There has come an argument in my group that i would like people's opinion on. One of the newer players in our group is arguing that swashbuckler's finesse will allow him to use his dexterity modifier instead of his strength with any piercing weapon he picks up.
As best as i understand it, the argument is as follows:
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.
It cruxes on the definition of 'With' which basically means, paraphrasing: To add to.
Now the argument is that as long as the weapon is piercing, and because it says 'Benefits of the Weapon Finesse' Feat he can apply the benefits of weapon finesse even to weapons it would not be normally applied to, as long as they are a 'one handed piercing weapon'. This is because the BENEFIT of the feat is applied, rather then the feat, and the with's 'add to' means the benefit is added to apply to other piercing weapons. He is doing this in conjunction with Slashing Grace to make a... he never mentioned, ever the weapon he is using. I assume its a scimitar or something.
The counter argument is that the feat is indeed applied, but because it's effects only apply for light weapons and weapons which specifically say they can be used with weapon finesse.
The argument came about because the swashbuckler is consistently doing more damage then the strength based brawler in the party, and we put the rules he was using under an actual bit of scrutiny.
A developer's comment would be most useful, but we would like the inter net's opinion in a logical sort of statement.
Yes - the swashbuckler can finesse ANY one-handed piercing melee weapon. This can lead to things like, when combined with slashing grace, getting dex to attack & damage with a bastard sword. (though the swashbuckler would be better off with a katana for the higher crit)
If you do a bit of forum searching (swashbuckler & even moreso slashing grace have been discussed quite a bit recently) everyone agrees. It's really not a debated issue so no one will focus on it. They're talking about slashing grace mostly, and if the new crop of dex builds invalidate strength builds.
Heck - there was a thread a while back about whether a swash 1 / phalanx fighter 3 could use a halbred as a finesse weapon and apply slashing grace. (most agreed that they can - though not all)
Doom Elite wrote: The argument came about because the swashbuckler is consistently doing more damage then the strength based brawler in the party, and we put the rules he was using under an actual bit of scrutiny. That's really not surprising. Swashbucklers can do mean damage, and brawlers are a bit slower to come into their own. Disadvantages though - for one thing swashbucklers have crappy saves.
Your swash is correct, any light or one-handed piercing weapon gets dex to hit. It doesn't matter if that weapon is normally finessable.
Here's an additional question about the phrasing "benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat":
Weapon Finesse states that, if you use a shield while using a finesse'd weapon, its armor check penalty applies to your attacks.
However, this is clearly not a "benefit." So, does the swashbuckler ignore this particular part of the feat when wielding her buckler?
Techincally.. They wouldn't as it uses benefits and not effects of.
Though I think that is on purpose because of the Buckler usage in various tropes.
While coding the Swashbuckler for PCGen, I took it to mean it doesn't take an ACP penalty on its attack.
What clued me off is the buckler proficiency.
Also, of course the Swash is doing more damage. It gets Precise Strike and isn't reliant on TWF like the Brawler.
Now, wait for the Brawler to get Pummeling Charge, Brawling armor, and a good ol' AoMF, then it's a different story.
The Swashbuckler is doing exactly, what he is supposed to do.
He can't do it with two-handed weapons, but otherwise, yeah, he can totally do it with any piercing weapon.
Alright, apologies for switching accounts on you all. This is the original poster, i posted that on my friend's account as I was at his house when the original argument happened. Now that I am home, I can in more detail type out the exact argument. I will start off by saying I'm not looking for a 'Yes it works' or 'No it works'. I'm looking for the rules text saying one way or another WHY it works either direction, to further my understanding of the rules:
Firstly, my argument:
It is based on a few premises based on my understanding of the game.
#1) Pathfinder is a permissive game. The rules define what you can do, what you can not. Spells can be cast because the class feature says you can, not because of an innate understanding. This is true for most aspects of play. Things beyond the scope of the rules can not conflict with the established rules except when story should trump rules.
#2) Exceptions are addressed if they are meant to be applied, things that modify the effects of another thing only exist if specifically mentioned. E.G. Cavalier's tactician ability clearly states that people granted the feat through the usage of the ability do not need to meet the prerequisites. In general, if an effect is going to modify another thing that is specifically mentioned, it will say it is doing so, and how.
