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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 246 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So on page 15 of Paths of the Righteous is the new feat every single magus is going to be built around if I'm reading it right. Anyone else seeing this?


Belabras wrote:
So on page 15 of Paths of the Righteous is the new feat every single magus is going to be built around if I'm reading it right. Anyone else seeing this?

I tried searching but couldn't find it. Care to post the feat?

Scarab Sages

Gallant Armor wrote:
Belabras wrote:
So on page 15 of Paths of the Righteous is the new feat every single magus is going to be built around if I'm reading it right. Anyone else seeing this?
I tried searching but couldn't find it. Care to post the feat?

I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to do that. Paths of the Righteous is out for subscribers now, so it should be generally available soon.

Short version - feat allows lots of Finesse options for Halberds.


The book is out for everyone since wednesday

The gist of the feat is that you can finesse a Polearm that can be considered a one handed piercing or slashing weapon for the purpose of abilities and feats like most Swashbuckler class features and the Slashing grace feat

also with a move action you can switch the grip in order to use it without reach

Scarab Sages

Entryhazard wrote:

The book is out for everyone since wednesday

The gist of the feat is that you can finesse a Polearm that can be considered a one handed piercing or slashing weapon for the purpose of abilities and feats like most Swashbuckler class features and the Slashing grace feat

also with a move action you can switch the grip in order to use it without reach

It is Glaive only. Not any polearm.

Also, you are not considered to be making attacks with your off-hand for feats and abilities which require it, like Swashbuckler's Precise Strike.

So, it is like wielding a one-handed light P or S weapon that you choose to have reach or not, with a free hand for abilities and feats that require such a restriction. Even though you don't actually have a free hand.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

All it takes is:


  • Bladed Brush
  • Weapon Finesse
  • Weapon Focus
  • Slashing Grace

Doesn't seem all that great to me over simply playing a strength magus or your more traditional Dex magus. That's just too much investment for most.


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

Has it been confirmed that the Bladed Brush feat lets you select the Slashing Grace feat for the glaive? This usage would seem to raise the same issues as doing the same thing for the bladed scarf with the Kapenia Dancer archetype of the Magus class.

The unanswered question seems to be whether the weapon must actually be listed as a light or one-handed weapon or whether it is sufficient that the wielder be able to wield the weapon one-handed.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:

All it takes is:


  • Bladed Brush
  • Weapon Finesse
  • Weapon Focus
  • Slashing Grace

Doesn't seem all that great to me over simply playing a strength magus or your more traditional Dex magus. That's just too much investment for most.

Or, take magical knack and dip 3 levels of unchained rogue for weapon finesse, dex to damage, sneak attack dice, combat trick for Weapon Focus, 3rd feat for Bladed Brush, evasion... et al.

Then take all magus.

Costs one feat and three levels, but you gain much for it.


David knott 242 wrote:

Has it been confirmed that the Bladed Brush feat lets you select the Slashing Grace feat for the glaive? This usage would seem to raise the same issues as doing the same thing for the bladed scarf with the Kapenia Dancer archetype of the Magus class.

The unanswered question seems to be whether the weapon must actually be listed as a light or one-handed weapon or whether it is sufficient that the wielder be able to wield the weapon one-handed.

the feat says you consider the glaive a one-handed slashing weapon and as if you aren't actually using the off-hand for feats, it's clearly worded this way so it works with slashing grace too

Scarab Sages

Entryhazard wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Has it been confirmed that the Bladed Brush feat lets you select the Slashing Grace feat for the glaive? This usage would seem to raise the same issues as doing the same thing for the bladed scarf with the Kapenia Dancer archetype of the Magus class.

The unanswered question seems to be whether the weapon must actually be listed as a light or one-handed weapon or whether it is sufficient that the wielder be able to wield the weapon one-handed.

the feat says you consider the glaive a one-handed slashing weapon and as if you aren't actually using the off-hand for feats, it's clearly worded this way so it works with slashing grace too

The problem he is talking about is whether a glaive is a valid selection for the first sentence of Slashing Grace.

Slashing Grace wrote:
"Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword)."

Even if you can count it as a valid selection while wielding the weapon... the weapon itself is not normally a valid selection and thus at the time you choose the feat is it valid?

