So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

201 to 250 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
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.

Which matters for the purposes of Slashing Grace, but Dervish Dance only cares whether the off-hand is holding a weapon or shield. You could be solving long division on a blackboard for all Dervish Dance cares; unless the chalk suddenly counts as a weapon, Dervish Dance still applies.

A spell is not automatically considered a weapon, and even in the case of weapon-like spells, if you could be considered "holding" it as a weapon, it would be held in the hand that you use to deliver the attack. If you do so via Spellstrike, that would be your primary hand, meaning Dervish Dance still works.

So the question is whether the sentence that says Spell Combat works "much like two-weapon fighting" is meant to be more than an illustration on how it functions. I am of the opinion that no, it isn't meant to be an explanation of how the mechanics are designed. I believe this for one main reason: if you were to remove that sentence entirely, the rules for Spell Combat wouldn't noticeably change. If it were to be more than a quick comparison, then they wouldn't then need to fully detail exactly how it works.

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

No, it doesn't. It follows this formula: "much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell. <DETAILED EXPLANATION OF ALL THE MECHANICS>"

Were the intent to actually use the two-weapon fighting rules, it'd follow this formula: "like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action, and counts as a light weapon; any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty. <CUT-AND-PASTE CAST DEFENSIVE BONUS RULES>". You wouldn't need to say you need a free hand, as you're not allowed to two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon, you wouldn't need to define the actual penalty involved, and you wouldn't need to define it as a full-round action.

In other words, if they intended for Spell Combat to actually be Two-Weapon Fighting, they could have easily saved on their precious word count without changing how the ability actually works.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 13 people marked this as a favorite.

With respect to all concerned:

There is a clear and persuasive argument that Dervish Dance works.

There is a clear and persuasive argument that it does not.

(And there's the argument that it only sort of works, but we shouldn't care, because Dex-to-Damage is a lightweight effect.)

Nobody seems to be changing their position. So, nobody else is being convincing.

May I suggest that we do indeed have a serious case of "table variation" and that this should indeed be a Campaign Clarification?

(Where "table variation" means a legitimate difference in the way table GMs are interpreting an important, ambiguous rule, rather than "I'm going to ignore the campaign clarification, whatever it is, anyway.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts exactly.

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mortika speaks my mind.

Personally I think that Dervish Dance still works for dex magi, but I know this is a grey area. Different regions tend to rule these things differently, and then they meet online with different expectations and clash.

Let’s stop arguing, and ask for the campaign clarification.

Hmm

Silver Crusade ***** ⦵⦵

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Before we go, I would like to say that I, Lyric the Singing Paladin, am opposed to seeing dance lessons stop for the lovely Sarenites that I have met!

Sarenrae is such a nice goddess, and my goddess, Shelyn, beams everytime one makes the world a more beautiful place with an offering of dance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I'll run one of my little not-terribly-scientific polls. Favorite any option you agree with.

(1) I think, RAW, Dervish Dance plus Spell Combat is illegal, because Spell Combat acts as a weapon in the off-hand.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

(2) I think, RAW, Dervish Dance plus Spell Combat is legal. Casting a spell and carrying a weapon are not the same thing.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

(3) I would like it to be clarified that it is legal. Banning it would be disruptive to existing characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(4) I would like it to be clarified that it is illegal. It shouldn't be treated any differently to other Dex-to-Damage feats.


(5) I think the current situation of table variance is better than having an official ruling.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

If I may:

(6) I have no preference one way or the other, but I would prefer that it be clarified so that we know for certain whether it works or not.

**

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
(4) I would like it to be clarified that it is illegal. It shouldn't be treated any differently to other Dex-to-Damage feats.

If Dervish Dance is the only way (other than dipping or agile weapons) for a dex-to-damage magus to be created, then I think it should be illegal. As I noted above, it seems mucho dumb to say you can be a dex-to-damage magus with a scimitar but not any other weapons.

Mind you, if someone showed up at a PFS table that I'm GMing with a Dervish Dance magus, I'd be totally fine with letting him/her play. People have been creating these characters in good faith, and just because I think it's a bad idea, doesn't mean I would inflict my biases upon the player.

