Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bone_Yard 04-21-08, 02:36 PM	Does anyone know what the requiremnets for spinning halberd style is from the complete warrior?
Thalspar 04-21-08, 02:49 PM	combat reflexes, two weapon fighting and weapon focus on the halbeard
LinkHiroOfTime 04-22-08, 12:50 AM	On the subject of Spinning Halberd: The feat allows you to make a secondary attack with, one would assume, the shaft of the weapon. Do you have to enchant the shaft of the weapon separately like with a double weapon or shields and shield spikes? Does Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization (Halberd) increase the attack or damage of the secondary attack?
zeratulcraft 04-22-08, 01:13 AM	For the first part, I'd say it's like a quarterstaff, two ends, separately enchanted, one of which is slashing. For the second part, they're both parts of a halberd, once again it's like the quarterstaff thing, there's no weapon focus (Bottom Half of a Quarterstaff).
Salla 04-22-08, 02:35 AM	I feel compelled to mention that sharing the prerequisites for that feat, which is not Open Content, is a violation of the CoC.
mplindustries 04-22-08, 03:09 AM	On the subject of Spinning Halberd: The feat allows you to make a secondary attack with, one would assume, the shaft of the weapon. Do you have to enchant the shaft of the weapon separately like with a double weapon or shields and shield spikes? Does Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization (Halberd) increase the attack or damage of the secondary attack? For the first part, I'd say it's like a quarterstaff, two ends, separately enchanted, one of which is slashing. For the second part, they're both parts of a halberd, once again it's like the quarterstaff thing, there's no weapon focus (Bottom Half of a Quarterstaff). Nope, wrong. Unfortunately, it makes no difference what the feat implies is going on. What it says is, "you gain...an additional attack with the weapon at a -5 penalty." Then it specifies the damage. The attack is "with the weapon." Just because the base damage changes does not mean you're suddenly using a new weapon. You didn't need to pay extra to make the Halberd's haft masterwork, did you? No? Yeah, thats because its not a separate weapon. In other words, the extra attack uses all the modifiers that you'd have on your usual attack except for the base damage. Just because it resembles a double weapon does not make it one. In fact, even though you only add 1/2 your strength bonus to damage, it is still a two-handed weapon attack for other purposes, like power attack, disarm, etc. (Edit: if it wasn't clear, yes, Weapon Focus and Specialization and anything else would apply to the extra attack). Oh, and no matter what you try to pull, you can't get any more than just that one extra attack. None of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (nor two-weapon defense or others that require two weapons for that matter) give you any sort of benefit. Doing that would require Haft Strike from Dragon #331 (which should stack with Spinning Halberd actually). And one more additional, you don't actually enchant the shield and the shield spikes separately. You enchant the shield defensively and offensively separately, and the spikes are just part of the shield.
zeratulcraft 04-22-08, 06:17 AM	I feel compelled to mention that sharing the prerequisites for that feat, which is not Open Content, is a violation of the CoC. Comes under "Fair Use", you can tell your friends about a great feat you found without them having the book, can't you?
zeratulcraft 04-22-08, 06:18 AM	Nope, wrong. Good point, I concede.
LinkHiroOfTime 04-22-08, 02:24 PM	Just because the base damage changes does not mean you're suddenly using a new weapon. The base damage changes AND the damage type changes from piercing or slashing to bludgeoning. A different base damage AND a different damage type seem to make it look like you are using a different weapon in the same sort of way that a gnome hook hammer is bludgeoning on one end and piercing on the other and both ends do different damage amounts. This makes it look like using Spinning Halberd allows you to apply weapon focus to both attacks, but enchant the attacks separately. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just making sure all of the bases of the argument are covered. I do agree that the text reading you make "an additional attack with the weapon" does make it seem that you do not have to enchant the attacks separately. Also, since you can only make the additional attack during a full attack and don't have the option of attacking with one or the other as a standard attack (like you do with a double weapon), it seems that only having to pay for one enchantment balances out. You also have to invest a lot of feats into getting this feat, so it would seem fair that a feat that 'costs' a lot of feats would work to offset the cost of weapon enchantments. The entire feat seems to come down to the phrase that you make "an additional attack with the weapon..." Technicalities leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is only having to pay for a single enchantment "in the spirit" of the feat?
mplindustries 04-22-08, 09:12 PM	The entire feat seems to come down to the phrase that you make "an additional attack with the weapon..." Technicalities leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is only having to pay for a single enchantment "in the spirit" of the feat? Yes, because otherwise, you'd be enchanting a pole that nobody could ever use without a feat that has several awkward pre-reqs, and even you can only use it once per turn during a full attack (Congratulations, you've gained a new feat! Too bad you can't use it effectively without spending several thousand gold.). Look at it this way: when you enchant a weapon, you enchant the whole weapon, not just the striking surfaces (i.e. The whole warhammer is flaming, not just the flat end). Double weapons are the exception to this rule, not the norm, and only because they can actually be used as two distinct weapons.