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.
This "item stacking" has been around since at least 3.5e, possibly 3e. If it was "unbalanced," it would've broke something by now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Still does not over-ride the fact that it is, in fact, RAW and Scavion is right,..
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.
So masterwork backpacks and the Muscle of the Society trait throw everything off too?
It's really, really, really not unbalanced. And it's RAW.
|
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.
So masterwork backpacks and the Muscle of the Society trait throw everything off too?
It's really, really, really not unbalanced. And it's RAW.
Building a custom race and outfitting him with Cybernetics is also RAW. Are you going to allow that in your campaigns?
Are you going to show up to a PFS game with your custom item and try arguing RAW?
There are good reasons why certain items have slot requirements, and why RAW gives GM's veto power over custom items. Like custom race rules, magic item creation is ridiculously easy to abuse.
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.
No, it is not unbalanced. The additional cost sees to that.
|
|
No, it is not unbalanced. The additional cost sees to that.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.
The additional cost is trivial compared to the benefit gained.
If it was balanced, buying your resistance bonuses as slotless items would be equally viable. I don't see anyone jumping towards that solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So masterwork backpacks and the Muscle of the Society trait throw everything off too?
It's really, really, really not unbalanced. And it's RAW.
Building a custom race and outfitting him with Cybernetics is also RAW. Are you going to allow that in your campaigns?
Are you going to show up to a PFS game with your custom item and try arguing RAW?
Like PFS has any semblance with RAW, RAI or balanced...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is a specific house-ruled version of the game intended to make a baseline game with as little table variance as possible so that everyone could play a character and know that character will be accepted at any PFS table.
Trying to use PFS as part of an argument why something does/doesn't make sense is as pointless as trying to say that a houserule a table plays with makes a game option over powered. PFS doesn't follow the normal rules of the game, so arguments based on PFS don't carry much weight.
At PFS, the whole item creation chapter, including combining magic item slots, is strictly banned. There can be no alterations to items in PFS beyond increasing the static bonuses of upgradeable items, and even then, only by someone else. PCs can't upgrade items in PFS.
Trying to base arguments around PFS is exactly the nonsense that lead to the Crane Wing nerf. I don't want this game to be balanced around a sub-set of a game with such an extensive set of houserules and changes, that it's almost a 64 page book in and of itself.
^^^
Pretty much... Which is why I hate seeing "Well in PFS..."
ugh. I used PFS as a guide for HP and point buy. After that I thoroughly disregard all that they do. It doesn't apply to my games nor does anything they do resemble balance. It's a system that shamelessly rewards players for owning splat books. And that is perfectly OK, but don't tell me it has anything to do with game balance.
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.Are they? The only ones I've ever heard of are cavaliers, and that one monk archetype whose only draw is that it can ignore size restrictions on trip.
Even if that's the case, there's more small races than halflings.
Halflings have a race specific feat that lets them gain scaling damage bonus in place of a -1 nonscaling penalty to AC in Risky Striker, but only against creatures two or more size categories larger than them. So large creatures and up; which makes it effective against a huge portion of the bestiaries.
With Risky Striker, halfling can make some pretty damned scary characters period.
For example, here's a 15 pt-buy halfling Paladin with NPC wealth I made as an NPC: Delia Giantbane.
Even without it though, Halflings are just awesome. Here's Delia's husband, an NPC 15 pt-buy with NPC wealth Ranger: Ortho Swift-Splinter.
[Edit] Actually, I can't recall if those are NPC wealth or not, but the point still stands. Halflings make great characters.
Considering the vast amount of options available that either increase carry capacity (heavyload belt, ant haul, muleback cords, +strength items, masterwork backpack, muscle of the society, floating disk), reduce weight (mithral, darkleaf cloth, darkwood, silkweave) or negate weight (handy haversack, bag of holding, portable hole, efficient quiver, corpse-ferrying bag, pathfinder's pouch) altogether, I think it's fairly clear that the system does not expect carry capacity to be a problem past the very low levels. If anything, Pathfinder goes out of its way to make sure you won't have encumbrance issues if you put a minimum of effort into avoiding it.
