Request: Support for Weapon Finesse in Ultimate Combat!


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

phantom1592 wrote:

WHO were they designed to be used by? Are there many fighters and clerics and paladins using sword canes? 'hiding' the weapon is nice... but rapier has a crit of 18-20 where sword cane has just 20...

As a martial weapon, the ONLY reason to chose it is for 'flavor'... and to do so you will be using a LESSER weapon, AND need to burn a feat on it...

I don't think it's just for flavor. I've been in a fair number of situations where having a concealable weapon is important. Having a weapon you can draw as a swift action is also quite nice.

I kind of think making it a light weapon would be okay but I wouldn't change the rest of the stats to match the rapier.

Silver Crusade

Quote:

Fencing has always been a sport for the wealthy. The concept that it's a "thinking man's" sport is a myth based on the fact that the people who dominated the sport were wealthy men who could afford to dabble in a sport that had so little practical use. When it comes to actual really hurting people you need trained reflexes and stamina.

Take a look at the current US fencing team, none of them are over 30, most look under 25. The only older guy in the picture is the trainer. They all look pretty fit to me.

I'm a fencer, and I can assure you I got owned during a competition by respectively a 72 year-old badass who even invented a training machine and is actually the oldest french fencer, and a 65 year-old man who was as voluminous as he was dextrous, looking like a picture from ye olde fencing manual. I couldn't talk about the saber, but in modern fencing (understand = probably not the one you'd use on a dragon or in a world of full-plates and greatswords), the sword requires you to think, and think fast, since you have to push the tip of the blade on your enemy, and not only hit him somewhere. Obviously I'm not speaking about olympic or really high competition levels where age is way, way more determinant.

For verisimilitude, Intelligence to damage is preferable. For fluff though, I prefer the dashing Charisma. If you want an intelligent fighter, there already is the duelist and the Combat Expertise manoeuvres...
But I totally agree that you need reflexes and stamina if you want to put at least a minimum of a fight without sweating to death.


0gre wrote:

I don't think it's just for flavor. I've been in a fair number of situations where having a concealable weapon is important. Having a weapon you can draw as a swift action is also quite nice.

I kind of think making it a light weapon would be okay but I wouldn't change the rest of the stats to match the rapier.

Agreed! I have NO problem with the cane sword being 'less' then a rapier. Sword canes give up some damage to make them concealable. that's fine.

I wouldn't change the stats at all, what my issue was, is having it be martial. It is for all intents a 'hidden rapier' that needs a feat to use, despite the 'addendum' that Rogues, bards, and elves... all get Rapier added to their lists without a feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:
0gre wrote:

I don't think it's just for flavor. I've been in a fair number of situations where having a concealable weapon is important. Having a weapon you can draw as a swift action is also quite nice.

I kind of think making it a light weapon would be okay but I wouldn't change the rest of the stats to match the rapier.

Correct. I have NO problem with the cane sword being 'less' then a rapier. Sword canes give up some damage to make them concealable. that's fine.

I wouldn't change the stats at all, what my issue was, is having it be martial. It is for all intents a 'hidden rapier' that needs a feat to use, despite the 'addendum' that Rogues, bards, and elves... all get Rapier added to their lists without a feat.

So that means the only folks who get shut out are clerics, oracles, sorcerers and wizards. Perfectly fine to me.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Adding Dex to Damage make much more sense then Int, even for the traditional Duelist character. Yes, Int is required to be good in a fight. It's represented in their Canny Defense class ability. The last thing you want is for Int to give them skill points, languages, AC, Damage, and Dex to give them that much more AC.

When I think about a Duelist I think high Dex/Int with a moderate Strength and in good shape.

Average Duelist stats from my perspective.

Str 12-14
Con 10-14
Dex 16-20
Int 14-18
Wis 10-12
Cha 12-14

Feinting is important in combat, the decent intelligence makes them well trained and gives them ample use of Combat Expertise, also assists them with raising their AC using the Canny Defense class ability as their level raises. The high dex also provides them with a decent AC as well, and would allow them to place well placed strikes. Strength is still an important factor for any fighter, dex based or not. And even though they don't take the largest punishment in the world, they're still fairly healthy and have at least some common sense.

Dexterity really does make more sense for damage then Intelligence.


Ok, I myself being a fan of martial artists and fancy swordwork can definitely relate to the concept of a dex based fighter. But, and I know this is a fantasy game and we suspend our disbelief, I have a hard time picturing anyone facing a dragon with a pair of daggers. (Even though I can easily build a character that can do some serious damage with them)
Now in the real world I can envision how a deft dagger thrust can quickly dispatch a human being, but how about a charging rhinocerous? That's when I would want a greatsword and huge arms to swing it. (Though actually a LONG spear would be even better)
Anyway, I think we all are given to a "David vs Goliiath" mentality at times. But remember, David was the exception an not the rule. Brute strength tends to win out when you are using archaic weaponry. So str based fighters should stay at the top of the food chain.


