So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

301 to 350 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
**** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You cannot have a weapon in your off-hand when you dervish dance.

A magus flurrying magus is two weapon fighting with the spell counting as a weapon in the off hand.

You have a weapon in your off hand

you cannot dervish dance.

Before I ever got into any of this argument, this is exactly how I read it. I've always considered a hand with a held spell charge as armed. Why? Because you can make AoO with a touch spell held in a hand without any special feats (whereas you need a feat to do it with an unarmed strike). Granted, I know there's the tomfoolery with a Magus taking a spell and moving it to the hand holding his weapon, which just further complicates this argument. But, the line of reasoning that BNW is illustrating is exactly how I've always read this. I'm not saying it's right or wrong because that's the whole point of this thread. But that's a perfectly legitimate RAW interpretation of Dervish Dance, and that's the stance I would be inclined to take if it were to come up at my table and I was GM.

That said, I would LOVE to see this get a clarification to put this whole thing to rest.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Bouchard wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You cannot have a weapon in your off-hand when you dervish dance.

A magus flurrying magus is two weapon fighting with the spell counting as a weapon in the off hand.

You have a weapon in your off hand

you cannot dervish dance.

Before I ever got into any of this argument, this is exactly how I read it. I've always considered a hand with a held spell charge as armed. Why? Because you can make AoO with a touch spell held in a hand without any special feats (whereas you need a feat to do it with an unarmed strike). Granted, I know there's the tomfoolery with a Magus taking a spell and moving it to the hand holding his weapon, which just further complicates this argument. But, the line of reasoning that BNW is illustrating is exactly how I've always read this. I'm not saying it's right or wrong because that's the whole point of this thread. But that's a perfectly legitimate RAW interpretation of Dervish Dance, and that's the stance I would be inclined to take if it were to come up at my table and I was GM.

That said, I would LOVE to see this get a clarification to put this whole thing to rest.

You would nerf the Lord of the Dervish Dance! You big meanie!

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:


The people saying that it is NOT clear ARE right. BNW and Nefreet are reasonable people, if reasonable people say that it is NOT clear then it IS NOT CLEAR.

Is it like a weapon? Sort of a weapon? it counts as a weapon for this but not for that? It's a weapon on alternate tuesdays between 5 and 9? The almighty raw simply does not answer those questions on it's own.

What it comes down to for me is the FAQ. Pre FAQ I can see reading it both ways but post faq there is no consistent way that slashing grace parses to "no flurry for you" and the very similarly worded dervish dance parses to flurry away. Yes, there are differences in wording, but for the life of me i can't see how those differences amount to anything meaningful. Every argument made here for underlying assumptions that would allow dervish dance to work should have resulted in slashing grace working. Unless the game is completely inconsistent it shouldn't work.

Then I look at the effects of this. Is there really only supposed to be one weapon for magi? Is this one build supposed to be the magus build? Is a non religious class supposed to be shunted into the worship of one specific deity?

Then there's the bigger picture of fencing being a thing: Fencing. one weapon. Not two weapon fighting, not monk flurrying, not pseudo two weapon Arcane Mark flurrying. One weapon in one hand with no shield.

All of that is screaming no much, much louder than allegedly objective meanings of the raw, and I think thats why people are so adamant that raw has no ambiguity. Once you admit to any ambiguity all of the other evidence tilts no HARD.

The point here isn't to show that I'm right. Its to show that there is a legitimate argument against the combo and if you run into it, the DM isn't being a twit or cheating, they're reading a rule differently and under a paradigm with a better track record than simply declaring something raw.

*** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

BigNorseWolf wrote:


What it comes down to for me is the FAQ. Pre FAQ I can see reading it both ways but post faq there is no consistent way that slashing grace parses to "no flurry for you" and the very similarly worded dervish dance parses to flurry away. Yes, there are differences in wording, but for the life of me i can't see how those differences amount to anything meaningful. Every argument made here for underlying assumptions that would allow dervish dance to work should have resulted in slashing grace working. Unless the game is completely inconsistent it shouldn't work.

