So now that fencing grace is broken..


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge 5/5

claudekennilol wrote:
Even considering that, everyone thought it was safe in the player companion line as Paizo has a widely known policy of not errata'ing softcover material. Who would have actually put money on Paizo reprinting this feat in a hardcover book in addition to PFS also coming along and releasing a "campaign clarifications" doc that effectively erratas a softcover book. I think it's safe to say that no one saw this coming.

I saw it coming.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Jeff Hazuka wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Even considering that, everyone thought it was safe in the player companion line as Paizo has a widely known policy of not errata'ing softcover material. Who would have actually put money on Paizo reprinting this feat in a hardcover book in addition to PFS also coming along and releasing a "campaign clarifications" doc that effectively erratas a softcover book. I think it's safe to say that no one saw this coming.

I saw it coming.

Really? You thought to yourself "I think Paizo is going to republish this feat in a hardcover and I also think that PFS is going to some day put out a Campaign Clarifications document to change/clarify/update rules." And you thought all of this nine months ago when the ACG errata came out? All I can say is color me impressed.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

claudekennilol wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Even considering that, everyone thought it was safe in the player companion line as Paizo has a widely known policy of not errata'ing softcover material. Who would have actually put money on Paizo reprinting this feat in a hardcover book in addition to PFS also coming along and releasing a "campaign clarifications" doc that effectively erratas a softcover book. I think it's safe to say that no one saw this coming.

I saw it coming.

Really? You thought to yourself "I think Paizo is going to republish this feat in a hardcover and I also think that PFS is going to some day put out a Campaign Clarifications document to change/clarify/update rules." And you thought all of this nine months ago when the ACG errata came out? All I can say is color me impressed.

Possibly not 9 months ago. But as soon as they fixed Slashing Grace to work as intended, it's not a stretch to see them do the same to other similar feats. One stated purpose of the Clarifications Doucment was to put a bit of errata to softcover books.

Please mark me down as "also saw it coming" when they put similar language to Dervish Dance in a future update of the Clarifications document.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

Shadow Lodge

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

No joke: I have a two-shield fighter.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

The intent is to give the iconic fencing style with skill and grace using a sword in one hand and nothing in the other something going for it. The problem is that it is/was pumping up other styles that don't need it nearly as much like the magusflurry , and doesn't have the offhand reduction like a level 3 unchained rogue does.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Hazuka wrote:


Please mark me down as "also saw it coming" when they put similar language to Dervish Dance in a future update of the Clarifications document.

Its the taldans, they're comming for the saranites. RUN!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really glad this desperately needed nerf happened. There are times where I'm sitting down at a table with my eleventh level witch, and I only get to utterly dominate four out of the five combats, because during the second combat dex-to-damage Magus won initiative and killed the enemy before I could hit him with a save or die.

Really happy Paizo understands how under powered full-casters are and is taking steps to nerf the half-casters and martial classes. Filthy non-tier 1s shouldn't be allowed to have nice things.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can I get a Pick Finesse Feat for Dex to damage, too? I want to make a swashbuckler that isn't using a rapier (bleh, so overdone) or a scimitar (ditto).

Or any other piercing/slashing/bashing weapon, for that matter?

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
You would think so but show me where Fencing Grace "directly references a buckler."

Slashing grace does not mention a buckler either.

There is a FAQ entry that clarifies what "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied," means, which is the exact same language used in the new version of Fencing Grace.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Slashing Grace: In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?

Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”

Linky

Now, while you could technically say that it doesn't apply to fencing grace or dervish dance, shcrodingers buckler being strapped to the arm so as not to occupy the hand for one feat but not another would break my versimilatude worse than an 8 ounce bat judo flippping a 12 tonne dragon.

Liberty's Edge

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
I want to make a swashbuckler that isn't using a rapier (bleh, so overdone) or a scimitar (ditto).

