Xenrac's page

Let me give you a real life reason, go get a 6 to 7 foot long pole, go stand next to a tree. Try to attack that tree with the point only.

Number of free actions is not the issue. It's whether your hand is committed for a round sequence or not.

Then this is a non issue.

Spell Combat is like two weapon fighting, Spell Strike is not.

Or a (phalanx soldier 3 / magus 2) using a buckler and a now-one-handed nodachi.

Make that a Skirnir Magus and I think you're golden to use spell combat even??

Also, the touch granted by touch spells is a free action otherwise you'd have to do it in the same standard action you cast the spell... not after moving around.

That's what I thought too. That FAQ that I linked in the post I deleted that Throne quoted, says otherwise.

Xenrac wrote:

If you're worried about a Magus infringing on the EK, I can see your concern, but that's not the topic at hand. Because both RAW and RAI are against you.

RAW maybe, but I'm worried how to explain to a player that

this:
magus standard action casting and moving and spell striking in the same round

and this:
EK who casts a Quickened spell and full attacks in the same round

is ok... but this is not:
- free action: let go 1 hand
- swift action: cast touch spell (rimed frostbite?)
- free action: regrab weapon with both hands
- free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
- full-attack action: hit other enemies and keep discharging frostbite charges (to debuff everything in range and pile hurting)

Well, I had an edit to my last post about this question, but I got redirected and it chewed up my answer.

But, honestly, I do think the swift action touch spell plus a full attack is alright, even with a two handed weapon. Sure, you've bumped up your damage dice a little, but your crit range is really the most important part of your sword as a Magus, because x2 on your touch spell really outclasses any improved damage output from your weapon, if not early on, then later in the game, and the only non-exotic two handed weapons with that crit range are the Falcion and the Nodachi... Which are good options for a Str Magus... lol

However, swift action touch spells with spell strike are really not a lot different from Pool Strike, which is always a swift action, scales, and can be used with spellstrike. It's not like that same swift action magus couldn't swift action an Area of Effect spell, then standard action a touch spell onto his one handed sword to get a free extra attack then full attack to deliver every charge. Or swift action a touch to get a free attack, then another touch with multiple charges to get another free attack and then take his BAB with spell combat.
Or, if he had Hasted assault, he could swift action a haste on himself, use a touch spell, then take his full BAB with that touch spell.
Really, Spell Combat is amazing, giving it up means giving up the potential of a max 6 attacks, three of which would be at full BAB-1, and a minimum of two of them would also deliver touch spells, among MANY other possibilities not limited by melee.

as to RAI, you are wrong:

James Jacobs wrote:

[..]overall, magi do not use two-handed weapons. They need to keep a hand free for spellcasting—they're not "fighter/wizards" as much as they are two weapon fighters who just happen to use spells as their off-hand weapon. So two-handed weapons are nonsensical in most cases—the staff magus is the only one I know of that breaks that rule.

So the devs clearly intended the magus to be a sword+magic dual-wielder... or duelist with magic in his off-hand.

Overall they do not use two handed weapons. But Spellstrike was intended to give them more options while casting touch spells. I wasn't speaking of the RAI of the Magus as a whole, just the RAI of free actions and the RAI of spellstrike, that it is intended to give the Magus more options than the average bear.

Jiggy, Xenrac, Quantum Steve

The problem is the amount of free actions that becomes ridiculous... I guess I would not mind (or mind less) if one of those actions were a swift action or move action.

But since Pathfinder balances around action economy, anything that needs to do so many free actions to work, smells like cheese. Especially when that class has clearly been stated by the devs to be a sword+magic dual-wielding class (see quote/link above).

and Quantum Steve: that's why I already replied further up, somebody who wants to wield a greatsword and do magic should be making an EK.

Because if you'd want to push it... my example further up could then become:

free action: let go 1 hand
standard action: cast touch spell (shocking grasp?)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
move action: move to the enemy
free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it
free action: let go 1 hand
swift action: cast 2nd touch spell (shocking grasp? again)
free action: regrab weapon with both hands
free action: hit enemy with 2-hander and spellstrike touch spell through it

Does this still sound fair to you?

Because this, in theory, is totally RAW... just like the EK quick-casting and full-attacking right after that. The question is: how much is too much... especially for a class that was never intended to wield 2-handers and channel spells through it (even though RAW seems to allow it).

But you see, now you're just pushing it too far, taking three free actions as part of a swift action is the cheese here, not taking three free actions in a round.

If you're worried about a Magus infringing on the EK, I can see your concern, but that's not the topic at hand. Because both RAW and RAI are against you.

OK, that makes 3. How does 9d6 sound at level 4? With 27 min damage (or 13 with a save). Yes, burning hands.

I don't think that anybody has a right to tell somebody that their character would suck.

Please answer the questions and please don't act like you know what I would do.

Level 4? None of your multiclassing really even kicks in at level 4? No more than any other Cleric with a level in Wizard at that low a level at least. It sounds impressive, but how is it achieved and why can it only be achieved the way you are going with it?

But putting that aside, I'm gonna try and take a stab at what your level progression is gonna look like. Cleric caster level 5, Wizard Caster level 3, at level 8 is not bad, Then I assume two more levels into wizard, so 5 and 5, then mystic theurge for 10 to bring them both up to 15.
Then you've got a Chaos Alignment channel that is stuck at level 7. And a Domain Power also at level 7.

So all in all you come out slightly above the average Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge, with a pair of really useful free feats from your Hell Knight class... Not terrible. But I feel like these people are the kind that say going Mystic Theurge at all is a bad idea.

Jiggy wrote:

Has anyone pointed out this FAQ yet?

Or for that matter, this one?

I know these FAQs and don't question them by themselves... I do however question how a magus could do 3 free actions in the same round with the same one hand...

I know this isn't the place for what I'm about to say, but it's that very silly line of thought that had people all up in a fit about the free actions you take with a bow and arrow the other day when that FAQ about Guns and their free actions came out.

Oh no, three free actions, one of which is granted by casting a spell, the other two are listed as part of an FAQ about two handed weapons in general. Would you have the same problem if a Wizard did this:
Takes one hand off quarterstaff
Casts shocking grasp
Delivers the shocking grasp
Puts hand back on staff
Moves away

Huh... Well. I imagine this has already been said, but it is clear that you cannot attack the ogre. You do threaten it however. So House rule variation on whether or not you can take the AoO that the Ogre provoked. I'd rule you couldn't take an AoO unless you could also attack the Ogre, so the only place this would really come into play is if somehow the Ogre's movement speed got reduced to 5 feet. So it would provoke by leaving your threatened square, and bring itself into your attack range.

