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...
I get where you are coming from, I really do, but you are missing some aspects of the system: That little guy that uses a dagger to kill you while you are laughing at him isn't a fighter, systemically he's either a monk (use fob to hit multiple times) or more likely a rogue. That dagger isn't killing you by strength damage, it's killing you by sneak attack.
That's where the precision damage is. What may be an idea is a simple feat that inflicts +1d6 precision damage as a 'sneak attack'. It should be limited to +(level/2)d6 total when combined with SA, but then you have the option for the smart fighter to get in some seriously damaging hits ...
Make a feat that adds dex to damage as precision damage that also requires weapon finesse and x dex. Because it's flat dex, you don't get 1 1/2 benefits like you do from strength, nor does it increase on a crit, nor does it work on some creatures.
Seems fair to me.
@Dabbler - I'm not missing *anything* man. I fully *get* the defaults of the system and how/why it works as it does. However, since this was about shortcomings of those defaults - I pointed out where they fall short.
As to some specifics, a monk flurrying with a weapon, even the weak, short one, is still at wpn damage (since the unarmed stuff doesn't apply to them w/wpns - whole separate thread there), so, he'll flurry, sure ... for 1 pt of damage each time (still assuming the low str, short guy here). Whoopee!!! Even at his TOP flurry, he's striking for a whole 6 points of damage - IF every one of those strikes w/his flurry get to connect on the to hit chances. Basically, still not getting it done.
Now, to the rogue, sure - they've got the precision thing going. But what about the short, not so strong Fighter? The one that's more finesse based, over power? Point being, there *should* be an option to get a "primary fighting class" (read as Full bab progression) that can deal damage in an effective way BESIDES just going strength as the basis. Now, the whole system's assumption is based around "str is king of melee" period ... thus, making darn near any change to that str for combat into something problematic (thus, all the constant posts about "balance this" or "broken that" in here). I'm not saying it's not - however, this doesn't stop it from being a problem in design/mechanics/whatever for those of us that would like to see an effective "fighting" class based NOT around strength, but Dex, agility, and "skill" more than power (ie: Strength). The systems defaults go OUT OF THEIR WAY to cause problems for such builds ...
:shrugs:
Just the nature of the beast. Hey, if anything, I'm just calling a spade a spade really. D&D does NOT want to have a non-strong "fighting" character EVER. Like ... AT ALL. Everything in the system is stacked and designed to stymie the concept. A Rogue will NEVER actually get the fighting options of a Fighter simply for lack of feats. So, damage might get up there, but his AC will suck, and 95% of the class is simply put to waste for this concept. PF at least bumped the hd a bit, so it's not *as* bad as 3.x, but it's still pretty bad. There's only 2 talents that are about *combat*, and the rest are all Rogue, all the time. NOT going to make an "agile, skilled fighter" concept work out at all.
There are feats ... but then, every existing feat falls very, very, VERY short for execution. Improved Feint and it's improvement ... this can help the rouge guy, but then it's a *move* action to do this, and it fully ONLY helps a rogue (SA bonus for the "flat/dex denied" status). On a fighter-build ... what's the point? Seriously? It *might* be a good idea if messin' w/a Monk or something ... anything with some Crazy high Dex/dodge mods to AC. Outside of this, it's *literally* a useless path for a fighter of any skill and dedication to pursue ... and that's SO far from "reality" I breaks my belief every time I ponder it a little bit. Hell, in 2e it at least was useful consistently for anyone that wanted to do it. Now ... god. Unless you're a rogue, useless path to pursue (again, FAR from the reality of combat - if you fake someone out, you are BOUND to whoop 'em real good). If Feint is to be taken seriously, it needs to improve even beyond *move* action to a *swift* or something like that, so you can use your 1st attack (or some other one if you'd rather) to set up your target character in a full attack, and then lay on the pain with the following strikes. IMO, that "greater" version should have done that in the first place since the dang feat was split in two in the first place. You still give up 1 attack to "feint", but then (if in position for full attack in the first place) you can at least get your other attacks in vs. being restricted to a standard action only (again - even MORE useless for the fighter over the rogue).
We started w/Finesse, and it's shortcomings have been made apparent, so no re-hash on that front.
Now, this all said, the MOST promising things I've read/heard just happened in the last 4-5 posts. Seriously, GREAT ideas put forth, IMO, for making these things much more viable.
Maezer's ideas of a parallel to wpn sp. but "precision" based is ... just beautiful! I love that idea!!!! Good points overall in the post, but that is "finesse-fighter gold" right there.
Prof's ideas on *how* to specifically add Dex to dmg, and how to limit it are also fantastic.
@Kairn: we've left "useful" a long while back I think. No one denies it's useful, it's the "how to make the finesse character concept MORE viable given that the ENTIRE system is extremely, EXTREMELY biased against it?" that we're mostly discussing. I don't think anyone's said that for a straight rogue it's not useful, but it's ONLY useful due to the SA mechanics in play for the Rogue character (ie: something fully NOT even achievable in play by a Fighter-type of character).
Currently in pathfinder, any build using Weapon Finesse is basically non-viable. The bonus damage from Strength is the single best method of dealing damage with a weapon, especially when using two-handed weapons, and the bonus from power attack is just gravy.
When you play with a rogue with 20 dex and 12 str and size small, and they take weapon fineness, it all makes sense.
