So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

351 to 400 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.

The Campaign Clarifications are not clarifying Paizo rules. They are clarifying how PFS rules on Paizo rules, i.e. they are making house rules for the campaign and these may or may not match future Paizo rules.

Scarab Sages *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that John doesn't work 25 feet or less from Jason Buhlman.

You do realize that all the campaign clarifications are made in full consultation with the Pathfinder Design team or the specific developer, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that John doesn't work 25 feet or less from Jason Buhlman. You do realize that all the campaign clarifications are made in full consultation with the Pathfinder Design team or the specific developer, right?

Speaking solely for myself....

...*I* did not know that.

*

Bill Baldwin wrote:
The Campaign Clarifications are not clarifying Paizo rules. They are clarifying how PFS rules on Paizo rules

That's right. PFS doesn't clarify the rules for Pathfinder. They make determinations on what rules of Pathfinder apply to PFS. At times they modify the rules for PFS, as well.

Quote:
, i.e. they are making house rules for the campaign and these may or may not match future Paizo rules.

No. They don't make rule that may or may not match future rules. They generally make rules that modify existing Pathfinder rules. They don't and do not want to start interpreting ambiguous rules. That is the PDT's job. After the PDT does its job, PFS can decide if those rules work for campaign/organized play.

BNW is asking about a rule that many feel is ambiguous. Even if it is not ambiguous technically, it is confusing within the context of the game and needs to be clarified by the PDT. If the PDT clears it up, PFS may decide there is nothing that needs to change for PFS. If PFS clear is it up, that means nothing to those who do not play PFS.

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Where were you two years ago when this idea was first implemented?

It's been widely popular since. People like having things clarified.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Cyrad wrote:

The real point of contention isn't Dervish Dance itself but rather this line from spell combat.

Spell Combat wrote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"

A) Many say "no" because a spell is not a weapon and interpret the ability to mean "This functions similar to two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an attack with an off-hand weapon." Since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand, Dervish Dance should be compatible.

B) Others say "yes" because they interpret the text as indicating the spell is treated as an off-hand weapon. And because the next sentence says the magus must have a free hand to use spell combat, they believe the magus "carries" this spell that is also treated as an off-hand weapon. And because the spell is treated as a weapon carried in the off-hand, Dervish Dance should not be compatible.

This is a good synopsis of the quandary. It is the off hand is being used for whatever reason, and whether or not that use would still be considered a free hand.

*

Tallow wrote:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that John doesn't work 25 feet or less from Jason Buhlman.

I'm not under any mistaken impression and your information is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Jason sits in John's lap, the PDT and the PFS are two separate entities within Paizo. The PDT clarifies ambiguous Pathfinder rules, not PFS.

Quote:
You do realize that all the campaign clarifications are made in full consultation with the Pathfinder Design team or the specific developer, right?

Irrelevant. The PDT is the entity authorized to issue FAQs on how the Pathfinder rules work, not PFS. It doesn't matter if the janitor is consulted on what the rules will be, the PDT is the one who issues the FAQs, not the janitor. It doesn't matter if the PDT and PFS were all the same people. The answer has to come from the PDT, not PFS. That's handled through the Rules forum, not the Society forum.

Sure, PFS could weigh in those, but given the MO, I don't believe they will. What we should be asking PFS to do is get the PDT to issue a FAQ because it's clearly an issue for PFS where GMs shouldn't have to deal with ambiguous rules. I am under the impression (which could be mistaken) that the fix to weapon cords and their action economy was largely due to PFS, so the needs of PFS should be important to the PDT.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:


This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"

Apologies Cyrad, but I do not agree. In fact, I think your framing of the question in this manner is what is adding to the confusion.

The only relevant question for DD is whether you "carry a weapon or shield in the off hand." That's it. There is nothing in DD that cites "wielding." I'm not sure why so many continue to wrestle with this question, but wielding has no bearing on DD.

