Bladed Brush feat - slashing grace and reach for the magus?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Another thing to consider. Bladed Brush isn't the first game element that looks like it was meant to be used with Slashing Grace, but that the new language of Slashing Grace got in the way of;

ACG FAQ wrote:

Slashing Grace: In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?

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.”

So Slashing Grace really cares about not holding anything in the hand, "occupied" includes both doing something with the hand and holding stuff in it. The Flair needed an exception.

So if it turns out that the Bladed Brush is in fact still held in two hands (which seems likely), it also needs a clarification to make it work with Slashing Grace (as seems intended).


Quote:
So if it turns out that the Bladed Brush is in fact still held in two hands

If it turns out? The wording of Bladed Brush seems to make it pretty clear that you never stop holding it in two hands. You 'treat it as' a one handed weapon, and as though your other hand isn't making an attack. Nothing ever says or even implies that you wield it in one hand, and the bit about your other hand not being treated as attacking would be wholly unnecessary language if it were the case.

I don't know how you could parse that as wielding it in one hand at all. The language is wholly different from the language on something like, say, Thunder and Fang which actually does let you wield a two handed weapon in one hand.

Sovereign Court

Normally "treat as X" means following the rules for X. And the rules for 1H weapons specify that you can wield them in one hand.

If the wording for Bladed Brush was pretty clear we wouldn't be having this conversation. I do agree that continuing to use it in two hands is the most reasonable way to read that text, but it leaves Slashing Grace in the cold and I think Bladed Brush was intended to work with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If bladed brush's "you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon" were meant to simply turn it into a one-handed weapon, wouldn't the wording right after "and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" then be superfluous?

Because logically, if you were treating it in all ways a one-handed weapon, then the next line would be entirely unnecessary.

Either this feat is poorly written (I wouldn't put it past this game) or is using an entirely unique position on handedness and ability interaction.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Either this feat is poorly written (I wouldn't put it past this game) or is using an entirely unique position on handedness and ability interaction.

My vote would be both, leaving this feat all but unusable without house rules.

Unless a FAQ clears up exactly what Bladed Brush does and does not allow, I would avoid this feat like the plague in any venue where table variance might be an issue.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Johnny_Devo wrote:
If bladed brush's "you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon" were meant to simply turn it into a one-handed weapon, wouldn't the wording right after "and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" then be superfluous?

IMO, that wording is there to parallel the wording of the requirements for Precise Strike and cover any concerns about 'hands of effort'... not only are you wielding the glaive in one hand, as a piercing or slashing melee weapon, but you are only using 'one hand of effort' to do so.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Normally "treat as X" means following the rules for X. And the rules for 1H weapons specify that you can wield them in one hand.

Not really? Treat as X for the purposes of Y means just that. The weapon isn't X, but for Y thing that requires X you can treat it as such. Unarmed Strikes aren't actually natural attacks for monks, just treated as such for certain effects. Mithral medium armor isn't actually light armor, just treated as such for certain effects. Treating it as a one handed weapon for feats and class features means just that, not that it's actually one handed.

Quote:
If the wording for Bladed Brush was pretty clear we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think that's more an issue of people just wanting the feat to be more than it is.

Quote:
but it leaves Slashing Grace in the cold and I think Bladed Brush was intended to work with it.

If it was intended to work with the feat then it wouldn't have such particular wording just to shut it down. There's no reason to think it's supposed to wok with slashing grace.

In fact, given how conservative Paizo's been with dex to damage, the idea that they were intended to work is actually a bit absurd.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
If bladed brush's "you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon" were meant to simply turn it into a one-handed weapon, wouldn't the wording right after "and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" then be superfluous?
IMO, that wording is there to parallel the wording of the requirements for Precise Strike and cover any concerns about 'hands of effort'... not only are you wielding the glaive in one hand, as a piercing or slashing melee weapon, but you are only using 'one hand of effort' to do so.

Yeah, but wouldn't "as a one-handed weapon" then mean it only requires one "hand of effort" in the first place?


Johnny_Devo wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
If bladed brush's "you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon" were meant to simply turn it into a one-handed weapon, wouldn't the wording right after "and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" then be superfluous?
IMO, that wording is there to parallel the wording of the requirements for Precise Strike and cover any concerns about 'hands of effort'... not only are you wielding the glaive in one hand, as a piercing or slashing melee weapon, but you are only using 'one hand of effort' to do so.
Yeah, but wouldn't "as a one-handed weapon" then mean it only requires one "hand of effort" in the first place?

