Is Improved Weapon Finesse Really OP?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 492 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Saigo Takamori wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Balance argument is defeated by the existance of dex to damage, if dex to damage was broken every fighter and barbarian would be using dervish dance and this is not true.
Not completely defeated. Dervish Dance can't let you fight with 2 weapons, or use a 2 handed weapon (elven blade). So sure, the gap in power is here, and only some class (like the Magus) can exploit it.

Many people say Dervish Dance and Magus are broken because Dex-to-Dmg (not necessarily in this thread but it is common topic on the boards). Others state that Dex-to-Dmg is not broken because only Magus and Dervish Dance can take advantage of it. There is a massive disconnect going on between these two ideas.


LoneKnave wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

Here's a compromise that brings dex guys to the table without dex to damage. This should only work if there is no way to get dex to damage.

agile combatant: prerequisites: weapon finesse, dex 19

Agile combatants are gifted at exploiting their enemies weaknesses by leveraging their agility. While using a light or finesse weapon, the critical threshold is increased by one for every two points of your dexterity modifier. This feat overlaps with the improved critical feat.

I don't want to be too hard on you, so I'm just going to say that's a bad idea because: rogues and swashbucklers have damage bonuses that don't get multiplied by the crit, and Magus exists.

I'm not sure that its a bad idea for the reasons you state, it may be for others though. Precision damage doesn't multiply upon crit, but base numbers will. I think the magus would benefit more from this feat than dervish dance though for sure. It does interact with two weapon fighting which would make your standard rogue build much more impressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Balance argument is defeated by the existance of dex to damage, if dex to damage was broken every fighter and barbarian would be using dervish dance and this is not true.
Not completely defeated. Dervish Dance can't let you fight with 2 weapons, or use a 2 handed weapon (elven blade). So sure, the gap in power is here, and only some class (like the Magus) can exploit it.
Many people say Dervish Dance and Magus are broken because Dex-to-Dmg (not necessarily in this thread but it is common topic on the boards). Others state that Dex-to-Dmg is not broken because only Magus and Dervish Dance can take advantage of it. There is a massive disconnect going on between these two ideas.

Yes, the Magus with Dervish Dancer is strong. Is it because of the dex to damage? Part of it, mostly because it let him do some damage without his spell (because, well, +4 or +5 to damage is not that important on a shoking grasp build). But the main reason is, in my opinion, the AC. He will get a sky high AC. Why? Because he got good magic defense to help, and those magic defense don't block his dex bonus.

A fighter, paladin, ranger or monk will not get those magic defense. The good dex will just be blocked at some point by the armor. They will not get an AC really better than a standard strengh build (except maybe for the ranger and the monk): they will only get a better mobility, initiative, touch AC and Reflex, all of it being not that important in comparison to the loss (less damage, less flat footed).

Liberty's Edge

Kevin99 wrote:
I can't believe this is even being debated. Just for balance, Strength has to have the most important role in damage.

And apart from casters and alchemists it does, despite DEX-to-damage feats already existing.


Pathfire wrote:
Are you really blinded to the fact that this feat would be completely OPed? I mean would you be killed by someone using their agility or by someone using their strength? I mean if you were getting stabbed by a scrawny person, wouldn't you take barely any damage, compared too a strong guy, whom would probably kill you with that blow? I mean, isn't that the point of strength? Weapon finesse makes some sense, as you wouldn't need much strength to carry a knife, but it would to carry a 5 foot sword now, wouldn't it?

A scrawny, relatively weak guy who has done a lot of knife fighting and has good hand-eye coordination and speed is extremely dangerous. Knife fighters don't just stab or slice anywhere on the body - they go for particularly weak areas, often with major arteries close to the surface of the skin.

In the real world, a person who is highly skilled at knife fighting is going to be much more dangerous than a strong person with a big weapon who is less skilled with it. A construction worker who is handed a 5 foot sword is not necessarily more dangerous than one who is told to fight with his bare fists. Large melee weapons are difficult to use and control without a lot of training.

Combat in Pathfinder (and most RPGs) is simply unrealistic. Speed, skill, mindset, and hand-eye coordination can have a lot more to do with deadliness than simple strength, and a LOT depends on the circumstances. I have seen instances where small, lithe guys have taken down big, strong ones simply because they move in close (where having long limbs is a disadvantage) and focus on doing things that cause the most damage, rather than just hitting really hard.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yes - because strength still means that you can swing your sword faster, and your strength makes it harder to black/parry.

