I'm not saying it's the best feat in the world. It's obviously situational, and it should scale, particularly for fighters.
But it's not just a 5% benefit.
==Aelryinth
I'm not saying it's the best feat in the world. It's obviously situational, and it should scale, particularly for fighters.
But it's not just a 5% benefit.
That's exactly what it is. A +5% bonus in accuracy. At best, it matter 1 out of 20 rolls. That tends to gain more value as you get more attacks, obviously... But still, it's a pretty underwhelming (and extremely boring) feat.
Weapon Focus is one of those feats that the statistics make look better than it actually is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Again, the bonus in accuracy depends on how often you would hit without it, NOT just 1 in 20.
Going from hitting 9 in 20 to 10 in 20 is a 10% increase, not a 5%.
Weapon focus is more valuable the less you would hit without it, not less.
At high levels, that makes it seemingly less relevant...until you factor in iterative attacks.
It's as good as +1 TH from any other source, no more, no less.
==Aelyinth
No. Again, the bonus in accuracy depends on how often you would hit without it, NOT just 1 in 20.
No. The bonus is always 5%. 1 in 20 attack rolls.
You can turn it 2 in 40, 5 in 100, 20 in 400... Or even 1000 in 20000... But it's still the same 5% bonus to accuracy.
It's as good as +1 TH from any other source, no more, no less.
Yup. It's just the cost that makes it a poor choice. A feat has far more value than, say, the 350gp necessary to buy a masterwork weapon. Or a spell slot from a friendly Bard (whose effects will likely either scale with time or affect more than a single person).
If TWF scaled with BAB and/or offered secondary benefits as you grew in skill, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
+5% Accuracy is not really accurate.
Let's say you have 3 attacks.
On the first attack you need 6 or better to roll. So the chances are:
1st: 75%
2nd: 50%
3rd: 25%
Total: 1.5 hits on averageWith weapon focus:
1st: 80%
2nd: 55%
3rd: 30%
Total: 1.65 hits on average.1.65-1.5=0.15. Wich happens to be 10% of the 1.5 average hits. So your accuracy increased by 10%.
Now do not get me wrong weapon focus is still awfully boring feat. It is just kind of a pet peeve of mine about people making simplified statements about the underlaying math of the system.
As far as the deadly agility goes. The math has been done on these boards, it has been done on other boards before pathfinder was a thing. Dex to damage will not break things. That being said the fact that it allows full damage to offhand is slightly problematic, because if you do not mess around with other feats it might be problematic.
I don't think that's how the math works... For me the only reason it's a worthwhile feat is because of how often it's used as a pointless feat tax.
In any case, I don't really care about WF discussions... I've already had them in the past too many times and it isn't a particularly interesting topic, so I'll just drop it.
|
I'm (mostly) with Lemmy on this one. It's definitely only 5% accuracy change (assuming you hit on 20 without auto-success). And even though it affects you more the lower your to-hit currently is, it also means less the lower your to-hit currently is as a low to-hit usually indicates that it's something you don't care much about anyway.
I definitely agree sans-qualifiers on one thing: It's a boring feat. Boring boring boring with shavings a yawn on top. Any feat that doesn't enable me to do something new is boring. Which is why Eldritch Heritage feats are some of my favorites; they bring in some very oddball new abilities to any cha-based character! Or someone with points to spare for that matter: I have an investigator currently with EH(Ghoul Sorcerer) and while it's not the most optimal choice it sure as heck surprises foes when she spontaneously hastes.
As a side-note: I also house-rule that weapon focus and all other "pick one weapon" feats works with a weapon group. I hate people being so weapon-locked.
"You find the greatsword of legend!"
"But I use a bastard sword, a slightly different large sword."
"Oh, well I guess it's trash then."
The second major problem with Weapon Focus remains, though... It's a really freaking boring feat. And it only affects 5% of your attack rolls.Im sorry but its à borring feat argument does nothing for me. Machnical advantages and diadvantages are what make a diffrence in m'y opinion.
