So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
supervillan wrote:
My position ... is based upon [my interpretation of] the printed rules in the game books ... I am persuaded by Lau's explanation as to why DD and spell combat are compatible.

Excellent reasoning. It's incredibly similar to mine:

My position is based upon my interpretation of the printed text. I was then further persuaded by SKR's explanation as to why DD and TWF (and thus, Spell Combat) are not compatible.

Same situation as you, except, for a time, mine had official backing. Yours would be similar to the "online guides" I keep mentioning.

The problem was solved, until Stephen Radney-McFarlane deleted that official backing.

Now we're back to both of us interpreting the same text differently, except now my support is gone, and your support is unofficial.

So surely you can see why this is a problem.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
But I agree with the whole strip a magus of dex to damage and the class becomes pretty subpar.

I heartily disagree. My magus has no den to damage, no wayang spell cheese, etc, just a weapon with a wide crit. Pretty vanilla really. Yet keeps up with and surpasses most other DRP character because it focuses on optimizing it’s other abilities. Magus are certainly not require or dependent on any of those nuggets that sooo many seem to think are a must have. They just aren’t

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
I look forward to ignoring this unneeded nerf, should it come to pass.

Just to be clear for those who might misunderstand this, you CANNOT choose to ignore any rules in OP. There is table variation now because of the variety in interpretation. However, if Paizo was to clarify this issue, regardless of which way that would go or your feelings towards it, it would then BE the rule and must be followed. If you think that table variation means you can chose to ignore clarified rules then you do not understand what table variation actually means.


supervillan wrote:

It's contested that there was an official ruling, Nefreet.

....

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.

The fact that no official ruling or clarification has been made only tells us that the powers-that-be simply don't think one is necessary. It doesn't tell us which interpretation they favor, only that a correct interpretation already exists. Which we all agree on already.

(We just don't agree which of the two possiblities it is. ;)

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Or that clarification isn t as high a priority as new content in a system that uses " ask the dm" as a patch for a lot of this.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay so I failed my Will save vs. the temptation to do historical research, and went to look for the SKR/JJ posts that Nefreet mentioned.

A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does. Furthermore, the flavor of Dervish Dance implies that you're simply attacking with one weapon. If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters, after all. It's supposed to make fighting with a single weapon more attractive, so as soon as you start trying to game the system to get an off-hand attack, you're breaking the spirit of Dervish Dance and the feat should stop working. You can certainly still cast spells with your off hand and make touch attacks, but making touch attacks with spells is generally not something you can do with two weapon fighting.

That's a very different story than what we've been hearing!

1) You can use touch spells alongside Dervish Dance (for example, Shocking Grasp), but not spells that produce a weapon-like effect (like Flame Blade).

2) The flavor of the feat is that you're attacking with a single weapon. If you're using Spellstrike to deliver your touch spells through the weapon then you're attacking with a single weapon, you're not twisting the flavor at all.

3) This comment is from 2010, before the publication of Ultimate Magic in 2011. That's why it doesn't think making touch attacks with 2WF is something you can normally do. Although it was already possible then with Quicken Spell of course. But it certainly doesn't make any direct comment on what a magus can do because magi didn't exist yet.

This thread is basically about a druid (Produce Flame, Flame Blade) using Dervish Dance.

Dervish Dance is also specifically intended to let you use a scimitar with the duelist prestige class, as many of the duelist's abilities require (1) no weapon or shield in the off-hand, and (2) your weapon has to be a *piercing* weapon.

Ah, this is SKR talking about no weapons in the off-hand. But let's see what SKR said about duelists before?

The concept of the prestige class is that you have one hand free.

That doesn't prevent you from making unarmed strikes or claw attacks, as your hand is still empty.

It would prevent you from using a spiked shield, as your hand is not empty.

So he thought the intent of Dervish Dance was that it should work with those things the Duelist is meant to do. And he's fine with duelists doing 2WF, as long as he keeps the hand empty.

