Questions about Brawlers

[Roco]

Got two main questions to pose here (asked them in the advice forum when asking advice about a character I'm making, but realized it might be good to post these rules questions here)

1) Does the brawler's flurry ability work with the swashbuckler archetype Whirling Dervish's 7th level deed? In effect, do I get the extra attacks like I normally would?

For example, normal two-weapon fighting rules, when I'm level 10, and just have swashbuckler levels, have the two-weapon and improved two-weapon fighting feats, I'm entitled to 4 attacks normally during the Whirling Dervish Deed.

That's when I normally can full-attack and thus my full allotment of attacks is 4 for whirling dervish.

"Whirlwind Dance (Ex) At 7th level, a whirling dervish can sweep through her opponents’ lines like a cyclone. As a full-round action, she can spend 1 panache point to move up to her speed. She can make attacks against creatures with her reach during this movement, up to the number of attacks she’s entitled to with a full attack. Each attack is made at her highest attack bonus, and must target a different creature. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. This deed replaces superior feint and targeted strike."

Now say, I take 2 or 3 levels in brawler. With Flurry I'm allowed to use one weapon for all my two-weapon fighting attacks, and I've been told and looked up the FAQ that brawlers can both use the flurry ability to apply for feats with two-weapon fighting as a pre-requisite and apply early for Two-weapon fighting feat improvements, like improved two weapon fighting at level 7 (rather than getting it for free at level 8) BUT it's still only usable with flurries.

So now I can use one weapon and get 4 attacks like two-weapon fighting (same number of attacks, same penalty to hit, the only difference is I don't need two weapons and can gain precise strike with each hit, where before I was not able to due to the rules behind precise strike [I was fine with this trade off, but I found out about this possible combo])

Now that I have a full attack that only uses one weapon, can I use this same feature in qualification for the whirling dervish dance ability?
Will I get 4 attack still and can I still stick with 1 weapon?
Raw and Rai rulings are welcome.

2) If I took levels in both swashbuckler and figher (archetype Varisian Free-Style Fighter
Will my swashbuckler levels combine with my fighter levels when concerning the martial flexibility ability the archetype grants?

Swashbuckler is a hybrid class and does get considered for pretty much every thing a fighter does as its own level (feats, weapon training, etc)

"Martial Flexibility (Ex): A Varisian free-style fighter gains martial flexibilityACG as per the brawler class feature, treating his fighter level as his brawler level for the purposes of this ability. This ability replaces the bonus feats gained at 1st level, 6th level, 10th level, and 12th level, as well as weapon training and weapon mastery.

Again, Raw and Rai welcome

[Java Man]

1) The one thing preventing this is that brawlers flurry only applies to unarmed strikes, monk weapons and weapons in the close weapon group. If you find such a weapon that fulfills your swashbuckler requiremwnts you should be golden.

2) Nope, there is no language in the Swashbuckler allowing swash levels to count as fighter levels in a general sense. The bonus feats and weapon training features are fairly narrow in how the level equivalent works.

[Ryan Freire]

Java Man wrote:

1) The one thing preventing this is that brawlers flurry only applies to unarmed strikes, monk weapons and weapons in the close weapon group. If you find such a weapon that fulfills your swashbuckler requiremwnts you should be golden.

Waveblade Even high crit for panache.

[Name Violation]

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.

Its its own full round action. Whirlwind dance is its own, seperate, full round action. Not compatible.

[Roco]

Name Violation wrote:

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.

Its its own full round action. Whirlwind dance is its own, seperate, full round action. Not compatible.

Normally, I'd agree with you. But Whirlwind Dance calls for the full amount of attacks you can make with a Full Attack. So not really using the flurry action so much as checking that a full attack with flurry gives you all those attacks.

What that comes down to then I suppose is what you count as a full attack. Does it count any full attack you can make? Be it a flurry or just your base full attack?

(which in either case would still be 4 attacks, it just depends on whether I get to use 1 weapon or 2 due to brawler's flurry)

[Derklord]

Name Violation wrote:

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.

Its its own full round action.

Wrong. Full-attack action and full round action are not the same thing, not even close. Brawler's Flurry is not a distinct full round action, but rather a full-attack action (those can still be seperate, but interact with more). Whirlwind Dance checks for "number of attacks she’s entitled to with a full attack", which means any full-attack action works.

Roco wrote:

Swashbuckler is a hybrid class and does get considered for pretty much every thing a fighter does as its own level (feats, weapon training, etc)

That's not actually true. It's especially not something that comes from beign a hybrid-class, those don't count as anythign else unless specified. The only aspect where Swashbuckler counts as Fighter is this: "Swashbuckler levels are considered fighter levels for the purpose of meeting combat feat prerequisites." Nothing else.

