Do / should Bladed Brush and Slashing Grace work together?


Advice

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

No, they don't. Slashing Grace requires all hands except your main hand to be empty. Bladed Brush only makes your off-hand count as "not attacking".

Bladed Brush is obviously meant to work with Precise Strike; so obviously that it's explicitly mentioned. If it was obviously meant to work with Slashing Grace, it would have been mentioned too.

On the other hand, Bladed Brush only counts as one-handed for feats that require it. It's still 2H for 1.5x strength and the bigger bonus from Power Attack.

My take is that it's meant for swashbucklers with 14 strength and power attack, but higher dexterity. Combined with precise strike that's quite powerful.


ViConstantine wrote:
graystone wrote:
ViConstantine wrote:
Interesting weapon, larger damage die than a d6, usable for dex to damage.

Single class, you're looking at ranger or unchained rogue for those requirements. Slayer isn't going to do it.

Now, it'd be great if they ever fix bladed brush to actually work like it seems everyone thinks it should work, but currently I wouldn't want to make a character hinging on it as it working is going to depend on his using RAI instead of RAW. Now if you can get DM approval before hand then maybe...

As it stands now taking a dip in the form of lvl 1 slayer, levels 2, 3 and 4 unchained rogue and then all back into slayer gives me the best possible outcome and the least amount of feats blasted.

Hmm... Ranger 3 + slayer could do it too. You spend 1 more feat but get the free ranger style to offset it.

Ranger 3: More BAB, saves and HP, better weapon options without feat.
URogue 3: More skill points, TWF and THF with dex to damage.

It really depends on the weapon you're looking for: You want a longsword, battle axe or bastard sword + buckler, it's ranger and if it's Elven branched spear or Elven curve blade the rogue's two handed dex damage shines.


I'd say Unchained Rogue 3rd.

You take Bladed Brush and then would get 1.5 DEX to damage with the Glaive.


Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

I'd say Unchained Rogue 3rd.

You take Bladed Brush and then would get 1.5 DEX to damage with the Glaive.

Exotic weapon proficiency could be taken instead for Elven branched spear or Elven curve blade instead of bladed brush. The spear traded a dice increase for brace and the blade has a much better crit. A Sawtooth sabre allows a single weapon feat to be used with TWF, as the normally one handed weapon acts as a light weapon for TWF.

About the only tangible benefit of bladed brush here is the ability to shorten your grip.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

I'd say Unchained Rogue 3rd.

You take Bladed Brush and then would get 1.5 DEX to damage with the Glaive.

SNIP A Sawtooth sabre allows a single weapon feat to be used with TWF, as the normally one handed weapon acts as a light weapon for TWF.

About the only tangible benefit of bladed brush here is the ability to shorten your grip.

Would be better options then sawtooth saber as the rogue wouldn't be able to use it with his rogues finesse ability


How is ranger 3 doing it?


Since there is a ton of Argument over this I would say ask your GM about if THEY would allow it. Is it OP...not really. Is it flavorful...Hell yes, it is. A Shelynite's fighting prowess is said to mimic Dance moves and the Stroke of a Brush like a painter. I know I would allow it because it is feat investment and very flavorful for one of my favorite Deities.

If this is PFS I would avoid builds with such confusion as you will never have the same GM and each GM may or may not interpret the rules the same. Especially since no official FAQ is out covering this.

Liberty's Edge

Louise Bishop wrote:

Since there is a ton of Argument over this I would say ask your GM about if THEY would allow it. Is it OP...not really. Is it flavorful...Hell yes, it is. A Shelynite's fighting prowess is said to mimic Dance moves and the Stroke of a Brush like a painter. I know I would allow it because it is feat investment and very flavorful for one of my favorite Deities.

If this is PFS I would avoid builds with such confusion as you will never have the same GM and each GM may or may not interpret the rules the same. Especially since no official FAQ is out covering this.

For PFS the bladed brush is not legal, the team predicted this kind of question to be raised all the time so the banned it right off the bat.


