|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like by default we are told to read rules in a conversational tone. That means to me that carry in hand should go to the simple term of have something in hand and not into some complex translation of the term to mean wield or use or whatever.
So to me a conversational reading of this rule says "that it's a go if I'm not holding in hand a weapon or shield." Any other interpretation is trying to "read the hidden text" and draw in complex rules that frankly we've not yet been told to pull into this.
This is why my view is it works, the simple reading leads to that.
Like by default we are told to read rules in a conversational tone. That means to me that carry in hand should go to the simple term of have something in hand and not into some complex translation of the term to mean wield or use or whatever.
So to me a conversational reading of this rule says "that it's a go if I'm not holding in hand a weapon or shield." Any other interpretation is trying to "read the hidden text" and draw in complex rules that frankly we've not yet been told to pull into this.
This is why my view is it works, the simple reading leads to that.
My problem with reading things like that comes from other text. If we read the words "carry in hand" conversationally then how do we parse the monk text for AC Bonus and just the word carry? Does a monk with a shield in his bag lose his AC bonus? I don't think anyone would argue you aren't carrying the shield at this point.
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
|
|
My problem with reading things like that comes from other text. If we read the words "carry in hand" conversationally then how do we parse the monk text for AC Bonus and just the word carry? Does a monk with a shield in his bag lose his AC bonus? I don't think anyone would argue you aren't carrying the shield at this point.
AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.
Yes that is how monk's work, monk's really hate having AC if a shield is on their person. I don't see what other interpretation you'd have from that line.
Like the only reasons I can think of for not reading the words and applying them as the rules are 1) overcomplicating it 2) intentionally trying to avoid/twist the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, I just felt the need to point out that sometimes clearly they didn't mean the basic definition of a word. This is why I think if we ever see a 2.0 having a set of keywords would help.
|
|
I agree, I just felt the need to point out that sometimes clearly they didn't mean the basic definition of a word. This is why I think if we ever see a 2.0 having a set of keywords would help.
What do you mean? You just agreed that the text does what it says it does, that the monk loses his AC if he has a shield. Why would you use that as an example of when things aren't clear?
I agree, I just felt the need to point out that sometimes clearly they didn't mean the basic definition of a word. This is why I think if we ever see a 2.0 having a set of keywords would help.What do you mean? You just agreed that the text does what it says it does, that the monk loses his AC if he has a shield. Why would you use that as an example of when things aren't clear?
So your actually under the rules belief that if the party monk picks up a shield and puts in their backpack they lose their AC bonus?
|
|
So you're actually under the rules belief that if the party monk picks up a shield and puts in their backpack they lose their AC bonus?I agree, I just felt the need to point out that sometimes clearly they didn't mean the basic definition of a word. This is why I think if we ever see a 2.0 having a set of keywords would help.What do you mean? You just agreed that the text does what it says it does, that the monk loses his AC if he has a shield. Why would you use that as an example of when things aren't clear?
Yes since that's what the rules say and I see no reason to think that the rules aren't supposed to mean what they say there. It seems by your question that you don't actually share that view. Why are you not of that belief? Why do you think it means something different than what it says?
|
Yes since that's what the rules say and I see no reason to think that the rules aren't supposed to mean what they say there. It seems by your question that you don't actually share that view. Why are you not of that belief? Why do you think it means something different than what it says?So you're actually under the rules belief that if the party monk picks up a shield and puts in their backpack they lose their AC bonus?I agree, I just felt the need to point out that sometimes clearly they didn't mean the basic definition of a word. This is why I think if we ever see a 2.0 having a set of keywords would help.What do you mean? You just agreed that the text does what it says it does, that the monk loses his AC if he has a shield. Why would you use that as an example of when things aren't clear?
Because it makes absolutely zero sense that a Monk wouldn't get their AC for having a shield strapped to their backpack and not get any shield AC bonus. You'd think the backpack itself would be more a hindrance than just having a shield in storage.
The implication is, that Carry actually does mean Wield. The implication otherwise is just silly.
|
|
Because it makes absolutely zero sense that a Monk wouldn't get their AC for having a shield strapped to their backpack and not get any shield AC bonus. You'd think the backpack itself would be more a hindrance than just having a shield in storage.
The implication is, that Carry actually does mean Wield. The implication otherwise is just silly.
