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!

Mythic weapon finesse seems unbalanced...


Player Feedback

1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mythic weapon finesse allows a player to use dexterity instead of strength for all melee attack and damage roles with finesse weapons. Essentially, it invalidates strength.
I can't imagine that any melee based character in a mythic campaign would focus on strength over dexterity when it's as easy as a couple feats to gain all the damage benefits of strength with the defensive and skill benefits of dexterity. Combined with the mythic champion abilities that remove the dexterity caps on armor, and strength is even less attractive. Personally I have always felt that there is a good balance between the benefits of strength and dexterity, and the idea of a feat that so drastically tips the scales in favor one over the other just seems.. not well thought out.


If you are not starting as a mythic character no problem because they will all ready have built their characters and so cannot switch their 18str to dex also if they dump str as a fighter or rogue they loose carrying capacity which would cripple the fighter and not allow the rogue to cary nearly as much.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I found it quite funny that Dex to Damage is finally in the core rule line.

As a mythic feat.


@foofer funny I never had that problem with the Dervish Dance feat which essentially did the same thing with the Scimitar it made for some good rogue and Magus builds but it hardly took the place of the strength builds.

It allows for the Agile Hero to shine even if it took Mythic to do it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Or I could stick with my Greatsword and not blow to feats that I could be using for more important things, like Power Attack and Mythic Power Attack.


Realmwalker wrote:

@foofer funny I never had that problem with the Dervish Dance feat which essentially did the same thing with the Scimitar it made for some good rogue and Magus builds but it hardly took the place of the strength builds.

It allows for the Agile Hero to shine even if it took Mythic to do it.

Not to mention that, still, the character is vulnerable if denied access to a finessable weapon. A GM who is genuinely concerned about the power discrepancy can - and should - at least occasionally have capable enemies pull disarm attempts, or try to catch the character without their ideal weapon on hand.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

By "some good magus builds", you of course meant "just about every single one in existence if the forums are any indication whatsoever", right? :)


Cheapy wrote:
By "some good magus builds", you of course meant "just about every single one in existence if the forums are any indication whatsoever", right? :)

I still don't get the appeal of it. Dervish Dance applies only to a Scimitar, and Weapon Finesse doesn't work for Scimitars...


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Not to mention that, still, the character is vulnerable if denied access to a finessable weapon. A GM who is genuinely concerned about the power discrepancy can - and should - at least occasionally have capable enemies pull disarm attempts, or try to catch the character without their ideal weapon on hand.

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't say only finesse-able weapons...it says any melee attacks.

Quote:

Weapon Finesse (Mythic)

You are an expert with weapons that rely on your agility.
Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, 1st mythic tier.
Benefit: You can use your Dexterity score on all melee
attack rolls and damage rolls instead of your Strength
score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aleron wrote:
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Not to mention that, still, the character is vulnerable if denied access to a finessable weapon. A GM who is genuinely concerned about the power discrepancy can - and should - at least occasionally have capable enemies pull disarm attempts, or try to catch the character without their ideal weapon on hand.

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't say only finesse-able weapons...it says any melee attacks.

Quote:

Weapon Finesse (Mythic)

You are an expert with weapons that rely on your agility.
Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, 1st mythic tier.
Benefit: You can use your Dexterity score on all melee
attack rolls and damage rolls instead of your Strength
score.

Hum. Well, shave my head and call me franky. My estimation may have been mistaken.

Now excuse me while I go and make my Ballerina Barbarian.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It's a very nice thing for Dex-focused monks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Harrison wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
By "some good magus builds", you of course meant "just about every single one in existence if the forums are any indication whatsoever", right? :)
I still don't get the appeal of it. Dervish Dance applies only to a Scimitar, and Weapon Finesse doesn't work for Scimitars...

And dervish dance makes weapon finesse work with scimitars. So that's the appeal of it.


Mikaze wrote:
It's a very nice thing for Dex-focused monks.

