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.
Yeah, over the years there've been quite a few thorny rules issues where their efforts to FAQratta have just made things even more confused (Wielding, Metaphorical Hands of Effort, Mounted Combat) and they would probably really benefit from being able to completely start over.
As it stands, fixing some rules is really hard since a lot of the problematic FAQs stem from Paizo trying to fix rules issues without altering any rules text. It would've been a lot better to handle defending weapons by just adding a line to the defending property, rather than throwing everyone into confusion about what wielding means. However, their policy of only issuing errata on a new printing and limiting any errata to not changing the pagination makes it very hard to effectively change their rules.
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.
Indeed, because anyone writing or reading rules from a casual perspective is going to assume all three terms mean the same thing.
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.
Er, no? You treat it as one handed for feats and class features that require that. There's no reason you shouldn't get full power attack damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That FAQ covers weapons "such as a lance while mounted"... of which the mounted lance is, in fact, the only example. No other weapon works that way. ONLY the lance allows you to use a two-handed weapon in one hand without a separate feat or ability simply by using it while mounted. ONLY the lance retains the two-handed 1.5x strength bonus when used one-handed in this special way. That FAQ simply extends this special mounted lance handling to include the +50% damage bonus for power attack.
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".
This is demonstrably false.
"if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon"
This directly equates wielding in one hand with treating as a one-handed weapon.
"An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects."
As does this.
"If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on."
And this... which also directly contradicts the claim that ALL two-handed weapons wielded in one-hand retain 1.5x strength and +50% power attack damage bonuses. Rather, the mounted lance is the sole exception.
The claim that the FAQs assign different meanings to these phrases is simply false. No such FAQ exists, and the above passages repeatedly demonstrate the opposite.
The trouble is that's not very relevant here, because bladed brush only says to treat it as one handed for the purposes of feats and class features that require it.
Spell Combat is a class feature that requires it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Spell Combat requires your off hand to be empty.
- Slashing Grace requires your off hand to be unoccupied. Since you needed an exception for holding a frilly little flair, unoccupied is probably synonymous with empty.
- Precise Strike requires your off hand to be not attacking - it's okay to hold something in it.
Bladed Brush only says that your off-hand counts as not attacking for things that require it.
Spell Combat is a class feature that requires it.
Spell Combat requires more than "not attacking", it requires empty altogether. And Bladed Brush doesn't say that.
---
All the previous FAQs deal with treating weapons as 1H or 2H as a result of wielding it in that many hands. This feat starts out by saying you treat it as 1H for some purposes, and then we start wondering if we could actually just use it in one hand. But it doesn't say it counts as 1H in general, but only for those powers that require it. So we still treat it as 2H for everything else and need to use two hands.
- Spell Combat requires your off hand to be empty.
- Slashing Grace requires your off hand to be unoccupied. Since you needed an exception for holding a frilly little flair, unoccupied is probably synonymous with empty.
- Precise Strike requires your off hand to be not attacking - it's okay to hold something in it.
Bladed Brush only says that your off-hand counts as not attacking for things that require it.
Spell Combat requires more than "not attacking", it requires empty altogether. And Bladed Brush doesn't say that.Spell Combat is a class feature that requires it.
Free = empty = unoccupied. The words, taken in context, are all synonyms.
If Bladed Brush wording is the off hand counts as "not attacking", neither Slashing Grace nor Spell Combat work.
Free = empty = unoccupied. The words, taken in context, are all synonyms.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! The hand casting a spell with Spell Combat is free. If free = unoccupied, then Spell Combat works with Slashing Grace et al.
The occupied line in the Grace feats only prevent Spell Combat if it has something to do with using the hand (something like making actions with it or getting a benefit from it). It's possible that unoccupied includes free, but it must go beyond.
The question is whether occupied is "making actions with it or holding an item in a way that grants a benefit", or "making actions with it or holding anything in it".
Free = empty = unoccupied. The words, taken in context, are all synonyms.Wrong, wrong, WRONG! The hand casting a spell with Spell Combat is free. If free = unoccupied, then Spell Combat works with Slashing Grace et al.
Slashing Grace did work with Spell Combat until errata'd & FAQ'd to explicitly not work.
The same errata killed Slashing Grace with FOB, even if the monk's other hand is empty and used for nothing. Unoccupied/free/empty hands have nothing to do with Slashing Grace not working with a specific list of abilities that includes Spell Combat. (Bonus: an example of synonyms for you. Any one of those words can be used without changing the meaning of the sentence.)
Slashing Grace did work with Spell Combat until errata'd & FAQ'd to explicitly not work.
Do you really think I don't know that (even though I alluded to them changing it), or do you need to compensate for something by being condescending?
The same errata killed Slashing Grace with FOB, even if the monk's other hand is empty and used for nothing.
