Sigard Spleenbiter's page

I read all those as Alternate Weapon Training class features. Therefore, gloves of dueling would add +2 to those, Gun Training included. It's obviously weapon training, just weapon training with a more specific weapon.

Dwarves are short and round. They roll well.

Great wyrm gamers scare the younglings and we don't understand their music.

Grick wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The only reason you even need one hand is to actually satisfy the 'touch' range;

Lay On Hands (Su): "a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch."

"By touch" also includes the Paladin healing her own wounds.

A paladin needs one free hand to use the ability. There's no exception for when the paladin targets herself.

Except my hand is already touching me.

May I make a suggestion? Do a search for paladin using lay on hands on himself as that topic has been covered already too and gets down to the crux of the matter.

But I would like to point out simply having a touch component doesn't mean the supernatural ability has a somatic component. After all at that point any creature with a touch supernatural ability couldn't use it in a grapple including attack supernatural abilities.

No. You can use somatic components and attack in a Grapple. You can't do either in a Pin. Having a free hand is obviously somatic and a physical action. You can only do verbal, mental, or escape actions in a Pin. It seems quite clear a Paladin can't Lay on Hands in a Pin.

In a Grapple, sure.

Is the game at Cinci State only open to Cinci State students?

I've been considering joining a PFS game in the Cinci area myself.

Now once you've pinned the succbi, she may not be able to use her power to drain you. She'll be at your mercy then.

Thoughts?

What music was the Bard playing when the grappling was occurring? This would help me immensely.

To make a ruling, I mean!

RAW according to this post, the DBL-BARREL pistol would work as described in the OP. As in, both barrels can fire with every attack, not just one extra attack on a full action.

So, I believe the OP was generally correct. Personally though, I'd think they'd have added that precision damage couldn't be added when firing a weapon that shoots multiple barrels at once.

Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:

The hit penalty for shooting two barrels would not get any higher on iterative attacks for the same reason that the penalty for Power Attack isn't doubled and tripled on iterative attacks.

That is not the case. Power Attack specifically denotes that it is a single penalty applied to all attacks, essentially a "mode" that you activate before an attack. The penalty for firing both barrels simultaneously shares none of the same verbage, and is listed only as a penalty to each shot. Penalties, as noted in the CRB, usually stack.

I'm not putting my own opinion in there one way or the other, but Power Attack has nothing in common with the Double-Barrel penalty.

Firing two barrels is also a mode. Nothing in the rules suggest they'd by cumulative and logic clearly argues against it.

While penalties stack, there are not penalties here, only one penalty - from shooting double-barreled.

The idea you're putting forth is clearly wrong, and I'm shooting it down.

Since you were playing devil's advocate, you should be thankful :)

Sounds legit.

The hit penalty for shooting two barrels would not get any higher on iterative attacks for the same reason that the penalty for Power Attack isn't doubled and tripled on iterative attacks.

From the hiding people from the guards example, I think this is an example where NOT lying would be an evil act.
As such, I'd not have the Paladin fall from this single lie so long as he cleansed himself afterwards.

From the text that says "a paladin who wilfully commits an evil act, or" it seems very clear that a single evil act is enough to make a paladin fall. Not all requirements must be met, only one which is why it says "or" not "and."

I do like the poster who said that if you have to ask if the paladin should fall, he doesn't. Burning down an orphanage for fun is surely a single qualifying act for which it shouldn't matter if the GM warned the player or not.

This oddly coincided with her exclusive contract with DC expiring.

Batgirl is one of the few books I've been reading, largely because Simone is one o my favorite creators since she made Birds of Prey great with Barbara Gordon, now Batgirl.

Her Batgirl run has meant a lot to people dealing with trauma and survivors guilt, as various reviews have indicated. Maybe DC wanted a simple hero book and not something deep.

Would have loved to see her bring in some of her characters from other series. Secret Six was awesome.

A better example is a scatter weapon:

Scatter Weapon Quality: A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a [/QOUTE]

That's a big leap with several different rules that I don't believe apply to Scorching Ray. Better to treat SR as an iterative attack which isn't sequential and is aimed.

I guess I could see that being true.
However, I was concerned about wielding a 2-h reach weapon and being able to attack/threaten adjacent with armor spikes. In the AS thread, the answer was you can, and I believe you can qualify that as a kick. And you wouldn't need unarmed strike for that bec spikes are a weapon.

