So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?

[darth_borehd]

To me, it makes sense that Slashing Grace restrictions apply to Dervish as well. Having your hand occupied is having your hand occupied.

[Nefreet]

Disk Elemental wrote:

The fact the vast majority of Magi gravitate toward one specific weapon, speaks to a fundamental flaw within the class.

I played a Dwarf Magus that used a Dwarven Waraxe.

He functioned just fine.

[TwilightKnight]

Approaching this from another direction, does it really matter? With the preponderance of magi damage coming from the spell they deliver and not their static bonuses, do we really need to care this much if they get a few extra points of damage? When I play my magus, sometimes I don't even roll the weapon damage because it is a small weapon with no damage bonus (just finesse to hit). With the handful of d6's I'm throwing out with most spells, doing 5 more points due to Dex (if I had Dervish Dance) would be largely insignificant, relatively speaking. And not taking that feat means I am not locked into the scimitar which seems to be the "must have" weapon for just about every magi I've ever seen, other than a very small number who use a rapier (just to be different) or a falcata (for the x3 crit and a decent improved crit range). I use a kukri because I like the imagery of the weapon, it feels like an appropriate weapon for a small character, and it has an excellent crit range which helps the damage output of spells.

[andreww]

darth_borehd wrote:

To me, it makes sense that Slashing Grace restrictions apply to Dervish as well. Having your hand occupied is having your hand occupied.

Except we know this is not how FAQ's work and the language used in Dervish Dance is very specific, and very different, to the language used in Slashing or Fencing Grace.

If campaign leadership want to make it apply to Dervish Dance as well then they can issue a campaign clarification. It isn't for individual GMs to go screwing people over with their own views on "what they think should be".

[Nefreet]

andreww wrote:

darth_borehd wrote:

To me, it makes sense that Slashing Grace restrictions apply to Dervish as well. Having your hand occupied is having your hand occupied.

Except we know this is not how FAQ's work and the language used in Dervish Dance is very specific, and very different, to the language used in Slashing or Fencing Grace.

You don't need the Slashing Grace FAQ to arrive at the conclusion that Dervish Dance turns off during Spell Combat.

It just helps make the case stronger.

[Nefreet]

andreww wrote:

If campaign leadership want to make it apply to Dervish Dance as well then they can issue a campaign clarification. It isn't for individual GMs to go screwing people over with their own views on "what they think should be".

On the other hand, having an answer that Dervish Dance *does* work with Spell Combat would mean all GMs would have to abide by it.

Currently, it's subject to table variation.

[Azothath]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Stephen Ross wrote:

for the sake of argument let's take the negative case, a spell in the off hand prevents the use of Dervish Dance.

Transferring the spell to your weapon hand is a free action by FAQ and then allows you to use Dervish Dance. This proves that Dervish Dance is usable in both cases.

No. Thats like arguing you can two weapon fight with 1 weapon by switching it between hands because thats also a free action and strengthens the case for intent heavy reading

As I am ONLY referring to the positive and negative cases for Dervish Dance, I believe you interpreted "in both cases" as the two feats Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace. That would muddy the proof.

[Angel Hunter D]

Consistency and Paizo are not great friends, so that argument sits lukewarm with me at best.

On a deeper level the 4-8 extra damage Magi gain from the feat seems trivial to other system breaking issues and from what I've seen the folks at Paizo seem to ride snails to meetings about clarifications and FAQratta - let's not pile more on those plates

[BigNorseWolf]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Did my post about just casting the spell before you attack get passed over? Once the spell is no longer in your hand Dancing Dervish works fine, unlike the Grace feats which specifically call out not working anytime you use TWFing and abilities like it (even specifically calls out not working with Spell Combat).

Working around the intent of the rule like that, or by attacking with dervish dance and then quick drawing a weapon or similar workaround, is a clear violation of the intent of the rules. When you try tactics like that you really shouldn't be surprised when the DM says no.

[Azothath]

Many GMs reasonably assume that a cast touch spell appears on the hand that gestures. It's not specifically the case by RAW. There is no "handedness" of spells. If there is a somatic component you cast cast the spell with the hand that gestures and then have the effect appear on the other hand (pertinent decision).

