RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
Aye, Dervish Dance isn't the problem. It's that pesky "but the off-hand weapon is a spell" line that can lead people into believing the spell is treated as a weapon carried or wielded in your off-hand.
I don't think so because it would create too many mechanical problems and raise more questions than answer them. If the spell is a weapon that occupies the hand, then technically the magus lacks a free hand to do somatic components, use foci, expend material components, etc. One could argue the hand can still do these things, but the text never addresses this.
I believe it makes more sense that spell combat simply replaces the extra attack with a spellcast rather than create a bunch of awkward handedness shenanigans. Unfortunately, we probably won't know until a clarification or FAQ is made.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When words can have different meanings, we get our definition from the context. Pathfinder frequently uses certain words in a specific context. Trying to claim that a word is ambiguous when the context is clear, is disingenuous. Claiming that a word whose contextual use is consistent throughout, suddenly is meant to have a different definition in a similar context is conjecture. PFS GMs should not be making rules based on pure conjecture.
This describes how I feel about Dervish Dance very accurately. We have two words that people focus on: "carry" and "off-hand".
The first has no context in Pathfinder. It isn't defined anywhere, and means nothing. People have to resort to dictionary quotes for their arguments.
The latter is used with frequent regularity, and is referenced in feats and abilities and FAQs galore.
Because of this, for me, the meaning of Dervish Dance is obviously contextually. The word that I believe is more important is "off-hand", not "carry".
For you, and everybody else that focuses on the first word, you can probably switch every one of these points around and arrive at the opposite conclusion.
Context is simply something else left to interpretation.
|
|
Attacks during a full-attack action are sequential, which is why you can 5-foot step between attacks or change it to an attack action if you only made a single attack. Nothing in the two-weapon fighting rules changes this.
Keep in mind TWF is not a full-attack action. It is a Special Action that takes a full-round action. While one can make an attack action and then decide to make a full attack action, one cannot make an attack and then decide to TWF. The penalties apply from the get go, and last for the whole round. Hence the not-sequential interpretation.
EDIT: Spell combat is also specifically a full-round action.
|
|
Aye, Dervish Dance isn't the problem. It's that pesky "but the off-hand weapon is a spell" line that can lead people into believing the spell is treated as a weapon carried or wielded in your off-hand.
I don't think so because it would create too many mechanical problems and raise more questions than answer them. If the spell is a weapon that occupies the hand, then technically the magus lacks a free hand to do somatic components, use foci, expend material components, etc. One could argue the hand can still do these things, but the text never addresses this.
I believe it makes more sense that spell combat simply replaces the extra attack with a spellcast rather than create a bunch of awkward handedness shenanigans. Unfortunately, we probably won't know until a clarification or FAQ is made.
My emphasis. This is why the hand is occupied. All the examples listed are part of casting the spell and the reason why material, somatic, focus components and their reflective feats (Still Spell, Eschew Materials) are a thing. :) Spell combat actually addresses this: the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)....
In short saying 'you can't cast a spell because you are casting a spell' isn't quite accurate.
|
|
The word "off-hand" is used with frequent regularity, and is referenced in feats and abilities and FAQs galore.I haven't seen a single use of wield with "a spell as it's being cast." Can you identify such a usage?
Several people, including myself, have done exactly that is this thread, multiple times, you just appear to not accept our explanations.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first thing I posted is that I haven't read every post. So you'll need to provide a link before you go about accusing me of not accepting something.Several people, including myself, have done exactly that is this thread, multiple times, you just appear to not accept our explanations.The word "off-hand" is used with frequent regularity, and is referenced in feats and abilities and FAQs galore.I haven't seen a single use of wield with "a spell as it's being cast." Can you identify such a usage?
This is not an attack on N N 959. This is a criticism. Hopefully constructive.
If you are going to post in a thread, you really should take the time to see if someone has already addressed your point earlier in the thread. People are far less likely to give your words weight when you lead with “I can’t be bothered to read this but I still feel the need to offer an opinion.” Especially when the people who have been reading the whole thread have discussed that very opinion earlier.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
You can obviously TWF with nothing in your off hand. So it's clear from the rules that you can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon in your off hand for TWF, without actually carrying anything. I'll repeat that: You can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon without actually carrying something.
So, are you talking about a spell, or Unarmed combat? I am unsure.
