|
My Kensai magus used an Aldori dueling sword with Slashing Grace, so was already nerfed. I haven't felt like it made the character unplayable at all so far.Sorry for the Thread necromancy but HINT: At 6th level take a level in Aldori Swordlord prestige class - trust me you will thank me for it ...
For a non-18-20 crit range weapon and losing a level of spellcasting progression? No thanks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one reading the Campaign Clarified piece as intended for actual physical weapons only?
Any mention of "Two-Weapon Fighting" uses that same verbiage, same way they refer to "using Flurry of Blows."
In the case of the campaign clarification here's how it reads.
"You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."
So they refer to "Fighting with two weapons" rather that using "Two-Weapon Fighting" as it is usually referred to everywhere else.
Now lets read the Magus section.
"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
So it functions like two-weapon fighting, but never states that it is two-weapon fighting. This is further clarified with the Mind-Blade Archetype.
"When using two-weapon fighting with two psychic weapons or a psychic double weapon, the mindblade can use her spell combat ability as though she had a hand free."
So normally Magus can't use TWF with Spell Combat because their hand is occupied, but this archetype specifically allows Spell Combat to be used with TWF and both hands occupied. So obviously while it functions like TWF, it's obviously not the same as the class feature can stack with TWF with the right archetype.
Honestly if GMs are ruling that Spell Combat can't be used with Fencing Grace I think they're being a bit overly strict as based on the rule readings I think it's obvious that the feat and class feature were intended to stack.
|
|
Nope.
Search through the Rules Questions Forum for discussions regarding the Slashing Grace errata.
This Campaign Clarification is simply following that precedent.
It was needed because Fencing Grace, being from a splatbook, would likely never receive an errata of its own.
Ahhh, they're referring to this section.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9tmm
Meh, I still heavily disagree with this reading and won't run it this way. It's a stupid rule and doesn't actually add or balance anything in the game. Frankly whoever decided that it doesn't officially stack with Spell Combat is an idiot.
It's a terrible ruling IMO too but I'm scratching my head as to how you think you're going to just ignore a rule when running a PFS game. That's kinda why PFS has its own set of campaign rules, you gotta follow 'em.
|
You can express dissatisfaction without using insults.
or so i've heard.
Hey, those that can't do...
Anyway, slashing grace was written to take an ineffective combat style (fighting with just one weapon) and turn it into something viable, not increase one of the already powerful options so that it was once again, so far above fencing as to make it irrelevant to the game again. If a crossbow feat accidentally gave guns a boost they'd nerf that too and for the same reason.
|
|
So you necro a thread with the express purpose to say that you are going to not going to follow the rules? Okay....
Yeah, that's totally my fault. I've been reading through the variety of threads on this (The information is all over the place on this) but somehow I never found that link to the rules clarification for Slashing Grace that explicitly called out to use the Slashing Grace rules with the Fencing Grace rules and use the same FAQ clarification (Honestly they're handling of the rules clarification has been handled atrociously.
Second, lets not pretend that GMs at PFS games follow the rule 100% completely. I've seen GMs tack on additional hit points to Monsters because they felt the players were beating it too easily. I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.
I think krune's tacts IS "kill em all" so I'm not sure if that example is against the rules.
|
|
I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.I think krune's tacts IS "kill em all" so I'm not sure if that example is against the rules.
Sorry, context was missing here. Out of the 6 players only two were bellow level 9, the primary target of the GMs wrath being one of those 2. This is specifically covered in the PFS GM 101 guide.
"Killing PC s
PC death should be fairly rare. A GM’s job is to create a fun
time for the players, so don’t adopt a GM vs. player mentality.
That said, PC deaths do happen for any number of reasons.
A GM should try to avoid PC deaths with less-experienced
players and lower tiers. PC death is more acceptable at the
higher tiers and with more experienced players."
So he specifically made it about him vs. this other player.
|
|
Erm.. no.
I wasn't there, and there may have been indications that it was personal, but you're not articulating any evidence for that.
|
|
Erm.. no.
I wasn't there, and there may have been indications that it was personal, but you're not articulating any evidence for that.
