|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a probably uninformed thought from someone who wanted to create a dex-based magus but now will probably avoid the whole class like the plague.
It seems really stupid that the only way to build a dex-based magus is to take dervish dance and that only one weapon in the entire multiverse, the scimitar, can be used by a dex-based mage. I'm sorry. That's dumb design. Either a dex-based magus should be impossible or a dex-based magus should have access to a reasonable range of weapons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Bob Jonquet keeps saying, Dex-based Maguses are still very viable, with any weapon, without Dervish Dance. You don't need Dex to damage when you are doing so much spell damage. Then when you can get a +2 weapon (late level 5 to level 7), you can add Agile.
Prior to Unchained, viable rogues were all made this way. Heck, my level 20 Ninja lasted her entire career this way, and was always viable.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magus class has real problems in that too many things all point towards one very good build. If the pieces didn't fit quite so neatly together, we might see more variation in magi builds. Imagine:
- What if the one weapon you could get Dex to damage with didn't have an impressive crit range? For example if you could only get Dex to damage with a mace. You'd have to choose between that extra damage or the better crit range of a rapier. You might see both varieties.
- What if magi didn't have to wait until level 7 to start using medium armor? There'd be less of a push for Dex-based magi because you could be strength-based and have decent armor class still.
- What is Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter were banned? You could no longer use Intensify Spell and the cheap Pearl of Power I. Spell Recall would become more valuable, and archetypes that trade it away would be less prominent, like the Kensai (which also has diminished spellcasting). You'd get a split between "warriors with a few spells" and "spellcasters with some fighting ability" builds. Again, increasing diversity.
Also it'd significantly reduce GM irritation about magus nova-builds destroying encounters in 1-2 rounds all day thanks to cheap refueling.
The magus class is entirely capable of winning an extended fight, but why bother when it's so easy to win instantly?
Dervish Dance isn't the problem. Dex and Crit reliance, and those two coming together on the scimitar, that's the problem.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect, RAI, Dervish Dance is supposed to occupy your other 'hand' for the duration of your attack routine - similar to the way you can't two-weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes.
Those things aren't really similar though. The greatsword FAQ basically means "to use a 2H weapon and get all the benefits you also need to use the opportunity to do make off-hand attacks". It's using a 2H weapon and 2WF that are incompatible. But a dervish dance scimitar cannot possibly be a 2H weapon at the same time.
There is nothing in Dervish Dance that prohibits 2WF with natural attacks or unarmed strikes or anything else that you don't carry in your off-hand. And the FAQs make it very clear that any spells you're spellstriking are held in the main weapon hand.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
SKR quotes don't matter as we've mentioned.
I'm not certain of the timing and whether or not this applies but there WAS a time when quotes by Paizo developers on the forums DID officially matter in PFS. They were considered binding.
But you're missing the point. If reasonable people disagree on what the rules say then the rules ARE unclear. No amount of rules lawyering changes the fact that the rules ARE unclear. Convincing yourself that you're right is inmaterial, the rules ARE STILL unclear
Sometimes (rarely, but it happens) a rules discussion leads to a very clear consensus with everybody (except perhaps one or two people) agreeing.
In ANY other case, when a rules discussion does not come to that consensus, then the rules ARE unclear. It doesn't matter at all how clear it is to any individual.
Reasonable people disagreeing about what the rules mean is pretty much the definition of the rules being unclear.
|
|
Don't give them ideas on bans and nerfs, if there were more cogs that worked well it would do the same thing.
If magi had access to better spells for the class there'd be more diversity too - the only real choices for level 1 are Shocking Grasp and Frostbite.
More viable weapon choices. The only reason Dex to damage is needed is because of low levels when spell damage hasn't scaled up enough to make up for a lack of static damage modifiers. By the time you can get an Agile weapon you don't really need one.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
What is Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter were banned? You could no longer use Intensify Spell and the cheap Pearl of Power I.
Seems like a reason to adjust the Pearl of Power. It really shouldn’t allow any prepared caster to recall such a spell at less than the normal level needed for such a metamagiced spell. The traits teach you how to prepare the spell that way, not how to recall it.
If magi had access to better spells for the class there'd be more diversity too - the only real choices for level 1 are Shocking Grasp and Frostbite.
Shield works fine on a Magus, especially when there are multiple opponents.
At first level, my Magus (from a home game) used a lot of Shield and Arcane Marks because it would last more than one opponent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex and Crit reliance, and those two coming together on the scimitar, that's the problem.