Inconsistent:

Buckler is like a Shield, with the exception of you can wear it while two handing a weapon, a Swashbuckler can use it even though they need a free hand, it can’t be used to shield bash except when it can because of a feat (and possibly some archetype I am not aware of), and it is spelled differently.

Look at all the weirdness of Improved Unarmed Strike vs. Natural Weapons for more examples of two things being similarly but handled very differently.

Kineticist blast is an exception to the DR and Energy Resistance rules.

I think that is probably enough examples.

Pathfinder is rife with inconsistent and strange exceptions.

I am in favor of a campaign clarification or FAQ, but until that happens I will continue to allow Dervish Dance to work with Spell Combat. That said, I can see plenty of room for GMs to rule the other way.

I see this as another exception to the normal rules.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of those are particularly inconsistent. A buckler is stated as being strapped to your forearm and swashBUCKLER not being able to use it when it's right in the name would be weird (yes, the etymologies are related Elan) Its really hard to clock someone effectively with something that light, and each level of shield offers some unique combination of protection and utility.

Unarmed strikes use manufactured weapons rules because they're in "stuff humanoid bipeds use" catagory.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that a hand needing to be empty versus not holding a weapon is definitely a significant difference. If nothing else, holding a wand, but not using it, would be allowed for Dervish Dance but not for the others in their post-changes state.

Also, something 'working like two-weapon fighting' is different from 'working like a weapon' which is still something different from 'counts as holding a weapon.' Obviously there is a way for reasonable people to come to that conclusion, but I just can't see it.

*** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

I was talking about how things were modeled in the mechanics, not if they should or should not be allowed. Mechanically, the Swashbuckler was better off with an Axe because they could use Slashing Grace with it but not a Rapier.

Yes, a Swashbuckler should be allowed a Buckler. That doesn’t mean the current rules are consistent. At times, it feels to me like Pathfinder has more exceptions than rules.

And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Grand Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can Two Weapon Fight with Dervish Dance if I don't use a weapon. I can use Improved Unarmed Strike to deliver a blow with my off hand, and Dervish Dance continues to work as worded. You are claiming that a FAQ, whose wording is completely different, both before and after the FAQ. You then state that the FAQ was for balance, which you have no way of knowing. The Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace changes may well be for fluff reasons. You can't just uniformly decide to apply a FAQ about one thing to something else, no matter how similar you think they are.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintin Verassi wrote:
I can Two Weapon Fight with Dervish Dance if I don't use a weapon. I can use Improved Unarmed Strike to deliver a blow with my off hand, and Dervish Dance continues to work as worded. You are claiming that a FAQ, whose wording is completely different, both before and after the FAQ. You then state that the FAQ was for balance, which you have no way of knowing. The Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace changes may well be for fluff reasons. You can't just uniformly decide to apply a FAQ about one thing to something else, no matter how similar you think they are.

Problem is, this argument is forcing the cart before the horse. At least as far as some of the arguers are concerned. Some of them have made this determination well before the FAQ came out. As such, the FAQ is just reinforcing their opinion, not informing it.

Silver Crusade *

Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace (post-FAQ anyway) have explicit wording denying spell combat compatibility. Dervish Dance does not. The FAQ could have been written to affect Dervish Dance too, but it wasn't. Until Dervish Dance is brought into the orbit of that FAQ, Dervish Dance and spell combat work together.

And hey, I'm reasonable people too ;) (Reasonable people can reasonably disagree with each other.)

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Christine Bussman wrote:

No, actually, there are three main opinions.

A. It's clear this combination is legal
B. It's not clear if this combination is legal
C. It's clear this is not legal.

Personally, I believe that A is the correct answer, but from the fact that reasonable posters (Big Norse Wolf and Nefreet) are arguing for C, I can only conclude that the truth is B.

I could definitely be wrong, but I think that both Nefreet and BNW are arguing that

1) the rules are unclear
2) that being said, they believe that the preponderance of evidence means that they believe this combination is illegal.

The Exchange ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

this entire thread just re-enforces the reasons I have basically given up posting on the PFS boards...

crud... missed my Will Save again.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Unless the game is completely inconsistent it shouldn't work.

