Bladed brush really need an errata or a FAQ


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
D20PFSRD - Paths of the Righteous wrote:


Bladed Brush Combat

Note: This is associated with a specific deity.

You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of the associated deity.

Benefit(s): You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).

As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.

At a rapid count I see at least 8 threads asking how this feat work with:

- a Magus, spell combat, black blade, having a free hand;
- swashbuckler, having a free hand and using it;
- benefiting from it and the benefits of power attack (it is used with one or two hands? It matter? you get -1/+3 or -1/+2?);

I think that it will not supersede RAI for most abilities that require a free hand (like spell combat), with the exception of those specifically cited (duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike) but it is really uncler.

RAW of how it work is simply unclear.


Quote:
I think that it will not supersede RAI for most abilities that require a free hand (like spell combat), with the exception of those specifically cited (duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike) but it is really uncler.

I would tend to agree. The off-hand restriction for Spell Combat tends to be more restrictive than for Precise Strike, and Bladed Brush says nothing about treating your off-hand as 'free', just as if you were not making attacks.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Definitely need guidance.


I didn't think player companions generally got errata or FAQs, even in dire need.

Silver Crusade

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

They've changed that position. PFS Additional Resources or something is involved I believe, but Softcovers CAN be FAQed now.


James Risner wrote:
Definitely need guidance.

I would be satisfied if whoever wrote the feat would come and say how they felt it should work or not work in all these corner cases people are interested in.

Like it's easy enough to say "yes" or "no" in a home game, and IIRC Bladed Brush isn't PFS legal anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I was hoping for something more, seeing the number of threads on this feat.


I agree; Bladed Brush has a substantial number of issues that need to be addressed by FAQ.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
They've changed that position. PFS Additional Resources or something is involved I believe, but Softcovers CAN be FAQed now.

More or less correct. The FAQs now sometimes use PFS Campaign Clarifications as a springboard to fix Player Companion and Campaign Setting content.

Of course, since Bladed Brush isn't PFS-legal, it won't get such a clarification... which means no FAQ. (Barring extraordinary circumstances, of course.)

So... we'll be at this a while, I suspect. ^_^

Silver Crusade

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

Ah, all the same Thankies for the clarifications Kali ^w^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I think that it will not supersede RAI for most abilities that require a free hand (like spell combat), with the exception of those specifically cited (duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike) but it is really uncler.

Neither duelist’s nor swashbuckler’s precise strike require a free hand to use, though. They only require that the other hand not be used to attack or use a shield. You can carry a bag of bowling balls in the other hand and still use precise strike. You can even carry (not use) a shield in the other hand.

The feat doesn't state, imply, or suggest that the hand is counted as free, only that it counts as not making attacks. I feel like we have to go by that unless we can get more insight on RAI.

RAW, it still counts as actually holding a glaive for all abilities for which such a thing would matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Quantum Steve.

Honestly feel like a lot of the confusion has more to do with wishful thinking than the actual text of the feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
I agree; Bladed Brush has a substantial number of issues that need to be addressed by FAQ.

I would prefer an errata, with a clearly reworded feat, but probably that is not possible because of the world count limit.

Well, unless we take the most liberal interpretation of the feat, then it can be simplified a lot:
"You wield the glaive in one hand and deal slashing or piercing damage" instead of "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."

That is one of the reasons why I feel that the feat isn't mean to conform to the more liberal interpretation, as writing a clear text stating that is simple.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I think that it will not supersede RAI for most abilities that require a free hand (like spell combat), with the exception of those specifically cited (duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike) but it is really uncler.

Neither duelist’s nor swashbuckler’s precise strike require a free hand to use, though. They only require that the other hand not be used to attack or use a shield. You can carry a bag of bowling balls in the other hand and still use precise strike. You can even carry (not use) a shield in the other hand.

The feat doesn't state, imply, or suggest that the hand is counted as free, only that it counts as not making attacks. I feel like we have to go by that unless we can get more insight on RAI.