Quotes from Casting Spells, CRB:

To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

Touch
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

I haven't had time to search all the spell listings to see if a specific spell says the spell effect specifically appears on the hand that gestures, and it would be a specific effect for that spell. I'd be very interested if any such text appears in the general rules as then PF would have changed the 3.5 standard. I'm not aware of any such text or statement in PF.

[Cyrad]

BigNorseWolf, I respect you as an active member of this community. However, your argument is heavily flawed because it almost entirely hinges on a highly contentious assumption of the designer's intent behind Dervish Dance.

You're inventing this assumption that the designer wanted to stop all forms of two-weapon fighting. More likely, he intentionally wrote it this way to prevent abuse with dual-wielding scimitars -- not all weapons -- while also fitting with the lore behind the feat. This was smart design because it allows a character to use armor spikes, swing on ropes, sword fight on masts, and other cool swashbuckling actions.

Furthermore, if Dervish Dance was changed to work like Slashing Grace, it would actually go against the spirit of the feat mimicking Sarenrae's combat style as she is depicted fighting with a scimitar in one hand and the Sun in the other.

[SCPRedMage]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Stephen Ross wrote:

for the sake of argument let's take the negative case, a spell in the off hand prevents the use of Dervish Dance.

Transferring the spell to your weapon hand is a free action by FAQ and then allows you to use Dervish Dance. This proves that Dervish Dance is usable in both cases.

No. Thats like arguing you can two weapon fight with 1 weapon by switching it between hands because thats also a free action and strengthens the case for intent heavy reading

By that logic you couldn't deliver a touch spell via a weapon attack in conjunction with Spell Combat, so that argument falls flat pretty quick.

Also, let's clear this up: just because Spell Combat says "the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast", doesn't mean that the spell is ever actually in your other physical hand, any more than using Armor Spikes as your "off-hand" weapon means you have to use your hand to attack with them. In fact, there's nothing in the rules about which hand a touch spell goes to, and certainly not anything that requires it go to the hand you use for your somatic components. In fact, the FAQ Mr. Ross linked to is specifically referring to physical weapons, and cannot be reasonably construed to refer to spells in any way (unless that spell manifests a physical weapon, of course).

You can say that a magus' off-hand is "occupied" during Spell Combat because they need to use it for somatic and material/focus components (meaning you couldn't use Slashing Grace even when you're not using Spell Combat), but you cannot say that it is "holding" anything, because the spell is never actually "held" in that specific appendage.

Fun exercise: trolling the Rules Answers forum with questions about Dervish Dance while Two-Weapon Fighting with armor spikes.

[BigNorseWolf]

Scpredmage wrote:

By that logic you couldn't deliver a touch spell via a weapon attack in conjunction with Spell Combat,

Does not remotely follow. At all. The magus is a special case that works by its own thing, whether the spell travels down his free hand to the sword or just starts in the sword doesn't seem to make any difference.

[BigNorseWolf]

Cyrad wrote:

BigNorseWolf, I respect you as an active member of this community. However, your argument is heavily flawed because it almost entirely hinges on a highly contentious assumption of the designer's intent behind Dervish Dance.

For the second time, I am not going to believe any argument you make against my position unless you actually engage with the points i'm making. When you say this thing isn't there and its there, and ignore other points to say that another point is the only thing there I cannot believe that you're giving my points a fair hearing.

1) Hey, this thing that says it works like two weapon fighting might actually work like two weapon fighting in this regard.

2) We're going to bother to stop magi from using slashing grace with their scimitars but leave the exact same option open because...?

3) any underlying argument to go around the poorly chosen word carry opens the barn door to just about everything.

4) Paizo is trying to make fencing a thing. This makes fencing 100% inferior to magus flurry.

[Azothath]

SCPRedMage wrote:

Stephen Ross wrote:

for the sake of argument let's take the negative case, a spell in the off hand prevents the use of Dervish Dance.

Transferring the spell to your weapon hand is a free action by FAQ and then allows you to use Dervish Dance. This proves that Dervish Dance is usable in both cases.