Well now we know the real issue. Your base premise is flawed ;)

As much as I and many wish the game was even mostly internally consistent I feel it's further from that then we think.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

supervillan wrote:
Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace (post-FAQ anyway) have explicit wording denying spell combat compatibility.

What they have (and this is an important distinction) is a clarification that they deny spell combat capability. Since they don't exist as anything but words, presumably there is something about the way that they're written that is supposed to tell you that they deny spell combat, and didn't come across as well as would be liked.

Quote:
Dervish Dance does not. The FAQ could have been written to affect Dervish Dance too, but it wasn't. Until Dervish Dance is brought into the orbit of that FAQ, Dervish Dance and spell combat work together.

Except that paizo doesn't FAQ the line that dervish dance is out of. Its out of the design teams hands, so the design team didn't touch it when they were adjusting the grace twins doesn't mean anything.


Indeed. The ship had long since sailed on internal consistency before the first release of the Core Rulebook. Hell, six printings in and we still don't have basic rules for throwing an object for distance (instead of as an attack of some sort).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that paizo doesn't FAQ the line that dervish dance is out of. Its out of the design teams hands, so the design team didn't touch it when they were adjusting the grace twins doesn't mean anything.

False. There is already an existing FAQ regarding ISWG (see here), so there is no reason why they couldn't release another.

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

nosig wrote:

this entire thread just re-enforces the reasons I have basically given up posting on the PFS boards...

crud... missed my Will Save again.

Just think of it as the 'Circle of Life,' only its the 'Circle of Rules Debating.'

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The point here isn't to show that I'm right. Its to show that there is a legitimate argument against the combo and if you run into it, the DM isn't being a twit or cheating, they're reading a rule differently and under a paradigm with a better track record than simply declaring something raw.

The GM has the important responsibility to facilitate enjoyment at the table. In the event that a GM encounters a rule that could be interpreted multiple ways, it is in his or her best interest to interpret it in way most favorable to the player, assuming this interpretation does not disrupt the game or contradict the scenario. Especially when the player's character heavily relies on this interpretation, and the rule/option has been in publication for 7 years.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
The GM has the important responsibility to facilitate enjoyment at the table. In the event that a GM encounters a rule that could be interpreted multiple ways, it is in his or her best interest to interpret it in way most favorable to the player, assuming this interpretation does not disrupt the game or contradict the scenario. Especially when the player's character heavily relies on this interpretation, and the rule/option has been in publication for 7 years.

]

I have had this come up at a table. Fortunately the saranite in question was built before the faq and I had no qualms about letting the combo stand, because they'd made the character in good faith AND they were stuck with it.

I suppose that means im stuck with the ones built after it too, but that feels really cheesey to me to be told that one option doesn't work, hop on a nearly identical option what could go wrong...

So I'm not banhammering the combo. I will hand out revelation packets and borrow nefreets sandwich board though

On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.

***

Quintin Verassi wrote:
I can Two Weapon Fight with Dervish Dance if I don't use a weapon. I can use Improved Unarmed Strike to deliver a blow with my off hand, and Dervish Dance continues to work as worded. You are claiming that a FAQ, whose wording is completely different, both before and after the FAQ. You then state that the FAQ was for balance, which you have no way of knowing. The Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace changes may well be for fluff reasons. You can't just uniformly decide to apply a FAQ about one thing to something else, no matter how similar you think they are.

Except that two weapon fighting says "An unarmed strike is always considered light." So once the action 'two weapon fighting' is declared, the off-hand is considered a weapon. A weapon that can't actually be dropped, sundered, or disarmed.

This is important to me as some of the arguments above say that once you cast the spell, the hand is no longer wielding it.* Once you strike with an unarmed strike you are wielding a light weapon. Once you cast a spell you are wielding a light weapon. Unless you are wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you aren't fighting with two weapons (ergo spell-combat).

*While I can understand the 'free action to transfer to the other weapon' argument, I do not see it as the same thing. Hmmm... better way to say this might be: Unless you free-action-transfer-the-spell there isn't even an argument that the off-hand is empty.

