So I want to know if a little combo is legal, I want to make a Urban Barb 2, Alchemist 2 Ninja all other levels. I get one discovery can I take vestigial arm and qualify to two weapon fight while dervish dancing? I will have one arm free...
Also as an alchemist can I use a wand of sheild? Its a spell trigger item right?
Thanks
And if you think this smells of cheese I really don't care
Also can I use a buckler in my free hand and still qualify for dervish dance?
Also as an alchemist can I use a wand of sheild? Its a spell trigger item right?
For this part, yes, you can use wands. Alchemist specifically states they can use spell trigger items. (but not spell completion items, needing to UMD a scroll)
I don't mind the MAD, 12 int will be fine, and 13 wis, 14 Cha, 16 Dex, 14 con 10 str, completely workable considering you get +8 dex durring combat at lvl 3.
|
Nothing in RAW forbids it. I read the Dervish Dance feat description. I read the Vestigial Arm discovery description. Try as I might, I could not justify forbidding it under the rules. I don't like it, but it looks perfectly legal. As a GM, I would allow it.
Perhaps I am just jealous because I didn't think of it first.
Your BAB will be hurt, and Sneak Attack is it's own juggle to get off.
Why not just Urban Barbarian/Vivisectionist?
I'm thinking of PFS and Vivisectionist is not legal unfortunately, otherwise that would definitely be what I would do.
Also skill points are kind of important to me for this character, though under the right build I could get a decent number of skill points being int based
Again Vivisectionist is not FPS legal, besides I kind of like ki
|
|
Dervish Dance states the following:
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
When you use two-weapon fighting, you have to designate the extra attack as an off-hand attack....but you cannot use the feat if you have a weapon in your off-hand. They are not compatible.
The only way I can see using two-weapon fighting and dervish dance is if the off-hand attack is an unarmed strike.
Hmmm, well this changes quite a bit. The wording really assumes two hands, and only two hands. Is there any way around this by designating my free hand as my off hand? I mean mechanically there is no difference between the two hands once two weapon fighting starts happening...
The two active hands I mean
|
No, because Two-Weapon fighting requires you to declare an off-hand weapon. If you declared the free-hand as your off-hand, you wouldn't be able to TWF with it.
If you were using Multiattack instead of Two-Weapon Fighting, you might be able to shenanigan it, but you'd still have a weapon in an off-hand, negating Dervish Dance.
Although, as a thought, if you were used a Monk/something-else build, you could theoretically Dervish with the scimitar hand (no penalty for forbidden weapons) and IUS with the off-hand using TWF.
No, because Two-Weapon fighting requires you to declare an off-hand weapon. If you declared the free-hand as your off-hand, you wouldn't be able to TWF with it.
If you were using Multiattack instead of Two-Weapon Fighting, you might be able to shenanigan it, but you'd still have a weapon in an off-hand, negating Dervish Dance.
Although, as a thought, if you were used a Monk/something-else build, you could theoretically Dervish with the scimitar hand (no penalty for forbidden weapons) and IUS with the off-hand using TWF.
You can have more than one off hand. See multi-weapon fighting, under normal. "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.)" So, a creature declares a main hand and all others are off hands. So a three armed person wielding two weapons can have a weapon in their main hand and an off hand (two weapon fighting check) AND an off hand free (dervish dance check).
So this seems like a totally legal combo.
EDIT: Now my question is, if you instead wield that scimitar in two hands while leaving the third empty, can you get 1.5 times dex damage?
I think you guys are right the way dervish is worded it wont work. I am curious though Kazaan; why the extra level of cleric, it doesn't seem to give you anything.
|
|
Dervish Dance states the following:
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.When you use two-weapon fighting, you have to designate the extra attack as an off-hand attack....but you cannot use the feat if you have a weapon in your off-hand. They are not compatible.
The only way I can see using two-weapon fighting and dervish dance is if the off-hand attack is an unarmed strike.
+1
Thank you!
The way it's worded, it doesn't matter which offhand the weapon or shield is in. As long as it's in one of the offhands, the dervish dance won't work.
Sorry but I read it differently. it says "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand" As long as you can show an offhand without a weapon or shield, your in. Nothing implies that all your offhands must be free or it's say 'in your off hands' or 'you can't use this feat if you are using a weapon or a shield in any hand other than your main hand.'
|
|
I suppose the feat description was written on the assumption of a two-handed combatant. Adding a third arm might mean that the combatant now has two off hands, but I still think RedDogMT has the right of it. As soon as you use a shield or a second weapon, the hand wielding that weapon becomes your off hand. The third hand is no longer relevant.
I suppose the feat description was written on the assumption of a two-handed combatant. Adding a third arm might mean that the combatant now has two off hands, but I still think RedDogMT has the right of it. As soon as you use a shield or a second weapon, the hand wielding that weapon becomes your off hand. The third hand is no longer relevant.
