Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Changing "Weapon Finesse"


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hi, everybody.
I'm the GM for my group and we're all completely new. When making their characters some of my friends thought that the "Weapon Finesse" feat allowed you to apply your DEX to attack rolls AND damage rolls. Now I realize that it's wrong. I'm thinking about just going with it and tweaking the feat to be like that. Will this cause balance problems down the road or make it unfair for some of the other guys? They based some of their other character choices on this assumption but we haven't started the campaign yet so there's still time to change. What should I do?

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am no expert on the matter but I have heard a few reasons why WF doesn't allow DEX to damage. I believe it makes pumping DEX a little too powerful. Reflex save, AC, range and melee attacks while allowing them to completely ignore STR. Whether this is game-breaking or unfair its hard to say. I just wanted to state the obvious. Maybe some more system experts can chime in.


You're essentially combining two feats into one: Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance. Is this incredibly powerful for the cost of a feat? Arguably, maybe. Dex then is added to many many combat-related things (Ref, AC, Init). But a lot of people are in the "Weapon Finesse is feat tax for dex fighers" camp anyways, so.. Will it make them extremely overpowered in comparison? Not likely.


Before you make this decision realize just how much dex already does.

Reflex Save, Inititive, AC, and +hit (ranged hit and melee with weapon finesse). Adding damage is a huge benefit, I wouldn't allow it. If it hasn't started yet I recommend that you send the word out and let the characters change if they want however it's really up to you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

It would be imbalanced. How much depends on the group.

Weapon Finesse is a feat tax for Dex fighters, and rightly so. It allows them to half-ignore an entire attribute score. Dervish Dance lets them ignore Str entirely. That's extremely useful for a martial class.


I'd suggest making "Dex to attack rolls" an inherit quality of Finesse weapons. Then, allow a feat like this:

Finesse Expert (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a light weapon or one-handed finesse weapon, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

Pathfinder already has one such feat, though it is limited to scimitars. This feat would allow for more variety in weapons (unless you're cool with every Dex-based character whirling around as a dervish-dancing-scimitar-junky).

In terms of damage, such weapons will never add 1-1/2 times the character's Dexterity modifier, as per two-handed weapons, with Strength. So, there's an incentive not to dump Strength for some characters. Hell, even Dex-based characters might want to use a bow from time to time; another incentive not to dump Strength.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Perhaps leaving weapon finesse alone is best. I would try to create an altered version of Dervish Dance, as it is tried and true. Taking that much away from strength will create some serious imbalance.

Andoran

That...might be a little much for one Feat.

I would (and do!) instead allow the purchase of Dervish Dance for Finesse weapons in addition to the scimitar. It's slightly better on the scimitar since it makes that a Finesse weapon in addition, but it seems like a rapier-wielding duelist should have such an option available.

I do combine Agile Maneuvers with Weapon Finesse, but Agile Maneuvers is such a crap feat anyway (and Weapon Finesse can already be used on Disarm, Trip, and Sunder) that that's a much smaller deal.

I also allow Piranha Strike to be used freely on anything that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Basically because, again, this should be avilable to a man with a rapier.

There, those are some slightly less extreme ideas to power-up a Dex based fighter a little without unbalancing things.


In my game the GM let me go with a Greater Weapon Finesse feat to do that, it does make Dex a very choice stat but really it's already possible via dervish dance except for the weird 1 weapon bit and only applying to scimitars so he didn't seem too opposed to the idea and it is a 2 feat tax which means I have fewer feats to go around.


Feat taxes aren't fun. Just sayin'.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Feat tax is core to balance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

That...might be a little much for one Feat.

I would (and do!) instead allow the purchase of Dervish Dance for Finesse weapons in addition to the scimitar. It's slightly better on the scimitar since it makes that a Finesse weapon in addition, but it seems like a rapier-wielding duelist should have such an option available.

I do combine Agile Maneuvers with Weapon Finesse, but Agile Maneuvers is such a crap feat anyway (and Weapon Finesse can already be used on Disarm, Trip, and Sunder) that that's a much smaller deal.

I also allow Piranha Strike to be used freely on anything that can be used with Weapon Finesse. Basically because, again, this should be avilable to a man with a rapier.

There, those are some slightly less extreme ideas to power-up a Dex based fighter a little without unbalancing things.