***

Cyrad wrote:
The GM has the important responsibility to facilitate enjoyment at the table. In the event that a GM encounters a rule that could be interpreted multiple ways, it is in his or her best interest to interpret it in way most favorable to the playerS, assuming this interpretation does not disrupt the game or contradict the scenario. Especially when the player's character heavily relies on this interpretation, and the rule/option has been in publication for 7 years.

I have fixed that for you. :) I have had players leave the table because the magus won on initiative. I have had players agro the next encounter because the magus won on initiative. I have had players cede the match when demonic tutor hits the table. While this may not be unique to magus, my point is that a GM has at least two other people's enjoyment to consider.

EDIT:I do not mean this to imply a GM can vary the ruling from table to table. Expect Table Variation means different GMs have different interpretations within the written rules. A GM should stick to one side of the interpretation, nay a GM must be consistent.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.

Many players (as well as individuals in this discussion) do not see it as a gray area. Why would they not use it as an option? Especially when it's a popular feat that was published many years ago?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Indeed. The ship had long since sailed on internal consistency before the first release of the Core Rulebook. Hell, six printings in and we still don't have basic rules for throwing an object for distance (instead of as an attack of some sort).

The Church of Asmodeus will confirm that all the rules have is infernal consistency.

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
In the event that a GM encounters a rule that could be interpreted multiple ways, it is in his or her best interest to interpret it in way most favorable to the player

I think that this is overstating things somewhat. All things being more or less equal I agree that siding with the player is often best. But if the GM thinks the issue is clear OR if he thinks the player is deliberately exploiting a loop hole things become a lot less clear.

I've often made a ruling of "I'll let it go your way for this session but I'll be reviewing it after the game and will very likely be banning it from now on. You might want to find better evidence that you're right before next session :-)"

***

Cyrad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.
Many players (as well as individuals in this discussion) do not see it as a gray area. Why would they not use it as an option? Especially when it's a popular feat that was published many years ago?

'Tis the point of this whole thread. No one sees it as grey, different GMs simply see white where others see black and the only grey is when a player A plays at GM Bs table.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

None of those are particularly inconsistent. A buckler is stated as being strapped to your forearm and swashBUCKLER not being able to use it when it's right in the name would be weird (yes, the etymologies are related Elan) Its really hard to clock someone effectively with something that light, and each level of shield offers some unique combination of protection and utility.

Unarmed strikes use manufactured weapons rules because they're in "stuff humanoid bipeds use" catagory.

Ooo. Ooo. OoTS reference!

Erm, throwing in my vote for this needing a clarification if only to clear it up once and for all. People base substantial portions of their character concepts on this feat (not me personally, none of my characters have it). If nothing else, it would be nice if those people had a clear word once and for all on whether or not it worked .

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.
Many players (as well as individuals in this discussion) do not see it as a gray area. Why would they not use it as an option? Especially when it's a popular feat that was published many years ago?

Because you can't argue your way through a dms ruling just because you don't think its a gray area.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Curaigh wrote:
Expect Table Variation means different GMs have different interpretations within the written rules. A GM should stick to one side of the interpretation, nay a GM must be consistent.

To me, as a GM or a player, this is the most important thing to keep in mind. GMs should be consistent in their rulings across all tables.

Curaigh wrote:
'Tis the point of this whole thread. No one sees it as grey, different GMs simply see white where others see black and the only grey is when a player A plays at GM Bs table.

However, I don't agree with this. As a GM, the expectation/responsibility for me is to make a black or white decision. I can read and post on these forums, and see both sides of this argument and agree with BNW that SOMEBODY has to address it in a clarification/FAQ (because I can clearly see both sides of the argument here). However, when I sit at a table and GM and this comes up, I have to make a decision on whether I allow it or not. Me telling a player "Ehhh, the ruling on this is kind of muddy, in my opinion" doesn't really address the situation on whether I allow this to be used or not.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Cantriped wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that paizo doesn't FAQ the line that dervish dance is out of. Its out of the design teams hands, so the design team didn't touch it when they were adjusting the grace twins doesn't mean anything.
False. There is already an existing FAQ regarding ISWG (see here), so there is no reason why they couldn't release another.