Not since the feat specifies that it only counts as such for feats and class features. This means that the weapon will qualify for such feats and abilities (like slashing grace and precise strike) while still being a two-handed weapon.

It even goes so far to say that your off-hand, while still being used on the weapon, doesn't count as being used on the weapon for such abilities as undoubtedly that hand normally counts as being used to make attacks while using a two-handed weapon. This can be interpreted a number of different ways, depending on the DM.

Basically, the weapon counts as being a two-handed weapon, and still deals damage like a two-handed weapon, but can be treated as a one-handed weapon for things that require it as such, and the off hand doesn't count against that, it's "free, but not really". That's the easiest RAI for the feat.

If you want to argue semantics about what abilities are and aren't allowed (like Spell Combat), go for it, but RAI is pretty clear.

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
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Yeah, but wouldn't "as a one-handed weapon" then mean it only requires one "hand of effort" in the first place?

People ROUTINELY argue that Jotungrip, Quarterstaff Master, Shield Brace, using a 2H weapon sized for a smaller character, and every other method of using a two-handed weapon in one hand DO NOT allow you to use the weapon with Precise Strike, Spell Combat, and the like... because 'it still requires two hands of effort'... or 'has to physically be' a one-handed weapon rather than merely being 'used as' such... or some other convoluted excuse.

Thus, I think the author here was simply trying to cover every possible objection. Essentially, you are reading redundancy as contradiction. I am reading it as neccessary reinforcement given excessive rules lawyering against all forms of using 2H weapons in one hand.


Guess I'll chalk it up as another symptom of a casual writing format in a rules environment.

Would that I could rewrite all of pathfinder, but then people would just argue with my interpretations.

Sovereign Court

Squiggit wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Normally "treat as X" means following the rules for X. And the rules for 1H weapons specify that you can wield them in one hand.

Not really? Treat as X for the purposes of Y means just that. The weapon isn't X, but for Y thing that requires X you can treat it as such. Unarmed Strikes aren't actually natural attacks for monks, just treated as such for certain effects. Mithral medium armor isn't actually light armor, just treated as such for certain effects. Treating it as a one handed weapon for feats and class features means just that, not that it's actually one handed.

Quote:
If the wording for Bladed Brush was pretty clear we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I think that's more an issue of people just wanting the feat to be more than it is.

I don't see why you're going on like this to me, if you read my posting in this thread so far you can see that I do believe it's meant to be used in two hands.

However, given the amount of people who thought it would be one-handed, at least during their first reading, the feat really isn't that crystal clear.

Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
but it leaves Slashing Grace in the cold and I think Bladed Brush was intended to work with it.

If it was intended to work with the feat then it wouldn't have such particular wording just to shut it down. There's no reason to think it's supposed to wok with slashing grace.

In fact, given how conservative Paizo's been with dex to damage, the idea that they were intended to work is actually a bit absurd.

I disagree with you on that. Bladed Brush contains several hints that it was intended to be compatible with Slashing Grace.

Bladed Brush wrote:
When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).

The reference to feats suggests that the writer did have some feats in mind that it should be compatible with. And mentioning piercing or slashing is a lot more than would be needed to match Precise Strike, but it's exactly enough to match both Precise Strike and Slashing Grace.

If it weren't for the "not occupied != not attacking" bit, Bladed Brush would be absolutely perfect for combining with Slashing Grace, because:

- It makes the glaive Finesseable, a prerequisite for any dex to damage option
- It makes it 1H-ish, a prerequisite for both Precise Strike and Slashing Grace
- It makes it piercing enough for Precise Strike but doesn't turn it into a piercing weapon, it stays just slashing enough to continue qualifying for Slashing Grace.

And of course the whole theme is being Shelyn-like graceful, not having to have great strength to hack people apart.

So I think the author just got it a little bit wrong with the precise term needed to match Slashing Grace. Which isn't really that unlikely, given that the design teams probably aren't exactly the same people, and that all these abilities have subtly differing language.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Snowlilly: Did you literally just tell me that they avoided word repetition by making a redundancy? Also, if "occupied" means the same as "free", the X Grace feats would still work with spell combat, since the off-hand (the one casting the spell) is definitely free.

Regarding Power Attack: Since Bladed Brush says you only treat the weapon as one handed for feats or class feature that require such a weapon, and as Power Attack works fine with two-handed weapons, it is not affected at all.

Ascalaphus wrote:
However, given the amount of people who thought it would be one-handed, at least during their first reading, the feat really isn't that crystal clear.