Not all feats are for all classes or all builds, this is a fantastic option for the above mentioned rogue. He now has a +5 to hit instead of +1 for ability bonus, and all of his rogue skills still get the benefit of having the 20 dex.
Currently in pathfinder, any build using Weapon Finesse is basically non-viable. The bonus damage from Strength is the single best method of dealing damage with a weapon, especially when using two-handed weapons, and the bonus from power attack is just gravy.
When you play with a rogue with 20 dex and 12 str and size small, and they take weapon fineness, it all makes sense.
Not all feats are for all classes or all builds, this is a fantastic option for the above mentioned rogue. He now has a +5 to hit instead of +1 for ability bonus, and all of his rogue skills still get the benefit of having the 20 dex.
I don't think anyone's really challenged the utility of a finessed rogue, though.
What about a finessed fighter? How does this work?
{rhetorical as, we already know the answer is, "It can't."}
Heck, it doesn't even need to be a finesse fighter.
How about anyone that's not a dual wielding high level rogue?
D&D != real life.
Monks punch through people. Seriously.
Monks punch through people.
Right through them.
Holy crap. Did I just get defended? I thought that I was next in line to be lit on fire, behind Mr. Fishy! But Dabbler, I like that feat. How would it work. Just like sneak attack, or some other way? Could you write that up as a feat? I'd like to use that.
Well, it's basically Sneak Attack but as a feat, limited to a max of 1/2 your character level in bonus d6 of damage in total.
Speaker In Dreams, I totally understand where you are coming from. The system does have it's shortcomings, I agree. Thing is, being bigger and stronger does have a lot of advantages in a fight, as does skill and precision. It's the mechanics of combining these that isn't easy.
That little guy that uses a dagger to kill you while you are laughing at him isn't a fighter, systemically he's either a monk (use fob to hit multiple times) or more likely a rogue. That dagger isn't killing you by strength damage, it's killing you by sneak attack.
He could also be a wizard, cleric, or fighter. A fighter with 6 Strength should be playable.
That's where the precision damage is. What may be an idea is a simple feat that inflicts +1d6 precision damage as a 'sneak attack'. It should be limited to +(level/2)d6 total when combined with SA, but then you have the option for the smart fighter to get in some seriously damaging hits ...
For a fighter who wants to avoid multiclassing, that could be a nice feat. For some, sneak attack might not fit the character concept, unless the suggested feat only resembles sneak attack mechanically (I can't tell if that's what you mean). Someone might be interested in role-playing a character like Sir Didymus in Labyrinth or Reepicheep in Narnia who values bravery and a fair fight. That should be playable.
Make a feat that adds dex to damage as precision damage that also requires weapon finesse and x dex.
Maezer suggested some interesting feats with minimum Dex 17 and 19. I dislike minimum ability scores above 13. What's the point of going so far to make a feat unusable by most characters? Of course, I don't know what you had in mind for "x".
Also, I think two feats is too much to charge just to make a character playable. Either Weapon Finesse should be free for all characters, or it should include a limited application of Dex instead of Str bonus to damage.
..., nor does it increase on a crit, ...
I'm OK with that.
..., nor does it work on some creatures.
However, I thought the trend in Pathfinder has been to remove exceptions that once exempted creature types from things like critical hits and precision damage.
When you play with a rogue with 20 dex and 12 str and size small, and they take weapon fineness, it all makes sense.
Not all feats are for all classes or all builds, this is a fantastic option for the above mentioned rogue. He now has a +5 to hit instead of +1 for ability bonus, and all of his rogue skills still get the benefit of having the 20 dex.
I dislike the idea of feats designed with specific builds in mind. One measure of how good a feat is is how widely usable it is by many different characters. Highly specific feats lead to feat proliferation.
What about a finessed fighter?
Exactly!
Add int to damage, yes. Not dex
That's an interesting idea too. But what do you have against Dex? What did it ever do to you? :)
The Duelist PrC already gets Int bonus to AC, similar to Monk's Wis bonus to AC. I think an Int bonus to damage also makes sense with an appropriate feat. Why not? Let Str be king of melee damage, but allow other ways to partly compensate for lower Str at least some of the time, enough to make rolling the dice worthwhile.
DnD did its best to make things functional and easy to understand in 3e. They messed some stuff up, but they got most of it right. Adding dex to damage, while it might not unbalance the system more, is still a mistake on principle. As agile as you are, being faster and more coordinated doesn't make you know where the most damaging place to hit someone is. Training does. KNOWLEDGE and raw power.
Emphasis mine, BUT ... isn't that EXACTLY what feats are in the first place? Training???
Thus, why the following statement is all the more true and DIRECTLY stating the source of the problem ...
[QUOTE'"Dabbler"]Thing is, being bigger and stronger does have a lot of advantages in a fight, as does skill and precision. It's the mechanics of combining these that isn't easy.
It really can't be stated any more plainly than that. D&D/Pathfinder's assumptions put EVERYTHING it had behind "str is king" as the paradigm. The result of this is that there *is* no way to reintroduce/combine/whatever dexterity into the combat role w/out "breaking" those assumptions.
Clearly, some feel that to break this assumption/design philosophy/paradigm is tantamount to "unbalance" or "breakage" of the system's core.