But I'm fully aware that that would be a house rule.

The weirdest part of it is that it is Not (explicitly) a Full-round Action, but it explicitly says you cannot use another move action in the same round. Not even a second Movement (which would allow for stand alone move actions like retrieving an item).

If it were a Full round action then the fact that you couldn't take any other Move action would be implied. But it doesn't rule out taking another standard action, and even says explicitly "another" standard action.

It's not PFS applicable, I know that. Kinda glad. This would be a Go-to spellcaster munchkin feat if it were legal. Even without the second Free Standard action.

Did you actually do the math on that? Even if by "GM discretion" it is ruled that the energy type is "especially effective", Hardness still applies. Which is Hardness 8 for most stone/masonry and Hardness 10 for most metal. Which these Cantrips are just not getting past. Objects are also Immune to Critical Hits, so even if it's allowed to "Hold the Charge" for Ranged Touch spells, Coup de Grace will not do anything. Only with pretty substantial damage-augmentation abilities and/or Metamagic can the damage on these start to think about overcoming that Hardness, and even then it will be slow going getting thru the actual HPs. (90hp/1' thickness of masonry, 180hp/1' thickness of stone, 60hp/2" thickness of metal or 360hp/1' of thickness of metal)

Could use Close Range on it and deliver it with a Spell Strike as a Magus. Or the GM, if they are being nice, or if the storyline demanded it, could go down the page and rule it as:

Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness.

That whole section is filled with GM interpretation and wiggle room.

Scavion wrote:

Can't you wear through stone walls with Acid splash given enough time however?

Its one of my favorites really. Locked door? Lemme just take a minute. A full minute of splash the lock should do the trick.

Only if your GM ignores this rule:

SRD wrote:

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

Which puts your acid splash doing 1 damage. And if the object has any hardness at all gets reduced to 0.

Certainly there are acid mixtures that will eat through a metal lock, but acid splash isn't of that strength.

Ignores??? A GM could easily rule that Acid is particularly effective against Metal. And he'd be telling the truth. And he wouldn't be ignoring that rule.

Cheapy wrote:

Then don't do it :)

But not doing it removes my ability to play a Bandit Ninja... and if I can find a ruling that approves the build, by Desna I'm gonna do it. :)

Why a Bandit? Unless you've got some way of triggering Surprise rounds often, the bandit's only useful for being extra scary on a crit and scamming your way into not losing Uncanny Dodge.

That's off topic though. On topic, there is no real RAW for or against taking original class archetypes as an alternate class. However, there is absolutely RAW that you can stack archetypes, and there is RAI that says alternate classes are just big archetypes. That's all the information there is on the matter with regards to PFS.

Does Flyby Attack give a free standard action?

This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.

Prerequisite: Fly speed.

Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.

Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move.

I'm certain this is not RAI. I know this isn't PFS eligible. And I would almost certainly houserule that you may only take one standard action per turn even with this feat. But... This wording seems to imply that it allows a Monster to take two standard actions on its turn.

I would like to see some conclusive interpretation that I'm wrong. But given that this is all the information on the topic that there is, I'm fully aware that it is unlikely. Mostly, just discuss, perhaps FAQ if you feel there is some ambiguity, but I personally don't think there is.

Xenrac wrote:

Hold up guys. You don't threaten while moving

Interesting. Rules quote?

None. Nevermind that post. It's not that you don't threaten while moving. But you can't normally take melee attacks while moving, barring feats, and, barring readied actions, no one is going to provoke from you while you are moving.

God though. I can think of at least eight different Readied action/feat/AoO interactions right now that are bizarre, based on that information alone. Readied actions and AoOs were not intended to mix guys.

Hold up guys. You don't threaten while moving. If the Disarm was readied for when Brawny came into Brainy's reach, would Brawny threaten Brainy when Brainy provoked?

Okay. Let's get this out simply. Attack Roll =/= Skill Roll =/= Combat Maneuver Roll
Certain Combat Maneuvers can substitute Attack Rolls. A Grapple is not one of them.
Parts of your body can be Weapon Finessed since they are Unarmed Strikes.
A Grapple is Not an Unarmed Strike.
A Grapple is carried out with your entire body.
Your entire body is not an Unarmed Strike.

Your answer is simply No. People gave you a simple answer. You asked for logic. You now refuse to listen to logic. You also like to assume your logic is correct and use it to find fault in our logic. But your logic is incorrect. This is clear because no one agrees. You have also began to condescend to those you are arguing with as if you are on some kind of logical high ground.

Your answer is No. And this thread should be locked because you're a troll.
I'm done here.

Xenrac wrote:

ucobronco wrote:

I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons.

Grapple wrote:

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.

You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple.

Grapple Transformers

More than meets the hand.

:)

That's true, but any part of your body that you can execute an attack with is considered a light, natural weapon with Improvide Unarmed Strike.

You say "any part" But you take the same penalty if you only have one hand free that you do if neither of your hands are free. It's because you aren't using "any part" of your body, you are using your whole body.

I don't see the distinction you're making because you need (or rather the rules prefer) to execute the attack (grapple) with your hands (light, natural weapons) which fall clearly under finessable weapons.

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.

You don't need your hands to do a grapple. You can grapple without them. Because you're using more than your hands to grapple.

Don't truncate the whole line to suit your point of view it says:

"At 10th-level, if the witch or her familiar is gravely injured or about to die, the soul of the dying one immediately transfers to the other’s body."

The witches other body, is not her original body. You're still wrong.

Maybe you can argue about who is really dying, my opinion is that it's the familiar, this is not the witches body after all being killed.

However it also says you go to the 'other' body, not back to your original one if you already did the swap trick once.

Also, for the 'guest' to return to it's body it states it needs to do so via 'touch.' And if that body is in a portable hole, that's not possible.

I think there is ambiguity in Who is dying while the witch is in her familiar's body, but it doesn't seem to me that the ability limits just what the "other" body is. The "other" body, between the two bodies is the one that the dying character isn't currently inhabiting. There's nothing that clearly defines that a witch's "other" body is always her familiar, or that her familiar's "other" body is always the witch's.

