Two-Weapon Swashbuckler

[Sha-dow]

Alright, so here is the thing.

When talking about build a character good at both swordplay and fist, kick, anything unarmed martial arts, your call. One of my friend suggest the following build.

- Some levels of Swashbuckler first, with the core hitting ability of Precise Strike.

- Follow with Brawler 1, get the Unarmed Strike.

- Now feats, Two-Weapon Fighting, Snake/Tiger style, maybe Slashing Grace.

- Weapon: One-handed piercing/slashing melee weapons (rapier here for short), and unarmed strikes, use any body parts EXCEPT hand.

So, since this guy was not holding anything on his free hand and use it to attack, Precise Strike was avalible for his attacks; Then, because he can still use unarmed attack to dealing piercing/slashing (with Slashing Grace to get the DEX damage bonus) damage in Snake/Tiger style, that means Precise Strike`s damage bonus are also accessible to his kick, knee pummeling, elbow on face, ect.

Now, TWF with rapier and unarmed strikes, both got Precise Strike bonus.

I know the TWF swashbuckler sounds not so "stereotype" ( I assume the design of Precise Strike was not intent to encouraging TWF), but I can not say that this build have problems. And it looks cool for me, BTW.

Hope you guys may give me a opinion that this build was legal or not.

[PrinceRaven]

I'd say it definitely isn't intended to be legal, but it does seem to be according to the rules as written.

[Zwordsman]

Certainly isnt intended at all. but i guess it works because it uses "other hand" and not "off hand" (as they defined Offhand recently-ish as any attack outsode of the main attack)

[Melkiador]

What's odd is that swashbuckling movies are one of the rare places you see people dual wielding. It's such an iconic part of the trope that I can't believe how much they went out of their way to exclude it.

[zanbato13]

It gets crazier with the new Whirling Dervish which gives all weapons affected by your swashbuckler's finesse Dex to damage.

[Azoriel]

Melkiador wrote:

What's odd is that swashbuckling movies are one of the rare places you see people dual wielding. It's such an iconic part of the trope that I can't believe how much they went out of their way to exclude it.

The one and only restriction against two-weapon fighting with a swashbuckler is precise strike; so long as you're willing to forgo that bonus, you can dual wield to your heart's content.

Furthermore, precise strike's restriction on two weapon fighting is simply "a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand". This means you could arguably still use an off-hand weapon to parry, which is FAR closer to what the classic swashbuckler is supposed to do with an off-hand weapon. (I would never consider it iconic for a swashbuckler to be pushing offense with both weapons - that would be the exception rather than the rule.)

Back to the original topic, I'd agree that the build appears to be a contravention of what the writers intended with precise strike, but it would still technically be legal (such that I'd have no problems with it in my own games).

[RumpinRufus]

I considered a Snake Style swashbuckler, but my GM nixed it. But RAW it seems legal, if a bit of an exploit.

[Imbicatus]

RumpinRufus wrote:

I considered a Snake Style swashbuckler, but my GM nixed it. But RAW it seems legal, if a bit of an exploit.

It's legal and intentional.

[pezlerpolychromatic]

Imbicatus wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

I considered a Snake Style swashbuckler, but my GM nixed it. But RAW it seems legal, if a bit of an exploit.

It's legal and intentional.

Good catch, Imbicatus.

[Argus The Slayer]

I wouldn't say that link makes it intentional, only that they acknowledged that the problem exists.

[Imbicatus]

Argus The Slayer wrote:

I wouldn't say that link makes it intentional, only that they acknowledged that the problem exists.

paizo blog wrote:

During the playtest, feedback granted us a wealth of information that allowed us to fine-tune the class. We wanted the class to be true to its roots, but to have enough room for players to create their own take on this daring warrior classic. To this end, we made it relatively easy to gain Dexterity modifier damage and benefit classes nifty precise strike precision damage deed with a variety of weapons through the class itself, by way of multiclassing, and through feats (try the Snake Style feat from Ultimate Combat with the precise strike deed to get your swashbuckler/kung fu fusion on).

They explicitly state they wanted players to be able to use precise strike through the class itself, multiclassing, and feats and the mention Snake Style. It's intended for players to be able to use them together.

[zanbato13]

Do two spiked gauntlets get precise strike when two weapon fighting?