That's because people like to ignore and over-simplify things. The handedness issue comes from people ignoring the "for feats and class features" part. The Power Attack issue comes from people ignoring the "that require such a weapon" part. The only real ambiguity comes from them never defining what "occupied" means.

God that FAQ is a mess. Not only did they miss a prime opportunity to actually define "occupied", the swordmaster's flair makes things really confusing. They didn't even say that swordmaster's flair doesn't work*, and the change to it (that for some reason doesn't even say that it will be reflected in the next errata) doesn't match Slashing Grace's language (so, if you use the flair, does Slashing Grace stop working for that time?). Also, with that change, you can use the hand holding swordmaster's flair to cast spells.

*) So by the "FAQs only affect what they say affect" thing, the FAQ doesn't do anything for our topic. *sigh*

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

So Slashing Grace really cares about not holding anything in the hand, "occupied" includes both doing something with the hand and holding stuff in it. The Flair needed an exception.

So if it turns out that the Bladed Brush is in fact still held in two hands (which seems likely), it also needs a clarification to make it work with Slashing Grace (as seems intended).

Yes, Slashing Grace really cares... it cares hard... but Two-Weapon Grace can help with the occupied hand syndrome:

"You can gain the benefit of the Fencing Grace, Slashing Grace, or Starry Grace feats while fighting with two weapons. [...] If you attack without using your off-hand weapon, you can use the aforementioned feats despite your other hand being occupied."


So getting this to work properly on a Swashbuckler requires: Weapon Finesse (free), Bladed Brush, Weapon Focus(Glaive), Slashing Grace, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Grace? I guess that's doable by level 5 if you're human. The feat tax those last two entail hurts though.


Ascalaphus wrote:


I don't see why you're going on like this to me

Because I think you're wrong on what "treat as X" means.

Quote:
So I think the author just got it a little bit wrong with the precise term needed to match Slashing Grace. Which isn't really that unlikely, given that the design teams probably aren't exactly the same people, and that all these abilities have subtly differing language.

I agree with you that ambiguity and the general vagueness of terms in Pathfinder can cause a lot of issues with certain feats and abilities, but I can't agree with this conclusion.

The feat has very convoluted and precise wording to dance around letting your hand count as free or allowing you to wield the weapon in one hand. There's absolutely no reason to use language like that unless your goal is very specifically to enable precise strike but disallow things like Slashing Grace and Spell Combat.

So between the language choice that is far more complex than it would never need to be to enable slashing grace and Paizo's general squeamishness toward giving out dex to damage, I just don't see how an argument can be made that Slashing Grace should or is intended to work.

Because if it wanted you to wield the weapon in one hand or treat your offhand as free it would just say that and the feat would be much more direct and have a shorter wordcount and I don't really buy "well the writer was just an idiot", either.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So getting this to work properly on a Swashbuckler requires: Weapon Finesse (free), Bladed Brush, Weapon Focus(Glaive), Slashing Grace, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Grace? I guess that's doable by level 5 if you're human. The feat tax those last two entail hurts though.

That might work, though if it does I'd imagine Two-Weapon Grace gets FAQ'd to disallow that, because given Paizo's attitude on dex to damage I don't see any way they'd actually give that a pass.


Kaouse wrote:
Is anybody else annoyed with these needless restrictions?

It hasn't been demonstrated that the magus is in dire need of having all of these bonuses in the same round as spell combat. If you're doing 20d6 of damage with a crit spell, you're going to cry about missing 5 more?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I just started allowing Deadly Agility from Dreamscarred Press.

None of this muss or ambiguity. If a weapon benefits from Weapon Finesse, you can add dexterity to damage instead of strength. No reduction for off-hand, but no increase for two-handing.

Simple. Concise. Doesn't require a five-feat chain to still be kinda crap at it or for me to consider the "hands of effort."

I get that they're trying to keep dexterity builds from being too easy but they're breaking the old design law that making something cumbersome and annoying to use is not a good balancing factor. They'd save EVERYONE a lot of headaches if they just made Improved Weapon Finesse and released some strength-incentivizers in the same book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Magus will be fine (even if "another decent option" would have been nice), but unfortunately the Swashbuckler has to work really hard to make all of its class features and feats that were written with it in mind work properly though.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So getting this to work properly on a Swashbuckler requires: Weapon Finesse (free), Bladed Brush, Weapon Focus(Glaive), Slashing Grace, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Grace? I guess that's doable by level 5 if you're human. The feat tax those last two entail hurts though.

