That's odd, my CRB (fifth printing) has Kyrt's text and there's nothing in the 5th-->6th print errata regarding double weapons.
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.
Re-downloading the CRB to make sure, updating post in 3 minutes. Done!
Here's the latest PDF version CRB quote:
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 adouble weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
They don't mention one-handed weapons anywhere in the double weapon quality description.
Shisumo, can you find out where your quoted text is from?
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.
So is his quote. It's from the weapon special qualities descriptions in Ultimate Equipment. He didn't change it or use a bad source.
weird, because i'm pretty sure there's a one-handed double weapon out there...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.
There is. The taiaha.
eh can't find it, all i know is i wanted to effortless lace a double weapon before and people kept telling me to use a specific double weapon.
edit: STOP NINJAING ME
eh can't find it, all i know is i wanted to effortless lace a double weapon before and people kept telling me to use a specific double weapon.
Look up. :)
|
So is his quote. It's from the weapon special qualities descriptions in Ultimate Equipment. He didn't change it or use a Bad source.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.
Fair enough. I withdraw the implied accusation.
Fair enough. I withdraw the implied accusation.So is his quote. It's from the weapon special qualities descriptions in Ultimate Equipment. He didn't change it or use a Bad source.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.
As far as I can tell, the two quotes are complementary rather than contradictory.
|
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.
Additionally - virtually every good STR build will take Weapon Focus anyway.
But no - STR builds don't need those other 2 feats. But - as paying for 'feat' worth - their combat stat also doesn't give them additional Initiative (if every +4 is worth a feat, the dex build gives at least a feat's worth to start - eventually 2-3 feats) Reflex (every +2 is worth a mediocre feat - 2x-3x that is worth a solid feat), and that excludes AC, skills, mobility, etc.
|
|
It would seem that there was definitely a move to switch the rules around to kyrt's wording, but it was apparently at least incomplete and was also exceedingly ill-advised, since it does actually open the idea of using a smaller-sized double weapon in one hand for two-weapon fighting, something that seems ludicrous on its face and potentially broken if pursued (I'm imagining the PCs' expressions if they found themselves fighting an ettin with two Medium two-bladed swords, for instance).
In the 3.5 SRD, the line that's in the online PRD was there, but included a parenthetical example: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand (such as a human wielding a Small-sized two-bladed sword) can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round," but that seems to have gotten excised as well.
The online PRD for the core rules. The link's there in my post.
Shisumo, can you find out where your quoted text is from?
Yeah, I saw that. I meant if you could figure out why the PRD includes text that doesn't seem to exist in the rules section it's meant to be quoting, since you were the one who referenced it in your argument. The potential ramifications of that could be very bad indeed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally - virtually every good STR build will take Weapon Focus anyway.
If that's the case then there's no real reason for Slashing Grace to include WF as a prerequisite. People are gonna take it anyway, right?
The main reason Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace includes Weapon Focus is to delay most characters from taking it at level 1, which they'd be able to do if the prerequisite was only Weapon Finesse. Hence: Feat tax, and an annoying one at that. Non-human characters with classes that don't get bonus feats (like investigators) have to limp along for four full levels before they can pick it up at level 5, which is far too late for a baseline combat style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally - virtually every good STR build will take Weapon Focus anyway.If that's the case then there's no real reason for Slashing Grace to include WF as a prerequisite. People are gonna take it anyway, right?
The main reason Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace includes Weapon Focus is to delay most characters from taking it at level 1, which they'd be able to do if the prerequisite was only Weapon Finesse. Hence: Feat tax, and an annoying one at that. Non-human characters with classes that don't get bonus feats (like investigators) have to limp along for four full levels before they can pick it up at level 5, which is far too late for a baseline combat style.
Still, switching to pure dex on a point buy is almost like getting an extra 9 pts (kind of assuming that you go from 14+racial to 7; we all have our own assumptions that vary with build, so exact numbers are of course arbitrary). With the wide number of ways to boost carrying capacity, dumping strength is a theoritical disadvantage in that case.
