Weapon Swap (pg 39).
Is it really necessary? Just use a double weapon and call it good.
I'd like to know what the thinking behind this feat is. It just seems pointless.
I'll copy & paste the text for those unfamiliar:
"WEAPON SWAP
With an acrobatic twist, you can swap your weapons from one hand to another.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: After making all of your attacks with your primary hand, you can swap your primary weapon to your off hand and make attacks using that weapon in your off hand."
So, unless my primary weapon is light, I'm going to take an extra -2 on my attack roll to use it in my off hand!
Ex: let's say I'm a 8th level fighter w/ dex 17 & Str 12 & weapon finesse, & a +1 rapier & +1 short sword.
My attacks should be: Rapier, +10/+5 (1d6+1) & Short Sword, +10/+5 (1d6+0).
So on my first full attack, I use my rapier in my primary hand for +10/+5 (1d6+0), then I do Weapon Swap, attacking with my rapier in my off hand for +8/+3 (1d6+0).
Of course, one can argue that WS is a gateway feat for Two Weapon Rend. Even so, it's a stupid gateway feat--being able to juggle your weapon has little to do with being able to hit with both weapons at once. If balance is a concern, make the damage for TWR 1d8 or 1d6--just don't punish the player by making him take an impotent feat he'll never use.
Had I not done weapon swap, I'd be in better shape.
So, unless my primary weapon is light, I'm going to take an extra -2 on my attack roll to use it in my off hand!
The way I read it is that you wouldn't be taking negatives for having a non-light primary weapon, so the feat is an additive for damage and if you are more specialized/trained in the primary weapon it would help out too.
So, unless my primary weapon is light, I'm going to take an extra -2 on my attack roll to use it in my off hand!The way I read it is that you wouldn't be taking negatives for having a non-light primary weapon, so the feat is an additive for damage and if you are more specialized/trained in the primary weapon it would help out too.
Except for the fact that it doesn't read that way. If that's how it's supposed to work, it should say so in the text. Of course, removing such penalties will mean we'll start seeing a bunch of PC's using bastard swords with their TWF feat. . . .
No feat at all is better than a useless, or broken feat.
It just seems pointless.It's pointless right up until your opponent sunders one of your two weapons. Then you can't two-weapon fight at all without it.
And spellcasters usually need one hand free to cast spells, so if you're a fighter with a few spellcaster levels, the ability to two-weapon fight with only one weapon could come in rather handy.
Except that it says "swap your weapons." Now, if this feat was intended to be used the way you describe, it should be worded differently, & perhaps even renamed (Weapon Transfer would be better). Of course, if the designer had intended for Weapon Swap to be used this way, I doubt he would have made its use a requirement for Two-Weapon Rend (in the initial release).
I'd re-word it something like this:
"WEAPON TRANSFER
You may take advantage of your two-weapon fighting skills by tranfering a single weapon from hand-to-hand.
Prerequsites: Dex 17, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, BAB +6
Benefit: When wielding a single weapon, after making an attack with it one hand, you can transfer the weapon to your other hand, allowing you to make an attack using the weapon in that hand. You may continue to transfer the weapon until you run out of attacks with both hands. All penalties for fighting with two weapons apply to both hands.
Normal: You normally would not be able to use two-weapon fighting with a single weapon."
Note that I don't use the term "off-hand," allowing the PC to begin with the weapon in either hand. I also don't require the PC to make all of his attacks with a single hand before switching (though doing so isn't prevented), adding a bit of realism--rarely would someone fighting Florentine in real life (with 4 attacks in each hand) do R/R/R/R & L/L/L/L; they'd more likely do R/L & R/L & R/L & R/L.
As for sundering, if my DM threw sundering opponents at me so often that I'd have to waste a feat on WS (not to mention always worrying about my magic weapons getting damaged), I'd find another DM.
I'd like to know what the thinking behind this feat is. It just seems pointless.
Ex: let's say I'm a 8th level fighter w/ dex 17 & Str 12 & weapon finesse, & a +1 rapier & +1 short sword.
My attacks should be: Rapier, +10/+5 (1d6+1) & Short Sword, +10/+5 (1d6+0).
I think a better example of the feat's utility (and possibly brokenness) is this:
16th level fighter w/dex 19 and Str 14 & weapon finesse, that +1 short sword and a +3 adamantine, flaming, shocking, keen rapier of wounding. Two-weapon fighting with one ultra weapon, instead of paying for two.
And while yes, it is titled Weapon Swap, it doesn't say "OMG YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WEAPON IN YOUR OFFHAND." Who says your fist isn't your offhand weapon?
And that is why rulebooks are larger and more complicated than they used to be . . .