It's a whip.... and ?....

[Kaleon Moonshae]

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

While I completely agree with the poster's comments on a whip I would like to point out one inaccuracy, there are a lot of daggers that can, actually, go through plate. A stilleto was specifically designed that way, it places all of its force on a very harrow point and punches right through armor, much like a modern bullet would.

 

[ARandomGod]

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

You missed one point about Felix's post... it referred only to +3 or better NATURAL armor. Which I believe in general represents a particularly tough skin, and therefore would indeed conver the entire body. As to +1 or better armor, non-natural. Well, That is a little silly. If I were to house rule this (and therefore what I think would be a better rule) it would be no normal whip damage on +3 or better natural armor, full damage against any other armor type. And, of course, full magical damage, but that part doesn't need to be houseruled.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You missed one point about Felix's post... it referred only to +3 or better NATURAL armor.

no, it refered pretty clearly to both. Reread the part I actually quoted. It specificly talks about metal in the context of if it can be penatratedby one weapon or another, and assuming that armor covers the whole body equally. After that part he says "Similarly, natural armor is everywhere..." which by the way also isn't true, but the part I quoted and disagreed with was very distinctly talking about how armor was treated by the rules. (since it was followed up by questions of why armor wasn't ruined when the person inside was killed, I don't think I was alone in that interpretation.)

Anyway, the point is that there is always a vulnerable area, and as abstract as the combat system is, its just as easy to assume that a hit found one of those areas as that it punched through the armor (especially when dealing with finesse fighters). This is just as true of natural armor as the kind worn by PCs.

Kahuna Burger

 

[ARandomGod]

no, it refered pretty clearly to both. Reread the part I actually quoted. It specificly talks about metal in the context of if it can be penatratedby one weapon or another, and assuming that armor covers the whole body equally. After that part he says "Similarly, natural armor is everywhere..." which by the way also isn't true, but the part I quoted and disagreed with was very distinctly talking about how armor was treated by the rules. (since it was followed up by questions of why armor wasn't ruined when the person inside was killed, I don't think I was alone in that interpretation.)

Anyway, the point is that there is always a vulnerable area, and as abstract as the combat system is, its just as easy to assume that a hit found one of those areas as that it punched through the armor (especially when dealing with finesse fighters). This is just as true of natural armor as the kind worn by PCs.

Kahuna Burger

Ah, yes, it does. ALthough not so clearly... at least not until it said "Similairly, natural armor..." Until then I really thought that he was just giving examples of what would be +3 or natural armor... steel like skin. ^_^ And, of course, I then missed that part.

Of course, I have always assumed that natural armor being over come wasn't "finding a gap" so much as managing to hit accurately enough to actually penetrate... and normal armor as a combination of penetration and gapage... hence my statement.

(Oh, and I thought that the question about armor being destroyed was a tangential one. Which it is, just potentially not as tangential as I suspected. Hey, it's pretty late here!)

 

[Felix]

Kahuna Burger,

The idea behind "armor covers all parts of you body equally" was the lack of a mechanic to target certain parts of the body. Because you cannot target parts of a body, the armor might as well be said to cover your whole body equally. Despite the surfeit of real world examples of weapons that pierce or smash armor, the DnD system does not incorporate them for simplicity's sake. The mechanics of the whip follow this simple system.

Also, a small shield held in the hand of a right-handed person will only cover 2ftx2ft of space on their left-front side. But there is no facing in 3.5e. So it might as well cover the entire body, which in effect it does. Also note that a +1 large shield will give the wearer a +3 Shield bonus, not an armor bonus.

That's debated

-Hyp.

Council, approach the bench. Heh.

Where do you weigh in on this issue of no-whip-damage-but-energy-damage Hyp?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where do you weigh in on this issue of no-whip-damage-but-energy-damage Hyp?

Me?

I say a Shocking Whip deals 1d2 subdual + 1d6 electricity, but a whip cannot deal damage to a creature with an Armor bonus.

Just like I wouldn't let a Brilliant Energy Shocking longsword deal electricity damage to a construct, and just like I would let a Ghost Touch Shocking greataxe deal electricity damage to an incorporeal creature with no miss chance.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

IMHO, the Subdual damage should be treated as negated by DR when the opponent's armor is too thick to be harmed. Thus, energy damage would apply, just as energy damage from a dagger would apply when striking a Wizard with Stoneskin up.

-- N

 

[Laurel]

hmmm... the fun of grabbing a new weapon....

I always figured you were trying to hit a vulnerable spot, but people wearing the armor or lack their off know these spots and will defend them better.
Without actually acting this stuff out the dice roll is a nice way to simulate the chance at hitting those spots. Sticking with the whip, it is not easy to hit an eye or other small area of skin, but it should be possible.
Maybe roll attack and only have regular damage taken if a successful crit?
That way there is still the possible 'you hit them in the eye' kind of flavor..... thoughts and criticisms welcome.

 

[MarauderX]

Despite the surfeit of real world examples of weapons that pierce or smash armor, the DnD system does not incorporate them for simplicity's sake. The mechanics of the whip follow this simple system.

But one day, perhaps in D&D edition 8.5, there will be rules so complex as to cover the different limbs of the body, and left, right and center torso, front and rear, and head... an updated Battletech-esque system to put ACs and HPs on everything so it affects skill attempts too...
But alas, this is merely 3.5... but... someday... until then, I dream...
Only then will the whip get respect as you dish out stinging lashes on your foe's exposed legs, just before he launches into the air using a Jump Spell to do a DFA (Death from Above). For the sake of simplicity I will abide by the 3.5 rules for armor protecting against a whip. Right now it looks like whips will only be good for teaching low-level monks a lesson.

 

[Felix]

Hyp, Nifft:

Both make sense and both have rules precedence; that pretty much leaves it up to the DM's discresion, eh?


/Aside

MarauderX, do you still have a fetish for the whip? I thought that died out when your Aryana bard bit the dust...