... In fact, the FAQ Mr. Ross linked to is specifically referring to physical weapons, and cannot be reasonably construed to refer to spells in any way (unless that spell manifests a physical weapon, of course). ...

to clarify...

FAQ wrote:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action;{bolded} this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).

hmmm.... could be referring to casting a spell and grabbing a scimitar for Dervish Dance...

[Jurassic Pratt]

Do my 2 posts both mentioning how it's a non-issue if you cast the spell before striking because you're no longer wielding anything in that hand once the spell is done not count as addressing your argument?

After you cast the spell your offhand isn't occupied.

[Azothath]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Do my 2 posts both mentioning how it's a non-issue if you cast the spell before striking because you're no longer wielding anything in that hand once the spell is done not count?

No - that's exactly what I did with my Magus for the first attack to avoid casting defensively (now 12th level) a long time ago... theoretically you can hold a spellcast touch attack indefinitely. It's the whetstone of a Magus.

The rule discussion is more about hashing out what's RAW, standard practice, and gray areas.

[Nefreet]

So, I notice that a lot of people think this is a *new* argument. That the Slashing Grace FAQ is being used in a *new* way to invalidate something that's *always* worked.

But if you step on over to the Campaign Clarification Requests thread, you'll see that this is one of the first questions I asked about.

I even provided a link to Sean K Reynolds and James Jacobs from *years* before the Slashing Grace FAQ giving the opinions that Dervish Dance doesn't work with "tricky thinking two weapon fighters".

So this argument is *far* from new. It was contentious back then, it's contentious now, and for some reason people defend their belief that it works based on *Internet guides*.

But don't try to marginalize an argument or its maker because you think it's new. It's not. And it's *far* from being decided.

[Jurassic Pratt]

To be fair, neither of those is an official ruling and simply represent 2 people's individual view points away from a formal setting where . One being a former dev and one who has specifically said not to use his quotes for rulings.

We've also been told repeatedly not to use Paizo employee's quotes on here as actual rulings.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Disk Elemental wrote:

The fact the vast majority of Magi gravitate toward one specific weapon, speaks to a fundamental flaw within the class.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that this one option is obviously more powerful than others. I mean, if a person wants to play a dex-based magus, what other weapon should they pick? Only one weapon gets dex to damage, so any other option is deliberately choosing weakness. Unless they're happy to accept having a weaker character for the sake of flavour, then it's time to get their dancing shoes on.

*I'm on the fence about that personally. I'd want to do some bench-testing of builds before deciding to throw away that much reliable damage.

I tend to agree with the intent argument that if slashing grace doesn't work, DD probably shouldn't either**, but PFS doesn't run on intent, it runs on RAW. And RAW, I don't see any kind of case for saying a spell is a weapon or shield that a character can carry, so I'm a little surprised that there is such a thing as table variation. Still, a clarification seems appropriate, since it would take all of eight words to solve the issue.

** which is why I'm incredibly lary of playing a dex-based magus in PFS. I expect the option to be removed at some point, and what then? "Hey, didn't you worship Sarenrae before?" "No, I have always worshipped nobody in particular."

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

To be fair, neither of those is an official ruling

That goes without saying, but it's not the point I was making.

Some people in this thread are basing their assumption that Dervish Dance works their way, and that "GMs better not tell anyone otherwise" (paraphrasing).

But that's not how rules debates work. This is truly an ambiguous situation, and has been for years (as evidenced above). This isn't a "this is how it is, and you're wrong if you disagree" sort of argument.

And honestly, I feel like people are presenting the argument that way because they believe they may be on the wrong side, and feel that if a clarification is issued, it'll be against the feat working the way it's been treated.

[Cyrad]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

BigNorseWolf, I respect you as an active member of this community. However, your argument is heavily flawed because it almost entirely hinges on a highly contentious assumption of the designer's intent behind Dervish Dance.

For the second time, I am not going to believe any argument you make against my position unless you actually engage with the points i'm making. When you say this thing isn't there and its there, and ignore other points to say that another point is the only thing there I cannot believe that you're giving my points a fair hearing.

