| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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..
This is not the only, nor indeed the main reason why people want dexterity-based fighting to be a viable approach to combat. People want dexterity-based fighting to work because it's an incredibly common concept - the blade master who relies on his agility rather than brute strength, the spear expert who aims his needle-point blade at joints in the enemy's armor rather than smashing through plate with a battleaxe. I'd be happy to provide you with numerous examples of popular characters from books, TV or games that primarily rely on dexterity rather than strength if you want.
Dervish Dance is a decent attempt at making that iconic style work, but unfortunately it's limited to a single weapon - the scimitar. A lot of people have had to swallow some camels to make yet another character concept that wields a scimitar, but it's the only option that was viable at low levels.
Slashing/Piercing Grace is a second attempt at making that iconic style work, but paradoxically it encourages folk to use big heavy cumbersome weapons rather than the small and agile ones.
I can spin my 12 lb double-headed dwarven waraxe like a drill baton, but I just can't figure out how to use this here 1 lb kukri well.
I don't think most people object that slashing grace grants dex to damage for one-handed weapons (it absolutely does for the right character) but rather that it doesn't make sense that slashing grace works with heavy one-handed slashing weapons like the waraxe, but not small and agile light weapons like the kukri.
(...)I was talking about feats that make STR better (...)
This is how I'd handle it. Create a good dexterity-to-damage feat that opens up that combat style for those who want to pursue it, then add some feats that makes strength a more interesting ability score for those who stick with strength and want to put their unspent feats into something cool.
Don't forget that Strength characters can really push their damage with size increases and transformation spells.
I think a lot of the "DEX to damage will cause the sky to fall" mentality would be alleviated if we did get more feats and abilities that let us use STR in place of other attributes.
For example, a feat that let's us use STR in place of CON for Fortitude saves, and a separate feat that let's us use it in place of CON for Hit Points.
If we can make STR just as attractive of an option for characters as DEX is, then DEX is not broken.
At the end of the day, I still say that the point buy system and the perception of balance in game is to blame for this entire fiasco. If a player had an 18 in both stats, they wouldn't care which stat they used on damage, it would just be a flavor choice. The only reason DEX to damage is the more 'powerful' option is because it lets players abuse the point buy system to marginalize and min max their characters.
The situation would be different if the builds that people are wanting this for, mainly rogues, monks, and other MAD classes, were the only ones people are talking about. If we start to see a paladin with an unhittable AC, and unmatched damage because he was able to marginalize his stats, the problem becomes apparent.
Not that I'm changing my tune, just trying to show where the thought process comes from.
The best solution imo is to have classes that rely on DEX to be able to use DEX baked into class abilities. A rogue talent that gives DEX to damage in place of STR. Add that line in to Flurry of Blows. Add a deed to the swashbuckler to match the gunslinger.
If DEX to damage in a feat is too powerful, then give it to us in other, less powerful ways.
I think a lot of the "DEX to damage will cause the sky to fall" mentality would be alleviated if we did get more feats and abilities that let us use STR in place of other attributes.
For example, a feat that let's us use STR in place of CON for Fortitude saves, and a separate feat that let's us use it in place of CON for Hit Points.
If we can make STR just as attractive of an option for characters as DEX is, then DEX is not broken.
At the end of the day, I still say that the point buy system and the perception of balance in game is to blame for this entire fiasco. If a player had an 18 in both stats, they wouldn't care which stat they used on damage, it would just be a flavor choice. The only reason DEX to damage is the more 'powerful' option is because it lets players abuse the point buy system to marginalize and min max their characters.
The situation would be different if the builds that people are wanting this for, mainly rogues, monks, and other MAD classes, were the only ones people are talking about. If we start to see a paladin with an unhittable AC, and unmatched damage because he was able to marginalize his stats, the problem becomes apparent.
Not that I'm changing my tune, just trying to show where the thought process comes from.
The best solution imo is to have classes that rely on DEX to be able to use DEX baked into class abilities. A rogue talent that gives DEX to damage in place of STR. Add that line in to Flurry of Blows. Add a deed to the swashbuckler to match the gunslinger.
