I'm trying to make a Fighter/Monk/Rogue Duelist and a Duelist and the Dervish Dance feat require a free hand.
Can I wield a one handed weapon and use an unarmed strike to maintain my Duelist and Dervish Dance bonuses? So I would be using TWF to fight with a Scimitar and Fist (or kicking, knee strikes, etc.)
Also, please spare me the "XXX is not optimized" comments. I'm not trying to win PF... but then again I am trying to make a cool character so any help is appreciated.
You can most certainly use your off hand for punches and still get your bonuses.
Also, since Dervish Dance doesn't specifically say that you gain your Dexterity on damage rolls just with your scimitar, although it is probably not the intent, one could argue that if you make a kick while using a scimitar in one hand that your dexterity would count for damage for that attack as well. Some GMs will put this down immediately, but some might go for it. It is always worth an ask.
Now, Duelist says you only gain Precise Strike when you do not attack with a weapon in your "other" hand. In such a case, you should only do your unarmed attacks with a kick or headbutt or elbow or something like that. (provided you are using Snake Style or Hamalatsu).
Can I wield a one handed weapon and use an unarmed strike to maintain my Duelist and Dervish Dance bonuses?
Precise Strike (Ex): "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield."
A) Are you attacking with a weapon in your other hand?
B) Are you using a shield?
If A and B are both "No" then you can use Precise Strike.
Dervish Dance (Combat): "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
A) Are you carrying a weapon in your off hand?
B) Are you carrying a shield in your off hand?
If A and B are both "No" then you can use Dervish Dance.
Also, since Dervish Dance doesn't specifically say that you gain your Dexterity on damage rolls, although it is probably not the intent, one could argue that if you make a kick while using a scimitar in one hand that your dexterity would count for damage for that attack as well. Some GMs will put this down immediately, but some might go for it. It is always worth an ask.
I'm going to put a vote in for "Probably not" being the understatement of the year here.
I'm going to put a vote in for "Probably not" being the understatement of the year here.
Understatement of the month perhaps. There's lots of good competition. :P
Get Snake Style and then your unarmed strikes can benefit from Precise Strike as well =P.
It might not be RAI, but its power level isn't any better than a two handed STR stacking beast with Power Attack/Furious Focus. A friend of mine is doing a similar build.
Thanks guys.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Before I get to my quote, for reasons I can't quite fathom, people on these boards are violently opposed to a GM using their discretion on rules. People feel if they can lawyer up and the rules don't specifically disallow something, any GM that bars it is being a jerk. Everyone wants to follow the exact letter of every rule, instead of trying to follow the spirit of the rule.
That said, I would probably disallow it (and accept being labled as a jerk) on the basis that, it is my opinion, that the spirit of the feats would be broken by dual weilding, even an unarmed attack. If the player tried to "lawyer up" I would show them what I quoted above and say they are attacking with and/or holding a weapon in the other hand since their unarmed attacks are treated as weapons.
Before I get to my quote, for reasons I can't quite fathom, people on these boards are violently opposed to a GM using their discretion on rules.
It's more that these are the Rules forums, not the Houserules forums, so people here generally want to know what the rules actually say.
Also, many players (especially newer ones) would rather know the mechanics of how the game works, and want to play in a game where they can read the rules and know they're going to be followed, rather than having a GM who makes things up and changes things that he doesn't like, often on the fly without fully understanding what he's doing. (See the "limit 1 free action per turn" overreactions to weapon swapping)
This doesn't mean house rules are bad, or GMs who use house rules are bad, it's just that's not what this section of the forums is about. A GM should learn what the rules actually say, then with that knowledge decide if and how he needs to change it.
they are attacking with and/or holding a weapon in the other hand since their unarmed attacks are treated as weapons.
A monks unarmed attacks are indeed treated as weapons for some purposes. But his foot is still not wielded in his hand. Neither are armor spikes, or a barbazu beard, or a bite attack, etc.
The feat explicitly states in his hand. Thus, any weapon that isn't in his hand is not affected. This is what the rules say.
Now that you know that, you can feel comfortable in changing those rules to fit how you feel the game should be played. (And in this instance, changing the rules to fit the likely intent of a duelist using one weapon and one weapon only)
|
I'm trying to make a Fighter/Monk/Rogue Duelist and a Duelist and the Dervish Dance feat require a free hand.
Can I wield a one handed weapon and use an unarmed strike to maintain my Duelist and Dervish Dance bonuses? So I would be using TWF to fight with a Scimitar and Fist (or kicking, knee strikes, etc.)
