Petition to allow Bladed Brush


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:
When people come to the boards and ask for things to be changed it is tantamount to whining. Calling it anything else is really just a euphemism. I'm not deluding myself. When I know I am basically just complaining about something I am as honest with myself as I am with my intended audience. Still, if you prefer "petitioning" I did mention that in my opening post.

As someone who has successfully petitioned for multiple changes to PFS, I much prefer terms like 'advocate', 'champion' and even 'promote.' The most effective petitions for change on this forum have ones that have been cheerful and have acknowledged potential downsides as well as the positive effects they hope the change would bring.

My advice: Don't think of your petitions with such terms as complaint or whining. That mindset will inevitably leak into your writing and weaken it. Instead, think positively about how you see this feat as bringing more fun to the world of PFS. Who would it impact? Go beyond the magus and power builds. Look for underpowered characters that it might benefit.

So, back to your original petition.

Would I like to see this feat in PFS? Sure, though I'm not sure it would help either of the two Shelynites I currently have in play: a sorcerer and a paladin without a dex bonus.

If it had been available early on, I think it would have greatly helped my boyfriend's Shelynite Reach Cleric. Omar paid through the nose to start with a strength of 16 so that he could contribute in a fight and help his party. He was incredibly MAD, attribute-wise, requiring a dex of 13 for combat reflexes and a charisma of 13 for selective channel. Now at level 10, he's become mostly a support spell caster cleric, but doesn't have as much wisdom as he would have liked to have for Omar.

(Though maybe all that might have happened would have been him exchanging his strength score with his dex score, because he'd still need some strength for all the armor he wears! So maybe I'm deluding myself.)

Hmm

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Lune wrote:
RSX Raver: That is how it should work for those games as well. The same thing annoyed me in M:TG. If it was too powerful to play with then why did it make it to print in the first place? Either print it and allow it or don't print it at all.

Considering that Pathfinder is a game built around the GM material being no different than the player material the argument falls flat on its face.

The Exchange

It really doesn't matter if the feat is a GM or player option it isn't comparatively powerful at all.

I choose to believe it is being withheld for a chronicle.

I would again encourage leadership to clarify if certain material isn't being held for a chronicle and maybe not restrict the entire book I wanted to play.. for chronicles.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Ragoz wrote:

It really doesn't matter if the feat is a GM or player option it isn't comparatively powerful at all.

You compared it to a fighting style that could be shut down by a spell that you can obtain at first level. Its why I really don't care for doing tremendous amounts of damage because magic tends to trump that so easily that your rarely doing that amount of DPS.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This was a poor ban in my mind. I actually can't think of anything that this feat does that is "new". The Elven Branched Spear is a purchasable version of this feat.

Just make it legal so people can try and replicate the awesome artwork provided for this prestige class.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

HMM: I get it. I am more abrasive than some people. It is just me. In person it doesn't come across as bad as it does in text because despite my bitterness I am still a generally happy person. I like you and can't think of a less abrasive way of putting this so I am just going to say it: By pointing out my abrasiveness did you think I would become less abrasive? I can tell you that in practice that rarely works. I will try to take your words positively, though I think your message may have been more appropriate in a private message rather than publicly pointing out a character flaw.

Ragoz: You have a good point here. I mean, paying for a whole book and being able to use almost none of it isn't a very good value. I think from now on I will have to wait to see what is allowed in PFS before deciding to purchase a book. If it goes the way this one did then I likely wont pick it up at all. I do kinda feel dooped. :(

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lune, I think you misread my intent. It's the internet; miscommunications happen because tone is so hard to read. I didn't see you as abrasive. Please forgive me if my phrasing was read as a rebuke! I wasn't addressing your personality or character, but instead the way you described your petition.

I was posting publicly rather than PMing because I believe that many people think like you do... That a petition for change must be a complaint or a whine. I want others to realize that these petitions are the ultimate fan statement. We're telling Paizo that we're so passionate about their product that we want it to be the best it could possibly be.

It's a paradigm shift, and one that I would like to see spread.

Please accept my apology for hurting your feelings, however inadvertently.

:(

Hmm

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Ever hear the phrase you catch more flies with honey than with a large electrified net that just kills everything moving including birds and the occasional small child?

