Dervish Dance: Is this Worth It?[Pathfinder]

[Ravens_cry]

I was looking at Dervish Dance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dervish-dance-combat) and I initially thought it was an attempt to make Dex based fighters viable. Nice, but since you can't hold a second weapon, it becomes less useful at higher levels.
Or is it?
I remembered Quick Draw (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/quick-draw-combat---final), draw a weapon as a free action.
So I do my first attack with the bonus, quick draw (a dagger?) and attack with that, drop it, awaiting my next turn. At higher levels, let's just say I have a lot of daggers. I remember a string or something that allows you to pick up a dropped weapon it attached too as a swift (?) action.
Found it, it's called a Weapon Cord (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services#TOC-Weapon-Cord).
Moreover, since I didn't have that dagger in my hand when I attacked with the scimitar, do Two Weapon Fighting penalties even apply to that attack?
Of course, this is pretty feat intensive. A Rogue with a single level dip in Fighter, might be appropriate, but is it all worth it?
What do you think Playground? Is it A Trap or Not?

[Otherworld Odd]

I don't think the feat would work once you drop your scimitar, as it specifically states "When wielding a scimitar with one hand." So by dropping your scimitar, you're invalidating the feat.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't think the feat would work once you drop your scimitar, as it specifically states "When wielding a scimitar with one hand." So by dropping your scimitar, you're invalidating the feat.
Can't you Quick Draw with your off hand? I am not talking about dropping the scimitar, I am talking dropping the dagger so that, next time I attack, next turn or attack of opportunity, I have only a scimitar in one hand.

And I realize I would get the penalties for the off hand, light weapon attack with the dagger, I was just wondering if I get Two weapon fighting penalties with the scimitar since I attack with it before I have two weapons in my hand.

[Xiander]

I was looking at Dervish Dance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dervish-dance-combat) and I initially thought it was an attempt to make Dex based fighters viable. Nice, but since you can't hold a second weapon, it becomes less useful at higher levels.
Or is it?
I remembered Quick Draw (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/quick-draw-combat---final), draw a weapon as a free action.
So I do my first attack with the bonus, quick draw (a dagger?) and attack with that, drop it, awaiting my next turn. At higher levels, let's just say I have a lot of daggers. I remember a string or something that allows you to pick up a dropped weapon it attached too as a swift (?) action.
Found it, it's called a Weapon Cord (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services#TOC-Weapon-Cord).
Moreover, since I didn't have that dagger in my hand when I attacked with the scimitar, do Two Weapon Fighting penalties even apply to that attack?
Of course, this is pretty feat intensive. A Rogue with a single level dip in Fighter, might be appropriate, but is it all worth it?
What do you think Playground? Is it A Trap or Not?

To me, this seems to be reading RAW strictly to your advantage.
"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." Is most likely meant to prevent characters from two weapon fighting while using the feat, so i believe that your trick is not intended to be viable.

However, I believe that melee should have nice things, so I will comment on the build idea. Basically you are using two feats to get dex to hit and str on main hand attacks. Which is strictly better than weapon finnesse, i think, but in the end it would probably be better to just focus on strength... Sigh.

[Sillycomic]

What's the point of making it one handed if you can't use anything in your off hand?

That's ridiculous. The only reason you would want to make the scimitar a one handed weapon is so that you can do something else with your other hand.

I suppose using it for potions might be helpful. I was going to suggest throwing alchemical items as well, but I imagine those would be considered weapons.


I just don't get it. The feat frees up your one hand only to have it dangle uselessly by your side? Gee thanks feat!

Just take off that last sentence from the feat and dual wield scimitars using Dex for attack and damage. That's a Dervish Dance!

[Ravens_cry]

Just take off that last sentence from the feat and dual wield scimitars using Dex for attack and damage. That's a Dervish Dance!

And Chaotic Good Drow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html) everywhere rejoiced.
Can anyone tell me whether or not I take two weapon penalties with my first attack?

[true_shinken]

Can anyone tell me whether or not I take two weapon penalties with my first attack?
You do. You have to decide on TWF before you make any attacks.
Also, are there armor spikes in Pathfinder? That would solve most of your problems.

