|
| 1 person 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.
I agree with Ryan Freire's assessment regarding Spell Combat. This doesn't prevent a Magus from using Bladed Brush but even if it were allowed with Spell Combat using a Glaive seems subpar to begin with mostly due to it's threat range.
Regarding your first point, I disagree. Many things have made it into PFS while being unclear. Slashing Grace itself is a perfect example of this. If you mean "should" rather than "could" then I agree. But I could give several examples of things that made it into PFS on shaky ground.
I'm sure that people will find fault in what I am about to say but hey, that has never stopped me before:
Something having ambiguous rules text is not a reason to not allow it in PFS. It is a reason for it never have made it to print. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm saying that if they do then they should be corrected for everyone, not just PFS players. In the meantime, unless it violates other things that PFS specifically tries to keep out (item creation, leadership, etc.) then it should be just as much fair game for PFS as it is for non-PFS.
The same goes for game balance. Game balance is something that should be enjoyed by both PFS players and Pathfinder players in general. I find it very hard to believe that a martial option like this could be unbalanced when compared to the rest of the system. At the cost of perpetuating cliches shared on these boards, I agree with the often shared opinion of "martials can't have nice things" sentiment when I see judgement calls made on content like this. Not that I think that balance was the reason this has been disallowed (mostly due to the book being banned entirely outside of a few choice items).
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Something having ambiguous rules text is not a reason to not allow it in PFS. It is a reason for it never have made it to print. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm saying that if they do then they should be corrected for everyone, not just PFS players.
This might is another issue, it mostly Paizo's FAQ and Errata policy, not thrilled about the fact that a number of books don't get FAQ entries.
Of course, we might get two FAQ entries that clarify the interaction with spell combat and slashing grace. For everything else, the PFS campaign clarification document works to table variation on issues like this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something having ambiguous rules text is not a reason to not allow it in PFS. It is a reason for it never have made it to print. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm saying that if they do then they should be corrected for everyone, not just PFS players.
You are still the only person that believes they should not print things because you do not like that it is not allowed in PFS. Plenty of people want this in PFS that is without question. But just because it is not allowed in an organized environment, does not mean it should never be an option for anyone. I happen to enjoy using this in a campaign mode AP right now. And yes, with it working with Slashing Grace, it is very very good.
|
|
Sebastian Hirsch: I understand. Which is why I believe that if the issue with Bladed Brush is an ambiguity issue that it could easily be clarified on the campaign clarification document.
I do have two problems with this policy. The first is minor: That document is made to apply to PFS. Like I say, that is a minor issue. In a home game you can easily govern house rules to match that document. Or not. I just feel that if it is important enough to make a ruling on somewhere that it just gets made in general. I'm not sure why we need a document that is supposed to only apply to PFS. If a home game wants to ignore rules changes then they can do that whether it is in a campaign clarification document, errata or FAQ.
The second issue I have is that while that document helps with clarifying ambiguous rules it doesn't help with content that simply isn't included in PFS...like Bladed Brush. There are things that people would like rulings on whether they are allowed in PFS or not. For those people they are S.O.L. They only get clarifications on things that are in PFS allowed content.
Two popular theories expressed here as to why Bladed Brush is banned are that it is either too powerful or too ambiguous. I don't believe either one. The biggest clue here is that the entire book is banned aside from a few choice options. Bladed Brush didn't get cherry pick banned. It just isn't one of them items specifically allowed from Paths of the Righteous.
Either way it shouldn't matter.
Too powerful: It either should have been nerfed prior to print so as to not create a too powerful option in the first place or nerfed and then allowed in. Personally I know I'm not alone when good things that I don't think are too powerful get banned after they are allowed in play (cough-Jingasa). But at least nerfed prior to being allowed is better.
Too ambiguous: Really same solution here. Just clear up the ambiguity prior to allowing it. Prior to release is always better but we are past that point now. Yes, I dislike that the ambiguity gets cleared up in a PFS specific document but it is better than simply discluding it.
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unbalanced is an opinion and based on the group that is playing. GMs may always make house rules for their campaign, choosing what to use and what not to.
Consider John, Linda, and I the head GMs of Pathfinder Society. We are making the guidelines for our story. It is not a judgement call on what was written, designed, or developed. It is a statement of what we feel works best for the organized play environment.
