That seems like a pretty weak argument to me. Honestly it's as simple as this: Dervish Dance's only prohibition is against carrying a weapon or shield in your hand. You don't carry a Pathfinder buckler in your hand. So a buckler is fine.
-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?
Because those are conclusions that you are making, not differences in the text.
I am questioning your conclusions. Using your conclusions to back your conclusions is circular.
Because those are conclusions that you are making, not differences in the text.I am questioning your conclusions. Using your conclusions to back your conclusions is circular.
But.. that is the text. DD has no special provision against TWF or Flurry in the text. That doesn't require any special reading. It just doesn't have that language in it.
DD likewise specifies that carrying a weapon or shield disables its effect. Things that are not weapons or shields, like lanterns or rods or a rock wall you're clinging to, do not prevent you from using Dervish Dance. Because the feat says it stops working if you do X or Y. Suggesting that that also means it stops working if you do Z has no basis in the text of the feat itself.
It's really simple. Dervish Dance has one trigger condition that causes the feat to be unusable. If you are not doing that, the feat works. That's not using a conclusion to back a conclusion. That's what the feat says it does.
|
The word "carrying" is the problematic element here. As far as combat goes, "carrying" is not defined, so we try to plug in our own personal, real world understanding. An understanding that might not apply in the world of Pathfinder.
"Holding" is what most people decide to go with. And holding implies usage of a hand. Reading the descriptions of the four core shields we see one that doesn't require a hand at all. This fact is reiterated in the Slashing Grace FAQ. The FAQ isn't necessary for this understanding, but it confirms our reading of the CRB.
So if "carrying" isn't a concern, then let's look to the next most problematic element.
The word "off-hand" is better defined in Pathfinder, but unfortunately it requires a little unwritten knowledge. This is likely why its usage in the text of Dervish Dance compounds attempts to understand it.
The off-hand is only relevant during combat when making attacks. It never exists otherwise. And it need not require a hand at all. You can use virtually any part of your body as an off-hand attack. With Boulder Helmets and Armor Spikes and Blade Boots this is more apparent than ever.
Luckily for the Buckler, it can't be used as an attack by itself (barring a couple rare exceptions). It's a restriction written into its description. So, not only does a Buckler *not* require "carrying", it also isn't used in your "off-hand".
So if it's not "carried" or used in your "off-hand", then it's safe to use with Dervish Dance.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Been reading this thread. (I'm of the opinion that buckler + Dervish Dance works, just not Rules as the designers intended, that's what you get for trying to nerf slashing/fencing grace, way to go!)
But I was wondering what other feats/traits are affected.
I found blade bravo (trait) and (amusingly) weapon trick: one handed weapons (feat) both have the "holding nothing in your off hand" language.
But.. that is the text.
That is your interpretation of the text.
It might be the literal interpretation of the text as well, but a literal interpretation isn't always the right one either.DD has no special provision against TWF or Flurry in the text. That doesn't require any special reading. It just doesn't have that language in it.
It might depending on what two weapon fighting you do and how you read the text.
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
So obviously a dagger or shield in your off hand is out.
A boot blade or dwarven boulder helmet would depend on whether it means your physical or metaphysical off hand.
Natural weapon or would depend on whether a claw counts as a weapon in your off hand (probably not)
Magusflurry would depend on whether a spell counted as a weapon in your off hand, and in a lot of cases it does.
Suggesting that that also means it stops working if you do Z has no basis in the text of the feat itself.
Sometimes z is enough like x that it works like x.
It's really simple. Dervish Dance has one trigger condition that causes the feat to be unusable. If you are not doing that, the feat works. That's not using a conclusion to back a conclusion. That's what the feat says it does.
Thats what you think it says. Big difference.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But.. that is the text.That is your interpretation of the text.
It might be the literal interpretation of the text as well, but a literal interpretation isn't always the right one either.
+1
I find this is far more common (different interpretations) and often the interpretation used by Herolab is on the right side of a FAQ (e.g. Courageous weapon property)
That is your interpretation of the text.
It might be the literal interpretation of the text as well, but a literal interpretation isn't always the right one either.
So what, the correct interpretation is to literally make up words and pretend they're in the feat's description? Because this isn't about ambiguous RAW or anything, it's one pretty straight forward sentence.
A boot blade or dwarven boulder helmet would depend on whether it means your physical or metaphysical off hand.
This would be the correct interpretation if we were talking about attacks, because any TWF attack is with an off-hand weapon no matter how you hold it, but Dervish Dance doesn't say 'attack'. It says 'carry'... I'm not sure how you can argue wearing a hat counts as carrying something in your hand.