In comparison, a strength build cannot entirely justify dumping dex, since it is deeply tied to ac, saves, intitiative, AoOs, etc. So even people in full plate tend to have 10-12 dex, and they see tangible benefits later on if they get a belt that gives +dex, while dex to damage could hardly care less about +str belts.
You cite the investigator, and that brings up a problem- removing strength entirely unduly benefits gish classes like that. A fighter/ranger/ whatever can only boost their dex up so much, and then they simply move onto minor secondary and teritary stats.
Meanwhile, removing str would remove the hard choices that gishes typically have to face- your investigator has just as many stats to worry about as the str based fighter, if not less (dex/con/int vs str/dex/con/maybe wis for the all important will saves that gish class never worry about since they usually have good will). Gishes have casting stats are just as important as their melee stat, so they can more effectively use those free up points in the point buy. This just increases the caster/martial disparity, since those that cover both roles have no ahrd choices.
Overall- if your damage is limping early on...then don't dump strength. Actually invest in it, like how a str based gish in light armor would invest in dex. This has been the age old answer- just get a bit of strength, then you have at least a few points of damage before you get dex to damage. Either that, or dip some fighter for feats. These are old, old solutions for the problem you are facing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or... Rather than actively making characters less fun to play in the low levels (which is completely sidestepped if you start a campaign at say, level 3 or level 5) we could add some options to make strength an interesting ability score in its own right. Right now spellcasters will dump strength left right and center because it's a binary stat - either you desperately need it to deal damage, or it has zero effect on your character past the first two levels when you pick up a handy haversack and the GM gives up on tracking encumbrance.
If we can loosen strength's strangle hold on melee damage then we free up design space to add options that make strength attractive in its own right.
For example... Let's borrow from the hurling belt and create a feat that lets you use your strength modifier when making ranged attacks with thrown weapons. Boom, thrown weapons stop being pathetic, not all ranged builds desperately want dexterity, and strength-based switch hitter builds are a real option now.
And I just realized this is the Rules Questions forum. Let's take this discussion somewhere else! Feel free to PM me if you want to continue. :)
|
|
The only benefit you get out of this [besides being able to dual-wield with one hand disabled/removed somehow] is the ability to dual-wield a single weapon [weapon focus, weapon training etc etc] while wearing a shield.
Which is pretty cool, but keep in mind it cost you an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat [unless you're doing it with a staff, which is a really weak weapon overall.]
Consider that a 3rd level summoner could have an eidolon with EWP 2-bladed sword and Multiweapon Fighting and have 12 attacks for 1d6+1 each (or 8 attacks for 1d6+2 and higher to-hit, depending). These would be manufactured weapon attacks and completely bypass the max-attacks rule.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was noting, that with something like Dervish Dance, you can still Bite, and/or Claw, or even kick, and still get it's effects.
This new Slashing Grace nearly makes waving goodbye an offense to rid you of the feat's benefit.
Imagine, you want to attack with your weapon in hand, and flip off the enemy with the other hand.
HAH!! Now Slashing Grace stops working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the spirit of the errata, I figured I'd put forward alternate text for Slashing Grace to make the intended function abundantly clear.
*ahem*
Slashing Grace (Combat)
You lost an arm, but you can now
stabslash your enemies with your sword!Prerequisite(s): Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon, must be missing all but one arm.
Benefit: Choose one kind of light or 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. The benefits of this feat are only available while you have a total of one (1) arm. Your other arm(s) must be either surgically amputated, mangled beyond all recognition, or otherwise unavailable at all times. If you ever recover use of your arm, or strap anything to your arm, or like totally use your arm for anything, this feat stops working. So there.
Jokes aside, I'm starting to wonder if dex-based combat is the third rail for the Design Team.
Note there is a HUGE problem in the feat... One handed weapons dont use Dex to hit. And that it exists in its current form.
True, but swashbucklers can get dex to hit with one-handed piercing weapons. Since Slashing Grace lets you treat a longsword as a one-handed piercing weapon, you'd get dex to hit and damage when wielding a longsword.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note there is a HUGE problem in the feat... One handed weapons dont use Dex to hit. And that it exists in its current form.True, but swashbucklers can get dex to hit with one-handed piercing weapons. Since Slashing Grace lets you treat a longsword as a one-handed piercing weapon, you'd get dex to hit and damage when wielding a longsword.
