Let's talk whips...

[Guest 6801328]

How could whips be improved to make them a more mechanically viable choice, while also remaining different from other weapons?

Is a "Whip Master" Feat the right solution? Possible ideas:

• When wielding a 1H weapon in one hand, you may wield a whip in your offhand. (Technically allowing dual-wielding of whips. An alternative would be: "Whips are considered light for you.")
• When wielding a whip, you may add your proficiency bonus a second time when using the Acrobatics skill. (This could be problematic in terms of the whole "DM permission" debate.)
• When making a whip attack, you may take a -5 penalty to your attack roll, but if successful you Disarm your opponent, and as part of the action throw your enemy's weapon up to 30' in any direction you choose. (Should this be a contested roll?)
• Forego damage with the whip attack, and instead you prevent the enemy from taking reactions until your next turn.
• When attacking an enemy beyond 5', have the option of trying to either pull them toward you, or pull them prone (contested move).

Other ideas? I would love love love for a Whip Master Feat to make it into the forthcoming expansion.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A lot of that could be done with existing rules.
If you want to dual-wield whips, there is already a feat that will let you do so.

If you think you have a situation where using a whip will help you climb, swing, jump etc, then ask your DM: they might just give you advantage on your Str(Athletics) or Dex(Acrobatics) check, or whatever it was you were trying to do.

Disarming should very much be a contested roll. I'd suggest using the existing rules in the DMG (Attack roll vs Athletics or Acrobatics rather than dealing damage IIRC) if your DM is using them. Or just pick the feat that allows you to use the Disarm maneuver.

Preventing someone from taking reactions is tricky, but there certainly isn't any reason that you couldn't grapple with a whip.

Likewise, you can technically shove a creature with your whip. Either knock it prone, or as your DM if you can move it 5ft towards you rather than away because you're pulling it rather than pushing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A lot of that could be done with existing rules.
If you want to dual-wield whips, there is already a feat that will let you do so.

Right, but the whip is basically a bad weapon as it is, so spending a precious ASI in order to make an off-hand attack with one makes as little sense as wielding a whip in the first place. (Spending the ASI to dual-wield and then putting whips in both hands makes even less sense.)

If you think you have a situation where using a whip will help you climb, swing, jump etc, then ask your DM: they might just give you advantage on your Str(Athletics) or Dex(Acrobatics) check, or whatever it was you were trying to do.

They might, but the same argument could be made for shields ("Hey...can I use the shaft of my Halberd as an offhand attack?") but they make a Feat anyway that does it better.

So, yeah, you can certainly wield a whip if you want but there are big opportunity costs for doing so. It would be nice if those who want to use a whip for flavor reasons don't have to gimp their character to do so. And it would be more colorful to rebalance in a way other than damage.

 

[Ainulindalion]

One of the biggest changes that I think would help make whips effective would be to make them work the Polearm Master Feat so that you get an OA when the enemy enters your reach. I have a character that is a priestess of Loviatar and would take the feat in a heartbeat if it let her do that, even for no other benefit to her.

Most of the other feats that affect certain fighting styles have benefits that exist outside of that fighting style, at least to a minor degree. Polearm Master does not.

If I was writing a Whip Master feat, it would probably look something like this:
Prerequisite: Proficiency with the whip.
While wielding a whip, you gain the following benefits:
*You may make an opportunity attack when an enemy enters your reach.
*You learn the Disarming Attack and Trip Attack maneuvers from the Battle Master archetype of the fighter class, but you may only use them with a whip, unless you know them from another source. The saving throw DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice). You may perform each maneuver once per short or long rest, and when you do, your whip deals 2d4 slashing damage instead of 1d4 slashing damage. You may not also use these attacks to trigger the use of superiority dice, if you have any.


That wouldn't be the final form, probably. I'd have to think about the wording some more - I don't want it to out power Martial Adept in any significant way.

But this makes the whip into an attractive option I would think for a character with proficiency and rogue levels, since the whip is a finesse weapon.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Right, but the whip is basically a bad weapon as it is, so spending a precious ASI in order to make an off-hand attack with one makes as little sense as wielding a whip in the first place. (Spending the ASI to dual-wield and then putting whips in both hands makes even less sense.)