[Ravens_cry]

You do. You have to decide on TWF before you make any attacks.
Also, are there armor spikes in Pathfinder? That would solve most of your problems.
Hmm, you're right , there are. The idea of a rogue in leather armour with armour spikes sounds wonderfully silly, but its better then spending a feat on quick draw.
I wonder if I should take a level in fighter anyway for a) extra feat b) a point of BAB, making TWF 5% more easier and hastening my having the prerequisites for feats, and c) All martial weapons proficiencies.
Negative? Skill points suck like, well, like very strong pressure differential.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Dervish Dance was primarily designed for pathfinder swashbucklers: since they must use only one hand on their weapon (and nothing in the other) anyway for some of their abilities. thus, for a swashbuckler, its a feat that adds their Dex to damage: nothing wrong with that.

It also can be useful for anyone with Spring Attack.... i personally would prefer a shield, but one of my buddies has used it to great effect with a scout/druid Swift Avenger build.

Its not a bad feat: it just has a very specific niche.

[gourdcaptain]

It also works semi-well on Magus's because it doesn't keep you from spellcasting with the other hand.

[Sillycomic]

Two handed weapons never prevented you from spellcasting before.

Even if it is a specific niche feat, why not open it up anyway? If you can do something with your other hand then it just becomes a more usable feat.

Swashbucklers can still use it to have their scimitar builds.

But now sword and board fighters have more options. Two Weapon fighters can dual wield scimitars! And perhaps even two hand a scimitar to get Dex+1/2 damage to become even deadlier.

Making it such a specific prerequisite is useless. Might as well just give it to the Swashbuckler as a class ability then make it a feat that everyone can use but no one will because of how useless it is.

[Ravens_cry]

I have another question, how would this interact with a race with natural weapons? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-155232.html)
More specifically, would a claw attack count as "carrying a weapon"?
Also, can Sword and Claw be as good as Two Weapon Fighting. That is to say, good for builds with massive damage additions, like Rogues.

[true_shinken]

I have another question, how would this interact with a race with natural weapons? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-155232.html)
More specifically, would a claw attack count as "carrying a weapon"?
Also, can Sword and Claw be as good as Two Weapon Fighting. That is to say, good for builds with massive damage additions, like Rogues.

Natural weapons don't interact with TWF.

[grarrrg]

What's the point of making it one handed if you can't use anything in your off hand?

Who wants to use anything in their off-hand?

It helps make the Duelist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/duelist) PrC more viable? (PF Duelist is much better than 3.5 Duelist, it can now wear Light Armor for starters!)

It helps make the Free-Hand Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Free-Hand-Fighter) ACF more useful?

It let's you make a Dex-Focused character without needed to enchant two weapons, AND without having to take a bunch of feats?
Two-Weapon fighting wants a high Dex score and either: 3 Feats (TWF-line) and a good Str score (to-hit/damage), or 4 Feats (Weap Fin).

Dervish Dance let's you dump Str competely, and only needs 2 feats total, and can be taken at level 2.

[Mojo_Rat]

Take Dervish Dance and then the Dervish Based Archtype from the inner sea Primer. I cannot remember what it is called but it is basically the Mobil fighter designed for use with a 1-handed weapon

you'll eventually get Extra attacks be moving at full speed doing a full attack and hiting anyone in your Path. It looks like it Was Designed with Dervish Dance in mind. Though i think any 1-handed weapon works.

[Sillycomic]

Who wants to use anything in their off-hand?

It helps make the Duelist PrC more viable? (PF Duelist is much better than 3.5 Duelist, it can now wear Light Armor for starters!)

It helps make the Free-Hand Fighter ACF more useful?

It let's you make a Dex-Focused character without needed to enchant two weapons, AND without having to take a bunch of feats?

Why can't they let you decide what you want to do with your off hand?

You don't have to wield two weapons, but why aren't you given the option? You don't have to carry a shield in your other hand, but why aren't you given the option?

If you want your character to have one hand wielding a weapon and the other dangle uselessly by your side that's your choice, it shouldn't be a requirement in a feat.

[true_shinken]

If you want your character to have one hand wielding a weapon and the other dangle uselessly by your side that's your choice, it shouldn't be a requirement in a feat.
It is your choice, just don't take the feat!
The feat was designedto allow for characters to have one sword in one hand, nothing in the other and still be effective.

[Sillycomic]

I seriously don't think you are getting my point at all.

If you get rid of that last sentence it doesn't hurt people who want to weild one weapon in one hand and let the other hand dangle uselessly by their side.

AND!!!!

