Which is accounted for by the x3 crit modifier on bows and the 19-20 crit threat range on crossbows.Hitting something in the eye versus the arm will hurt a lot more regardless of the power involved. I agree that in the case of bows being able to use strength is a boon now, farther back the string goes indeed the arrow flies faster and hits harder, but placement is important to (maybe choose +STR dmg or +DEX dmg) but think about crossbows. They have a set amount of power they will be giving each time, so they would be all about placement.I've always wondered why DEX isn't added to ranged damage, I mean the better aim you have the more painful you're shot will be, (of course against things such as oozes it's kinda of a moot as it doesn't matter where you hit them)Being able to hit something doesn't mean you can hit it hard. The farther you can pull back the bowstring...
Right don't get me wrong, I'm not shouting to the roof tops about crossbow vs bow discrepancies just stating that dexterity for damage with ranged weapons would make sense with a real world perspective, I realize it takes TONS of balancing in a rule ridding game such as our beloved PF I'm just stating my opinion, dex damage to ranged isn't such a bad idea.
Why not allow +DEX instead of +STR and only have it apply to things that have discernible anatomies, that might balance out the single stat reliance, if you can place your attack better you deal better damage but on a creature that you can't tell which way is up it makes sense that it wouldn't really have a "weak spot" so to speak
Oh, also, you want to hear about a feat that everybody of a certain archtype takes (considering it was either you or somebody else earlier who mentioned such a feat as being 'overpowered')
Power Attack
Power attack has a built in drawback. -x to hit +x damage. Dex to damage feats (straight and not something like dervish dance) do not. No matter what you may say of a 'feat tax' feats are in no way as precious as ability scores. This is where players have to make their hardest choices. Allowing a way for one ability to be all encompasing for many characters will make that kind of character superior to all others. At the cost of 2 feats, a dex based melee character (be they fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, or what have you), would only need dex and con. All other stats optional. This is not balanced in the least. And it would make strenght based characters completely inferior at doing the only thing they do well, damage.
The only advantage big strong characters hold is that their strength score gives them a damage edge. Their AC is lower, their Initiative is lower. Their primary stat does not apply to a save. Their primary stat goes to little used and unopposed skills. And they have difficulty qualifying for 2 weapon fighting feats, so they are likely wielding a single 2handed weapon.
The cost of a feat doesnt come anywhere close to covering this discrepancy. No class that would be concerned with this is feat starved anymore. Fighters have an overabundance of feats to the point where after level 6 you are not sure where you are going to put all of your feats in the first place. Rogues can get up to 3 feats from rogue talents, so if concerned with them, have no feat of being feat starved either. Monks have more bonus feats, and have few feats they need that they dont get in bonus feats in the first place. Rangers get their style feats, so if they are going 2 weapon fighting, many of the requisite feats are covered by the class.
If you wish to completely remove strength based melee characters from your game, by all means add a feat to allow dex to damage. Because that is what you will do. No one in their right mind would play a strength based character at that point. With all the advantages of Dex over strength it would make strength as your primary ability score a non-choice in any game with even the smallest pretext of optimization.
Power attack has a built in drawback. -x to hit +x damage. Dex to damage feats (straight and not something like dervish dance) do not.
The feats mentioned so far have had limitations as to which weapons (finessable) which are generally worse, and restrictions on opponents immune to SA. But, for the sake of argument, let’s discuss as if it is straight dex to damage.
At the cost of 2 feats, a dex based melee character (be they fighter, rogue, swashbuckler, or what have you), would only need dex and con. All other stats optional.
Will, int and cha will continue to be important. Especially for monks (wis) and swashbucklers. It actually just makes str moot. For classes with MAD (bards, monks, swashbucklers) this is a serious disadvantage.
And it would make strenght based characters completely inferior at doing the only thing they do well, damage.
This is where I disagree most strongly with you. None of the feats mentioned would do that. Two handed STR builds will come out on top in the damage department because of power attack, even if it is 1 1/2 dex to damage.
The only advantage big strong characters hold is that their strength score gives them a damage edge. Their AC is lower, their Initiative is lower. Their primary stat does not apply to a save. Their primary stat goes to little used and unopposed skills.
I think this is closer to the mark. As far as I can see, adding DEX to damage (even straight up, without any restrictions) won’t result in characters that do more damage than existing STR-based builds, they would actually do less. BUT, it would allow them to be decent damage wise. Am happy to be wrong on this if someone wants to do the math.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it won’t increase AC by much for fighters because of armor restrictions, and rogues already max dex, so it won’t increase their AC much either. Monk’s ac would increase though, which isn’t a bad thing.
All that it would do is give those who want a melee character the *option* of trading damage potential for more mobility, initiative, higher reflex saves. I don’t think this trade is obvious.
It would also give PCs with MAD the ability to spread their stats around and subsequent stat items around, reducing their handicap
And they have difficulty qualifying for 2 weapon fighting feats, so they are likely wielding a single 2handed weapon.
I don’t think this is why str builds take 2handed. It is because 2 handed does more damage than twf (unless you are SA).
If you wish to completely remove strength based melee characters from your game, by all means add a feat to allow dex to damage. Because that is what you will do. No one in their right mind would play a strength based character at that point. With all the advantages of Dex over strength it would make strength as your primary ability score a non-choice in any game with even the smallest pretext of optimization
Again, I would amazed if this actually happened. It seems that optimizers trade a lot to be the best at dealing damage. STR still wins at that. So if it is a huge shift, it is for style, not just optimization.
If you wish to completely remove strength based melee characters from your game, by all means add a feat to allow dex to damage. Because that is what you will do. No one in their right mind would play a strength based character at that point. With all the advantages of Dex over strength it would make strength as your primary ability score a non-choice in any game with even the smallest pretext of optimization.
You're dramatically overstating your case. Melee characters that have poor base reflex saves, wear heavy armor, or use two-handed weapons will still rely on strength, because Dex does nothing for them that Strength doesn't already do (or in the case of 2H users, is less effective than Strength). This is especially true for non-Fighters, because those two feats are still a large percentage of their total feat expenditure. It's even more true of non-Human non-Fighters, since they wouldn't be able to have both feats at level 1. Since the majority of melee characters falls into at least a couple of those categories, I think it's safe to say that Strength wouldn't vanish as a stat.
