D&D 5E Whip Feat

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, heh. I composed that a few hours ago and by the time I got back to it and pressed "Post" it looks like you had incorporated similar suggestions already. I'd still recommend:
- Changing the wording from "before you make an attack..." to simply "on a successful attack you may forego damage". That will avoid countless arguments at the table.
- Pulling the weapon 5' toward you doesn't tactically change anything most of the time. Throwing it behind you does. (On the other hand, that becomes so useful/powerful that it may be overdoing it. See below.)

I still disagree with the extra damage. I used the word "mow" poetically, but the fact remains that Indy isn't really using his weapon to kill/maim people; he's using it for pizzaz. It's your feat and you can do what you want, but I think you'd be better of "spending" that bonus on something that's more fun.

For example, the feat could allow you to wield a whip in your off-hand when you are wielding a 1H weapon. Then you'd definitely want to keep it 1d4 (precedent: Polearm Master) and might even have to tone down some of the other stuff. Alternately, it could allow you treat the weapon as "light", meaning that you could wield it in your off-hand if your mainhand weapon was also light.

I love the idea of attacking with one hand while disarming with the other as a bonus action.

 

[Elon Tusk]

- Changing the wording from "before you make an attack..." to simply "on a successful attack you may forego damage". That will avoid countless arguments at the table.

yes, changed.

- Pulling the weapon 5' toward you doesn't tactically change anything most of the time. Throwing it behind you does. (On the other hand, that becomes so useful/powerful that it may be overdoing it.

If I disarm a wizard 10 feet away from me and pull his wand a (or key, or whatever) 5 feet toward me, I can then move 5 feet toward him (in the 5 foot square that has the wand), and pick it up as a free action. If my thinking is right on that mechanically, I'd definitely see it as very useful.

I still disagree with the extra damage. I used the word "mow" poetically, but the fact remains that Indy isn't really using his weapon to kill/maim people; he's using it for pizzaz. It's your feat and you can do what you want, but I think you'd be better of "spending" that bonus on something that's more fun.

For example, the feat could allow you to wield a whip in your off-hand when you are wielding a 1H weapon. Then you'd definitely not want to leave it at 1d4 (precedent: Polearm Master) and might even have to tone down some of the other stuff. Alternately, it could allow you treat the weapon as "light", meaning that you could wield it in your off-hand if your mainhand weapon was also light.

I love the idea of attacking with one hand while disarming with the other as a bonus action.

I can see the beauty of swiping out extra damage for using the whip as a bonus action.

Lasher
You master the whip as both a weapon and a tool. You gain the following benefits when using it:
• You can shove with your whip using its reach. If you succeed, you can either knock the creature prone or pull it 5 feet toward you.
• On a successful whip attack, you can choose to attempt to disarm the target instead of doing damage, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. The target must make a Strength saving throw against your attack roll. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. You can pull the object 5 feet toward you.
• You can attack, shove, or disarm with your whip as a bonus action.
• You have advantage when you attempt to use your whip to grasp onto an object within its reach in order to hold yourself to it, climb toward it, or pull it toward you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Just thinking out loud here (I started a very similar thread months ago and I continue to think about the whip) on a disarm I would allow the weapon to be thrown elsewhere as a bonus action. That way you could only do the improved version if you gave up your regular attack.

EDIT:
Here's the thread I started.
And other one I found.

I think my version would be:
- When wielding a 1H weapon in your main hand you may also wield a Whip in the offhand and make an attack as a bonus action. (Precedent: crossbow expert)
- When taking the Attack action with a Whip*, on a successful attack you may forego damage and attempt a Disarm (DMG pg. 291) on your opponent. If successful, you may use a bonus action to throw the weapon 1d6 * 5 feet behind you.
- If an appropriate anchor point is available, and depending upon the action being attempted, at the DM's discretion you gain Advantage on Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) attempts.

I do like grapple & shove from range, but I feel that 4 goodies are too many, and these are my three favorites.

*(Do the rules specify handedness in relation to action vs. bonus action? In other words, if you are wielding two weapons can you choose which one you use for your Attack action?)

 

[Elon Tusk]

Just thinking out loud here (I started a very similar thread months ago and I continue to think about the whip) on a disarm I would allow the weapon to be thrown elsewhere as a bonus action. That way you could only do the improved version if you gave up your regular attack.

EDIT:
Here's the thread I started.
And other one I found.

I think my version would be:
- When wielding a 1H weapon in your main hand you may also wield a Whip in the offhand and make an attack as a bonus action. (Precedent: crossbow expert)
- When taking the Attack action with a Whip*, on a successful attack you may forego damage and attempt a Disarm (DMG pg. 291) on your opponent. If successful, you may use a bonus action to throw the weapon 1d6 * 5 feet behind you.
- If an appropriate anchor point is available, and depending upon the action being attempted, at the DM's discretion you gain Advantage on Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) attempts.