It makes absolutely zero sense that a pixie can crane wing block a elder red wyrm's bite attack, yet that's the rules. To me, since this is a rule no other rule can be too silly.
|
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.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".
See the next line in Spell Combat. :)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
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".
The thing is, if you're using Spell Combat, there are basically three scenarios:
1) You cast a spell that doesn't involve attack rolls, like Shield.
There's nothing to threaten with.
Nefreet/BNW contend that "but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" means that that hand is carrying a weapon the entire round.
But after casting has been completed, the spell is no longer "a spell that is being cast", and the Shield spell would be floating in the air, not making contact with your hand.
Since Spell Combat also clearly says that you do the spellcasting either before or after regular attacks, I think there is no "hand memory" other than the -2 to hit penalty that the rules actually mention. Any other hand memory is inventing unwritten rules.
2) You Spell Combat cast a touch spell and elect to deliver it with the off-hand that cast it.
You are NOT using Spellstrike. Now your off-hand threatens. Is it carrying a weapon that would invalidate Dervish Dance though? That depends - the original designer commentary was that only really weaponlike spells like Flame Blade would invalidate Dervish Dance.
But the contention of Nefreet/BNW is that Spell Combat makes spells weapons. So if I Spell Combat, leave the Shocking Grasp on my off-hand, miss an attack with it, and then attack with my scimitar, I can't use Dervish Dance because according to them, during Spell Combat Shocking Grasp would be just as weaponlike as Flame Blade. However, the next round I decide to make a regular 2WF attack, we're not Spell Combating anymore, Shocking Grasp is not as weaponlike as it was last round and I can use Dervish Dance?
3) You Spell Combat cast a touch spell and use Spellstrike to deliver it with your main weapon.
At no point does your off-hand threaten. While the spell is being cast, it's not yet fully there and you can't attack with it. When it's fully cast then it's on your main hand and it's the main hand threatening to deliver the spell.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
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".
A spell is not a weapon, even in the case of held charges for touch spells. When you hold a charge, the spell is not actually the "weapon" you threaten with -- you threaten with your touch attacks. Holding a charge simply lets your touch attacks be considered as an "armed unarmed attack."
See rules for "Armed Unarmed Attacks."
|
|
Any other hand memory is inventing unwritten rules.
Stop accusing people of inventing rules, ie, cheating. That is a spurious accusation to make for organized play and you seriously lack an argument remotely good enough to make it.
It is not inventing an unwritten rule to follow the clear intent of keeping an off hand weapon out of your hand for the duration of your attack routine. There is no, zero, nadda, zilch indication that you are supposed to be able to evade the restriction by playing hot potato with weapons or spells. There is no wording that indicates that the restriction only applies in the plank time of your attack. The assumption that it does is not a rule and not accepting what appears to be a clear exploit in pursuit of mechanical advantage is not inventing rules it is following clear precedent set by them.
You cannot drop a weapon to avoid two weapon fighting penalties on your second attack
You cannot pick up a weapon to avoid two weapon fighting penalties on your first attack.
For the very similar slashing grace your hand is occupied for your attack despite the allegedly purely sequential nature of the magusflurry attack routine.
|
|
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".A spell is not a weapon, even in the case of held charges for touch spells. When you hold a charge, the spell is not actually the "weapon" you threaten with -- you threaten with your touch attacks. Holding a charge simply lets your touch attacks be considered as an "armed unarmed attack."
See rules for "Armed Unarmed Attacks."
That is a distinction fine enough to induce nuclear fission. There is no functional difference between the spell that lets you make a touch attack with that spell and the touch attack.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
That is a distinction fine enough to induce nuclear fission. There is no functional difference between the spell that lets you make a touch attack with that spell and the touch attack.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".A spell is not a weapon, even in the case of held charges for touch spells. When you hold a charge, the spell is not actually the "weapon" you threaten with -- you threaten with your touch attacks. Holding a charge simply lets your touch attacks be considered as an "armed unarmed attack."
See rules for "Armed Unarmed Attacks."
You're not threatening with the spell. You're threatening with the touch attack. The text never says nor suggests you're "wielding" the spell.