Now the FAQs I mentioned earlier make it clear that if you cast a spell with Spellstrike, it moves to your weapon-hand. You have no choice in that if you use Spellstrike. The held spell can go off if you touch things with the weapon-hand, but the off-hand doesn't have that risk. Clearly the off-hand is now free again.

===

Conclusion: the ancient developer opinion Nefreet refers to doesn't actually agree with his position. It predates the magus but roughly supports using Dervish Dance with Spell Combat/Spellstrike.

Silver Crusade 1/5

I agree that there is a problem in that there is disagreement over the validity of a relatively commonplace character option.

I also did some "historical research." I think I found the Stephen Radney-MacFarland post. I'm not going to link it or quote the whole thing, but it's evident that his view was that players shouldn't need to scour the forums for official Campaign rulings, and those rulings all belong in (I will quote him here) "clarifications in FAQ posts and Errata." He said that posts in threads by members of the design or development teams did not constitute Campaign rulings. That may have been a reversal of what had been the practice before.

But Radney-MacFarland's procedural ruling hasn't been overturned by the Campaign Leadership since that post in 2014. Which means that, as PFS GMs and players, we are not permitted to take any older forum posts from SKR or any other current or former member of the Paizo Development Team as official rulings.

I draw two conclusions from this.

1. Dervish Dance does work with Spell Combat - there is no official ruling to establish equivalency between Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace.

2. It is reasonable to ask for an official Campaign Clarification given the impact of the disagreement that remains. (But I wouldn't be surprised if the response is "no FAQ needed.")

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Lau,

If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

How is that not violating the intent? You'd be two weapon fighting with the spell.

You can't drop a weapon mid way through an attack routine to stop the two weapon fighting penalties. Once you've gotten the advantage of that weapon being there you're stuck with the consequences.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You didn't have to do "historical research". Those posts were linked several times in this thread already, and on the very first page of the Campaign Clarification Requests thread =\

I'm repeating myself again by saying this, but I didn't need either JJ or SKR to come to my original conclusion. Dervish Dance turns off when there is a weapon in your off-hand. During Spell Combat, that weapon is a spell. Full stop. Need look no further.

Any shenanigans about "well you're not carrying the spell so", or "I'll just Quickdraw so my off-hand is empty when", or anything along those lines falls under "tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters".

That's my interpretation and opinion, and I feel I'm entirely justified by thinking that way.

Just because something has since become skewed as "commonplace" is also a terrible fallacy. It only means that more people are going to be upset when their house of cards collapses.

Scarab Sages 5/5

One clarification. Pathfinder Design Team posts were never deemed official for Pathfinder Society. Mike often made his own posts corroborating them. But it was considered way to much to expect PFS players to also need to pay attention to the Rules forums.

Paizo never really said whether they considered SKRs or Jason Buhlmans posts as official, but by and large, the player base did. And because of that, and when FAQ answers disagreed with years old posts, and people would dredge them up to argue, or use years old posts to counter a current post (like they have an encyclopedic memory 9f all old posts and stances on rules and aren't allowed too change their minds after years more experience.) That's why SRM posted that PDT posts aren't off8cial unless in an official source (FAQ or Errata).

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
kaisc006 wrote:
But I agree with the whole strip a magus of dex to damage and the class becomes pretty subpar.
I heartily disagree. My magus has no den to damage, no wayang spell cheese, etc, just a weapon with a wide crit. Pretty vanilla really. Yet keeps up with and surpasses most other DRP character because it focuses on optimizing it’s other abilities. Magus are certainly not require or dependent on any of those nuggets that sooo many seem to think are a must have. They just aren’t

I have to agree with Bob here, having several characters with Magus class levels myself, there are quite a number of ways to build an effective and rewarding magus without even touching the cookie cutter dervish dance wayang spell hunter build.