If you wish to completely remove strength based melee characters from your game, by all means add a feat to allow dex to damage. Because that is what you will do. No one in their right mind would play a strength based character at that point. With all the advantages of Dex over strength it would make strength as your primary ability score a non-choice in any game with even the smallest pretext of optimization.You're dramatically overstating your case. Melee characters that have poor base reflex saves, wear heavy armor, or use two-handed weapons will still rely on strength, because Dex does nothing for them that Strength doesn't already do (or in the case of 2H users, is less effective than Strength). This is especially true for non-Fighters, because those two feats are still a large percentage of their total feat expenditure. It's even more true of non-Human non-Fighters, since they wouldn't be able to have both feats at level 1. Since the majority of melee characters falls into at least a couple of those categories, I think it's safe to say that Strength wouldn't vanish as a stat.
They still use strength because strength does damage. That is the only reason to keep it as a primary stat. If i could get that through dex, then there is no reason for the heavy armor. Yes Heavy armor is 1 higher in total Armor Bonus + Max Dex, then light armor, but if you can add your primary stat to AC, light armor comes out ahead in overall gain.
The feat expenditure is what is overstated. What class (im talking made for pathfinder here) that has an interest in dexterity as a primary stat doesnt have bonus feats? Rogue, check, Ranger, Check, Fighter, duh, Swashbuckler (the 3rd party pathfinder version does), monk? check. They ALL get bonus feats. So no, 2 feats is not a price that weakens them or represents a large portion of their long term investment in feats.
On the other hand, the ability to max out a single physical stat for all your primary needs? That does not exist. Wizards and Sorcerors get that for the most part, but no physical class does. Dexterous characters must consider some strength in their assignment of ability scores to keep their damage up. Strong characters have to maintain the ability to fill out their armor, and keep their reflex/initiative away from 0.
You are right there are classes that dont get a bonus feat at level 1. So? I have known rogues that wait untill level 2 or 3 to get weapon finese, they made due for a level. Low levels are less important in this regard as AC's and HP are comparitively lower. Even a 10 str character has a decent chance to hit and kill a CR 1/3 monster. As you go up in level it becomes more important and by then, you have your 2 feats.
And you are right, characters still rely on str because strength does something dex doesnt do, damage. If you change that, there is 0 reason to use strength. Even if you arent human, there still isnt a reason. Make str a 12, get by for 1 level, and you shall soon be kind of combat by level 5.
The feats mentioned so far have had limitations as to which weapons (finessable) which are generally worse, and restrictions on opponents immune to SA. But, for the sake of argument, let’s discuss as if it is straight dex to damage.
The single best single handed weapon in the game is finessable, the rapier. I would argue that the elven courtblade is a damned good 2handed weapon, and the most common weapons used in 2weapon fighting are finessable. So for a dex based character, restricting it to finessable weapons is no limitation at all. They are ALREADY limited to finessable weapons. There has also been a drastic reduction in enemies immune to sneak attack (for good reason mind you), unless your game is full of oozes and constructs, it will not come up often. It is more often that you will come up with things that fly or are otherwise difficult to engage in melee, where having a high dex (and thus a good ranged attack) is vital. So again on circumstantial enemies, strength loses out bick time
Will, int and cha will continue to be important. Especially for monks (wis) and swashbucklers. It actually just makes str moot. For classes with MAD (bards, monks, swashbucklers) this is a serious disadvantage.
MaD classes are problematic. I have seen reimagined swashbucklers that help significantly with this, but hte problem is in the MAD class. Many classes that are not MAD would stand to gain from this (rogues, rangers, and fighters). This makes them significantly more powerful. If this ability was somehow restricted to monks and swashbucklers that would be one thing, put it in their class abilities, but as a feat, it is way overpowered.
This is where I disagree most strongly with you. None of the feats mentioned would do that. Two handed STR builds will come out on top in the damage department because of power attack, even if it is 1 1/2 dex to damage.
a two weapon fighter gets more benefit from power attack then a 2handed fighter does. And there is nothing stopping a dex based character from having power attack. The str prerequisite is not hard to come by. And their is a weapon tailor made for 2handed dex, the elven court blade, which does 1.5 less damage the a greatsword, but has a 1 better critical threat range. So the 2handed str build does gain more from power attack or even twohanding.
I think this is closer to the mark. As far as I can see, adding DEX to damage (even straight up, without any restrictions) won’t result in characters that do more damage than existing STR-based builds, they would actually do less. BUT, it would allow them to be decent damage wise. Am happy to be wrong on this if someone wants to do the math.
I'll run the numbers for level 10 fighters when i get home today, I dont have the time at the moment, but I am confident it will be in the favore of a two weapon dex fighter. Please provide me with a version of the feat you would like me to use (Pre-reqs and full benefit description)
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it won’t increase AC by much for fighters because of armor restrictions, and rogues already max dex, so it won’t increase their AC much either. Monk’s ac would increase though, which isn’t a bad thing.
Fighters and rogues would have additional points to place in dex because strength could be droped (in point buy). This would negate the 1 point of AC advantage heavy armor has, and thus mean that given the armor check penalties and additional weight/cost, there would be no reason to wear heavy armor. So there would be no armor restrictions. The whole world would be wearing light armor.
Monks are a separate issue. It would help the class, but it would also boost other classes that dont need it (comparitively). Put it in the monks class features, and not as a feat.
All that it would do is give those who want a melee character the *option* of trading damage potential for more mobility, initiative, higher reflex saves. I don’t think this trade is obvious.
It would also give PCs with MAD the ability to spread their stats around and subsequent stat items around, reducing their handicap
But there is no trade. You still have all the damage potential of str, and get the benefit of high dex. Making it too powerful comparatively. And again, if it only affected mad classes thats one thing, but it doesnt, making the feat unbalancing since it can be added to non-mad classes.
I don’t think this is why str builds take 2handed. It is because 2 handed does more damage than twf (unless you are SA).
Again, I would amazed if this actually happened. It seems that optimizers trade a lot to be the best at dealing damage. STR still wins at that. So if it is a huge shift, it is for style, not just optimization.
Im still not certain how you can say str still wins at damage when it provides no benefit over what you are offering dex. The truth is, it is optimizers that would latch onto this the tightest, and not those concerned with style, who would likely be more concerned with the image of weilding a greatsword, then the statistics of the damage they deal (which already favors 2 weapon fighting for many classes).