A waste if you ask me... TWF and TWG are not at all useful for a glaive toting swashbuckler... therefore there needs to be an errata for Bladed Brush to also remove the occupied hand thing... otherwise, due to the proliferation of 'grace' feats and swashbuckler feats that for some reason don't seem to work together, this game will become a huge mess and people are just gonna wing it from now on.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
therefore there needs to be an errata for Bladed Brush to also remove the occupied hand thing

Unless the intention was never to allow slashing grace to begin with.

I mean, it's a reach weapon with full power attack scaling you get to add +level to damage to, you aren't exactly hurting so bad you need 1.5x dex to damage on top of that (and if you are two feats for something like +10-19 damage per hit isn't exactly terrible either)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So getting this to work properly on a Swashbuckler requires: Weapon Finesse (free), Bladed Brush, Weapon Focus(Glaive), Slashing Grace, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Grace? I guess that's doable by level 5 if you're human. The feat tax those last two entail hurts though.

A waste if you ask me... TWF and TWG are not at all useful for a glaive toting swashbuckler... therefore there needs to be an errata for Bladed Brush to also remove the occupied hand thing... otherwise, due to the proliferation of 'grace' feats and swashbuckler feats that for some reason don't seem to work together, this game will become a huge mess and people are just gonna wing it from now on.

EDIT: unless they add a feat with Bladed Brush, TWF and TWG as a prereq that says: "in addition to the benefits provided by Bladed Brush, you can also use a glaive as a double weapon, with the bladed end being considered the 'one handed' attack for the purposes of adding precise strike, and the blunt end treated as a light hammer, light shield or sap (wielder's choice, decided before the attack is made)."

:)

...I really want that feat now... :)


The glaivebuckler (Swashglaiver?) though will be at a disadvantage compared to the stadard rapier/cutlass/scimitar build though, because the Swashbuckler relies on critting frequently to keep supplied with panache.

So at level 5 (when the glaive theoretically comes on line) the swashbuckler would have a critical threat just 10% of the time versus 30% of the time with the rapier/cutlass/scimitar. So just the fact that you get to parry so much less is already putting you at a disadvantage. Plus, unlike a blue flair using 'buckler, I don't think you can riposte against adjacent targets (though it looks like you can parry).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wish that the authors would chime in more what their intent was and if any wording got changed from what they released. That usually solves 90% of the problem, makes it easy for the PFS team to clarify it, and that makes it easy to make a FAQ for it if needed.

The issue is that PFS doesn't always go with intent or even clear wording of stuff. So without any direction from author or DEV(but they don't like to answer) we're left to create threads hundreds of posts long debating this.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I really wish that the authors would chime in more what their intent was and if any wording got changed from what they released. That usually solves 90% of the problem, makes it easy for the PFS team to clarify it, and that makes it easy to make a FAQ for it if needed.

The issue is that PFS doesn't always go with intent or even clear wording of stuff. So without any direction from author or DEV(but they don't like to answer) we're left to create threads hundreds of posts long debating this.

The intent has always been clear... from the other end. They simply don't want Magi to be using all of the damage adders that martials and specialised meleers make their own. The intent of spell combat is essentially to turn you into a one hand fighter with magic in your other hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

there's more questions than just for magi


Chess Pwn wrote:
there's more questions than just for magi

But only the issues about magi are relevant to this thread (see thread title.)


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But only the issues about magi are relevant to this thread (see thread title.)

I think "does Bladed Brush work with Slashing Grace?" is a question implied by the title of the thread that doesn't really have anything to do with the Magus.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But only the issues about magi are relevant to this thread (see thread title.)
I think "does Bladed Brush work with Slashing Grace?" is a question implied by the title of the thread that doesn't really have anything to do with the Magus.

Really? can it not be spelled out more plain?

The other half of the title is "Slashing Grace And Reach For The Magus


Sure, but if the Magus can combine Slashing Grace and Bladed Brush, then so can literally any other class, and vice versa.

There are three questions implied by the title:
1) Does slashing grace work with bladed brush?
2) Does bladed brush work with spell combat?
3) Assuming 1&2 are "yes" then does this let me use spell combat and slashing grace together, which I otherwise could not?

The first question has literally nothing to do with how the Magus works. The magus specific questions are all about spell combat, since there's absolutely nothing about that prevents a magus from using a reach weapon or slashing grace, it's just not considered viable because it does not work with spell combat.

Sovereign Court

[slashing grace] and [reach for the magus]?

Who made you the police of what we're allowed to discuss?