** spoiler omitted **
The evidence is too localized and wouldn't really "mean" anything to the context of the story. Sufficient to say that there was beef between the player and the GM so the GM specifically choose a spell he knew would only have any affect on 2 of the 6 players. You're right, death is on the table and I'm not arguing that. But a specific player was targeted and that flavored spell selection by the GM.
I'm willing to let this part rest with agreeing to disagree as it's not adding anything to the rest of the commentary. Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule. Same killer GM ruled that to-hit penalty a Gunslinger suffered due to using double-barrel musket (Before the errata) stacked with additional shots. IE the first pair of shots suffered -4, the second pair of shots suffered -8, and so on.
|
|
Finally the reason I find this silly is that I'm not finding any obvious posts or rules that affect the use of Spell Strike and Fencing Grace so long as your only action is to cast through Spell Strike while opting to not use Spell Combat.
"At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."
So if the ruling were actually to stop you from both casting and attacking, yet I choose to just use Spell Strike to cast Shocking Grasp and deliver it through my Rapier (Which is both casting and attacking) I apparently still get my Dex bonus to damage. Unless I'm still missing something?
|
|
Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule.
No, and expecting us all to agree on.. well, anything, isn't realistic.
Have you seen the requirements to dm? They are... have a pfs number. And have a PFS number. And have a pfs number.
Even the 5 star requirement is do a bunch of stuff and run 1 good game.
That's it.
There's no way you can remotely expect all .. what, 10,000 of us? to agree on every aspect of the game. hell, hungry me doesn't even agree with not hungry me half the time. (feed the dm people. It cuts down on player deaths)
But to try to take that and knowingly and deliberately wriggle something explicitly banned and outlawed because you disagree with it is cheating. There's no other word for it. It's a walking either or fallacy where you're trying to insist that either PFS is 100% objective or absolutely anything goes and neither pfs fantasy or any part of reality work like that. It offends me as both a gamer and the product of 4 billion years of evolution.
|
|
Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule.There's no way you can remotely expect all .. what, 10,000 of us? to agree on every aspect of the game. hell, hungry me doesn't even agree with not hungry me half the time. (feed the dm people. It cuts down o
But to try to take that and knowingly and deliberately wriggle something explicitly banned and outlawed because you disagree with it is cheating. There's no other word for it. It's a walking either or fallacy where you're trying to insist that either PFS is 100% objective or absolutely anything goes and neither pfs fantasy or any part of reality work like that. It offends me as both a gamer and the product of 4 billion years of evolution.
1: If me ruling in favor of the player rather than against as I listed in my other examples makes me a horrible person, I'm okay with that.
2: If you are this easily offended by an idiot (me) that you'll never meet and will have no effect on your life due to his ruling of a fantasy rpg game of make believe, then I'm afraid the real world might crush you a little.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't do this thing. :(
Now this, this is a fair point. I sincerely apologize for drudging up the thread. It was legitimately not my intention to ruffle any feathers and I'm sorry for any trouble I caused. May everyone have a good day/night and may we all roll 20's.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2: If you are this easily offended by an idiot (me) that you'll never meet and will have no effect on your life due to his ruling of a fantasy rpg game of make believe, then I'm afraid the real world might crush you a little.
I'm a weirdness magnet. I've had people say that at least three times and then run into them for a game...
More likey though, the player is going to build something on your say so, and then be unable to fix it when they run into another table. It's not fair to the other player or the DM you're trying to help.
|
Erm.. no.
I wasn't there, and there may have been indications that it was personal, but you're not articulating any evidence for that.
** spoiler omitted **
The evidence is too localized and wouldn't really "mean" anything to the context of the story. Sufficient to say that there was beef between the player and the GM so the GM specifically choose a spell he knew would only have any affect on 2 of the 6 players. You're right, death is on the table and I'm not arguing that. But a specific player was targeted and that flavored spell selection by the GM.
I'm willing to let this part rest with agreeing to disagree as it's not adding anything to the rest of the commentary. Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule. Same killer GM ruled that to-hit penalty a Gunslinger suffered due to using double-barrel musket (Before the errata) stacked with additional shots. IE the first pair of shots suffered -4, the second pair of shots suffered -8, and so on.
