|
Unfortunately, until you can produce it, I doubt anyone will take your word for it.
I mean, the way I see it, the RAW and RAI seem to agree that it does work, so the burden of proof is on those saying it does not, right. I'll try to take a look when I get a chance, but honestly,what is that even going to matter? Folks that don't like it are still going to say "table variation" or "not at my table", while those that do will argue "its balanced just fine" or something of that nature.
I mean, we can already see folks on both sides struggling and inventing terms and rules both ways.
_Ozy_ reread what I wrote. I did not say WEARING a Buckler used the off hand but rather wielding a Buckler used the off hand. Also, that entire point of being able to TWF isn't really relevent. If someone at my table wants to lose all benefit for dervish dance at the end of their turn for an AC boost that is fine by me. However, I do not think it would be unreasonable for a GM to rule that the -1 penalty to attack rolls is a sufficient impediment to the hand for the hand to be considered carrying the buckler. As I said before carrying is not defined in the rule book.
Yondu, you are correct, and I was over simplifying.
I totally agree on the conclusion of your analysis however some facts are wrongly explained IMHO :
- The off hand is the hand (or hands in case of Kasathas) not used to wield the main weapon (there is no ambidextry in Pathfinder, everybody as a leading hand). so everything done with the non-leading hand if
I have no idea how this is supposed to make your argument, but this is incorrect.
EVERYONE is ambidextrous in pathfinder.
You take no penalties for fighting with a sword or a mace for holding them in one hand UNLESS you try to two weapon fight with them. you can use iterative attacks alternating your left and right hand with no penalty
Your off hand is the one that you say it is. If you're dual wielding a mace and sword and on round 1 find out the black robbed figure you're fighting is some sort of skeletal warrior shrugs off your sword cuts on round 2 you can make the mace attacks your primary hand.
People are trying to circumvent the wording of Off-Hand by telling that only refers to the hand...
Which slashing grace, which has VERY similar wording, also did. Can you explain why slashing grace allows a buckler but dervish dance does not?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the way I see it, the RAW and RAI seem to agree that it does work,
The people who are arguing against it presumably do not see the RAW and RAI that way.
Personally, I think that before Slashing Grace it was the case that one could not use a buckler with Dervish Dance. Not crystal clear but clear enough.
After Slashing Grace the gyrations of logic to disallow using a buckler just become too much for me and I'd allow the buckler with Dervish Dance. But I can still see the counter argument that the FAQ only does what it says it does, no more.
RAW the buckler is on your forearm, not your hand.
RAI the wording of slashing grace is nearly identical to dervish dance and should have the same intent. If slashing grace works that way dervish dance should work the same way and no one can point at what wording allegedly makes a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wielding a shield doesn't use your off-hand. The multi-armed alchemist can use a greatsword and a shield, even though you can't gain more "hands" with the discovery. Thus wielding a shield doesn't require a "hand" else you couldn't use a two-handed weapon with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you really think they would want to nerf the class that much? Why print books if nobody is going to use them? Though I guess if you've already sold the books, future errata doesn't matter.Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.
I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.
I wouldn't see it as a nerf.
I would see it as a clarification.
And a much overdue one at that.
If we clear out the magi the kitsune could use more room in the temple of saranrae for their tails...
Paizo doesn't like Dex-to-damage, so yeah, it'll likely happen when/if Dervish Dance gets reprinted. They want cookie-cutter-characters, don't you know? That's why Slashing/Fencing Grace got nerfed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn't like Dex-to-damage, so yeah, it'll likely happen when/if Dervish Dance gets reprinted. They want cookie-cutter-characters, don't you know? That's why Slashing/Fencing Grace got nerfed.
They want fencing to be a viable martial option, but as long as dex to damage works with something else: magi zappy hands, two weapon fighting, or monk flurry of blows then fencing with one weapon and just one weapon will lag behind as a non option.
Wielding a shield doesn't use your off-hand. The multi-armed alchemist can use a greatsword and a shield, even though you can't gain more "hands" with the discovery. Thus wielding a shield doesn't require a "hand" else you couldn't use a two-handed weapon with it.
I don't believe this is true. It is my understanding that he has to choose which one he is weilding at any time. However, he is free to change them when ever he wants during his turn.
|
Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.
I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.
I can see the hypothetical ruling either making the two styles the same, or making them more distinct. Dervish Dance could allow TWF and spell combat, but not using shields or another weapon.
I can see the hypothetical ruling either making the two styles the same, or making them more distinct. Dervish Dance could allow TWF and spell combat, but not using shields or another weapon.Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.
I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.
Why the completely arbitrary break ?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do you really think they would want to nerf the class that much?Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.
I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.
If you are serious, then no I don't think they would nerf it. I think they would design it such that it isn't a nerf at all, it is a clarification.
Wielding a shield doesn't use your off-hand. The multi-armed alchemist can use a greatsword and a shield, even though you can't gain more "hands" with the discovery. Thus wielding a shield doesn't require a "hand" else you couldn't use a two-handed weapon with it.I don't believe this is true. It is my understanding that he has to choose which one he is weilding at any time. However, he is free to change them when ever he wants during his turn.Incorrect: link
Sean K Reynolds
If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :pJadeite wrote:
But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.
That is a not official ruling post, by a person who no longer works at Paizo, that is five years old, and I am pretty darn certain has been superceded by more recent official posts and faqs. Please try again.
