Here is a small question that just popped into my head,
If you are using weapon swap, and your weapon is a longsword, doesn't that mean that your off hand weapon is no longer light and you now suffer a -2 for TWF a -2 for weapon swap and a -2 for wielding a non-light weapon in your off hand?
I don't think so, 'cause you're simply changing it to the other hand. But your point is a good one. Since your off hand weapon 'has' to be a light weapon this feat allows you to make all of your strikes with the medium one.
An example for how this can be broke real quick - I have a gestalt druid15/ranger10 with TWF. Keen +1 Scimitar in one hand, +4 Bleeding Rapier in the other. With this feat I can go for the improved crits on all attacks or bleeding 1 point on each. With 5 attacks, 6 if hasted, and a decent strike bonus I can dish it out pretty bad. Also, with a brilliant energy spell/effect on one weapon I can get it on all attacks.
Now I like dishing out damage when I'm not wildshaped but this feat seems too strong.
I read it like seekerofshadowlight -- you have ONE weapon, not two, and an empty off-hand. You make your attacks, switch hands (somewhat pointlessly), and make more attacks. It's not realistic, but it provides a way for one-handed ("einhander") wielding with no shield to be a viable combat style. Like Douglas Fairbanks in the old swashbuckler movies. You never see a one-weapon, no shield fencer in D&D, because mechanically it's not viable compared to THW (the best), TWF (good for fighter/rogues), or even the (sub-par) sword-and-shield. This feat makes it viable again.
Advantages: No need to spend extra gold on another weapon.
Disadvantages: You take the extra off-hand penalties if your (single) weapon isn't a light one. You can't use Two-Weapon Defense nor Two-Weapon Rend, because you're only fighting with one weapon. You can't have a scimitar in one hand and a short sword in the other, to get those Sls/Prc damage capabilities without drawing another weapon.
I read it like seekerofshadowlight -- you have ONE weapon, not two, and an empty off-hand. You make your attacks, switch hands (somewhat pointlessly), and make more attacks. It's not realistic, but it provides a way for one-handed ("einhander") wielding with no shield to be a viable combat style. Like Douglas Fairbanks in the old swashbuckler movies. You never see a one-weapon, no shield fencer in D&D, because mechanically it's not viable compared to THW (the best), TWF (good for fighter/rogues), or even the (sub-par) sword-and-shield. This feat makes it viable again.
Advantages: No need to spend extra gold on another weapon.
Disadvantages: You take the extra off-hand penalties if your (single) weapon isn't a light one. You can't use Two-Weapon Defense nor Two-Weapon Rend, because you're only fighting with one weapon. You can't have a scimitar in one hand and a short sword in the other, to get those Sls/Prc damage capabilities without drawing another weapon.
Except that the feat says you swap your weapons (plural), and it has TWF as a pre req. If you make the switch you take an 'additional' -2 on the attacks made with your off hand (regardless if it's a light weapon).
Except that the feat says you swap your weapons (plural), and it has TWF as a pre req. If you make the switch you take an 'additional' -2 on the attacks made with your off hand (regardless if it's a light weapon).
All I can say is, the Beta has numerous instances of "your level" instead of "class level," and "enchant" instead of "enhance," etc. An extra "s" isn't really going to bother me. Anyway, to my mind, juggling one weapon to the other (empty) hand during combat is at least plausible, whereas fumbling two weapons between two full hands is silly.
TWF makes sense to me, because the additional attacks would be made with the off-hand (thus the -2 penalty). Why not a larger penalty for non light weapons? No idea. Maybe one was intended, but didn't make it into the wording (it's not as if dwarves can drag a train at a speed of 20 ft. -- oh, wait, yes they can, by the wording). Maybe one wasn't intended.
My interpretation opens up a new niche, instead of being vaguely cinematic but mostly pointless. Even if I'm wrong, I'll probably stick with it. Either way, though, some clarification is desperately needed. Not just for this feat, but for the entire document. Jason Bulmahn is a whiz at class design, but he's just not a careful technical writer. That's nothing against him -- he has done, and continues to do, a fantastic job at the game designing -- but Paizo needs to set a bulldog editor loose on the document before it's finalized.