One of my characters is a magus archer.. so I am not even using spell-combat and the character survived to seeker levels. At the moment only one of them is dex based, but I manage just fine without a dex to damage option. Having access to power attack really helps.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lau,

If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

How is that not violating the intent? You'd be two weapon fighting with the spell.

You can't drop a weapon mid way through an attack routine to stop the two weapon fighting penalties. Once you've gotten the advantage of that weapon being there you're stuck with the consequences.

The intent is that you only make weapon attacks with your scimitar. You're not supposed to trick Dervish Dance into getting to make other weapon attacks. James Jacobs would probably stop you from doing the Quickdraw trick. But he also says touch spells are fine, just not touch spells that create a weaponlike thing like Flame Blade.

A magus using Spellstrike is only making attacks with the scimitar, and that's where the spell goes. So the feat is not tricked at all, it's getting exactly what it aims for.


supervillan wrote:

I agree that there is a problem in that there is disagreement over the validity of a relatively commonplace character option.

I draw two conclusions from this.

1. Dervish Dance does work with Spell Combat - there is no official ruling to establish equivalency between Dervish Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace.

2. It is reasonable to ask for an official Campaign Clarification given the impact of the disagreement that remains. (But I wouldn't be surprised if the response is "no FAQ needed.")

Again, the lack of a ruling to establish equivialancy is why this has table variation. There is no question on the other two.

And again, 'no response needed' means the GM of a particular table has the final say. It will therefore vary and players need to not be greatly hurt regardless of said ruling.

Commonplace character option is not an official clarification either. (3rd level monks gaining 30' of movement from haste is a commonplace character option & flyby attacks not provoking AoO are a commonplace critter option).

Edit: I do not mean to imply the dervish option is incorrect by relating to two incorrect options. I merely mean to say 'that's how its always been done' is not 'official'.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
You didn't have to do "historical research". Those posts were linked several times in this thread already, and on the very first page of the Campaign Clarification Requests thread =\

I couldn't find any link to it in this thread. Maybe I overlooked it?

At any rate, you didn't bring up the second link I put there, where SKR explained that he doesn't have any problem with a duelist using Two-Weapon Fighting and Dervish Dance, as long as it's not done with a second weapon. A fist or claw is fine.

Nefreet wrote:
I'm repeating myself again by saying this, but I didn't need either JJ or SKR to come to my original conclusion.

So which is it? Should we pay attention to historical sources or not? Because if you read them whole instead of isolated sentences, they don't support your position so clearly.

Nefreet wrote:
Dervish Dance turns off when there is a weapon in your off-hand. During Spell Combat, that weapon is a spell. Full stop. Need look no further.

And I disagree with that. What Spell Combat says is that "this is much like 2WF, with the off-hand weapon being a spell that is being cast". It is not exactly 2WF since the order in which you take actions is different: the spell is cast either before or completely after the other attacks. And the spell is only in the off-hand as it is being cast. After that it is wherever spells go once they're cast. If it's Grease then it's on the floor. If it's a touch spell the Spellstrike transfers it to your weapon hand. But it's certainly not in your off-hand anymore.

So even before you make an attack roll, your off-hand is empty again. And Dervish Dance doesn't have any kind of text saying "if your hand was at any point in the past or future occupied...", it just checks that situation right at the moment you're making the attack.

Nefreet wrote:
Any shenanigans about "well you're not carrying the spell so", or "I'll just Quickdraw so my off-hand is empty when", or anything along those lines falls under "tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters".

No, the spell isn't in your off-hand when you Spellstrike. There's nothing tricky about that. You're invoking a rule about residual hand blockage that doesn't exist.

The line about tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters refers to people trying to have a Flame Blade in their off-hand and claim that it doesn't violate Dervish Dance.


Nefreet wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
PFS runs on what the rules actually say

I've explained this before.

People speak. Words are read.

The distinction matters, because one requires interpretation.

So we have this blob of letters put together into words and sentences, and the collection as a whole is named "Dervish Dance".