RAW, it still counts as actually holding a glaive for all abilities for which such a thing would matter.

Like power attack bonus?

You get to benefit from wielding it with two hands with power attack and wielding it with one hand for precise strike?
(It is an argument that was actually used in a thread some time ago.)


whoo... Hadn't thought of that one. Technically i think that is actually within the wording of the feat though, Power Attack at -1/+3 on a Daring Champion with Challenge and Precise Strike. Neat.

1) Using a two handed weapon?

Yup.

2) "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 "

Put the emphasis on "require such a weapon" instead of "All feats" and it is a permissive statement, you can choose for it to count as one handed for the feats and abilities you want it too when those abilities require such a weapon but not if the feat works without it being such a weapon. ie it doesnt interact with statement 1 as statement 1 does not require a one handed piercing or slashing weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Torbyne wrote:

whoo... Hadn't thought of that one. Technically i think that is actually within the wording of the feat though, Power Attack at -1/+3 on a Daring Champion with Challenge and Precise Strike. Neat.

1) Using a two handed weapon?

Yup.

2) "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 "

Put the emphasis on "require such a weapon" instead of "All feats" and it is a permissive statement, you can choose for it to count as one handed for the feats and abilities you want it too when those abilities require such a weapon but not if the feat works without it being such a weapon. ie it doesnt interact with statement 1 as statement 1 does not require a one handed piercing or slashing weapon.

As long as the guy trying that isn't the same guy claiming that he has a free hand to wield a buckler or use a wand while wielding the glaive with bladed brush.


Diego Rossi wrote:


That is one of the reasons why I feel that the feat isn't mean to conform to the more liberal interpretation, as writing a clear text stating that is simple.

There are currently ongoing argument on the rules forums where the feats are that simply and clearly worded.

People who disagree with a feat sufficiently will go so far as to start redefining what each individual word means, eventually twisting things enough to mean the exact opposite of the common English interpretation.

For example:

Quote:
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.

Gets reinterpreted to mean the weapon in question Cannot be used with a two handed weapon.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

whoo... Hadn't thought of that one. Technically i think that is actually within the wording of the feat though, Power Attack at -1/+3 on a Daring Champion with Challenge and Precise Strike. Neat.

1) Using a two handed weapon?

Yup.

2) "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 "

Put the emphasis on "require such a weapon" instead of "All feats" and it is a permissive statement, you can choose for it to count as one handed for the feats and abilities you want it too when those abilities require such a weapon but not if the feat works without it being such a weapon. ie it doesnt interact with statement 1 as statement 1 does not require a one handed piercing or slashing weapon.

As long as the guy trying that isn't the same guy claiming that he has a free hand to wield a buckler or use a wand while wielding the glaive with bladed brush.

True, the way i see it, it is either meant to be you get the 1:3 Power Attack or you can Spell Combat with a glaive but not both. i read it as 1:3 power attack makes the most sense.


Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


That is one of the reasons why I feel that the feat isn't mean to conform to the more liberal interpretation, as writing a clear text stating that is simple.

There are currently ongoing argument on the rules forums where the feats are that simply and clearly worded.

People who disagree with a feat sufficiently will go so far as to start redefining what each individual word means, eventually twisting things enough to mean the exact opposite of the common English interpretation.

For example:

Quote:
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.
Gets reinterpreted to mean the weapon in question Cannot be used with a two handed weapon.

I don't think anyone sees that. The view is that it can't be used to TWF with a THW. But perhaps I am mistaken and some have argued that the beard can't be used if you're holding a THW.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


Neither duelist’s nor swashbuckler’s precise strike require a free hand to use, though. They only require that the other hand not be used to attack or use a shield. You can carry a bag of bowling balls in the other hand and still use precise strike. You can even carry (not use) a shield in the other hand.

The feat doesn't state, imply, or suggest that the hand is counted as free, only that it counts as not making attacks. I feel like we have to go by that unless we can get more insight on RAI.