Asserting that since we decided something didn't work for 65,000 players worldwide it won't work for 6 players at one table isn't the type of argument that sways our team to reconsider a decision. Neither is saying that all Paizo products must fit the organized play campaign.
The most successful petition raises an issue, identifies the concerns, and then address each point in a rational manner supported with examples. It does not involve conjecture, supposition, accusations or assumptions.
And when we review the arguments and decide not to change our position, the matter is closed.
|
|
It doesn't sound like any permanent decision has been made by your team regarding keeping material from Paths of the Righteous out of PFS. If that matter were closed then why state in additional resources "Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets."?
If, on the other hand, your team truly did decide that content from that book doesn't work for 65,000 players ... I am disappointed. (If that is the case it would be nice if additional resources reflected that rather than saying it is being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.) That is the entire point of why I made this thread. I think that it does work for PFS. I'm not the one to make these decisions, but this forum seems like the appropriate place to share my opinion and 'advocate', 'champion' and 'promote' for it's inclusion into PFS.
I have often in life been accused of being stubborn. I prefer to think of it as persistent. So with that in mind if you could provide what "issues" and "concerns" your team had/has with this feat I would be happy to address each point in a rational manner supported with examples. Unfortunately, until then we all have is to guess as to your reasons and rely on conjecture and assumptions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unbalanced is an opinion and based on the group that is playing.
To some extent, sure. But certainly not completely. Paizo itself has made many a change/FAQ because things were seen to be unbalanced.
And there is near universal agreement that some options are too weak and some too powerful. Not universal, admittedly. But near
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one to make these decisions, but this forum seems like the appropriate place to share my opinion and 'advocate', 'champion' and 'promote' for it's inclusion into PFS.That statement is uncalled for.
I must be missing how so. He says he can't make the rules but he can promote change on this forum. Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want there to be no medium for discussion.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
|
This feat allows a non-cookie cutter build, therefore it's desirable.
I think there are a number of observations one can make:
* This thread has been reviewed, the position hasn't changed, thus the matter is closed.
* Until clarified, there will be considerable disagreement on combining with Slashing Grace.
* Until clarified, there will be considerable disagreement on combining with Spell Combat.
* This feat is complicated, and may require multiple parses to understand which translates into time lost by GM and players unfamiliar.
* Features that allow things that can't be done otherwise are more dangerous.
* Many posts have confirmed that things are written, at times, that are not expected to be PFS legal.
My advice Lune, wait until the Errata for the book is released. If Bladed Brush is altered, create a new thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must be missing how so. He says he can't make the rules but he can promote change on this forum. Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want there to be no medium for discussion.I'm not the one to make these decisions, but this forum seems like the appropriate place to share my opinion and 'advocate', 'champion' and 'promote' for it's inclusion into PFS.That statement is uncalled for.
My apologies. Instead of eliding Lune's sentence, I chose to quote it totus porcus. The end portion (bolded) is that for which is uncalled. I should have bolded the section in my original post.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
My advice Lune, wait until the Errata for the book is released. If Bladed Brush is altered, create a new thread.
There isn't going to be any errata though. There is a long list of material from that line that is broken broken (ie. Missing mechanics) that haven't had errata in years.
|
|
This feat allows a non-cookie cutter build, therefore it's desirable.
I think there are a number of observations one can make:
* This thread has been reviewed, the position hasn't changed, thus the matter is closed.
I didn't really get the idea that it had been reviewed.
And when we review the arguments
This is future tense. It isn't the same as saying "and since we have reviewed the arguments".
Any chance we can get clarification if this is the case?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tonya - thank you for your reply. My reading of your comment suggests that this matter is not yet closed and you are open to a properly formulated proposal, so if I misunderstood, please accept my apologies.
I would like to advocate for Bladed Brush to be released in a future chronicle for the following reasons. First, I think that the feat makes a seldom-used option (fighting with a glaive) work with builds that rely upon Dexterity rather than Strength, opening the Organized Play campaign to a wider array of viable characters. Second, I think that the feat is very much tied to the world of Golarion in that worshippers of Shelyn should be encouraged to use her favored weapon over others, regardless of the obstacles that their class may otherwise put in the way. Third, when the limitations of the feat are properly considered, I don't think that it will unbalance the campaign or channel players toward this choice in preference to others to the point where it becomes a "must have" option.