It would also let other builds have even more options opened to them. Like two weapon fighting/sword and board.... heck even an Alchemist could have a scimitar in one hand and a bomb in the other and be pretty viable with this feat.


If the point of this feat was to corner very specifically built characters and narrow their choices down even more it shouldn't be a feat, it should just be a class ability designed for those specific classes.

[Hazzardevil]

And Chaotic Good Drow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html) everywhere rejoiced.
Can anyone tell me whether or not I take two weapon penalties with my first attack?

They didn't they only realised that they would have a bigger chance of surviving the drizzt hunts from my players.

[Aldizog]

If you get rid of that last sentence it doesn't hurt people who want to weild one weapon in one hand and let the other hand dangle uselessly by their side.

In every one of your posts, you have used that phrase "dangle uselessly." That isn't what I see when I watch Errol Flynn, or the duel in the Princess Bride, or virtually any other rapier duel ever. It just doesn't look stupid or pathetic to me, the way you seem to envision it. You sound like you have a very strong aesthetic objection to this fighting style, though. Is that your main problem with the ability? The way you keep saying "dangle uselessly" makes it seem that way.

[Sillycomic]

I only say dangle uselessly because the feat specifically tells you that you can't do anything with that hand. Now you can flavor fluff it that as you are fighting your other hand is doing all sorts of fun and creative things, but mechanically speaking the feat is ordering you to keep that hand by your side until you are done killing monsters!

I don't have a problem with someone who wants to only weild a one handed weapon. There can be builds that do that, and there are people who do fight in this style.

My problem is that at one point Errol Flynn or Inigo Montoya might look down at his other hand and think to himself, "Hey... look at this other hand I have. Why, I could hold a dagger here to get in some sort of side strike, or a shield to stop some devastating blows, or maybe even another scimitar!"

And all of those options are blocked from one sentence in the feat's description.

Getting rid of that last sentence doesn't hurt Errol Flynn's fighting abilities with one weapon in one hand. However, getting rid of that last sentence would be so much more helpful for other fighters, such as Legolas with his double scimitars (who would probably love this feat considering he's an archer/dual weilding melee build who probably wants to just maximize Dex)

[Mojo_Rat]

Pathfinder offers at Least Two Archtypes that Reward youf or having a Free hand. The one i mentioned from the Inner Sea Primer. and the Empty hand Fighter Archtype.


Basically in simplest tersm.

the Feat was not designed with TWF in mind and seems to have specific previsions to prevent it.

However the Dawnflower Dervish Archtype more than rewards you for it i think.

[Sillycomic]

I know.

I have readily agreed (three times now... go back and read it) that this feat is helpful for people who want to fight with a one handed weapon and have a free hand.

However. (again... third time I'm saying this) I think if you remove the last sentence in the feat it opens it up so that you aren't just LIMITED to using a one handed weapon and have a free hand. You can also use this feat for other types of builds and people would use it.

The feat itself isn't broken, and you using your other hand for something other than balance or fluff or whatever won't break the game whatsoever... so why limit it?

That's what I don't understand. Why make it so restrictive?

How does giving people the option of using that other hand for a shield or another weapon somehow destroy the fact that people can use this feat with only one weapon and a free hand? (which is what people keep thinking I am saying for some reason)

How does opening this feat up to other builds such as sword and board and two weapon fighting break the game soo much that the feat itself NEEDS to be restricted in such a manner?

[Mojo_Rat]

Its restricted because it is intended for people from A) Quadira who are B) likely charging over the Dunes Scimitar in hand while wearing flowing Robes

c) the Camel is Optional

Its a regional feat, for a specifici part of Golarion intended to support a specific theme (ie 1 handed scimitar use)

It it really is not that hard to undersand is it?

It is likely being re-printed in the world guide hardcover (as i think it was referenced int he primer)

But i doubt its going to be re-worded (in fact the dawnflower dervish archtype probly suggests it definately is not)

Look Dex is one of the /strongest/ stats in the Game it is used for just about everything a Combaty Type can use it for. The game ( PF and 3.5) has been extremely deliberately stingy on when and how you can get Dex to damage.

Really your only way of geting around this is convicing your DM to change how the feat works.

[Sillycomic]

Yeah, but at no point did anyone in Quadira ever think of doing something with their other hand?

