Everstand Stance with Grasping Reach is a build for a leshy champion i am looking into. I feel it is not completely clear and would like to make sure it works together before I as the GM to make a ruling.
Everstand Stance makes the shield two handed or at least you are using it two handed and the die size goes up by 1, so shield bash goes from 1d4 to 1d6, boss and spikes go from 1d6 to 1d8.
Grasping Reach
You can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach. When you wield a melee weapon that requires two hands, doesn’t have reach, and deals at least 1d6 damage, you can change between a typical two-handed grip and an extended two-handed grasp using an Interact action. Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
As shields do not require two hands but everstand stance lets you use shields with two hands do they work together. I guess same could be said for any weapon that lets you use two hands for higher damage dice.
So if it all does work together then total result is 1 action activate Everstand Stance, 1 action gain reach, last action free to do what ever for turn 1. getting a +2 hardness on shield, same damage die as normal, 10 foot reach.
While the term "require" does call into question whether the two abilities can be used together, I dont see a mechanical or reasonable reason to say that they wouldn't.
After all, you could say that a shield being wielded while in Everstand Stance does require being wielded in two hands.
It's a bit of a reaching argument, but the effect of the two stacking isn't all that impressive power wise. Doesnt strike me as an overpowered combo by any... stretch. ;)
Grasping ReachYou can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach. When you wield a melee weapon that requires two hands, doesn’t have reach, and deals at least 1d6 damage, you can change between a typical two-handed grip and an extended two-handed grasp using an Interact action. Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
This feat is a mess from a clarity perspective.
It should explicitly state what happens when you don't have a weapon that requires two hands.
What does requires mean in a rules context? I don't see that Everstand Stance means requires. It is just an option, the weapon doesn't require it. Same for the Two-hand weapon trait. A GM would be quite reasonable to say no this feat only works for two handed only weapons. That is the most natural reading of the language.
However - and one of my players asked for this yesterday. It is also possible to read the feat as
Grasping ReachYou can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach.... Something irrelevant as I'm wielding another weapon..... Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
and ignore the second sentence as it doesn't apply.
Which means you could use Everstand Stance and leaves me with a mess of other rules and options to think about.
Sorry I’m going to speak to just the feat - Grasping Reach, rather than its combination with Everstand Stance - but for what its worth.
At the end of the day play the feat they way you and your GM agree to, its your game. Make it fun, make it work for you this forum is not the “Borg”, without an official GM piping up everything else (including mine) is just an opinion.
When I read the statement, I see the full stops in the paragraph as a kind of close bracket then try to work out what word links to what when reading backwards to the previous sentence.
+++
You can extend a tangle of vines or tendrils to support your arms and extend your reach. When you wield a melee weapon that requires two hands, doesn’t have reach, and deals at least 1d6 damage, you can change between a typical two-handed grip and an extended two-handed grasp using an Interact action. Weapons wielded in your extended grasp gain reach of 10 feet. This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.
+++
Line (1) is the over view, at its simplest – you gain reach – Then you go into a more specific set of circumstances.
Line (2) is a void statement, regarding the use of either One handed weapons or Unarmed attacks. They are not mentioned, so the sentence only applies to Two handed weapons.
(IF/THEN/ELSE) - IF weapon X (criteria), THEN effect will work, ELSE the effect fails to work (only in relation to weapon X). Two handed weapons are the only type mentioned and there is NO ELSE in the text at the end, so the statement only applies to Two handed weapons that meet the criteria. This makes it a void statement in relation to One handed weapons or Unarmed attacks.
Another way to say it is - Line (2) is a specific criteria - When you wield a melee weapon that requires Two hands + other text – If you meets the criteria then (, comma) you can use this feat. I see this as an assumption (and that’s poor logic on Paizo’s part) that if - you wield a melee weapon that requires Two hands and don’t meet the criteria then you can’t change your grip on a two handed weapon as everything after the (, comma) further defines what kind of 2H weapon Paizo mean. But as One-handed weapons or Unarmed attacks are not mentioned they so can’t be defined by the statement.