Which has not been answered as far as I am aware. But as far as I can see, especially considering how many abilities use this type of count as wording, it should be allowed to work.

Sovereign Court

The book's been out since wednesday, so it's okay to post the feat now.

Paths of the Righteous, p. 15 wrote:

Bladed Brush (Combat)

You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of Shelyn.
Benefit: You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. 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).
As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.

1) You treat it as a one-handed weapon so it works for a magus.

2) You may use Weapon Finesse. You can treat it as a one-handed weapon, so an unchained rogue might choose not to (to get 1.5 times Dex to damage just like with an elven branched spear).

3) It works for swashbucklers and feats that require your other hand to be unoccupied. So it can be combined with Slashing Grace. But you have to have this feat first before it becomes a valid choice for slashing grace.

It's the magus angle that hadn't occurred yet to me, that's quite cool.


Too bad there's no threat range on the flaive. Crits are importants for magus.

Scarab Sages

Yorkblack wrote:
Too bad there's no threat range on the flaive. Crits are importants for magus.

Dex to damage helps mitigate that, though. Static damage being pretty nice. You can still get it 19-20 with keen, and then it is still a 3x weapon(2x on spells)... this magus just wouldn't have to rely on crit spells to be effective.

Sovereign Court

I think if you use this on a magus you have to start thinking about an entirely different way of playing the magus. If you want to do the shocking grasp zap machine, this isn't a good contribution.

I was thinking about a strength-based magus using a Dueling weapon to be obscenely good at maneuvers. A reach weapon could work very well with that.

Another option is to use it for a glaive-and-board polearm warrior, or for wielding another weapon in your other hand and projecting dual threatened areas.

In fact, this might be just perfect for my goliath druid. Hmm...

Scarab Sages

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think if you use this on a magus you have to start thinking about an entirely different way of playing the magus. If you want to do the shocking grasp zap machine, this isn't a good contribution.

I was thinking about a strength-based magus using a Dueling weapon to be obscenely good at maneuvers. A reach weapon could work very well with that.

Another option is to use it for a glaive-and-board polearm warrior, or for wielding another weapon in your other hand and projecting dual threatened areas.

In fact, this might be just perfect for my goliath druid. Hmm...

Exactly what I was thinking about the magus. It gives another option radically different than the current viable builds.

While it is limited to Sheyln worshipers, it grants a two-handed weapon build to a few classes which just didn't have any way to do that before. Another option that has potential to be as useful as current builds, but isn't something every build would want is always a good thing to me.


Damn you're right. That would be excellent for a trip based magus. Using battlefield control spells with one hand and tripping people can be great. And combining enchantment from the pool with the dueling feat can, indeed, make insane cmb bonus. I mean, imagine you have a +1 weapon and add 2 from the pool, that's already a total of +9 (+3 enchantment and +3*2 dueling). Add feats to boost your trip and no one gets past you. Really, I hadn't thought of that, but that could be a very interesting build.

Liberty's Edge

This feat is amazing, and makes my dreams of a flamboyant, theatrical Swashadin in service to Shelyn all the sweeter.

I will say, does this feat override Spell Combat? It seems optimistic to imply the feat always counts your offhand as free, even if it's holding something other than the Glaive (say, spell combat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

The book's been out since wednesday, so it's okay to post the feat now.

1) You treat it as a one-handed weapon so it works for a magus.

2) You may use Weapon Finesse. You can treat it as a one-handed weapon, so an unchained rogue might choose not to (to get 1.5 times Dex to damage just like with an elven branched spear).

3) It works for swashbucklers and feats that require your other hand to be unoccupied. So it can be combined with Slashing Grace. But you have to have this feat first before it becomes a valid choice for slashing grace.

It's the magus angle that hadn't occurred yet to me, that's quite cool.

I'm not so sure it all works:

1) Sure, you can treat it as a one-handed weapon, that's not all you need.

2) So an unchained rogue has another option, good for them.

3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Sovereign Court

Alderic wrote:
3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Interesting. My first instinct is that you're trying to put a finer point on it than was intended, they they wouldn't make a feat that sounds like it was made to fit perfectly with slashing grace and then surprise doesn't work with it.

