There was a 3.5 feat that did that, although the hit penalty was fierce, -6 or something similar. I certainly wouldn't object to a lesser penalty, like -4.But why would there be another penalty? You already get a penalty for having an offhand weapon.
Because you are doing something that normally requires a full action and you are getting two attacks where anyone else would normally only get one?
Yes, but when you adventure with the equipment your character actually has, instead of what would be optimal...You work to get that equipment.
Obtaining and maintaining a decent stock of consumables is part of being the arcanist in the party. Honestly I'd say it's part of being an adventurer in any role.
At low levels getting a level 1 wand of magic missiles is a very good thing to do. It gives you an action for situations like the one that was described. It also is an action that does a much better job than wasting a feat on something like weapon finesse for an arcanist that's not planning on focusing on touch spells.
-James
Unless you dont WANT to work to get that kind of equipment, or its a low magic game, or the DM don't have ye ole magic shoppes in every town.
A lot of DM's have a intense dislike for Leadership, it creates a lot more bookkeeping, a lot more hassle, and if the DM is worth his dice, the player has to figure out how to feed and transport all his walking targets. Not to mention if its a role-play heavy game you dont want them to simply be targets. Plus, you have to be level 7 before you can take the feat; WF will be helpful for levels 1-6.It seems there are 3 broad types of posters here. Type A want their characters to run perfectly, for max DPR AC and stats, no matter. Type B prefer to have a character concept, even if it is subpar with what they "could" do. Type C are in the center..maxed out characters are a mental exercise, but if the characters not "fun" in a role play sense, they are not going to bother.
I prefer to play normal Str, high Dex, high Con characters myself, and WF fits my concepts. My ranger/rouge may not do the best DPS in the group..but he is fun to play, and effective enough.
|
There was a 3.5 feat that did that, although the hit penalty was fierce, -6 or something similar. I certainly wouldn't object to a lesser penalty, like -4.
thee was a feat that let you make 2 attacks as a standard action at twf penalties. i believe you only made 1 attack roll tho, and precision damage and stuff only got applied once, and if you crit it was only the main weapon that crited
Ah, that was it:
You are an expert skirmisher skilled at fighting with
two weapons. Your extensive training with two weapons
allows you to attack with both while moving through a
chaotic combat or fighting a running battle.
Prerequisites: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-
Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a melee
attack with your primary weapon and your off-hand
weapon. Both attacks use the same attack roll to determine
success, using the worse of the two weapons’ attack
modifiers. If you are using a one-handed or light weapon
in your primary hand and a light weapon in your off hand,
you take a –4 penalty on this attack roll; otherwise you
take a –10 penalty.
Each weapon deals its normal damage. Damage reduction
and other resistances apply separately against each
weapon attack.
Special: When you make this attack, you apply precision-
based damage (such as from sneak attack) only
once. If you score a critical hit, only the weapon in your
primary hand deals extra critical hit damage; your offhand
weapon deals regular damage.
A fighter may select Dual Strike as one of his fighter
bonus feats.
Just to keep things in perspective a bit, look at the long-haul of combat options/styles set up:
2-handers - Power Attack (str 13+ req), and they get about double the bonus all the time w/this one feat. Other than this ... there are no "2-handed" feats out there. With 1 feat buy-in, they get 2x the benefit of the same feat other types would get. They ALSO get weapons that tend to have various options all wrapped into their weapon itself at base (ie: higher damage die, or more damage die, higher damage multipliers, higher crit ranges, OR simply combat options/bonuses on maneuvers - reach, disarm, etc). They ALSO get 1.5 x str as a default bonus on top of the previously mentioned things (which in some cases means a higher damage die for the 2-handed weapon - more leverage apparently, AND then ... another damage bonus ... from more leverage. Wait ... WHAT?!?!?}.
Bottom Line: This is free, and has only 1 feat to be "effective" more or less.