Dex really isn't that uber a stat even if it didn't require feats for damage and to-hit. Let's look at what it affects for a generic melee damage-focused character:
AC: AC is almost irrelevant once you get into double digit levels unless you dedicate most of your resources to it. Increasing AC is not terribly important to a damage-dealing character because their AC will never be enough to seriously reduce incoming damage.
Reflex Saves: Reflex is by far the least important save, because there are very, very few Reflex save-or-dies. Also, not all melee characters have high Reflex saves, so this is frequently just shoveling water out of the bottom of the boat rather than presenting an actual strength.
Skills: Acrobatics is good for any melee character. Stealth can be important, but only if the whole party has it. Otherwise, Dex has no real skill applications for a generic character.
To-Hit: Already provided by Strength.
Damage: Already provided by Strength, and at a higher rate than Dex if using a 2H weapon.
---
For a more specific example, why on earth would you ever focus on Dex with a Barbarian? Your AC is going to suck no matter what you do, your Reflex saves aren't that hot to start with and you have a boatload of hit points to soak up the results of a nuke, and if you focus on Dex for hitting and damage you essentially ignore your most powerful and important class feature (Rage). They have no use for any Dex-based skill except Acrobatics and maybe Stealth. Add to that the fact that most Barbarians use 2H weapons instead of one handers and the very idea of using 20% of their feats to enable them to use a dump stat for less effect than if they'd just dumped it becomes ludicrous.
OK, so how about Rangers? They have similar AC woes as Barbarians (not quite as bad because they don't lose AC when using their class features), they get Improved Evasion so Reflex saves are very nearly irrelevant for them, and they already get the dual-wield feats without needing the dex requirements. They already have crazy-high Stealth checks (thanks to Favored Terrain), so Acrobatics is the only relevant skill for them. Once again, it's not really a good idea to focus on Dex to the exclusion of Strength.
The conclusion is the same for standard Paladin builds (excluding dual wielders).
Where this proposed feat would actually be useful is with Rogues (admittedly) and with characters that are already crazy-MAD like dual wield Paladins (normally need everything but Int and Wis) and Monks (normally need everything but Int).
And I know for a fact that having a feat that adds Dex to damage isn't going to cause the downfall of Strength-based characters because it already exists and is almost never used.
MaD classes are problematic. I have seen reimagined swashbucklers that help significantly with this, but hte problem is in the MAD class. Many classes that are not MAD would stand to gain from this (rogues, rangers, and fighters). This makes them significantly more powerful. If this ability was somehow restricted to monks and swashbucklers that would be one thing, put it in their class abilities, but as a feat, it is way overpowered.
I would be happy with an alternate class feature for monk and a swashbuckler base class that isn't useless in melee. failing that, this kind of feat seems the best fix.
I'll run the numbers for level 10 fighters when i get home today, I dont have the time at the moment, but I am confident it will be in the favore of a two weapon dex fighter. Please provide me with a version of the feat you would like me to use (Pre-reqs and full benefit description)
fantastic! I was hoping someone would do this. I want to know how/if this would break things. I am most interested in the OP feat, but feel free to pick something more permissive if you prefer.
I should say that I would revise the OP feat to disallow power attack to be used in combination. It seemed obvious to me, but I suppose that it isn't. Does that change your opinion?
here's my proposal
Improved Weapon Finesse (Combat)
Prerequisites; Weapon finesse
Benefit; when using a weapon which weapon finesse applies to, you may apply your dexterity modifier to damage roll instead of your strength modifier, this bonus is not multiplied by 1.5 whem wielding a weapon in both hands. this bonus is halved for your off hand unless you also have double slice.
so what if rogues have sneak attack, it isn't 100% reliable, more like 50% reliable as you won't always get flanks, suprise rounds or a chance to hide. and the 50% assumes flanks
fighters really outdamage rogues. based on a 2hnd power attacking to hit bonus equal to 1.5 rogues TWF attack bonus. and static damage greater than the rogue's sneak attck bonus damage. and it's consistent.
this is the easiest way to bridge that gap.
I have to agree with Zurai here. I don't think allowing Dex bonus to damage will break the game apart and render STR useless (especially if this is restricted to 'finessable' weapons)
However, it will make some already good DEX-based characters MUCH better, and that, I must admit, scares me a little.
'findel
Personally I don't think that any stats should be useless for anyone. Less optimal, yes, but I'd prefer it if nothing were a "dump" stat. That having been said, INT and CHA are complete dump stats for Fighters and Barbarians. Int is still relatively unnecessary for Rangers, Rogues and Paladins.
The only thing that the party meatshield would use CHA for would be intimidation, typically, and there's already a core feat that not only lets you add STR to that roll but add it ON TOP of charisma. Heck arguably the only thing that a Barbarian needs is Strength and Constitution.
I have to agree with Zurai here. I don't think allowing Dex bonus to damage will break the game apart and render STR useless (especially if this is restricted to 'finessable' weapons)
However, it will make some already good DEX-based characters MUCH better, and that, I must admit, scares me a little.
'findel
it has further penalties. reduced climbing/swimming, reduced carrying capacity. might as well play the tagalong child.
|
Despite their appealing flavor, dexterity-based characters suffer in combat because weapon damage is keyed off strength. It seems that the only way to optimize damage output with rogues or monks (for example) is to pump strength, which might defeat the purpose/concept of playing those kinds of characters, and often comes at the expense of dexterity in point buys. So, I was wondering if there was anything in the works (e.g. alternate class feature, feats) to help with this problem, or another thread on this topic?
There are lots of examples of feats or class features that reduce MAD in 3.5: the stone warden from the deepwarden PrC (Con to AC instead of DEX), zen archery feat (wisdom to ranged attack rolls), brutal throw (strength to ranged attack rolls), etc. None of these were particularly hard to get, but getting DEX to damage was/is. To illustrate, in 3.5 there was elegant strike, which was a class feature of the Champion of Corellon Larethian PrC (Races of the Wild), which gave dexterity to damage in addition to strength, but only with a handful of weapons and with onerous entry requirements (elf/half-elf, lots of armor and weapon proficiency and at least a half dozen feats), and a similar concept was present in a home-brew swashbuckler base class for Pathfinder by SmiloDan some time ago(don't know how to link, first time poster, sorry), which became available only at 17th level. It seems like people think that this is a very potent ability. I am probably missing something, but why is this something that shouldn’t be more easily available? Of course, having BOTH strength and dex (and all of strength, intelligence and dex in the case of the swashbuckler) is pretty great and shouldn't be a low-level option, but what would be game breaking or unbalanced about simply having dexterity to damage INSTEAD of strength, even for low-level characters?