When you have Improved Unarmed Combat, your hands/fists count as manufactured weapons, not nothing. You "wield" your weapon when you set yourself to use your fists in this way, with either TWF or Flurry.
When you use Spell Combat, the spell is considered a weapon in the off hand as far as paralleling with TWF, taking the same penalties as TWF with a feat and One Handed weapon in the off hand.
So, how is one supposed to TWF without a second weapon? I don't see it.
|
|
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.You can obviously TWF with nothing in your off hand. So it's clear from the rules that you can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon in your off hand for TWF, without actually carrying anything. I'll repeat that: You can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon without actually carrying something.
Let me repeat that again: Wielding =/= Carrying in Pathfinder.
Can you clarify? I think it is obvious you MUST have a second weapon in your off hand for TWF.
EDIT: ninja'd by HM II
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After such a ruling what other rules would be misinterpreted?
If this thread is any indication, there is enough ambiguity in the rules to support the claims on both sides of the argument. You may side with one or the other as "right," but as many have said, this will not be resolved until a Paizo rep provides commentary. Players are certainly welcome to walk from tables when a GM makes an unfavorable ruling that you feel renders your character unplayable, but I do not think anyone on either side of this is making their ruling for malicious reasons. Sometimes we just have to accept that lacking clear, concise language, the GM is not going to rule in our favor. Knowing this is a case of table variation is good information both for knowing what to expect when you sit to play and for character creation. If you don't want to be exposed to occasions where some of your character will not work as you intend, maybe you should make other choices to avoid the potential conflict.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
You can obviously TWF with nothing in your off hand. So it's clear from the rules that you can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon in your off hand for TWF, without actually carrying anything. I'll repeat that: You can satisfy the requirements of wielding a weapon without actually carrying something.So, are you talking about a spell, or Unarmed combat? I am unsure.
When you have Improved Unarmed Combat, your hands/fists count as manufactured weapons, not nothing. You "wield" your weapon when you set yourself to use your fists in this way, with either TWF or Flurry.
When you use Spell Combat, the spell is considered a weapon in the off hand as far as paralleling with TWF, taking the same penalties as TWF with a feat and One Handed weapon in the off hand.
So, how is one supposed to TWF without a second weapon? I don't see it.
Making your hands count as manufactured weapons is an ability of monks and brawlers, not of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
And I don't see any indication you need IUS to make 2WF attacks. You'll just not be very good at it.
2WF does seem to assume you can't use a single weapon and flip it back between main and off-hand, as show near the end of this FAQ.
|
|
You can TWF with Unarmed Strikes. You cannot TWF with Natural Attacks. You must be wielding a second weapon in order to gain extra attacks with your off-hand. This weapon need not exist for the entire round (Quickdraw, Spell Combat, Glove of Storing), but TWF is still a full-round action regardless.
Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Attacks. A couple rules elements treat them as such, but that is not the general rule. If a Tengu were to attack with an Unarmed Strike and their Beak, their Beak would suffer a –5 to-hit and half damage for being a secondary weapon, because the Unarmed Strike is a "manufactured weapon".
If you wield a weapon (Longsword, Boulder Helmet, Unarmed Strike) using a limb (hand, foot, head), you cannot also wield another weapon using that limb. You cannot wield a Longsword and an Unarmed Strike in the same hand any more than you can a Longsword and an Axe.
The "like two-weapon fighting" argument is valid. We are given the exceptions in the ability. There is no reason to suspect that it is unlike any other "like" argument. When I say that a miniature Australian Shepherd is like an Australian Shepherd, but miniaturized, everybody should understand what I mean. It's a form of explanation.
I am not going to dance with you regarding the word "carry" or it's relation to wielding. I find it irrelevant, and a red herring. If you're still curious why I disregard that argument, there is no better time than now to go back and read through this thread. I still don't expect you to agree with it, but if you understand where we're coming from it will save you an immense amount of time not posting about it.
|
You cannot wield a Longsword and an Unarmed Strike in the same hand any more than you can a Longsword and an Axe.
Simultaneously, I agree. But if something happens where your weapon gets disarmed or destroyed (or you decide to drop it) during your full attack action, you could certainly decide to finish that action with your unarmed attack.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bringing up, repeatedly, a single FAQ where I was incorrect, would pretty much be the definition of targeting.