If DEX to damage in a feat is too powerful, then give it to us in other, less powerful ways.
Really agree with this. Maybe not strength to HP, but giving strength a little bit more utility (optional) would make strength more 'useful.'
I feel iffy making Strength more powerful than it is due to it governing offensive power almost directly, but it feels so weird that you can get Charisma to SO much and Strength to nothing.
Yes, without any class features, Charisma is one of the weakest class features and Strength is the strongest. Designers see this and decide to make Charisma a bit more attractive with feats and class features that give you Charisma to saves or initiative or AC. But all these feats and features stack-up to the point where, with the right class features, Charisma can be the strongest. I think developers are iffy to make Strength to Fort saves and whatnot because of that, but there is just so much supplemental material out there that you can apply the 'weaker' attributes to so much and strength to nothing.
If strength being able to be applied to Fort and Dex skills with a feat or two would let Dex get damage with all weapons, I'm all for that. Of course, this would make the Barbarian or Wild Shape Druid that much stronger than the Fighter, which is something to look-out for.
At least two of the lowest-level martials seemingly pay for the sins of other classes: Those two being the Fighter and the Monk. The Monk can't have nice things because of the Druid, and the Fighter... man, anything the Fighter gets to have to himself is BURIED behind walls of prerequisites that end up eating between 20-40% of his Feats.
At least two of the lowest-level martials seemingly pay for the sins of other classes: Those two being the Fighter and the Monk. The Monk can't have nice things because of the Druid, and the Fighter... man, anything the Fighter gets to have to himself is BURIED behind walls of prerequisites that end up eating between 20-40% of his Feats.
I'm really lost on what makes monks so bad.
The Crane Wing thing sure was sad, but not unbearable imo. If your AC is so high that you can't get hit by anything in the Bestiary anyway, then being able to autodeflect an attack becomes a wash other than "it's cool to do."Honestly a lot of the problems with the CRB monks got fixed in Ultimate Combat with different Style feats and with the Dimensional Dervish/Savant feat chain allowing for full attacks and movement in the same turn.
Part of it is that, at the moment, unless you go into Zen Archer/any of the 'approved' Archetypes, you need between four and five Attributes at relatively high levels to be functional.
The Style Feats eat up a lot of landscape in your Feat planning, and you have to be either crazy or have given up Abundant Step to not take the Dimensional line, unless, again, Zen Archer.
Those are big problems.
Eh I think Paizo is trying to avoid what happened to the magus, where it seems like everyone is running dex-magi
Even though IMO dex magi are just worse than strength magi for having to burn feats that could have went to extra arcane pool.
If there's been a misunderstanding, there's a misunderstanding. Let's keep things impersonal and on-topic, we don't want to give the moderators more work.
Eh I think Paizo is trying to avoid what happened to the magus, where it seems like everyone is running dex-magi
Even though IMO dex magi are just worse than strength magi for having to burn feats that could have went to extra arcane pool.
The option for dex magi is literally the best dex option weapon for them. Opening up more options would likely just increase the amount of folks who wanted to use scarves, daggers or otherwise instead of the optimal scimitar.
The option for dex magi is literally the best dex option weapon for them. Opening up more options would likely just increase the amount of folks who wanted to use scarves, daggers or otherwise instead of the optimal scimitar.Eh I think Paizo is trying to avoid what happened to the magus, where it seems like everyone is running dex-magi
Even though IMO dex magi are just worse than strength magi for having to burn feats that could have went to extra arcane pool.
I'll be over here with my long sword polymorphing into large creatures (who have dex penalties) for that nice boost to damage.
Sure! Along with every increment you get smaller decreasing the amount of damage you can do, as your drop in size also drops your damage die!
Other than that, the loss of threatened area, movement speed drop, your CMD tanking, and the fact that getting to anyone to strike them pretty much means you will get AoO'd, no problems at all.
Strength is best stat.
