Making the case for Bladed Brush... A reasoned appeal to the PFS coordinators...

[HWalsh]

Since this was recently brought up and someone recommended that someone make a reasoned case regarding getting this feat added to the additional resources, I figured, what the heck, I got time to do that.

First of all... Let us look at this feat in question:

Quote:

Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of Shelyn.

Benefit: 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.

This is from Paths of the Righteous and is introduced with the Prestige Class "Devoted Muse" which is allowed for Society Play.

So let us look at what this feat actually does, and does not, do.

What this feat does:
This feat allows you to use your Dexterity in place of your Strength when using the Glaive for the purposes of determining your attack bonus.

This feat allows you to use the glaive with any class ability or feat that says you can only use it with a one handed piercing or slashing melee weapon.

This feat allows you to treat your off-hand as though it was not attacking.

This feat allows you to remove the glaive's reach weapon property as a move action.

What this feat does not do:
This feat does not allow you to use the glaive one handed. Nowhere in the text does it say that. Even if you shorten your grip to make it a non-reach weapon you are still using two hands. Nowhere in this feat does it say that you can use it in one hand. You, after all, use a great sword in two hands. Just because it isn't a reach weapon doesn't mean it is a one handed weapon.

I realize that there is some further confusion on this feat. I'm going to cover those eventualities here as well.

Can you get "Dex to Damage" with this feat? No.

"But you can use it as a one handed slashing or piercing melee weapon for the purposes of feats! That means you can qualify for Slashing/Fencer's Grace!"

No, no it doesn't, and this is (I think) one of the reasons it is actually banned. Not that it can be, but that there is some confusion among people and that confusion equals arguments that some people didn't want to mess with.

There should be no confusion.

Here is why you can't use them together-

Slashing and Fencer's Grace both include the following line:

Quote:

You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

Even though you can treat it as a one handed weapon, meaning in theory you could qualify, your other hand still must actually be on the weapon. Meaning that you can't benefit from these. The feat is very clear you only treat it as a one handed weapon for the purposes of feats and class abilities - and you also treat it as though you aren't attacking with it - but it is never stated to be unoccupied, it only states that you can treat it as not attacking.

So that takes care of the, "It is too confusing" arguments. There are far more confusing feats already allowed in PFS.

The second half of the issue is theme...

Specifically with regards to the Devoted Muse Prestige Class.

The Devoted Muse is the Holy Warrior of Shelyn... That, in PFS, cannot use Shelyn's sacred weapon. That feels... Very odd.

It makes certain class combinations:

Warpriest into Devoted Muse - For example - Completely impossible.

You can't combine the Sentinel Prestige Class with the Devoted Muse because you can't use the Glaive with the Devoted Muse's PrC specials.

It just feels really odd and doesn't make a lot of sense.

-----

My suggestions:

If the PFS coordinators are that concerned with balance issues, maybe a compromise. Allow the Bladed Brush to be taken by characters who have levels in the Devoted Muse Prestige Class. There is already precedent (in the same book as Bladed Brush no less) of allowing PCs to get feats that are otherwise banned through access to a PrC after all.

In any case. Thank you for taking the time to read this thread.

[pauljathome]

HWalsh wrote:

There should be no confusion

Sorry, but no. While your line of logic is quite decent, it relies upon very carefully parsing the text in a particular way. It is most certainly NOT transparently clear that you are correct.

Note, I'm NOT saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that it isn't obvious that you are right. There IS a lot of confusion and your post is not going to clear that confusion up. As the various threads arguing the point pretty much conclusively prove.

Personally, I think that the Paizo rules guys need to make a ruling on how this feat actually works. Then, and only then, should PFS consider making it legal. NOT because it is too powerful (although some interpretations of the wording make it quite powerful) but because, in its current state, there WILL be too much table variation in how the words are interpreted.

And PFS should NOT make its own interpretation before the rule guys do. That would be fine while it is unclear but runs the real risk of going counter to what the "real" interpretation turns out to be.

I want a glaive wielding paladin of Shelyn as much as the next guy and I'd like to see this eventually become PFS legal. But not until the ambiguity is resolved.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Does it also need a line saying "can't be used in conjunction with Spell Combat"?

[HWalsh]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Does it also need a line saying "can't be used in conjunction with Spell Combat"?

Spell Combat requires a free hand. You still need to use two hands with Bladed Brush, your off hand is just not considered attacking, so it is automatically not viable.

