If a Brawler wanted to use a Fauchard, modified by Versatile Design to be part of the close Fighter weapon group, with Brawler's Flurry how many feats would they need?
1) Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Fauchard) + Weapon Adept
2) Just Weapon Adept.
Relevant rules text:
A brawler is proficient with all simple weapons plus the handaxe, short sword, and weapons from the close fighter weapon group.
An exotic weapon that receives modifications cannot be wielded without the Modified Weapon Proficiency or Weapon Adept feat (see page 11). A character proficient with a specific weapon (such as a cleric’s proficiency with her deity’s favored weapon) is not automatically proficient with a modified weapon of that type.
A Brawler's proficiency with "weapons from the close fighter weapon group does not seem to be "proficiency with a specific weapon" but if a Brawler wanted to modify a handaxe (with, say, Tactically Adapted) they would need both EWP and Weapon Adept, it seems.
A weapon with the versatile design modification is easier to wield for those skilled with other weapon groups. When versatile design is added to a weapon, choose a fighter weapon group. The modified weapon is considered to be a weapon of that weapon group (such as for the fighter’s weapon training class feature). A melee weapon cannot be considered part of a weapon group for ranged weapons, and vice versa.
Versatile Design adds that specific weapon to a weapon group. If you are proficient with the group, you are proficient with that specific weapon, but not other versions of that weapon that have not been modified that way. So, your answer is, 2. You don't need the exotic weapon proficiency because you are already proficient with the group. A group is not a specific type of weapon. You couldn't use Versatile Weapon to make a sword like an axe, and then use your hand-axe profiency to wield it. But you could make a polearm Versatile to close weapons group, and then you'd be proficient with that specific polearm weapon, as it's designed to be used by those proficienty with close weapons group proficiency. THat's the whole purpose of the VW modification.
|
Of course there should be some groups that versatile weapon should be impossible to convert. Polearms to close is one of them. However, there is nothing RAW that would disallow it. But a two handed pole weapon designed for fighting at reach being weilded as a weapon designed for close quarters fighting stretches my suspension of disbelief.
I mean, the principle behind Versatile Design is a very abstract gamey idea, and very few of the potential switches actually make much sense. I don't know if "You can treat a longbow as a thrown weapon and use Startoss Style" or "Treat a crossbow like a bow and use manyshot" make any more sense than "you can treat a polearm like a close weapon and use outslug style."
I mean, there's nothing in common between a rapier and a hammer really, but Versatile design lets you put a rapier in the hammer group so you can use your extensive training fighting with hammers to be better with a rapier. So I'm not sure if "weapon groups" actually make much sense anymore from a simulation perspective.
I feel like the point of contention from a "this makes no sense" perspective is that Martial Versatility doesn't change the stat line of the weapon in any way, so moving a polearm to the close group doesn't make it lose reach (if it had it to begin with.)
I can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.
A crossbow with slightly longer arms so arrows can be loaded more quickly in a bow type fashion.
Ranged to thrown is a tougher one. I think weapons should still be forced to stay with in their own basic group.
I can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.
The rapier is a stabbing weapon, it does piercing damage. How would you do that in a "hammer type fashion"? The motions would be totally different.
I mean, sure if a player wants to explain it somehow, I'll accept anything but it's not even a stretch for Martial Versatility is supposed to do to let you treat a Greatclub like a Light Blade or a Rapier like a Hammer. It doesn't actually make sense, the ability just serves to let people use weapons with game mechanics that refer to weapon groups other than the one the weapon in question originally belonged to.
I can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.
A crossbow with slightly longer arms so arrows can be loaded more quickly in a bow type fashion.
Ranged to thrown is a tougher one. I think weapons should still be forced to stay with in their own basic group.
A melee weapon cannot be considered part of a weapon group for ranged weapons, and vice versa.
Last line of the Versatile Design text.
I can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.The rapier is a stabbing weapon, it does piercing damage. How would you do that in a "hammer type fashion"? The motions would be totally different.
I mean, sure if a player wants to explain it somehow, I'll accept anything but it's not even a stretch for Martial Versatility is supposed to do to let you treat a Greatclub like a Light Blade or a Rapier like a Hammer. It doesn't actually make sense, the ability just serves to let people use weapons with game mechanics that refer to weapon groups other than the one the weapon in question originally belonged to.
I see a rapier using the hammer group looking something like this:
____________
/
The user could use a hammer type motion to attack. It would be more like a pick with an elongated spike.