Person A comes along, reads it, and declares it means X.
Person B comes along, reads it, and declares it means Y.
Developer A comes along and clarifies which of those two is more or less accurate.

Just because Developer A isn't "official" doesn't invalidate their clarification.

Even if they had never come along, you'd still be left with Person A and Person B.

What Person BNW is trying to do is get an "official" answer as to which way it's supposed to work.

And

Nefreet wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
quotes don't matter as we've mentioned
Nefreet wrote:
Even if they had never come along, you'd still be left with Person A and Person B.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lau,

If you use a spell to try to trick the feat into letting you get away with using two weapons, the GM is well within his rights to say that the effects of Dervish Dance don't function as long as you're doing two-weapon fighting.

How is that not violating the intent? You'd be two weapon fighting with the spell.

You can't drop a weapon mid way through an attack routine to stop the two weapon fighting penalties. Once you've gotten the advantage of that weapon being there you're stuck with the consequences.

JJ-again wrote:
A touch spell won't negate the benefit of the feat, unless that touch spell specifically gives you a weaponlike attack, such as flame blade does.

Please use the entire quote - this bit clearly changes the context and moves the intent away from forbidding all spell use in the off hand and limits it to those that create weapon like effects.

Thanks Lau for doing the research that clarifies the position a great deal.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

topic expansion seems to have increased the churn.

Dervish Dance seems to boil down into 2 opinions based on interpretation of the rules and weapons in hand. TWF doesn't enter into it and just muddies the issue.

Two-weapon Fighting(TWF) is a full-round action. That makes it special and precludes other actions. Just having two weapons in hand (one per hand) doesn't mean the creature is using or must use two-weapon fighting. There are several possibilities; the creature could attack with just one weapon, have a high BAB and exchange weapons during the attack sequence as a free action, combine both in an attack(Weaponwand, touch attacks with weapons)...

Combat, Full-Round Actions, CRB:
Full-Round Actions A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon,{bolded} or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Lau Bannenberg wrote:


A magus using Spellstrike is only making attacks with the scimitar, and that's where the spell goes. So the feat is not tricked at all, it's getting exactly what it aims for.

At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

You are not suddenly not wielding a weapon in your offhand for the round because you drop it or swap it from one hand to the other after having gotten the benefit from it.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:


A magus using Spellstrike is only making attacks with the scimitar, and that's where the spell goes. So the feat is not tricked at all, it's getting exactly what it aims for.

At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

You are not suddenly not wielding a weapon in your offhand for the round because you drop it or swap it from one hand to the other after having gotten the benefit from it.

If you drop a weapon you're not wielding it anymore. Whether you benefited or not is not relevant. If it's not there then it's not there.

If you transfer a weapon from one hand to another (which is pretty much what Spellstrike does) then it's no longer in the original hand.

There is no "hand memory" like that in the rules. Dervish Dance doesn't look at the past or future, only the present.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Lau Bannenberg wrote:


If you drop a weapon you're not wielding it anymore. Whether you benefited or not is not relevant. If it's not there then it's not there.

If you transfer a weapon from one hand to another (which is pretty much what Spellstrike does) then it's no longer in the original hand.

There is no "hand memory" like that in the rules. Dervish Dance doesn't look at the past or future, only the present.

There are legitimate arguments for this combination but the rules clearly do not work like this even if they don't explicitly spell it out.

Two weapon fighting is a full round round action. Once you decide to do it and gain a benefit from it you are locked into it. You can't offhand stab with a longsword drop it (or pass it to your main hand) and draw a dagger and then claim your offhand weapon is light when you swing with your main hand.

If you use Two-Weapon Fighting on your turn to attack with two weapons, do you also take that penalty on attacks of opportunity made before the start of your next turn?

No. The penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons.
___

So yes, there is a memory of what your hands were doing. The penalty ends after the full attack, not after you no longer have two weapons.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BNW, if you quote bits of FAQ please use the Quote tags otherwise it makes it hard to see where your own words end and the quote starts.