A slight digression here, one of my pet peeves with PF is all the "exotic" (ie. non-western) curved weapons with a 18-20 crit range - scimitar, katana, wakizashi, kurkri, etc. I'm not aware of any analysis of historical battle wounds or contemporary experiments that make such weapon 50% more likely to cause "critical hits" than long swords, short swords, etc.
|
|
one of my pet peeves with PF is all the "exotic" (ie. non-western) curved weapons with a 18-20 crit range - scimitar, katana, wakizashi, kurkri, etc.
Pathfinder pretty firmly embraces the Rule of Kewl. Things that the designers think are Kewl or that they think that most of their audience thinks are Kewl get significant mechanical advantages.
At least unlike earlier editions Katanas aren't some insanely powerful super sword (one of my pet peeves is how oriental swords and armour are so often viewed as incredibly superior to their western analogues).
In vague fairness to Paizo, real life interactions between weapons, armour and tactics are incredibly complicated. Weapon 1 is best when armour is A, but when armor moves to B then weapon 2 is clearly superior. Tactic X pretty much invalidates weapon K (or vice versa). Etc. Combine this with the fact that weapons optimal for small scale skirmishes (90+% of Pathfinder battles) can be completely different than those for actual large scale battles.
|
SKR quotes don't matter as we've mentioned.I'm not certain of the timing and whether or not this applies but there WAS a time when quotes by Paizo developers on the forums DID officially matter in PFS. They were considered binding.
This is a murky area. We have been told that only rulings and clarifications that exist in the "official" locations are binding. However, it is also disingenuous to ignore the commentary from one of the very people who (1) designed the game and (2) are the ones who would be issuing said clarification. Unfortunately, sometimes the commentary by the designers has been flawed or just plain wrong.
So, for the people who say they ignore everything anyone says unless it is in the FAQ, errata, blog, or clarification document, you really need to be a bit more open to feedback from the designers. And for the people who say that they will take designer commentary in the forums as gospel/cannon, you need to be careful that they aren't simply giving an off-the-cuff response without fully researching all the data. We need to used both to parse RAW vs RAI and make the best (or at least good) decisions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR quotes don't matter as we've mentioned.I'm not certain of the timing and whether or not this applies but there WAS a time when quotes by Paizo developers on the forums DID officially matter in PFS. They were considered binding.This is a murky area. We have been told that only rulings and clarifications that exist in the "official" locations are binding. However, it is also disingenuous to ignore the commentary from one of the very people who (1) designed the game and (2) are the ones who would be issuing said clarification. Unfortunately, sometimes the commentary by the designers has been flawed or just plain wrong.
So, for the people who say they ignore everything anyone says unless it is in the FAQ, errata, blog, or clarification document, you really need to be a bit more open to feedback from the designers. And for the people who say that they will take designer commentary in the forums as gospel/cannon, you need to be careful that they aren't simply giving an off-the-cuff response without fully researching all the data. We need to used both to parse RAW vs RAI and make the best (or at least good) decisions.
There's the official statement AND the DEVs themselves have repeatedly said. DON'T TAKE ANYTHING WE SAY AS OFFICIAL. That means it's just some guys opinion on something and we've been told that we don't need to treat their comments as special.
Now sure, they can be used to help someone decide something. But they don't need to be considered if they are dumb and countered by better arguments.|
|
If magi had access to better spells for the class there'd be more diversity too - the only real choices for level 1 are Shocking Grasp and Frostbite.Shield works fine on a Magus, especially when there are multiple opponents.
At first level, my Magus (from a home game) used a lot of Shield and Arcane Marks because it would last more than one opponent.
That...completely misses the point. Yeah, Shield and Arcane Mark are great but for different reasons that are not core draws for the class.
Shield is defense, and I usually cast it off my wand pretty regularly. But casting Shield is not why I or anyone I know wants a Magus, we do it because Spellstrike (and Spell Combat) are cool mechanics. We want to put some awesome cosmic power into our sword and stick it in someone so deep that their eyes explode with light/fire/thunder/etc. (Or hit them so hard they go Blind, because Hexcrafters are cool too). Unfortunately there are only a few good touch spells on their spell list so the spells that get to play with the main-draw mechanic are the ones we see - and it is the main draw, otherwise you'd play an Eldritch Knight or Child of Acavna and Amaznen.
