|
| 50 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the recent update to Slashing Grace, there are going to be those who start to wonder if Dervish Dance with a slightly different, but still restrictive wording should still work in conjunction with the magus Spell Combat feature.
I'd like to see this make a FAQ, it the slight difference in wording makes a difference, then I would like to see it explained.
THE END IF NIGH!
| 25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what about Fencing Grace? is that supposed to have the same restrictions as slashing grace?
Yeah, that's the best way to make sure something doesn't happen to it. I.e. specifically calling it out and bringing attention to it...
it's nested joking hence the smiley
Actually, there's a possibility that given that a buckler is identified as not being carried in the other hand, it might be OK with dervish dance. I don't agree, but the reasoning people are making with disallowing spell combat with dervish dance would also apply to bucklers, as the Slashing Grace FAQ clarifies that a buckler is not carried in the hand. (I don't extrapolate from one FAQ to another, and the PDT has said in the past that you shouldn't. But people still do.)
That said, I don't expect them to FAQ this; it's in a setting book, not one of the RPG line books. Also, it would invalidate untold numbers of long-established characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dervish Dance has different mechanics than Slashing Grace. It's one reason why Slashing Grace is a terribly written feat. Don't drag Dervish Dance down to the level of a feat that was tacked on.
what about Fencing Grace? is that supposed to have the same restrictions as slashing grace?
notices the 2 faqs
i love these forums.
I say we all just walk away and ignore this thread. No reason to wake the FAQ beast when it's still in a nerf rage and still swinging it's hammer from the ACG demolition. Just back up slowly and maybe it doesn't notice the movement... :P
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No reason to wake the FAQ beast
I assume all of this is trying to be funny right?
I've wondered if that is the actual thought process. Something along the lines of "hey this rule is ambiguous and if I interpret it this way I get something cool, cute, interesting, broken, dumb, or klunky".
If you like the klunky, dumb, or broken rule, do you really wish they don't notice it and make it more clear so it has lees incorrect interpretations?
Or do you celebrate when clarifications happen?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you like the klunky, dumb, or broken rule, do you really wish they don't notice it and make it more clear so it has lees incorrect interpretations?
Clarifications remove the GMs ability to creatively interpret the rules to suit their table, especially in organized play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No reason to wake the FAQ beastI assume all of this is trying to be funny right?
I've wondered if that is the actual thought process. Something along the lines of "hey this rule is ambiguous and if I interpret it this way I get something cool, cute, interesting, broken, dumb, or klunky".
If you like the klunky, dumb, or broken rule, do you really wish they don't notice it and make it more clear so it has lees incorrect interpretations?
Or do you celebrate when clarifications happen?
Only partially. After seeing the 'clarifications' from the ACG nuking, I'd rather not see anything else hit with the scorched earth method used there. It seems clear that the PDT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hates people not using STR for melee combat and wants to add as many hoops and obstacles as possible to make an effective dex bases melee character.
Well except the one class that they want to showcase dex to damage niche, the unchained rogue. He can TWF with dex to hit and damage at 3rd without feats. Everyone else needs several feats and can only use one hand to do it. I wish they could figure out a better way to showcase unchained than by dragging down other options.
So I'll take a "klunky, dumb, or broken rule" over a 'fixed' one that isn't worth taking. I only "celebrate" clarifications that are done in a measured way: Often a scalpel could be used to fix something but around here the hammer is used to smash it into compliance instead. There should be a middle ground between over powered and almost useless but that seems like the only two options they post/print.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Graystone, I guess the really interesting thing is I have nearly polar opposite views:
I don't think any of the ACG errata is all that bad. I'm actually happy Divine Protection got nerfed as I was using it on nearly every character I built in multiple games. It was broken so bad I felt compelled to use it if I had more than CHA 16.
I also like the general answers (in FAQ) that have wide reaching implications, because they inform me how other similar rules should also be interpreted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, I guess the really interesting thing is I have nearly polar opposite views:
I don't think any of the ACG errata is all that bad. I'm actually happy Divine Protection got nerfed as I was using it on nearly every character I built in multiple games. It was broken so bad I felt compelled to use it if I had more than CHA 16.
I also like the general answers (in FAQ) that have wide reaching implications, because they inform me how other similar rules should also be interpreted.
