|
How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.Apart from being smelly and cheesy, it apparently also doesn't work. I've tried to do this (Dervish Dance) "legally" by playing a monk of the empty hand who can flurry anything (thus also a scimitar) and discussed the possibility with James Jacobs, who explained that it doesn't work. Unfortunately. (Somewhere in the Ask James Jacobs All Your Questions thread.)
If Mr. Jacobs doesn't want it to work, he should have made sure that it was written in a way that doesn't allow it.
And the Monk of the Empty Hand isn't the best fit for Dervish Dance in my opinion. That archetype isn't about specializing in a certain weapon, it's about with whatever you lay your hands on.
I would have certainly preferred if the Weapon Adept archetype had simply allowed a monk to flurry with a single type of weapon, even if it's a longsword or a longspear, but alas, I don't write the rules, I just work with them.
They did it says any weapon. And when you use your fist as a weapon it dose not work with dervish dance. Thats the same reason it dose not work with spell combat for magus. It is still being talked about like you can, but any thing in your off hand used as a weapon removed dervish dance to hit and damage bonus.
|
They did it says any weapon. And when you use your fist as a weapon it dose not work with dervish dance. Thats the same reason it dose not work with spell combat for magus. It is still being talked about like you can, but any thing in your off hand used as a weapon removed dervish dance to hit and damage bonus.
Anyone is proficient in his unarmed strike, so only one-handed characters would be able to use Dervish Dance. And Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat. Even if you TWF with a spell, you are certainly not carrying it. The same goes for an unarmed strike.
They did it says any weapon. And when you use your fist as a weapon it dose not work with dervish dance. Thats the same reason it dose not work with spell combat for magus. It is still being talked about like you can, but any thing in your off hand used as a weapon removed dervish dance to hit and damage bonus.Anyone is proficient in his unarmed strike, so only one-handed characters would be able to use Dervish Dance. And Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat. Even if you TWF with a spell, you are certainly not carrying it. The same goes for an unarmed strike.
You've apparently not been following the developer input on this.
|
|
You've apparently not been following the developer input on this.They did it says any weapon. And when you use your fist as a weapon it dose not work with dervish dance. Thats the same reason it dose not work with spell combat for magus. It is still being talked about like you can, but any thing in your off hand used as a weapon removed dervish dance to hit and damage bonus.Anyone is proficient in his unarmed strike, so only one-handed characters would be able to use Dervish Dance. And Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat. Even if you TWF with a spell, you are certainly not carrying it. The same goes for an unarmed strike.
This one?
Some developer's input on Dervish DanceIf they had a problem with people using the feat the way it's written, they should have changed that when they reprinted the feat one and a half year after its first appearance.
|
|
Dervis Dance / Weapon Finess Question (I'm not good with compurters so I don't know how to link it.)
Draeke Raefel
Basic assumption: Touch attacks can be use Weapon Finesse.
So, the question is what counts as "holding a weapon or shield" in the off-hand? I was assuming this was because the extra weight in the off hand prevented you from moving properly to gain the benefit of the feat. If you have a touch spell, like produce flame or shocking grasp in your off hand, does that negate the benefit of the feat? If you attack with the scimitar and the touch spell does that negate the benefits from the feat( obviously taking the appropriate 2-weapon fighting penalties )?
Thanks! (( Again I welcome and desire the opinions of the community, but as I am trying to make a pfs character and don't want to be subject to the individual GMs interpretation of the rules, I'd appreciate a paizo ruling one way or the other )).
James Jacobs
A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does. Furthermore, the flavor of Dervish Dance implies that you're simply attacking with one weapon. If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working. You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.
Sean K Reyonalds
Dervish Dance is also specifically intended to let you use a scimitar with the duelist prestige class, as many of the duelist's abilities require (1) no weapon or shield in the off-hand, and (2) your weapon has to be a *piercing* weapon
Draeke Raefel
So, basically, attacking with your off-hand will negate the feat bonuses for that round as will carrying a shield or other item in that hand.
@Jadeite: more like what calagnar just posted.
Pathfinder isn't about writing a technically sound formal language, for the sake of brevity each feat is presented in only a few sentences. As opposed to the 2 pages or more that even basic feats warrant to explain the full ramifications of its mechanical impact, as well as regular addenda to explain interactions with new rules as they are published.
The reason "they" don't change the written word of the feat is because most GMs are sensible enough to adjudicate the feat properly. Fixing something generally requires most people to consider it in need of fixing. My rule-of-thumb for this kind of thing: if 80% of the GMs at sanctioned Pathfinder Society events think its OK, then its OK for me.