I've added Improved Weapon Finesse in our campaigns and so far it hasn't caused anyone to be unbalanced. I used Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite and Wpn Focus with said weapon.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Feat tax is core to balance.

Also, so very limiting ; _ ;

Worth noting, I mostly play low-level. So, feat taxes kill concepts. *Poof* Another one vanishes in smoke.

Andoran

Detect Magic wrote:

Also, so very limiting ; _ ;

Worth noting, I mostly play low-level. So, feat taxes kill concepts. *Poof* Another one vanishes in smoke.

The issue is with Dex doing so much already. I mean, you let anyone use Dex on attack and damage if they want and suddenly there's almost literally no point to Strength.

I like finesse fighters, I want them in my games, but it needs to cost something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The issue is with Dex doing so much already. I mean, you let anyone use Dex on attack and damage if they want and suddenly there's almost literally no point to Strength.

Strength would still be a priority for characters using two-handed weapons or bows, or any one-handed weapon that isn't light or finesse (like most axes and hammers).


Detect Magic wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The issue is with Dex doing so much already. I mean, you let anyone use Dex on attack and damage if they want and suddenly there's almost literally no point to Strength.

Strength would still be a priority for characters using two-handed weapons or bows, or any one-handed weapon that isn't light or finesse (like most axes and hammers).

this is so true. encumbrance is also a factor. not being able to handle the weight of your armor can slow you down drastically. each handy haversack weighs 5 pounds. and most armors weigh a minimum of 10. usually 20 or more.

a handy haversack usually isn't even available until at least level 5.

speed is an important factor.

plus dervish dancers (the feat) want at least a 13 strength to take power attack. so they can't dump it completely.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The issue is with Dex doing so much already. I mean, you let anyone use Dex on attack and damage if they want and suddenly there's almost literally no point to Strength.

Strength would still be a priority for characters using two-handed weapons or bows, or any one-handed weapon that isn't light or finesse (like most axes and hammers).

this is so true. encumbrance is also a factor. not being able to handle the weight of your armor can slow you down drastically. each handy haversack weighs 5 pounds. and most armors weigh a minimum of 10. usually 20 or more.

a handy haversack usually isn't even available until at least level 5.

speed is an important factor.

plus dervish dancers (the feat) want at least a 13 strength to take power attack. so they can't dump it completely.

You could pump Dex so high that it would be more worthwhile not to wear armor. However, I was not aware power attack increased damage while using Dervish Dance so that's interesting.


Pan wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The issue is with Dex doing so much already. I mean, you let anyone use Dex on attack and damage if they want and suddenly there's almost literally no point to Strength.

Strength would still be a priority for characters using two-handed weapons or bows, or any one-handed weapon that isn't light or finesse (like most axes and hammers).

this is so true. encumbrance is also a factor. not being able to handle the weight of your armor can slow you down drastically. each handy haversack weighs 5 pounds. and most armors weigh a minimum of 10. usually 20 or more.

a handy haversack usually isn't even available until at least level 5.

speed is an important factor.

plus dervish dancers (the feat) want at least a 13 strength to take power attack. so they can't dump it completely.

You could pump Dex so high that it would be more worthwhile not to wear armor. However, I was not aware power attack increased damage while using Dervish Dance so that's interesting.

but bracers of armor cost a lot more than armor. unless you mean the haramaki. and those levels of dexterity usually aren't available until the high levels, assuming you place a nearly singleminded focus on it to the exclusion of most other attributes.

Andoran

Detect Magic wrote:
Strength would still be a priority for characters using two-handed weapons or bows,

Actually not worth it for the two-handers (assuming they have some way to get a Curveblade) the eventual +10 AC, Reflex Save, and Initiative are just worth more than +6 or 7 or less damage (yeah, it's a little less AC than that...but not a whole lot less). They'd grab a 13 for Power Attack, but no more.

Archers...don't seem like they should be the only people getting full value from that score.

Detect Magic wrote:
or any one-handed weapon that isn't light or finesse (like most axes and hammers).