Boot blades are those blades that spring from boot tips. ASs would cover your chest, legs, boot tops, elbows, etc.

Though, I can also see allowing TWF with AS for that reason.

There's already a thread for the bastard sword (answer was a large one needs 3 hands to use as a martial weapon for a med creature or have the exotic weapon feat to avoid exotic penalty for using it in two hands). Argue it there please.

Thanks for the other ideas on threatening adjacent. Most helpful. I didn't realize you could quickdraw in an attack of opportunity. Awesome if that works.

You can't wear two pairs of Armor Spikes.

Weird that you would reply to my six month old thread.

Well, I wasn't looking into this subject 6 months ago.

I don't understand your reply about two pairs of amor spikes. Spikes cover your whole armor, that includes all your limbs.

DeathSpot wrote:

I completely agree. The mount charges. The rider doesn't. Both Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge use the phrase 'charge action.' Neither feat says 'when you charge,' which is the text Pounce uses.

I thought I knew what ridiculous was, until this day.

I see a clear difference between "being in a charge" and "when you charge."

One is being part of a charge action (such as riding a charging mount) and the other is when you do the charge yourself.

As a GM, I'd rule this way if ragelancepounce became an unbalancing issue and also possibly because pounce doesn't make sense to me if you're not the one doing the pouncing.

So maybe if the mount had pounce, you could do it, but then you'd be too close to use a lance unless the mount had reach for it's attacks.

This is meant as a surprise stealth weapon and not as a battlefield weapon. If you want that, get Armor Spikes (covering your armor including boots) which don't have the movement penalty.

Anyhow, my question is whether the consensus is that if I'm equipped with a two-handed reach weapon and have Armor Spikes, do I threaten adjacent with my Armor Spikes, such as from a kick?

Note that the ability to attack with any part of your body and with your hands full is granted by the monk ability, but not by the improved unarmed strike feat.

I think of IUS as having taken a basic self defense course or boxing lessons. You aren't going to be doing fancy kicks, head butts, and such; you just know enough to not open yourself up to attack when you try to punch someone and know how to not accidentally kill someone when you do hit them.

That doesn't seem to be true.

Improved Unarmed Strike isn't called Punch. It's called Strike. The ambiguity is there for a reason. There's nothing to suggest that " A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet." isn't simply an expanded description of IUS as available to all. Nothing in IUS suggests otherwise.

I just want to add that if a group decides that Scorching Ray is a volley and only gets Sneak Attack once, then that means that if a natural 1 is rolled on the first ray, the other rays still get to roll to hit.

This is because there is no 1st ray as they're all simultaneous.

I'm not sure what Martians are doing here! I have enough trouble with ninjas!

Anyway, the clause about using it in two hands only requiring martial weapon proficiency does not mean you are able to use any bastard sword no matter how big! The 'weapon size' rules still apply and must be followed!

In order to be using a weapon in two hands, you must be able to use it in two hands!

Unusable<--light<--one-handed-->two-handed-->unusable

A medium creature using a medium sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a one-handed weapon. The same creature using a large sized one-handed weapon (such as a bastard sword) treats it as a two-handed weapon. The same creature trying to use a huge sized one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) finds it unusable, and the special clause does not change that.

If you are able to use a bastard sword in two hands, then you only need the MWP to do so!

Simples!

No, because the requirement in the description about being able to use it in two hands is also subject to the size change. Therefore, two-handed --> Unusable. You can't just look at some of the stats of the weapon, ignoring those which are unfavorable to your argument.

What you're arguing is that if a one-handed weapon says in its description that it can be wielded with one-hand, then it can be wielded one-handed by a Medium creature even if the weapon is sized up to Huge. What you're doing is using the description text to flagrantly break the physics of the game. What you need to do is also modify the description text appropriately to the weapon size which is what you're not doing.

Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:

Very simple.

As hands needed for proper wielding increase with size, a large bastard sword may be wielded by a medium creature as a martial weapon in three hands or two-handed as an exotic weapon.

Even James Jacobs agrees.

The hand requirements in the description must also be sized up. Claiming none of that matters because it's a one-handed weapon when medium-sized is some loony stuff no good GM should allow.

Unfortunately under the rules for inappropriately sized weapons the explicit RAW says nothing about the hand requirements.

