|
I see your point Chenfor. The devs are much more experienced at this point. Their is a difference between being unable to see the flaws in ones work. Another in seeing the and unwilling to change them. If thus was the first year of development I could understand. Now it's just bad design IMO. I used to be a big fan of palladium books. Yet even after 30+ years of existence the owner still can predict a release schedule correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I count myself among those who would like to see a generic Dex to damage feat, but I do want to say that I'm certainly happy to see the rapier will be covered. Can't always get what you want... but the rapier, even more than any other weapon save maybe for daggers, really needed this, and I hear that if you try sometimes...
This feat is coming out in a non-PRD book.
For those that play PFS this feat will be legal (probably). For everyone else, expect many GMs to dis-allow the feat because it comes from a similar line of books as blood money and sacred geometry.
Personally, I would allow the feat in my games. But I would also allow a homebrew version of this feat if someone really needed it for their character concept.
This feat is coming out in a non-PRD book.
For those that play PFS this feat will be legal (probably). For everyone else, expect many GMs to dis-allow the feat because it comes from a similar line of books as blood money and sacred geometry.
Personally, I would allow the feat in my games. But I would also allow a homebrew version of this feat if someone really needed it for their character concept.
If someone wants to ban a whole book just because it contains one or more overpowered options for spellcasters, they'd have to play a very different game to this one.
Blood money came from an adventure path, so that comparison is out. ;)
If someone wants to ban a whole book just because it contains one or more overpowered options for spellcasters, they'd have to play a very different game to this one.This feat is coming out in a non-PRD book.
For those that play PFS this feat will be legal (probably). For everyone else, expect many GMs to dis-allow the feat because it comes from a similar line of books as blood money and sacred geometry.
Personally, I would allow the feat in my games. But I would also allow a homebrew version of this feat if someone really needed it for their character concept.
Cause allowing very few non-PRD sources is the same things as banning all books in the game to make casters less strong.
Blood money came from an adventure path, so that comparison is out. ;)
It's just as much not on the PRD as this feat and sacred geometry.
|
|
I've never actually met anyone in person who blanket banned all non-PRD books, and only seen a couple online. Ie: I don't think this is actually all that common.
And even among those who do so, showing them Jason's post on the Feat (which basically says 'Whoops, that should've been in there.') should convince all but the most unreasonable.
I've never actually met anyone in person who blanket banned all non-PRD books, and only seen a couple online. Ie: I don't think this is actually all that common.
Not blanket ban. Blanket allow.
Do you just allow everything from all the random books out there?
Or do you only ban certain things? What do you do when Paizo prints another sacred geometry and a player brings that into a game?
Furthermore, I don't ban all non-PRD books. Anything from Ultimate Psionics is allowed and no, I don't care that it is 3rd party.
|
|
Not blanket ban. Blanket allow.
'Blanket allow' would mean you allowed everything, I believe...
Do you just allow everything from all the random books out there?
Any Paizo book? Yes. There are occasional problems (like Sacred Geometry) but I House Rule those in one fashion or another...and they're hardly only found in non-PRD books (remember Antagonize?)
Or do you only ban certain things? What do you do when Paizo prints another sacred geometry and a player brings that into a game?
Depends on how obvious the problem is. I generally stay pretty up to date on Paizo's Pathfinder stuff and (as noted) disallow stuff as necessary. There really isn't much I disallow, though (Sacre Geometry is probably on the list...but it's the only thing I'm thinking of right now, aside from Antagonize).
Furthermore, I don't ban all non-PRD books. Anything from Ultimate Psionics is allowed and no, I don't care that it is 3rd party.
Perfectly reasonable, from what I hear about it.
But my point was more "The default is generally allowing published Paizo content, with individual exceptions." rather than disallowing it with individual exceptions.
I've never actually met anyone in person who blanket banned all non-PRD books, and only seen a couple online. Ie: I don't think this is actually all that common.
And even among those who do so, showing them Jason's post on the Feat (which basically says 'Whoops, that should've been in there.') should convince all but the most unreasonable.
The most common thing I see is a ban on books the GM doesn't have physical access to and hasn't read over. And most of the GMs I know only buy the hardcover rulebooks.
I play a lot online, and I see 'core' only fairly often.
I play a lot online, and I see 'core' only fairly often.The problem I have with "core only" games is that everyone seems to have a different opinion of what counts as core. I've seen CRB-only, CRB+Advanceds only, CRB+Ultimates only and PRD-only all referred to as "core only".