Silver Crusade ** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree it's 'stupid' that scimitar is the only legal dex to damage weapon for a magus, but removing that option is even worse. (I really think Paizo should look at the third party deadly agility feat and come out with something very much like it. Any finessable weapon should be eligible for dex to damage if you're willing to pay for it with a feat.)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There isn't a poll option for me =(

7) I would like to see this clarified

Nevermind! #6 works ^_^

Thank you GM Tyrant!

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Bill Baldwin wrote:
I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

The point wasn't to convince anyone that either side was right the point was to convince people there was a point.

*

Curaigh wrote:
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.

Extracts are like potions, except when they are not. So the use of like in an ability description is not as solid as you would like to believe.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record (and to feast on irony) I would like to say that I've been arguing primarily about what I think the rule really is, not what it should be.

I think prohibiting Spell Combat on Slashing/Fencing Grace was very ill-flavored, because magi are certainly a one-handed weapon class and it does fit the theme. I also think that it's nice if graceful deadliness is an alternative to brute strength deadliness for magi.

That said, I'm not a fan of just how clunky most Dex to damage options are. They tend to have deep gateways that mean several levels playing a gimped character, and then they give you too much of a good thing. I would have preferred a much more moderate reward for graceful fighting but available easily from level 1.

I don't like Dervish Dance as the one remaining dex to damage strategy for many magi. It's a too-dominant option, particularly because it exaggerates crit-fishing tactics. If scimitars had been a 19-20/x2 weapon it would have been entirely different because then you'd have competition between critfishing and dex to damage.

Ideally I would like to see a single feat for "grace to damage" for any finesseable weapon, available with at most Weapon Finesse as prerequisite, but balanced such that Dex to damage doesn't become overwhelming; and I want it to work for magi and monks too.

Options could be:

- Dex to damage always counts as precision damage.
- You add your Dex bonus but also any Strength penalties you have.
- Your maximum Dex bonus to damage is capped by your level.
- Instead of Dex to damage, if you're using Dex to hit and Strength to damage, add half your level as bonus damage (with some maximum).

Scarab Sages *****

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

For the record (and to feast on irony) I would like to say that I've been arguing primarily about what I think the rule really is, not what it should be.

I think prohibiting Spell Combat on Slashing/Fencing Grace was very ill-flavored, because magi are certainly a one-handed weapon class and it does fit the theme. I also think that it's nice if graceful deadliness is an alternative to brute strength deadliness for magi.

That said, I'm not a fan of just how clunky most Dex to damage options are. They tend to have deep gateways that mean several levels playing a gimped character, and then they give you too much of a good thing. I would have preferred a much more moderate reward for graceful fighting but available easily from level 1.

I don't like Dervish Dance as the one remaining dex to damage strategy for many magi. It's a too-dominant option, particularly because it exaggerates crit-fishing tactics. If scimitars had been a 19-20/x2 weapon it would have been entirely different because then you'd have competition between critfishing and dex to damage.

Ideally I would like to see a single feat for "grace to damage" for any finesseable weapon, available with at most Weapon Finesse as prerequisite, but balanced such that Dex to damage doesn't become overwhelming; and I want it to work for magi and monks too.

Options could be:

- Dex to damage always counts as precision damage.
- You add your Dex bonus but also any Strength penalties you have.
- Your maximum Dex bonus to damage is capped by your level.
- Instead of Dex to damage, if you're using Dex to hit and Strength to damage, add half your level as bonus damage (with some maximum).

I've always been a little disappointed in the evolution of the game, essentially turning Dex to damage into just different-but-same feats as Str to damage (Pirahna Strike or Deadly Aim are just different versions of Power Attack) and so on. I'd much rather see a more elegant set up where Dex-based fighters have different and distinct bonuses than Str-based fighters.

But most of my ideas on how to fix this really changes the entire way that Armor and Armor Class interact with the rest of the rules as well.

Liberty's Edge *** Venture-Agent, Online

My dex-based Kensai magus does just fine at level 10. He has Slashing Grace and does not have an agile weapon. It just means I have to choose between spell combat and dex to damage during a given round.

But I've never seen the need to cast a spell every round, but maybe that's because I'm a frostbite magus, and not a shocking grasp magus.

Sczarni *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
I've been arguing primarily about what I think the rule really is, not what it should be.

Do you think anyone here is doing otherwise?

