|
| 30 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm posting this question in a standalone thread for the purpose of FAQ voting.
Benefit: When wielding a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you can shift your grip as a swift action so that your weapon deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage instead of the damage type normally dealt by that weapon. You may switch back to the weapon’s normal damage type or another damage type as a swift action. If your base attack bonus is +5 or higher, using this feat is a free action instead.
Each time the swashbuckler confirms a critical hit with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon, she regains 1 panache point.
At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, when a swashbuckler hits an opponent with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon, she can choose to use Intimidate..
There's two questions here:
#1. If the swashbuckler uses Weapon Versatility to change a one-handed weapon (i.e. a bludgeoning warhammer, an earthbeaker with thunder and fang, etc) such that it does piercing damage, does that transitively make the warhammer considered a one-handed piercing weapon at that time, and it qualifies for all abilities in which a one-handed piercing weapon is referenced?
#2. If the above is true, would that then mean if the swashbuckler was using a rapier (a one-handed piercing weapon) and shifted it to be a bludgeoning weapon (perhaps to overcome some DR) that the weapon no longer is valid for these abilities?
The core seems to imply that a weapon's type is classified based on the damage type it deals, thus when a rapier with this feat becomes bludgeoning instead of piercing, it's now a bludgeoning weapon and not a piercing weapon. On that same note, an earthbreaker that normally does bludgeoning damage becomes a piercing weapon when it's dealing piercing damage.
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.
My first glance read seems to indicate this feat allows almost any one-handed weapon to become a swashbuckler weapon. And additionally, if used with a piercing weapon to instead make it into a bludgeoning weapon (to overcome DR), the swashbuckler loses access to the abilities that require a one-handed piercing weapon.
Not sure? Click the FAQ link!
|
|
It's from the PDF of the final version.
Interestingly enough, parry and riposte doesn't say that it requires a light or one-handed piercing weapon. And there's a feat that allows any character without panache to get a panache pool and access to swashbuckler deeds. I imagine there will be PCs parrying with greatswords and glaives by the end of the month.
|
|
Also, to go along with the above questions, since it's answer would likely apply to this question as well.
#3. If a character has Slashing Grace, allowing them to add their Dexterity modifier to damage rolls for one-handed slashing weapons, when they are using Weapon Versatility to treat their currently held one-handed weapon as a slashing weapon, would it allow them to use Slashing Grace to apply their Dexterity to damage?
Sure, it's three feats.... to fear my Dexterity-fueled warhammer of doom!
|
|
Also, to go along with the above questions, since it's answer would likely apply to this question as well.
#3. If a character has Slashing Grace, allowing them to add their Dexterity modifier to damage rolls for one-handed slashing weapons, when they are using Weapon Versatility to treat their currently held one-handed weapon as a slashing weapon, would it allow them to use Slashing Grace to apply their Dexterity to damage?
Sure, it's three feats.... to fear my Dexterity-fueled warhammer of doom!
Here's my take on this, Slashing Grace requires the weapon to be a slashing weapon and it requires you to choose the weapon it works with when you take it.
A warhammer is not normally a slashing weapon, even if you can change it to do slashing damage, and therefore would not be a valid option for slashing grace unless you had something like Martial Versatility.
|
|
Lacking further clarity on this, at the moment I'm going with the Weapon Versatility feat actually changing the weapon's type when it changes the damage type, since the reference from Core p144 seems to indicate the weapon's classification/type is based on the damage it deals.
Since the weapon doesn't maintain its original damage type (i.e. an S becomes P, not an S becomes S and P) due to the "instead of" wording in the feat, this would be both good and bad for a swashbuckler.
Good: This would let a swashbuckler treat any weapon as piercing for keying abilities.
Bad: This would mean a vanilla swashbuckler (i.e. no Slashing Grace) wouldn't be able to use abilities requiring a piercing weapon while they were treating a piercing weapon as a bludgeoning weapon via the feat. For example, when they were trying to overcome a skeleton's DR.
Uhhh, I can't find Weapon Versatility at all in the PDF. Where is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Versatility lacks any language saying that the weapon becomes a piercing weapon, or that you use it as a piercing weapon. Without that kind of text, you aren't using a piercing weapon, you're using a non-piercing weapon plus an ability that lets you deal piercing damage - like how wielding a longsword in two hands doesn't mean that longsword is a two-handed weapon. Or put another way, "If that's a piercing weapon, why do you need a special ability to do piercing damage with it?"