Also, please spare me the "XXX is not optimized" comments. I'm not trying to win PF... but then again I am trying to make a cool character so any help is appreciated.
I would treat the off-hand unarmed attack as a "weapon" held for the purposes of the duelist's Precise Strike class feature, as using an off-hand attack goes precisely against the intent of the Precise Strike focusing all offense on strikes with a single weapon. It isn't the strict RAW reading, but the intent is pretty clear and at least in our games, this would be reviewed and playtested before making a decision.
Otherwise, by RAW, you can use DD and still do unarmed off-hand attacks (but they obviously don't get the DD feat bonuses to damage).
(You can even milk a bit more love later with the Crane Style feats, or strike with your piercing fingers thanks to Snake Style !)
There is this post on the topic, by JJ, discussing the intent of dervish dance.
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.
Agreed but at the same time that is RAI and a dev opinion not rules. When they FAQ/Errata it then it's rules.There is this post on the topic, by JJ, discussing the intent of dervish dance.
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.
SKR has also specifically contradicted JJ on this issue in an FAQ post regarding Precise Strike, and since SKR is a designer, while JJ, with all due respect, is not (he had no part in the crunch, which is why his title is Creative Developer), I'd say SKR trumps JJ on this issue.
Extrapolating from SKR's position on Precise Strike it's easy enough to apply the same reasoning to Dervish Dance.
SKR has also specifically contradicted JJ on this issue in an FAQ post regarding Precise Strike
Link?
Where was SKR's FAQ post on it?
Because the post right below JJ's is SKR adding on to what JJ said, not contradicting it.
SKR has also specifically contradicted JJ on this issue in an FAQ post regarding Precise StrikeLink?
SKR specifically calls out being able to use an unarmed strike or claw, because the hand is not holding anything.
Interesting. My post is more recent :p
(Side note: The Inner Sea World Guide was led by James Jacobs)
It's more that these are the Rules forums, not the Houserules forums, so people here generally want to know what the rules actually say.
Also, many players (especially newer ones) would rather know the mechanics of how the game works, and want to play in a game where they can read the rules and know they're going to be followed, rather than having a GM who makes things up and changes things that he doesn't like, often on the fly without fully understanding what he's doing. (See the "limit 1 free action per turn" overreactions to weapon swapping)
This doesn't mean house rules are bad, or GMs who use house rules are bad, it's just that's not what this section of the forums is about. A GM should learn what the rules actually say, then with that knowledge decide if and how he needs to change it.
As shown from the links below, the Devs agree with me. Just because you can "lawyer" a rule to make it say what you want it to, doesn't mean the GM that doesn't allow it is house ruling. Two GM's can interpret the same rule different ways, and both are using published rules not house rules.
This thread is a great example. The rule was put out there, the Devs said how it was intended, but people are still arguing it. Saying a monk can't use it with unarmed isn't a house rule, it's the way the rules were intended to work.
Interesting. My post is more recent :p
(Side note: The Inner Sea World Guide was led by James Jacobs)
As it was primarily a game world book rather than a crunch book, I don't doubt it. JJ has admitted himself however that he is not involved in the balancing of things, and generally caveats all his crunch related responses with "At my table, this is what I would rule..."
As shown from the links below, the Devs agree with me. Just because you can "lawyer" a rule to make it say what you want it to, doesn't mean the GM that doesn't allow it is house ruling. Two GM's can interpret the same rule different ways, and both are using published rules not house rules.
This thread is a great example. The rule was put out there, the Devs said how it was intended, but people are still arguing it. Saying a monk can't use it with unarmed isn't a house rule, it's the way the rules were intended to work.
You're actually wrong. A Designer (who is part of the rules process) disagrees with you. The Creative Director (who is not part of the rules building process) does agree.
As it was primarily a game world book rather than a crunch book, I don't doubt it. JJ has admitted himself however that he is not involved in the balancing of things, and generally caveats all his crunch related responses with "At my table, this is what I would rule..."Interesting. My post is more recent :p
(Side note: The Inner Sea World Guide was led by James Jacobs)
I used to feel the same way, but have mellowed out considerably once I realized that if he's talking about the intent without guessing it, chances are pretty damn good that he knows what he's talking about. The realization that he's done a lot of freelancing in the past (including a lot of Frostburn for 3.5) also helped me move away from that position. In any event, I believe he was responsible for everything in that book, just like the development team is in charge of the core rules line. At least that's what I gather from the credits.