I can imagine every time Quadira children picked up a dagger or a shield and tried to use it alongside their scimitar their parents spanked their butts and sent them to bed without dinner!

"No, how dare you. No Gameboy for you until you learn that your other hand
must dangle uselessly by your side!"

"But, Pa!!!!"

"I said no!"

Pathfinder already has those things though. They're called traits. A regional trait seems like it would better fit what they wanted to do with this concept.

I could see a regional trait with this exact wording.

But as far as a feat, no thank you.

Yeah, I would go with asking the GM to get rid of that last sentence.

[grarrrg]

Yeah, but at no point did anyone in Quadira ever think of doing something with their other hand?


Flavor-wise: Maybe they switch sword hands a lot? That's why it's Dex based, and the other hand needs to be empty, and where the "Dervish" comes from. They switch hands with such speed and fast whirling strikes that it 'seems' like they have more than one weapon.
Dervishes also 'traditionally' live in deserts, sand is not the most stable of terrain, so the empty hand is probably to maintain balance.


Game-wise I partially agree with you.
I do NOT think it should be useable with either TWF or with Two-Hand weapons, as those are both already better than Sword/Shield fighting.
Especially in the case of TWF, the Dex synergies would make it TOO good (as far as melee combat goes anyway).

I DO think it should be useable with at least a Buckler though (strapped to the arm, not 'carried'). And possibly while carrying another weapon, so long as the other weapon is not used in the same round as the Scimitar/Feat.

[Zaq]

I bet Improved Unarmed Strike would help with this. TWF with your scimitar and your unarmed strike (you can do that in PF, right? I play normal 3.5, so I'm not sure of the differences). If ToB is allowed, naturally, Snap Kick makes everything better.

[Sphar]

Ugh,why do you guys not understand? ;P
Dervish dance gives you incredible AC in light armor while doing reasonable damage.
At level 2 with a human fighter:
GEAR
Mwk scimitar
Mwk studded leather
Buckler(It's not offhand,its on ur wrist)

FEATS
L1:Weapon Focus(scimitar)
L1:Dodge
L1:Weapon Finesse
L2:Dervish Dance

STATS
Dex 20
7 Cha
8 str
con 14
Int 13(get duelist PrC)
wis 10

HP 21
AC 19:10 base+1 dodge+5 dex+3 studded leather
DPR 6.8

His AC just increases by level as you increase dex or get dex items.

Note:This is from my phone,sorry for the crappy grammar.

[ImperatorK]

Sillycomic, dude, IT IS A FLUFF REASON. You ever saw a real life duel with rapiers or similar weapon? Take a look. You will see that it actually REQUIRES the other hand to be free to better keep the balance and be more finesse-y with the sword. Really, is it that hard to understand?

[Bhaakon]

Sillycomic, dude, IT IS A FLUFF REASON. You ever saw a real life duel with rapiers or similar weapon? Take a look. You will see that it actually REQUIRES the other hand to be free to better keep the balance and be more finesse-y with the sword. Really, is it that hard to understand?

Eh? "Real life" rapier users often used a short blade in their off-hand. They could and did fight with one weapon as well, but it was nowhere near a requirement. If you're thinking of the modern sport of fencing, it has very little to do with actual battle.

[ImperatorK]

Eh? "Real life" rapier users often used a short blade in their off-hand. They could and did fight with one weapon as well, but it was nowhere near a requirement. If you're thinking of the modern sport of fencing, it has very little to do with actual battle.
Yeah, I've seen duels with two weapons. But in those duels the fighters where using TWF rather then Dervish Dance, obviously.
And the fact that modern fencing isn't like real battles does not matter. D&D designers still could base their fluff on it and I think they did.

[McSmack]

If we remove the last bit and make the feat available to TWF'ers then it would make the feat less useful to one-handed fighters. Why? Because free-hand fighters are already giving up something in order to fight that way. Allowing everyone to have it makes it just another feat.

By making it available to everyone you're not balancing out the negatives a player gets from choosing to fight with a one handed weapon and a free hand (no off-hand attacks, less damage, no shield). Leaving the feat as is makes one-handed fighting a more viable option, and makes a sylistic choice more balanced mechanically with other, more traditional options.

Sillycomic, I don't particularly understand where you're getting this idea that somehow those who choose to fight with a sword/shield or TWF are getting punished for picking up a dagger or a shield. The feat is for people who fight with a free-hand. Those that want to fight with two weapons or with a shield don't take Dervish Dance 101. They take different classes like Double Slice 1123 or Introduction to Shield Bash.


