A More Generic 'Dex to Damage' Feat - Includes ACG


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 876 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

MMCJawa wrote:
Incidentally, as I have posted once before, there is criticism and constructive criticism. I am in academia, and have had to review a variety of scientific papers. If I wrote in a review "This person is stupid and clearly doesn't understand the method they are reviewing" There is absolutely nothing constructive in that sentence.

This is a clear misstatement of what I have written in the past, given how it clearly is aimed at me. I specifically pointed out before that personal attacks are not okay, but describing a decision as "absurd" and "bizarre" (which is clearly not the same as describing the person as such) is within acceptable discourse.

MMCJawa wrote:
I don't think it's mollycoddling to flag posts or ask people to be a bit more civil. I think if you consider "civility" as mollycoddling, than you have some very odd viewpoints on how the world...

And again a misrepresentation of what I had said in this thread in the past. Please stop doing that.


Tels wrote:


I still don't know why Swashbucklers were given only reflex as a good save. I distinctly remember a number of swashbucklers that could drink people under the table. Fortitude should have been another good save of theirs :(

And I distinctly remember a number of Swashbucklers in history and fiction that have stood their ground against absurd odds and changes. Will should have probably been good too.

Honestly though I never really got the whole "martials can't have good will saves" thing. Takes some serious willpower to face down a dragon with nothing but a metal stick.

While the wizard or sorcerer who lets himself get sucked into arcane mysteries recklessly on a quest for power... could actually justify a low will save there.

Ah well.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
...a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma...
Please point me to that build.

Well, off the top of my head, Nature's Whispers + Noble Scion (War) + Divine Protection makes it the basis for all your defenses and Initiative. Add in the fact that you can be an offensive spellcaster, with a Bonded Mount for backup melee support...and that's basically everything but skills and HP. Lunar Oracle can do the same with a better Animal Companion, too.

I assume that's what's being talked about...

Lunar Oracle unfortunately gets Reflex instead of CMD out of their charisma-to-defenses revelation so they still leave a hole that the Nature Oracle lacks. You'd probably want to be a Gnome for this so you can get a boar or a wolf instead of a much weaker horse.

@swoosh: I've always been of the opinion that crappy saves should be a caster problem, not a martial one. By opening yourself up to magic you make yourself more vulnerable to it and all that.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I...what?, to all saves?

According to people with the book, yes. It's intended to duplicate the Paladin's Divine Grace.

All Oracles will of course have this Feat from now on...

Wow, just absurd.


Does the ability state any divine class feature and not something like domain class feature?


Tels wrote:

Perhaps they should have some sort of vote with a variety of different options to find the option people 'most' like?

For example:

A) A feat that is a straight upgrade to Weapon Finesse like Mythic Weapon Finesse is.

B) A feat that operates much like Dervish Dance in that it's limited to a single weapon.

C) A feat that is limited only by a previous feat in the chain, like allowing any finesseable weapon with which you have Weapon Focus to gain Dex to Damage.

D) A 'Piercing Grace' to match Slashing Grace and a 'Light Weapon Grace' for the Light weapons.

E) No Dex to Damage option at all.

Etcetera and so on.

Man, if only they had a period of time before releasing a hardcover book of rules where they could showcase some of the more problematic or anticipated rules and then have the player base run all the mathemathical testing and rule stressing and even some wordproofing for free, pointing out defects before they hit print. Some sort of playtest where they could listen to the players feedback... Like Dreamscarred Press does! Would be much better than just showing a samll part of the book and then just ignoring any feedback they disagree with. Imagine, if the Swashbuckler had been properly playtested they could have something different than the hot mess which is Charmed Life.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's a pretty powerful feat even for other divine casters, like clerics, who might have a decent Charisma score for their channel energy ability.

Why spend three feats on Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes when you can spend one feat and have your 14 Charisma grant you all of the above (and more should you ever pump it higher).

I wonder if it stacks with a paladin's divine grace so that they get their Charisma added to their saves twice.

EDIT: Just saw it; it does not. It has a caveat that says if you already get your Charisma to saves, you get an additional +1 increase instead. Still not bad for anyone trying to power up their saves.