This still leaves us with the ambiguity of who is dying though. Are you dying if the meatsuit you are currently inhabiting is dying? Is only the one in control dying? Is only the original dying?

I will say, that your interpretation leads to more silly questions with regards to the spell Resurrection: Witch's body is dying, she flees to her familiar, immediately after the Cleric runs to her and uses Breath of Life on her (or heals her body if she hadn't yet died), then in battle her familiar is killed before she reaches her original, now healed, body. Per your definition the familiar rushes off to the witch's body and takes command and the witch dies because the Cleric couldn't get to the familiar's body in time. Battle is over, everything calms down. Cleric runs off and does what he needs to do to get Resurrect, comes back. Who's remains does he use? Does he recreate the witch's body for a free witch clone? Does he recreate the witch's soul into the familiar's body? Resurrect restores them into their body perfectly whole. But it doesn't say who's body the soul belongs to. (because normally that sort of thing is straight forward, this class just changes that a little)

Straight RAW they "synergize" well. But do not mesh together at all mechanically. Sound striker gains the ability to attack with sound, which is grand, but you couldn't activate it with your Battle Dance Performance, you'd have to do it separately (unless you had a totem spear?). Pathfinder Chronicler would give you access to the class's original Performance at a level 8 ability, but it would be separate from your Battle Dance because it would require an instrument. So your battle Dance would stay at level 5.

.... But I really can't say any of this with confidence. It seems like there ISN'T any RAI here. Like this possibility was just a weird oversight...

@Scavion, yeah, I could honestly tell you're near convinced, but I like to read myself type sometimes and I also wanted to put my argument together in a single post to stamp out other dissenters that aren't around at the moment. I see the light in your targeting argument, there is logic there, and it isn't terrible, and if the targeting is true, than all following ambiguity is not really reconcilable.
Which is why I made targeting the crux of my argument even after everyone else had moved on.

But at the end of the day, Breath of Life still works the way you are asking, just not against disintegrate (unless the GM gives you an on the fly house rule). So really no DM should prepare Disintegrate unless resurrection wouldn't be a horrid strain on the party. I mean between two equal level wizards/sorcerers, Disintegrate has a slightly worse than 50% kill rate on even a successful save. On a failed save it has a near 50% kill rate on even non raging barbarian (unless they get their DR against spells all the time, but I'm not that familiar with barbarians).

It's a spell you hit the Synthisist Summoner with. Because they deserve the negative levels for taking an archetype that's primary draw is game breaking, balance threatening power.

EDIT:

Am I misinterpreting or have we finally arrived at "RAW, breath of life won't bring you back?" Just curious. Now we're arguing over balance and the question of "should it", right?

I don't know if everyone is there, but the reasonable ones seem in comfortable near agreement.

Xenrac I read your post now, and it brings some well thought out arguments to light. I also accept a great deal of what your saying.

Well then, thank you, and my apologies for any sharpness to my words. I've recently noticed where you are coming from on the targeting. I still feel that it is invalid, primarily because it cannot decide whether it wants to take things at face value, or look deeper into them.

To look at a far more simple, and somewhat more reasonable line of thought: Breath of Life is a cure spell ("this spell cures 5D8 damage") it stands easily to reason that it inherits the same restriction of other cure spells. The restrictions of which any player I know of remembers forever after the first time they become important.

The reason *why* the pro life (lol) side quotes that page so much is because undoubtedly,

Breath of Life restores a dead character to life right?

No. Breath of Life does not restore life to a character, because it doesn't say it does. However, there are a set of spells that do say they restore a character to life, unambiguously. Draw a straight line. Breath of Life Cures a character, and given the right circumstances it can cure them of death as well.

However, I must concede that you have a stronger argument here than you have with targeting. And there IS a decent amount of ambiguity here. Worth an FAQ. This is what got me to hit FAQ. It doesn't matter, because to get to the point where this ambiguity matters, you had to twist logic around and abuse it, to find a corner case that doesn't really exist.

Then we step forward and apply the rest of the passage to it. We see the next part as a general rule we can apply in the gaps. There aren't alot of other case with which we can draw on to deduce an exact ruling.

This is really an extension of what's wrong last time, but has more ambiguity still, because we're going further down the RAWbbit hole. However, once again, Breath of Life is stated as a Cure spell. The reason I say this is because unlike Resurrection, Breath of Life can be cast on someone that is still alive. Arguing that it restores/recreates their body after death is essentially saying that the spell does two different types of healing. ...Or that every time you heal someone with it, you are destroying them and recreating them as something closer to perfection... I call Fridge horror on every campaign with a healing Cleric on that note.

Do we not consider Breath of Life as magic that restores a dead character to life?

As far as I'm concerned, we don't. It cures them of death, rather than giving life back to them. IRL there isn't a distinction between the two, but Magic and souls. That ship has sailed.

Or are we in disagreement over whether that passage is a general rule or not?

I am at the point that I want to say that it isn't a general or a specific rule. It's a clarification that we've called a rule, then pushed into the RAWbbit hole, unprepared for what awaited it. I'd say that all this ambiguity is just the result of it stumbling around and tripping out because stuff doesn't work right anymore.

As for the spell levels, I don't believe that we should balance them clearly on what else is in that class's spell list. I think when balancing the full casters we should consider them all together as one. The druid has far more offensive capabilities so I feel the Cleric should have some extra umph in the healing department and versatility of that field.

As for spell balance, I don't even want to pretend that Reincarnate is balanced or makes sense compared to the Cleric spells. Because it barely even makes sense in the context of it's own name.

However, on the context of Cleric spells being balanced with each other there is significantly more to say. First off between Raise Dead and Breath of Life, Breath of Life gives a Single, Temporary, negative level, Raise Dead gives you Two, Permanent, negative levels. Further, Raise Dead Takes a minute to cast, Breath of Life is a standard action. Even beyond that, assuming you aren't too critically dead, Breath of life... Wut... +1 per caster level up to +25? how do... I thought the rules were all written as if level 20 was the cap... Huh. Breath of life can restore you from death up to 5D6 + 25 - Con. So if you just died from bleeding out, you basically get 5D6 health back on the spot, where Raise dead brings you back with +HD Health.
And you want to say that it also works like a Poor man's Resurrection. When even Resurrection gives you one Permanent Negative level.