Look it doesn't work with a shield or a dagger in your off-hand because that's just how they freakin' dance in Quadira. Obviously theyr'e using the off-hand for something, and not just letting it dangle uselessly. Perhaps it is for balance, or controling their center of gravity, or perhaps they spend part of the time switching hands or holding it with two hands. I don't know.


Saying that it doesn't hurt one handed fighters if you let others take this feat is like saying that removing arcane spell failure chance from armor doesn't hurt fighters because fighters don't cast spells. You're right it doesn't specifically make fighters worse, it just makes everyone else just a little bit better relative to them. Which adds up to pretty much the same thing.

[subject42]

I bet Improved Unarmed Strike would help with this. TWF with your scimitar and your unarmed strike (you can do that in PF, right? I play normal 3.5, so I'm not sure of the differences)

I'm actually playing a character that does just that. It's not awesome, but it's not bad, either.

[Curious]

I'm actually playing a character that does just that. It's not awesome, but it's not bad, either.

I use a similar method; I simply use my off hand to trip enemies. Which then allows me to get AoOs with my main, useful, weapon.

[Sillycomic]

Allowing everyone to have it makes it just another feat.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm arguing. If it's so specific make it a trait or a class feature. If it's a feat, free it up so that others can have an opportunity to use it as they want.

Other people have said, there are bonuses elsewhere in classes and whatnot that gives you more advantage to fight with one hand and have your other hand free, so if that's what you choose to do, the option of using a shield or second weapon doesn't deter you.

It just opens up the choices of what others can do.



Sillycomic, I don't particularly understand where you're getting this idea that somehow those who choose to fight with a sword/shield or TWF are getting punished for picking up a dagger or a shield.

Because the feat says you're not allowed to do anything with your free hand. It's punishing you for thinking of something clever to do with that free hand of yours.


Look it doesn't work with a shield or a dagger in your off-hand because that's just how they freakin' dance in Quadira.

Yes, isn't that how regional traits work in Pathfinder, specific bonuses based on the origination of your culture and upbringing? It would be much better suited as that, honestly.



Saying that it doesn't hurt one handed fighters if you let others take this feat is like saying that removing arcane spell failure chance from armor doesn't hurt fighters because fighters don't cast spells.

Well, actually I think your metaphor would work better if it were in a feat form. Oh, there is one.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/arcane-armor-training-combat

Arcane Armor Training. Normally armor has a spell failure, this feat lessens it.

It doesn't tell you what spells you're allowed to cast with this feat, or what kind of armor you are and aren't allowed to wear... it's a pretty open ended feat allowing you as the player to use it with whatever combination of armor and spellcasting you wish.

[ImperatorK]

It eats your swift actions, a feat on Light Armor Proficiency and lessens the ASF just be 10%. Not that great.

[Sillycomic]

It's not a great feat, but it is a pretty suitable metaphor.

[McSmack]

Because the feat says you're not allowed to do anything with your free hand. It's punishing you for thinking of something clever to do with that free hand of yours.

The crux of your issue with this feat is that it locks you into a single combat style (the combat style it was designed for) without giving adequate explaination as to why it has that restriction.

To you (it seems to me) it makes as much sense as having Maximize spell only work on fireball, with no explanation given.

Had the text said something like "Using your empty hand to hide your strikes and improve your balance you have learned to use your agility to deadly effect. Benefit: blah blah blah", would you still be bothered by it?

[Sillycomic]

To you (it seems to me) it makes as much sense as having Maximize spell only work on fireball, with no explanation given.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's taking a decent feat (not game breaking but fairly useful) and limiting it far too much.

I would much rather it be an open feat able to be used in several different types of builds, everything from single handed fighting, sword and board, two weapon fighting or even an alchemist type of sword and bomb fighting style.


Had the text said something like "Using your empty hand to hide your strikes and improve your balance you have learned to use your agility to deadly effect. Benefit: blah blah blah", would you still be bothered by it?

I would, and I would ask you to get rid of it so it could be a more viable feat.

And even using that kind of language makes it sound more like a trait anyway. That's how traits are worded, usually.

[ImperatorK]

Then houserule it in your games, sheesh. It works as it works and no amount of complaining will change that.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread necromancy.