I do like grapple & shove from range, but I feel that 4 goodies are too many, and these are my three favorites.

*(Do the rules specify handedness in relation to action vs. bonus action? In other words, if you are wielding two weapons can you choose which one you use for your Attack action?)

My disarm above does replace an attack.
I thought it cleaner just to use the whip as a bonus action without worrying about what is in the other hand; if someone wants to attempt to disarm as an action, fails, and then try again as a bonus action, cool.
Both Fell Handed and Spear master have 4 goodies which include an attack bonus.
I don't think their is anything about hardness or which one has to go first.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My disarm above does replace an attack.
I thought it cleaner just to use the whip as a bonus action without worrying about what is in the other hand; if someone wants to attempt to disarm as an action, fails, and then try again as a bonus action, cool.

My feeling is that getting a full main-hand attack and a disarm attempt is a bit much, unless it strictly adheres to the version of Disarm that's in the DMG (i.e., the weapon is merely dropped) which isn't nearly as cool. So by relegating the "throw the weapon" component to a bonus action it prevents double-dipping.

Both Fell Handed and Spear master have 4 goodies which include an attack bonus.

We'll see if either of those make it into Xanathar's....

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think my version would be:
- When wielding a 1H weapon in your main hand you may also wield a Whip in the offhand and make an attack with it as a bonus action. (Precedent: crossbow expert)

Inserted text in bold.

- If an appropriate anchor point is available, and depending upon the action being attempted, at the DM's discretion you gain Advantage on Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) attempts.

This is not something that should appear in a feat: anyone using a whip could do this.

I do like grapple & shove from range, but I feel that 4 goodies are too many, and these are my three favorites.

Pretty sure that whips can already grapple and shove at range.

*(Do the rules specify handedness in relation to action vs. bonus action? In other words, if you are wielding two weapons can you choose which one you use for your Attack action?)

There is no handedness: characters are assumed to be effectively ambidextrous. There is only 'main hand' and 'off hand' with which being which changeable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is not something that should appear in a feat: anyone using a whip could do this.

Really? Wouldn't that sort of require (in the "you're an idiot if you don't" way) everybody to carry a whip? I mean, why wouldn't you if every now and then it gives you Advantage on an important roll?

Pretty sure that whips can already grapple and shove at range.

Really(redux)?!?! What have I missed in the PHB/DMG that suggests this?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Really? Wouldn't that sort of require (in the "you're an idiot if you don't" way) everybody to carry a whip? I mean, why wouldn't you if every now and then it gives you Advantage on an important roll?

With the provisos that you put in: Requires an anchor point and at DM's discretion remember.

Carrying a rope and grapple is already something that it is probably sensible to do. The whip just allows convenience at the expense of distance.
More to the point, pretty much anyone could loop a whip over a stationary object and use it to make a swing or a climb easier.

Really(redux)?!?! What have I missed in the PHB/DMG that suggests this?

Grappling and shoving merely require an opponent to be within your reach and no more than one size larger than you.

 

[Elon Tusk]

This is not something that should appear in a feat: anyone using a whip could do this.

Anyone has advantage when doing this?

Pretty sure that whips can already grapple and shove at range.

A grapple says "Using a free hand" and don't see any exception from whips.
A shove is more controversial since it uses the phrase the creature "must be within your reach."
But a reach weapon "adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it," and shoving is considered a "special melee attack."

 

[Guest 6801328]

With the provisos that you put in: Requires an anchor point and at DM's discretion remember.

Oh, sure, a generous DM might allow you to do this even without the feat. But the DM might just as likely never allow you to. The Feat would be a nudge to the DM to be generous.

On a more general note, your logic would suggest that no mechanic should ever contain the phrase "at the DM's discretion" because everything is already at the DM's discretion. Doesn't the wording for the Hide action say something about this (or is that only the Sage Advice clarification?). So...to be a bit facetious for a moment...maybe we should just take Hide out of the rules since clearly DMs already have the discretion to allow characters to hide.

Carrying a rope and grapple is already something that it is probably sensible to do. The whip just allows convenience at the expense of distance.
More to the point, pretty much anyone could loop a whip over a stationary object and use it to make a swing or a climb easier.

Link to the YouTube video of you doing this?

Grappling and shoving merely require an opponent to be within your reach and no more than one size larger than you.

As Tusk points out, using a reach weapon doesn't extend YOUR reach, just the weapon's.