You need 22+ dex and a mithral chain shirt to catch up to full plate in AC. After that you need 30+ dex and darkleaf padded leather before you start pulling ahead with AC(worn by non-fighters). Eventually you will need to invest in bracers of armor if your dex gets high enough to make use of it.
The benefits simply do not outweigh the penalties. They never do.
26+ dex and celestial armor.
+3 chain armor?
That's all you ever want?
Since you'll never have +5 without house-rules...
What house rules are those Marcus? The Ultimate Equipment Guide, Ultimate Campaign Guide, Inner Sea Gods and numerous other sources clearly state that you can modify specific magical arms and armor.
Crafting and/or upgrading to +5 celestial armor is RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What house rules are those Marcus? The Ultimate Equipment Guide, Ultimate Campaign Guide, and numerous other sources clearly state that you can modify specific magical arms and armor.
Crafting and/or upgrading to +5 celestial armor is RAW.
I remember when I read this in the magic item section of Inner Sea Gods (or was it Combat?) and my mind has been blown since.
I remember when I read this in the magic item section of Inner Sea Gods (or was it Combat?) and my mind has been blown since.What house rules are those Marcus? The Ultimate Equipment Guide, Ultimate Campaign Guide, and numerous other sources clearly state that you can modify specific magical arms and armor.
Crafting and/or upgrading to +5 celestial armor is RAW.
I did a fist bump and cried out "Finally!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I want a dex-based warrior because I find them to be so much more cool and fun than someone who just powers through things with strength.
That's not to say that strength is bad, I've got several characters that can hurl cars with the best of them, but, when ever I think of the type of character I would most want to play, it's not someone with bulging muscles. It's always someone who focuses much more on grace and precision, attacking key points and using technique to defeat foes.
It's one of the reasons why I've always like the Monk and the Rogue classes the best to play. Both classes, ideally, should be relying on their skill and technique to be able to defeat foes. In actual play, you have to be very good with your rules-fu to pull them off and make them good. Both classes take a lot of effort to get functioning, unlike say a Barbarian for whom a new player can pick up and play and kick ass with minimal effort involved.
As for the Crane Wing thing... one of the biggest things that upset me about that was so many of my characters that had it, weren't even monks (outside of a dip to get it). I had a number of characters I never got to play that incorporated it because it fit them, because in actual fencing (with both foil and real rapiers), you are able to simply slap the blade of an enemy away if you wear nothing more than a good leather glove. So the idea of a fencer, or dex character, being able to deflect the blow of a weapon by nudging it enough to miss really appealed to me.
Plus it allowed for the hero who wore only leather armor and relied on is ability to dodge and agility to really function in the game. Crane Style and Crane Wing really made up for the lack of good armor on such a character.
So it wasn't just Monks that were hurt by the Crane Wing nerf, it was also a great many dex characters who were hurt as well.
Crafting and/or upgrading to +5 celestial armor is RAW.For totally unralated and off topic reasons, I find this not that true. I mean, yes you can upgrade it, but how ? how much it cost? does the the book tells that?
Lets imagine a´+3 armor that cost 25 K. It is 9 K for the +3 and 16 k of added price. or it is more like a +5 amror?.
Because if it is the first then upgrading it to +5 would make it worth 41 K. In the second case it would cost 49 K.
I mean, can we should be call it RAW despite that there is no written rule?
Unless it appears on the enhancement equivalency chart, then any special ability of armor is assumed to be a flat +gp cost. So you subtract the cost of +3 armor and pay the difference from +3 to +5 and now you've got +5 Celestial Plate Armor.
Technically, you could take it further and make Mithral +5 Celestrial Plate Armor, but that's pushing it for many GMs.
I just wanna punch stuff with lightning. That's all I ask. I don't wanna use a scimitar.
So much this. I've wanted to play a much more mystical monk for a long time. I would love to see a Magus/Monk archetype, or even better, hybrid included in the game. Being able to punch Fireballs or Kick Lightning Bolts would be absolutely badass.
Maybe even do something weird like cast multiple low-level spells in a Flurry of Spells or something.