All of that when the ONLY penalties are a strict time restraint on your efficacy, and the chance that the spell might fail anyway? That is a little unbalanced.

EDIT: Got a little quip about a post that happened while I was typing.

Or this can be avoided with the ruling for.

Or this could be avoided by a DM not giving an enemy the spell Disintegrate without being fully aware of it's consequences, and fully prepared to deal with the shitstorm, heartbreak, and money strain that comes after a player death.

EDIT: Raise Dead is also a healing spell mate. And they're both conjuration spells. Spells often attributed with the ability to create.

Regenerate, Resurrection, Raise Dead, Cure Light Wounds, Breath of Life

All five of these are Conjuration(Healing). All five of them work differently. Pick your poison. The argument you were attempting to refute is weak because of this fact. But it also points out how petty you are being with your counter examples. Because "often attributed" does not make a ruling either way.

However, among those five spells above, two explicitly state that they Cure (one of which in it's name, one of which in the main body of the spell). These two also share the same targeting words: "Creature Touched". And neither of which specify that they can regenerate missing body parts.

One of these spells is explicitly listed to regenerate body parts, but contains the target "Living Creature Touched". (Which makes me wrong about what I said earlier about Breath of Life's targeting, but only marginally, my core sentiment is still valid)

Two of them, target in a third way: "Dead Creature Touched" and also explicitly contain the word restore. One in it's body, the other through inheriting and modifying the other. Which brings me to my next point:

A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death. Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

Note that this quote that you people (XD Not appropriate, but it makes me smile, and isn't as accusatory as it reads) are so fond of posting contains the words restore and resurrect(ed). Guess which two spells Explicitly state that they Restore and/or Resurrect.

Also, as a rule of thumb, something that affects a singular does not (necessarily) affect the plural form. IE Stabbing one corpse affects that corpse, but it would be a pretty good joke to suggest that postmortem stabbing is an effect often attributed to being dead at a murder victim's autopsy. This is a pretty shaky argument, and I know that, but it is certainly worth merit.

On a side note, kudos on completely ignoring my big post last night. If you go back and read it, it will augment the first half of this post significantly.

Absolutely outstanding information and advice. Thank you Xenrac.

As a Monk/Druid mostly being in Lion shape, I'll be Pouncing a lot. Death From Above would come in handy, as long as I could put it to good use. I'm not sure if I'll press him for this but this is great to think about.

You are most certainly welcome. (And thanks for overlooking my occasionally horrid grammar.)

Yeah. This feat is one of the things that saves me from my own decision to play a Dex focused Kensai that doesn't have a scimitar. (Didn't know about Dervish Dance then, and don't care for it now) Even though the -2 to my AC on a charge also regularly comes back to haunt me...

But one last note: Remember that you can't Flurry with your Natural attacks. I'm unsure whether or not Lions can use unarmed strikes either. I'm sure you've already taken that into account, but flurrying with natural attacks is a way bigger faux-pas than jumping on a charge.

Xenrac, The bolded portion of the quote however could be used to simply state that the remains of a disintegrate spell *always* count as a small portion of its body through its lack of the phrase "For this effect." This is how I view it.

This is fine. Just deliberately being obtuse to common sense to create advantageous ambiguity. Because, surprise surprise, the rules aren't perfect.

I also adhere to the fact you must first be able to target a creature in order to affect it with a spell. Some people have stated that the dust is not a valid target for Breath of Life. Breath of Life has the same targeting wording as resurrection.

The whole part of "The condition of the remains..." is an addendum on what raise dead can't do so that resurrection can do it.

Funny thing. Breath of Life and Resurrect DO have different targeting wording. Resurrect inherits Raise Dead's "Dead Creature Touched" (and modifies it so that you can even be holding the deceased's flesh stripped skull or a handful of dust that used to be them), and Breath of Life specifies "Creature Touched" (and modifies it so that it includes a creature that died less than one round ago).

Here's the thing. The General rule of Disintegrate is that you get turned into a pile of dust. A pile of dust is clearly no longer a creature, debates on WHAT precisely it is, can be neatly handled by Resurrect which modifies that and says that this dust is now a small part of a dead creature. And thus, Resurrect is happy now, because it only needs a small part of a dead creature.

Breath of Life on the other hand inherits the restrictions of other Cure spells, because it is explicitly a cure spell. And modifies its target range from whole, living creatures, to whole creatures that are either living or have died less than a round ago. It does not receive the same treatment where it blankets "parts of dead creatures". That's something only Resurrect gets. (Before you disagree, read on, the rest of this post is the real important part)

To illustrate that, let's take a Cleric, a victim, and us (the torturers). The Cleric and Victim are both tied up, several feet away from each other (and for whatever reason, the Cleric only has Resurrection, Cure Moderate Wounds and Breath of Life prepared and does not have his holy symbol at hand). As a method of psychological torture, we decide to cut the victim's finger off, and toss it to his Cleric (grandly gruesome torture is always fun), then, because we can't find any better place to put it, we stab our knife into the victim's shoulder.
Could the Cleric cast Cure Moderate Wounds on the finger to heal this Victim?
Could he do this with Breath of Life?
Could he do anything with Resurrection?

The answer is no.

Now, take the same situation, except have the stabbing happen first, and repeatedly. We get a little carried away with it, and the torture victim goes down to one above -Con, and passes out. We gleefully cut off his finger and toss it to the Cleric as a keepsake, and this "small" amount of damage kills our torture victim.
Could the Cleric cast Cure Moderate Wounds on this bloody keepsake to heal the victim?
Nope, same reason as before, we just have his finger, no way to heal him.
Could the Cleric give us a nasty surprise and Resurrect our victim ten feet away from his dead body?
YUP. We've got a part of his body. Doesn't matter that the body is across the room, we are totally reconstructing him.
Could the Cleric use Breath of Life to bring our victim back to life?
Nope. You clearly aren't touching his body, even though cutting off the finger killed him, and that finger was part of his body when he died, you aren't touching him, that finger is no longer part of him.

And that's just the on topic stuff. If you have the blinders on so hard that you believe that Breath of Life and Resurrection "have the same targeting conditions" then I've got a good list of simple, straight RAW cases where they clearly work and target differently.