So what I'm hearing is this is piazo's way of increasing pro-multiclassing views, they force you to have to take a level of Swashbuckler.. to do anything.
And even then you cant do it with more than one hand... And lord help you if you use your other hand to buckleswashes or.. pull out a potion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the spirit of the errata, I figured I'd put forward alternate text for Slashing Grace to make the intended function abundantly clear.
*ahem*
Jokes aside, I'm starting to wonder if dex-based combat is the third rail for the Design Team.Slashing Grace (Combat)
You lost an arm, but you can now
stabslash your enemies with your sword!Prerequisite(s): Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon, must be missing all but one arm.
Benefit: Choose one kind of light or 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. The benefits of this feat are only available while you have a total of one (1) arm. Your other arm(s) must be either surgically amputated, mangled beyond all recognition, or otherwise unavailable at all times. If you ever recover use of your arm, or strap anything to your arm, or like totally use your arm for anything, this feat stops working. So there.
Did you forget? It also saws off your horns, pulls out your teeth, and you must wear lead boots, and a nerf helmet.
You can't Claw, Bite, Gore, Headbutt, or Kick.
Also, all iterative attacks must be made with the exact same weapon.
Note there is a HUGE problem in the feat... One handed weapons dont use Dex to hit. And that it exists in its current form.True, but swashbucklers can get dex to hit with one-handed piercing weapons. Since Slashing Grace lets you treat a longsword as a one-handed piercing weapon, you'd get dex to hit and damage when wielding a longsword.So what I'm hearing is this is piazo's way of increasing pro-multiclassing views, they force you to have to take a level of Swashbuckler.. to do anything.
And even then you cant do it with more than one hand... And lord help you if you use your other hand to buckleswashes or.. pull out a potion.
Well, the feat started its life as a swashbuckler exclusive feat. So it makes sense it was designed around the swashbuckler's unique features.
Also, it started its life as a feat made to purely allow one handed weapons to be used with swashbuckler features. It was mostly a flavor feat so you could use long swords and such. It originally didn't have dex to damage, and that was just something tacked on because people complained it was a feat tax to use weapons that added nothing.
So this wasn't a dex to damage feat that was gimped and made to work only for swashbucklers, this was a swashbuckler feat that got caught up in the frothing rage and desire people had to make swashbuckler into a pouncing machine with pure dex and like a million attacks (sorry, just got caught up in one too many "it isn't my dream class so it must suck" threads).
The new language makes the feat mroe inclusive than...you know...a feat that would have only ever been marginally useful to swashbuckler. You can use light weapons. You can use finesseable one handed weapons (aldori dueling sword, for example).
Anyway...what is with all these complaints about natural attacks? I NEVER though of natural attacks as something very useful for the kind of builds that use slashing grace (the 'one handed weapon only' version). Sure, if you have them, throw them out. But most natural attacks require you to take extremely concrete choices, trade offs, and use of resources to get. Since natural attacks were not that useful for the style...why bother?
It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler? A Rogue, maybe, but the Rogue gets innate dex-to-damage now.
It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler? A Rogue, maybe, but the Rogue gets innate dex-to-damage now.
There are ways to make up for the 1 wepaon/1handed difference.
Many gishy classes could just use arcane strike, which scales well enough that you can pair it with power attack and fake the x1.5. That would just leave you a bit behind since your melee stat doesn't get a multiplier (and you might make up for that with a buff, or whatever your class does for extra damage).
As discussed earlier, it is hard for gishes to get the feats needed...unless you take a 1-2 level fighter dip (which might help round out your fort save, in the case of the bard)
As always dex builds typically have to look for outside sources of static damage boosts to keep up. Again, not a real change.
Note there is a HUGE problem in the feat... One handed weapons dont use Dex to hit. And that it exists in its current form.Actually - that's wrong. Even with old Slashing Grace you could use a Aldori Dueling Sword.
Or a whip.
I'm not sure why it took me so long to think of this, but this morning I searched my CRB for the word "occupied." There were lots of references to occupied squares, but there also was this.
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell of this type while bound, grappling, or with both your hands full or occupied.