Quote:
A) Many say "no" because a spell is not a weapon and interpret the ability to mean "This functions similar to two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an attack with an off-hand weapon." Since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand, Dervish Dance should be compatible.

That's not correct. It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.

That is certainly one side of the argument, yes.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.
That is certainly one side of the argument, yes.

Sorry, but PFS GMs can't choose to ignore requirements. If the rule says it has to be carried, you can't decide that's not a requirement. Nor can you decide carried means something completely different than its plain English definition without some mandate or context from the rules to do so.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.
That is certainly one side of the argument, yes.
Sorry, but PFS GMs can't choose to ignore requirements. If the rule says it has to be carried, you can't decide that's not a requirement. Nor can you decide carried means something completely different than its plain English definition without some mandate or context from the rules to do so.

Other side of the argument.

***

PDT will often leave interpretation of rules to the GM, so that is a a derail.

Spoiler:
Rules Question: PDT is this rule A or B?
PDT Answer 1): A or;
PDT Answer 2): B or;
PDT Answer 3): let the GM make a reasonable ruling as best fits his or her campaign (Expect Table Variation)

In PFS the GM at a table is not _THE_ GM. True, we must adjudicate as best as we can. For adjudications that can totally disrupt a player/table, campaign leadership is _THE_ GM. A clarification will remove Table Variation. Until a clarification comes: ETV, but please accept the table GMs ruling. Hence the OP: please clarify Dervish Dance.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:


This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"

Apologies Cyrad, but I do not agree. In fact, I think your framing of the question in this manner is what is adding to the confusion.

The only relevant question for DD is whether you "carry a weapon or shield in the off hand." That's it. There is nothing in DD that cites "wielding." I'm not sure why so many continue to wrestle with this question, but wielding has no bearing on DD.

It is relevant because there's table variance over whether or not the magus can use Dervish Dance during spell combat. As you said, Dervish Dance is unambiguous in how it works. Thus, spell combat is the issue.

N N 959 wrote:
Quote:
A) Many say "no" because a spell is not a weapon and interpret the ability to mean "This functions similar to two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an attack with an off-hand weapon." Since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand, Dervish Dance should be compatible.

That's not correct. It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.

...which is why I said "since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand." If it's not a weapon in your off-hand, you can't be carrying it. I'm just summarizing the logic of two sides there.

I don't understand why you're trying to contradict me when all you're doing is repeating my points. Especially when I've consistently argued in favor of A. You're not contributing to the conversation here.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
RAW it works with Spell Combat because you simply are not carrying anything in the off hand.

You focus on the word "carry", I focus on the word "off-hand".

The off-hand only exists during your round in combat, and only for determining attack and damage.

It is not possible to "carry" something in your off-hand, so I don't focus on the word.

I don't find any evidence in the CRB that you don't have an off-hand if you're not using 2WF. The first reference to it in the Combat chapter is in the Damage section, and makes no mention of 2WF. The 2WF section starts out with the assumption that you already have an off-hand, but now you're actually doing something with it.

This also means that even if you're not 2WF, Dervish Dance still shuts down if you carry a weapon in your other hand, even when you're not using it.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

This seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too.

whether or not one can do this particular combo is focused on having the Off Hand free. The whole argument boils down to "how can we get two hits in one round with Dex to damage?"

I don't believe this combo works, as it goes beyond what was intended for the ability. To be fair, one must look at RAI as they narrow down the RAW. This is likely the first thing that it ignored in situations such as this.

With Spell Combat, no matter if you use Spellstrike or not, you are effectively using that offhand and it is not free from use. Dervish Dance needs are not met in this situation.

Yes, a clarification would be nice, either in PFS clarification or in a FAQ, but likely it will be the same as the previous FAQ for Slashing Grace.

You could already get multiple hits with Dex to damage with BAB 6+, Haste and so forth. The intent of Dervish Dance seems to be that you're doing it with only one weapon. But if you're using Spellstrike, that's exactly what you're doing. Spellstrike firmly puts the spell on the weapon-hand, as covered in FAQs.