There's absolutely no reason to wield these if you give Dex to hit and damage away free. The Rapier is simply better than they are. Maybe with the exception of the Falcata (but that costs a Feat, and still might not be worth the AC, Reflex, and Initiative).


you also have the weakness of putting your eggs in one basket. which makes circumstantial dexterity loss (even as part of a module) extremely crippling, much like negative levels.

you can't just buy a wand of restoration without blowing a lot of money that would greatly set you back in finances. Remove curse is a situationally rarely prepared spell, and lesser restoration isn't always sufficient.

and ability loss rarely utilizes a reflex save.


Eh the AC rewards really aren't there the max AC + dex armor you can get is Celestial which is what 4 AC and 8 Dex so that bumps you up to 22 AC assuming you have a 26 Dex which in the games I've played isn't very likely.

And in order for the Dex to be more valuable than the armor you have to break 34 which is even less likely now there are ways around that but the end result is that if you get flanked once you immediately drop to 10-15 AC and get cut into pieces so I hope your DM is the softball sort.


Flanking give you +2, it does not mean that your opponent loses his dex bonus to AC...

To the OP: as long as you apply the rules for encumbrance, so that STR may never be dropped, and do not allow DEX to be multiplied by 1.5 with two-handed weapon, what you want to do will balance the game more, not unbalance it.


Crysknife wrote:
To the OP: as long as you apply the rules for encumbrance, so that STR may never be dropped, and do not allow DEX to be multiplied by 1.5 with two-handed weapon, what you want to do will balance the game more, not unbalance it.

Especially considering the bolded, Strength will always be relevant, and never replaced.


It's a terrible idea. I'm all for allowing some kind of "dervish dance" feat for other finessable weapons. But it *should* cost something. Especially since dex is also the prerequisite to all the TWF feats.


Grenouillebleue wrote:
It's a terrible idea. I'm all for allowing some kind of "dervish dance" feat for other finessable weapons. But it *should* cost something. Especially since dex is also the prerequisite to all the TWF feats.

Which, as a general rule, suck.

Except for rogues: in their case TWF allows them to ALMOST stay competitive with the other classes, which isn't that bad if you ask me.


Crysknife wrote:

Flanking give you +2, it does not mean that your opponent loses his dex bonus to AC...

To the OP: as long as you apply the rules for encumbrance, so that STR may never be dropped, and do not allow DEX to be multiplied by 1.5 with two-handed weapon, what you want to do will balance the game more, not unbalance it.

So it does, my bad. I always assumed it did because of the Rogue rules, anyways it doesn't really matter there're plenty of ways to lose your dex bonus. If that's your only source of AC if you run into one of those things you'd do well to cower in a corner and cry like a girl.


Just gonna leave this here. Weird that it wasn't mentioned yet.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Adoke wrote:
Just gonna leave this here. Weird that it wasn't mentioned yet.

The OP wants to create a feat doing something similar.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Flagged for wrong forum. Should be in Homebrew.

Stat consolidation feats for Dex are never a good idea.


Yea, I would say that changing this feat isn't a good idea...

On another note, there is a magic weapon enchant called Agile that does mostly what you're looking to do:

D20PFSRD wrote:

This enhancement can only be placed on a melee weapon which is usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a new GM, you're going to make mistakes like this, probably more than once. If every time you do, and later, when you realize it was a mistake, you just house rule it in, you're going to end up with a lot of modifications to the rule system.

From experience, my advice to new GM's is always this: Play the game as written. Paizo spent/spends a lot of man hours and money playtesting their game. The systems exist as they do for a reason. As a relatively inexperienced DM, there will often be ramifications of "tweaks" to the system you don't anticipate. Learn to play the game as written. Have fun with it as it is. Once you have a good deal of experience under your belt, and you know all the rules inside an out, you'll be better equipped to make modifications. Even then, I'd recommend a long hard think before you do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't allow Dex to damage in my game. So no Dervish Dance and no Agile magic ability. I do change Weapon Finesse though. Basically all finessible weapons can replace Str with Dex for the attack roll with no feat. The Weapon Finesse feat just gives a flat +2 damage (similar to Weapon Specialization) to any finesse melee weapon, as long as you use your Dex instead of Str for the to hit bonus.


If you're running with this feat as a houserule, balance it by making a BBEG using the same rules. A "taste of their own medicine" kinda guy (or girl)...


Lex Starwalker wrote:

As a new GM, you're going to make mistakes like this, probably more than once. If every time you do, and later, when you realize it was a mistake, you just house rule it in, you're going to end up with a lot of modifications to the rule system.