I think the way around it is to ask: if we're treating it as a one-handed weapon, doesn't that mean we can hold it in only one hand? Because if you're only holding it in one hand, and you don't have anything in your other hand, then you can Spell Combat or Slashing Grace. However, you cannot Slashing Grace and gain bonuses for using it two-handed - it's not a workaround to get 1.5 dex with Slashing Grace.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It sounds like you are still wielding it two-handed, you're just treated as if you were wielding it one-handed for the purposes of feats and class abilities.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Alderic wrote:
3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Interesting. My first instinct is that you're trying to put a finer point on it than was intended, they they wouldn't make a feat that sounds like it was made to fit perfectly with slashing grace and then surprise doesn't work with it.

I think the way around it is to ask: if we're treating it as a one-handed weapon, doesn't that mean we can hold it in only one hand? Because if you're only holding it in one hand, and you don't have anything in your other hand, then you can Spell Combat or Slashing Grace. However, you cannot Slashing Grace and gain bonuses for using it two-handed - it's not a workaround to get 1.5 dex with Slashing Grace.

Slashing Grace requires a 1-handed slashing weapon the Glaive is never a one handed sash weapon no matter how you wield it, so the jury is still out on whether it works or not.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Jodokai, as has been said, that seems to be the point of the feat though, so if it doesn't work, I'd be pretty surprised.


Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai, as has been said, that seems to be the point of the feat though, so if it doesn't work, I'd be pretty surprised.

Sounds like we need a Dev comment clearing this up. I don't want to wait for a FAQ


Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai, as has been said, that seems to be the point of the feat though, so if it doesn't work, I'd be pretty surprised.

Even if you get past that hurdle, the feat doesn't actually give you a hand free. You aren't considered attacking with your off hand so precise strike works, but pretty much nothing else does.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Alderic wrote:
3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Interesting. My first instinct is that you're trying to put a finer point on it than was intended, they they wouldn't make a feat that sounds like it was made to fit perfectly with slashing grace and then surprise doesn't work with it.

I think the way around it is to ask: if we're treating it as a one-handed weapon, doesn't that mean we can hold it in only one hand? Because if you're only holding it in one hand, and you don't have anything in your other hand, then you can Spell Combat or Slashing Grace. However, you cannot Slashing Grace and gain bonuses for using it two-handed - it's not a workaround to get 1.5 dex with Slashing Grace.

I know.

But they wouldn't have to say that your offhand doesen't count as attacking with a weapon if you were wielding it one handed, and they could have said "you have a free hand" or "you count as having a free hand" or something like that if they wanted Slashing Grace and all the rest of the stuff that requires a free hand to work with it.

Sovereign Court

Well, if you're still wielding it two-handed, and it only counts as 1H and non-attacking other hand for things like Precise Strike, shouldn't that allow a Str-based swashbuckler to use it for 1.5 Str damage and Power Attack?

I'm particularly thinking about the combination of taking just 14 Strength to get good value from Power Attack and 2H fighting, Furious Focus, Vital Strike and so forth, but otherwise going Dex build; to really capitalize on the "one hit mobile" theme of the swashbuckler.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Alderic wrote:
3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Interesting. My first instinct is that you're trying to put a finer point on it than was intended, they they wouldn't make a feat that sounds like it was made to fit perfectly with slashing grace and then surprise doesn't work with it.

I think the way around it is to ask: if we're treating it as a one-handed weapon, doesn't that mean we can hold it in only one hand? Because if you're only holding it in one hand, and you don't have anything in your other hand, then you can Spell Combat or Slashing Grace. However, you cannot Slashing Grace and gain bonuses for using it two-handed - it's not a workaround to get 1.5 dex with Slashing Grace.

Spell combat require you to wield "a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", not "wield something that is treated as a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", so there will be an endless debate if it is allowed or not. I am in the "not"field, but I especially hate this kind of feat that remove or seem to remove basic limitations from the game in an unclear way. It is a form of power creep without any reason.

Swashbucklers or maguses need to have a reach+2handed weapon option while keeping all of class their abilities? No, not really.

We need to have endless threads of people saying "I have found this feat in the D20PSRD, it say that the requirement is 'following the good of beauty', so I have taken it with my magus that follow [anything but Shelyn] and some GM say that it is not legal, show him it is."?

