Bar room brawl and Quickdraw
- Thread starter JacktheRabbit
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Murrdox said:
Thanks! I couldn't quite figure out how to word it; I'm glad the idea got across.The one rogue I've ever played would have loved this feat: played in a rollicking, swashbuckling campaign, he liked to make his successes in combat look like comedic mishaps, and was constantly apologizing for the daggers that ended up in the bellies of barbarians and such.
Daniel
dcollins
Explorer
kreynolds said:
The Sage seems to have ruled otherwise -- although I very much wish it worked the way you described (one chance to pick the "wielding" combination and then stuck with it for the rest of the round).
From the current FAQ, p. 38: "This maneuver [getting a second hand onto a held weapon] is similar to drawing the weapon, but a little easier... Therefore, it’s a free action. But Gruntharg can do this only during his own turn..."
What the Sage ruled against was making one attack and then switching grip within an attack-of-opportunity. Switching grip twice on your turn seems to be allowed (unfortunately).
theoremtank
First Post
My 2 cents...
If the opponent on his turn attacks your unarmed character (whom has quickdraw but not the unarmed strike feat), then your character is unarmed. Why? Because it is the opponents turn to take actions, which implies he is the quicker to act. Quickdraw does not actually happen instantaneously, just very fast and therefore is a free action for the sake of game mechanics. If the opponent has better initiative then he takes all actions before your character, regardless of if your character has quickdraw.
By the way quickdraw is a very useful feat in my opinion, I just don't believe it works as was proposed by the original poster.
If the opponent on his turn attacks your unarmed character (whom has quickdraw but not the unarmed strike feat), then your character is unarmed. Why? Because it is the opponents turn to take actions, which implies he is the quicker to act. Quickdraw does not actually happen instantaneously, just very fast and therefore is a free action for the sake of game mechanics. If the opponent has better initiative then he takes all actions before your character, regardless of if your character has quickdraw.
By the way quickdraw is a very useful feat in my opinion, I just don't believe it works as was proposed by the original poster.
Kemrain
First Post
This is a fantastic feat, and I'm going to show it to my GM before my next game. I've seen a few other feats that let you threaten an area when unarmed, but the possibility of a sneak attack gives it potentially devastating power. I’m fairly sure my GM will jump on the fact that this feat doesn’t require the user to be unarmed to use the feat. What it means, is that if an attack of opportunity is presented to the character with this feat, he can draw a weapon and get a free sneak attack, even if he is armed. It requires a hand free to pull this off, but many rogues fight holding only one light weapon.
I think it is important to let the readers of this feat know its intent. It seems to me that it could easily be exploited in its current state, and just needs some rewording to fill it’s niche properly.
It is similar to a feat in Song and Silence, though I don’t have the book before me and can’t quote it exactly. It requires a 17+ Dex and Quick Draw, and allows the user to draw a blade and mane an attack, on their round, so fast that the target is caught flatfooted. Very powerful, even if you can only use it once per combat, as I believe it states later. The feat you proposed is similar, but it seems more powerful to me, because it allows you to take a free action outside of your turn, a distinct no-no in the d20 combat rules.
As lame as requiring levels of a certain class is, I’ve left the prerequisites as is, because I don’t want to alter the feat. This is the aforementioned ‘threaten an area even when unarmed’ feat, and I think it works well for what it does.
The Quick Exchange feat, requiring a 15+ Dex and Quickdraw, (as well as a level of fighter or rogue, which I think is lame) allows you to sheath a weapon as a free action. You may then use Quickdraw to pull out another toy. This last feat pulls a slightly off-topic post down a bit, but I think it’s interesting enough to mention, and it connects to the bit earlier about shifting how you hold a weapon in them idle of a combat round. I’m not sure I followed that line properly, though.
Just a few more things to think about.
- Kemrain the Newby
PS: How’s this for a first post? Worthy of my newbocity? Heheh.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Kemrain said:
Excellent first post, and good points! Although I hadn't thought about it, you're right that this feat could be used as written when the rogue is wielding only a one-handed weapon. Honestly, I'm not sure how much of a problem this is, though: for the cost of a feat, a rogue gets an extra sneak attack once every several combats. (Consider how often the rogue in your game gets to make an attack of opportunity). I imagine that damagewise, most rogues would be better off taking weapon focus than taking this feat.