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

SCPRedMage wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:
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.
Which matters for the purposes of Slashing Grace, but Dervish Dance only cares whether the off-hand is holding a weapon or shield.

Which is the main point about this discussion. Spell Combat replaces the Off Hand weapon in TWF with a spell. Whether or not it disqualifies the use of the feat is unclear at this point. I just hasten to remind some that it does not matter when or where the spell is used, it is still in the off hand when it is cast.

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Baldwin wrote:
I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Probably because "clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given and some of us are just tired of nerfs. When I first read this thread all I thought was "great another 'please nerf this' thread" and trying to remember if "paladins must all fall in PFS" was the next thread in the cycle or if it was "I'm too lazy to read the other threads, but we need unlimited replays, yo" that was next.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TimD wrote:
"clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given

I'm still sour about the 10 foot pit FAQ.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

TimD wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Probably because "clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given and some of us are just tired of nerfs. When I first read this thread all I thought was "great another 'please nerf this' thread" and trying to remember if "paladins must all fall in PFS" was the next thread in the cycle or if it was "I'm too lazy to read the other threads, but we need unlimited replays, yo" that was next.

I understand the feeling. We had a guy in LFR that lived in a different city but came down and played with our local group about once every 4 or 5 months. LFR frequently issued errata that did indeed mostly nerf things. This guy wasn't a skilled character builder, but he liked having powerful characters. So he frequently used popular builds off of message boards and online guides. Of course, those are exactly the types of builds that get nerfed. His local group didn't keep good track of the errata but as both an organizer for our local group and an administrator for the campaign, I felt obliged to keep everyone updated on the changes, including him when he came to visit. This lead to at least one of his characters getting nerfed almost every time he came to visit. This eventually got him so PO'ed he stopped coming down to play, though I was never sure if he was more PO's at WotC for changing the rules or at me for pointing the changes out to him.

In the end, he just wanted to play his character and have fun with it. He didn't want to go to the effort to create a totally original character. And he didn't want to go to the constant effort of making sure he was compliant with ever changing rules. He just wanted to play the game. And I will certainly admit that there are times in dealing with Organized Play rules and restrictions that I can sympathize.

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
I love how we have 213 posts arguing about a rule on a thread that specifically asks for a clarification of the rules because we already know we can't agree on it.

Probably because "clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given and some of us are just tired of nerfs. When I first read this thread all I thought was "great another 'please nerf this' thread" and trying to remember if "paladins must all fall in PFS" was the next thread in the cycle or if it was "I'm too lazy to read the other threads, but we need unlimited replays, yo" that was next.

nah - the next one in the cycle is a "Take 10" thread...

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Nefreet wrote:
TimD wrote:
"clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given
I'm still sour about the 10 foot pit FAQ.

Nefreet, you're an old Grognard. You are sour about everything.

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
TimD wrote:
"clarification" is really just "nerf" for almost every "clarification" Paizo has given
I'm still sour about the 10 foot pit FAQ.
Nefreet, you're an old Grognard. You are sour about everything.

Generally only when things deviate from 1) egalitarianism, 2) ease of use, or 3) reality as I understand it.

My smiling happy face doesn't translate well through text ^_^

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
My smiling happy face doesn't translate well through text ^_^

This is, in fact, why I practically spam that emoticon. ^_^

Sczarni *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think it was you that got me hooked!

Or it was Hmm. Either way.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:


My smiling happy face doesn't translate well through text ^_^

I blame the beak

Grand Lodge *****

So for those stating that the hang up is on like 2 weapon fighting, let me ask you about a similar rule issue that I have seen in my local lodge.

PRD Titan Mauler wrote:
Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

So, what do you include as "the like" here? Other feats? Can I Slashing Grace my greatsword? TWF? What does like mean here?

If Spell Combat doesn't work with Dervish Dance, to be logically consistent, do you think Jotungrip works with TWF?

Lantern Lodge

Quintin Verassi wrote:
So, what do you include as "the like" here? Other feats? Can I Slashing Grace my greatsword? TWF? What does like mean?

Slashing Grace calls for a light or one handed weapon so will not work with a two-handed weapon. You are wielding a one handed weapon in one hand not a two handed weapon in one hand. Joto grip doesn’t change the weapon from two handed to one handed.

