D&D 3E/3.5 Is there ANY way to make whips good using WotC-only 3.5 material?

[frankthedm]

are you saying that beginning to stand up provokes an AoO, and therefore i can't trip them because they're not standing yet?

Correct, the AoO you get can't make them prone for they have yet to stand. Just the as the AoO one gets when an adjacent foe attempts to CDG an ally happens before the CDG. Wotc has clarrified this a few times but believe what you wish.

are you saying that no matter what action provokes the AoO, they get to complete it, even though my response is to prevent the provocative action?

You may 'want' to prevent the action, if your AoO does not incapacitate them most of the time they complete thier action after your AoO.

Tripping a charging creature with an AoO or a ready and making sure you are not in the now prone creatures's threat does prevent the attack.

Tripping or damaging someone who is CDG'ing your friend usually just gets you a dead friend. Since a Bull rush might move the foe far enough away to not be adjacent to the target, that would ruin the CDG.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

Correct, the AoO you get can't make them prone for they have yet to stand. Just the as the AoO one gets when an adjacent foe attempts to CDG an ally happens before the CDG.

ok, i'm a newb to the boards, so i'm not familiar with all the abbreviations... CDG?

Wotc has clarrified this a few times but believe what you wish.

um... i believe what i see. granted, i haven't read every page of errata on the WoTC boards, but this is, as far as i can tell, not stated in the corebooks. in fact, the only word on standing from prone is "Standing up from a prone position requires a move action and provokes attacks of opportunity," and "A tripped character is prone. Standing up is a move action"

i put 2 and 2 together, and i think the answer is 4. is my math faulty or are the rules unclear? the SRD goes on to state that:

"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."

should this instead read:

"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with whatever action the combatant who provoked the attack of opportunity was attempting." (?)

EDIT
and, after reading some errata on the WoTC boards...
"It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, you can't be tripped while getting up from prone, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. Since you're still prone when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity can't trip you.

Your foes still can use trip attacks to keep you down when you're prone, however. A foe can use the ready action to prepare a trip attack against you when you stand up."

and so, with a few ready actions, the never-ending trip is still feasible... but not nearly as much fun.

 

[Legildur]

ok, i'm a newb to the boards, so i'm not familiar with all the abbreviations... CDG?

Coup de Grace - Full Round Action (PHB p153).

 

[AbeTheGnome]

ah. so do the rules say anything about "CDG"-ing while prone?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Round 2: Gripping whip in both hands (for the +4 bonus of it being a two-handed weapon) Disarm the Fighter.

A whip you're gripping with both hands is a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, not a two-handed weapon. If you want a whip that's considered a two-handed weapon, try one designed for a Large creature.

(Consider the Power Attack feat, for example, which references both two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons wielded in two hands; the two are not synonymous.)

In 3E, wielding a weapon in two hands gave a +4 bonus to the check to resist being disarmed, and nothing to the check to disarm.

In 3.5, wielding a two-handed weapon gives a +4 bonus to all disarm checks (offensive or defensive).

Don't get the two confused like Skip Williams.

-Hyp.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hey Hyp, what's the range on a whip wielded by a diminutive creature? What about a colossal one?

Also folks, you can't take AoOs with a whip, since it doesn't threaten, so if you trip someone, you'll need a different weapon if you want to attack them when they stand up.

 

[Deset Gled]

There are those of us who strongly disagree with H-Smurf's/Patryn's position on enchanted whips.

There are also those of us who strongly agree. The basic arguement is as follows:

Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

Emphasis mine. My interpretation of this sentance is that the weapon (in this case, a whip) is dealing the damage, not the enhancement. And since the weapon is incapable of dealing damage to an armored opponent, the damage from the enchantment does not apply. Note that an exception to this interpretation is the Viscious enhancement, which specifically notes that it is the energy (enhancement) dealing damage.

In addition to being inconsistent with this sentance, I believe that ruling otherwise also causes other rules problems to surface. For example, if a flaming whip can deal damage to an armored opponent, shouldn't a +1 magic whip deal 1 point of damage to an armored opponent? After all, if it is the enhancement, not the weapon, dealing the damage the +1 should still go through.

Another example is a rogue dealing sneak attack damage. Sneak attack damage is supposed to be the same type of damage as the main attack. So a rogue sneak attacking an unarmored opponent with a flaming whip deals subdual sneak attack damage. But if a rogue sneak attacks an armored opponent with a flaming whip, and the whip does only flaming damage, it follows that the sneak attack damage must be fire damage. I see this as being a glaring inconsistency (since a rogue should not be able to deal different types of sneak attack damage with the same weapon, barring other special abilities) that is a direct result of your ruling.

 

[comrade raoul]

What's the ruling for how a flaming whip interacts with armor? Would a flaming whip deal nonlethal fire damage?

In addition to dealing lethal damage, the DR rules suggest that a flaming whip should harm armored opponents normally. I think the most plausible model for a whip's inability to damage armored opponents is DR, so any abilities that would take effect even if an opponent's DR negated all of a weapon's damage should take effect if armor prevents whips from being effective. Energy enhancements play such a role.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not going to contribute to a hijack of this thread- I've said everything I need to say vis a vis flaming whips etc. in the link I posted.

I believe Hyp/Patryn/Gled's position is also fully explained within it as well.

Suffice it to say, there are 2 reasonable positions that have very real and different consequences. (There are also nuances within those positions.)

 

[Darklone]

ah. so do the rules say anything about "CDG"-ing while prone?

You learn quick (referring to how you found the errata). Bravo.

Nothing in the rules says you cannot CDG someone while you're prone. It's harder to hit when lying on the floor, but that's it. You can cast, trip others, grapple them, cast spells... as long as they are in reach.