RAW, it still counts as actually holding a glaive for all abilities for which such a thing would matter.

Like power attack bonus?

You get to benefit from wielding it with two hands with power attack and wielding it with one hand for precise strike?
(It is an argument that was actually used in a thread some time ago.)

That depends on whether "can treat it...as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities..." is all or nothing. I'm inclined to think since the feat says "ALL feats and class-abilities" rather than ANY it is ALL or nothing.

You can hold a one-handed weapon with two hands, but you only get the power attack increase if you actually attack with both hands. For example, you can hold a longsword two-handed while TWF with armor spikes, but you wouldn't get the bonus because your other "hand of effort" is used for TWF. You still have a physical hand free that can be used however you want.

If you're treating your off-hand as not making any attacks for the purpose of power attack, it doesn't matter if that hand is actually holding the glaive, you're not attacking with it for the purpose of the feat.


I don't understand the confusion. The RAI ís clear enouģh to me: you can use this to use a glaive and still benefit from all the things that require you to wield a one handed weapon, such as the class features from swashbuckler, duelist, magus and that fighter arhetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


That is one of the reasons why I feel that the feat isn't mean to conform to the more liberal interpretation, as writing a clear text stating that is simple.

There are currently ongoing argument on the rules forums where the feats are that simply and clearly worded.

People who disagree with a feat sufficiently will go so far as to start redefining what each individual word means, eventually twisting things enough to mean the exact opposite of the common English interpretation.

For example:

Quote:
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.
Gets reinterpreted to mean the weapon in question Cannot be used with a two handed weapon.
I don't think anyone sees that. The view is that it can't be used to TWF with a THW. But perhaps I am mistaken and some have argued that the beard can't be used if you're holding a THW.

If you're not TWFing, you don't have an off-hand, which the barbazu beard specifies in the same sentence as allowing it to be combined with a two-handed weapon.

All attacks made with weapons are primary when using iterative attacks, and you can use as many body parts as desired while making those attacks. I.e, if making iterative I can hit you with a two-handed weapon, let go with one hand and and punch you with my armor spikes, put my hand back on my two-handed weapon, pop a boot blade and kick you, then headbut you with an unarmed strike. Every single one of those attacks is primary. No extra text required stating they can be combined with a two-handed weapon.


Snowlilly wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


That is one of the reasons why I feel that the feat isn't mean to conform to the more liberal interpretation, as writing a clear text stating that is simple.

There are currently ongoing argument on the rules forums where the feats are that simply and clearly worded.

People who disagree with a feat sufficiently will go so far as to start redefining what each individual word means, eventually twisting things enough to mean the exact opposite of the common English interpretation.

For example:

Quote:
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.
Gets reinterpreted to mean the weapon in question Cannot be used with a two handed weapon.
I don't think anyone sees that. The view is that it can't be used to TWF with a THW. But perhaps I am mistaken and some have argued that the beard can't be used if you're holding a THW.

If you're not TWFing, you don't have an off-hand, which the barbazu beard specifies in the same sentence as allowing it to be combined with a two-handed weapon.

All attacks made with weapons are primary when using iterative attacks, and you can use as many body parts as desired while making those attacks. I.e, if making iterative I can hit you with a two-handed weapon, let go with one hand and and punch you with my armor spikes, put my hand back on my two-handed weapon, pop a boot blade and kick you, then headbut you with an unarmed strike. Every single one of those attacks is primary. No extra text required stating they can be combined with a two-handed weapon.

You know, I think there is already another thread for this discussion...


There is indeed, and I'm very surprised it hasn't been locked yet honestly. *whistles innocently*

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly I think it's healthier to lock all threads where they fall into "nuh uh" and "uh hah". So all the bladed brush, the beard, etc. Very few can be sorted out. Most of the time it comes down to understanding the way the rules are written vs "parsing on some English, grammar, or precise level."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Frankly I think it's healthier to lock all threads where they fall into "nuh uh" and "uh hah". So all the bladed brush, the beard, etc. Very few can be sorted out. Most of the time it comes down to understanding the way the rules are written vs "parsing on some English, grammar, or precise level."