1) Honestly I have no idea, just, Syththesist Summoners are broken as all get out. I wouldn't be surprised if they did get both. Gut instinct says that one applies when they aren't summoned out, and the other applies when they are. But I have no doubt there will be RAW that I haven't read that will complicate that matter into confusing levels.

2) Fluff out Sawtooth Sabres, settle for the double staff katana (don't, it's dumb and silly and I don't like it). But I do think you have pointed out a weapon that does pave the way for a potentially previously unlisted weapon. Something like an Eastern Version of the Sawtooth Sabres. I would say make it have more damage but a worse crit, except Sawtooth Sabres have the basic crit for any slashing weapon, and a worse crit than that would be needless punishment. Further, since they are broadswords, it doesn't make any sense that they'd do less damage than the standard 1D8 either. So no 1D6 18-20/x2.

Maybe 2D4 19-20/x2 and one pound heavier? Don't know if that's a suitable punishment for giving the weapon a significantly improved average damage though.

Telmock wrote:

It clearly states in the resurrection spell description that: (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) This in my opinion defines the condition of a person disintegrated, they count as a small portion of their original body. Since the dust is only a small portion of the original body Breath of Life would not work because Breath of Life must target the whole creature.

Then neither would you be able to target that dust with a resurrection spell because both spells have the same targeting parameters.

This sentence is silly.

Resurrection:

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Good logic was presented to you.

Death from Above (Combat)

You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.

Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.

I understand that while standing on higher ground, be it a hill or table, and while flying, this feat would apply.

Does Jumping before or during a charge(at least 5 ft higher) allow the application of this feat as well?

As far as I've found, there is no explicit definition of what constitutes Higher ground, beyond mention of a +1 attack bonus for people uphill in the Hills Terrain for "Gentle Slopes", with, once again, no explicit definition. My own GM went back to 3.5 and found their definition, which was something along the lines of "having your feet above your opponent's waist". Which can be achieved with a DC12 acrobatics check on a high jump. Though, since you have a running start, and would travel 12 feet on that jump, would roughly work, like this: Start your charge, jump the last 10 feet of it, half way through the jump, you achieve high ground, and you are now charging down at them from your high ground.

More strictly, the charge has to Start from high ground, and since you need at least 10 feet to charge, you'd have to jump 20 feet for a DC20 acrobatics check (that would guarantee success on reaching 5 feet in the air, so you could even achieve high ground against larger creatures), "starting" your charge at the peak of your jump.

However, the most strict definition says you have to start your charge from high ground, and you can't start your action in midair from your jump last turn (unless you're falling or something), so you could not possibly achieve this feat.

However, there is a pretty solid logical argument that works in your favor: Put a ten foot tall, thirty foot wide hill between you and your opponent, seems like a legitimate "Gentle Slope", so it would not hinder your movement, you charge up the hill, then down the other side of the hill, half way through, you've achieved high ground and normally get a +1, this feat takes that +1 and turns it into a +5. Take the hill away, and give the fact that a running jump does not impair your movement, and you can suddenly achieve high ground with a jump.

The wrinkle to that, is that you could apply the same logic to jump over difficult obstacles and achieve a charge where others could not. Which is a Duelist class Feature: Acrobatic Charge

Given the very rare occasion this feat traditionally comes into play (other than flying), and that any good GM could say Yes to jumping over clear ground and No to jumping over difficult terrain without breaking their own brain or causing too much fuss (unless someone is really really persistent, but isn't that why this forum exists in the first place?), I would personally allow it. But, if you're really determined to get it, and your DM is really strict about it and says no: become a Duelist, Get acrobatic charge, and win forever.

After that is a new round, and that's where your arguments, counters seem to stem from. I'm here, your over there somewhere. Come over this side of the fence and first prove me wrong about BoL being unable to do what is written, then we can talk aftermath.

He's treating you the same way you've been treating the other side of the argument. He's just going to keep highlighting the same segments of text and telling you that assuming anything different is a houserule and not RAW.

It isn't the best argument, and it's already showing flaws, but he's attempting to highlight a point.

EDIT: As far as I can tell. MDT could tell me differently. But either way it's tangential.

@Bizbag Thats just for the feat itself, and the levels it adds right?

For instance, the second post. Level 4 cavalier level 16 barbarian with a horse mount.

Horse Master feat gives me my character level as effective druid levels in determining the powers of my mount. The barbarian adds barbarian levels - 4 to the effective druid levels to my mount. So the math looks like:

(Character level) + (Barbarian level - 4) = 32! 32 effective druid levels in determining the power and abilities of my mount. A cavalier druid multiclass would get 36 effective druid levels for a mount.

Since it doesn't use boon companion at all, technically you would be allowed to do this. "To a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level" doesn't apply since you are not using that feat.

In this case though, neither ability stacks. Neither of which Add any levels to your effective druid level. Both just determine your effective druid level. As a mounted barbarian you get Barbarian level-4 for your druid companion, which would stack with your Cavalier levels to bring it back to 16. But Horse Master would wipe that slate clean and set you at 20 regardless.

Thank you.

No, thank you, this thread needed a bump since I'm still confused about it.

Yes, but that does not answer the question.

In one round, is the "up to 45 degree" shift in movement applied per square I move in the round or for the entire movement of the round? Given enough movement speed and area, can the character make a half-moon route (180 degree turn in an arc) for one move action without making a fly check?

Seems legit, you'd be sacrificing 5ft with every turn, and you'd be taking a significantly less intricate flying maneuver. I mean, making an arcing turn is easier than a sharp 180 while flying. So why not?

Could I apply Minor Spell Expertise or it's Major form to spells out of a Wizard/Magus spellbook?

With all the feats you can invest into a single weapon, Exotic Weapons become almost pointless to use unless you get such proficiency for free. In which case, spending feats for proficiency is suboptimal and a waste.

In addition, all the feats you spend on a single weapon (Focus, Specialization, Penetrating Strike, plus Greater versions) nullifies any need for MV or MM, since by that point you should only need your main weapon, since you should be able to Fly and/or Teleport on a regular basis, making ranged pointless, and being able to bypass B/P/S DR defeats the purpose of having a second weapon.