It's pretty poor form to post book content online right after it's been released.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That book has been out for two weeks now.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Sure, but if the Magus can combine Slashing Grace and Bladed Brush, then so can literally any other class, and vice versa.

Combinations aren't as much as an issue with classes that don't have mechanics that require things such as "must keep one hand free for the entire round."


master_marshmallow wrote:

It has been clarified multiple times by multiple devs that the rules text is to be taken lightly and not to fret over specific verbiage. It's not written to be legal text, and Occam's Razor usually solves most disputes over linguistic articulation.

If it seems intended to work one way, then it's safer to assume that it is rather than assume the game has a whole hidden dimension to trying to understand specific word-usage in text. There are some rules not written by developers, since they hire freelancers often and it comes up where the writing styles don't line up.

While I really like this idea and Paizo has claimed that this is their philosophy in the past, they also tend to do stuff put out FAQs about how "Treated as a one-handed weapon" "Wielded in one hand" and "One-handed weapon" are all distinct concepts with several different rules attached.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The glaivebuckler (Swashglaiver?) though will be at a disadvantage compared to the stadard rapier/cutlass/scimitar build though, because the Swashbuckler relies on critting frequently to keep supplied with panache.

True... let's try this:

Glaive Artiste

You can become a dancing tornado of steel and wood, integrating many elements of martial prowess into an artful flow to kill or subdue your enemies.

Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (glaive), Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Grace, Bladed Brush, Slashing Grace, must be a worshiper of Shelyn.

Benefit:The wielder always gains the benefits of Slashing Grace, even while fighting with two weapons, using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
In addition to the benefits provided by Bladed Brush, you can also wield a glaive as a double weapon, with the blunt end treated as a light hammer, light shield or sap (wielder's choice, decided before the attack is made). A character can fight with both ends as if fighting with two weapons, but she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding the glaive as a one-handed weapon and the blunt end as a light weapon. Any feats affecting specific weapons such as Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization apply on each end separately (with the bladed end always using Weapon Focus (glaive), and the blunt end using Weapon Focus (sap), for example). When used in this manner, apply the character's Dexterity modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks (both for the primary hand and the off-hand).
The character can also choose to use either the bladed end (using glaive damage) or the blunt end (light hammer, light shield or sap) two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. When used in this manner apply 1-1/2 times the character's Dexterity modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks.
At the beginning of his turn, the wielder may treat either the glaive's regular bladed end or the blunt end as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of adding precise strike damage and the like (but not both), and this can done whether the wielder is fighting with both ends as if fighting with two weapons, or when the wielder is using the bladed end or blunt end two-handed.
In addition, Glaive Artiste counts as Improved Two-Weapon Fighting for the purposes of qualifying for the Two-Weapon Rend feat.
Finally, if the wielder has the Two-Weapon Rend feat, and hits an opponent with both the bladed end and the blunt end in a given round, she deals an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times her Dexterity or Charisma modifier instead of the Strength modifier; she can only deal this additional damage once each round.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

It has been clarified multiple times by multiple devs that the rules text is to be taken lightly and not to fret over specific verbiage. It's not written to be legal text, and Occam's Razor usually solves most disputes over linguistic articulation.

If it seems intended to work one way, then it's safer to assume that it is rather than assume the game has a whole hidden dimension to trying to understand specific word-usage in text. There are some rules not written by developers, since they hire freelancers often and it comes up where the writing styles don't line up.

While I really like this idea and Paizo has claimed that this is their philosophy in the past, they also tend to do stuff put out FAQs about how "Treated as a one-handed weapon" "Wielded in one hand" and "One-handed weapon" are all distinct concepts with several different rules attached.

It really isn't, and could easily be classified with some game language.

Surely, if we ever get a compendium or reprint/ PFRPG 2.0 that's the biggest change I would want.

The fact that we can look at those specific phrases only enforces what this feat does actually do. You're still using the weapon with two hands, but the off hand isn't treated as being used for it for feats like slashing grace or class features like precise strike or (most likely) spell combat.

The phrase "treated as not attacking" specifically clarifies that you're still using it two handed.


Derklord wrote:
@Snowlilly: Did you literally just tell me that they avoided word repetition by making a redundancy? Also, if "occupied" means the same as "free", the X Grace feats would still work with spell combat, since the off-hand (the one casting the spell) is definitely free.