Other than a particular style (finesse) actually swinging a sword/axe with good fine motor control doesn't do much.

Again - I think that you want dexterity to encompass all movement. In Pathfinder it doesn't.

That's what makes combat in Pathfinder so unrealistic. Dexterity should encompass all movement.

Sovereign Court

pickin_grinnin wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Yes - because strength still means that you can swing your sword faster, and your strength makes it harder to black/parry.

Other than a particular style (finesse) actually swinging a sword/axe with good fine motor control doesn't do much.

Again - I think that you want dexterity to encompass all movement. In Pathfinder it doesn't.

That's what makes combat in Pathfinder so unrealistic. Dexterity should encompass all movement.

If you want a system that does that - start writing it from the ground up. Pathfinder doesn't work that way. (Though I totally disagree. Strength has at least as much to do with movement.)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Balance argument is defeated by the existance of dex to damage, if dex to damage was broken every fighter and barbarian would be using dervish dance and this is not true.
Not completely defeated. Dervish Dance can't let you fight with 2 weapons, or use a 2 handed weapon (elven blade). So sure, the gap in power is here, and only some class (like the Magus) can exploit it.
Many people say Dervish Dance and Magus are broken because Dex-to-Dmg (not necessarily in this thread but it is common topic on the boards). Others state that Dex-to-Dmg is not broken because only Magus and Dervish Dance can take advantage of it. There is a massive disconnect going on between these two ideas.

It's broken because the Magus can get dexterity to damage with no real penalty besides a couple of feats. (What many here want for everyone.) Anyone else using Dervish Dance has the additional negative of having an empty hand. A Magus needs an empty hand with or without Dervish Dance.


Dexterity to damage is balanced by the 2 Feat Requirement that will be accomplished by level 3 with the exception of use of certain races, classes or flaws, and well, if you dump strength too low, you will have a hard time wearing even most light armors besides a haramaki and carrying anything more than a knife or 2. because you still have to worry about the weight of your pack or even the 5 lbs of a handy haversack. yes, encumbrance is definitely important. not watched like a hawk but as a general ballpark. a handy haversack isn't a perfect encumbrance solution, plus a low strength eats into what weapons or special materials you can use and what feats you qualify for. because power attack is outright better than pirahna strike and you still need strength for bows. at lowest, you would or should realistically see base strength scores in the 13 ballpark which isn't much difference from base dexterity scores in the 14 ballpark

Sovereign Court

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
if you dump strength too low, you will have a hard time wearing even most light armors besides a haramaki and carrying anything more than a knife or 2.

As I stated earlier - a halfling with a strength of 8 can wear mithril full plate without any issues, a medium race would need a 9. Classes already limited to lighter armors could dump strength even further.

Shadow Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
if you dump strength too low, you will have a hard time wearing even most light armors besides a haramaki and carrying anything more than a knife or 2.
As I stated earlier - a halfling with a strength of 8 can wear mithril full plate without any issues, a medium race would need a 9. Classes already limited to lighter armors could dump strength even further.

lol im not sure if i got this right but from this one carrying capacity cacultor i found a small pc with 8 stg can only carry 19.5 lbs. or less for a light load and a mithral full plate would still be about 12.5 lbs wouldnt it? then got to factor in weapon, then gear and supplies, you would be pushing it, but then again there are traits and feats to increase your carrying capacity lol i tend to always keep a eye on my capacity for a light load simply cuase it makes things easier on me and my Dm especially if they are a stickler for the wieght peneltys lol.

for the thing about this thread the dex to damage i could take it or leave it, lol i like agile characters personally but i like current limits on the system, lol seeing a guy fencing with a great sword would be funny as hell though XD haha


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
if you dump strength too low, you will have a hard time wearing even most light armors besides a haramaki and carrying anything more than a knife or 2.
As I stated earlier - a halfling with a strength of 8 can wear mithril full plate without any issues, a medium race would need a 9. Classes already limited to lighter armors could dump strength even further.

but even then, dumping strength is a bad idea because a handy haversack is 5 lbs regardless of size, each quiver of arrows has its own weight, and dumping strength that low makes you useless at fighting flying foes because you need a decent strength to use a bow.