The intent of Dervish Dance is not the same as *Grace; those feats ask that you're not doing or holding anything with the off-hand, while Dervish Dance only insists that you're not carrying weapons. That makes Dervish Dance considerably more permissive.

Now there are several arguments floating around like "DD wasn't meant to do things *Grace doesn't do" or "*Grace explicitly doesn't work with Spell Combat so DD shouldn't either" or "DD was meant to not work with Spell Combat". But those are all reversing history: Dervish Dance was written before the Magus and before *Grace feats.

Trying to limit DD like that because you feel it should work the same as *Grace requires a lot of inference and unwritten rules, like equating wielding and carrying, or hands remembering that they carried something, or making spells during spell combat more weaponlike than outside spell combat.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
And then the argument against Dervish Dance becomes an argument that the spell is at two places at the same time in order for it to occupy both hands.

Absolutely not.

What the argument becomes, and has already been expressly spelled out, is that once you get the improved action economy benefits of two weapon fighting then you have the penalties and drawbacks of two weapon fighting even if the weapon leaves your hand. We KNOW this is the case otherwise a magus wouldn't take the penalties to hit.

Furthermore we know this is the case because otherwise you would never take two weapon fighting penalties at all: outside of two weapon rend or something you never strike with the weapons simultaneously. You swing them one after the other and once your right hand makes with the stabby stabby at -2 your left hand is taking that penalty for the rest of the round whether you drop the weapon or transfer it between hands. The duration of "when" you are two weapon fighting is your attack sequence, not one moment in plank time*.

Even if you don't accept the above, the opposition to the dervish dance magusflurry combo does not become a contradiction because you don't like the explanation.

*pseudo medievaly games have planks

You're inventing more memory and penalties in 2WF than are actually in there. The -2 to hit and damage penalty for that hand being considered "off" are the only ones that are actually in the rules.

Suppose a L7 Valeros is fighting a mimic, and doing Improved 2WF. Also he's learned Dervish Dance to try to impress Kyra.

He starts his 2WF routine but because he's a moron he's wielding two weapons, so he doesn't get Dervish Dance on his first hit with his scimitar. Then he strikes with his off-hand shortsword and it gets stuck to the mimic, so he lets go off it. His next iterative with his main hand still takes the -2 2WF penalty because that's actually in the rules, but since he's not carrying anything in his off-hand anymore he can use Dervish Dance. Next is his second off-hand attack but his hand doesn't remember carrying a sword so he can't make attacks with it.

It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you’ll find a lot of people who would disagree with your theory of “memory” within a single round of actions. I see what you’re trying to demonstrate, but I don’t agree that’s how a combat round was intended to work.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lau Bannenberg
Spell combat says you must have a free hand throughout the action. However, I agree that treating the spell as a weapon in your off-hand is an interpretation that doesn't hold up when you scrutinize the mechanics in play. It doesn't make sense, it creates additional problems, and contradicts how both spells and two-weapon fighting work.

It makes more sense to interpret spell combat as "it's like two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an extra attack with an off-hand weapon" instead of overcomplicating it. If this is the case, then Dervish Dance would work with spell combat.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Tiny olw wrote:
You're inventing more memory and penalties in 2WF than are actually in there

No. I'm asking a question and reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence rather than presupposing an answer and then using it to reach the question.

You can't use your conclusion to answer your question with an example.

Quote:
Suppose a L7 Valeros is fighting a mimic, and doing Improved 2WF. Also he's learned Dervish Dance to try to impress Kyra.

Does that even work? He's a dyed in the wool caydenite*. I thought you needed to be a saranite, per the butterfly sting butterfly walk debacle *will dig after coffee*

Quote:
It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.

Instead of an idiot, lets say its a rules lawyer using the exact literal wording (Valeros' evil twin, who worships asmodeous apparently). Do you really want him using dervish dance with his right hand dropping the weapon quick drawing another scimitar and two weapon fighting with his left? Because that fullfills the exact literal wording you say is important.