1. Yes, and it is far from the first time a poorly worded feat has been published.

2. Slashing Grace and related feats have specific wording that prevents spell combat. Prior to the errata specifically preventing spell combat, it was a very popular feat for dexterity based magi.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Is anybody else annoyed with these needless restrictions?
It hasn't been demonstrated that the magus is in dire need of having all of these bonuses in the same round as spell combat. If you're doing 20d6 of damage with a crit spell, you're going to cry about missing 5 more?

The static damage my magus deals on a crit is more than the 70 average damage from a 20d6 spell (Shocking Grasp caps at 15d6 (42.5 avg.) and takes two metamagic feats to achieve.)

Personally, I don't bother, choosing to focus on melee damage and self buffs. Instead of investing in metamagic feats for spells that will have a hard time breaking SR without additional feats spent on Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration and Spell Perfection, I invested in the Possessed Hand line of feats. Additional accuracy, more static damage, Darkvision, immunity to flanking, insight bonus to Disable Device, swift action item recovery. Breaking DR is far easier for a magus than breaking SR.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
While I really like this idea and Paizo has claimed that this is their philosophy in the past, they also tend to do stuff put out FAQs about how "Treated as a one-handed weapon" "Wielded in one hand" and "One-handed weapon" are all distinct concepts with several different rules attached.

The problem is, the terms are used interchangeably by the authors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you think Sheyln would accept a 4-armed alchemist with the possessed hand feats dual-wielding glaives? Because I want to make that character.


My 2 cents
Wield 2 handed as 1 handed- the weapon is one handed and str bonus/feats/abilities requiring 1 handed weapons work
Treat 2 handed as 1 handed- the weapon still requires 2 hands to use and retains the str bonus but can be used for feats/abilities requiring 1 handed weapon to work

Main difference between them is that wield let's u use it in 1 hand for ALL purposes, while treat as means it's still a 2 handed weapon using 2 hands but will work for feats/abilities requiring a 1 handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
While I really like this idea and Paizo has claimed that this is their philosophy in the past, they also tend to do stuff put out FAQs about how "Treated as a one-handed weapon" "Wielded in one hand" and "One-handed weapon" are all distinct concepts with several different rules attached.

Where?

I know of no such FAQ.

People have claimed that these minor differences in phrasing have different intents before, but in multiple discussions of such no one has ever been able to back it up... or even come up with an explanation of WHAT those different meanings ARE which isn't easily disproven by examples to the contrary.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
While I really like this idea and Paizo has claimed that this is their philosophy in the past, they also tend to do stuff put out FAQs about how "Treated as a one-handed weapon" "Wielded in one hand" and "One-handed weapon" are all distinct concepts with several different rules attached.

Where?

I know of no such FAQ.

People have claimed that these minor differences in phrasing have different intents before, but in multiple discussions of such no one has ever been able to back it up... or even come up with an explanation of WHAT those different meanings ARE which isn't easily disproven by examples to the contrary.

CB I think he is referring to the Bastard Sword, Lance and Power Attack FAQs, which all discuss the handedness issue.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

...and perhaps also referring to Mark's design principle behind Precise Strike.


The Sideromancer wrote:
Do you think Sheyln would accept a 4-armed alchemist with the possessed hand feats dual-wielding glaives? Because I want to make that character.

Not that you'll ever hit anything :P

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
CB I think he is referring to the Bastard Sword, Lance and Power Attack FAQs, which all discuss the handedness issue.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
...and perhaps also referring to Mark's design principle behind Precise Strike.

None of which say anything about different phrasing indicating 'distinct concepts with different rules attached'.

Indeed, other than the Lance FAQ, which is IMO clearly a special case, they all seem to be consistent.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
CB I think he is referring to the Bastard Sword, Lance and Power Attack FAQs, which all discuss the handedness issue.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
...and perhaps also referring to Mark's design principle behind Precise Strike.

None of which say anything about different phrasing indicating 'distinct concepts with different rules attached'.

Indeed, other than the Lance FAQ, which is IMO clearly a special case, they all seem to be consistent.

But, based on the wording for the FAQ, it isn't a special case, the lance is an example, but without that example the FAQ stand by itself and say that if you are using a 2 handed weapon with one hand you still get the 50% extra damage for using a 2 handed weapon.

It contradict the jotungrip comment? It depend if use with one hand is the wame thing as "treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon".

Bladed Brush use "treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon", so the extra 50% shouldn't be applied, but that decision require us having faith in the feat writer and his knowledge of the difference. something that isn't granted.

But the FAQs give ample evidence that for the FAQ writers "use a two handed weapon in one hand" is very different from "treat as a one handed weapon".

151 to 200 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bladed Brush feat - slashing grace and reach for the magus? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.