So basically, eliminate the rules forum.


Snowlilly wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Frankly I think it's healthier to lock all threads where they fall into "nuh uh" and "uh hah". So all the bladed brush, the beard, etc. Very few can be sorted out. Most of the time it comes down to understanding the way the rules are written vs "parsing on some English, grammar, or precise level."
So basically, eliminate the rules forum.

We couldn't agree more.

Let's make this a healthier place!

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
So basically, eliminate the rules forum.

No, eliminate the practice of threads with 500 posts of back and forth arguing over the meaning of a word, phrase, difference between two FCB doing similar things, etc.

Many of those that stick to some "One True RAW" simply don't appreciate that the developers tell us to not interpret the rules so strictly, that they are intentionally not written with precise code like language, that they are written by multiple individuals, that sometimes the writers don't fully understand the rule they are using, that the editors can't catch everything, that some times they caught something and still accidentally left it in unfixed, and that some times they change the base rules in a FAQ.

If people all understood these things, the rules forum would give more correct answers, answers that are consistent more often with future FAQ, and answers that generate less stress between player and GM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

the developers tell us to not interpret the rules so strictly, that they are intentionally not written with precise code like language

It's hard to take them at their word when they come out with 'hands of effort' unwritten rules and nested sources that can only exist when the rules ARE written "with precise code like language". Then look at the wording of the feat in question, and you once again see "code like language"...

So it would be easier if they actually DIDN'T do what they say they don't do...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

With many FAQs saying that archery training isn't weapon training, but spear training is because it's worded slightly differently, saying that the sohei not saying they can't flurry in armor suddenly lets them flurry in armor, Saying that the investigator without the line, can use wands, can't even though it's otherwise the same as the alchemist, that wielding means you need to attack with it and just hold it at different times, that flanking saying melee really means just melee, etc...

They basically write whatever they want, and if we complain they either FAQ saying follow the rules exactly and not loosely cause they are the rules, or to follow the spirit because "it's not meant to be technical". This way they can validate their position and make the rules what they want without having to actually follow any guidelines.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
It's hard to take them at their word when they come out with 'hands of effort' unwritten rules and nested sources that can only exist when the rules ARE written "with precise code like language".

Actually both of those are based on reading the rules like code, then ignoring the primary "conversational style" the rules are written.

So much of this is trying to teach the basic rules fabric to non-developers via FAQ answers and behind the scene rules knowledge (aka unwritten rules.)


Have to agree with Chess and Gray here. We get told that the rules aren't meant to be interpreted legalistically, but then we get FAQs that hinge on those very same technicalities and minutiae we're supposed to ignore to justify themselves.

Like all the stuff listed above.. and that abominable archetype stacking FAQ.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I get there is a feeling that it's hard to predict what a future FAQ will look like. It's pretty clearly stated in several examples here. But there are a lot of people accurately predicting the resulting rules. There are also a lot of Paizo staffers with very accurate predictions, such as James Jacobs. If you see developers/designers/directors saying they feel it works this way, then advance a couple years to a FAQ far more often than not they were correct.


Chess Pwn put it better than I did. It's often a case of 'do what I say and not what I do'. If anything, they are consistent in their inconsistency. I would welcome default setting for rulings, but it truly seems that it's instead 'whatever works best THIS time'.

James: There is NO way that multiple nested sources as the answer to 'do stats stack' came from the community. An easy "conversational style" answer was there, stats are typed by individual stat, but they went with the more complicated "rules like code" approach.

As to the other... I agree that you can't get much less strict in reading than 'the rules mean something different if you read these other rules that we never gave you'...


James Risner wrote:
I get there is a feeling that it's hard to predict what a future FAQ will look like. It's pretty clearly stated in several examples here. But there are a lot of people accurately predicting the resulting rules. There are also a lot of Paizo staffers with very accurate predictions, such as James Jacobs. If you see developers/designers/directors saying they feel it works this way, then advance a couple years to a FAQ far more often than not they were correct.