How about this, then...
Deadly Agility is already balanced. Dex to damage is simply not so good that it should requires 3 feats to get. Weapon Focus has no thematic or mechanical reason to be one of its prerequisites. Weapon Finesse works will all light and finesse weapons, why shouldn't Deadly Agility?
If you think TWF would be too powerful with DA (it wouldn't. TWF sucks), then just reduce the off-hand damage and allow players to grab Double Slice if they want it.
One of the most frustrating things about building martial characters is thinking "Well.. Now I can get this feat I don't want (and possibly never intend to use) just so that in a couple levels (which could months of real time) I can grab the feat I actually like".
well i rewrote the whole weapon focus feat chain here so that could help some.
I wound up reducing TWF to one scaling feat. For the feat investment it seems too bad for being a regular playstyle.
No. Again, the bonus in accuracy depends on how often you would hit without it, NOT just 1 in 20.No. The bonus is always 5%. 1 in 20 attack rolls.
You can turn it 2 in 40, 5 in 100, 20 in 400... Or even 1000 in 20000... But it's still the same 5% bonus to accuracy.
It's as good as +1 TH from any other source, no more, no less.Yup. It's just the cost that makes it a poor choice. A feat has far more value than, say, the 350gp necessary to buy a masterwork weapon. Or a spell slot from a friendly Bard (whose effects will likely either scale with time or affect more than a single person).
If TWF scaled with BAB and/or offered secondary benefits as you grew in skill, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
the bonus to hit is +5%. The bonus to ACCURACY is highly variable, depending on the target.
Weapon Focus is more valuable when you have a low chance to hit. A +5% increase to a 20% chance base is 25/20 = 1.25 = 25% increase in accuracy. Quite nice when every bonus counts!
A 90% hit chance going to 95% is 5.55555% increase in accuracy. Underwhelming, sure.
And yes, Weapon Focus adding a +1 to those 3 iterative attacks results in an average +10% damage bonus. That is EXACTLY how the math works (the same as lowering or raising the target AC). It is especially helpful if you have more iteratives and it increases the frequency at which they hit.
If you're saying it only affects 1 in 20 ROLLS of the dice...that's absolutely true. But it has a much more profound effect on Accuracy.
============
Weapon Focus and weapon spec are the same feat IMC. When a fighter takes Weapon Focus, it doubles his Weapon Group bonus for his primary Weapon(s). So, it auto scales as he levels, and at the same time lets him declare a favorite weapon to stereotype himself without a significant and costly feat investment.
==+Aelryinth
|
I wound up reducing TWF to one scaling feat. For the feat investment it seems too bad for being a regular playstyle.
I think people flock to TWF because it is a fantasy trope, and perhaps also because it was the best fighting style in historical AD&D versions 1 & 2. Despite being proficient in a TWF sword style IRL [Nitojutsu], I have a low opinion of that style in Pathfinder. Except when it's a TWF ally who efficiently kills stuff that gets inside my PC's reach, in which case TWF is awesome So, yeah.
I played with the idea of a feat that allowed you to increase your critical threshold with finesse weapons in lieu of straight damage bonuses. It seemed like a more thematic way to approach dex to damage, but I would have to run numbers to figure out how critting most of the time instead of having straight damage bonuses would play out. If you had a +5-7 modifier in strength at end game, but got a critical threat on every swing that was likely to hit your opponent, it would emulate that sort of savvy combatant that everyone is trying to make.
I wound up reducing TWF to one scaling feat. For the feat investment it seems too bad for being a regular playstyle.
I do the same thing. You already penalize yourself enough by having to full-attack to even start getting close to the damage you would easily be doing in a standard attack with a two-handed weapon. You shouldn't need to spend even more feats to keep it barely at that level when your BAB goes up.
I also allow Deadly Agility because it gives Two-weapon fighting something almost resembling a chance to keep up.