Whirling Dervish archetype. Can get dex to hit and damage for TWF with any one-handed piercing weapon(s) other than a scimitar.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
I want to make a swashbuckler that isn't using a rapier (bleh, so overdone) or a scimitar (ditto).
Whirling Dervish archetype. Can get dex to hit and damage for TWF with any one-handed piercing weapon(s) other than a scimitar.

I've been poring over my tomes trying to find that, which source is that in?

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

I can only assume it is this swashbuckler archetype from Advanced Class Origins.

EDIT: except the archetype lets you treat scimitars as one-handed piercing weapons, which means you can use them with swashbuckler finesse and thus get Dex to damage with them.

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Dervish Finesse (Ex): A whirling dervish can treat a scimitar as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for the purposes of the swashbuckler’s finesse and all feats and class abilities that refer to such a weapon. She must not be carrying a weapon or shield in her off hand to gain this benefit. This ability alters swashbuckler finesse.

Dervish Dance (Ex): At 4th level, a whirling dervish can use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier on melee damage rolls when using her swashbuckler finesse. She counts as having the Dervish DanceISWG feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

Shadow Lodge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
I want to make a swashbuckler that isn't using a rapier (bleh, so overdone) or a scimitar (ditto).
Whirling Dervish archetype. Can get dex to hit and damage for TWF with any one-handed piercing weapon(s) other than a scimitar.

Correction: can get Dex to hit and damage for TWF with any one-handed piercing weapon(s) and scimitars.

Dervish Finesse makes scimitars count as one-handed piercing weapons for the purposes of swashbuckler finesse and other feats/class features, and Dervish Dance (the class feature) replaces Strength with Dexterity for damage whenever you're using swashbuckler finesse.

I realize you probably knew this, but the way you phrased that implied it didn't work with scimitars.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Slashing Grace: In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?

Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”

Linky

Now, while you could technically say that it doesn't apply to fencing grace or dervish dance, shcrodingers buckler being strapped to the arm so as not to occupy the hand for one feat but not another would break my versimilatude worse than an 8 ounce bat judo flippping a 12 tonne dragon.

It's not just verisimilitude, its rules precedent. This is an official response that flat out states that a buckler does not occupy a hand. Ergo this applies to all rules associated with something occupying a hand, including Fencing Grace. I would find any attempt to interpret this any other way to be incredibly disingenuous.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Eshleman wrote:

I can only assume it is this swashbuckler archetype from Advanced Class Origins.

EDIT: except the archetype lets you treat scimitars as one-handed piercing weapons, which means you can use them with swashbuckler finesse and thus get Dex to damage with them.

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Dervish Finesse (Ex): A whirling dervish can treat a scimitar as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for the purposes of the swashbuckler’s finesse and all feats and class abilities that refer to such a weapon. She must not be carrying a weapon or shield in her off hand to gain this benefit. This ability alters swashbuckler finesse.

Dervish Dance (Ex): At 4th level, a whirling dervish can use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier on melee damage rolls when using her swashbuckler finesse. She counts as having the Dervish DanceISWG feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

Ah, a book I *didn't have* and isn't on PRD.

Dangit.

*sigh*

*headdesk*

PLEASE don't send me a copy! I'll get one soon enough! LEGALLY! :)

2/5

Why not just look at the link to Archives of Nethys? Or even on d20pfsrd? At least to reference.

It's not like PRD (for non Core Rulebook stuff) is anymore legal to use in PFS as the other sites. Still need PDF or actual book for Additional Resources.

5/5 5/55/55/5

There's a dervish dancing bard from inner sea combat. Gets it at first level. I liked the dip on my swashbuckler so much I made an identical twin that's a bard with a dip in swashbuckler. (They're identical twins in a set of Fraternal twins)

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
trollbill wrote:


It's not just verisimilitude, its rules precedent. This is an official response that flat out states that a buckler does not occupy a hand. Ergo this applies to all rules associated with something occupying a hand, including Fencing Grace. I would find any attempt to interpret this any other way to be incredibly disingenuous.

