Hey everyone,
Weapon Swap doesn't feel like a valid thing to include as a feat. Taking realism as a meta-quality within the D&D world, we still need some sort of basis of thought in order to immerse ourselves.
Regardless, it just doesn't make sense for balance reasons as well. Here's the feat:
Weapon Swap (Combat)
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. You take an additional –2 penalty on all attack rolls
made with your off hand this round.
Why not just finish those extra attacks from Two Weapon Fighting with your main hand? It would take more time to switch your weapon to your off-hand then to just finish them up without a switch.
It's just an odd feat. Discuss.
Sounds like this feat was borne of too much roll-playing. This is one of those things that seems designed to grab verisimilitude by the throat and slowly squeeze the life from it.
i.e. I dislike this feat, and think it makes negative sense.
Well it seems odd though fine. This has been shown in many different movies as well as at lest 2 conan stories[ REH himself]. So why not allow a feat that is in many ways classic action movie?
and your character safes a lot money. Just one weapon all the time.
Well it seems odd though fine. This has been shown in many different movies as well as at lest 2 conan stories[ REH himself]. So why not allow a feat that is in many ways classic action movie?
It's been about 20 years since I've read the original Conan stories, but I mostly remember our favorite Cimmerian using a solitary broadsword most of the time. Now I can see Conan switching up between fighting with his right & left to surprise someone, but that's not what this feat is about the way I see it.
Are you saying there are times when Conan actually had a weapon in each hand, then midway thru attacking with the weapon in one hand proceeds to swap the weapons in both hands and on his next strike attack with the same weapon now in his opposite hand?
In terms of D&D, I just think this feat opens the door to abuse. As Treyu suggests, it allows a ranger to not have to worry about having 2 decent weapons anymore. Instead, they can cheese out a single weapon and effectively get twice as many attacks per round with their uber-weapon as any other class would get with theirs.
Whether it appears in movies, novels, or what, I just don't think this is a well-balanced feat for D&D.
I totally agree with this. The explanation and implementation do not work.
I would suggest a feat that with the same pre reqs, you get ONE additional attack with your main hand...only real way to fix it, IMHO. Plus 2 wep fighting needs a little boost too, that would help.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I agree, this doesn't make a lot of sense for 2 weapon fighting. As mentioned earlier, it does make sense to surprize your foe by swapping hands if you're wieling a single 1 handed weapon and have your other hand free (a style that is practically non-existant in D&D currently.) I'd say change the feat for a single weapon with a hand free, make it a full round action, and grant a single attack at your full attack bonus - 2. It would replace iterative attacks effectively with a single attack at a higher bonus.
Contributor
|
I agree with the OP, and this one has bothered me since its introduction in the alpha.
I believe the goal was to create some balance for two-weapon fighters by allowing them to have a decent weapon for each hand without breaking the bank (and hey, you can always use the larger weapon, and apply your weapon focus/specialization to all attacks, etc.)
I think this is a worthwhile goal, but the visual of how this feat works destroys my sense of verisimilitude. I already overlook a great deal in the 3.5 combat system in the name of playability over realism, but this one , I just can't.
If it ends up in the final version, I'll be covering that feat with a sticky note in my rulebook and pretending it isn't there.
|
|
I also really dislike this feat. I don't ever want to use a feat/power/skill that I can't explain without resorting to using "game-talk".
How could one swap one weapon to another hand and still have time to do the three extra attacks? If this were possible, I'd start wondering why Fighters can't just make 7 attacks per round, because they clearly have enough time to do so.
I like the goal of helping Two-Weapon Fighters by reducing their weapon costs, but there must be a better, more "fluff-friendly" way of implementing this.
Maybe a feat that allows you to apply all other feat bonuses specific to one weapon type to your off-hand weapon regardless of its own type? So if you have a bunch of feats enhancing your skill with a longsword, you get to apply those to your off-hand shortsword as well. Perhaps give it a pre-requisite of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting?
|
Contributor
|
Hell, I'd be down with a feat that let you apply the magic effects of your primary weapon to the attacks with your off-hand weapon, or a magic weapon feature that borrows the bonus and effects from your primary weapon or loans them to your secondary weapon.
Any of these make more sense to me than Weapon Swap.