Now that I think about it, MV is intentionally mostly useless, as it's a feat tax for Martial Mastery. And MM is pretty badass in that it can save you loads and loads of feats if you have something special in mind for a character, or just love having lots of weapons. Cool use though, is to start out dumping feats onto a Nodachi, then grab MV on something silly like Weapon Focus, so you can grab MM twice and have all these benefits across both heavy blades and Polearms. EDIT: Except MM doesn't say it can be taken multiple times. I am now sad. Nevermind that use.

Suboptimal choices are part of the game though unfortunately. Exotic weapons should get a little more love than they do, because you're right about them being suboptimal by the end game mostly, but still, nothing tops the 19-20/x3 crit on the D8 Falcata, or the Elven Curve blade tied with the Fauchard (another exotic weapon) for the best crit range of any D10 damage weapon, alongside the Elven Curve blade being Finessable and applicable for the Agile enchantment, I can see them being worth the feat just for the fun of it.

Now that I think about it, why did I even argue about whether or not these feats work with DD? Probably because I'm sick of seeing Scimitars all over the place, though it doesn't matter since the Scimitar is the best Dexterity weapon in the game thanks to DD.

This... I feel your pain here... Hell, it's why I started agreeing with you. Scimitars are already annoying me to no end. Only thing better than Dervish dance is an Elven Curve Blade with Agile on it. Which, saves you a feat, and makes you spend it on EWP since the only class/archetype that gets EWP without using a feat is a Kensai Magus (as far as I know), and even though they seriously need some Dex love, they need that second hand free all the time...

Is my above example correct, or am I doing something wrong?

Your above sample is correct. As long as you only have one attack from your BAB. If you have more than one attack from your BAB, you have to make all of those attacks before you cast your spell. And if your BAB attacks missed, your second touch spell will end your first touch spell.

Side note: This essentially makes Arcane Mark an at will extra attack. Prepare it always, it's your friend.

Again, I made that adjustment to symbolize what MV would essentially do. It allows you to use other weapons within the same group for that feat, correct? Thusly, you could use Longswords with the feat instead of just Scimitars.

Taking your second point, it makes MV and MM absolutely worthless. MV and MM would be a waste of feats with the wording of Proficiency, Focus, and Specialization of weapons and to what it all entails. Working toward the endgame, taking all of those kinds of feats, you should have Penetrating Strike, and its Greater version, making having multiple weapons (outside of maybe Bows, but fighters who specialize in those weapons have no need for any other ones) a lot of non-valuable space and money to waste on; and we're not even talking about the character being able to fly or teleport, leaving ranged weapons pointless as well.

So going by the other interpretation, MV is about as nice as the Prone Shooter feat. At least the interpretation I argue makes it have some value.

My interpretation says you can use MM to expand your Penetrating Strike and your half a dozen other single weapon specific feats across an entire weapon group, and get EWP in an entire weapon group that includes the most powerful exotic weapons in the game, with two feats.

My interpretation says that these two feats make it NOT a waste of time to have multiple weapons. My interpretation says these two feats can save you half a dozen feats if you want to change your weaponry to fit the situation without losing loads of benefits from taking one weapon and dumping feats onto it. Martial Versatility. Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin.

Pick one exotic weapon, get EWP in it out of the gate, dump a lot of weapon selecting feats onto it, use MV to get EWP on that entire weapon group, then later on, use MM to expand ALL of the stuff you put on that weapon onto an entire weapon group.

Edit: Wait. I dunno. I don't think you can use Spellstrike with the held charge, but you could make a touch attack with your highest BAB attack against the enemy. Then make the rest of your attacks allowed by your BAB. Then if casting a touch spell, spell strike should apply and you would get another free melee attack. Yeah. I think that works.

This crap is kinda confusing.

You can Spellstrike with a held charge, just no longer as a free attack.

Quandary provides proof that it's not the RAI for it to work that way. Finally, something productive from the other side.

It's fair enough to say it's not the intent, though it can still be proven that it would still work. It can be a headache, but it's not really that horrible to think it through.

My only proof is that expanding your interpretation to include other feats includes lots and lots of shaky possibilities, the big one being the problems I highlighted last night with EWP, which you can squirm with all you want, but it is simply proof that nothing in any known feat change their own wording, or the wording of any other feat. Not even Dervish Dance tries to make Weapon Finesse work with a Scimitar, it just gives you the benefits as if it did, and new benefits because you wasted a few feats and levels with a DEX build that does little damage before you get it.

The biggest point is that the RAI says there is a difference between applies to and works with. And things like EWP and Weapon Focus apply to, things like Dervish Dance, Quarterstaff Master, and Dueling Mastery work with. Nothing in the RAW supports your interpretation, even if nothing explicitly denies it.

EDIT: There's egg on my face for not the first time in this thread, but Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Dueling Sword) does seem to change the wording of Weapon Finesse by a small degree. Take what you will from that.

You could work your way into Greater Trip then ready a trip attack and have both, on two separate attacks. Because they can't stack.

Xenrac wrote:

As far as I can tell, that's the same interpretation you just pitched.

Which is, funny enough, the best argument I've found all day why this shouldn't work.

I'm gonna go ahead and challenge this interpretation. It's not the EWP feat itself that lets you one-hand a Katana... it's a special quality of the Katana itself. It's already a one-handed weapon, but without proficiency with it, you are prohibited from wielding it except with two hands, in which case you can utilize blanket martial proficiency to avoid the -4 penalty. A Greatsword, on the other hand, is not a one-handed weapon already; it's a two-handed weapon. Moreover, EWP states it gives you access to "any special abilities" the weapon has. Greatswords have no special abilities so that's a moot point. MV only spreads the benefit of the feat to other weapons, not the special property of the weapon itself. That being said, MV for EWP applied to Heavy Blades would allow you to one-hand both the Katana and the Bastard Sword because they each have their own special property governing how they are wielded and, with MV spreading EWP feat over all heavy blades, it will activate the Bastard Sword's special ability to be wielded as the one-handed weapon it...

That was my point. Expanding their interpretation to Exotic Weapon Proficiency, a feat that both sides seem to agree is both a RAW and RAI use of MV, to illustrate that their logic was flawed.

Unless you are saying that the picture I painted of their interpretation was untrue. In which case, you may have a solid point. But still. I was attempting to highlight the logical flaw in their argument, I was Well aware that what I was saying was incorrect.

Xenrac wrote:

Scavion wrote:

Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon

Would you not say Dervish Dance is a combat feat that applies to a specific weapon?