Only that having a touch spell charge creates a situation where your unarmed attack is considered armed.Spells are not weapons.
|
|
Spells are not weapons.
anything slanted all funny is a quote
Magic chapter on ranges
A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can.
A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
note, not the touch attack, the touch spell. The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't seem to be there. They're used interchangeably.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Any other hand memory is inventing unwritten rules.Stop accusing people of inventing rules, ie, cheating. That is a spurious accusation to make for organized play and you seriously lack an argument remotely good enough to make it.
It's precisely what the argument is about though. I'm not trying to accuse you of any malice or intent to cheat (my apologies if it sounded that way). But I do think you're inferring rules that don't actually exist.
You keep turning one thing that's in the rules (-2 penalty for the whole routine) into something that's not in there (hands remembering that they hold or used to hold something).
There is no wording that indicates that the restriction only applies in the plank time of your attack.
It's a plain reading of the text. When you make the attack, you check if you're allowed to use the feat. If at that moment you meet all the requirements, you can use it.
You cannot drop a weapon to avoid two weapon fighting penalties on your second attack
And nobody is saying that. If you start your full attack with "I'm going to 2WF" then you take those penalties on all your attacks. If you don't declare that then you can't make off-hand attacks.
You cannot pick up a weapon to avoid two weapon fighting penalties on your first attack.
I'm not sure what that even means? Are you talking about picking up a weapon after the first attack? (FAQ link) describes the core idea of 2WF clearly enough: if you're getting extra attacks then it's 2WF. So if you didn't take the penalty on your first attack then you closed the door to getting extra attacks that round.
For the very similar slashing grace your hand is occupied for your attack despite the allegedly purely sequential nature of the magusflurry attack routine.
"Occupied with holding or doing anything" and "carrying a weapon or shield" are not the same things. A hand is occupied if it makes an unarmed attack, but it's not carrying that unarmed attack.
The language isn't the same at all:
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.
It's not a case of one or two words being slightly different. They're entirely different sentences. This is what I mean by you inferring rules that aren't actually there. You want things to be nice and consistent so you have to draw equations here that aren't actually in the text.
This difference is important. If I'm holding an off-hand weapon and get disarmed I'm no longer carrying it. Dervish Dance goes back on. Slashing Grace maybe[i] goes back on, if holding the weapon was the only thing stopping me.
But if I [i]used that weapon then I'm doing the 2WF action that Slashing Grace specifically prohibits, and Dervish Dance doesn't. So if I get disarmed of my off-hand weapon during Dervish Dance 2WF, the feat goes on, but Slashing Grace wouldn't.
Likewise, Spell Combat meets the definition of Slashing Grace for occupying a hand (by FAQ fiat), but it doesn't meet the plain-English definition of carrying for Dervish Dance.
As for the "allegedly purely sequential nature of the magusflurry attack routine": that's in the rules:
A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Spells are not weapons.anything slanted all funny is a quote
Magic chapter on ranges
A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can.
A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
note, not the touch attack, the touch spell. The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't seem to be there. They're used interchangeably.
Not all spells are weapons.
Flame Blade? Definitely creates a weapon. The effect of the spell is a weapon.
Shocking Grasp? Makes you armed and dangerous, just like a weapon. If something is like another thing, then it's not that thing, otherwise you'd write "can score a critical hit just like any other weapon" or "can score a critical hit because it counts as a weapon". But it's not precisely a weapon; you can't disarm it for example.
Shield spell? Certainly not a weapon.
|
|
It's a plain reading of the text. When you make the attack, you check if you're allowed to use the feat. If at that moment you meet all the requirements, you can use it.
It very much is not the plain reading. When can refer to an exact moment or it can refer to a time frame. Using it to mean an exact moment is a very legalistic, technical, and overly literal reading of the rules. "I picked up some milk when i went to the movies" probably means that they stopped on the way back from the movies , not that that they bought a gallon of milk at the candy counter for $18.95.
If you want to accuse me of making stuff up you have to refute that and you can't. You have to accuse me of making stuff up because once that ambiguity exists at all, once thats a legitimate question to ask you're looking at evidence and that does not look good for dervish dance. The more people keep evading that discussion by insisting there's no discussion to be had the more convinced i am that this combo doesn't work. You're trying to tell me that the exact literal statement that works around any actual meaning the words are supposed to have is the one that we're supposed to go with? Thats sketchy. That you HAVE to go with it? Oh hell no.
|
|
shocking Grasp? Makes you armed and dangerous, just like a weapon. If something is like another thing, then it's not that thing, otherwise you'd write "can score a critical hit just like any other weapon" or "can score a critical hit because it counts as a weapon".
