Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Version 1.1- Combat Feats


Skills & Feats


The first thing I did was open the pdf to the combat feats. After skimming them quickly I am pleased with the changes. I for one am happy that you did away with the chaining. Great work.

Osirion

Love them myself great changes.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just want to add that I love the "chaining" in Gorgon's Fist and Medusa's Wrath - that's precisely the kind of chaining I like to see, where the lead-in is clear but not fixed - not only can use use Gorgon's Fist to set up a target for Medusa's Wrath, but you could do so in several other ways (including Stunning Fist, which provides even more strength to the monk connection), as can your allies.

That's good game design, and what I would want to see more of, if you want to bring some of the "chaining" elements back. Give me options, don't take them away.


Oh, yeah, count me in on loving the 1.1 changes. Haven't had the chance to playtest, but thanks for the alterations. Keep it up friends, you're doing us all a great service!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

I love that chaining is only implied, no longer hard-wired in. I'm less thrilled that "one combat feat per round" wasn't removed. If certain combat feats aren't supposed to be used in conjunction, they should all just require the same type of action to activate (full-round, standard, or swift). That implies "one combat feat per round" without hardwiring in a weird rule that requires a new category of feats.

On a related note, now that there is no explicit chaining, there doesn't seem to be a theme to the entire "combat feats" category. Maybe "combat feats" should just be all feats that fighters can take as bonus feats, and there aren't any other special rules or exceptions attached to the category.

Taldor

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Really glad that Paizo has responded to the outcry. Confirms that it's a proper playtest.


Weapon Swap? What the heck?!?!?!?!??! Either it is cheese on a stick or exceptionally poorly worded.

Example: I fight with a bastard sword in one hand and a dagger in the other and, mid-attack, I switch hands so I am essentially attacking with two bastard swords at no penalty!


David Foster wrote:

Weapon Swap? What the heck?!?!?!?!??! Either it is cheese on a stick or exceptionally poorly worded.

Example: I fight with a bastard sword in one hand and a dagger in the other and, mid-attack, I switch hands so I am essentially attacking with two bastard swords at no penalty!

Think about the prerequisites, what level the character would be getting it AND a character would probably be using a d6 weapon in their offhand. It's similar to the bonus of weapon specialization, whereas weapon specialization provides +2 damage, this would provide at most d4 more damage (if your player wasted a feat [yeah that's right] on bastard sword). At higher level, that is maybe 4d4 more damage, how much does that really matter?

Example: how about you playtest a high level adventure based on these rules? Otherwise I think you've lost perspective.


Unless I am missing something that is correct, but subsequently you are wielding a dagger in your primary hand and a bastard sword in your off-hand which is less than optimal. Then to swap back you either weapon swap and attack purely with dagger in the next round, or you waste actions manually swapping.

It seems like an odd feat to me: mechanically clunky and requiring recalculating attack bonuses midfight.

Taldor

I agree. I see no reason to take this feat except to qualify for two-weapon rend. It doesn't even make sense as a prerequisite for two-weapon rend. This feat needs to go.


David Foster wrote:

Weapon Swap? What the heck?!?!?!?!??! Either it is cheese on a stick or exceptionally poorly worded.

Example: I fight with a bastard sword in one hand and a dagger in the other and, mid-attack, I switch hands so I am essentially attacking with two bastard swords at no penalty!

Read it again. The words "no penalty" do not appear in the feat description, making it the opposite of cheese--useless.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I am also in favor of pulling Weapon Swap out of the prerequisites for Two-Weapon Rend.

That said, I still like the feat. I can picture a swashbuckler attacking with a rapier and then switching it to the off-hand for the final attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I would still like to see Manyshot changed, even if it is only to "as a standard action, you can fire two arrows at your highest BAB with a -4 penalty to the shot."

The ability to move and fire gives Archers an option other than standings still.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Thraxus wrote:
I am also in favor of pulling Weapon Swap out of the prerequisites for Two-Weapon Rend.

I agree. I seem to recall seeing Two-Weapon Rend in the SRD, and that was before there even was a Weapon Swap.

Thraxus wrote:
That said, I still like the feat. I can picture a swashbuckler attacking with a rapier and then switching it to the off-hand for the final attack.

Again, I agree. After all, the ability to toss a rapier into your off hand (or back from your off hand) recreates the swashbuckling scene from Princess Bride.


Thraxus wrote:
That said, I still like the feat. I can picture a swashbuckler attacking with a rapier and then switching it to the off-hand for the final attack.

Except for the fact that mechanically, he'll suffer a -2 penalty for using his offhand (that's assuming he has TWP, of course).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Thraxus wrote:

I would still like to see Manyshot changed, even if it is only to "as a standard action, you can fire two arrows at your highest BAB with a -4 penalty to the shot."