Completely irrelevant, because multiple articles on a list don't need to the same reson for being on said list.
Unoccupied/free/empty hands have nothing to do with Slashing Grace not working with a specific list of abilities that includes Spell Combat.
Then say what does. No more avoiding actually adressing other people's arguments, qoute the exact part of the feat description that does prevent Spell Combat from working with it!* Not the whole sentence, please, unless you highlight the relevant part.
*)Yes, I know of the FAQ. But if that's the only thing preventing Spell Combat, that restriction doesn't apply to Fencing Grace or Starry Grace.
qoute the exact part of the feat description that does prevent Spell Combat from working with it!* Not the whole sentence, please, unless you highlight the relevant part.
I think the whole argument against hinges on this:
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)
parantheticals are used to show how the thoughts are separated by this argument.
Basically, the properties it is assigning the glaive are ONLY for feats and class abilities that require such a weapon, and do not otherwise change how the weapon functions. The physical act of holding the glaive in two hands vs one hand is not a "feat" nor is it a "class ability that requires it", so you're still technically holding the glaive in both hands.
And because of this, spell combat's requirements ("To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.") are only half-fulfilled, as while the glaive certainly does count as a one-handed weapon and the other hand not attacking, it does not say that the other hand counts as free.
Basically, this hinges on "not attacking" being synonymous with "free", or the ability is poorly written.
Unoccupied/free/empty hands have nothing to do with Slashing Grace not working with a specific list of abilities that includes Spell Combat.Then say what does. No more avoiding actually adressing other people's arguments, qoute the exact part of the feat description that does prevent Spell Combat from working with it!* Not the whole sentence, please, unless you highlight the relevant part.
There need be no reason other than FAQ/Errata explicitly stating the listed abilities do not function with Slashing Grace.
It has nothing to do with the status of the off-hand, or anything else.
And because of this, spell combat's requirements ("To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.") are only half-fulfilled, as while the glaive certainly does count as a one-handed weapon and the other hand not attacking, it does not say that the other hand counts as free.
Basically, this hinges on "not attacking" being synonymous with "free", or the ability is poorly written.
I'm not arguing this point so much as pointing out that Slashing Grace has the exact same restriction, i.e. free and unoccupied are synonymous terms when taken in context.
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.
Shelyn might have to defer to your GM in that matter.
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.Shelyn might have to defer to your GM in that matter.
For a lot of reasons lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting - if you don't count as attacking with your other hand then wouldn't that also allow the use of a buckler?
Hmm...... Glaivebuckler it is then.
Interesting - if you don't count as attacking with your other hand then wouldn't that also allow the use of a buckler?
Hmm...... Glaivebuckler it is then.
Unhindering Shield already allowed this.
Shield Brace allows this with any shield, up to and including tower shields.
Unhindering Shield would be the preferred choice for a magus. It allows a buckler with Spell Combat.
Interesting - if you don't count as attacking with your other hand then wouldn't that also allow the use of a buckler?
Hmm...... Glaivebuckler it is then.
Unhindering Shield already allowed this.
Shield Brace allows this with any shield, up to and including tower shields.
Unhindering Shield would be the preferred choice for a magus. It allows a buckler with Spell Combat.
Shield Brace requires BAB+3 and applies the ACP of your shield to weapon attack rolls. Bladed Brush only requires Weapon Focus and a religion requirement, plus it grants easier access to Dexterity-to-hit on a reach weapon. This means Bladed Brush can be taken at Level 1 by any human, although Fighters, Rogues, Swashbucklers, and Warpriests see the best use with Dexterity.
I'd comment on Unhindering Shield, but sadly I don't have my book and I can't find it online. Point is, a Glaivebuckler wouldn't need to spend any extra feats to get that benefit if my understanding is right, and that's a good benefit.
Unhindering Shield requires proficiency with buckler's and shield focus.
You don't take attack penalties and retain the shield AC on attacks that use both hands. You can use a buckler with class features that normally prohibit shields, e.g. monks.
On my phone atm or I would post the rules text.
+3 AC for 3 feats and 2k gold isn't exactly a bargain. It gets better at higher levels, but it's not like every Magus takes Dodge (which too has a 1-AC-per-feat ratio).
That also. (That is an expense buckler)2k for a +1 mithril buckler is dirt cheap for +2 to your AC. +3 if we're still talking about using this feat. Especially since you don't qualify until 10th level.
No real point until high level.
Shield is better until you can afford at least a +3 mithral buckler.
The only real advantage would be end game, where you have a +5 mithral buckler with extra properties. Start adding in things like Deathless and Fortifying and it may become worth the feat investment.
Maybe Lorewalker, but my impression is that some of the authors are seeing animes and trying to recreate their heroes, without considering that they generally are a single hero that is meant to be overwhelming and the best in the world, so his abilities are appropriate for level 15-20 of a class, not for something that you can get at level 5 taking a feat (generally with prerequisites that you would be taking even without the final feat).