I'm happy Divine Protection got nerfed. I'm just not happy HOW it was nerfed. They could have left a feat that was still useful but not overpowered. Now it's another feat that you never take and it's a waste of ink and space. Overpowered to useless is more of a lateral move than it is an improvement IMO.
On the other point, that's a dangerous road to walk as the team and Mark in particular have said that FAQ's are to be taken quite narrowly and to only apply to what's in the FAQ and nothing else. So it's the dev's that have "polar opposite views" on the "wide reaching implications" of FAQ's and I'm agreeing with them.
|
|
Fencing Grace and Dervish Dance continue to work as they always have.
The FAQ on Slashing Grace has no effect.
A FAQ on Dervish Dance or Fencing Grace is an idea without merit.
There is no confusion, no frequently asked questions, and we all know the RAW, and RAI.
This is a pointless endeavor, that will garner no possible positive result, other than to be ignored.
|
|
Here is why I think it need a FAQ. There is a line of thinking that can be followed that the reason the updated Slashing Grace does not work with Spell Combat is the language of Spell Combat that treats the attack like two-weapon fighting with the spell being cast acting as an off-hand weapon.
The FAQ can be interpreted not as Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat just because we said so, but it doesn't work because Spell Combat counts as fighting with two weapons.
So therefore, it can be reasoned that Spell Combat acts like using an off-handed weapon for the purpose of Dervish Dance as well.
There are going to be GMs that see any attempt to narrowly parse the verbiage of the two feats to somehow mean something different from one another as rules lawyering nonsense that they will simply dismiss.
As someone who exclusively plays in PFS, that potential interpretation is something I'd rather not see hanging out there.
Here is why I think it need a FAQ. There is a line of thinking that can be followed that the reason the updated Slashing Grace does not work with Spell Combat is the language of Spell Combat that treats the attack like two-weapon fighting with the spell being cast acting as an off-hand weapon.
The FAQ can be interpreted not as Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat just because we said so, but it doesn't work because Spell Combat counts as fighting with two weapons.
So therefore, it can be reasoned that Spell Combat acts like using an off-handed weapon for the purpose of Dervish Dance as well.
There are going to be GMs that see any attempt to narrowly parse the verbiage of the two feats to somehow mean something different from one another as rules lawyering nonsense that they will simply dismiss.
As someone who exclusively plays in PFS, that potential interpretation is something I'd rather not see hanging out there.
Mark himself as said that faq's are JUST about what's in the FAQ. So you're post breaks down when you use the "the reason" from an FAQ to base a ruling on anything else. Doing that is directly against the stated intent of the FAQ from the DEV's stated perspective.
THE END IF NIGH!wat
i typo alot
ALSO 14 FAQS !
The only reason the FAQ of slashing grace would apply to dervish dance is if the two feats used the same wording. They do not. Dervish dance disallows carrying a weapon or shield in your offhand. Slashing grace disallows the offhand being occupied in any way, including, explicitly in the FAQ, spell combat, but not a buckler. Spell combat works in a similar way to TWF, but it is NOT TWF and a spell being cast is NOT a weapon or a shield being carried.
A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.
He has said similar things about other FAQ's so I take it that it's the general stance. We aren't to extrapolate ANYTHING from the FAQ's.
I don't understand the need for an FAQ.
You're not actually carrying a second weapon in spell combat. The reason Slashing Grace doesn't work with spell combat is because the feat (somewhat unclearly) said you can't two-weapon fight.
|
|
I don't understand the need for an FAQ.
You're not actually carrying a second weapon in spell combat. The reason Slashing Grace doesn't work with spell combat is because the feat (somewhat unclearly) said you can't two-weapon fight.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
So spell combat says you are two weapon fighting, and the weapon in your off hand is a spell. Therefore you are carrying a weapon in your off hand.
I am not particularly committed to this interpretation, but it is one valid interpretation among several.
I don't understand the need for an FAQ.
You're not actually carrying a second weapon in spell combat. The reason Slashing Grace doesn't work with spell combat is because the feat (somewhat unclearly) said you can't two-weapon fight.
The other possible issue is that the other hand can't be occupied. According to the Spell Combat description your other hand is casting the spell (even if there are no somatic components). Thus it is occupied (I.e "in use").
But isn't this thread meant to be a joke? I didn't seriously think anyone was requesting FAQs on these topics. The OP doesn't even ask a question, and Bandw2 is clearly goofing around.
|
|
I don't understand the need for an FAQ.