That's the way this approach, as well as past approaches come off. I agree with HMM, things change because of well reasoned, impassioned, and critical assessments such as Jiggy's proposed style to promote rule changes.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Ragoz wrote:

This was a poor ban in my mind. I actually can't think of anything that this feat does that is "new". The Elven Branched Spear is a purchasable version of this feat.

Just make it legal so people can try and replicate the awesome artwork provided for this prestige class.

No it isn't. As someone whose working on a reach build the only equivalent ability any reach weapon gets is the whip. Also, its really not that hard to replicate the artwork. In fact an optimized version of one of my existing characters would be horrifying with a glaive.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason that some options are not allowed in an organized play setting is mostly due to the restriction on GMs customizing content to provide an appropriate challenge. It is no different for campaign management to decide that some options are inappropriate than it would be for a home GM to pick and choose which optional rules are allowed in a home campaign. In Pathfinder organized play, GMs are instructed to run scenarios as written so that everyone has an even playing field, but in a home campaign, the GM can easily customize the challenges to make them appropriate to the capabilities of the characters at the table. If the home campaign GM allows his players more power options, he can add more powerful opponents to keep the game fun. Pathfinder Society GMs are not allowed to change the challenges and when the party steamrolls every encounter, most players find that it gets boring. If campaign management starts increasing the challenge levels across the board, players who have not created extremely powerful characters suffer and, again, fun levels decrease. Personally, I'd rather that campaign management addresses potential power creep issues on the front end (deciding which optional rules are allowed) rather than on the back end (making challenges harder for everyone).

I think that when the restrictions on Bladed Brush are taken into account (must still have both hands on the weapon, move action to change grip), the feat is interesting, but not extremely overpowered and I would like to see it added as an option for Pathfinder organized play. It offers intriguing options that feed into Shelyn's preference for the glaive and I think that this would provide an opportunity for some fun characters. However, I understand that campaign leadership is very sensitive around options that give Dex builds additional advantages over others. I have never seen a convincing argument that a Str build is always superior to a Dex build - Dex giving bonuses to AC, initiative, and Reflex saves pretty much overcomes any feat tax such builds would suffer.

The Exchange

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

This was a poor ban in my mind. I actually can't think of anything that this feat does that is "new". The Elven Branched Spear is a purchasable version of this feat.

Just make it legal so people can try and replicate the awesome artwork provided for this prestige class.

No it isn't. As someone whose working on a reach build the only equivalent ability any reach weapon gets is the whip. Also, its really not that hard to replicate the artwork. In fact an optimized version of one of my existing characters would be horrifying with a glaive.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls with an elven branched spear sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a whip sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon.

The Exchange

MisterSlanky wrote:
That's the way this approach, as well as past approaches come off. I agree with HMM, things change because of well reasoned, impassioned, and critical assessments such as Jiggy's proposed style to promote rule changes.

Also I don't mean to discourage people from trying to have changes made but at least personally I am jaded from the experience of doing everything above then having it not only rejected but getting a Pathfinder faq reversed and the society leadership saying it is out of their hands because it was a Pathfinder change. They stopped making prestige classes since then until very recently and even now the spell-caster ones aren't legal for play.

Everyone likes to use Magical Knack as some shining example of how change is possible but the fact is this was under different leadership in a different time.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Lune wrote:
RSX Raver: That is how it should work for those games as well. The same thing annoyed me in M:TG. If it was too powerful to play with then why did it make it to print in the first place? Either print it and allow it or don't print it at all.

Banning in MtG happens mainly because sometimes mistakes happen. Either a card slips through that has an interaction with some other card in an older format they didn't notice when they were developing a new set, or because it had a bigger impact on a format than they anticipated. So, the card gets banned in a specific format.

Banning in PFS happens for largely the same reasons. Something new that gets released might have an interaction with something older that the writer didn't catch or the thing they wrote might be a bit too strong for the format (PFS), so it gets excluded from the AR page. It might not be too powerful for a home game, because in a home game if the party is too powerful there are measures that the GM can take, like making encounters tougher. In PFS, GM's don't have that luxury, so the option doesn't make it in.

Much like in MtG, options get made for people playing in different formats. In MtG casual gamers often play cards that tourney players won't or can't (either banned/restricted options or cards specifically made for casual), in Pathfinder home gamers play options that PFS players can't or won't (races, alignments, feats, etc. that don't fit very well in an Organized Play setting for one reason or another).

Dark Archive 4/5

On perhaps a different line of thought. When putting forward a request or opinion, how often do you expect to win? My Pathfinder stash is getting close in size to my 3.5 stash or about 1/3 of my collection from the last 25 years. And I originally sold my switch to Pathfinder on it's just the 1 book to run everything...
Actual point with that many options how many of the not legal option arguments do you need to win to be happy? I ask not to be overly difficult, but because it is very easy to get wrapped up in the argument but the capacity for argument in a system this complex is near infinite.

Shadow Lodge

Ragoz wrote:

Just make it legal so people can try and replicate the awesome artwork provided for this prestige class.

I am making a devoted muse without this feat (kitsume unchained scaled fist 4/Unchained Rogue 2) who wields a war fan and is the unmonkiest monk you ever saw! Refers to Erastil as the old horny god, does acid (with chi), and loves shoes, joined the Silver Crusade because lying to a high level Paladin is always a good idea, and still hasn't come out to her Dad (My summoner, about the whole adopted and being a kitsume thing).

The point is, there are plenty of ways to make a devoted muse. While I was at first bummed at the banning of this feat, the fact that I had to think of how I make one of these without the feat helped me come up with a very fun character.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane aka YogoZuno

Lune wrote:
Not sure I understand your point being that you still don't get Dex to Damage with your build. Maybe if you added 2 more levels of URogue? Or if you added Slashing Grace? Either way I think you'd at least need one more level in there or an Agile Weapon or something.

Did you not read the sentence of yours I quoted for context? The one where you said you thought that paying 3 feats and worshipping a specific god was actually quite a high price to pay? I was pointing out that you can actually qualify with zero feats spent, meaning the actual cost of qualifying for the feat is lower than you were making out, meaning the feat is better value than you were making out. You could add a couple more levels of UChained Rogue if you wanted, or stick to Warpriest, or do whatever you wanted, and grab Slashing Grace at level 3, and you now have a weapon with a good damage die (in fact, one of the best for Enlarging with - 1d10 goes to 2d8) that you can switch back and forth between reach and not reach at minimal cost, and that you can still wield two-handed if you want Str-based damage for some reason (since Bladed Brush says you CAN treat it as one handed, not must).

Not saying it's the best feat ever, but you have to admit, it is pretty damned good value.

Dark Archive

Lune wrote:
RSX Raver: That is how it should work for those games as well. The same thing annoyed me in M:TG. If it was too powerful to play with then why did it make it to print in the first place? Either print it and allow it or don't print it at all.

The reason things get banned is because they make for an unhealthy play environment. Fact is I played M:TG when Jace and Stone Forge were still legal in standard, and having a Pro Tour top 8 where every 75 list was within 3 or 4 cards of each other was terrible.

When something in any game becomes so powerful that everyone is using it, then the game meta becomes unhealthy. This is true for any organized game. Banning things is a good thing for the game when used properly. If you do not like it, then do not play in PFS and instead enjoy home games, then you can use all the things you want.

1/5

So I just took the time to read every post I could find about Bladed Brush and reread every post in this thread. I currently, thankfully, have a lot of time on my hands.

I came to the same conclusion I originally had. Despite what Lau Bannenberg and Sebastian Hirsch said (or at least implied?) there has been no ruling on what Bladed Brush can and cannot do. There hasn't even been agreement in any thread about what the intention of what it can and cannot do should be. No designer has posted stating what their intention had been. In fact, there was a lot of disagreements on both sides.

That being said that may have a fair amount of weight on why they wouldn't want to allow it in PFS. This is all still conjecture, mind you, as we do not yet have any post from a Dev or designer on the topic.

Still, I contest that it is an overly powerful feat. Despite the fear of Dex to Damage, this feat has nothing to do with that in and of itself. Dex to Damage is not part of this feat. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with X Grace feats, not Bladed Brush. Then again, you really aught to have a problem with Gunslingers using Dex to hit and damage while getting to full attack against touch AC but I digress.

I still deny that the power level of the feat has anything to do with it's ban. And if it does then that is bad form. If it is "too powerful" then it shouldn't make it to print. There should be no line of distinction between what is too powerful for PFS play and what is too powerful for Pathfinder in general.

I feel the same way about unclear rules text. If it is too unclear and it leaves too much ambiguity for PFS then it has this same problem with Pathfinder in general. The better course of action is to not allow something to print that has too much ambiguity.

At this point I think that the only intentional reason for a ban would be if the Paizo staff planned for it to be released on a chronicle sheet. Otherwise it is admitting a mistake. And that is ok too! Mistakes happen. Even by professionals with years of experience. But if it is a mistake that is what errata is for. I think everyone would just feel better if we knew what the reason was.

For my part I would be fine if I knew it was due to wanting to errata it before release. While I find that the text is pretty clear in it's intention there are several who do not and I do not want to deal with table variation so I wouldn't make a character who uses this option until it is cleared up. Likewise is true for the supposed "power issue". While I do not think there is any power issue due to the number of requirements the feat has the point is really moot if it is allowed. All of the people who think it is too powerful can go on believing that it is too powerful but would be required to allow it despite their beliefs. And if it is something that was planned for chronicle release then the rules ambiguity still should be cleared up just so I don't have to deal with GMs saying "nuh uh, that isn't how I interpret it".

I still contend that none of these are a good reason to disallow it. Like I said before, the designers of these feats worked hard. I doubt that they worked hard just to produce content so that it could be disallowed. It seems like a dishonor to their work.

RSX: I have played M:TG since beta. If the reason behind banning things is because everyone uses it then there are many MANY things that should be banned.

Telling me to not play in PFS if I do not like the rules isn't constructive. You see, what I am trying to do here is change a single part of the system that I do not like. This is a totally reasonable concept and has been successful in the past for not only myself but others as well.

HMM: Same thing goes for you when you say things like, "As someone who has successfully petitioned for multiple changes to PFS..." You say that as if I do not have experience in such matters myself. I assure you, I do. Most recently, you have me to thank for clarification to the "veneration" rules. Same goes for clarification on the Scorpion Whip.
Much like the late, great comedian George Carlin I dislike euphemisms. While you might prefer the terms "advocate", "champion" or "promote" it is really no different than "petition" in this context. And, like that same comedian once said, "There are no bad words." It is only the context that the words are used in that make them negative. Or in many cases the words themselves carried no negativity but were perceived as negative. In many threads (those I linked and more) I have had personal attacks levied against me, posts removed by people who couldn't stick to the topic and preferred to attack my intentions and my character and worse. I understand I may sometimes come across as abrasive whether you may have intended to say that or not. Its ok. I accept it. I understand that things I say can be taken that way whether I intend them to or not. I never agree with the concept that other's emotions are my responsibility in the first place.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend my cred. It shouldn't matter. Anyone, whether new to the game or not, has just as much right to come to these boards and petition for change. I think sometimes people on these boards get hung up on how many stars precede their name, what kind of titles come after it, how many times they have successfully been on the winning side of agruments, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of people here that could tell you that they have been on the losing side of debates with me. They probably wouldn't tell you that as defeat isn't the most glamorous thing to brag about. But what they would say is that it doesn't matter and just because I was right on one thing doesn't mean I'm right on everything. That is as true for me as any poster here. Lau, Steven, myself, John... anyone.

But if no one posts about it then the discussion never happens. I will happily bear the cross of bringing it up. Despite public ridicule. Despite whether I am in the majority or not. Despite the credibility of those who disagree. I am doing it not just because I want to use the options in the book but because I am not alone. Others would like to use these options as well.

Grand Lodge

I think the feat honestly isn't that powerful. It doesn't work with Slashing Grace so you have to either invest in an Agile weapon (+2 weapon cost so not available for a while) or go 3 levels of Unchained Rogue in order to get Dex to damage.

I think the misconception that it works with slashing grace/spell combat is why people think its so powerful.

Can't work with Slashing grace because you actuall need your offhand not holding anything, and doesn't work with spell combat cuz your casting hand needs to not have anything in it in order to spell combat.