What's wrong with that, besides your own personal taste?
Gygax did that, just with Lord of the Rings and Jack Vance's stories, instead of anime. And instead of forgoting that Anime are lvl 15+, he forgot that Aragorn is lvl 6 at best.
I'd rather have someone swing a glaive around a lot than the Barbarian pregen with that ugly oversized bastard sword that's as big as Cloud's rediculous "sword" in Final Fantasy. Seriously, I wish all game designers would stop trying to compensate their own, er, shortcomings with impossibly large weapons wielded by the characters they design.
None ever see the mid levels, that's for background characters.
And characters without noses.
but ridiculous sword are cool.
|
|
The only real advantage would be end game, where you have a +5 mithral buckler with extra properties. Start adding in things like Deathless and Fortifying and it may become worth the feat investment.
The deathless ability can be applied to armor of any sort, but not shields. (it's awesome though)
List of +1 shield abilities:
Poison-resistant (static +2,250)
Arrow catching
Bashing
Blinding
Clangorous
Defiant
Fortification (light)
Grinding
Impervious
Mirrored
Ramming
...I have a level 8 cavalier with a myriad of abilities thanks to a combination of these AND the +1/+2 armor properties! :)
Most anime character start out at level one, and shoot to level 140ish in a nova scene and settles at level 15. None ever see the mid levels, that's for background characters.Let's take an iconic example, Dragonball.
Goku starts around level 5, Yamcha and Krillin around level four. By the end of the first part Goku and Piccolo Junior are mountain busters in the level 13-16 range.
Vegeta during the Saiyan Saga is level 17, and he and Goku rise through those last four levels during the namek saga.
Everything post Frieza is level 20 post-game. Possibly level 20 mythic.
EDIT:I might even argue Frieza is a Mythic 1 monster [in his true form] who can only be reasonably beaten with Mystic Power, which our protagonists access by way of Super Saiyan or Piccolo becoming Complete.
I might also see Krillin and Gohan gaining partial Mystic Power from Guru's unlock potential, call it Mystic Zero. This explains their ability to contribute against the vastly more powerful 2nd and 3rd forms of frieza.
Yeah, I think once you hit the level of "Can destroy an entire planet with a a single attack/spell" you've left Pathfinder power levels behind.
|
|
em/ Cast 'Raise Dead'
So, I have some folks asking about this and I need a solid answer.
Does Bladed Brush make a Glaive "one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon" for the purpose of the Feat Slashing Grace?
As far as I can tell, the Slashing Grace Feat in NO WAY AT ALL affects what classification of weapon the Glaive ACTUALLY IS AND FUNCTIONS AS for any effects OTHER THAN dealing "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?" It seems only to affect the weapon when you're actively wielding it and does not impact how it is classified as a general purpose weapon.
AFAIK Nothing about Bladed Brush does ANYTHING to change the kind of weapon the Glaive ACTUALLY IS, and therefore it cannot ever be selected for the feat since it fails to meet the prerequisites.
Thoughts?
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
Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon
Bladed Brush makes the glaive count as a one handed slashing weapon for the purposes of feat prereqs and Slashing Grace is a feat that works on one handed slashing weapons.
So yes, Bladed Brush lets a glaive work with Slashing Grace.
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 weaponChoose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weaponBladed Brush makes the glaive count as a one handed slashing weapon for the purposes of feat prereqs and Slashing Grace is a feat that works on one handed slashing weapons.
So yes, Bladed Brush lets a glaive work with Slashing Grace.
Yes, and no.
Yes, Glaive with Bladed Brush is a viable target for Slashing Grace. No, you cannot actually use it with Slashing Grace.
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
Whilst you count as not making attacks with your off-hand, it is still not free to use with Slashing Grace. The same is true of Slashing Grace used with Spell Combat. The second you start Spell Combat, Slashing Grace ceases to function for the weapon.
You require Two-Weapon Grace in order to ignore this restriction.
If you attack without using your off-hand weapon, you can use the aforementioned feats despite your other hand being occupied.
...
Normal: You gain no benefit from the listed feats if you don’t have a free hand.
Or else another feat/ability that let you use the Glaive 1-handed (which would still be required in order for the Magus to use Spell Combat with the Glaive, as once again the free hand is required, unless an Archtype for 2-H weapons exists to remove that requirement).
I think the problem for 3pp is that there isn’t a well known quality level for each publisher. All of the 3pp gets lumped in together, which isn’t really fair to the better publishers.
I think the problem for 3pp is that there isn’t a well known quality level for each publisher. All of the 3pp gets lumped in together, which isn’t really fair to the better publishers.
This so much everyone assumes that because on company makes things that are either bad quality or overpowered everyone does.