Weapon swap is probably my least favorite feat—I'm on board with the illogical train, I guess. It's certainly the first feat I'll point at when we lay the final chapter out and see it's running long... CUT THAT ONE!!! :-P
:(
Weapon swap is probably my least favorite feat—I'm on board with the illogical train, I guess. It's certainly the first feat I'll point at when we lay the final chapter out and see it's running long... CUT THAT ONE!!! :-P
I think changing it would be a better choice.
|
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?
The feat doesn't say anything at all about switching two weapons to opposite hands. It says you have one weapon and switch it to the opposite hand for the off hand attack.
As far as balanced for D&D it seems a natural fit to me.
Say you have a barbarian and his favorite weapon is his +3 Icy Blast long sword. His second weapon is a rusty dagger. He wades into combat and he has a choice, use that long sword followed up by the rusty dagger, or use the long sword and switch hands for the off-hand attack using the same long sword.
Personally I'd go with the switch, but that is just me.
Personally this feat just screams barbarian to me.
|
|
Weapon swap is probably my least favorite feat—I'm on board with the illogical train, I guess. It's certainly the first feat I'll point at when we lay the final chapter out and see it's running long... CUT THAT ONE!!! :-P
I would hate to see it go. Especially when the most viable complaint is versimiltude. You know, in a game with wizards, and elves and dragons and goblins... got to keep that realism going. I prefer a game about options and choices, not a game that requires everyone to be pigeon holed into predefined static clones. This gives melee players another choice in the way they can play.
Just tweak the definition just a bit and it will be fine.
Contributor
|
I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference between verisimilitude and realism, which is why we use the term verisimilitude. We accept that magic works within the setting/genre, but there is no explanation that I can comprehend why someone can create more time within which to make attacks by switching his weapon to a different hand, without the use of magic, and no magic is implied in the use of the feat.
I could maybe see someone using a double weapon like a gnome hooked hammer and twirling it around so that all hits were with the hammer end (or the pick end), but even that's stretching it a bit.
|
|
Weapon swap is probably my least favorite feat—I'm on board with the illogical train, I guess. It's certainly the first feat I'll point at when we lay the final chapter out and see it's running long... CUT THAT ONE!!! :-PI think changing it would be a better choice.I agree people seem to like the dramatic effect of switching your weapon from one hand to the other in a swashbuckler like style so lets keep the idea and just rework the mechanic.
Just a quick example here of an idea (needs work I know)
Weapons Swap (Combat Feat)
Prereq: ???By quickly switching your weapon from one hand to another you can throw your opponent of guard and by pass some of his defenses. Anytime after your first attack in a round, as a swift action, you may switch your weapon to your off hand. Any addition attack you make that round against the opponent you attack with your first attack ignores the targets dexterity and shield bonuses to AC. It also ignores the bonus the target would recieve from fighting defensively.
Maybe make it also require a CMB check against the oppenent to get the bonus.
Just a rough idea based on what others have already suggested (I think several mentioned by passing shield bonus and such.)
It makes perfect sense for it to ignore shield bonuses.
Honestly feats like this and the CMB with those maneuvers, start to capture some of the spirit and feel of Iron Heroes, which is fantastic for non magical combat.
Can we get the design intent of this feat from staff, please?
Can we just get rid of it?
Is anyone in favor of keeping it?
Creative Director
|
Can we get the design intent of this feat from staff, please?
I believe the idea is to do something along the lines of "Princess Bride's" I am not left-handed scene. Basically, allowing a character who fights with two weapons to swap his off-hand weapon to his main hand so he can get his full strength bonus or something like that to the attack.
I still think it's a pretty lame feat.
Can we get the design intent of this feat from staff, please?I believe the idea is to do something along the lines of "Princess Bride's" I am not left-handed scene. Basically, allowing a character who fights with two weapons to swap his off-hand weapon to his main hand so he can get his full strength bonus or something like that to the attack.
I still think it's a pretty lame feat.
Thank you!
I do so hate to see everyone arguing over something there is no need for.
Also, can we re-name Razor-sharp chair-leg? It has gone on my table's list of worst-feat-names.
|
Creative Director
|
Can we get the design intent of this feat from staff, please?I believe the idea is to do something along the lines of "Princess Bride's" I am not left-handed scene. Basically, allowing a character who fights with two weapons to swap his off-hand weapon to his main hand so he can get his full strength bonus or something like that to the attack.