1) Hey, this thing that says it works like two weapon fighting might actually work like two weapon fighting in this regard.

2) We're going to bother to stop magi from using slashing grace with their scimitars but leave the exact same option open because...?

3) any underlying argument to go around the poorly chosen word carry opens the barn door to just about everything.

4) Paizo is trying to make fencing a thing. This makes fencing 100% inferior to magus flurry.

I did not ignore your points. I thought other people had good responses, but I will address them.

1) Dervish Dance can be used while two-weapon fighting. So the fact that spell combat works like two-weapon fighting is irrelevant.

2) The reasons the Slashing Grace errata targeted the magus might not and probably do not apply Dervish Dance. Slashing Grace is a different feat. The errata dissuades magi from using that feat. Slashing Grace offers way more benefits than Dervish Dance, especially pre-errata. Slashing Grace allowed a magus to have a Dex build with any one-handed slashing weapon, and a magus with the right archetype could get Slashing Grace two levels earlier than they can get Dervish Dance. This isn't even take this under consideration during your claims. Your argument just assumes Slashing Grace was nerfed for no other reason than it allowing a magus to have a Dexterity build and assume not doing the same to Dervish Dance was an oversight.

3) This is a highly contentious opinion because it assumes Dervish Dance's language is a flaw, not a feature. The language deliberately allows you to fight on ship rigging or swing on ropes. By comparison, Slashing Grace was much less thought out. It was born from a series of awkward "patches" to a feat with a totally unrelated purpose. The errata accidentally invalidated many options in the Advanced Class Guide that were originally meant to work with the feat and the swashbuckler. There's no evidence to support your questionable viewpoint here other than a feat that was literally rushed to print.

4) I do not follow your point here. The design team has been infamously indecisive regarding Dexterity-to-damage options. If you're arguing Dervish Dance makes fencing an inferior option, remember that Slashing Grace did the same until Fencing Grace was added later. The creator of Dervish Dance also stated he wished there was a general feat that applied to any finesse weapon. Either way, this point does nothing to support your argument that Dervish Dance should be changed or re-interpreted to work like Slashing Grace.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Dervish Dance can be used while two-weapon fighting.

This is the point under contention. The feat seems written with the deliberate purpose of not letting people two weapon fight with it. And the point you keep ignoring with dervish dance

You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

What is that line doing there if its not supposed to keep someone from two weapon fighting? I don't need to "Assume" the devs didn't want people two weapon fighting with it

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working. You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.
Linky

They've said they don't want people two weapon fighting with it.

Its specifically there to make fencing a thing

Spell combat says it works like two weapon fighting

That puts the combo on worse than shakey ground.

2) The reasons the Slashing Grace errata targeted the magus might not and probably do not apply Dervish Dance. Slashing Grace is a different feat. The errata dissuades magi from using that feat. Slashing Grace offers way more benefits than Dervish Dance, especially pre-errata. Slashing Grace allowed a magus to have a Dex build with any one-handed slashing weapon, and a magus with the right archetype could get Slashing Grace two levels earlier than they can get Dervish Dance. You don't even take this under consideration. was nerfed for no other reason than it allowing a magus to have a Dexterity build and assume not doing the same to Dervish Dance was an oversight.

That its a different feat is the only reason theres ANY Possibility of a yes on this, that is not an argument that the answer IS yes.

What extra benefit? There's a reason every magi uses a scimitar: the crit range makes it absoltely the best weapon for the class. The ability to chose an inferior weapon is not really an extra benefit.

You can get dervish dance at level 2 with a retrain or level 1 with a bard dip so i have no idea how this advances your argument.

Quote:

You just assume Slashing Grace

An assumption is something different than an opinion you disagree with.

I CONCLUDE that slashing grace was nerfed to stop dex magi because

Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace

its a feat that makes dex to damage a thing and they specifically said it doesn't work with the magus' key ability. What other possible conclusion is there?

Quote:

3) This is a highly contentious opinion because you're assuming Dervish Dance's language is a flaw, not a feature. The language deliberately allows you to fight on ship rigging or swing on ropes.