You are right that the feat was written with 'normal' 2 armed people in mind. I'm taking that into account and I'm coming up with what I said above. it's when you ignore the fact that it was made in mind for 2 arm people that you can get what RedDogMT is thinking. I can't fathom anyone saying that an offhand unarmed, spiked armor, barbazu beard, boulder helmet or bladed boots attack somehow 'fills up' the offhand of a dervish dancing character. They still have a hand without a weapon or shield in it and that's all the feat needs. Same with a third empty hand...
EDIT: The feat would need a special section that reads : you may not fight with two weapons while using this feat for this not to work. Or you may only use a single weapon with this feat.
|
|
I suppose the feat description was written on the assumption of a two-handed combatant. Adding a third arm might mean that the combatant now has two off hands, but I still think RedDogMT has the right of it. As soon as you use a shield or a second weapon, the hand wielding that weapon becomes your off hand. The third hand is no longer relevant.And if the weapon doesn't use a hand?
Or if you have a weapon in another hand but are not using it?
James
Hand #1 holds a scimitar. Hand #2 holds a dagger. Hand #3 is empty. The way I see it, if the combatant chooses to use TWF with the scimitar and either unarmed strike or armor spikes, then #1 is the primary hand and #3 is the off hand, so I would allow the Dervish Dance/TWF combination.
Come to think of it, the combatant would not even need a third arm in either of those cases. All the feat description says is that you cannot hold a weapon in your off hand.
I suppose the feat description was written on the assumption of a two-handed combatant. Adding a third arm might mean that the combatant now has two off hands, but I still think RedDogMT has the right of it. As soon as you use a shield or a second weapon, the hand wielding that weapon becomes your off hand. The third hand is no longer relevant.And if the weapon doesn't use a hand?
Or if you have a weapon in another hand but are not using it?
James
Hand #1 holds a scimitar. Hand #2 holds a dagger. Hand #3 is empty. The way I see it, if the combatant chooses to use TWF with the scimitar and either unarmed strike or armor spikes, then #1 is the primary hand and #3 is the off hand, so I would allow the Dervish Dance/TWF combination.
Come to think of it, the combatant would not even need a third arm in either of those cases. All the feat description says is that you cannot hold a weapon in your off hand.
SO they could use a spiked gauntlet but not a scimitar? This means you'd be fine with them punching with that offhand but not allow an attack from an additional hand. What about a kobald with a tail blade? it's not a hand but it's an offhand weapon?
I've got a better one for you. I take Tentacle instead of Extra arm. Now I wield a scimitar in the tentacle and my main hand. Since the tentacle doesn't have a hand, it's be fine to use with the feat right? LOL
|
Since you mentioned this is for PFS I will chime in. A few GMs will disagree with your reading and not allow it. Most GMs will allow it. Even those who feel it is against the spirit of the rules will mostly allow it since it is not - RAW - against the rules and therefore can't be disallowed in PFS. I suggest that if someone rules against you you just go with it for that game and not complain or elevate.
Mike Brock - who as the Campaign Coordinator is THE GM for PFS and can decide it's against the spirit - tends to take a dim view of people skirting the rules like this. However he does a very good job of not overpolicing (hehe, inside joke) things that aren't causing disruption to the campaign as a whole. In fact that's one of his stated policies. But when things get too widespread or too contentious, he has dropped the hammer. Read through his posts and you'll find quite a few instances of "you're trying to exploit something, so as of now it's now officially banned."
I really can't see it as against the spirit of the rules. There are at least 6 non-hand off hand weapons that can be used with two handed weapons (both hands taken, I count dervish dance this way because you are using both[two] hands to use feat]). The feat states that "When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls" so no matter what non-hand offhand weapon you use, you get to use dex to hit and damage. So a kick/scimitar using dex hit/dam was an option from day one of the feat without adding in alchemist.
If this is an exploit, it should have been addressed a LONG time ago. It's been out there a few years now.
|
|
If this is an exploit, it should have been addressed a LONG time ago. It's been out there a few years now.
It didn't need to be addressed. The description of the feat and two-weapon fighting was clear enough. Unfortunately, regardless of the logic some rules set forth, some people still try to use creative interpretation to get around the rules. It was for this reason that Mike Brock added further clarification that you cannot do it.
Do it if you want, but then it is a house rule.
|
|
If this is an exploit, it should have been addressed a LONG time ago. It's been out there a few years now.It didn't need to be addressed. The description of the feat and two-weapon fighting was clear enough. Unfortunately, regardless of the logic some rules set forth, some people still try to use creative interpretation to get around the rules. It was for this reason that Mike Brock added further clarification that you cannot do it.
Do it if you want, but then it is a house rule.
RedDog, do you actually have a quote from Mike specifically disallowing Dervish TWF with three arms you can point me at? The point I was trying to make was that he has ruled *various things* to be outside the spirit of the rules in the past when they became contentious but tries to avoid doing so unless they threaten to disrupt the campaign (usually because it was causing player/GM conflicts - making thing unfun for all - rather than power imbalance).