I understand that DEX also contributes to AC, initiative, ranged attack rolls and useful skills (acrobatics, stealth, disable device), whereas STR contributes to...
There is a feat called Extra Finesse from the (7th Sea: Swashbuckling Adventures) that uses the DEX modifier for instead of STR. Can only use it with weapons that use the weapon finesse feat.
you can also find it on crystalkeep. on pdf. the feats, but not the whole book. just get the d20 feats pdf from the 3.0 section.
There is a feat called Extra Finesse from the (7th Sea: Swashbuckling Adventures) that uses the DEX modifier for instead of STR. Can only use it with weapons that use the weapon finesse feat.
you can also find it on crystalkeep. on pdf. the feats, but not the whole book. just get the d20 feats pdf from the 3.0 section.
Thanks, it is nice to hear this has been tried! Does anyone try to play with it? Did it cause overpowered characters? Eliminate STR from their games?
|
Personally I don't think that any stats should be useless for anyone. Less optimal, yes, but I'd prefer it if nothing were a "dump" stat. That having been said, INT and CHA are complete dump stats for Fighters and Barbarians. Int is still relatively unnecessary for Rangers, Rogues and Paladins.
The only thing that the party meatshield would use CHA for would be intimidation, typically, and there's already a core feat that not only lets you add STR to that roll but add it ON TOP of charisma. Heck arguably the only thing that a Barbarian needs is Strength and Constitution.
What dump stats do is remove the roleplaying aspect of the game, or at least roleplaying the actual character and not roleplaying a concept regardless of the stats. They really take away from the spirit of roleplaying and turn it more like a computer game character.
I don't think it would break the game but I think it makes it less interesting.
Dex based melee characters tend to make the most of opportunities ie... backstab and acrobatics to get into strategic places. I don't know that they need the + to damage.
Why not make more of Wis and Int for melee combat? I think that deepens the game, helps out monks and supports the smart swashbuckler like character.
Maybe I'm just too loyal to the thought that dex helps you land a blow but strength gives you more damage. The dervish feat has a broad set of requirements and only affects one weapon. I think that's a better model.
Sigurd
The feat from Qadira seems perfectly balanced and should exist in some kind of version in every finessable weapon.
Now regarding clockwork pickle's feat...
I really don't know.
The fact that it doesn't add 1,5 damage to two handed weapons and doesn't affect your off hand weapon goes a long long way to making it balanced.
However considering how much better archery has become in Pathfinder I think most fighter types would be better off taking that feat and mixing it up with archery. THAT will eliminate str based fighting types.
On another note.
I am sick of monks being better of investing in str than in dex or wisdom. I know that pathfinder made the STR based monk playable, but I would like a dex based or even wisdom based monk being able to hold his own.
Maybe a feat that allows a monk to use dex instead of strength, but bans the use of power attack?
Or another that allows you to spend a ki point and use your wisdom instead of strength for attack and damage?
MAD I believe stands for multiple ability dependant - so they need multiple attributes to make a workable character but maybe someone can confirm that
yeah, that's how I use it (see original post). it is probably the single biggest reason monks are frustrating to design/play.
What dump stats do is remove the roleplaying aspect of the game, or at least roleplaying the actual character and not roleplaying a concept regardless of the stats. They really take away from the spirit of roleplaying and turn it more like a computer game character.
I don't really buy this argument. IMO roleplaying is a player issue, not so much a function of stats. My goal here is to *enable* roleplaying by making certain types of characters (dexterity based melee characters like swashbucklers and monks especially) able to get ability scores that fit the character. like INT and CHA on a swashbuckler (or rogue for that matter). I think players that aren't interested in roleplaying so much as competing for kills or whatever will tend to have pretty superficial characters regardless of ability scores.
Why not make more of Wis and Int for melee combat? I think that deepens the game, helps out monks and supports the smart swashbuckler like character.
I'm not opposed to this necessarily, but the mechanics that exist for this that I have seen tend to suck. It is back to the 3.5 monk and swashbuckler. high wis/int builds end up sucking. but if you have a specific idea for how to balance things, I would love to hear it.
However considering how much better archery has become in Pathfinder I think most fighter types would be better off taking that feat and mixing it up with archery. THAT will eliminate str based fighting types..
yeah, that occurred to me as well. It would provide a freebie boost to archer fighters' melee. But, as I see it, that isn't a bad thing as it will remain inferior to their archery, so it might just mean that they don't *exclusively* used ranged attacks. It just makes them more versatile, not superior on every front. They won't dump Str in any case as that still adds to ranged damage.
I am sick of monks being better of investing in str than in dex or wisdom. I know that pathfinder made the STR based monk playable, but I would like a dex based or even wisdom based monk being able to hold his own.
Maybe a feat that allows a monk to use dex instead of strength, but bans the use of power attack?
Or another that allows you to spend a ki point and use your wisdom instead of strength for attack and damage?
amen. I like those ideas (more the first than second) as class features.
If the entire problem here is the MaD issue, there might be another solution rather than letting classes get Dex to attack. Here's a house rule that I put into my game recentlly, but honestly I didn't create this rule for the MaD issue. I simply did this because I didn't like how players seemed to be forced to put all their ability increases into a single stat.
Basically, I allow my players to recieve ability score increases once every odd level, as opposed to every fourth level. However, the ability increases have to be divided between two stats or more. This prevents a player from putting 10 extra points into strength by level 20, instead it has to be 5 points into two different ability scores.
Then if you want to prevent the characters from getting too powerful from having this increased rate of ability boosts you can then simply make the stat boosting items (like belts of giant strength) in the game a bit more expensive. Or you can remove items which give players perminant inherent bonuses to a stat. I'm using the inherent bonus column to track ability increases from leveling instead.
Personally, I like this solution because it allows players to have a much wider variety of options rather than having to dump all their points into a single stat. Though, I guess the MaD classes would often feel like they have to go with Str and Dex, but at least then they can get their weapon finesse feat back and spend it on something else. Plus, the non MaD classes get something out of this too, a Fighter could go Str/Con or Str/Cha, a rogue could do Dex/Int. Monks could do Str/Wis if they wanted. The only problem I see is that this could defeat the purpose of the swashbuckler class unless it was redesigned somehow.
Honestly, I don't know if this is be best solution for the MaD issue, but I'll see how it works in my games. I got some of the ideas for this from someone else's houserule, I'll have to see if I can find the link.
yeah, that occurred to me as well. It would provide a freebie boost to archer fighters' melee. But, as I see it, that isn't a bad thing as it will remain inferior to their archery, so it might just mean that they don't *exclusively* used ranged attacks. It just makes them more versatile, not superior on every front. They won't dump Str in any case as that still adds to ranged damage.
I must say I hadn't thought of that. (that str will still be needed)
That said what I was thinking was a melee fighter with some small feat investment in ranged (deadly aim etc.), and focused mostly on melee combat feats. Not an archer that uses the dex to damage feat to support his melee.
If your feat didn't allow power attack it would be perfectly balanced, even if it applied to all finessable weapons.
So I ran a few numbers. Went with level 10 fighters (human) assuming access to +3 weapons and +4 stat items. I did 2 variations of the rule for a 2handed elven courtblade user. I'll follow with 2weapon styles.
Fighter has 12 feats at level 10 (for reference) and weapon training 2.
I assumed a target with an AC of 23 (stated average for CR 10 opponents) and a full Attack (2 in the case of the 2handed weilders).
Strength Guy first: Race is Human or half human
Weapon Training 2
+3 Greatsword
Weapon Focus
Power Att
Weapon Spec
Imrpoved Crit
Critical Focus
Str 25 (17 starting +2 racial +1 at 4 and 8 +4 item
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 11
Cha 7
+20/+15 to hit while power attacking 2d6+26
average damage per round on a full attack: 63.03
Elven Courtblade user allowing 1.5 dex to damage on 2handed weapon and including power attack
Same stats just reverse str and dex
Can either be elven or human and take exotic weapon proficiency.
Otherwise everything is the same as the strength guy short of the elven courtblade in place of the greatsword and ofcourse the feat in question (imrpoved weapon finese as well as weapon finesse, obviously the fighter has feats to spare here anyway)
To hit is the same +20/+15 and 1d10+26 (but with a better critical mind you)
Damage per full attack against 23 AC: 68.99
I also included an elven courtblade user adding only 1x dex to damage (instead of 1.5x)
Total damage per full attack against 23AC: 62.4
These numbers are based on what happens on each of 20 die rolls (and extrapolated again to each 20 for crit threats).I will follow up shortly with numbers for 2weapon fighters, which I expect will be higher.
Next Set, 2 weapon fighter, same assumptions as the previous set
Level 10 2 +3 shortswords +4 dex item, Human, Weapon Training 2.
The following feats
Weapon Finese
Improved Weapon Finesse (feat being discussed)
2 weapon fighting
Improved 2 weapon fighting
Power attack
Weapon spec
Double Slice
Imrpoved Critical
Critical Focus
(i mistakenly forgot about greater weapon focus in the previous examples so i left it out here again, i do not believe the -1 to all of them will skew the overall results).
In the first example, I took dex to add to both primary and off hand attack (and assumed synergy with double slice)
To hit: +18/+18/+13/+13 each attack doing 1d6+20 (6 from power attack, 2 weapon spec 2 weapon training 3 from magic weapon 7 from dex)
Against an AC 23 target a full attack yields approximately 79.43 damage
Second example is the same as the one above but assuming improved weapon finesse does not add to the off hand attack, (but still accounted for a +2 from strength using double slice).
Average damage per full attack there is 70.98.
Both do more damage then the 2handed fighter (more then 25% more in the first instance).
With all the other benefits gained by higher dex as opposed to higher str, I think we would see alot more characters weilding courtblades then greatswords in short order if such a feat came into existance.
All of my examples include power attacking, something someone mentioned to exclude. But from a mechanical standpoint that is kind of silly. After level 4 most of the time, and level 8 all of the time, power attack provides more damage then the feat presented by the OP. So it becomes almost purely a flavor choice to take this feat and not a mechanical one.
I considered doing an archer too but I dont think it's necessary. Archers under the current rules do significantly more damage then any of their melee counterparts (with rapid shot, manyshot, and deadly aim on a str bonus bow). Allowing dex to factor into that would only increase the distance between them.
Your examples are flawed. For one, you're changing the weapon between the different 2H builds for no good reason. For another, you're not taking into account that the Dex build is allowed to spend two more feats than the Strength build.
Both do more damage then the 2handed fighter (more then 25% more in the first instance).
With all the other benefits gained by higher dex as opposed to higher str, I think we would see alot more characters weilding courtblades then greatswords in short order if such a feat came into existance.
All of my examples include power attacking, something someone mentioned to exclude. But from a mechanical standpoint that is kind of silly. After level 4 most of the time, and level 8 all of the time, power attack provides more damage then the feat presented by the OP. So it becomes almost purely a flavor choice to take this feat and not a mechanical one.
Wow, thanks for doing all of the work here. Setting aside Zurai's valid point about whether the 2hd comparison (greatsword vs ECB) is kind to kind, it does seem like 1 1/2 dex is competitive with or superior to STR (not the OP feat, but a more permissive feat), if power attack is used.
What I am going for here is a sacrifice of *some* damage for the benefits of higher dex. It should be a flavor choice, rather than a clear mechanical advantage (i.e. balanced). I am trying to understand from your post whether, in your opinion, 1 dex with power attack allowed (OP feat) would be enough of a sacrifice, or 1 1/2 dex without power attack, or 1 dex and no power attack?
I also found it interesting that neither str or dex were dumped more than they usually are. Was that an optimization choice, or just to keep it simple?
Your examples are flawed. For one, you're changing the weapon between the different 2H builds for no good reason. For another, you're not taking into account that the Dex build is allowed to spend two more feats than the Strength build.
There is an excellent reason for changing the weapon. A greatsword is the best standard 2handed weapon for a strength based build. The elven courtblade is the best finessable weapon. These are choices i would make should I build such characters. They are very reasonable comparisons.
In addition, the fighter still has feats to spare. Even the two weapon fighters have feats to spare. Again, he has but to spend the 2 extra feats in order to gain all the benefits the strength character gets while retaining all the benefits of a high dex. This is the crux of my oposition to such a feat.
Wow, thanks for doing all of the work here. Setting aside Zurai's valid point about whether the 2hd comparison (greatsword vs ECB) is kind to kind, it does seem like 1 1/2 dex is competitive with or superior to STR (not the OP feat, but a more permissive feat), if power attack is used.
What I am going for here is a sacrifice of *some* damage for the benefits of higher dex. It should be a flavor choice, rather than a clear mechanical advantage (i.e. balanced). I am trying to understand from your post whether, in your opinion, 1 dex with power attack allowed (OP feat) would be enough of a sacrifice, or 1 1/2 dex without power attack, or 1 dex and no power attack?
I also found it interesting that neither str or dex were dumped more than they usually are. Was that an optimization choice, or just to keep it simple?
1x dex plus power attack yielded a fraction of a difference between damage dealt by a strength based character. This to me is not balanced. If power attack was not permitted I would consider the feat balanced as then numerically it would make little difference, and strength based characters would still have their domain over damage.
Why did i dump neither strength nor dex? Neither is a dump stat for any fighter. High strength heavy armor characters still need to fill out their armor. Even when they are astride in full plate, armor training and possible mithral armor mean some dex is useful.
A high dex character still needs strength to carry his armor. Even leather armor is not weightless, neither is a mithral chainshirt. If you need to carry 2-3 weapons, light armor, and some minor gear, you are wise to not dump strength. Not to mention depending on the build it is still useful (such as for the off hand attack if improved weapon finesse does not apply to it).
I am curious why you disagree with the Greatword to Elven Court Blade Comparison. Do you not agree that the elven courtblade is the best choice for 2handing weapon finesse? Is there another i am unaware of? Of do you feel it is better then the greatsword even for a high strength character? Assuming the same value to hit, statistics i believe favor the greatsword by a small amount in terms of damage. If anything the use of those two weapon skewed the result in the favor of your feat not against it.
Perhaps I am just too used to using the greatsword as my standard weapon for comparison. I used it extensively when looking at 2handed vs 2weapon (greatsword compares nicely to 2 shortswords i would say).
If you want I could see if the courtblade favores the 2handed strength fighter.
Edit: you know I am sometimes caught unthinking. This is what i get for writing out my comparison while distracted. You are correct I should have used the courtblade, it is simply a better weapon if at the cost of an extra feat. I will have to remember that for my next combat character.
If he used one the strength based fighter's damage would match that of the first dex based character:68.99 their numbers are the same.
I still think it is far too close to be considered balanced considering what else dex gives you. I'd day keep the 1.5x bonus, but cut out power attack and you are probably ok.
There is an excellent reason for changing the weapon. A greatsword is the best standard 2handed weapon for a strength based build. The elven courtblade is the best finessable weapon. These are choices i would make should I build such characters. They are very reasonable comparisons.
Actually, you've proven that the curve blade is better than the Greatsword, because everything else was equal in your comparison, yet the curve blade did more damage. With equivalent stats, equal chance to hit, and equal bonus damage, the only difference was the weapon used. 1d10 with an 18-20 crit range is obviously better than 2d6 with a 19-20 crit range. If you'd used the curve blade with the strength build character, he would have done the exact same damage as the dex build character, with one fewer feat spent.
In addition, the fighter still has feats to spare. Even the two weapon fighters have feats to spare.
This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you're comparing a character with 5 feats vs a character with 7 feats. It is not an equal comparison. You're skewing the results by giving one character more resources than the other. It doesn't matter that you're not spending the total allowed resources for either character; what matters is the amount of resources you did spend is not equal. Either the Strength character should have 7 feats spent on damage, or the Dex character should have 5. Same with the dual wield builds.
EDIT: You're also not comparing what's being discussed in this thread. I don't think anyone was calling for 2H weapons to get 3/2 Dex to damage. The proposal was for 1:1 across the board.
Actually, you've proven that the curve blade is better than the Greatsword, because everything else was equal in your comparison, yet the curve blade did more damage. With equivalent stats, equal chance to hit, and equal bonus damage, the only difference was the weapon used. 1d10 with an 18-20 crit range is obviously better than 2d6 with a 19-20 crit range. If you'd used the curve blade with the strength build character, he would have done the exact same damage as the dex build character, with one fewer feat spent.
This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you're comparing a character with 6 feats vs a character with 8 feats. It is not an equal comparison. You're skewing the results by giving one character more resources than the other.
You were correct, I errored in thinking the greatsword superior to the elven curveblade. the greatsword has just been my standard best 2handed weapon for so long, i had not even thought to cosider it.
However my concern still stands if you consider the elven curveblade. I do not believe dex based characters should do as much damage as a strength based character, and in this case clear enough they do. And a two weapon fighter does more, which I also do not agree with.
As for relevance, would you have prefered i gave the 2handed fighter 1 or 2 filler feats? There are none that exist in the core rules to add to his damage, so he will do what he wishes with them, maybe use the vital strick tree, or cleave. But real fighters, built in a real game will have these feats, and these are the only feats that would add to damage. Damage is what I am comparing, so those are the only feats I care about. If the APG comes out with more feats useful to a 2hander perhaps the story will change. If you wish to include 3rd party or 3.5 material in the conversation then things will change. But when comparing just core material, it is perfectly valid, since there are no further feats to take that are relavant to the discussion.
If it makes you feel better, assume the 2handed fighter also took skill focus perform acting, and vital strike. Then they have an equal number of feats.
EDIT: You're also not comparing what's being discussed in this thread. I don't think anyone was calling for 2H weapons to get 3/2 Dex to damage. The proposal was for 1:1 across the board.
Actually i did. Included both 3/2 and 1/1 in both sets for the dex based characters.
Numbers are as follows
Str based elven courtblade weilder: 68.99
dex based elven courtblade weilder 1.5x: 68.99
dex based elven courtblaed weilder 1x: 62.4
dex based 2weapon fighter with dex added to offhand:79.43
dex based 2weapon fighter with dex added to primary hand only: 70.98
1x dex plus power attack yielded a fraction of a difference between damage dealt by a strength based character. This to me is not balanced. If power attack was not permitted I would consider the feat balanced as then numerically it would make little difference, and strength based characters would still have their domain over damage.
I think that sounds like a good solution - 1 1/2 dex to a finessable weapon, but power attack is not allowed. Finesse and power attack don't seem to fit together intuitively to me (although I am sure it makes perfect sense to some). 1 1/2 dex (vs 1 dex) is just to balance.
Why did i dump neither strength nor dex? Neither is a dump stat for any fighter. High strength heavy armor characters still need to fill out their armor. Even when they are astride in full plate, armor training and possible mithral armor mean some dex is useful.A high dex character still needs strength to carry his armor. Even leather armor is not weightless, neither is a mithral chainshirt. If you need to carry 2-3 weapons, light armor, and some minor gear, you are wise to not dump strength. Not to mention depending on the build it is still useful (such as for the off hand attack if improved weapon finesse does not apply to it).
I suspected as much. Despite all of the fear about STR being useless beyond combat, carrying capacity alone is still reason enough to keep decent str for those wearing armor.
very illuminating exercise!
This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you're comparing a character with 5 feats vs a character with 7 feats. It is not an equal comparison. You're skewing the results by giving one character more resources than the other.
I at the very least agree with the point about the 2H weapon fighter having two fewer feats that the other character. Part of the argument is that the two feats make up the difference and balance the two.
Do you think you could do the calculations again with the two handed fighter using a curve blade and two additional feats? That way they would be using the same weapon and same number of feats. That should settle the matter.
And I guess my house rule diverged from the focus of the discussion so much that no one paid attention to it, lol. Oh well, I believe that it'll solve the MAD problem in my games at least.
As for relevance, would you have prefered i gave the 2handed fighter 1 or 2 filler feats? There are none that exist in the core rules to add to his damage
False. I would assume the two feats would be EWP: Elven curve blade (obviously), and Greater Weapon Focus: Elven curve blade, which he qualifies for. +1 to hit is fairly important even for fighters. Both feats would improve his damage compared to the great sword, and we can't assume he's an elf since elves don't get a racial bonus to Strength.
Hitting something in the eye versus the arm will hurt a lot more regardless of the power involved. I agree that in the case of bows being able to use strength is a boon now, farther back the string goes indeed the arrow flies faster and hits harder, but placement is important to (maybe choose +STR dmg or +DEX dmg) but think about crossbows. They have a set amount of power they will be giving each time, so they would be all about placement.I've always wondered why DEX isn't added to ranged damage, I mean the better aim you have the more painful you're shot will be, (of course against things such as oozes it's kinda of a moot as it doesn't matter where you hit them)Being able to hit something doesn't mean you can hit it hard. The farther you can pull back the bowstring...
Hitting something in the eye vs the arm is a critical hit vs a normal hit. Which high Dex will help you to achieve by making it more likely you'll confirm your threat rolls.
As for Str, though, historically as well as in stories a high Str has always been associated with archers. Think of Odysseus and his bow which none of the suitors could string or fit an arrow to; on the opposite note, think of Einar Tambarskjelve for why there should be no damage bonus (Str or Dex) for a non mighty bow.
weapon finesse and power attack not fitting?
it requires a tweaking of the description.
it seems animesque, but someone can think of something.
heres something i thought of
maybe the accuracy penalty is taken to target a softer, more sensitive, less armored part of the body (the to hit penalty) and dealing more damage as you connect with said weaker tissue (The damage bonus)
this could be a reworking of power attack, that lets it work with weapon finesse.
this i beleive works better than the swing wildly route.
As for relevance, would you have prefered i gave the 2handed fighter 1 or 2 filler feats? There are none that exist in the core rules to add to his damageFalse. I would assume the two feats would be EWP: Elven curve blade (obviously), and Greater Weapon Focus: Elven curve blade, which he qualifies for. +1 to hit is fairly important even for fighters. Both feats would improve his damage compared to the great sword, and we can't assume he's an elf since elves don't get a racial bonus to Strength.
I pointed out in my second post, i mistakenly left greater weapon focus out of the first set. They all had room for it, so i simply left it out on all accounts in order to not have to do the first 3 over again. Either way, they can all fit it, so it doesnt make a huge difference. I was not assuming elf for the strenght based character, i do believe i indicated he was human as well. There just do not exist feats to extend the damage capacity of a 2handed fighter (for now) so the extra feats are essentially meaningless where damage is concerned.
I think the feats discussed all sound like good ideas.
But for the sake of offering a slightly different idea... I think of a finesse-based combatant as someone who does damage because of their precision, their ability to strike certain spots or to strike areas quickly. The former is best reflected by the Rogue's sneak attack (the latter by TWF), but sneak attack isn't helpful if, say, you're trying to swash your buckle with a Fighter or Ranger build without doing much multiclass dipping.
And I think it should be feasible to build a finesse Fighter or Ranger and make them able to excel at hurting their opponents, without feeling like you "have to" multiclass into rogue "to do it right." (Please note quotation marks. There is no "right" and obviously you don't have to.)
Instead of a feat tree that just swaps str for dex as a damage bonus, maybe something that does a small amount of ability damage or bleeding damage instead (it should NOT stack with the similar rogue abilities). That would be a little more interesting than just a stat-for-stat swap. These could be potentially powerful abilities and the prerequisites would have to be mapped out carefully, but it could still work well, I think.
This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you're comparing a character with 5 feats vs a character with 7 feats. It is not an equal comparison. You're skewing the results by giving one character more resources than the other.I at the very least agree with the point about the 2H weapon fighter having two fewer feats that the other character. Part of the argument is that the two feats make up the difference and balance the two.
Do you think you could do the calculations again with the two handed fighter using a curve blade and two additional feats? That way they would be using the same weapon and same number of feats. That should settle the matter.
And I guess my house rule diverged from the focus of the discussion so much that no one paid attention to it, lol. Oh well, I believe that it'll solve the MAD problem in my games at least.
I did do it again with the strength based fighter for an elven curve blade. It is the same total as the dex based character where improved weapon finesse yields 1.5x dex. However there are no other additional feats that could add to the damage of a full attack for a two handed fighter. They simply dont exist in the core rules. I could give him vital strike, or something but it wouldnt make a difference in a comparison of max damage potential.
Either way, they can all fit it, so it doesnt make a huge difference.