As for Arcane Mark, sure it lets you TWF with one weapon but if your damage is sub-par (like being a Dex character without Dex to damage) why even bother flailing around with those temporary tattoos?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if this is an "internet problem."
I've played at multiple tables with Dervish Dance magi. I have not seen any table variation pertaining to the build. I have not seen anyone complain about Dervish Dance magi during a game.
it's regional i think, which doesn't matter... until regions collide. Either online or at a convention (or at an online convention). Which was the incident that started the thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt I have played as many pfs tables as you have BNW, but a substantial majority of my pfs experience over the last 4 years has been convention play. Large and small conventions, in multiple countries and online. And in that time I have seen more arguments about whether or not Escape Route works with a mount/ridden companion critter* than I have about whether Dervish Dance works with spell combat.
That's why I suspect that the "problem" here is an isolated one.
*I've seen this argument once.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If magi had access to better spells for the class there'd be more diversity too - the only real choices for level 1 are Shocking Grasp and Frostbite.Shield works fine on a Magus, especially when there are multiple opponents.
At first level, my Magus (from a home game) used a lot of Shield and Arcane Marks because it would last more than one opponent.
That...completely misses the point. Yeah, Shield and Arcane Mark are great but for different reasons that are not core draws for the class.
Shield is defense, and I usually cast it off my wand pretty regularly. But casting Shield is not why I or anyone I know wants a Magus, we do it because Spellstrike (and Spell Combat) are cool mechanics. We want to put some awesome cosmic power into our sword and stick it in someone so deep that their eyes explode with light/fire/thunder/etc. (Or hit them so hard they go Blind, because Hexcrafters are cool too). Unfortunately there are only a few good touch spells on their spell list so the spells that get to play with the main-draw mechanic are the ones we see - and it is the main draw, otherwise you'd play an Eldritch Knight or Child of Acavna and Amaznen.
As for Arcane Mark, sure it lets you TWF with one weapon but if your damage is sub-par (like being a Dex character without Dex to damage) why even bother flailing around with those temporary tattoos?
Guess I just play it wrong then.
My Magus didn’t take either Wayang Spellhunter or Magical Lineage. She did use Shield, Arcane Mark, and Disrupt Undead quite a bit in the early levels. I know Close Range arcana isn’t supposed to be worth it, but it worked well for her.
At level 4 she got her version of Pounce, A.K.A. Bladed Dash. That was a pretty nice power up, especially after having gotten Dervish Dance so she could do more damage with her scimitar.
Yes, she is a Dex based Magus with a scimitar. I looked at other weapons and they just didn’t compete.
She doesn’t use the Bladed Dash quite as much any more now that she has Dimension Door along with the feat Dimensional Agility. One opponent really didn’t like that when she jumped across the room to be in melee with them. They really hated it after throwing her across the room only to have her do it again.
Now, I am looking forward to her getting the cosmic power you are talking about. Be quite impressive next level when she gets to use Spell Strike with Disintegrate.
Still, I picked up Magus so I could be a front line fighter and still have magic. Her ability to cast a Stinking Cloud or Black Tentacles to interfere with opponents has done more to contribute to the group’s success than her skill with the blade.
At the PFS tables I GM, I allow Dervish Dance with Spell Combat. I do not think that is a problem.
If you are looking for problems to fix, you should probably be looking at allowing recall of metamagiced spellls that have the two traits applied to them. I would be happy if recall via pearl or Spell Recall could only bring the spells back at the level they would normally require.
|
|
I've had it come up locally* , I have one character that i put on hold after the faq and is collecting dust (not that i don't collect dust collectors), I've seen it at least twice online and in the avoiding bad dms thread someone got pretty annoyed that the DM didn't let the combo work.
Mostly though its not a matter of frequency its about the matter of depth of integration. you can have escape route shut off for a game without much problem. For a magus not getting any static bonus on your hits hurts, especially when you cant throw a shocking grasp every round or something is resistant or immune to your spells.
* I hadn't seen the opinion that it didn't work before the slashing grace faq, and the player had no option to retrain out of it so I let the combo work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's the official statement AND the DEVs themselves have repeatedly said. DON'T TAKE ANYTHING WE SAY AS OFFICIAL. That means it's just some guys opinion on something and we've been told that we don't need to treat their comments as special.
Now sure, they can be used to help someone decide something. But they don't need to be considered if they are dumb and countered by better arguments.