I would specifically like to address the last point in more detail, because I think it is probably the most important issue in why Bladed Brush would not be allowed in Organized Play. One of the greatest concerns I have seen expressed regarding this feat comes from when it is combined with options that will also allow Dexterity to be applied to damage - either from the Agile weapon quality, from the Slashing Grace feat, or from taking at least 3 levels in Unchained Rogue. The Agile quality does not give 1.5x damage to a two-handed weapon, so the advantage of a Strength-based build is preserved for glaives. Although there has been some debate on this thread about whether Slashing Grace would apply, I think that because the glaive is still a two-handed weapon when used with Bladed Brush, it does not, but if there is concern that this is not clear, an additional entry can be made in the Campaign Clarifications document. As for Unchained Rogues, my experience is that they do better damage with Two-Weapon Fighting (more opportunities to apply Sneak Attack damage). I would also argue that since rogues do not have proficiency with glaive, the additional feat requirement also helps to balance any advantage that a Bladed Brush build would offer.
James Risner also raised the issue of whether Bladed Brush could be used with spell combat. Because the magus class ability specifies having one hand free, I don't think that the text of Bladed Brush makes it compatible. Again, this is something that can be added to Campaign Clarifications.
I welcome constructive comments on either side of this proposal so that we can have a reasonable debate on whether this feat should be allowed in Pathfinder Organized Play. Thank you for your consideration.
|
|
I wouldn't ask anyone to slog through this thread, as much as I like the feat and want it clarified and added to Addtional Resources.
I appreciate the discussion, but I think we need a new thread to properly identify the concerns about this feat and then address each point in a rational manner supported with examples.
|
No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.
Bladed Brush doesn't make your off-hand count as empty, and Slashing Grace requires that.
Since the glaive is now treated by the feat owner, as a one-handed weapon, why would the wielder not be using it one-handed?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.Bladed Brush doesn't make your off-hand count as empty, and Slashing Grace requires that.Since the glaive is now treated by the feat owner, as a one-handed weapon, why would the wielder not be using it one-handed?
I suspect that in this case it is treated as a weapon from the "one-handed" weapon list(or category, just like some class features refer to "choose a one-handed slashing weapon), which does not mean that you always have or can use those weapons in one hand.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.Bladed Brush doesn't make your off-hand count as empty, and Slashing Grace requires that.Since the glaive is now treated by the feat owner, as a one-handed weapon, why would the wielder not be using it one-handed?
Because the feat does not say you may wield it with one hand, only that you can treat it as a one handed piercing or slashing weapon for purposes of feat and class ability interactions. This is important because it means you still get the option for 2 handed power attack or 1.5x weapon damage.
If they wanted it to be wielded one handed, they would use the same style of verbage from the Phalanx Soldier archetype's ability,
At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon.
Notice there is no mention of "treating" it as a one handed weapon.
|
|
My apologies. Instead of eliding Lune's sentence, I chose to quote it totus porcus. The end portion (bolded) is that for which is uncalled. I should have bolded the section in my original post.I must be missing how so. He says he can't make the rules but he can promote change on this forum. Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want there to be no medium for discussion.I'm not the one to make these decisions, but this forum seems like the appropriate place to share my opinion and 'advocate', 'champion' and 'promote' for it's inclusion into PFS.That statement is uncalled for.
Ok, I sorta promised myself that I would stay out of this thread for a while but I'm truly curious on this one. What did I do wrong? I was following a suggestion of HMM's and using the verbiage that she suggested. Clearly Pete Winz is better at this than I am, but why is saying that I advocate, champion and promote taken poorly?
|
|
I didn't use the quotes not as irony quotes. I have honestly never even heard of the term "irony quotes". I used them because they were someone else's words. That is the most common use of quotes. It wasn't meant as a sneer.
I feel like people are just looking for something to take the wrong way at this point. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, ya know? I use the words HMM suggested and it is still taken negatively.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Parroting words is not the same thing as using them. Had you picked one and used it correctly in a sentence, it would have read much better, quotes or no.