[kestral287]

I really don't think most GMs would allow this, as it'd dubious at best. That said, you would most definitely not get your Precise Strike damage with the off-hand (unarmed strike) weapon. Your "other" hand there would be your main hand, and it has been used to attack. You could maybe argue getting Precise Strike to your main hand thanks to the Brawler level. Good luck trying.

[zanbato13]

kestral287 wrote:

I really don't think most GMs would allow this, as it'd dubious at best. That said, you would most definitely not get your Precise Strike damage with the off-hand (unarmed strike) weapon. Your "other" hand there would be your main hand, and it has been used to attack. You could maybe argue getting Precise Strike to your main hand thanks to the Brawler level. Good luck trying.

It really depends on the RAW definition of "in the other hand."

Can I have that definition please?

[Vahanian 89]

I would like to see and offical ruling on this. I might try it in pfs because it seems thats how it should work.

[kestral287]

zanbato13 wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I really don't think most GMs would allow this, as it'd dubious at best. That said, you would most definitely not get your Precise Strike damage with the off-hand (unarmed strike) weapon. Your "other" hand there would be your main hand, and it has been used to attack. You could maybe argue getting Precise Strike to your main hand thanks to the Brawler level. Good luck trying.

It really depends on the RAW definition of "in the other hand."

Can I have that definition please?

There isn't one. Which leaves us with two options: We can fall back on the Pathfinder definition of "hand" paired with the common usage of "other", or the common usage definition of "other hand".

In the former instance, we have a main hand and an off-hand. You attack with your main hand. Because you've declared Two-Weapon Fighting and the Pathfinder definition of off-hand doesn't actually care about it being a physical hand, you do not get Precise Strike-- you are attacking with your "other" hand, in the Pathfinder sense. Then, you attack with your unarmed strike in the off-hand. The same thing occurs: you are attacking with your off-hand, you have attacked with your other hand (the main), hence no Precise Strike.

The alternate option is to fall back on common-usage. In this sense, you attack with your main hand. Your "other" hand is unused. You get Precise Strike. Simple enough.

You go to attack with your off-hand, via an elbow jab. You look at your hand to decide if it's empty-- well, no. It isn't. Because you only have two hands, and one has already been used as the "other" hand, which leaves only the full and attacking rapier hand. If I have two apples (hands) and an orange (elbow), take one apple away, and ask you to point at the other apple, that's easy. But when I put that apple back and take the orange away and ask you to point at the other apple... what do you do? There is no singular 'other' apple anymore; there are two apples in front of you. Is "other" the apple I took away and put back, or is "other" the apple you indicated before?

My response there at least would be to indicate the apple I have not already indicated, as that is the distinguishing point most obvious to me. Hence I would be calling the rapier hand the "other" hand and thus, no Precise Strike. I expect-- though I may be wrong-- that most people would do the same, hence 'common usage'.

You could make an argument using the common-usage definition, but common-usage would be an inherently weaker argument than Pathfinder terminology, and would allow for much more exploitive uses even if the GM ruled against the Brawler unarmed strike. If your GM will let you do that, consider picking up a Vestigial Arm off of Alchemist, then dual-wielding kukris. Or play as a Kasatha (or however you spell it; the four-armed race) and wield a rapier with two kukris. Point at the empty hand as your "other" hand for all three weapons, enjoy your blatantly broken levelx3 to damage.

But really the fact that we have a stated definition of "hand" and the build blatantly violates that usage sort of picks it apart.

[Avoron]

But even going with the Pathfinder definition of "hand" as in "main hand" and "off-hand," there are still some questions:

Could you use Precise Strike while making a full attack with a rapier and a heavy pick, but using only iteratives, not two-weapon fighting? After all, you are just using your main hand and not your off-hand ("the other hand").

Could you use Precise Strike while wielding a trident in two hands? After all, it is still a one-handed weapon, but you are using up your off-hand by performing a two-handed attack.

Could you use Precise Strike while making a claw attack with your other hand? After all, you are only using your main hand, not your off-hand.

[kestral287]

The first question: If I understand it right, you mean holding a rapier in one hand, a heavy pick in the other, and only attacking with the rapier? Yes, you explicitly get Precise Strike. The same is true if you only attack with the heavy pick. The moment you use both, you lose Precise Strike.

The second: No, your other hand is being used to attack.

The third: No, your other hand is being used to attack. A Bite is fair game though, since natural attacks work differently from unarmed attacks (though Precise Strike explicitly excludes Bite from getting boosted, which is sad).

Honestly all three of those are pretty clear from the text.