and mithril full plate for a halfling with strength 8 on a halfling eats up 12.5 out of like 19.5 lbs, a handy haversack eats up 5, leaving you only 2 lbs to carry weapons unless you want to be in medium load which will leave your halfling with a speed of 15, regardless of armor training. a speed of 15 means you really can't run away and means you really can't do much to engage more mobile foes, such as fliers

a medium character in mithril full plate with a handy haversack and a strength of 9, just ate their entire light load limit on 2 items, which pretty much outright sucks

lets take your 5 strength halfling and give it a mithril shirt, you just ate 5 out of 12 lbs, 5 more for a handy haversack, and only 2 lbs for weapons

how the hell are you in light armor, with dumped strength, and even a handy haversack, carrying weapons in easy access to fight with? let alone carrying decent volumes of ammunition without massive encumbrance penalties? and well, carrying items you want to actually keep in easy access?

do you keep all your swords and your primary quiver in your handy haversack too? because that is a whole extra turn to draw them, meaning a whole free turn for the enemy to kill you with

even with a 10 strength on a human with a handy haversack and mithril shirt, they only have 18 lbs to spare on weapons, each shortsword is 2 lbs, a bow is like 6 and a quiver of 20 arrows is like 3. load limits eat your max dexterity bonus and inflict armor check penalties that could screw you over.

where do you find a decent melee weapon for a halfling that won't eat up the rest of their light load limit? one that won't deny their armor training benefits?


PrinceRaven wrote:
Kevin99 wrote:
I can't believe this is even being debated. Just for balance, Strength has to have the most important role in damage.
And apart from casters and alchemists it does, despite DEX-to-damage feats already existing.

Very limited feats like that exist. The balance problem becomes much bigger if it's extended to far less limited feats. Strength above 8 may not be needed for armor, as most classes won't let one wear Heavy armor anyway, which means in those cases it's needed for nothing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Pathfire wrote:
Are you really blinded to the fact that this feat would be completely OPed? I mean would you be killed by someone using their agility or by someone using their strength? I mean if you were getting stabbed by a scrawny person, wouldn't you take barely any damage, compared too a strong guy, whom would probably kill you with that blow? I mean, isn't that the point of strength? Weapon finesse makes some sense, as you wouldn't need much strength to carry a knife, but it would to carry a 5 foot sword now, wouldn't it?
A scrawny, relatively weak guy who has done a lot of knife fighting and has good hand-eye coordination and speed is extremely dangerous. Knife fighters don't just stab or slice anywhere on the body - they go for particularly weak areas, often with major arteries close to the surface of the skin.

knowing weak points is skill not hand eye coordination or talent, it is learned and represented as BAB, strength will still make the attack better when applied to weak or vulnerable areas.

also speed and acceleration is tied to force, which is tied to strength. dexterity is more the mental application of your movement.


My 9 str dervish dancing half-elf investigator disagrees. Sitting at 30/30 light load while rocking a mithral shirt for armor(the best light armor i can get) and a handy haversack. My back up ranged weapon and clothes plus magic equipment puts me up to 30, and I just now realized that I didn't include the weigh from my magic boots, so I am actually at 31 and am now in medium load range. Crap. So unless I store my hand crossbow in my bag(making it even more of a waste of time to try to use) and run around with nothing under my armor(maybe there is a common house rule that people just ignore actually having clothes weigh anything I am not aware of?) I'm gonna have to disagree with the idea you can dump str without worrying about carry weigh. At least not in my games.


Just coming back to this thread to say Imp WF is still not OP as long as you don't get 1.5x Dex to 2 handers.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Just coming back to this thread to say Imp WF is still not OP as long as you don't get 1.5x Dex to 2 handers.

even with 1.5x dex to finesseable 2handers, there isn't a lot of finesseable 2handers and most of them aren't really as good as the Falchion, Nodachi, Falcata and Fauchard, the 4 best 2handers in the game

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin99 wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Kevin99 wrote:
I can't believe this is even being debated. Just for balance, Strength has to have the most important role in damage.
And apart from casters and alchemists it does, despite DEX-to-damage feats already existing.
Very limited feats like that exist. The balance problem becomes much bigger if it's extended to far less limited feats.

Oh no, Dex builds might be able to wield a weapon 2 handed, receiving absolutely no benefit from it unless they don't dump Strength and spend a third feat on power attack!

Oh no, Dex builds might be able to wield a shield other than a buckler!