I shouldn't have to read all the past posts of James Jacobs to get an accurate idea of how FAQ's will be ruled. Same with some random posters that you attribute incredible accuracy in divining the seemingly random rulings we see. The rules should have a natural flow of there own and not abrupt changes depending on a particular rule question.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a good example of not being able to follow thought processes is the monk.

We were told the reason fist like weapons that said they used unarmed damage didn't use monk unarmed damage because a monk was a martial artist and was strikning with multiple body parts and they didn't want monks just getting one brass knuckle and then flurrying with full enchanted unarmed damage with one hand.

But then we were told in an "FAQ" that monks can't use just one weapon in a flurry because it was just TWF with bonus to hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like to me, the magic item courageous EASILY could have been FAQ'd as "Yes, it says saving throws so it's all saving throws" opposed to what we had of changing the wording to add only fear saves.

But if you can accurately predict the masterpiece FAQ, the what are gauntlets and how do they work with everything FAQ, AND what the heck is the deal with alternate classes, I'll tip my hat and will admit that you read the minds of the DEV team, Or have ways to make them dance to your whims.

James Jacob I feel isn't trustworthy because of all the times what he's said becomes the opposite of what a FAQ says. So him being 60% right or so isn't enough to try and convince me that FAQs are super obvious.

But when you have 1,000+ people into primarily two or three groups on an issue, you'll have about 300 people that "accurately predict the FAQ" And 300 people is "a lot of people". So of course there's always lots of people that get it right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like when it comes down to a situation where there are entrenched positions about how something works, the discussion should shift away from "legalistic reading of specific words or phrases" and towards "what effect would each interpretation potentially have on a game, character, or scenario."

Pointing out that a given interpretation would let Bladed Brush enable a Magus to combine Spell Combat and Slashing Grace with a reach weapon, and how unreasonable that would be compared to non-Glaive Magi is more compelling to me than trying to parse very carefully what you are doing with your hands.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
But if you can accurately predict the masterpiece FAQ, the what are gauntlets and how do they work with everything FAQ, AND what the heck is the deal with alternate classes, I'll tip my hat and will admit that you read the minds of the DEV team, Or have ways to make them dance to your whims.

Gauntlets are an invention of Asmodeus, but I don't know what is terribly confusing about alternate classes. They are a different layer of abstraction from archetypes. They work like archetypes with the exception that they don't layer with other alternate classes. Are there big issues I'm ignorant of?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I’m not perfect, but I have a good sense of the way the rules are written. I’m certainly matching the FAQ more often than not when they come out.

Of the issues mentioned in this thread, I've been wrong on one subject.:

Chess Pwn wrote:
But if you can accurately predict the masterpiece FAQ, the what are gauntlets and how do they work with everything FAQ, AND what the heck is the deal with alternate classes, I'll tip my hat and will admit that you read the minds of the DEV team, Or have ways to make them dance to your whims.

The masterpiece FAQ will need to answer to following first:

  • Can you initiate more than one Bardic Performance in a round? No. For example you can’t Weird Words as a standard then swift action Inspire Courage.
  • Are all masterpieces designed the same? I suspect some can be used simultaneously with bardic performances and others can not be used.

I’ve always explained gauntlet are weapons not unarmed strikes. It became an art form answering all the gauntlet questions over the years.

Alternate classes as in rogue and ninja? Can you be more specific?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
But if you can accurately predict the masterpiece FAQ, the what are gauntlets and how do they work with everything FAQ, AND what the heck is the deal with alternate classes, I'll tip my hat and will admit that you read the minds of the DEV team, Or have ways to make them dance to your whims.
Gauntlets are an invention of Asmodeus, but I don't know what is terribly confusing about alternate classes. They are a different layer of abstraction from archetypes. They work like archetypes with the exception that they don't layer with other alternate classes. Are there big issues I'm ignorant of?

gauntlets are unarmed attacks that may or may not be enhance-able, may or may not work with the Amulet of mighty fists, and a bunch of other stuff.