FAQ wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting: If you use this on your turn to attack with two weapons, do you also take that penalty on attacks of opportunity made before the start of your next turn?

No. The penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons. Any attacks of opportunity you make are at your normal attack bonus.
Generally speaking, penalties on attacks made during your turn do not carry over to attacks of opportunity unless they specifically state otherwise (such as the penalty from using Power Attack or Combat Expertise).

The only thing that FAQ says is that the 2WF penalties to hit last for your whole turn. You're taking an accuracy penalty because you're trying to do more things. It doesn't make your hands remember what was in them. The right hand doesn't care what the left hand did. All it knows is that you spent some attention on it and therefore you're getting a -2 to hit.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

I'll just point out this spell, Spectral Hand.
A creature could have spectral hand going and Dervish Dance, or TWF, or spellstrike, or cast a touch spell similar to shocking grasp and have it appear on either hand(including his weapon hand), or on his familiar, or attack with it at a distance all without an extra action. Clearly there is a mechanism and as previously mentioned 'pertinent details' from the CRB is the answer. How spellcasting works in this area is part of the core rules Open Gaming License from DnD 3.5 that Pathfinder has not changed. Obviously Dervish Dance, Slashing Grace, Magus class, and spellstrike are new. How touch spells like Cure Light Wounds interact with weapons and attacks is also old rules.
see my post #60 of 170.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to say I don't think we need a clarification as I haven't run across this negative interpretation of the rules in play to date. That leads me to believe that this is a rare corner case of GM interpretation similar to the spring-loaded wrist sheath issue. I hope and believe that if a Magus sits at your table you will inform the player of your decision that casting a spell that produces a touch attack on a hand and Dervish Dance do not work together before the game begins.

1/5

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I genuinely wish the PFS board had a Campaign Clarifications button instead of an FAQ button so we had a better chance of getting this cleared up.

Until today I have literally never, and I truly mean never, heard of someone denying magus Dervish Dance.

Nefreet wrote:
Weapon Focus (weapons) isn't valid, but you can indeed choose Weapon Focus (ray).
You're right, that was too broad. Weapon Focus (Shocking Grasp) or Weapon Focus (Touch Attacks) then.

Have you tried a suggestion in the website feedback forum?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

The only thing that FAQ says is that the 2WF penalties to hit last for your whole turn. You're taking an accuracy penalty because you're trying to do more things. It doesn't make your hands remember what was in them. The right hand doesn't care what the left hand did. All it knows is that you spent some attention on it and therefore you're getting a -2 to hit.

Do you have any rules citation that there is no hand memory?

Without that we have to ask if there is hand memory. Not use "there is no hand memory" as a piece of evidence for another position.

If there's no hand memory at all why are you still taking that attack penalty for what your hand did before your attack?

The fact that you still take penalties for what your other hand did even if you're not currently doing it, right now, even though the rules speak in the present tense is evidence (not proof, but pretty good evidence) that they mean nowish, for your action, not the nebulous o plank time in which your attack actually happens.

If you point a gun at someone, put it away, and then ask for the money it's still armed robbery even if the gun isn't in your hand at the exact moment. Intent matters.

Things get really, really weird, rules laweyery and exploity if they write a rule to try to prevent certain combinations and then people work around those limitations to put it in through persnickety gray areas of the rules.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:

The only thing that FAQ says is that the 2WF penalties to hit last for your whole turn. You're taking an accuracy penalty because you're trying to do more things. It doesn't make your hands remember what was in them. The right hand doesn't care what the left hand did. All it knows is that you spent some attention on it and therefore you're getting a -2 to hit.

Do you have any rules citation that there is no hand memory?

Without that we have to ask if there is hand memory. Not use "there is no hand memory" as a piece of evidence for another position.

I don't see any rule for hand memory for "what you carried". Show it to me.