Hell, a Monk/Magus Hybrid could even have Elemental Archetypes to mimic some Avatar bending styles.
Punching lightning bolts is the flavor of Elemental Fist, despite the name, you can use it with any unarmed strike.
|
I'll be over here with my long sword polymorphing into large creatures (who have dex penalties) for that nice boost to damage.The option for dex magi is literally the best dex option weapon for them. Opening up more options would likely just increase the amount of folks who wanted to use scarves, daggers or otherwise instead of the optimal scimitar.Eh I think Paizo is trying to avoid what happened to the magus, where it seems like everyone is running dex-magi
Even though IMO dex magi are just worse than strength magi for having to burn feats that could have went to extra arcane pool.
Not to rain on your parade, but air elementals work just as well for dex-based magi.
Punching lightning bolts is the flavor of Elemental Fist, despite the name, you can use it with any unarmed strike.
I know that, which is one of the reasons why Monk of the Four Winds is my favorite Monk archetype. But for me, I want it to be more like I punch my fist out and launch a lightning bolt, or maybe I'm making a flurry, and my final kick launches a Fireball.
I'll be over here with my long sword polymorphing into large creatures (who have dex penalties) for that nice boost to damage.The option for dex magi is literally the best dex option weapon for them. Opening up more options would likely just increase the amount of folks who wanted to use scarves, daggers or otherwise instead of the optimal scimitar.Eh I think Paizo is trying to avoid what happened to the magus, where it seems like everyone is running dex-magi
Even though IMO dex magi are just worse than strength magi for having to burn feats that could have went to extra arcane pool.
Wuh? My point was that the dex option currently available to Magi was already the best one(amongst possible dex options) so opening it up to include more flavorful options wouldnt unbalance things, especially since Magi currently make the best dex based characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole 'strength OR dexterity' thing is one of the stupidest abstracts in the whole system in my opinion. A very strong, very dextrous character ends up being worse at striking true with an attack than a slightly stronger character who is nearly paralyzed and/or uncoordinated to the point of being severely brain-damaged. Or a highly agile two-weapon warrior who grows from anemic to brawny sees zero benefit with their hit-chance, despite how much more stability and penetration they should have.
I'd love some day to see the whole 'strength OR dexterity' thing dead and buried, replaced by 'strength AND dexterity'. Imagine if you could build a character with the knowledge that either of those stats was going to contribute to AB, so that every single point spent between them was an open choice, balanced between damage, initiative, AC, prerequisites, etc. It would be incredibly liberating. I'm sure there would be plenty of issues to work out, but even just saying "ab = str+dex, base ac = 11" and seeing how it worked out could be interesting...
The whole 'strength OR dexterity' thing is one of the stupidest abstracts in the whole system in my opinion. A very strong, very dextrous character ends up being worse at striking true with an attack than a slightly stronger character who is nearly paralyzed and/or uncoordinated to the point of being severely brain-damaged. Or a highly agile two-weapon warrior who grows from anemic to brawny sees zero benefit with their hit-chance, despite how much more stability and penetration they should have.
I'd love some day to see the whole 'strength OR dexterity' thing dead and buried, replaced by 'strength AND dexterity'. Imagine if you could build a character with the knowledge that either of those stats was going to contribute to AB, so that every single point spent between them was an open choice, balanced between damage, initiative, AC, prerequisites, etc. It would be incredibly liberating. I'm sure there would be plenty of issues to work out, but even just saying "ab = str+dex, base ac = 11" and seeing how it worked out could be interesting...
So... like maybe a system where BAB is cut in half, but you add both strength and dex to attack rolls or something?
Or maybe a system where you only gain more attacks by having a higher dexterity? Like in order for you to have the first iterative attack, you need an Dex bonus of 14. Second iterative Dex of 18, third iterative Dex of 22 or something?
Meanwhile you can have a huge hulking strength character who gets only a single attack a round (as he's not dexterous enough), but he also gets the Vital Strike mechanic automatically and gets to add his strength to each roll (but no other modifiers)?