I don't see how a kick can be seen as an off-hand attack. MAYBE the punch wouldn't slide, but twirling around with a scimitar and kung-fu kicking fools upside the head doesn't seem to go against the RAI to me. Dex to those kicks won't fly and I would never try and run with that suggestion, but a monk's strikes seem cool.
Just because you can "lawyer" a rule to make it say what you want it to, doesn't mean the GM that doesn't allow it is house ruling.
You're using "lawyer" pretty strangely here. Are you trying to use it as an insult?
If, what you were trying to say was "Just because you can read a rule that says what you want it to, doesn't mean the GM that doesn't allow it is house ruling." then you're incorrect. A GM making his own rules that contradict the printed game rules is what house ruling is.
Two GM's can interpret the same rule different ways, and both are using published rules not house rules.
When the printed rule is in question, yes.
This thread is a great example. The rule was put out there, the Devs said how it was intended, but people are still arguing it.
You're confusing two different things.
A) What the rules actually say
B) What the rules were originally intended to say
This thread is figuring out what A is. (and has pretty much done that)
People are now arguing that B is in question due to conflicting developer quotes. They're also wrong.
SKR Says: "The concept of the prestige class is that you have one hand free. That doesn't prevent you from making unarmed strikes or claw attacks, as your hand is still empty."
Note: Prestige class. He's talking about the Duelist.
JJ Says: "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."
Note: Dervish Dance, the feat.
Since the developers in question are talking about different things, they don't conflict.
The concept of the Duelist is that you have one hand free.
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to work with two-weapon fighting.
The RAW is that both of those work with unarmed strikes that don't use your hand.
The RAI is that one of those doesn't work with two-weapon fighting.
I'm not sure why people are so offended. No-one is judging you if you use the developer's input to make a house rule at your table so the abilities work the way they were intended. That's fine, and supported by the book (The Most Important Rule).
"off-hand" is just used to mean the extra attack from TWF. The label is just there to describe what's going on 99% of the time.
I used to feel the same way, but have mellowed out considerably once I realized that if he's talking about the intent without guessing it, chances are pretty damn good that he knows what he's talking about. The realization that he's done a lot of freelancing in the past (including a lot of Frostburn for 3.5) also helped me move away from that position. In any event, I believe he was responsible for everything in that book, just like the development team is in charge of the core rules line. At least that's what I gather from the credits.As it was primarily a game world book rather than a crunch book, I don't doubt it. JJ has admitted himself however that he is not involved in the balancing of things, and generally caveats all his crunch related responses with "At my table, this is what I would rule..."Interesting. My post is more recent :p
(Side note: The Inner Sea World Guide was led by James Jacobs)
Perhaps, but the debacle behind the FoB has driven home that Paizo is not a monolithic entity and that there are varying opinions of RaI even inside the company, so I prefer to allow my players the benefit of the doubt if the power level of the combination isn't beyond what one could achieve more simply, which is the case in this situation.
"off-hand" is just used to mean the extra attack from TWF. The label is just there to describe what's going on 99% of the time.
I'm pretty sure when Dervish Dance says "off hand" what they really mean is "other hand." Otherwise you can use it with a shield all day long, as long as you don't TWF and use the shield to bash.
Perhaps, but the debacle behind the FoB has driven home that Paizo is not a monolithic entity and that there are varying opinions of RaI even inside the company, so I prefer to allow my players the benefit of the doubt if the power level of the combination isn't beyond what one could achieve more simply, which is the case in this situation.
I agree that the FoB clarification shook my faith in some previous statements I made (such as alchemists being able to craft magic stuff other than potions), but I believe that was an issue of the freelancers getting it wrong. Anyways, we probably shouldn't derail this thread anymore!
"off-hand" is just used to mean the extra attack from TWF. The label is just there to describe what's going on 99% of the time.I'm pretty sure when Dervish Dance says "off hand" what they really mean is "other hand." Otherwise you can use it with a shield all day long, as long as you don't TWF and use the shield to bash.