Partially I think that's because tracking encumbrance isn't fun. Most GMs I know either ignore it completely or gloss over it unless the character does something he's clearly not able to do - like a str 8 wizard picking up a dire bear carcass or trying to fit a 10 000 lb stone throne in his backpack. If you do have a GM who tracks encumbrance, it's unlikely to be an issue past the first two levels - a handy haversack will cover most people, especially if you have Muleback Cords or a heavyload belt for backup.
Which in turn leads to why Strength is binary - either you need strength because you rely on it to deal damage, or you don't use strength for damage and can safely dump it to the dregs.
I see. Well I guess that makes sense, though doesn't change that I want it for more small characters. Also, I can't open the links 'cause a Windows Live account is needed.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.Are they? The only ones I've ever heard of are cavaliers, and that one monk archetype whose only draw is that it can ignore size restrictions on trip.
Even if that's the case, there's more small races than halflings.
Halflings have a race specific feat that lets them gain scaling damage bonus in place of a -1 nonscaling penalty to AC in Risky Striker, but only against creatures two or more size categories larger than them. So large creatures and up; which makes it effective against a huge portion of the bestiaries.
With Risky Striker, halfling can make some pretty damned scary characters period.
For example, here's a 15 pt-buy halfling Paladin with NPC wealth I made as an NPC: Delia Giantbane.
Even without it though, Halflings are just awesome. Here's Delia's husband, an NPC 15 pt-buy with NPC wealth Ranger: Ortho Swift-Splinter.
[Edit] Actually, I can't recall if those are NPC wealth or not, but the point still stands. Halflings make great characters.
Try this one (Delia) and this one (Ortho).
I too wish more small races were easier to play. People in my group mock the Gnome for being bad at anything non-casty, so I've been meaning to sit down and make some good builds for a gnome, but it's been difficult. Basically, the things they're best at, are usually full casters or partial casters with their racial feats and stuff. Otherwise, anything they can do, someone else can do better.
Gnome pallytank. +con for more HP, size to ac, +cha for more saves and channels Good flavor with Fey foundling
Gnome pallytank. +con for more HP, size to ac, +cha for more saves and channels Good flavor with Fey foundling
I actually kind of did that with the Halfling Pally I linked upthread (Delia). Fey Foundling and acts as front liner/tank while her husband Ortho attacks from range.
Yes of course there should be a cost for getting dex-to-damage every ability that allow stats for other stats have to cost something.
Dervish dancing was very balanced, and could probably be even a bit more strong whitout breaking anything.
People always forget that while dex skills are more common, strength check are more common then dex check. Maybe you want to move a crate, break a door, pull a net, trust me, if your Dm has any basic idea of what he is doing you will feel your lack of strength. And if you can fix it with magical item... well you are using up magical item that could be used on something else so I see no big deal.
The only style that could perhaps see a problem is 2-weapon fighting, a problem that is easily avoided if you make a feat like dervish or the equivalent of 1 level of swordlord. And the two weapon user still woudn't be that great, remember you already can get dex to damage on 2 weapon with 2-weapon fighting. Does anyone have seen something that broke the entire game made with that? I sincerly doubt it.
I'd say having to spend several feats on it and being limited in your weapon selection and fighting style does a pretty good job of filling in that cost, though.
To be honest, if someone is spending the feats they'd need to be able to effectively two-weapon fight plus getting dex-to-damage, they should be getting something nice for all that investment. It's rather telling that Two-Handed-Weapon tends to be the most popular combat style, because it's the style you can make work without needing to sink a bunch of feats into.
Yes of course there should be a cost for getting dex-to-damage every ability that allow stats for other stats have to cost something.
Dervish dancing was very balanced, and could probably be even a bit more strong whitout breaking anything.
People always forget that while dex skills are more common, strength check are more common then dex check. Maybe you want to move a crate, break a door, pull a net, trust me, if your Dm has any basic idea of what he is doing you will feel your lack of strength. And if you can fix it with magical item... well you are using up magical item that could be used on something else so I see no big deal.
