|
That is incorrect, if you read the thread in it's entirety. I was simply very vocal. Even since that FAQ there are people in my Lodge that disagree with it. I've moved on, but still find it very hard to understand during some encounters. It's simply not an intuitive solution, but I digress.
It also wasn't my FAQ request.
:P not to disparage your name but, you not only specifically replied to/read every post but cloudkill(or whomever) said that you were the reason he made the thread. XD
also yes, by 95% of the posts very vocal is a good descriptor. 'w'
don't worry, it;s that kind of tenacity that made me like you on the forum.
Not cloudkill. And I don't recall saying that nefreet specifically was the reason I made that thread. You're welcome to read through it and prove me wrong though.
Not cloudkill. And I don't recall saying that nefreet specifically was the reason I made that thread. You're welcome to read call through it and prove me wrong though.That is incorrect, if you read the thread in it's entirety. I was simply very vocal. Even since that FAQ there are people in my Lodge that disagree with it. I've moved on, but still find it very hard to understand during some encounters. It's simply not an intuitive solution, but I digress.
It also wasn't my FAQ request.
:P not to disparage your name but, you not only specifically replied to/read every post but cloudkill(or whomever) said that you were the reason he made the thread. XD
also yes, by 95% of the posts very vocal is a good descriptor. 'w'
don't worry, it;s that kind of tenacity that made me like you on the forum.
your name does make me think of cloudkill, words that i don't easily recognize i don't really read.
anyway, you can just answer it then now couldn't you? honestly now that i think about it it may have been another one of your many faq threads.
edit: i looked through the first 10 pages, i don;t think you did i must have misremembered. my apologies nefreet.
That is incorrect, if you read the thread in its entirety. I was simply very vocal. Even since that FAQ there are people in my Lodge that disagree with it. I've moved on, but still find it very hard to understand during some encounters. It's simply not an intuitive solution, but I digress.
It also wasn't my FAQ request.
I found that situation very confusing as well. I finally understood it but only because your posts made other people explain it in so many ways. So thanks. :)
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question at hand is what the ACG means by occupied. I'm just going to brainstorm a bit. The Cambridge American English Dictionary defines full, in use, or busy. So I can see a few possibilities for Spell Combat and Slashing Grace.
- 1.) Occupied only means "full," so you can't hold anything in your other hand. Since Spell Combat already requires that your other hand be free, there shouldn't be any basic incompatibility here. There might be a problem with material components, but since no one seems to have a problem with those violating Spell Combat's requirement that your off-hand be free I can't see how it would violate Slahing Grace's requirement that your off-hand be empty. (There would be an issue with Wand Wielder, but I'll save that for another discussion.)
- 2.) Occupied means "in use" or "busy," so you can't do anything with your other hand, including hold something. If you use Spell Combat to cast a spell that has somatic components, you would obviously have to use your off-hand to make those gestures, so Slashing Grace wouldn't work. But what about spells that don't have any somatic components?
Spell Combat is compared to TWF where the spell is your off-hand weapon, but it doesn't actually say that your off-hand is casting the spell. If a spell is verbal only (or verbal and material if my argument above holds water) then it would seem that your off-hand, although required to be free, doesn't actually do anything. In that case it would seem that Slashing Grace would work just fine.
I'm just basically thinking out loud here. I'm sure there are all kinds of problems with my logic. So let the tearing down begin. :)
further proof Paizo hates dex
I'm not sure why you need further proof. Slashing Grace is already a three feat tax to do average damage (ie, bring it up d4, d6 and a few d8 weapons* to the basic functionality of +stat bonus to hit and damage) with mediocre weapons, with a large subset of 'if you're doing X, it doesn't work.'
*which doesn't really work since a large chunk of the one handed slashing weapons don't function with weapon finesse, so you're still missing part of the basic equation unless you find a way to jam even more resources onto the problem.
It just isn't a worthwhile thing to try. Trap feat, find another way to make dex functional in melee. And the "design intent" certainly seems to be 'Its a trap!,' else why the errata?
But in terms of 'occupied'- it seems entirely straight forward. If something else is in the other hand, or you are trying to attack in any way with any thing other than the weapon the feat is for in your 'main hand;' your dearly bought ability to strike accurately rather than mightily immediately turns off and shuts down for the duration. Because magic.
Now slashing grace don't work if you get grappled.I'm apparently missing something here: can you explain why you think this?rappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
Right...but Slashing Grace explicitly says "When wielding your
chosen weapon one-handed" Even with the errata adding the restriction of not having your other hand occupied, how do you interpret that to make Slashing Grace "an action that requires two hands"?
