So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society

451 to 500 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
*

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:


The only thing RAW DD explicitly says is that you must not be carrying weapons in the off-hand, in the present tense.

English is not so precise that it distinguishes between immediate now and general now.

If you go to see black panther (and you should), midway through the movie head to the bathroom (hey, i'm old and those sodas are huge) and someone asks if you are here watching black panther the snarky but technically correct answer is "no, I'm watching this graffiti on the wall" but it is also correct to answer "Eyup" even though you are not at that precise moment in time watching the screen, its still your overall activity from 6 to 8.

Once you could answer either way correctly it becomes very clear which one is meant.

Context tells us what words are supposed to mean.

As King, Arthur wielded great power.

With Excalibur, Arthur wielded great power.

In the first we know that he didn't literally hold something in his hand. In the second, we do. 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.

In your example, claiming that you are watching the graffiti is not the correct answer, "technically" or otherwise. The context makes it clear he's asking you if you are at the theater to watch the black panther. Ignoring context is the only way you can claim that answer is correct.

For the sake of avoiding pointless bickering, I'm not going to accuse anyone of doing that here.

* 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.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
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.

Yes, I'm snipping just a section of your post away from the rest, but only because it's the piece I want to focus on.

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.


Cyrad wrote:
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.


Cyrad wrote:

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. (I say quite because casting time does limit the number of spells one can cast, but that is not the point here. :)

Shadow Lodge

Curaigh wrote:
Keep in mind TWF is not a full-attack action. It is a Special Action that takes a full-round action.

Uh... no, it is a full-attack action.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

See how it never defines an action? It just says you get an extra attack, and relies on the fact that the rules say you have to use the Full-Attack Action in order to get multiple attacks in a round.

Spell Combat, on the other hand, does define that you use it as a full-round action, making it a distinct action separate from a full-attack action.


Ack I really screwed that up. I thought it was under the special actions or the table listing actions. 'Tis in neither. My bad. Withdrawn.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

*

While I am not sure that my continued discussion will improve the situation, I feel your response is made in good faith, without snark, and for the sake of self education, I'll respond.

Nefreet wrote:

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.

First, resorting to dictionary definitions is absolutely part and parcel to how we have been explicitly told to parse rules. As Lau has repeated, if a word is not given an in-game definition, we use it's plain english meaning.

Second, the word absolutely has context in Pathfinder. It has the context of how it is used any time it is used.

With the crown, Arthur wielded great power

I have not defined any of the words in that sentence, but the context of how I used "wielded' tells us that I am not talking about Arthur brandishing the crown as a weapon. I'm confident that 95% of those reading the thread know the crown is not a literal weapon.

Pathfinder operates the same way. It is invalid to say any word "means nothing" as a basis for any argument regarding the rules.

In this case, the context tells us that "carry" means the physical holding of a weapon or shield. Further, the very fact that we are checking to see if something is carried, means, a priori, that something can be carried in the off hand and that it may not be a weapon or shield. I don't mean this to be derogative, but this is isn't a case of interpretation.

Quote:
The latter is used with frequent regularity, and is referenced in feats and abilities and FAQs galore.

That's right. But I haven't seen a single use of wield with "a spell as it's being cast." Can you identify such a usage?

Quote:
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".

Regardless, DD mandates that a weapon or shield must be carried. So regardless of which word has more value/meaning, you don't get to ignore the requirement of either. It's no more valid to ignore the "carry" requirement than it is to ignore the off hand requirement. I can't deny DD by saying, "well, it's not really the off hand that matters, but that you're carrying something in either hand."

Quote:
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.

There's no need to switch words. You simply give full face and credit to each clause. If it isn't the off hand, it doesn't count. If it's not a shield or weapon, it doesn't count. If it's not carried, it doesn't count.

It isn't valid to ignore any one of those constraints or pretend they don't apply. The PDT has never issued a FAQ or rules clarification that advocates that approach. Nor have I ever seen any rules clarification where they advocate focusing on one word such that we get to ignore another. Nor do they make statements that words undefined don't have any meaning. As such, arguments that advocate or rely on this approach, aren't valid. Again, that's not mean to be pejorative.

None of that changes my desire to have this clarified. Nor do I know what the PDT wants in this case. I encourage people to continue to debate this until it is clarified.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

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.

PRD Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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.

The argument that to wield a weapon means you have to by carrying something is demonstratively false and thus not a valid argument.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Disclaimer: All “you”s in the above paragraph are generic.

Grand Lodge *

I would seriously consider never playing with a GM that ruled the restrictive way on Dervish Dancer. After such a ruling what other rules would be misinterpreted? There would be a worry anything you do the GM would invalidate with his own non-standard version of RAI.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Quote:
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.


N N 959 wrote:


PRD Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sabrina X wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Hillis Mallory III wrote:
Quote:
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.

*

Hillis Mallory III wrote:
So, are you talking about a spell, or Unarmed combat? I am unsure.

