| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
“I hate feats, because they implicitly exclude PCs from doing things that they’d otherwise be able to do without feats.” It’s been a complaint since 2000, and I can understand it. For example, the Call Truce feat sets up a specific mechanic for parleying with enemies. If you take the feat and abide by its circumstantial restrictions, you can make a Diplomacy check to temporarily cease combat. For a core example, Power Attack sets up a specific mechanic for taking a wild but powerful swing.
This is the internet so I’m sure someone will disagree with me, but I think that most of us can agree that attempting parley and taking wild swings are both things that any character ought to be able to do. (We’ll have different opinions about which situations exclude the possibility of parley, and which if any mechanics ought to be used for it, but we can agree that parley ought to be possible in at least some situations with or without a feat.)
That said, I don’t remember this ever being an issue. I’ve never played in a campaign where a Call Truce type feat excluded the possibility of anyone attempting parley. (Or at least, I wasn’t aware if there was.) And I’ve never heard a player without Power Attack say “I want to swing wild and powerful. Can I get modifiers to reflect that?” (Admittedly, players may have assumed that the existence of PA would shut them down, and so not bothered to ask.)
If this sort of thing has been an issue for you, how did you deal with it?
As a DM, it occurs to me that these sort of feats can be used as guidelines for universally-accessible house rules. For example, if a PC without PA takes a wild swing, I might rule that she gains all the penalties but only half the bonuses described in the PA text. If a PC without Call Truce tries to parley, I could rule that it works as described in CT except that it takes two turns instead of one to attempt. Or that trying to parley without CT increases the DC by 5. Or that CT simply allows parley attempts in situations which I would otherwise tell a player “Parley is clearly futile here, you have no chance of success.”
Of course, if I’ve been handling a certain action with my own house rule, and then discover that ‘there’s a feat for that,’ the feat may create a prickly dilemma. If my house rule uses a different mechanic than the feat, do I change my house rule to mirror the feat, or vice versa? If my house rule is better than the feat, do I buff the feat or nerf my house rule? But it is hypothetically doable.
Perhaps all there’s-a-feat-for-that feats ought to be accompanied by an official universally-accessible rule? Much like Combat Expertise is accompanied by the fighting-defensively rule, and the total defense rule.
So, ideas? Experiences? Snarky comments?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are already rules for calling a truce without the feat. The feat makes it easier. I've never had a request for free minor Power Attack- it's sort of the "I've trained at fighting" feat.
Mostly, *shrugs*.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been debating for a while about house ruling certain feats as either everyone gets them if they meet basic prerequisites (anyone with "combat training" can Power Attack or use Combat Expertise) or allowing the use of a feat with a large-ish penalty that goes away when you have the feat. As an example, I hate the feat that lets you ready an attack to attack a creature that has a longer reach than you (Strike Back, maybe?). But applying a -4 "non-proficiency" penalty and allowing a player to get the benefits of the feat sounds like a possible compromise to me.
I think that applying fixes to feats like you mention is something that isn't necessarily a huge problem in the game as much as it is something that will vary from DM to DM and each DM will want their own house rules for how they solve the problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats like power attack don't bother me at all. Sure, a player could say that they'd like to swing wildly to get the same result, but I don't think I'd agree that simply stating that desire should generate benefits without investment. They simply don't have the developed ability to make consistent and predictable use of that ability - their otherwise untrained attempts being adequately covered by variance in damage due to rolled dice.
It's the feats like Call Truce that I find more concerning since they put a defined mechanic to an otherwise undefined event that any number of GMs could and would adjudicate differently for any number of reasons. If I have a player in my group with that feat, it puts pressure on me to make untrained attempts at doing the same worse in some way so that the feat is worth the PC's investment. But given my instincts as a GM, I don't think I'd make parleying any more difficult (or less binding in the result) than the feat does.
I agree in principle, but the feats really just allow things the core rules do not allow so your anger/dissatisfaction is misdirected.
I don't know what call truce does, but I am assuming it lets you use diplomacy mid-combat, but that is not a problem with call truce if I guess correctly at how it works.
That is a problem with the core rules because by the rules it takes one minute(minimum) to make a diplomacy check. Sure a GM can allow it, but a GM can also ignore the call truce feat.