It would be rare for a developer to take the time to weigh in on a subject whether it be their own personal thoughts or perhaps staff who happened to be the room at the item and those comments be "dumb." The fact of the matter is, whether or not their commentary is "official" until it appears in an official location, their insight is usually from a position of understanding of intent. To ignore said commentary when it helps to guide intent simply because its not official is just as dumb if not moreso.
The moral of the story, if a designer/developer decides to contribute to an ongoing rules discussion, listen to what they say. You may not agree with it, but don't be foolish enough to ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's the official statement AND the DEVs themselves have repeatedly said. DON'T TAKE ANYTHING WE SAY AS OFFICIAL. That means it's just some guys opinion on something and we've been told that we don't need to treat their comments as special.
Now sure, they can be used to help someone decide something. But they don't need to be considered if they are dumb and countered by better arguments.It would be rare for a developer to take the time to weigh in on a subject whether it be their own personal thoughts or perhaps staff who happened to be the room at the item and those comments be "dumb." The fact of the matter is, whether or not their commentary is "official" until it appears in an official location, their insight is usually from a position of understanding of intent. To ignore said commentary when it helps to guide intent simply because its not official is just as dumb if not moreso.
The moral of the story, if a designer/developer decides to contribute to an ongoing rules discussion, listen to what they say. You may not agree with it, but don't be foolish enough to ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.
Devs have repeatedly shared their views and then had official errata/FAQ give the opposite answer.
Moral of the story, their personal unofficial view is no more valid than anyone else's. People are welcome to favor them if they desire, I know I have people on this forum that I give greater weight to their views than others. But you shouldn't be pushing people to accept them as more valid when the DEVs themselves tell us not to do that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People newer to the Forums aren't aware that SKR *used* to be part of the Rules Team. James Jacobs never was. It's James Jacobs that always tells people not to quote him, but SKR's rulings used to be "official". Sometime after he created the PDT profile it was Stephen Radney-McFarlane that came along and invalidated everything that every Dev before him had ever stated.
So, in this case, when SKR tells us that Dervish Dance doesn't work with Spell Combat, that indeed used to be true.
*After* his comments were officially nixed, players flocked to Dervish Dance en masse.
Just to provide some context.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've said this elsewhere, but personally, I think they've had ample opportunity since the Slashing Grace errata to republish Dervish Dance like they have so many other things. That they haven't done so says to me that they are fine with "Sarenites are special" as a justification for it working. I no longer expect it to be changed.
I also believe that there is ambiguity in how it works. Whether or not designer posts are considered binding, if one of the people who wrote the game can read an ability as working a particular way, then it is reasonable to think that someone else might read the ability as working that way. It doesn't matter what it's ultimately changed to. The current wording has been interpreted by someone with extensive, personal involvement in the rules, as working one way. They could be wrong, but there is at least the possibility they are not.
SKR was also posting at a time before it was the (stated) official policy that only posts from the PDT account were meant as binding. So it is difficult to know without asking him if he thought that he was making a binding rule at the time. I understand that the current design team wants to reserve the right to make their own rulings on things, and they don't want their comments being taken as fact. And we have seen instances where the author's intent ends up not being what is clarified as the rule (Bodyguard). So until there's an official ruling under the current guidelines, we can't know for sure how it works.
However, there are also posts from the early days of Pathfinder (before the FAQ existed, even), which were clearly in the moment meant to clarify a rule. Again, even if they shouldn't be taken as absolute fact, it's not unreasonable for a GM to use a statement by SKR to guide their interpretation of the rules over the statement of a random non-Paizo employee on the boards.
I'm not personally going to deny a Dervish Dance Magus build, because it has been accepted as working for so long. But I don't think it's a situation where we can 100% say it absolutely works, so you just have to know going in building one that you might end up at a table where it is ruled not to. If you're ok with that, go for it. If not, there are many, many other options in this game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
It would be rare for a developer to take the time to weigh in on a subject whether it be their own personal thoughts or perhaps staff who happened to be the room at the item and those comments be "dumb."
I'll grant you "rare" if you grant me "rare, but has been known to happen".
For simplicity, I'll define "dumb" as "Decision later firmly repealed by Paizo".
We all have favourite examples of that. My personal favourite is when Zen Archers no longer could no longer flurry for awhile (a ruling totally and illegally ignored at many a PFS table :-))
|
|
What am I missing?
TWF: If you wield a weapon in your off-hand...
Dervish Dance: You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon...
Spell Combat: the off-hand weapon is a spell...