Which i have absolutely no problem with, and am not arguing against so i have no idea what your point is here. Grab the rigging, grab the princess, grab the prince. grab the macguffin. I don't even care if you're holding the artifact dagger of thusla doom as along as you're not trying to stab anyone with it.

But the POINT of the rule is no two weapon fighting.

Quote:

4) If you're arguing Dervish Dance makes fencing an inferior option, remember that Slashing Grace did the same until Fencing Grace was added late

Magusflurry makes a regular fencer obsolete. Anyone with the ability to make an extra attack at a mere -2 makes an option of a single attack pointless. Look at what was taken out. Magus flurry, two weapon fighting, monks flurry, brawlers furry.

Why take out magus flurry if you can put it back in with another feat? What would possibly be the point?

This is not an assumption. It fits with statements from the developers intent and their actions. You can disagree with the conclusion but it is nonsensical to call it a mere assumption.

[Jurassic Pratt]

BNW wrote:

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working.

This is purely your opinion though so I'm not sure it's relevant to how the rule works? I can just as easily argue just as much that it had those restrictions simply to stop every dex based PC from wanting to take it rather than stop every possible instance of something that functions like TWFing.

And as much as anyone might hate it, PFS runs on what the rules actually say, not what they were possibly intended to say.

And if a Magus starts spellcombat by casting their spell, that hand isn't occupied any more as far as I can see, so how does Dervish Dance get shut off? There's nothing in the offhand once the spell is cast. Is it occupied my some sort of mysterious "not spell" that isn't referenced anywhere? Because I genuinely have no clue what is possibly occupying the offhand once you cast the spell.

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

BNW wrote:

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working.

This is purely your opinion though so I'm not sure it's relevant to how the rule works?

It's not his opinion. That's a quote from SKR clarifying what the written text means.

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

PFS runs on what the rules actually say

I've explained this before.

People speak. Words are read.

The distinction matters, because one requires interpretation.

So we have this blob of letters put together into words and sentences, and the collection as a whole is named "Dervish Dance".

Person A comes along, reads it, and declares it means X.
Person B comes along, reads it, and declares it means Y.
Developer A comes along and clarifies which of those two is more or less accurate.

Just because Developer A isn't "official" doesn't invalidate their clarification.

Even if they had never come along, you'd still be left with Person A and Person B.

What Person BNW is trying to do is get an "official" answer as to which way it's supposed to work.

[Jurassic Pratt]

SKR quotes don't matter as we've mentioned. That was purely his interpretation off the top of his head with us having 0 idea how deeply he read into it. Especially since SKR's off the cuff interpretations posted in threads have been wrong before. His comment has no more weight to it than yours or mine.

I'm all for BNW getting a clarification. I would love to make sure once and for all that someone doesn't play 17 or so games at their local lodge with every GM thinking it was fine and then have someone at a con completely invalidate their build because they don't think it works.

I just haven't seen a good response explaining what exactly is taking up your hand after you cast the spell so I'm unsure how it's being read as not working.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I just haven't seen a good response explaining what exactly is taking up your hand after you cast the spell so I'm unsure how it's being read as not working.

You cannot just pop things in and out of your hand in the middle of an attack routine to qualify for that attack routine as if you had held them the entire time, ESPECIALLY when that specific attack routine is ornery about what items you're holding the entire time.

You cannot left hand stab someone with a dagger drop it right hand dervish dance them in the face with a scimitar. or right hand dervish dance them then quickdraw a dagger and continue stabbing Its rules lawyering and going around the intent of the rule.

If you need to argue absolute bleeding edge of the raw to allow it you HAVE to be aware that not every PFS dm is going to buy that argument.

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

quotes don't matter as we've mentioned

Nefreet wrote:

Even if they had never come along, you'd still be left with Person A and Person B.

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I just haven't seen a good response explaining what exactly is taking up your hand after you cast the spell so I'm unsure how it's being read as not working.

And I similarly haven't seen a good response explaining why Two-weapon Fighting isn't Two-weapon Fighting.

You're simply person A, and I'm person B.