Sword & Board: main thing here is w/NO feats it's already the best (assuming base-line proficiencies). Hvy shield + enchantments can net a +7 to AC over and above what everyone else would have. Add in the shield focuses, and you get +2 more out of this for a +9. Imp. Shield Bash opens up 2-wpn fighting big-time as you now keep that shield bonus AND can bash freely. Tack on the 2-wpn tree, and you're wpn + bashing your way through everything w/a shield (thank god 2-wpn guys get that Two Wpn Defense feat ... for a +1 to AC when dual wielding ... wait, what!?!?!) Give them the 3-deep tree, and they need to do the str/dex split as well ... but they get the boons of a frakkin' shield bonus full on the whole time while doing so (Hmm ... +1 for 2-wpn guys, +9 for these schmucks?!?!?!) - that is just WAY off, IMO. Add Shield Master and now they don't even take the freakin' -2 to hit that the 2-wpn guys do ... ??? OMG!! Seriously!?!?!?!? One more thing - they can Double Slice and 2-Wpn Rend as well (their weapon just happens to be a shield, though ... ), so yeah ... maybe it's a few more feats intense-wise, but my GOD the bonus is FAR outweighing any other style's benefits.
Bottom Line: This style is not even *close* to being balanced ... at all. It is disgustingly powerful, as the baseline, and there is little to recommend NOT going this rout. It out-everything's every other option (seriously - screw whatever bonus damage the 2-hander gets ... this guy's AT LEAST getting a +7 in potential AC bonus over that guy - and it just gets worse if it's a straight classed fighter).
2-wpn styles - 3 feats deep, only fully culminated at level 11 AT EARLIEST for a full bab class. It's a melee style that would require Str to benefit most, yet must be AT LEAST as dedicated, if not MORE dedicated to Dex with the increasing dex requirements (15, 17, 19 respective of progression). Add in more feats that compliment, and are essentially *needed* to make this work, 2 feats, 3 maybe (double slice, two-weapon rend {11th level req}, and two wpn defense to get a shield bonus of +1 ... yippee!!). Add to this the fact that the ONLY time this style gets to be used (and all of those feats, mind you) is in a full attack action ... highly limiting the ability to even use this damn style in the first place. If you want to even attempt to bring this in-line "to hit" wise with the stat splits, you'll probably WANT weapon finesse - and that'll mean knocking down your "big weapon" in the primary hand for a lesser damage one so you can finesse the dang thing.
I forgot one more kick in the pants, you need to use a "light" weapon in the off hand in the first place (ie: lower damage weapon) just to keep pace with your own combat penalties for using the style. So ... another limiting factor amongst at least 4 I've counted so far (split stats, DEEP feat costs, BAB req's, and light wpns). Let alone if you're a fighter looking to specialize in weapons (4 more feats down if you go this rout w/different weapons).
Bottom Line: this style is SO over-regulated that I find it hard to swallow any logic claiming it to be "the most powerful thing out there!" It damn well *should* be for all it DEMANDS in design and character resources ... not freakin' crippled and hobbling across the finish line somehow.
Just to sort of keep the "broad strokes" mentioned.
Now, to relate this back to the thread topic: wpn finesse, should, IMO, be one of those ways to try and make the 2-wpn guys get back in line with the other combat styles. It *demands* high dex, so to reward the combat style for the investment is just something that would make sense to me. It's not about power gaming, it's just about looking at the game demands made on the various styles taken all together.
2-wpn guys get screwed BIG time (is this all about Drizzt/Salvatore hate-on's from design teams or what?), and that's just not right.
S&B guys can not ONLY rip EVERYTHING wholesale from the 2-wpn style ... they ALSO do it better, and get more of a bonus for doing so ...
2-handers are flat out more effective with only 1 real feat of investment for them, and getting a LOT of boons and bonuses above and beyond all other styles (least feat and stat intensive = FAR more player control over focus and design ... but they get a LOT of junk for "free" by default ... again, not even *close* to a fair balance point, IMO).
I disagree. I think that Weapon Finesse is meant for rogues and guys who concentrate on hitting, not hurting.
There is a major difference between a viable build and the optimized build. Weapon finesse is a completely viable build. With it, you will do enough damage to support your party in combat. You can even be a primary damage dealer. You cannot, however, win a DPR contest. Some see this as a problem. I do not. Just about every class has ways to add extra damage other than strength to offset this hit to damage. The power of a dex-based melee build...Weapon Finesse is not a feat you design a melee character arround if you want to be dealing maximum damage, but you can use it to make non-optimized characters who are still quite viable or allow a non-melee character to become viable in melee. I think it works quite well for its intended purpose.If your first statement's implications are true, then there would be no need for a rogue sneak attack concept to balance the character in D&D, but it is there. Since damage is king in D&D (e.g. 1hp enemies fight as well as 1000hp enemies), then damage output is the primary concern for any class where spells are not the #1 option.