Oh no, Dex builds can spend a third feat to slightly increase their damage by getting exotic weapon proficiency!*

Oh no, Dex builds can use mechanically less effective weapons like daggers and shortspears!

Allow me to tell you something that may shock you, for a mere 6000 gold, all these things are possible via Agile weapons anyway, and I've yet to see them break a game. You know what breaks a game? Spells like Summon Eidolon, Glitterdust, and Black Tentacles.

*which Strength builds are also capable of doing, yet rarely do for the same reason Dex builds won't: it costs a feat, and they have even less feats than the strength builds.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

(Wheldrake bows to the superlative display of irony and sarcasm in PrinceRaven's post)

PR is right that if a feat that granted DEX to damage (with appropriately restrictive prerequisites & conditions) were to exist, it wouldn't exactly "break" anything. By the time most DEX-based martials were able to get it, their spell-slinging buddies would already have left them in the proverbial dust.

Still, it currently does not exist as a feat, indepêndently of a few narrow class features. Dex to damage only exists as a weapon property.

Personally, I don't like DEX to damage, primarily on a conceptual level (other arguments already stated earlier in the thread). Some folks share my view, others don't, and yearn for a day when DEX to damage could breath with other feat-chain-contingent abilities.

The only real questionwhich remains unanswered is: how many endless threads on a single topic does it take before the dead horse disintegrates? <g>


Thought the Mythic version of Weapon Finesse grants dex to damage when using that feat.
Is this thread requesting a non mythic feat of Improved Weapon Finesse be used to do the same thing as a mythic feat?


Kevin99 wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Kevin99 wrote:
I can't believe this is even being debated. Just for balance, Strength has to have the most important role in damage.
And apart from casters and alchemists it does, despite DEX-to-damage feats already existing.
Very limited feats like that exist. The balance problem becomes much bigger if it's extended to far less limited feats. Strength above 8 may not be needed for armor, as most classes won't let one wear Heavy armor anyway, which means in those cases it's needed for nothing.

Not really. The current feat limitations are rapiers (the most commonly used finesse weapon in the game), scimitars, and all slashing weapons with one level of swashbuckler. The only thing it hasn't been expanded to is daggers (which is stupid), and elven curve blades, which cost an extra feat for most any race to use.

There's not really any expansion left. I wouldn't like seeing Weapon Finesse + Weapon Focus (X Weapon) as prereqs instead of just Weapon Finesse because I don't think it would be overpowered either way, but I wouldn't mind it. Honestly, you could probably just do something like "Agile Weapon Focus," where the feat lets you select one weapon that you can add dexterity to damage on melee attacks with.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I thought it was all piercing weapons with a level fo swash.

And the dagger is a s/p weapon, right? Remember, Picks are now eligible for swashbuckler bonuses.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

I thought it was all piercing weapons with a level fo swash.

And the dagger is a s/p weapon, right? Remember, Picks are now eligible for swashbuckler bonuses.

==Aelryinth

Swashbuckler finesse gives you weapon finesse with light or one-handed piercing weapons. Slashing Grace makes a one-handed slashing weapon of your choice be treated as a one-handed piercing weapon for feats and class features that require such a weapon, and allow you to add dex to damage with it.

Daggers are light weapons and not one-handed so they don't apply. Bastard swords totally do, though. Go figure.

Liberty's Edge

Tuffon wrote:

Thought the Mythic version of Weapon Finesse grants dex to damage when using that feat.

Is this thread requesting a non mythic feat of Improved Weapon Finesse be used to do the same thing as a mythic feat?

No, because Mythic Weapon Finesse has an extra effect. It's requesting that a feat be able to do something that 6000 gold can do. Is a feat worth less than 6000 gold?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

A dagger is a light s/p weapon. it totally gets the bonuses...that's where my confusion is coming from.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

A dagger is a light s/p weapon. it totally gets the bonuses...that's where my confusion is coming from.

==Aelryinth

doesn't gain dex to damage as it is not a possible target for the feat, which must select a one-handed slashing weapon. dagger's are light, not one-handed... yes yes, I know you wield them in one hand, they're still not one-handed weapons.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

OH, you're focusing on Slashing Grace, whereas I'm looking at Swashbuckler Finesse.

Got ya. It's the SLashing Grace FAQ controversy thing.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

OH, you're focusing on Slashing Grace, whereas I'm looking at Swashbuckler Finesse.