The only style that could perhaps see a problem is 2-weapon fighting, a problem that is easily avoided if you make a feat like dervish or the equivalent of 1 level of swordlord. And the two weapon user still woudn't be that great, remember you already can get dex to damage on 2 weapon with 2-weapon fighting. Does anyone have seen something that broke the entire game made with that? I sincerly doubt it.
I'd say having to spend several feats on it and being limited in your weapon selection and fighting style does a pretty good job of filling in that cost, though.
To be honest, if someone is spending the feats they'd need to be able to effectively two-weapon fight plus getting dex-to-damage, they should be getting something nice for all that investment. It's rather telling that Two-Handed-Weapon tends to be the most popular combat style, because it's the style you can make work without needing to sink a bunch of feats into.
Seriously, for a TWF Dex to Damage with Slashing Grace you need:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Saber)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Saber)
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting.
Considering you get 10 feats over 20 levels, without bonus feats, this guy won't be able to get his concept going until 9th level. If a concept takes 9 levels and 5 feats to function, it better pay off.
I'd say having to spend several feats on it and being limited in your weapon selection and fighting style does a pretty good job of filling in that cost, though.
To be honest, if someone is spending the feats they'd need to be able to effectively two-weapon fight plus getting dex-to-damage, they should be getting something nice for all that investment. It's rather telling that Two-Handed-Weapon tends to be the most popular combat style, because it's the style you can make work without needing to sink a bunch of feats into.
Seriously, for a TWF Dex to Damage with Slashing Grace you need:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Saber)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Saber)
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting.Considering you get 10 feats over 20 levels, without bonus feats, this guy won't be able to get his concept going until 9th level. If a concept takes 9 levels and 5 feats to function, it better pay off
I'm pretty sure someone will shortly point out that you can grab all those feats a lot faster by playing a human fighter. Which is true, but if you're picking your race and class specifically to be able to get as many feats as possible, you should enjoy the benefit of having lots of feats.
I suspect that one of the common problems with martial feat chains is that they're designed with the fighter and his 11 bonus feats in mind. Charging three feats for something basic seems a lot more justifiable when you think of it as "three of your twenty-one feats" instead of "Three feats out of the ten you get."
I'd say having to spend several feats on it and being limited in your weapon selection and fighting style does a pretty good job of filling in that cost, though.
To be honest, if someone is spending the feats they'd need to be able to effectively two-weapon fight plus getting dex-to-damage, they should be getting something nice for all that investment. It's rather telling that Two-Handed-Weapon tends to be the most popular combat style, because it's the style you can make work without needing to sink a bunch of feats into.
Seriously, for a TWF Dex to Damage with Slashing Grace you need:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Saber)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Saber)
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting.Considering you get 10 feats over 20 levels, without bonus feats, this guy won't be able to get his concept going until 9th level. If a concept takes 9 levels and 5 feats to function, it better pay off
I'm pretty sure someone will shortly point out that you can grab all those feats a lot faster by playing a human fighter. Which is true, but if you're picking your race and class specifically to be able to get as many feats as possible, you should enjoy the benefit of having lots of feats.
I suspect that one of the common problems with martial feat chains is that they're designed with the fighter and his 11 bonus feats in mind. Charging three feats for something basic seems a lot more justifiable when you think of it as "three of your twenty-one feats" instead of "Three feats out of the ten you get."
I'm well aware, and, in fact, many classes have ways of getting bonus feats. But it still means the character's basic idea of combat doesn't function until 5th+ level. Unless you were playing a Half-Elf Fighter or Human Fighter, of course.
I'm well aware, and, in fact, many classes have ways of getting bonus feats. But it still means the character's basic idea of combat doesn't function until 5th+ level. Unless you were playing a Half-Elf Fighter or Human Fighter, of course.I'm pretty sure someone will shortly point out that you can grab all those feats a lot faster by playing a human fighter. Which is true, but if you're picking your race and class specifically to be able to get as many feats as possible, you should enjoy the benefit of having lots of feats.
I suspect that one of the common problems with martial feat chains is that they're designed with the fighter and his 11 bonus feats in mind. Charging three feats for something basic seems a lot more justifiable when you think of it as "three of your twenty-one feats" instead of "Three feats out of the ten you get."
