Mmmh can you tell me what is "guided enchantment" and where can I find it ?
Thanks :)
I haven't run the numbers on guided but the fact that it doesn't do x1.5 for Two-handed weapons seems to negate some of it's applicability for a high DPR build. Since it's always x1 I suspect the intent is to limit the impact of power attack + guided to x1 modifiers as well.
Thus it's good for classes that have TWF (or flurries) but isn't going to be totally awesome on a clerical sword and board type until really high wisdom values.
It's probably undercosted at +1(+1 should be for either to hit or damage;+2 would probably be better for both).
The thing that I find frustrating is that guided allows some classes to be less MAD than the typical TWF builds which typically need weapon finesse to cover + to hit and either the scimitar feat (+ dex to damage) or something similar. If dex fighters had an option that allowed dex to cover both to hit and damage for a +1 effect then I think it would be more equitable.
I haven't run the numbers on guided but the fact that it doesn't do x1.5 for Two-handed weapons seems to negate some of it's applicability for a high DPR build. Since it's always x1 I suspect the intent is to limit the impact of power attack + guided to x1 modifiers as well.
Thus it's good for classes that have TWF (or flurries) but isn't going to be totally awesome on a clerical sword and board type until really high wisdom values.
It's probably undercosted at +1(+1 should be for either to hit or damage;+2 would probably be better for both).
The thing that I find frustrating is that guided allows some classes to be less MAD than the typical TWF builds which typically need weapon finesse to cover + to hit and either the scimitar feat (+ dex to damage) or something similar. If dex fighters had an option that allowed dex to cover both to hit and damage for a +1 effect then I think it would be more equitable.
I think you can rest easy on this one, Vuron. Speaking from any game with a reasonable point buy (under 30), a character simply can't afford the high values in Wisdom & Dexterity to make this build effective. They could probably make a good sword & board build with some minor shield bashing, but the feat investment is heavy and difficult to achieve successfully. Couple that with the diminishing returns for power attack on off-hand weapons and you'll see that the character is probably better just going strength.
The only two classes I really see benefiting from this enchantment are the Monk & Druid. The Monk has a lot to gain from focusing on Wisdom, and I don't think that's a bad thing. They still need nominal investments in strength (which are rendered useless) to pick up power attack, so that's a fair trade.
Druids, on the other hand, must adapt their combat style entirely. You lose out entirely on the strength bonuses afforded to you by your shapes, while also taking a hit to AC with penalties to size & dexterity. A druid with this enhancement will actually benefit from smaller sizes, interestingly enough- and would likely resort to size small critters with multiple primary attacks. One-hit wonders, like the elementals, won't do much good for a druid of this type because you don't get the 1.5x damage. Druids will also need a nominal investment in strength for power attack, and will deal with significantly smaller base damage dice for the course of their career.
All in all, I'd say it's a boost for monks (who could use it) and a shot at versatility for druids, which they seem to have lost in this edition. If you're uncomfortable with druids being able to effectively melee and cast offensively then it could be overpowered for your campaign.
I wouldn't say "overpowered", but maybe it's a little too cheap. I'd suggest a flat cost for it (e.g. +20,000 gp or something like that).
I'm in the camp of "raised eyebrow" when it comes to casters using the property myself.
As it stands, 90% of the melee-builds do better to invest in strength - period. The whole system supports and props up Str for melee more than all else - this is good.
Not allowing for non-str-based melee is a fundamental flaw of the system - this is bad. Weapon Finesse can help the Dex-types, and now the wis boon (though not a feat - oddly enough) can help monks specifically (wis to damage and hit). This is good, but odd in that it's based entirely upon equipment and magic (vs. the feat-rout of a dex-type of combatant reflecting "skill" over "power" in a build - the wis thing *should* be similar, but as it's item-dependent, it's entirely different in tone/tenor).
I'm good w/any melee-type using it BECAUSE, it's a clear trade-off, they actually *give up* top DPR by dumping str in place of wis. They can not utilize the x2 stuff that str gets, so they'll be behind the DPR junk.
That said, the instant we look at our wis-based casters, it's crap! Someone made the point above for Druids gaining "versatility" and it's interesting in that regard - but mechanically, it's terrible! Not only will the spell DC's sky-rocket, but now he/she can use the same boons on melee - this is terrible abuse, and it doesn't matter WHAT class is doing it (ie: cleric is equally guilty there).
House Rule Warning!!
