|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.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.
The Campaign Clarifications are not clarifying Paizo rules. They are clarifying how PFS rules on Paizo rules, i.e. they are making house rules for the campaign and these may or may not match future Paizo rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.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.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that John doesn't work 25 feet or less from Jason Buhlman.
You do realize that all the campaign clarifications are made in full consultation with the Pathfinder Design team or the specific developer, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.You seem to be under the mistaken impression that John doesn't work 25 feet or less from Jason Buhlman. You do realize that all the campaign clarifications are made in full consultation with the Pathfinder Design team or the specific developer, right?
Speaking solely for myself....
...*I* did not know that.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
The real point of contention isn't Dervish Dance itself but rather this line from spell combat.
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.
This is a good synopsis of the quandary. It is the off hand is being used for whatever reason, and whether or not that use would still be considered a free hand.
|
Sorry, but PFS GMs can't choose to ignore requirements. If the rule says it has to be carried, you can't decide that's not a requirement. Nor can you decide carried means something completely different than its plain English definition without some mandate or context from the rules to do so.It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.That is certainly one side of the argument, yes.
|
|
PDT will often leave interpretation of rules to the GM, so that is a a derail.
PDT Answer 1): A or;
PDT Answer 2): B or;
PDT Answer 3): let the GM make a reasonable ruling as best fits his or her campaign (Expect Table Variation)
In PFS the GM at a table is not _THE_ GM. True, we must adjudicate as best as we can. For adjudications that can totally disrupt a player/table, campaign leadership is _THE_ GM. A clarification will remove Table Variation. Until a clarification comes: ETV, but please accept the table GMs ruling. Hence the OP: please clarify Dervish Dance.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
This raises the question: "Is the magus considered to be carrying and/or wielding a weapon in his off-hand during spell combat?"Apologies Cyrad, but I do not agree. In fact, I think your framing of the question in this manner is what is adding to the confusion.
The only relevant question for DD is whether you "carry a weapon or shield in the off hand." That's it. There is nothing in DD that cites "wielding." I'm not sure why so many continue to wrestle with this question, but wielding has no bearing on DD.
It is relevant because there's table variance over whether or not the magus can use Dervish Dance during spell combat. As you said, Dervish Dance is unambiguous in how it works. Thus, spell combat is the issue.
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.That's not correct. It is not a question of whether the spell is a weapon, it is question of whether you are considered to be carrying a weapon.
...which is why I said "since the spell is not a weapon in your off-hand." If it's not a weapon in your off-hand, you can't be carrying it. I'm just summarizing the logic of two sides there.
I don't understand why you're trying to contradict me when all you're doing is repeating my points. Especially when I've consistently argued in favor of A. You're not contributing to the conversation here.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
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.
I don't find any evidence in the CRB that you don't have an off-hand if you're not using 2WF. The first reference to it in the Combat chapter is in the Damage section, and makes no mention of 2WF. The 2WF section starts out with the assumption that you already have an off-hand, but now you're actually doing something with it.
This also means that even if you're not 2WF, Dervish Dance still shuts down if you carry a weapon in your other hand, even when you're not using it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
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.
You could already get multiple hits with Dex to damage with BAB 6+, Haste and so forth. The intent of Dervish Dance seems to be that you're doing it with only one weapon. But if you're using Spellstrike, that's exactly what you're doing. Spellstrike firmly puts the spell on the weapon-hand, as covered in FAQs.
The intent of Dervish Dance is not the same as *Grace; those feats ask that you're not doing or holding anything with the off-hand, while Dervish Dance only insists that you're not carrying weapons. That makes Dervish Dance considerably more permissive.
Now there are several arguments floating around like "DD wasn't meant to do things *Grace doesn't do" or "*Grace explicitly doesn't work with Spell Combat so DD shouldn't either" or "DD was meant to not work with Spell Combat". But those are all reversing history: Dervish Dance was written before the Magus and before *Grace feats.
Trying to limit DD like that because you feel it should work the same as *Grace requires a lot of inference and unwritten rules, like equating wielding and carrying, or hands remembering that they carried something, or making spells during spell combat more weaponlike than outside spell combat.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
You're inventing more memory and penalties in 2WF than are actually in there. The -2 to hit and damage penalty for that hand being considered "off" are the only ones that are actually in the rules.
Suppose a L7 Valeros is fighting a mimic, and doing Improved 2WF. Also he's learned Dervish Dance to try to impress Kyra.
He starts his 2WF routine but because he's a moron he's wielding two weapons, so he doesn't get Dervish Dance on his first hit with his scimitar. Then he strikes with his off-hand shortsword and it gets stuck to the mimic, so he lets go off it. His next iterative with his main hand still takes the -2 2WF penalty because that's actually in the rules, but since he's not carrying anything in his off-hand anymore he can use Dervish Dance. Next is his second off-hand attack but his hand doesn't remember carrying a sword so he can't make attacks with it.
It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lau Bannenberg
Spell combat says you must have a free hand throughout the action. However, I agree that treating the spell as a weapon in your off-hand is an interpretation that doesn't hold up when you scrutinize the mechanics in play. It doesn't make sense, it creates additional problems, and contradicts how both spells and two-weapon fighting work.
