Yes, but any feats that have TWF or improved TWF as a prerequisite can only be used when you are performing a brawler's flurry. If you aren't full attacking, those feats cannot be used.
Admittedly, that is an academic restriction, since...well...how are you going to use TWF feats outside of flurry? The only one that I know of that has effects when you aren't full attacking is two weapon defense... and that just needs you to have two weapons or a double weapon in hand (so it works either way).
Overall, a 2 level dip into brawler could be fairly useful to your TWF build. Particularly on Rangers or slayers, who avoid the dex prereqs via bonus feats. Flurry allows you to make all your attacks with a single weapon, and you can 2 hand the weapon for x1.5 power attack bonuses. So that adds up to nice little mechanic bonuses over normal TWF.
|
Yes, but any feats that have TWF or improved TWF as a prerequisite can only be used when you are performing a brawler's flurry.
Do you have a source on that? It sounds sensible, but I might go for a build of that sort soon, and might need to argue for it.
Flurry allows you to make all your attacks with a single weapon, and you can 2 hand the weapon for x1.5 power attack bonuses.
That doesn't work:
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands.
Yes, but any feats that have TWF or improved TWF as a prerequisite can only be used when you are performing a brawler's flurry.Do you have a source on that? It sounds sensible, but I might go for a build of that sort soon, and might need to argue for it.
Flurry allows you to make all your attacks with a single weapon, and you can 2 hand the weapon for x1.5 power attack bonuses.That doesn't work:
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands.
Yup, you don't add x1.5 your Strength modifier on flurry attacks.
But you would add x1.5 Power Attack bonuses since the feat only checks how many hands you are wielding the weapon with, not your strength modifer.
Thread resurrections. Stupid question what if you have a brawler with below 15 dex...can he still use brawler's flurry as he doesn't qualify for two weapon fighting. Thanks. :)
Huh.
Brawler’s Flurry (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
Looks like the brawler technically can't flurry without the prerequisite dexterity.... Well, the ability was already terribly worded. At least in this case, I'm sure you are intended to not need the dexterity, which is more than we can say for the other annoying questions regarding this ability, like "What are the penalties for attacking with a two-handed weapon as your off-hand while two weapon fighting?" or the question at the start of this thread.
If you're looking for advice instead of rules, you should probably just give the brawler a slightly modified version of the unchained monk's flurry. It's less of a headache, and helps compensate for the brawler's woeful accuracy.
That's what I was kind of thinking. Oh well. Thanks. :)
Brawler's Flurry is the single worst written class feature in all of Pathfinder. To this day I remain convinces that the writer was doing drugs, because I cannot fathom how someone of clear mind could consider it expedient to use rules for fighting with two weapons for an ability that lets you fight with one weapon.
In this case, it's not just the ability that's badly worded, but the general feat rules as well. What Melkiador quoted does not actually say that you can't use an ability if you don't fulfill the prerequisite, only that you can't use a feat is you lose the prerequisites. It doesn't talk about what happens when you never had these prerequisites to begin with.
So strictly RAW you can use the feat, and I strongly believe that's intended, even as a general unwritten rule - if you didn't need to fulfill the prerequisites to get a feat, you don't need to fulfill the prerequisites to use it. This unwritten rule is actually necessary to make stuff like a Monk's bonus feats work, as a "monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them", but that line doesn't remove any limitation on using them.
Thanks. Still confused! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The legalities can get really confusing. But the really old class features have a lot of ambiguous wording, because those rules were written in a less legalistic way and intended to be reasonably interpreted based on context.
At some point in time this group got really legalistic though and overly obsessed with RAW. It may be the fault of PFS or just the natural tendency of this kind of fan base. Either way, you should probably never worry about whether or not something is "technically" correct, if the intent is otherwise clear enough. We are not computers and this is not a computer game. Something being unclear shouldn't keep us from having a good time.
This works the same way that a barbarian/alchemist can select feats with a STR score requirement if they can only meet they score when raging/using a mutagen. In the exact same way, the alchemist/barbarian can only use that feat while their STR score is high enough to meet the prerequisite.
Do you have a rules source for that? I may have missed an FAQ, but I think that's another one of those unwritten rules, hence not "RAW".
This works the same way that a barbarian/alchemist can select feats with a STR score requirement if they can only meet they score when raging/using a mutagen. In the exact same way, the alchemist/barbarian can only use that feat while their STR score is high enough to meet the prerequisite.Do you have a rules source for that? I may have missed an FAQ, but I think that's another one of those unwritten rules, hence not "RAW".
I don't think it works that way and doing some research I don't think we ever got an official answer to several threads on the subject.