On the good news side: you're welcome to play with whatever home-brew rules you feel are necessary to make the game fun and awesome for you and your fellow gamers.
I play monks very frequently (as in half of my characters) and I don't have a problem with them and their power level.
|
|
How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!They had the chance to reword the feat when they included it in the Inner Sea World Guide, yet they chose not to do so (unlike the once glorious Aldori Dueling Mastery).
Can you support your statement about the lucerne hammer monk?
A monk getting dexterity of damage isn't even broken. Unlike the the 'errataed' terrible remorse which still allows the caster to either shut down an opponent with a spell of third or fourth level or deal 1d8+Str damage to it per round.
If you think it's stupid for a monk to gain a bonus to damage while wielding a scimitar (and it certainly is stupid in my opinion), you are free to allow a monk this bonus by simply expending three feats.
I agree that a monk ought to get his dexterity bonus on unarmed strike damage. I absolutely agree. What I said was that using the "Dancing Dervish" feat to accomplish that is simply wrong. Think of it this way. If you have this feat, and you happen to be holding a scimitar, you get to add your DEX bonus to damage, even though you aren't actually hitting anything with the scimitar. If you drop the scimitar, you don't get to add your DEX bonus to damage. Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?
I don't see how anyone can read the feat description and think the DEX bonus applies to anything other than the scimitar. I think it makes as much sense as applying damage from a weapon that the monk happens to be holding, but not wielding.
Shouldn't be necessary. Dervish Dance allows you to add your dexterity on all attack rolls instead of strength. Since it isn't limited to a weapon, it applies to all combat maneuvers, similar to good hope or inspire courage.
Don't forget Agile Maneuvers further down the line so you get your DEX on your CMB instead of STR!
This is actually incorrect, while it does let you use Dex for your attack modifier, it does not give you a direct bonus to it. This does not replace your CMB modifier. Agile Maneuvers is still required. While Weapon Finesse would not be required, it is required for this feat so there is no skipping that as well.
Otherwise, I'm somewhat disappointed that only have that feat for Scimitars.. You would have assumed that you'd be more likely to see that feat for all Light weapons before you see it for Scimitar.
Here's hoping that Ultimate Combat will allow for a bit of a reprieve there.
Also, I'd really like an updated "What constitutes a light weapon" option. I keep feeling that a Longsword made out of Mithral should be counted as Light. :)
|
|
How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!They had the chance to reword the feat when they included it in the Inner Sea World Guide, yet they chose not to do so (unlike the once glorious Aldori Dueling Mastery).
Can you support your statement about the lucerne hammer monk?
A monk getting dexterity of damage isn't even broken. Unlike the the 'errataed' terrible remorse which still allows the caster to either shut down an opponent with a spell of third or fourth level or deal 1d8+Str damage to it per round.
If you think it's stupid for a monk to gain a bonus to damage while wielding a scimitar (and it certainly is stupid in my opinion), you are free to allow a monk this bonus by simply expending three feats.I agree that a monk ought to get his dexterity bonus on unarmed strike damage. I absolutely agree. What I said was that using the "Dancing Dervish" feat to accomplish that is simply wrong. Think of it this way. If you have this feat, and you happen to be holding a scimitar, you get to add your DEX bonus to damage, even though you aren't actually hitting anything with the scimitar. If you drop the scimitar, you don't get to add your DEX bonus to damage. Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?
I don't see how anyone can read the feat description and think the DEX bonus applies to anything other than the scimitar. I think it makes as much sense as applying damage from a weapon that the monk happens to be holding, but not wielding.
Of course it's strange. That's because the feat is badly written.
Do I think it's stupid? Yes. Would I use it? No. Would I allow my players to use it? Probably not, but than, my players won't try stuff like this anyway. On the other hand, it's not overpowered, so I would probably just allow the player to deal dexterity damage without a scimitar in his hand.I'm not a munchkin. I don't try to use stuff like this in my games to gain an advantage. I merely want the books to be proper edited and errors and a timely errata. I know that some of the developers try to answer questions in threads, but regrettably, those answers are often contradicting and thus not very helpful.
Haters gonna hate.
I don't think people should off-handedly be put off by the idea of Dervish Dance based monks
The notion of an AgileStrike McQuickMonk weilding a scimitar in his chosen fighting style to do things other than attack (like sunder, trip, disarm etc.) I think is pretty cool. Dervish dance makes a monk like this possible and a little more viable.