It makes more sense to interpret spell combat as "it's like two-weapon fighting, except you cast a spell instead of performing an extra attack with an off-hand weapon" instead of overcomplicating it. If this is the case, then Dervish Dance would work with spell combat.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.
|
|
You're inventing more memory and penalties in 2WF than are actually in there
No. I'm asking a question and reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence rather than presupposing an answer and then using it to reach the question.
You can't use your conclusion to answer your question with an example.
Suppose a L7 Valeros is fighting a mimic, and doing Improved 2WF. Also he's learned Dervish Dance to try to impress Kyra.
Does that even work? He's a dyed in the wool caydenite*. I thought you needed to be a saranite, per the butterfly sting butterfly walk debacle *will dig after coffee*
It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.
Instead of an idiot, lets say its a rules lawyer using the exact literal wording (Valeros' evil twin, who worships asmodeous apparently). Do you really want him using dervish dance with his right hand dropping the weapon quick drawing another scimitar and two weapon fighting with his left? Because that fullfills the exact literal wording you say is important.
t's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous.
That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.
*don't ask what they dyed the wool with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.
Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.
You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.
You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.
Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The semantic argument between the mechanical difference between wield and carry is kinda absurd. We know that Paizo is not good at using key words in their material, and so we have to make a lot of mechanical assumptions based on synonyms being used.
In this case, and in my opinion, wield and carry are synonymous in context. As such, they should be treated mechanically the same.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous. Spell Combat clearly states that you cast the spell before or after the other attacks, not halfway through.Instead of an idiot, lets say its a rules lawyer using the exact literal wording (Valeros' evil twin, who worships asmodeous apparently). Do you really want him using dervish dance with his right hand dropping the weapon quick drawing another scimitar and two weapon fighting with his left? Because that fullfills the exact literal wording you say is important.
Well that guy worships Asmodeus so he can't use Dervish Dance. But if he found a way around that...
Yes, he could do a trick with alternating quickdraws to use Dervish Dance on both hands, but he would be taking an additional -2 to hit on all attacks for using an 1H weapon on the off-hand attack given by choosing the 2WF mode. So he'd be attacking at -4/-4 (assuming he does have the 2WF feat). Also you'd go through carried scimitars pretty fast at higher levels, and enchanting a dozen of them gets expensive.
t's not about magical planck time. Attack routines are sequential, not simultaneous.That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.
The 2WF penalties have nothing to do with carrying stuff in your off-hand, but with dividing your efforts to get more done in the same time. Dropping weapons would not cancel the penalties because you've spent the time. The penalties are written into 2WF mode attacks and occur as soon as you declare that action.
But Dervish Dance, unlike 2WF doesn't care about distributed effort, it cares about what's in your hands at the moment you're making an attack.
|
|
Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.
You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.
I meant you clearly still couldn't Two-weapon Fight, and benefit from Dervish Dance at the same time.
Those reasons have already been explained ad nauseum at this point, so I won't repeat myself (again).
|
|
But Dervish Dance, unlike 2WF doesn't care about distributed effort, it cares about what's in your hands at the moment you're making an attack.
I do not believe that this is the case. Raw doesn't explicitly parse that way, it opens up rules lawyery exploits, and very similar language has been clarified to explicitly NOT work that way. There is every reason to conclude this is not the case and no reason to conclude that it is the case.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they know what Paizo is going to say, PFS should not be in the business of clarifying Paizo rules.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.
The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.
So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS, a GM cannot make a ruling based on an opinion of something being true when all other evidence says it's not.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
You claim that GMs are making contrary rulings based on "personal feelings" in the face of a clear rules issue.
This is not the case, and if you haven't done so already, I encourage you to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the different stances that have been presented.
It's not even a black or white argument. You're dealing with the wording, history and application of multiple different abilities (Definition of the word "carry", Definition of the word "off-hand", Two-weapon Fighting, Spell Combat), and that's even before you toss in the recent clarifications on the Grace feats.
So please be more considerate when you post. You are diminishing valid arguments and opinions with your statements. At least please acknowledge that there are multiple viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them all.
|
almost 400 posts now? and still as depressing...
I feel kind of bad about suggesting to my sister that she create a Dervish Dancer Bard a couple months back, I didn't realize how much hate they seem to be generating... I guess I'll suggest she go back to playing Barbarians and give up on her little Russian saber dancer
Nuuuu, protect the shaska wielder!
|
|
Thank you for the info, if accurate. I would think it goes without saying that if the PDT says they don't FAQ certain publications, PFS should do so if necessary. Is either Dervish Dance or the Magus in a softcover?
The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.