Quote:
t's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous.

That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.

*don't ask what they dyed the wool with.

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.

Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.

You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.

Venture-Agent aka MadScientistWorking

Nefreet wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.

Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.

You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.

Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.

Scarab Sages ****

I think he meant you can't Two-weapon Fight with Spell Combat.

Venture-Agent aka MadScientistWorking

Ferious Thune wrote:
I think he meant you can't Two-weapon Fight with Spell Combat.

Ahhh... Gotcha.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
]It is relevant because there's table variance over whether or not the magus can use Dervish Dance during spell combat. As you said, Dervish Dance is unambiguous in how it works. Thus, spell combat is the issue.

Let me simplify my response:

Don't talk about "wielding," it's irrelevant to DD whether you are wielding or not. Are you carrying? Does Spell Combat say you are carrying something? That is the only question we have to answer for RAW.

Quote:

...which is why I said "since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand." If it's not a weapon in your off-hand, you can't be carrying it. I'm just summarizing the logic of two sides there.

I don't understand why you're trying to contradict me when all you're doing is repeating my points. Especially when I've consistently argued in favor of A. You're not contributing to the conversation here.

Yes, if we knew that the spell was not a weapon, we could answer the questions before us, but the rules aren't clear whether it is a weapon or not. Fortunately, it doesn't matter. The rules are 100% clear that you are not considered to be carrying the spell in the context that you "carry" a weapon or shield.

By framing the question around whether the spell is a weapon, you're making the discussion more convoluted than is necessary to answer the OP question on whether you can use DD and SC. If A and B = True, then knowing B is false, settles the issue, even if we don't know A.

DD does not care if you are using or wielding a weapon or TWF. You must "carry" the weapon in the context of the game.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The semantic argument between the mechanical difference between wield and carry is kinda absurd. We know that Paizo is not good at using key words in their material, and so we have to make a lot of mechanical assumptions based on synonyms being used.

In this case, and in my opinion, wield and carry are synonymous in context. As such, they should be treated mechanically the same.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
The semantic argument between the mechanical difference between wield and carry is kinda absurd.

Regardless of your emotional reaction, what matters is whether the rules make a distinction, and they do.

PRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal:If you wield a second weapon in your off hand,] you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ***.

PRD wrote:
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed...
PRD wrote:
Reach Weapons: *** However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature.
CORE FAQ wrote:
Shield Master allows a character to ignore the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties on attack rolls with a shield while wielding another weapon, but not any other penalties.
TWF FAQ wrote:
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

There is no instance where the rules, both before the Magus class was created and after the Magus class was created, confuse "carry" and "wield." I have found no instance where the rules say "carry" and the context makes it clear they actually mean wield. Both WotC and Paizo recognize and reinforce that wield and carry are not synonymous or used interchangeably.

So your argument that this was done here, and only here, isn't compelling.

Quote:
We know that Paizo is not good at using key words in their material, and so we have to make a lot of mechanical assumptions based on synonyms being used.

They are good at using keywords, but they aren't always perfect. Actually locating other instances of carry and wield being used interchangeably would give your supposition a leg to stand on.

Quote:
In this case, and in my opinion, wield and carry are synonymous in context. As such, they should be treated mechanically the same.

In PFS, a GM cannot make a ruling based on an opinion of something being true when all other evidence says it's not.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.
Instead of an idiot, lets say its a rules lawyer using the exact literal wording (Valeros' evil twin, who worships asmodeous apparently). Do you really want him using dervish dance with his right hand dropping the weapon quick drawing another scimitar and two weapon fighting with his left? Because that fullfills the exact literal wording you say is important.

Well that guy worships Asmodeus so he can't use Dervish Dance. But if he found a way around that...

Yes, he could do a trick with alternating quickdraws to use Dervish Dance on both hands, but he would be taking an additional -2 to hit on all attacks for using an 1H weapon on the off-hand attack given by choosing the 2WF mode. So he'd be attacking at -4/-4 (assuming he does have the 2WF feat). Also you'd go through carried scimitars pretty fast at higher levels, and enchanting a dozen of them gets expensive.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
t's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous.
That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.

