...in a seemingly futile effort to keep up with the never-ending list of nerfs, 'clarifications' and re-writes that IS Pathfinder, I find myself struggling to nail down the changes to Fencing Grace.
If I have a Magus who took a level in Inspired Blade to better able select the feat Fencing Grace and its two-feat pre-requisite, does Fencing Grace still apply when I use Spell Combat, i.e. attacking with a rapier in one hand while casting a spell with the my completely empty other hand?
Thanks in advance, even if the rules change again before your response is read...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, no work. STR Magus master race prevails.
As of Ultimate Intrigue, Fencing Grace has the same language that prevents Slashing Grace from working with Spell Combat.
Pretty sure Two-Weapon Grace says it only works when you hold a weapon only, and it doesn't work with FoB or other style of attacks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good rule of thumb for the [Foo] Grace feats is "That thing you want to do with it? Doesn't work."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure Two-Weapon Grace says it only works when you hold a weapon only, and it doesn't work with FoB or other style of attacks.
So when it it is a weapon, it prevents Slashing Grace. When it isn't a weapon, it prevents Slashing Grace's only way to get Spell Combat to work. Which is it?
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.
It calls it a off-hand weapon. It isn't actually a weapon but treats it as one.
You would need to ACTUALLY TAKE Two-Weapon Fighting for this to work. For gods sake, at that point I would just let the player have it even if the rules say no. No Magus would ever reasonably take Two-Weapon Fighting. They have no justification. It is redundant.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure Two-Weapon Grace says it only works when you hold a weapon only, and it doesn't work with FoB or other style of attacks.
So... you're saying that Fencing Grace requires your off-hand to be empty... and Two-Weapon Grace requires your off-hand to be occupied... and Spell Combat exists in some sort magical in-between where the hand is neither empty NOR occupied?
I don't read it that way.
With Spell Combat your 'off hand weapon' is the spell being cast. That's specifically why Fencing Grace doesn't work on its own. The spell does not then suddenly become NOT an 'off hand weapon' when Two-Weapon Grace is applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, no work. STR Magus master race prevails.
Correction - Dervish Dance Scimitar Magus master race prevails.
Also, Two-Weapon Grace says that works when fighting with two weapons. That doesn't preclude it to TWF, but even if it does, Spell Combat, Brawler's Flurry, and Chained Flurry of Blows, specifically reference and function as TWF for all intents and purposes, including abilities and effects which trigger on them, so it would still work.
That being said, those feats are all a waste of a Magi's time and resources. Just wait until they publish the Dervish Dance feat in a hardcover book, and then they will have killed most every Dex-to-Damage option that exists.
Pretty sure Two-Weapon Grace says it only works when you hold a weapon only, and it doesn't work with FoB or other style of attacks.So when it it is a weapon, it prevents Slashing Grace. When it isn't a weapon, it prevents Slashing Grace's only way to get Spell Combat to work. Which is it?
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.It calls it a off-hand weapon. It isn't actually a weapon but treats it as one.
You would need to ACTUALLY TAKE Two-Weapon Fighting for this to work. For gods sake, at that point I would just let the player have it even if the rules say no. No Magus would ever reasonably take Two-Weapon Fighting. They have no justification. It is redundant.
To be fair, nothing in Spell Combat says that you replace the penalties you incur with the penalties you suffer from the generic TWF action.
In other words, a Magus without the TWF feat suffers -8/-12 to their attack rolls, and even with the feat, suffers -4/-4 at best. With the Two-Weapon Grace feat, that's -6/-6, at which point you might as well just hit yourself with your own attacks and spells. You'd be more likely able to do that anyway.
This is why Dervish Dance is the best Magus option around, even if it is cookie cutter. But of course, when they do publish and errata the Dervish Dance feat to be useless in the next Hardcover, the Dexterity Magus will be dead.
This is why Dervish Dance is the best Magus option around, even if it is cookie cutter. But of course, when they do publish and errata the Dervish Dance feat to be useless in the next Hardcover, the Dexterity Magus will be dead.
Then they'll release a new version of the Pathfinder Unchained series just to errata out URogue's Dex to Damage.
Dex is Dead for Good ;)
Just wait until they publish the Dervish Dance feat in a hardcover book, and then they will have killed most every Dex-to-Damage option that exists.
All dex-based magi suddenly switch to the glaive and Bladed Brush.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wait until they publish the Dervish Dance feat in a hardcover book, and then they will have killed most every Dex-to-Damage option that exists.All dex-based magi suddenly switch to the glaive and Bladed Brush.