Limitations exist, generally, for a balance reason. I don't see why lately there is a strong trend in adding feats that remove them.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Alderic wrote:
3) The feat says you can count as if your other hand is not attacking, not that it's free, which might rule out both Slashing Grace and Spell Combat

Interesting. My first instinct is that you're trying to put a finer point on it than was intended, they they wouldn't make a feat that sounds like it was made to fit perfectly with slashing grace and then surprise doesn't work with it.

I think the way around it is to ask: if we're treating it as a one-handed weapon, doesn't that mean we can hold it in only one hand? Because if you're only holding it in one hand, and you don't have anything in your other hand, then you can Spell Combat or Slashing Grace. However, you cannot Slashing Grace and gain bonuses for using it two-handed - it's not a workaround to get 1.5 dex with Slashing Grace.

Spell combat require you to wield "a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", not "wield something that is treated as a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", so there will be an endless debate if it is allowed or not. I am in the "not"field, but I especially hate this kind of feat that remove or seem to remove basic limitations from the game in an unclear way. It is a form of power creep without any reason.

Swashbucklers or maguses need to have a reach+2handed weapon option while keeping all of class their abilities? No, not really.

We need to have endless threads of people saying "I have found this feat in the D20PSRD, it say that the requirement is 'following the good of beauty', so I have taken it with my magus that follow [anything but Shelyn] and some GM say that it is not legal, show him it is."?

Limitations exist, generally, for a balance reason. I don't see why lately there is a strong trend in adding feats that remove them.

I'm kinda just hearing, "Get off my lawn, dang kids with their Nintendos and Boom Boxes. In my day Dwarf was a class and we liked it!"

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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).

Smell so much of last days of 3.5 :(

To cite Rav:

Ravingdork wrote:
It sounds like you are still wielding it two-handed, you're just treated as if you were wielding it one-handed for the purposes of feats and class abilities.

So now our swashbuckler can use power attack with a reach 2 handed weapon and add his swashbuckler finesse bonus too? Yes, no, table variation?

We really need this kind of stuff?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why people have so many issues in reading "it's treated as" as "it's treated as"? "It's treates as X" it means it can count as X for all the rules interactions

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:

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).

Smell so much of last days of 3.5 :(

To cite Rav:

Ravingdork wrote:
It sounds like you are still wielding it two-handed, you're just treated as if you were wielding it one-handed for the purposes of feats and class abilities.

So now our swashbuckler can use power attack with a reach 2 handed weapon and add his swashbuckler finesse bonus too? Yes, no, table variation?

We really need this kind of stuff?

Honestly, the feat does need a line to the effect of, "You are still wielding the weapon with two hands, so your off hand is not actually free." or "Due to your artistic movements, your off hand is free during your attacks. This prevents you from power attacking, but you still gain 1.5x strength on attacks."

One specifically allows power attacks and 1.5x strength but does not allow spell combat, the other allows spell combat but does not power attack.(added 1.5x damage because I think it deserves it still)

Personally, I like the second version.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow. I´m very surprised by Diego Rossi here. Although i mostly don´t share his opinions, that´s a very valid point and something that has been affecting nearly every game i have been in in the last year.
Some person imitating a character from an anime, comic or any game (and be it pokemon), which is:
- a single player game very often, making cooperation very difficult and setting the attitude to other players and their characters.
- features characters whose power level is far beyond anything healthy for Pathfinder at low to medium levels
- "enrich" "their" game with references to/from the source up to the point one has to ask oneself what game is being played.
- stomp through the game celebrating how dominating and uberawesome their (and often only their) character is.

That´s kind of said, because i like many of the new feats and things published since they generaly are more open and allow for more fun to play options.

In this case i would say the feat and glaive work for swashbucklers, especially with slashing grace, and i think this was also the intention.
So, normal DEX to damage is certain with slashing grace.

The open question is, wether the glaive is wielded with 1 or with 2 hands, and not how it´s treated.
Therefore, you can ask if you get 1.5 or only 1. DEX to damage. My answer would be 1.5 oriented at the unchained rogue, but a huge number of people will certainly say otherwise.