The call truce, once again assuming my guess of how it works is correct, allows you to ignore the 1 minute limitation.
Another example of this(blaming a feat( is the strikeback feat. People blamed that feat because they mistakenly believed that you did not have to be able to attack the square the creature was occupying.
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want the players to be de-feated?
I'll show myself out.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might be looking at poor examples, Tequila Sunrise.
One that I remember causing a big kerfuffle wasn't actually a feat, but an item: the potion sponge. It's a special item whose primary purpose is to enable the underwater consumption of potions. I heard lots of complaints (this was in my PFS days) from players who previously believed their potions could be consumed underwater already, who now felt like an item from a book they didn't own was taking that away.
Or if you want a truly atrocious feat example, try... crap, I forget the name. Something like "Helpless Prisoner"...? It's a gnome-only feat that enables you to use the Bluff skill to convince a guard that your manacles are too tight in hopes that they'll loosen them so that when you later try to escape, you get a minor bonus to your Escape Artist check to get out of your bonds. You have to be a gnome, you have to have the feat, and I think there might have been some other prereq as well.
Your own examples don't sound that bad to me, just like you found for yourself. But there are some real stinkers out there, too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can of course call a truce in combat. If both sides want to, no problem.
What this feat does, that can't be done without it, is it allows you to use your diplomacy skill as a full round action for 'force' then to accept a truce, for at least a minute (unless the figure out you are doing something wonky.)
A minute of course give you the chance to make a regular diplomacy roll to make friends with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked feats either but then I came from AD&D where the were no feats and thing feats do were dependent on creative GM and describing what you'd do. So feats to me kind of removed control of that from the GM.
On the flip side I played with GMs that played RAW. If there was no rule for it then it didn't happen. Feats were rules that allowed the stuff I used to do in my game to work in game where GMs needed a rule for everything. As well you had players that just weren't a free form, the gave them tools to work with as well.
So after that I came to like feats. I create new ones for my game and take player suggested feats in consideration. I also toss out free feats to the players for things I think they should have.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the crowd that says "feats don't stop you from doing things, they just make you better at doing things." Of course, the effectiveness of any particular feat is definitely up for debate. I am fully aware some feats simply don't work or are not worthy of existence. As a result of that fact, my players often skip feats of limited narrative variety in favor of ones more useful in combat. Sadly, dems da breaks in 3.5/PF.
I agree that feats can lead to an ideology that they are required in order to attempt things. I think 5E putting more power back in the GM chair will do a lot to move away from that mindset. In fact, many of the examples given by the OP seem like encouragement right out of the 5E DMG. I like the fact that 5E feats tend to be equal amounts crunch and fluff making them seem just all around more useful. By containing more in the package, characters need fewer feats, which is another added bonus.
OP have you considered trying 5E? Do you find the same pitfalls in that system?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to be GM of a game where players make up their own combat rules all the time. There are significant drawbacks:
a) If someone comes up with something new, I will have to decide whether it's valid and which numbers are involved. Meh, I have enough to do in combat. And the player in question might not be happy with the judgment - he will be tempted to blame the campaign or me. That's different from a written rule, where the most obvious target of blame is the book.
b) More creative players will be on an advantage. Meaning less creative players will be at a disadvantage in comparison, despite having put the same effort into background story, mechanics, roleplay, combat tactics etc.. Creative players already get rewarded at roleplay, no need to make the entire game their personal playground.
c) Players will press themselves to be creative. Combat is potentially deadly for their characters, so sometimes they need to mobilize every advantage they can get - including their creativity. But if you are forced to think outside the box, it stops being fun and starts being work.
Don't get me wrong. I like creativity and apply 'rule of cool' often. But game rules like feats are quite valuable since they give complex RPGs a structure to rely on. Pathfinder already allows a lot of things in combat. Just don't put yourself into a corner with optimizing damage too far - because then you will feel your 'only viable' option is a straight attack.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...]Or if you want a truly atrocious feat example, try... crap, I forget the name. Something like "Helpless Prisoner"...? It's a gnome-only feat that enables you to use the Bluff skill to convince a guard that your manacles are too tight in hopes that they'll loosen them so that when you later try to escape, you get a minor bonus to your Escape Artist check to get out of your bonds. You have to be a gnome, you have to have the feat, and I think there might have been some other prereq as well.