The ability to move and fire gives Archers an option other than standings still.

Again I agree. Dang it, Thraxus! You have far too many sensible ideas for someone posting on the internet!

On an unrelated note, I would like to see Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack changed back to general feats again if the 1/round restriction on combat feats is still going to be there. (Or just drop the 1/round restriction on combat feats.)

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Happy to see Chaining gone (though agree with the Gorgon/Medusa thoughts). *Happy* to have combat feats @ 1/round. Best power-gaming limitation I've ever seen.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rob Bastard wrote:
Thraxus wrote:
That said, I still like the feat. I can picture a swashbuckler attacking with a rapier and then switching it to the off-hand for the final attack.
Except for the fact that mechanically, he'll suffer a -2 penalty for using his offhand (that's assuming he has TWP, of course).

So he picks up Double Slice. Voila! The circumstance bonus precisely negates the one-handed weapon penalty, and it becomes a non-issue.

Swapping back, though, is interesting...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rob Bastard wrote:
Thraxus wrote:
That said, I still like the feat. I can picture a swashbuckler attacking with a rapier and then switching it to the off-hand for the final attack.
Except for the fact that mechanically, he'll suffer a -2 penalty for using his offhand (that's assuming he has TWP, of course).

Given that Weapon Swap does not do anything more than allow you to shift your primary weapon to your off-hand in order to make your off-hand attack (as per two-weapon fighting), I am fine with that. Using the feat they way I discribed just lets a character with a single weapon fight as if they had two weapons. I like that visually and would prefer that the feat function like that.

Osirion

Thraxus wrote:


Given that Weapon Swap does not do anything more than allow you to shift your primary weapon to your off-hand in order to make your off-hand attack (as per two-weapon fighting), I am fine with that. Using the feat they way I discribed just lets a character with a single weapon fight as if they had two weapons. I like that visually and would prefer that the feat function like that.

This is how i see it as well .Don't think I would let some one do it with a weapon in there off hand unless they dropped it. But throwing it to your off hand is classic. I would be ok with out TWF being a requirement and taking the -2 since it really isn't a TWF style.

Cheliax

Epic Meepo wrote:

I love that chaining is only implied, no longer hard-wired in. I'm less thrilled that "one combat feat per round" wasn't removed. If certain combat feats aren't supposed to be used in conjunction, they should all just require the same type of action to activate (full-round, standard, or swift). That implies "one combat feat per round" without hardwiring in a weird rule that requires a new category of feats.

On a related note, now that there is no explicit chaining, there doesn't seem to be a theme to the entire "combat feats" category. Maybe "combat feats" should just be all feats that fighters can take as bonus feats, and there aren't any other special rules or exceptions attached to the category.

I am actually disappointed that "chaining" is gone -- my group has actually been very excited about it.

Another thing we would *not* want to see is "one combat feat per round". Maybe it's because you shouldn't realistically be able to use *both*, say, Expertise and Power Attack in the same round. I really, really wish that they won't change this.


Bradford Ferguson wrote:


Think about the prerequisites, what level the character would be getting it AND a character would probably be using a d6 weapon in their offhand. It's similar to the bonus of weapon specialization, whereas weapon specialization provides +2 damage, this would provide at most d4 more damage (if your player wasted a feat [yeah that's right] on bastard sword). At higher level, that is maybe 4d4 more damage, how much does that really matter?

Example: how about you playtest a high level adventure based on these rules? Otherwise I think you've lost perspective.

Actually, you could get a lot more out of that. Make the Bastard Sword a +2 Flaming weapon, or something similar. Weapon swap basically gives you a free copy of the weapon, saving in this case 18,375 gp. As the weapon gets more powerful magically, this gets even crazier (+5 vorpal short sword anyone?).


I was reading over the combat feats and while I think that it is a good concept for things that look more like maneuvers from Tome of Battle I really don't like the way they are currently implemented allowing the use of one per round. I can use precise shot but not point blank shot? Lame.
I really love what you have done in general but the combat feats need revamping


amazinggameguru wrote:

I was reading over the combat feats and while I think that it is a good concept for things that look more like maneuvers from Tome of Battle I really don't like the way they are currently implemented allowing the use of one per round. I can use precise shot but not point blank shot? Lame.

I really love what you have done in general but the combat feats need revamping

You must have the 1.0 version, this week's 1.1 update reverted point blank and precise back to their 3.5 versions, meaning you can use them at the same time.

To the earlier poster who mentioned not being able to use expertise and power attack at the same time: you actually can use them the same round, neither of them is listed as a combat feat.

I think some people have gotten a bit confused by the name. Not all of the feats that are used for combat are proper "Combat Feats." I do think a name change might be in order to avoid some confusion, but I can't think of anything else that isn't just as confusing right now :)

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Skills & Feats / Version 1.1- Combat Feats All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.