Dervish Dance + Buckler


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


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.

+1

Plus they often make changes that break 90% of builds because it wasn't intended to be interpreted that way.


Squiggit wrote:


I can't agree there. The differences clearly have a pretty pronounced effect on what you can and can't do with them.

Can you show how a buckler is in your hand when it is strapped to your forearm?

Can you show that a touch spell does not count as a weapon?

Quote:
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.

They were written at different times for different things and one of them fits the flavor of a popular golarion deity.

Quote:
Arguing a feat is unclear is wholly different than arguing that said feat should be completely identical to another, though.

feat A runs into a bunch of ambiguous wording that can be read multiple ways, but is clarified.

feat B uses almost the exact same wording (point for point), but is in a product that, for arcane business reasons, won't be clarified.

What better way to answer the question is there than to use the logic from Feat A to answer feat B? Follow the absolute raw? People that insist that they're great at that are the ones most likely to run into the wrong answer on a rules question.

You can very easily get from the raw of dervish dance to the clarified text of slashing grace. I see no reason not to do so.

Quote:
In fact, I'd argue that most of your confusion is primarily because of this association you're making.

I am not remotely confused but if you wish to try to show that I'm wrong you can do so by pointing out a disagreement between anything I have said and the text rather than addressing my mental state.


Quote:
feat B uses almost the exact same wording (point for point)

If that were true, you'd be wholly right and this thread wouldn't exist. But it doesn't.

You can strongly argue that it should function the same and that if it's ever reprinted or errata'd Paizo will change it to be consistent with their new philosophy, but repeatedly insisting that different words are actually the same words doesn't help.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


You can very easily get from the raw of dervish dance to the clarified text of slashing grace. I see no reason not to do so.

You can also very easily see a number of differences between the two feats, which makes assuming they're identical kind of a headscratcher. Dervish dance, for instance, lets you carry a rod or torch in your offhand, Slashing Grace does not. Dervish Dance does not prevent TWF, Slashing Grace does. And so on.

Again, arguing that they should be identical is probably correct, but that's another beast entirely.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I am not remotely confused
Quote:
The differences that are there, at best, put any particular question of "does this work or not?" into "damned if I know"

Damned if I know isn't confusion? That's not an attack on your mental state, that's using your own phrasing. There's no need to get so combative just because people might have a different opinion.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

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.

*checks the title of the thread*

Er, ok. Since we're obviously talking about bucklers, does that change your answer?

No it does not. Your point was about alchemist and shields, claiming shields do not occupy the "Off Hand" that because Alchemist can use shields and greatswords. My rebuttal was to that point. I have pointed to the official FAQ which pretty clearly indicates that you were being mislead by old information (a 2011 post by SKR), and that the FAQ pretty darn clearly shows that you can not wield a weapon two handed and a shield simultaneously using vestigial arm.

So I stand by my position that wielding a shield REQUIRES the use of the offhand and the chain of logic that follows from that and the other facts and single supposition I posted.

If you wish to move the goal posts and talk about alchemists and bucklers that is your prerogative. It really isn't relevant to issue of Dervish Dance and Bucklers.


Squiggit wrote:


If that were true, you'd be wholly right and this thread wouldn't exist.

Really? In this hobby NO ONE is going to try to nitpick tiny, irrelevant, semantic differences to get a different answer, particularly when there's a possible mechanical advantage in doing so?

HELLO! And welcome to the forums...

Quote:
But it doesn't. The wording on one is blatantly more permissive, allowing you to carry things that are not weapons or shields and allowing you to perform actions that don't occupy that hand as written.

As occupy isn't a technical term and doesn't even have as much rules inference going around as "Wield" there is no hard mechanical difference between being in the hand and occupying it.

Quote:
You can strongly argue that it should function the same and that if it's ever reprinted or errata'd Paizo will change it to be consistent with their new philosophy, but repeatedly insisting that different words are actually the same words doesn't help.

Different words that do almost the same thing with almost the exact same words should follow the same reasons for doing the things that they do if there is ANY level of consistency at all between rulings.

Quote:
Damned if I know isn't confusion?

It is not. Its a factual assessment of the level of clarity in the rules. The rules themselves do not lend themselves to a solid 100% conclusion of yes or no on whether you can spellstrike or use a buckler with dervish dance.

Starting with a reasonable assessment of what you can and can't tell from what's written rather than insisting that raw must have one true objective meaning is the beginning of rational rules interpretation.


Mahtobedis wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

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.

*checks the title of the thread*

Er, ok. Since we're obviously talking about bucklers, does that change your answer?

No it does not. Your point was about alchemist and shields, claiming shields do not occupy the "Off Hand" that because Alchemist can use shields and greatswords. My rebuttal was to that point. I have pointed to the official FAQ which pretty clearly indicates that you were being mislead by old information (a 2011 post by SKR), and that the FAQ pretty darn clearly shows that you can not wield a weapon two handed and a shield simultaneously using vestigial arm.

So I stand by my position that wielding a shield REQUIRES the use of the offhand and the chain of logic that follows from that and the other facts and single supposition I posted.

If you wish to move the goal posts and talk about alchemists and bucklers that is your prerogative. It really isn't relevant to issue of Dervish Dance and Bucklers.

That FAQ is restricted ENTIRELY to extra attacks. You even bolded it.

So why on earth do you think it applies to using the extra arm for non-attacks? Like wielding a wand, or wielding a rod, or wielding a shield?

I'm not 'moving' the goalposts, I'm merely directing your attention to the fact that this thread is entirely about bucklers worn on the arm, so not only do they have nothing to do with 'extra attacks', they don't even occupy a hand. Therefore your FAQ is 100% irrelevant.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What would you call an entire off hands worth of attacks if not extra attacks?

The use of vestigial arm in the manner you are describing is generating extra attacks (and is therefore not permitted). It is generating extra two handed attacks where before there were none. If you tried to wield a shield and wield two weapons that would also be generation of extra attack as you are generating an off hand attack where before you had none.

If you are using vestigial arm to wield a shield, and doing so is allowing you gain an attack you could not gain using a shield with just your two natural arms than you are in violation of the FAQ.

This entire alchemist fiasco is one giant red herring. It doesn't change the fact that a shield must be wielded to use. Even if Alchemists COULD use shields and greatswords (using vestigial arm). That would just mean that vestigial arm is granting an extra off hand to wield a shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bull.

If that arm did not exist, exactly the same number of attacks would occur, just sans a shield bonus. That's not granting an 'extra attack', it's granting a shield bonus, which the FAQ absolutely does not prohibit.

In fact, what you are saying means that having a vestigial arm is utterly useless because if you did ANYTHING with that arm, it would be considered to grant an 'extra attack' to the original hand that otherwise would have been used.

Ridiculous.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


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.

I don't follow. 90% of 2 handed weapon users rely on power attack.

You can argue mandatory feats are bad game design and I wouldn't disagree, but it would need to be part of a bigger overhaul to fix things.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:


In fact, what you are saying means that having a vestigial arm is utterly useless because if you did ANYTHING with that arm, it would be considered to grant an 'extra attack' to the original hand that otherwise would have been used.

Ridiculous.

Except that isn't what I said. I suggest rereading again.

Vestigial arm has lots of uses. It can get a potion, hold a potion, hold a scroll, scratch an itch, pick up an item, hold an item in preparation for it being wielded later that round (such as after you have generated all of your attacks).

It just can't contribute to the number of attacks you generate in a round by wielding a weapon at the same time you have your other hands occupied with generating attacks (and in case you have forgotten, shields are weapons)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

And how is holding a shield using it as a weapon...?


johnlocke90 wrote:

I don't follow. 90% of 2 handed weapon users rely on power attack.

You can argue mandatory feats are bad game design and I wouldn't disagree, but it would need to be part of a bigger overhaul to fix things.

This isn't a feat for going on a wide variety of characters.

This is a feat for a specific fighting style that goes with a specific religion. A non divine class with NO connections to saranrae all worshiping saranrae for this feat is an indication that something is wrong. If they wanted dex to damage magi, they would have left slashing grace alone. There's no conceivable reason for shuffling them out of that feat only to have them pick up this one.

All magi go dex because of this feat is different than all melee going two handed because of power attack. Power attack is a nice addonn, but its not what you build a character around. This is something you build your character around and that shouldn't be the case.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


All magi go dex because of this feat is different than all melee going two handed because of power attack. Power attack is a nice addonn, but its not what you build a character around. This is something you build your character around and that shouldn't be the case.

There is only one decent way to build a dex to damage magus and you are complaining that magus that go dex to damage take that option. Perhaps the game should just allow people to play they perfectly not-broken option.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nicos wrote:
There is only one decent way to build a dex to damage magus and you are complaining that magus that go dex to damage take that option.

What way is that?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The off-hand is only relevant when making attacks.

Vestigial Arm is a distraction.

You can Two-weapon Fight with a Sword in one hand, a Boulder Helmet on your head, and still benefit from the Heavy Shield in your remaining hand. Or Kick/Kick. Or Blade Boot/Armor Spikes.

Holding a Shield does not occupy your off-hand.

Attacking with your Shield does.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yondu wrote:

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.

Quote:
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?

I was refering of the ambidextry back to AD&D and 3rd Edition where you can cancel TWF penalties with enough training (Weapon Proficiencies or Feat)

When I say trying to circumvent is exactly what you are saying, let me clarify, it is just like saying a Bastard Sword is very similar with a longsword so why needing a exotic weapon feat to use it one handed...
Slashing Grace and Dervish Dance gives both Dext to Damage, they have the same effect, just like a fireball and a flame strike, the both do fire damage, they are very similar spell, area of effect fire damage spell, but are they the same...? No
One allow you to use any slashing weapon as a dext to damage weapon and allow buckler, the other one allow you to use dext to damage to scimitar and allow spell combat, for me, if you want a buckler and spell combat, make a strength magus


Yondu wrote:


When I say trying to circumvent is exactly what you are saying, let me clarify, it is just like saying a Bastard Sword is very similar with a longsword so why needing a exotic weapon feat to use it one handed...

No. It is note remotely the same thing. One is an objective, black and white text about what it takes and the other is an interpretation of the text. If you cannot understand the difference you are not ready to contribute to the conversation.

Quote:
One allow you to use any slashing weapon as a dext to damage weapon and allow buckler, the other one...

You cannot use your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yondu wrote:


When I say trying to circumvent is exactly what you are saying, let me clarify, it is just like saying a Bastard Sword is very similar with a longsword so why needing a exotic weapon feat to use it one handed...

No. It is note remotely the same thing. One is an objective, black and white text about what it takes and the other is an interpretation of the text. If you cannot understand the difference you are not ready to contribute to the conversation.

Quote:
One allow you to use any slashing weapon as a dext to damage weapon and allow buckler, the other one...
You cannot use your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion.

It is written in a objective, black and white text in Dervish Dance, you cannot use a shield, a buckler is clearly a shield, so I cannot understand why is your point... Your interpretation is a shield occupy a off-hand and a buckler not, why you cannot use a buckler like in Slashing Grace because they are similar in wording...

In this case, I cannot accept you saying that I'm not ready to contribute to the conversation, I was only showing the fact that similar objects, spells, feats... has his own area of effect and are not the same and try to discuss telling why they are not the same is pointless.


is a buckler held in hand when in use giving you its shield bonus? NO, that's as far as I needed to read to say ya it works with dervish dance

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Yondu wrote:
It is written in a objective, black and white text

Okay, this made me laugh out loud.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
And how is holding a shield using it as a weapon...?

I will ask that you reread what I wrote.

I didn't use the word hold, I used the world wield, which has an important definition in Pathfinder. Holding doesn't present an issue, wielding does.

If you read the entries on shields you will see that they are weapons with an entry on the weapons table. Just because a player chooses not to bash with the shield so they can keep their AC bonus does not mean that it couldn't bash at a moments notice.

For example: A fighter has quickdraw, a quick draw light shield, and a greatsword. He uses the greatsword during his turn to pound away at the enemy. Then at the end of his turn he lets go of the greatsword with one hand (no longer wielding), and uses free/swift actions to draw and don the quickdraw shield (now wielding), for the AC bonus. (Note: he is no longer wielding the greatsword. Just the shield.) During his enemies turn, an AoO is provoked and the fighter decides he wants to take it. But the only weapon he is wielding is a shield. So he bashes with the shield and loses his AC bonus from the shield for the rest of the round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Yondu wrote:
It is written in a objective, black and white text in Dervish Dance, you cannot use a shield

No, it says, "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

Nothing about "use" of a shield. Rather, "carrying" a shield "in" your hand.

And elsewhere we have a FAQ on a similar ability saying;

"...bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand."

If a buckler does not "occupy the hand" it is not "in" the hand and thus does not conflict with Dervish Dance.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Yondu wrote:
It is written in a objective, black and white text in Dervish Dance, you cannot use a shield

No, it says, "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

Nothing about "use" of a shield. Rather, "carrying" a shield "in" your hand.

And elsewhere we have a FAQ on a similar ability saying;

"...bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand."

If a buckler does not "occupy the hand" it is not "in" the hand and thus does not conflict with Dervish Dance.

You are trying to bend the feat by his wording, because a buckler has to be carry on a hand, if you wear a buckler on the back, you do not add his AC bonus, the same for a weapon at your belt you cannot attack with it as an iterative attack even if you "Carry" it...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Yondu wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
If a buckler does not "occupy the hand" it is not "in" the hand and thus does not conflict with Dervish Dance.
You are trying to bend the feat by his wording, because a buckler has to be carry on a hand

Not according to the Core Rulebook;

"Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm."

If it is "strapped to your forearm" then you clearly aren't "carrying" it "in" your hand.

You just seem to rewrite the rules so that bucklers work differently / conflict with Dervish Dance. As actually written... they don't.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Yondu wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
If a buckler does not "occupy the hand" it is not "in" the hand and thus does not conflict with Dervish Dance.
You are trying to bend the feat by his wording, because a buckler has to be carry on a hand

Not according to the Core Rulebook;

"Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm."

If it is "strapped to your forearm" then you clearly aren't "carrying" it "in" your hand.

You just seem to rewrite the rules so that bucklers work differently / conflict with Dervish Dance. As actually written... they don't.

It is not carry "in" a hand but "on" a hand that I wrote. You seem to take in account the correct wording so do I.

You quote the Core Rulebook Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm but you forgot to add "You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an offhand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a twohanded
weapon), this imply that a buckler is worn on a shield arm but leave a hand free so if you have nothing in your off-hand and have a buckler stapped on you off-hand forearm, you carry a buckler, and the description indicate clearly that it impede correct movements as you take a penalty for attacks, as Dervish Dance is based on quick movements,balance(Dancing is generally the case), Finesse, the Feat is for me clearly against using Bucklers

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mahtobedis wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
And how is holding a shield using it as a weapon...?

I will ask that you reread what I wrote.

I didn't use the word hold, I used the world wield, which has an important definition in Pathfinder. Holding doesn't present an issue, wielding does.

If you read the entries on shields you will see that they are weapons with an entry on the weapons table. Just because a player chooses not to bash with the shield so they can keep their AC bonus does not mean that it couldn't bash at a moments notice.

For example: A fighter has quickdraw, a quick draw light shield, and a greatsword. He uses the greatsword during his turn to pound away at the enemy. Then at the end of his turn he lets go of the greatsword with one hand (no longer wielding), and uses free/swift actions to draw and don the quickdraw shield (now wielding), for the AC bonus. (Note: he is no longer wielding the greatsword. Just the shield.) During his enemies turn, an AoO is provoked and the fighter decides he wants to take it. But the only weapon he is wielding is a shield. So he bashes with the shield and loses his AC bonus from the shield for the rest of the round.

Nefreet answered you with an explanation. You can TWF with your head and an axe and still benefit from a shield. You don't need metaphorical hands to wield a shield. You do need real hands, though. Which is why you can't greatsword and shield at the same time.


I guess people don't seem to grasp the concept that having a small plate strapped to your forearm is closer to wearing armor than it is to wielding a shield.

Buckler's, by design, are meant to leave the hand free, in order to allow you to use it for other things. Dual Wielding, Two-handing, etc.

In both Pathfinder and real life, Bucklers do not interfere with the arm it is on.

Let me just put this to rest once and for all though, by RAW it works, because you do not carry a buckler, you wear it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Darkblitz9 wrote:
In both Pathfinder and real life, Bucklers do not interfere with the arm it is on.

Actually, in most 'real life' styles the buckler WAS held in the hand rather than strapped to the forearm... that's just not how they work in Pathfinder or D&D.


Yondu wrote:


It is written in a objective, black and white text in Dervish Dance, you cannot use a shield

No. There is not. Read the feat again. Read peoples posts again.

Dervish dance prevents you from using a shield carried in your off hand

From the description of a buckler it is strapped to your forearm.

From the other FAQ it does not "occupy" you hand in a metaphorical sense.

So if something is literally not in your hand, and metaphorically not occupying your hand, in what sense is a buckler in your off hand?

Quote:
a buckler is clearly a shield, so I cannot understand why is your point...

I don't think your english is up to the rules lawyering involved in the FAQ here.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
And how is holding a shield using it as a weapon...?

I will ask that you reread what I wrote.

I didn't use the word hold, I used the world wield, which has an important definition in Pathfinder. Holding doesn't present an issue, wielding does.

If you read the entries on shields you will see that they are weapons with an entry on the weapons table. Just because a player chooses not to bash with the shield so they can keep their AC bonus does not mean that it couldn't bash at a moments notice.