Whelp, there goes the whip magus. even precise strike got essentially removed.
Admittedly, that did give the magus damage on par with power attack without any attack penalties. It virtually made you full BAB (as well as a class with powerful nova, 6 levels of spells, and two great saves).
And since magus had that fake TWF (which swashbuckler worked very hard to avoid with its precise strike), it kinda meant it used that deed better than the class it originally came from. And it would also get parry/riposte.
So it would end up gutting the most notable parts of swashbuckler, and then give itself a straight upgrade.
And overall: I wouldn't say that Paizo hates dex, but it realizes that it should have a cost for all the benefits of making your primary attack/damage stat into the stat that does AC, initiative, and refle saves. That is why dex to damage usually has a noticable cost, particularly when used for TWF (which is one of the main users of dex to damage that is not swashbuckler).
Agile weapons are expensive for two weapons (but affordable for 1- good for swashbucklers wanting to save feats). Dervish dance trie to forbid TWF. And while rogue and that swash archetype give it straight, those are 3-4 levels in (so too big for an easy dip).
Fencing grace and slashing grace (original) tried to be low cost (you can get it as a level 1 human fighter- easy enough dip for most builds) while avoiding dex damage twf by making it painful- since you are using 1 handed weapons, that is another -2 to attack.
This version of slashing grace tries to answer the obvious question "I can dex an ax but not a dagger?" while sticking to the 'no cheap TWF' principle. Just looking at the feat, it might seem odd, but it makes sense in the larger context of the publishing history and their design philosophy.
So, while the methods here are wonky (I won't deny that), the general intention seems fair enough. The real debate here is 'how much should twf-friend dex damage cost?'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if occupied means 'busy' instead of 'full'. I'll cross my finger for the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't they just say you can't wield a weapon in your off-hand? Isn't that what they intended, that you can only wield one weapon with this feat? Why must they beat around the bush when they write these things? If the intent is clear, then it becomes much easier for people to judge edge cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Three levels of unchained rogue. You save three feats, and don't have to deal with any of this slashing grace nonsense.
You sound as though people would actually want that. That a martial character would want to take 3 levels in a 3/4 BAB class to get a combat ability that should be obtainable by any combat class. Or that a magus/warpriest/inquisitor/cleric/oracle would want to lose 3 spellcasting levels?
Perhaps the intent was also to disallow magus for spellcombat +slashing grace or something.
Why? The best magi weapons are scimitars and katanas. Yet, Dervish Dance is fine when it requires less feat tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can always hope for an Improved Slashing Grace, maybe with a BAB +6 requirement that effectively removes the restriction around TWF and/or being occupied.
I'm not holding my breath, actually. The design team seems to have conflicting opinions about Dexterity builds.
I honestly only really care for PFS. In my home games, I ban Slashing Grace and allow my players to take Deadly Agility from Dreamscarred Press's Path of War. That feat was actually playtested and well thought out. Slashing Grace was tossed in as an afterthought. And now it feels like the errata was not well thought out either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the time it took to release this errata was utilized as an informal second playtest of the material from the ACG.
I know in my local PFS scene many, many characters were created with a one level Swashbuckler dip, and the amount of Dex-to-damage builds increased practically exponentially.
Those builds, comments, and questions made their way here to the forums where the Design Team was able to see the impact of what they had wrought.
Just like the original Warpriest playtest goes to show, when the majority of players quickly choose one option over others, it's a pretty good sign that option is out of balance with the rest.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the time it took to release this errata was utilized as an informal second playtest of the material from the ACG.
I know in my local PFS scene many, many characters were created with a one level Swashbuckler dip, and the amount of Dex-to-damage builds increased practically exponentially.
Those builds, comments, and questions made their way here to the forums where the Design Team was able to see the impact of what they had wrought.
Just like the original Warpriest playtest goes to show, when the majority of players quickly choose one option over others, it's a pretty good sign that option is out of balance with the rest.
Or that the other options were s#~#
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't they just say you can't wield a weapon in your off-hand? Isn't that what they intended, that you can only wield one weapon with this feat? Why must they beat around the bush when they write these things? If the intent is clear, then it becomes much easier for people to judge edge cases.
They tried that. With dervish dance.
But just do a search for 'dervish dance unarmed strike' and you can see how well that worked out for them when they just said 'can't have anything in the offhand'.
And those threads tried to twist it so that dervish dance gives dex to damage with the unarmed strikes too.
Writing for table top games can be a tricky business. Trying to be direct and 'obvious' can sometimes leave you massively open to the weirdest arguments possible ("I use pummeling strike to punch with a greatsword"). I'd imagine designers get weird and paranoid sometimes... and us denizens of the rules forums don't exactly help.
Not saying this was handled well given those circumstances. It doesn't excuse being sloppy, but it can explain it, at least.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the time it took to release this errata was utilized as an informal second playtest of the material from the ACG.
I know in my local PFS scene many, many characters were created with a one level Swashbuckler dip, and the amount of Dex-to-damage builds increased practically exponentially.
Those builds, comments, and questions made their way here to the forums where the Design Team was able to see the impact of what they had wrought.
Just like the original Warpriest playtest goes to show, when the majority of players quickly choose one option over others, it's a pretty good sign that option is out of balance with the rest.
It's also possible that when a large subset of the player base jumps on a new option that it means that there a large demand for decent mechanical options to realize the style of character that the player base envision. Many people want dex to damage to be workable simply because they prefer a lightly armoured agile character concept to aroid freak with the biggest sword they can lift. That so many people jumped to slashing grace and a swashbuckler dip doesn't necessarily mean that the feat is too strong. It might just mean that swashbuckler is a narrow, mechanically weak class that doesn't work for a large variety of dex warriors.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Why didn't they just say you can't wield a weapon in your off-hand? Isn't that what they intended
Perhaps the intent was also to disallow magus for spellcombat +slashing grace or something.
Or they could have intended to block:
- Holding a metamagic rod
- Holding a flag
- Holding a Light or Heavy shield
- Grappling
- Hundreds of other uses of "occupied hands"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Appendages now? The Occupy movement has really gotten out of hand.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This wording is even wackier, and plays as a very, very, restrictive version of Dervish Dance.
It is just worded, so that it's takes very little to stop this feat from from working.
Bite? Ceases to function.
Use a different weapon on an additional iterative attack? Ceases to function.
Snap your fingers. Ceases to function.
Hold a coin. Ceases to function.
This wording is even wackier, and plays as a very, very, restrictive version of Dervish Dance.
It is just worded, so that it's takes very little to stop this feat from from working.
Bite? Ceases to function.
I was focused on the other hand, I never considered that using this feat would mean that you don't get your natural attacks as secondary attacks. Wow.
Don't argue with him. DEX based TWF fighter deals about 10% more damage than Falchion Fred on a full attack at some levels, so TWF DEX is OP.
That's not the full equation and you know it.
We can always hope for an Improved Slashing Grace, maybe with a BAB +6 requirement that effectively removes the restriction around TWF and/or being occupied.
It is already a 3 feat tax. Why would you hope for a four feat tax? Especially when the fourth feat is explicitly to unlock the default the earlier tax specifically denied you?
If there is really a balance concern (which I have doubts, given the weapons this really affects), I would think weapon finesse and 'improved' weapon finesse [to allow dex-to-damage to the same weapons as weapon finesse] would be enough self-mortification to unlock what is essentially a fighting style. As is, the slashing grace rabbit hole runs too deep, and deposits characters at the feet of the Red Queen.
Yeah, no more Bite/Claw/Claw for your Small Cat companion.
Well, it is more like it uses the bite/claw/claw combo like it always did.
Remember, slashing grace, up until the errata, only worked on one handed weapons. So no natural attacks. So nothing has really changed there.
And since natural attack builds often end up like TWF builds, it makes sense to restrict it to (just to stay consistent, at least).
And since the original slashing grace didn't mesh well with natural attack builds origiinally anyway, it is not like any character concepts died from this. In fact, since slashing grace works based off of your weapon focus, it would never play well with 'take whatever you can get' style of natural attacks (maybe with that one human feat that shares specific feats with other weapons in that weapon group? But since humans are bare with natural attacks, I think that would be a half orc only thing- and even then, you would need a VERY wonky build since you need 4th level fighter, and fighters don't give natural attacks out, so you need another class like ranger for at least a dip)
It is already a 3 feat tax. Why would you hope for a four feat tax? Especially when the fourth feat is explicitly to unlock the default the earlier tax specifically denied you?
A three feat chain you can get at level 1 with the right build/dips. So it is hardly that taxing.
|
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that Slashing Grace COSTS 3 feats. It TAKES 3 feats - but the other two are already useful in their own right.
People took Weapon Finesse before Slashing Grace existed.
Weapon Focus is a very solid feat which virtually every martial I've every played takes by 5ish.
Slashing Grace COSTS 1 feat.
Yeah, no more Bite/Claw/Claw for your Small Cat companion.
Well I've never had an animal companion, but I have characters with a Bite. Dervish Dance requires that you keep your other hand free, but you could still get that Bite as a secondary attack as part of a full attack action.