For dervish dance joto doesn’t work because if you were using a large sized scimitar it doesn’t work for joto grip because it “must be appropriately sized for her”

You can still TWF / spell combat with joto grip but it would be very suboptimal. Joto grip is really bad to begin with. -2 attack for +1 avg damage is an awful trade. It is mainly as an option for a mauler if they want to have a shield for certain situations.

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

Quintin.

Is the Greatsword a One Handed Weapon?

This seems a simple question, but the difference of wielding a weapon (Like a character wielding a One Handed weapon with Two Hands) and what it's own Designation is are not the same.

the "...and the like" refers to the scaling of the damage and effects done by the weapon as the character wields it. Slashing Grace has the character choose a weapon, but one that is either Light or One Handed. The Greatsword is neither.

Grand Lodge **

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh god Kaisc, what have you done? You've mentioned both the Dervish Dance and Jotungrip question in not only the same thread, but a single post.

We're surely all doomed now.

I disagree with thaX's interpretation but won't comment on it further so as not to rehash our argument from a week or so ago. ;)

***

thorin001 wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
The 'like' is not a figure of speech to add emphatic or vivid description. That would be like adding mud to water.
Extracts are like potions, except when they are not. So the use of like in an ability description is not as solid as you would like to believe.

Uhmm.... I guess, we agree?.?

I am not saying it is the best way, just that 'like' is used in more ways than simile. In fact the word 'like' can now fit into so many different parts of speech that it is quite confusing. I saw a documentary a few years back that I wish I could find. David Attenborough ('cause he is like, the only person who does documentaries :p ) ended the segment with a person using the word 'like' 17 times in a single sentence and using it in four or five different parts of speech.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Quintin Verassi wrote:

So, what do you include as "the like" here? Other feats? Can I Slashing Grace my greatsword? TWF? What does like mean here?

Yes. When something goes through you and your abilities for a one handed weapon you're good. If something needs to go through the greatsword to be enchanted like a finessable weapon (like agile) , you're out of luck because you don't alter the properties of the sword.

TWF would seem to be a lot of the point of jotengrip.

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quintin Verassi wrote:
If Spell Combat doesn't work with Dervish Dance, to be logically consistent, do you think Jotungrip works with TWF?

Sure. Why wouldn't it?

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you bring up enough examples, eventually you'll probably find at least one situation where "like" is too ambiguous or ill-defined to come to a strong conclusion of all accounts.

But that doesn't invalidate a fundamental structure of English.


I'd argue that the majority of situations with "like" lead to ambiguity.

Handy Haversack rules wrote:
It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. In fact, each is like a bag of holding and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight.

Does a Handy Haversack behave the same as a Bag of Holding when brought into contact with a Portable Hole?

Extract rules wrote:
In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form

If I have a feat that applies specifically to potions, does it work on Extracts? (The answer appears to be no, according to FAQs. Game balance trumps English?)

Searching for other uses of "like" on the same page leads me to:

Quote:
An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs and time requirements.

Now that's a lot less ambiguous, because "just like" is a stronger phrasing.

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

Yes, TWF does seem to be a good consideration for Jotengrip, likely with a light weapon in the off hand. I have submitted elsewhere that it does not extend to using Two Handed weapons in the off hand (the character/player trying to wield two such weapons at the same time).

Not sure how this relates to Dervish Dance, except that we are talking about Off Hand Use. We know what the weapon the Magus is using and how the character wants to use it in conjunction to Spell Combat. They have Curved Swords. Curved! Swords!

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Game balance trumps English?

Sometimes.

As I said, it doesn't apply to everything. It's more like handling a general rule in Pathfinder: sometimes there are specific exceptions.

***

Matthew Downie wrote:
I'd argue that the majority of situations with "like" lead to ambiguity.

I would agree if one doesn't look at the rest of the sentence (or sometimes paragraph). That is just how grammar works. However this is not the point of this thread & it is already grown too long.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
As someone who is thinking about rolling up a magus, without dervish dance, a dexterity-based magus is impossible, right?

My friend, let me share with you a little secret. This is some sensitive stuff, so don't go sharing it with anyone. I don't want to get into trouble.

Top Secret:
If you're playing a traditional Magus, Dex to Damage doesn't matter all that much.