[Jurassic Pratt]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I just haven't seen a good response explaining what exactly is taking up your hand after you cast the spell so I'm unsure how it's being read as not working.

You cannot left hand stab someone with a dagger drop it right hand dervish dance them in the face with a scimitar. or right hand dervish dance them then quickdraw a dagger and continue stabbing Its rules lawyering and going around the intent of the rule.

I'm really confused how this is "bleeding edge raw" or even close to it. I genuinely can't find any reason in the rules I can't do exactly that or suggesting that I shouldn't do exactly that. Say I have +6 BAB and have 2 attacks for my full attack. I totally can stab with the dagger, drop it as a free action, and then use dervish dance with scimitar because my other hand isn't holding anything now. How is this against the spirit of the rules in any way?

[Nefreet]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

How is this against the spirit of the rules in any way?

For the answer to *that*, see the quotes from earlier.

[Jurassic Pratt]

The quotes from 2 people who aren't authoritative rules sources? Should we not allow anything that an individual at Paizo expresses dislike for then? Because I've seen plenty of situations where designers have contradicted eachother on what they thought was within the "spirit/intent of the rules".

Which brings us back to "what the rules actually say" vs "what I feel they should say".

[BigNorseWolf]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

. I genuinely can't find any reason in the rules I can't do exactly that

Because you either had a weapon in your offhand when it mattered if you had an offhand weapon

or your scimitar is now in your offhand

Either way, it shuts off.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Which brings us back to "what the rules actually say" vs "what I feel they should say".

No.

If you try to twist the english language beyond all recognition and dismiss intent what is both obvious in the words AND confirmed to be in the words as "feelings" while insisting that the rules "actually" say something completely orthagonal to that you are not discussing rules you are engaging in polemics.

That kind of rules lawyering has a horrible track record of being right in the long run.

[Helpful Harry]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

SKR quotes don't matter as we've mentioned. That was purely his interpretation off the top of his head with us having 0 idea how deeply he read into it. Especially since SKR's off the cuff interpretations posted in threads have been wrong before. His comment has no more weight to it than yours or mine.

I'm all for BNW getting a clarification. I would love to make sure once and for all that someone doesn't play 17 or so games at their local lodge with every GM thinking it was fine and then have someone at a con completely invalidate their build because they don't think it works.

I just haven't seen a good response explaining what exactly is taking up your hand after you cast the spell so I'm unsure how it's being read as not working.

Quote:

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. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

[Jurassic Pratt]

Alright, you've resorted to not only calling me a rules lawyer, but using it in a condescending and derogatory way. I'm out. Have fun feeling superior.

[TwilightKnight]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I would love to make sure once and for all that someone doesn't play 17 or so games at their local lodge with every GM thinking it was fine and then have someone at a con completely invalidate their build because they don't think it works.

Let's be fair. Having a GM rules against the build does nothing other than remove a few points of extra damage. That is hardly Invalidating a character. Functionally, nothing changes in how the character is played.

And I still fall back to my previous comment that is argument is getting waaay to much passion considering we're really only talking about those few extra points of damage.

[TwilightKnight]

Quote:

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

While I lean more on the side of the dervish dancing magi being a legal build, I can also see what the opposition is saying and I think it stems completely from the bolded text. For the purposes of spell combat, the rules are suggesting that your off-hand is employing a spell as a weapon. Now is that enough to say it IS a weapon for the purposes of interaction with other game mechanics? Dunno, but it certainly provides enough justification to assume so. IMO, all the rest of the arguments, including the application of slashing grace pre or post FAQ are static.

The fact that you are either investing two feats, weapon finesse and dervish dance) or at least a level dip in order to get a minor buff to damage that is relatively insignificant compared to the damage output of most of the spells the magus will be employing seems to justify the more common accepted practice that it works and is just not worth the argument required to justify otherwise. Course if Paizo rules the other way, it wouldn't be the first time they took the road less traveled.

[GM Tyrant Princess]

I don't have plans for a dervish magus, for this exact reason. I don't like working in this sort of gray area, unless the result is interesting enough to me to justify the potential headache. That said...