It is the only Finesse, Reach weapon around. Its rather handy for a dex-based character to deal damage (since their dex bonus and potential sneak attack will go some way to make up for the slightly smaller dice) from behind the front line. It has the advantage of being able to apply effects like disarming and knocking prone, using a dex-based attack, without exposing yourself (since ranged attacks do not generally have that option).

There are lots of basically slightly suboptimal weapons in the PHB. Is the intention to make a new feat for each of them, giving special rules to "rebalance" them all so those who want to use one for flavour reasons don't have to gimp their character to do so?
Quite frankly, the whip is the only weapon that can do what it does. A character who wants to be able to do what the whip allows them to do isn't gimping themselves. And a player who isn't interested in its existing capabilities, but just its DPR, to whom the loss of those one or two points of damage is a dealbreaker isn't likely to worry about flavour that much.

You are perfectly correct that wielding a whip as a weapon in the first place makes little sense, and trying to wield another whip in your other hand makes even less. But D&D allows some well-liked tropes even if they're not realistic. Both Indiana Jones and Zorro were famous characters who used whips as a part of their toolset, and occasionally as a backup weapon.

They might, but the same argument could be made for shields ("Hey...can I use the shaft of my Halberd as an offhand attack?") but they make a Feat anyway that does it better.

If you want to do something and you think the fact that the presence of your shield would make it significantly easier in this circumstance, then by all means, ask your DM about that as well.
The polearm feat might not make much sense in RL, but within the mechanics of the game it has a specific purpose: to allow something that wouldn't be allowed by the rules otherwise. (Making an off-hand attack with a two-handed weapon.) That is different from the DM deciding whether there is a handy projection over a pit and ruling that your whip gives you advantage in your check to get across.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or maybe:
- When an enemy enters your reach you can use your reaction to make a whip attack OR attempt a disarm? (No expertise dice, no limitation on use, no extra damage.)
That plus "you can wield one in your off-hand with another 1H weapon" would make me very much want to take the Feat. And I might even throw in free proficiency if you don't have it already.

My goal here is to make the whip an interesting & useful offhand alternative to a shield, that isn't just about damage.

As for the acrobatics/athletics, the problem with allowing it to be used without a Feat is that every character who can use one suddenly has an incentive to hang one on their belts. There's no downside; it's just a free bonus to some skill checks.

(Whip should be a Monk weapon, too!)

 

[bedir than]

In many ways I see the "Weapon Specific Feats" as a replacement for weapon specialization. I actually think all weapons should have a feat that applies to it, or groups of similar weapons.

Defensive Duelist - finesse weapons
Crossbow Expert - crossbows (minor carry-over to other ranged weapons)
Great Weapon Master - heavy weapons (minor carry-over to other melee weapons)
Polearm Master - polearms (but not the pike) and quarterstaff
Sharpshooter - all ranged weapons (I would prefer this as all weapons that have the ammunition trait)
Tavern Brawler - improvised and unarmed attacks

There are some weapon categories that aren't covered or are barely covered
Thrown Weapons (often these don't do much damage and DnD has the historics of throwing 2 or 3 in a single attack)
Whip
Nets
Peasant Weapons (club, dagger, sickle, staff, sling, polearms)
Siege Weapons

I would also suggest grouped weapon specific Feats add some interesting flavor beyond +1/+1 and +2/+3 of the past.
Swords, Axes, Hammers

 

[Guest 6801328]

In many ways I see the "Weapon Specific Feats" as a replacement for weapon specialization. I actually think all weapons should have a feat that applies to it, or groups of similar weapons.