Yup, Helpless Prisoner. An astonishingly specific feat. Skill Focus: Escape Artist will serve you better 90% of the time, and the existence of Helpless Prisoner means that many GMs may be reluctant to let you pull the bluff since "you don't have the feat for that".
In a similar vein I'd like to nominate Quiet Death.
Prerequisite(s): Dex 19, Stealth 10 ranks, rogue level 10th.
Benefit(s): When you ambush an enemy or enemies that are unaware of your presence, you can roll a Stealth check with a –5 penalty. The result indicates the Perception DC to hear your attacks (rather than the normal DC of –10 to hear pitched combat) until an opponent's first action, when the DC returns to –10. Other enemies present can still see the attack; Quiet Death only prevents the sounds of battle from alerting further enemies.
I have multiple issues with this feat. The first is that its very existence creates rules for how the perception part of "I kill/knock someone unconscious in the surprise round" goes, it's always a DC -10 to hear pitched combat - even when the "pitched combat" was a rogue sneaking up on a guard and bashing him over the head with a sap. The second is that the feat has ridiculously specific prerequisites. Otherwise very sneaky classes like Rangers, Inquisitors, Investigators, Slayers and Assassins are apparently all manifestly unqualified for taking out lookouts without sounding a fog horn in the process.
The annoying part is that I'm actually happy that they put into place rules to deal with the "I sneak up behind the guard and slit his throat"-scenario - it's been a frequent topic in my Hell's Rebels campaign. However to me this seems like the perfect time to add an expansion to the base stealth rules (maybe something similar to how they handle sniping?) rather than fencing an iconic scene behind yet another feat wall with overly specific prerequisites. Why not allow the current Quiet Death mechanic as a base stealth check with a -20 penalty (or whatever number feels appropriate) and redesign Quiet Death to reduce the penalty?
My opinion on feats is similar to the opening post. There are far too many feats and one consequence of this is that some feats do, what in my opinion, characters should be able to do anyway without the feat. And power attack is a good example of this. Power attack is sacrificing accuracy to increase power, anyone can do that in the real world, why is a fantasy hero worse off? Power attack should simply be a combat option and feats should be reserved for things ordinary folk can't do.
The combination of complexity and lack of realism of the feat system in Pathfinder is actually a big problem because it makes it hard for the GM to adjudicate the rules consistently and fairly. It also encourages rules lawyering and silly outcomes. A better approach would be to follow the 5e design philosophy of simplicity and GM arbitration.
Yeah I played in a 5e game a few months ago and I was blown away at the feat design in that system. 5e feats are really powerful and usually scale with your character. There are also no trap options. I think there's only two feats that are considered bad in 5e (greater weapon fighting and something else...can't remember).
In pathfinder there's lot's of trap feats like monkey lunge, elephant stomp, prone shooter (pre-errata), and bad feats like water skinned, combat expertise, dodge (+1 ac, whoopee), child-like, All-Consuming Swing, etc.
Back to the topic, I've said it before but I really hate the trait Prehensile Whip.
Prehensile Whip:
You can use a whip as if it were a rope with a grappling hook at the end. Attaching your whip is a standard action, but detaching it is a full-round action.
Caustic Slur is another one that shouldn't exist.
Also rumormonger.
I don't like feats the restrict characters actions, like Strike Back. But the majority of feats aren't things you should just "innately" be able to do.
Like power attack, there isn't any reason to think that you should just be allowed to sacrifice some ability to hit to deal more damage.
But there are a number of feats that do restrict things that characters ought to be able without the feat, and those should probably be done away with.
You might be looking at poor examples, Tequila Sunrise.
Entirely possible. I bow to the community's greater knowledge of there's-a-feat-for-that feats. :)
OP have you considered trying 5E? Do you find the same pitfalls in that system?
I'm unlikely to try 5e anytime soon. Recently I've been feeling very ambivalent about D&D, and am honestly more interested in tinkering with my fantasy heartbreaker than playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a systematic issue of feats being written for things that would normally be allowed. We seem to keep bringing up the same handful of feats for this whenever this topic comes up.
