RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
A question about the Einhander feat from the PHB2: The description of the feat states that, in order to use the abilities granted by the feat, you must fight with a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand.
However, would it be reasonable to allow a character to hold a non-combat item in the off-hand and still get the benefits of the feat? Things like sunrods, lanterns, torches, etc.? One of the problems my group seems to run into a lot is "Where do we put the light source?" Most of the time, a cleric or wizard will simply cast light on the fighter's shield or weapon to light the way. When that's not an option, the rogue will often wield the sword and torch. A torch can be (and has been) employed as a weapon in combat in our games, so I would say that any round in which the character used the off-hand item in combat would not be able to benefit from the effects of Einhander. It seems fair to me, but it could get tricky since the character could use Einhander for a couple of things and THEN employ the off-hand item after the fact.
Granted, it's seldom an effective option to employ the light source as a weapon, but there have been a few notable exceptions in the past. I'm curious to see what others think.
Knee jerk reaction:
I'd say that nothing means nothing. The feat is obviously meant to represent the "swashbuckling" Errol Flynn fighting style. Also, if you read the maneuver descriptions, they are pretty clear that anything in your off-hand would hurt the maneuver at best.
Realistic take on it:
If the off-hand item is really light - like a copper piece with a light spell, maybe a wand or potion, scroll, etc. - then it would be alright. Well, except for Off-Hand Swap.
But that is my take on it.
+1. Empty handed only. Ever try tumbling with a lit torch? Niether have I, just akin... ;)
|
I'd allow the character to carry things in the off hand, so long as they aren't weapons and aren't too bulky. This opinion is informed both by a lack of game-balance concerns and by period Western-European weapons manuals with extensive techniques for fighting with rapier or small sword and lantern. (When duelling became illegal, duels were often fought at night in graveyards and other places far from passers by and light.)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'd allow the character to carry things in the off hand, so long as they aren't weapons and aren't too bulky. This opinion is informed both by a lack of game-balance concerns and by period Western-European weapons manuals with extensive techniques for fighting with rapier or small sword and lantern. (When duelling became illegal, duels were often fought at night in graveyards and other places far from passers by and light.)
Interesting info about the period weapon manuals. Thanks! I don't really think that allowing a character to bear a light source in the off-hand is a game balance issue either, but my players are the type of people who WILL bash something in the face with a bullseye lantern if they think it'll help.
I think the "nothing in the other hand" restriction is designed to prevent two-handed weapons and two-weapon fighting, as well as the use of a shield in conjunction with the feat.
As someone who studies European martial arts, I can say that there is a difference in what you can accomplish with one active blade as opposed to two-- guards are different, and attacks and counterattacks have subtle differences in position and movement. There are also some moves that can only be done well with an open off hand, where not being able to open one's palm for placement or balance would make even holding a coin a nuisance.
Sword and lantern is briefly touched upon in Domenico Angelo's 1763 L'Ecole des armes. Two plates and a few paragraphs are devoted to it, so it certainly has historical backing.
I'd say let them go for it. I'll be approaching this purely from a game balance perspective. As said before, this is to limit the feat from TWF, THF, and Sword & Board styles. There's nothing wrong at all with allowing someone to still see in a dungeon and benefit from Einhander. If they turn the light source into a weapon (an an amazingly ineffective one at that, probably no more than 1d4 damage with a -4 penalty for nonproficiency and the good possibility of breaking the thing), then so be it. They lose Einhander's benefits for that round.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
If they turn the light source into a weapon (an an amazingly ineffective one at that, probably no more than 1d4 damage with a -4 penalty for nonproficiency and the good possibility of breaking the thing), then so be it. They lose Einhander's benefits for that round.
Yeah, I would agree. However, you have no idea how many times a lantern has been shattered on a foe, covering him in oil, immediately before an application of burning hands or other such thing to turn them into a walking bonfire. We even had a character in a previous campaign with the 'Pyro' feat from the Song and Silence splatbook who SPECIALIZED in rapier and lantern fighting. This was before Einhander existed, but the character actually picked up Exotic Weapon Proficiency (lantern). Very interesting person.
Sounds like it. I'd actually have to reward that person for creative thinking, at teh very least :)