For spell combat, you definately need 1 free hand, not only a hand treated as free, so i would also say that does not work. Again, others might rule otherwise. It´s still a nice option for a magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I love that writers and editors seem less terrified of creating stuff like this than they used to, so I really hope they don't take the whining here to heart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Spell combat require you to wield "a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", not "wield something that is treated as a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", so there will be an endless debate if it is allowed or not. I am in the "not"field, but I especially hate this kind of feat that remove or seem to remove basic limitations from the game in an unclear way.

That is an interesting position. So you don't believe that a Staff Magus can use Spell Combat with a quarterstaff because Quarterstaff Master only lets it be wielded it as a one-handed weapon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To be fair, in my opinion Paths of the Righteous is an awesome book from cover to cover.
I´m also not complaining about the writers (except for the lack of Tian Xia content), but more about some players.

@Gisher: Quarterstaff master says "wield", bladed brush says "treat as". That´s what makes me think one goes, the other doesn´t.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gisher wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Spell combat require you to wield "a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", not "wield something that is treated as a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand", so there will be an endless debate if it is allowed or not. I am in the "not"field, but I especially hate this kind of feat that remove or seem to remove basic limitations from the game in an unclear way.
That is an interesting position. So you don't believe that a Staff Magus can use Spell Combat with a quarterstaff because Quarterstaff Master only lets it be wielded it as a one-handed weapon?

Different text:

PRD wrote:

Quarterstaff Master (Combat)

You can wield a quarterstaff as either a two-handed or one-handed weapon.

So the quartestaff isn't only "treated as" but it is "wielded" with one hand. The creators of the feat meant the same thing? Maybe.

But in this game "treated as a one handed weapon" and "wielded as one handed weapon" are different things.
A bastard sword without the exotic weapon proficiency is treated as a one handed weapon for a few things (weapon hit points, mostly) but it wielded with 2 hands.
if you have a class that ask you to select a 1 handed weapon at level one but don't give the exotic weapon proficiency you can stills elect it,as it is a one handed weapon, but you can't wield it with one hand.

In your example (quarterstaff and staff magus) we have the opposite problem: a two handed weapon that can be wielded one handed.

RAW a staff isn't a valid weapon for spell combat. That is even reiterated by this FAQ.

FAQ wrote:


Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

RAI it is very clear that the person that wrote that archetype meant it to be a viable weapon for spell combat.

I would allow it, but I think that the staff magus need a errata that explicitly allow that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I treat a weapon as a one-handed weapon, why can't I use it in only one hand?

In my mind, "treat as X" means you use the rules for X, which in this case means you can use it in one hand.

Given the wide amount of different meanings "wield" has had in different books, I don't think comparisons to it should be used in any situation.


I look at it like the swashbuckler with a Lance while mounted question. Just because you're treating it as one doesn't make it one.

While this is a variant of that it comes down to "I may be treating this as having my hand free for spell combat" does it mean your hand is actually free for somatic components and the like.

Scarab Sages

Cavall wrote:

I look at it like the swashbuckler with a Lance while mounted question. Just because you're treating it as one doesn't make it one.

While this is a variant of that it comes down to "I may be treating this as having my hand free for spell combat" does it mean your hand is actually free for somatic components and the like.

I'm confused here... because a lance really should be a one-handed weapon for feats and effects when you are mounted. Much as a bastard sword(FAQ) is a one-handed weapon or two-handed weapon depending on how you are holding it, it should be fair to say the same of any other weapon that can change categories.

lance wrote:
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."

Liberty's Edge

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

FAQ'd and answered;

FAQ1 wrote:


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.
FAQ2 wrote:

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

...

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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
Cavall wrote:

I look at it like the swashbuckler with a Lance while mounted question. Just because you're treating it as one doesn't make it one.

While this is a variant of that it comes down to "I may be treating this as having my hand free for spell combat" does it mean your hand is actually free for somatic components and the like.

I'm confused here... because a lance really should be a one-handed weapon for feats and effects when you are mounted. Much as a bastard sword(FAQ) is a one-handed weapon or two-handed weapon depending on how you are holding it, it should be fair to say the same of any other weapon that can change categories.

lance wrote:
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
FAQ wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

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.

