|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm wondering whether a swashbuckler with swashbuckler's finesse can benefit from an Agile weapon.
Indeed, the Agile weapons states (emphasis mine):
Agile: A character with Weapon Finesse can apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with an agile weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two -handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons. This weapon special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.
While the swashbuckler finesse class ability states (emphasis mine):
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapon, and she can use her Charisma score in place of her Intelligence score as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purpose of meeting feat prerequisites.
It was recently pointed-out to me that, RAW, it is unclear whether "gaining the benefit of Weapon Finesse with this weapon" would be enough to be considered "with Weapon Finesse" for the Agile ability.
I know how I would rule in a home game, but I'm interested in RAW/PFS answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a swashbuckler counts as having Weapon Finesse with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons. Any prerequisite that requires Weapon Finesse would be satisfied by Swashbuckler Finesse, but only for light or one-handed piercing melee weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^
Traditionally, it's been interpreted that you can only put agile on weapons that are considered finesseable independent of any special ability (which the phrasing of the restriction would seem to suggest). So, if we were to stick to this reading of things, aldori dueling sword would be eligible for the agile enchantment and even function in the hands of someone without exotic weapon proficiency.
If you wanted to get super pendantic with this, I suppose one could argue that, since the restriction only talks about placing the enchant, then it's actually a restriction on the maker: so long as the melee weapon in question is considered finesseable to the maker, then it's okay - and then, after being placed, the enchant works for everyone, even if it's not finesseable to them. (I'd say this falls within the letter of the law, though may earn you the suspicion of others.)
Personally, if the above doesn't fly, I'm totally cool with anyone putting the agile enchant on any weapon and it only working for you if it's finesseable (to you), albeit this is contrary to how things are written. (This ignores the restriction on placing the enchant and puts that restriction on using it instead.)
I'd say no - you don't have the actual feat. You gain the benefits (i.e. the effects section), but that does not include counting as having the feat (otherwise, the prereq line would be redundant).
|
|
I'd say no - you don't have the actual feat. You gain the benefits (i.e. the effects section), but that does not include counting as having the feat (otherwise, the prereq line would be redundant).
The prereq line is not redundant, no matter what, since you only get the benefit with some weapons, which is clearly by itself not enough for a feat prerequisite (which is necessarily unrestricted).
I however agree that it is unclear whether "the benefit of" implies only the actual effect or also counting as prerequisite in such a situation. RAI, I think it is meant to. RAW, I would like a clarification.
|
|
Bump, as I'd like a RAW/official answer.
Btw, the folks at Hero Lab don't allow it.
I'm sorry, it seems our interpretations differ. I would say that the benefits of weapon finesse are distinct from the feat itself. After all, the benefit (allowing attacks to use some other attribute) is a somewhat common feature of different abilities.
Perhaps paizo's devs could weigh in?
|
I just want to clarify:
Assumptions:
1) There is a weapon that has the agile enchant on it, it qualifies for this enchant by being "a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain" per the weapon finesse feat or by being a weapon which specifically calls out weapon finesse in its description, like the Aldori Dueling Sword.
2) This weapon is sized for the swashbuckler and is also "a light or one-handed piercing weapon."
3) Your swashbuckler picks up this weapon.
Question:
You're asking if the swashbuckler can add his dexterity to damage per the agile enchant for this weapon?
Two answers:
Overly pedantic wrong answer No. No one can use Agile weapons as The weapon enchant doesn't require the user to actually have the Weapon Finesse feat, as it does not contain the word feat in its description. No class to my knowledge gets "Weapon Finesse" they only get the "Weapon Finesse feat" or the benefits there of.
Right AnswerYes. You have the benefit of the Weapon Finesse feat with regards to "light or one-handed piercing weapons". If such a weapon is also allowed to have the agile enchant based on the enchants restrictions, then you would get that benefit as well.
Overly pedantic wrong answer No. No one can use Agile weapons as The weapon enchant doesn't require the user to actually have the Weapon Finesse feat, as it does not contain the word feat in its description. No class to my knowledge gets "Weapon Finesse" they only get the "Weapon Finesse feat" or the benefits there of.
Making up stuff is not pedantism. The weapon enchant doesn't say it requires a Weapon Finesse class feature, therefore it doesn't and anything called Weapon Finesse feat does qualify.
Also, saying "the wording isn't perfet so it must work exactly as I think" is like the weakest argument in the history of gaming.
Where do you get the divine insight from to call out which answer was "right" or "wrong"? Presumptuous much?
|
|
Overly pedantic wrong answer No. No one can use Agile weapons as The weapon enchant doesn't require the user to actually have the Weapon Finesse feat, as it does not contain the word feat in its description. No class to my knowledge gets "Weapon Finesse" they only get the "Weapon Finesse feat" or the benefits there of.Making up stuff is not pedantism. The weapon enchant doesn't say it requires a Weapon Finesse class feature, therefore it doesn't and anything called Weapon Finesse feat does qualify.
You obviously haven't examined the claims of most pedants on these boards. But lest I digress into a pendantic quibble about the meaning of pedantic...
I said it was a wrong answer, I do agree that the weapon finesse feat should apply, but the enchantment is so poorly worded that you have to read the word "feat" into it to get it to work as you seem to think it is intended.
I would warrant, that when it was published in 2011 in a splat book, it was intended to work with the just the feat, however that was almost 3 years before the publication of the ACG and the swashbuckler class. The ACG was an admittedly poorly edited book. It took another 3 years for this to be raised as an issue, so as far as ambiguous wording it's not been the biggest issue. And that's probably been because most people assumed the majority opinion from this thread that it should work. That being said it low on the FAQ totem pole.
Also, saying "the wording isn't perfet so it must work exactly as I think" is like the weakest argument in the history of gaming.
Where do you get the divine insight from to call out which answer was "right" or "wrong"? Presumptuous much?
Didn't you offer your take in the 6th post? And you said the overly pendantic answer I jokingly gave was wrong...
I offered a right answer, you've offered no logical fault in my interpretation of the language of the the class ability or the enchant. All you have done is made an ad hominem.
One thing I think restricting the enchant does is lock us in to seeing more slashing grace/fencing grace/ bladed brush/ starry grace swashbucklers. What about the miners using their light picks? Or the estoc fencers who want to break their bonds?
|
|
I would warrant, that when it was published in 2011 in a splat book, it was intended to work with the just the feat, however that was almost 3 years before the publication of the ACG and the swashbuckler class. The ACG was an admittedly poorly edited book. It took another 3 years for this to be raised as an issue, so as far as ambiguous wording it's not been the biggest issue. And that's probably been because most people assumed the majority opinion from this thread that it should work. That being said it low on the FAQ totem pole.
While I do agree that it seems of minor consequence, I take the existence of PFS as a strong commitment by Paizo to make sure that Pathfinder is as unambiguous as possible.
Unfortunately, it does seem that unless you get many "FAQ" clicks on a post, you have no chance to get any kind of official answers. This is not the way FAQing is supposed to work (the official post explicitly says that you'll be considered no matter the number of FAQ requests), but it does seem to be that way.
Traditionally, it's been interpreted that you can only put agile on weapons that are considered finesseable independent of any special ability (which the phrasing of the restriction would seem to suggest). So, if we were to stick to this reading of things, aldori dueling sword would be eligible for the agile enchantment and even function in the hands of someone without exotic weapon proficiency.
Without a special ability, e.g. the feat Weapon Finesse, nothing is finesseable.
Weapon finesse is an ability possessed by the character, not a weapon property. Without that ability, no weapon can be finessed. Which weapons can be used with finesse may vary significantly from character to character.