Man, if it does, they're pretty much untouchable if it requires a save...


Does the feat require divine casting?

Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?


Ok, where is the feat that let me add str to all saves with full BAB as prerequisite?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:

B) A feat that operates much like Dervish Dance in that it's limited to a single weapon.

A feat with the restriction of dervish dance (no shield, no TWF), but works with all finesseable weapon.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Does the feat require divine casting?

Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?

The requirements are Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,

ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains,
or mystery class feature.

So an aasimar would still have to take a one level dip at the very least. Might still be worth it.

EDIT: I also just wanted to point out that it says 2nd-level spells. Note the plural. Though you might be able to argue that daylight (or one of the variant abilities) is over 2nd level, I think you would have a harder time arguing against the fact that it looks like you need more than one such spell available to you.


That's the same language as with the Eldritch Knight so it would work just fine if you're playing the variant Aasimar with SNA II or variant Tiefling with Death Knell. Still need to dip Cleric though, so at that point you may as well just take Trickery domain and get the requisite spell with anything.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick note here, because this has spiraled in a few different directions over the weekend: our moderation team and design team shouldn't be conflated with each other. We absolutely do not discourage discussion about specific aspects of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If you think we've made an error, please contact us. The best way we can improve these policies is through communication through appropriate channels like the Website Feedback forum or via email, not in a discussion about feats.

I will also point out that we try to treat personal attacks the same way for everyone in our community (including staff). Please take a moment to remember that every one of us is still an actual person on the other side of the screen, and we can sometimes make mistakes. Let's keep these discussions focused on a discussion of content (even if it's negative feedback! Constructive criticism can be incredibly useful!), rather than individuals on a personal level.

Let's try to divert this discussion back around, please.


Nicos wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.
Can you elaborate for hte unfortunate ones that don't have the book yet?
I don't have it yet either, but there's a new feat for divine casters that lets you add charisma to your saves. Requires 2nd level divine casting, 5 levels in Kn. Religion, and one of the divine class features (so that those martials that might want to get more out of charisma can't pick up the feat with a spell-like ability without dipping into a real class).
I...what?, to all saves?

Yeah, divine full casters only, no prerequisites worth mentioning (for a divine caster; dipping and SLA shenanigans required for anyone else) other than 5 skill ranks.


Sorry for the tangent, but about Slashing Grace, it lacks the wording about still using half of your dexterity if an off hand attack. So if you wanted to TWF would you get full dex to both?

Its a corner case I am wondering about using a Swashbuckler 1/Urban Barbarian X who TWFs with Sawtooth Sabers. I feel like it could make for a good DEX character since you still have full BAB and can grab Pounce. The TWF can even come online as early as level 5, maybe Power Attack at 7 and Improved TWF at 9?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:

Sorry for the tangent, but about Slashing Grace, it lacks the wording about still using half of your dexterity if an off hand attack. So if you wanted to TWF would you get full dex to both?

I do not think so. The Dex is substituting the Str mod, so I would think you would deal half on off-hand. Not sure how it would interact with Double Slice.

Thanks for the post Chris. The fact that anyone from the company posts at all is great. And hopefully it will refocus the discussion away from attacks


Can I vote to have the sacred geometry discussion moved or deleted because it really has derailed the thread and has nothing to do with the feat in question possibly having an oversight or error in it that we would like feedback from the developers on.

The attacks on Paizo are really regrettable, but there is a lot of good content and discussion in this thread if you can find it in all the clutter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Can I vote to have the sacred geometry discussion moved or deleted because it really has derailed the thread and has nothing to do with the feat in question possibly having an oversight or error in it that we would like feedback from the developers on.

The attacks on Paizo are really regrettable, but there is a lot of good content and discussion in this thread if you can find it in all the clutter.

Yes, you can, by flagging posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesnt really appear that theres too much more to discuss until someone from paizo says something (which I do believe they said they were going to discuss it more in detail on the 14th when it was released).

That being said I could theorize more on why slashing grace was made. The devs thinking could be as such:

Light weapons are finessable because of their weight and size. So you can use your dex rather than str because it doesnt require much str to use them.

Slashing grace on the other hand allows you to use one handed weapons to deal damage with dex. This is based on using the weapons weight and targeting certain areas, rather than how hard you can hit them.

So a light weapon isnt heavy enough to deal damage without significant force behind it (baring magical enchantment) and a slashing onehander is too heavy to weild accuratly without str (except with specilized training like a swashbuckler has). A twohander is too large or heavy (or both) to use dex (the elven curved blade can be finessed but is too large to use without magic for dex damsge).

Or maybe im just overthining things.


I would like to see a Sacred Geometry thread because I have no idea what's going on there. I read the feat but I still don't know what the fuss is about.

And just to be clear on the main subject of this thread; We are pissed that Slashing Grace does not include weapons we want into the dex to damage party, right?


Malwing wrote:

I would like to see a Sacred Geometry thread because I have no idea what's going on there. I read the feat but I still don't know what the fuss is about.

And just to be clear on the main subject of this thread; We are pissed that Slashing Grace does not include weapons we want into the dex to damage party, right?

Yes. We're also mad because it includes weapons that dont even make sense like the battleaxe.

And Sacred Geometry is ridiculous because its mathmatically proven to just boost spells with 2 metamagic for free after a certain point. Someone worked out the mathematical formula on the GITP forums.


Scavion wrote:
Malwing wrote:

I would like to see a Sacred Geometry thread because I have no idea what's going on there. I read the feat but I still don't know what the fuss is about.

And just to be clear on the main subject of this thread; We are pissed that Slashing Grace does not include weapons we want into the dex to damage party, right?

Yes. We're also mad because it includes weapons that dont even make sense like the battleaxe.

And Sacred Geometry is ridiculous because its mathmatically proven to just boost spells with 2 metamagic for free after a certain point. Someone worked out the mathematical formula on the GITP forums.

I'm actually kind of happy that it includes battleaxes. I always wanted to play a fighter TWF with axes roleplayed as spinning when I full attack (I assumed that dervish dance had me spinning for the dex to damage). In fact it opens up a lot of dex based concepts I wanted to do. I'm not sure if the camp exist but I'm in the camp where light weapons getting dex to damage making as much sense as battleaxes outside of fighting game logic.


Light weapons getting dex to damage makes quite a bit of sense, as you can't really put as much force behind, say, a dagger or a hammer as you can behind a battleaxe or longsword. They require more precision and speed than sheer impact force to do harm.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree with Malwing above. More options are a good thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Does the feat require divine casting?

Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?

The requirements are Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,

ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains,
or mystery class feature.

Meanwhile, they said Charmed Life would be overpowered if it worked like Divine Grace. It would have to have limited uses per day, and must be declared before the die is rolled, and use an Immediate Action (on a class with a lot of Swift/Immediate Action abilities).

This kind of takes the wind out of me.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Light weapons getting dex to damage makes quite a bit of sense, as you can't really put as much force behind, say, a dagger or a hammer as you can behind a battleaxe or longsword. They require more precision and speed than sheer impact force to do harm.

A hammer is probably a worse example than a dagger but either way you do need plenty of force for them to do much once they hit unless it's a lightsaber or something. So for me applying actual damage using just dex I don't understand any more than with a battleaxe which to me at least has the (wonky) logic of spinning or using momentum.

I guess my argument is that they are both very 'gamey' and not exactly based on what makes sense, we just want dex-based options and concepts to be more viable.


Athaleon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Does the feat require divine casting?

Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?

The requirements are Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,

ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains,
or mystery class feature.

Meanwhile, they said Charmed Life would be overpowered if it worked like Divine Grace. It would have to have limited uses per day, and must be declared before the die is rolled, and use an Immediate Action (on a class with a lot of Swift/Immediate Action abilities).

This kind of takes the wind out of me.

A feat/class feature can only be overpowered if it is for martials.

Scarab Sages

Malwing wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Light weapons getting dex to damage makes quite a bit of sense, as you can't really put as much force behind, say, a dagger or a hammer as you can behind a battleaxe or longsword. They require more precision and speed than sheer impact force to do harm.

A hammer is probably a worse example than a dagger but either way you do need plenty of force for them to do much once they hit unless it's a lightsaber or something. So for me applying actual damage using just dex I don't understand any more than with a battleaxe which to me at least has the (wonky) logic of spinning or using momentum.

I guess my argument is that they are both very 'gamey' and not exactly based on what makes sense, we just want dex-based options and concepts to be more viable.

With a light weapon, it would not be a question of how hard you hit. Weapon Finesse could represent greater precision in where you hit. Very little force would be needed for a strike to the throat, eyes, or similar point, to be devastating.

Grand Lodge

Malwing wrote:


I guess my argument is that they are both very 'gamey' and not exactly based on what makes sense, we just want dex-based options and concepts to be more viable.

"What makes sense" disappeared when I ran into a 10by10 killer cube of jello.

The problem is Dex based characters need support. Support both Slashing Grace, and Fencing grace, fails to provide. While the obvious feat, posted many times in this thread already, despite being the clear, simple, and best solution to the problem was ignored. The net result is a bevy of characters that should exist already, have to wait for yet another splat book, and another whole group doesn't get to exist AT ALL. For no reason, or at least no reason the dev teams are willing to share.


Artanthos wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Light weapons getting dex to damage makes quite a bit of sense, as you can't really put as much force behind, say, a dagger or a hammer as you can behind a battleaxe or longsword. They require more precision and speed than sheer impact force to do harm.

A hammer is probably a worse example than a dagger but either way you do need plenty of force for them to do much once they hit unless it's a lightsaber or something. So for me applying actual damage using just dex I don't understand any more than with a battleaxe which to me at least has the (wonky) logic of spinning or using momentum.

I guess my argument is that they are both very 'gamey' and not exactly based on what makes sense, we just want dex-based options and concepts to be more viable.

With a light weapon, it would not be a question of how hard you hit. Weapon Finesse could represent greater precision in where you hit. Very little force would be needed for a strike to the throat, eyes, or similar point, to be devastating.

Doesn't Called Shot represent that already? I know that the effects are lackluster and it's not dex based but because 'going for a bodypart specifically' would sometimes be a priority no matter what weapon you're using or how much power you're putting behind it so should be covered by a better called shot system than adding dex to damage.


Called shot is more of "how do i take out this specific body part" whereas a dexterity based damage roll is "well this is the target my opponent has presented to me, i might as well slide the tip of the blade up their vambrace and into their elbow joint. That'll work better than just slapping a metal plate with a needle."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've read this thread from beginning to end, and if there's one thing I have realized, it's that Paizo needs a community manager with a license to leap into angry threads and fight scathing dialog with even more scathing dialog. A former crab fisherman or maybe a lumberjack or a prospector who barely knows how to use the Internet hired specifically to spout out barely legible harangues and textually beat into submission any uppity gamer who dares ask for something nice for mundane martials. And they'll pay him in giant bricks of salt and bottles of amphetamines. Maybe one day that man will be me. A snallygaster can dream.


Nicos wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I...what?, to all saves?

According to people with the book, yes. It's intended to duplicate the Paladin's Divine Grace.

All Oracles will of course have this Feat from now on...

Wow, just absurd.

absurd that every oracle will take it? i've never seen a fighter that didnt take power attack.


ikarinokami wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I...what?, to all saves?

According to people with the book, yes. It's intended to duplicate the Paladin's Divine Grace.

All Oracles will of course have this Feat from now on...

Wow, just absurd.
absurd that every oracle will take it? i've never seen a fighter that didnt take power attack.

And?

Dark Archive

I wouldn't mind a feat that adds Dex to main hand damage and half-Dex to offhand damage, with 2-3 prereqs, works with any light weapon you have weapon focused to represent your training/talent with it.

I also really want Dex to damage with a Kusarigama or similar.


ikarinokami wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I...what?, to all saves?

According to people with the book, yes. It's intended to duplicate the Paladin's Divine Grace.

All Oracles will of course have this Feat from now on...

Wow, just absurd.
absurd that every oracle will take it? i've never seen a fighter that didnt take power attack.

Piranha Attack dual wielders.

Divine Grace is absurd because it is simply Best In Slot for a feat for any CHA caster. It's a straight buff. A properly designed feat is not Power Attack, it's something you can take or leave depending on your build.


Now that I think about it... The Weapon Focus prerequisite is not bad for whip.... But for a terrible reason.

Whip users will probably take the Whip Mastery line of feats. And on of the prerequisites for this feat chain is... You guessed it! Weapon Focus (Whip).

So, since whip users already have to pay the pointless feat tax anyway, it's not much of a problem if another feat chain requires it.


So, if you think Divine Grace in a feat is bonkers, what about Lay on Hands in a feat? And hey, try to guess the pre-reqs :) Spoiler: Most Paladins wouldn't qualify.


Justin Sane wrote:
So, if you think Divine Grace in a feat is bonkers, what about Lay on Hands in a feat? And hey, try to guess the pre-reqs :) Spoiler: Most Paladins wouldn't qualify.

Be a spellcaster?


Lemmy wrote:

Now that I think about it... The Weapon Focus prerequisite is not bad for whip.... But for a terrible reason.

Whip users will probably take the Whip Mastery line of feats. And on of the prerequisites for this feat chain is... You guessed it! Weapon Focus (Whip).

So, since whip users already have to pay the pointless feat tax anyway, it's not much of a problem if another feat chain requires it.

I feel like almost all of these builds require fighter because they can get the chain fast enough to enjoy the brief moment of relevancy such builds have before not casting spells crushes them.


Justin Sane wrote:
So, if you think Divine Grace in a feat is bonkers, what about Lay on Hands in a feat? And hey, try to guess the pre-reqs :) Spoiler: Most Paladins wouldn't qualify.

I have no real issue with it. Lay on hands is far less game changing than setting your saves to "can only fail on a 1".


So... Is Paizo just giving all of the Paladin's class features to everyone every caster now?


Well, they did the same with Sneak Attack and Trapfinding...

PS: One of the pre-reqs for the LoH feat is Alignment: Lawful Good.


Are the other ones Wis 13 and Domain?


Actually I really don't have an issue with Believer's Hands (the lay on hands feat) - the way it's written is sufficiently inferior to the paladin version that I don't really mind it being an option for people who really want some extra healing. And yes, Wis 13 is part of the prerequisites.


Lemmy wrote:
So... Is Paizo just giving all of the Paladin's class features to everyone every caster now?

Would be one way to satisfy players who want to be able to run Paladin-esque characters without all the baggage and restriction that comes from playing a Paladin.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Lemmy wrote:

Now that I think about it... The Weapon Focus prerequisite is not bad for whip.... But for a terrible reason.

Whip users will probably take the Whip Mastery line of feats. And on of the prerequisites for this feat chain is... You guessed it! Weapon Focus (Whip).

So, since whip users already have to pay the pointless feat tax anyway, it's not much of a problem if another feat chain requires it.

Yep. I have a Kitsune Calistrian Hunter who will be quite happy to add Slashing Grace onto her build.

Grand Lodge

Other interesting weapons to note:
Sword Cane (haven't seen this one mentioned)
edit: Is piercing. Doesn't work... unfortunate.

.....Sun Blade? A bit of a stretch, but it works. I'm going to dual wield my sunblades! It only takes until level 10 or so before the character comes together.

Ironically, i am already making a Kensai/Bladebound Aldori Dueling sword Magus (lvl 5). Was going to become the swordlord prestige class to get dex to damage next level. This feat will make me rethink it. Though the build is already headed down the swordlord route. I might take it for the flavor/build anyway. Saves a precious feat as well.

I think i can understand why they did it this way. They don't want it for monks, they don't want it for dual wielders. (Though the sawtooth sabres mitigate that. Would it work for claws? I'd imagine so. They are one handed weapons by definition of being a hand. But then no bite. unless you also take WF (Bite) then the feat AGAIN.

451 to 500 of 876 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A More Generic 'Dex to Damage' Feat - Includes ACG All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.