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Let's be fair. Having a GM rules against the build does nothing other than remove a few points of extra damage. That is hardly Invalidating a character. Functionally, nothing changes in how the character is played.

I don't think it's quite that simple, for one big reason:

Scimitars aren't finessable.

A magus built around Dervish Dance who can't use it loses access to his attack bonus as well as damage. Even if he had a backup rapier, he can't be expected to invest in it to an equivalent degree. A bladebound magus literally can't have a backup black blade. Unless the GM allows him to pretend his scimitar is an identically-designed rapier for the scenario (which is extremely sketchy for organized play), he's in pretty serious trouble.

[Philippe Lam]

If a definite "no" ruling ever happens, ditching the black blade, going kukri/gladius/idc what weapon enchanted with agile and go. Should prepare that for my own kensai. That costs at least 8,000 but it's not a big problem.

[supervillan]

My 2cp:

Dervish Dance as written says "you can't use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or a shield in your off hand."

This shutdown clause is not triggered by magus spell combat, as things stand. Spell combat says "this functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

"Much like two weapon fighting" is not the same as "is two weapon fighting", like a mithril breastplate is not a light armour, but it behaves like a light armour for some purposes. Spell combat does not set out any way in which it is like two weapon fighting save for it granting an additional attack and imposing a -2 penalty on all attacks. That is as far as it goes, and without additional wording in the form of an official campaign ruling we cannot go any further.

GM Tyrant Princess is right, the potential loss to characters here is more than a few points of damage, it's also accuracy, extremely important for a front-line damage dealer. They'd need full rebuilds.

Dervish Dance does not have the same language as Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace, and until it does so Dervish Dance Magi will be just fine at my tables.

[Cyrad]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) Carrying weapon =/= two-weapon fighting. The link you provided shows the developers never intended bar two-weapon fighting out-right with Dervish Dance. Just that using a weird option spell to conjure and fight with an extra weapon goes against the spirit of the feat. A magus isn't fighting with two weapons -- he's fighting with a weapon and a spell. In fact, they literally say that a spell doesn't invalidate the feat, which undermines your argument somewhat. Furthermore, spell combat is totally within the spirit of the feat's lore since Sarenrae is depicted wielding a scimitar and the Sun in opposite hands.

2) You're using circular logic here.

Quote:

An assumption is something different than an opinion you disagree with.

I CONCLUDE that slashing grace was nerfed to stop dex magi because

Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace

its a feat that makes dex to damage a thing and they specifically said it doesn't work with the magus' key ability. What other possible conclusion is there?

Your logic: Slashing Grace was changed to disallow using it with spell combat. Because it doesn't work with spell combat. Even though it worked with spell combat before the errata and showed no signs of that ever not being the case.

As I already said, your strongest evidence is a poorly thought out feat that was patched together from a feat that had nothing to do with Dexterity-to-damage.

3) The problem is that you personally believe the wording in Dervish Dance to be a flaw, not a feature. There's little evidence supporting this highly contentious belief other than a shoddy feat that was written half a decade later by a different game designer. You make huge emotionally-charged leaps of logic here.

Also, one of the reasons Slashing Grace is a terribly designed feat is because it meant to enable swashbuckling action. But it doesn't fully do that because it also bars you from swinging on ropes or hanging on riggings. It goes against the spirit of the kind of character the feat it supposed to enable. This is one of the many reasons why changing Dervish Dance to work like Slashing Grace is a terrible idea.

4) I'm not seeing the logic in why a magus using spell combat makes "fencing" obsolete. Especially when it's not a full BAB class. Even if I concede the point, wouldn't it make more sense to add more options for fencing rather than take away options? Heck, even James Jacobs said he wished there were more feats that enabled the swashbuckling sort of character.

[Ascalaphus]

Dervish Dance wrote:

Benefit: When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

Okay let's start here. Please point to the part where it says you can't Dervish Dance and 2WF at the same time. I don't see it.

What it says is that you can't carry a weapon in your off-hand. But what about unarmed strikes with your fist, or a claw? Kicks, bites? Can a character with claws or Improved Unarmed Strike just never use Dervish Dance? What about 2WF with weapons that you're not carrying in the other hand? Seems entirely possible here. (You'll pay through the nose to get Dex to damage on more than one different kind of attack of course.)