I still think it's a pretty lame feat.
Thank you!
I do so hate to see everyone arguing over something there is no need for.
Also, can we re-name Razor-sharp chair-leg? It has gone on my table's list of worst-feat-names.
That's certainly possible too.
Hah! That was my whole short list of feat changes, right there! :D
Rather than just remove it, I would very much like to see some sort of feat provided for the one-weapon, one-hand fighter. If not based on this one, then maybe the Canny Defense (and maybe Elaborate Parry) and Precise Strike duelist class features could be turned into feats for one-handed fencers...
Rather than just remove it, I would very much like to see some sort of feat provided for the one-weapon, one-hand fighter. If not based on this one, then maybe the Canny Defense (and maybe Elaborate Parry) and Precise Strike duelist class features could be turned into feats for one-handed fencers...
When I read the feat, I did not presume that this was it's role.
Why would a one-handed fighter be using the 2WF chain? If that's what this is for, it was certainly unclear from the outset.
When I read the feat, I did not presume that this was its role. Why would a one-handed fighter be using the 2WF chain? If that's what this is for, it was certainly unclear from the outset.
I agree; maybe it was wishful thinking on my part. The TWF prereqs made perfect sense to me insofar as you're making additional attacks with your off-hand (and from a rules standpoint, anything that gives you extra attacks like that should have a hefty price tag in prereqs). I saw it (or maybe just really want it to be) a feat that makes the d'Artagnan/Douglas Fairbanks/Inigo Montoya-type a viable character.
And like I said before, the Beta showcases some really excellent design work. It does not yet have any real clarity of language almost anywhere -- that will (hopefully) come with the final hardcover.
|
|
I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference between verisimilitude and realism, which is why we use the term verisimilitude. We accept that magic works within the setting/genre, but there is no explanation that I can comprehend why someone can create more time within which to make attacks by switching his weapon to a different hand, without the use of magic, and no magic is implied in the use of the feat.
Time has nothing at all to do with it and is irrelevant.
It's like asking a boxer why he switches hands while punching. Shouldn't he just be punching with his main hand? It's not like he's getting any more time, or strength or anything out of that off hand punch.
It seems clear to me, at least, the purpose of this feat is to use Two Weapon Fighting with one weapon. The question that raises then is why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing. The answer can be as simple as you have one really cool awesome powerful weapon for which you are known and prefer, and maybe a rusty dagger. :)
It also can be viewed similar to a boxer punching with two hands instead of just one. It is a part of combat. I know, I know... I D&D boxers ONLY punch with their main hands as there is no reason to EVER attack with an off hand... but still this goes along with realism and versimilitude and whatever to be a part of unpredictable combat.
So, when someone can show me a champion boxer who only punches with their main hand, I'll agree this feat should go.
Oh BTW while watching fencing during the Olympics I did see one fencer switch hands a couple of times... but seeing as I am no expert I suppose she was doing it wrong.
|
Contributor
|
Allow me to reiterate.
If you fight with one weapon and have this feat and choose not to swap hands, you get (let's say) three attacks. And that is all.
But if you swap hands, you now get two more attacks.
Why are you able to make more attacks by switching hands? This is what I mean by having more time.
There ARE reasons to switch hands with weapons. IMO most of them are not good reasons, but there are reasons. Those reasons are not that it will suddenly let you make more attacks. It won't.
I don't mind a feat that let's you get a bluff bonus for switching hands or something like that, as I said before.
I don't mind a different description that let's you apply your weapon effects from your primary weapon to your secondary weapon, as I have said before.
This feat is neither of those things, and it doesn't make sense as written, as should be evident by the varying interpretations of its intent and benefit.
Please refrain from creatively reinterpreting my statements in the future.
|
|
Allow me to reiterate.
If you fight with one weapon and have this feat and choose not to swap hands, you get (let's say) three attacks. And that is all.
But if you swap hands, you now get two more attacks.
Why are you able to make more attacks by switching hands? This is what I mean by having more time.
There ARE reasons to switch hands with weapons. IMO most of them are not good reasons, but there are reasons. Those reasons are not that it will suddenly let you make more attacks. It won't.
I don't mind a feat that let's you get a bluff bonus for switching hands or something like that, as I said before.