I kind of think strength should add to to-hit and damage. Dex should add to to-hit and wisdom should add to damage.
So... like maybe a system where BAB is cut in half, but you add both strength and dex to attack rolls or something?
I wouldn't go that far myself; I just want to see the strength/dex divide disposed of. We wouldn't need to endlessly argue over what constitutes an appropriate band-aid for the damage woes of the dex-based character if 'dex-based' characters didn't get 'locked in' taking dex. Sub-optimal builds suffering from MADness would get a nice boon if 16str/14dex or 14str/16dex gave the same ab bonus as 18str/12dex, and never had a feat tax to worry about.
It seems at first glance like giving both str and dex to ab would be a dramatic change and would require major adjustments, but think about it a moment: ability scores are generally zero-sum in the long run. In other words, having both stats be huge is prohibitively expensive when assigning starting scores and buying items. Practically speaking, most 'classic' characters (the ones focused on one or the other) aren't going to see a lot of difference - maybe an extra point or two, offset, say, by making base AC an 11.
The only major difference is that characters who balance their physical stats are now a real option; if anything it skews optimization towards starting with more balanced strength/dexterity since that's cheaper than either extreme. Stats generally increase alone unless you pay the premium price for double-stat items, so every new item and every bonus attribute point becomes a choice, instead of a default setting.
If the OP's whole scenario is true, especially this part...
During the ACG playtest, we, the players, were promised a more generic dex to damage feat.
That is pretty disappointing. I have a pretty high tollerance for mistakes, companies are made up of people and people are flawed. But if you tell your customers you are going to do something, you should probably do it. Neither Slashing Grace, nor Fencing Grace make good on the above mentioned promise.
Pathfinder already has a mythic ability and a weapon enchantment that add Dex to damage for finessable weapons. Why is it such a monumental deal to get a feat out there that does the same? Especially with the now multiple feats which allow it for weapons that aren't even normally finessable. Slashing Grace needs Eratta, or Fencing Grace needs to be replaced with something that fulfills the statements made in the playtest.
.....
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.
Is THIS the Website Feedback forum you are talking about. If so, it might not be used as much because people don't know about it. I for one had to dig around for it after reading about it's existance in your post. As for emailing, who should we email and what is their email address?
I'd love some day to see the whole 'strength OR dexterity' thing dead and buried, replaced by 'strength AND dexterity'.
I recall 13th Age does something similar, although not the specifics. I know for some things you would take the average of 2 stats to actually get the final numerical modifier.
|
If the OP's whole scenario is true, especially this part...During the ACG playtest, we, the players, were promised a more generic dex to damage feat.That is pretty disappointing. I have a pretty high tollerance for mistakes, companies are made up of people and people are flawed. But if you tell your customers you are going to do something, you should probably do it. Neither Slashing Grace, nor Fencing Grace make good on the above mentioned promise.
That's not what happened. The actual promises made are here, here, and here. All that's said there is that there will be a Dex-to-damage option (or probably will be, more accurately), not that it'll be universal.
Many people (including me) hoped it would be a generic option...but that's not actually something anyone at Paizo said would happen. Indeed, looking back on it, there were probably indications that this was not the case.
One thing I feel is that a Dex-to-Damage feat should specify that while this replaces STR bonuses to damage, any STR penalties to damage should still apply.
Thus, if a guy with DEX 18 and STR 7 got this feat he'd get a +4 for DEX and then a -2 for STR. I don't feel that there should be a complete pass on STR to damage when this feat is used as I think it should generally be a mistake to dump STR to 7 and still use muscle-powered weapons.
I am personally OK with the damage being precision damage, though I know this reduces the feat's utility. It will still apply enough of the time for me to get this feat for that kind of character.
I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I find in interesting that in the lastest version of the world's oldest roleplaying game (am I allowed to call it by name?) the finesse category of weapons automatically use DEX to hit if you wish and if so they also automatically use DEX for damage.
Not that this should necessarily inform Pathfinder devs since it's a completely different game, but it's worth mentioning.
Peet