It came out of the player pathfinder companion line and errating or FAQing stuff from there is apparently a bit of a thing.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Curaigh wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.
Many players (as well as individuals in this discussion) do not see it as a gray area. Why would they not use it as an option? Especially when it's a popular feat that was published many years ago?
'Tis the point of this whole thread. No one sees it as grey, different GMs simply see white where others see black and the only grey is when a player A plays at GM Bs table.

I'm making the point that it's not cool to criticize players for "building into gray areas" when most players legitimately don't see it as a gray area at all and there's strong evidence for that interpretation.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Cyrad wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
On the other side, players really shouldn't build into gray areas like that. And i think sufficient flags were raised from the slashing grace faq to call it that.
Many players (as well as individuals in this discussion) do not see it as a gray area. Why would they not use it as an option? Especially when it's a popular feat that was published many years ago?
'Tis the point of this whole thread. No one sees it as grey, different GMs simply see white where others see black and the only grey is when a player A plays at GM Bs table.
I'm making the point that it's not cool to criticize players for "building into gray areas" when most players legitimately don't see it as a gray area at all and there's strong evidence for that interpretation.

There is absolutely zero argument that you're not building into a gray area.

edit: i realize not everyone spends a fair bit an inordinate i can stop any time i want to lot of time in rules discussions and can walk into the combo without knowing there's an issue.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Except that paizo doesn't FAQ the line that dervish dance is out of. Its out of the design teams hands, so the design team didn't touch it when they were adjusting the grace twins doesn't mean anything.
False. There is already an existing FAQ regarding ISWG (see here), so there is no reason why they couldn't release another.
It came out of the player companion line and errating or FAQing stuff from there is apparently a bit of a thing.

Dervish Dance was published in Inner Sea World Guide before the date of that FAQ.

Venture-Agent aka MadScientistWorking

Curaigh wrote:
Quintin Verassi wrote:
I can Two Weapon Fight with Dervish Dance if I don't use a weapon. I can use Improved Unarmed Strike to deliver a blow with my off hand, and Dervish Dance continues to work as worded. You are claiming that a FAQ, whose wording is completely different, both before and after the FAQ. You then state that the FAQ was for balance, which you have no way of knowing. The Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace changes may well be for fluff reasons. You can't just uniformly decide to apply a FAQ about one thing to something else, no matter how similar you think they are.

Except that two weapon fighting says "An unarmed strike is always considered light." So once the action 'two weapon fighting' is declared, the off-hand is considered a weapon. A weapon that can't actually be dropped, sundered, or disarmed.

This is important to me as some of the arguments above say that once you cast the spell, the hand is no longer wielding it.* Once you strike with an unarmed strike you are wielding a light weapon. Once you cast a spell you are wielding a light weapon. Unless you are wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you aren't fighting with two weapons (ergo spell-combat).

*While I can understand the 'free action to transfer to the other weapon' argument, I do not see it as the same thing. Hmmm... better way to say this might be: Unless you free-action-transfer-the-spell there isn't even an argument that the off-hand is empty.

The problem with citing the rules for two weapon fighting is that technically speaking you can still Dervish Dance under your interpretation. Its the stupidest thing in the world but even under your interpretation no it doesn't 100% stop this build.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I'm making the point that it's not cool to criticize players for "building into gray areas" when most players legitimately don't see it as a gray area at all and there's strong evidence for that interpretation.
There is absolutely zero argument that you're not building into a gray area.

Because the problem isn't Dervish Dance itself but rather the latter part of the second sentence of spell combat. Especially considering that spell combat is described as "two-weapon fighting" partially for flavor rather than mechanics since the ability technically is not two-weapon fighting at all. At a glance, it seems obvious the ability works with Dervish Dance. RAW, the feat even works with two-weapon fighting.

I'm contrasting with rules issues like whether or not gauntlets are weapons, whereupon the rules actually contradict themselves.

Scarab Sages ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly flavour text and rules text should be much more clear, Half of my problems in Pathfinder have been because of that.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Curaigh wrote:

Except that two weapon fighting says "An unarmed strike is always considered light." So once the action 'two weapon fighting' is declared, the off-hand is considered a weapon. A weapon that can't actually be dropped, sundered, or disarmed.