Yeah, I was mostly aiming to preempt that line of reasoning. Dual-wielding with dex weapons shouldn't be something only a human fighter has enough feats to manage in a reasonable timeframe.
Just to add my maybe redundants 2 bits.
In my table, we've the following houserules:
Alternative weapon finesse
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13
Benefit: With a light weapon or a one handed or two handed piercing or slashing weapon 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 or an armor, their armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls. Any penalty to strength is still applied to the attack roll. Using one handed weapons with this feat require a minimum strength of 13, and using 2 handed weapons with this feat require a minimum strength of 15. Increase or decrease the strength requirements by 2 for each size step difference from medium. Any weapon one handed or 2 handed wielded with alternative weapon finesse is considered a one handed light weapon exclusively for calculating any type damage bonuses (for example, not for off-handed use or two weapon attack penalties).Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
Scientific fencing
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Alternative weapon Finesse, Profession (soldier or professional fencer (or other appropriate martial profession)) 2 ranks.Benefit: When wielding a weapon usable with alternative weapon finesse, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. If you carry a shield or an armor, their armor check penalty applies to your damage rolls. Any penalty to strength is also applied to the damage roll. Using one handed weapons with this feat require a minimum strength of 13, and using 2 handed weapons with this feat require a minimum strength of 15. Increase or decrease the strength requirements by 2 for each size step difference from medium.
The most efficient melee characters are still strength based builds, because they can use heavy armor much more easily and deliver a lot of .
It have been used with most satisfaction by a buccaneer gunslinger to be able to use a more flavorful cutlass when not shooting instead of being forced to use out-of-character scimitar, and by an elf archery ranger to be slightly more useful when switch hitting with his elven curve blade.
A slightly munchkin player tried to do a reach magus with the whip, but found it at the end not very satisfying (and I've to point that slashing grace now would have allowed it anyway). He was happy to rebuild it with a normal sword.
All in all, the world did not end.
(Edited for typos)
I think these feat are a little too complicated. Also no shield or armor? That's a little too much, no one outside of caster and kansai would be able to use that feat. Remember, we wanted a more generic feat so there would be more variation, this feat encourage very specific stats and build.
Also, while I like at first the idea of having 2-handed weap be finessable, I think I like more the fact that reach weapon are a str specialty.
Which is actualy another advantage of strength user, they get reach easily. The only way right now for dex user is a whip, while good it's very feat intensive.
Well, I don't want to go too into the details of defending my modifications, as after all I reported them here not as a proposed solution but as an example of a damage-to-dexterity solution that scratch the hitches of me and my group if not all while not upsetting the balance all too much, so I'll limit them to this only post...
The limitations about armor are about giving the dex-to-damage to those that thematically wants them... the agile warriors... and if they're agile, they will already use light armors or no armor to benefit their dex. About reach, I don't see it as a problem (reach is already limited by other factors, and there're ways to obtain it for the current bunch of dex fighter anyways, with bloodlines, feats, spells etc.), but I guess adding it a clause "piercing or slashing non-reach weapons" would be easy enough I think...
About it being complicated, well, there are a lot of complicated feats, even much more than these (i.e. the recently cited "sacred geometry").
Anyway, I'm not a professional game designer: I expect the professionals would come out with a more refined version, again I only reported this here to show an example of thing that did not lead to troubles at now 4 different groups of players including some quite dedicated optimizers.
Yes of course there should be a cost for getting dex-to-damage every ability that allow stats for other stats have to cost something.
Dervish dancing was very balanced, and could probably be even a bit more strong whitout breaking anything.
People always forget that while dex skills are more common, strength check are more common then dex check. Maybe you want to move a crate, break a door, pull a net, trust me, if your Dm has any basic idea of what he is doing you will feel your lack of strength. And if you can fix it with magical item... well you are using up magical item that could be used on something else so I see no big deal.