I'm going to go with the majority here, this feat is wonky. I don't like it. 2 Weapon Fighting definitely needs a boost - but this isn't it. It needs more specialness to offset the amount of feats you spend on it. Obviously this is more a discussion for when we get to the Feats in design forums. 2 Weapon needs some love. This feat isn't it. :(
Hmm... I actually liked the feat. The first thing that I thought when I saw it was that it makes the duelist character have something nifty that they can do. And I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think of The Princess Bride and the whole situation of, "Why are you smiling?" "Because I know something you don't!" "What's that?" "I am not left-handed!" *swap blade mid-attack*
However, I can understand the problem that's being expressed with being able to do it all the time. I'd honestly be kinda sad to see this feat go, but perhaps making it work separately of TWF would bring it more in balance? This way it doesn't become a feat choice for Rangers trying to minimize their costs, but instead becomes another fighting style type feat?
|
|
Hmm... I actually liked the feat. The first thing that I thought when I saw it was that it makes the duelist character have something nifty that they can do. And I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think of The Princess Bride and the whole situation of, "Why are you smiling?" "Because I know something you don't!" "What's that?" "I am not left-handed!" *swap blade mid-attack*
However, I can understand the problem that's being expressed with being able to do it all the time. I'd honestly be kinda sad to see this feat go, but perhaps making it work separately of TWF would bring it more in balance? This way it doesn't become a feat choice for Rangers trying to minimize their costs, but instead becomes another fighting style type feat?
I think your vision here might best be present by another feat, or perhaps changing Weapon Swap so that you switch weapons in mid-attack and then get to make a Bluff check to feint as a free action. In fact, this would be cool.
The problem with Weapon Swap to me was this potential for seven attacks per round, which goes against the combat system model set up by the game.
Maybe I'm playing/DMing rare groups but - don't PC's usually find their (really) good weapons? Are PC's commonly buying awesome stuff? Is bank-breaking really a problem? Are most people's treasure just gold and they go to the Final Fantasy Magic Shop for stuff?
In my experience breaking the bank isn't really a problem...not enough of one to warrant a goofy feat to help out...
Don't like it. It smacks too much of roll-playing. You always get to use the better of the two weapons, whether it is to get the best magical bonus/effect or to get past DR. You still get penalized 1/2 STR for the off-hand attack though... Blah. It's just clunky.
Hell, I'd be down with a feat that let you apply the magic effects of your primary weapon to the attacks with your off-hand weapon, or a magic weapon feature that borrows the bonus and effects from your primary weapon or loans them to your secondary weapon.
Any of these make more sense to me than Weapon Swap.
I like the effect of this but not the wording or the name. Something to the effect that "You use your off hand weapon to enable a second attack with your primary weapon". Also, it should be clear that you cannot get a shield or defensive bonus to your AC from your second weapon. I can see buying a +3 defending weapon for the off hand and dedicating it to AC then making all attacks with the primary weapon... not great.
That's a good point, DdO - the text can be interpreted that you don't have to have an empty hand. I didn't even realize that's what it was saying the first time I read it. That does make this feat suddenly really strange to me. Why would anyone fight this way?
If anything the feat should enable a Single wielding weaponist to swap his weapon from one hand to the other. That's fine. Goes with the Princess Bride tactic.
|
I think your vision here might best be present by another feat, or perhaps changing Weapon Swap so that you switch weapons in mid-attack and then get to make a Bluff check to feint as a free action. In fact, this would be cool.
The problem with Weapon Swap to me was this potential for seven attacks per round, which goes against the combat system model set up by the game.
I agree, a free Bluff check makes much more sense with this than up to three extra attacks with the same weapon.
It seemed to me as is you do not have two weapons but one. After you make your attacks you throw it into the other hand and make another attack. The thought of them switching dagger to sword is silly I just never thought of that I thought of one weapon going to the empty hand
|
Contributor
|
Even if it is just one weapon, why does throwing your weapon into your other hand suddenly give you time to make three more attacks every round?
I have no problem with a feat that lets you change weapon hands to feint or something to satisfy the Princess Bride scenario, except that it would be weak. Personally, I'd just use that as description on a normal feint (or an improved feint) to add flavour to a fight.
But this feet is part of the TWF tree and is clearly intended to allow a character to use one weapon to get their extra attacks from TWF with one weapon. It is not designed to replicate the sword-fight at the cliffs of insanity.
I actually really like this feat, in terms of flavor. I mean, it's so visual, so dynamic! It says more 'musketeer' or 'Zorro', than 'Conan' to me. I'll be sad if it goes.