That may be being a jerk by context, but it is not against the rules for the GM to choose whatever spell they want with Limited Wish.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Sufficient to say...
I think the phrase you intended to use was suffice it to say.
|
|
So if the ruling were actually to stop you from both casting and attacking, yet I choose to just use Spell Strike to cast Shocking Grasp and deliver it through my Rapier (Which is both casting and attacking) I apparently still get my Dex bonus to damage. Unless I'm still missing something?
You're not missing anything. It works solely with spellstrike but no longer with spell combat.
|
|
That may be being a jerk by context, but it is not against the rules for the GM to choose whatever spell they want with Limited Wish.
It is against the rules to enact a grudge against another player. Again, as I posted in the GM 101 book it specifically says not to make the game about you vs another player, which this GM did. Please trust me when I say he had a history of being a jerk to this other player.
|
|
Sufficient to say...I think the phrase you intended to use was suffice it to say.
Did it twice too in the same post didn't I.
|
claudekennilol wasn't.I recognize that was aimed at me
Nope.
Generally, people reply to the post immediately preceding their own.
If they're replying to an earlier post, then generally, they'll quote it.
The confusion on my part came from the fact that SCPRedMage didn't quote you, so I thought he was replying to claudekennilol.
So we're all essentially thinking people are making statements that they aren't.
I dislike the trend of nerfing previously published material through so-called "errata". The Devs should have the decency to call them revisions.
I don't even know why these feats had to be revised; Mythic Weapon Finesse is still plainly worded Dexterity to Damage with all finessible weapons, and dervish dance hasn't changed either. These new changes just put me and my players in a position of wanting to ignore new errata (which is hard to do because the PRD updates with these revisions even if my books don't). Especially if the devs are going to keep using the errata as a platform for revision and not to make corrections or fill omissions like they are supposed to.
I've GMed campaigns where players made use of Slashing Grace and Abundant Ammunition in ways which are now specifically prohibited by the errata. None of those characters were broken by those feats... they were broken because I used Unearthed Arcana's flaws to let them have slashing grace with a falcata at 1st level, or because I encouraged them to keep quivers full of one of every special material arrow on hand.
Yet more reasons for me not to play PFS I guess, which is a shame because I get tired of always being GM sometimes.
|
|
Yet more reasons for me not to play PFS I guess, which is a shame because I get tired of always being GM sometimes.
So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running a PFS module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.
Basically within my group of friends I run 2 campaigns, an online game for 7 players in Redmond and table session for 5 people in Texas. I've been the only GM for 2 groups of friends for the last 5 years and I never get to play, so I go to PFS purely to be a player.
While this ruling does annoy me for my current character (You guess it, an Inspired Blade Swashbuckler/Magus) realistically it's not going to affect my build too much. I'm currently level 3, so at this point I'll just Spell Strike stuff (Since Spell Strike doesn't interfere with Fencing Grace, which is kind of ironic and weird but whatever) and get my extra attacks through Parry/Riposte. Once I hit 6th level I can Agile enchant my blade, and get back to full attacks :)
|
|
So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running aPFSPathfinder module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.
The only reason people were correcting you is because this is the PFS Forum, and stating that you were ignoring an official FAQ is something that is not condoned.
I guarantee nobody was giving you flack for ruling that way in your homegame, but it wasn't clear that's what you meant.
Many posters in this Forum would probably agree with you in your decision.
|
|
So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running aPFSPathfinder module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.The only reason people were correcting you is because this is the PFS Forum, and stating that you were ignoring an official FAQ is something that is not condoned.
I guarantee nobody was giving you flack for ruling that way in your homegame, but it wasn't clear that's what you meant.
Many posters in this Forum would probably agree with you in your decision.
I know, which is why I didn't correct them. As I stated, I would stand by that ruling were I running it for PFS so I didn't feel the need to clarify that then. Mostly this was a comment to commiserate that I play PFS because I GM too much.
I've read this thread and somehow emerge more confused.
For clarity's sake: can Fencing Grace be used in conjunction with a buckler?
Yes. The wording for Fencing Grace now matches that for Slashing Grace so the following FAQ applies.
Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”