Dervish Dance, Quick Draw, and Two Weapon FIghting


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:


You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

I think that the point of contention here comes in the way this final sentence is phrased. It says specifically that you cant use it WHEN holding a weapon or shield in your off hand. Not in the same round that you wield something in your off hand. If it did say that, then I would agree Azara's interpretation of the rules strictly as written. However the current phrasing lends itself to Kestral's interpretation. Again, strictly as written.

Is it cheesey? Perhaps.
Is it against the design intention of the feat? Perhaps.
Is it legal? Yes. As currently written.

Thank you all for a lively debate!
AtD


How about a Toothy 1/2 Orc Urban Barbarian with the Fiend Totem (Lesser) rage power?

The last time I asked this question, I got the "Tricky thinking TWF" answer.


Azara Emberkin wrote:

You have said many incorrect things in just one post. Things that have been debated, ad nauseum, before.

It's a bit arrogant to come to the conclusions you have, and then state it's because your "rules-jutsu" is stronger.

If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that my comment was indicating that I would not allow this sort of TWF stunt at my table, and that a player who tried to pull this sort of stunt had better watch out. (with a dash of humor) If you had bothered to read carefully, I believe this was fairly clear.

You need to realize there's a difference between actually supporting a reading and recognizing that it's a possibly valid standpoint. I sometimes argue/support things on these boards, not because I actually agree with the argument, but because I understand that it's a reasonable reading worthy of discussion. Unstated rules and random buried paizo posts are nice and all, but some things deserve official correction/clarification.

Finally, posting insults and name calling are not the proper ways to respond, simply because you disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's interesting is that other than the OP, no one would allow this combo in their own game. If that's not an indication of how people think the rule should work, I don't know what is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I don't understand about a rules request ruling like this is that if this is for PFS, it obviously doesn't matter what people here say. You will get table variation and from the responses here, most likely it will get shut down by most GMs.

If it's not for PFS, then it doesn't matter what RAW says. The GM will make his own ruling. If the OP directed the GM here, most likely the GM would shut down the combo after reading this thread.


nicholas, that's true, but remember these are the rules forums. People who post a lot here are generally fairly rules savvy.

If a typical player read the Dervish Dance feat outside of the context of these boards, I could easily see them coming to the conclusion that the limitations of Dervish Dance are far more lenient than they are, without even trying to abuse the rules.

A reasonable reading of the rules as written, combined with a quick check of the FAQ, should be enough to arrive at a correct ruling, without having to resort to delving deeply into buried posts. (imho)


galahad2112 wrote:

How about a Toothy 1/2 Orc Urban Barbarian with the Fiend Totem (Lesser) rage power?

The last time I asked this question, I got the "Tricky thinking TWF" answer.

That's not TWF in any way?


Nicos wrote:
The "off-hand" word is problematic, As it is known it emcompases a variety of unwritten rules taht I will resist to snark about them now. Having said that, it doesn't say "in your other hand" but in the "off-hand", using a kick to TWF uses your off-hand, so I say you can't TWF with dervish dance ever.

Yes, but conversely you can use a shield normally with Dervish Dance as long as you do not shield bash with it. Only if you TWF do you have that off hand.


@ Kestral

Exactly. That's why I was dissatisfied with the answer. I can accept an answer of "No, and here's why (insert logical explanation)", or "Yes, it does not conflict with the rules" but getting an off-topic answer was pretty frustrating.


kestral287 wrote:
galahad2112 wrote:

How about a Toothy 1/2 Orc Urban Barbarian with the Fiend Totem (Lesser) rage power?

The last time I asked this question, I got the "Tricky thinking TWF" answer.

That's not TWF in any way?

Nope. Natural weapons use completely different rules than TWF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed strike is a light weapon. If you use it to get extra attacks with two weapon fighting, then it is "in your off-hand."