It is clear in this context that "occupied" does not simply mean full. It is being used to cover the situations where your hands are "in use" or "busy." If we assume that the word choice in the errata was intended to match the CRB usage (which is usually my default assumption) then Slashing Grace would be incompatible with doing anything with another hand. So Spell Combat would be out.
I was then able to find a similar usage in Ultimate Magic.
The advantage of spells that don't require somatic components is they can be cast when bound, grappled, or when both hands are full or occupied, and arcane spell failure doesn't apply.
Unless we get a FAQ saying otherwise, I'm convinced that merely keeping your other hands empty isn't enough to satisfy the requirements for Slashing Grace. I'm sad, but I'm convinced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler?
Anyone who wants to create a build around a character concept of using one light weapon? The rules are written for everyone, not just those who would never consider using an 'inferior' weapon in a build.
|
|
It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler?Anyone who wants to create a build around a character concept of using one light weapon? The rules are written for everyone, not just those who would never consider using an 'inferior' weapon in a build.
Okay, but this is about fighting with one light weapon, with no shield, and never holding anything, but that one light weapon, and never switching that one light weapon out, for another weapon, during an attack, and never using it as part of any martial arts training.
Just that guy. That guy really needs his specific build.
It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler?Anyone who wants to create a build around a character concept of using one light weapon? The rules are written for everyone, not just those who would never consider using an 'inferior' weapon in a build.
The rules aren't written for that guy, because if they were then that guy's concept would be viable in CR-appropriate encounters.
The rules aren't written for that guy, because if they were then that guy's concept would be viable in CR-appropriate encounters.It isn't more useful for other classes, though. Who is using a light weapon and not TWF'ing that isn't a Swashbuckler?Anyone who wants to create a build around a character concept of using one light weapon? The rules are written for everyone, not just those who would never consider using an 'inferior' weapon in a build.
...because you must ruthlessly optimize to beat CR-appropriate encounters?
You can choose, based on concept, to have a dex-based Ancestor Oracle or whatever who swings around a sickle and still have a very reasonable character. Slashing Grace can make a very meaningful contribution to that build. 'Optimize or get out' isn't the way every group plays, even though it's the way some people seem to play in every group...
Learned duelist fighters are not exactly bad for 'one weapon/one handed'. Its weapon training replacement still appears to count for gloves of dueling (since it references light blade weapon group and weapon training class feature), and it gives a nice little bonus for damage on top of that when using the style (as well a scaling bonus to AC).
So with weapon training (+ extra damage), gloves of dueling, weapon specialization feats...you can do fairly well. You might also want to specialize in something like dirty trick though (and the archetype actually encourages decent INT since you can add it to vital strike damage- the same ability also gives your high crit rapier max damage if you crit with a vital strike)
Not sure if it is DPR olympics levels...but it seems like it can suffice. Especially if you compare it to swashbucklers made by certain optimizers that run away in fear of power attack/piranha strike...
So, aiming to be at least competent enough to meet the challenge of CR-appropriate encounters, is some kind of bad thing?
Apparently there's some kind of complete failure to communicate here, where my statement got turned around or was taken out of context or something. Let me try again:
You don't need to ruthlessly optimize to beat CR-appropriate encounters.
You can create a dex-based build that takes advantage of Slashing Grace with a light weapon in one hand and still make a solid build. In fact, Slashing Grace makes lots of such builds far more workable. For example - concept: dex-based, light or no armor, sickle, Ancestor Oracle, eerie powers.
Half-Elven Ancient Elven Lorekeeper Oracle of Ancestors 11
10STR, 15/17+1DEX, 14CON, 10INT, 9WIS, 15+1CHA
Revelations: Spirit Shield (+Favored Class), Phantom Touch
1. +Skill Focus: Knowledge(Nature) / Weapon Finesse
3. Weapon Focus: Sickle
5. Slashing Grace: Sickle
7. Piranha Strike
9. Eldritch Heritage: Fey (Laughing Touch)
11. Dazing Spell
Bonus Spells: Shield, Mirror Image, Heroism, Fiery Shuriken (Dazing...).