Asking me to disprove such a rule is like asking me to disprove there's a rule giving you free gold.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If there's no hand memory at all why are you still taking that attack penalty for what your hand did before your attack?

Because that rule is actually in the book. And in the FAQ, exploring numerous aspects of it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The fact that you still take penalties for what your other hand did even if you're not currently doing it, right now, even though the rules speak in the present tense is evidence (not proof, but pretty good evidence) that they mean nowish, for your action, not the nebulous o plank time in which your attack actually happens.

This is where you start inventing rules which you think should perhaps exist.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you point a gun at someone, put it away, and then ask for the money it's still armed robbery even if the gun isn't in your hand at the exact moment. Intent matters.

It's the guy you're trying to rob who remembers, not your hands.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Things get really, really weird, rules laweyery and exploity if they write a rule to try to prevent certain combinations and then people work around those limitations to put it in through persnickety gray areas of the rules.

You're inferring far, far more intent than is written there. The rules just look at the present. What we know about intent (going back to the SKR/JJ quotes) is that they were okay with making touch attacks with the off-hand, as well as unarmed strikes, but not flame blades.

I think you and Nefreet are making too much out of the "like a weapon" thing; an off-hand attack is also like a weapon and Dervish Dance is fine with it.

I think the "like a weapon" is just intended as a device to explain why Spell Combat is giving you a -2 penalty, because just like during 2WF, you're spending some time on your off-hand so your main hand gets a few seconds less.

Silver Crusade 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Lau's nailed it, really.

Spell combat is "like" two-weapon fighting in that you get a -2 on your attacks during the spell combat full attack action, and in that you are getting an extra attack. And that's it. Because no other similarities are called out. Spell combat is not two-weapon fighting, it just shares some features with two-weapon fighting, and the features that it shares are all called out.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

supervillan wrote:

I think Lau's nailed it, really.

Spell combat is "like" two-weapon fighting in that you get a -2 on your attacks during the spell combat full attack action, and in that you are getting an extra attack. And that's it. Because no other similarities are called out. Spell combat is not two-weapon fighting, it just shares some features with two-weapon fighting, and the features that it shares are all called out.

Okay, if that's the only similarity can I two weapon fight and magusflurry in the same round?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Lau Bannenberg wrote:


This is where you start inventing rules which you think should perhaps exist.

No, that is where i parse "while" to be during your turn not the split seconds of plank time within it.

(edited for a bit less growl)

Grand Lodge 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
supervillan wrote:

I think Lau's nailed it, really.

Spell combat is "like" two-weapon fighting in that you get a -2 on your attacks during the spell combat full attack action, and in that you are getting an extra attack. And that's it. Because no other similarities are called out. Spell combat is not two-weapon fighting, it just shares some features with two-weapon fighting, and the features that it shares are all called out.

Okay, if that's the only similarity can I two weapon fight and magusflurry in the same round?

What is Magusflurry?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Quintin Verassi wrote:


What is Magusflurry?

magusflurry is what I call the interaction of spell strike and spell combat that lets you Left hand spell right hand whack with sword and then right hand whack with sword again.

(apologies to the southpaws who would do it the other way)

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
supervillan wrote:

I think Lau's nailed it, really.

Spell combat is "like" two-weapon fighting in that you get a -2 on your attacks during the spell combat full attack action, and in that you are getting an extra attack. And that's it. Because no other similarities are called out. Spell combat is not two-weapon fighting, it just shares some features with two-weapon fighting, and the features that it shares are all called out.

Okay, if that's the only similarity can I two weapon fight and magusflurry in the same round?

No, because that would be two different full-round actions. Similar to Cleave and Vital Strike.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:


This is where you start inventing rules which you think should perhaps exist.

No, that is where i parse "while" to be during your turn not the split seconds of plank time within it.

(edited for a bit less growl)

If a hand still remembers the weapon being in it, if you fail a disarm and drop your weapon, can you just keep attacking with it because your hand still remembers holding it?