Sidenote: I think it should've been written to work with Slashing Grace as it would've been a little powerful, but a very cool option. I'll certainly houserule it that way in home games

1/5

Jurassic Pratt: Again, the jury is still out on whether it works with Slashing Grace or not. There has been no official ruling. There are several people who believe that it does work with Slashing Grace, myself included. However, as pointed out before: this point is moot. It has nothing to do with this feat in and of itself. If anything it would be a problem with Slashing Grace. It is like trying to fix the Fate's Favored problem by changing the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Also, Slashing Grace isn't the only way to get Dex to Damage with such a concept anyway.

Grand Lodge

I mean, a glaive occupies 2 hands, and there is a definite distinction between treating it as "not making attacks with your off-hand" vs "any time another hand is otherwise occupied", which is what slashing grace specifies.

Those are clearly not the same thing.

If the author meant for it to mean the same thing, that's fine, in fact I'm all for it and would love an official statement saying that. But by RAW, no slashing grace does not work with bladed brush.

And I know slashing grace isn't the only way to get Dex to damage with a glaive; it is however, the easiest way for most classes. The only other ways I can think of is 3 levels of rogue (very hurtful if you're not already going full rogue), or an agile enchantment (hefty cost and thus not an option early).

So I do think the question of whether it works with Slashing Grace is the issue of whether it might be considered too powerful for society play. I'd assume all the disagreement about it is why it was not made legal.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well Lune, your premise isn't the premise of Pathfinder.
Pathfinder and PFS are two separate things.
Pathfinder is meant for home games, where you have an all powerful GM/table voting that can decide all the rules questions for them. Thus if there's stuff that is unclear they can go one way, while a different group can go the other while both thinking they have rule support.

Also about power, the RPG line is balanced around power levels (or they try at least.)
The player companion line, which bladed brush came from (and most banned things that PFS plays want), is not that concerned about power levels, they are more concerned about cool options.
Also again, the assumption is that everyone playing is a home game and thus has a GM so broken combo's are fixed by the GM/Table banning it or altering it.

PFS is the idea of taking this game that was meant for single table play and expanding it and standardizing it to world wide play. Thus the head work as our GM banning or allowing stuff for their "table".

I've heard of tables where Fighter is banned because it's too OP.
I've heard of tables where gunslingers are banned because they wanted no guns. (ps this is why most gun archetypes are banned, PFS wants guns to stay a quite rare thing)
I've hard of tables where you gestalt and have mythic with hero points and have all the powers.

So your idea of "PFS Legal or it shouldn't have been printed / PFS should legalize anything printed" isn't the ideas of the people printing the material or PFS leadership.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Power level: That is three feats for the price of one. Dex to damage, attacking at melee sans penalty, and getting to use a reach weapon as a light weapon.

So good it's the only option/constricts variety: Glaive would be the only weapon swashbucklers would use

1/5

Jurassic Pratt: I would assume it had more to do with the Magus interaction than Slashing Grace. Also, I dig that you have your opinion on how it works RAW. Just recognize that your opinion isn't the only one. There are several people there and here that believe that it currently works with Slashing Grace with no FAQratta needed. However, I am not of the belief that it doesn't need clarification. I would prefer that it does so there is no question. I won't make a character that uses it until there is clarification and imagine many are in the same boat.

Chess Pwn: First of all, I could site several examples of why your opinion of the premise of Pathfinder vs PFS is incorrect. Unless you are the only player who hasn't been at a PFS table that with a player that had an OP character then I rest my case. Things that are "too powerful for PFS play" get into PFS all the time. I can also tell you for fact that when designers create content for those books that they think about how it will apply to PFS, not just home games. In fact, many of them design options that they themselves want to use in PFS. Don't forget, most of them are players as well. So, honestly, I think I disagree with you completely on everything you said as I know for fact that much of it is incorrect.

Also, do not misconstrue my point. I did not say that I think everything that is printed should be PFS legal. You are making that up. I said that it being too powerful is not a good reason to ban it. It is a good reason to never print it in the first place.

5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Power level: That is three feats for the price of one. Dex to damage, attacking at melee sans penalty, and getting to use a reach weapon as a light weapon.

So good it's the only option/constricts variety: Glaive would be the only weapon swashbucklers would use

I'm not seeing where it gives dex to damage. It doesn't even give dex to-hit.

For the cost of effectively two feats, it allows you to use a reach weapon as a light weapon, and get a situational ability to attack without reach.