This is important to me as some of the arguments above say that once you cast the spell, the hand is no longer wielding it.* Once you strike with an unarmed strike you are wielding a light weapon. Once you cast a spell you are wielding a light weapon. Unless you are wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you aren't fighting with two weapons (ergo spell-combat).

*While I can understand the 'free action to transfer to the other weapon' argument, I do not see it as the same thing. Hmmm... better way to say this might be: Unless you free-action-transfer-the-spell there isn't even an argument that the off-hand is empty.

1) Dervish Dance asks about carrying, not wielding. Since we have no game definition that says carrying a weapon means anything other than the plain English meaning, we should probably use that. And even though I might wield my fist as a lethal weapon, I'm not carrying my fist in my off-hand.

This fits with the designer commentary from even before the Magus was published explaining that using a claw or fist in the off-hand with Dervish Dance was not a problem, only carrying something weaponline external to the body like a Flame Blade.

2) I wielded a weapon in my off-hand, but given how unclear wielding seems to be, how sure are we that I'm still wielding it? If my off-hand weapon is disarmed, am I still wielding it? Can I still make attacks with it? Or is "hand memory" really really selective and remembers only those things necessary for us to arrive at a specific desired conclusion but nothing else?

3) The Spellstrike FAQ is quite definitive that when you use Spellstrike to try to deliver a touch spell, the spell moves to the main hand. There's no free actions or choices involved - once you use Spellstrike, the spell absolutely moves. And then the argument against Dervish Dance becomes an argument that the spell is at two places at the same time in order for it to occupy both hands.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
And then the argument against Dervish Dance becomes an argument that the spell is at two places at the same time in order for it to occupy both hands.

Absolutely not.

What the argument becomes, and has already been expressly spelled out, is that once you get the improved action economy benefits of two weapon fighting then you have the penalties and drawbacks of two weapon fighting even if the weapon leaves your hand. We KNOW this is the case otherwise a magus wouldn't take the penalties to hit.

Furthermore we know this is the case because otherwise you would never take two weapon fighting penalties at all: outside of two weapon rend or something you never strike with the weapons simultaneously. You swing them one after the other and once your right hand makes with the stabby stabby at -2 your left hand is taking that penalty for the rest of the round whether you drop the weapon or transfer it between hands. The duration of "when" you are two weapon fighting is your attack sequence, not one moment in plank time*.

Even if you don't accept the above, the opposition to the dervish dance magusflurry combo does not become a contradiction because you don't like the explanation.

*pseudo medievaly games have planks

The Exchange ****

"What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact."
- Warren Buffett.

My Mind Is Made Up. Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts.

who is this directed at?:
and the funniest part of this entire argument (and at this point it is just that, an argument, not a discussion) is that both sides will assume I am singling them out for ridicule - when in fact I am pointing at both.

and the saddest part is that most likely I will be flamed by both sides, when in fact I have no opinion on this and am un-decided... so clearly, if I "am not on their side, must be against them".

At this point one side or the other SHOULD have convinced me (working on 400 posts now), but they are to busy yelling at each other with their fingers in their ears to realize that they are NOT presenting their opinions in a very good light.

*

This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

I agree that each side has some legitimacy, but PFS should not answer this question. PFS should assiduously avoid attempting to resolve ambiguity in the Pathfinder rules. That mandate should rest with Paizo and Paizo alone. My understanding of the PFS charter in this regard is to determine whether unambiguous rules are contrary to organized play.

If PFS say A and Paizo later says not A, then PFS has created a problem and incurred a cost for deciding something that it does not have the authority to ultimately decide.

This request should be moved to the Rules forum. Paizo needs to address this, not PFS. Put this thread in the Rules forum so it can get more visibility from the entire Pathfinder community and gain more visibility for the PDT.

I do believe that PFS should request that this issue is moved up the queue because I completely agree with those who feel we should not have players and GMs with uncertainly regarding something that can be fundamental to a build. More importantly, this can be answered definitively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread suggests I made the right decision by having my only Dervish Dancer in PFS be a Sarenite warpriest.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not read all posts. If my points have been made already, then so be it.