:shrugs:
They're not *wrong* in this, either - it TOTALLY goes counter to the "str is king" design principals. However ... it's also FULLY counter-intuitive and unreasonable in the extreme given the vast amount of abstractions overall in the system (HP are an abstraction, "to hit" is an abstraction, as is damage itself). With so many things being *fuzzy* in a specific manner, the fact that one very popular and valid archetype (lightly armed and armored combatant) has been held at bay and made *unplayable* reeks of wrong to me.
Consider this, as simply counter-examples to the "hey - they're strong, I *should* get my ass kicked!" What if they're crazy pro-muscle men/body builders that have SO distorted their bodies that they, LITERALLY, can't put their arms down? You know - guys w/the flare out lats? Even at rest these guys can't freakin' *move* right. Put 'em up against a trained killer - a little, wirey guy that's *trained* for it (ie: feat investments if you will), and who's going down? The non-mobile tank? Or the killer that KNOWS both how to fight well (ie: full bab) and how to maximize HIS own abilities (ie: feats)? My $'s going on the trained killer, and NOT because he sneak-attacks, either. It's because he knows where/how to carve the other guy up better and can make his blows land where they're supposed to land (ie: coordination/dexterity) compared the muscle-bound oaf that's flailing powerful swings all day long, but can't connect to this other guy that's carving him up like a thanksgiving turkey.
Point Being: There are *at least* as many ways to create a situation in which coordination is FAR more important (and even/especially going with invocation of "realism" too) than strength because IF YOU CAN'T make a coordinated action, you're not going to hit a darn thing in the first place - follow?
So, it brings us back to Dabbler's statement about describing the interaction that both str and dex have in conjunction of combat matters quite a bit. The existing D20 assumptions simply pushes Dex OUT of the combat effectiveness equation for all things minus defenses. That stated, it *did* open a small doorway through advanced and dedicated training (ie: feats) to allow Dex to matter in figuring into the "to hit" portion of combat. So, the precedent was laid down that "a feat can change some combat interactions" in the presentation of Feats from day 1. Carrying out this little teaser is kind of what this is mostly about.
On the flip/reverse side of this, I'd bet that a case can be made for allowing Str to factor into defensive qualities as well. Such as "blocking" for instance. A stronger person can probably Block directly any incoming, and opposing force pretty well. I don't mean *shield* block so much as using a weapon, or stepping forward to prevent the arc of an incoming weapon from reaching full momentum in the swing, etc. Point being, maybe a feat could be made to allow Str to affect AC a little bit for much the same reason that Dex can apply to damage in combat - ie: there's a *reasonable* evidence/application in the RW for such things to be true.
On that SA feat thing ... man, +10d is a LOT of SA to be available, and it totally stomps on the rogue, IMO, if it can go that high. I'd suggest maybe a +5d limit instead, and even let rogues pick up this feat and add it to their own SA die (+15 d total if they put 5 feats into it, yes?).
I'd also want to either adjust the 2nd level of Feinting feat to reduce the Move-Swift, or Free action for using the maneuver in the first place (ie: to allow for use in full attack actions and usable w/all subsequent/lesser attacks that remain), or make a 3rd feat in the tree to grant this.
As a damage adjuster itself to parallel the Weapon Specialization rout, I've got the following thing I do in my own games, and I think I'd modify it for Dex-build/finesse fighters as well:
There is no Greater Wpn Sp. The baseline Wpn Sp just scales upwards at a +1 to damage/2 bab points. This mirrors the existing boons in the low levels (+2 by 4th, and +4 by 8th), but also expands the utility into higher levels where casters literally re-make the freakin' universe over and stuff. I figure a few more damage points won't be the end of the world this way.
So, my thought on the Dex would be like this: limit the damage gain from coordination to not exceed the character's own coordination boons (ie: the Dex bonus mod would be the TOP gain for any character using this). It's also tied to skill, so it will key off of BAB points just like the Wpn Sp does. It's still wpn/skill based, though, so it can work to mutiply on a critical hit, though it would still remain ineffective against the few remaining crit-immune circumstances in PF that are left.
In very, VERY rough form something like what's below ...
FEAT NAME X {seriously, just nothing at the moment}
The character has trained to make deadly, precise strikes based around targeting weak points in armor, or vulnerable targets of opportunity on the anatomy during combat.
Benefit: This allows a character to add 1/2 his BAB to his damage inflicted with any finesse weapon up to a limit of his Dex bonus x2.
Example: A character w/an 18 dex and a bab of +6 would be entitled to a +3 damage bonus with this feat. He has a dex bonus of +4, but his bab is limiting it's application to only a +3 (1/2 of 6). This character would top out his damage gain when his bab reaches +8 if his dex remains unchanged.
Special: This damage is unique in that it adds to damage inflicted, but will not work against targets immune to critical hits. Unlike most bonuses of this type (such as sneak attack) it will multiply on critical hits. It can NOT benefit from a 1.5 x dex bonus if wielded in one hand like the Str bonus to damage.
>Incoming troll<
HERE"SSS an idea, instead of argue about balanced and "realisic" may be some of us should test some of these feats in your home games and report back if it worked and you liked it or it sucked and you where lit on fire by you players. You can drop the feat on an NPC at first. That way you don't have to pry it for the cold dead hands of a player.
Don't look at Mr. Fishy that way we all know how players are.