The wording here seems much more broad. You are prohibited from using two weapons regardless of whether the second weapon is in your other hand. So if I make a full attack action using Slashing Grace with my battleaxe (dex to damage with a battleaxe but not a shortsword *sigh*), it seems that I would then be unable to use my Bite since I would then have used two weapons during the full attack.
Technically can't one wield a one-size-down [small if medium, tiny if small, etc] Two-Bladed Sword as a one-handed weapon that can be used for TWF in one hand?
Still probably not worth the exotic weapon proficiency feat, but it does open up a niche for the thing.
No, Slashing Grace still requires that the weapon be appropriately sized for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, when you're in a Grapple, one "hand" isn't available.
That means it's "occupied" as far as Slashing Grace is concerned.
I don't think that link implies that at all: "typically" doesn't mean "always", and he's talking about fluff not mechanics anyway.
If we're going to make a rule off of that, don't we have to get the GM or player to describe exactly how they are grappling the target? If they are using a head lock, the target can use slashing grace, but if they twisting his arm behind his back, he can't?
Then there's other issue of if someone else has a hold of your arm, does that mean it's "occupied"? If I'm grappled by the arm but I have a wand in that hand, can I still use the wand? There's nothing in the rules to prevent me, but if my hand is "occupied" by being grappled, now I can't use the wand.
Edited to add: I definitely agree that the wording is confusing and needs to be edited, but I don't agree that it implies this result. I also think that hyperbole isn't helpful in these conversations: it just obfuscates the real issue and makes it seem like less of a problem (e.g., "It's not really a problem: people are just overreacting.").
|
No, Slashing Grace still requires that the weapon be appropriately sized for you.Technically can't one wield a one-size-down [small if medium, tiny if small, etc] Two-Bladed Sword as a one-handed weapon that can be used for TWF in one hand?
Still probably not worth the exotic weapon proficiency feat, but it does open up a niche for the thing.
You also can't use a double weapon to TWF if you're using it one-handed.
|
|
I'm not a fan of unrestricted dex to damage. It is generally intended that smaller monsters deal less damage, so they get penalties to strength and bonuses to dex. Allowing dex to damage on a full set of natural attacks would blow that out of the water.
But the new slashing grace looks very awkward to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the time it took to release this errata was utilized as an informal second playtest of the material from the ACG.
I know in my local PFS scene many, many characters were created with a one level Swashbuckler dip, and the amount of Dex-to-damage builds increased practically exponentially.
Those builds, comments, and questions made their way here to the forums where the Design Team was able to see the impact of what they had wrought.
Just like the original Warpriest playtest goes to show, when the majority of players quickly choose one option over others, it's a pretty good sign that option is out of balance with the rest.
Or maybe so many people did it because prior to Slashing Grace, there was no option to get Dexterity to Damage at 1st level. just because many people built it doesn't necessarily mean it's overpowered.
I do strongly believe Slashing Grace is a poorly designed feat. They should have made it like Path of War's Deadly Agility.
|
|
You also can't use a double weapon to TWF if you're using it one-handed.No, Slashing Grace still requires that the weapon be appropriately sized for you.Technically can't one wield a one-size-down [small if medium, tiny if small, etc] Two-Bladed Sword as a one-handed weapon that can be used for TWF in one hand?
Still probably not worth the exotic weapon proficiency feat, but it does open up a niche for the thing.
That isn't explicitly in the rules.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.I can see no reason that someone couldn't TWF with a double-weapon in one hand, so long as it was of appropriate handed-ness.
You mean, with a second weapon in their off-hand? Because otherwise, it's right there in the rules you quoted.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strength doesn't need any of those 3 feats.
And strength does carrying capacity. Which arguably, is an extremely minor concern, with muleback cords, bags of holding, and ant haul lasting 2 hours/level.
Dex does AC, intiative, and reflex saves. Also, there are more useful skills tht use dex than str (minor concern- until you get later on, the difference is usually small, and can be made up through tools and such)
Strength's main draw is that it is the simple method of doing attack and damage. It doesn't have very much after that, since that was its entire purpose originally.
If you want to rework the system so you can cut out stats, you have to pay the price. Simple as that.
|
|
Oh, I see the problem. You actually changed the text of the rule when you copied it (or maybe the source you copied it from did). I should have read your post closer. Here's the actual rule:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
That's from the Paizo PRD.
Oh, I see the problem. You actually changed the text of the rule when you copied it (or maybe the source you copied it from did). I should have read your post closer. Here's the actual rule:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.That's from the Paizo PRD.
weird, because i'm pretty sure there's a one-handed double weapon out there...