It also requires a huge tax in feats and/or traits, just for a quirky character concetp.
|
|
Of course it's strange. That's...How about abusing Dervish Dance? Hold a scimitar in one hand and get your dexterity on your unarmed strike damage.This is not "cheese". This is deliberately misreading a rule. It would be equivalent to saying that a first level monk's unarmed strike damage is 1d12 because he is holding a lucerne hammer. The feat description clearly needs to be reworded - you add the DEX bonus to damage on attacks with the scimitar that you are wielding!They had the chance to reword the feat when they included it in the Inner Sea World Guide, yet they chose not to do so (unlike the once glorious Aldori Dueling Mastery).
Can you support your statement about the lucerne hammer monk?
A monk getting dexterity of damage isn't even broken. Unlike the the 'errataed' terrible remorse which still allows the caster to either shut down an opponent with a spell of third or fourth level or deal 1d8+Str damage to it per round.
If you think it's stupid for a monk to gain a bonus to damage while wielding a scimitar (and it certainly is stupid in my opinion), you are free to allow a monk this bonus by simply expending three feats.I agree that a monk ought to get his dexterity bonus on unarmed strike damage. I absolutely agree. What I said was that using the "Dancing Dervish" feat to accomplish that is simply wrong. Think of it this way. If you have this feat, and you happen to be holding a scimitar, you get to add your DEX bonus to damage, even though you aren't actually hitting anything with the scimitar. If you drop the scimitar, you don't get to add your DEX bonus to damage. Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?
I don't see how anyone can read the feat description and think the DEX bonus applies to anything other than the scimitar. I think it makes as much sense as applying damage from a weapon that the monk happens to be holding, but not wielding.
I apologize if I have caused anger or offense.
...Of course it's strange. That's because the feat is badly written...
No, it is quite clear in its intention.
The problem is that some rules lawyers think that it is badly written when everyone able to understand what "wielding" means can readily discern what is ment and wanted.
That said I would have no problems with the house rules that Monks can use Dervish Dance with unarmed combat instead with a scimitar.
Why would they pick a single weapon for players to be able to add dex to their attacks. They should have just required that the weapons be finessable or some other more general requirement.
Part of it was the flavor of the setting, the book where the feat comes from is associated with an Arabian style region of Golarion, so trying to justify why the feat worked w/ all finesse weapons was problematic.
There would also need to be a justification as to why Perform(dance) was a requirement.
And if I understand correctly, the feat was primarily designed so that they could throw a bone to characters who only wanted to use a single one handed weapon (such as free hand fighters and duelists). Because as written, duel-wielding is out of the question.
A feat that applied more generally to finesse weapons would have to be balance against more traditional TWF builds, other combat styles, and not invalidate Dervish Dance as a feat/concept. As it stands Dervish Dance can be acquired as early as level 2 (Fighter Bonus Feats, Rouge Talents), or level 3 (most everyone else.) And it's also one of the more prominent aspects of Magus discussion when it comes to build optimization.
Part of the greatness of feats is that a player is able to customize their character to fit their needs/concept. a +Dex to finesse weapon damage feat could potentially invalidate a lot of those concepts by just being 100% greatness to the point that that subset of concepts become homogenous
(This is not to say I don't want the feat to exist, seeing big numbers is fun to do.)
Want to make a crazy good monk without being extremely MAD?
Guided Brass Knuckles. 'Nuff said.
(Let's see, Wisdom gives me AC, Will saves, Attack bonus, Damage bonus, Ki, etc)
0 feats required. :D
Want to make a crazy good monk without being extremely MAD?
Guided Brass Knuckles. 'Nuff said.
(Let's see, Wisdom gives me AC, Will saves, Attack bonus, Damage bonus, Ki, etc)
0 feats required. :D
That costs money, and could be the difference between having an appropriate DR at level, and not.
It is a great idea though.
@Puregamer: Eh, kinda depends. All departments influence each other when it comes to making a game. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with creative saying to development or design - Hey, we've got this pretty cool idea, how would it be implemented mechanically? Or design/development saying to curative: We've got this pretty interesting interaction going on, how would that work out fluff wise?
Want to make a crazy good monk without being extremely MAD?
Guided Brass Knuckles. 'Nuff said.
(Let's see, Wisdom gives me AC, Will saves, Attack bonus, Damage bonus, Ki, etc)
0 feats required. :D
Someone show me where Guided is
EDIT: o, it's not even OGL... fantastic
That's like saying hey, just use 3.5 Vow of Poverty.
super helpful
|
|
Want to make a crazy good monk without being extremely MAD?
Guided Brass Knuckles. 'Nuff said.