That's where the precision damage is. What may be an idea is a simple feat that inflicts +1d6 precision damage as a 'sneak attack'. It should be limited to +(level/2)d6 total when combined with SA, but then you have the option for the smart fighter to get in some seriously damaging hits ...For a fighter who wants to avoid multiclassing, that could be a nice feat. For some, sneak attack might not fit the character concept, unless the suggested feat only resembles sneak attack mechanically (I can't tell if that's what you mean). Someone might be interested in role-playing a character like Sir Didymus in Labyrinth or Reepicheep in Narnia who values bravery and a fair fight. That should be playable.
I would say it is mechanically the same as sneak attack, but attributable to precision.
Another feat would be Deadly Aim if it could be combined with Weapon Finesse and a finesseable weapon - it strikes me as silly that you can damage more seriously using a precise missile attack but can't do the same up close with a rapier or dagger.
>Incoming troll<
HERE"SSS an idea, instead of argue about balanced and "realisic" may be some of us should test some of these feats in your home games and report back if it worked and you liked it or it sucked and you where lit on fire by you players. You can drop the feat on an NPC at first. That way you don't have to pry it for the cold dead hands of a player.
Don't look at Mr. Fishy that way we all know how players are.
I have four players that use a homebrew feat which adds Dex to finessable weapons instead of Str. I've also given it to numerous NPC's. In two months of play I've seen agile combat characters be viable, but be unable to compare to Power Attacking two handers. Such a thing cannot break or overwhelm a game. The arguements are illogical and baseless.
I have proof it works without being abusive. Four of my eight players wanted dextrous characters who could contribute to combat and that's what we all got.
>Incoming troll<
HERE"SSS an idea, instead of argue about balanced and "realisic" may be some of us should test some of these feats in your home games and report back if it worked and you liked it or it sucked and you where lit on fire by you players. You can drop the feat on an NPC at first. That way you don't have to pry it for the cold dead hands of a player.
Don't look at Mr. Fishy that way we all know how players are.
I have four players that use a homebrew feat which adds Dex to finessable weapons instead of Str. I've also given it to numerous NPC's. In two months of play I've seen agile combat characters be viable, but be unable to compare to Power Attacking two handers. Such a thing cannot break or overwhelm a game. The arguements are illogical and baseless.
I have proof it works without being abusive. Four of my eight players wanted dextrous characters who could contribute to combat and that's what we all got.
Fan-TAS-tic, man!
This is good news!!!
*applauds loudly pointing at Hexcalibur*
Love the suggestion, to, Mr. Fishy!
*thumbs up*
D&D != real life.
Monks punch through people. Seriously.
Monks punch through people.
Right through them.
It's true. I've seen it happen. They do it all the time. The Dhali Lama is also repulsed.by Protection against Good. It's amazing. (We can all agree that the Dhali Lama is a lvl 20 monk, right?)
DnD did its best to make things functional and easy to understand in 3e. They messed some stuff up, but they got most of it right. Adding dex to damage, while it might not unbalance the system more, is still a mistake on principle. As agile as you are, being faster and more coordinated doesn't make you know where the most damaging place to hit someone is. Training does. KNOWLEDGE and raw power.
I wasn't talking about real life monks.
I thought my point about D&D != real life was fairly clear on that, but I suppose I should try this again. However, I will be utitlizing all capital letters because it makes it sound like I'm yelling.
D&D != REAL LIFE
HERE ARE A LIST OF THINGS D&D DOES NOT EQUATE TO: 1) REAL LIFE
IF A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS, AND NOBODY HEARS IT, DOES D&D EQUATE TO REAL LIFE? NO.
HOW MUCH REAL LIFE WOULD A D&D EQUATE TO IF A D&D COULD EQUATE TO REAL LIFE? NONE.
WHAT IS REAL LIFE? BABY DON'T EQUATE TO ME. DON'T EQUATE TO ME. NO MORE.
IS THIS THE REAL LIFE? IS THIS JUST FANTASY? CAUGHT IN A LANDSLIDE, NO ESCAPE FROM REALITY. WAIT NO, YEAH, IT'S JUST FANTASY.
Ahem, that should be all. Incidentally, if we were really going to demand realism, then dex would be the to hit for all rolls, melee or ranged, and yet I see nobody advocating for that.
Heck, it doesn't even need to be a finesse fighter.
How about anyone that's not a dual wielding high level rogue?
ranger?
Also don't forget that some people roll stats in order, so stats wont always be maximized for the class. In some of the cases where you are using non optimized stats, this might be viable also for fighter or monk or whoever.
|
What about a finessed fighter? How does this work?{rhetorical as, we already know the answer is, "It can't."}
Did you even LOOK at the fighter I posted way earlier in this thread? He IS a finesse fighter and more than holds his own in a fight. I can deliver 2d8+8 a round pretty well every round. Most of the Str based fighters I play with miss as often as they hit. I missed ONCE in the last game I played because I attacked thru full cover.
Heck, it doesn't even need to be a finesse fighter.
How about anyone that's not a dual wielding high level rogue?
ranger?
Also don't forget that some people roll stats in order, so stats wont always be maximized for the class. In some of the cases where you are using non optimized stats, this might be viable also for fighter or monk or whoever.
What about ranger? TWF ranger is terrible.
D&D != real life.
Monks punch through people. Seriously.
Monks punch through people.
Right through them.
It's true. I've seen it happen. They do it all the time. The Dhali Lama is also repulsed.by Protection against Good. It's amazing. (We can all agree that the Dhali Lama is a lvl 20 monk, right?)