Of course not. Things in your round happen one after another. Spell Combat is very clear that either you cast and then fight, or fight and then cast.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Okay, now which of these arguments should not result in being able to spell combat with slashing grace?

slashing grace faq:
What exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?

Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”

According to the idea that you're using your hand for the instant, not "while" you are stabbing Slashing grace should work. But it doesn't. Slashing grace uses while to describe an action, not an instant in time. I don't see any difference between while and when.

Grand Lodge

That FAQ specifically calls out Spell Combat as not working, separate from TWFing BNW. Not sure how that helps support your argument in any way.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
That FAQ specifically calls out Spell Combat as not working, separate from TWFing BNW. Not sure how that helps support your argument in any way.

It calls out "while" as meaning a block of time not an instant in plank time when referencing a very similar ability. It completely negates the idea that when HAS to mean planck time and that what your hand was doing a split second ago never matters.

Lantern Lodge

Haven’t the devs explicitly stated the slashing grace faq shouldn’t be compared to any rulings regarding dervish dance?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Okay, now which of these arguments should not result in being able to spell combat with slashing grace?

Because Slashing Grace calls out "any time another hand is otherwise occupied", which includes things beyond simply holding a weapon or shield, such as, say, providing somatic or material components.

In other words, since casting the spell is part of the full-round action that Spell Combat requires, the hand is "occupied" with providing those spell components during that action, therefore Slashing Grace doesn't work. However, spell components are not, by themselves, a "weapon or shield", so at no point during that Spell Combat action are you "holding a weapon or shield in your off-hand", therefore Dervish Dance isn't excluded.

Without using Spell Combat, the attack made to deliver the spell via Spellstrike is actually a separate action from casting the spell (typically a standard action), so even though your off-hand is "occupied" with spell components in that standard action, it's not "occupied" during the free action that actually delivers the attack, which is why Slashing Grace will work with Spellstrike on its own.

The rules only care about the current action, unless they specifically say otherwise. Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat, because at some point during that full-round action that hand is used to cast a spell, but it does work with Spellstrike on its own, because casting and attacking are two separate actions, thus it is no longer "occupied" during the action made to deliver the attack.

The Exchange 2/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
That FAQ specifically calls out Spell Combat as not working, separate from TWFing BNW. Not sure how that helps support your argument in any way.

It calls out "while" as meaning a block of time not an instant in plank time when referencing a very similar ability. It completely negates the idea that when HAS to mean planck time and that what your hand was doing a split second ago never matters.

As the religious would say, "But when you use spell combat, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

kaisc006 wrote:
Haven’t the devs explicitly stated the slashing grace faq shouldn’t be compared to any rulings regarding dervish dance?

If we did that this wouldn't be an argument at all. Dervish dance and magus flurry would be incompatible.

I think its obvious that in plain english while you're doing something or when you're doing something doesn't have to mean at that exact moment but refers to the overall action. Here's an example of while explicitly being used that way. That its on such a very close topic is a big bonus.

Grand Lodge

BNW wrote:
I think its obvious that in plain english while you're doing something or when you're doing something doesn't have to mean at that exact moment but refers to the overall action.

A large percentage of people cleary don't believe that is obvious or apparent as you can tell from this thread and the trend of Dervish Dance + Spell Combat being considered legal in so many places.

There's serious danger in the kind of "reading between the lines" that leads to the idea that your hand is supposed to be occupied the whole turn when nothing in the rules actually says that's a general rule. Some of my absolute worst PFS experiences have been with GMs who "read between the lines" to reach a conclusion that ended up being absolutely wrong.

Silver Crusade 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The while/when question seems immaterial. Dervish Dance does not contain the same wording as Slashing Grace. The Slashing Grace FAQ does not affect Dervish Dance. We should not import the wording of Slashing Grace (and hence its FAQ) into the wording of Dervish Dance, and have no cause to do so.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
A large percentage of people cleary don't believe that is obvious or apparent

Which is entirely reasonable. But what is not reasonable is saying that the opposite HAS to be true or dismissing out of hand an example where it is true. The evidence has to be taken into consideration even if it isn't a 100% lock.