Gloom wrote:
Dexterity really does make more sense for damage then Intelligence.

Why? Intelligence I can make a case for, because it's precision, knowing where to strike. Why would dexterity add to damage? You have written a post saying it makes more sense but actually haven't said why.

@PharaohKhan - I agree it should be easier to do damage with strength and a big weapon, and that is and remains the default. What we are arguing for is a way that fast and smart can get close to matching that damage output by using a lot of hard work to represent the skill (ie, by taking feats) that it requires. None of us are arguing that the strength-based fighter be dethroned, we just want the clever, quick fighter to be something other than a gooey red wall decoration thatgets laughed at.


Dabbler wrote:
Gloom wrote:
Dexterity really does make more sense for damage then Intelligence.
Why? Intelligence I can make a case for, because it's precision, knowing where to strike. Why would dexterity add to damage? You have written a post saying it makes more sense but actually haven't said why.

knowing WHERE to hit is easy. Dex would be the ablitity to HIT it. As it's a physical stat it's the actual 'doing' as opposed to thinking about it.

Just because you know WHERE to do the most damage, doesn't mean you'd have the reflexes to hit it every time. Knowing where the bullseye is on a dartboard doesn't make it easy to hit.

Every once in a while, I'll take my fencing foil out, and just practice lunging at the doorknob. Nice little Target, I know where I'm aiming.. I know what I want to do... It's STILL not easy to hit.

I miss as often as I hit it...

However I'm STILL pretty good at Fencing, because I've got the reflexes to compensate for a sub par lunge ;)


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
Also, Int-to-damage would explain how all those elves in the books and movies can go toe to toe with orcs and humans and live, and of all the mental stats, I think it has the easiest flavor - Int-fighting means precision and calculated strikes based on an educated understanding of anatomy.
It does work well, but I also see it work well for sheer determination or inner equilibrium (Wis) or panache and daring (Cha)... I'm still hoping for a viable Dex-based Monk.
Int works better for me than this.

Heh, totally missed that one when I was reading through the series. Things make a lot more sense now...

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that any build that virtually eliminates the need for an ability score is a bit much. I mean, monks could actually be more viable if they could substitute their Dex for Str to damage. Imagine the jacked up AC they would have. Finessable Fists FTW!


phantom1592 wrote:
knowing WHERE to hit is easy. Dex would be the ablitity to HIT it. As it's a physical stat it's the actual 'doing' as opposed to thinking about it.

I've also fenced and done martial arts, I do know what you mean, however I have to point out that with Weapon Finesse, Dexterity is already adding to your chances to hit (via Weapon Finesse). As you say, knowing where to hit is the damaging bit, hence Intelligence adding to the damage you inflict when you do hit.

Mahorfeus wrote:
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that any build that virtually eliminates the need for an ability score is a bit much. I mean, monks could actually be more viable if they could substitute their Dex for Str to damage. Imagine the jacked up AC they would have. Finessable Fists FTW!

Exactly! Another reason not to replace Strength-to-damage. If a class hinges everything off one ability score that then replaces other ability scores, it's halfway to broken already.

Intelligence to damage in addition to strength could make a monk who put a few points into intelligence at the expense of strength (in order to get the skill points usually) viable rather than sub-par. However, strength cannot be neglected, because a negative modifier will still detract from damage.

It works because, as pointed out, any class taking it has to become MAD, and MAD ability scores are always lower.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Actually, it's a feat that caters to a SAD build, because you get to remove Str from the equation and focus on one stat.

There was another thread where we hashed all this out, and the Dex+Str build comes out better then the Str + Dex build except when wielding a two handed weapon. The extra AC, initiative, Reflex saves, and skill bonus more then compensates for lack of carrying capacity.

In general, you get for emphasizing Dex:

identical damage with all one handed weapons.
2-3 points less dmg with 2h weapons, assuming a finessable courtblade...
+5 more on Dex AC (initial stat higher +5 pts)
+5 more on Reflex saves
+5 more on initiative.
+5 more on dex based skills.

The Str fighter will have 2 more feats, more carrying capacity, and a 2-3 pt bonus if he's a zweihander. There are NOT two feats out there that can replace an 8-12 pt advantage in dexterity.

Intelligence makes a poor argument of 'knowing where to strike'. Everyone fighting learns where to strike. The intelligent fighter instead strikes where it's absolutely best to do so at any particular moment, deciphering his opponent's style and taking advantage of it to use it against them. Technically, it would work better as a bonus to hit, but that would be overpowered.

===Aelryinth


dexterity replacing strength for damage? i find nothing wrong with it.

the damage kings are still going to be the Zweihander fighters and the composite longbow archers.

both of these recieve decent benefits from strength, and carrying capacity does matter. and some, i'd say most of us do have to make those climb checks and the occasional swim check. and a handful of ranks isn't always enough.

with weekly william, the party has had to conserve a lot of equipment. and keep a spare magic weapon or two. we don't have as much high end equipment as most. but we have to keep a lot of the lesser items because they have some use.