#3) It is possible to have a feat that is not possible to be applied to a weapon you are holding. E.G. Having Weapon Focus(Longsword) does not allow you to add the bonus to hit with a Longbow, as it is not the specific weapon chosen in the benefit's description of the feat.
Now then, based on these premises, let us examine the situation:
(For clarification, I am copying direct text from the Paizo SRD)
Feat Descriptions
The following format is used for all feat descriptions.
Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.
Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with your sword or another slashing weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
Now then. My argument is thus:
#1) It is possible to have a feat that a particular weapon you are using is not suited for.
#2) There is no question you receive the 'benefit' of weapon finesse with a piercing weapon that is one handed or light.
#3) The issue is that, in the absence of specific text stating to ignore part of the 'benefit' Why is it assumed you do?
#4a) If we are indeed meant to take 'benefit' as the English definition of the word, and not as the specific rules text, then it is purely a subjective view of what is the 'benefit' of the feat.
#4b) Each feat has a specific 'benefit' listed, word for word, and describes the exact effect produced. The Swashbuckler's Finesse class feature specifically mentions this feat, says exactly what should be taken from it, the 'benefit' section.
#4c) Nowhere mentioned is anything that would modify the 'benefit', an example would be: 'And may use this ability with weapons that would not normally apply.' Instead, we are referenced to a specific feat, and told which section of that feat you gain. The benefit.
#5) Even adding the 'benefits of weapon finesse' to a weapon would not allow it to be used, based on the following logic:
Weapon+Benefit
In example:
Mark is using a long sword. It has the following statistics:
Longsword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 4 lbs. S
Now add to that:
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Now then. Even with the additional applied rule's text:
Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
Still does not apply. We have added the benefits of weapon finesse to the weapon, and it is still not a valid weapon for that benefit.
You do indeed, yes, add the benefit. But that benefit is not practically useful, because it is invalid for what is trying to be used for.
My position is thus: Without either further text modifying the effects granted, the rule is pushed into the realm of the subjective, and thus beyond the scope of the specific language used.
Yes the benefit of the feat is granted. But that benefit is not a subjective sentence taken at the picker's choice from a particular feat, it is the specific section of the feat that deals with it's effects. And adding that section to attacks made with the example longsword, do not apply.
An example of where they would apply is simple. The whip.
It is
A, Specifically mentioned by the benefit granted by Swashbuckler's Finesse,
B, A valid weapon choice for Slashing Grace
C, Usable with all class features requiring a piercing weapon, as it fulfills all requirements.
Bare in mind in your replies: If the argument originally made was: "This is a really cool effect that i think SHOULD apply in this situation, can we house rule it or come to an understanding that it SHOULD work this way, and run it that way?" I would be fully behind using the above combination. But that argument was not made, and that is not the subject to this post. This post was made because we got into an argument about the mechanics, and I believe based on the points written above, that I am correct.
Thoughts on my logic? I admittedly, can not see and holes in it, but then I am the one making the argument. But based on my knowledge of the game, and the text, that is indeed the way, mechanically it works. The fellow I was arguing with is not very coherent in expressing his thoughts, and admittedly we got a bit heated, so perhaps someone in the online community could provide me with a coherent, well laid out reply?
This is my argument.
Swashbucklers get buckler proficiency.
"Swashbuckler" has the word "buckler" in its name.
Ergo, Swashbucklers can wield a weapon and a shield - a buckler by default unless they pay the feat to get another proficiency - with the ACP penalty to attack rolls. QED ipso facto o tempora o mores errare humanum est.
I think that's the longest post I've seen on these forums. My mind refuses to read more than the first and last paragraphs. This is quite interesting.
I read that, and reread that but it's a bit late and i'm sick so maybe i'm not getting what your asking..
Cause I lost the trail of what your trying to get at?
Are you talking about using weaponfinesse while using a buckler?
or are you talking about using dex to hit with one handed stuff? i.e. are you saying that when you take swashbuckler 1 that you must choose a specific weapon for use with it?
If it's that then.
Swashbuckler's finesse specifically lists what weapons it works with, which replaces -in it's entirety the weapons listed in the weapon finesse feat.
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.
That "gains the benefits...with light or one handed piercing melee weapons" modifies the weapons of weapon finesse. The benefits is; in all plain English using dex mod instead. So you could even read it as this
Weapon Finesse (Combat) MODIFIED
Benefit: With a light light or one handed piercing melee weapon, made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls.