However, it is open to slight abuse. I think that the prerequisites should be a fair bit higher, maybe BAB around 10+/11+? And it should only be usable if a) you have a weapon in your off hand to begin with, and b) you drop the off hand weapon each time you use this feat.
That'd really help curb the abuse, as you'd have to have an endless supply of daggers and quickdraw to make the most of it. If your players think that that's fun, well then there's no helping them!
Peace,
tfad
I'd prefer to have the feat to allow to make a bluff chek to feint as a swift action and perhaps ignore the shield bonus, because you suddenly move the wapon to the other hand and make an attack... Of course that is more related to what advantage I'd expect from swaping the wapon to the other hand, rather than just an upgrade of the existing feat.
As it is it seems that you double your movement speed, because with normal two-weapon fighting you have 6 seconds to make all your attacks with both weapons. With weapon swap you make your attacks with one hand and then again the remaining attacks with the same weapon with the other hand... did the weapon get a copy or something?
|
I think some people are mis-reading the intent of this feat.
You don't gain any more attacks than a TWFer normally would. The only benefit is that after making your normal primary hand attacks with your primary weapon, your weapons swap hands, and you then make your remaining secondary hand attacks also using your primary weapon. You don't gain any additional attacks.
The line that seems to be confusing people is "after making ALL your attacks with your primary hand" refers only to all you normal primary hand attacks, NOT all your total attacks.
I'm not saying I like it - why is it necessary to swap weapons to make those secondary attacks, when it would seem more efficient to make all these attacks with your primary hand?
I think some people are mis-reading the intent of this feat.
You don't gain any more attacks than a TWFer normally would. The only benefit is that after making your normal primary hand attacks with your primary weapon, your weapons swap hands, and you then make your remaining secondary hand attacks also using your primary weapon. You don't gain any additional attacks.
I'm not saying I like it - why is it necessary to swap weapons to make those secondary attacks, when it would seem more efficient to make all these attacks with your primary hand?
I think ya have it right but i was thinking you did not have a weapon in the off hand but threw it over there to get it. I have seen this in movies and that prob were it came from.
You know you hit em a few times on the last hit both hands are close to gather ya drop the weapon into the other hand and kinda left hook em with it.
That was my take I could be all wrong
I also think this feat is rather nifty. Sure, it's not quite the Cliffs of Insanity style of trick, but then again, it's stylish in and of it's own merits. It's a way for an "einhander" fighter to still be effective without having to conceptually be quite like the dual-wielder or the two-hander warrior. Plus, it is rather nice in that it allows the character to use a single preferred weapon. From a game balance standpoint it doesn't allow the character to do anything more than what a typical dual-wielder can already, allowing the same number of attacks at the same penalty either way. It's a purely conceptual trait that helps a player develop a character to fight "just like how he sees it" at the cost of an additional feat. I as a DM think it's great and encourage this kind of variety.
|
Even if it is just one weapon, why does throwing your weapon into your other hand suddenly give you time to make three more attacks every round?
I agree that the current description doesn't make sense: 3 attacks with primary hand, switch hands, 3 attacks with off-hand.
What if you instead think of it as: 1st attack with primary hand, 1st attack with off-hand, 2nd attack with primary hand, 2nd attack with off-hand, etc.
It's a fighter who is used to fighting with a weapon in each hand learning how to move one weapon back and forth between hands to take advantage of his training. It's less accurate, thus the additional -2.
Sure, it's not 100% realistic, but this is D&D.
|
After reading the feat in question I think that the intent may have been for characters to swap a singular weapon from their off hand to their prime hand. Kind of like how Inigo Montoya does in The Princess Bride.
Maybe a better prerequisite would be Dex 17, Weapon Finesse and a base attack bonus of +3 or so.
What do you think?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Perhaps this would be a better way to express it if that was the intention.
Weapon Swap (Combat)
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 primary hand attacks, you can swap your primary weapon to your off hand and make you off hand attacks using that weapon. You take an additional –2 penalty on all attack rolls made with your off hand this round.
If the intention is that the weapon gets tossed to the off hand near the end of the round for one (or two) final thrusts, would that be more acceptable?
|
|
I think some people are mis-reading the intent of this feat.
You don't gain any more attacks than a TWFer normally would. The only benefit is that after making your normal primary hand attacks with your primary weapon, your weapons swap hands, and you then make your remaining secondary hand attacks also using your primary weapon. You don't gain any additional attacks.