** spoiler omitted **

All it says is that the weapon increases a size category to two-handed and the description under bastard sword says that using it with two hands is allowed using MWP. This is a RAW argument and the only one that is being made. Is this a loophole? Yes. Should this be allowed? No. Per RAW is this allowed within the confines of the rules? Yes.

I believe the RAW do specify the hand requirements. If size increases, change one-handed weapons to two-handed, and two-handed to *impossible*, then a Large bastard sword would require *impossible* hands to wield as a martial weapon instead of two. So, a M creature could only wield a Large bastard sword with two hands with the Exotic WP Feat (or the penalty for not having it). My wording may be off, but it the gist seems very clear.

There seems to be some disagreement above about whether a M(edium) creature with a M double-weapon can hold it in one hand and make an attack with one end.

I agree with Seraphimpunk.

If the rules say you can sometimes be your own ally, sure.

So long as you can draw your weapon and attack on your attack following your TWF attack.

I don't believe spellstrike (not familiar with magus) can be used as one of many attacks in a full attack. If you can, sure. But extra dice from spells aren't mutliplied on Crits (like the dice from Flaming/Frost weapons).

I'd never argue a character should have immunity due to a good/long backstory, but I feel a Hero Point award should be given to such players.

If a DM said a four page backstory was too long or looked down on back stories in general, I'd not want to play in such a hack n slash centric game. If the DM said at the start to keep all backstories to 2 pages or less, that'd be different.

A backstory should be there to give the player RPing guidance and the DM story hooks. The two sentence backgrounds pimped earlier in this thread are lacking in the specific details that I and other DMs find more helpful.

Additionally, I'd allow a player to reuse a background so long as the names of people and places are changed. Being too strict comes across as unfriendly which isn't a good environment for fun. Friendly but fair is preferred.

Very simple.

As hands needed for proper wielding increase with size, a large bastard sword may be wielded by a medium creature as a martial weapon in three hands or two-handed as an exotic weapon.

Even James Jacobs agrees.

The hand requirements in the description must also be sized up. Claiming none of that matters because it's a one-handed weapon when medium-sized is some loony stuff no good GM should allow.

RPG books - Still not as expensive as getting into Games Workshop Miniatures.

People who play Warhammer and complain about being poor . . . The W.H. bit just explained why they have money problems.

As I merely play Pathfinder, the only cost to me is gas to get to the GM's house and time. Even if I were to run it, all the rules are on this site or the prfd20 wiki.

Likewise, I've written my own game which I run and also own plenty of old game books which still work :)

I have personally been great under Obama's presidency and have numerous reasons (from personal to general) to support him for four more years.

I'll go ahead and share those reasons here with links to more on each subject (the links are full of links to support evidence):

The business I work in has seen many jobs lost to cheaper South American competitors. My own job is in constant threat of this outsourcing.

The American Jobs Act is the sort of bill that could help protect my job. It provides tax incentives to bring jobs back to America, among other things. Republicans have been blocking it for a year.

I'm not a rich guy and will likely need to rely on Social Security and Medicare in old age even if I become more wealthy. Romney and Ryan have been talking about privatizing (or partially privatizing) Medicare which non-partisan economists agree will double the out of pocket costs for future retires.

Republican policies are bad for my wife's education and job. When the Republicans cut spending, they cut funding for schools and education. This is what happens when state aid is cut. She still needs to finish college for her job in education-related fields.

It'll be awfully hard to not take personally anyone voting for Republican scumbags this election. Why? Republican policies will cause personal injury to me so those votes are essentially personal attacks on me.

I guess the "positive" side is that the GOP platform will prevent gays from getting married which is none my business nor anyone else's except for the gay couple and the religious freedom of whoever wishes to officiate the ceremony. Also, the GOP will protect the zygotes and fetuses of rapists from the horrible women who wish to abort them. Wait, those aren't good things. There is no positive side to the GOP platform.

Reason #1: Conservatives Suck at Economics

Republicans (and Libertarians) argue that we need to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, not incentives like the American Jobs Act. Fun Fact: Giving corporations more tax breaks doesn't give them any incentive to hire more. It doesn't create more demand for their product or make labor in America any cheaper compared to overseas.

Reason 1 Link

Reason #2: Republican Bigotry Disqualifies Them as a Political Party

It's the easiest litmus test of all to realize that people must not be listened to if they support the oppression or marginalization of any minority in the USA. It's distinctly un-American. Two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religious institutions that want to marry them should have that freedom. It's personal freedom and religious freedom at stake here. Under the guise of religious freedom, Republicans claim that their religious tyranny is otherwise.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#two

Reason #3: Obama's Foreign Policy Is An Example of How It Should Be Done

Libya is where Obama has shined. As part of a UN force requested by Libyan citizens, we helped the Libyan people win their freedom from terrorist supporter Muammar Gaddafi whom Ronald Reagan failed to kill. We did that without any U.S. military casualties (though journalists did die) or troops on the ground. Although our ambassador was killed by an al-Qaeda affiliaetd group using protests against an anti-Islamic movie as a cover, the Libyan people then rallied in support of America and kicked the extremist militias out of their city. Helping people win their own freedom from dictators and gaining the support of people is how an international community should behave.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#three

Reason #4: We're Better Off

Under the Obama administration, I've gotten married and bought my first new car. That seems pretty good for me. We're also better off as a country.

Obama is one of only five Presidents to see the stock market gain over 50% in 3 years. That's a free market capitalist's dream.

Shortly after Obama took office, the Dow hit 6626. It's now at 13,066. The stock market has DOUBLED.

Obama's administration saved the auto industry (without the massive layoffs the Romney plan endorsed), passed universal health care (which Romney endorsed in 2006), and killed the top terrorist in the world (whom Romney says he'd have gotten except that he clearly said he wouldn't have been looking for).

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#four

Reason #5: GOP Report Card: Grade F

What have the Republicans done since they were elected to a majority in the House in 2010?

Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans have been intent fighting abortion rights, gay rights, and worker rights. Apparently, they think the solution to our economic problems is to degrade worker's rights. I guess they'll be happy once we're like China. Battles have been fought in Wisconsin and Ohio, and Indiana. The Republicans have so lost their way on this issue, that they look to Reagan to remind them that: "Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost."

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#five

Reason #6: The GOP Has Been Willing to Hurt the USA in Order to Regain Power

There's evidence that Mitch McConnell sabotaged our government for political gain. Numerous sources have corroborated that he orchestrated obstruction of every vote that Democrats supported. That's right, the Republicans decided to oppose the Democrats on everything before the Obama administration even took office.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#six

Reason #7: Obama and Romney Aren't the Same

Some people claim all politicians are the same, that Obama and Romney are the same or that Obama is Bush the Third. They're fed up with Washington and think nothing ever changes or get done. All one has to do is look at Obama's record and see that change for the better can happen. However, not much gets done when a President has a Congress that won't cooperate or that is gridlocked by obstructionists.

How is it that George W. Bush and Obama are similar?
Did they both drop the ball on defense, letting terrorists attack us on American soil, and then retaliate by invading the wrong country? Did they both then attack civil liberties and religious freedom by trying to ban marriage for a minority? No, those were both only Bush. Who was it who tried to take the first step in eliminating Social Security by privatizing it? Again, that was only Bush.

How is it that Romney and Obama are similar?
Do they both want to curtail civil rights for minorities? Do they both want to provoke a war with Iran? Do they both belong to parties that suck at economics? Do they both belong to parties that increasingly feel that Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Do they both want to change government to lift the burden from the wealthy by increasing the burden on all the rest? No, those are only Romney.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#seven

If corporations are people as Romney and the conservative Supreme Court say, some corporations practice murder and cannibalism.

One thing that worries me about a Romney Presidency is that the next President will likely appoint two new Supreme Court justices.

So, that could lead to more extreme decisions than corporations are people, strip searches can be done for no reason, and money is free speech. The latter having led to the unprecedented money spent in this election. Imagine all the good that money could have done if it were actually used to improve this country or people's lives instead of on ads and junkmail!

How the heck would Weapon Focus(Longsword), and Weapon Specialization(Longsword), apply to one Longsword, but not the other?

If I have those feats, I can pick up any Longsword, and they will apply.

That's right, every single Longsword, even if it's inappropriately sized, or broken, or made of some odd material.

All of them.

Or two, and it will apply to both.

Yes, since each Scorching Ray has its own attack roll, it's not a volley-spell anyway. So, each ray would get the Sneak Attack bonus.

This is how I'm reading it.

Interesting. It certainly adds to the flexibility which I like.

It's certainly more extreme than other suggestions I've heard.

I recommend instead letting proficiency feats apply to weapon categories (axes, chains, etc., per the fighter lists) instead of single weapons.

By all means, let's take away high HPs and overpower magic-users over fighters even more!

I don't think so!

There's nothing wrong with high HPs. They represent both durability and ability to avoid damage. A high level hero should have both!

If in some rules version, a fighter can run across lava by only sacrificing a little luck (hp), that just says to me he's reached Wuxia level. That's good because the game has criticized for having wizards exist in high fantasy while fighters are forced to exist in realism.

I hope this opens the door to accepting gamer characters and look forward to the first openly gamer character.

Continuing my previous post:

Torture, like most things, is neutral. It depends how it's used. It could be a just punishment for a very evil act.

However, a wise philosopher once said, "There are some acts of justice that corrupt those who perform them." Kind people would damage themselves by torturing others.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently evil in poisoning. We use it today to execute criminals and call it humane.

The soldier who enjoys killing, who doesn't care who he kills so long as it's legal, would be Lawful Evil.

Now, the character Dexter Morgan who only kills evil people could be either Neutral Good or pure Neutral.

The alignment system is pretty clear in most cases of what is good, neutral, and evil.

However speaking in non-game terms, selfishness is the root of all evil and itself evil (though there are degrees of evil).

Evil is when you pursie your happiness at the expense of others who are unwilling. Casting a spell on them to make them unwilling doesn't make it better if they were unwilling to have the spell cast on them. There are greater evils and lesser evils. For example, stealing is generally less evil than murdering children.

When determing how evil stealing, the rightful ownership of something is important. Such, stealing something back that was stolen could be good and taking something that won't be missed wouldn't actually harm another person or infringe on their happiness.

It is the disregard of others which is evil. Now, actions taken to stop evil, in defense of others or oneself, are good when the actions are an appropriate measured response. Killing a murderer is an appropriate response.

What if I charge while on a boat?

I am on a boat.

Double chained kamas pretty clearly should be finessable, but it isn't. That, plus spiked chain not having reach anymore makes me assume for balance purposes they don't want finessable reach weapons other than the whip.

That is also a conclusion I've drawn. However, it's a conclusion I've sarcastically. The whip weapons reach, though they have two hexes of reach and do 1d4 damage or less.

It more reasonably seems to me that the designers just don't like Weapon Finesse and don't want to support it (or it's just become an accidental oversight).

Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:

However, all flexible weapons require coordination to use in the real world over Strength so they should all be usable with Finesse. Perhaps, they should even require Finesse.

In the real world, Strength aids your ability to finesse weapons as well. Stronger muscles make any object you hold easier to maneuver, quicker to move, and quicker to recover or ready.

However, most gamers seem to have some sort of aversion to acknowledging the role of strength and practiced skill with regards to graceful varieties of combat, and simply want to use inherent coordination alone.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean Srength ALONE should be the stat to be used. If one must be chosen, Dexterity should be the one because it's role is greater. At the very least, make them a Weapon with which Finesse is an option.

Problem is finesse weapons have to be fairly light and rely on precision over power, and the longer you make a weapon, the heavier it gets. The elven curveblade is the only two-handed weapon that is finesseable, otherwise it's only a few one-handed (like the rapier) and all light weapons.

However, all flexible weapons require coordination to use in the real world over Strength so they should all be usable with Finesse. Perhaps, they should even require Finesse.

This may not solve the problem exactly (and honestly, I'm partial to Int to damage myself), but what about a feat that let you add Dex to damage when your opponent is flat-footed or flanked? It seems like that would be a nice balance between "Dex does too much already" and "it's too hard to be Dex-based." Of course it would make rogues brutal, but A: make it have a BAB requirement and B: I'm kind of okay with that, personally.

This is already covered by the Rogue and Ninja's Sneak Attack dice.

I think a big help to Finesse characters would be more weapons that can actually use Finesse. For example, many of the Eastern Weapons are flexible and/or chain weapons which should be Finesse Weapons, even if they aren't Light. Coordination, not Strength, is used to fight with flexible weapons.