For example: A fighter has quickdraw, a quick draw light shield, and a greatsword. He uses the greatsword during his turn to pound away at the enemy. Then at the end of his turn he lets go of the greatsword with one hand (no longer wielding), and uses free/swift actions to draw and don the quickdraw shield (now wielding), for the AC bonus. (Note: he is no longer wielding the greatsword. Just the shield.) During his enemies turn, an AoO is provoked and the fighter decides he wants to take it. But the only weapon he is wielding is a shield. So he bashes with the shield and loses his AC bonus from the shield for the rest of the round.

Nefreet answered you with an explanation. You can TWF with your head and an axe and still benefit from a shield. You don't need metaphorical hands to wield a shield. You do need real hands, though. Which is why you can't greatsword and shield at the same time.

Clearly, Nefreet and I disagree. It must be a day that ends in y.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Are you saying that you can't Kick/Kick while using a shield?

You're going to need to support that opinion somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh god. Herolabs. My #1 triggerword on this site.

You know what's going to happen if this FAQ gets answered, right? Bucklers will be nerfed into uselessness, and Dervish Dance may actually be published in an official Hardcover, with the same text as Slashing Grace (as is what happened with Fencing Grace) to prevent these sorts of "shenanigans".

I'd prefer to actually have the FAQs do what they say they do, instead of resulting in a ruling reversal. So yes, it should work.

And with that said, I'm going to bow my head out of this one before I go on a relentless tirade about my #1 triggerword. (Yes, saying it is basically my command word for my Rage spell-like ability.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well, even under the (IMO clearly wrong) interpretation that a buckler prevents Dervish Dance... you could still take the Unhindering Shield feat to allow it.


You can kick, kick, claw, claw. of course you can kick kick and have a shield.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Oh god. Herolabs. My #1 triggerword on this site.

You know what's going to happen if this FAQ gets answered, right? Bucklers will be nerfed into uselessness, and Dervish Dance may actually be published in an official Hardcover, with the same text as Slashing Grace (as is what happened with Fencing Grace) to prevent these sorts of "shenanigans".

I'd prefer to actually have the FAQs do what they say they do, instead of resulting in a ruling reversal. So yes, it should work.

And with that said, I'm going to bow my head out of this one before I go on a relentless tirade about my #1 triggerword. (Yes, saying it is basically my command word for my Rage spell-like ability.)

I'm not sure what you mean? slashing grace works with bucklers. they specifically say it does in the faq. paizo allows this "shenanigans".


Mahtobedis wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


In fact, what you are saying means that having a vestigial arm is utterly useless because if you did ANYTHING with that arm, it would be considered to grant an 'extra attack' to the original hand that otherwise would have been used.

Ridiculous.

Except that isn't what I said. I suggest rereading again.

Vestigial arm has lots of uses. It can get a potion, hold a potion, hold a scroll, scratch an itch, pick up an item, hold an item in preparation for it being wielded later that round (such as after you have generated all of your attacks).

It just can't contribute to the number of attacks you generate in a round by wielding a weapon at the same time you have your other hands occupied with generating attacks (and in case you have forgotten, shields are weapons)

Bull.

It can hold anything it wants INCLUDING weapons, it just can't attack with them. Holding a shield to get the AC bonus is not a attacking with a weapon.

If you're going to be insulting, at least get your own facts correct. Perhaps you should reread the FAQ yourself.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
vhok wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean?

Don't sweat it. Darksol loses the ability to form coherent sentences any time someone mentions... 'laboratories for heroic individuals'.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yondu wrote:


It is written in a objective, black and white text in Dervish Dance, you cannot use a shield

No. There is not. Read the feat again. Read peoples posts again.

Dervish dance prevents you from using a shield carried in your off hand

From the description of a buckler it is strapped to your forearm.

From the other FAQ it does not "occupy" you hand in a metaphorical sense.

So if something is literally not in your hand, and metaphorically not occupying your hand, in what sense is a buckler in your off hand?

Quote:
a buckler is clearly a shield, so I cannot understand why is your point...

I don't think your english is up to the rules lawyering involved in the FAQ here.

You do not provide proof of the fact that a buckler is not a shield and does not prevent to apply dexterity to damage, even if it straped on forearm.. I read the feat in English and French, my language, it states clearly that you cannot have a shield in hand and apply Dext to damage with dervish dance and advancing that as the buckler in not "in hand" is bending the feat.