The line that seems to be confusing people is "after making ALL your attacks with your primary hand" refers only to all you normal primary hand attacks, NOT all your total attacks.
I'm not saying I like it - why is it necessary to swap weapons to make those secondary attacks, when it would seem more efficient to make all these attacks with your primary hand?
No, you don't gain more attacks than a TWF does, but you do gain more attacks than single-weapon fighter does. Why does this feat allow you to make 7 attacks with a single weapon per round? Think about it, in a round you have 6 seconds of time. This is enough time for a 20th level fighter to attack 4 times with his weapon. If you take this feat, how do you explain your fighter's ability to attack 7 times in a round with only one weapon?
And if you have enough time to attack four times, swap hands, and then attack 3 times, then it follows that you would have enough time to attack 7 times without swapping hands.
I can see where the idea was going, but this breaks verisimilitude in my mind.
I'm not going to cite reality as a reason for anything, though here it might be justified.
I just plain don't like this feat.
well i don't like the feat myself either, I can do this in real life though it doesn't make my attacks any faster. How i imaged the two-weapon fighting worked was the weapon in each hand attacked at the same time and that's why they got more attacks.
Coming from the perspective of real life martial arts training there are definite advantages from fighting with two weapons (dual Chinese broadswords for instance, dual hook swords, dual nun-chuku and the like)Swapping a weapon from one hand to the other is definitely not even close to two weapon fighting. I suppose that there would be ways to visualize it at least semi-effectively but about all of them take up two much time for anything effectively equivalent to attacking with a second weapon that is ALREADY in the second hand and doesn't have to be swapped. In a combat situation we are playing with fractions of seconds often the attack that kills can come in a 10th of a second and it ls likely to take at least that much time to swap a weapon from one hand to another.
I suppose you could be fighting an opponent on one side of you and then another opponent runs up to attack you from the other side, you quickly stab the first opponent through the heart, yank the sword back out and thrust it rapidly into the path of the oncoming attacker. This could be a way of visualizing it but it still wouldn't be as fast as a weapon that was already in the other hand (not near as fast) and it also sounds like the kind of thing that can already be done via an attack of opportunity, unless the second opponent was already adjacent in which case there would be even less time to swap that weapon to the other hand. I can't see a lot of justification for the feat really.
Charles
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Okay, most of us agree it doesn't seem logical, but some like the cinematic flavour and others feel TWF needs a bump.
So, propose two feats. One that gives the cinematic flavour of a warrior wounded in one hand switching to his offhand and gaining some advantage for doing so ("Surprise, I'm not left-handed!").
The other, giving a bump to TWF at high levels.
No, you don't gain more attacks than a TWF does, but you do gain more attacks than single-weapon fighter does. Why does this feat allow you to make 7 attacks with a single weapon per round? Think about it, in a round you have 6 seconds of time. This is enough time for a 20th level fighter to attack 4 times with his weapon. If you take this feat, how do you explain your fighter's ability to attack 7 times in a round with only one weapon?
And if you have enough time to attack four times, swap hands, and then attack 3 times, then it follows that you would have enough time to attack 7 times without swapping hands.
I can see where the idea was going, but this breaks verisimilitude in my mind.
The problem with your argument is that a 20th level fighter doesn't make 4 attacks. He is swinging his sword frequently throughout a battle - he just has four really good chances to actually land a blow.
Looking at it like that, tossing a sword from your primary hand to your off-hand may very well off balance your foe enough that you get a couple more decent stabs in as they react to your sudden change in stance and direction. It's not an exact science - you are, after all, still taking an additional -2 to your off-hand attacks (presumably in addition to the standard TWF penalties, though that really needs to be clarified in the body of the feat text). This makes a fair amount of sense, and it does require you to have exceptional coordination and a pretty decent amount of skill.
Personally, I very much like the feat. It's got lots of finesse and style, as well as just being an interesting idea. I would be sad to see it not in the final release.
As many others before me, I do not like the feat either.
And the above example would work if the feat added just one additional attack, but by lvl 16 it adds 3 more so it just does not work.
Anyhow this feat open a lot of possibilities in combos for breaking the game ... i would be glad if it was eliminated ...
Anyhow this feat open a lot of possibilities in combos for breaking the game ... i would be glad if it was eliminated ...