I'm pretty sure that is what was intended. It encompasses the tropes. Advanced classes are of course advanced .
If you were referring to the shield penalty to attack rolls then, no that is not applied. It is not a benefit; further the class itself has buckler proficiency to support that thought.
So they can use bucklers without any issue. For other shields they would need to get proficiency of course
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sounds like you just don't like the idea of him getting Dex to the attack roll and damage. This is what that ability and that feat are for, there isn't any other purpose.
Why would it say it applies the benefits of Weapon Finesse to a weapon that can't normally be finessed but not actually get the benefits?
Let me properly break down Weapon Finesse for you
Weapon Finesse
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
First, a restriction (not a benefit) "With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category"
Then the Benefit "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls"
Then another restriction "If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls."
RAW, a Swashbuckler doesn't apply the ACP of a buckler to his attack rolls, RAI (IMO) he would. This can easily be solved by getting a Mithril buckler (1005gp ). Or better yet, get a Darkwood Quickdraw Light Wooden Shield (258gp), doesn't matter if you aren't proficient, there is no ACP.
Drake Brimstone wrote: RAW, a Swashbuckler doesn't apply the ACP of a buckler to his attack rolls, RAI (IMO) he would. This can easily be solved by getting a Mithril buckler (1005gp ). Or better yet, get a Darkwood Quickdraw Light Wooden Shield (258gp), doesn't matter if you aren't proficient, there is no ACP. It's more easily solved with a Masterwork Buckler (155 gp). You only need Mithral if you're trying to get rid of ASF, which doesn't impact a single-classed Swashbuckler.
I... don't know what to say. It's so obvious to everyone else, I've never heard it questioned before that it applies to all one-handed piercing weapons.
I'm tempted to say the best evidence that it works like everyone thinks it does is that no dev has come out and said "you're all doing it wrong!"
Has Paizo published any Swashbuckler stat blocks besides Jirelle? If they showed stats for a swash that uses a trident or shortspear or something that would settle this.
I don't know of any published with weird weapons...
but really it does say "light or one-handed piercing melee weapons" it specifically uses plural.
Weapon finesses specifically uses singular "With a light weapon"
This makes that javelin net guy an interesting prospect. I've never seen a use for that feat line, but could do something fun with it this way
The rules also state that you should use common sense when reading them. The writers aren't idiots, and they wouldn't write an ability/feat that does exactly nothing, which is what you're suggesting.
Paulicus wrote: The rules also state that you should use common sense when reading them. The writers aren't idiots, and they wouldn't write an ability/feat that does exactly nothing, which is what you're suggesting.
Cough cough Monkey Lunge cough cough.
It does say "light" or "one-handed" so it applies to both.
Paulicus wrote: The rules also state that you should use common sense when reading them. The writers aren't idiots, and they wouldn't write an ability/feat that does exactly nothing, which is what you're suggesting.
Well, he's suggesting it's a free but crummier version of Weapon Finesse. The benefit would be saving a feat. So it wouldn't exactly be nothing.
Fair enough. In this case, it still spells out which weapons swashbucklers can use.
Monkey Lunge... wow, that's poorly written. Still, it's obviously intended to allow you to do something (probably make only a single attack maybe?), not just sit there useless.
I don't disagree writers lack clarity sometimes.
Drake Brimstone wrote: Sounds like you just don't like the idea of him getting Dex to the attack roll and damage. This is what that ability and that feat are for, there isn't any other purpose.
Why would it say it applies the benefits of Weapon Finesse to a weapon that can't normally be finessed but not actually get the benefits?
Let me properly break down Weapon Finesse for you
Weapon Finesse
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
First, a restriction (not a benefit) "With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category"
Then the Benefit "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls"
Then another restriction "If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls."
RAW, a Swashbuckler doesn't apply the ACP of a buckler to his attack rolls, RAI (IMO) he would. This can easily be solved by getting a Mithril buckler (1005gp ). Or better yet, get a Darkwood Quickdraw Light Wooden Shield (258gp), doesn't matter if you aren't proficient, there is no ACP.
Lets see here.
The heart of the matter, once again, comes back to: Does it mean 'benefit' in the english definition of the word benefit, or does it refer the specifically mentioned labeled section of the feat rules, named 'benefit'.