The only style that could perhaps see a problem is 2-weapon fighting, a problem that is easily avoided if you make a feat like dervish or the equivalent of 1 level of swordlord. And the two weapon user still woudn't be that great, remember you already can get dex to damage on 2 weapon with 2-weapon fighting. Does anyone have seen something that broke the entire game made with that? I sincerly doubt it.
I'd say having to spend several feats on it and being limited in your weapon selection and fighting style does a pretty good job of filling in that cost, though.
To be honest, if someone is spending the feats they'd need to be able to effectively two-weapon fight plus getting dex-to-damage, they should be getting something nice for all that investment. It's rather telling that Two-Handed-Weapon tends to be the most popular combat style, because it's the style you can make work without needing to sink a bunch of feats into.
Seriously, for a TWF Dex to Damage with Slashing Grace you need:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Saber)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Saber)
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting.Considering you get 10 feats over 20 levels, without bonus feats, this guy won't be able to get his concept going until 9th level. If a concept takes 9 levels and 5 feats to function, it...
Slash Grace specifically says that you cannot have another weapon in your other hand.
Slash Grace specifically says that you cannot have another weapon in your other hand.
You might be thinking of Dervish Dance. Slashing Grace has no off-hand limitation and can be used with two-weapon fighting.
I think the fastest Sawtooth Saber combatant would be a Human Warpriest 1/Swashbuckler 1? A Warpriest of Achaekek gets the EWP and Weapon Focus for free; you then take TWF and Weapon Finesse as your regular feats and retrain Weapon Finesse to Slashing Grace once you take your Swashbuckler level.
That first level is going to suuuuck, though.
Slash Grace specifically says that you cannot have another weapon in your other hand.You might be thinking of Dervish Dance. Slashing Grace has no off-hand limitation and can be used with two-weapon fighting.
Nvm, I misread, it has to be one handed, not only used in one hand... Idk where I got that from.
That looks like it would work, but the TWF aspect would be delayed a bit - You'd pick up Slashing Grace with your normal feat on level 3?
Truth be told I'll be extremely surprised if we don't get a Crimson mantis archetype for the slayer in Origins.
Nah, you've got everything at level 2. TWF comes at level 1, but you have to wait till level 2 to get dex to anything. This is assuming you can retrain Weapon Finesse into Slashing Grace (because you're getting the feat for free with your Swashbuckler level).
Nah, you've got everything at level 2. TWF comes at level 1, but you have to wait till level 2 to get dex to anything. This is assuming you can retrain Weapon Finesse into Slashing Grace (because you're getting the feat for free with your Swashbuckler level).
Ah, missed the human bit - that's what I get for posting from the phone >__<.TWF sawtooth sabre Achaekek warpriest/swashbuckler sounds like a really fun and flavorful build actually. Granted, your to-hit bonus won't be anything to brag about, but it seems functional. You could do the same thing with a Kensai Magus, it starts off with proficiency and WF in a single martial or exotic melee weapon.
I was playing around with doing a similar concept from the slayer side - using the style options to ditch dexterity completely and making a straight strength TWF monster.
...I strongly suspect there are going to be a lot of red mantis assassins joining the pathfinder society in the next few months.
I think Sanctified Slayer with a Swashbuckler or Daring Champ dip fits a bit better than Warpriest for most things. Though Warpriests can get Sneak attack with the Cult leader archetype...
|
|
Seriously, for a TWF Dex to Damage with Slashing Grace you need:
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Saber)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Saber)
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting.Considering you get 10 feats over 20 levels, without bonus feats, this guy won't be able to get his concept going until 9th level. If a concept takes 9 levels and 5 feats to function, it...
Level 1(kensai)Exotic Weapon Proficiency(sawtooth saber), Weapon Focus(sawtooth saber): Two Weapon Fighting, Double Slice if human
Level 3(swashbuckler): Slashing Grace
------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1(human fighter): Exotic Weapon Proficiency(sawtooth sabre), Weapon Focus(sawtooth sabre), Two Weapon fighting
Level 2: Double Slice
Level 3(swashbuckler): Slashing Grace
That looks like it would work, but the TWF aspect would be delayed a bit - You'd pick up Slashing Grace with your normal feat on level 3?