TWF also says "an unarmed strike is always considered light [weapon]." Having a 'hand' isn't always considered wielding a weapon, but for the purposes of TWF, if you strike with said hand you are 'wielding a weapon.'
I guess I (and my local group) have always been Person B.
Also I believe* the -2/-2 (or -6/-10) TWF effects last until your next turn. Emptying the off-hand (by throwing or dropping or being disarmed or casting) doesn't end the effects of TWF, so it shouldn't negate the 'wielding a weapon'.
*As I write this I cannae remember if all full-round actions last until your next turn. Power attack and full-round casting spells specifically call out this effect, maybe I am reading too much into this (and have been for 20 years now).
|
Late to the party but still irks me that you can have a character using a battle axe for dex to damage but can only do so with a dagger if you’re an unchained rogue or bought an agile weapon... In my opinion they should’ve just kept slashing grace and instead of fencing grace just had a “piercing” grace where you can pick any piercing weapon. Or just written a single feat that let you choose a piercing or slashing weapon. Just odd design choices to print multiple feats that do the same thing and leads to confusion.
Agile should never have been a weapon bonus. Any item that is required for a character build to work is poor design in my opinion. Should only be available as a feat.
But I agree with the whole strip a magus of dex to damage and the class becomes pretty subpar.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Slashing Grace works with dagger. It’s a light slashing weapon. I think maybe pre-errata Slashing Grace might have been limited to one-handed, but it now works for light weapons as well.
Now a punching dagger, on the other hand, won’t work, because it’s piercing only.
|
|
"Table Variation"I look forward to ignoring this unneeded nerf, should it come to pass.... in your home games. In Organized Play, we have a single rules set that we all use.
If table variation can completely change the way combat maneuvers work, reword a spell to prevent it from circumventing an obstacle, render native outsiders vulnerable to favored enemy (human), or retroactively remove legally purchased gear from a character (as have all happened at tables I've played on), I think it can handle a nerf being nerfed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@kaisc: Dervish Dance doesn't stop you from declaring 2WF attacks. But at the moment when you're making your scimitar attack, you'll check if you're carrying weapons in your off-hand, and if so, lose out on the benefits. But you're still allowed to make the attack.
And by the time you make the attack, you're not carrying anything in the off-hand anymore, since touch spells are FAQ'ed to move to the weapon-hand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do find the misplaced blame fascinating.
You have Paizo employees telling us, "no, this doesn't work", during a period where one of them was acting in official capacity.
Then you have the rise of online guides telling everyone, "this is the only way to build a Magus!".
Now, at the risk of Paizo issuing a clarification that Dervish Dance indeed doesn't work, people are getting angry at... Paizo?!
I think those people need to reanalyze where they get their information.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's contested that there was an official ruling, Nefreet.
Any reliance on a single forum post from a member of Paizo staff establishing a campaign ruling some years ago is highly problematic, especially when at that particular time there was no Campaign Clarifications document, and when 7 years have elapsed during which time the feat in question has not been errata'd or rewritten.
My expectation is that where there is an official ruling it is recorded in Campaign Clarifications or an FAQ, or there is an official errata issued.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is some online Guide the "official" ruling?
This frustrates me incredibly.
People harp and rant and rave that you can't quote the actual Paizo employees (when there was a time that you could), but that GMCritHappy's Ultimate Guide to min-maxing the Magus is canon enough to accept unquestionably?
Explain to me how that's reasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is not one of whether or not the guides are official / canonical. They clearly aren't.
The current problem is that many (most?) players & GMs, rightly or wrongly, think it's legal, while others think it isn't. And when these people come into contact, the result is a bad gaming session.
And officially banning an option that large numbers of people are using will also make people unhappy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My position has nothing to do with online guides and I've never played a magus myself.
Nobody else in this thread is referencing online guides Nefreet, you are the only poster to mention them. Nobody taking an opposing viewpoint to yours in this thread has cited these guides as evidence.
The Dervish Dance magus has been around, as far as I can tell, since Ultimate Magic introduced the Magus class in 2011. Inner Sea World Guide was also published in 2011 and it reprinted the Dervish Dance feat. People have been making and playing Dervish Dance magi since then.
My position, and I would suggest the position of most of those who agree that Dervish Dance works with spell combat, is based upon the printed rules in the game books and the lack of any contrary data in the official sources, namely Campaign Clarifications, the FAQ, and/or official errata documents.
For my part, having considered the counterpoints put forward in this thread, I am persuaded by Lau's explanation as to why DD and spell combat are compatible.