Talk:Zweihänder (3.5e Equipment)

Low Stance
It says "may" treat it as a reach weapon at the cost of a -2 to hit. So do you threaten those squares off-turn? Do you threaten adjacent squares after you make a reach strike with it? Could use some clarity I thinks, and either just be a reach weapon that you have a -2 to hit with, or a weapon that allows you to strike one space beyond your threat range for a -2 penalty. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sit Back and Relax with Gan-Talk-a
Trying to gather my thoughts on this, so here goes:

What I like about this:
 * Exotic weapons that grant combat options rather than just slightly increased damage as payoff for needing the feat.
 * Theoretically obtainable at level 1 (though more likely not as starting gear, after an adventure, sure). Characters like to pick a weapon type and stick with it for thematic purposes.
 * You can still use it at level one without the feat for character that need to wait a couple levels to obtain the Exotic proficiency.
 * No exotic weapon proficiency = No access to the stances/added training benefits. This is a nice clause.
 * The option of increased defensive stance.

Things that bug me:
 * Even ability score requirement. Not a big deal, but I always kinda figured that the odd numbered requirements were to make the "you don't get a mechanical damage/attack boost" have a purpose.
 * The actual numbers of the High stance. The tradeoff of damage for defense is nice (with the reduced speed), but assuming that 20 Strength, that's a +5 shield bonus. A 1/2 Strength to damage and 1/2 Strength as shield bonus (with the same movement penalty) might be more in line but also less likely to ever be used. When you really need AC, you're gonna want a lot, even if that means you're basically going to be dealing a noticeable amount of damage less. I'm kinda wishy-washy on this one, since lining up the math differently actually makes the utility on it drop to pointlessness, that is, unless there was a different style of calculation or cap of some kind…

Other points:
 * Basic Stance: by taking that -4 to your attack rolls, and aligning yourself next to two adjacent targets, without a hefty shield, you're basically lining yourself up to get hit after your turn… though I guess you could swift action change stance at the end of your turn to put yourself into High for the next round, if you were going to do some every-other round sort of thing or were just waiting for back-up. Gotta decide on your stance before your attacks that round. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this promotes tactical combat decisions or something. Risk analysis and all that. On the topic of that -4 penalty, I'm going to try and recall a conversation and math session I had with Tarkis from like 3 years ago or something. Basically the topic was "how good is a reroll compared to a bonus to attack". I think that the resolution was "it varies, but on average, it's worth about a +4 bonus. So, a -4 penalty, two rolls on two targets, probably worth it in some situations if you can get yourself into it. At the very least, good for mowing down peons as a bit of cleave-lite.
 * The Low stance sounds like you don't threaten those extra spaces, but you can target creatures there. I may be interpreting this poorly though.
 * The Back stance is interesting. You're not actually charging, just getting the effects of it applied plus other stuff. Let's break this bad boy down.
 * Sounds like you could also charge with this and get double bonus and penalty. That is, +4 to attack, -4 AC with all the standard charging limitations applied.
 * You probably don't have to move, since you're not actually charging.
 * You get the +2 bonus on Strength checks made to bull rush.
 * No five foot stepping as part of the "penalties" of a charge?
 * For that matter, only one attack as part of the "penalties" as well?


 * The stances likely count as "stances" for martial characters, so you can't assume these stances and martial stances simultaneously (unless you can actually do simultaneous stances because of whatever other features).

All in all, this is interesting, if a bit much to track from a single weapon/feat combo. Some modification to the formula for this experiment is probably required. I'd like to see more attempts at weapons (well, exotic weapons anyway) styled something like this.--Ganteka Future (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's quite an in-depth analysis you have given me, so let me address and give some clarification on some of the points you have raised.


 * On the martial Strength requirement of 20, this is not a requirement that most characters will care about, since to get the most out of the zweihänder you'll need Exotic Weapon Proficiency and the requirement goes down to 15. Fighters that swing a zweihänder like a martial weapon do so with Strength alone, which is why it requires an almost superhuman level of strength in the first place, and even at 20 Str someone without exotic proficiency will not be able to use the stances. So for all intents and purposes the real Strength requirement is the odd one, 15. In low-level, low power and/or low magic campaigns, getting 20 in any ability score might be out of the question entirely, anyway.
 * Yeah, if you want to swing wide and hit multiple targets, you're gonna have a bad time if the opponents have a good attack bonus. I think it is a good tradeoff for being able to reduce the enemy numbers more quickly. I think it is fine for a player to be punished a bit for using a skill or ability in a situation where it can come back to bite him/her.
 * On the scored-out part, yes, I made it so the stances need to be chosen before attacking precisely to prevent abuse of the High stance, but now you've made me think about that, that may not be enough. I think it is better to force the wielder to choose a stance or go basic mode at the very start of their turn, so the amount of mobility they have will also depend on their choice.
 * The idea of the low stance is that by taking the -2 penalty you can strike 5 feet further away, giving you +5 ft. to your reach during your turn. This extra reach would disappear the moment your turn ends, so you only threaten adjacent squares. I will have to rewrite that one for clarity.
 * On the Strength to shield bonus, I understand the mixed feelings. I feel like I should add 'against a single opponent' to that stance. Perhaps that makes it a little less powerful without actually decreasing its usefulness.
 * On the Back stance. You count as charging on every attack. Indeed, you do not have to move, and you can make multiple attacks given you have the actions to do so, but every attack you make will provoke an AoO from your target, a la Robilar's Gambit. So, you could use this to quickly dispose of weaklings, but try it on a powerful or skilled opponent and you can receive a harsh counter. As for whether the benefits of this stance stack with an actual charge, I'll have to think on that. Didn't consider it, but considering that does drop the amount of attacks you can do to one, I think it's fine to let it stack.


 * Personally, I wouldn't mind it if every weapon had one or more special attack options, in which case a line of Weapon Mastery feats could be made to give access to said special techniques with said weapon. The zweihänder was just a test run in that regard, and I may make more and refine the formula in the future. --Sulacu (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)