I played with the idea of a feat that allowed you to increase your critical threshold with finesse weapons in lieu of straight damage bonuses. It seemed like a more thematic way to approach dex to damage, but I would have to run numbers to figure out how critting most of the time instead of having straight damage bonuses would play out. If you had a +5-7 modifier in strength at end game, but got a critical threat on every swing that was likely to hit your opponent, it would emulate that sort of savvy combatant that everyone is trying to make.
With other bonuses coming into the equation a higher crit chance outpaces higher base damage pretty quickly. Hence why you will always get the falchion recommended over the greatsword if you want to build a high DPR fighter.
|
The second major problem with Weapon Focus remains, though... It's a really freaking boring feat. And it only affects 5% of your attack rolls.
I've seen a lot of rolls miss by one that could have ended a fight that ended up dragging on for another hour, that, and keeping it as a pre-requisite to several nice feats still makes it decent balance, particularly if you allow the feats it's a pre-requisite for to apply to weapon groups as well.
off topic-Allowing weapon focus to affect entire groups would also help out TWF'ers. They can take different weapons and still have weapon focus to both weapons instead only applying it to one weapon or taking it twice.
I might add this one in also.
The second major problem with Weapon Focus remains, though... It's a really freaking boring feat. And it only affects 5% of your attack rolls.I've seen a lot of rolls miss by one that could have ended a fight that ended up dragging on for another hour, that, and keeping it as a pre-requisite to several nice feats still makes it decent balance, particularly if you allow the feats it's a pre-requisite for to apply to weapon groups as well.This is what's called a 'confirmation bias'. You probably rolled about 19 times as much where the feat would have done diddly. But because missing with 1 is almost a hit, our dumb lizard brain gives it extra significance.
Anyway, sometimes feat chains are alright, but I can't think of one for weapon focus. It's basically "we couldn't think of a prereq for this feat we felt like was too good without a prereq: the feat", and contributes a lot to classes like fighter being shoehorned into a single weapon increasingly more and more as they level.
And this isn't even counting the times when your target has such a low AC that you are hitting on a 2+ regardless of whether you have the feat or not. Which happens even against CR appropriate enemies at levels above 10.
|
|
And this isn't even counting the times when your target has such a low AC that you are hitting on a 2+ regardless of whether you have the feat or not. Which happens even against CR appropriate enemies at levels above 10.The second major problem with Weapon Focus remains, though... It's a really freaking boring feat. And it only affects 5% of your attack rolls.I've seen a lot of rolls miss by one that could have ended a fight that ended up dragging on for another hour, that, and keeping it as a pre-requisite to several nice feats still makes it decent balance, particularly if you allow the feats it's a pre-requisite for to apply to weapon groups as well.This is what's called a 'confirmation bias'. You probably rolled about 19 times as much where the feat would have done diddly. But because missing with 1 is almost a hit, our dumb lizard brain gives it extra significance.
Anyway, sometimes feat chains are alright, but I can't think of one for weapon focus. It's basically "we couldn't think of a prereq for this feat we felt like was too good without a prereq: the feat", and contributes a lot to classes like fighter being shoehorned into a single weapon increasingly more and more as they level.
...on your first attack. If you get iteratives, it matters again.
True, but it's still at least one attack per turn at that point on which the feat does nothing.
The fact is, weapon focus is a pretty annoying Feat tax because it limits weapon selection.
If you insist on a tax, pick something that's at least related to being a dexterous fighter. Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, Step Up, or Piranha Strike.
off topic-Allowing weapon focus to affect entire groups would also help out TWF'ers. They can take different weapons and still have weapon focus to both weapons instead only applying it to one weapon or taking it twice.
I might add this one in also.
TWF: Your penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced.
If you have Weapon focus or specialization in your primary hand weapon, the benefits automatically apply to the weapon in your off hand while you are TWF.which would fix that problem nicely.