Most of your raw damage comes from spells that use your weapon's crit modifier to explode with great frequency. Intensified Shocking Grasp is a certified Disney Classic, but you can also use Frostbite with a couple of riders and a pair of traits to utterly shut people down. I do the later on my Magus, and all she has is 1d8 plus 1 from her Strength modifier for damage.

Oh, and you have plenty class features to pile on bits of damage to your blade if you really want. Arcane Pool is your friend.

All of that said, I really don't see much benefit for the community in general for pushing so hard for a clarification. Have people found Dervish Dance to be that disruptive? Is this potential rules ambiguity worth prioritizing over other potential rules ambiguities?

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rosc wrote:
Is this potential rules ambiguity worth prioritizing over other potential rules ambiguities?

Everything is more or less important depending on the individual.

I lumped this question in with the first run of Campaign Clarification Requests over a year ago, but don't see it as any more important than any other question on that list.

For people who built their Dex 20, Int 16, Con 14, Str 07, Cha 07, Wis 07 Magus, it's incredibly important to you when your GM disallows it at their table.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the middle ages, Catholic scholars would frequently debate matters of doctrine or discipline, and then, once they had reached a conclusion, they would recite a phrase indicating that, however they might argue, they held themselves bound to the instruction of the Mother Church.

I get the feeling that we're doing the same thing here.

"We should follow the Campaign Clarifications."

"Indeed we should."

"So, what about Slashing Grace when a character is simply denied use of one hand, by happenstance or maybe an oracle's curse..."

Grand Lodge *****

Going to dig up this dead horse with some malicious intent here. I am going to be honest, and admit I wasn't really paying attention to the exact wording earlier. The feat, which is from a non 3.5 source, that is part of the hard cover book line, clearly states carrying in the hand. The intricacies of two weapon fighting, Spell Combat, Spellstrike, or long division don't enter the rules discussion on this. RAW, this feat is not and has never been a part of the "Grace" FAQ/Errata. This feat works with Spell combat as written, as your hand isn't carrying a spell. (I am willing to be proven wrong on the idea that your hand is carrying the spell if someone can show a rules precedent.)

I believe that BNW very first post in this thread admitted that the RAW is correct about being able to use it, under his "Why it should work" category. So, if you are enforcing a rule that is a FAQ/Errata that doesn't apply to the feat in question because you disagree with it, then you as the Gamemaster are cheating. In a home game you have the right to say everything that he points out in his "Why it shouldn't work" section and justify your exclusion from it working on those reasons. PFS is RAW, and this interpretation doesn't have any RAW to stand on. I will also say I disagree with his interpretation of the intent as well, which is why RAI is a bad idea in organized play environments. Dervishes are frequently in fiction and reality equated with Mysticism, and the archetype that grants it to you as a bonus feat is skilled in combat casting.

So, prove me wrong. Show me where TWF requires the off hand be carrying something. Show me where Spell Combat and/or Spellstrike states you are carrying the spell in your off hand. Show me any RAW to support this position and that people aren't acting as the Fun Police because they don't like a playstyle or a concept and have taken it upon themselves to remove it from the campaign.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Pasadena aka ra9662

pjrogers wrote:
As someone who is thinking about rolling up a magus, without dervish dance, a dexterity-based magus is impossible, right?

No it is not Weapon Finesse still works to Hit all this balderdash it dex to damage talk. The main thing about a Magus is to hit with your weapon.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Pasadena aka ra9662

Nefreet wrote:
Rosc wrote:
Is this potential rules ambiguity worth prioritizing over other potential rules ambiguities?

Everything is more or less important depending on the individual.

I lumped this question in with the first run of Campaign Clarification Requests over a year ago, but don't see it as any more important than any other question on that list.

For people who built their Dex 20, Int 16, Con 14, Str 07, Cha 07, Wis 07 Magus, it's incredibly important to you when your GM disallows it at their table.

Nefreet you mean for people built the DEX 20, INT 14, CON 16, Str 07, Wis 07, Cha 07 Magus. They need Hit Points and a better Con save since they are in the front lines and on a bard spell progression.

Grand Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Scimitars are not light weapons, nor do they state that they can be used with weapon finesse. Without Slashing Grace or Dervish Dance, you can't Dex to hit with a scimitar. Nor can you use agile on a weapon that cannot be finessed.

201 to 250 of 593 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / So what are we doing about Dervish Dance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.