It's a whip.... and ?....
- Thread starter Laurel
- Start date
The_Universe
First Post
Yeah--the energy damage is not effected by what type of damage the weapon itself does.
The_Universe
First Post
Also, I am still unsure as to why whips can't damage creatures that have armor bonuses (natural or otherwise).
Presumably, if one has a dagger, and one rolls his or her attacks normally, one would "hit" whenever you beat the AC. Now, if I recall the description of what this game rule sequence means, is that any hit manages to avoid the armor of the creature wearing it, thus piercing (or slashing) the flesh of the creature targeted, doing damage.
If a whip beats the targets AC, why is it incapable of doing the same. It's not like a rogue who beats a full-plate armored fighter to do damage is just hitting the armor hard enough that it bruises the guy within.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the restriction makes no sense whatsoever. None at all. And when you consider that whips only do 1D2 SUBDUAL damage, it becomes even more ridiculous.
Am I way off base, here?
Presumably, if one has a dagger, and one rolls his or her attacks normally, one would "hit" whenever you beat the AC. Now, if I recall the description of what this game rule sequence means, is that any hit manages to avoid the armor of the creature wearing it, thus piercing (or slashing) the flesh of the creature targeted, doing damage.
If a whip beats the targets AC, why is it incapable of doing the same. It's not like a rogue who beats a full-plate armored fighter to do damage is just hitting the armor hard enough that it bruises the guy within.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the restriction makes no sense whatsoever. None at all. And when you consider that whips only do 1D2 SUBDUAL damage, it becomes even more ridiculous.
Am I way off base, here?
Re: not damaging +3 or better natural armor.
A whip is several braided strips of leather. They cut by gaining incredible velocity through the whipping action (the "lash" of whiplash, eh). But even then you're not going to cut through some things... you won't cut through a piece of steel, or even a wooden door. And since armor is considered, for simplicity purposes, to cover every inch of a body equally, the cover the armor provides stops the whip's ability to slice flesh. Similarly, natural armor is everywhere, and a whip just won't damage something underneath much like it won't damage a wooden door.
A longsword, on the other hand, can cut through wooden doors and pierce steel armor. When it beats the AC, the damage is done through and despite the armor.
Would it matter if you houseruled it? No, probably not. The whip is a utility weapon anyway and not designed for damage.
A whip is several braided strips of leather. They cut by gaining incredible velocity through the whipping action (the "lash" of whiplash, eh). But even then you're not going to cut through some things... you won't cut through a piece of steel, or even a wooden door. And since armor is considered, for simplicity purposes, to cover every inch of a body equally, the cover the armor provides stops the whip's ability to slice flesh. Similarly, natural armor is everywhere, and a whip just won't damage something underneath much like it won't damage a wooden door.
A longsword, on the other hand, can cut through wooden doors and pierce steel armor. When it beats the AC, the damage is done through and despite the armor.
Would it matter if you houseruled it? No, probably not. The whip is a utility weapon anyway and not designed for damage.
The_Universe
First Post
A fair explanation. Thanks felix.
But, if other weapons are assumed to have pierced the armor of the target in order to damage, why isn't more armor destroyed? To my mind, in a "rules" sense (although in real life, I totally agree with you, Felix.
) the only time the armor is being pierced, the shield broken, etc. is when a successful sunder attempt is made.
But, if other weapons are assumed to have pierced the armor of the target in order to damage, why isn't more armor destroyed? To my mind, in a "rules" sense (although in real life, I totally agree with you, Felix.
) the only time the armor is being pierced, the shield broken, etc. is when a successful sunder attempt is made.
JimAde
First Post
I always assume the armor IS getting banged up, then minor repairs are done during down time as part of all that "stuff" I never bother to role-play. Sundering represents serious, purposeful damage.The_Universe said:A fair explanation. Thanks felix.
But, if other weapons are assumed to have pierced the armor of the target in order to damage, why isn't more armor destroyed? To my mind, in a "rules" sense (although in real life, I totally agree with you, Felix.
Having said that, though, I agree with you. A whip should work just fine on someone with armor since some of their body is generally exposed. As Felix said, it really makes very little difference.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Felix said:
I'd disagree with that intepretation entirely. I have seen nothing to indicate that armor is assumed to cover the whole body equally (for simplicity's sake or otherwise) simply that there is no mechanical way to represent aiming for an uncovered area. (or no mechanical benifit to doing so). You may hit one or you may not. A chain shirt explicity does not cover the legs (hence the difference between that and full chain) and provides a lower armor bonus. When you score a hit against that armor type, you may have penatrated the armor, or you may have struck an area unprotected by the armor. When you crit a guy in full plate you may have swung hard enough to stab right through it, or you may have stabbed him through the eye. Even natural armor is not on the eyes, nose or all areas equally. A sling stone also will not penatrate an iron plate, nor will any non magical dagger. Claiming that being made of braided leather has anything to do with the whip's damage is only a justification, it provides no explaination for why it is statted that way.
Consider that the neccassary +1 armor bonus for a whip to do no damage can be provided by a light shield. Do you think that DMs generally assume that a light sheild covers every inch of the body equally and every hit scored has resulted from a weapon going right through the shield? Most who bother to describe the attacks will say that a miss due to shield bonus was deflected by it, but a hit in spite of shield bonus hit him on the exposed side.
A whip could hit an armored fighter in the face, or wrap around an arm and wrench it to do similar damage to a bludgeoning weapon. A crit/sneak attack with a whip which does enough damage to kill has wrapped right around the neck and broken it with a quick yank. I think you could easily houserule that whips do leathal damage on a crit or when used with a successful sneak attack, two cases which explicitly assume striking a vulnerable area. In both cases, and with magical whips of any sort I would also ignore the armor bonus restrictions. (I would ignore them in general, but thats a bit more extreme house rule.)
Kahuna Burger
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Kahuna Burger said:
Not in 3.5, it can't.
JimAde said:
That's debated
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Darklone said:Hyp, sometimes I worry that might be written on a ruleslawyers tombstone
Heh.
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
