People need to remember this mix and match class features are part of the ACG class building system too.
My character is going to invent the axe cane, a one-handed slashing weapon that's the perfect stylish accessory for young swashbuckler out to paint the town red.
I'll make millions!
Slashing Grace doesn't work with claws as natural weapons are considered 'light' weapons by default.
Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
So bites, claws, talons, slams, tentacles etc. are all considered 'light' weapons.
I agree with Malwing above. More options are a good thing.
Same here. I am not opposed to a dex to damage option for odd weapons like the battleaxe, except when more deserving weapons are denied this option.
If a feat had come out that made it able to use daggers, kukris, shortswords, rapiers etc. and weapons like battleaxes, bastardswords and similar, I'd have been totally fine. Why? Because it would have covered all of the bases while letting in for the 'unique' weapon choices to function too.
For example, if the feat had been named Swashbucklers grace and called out that any weapon that can be wielded in one hand can substitute dexterity for strength score on damage rolls, this would have worked fine. The 'finesse' weapons (except Elven Curved Blade which could have been a 'Special' exception) would all be covered as Weapon Finesse would give them dex to attack and Swashys Grace would give dex to damage. The non-finesse weapons would work, but would require a level of Swashbuckler; which would be appropriate as the feat would be named 'Swashbucklers Grace'. It would stand to reason that the Swashbuckler class gets the most use out of a feat named Swashbuckler's Grace.
People need to remember this mix and match class features are part of the ACG class building system too.
The problem for me is that the "mix and match" I've seen has just been casters taking whatever martial toys that casters hadn't already taken.
I don't have the book yet myself, but I asked for examples of it being the other way around and nobody came up with any...
Does the feat require divine casting?
Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?
The requirements are
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.
Yeah, this was a big bummer for me too. I don't get why it is too powerful for Swashbucklers but fine for all the divine casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Pfft, of course the nature mystery oracle can get Charisma to hp. You just need to kill her and raise her from the dead as a lich. Undead get Charisma to hp as a racial trait.
People need to remember this mix and match class features are part of the ACG class building system too.The problem for me is that the "mix and match" I've seen has just been casters taking whatever martial toys that casters hadn't already taken.
I don't have the book yet myself, but I asked for examples of it being the other way around and nobody came up with any...
To be fair, a lot of casters don't have a plethora of class features to steal that would make any sense out of the class itself. Like, there is no point in a Fighter having access to the Wizard's Arcane School since he doesn't have spells that benefit from it.
The same is true for a lot of the caster class features. There are only a few caster class features that would actually benefit a martial.
So feats for Wild Shape, feat for Bloodlines, feats for Hexes, feats for Channel Energy. There are certain revelations that would be beneficial for martials, but the mysteries themselves wouldn't really benefit them.
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.Pfft, of course the nature mystery oracle can get Charisma to hp. You just need to kill her and raise her from the dead as a lich. Undead get Charisma to hp as a racial trait.
So... Lich Nature Oracle Student of War with Divine Grace?
Ultimate Troll?
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.Pfft, of course the nature mystery oracle can get Charisma to hp. You just need to kill her and raise her from the dead as a lich. Undead get Charisma to hp as a racial trait.So... Lich Nature Oracle Student of War with Divine Grace?
Ultimate Troll?
LOL!
|
Yeah, this was a big bummer for me too. I don't get why it is too powerful for Swashbucklers but fine for all the divine casters.
My personal bet on this would be that the Feats chapter was written by different people than wrote the Swashbuckler Class (with different ideas of what makes the game balanced), rather than some agenda.
Still highly annoying, though.
This thread kinda has gone completely off-track.
This thread kinda has gone completely off-track.
I'm surprised it stayed mostly on track for the length of time it did to be honest!
I support the idea of a generic feat that allows dex to damage for finessable weapons. I am fine with the prereqs for slashing grace applying to this feat and requiring the weapon in question to also be one the user has weapon focus in. I would call it "Weapon Grace."
One way in my mind to make such a feat palatable to the devs would be to have the extra damage be precision damage, so it is negated by the various immunities to precision/sneak attack damage. This works for me thematically.
Peet
My character is going to invent the axe cane, a one-handed slashing weapon that's the perfect stylish accessory for young swashbuckler out to paint the town red.
I'll make millions!
Well in that case I will invent the cane cane, which is a cane that secretly is also a bludgeoning weapon.