My assessment:

1) Per RAW, Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat. Lau's response, imo, addresses the crux of the issue:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
1) Dervish Dance asks about carrying, not wielding. Since we have no game definition that says carrying a weapon means anything other than the plain English meaning, we should probably use that. And even though I might wield my fist as a lethal weapon, I'm not carrying my fist in my off-hand.

There is no equivocation that one does not "carry" a spell in Spell Combat.

2)Two-Weapon Fighting and whether you can do it with Dervish Dance is irrelevant to this discussion. People are reading this frequently quoted section:

Quote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

...and getting hung up on the mention of TWF. But that is irrelevant. Dervish Dance cares whether or not you are "carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand." So some GMs are connecting the dots and deciding that Spell Combat says you have a weapon in the off hand. But that whether or not you have a "weapon," Spell Combat does not say you are "carrying" a weapon. If we are talking about RAW, that matters.

3) Intent is irrelevant, context is not. PDT rulings have shown us that author intent is irrelevant. The PDT decides what the rules mean regardless of what the author intended them to mean when they were written. In the absence of the PDT clarifying, we need to look at the context in which the rules were written. What context is "carrying" something used throughout the rules? "Carry" is used with regard to objects. Do any spell descriptions talk about carrying a spell?

The rules do talk about "holding the charge," is that the same things as carrying a weapon or shield? There is nothing in the rules that mandates such a conclusion.

4)...but it's not that simple. Despite RAW allowing DD, there is a bigger problem. As BNW often likes to chirp, if we go with RAW we are going to get nonsensical outcomes. Consider this: DD says you can't "carry" a weapon or shield. Lau has made the astute and often repeated observation that carrying =/= wielding. But that cuts both ways, if you'll excuse the pun.

By the rules, as has been clarified, I can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, even though I can't wield it. I can carry a shield in one hand, even if I'm not donning it. Does DD still work if I am carrying an unwielded weapon? Is a weapon a weapon only if its wielded as a weapon or is it a weapon because it is in a table?

What about improvised weapons? They count as weapons for AoO's, so they are weapons. So arguably, any thing I "carry" in my off hand that could be used as an improvised weapons should count as a weapon because I only need to carry it, not wield it. I can certainly stab someone in the eye with a rolled up scroll or a quill.

If carrying a weapon that I can't wield cuts me off from DD, then we seem to be far afield from any sensible application of the restriction, after all, what's the difference between a quarterstaff and a bean pole such that DD works with the latter but not the former?

DD needs to be clarified. But by RAW it works with Spell Combat because you simply are not carrying anything in the off hand.

The Exchange ****

N N 959 wrote:

I have not read all posts. If my points have been made already, then so be it.

My assessment:

1) Per RAW, Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat. Lau's response, imo, addresses the crux of the issue:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
1) Dervish Dance asks about carrying, not wielding. Since we have no game definition that says carrying a weapon means anything other than the plain English meaning, we should probably use that. And even though I might wield my fist as a lethal weapon, I'm not carrying my fist in my off-hand.

There is no equivocation that one does not "carry" a spell in Spell Combat.

2)Two-Weapon Fighting and whether you can do it with Dervish Dance is irrelevant to this discussion. People are reading this frequently quoted section:

Quote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

...and getting hung up on the mention of TWF. But that is irrelevant. Dervish Dance cares whether or not you are "carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand." So some GMs are connecting the dots and deciding that Spell Combat says you have a weapon in the off hand. But that whether or not you have a "weapon," Spell Combat does not say you are "carrying" a weapon. If we are talking about RAW, that matters.

3) Intent is irrelevant, context is not. PDT rulings have shown us that author intent is irrelevant. The PDT decides what the rules mean regardless of what the author intended them to mean when they were written. In the absence of the PDT clarifying, we need to look at the context in which the rules were written. What context is "carrying" something used throughout the rules? "Carry" is used with regard to objects. Do any spell descriptions talk about carrying a spell?

