So what are we doing about Dervish Dance?


Pathfinder Society

551 to 593 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Thank you for the clarification!

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Just as planned.

Lantern Lodge

Thank you!!

4/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Hey folks...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that we have some guidance, this topic can be taken out back and put down. Let's get this added to campaign clarification so it's not lost to the aether of blog posts.

pjrogers wrote:

Thanks for the clarification and just in time.

Tonight, Michael Flatley al Cheese, Lord of the Dervish Dance, will be born!

And my paladin is going to hate your character for, like, no reason. :)

Sovereign Court 1/5

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.

This.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Joe Bouchard wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Hey folks...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that we have some guidance, this topic can be taken out back and put down. Let's get this added to campaign clarification so it's not lost to the aether of blog posts.

pjrogers wrote:

Thanks for the clarification and just in time.

Tonight, Michael Flatley al Cheese, Lord of the Dervish Dance, will be born!

And my paladin is going to hate your character for, like, no reason. :)

Wait until you see the PICTURE I have found.

edited to add link to picture

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.

Well no. Now I'll legitimately curious as to whether or not I can two weapon fight, punch myself as the first action to deliver true strike as a touch attack, and dervish dance afterwards.


I'm assuming satire or sarcasm there?.........Correct?

3/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Grand Prairie aka DM Livgin

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks. Having this clarified opens up character concept space for players terrified of table variation.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, John.

I am going to make certain to notify folks in my area of this ruling. Especially since it was a ruling in the PbP region that started this whole thread...

Hmm

PS When I asked you folks why we were still arguing about this, you all told me, "So that PFS will clarify it." Thank you for putting up the good fight, and letting me see that you were correct to keep the discussion going.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Just as planned.

As the prophecy foretold.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ZᴇɴN wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.
This.

I think John's intent was clear. Don't penalize a sizable portion of the player base due to technicalities that do not have a fix that is both simple and fair.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Joe Bouchard wrote:
Let's get this added to campaign clarification so it's not lost to the aether of blog posts.

^ absolutely this.

A very artfully crafted ruling that appeases both sides ^_^


Bill Baldwin wrote:
ZᴇɴN wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.
This.
I think John's intent was clear. Don't penalize a sizable portion of the player base due to technicalities that do not have a fix that is both simple and fair.

That's not quite how I read it. I view John's statement as an affirmation that conjecture is not a basis for denying long established builds in PFS. There's also a nod to consideration of the detriment status quo has on the game i.e. how much does DDing Magi trivialize combat for others.

Shadow Lodge

Now to see how long it takes people to ask for Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace to get unnerfed so Dex-to-Damage is not purely the realm of Dervish Magi, unchained rogues, and the agile weapon property. >.>

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Lead Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
ZᴇɴN wrote:
GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
So, now we can move on (possibly in a new thread) to determining whether all these bladebound kensai magi are legal.
This.
I think John's intent was clear. Don't penalize a sizable portion of the player base due to technicalities that do not have a fix that is both simple and fair.
That's not quite how I read it. I view John's statement as an affirmation that conjecture is not a basis for denying long established builds in PFS. There's also a nod to consideration of the detriment status quo has on the game i.e. how much does DDing Magi trivialize combat for others.

Yeah, I'm hesitant to use the team's ruling above as a roadmap for resolving every rules quandary. As N N 959 notes, this came after the team considered the ramifications of what each interpretation would mean, weighing that against the campaign as a whole. That's part of the reason that I noted the various reasons for the decision so as to show that this wasn't a cut-and-dry case. That said, the core of

If there's a concern about the bladebound magus and/or kensai as it pertains to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, please either point us to an existing thread on the matter or start a new thread.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
John Compton wrote:
I noted the various reasons for the decision so as to show that this wasn't a cut-and-dry case.

You know John has Skill Focus (Diplomacy) when he can even find an alternative to saying "black and white" ^_^


Nefreet wrote:
John Compton wrote:
I noted the various reasons for the decision so as to show that this wasn't a cut-and-dry case.
You know John has Skill Focus (Diplomacy) when he can even find an alternative to saying "black and white" ^_^

That's right, the overall decision on how to rule is a factor of not only what the rule itself says, but the impact of that decision on PFS. This is why I says there is no right and wrong, only what the PDT (PFS in this case) decides is best moving forward.

John Compton wrote:
...this came after the team considered the ramifications of what each interpretation would mean, weighing that against the campaign as a whole.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Brigadier General Yesterday wrote:
I'm assuming satire or sarcasm there?.........Correct?

Nope. Im legitimately curious. Namely because I always get confused by what constitutes a normal attack action. The spell calls out melee touch attack so..... I can two weapon fight???

Sovereign Court 1/5

John Compton wrote:
If there's a concern about the bladebound magus and/or kensai as it pertains to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, please either point us to an existing thread on the matter or start a new thread.