Alternate classes aren't archetypes, so thus there's no rule saying they can take the FCB of their base class, that they can take archetypes qualifying archetypes from their base class. That they work with magic items that need their base class. Before it was all easy, they were technically archetypes and behaved as such. Now we have no clue as to how they officially work.


Wait what's the confusion on gauntlets?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Talonhawke, mostly these:

  • Some think you can unarmed strike and add the bonus of the worn +5 gauntlet to attack and damage plus adamantine vs DR using monk unarmed progression. You can't.
  • Some don't think an amulet of might fists adds to gauntlet attacks. It does.
  • Some developers commented to hero lab that gauntlets can't be enchanted as a weapon. There are named items listed as "+1 gauntlet" which maybe should be spiked gauntlets?
  • Same developer said "it uses all the unarmed strike stuff" which was clarified in a forum post to just mean the property of gauntlet to change your unarmed strike to lethal. Confusion abound until forum post.
  • There are the gauntlet style feats that blur the lines between gauntlet and spiked gauntlets, which is confusing.


James Risner wrote:

Talonhawke, mostly these:

  • Some think you can unarmed strike and add the bonus of the worn +5 gauntlet to attack and damage plus adamantine vs DR using monk unarmed progression. You can't.
  • Some don't think an amulet of might fists adds to gauntlet attacks. It does.
  • Some developers commented to hero lab that gauntlets can't be enchanted as a weapon. There are named items listed as "+1 gauntlet" which maybe should be spiked gauntlets?
  • Same developer said "it uses all the unarmed strike stuff" which was clarified in a forum post to just mean the property of gauntlet to change your unarmed strike to lethal. Confusion abound until forum post.
  • There are the gauntlet style feats that blur the lines between gauntlet and spiked gauntlets, which is confusing.

The only one I'm confused on after reading that is the second, do we have something official that an AoMF works with a gauntlet? I would have thought that if they were an independent weapon (and thus don't work with monk unarmed) the amulet wouldn't work.


Chess Pwn wrote:


Alternate classes aren't archetypes, so thus there's no rule saying they can take the FCB of their base class, that they can take archetypes qualifying archetypes from their base class. That they work with magic items that need their base class. Before it was all easy, they were technically archetypes and behaved as such. Now we have no clue as to how they officially work.

Whoa, when did this change, I know previously there was developers saying they were archetypes just complicated ones that change almost everything.

When did they stop?

Sovereign Court

1 person 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

There are no Unchained Ninjas.

Chess Pwn is one of the people with the opinion that the rule that classes don't stack with each other fundamentally changes the ways that alternate classes do function like archetypes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Talonhawke wrote:
do we have something official that an AoMF works with a gauntlet? I would have thought that if they were an independent weapon (and thus don't work with monk unarmed) the amulet wouldn't work.

Gauntlet is on the unarmed weapon chart.

Amulet of Mighty Fists says "attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons" so it works with gauntlets.

Ergo, they get the bonus. Especially in light of the new clarification to HeroLab that you can't make a +1 gauntlet.

Now, SKR didn't like this position. He felt Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles, and etc should all be Light melee weapons. It didn't make sense to him that the position is they are different.


Which I guess that leads back to the logic that if they aren't enchant-able and the work with AoMF why can't monks get better damage with them. I can see where there could be an issue. Thanks James!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

During the "no unchained ninja" incident it was clarified that alternate classes WEREN'T archetype and were not to be treated as such. That they were their own separate class. Here is my thread that goes through and explains everything.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

here is the post that is the heart of the gauntlet FAQ, not to mention that Jason said "As for the specifics of this issue (gauntlets and such), I will review these with the team next week and we will address this further then" June 3rd of last year. So It's getting close to a year where this hasn't been addressed to the public at least.

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Bladed brush really need an errata or a FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.