Weapon Versatility lacks any language saying that the weapon becomes a piercing weapon, or that you use it as a piercing weapon. Without that kind of text, you aren't using a piercing weapon, you're using a non-piercing weapon plus an ability that lets you deal piercing damage - like how wielding a longsword in two hands doesn't mean that longsword is a two-handed weapon. Or put another way, "If that's a piercing weapon, why do you need a special ability to do piercing damage with it?"
1. Welcome to necroing a three year old thread.
2. An explicit statement is not required. The relevant CRB rule was quoted in the original post.
Weapons are classified according to the damage they deal. If a weapon deals piercing damage, it is a piercing weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons are classified according to the damage they deal. If a weapon deals piercing damage, it is a piercing weapon.
I disagree. If the weapon deals piercing damage ONLY when wielded by YOU (because of your special ability or feat) then it has not become a piercing weapon, unless that special ability or feat has some qualifier about the weapon being treated as a piercing weapon for a given purpose.
Example: The Bladed Brush feat states "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."
The issue is inherent property versus contingency. It's like saying "Oranges aren't black. So this orange isn't an orange because I painted it black." It doesn't hold up for reasons that should be obvious. Saying "This weapon deals piercing damage if I override its normal slashing damage with Weapon Versatility, so it's a piercing weapon" has the same problem.
However, there's no reason a GM shouldn't allow it to work; the entire "piercing weapon" requirement for Swashbuckler is stupid anyhow. A longsword or scimitar isn't appropriate for fighting with "panache", but a morningstar or light pick is? It's arbitrary and stupid.
Weapons are classified according to the damage they deal. If a weapon deals piercing damage, it is a piercing weapon.I disagree. If the weapon deals piercing damage ONLY when wielded by YOU (because of your special ability or feat) then it has not become a piercing weapon, unless that special ability or feat has some qualifier about the weapon being treated as a piercing weapon for a given purpose.
Example: The Bladed Brush feat states "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."
I would like to see you provide the RAW for that interpretation.
The RAW is:
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal:
Nothing RAW differentiates based upon how a specific damage type is achieved.
It the case of the Bladed Brush feat you quoted, there are no limitations on the glaive as a piercing weapon. It will deal full damage underwater, overcome DR/piercing, etc.
The only rider is that the glaive acts as if you are not making attacks with your off-hand and works with feats and class features that normally have this restriction. This is separate from damage type.
Ignoring the difference between inherent damage type and damage type modified by a character gets nonsensical. If inherent damage type is ignored, then every single weapon in the game is every type of damage, because it's possible to deal any type of damage with it. You might as well say a longsword qualifies for all Swashbuckler abilities all the time because it *can* do piercing damage.
The RAW is:
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal:Nothing RAW differentiates based upon how a specific damage type is achieved.
Because RAW is not a legal document, it is written consisely.
I believe the meaning is
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they [normally] deal:
I disagree. If the weapon deals piercing damage ONLY when wielded by YOU (because of your special ability or feat) then it has not become a piercing weapon
panache asks for a (critical) "hit with a (...) piercing melee weapon". So you're saying that when I attack with a weapon, in melee, and that attack deals piercing damage, that's not an attack with a piercing weapon?
Are you f#$~ing kidding me?
Panache and Menacing Swordplay, the two cases from the OP, don't ask for a weapon classified as something. This FAQ states that handedness depends on how you're currently wielding a weapon, not what it's listed under in the book. There is no reason to treat damage type differently - especially since we're talkign about triggered abilities, where we can simply check their conditions at the time of the trigger.
Ignoring the difference between inherent damage type and damage type modified by a character gets nonsensical. If inherent damage type is ignored, then every single weapon in the game is every type of damage, because it's possible to deal any type of damage with it. You might as well say a longsword qualifies for all Swashbuckler abilities all the time because it *can* do piercing damage.
If you have the ability to deal piercing damage with a longsword, then yes it qualifies.
Doing so requires a feat; usually Slashing Grace.
Weapon Versatility would also allow a swashbuckler to use a longsword, as long as piercing damage was chosen, but without the benefit of DEX-to-damage.
The RAW is:
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal:Nothing RAW differentiates based upon how a specific damage type is achieved.Because RAW is not a legal document, it is written consisely.
I believe the meaning is
Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they [normally] deal:
You insert additional language to alter the RAW to match your desired interpretation.
There is nothing in RAW that states [normally]. That is your addition and your are welcome to houserule it into your home games. It is not what the RAW states.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't read all that much into the "Type:" quote that keeps getting bandied about here. If you read it that literally, a weapon isn't any type at all until it actually deals damage.
What type of damage is non-lethal damage?
What type of damage is non-lethal damage?
Whatever type is specified by the weapon/spell/ability