I didn't realize that I could carry my arms, my hands, my legs, and my feet as if they were object separate from my body like several of the posters on this thread are saying that I can apparently do. What am I, some construct whose limbs can be taken off and put back on again? Or am I an organic humanoid whose limbs, if they are cut off, can only be replaced with spells/abilities like Regeneration?

Carrying, at least in this case, refers to an object separate from the character, whether it be a coinpurse, a rock, whatever. In fact, you can have those items in your other hand while wielding a Scimitar in the other, and you won't invalidate the feat. It is when the object is a shield or a weapon that the feat becomes invalidated.

One could try to cheese it and say that Improvised Weapons would not fall under this category, but the intent of the feat is that whenever you make use of an object that is a shield or weapon, or an object of a separate category that is being used as a shield or weapon, the feat becomes invalidated.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Apparently armor spikes are carried in the off-hand, if I recall the FAQ discussions correctly. :P


thorin001 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
galahad2112 wrote:

How about a Toothy 1/2 Orc Urban Barbarian with the Fiend Totem (Lesser) rage power?

The last time I asked this question, I got the "Tricky thinking TWF" answer.

That's not TWF in any way?
Nope. Natural weapons use completely different rules than TWF.

So, a changeling (has claws), could use their off hand to do a claw attack while using Dervish Dance, because a) Claws aren't carried (literal reading), and b) Natural weapons aren't a part of TWF (mechanical reading).


Scythia wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
galahad2112 wrote:

How about a Toothy 1/2 Orc Urban Barbarian with the Fiend Totem (Lesser) rage power?

The last time I asked this question, I got the "Tricky thinking TWF" answer.

That's not TWF in any way?
Nope. Natural weapons use completely different rules than TWF.
So, a changeling (has claws), could use their off hand to do a claw attack while using Dervish Dance, because a) Claws aren't carried (literal reading), and b) Natural weapons aren't a part of TWF (mechanical reading).

Not exactly, the claw use her other hand but It doesn't use her "off-hand", but either way, it seems to be a possible combination.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all still just not worth it.

The desired effect, is to gain Dex to damage, use a Scimitar, and two-weapon fight, all at the same time.

Yes?

Slashing Grace allows this to happen.

However, for some reason, going for the most obtuse way, of accomplishing this, is preferred by some.

Honestly, with this already being an option, I wouldn't care if someone tried to add a kick.

Annoyed, as there are less rules messy ways to do this, but the mechanical advantages are nearly identical.

Actually, the Slashing Grace route is mechanically stronger.

I am starting to wonder why it is even a debate worth having.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Well, Slashing Grace requires either a swashbuckler level or a relatively obscure wondrous item. There's that. :)

Silver Crusade Contributor

Also, Slashing Grace only affects the scimitar. From a literal reading of Dervish Dance, all your melee attack and damage rolls use Dex. Some might find that desirable. :)

Grand Lodge

Did not the OP say it was for a Swashbuckler PC?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Well, yes. I wasn't sure if you were making a more general point about Dervish Dance as a character option in a post-ACG world, though. My mistake. :)

Does my second post's point make sense, though?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Apparently armor spikes are carried in the off-hand, if I recall the FAQ discussions correctly. :P
Two-Handed Weapons and Armor Spikes wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.

Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

This FAQ only clarifies that you need to actually have a hand available to make attacks with the Armor Spikes for TWF, not that you're "carrying them" in that hand. Although a fair interpretation derived from this, if we weren't to treat Armor Spikes as being attached to the armor you wear, you'd have to drop the Armor Spikes in your hand in order to make attacks with a Two-Handed Weapon. This sort of arguments files back to the "My limbs are like detachable parts" argument, which is a bunch of BS, because last I checked, Spikes on Armors or Shields are affixed to the item, usually through procedures from metallurgy, primarily through welding the spike to the specified area.

