Couldn't the exact same argument be made for a second feat to allow that though?
To me too. Agile weapon property works because it's a different limited resource (weapon bonuses) and has different limitations (resources, mainly) that ensure you cannot take it before moderate levels. It also rewards Weapon Finesse characters by letting them stack up damage after surviving the lower levels. You cannot make strength a dump-stat with this, but you can rob it of it's significance.
Fighters have 21 feats to burn. Weapons only have +10 worth of properties and bonuses. You can blow all feats available in one direction and have spare feats left over. At low levels, this cannot be done with weapon properties, you have to choose between +1 to hit and + dex to damage at a level where +1 to hit is worth a lot.
I mean yes weapon properties are a limited resource but so are feats and a simple BAB req could be just as limiting as the monetary investment say BAB 5 or 6 would be somewhere around the same level you could pick up Agile right?(Seriously not sure we pick up +2 weapons like candy in our game but they never have the good effects on them)
In other words, you have just put your finger on the other good reason for making it a weapon quality: availability. If you have a crafter, or can hire one, it takes time. Nothing wrong with that. Like everything else good, you have to work for it.
And assuming the character isn't a fighter it isn't like they're rolling in extra feats and even if you are a fighter you'd be committing to 6 levels of mediocrity until you got your real damage.
And not making it a feat means that it's equally available to all classes and not a feat tax on one that is lacking bonus feats. For example, monks, duelists and rogues would all like it more than most fighters, but they generally are NOT rolling in feats, quite the opposite. Hence a weapon property suits them better than a feat.
What I've been thinking of doing is making the effects of current Weapon Finesse automatic, and then making new Weapon Finesse allow you to add the lowest of either your Dex modifier or twice your Str modifier instead of just your Str modifier to damage, so that you need at least some Str to do damage, just not as much if you have a lot of Dex. It would still only apply to light or finesse designated weapons.
It makes logical sense to me. Though, I would remove Dervish Dance and the Agile weapon property to prevent overlap/outclassing of the feat.
I think it fits the imagery better of a lean and flexible, yet muscular and fit swordsman rather than a scrawny contortionist whose precise technique overcomes his nigh non-existent musculature.
I don't want the character to necessarily be the hulk to fight in melee, but I don't want him to be able to have flopping noodles for arms and still make it through either.
It makes logical sense to me. Though, I would remove Dervish Dance and the Agile weapon property to prevent overlap/outclassing of the feat.
Why not just rule they don't overlap? After all there are Sundering weapons and the Improved Sunder feat.
|
The problem is, the feat exists. Dervish Dance gives pretty much all of the abusive properties the suggested feat. Anyone who wants to go Dex fighter can take Dervish Dance and do so.
The restriction on using anything in the other hand is huge, and a major balancing point of the Feat. As is it only applying to a specific weapon.
Change it to finessable weapons, keep the "nothing in the other hand" requirement if you think it's necessary, drop the background and perform requirements and you make a lot of concepts viable without being much more abusable than it is now.
I've done this, basically (I kept the Perform requirement, which IMO should maybe be replaced, but not eliminated). Works fine. But I don't think many people are objecting to this idea per se, just to a general "I now do Dex on damage with all Weapon Finesse weapons, with no restrictions." kind of Feats. Which would indeed be problematic.
Well, seeing as I came originally from an Earthdawn background, I was used to every single weapon being based on Dex to hit. Armor was there to soak up damage - it worked just like damage reduction.
Considering this, how would anybody think if Pathfinder had the same system? Using Dex for attacks (since Dex symbolizes hand-eye coordination) and having armor - instead of making your vitals harder to hit - soak up a certain amount from any damage you take.
Would you then think a feat that lets melee fighters apply their Strength to attack rolls overpowered since these types could then just base their entire build on one ability score?
;-)
|
|
Well, seeing as I came originally from an Earthdawn background, I was used to every single weapon being based on Dex to hit. Armor was there to soak up damage - it worked just like damage reduction.
WoD here. And other systems that occur in the modern day. Very much the same, with Dex to hit universally. And...IME, that makes it by far the best, and most often maxed, stat. Which would be a little bit of a prblem in Pathfinder, IMO.
Considering this, how would anybody think if Pathfinder had the same system? Using Dex for attacks (since Dex symbolizes hand-eye coordination) and having armor - instead of making your vitals harder to hit - soak up a certain amount from any damage you take.
Ultimate Combat actually has rules for this kind of thing. Just FYI.
Would you then think a feat that lets melee fighters apply their Strength to attack rolls overpowered since these types could then just base their entire build on one ability score?
;-)
Probably not, since (in that case) all Str does is damage, encumberance, and a couple mediocre skills. As compared to Dex already doing Ranged attacks, Initiative, a lot of good skills, AC, Reflex Save, and probably several things I'm forgetting.
A better example would be a Feat (or maybe two) to add Str instead of Dex to AC and Initiative in the current system. Do you think there'd ever be an optimized melee character without these? Or with a Dex above 10? I very much doubt it.
Yeah, that's sort of what it's like, if done without restriction.
Well, seeing as I came originally from an Earthdawn background, I was used to every single weapon being based on Dex to hit. Armor was there to soak up damage - it worked just like damage reduction.
Considering this, how would anybody think if Pathfinder had the same system? Using Dex for attacks (since Dex symbolizes hand-eye coordination) and having armor - instead of making your vitals harder to hit - soak up a certain amount from any damage you take.
Would you then think a feat that lets melee fighters apply their Strength to attack rolls overpowered since these types could then just base their entire build on one ability score?
;-)
I think such a system would require a lot of fundamental changes to the game. Because essentially turning armor into DR makes it near impossible to hurt someone in full plate with a shortsword or dagger without it having at least 8000 gp worth of enchantments on it or at least a special ability like Sneak Attack in place. Only crits would have a chance of dealing any damage at all.