(Let's see, Wisdom gives me AC, Will saves, Attack bonus, Damage bonus, Ki, etc)
0 feats required. :DSomeone show me where Guided is
EDIT: o, it's not even OGL... fantastic
That's like saying hey, just use 3.5 Vow of Poverty.
super helpful
I'm pretty sure Paizo released guided under the OGL. It's 3.5, though, as far as I know it hasn't been released under the Pathfinder RPG rules yet.
|
I thought it was more specific to people who wanted to play the old dervish prestige class from 3.5 but couldn't due to the lack of prestige classes in Pathfinder coupled with the fact that Qadira has a specialist group of scimitar-wielding dervishes.Wasn't the 3.5 Dervish a TWF PrC?
I don't know anyone who made it without TWF, since that was an easy choice for optimization, but it wasn't required. The picture even had a halfling with a single scimitar.
Guided is from the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP.
I tend to lump all the Paizo material together in my mind :P
Sorry, didn't see anyone specify what material they were drawing from....
I actually only just found out the Dervish Dance was updated, so I assumed people were using older material.
I have actually never played 3.5, only old Ap's converted to pathfinder...
Going with new stuff only, the best way to make a not-too MAD Monk is a Zen Archer.. mm I love me some Zen Archers...
...Actually if I remember correctly from the defender threads, literally no one understands what wielding means...
Then let me help them with a definition from the dictionary:
wielding = using expertly in the intended way
How is a Scimitar (or any weapon really) used expertly in the intended way? By waving it through the air while hitting your opponent with your pinky finger?
|
|
...Actually if I remember correctly from the defender threads, literally no one understands what wielding means...Then let me help them with a definition from the dictionary:
wielding = using expertly in the intended way
How is a Scimitar (or any weapon really) used expertly in the intended way? By waving it through the air while hitting your opponent with your pinky finger?
Just responding to this portion alone, the wielding argument has been disputed time and time again. I mean think of it this way, if wield meant you had to use it constantly that would mean that arcane bonded Wiz/sorcs could NEVER ever cast a spell without making a check no matter what weapon they had, because they are not Wielding it. So in the same since As long as you are thretening someone with the weapon, you are effectively wielding it and thus if you have no weapon in your offhand you can use dervish dance.
Really it doesnt seem any more powerful than Guided weapons or OMG win spells and requires, like 2 feats to even do, sounds right to me and only helps the free hand fighter, magus, monk or those creatures with high dex and nat attacks
Just a quick point. If 1d6 of sneak attack is all you want from the class, you should skip rogue and add a level of Alchemist. There's a variant in Ultimate Magic that gives sneak attack damage in place of bombs. The Alchemist also has his mutagen, which would give +4 to a physical attribute and +2 to AC for one combat, as well as a Shield Extract which would give another +4 to AC from a force shield.
Seems clearly better than one level of Rogue. If you REALLY wanted to go crazy for sneak attack damage, you could take one level of both Rogue and Alchemist and get a third level character with 2d6 of sneak attack and having one level of Monk.
getting to 2d6 would require 3 total levels of Alchemist/Rogue
The first level of each Alchemist and Rogue give +1d6 sneak attack. So adding 1 level of each would give +2d6.
NO
If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on).
Unfortunately Hyperion is correct here. I believe this is stated in the rogue rules regarding sneak attack.
Unfortunately Hyperion is correct here. I believe this is stated in the rogue rules regarding sneak attack.
It's on the Alchemist page
Yeah it spells it out very specifically in the Vivisectionist entry.
Still definitely WAAAY better than a level of rogue unless you are desperate for someone to disable magic traps or something.
Yeah it spells it out very specifically in the Vivisectionist entry.
Still definitely WAAAY better than a level of rogue unless you are desperate for someone to disable magic traps or something.
A game with balance should have traps. So if no one wanted to play a Rogue, you just became the Rogue.
Aside from that, Mutagens are awesome.
Human Monk 1/Rogue 1
Feats: Weapon Finesse and Precise Strike (along with the other melee PC)
Dump STR, crap dmg
Dump DEX, crap AC
Dump CON, crap HP
Dump WIS, crap AC, crap saves, crap Ki
I'm playing a monk right now where I dumped INT, CHA, went small on DEX and WIS, pegged STR, and took Grappling feats, Spring Attack, and Marshal Weapon Proficiency Ranseur.
So my AC is crap but I'm stabbing at reach and if someone ever gets up next to me I tackle them and pin them, to keep them from stabbing at me. It's actually quite a fun build.