I have been right more than wrong, and have over half a dozen FAQs to show for it. Focusing on that one would be an attempt at a fourth fallacy of logic, the ad hominem.
It doesn't bother me that I was wrong. Everyone is at some point. What bothers me is that you use that to discredit an entirely different argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't mean the PDT will decide DD and Spell Combat work together. They could very well change "carry" to wield." But in that case, you couldn't use DD with a free hand, because you are at all times wielding your fist for the purposes of TWF.
NO!
For the umpteenth time, and I know you've read this before, the off-hand only exists while you're attacking with it on your turn. Period. Full stop.
You can't use our reasoning for your defense. It is our point that you're always wielding an Unarmed Strike. That's exactly why the word "carry" is irrelevant. What matters is what you're doing with your off-hand. If your off-hand is being utilized during a full-round action (TWF, Spell Combat, what have you), then Dervish Dance turns off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're still curious why I disregard that argument, there is no better time than now to go back and read through this thread.It doesn't matter. You have your reason and you're not letting go, regardless of what anyone says. So, just like the DC to jump over a 10' pit, we need the PDT to resolve this.
But until they do, GM's are allowed to interpret this gray area in whichever way they feel most comfortable doing so.
This IS going to be table variation until there is a clarification. You can't declare there can't be table variation and then demand that the only way GMs are allowed to rule is your way until the PDT determines otherwise. That's a heck of a lot of hubris.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how about this approach. I will be allowing Dervish Dance to work for Magi at my table until Paizo says otherwise. That is my ruling and applies to any table I GM. If I am violating any game rules and Paizo (Tonya) wish me to stop, she has my email, my Facebook page, my cell phone number, my Slack account, and my Paizo homepage. I will comply to whatever clarification Paizo wishes to share.
I will not be enforcing my ruling on GMs throughout my region as I believe there is enough ambiguity in these rules to justify the interpretation either way. Since restricting Dervish Dance is the less common interpretation, I only ask that GMs who rule it that way, notify any Magi players at their table to avoid arguments in the middle of the game. The player can then chose whether or not that is a deal breaker for their participation at the event.
For the rest of you, why not let this argument rest a while and compromise on a solution similar to the one above so everyone can move on to something more productive. I think Paizo gets the point by now. After nearly 500 posts, how could they not. So, they will either leave things as they are or they will examine the circumstances and rule one way or the other. More arguing is not going to change that.
Now, did anyone watch Curling at the Olympics this year? I though it was fairly exciting in a slow, baseball kinda way. Some of the things those folks can do with a rock. Course my thoughts are probably influenced by the US gold. :-)
|
|
Well said. As one whose about-to-play-Eyes of the Ten Magus would be completely nerfed if DD was not allowed with Spell Combat (it's not just about losing Dex to damage, but about all the other ways that the character has been built around his 1 level of bard dip), I have a strong interest in hoping that paizo continues to allow it. And I would definitely not play my Magus at any table whose GM ruled otherwise - I think it would only be fair, as Bob suggests, to alert players such as myself in advance. But until paizo rules otherwise, I hope that many (most?) GMs will continue to rule in favor of players such as myself who built our characters in good faith that we were doing something legal, and whose overall result is strong, but far from game breaking.
|
|
Now, did anyone watch Curling at the Olympics this year? I though it was fairly exciting in a slow, baseball kinda way. Some of the things those folks can do with a rock. Course my thoughts are probably influenced by the US gold. :-)
There are rocks figurative and literal but no whiskey. I do not understand...
|
The jump DC was brought up to prove two points:
1) That a lot of people debating something doesn't mean it isn't black and white or that the answer isn't actually straight forward;
Actually, it pretty much DOES mean that it isn't black and white. As long as more or less reasonable people are on both sides of an argument then it is NOT black and white.
2) That regardless of what anyone said to you in that thread, regardless of what logic or arguments were employed, the PDT was the only one who could change your mind.
The PDT absolutely gets to decide how to interpret things that are unclear. And, AFTER they make a decision, the situation is then clear (assuming they make their decision clear and their decision doesn't open up new ambiguities, of course),
The PDT making a ruling very often does NOT change anybodies mind. It isn't that they win people over with their logic. They win because they have the authority to make a decision.