[Name Violation]

Derklord wrote:

Name Violation wrote:

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.

Its its own full round action.

Wrong. Full-attack action and full round action are not the same thing, not even close. Brawler's Flurry is not a distinct full round action, but rather a full-attack action (those can still be seperate, but interact with more). Whirlwind Dance checks for "number of attacks she’s entitled to with a full attack", which means any full-attack action works.

Roco wrote:

Swashbuckler is a hybrid class and does get considered for pretty much every thing a fighter does as its own level (feats, weapon training, etc)

That's not actually true. It's especially not something that comes from beign a hybrid-class, those don't count as anythign else unless specified. The only aspect where Swashbuckler counts as Fighter is this: "Swashbuckler levels are considered fighter levels for the purpose of meeting combat feat prerequisites." Nothing else.

From combat

A few combat options are full-round actions (such as Spring Attack and the full-attack action)
How is it not a full round action?

[Ryan Freire]

Because requiring a thing to be equal to a full attack action is not the same as requiring it to be a full round action.

For example anything that allows you to take a full attack action in LESS than a full round action allows brawlers flurry (eg partial charge + pounce)

Brawlers flurry triggers off full attack, not full round, ergo anything that references full attack, includes brawlers flurry if you have it.

[MrCharisma]

Derklord wrote:

Name Violation wrote:

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.
Its its own full round action.

Wrong. Full-attack action and full round action are not the same thing, not even close. Brawler's Flurry is not a distinct full round action, but rather a full-attack action (those can still be seperate, but interact with more). Whirlwind Dance checks for "number of attacks she’s entitled to with a full attack", which means any full-attack action works.

I agree with Derklord, but I will say there's a nicer way to say it. All you have to do is replace the word "Wrong" with the word "Actually".

@Name Violation, you even said in your post: "... a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action." (Called out as a full-attack action, not a full-round action)

[blahpers]

Whirlwind Dance, on the other hand, is its own full-round action, so they won't combine. You either whirl or you flurry.

[Ryan Freire]

blahpers wrote:

Whirlwind Dance, on the other hand, is its own full-round action, so they won't combine. You either whirl or you flurry.

except whirlwind dance expressly calls out the number of attacks you would make in a full attack action, which does in fact include flurry.

[Derklord]

Name Violation wrote:

How is it not a full round action?

It is, but a specific type, and that's often relevant (because something that works with or enhances a full attack works with any kind of full-attack action, but not with anything called out as a full round action*). Normally, you'd be right, both Whirlwind Dance, and any kind of full-attack action, are full round actions, and thus you can't do both in the same round. This is a special case, however, because you don't need to - Whirlwind Dance asks for "the number of attacks [the character]’s entitled to with a full attack", and thus the hypothetical option to use Brawler's Flurry is enough. You aren not using the Brawler's Flurry ability in a round in which you use Whirlwind Dance. Indeed, you aren't using any full-attack action, period.

*) Explicit exception like the Spell Combat FAQ notwithstanding.

[blahpers]

Ryan Freire wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Whirlwind Dance, on the other hand, is its own full-round action, so they won't combine. You either whirl or you flurry.

except whirlwind dance expressly calls out the number of attacks you would make in a full attack action, which does in fact include flurry.

You get the number of attacks you'd get for a full attack. You do not actually perform a brawler's flurry, though, which means you don't get any of the other benefits or drawbacks of performing a brawler's flurry when whirlwind dancing.

[Name Violation]

The pummeling style line of feats have this written

make a full attack or flurry of blows

Which would seem to indicate flurry is different from a full attack

[Roco]

So, based on what I'm reading about what a "Full Attack Action" is, the term seems to be a sub-type.

Much like "Melee Attack" is a subtype. There's melee, ranged, and many other things that could be qualified as a different kind of Attack. They are all bundled under a "Standard" action.

Let's rephrase Whirlwind Dance:

"As a [Standard action], she can spend 1 panache point to move up to her speed. She can make attacks against creatures with her reach during this movement, up to the number of attacks she’s entitled to with a [Melee-Attack]."

Reading it this way, though the answer only ever comes out to 1 attack, it's essentially the same idea.

(here's a way that makes a bit more sense perhaps: "As a [Standard action], she can spend 1 panache point to move up to her speed. She can make attacks against creatures with her reach during this movement, up to the number of [damage dice] she’s entitled to with a [Melee-Attack]."
Still strange but makes a bit more sense perhaps with the logic.

You would call an unarmed strike which is a standard action attack to use, a melee attack. You would call a sword swipe a standard action that's also a melee attack.

You would call a Flurry of Blows which is a full round action, a Full-Attack Action. (same with Brawler's flurry)

It even states in the combat section:

"Multiple Attacks
A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack."

"Multiple Attacks" is a full-attack action which is a sub-type of Full-round action.

"Flurry of Blows" is a full-attack action which is a sub-type of a Full-round action.

Since Whirlwind Dance is asking for "Up to the number she is entitled to with a Full-Attack" it would stand to reason, as a qualifier much like "Melee Attack" it would check for any Full-Attack, just as if it would say "Melee-attack"

[Roco]

Now, keeping this in mind, I suppose this would mean any "effect" that I might have with a flurry of blows (such as some style feat or ability specifically saying when you USE flurry of blows) might be argued you don't get that affect when using Whirlwind Dance, as at that point the feat or ability is specifically calling out "Flurry of Blows" rather than "Full-Attack".

But, that might also be more of a RAI issue at that point because flurry of blows is obviously just Two-weapon fighting given to monk way back when they had less than full BAB and thus couldn't qualify for cool shit like improved two weapon fighting till WAY later.

So one might rule RAI that

"You can make a bunch of attacks... I don't care what label you give it, full attack with two-weapon fighting, flurry of blows, brawler's flurry, takes the same amount of effort and is basically the same thing (they all reference two-weapon fighting). Whirlwind dance let's you move and attack up to your maximum of attacks? Why wouldn't flurry count? It's what you're doing 9/10 when you full-attack anyways. Besides there's a similar monk ability that let's you move and flurry FOR FREE. So eh, let them have a more restricted one enemy per attack and spend a limited resource effect and get whatever when-you-flurry ability they have."

That's how I would think about it anyhow x3

[Derklord]

Name Violation wrote:

The pummeling style line of feats have this written

make a full attack or flurry of blows

Which would seem to indicate flurry is different from a full attack

Pathfinder is full of redundancies like this. They seem to think players are morons, and in trying to behelpful, make everything worse.

I get where you're coming from - the attack action rules are a complete nightmare*, so we have to patch the rules together ourselves. The full-attack action is decribed under "full attack" - no hyphen, no "action".
That bolded part is really important, because it means that the rules use "full-attack action" and "full attack" interchangeably. Whirlwind Dance only asks for a full attack, and Brawler's Flurry is stated as beign a full-attack action, which is a full attack. Thus it counts for Whirlwind Dance.
­
*) The standard 'attack action' is never actually called that in the "actions in combat" section. Indeed, the words "attack action" (outside of "full-attack action") don't appear at all in that section. The next mention of that term is seventeen (in letters: 17) pages later! Under "special attacks", four sections after "actions in combat".
The only time those words do appear is in the term "full-attack action", which is not the attack action. And because that's not confusing enough, the word 'attack' is used in the magic section as any directly offensive action in combat.
So, we got actions that are attacks but not the attack action. Then we have an action that has 'attack and 'action' in it's name but is still not the attack action. And then we have the actual 'attack action', except it's not called that. Whew.

And now you know why they renamed the whole shebang for PF2.

Roco wrote:

Now, keeping this in mind, I suppose this would mean any "effect" that I might have with a flurry of blows (such as some style feat or ability specifically saying when you USE flurry of blows) might be argued you don't get that affect when using Whirlwind Dance, as at that point the feat or ability is specifically calling out "Flurry of Blows" rather than "Full-Attack".

It would depend on the actual wording. You never perform an actual full attack either, but stuff like Haste would still work. Style Strikes are a triggered ability, requiring you to hit an attack during a FoB, and thus won't work with Whirlwind Dance.

[blahpers]

Whirlwind dance doesn't ask for a full attack. It uses its own full-round action. You get the number of attacks you would get if you were taking a full attack action, but it is not a full attack action. There is no distinction between "full attack" and "full attack action"--they're synonymous. I have no idea where the "hyphen hypothesis" came from, but it's not a thing.

[Derklord]

I'm a little confused. Eizther you completely misunderstood my post, or.. actually, I have no alternate explanation.

blahpers wrote:

Whirlwind dance doesn't ask for a full attack. It uses its own full-round action.

It does ask for a full attack. For how many attacks you can make during one, to be precise. "ask for" is not code speak for "uses the action type of a".

blahpers wrote:

it is not a full attack action

Yes, I already said "you aren't using any full-attack action". Are you deliberately repeating my arguments for clarity, or what are you trying to do?

blahpers wrote:

I have no idea where the "hyphen hypothesis" came from, but it's not a thing.

What are you even talking about? There is no such thing as a "hyphen hypothesis". I did nothing but point out that the two terms are used interchangably (which you're once again repeating).

I'm really puzzled here, because your whole post seems to be a counter-argument to mine, but we actually agree on every single point.

[blahpers]

Apologies, then; I did misunderstand your post.