I don't think it works that way and doing some research I don't think we ever got an official answer to several threads on the subject.This works the same way that a barbarian/alchemist can select feats with a STR score requirement if they can only meet they score when raging/using a mutagen. In the exact same way, the alchemist/barbarian can only use that feat while their STR score is high enough to meet the prerequisite.Do you have a rules source for that? I may have missed an FAQ, but I think that's another one of those unwritten rules, hence not "RAW".
So far as I can tell, many DMs have extrapolated from the fly skill stating that feats work the same way.
You cannot take this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other magical manner, such as a druid’s wild shape ability).
The primary argument for it being. If I can turn into a bird and that's enough for me to put ranks in fly, then turning into a bird should also be enough for me to take the feat improved natural attack [talon] (assuming the DM is fine with PCs taking monster feats they meet the pre-reqs for).
|
|
2 Does the Brawler's flurry allow the Brawler to take two weapon fighting feats such as two weapon rend?As written, the brawler is treated as having TWF when using brawler's flurry (this may change in later development). So, she could use it as a prereq... but would only be able to use feats from later in the chain when she was using brawler's flurry, as that's the only time she actually has the feat.
That's from the playtest. Since the language in the released version still says that "When doing so, the brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat..." it could be assumed tha SKR's clarification still applies. At the very least, that seems to be what was intended.
In this case, it's not just the ability that's badly worded, but the general feat rules as well. What Melkiador quoted does not actually say that you can't use an ability if you don't fulfill the prerequisite, only that you can't use a feat is you lose the prerequisites. It doesn't talk about what happens when you never had these prerequisites to begin with.
So strictly RAW you can use the feat (...)
Have to quote myself here, because I have to make a correction - the feat rules say that "Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat." CRB pg. 112; emphasis mine. Of course, strict application of that has the result that just about every ability that allows you to ignore prerequisites is useless, because you can't use the feat.
Yeah, I'll go with my unwritten rule of "if you didn't need to fulfill the prerequisites to get a feat, you don't need to fulfill the prerequisites to use it". There is no f#%#ing way it's correct that a Monk gets Stunning Fist at 1st level, with improvements at 4th and 8th level, when he can only uses it at 11th level unless heavily multiclassed. And if a Monk can use Stunnign Fist without fulfilling the prereqs, a Bralwer can use TWF without fulfilling the prereqs.
Do you have a rules source for that? I may have missed an FAQ, but I think that's another one of those unwritten rules, hence not "RAW".
You know that we had this discussion before, right?
It is RAW, because the feat rules do not say "permanent". What they do say is "Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat." CRB pg. 112
There is no mention that only permanent things count, and therefore there is no such rule. The rules for permanent ability score bonuses say that they "actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours", which at least implies that temporary ones don't but a) that's not spelled out and b) this FAQ says that "Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do."
Although full application of this FAQ kinda f$$@s up the game, as it makes temporary ability score boost increase spells per day, skills gained on levelup, and probably more problematic stuff.
That's from the playtest. Since the language in the released version still says that "When doing so, the brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat..." it could be assumed tha SKR's clarification still applies. At the very least, that seems to be what was intended.
They actually put it right in Jason Bulman's opening post for the Brawler playtest thread.
@RAWmonger: Please source your quotes!
The Jason Bulman quote kind of makes it look worse. Those updates were for what had already been printed in the playtest. Most of those updates were incorporated into the later printings. The quote about the feats was not incorporated, implying that that addition was considered and then rejected before the eventual printing.
Stunning Fist (Ex): At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites.
Brawler has no such language. It just says they have it when flurrying. I think the intent is clear. How any individual is going to rule it that is an other matter.
The general rule is that if a class grants you a non-optional feat as a bonus feat (meaning you don’t choose from a list) or has an ability that acts as a specific feat, that you do not need to meet the prerequisites to obtain or use it unless it says you do (example: shield champion brawler archetype specifically requires meeting prerequisites for some of its non-optional bonus feats). The prerequisites for those feats become “the level of the specific class that granted it” for all intents and purposes.
Also if not meeting the prerequisites for class granted non-optional bonus feats prevented you from using them, then the Zen Archer archetype of Monk would be granting itself non-functional feats. Classes that get feats earlier than is ever possible to qualify for would have non-functional feats for several levels as well.
What feat does the zen archer gain without also having the text about ignoring the prerequisites?
Was pointing more to some of the earlier claims that not meeting prerequisites means you can’t use the feat with my Zen Archer example, since it gets a couple feats that it never qualifies for. It has the wording about not needing the prerequisites to obtain them, but some have claimed that you still need prerequisites to even use.
While yes, you do lose access to a feat if you are no longer able to meet its prerequisites, that rule doesn’t hold up for feats granted by a class ability. And to my knowledge, the Shield Companion archetype for brawler is the only time that a class requires meeting prerequisites for its specific granted feats.