Truth be told I'll be extremely surprised if we don't get a Crimson mantis archetype for the slayer in Origins.
Don't we already have a Crimson Mantis assassin archetype in the ISWG? [link]
Or are you thinking of a different one?
That looks like it would work, but the TWF aspect would be delayed a bit - You'd pick up Slashing Grace with your normal feat on level 3?
Truth be told I'll be extremely surprised if we don't get a Crimson mantis archetype for the slayer in Origins.
Don't we already have a Crimson Mantis assassin archetype in the ISWG? [link]
Or are you thinking of a different one?
That link is to a prestige class...? I was thinking of an archetype that gives the Slayer class features that promote the red mantis lifestyle straight from level 1. A bit like how the aldori duelist is both a fighter archetype and a prestige class.
That link is to a prestige class...? I was thinking of an archetype that gives the Slayer class features that promote the red mantis lifestyle straight from level 1. A bit like how the aldori duelist is both a fighter archetype and a prestige class.That looks like it would work, but the TWF aspect would be delayed a bit - You'd pick up Slashing Grace with your normal feat on level 3?
Truth be told I'll be extremely surprised if we don't get a Crimson mantis archetype for the slayer in Origins.
Don't we already have a Crimson Mantis assassin archetype in the ISWG? [link]
Or are you thinking of a different one?
Ah. Right.
Derp.
|
As a sidenote, I think that anyone who claims that Dex to damage means you can dump strength does not apply the carrying capacity rules correctly.
My PFS DEX-focused paladin can attest to this. Carrying capacity was a major factor in how his stats got placed. And he can still only carry a bit more than what he's wearing and weilding without becoming encumbered.
DEX-to-damage does not remove the need for STR.
It certainly would make getting this character to work properly easier though. That is not a bad thing.
Agreed, Handy Haversack does not fix encumbrance because the armor you wear and the weapon(s) you wield can still encumber you if you aren't careful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading 5th Edition, my players and I said "smurf it" and instituted a house rule: every weapon on the Finesse list has Finesse as an inherent property, with Dex to damage as well. The WF feat no longer exists.
After reading 5th Edition, my players and I said "smurf it" and instituted a house rule: every weapon on the Finesse list has Finesse as an inherent property, with Dex to damage as well. The WF feat no longer exists.
I made a similar rule in the last game I ran; I removed WF as a feat and simply made it an extra combat option.
It wound up being a short game, and nobody actually used any Finesse-able weapons, so it's hard to tell what the outcome would've been. Still, even as a free option, my players(who typically go DEX-style) still weren't lining up in doves to try it.
I think that says a lot about DEX-style fighting(at least in my group). Lower the feat tax, and clean up the rules language! It really sucks to spend 3+ feats just to be worse at something other characters get to do for free(STR to damage).
So... I've been giving it some thought, and I still think this feat just isn't acceptable. I've been trying to toy around with some builds for it, but just about any time I do, I always find myself needing to dip Swashbuckler or Daring Champion to make it function.
The exceptions, of course, being with the dueling sword or whip. Those two builds just have an extra feat thrown into them with Slashing Grace.
I guess I'm just frustrated that this feat is basically limited to four options: Swashbuckler, Daring Champion, Dueling Sword, or Whip. If you aren't using one of the four options, you're basically only getting half a feat.
So... I've been giving it some thought, and I still think this feat just isn't acceptable.[...]
No, they need to fix it.
Easiest way is to add "light weapons" and rapier.
At least add light slashing weapons.
edit:
Some more thoughts...
I propose a FAQrata from the devs
Slashing Grace (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: Choose one kind of 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.
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: ou 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.
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 easily fixed by removing the Weapon Focus tax imo.
Since we already know a second printing of the ACG is going to happen because of the cover fiasco, why don't we propose this errata for the second printing and an FAQ for the release.
If you like this idea, please favorite and hit FAQ.
.
this is a nice fix but.....
I FAQ'd it, but the biggest problem with this is that you have Slashing Grace in the ACG, the hardback rule book line, while Fencing Grace will appear in a player companion. So if a GM doesn't allow splat books and only the hardback rule books (something several posters have mentioned their GM already does), then they won't have access to Fencing Grace, shoehorning every Finesse character into having to use slashing only weapons.