My argument, at it's simplest breaks down to:
There is a specific labeled section of the rules for feats called 'benefit'.
You gain the 'benefits of weapon finesse with light or one handed piercing weapons'
Firstly, my position is based on my knowledge of the way the rules work. When you are referenced to something specific, it means that specific thing, unless it also modifies that thing. Flurry of blows is an excellent example of this, as it acts as though it was a combination of feats, but then precisely states where it changes the rules for them. E.g. allowing you full strength modifier to damage and etc.
Bare in mind the way weapon finesse works as well:
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
The way the feat works is thus: You have the OPTION, to WHEN USING THOSE SPECIFIC Weapons, use your dexterity modifier instead of strength when determining too-hits.
In order to use this benefit as people are suggesting, requires the following logical sequence:
A) Ignore the fact that Benefit is a specifically labeled rule or set of rules associated with a particular feat
B) Chop up the referenced rule block to remove the factors that make it that particular block of text, and take only what the interpreter wants from it.
C) Perform all of the above points without specific direction to do so, ignoring the fact that pathfinder specifically states when something it is doing violates the rules of what is happening.
In example: (From Order of the Shield, copied from the Paizo SRD)
Stem the Tide (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier receives Stand Still as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. Instead of making a combat maneuver check to stop the creature from moving, a cavalier with this ability can elect to make a normal attack instead. If the attack hits and deals damage, the target must stop moving, just as if the cavalier had made a successful combat maneuver check.
The relevant bit of information is where the ability goes on to describe precisely how the ability granted differs from normal. Instead of making a combat maneuver check, you make an attack roll. If the attack hits and deals damage, the struck creature stops moving just as if the cavalier had made a successful combat maneuver check.
Other examples of pathfinder being VERY specific in showing where a rule is modified are rather easy to find, if you would like more. The important thing to remember is: Do not do something in pathfinder unless a rule, bit of rule's text in the book, or the dm tells you to do something.
Pathfinder is PERMISSIVE. It tells you, in precise language, exactly what happens, and the mechanics for it. In order for the Swashbuckler's Finesse ability to work as described would require specific language informing you that it overrules the normal rules.
Gaining the option that the benefit of weapon finesse describes does not mean you do not have that option. The fact that the particular option given is not applicable in some or many situations is irrelevant to the discussion. Yes you are granted the option, this is exactly what is said. The caveat becomes, that the option is NOT valid, unless using either a light weapon, or one of the specifically listed ones (Or a weapon which internally states it might be used that way).
Instead of being told to take a subjective read of the feat, we are directed to a specific block of text in a different book. We are told with what sorts of weapons that benefit can be applied. Never are we told to modify that benefit in any way, simply to what weapons the option granted by the benefit is available to.
A rapier is a valid usage of the benefit given, because
A) It is a One Handed Piercing Weapon (Meaning the Option is there)
B) The benefit applied mentions it specifically/The weapon itself mentions it may be used as such (Meaning that the option is a valid use)
If the ability wanted you to break the rules of the benefit applied, it would tell you to do so. It does not. It simply refers the section of text you should use for the ability, and describes which weapons you have access to this option with.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The swashbuckler is the only sane person at that table.
I'm not going to pretend I read any of the gigantic novel posts here. But the fact remains that swash is intended to be able to finesse any light or one-handed piercing weapon, regardless of its normal ability to be finessed. It's how the class was designed throughout the playtest, is part of its uniqueness and style, and one of the perks of playing the class. Furthermore, the Slashing Grace feat extends this to being able to finesse all one-handed (but not light) slashing weapons. The feat even suggests longsword (a non-finesse weapon) as an example of what to use it with.
If you're just looking for someone to justify your stance, I don't think you'll find that here. Okay, maybe you will, but I wouldn't ignore the hundreds of other swashbuckler discussions that never resulted in people thinking you can't finesse things. In fact, people frequently joke about how you can finesse bastard swords and axes, and that's never been contradicted by anyone, least of all a developer.
As the GM you're free to ignore all that for whatever reason you see fit, but expect the player to want to change characters if you're going to nerf it for no apparent reason.
What are you trying to attempt. I don't even get it.