You're not actually carrying a second weapon in spell combat. The reason Slashing Grace doesn't work with spell combat is because the feat (somewhat unclearly) said you can't two-weapon fight.
The other possible issue is that the other hand can't be occupied. According to the Spell Combat description your other hand is casting the spell (even if there are no somatic components). Thus it is occupied (I.e "in use").
But isn't this thread meant to be a joke? I didn't seriously think anyone was requesting FAQs on these topics.
I think it is more of a preemptive FAQ. It has come up a few times on other slashing grace threads where people say "wait, if slashing grace was meant to preclude spell combat, does that mean fencing grace, dervish dance were supposed to also and we have just been playing it wrong the whole time?"
(This is under the general rubric of "same things should be the same, or else should be clearly different." Having 4 different "one weapon dex to damage" feats that all have subtly different requirements for the off hand seems to violate that rubric, which the design team have said is one of their guiding principles.)
This needs a FAQ like a potato needs an enema.
scared to tempt fate? :3
just so everyone knows, i haven't faqed anything in here. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the need for an FAQ.
You're not actually carrying a second weapon in spell combat. The reason Slashing Grace doesn't work with spell combat is because the feat (somewhat unclearly) said you can't two-weapon fight.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.So spell combat says you are two weapon fighting, and the weapon in your off hand is a spell. Therefore you are carrying a weapon in your off hand.
I am not particularly committed to this interpretation, but it is one valid interpretation among several.
"much like two-weapon fighting" means it isn't actually two-weapon fighting. As Mark said "A FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has" so a "preemptive FAQ" is not following the Dev's stated intent. Slashing Grace's prohibition against "Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat" LITERALLY only has the scope of that singular feat if you believe Mark's repeated posts on FAQ scope.
Everyone seems quite fearful of the answer to come. As if we're all suspecting it already.
Even if it turns out that way, how many of us would follow that wording to the letter? The ACG errata is so superfluous, I feel like I'd have to buy the 2nd printing and forget everything I knew about it already. Needless to say, our group probably won't be paying attention to a good deal of it. And there's nothing stopping anyone else for keeping Dex-Magi the way they want them to be.
Everyone seems quite fearful of the answer to come. As if we're all suspecting it already.
Even if you know you're tax return is fine, do you call up the IRS and ask for an audit? I'd rather not tempt fate in either situation.
I FAQed.
I'd like to give them a chance to get a pass on those feats to see if they are really committed on this "dex to damage only if you have an arm tied behind" or if is just nerfing for the sake of it.
Let me put the disclaimer that I'm a bid adversary of dex to damage but still I think the way are handling this by first making feats for it then nerfing them to after they made the unchained rogue to make him feel unique it's a pretty silly way of handling this.
Everyone seems quite fearful of the answer to come. As if we're all suspecting it already.
Even if it turns out that way, how many of us would follow that wording to the letter? The ACG errata is so superfluous, I feel like I'd have to buy the 2nd printing and forget everything I knew about it already. Needless to say, our group probably won't be paying attention to a good deal of it. And there's nothing stopping anyone else for keeping Dex-Magi the way they want them to be.
Those who play PFS would be forced to abide by the answer, I suspect that's where the apprehension comes from.
Everyone seems quite fearful of the answer to come. As if we're all suspecting it already.
Even if it turns out that way, how many of us would follow that wording to the letter? The ACG errata is so superfluous, I feel like I'd have to buy the 2nd printing and forget everything I knew about it already. Needless to say, our group probably won't be paying attention to a good deal of it. And there's nothing stopping anyone else for keeping Dex-Magi the way they want them to be.
PFS characters have to abide by the FAQ. If the ruling changes, that could invalid characters that have been around for years.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I SAW IT COMING, IT LOOMS CLOSER! REPENT! REPENT! REBUILD YOUR CLASSES WHILE YOU HAVE A CHANCE!
THE END IS NIGH!
I SAW IT COMING, IT LOOMS CLOSER! REPENT! REPENT! REBUILD YOUR CLASSES WHILE YOU HAVE A CHANCE!
THE END IS NIGH!
I am so stealing this.
Given the recent update to Slashing Grace, there are going to be those who start to wonder if Dervish Dance with a slightly different, but still restrictive wording should still work in conjunction with the magus Spell Combat feature.
uhm no. Dervish dance is a performance- dance, combined with movement and combat. At no point does the text of dervish dance allow any spell-casting; only melee attack with the scimitar.