It doesn't even prohibit you from making an attack with a dagger, dropping it, and then Dervish Dancing with the scimitar. As long as you have no weapon in your other hand by the time you attack with the scimitar you're good. You can also 2WF, attack with the scimitar, then quickdraw a dagger and attack with it. No problem.

Spell Combat wrote:

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. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

So yeah, the off-hand weapon is a spell being cast. And it seems to be sort of in the other hand. Except that it doesn't have anything to do with somatic components (because the rule applies even if the spell doesn't have them). And the question for Dervish Dance is: does the spell stay in the hand that supposedly cast it?

I think almost never. If you cast Grease, the spell isn't in your hand anymore, it's on the ground. If you cast a touch spell with Spellstrike, the spell goes to the hand holding the weapon (scimitar):

Ultimate Magic FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

And:

Ultimate Magic FAQ wrote:

agus: Can a magus use spellstrike (page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?

Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook page 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.

Those FAQs make it very clear that by the time you're making your attack using Dervish Dance, the spell has moved to the scimitar-hand. The other hand is not at risk of discharging the spell so clearly it's not there anymore.

You might wonder if "this isn't all happening sort of at the same time": the Spell Combat ability clearly says that spellcasting happens before or after, not during the rest of the attack.

---

TL;DR - Dervish Dance cares whether you're holding weapons in your off-hand while you attack with the scimitar. Spellstriked spells are firmly in the scimitar-hand by the time you're making the attack, so Dervish Dance works fine.

[Ascalaphus]

Now, let's talk about authorial intent. (Geez, what century is this :P)

Slashing/Fencing Grace were supposed to be about making fencing a thing. Fencing as in the European thing. Dervish Dance is about dervishes, you know the Arabian thing. Fencers we know from the rather formalized sport where people move back and forth on a line. Dervishes have a thing for spinning and dancing around.

These things aren't the same. They also have really different rules text. Don't project the rules for one of them onto the other.

[Tallow]

While I'm on the side of allowing Dervish Dance to work with Spell Combat since it hasn't been clarified specifically...

I think it dubious at best, if not disingenuous, to claim you can TWF and Dervish Dance in the same round. Once you declare a full attack as TWF, it doesn't matter if you later drop one of the weapons, the condition of "holding" a weapon or shield in the off hand counts for the round. And this includes any kind of "off-hand" attack, like armor spikes, unarmed attack, or natural weapons. Essentially any attack routine that would take the -2 To hit on all attacks. (I think I'm convincing myself that Dervish Dance does not work with Spell Combat).

Keep in mind, I am not suggesting this applies to any secondary attack that takes a -5 To hit like most natural attacks done during a full attack that included weapons, boulder helmets, and boot blades. The penalty application is the differentiation.

[Ascalaphus]

I really don't believe "holding"/"wielding"/"carrying" conditions carry over like that.

And I don't see any problem with for example a monk doing a scimitar-punch routine. Dervish Dance never forbids attacking with your off-hand, it forbids holding a weapon in it at the moment you're attacking with your scimitar.

[Tallow]

The way two weapon fighting works, regardless if you actually have a weapon or not in your hand, is you are considered holding (wielding) a weapon if you take the -2 penalties. Holding and wielding are synonymous for these purposes. Wielding also has more strict connotations.

[dragonhunterq]

Rules are clear. A spell is neither a weapon nor a shield. Trying to apply a tangential but essentially unrelated FAQ is a bit of a stretch. It is a tenuous argument that quite frankly doesn't hold water.

Asking for a clarification is fine, if you believe it should not work. Arguing for it to work the way you feel it should is fine. Disallowing this in advance of such a clarification is really not. I would look askance at any GM disallowing this with the information we have available. I'd also break out the raised eyebrow and a "really?!" ...

[Matthew Downie]

I suspect, RAI, Dervish Dance is supposed to occupy your other 'hand' for the duration of your attack routine - similar to the way you can't two-weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes.

But I don't see anything explicitly disallowing it.