Because at least one developer was of the mind that FAQ entries should be read to apply to only what rules element was in question and not to any other rules element no matter how similar. Since the question starts with "Slashing Grace:..." some GMs will conclude that the ruling about bucklers not occupying a hand should apply to Slashing Grace alone. There would have to be another FAQ entry that asks the same question for Fencing Grace.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Michael Hallet wrote:
trollbill wrote:


It's not just verisimilitude, its rules precedent. This is an official response that flat out states that a buckler does not occupy a hand. Ergo this applies to all rules associated with something occupying a hand, including Fencing Grace. I would find any attempt to interpret this any other way to be incredibly disingenuous.
Because at least one developer was of the mind that FAQ entries should be read to apply to only what rules element was in question and not to any other rules element no matter how similar. Since the question starts with "Slashing Grace:..." some GMs will conclude that the ruling about bucklers not occupying a hand should apply to Slashing Grace alone. There would have to be another FAQ entry that asks the same question for Fencing Grace.

Rolled up newspapers aren't just for players?

Shadow Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
plaidwandering wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
You now need a free hand, like an actual fencer does.

This is absurd thing to think...fencing was nearly always accompanied by something in the other hand. A cloak, a main gauche, a buckler(yes actually held in the hand) or another weapon. Two rapier fighting was actually a real thing as well, I have seen all of these done many times

Olympic strip fencing is a modern sport, it is a tiny fraction of what fencing is.

I'm in a group that does some historical-style fencing. My favored style is rapier/dagger. It's definitely the most common style around here.

Other common techniques that could apply to Pathfinder:
Rapier/buckler
Rapier/staff
Rapier/cane(similar to staff, but with disarm)
Case(two rapiers at once)

All of these are equally valid and would be well represented with Dex-to-damage. Rapier/free hand is for people who haven't gotten a dagger yet.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

SCPRedMage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

No joke: I have a two-shield fighter.

That's awesome - I have a two-shield ranger myself :P

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Asteriski wrote:

I'm in a group that does some historical-style fencing. My favored style is rapier/dagger. It's definitely the most common style around here.

Other common techniques that could apply to Pathfinder:
Rapier/buckler
Rapier/staff
Rapier/cane(similar to staff, but with disarm)
Case(two rapiers at once)

All of these are equally valid and would be well represented with Dex-to-damage. Rapier/free hand is for people who haven't gotten a dagger yet.

I've been in a similar group. Rapier/free hand was also the favored style of those who liked to perform "dirty tricks" with their off-hand.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

claudekennilol wrote:
everyone thought it was safe in the player companion line as Paizo has a widely known policy of not errata'ing softcover material.

I don't do that kind of stuff. I tend to avoid material altogether that might get changed, errata-ed, or nerfed.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
everyone thought it was safe in the player companion line as Paizo has a widely known policy of not errata'ing softcover material.
I don't do that kind of stuff. I tend to avoid material altogether that might get changed, errata-ed, or nerfed.

Except there's no assurance yay or nay that it will or won't be.

It's gambling, but with printed words.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
I don't do that kind of stuff. I tend to avoid material altogether that might get changed, errata-ed, or nerfed.

So you don't play Pathfinder? :)

1/5

No he goes CORE fighter. That should be a safe bet.

Shadow Lodge

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
No he goes CORE fighter. That should be a safe bet.

Considering it's the book with the most errata...

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Michael Hallet wrote:
[mBecause at least one developer was of the mind that FAQ entries should be read to apply to only what rules element was in question and not to any other rules element no matter how similar.

I think you are extending that beyond the meaning. Got a link? Because I'm pretty sure it's limited and several say they only apply. This logic was used on Gang Up to say ranged flanking isn't a thing. That turned out incorrect logic.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Except there's no assurance yay or nay that it will or won't be.

It's gambling

True. I don't always make the right call. I played a Maneuver Master with Full Plate and had to retrain the whole character.