If I really want to make a distinction here, I would say Dervish Dance is a feat that only works with a specific weapon.

Where as Weapon Focus is applied to a specific weapon.

Not exactly RAW, but RAW doesn't really give us anything to go off other than Weapon Focus. And to me it is pretty plain that Weapon Focus and Dervish Dance are not remotely similar feats.

The only difference you can make here is that,

Weapon Focus (Scimitar) = Dervish Dance
Weapon Focus (Pick!) =/= Dervish Dance

Though I hope you'll see that the end result is still the same. Perhaps if I elongate it it will be more clear.
Weapon Focus (Scimitar):
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using Scimitars.
Dervish Dance:
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.

I substituted some wording in Weapon Focus, but the meaning is still the same after the choice is made.

Applied and Works with in the context of your words essentially mean the same thing. Weapon Focus only works with the specified weapon. Dervish Dance is exactly the same in that regard. The only difference Weapon Focus makes is that you get to choose the specified weapon.

Okay, well, not to make another slippery slope argument, but Let's use Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Insert exotic weapon here)
Removes the penalties taken when you use a specific exotic weapon, and lets you access any special abilities that they may include.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Katana)
Removes the exotic weapon penalty and allows the character to wield a Katana with One Hand.

Now, let's expand that Katana Proficiency across all heavy blades:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency(All Heavy Blades)
Removes the exotic weapon penalty and allows the character to wield All Heavy Blades with One hand.

That's pretty grand, let's you one hand a Scythe, no problems.
Also a Greatsword.
Fighter Weapon Groups are pretty silly.

As far as I can tell, that's the same interpretation you just pitched.
Which is, funny enough, the best argument I've found all day why this shouldn't work.

Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon

Would you not say Dervish Dance is a combat feat that applies to a specific weapon?

If I really want to make a distinction here, I would say Dervish Dance is a feat that only works with a specific weapon.

Where as Weapon Focus is applied to a specific weapon.

Not exactly RAW, but RAW doesn't really give us anything to go off other than Weapon Focus. And to me it is pretty plain that Weapon Focus and Dervish Dance are not remotely similar feats.

I mean, people were saying that MV working with DD was broken. I provided some example numbers that said otherwise, or the exact opposite. People were also saying that MV shouldn't work with DD. I provided a fair interpretation of the intent from both feats and explained how it would (and should) combine (and whether they accepted or rejected it is up to them, but it's not like they gave any sort of comprehensive rebuttal to explain why the intent I provided was wrong, other than "It's not supposed to work that way.")

If it's not gamebreaking, and it's not against the intent of how both feats function, then what is the issue for this discussion?

The issue is that the awkwardness of expanding this trail of thought to feats that are similar to Dervish Dance would lend me to take away that you are violating the intent of Martial Versatility with your interpretation.

You ask me if you can apply Martial Versatility to Dervish Dance, I ask you to consider what using the same mindset to feats that are similar to Dervish Dance. I'm pointing out that the parallels to what you are asking to do make no sense. So with that same line of thought, why should the original idea be any different?

And from that I am pointing out that the feat Dervish Dance is NOT similar to Weapon Focus. And thus that this application violates the RAI, and bends the RAW.

Beside the fact is that I really like the other possible applications flavor wise, and was considering a single level dip into the Bard version of Dawnflower Dervish so I could get my Dex onto my Katana Wielding Kensai Magus without changing my build much at all. And so I was rooting for you to be right, then you had to nit pick apart the stuff I liked just to try to validate yourself for me, and really all it did was invalidate your original point, much to my disappointment.

Quarterstaff Master stuff

First off a Bo staff is double. It would work. Second off, I wasn't talking about optimization, balance, or anything other than silly ideas. About the only thing even remotely useful about expanding Quaterstaff Master with this feat would be making a level dip into Staff Master Magus useful rather than the waste of paper it is. And even that wouldn't save the archetype. If you are going to nit-pick the fact that it requires Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff), then force them to take Martial Mastery to do this. But I'd let them do it just because it would be fun and not really balance threatening.

Close Quarters Thrower stuff

To elaborate I was talking about taking the Chakram (which is a heavy blade for reasons that I don't quite understand) and expanding that across all the heavy blades. I suppose you could force it to only work with Martial Mastery, or After they had already expanded their Weapon Focus to include an entire weapon group like with Quarterstaff Master, but once again, why? It's a very build specific useful feat and it's not like you're going to have more than three or four bastard swords to throw.

Finally, you are splitting hairs so ridiculously hard core it isn't even funny, and you have literally ruined your credibility in my book by doing it. If you want to change the internal workings of a feat, and you think you have to do it with a straight edge, a scalpel and liquid paper, then you're probably cheating. What is the difference between swapping the words Quarterstaff and Dire Flail, and swapping the word Staff with Flail?

It is a feat that lets you expand another feat's usefulness. I fail to see how Quarterstaff Master applies to only one weapon any more than Dervish Dancer unless you are using the strictest possible definition when No such definition was given to you.

You had me convinced until this post. But now I am completely unimpressed.

You have to remember that while MV allows me to substitute weapons of the same weapon group, it doesn't allow me to bypass the requirements of the feat that MV is being applied to.

The thread is specifically arguing MV + DD, which by RAW works, and RAI is applicable. The DD feat also specifically says that the feat itself fails to function for the character when wielding a weapon not of your size, weapons that take up the off-hand (a weapon wielded in two hands qualifies as this), etc. The feat itself sets the boundaries, not MV.

MV simply allows you basically substitute Weapon A with X, the variable X representing any other (applicable) weapon from the same weapon group that Weapon A is a part of.

I'm not going to be able to use a Greataxe for Quarterstaff Master, since it's not even of the same weapon type as a Quarterstaff. I can try to use a Kusarigama or something of that sort, though whether it works with the feat itself or not (based upon its language) depends on how the feat is written.

Also, remember that just because a feat cites an example doesn't limit the feat to that example. The feat in open-ended terms refers to any combat feat that applies to a specific weapon. After all, it must be ridiculous to allow Penetrating Strike (and its Greater version) to work with MV, now doesn't it? On its surface, yes. If we take Martial Mastery, on the other hand, which applies all of the cited types of feats to weapons of the same group. So if I have Weapon Focus (Greatsword) and use a Longsword, I can apply Penetrating Strike to my Longsword attacks because it's considered to have Weapon Focus, a pre-requisite to utilizing Penetrating Strike (Weapon Focus with a chosen weapon).