It is like that thing in some ways (or it would not be described as such) and it is unlike that thing in some other ways (or it would be that thing). Is it enough like a weapon that it shuts off dervish dance?
That is a subjective question. But its not exactly 100% like a weapon therefore i KNOW its not going to interact like a weapon in any particular instance doesn't follow. You have to figure it out from the exact circumstances.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
BigNorseWolf, all abilities with attack rolls can potentially crit. Spells crit if their delivery method crits. That doesn't make them weapons.
You can't have Weapon Focus (spell), but you can have Weapon Focus (touch). Why? Because spells are not weapons.
Their effects can create weapons. Their delivery methods could be considered weapons. But spells, themselves, are not weapons. Touch spells don't change that.
|
|
Their effects can create weapons. Their delivery methods could be considered weapons. But spells, themselves, are not weapons. Touch spells don't change that.
You are offering nothing to support that and not answering citations that show otherwise.
If it hits like a weapon
crits like a weapon
threatens like a weapon
is a weapon in your off hand
there is more than enough basis to conclude it counts as a weapon for most intents and purposes, including this one.
|
|
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.
If I'm not carrying anything, how am I able to make AoO? How am I providing flank? Why is it when I pick something up, the spell is discharged (effectively "dropping" the spell)?
See the next line in Spell Combat. :)
You're basically making my point for me:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
So, in order to use this ability in the first place, I can't have anything in my hand. This implies, to me (along with the first line of Spell Combat), that you can't have anything in your hand in order to activate Spell Combat, but once you do, there's a spell there.
The thing is if you're using Spell Combat, there are basically three scenarios:
The trivialities between these scenarios are moot, because of the second sentence of Spell Combat. It doesn't matter WHAT spell you're using, what matters is that you're using it will Spell Combat, thus "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast." You also seem to be attacking some made-up argument that ANY spell can be considered a weapon, which is way out of context of any point made by anyone. My point was any touch attack spell that is still charged in your hand is a weapon. Flame Blade and Shield aren't touch attack spells, so that's pointless. Shocking Grasp is, so I would argue that is a "weapon" in the context of "Am I armed and do I offer a flank?", and the answer to those questions is yes.
I don't think, at any point, anybody tried to argue that every spell is a weapon. I simply took the second sentence of Spell Combat and applied it to the standard rules of having a touch attack spell charge held in an open hand. Spell Combat doesn't care what spell you are casting, it only cares that your off-hand is free (3rd sentence), but then says you "treat" the spell as the off-hand weapon.
|
|
I think the bigger point here is that everything is semantics and wordplay. Some people see the meaning as one thing, and others see it as something else. The issue is nobody is necessarily "wrong" or "right". I can understand both arguments to this situation, but I just don't agree with allowing DD to fire with Spell Combat. Until there's clarification by Paizo, a GM can rule either way and not be "wrong".
Which is why this is a problem that should be addressed. Which is really what MOST of us want out of this. We don't want 500+ posts of bickering about how "I'm right and you're wrong". BNW made it VERY CLEAR that all he wanted was closure, and this is now turned into a dogpile over rules and semantics (for which I have contributed, I do admit).
So let's all just get over the fact that nobody agrees on this and keeping poking Paizo until they address the issue.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Some of this points are the same that was used to effect a third attack from the touch spell after the full round action is over. (using the "free" action the spell gives) The problem with this, as we get into the weeds, is that the Full Round action is the entire turn for that character. Some have disagreed on this point, but this situation here clearly is not outside the bounds of that full round action.
It matters not when that Off Hand is used within the round, or what spell is cast, it is still considered to be casting that spell as a part of Spell Combat. Spellstrike is not a consideration here, that is a separate action that is used after the spell is cast.
The focus is whether or not the hand is occupied with that spell and if that is enough to be unable to use Dervish Dance with Spell Combat.
The "Plank" timing of when that spell is or is not in the hand is moot and not really a consideration.
|
|
Unfortunately, a 500 post dog pile seems to be the only way to attract attention to an issue. Anything smaller doesn't get a nod.
