D&D 5E The whip needs love.(updated last time)

[MDragonG]

Should clarify that this is against the opponent hit with the successful attack. I assume that is the intent?

By "disarm" do you mean the optional Disarm attack from the DMG? Clarify.

Not clear what you mean by "trip". Do you mean the Shove attack? Not really clear how this is meant to work with the whip, as you make a Strength(Athletics) check to Shove.



Given that a whip is a Finesse weapon this is probably the case anyway --- depending on what is meant by a Trip and Disarm attack.



I assume that this is because you want to be able to take a tool proficiency in Whip? Is that the only reason?

I would just have the Feat give weapon proficiency in Whip instead.

While using a whip you make attempt a trip or disarm attempt as a bonus action when you successfully hit with an attack. Your answer is here already

And by trip I mean knock prone. By disarm I mean drop their weapon.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

when you successfully hit with an attack. Your answer is here already

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never discuss D&D rules on ENWorld.

 

[Lehrbuch]

When you make a successful melee attack with a whip on your turn you may use a bonus action to trip or disarm the target of the successful attack.

This reads better.

The saving throw DC to resist the trip or disarm attempt is 8 + your proficiency modifier + either your STR or DEX modifier (your choice).

Still doesn't explain what the result of the trip or disarm attempt is. Also, it seems like a reinvention of the wheel. The DMG already has rules for a Disarm attack. It would be better to trigger a Disarm attack with the bonus action. And likewise to alternatively trigger a Shove action (slightly modified perhaps, so that it uses the whip instead of a Strength check) instead of making up a special trip attack.

Also note that any character can already make a Disarm attack with a whip. The only thing that you are really adding (with regard to Disarm) is the trigger condition to do so as a Bonus action.

You may use the whip as a tool to perform stunts (use your imagination). Add your proficiency modifier to ability checks using the whip.

Still seems simpler to just say that the feat gives proficiency with whip. As far as performing "stunts", any character can already do this.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I quite like the proposed rule. It feels like giving out a battlemaster maneuver for free though, which might be a bit good, but on the other hand whip damage is generally low. No doubt there are cases where it could be combined with high damage however, eg thief sneak attack.

In our game, we made a whip master feat : when using a whip you gain adv on disarms and grapple with whip, and may reroll a check to prevent a fall if something (or someone) is nearby that the whip can latch onto.

For our simpler OSR style game, we gave whips the following property: on a natural 19 attack roll, you trip or disarm your foe.

 

[feartheminotaur]

While using a whip you make attempt a trip or disarm attempt as a bonus action when you successfully hit with an attack. That is basically the same thing as your last sentence.

Actually, no it is not. You misunderstand me. You are applying the Grapple rules (declare, make an opposed check) to Disarm.

The Disarm rule (DMG, p 271) is an attack roll vs a skill check, NOT a contested skill check. It is 1d20+proficiency+attack modifier vs opponent Athletics or Acrobatics check - essentially making an attack against AC, only the "AC" value is equal to the target's skill check. There is NO check made by the attacker as a part of a Disarm attempt.

So, your feat basically says "if you hit vs AC, resolve damage, and as a bonus action you can make a disarm attempt" - what is a "disarm attempt" at your table? What actually happens during that bonus action? Just a declaration "I use a bonus action to disarm" and if the target check is less than the initial attack roll then the target is disarmed? Or do you mean "I use a bonus action to disarm" and there is another roll by the attacker contested by the target? Because the second roll by the attacker is a house rule of an optional rule, which makes common ground for your requested feat evaluation difficult.

If you want to resolve a Disarm the same as Grapple, that's fine, but when you should probably clarify that up front (e.g., "I'm using my own house rule for Disarm as opposed to the optional rule outlined in the DMG") so we can provide you the feedback you requested.

ETA: I see you are using the Battlemaster Disarming Attack mechanic of a save. In that case you don't need to add the part in the feat about being able to use your Dex since your Disarm Attack mechanic is a house rule in the first place - there is no rule that says the save DC for a Disarm Attempt (outside of being a Battlemaster using the maneuver) is "8+prof+Str". Unless the feat is Battlemaster only.

 

[MDragonG]

Actually, no it is not. You misunderstand me. You are applying the Grapple rules (declare, make an opposed check) to Disarm.

The Disarm rule (DMG, p 271) is an attack roll vs a skill check, NOT a contested skill check. It is 1d20+proficiency+attack modifier vs opponent Athletics or Acrobatics check - essentially making an attack against AC, only the "AC" value is equal to the target's skill check. There is NO check made by the attacker as a part of a Disarm attempt.

So, your feat basically says "if you hit vs AC, resolve damage, and as a bonus action you can make a disarm attempt" - what is a "disarm attempt" at your table? What actually happens during that bonus action? Just a declaration "I use a bonus action to disarm" and if the target check is less than the initial attack roll then the target is disarmed? Or do you mean "I use a bonus action to disarm" and there is another roll by the attacker contested by the target? Because the second roll by the attacker is a house rule of an optional rule, which makes common ground for your requested feat evaluation difficult.

If you want to resolve a Disarm the same as Grapple, that's fine, but when you should probably clarify that up front (e.g., "I'm using my own house rule for Disarm as opposed to the optional rule outlined in the DMG") so we can provide you the feedback you requested.

ETA: I see you are using the Battlemaster Disarming Attack mechanic of a save. In that case you don't need to add the part in the feat about being able to use your Dex since your Disarm Attack mechanic is a house rule in the first place - there is no rule that says the save DC for a Disarm Attempt (outside of being a Battlemaster using the maneuver) is "8+prof+Str". Unless the feat is Battlemaster only.

Edited for durp...
We ourselves will use the proposed feat on the main page. This has given thought to everything posted here.
I feel like some people just like to make things complicated for complications sake. I feel as written its pretty straight forward and easy to understand. If you feel otherwise I don't know what to say.
It's not hard to understand what a trip or a disarm is and I see no need for more clarification.

 

[ad_hoc]

You may use the whip as a tool to perform stunts (use your imagination). Add your proficiency modifier to ability checks using the whip.

I am not a fan of this part as I think anyone proficient with a whip should be able to do this with or without the feat.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I feel like some people just like to make things complicated for complications sake. I feel as written its pretty straight forward and easy to understand. If you feel otherwise I don't know what to say.

The problem is that your version is more complicated than the alternatives, because you are introducing new, ill-defined rules rather than utilizing the existing rules for the same things.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I am not a fan of this part as I think anyone proficient with a whip should be able to do this with or without the feat.

Agree.

Indeed any character can attempt stunts with a whip (with neither feat nor proficiency). Proficiency just increases the chance of success.

 

[MDragonG]

The problem is that your version is more complicated than the alternatives, because you are introducing new, ill-defined rules rather than utilizing the existing rules for the same things.

You're one of those people who like to argue just because aren't you. This is straight forward can you read the feat? Can you understand it? If you can then what is the issue. Ok so it will be a houserule.