Quote:
There's serious danger in the kind of "reading between the lines" that leads to the idea that your hand is supposed to be occupied the whole turn when nothing in the rules actually says that's a general rule. Some of my absolute worst PFS experiences have been with GMs who "read between the lines" to reach a conclusion that ended up being absolutely wrong.

There is at least as much danger in completely ignoring context, balance, reason, sense, plain meaning and the larger picture and trying to push the most literal meaning in pursuit of a mechanical advantage. Many RAW IS LAW interpretations have been shot down, and for good reason. Shield master ignoring all penalties comes to mind.

Here there is no inherent meaning in when when is. It just doesn't have one. Here's an example of while refering to a block of time. Is there a counter example where the verified reading of that wording lets you split things into planck time?

If not, the position that while refers to a block of time is an assertion with evidence (and i think very. very good evidence that the context is applicable) and the planck time assertion is without evidence.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

steps in. Looks around at the two (or more) "armed camps" separated by a dozen few yards of barbed wire and land mines... and thinks better of saying anything. Almost 200 posts... so far.

Grand Lodge 5/5

So, I thought it was time to add my 2 copper pieces. With Spell Combat, you deliver the touch attack through the off hand, making it an unarmed touch attack. Can you make an Unarmed Strike through your off hand? I don't see anything that prevents it, as my fist isn't a weapon weilded. If you can make the unarmed strike, then you can Spell Combat, if not then you can't.

While Spellstrike refers to Spell Combat, you do not make the strike with your off hand, and it is delivered through the scimitar. It doesn't interact with the off hand, except that it must be free. You don't use it as a part of the attack at any point.

While I think that Spell Combat should work with Dervish Dance, I can see some room for disagreement and discussion. Spellstrike just works with it unless you can come up with more than "But your hand is occupied." That isn't a factor for Dervish Dance as written.

Magusflurry is deceptive. It isn't flurry, and is just how Spellstrike works. There are magus builds that flurry, and have other "burst" attacks that work similarly.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Spell Combat is, in every conceivable possible way, completely 100% unarguably identical to Two-weapon Fighting.

EXCEPT

The off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

----------------------------------------------

That's how the English language works.

----------------------------------------------

A chocolate milkshake is, in every conceivable possible way, completely 100% unarguably identical to a vanilla milkshake.

EXCEPT

It has different ingredients.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Nefreet wrote:
That's how the English language works.

I think there's a little more flex to it than that. Someone might have a color based power or a chocolate allergy. (the green lantern is powerless against the lemon meringue smoothie in a food fight).

The question is how literal dervish dance is in caring about your hand not having another weapon and why its looking for an empty hand. The spell is LIKE a weapon but it isn't a weapon kinda sort of... which opens the possibility that it's an area where the thing like the other thing isn't like it for this purpose.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The point being that, when something only differs slightly, you describe it as "This is like this, BUT..." and then describe how it's different.

Spell Combat follows this formula: "like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell".

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Keep this in mind when talking about BNW "Magusflurry."

Spell Combat still needs the off hand to cast the spell, no matter if it is delivered by that hand, or Spellstriked through the weapon.

To make a further call back to another thread, no, you don't get a third "free" attack either.


Nefreet wrote:

The point being that, when something only differs slightly, you describe it as "This is like this, BUT..." and then describe how it's different.

Spell Combat follows this formula: "like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell".

Agreed. The only thing spell combat calls out as different from TWF is the second weapon is a spell. It even goes on to say which type of spell (standard action casting time or less). It is still a full round action, it still requires a weapon, it requires two hands, it still imparts a penalty. Picking and choosing which parts spell combat uses and doesn't is done by the description itself.

The 'like' is not a figure of speech to add emphatic or vivid description. That would be like adding mud to water.

151 to 200 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.