DnD did its best to make things functional and easy to understand in 3e. They messed some stuff up, but they got most of it right. Adding dex to damage, while it might not unbalance the system more, is still a mistake on principle. As agile as you are, being faster and more coordinated doesn't make you know where the most damaging place to hit someone is. Training does. KNOWLEDGE and raw power.I wasn't talking about real life monks.
I thought my point about D&D != real life was fairly clear on that, but I suppose I should try this again. However, I will be utitlizing all capital letters because it makes it sound like I'm yelling.
D&D != REAL LIFE
HERE ARE A LIST OF THINGS D&D DOES NOT EQUATE TO: 1) REAL LIFE
IF A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS, AND NOBODY HEARS IT, DOES D&D EQUATE TO REAL LIFE? NO.
HOW MUCH REAL LIFE WOULD A D&D EQUATE TO IF A D&D COULD EQUATE TO REAL LIFE? NONE.
WHAT IS REAL LIFE? BABY DON'T EQUATE TO ME. DON'T EQUATE TO ME. NO MORE.
IS THIS THE REAL LIFE? IS THIS JUST FANTASY? CAUGHT IN A LANDSLIDE, NO ESCAPE FROM REALITY. WAIT NO, YEAH, IT'S JUST FANTASY.
Ahem, that should be all. Incidentally, if we were really going to demand realism, then dex would be the to hit for all rolls, melee or ranged, and yet I see nobody advocating for that.
I know? The Dhali Lama isn't really repulsed by Protection from Good. I was lying, and I was wrong to do that.
What I was trying to say is that shot placement alone won't cause more damage. You have to be able to identify what you're seeing. If you can hit a target the size of a dime...
Or add dex to damage because shot placement alone will cause more damage because it's dungeons and dragons and the monk just punched through someone.
Did you even LOOK at the fighter I posted way earlier in this thread? He IS a finesse fighter and more than holds his own in a fight. I can deliver 2d8+8 a round pretty well every round. Most of the Str based fighters I play with miss as often as they hit. I missed ONCE in the last game I played because I attacked thru full cover.
What about a finessed fighter? How does this work?{rhetorical as, we already know the answer is, "It can't."}
Yeah ... I did. Did *you* read the part about being "full BAB"? Or would you like explicitly stated as "non-multi-classed fighter" instead?
A Fighter should be king of fighting ... ALL of fighting. Currently, the finessed, lightly armored fighter is a NON-VIABLE fighter.
This does not change by mutli-classing a fighter with Rogue. You give up "fighter" levels to pull off something the fighter *should* be able to do in the first place. Picking up all the rogue-levels invests 90% of those levels into "not fighter" in order to pick up 1 feature of interest (Sneak Attack).
Need this trade off spelled out as well? Ok ... Things irrelevant to the "lightly armed and armored fighter" by crossing into Rogue nets this:
*lowers HD - on average 1 hp/level. Wait, so the fighter now will NOT last as long and is giving up his *staying power* in combat to manage this style if this is your answer.
*lowers BAB - -1 bab/4 level dip, -5 bab/5 level intervals. So ... he gives up his combat ability directly. He's now LESS likely to strike and be effective at his *best* ability in-game if this is your answer as well.
*many more class-skills - PF already minimized non-class skills in the first place, so ... most of these are irrelevant to the fighter doing what he does best (ie: you don't build a fighter to be a skill monkey). So this is nice, but how/why would this matter to the fighter concept above? Answer - it really doesn't.
*many more skill points - again, how is that concept demanding of "skill monkey" status? Answer - it really isn't.
*Rogue Talents - seriously. The title ALONE says where the focus of this lies. The greatest *boons* of this are in things rogues do - not fighters. There are what, 2 combat-feat options as talents? Again - any fighter can just make 'em as feats and be done. What's gained through this path instead? Answer - nothing.
*Sneak Attack - grants extra damage on attacks from flanking position or feinting, or catching a flat-footed/dex denied target unready for you. This is the ONLY thing that does suit the concept in the whole list of things that "rogue" brings to the table for this guy.
*Good Ref Save - this is as opposed to the Fort save ... not a bad idea to have a good Ref save. But, IMO, a better idea is to have good saves where you've got weak stats. As described, the finesse fighter concept would have his BEST stat as his Dex, by default improving his dex-based Ref Save anyway. I don't want to call it non-relevant as a good save progression is good to have, but the level proposed is minor (+3 bump at best), and the Fort save takes the hit for the effort (ie: it's lower than it would otherwise be). I'll call it a "no net gain" either way and sort of neutral in application - not a boon, or a hindrance - just a shift.
ok, I'm pretty sure that's everything on the rogue. 1 neutral result for the finesse fighter concept, 5 things that have NOTHING to do with the concept and are rogue-intensive investments (imagine that for a Rogue class, eh?), and 1 that is of benefit to the finesse fighter concept. I'm not a big #'s guy, but 5:1 seems like a terrible reason to multi-class.
I can even call it 4:2, though, w/the Rogue Talents - there's *only* 2 in the proposed selection, and there are exactly that many combat options of utility to the concept. However, this guy gives up 4 levels of fighter to pull it off. This means giving up Weapon Mastery and the last +1/+1 of Weapon Training as a bonus, as well as Armor Training Mastery, and 2 feats (that are actually exchanged in this case - so only a parenthetical notation worthy). Yeah ... that's a LOT to give up as a Fighter, IMO, over the 20-level growth of a character. He'll NEVER be able to be as good a fighter as the other fighters are fighters (jeez .. say that a few times fast ...), and his gain? +2d6 sneak attack damage provided that *the stars align* right for him in combat.
EDIT: Darn! Read the wrong build attributed to you. My bad. :-( However, that stands for the people that proposed Rogue levels as a solution. {Tim was NOT one of these people!!}
Your build is ok and dependent on leaving all things as they stand. It does nothing other than show "here's what it looks like under current restrictions" and we're already at the point of exposing the system's skeletal structures. Ie: the point isn't that you *can* make something *sort* of like that now, but that the system is prejudiced against such builds in general. I also question that +8 you have on the wpn dmg stats. +1 for training, +2 specialization, +2 str, +2 enchant = +7 ... where'd the extra +1 come from? {not that it matters, just noticed it is all}
Another feat would be Deadly Aim if it could be combined with Weapon Finesse and a finesseable weapon - it strikes me as silly that you can damage more seriously using a precise missile attack but can't do the same up close with a rapier or dagger.
Nice idea! This is like the point you made about Power Attack earlier, but better because Deadly Aim requires 13 Dex whereas Power Attack requires 13 Str.
I think that light weapons should always (without a feat) allow either of the following for attack bonus:
- Str
- Average of Dex bonus and Str bonus, rounded up
So a 1st level halfling fighter with 6 Str and 16 Dex would get +3 attack with light weapons (+1 BAB; +1 size bonus; +1 avg Str and Dex), rather than +0 attack (+1 BAB; +1 size bonus; -2 Str) under current Pathfinder rules. That's more playable and hardly overpowered, since light weapons do low damage and damage is still gimped by low Str.
On top of that I'd redefine Deadly Aim to include melee attacks with light weapons. Assuming the rule above, the same halfling wielding a dagger is (+3 attack, 1d3-2 damage) without the feat and (+2 attack, 1d3 damage) with the feat. That's hardly overpowered for one feat.
I'd also redefine Weapon Finesse to apply the light weapon rule (above) to damage. If the same halfling took this version of Weapon Finesse instead of Deadly Aim, he'd get (+3 attack, 1d3+1 damage) with a dagger, making Weapon Finesse a better choice for melee than Deadly Aim (which seems fair, since Weapon Finesse does not benefit ranged attacks).
With his 1st level Fighter bonus feat, he could have both Weapon Finesse and Deadly Aim (as defined above). Combining the two would give him (+2 attack, 1d3+3 damage).
Hooray! That's playable, but not nearly as good having high Str and using a better weapon. For example, imagine the same halfling with 13 Str, 13 Dex, and a small longsword. Instead of Weapon Finesse and Deadly Aim, he would take Weapon Focus and Power Attack, giving him (+3 attack, 1d6+3 damage).
Alternatively, Weapon Finesse could still allow Dex bonus instead of either of the two bonuses listed above. That way it would still provide the same bonus that it does currently, but less benefit over normal bonuses without the feat. Another feat, Finesse Strike, would provide the damage bonus described above. Both feats would have the same prerequisite; Finesse Strike would not require Weapon Finesse.
Just on an FYI - Power Attack *can* be used w/light weapons already. Not being able to do this was a 3.x artifact that PF updated. It's still Str 13+ req, though ...
So, for all the people who seem to think you need more damage as a weapon finnesse fighter, I have to ask: why can't you put 13-14 in str? With a 14 in str and a 18 in dex, weapon finnesse is still a +2, making it equal to 2 other feats combine (better, since it works on more weapons). With a minor str score, you will qualify for power attack, allowing you to do almost equal damage to annother single handed weapon user.
What I really see here is people asking for a way to add damage to intentionally gimped builds. Its a perfectly viable build to favor dex over str. You just can't intentionally gimp yourself, or expect to win the DPR contests. But lots of things don't win DPR contests, and damage is not the only important thing.
The dex-based fighter will have an equal AC, and will be higher once armor training kicks in and he wears heavier armor. He will have a higher bonus on many, better skills. Its a trade off you make for damage. One that I have made before and will gladly make again.
I think the only major change I would do is combine weapon finnesse with agile manuevers.
To quote my GM:
"The Dread Pirate Roberts is a finesse fighter and doesn't have a f***ing 8 str."
"Errol Flynn didn't have an 8 str"
"NONE of the 3 Musketeers in ANY of the movies had an 8 strength."
"No one in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had 8 str. I really could go on."
I would like to point out that the 6 str halfling mentioned above could not carry a type 1 bag of holding or studded leather and anything else without going into medium load. A type 3 puts him in heavy load, and he can't lift a type 4. He can't wear leather armor and carry a handy haversack in light load. So much for your agile character tumbling arround.
It's a game, yes, we understand. And Wizards cast fireball. Dex doesn't allow you to deal more damage. Period. TECHNICALLY, precision deals LESS tissue damage than brute force. Cleaner cuts generate fewer problems, which is why surgeons use scalpels, not knives or daggers. Dex doesn't affect the amount of damage, just the ability to inflict it. Int makes you KNOW where to hit, and strength bashes your face in. And Dread Pirate Roberts, ftw.I call BS.
Which is gonna drop someone quicker... The hammer that just bashed your shoulder in... or that dagger that just nicked a lung or heart.
Sorry, brute force doesn't always win out.
Yeah. And knowing where a lung is located on a person relative to their size is a function lf Int, not dex. When did I ever say that brute force is the only way to kill someone?