It is always a 1 handed weapon. If you wield it in 2 hands you can use abilities that require a 2 handed weapon.

It is never threaten as a 2handed weapon.

So threat is equal to wield or not? I would say not as a general rules, but the terms haven't been used in a consistent way, and that is the crux of the matter. The writer of that feat and the devs meant for the glaive to be wielded one handed or for it to be threated as a one handed weapon?

And this FAQ mean that it get the benefit of being a 2 handed weapon for power attack even if wielded one handed? (As written it applies to all two handed weapons when wielded one handed, not only to the lance.)

FAQ wrote:

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Yes.

FAQs and rules aren't consistent about this matter.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

To be fair, in my opinion Paths of the Righteous is an awesome book from cover to cover.

Testify.

I love how everything is tied to the setting, I like Golarion and it is a deliberate choice by the designers to have prestige classes which require ropleplaying restrictions. I'm quite strict though, divine inspired characters in my game must take a deity and must take Deific Obedience when possible.

There are no bad classes. Scar Seeker isn't amazing, but some are crazy - looking at you Ashavic Dancer, Darechaser, Stargazer and the monster that is Crimson Templar.

Anyway, this is for another thread when more people have the book


Lorewalker wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

All it takes is:


  • Bladed Brush
  • Weapon Finesse
  • Weapon Focus
  • Slashing Grace

Doesn't seem all that great to me over simply playing a strength magus or your more traditional Dex magus. That's just too much investment for most.

Or, take magical knack and dip 3 levels of unchained rogue for weapon finesse, dex to damage, sneak attack dice, combat trick for Weapon Focus, 3rd feat for Bladed Brush, evasion... et al.

Then take all magus.

Costs one feat and three levels, but you gain much for it.

Works for warpriests too. Weapon Proficiency Glaive - Weapon Focus free, Weapon Finesse 1st, Bladed Brush & Slashing Grace 3rd... Spells, blessings, fervor and if you make it a Proselytizer then it's Sacred Subdual ability makes the Sacred Weapon feature actually useful with the glaive at levels 1-3.

The unchained rogue needs to be a Swashbuckler to get proficiency in the glaive or spend an extra feat. EDIT: this assumes dip is first of course as the magus gets martial weapons for free.

Sovereign Court

Cavall wrote:

I look at it like the swashbuckler with a Lance while mounted question. Just because you're treating it as one doesn't make it one.

While this is a variant of that it comes down to "I may be treating this as having my hand free for spell combat" does it mean your hand is actually free for somatic components and the like.

A lance is never treated as a one-handed weapon even when you're using it with only one hand. You explicitly deal damage as a 2H weapon while using it in one hand mounted. FAQ The wording for lances is so different from the Bladed Brush that it doesn't really help us figure out what is going on here.

Sovereign Court

Diego Rossi wrote:

It (the bastard sword) is always a 1 handed weapon. If you wield it in 2 hands you can use abilities that require a 2 handed weapon.

It is never threaten as a 2handed weapon.

You're wrong and you're quoting the very FAQ that says you're wrong:

FAQ wrote:
If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, to summarize what we know.


  • If you get told to treat a 2H weapon as a 1H weapon when wielding it in one hand, then you do damage as a 1H weapon. FAQ You also cannot do things with it that require a 2H weapon. FAQ

  • If you're treating a weapon as a 2H weapon, you do Power Attack damage as if wielding it in two hands, even if you're only using one. FAQ You also do 1.5 times Strength damage CRB. This of course assumes that you found something that allows you to wield a 2H weapon in one hand while continuing to treat it as a 2H weapon.

So far, "treat as" means using it in all the same ways as, with all the same rules, except for whatever exceptions were specifically given. Which is just what you'd expect in a plain-text reading.

So can we use a 2H weapon that we're allowed to treat as 1H in just one hand? According to the CRB you can. You'll only be getting 1x Strength damage however.

-------------------

Now let us turn to Bladed Brush and analyze the crucial sentence.

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).

When (X), you can treat it as an (Y) and as if you were (not (Z)) for all (Q) and (P) that require such a weapon (such as examples).

I can see two ways to break down this sentence. I think it's a bit ambiguous.