:P
IMO, a simple fix is to allow a dex-to-damage feat, but make it precision damage (not multiplied on a critical). It makes a lot of sense, and it's not stupidly OP.
IMO, a simple fix is to allow a dex-to-damage feat, but make it precision damage (not multiplied on a critical). It makes a lot of sense, and it's not stupidly OP.
I think that would make it underpowered. Fortification and crit-immunity is pretty common.
a generic feat that grants Dex instead of Str to damage with finesse weapons as a standard non precision damage form isn't even a problem, even at low levels. the Dex to damage is balanced by the loss of Str to damage and Str is still useful for prerequisites, carrying capacity and effective ranged attacks.
IMO, a simple fix is to allow a dex-to-damage feat, but make it precision damage (not multiplied on a critical). It makes a lot of sense, and it's not stupidly OP.I think that would make it underpowered. Fortification and crit-immunity is pretty common.
true, it would be too underpowered, it is easy to gain crit immunity and fortitification, if it were a generic bonus that always applied on any finesse weapon, it wouldn't be too overpowered at all.
most strength based characters can blow money to replace the important non initiative benefits of a high dexterity, and a high initiative is bad for martial characters when it is desired for the PC wizard to go first.
They hit the rumble strip on the side of the road (namely us. We rumble alot) Course corrected. All will be well.
As for the whole "Dex-to-Damage" bit, I personally don't think its overpowered. I also think that the three feat requirement for Slashing Grace works. I'm down for anything that makes Weapon Focus a more attractive choice.
Regardless, there should have been (or should be) a way to apply it to more weapons. The fact of the matter is that the base swashbuckler class doesn't really care about the "realism" of what weapons real-world swasbucklers used in combat. That ship sailed when everyone realized that dwarven swashbucklers could run around finessing picks back in the ACG playtest. So I don't really see a reason why the class couldn't have more freedom in weapon choice, even if it is through feat selection.
Overall, between Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace, I think that "Dex-to-damage" thing wasn't handled very well. For example, Fencing Grace works only with rapiers, but the swashbuckler has an entire archetype devoted to using daggers and starknives. Why can't those weapons have Dex-to-damage, too? I predict that from here on out, we're going to see a LOT of feats like Fencing Grace that allow specific weapons to gain Dex-to-damage in a similar manner because there wasn't just one generic feat to handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's reasonable to assume slashing grace actually work for light weapons. I already said that i thought it was the intent, and someone else in this thread pointed the distinction between one-handed melee and one handed slashing.
I think it,s reasonable to assume it will be in the FAQ that it is a correct reading of the feat. To insist otherwise reeks a little bit of purposefully searching for the worse reading in order to placate paizo.
I will assume this is correct way of reading the feat in all my following comment.Now I think it would be interesting to discuss the value of the feat if it is read that way. I am personally sad that it doesn't work more like the dervish dance feat for other slashing or piercing weapons (a feat that have been found quite balanced up to now).
Right now it seem to favor two weapons user over one weapon user in the mechanics. This is a little sad as I like things that favor one handed one weapon user, a common sight in most stories, but almost absent in pathfinder.
This is intentional mis-reading of rules language and is wrong.
IMO, a simple fix is to allow a dex-to-damage feat, but make it precision damage (not multiplied on a critical). It makes a lot of sense, and it's not stupidly OP.I think that would make it underpowered. Fortification and crit-immunity is pretty common.
I agree. That would be far to weak.
I think the easiest fix is just to say it aplies to light weapons and one handed slashing weapons. I can see a logic in not let it aplie to one handed bludgeoning weapons or even one handed piercing weapons. A lance and this weapon could end up being a problem.
I agree with Tels, Deadmanwalking and Alexander Augunas. Can we please stop insulting the devs.
Also, can we keep this thread on topic.
Lances wouldn't even count, due to their bizarre wording they're still two-handed weapons even when wielded in one hand. Nothing else is like this and the inconsistency annoys me
I like slashing grace, though I think it missed its mark. Personally I'm getting rid of dervish dance cause I've grown to HATE the scimitar (thanks Paizo for that!). The problem is Scimitar is still a better a choice, and the weapon has to be slashing. I was really hoping they would do a better job with this, but thems the breaks.
using Run as a prerequisites for another feat does not make Run a more attractive choise.As for the whole "Dex-to-Damage" bit, I personally don't think its overpowered. I also think that the three feat requirement for Slashing Grace works. I'm down for anything that makes Weapon Focus a more attractive choice.
I suppose not, but we're not talking about Run. We're taking about Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus, which are already great feats.
As an aside, I actually quite like the Run feat. It does its job nicely. The problem is that the game doesn't really support mobility as a strength.
Weapon Focus isn't a "great" feat. At most it's a decent feat, but it's also dull and is just another number. I hate how many "options" in Pathfinder don't actually affect anything about your character and just represent a boost in a number.
Also, for the people saying that STR doesn't get enough, do you think it would be cool if they gave more traits and feats and stuff that let you substitute STR for other things? They already have intimidating prowess; why not something that lets you use STR for acro? Or some other bonus for having a high str score? I dunno.
Pretty much. People want DEX to damage because STR is a very unattractive attribute. Compare to all the things CHA does for Oracles, INT for Magi, WIS for Druids, CON for Barbarians...
DEX is not as good as those, but it could be competitive with DEX to damage.
STR is far, far away from getting there.
So what should be done is finish polishing DEX with DEX to damage, and adding more love to STR.
Anyway, I actually have a question about the ACG, do the classes archetypes that get panache points also get finesse or the swashbuckler equivalent?
They don't. I read the Hooded Champion Ranger archetype and it gets just Panache, scaling off Charisma (and not Wisdom as you may expect.)
It's part of the problem.
Making DEX bad as an offensive stat will not fix the fact that STR is bad too.
Making DEX acceptable and STR too (ideally, giving STR to Will saves and allowing more skills to be affected by STR) would be a very desirable course of action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's part of the problem.
Making DEX bad as an offensive stat will not fix the fact that STR is bad too.
Making DEX acceptable and STR too (ideally, giving STR to Will saves and allowing more skills to be affected by STR) would be a very desirable course of action.
Str isn't a part of the problem.
Str is a rock solid ability score. Sure some classes can dump it, just as some classes can dump wis, char or even int.I think it’s better to focus at the issue being discussed and suggesting a reasonable fix of the feat, instead of demanding that the Devs should rewrite parts of the core rule book.
I think Tels made an excellent OP and I’m glad we still seeing people trying to be productive, even though the devs won’t address this issue before Gen Con.
I only hope we can offer the Devs a productive thread after they get back from Gen Con and now we have the time and opportunity to actually show them we are productive without being jerks or demanding total rewrites of the skill system or whatever.
Can we hope for a change of tne feat? I hope so. The Devs did nerf Smite evil and have made other changes to already published material, but they will only listen to reason, not to insults or demands to rewrite the core rules, regardless or these demands are reasonable or unreasonable.
Weapon Focus isn't a "great" feat. At most it's a decent feat, but it's also dull and is just another number. I hate how many "options" in Pathfinder don't actually affect anything about your character and just represent a boost in a number.
Agree, WE is far from being a great feat.
It's just a feat tax, although I think it's better than combat expertise.I'd go as far as saying in this case it is even unnecessary. IMHO.
I'd accept more feats that do something with Strength. Not really because its not useful but because it's more interesting, although the ability to be less MAD is a bonus. One issue with mental stats is that you can stand to have them at 10 or less so long as you have one of them up high as a caster, however with Martial characters you need at least two physical stats up, sometimes in addition to one of the mental stats, if not three just to be versatile enough to not be shafted in some situations.
It's part of the problem.
Making DEX bad as an offensive stat will not fix the fact that STR is bad too.
Making DEX acceptable and STR too (ideally, giving STR to Will saves and allowing more skills to be affected by STR) would be a very desirable course of action.
Str isn't a part of the problem.
Str is a rock solid ability score. Sure some classes can dump it, just as some classes can dump wis, char or even int.I think it’s better to focus at the issue being discussed and suggesting a reasonable fix of the feat, instead of demanding that the Devs should rewrite parts of the core rule book.
I think Tels made an excellent OP and I’m glad we still seeing people trying to be productive, even though the devs won’t address this issue before Gen Con.
I only hope we can offer the Devs a productive thread after they get back from Gen Con and now we have the time and opportunity to actually show them we are productive without being jerks or demanding total rewrites of the skill system or whatever.
Can we hope for a change of tne feat? I hope so. The Devs did nerf Smite evil and have made other changes to already published material, but they will only listen to reason, not to insults or demands to rewrite the core rules, regardless or these demands are reasonable or unreasonable.
I was talking about feats that make STR better, not rewriting the core rulebook.
And STR is not rock solid at all. Any and every build which can dump it will do so. There should be more of an incentive for going STR.