And just btw, the hammer that bashes your arm in
Is more likely to drop you than being stabbed in the arm. The dagger that knicks your lung or heart is less likely to kill you than being CUT IN HALF by a greatsword. Or having that same hammer cave your chest in. That way, yeah, I guess having your ribs pierce your lungs is a lot like being stabbed.
Knowing where the lung/artery is = Int. Being able to accurately strike that target = Dex.
Seriously ... we're playing this game now?
*rolls eyes*
A small cut to a vital area most certainly will kill someone very quickly.
A large, blunt trauma will crush many things very badly, and likely pierce others as a side effect ... and probably kill someone pretty quickly (relative to the blunt force behind the impact really).
A big, sharp piece of metal can cut through things whole-sale (necks, torso's, etc), and will likewise cause instant death.
There are a LOT of ways to kill someone fast ... adding one more mechanical option will not stop from making the others viable.
Knowing where the lung/artery is = Int. Being able to accurately strike that target = Dex.
Knowing where to hit = damage. Being able to hit it = hit.
Proposed solution: int to damage that requires weapon finesse.I don't see your problem.
Knowing where the lung/artery is = Int. Being able to accurately strike that target = Dex.
Knowing where to hit = damage. Being able to hit it = hit.
Proposed solution: int to damage that requires weapon finesse.I don't see your problem.
I would agree, but Int bonus to damage is already covered in the Duelist class. I would happily add a feat that gives bonus damage with a minimum Intelligence and Weapon Finesse as the pre-reqs.
Knowing where the lung/artery is = Int. Being able to accurately strike that target = Dex.
Knowing where to hit = damage. Being able to hit it = hit.
Proposed solution: int to damage that requires weapon finesse.I don't see your problem.
Your proposal is equally "true" but does not address the stated problem - arbitrary decision/enforcement of 1 stat over all others where clearly cases can be made for all others to matter collectively, or in isolation.
IMO, the *weakest* "real" case to make about striking for special damage comes from Int on it's own. In isolation, I have real problems granting someone extra damage because they're *smart* alone. W/out the strength to bring enough force to bear on the weapon, or Dex to coordinate a strike and actually hit what you're aiming for in the first place, Int can't *do* ANY of the work involved in damage. If anything, it's THE most abstracted stat to use/justify in this capacity.
Str has it's default assumptions, and we've already covered the importance of hitting what you're after in the first place. Adding in Int, *in isolation* is even more arbitrary and strange that using Dex for a similar effect.
The "problem" is that every decision in this regard is more or less arbitrary in a system where all things combat are more or less full of abstractions as "the answer" to all things.
Seriously, though - if you want in on what the "problem" is, read the thread first, and THEN throw your copper into the pile.
:shrugs:
I do, however, concede that Int to damage is yet another valid way to make this bonus damage work (but this is ceded upon the premise of the FULLY artificial and abstract nature of combat in the first place).
I think that a Weapon Finesser that isn't a rogue can still deal enough damage with something like Power Attack. Sure, it requires 13 strength buy-in, but that isn't too steep a price. The damage output is admirable, which is sufficient. The debate isn't about making Weapon Finesse better at dealing damage than normal brute strength.
For those people that want to make a 6 strength fighter and still get all the candy; well, I think it can be done.
What we need is something to aim for. So I propose this: Given a 6 Strength Fighter, at level 10, what should the expected DPR be to be considered "a viable weapon finesse fighter at 6 strength". Is 20 enough? 30? 40? 50?
The build should be predominantly fighter or fighter with prestige class levels. Something like Fighter 4 / Rogue 3 / Duelist 3 would be legal. Fighter 2 / Rogue 8 would not.
It's a game, yes, we understand. And Wizards cast fireball. Dex doesn't allow you to deal more damage. Period.
But it can.
You keep going on and on about how dexterity can't do damage, it can't do damage, look at this int can do damage but dex can't do damage and NOBODY CARES.
Dexterity to damage works for the same reason strength to hit works - because it's a game, and because it's thematic. Because it's thematic and cool for a fighter to hold two weapons and become a whirlwind of blades, slicing and dicing through everything in his path.
You keep on vomiting about realism, but you seem to be missing the point. Why do fighters have to adhere to realism when no other class does? If monks can punch through people, if rangers can shoot six arrows in six seconds at one target over 300 feet away, if rogues can dodge a fireball, why not let fighters add dex to damage? Seriously, your claim of realism falls flat, and it falls flat hard.
Realism is neither here nor there. Dex shouldn't be added to damage without careful consideration because of balance.
Why be greedy? There's already Dervish Dance for your dex-damaging needs.
Realism is neither here nor there. Dex shouldn't be added to damage without careful consideration because of balance.
Why be greedy? There's already Dervish Dance for your dex-damaging needs.
Well, what do you think of my proposed feat? :3
Adds dexterity to damage as precision damage, which means no increase on feats, no double or 1 1/2 to damage, and against oozes or other similar enemies, it doesn't do anything at all.
Give it a Dex requirement so not everyone can just grab it, and a BAB requirement so that full BAB classes - who need it more - can get it before rogues - who already have sneak attack.
Addendum: Actually, what would people think if the feat was only for fighters?