Natural weapon or would depend on whether a claw counts as a weapon in your off hand (probably not)
What about a bite? Or gore? Or an Unarmed Strike with your foot? Are you carrying your bite attack in your hand now? That doesn't even make sense.
Sometimes z is enough like x that it works like x.
Can you prove it then? Tell me what you're carrying in your hand when your hand is empty and you make an unarmed strike.
Tell me what kind of weapon or shield you're carrying in your off-hand when you're holding a lantern in that hand.
Please. I'm more than willing to listen to any arguments regarding either of those points, but just constantly saying "Well no that's wrong because I say so" over and over isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
constantly saying "Well no that's wrong because I say so" over and over isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion.That is your interpretation of the text.
It might be the literal interpretation of the text as well, but a literal interpretation isn't always the right one either.
Both sides are pretty set in their respective interpretations. There probably are no words that either can say to resolve the different interpretations. Someone should make a new succint new thread and carry on a FAQ campaign to get an answer.
If you really want that shield bonus to AC while using the Dervish Dance Feat, why not just take off your shield when it's your turn, Full Attack, then put your shield back on?
It goes off and on as a free action by...?
I agree absolutely! Pathfinder Society Players who can demonstrate that they are Paying Customers Obeying the Rules should be allowed to play the game their own way and not have their ideas stomped upon!
Some ideas need to be rules against because despite the players protests, they're not legal.
It should have a reasonable argument. Not epistemic nihlism
So what, the correct interpretation is to literally make up words and pretend they're in the feat's description? Because this isn't about ambiguous RAW or anything, it's one pretty straight forward sentence.That is your interpretation of the text.
It might be the literal interpretation of the text as well, but a literal interpretation isn't always the right one either.
There are greater sins, like misusing literally. I mean if i were to literally make up words to insert into the text i'd need an exacto knife some glue and a little print out that said stalicism or something.
You do not seem to recognize that the text has multiple interpretations and picking between them is not a matter of following them literally. Literal interpretations have the worst track record as far as being right when the clarifications come down.
This would be the correct interpretation if we were talking about attacks, because any TWF attack is with an off-hand weapon no matter how you hold it, but Dervish Dance doesn't say 'attack'. It says 'carry'... I'm not sure how you can argue wearing a hat counts as carrying something in your hand.
Because the tex SAYS "The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." which could easily mean "hey, no shields and no two weapon fighting" because a lot of the crazy ways of two weapon fighting with your head weren't around at the time.
Tell me what kind of weapon or shield you're carrying in your off-hand when you're holding a lantern in that hand.
Improvised
Please. I'm more than willing to listen to any arguments regarding either of those points, but just constantly saying "Well no that's wrong because I say so" over and over isn't conducive to a meaningful discussion.
You're projecting. I'm bringing up specific words of the text and showing how they might be meant. You're insisting that they mean EXACTLY what they say: which is "you're wrong because i say so".
How i THINK it works:
Buckler: Yes
Magus spell: No
Bite: Yes
Punch: yes
Kick: yes
No argument here! I'd go further and say that the argument needs to be more than reasonable: it needs to be compelling, or at least very strong indeed. "
Having seen some of the things you've insisted were perfectly legal I think your standards in that regard are far too stringent.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Society Players who can demonstrate that they are Paying Customers Obeying the Rules should be allowed to play the game their own way and not have their ideas stomped upon!
That is pretty much how it never works out. Just because you have an idea how something works is fundamentally irrelevant when it comes to how a GM thinks it works except in the case of a FAQ/Errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody's said it in a while, so I think I'm comfortable enough to pop my head back in to weigh my opinion on the subject matter without going on a rant.
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters.
There's a bit of a flaw with that statement. And no, it's not because JJ said it.
The GM was, is, and always has been, within his rights to say it doesn't work, well before anyone has said or cited anything, and he doesn't have to give any sort of explanation. He can simply say "No," and that's the end of it, in that it either doesn't work, or is simply banned as an option altogether.
JJ's statement on that regard isn't really anything new. "GM FIAT can screw you" can apply to every single rule in the game, either because the GM hates you, has to houserule everything, or some other inane "reason," but him saying that in that situation is as relevant as if he said it to any other rule or feat or ability or whatever.
In addition, the idea that it's not supposed to work with two-weapon fighting at all means the text should have specifically included a disallowment of two-weapon fighting altogether, meaning abilities that function similar to it (Spell Combat, Flurry of Blows, and so on) likewise don't work.