From experience, my advice to new GM's is always this: Play the game as written. Paizo spent/spends a lot of man hours and money playtesting their game. The systems exist as they do for a reason. As a relatively inexperienced DM, there will often be ramifications of "tweaks" to the system you don't anticipate. Learn to play the game as written. Have fun with it as it is. Once you have a good deal of experience under your belt, and you know all the rules inside an out, you'll be better equipped to make modifications. Even then, I'd recommend a long hard think before you do.

I agree but I also highly disagree.

If your only justification for not running houserules is that somehow playtesters are masterful geniuses and can't mess up then I have to say that's just blatantly wrong. Play testers are just as liable to fail as players particularly considering the fact that the game allows for wildly different value to be gained out of the same resources and that the devs have admitted that they intentionally include better and worse choices.

Now as a good reason for why not to run house rules I'd say for a new GM the key is simplicity and that is why it's important particularly for a newbie but there are lots of cases where the game is wonky and benefits from some houserules particularly in the case of well known trap choices.


gnomersy wrote:
Crysknife wrote:

Flanking give you +2, it does not mean that your opponent loses his dex bonus to AC...

To the OP: as long as you apply the rules for encumbrance, so that STR may never be dropped, and do not allow DEX to be multiplied by 1.5 with two-handed weapon, what you want to do will balance the game more, not unbalance it.

So it does, my bad. I always assumed it did because of the Rogue rules, anyways it doesn't really matter there're plenty of ways to lose your dex bonus. If that's your only source of AC if you run into one of those things you'd do well to cower in a corner and cry like a girl.

Taking blind-fight and having a very high initiative cuts down significantly on your 'exposure', besides you actually have a decent chance to dodge touch attacks and make some saves to half damage too..

I do give everyone weapon finesse for free in my campaigns, and I am quite willing to expand upon dervish dance, or create similar feats, to allow more weapon choices.


You were given more feats in pathfinder.... I think things are fine the way they are.

Dex is already overly important as it is.


Remco Sommeling wrote:


Taking blind-fight and having a very high initiative cuts down significantly on your 'exposure', besides you actually have a decent chance to dodge touch attacks and make some saves to half damage too..

I do give everyone weapon finesse for free in my campaigns, and I am quite willing to expand upon dervish dance, or create similar feats, to allow more weapon choices.

If you're taking Blind fight + Weapon finesse that's at least 2 feats (3 if you charge a feat for the Dex to damage as dervish dance would or as a greater/improved finesse)

Regardless Dex is a great stat agreed, but 3 feats is a considerable investment to be able to focus on one stat without repercussion particularly on the classes which don't get tons of extra feats to toss around. Hell even if you have lots of feats 3 feats is still significant that could be power attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, which isn't insignificant.

Anyways you could still get Feinted even with Blind fight.


Since you mentioned that you are all completely new, you should try the rules as written before you tinker with them -- that way you will have some way to compare your tinkering with the original rules so that you will have an idea of which really works better for your group.

Personally, I was quite happy to take Weapon Finesse for a character with a strength of 12 and a dexterity of 16 following the rules as written. Had I been allowed to add dexterity for damage, it would have gone from a choice I was happy with to a no-brainer.

What you may want to do is seek out magic weapons with the Agile property -- those weapons let you add dexterity rather than strength to your damage rolls. Obviously any characters who have already taken the Weapon Finesse feat would highly prize such weapons.


PJ wrote:
I've added Improved Weapon Finesse in our campaigns and so far it hasn't caused anyone to be unbalanced. I used Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite and Wpn Focus with said weapon.

Sounds like a good way to do it. I'm making a dervish build as it is, and was looking forward to using a scimitar until I realized everyone was...

Grand Lodge

gnomersy wrote:

I agree but I also highly disagree.

If your only justification for not running houserules is that somehow playtesters are masterful geniuses and can't mess up then I have to say that's just blatantly wrong. Play testers are just as liable to fail as players particularly considering the fact that the game allows for wildly different value to be gained out of the same resources and that the devs have admitted that they intentionally include better and worse choices.

Now as a good reason for why not to run house rules I'd say for a new GM the key is simplicity and that is why it's important particularly for a newbie but there are lots of cases where the game is wonky and benefits from some houserules particularly in the case of well known trap choices.