But I do think there's a problem with how 90% of feats are sub-par or bad options.
Paizo needs to figure out how strong a feat should be, and what kind of options a feat should allow you to do that you couldn't before, because based on what they've published it really seems like they don't know and are just publishing feats for anything they can think of.
I mean look at this feat:
Bloody Vengeance:
If an opponent within line of sight has damaged you within the last minute, you may study that opponent as a standard action. Thereafter, if you hit that opponent with a melee attack, you deal 1 point of bleed damage to that creature in addition to the normal damage dealt by your attack.
Really? Paizo thinks this is how strong a feat should be?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like power attack, there isn't any reason to think that you should just be allowed to sacrifice some ability to hit to deal more damage.
But there are a number of feats that do restrict things that characters ought to be able without the feat, and those should probably be done away with.
Mate, you obviously haven't seen me play golf! Like most hacks I can either hit the ball hard or accurately, not both at once. Very different to the professional golfers who can hit the ball hard and straight on every swing. In my opinion that is how feats should work, they should let you do things ordinary mortals like myself cannot do, else why are they called: "feats"? Power attack should let you get the damage bonus without sacrificing accuracy. Not exchange accuracy for power like any old hack is capable of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats are just something I put up with to play Pathfinder. A lot of them shouldn't exist, but I can't remove them without removing a useful structure for my less experienced players. Once I have a veteran team that can handle the removal, I'll gladly ditch them.
Could not agree more!
Paizo have done such a great job of world building and writing interesting adventure paths. It is a shame they are restricted to being compatible with the clunky 3.5 engine, although I understand their reason for this. Hopefully Pathfinder 2.0 will be built from the ground up to be a much more fluid system.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I adore feats. I hate the way Pathfinder does feats. The vast majority of feats are weak and useless. There's a handful that are good with very specific, cheesy builds, and then theres the standard dozen or so feats that are far more powerful than all the others that everyone is pretty much forced to take. Paizo loves extended feat trees, making feats a non-option since they're so stingy with feats. Big fan of 5e feats.
Seriously though, what's the deal with feat trees? "Feats are an option to customize and personalize your character....lets make everything into trees and force everyone to take certain feats to remove any chance for customization because we don't give enough feats to venture outside the prerequisites."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP have you considered trying 5E? Do you find the same pitfalls in that system?I'm unlikely to try 5e anytime soon. Recently I've been feeling very ambivalent about D&D, and am honestly more interested in tinkering with my fantasy heartbreaker than playing.
In that case, I strongly suggest looking over the 5E free rules PDF. Even if you don't play it, the design is a good read for someone with the interest.
I never liked feats either but then I came from AD&D where the were no feats and thing feats do were dependent on creative GM and describing what you'd do. So feats to me kind of removed control of that from the GM.
On the flip side I played with GMs that played RAW. If there was no rule for it then it didn't happen. Feats were rules that allowed the stuff I used to do in my game to work in game where GMs needed a rule for everything. As well you had players that just weren't a free form, the gave them tools to work with as well.
So after that I came to like feats. I create new ones for my game and take player suggested feats in consideration. I also toss out free feats to the players for things I think they should have.
Bull, half of the non-weapon proficiencies were feats: alertness and ambidexterity immediately come to mind. In fact the term feat entered the D&D lexicon in 2nd edition in the Celtic sourcebook.
Perhaps you would be happier with a more narrative game system, like Feng Shui. You describe what your character is attempting to do and the GM assigns modifiers. The rule of cool applies, so get creative.
Perhaps you would be happier with a more narrative game system, like Feng Shui. You describe what your character is attempting to do and the GM assigns modifiers. The rule of cool applies, so get creative.
I don't think a system relying on gm adjudication & a system with hard rules are mutually exclusive.
The main draw of feats is character progression & differentiation. That is the character should feel they're gaining power as the game goes on (new feats, features, skills), & each character should be able to do so in a new way (smooth talking rogue vs assassin style rogue vs tinkerer rogue). The trouble feats in Pathfinder suffer from is that they are too specific in application, too weak when used, and / or too overreaching in that they accomplish something one would assume is a basic ability (using str to intimidate instead of cha for example, or smashing an object to gain a bonus on an intimidate check, both of which should simply be circumstance). Feats are one way to have character progression & differentiation, where in a system without such tools you run the risk of characters being the same outside of the personalities assigned.