Concerning your statement on my English level, your comment is inappropriate and offensive.


I would say the intent was for no shields. That they used poor wording shouldn't cover up the fact that it wasn't intended to work with shields.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I would say the intent was for no shields. That they used poor wording shouldn't cover up the fact that it wasn't intended to work with shields.

You are possibly correct. However, there have been several times that the dev team has ruled that an odd, yet technically literal reading of the rules was correct.

For example: if a Magus obtains the 'precise strike' ability using a perfectly legal combination of Flamboyant Arcana and Arcane Deed, he technically has a swashbuckler level of 0, so does 0 extra damage.

A bizarre, yet literal and apparently correct reading of the rules. Even though the daring champion archetype seems to somehow avoid this pitfall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

that the sohei monk, that replaced armor proficiency bypassed the no armor restriction of the monk. Not intended by author, but what literally was written, probably not intended when published, and approved to be correct.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I would say the intent was for no shields. That they used poor wording shouldn't cover up the fact that it wasn't intended to work with shields.

You are possibly correct. However, there have been several times that the dev team has ruled that an odd, yet technically literal reading of the rules was correct.

For example: if a Magus obtains the 'precise strike' ability using a perfectly legal combination of Flamboyant Arcana and Arcane Deed, he technically has a swashbuckler level of 0, so does 0 extra damage.

A bizarre, yet literal and apparently correct reading of the rules. Even though the daring champion archetype seems to somehow avoid this pitfall.

Usually those odd wordings are last resort nerfs that they couldn't find another way to word. The flamboyant arcana thing is likely due not being able to find another way to kill several unintended combos. "This isn't intended and this reading kills what we want killed so lets just do that." Same with the untyped attribute bonus FAQ. They said you could basically treat each attribute as a type of bonus instead of being untyped, which is better for how the rules of the game work, but that would require too much editing so we got the whole double source nonsense.

So most of the odd wording issues make sense when you take them wanting to save editorial costs into account, even if it produces some rather arbitrary FAQs.


Melkiador wrote:
I would say the intent was for no shields. That they used poor wording shouldn't cover up the fact that it wasn't intended to work with shields.

I am fine with no shields.

I am not ok with the disconnect between the rules meant and the rules said to be arbitrary enough that we are supposed to parse the difference between "occupy", "metaphorically take up", or "be in". The rules are not tightly written enough to stand up to that kind of hair splitting, nor are the corrections fast enough to keep up with the mountains of weird interpretations that crop up when you try to dissect the rules with a scalpel that small.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The DM is splitting hairs on a level that would induce fission...

I just want to say that I love this line.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It sounds like the French translation is "hand", rather than "arm".

That has got to be annoying.


yondu wrote:
You do not provide proof of the fact that a buckler is not a shield

Of course I don't. Because I'm not arguing that point.

Quote:
and does not prevent to apply dexterity to damage, even if it straped on forearm.

Something that is not on the forearm is not in the hand

If that seems like stretching the rules, explain why slashing grace can use a buckler but Dervish dance can't. -They have different words- is not an answer: the difference in those words has to somehow imply a difference.


Dervish Dance does not allow a buckler has been previously explained in one of my post, as it is necessary to have a training in Dancing which need fluidity, balance, and movement, and it is clearly indicated that a buckler impede the movement (penalty to attack), so if you are out of balance you cannot use the feat. I recommend you to check what is a Dervish in reality.

Liberty's Edge

Yondu wrote:
Dervish Dance does not allow a buckler has been previously explained in one of my post, as it is necessary to have a training in Dancing which need fluidity, balance, and movement, and it is clearly indicated that a buckler impede the movement (penalty to attack), so if you are out of balance you cannot use the feat. I recommend you to check what is a Dervish in reality.

Impeding an attack roll does not mean it impedes all movement. Heck, you can even use Somatic Components at no penalty with the buckler arm, which may be more akin to dancing.


Yondu wrote:
Dervish Dance does not allow a buckler has been previously explained in one of my post.

Your explanation is lacking and you're not answering the problems with your reasoning or otherwise having a conversation at all.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
-They have different words- is not an answer: the difference in those words has to somehow imply a difference.

Dervish Dance does not prohibit TWF or Flurry or natural attacks while Slashing Grace does.

Dervish Dance does not prohibit holding something that is neither weapon nor shield while Slashing Grace requires an empty hand to function.

How are these differences meaningless, as you claim them to be?

101 to 150 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Dervish Dance + Buckler All Messageboards