However, this is probably the best thing we'll get since the Designers think that Dex to Damage is the single most powerful option in the game, bar none.
I say this because Jason Bulmahn stated he thinks Mythic Weapon Finesse is probably too powerful even for Mythic. However the ability to self-create artifacts, or become a god and grant spells to followers, or cast any spell on your list for a Mythic Point etc. are perfectly fine. But Mythic Weapon Finesse? Nah, that's broken.
Odd, how all the players and GMs are saying Mythic Power Attack, Vital Strike and Improved Crit are the biggest problems in Mythic and not a single person has mentioned Mythic Weapon Finesse being too powerful...
I agree with Tels that the problem with this is that you have Slashing Grace in the ACG, the hardback rule book line, while Fencing Grace will appear in a player companion. Lot of people only use the stuff on the PRD. Also a patch to a patch is hardly a good thing.
I also agree with Lemmy that I don't see the point in limiting it to a single weapon. Why not all light slashing weapons and one one-handed weapon?
I don't know. Perhaps instead of saying:
You could instead say something like this
How about something like this?
Slashing Grace (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: Choose one kind of 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.
It is so funny to me that someone would read "one-handed slashing weapon" and think that the sickle or dagger were excluded.
Sometimes, when a rule doesn't make sense, you need to think about it the way common English speakers would.
"You can use any slashing weapon that you can wield in one hand, and add your dexterity modifier to damage."
"Oh you mean like knifes and swords and stuff?"
"Yes."
IMO, I think that is the way this feat should be FAQ'd
I think it's more odd that people "know" Paizo intended for the ability to be used with light weapons. I'm not saying I know developers/designers intentions, but I bet they did not want Two-weapon Fighting to work with the feat.
I'm not saying I don't think dex to damage should work with twfing. I let it fly in my campaign. But I do think this feat was meant to be restricted to Einhander styles or just the main-hand of a two-weapon fighter.
I also realize this is just my opinion. Maybe they meant it to work with light weapons. I just don't think it's ridiculous to have differing opinions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is so funny to me that someone would read "one-handed slashing weapon" and think that the sickle or dagger were excluded.
Sometimes, when a rule doesn't make sense, you need to think about it the way common English speakers would.
"You can use any slashing weapon that you can wield in one hand, and add your dexterity modifier to damage."
"Oh you mean like knifes and swords and stuff?"
"Yes."
The thing is, some words and phrases in the game carry specific rules weight and can't be ignored in favor of an alternative interpretation.
If a feat says something like.... Then that means, when you are using the Fighting Defensively action, you can make an attack when your opponent does. But you must be Fighting Defensively, or it doesn't trigger. It doesn't mean you can in a defensive position (like with your back to a wall), or when you use a shield or something like that. It has a specific rules implementation that is attached to the phrase 'fighting defensively'.
"One-handed" is a specific rules term, "Slashing" is another rules term. It's like a filter on a search engine. Type in "weapon" then filter everything but "one-handed", then filter everything but "slashing" as well. Now you end up with all "One-handed slashing weapons" in your search engine.
If the sentence had been phrased differently, it would have a different meaning. For example: This phrasing would allow for light or one-handed slashing weapons to work with Slashing Grace. But because of the phrasing of the text, the feat doesn't work so.
I think it's more odd that people "know" Paizo intended for the ability to be used with light weapons. I'm not saying I know developers/designers intentions, but I bet they did not want Two-weapon Fighting to work with the feat.
I'm not saying I don't think dex to damage should work with twfing. I let it fly in my campaign. But I do think this feat was meant to be restricted to Einhander styles or just the main-hand of a two-weapon fighter.
I also realize this is just my opinion. Maybe they meant it to work with light weapons. I just don't think it's ridiculous to have differing opinions.
Well, they could have handled that by adding a simple line requiring you to hold the weapon in one hand and have the other empty, like Dervish Dance. It'd be another kick to the groin for TWF, but whatever.