Okay. You got me. What I really think is that you want to point buy all the stats that a rogue will need without putting any strength into the character to maximize your character. A 6 strength character, with the exception of a wizard or sorceror. Isn't viable. It SHOULDN'T BE. Poorly built characters die. Trying to make feats that make YOUR crappy character exceptional is munchkinism. You're lawyering the rules to make them work, adding all kinds of reasons why it should work, without proving your point. Give me one irrefutable instance of dex adding to DAMAGE instead of strength and I'k shut up. Otherwise I will keep on giving my opinion, which SOMEONE cared enough about, else they wouldn't have agreed with me.
What.
First off, if it sounds like I don't know what you're talking about, it's because I don't.
Second, I never said anything about 6 strength characters. Don't be rediculous. My advised feat change would not only have a BAB requirement - and thus you'd suffer that 6 strength for a good while - but it would also, due to that same requirement, be harder for a rogue to reach then a fighter. The basis for this discussion isn't the rogue - it's the fighter.
Thirdly, that...what. That's not what munchkinism means. Like at all. That's the exact opposite of what munchkinism means. Good grief. And I'm "lawyering the rules?" If I'm making my own feat, how am I...you're just making stuff up, aren't you? You're throwing as many BADWRONGHORRIBLE tabletop words together in hopes one of them sticks.
Lastly, dex to damage trope wise? Ok. The big burly man laughs as he walks at the thin, agile man holding the rapier, and then Zorro cuts a Z through his chest before the man can even blink. The samurai slices the evil oni across the chest, killing it in one blow, and clicks his sword back into it's sheathe in a single movement. Three men chase after the revolutionary, who pulls out his knives right as he ducks into the alleyway, running through the corrupt officers and killing them before they can make a sound. The wise old swordsman teaching the brash would-be warrior, hits his weapon away and smacks him upside the head without giving the young warrior a moment to realize what's happening.
Well, what do you think of my proposed feat? :3
Adds dexterity to damage as precision damage, which means no increase on feats, no double or 1 1/2 to damage, and against oozes or other similar enemies, it doesn't do anything at all.
Give it a Dex requirement so not everyone can just grab it, and a BAB requirement so that full BAB classes - who need it more - can get it before rogues - who already have sneak attack.
Addendum: Actually, what would people think if the feat was only for fighters?
Fighters are not the only combat class that could/should benefit. If you racked it up at minimum BAB +5 it would give all of the combat classes a sufficient leg-up. By the time a rogue gets to that level they are already inflicting more damage through sneak attack that while a nice bonus it's hardly essential.
So, for all the people who seem to think you need more damage as a weapon finnesse fighter,
I don't seem to think it, I do think it.
I have to ask: why can't you put 13-14 in str?
Just because I can I should? Maybe I don't want to. I'm not intentionally gimping my character. I'm proposing that the trade-off should be playable. I'm willing to give up some damage for low strength and even give up a feat or two because I have a concept in mind that I think is fun, and because I'd rather put my high ability scores somewhere else.
Addendum: Actually, what would people think if the feat was only for fighters?Fighters are not the only combat class that could/should benefit. If you racked it up at minimum BAB +5 it would give all of the combat classes a sufficient leg-up. By the time a rogue gets to that level they are already inflicting more damage through sneak attack that while a nice bonus it's hardly essential.
I agree with Dabbler that it should be available to all classes. The rules should give as much freedom to imagination as possible.
I can't agree with a BAB requirement. First level characters desperately need it.
Dex to damage means your strength IS useless, no matter how many people argue otherwise.
In my example involving a 1st level halfling fighter I demonstrated a real advantage for 13 Str over 6 Str: (+3 attack, 1d6+3 damage) vs (+2 attack, 1d3+3 damage). While this might not be perfectly balanced, the numbers themselves declare that strength was not useless in this example.
I thought ProfessorCirno's examples were terrific. They were loaded with flavor that shows why the concept of Dex-based damage is fun. You can't argue with fun. :)
... you're talking like an enabler. "It's okay to have that extra drink, you'll be fine!" "It's okay to dump strength and game balance, the game will be fine!"
It is okay. It will be fine. There are experienced gamers on these boards who enjoy figuring out how to make things balanced. Aren't you also talking like an enabler when you encourage the idea of Int based damage? Stick with that thought and go with it! More options = more fun.
I think it's hilarious to point out that there were plenty of methods of getting other stats to damage in 3.5, and yet strength still reigned supreme. This isn't exactly untrod ground here.
Plus, we get that you hate dex to damage. You can make lots of excuses for why those listed above wouldn't work as dex to damage. Or you can accept that they would work. Seriously. You're going out of your way to hate on other peoples' ideas.
thought ProfessorCirno's examples were terrific. They were loaded with flavor that shows why the concept of Dex-based damage is fun. You can't argue with fun. :)
I agree that they are fun - but I more so agree with Ironicdisaster that they aren't about dex damage. They showed that "Weapon Finesse" is fun. (And I'd also argue that Zorro simply uses the Dervish Dance variant that James Jacobs mentioned earlier.)
And I'm sure Ironicdisaster agrees that Weapon Finesse is fun. However, we also both agree that it completely unbalances the game to have Dex for damage and attack, without restriction. Making it merely precision damage is not a notable restriction. The no x1.5 thing and not multiplying on a crit is mathematically trivial.
A good restriction is one-handed, finessable piercing weapon. Other hand empty.
Another good restriction is against flat-footed targets only.
Not a good restriction is something that allows TWF and use Dex for damage. It is the only notable niche that Rangers hold for themselves, to be able to use one stat only for their TWF.