So, who wants to start a thread about why it's believed that Bladebound + Kensai magi are illegal?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ZᴇɴN wrote:
John Compton wrote:
If there's a concern about the bladebound magus and/or kensai as it pertains to Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, please either point us to an existing thread on the matter or start a new thread.
So, who wants to start a thread about why it's believed that Bladebound + Kensai magi are illegal?

Not.It.

I think they've seen enough of one of my threads for a year...

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'll stay out of that one as well.

I think it used to be legal, but got tossed into question after the new FAQ as an unintended consequence.

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

... I'm not following why it's in question that it's legal?

EDIT: never mind, saw the other thread. Doesn't really interest me.

If we're looking for provocation (...) what about Dervish Dance and bucklers?

Slashing Grace was FAQ'ed to allow bucklers because they don't "occupy" the hand. Pathfinder bucklers (regardless of how bucklers are used in the real world) are strapped to your forearm and therefore not in your hand.

Dervish Dance asks that you carry no shield in your off-hand. Does that make bucklers kosher?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Yeah, we don't really have to have the bladebound/kensai fight. I just hope nobody is cross with me when I build one. ^_^


Following up on this clarification, what constitutes a weapon? Do improvised weapons shut off DD?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
what about Dervish Dance and bucklers?

That has always worked, precisely because Bucklers do not occupy a hand (or off-hand), and was reemphasized in the Slashing Grace FAQ.

If you end up combining an ability that allows you to TWF with a Buckler, then Dervish Dance would turn off (but only because you are TWFing, not because of the Buckler).

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

I do appreciate that you acknowledged that this combination would likely not work given the same consideration at Slashing Grace. To rule for the campaign specifically to keep using it despite it being suspect is likely the right way to go for the player side of things and to have a basis for the GM to not worry about this particular issue.

The Dex to Damage abilities seem to be a bit of a quandary for PFS in general, as a lot of the higher leveled abilities are left out, Dance of Chains feat being the latest to not make the Additional Resources list.

I will inform my players that have used this in the past that it is available for their consideration.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nope. Im legitimately curious. Namely because I always get confused by what constitutes a normal attack action. The spell calls out melee touch attack so..... I can two weapon fight???

You cannot deliver a melee touch attack as "part" of an attack action. A melee touch attack is its own independent standard action.

If you want to deliver a melee touch attack as part of, say, a full round attack, you need to do it via an unarmed strike.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Unless you use spell combat.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

Tallow wrote:
Unless you use spell combat.

Yes, correct. But then, it doesn't specifically have to be a melee touch spell.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Joe Bouchard wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Unless you use spell combat.
Yes, correct. But then, it doesn't specifically have to be a melee touch spell.

Correct. But since this is a Magus thread, I thought it important to be complete with the rules regarding melee touch attacks and full attack actions.

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

Lets not get confused here. When a spell is cast that has a melee Touch to deliver the effects, the caster can touch the target as a part of that casting as a Free Action, as long as he does so in the same round as the casting of the spell. This is what is happening when using Spell Combat.

If the caster misses or is otherwise holding the spell, he would need to use that charge as a Standard action to effect the melee touch attack.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

Lets not get confused here. When a spell is cast that has a melee Touch to deliver the effects, the caster can touch the target as a part of that casting as a Free Action, as long as he does so in the same round as the casting of the spell. This is what is happening when using Spell Combat.

If the caster misses or is otherwise holding the spell, he would need to use that charge as a Standard action to effect the melee touch attack.

I'm not seeing how that is any different than anything that's already been said.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Joe Bouchard wrote:
If you want to deliver a melee touch spell as part of, say, a full round attack, you need to do it via an unarmed strike.

Corrected that sentence.

Hillis is reminding us that in order to deliver a touch spell as a touch attack (outside the free attempt as part of casting) you must use the standard action. If you want multiple attempts to deliver a touch spell in a round, you must target regular AC via unarmed strikes or spellstrike*.

You cannot make multiple attempts against touch AC in a round.

*spellstrike is the ability for magi to deliver touch spells through regular weapon attacks. Spell Combat is their TWF with spells.

Shadow Lodge

Joe Bouchard wrote:
A melee touch attack is its own independent standard action.

Addendum: or as a free action on the turn you cast a melee touch spell.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Joe Bouchard wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nope. Im legitimately curious. Namely because I always get confused by what constitutes a normal attack action. The spell calls out melee touch attack so..... I can two weapon fight???

You cannot deliver a melee touch attack as "part" of an attack action. A melee touch attack is its own independent standard action.

If you want to deliver a melee touch attack as part of, say, a full round attack, you need to do it via an unarmed strike.

That's still really stupidly broken though. I punch myself for 1d3 nonlethal damage and do something and then proceed to obliterate the enemy.