I'm curious to know - how does it break the game? You can only use it on a full attack, it decreases your attack rolls by an additional 2 points, and the class that would benefit the most (Rogue, due to sneak attack being the best TWF damage delivery system) has even less chance of landing their hits with this. All it does is save gold on buying a second weapon, and considering TWF already costs more, feat-wise, than THF, how does also charging them twice as much for their weapons really help?
I'm just not seeing how a feat like this would break the game. Maybe I'm daft, but some examples would be great.
|
And if you have enough time to attack four times, swap hands, and then attack 3 times, then it follows that you would have enough time to attack 7 times without swapping hands.
rule wise, I don't see how it helps, but attacking 7 times in 6 seconds with a light slashing or piercing weapon is slow My karate instructor trained with someone who was arrested for slashing an attacker 65 times with a penknife. He pleaded not guilty on grounds that it was self defense, and that he was only defending himself for at most 5 seconds. The judge didn't believe him so they set a dummie up in the police station and taped him, going at it for 5 seconds, in that time he slashed the dummie 75 times. In the trial his only comment was I guess I was slow that day
Two people of relatively equal combat ability will, of course, attack each other more than 4 times. More than 8 times. (single wep and dual wield respectively).
However in any given 6 second span the number of attacks that actually do anything is relatively minor.
Take boxing for example. They swing alot. They even touch alot- but they don't really ring the other guy's bell very often. Not unless it's a greatly mis-matched fight.
These "bell ringers" are what the attack rolls actually represent. Its assumed that you feint, jab, move, block, dodge all the time.. Attacks are being traded and parried right and left but in the totality of all that only a few really have a shot at getting through and doing something.
That having been said:
This feat has two parts. Fluff. Crunch.
Not many of you have said you don't like the crunch- the main problem most of you seem to have is that you don't like the fluff.
Great. So change the fluff. Call it "ambidextrous" or something and allow the guy to get multiple attacks with one weapon while using the two-weapon penalties. Mechanically identical, different fluff.
(he's so quick he can attack nearly twice as often!, or whatnot).
-S
Two people of relatively equal combat ability will, of course, attack each other more than 4 times. More than 8 times. (single wep and dual wield respectively).
However in any given 6 second span the number of attacks that actually do anything is relatively minor.
Take boxing for example. They swing alot. They even touch alot- but they don't really ring the other guy's bell very often. Not unless it's a greatly mis-matched fight.
These "bell ringers" are what the attack rolls actually represent. Its assumed that you feint, jab, move, block, dodge all the time.. Attacks are being traded and parried right and left but in the totality of all that only a few really have a shot at getting through and doing something.
That having been said:
This feat has two parts. Fluff. Crunch.
Not many of you have said you don't like the crunch- the main problem most of you seem to have is that you don't like the fluff.
Great. So change the fluff. Call it "ambidextrous" or something and allow the guy to get multiple attacks with one weapon while using the two-weapon penalties. Mechanically identical, different fluff.
(he's so quick he can attack nearly twice as often!, or whatnot).
-S
I agree, fluff and logic behind the feat must be sound.
The whole reason why I am here (and not playing 4e), and I would guess some of the other players, is that we do not want powers that are bland and only give us mechanical numbers while doing nothing trying to explain how and why they work.
I agree completely with you ...
|
|
I see this feat as a way to allow two weapon fighters to get all their attacks with both hands when they have not had the time to draw their second weapon. This seems like a cheat. They are being rewarded for not being fast enough or because they do not want to move and draw the second weapon, but still want all the attacks. I think this should only apply for going from primary to secondary hand. Once in the second hand, it has to stay there. It should also be a move equivelant action.
I see this feat as a way to allow two weapon fighters to get all their attacks with both hands when they have not had the time to draw their second weapon. This seems like a cheat. They are being rewarded for not being fast enough or because they do not want to move and draw the second weapon, but still want all the attacks. I think this should only apply for going from primary to secondary hand. Once in the second hand, it has to stay there. It should also be a move equivelant action.
No, this feat is the attempt to make two-weapon fighting a bit more powerful and useful by not making such character needing to get TWO +5, flaming, holy, keen weapons and needing to spend 400 000 gp instead of just 200 000.
But it fails in its design, although the idea behind it is OK.
But I also need to mention that two-weapon fighting with weapons that have high crit and different elemental effects on them is a very good combat option. More attacks means more chances for a crit and more d6s to damage. Also by not power attacking (which is the trademark move of any two-handed weapon wielder) you will connect with your lower BAB attacks more often.