Why is Bladed Brush so poorly worded.

[thelastorphan]

Benefit(s): You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).

As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.

Seriously what do we all think the RAI is here? That it works with anything that requires you to have a hand free and a melee piercing or slashing weapon? I have been trying to find some consensus on this but find that while many people agree on the RAW they seem to disagree heavily on how to interpret the RAI and Paizo has been silent on it.

Any other thoughts from people on here and whether they think it would be overpowered to do what the bolded part says in all interactions?

It says treat the off hand as though you aren't making attacks and calls out the swashbuckler abilities that say your hand needs to be FREE not just not attacking. So that's another confusion.

[Anxe]

Two ugly clauses combined into an ugly monster sentence.

1. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require a free hand (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).
2. When wielding a glaive, you are treated as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require a free hand (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the clear part is this:
When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as [a one-handed melee weapon] AND [[a piercing weapon] OR [a slashing weapon]] AND [as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand].

The question is, where does [for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon] go? Does it modify the last clause only, or all clauses? My gut says the last clause only, but I'm not a native speaker of English. Ergo, you can treat a glaive as one-handed slashing or piercing melee weapon in any situation (including Power Attack and whatnot, so you might not always want to), and additionally, you can use a glaive as if your off-hand isn't used to make attacks (even though it presumably still is, because glaives are still two-handers... actually, if the first clause is general, it's not a two-hander, so you might not need the last clause?).


As for the "free" versus "not attacking" distinction: I guess the reasoning is that if you're only using the hand for attacking with your glaive, and that particular usage doesn't count, you're not using your hand for anything, ergo it must be "free". Try using that on your DM?

[Bakkan]

To my eyes, the most natural reading is with the last clause modifying all the previous clauses. That is, I agree with Anxe's deconstruction of the sentence.