Might I also add, that is one of the stupidest (and perhaps most non-sensible) Pathfinder FAQs to-date, and ranks up there amidst the likes of the Crane Wing/Riposte nerf and Wildblooded/Crossblooded FAQs.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Unarmed strike is a light weapon. If you use it to get extra attacks with two weapon fighting, then it is "in your off-hand."

Except it specifies "carry"

Do you carry an Unarmed Strike?

If you do, that means everyone is carrying an unarmed strike in their other hand at all time. Do I have to chop my arm off to use Dervish Dance?

I mean, RAI, I'm totally behind you. Unarmed Strike + Dervish Dance should not work under any circumstances. But RAW? Not so much.

Grand Lodge

I was going to kick the guy, but I was holding this feather.

Sczarni

Byakko wrote:
Finally, posting insults and name calling are not the proper ways to respond, simply because you disagree.

Don't even start with me.

One of us takes a literal reading of the text and ignores everything else, to the point of absurdity, and proclaims it as truth.

One of us reads the text at hand as conversational, and when presented with an ambiguity, is willing to listen to further evidence at hand.

One of these approaches is sensible and furthers discussion.

One is combative and destructive.

Pointing these differences out is not insulting, or name calling.


Nefreet wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Illeist wrote:
Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:
Azara Emberkin wrote:
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters.
I can see this from a RAI point of view to be sure. My question is, is it legal?
As the linked quote from Paizo's creative lead and retired lead developer just said: no. No, it is not.
It's been said many times by the developers that developer commentary should not mistaken for official rulings; that's what erratas and FAQs are for. RAI the answer is no, but RAW seems to be yes. As we are on the rules forum RAW is what matters most.

I swear I'm going to blow a lid over this whole "RAW" obsession.

Seriously, people, there is no such [REDACTED] thing as "rules-as-written".

It is made up slang. It is a modern social construction. It has no actual meaning.

Do some research on the matter. There are entire linguistic fields surrounding the analysis of written text, from the modern to the ancient.

In communication, regardless of language, you will find that humans are terrible at deciphering written messages. The goal of written communication is to have a writer transform their complex ideas into simple symbols that a reader must then try to interpret and decipher back into the original meaning.

The fewer words that are used, the higher the failure rate of idea transmission.

And unfortunately, in Pathfinder, fewer words have to be the aim, otherwise our books would be thousands of pages each. Just imagine if the extra word count from the FAQ was added to the Core Rulebook.

Rules are not written. Words are written. Rules are the ideas those words are trying to convey.

The very process of reading is an individual affair, shaped by the reader's experiences and understandings. Two people can read the exact same message and interpret...

The only problem I have with this argument is that you can find many of the Paizo staff using the term RAW. If the Paizo staff use it. Why shouldn't we?

Sczarni

Rogar Stonebow wrote:
If the Paizo staff use it. Why shouldn't we?

In a dualistic culture such as ours, combined with the short attention span of the average forum goer, simplifying complex arguments into two opposing three-letter-acronyms is the quickest and easiest method one has to convey their point to the majority of readers.

I do not use "RAI" or "RAW" anymore than I ascribe to one political party. I prefer to take the time and explain my points for consideration as a whole. Things are rarely black and white.

And although I would expect (or at least desire) Paizo's Designers to have the same style of expression, they're just as human as you and I, prone to the same greatness and errors, and used to catering to society's expectations and frameworks.

I'm not asking *just* the forum base to stop using "RAW", I'm asking everyone to refrain from its use, including Paizo's staff.

We just shouldn't be perpetuating such an utterly destructive concept.

Grand Lodge

I feel the term "RAW", is appropriate, or, inappropriate, depending on context.

This is true of many words, phrases, and acronyms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing inherently "opposed" regarding RAI and RAW. They should reflect one another. The written rules should reflect the intent of the rules and vice versa. If there is a disconnect, it is a prompt that the rules aren't written properly and this oversight should be corrected by Paizo. The problem comes when people misinterpret (or worse, disinterpret) rules due to poor understanding of grammar, deliberate or inadvertent. In any mechanical system, there are certain necessities; internal consistency and clarity being high-ranking among them. Mechanical terms should be well defined and internally consistent (the whole "effects related to race" issue shows what happens in absence of internal consistency). Define a certain term or phrase or mechanic once, and it need not be repeated and re-defined constantly so long as it is used consistently.