The rules do talk about "holding the charge," is that the same things as carrying a weapon or shield? There is nothing in the rules that mandates such a conclusion.

4)...but it's not that...

Wow... this was a understandable post. And N N 959 even presents a good case. I'm going to have to say that I am being swayed by their logic... now - how to you suggest we handle it at our PFS table until Paizo comes out with a "clearification"? Realizing that they may never come out with anything on this (and some judges will rule for/against it even if/after Piazo rules one way or the other)?

Oh! And thank you N-N...

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
RAW it works with Spell Combat because you simply are not carrying anything in the off hand.

You focus on the word "carry", I focus on the word "off-hand".

The off-hand only exists during your round in combat, and only for determining attack and damage.

It is not possible to "carry" something in your off-hand, so I don't focus on the word.

If your argument focuses on the word "carry", you're not going to convince someone who's focusing on "off-hand".

Likewise, when I argue about the off-hand, those who focus on the word "carry" will not find my argument legitimate.

I would *hope* that those people see the merits of the other side (after all, many people on the opposition do), but this thread doesn't leave me much hope of that =P

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
karlbadmannersV2 wrote:
Nefreet and BNW definitely win for most biased arguments!

*headscratch*

How so?

Also, still waiting on a response to this.

I'll usually be up front with any biases I'm aware of, but since I don't have a horse in this race I'm unsure what you could be referring to.

I've already stated I'd be fine with either ruling. I just want to get it clarified (and understand how it was determined, so I can make better informed rulings in the future).

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too.

whether or not one can do this particular combo is focused on having the Off Hand free. The whole argument boils down to "how can we get two hits in one round with Dex to damage?"

I don't believe this combo works, as it goes beyond what was intended for the ability. To be fair, one must look at RAI as they narrow down the RAW. This is likely the first thing that it ignored in situations such as this.

With Spell Combat, no matter if you use Spellstrike or not, you are effectively using that offhand and it is not free from use. Dervish Dance needs are not met in this situation.

Yes, a clarification would be nice, either in PFS clarification or in a FAQ, but likely it will be the same as the previous FAQ for Slashing Grace.

Grand Lodge **

You're missing that DD doesn't require a free offhand. It requires a weapon or shield to not be carried in the offhand. And casting a spell is not a weapon from any rules we've seen (unless it's a spell that creates a weapon like flameblade obviously).

*

Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
RAW it works with Spell Combat because you simply are not carrying anything in the off hand.

You focus on the word "carry", I focus on the word "off-hand".

The off-hand only exists during your round in combat, and only for determining attack and damage.

It is not possible to "carry" something in your off-hand, so I don't focus on the word.

If your argument focuses on the word "carry", you're not going to convince someone who's focusing on "off-hand".

Likewise, when I argue about the off-hand, those who focus on the word "carry" will not find my argument legitimate.

I would *hope* that those people see the merits of the other side (after all, many people on the opposition do), but this thread doesn't leave me much hope of that =P

Apologies Nefreet, if you've already covered this, I missed it.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Your claim that it's not possible to cary something in your off hand is not clear. I assume you're trying to argue that you only have an off hand when it has a weapon?

The fact that DD requires us to check if you "carry" anything in the "off hand" refutes any notion that things can't be carried in the off hand from the perspective of the rules. So I don't understand what you're trying to say.

*

Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
This a question that should be answered by Paizo, not PFS.

If it was possible to get the PDT to answer every ambiguity, we wouldn't need a Campaign Clarifications document.

Since it's rare for the PDT to even issue a single FAQ, we make do with what we can.

Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.

* RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

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

Spell Combat wrote:
This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"

A) Many say "no" because a spell is not a weapon and interpret the ability to mean "This functions similar to two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an attack with an off-hand weapon." Since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand, Dervish Dance should be compatible.

B) Others say "yes" because they interpret the text as indicating the spell is treated as an off-hand weapon. And because the next sentence says the magus must have a free hand to use spell combat, they believe the magus "carries" this spell that is also treated as an off-hand weapon. And because the spell is treated as a weapon carried in the off-hand, Dervish Dance should not be compatible.

301 to 350 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.