then an advancing opponent moving from 15' to 10' away, and then from 10' to 5', allows the character two separate AoO's.

That wording seems clear to me.

You can get multiple attacks of opportunity, except moving out of multiple threatened spaces doesn't count as multiple opportunities (against the same opponent). So, only one AoO per opponent for moving.

 

[Azlan]

Apart from what's been noted already, a whip does 1d3 non-lethal damage, and non against any opponent that has an armor bonus of +1 or more, or a natural armor bonus of +3 or more. Even if that character has 18 STR also, he does 1d3+4 nonlethal damage to naked opponents. Big whoop.

The damage is negligable, for sure. But just having a 15' reach and the ability to disarm with a +2 bonus is pretty useful, wouldn't you say?

 

[Piratecat]

I have a rogue-based lasher with an improved invisibility item and lots of sneak attack. 1d3 + 5d6. . . Wheee!

 

[James McMurray]

Azlan: how is that wording at all ambigous? It says that movement doesn't provoke multiple AoOs, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

But since the whip doesn't threaten, its kind of a moot point.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Azlan: how is that wording at all ambigous? It says that movement doesn't provoke multiple AoOs, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

But standing back up would...

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

I have a rogue-based lasher with an improved invisibility item and lots of sneak attack. 1d3 + 5d6. . . Wheee!

PC you should ask Wulf or DinkleDog about my halfling lasher. He was a veritable whirlwind of death, of course this backfired when he became confused and started slaying party members.

 

[Azlan]

Azlan: how is that wording at all ambigous?

Because I had to re-read that sentence more than once before I was clear on its meaning. (And, last time I was tested, I have a reading ability well above college level.)

Furthermore, the ranger-player evidently read the 3.5 rules for Combat Reflexes, too; and he, too, thought he was eligable for multiple AoO's against an advancing opponent.

It says that movement doesn't provoke multiple AoOs, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

If that had been the wording it used, then, yes. But I, for one, thought the wording it did use was ambiguous.

Anyway, the meaning of the sentence is clear to me now, so no problem.

 

[Coredump]

PC you should ask Wulf or DinkleDog about my halfling lasher. He was a veritable whirlwind of death, of course this backfired when he became confused and started slaying party members.

Hey, a bit of Ranger, and you could use two whips.... yay!

 

[pawsplay]

Whips are all well and good until you meet the Dwarven Monk with an amulet of natural armor +2.