Got ya. It's the SLashing Grace FAQ controversy thing.

==Aelryinth

Yeah, I was looking at things that let you apply dexterity to damage at the moment. The list is large, but some weapons are surprisingly absent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is interesting to point out that DND 5, is giving dex to damage and attack for all finesse weapons without needing a feat. I see quite a few problems with this new system, but at least they got something right. Sorcerers also do not have the level adjustment. Hint Hint Paizo

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Already covered. In works in 5e because Strength covers more things vs Dex, meaning Dex is less of a god stat. More balance across the stats means its a moot point, realism aside.

So the Hint Hint is actually to let STRENGTH cover more things, to cover out against more options like Dex does.

Then opposition would basically fade away because nobody would care. As it is now, Strength gets its primary function sucked away by what, 3 stats now? Yay, it determines how much you can carry. Wahoo.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The balancing factor in Pathfinder is that it costs you at least 2 feats to get Dex to damage instead of getting it for free. Even then you aren't going to be out-damaging a strength build without an extra source of damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A feat that adds STR to thrown weapon attack rolls instead of DEX would be a good first step.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

Already covered. In works in 5e because Strength covers more things vs Dex, meaning Dex is less of a god stat. More balance across the stats means its a moot point, realism aside.

So the Hint Hint is actually to let STRENGTH cover more things, to cover out against more options like Dex does.

Then opposition would basically fade away because nobody would care. As it is now, Strength gets its primary function sucked away by what, 3 stats now? Yay, it determines how much you can carry. Wahoo.

==Aelryinth

As i said before i think the real problem is how stats are distributed

LoneKnave wrote:
A feat that adds STR to thrown weapon attack rolls instead of DEX would be a good first step.

I recall there is a magic belt that lets you do exactly that


Yeah, and I'm saying there should be a feat.

There's also a magical property that lets you add DEX to damage, and I'm also saying that should be a feat.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Actually, it shouldn't be a feat, it should just be automatic, like it is in 4e and 5e.

Letting strength do more stuff isn't hurting anything. A strong character actually able to have a ranged damage attack worth something would be a worthwhile build, and justify a Thor build and the like.

==Aelryinth


Baby steps Aelryinth, baby steps.

Silver Crusade

In 3.5 there were two feats that each let you use Str for thrown weapon attacks. I was surprised when PF didn't either import it or create their own version.

5E let's you use Str to both attack and damage with thrown weapons, without a feat.

Aelyrinth seems to think that he'd be okay with Dex to damage if Str got some love. Would Str to attack with thrown weapons do the job?

I haven't heard any objections to that, from either side of the Dex to damage debate. I think Str to attack with thrown weapons would be a good thing, and I think that independently of Dex to damage. I'm totally okay with getting both.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I haven't heard any objections to that, from either side of the Dex to damage debate. I think Str to attack with thrown weapons would be a good thing, and I think that independently of Dex to damage. I'm totally okay with getting both.

Oh, just mention that 4e does Strength to the attack roll for heavy thrown weapons and you're sure to get a few objections. ;)

Verdant Wheel

dude i think i like the ST to thrown weapons idea

in the "ST ought to do more rather than DX do less" vein i have already turned Climb into Athletics (ST) and allow it to bypass AoOs a la Acrobatics, thus lending ST characters additional mobility. Too, i have expanded Double Slice feat to allow ST instead of DX to be used to qualify for TWF (in a game that also uses Weapon Finesse as DX-to-damage a la Deadly Agility, albeit enforcing a ST penalty if any, and "finesse" simply a weapon quality), allowing not just a ST-based Ranger to qualify with ordinary DX.

I think I might allow ST to thrown weapons too. can anybody think of a really good reason why not? this will make Giants more deadly at range which i think is a good thing. maybe a flying rock becomes instead an area attack? this'd in turn boost rogues!...


Str to jump is also a good option.

Shadow Lodge

I would love STR get much more love, specially in the out of combat department. It would make classes such as fighters and barbarians much more useful when no fighting creeps, we really need more feats like intimadating prowness


Aelryinth wrote:
Already covered. In works in 5e because Strength covers more things vs Dex, meaning Dex is less of a god stat.

Like what? I am still learning 5e and haven't learned all the nuances.

451 to 492 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is Improved Weapon Finesse Really OP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion