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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 876 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Flawed wrote:
If strength governed your AC through a deflection bonus by pushing attacks away from yourself with a weapon everyone...
Woah, that is a cool idea.

[austrian]I deflhected youh bullets wit mah mahscles![/austrian]


technicaly there is a way strength can help ac...

It's called armor, which is not supposed to mesh well with dexterity.

Of course it happens that heavy armor are not very good unless they are made of mithrall, but thats another problem.

(speaking of which, why dont we have a material that make an armor give more ac? Adamentine damage resistance seem so pointless.)


I've an idea of a small buff: strength bonus to reduce the armor penality, what do you think?


Scavion wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Flawed wrote:
If strength governed your AC through a deflection bonus by pushing attacks away from yourself with a weapon everyone...
Woah, that is a cool idea.
My homebrew does include a feat that lets you add Str instead of Dex to AC while using a shield... And another one that let's you use Str for ranged attack rolls made with thrown weapons. :)
Unfortunately I ended up playing a bad ass priest in your game instead of a heroic warrior.

You should feel ashamed! :p

Lornis wrote:
I've an idea of a small buff: strength bonus to reduce the armor penality, what do you think?

Actually, I like this idea. Let's expand it a little; what if strength bonuses negated armor-check penalty and speed drops?


Ventnor wrote:
Lornis wrote:
I've an idea of a small buff: strength bonus to reduce the armor penality, what do you think?
Actually, I like this idea. Let's expand it a little; what if strength bonuses negated armor-check penalty and speed drops?

Thinking in the right direction!


You'd have to revamp Armor Training for the fighter so it did something, though. But that something could be cool--extra AC, built in bonuses (I want to say fortification, but rogues would hate that), etc.


That's exactly what D&D Next did to balance the fact that you get auto Dex to Damage with finesse weapons.

You have STR requirements to wear proficiently some Medium and all Heavy Armor.


Lornis wrote:
I've an idea of a small buff: strength bonus to reduce the armor penality, what do you think?
Actually, I like this idea. Let's expand it a little; what if strength bonuses negated armor-check penalty and speed drops?

Good be a really good idea. A +1 in Strength could decrease 1 skill penalty and a 5 feet moove reduction. I'm pretty sure I'll houseruled that.


Scavion wrote:
Flawed wrote:
If strength governed your AC through a deflection bonus by pushing attacks away from yourself with a weapon everyone...
Woah, that is a cool idea.

Although the system would end up becoming a little more convoluted and require some added system mastery I'd like to see more from many stats including things like con bonus to natural armor, strength to deflection, dex to dodge (pretty much is the current scenario) and dex to hit and damage as a base system with no investment, but with a specific set of weapons like finesse weapons, intelligence or wisdom as an insight bonus to AC, wisdom for skill points as well as intelligence,

Conceptually these things make sense to me. Strength would help one to repel a melee attacker (not so much ranged), a high constitution means it takes more to hurt you like having a higher pain threshold, a high dexterity makes you harder to hit by being more mobile and quick at avoiding attacks, and high intelligence and wisdom means you have an understanding of things like combat or can recognize patterns and combat styles to then employ tactics to your benefit, wise people are also generally good at performing multiple tasks as intelligence isn't the only thing that says you can do many things especially in a game where intelligence doesn't govern how well you do certain skills. There's plenty of intelligent people that lack the skill at much beyond what people think they're intelligent at.

I get that there's feats like combat expertise that are similar to the intelligence/wisdom to insight idea, but provide a dodge bonus for fighting in a defensive manner and not being intuitive. Also, described well the hp from con does this, but I rarely see it done that well. Most GMs I've played with just tell you you were hit by a Greatsword for x damage where I like to think of your hp pool representing the same amount of hp just your ability to take damage more effectively by avoiding the full hit of a weapon. As you level up you just become a more skilled combatant opening yourself to less life threatening attacks.

And obviously all of this would take some serious system balancing.


If they're worried about balancing dex to damage with a wider selection of weapons, wouldn't making it precision damage help? I kind of think it should be precision damage anyway. Strength helps damage because you're hitting harder, Dex would help damage because you'd be hitting more vulnerable areas.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Making it precision damage just makes everyone who relies on it terrible against oozes, which ends up not helping anything.


Squiggit wrote:
Making it precision damage just makes everyone who relies on it terrible against undead, which ends up not helping anything.

Undead are subject to precision damage. You're thinking of elementals and some things like slimes or oozes.


Squiggit wrote:
Making it precision damage just makes everyone who relies on it terrible against undead, which ends up not helping anything.

The only things immune to precision damage are incorporeal creatures(unless you have a ghost touch weapon), Oozes, and Elementals. Oozes and Elementals are also immune to flanking for some reason. Not having a discernible anatomy shouldn't make it easier to split your attention in opposite directions.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, noticed the typo. Fixed it. Doesn't change the point though.


Squiggit wrote:
Yeah, noticed the typo. Fixed it. Doesn't change the point though.

Your point is valid, but it still makes more sense for it to be precision damage.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ironexe wrote:

If they're worried about balancing dex to damage with a wider selection of weapons, wouldn't making it precision damage help? I kind of think it should be precision damage anyway. Strength helps damage because you're hitting harder, Dex would help damage because you'd be hitting more vulnerable areas.

Making it precision damage would pretty much make it useless.

You've just taken the people using high crit range weapons with a low base damage that they no longer get to double their stat bonus to damage when they crit.

If you want to see how painful this is, look at the rogue dual wielding agile daggers. A whole 1d4 added to damage when they crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
If you want to see how painful this is, look at the rogue dual wielding agile daggers. A whole 1d4 added to damage when they crit.

If only there was some way to nerf that. We wouldn't want the rogue infringing on the slayer's niche.


Artanthos wrote:
ironexe wrote:

If they're worried about balancing dex to damage with a wider selection of weapons, wouldn't making it precision damage help? I kind of think it should be precision damage anyway. Strength helps damage because you're hitting harder, Dex would help damage because you'd be hitting more vulnerable areas.

Making it precision damage would pretty much make it useless.

You've just taken the people using high crit range weapons with a low base damage that they no longer get to double their stat bonus to damage when they crit.

If you want to see how painful this is, look at the rogue dual wielding agile daggers. A whole 1d4 added to damage when they crit.

I dunno, crits are so unreliable anyway that I don't feel like that's an issue. And if you are going for a crit build you're probably using scimitar's anyway and then you can use Dervish Dance. In fact, this method has the added benefit of not making the Dervish Dance feat obsolete.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's questionable as to whether or not that's a "benefit". Also questionable as to whether or not "there's one weapon in the entire game that works for this build" is a good thing either.

So disagree on both counts.

Contributor

Ventnor wrote:
Actually, I like this idea. Let's expand it a little; what if strength bonuses negated armor-check penalty and speed drops?

It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Grand Lodge

Ventnor wrote:


Actually, I like this idea. Let's expand it a little; what if strength bonuses negated armor-check penalty and speed drops?

kinda/sorta works, but it really doesn't fix the fundamental problem; which is there are 6 stats when there really only needs to be 4. 3.X almost got a good spread but there just isn't enough things to go around across the ability scores, STR drew the short end of the stick. The fact that most people ignore the majority of what STR is tied, via magic or convenience,doesn't help.


magnuskn wrote:
I still think that the most strange thing is that they think that dex-to-damage is okay with bastard swords and dwarven waraxes, but not light piercing and slashing weapons. I really would like to hear from them how they came by that reasoning.

I prefer fencing with my morningstar; don't you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately it's a bit of a circular argument. Strength is binary. Either it's your top attribute if you rely on it for damage, or you can safely ignore it if you do not.

You can't improve strength because strength is already an incredibly important stat for melee types, and you can't give dexterity melee damage because past the low levels that's really all strength has going for it.

I think the best way to handle it is to do both, actually. If "Grace" provides dexterity to damage and costs a total of three feats, that means a strength user is three feats ahead. Next we create some more interesting strength feats that he can take in place of the Grace chain - adding your strength modifier to initiative in place of dexterity and using strength to hit with thrown weapons, for example.

Ideally I'd like to see both strength and dexterity combat styles be good options - different, but equally viable.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Ant Haul (which most characters who seriously want to dump Str have access to) fixes that by about level 3.

Kudaku wrote:
and using strength to hit with thrown weapons, for example.

Awesome! I keep trying to make a viable throwing build, and though I can make a pretty decent one (with a lot of finagling) the whole strength/dex thing is really problematic until about upper mid levels when you can pick up the belt!


Eh 3 feat tax for dex to damage is damning enough. Strength would still be the better stat even if you could pick between the two for free.

Armor and Polymorph spells alone put strength over dex. Not to mention carrying capacity and the ability to kick down doors and burst objects with strength checks.

Still make it a two feat tax (weapon finesse, improved weapon finesse) and make it precision damage and you got a pretty fair non-power creep option. Heck I might even make that a homebrew feat for my setting (probably not, I am a bit of a prude).


Quote:

Unfortunately it's a bit of a circular argument. Strength is binary. Either it's your top attribute if you rely on it for damage, or you can safely ignore it if you do not.

You can't improve strength because strength is already an incredibly important stat for melee types, and you can't give dexterity melee damage because past the low levels that's really all strength has going for it.

Its getting a little bit tiring to repeat ourselves here. Theres no such things as "you can't give dex to melee damage". I mean there is no acceptable, or logical or tolerable way to justify that information. Dex to damage already exist in pathfinder, no one complain it's too strong. Dervish dancing is a feat, no one ban it unless they hate scimitar. Granted there needs to be limitation to it (which there was and there is, no 2-handed, power attack needs some strength, no shield for dervish, carrying capacity, strength check...)

You might wonder, why ask for a dex-to-damage feat if you have one then? The answer is simple, we just want to use something else then a scimitar. Which is probably for everyone fluff or flavor since the scimitar is probably one of the best weapon for one handing (bar the katana and falcata, and even then only the falcata makes a real difference)


Let's imagine an Improved Weapon Finesse, with Weapon Finesse and 15 Dex as it's requirements. It lets you use your Dex mod in place of Str for damage, is not increased when two handing, but is reduced in the off hand. Additionally, any penalty to Str is still applied to damage rolls.

A Str fighter deals 1.5x Str all day long for no feats when two handing.

A Dex fighter deals 1x Dex for the cost of 2 feats, and needs the two weapon fighting feat line to get to 1.5x Dex. Additionally, they are taking a penalty to get their damage potential to match that of the Str fighter. So a Dex fighter needs at least 3 feats to keep up damage wise with the Str fighter.

I think this is perfectly acceptable from a cost/benefit standpoint, especially if someone is willing to invest in 3+ feats to have damage comparable to the 2H Str fighter who needs to spend nothing.

Scarab Sages

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Ant Haul (which most characters who seriously want to dump Str have access to) fixes that by about level 3.

If you're entering melee with Ant Haul, you're either a divine caster burning spells or you gave up your belt slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly here is one thing I would like to ask people who are opposed to dex to damage...

What is so wrong about having an agile fighter ACTUALLY BE DECENT? Without a Dex to damage feat, the agile guy is always sub-par to the strength guy no matter what due to the way AC works (the other "big thing" about agile guys is that they are like spider-man. They are slippery and damn near impossible to hit. But with the way AC is handled there is always a 1/20 chance in hitting the guy, no matter how high his AC). With feats like Power Attack, Str will always be superior without something like a Dex-To-Damage feat to help balance it out. Unless of of course you WANT everyone to be Falcion Wielding Power attackers with 36 Str...


Artanthos wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Ant Haul (which most characters who seriously want to dump Str have access to) fixes that by about level 3.

If you're entering melee with Ant Haul, you're either a divine caster burning spells or you gave up your belt slot.

It costs 1,000 gp for a memorized caster or 2,000 gp for a spontaneous one to get back. That is cheaaaap compared to trying to up an already high stat.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Ant Haul (which most characters who seriously want to dump Str have access to) fixes that by about level 3.

If you're entering melee with Ant Haul, you're either a divine caster burning spells or you gave up your belt slot.
It costs 1,000 gp for a memorized caster or 2,000 gp for a spontaneous one to get back. That is cheaaaap compared to trying to up an already high stat.

A spontanious caster then has to spend another 1000g to make up for the spell known that they're wasting on ant haul. And then if it is dispelled in mid combat you'd better hope that you're not one of those classes that loses their abilities when they're encumbered...

It is doable, I'm just not sure that I like that method.


Okay so heres some points that have in the past been actually mathed out if I remember correctly.

Dex to damage even if not limited to while one handing a single weapon still doesn't put damage on par with a pimped out strength with TWF vs 2HW. One handers lagged behind even further.

Strength increases are massively easier to come by then dex increases making Stronggar a more effective spell sponge then Nimblus. This is compounded by the aforementioned greater efficiency of strength to damage

You eventually start hitting a point in the game where attack bonuses so vastly outstrip AC that the bit of oomph you get from a dexed out fighter <Since you need armor training to benefit from the higher dex anyways> still isn't enough to keep them from getting hit less than 75% of time time and by the time you're in the cr 19-20 range your looking at an ac of 42 to get hit half the time.. Essentially only a dedicated tank doesn't get pasted. <And fighters are already kind of low man on the martial totem pole mostly due to the things they have trouble dealing with being progressively more common thus forcing them to use feats to shore up weaknesses rather than increase strengths.> Now to be fair the dex to damage thing does in fact improve the DPR of the high Dex tank a bit allowing the tank to do more than just not die. So I can see some room for argument there even if I don't agree with it.

At lower levels where the upside of dex to AC is more relevant so is the penalty for dumping strength since no one wants to waste ant haul on you at level 3 just so you can put on pants. Not to mention if you run into a CMD attacking monster you're going to have a bad day.

Getting Dex to hit, damage, and CMB is a not insignificant feat investment which at lower levels limits your options to stabbing things in the face.

Was there ever anything mathy for the anti Dex side or was it all anecdotal statements of its to powerful ?


Muleback cords are the item to overcome low strength for carrying capacity. Treat your strength as 8 higher for the purpose of carrying capacity. 1000 GP item, but unfortunately takes up your shoulder slot so no cloak. If it's society I don't think there's a way around this. In a home game it's up to your GM if you can make the item Slotless by doubling the cost (2000 GP) as per the creation rules, tack it onto a cloak for 1.5 times the cost (1500 GP), or use the magical tattoo creation rules to put it on your body for double the cost (2000 GP). I've been a fan of the tattoo route for this one.


VargrBoartusk wrote:

Okay so heres some points that have in the past been actually mathed out if I remember correctly.

Dex to damage even if not limited to while one handing a single weapon still doesn't put damage on par with a pimped out strength with TWF vs 2HW. One handers lagged behind even further.

Strength increases are massively easier to come by then dex increases making Stronggar a more effective spell sponge then Nimblus. This is compounded by the aforementioned greater efficiency of strength to damage

You eventually start hitting a point in the game where attack bonuses so vastly outstrip AC that the bit of oomph you get from a dexed out fighter <Since you need armor training to benefit from the higher dex anyways> still isn't enough to keep them from getting hit less than 75% of time time and by the time you're in the cr 19-20 range your looking at an ac of 42 to get hit half the time.. Essentially only a dedicated tank doesn't get pasted. <And fighters are already kind of low man on the martial totem pole mostly due to the things they have trouble dealing with being progressively more common thus forcing them to use feats to shore up weaknesses rather than increase strengths.> Now to be fair the dex to damage thing does in fact improve the DPR of the high Dex tank a bit allowing the tank to do more than just not die. So I can see some room for argument there even if I don't agree with it.