I think one problem is a ttrpg is an abstraction, and must be. Things like iterative attacks don't mean you can swing 3 times in 6 seconds, but that you can do so effectively. But then there are feats applying incredibly specific behavior to what is otherwise an abstraction, like neckbreaker and its friend, or the helpless prisoner above, in contrast to more vague behavior with usable mechanics like mounted combat or stunning fist.
Two-weapon fighting is another example of a feat you need to take in order to achieve something that anyone can do. You do not need any special training to make fighting with two one-handed weapons more effective than fighting with a single one-handed weapon as anyone who has fought this way can attest to. I know that the feat is there for game balance purposes but it's just ridiculous, they might as well have a feat to eat with a knife and fork at the same time without taking a penalty.
Adrastus
.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.
And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.
Adrastus
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.
Adrastus
No.
No they aren't.
I've tried TWF before when I was in the SCA. I sucked at it despite being competent with sword & board.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.
Adrastus
I'm pretty sure anyone whose ever fought with two weapons at the same time will vastly disagree with you.
Edit: Ninjaed. And proving my assertion ha!
I'm pretty sure anyone whose ever fought with two weapons at the same time will vastly disagree with you..... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.
Adrastus
I don't think they will, I for example have fought with two weapons at the same time and noticed an immediate increase in my effectiveness as opposed to fighting with a single sword (I fence rapier) and I had no specialised training at the time in using two weapons at once.
Here is an interesting video on the subject
https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=1zqvwl6wv#/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw
Fighting with two weapons is somewhat difficult but it is not a special skill that requires intense training to have even a chance of hitting your opponent, a completely untrained person will fare somewhat better given two swords than they would if only given one. If two-weapon fighting normally worked as if you had the two-weapon fighting feat and the two-weapon fighting feat improved it further then I would not have a problem with it, my problem is that without this feat picking up a second weapon which would give you a second line of attack and defense would immediately make you completely useless whereas it should make you more effective.
Adrastus
Two-weapon fighting is another example of a feat you need to take in order to achieve something that anyone can do. You do not need any special training to make fighting with two one-handed weapons more effective than fighting with a single one-handed weapon as anyone who has fought this way can attest to. I know that the feat is there for game balance purposes but it's just ridiculous, they might as well have a feat to eat with a knife and fork at the same time without taking a penalty.
Adrastus
If you want to talk about from a historical perspective, you would on the surface be quite wrong.
Almost no one ever used two weapons at once in battle, because it was much better to use a shield in your second hand. It gave you defense, and could still be used to bash. But what wielding two weapons didn't ever really do, was give you twice as many attacks. It actually limits your attacks, the directions they can come from and how much control and manipulation you have over them.
In short, thinking TWF is a real thing is ridiculous.
Of course this is a game, so it needn't be based on reality. But your argument doesn't hold water that attacking with 2 weapons is just as easy as attacking with 1.
.... Eating with a knife and fork and fighting/defending yourself with two separate weapons are two very different things.And they are both incredibly easy to do without specialised training.
Adrastus
No.
No they aren't.
I've tried TWF before when I was in the SCA. I sucked at it despite being competent with sword & board.
Sword and shield is a more effective style of fighting than dual-wielding in most contexts so of course you were more effective when using a shield, try using a single weapon and no shield and then two weapons and tell me which is more effective.
Two-weapon fighting is another example of a feat you need to take in order to achieve something that anyone can do. You do not need any special training to make fighting with two one-handed weapons more effective than fighting with a single one-handed weapon as anyone who has fought this way can attest to. I know that the feat is there for game balance purposes but it's just ridiculous, they might as well have a feat to eat with a knife and fork at the same time without taking a penalty.
Adrastus
If you want to talk about from a historical perspective, you would on the surface be quite wrong.
Almost no one ever used two weapons at once in battle, because it was much better to use a shield in your second hand. It gave you defense, and could still be used to bash. But what wielding two weapons didn't ever really do, was give you twice as many attacks. It actually limits your attacks, the directions they can come from and how much control and manipulation you have over them.