That's not at all what I said. The OP said they were a new GM with new players. That playtesters and game designers ARE more experienced than a new player or a new GM is a fairly safe assumption.

To the OP. Yes, playtesters and game writers are not infallible. However, over 50,000 people playing around with a system are fairly likely to find the major problems. As a new, inexperience GM, with new inexperienced players (which is what you said in your post), I wouldn't change any rules until you all understand the game as it stands now, which can only come with play experience.

As someone else mentioned, if you make this change for your PC's then you have to make the change for every NPC and monster they encounter that it would apply to. That's extra work you have to do when making encounters. Better to spend that time on story and adventure ideas, IMO. After you've had some more experience with the game, you'll be better equipped to know if it's really worth the trouble.


Adam P wrote:

Hi, everybody.

I'm the GM for my group and we're all completely new. When making their characters some of my friends thought that the "Weapon Finesse" feat allowed you to apply your DEX to attack rolls AND damage rolls. Now I realize that it's wrong. I'm thinking about just going with it and tweaking the feat to be like that. Will this cause balance problems down the road or make it unfair for some of the other guys? They based some of their other character choices on this assumption but we haven't started the campaign yet so there's still time to change. What should I do?

Our group house-ruled that weapons that could be used with the feat 'Weapon Finesse' gained the weapon property 'Finessible', which meant that any character wielding it could opt to use their Dexterity instead of their Strength for attack roll purposes.

If you chose to do the same thing, you could change the effect of Weapon Finesse into allowing characters to apply their Dex for damage instead of Strength as well. That would keep the feat around and still make it appropriate as a pre-req for other feats and accomplish what your characters are trying to do.

Weapon Finesse as is, in my opinion, is nothing more than a feat tax.


I just recently asked JJ about this i the Off Topic thread. As I remembered he once mentioned playtesting a Weapon Finesse follow-up feat that would allow you to add your dex to your damage rolls too.

The problem with this feat was (according to James, I'm paraphrasing here and explaining it in more detail than he did, but he basically just confirmed my insinuations), that it made strength completely irrelevant and would allow a melee character to focus all of their Attack bonus, damage bonus AND AC bonus onto one single Ability score, which then lead to people only building melee characters around that feat because they would only need to invest ability scores into Dex and Con anymore. While strength based builds still need all three scores to be effective in melee.

I tend to house rule that weapon finesse is a free feat to anyone who fulfills the prerequisites since i don't believe it is fair to tax dexterity based characters who want to go for melee, as they are still dependent on as many ability scores as strength based characters for combat (they still need strength for damage and constitution for hit points, they just shifted focus from conveniently having Str for both Attack and Damage, with AC being the extra cost, to conveniently having Dex for attack and AC with damage being the extra cost). But as soon as you allow them to add dexterity to their damage, characters immediately become completely independent of one physical score and that can cause a problem.

Dervish dance works, because it still instills certain penalties, that being, it has to be one certain type of weapon, which is one-handed and cannot add anything in the off hand, neither shield nor off-hand weapon.

Grand Lodge

Threeshades wrote:
The problem with this feat was (according to James, I'm paraphrasing here and explaining it in more detail than he did, but he basically just confirmed my insinuations), that it made strength completely irrelevant and would allow a melee character to focus all of their Attack bonus, damage bonus AND AC bonus onto one single Ability score, which then lead to people only building melee characters around that feat because they would only need to invest ability scores into Dex and Con anymore. While strength based builds still need all three scores to be effective in melee.

Makes perfect sense.


I forgot to mention Initiative and Reflex saves which are also Dexterity-governed. While Initiative is at best a one-turn advantage and reflex saves are not strictly melee combat related they are still a factor in the overall power of your character and should be considered in this.
Unlike dexterity strength only has its use in composite bow-, thrown-, melee-damage and melee-attack rolls as well as a few skills, while dexterity governs initiative, a save, several skills (far more than strength does by the way), ranged attack and AC.

So i might actually have to revise my house rule to make weapon finesse free.

Andoran

Threeshades wrote:
Dervish dance works, because it still instills certain penalties, that being, it has to be one certain type of weapon, which is one-handed and cannot add anything in the off hand, neither shield nor off-hand weapon.