You established a tone in your previous posts. It takes some effort to change how your posts are perceived after that. Acknowledging mistakes, apologies for offense, and gratitude for patience and assistance can all go a long way toward being perceived more positively.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't use the quotes not as irony quotes. I have honestly never even heard of the term "irony quotes". I used them because they were someone else's words. That is the most common use of quotes. It wasn't meant as a sneer.
I feel like people are just looking for something to take the wrong way at this point. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, ya know? I use the words HMM suggested and it is still taken negatively.
Lune, let me provide a summary of events as I see them, and explain why I have avoided coming back into this thread until your most recent post. From my viewpoint, the following happened.
___
If that was not your intent, perhaps we should now start over? As I stated before, it is hard to read tone on the internet. We are not in a zero-sum game here. No one has to be torn down for another to be lifted up. We can all help each other, believe in each other's good intent, and go forward. I would like to be able to feel that this was a matter of misunderstanding, and that we can move on and get back to this thread's original purpose -- advocating for the legalization of Bladed Brush..
A great start would be if you accepted the apology I tried to give you earlier and offered one of your own.
Truce?
I'd really rather we all have a happy discussion about Bladed Brush. It's a Shelynite feat! So forgiveness and redemption is part of the greater package, right?
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HMM: Definitely truce.
By the time you came in I was already on edge as I had already felt that not only my opinions of how the feat works were being attacked but my premise for petitioning to allow the feat. After having to deal with that criticism I think you can probably see how words from you (whom I consider an online friend) was interpreted as criticism as well. Not only that but it felt like you were trying to rub it in my face about how you have had success in the past with your methods while either failing to recognize or outright dismissing my own.
The comment about stars and people being full of themselves is more of a observation of behavior on these boards than specifically directed at you. I think I actually intended that to be directed at someone else but I don't have the time to look back right now. Either way, I think the superiority complex happens around here all the time. Likely less so from you.
The way I feel about euphemisms is true but not fully directed at you. I dislike it when people use them around me. They are often used to make a less serious issue seem not as bad as it is. As an example I dislike it when people say, "I didn't lie. I just didn't tell the truth. It was a 'white lie'." I dislike it because if it gets to the point where I am offended then it doesn't matter what the intention of the white lie was, it failed. And a lie of omission is still a lie. Again, probably an extreme example and it has nothing to do with you but you can see where I'm coming from. Thus I call it like it is.
In the end I think that my petition likely was taken as whining and complaining so my perception on euphemisms likely backfired. I'd say that I will endeavor to change but on this point it likely wont happen. Disliking the use of euphemisms has become ingrained in my personality.
Either way, the quotes were simply meant to quote the words you had used not mockingly. While I understand where you and others are coming from I think that assumed tone in text has a lot to do with misinterpretations of perspectives in this thread. Myself, apparently, included.
Anyway, no hard feelings. I do think it is a bit ironic that my supposed "irony quotes" were meant as the exact opposite and to take your advice and use your words. That is what leaves me with this feeling of failing despite my best efforts to come across as positive.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So slight derail, but I've found a way that allows Dex to damage with the bladed brush regardless of your reading of the feat without multiclassing, going rogue, or using the agile enchantment.
Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler gets dex to damage with any weapon she can use swashbucklers finesse with at level 4, and bladed brush makes glaives qualify for swashbuckler's finesse.
Probably the best way to do it, and it works great for entering into the Devoted Muse Prestige Class.
|
|
So slight derail, but I've found a way that allows Dex to damage with the bladed brush regardless of your reading of the feat without multiclassing, going rogue, or using the agile enchantment.
Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler gets dex to damage with any weapon she can use swashbucklers finesse with at level 4, and bladed brush makes glaives qualify for swashbuckler's finesse.
Probably the best way to do it, and it works great for entering into the Devoted Muse Prestige Class.
Those mental gymnastics make my brain hurt from a 'story' perspective.
Dervish has a very Qadiran 'feel' to it.
Bladed Brush, a Shelynite religious practice, is of a notably *Taldan* deity...
Sure, it could be done and possibly even work, but... that feels just horribly 'off' to me?
|
|
Worshipper of Shelyn who was raised in Qadira and altered their traditional "dancing" style of fighting to work with a glaive.
I don't see any "mental gymnastics" there, especially since Shelyn is a deity of the arts who would certainly approve of you taking an artful fighting style and making it uniquely your own.