I don't mind a different description that let's you apply your weapon effects from your primary weapon to your secondary weapon, as I have said before.
This feat is neither of those things, and it doesn't make sense as written, as should be evident by the varying interpretations of its intent and benefit.
Please refrain from creatively reinterpreting my statements in the future.
Sorry, your previous statement was so vague and unclear that it made no sense at all. And if you make youself clear and not rude no one has to reinterpret your intent.
However if you can't refraim from your rudeness, I'll have no choice but to dog you :) *this is said with tongue in cheek and is NOT meant to be rude or provocative- one of the problems of internet- you can't hear the intention behind the words*
Now, let's see what the feat actually does. You said it allows you take make two new attacks that did not exist before. That, however is not true. If I am fighting with a Longsword in my right hand and make three attacks, I can use my off hand (left in this case) to throw two unarmed punches if I wish. Now, this is according to 3.5 and the rules errata. In fact from the errata (and this was long argued on this board ages ago) you can make the unarmed attack, a kick and even a head butt!
Yes, I know this is no longer 3.5, but it is built upon those old mechanics.
So, are there two new attacks being created? Nope. Just almost no one uses them.
By the way I was one who argued long and hard against all those extra attacks and said there is no way. Then I was shown the link to WOTCs site and it clearly stated those were possible. It might not have made sense to me but that was the official ruling.
|
|
Allow me to reiterate.
If you fight with one weapon and have this feat and choose not to swap hands, you get (let's say) three attacks. And that is all.
But if you swap hands, you now get two more attacks.
Why are you able to make more attacks by switching hands? This is what I mean by having more time.
There ARE reasons to switch hands with weapons. IMO most of them are not good reasons, but there are reasons. Those reasons are not that it will suddenly let you make more attacks. It won't.
I don't mind a feat that let's you get a bluff bonus for switching hands or something like that, as I said before.
I don't mind a different description that let's you apply your weapon effects from your primary weapon to your secondary weapon, as I have said before.
This feat is neither of those things, and it doesn't make sense as written, as should be evident by the varying interpretations of its intent and benefit.
Please refrain from creatively reinterpreting my statements in the future.
BTW as a contributor I would expect you to be capable of clarifying your ideas better than that :) pretend you are paid by the word :)
I've done quite a lot of unarmed combat training (and some armed, both with a single knife and with a pair of sticks), and I can attest that Craig's points regarding the lack of realism made sense, and are substantially correct. Realistically, two sticks are best; if I have only one, I'll use both hands with it (more like 2-handed weapon use). Using a knife in one hand, against another knife-armed person, you really want a coat or something on your off-arm (kinda like a baffle or shield). So there's your 3 main styles: TWF, THW, and "sword-and-board." No "einhander" style to be seen.
But honestly, I'm willing to forego an awful lot of realism if it lets me play a viable one-handed fighter. One-handed fencing is so cool in the movies, I want it to be that cool in my game as well.
|
|
I've done quite a lot of unarmed combat training (and some armed, both with a single knife and with a pair of sticks), and I can attest that Craig's points regarding the lack of realism made sense, and are substantially correct. Realistically, two sticks are best; if I have only one, I'll use both hands with it (more like 2-handed weapon use). Using a knife in one hand, against another knife-armed person, you really want a coat or something on your off-arm (kinda like a baffle or shield).
But honestly, I'm willing to forego an awful lot of realism if it lets me play a viable one-handed fighter.
Yes, if we were arguing say d20 Modern or even real street fighting sure I would agree 100%. But we are talking about a fantasy game. 99% of it has nothing to do with realism or anything like it. It has to do with fun and cool and fun and fun.
If we want realism then the crossbow would make plate wearing uncommon... as would rapiers. The shield would add far more to AC. There would be no hit points at all- I mean is there anything at all that makes any less sense? And people are worried about realism of switching hands in combat?
Come on... we are worried about the reality of adding time to the multiverse, when HP let's a guy survive a blow that would have litteraly cut him half and just shrug it off like it was nothing... I mean I understand combat can toughen you up some and all but really how many people can take a slashing axe through the chest and just laugh at it?
If people can accept the sheer utter nonsense of HP, surely people can get past switching hands in combat...