TOZ wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I don't do that kind of stuff. I tend to avoid material altogether that might get changed, errata-ed, or nerfed.
So you don't play Pathfinder? :)

Nope. 140+ play credit 150+ GM credit.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

10 people marked this as a favorite.

*whooooooosh*

Liberty's Edge

Michael Eshleman wrote:

I can only assume it is this swashbuckler archetype from Advanced Class Origins.

EDIT: except the archetype lets you treat scimitars as one-handed piercing weapons, which means you can use them with swashbuckler finesse and thus get Dex to damage with them.

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Dervish Finesse (Ex): A whirling dervish can treat a scimitar as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for the purposes of the swashbuckler’s finesse and all feats and class abilities that refer to such a weapon. She must not be carrying a weapon or shield in her off hand to gain this benefit. This ability alters swashbuckler finesse.

Dervish Dance (Ex): At 4th level, a whirling dervish can use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier on melee damage rolls when using her swashbuckler finesse. She counts as having the Dervish DanceISWG feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

That's the one... but you are looking at it wrong.

Yes, you can use a Scimitar with swashbuckler finesse and dervish dance if your other hand is free. However, read the Dervish Dance ability again. It applies to ANY weapon used with swashbuckler finesse... meaning any one-handed (including light) piercing weapon... and the 'other hand must be free' restriction applies only to a scimitar.

Shadow Lodge

CBDunkerson wrote:

That's the one... but you are looking at it wrong.

Yes, you can use a Scimitar with swashbuckler finesse and dervish dance if your other hand is free. However, read the Dervish Dance ability again. It applies to ANY weapon used with swashbuckler finesse... meaning any one-handed (including light) piercing weapon... and the 'other hand must be free' restriction applies only to a scimitar.

This... is correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

No joke: I have a two-shield fighter.
That's awesome - I have a two-shield ranger myself :P

I have a two-shield brawler!

Now we just need a fourth and we'd be a table.

-j

5/5 5/55/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:


Now we just need a fourth and we'd be a table.

-j

Just be a pair of halfings with shields and you're a table.

Silver Crusade 5/5

I would like to know if we can sell back shields at full value, so I can buy a buckler. I'd really rather not lose the approximately 2500 gp it would cost to swap (in addition to the point of AC!)

Grand Lodge 2/5

Michael Hallet wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
You would think so but show me where Fencing Grace "directly references a buckler."

Slashing grace does not mention a buckler either.

There is a FAQ entry that clarifies what "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied," means, which is the exact same language used in the new version of Fencing Grace.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Slashing Grace: In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?

Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”

Linky

Now, while you could technically say that it doesn't apply to fencing grace or dervish dance, shcrodingers buckler being strapped to the arm so as not to occupy the hand for one feat but not another would break my versimilatude worse than an 8 ounce bat judo flippping a 12 tonne dragon.

You guys missed the context. The question was "can I sell back my buckler at full price?" (their VC told them they couldn't use it with fencing grace which was wrong, but not the point). The answer was "Yes, because the FAQ says if a feat/ability changes you can sell back items it mentions for full price." To which my response was "where does fencing grace mention a buckler that would allow it to be sold back at full price?" (i.e. it doesn't mention a buckler. Yes, it works with a buckler as you have shown, but that wasn't anywhere near what was being said/asked)

2/5

Jason Wu wrote:
Mike Bramnik wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So, since all weapons are gradually becoming worthless for martials (or at least, that's the 'feel' of the thread here) can I get two shields, and use one for attacking and one for defense?

I shall call them... 'SHIELDINATOR', the MIGHTY BULWARK!

No joke: I have a two-shield fighter.
That's awesome - I have a two-shield ranger myself :P

I have a two-shield brawler!

Now we just need a fourth and we'd be a table.

-j

So you're saying I should build that two-shield Nature Fang Druid I've been pondering for a while?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

trollbill wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Its been done before. Butterfly Sting was changed to a Desna only Feat.
Not the same thing as characters that had Butterfly's Sting already were allowed to Grandfather this in. So it didn't effect current builds, only new ones. That is a BIG difference.

The post I was responding to was asking if a soft cover book option had ever been republished into a hardcover book to alter it's original form, or something along those lines. The intent was never to try to compare the two Feats.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

DM Beckett wrote:
trollbill wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Its been done before. Butterfly Sting was changed to a Desna only Feat.
Not the same thing as characters that had Butterfly's Sting already were allowed to Grandfather this in. So it didn't effect current builds, only new ones. That is a BIG difference.
The post I was responding to was asking if a soft cover book option had ever been republished into a hardcover book to alter it's original form, or something along those lines. The intent was never to try to compare the two Feats.

Point being, though, that they had never done so in such a way that affected society play. Characters were grandfathered in. Yes, you're technically correct (they have made changes to splat material), but history would actually suggest they did so in a way that *didn't* impact current characters...


claudekennilol wrote:
Gisher wrote:
The additional resources page says that all of the content for Advanced Class Origins is legal, so wouldn't the Fencing Grace feat from that book still work with Spell Combat? (As opposed to the other Fencing Grace feat from UI.)
It is still legal, yes, but according to the Campaign Clarifications it now has the extra lines to treat it the same as it is found in Ultimate Intrigue.

I see. The Additional Resources page wasn't confusing enough, so now you also have to download a pdf and cross-reference the two. Makes sense. :)


claudekennilol wrote:
So now that fencing grace has been errata'd (or campaign clarified) to be broken with my magus, what do I do? I took an archetype so that I could qualify for it more easily with a magus's limited feat pool (Kensai).

Dipping three level of Unchained Rogue costs way too much Magus progression, and you can't permanently add Agile to a Black Blade. I have a suggestion that is somewhere between those two options: dip one level in Occultist and use Legacy Weapon (the Transmutation Base Focus Power) to add Agile when you need it.

This isn't nearly as good as the original Fencing Grace was, but it might be good enough. You probably have at least a +2 or +3 Int modifier as a Kensai. That will give you 3 or 4 points of Mental Focus, and you could retrain Fencing Grace to Extra Focus to get two more points. Each point buys you Agile for one minute.

Downsides

(1) Legacy Weapon takes a standard action to activate, so instead of diving into battle right away, you are probably spending your first round of combat using a swift for Arcane Pool and a standard for Legacy Weapon, leaving a with only a move action.

(2) Your weapon needs to have +1 before you can add Agile, so Kensai 3/Occultist 1 is the earliest you can use this trick unless you cast the Magic Weapon spell.

(3) You have set back your Magus progression by one level (spells, BAB, Arcane Pool, Black Blade progression, etc.). But unlike taking three levels in Unchained Rogue, your Magus will still be viable.

Upsides

(1) Obviously the primary benefit is that you can add Agile (or any other +1 equivalent ability) to your Black Blade.

(2) You get two Resonant Powers. Transmutation gets you a +2 enhancement bonus to any physical ability score, and that's pretty much always useful. You're probably going to want to put all of your Mental Focus into the Transmutation Implement so the other Resonant Power won't be of use most of the time, but you never know.

(3) You get Spells and Spell Lists for two Implement Schools. Occultists have a lot of spells that you don't get as a Magus, and that's great for using Scrolls and Wands. I like the idea of selecting Conjuration for the healing spells. With a Wand of CLW, scroll of Delay Poison, and the Stabilize cantrip you can be a decent medic. And remember that the spells don't have verbal, somatic, or cheap material components. Being able to cast Mage Hand, Message, or Break while immobilized might prove handy sometime.

(4) You get a lot of new class skills: Appraise (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (history) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), and Sleight of Hand (Dex).

(5) You get one Focus Power. You are probably going to want to save your Mental Focus for Legacy Weapon, but there are a few that might be worth it in an emergency.

(6) You get proficiency with martial weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields. These aren't huge benefits for a Kensai, but they might prove useful in some circumstances.

(7) As a psychic caster, you get a few little extras like the Psychic Skill Unlocks.