Weapon: Cruel (works off Aura of Doom), Conductive (Laughing Touch, Phantom Touch off of Aura of Doom), Spell-Storing Sickle.
Beyond just being adequate, this build is actually very strong in several ways despite using an 'inferior' weapon/style. Without Slashing Grace it wouldn't come together with reasonable damage. With a +4DEX belt by 9 it's 3.5+2GMW +6DEX +4DF +4PS = 19.5. Not earth-shattering, but certainly not bad when it's working along-side rolling debuffs and multiple shut-downs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that leve 5 is too late to get Slashing Grace. you might as well just pick up the Agile enhancement. I want it by level 3 (when the unchained rogue gets it), or not bother at all.
Right, because gods forbid the Rogue class get something useful, I mean if that happened we couldn't complain about how useless the Rogue is.
This thread practically threw me into fits of laughter. We as forum posters have created a situation where we analyze every letter of every word of every rule just to squeeze the most exploitative interpretation out of them that we can, and then we complain when the developers try to word things to prevent exactly those things.
I think it pretty obvious what was intended with this errata. They don't want you attacking with your off hand. They don't want you shield bashing, unarmed striking, natural attacking, or punching with a greatsword. If we could look at that and leave it at that, we wouldn't get the wonky wording that is being used.
Not that I expect this post to change anything, and will actually come under attack, but meh, I had to say it. Now I'll go back to quietly giggling.
>implying I don't have to spend at least 5 feats to even consider doing Dex-to-damage TWF
I would argue that leve 5 is too late to get Slashing Grace. you might as well just pick up the Agile enhancement. I want it by level 3 (when the unchained rogue gets it), or not bother at all.Right, because gods forbid the Rogue class get something useful, I mean if that happened we couldn't complain about how useless the Rogue is.
Nobody was complaining about the Rogue getting it. I'd be happy for them to get some form of Dex-to-Damage from level 1. But the above example of how to use Slashing Grace is a character who has a damage bonus of zero even at level 4. I don't think I'd be willing to stick with that character long enough for him to become effective.
|
|
Nobody was complaining about the Rogue getting it. I'd be happy for them to get some form of Dex-to-Damage from level 1. But the above example of how to use Slashing Grace is a character who has a damage bonus of zero even at level 4. I don't think I'd be willing to stick with that character long enough for him to become effective.I would argue that leve 5 is too late to get Slashing Grace. you might as well just pick up the Agile enhancement. I want it by level 3 (when the unchained rogue gets it), or not bother at all.Right, because gods forbid the Rogue class get something useful, I mean if that happened we couldn't complain about how useless the Rogue is.
It depends upon the character. A pure martial - maybe not. But what about a caster who can use their spells primarily until they get Slashing Grace?
Or... be a human. Or any class that gets bonus feats.
A human fighter can get it at level 1.
|
|
>implying I don't have to spend at least 5 feats to even consider doing Dex-to-damage TWF
You can't get that with feats now at all - unless your group allows Effortless Lace so you can TWF with rapiers. (Effortless Lace is OP - the general rule is if PFS bans it as the book comes out - that's a good indication it's pretty OP.)
|
>implying I don't have to spend at least 5 feats to even consider doing Dex-to-damage TWFYou can't get that with feats now at all - unless your group allows Effortless Lace so you can TWF with rapiers. (Effortless Lace is OP - the general rule is if PFS bans it as the book comes out - that's a good indication it's pretty OP.)
You can with Mythic weapon finesse, but mythic rules hardly count.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
>implying I don't have to spend at least 5 feats to even consider doing Dex-to-damage TWFYou can't get that with feats now at all - unless your group allows Effortless Lace so you can TWF with rapiers. (Effortless Lace is OP - the general rule is if PFS bans it as the book comes out - that's a good indication it's pretty OP.)
I can TWF with rapiers using the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype if it is what matters.
Still when the previous ruling modified to include light weapons you had to take:
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Slashing Grace
Two Weapon Fighting
Improved Two Weapon Fighting and then Greater in order to not fall behind the weakest 2Hander
And I didn't even have the time to take Power Attack nor Piranha Strike
Also I do not trust at all PFS in judging what is OP and what not