Jesper Roland Sørensen wrote:
Louise Bishop wrote:

Since there is a ton of Argument over this I would say ask your GM about if THEY would allow it. Is it OP...not really. Is it flavorful...Hell yes, it is. A Shelynite's fighting prowess is said to mimic Dance moves and the Stroke of a Brush like a painter. I know I would allow it because it is feat investment and very flavorful for one of my favorite Deities.

If this is PFS I would avoid builds with such confusion as you will never have the same GM and each GM may or may not interpret the rules the same. Especially since no official FAQ is out covering this.

For PFS the bladed brush is not legal, the team predicted this kind of question to be raised all the time so the banned it right off the bat.

That was some good insight for them to do that...But now my question comes to...If they know it is confusing why not re-word it?

But this is good to know as I have not played PFS in like 3 seasons now and no longer keep up with much of what is PFS legal or not.

So to revert back...Ask the GM and if he says yes...play what you want to play...if it is an NO...then just go STR and take bladed Brush. You can still use the ability to shorten the grip if you desire to play it that badly. Or go with an alternative character Idea.


Yeah, literally all of these (three? Maybe four) threads could be prevented by asking the GM "Hey, does Bladed Brush work with Slashing Grace? It literally spells out that it's supposed to work with the Swashbuckler's Precise Strike, so it seems like it should work with other Swashbuckler stuff, like Slashing Grace" and get an answer that way.

Like I'm having trouble fathoming what sort of relationship you have with your GM that you'd rather start a bunch of threads on the Paizo forums than ask a simple question. If the GM says "sure, that works" then you're golden, if the GM says "nah" then you go forward with your URogue 3/Slayer X plan, or whatever.

Like I field these sorts of "does this work with that" questions all the time. Most of the time I'm content to just have it work whatever way the player wants it to (assuming the endpoint is like "six more damage" for a few feats or something modest like that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.

Then I just want to embolden the GM to make it work whatever way they want it to work. The GM gets to change stuff so it makes more sense, is more fun, or works better, it's basically the foundational rule for the hobby. Don't like the Whip/Scorpion Whip confusion (I sure don't!)? Just make those one weapon; everybody likes it better this way.

Liberty's Edge

Louise Bishop wrote:
Jesper Roland Sørensen wrote:
Louise Bishop wrote:

Since there is a ton of Argument over this I would say ask your GM about if THEY would allow it. Is it OP...not really. Is it flavorful...Hell yes, it is. A Shelynite's fighting prowess is said to mimic Dance moves and the Stroke of a Brush like a painter. I know I would allow it because it is feat investment and very flavorful for one of my favorite Deities.

If this is PFS I would avoid builds with such confusion as you will never have the same GM and each GM may or may not interpret the rules the same. Especially since no official FAQ is out covering this.

For PFS the bladed brush is not legal, the team predicted this kind of question to be raised all the time so the banned it right off the bat.

That was some good insight for them to do that...But now my question comes to...If they know it is confusing why not re-word it?

To be fair the PFS team ruling what works and doesn't, don't really have any control over the writers and designers for the paizo books.


graystone wrote:
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

I'd say Unchained Rogue 3rd.

You take Bladed Brush and then would get 1.5 DEX to damage with the Glaive.

Exotic weapon proficiency could be taken instead for Elven branched spear or Elven curve blade instead of bladed brush. The spear traded a dice increase for brace and the blade has a much better crit. A Sawtooth sabre allows a single weapon feat to be used with TWF, as the normally one handed weapon acts as a light weapon for TWF.

About the only tangible benefit of bladed brush here is the ability to shorten your grip.

Let's direct you to another post as it pertains to the build in question. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ue8b?Advice-and-thoughts-on-final-build-Slayer #1 the rogue fixes a lot of my problem regardless of how little I wanted to dip. The question now has become if I want the blades brush feat still as even though glaives are very cool and unique, the God in question doesn't fit the character well and the dueling sword is *slowly* becoming a "good enough" option that at least leaves my other hand free for a shield or something.


Chess Pwn wrote:
How is ranger 3 doing it?

Archetype, I guess. I was thinking Sword Devil, although it specifies "light or one- handed slashing melee weapon". If the DM allows it, you can be one impressive, agile son of a spear. Or a daughter, as the case may be.