Honestly, it's good for quite a few folks. I imagine that there are some archers out there who are going to be anxious to switch hit once in a while now.


Cheapy wrote:
By "some good magus builds", you of course meant "just about every single one in existence if the forums are any indication whatsoever", right? :)

May not be optimized but one of my players is running a Str base Magus with Longsword and he is not bad.

So you can make a decent Magus with out Dervish Dance, They are just more fun in my opinion :)

My ex-Girlfriend had a dervish dancing dhampir rogue (swashbuckler) that was pretty nasty, I'd love to rehash it as a human mythic trickster rogue that uses the finesse/mythic finesse with a rapier. More of the Masked Avenger type rogue.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And now I'm thinking of taking my Dex-based Elf Urban Barbarian and his shiny curveblade and testing out the mythic rules with him . . .


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh no! A MAD build is now less MAD because he spent a feat AND a mystic feat but still underperforming next to the casters! Whatever shall we do?

Honestly, if anything, it should be a non-mystic feat just called "weapon finesse, improved". The dexterity based combatant is such an iconic build that sucks horribly in 3.5/PF is deserves it.


Dervish dance is balanced because you can't two hand it, and you can't use anything in your off hand. With this new feat you could two hand an elven curve blade, do as much damage as a greatsword, and with a few lose points into strength still power attack and greater power attack.
Also, the excuse that you could spring mythic levels upon your party at high levels so that their builds won't be able to rely on it doesn't negate the fact that mythic weapon finesse still invalidates strength. It is in no way ever balanced to have a feat or feat train that allows all the major benefits of another stat. I mean, if they added a feat train that lets you add your Strength to AC and reflex saves instead of dex, how stupid would that be?
Also, carrying capacity, really? In a world of muleback cords and bags of holding, that is never an issue.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Guess what? Phenomenal Cosmic Power ALSO invalidates strength, and Wizard is in the core rules.


Foofer wrote:

Dervish dance is balanced because you can't two hand it, and you can't use anything in your off hand. With this new feat you could two hand an elven curve blade, do as much damage as a greatsword, and with a few lose points into strength still power attack and greater power attack.

Also, the excuse that you could spring mythic levels upon your party at high levels so that their builds won't be able to rely on it doesn't negate the fact that mythic weapon finesse still invalidates strength. It is in no way ever balanced to have a feat or feat train that allows all the major benefits of another stat. I mean, if they added a feat train that lets you add your Strength to AC and reflex saves instead of dex, how stupid would that be?
Also, carrying capacity, really? In a world of muleback cords and bags of holding, that is never an issue.

muleback cords means no cloak of resistance for you. unless your DM allows you to pay a 50% markup.

bags of holding, the lightest one is 25 pounds. and it fails to accomodate the clothes on your back, the armor on your person, the weapons and consumables you keep in easy combat access, or the coins in your purse.

unless you mean the handy haversack, which fails to accomodate anything bulkier than a medium longsword or battleaxe, meaning you cannot fit a suit of fullplate inside of it, and each pocket has a different capacity. none of which holds that much.


Dervish Dance is balanced because you are blowing a limited resource (feats), gimping yourself until you reach the point you acquire it and most importantly, dexterity based builds never outperform a strength build even with this.

I'm not sure that even WITH this Mythic feat you get 1.5 dex from two handed weapons, and that bonus on two handers is the main way you even get decent damage in the first place.

3.0 came out TWELVE YEARS ago, and it and its derivatives have failed to let PCs be one of the iconic melee archetypes (agility based fighter) effectively.

Grand Lodge

deuxhero wrote:

Dervish Dance is balanced because you are blowing a limited resource (feats), gimping yourself until you reach the point you acquire it and most importantly, dexterity based builds never outperform a strength build even with this.

I'm not sure that even WITH this Mythic feat you get 1.5 dex from two handed weapons, and that bonus on two handers is the main way you even get decent damage in the first place.