Line (3) speaks to weapons wielded in your extended grasp – gain 10ft reach. It is the heart of the feat, if you meet the criteria of line (2) apply it otherwise line (2) has no bearing and line (3) spells out the over view presented on line (1).
Line (4) is about grasp and says - this grasp – so I think it links back to line (3), I would say it affects both 1H and 2H weapons that you can hold as it has no caveats, the only caveat is in Line (2) for Two handed weapons.
The feat is ill worded, I can see a case that it only applies to a specific sub set of Two-handed weapons. But that’s a very narrow view and does not fit well with a Leashy theme. When did Leashy become Two-weapon preferred wielders so much so that they have developed a RACIAL feat to enhance it?
How useful really is a feat for a plant race to grow its arms but that it only works with a sub set of 2H weapons (not even all 2H weapons just a subset) and has absolutely no effect on 1H Weapons or Unarmed attacks at all. Reach in PF2 is an inherent function of the creature not the weapon – I.E. Giant-sized creature with a Giant-size weapons the reach comes from the creature.
Over all the text mentions Grip (x2) and Grasp (4x), as I see it if you hold/grasp/grip a weapon and have enable your 10ft reach then they are saying your grip is weaker and take a -1 on the die step.
Finally, (and this thought has not been covered before I think) if you gain reach but there is no grip as it’s an unarmed attack then the -1 on the die step should not apply as the feat mentions a number of times that your weaker grip is the reason the die is one step weaker. As I said the feat is ill worded and as it does not cater for these permutations.
|
Gonna go through a few different points that I am considering so forgive me for wandering a little bit or going on a roller-coaster ride here. I'm going to address the larger concerns about the rules in play here first before answering the specific question.
"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.
Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait ."
The bolded portion is significant for two reasons.
1.) It seems to point towards the intention that they favor a more permissive view of meeting two handed requirements.
2.) It specifies that an ability needing two hands to work is a separate consideration from a weapon requiring two hands or having the two handed trait.
There are other feats out there that use the wording "wield a weapon in two hands" (an example being Brutal Finish) and not "wield a weapon that requires two hands". Because the wording is a bit unique it leads me to believe it was either intentional or is an errata candidate.
Since we should most likely be working from the assumption that this is not a mistake until we learn otherwise this would mean that certain weapons that be wielded two handed are not an option. If we exclude the Uncommon/Ancestry related weaponsthis really just leaves us with Staff, Bastard Sword, and Shield Spikes/Boss. Both Staff and Bastard Sword have other options that are really similar and would let those weapons qualify (Bo Staff and Great Sword). So really Shields are the real outlier here.
Although it can be a little bit weird it does give you some interesting mechanical incentive to select shield options or two handed options instead of just using weapons with the option to be used one handed or two handed every single time. Also I'd like to note that if we're looking to be precise this also means that for it to be considered a weapon we need to have the boss/spikes attached.
Wielding a shield alone is enough for Everstand Stance so you are good there. When applying Grasping Reach is the spot where we can see diverging interpretations. Either
1.) While being in Everstand Stance you are required to wield your shield two handed so you qualify for Grasping Reach
OR
2.) Shield Boss/Spikes themselves do not require two hands so the shield does not qualify no matter the other considerations in play.
I for one interpret the text in Everstand Stance to mean that while in that stance wielding the shield in two hands is required and is not an option that you can take. Because of this and because the intention (judging by the wording in the Hands rules) is to lean towards permissive...is that the interaction that you are wanting SHOULD work, but only while in Everstand stance and only with a shield boss or spikes.
Also remember that you can only use one stance at a time so if you were to change to another stance you would lose access to Grasping Reach. Other limitations of stances is they require an action to enter and can only be entered during encounter mode.
TLDR: Yes to Shield Boss/Spikes + Everstand Stance + Grasping Reach but No to normal shield bash, staff, bastard swords, dwarven war axes, katanas, etc + Grasping Reach.