In short, thinking TWF is a real thing is ridiculous.
Of course this is a game, so it needn't be based on reality. But your argument doesn't hold water that attacking with 2 weapons is just as easy as attacking with 1.
Correct, no-one used two weapons in battle because it is not a style that is designed for battle and a shield would be far more appropriate for that. The use of two weapons was most common in duels and in melees where it would actually be useful and there are multiple treatises for it in those circumstances. I am not comparing two weapons to sword and board I am comparing it to one single handed weapon without a shield because without the two-weapon fighting feat you are more effective without anything in your other hand than you are using two weapons.
Adrastus
Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.
About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.
Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.
About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.
But the game doesn't support that, if I do not have the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalties applied to my attacks make me worse with two weapons than I am with one weapon with nothing in my off-hand, you should not need specialised training to have some kind of advantage from that.
I am aware that using two weapons is not about making extra attacks, the advantage is that you have two lines of attack and defense essentially so you can parry an incoming attack and strike with the other weapon in the same time and things like that. my argument is that this should always be advantageous over having no item in you other hand (unless you want to grapple of course) because taking advantage of this requires no training at all in real life.
In addition to off-hand daggers and bucklers, styles using two rapiers and two arming swords exist, there are also non European examples that I am not familiar with. They work on essentially the same principle as daggers and bucklers with some differences of course.
Adrastus
Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.
About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.
But the game doesn't support that, if I do not have the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalties applied to my attacks make me worse with two weapons than I am with one weapon with nothing in my off-hand, you should not need specialised training to have some kind of advantage from that.
I am aware that using two weapons is not about making extra attacks, the advantage is that you have two lines of attack and defense essentially so you can parry an incoming attack and strike with the other weapon in the same time and things like that. my argument is that this should always be advantageous over having no item in you other hand (unless you want to grapple of course) because taking advantage of this requires no training at all in real life.
In addition to off-hand daggers and bucklers, styles using two rapiers and two arming swords exist, there are also non European examples that I am not familiar with. They work on essentially the same principle as daggers and bucklers with some differences of course.
Adrastus
So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.
So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.
And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!
Well in that case, if you're talking about wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and an empty second versus wielding a one handed weapon in one hand and another weapon in the second then the game supports exactly what you're saying. You get a second attack,which is a chance to do extra damage. Of course not doing anything with your second hand is dumb. That's why you use both on a single weapon to give you extra damage or put a shield in it for defense.
About the only examples I'm seeing of a weapon in off-hand is daggers, which were primarily used defensively like a shield/buckler would have been with a bit better ability to make some parry strikes. However, it also gives up a little more defense sense it's smaller in size and you need to more accurately predict the opponents attacks to block them.
But the game doesn't support that, if I do not have the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalties applied to my attacks make me worse with two weapons than I am with one weapon with nothing in my off-hand, you should not need specialised training to have some kind of advantage from that.
I am aware that using two weapons is not about making extra attacks, the advantage is that you have two lines of attack and defense essentially so you can parry an incoming attack and strike with the other weapon in the same time and things like that. my argument is that this should always be advantageous over having no item in you other hand (unless you want to grapple of course) because taking advantage of this requires no training at all in real life.
In addition to off-hand daggers and bucklers, styles using two rapiers and two arming swords exist, there are also non European examples that I am not familiar with. They work on essentially the same principle as daggers and bucklers with some differences of course.
Adrastus
So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just...
I am fine with the extra attacks honestly, it's not realistic but it is a fantasy game and that's ok. What I really want and what the reason for me posting in this thread is, is for the game to not require you to take feats to do things that normal people can do anyway. Normal people are more effective with an off-hand weapon than they are with nothing in their off-hand without needing a special skill so why can't our character's do the same thing?
Adrastus
And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.
Hope it works out for you, that would be more realistic than the current way it works (although as I said I am fine with the extra attacks thing as an abstraction) let me know how it works out for you! :)
If you want to see a really good example of realistic dual-wielding rules check out the two fisted fighting rules from burning wheel, that also falls into the trap of requiring special training to do but it is otherwise very similar to how it was done historically. In fact check out all of burning wheel because it's amazing!
Adrastus
|
|
And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.