Do you mean to prove that designers, when they said "Choose a one-handed slashing weapon, such as the longsword.", right in the description of Slashing Grace, meant to confuse, disappoint and maliciously contort expectations of players?
Pathfinder isn't permissive. Pathfinder is a fricking game made by humans trying to do the best job possible. Yes, if you are absolutely factitious to the point of ridicule, you can try to say "they didn't want to spell 'rapier' out because they were sure every player has a lawyer's degree".
The rule of Pathfinder isn't legalism. It's rhetoric.
Secret Wizard wrote: What are you trying to attempt. I don't even get it.
Do you mean to prove that designers, when they said "Choose a one-handed slashing weapon, such as the longsword.", right in the description of Slashing Grace, meant to confuse, disappoint and maliciously contort expectations of players?
Pathfinder isn't permissive. Pathfinder is a fricking game made by humans trying to do the best job possible. Yes, if you are absolutely factitious to the point of ridicule, you can try to say "they didn't want to spell 'rapier' out because they were sure every player has a lawyer's degree".
The rule of Pathfinder isn't legalism. It's rhetoric.
He is saying that the intent of the designers does not make an appearance in what they actually wrote. When I first read Swashbuckler Finesse I read it the exact same way as the OP. Only having access to the RAI from the playtest notes convinced me that it should work differently than as written.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I've read your blocks a few times and I think I get what your trying to say.
But as I mentioend prior, I think your not subbing out the new weapons correctly. You do take the benefits listed in weapon fineese. But. Swashbuckler's finesse specifically labels what it modifies: the weapons you can use.
I could see an argue that you still gain weapon finesse's base weapon applications (light weapons rapiers, whips etc) AND the one handed stuff..
But no where should there be any real confusion that you guys are getting; assuming I understand your text blocks.
Basically Right in Swashbuckler's Finesse it tells you specifically that "You may now apply this feat with this set of weapons as a specific function of this class feature" Which modifies the benefits of the feat. Benefit in pathfinder has two readings: one is the reading in feats. the other is along the lines of bonus. It's only the positive. Outside of the feat section typically Benefits is just that only the benefit of what is being cited. Typically they will add an adendum that cites any negatives.
You could argue that the buckler is included in the benefit. Which is fine if you wanted to impose that part-It is incredibly easily mitigated in any games that have money in it. But judging by the fact that swashbuckler has proficiencies with Bucklers. I believe that supports that they are only pulling out the "general" meaning of benefit; i.e. the benificial parts of Weapon finesse feat not the "benefits" listing itself.
Might I suggest instead of writing stuff out like that. That you simply in 3 sentences or less spell out exactly whaty ou mean? more than half the people on the forums aren't going to dig through paragraphs to get what your asking. Or at least start with a thesis statement in your next post,2-3 spaces then give your argument. Set it up along the lines of a academic paper. That way the folks who want to quick answer can see what yoru talkin about. Then the folks who don't mind reading in depth can still try to get what your saying but more readily understand what your arguing for.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I agree with zwordsman about formatting. I'd like to comment about this, but I wont read that big block for all your reasoning without knowing what it is first. If you say something I don't understand why you think that then I can read into your post to look for that. But if I agree with you, i don't need to read all the reasoning.
thorin001 wrote: Secret Wizard wrote: What are you trying to attempt. I don't even get it.
Do you mean to prove that designers, when they said "Choose a one-handed slashing weapon, such as the longsword.", right in the description of Slashing Grace, meant to confuse, disappoint and maliciously contort expectations of players?
Pathfinder isn't permissive. Pathfinder is a fricking game made by humans trying to do the best job possible. Yes, if you are absolutely factitious to the point of ridicule, you can try to say "they didn't want to spell 'rapier' out because they were sure every player has a lawyer's degree".
The rule of Pathfinder isn't legalism. It's rhetoric.