Okay, so by your definition applying Martial Mastery to Dervish Dancer is cool, but Weapon Specialization is not (Without first giving weapon focus the same treatment)? Well I'm glad I completely disagree with you, otherwise it would be useless if I just struck out Dervish Dancer.

But once again, I never limited the feat to Weapon Focus. Just to feats that are similar to Weapon Focus. IE Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, their Greater forms, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency and others.

Quarterstaff Master is worded pretty straight forward that your application would make it work on a Kusarigama.

Realistically. Your interpretation functionally works. But the rare occasion of feats that actually work as well as intended makes me hesitant to call this one of them. Especially since Dervish Dance is another one of them.

Now I am confused...Why would Martial Versatility let you ignore the perquisites? It requires Weapon Finesse and 2 ranks of dance?

WE agree that the developers did not intend for theses to feats to work together, right?

The feat Martial Versatility would allow you to USE the feat with all weapon in the group. So Weapon Specialization (Longsword) and Martial Versatility give you +2 to damage with EVERY heavy blade, not just the longsword.

I'm pretty sure that that changes the inner working of weapon specialization. Also, Sidebar...Martial Versatility + Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard sword)= Proficiency in all exotic weapons?

Oh, no what I said wasn't intended to imply that. You still have to meet the prerequisites to get the feat the first time, you just don't seem to need to meet the prerequisites for the other weapons that Martial Versatility expands the original feat to include.

We do absolutely agree on that being the RAI.

And yeah, almost. It's Exotic Weapon Proficiency in all Heavy Blades. Which funny enough, include the Katana, the Elven Curve Blade, the Falcata, and the Dueling Saber.... Basically all the exotic weapon proficiency you will ever need.

You must not be reading the same RAW that we are.

I can only cite it so many times before it simply becomes irrelevant and pointless to keep doing so. That, and you are drawing outlandish conclusions from my statements. I have no idea as to how my explanation and interpretation of the MV+DD combination is "spitting in the face of pretty plainly obvious RAI." Tell me, if you seem to know so much about both abilities, why is that A. You can't seem to understand the RAW at all, and B. Everyone who argues that it goes against the RAI is extremely ambiguous as to how it does.

This is about debate. You want your side to make (more) sense in comparison to others? You make educated conclusions, you provide proof to back such claims. You don't just say "It spits in the face of RAI," simply because you feel it does. You need to explain how and why it does, and provide proof to win your case, like I have. Being ambiguous and not explaining your side at all only makes everyone befuddled and frustrated.

I already explained my case (several times) and provided my proof and insight as to why I think it should work. If Martial Versatility...

Okay. You got me, all I have is reducto ad absurdum against you, with pretty shaky details. But lets all calm down, you know the RAW, you are set in your belief, why did you even bump your own thread? Were you looking for more validation? Looking for a solid RAW argument against you? You are looking at all the RAW there is on the situation.

However, your interpretation of the RAW is rather shady to me, and leads to some really weird conclusions, some of which I really like (Quarterstaff Master evolving into one handing a Seven-Branched Sword), some of which are awkward (Blade Binding on a thrown Chakram?), some of which that raise some ambiguity (Quarterstaff Master on a Kusarigama), a few that are hilariously silly (Close Quarters Thrower on a Bastard Sword). Alongside taking a pair of feats that seem to be explicitly restricted to one weapon for a reason, and applying them to many more. This particular pair of Feats being Dervish Dancer and Dueling Mastery.

I think that the RAW should not be interpreted the way you state, as it seems to explicitly ignore the RAI that it points to. (In what world is Dervish Dancer similar to Weapon Focus?)
I never once stated that it has no use. Exotic Weapon Proficiency on an entire group of weapons is an amazing use, and straight up RAW and RAI.

Xenrac wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Bump.

Is there any other input on this subject as to whether this is legal or not?

Black Blood Troll's got it right as far as I'm concerned.

Martial Versatility lets you take a feat that usually only lets you select one weapon, and select an entire weapon group with it.
The important part here is that the original feat has to be one that lets you select any weapon.
It doesn't give you access to feats that only work when you are wielding a certain weapon, when you aren't wielding that specific weapon.

That is Absolutely the RAI, and as far as I can tell, you really have to stretch the RAW to make it say anything else.

"Prerequisites: Fighter level 4th, human.

Benefit: Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus). You can use that feat with any weapon within the same weapon group.

Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each time it applies to a different feat."

Where in the RAW does it say you only use feats you chooses a weapon for?

In my opinion, you have it backwards. It works with the RAW but stretches the RAI.

You've left me confused, I don't know if I disagree with you or not.

What I said was intended to support that applying Martial Versatility to Dervish Dancer is spitting in the face of pretty plainly obvious RAI.

I believe it also stretches the RAW, because the RAW of Martial Versatility says absolutely nothing about changing the internal structure of the feat you select with it.

The only RAW support for what he is trying to do, is that this feat can be used to gain Weapon Focus in an exotic weapon you are not Proficient with. So the plainly stated RAW says that Martial Versatility can be used to change the prerequisites for a feat by a small amount. But it does not change the internal workings of that feat.

To me the RAW tells you that Martial Versatility lets you ignore the prerequisites for Dervish Dance, but even then it doesn't support using Dervish Dance with anything other than a scimitar.

Bump.

Is there any other input on this subject as to whether this is legal or not?

Black Blood Troll's got it right as far as I'm concerned.

That is Absolutely the RAI, and as far as I can tell, you really have to stretch the RAW to make it say anything else.

You guys are funny. Obviously you don't count lines that follow the face of the wall as going through the wall. If you did, it would mean that two guys facing each other in a straight 5 foot wide hallway would have cover from each other.

What has their panties in a twist is that if you take the same logic and put a square wall between the two characters, suddenly those characters don't have total cover from each other, just regular cover. And so seebs and company are taking that back to mean that the logic of geometry isn't the final word here, and they are going off the rails on that crazy train, to say that any argument involving geometry, is invalid with regards to the RAW, and only applies to RAI (Maybe) and GM Fiat.

Basically, if you try to apply the rules of geometry to the rules of cover (dear god, totally grounds for a Homebrew), a fringe "contradiction" pops up and everyone is getting upset over it.