==+Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but it's still at least one attack per turn at that point on which the feat does nothing.
If you have excess to hit, that's what Power Attack and Expertise are for...turning excess to hit into Damage and AC.
==Aelryinth
The fact is, weapon focus is a pretty annoying Feat tax because it limits weapon selection.
If you insist on a tax, pick something that's at least related to being a dexterous fighter. Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, Step Up, or Piranha Strike.
Weapon focus is a common feat tax so it fits.
Should there be a there ever be a rework of the feat system it would totally be a good plan to just kick this whole feat tax concept. Spells have no other spells as prerequisites, too.But as is weapon focus is a fitting if annoying prereq.
I honestly think that Finesse is enough of a feat tax for deadly agility. You pay two feats to get to the point where you can actually use a limited selection of melee weapons with Dexterity.
For the record: most characters will get this at level 3 the earliest. You have to be a human at least, fighter or something very similar to be able to combine it with the oh so overpowered TWF at level 1.
I game in a group of seven guys two of us rotate as GM, and as the primeary GMs we usually confer on any house rules and third party material as to keep the group flow from adventure to adventure.
Recently started a new ap and the othe GM and I are both players because someone else decided to try thier hand at running the show. A lot of guys showed up with dex builds and as you would suspect our damage output at low levels was pretty bad, but they kept saying wait til lvl 3. When level 3 hit they all took deadly agility and current GM allowed it. That got me reserching the feat.
Deadly Agility (Combat)
You have learned how to use your agility to greater purpose in battle.
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit(s): You may add your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier when wielding a light weapon or a weapon that gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat (such as the rapier) when determining additional damage inflicted upon a successful attack.
This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is not reduced for off-hand weapons.
I was curious how other feel about it. I am currently in the boat that having so many skils and abilites based off one stat is slightly over power.One of them is a twf and this one feat not only changes his prime damage stat but applys it to his off hand as well? Please send me some advice as I will be running things agian one day should I allow this feat.
I would actually make the prerequisites this:
Weapon Finesse, Base Attack Bonus +6.
Justification is comparing Keen and Agile. Improved Critical is almost the same exact thing as keen. Agile is basically what this feat does. So where improved critical requires weapon focus and a base attack bonus of a +6. A feat that is on the same lines as keen should have similar prereq's.
The second major problem with Weapon Focus remains, though... It's a really freaking boring feat. And it only affects 5% of your attack rolls.I've seen a lot of rolls miss by one that could have ended a fight that ended up dragging on for another hour, that, and keeping it as a pre-requisite to several nice feats still makes it decent balance, particularly if you allow the feats it's a pre-requisite for to apply to weapon groups as well.
Weapon Focus is my most-taken feat, right along with Toughness. I'm a GM, and these are serious go-to feats for my npcs...
Even as a player, I usually take Weapon Focus if I'm playing a non-caster...
Granted, it is boring, but when you hit the AC you need, you do your huge damage... if you miss by one point of AC... you do zero damage.
The fact is, weapon focus is a pretty annoying Feat tax because it limits weapon selection.
If you insist on a tax, pick something that's at least related to being a dexterous fighter. Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, Step Up, or Piranha Strike.
Weapon focus is a common feat tax so it fits.
Should there be a there ever be a rework of the feat system it would totally be a good plan to just kick this whole feat tax concept. Spells have no other spells as prerequisites, too.
But as is weapon focus is a fitting if annoying prereq.
You raise a valid point. If fighters have to pay feats to get better, casters should too.
Feat:
Level 2 spells
Benefit: allows caster to cast level 2 spells
Prerequisite: Level 2 spells shown as being able to be cast as per class description, ability to cast level 1 spells.
And so on...
I'm kinda trolling on that one, casters are just way overpowered...
|
No. Again, the bonus in accuracy depends on how often you would hit without it, NOT just 1 in 20.No. The bonus is always 5%. 1 in 20 attack rolls.