[Blake's Tiger]

I really want this feat to be legal in PFS. My Shelynite paladin is past the point of rebuild (he wields a bardiche), but I would definitely build a new one if this feat was legal so I could build a glaive wielding paladin of Shelyn into Devote Muse.

That out of the way, there's a few other things to consider:

The feat allows for 3 things as HWalsh outlined for the prerequisite of Weapon Focus (Feat).

1. Break the rule limited Weapon Finesse to finesse weapons
2. Allows class abilities/feats that require a free hand to function
3. Move action to remove/restore the Reach property at no penalty to hit

Here are other ways that you can remove/restore the Reach property on a pole-arm (benefit #3):

Polearm Master (Fighter Archetype): Trades Bravery for an Immediate action to remove Reach and attack at -4 and immediate action to restore Reach.

Weapon Trick (Polearm) (Feat): Requires +1 BAB, Weapon Focus (feat) to use a non-action to treat your polearm as lacking the Reach property for 1 round, attack at -2 and reduced damage (1d6) (enchantments that could apply to a club still apply)

There also a way to gain a free hand (benefit #2):

Weapon Trick (Polearm) (Feat): Requires +1 BAB, 1 rank in Acrobatics and Climb to take a -2 to attack and damage to gain a free hand while wielding a polearm.

So, the question of whether the feat does too much for 1 feat with 1 feat prerequisite needs to be answered.

...and my personal hope would be for it to be answered in a way that permits its use in PFS, but I'm not sure that's the right answer.

[Rysky]

Paul Jackson wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

There should be no confusion

Sorry, but no. While your line of logic is quite decent, it relies upon very carefully parsing the text in a particular way. It is most certainly NOT transparently clear that you are correct.

Note, I'm NOT saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that it isn't obvious that you are right. There IS a lot of confusion and your post is not going to clear that confusion up. As the various threads arguing the point pretty much conclusively prove.

Personally, I think that the Paizo rules guys need to make a ruling on how this feat actually works. Then, and only then, should PFS consider making it legal. NOT because it is too powerful (although some interpretations of the wording make it quite powerful) but because, in its current state, there WILL be too much table variation in how the words are interpreted.

And PFS should NOT make its own interpretation before the rule guys do. That would be fine while it is unclear but runs the real risk of going counter to what the "real" interpretation turns out to be.

I want a glaive wielding paladin of Shelyn as much as the next guy and I'd like to see this eventually become PFS legal. But not until the ambiguity is resolved.

Just incase you weren’t aware, the PFS team doing some of the legwork on something from a Softcover vastly increases the chances of it actually getting answered with a FAQ. Suggesting the opposite means the chances of it getting addressed is pretty much nil.

[Nefreet]

Getting it approved requires getting it nerfed to the point that nobody would be interested in taking it anymore.

Paizo has done this a few times before, and the PR was a nightmare every time. It's unlikely they'll do it again.

Best to save this option for a homegame.

[HWalsh]

Nefreet wrote:

Getting it approved requires getting it nerfed to the point that nobody would be interested in taking it anymore.

Paizo has done this a few times before, and the PR was a nightmare every time. It's unlikely they'll do it again.

Best to save this option for a homegame.

I honestly don't see why it has to be nerfed. It isn't that powerful.

[Nefreet]

I would suggest reading through the various Advice, General Discussion and Rules Questions Forums to get a clearer understanding of what people are combining it with.

Furthermore, this feat (and Virtuous Bravo), have had half a dozen threads so far that either 1) ask for it to be legalized, or 2) ask why it didn't make it to the Additional Resources list.

Few character options get that much attention after PFS has already made a ruling.

[Belafon]

HWalsh wrote:

I honestly don't see why it has to be nerfed. It isn't that powerful.

It isn't that powerful. . . as you interpret it. There are quite a few interpretations that are much more powerful.

I wrote up my version of the feat in an earlier thread. I attempted to close off ambiguities or potential "exploits" and clarify what I think the feat should do. (It's pretty close to your interpretation.)

Quote:

BLADED BRUSH (COMBAT)

You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of Shelyn.
Benefit: 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 sized for you, 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). Your off-hand is still occupied by the glaive for all feats and abilities that require a free hand and may not be used for another purpose such as wielding a shield or casting a spell with somatic components. When treating a glaive as such it is considered a one-handed weapon for determining damage from your strength modifier, Power Attack, and similar abilities.

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

These additional properties are a result of your training and fluidity, so when determining what enchantments can be placed on a glaive it is only considered to be a two-handed, slashing, reach weapon and not usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

There's a decent number of people who would compare that to the original and call it a "huge nerf" (from their point of view).

[Belafon]

The issue with making Bladed Brush PFS legal is that the Campaign Clarifications would have to step through multiple small items that have differing interpretations. It's not just a matter of one clarification.

• Can I use Slashing Grace? (Yes/No)
  
• Can I consider it a two-handed weapon for damage? (Yes/No)
  
• Is my off-hand free? (Yes/No)
  
• Can I put agile on my glaive? (Yes/No)

And that doesn't even count the "abuse of language" interpretations I've seen people arguing in favor of. ("It says I can use Weapon Finesse with a glaive sized for me. But the next sentence says I can treat a glaive as one-handed. That sentence doesn't say it has to be sized for me. I'm going to get a colossal glaive...")

Basically, the feat needs to be rewritten. Completely rewriting a published item using PFS Campaign Clarifications is not something that has been done before. Maybe it should be. It's not getting done anywhere else. The "Golarion Rules and Questions" category of the FAQ has from time to time been used to alter material in softcover books, but that's rare (as are FAQ updates in general nowadays).

[HWalsh]

Kevin Willis wrote:

The issue with making Bladed Brush PFS legal is that the Campaign Clarifications would have to step through multiple small items that have differing interpretations. It's not just a matter of one clarification.

• Can I use Slashing Grace? (Yes/No)
  
• Can I consider it a two-handed weapon for damage? (Yes/No)
  
• Is my off-hand free? (Yes/No)
  
• Can I put agile on my glaive? (Yes/No)

And that doesn't even count the "abuse of language" interpretations I've seen people arguing in favor of. ("It says I can use Weapon Finesse with a glaive sized for me. But the next sentence says I can treat a glaive as one-handed. That sentence doesn't say it has to be sized for me. I'm going to get a colossal glaive...")

Basically, the feat needs to be rewritten. Completely rewriting a published item using PFS Campaign Clarifications is not something that has been done before. Maybe it should be. It's not getting done anywhere else. The "Golarion Rules and Questions" category of the FAQ has from time to time been used to alter material in softcover books, but that's rare (as are FAQ updates in general nowadays).

Can I use Slashing Grace? (Yes/No)

No, your off hand is considered not-attacking, it isn't considered unoccupied.

Can I consider it a two-handed weapon for damage? (Yes/No)
Yes. You have to use two hands with it.

Is my off-hand free? (Yes/No)
No. Your hand is considered, as per the feat, only not-attacking.

Can I put agile on my glaive? (Yes/No)
No. The feat only changes the weapon with regards to class abilities and feats. Agile is a spell ability and a Glaive is not a legal target for the enchantment.

[Ascalaphus]

It allows you to combine Swashbuckler Precise Strike with 2H strength/power attack bonuses. That risks undermining the big design goal of the swashbuckler: to make 1H fencing style fighting competitive. This would give away the ability they use to compete.

[HWalsh]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

It allows you to combine Swashbuckler Precise Strike with 2H strength/power attack bonuses. That risks undermining the big design goal of the swashbuckler: to make 1H fencing style fighting competitive. This would give away the ability they use to compete.

Yes and no.

While it *does* allow you to use 2h strength/power attack bonuses, you aren't getting dex to damage *and* you have to use Dex for attack. So your damage usually comes in slightly behind or on par with swashbucklers using slashing/fencer's grace.

Typically you'll see a +2 Strength Bonus, and a +6 (around level 10) dex bonus. (Taking into account that you probably aren't getting a +4/+4 Dex/Str belt by 10 in PFS)

Meaning with Power Attack, you'll see:

1d10+3 (Strength x1.5) +9 (Power Attack) +10 (Precise Strike) +2 (Weapon)

For 1d10+24

vs a Rapier with Fencer's Grace

1d8 +6 from Dex, +6 (Piranha Strike) +10 (Precise Strike) +2 (Weapon)

For 1d8+24

The bonuses for both are virtually identical. Technically, since Swashbucklers don't need a 14 Strength, they can also usually eek out an additional +1 Dex more than the Bladed Brush user can, which can give them the edge with 1d8+25

[Ferious Thune]

This is where the wording on the feat is important, and one way in which it can be abused. The feat allows you to treat it as a one-handed weapon regardless of whether you are using Weapon Finesse with it. Similarly, Precise Strike does not require that you are using Swashbuckler’s Finesse or Dex to-hit. So the best Bladed Brush Swashbuckler actually becomes a STR-based Swashbuckler.