Right. I was coming from the angle of the definition from TWF, without the context of DD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last point and then I'll stop derailing the thread. I also take issue with JJ's reasoning behind why DD shouldn't work with TWF. His claim is that the intent of the feat was to make 1 weapon fighting more attractive. The issue with this reasoning is that the feat actually does nothing of the sort. STR is still by far the better option even if a person wishes to only 1 hand a weapon. There is no feat tax associated with it and all one handed weapons are available. What DD actually did (regardless of its intent), was make Dex based melee *slightly* more viable (I say slightly because it still had the feat tax and applied only to a single weapon), which, when combined with TWF with unarmed strike (thus not giving the benefit of Weapon based feats [i.e. Weapon Focus]) and yet a 3rd feat, allowed a very specific build to output damage that wasn't completely obliterated by a standard THF with far less feat investment. The advent of the Agile weapon enhancement further diluted the power of DD, and if the restriction JJ mentions is taken into account, it's pretty much a dead feat (barring a specific Magus build).
Blah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blah.
I <3 you btw, Cheapy. You, Grick, and Jiggy are among my most respected posters.
|
|
A bit out of topic, but yet again, I really hate the Dervish Dance feat.
It takes a feature wanted by a lot of people (Dex to damage, despite the overall imbalance of putting even more goodie into a single ability score), then sticks it to a single specific weapon, with prerequisites feats basically making you worse at using the weapon for which you take weapon focus than any other finesse weapon you may wield instead.
It feels totally against Pathfinder RPG's design spirit of providing always more versatility and choice in character builds, it's prerequisites don't even make sense in their execution ; and it's sole purpose seems to just produce yet another dull and boring Dervish Dancer Magus #4852BBD14.
Adding the Agile property in Pathfinder's Society Field Guide was the best choice provided to the players to counterbalance this feat, and in our games it is (with the Dueling property from the same book) a weapon property any class able to enhance it's own weapon may choose, like from the Magus's arcane pool or the Arcane Duelist's bladethirst.
|
As it was primarily a game world book rather than a crunch book, I don't doubt it. JJ has admitted himself however that he is not involved in the balancing of things, and generally caveats all his crunch related responses with "At my table, this is what I would rule..."Interesting. My post is more recent :p
(Side note: The Inner Sea World Guide was led by James Jacobs)
I am almost sure that JJ was the one that "invented" dervish dance, like he invented the original alchemist. He is not the main rule developer but he develop rules, especially when they are rules related to the Golarion setting, like Dervish dance.
@Grick - I think offended is too strong a word. What I don't like is when people look at a rule and analyze every word, and if the rule doesn't close every possible hole that could come up, then it must mean those holes it doesn't close are allowed. You (generic 'you' not specifically Grick) don't care what the intnetion of the rule is, even when it's obvious, all that matters is the rule left the hole open so I can do it. If a GM says the rule wasn't intended that way (and most of the time it's pretty obvious) you claim it's a House Rule. I don't think using the rules they way they were intended is a House Rule, I call it, following the rules.
Right here we have a clear case. We know exactly what JJ meant by his statement, but because even his follow on comments left holes open, people take that to mean the holes are allowed. I mean do we honestly believe JJ meant that a monk can't use his fist to make another attack, but it would be okay to use his foot? That's really what you think he meant by his statement? Of course it isn't, people look at the literal words instead of what is meant.
|
|
Really, guys...about that half-orc...? Attack routine? Dex-to-damage? ???
You may use a primary or secondary bite attack as an additional, natural attack with a -5 penalty during a full-round attack.
This attack would deal (bite) + 1/2 Str modifier damage on a hit (or 1/2 Dex with an agile amulet).You may also use this bite attack only, at full BAB (or full BAB -5 if it is a secondary natural attack, depending on the traits/racial abilities/feats used) as your attack for this round.
The only way to add dex to damage with this natural attack would be an agile amulet of might fists, which incidentally would also improve your unarmed attacks.
But Dervish Dance doesn't include the following text:
"[...]including armor spikes, unarmed strikes, or natural weapons"
So, it's rules legal to TWF fight Unarmed Strikes and still receive the Dex bonuses in the damage, because Dervish Dance doesn't say that is only with the scimitar.
Now it's possible to make Hwang Seong-gyeong from the Soul Calibur series in Pathfinder. \o/
Bit of a necro... The "hand" vs hand debate has been somewhat addressed since the original posting.
Woa, really a huge necro, didn't notice that. Sorry.
Not a problem. I quite often post pointing out a necro just to prevent confusion from people addressing year-old comments and expecting a response.
Anywho, I think this is a case of there being a mystical "hand" limit. Using a weapon on your foot, face, or anywhere takes up this "hand".
Buuut, not entirely sure. There are a couple threads out there that you can hopefully find with minimal digging if you are curious.