We also can't assume that is the intent behind the ability, because JJ (and several others who actually are/were designers,) has been overruled before. It's not definitively stated that he designed the feat, so I can't give him the benefit of RAI in that situation, either.
Needless to say, until they publish the feat in the newest hardcover book with all of the desired errata they want to put on that feat, the concept of Dervish Dance disallowing TWF, Unarmed Strikes, Spell Combat, Flurry of Blows, all of which may not require a weapon or shield in the off-hand (as the feat says is the condition that makes it cease functioning), will still continue to work as normal.
That being said, I can't wait for them to do that (as they did with Fencing Grace), as that would bury every single Dexterity-based Magus that ever existed in PFS. It's nothing personal or anything, it's just something that I can totally see Paizo doing, since they have done it at least once before.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, I can't wait for them to do that (as they did with Fencing Grace), as that would bury every single Dexterity-based Magus that ever existed in PFS.
So far as I'm concerned the existing wording already does that.
Dervish Dance: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."
Spell Combat: "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
Dervish Dance doesn't work with an off-hand weapon. Spell Combat treats the spell as an off-hand weapon. Ergo, Dervish Dance doesn't work with Spell Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like magus hurts for damage without it. Personally, I'd be cool if that combo officially went away.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the mentally is, you can't carry a spell. you hand is being used but there's not actually anything being carried in it.
Which is endorsed by players but has repetitively been clarified in various ways to not work. It's the whole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes despite not carrying the Armor Spikes.
We also can't assume that is the intent behind the ability, because JJ (and several others who actually are/were designers,) has been overruled before. It's not definitively stated that he designed the feat, so I can't give him the benefit of RAI in that situation, either.As he designed the feat, pretty much he is the only one who can tell what the intention was.
Again, it's not definitively stated. Until he comes in and says something along the lines of "Yes, I designed the feat," it's speculation, just like it was speculation of him to say that shield spikes are their own weapons that can be enhanced separately from the shield they're attached to.
@ CBDunkerson: Spells aren't weapons, flat-out. Saying that Spell Combat turns spells into weapons means I can Power Attack, Vital Strike, and so on with them when using Spell Combat. But the recent FAQ says you can't, because they are not weapons.
So that interpretation, even if the rules could be feasibly read that way, are contradicted by recently-posted FAQs.
|
^ this is how I interpret it as well.
Unfortunately, years of Magus guides have endeared the idea that it works into the minds of many players, and if an FAQ was ever released to the contrary it could have the potential for backlash.
There may be some confusion here. Most agree you can not use Dervish Dance and also Spell Combat together, as that is essentially Two-Weapon Fighting with a Scimitar in one hand and your Spell in the other, (essentially allowing you to Full Attack with your weapon and additionally add a Standard Action Spellcasting in on top of that, with that Spell being your Off-Hand Two-Weapon Fighting). However, Spellstrike is different, and can work just fine, as you are casting the spell through your Scimitar, literally using the Scimitar (or other valid Light or One-Handed Weapon), instead of your Hand to make the Attack, as a Standard Action. Spellstrike and Spell Combat are two completely separate abilities that do not have to, but can function together.
@ CBDunkerson: Spells aren't weapons, flat-out. Saying that Spell Combat turns spells into weapons means I can Power Attack, Vital Strike, and so on with them when using Spell Combat. But the recent FAQ says you can't, because they are not weapons.
What new FAQ are you referring to? I ask because these two FAQ seem to disagree:
Are Rays weapons?Can you take Improved Crit Ray?
Both are pretty clear that Rays, Touch Spells, and other Weapon-Like Effects are treated as Weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells aren't weapons, but spell combat does operate as if they are.
|
|
Citation please. I believe that it might just be a misunderstanding. Spells, and Spellcasting are indeed, not weapons. However, Rays (ranged magical attacks that require a Roll to Hit and deal Damage, included Ability Damage), Touch Attacks (which likewise require an Attack Roll and deal some sort of damage, and can be delivered via an Unarmed Strike if desired), as well as Spell that "create Weapons" such as Flame Blade, are Weapons. The spell or Spellcasting itself is not, but the effects can be.
For instance, while you have a Touch Spell in hand (holding the charge), you are armed, and could use that Touch Attack for an AoO. It's a Light Weapon, so benefits from Weapon Finesse if you wish. If you choose to deliver it through a Punch, it is not longer a Touch Attack, but goes off if the attack hits, dealing both Unarmed Strike Damage and the Spell effect.
Having seen that post i[ll flip the punch and kick over to "no"
What new FAQ are you referring to?
Relevant text:
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.