At lower levels where the upside of dex to AC is more relevant so is the penalty for dumping strength since no one wants to waste ant haul on you at level 3 just so you can put on pants. Not to mention if you run into a CMD attacking monster you're going to have a bad day.

Getting Dex to hit, damage, and CMB is a not insignificant feat investment which at lower levels limits your options to stabbing things in the face.

Was there ever anything mathy for the anti Dex side or was it all anecdotal statements of its to powerful ?

A fighter can pull AC 55 if they're sword and board without using feats by level 20, or a few feats and push well into the 60's. Non fighters can hit low-mid 40s without a shield or mid 50's with a shield and a few feats and some higher still through spells. Then, since this is a team game, you can get higher still through spells like haste or help to reduce the to hit of creatures with intimidates, called shots, or magical debuffs.

Dex applies to CMD. Having a high dex with mediocre Str is the same value as high Str and mediocre dex.

Contributor

VargrBoartusk wrote:

anecdotal statements of its to powerful ?

Mostly theorycraft statements. Many think that it sounds WAY too good to be true to use your Dexterity for a bunch of statistics. Even when it costs you feats, primary class features, or both.

Scarab Sages

Flawed wrote:
Muleback cords are the item to overcome low strength for carrying capacity.

So instead of giving up your belt slot, your giving up your cloak of protection.

Unless you house rule the slot requirement away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.


Flawed wrote:


A fighter can pull AC 55 if they're sword and board without using feats by level 20, or a few feats and push well into the 60's. Non fighters can hit low-mid 40s without a shield or mid 50's with a shield and a few feats and some higher still through spells. Then, since this is a team game, you can get higher still through spells like haste or help to reduce the to hit of creatures with intimidates, called shots, or magical debuffs.

Dex applies to CMD. Having a high dex with mediocre Str is the same value as high Str and mediocre dex.

I did separate the sword and board fighter for a reason..

Most other classes however are limited to without feat and buff adjustment..

10 from the base AC
+15 from armor/dex/armor enhancement
+ 7 from shield/enhancement
+ 5 from the ring
+ 5 from the amulet
+ 5 from a defending weapon
+ 1 from an ion stone ?

which totals up to 48 with a rather serious investment cash and item wise. I'd say to the point where you can't say your not trying to be a dedicated tank anymore due to the DPR and control loss from gearing out like that. Even the SnB fighters probably not tacking on more then another +10 from his dex so unbuffed 58.
Now a more dedicated DPS character is probably going to be down about 2 to 3 AC from those and gives eff all about the defending that putting you back down to 35/36ish. Tack on *maybe* another 5 or so from the non tank fighter <Or ten if dex to damage monostatting is a thing>

Now lets say the feats add on another +5 for the tanks AC and buffs add another +5 due to all the non stacking thats the tank at 68 and everyone else at 45 buffed so they'll still be getting some shots in and all you've done is upped the dex tank fighters DPR by at a guess 30ish top end and raised the dual wielders AC by 3ish and his DPR by about the same once again top end. which if i'm not mistaken still puts his damage way behind two hander guy.

As for the CMD it was brought up simply in response to why not just dump strength and be all dex not because it only works one way.. Not that any martial dumps dex over a mental stat anyways.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.

Custom magic item creation is expressly by GM permission.


Artanthos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.
Custom magic item creation is expressly by GM permission.

Then it'd be an optional rule, not a house rule wouldn't it?

Scarab Sages

VargrBoartusk wrote:


10 from the base AC
+15 from armor/dex/armor enhancement
+ 7 from shield/enhancement
+ 5 from the ring
+ 5 from the amulet
+ 5 from a defending weapon
+ 1 from an ion stone ?

+1 from Jingassa of the fortunate soldier

+1 from fates favored


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.
Custom magic item creation is expressly by GM permission.

