I´d like to propose that the +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse should be abolished. I´ve never understood while this was implemented, as it makes impossible for a Rogue to use his strong attribute from level one as his to-hit stat.
For what it´s worth, years ago even Andy Collins said on his messageboard that in hindsight the designer team for 3.5 should probably have eliminated the +1 BAB prereq.
|
I'd like to point out, that there's a similar threat in the Alpha 2 section, where this question was discussed. As Alpha 3 doesn't introduce new aspects to this question, it seems unnecessary to start the discussion again.
I'd like to point out, that there's a similar threat in the Alpha 2 section, where this question was discussed. As Alpha 3 doesn't introduce new aspects to this question, it seems unnecessary to start the discussion again.
As I guess Alpha 3 will be the slate from which the beta comes, I disagree. Who exactly is still looking at the Alpha 2 threads?
|
As I guess Alpha 3 will be the slate from which the beta comes, I disagree. Who exactly is still looking at the Alpha 2 threads?
Point taken. My recommendation has been to replace BAB +1 with Weapon Proficiency. (So long as you are proficient with the weapon and opt to use weapon finesse, you shouldn't be precluded from so doing.)
As the OP of the Alpha 2 thread, I'll throw in my support here on the off chance that Jason is interested in a detail like WF prereqs.
TS
I like the weapon proficiency idea, of course, ideally for me all light weapons (and certain exceptions like the whip and rapier) would use dex instead of str requiring a feat to use strength and weapon finesse would only apply to one-handed weapons.
I don't think this should be done. IMHO +0 and +1 is the difference between someone whose been in a fight and someone who's only practiced.
Yeah, I guess all Level 1 Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, etc. are combat veterans when they begin the game. Sure.
|
|
I don't think this should be done. IMHO +0 and +1 is the difference between someone whose been in a fight and someone who's only practiced.Yeah, I guess all Level 1 Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, etc. are combat veterans when they begin the game. Sure.
Nice sarcasm. I didn't say veterans, I said been in a fight. If a fighter's never fought or had some kind of training involving fighting, why does he have all those proficiencies if he's so inexperienced? He should be a warrior.
Fighter: Sparring in full armor and blunt/dull swords, combat.
Barbarian: Wrestling in lion clothes where you get bones broken, combat.
Ranger: Well, how exactly did they get that favored enemy?
Paladin: See fighter.
Rogue: Running away from guards while pitching purses.. nope.
Wizards: Reading a book.. nope.
Bard: Singing your songs.. nope.
Cleric: Reading different kinds of books.. nope.
Monk: Punching that Muk Yan Jong.. nope.
Sorcerer: Woke up one day and wasn't ordinary anymore.
The only one in the 0 group that might see real fighting is the Monk and since it's in the 0 group I go with Monk training being less practical.
I really hate to use this as an example BUT... Karate Kid. Daniel had no actual fighting experience when he goes to the tournament. He broke some rules and had to learn as he went. By the end, no problem.
Nice sarcasm. I didn't say veterans, I said been in a fight. If a fighter's never fought or had some kind of training involving fighting, why does he have all those proficiencies if he's so inexperienced? He should be a warrior.
Fighter: Sparring in full armor and blunt/dull swords, combat.
Barbarian: Wrestling in lion clothes where you get bones broken, combat.
Ranger: Well, how exactly did they get that favored enemy?
Paladin: See fighter.Rogue: Running away from guards while pitching purses.. nope.
Wizards: Reading a book.. nope.
Bard: Singing your songs.. nope.
Cleric: Reading different kinds of books.. nope.
Monk: Punching that Muk Yan Jong.. nope.
Sorcerer: Woke up one day and wasn't ordinary anymore.The only one in the 0 group that might see real fighting is the Monk and since it's in the 0 group I go with Monk training being less practical.
I really hate to use this as an example BUT... Karate Kid. Daniel had no actual fighting experience when he goes to the tournament. He broke some rules and had to learn as he went. By the end, no problem.
Why do they have weapon proficiencies then at all? By your logic, they should be untrained in all their weapons until they get a BAB of +1.
As far as I am concerned, everybody who has a weapon proficiency learned it against life training opponents.
But really, outside of flavor ( which is highly disputable... you think so, I do not ), I don´t see a *mechanical* reason why a Rogue needs to suck at melee until level 3.
He has to invest a feat to use his main attribute for combat, which in itself is already a substantial sacrifice for a class which doesn´t get too many feats in the first place.
Wich character will use Weapons finesse ? A character who is in combat, but without Force : Ranger, Rogue, Bard? ...
Ranger -> can take at first level
Rogue -> can take at second level
Bard -> can take at third level
So, there is no problem !
As a DM who botched this and gave the 1st level Rogue access to Weapon Finesse, I would heartily agree with abolishing the rule!
For the record, the player was my 9-year-old son, who dearly wanted to be a rogue but didn't like the way his sister (playing the fighter) had the great attack bonus...
Weapon finesse solved the problem, and he loved the description of what "finesse" might look like in battle...
I would favor a modification to remove the BAB requirement from Weapon Finesse. I don't think it is a high priority on anyone's list though.
As a DM who botched this and gave the 1st level Rogue access to Weapon Finesse, I would heartily agree with abolishing the rule!
For the record, the player was my 9-year-old son, who dearly wanted to be a rogue but didn't like the way his sister (playing the fighter) had the great attack bonus...
Weapon finesse solved the problem, and he loved the description of what "finesse" might look like in battle...
I did the exact same thing in my Pathfinder play-by-email playtest -- a player with a TWF rogue picked Weapon Finesse at level 1 and I didn't catch it until halfway through the first fight.
His comment: "I've definitely made the decision to move my real-life game to 4th Edition. [..] I bring this up right now, specifically, because it's little nitpicks like this that they've done a good job of eliminating.
Personally, I can't understand why Pathfinder wouldn't remove the +1 BAB requirement from Weapon Finesse. Rogues are basically broken in combat until they can pick it up, and many other character concepts would benefit from it as well. Would these characters suddenly become overpowered if they could have Finesse at level 1?"
I thought he had a very good point.
|
|
I can't see the harm. Linking it to proficiency rather than BAB should be fine.
Either the requirement is supposed to hold off on some busted mod till a higher level, or it's tied to a feat chain, or it's restricted to certain stat levels, or there's really not much point.
A +1 BAB is just a nuisance, delaying things by 1 or 2 levels for the classes that will really benefit from it most. I mean, if you're going to take weapon finesse for, say, a rogue, you're going to snag it as soon as possible anyways, so nixing it for the first few levels is just annoying, and little more.
Of course, this is a pretty minor issue, and I'm really not invested either way, but the reasoning to remove that requirement seems legit.
I'm going to go the other way here. Full BAB types should get some benefits from their weapons training, including access to some combat specific feats. The penalty for entry on this is fairly low, second level (well actually 3rd because that's when you get your second feat).
-- Dennis
I just don't see the benefit of forcing the party rogue to either (a) take a level of ranger at level 1 (to have the necessary BAB) or (b) suck at what he wants to do until level 2 (when he can take Weapon Finesse as a rogue talent).
Weapon Focus is fine the way it is, though.
|
|
Something to consider here, just coming from the other side of the fence, is that rogues already have the chance to be pretty crazy damage dealers using sneak attack, especially using TWF and having just about anything sneak attack-able.
One of the only things that kept the gap in place that kept rogues from being overly crazy is melee when they have other roles where they take the forefront, is the fact that they miss more often then fighters due to their low base attack bonus and the to hit being based on what is normally a secondary stat for them.
Weapon Finesse took out the second part of that penalty, which isn't a bad thing, but its akin to natural spell for druids- It is a way of using a feat to disregard a weakness of the class.
These weaknesses are often there for a reason though, because even if they can be bypassed there is normally a bit of doing before you can. With a druid you aren't likely to dump your physical stats for mental ones because you know you'll eventually wildshape and pump them back up, because if you do you are going to feel that for five levels before you get that chance(and then one more before you can cast in shape).
In the same vein, weapon finesse's prereqs makes a rogue-ish character consider being a bit more balanced. Sure you can have your strength be an 8 if you want since it won't hurt your damage too badly, but do you really want that -1 to attacks for a few levels for the boost to your other stat? Or is it worth having a 16 be a 15 instead so that you have a decent strength and thus an ok shot to hit at early levels still when its not going to matter as much in the long run.
I think that having abilities spaced out this way is a good thing and I can see the cause of it. You need to have developed a real talent with your weapon before you are able to deftly manipulate it.
-Tarlane
|
I put my $.02 in, I really don't see any point in trying to argue my point of view which is I believe pretty clear, it's ok that you don't agree with me.
If the rogue is bound and determined to be a lightly armored fighter then maybe a level of ranger isn't such a bad idea. He might think about 2 levels and get the first combat style while he's at it.
-- Dennis
You have my vote to remove it, it should be removed. Rouges are the only class that can really use it, unless a ranger happens to run across their first favored enemy.
|
|
WF appears to be a must-have feat for the common rogue concept. If a feat is too important or too good not to be taken in a standard situation, I'd either move the benefit to the list of class abilities (but risk the ire of other classes), open up the prerequisites (suggested above), or ...kill the feat.
So, how about killing Weapon Finesse and letting characters choose which ability score modifier they use with light weapons, rapiers (special one-handed weapon (half as heavy as other one-handed weapons) whips, etc.?
Currently the conditions to use DEX with these weapons are:
1. BAB +1: hitting a 1st level commoner 5% more often
2. special training (WF feat)
3. weapon proficiency (I don't see a low-level character taking the -4 penalty to use his DEX with the weapon)
Light weapons are already not the best tool for high STR folk.
If we remove the feat, the "prerequisite" will effectively become DEX>STR and high DEX melee combatants will not sweat to have something that they usually take anyway.
So, the tweak is:
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier* + size modifier
*You may choose to use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made with light weapons, rapiers, whips and spiked chains made for a creature of your size category, provided that you are proficient with these weapons.
As to the RL explanation? The weapons themselves allow a less brutal approach to killing. :-)
One of the only things that kept the gap in place that kept rogues from being overly crazy is melee when they have other roles where they take the forefront, is the fact that they miss more often then fighters due to their low base attack bonus and the to hit being based on what is normally a secondary stat for them.
I said this in my Alpha 2 thread and I'll say it again: if you argue that WF makes a rogue too powerful at 1st level when his Dex is 16, you must also recognize that it makes him too powerful at 3rd level and at 20th level when his Dex is 30. In other words, the +1 BAB prereq isn't a balancing factor--it's just an annoyance.
*You may choose to use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made with light weapons, rapiers, whips and spiked chains made for a creature of your size category, provided that you are proficient with these weapons.[/b]
I've read posts by a few DMs who use this rule and won't play without it.
TS
Somehow I've also overlooked the BAB +1 requirement for all these years. I suspect this is because I pretty much never start a party below 5th level (so as to allow a balanced party even with high LA races). Regardless, like the original designer of the feat, I too would recommend removing that requirement in favor of Dex 13 + Proficiency in the weilded weapon.
I'll even go one step further and support Locwork's suggestion:
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier* + size modifier*You may choose to use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made with light weapons, rapiers, whips and spiked chains made for a creature of your size category, provided that you are proficient with these weapons.
Why would I support that? Quite simply, I've always felt that Weapon Finesse was basically a "tax" on an ability that should belong to the agility based classes and/or the light weapons anyway. Honestly, the whole point of a rapier is to use skill and accuracy to place a lethal blow, to effectively bypass armor by penetrating its weaknesses rather than shearing thru armor with brute force.
Somehow I've also overlooked the BAB +1 requirement for all these years. I suspect this is because I pretty much never start a party below 5th level (so as to allow a balanced party even with high LA races). Regardless, like the original designer of the feat, I too would recommend removing that requirement in favor of Dex 13 + Proficiency in the weilded weapon.
I'll even go one step further and support Locwork's suggestion:
Why would I support that? Quite simply, I've always felt that Weapon Finesse was basically a "tax" on an ability that should belong to the agility based classes and/or the light weapons anyway. Honestly, the whole point of a rapier is to use skill and accuracy to place a lethal blow, to effectively bypass armor by penetrating its weaknesses rather than shearing thru armor with brute force.Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier* + size modifier*You may choose to use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made with light weapons, rapiers, whips and spiked chains made for a creature of your size category, provided that you are proficient with these weapons.
Agreed, if a person has a higher dex than strength they are going to train that way normally, and would need a feat to use their strength instead of their dex really. Maybe leave the feat there for people who get a higher dex than their strength later in game?
|
|
Agreed, if a person has a higher dex than strength they are going to train that way normally, and would need a feat to use their strength instead of their dex really. Maybe leave the feat there for people who get a higher dex than their strength later in game?
Eliminating WF shifts the focus entirely on the weapons. Their size and weight and other properties allow to use either the DEX or the STR modifier to calculate attacks.
I don't see the need to penalize STR>DEX characters and force them use their lower DEX with light weapons.
The point of making it cost a feat was because it's allowing a consolidation of abilities into one score.
Basically, a Rogue can boost a lot of his skills, Reflex save, AC, ranged attack, and NOW his melee attack (which can boost his Sneak Attack damage the most), all with his Dex score.
This, in my mind, should still cost a feat.
However, I never understood why it should have a +1 BAB requirement. Pit it against the following:
Two Weapon Fighting
Power Attack/Cleave
ANY of the Mounted combat line
ANY of the Improved line (other than Imp TWF)
Those are a LOT of combat focused feats that can be gained BEFORE Weapon Finesse.
Is it really that much harder to Weapon Finesse than use two weapons at once? How about using a mount in combat, a total of 4 feats worth?
You can learn how to make your bare hands lethal weapons easier than you can learn to Finesse them. Does that make any sense?
There's only two other feats that share the +1 BAB requirement of Weapon Finesse.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Quickdraw
Both weapon manipulation feats. I "get" that they are trying to say that you have to be "good at combat" to have learned this. What makes me laugh is that apparently you don't have to be "as good at combat" to use a second weapon in your offhand, or trample down your foes, etc. They could at least be consistent within their own concept.
I dunno.. It really is a nitpicky situation that seems to just be there to "make things difficult".
If these types of things are meant to de-power a Rogue so he's not quite as good in combat, then this is fallacious thinking. The concept of "well he got his abilities later, so we can afford to make him more powerful overall" is so false it hurts my brain. Yes, because he had a slightly rougher time in the past, he can outperform others the rest of the game? Ow...
|
|
The point of making it cost a feat was because it's allowing a consolidation of abilities into one score.
Basically, a Rogue can boost a lot of his skills, Reflex save, AC, ranged attack, and NOW his melee attack (which can boost his Sneak Attack damage the most), all with his Dex score.
This, in my mind, should still cost a feat.
I don't mind the consolidation. Dex is used for ranged attacks and expanding it to unarmed attacks and low-damage weapons would be useful for several classes.
If the rogue's SA is too powerful, I recommend a look at the many suggested tweaks.
There's only two other feats that share the +1 BAB requirement of Weapon Finesse.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Quickdraw
You can add Weapon Focus to the list.
You can add Weapon Focus to the list.There's only two other feats that share the +1 BAB requirement of Weapon Finesse.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Quickdraw
Which was my point in the Alpha Release 2 thread. Compared to Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse is at least as powerful (given a character with a higher Dex mod than Str mod). From a game balance perspective, removing the +1 BAB requirement does not make sense.
From an "in character" perspective, requiring a certain amount of martial prowess (BAB) before learning fighting techniques that can be used with a bunch of different weapons (Weapon Finesse) doesn't strain disbelief, IMO. No more than the same requirement for learning unusual weapons, learning how to rapidly ready weapons, or special techniques with a specific weapon...
Which was my point in the Alpha Release 2 thread. Compared to Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse is at least as powerful (given a character with a higher Dex mod than Str mod). From a game balance perspective, removing the +1 BAB requirement does not make sense.
I don't think you can directly compare Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse. Weapon Finesse allows a PC to add a better stat to AB; instead of comparing it with Weapon Focus, try comparing it to the virtual feat that all PCs get for free--adding Str to AB. Weapon Finesse simply allows Dex-focused PCs to have the same advantage that Str-focused PCs get for free. Now also consider that Dex-focused PCs still can't add their better stat to damage even with Weapon Finesse--again, something that Str-focused PCs get for free.
Weapon Focus is much more aptly compared to class features, not feats.
TS
|
I thought long and hard about houseruling this when 3.0 first came out (as I accidentaly allowed a player to get away with it).
In the end, I decided that it rewards rogues and monks (who already get a bunch of cool low-level abilities) and punishes fighters by removing a unique option for them at first level (and maybe beyond if the rogue multiclasses).
Besides, if you really want that great attack for your 1st level rogue, use a hand crossbow!
Agreed, if a person has a higher dex than strength they are going to train that way normally, and would need a feat to use their strength instead of their dex really. Maybe leave the feat there for people who get a higher dex than their strength later in game?Eliminating WF shifts the focus entirely on the weapons. Their size and weight and other properties allow to use either the DEX or the STR modifier to calculate attacks.
I don't see the need to penalize STR>DEX characters and force them use their lower DEX with light weapons.
Um, I started out by saying "if a person has a higher dex than strength". So why would it be a penalty?
However this would only be for weapons that normally can be finessed.
|
|
The point of making it cost a feat was because it's allowing a consolidation of abilities into one score.
Basically, a Rogue can boost a lot of his skills, Reflex save, AC, ranged attack, and NOW his melee attack (which can boost his Sneak Attack damage the most), all with his Dex score.
I agree, dexterity is already quite useful for any class as it is. It's a single feat to get weapon focus.
|
|
I don't think you can directly compare Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse. Weapon Finesse allows a PC to add a better stat to AB; instead of comparing it with Weapon Focus, try comparing it to the virtual feat that all PCs get for free--adding Str to AB. Weapon Finesse simply allows Dex-focused PCs to have the same advantage that Str-focused PCs get for free. Now also consider that Dex-focused PCs still can't add their better stat to damage even with Weapon Finesse--again, something that Str-focused PCs get for free.
I have to disagree. The point of both abilities is to increase your attack bonus with a given weapon or in the case of finesse set of weapons. Whether you are using your DEX bonus as the method of increasing it or not is irrelevant. The STR bonus to attack and damage is a product of balancing the stats against each other as anything else. DEX is pretty powerful as it is, if the game played with DEX to attack bonus by default it would be the no-brainer stat for all fighters.
I've already put my $.02 in regarding this, As far as I'm concerned fighters types should get privileged access to certain combat feats at the beginning of the game and I think this should be one of them. I'm playtesting a 1st level rogue soon so maybe I'll change my mind ;)
-- Dennis
|
|
I don't think you can directly compare Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse. Weapon Finesse allows a PC to add a better stat to AB; instead of comparing it with Weapon Focus, try comparing it to the virtual feat that all PCs get for free--adding Str to AB. Weapon Finesse simply allows Dex-focused PCs to have the same advantage that Str-focused PCs get for free. Now also consider that Dex-focused PCs still can't add their better stat to damage even with Weapon Finesse--again, something that Str-focused PCs get for free.
Weapon Focus is much more aptly compared to class features, not feats.
Breaking out abilities and rephrasing them in terms of virtual feats is an excellent way to analyse these abilities.
Weapon Finesse is probably the only feat which allows to switch applicable ability scores at such a fundamental level. A similar feat for spellcasters would switch the main ability tied to spellcasting, i.e. allowing a cleric to use CHA instead of WIS or a Wizard to use WIS instead of INT.
Either using DEX in melee is game breaking (too much of a good thing for rogues!) or it is not. If it is, the possibility to switch should be removed altogether, not given out in a feat.
If it is not, delaying the acquisition by a couple of levels is pointless, especially since the DEX modifier will be used with low damage weapons and touch attacks i.e. for attacks which are already suboptimal for high-STR characters:
- one-half of the wielder’s Strength bonus is added to damage if the light weapon is used in the off hand.
- there is no benefit from using a light weapon two-handed.
The possibility to use DEX for touch attacks will be a small boost for Wizards and Sorcerers. Will it break the game? I don't think so. It may actually be more intuitive to use DEX to simply touch someone.
The possibility to use DEX for monk's attack rolls will reduce the dependency on STR for a class which could need a condensing of the ability scores it needs to be effective.
I have to disagree. The point of both abilities is to increase your attack bonus with a given weapon or in the case of finesse set of weapons. Whether you are using your DEX bonus as the method of increasing it or not is irrelevant. The STR bonus to attack and damage is a product of balancing the stats against each other as anything else. DEX is pretty powerful as it is, if the game played with DEX to attack bonus by default it would be the no-brainer stat for all fighters.
This is how I think of it: A 1st level fighter has a 16 Str and a 12 Dex (+4 AB, +3 damage). A 1st level rogue has a 12 Str and a 16 Dex (+1 AB, +1 damage). At 1st level, that's a huge difference in combat prowess. Now the rogue takes Weapon Finesse (+3 AB, +1 damage). The rogue is now almost as good at stabbing things as the fighter, but still doesn't have the raw beat-down power of the fighter. Personally I don't see what's so mentally straining about this situation. And note that the fighter still hasn't taken advantage of his class ability (Weapon Focus).
I've already put my $.02 in regarding this, As far as I'm concerned fighters types should get privileged access to certain combat feats at the beginning of the game and I think this should be one of them. I'm playtesting a 1st level rogue soon so maybe I'll change my mind ;)
I'd love to hear about it.
TS
This is how I think of it: A 1st level fighter has a 16 Str and a 12 Dex (+4 AB, +3 damage). A 1st level rogue has a 12 Str and a 16 Dex (+1 AB, +1 damage). At 1st level, that's a huge difference in combat prowess. Now the rogue takes Weapon Finesse (+3 AB, +1 damage). The rogue is now almost as good at stabbing things as the fighter, but still doesn't have the raw beat-down power of the fighter. Personally I don't see what's so mentally straining about this situation. And note that the fighter still hasn't taken advantage of his class ability (Weapon Focus).
You didn't take into account Sneak Attack, which adds +1d6 damage when flanking, etc. Apart from skeletons and zombies, Sneak Attack will apply in just about every encounter a first level party will face. The fighter (with Weapon Focus) gains +5 attack bonus with one melee weapon, +4 with other melee weapons, +3 melee damage, and +2 ranged attack bonus. The rogue gains +3 attack bonus with several melee weapons (which he'll mostly be using anyway), +1 melee damage (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack), and +3 ranged attack bonus (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack within 30 feet).
Why should a 1st level rogue be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?
I´d like to propose that the +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse should be abolished. I´ve never understood while this was implemented, as it makes impossible for a Rogue to use his strong attribute from level one as his to-hit stat.
Second that! True, rogue can have it from 2nd level on. They don't have access to a new feat until 3rd. bummer. I guess they could go for a fighter level at 2nd level to get access to a fighter feat. Its not like the prerequisite is +6 or +11. For the difference it make, simpler is better.
Why should a 1st level rogue be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?
Maybe he shouldn't. But then the question becomes: "Why should a 2nd level rogue (who can take Weapon Finesse in Pathfinder) be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?"
The part I don't get is that somehow it's unbalanced for a rogue to get Weapon Finesse at level 1, but it's fine to get it at level 2. That's the world's smallest window of balance. :)
Why should a 1st level rogue be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?Maybe he shouldn't. But then the question becomes: "Why should a 2nd level rogue (who can take Weapon Finesse in Pathfinder) be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?"
The part I don't get is that somehow it's unbalanced for a rogue to get Weapon Finesse at level 1, but it's fine to get it at level 2. That's the world's smallest window of balance. :)
Mostly that was in response to "1st level rogues without Weapon Finesse suck in melee compared to 1st level fighters." You might as well ask why a 2nd level cleric is almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter (or as capable with the War domain).
The issue isn't so much the balance of fighter vs. rogue as Weapon Finesse vs. Weapon Focus. Why should it be possible for a rogue to effectively gain +2 or +3 to attack rolls with several different melee weapons at 1st level, but they need to wait until 2nd to gain a +1 with a single ranged weapon?
|
|
The issue isn't so much the balance of fighter vs. rogue as Weapon Finesse vs. Weapon Focus. Why should it be possible for a rogue to effectively gain +2 or +3 to attack rolls with several different melee weapons at 1st level, but they need to wait until 2nd to gain a +1 with a single ranged weapon?
I'm thoroughly confused now. Is it a comparison between classes or between feats?
If we drop Weapon Finesse (or drop the BAB +1 prerequisite), all classes regardless of BAB will be able to use their unarmed strike, one weapon (or two weapons when fighting with two weapons) and apply their DEX bonus from level 1.
One thing that is often overlooked with feats boosting weapon effectiveness is that any benefit applies effectively to one single weapon, i.e. the one being wielded.
|
|
I don't see why its such a big problem to have to wait until second level for WF if you aren't a +1BA class.
If its essential to your character concept get your GM to house rule it...
I know level 1 is a fragile level, and +2 or 3 bonus to hit can make a massive difference, but it is only one level. I would imagine it was originally limited to level 3 for rogues etc. for balance, to let fighters/ barbarians shine. Perhaps with access to a feat at level 2 the requirement should be +2BA ;)
That said I can see where people are comming from with the consistency of rules for pre-requisites for other feats. Also if you are playing a small rogue with a really low strength it can mean the difference between getting involved and sitting on the sidelines...
This is how I think of it: A 1st level fighter has a 16 Str and a 12 Dex (+4 AB, +3 damage). A 1st level rogue has a 12 Str and a 16 Dex (+1 AB, +1 damage). At 1st level, that's a huge difference in combat prowess. Now the rogue takes Weapon Finesse (+3 AB, +1 damage). The rogue is now almost as good at stabbing things as the fighter, but still doesn't have the raw beat-down power of the fighter. Personally I don't see what's so mentally straining about this situation. And note that the fighter still hasn't taken advantage of his class ability (Weapon Focus).You didn't take into account Sneak Attack, which adds +1d6 damage when flanking, etc. Apart from skeletons and zombies, Sneak Attack will apply in just about every encounter a first level party will face. The fighter (with Weapon Focus) gains +5 attack bonus with one melee weapon, +4 with other melee weapons, +3 melee damage, and +2 ranged attack bonus. The rogue gains +3 attack bonus with several melee weapons (which he'll mostly be using anyway), +1 melee damage (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack), and +3 ranged attack bonus (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack within 30 feet).
And you didn't take into account a rogue's 1st level skills; yes he's likely to get SA damage under the right circumstances but his skill bonuses aren't high enough yet where he can take SA for granted. Now consider the armor that each PC will be wearing and their hp; I'd say that no matter how you slice it, the fighter is still a significantly better combatant than the rogue with Weapon Finesse.
Why should a 1st level rogue be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?
The bottom line is that even if we all agreed that your argument were sound, it would cause a big problem. You're saying that Weapon Finesse is too good for 1st level; for the sake of argument I'll agree with you. Now I have to point out that by your own argument Weapon Finesse is too good for any level; unlike Weapon Focus it scales with PC power. You can't say that a flat +1 BAB prereq is an adequate balancing factor for such an awesome feat. So either Weapon Finesse needs to be eliminated from Pathfinder entirely or it needs some kind of scaling prereq.
TS
I'm leaning more and more towards something similar to the 4E solution for the Weapon Finesse feat. i.e. Get rid of it. There is some class of weapons for which you can use your Dexterity bonus instead of your Strength bonus to attack. Say natural weapons, light weapons, Rapier, Whip, Spiked Chain - i.e. anything finessable.
This fixes the problems of all the small animals with low Strength and higher Dexterity needing Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. It fixes Rangers and Rogues needing to take Weapon Finesse.
It would not be reasonable if Dexterity were to become the uber-ability as a result, but it is not. While Dexterity adds to AC, the actual benefits thereof are roughly even with fighters that choose a Strength-based build and heavier armor.
And you didn't take into account a rogue's 1st level skills; yes he's likely to get SA damage under the right circumstances but his skill bonuses aren't high enough yet where he can take SA for granted. Now consider the armor that each PC will be wearing and their hp; I'd say that no matter how you slice it, the fighter is still a significantly better combatant than the rogue with Weapon Finesse.This is how I think of it: A 1st level fighter has a 16 Str and a 12 Dex (+4 AB, +3 damage). A 1st level rogue has a 12 Str and a 16 Dex (+1 AB, +1 damage). At 1st level, that's a huge difference in combat prowess. Now the rogue takes Weapon Finesse (+3 AB, +1 damage). The rogue is now almost as good at stabbing things as the fighter, but still doesn't have the raw beat-down power of the fighter. Personally I don't see what's so mentally straining about this situation. And note that the fighter still hasn't taken advantage of his class ability (Weapon Focus).You didn't take into account Sneak Attack, which adds +1d6 damage when flanking, etc. Apart from skeletons and zombies, Sneak Attack will apply in just about every encounter a first level party will face. The fighter (with Weapon Focus) gains +5 attack bonus with one melee weapon, +4 with other melee weapons, +3 melee damage, and +2 ranged attack bonus. The rogue gains +3 attack bonus with several melee weapons (which he'll mostly be using anyway), +1 melee damage (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack), and +3 ranged attack bonus (with an extra +1d6 with Sneak Attack within 30 feet).
Flanking is easy to set up and grants Sneak Attack. If the opponent is flat-footed, that grants a Sneak Attack. Fighter AC = 10 (base) + 4 (scale mail) + 2 (heavy wood shield) + 1 (Dex) = 17; rogue AC = 10 (base) + 3 (studded leather) + 3 (Dex) = 16. Note that a typical 1st fighter who doesn't use a shield will have a worse AC than the typical 1st level rogue. The fighter has 2 more hp than the rogue (4 hp more in 3.5), with the same Con.
"Significantly better?" Even with Weapon Finesse, a typical rogue will not be equally combat capable as a fighter, but the gap at 1st level is not really that large, either.
Why should a 1st level rogue be almost as combat capable as a 1st level fighter, given all of the other abilities and skills he gets?The bottom line is that even if we all agreed that your argument were sound, it would cause a big problem. You're saying that Weapon Finesse is too good for 1st level;
I'm saying that Weapon Finesse is too powerful to be allowed without restriction. IMO, it's reasonably equivalent to Weapon Focus (better in some circumstances, worse in others), so keeping the same requirement would make sense.
Flanking is easy to set up...
Flanking is easy to prevent too. And a fighter without a shield will gain the benefits of two-handed Power Attack. We could go around and around with these tangental details, but in the end they're not very important.
I'm saying that Weapon Finesse is too powerful to be allowed without restriction. IMO, it's reasonably equivalent to Weapon Focus (better in some circumstances, worse in others), so keeping the same requirement would make sense.
Not any more sense than dropping the prereq altogether. Whatever "realism" that the prereqs for Weapon Finesse and other feats are based on is vague and arbitrary. Designating +1 BAB as the "sufficient combat experience" marker for feats (or anything else) is silly; I've never had any combat training in my life and yet as a kid, fighting with my friends with wooden sticks, I taught myself to wield them with finesse rather than brute strength. With a few hours of practice with any given object, I've taught myself to draw that object in the blink of an eye (Quick Draw, anyone?). As for Weapon Focus, I have that in the short bow. These things are not exactly rocket science, and yet we're requiring our PCs to fulfill some vague and arbitrary mechanical prereq in the name of "realism".
TS