Given that every swashbuckler I've seen concentrates in using an 18-20 crit weapon, I can't see many of them switching - let alone it being the only weapon they would use.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW: In what way is it 3 feats in one? It does NOT give Dex to Damage. It attacks in melee sans penalty just as much as any other melee weapon. Not sure what that was a reference to? It doesn't allow you to treat your weapon as a light weapon. It allows you to treat it as a "one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon".

Are you reading the same feat that we are? It takes 3 feats to use it (Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse and Bladed Brush). Is that what you meant? Four Feats (the 3 aforementioned plus Slashing Grace), a magic item (Agile) or 3 levels in URogue if you want a Dex to Damage option.

Glaive also has a poor threat range so isn't an ideal weapon for a Swashbuckler or Magus. And if it becomes the only weapon that Maguses would use then I would submit that would be in large part due to Paizo removing most of their other Dex to Damage options after printing specifically to allow for Dex to Damage as an option for them.

edit: Ninja'd by Mekkis.

Sovereign Court 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lune wrote:
Also, do not misconstrue my point. I did not say that I think everything that is printed should be PFS legal. You are making that up. I said that it being too powerful is not a good reason to ban it. It is a good reason to never print it in the first place.

Can you see how the consequences of those two statements are the same, though?

Saying that Paizo shouldn't print things that are too powerful for PFS means that everything Paizo prints in a rulebook will be PFS legal.

1/5

That would be ideal, yes. But Pathfinder contains things like item creation which are not included in PFS. Are you advocating for their inclusion? Because I am not.

I stand by my original statement: It being too powerful is not a reason to not include it in PFS. It is a good reason to not print it.

The alternative would be saying that Paizo purposefully prints things that are too powerful for inclusion in PFS. Do you believe that if it is too powerful for PFS that it SHOULD be included in home games? It seems like a lot of the sentiment here and in other threads have been that it is too powerful period.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You agree then that when applied only to future products, the two statements are functionally the same. The restriction to the future was implied in Chess Pwn's post. I'm not sure you understood that.

Not everyone wants to play at the PFS power level. I think that home games should have the option to include powerful options such as item crafting and Leadership where a GM can shape a campaign to fit that playstyle.

1/5

Chess Pwn put words in my mouth that I did not say. He even put quotations around it. He put, "PFS Legal or it shouldn't have been printed / PFS should legalize anything printed". I did not say this.

You are not going to get me to say that I said those words. No. I believe that if it is too powerful to be in PFS that it never should have made it to print. Unless/until Paizo wants to release separate books only intended for play within the PFS environment then they should strive for the same balance of gameplay for Pathfinder in general that they do for PFS. If they don't then you deal with the power creep issues that plagued the end of 3.5.

For the record I would be willing to bet that most Paizo Developers agree with my line of thinking. That is why I doubt that they banned this feat and the rest of the content of the book it was printed in for power related reasons.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Lune did not say this... wrote:
PFS Legal or it shouldn't be printed.
Lune definitely did say this... wrote:
I believe that if it is too powerful to be in PFS that[sic] it never should have made it to print.

I, however, find those statements to be equivalent.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I, too, would like this feat included as an option for a Swashbuckler (or Paladin if Virtuous Bravo makes it in), but I fear the disdain directed towards the development team, editors, and OPC in several of the posts will dissuade them from revisiting the issue.

The arguments for the feat should stand on the technical merits.

1/5

I may have missed the disdain directed towards devs, editors or OPC. Could you point it out?

You mention the technical merits. Would you like to offer anything constructive towards that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lune wrote:

Chess Pwn put words in my mouth that I did not say. He even put quotations around it. He put, "PFS Legal or it shouldn't have been printed / PFS should legalize anything printed". I did not say this.

You are not going to get me to say that I said those words. No. I believe that if it is too powerful to be in PFS that it never should have made it to print. Unless/until Paizo wants to release separate books only intended for play within the PFS environment then they should strive for the same balance of gameplay for Pathfinder in general that they do for PFS. If they don't then you deal with the power creep issues that plagued the end of 3.5.

For the record I would be willing to bet that most Paizo Developers agree with my line of thinking. That is why I doubt that they banned this feat and the rest of the content of the book it was printed in for power related reasons.