The 2WF penalties have nothing to do with carrying stuff in your off-hand, but with dividing your efforts to get more done in the same time. Dropping weapons would not cancel the penalties because you've spent the time. The penalties are written into 2WF mode attacks and occur as soon as you declare that action.

But Dervish Dance, unlike 2WF doesn't care about distributed effort, it cares about what's in your hands at the moment you're making an attack.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.

Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.

You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.

Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.

I meant you clearly still couldn't Two-weapon Fight, and benefit from Dervish Dance at the same time.

Those reasons have already been explained ad nauseum at this point, so I won't repeat myself (again).

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
But Dervish Dance, unlike 2WF doesn't care about distributed effort, it cares about what's in your hands at the moment you're making an attack.

I do not believe that this is the case. Raw doesn't explicitly parse that way, it opens up rules lawyery exploits, and very similar language has been clarified to explicitly NOT work that way. There is every reason to conclude this is not the case and no reason to conclude that it is the case.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

6 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.

The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.

So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.

*

Thomas Hutchins wrote:


The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.

So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.

Thank you for the info, if accurate. I would think it goes without saying that if the PDT says they don't FAQ certain publications, PFS should do so if necessary. Is either Dervish Dance or the Magus in a softcover?

The Exchange ****

nosig wrote:

this entire thread just re-enforces the reasons I have basically given up posting on the PFS boards...

crud... missed my Will Save again.

almost 400 posts now? and still as depressing...

I feel kind of bad about suggesting to my sister that she create a Dervish Dancer Bard a couple months back, I didn't realize how much hate they seem to be generating... I guess I'll suggest she go back to playing Barbarians and give up on her little Russian saber dancer

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
In PFS, a GM cannot make a ruling based on an opinion of something being true when all other evidence says it's not.

This is the definition of a straw man argument.

Straw Man Fallacy wrote:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

You claim that GMs are making contrary rulings based on "personal feelings" in the face of a clear rules issue.

This is not the case, and if you haven't done so already, I encourage you to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the different stances that have been presented.

It's not even a black or white argument. You're dealing with the wording, history and application of multiple different abilities (Definition of the word "carry", Definition of the word "off-hand", Two-weapon Fighting, Spell Combat), and that's even before you toss in the recent clarifications on the Grace feats.

So please be more considerate when you post. You are diminishing valid arguments and opinions with your statements. At least please acknowledge that there are multiple viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
nosig wrote:
nosig wrote:

this entire thread just re-enforces the reasons I have basically given up posting on the PFS boards...

crud... missed my Will Save again.

almost 400 posts now? and still as depressing...

I feel kind of bad about suggesting to my sister that she create a Dervish Dancer Bard a couple months back, I didn't realize how much hate they seem to be generating... I guess I'll suggest she go back to playing Barbarians and give up on her little Russian saber dancer

Nuuuu, protect the shaska wielder!

Scarab Sages ****

N N 959 wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:


The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.

So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.

Thank you for the info, if accurate. I would think it goes without saying that if the PDT says they don't FAQ certain publications, PFS should do so if necessary. Is either Dervish Dance or the Magus in a softcover?

Dervish Dance is in a hardcover, but it is in the Campaign Setting line. Traditionally that has not been an area the PDT covers. There is a Golarion FAQ, which is where other items from the ISWG and the occaisional softcover have appeared. It’s my understanding that traditionally the Golarion FAQ has been James Jacobs’ responsibility, but that may have changed some in recent years. The last FAQ I remember being issued in that section originated as a PFS Campaign clarification and the announcement of the FAQ cane from Linda. So this does seem to be the place to ask for a clarification on Dervish Dance for PFS, which is what the thread is aiming for. Whether or not that makes it into the FAQ, it would still provide clarity on how to handle it at a PFS table. Magus is in Ultimate Magic, so that would be the PDT. Though they have opted to FAQ/reprint feats in the past (Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace) instead of issuing an errata/FAQ on the Magus.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:
I feel kind of bad about suggesting to my sister that she create a Dervish Dancer Bard a couple months back, I didn't realize how much hate they seem to be generating.

This is similarly a misrepresentation of the arguments and people making those arguments.

Nobody "hates" anything here. Not Dervish Dance. Not people using Dervish Dance. Not even people using an interpretation of Dervish Dance that you disagree with.

I'm not even sure how you could come to that conclusion.

Venture-Agent aka MadScientistWorking

Nefreet wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.

Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.

You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.

Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.

I meant you clearly still couldn't Two-weapon Fight, and benefit from Dervish Dance at the same time.

Those reasons have already been explained ad nauseum at this point, so I won't repeat myself (again).

Nope. As per the RAW of Two-Weapon Fighting and Dervish Dance you can clearly do it. Mind you they probably never intended for it to work that way but with the way the feat is written and the numerous errata and rules they written over the years yup you can do it.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Clearly our interpretation of what you call "RAW" differs here.

*

Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
In PFS, a GM cannot make a ruling based on an opinion of something being true when all other evidence says it's not.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.

That is not the definition of a Straw man, Nefreet.

Quote:
You claim that GMs are making contrary rulings based on "personal feelings" in the face of a clear rules issue.

When the poster in question says the semantic argument is "absurd," he's having an emotional reaction. PFS requires we observe RAW, not RAI.

Quote:
This is not the case, and if you haven't done so already, I encourage you to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the different stances that have been presented

99% of the arguments against allowing DD are based on the belief that wield and carry are the same. Nothing supports that in the context of the rules. And you only get that far by convincing yourself that the spell in your off hand counts as a weapon.

Has anyone argued that Spell Combat says you "carry" a weapon or shield? No. Your solution is to insist you cannot carry anything in the off hand. Given that the DD rules actually use the word "carry," that dog won't hunt..

Quote:
It's not even a black or white argument.

It is a black and white argument. Just like the DC to jump over a 10' pit was a black and white argument. Just because you have 100 pages of discussion on something doesn't mean it's not black and white. It mean some percentage of the posters don't understand the rules or refuse to accept the rules. Or, in this case, many people don't want the rule to work the way it does. Just because the rule is black and white doesn't mean it is a good rule or doesn't create other systemic problems.

Quote:
You're dealing with the wording, history and application of multiple different abilities (Definition of the word "carry", Definition of the word "off-hand", Two-weapon Fighting, Spell Combat), and that's even before you toss in the recent clarifications on the Grace feats.

Sorry but none of that transforms any of what is said in Spell Combat into someone carrying something in there off hand.

Quote:
You are diminishing valid arguments and opinions with your statements. At least please acknowledge that there are multiple viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them all.

There are no valid arguments that Spell Combat says you carry something in the off hand. There are none. There is belief and opinion that carry=wield or that DD should work the same as SG. That's fine.

I am even inclined to agree that DD should probably not work with the Spell Combat if SG doesn't. I also think, as written, the rules lead to nonsensical outcomes. The PDT needs to clarify this issue. We need to know if RAW matches RAI. We need to be able to understand why carrying a THW in my off hand shuts down DD even if I don't attack and can't use said weapon.

I 100% agree we need clarification. I 100% disagree that anyone has presented any valid evidence that Spell Combat says you carry something in your off hand.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

N N 959 wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:


The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.

So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.

Thank you for the info, if accurate. I would think it goes without saying that if the PDT says they don't FAQ certain publications, PFS should do so if necessary. Is either Dervish Dance or the Magus in a softcover?

I wasn't saying that this was a case for it per se, the real distinction is if the PDT wrote the book more than hardcover, so if the PDT aren't the team in the lead for inner sea stuff then DD would be a valid candidate for CC. I don't know so I can't say one way or not.