3.0 came out TWELVE YEARS ago, and it and its derivatives have failed to let PCs be one of the iconic melee archetypes (agility based fighter) effectively.

Actually, the swashbuckler base class was pretty good at doing the whole agility based fighter pretty effectively I thought.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

That's because the game itself is build around people standing still and doing full attacks. Same problem with Monks. 2000 called, wants the "3e favors static combat" thread back.


Cold Napalm wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

Dervish Dance is balanced because you are blowing a limited resource (feats), gimping yourself until you reach the point you acquire it and most importantly, dexterity based builds never outperform a strength build even with this.

I'm not sure that even WITH this Mythic feat you get 1.5 dex from two handed weapons, and that bonus on two handers is the main way you even get decent damage in the first place.

3.0 came out TWELVE YEARS ago, and it and its derivatives have failed to let PCs be one of the iconic melee archetypes (agility based fighter) effectively.

Actually, the swashbuckler base class was pretty good at doing the whole agility based fighter pretty effectively I thought.

Only with Daring Outlaw. Otherwise it is 3 levels long.

Grand Lodge

deuxhero wrote:


Actually, the swashbuckler base class was pretty good at doing the whole agility based fighter pretty effectively I thought.
Only with Daring Outlaw. Otherwise it is 3 levels long.

No, the elf champion PrC wasn't bad either...with a splash of duelist.


Oh no Dex to damage!!!! Of course it's more powerful than Dervish Dance. This is a Mythic feat, it's supposed to be better.

And as far as Mythic goes, it's still not that powerful in comparison to other things.

A 5th level Wizard with 20 Int who gets 1 Tier of Archmage, selects Wild Arcana and can now choose to spontaneously cast any Wizard spell 3rd level or lower 5 times per day without any preparation.

For those of you keeping track at home, that Wizard can choose from around 500 spells to cast from as needed. And that only get's much worse as the Wizard levels (he doesn't need any more Mythic Tiers). Schrodinger's Wizard is now an actual reality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Guess what? Phenomenal Cosmic Power ALSO invalidates strength, and Wizard is in the core rules.

This, oh so much. ^^


Keep in mind, even if this isn't limited to finesse weapons, who in their right mind is going to use Dex to damage on a weapon when they aren't getting Dex to hit?

Grand Lodge

Merkatz wrote:

Oh no Dex to damage!!!! Of course it's more powerful than Dervish Dance. This is a Mythic feat, it's supposed to be better.

And as far as Mythic goes, it's still not that powerful in comparison to other things.

A 5th level Wizard with 20 Int who gets 1 Tier of Archmage, selects Wild Arcana and can now choose to spontaneously cast any Wizard spell 3rd level or lower 5 times per day without any preparation.

For those of you keeping track at home, that Wizard can choose from around 500 spells to cast from as needed. And that only get's much worse as the Wizard levels (he doesn't need any more Mythic Tiers). Schrodinger's Wizard is now an actual reality.

Yeah that one needs to be toned down. Compared to the other two...kind of a no brainer. The arcane surge has a better chance to stick, but it has to be a spell you already had memorized for the day and no metamagic...while the wild one lets you even meta at will. And the mage strike...really? Even for a magus or EK there is noway burning two resources for a bonus to hit and a few extra dice of damage makes up for hey I can cast whatever I want.


Merkatz wrote:

Oh no Dex to damage!!!! Of course it's more powerful than Dervish Dance. This is a Mythic feat, it's supposed to be better.

And as far as Mythic goes, it's still not that powerful in comparison to other things.

A 5th level Wizard with 20 Int who gets 1 Tier of Archmage, selects Wild Arcana and can now choose to spontaneously cast any Wizard spell 3rd level or lower 5 times per day without any preparation.

For those of you keeping track at home, that Wizard can choose from around 500 spells to cast from as needed. And that only get's much worse as the Wizard levels (he doesn't need any more Mythic Tiers). Schrodinger's Wizard is now an actual reality.