A) "When X, you can [treat it as an Y and as if you were (not Z)] for all Q and P that require such a weapon"

B) "When X, you can [treat it as an Y] and [as if you were (not Z) for all Q and P that require such a weapon].

Under parsing A, you can only treat the glaive as one-handed with respect to class abilities and feats that require a one-handed weapon (like precise strike). You're still wielding it 2H for all other purposes, including Strength and Power Attack. But the Magus and Slashing Grace are out of luck.

Under parsing B, you can use the glaive one-handed. Allowing Precise Strike, Spell Combat and Slashing Grace. The comment about your off-hand seems redundant however, unless it means that you could 2WF without violating Precise Strike. (Which seems far-fetched.)

Both of these interpretations have problems with them. B has the weird redundant clause. Parsing A however would block Slashing Grace, and that would also be strange because Bladed Brush seems intended to be used with it.

Notice the "piercing AND slashing one-handed weapon" part. If Bladed Brush were not meant to be combined with Slashing Grace, that would be redundant; all that's needed to work with Precise Strike is to allow Piercing, since without Slashing Grace swashbucklers can't even Precise Strike with slashing weapons. And of course this feat allows the glaive to be used with weapon finesse so the lead-up to Slashing Grace seems obvious.

-----------------------

TL;DR - I think the feat text is genuinely ambiguous, but the following was probably intended:


  • You're using the glaive with two hands.
  • You only count as wielding it one-handed for abilities that require it and require the other hand not to be involved in the attack. Such as Precise Strike.
  • You still get 1.5 Strength to damage and 2H Power Attack.
  • Spell Combat doesn't work, your off-hand isn't actually empty.
  • Slashing Grace is intended to work. It technically doesn't but it should be clarified to work in this specific case. However, because your off-hand is not counting as involved because Slashing Grace requires that, you can't get 1.5 Dex to damage.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I mostly agree with your "probably intended" conclusions, Ascalaphus.
The problem is that we will get plenty of people that will push for the interpretation that is most favorable for them.

With the large number of added feat and abilities Pathfinder really need a revision meant to clear the uses of wield, use as, etc. with a clarification between the different uses.
The contributors use them in different ways and the result are unclear abilities and feat that will be published outside of the main line of books and would never be errated or clarified.


Diego Rossi wrote:

I mostly agree with your "probably intended" conclusions, Ascalaphus.

The problem is that we will get plenty of people that will push for the interpretation that is most favorable for them.

With the large number of added feat and abilities Pathfinder really need a revision meant to clear the uses of wield, use as, etc. with a clarification between the different uses.
The contributors use them in different ways and the result are unclear abilities and feat that will be published outside of the main line of books and would never be errated or clarified.

Can't agree more with this. Wield can mean anything from holding/ready to use to actively making an attack roll and everything in between. It's fluid nature makes conclusive answers quite hard to nail down at times which is compounded by the general lack of fixes/errata for non-main books.

Sovereign Court

Pinning down "wielding" to a single definition across the entire game isn't going to work, you'd break so many things written with a different definition in mind. Usually, "holding so that it's ready for use" does the trick, but I think in the case of Defending weapons it was understood to be "actually being used to attack". As a way to prevent wizards from casually holding defending daggers without ever striking with them or something.

Getting a clarification how this single feat is supposed to work, that's still doable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Pinning down "wielding" to a single definition across the entire game isn't going to work, you'd break so many things written with a different definition in mind. Usually, "holding so that it's ready for use" does the trick, but I think in the case of Defending weapons it was understood to be "actually being used to attack". As a way to prevent wizards from casually holding defending daggers without ever striking with them or something.

Getting a clarification how this single feat is supposed to work, that's still doable.

However, that same wizard could make an AoO because they are wielding a dagger... Just not the RIGHT kind of wielding... ;)

The issue I have with the Defending wield is it can lead to time paradoxes because the activation [start of round] happens BEFORE the trigger action [attack]. Meaning you can get missed by an AoO trip to get end up not being able to attack for some reason like a disarm, slowed, unknown difficult terrain w/ charge, ect: that causes the AC to retroactively drop and time rewinds so you are tripped: but you hit the person that tripped you so time rewinds again as you retroactively gain the AC again, get missed by the trip and you start to charge all over again, again, again...

1 to 50 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.