Weapon Finesse...no, a viable dexterity-based melee build, is a giant wart on D&D 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder alike. Multiple classes and prestige classes were invented with questionable crunchy mechanics to get around/over/through this serious problem, and in PF the problem still exists, especially for multiclass characters.
We also tend to only focus on the feat-laden fighter, but other classes consider this a problem as well, and due to the lack of feats, it is often a larger problem. For instance, if you want a Paladin but do not want Str to be your #2 stat but want to be high Dex, it cannot be done. Mechanically it is a significantly inferior character, no matter how many feats you throw at it in the game.
Likewise, a melee-oriented Dex ranger pales to any other Str-based melee build in the game. Pathfinder Aragorn has to be high strength, not high Dex, especially in point buy.
+1. Excellent points.
Well if you have Double Slice and Power attack and two light weapons compared to a greatsword:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} x 2
= 2d6 + (2xStr bonus) + (4, +4 per 4 BAB)
1 great sword = 2d6 + (1.5xStr Bonus) + Power Attack (+3, +3 per 4 BAB)
I'd say that damage-wise the TWFer was ahead of the game when they can full attack by one third of the bonus bonus damage that the two-handed fighter inflicts. Yes, they have to burn more feats on it, but it does seem to pay off.
|
The feat I'm playtesting in my game is actually a variant of the Dervish Dance feat from the Qadira Companion, but that works with rapiers.
In fact, the Dervish Dance feat might be the best bet for you if you're looking for an actual published feat that does this type of thing.
I still don't know why the feat didn't open up all one handed light or rapier like weapons to this rule. As it stands, by core/published rules the scimitar now makes a better rapier than a rapier for duelists.
I look forward to seeing the one handed finesse style dex to damage opened up to other weapons. To me this seems like a good enough trade off.
Can't say I would include unarmed attacks into the open list given the monks many attacks. I have to agree that they already do decent enough damage unarmed. Add in their abilities and it's good stuff.
Well if you have Double Slice and Power attack and two light weapons compared to a greatsword:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} x 2
= 2d6 + (2xStr bonus) + (4, +4 per 4 BAB)1 great sword = 2d6 + (1.5xStr Bonus) + Power Attack (+3, +3 per 4 BAB)
In fact is:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} + {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+1, +1 per 4 BAB)}
I was considering making weapon finesse an ability for any character with a Dex of 13+ and a BAB of at least +1 without having to take a feat. So that all characters can make attack rolls using their Dexterity for finessable weapons.
And instead the weapon finesse feat becomes a bonus to your damage. I think that would make finesse even a viable option for a fighter build specialized for dexterity and light armour, instead of strength and heavy armour.
In fact is:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} + {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+1, +1 per 4 BAB)}
Hmm. I was under the impression that Double Slice effected Power Attack as well, but you are right, it doesn't specify that it does, my bad. Nonetheless, the total damage is slightly in favour of the TWFer - and in fact if you use two identical weapons you can then double the bonus from Weapon Specialisation and Weapon Training as well, which puts you back ahead.
Elven curve-blade + Vital Strike could suit you well there, then. Take Improved Critical as well for added effect ...
I don't disagree, I think it should be possible, but on the other hand being able to launch two attacks in a standard action can make a rogue an absolute monster unless you restrict sneak attack damage to only one of the attacks.
|
|
My character uses two hand axes as a concept. Still don't see why I couldn't be able to move and swing with both hands at the same time. Just never made any sense to me.
Honestly IMHO, it should be tied into the Two Weapon feat, that your off hand attack is included in a standard attack.
Far too powerful to have both a move and 2 attacks.
But you just have to remember that the rules are a model (ie, a simplification) for what happens in combat, not what actually happens.
Your character is actually moving AND attacking with his two axes at the same exact moment. It is just the way the rules resolve such a situation that call it a move and a standard attack.
Or, if you prefer, your off hand attack is indeed included in (but not in addition to) the standard attack.
|
|
My character uses two hand axes as a concept. Still don't see why I couldn't be able to move and swing with both hands at the same time. Just never made any sense to me.
Honestly IMHO, it should be tied into the Two Weapon feat, that your off hand attack is included in a standard attack.
Far too powerful to have both a move and 2 attacks.
But you just have to remember that the rules are a model (ie, a simplification) for what happens in combat, not what actually happens.
Your character is actually moving AND attacking with his two axes at the same exact moment. It is just the way the rules resolve such a situation that call it a move and a standard attack.
Or, if you prefer, your off hand attack is indeed included in (but not in addition to) the standard attack.
Um, what?
I took 2wf so I could use weapons with both hands, albeit them being lighter weapons (hence less damage). To me, it doesn't make sense that I cannot move up to someone and not swing with my handaxe from each hand, only the main hand.
I have already taken penalties to hit by using weapons in both hands, with feats I am still at a -2/-2, so why shouldn't I be able to swing both arms after making a move? I am not talking about getting all of your BAB attacks, just also the offhand swing,
for what its worth, when you only swing one theres no -2
My character uses two hand axes as a concept. Still don't see why I couldn't be able to move and swing with both hands at the same time. Just never made any sense to me.
Honestly IMHO, it should be tied into the Two Weapon feat, that your off hand attack is included in a standard attack.
Far too powerful to have both a move and 2 attacks.
But you just have to remember that the rules are a model (ie, a simplification) for what happens in combat, not what actually happens.
Your character is actually moving AND attacking with his two axes at the same exact moment. It is just the way the rules resolve such a situation that call it a move and a standard attack.
Or, if you prefer, your off hand attack is indeed included in (but not in addition to) the standard attack.
I'll add to this. Watch a scene from 300 and count for six seconds. A lot of things are occurring in that time. I think the interpretation of having 1 attack per round with one weapon is more like:
Swing-thrust-slice-(ooo that one hit) duck- swing- swing.
With two weapons its: stab-stab-duck-swing (hit)-duck-swing (hit) -swing
When your BAB goes up you would hit more times with all of those swings and stabs. With two weapons, you have two weapons doing all of the swinging and stabbing, but it is harder to coordinate, so your chance to hit is less, but you hit more often.
I think we are used to equating a single attack per round as a single swing, when it really is the whole dance where only one of those swings gets a chance of actually hitting the target. Or in the cased of TWF, two of those moves has a chance of hitting.
I don't disagree, I think it should be possible, but on the other hand being able to launch two attacks in a standard action can make a rogue an absolute monster unless you restrict sneak attack damage to only one of the attacks.
Aren't there *already* plenty of abilities/feats/whatever that limit Rogue SA's in exactly this way?
That being the case, adding a +1 to this instance to that existing list of "SA only counts once" circumstances is a minor tweak. It'll let 2-wpn types *still* get a benefit from their off hand style during skirmish tactics, and for a rogue, the 2nd hit is just adding insult to injury (at worst. At best, it's a crit and it's *hot damn* insult). I'd be down with this as a "sneak" limitation, though. If it's a *flank* based extra damage, the rogue should probably get his SA damage on both hits (as he normally would/should).
And to whoever said "too powerful" ... *shock face*
You're joking, right? Seriously ... in a game with save or die/suck and save vs. 30 some odd die of damage, you're worried about 1 more *mundane* attack action granted in conjunction with a movement action that a character must invest upwards of 7+ feats to actually manage to utilize in the first place, AND split his stats between Dex and Str to be effective in melee in the first place ... ???
Edit: I totally back Kratzee, though - perfect description of combat and "hits" working in D&D. Complete and total abstraction.
HOWEVER, you know what's not abstracted? The split stats required of 2-weapon fighting. Oh ... and those 7+ feats you need to invest outright. It's not abstract AT ALL. It really *should* count along every step of the combat abstraction, especially if it's that resource/ability intensive. If it's not (as is presently the case) then you have what equates to a resource sink since it eats up a LOT of resources to grant highly situational boons that you can't utilize unless special conditions are first met (ie: full attack I'm lookin' at you!). Characters currently spend what is EASILY a vast majority of their limited resources through character development for this style - it simply does NOT pay off.
No one would complain if the feat literature was written this way:
Weapon Finesse:
Benefit:With light weapons, weapon finesse allows you to add the difference between your STR modifier and your DEX modifier, if dex is higher than str.