Overall, I don't think it is a bad trade-off.

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I feel that the Paizo employees that publish these changes have probably sat down at enough home, company, public games, playing adventure paths, homebrew, and Pathfinder Society tables to see this feat, in action, and unbalanced. To those affected, sorry, but it happens.

Work on discovering the next extremely strong concept :-)

Scarab Sages 4/5

I did the Occultist dip on my Kapenia Dancer Magus. I did it later in the build (6th level) so it only took me one scenario after that to have the fame to get Agile. Honestly, though, adding Bane (when you can identify the monster) will likely add up to more damage than adding Agile, unless you've really boosted DEX. With a 24 DEX, you'd be adding +7 damage. Bane is adding an average of 9 damage plus an extra +2 to hit. Agile would make more sense when there are several different types of enemies in the fight, since you can't switch up Bane as easily as an Inquisitor.

At any rate, for me, with a 20 Int, I have 6 Mental Focus. I put 4 into Transmutation (enough for the +2 physical stat enhancement) and 2 in Divination for the +1 Perception and 2 Sudden Insights/day. I took Heightened Awareness and Lead Blades for known spells. Action economy is an issue, but it's worked well so far. It's a trip build anyway, so being able to do damage was a secondary concern. I just wanted to make sure I could contribute when I needed to (like when things can't be tripped).

Remember, too, that Legacy Weapon is weapon touched. Unlike the Magus ability, it does not have to be your weapon. So it's a decent buff I can hand out when there's a better frontliner. I like the idea of being able to put Ghost Touch on the raging Barbarian's Greatsword.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5 **

Yeah, my friend's Inspired Blade 1/Savage 6 Technologist Pirate build (that I help him make) is now basically useless. His entire schtick was fencing grace-ing things with his +1 furious rapier and then shooting them in the face with his double-barrel pistol.

Incidentally I got hit with this one too, though not nearly as much. My inspired blade simply lost the ability to be a flagbearer. Not that bad.

I don't really understand this decision at all. I mean, with slashing grace, it kind of made sense, as there are a lot of slashing weapons it applied to (Katana, aldori duling sword, freakin' bastard sword). It kind of makes sense that the rapier had an edge up on slashing grace, because it applied to only ONE weapon (the rapier), which by itself isn't even that great. If you wanted to two-weapon fight with it, you suffer a -4/-4 (which is terrible), and if you want to spell combat with it, well, as people have said, the scimitar is still available, so it doesn't really shut that down.

The problem with this ruling is that it basically shuts down several ENTIRE BUILDS, making them useless. I mean, the least Paizo could do would be to grandfather the builds that use it already as legal. Or offer characters affected by it full rebuilds.

Oh well, as someone said, agile is still a thing, so maybe some builds can be salvaged.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

tivadar27 wrote:
Point being, though, that they had never done so in such a way that affected society play. Characters were grandfathered in. Yes, you're technically correct (they have made changes to splat material), but history would actually suggest they did so in a way that *didn't* impact current characters...

Sure, it was grandfathered in for those that already had it.

But, if you want non-grandfathered things in, I'm pretty sure Crane Wing Style off the top of my head is what you want. Or the change of the Whimsy subdomain. From what I recall, it absolutely affected PFS play, no grandfathering, it actually required you to buy a new book to even continue using it in the new form, did take a soft cover player's companion and completely altered in in the new hard cover book, etc. . . I'm sure there are plenty others if you want to look. It's not common, but it happens.

However, how exactly should "they" have handled this that both doesn't effect current characters but also did correct the issue "they" had? It seems pretty clear that they where targeting primarily Magus builds here, something that in PFS has been complained about often in my circles. I can only guess here, but the last time that PFS did a large Character Option swap with Grandfathering was with the Summoner/Unchained Summoner, and it's possible that they learned a lesson from that in that it still created some problems. DMs still had to know both versions of the class, which itself was very difficult, and if you had a grandfathered Summoner playing at the same table as an Unchained Summoner, especially if there was some angst about one being forced to swap over and the other one not needing to, it just wouldn't be fun for one of those players. Not to mention the common complaint that the original Summoner brought to the table for GMs or other players. So, while I understand they didn't want to force what would essentially be complete rebuilds all around, which could be complicated enough that a decent amount of people might have simply abandon those characters completely (some even being Seekers +), not to mention also requiring them to buy a new hardcover book just to play, I think ultimately it would have been better for the campaign as a whole to have done so in that case.

Similarly with Fencing/Slashing Grace. Especially as there are already different versions of them in print, it would just cause confusion all around, and clearly already has with the buckler questions above, (where a VO told a player to sell it when it wasn't actually required due to a misunderstanding). They could grandfather it in, but the issue with that is it doesn't actually fix the problem the change is attempting to solve in the first place. It just creates a work around for that exact problem to continue.

Sovereign Court 2/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Gisher wrote:
Dipping three level of Unchained Rogue costs way too much Magus progression, and you can't permanently add Agile to a Black Blade.

True, but the Black Blade has its inherent bonus to damage so it doesn't need Agile as much.

Quote:
I have a suggestion that is somewhere between those two options: dip one level in Occultist and use Legacy Weapon (the Transmutation Base Focus Power) to add Agile when you need it.

That's a good idea, I'll go and add that to my Magus guide. Thanks!

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Glav wrote:

I feel that the Paizo employees that publish these changes have probably sat down at enough home, company, public games, playing adventure paths, homebrew, and Pathfinder Society tables to see this feat, in action, and unbalanced. To those affected, sorry, but it happens.

Work on discovering the next extremely strong concept :-)

Dervish Dance, as people have repeatedly stated in threads like this one, has existed longer than Fencing or Slashing Grace, and needs one less feat to acquire. Dervish Dance was not overpowered. Common, yes, but by no means unbalanced. I believe roughly half of the Paizo devs have no problem with a reasonable path to dex to damage. The other half, however, see the very idea as problematic. These feats are just what we can see of the Paizo equivalent to the Shadow Lodge.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

DM Beckett wrote:
However, how exactly should "they" have handled this that both doesn't effect current characters but also did correct the issue "they" had? It seems pretty clear that they where targeting primarily Magus builds here, something that in PFS has been complained about often in my circles.

Ok, I'm not trying to be overly difficult, but someone asked for an example of A and B together, and you've so far said, "oh, here's an example of A, and here's a different example of B". They're different things. There's never been an update to a splat book in Pathfinder that affected PFS play that I know about.

So actually, I mentioned I heard about this a couple weeks ago, and no, actually, I heard they were doing this to combat Monk builds that flurried (with a full BAB, a Ki point stacking with haste, and no need for caster level checks...) were able to full attack with dex to damage and Dex and Wis to AC. So "pretty clear"... not sure about that. My info could have been wrong, I'll admit that.

As for how they could deal with this, I've already pointed out some ways, so I'm not sure why you're asking. To state again:
1) Announce things ahead of time/better communication to customers, or give people time before they have to start using the new rules after they've been released.
2) Allow more expansive rebuilds for feat changes that are going to hit core character builds. If, as you say, this was targeted to Magus, and you know a lot have Inspired Blade, which gives Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse with *rapier only*, specifically state you'll allow retraining of classes that give rapier-specific feats. Actually, this *may* be true depending on your interpretation of what's been said about feat changes. It does say you can retrain *any* feat prerequisite, and doesn't put contingencies on that... But that's probably stretching RAW.
3) (not mentioned as an alternative, but it came up) Grandfather in people who have already taken the feat.

I'm not asking Paizo/PFS to never change/fix rules that they think affect game balance, but that shouldn't be done in a way that punishes players who weren't purposefully trying to skirt rules. This isn't a case of RAI differing from RAW because of some odd reading of the rules, they just clearly didn't think through very obvious uses of a Feat they were adding.

101 to 150 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / So now that fencing grace is broken.. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.