Except that Wizard may also want Component Power, Competent Caster, and (eventually) Endless Power.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Keep in mind, even if this isn't limited to finesse weapons, who in their right mind is going to use Dex to damage on a weapon when they aren't getting Dex to hit?

This feat gives dex to attack rolls though.

Grand Lodge

Tels wrote:
Merkatz wrote:

Oh no Dex to damage!!!! Of course it's more powerful than Dervish Dance. This is a Mythic feat, it's supposed to be better.

And as far as Mythic goes, it's still not that powerful in comparison to other things.

A 5th level Wizard with 20 Int who gets 1 Tier of Archmage, selects Wild Arcana and can now choose to spontaneously cast any Wizard spell 3rd level or lower 5 times per day without any preparation.

For those of you keeping track at home, that Wizard can choose from around 500 spells to cast from as needed. And that only get's much worse as the Wizard levels (he doesn't need any more Mythic Tiers). Schrodinger's Wizard is now an actual reality.

Except that Wizard may also want Component Power, Competent Caster, and (eventually) Endless Power.

Umm...you can get all of those AND wild arcana. The choice is wild arcana, arcane surge or mage strike.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Tels wrote:
Merkatz wrote:

Oh no Dex to damage!!!! Of course it's more powerful than Dervish Dance. This is a Mythic feat, it's supposed to be better.

And as far as Mythic goes, it's still not that powerful in comparison to other things.

A 5th level Wizard with 20 Int who gets 1 Tier of Archmage, selects Wild Arcana and can now choose to spontaneously cast any Wizard spell 3rd level or lower 5 times per day without any preparation.

For those of you keeping track at home, that Wizard can choose from around 500 spells to cast from as needed. And that only get's much worse as the Wizard levels (he doesn't need any more Mythic Tiers). Schrodinger's Wizard is now an actual reality.

Except that Wizard may also want Component Power, Competent Caster, and (eventually) Endless Power.
Umm...you can get all of those AND wild arcana. The choice is wild arcana, arcane surge or mage strike.

I know, but you'd need to be at least Tier 2 to get both Component Power and Competent Caster. Endless Power can't be taken till Tier 6. I was referencing the bolded part above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really can't understand where you people (those defending the feat) are coming from. It's not balanced, clearly. Not one of you have brought up any points to the contrary. You're just calling me a whiner. It's not like it effects me as a player, it just allows me to build that much more powerful a character, and it's not like it would adversely effect me as a DM, because I could just ban the feat. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's unbalance. Are there other things that are unbalanced? of course. That doesn't mean this isn't.
Now do me a solid, and if you're going to reply, do so in a constructive way. I'm willing to have my mind changed if you make some legitimate points on the subject matter.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, a feat that actually makes someone not relying on a massive two-hander a viable option in combat.

That just means it is an abomination that must be killed with fire, judging from what I see on the posts here.


Too bad. All it needs to be balanced is a bunch of worthless feats as a requirement and some non-sentential requirements to use the feat!


Even better idea, how about we put feat requirements on it, but the feats that you have to take actually give you penalties!?

It's genius!! /sarcasm

Andoran

My feeling is that it is not intended for use with two-handed weapons. Based on the flavor text it is meant to work with the same weapons that are affected by Weapon Finesse.

That said as a GM I would allow this in only due to the fact I can control when or if they get Mythic tiers. I would limit it though only weapons affected by weapon finesse.

It has great potential to unbalance a game, but so do a couple of other feats. When I play I pretty much always play dex based characters and another player always goes strength. His goal is to absorb as much damage as possible and kill what he is attacking before it kills him.

My goal is to avoid damage as I'm primarily playing a sorcerer/oracle. If I'm in combat something has gone wrong anyways. My GM has allowed in the Agile weapon property which allows a player to add his dexterity to damage if the weapon is finessable and they have weapon finesse.

