You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
The idea is supposed to be essentially a fencer, but with a Scimitar. It also opens up how one might qualify for Duelist (which is the epitome of fencer). Now, it literally says your other hand can't wield a weapon or shield. That technically doesn't mean you can't make off-hand attacks (with unarmed strikes, boot blades, etc.). It also synergizes nicely with Snapping Turtle Style, Crane Style, and some others. Or you can deflect arrows, etc.
|
The whole point is that you're swinging the scimitar around, including passing it back and forth between hands. The feat specifically says your offhand must be empty, for this very reason.
Put on one white glove and moonwalk?
The feat specifically says your offhand must be empty, for this very reason.
But it doesn't say that.
It says you can't use a weapon or shield, not that it must be free or empty.
Cayden Cailean is a fencer but generally is seen with a drink in the off hand. I think it's probably got a little wiggle room for flavor but rules wise 'what' you can hold in the off hand is probably a tough question.
I'm pretty sure that you can't make off-hand attacks, even if you don't use your physical hand, your metaphorical off-hand cannot be used to attack.
I believe that was clarified somewhere, because that had something to do with why the dervish dancing magus died right?
Or am I remembering things incorrectly?
I'm pretty sure that you can't make off-hand attacks, even if you don't use your physical hand, your metaphorical off-hand cannot be used to attack.
I believe that was clarified somewhere, because that had something to do with why the dervish dancing magus died right?
Or am I remembering things incorrectly?
That might be accurate. It sounds familiar but I can't recall. I'll see if my google-fu is up to snuff.
To me the no off-hand usage makes sense because of the spirit of the law, though it doesn't violate the letter. However, I think it should leave open the Crane Wing/Snapping Turtle Style options, which are also predicated on having an unused hand.
I like to hold my liquor in my free hand personally, or maybe a book, get some light reading in while dervish dancing.
|
The Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler archetype from Advanced Class Origins as written has a wonderfully illogical exception;
"Dervish Dance (Ex): At 4th level, a whirling dervish can use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier on melee damage rolls when using her swashbuckler finesse. She counts as having the Dervish Dance ISWG feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites."
Now, the archetype has an earlier ability which allows them to use a scimitar with swashbuckler finesse given the usual 'nothing in the other hand' restrictions... and that's presumably what they were thinking would be used with the 4th level ability. However, as written, there is nothing preventing the character from taking any two weapons OTHER than scimitars which qualify for swashbuckler finesse and getting the 'dex instead of str' benefit for weapons in both hands.
A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does. Furthermore, the flavor of Dervish Dance implies that you're simply attacking with one weapon. If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working. You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.
This was from like 2010, so before any of the kerfuffle that led to the "Developer posts on the forum are not official" statement. JJ and SKR chimed in with how Dervish Dance operates.
So the intent does appear to be, "No two-weapon fighting, regardless of the weapon used." However, it's not really official. The forum seems split in threads, but mostly in support of the more literal interpretation (that would allow for Magus DD builds). Unless, I've missed a more recent comment by a developer, which is possible. There are a number of threads on the issue.
Slashing Grace has these limits, but that's been explicitly ruled on and Slashing Grace isn't worded quite the same way as DD.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Calth on the last bit.
Castanets
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idle hands are Sarenrae's playthings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Weapon Tricks for one-handed weapons are actually pretty nice; a Lore Warden/Martial Master Fighter with Dervish Dance and Agile Maneuvers could be pretty frustrating for any GM that favors humanoids (read: PFS).
I'm pretty sure that you can't make off-hand attacks, even if you don't use your physical hand, your metaphorical off-hand cannot be used to attack.
I believe that was clarified somewhere, because that had something to do with why the dervish dancing magus died right?
Or am I remembering things incorrectly?
Dervish Dance remains viable for magus.
The feat fell out of favor because Fencing Grace lacks the skill requirement, allowing it to be used at 1st level.
Dervish dance is still a viable and cool option.
Quite a lot of characters can go with weapon finesse and will be fine with DEX to damage on level 3.
Compared with Fencing Grace, you "pay" 2 skill ranks instead of 1 feat for weapon focus to achieve that.
Especially for classes with not as many feats, but many skill points or non-humans it´s a very good alternative.
When playing a male character, consider playing pocket-billiard with your free offhand.
For halflings, "wielding" a handkerchief is also the gentleman decision.
Of course other humanoids copy that often and then claim it was their idea and they did totally not see it on a halfling first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two big kicks-down for the cliche Magus were the rulings that you can't use a Pearl of Power 1 on Intensified Shocking Grasp even if it's in a level 1 spell slot, and you can't use the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike ability. On the up-side, it means that a non-cliche Magus is no longer ridiculously under-powered by comparison.
you can't use a Pearl of Power 1 on Intensified Shocking Grasp even if it's in a level 1 spell slot
I must have missed that ruling.
Guess it's a good thing my kensai never invested in Shocking Grasp.
Assuming you are not a Magus, there is no reason you couldn't have a wand, potion, or similar item in the other hand.
you can't use a Pearl of Power 1 on Intensified Shocking Grasp even if it's in a level 1 spell slotI must have missed that ruling.
Guess it's a good thing my kensai never invested in Shocking Grasp.
Actually come to think of it, I think Magical Lineage still allows the whole Pearl of Power 1 thing. Either way, it was the ruling that clarified no +damage/level Precise Strike that really burst a lot of bubbles.