Besides, probably a moot point anyway, seeing JJ dislikes it so it will likely get the axe itself (hopefully it has enough HP to take it).
Also, I am of the opinion that if you don't like it, don't use it. But there are several people here, for example, who do like it. So why force everyone to play according to your own standards? *Kirth that last part is not directed at you nor anyone else, just using the neutral you...*
But we are talking about a fantasy game. 99% of it has nothing to do with realism or anything like it. It has to do with fun.
honestly, I'm willing to forego an awful lot of realism if it lets me play a viable one-handed fighter.
I think we're agreeing, more or less, on the need for a gimmick here... but I agree with the Scribe as well, with regards to the silliness of the gimmick. It would be good if we could all shift our thinking to come up with some alterations that actual fencers will find palatable. Just, you know, to make it more acceptable to everyone.
Craig, let me ask you this: I've "fenced" (with sticks) with people who are Western fencers (albeit not very good ones), and I used a two-handed grip and consistently won. But that's a case of me just being a better fighter; as near as I can tell it had nothing at all to do with the style, if you see where I'm coming from. Realistically, what does 1-handed Western fencing offer that other methods don't? Maybe we could make some feats that capitalize on reach (oh, I see you've done that in "Art of the Duel!") and/or some other aspect.
Round one: He made some sort of poking motion at me, that probably would have hurt if it hit me; I stepped in and dashed his point to my right (so his arm was cross-body) and swung back to the left, clocking him on the side of the head.
Round two: I rolled around to the outside, got in close where he couldn't do all that waving and swordplay stuff, and just sort of pulled my stick across his throat: not very diginified, but it worked.
In either case, the trick was to get inside and neutralize his maneuverability and reach.
|
Contributor
|
Krome:
I apologize if I came off as rude, that was not my intent.
If I was unclear it was simply because I did not want to go back and say the things that I have already said in this thread. No one likes it when someone simply keeps arguing the same points, and I'd rather not be that guy.
As an aside, your comment about being able to use your fists as an off-hand weapon applies equally to your earlier comments about boxers. You can TWF with two fists.
In any case, I've said what I wanted to say about this feat.
In any case, I've said what I wanted to say about this feat.
Wait! Can you suggest an alternative? More than one? Throw a bone to poor d'Artagnan!
|
Contributor
|
In any case, I've said what I wanted to say about this feat.Wait! Can you suggest an alternative? More than one? Throw a bone to poor d'Artagnan!
I can offer many alternatives for the one-hander! In fact, the entire content of Art of the Duel is OGL and I would love for Jason to incorporate that material. I'll try to think of some more stuff in November, too.
But this feat builds off the TWF tree, so it seems different to me.
I would like to see the bonuses for the Expert Duelist feat (from PFS) doubled for a one-weapon no shield fighter though.
I just plain don't like it, realistic or not.
If the goal was to make a feat for one handed fighters, it shouldn't require 2WF.
If the goal was to represent a certain kind of swashbuckling flair, then it's best represented with feint (as a poster above noted) or some kind of acrobatics bonus.
If the goal was simply to include switching hands in combat, then I have no love for this concept. There are a whole lot of things that need to be addressed as feats that are better ideas than this.
I hate to rail against it like this, but it was one of the first things I noticed about Pathfinder, and if gave me the wrong impression.
|
|
In any case, I've said what I wanted to say about this feat.Wait! Can you suggest an alternative? More than one? Throw a bone to poor d'Artagnan!
I'll give it a shot:
WEAPON SWAP
With an acrobatic twist, you can snap your weapons from one hand to the other.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +6
Benefit: You may swap the weapon in your primary hand to your off-hand to unbalance your opponent. This allows you to make an additional attack at your full attack bonus, though all your attacks this round suffer a -2 penalty. Any opponent affected is considered immune to any further uses of this feat.
Personally, I like this better as it favors the single weapon Fighter and more closely resembles the Montoya/Wesley battle that keeps coming up. It gives a little extra punch, and theoretically could work with a two-weapon fighter as well, granting them an extra attack after all their normal attacks.
It seems like a decent compromise since it does give you an extra attack, but not three extra attacks, and the extra attack given seems rationalized, to me.
I put the immunity clause since any opponent who falls for this is unlikely to do so again.
Let me know what you think!