The difference between the Agile property and this feat is what I pay to get the same ability, as I view the feat as only meant to apply to finesseable weapons. This means I either pay in gold and time along with a feat tax or I spend two feats in two different areas to get the same benefit.

The Agile Property requires a 7th level caster and costs 2,000 gold.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

First of all even with this feat you still need STR 13 for power attack (and eventually mythic power attack).
And yes i think that it should apply only to finesse weapons (but maybe allow the 1.5 times dexterity), after all (as others have said) the agile weapon property exists, so IMO a mythic feat should not only replicate it but also do a bit more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, judging from the reactions here, this feat will face the wrath of errata.

That means it's back to the drawing board for both Monks and two-weapon melee classes.

Good job you guys, we're backpedaling on the advancement again, just when we get something nice.

Andoran

Technically Icyshadow if I recall unarmed attacks and most monk weapons are able to be finessed. Thus they can be affected by this feat.

As for fighting with two weapons. Hmmm. Perhaps have the feat open up all One-handed weapons? That might make a decent compromise. Makes it better than the Agile weapon property and still gives a dex fighter some new options on weapons.

I still would say that aside from the two weapons called out in Weapon Finesse two-handed weapons should not be opened up to them.

Either way my main opinion is it is meant to be only attacks that can be affected by weapon finesse. And with that in mind it is quite in line with the other feats.

As I stated it comes down to take two feats. One on regular advancement and one on a mythic tier, Or take a feat and shell out the gold to add the Agile property to your weapon.


Harrison wrote:
Or I could stick with my Greatsword and not blow to feats that I could be using for more important things, like Power Attack and Mythic Power Attack.

You can still have your greatsword and mythic power attack. Mythic Weapon Finesse allows you to add 1.5 times your dex with 2H attacks.


Icyshadow wrote:

Oh, a feat that actually makes someone not relying on a massive two-hander a viable option in combat.

That just means it is an abomination that must be killed with fire, judging from what I see on the posts here.

You still rely on a massive two-hander, but now you can use dex with it.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Oh, a feat that actually makes someone not relying on a massive two-hander a viable option in combat.

That just means it is an abomination that must be killed with fire, judging from what I see on the posts here.

You still rely on a massive two-hander, but now you can use dex with it.

Yes, and there are people here who see that as sacrilege.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Foofer wrote:

I really can't understand where you people (those defending the feat) are coming from. It's not balanced, clearly. Not one of you have brought up any points to the contrary. You're just calling me a whiner. It's not like it effects me as a player, it just allows me to build that much more powerful a character, and it's not like it would adversely effect me as a DM, because I could just ban the feat. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's unbalance. Are there other things that are unbalanced? of course. That doesn't mean this isn't.

Now do me a solid, and if you're going to reply, do so in a constructive way. I'm willing to have my mind changed if you make some legitimate points on the subject matter.

Your problem is that perceptions of balance are so heavily influenced by play-style.

You seem to believe that this mythic feat is unbalanced because it allows some melee characters to choose DEX over STR, thus gaining a boost to AC and reflex saves.

Others disagree, they believe that this option does not invalidate STR builds because
A: There is a pay-off, you have to spend precious feats which the STR-based fighter could be spending on all kinds of useful things.
B: Encumberance still matters (this is definitely a play-style issue, some people enforce encumberance carefully while others ignore it) and only strength really helps, unless you're buying wands of ant-haul or somesuch...
C: That boost to AC and Reflex saves doesn't really matter in terms of balance because non-casters are already understrength when compared with casters. Comparing fighter-A with fighter-B is not an effective way to view balance as it ignores the power of casters.

B and C are highly dependant upon play-style and A is dependant upon your view of the power and importance of feats.

These are all valid perspectives which have been made with varying degrees of passion and clarity. I don't think it is fair to say that nobody has made posts to the contrary.