He is saying that the intent of the designers does not make an appearance in what they actually wrote. When I first read Swashbuckler Finesse I read it the exact same way as the OP. Only having access to the RAI from the playtest notes convinced me that it should work differently than as written. IMO that reasoning makes no sense. They could have JUST said 'a swashbuckler gains the Weapon Finesse feat' instead of "a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons" if the extra text isn't meant to mean something. It'd just be extra text added JUST to confuse if that's the case as the extra words would add no extra benefit since you're only looking at the feat for restrictions.
mortus946736 wrote: Alright, apologies for switching accounts on you all. This is the original poster, i posted that on my friend's account as I was at his house when the original argument happened. Now that I am home, I can in more detail type out the exact argument. I will start off by saying I'm not looking for a 'Yes it works' or 'No it works'. I'm looking for the rules text saying one way or another WHY it works either direction, to further my understanding of the rules:
Firstly, my argument:
First things first-- you have serious issues with keeping yourself coherent. Be concise and get to the point and you'll get a lot farther.
mortus946736 wrote: It is based on a few premises based on my understanding of the game.
#1) Pathfinder is a permissive game. The rules define what you can do, what you can not. Spells can be cast because the class feature says you can, not because of an innate understanding. This is true for most aspects of play. Things beyond the scope of the rules can not conflict with the established rules except when story should trump rules.
Putting aside the last half of the last sentence, this is true. The last half is where GM fiat comes into play, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.
mortus946736 wrote: #2) Exceptions are addressed if they are meant to be applied, things that modify the effects of another thing only exist if specifically mentioned. E.G. Cavalier's tactician ability clearly states that people granted the feat through the usage of the ability do not need to meet the prerequisites. In general, if an effect is going to modify another thing that is specifically mentioned, it will say it is doing so, and how.
This is completely true, and is, ironically, the crux of where you are mistaken in your argument.
mortus946736 wrote: #3) It is possible to have a feat that is not possible to be applied to a weapon you are holding. E.G. Having Weapon Focus(Longsword) does not allow you to add the bonus to hit with a Longbow, as it is not the specific weapon chosen in the benefit's description of the feat.
Now then, based on these premises, let us examine the situation:
(For clarification, I am copying direct text from the Paizo SRD)
Also true.
mortus946736 wrote: Feat Descriptions Snipped for space
mortus946736 wrote: Now then. My argument is thus:
#1) It is possible to have a feat that a particular weapon you are using is not suited for.
Indeed it is.
mortus946736 wrote: #2) There is no question you receive the 'benefit' of weapon finesse with a piercing weapon that is one handed or light. Within the framework of your argument, there actually should be. There are light or one-handed piercing weapons that are not normally finessable, such as the Pick or Trident. Given that your argument is that 'Swashbuckler's Finesse cannot modify weapons that Weapon Finesse cannot', then there is question here.
mortus946736 wrote: #3) The issue is that, in the absence of specific text stating to ignore part of the 'benefit' Why is it assumed you do? This is where you are mistaken. There is specific text here:
"a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons"
Let's break this sentence down. "A Swashbuckler gains" should be rather obvious. "the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat" means everything listed after the 'benefits:' section of that feat, of course. But what does that last part of the sentence say? "With light or one-handed piercing melee weapons".
That last portion is specific text modifying the benefits section of Weapon Finesse. What it's saying is to replace the "with a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain" text of Weapon Finesse with "with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons".
mortus946736 wrote: #4a) If we are indeed meant to take 'benefit' as the English definition of the word, and not as the specific rules text, then it is purely a subjective view of what is the 'benefit' of the feat. Doing so would be objectively silly, so of course we don't do that..
mortus946736 wrote: #4b) Each feat has a specific 'benefit' listed, word for word, and describes the exact effect produced. The Swashbuckler's Finesse class feature specifically mentions this feat, says exactly what should be taken from it, the 'benefit' section. It does-- and then it modifies that benefit, as denoted above.
mortus946736 wrote: #4c) Nowhere mentioned is anything that would modify the 'benefit', an example would be: 'And may use this ability with weapons that would not normally apply.' Instead, we are referenced to a specific feat, and told which section of that feat you gain. The benefit. You are, again, ignoring the last third of that sentence. To drive the point home, let us contrast with the Inspired Blade's Inspired Finesse ability:
"an inspired blade gains the benefits of Weapon Finesse with the rapier (this ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites)"
We do the same thing here as we did above. We grant the Inspired Blade the Weapon Finesse feature, removing its 'with' section and adding 'with the rapier'.
mortus946736 wrote: #5) Even adding the 'benefits of weapon finesse' to a weapon would not allow it to be used, based on the following logic:
Weapon+Benefit
In example:
Mark is using a long sword. It has the following statistics:
Longsword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 4 lbs. S
Now add to that:
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Now then. Even with the additional applied rule's text:
Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
Still does not apply. We have added the benefits of weapon finesse to the weapon, and it is still not a valid weapon for that benefit.
