swashbuckler, a buckler and a dervish dance

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Dervish Dance is Dex to hit and Dex to Damage AND has the "counts as a one-handed piercing weapon" clause. Slashing Grace, of course, is the exact same (for a Swashbuckler only). Both are feats. You don't take both.

Ah crap, should have checked before.

[shroudb]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

And as most people in this thread have pointed out to you, your interpretation is seen as extreme rules lawyering, and against the spirit of the game. Your likelihood of not being able to use your Buckler in PFS is high, unless you can find evidence that supports your view (outside of your own argument).

Yup, which is why I wouldn't try it with someone I didn't know would be fine with it. But this thread was asking about the rules of the situation, not the intent behind the rules of the situation.

And shroudb asked how anyone could argue it, to which I answered (since to me it seemed as though he hadn't actually read the full thread, his post being phrased the way it was).

Nah I have read it.

To me, the way dervish is eworded is crystal clear: no shield.
You tried to play with the language to offer an extreme example where it worked, I disagree with that.

[Jeff Merola]

shroudb wrote:

To me, the way dervish is eworded is crystal clear: no shield.

You tried to play with the language to offer an extreme example where it worked, I disagree with that.

Then why ask "how could anyone argue that" when you're in a thread where someone was arguing that?

And I don't think taking a statement at purely face value qualifies as "playing with it." Playing with the intent? Probably. But not with the rule.

[shroudb]

I asked that because I was really wondering how can ever try to argue with the way the feat is worded using extreme language interpretations.

At face value the feat says

Quote:

You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

Making the above read: I can use it with a shield, IS playing with words

The feat, still imo, is crystal clear that it says no shields.

[Tarantula]

Dervish Dance: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

Light Shield: "Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."

Heavy Shield: "Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else."

Buckler: "Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler."

Bucklers do not take up your off-hand, and you can even use the off-hand to do things like wield another weapon or a 2 hand weapon. It is also pretty clear that you lose the AC bonus if you use the hand for anything else however. Personally, I'd say you can dervish dance with a buckler, but if you do, then you don't get the AC bonus for that round.

[Jeff Merola]

shroudb, every other ability similar that I can find explicitly states using the shield is what's the problem. Dervish Dance says carrying. It also means that, by RAW, if you just picked a shield up off the ground you can't use Dervish Dance until you're not holding it anymore.

[shroudb]

So?
That means it is even more restricted.

P.e. a mage can have a buckler and cast with that hand. While casting he is not using the shield, he gets none of the bonuses. He is still carrying it though.

By the same extent.

If it said using a shield, thwpen one could still have a shield or buckler, declare that he is not using it (gaining none of the bonuses) and benefit from dervish. And the next round use the shield and not benefit.

But by specifically saying carrying, then you can't do that. You need to not have a shield in your hand altoghether.

[Tarantula]

So if a dervish dancer has a shield in his backpack, he is carrying it? No. It says carrying it in his off-hand. Bucklers are not carried or wielded in the off-hand. You can even wield a different weapon in that off-hand if you want. Since dervish dance only restricts weapons/shields carried in the off-hand, then a buckler should not count, as it is not in the off-hand.

[Nefreet]

Part of this involves the silliness of the phrase "carrying a shield". Nobody ever "carries a shield", they're either "wearing a shield" or "equipping a shield" (in the sense of using it).

I claim that Occam's Razor should point us to equating the phrase "carrying a shield" with "using a shield", because nobody simply "holding a shield", and gaining no benefit from it, should be penalized, and the notion that such an obscure penalty would be built into the language and intention of this feat is equally silly.

[Tarantula]

If you pick up a shield, and have not spent an action to "ready the shield" then you are carrying it. Once you have readied a shield, then you are wearing/equipping/using it. Perhaps better language would have been, "You cannot use this feat if you have readied a weapon or shield with your off hand."

[Nefreet]

Or, just, if you are using a shield".

[Jeff Merola]

Yeah, the language that the other options use is so much nicer and clearer, without any wiggle room for ambiguity.

[KenderKin]

Not really a game-breaker to allow it, since wands of shield are fairly cheap and sometimes used......

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Yeah, the language that the other options use is so much nicer and clearer, without any wiggle room for ambiguity.

Or you could play the game without looking for wiggle room...

[Jeff Merola]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Yeah, the language that the other options use is so much nicer and clearer, without any wiggle room for ambiguity.

Or you could play the game without looking for wiggle room...

You play the game your way, I'll play it my way. As long as whomever we're playing with is having fun, neither is wrong.

[Turgan]

Tarantula wrote:

(snip: good arguments)+

"Personally, I'd say you can dervish dance with a buckler, but if you do, then you don't get the AC bonus for that round."

I follow your argumentation (up to that point), I just wonder why you think the Dervish Dancer would not benefit from the buckler, because he clearly does not use his off-fand for anything else? (Imho: I think that contradicts what you have shown above)

[Tarantula]

Turgan wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

(snip: good arguments)+

"Personally, I'd say you can dervish dance with a buckler, but if you do, then you don't get the AC bonus for that round."

I follow your argumentation (up to that point), I just wonder why you think the Dervish Dancer would not benefit from the buckler, because he clearly does not use his off-fand for anything else? (Imho: I think that contradicts what you have shown above)

Because while I agree RAW is that you can buckler and dervish dance and get the benefit of both; RAI is that you can forego the buckler bonus to effectively "not wield it" for the turn, and dervish RAI is that you can't utilize a shield while using it. So, combining the RAI's gives me you can forgo the buckler bonus to dervish dance that round. Saving you from having to unstrap/restrap the shield repeatedly. That is my personal opinion of how I would run it in a home game. RAW: I think you can wear a buckler, get +1AC and dervish dance, but I wouldn't be surprised if a FAQ/Errata clarifies dervish to not work with any shield that is used, not just needing a free offhand.