You can turn it 2 in 40, 5 in 100, 20 in 400... Or even 1000 in 20000... But it's still the same 5% bonus to accuracy.
If you think that WF makes you hit just 5% more of the time... literally all of your opinions on balance are inherently suspect.
Unless you're already hitting the target on a 2, WF will increase accuracy a minimum of 5.6%, and a maximum of 100%. Generally somewhere on the low end of that spectrum.
No. Again, the bonus in accuracy depends on how often you would hit without it, NOT just 1 in 20.No. The bonus is always 5%. 1 in 20 attack rolls.
You can turn it 2 in 40, 5 in 100, 20 in 400... Or even 1000 in 20000... But it's still the same 5% bonus to accuracy.
If you think that WF makes you hit just 5% more of the time... literally all of your opinions on balance are inherently suspect.
Unless you're already hitting the target on a 2, WF will increase accuracy a minimum of 5.6%, and a maximum of 100%. Generally somewhere on the low end of that spectrum.
In some bizarro world you could be always hitting on a 20, with WF not changing that. Similar to the only miss on a 2 situation.
Also, with the accuracy talks:
It depends what you mean when you say improves accuracy by 5%. If you are adding (my accuracy was 50%. Now it is 55%), then that is pretty much what WF does. The odd cases are 95% and 0%.
You can also say my accuracy went from 5% to 10%, that's a 100% increase in accuracy. That's also true.
It all depends on wording/English, which isn't a deterministic property of someone's theorycrafting and mathematical ability.
So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.
No, pedantically two Feats is not exactly several, but it ends up being far more than two. On a more serious note, two Feats out of the ten that every character gets is a full 20% of your entire allotment of 'neat extra stuff not strictly from my class' that you get. For Fighters, it's still 10% of everything they'll ever have, and they're not exactly setting the world on fire as-is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.2 feats is not exactly several, especially given that the first feat would be one a dex fighter would take anyway.
If you're going to play Finesse + Grace shenanigans, then I'll point out that it's a class issue, not a Dexterity build issue.
1st level Swashbuckler only needs 2 feats, Weapon Focus and Slashing Grace, and he's ready to go. 1st level Human Swashbuckler = build is online at the getgo, no questions asked. The best part is, the Slashing Grace feat does nothing for you unless you're a Swashbuckler. The only other alternative is Fencing Grace, which not every character will be using Rapiers.
And if they aren't Humans and/or Swashbucklers? That takes them until 3rd or 5th level at the minimum before their build actually comes into play. Until then, that's 2-4 levels of "I can't damage worth a damn, so I'm just gonna play turtle and hope my DM is a dummy and pays attention to me more." All for hoping you get a +1 Agile weapon (which isn't even Hardcover material, by the way)?
Their damage still isn't going to compare to Strength builds (or their encumbrance, for that matter) unless they go TWF, and that's perhaps the most feat-intensive chain to be forced to take if you want to go toe to toe. Not to mention you need to either have 13 Strength for Power Attack or hope to god your GM will allow Piranha Strike. Oh, and their attacks won't be as consistent as the Strength build's, due to actually taking more penalties for their extra attacks.
So at worst, we have the Dex guy being actually workable by the mid-game, and possibly being a more defensive build by the end-game, but their early-game is at-best equivalent, if not inferior, and that's assuming they're even online by that point (which, unless you're super-niche-built like a Human Swashbuckler, probably isn't happening).
And at best, the Dex guy isn't even a workable build due to lack of materials to support their playstyle (i.e. the materials needed to make the Dex guy come online aren't available to the table), meaning the threat of Dexterity builds becomes non-existent.
I'm glad all you Strength people are getting up in arms about a different (and weaker) playstyle that may or may not ever be present at your table. GeeGee Martials, GeeGee.
So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.2 feats is not exactly several, especially given that the first feat would be one a dex fighter would take anyway.
Why does it matter that a dex fighter would take it anyway?