Stunning Fist (Ex): At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites.
Brawler has no such language. It just says they have it when flurrying. I think the intent is clear.
For all intends and purposes, the bolded part is reminder text, not text that actually changes things. Proof:
"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a brawler gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat." Like Brawler's Flurry, this one also doesn't say you don't neet to meet the prereqs. IUS has BAB +8 as a prereq. If the existence of the part that you bolded would make the difference between able to use it and not, then Brawler gets a bonus feat at 1st level that is unusuable until 8th level. You want to tell me that was the intend?
Can you cite a reference for IUS having BAB +8 as a pq? I believe you are mistaken.
I’m starting to feel like I’m just being trolled with example after example that doesn’t say or do what people think they do.
And reminder text is almost always in parenthesis. There are exceptions but they are rare and mostly just artifacts from 3.5.
Can you cite a reference for IUS having BAB +8 as a pq? I believe you are mistaken.
I should not post while doing other stuff. *feels ashamed*
However, there are bonus feats without any "ignore prereqs" language that are granted at levels where the character can't meet the prereqs (without multiclassing).
Some examples:
- Warpriest gets Weapon Focus at 1st level.
- Kensai Magus also gets Weapon Focus at 1st level.
- Crossbowman Fighter gets Pinpoint Targetting at 15th level, requires BAB+16.
- Disruptive rage power grants Disruptive, which requires 6 levels in Fighter.
- Spellbreaker rage power grants Spellbreaker, a feat that requires 10 levels in Fighter, and the rage power requires 12 levels in Barbarian, meaning even with multiclassing, it's literally impossible to meet the prerequisites.
Disrpute and Spellbreaker Magus Arcanae, similar to the rage powers.
So even though I royally f!!$ed up the example in my above post, the underlying argument is still very much true.
It’s not like the ACG was the height of editing and writing. Large chunks of it are a mess, with the brawler as the messiest of the mess. The wapriest having a similar error isn’t surprising.
It’s not like the ACG was the height of editing and writing. Large chunks of it are a mess, with the brawler as the messiest of the mess. The wapriest having a similar error isn’t surprising.
I have already added examples of other hardcover books, even before I saw your post.
Of course, that the ACG was badly written only strengthens my argument, if anything.
And reminder text is almost always in parenthesis.
I wish that was true. There are plenty of bonus feat class features that say you gain these feats "in addition to those gained from normal advancement.", and that's never in parentheses. The majority of natural attack granting options include non-parentheses'd reminder text on how natural attacks mix with manufactured weapons. Need I continue?
Let me just put this argument to rest with this:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=369?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#18422
If a class grants you a feat as a bonus feat, you never need the prerequisites unless it says specifically that you do.Many classes/archetypes have class features that grant bonus feats. Some say you need to have prerequisites to gain the feat, some say you can ignore any prerequisites for a chosen feat, some just say you gain the feat with no mention of the prerequisites.
Which is the default rule on meeting the prerequisites for any feats gained when there is no specific language in the class feature's description instructing to do otherwise?
Cool reference. JJ isn’t a “rules guy”, but his words still carry a lot of weight. I wonder if this could be abused the other way though? Like the fighter gets a bonus combat feat with no mention of required prerequisites, except for retraining out from under other feats. There may be better examples.
On the plus side, there should be no doubt that human kineticists can start taking their favored class bonus at level 1.
I wonder if this could be abused the other way though? Like the fighter gets a bonus combat feat with no mention of required prerequisites, except for retraining out from under other feats. There may be better examples.
It's a perfect example of why that isn't and shouldn't be the actual ruling. The rules say you need to meet prereqs when selecting a feat, and the Fighter bonus feat description makes use of that rule (and thus doesn't restate it).
Hence my formulation of this unwritten rule (that is clearly intended to be there as proven by JJ's post) as "if you didn't need to fulfill the prerequisites to get a feat, you don't need to fulfill the prerequisites to use it".
He’s clearly saying that if you are granted a *specific feat*, not any time a class grants a bonus feat. Like why dig in your position so deeply that even sound logic flies over your head.
He clearly isn't. He wrote "a bonus feat", not "a specific bonus feat". If what JJ wrote were in the CRB, it would have the exact affect Melkiador stated.
The legalities can get really confusing. But the really old class features have a lot of ambiguous wording, because those rules were written in a less legalistic way and intended to be reasonably interpreted based on context.
At some point in time this group got really legalistic though and overly obsessed with RAW. It may be the fault of PFS or just the natural tendency of this kind of fan base. Either way, you should probably never worry about whether or not something is "technically" correct, if the intent is otherwise clear enough. We are not computers and this is not a computer game. Something being unclear shouldn't keep us from having a good time.
This x 1000
Intent over legalese. The game fails terribly if context is ignored.