I'm actually (slowly) designing an RPG which does that. If you use different weapons it gives you options (especially pistol/melee), and if you use a pair of the same weapon it gives you +1 to hit & damage. (modifiers are generally much lower than in Pathfinder - and melee is opposed attack rolls - so it's significant both offensively & defensively)
It seems to work pretty well thus far in play-testing.
Frankly though, I'm not sure how it would work in Pathfinder. What about magic swords? Does enchanting your off-hand get you more bonuses? What about Flurry? It's normally based upon TWF.
And now I have a new houserule! Thanks guys!So what you want to see is having an weapon in your off-hand gives you an attack bonus rather than extra attacks?
That's just not how fantasy combat systems have worked ever.
I'm actually (slowly) designing an RPG which does that. If you use different weapons it gives you options (especially pistol/melee), and if you use a pair of the same weapon it gives you +1 to hit & damage. (modifiers are generally much lower than in Pathfinder - and melee is opposed attack rolls - so it's significant both offensively & defensively)
It seems to work pretty well thus far in play-testing.
Frankly though, I'm not sure how it would work in Pathfinder. What about magic swords? Does enchanting your off-hand get you more bonuses? What about Flurry? It's normally based upon TWF.
Any changes to two-weapon fighting are also likely to have a huge effect on the rogue as well so that's something to take into account. it would be a very large rewrite seeming as the way two-weapon fighting works is kind of baked into the core of the game. I wish mourge40k luck with it and I hope your game turns out well, it sounds interesting.
Adrastus
|
|
Any changes to two-weapon fighting are also likely to have a huge effect on the rogue as well so that's something to take into account. it would be a very large rewrite seeming as the way two-weapon fighting works is kind of baked into the core of the game. I wish mourge40k luck with it and I hope your game turns out well, it sounds interesting.Adrastus
Yeah - I agree and that was kind of my point. It's hard to make house-rules which change such a core part of the system without making it an entirely different system.
I prefer TWF not giving extra attacks, (hence how it works in my system) but my system was designed with that in mind from the ground up - Pathfinder was designed with extra attacks.
TWF is so rarely good I'm not sure removing it would really hurt anything.
Any changes to two-weapon fighting are also likely to have a huge effect on the rogue as well so that's something to take into account. it would be a very large rewrite seeming as the way two-weapon fighting works is kind of baked into the core of the game. I wish mourge40k luck with it and I hope your game turns out well, it sounds interesting.Adrastus
Yeah - I agree and that was kind of my point. It's hard to make house-rules which change such a core part of the system without making it an entirely different system.
I prefer TWF not giving extra attacks, (hence how it works in my system) but my system was designed with that in mind from the ground up - Pathfinder was designed with extra attacks.
I'm not very experienced with character building in pathfinder because I usually focus on other games but if I'm not mistaken two-weapon fighting is the superior choice for rogues especially if they are unchained rogues because it allows them to get more attacks for more sneak attack and critical focused characters often use two-weapon fighting because more attacks means more potential criticals so changing two-weapon fighting is likely to change a lot for them. There are also multiple monsters that use two-weapon fighting and class features like flurry of blows that are based on two-weapon fighting and you never know what effect changing it will have on them. I think you would be surprised how many things changing it can affect either positively or negatively.
Adrastus
@ AdrastusDarke
You make some excellent points. If you look up the common definition of: "feat" it will be something like: "a great achievement of skill or strength". Feats are poorly named if they only let you do things that ordinary people can do.
|
|
I'm not very experienced with character building in pathfinder because I usually focus on other games but if I'm not mistaken two-weapon fighting is the superior choice for rogues especially if they are unchained rogues because it allows them to get more attacks for more sneak attack and critical focused characters often use two-weapon fighting because more attacks means more potential criticals so changing two-weapon fighting is likely to change a lot for them. There are also multiple monsters that use two-weapon fighting and class features like flurry of blows that are based on two-weapon fighting and you never know what effect changing it will have on them. I think you would be surprised how many things changing it can affect either positively or negatively.Adrastus
It also depends upon the rest of your group composition. Ex: TWF (or flurry) is inherently better when you have a bard in the party as they increase your damage per swing and cancel out of accuracy penalty.
So - changing TWF would also be a minor nerf to bards and all other static damage buffs.