Special: If a character with a +2 str modifier, a +4 dex modifier and a BAB of +1 rolled a 10 on a d20 against a creature with an AC of 14, that character would miss (10 +1+2 = 13). With Weapon Finesse, that character would be allowed to add the difference between their dex modifier of +4 and their str modifier of +2, for an extra bonus of +2! That same character, making the same attack using Weapon Finesse, would instead hit the creature of AC 14. (10+1BaB+2 str mod+2 difference between str and dex= 15!)Um, yes we would.
That makes weapon finesse worse than it is now. The problem isn't with the to hit with weapon finesse, it's with the damage.
For instance.... I currently have a +4 from dex to hit right now. with your wording of weapon finesse that would change to a +1. (16 str, 18 dex)
With his wording you would still get your bonus from strength, so you would still be at +4. He is rewording it to sound more like a bonus, but is doing it in a very obtuse way.
Well if you have Double Slice and Power attack and two light weapons compared to a greatsword:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} x 2
= 2d6 + (2xStr bonus) + (4, +4 per 4 BAB)1 great sword = 2d6 + (1.5xStr Bonus) + Power Attack (+3, +3 per 4 BAB)
I'd say that damage-wise the TWFer was ahead of the game when they can full attack by one third of the bonus bonus damage that the two-handed fighter inflicts. Yes, they have to burn more feats on it, but it does seem to pay off.
No not really, unless they get critical effect feats, or sneak attack. You need to factor in strength stats for damage that way, and the minuses to hit due to TWF.
No not really, unless they get critical effect feats, or sneak attack. You need to factor in strength stats for damage that way, and the minuses to hit due to TWF.Well if you have Double Slice and Power attack and two light weapons compared to a greatsword:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} x 2
= 2d6 + (2xStr bonus) + (4, +4 per 4 BAB)1 great sword = 2d6 + (1.5xStr Bonus) + Power Attack (+3, +3 per 4 BAB)
I'd say that damage-wise the TWFer was ahead of the game when they can full attack by one third of the bonus bonus damage that the two-handed fighter inflicts. Yes, they have to burn more feats on it, but it does seem to pay off.
Actually the added damage from using two weapons with bonuses (two small bonuses that add to more than one big one are cheaper, ie 2 x +2 equivelant weapon costs around the same as one +3) racks up in the TWF favour. Once you factor that in, at high level the TWF is going to dish more damage, even if the hit chances are not as good. Those two factors will likely balance each other, putting the TWFer on an even footing with the two-handed fighter. Then you have the bonus damage from weapon specialisation and weapon training, which doubles for the TWFer ...
Actually the added damage from using two weapons with bonuses (two small bonuses that add to more than one big one are cheaper, ie 2 x +2 equivelant weapon costs around the same as one +3) racks up in the TWF favour. Once you factor that in, at high level the TWF is going to dish more damage, even if the hit chances are not as good. Those two factors will likely balance each other, putting the TWFer on an even footing with the two-handed fighter. Then you have the bonus damage from weapon specialisation and weapon training, which doubles for the TWFer ...No not really, unless they get critical effect feats, or sneak attack. You need to factor in strength stats for damage that way, and the minuses to hit due to TWF.Well if you have Double Slice and Power attack and two light weapons compared to a greatsword:
2 light weapons = {1d6 + Str bonus + Power Attack bonus (+2, +2 per 4 BAB)} x 2
= 2d6 + (2xStr bonus) + (4, +4 per 4 BAB)1 great sword = 2d6 + (1.5xStr Bonus) + Power Attack (+3, +3 per 4 BAB)
I'd say that damage-wise the TWFer was ahead of the game when they can full attack by one third of the bonus bonus damage that the two-handed fighter inflicts. Yes, they have to burn more feats on it, but it does seem to pay off.
Every Melee class except for the barbarian has some bonus to damage that can benefit from TWF, so I guess it is not a complete bad idea. The key problem though is the pay off is cut short due to having to get a dex of 19 and getting your strength up as high as possible. It costs more stat points, and a lot of it. So there is no getting around it.
Every Melee class except for the barbarian has some bonus to damage that can benefit from TWF, so I guess it is not a complete bad idea. The key problem though is the pay off is cut short due to having to get a dex of 19 and getting your strength up as high as possible. It costs more stat points, and a lot of it. So there is no getting around it.
You can start with a Dex of 16, which isn't unreasonably high, and plough your increments into it. By the time you need that 19, you have it. You can also use items to boost your Strength up, which boosts damage and everything else.
Actually, the barbarian gets that boost when they rage that can help TWF out quite nicely ... What do you call a raging barbarian TWFer? A blender!
Every Melee class except for the barbarian has some bonus to damage that can benefit from TWF, so I guess it is not a complete bad idea. The key problem though is the pay off is cut short due to having to get a dex of 19 and getting your strength up as high as possible. It costs more stat points, and a lot of it. So there is no getting around it.You can start with a Dex of 16, which isn't unreasonably high, and plough your increments into it. By the time you need that 19, you have it. You can also use items to boost your Strength up, which boosts damage and everything else.
Actually, the barbarian gets that boost when they rage that can help TWF out quite nicely ... What do you call a raging barbarian TWFer? A blender!
I have done the math a long while ago, and with out some bonus damage to both attacks for no extra cost than for one you are better off going TWF.
The only way stat wise it does not hurt you is if you are able to start with a 14 in dex and a 18 in strength and pray you find a +5 book of dex and strength.
When I did the math for the to-hit, damage, feat cost, and gold, a class that gets no bonus to both weapons outside of strength could spend weapon finesse and the entire TWF tree and still be weaker than a if they had not spent any feats and stuck to THF. I can look this up if I must, but please take me for my word on this.
The one problem with the being hit less option is that it doesn't work. The dex-fighter usually has problems getting his AC as high as the tank under any circumstances, he simply cannot 'float like the butterfly' in the system. Further, at high level encounters are often able to hit just about any AC, regardless.
The problem with trying to fix this is that if we are not careful it gives the normally squishy rogue a huge boost as well, and that can upset other forms of balance.
I think that providing an Improved Combat Expertise might be a way around this, providing a boost to the AC bonus of Combat Expertise effectively doubling it's effect up to the Dex limit of their armour, but with no further penalty. As it links to BAB it should restrict the gains the rogue can get out of it.
Me, I would also put a prerequisite of having a STR of 11+ on the feat. Mechanically, it's important not to break the system, and realistically, if you're too weak to properly wield your weapon, no amount of DEX in the world will let you strike with pinpoint lethality while your weapon is dragging on the ground. I mean, look at successful fencers in the real world. Those guys take off their shirts and they are ripped. Maybe not Mr. Universe body builders, but they are definitely strong and fit; and they need to be in order to succeed at their sport.
We're talking about light weapons, so I don't think we need to worry about them dragging on the ground even if the character has a strength of 5. A dagger is sharp and made of metal, making strength unnecessary. Why does everyone have to be ripped or buff or athletic to participate in combat? Who cares if you excel at fencing if you get stabbed when your back is turned?
More importantly, why take away the feat from characters who need it the most? Maybe I want to roleplay a halfling with his lowest stat in strength (8 - 2 racial = 6). My character is feisty and clever and should at least be able to participate in combat. Here's what I think is silly. If he throws a dagger one foot, he gets Dex bonus on the attack roll, but if he keeps the dagger in his hand and stabs with it (which ought to be even more accurate) he not only loses the Dex bonus but incurs the Str penalty as well.
Why not just give Weapon Finesse for free to every character? Then the feat (WF, not Greater WF) can deal with the problem of low damage. Here is a game breaking problem: Dagger for a small character does 1d3 damage; at Str 6 that's 1d3-2. Just because I want to roleplay a small, low strength character doesn't mean he should be hopelessly unplayable. If I know I can only ever do 1 damage, combat is no fun. Every hit is exactly the same: as lame as a hit can possibly be.
Now add in damage reduction and I might as well not even play. Why not make weapon finesse negate some DR so I can at least hope to achieve the heights of total lameness? Why is it game breaking for my character to participate as though he actually exists?
This is all busted.
I am not so sure about Weapon Finesse, but if I was designing from scratch I would give light weapons a +1 to to just because they are easy to wield, and heavy ones a -1.
We're talking about light weapons, so I don't think we need to worry about them dragging on the ground even if the character has a strength of 5. A dagger is sharp and made of metal, making strength unnecessary. Why does everyone have to be ripped or buff or athletic to participate in combat? Who cares if you excel at fencing if you get stabbed when your back is turned?
More importantly, why take away the feat from characters who need it the most? Maybe I want to roleplay a halfling with his lowest stat in strength (8 - 2 racial = 6). My character is feisty and clever and should at least be able to participate in combat. Here's what I think is silly. If he throws a dagger one foot, he gets Dex bonus on the attack roll, but if he keeps the dagger in his hand and stabs with it (which ought to be even more accurate) he not only loses the Dex bonus but incurs the Str penalty as well.
Why not just give Weapon Finesse for free to every character? Then the feat (WF, not Greater WF) can deal with the problem of low damage. Here is a game breaking problem: Dagger for a small character does 1d3 damage; at Str 6 that's 1d3-2. Just because I want to roleplay a small, low strength character doesn't mean he should be hopelessly unplayable. If I know I can only ever do 1 damage, combat is no fun. Every hit is exactly the same: as lame as a hit can possibly be.
Now add in damage reduction and I might as well not even play. Why not make weapon...
Excellent points!
No, no, no. His point is about the arbitrary divide/divorce/whatever of Str and "to hit" from dexterity and "to hit". It should *naturally* be more effective in striking if you have a good dex (ie: you're hand-eye is just better).
However, with the existing abstraction of Str's role in "punching through power" equating to "to hit" bonuses, this is fully side-stepped.
Additionally, the point is made that a low strength character can NEVER make an "effective" strike just because he/she is weak.
I know for a FACT that a midget with a dagger can stab the shite out of me ... BAD ... yet the physics of this game will NEVER allow this to happen ... because he has a low strength score.
It's freakin' weird and totally at odds with anything approaching 'realistic' at all. I believe that's the point being made.
It's fully correct in this observation, however, this system doesn't really try to be "real" in much of anything in the first place, so to make anything in the system more "real" than something else is a freakin' exercise in contradictions as far as I'm concerned.
:shrugs:
Speaker, the problem is, that until they divorce armor protection to getting hit from armor protection in absorbing blows. the dicotomy of Str being needed to hit will persist.
Read as: The whole thing was arbitrarily adjudicated in the first place.
;-)
I agree, though. That, too, is part of the problem. It doesn't stop the other things pointed out from being problems either.
It's freakin' weird and totally at odds with anything approaching 'realistic' at all. I believe that's the point being made.
Thanks Speaker! And even more important than the lack of realism is the lack of fun for the player of the low strength character.
Speaker, the problem is, that until they divorce armor protection to getting hit from armor protection in absorbing blows. the dicotomy of Str being needed to hit will persist.
By "absorbing blows" do you mean DR (for normal armor)? I think that would be a good idea.
Those are good points, but that's the trade-off. If you use a low strength character, You can't really expect to hit terribly hard, though. But if he's clever, finding new weapons to harm his attackers would be good. That awful high chandalier probably does more damage than the small dagger. Positioning, skill, luck, they all come into play, sometimes more than strength.
I'm not asking for a lot, just a hope of contributing something in combat. Do you really believe a clever character should not ever be able to do more than 1 damage with a sharp metal dagger? If it was your character I don't think you'd be happy with your DM telling you, "If you want to do damage, you'll have to rely on your surroundings and find something improbable and heavy to drop on the enemy. That way you will be 100% dependent on my willingness to adjudicate crackpot ideas not covered by the rules."
I understand the gaming value of trade-offs, and I'm not trying to eliminate them. What if the feat allowed you to use Dex instead of Str for bonus damage only if you exceed the roll needed to hit by 4 or more? That way, armor makes it more likely that in spite of the feat you'll need high strength to get past your opponent's defenses. A greater version of the feat could improve your chances so you only need to exceed the roll needed to hit by 2 or more.
Suddenly a low strength character at least has a reason to roll the dice, even though the difficulty of finessing a well-aimed strike still makes it much less likely that this character will do any noticeable damage.
That removal of the 'punching through' power from strength and replacing it with the 'accurate striking' power of dexterity is what Weapon Finesse fundamentally is. It's easy to bash someone with a big stick and not worry about hitting them where it hurts. It does actually take skill to aim for the gaps in their protection in the cut and thrust of a real, chaotic fight.
That said, inflicting damage does take two things: Strength and precision. Strength is easy, precision can be represented by Power Attack (a contradiction in terms, but it works).
Realistically, the midget with a dagger makes you laugh before you get stabbed. The seven foot tall guy who looks like Ving Rhames on steriods and vicodin, wielding that same dagger, however, makes you wet yourself. Why is that? Because stronger people hurt more. That, I think is what they're trying to get across. Yeah, they both kill you, but the midget has to either get lucky enough for a critical, or stab you a lot, where the Ving Rhames guy just has to get lucky enough to hit you before you slip on your own urine.
Wow! You must have NO idea of how *easy* it is to be killed with a dagger.
You might laugh at the little guy, not take him seriously, and in that 2-seconds of "What? a midget? REALLY???" He's on you and punctured a lung already (or found the weak spot in the armor). By then, you're gasping for breath, lungs are filling with blood, and you KNOW you are moments away from death.
Ving Rhames comes anywhere NEAR me, my adrenaline's up and pumping and I'm running like a freakin' gazelle on crack to escape!!!! Point being, I'm FAR more likely to be "defensive" in your scenario and maybe last a little longer than outright assuming "he's small, can't *possibly* hurt me!" with the little guy.
ANY weapon can 1-hit kill anyone ... but that's realism, and as FAR from this game as possible. So, I object to your realistic scenario as it's as unreal as the rest of the system already is. :shrugs:
Seriously, it's just full on "not real" at all. This is the mechanics and assumptions hard-coded into the system. Weapon finesse was a goood idea, but it needs more to approach "real" or at least "alternate" combat effective options for character design.
I mean, consider this: str ALWAYS modifies damage. So, take the weak fighter guy (not *class* mind you, but a combatant) - he can only use a darn dagger in the fist place because it's hard to swing a sword (just go with this, ok?). So, he wants Weapon Finesse, he'll be a "target/skill" fighter in the end as he's a freakin' wimp (say a -2 str mod). Now, give him say that +3 in Dex mod (for example), and he can w/wpn finesse hit with a +3 instead of the -2 from str. It's good - he can now increase his striking ability by spending 1 feat (limited, unchangable resoursce) to *change the default assumptions of the system design*. This is "fair" IMO as the system WANTS to reward STR and ONLY str, but this feat allows for a alternative that's reasonable (though not the default). Now, his damage is still crap. 1d4-2, and if he's small, it's worse again (1d3-2). This is pure CRAP!!!! Guy will NEVER be effective and can only kill shit that he can last enough rounds standing and delivering 1 pt/dmg/round of combat and HOPE the darn thing NEVER hits back. He's *literally* reduced to "pecking" the enemy to death ... not only is this not fun. Play it out ... play out only 3 rounds, and if he's NOT dead, it's boring as all hell I'm sure. Who wants to do this - mechancially speaking?
Now, one simple proposed change (and getting back to the purpose of the thread), what if you just add the dex damage in the wpn finesse description? The little guy above is striking for 1d3 -2 (str) +3 (dex), or 1d3+1. This sounds perfectly *fair* for investing a feat.
Carry this out to the crazy penalized TWF-ers, and say a str mod of maybe +2 tops, and the dex at +4 (19 dex needed to get the top line feat), and the damage would be a +6 at most ... but it's for a guy that's dedicated himself to striking accurately with a feat, and is paying feat-taxes out the wazoo!
Hell, if it's too much, a few more alternatives (likely already covered):
2) Grant only 1/2 dex bonus to damage.
3) Full swap out of Str to dmg for Dex to dmg (ie: ignore STR outright from design assumptions).
4) Make the "damage part" of any of the above into a separate feat and let that be a 2-feat "replacement" cost for building a character that *dared* to be reasonable in design/premise vs. running w/the company line on "str is melee king always!"
:shrugs:
Whatever ... I NEVER let non-sense design assumptions stop me from retooling ANYTHING to fit my games and tastes. The game is there for MY enjoyment and to serve MY playing tastes. If I can't adjust something because it's "wrong" I really want NOTHING to do with such a product.
Tell *me* how to have my "bad, wrong, fun" will it ... *PFFTTT*
:-P
Feats that scale with a stat modifier are incredibly powerful. Stick to static benefits. Otherwise you quickly become grossly overpowered when compared to other feats.
+1
Zo