That's really odd. Combining magic items is clearly dictated in the Magic Item Creation. It's as much GM Permission as any other part of the game.


Artanthos wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:


10 from the base AC
+15 from armor/dex/armor enhancement
+ 7 from shield/enhancement
+ 5 from the ring
+ 5 from the amulet
+ 5 from a defending weapon
+ 1 from an ion stone ?

+1 from Jingassa of the fortunate soldier

+1 from fates favored

I suppose. Still not a combo I'd think to see on someone who isn't going tank from the get go.. it ups the AC of the guy who already needs 20s to hit him and probably isn't taken by ones that are thanks to the utility of the head slot.. So only the non fighter/non caster/non uses charisma as a combat stat tank looks at it.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I propose a FAQrata from the devs

Quote:

Slashing Grace (Combat)

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Quote:

Fencing Grace (Combat)

Your extreme style and fluid rapier forms allow you to use agility rather than brute force to fell your foes.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: Choose one kind of light or one-handed piercing weapon with the finesse quality (such as the rapier). You can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.
In addition, if you have the panache class feature, you gain a +2 bonus to CMD against attempts to disarm you of your weapon while you have at least 1 panache point.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Incredibly, by removing Weapon Focus as a prerequisite, and by adding a couple of words the feat is fixed. Weapon Focus is a terrible feat tax to be placed on something that is a player's option. Only human fighters and swashbucklers can have this feat online at lvl 1, humans who pay for retraining via UCamp can have it at 3rd level, and everyone else has to wait until 5th level and they have to dedicate all their feats to it. Very poor design that is very...

Any updates on this?

Scarab Sages

Scavion wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.
Custom magic item creation is expressly by GM permission.
That's really odd. Combining magic items is clearly dictated in the Magic Item Creation. It's as much GM Permission as any other part of the game.

Under those same guidelines I can also create a ring of continuous true strike for 2,000 gp, as is pointed out in the magic item creation rules. The GM is required to adjudicate all custom items and either adjust the cost or simply say no.

Arguing RAW on custom magic item creation would be the same as arguing RAW while pointing at custom race creation, custom class creation and the technology guide. Unlike the combat rules, it is something the GM has to expressly permit, and many GM's are going to say no.


Also I don't know if anyone mentioned this but I would love to be sorta viable as a small martial, cause I like them. Goblins need to eat faces after all.


FanaticRat wrote:
Also I don't know if anyone mentioned this but I would love to be sorta viable as a small martial, cause I like them. Goblins need to eat faces after all.

Halflings are really good martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
It's not really a house rule to combine magical items.
Custom magic item creation is expressly by GM permission.
That's really odd. Combining magic items is clearly dictated in the Magic Item Creation. It's as much GM Permission as any other part of the game.

Under those same guidelines I can also create a ring of continuous true strike for 2,000 gp, as is pointed out in the magic item creation rules. The GM is required to adjudicate all custom items and either adjust the cost or simply say no.

Arguing RAW on custom magic item creation would be the same as arguing RAW while pointing at custom race creation, custom class creation and the technology guide. Unlike the combat rules, it is something the GM has to expressly permit, and many GM's are going to say no.

Well you're doing something else actually. You're actually creating a new item which is explicitly DM permission.

Combining previously made items is completely normal. You add 1.5x the cost to the lower price enchantments to be added.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Scavion has the right of it. Combining items is perfectly in line with the RAW, is not a house rule, and is hardly unbalanced.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
Scavion has the right of it. Combining items is perfectly in line with the RAW, is not a house rule, and is hardly unbalanced.

Obviating the need for strength at the cost of 2000 gp, without giving up an item slot, is not unbalanced?

The choice between encumbrance or dedicating a slot to overcoming encumbrance is very much a limiting factor that prevents many builds from dumping strength down to 7 (or 5 with racial mods.) Allowing custom magic items to overcome this limit is something every GM should take a long, hard look at before permitting.

701 to 750 of 876 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 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.