This. I think that, thematically, other weapons should be viable for this kind of thing (rapiers being the obvious example) but I am a firm believer in the other restrictions inherent in the Feat.


Threeshades wrote:

I just recently asked JJ about this i the Off Topic thread. As I remembered he once mentioned playtesting a Weapon Finesse follow-up feat that would allow you to add your dex to your damage rolls too.

The problem with this feat was (according to James, I'm paraphrasing here and explaining it in more detail than he did, but he basically just confirmed my insinuations), that it made strength completely irrelevant and would allow a melee character to focus all of their Attack bonus, damage bonus AND AC bonus onto one single Ability score, which then lead to people only building melee characters around that feat because they would only need to invest ability scores into Dex and Con anymore. While strength based builds still need all three scores to be effective in melee.

I tend to house rule that weapon finesse is a free feat to anyone who fulfills the prerequisites since i don't believe it is fair to tax dexterity based characters who want to go for melee, as they are still dependent on as many ability scores as strength based characters for combat (they still need strength for damage and constitution for hit points, they just shifted focus from conveniently having Str for both Attack and Damage, with AC being the extra cost, to conveniently having Dex for attack and AC with damage being the extra cost). But as soon as you allow them to add dexterity to their damage, characters immediately become completely independent of one physical score and that can cause a problem.

Dervish dance works, because it still instills certain penalties, that being, it has to be one certain type of weapon, which is one-handed and cannot add anything in the off hand, neither shield nor off-hand weapon.

*shrug* I can see why you'd say that and I do think Dex with this sort of feat choice does become extremely viable/valuable but it's not like a Str based fighter really needs a high dex bonus particularly in the low-mid levels before armor training builds up, and since they have 2 extra feats to work with they could get the bonus initiative and Reflex from that while their extra AC comes from dex restrictive heavy armor choices thus allowing them to focus on 2 stats just ones that people more consistently attribute to Fighters.

Mind you this gimps their ranged abilities but a pure dex fighter would have terrible ranged damage anyways just with a higher to hit bonus.


Threeshades wrote:

I just recently asked JJ about this i the Off Topic thread. As I remembered he once mentioned playtesting a Weapon Finesse follow-up feat that would allow you to add your dex to your damage rolls too.

The problem with this feat was (according to James, I'm paraphrasing here and explaining it in more detail than he did, but he basically just confirmed my insinuations), that it made strength completely irrelevant and would allow a melee character to focus all of their Attack bonus, damage bonus AND AC bonus onto one single Ability score, which then lead to people only building melee characters around that feat because they would only need to invest ability scores into Dex and Con anymore. While strength based builds still need all three scores to be effective in melee.

I tend to house rule that weapon finesse is a free feat to anyone who fulfills the prerequisites since i don't believe it is fair to tax dexterity based characters who want to go for melee, as they are still dependent on as many ability scores as strength based characters for combat (they still need strength for damage and constitution for hit points, they just shifted focus from conveniently having Str for both Attack and Damage, with AC being the extra cost, to conveniently having Dex for attack and AC with damage being the extra cost). But as soon as you allow them to add dexterity to their damage, characters immediately become completely independent of one physical score and that can cause a problem.

Dervish dance works, because it still instills certain penalties, that being, it has to be one certain type of weapon, which is one-handed and cannot add anything in the off hand, neither shield nor off-hand weapon.

And all of these reasons are why I do not allow the Agile weapon power in my game.

Andoran

Lord Twig wrote:
And all of these reasons are why I do not allow the Agile weapon power in my game.

Oh, c'mon, it's a Weapon Property. Those already give up to 7 damage almost all the time (Holy, in most games), having one switch a stat to damage is perfectly reasonable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lex Starwalker wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
The problem with this feat was (according to James, I'm paraphrasing here and explaining it in more detail than he did, but he basically just confirmed my insinuations), that it made strength completely irrelevant and would allow a melee character to focus all of their Attack bonus, damage bonus AND AC bonus onto one single Ability score, which then lead to people only building melee characters around that feat because they would only need to invest ability scores into Dex and Con anymore. While strength based builds still need all three scores to be effective in melee.
Makes perfect sense.

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.


Dabbler wrote:


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.

Couldn't the exact same argument be made for a second feat to allow that though?

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)

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.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Changing "Weapon Finesse" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.