0gre wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
That's a poor analogy. You can be ridiculously strong and have a glass jaw, too.

It's not an analogy

Quote:

Intelligence is the hallmark of a good fencer. It's called physical chess because of the thought that goes into the combat, and without a quick and cunning mind a person won't ever be a decent fencer. Speed only gets you so far, and that's why most of the great historic fencers came into their own in their late 20's / early 30's... they were older, more seasoned, [b]and had learned that a thinking man wins the fight.[\b]

Sure there's a base line of physical aptitude, but there are even modern fencers (although in becoming a game it has lost most of what made it a combat art) that are in poor physical shape who are competing at a very high level within the sport.

I don't think there is any real support for this point of view. Fencing has always been a sport for the wealthy. The concept that it's a "thinking man's" sport is a myth based on the fact that the people who dominated the sport were wealthy men who could afford to dabble in a sport that had so little practical use. When it comes to actual really hurting people you need trained reflexes and stamina.

Take a look at the current US fencing team, none of them are over 30, most look under 25. The only older guy in the picture is the trainer. They all look pretty fit to me.

Pardon me, it's a poor comparison then. See my prior point for why.

The sport of fencing, in its modern incarnation, has really stripped the duel away from the game (which is something I mentioned, briefly). I suppose I should have expanded on that by saying that the modern fencing weapons are shadows of their historic counterparts and that it has become a much more speed oriented game... there are rules that are too abstract to have anything to do with dueling outside of Epee, and even that has been altered heavily.

What is your justification for the bit about it not being a "thinking man's sport?" Fighting, in any form, is a thinking man's game. Of course physicality plays an important role in it as well... but I suppose if you haven't participated in fencing for more then a few cursory lessons (have you?) that I could understand why you'd think there was no thinking involved.

Can you back anything you're saying about fencing? Saber fights were fought to the death in parts of the world well into the first half of the 1900's.

Shadow Lodge

I would turn it around.

There is lots of documentation demonstrating that agility, strength, endurance, and training are all absolutely vital in any sort of combat. There is no proof that being smart helps you hurt people.

Intelligence typically is reflected by things that are already modeled into the game system:

  • Choosing ideal terrain
  • Using flanking and other tactics to improve your odds
  • Using the right weapon/ tactics for a given opponent

    There are some things which are not modeled well:

  • Fighting defensively until your opponent is worn out (Muhammad Ali)
  • Adapting to your opponents combat style over time.

    None of which are reflected well with a generic "Intelligence adds to damage" mechanism.

    For intelligence I'd be much more inclined to suggest a feat that reduces the penalty for fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise as combat progresses.

  • RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

    Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

    dexterity replacing strength for damage? i find nothing wrong with it.

    the damage kings are still going to be the Zweihander fighters and the composite longbow archers.

    both of these recieve decent benefits from strength, and carrying capacity does matter. and some, i'd say most of us do have to make those climb checks and the occasional swim check. and a handful of ranks isn't always enough.

    with weekly william, the party has had to conserve a lot of equipment. and keep a spare magic weapon or two. we don't have as much high end equipment as most. but we have to keep a lot of the lesser items because they have some use.

    Dexterity replacing Str for damage could/should apply to archers too, then.

    Dex replacing Str means you'd get the 1.5 (i.e. replace). Therefore, the only difference will be that between a courtblade and the 2H weapon, and the Dex fighter comes out way, way ahead on Init, Reflex saves, AC and Skills, it's just not funny.

    A nice counterpoint is Str replacing Dex for AC, Init, and Reflex saves. Would you agree to a feat like that? Because the net effects are exactly the same.

    ===+Aelryinth


    0gre wrote:

    I would turn it around.

    There is lots of documentation demonstrating that agility, strength, endurance, and training are all absolutely vital in any sort of combat. There is no proof that being smart helps you hurt people.

    Intelligence typically is reflected by things that are already modeled into the game system:

  • Choosing ideal terrain
  • Using flanking and other tactics to improve your odds
  • Using the right weapon/ tactics for a given opponent

    There are some things which are not modeled well:

  • Fighting defensively until your opponent is worn out (Muhammad Ali)
  • Adapting to your opponents combat style over time.

    None of which are reflected well with a generic "Intelligence adds to damage" mechanism.

    For intelligence I'd be much more inclined to suggest a feat that reduces the penalty for fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise as combat progresses.

  • All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.

    I see where you're going with what you're saying, but trying to apply it to real-world fighting isn't going to work out well for you, in that the historic data goes against what you're saying.

    Now of course there is a base line of physical aptitude necessary for a given weapon and fighting style, but there's no real world representation of brute strength making you an all around better fighter... as I said, you could be Mr. Universe and if you have a glass jaw you're still going to lose the fight. By the same logic, if you're Stephen Hawkins you're probably not going to do too well either.