In fact, I think it's a really cool character concept.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Qadira is in the Inner Sea.
Shelyn is a core deity of the Inner Sea.
She may be highly worshiped in Taldor but that absolutely does not make her only a Taldan deity, she's worshiped all the way over in Tian Xia for starters, so I can safely say Shelyn is worshipped in Qadira.
EDIT: The recent-ish (and awesome) Qadira, Jewel of the East book even flat out says Shelyn is one of the main deities worshiped in Qadira (no where near close to Sarenrae but still).
|
|
So slight derail, but I've found a way that allows Dex to damage with the bladed brush regardless of your reading of the feat without multiclassing, going rogue, or using the agile enchantment.
Whirling Dervish Swashbuckler gets dex to damage with any weapon she can use swashbucklers finesse with at level 4, and bladed brush makes glaives qualify for swashbuckler's finesse.
Probably the best way to do it, and it works great for entering into the Devoted Muse Prestige Class.
That is a very cool blend of styles. Definitely adding that to the character idea list.
|
|
Qadira is in the Inner Sea.
Shelyn is a core deity of the Inner Sea.
She may be highly worshiped in Taldor but that absolutely does not make her only a Taldan deity, she's worshiped all the way over in Tian Xia for starters, so I can safely say Shelyn is worshipped in Qadira.
EDIT: The recent-ish (and awesome) Qadira, Jewel of the East book even flat out says Shelyn is one of the main deities worshiped in Qadira (no where near close to Sarenrae but still).
Apologies for misconception and dated information then.
*urge to snark resisted*
|
|
Doesn't whirling dervish require that you worship saranrae? I don't think its an accident that a lot of cool abilities are tied to a deity. Beyond the thematics, it creates a limited pool for possibly volotile combinations.
I thought so too but reading over the archetype again although heavily influenced by Sarenrea there is no requirement to worship her (although there may have intended to be one), or at the very least be a current worshipper of her, with Sarenrae influencing so much of Qadiran culture it's as much a cultural Class as it is a religious one. So I could see a former worshipper of her's who converted to Shelyn.
That being said expect for your GM to be extra wary if your character has this archetype and isn't a follower of the Dawnflower.
Edit: ah, here we go.
Swashbucklers from the Shackles and Qadira often choose one of the following archetypes.
So it is a cultural Archetype more than a religious one, so a Qadiran Shelynite should be perfectly fine :3
|
Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having done some of the development on ACO as my first task at Paizo, whirling dervish certainly is supposed to require a worshiper of Sarenrae (it says things like "Sarenrae’s desire for redemption prevents her dervishes from reveling in a foe’s defeat" and the intro to the archetype says it's the style of the sarenites, not Qadirans in general); this was before the language on worshiper requirements was tightened up. Whirling dervish definitely had some language tightening issues on reflection.
|
|
Having done some of the development on ACO as my first task at Paizo, whirling dervish certainly is suppoed to require a worshiper of Sarenrae (it says things like "Sarenrae’s desire for redemption prevents her dervishes from reveling in a foe’s defeat" and the intro to the archetype says it's the style of the sarenites, not Qadirans in general); this was before the language on worshiper requirements was tightened up. Whirling dervish definitely had some language tightening issues on reflection.
Is that an official ruling?
Edit: I ask because the Dawnflower Dervish archetype for the bard clearly requires you to worship Saranrae and was published 3 years before the ACO, so why did the language on worshiper requirements loosen up in that 3 years?
|
Designer
|
Having done some of the development on ACO as my first task at Paizo, whirling dervish certainly is supposed to require a worshiper of Sarenrae (it says things like "Sarenrae’s desire for redemption prevents her dervishes from reveling in a foe’s defeat" and the intro to the archetype says it's the style of the sarenites, not Qadirans in general); this was before the language on worshiper requirements was tightened up. Whirling dervish definitely had some language tightening issues on reflection.
Is that an official ruling?
Edit: I ask because the Dawnflower Dervish archetype for the bard clearly requires you to worship Saranrae and was published 3 years before the ACO, so why did the language on worshiper requirements loosen up in that 3 years?
I can only tell you that it's supposed to require a worshiper of Sarenrae and provide the text from the archetype to underly that point. Forum posts from Paizo staff are never official rulings (except for PFS staff making PFS rulings).