Dervish Dance is in a hardcover, but it is in the Campaign Setting line. Traditionally that has not been an area the PDT covers. There is a Golarion FAQ, which is where other items from the ISWG and the occaisional softcover have appeared. It’s my understanding that traditionally the Golarion FAQ has been James Jacobs’ responsibility, but that may have changed some in recent years. The last FAQ I remember being issued in that section originated as a PFS Campaign clarification and the announcement of the FAQ cane from Linda. So this does seem to be the place to ask for a clarification on Dervish Dance for PFS, which is what the thread is aiming for. Whether or not that makes it into the FAQ, it would still provide clarity on how to handle it at a PFS table. Magus is in Ultimate Magic, so that would be the PDT. Though they have opted to FAQ/reprint feats in the past (Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace) instead of issuing an errata/FAQ on the Magus.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel kind of bad about suggesting to my sister that she create a Dervish Dancer Bard a couple months back, I didn't realize how much hate they seem to be generating.
This is similarly a misrepresentation of the arguments and people making those arguments.
Nobody "hates" anything here. Not Dervish Dance. Not people using Dervish Dance. Not even people using an interpretation of Dervish Dance that you disagree with.
I'm not even sure how you could come to that conclusion.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Fun fact. You can Dervish Dance and two-weapon fight. The rules are pretty explicit that you can. Not sure why you ever would want to except for the rule of cool but nothing stops you from two weapon fighting.Part of the problem is that the Magus is trying to do something that was not entirely in step with the rest of the 3.5 rules, and had to parallel TWF without creating a brand new full round action involving spells and swords at the same time. This is something that was never done in the previous sets before Pathfinder, and having the spell be equivalent to the off hand weapon sets the ambiguity of the integration of this feat.Sure, if a clarification regarding the Magus came down and said something to the effect of, "We used the Two-weapon Fighting analogy more as an easy to understand visual, and not in the mechanical sense; the spell never consumes the off-hand", then I'd be inclined to say that Spell Combat and Dervish Dance are compatible.
You clearly still couldn't actually Two-weapon Fight, though.
I meant you clearly still couldn't Two-weapon Fight, and benefit from Dervish Dance at the same time.
Those reasons have already been explained ad nauseum at this point, so I won't repeat myself (again).
Nope. As per the RAW of Two-Weapon Fighting and Dervish Dance you can clearly do it. Mind you they probably never intended for it to work that way but with the way the feat is written and the numerous errata and rules they written over the years yup you can do it.
|
|
Thank you for the info, if accurate. I would think it goes without saying that if the PDT says they don't FAQ certain publications, PFS should do so if necessary. Is either Dervish Dance or the Magus in a softcover?
The PDT has actually said that for softcover books, books that they don't normally FAQ, that they WANT the PFS team to make a campaign clarification and that stuff that gets a CC MIGHT actually gets a FAQ from the PDT. Cause that means that the PFS team went and got all the info for the PDT to be able to look at to make their FAQ.So yeah, they SHOULD(can) be clarifying rules for softcovers.
I wasn't saying that this was a case for it per se, the real distinction is if the PDT wrote the book more than hardcover, so if the PDT aren't the team in the lead for inner sea stuff then DD would be a valid candidate for CC. I don't know so I can't say one way or not.
Mainly though you seemed to be saying that the PFS shouldn't make any clarifications on unclear stuff cause the PDT should be the one to FAQ them. So I wanted to let you know that the PDT said that they were glad cause this would help them be able to finally make FAQs on softcovers.|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS requires we observe RAW,I will go out on a limb and say that you don't know PFS very well.
Not only is your statement incorrect, but Campaign Leadership has come out multiple times stating that it is incorrect.
PFS requires
- GMs to run the scenario as is
- GMs to run things by the rules as they know them
- GMs to not use "house rules" which ties in to the rule above.
- GMs to make a call on things for stuff that they don't know the rules of at the time.
Meaning if there is ANY grey issues a GM is firmly allowed to rule either way as they feel appropriate. And unless you can provide clear and direct proof, basically a quote or FAQ, then they are empowered by PFS to do so.
So while I don't agree or even feel they people have a valid stance for their view of the rules all the time, they are 'correct' at table.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Clearly our interpretation of what you call "RAW" differs here.
The two-weapon fighting rules are a disaster to the point where its not actively not clear. Dervish Dance assumes that you have nothing in your hand which doesn't preclude you from two-weapon fighting anymore.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That IS magical plank time. Attack routines are not just sequential they take place over time. That is why you take 2 weapon fighting penalties. That is why you cannot just drop weapons to avoid the penalties. That is why slashing grace doesn't work. You are doing something for the three seconds of your turn not just that one instant. That is where all the evidence points. Nothing in the wording contradicts that.
Slashing Grace doesn't work with two-weapon fighting because Slashing Grace says it doesn't work with two-weapon fighting. Attacks during a full-attack action are sequential, which is why you can 5-foot step between attacks or change it to an attack action if you only made a single attack. Nothing in the two-weapon fighting rules changes this.
I concede you raised a few good points, but making things up or filling huge gaps in your logic with what you wish the rules said only undermines your argument.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not even a black or white argument.It is a black and white argument. Just like the DC to jump over a 10' pit was a black and white argument.
And this is a False Equivocation fallacy.
The ten foot pit discussion was whether the DC for an Acrobatics check equalled the distance travelled, or the distance of the obstacle. Both of those definitions were listed in the Acrobatics section as of the last printing.
So in that particular case, the discussion was black or white.
That does not mean this discussion is.