Of course, Weapon Finesse not requiring a Feat would be a big help (or simply taking a Trait).

If Dervish Dance could be applied to other weapons. Having it only be for scimitars is obviously not for balance, but because of Drizzt :)

I support a +1 Bonus Magical Weapon enhancement:
Graceful: Allows Weapon Finesse to be applied to a weapon.

Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:

Feral wrote:

Dex is already the best stat in the game. There's no reason to make it better for free. Would allow you allow strength to be usable in place of dex when calculating AC?

Heavy Armor alone does not give one good AC. You need some dex to have a meaningfully high armor class.

It's more than just a better reflex. You're also getting Initiative, bonuses to a pile of skills (more than strength), ranged attack bonus, and touch AC.

Not true that Dex is necessary for a high AC.

If you look at the ACs that armors provide and their Max Dex Bonus, most add up to to a +8 AC, combining the armor and Dex.

The notable exception is full plate which gives a +9 WITHOUT any dex bonus (it also lets you add +1 Dex bonus), meaning if your Dex is higher than 12 it's wasted. So heavy armor does give the best AC in the game WITHOUT any Dex.

Well aside from the fact that 12 is not 'without any dex' I believe he was refering to using things like mithral or fighter armor training in conjunction with heavy armor.

That said, many classes, specifically the rogue (which the op mentioned) dont get heavy armor from the start. So they have to, spend feats to get that heavy armor bonus you are talking about. So if strength based rogues have to spend two feats to get heavy armor, why shouldnt dex based rogues have to spend feats to get dex to attack and manuevers?

That's because Rogue's don't start with proficiency in Heavy Armor. They're also losing several abilities (evasion, tumble) by wearing heavy armor so it's foolish (my OP). However, most importantly it's because people can actually use their agility because they're born with it. They're not born with heavy armor. Likewise, that's why there are weapon proficiencies.

I'm not sure why you're pointing out a Dex of 12 is not without any Dex bonus. Without Dex, full plate gives the highest AC of standard armors (+9). If you add 1 point of Dex, it's 2 higher than the highest standard armor. A Strength-based guy can still do without any Dex, and depending on the class, may eventually be able to move at full speed in it (heavy armor). That's not to say having a little bonus in every stat isn't a good thing.

It is likely not a game breaker, but it does mess with balance. There is a network of reasons why they chose weapon finess the feat and did not give it to rogues. In 3.5 there was "Intuitive Attack" that lets you use wisdom as opposed to STR do we let all do we just give this to all wis based classes and assume they all get divine insite in battle?

I don't believe that logic applies.

While Weapon Finesse and Agile Mnvrs should be automatic options, not Feats, because they represent natural behaviors, using Wisdom for damage sounds more supernatural.

For example, it's silly to think a Dextrous person need special training to not rely on brute strength to fight, such as trying to club someone with a rapier with which that character is proficient. No, that Dextrous person would naturally rely on his/her agility.

As it is, I'd say non-Light Finesse weapons would require Dexterity be used, not Strength, and let the weapon the determine the proper attribute to be used (and add all flexible weapons to that list since using those are a function of coordination).

But basically, I believe Str should rightfully stay the stat that determines damage. WP Finesse for free doesn't mess with balance how most think it does; however, using a different stat for damage should require a Feat because that would.

Dex is already the best stat in the game. There's no reason to make it better for free. Would allow you allow strength to be usable in place of dex when calculating AC?

Heavy Armor alone does not give one good AC. You need some dex to have a meaningfully high armor class.

It's more than just a better reflex. You're also getting Initiative, bonuses to a pile of skills (more than strength), ranged attack bonus, and touch AC.

Not true that Dex is necessary for a high AC.

The notable exception is full plate which gives a +9 WITHOUT any dex bonus (it also lets you add +1 Dex bonus), meaning if your Dex is higher than 12 it's wasted. So heavy armor does give the best AC in the game WITHOUT any Dex.

The OP is correct in his opinion that making these feat automatic functionss of combat should be the rule because it doesn't hurt game balance and only punishes Dex-based fighters.

The argument over AC isn't particularly relevant since Str based fighters can have equally good AC by taking heavier armor.

Speaking of attributes from a point buy perspective if we're discussing balance, one is sacrificing a damage bonus from Strength by putting points into Dex instead and gaining a better reflex save (though a worse defense against grapple).