Do you really think the designers should pop on over to John's or Linda's desk with every single feat, archetype, and trait and ask if it's legal for PFS, while they're in development.

That seems... impossible.

Edit: I don't have the book, so good luck and all.

I just felt I had to mention how impossible that sounds. Also, not everyone plays PFS, so we don't care if it's considered legal. :-)

Good luck!

1/5

...yet you cared enough to post in the PFS forum? You will forgive me if I do not believe you are one of those not interested in PFS play, he of 1000 aliases. And for those who don't care about it... well, they would likely never see this thread so I don't see how that matters.

Being that they review everything for PFS legality anyway, no, I do not think it is impossible. In fact, that is pretty much what already happens.

Since you are unfamiliar with this, the list of what is available in PFS is here. Bladed Brush is from Paths of the Righteous. The additional resources says this:

Quote:
Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.

It then goes on to list the exceptions to that book that are legal. For reference, most books are listed the opposite. They will say the book is legal except for X. That is one reason I am posting here. Paths of the Righteous was released some months ago. To my knowledge none of the content has yet been released on chronicle sheets. While I understand that may have been their original plan it doesn't look like it has panned out yet.

This could be for a number of reasons. Perhaps they still have plans on that and just haven't got to it yet. Perhaps it has been placed on the back burner and they forgot about it. If it is just that they forgot about it then hopefully this thread would serve as a reminder. Nonetheless, from everything brought up here it sounds like some clarification would be needed before legalization anyway. But honestly, clarification shouldn't depend on whether something is made PFS legal or not. Mechanics that have ambiguity should be clarified even if they aren't legal for PFS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well, in all honesty, I just saw it come up in the feed and thought it was about the weapon. :-D

Glad I started from the beginning.

Anyway, all I was saying is it's unreasonable to expect the person developing the book to poke on over to the PFS section of the offices to see if they're cool with it.

That's all I'm saying. :-)

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know that Lune does not accept this logic, but I'm with Lau Bannenberg that the wording of Bladed Brush does not actually mean that you wield a glaive in one hand, only that it counts as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats and abilities. I think this is an important distinction and if supposed to mean "you wield a glaive in one hand," they would have said exactly that. You might qualify for the Slashing Grace feat, but given that Slashing Grace says specifically that you do not gain the benefit "any time another hand is otherwise occupied," you would not be able to use Slashing Grace with Bladed Brush. An example that would illustrate how this is different is that you could use Slashing Grace with a longsword, as long as you hold it in one hand only. As soon as you put a second hand on it, you don't get 1.5 x your Dex bonus to damage, you lose all Dex bonus to damage.

1/5

captain yesterday: It is not unreasonable. It is almost exactly what is currently done. I mean, they aren't all in the same brick and mortar building but every book that makes it to additional resources gets reviewed by John and his staff. That means every single word from every single Paizo Pathfinder product.

Well. I mean, maybe it is unreasonable. But they still do it.

Pete Winz: Thank you for the breath of fresh air with bringing coherent non-attacking discussing. :)

I'll not try to dissuade you of your opinion. However, when Bladed Brush says "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" it doesn't disclude any feats that you wouldn't treat it as a one handed slashing or piercing weapon for. It doesn't say, "all feats and class abilities except Slashing Grace". I understand that it doesn't say that your hand is not occupied. But if it is being treated as a one handed weapon for such feats why would it be? And why would it further specify "as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand"? To me this is a reference against incurring penalties for things like two weapon fighting.

We all agree that it doesn't use the best language. But please recognize that I am not the only one who thinks this. There are several other people that hold the same opinion that I do.

To clarify, it is my opinion that when using Bladed Brush that:
1. You would only get 1:2 Power Attack (as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon).
2. Things like Slashing Grace and Crane Style are designed to work with it.
3. Your hand is actually occupied for any purpose other than feats or class abilities. So no Swordmaster's Flair, drinking a potion with your off-hand, or basically using any item other than your glaive.

But, again... Bladed Brush doesn't give Dex to Damage. That is an issue with Slashing Grace. And Slashing Grace isn't the only way of getting Dex to Damage. Again, I doubt it is banned for a power reason. Paizo has a pretty solid track record of continuing to release Dex to Damage options. (Sure, they almost immediately nerf them soon after release but that is beside the point.)

1/5

Also, Pete, another distinction I wanted to make. You said:

Quote:
...it counts as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats and abilities.

That is not what the feat says. It doesn't use the word "qualify" at all. It says "treated as... for all feats and abilities that require such a weapon".

There is a big difference between simply qualifying for the feats and actually being able to use it in conjunction with those feats. For reference it specifies that it can be used with Swashbuckler's Precise Strike Deed. That uses language like "strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon", and "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler".

Sure, one could easily argue that just because it is "treated as" doesn't mean you are actually only using one hand. Firstly, that argument doesn't make a lot of sense as it doesn't say "treated as... unless you are actually using two hands". Of course it doesn't say that because then the feat would make no sense at all. But secondly, this strikes very close to the errata on Slashing Grace.

It says:

Quote:
Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”

I think if you compare this with the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike Deed you will understand where my opinion comes from. The errata uses very similar language to this feat and Precise Strike.

Basically, I think the people who disagree with the opinion that I hold have a much more narrow perception of what "treated as" means. I do not apply extra limitations to such words. In my opinion, they are. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion until clarification is made, right?

Does anyone know who wrote this feat by the way? I have it narrowed down to a few people. If I recognize his work correctly, I think it may have been Alexander Augunas. I believe this is a situation where designer intention might go a long way. Judging from how the threads have went down on the topic though I can understand why they may be leery in posting.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the issues with understanding exactly what this feat does are enough to warrant its lack of inclusion in PFS.

1/5

Right. Because there aren't already a bunch of things that are hard to understand that were included in PFS. ;)

For the record, I somewhat agree. I think a simple clarification would do prior to it being allowed. But I doubt that is the reason it was disallowed unless everything else in Paths of the Righteous (except the specifically allowed items) has the same issue. I highly doubt that is the case. Remember, this feat wasn't cherry picked to be disallowed. It was not specifically cherry picked from that book to BE allowed.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Lune wrote:
You mention the technical merits. Would you like to offer anything constructive towards that?

Post 23.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:
I think the issues with understanding exactly what this feat does are enough to warrant its lack of inclusion in PFS.

Looking into my crystal ball and informing what I perceive in its depths with the knowledge of how things have occurred in the past, I foresee that this ruling will stand unchanged and unexplained as the powers that be have learned not to share their reasoning and be pulled into defending the conclusions that they reached.

This is my prediction.


The perception of the verbal population seems to agree the feat is overpowered. Lune seems to have not convinced anyone otherwise. I do not see a anyone really asking for it other than Lune. Until these are remedied the status quo will remain.

The Exchange

As I said before I don't even think it is a powerful option at all and that it probably should be on a chronicle because it wouldn't even make sense to ban it.

Sovereign Court

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

I'd like to see it legalized, for the record. I just don't have much to say on the matter.

Shadow Lodge

one reason I see is that it Nullifies the Polearm fighter Archtype
which is the only class / Archtype (that I recall) that allows a reach weapon to be used against an adjacent foe and even that is at a -2 ... Top that with allowing it to be used with Weapon finesse .. I agree .. its just too good even if it ends up being Sheylynn only (I could be wrong on that as well)

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a very cool feat, enabling a lovely fighting style. If it had become legal I'd have used it.

But it could only be deployed if:
- Arguments about Slashing Grace were decisively resolved (Clarification that actually explains the ruling could do it).
- Power/balance worries about Daring Champion put to rest somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell combat seems to have an obvious reading that prevents it.

Spell combat is not an ability that requires a one handed slashing or piercing melee weapon, you could use a mace for it, ergo bladed brush does not apply to that class ability.

1/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
The perception of the verbal population seems to agree the feat is overpowered. Lune seems to have not convinced anyone otherwise. I do not see a anyone really asking for it other than Lune. Until these are remedied the status quo will remain.

I linked a thread (repeatedly) that shows several people who would like to use it. There have been several people in this thread who stated they would like to see the ban lifted. I do not think I really need to defend my point when others are already showing their support. I think you may just be failing to acknowledge it. That is ok, though, as I don't think by you saying this will make Paizo fail to acknowledge it as well.

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Petition to allow Bladed Brush All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.