Scarab Sages 4/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Joe Bouchard wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Nope. Im legitimately curious. Namely because I always get confused by what constitutes a normal attack action. The spell calls out melee touch attack so..... I can two weapon fight???

You cannot deliver a melee touch attack as "part" of an attack action. A melee touch attack is its own independent standard action.

If you want to deliver a melee touch attack as part of, say, a full round attack, you need to do it via an unarmed strike.

That's still really stupidly broken though. I punch myself for 1d3 nonlethal damage and do something and then proceed to obliterate the enemy.

You have to cast the spell first regardless. If you are casting the spell, you can target yourself with it the same round you cast it. I can't think of a harmless spell that you would want to cast on yourself that you would need to hold the charge for.

I could see something like this happening with a different target than yourself, but only in very rare circumstances. You standard cast a spell, then move action move towards the person you want to target, but you can't quite get there this round. Now you're holding the charge. They move to you on their turn, but so does the enemy. So when your turn comes around, you full attack and slap your friend to deliver healing with your last iterative. But that's a very, very specific situation.

Where I see this done more often is with Poisoner's Gloves (it's possible with an injection spear and maybe one or two other items, too, I've just never actually seen that in play). Since an alchemist can't target someone else as a part of drinking an extract, they can use the Poisoner's Gloves to inject the target with an infusion (two infusions/day). So I've seen Alchemist's who use monstrous physique to turn into things with lots of attacks, and use one of those attacks to either inject themselves with an infusion, or one of their party members. But in that situation, there's a clear gain in action economy.

The Exchange 5/5

Tallow wrote:
Hillis Mallory III wrote:

Lets not get confused here. When a spell is cast that has a melee Touch to deliver the effects, the caster can touch the target as a part of that casting as a Free Action, as long as he does so in the same round as the casting of the spell. This is what is happening when using Spell Combat.

If the caster misses or is otherwise holding the spell, he would need to use that charge as a Standard action to effect the melee touch attack.

I'm not seeing how that is any different than anything that's already been said.

What about the spell chill touch? Would that allow a caster who has more than one attack in a round (say from a BAB of +6, or from 2-W-F, or from a haste spell) to attack with a Touch attack from the spell more than once in a round?

ARRRG! I got sucked in again! Noooooo......!

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:
What about the spell chill touch? Would that allow a caster who has more than one attack in a round (say from a BAB of +6, or from 2-W-F, or from a haste spell) to attack with a Touch attack from the spell more than once in a round?

Nope.

FAQ wrote:
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

5/5

Nefreet wrote:
nosig wrote:
What about the spell chill touch? Would that allow a caster who has more than one attack in a round (say from a BAB of +6, or from 2-W-F, or from a haste spell) to attack with a Touch attack from the spell more than once in a round?

Nope.

FAQ wrote:
Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

Yep, this also means you cannot make the touch attack with an opportunity attack as its a standard action although you could deliver it with a natural weapon or unarmed strike (assuming you have IUAS) targeting regular AC.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

andreww wrote:


Yep, this also means you cannot make the touch attack with an opportunity attack as its a standard action although you could deliver it with a natural weapon or unarmed strike (assuming you have IUAS) targeting regular AC.

It doesn't mean that. It means that there's a slight inconsistency in the rules. Yes, it would logically follow that if attacking in subsequent rounds is a standard action then you couldn't do it as an attack of opportunity but...

______
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
--------

logical arguments extrapolating from rules don't trump rules clearly spelled out.

So if you have shocking grasp up you can explicitly zap thug number 7 trying to put you in a full nelson. Your logic above was why I argued that subsequent attacks were attacks.

Silver Crusade 5/5

so... I am really not understanding how chill touch works.

"...You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level..." combined with a Duration: instantaneous.

SO... if a 3rd level Necromancer casts the spell - does he have to use a melee touch attack instantaneously? or does he "hold the charge"? can he use 2 weapon fighting to touch two/three creatures (Target is Creature or Creatures Touched up to 1 per level) or can he target the same creature twice in combat? or does he only get one touch attack with the spell a round if he targets more than one creature? How long can he "hold the charge"? a minute? a week? until his next spell is cast? Can he change the Targets after the spell is cast? or does he have to define them when he casts the spell - and then what if his target leaves the area? is it still "defined" as a target for that spell casting?

For a simple 1st level Core spell, chill touch is really confusing...

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It isn't confusing, if you read the Magic Chapter and how Touch Spells work (with the FAQs as clarifications).

You can hold the charge on a touch spell indefinitely. With Chill Touch, a 3rd level caster could touch as a free action in the round that the spell was cast, then touch as a standard action the following round, and finish the spell on the third round with a final touch as a standard action.

551 to 593 of 593 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / So what are we doing about Dervish Dance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.