But it does matter. When you compare the 2h Str fighter to the 2h Dex fighter with the same number of feats (Str build with EWP and GWF, Dex build with Finesse and Greater Finesse) and the same weapon, with the actual proposed dex-to-damage feat, the 2h Str fighter comes out ahead by roughly 20%. That's a very large advantage to the Str build.
How about this as a comnpromise: a feat that lets you add your Dex to damage on any finessable weapon, half your Dex to an offhand attack, but NOT 1.5 for a 2H. Furthermore, allow Power Attack (still requiring a 13 Str of course) but only getting the -1/+2 benefit as if wielding a 1h if wielding a 2H, and -1/+1 for offhand as usual.
I'd like to see some lvl 10 Fighters statted out with that feat please :P
Alternately we should add Dex 15 as a prerequisite to Improved Critical since you're more adept at striking vulnerable areas, which is (IMHO) clearly a precision/Dex function.
Basically, I allow my players to recieve ability score increases once every odd level, as opposed to every fourth level. However, the ability increases have to be divided between two stats or more. This prevents a player from putting 10 extra points into strength by level 20, instead it has to be 5 points into two different ability scores.
snip
Personally, I like this solution because it allows players to have a much wider variety of options rather than having to dump all their points into a single stat. Though, I guess the MaD classes would often feel like they have to go with Str and Dex, but at least then they can get their weapon finesse feat back and spend it on something else. Plus, the non MaD classes get something out of this too, a Fighter could go Str/Con or Str/Cha, a rogue could do Dex/Int. Monks could do Str/Wis if they wanted. The only problem I see is that this could defeat the purpose of the swashbuckler class unless it was redesigned somehow.
It is an interesting way to reign in optimization, and would probably make better rounded characters. it might help MAD characters more than others, but even the big dumb fighter/barbarian needs 2 strong stats (Str/Con), whereas MAD characters need more, so they would still fall behind, I suspect. would be interesting to hear how that goes in your game.
But, it isn't just about MAD, it is also that it rankles to have to have a high strength character for them to be effective in combat, even if this runs contrary to the character concept. I suppose that I am after a mechanic (other than sneak attack) to allow for that. I think that a dex to damage feat is of interest to any melee class. Hopefully we can balance it in such a way that a fight between same class, different styles (Str vs dex) isn't a foregone conclusion either way. not sure that we are there yet.
How about this as a comnpromise: a feat that lets you add your Dex to damage on any finessable weapon, half your Dex to an offhand attack, but NOT 1.5 for a 2H. Furthermore, allow Power Attack (still requiring a 13 Str of course) but only getting the -1/+2 benefit as if wielding a 1h if wielding a 2H, and -1/+1 for offhand as usual.
I'm confused about why 2HD is being nerfed here instead of TWF.
Alternately we should add Dex 15 as a prerequisite to Improved Critical since you're more adept at striking vulnerable areas, which is (IMHO) clearly a precision/Dex function.
I like this idea, it would serve to even out fighters a bit, but it doesn't do much for monks, for example.
Hitting something in the eye versus the arm will hurt a lot more regardless of the power involved. I agree that in the case of bows being able to use strength is a boon now, farther back the string goes indeed the arrow flies faster and hits harder, but placement is important to (maybe choose +STR dmg or +DEX dmg) but think about crossbows. They have a set amount of power they will be giving each time, so they would be all about placement.I've always wondered why DEX isn't added to ranged damage, I mean the better aim you have the more painful you're shot will be, (of course against things such as oozes it's kinda of a moot as it doesn't matter where you hit them)Being able to hit something doesn't mean you can hit it hard. The farther you can pull back the bowstring...Hitting something in the eye vs the arm is a critical hit vs a normal hit. Which high Dex will help you to achieve by making it more likely you'll confirm your threat rolls.
As for Str, though, historically as well as in stories a high Str has always been associated with archers. Think of Odysseus and his bow which none of the suitors could string or fit an arrow to; on the opposite note, think of Einar Tambarskjelve for why there should be no damage bonus (Str or Dex) for a non mighty bow.
That was merely an example that higher dex means better placement of the shot
But, it isn't just about MAD, it is also that it rankles to have to have a high strength character for them to be effective in combat, even if this runs contrary to the character concept. I suppose that I am after a mechanic (other than sneak attack) to allow for that. I think that a dex to damage feat is of interest to any melee class. Hopefully we can balance it in such a way that a fight between same class, different styles (Str vs dex) isn't a foregone conclusion either way. not sure that we are there yet.
I understand what you mean. I don't think the solution is to let them have dex to damage though. At least in the case of swashbucklers you don't need dex to damage, they already have Int to damage if you're using the complete warrior version. With my houserule, just max Dex and Int and problem solved.
I'm thinking of making that swashbuckler Int to damage ability into a feat that any class can take. It would allow for Dex/Int rogues to do high damage at least. Things get a little harder with Monks though, because a high int monk doesn't quite fit...they're supposed to be high wisdom and they already add wisdom to AC. Of course, at this point a dex monk is just flavor, you get almost the same benefit just from doing a str/wis monk. A dex/wis monk would have less damage, but much higher AC right now...maybe there could be an option to change the class so that wisdom adds to damage instead of AC.
Yea, all this is acomplishing the same thing as putting damage in dex, I just don't like putting too much into one stat. Plus, I just don't see the logic behind doing more damage through dex except by hitting more often or attacking more often.
Either way, they can all fit it, so it doesnt make a huge difference.But it does matter. When you compare the 2h Str fighter to the 2h Dex fighter with the same number of feats (Str build with EWP and GWF, Dex build with Finesse and Greater Finesse) and the same weapon, with the actual proposed dex-to-damage feat, the 2h Str fighter comes out ahead by roughly 20%. That's a very large advantage to the Str build.
This is true, but like i said the fighter will have these feats, so that example is not applicable to an actual game. If there were feats that could add to the damage the 2hander could do then i would agree with you, but there arent. They both have room for greater weapon focus, so that wont push the balance in anyone's favor. They'll both have it. You can use hypethetical (what if the fighter gets less feats then he actually does) but that doesnt exist in the game, applying it to actual characters that will actually be in a game is the only way this makes any sense.
I appreciate that you feel 2 feats is a large cost and I do not, but simply ignoring what I say so that you can keep to that argument is not going to convince me of the truth of your position.