Oddly enough all those interpretation exclude Fencing Grace, dervish dance, and Sacred Geometry.
Oddly enough all those interpretation exclude Fencing Grace, dervish dance, and Sacred Geometry.I play a lot online, and I see 'core' only fairly often.The problem I have with "core only" games is that everyone seems to have a different opinion of what counts as core. I've seen CRB-only, CRB+Advanceds only, CRB+Ultimates only and PRD-only all referred to as "core only".
That would probably be why a core Dex to Damage option is so important to folks. I know personally that Core only tends to be alot of games, with core meaning hardbacks only.
How do we get this onto the iconic swashbuckler for PFS>? I don't want another harsk on my hands
I have to wait until the companion is made for this feat to be legal for PFS, or is there an exception due to the circumstances that those who have the ACG can use this feat?
Personally I'm perfectly fine with dex to damage being limited. Dex also improves your AC and that's a pretty big advantage. If we allow characters to dump strength in favor dex without limitations it would probably cause STR based martials to get completely outclassed so thumbs up for the "use with single hand only" clause.
That said: those who claim weapon focus to be a "feat tax" on a feat centered around a certain type of weapon are clearly joking you are already forced to use a rapier to use this feat... why wouldn't you want to use it with weapon focus? It's a good feat that leads to other good feats and it makes what you use the rapier for easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dervish Dance is still a better option mechanically for dex-to-damage than anything else that could be made available.
If strength builds were going to be completely usurped it would have already happened.
Expanding the list will just help those that want flavor, people who want the mechanics are already satisfied with their stupid scimitar builds.
Dervish Dance is still a better option mechanically for dex-to-damage than anything else that could be made available.
If strength builds were going to be completely usurped it would have already happened.
Expanding the list will just help those that want flavor, people who want the mechanics are already satisfied with their stupid scimitar builds.
...not really. The restrictions placed on it (1 handed/1 weapon) makes it very much weaker than an agile Elven Curved Blade (which gets all the 2 handed goodness). The main reason why agile weapons are a bit of a problem is that they are a rather pricy for TWF builds. Even fencing grace is better, since it doesn't seem so antithetical towards you making your other hand useful (a shield, which is heavily supported with swashbuckler abilities, or maybe an agile weapon for TWF...although mixing a dex to damage feat and agile weapon together seems....meh)
Of course, I am in support for the idea that DEX to damage should be rather limited or a bit pricy. It is the trade off for having your attack stat add to your saves and AC as well.
But you did say you were "pretty sure marketing would not be happy" if they admitted a mistake.
They admitted a mistake.
Think marketing's unhappy with them?
Thanks for pointing that out, because I really have been annoyed at companies which made obvious mistakes (coughBioWareME3endingcough) getting into siege mentality and never ever admitting a mistake. It's really good to see that the Paizo devs can admit if they have done something wrong and it is to be commended.
Which I hereby do. Thanks for being and behaving like normal human beings, guys! :)
Dervish Dance is still a better option mechanically for dex-to-damage than anything else that could be made available.
If strength builds were going to be completely usurped it would have already happened.
Expanding the list will just help those that want flavor, people who want the mechanics are already satisfied with their stupid scimitar builds.
...not really. The restrictions placed on it (1 handed/1 weapon) makes it very much weaker than an agile Elven Curved Blade (which gets all the 2 handed goodness). The main reason why agile weapons are a bit of a problem is that they are a rather pricy for TWF builds. Even fencing grace is better, since it doesn't seem so antithetical towards you making your other hand useful (a shield, which is heavily supported with swashbuckler abilities, or maybe an agile weapon for TWF...although mixing a dex to damage feat and agile weapon together seems....meh)
Of course, I am in support for the idea that DEX to damage should be rather limited or a bit pricy. It is the trade off for having your attack stat add to your saves and AC as well.
All of your other options are quite a bit more expensive feat-wise and money-wise than Dervish Dance. The Elven Curved Blade costs another feat and an agile weapon is pricy as you've said; Fencing Grace also costs another feat and gets even more ridiculous if you try to TWF with an agile weapon.
All of your other options are quite a bit more expensive feat-wise and money-wise than Dervish Dance. The Elven Curved Blade costs another feat and an agile weapon is pricy as you've said; Fencing Grace also costs another feat and gets even more ridiculous if you try to TWF with an agile weapon....not really. The restrictions placed on it (1 handed/1 weapon) makes it very much weaker than an agile Elven Curved Blade (which gets all the 2 handed goodness). The main reason why agile weapons are a bit of a problem is that they are a rather pricy for TWF builds. Even fencing grace is better, since it doesn't seem so antithetical towards you making your other hand useful (a shield, which is heavily supported with swashbuckler abilities, or maybe an agile weapon for TWF...although mixing a dex to damage feat and agile weapon together seems....meh)
Of course, I am in support for the idea that DEX to damage should be rather limited or a bit pricy. It is the trade off for having your attack stat add to your saves and AC as well.
Quite right, it does take more investment. But you get what you pay for I guess....
If you view that agile costs for a single weapon are about the same worth as a feat (it is similar to the decision that people have to deal with when faced with keen versus improved critical), then the exotic weapon proficiency need to get the elven curved blade itself could be seen as just a feat that gets the benefits of 2handing.
By BAB +4, it is somewhat similar to having weapon expertise with a dervish danced scimitar, and it grows from there. If you can pick it up via race (half elves with ancestral arms, humans with adopted parents and martial weapon proficiency, elves with martial weapon proficiency, and tengu with any darn sword they want, to name a few) then it is hardly a bad choice.
I'll admit- you completely have me with fencing grace. Trying to TWF with fencing grace really only works if you are of the Two Weapon Fighter archetype (they can eventually TWF with 2 one handed weapons like without extra penalty- double rapier ahoy.) Otherwise, it is just a bit silly (price-wise, at least). As far as optimization goes, it will likely just stay a nice toy for swashbucklers (although it might be interesting on magus if you start at a late enough level that getting the feats together isn't a problem; scimitars eventually get old when used everytime)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 level dip into swashbuckler and using sawtooth sabres with slashing grace is a pretty nice TWF style.
I find Slashing Grace a bit interesting too in that you can get Dex to Damage, but NOT to hit. Consider - A Fighter who takes this feat will get his Dex to Damage with it, but not to hit, as Weapon Finesse doesn't apply to it normally, if say the Long Sword is the chosen weapon.
This feat is coming out in a non-PRD book.
For those that play PFS this feat will be legal (probably). For everyone else, expect many GMs to dis-allow the feat because it comes from a similar line of books as blood money and sacred geometry.
Personally, I would allow the feat in my games. But I would also allow a homebrew version of this feat if someone really needed it for their character concept.
Here is the ultimate argument:
A) The Design Team was put in charge of developing Advanced Class Origins. That means the same people who wrote the ACG also wrote Fencing Grace.
B) The Lead Designer on the ACG came into the ACG threads and said so himself.
C) Fencing Grace, as proposed by Jason, is an even more tightly worded feat than Slashing Grace, a Core Rulebook feat. Whereas Slashing Grace applies to a large number of weapons, Fencing Grace only applies to one. If anyone, it is weaker than Slashing Grace as written because it is less versatile.
I find Slashing Grace a bit interesting too in that you can get Dex to Damage, but NOT to hit. Consider - A Fighter who takes this feat will get his Dex to Damage with it, but not to hit, as Weapon Finesse doesn't apply to it normally, if say the Long Sword is the chosen weapon.
Luckily, there are currently four classes that grant a variant on the Swashbuckler's Finesse ability: Daring Champions (Cavaliers), Kata Masters (Monks), and the Swashbuckler class and all of its archetypes.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I find Slashing Grace a bit interesting too in that you can get Dex to Damage, but NOT to hit. Consider - A Fighter who takes this feat will get his Dex to Damage with it, but not to hit, as Weapon Finesse doesn't apply to it normally, if say the Long Sword is the chosen weapon.
That's because its essentially a swashbuckler feat, even though it doesn't have swashbuckler in the requirements. The main benefit of the feat (which was the only benefit back in the playtest, prior to Dex to damage being added) was that you could use a one-handed slashing weapon with your swashbuckler (or Duelist) class features.
Now that it adds Dex to damage on top of that, all the other Dexy classes want it. Its milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, as it were.
Has anyone given a reason why light weapons have been excluded from the dex to damage thing, especially as they are the best candidates?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone given a reason why light weapons have been excluded from the dex to damage thing, especially as they are the best candidates?
no. but at this point it is reasonable to assume it's because the same reason why they now are writing fencing grace; the developers in a rush to fix things forgot light weapons existed.