Which is why this is a problem that should be addressed. Which is really what MOST of us want out of this. We don't want 500+ posts of bickering about how "I'm right and you're wrong". BNW made it VERY CLEAR that all he wanted was closure, and this is now turned into a dogpile over rules and semantics (for which I have contributed, I do admit).So let's all just get over the fact that nobody agrees on this and keeping poking Paizo until they address the issue.
And even so, we rarely, if ever, see an actual answer on things like this, and certainly not in a timely fashion. By the time this gets answered, everyone's forgotten there was an argument (at least until the ever 6 month post gets put up about it.)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
Rays are not spells. They're a type of effect with its own set of rules.
And Weapon Focus (ray) is valid only because their rules explicitly say they're treated as weapons for these options.
Their effects can create weapons. Their delivery methods could be considered weapons. But spells, themselves, are not weapons. Touch spells don't change that.
You are offering nothing to support that and not answering citations that show otherwise.
If it hits like a weapon
crits like a weapon
threatens like a weapon
is a weapon in your off handthere is more than enough basis to conclude it counts as a weapon for most intents and purposes, including this one.
If my polymophed wizard walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, he still does not take bonus damage from a +1 animal bane arrow.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rays are not spells. They're a type of effect with its own set of rules.
And Weapon Focus (ray) is valid only because their rules explicitly say they're treated as weapons for these options.If my polymophed wizard walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, he still does not take bonus damage from a +1 animal bane arrow.
Their effects can create weapons. Their delivery methods could be considered weapons. But spells, themselves, are not weapons. Touch spells don't change that.
You are offering nothing to support that and not answering citations that show otherwise.
If it hits like a weapon
crits like a weapon
threatens like a weapon
is a weapon in your off handthere is more than enough basis to conclude it counts as a weapon for most intents and purposes, including this one.
I'm not sure I parse this response. The only way in Pathfinder to get a ray is with a spell or other magical effect. So saying a ray is not a spell is kinda disingenuous at best.
|
|
I'd like to ask for some clarifications from the camp that says that Dervish Dance does not work with Spell Combat because you are "carrying" the spell in your off hand.
1) Do you think that Dervish Dance is negated when using Spell Combat to cast spells that are not delivered by touch attack (e.g., shield)? If so, why?
2) Would you allow the use of Dervish Dance for attacks made before casting a touch-attack spell? If not, why not?
3) If the magus uses Spellstrike, do you consider that the spell is still carried in the off hand? If so, why?
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All answers only my opinion not applicable to other peoples reasoning.
1. Yes its still using that off-hand to cast the spell.
2. No for the same reason i wouldn't allow you to attack with dervish dance drop that weapon and then quick-draw another weapon in the off-hand to dervish dance with.
3. Uses spell strike how? As part of spell combat yes it still needs that free hand to cast it. As part of just casting the spell as a standard action can't see where it would matter.
|
|
I'd like to ask for some clarifications from the camp that says that Dervish Dance does not work with Spell Combat because you are "carrying" the spell in your off hand.
1) Do you think that Dervish Dance is negated when using Spell Combat to cast spells that are not delivered by touch attack (e.g., shield)? If so, why?
2) Would you allow the use of Dervish Dance for attacks made before casting a touch-attack spell? If not, why not?
3) If the magus uses Spellstrike, do you consider that the spell is still carried in the off hand? If so, why?
Thank you.
I know this will likely spark most of the same arguments we've had for almost 550 posts, but the answer to all 3 would be for the same reasons with Slashing Grace.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the responses from Talonhawke and Tallow, it appears that the reasons for disallowing Dervish Dance are more about the rules for Slashing Grace than for the rules for Dervish Dance. My ruling as a GM would be based on the following:
1) Spell Combat requires a free hand, but does not state that the hand remains occupied after the spell is cast.
2) Slashing Grace says that using the off hand for anything else negates its use, but Dervish Dance has a less general limitation.
3) The condition placed on the use of Dervish Dance is not said to last for the entire round - it is checked only at the time the attack is made (i.e., are you carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand at the time of the attack?).
4) I agree that a spell held on the off hand should be treated as a weapon for all intents and purposes; however, since the Dervish Dance magus will almost certainly be using the scimitar to make the attack using Spell Strike, the spell should not be considered to be held in the off hand during the attack. If the magus elects to keep the spell in the off hand in order to make touch attacks, then his or her scimitar attacks cannot use Dervish Dance.
4) I consider the description of Spell Combat being "like two-weapon fighting" to be more in the nature that you must declare Spell Combat before making your first attack in the round and that the -2 to your attack rolls for the round apply even if you later decide not to actually cast a spell. For example, in Round 1, you declare Spell Combat, cast a spell, take your free attack, miss, take your normal attack and also miss. In Round 2, you declare Spell Combat and take your normal attack and if you miss again, you may decide to decline to cast a spell so that you may maintain your charge to try again on the next round; however, you've still taken the -2 on your attack roll for the turn.
So in the end, the question really becomes, do you think Dervish Dance should have an errata issued to read like Slashing Grace? If you don't, then the rules are pretty clear that it should work with Spell Combat/Spell Strike.
|
My decision would not actually be based on the rules.
Given that:
A) The answer regarding the legality of this is currently in a grey area (though wasn't always)
B) It is a somewhat common build that many players have used in good faith
C) I do not believe it behooves PFS to rule against players when there is ambiguity in the rules
I would allow it until such time as a clarification states otherwise.
|
|
You can't have Weapon Focus (spell), but you can have Weapon Focus (touch). Why? Because spells are not weapons.
Exception to the general: "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
I realize I said 'next line,' when I should have said 'one of the next' lines in an earlier response. @ Joe, that is the point I was trying to make (I agree with you.)
I'd like to ask for some clarifications from the camp that says that Dervish Dance does not work with Spell Combat because you are "carrying" the spell in your off hand.
1) Do you think that Dervish Dance is negated when using Spell Combat to cast spells that are not delivered by touch attack (e.g., shield)? If so, why?
2) Would you allow the use of Dervish Dance for attacks made before casting a touch-attack spell? If not, why not?
3) If the magus uses Spellstrike, do you consider that the spell is still carried in the off hand? If so, why?
Thank you.
1. Yes. Spell combat says the spell being cast is the off-hand weapon.
2. Yes. Unless you mean for attacks made before the spell in the same round. which I assume you do, such as when using Spell Combat.2. No. Spell Combat is a Special Action that allows a magus to make two standard actions by taking a full-round action.
3. No. Unless you mean using Spellstrike in conjunction with Spell Combat, which, again, I assume you do.
3. Yes. Not because of Spellstrike but because of the full-round Special Action that is Spell Combat which says the off-hand weapon is a spell. :)
|
|
If my polymophed wizard walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, he still does not take bonus damage from a +1 animal bane arrow.
No, but he does float, quack, fly, gain the ability to hold his breath, swim like a duck, have feathers, gains lowlight vision, fit in a bread box, is duck colored, can peck his own butt and dozens of other ducklike qualities.
So the question is whether the appropriate analogy is "type is changed to animal" or "has feathers" and I don't think you can just pick one and insist its THE rule because the game does both sometimes.
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 39 people marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to have a bit of a split in the community on dervish dance
Hey folks,
In light of the Slashing Grace FAQ and in a vacuum of rules intent, I’d be inclined to say Dervish Dance wouldn’t work with a magus’s spell combat. In the realm of perfect hindsight, I imagine Dervish Dance would have been written slightly differently to mirror the language in Slashing Grace.
However, that’s not the practical reality in which we live, and after discussion with the rest of the team, it’s our belief that interpreting this feat in this way isn’t to the campaign’s benefit. Strictly in Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Dervish Dance is compatible with a magus’s spell combat.
Why?
1) An overly strict reading of the feat doesn’t preclude its combination with a spell in hand.
2) The Dervish Dance build has existed since the magus first saw print. We have roughly six years of dervish magi.
3) Adjusting Dervish Dance would represent a very significant impact on a very large number of characters, requiring a very significant amount of rebuilding.
4) The impact of Dexterity-to-damage on a magus is noticeable but not show-stopping compared to some other rebuild-level adjustments we’ve seen elsewhere.
Go forth, fire up your shocking grasp, artfully clobber an unsuspecting target, and play some great adventures. We just released two more fun stories today.