It does indeed allow something that "breaks the rules" -- the ability to take a free action when it's not your turn -- but I remember reading somewhere that part of the design of feats was that they let you break the rules in a small way. This method of breaking the rules doesn't seem imbalanced to me, nor does it seem implausible.
I'll probably allow this feat IMC, but I would be surprised if any of the current PCs thought it was worthwhile.
Daniel
Kemrain
First Post
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Heh.
As that feat stands, I really like it. I will show it to my GM, but I suspect that he won't like it. He's really tough on feats that can be used in conjunction with Sneak Attack, and he outright banned Expert Tactician. I'll still show it to him, though. I like to keep an open mind. (Hmm, if you can't use Expert Tactician after a successful feint to get sneak attack damage twice, maybe he'll reconsiter... hmmm..)
I had a slightly off-topic question about the rulings over shifting hands on your weapon in combat. My character was being attacked by a character with Improved Disarm, who went for a disarm attempt. Because my weapon, a long sword, was larger than her shorts word, I got a +4 bonus on the opposed roll. She had the feat, however, so we were evenly matched. That's when I remembered that, if you use a weapon in two hands, you get an additional +4 to resist disarm attempts. I told my GM this, and he let me, as a free reaction, grip the long sword’s hilt with my free hand to get the bonus. I still lost the sword, but we came away thinking about this rule. I was wondering if this has come up for anyone else, and if the ruling has already been made?
- Kemrain the Inquisitive
As that feat stands, I really like it. I will show it to my GM, but I suspect that he won't like it. He's really tough on feats that can be used in conjunction with Sneak Attack, and he outright banned Expert Tactician. I'll still show it to him, though. I like to keep an open mind. (Hmm, if you can't use Expert Tactician after a successful feint to get sneak attack damage twice, maybe he'll reconsiter... hmmm..)
I had a slightly off-topic question about the rulings over shifting hands on your weapon in combat. My character was being attacked by a character with Improved Disarm, who went for a disarm attempt. Because my weapon, a long sword, was larger than her shorts word, I got a +4 bonus on the opposed roll. She had the feat, however, so we were evenly matched. That's when I remembered that, if you use a weapon in two hands, you get an additional +4 to resist disarm attempts. I told my GM this, and he let me, as a free reaction, grip the long sword’s hilt with my free hand to get the bonus. I still lost the sword, but we came away thinking about this rule. I was wondering if this has come up for anyone else, and if the ruling has already been made?
- Kemrain the Inquisitive
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Kemrain said:
Per the rules, you can't normally shift your hold on a weapon except during your turn (that's why I said that my feat breaks the rules).
On the other hand, if you had your other hand free, there's no rules-based reason not to grip the weapon in both hands. Remember also that if you wield a weapon two-handed, you get 1.5 times your str bonus to attacks with the weapon.
Were I your DM, I'd probably caution you that I wouldn't allow such hand-switching in the future, but I'd allow you to have been holding the weapon in both hands, since it's a preferable fighting stance anyway. I'm a softie like that.
Daniel
Two-Handed, too!
Two changes I'd make: First, I'd call it "Weapons Out of Nowhere", or "Reactive Quickdraw", or something similar, since it lets you use things besides knives...
Next, I'd put a note in it (like in Quickdraw), that if both hands are empty, a weapon can be drawn with both hands...
You might also want to consider what happens if the attack is a grapple, charge, and other special cases. If the attacker/attacked has Improved Unarmed Strike? Does it make any difference?
Two changes I'd make: First, I'd call it "Weapons Out of Nowhere", or "Reactive Quickdraw", or something similar, since it lets you use things besides knives...
Next, I'd put a note in it (like in Quickdraw), that if both hands are empty, a weapon can be drawn with both hands...
You might also want to consider what happens if the attack is a grapple, charge, and other special cases. If the attacker/attacked has Improved Unarmed Strike? Does it make any difference?
Similar Threads