I'm talking about Patfhinder telling us that wielding is not always carrying and vice versa.

Quote:
When you have Improved Unarmed Combat, your hands/fists count as manufactured weapons

Technically it counts as natural weapon. The spell magic weapon does not work on IUS or natural weapons. Magic fang does, but it's not important whether what type of weapon it is.

Quote:
You "wield" your weapon when you set yourself to use your fists in this way, with either TWF or Flurry.

Perfect. So your understanding of the rules is the same as mine, to TWF, you must wield a weapon in your off hand.

Let's see if I can make this simple:

1. You must wield a weapon in the off hand when you TWF.

2. You can TWF with Improved Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons

3. You can still "carry a weapon or shield" in a hand that is affected by IUS or a natural weapon.

If wielding = carrying, then nobody with IUS or a natural weapon could carry any weapon in their hands.

Let me ask you, if I am carrying a longsword in my off hand, is any GM in PF, going to let me carry a battle axe in that same hand? No. If I have IUS, can I pick up a battle axe in my off hand? Yes.

If wielding = carrying, anyone with IUS or a natural would not be able to carry any other weapon. And it gets worse:

PRD wrote:
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)

Guess what? As Lau points out, you don't even need IUS or natural weapon to use TWF. That means everyone can use TWF completely unarmed. But you and I have already agreed, that for the purposes of TWF, you "MUST" be considered to be wielding a weapon. PRD even tells us, specifically, that the unarmed attack counts as a weapon "for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties"

What is BNW argumenet contingent on? The entire argument is balanced on the idea that you're TWF, thus you must be wielding a weapon. Well...so what? You can clearly wield a weapon for TWF despite not carrying a shield or weapon in that hand.

The entire argument is invalid. You don't have to carry a weapon to satisfy TWF requirements. So despite the ambiguity of Spell Combat being "much like" TWF, and regardless of whether "a spell being cast" is considered a weapon for TWF, there is nothing that says you are carrying a weapon or shield in that off hand.

Quote:
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.

Even if we agree what "much like" is suppose to mean, nothing says you are carrying a weapon. And per the rules, you don't have to be carrying anything in your off hand to TWF.

Any argument that insist TWF means you must be carrying something in the off hand is demonstratively wrong. You can TWF without carrying anything, but you still must be wielding a weapon.

*

Hillis Mallory III wrote:
So, are you talking about a spell, or Unarmed combat? I am unsure.

I'm talking about Patfhinder telling us that wielding is not always carrying and vice versa.

Quote:
When you have Improved Unarmed Combat, your hands/fists count as manufactured weapons

Technically it counts as natural weapon. The spell magic weapon does not work on IUS or natural weapons. Magic fang does, but it's not important what type of weapon it is.

Quote:
You "wield" your weapon when you set yourself to use your fists in this way, with either TWF or Flurry.

Perfect. So your understanding of the rules is the same as mine, to TWF, you must wield a weapon in your off hand.

Let's see if I can make this simple:

1. You must wield a weapon in the off hand when you TWF.

2. You can TWF with Improved Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons

3. You can still "carry a weapon or shield" in a hand that is affected by IUS or a natural weapon.

If wielding = carrying, then nobody with IUS or a natural weapon could carry any weapon in their hands.

Let me ask you, if I am carrying a longsword in my off hand, is any GM in PF, going to let me carry a battle axe in that same hand? No. If I have IUS, can I pick up a battle axe in my off hand? Yes.

If wielding = carrying, anyone with IUS or a natural would not be able to carry any other weapon. And it gets worse:

PRD wrote:
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)

Guess what? As Lau points out, you don't even need IUS or natural weapon to use TWF. That means everyone can use TWF completely unarmed. But you and I have already agreed, that for the purposes of TWF, you "MUST" be considered to be wielding a weapon. PRD even tells us, specifically, that the unarmed attack counts as a weapon "for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties"

What is BNW argumenet contingent on? The entire argument is balanced on the idea that you're TWF, thus you must be wielding a weapon. Well...so what? You can clearly wield a weapon for TWF despite not carrying a shield or weapon in that hand.

The entire argument is invalid. You don't have to carry a weapon to satisfy TWF requirements. So despite the ambiguity of Spell Combat being "much like" TWF, and regardless of whether "a spell being cast" is considered a weapon for TWF, there is nothing that says you are carrying a weapon or shield in that off hand.

Quote:
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.

Even if we agree what "much like" is suppose to mean, nothing says you are carrying a weapon. And per the rules, you don't have to be carrying anything in your off hand to TWF.

Any argument that insist TWF means you must be carrying something in the off hand is demonstratively wrong. You can TWF without carrying anything, but you still must be wielding a weapon.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

This will never be resolved until we receive a clarification as to whether or not the magus's spell is considered a weapon carried in his off-hand during spell combat.

Scarab Sages *****

Nefreet wrote:

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.

*

Nefreet wrote:
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.

Of course, it's the way you can get around the restriction. If GMs, can declare any requirement or clause irrelevant, then anything is possible.

My position, is really Lau's position. I didn't come up with it, Lau did. Apologies to Lau if I've misrepresented anything he/she posted. His/her position isn't contingent on declaring that words in the actual rules have no meaning and specific words used are irrelevant and red herrings. Frankly, I've never seen that argument used by the PDT, so based on history, I'm of the opinion that approach is not sufficient here.

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. They could also decide that you can't use your off hand, but that isn't what the rules currently say, it could be what they intended to say. So regardless of how I read the rules at present, it's possible that's not how it is suppose to work.

Quote:
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.

EDIT: Tried to make the post feel non-combative.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


Quote:
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.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
This will never be resolved until we receive a clarification as to whether or not the magus's spell is considered a weapon carried in his off-hand during spell combat.

Its been said numerous times, but they are immune to the suggestion

*

Nefreet wrote:

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.

Nobody is targeting anything. You keep trying to allege fallacies because you're getting your ego into this. 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;

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.

That's it. It has nothing to do with wrong or right. There is no wrong and right. There is only what the PDT decides the rules mean. I took a similar stance with spiked shields.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So if I "carry" my own hand does that mean if I put it in my pocket I need a conceal-carry permit :-P

*

Nefreet wrote:


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.

Really?

Swordmaster's Flair ACG, p. 236 wrote:
These garish tokens usually take the form of a colorful clothing accessories. So long as a token is grasped in the user’s off hand, she can spend 1 panache point to gain the use of a specific ability associated with the token.

Perhaps someone other than Nefreet can explain to me how we have another example of the "off hand" being referred to as carrying something outside of TWF?

Nefreet wrote:
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.

*scratches head* That sounds a lot like Slashing Grace

PRD, last sentence of Slashing Grace wrote:
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.

Maybe I've got my signals crossed, but is sounds like you are telling me that

"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." =="You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."

*

Let me look for other uses of off hand....

(Disciple's Doctrine pg. 9) wrote:
Book-Bound (Su): As long as he wields his spellbook in his off hand, the magus can take an immediate action to gain a +4 bonus on a concentration check he attempts within the next round. This bonus stacks with other bonuses, including the bonus from the concentrate arcana. The magus can use this ability three times per day.

So this says "wield" and not "carry," Why? We've been told there is no distinction. But I have to say, I'm not seeing any requirement to actually attack with the spellbook that is being wielded in the offhand.

Ultimate Equipment pg. 81 wrote:

Falconry gauntlet

This gauntlet, made from layers of thick leather, is worn on a falconer’s off hand to give a falcon a place to stand before and after the hunt. The gauntlet also has a tassel and a ring to attach to a falcon’s tether.

I have to be honest, I'm not seeing any requirement that this thing is used in TWF. So if you aren't TWF, does it just fall to the ground, since "the off-hand only exists while you're attacking with it on your turn?" How do you strap it on if you're not attacking? How does one find his or her off hand outside of combat?

Weapon Master's Handbook pg. 8 wrote:

One-Handed Weapon Tricks

These weapon tricks are common among the Aldori swordlords and many weapon masters of Tian Xia. You can use these tricks only while wearing light or no armor, wielding a light or one-handed manufactured weapon in one hand, and holding nothing in your off hand.

Not sure how that works. If you only have an off hand while fighting with it, then you have to be TWF to use the One-Handed weapon tricks? That would mean you have to have IUS or you're going to suffer a lot of AoO's while using that off hand to attack.

If there is no such thing as an off hand outside of attacking with it, I'm confused why so many things reference it outside of TWF?

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
*scratches head* That sounds a lot like Slashing Grace

Sure does, doesn't it?

***** ⦵⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
What matters is what you're doing with your off-hand

spock eyebrow

*

Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
*scratches head* That sounds a lot like Slashing Grace
Sure does, doesn't it?
N N 959 wrote:
From the get go, the debate is really about whether DD should work given that SG doesn't.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

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. :-)

Scarab Sages **

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.

***** ⦵⦵⦵

Bob wrote:
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...

Silver Crusade *****

N N 959 wrote:

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.

Quote:


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

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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 ^_^

Regardless, this discussion is different from that one on multiple levels. This one is multifaceted, that one was black and white. This one just needs clarity, that one was either/or. I don't have a horse in this race, and will be happy ruling however we're supposed to. The other discussion broke my understanding of how the game works, and I just resign to not deal with it.

**** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

Cyrad wrote:

The real point of contention isn't Dervish Dance itself but rather this line from spell combat.

Spell Combat wrote:
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.

Sczarni ***** ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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-Agent, Indiana—Lafayette aka Poison Dusk

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think someone is being insulting or breaking any other rules of the forums please do not respond to it. Just flag it and move on. Let's try and keep the boards civil. Thanks. ;)

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

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.

**** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

Nefreet wrote:
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".

* Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

451 to 500 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / So what are we doing about Dervish Dance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.