EDIT: Knocking the STR down slightly for a more realistic point-buy.

Starting with a 19 STR bump at 4th (bump CHA at 8th) and a +4 belt gives a 24 STR for +7 STR bonus. Damage becomes:

1d10+10[STR]+9[PA]+10[Precise Strike]+2[enhancement] =1d10+31

Also, Piranha Strike doesn’t work with a rapier. It only works with light weapons. And a rapier only does 1d6 damage. Dropping the Rapier/Fencing Grace damage down to 1d6+19. Though admittedly with the bump in accuracy from not using Piranha Strike.

It’s clearly not intended that Bladed Brush make a strength based Swashbuckler better than a Dex-based one, but all the verbal maneuvering to try to allow it to work for Swashbucklers while not working for Slashing Grace and Spell Combat has resulted in language that can easily be read to do exactly that.

[HWalsh]

Ferious Thune wrote:

This is where the wording on the feat is important, and one way in which it can be abused. The feat allows you to treat it as a one-handed weapon regardless of whether you are using Weapon Finesse with it. Similarly, Precise Strike does not require that you are using Swashbuckler’s Finesse or Dex to-hit. So the best Bladed Brush Swashbuckler actually becomes a STR-based Swashbuckler.

EDIT: Knocking the STR down slightly for a more realistic point-buy.

Starting with a 19 STR bump at 4th (bump CHA at 8th) and a +4 belt gives a 24 STR for +7 STR bonus. Damage becomes:

1d10+10[STR]+9[PA]+10[Precise Strike]+2[enhancement] =1d10+31

Also, Piranha Strike doesn’t work with a rapier. It only works with light weapons. And a rapier only does 1d6 damage. Dropping the Rapier/Fencing Grace damage down to 1d6+19. Though admittedly with the bump in accuracy from not using Piranha Strike.

It’s clearly not intended that Bladed Brush make a strength based Swashbuckler better than a Dex-based one, but all the verbal maneuvering to try to allow it to work for Swashbucklers while not working for Slashing Grace and Spell Combat has resulted in language that can easily be read to do exactly that.

True, you can do a Strength Based Swashbuckler, but that isn't going to work very well. Your defense would suffer a lot and the classes are built off of using Dex. You *can* but in practice, aside from damage, it would be terrible.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

Quote:

Your defense would suffer a lot and the classes are built off of using Dex

Not really, your primary defense (parry) works the same str or dex. (idk if you could parry an enemy 5ft away in reach, id guess no, another issue with the feat, but that's a problem dex has the same as str). Also if you go str you can dip into fighter or paladin and use heavy armor, all you'd lose is nimble.

Edit: they also can't use dodging panache in heavy armor

[Ferious Thune]

Yeah, you really only need around a 14 Dex to start and could probably get away with a 12. And that’s not even trying to optimize with weird combinations of classes. Dip Armored Hulk Barbarian for heavy armor proficiency and rage for an extra +2 hit and +3 damage that multiplies on a crit for the loss of 1 damage that doesn’t. Take the Reckless Rage feat for another +3 Damage. Net gain +5 damage with better accuracy. Take a second level of Barbarian for Rage Powers. Etc.

It’s not really about finding the optimal build. It’s about the feat having unintended results because of the wording. Yes, you could clarify that you can’t use spell combat. But that is not obvious to everyone who reads the feat. You could clarify that you can’t use Slashing Grace. Justifying those things by saying you’re still holding it in two hands means now you need to clarify that you don’t get the bonuses for wielding it with two hands. And on and on.

I think the flavor of the feat is great, and I understand why so many people want to see it legal. I also agree with those who are pointing out that the feat would need completely rewritten to work as intended without players misinterpreting it. If you look back through the threads when the feat was released, it took a long time to get to a general acceptance of “you’re still using two hands so those things don’t work.” A casual gamer picking up the book isn’t going to necessarily come to the same conclusion. And even then, it introduces the issues with two-handed STR bonuses and other things that have been discussed here.