Mainly though you seemed to be saying that the PFS shouldn't make any clarifications on unclear stuff cause the PDT should be the one to FAQ them. So I wanted to let you know that the PDT said that they were glad cause this would help them be able to finally make FAQs on softcovers.

why PDT don't FAQ softcovers:
Not sure if you know but decent to say anyways. The PDT don't really make FAQs for softcovers because the PDT don't make those books. Since they don't make those books they aren't the ONLY source of truth for their rules. So that means that the need to meet up with the softcover team AND the freelancer who wrote it and stuff to find out what was intended on writing and what was intended when released and then the PDT can take that info and come to a solution. Since that's a lot of work and they have other things to FAQ they'll never do that work. The PFS can now do that work talking to everyone and getting the data for their CC and then the PDT can use that work to be able to discuss it like any other FAQ.

Sczarni *****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
PFS requires we observe RAW,

I will go out on a limb and say that you don't know PFS very well.

Not only is your statement incorrect, but Campaign Leadership has come out multiple times stating that it is incorrect.

*

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
PDT Spoiler wrote:
The PDT don't really make FAQs for softcovers because the PDT don't make those books.

The PDT didn't write the rules that govern spiked shield, but they had no problem telling us that it doesn't work with Bashing, despite the fact that it did in 3.5. The PD also told us how a Sleeve of Many Garments worked, despite not writing it.

Quote:
So that means that the need to meet up with the softcover team AND the freelancer who wrote it and stuff to find out what was intended on writing and what was intended when released and then the PDT can take that info and come to a solution

And yet, when authors have posted that they wrote and intended for a rule to say X, the PDT has come along and said not X.

The PDT will certainly overrule author intent, so that kind of undermines any requirement that they need to understand it. Reading between the lines, the PDT simply doesn't want to be held accountable and be expected to answer questions on all the softcovers, it's simply too much work.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
PFS requires we observe RAW,

I will go out on a limb and say that you don't know PFS very well.

Not only is your statement incorrect, but Campaign Leadership has come out multiple times stating that it is incorrect.

PFS requires

  • GMs to run the scenario as is
  • GMs to run things by the rules as they know them
  • GMs to not use "house rules" which ties in to the rule above.
  • GMs to make a call on things for stuff that they don't know the rules of at the time.

Meaning if there is ANY grey issues a GM is firmly allowed to rule either way as they feel appropriate. And unless you can provide clear and direct proof, basically a quote or FAQ, then they are empowered by PFS to do so.

So while I don't agree or even feel they people have a valid stance for their view of the rules all the time, they are 'correct' at table.

Venture-Agent aka MadScientistWorking

Nefreet wrote:
Clearly our interpretation of what you call "RAW" differs here.

The two-weapon fighting rules are a disaster to the point where its not actively not clear. Dervish Dance assumes that you have nothing in your hand which doesn't preclude you from two-weapon fighting anymore.

*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
PFS requires we observe RAW,

I will go out on a limb and say that you don't know PFS very well.

Not only is your statement incorrect, but Campaign Leadership has come out multiple times stating that it is incorrect.

Pathfinder Society Guide 8, p12 wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

I don't know if this has changed in 4 seasons.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.

Slashing Grace doesn't work with two-weapon fighting because Slashing Grace says it doesn't work with two-weapon fighting. Attacks during a full-attack action are sequential, which is why you can 5-foot step between attacks or change it to an attack action if you only made a single attack. Nothing in the two-weapon fighting rules changes this.

I concede you raised a few good points, but making things up or filling huge gaps in your logic with what you wish the rules said only undermines your argument.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
It's not even a black or white argument.
It is a black and white argument. Just like the DC to jump over a 10' pit was a black and white argument.

And this is a False Equivocation fallacy.

The ten foot pit discussion was whether the DC for an Acrobatics check equalled the distance travelled, or the distance of the obstacle. Both of those definitions were listed in the Acrobatics section as of the last printing.

So in that particular case, the discussion was black or white.

That does not mean this discussion is.

351 to 400 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / So what are we doing about Dervish Dance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.