Also he was saying using a one handed weapon two handed and switching to a shield, not using a great sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wielding a shield doesn't use your off-hand. The multi-armed alchemist can use a greatsword and a shield, even though you can't gain more "hands" with the discovery. Thus wielding a shield doesn't require a "hand" else you couldn't use a two-handed weapon with it.I don't believe this is true. It is my understanding that he has to choose which one he is weilding at any time. However, he is free to change them when ever he wants during his turn.Incorrect: link
Sean K Reynolds
If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :pJadeite wrote:
But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.That is a not official ruling post, by a person who no longer works at Paizo, that is five years old, and I am pretty darn certain has been superceded by more recent official posts and faqs. Please try again.
Also he was saying using a one handed weapon two handed and switching to a shield, not using a great sword.
Prove something that supersede this? He was THE rule posting guy at the time. Nothing I'm aware of has overturned this. And he was saying two hands on a weapon and using a shield. Not switching handedness after an attack.
|
|
Why the completely arbitrary break ?I can see the hypothetical ruling either making the two styles the same, or making them more distinct. Dervish Dance could allow TWF and spell combat, but not using shields or another weapon.Likewise, if Slashing Grace can't be used with Spell Combat, neither can Dervish Dance.
I'm waiting to see the look on everyone's face when/if that ruling ever comes down.
I don't see it as completely arbitrary. I think they are supposed to represent different styles of "fencing." That the intention was lost in the wording of Dervish Dance is an error to be corrected.
I also appreciate a bit of diversity in Dex-to-Damage.
I don't see it as completely arbitrary.
What in the wording of the feats would suggest that shields work with one but not the other, or that magus spells work with one but not the other?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Obviously I must be operating under a different definition of 'nerf' than other people.
It's not a nerf if you know for certain that you are interpreting the rules in a way they are not intended to be interpreted. It's a clarification.
But ultimately that doesn't matter, it may not be likely to be clarified. So for now and until clarified, consider it table variances.
That Dervish Dance says "weapons and shields."
I don't see it as completely arbitrary.
What in the wording of the feats would suggest that shields work with one but not the other, or that magus spells work with one but not the other?
Dervish dance: You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
How can a buckler be on your forearm for one feat but in your hand for the other feat?
Dervish dance probably considers a held spell a weapon, especially if you want to two weapon fight with it. I don't see anything there that would let you parse out the exact conclussions you're reaching on the differences between the two.
The rules in the game do NOT stand up to this sort of hair splitting. If you apply a level of scrutiny to differentiate between these feats to anything else in the game it falls apart.
Treating rulings differently because of which book they came out of is a really annoying division they need to find a way to work around (like the PFS campaign clarifications...)
That is a not official ruling post, by a person who no longer works at Paizo, that is five years old, and I am pretty darn certain has been superceded by more recent official posts and faqs. Please try again.Also he was saying using a one handed weapon two handed and switching to a shield, not using a great sword.
Uh, what's the difference in 'hands' between using a one-handed weapon two handed vs. using a greatsword two handed? They both require two hands. Please explain yourself.
And while you're at it, can you link to the 'more recent official posts and FAQs' that contradict that post.
Thank you.
Have you not read the FAQ for Ultimate Magic? This was published in 2013.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rc5
Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?
It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.
Emphasis mine.
I wasnt talking about bucklers, I was talking about great swords and shields. How did you miss that? I certainly didn't use the word Buckler, and you did use the word shield.
On the second point I will not elucidate because I was very obviously straw manning in annoyance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I seriously doubt they will make that change simply because of how prolific the build is.
Saying Spell Combat doesnt' work with Dervish Dancing would break 90% of PFS Magus builds.
That's probably an indication that it needs to be fixed.
|
|
That Dervish Dance says "weapons and shields."
I don't see it as completely arbitrary.
What in the wording of the feats would suggest that shields work with one but not the other, or that magus spells work with one but not the other?
Dervish dance: You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
The rules in the game do NOT stand up to this sort of hair splitting. If you apply a level of scrutiny to differentiate between these feats to anything else in the game it falls apart.
A buckler is carried in the off hand, but doesn't otherwise occupy it.
Look, I get where you are coming from, I really do. The rules are currently in a weird state, and I just think they will diverge rather than converge (and we'll have a hand-wavy explanation for it all).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why the completely arbitrary break ?
I'm not sure it is arbitrary. Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace have distinctly different wording. To assume that they should operate identically despite being worded differently is what feels strange to me.
That's probably an indication that it needs to be fixed.
And yet no one says that about power attack, or improved maneuver feats, or any of the 20 spells that every friggin' spellcaster in the game has.
I mean hell, since we're talking about Magi shouldn't we be nerfing shocking grasp, too? Because that's likely even more prevalent than dervish dancing.
I'm not sure it is arbitrary. Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace have distinctly different wording. To assume that they should operate identically despite being worded differently is what feels strange to me.
Why the completely arbitrary break ?
1) The differences in wording are VERY slight. A difference without a distinction slight
2) The differences that are there, at best, put any particular question of "does this work or not?" into "damned if I know" territory rather than answering them. A buckler does not occupy the hand. You can argue that it MIGHT be carried there, but the similarities in wording argue against that and nothing really supports it. A spell in the other hand might NOT be considered a weapon, but nothing in the difference of the wording of dervish dance lends itself to that conclussion.
1) The differences in wording are VERY slight. A difference without a distinction slight
I can't agree there. The differences clearly have a pretty pronounced effect on what you can and can't do with them.
It also, frankly, makes more sense to have two distinct feats remain two distinct feats, rather than arguing they should be... the exact same feat except with slightly different prerequisites.
The differences that are there, at best, put any particular question of "does this work or not?" into "damned if I know" territory rather than answering them.
Arguing a feat is unclear is wholly different than arguing that said feat should be completely identical to another, though.
In fact, I'd argue that most of your confusion is primarily because of this association you're making.