2h to light weapons is also a bit more of a challenge. A greatclub shaped roughly like a sword and balanced to be held in a way that allowed it to use moves similar to short blade could work, but it is a bit of a stretch. It would have been better if some size restrictions were also included.
I can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.
A crossbow with slightly longer arms so arrows can be loaded more quickly in a bow type fashion.
Ranged to thrown is a tougher one. I think weapons should still be forced to stay with in their own basic group.
A melee weapon cannot be considered part of a weapon group for ranged weapons, and vice versa.
Last line of the Versatile Design text.
Thx. Still haven't read the book yet.
The last line in Versatile Design:
A melee weapon cannot be considered part of a weapon group for ranged weapons, and vice versa.
Makes me wonder. How do we handle weapon groups that contain both melee and ranged weapons?
The Monk Group contains ranged weapons (Shuriken) and Melee Weapons (Temple Sword), the Thrown group contains melee weapons (Daggers) and ranged weapons (slings), the Pirate group contains ranged weapons (crossbows) and melee weapons (cutlasses), etc.
So are those groups considered "both melee and ranged" for purposes of moving weapons to them via versatile design, so you can move anything there, or can you move nothing there via versatile design?
Thrown Group is Ranged Weapons. Even though daggers are in it, it's because Daggers can be thrown. As long as your weapon is ranged, it could be moved into it (even weapons that are both ranged and melee).
RAW, Monk/Pirate would have to be both. I suspect if there's an FAQ they'll rule that Class specific categories (such as Monk/Pirate) can't be the target of Versatile Design. VD is about altering the weapon's characteristics. Class Groups are about what the class is trained with.
for any sword there's IRL technique called half-swording and murder stroke to use a sword (practically any type) to do thing that are not slashing, a murder-stroke you wield the blade by its blade to strike with your pommel or guard, half-swording you have one hand on your blade to have more precision when using the pointy end of your sword to stab trough weak spot of an armour (and no holding the blade do not cut you its not hollywood it only cut if it move so be sure to have a strong grip on it), likewise spear and pole-arm were mostly use as a quarterstaff for close combat but since the feat can't change the reach of weapon with reach quality its hard to explain why it can be in the monk group, mechanically, like a quarterstaffI can see all kinds of designs that make these combinations work. I could see a rapier, with a hammer grip jutting out at an angle from the blade, that was used in more hammer type fashion.The rapier is a stabbing weapon, it does piercing damage. How would you do that in a "hammer type fashion"? The motions would be totally different.
I mean, sure if a player wants to explain it somehow, I'll accept anything but it's not even a stretch for Martial Versatility is supposed to do to let you treat a Greatclub like a Light Blade or a Rapier like a Hammer. It doesn't actually make sense, the ability just serves to let people use weapons with game mechanics that refer to weapon groups other than the one the weapon in question originally belonged to.
The reason you can't normally use a spear or halberd like a quarterstaff is because they are not balanced the same. A Halberd is balanced for thrusting, with a heavy bladed end and a light or non-weighted shaft end. Same with a spear, this let's you get the weight on target, and use the shaft as a force multiplier on the point.
You can weight both ends, so they are equally heavy. This would let you use it more like a quarterstaff. However, this throws off the thrusting and you need to recalibrate where you hold it to thrust. In general, it's usually not worth it. It could be in a magic campaign because you can enchant one weapon rather than two or three.
I am reading this thread and was wondering. As per RAW brawler's flurry gives the brawler the TWF feat with unarmed, close and monk weapons. So if someone uses Versatile Design (Close Weapon Group) to a 2H weapon like a greatsword. Can you use brawler's flurry with it? You are not wielding two weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am reading this thread and was wondering. As per RAW brawler's flurry gives the brawler the TWF feat with unarmed, close and monk weapons. So if someone uses Versatile Design (Close Weapon Group) to a 2H weapon like a greatsword. Can you use brawler's flurry with it? You are not wielding two weapons.
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
Seems like you can.
Hmmm, this makes an Iron Caster even more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sweet, then does this Versatile Design allow you to use Outslug Style with a whip? Because that would just be amazing if you could. You could get an effective 20 foot range with a 10-foot step!
This pleases me.
So I'm not sure if "weapon groups" actually make much sense anymore from a simulation perspective.
Weapon groups are fine, versatile design is the thing that doesn't make sense from a simulation perspective.