I'mma piggyback on that one:
Derklord, what exactly are you claiming Fighter's Finesse doesn't do as a result of your parsing? (I.e., for practical purposes, what does your reading allow/disallow differently from that of your fellow posters?)
He's claiming that if you gain the benefits of the feat, you don't count that as having the feat for prerequisites or ANYTHING that looks for or requires you use that feat.
Fighter's Finesse doesn't allow you to use Weapon Finesse with those weapons - you get an effect that does the same, but don't use the actual feat. Fighter's Finesse doesn't help for anything Weapon Finesse-related.
Derklord, what exactly are you claiming Fighter's Finesse does?
"Fighter's Finesse (Ex) melee weapons that belong to the associated fighter weapon group The fighter must have the Weapon Finesse feat before choosing this option."
The black parts are copied from the FF description, the blue parts are copied from WF's benefits section. I didn't need to use a single word not in the two descriptions, and yet the whole thing works.
Derklord, what exactly are you claiming Fighter's Finesse doesn't do as a result of your parsing?
Doesn't work for/with things that says "weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse" (e.g. unRogue's Finesse Training), or "when using Weapon Finesse" (e.g. Trained Grace AWT).
Then let me ask this: do you follow the special section of the finesse feat that calls out natural attacks as light weapons? The Special section is used and an expected part of the feat and yet isn't in the 'benefit' section'. Some feats are dramatically different is you ignore those not-benefit sections.
Well, for Fighter's Finesse it's irrelevant. Swashbuckler's Finesse does indeed not include natural weapons as written, but since Precise Strike explicitly excludes natural weapons, that's not exactly game changing.
Monk is solid proof that reminder text exists.
These parts of both the Monk description and the combat rules are copied and pasted from 3.5, and are probably from 3.0.
But I'm not saying that there isn't redundant reminder text in Paizo written Pathfinder (almost every natural attack granting option repeats, or more precicely mis-repeats, part of the natural attack rules). My argument does not mainly rest on that "reminder text issue" - it's just another clue that something might be going on. Piece of a puzzle, if you will.Another part of the puzzle is that the "use WF" language does indeed exist, Bladed Brush and Riddle of Steel use it.
Question for you: Do you claim Swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat without it being said?
Well, for Fighter's Finesse it's irrelevant. Swashbuckler's Finesse does indeed not include natural weapons as written, but since Precise Strike explicitly excludes natural weapons, that's not exactly game changing.
You're allowed to take slashing grace with a single natural attack so matters there as well as piranha strike.
Secondly, I'm unsure why the base ability doesn't work with natural weapons. You can have light piercing natural weapons and that qualifies as a "light or one-handed piercing melee weapon". Is there a FAQ I'm missing?
Question for you: Do you claim Swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat without it being said?
They effectively do, yes. It's more a semantic difference in wording than a difference in intent IMO: IE, one person says "grants feat" while another writes "gains the benefit of". They are synonymous IMO.
Secondly, I'm unsure why the base ability doesn't work with natural weapons. You can have light piercing natural weapons and that qualifies as a "light or one-handed piercing melee weapon".
Actually, I'm no longer sure myself. Normally, a feat's special line only affect that character and that feat, but WF's special line seems to repeat a general rule. I presume absolutely everyone runs it that natural attacks are light weapons all the time, whether or not the character has WF, but I can't actually find anything in the rules. Of course, this is the CRB we're talking about, were rules are all over the place. "Want to see if two feats or exceptional abilities stack? Look in the magic rules!" and s%%! like that.
It's more a semantic difference in wording than a difference in intent IMO
Why do they use all that confusing language instead of simply stating "The swashbuckler gains WF as a bonus feat, and can use it with ight or one-handed piercing melee weapons." if that's what they meant?
Also, if SF's wording was supposed to means "you gain WF as a bonus feat and can use it with X", why would FF use the same wording when it already requires the Fighter to have WF?Your interpretation means they a) wasted unnecessary page space when they're constantly complaining about lack of it, b) used unnecessarily confusing language, c) used the same language for two different effects, and d) broke their own language-mold regarding bonus feats.
My interpretation means they a) intended the class features to only do what they say they do, even if that means it doesn't positively interact with other class features.
Occam's Razor and all.
Your interpretation means they a) wasted unnecessary page space when they're constantly complaining about lack of it, b) used unnecessarily confusing language, c) used the same language for two different effects, and d) broke their own language-mold regarding bonus feats.
Welcome to Paizo...
a) I often find that when I copy an ability on my sheet, I can condense it down greatly as they often, IMO, use lots of extra word in an effort to remove confusion [often creating MORE confusion in the process].b) Well this is the land of race traits and racial traits [not the same type of abilities] to wielding that can mean anything from holding a weapon to the exact instant you are actually trying to make an attack with it. I suspect that they seemed to make sense in a vacuum, but not so much out in the open.
c) Traits, levels, wield, ect... It's not a new problem. Swashbuckler is a class and an archetype as is a brawler. Wording in piazo is conversational and not meant to be carefully parsed unless the PDT ignores that and parces things carefully for a ruling making it impossible to know which you should do.
d) see c). they reserve the right to ignore their own rules, waffle between legalesse and conversational and/or use unwritten ones.
You're right on every single point, and yet my argument still stands.
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.
On a side note, the best example for c) is "attack action" (see footnote).
The way I see it is this:
'Grants the feat' means that you have the feat. It is given to you entirely.
'Gains the benefit' of the feat means that you don't actually have the feat. So if you have an ability that gives you the benefits of, let's say, Combat Expertise, you don't actually have that feat and so can't take the Improved Disarm feat which requires you to have Combat Expertise.
'Counts as' the feat means that while you don't have the feat, you can still take other feats that require it. Like Dirty Fighting counts as having Combat Expertise for taking Improved Disarm.