Part of the problem is that the CRB was largely copy-pasted from 3.5 and inherited a lot of legacy problems. And now, they don't want to go back and "retrofit" the CRB to fix all these issues of consistency and clarity. I say that the only way to really fix it is to write a new set of rules completely from scratch. Base it on the CRB, to be sure, but it needs to be optimized for consistency, mechanical definition, and balance. Then, everything that comes after must fall into that system with equal consistency. No more having writers contribute rules elements without understanding the basic mechanics of the game. No more "monsters break the rules because we couldn't be bothered to write out the exceptions" and no more feats that take away penalties that never existed in the first place or allow you to do something you could already do anyway. Those are far more important issues than quibbling over use of a particular term because it doesn't matter what you call it, RAW or turnip soup or whatever, the fact of the matter is that the rules of the game, as they stand now, are jumbled and inconsistent and full of holes and retrofit solutions can only take it so far.


Sometimes the written rules are easy to understand.

Sometimes they're ambiguous and require a bit of reasonable interpretation.

And sometimes the written rules are clear, but contradictory to what one would expect to happen, and potentially game breaking.

It's in the last of these cases that comparing RAW with RAI becomes important. If the RAW and RAI are in clear conflict, it's reasonable to seek changes/errata to the RAW to reflect RAI, and describing these conflicts with these terms makes sense.

For example, consider the thread discussing taking free actions while nauseated. (just play along with me here... this is just for the sake of an example - just assume there's no ambiguity) RAW seems to indicate that you cannot take free actions. However, common sense and presumably designer intent is that you can actually take free actions. In this case, we have a conflict of RAW vs RAI, and it is thus reasonable to seek corrections/FAQs based on the difference between the two and using these terms is appropriate.

Sczarni

Again, I feel the need to point out, there is no such thing as "RAW".

Refer to my first lengthy post, if you're still confused on what I mean.

When you say "RAW vs RAI", what you're actually saying is "A-literal-reading-of-the-text vs RAI".

("RAI" still meaning "rules-as-intended", since that *is* a thing)

Humor me at least, in this thread. Let's use this dialogue as an experiment to see if it's possible.


Yep, totally agree with Kazaan here and I don't plan to stop using RAW and RAI as everyone except Nefreet seems fine with it and it get the point of what you're talking about quickly and easily. And I hope the rest of the forum continues to use them too. Why have someone write out more words than needed when we ALL know what we're talking about.

Don't be mad at the term RAW because a rule is poorly written and it can be read/interpreted different ways. Far too often the rules expect you to take a literal reading and without skipping a beat switches to a conversational reading expectation. In a perfect world RAW and RAI should be the same but the game misses the mark fairly often as it's build on a structure far to loosely build. Heck, just look at wield and how many different thing it's intended to mean since no one ever bothered to give it a defined usage and instead left it up to whatever conversational use the author of any given rule gave it. SO now it can mean everything from simply holding it to actively attacking with it...


RAW is not a bad term IMHO, what is bad is when someone claim RAW when the actual rule is unclear at best.

Grand Lodge

So, there is RAW, RAI, and RAII?

"Rules as Written", "Rules as Intended", and "Rules as I Interpret".

What is the "appropriate" acronym?

I still feel it's all about context, but if that doesn't change your view of the acronym, then you should at least suggest an alternative.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
you should at least suggest an alternative.

I have. The simple alternative is to be more verbose, which I understand is off-putting to people defending the use of a three letter acronym =/

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, there is RAW, RAI, and RAII?

"Rules as Written", "Rules as Intended", and "Rules as I Interpret".