Don't worry, that too will be published in an upcoming Hardcover and become errata'd into uselessness. Remember, Paizo hates Dexterity to Damage, and will do whatever it takes to destroy it.
In fact, it practically already is useless, just based on how it's worded!
I think with blade tutor's spirit, the strength magus bests the dancing dervish. It would be an interesting experiment to run the 2 builds against a litany of arbitrary cases to see which works out, however.
I agree with everyone that DD is likely to get its own nerfing soon enough. Realistically, the only differences between them is the weapon type, of which the scimitar is likely the most unwieldy (not that real-world physics truly matter, just a note).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wait until they publish the Dervish Dance feat in a hardcover book, and then they will have killed most every Dex-to-Damage option that exists.All dex-based magi suddenly switch to the glaive and Bladed Brush.Don't worry, that too will be published in an upcoming Hardcover and become errata'd into uselessness. Remember, Paizo hates Dexterity to Damage, and will do whatever it takes to destroy it.
In fact, it practically already is useless, just based on how it's worded!
And then, to sell more books, Paizo will put out more Dex-to-Damage options(always nerfing similar options first, like with Scarred Witch Doctor and Kineticist or Eldritch Heritage(arcane) Oracles and Spell Sage wizards) that people will flock to only to rage as it's nerfed again in time for the next wave of new options to hit the shelves.
Hmmm, I'm sensing a pattern...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell casting hand is not empty as it is being used for somatic gestures and spell components.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell casting hand is not empty as it is being used for somatic gestures and spell components.
And this is in relation to...what exactly?
Eh, doesn't matter, Paizo will nerf it to oblivion anyway.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well when their opinion appears to be "We released something the players really like and use a lot? Nerf it into oblivion" people start getting bitter fast.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"We released something that players like to see differently than we intended, what can we change to clarify it doesn't work how they think?"
I'm still salty over what the Slashing Grace Errata did to my dex-based PFS fighter TWFing with sawtooth sabers.
It was the second time I had to scrap a PFS character after having artwork commissioned.
Azten, I don't know why you don't see it as it is.
"We released something that players like to see differently than we intended, what can we change to clarify it doesn't work how they think?"
Because that's the same thing. Sometimes it would be nice to not have to worry about getting our fun things ripped away years after they came out because of the inane errata policy. Ironically, taking them away sooner rather then later would result in less toxicity towards Paizo.
And "clarifying" doesn't match up with what's been happening recently either. Removing items from the game is not a good idea and it wastes page space that could've been used for something better.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
sooner rather then later would result in less toxicity towards Paizo.
I don't think that is true, I've seen literally hundreds of threads where developers have said "that's not what the rules say" soon after a book released to be met with "that isn't RAW'. I think we have trained them to not give us many public corrections until errata time by rejecting the corrections when in non-errata form.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
sooner rather then later would result in less toxicity towards Paizo.I don't think that is true, I've seen literally hundreds of threads where developers have said "that's not what the rules say" soon after a book released to be met with "that isn't RAW'. I think we have trained them to not give us many public corrections until errata time by rejecting the corrections when in non-errata form.
I think people just complain too much in general.
Don't like something? Say so.
ONCE.
Not over and over and over and over and over and over again for years on end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could at least give us the first Crane Wing back now that Monk of Many Styles isn't breaking it.
it's the cycle of nerfs. You nerf the top layer, and then the next and the next and finally the root problem. So that way the chain is completely nerfed as every piece got nerfed.
it's the cycle of nerfs. You nerf the top layer, and then the next and the next and finally the root problem. So that way the chain is completely nerfed as every piece got nerfed.
Then you might as well white out the whole thing and have an empty space as it's not worth anything anymore. For instance, the Jingasa Of The Fortunate Soldier isn't worth relieving yourself in let alone taking up valuable space in one of the books...
Then on the other hand they sometimes make something MORE powerful in an effort to nerf. Take the scarred witch; make it extra strong while stripping it of it's uniqueness/flavor. However it's a rarity for this outcome as the normal 'nerf' method is "hulk smash" with the nerfhammer and keep hitting until it's iffy if anyone wants to use it anymore.
OP: if you want to use DEX combat the only semi-sure way to make it work long term is to take 3 levels of unchained rogue or gestalt with an unchained rogue. It's less likely to take the nefbat. Someone at Paizo wants you to sweat and bleed to Dex combat so it's going to hurt you one way or another to have a non-full armored fighting guy.
I still don't get all the drama about Paizo supposedly ruthlessly destroying the viability of Dex-based builds. So they don't like easy dex-to-damage on TWF builds; personally I agree with that decision for various reasons. I certainly get why people would be annoyed with having builds ruined by a nerf, but the general sense of 'Paizo makes Dex builds useless!!!' looks totally unfounded to me.
Dex-based builds are still perfectly viable with full Dex-to-damage on a one-handed weapon, or with Agile, or really with any finesse build that has significant bonus damage and doesn't dump STR. The idea that easy, unrestricted and pure Dex-to-damage is a requirement for making viable Dex-builds seems a bit strange, unless the real issue is that people define 'viable' as 'does as much damage as a strength build would, but can dump STR and benefit from high DEX'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still salty over what the Slashing Grace Errata did to my dex-based PFS fighter TWFing with sawtooth sabers.
It was the second time I had to scrap a PFS character after having artwork commissioned.
Maybe Paizo didn't like that art. Wait... is this all because of YOU!?!? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get all the drama about Paizo supposedly ruthlessly destroying the viability of Dex-based builds. So they don't like easy dex-to-damage on TWF builds; personally I agree with that decision for various reasons. I certainly get why people would be annoyed with having builds ruined by a nerf, but the general sense of 'Paizo makes Dex builds useless!!!' looks totally unfounded to me.
Dex-based builds are still perfectly viable with full Dex-to-damage on a one-handed weapon, or with Agile, or really with any finesse build that has significant bonus damage and doesn't dump STR. The idea that easy, unrestricted and pure Dex-to-damage is a requirement for making viable Dex-builds seems a bit strange, unless the real issue is that people define 'viable' as 'does as much damage as a strength build would, but can dump STR and benefit from high DEX'.
I would say people are more annoyed that it just isn't functionally viable, not that it isn't as strong as any given STR build. With a lot of new content for Fighter to boost their AC and defenses with heavier armour, and many other classes generally not having much Dex support built in, STR is still the supreme melee stat and absolutely none of the flaws of a DEX based build. With a strength build you need only one feat, and that's Power Attack. Then you're good to go.
To get a DEX to Damage build to work, you either have to be a Human Swashbuckler (or Inspired Blade) or a Dancing Dervish Magus (and that takes 3 levels before you even get to use your main weapon). Most other builds are simply too weak in comparison. And even these builds are pretty slow starters and only propped up because they were either made for Dex to Damage (Swash) or they have a ton of burst riding on the attacks and crits (Magus). That said, they are still strong, but they are cookie-cutter and lack any kind of variation
Bypassing these restrictions takes an unbelievable amount of feat taxes and going down long feat trees, some (two-weapon grace) have dead feats for 1-2 levels to meet prerequistes. Not even regular TWF'ing has as harsh feat taxes as this. Throwing builds are stronger than this in comparison. You actually can use every feat you take when you take it for each of these builds. Some are more reasonable than others (Bladed Brush, which gives you more options for taking it and is actually interesting in of itself, while also helping you keep up before Dex to Damage is available) but I am absolutely disgusted with Two-Weapon Grace (it strictly makes you worse in an already underpowered build path while making you unable to reasonably get any of the feats in a timely manner unless you are a fighter, and even then, you have to for so many levels before it even works, while building into a feat heavy build)
At a certain point I have to ask why they even bothered if they were so frightened of Dex builds. They actually made STR builds stronger in the time between when Dex builds were killed and now, and have only released weaker content for Dex builds since that doesn't help close the gap in a reasonable way.
I remember hearing a story that slashing grace didn't originally have a dex to damage component. It was just supposed to let you use more weapons as a swashbuckler. But it was considered too weak for a feat so at the last second they added on the dex to damage part. This of course had a weird side effect of making the swashbuckler's signature weapon not as good as the slashing weapons. So then fencing grace was rushed out in the next splat book.
If only they'd given swashbucklers native dex to damage in the first place, this whole mess probably wouldn't have happened. But the ACG is infamous for being a major low point in the quality of the books.
it just isn't functionally viable... To get a DEX to Damage build to work, you either have to be a Human Swashbuckler (or Inspired Blade) or a Dancing Dervish Magus (and that takes 3 levels before you even get to use your main weapon). Most other builds are simply too weak in comparison.
A basic level 9 Fighter who two-hands an Elven Curved Blade with 14STR and high DEX will do around ~25ish damage, which really isn't that different from the ~30ish damage a strength-based character would be doing. Throw in Trained Grace, and the difference almost completely disappears. The DEX-based Fighter's Armor Training and mithral full-plate means that they're getting several points more AC than the STR-based Fighter, and they have much better initiative.
An Evangelist battle Cleric can wield a rapier and buckler with Fencing Grace and combined buffs for very viable damage, and they'll have solid defenses from shield and DEX AC where a STR-based two-handed Evangelist would be trying to figure out how to survive. They can also grab Panache and a Blue Scarf.
Even a basic TWF fighter without Advanced Weapon Training who goes 16STR (as opposed to a STR-based TWF Fighter, who needs 17DEX) will end up with quite viable damage rolls - and again, throw in Trained Grace and the damage difference disappears.
DEX-based builds are totally viable with a little bit of thought and the right tools. I think STR-based melee combat remaining the 'main/default' type of melee build is the whole point; DEX-based being a bit of a specialty - and STR-dumping DEX-based being a major specialty - makes sense. As I said before, the idea that there aren't many viable DEX-based builds out there unless you get handed easy, unrestricted DEX-to-damage on a silver platter doesn't really hold up. I've even got a DEX-based TWF Swashbuckler 1/ Scarred Rager concept I'm thinking of trying out that has solid damage potential without any kind of Dex-to-damage bonus.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.
A strength focused fighter can already hit the dexterity caps on full plate armor, even with Armor Training increasing the cap by +4.
All it takes is investment, similar to how a dexterity based character has to invest for dex-to-damage.
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.A strength focused fighter can already hit the dexterity caps on full plate armor, even with Armor Training increasing the cap by +4.
All it takes is investment, similar to how a dexterity based character has to invest for dex-to-damage.
Why be fighter centric though? What about barbarian in a mithral breastplate? Or a strength based magus or monk? Strength to AC is something that would get used by more than fighters.
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.I personally, would like Str to thrown weapon attacks.
Why not both?
Strength being able to be added to more stuff would make it less of an issue if other stats could get added to melee attack/damage.
Your version would be more palatable if many of Paizo's 'clarifications' end up bludgeoning things into utter uselessness, too.
You're never going to effect meaningful change that way though.
The timing of the clarification or FAQ/Erratas doesn't help either. The trending of nerfing options just before a similar option will be released in the next book is at least suspicious.
In this case PAizo was never comfortable with dex to damage, and the low quality of the slashing/fencing grace feat shows it.
Why be fighter centric though? What about barbarian in a mithral breastplate? Or a strength based magus or monk? Strength to AC is something that would get used by more than fighters.We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.A strength focused fighter can already hit the dexterity caps on full plate armor, even with Armor Training increasing the cap by +4.
All it takes is investment, similar to how a dexterity based character has to invest for dex-to-damage.
Now you start running into thematic issues. Dexterity pushes a character into ever lighter armor to continue receiving a benefit. Eventually, only an unarmored character, or a character using silken ceremonial armor, will continue to receive increasing dexterity mods to AC.
Thematically, strength is the opposite. Higher strength would equate to the ability to use heavier armor. This already exists in game - it requires a +9 dexterity bonus and +5 silken ceremonial armor to equal what is received from +5 full plate and a 10 dexterity. Even the magus or barbarian can invest in modest dexterity for another +2, more if they splurge for mithral. Bracers of Armor +8 put a dexterity based character equal to the AC of a non-fighter wearing +5 full plate with a +2 dexterity bonus, but costs more than +5 mithral full plate.
The only times you'll see a dexterity based character with a higher AC than a heavy armor wearer are:
1. The strength based character is not invested in AC
2. The dexterity based character is applying a second stat to AC (i.e. class feature).
3. At low levels where spells are effective at providing a surge in AC beyond what a non-caster can afford to match.
Thematically, dexterity shouldn't add to damage. Strength adding to AC is the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thematically, dexterity shouldn't add to damage. Strength adding to AC is the same thing.Thematically, dex to damage makes a lot of sense. Heck, it's turned on by default in DnD5e for finesse weapons, no feats needed.
Explain how it makes sense without confusing dexterity with BAB. Because anything you can say about dex to damage applies much more for BAB to damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say if I was doing a strength to AC feat, it would probably look like this:
Armored Might
Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency
Benefit: While wearing heavy armor, the character may add their their strength bonus to armor class rather than dexterity.
Would keep it nice and thematic, and avoid some of the balance concerns by locking out mithril armor. Granted, I'd personally put it medium or heavy to give more classes access to it, and just live with anyone wearing mithril full plate.