Honestly, if you want reasoned responses then you need to post more reasoned threads. If you are so unshakably convinced that this is unbalanced then a debate is pointless. Ask for advice and ideas and that is what you'll get. Ask everyone to agree with you and, well...


GeraintElberion wrote:
Foofer wrote:

I really can't understand where you people (those defending the feat) are coming from. It's not balanced, clearly. Not one of you have brought up any points to the contrary. You're just calling me a whiner. It's not like it effects me as a player, it just allows me to build that much more powerful a character, and it's not like it would adversely effect me as a DM, because I could just ban the feat. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's unbalance. Are there other things that are unbalanced? of course. That doesn't mean this isn't.

Now do me a solid, and if you're going to reply, do so in a constructive way. I'm willing to have my mind changed if you make some legitimate points on the subject matter.

Your problem is that perceptions of balance are so heavily influenced by play-style.

You seem to believe that this mythic feat is unbalanced because it allows some melee characters to choose DEX over STR, thus gaining a boost to AC and reflex saves.

Others disagree, they believe that this option does not invalidate STR builds because
A: There is a pay-off, you have to spend precious feats which the STR-based fighter could be spending on all kinds of useful things.
B: Encumberance still matters (this is definitely a play-style issue, some people enforce encumberance carefully while others ignore it) and only strength really helps, unless you're buying wands of ant-haul or somesuch...
C: That boost to AC and Reflex saves doesn't really matter in terms of balance because non-casters are already understrength when compared with casters. Comparing fighter-A with fighter-B is not an effective way to view balance as it ignores the power of casters.

B and C are highly dependant upon play-style and A is dependant upon your view of the power and importance of feats.

These are all valid perspectives which have been made with varying degrees of passion and clarity. I don't think it is fair to say that nobody has made posts to the contrary.

Honestly, if you want...

If Paizo decided to fix the imbalance by releasing a new weapon that was a significant upgrade from every other weapon, would you be happy with that solution?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wait, you mean you can now build a fighter who deals damage in melee and isn't dependent on strength? Cool.

On a more serious note, the fact that you're expending both a normal feat and a mythic feat (you only get 5) to try and achieve Dex to hit and damage, combined with the requirement for a moderate to decent strength as well (for Power Attack) makes me think this will only be an issue with builds drawn up at high level with numerous mythic tiers. Honestly, that doesn't really bother me, because that problem is present in almost any build. A fresh-built high level character is almost always stronger than one played organically from level one.

In a 1-20 character the odds of them surviving long enough to get this active if they dump strength are slim.

I also tend to think the value of strength is underplayed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I think the "OMG Dex based is good its the end of the world" stuff is way over played as it is written atm I think its far to vague. If it only worked with weapons that work with weapon finesse (Which may have been the intention.) then its all good by me. Since two handing and getting 1.5 to damage is out then STR still has its place as 2handed weapons will still be DPR king for melee.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh...the Mythic Rules are governed by a strong GM hand.

Although I am quite certain the theorycrafting community is drooling over the possibilities, decent GM's aren't going to hand out mythic status like candy.

Only the Lollypop Guild will have issues with this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Although I am quite certain the theorycrafting community is drooling over the possibilities, decent GM's aren't going to hand out mythic status like candy.

Huh? I was under the impression I could hand out mythic status to my player characters like candy to a child.

For being good (as opposed to being cookie-cutter shapes, behaving disruptively, or the like)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

Uh...the Mythic Rules are governed by a strong GM hand.

Although I am quite certain the theorycrafting community is drooling over the possibilities, decent GM's aren't going to hand out mythic status like candy.

Only the Lollypop Guild will have issues with this.

This could also be applied to high level gaming in general. I really enjoy high level play... because I have a GM that would smack down stupid metagaming b@@$*%@~ that I see posted on these boards all the time.

1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / Player Feedback / Mythic weapon finesse seems unbalanced... All Messageboards

©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.