[Avoron]

First question was referring to making a full attack with two weapons but without two-weapon fighting.

I'm not sure this is as simple as you're making it out to be. You said that you would use the Pathfinder definition of "off-hand" to determine whether the person is attacking with their "other hand." But both A and C do not use an "off-hand."

The only definition that would work like you are suggesting would be:
Precise Strike cannot be used if
a. The swashbuckler is making an attack on that turn with their "off-hand."
OR
b. The swashbuckler is making an attack on that turn with any physical hand, the exception being the single physical hand with which the swashbuckler is making their first attack of the round.

This seems both needlessly complicated and needlessly restrictive.

[blackbloodtroll]

Outside of the full attack action to two weapon fight, in which you gain an extra attack, with penalties to all attacks, the off-hand does not exist.

[kestral287]

You know... I never knew that that rule you linked existed. Thank you for that one, that might lead to a minor character redesign for the awesome.

A I'd have to ponder, though I think most GMs would rule it as my knee-jerk reaction. I think I would, personally, be okay with it, but I need to brush up on that ruling a bit before I say anything about the RAW/RAI.

C, I'm standing by. We have numerous rules that point to hand-based natural attacks being incompatible with weapons in that hand, and since "weapons in that hand" is what Precise Strike is meant to stop... yeah I'd say a no-go on that front. At the least I'd be confident in saying that the RAI is a no.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Outside of the full attack action to two weapon fight, in which you gain an extra attack, with penalties to all attacks, the off-hand does not exist.

It also exists when Two-Handed Fighting, if I recall my rules properly.

[Alexander Augunas]

The biggest problem with your logic, Sha-dow, is that unarmed strikes ARE weapons. They're listed as such in Chapter 5 of the Core Rulebook, under equipment. Furthermore, the brawler's unarmed strike class feature even goes out of its way to note that your unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons.

As others have said, "other hand" doesn't mean "a weapon you are holding in your physical hand," it means "other hand" in terms of Two-Weapon Fighting. The swashbuckler is pretty squarely a no-TWF class, which is a shame because the sword-and-dagger style of combat is basically an icon of swashbuckler movies.

[kestral287]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

The swashbuckler is pretty squarely a no-TWF class, which is a shame because the sword-and-dagger style of combat is basically an icon of swashbuckler movies.

Best way I've found to emulate that is to get a dagger (or spiked gauntlet, my personal preference) as a +1 Answering weapon, then buff the main hand weapon however you like. Whenever you parry, use the dagger. That fits fairly well with how the swashbuckling actually went, and is advantageous for you because it gives you a bit of a bonus for Parry & Riposte-- whenever you use it, you have a +5 weapon. Maybe make it Keen to if you're feeling rich, otherwise save your money.

Incidentally, thinking about the questions posed earlier, I'd be good with both the no-TWF Rapier-and-Pick getting Precise Strike as well as the manufactured piercing weapon used alongside a claw. Claw misses Precise Strike for its own reasons, but the rapier or what have you should be good.

[OtakuIlissa]

So, if I understand this all for my dual spiked gauntlet two-weapon swashbuckler, "other hand" refers to "off-hand" which is defined by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat?

[blackbloodtroll]

kestral287 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Outside of the full attack action to two weapon fight, in which you gain an extra attack, with penalties to all attacks, the off-hand does not exist.

It also exists when Two-Handed Fighting, if I recall my rules properly.

This is exactly what I just said.

You are telling me it exists, in the one place I said it exists.

[StarMartyr365]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

The swashbuckler is pretty squarely a no-TWF class, which is a shame because the sword-and-dagger style of combat is basically an icon of swashbuckler movies.

I was disappointed by this design decision as well. I guess it leaves room for an generalist TWF archetype and several archetypes based on certain weapon combos.

SM

[kestral287]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Outside of the full attack action to two weapon fight, in which you gain an extra attack, with penalties to all attacks, the off-hand does not exist.

It also exists when Two-Handed Fighting, if I recall my rules properly.

This is exactly what I just said.

You are telling me it exists, in the one place I said it exists.

To me at least, "Two Weapon Fighting" and "Two Handed Fighting" are two very different things. You may define your terms differently, but one is "using one weapon in each hand" and the other is "using one weapon with both hands". Such as I understand it that's the common usage of the two terms, but you may use them differently.

[blackbloodtroll]

It does not exist anywhere, except in two-weapon fighting.