Note - I wasn't following that thread at all. I have no clue if Nefreet actually changed his mind or if he just acknowledged the PDT's authority. I'm just pointing out the rather massive logical fallacies in your argument
|
|
Oh, I regularly repeat that the FAQ makes no sense to me. Call it a logic block if you want, it just does not compute. And the Core Rulebook still hasn't had its language updated, either.
Now, when I GM, I just ask the players what they think the DC is, or I go by whatever DCs are listed in the scenario, and if I play, I ask the GM what the DC is. It's worked so far.
But on Friday nights, the DC is distance travelled ^_^
|
|
The real point of contention isn't Dervish Dance itself but rather this line from spell combat.
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"
As a GM who has no horse in this race, this is exactly my problem when it comes to ruling on this. My personal issues are regarding how spells (specifically touch spells) are treated in combat when their charge sits on a character for longer than its current action.
For example, let's say some caster goes up to an enemy and tries to get a melee touch spell on them. A common tactic (especially in PFS) is to cast the spell BEFORE moving into melee range (to avoid the concentration check) and then make the touch attack.
So, let's say the caster rolls a 1. Rules dictate that the spell isn't "lost", but rather because it was an unsuccessful attack, the spell is sitting in the hand of that caster. So now, here are two different situations for the next round involving that spell:
1) If the enemy takes a move action to leave that square, he ends up provoking an AoO (unless he's withdrawing). That caster is now able to make that AoO with the spell because the charge is still on him.
2) If an ally moves into a flank position with the caster, they are given the +2 bonus (and any subsequent bonuses for having a flank) because that caster is considered "armed" with the spell.
Now, when it comes to having no weapons in hand, the only way these things can occur is if that caster had Improved Unarmed Strike. Barring other class features, this feat is more or less the only way you could threaten or take AoO with an empty hand as a melee attack (and please don't derail by pulling some rando archetype or class feature that makes this more complicated than the example I'm presenting).
Now, in regards to "well, the Magus transfers the spell to the weapon...", that entire line of reasoning falls on its face with the wording on Spell Combat as bolded above. I agree with BNW about checking what's in your hands for 2WF at the beginning of your action. You have to DECLARE that you are using 2WF before your attack, and as soon as you do, you are now committed to those penalties regardless of what you are currently holding in your hands at that time (even if you only end up making one attack). Likewise, you cannot make a single attack with one weapon, then quickly draw a second weapon and then make an attack without having first declared your intention to 2WF (barring having iterative attacks from high BAB), which you had to do before your first attack
Between the mechanics/wording of 2WF, how we treat touch spells stored in a caster's hand between actions, and the phrase that states Spell Combat "functions like two-weapon fighting", this is the conclusion that I come to: it doesn't work.
Now, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I'm just explaining how I see the rules, and how I'm interpreting them. And I don't think there's ANYTHING printed under Dervish Dance, Spell Combat, or somewhere else that makes it clear to me that this interpretation is wrong.
I really really really REALLY REALLY REALLY want Paizo to address this. It's gotten to the point that every time someone sits at my table and says they're playing a Magus, I have to ask them if they took Dervish Dance. Because I need to nip that argument in the bud before I even start the session, and then it's sure to be an uncomfortable 10-15 minutes for everyone sitting at the table.
Everybody in this thread posting their own ideas on rules interpretations should be voting this for an FAQ candidate.
|
|
Nothing in this thread would impact the general rules for Touch Spells.
The only character option I'm aware of that can TWF with a spell is the Magus (or Magus-flavored archetypes of other classes).
I couldn't tell from your post, but when you're holding the charge on a touch spell, you do indeed threaten with that spell.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Joe, That is my thought as well, and I have ruled that it does not work at a PFS table before.
Not that the Magus couldn't get Dex to Damge at all, since he would still be able to when he is not using Spell Combat or otherwise using the off hand in some way, such as wielding a Two Handed weapon or actually TWF with a second weapon.
There was a post where the player actually did this, and didn't use the DD ability when using Spell Combat, with or without Spellstrike.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but when you're holding the charge on a touch spell, you do indeed threaten with that spell.And this is what makes me think of having a "spell" in an off-hand as a "weapon".
But even still, does it count as carrying a weapon in your off hand? I don't think you carry spells even if they are held touch spells.