You do indeed, yes, add the benefit. But that benefit is not practically useful, because it is invalid for what is trying to be used for.
Slashing Grace modifies the longsword to be treated as a piercing weapon for the purposes of class abilities, and hence it qualifies for Swashbuckler's Finesse. It would not, notably, qualify for Inspired Finesse or the standard Weapon Finesse, because in those instances it does need to be on the list.
mortus946736 wrote: My position is thus: Without either further text modifying the effects granted, the rule is pushed into the realm of the subjective, and thus beyond the scope of the specific language used.
Yes the benefit of the feat is granted. But that benefit is not a subjective sentence taken at the picker's choice from a particular feat, it is the specific section of the feat that deals with it's effects. And adding that section to attacks made with the example longsword, do not apply.
With standard Weapon Finesse this is true, but the specific text of Swashbuckler's Finesse overrides your position, as noted by your initial point #2 above.
mortus946736 wrote: An example of where they would apply is simple. The whip.
It is
A, Specifically mentioned by the benefit granted by Swashbuckler's Finesse,
B, A valid weapon choice for Slashing Grace
C, Usable with all class features requiring a piercing weapon, as it fulfills all requirements.
Actually, a Swashbuckler wielding a Whip without Slashing Grace (Whip) does not gain the benefits of Weapon Finesse with a whip. Because their Weapon Finesse's benefit section has been modified, a featless Swashbuckler would have to use Strength for their to-hit for a whip. The same is true of the Elven Curve Blade.
mortus946736 wrote: Bare in mind in your replies: If the argument originally made was: "This is a really cool effect that i think SHOULD apply in this situation, can we house rule it or come to an understanding that it SHOULD work this way, and run it that way?" I would be fully behind using the above combination. But that argument was not made, and that is not the subject to this post. This post was made because we got into an argument about the mechanics, and I believe based on the points written above, that I am correct. Due to the specific text within Swashbuckler Finesse, the Swashbuckler player is playing correctly and legally.
mortus946736 wrote: Thoughts on my logic? I admittedly, can not see and holes in it, but then I am the one making the argument. But based on my knowledge of the game, and the text, that is indeed the way, mechanically it works. The fellow I was arguing with is not very coherent in expressing his thoughts, and admittedly we got a bit heated, so perhaps someone in the online community could provide me with a coherent, well laid out reply? The summarized short version of this is that your logic is incorrect because you are ignoring the specific text of Swashbuckler's Finesse which modifies the benefits of Weapon Finesse.
It's also worth noting that Slashing Grace was specifically created to work with the Swashbuckler, as stated by the devs on multiple occasions, and as such the RAI is very clear on this subject.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Let's make two arguments for two discussions here. One; what is the benefit of the feat Weapon Finesse, and two, what does "benefits" in Swashbuckler Finesse refer to.
=-=-=-=
First, Let's look at Weapon Finesse again.
Quote: Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
You are absolutely right; the weapon selection is emphasized in the benefit section. But is it part of the benefit?
Let's look at another feat, emphasis mine.
Quote: Vital Strike (Combat)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
If you look at most feats, this is a common occurrence; some sort of conditional requirement to stipulate when the feat applies. Weapon Finesse applies when you use one of the weapons provided in the feat- it is not a benefit, it's a requirement to gain the benefit of Weapon Finesse- the ability to obtain DEX to attack instead of STR.
It follows, then, that Swashbuckler Finesse simply modifies the requirement to obtain the benefits of Weapon Finesse.
=-=-=-=
Now, if you're arguing that the definition of "benefits" is unclear, let's take a look at Swashbuckler Finesse. Emphasis mine.
Quote: Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites. I only highlighted the word "benefits" here, but it says enough. Compare to the feat Weapon Finesse:
Quote: Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
If Swashbuckler Finesse referred to the entire section, it would have been spelled as "benefit", not "benefits" (though had it been spelled "benefit" it would not have been conclusive evidence of such a case, either); as a game term, a feat only has one benefit, not multiple. It then follows it is not used as a game term in Swashbuckler Finesse, but rather, as an English term; the benefits would be being able to use a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon with DEX to attack rolls instead of STR.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