Defensive Duelist - finesse weapons
Crossbow Expert - crossbows (minor carry-over to other ranged weapons)
Great Weapon Master - heavy weapons (minor carry-over to other melee weapons)
Polearm Master - polearms (but not the pike) and quarterstaff
Sharpshooter - all ranged weapons (I would prefer this as all weapons that have the ammunition trait)
Tavern Brawler - improvised and unarmed attacks

There are some weapon categories that aren't covered or are barely covered
Thrown Weapons (often these don't do much damage and DnD has the historics of throwing 2 or 3 in a single attack)
Whip
Nets
Peasant Weapons (club, dagger, sickle, staff, sling, polearms)
Siege Weapons

I would also suggest grouped weapon specific Feats add some interesting flavor beyond +1/+1 and +2/+3 of the past.
Swords, Axes, Hammers

I only partially agree. I don't think weapons that by themselves make perfectly good choices need to be made better. So I don't see much reason to add more bonuses to swords/axes/hammers. I'd like Feats to be used to make weapons that otherwise might not get much love (e.g. Thrown weapons) into viable options, hopefully making weapon choice more interesting and unpredictable.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Or maybe:
- When an enemy enters your reach you can use your reaction to make a whip attack OR attempt a disarm? (No expertise dice, no limitation on use, no extra damage.)
That plus "you can wield one in your off-hand with another 1H weapon" would make me very much want to take the Feat. And I might even throw in free proficiency if you don't have it already.

IIRC the disarm option from the DMG is usable any time that you could make a melee attack. So no need to specify that your incoming OA allows disarms. Extra damage isn't a problem, because there is no damage to start with unless you're using the Battlemaster version.

My goal here is to make the whip an interesting & useful offhand alternative to a shield, that isn't just about damage.

It already is interesting and useful. Thats my point. You give up the AC of a shield but gain a finesse, reach melee option.

As for the acrobatics/athletics, the problem with allowing it to be used without a Feat is that every character who can use one suddenly has an incentive to hang one on their belts. There's no downside; it's just a free bonus to some skill checks.

(Whip should be a Monk weapon, too!)

Its like having a short-ranged and limited, but more accessible version of a grappling hook. Is there a particular reason why you would need a specific feat to be able to use a whip to help you swing or climb? Is there a particular reason that having a whip and the feat would work on every Athletics/Acrobatics check?

Its already Finesse. Why specifically a Monk weapon? Just so you can deal the additional damage with it? Its not something I'd really associate with Monks to be frank.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It already is interesting and useful. Thats my point. You give up the AC of a shield but gain a finesse, reach melee option.

Not without a Feat, and with that Feat you could use a d8 weapon instead of a d4 weapon. The only reason to use the whip would be reach, which isn't really that useful. If Whips were "light" then, I agree, we wouldn't need a Feat. It would be a choice between d6 or d4 + reach. That seems like a good trade.

And if it is a Feat, then it has to be one that can compete with Dual Wielder (or whatever it's called).

I'm not a hard-core powergamer, but nor do I think that players should be mechanically punished for RP choices.

Its like having a short-ranged and limited, but more accessible version of a grappling hook. Is there a particular reason why you would need a specific feat to be able to use a whip to help you swing or climb?

Only to avoid effectively requiring everybody from carrying around a whip just to get a bonus to certain athletics or acrobatics checks. May as well just reduce the DC on those checks.

Imagine if Magnifying glass added proficiency (twice if you already have it) to Investigation. It costs 100gp, but wouldn't EVERYBODY interested in that skill run out and buy one as soon as they could?

A whip only costs 2gp.

Is there a particular reason that having a whip and the feat would work on every Athletics/Acrobatics check?

Not sure which question you're asking here (did you mean "wouldn't" instead of "would"?) but...
1) I think it should require a feat for the above reason
2) I was looking to add utility outside of combat to make it more interesting
3) The problematic part is which Athletics/Acrobatics checks. The three choices are "DM's discretion" "If there is an anchor point" (which to me sounds like DM's Discretion) or "Always". Not sure what the best answer is.

Its already Finesse. Why specifically a Monk weapon? Just so you can deal the additional damage with it? Its not something I'd really associate with Monks to be frank.

Nor I, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be, if somebody wanted to be creative. And if it's not a Monk weapon then no Monk will ever use it. (Not just for the damage but because some abilities require Monk Weapons to be used.) I don't see a reason to not allow Monks to join in the fun.