What is the "appropriate" acronym?

Both versions of RAI ("interpreted" and "intended") are valid uses of the word "rule".

Rules are interpreted by the reader, and intended by the writer.

But rules are never written.

Grand Lodge

Why will it continue? It's easy.

People usually get the gist of what is being discussed.

Taking a much longer time, typing out a longer explanation, and throwing out all acronyms, abbreviations, and short-hand references, is just not a feasible request.

I am not against you here.

You just don't have a simple, and easy solution.

You also have to deal with the fact that we are creatures of habit.

The acronym "RAW", has been around for years.

Your suggestion requires more time, and effort.

In fact, let's look at your choice word, in your suggestion:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:


ver·bose
vərˈbōs/
adjective
adjective: verbose
using or expressed in more words than are needed.
"much academic language is obscure and verbose"

Do you see the problem?

Sczarni

It's more than that, though.

I see the overuse of the acronym as contributing to an increasingly hostile atmosphere here in the forums. There've been days where I just needed to step back and take a breather because I was arguing with walls.

Them: "I have a question about <ambiguous>"
Me: "Here is some history on the matter, a clarification from so-and-so, and the most likely answer"
Them: "No RAW? Ok. I will proceed with <extreme interpretation>"
Me: *headdesk*

In fact, I now experience that sort of interaction outside of the forums, at PFS events and Conventions. PaizoCon last year, my first PaizoCon, was exceptionally bad, and is probably my only regret about attending.

The problem is that when people read the word "rule", in "rules as written", they take it to mean "truth".

"Truth" is a powerful propaganda term. When you wield "truth", everything else is "not truth". Consequently, only you have "truth", therefore nobody else has "truth". And there is no point in listening to people who don't have "truth". Therefore, there is nothing left to debate, as you have won.

(philosophy is a love of mine, if you can't tell)

Grand Lodge

Ah.

I still see that as a problem with context, and a bit of misunderstanding of terms, in which they are used.

That's not a problem with the acronym, but people.

I could say "These are the words written within the Rulebook, and I interpret them as meaning..."

Also, I could say "I think the RAW here means that...".

Essentially, these are saying the exact same thing.

Even if everyone agreed to be more verbose, there would be misunderstandings.

Removing the acronym "RAW", would not change this.


Nefreet wrote:

It's more than that, though.

I see the overuse of the acronym as contributing to an increasingly hostile atmosphere here in the forums. There've been days where I just needed to step back and take a breather because I was arguing with walls.

Them: "I have a question about <ambiguous>"
Me: "Here is some history on the matter, a clarification from so-and-so, and the most likely answer"
Them: "No RAW? Ok. I will proceed with <extreme interpretation>"
Me: *headdesk*

Unfortunately, removing the term RAW doesn't actually fix that.

Them: "I have a question about <ambiguous>"
You: "Here is some history on the matter, a clarification from so-and-so, and the most likely answer"
Them: "But the rules don't actually say that, do they? Ok. I will proceed with <extreme interpretation>"
You: *headdesk*

This might even make it worse. After all, how can you argue with the "rules" (now there is the language appropriate for an "absolute" truth). At least with "Rules as Written" it is implicitly acknowledged that there are forms of rules that may need to be looked at other than those derived from a literal parsing of the rules text (such as the rules intended by the writers of the rules, or RAI).

Sczarni

Again, words don't "say" anything.

People speak. Words are read and interpreted.

These are real distinctions. Trust me. The difference matters.

Grand Lodge

"The book says..." is a very common term.

No one really says "The words printed within this book, are, as I state, to be...".

So, when speaking about what is written in a book, it is common to say "The book says..".

I understand what you are striving for, but you ask for too much time, and too much effort, for the masses to even consider.


Nefreet wrote:

Again, words don't "say" anything.

People speak. Words are read and interpreted.

These are real distinctions. Trust me. The difference matters.