Talonhawke wrote:
Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.

yes, a lot of this big trouble has been me desperately trying to get clear agreeable confirmation for my gm. They are very. "Does the book say you can?" And they don't tend to adjust much. Though I never expected this much out of one feat combination and some poor wording.


ViConstantine wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.
yes, a lot of this big trouble has been me desperately trying to get clear agreeable confirmation for my gm. They are very. "Does the book say you can?" And they don't tend to adjust much. Though I never expected this much out of one feat combination and some poor wording.

Welcome to Paizo and Pathfinder my friend.


Louise Bishop wrote:
ViConstantine wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.
yes, a lot of this big trouble has been me desperately trying to get clear agreeable confirmation for my gm. They are very. "Does the book say you can?" And they don't tend to adjust much. Though I never expected this much out of one feat combination and some poor wording.
Welcome to Paizo and Pathfinder my friend.

Is so much of the book this poorly worded that most of it should have an FAQ or just be rewritten? Ill admit that due to wording neither me nor my table understood how magic worked exactly for about 2 years of playing and thats an issue.


ViConstantine wrote:
Louise Bishop wrote:
ViConstantine wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.
yes, a lot of this big trouble has been me desperately trying to get clear agreeable confirmation for my gm. They are very. "Does the book say you can?" And they don't tend to adjust much. Though I never expected this much out of one feat combination and some poor wording.
Welcome to Paizo and Pathfinder my friend.
Is so much of the book this poorly worded that most of it should have an FAQ or just be rewritten? Ill admit that due to wording neither me nor my table understood how magic worked exactly for about 2 years of playing and thats an issue.

The size of the Pathfinder option set is so huge that it is not possible to write something that covers every possible combination and the contributing authors will have different levels of understanding of the rules themselves or just downright have a brain fart when writing something. there are abilities that dont actually do anything by negating penalties that dont exist or otherwise just dont function at all because of this. Often times authors write from their perspective of common sense which will lead to several thousand posts over the course of years until the issue dies down in favor of some other poorly worded option. They are only human after all. DEX to damage options however will fester for ever due to how divisive and restrictive they are.


I've been playing tabletop RPGs since the 80s, and in this time I've played a great number and absolutely none of them have had tight enough rules to cover with clarity every single situation that has come up in play. Every game of this type is going to require a significant degree of interpretation or out-and-out houseruling from the perspective of the person refereeing it.

Your choices are pretty much "not enough rules so that you don't really know how to adjudicate something, so you've got to make it up" and "too many rules so that things are inconsistent, or ambiguous, or hard to figure out, or you get unanticipated interactions." The goldilocks zone is particularly difficult here, in particular because you've got to keep printing more books.

Pathfinder, because of Paizo's impressive release pipeline, is much more to the latter extreme. They put out cool stuff every month or so, but because they need to keep the lights on and "that's cool" sells more books than "that is perfectly consistent with my understanding of the rules" we get issues like Bladed Brush, or the Shield Gauntlet Style, or Bardic Masterpieces. If you want to make them work how you want them to work, that's the GM's prerogative, and in practice how you fix 99% of this stuff.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I've been playing tabletop RPGs since the 80s, and in this time I've played a great number and absolutely none of them have had tight enough rules to cover with clarity every single situation that has come up in play. Every game of this type is going to require a significant degree of interpretation or out-and-out houseruling from the perspective of the person refereeing it.

Your choices are pretty much "not enough rules so that you don't really know how to adjudicate something, so you've got to make it up" and "too many rules so that things are inconsistent, or ambiguous, or hard to figure out, or you get unanticipated interactions." The goldilocks zone is particularly difficult here, in particular because you've got to keep printing more books.

Pathfinder, because of Paizo's impressive release pipeline, is much more to the latter extreme. They put out cool stuff every month or so, but because they need to keep the lights on and "that's cool" sells more books than "that is perfectly consistent with my understanding of the rules" we get issues like Bladed Brush, or the Shield Gauntlet Style, or Bardic Masterpieces. If you want to make them work how you want them to work, that's the GM's prerogative, and in practice how you fix 99% of this stuff.

Thats fair, must be tough for those guys at paizo. Well, im happy to still keep buying their expansions and such if we keep getting fun options and my friends are still interested in playing.


The Shaman wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
How is ranger 3 doing it?
Archetype, I guess. I was thinking Sword Devil, although it specifies "light or one- handed slashing melee weapon". If the DM allows it, you can be one impressive, agile son of a spear. Or a daughter, as the case may be.

Yep, a sword devil taking slashing grace gets dex to hit and damage with the "light or one- handed slashing melee weapon" they pick. That means longswords, katanas, bastard swords, battle axes, dwarven war axes, Falcatas, ect. can be picked.

ViConstantine wrote:
Let's direct you to another post as it pertains to the build in question. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ue8b?Advice-and-thoughts-on-final-build-Slayer #1 the rogue fixes a lot of my problem regardless of how little I wanted to dip.

Looking at the link, I see nothing that explains how/why rogue solves something better than the ranger will. Is extra sneak attack 'solving' more than +3 fort saves? More skill points solving something more than +1 BAB? Better TWF/THF solves more than better base weapons and more HP?

Since I have NO insight on what solves your issues, I just gave a suggestion that was an equivalent level dip. I also thought that the expanded number of allowable weapons would also fit the weapons you asked for, "Interesting weapon, larger damage die than a d6, usable for dex to damage". Ranger is a MUCH better fit for that weapon description, giving a much greater number of options.

So if the suggestion didn't work for you, sorry I was unable to divine what fixes your dip issues that rogue manages to do. Maybe someone else that reads the thread will be helped by it.


How is the ranger getting dex to damage on a bigger damage die weapon?

Rogue can TWF with dex to damage, ranger's cannot.
Rogue can get 1.5 dex to damage when THW, ranger's cannot.
Rogue can get dex to damage when a d10 weapon and I believe ranger's cannot.

For this reason is probably why rogue over ranger.

EDIT:
It seems like maybe some archetype called sword devil is what you were thinking? What's that one from? I'm unfamiliar, and if it lets you do some of the things I stand corrected.

Scarab Sages

Sword Devil is from a Pathfinder comic book. It's paizo published, but not pfs legal. It would take a pretty permissive gm to allow it.


Imbicatus wrote:
Sword Devil is from a Pathfinder comic book. It's paizo published, but not pfs legal. It would take a pretty permissive gm to allow it.

I mean, Bladed Brush isn't PFS legal (for good reason) either, but absolutely the "ultra-permissive GM" might be more inclined to handwave "yeah, those two feats work together" than to allow an archetype from a comic book.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Rogue can TWF with dex to damage, ranger's cannot.

Rogue can get 1.5 dex to damage when THW, ranger's cannot.
Rogue can get dex to damage when a d10 weapon and I believe ranger's cannot.

For this reason is probably why rogue over ranger.

None of those were up for debate. "Interesting weapon, larger damage die than a d6, usable for dex to damage". I even pointed out rogue was better for TWF. Rogue is also better for sneak attacks too, but none of that was brought up as a requirement or preference.

Chess Pwn wrote:

EDIT:

It seems like maybe some archetype called sword devil is what you were thinking? What's that one from? I'm unfamiliar, and if it lets you do some of the things I stand corrected.

Pathfinder: Worldscape #1. It has an ability to pick a light or one handed weapon and use dex to hit + counts as weapon finesse. That opens up "longswords, katanas, bastard swords, battle axes, dwarven war axes, Falcatas, ect." Add slashing grace and you get the dex to damage.

Imbicatus wrote:
It's paizo published, but not pfs legal. It would take a pretty permissive gm to allow it.

PFS wasn't part of the equation as far as I know. Secondly, why would it require any more 'permissiveness' than any other officially published paizo pathfinder RPG rules? It comes with a pathfinder encounter map, RPG rules, NPC stats and the official paizo trademark symbol.

For myself, most often as long as the material is paizo and is in one of the online websites, d20pfsrd/archivesofnethys, it's fine. Sword-devil fits that so I don't expect to have any issue in having whatever DM I have next allowing it. I didn't notice anything in the archetype that'd make a DM nix it on power: it's not a sacred geometry or synthesist.


graystone wrote:

too, but none of that was brought up as a requirement or preference.

Chess Pwn wrote:

EDIT:

It seems like maybe some archetype called sword devil is what you were thinking? What's that one from? I'm unfamiliar, and if it lets you do some of the things I stand corrected.

Pathfinder: Worldscape #1. It has an ability to pick a light or one handed weapon and use dex to hit + counts as weapon finesse. That opens up "longswords, katanas, bastard swords, battle axes, dwarven war axes, Falcatas, ect." Add slashing grace and you get the dex to damage.

Hey, get bladed brush and you can choose it (glaives) with Sword Devil, right?


Starbuck_II wrote:
graystone wrote:

too, but none of that was brought up as a requirement or preference.

Chess Pwn wrote:

EDIT:

It seems like maybe some archetype called sword devil is what you were thinking? What's that one from? I'm unfamiliar, and if it lets you do some of the things I stand corrected.

Pathfinder: Worldscape #1. It has an ability to pick a light or one handed weapon and use dex to hit + counts as weapon finesse. That opens up "longswords, katanas, bastard swords, battle axes, dwarven war axes, Falcatas, ect." Add slashing grace and you get the dex to damage.

Hey, get bladed brush and you can choose it (glaives) with Sword Devil, right?

LOL Who knows? Since you'd be relying on slashing grace for damage and it's up in the air if it actually works.


Is the word feats invisible to everyone else?
Bladed brush specifically states that it then treats it as a one-handed slashing weapon for the purposes of feats.
So both RAW and RAI it works. No discussion.


Considering how much better bardiches and fauchards are compared to glaives, you have to really love your glaive deity to put up with all the contortions.


Wouldn't Fighter's Finesse and the Unchained Rogue's Finesse Training do this?

Fighter's Finesse: Use weapon finesse on a specific weapon group.
Finesse Training: Dex to damage for a specific finesseable weapon.

Takes a lot of level investments, so wouldn't work for anything but a martial build, but also takes one feat (Advanced Weapon Training), or zero if you wait for fighter level 9.


Interesting thread. I had never heard of Bladed Brush prior to this morning. But now that I have I am inclined to say that it works. I went back and forth as I read the thread, but that is where I landed. Regarding the two main arguments against it:

"It requires the hand to be empty, not just not attacking" - so does Precise Strike. Well technically it requires not wielding a weapon or a non-buckler shield, but the point is that if "not just not attacking" prevents Slashing Grace it also prevents Precise Strike, but the text specifically calls out "such as Precise Strike" so any interpretation that would prevent it must be wrong.

"It only counts as a one handed (etc) when you are wielding it". This is true, and closer to being persuasive than the previous one, but at the end of the day I do not think it matters. While you are not weidling it, you lose access to Slashing Grace. But that does not matter because Slashing Grace does nothing useful while you are not weildling it anyway. Technically, you also need to be weilding it when you level up and select the feat too, but that is not an issue and would normally be handwaved anyway. Relatedly, "it is not a kind of one-handed slashing weapon" - it is for you!

_
glass.


glass wrote:

Technically, you also need to be weilding it when you level up and select the feat too, but that is not an issue and would normally be handwaved anyway. Relatedly, "it is not a kind of one-handed slashing weapon" - it is for you!

The arguments about not qualifying for slashing grace unless you are wielding it at the time of selecting the feat are misguided... your feats represent your skill and aptitude’s. If you are skilled at using a two handed weapon as if it were one handed, then for you such a weapon is a one handed weapon. Weather you are wielding it or not at the time is irrelevant, it is your ability that matters when it comes to feats. This is even explained in an FAQ in regards to feats that require two-weapon fighting and characters with flurry of blows. A character can qualify for such feats, though they can only benefit from them while using flurry of blows. This is no different. You qualify for slashing grace (Glaive) but may only gain its benefit while utilizing bladed brush. If you opted to make an attack without the benefits of bladed brush, then the benefits of slashing grace would also be foregone for said attack.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Do / should Bladed Brush and Slashing Grace work together? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.