Honestly, I just would disallow this property for clerics/druids.
As a PFRPG 2e consideration, I'd say that Clerics and Druids being Wis-based casters is a TERRIBLE thought in the first place. Both cast by "appealing to divine/otherworldly" beings in order to be granted their power ... both are central figures in religion, or religious organizations. So, to *me* this screams much more of "Charisma is king" than it does reek of wisdom. Now, in a free to run and re-balance the game as I see fit, Cha would be the casting stat of ANY CLASS that casts based upon external power sources in some way that are sentient in any capacity. So, Clerics, Druids and Paladins and Rangers = all of them would cease to be Wis-based casters, and instead they would become Char-based casters.
For the sake of diversity, however, I'd keep Wizards as intellect-based casters (Int), and I'd change the spontaneous casters (Bard/Sorcerer) into Wis-based casters. Wis bonus, after all, is what determines the will-save bonus, right? And these instantaneous casters cast by "force of will" no? Ergo - Wisdom should be their primary casting stat.
In this light, what does Guided do? It grants a boon to Monks, Bards, and Sorcerers only ... seems a good thing in that category. Of course, this is only with heavy-handed retooling of the casting stats for the casting classes.
Now, given that all of the above are 3/4 bab w/*some* magical gifts OR 1/2 and full casting classes, I think that Guided as wis "to hit and damage" actually become good investments for these classes w/out unbalancing much of anything.
/End House Rule Thoughts
I'm with Vuron, though, in the + pricing. +1 seems REALLY cheap for a boon on both to hit and damage, let alone strength swapping in the first place. It's a solid, solid enchantment IF you invest in wis in the first place.
I am currently playing a melee inquisitor based on getting a Guided weapon (next level hopefully).
I think the enchantment is fairly balanced, if a little underpriced as it may result in a good boost to damage output but any char with 3/4 BAB progression and 13 str will never be able to boast a decent CMD for a front line char...
Hmm...I personally don't think it's overpowered per say, but I wouldn't allow it in my home games. Part of that is my policy of not using 3.5 material, and part is the instinctive reaction that it's too cheap. I personally would put it at +2 or the 20k gold cost that hogarth suggested. I'd probably chat with my group and see which they thought was more reasonable. *shrugs*
I have a Weapon Finesse Monk, and this has me intrigued.
Remember, "An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."
This means instead of needing to create a "+1 Guided Longsword" or whatever, for a +2 bonus cost, you can make a "+0 Guided Amulet of Mighty fists", for a +1 bonus cost.
My monk got a +0 Vicious Amulet of Mighty Fists (+2d6 damage, -1d6 backlash) a long time ago. I probably would have considered a Guided one.
I started with 9 STR, 18 DEX, 16 WIS (point buy, Halfling). I would have dumped STR to 8 if I could have chosen Guiding. It would let me min a little more, and get a little more max.
+3 damage on all my strikes in a flurry would be huge. It's on par with a Flaming weapon, on average, for the same price.
I'd need a DM ruling if this damage multiplies on criticals (like STR bonuses) or if it didn't (like magic bonuses). If it did multiply, that would be enough to make me consider it better than Flaming
Another interesting use for a Guiding weapon would be Rangers. Archery Rangers would love to dump STR. Get a Guided Longbow and forget about Composites. TWF Rangers could grab weapon finesse and play much like the monk I described.
Paladins could also get some mileage out of this. I've always wanted to try a ranged Paladin, and dumping STR, grabbing a Guided Longbow and smiting a guy would be pretty badass.
I'm pretty sure that Guided is a melee-only enhancement. The text refers to melee for all of the examples, and omits any mention of ranged weapons. In fact, the last sentence specifically states: A guided weapon may be wielded as a normal weapon, using Strength to modify attack and damage rolls, but this goes against the weapon’s nature and imparts a –2 penalty on all attack rolls made in this manner. (emphasis mine)
Slight CotCT Spoiler:
I personally would put it at +2 or the 20k gold cost that hogarth suggested. I'd probably chat with my group and see which they thought was more reasonable. *shrugs*
I strongly disagree with this. In the context of how this property will be used most often (to boost the ability of monks to be combat effective) I think +1 is appropriate. Monks are nerfed so badly as it is and putting +2 on the 1 item property that helps them approach parity with other classes means that most monks would never get to use this until mid-late levels if at all.
I strongly disagree with this. In the context of how this property will be used most often (to boost the ability of monks to be combat effective) I think +1 is appropriate.
I can't think of a worse possible way to make Pathfinder monks more effective than with a dubiously priced weapon enchantment placed within a 3.5 module that not everyone will have access to.
I can't think of a worse possible way to make Pathfinder monks more effective than with a dubiously priced weapon enchantment placed within a 3.5 module that not everyone will have access to.
Agreed. It's not terribly elegant, but that's all monks have at the moment. There is no alternative in the interem.
I personally would put it at +2 or the 20k gold cost that hogarth suggested. I'd probably chat with my group and see which they thought was more reasonable. *shrugs*I strongly disagree with this. In the context of how this property will be used most often (to boost the ability of monks to be combat effective) I think +1 is appropriate. Monks are nerfed so badly as it is and putting +2 on the 1 item property that helps them approach parity with other classes means that most monks would never get to use this until mid-late levels if at all.
You may disagree with it, but it doesn't change my personal view. I can see it being used for Clerics, Druids and Monks alike. If it modified just Attack rolls, or just Damage rolls, I might go with the +1 enchantment bonus. Heck, I probably would! But that'd be a fairly annoying enchantment in my book. I'd rather have a cleric with a 10 str but a 26 Wis getting my wisdom bonus to attack and damage rolls with my glaive (cleric of Shelyn) than be a monk with it, personally. I certainly don't think that pricing it just to 'save the monk' would be silly. I've seen plenty of effective monks in my games. I've seen ineffective ones too, but in that case the player did that to ANY character he played.
Honestly, it's a bad way to do it. Just make it a feat. There's precedent for that. Call the feat 'Instictive Fighting' and allow the taker to use their Wisdom Modifier instead of Strength when attacking with any light weapon (which would include unarmed attacks). No need to boost damage, weapon finesse doesn't. If you're using a 3.5 feat anyway, then you're in house-rule territory, just take it the whole way. If I remember, there was a similar feat to let you use Int instead of STR too.
If the monk is so deficient that we need to come up with specific magic items to bring it up to parity with the other classes then I think the base design needs to be questioned.
As it is this is a magical weapon special ability that requires only limited monetary resources (unlike the feat based finesse and scimitar dance). It provides significant enhancement to classes other than the monk and it's pretty unclear whether it's meant to be a melee only enchantment or if it can used on bows.
Combined with a sketchy cost and I'd be very reluctant to bring it over as is just to support a class that is admittedly deficient.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/attackRollAbilities
Personally I like this option better than depending on a weapon enchantment. if you limit option #3 (wis) to monks (and maybe inquisitors)and have the damage come up with level rather than all at one go, then a 1 level dip for clerics/druids is less "cheese"
So what about a guided composite longbow?
"A character who attacks with a guided weapon modifies his attack rolls and weapon damage rolls with his Wisdom modifier, not his Strength modifier."
This sentence seems to indicate that only a strength modifer is adjusted. But I am not sure. I thought about a sohei archer using a guided composite longbow. But it sounds extra-cheesy.
A masterwork composite longbow (+9str) is crafted. Then comes cleric Cheesy Chase an enchants it with the guided property. It then becomes a +3composite longbow (+9wis)?
The flurrying sohei (with weapon training in bows, rapid shot and many shot, boots of speed and ki) now attacks withs +7wis (-2 for guided) and damage +9wis.
Not really.
IF you allow the Guided Hand feat from UC: It is absolutely not overpowered, at least this allows non-clerics to the party.
IF you ban Guided Hand with a righteous fury: Maybe it's overpowered. I think it'd be quite balanced if it had an arbitrary -4 effective CL to any casting classes you possessed, I'd like it a lot more. Makes it untouchably bad for clerics and druids, but no effect on monk.
IF you allow the Guided Hand feat from UC: It is absolutely not overpowered, at least this allows non-clerics to the party.
Note that the feat Guided Hand doesn't affect damage rolls, though.
Based upon Weapon Focus vs. Specialization, Power Attack ratios, and just the general principal that hitting a foe at all is more important than the damage you inflict, the attack bonus is at least twice as valuable as the damage bonus.
But yes, that is correct. The magic property is better. It's also not available at level 1, though, unlike the feat.
The only time I could see it being overpowered is on a zen archer. However other then that no.
So by RAW or RAI, the guided weapon property would not affect ranged weapons, and in particular the strength bonus of a composite longbow, right?