Some words say plenty, and silence can speak volumes.

Also you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway.

Grand Lodge

"This book, it speaks to me..." ;)

Sczarni

"The Bible says..." is another one that irks me.

Really, "RAW" is why there are so many denominations of Christianity today.


Nefreet wrote:

Again, words don't "say" anything.

People speak. Words are read and interpreted.

These are real distinctions. Trust me. The difference matters.

Sure words say something

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:
a : indicate, show <the clock says five minutes after twelve>

By common usage of the word say, "The words in the rule book say X" is a correct usage of the term "say". It can be taken to mean "The words in the rule book indicate X".

The usage of the word say is fine.

The problem you are having is that words have multiple meanings depending on context. Their exact meaning is frequently not obvious from context. That gives people plenty of wriggle room to come up with extreme interpretations of the words given that only the local context is examined. Upon expanding the context to the text in the rest of the book, those extreme interpretations fall apart, but this is difficult to do when it is happening at a game table when everyone else just wants to axe-murder orcs and loot their bodies.

Getting rid of the terms "RAW" and "RAI" do nothing to help this. It actually makes it worse, because we then lose a way of concisely expressing ourselves when discussing rules, which makes it harder to communicate in a rules discussion. At a game table, there is limited amount of time to argue rules, so anything that makes it slower to communicate rules issues makes it harder to resolve rules issues. This means that people using extreme interpretations are harder to stop, because you don't have the time to explain the nuances of language and the purpose of communication, while you do have time to utter "That's not RAI".

Sczarni

Firstly, it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion when the established linguistic concepts of speech and writing are being mixed up and misunderstood. And I'm not even an English major.

What I am saying is not new, or made up, and should not need to be debated in the 21st century. This was thoroughly covered a couple thousand years ago.

Secondly, as I've stated multiple times (but am finally getting tired of doing so), the term "rules as written" means nothing.

It is absolute, utter, literal, nonsense.

Getting rid of nonsense cannot make things worse. The term is a distraction. Its removal can only foster an evolved discussion of the rules.

"RAI" (both versions), is fine (though I shall continue to not use it myself). I've already outlined why. "RAW" is the tool of trolls to stamp out opposition.

When you use "RAW", you are *not* concisely expressing yourself. You're setting up a barrier to discussion. The only message you're conveying is that you no longer wish to discuss the matter at hand.

And that's extremely unhealthy in a social game such as this.

Grand Lodge

Will not a lack of terms be a distraction?

People are lazy, and resistant to change.

Even change for the better.


Nefreet wrote:

Again, I feel the need to point out, there is no such thing as "RAW".

Refer to my first lengthy post, if you're still confused on what I mean.

When you say "RAW vs RAI", what you're actually saying is "A-literal-reading-of-the-text vs RAI".

("RAI" still meaning "rules-as-intended", since that *is* a thing)

Humor me at least, in this thread. Let's use this dialogue as an experiment to see if it's possible.

So instead of RAW you suggest ALROTT

Sczarni

It's how I often state it (the bolded part, not the acronym). And it takes, what, a fraction of a second longer when speaking?

Phrasing such as that removes the power of the word "rule" from the discussion.

When someone asks, "What is the RAW of <insert passage>", you can respond with a restatement of the text. When they then ask, "But what does that mean?", you can respond with <history/clarification/common interpretation/etc>, and the actual rule can better be explained.

Sczarni

So, let's bring this back full circle, so the effort isn't wasted:

The Original Post wrote:
Can a character with Dervish Dance gain its benefits on their initial and iterative attacks, and then using Quick Draw, pull a weapon in their offhand, make Two Weapon Fighting off hand attacks, and then resheath that weapon again?

.

A literal reading of the text then wrote:
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

.

The followup question would then wrote:
But, what does that mean?

.

To which the answer would be wrote:
Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters.

See how easy that was?

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dervish Dance, Quick Draw, and Two Weapon FIghting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.