    Int could be directly translated to the game as a botte - a series of compound offensive maneuvers that leaves the opponent physically unable to defend themselves from a killing blow. A botte was often a school secret, developed by years of studying swordplay and the human anatomy by masters at arms.

    With a heavy, hacking blade or blunt instrument strength is more of a factor, but if you can't retain proper footing and balance (dex) whilst taking into account the environment and your surroundings (int) you're going to be die rather quickly. The originators of a martial art from ANY region, be they European, Asian, native American, whatever... were pretty smart people. Don't sell short the achievements of some of histories greatest fighters as mere acts of athleticism.

    As for your mechanical points;

    All of those are things Grog, the 8 int fighter could do equally as well as Melvin, the 18 int fighter. The difference? Grog does a crapload more damage. Melvin gets extra skills. As a DM I should not be in the business of punishing a player for wanting to play a character outside the mold the game provides, I should be there to support them, help them make something balanced, fun, and that fits.

    I'd almost rather see int factored in in a way that lets you reduce your opponents AC/Saves/Damage/whatever by tricking them into overstepping, but that still wouldn't make an int based fighter valid. They would need a mechanical balance to bring them in line with other fighters, and as long as they're only using one stat for their damage bonus (Int in this case) it certainly wouldn't degrade game balance or break anything. I'm sure sorcerers didn't need to be able to use other stats for their spell casting either, but it was flavorful, fun, and let a player do something that they wanted to do...

    I just can't think of a good reason not to let a player use int for damage as a fighter if that's what they've got their heart set on. I've house ruled it in already, anyway.


    Aelryinth wrote:
    Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

    dexterity replacing strength for damage? i find nothing wrong with it.

    the damage kings are still going to be the Zweihander fighters and the composite longbow archers.

    both of these recieve decent benefits from strength, and carrying capacity does matter. and some, i'd say most of us do have to make those climb checks and the occasional swim check. and a handful of ranks isn't always enough.

    with weekly william, the party has had to conserve a lot of equipment. and keep a spare magic weapon or two. we don't have as much high end equipment as most. but we have to keep a lot of the lesser items because they have some use.

    Dexterity replacing Str for damage could/should apply to archers too, then.

    Dex replacing Str means you'd get the 1.5 (i.e. replace). Therefore, the only difference will be that between a courtblade and the 2H weapon, and the Dex fighter comes out way, way ahead on Init, Reflex saves, AC and Skills, it's just not funny.

    A nice counterpoint is Str replacing Dex for AC, Init, and Reflex saves. Would you agree to a feat like that? Because the net effects are exactly the same.

    ===+Aelryinth

    I don't know, seems to me that the only parts of the game that you MIGHT see a major impact in ( I don't think you would, really) would be high enough level that the game balance would be largely askew anyway. Anything much over 10th level is wonky in pathfinder anyway, and I still dont' see how giving a fighter a few more options (mind you I'd adjudicate as the DM) is any more or less game breaking than having someone create a demiplane, make a wish, throw a death spell, etc...

    Shadow Lodge

    nathan blackmer wrote:

    All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.

    I see where you're going with what you're saying, but trying to apply it to real-world fighting isn't going to work out well for you, in that the historic data goes against what you're saying.

    I'm waiting for something to back this (to date) empty claim. You keep saying this over and over but repetition does not make fact.

    A trained person is going to destroy an untrained person in any sport but training isn't intelligence (Though perhaps there is some minimum threshold here).

    If you have two highly trained fighters, one with a PHd, and one who has the one in great shape is going to win every time. There is no magic 'think him to death', smart fighters know this and change the odds (using the sort of suggestions I made above).

    Muhamed Ali out-thought his opponents, that doesn't mean he hit them in clever ways to hurt them more, it means he changed the nature of the fight.


    nathan blackmer wrote:
    All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.

    I see where your going... but phrases like this I just can't agree with. It's pretty much historical fact that the nerds get beat up by the jocks.

    I know... I've been there ;)

    Stephen Hawking isn't going to win any fights regardless of how smart he is. The average Librarian may know all he'll ever need to about pressure points and weak spots... but if he can't actually DO it... then it doesn't count.

    Though I think i'd LOVE to see a Bill Gates/Mike tyson fight... I don't think brains would help.

    Fencing is really NOT a thinking man's sport. It's based entirely on speed and reflexes. moves and counter moves... most points are scored in a matter of seconds, so it's not like you're studying you opponent for 10-20 minutes or so like a chess game. you have your traps, you have your moves... but that really doesn't make it any more of thinking man's game...

    Now, Shooting Pool!! THAT i would say is more about knowledge and int then just 'aiming'. You have to plan pretty far ahead for that... Nerds can beat Jocks at that... but Fencing???

    Like I said above, I actually DID fencing in college and LOVED it. I was pretty good too... but that was a lot more on reflexes then strength... In fact if I was in better shape I would have been better. My endurance just sucked...

    All that said, I'm VERY much in favor of Weapon Finesse style feats for ALL the stats. I LOVE varied fighters. Dex fighters, Int Fighters... even Chr and Wisdom fighters... In our 2E game we've found home rules to introduce feats for all of them... (except con... we can't seem to find a way to justify con... >.< )

    Just the phrase that Intelligent fighers will always beat physical fighters seems completly off... It'd be like taking Daredevil in a hand to hand fight with Tony Stark... ONE's a fighter... ones' NOT...


    I am running a campaign with a feat that allows DEX to damage, because the setting - Midnight - allowed it and it fits the theme. The feat was released under the OGL:

    Quote:

    Clever Fighting [General]

    Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +2.

    Benefit: You are able to place finesse attacks where they deal greater damage. You may apply your Dexterity bonus instead of your Strength bonus to damage rolls when using any light weapon, as well as any weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse, such as a rapier or whip. You cannot use this ability when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load. Targets immune to sneak attacks or critical hits are immune to damage from Clever Fighting.

    These are my purely anecdotal observations based on this campaign. Please note that there are no two-handed finesse-able weapons in this campaign, so no two-handed DEX based fighters, making tWF the route to go. We are at 8th level at the moment, and nobody has any archetypes as the campaign started before the APG was released.

    Out of 5 martial characters, 3 chose the DEX route. Since they had rather low STR, they were not very good for the first levels. All went TWF, of course. This means they face the usual disadvantages: lots of feats needed, only good when full attacking, lower damage per strike which can be problematic versus damage resistance. If they are able to full attack a foe not immune to precision damage, they will deal excellent damage, though. And their DEX-based stats are usually very good: high initiative, high REF save, good AC, good DEX-skills. Of course, this might be off-set by STR-based builds choosing appropriate feats; they will have more slots as DEX-TWF needs 3 feats just to get even in the beginning.

    Of the two STR based characters, one went sword & board with TWF, the other THF. All in all I would say that the THF-fighter does the most damage, per strike and per round. S&B is not a good measure as it is a combat-manoeuvre-based build, but the damage is still respectable.

    Two drawbacks I noticed: the DEX-based fighters do not benefit from size increases as much as STR-based ones. As enlarging and gaining reach is very good tactic right from the start, I believe that they are loosing out. The high feat tax - 3 feats needed just to get even - means most builds will be behind on pure damage potential or combat usability.

    I would probably allow a feat like that in my campaigns again, as long as it does not allow DEX-based characters to use two-handed weapons. I can see that DEX is a very powerful stat and would become even better, but I believe that it does not necessarily break the game. At the very least, Dervish Dance will be allowed in my games.

    Silver Crusade

    phantom1592 wrote:

    Now, Shooting Pool!! THAT i would say is more about knowledge and int then just 'aiming'. You have to plan pretty far ahead for that... Nerds can beat Jocks at that... but Fencing???

    Like I said above, I actually DID fencing in college and LOVED it. I was pretty good too... but that was a lot more on reflexes then strength... In fact if I was in better shape I would have been better. My endurance just sucked...

    Like I said before, nope. This could be true for the Sabre where your first assault is also a hit-or-lose, letting few possibilities to withdraw and strike again. On the contrary, the Épée needs a more well-thought play, as even if you're hit, the blade has to put enough strength in the tip to mark the point, saving you when this isn't the case. If you failed to hit where you intended with the sabre, it's more than probable you'll be hit. If you fail with the épée, you have all your chances to parry, counter and strike again, needing you do to more than think only one assault and hope your skill will make it pass like the sabre.

    In my game, dex to damage is a cheesing no-no. And concerning intelligence to damage, it's more of a crunch mechanism based on verisimilitude : the dextrous fighter is supposed to hit less harder but on soft points, and it needs a kind of strategy represented by the Intelligence stat. Eh, even the duelist already does it, so it's not really an innovation nor a stupid idea. It's nice for fluff AND crunch, don't make dexterity that is already a -good- jack-of-all-trades even better.


    phantom1592 wrote:
    nathan blackmer wrote:
    All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.
    I see where your going... but phrases like this I just can't agree with. It's pretty much historical fact that the nerds get beat up by the jocks.

    No, the smart people with no experience or knowledge of how to fight will get beaten up by bigger, stronger people who are less intelligent but more experienced. Now give each equal experience ... and the smart guy starts winning, because he can use that experience better even if he isn't as big and strong.

    Aelryinth wrote:
    Dex replacing Str means you'd get the 1.5 (i.e. replace). Therefore, the only difference will be that between a courtblade and the 2H weapon, and the Dex fighter comes out way, way ahead on Init, Reflex saves, AC and Skills, it's just not funny.

    Which is why I advocate intelligence-to-damage stacking with strength. You don't get the +50% advantage, you do get MAD because you have to spread points over intelligence, dexterity and strength.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

    As a side note, WoTC probably agrees with you. THe Warblade, which was the 'new fighter' analog, rewards Int for various class-related abilities, although straight out damage to ALL attacks isn't one of them.

    ==Aelryinth


    I think it would make sense for Int to apply an insight bonus to attack rolls, but I can't think of a rationale for applying extra damage.


    Is nobody going to argue for a prestige class to support this?

    The prestige class will probably not match all to well with the classic fighter, cleric and paladin (which ihmo is a good thing). The abilities probably have limitations similar to the duellist.
    And those classes ihmo don't really need it.

    You can then aim to provide the support to rogues, ranger and monks. Precision damage, critical hit modifiers or switch hitter is the way to go if you want to support dex based melee damage.

    Nofi but just a feat that offers dex or int to damage ain't really interesting. All you do is change the ability to use, clearly arbitrary create for a rogue that wants to focus on skills rather then damage.

    [edit]
    Maybe a duellist archetype could open the prestige class for a more dex based TWF style.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

    Mahorfeus wrote:
    I think it would make sense for Int to apply an insight bonus to attack rolls, but I can't think of a rationale for applying extra damage.

    I don't even see attack rolls...because an attack roll just gets converted into damage via Power Attack.

    I see it as AC. As you fight someone, you get better and better at reading them, and your defenses improve as you decipher their style.

    I'd say reducing the Expertise penalty by 1 per round of fighting a particular foe would be a nice way to reflect an Intelligent fighter.

    ==Aelryinth


    Karel Gheysens wrote:
    Is nobody going to argue for a prestige class to support this?

    No, what we want is a class that can work from level one, we have the duelist for the higher levels if we want it.

    @Aelryinth, I like the idea of doing something to improve Combat Expertise - 3.5 had Deadly Defence which helps, but I agree the gain needs to be improved. Maybe a further feat that added intelligence bonus to AC and saves when using Combat Expertise?

    At the same time, the raw 'quick and smart' fighter needs something to up his damage output, or all the defence in the world isn't going to make him cut it.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    3 Options to this school of thought..

    1) 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Str for Primary Hand, 1/2 Dex for Offhand
    2) 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Int for Primary Hand, 1/2 Dex for Offhand
    3) Dex for Primary Hand, 1/2 Dex for Offhand

    Several other issues present themselves with these options, should the "Double Slice" feat that allows full Str for offhand weapons work with this?
    I think it should. In the case where it does, I believe it should use the same calculation as the primary hand damage whatever it may be.

    Should it require a feat to use this?
    I think it should, it should be a feat chain with Weapon Finesse, however in certain campaigns where people want to make the "Dexterous Fighter" archetype a more common or easier to accomplish variant, I present several options for Weapon Finesse Below..

    1) Weapon Finesse is available as normal, as a feat.
    2) Weapon Finesse has same requirements as before, but is able to be taken at character creation as a trait.
    3) Weapon Finesse is a natural concept that automatically gets applied if the person's dexterity bonus is higher then their strength bonus.

    All of these are optional, and I have used every one of them with varying degree's of success. They have not proven to be game breaking, and my preference for the above combination is..

    Weapon Finesse is a trait that can be taken at character creation, if not chosen at character creation or the requirements are not met then they can take it later as a feat. When weapon finesse is possessed they can take the improved option and it allows them to use 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Int for their primary hand damage and 1/2 dex for offhand damage.. or 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Int for Primary/Secondary hand with Double Slice.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Several Schools of thought exist on my above post. The reason I used 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Int for main hand and 1/2 Dex for offhand is basically along the lines.. if you know where the attack needs to land, it doesn't help at all unless you are capable of getting it there. At the same time, it doesn't matter how precise your attacks are if you don't know where they need to land.

    Depending on how I want the game to go.. I allow players to use the higher of their Int or Str for the secondary damage, as both options are easily explained.


    0gre wrote:
    nathan blackmer wrote:

    All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.

    I see where you're going with what you're saying, but trying to apply it to real-world fighting isn't going to work out well for you, in that the historic data goes against what you're saying.

    I'm waiting for something to back this (to date) empty claim. You keep saying this over and over but repetition does not make fact.

    A trained person is going to destroy an untrained person in any sport but training isn't intelligence (Though perhaps there is some minimum threshold here).

    If you have two highly trained fighters, one with a PHd, and one who has the one in great shape is going to win every time. There is no magic 'think him to death', smart fighters know this and change the odds (using the sort of suggestions I made above).

    Muhamed Ali out-thought his opponents, that doesn't mean he hit them in clever ways to hurt them more, it means he changed the nature of the fight.

    Amberger, J. Christoph. The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts (1999).

    Meyer, Joachim. Untitled Fechtbuch (1570).

    Angelo, Domenico. The School of Fencing (1763).

    Angelo, Henry. Hungarian & Highland Broadsword (1799).

    Miyamoto Musashi. The Book of Five Rings (1645).

    Yagyu Munenori. Heiho Kaden Sho (1632).

    Yi Deok-mu, Pak Je-ga. Muyedobotongji (1790).

    Alfred Hutton. Cold Steel: A Practical Treatise on the Sabre (1889). Old Sword-play: The System of Fence(1892).

    Burton, Sir Richard Francis. The Sentiment of the Sword: A Country-House Dialogue(1911). A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry (1923)

    Richard Cohen's By the Sword is an all-right read as well.

    In addition to The Book of Five Rings, check out The Art of War.

    I'd personally reccomending checking out the HCA, HEMA.

    Famous Historic fighters who weren't musclebound (staying mostly western);

    Cyrano Debergerac.
    Miyamoto Musashi (or nearly any of the famous samurai for that matter)
    Camillo Gripper
    Filippo Vadi
    Antonio Manciolino
    Achille Marozzo
    Angelo Viggiani
    Camillo Agrippa
    Jerónimo Sánchez de Carranza
    Giacomo Di Grassi
    Giovanni Dall’Agocchie
    Henry de Sainct-Didier
    Frederico Ghisliero
    Vincentio Saviolo

    There is an overwhelming abundance of factual information backing the idea that intelligence has a direct and profound impact on a fighters abilities, but I doubt you'll be satisfied with any evidence I put forth. You have it in your head that ITS NOT SO, no matter what all of histories masters have to say of it.

    I've admitted, repeatedly, that physical aptitude is important, but it is FAR from the only factor. Take a look at any eastern martial art and tell me that intelligence had nothing to do with it? I'd point to more western martial styles but the texts are obscure and most of the relevant information has been lost.


    0gre wrote:
    nathan blackmer wrote:

    All the agility, strength, and endurance in the world won't help you against someone who can think on their feet. You could be a physical specimen and still get your ass handed to you in a fight (with a weapon) by someone of middling physical capability who knows what they're doing.

    I see where you're going with what you're saying, but trying to apply it to real-world fighting isn't going to work out well for you, in that the historic data goes against what you're saying.

    I'm waiting for something to back this (to date) empty claim. You keep saying this over and over but repetition does not make fact.

    A trained person is going to destroy an untrained person in any sport but training isn't intelligence (Though perhaps there is some minimum threshold here).

    If you have two highly trained fighters, one with a PHd, and one who has the one in great shape is going to win every time. There is no magic 'think him to death', smart fighters know this and change the odds (using the sort of suggestions I made above).

    Muhamed Ali out-thought his opponents, that doesn't mean he hit them in clever ways to hurt them more, it means he changed the nature of the fight.

    Oh and your last line proves my point "Hit them in clever ways to hurt them more".

    So every martial artist, ever.

    Check.


    I'm with Nathan on this one. Ogre, while training is not intelligence, it takes intelligence to make the most out of training.

    The problem, as I see it, is not that intelligence is not important to combat, but in representing within the combat system that we have, exactly how it effects combat.

    The problem is that, in the D&D system:


    • To hit bonus always outstrips AC
    • Dealing more damage is always the best and fastest way of winning the fight
    • Combat tricks are already factored into the equation and intelligence does not help with them

    Looking at potential solutions:


    • Improve the AC bonus for combat expertise, via an Improved Combat Expertise:
      This would help, but would be hard to factor in - Canny Defence already exists for the duelist, and we don't want to copy existing features (it devalues the original class and it's too strong for single feat anyway). A feat that doubled the effect of CE would be better. However, this is only a partial fix - any monk player can tell you how their being hard to hit wasn't much help to the rest of the party if the enemy ignored them.
    • Allow intelligence bonus to be applied to CMB and/or CMD via a feat:
      This would also be effective, but would give the biggest bonus to the wizard every time. Wizards are meant to be weak in combat, and especially to grappling, such a feat would be taken by every wizard that could, do we want to make them stronger? We could hinge it on BAB so that only high level fighting types could take it, but that leaves lower levels weak still.
    • Stack intelligence bonus into damage:
      This won't help anyone but the fighter with it, will make him hard to ignore, and deals with the combat system as-is to make the character immediately effective.


    Aelryinth wrote:
    Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

    dexterity replacing strength for damage? i find nothing wrong with it.

    the damage kings are still going to be the Zweihander fighters and the composite longbow archers.

    both of these recieve decent benefits from strength, and carrying capacity does matter. and some, i'd say most of us do have to make those climb checks and the occasional swim check. and a handful of ranks isn't always enough.

    with weekly william, the party has had to conserve a lot of equipment. and keep a spare magic weapon or two. we don't have as much high end equipment as most. but we have to keep a lot of the lesser items because they have some use.

    Dexterity replacing Str for damage could/should apply to archers too, then.

    Dex replacing Str means you'd get the 1.5 (i.e. replace). Therefore, the only difference will be that between a courtblade and the 2H weapon, and the Dex fighter comes out way, way ahead on Init, Reflex saves, AC and Skills, it's just not funny.

    A nice counterpoint is Str replacing Dex for AC, Init, and Reflex saves. Would you agree to a feat like that? Because the net effects are exactly the same.

    ===+Aelryinth

    does strength really need a feat for AC

    higher strength gives you higher carrying capacity which lets you wear heavier armor.

    i don't get why a martially inclined combatant should be worrying about fireballs and lightning bolts. most of them tend to have enough hit points to reliably shrug off the effects and laugh. and a fair amount of them have safety nets built into thier chassis for the especially paranoid.

    initiative. why should a martially oriented combatant ever feel the desire to go first?

    i'd rather give my caster allies a chance to get thier spells off before i act.

    Scarab Sages

    Gloom wrote:

    1) 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Str for Primary Hand, 1/2 Dex for Offhand

    2) 1/2 Dex + 1/2 Int for Primary Hand, 1/2 Dex for Offhand

    IMHO this is unnecessarily complicated, and it makes for some ugly rounding effects. For instance, someone with +3 Dex and Str would only end up with a +2 do damage.

    I do think Int to damage is a good idea, since Int is dumped by the typical Fighter and at least neglected by the typical combat Rogue. You need to pay for it in ability buy points, which are probably the most limited resource in the game (even more so than standard actions).

    Quote:


    2) Weapon Finesse has same requirements as before, but is able to be taken at character creation as a trait.
    3) Weapon Finesse is a natural concept that automatically gets applied if the person's dexterity bonus is higher then their strength bonus.

    Now these I love. I've always wondered why one needed to pay a feat for that seemingly natural combat style, especially given that it comes with many drawbacks already.


    This may not solve the problem exactly (and honestly, I'm partial to Int to damage myself), but what about a feat that let you add Dex to damage when your opponent is flat-footed or flanked? It seems like that would be a nice balance between "Dex does too much already" and "it's too hard to be Dex-based." Of course it would make rogues brutal, but A: make it have a BAB requirement and B: I'm kind of okay with that, personally.


    Tim4488 wrote:
    This may not solve the problem exactly (and honestly, I'm partial to Int to damage myself), but what about a feat that let you add Dex to damage when your opponent is flat-footed or flanked? It seems like that would be a nice balance between "Dex does too much already" and "it's too hard to be Dex-based." Of course it would make rogues brutal, but A: make it have a BAB requirement and B: I'm kind of okay with that, personally.

    It would be like Vital Strike - great in concept, but so limited in circumstance and hence so rarely used that it stops being effective and there will always be better feats to take.

    Dark Archive

    I think a big help to Finesse characters would be more weapons that can actually use Finesse. For example, many of the Eastern Weapons are flexible and/or chain weapons which should be Finesse Weapons, even if they aren't Light. Coordination, not Strength, is used to fight with flexible weapons.

    Of course, Weapon Finesse not requiring a Feat would be a big help (or simply taking a Trait).

    If Dervish Dance could be applied to other weapons. Having it only be for scimitars is obviously not for balance, but because of Drizzt :)

    I support a +1 Bonus Magical Weapon enhancement:
    Graceful: Allows Weapon Finesse to be applied to a weapon.

    Dark Archive

    Tim4488 wrote:
    This may not solve the problem exactly (and honestly, I'm partial to Int to damage myself), but what about a feat that let you add Dex to damage when your opponent is flat-footed or flanked? It seems like that would be a nice balance between "Dex does too much already" and "it's too hard to be Dex-based." Of course it would make rogues brutal, but A: make it have a BAB requirement and B: I'm kind of okay with that, personally.

    This is already covered by the Rogue and Ninja's Sneak Attack dice.


    Really not sure if this has been suggested but...

    One thing I've been doing that's been letting my players enjoy more finesse-type characters is pretty much putting Weapon Finesse intrinsically into every character; it's part of the basic rules now that you can use Dexterity instead of Strength to hit. Then I make Weapon Finesse just allow Dexterity to be used as damage for light weapons, spiked chains, etc., much like the Dervish Dancer feat does for scimitars. I also include that if the player is going to Power Attack they can't use the Dex damage from WF, but instead have to use Strength (I don't want to take out Power Attacking with light weapons in general)

    This has opened the game up a bit for my players, and it gives rogues some needed ability points (on point buy) so they can take Cha, Int, Wis as well as making playing a quick character a bit more viable. I've noticed they can deal good damage, but a greatsword with power attack on a 20-base Strength barbarian is still straight basic attacking for more, so they haven't been showing up the heavy hitters.

    With this letting rogues spread points around a bit more freely (after all, it really just takes out one feat in a chain, and takes away the "scimitars only" rules in Dervish Dancer)I think rogues/ninjas can stay viable a bit longer now, or at least at lower levels put up a bit more of a fight.

    Just my idea =)

    51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Request: Support for Weapon Finesse in Ultimate Combat! All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules