Also they could have said any light or one-handed weapon...
I like to give them the benefit here and say they got it right as to how they meant it. Not everything that doesn't make sense to us is a mistake on their end.
The simpler, the better. This allows use of bucklers, main-gauches, and minor two-weapon fighting.
I think "other hand empty" creates a lot more questions and is overly limited. Yes, we now have concerns of light or not, but that's a lot more clear if you ask me.
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."
What's so funny about reading the rule correctly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we keep pointless banter to a minimum? I'm a bit guilty myself, but let's give the mods a break for one evening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!
I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.
A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.
If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.
If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.
I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.
I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.
I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game. Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things. They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives. You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.
You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.
The product is not faulty because you say it is. The product is carefuly tuned and measured by those who are paid to tune and measure the games mechanics. Your wants may cause others not to want the game and leave. In fact... the attitude written in your statement offends me. Though I'm sure I offend others with mine.
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!
I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.
A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.
If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.
If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.
I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.
I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.
I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game. Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things. They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives. You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.
You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.
The product is not faulty because you say it is....
Except that the ACG is rife with editing errors and unclear text that should never have made it to print. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
It's abundantly clear to me that you haven't been paying attention to the response of the ACG, or you would know this. Try not blinding yourself with customer loyalty and opening your eyes to the truth.
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!
I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.
A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.
If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.
If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.
I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.
I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.
I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game. Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things. They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives. You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.
You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.
The product is not faulty because you say it is....
Comparing one person's viewpoints to the viewpoint of a conglomerate board collective, which is "the authority" of this game (and "the authority" isn't always right or proper, either), is like having one apple to having an assorted fruit basket. The amount, variety, and sheer volume that accompanies the latter would outweigh the value of the former because physics. It's not exactly a fair comparison, nor should it be one you make, because even if the Devs are the Devs, they are still human beings like us, not some "Holier Than Thou" ascendant like you make them out to be.
Although the customer isn't always right, nothing is. But not all customers are uninformed or don't know their way around subjects. However, that's a two-way street, and the only way to know for sure which is the case, is to run the numbers, the simulations, the aftershocks, etc. Which I've done myself, and quite frankly it doesn't support their decision to exclude Dexterity to Damage as a feat. Others have ran it, or viewed my input, and they've come to (or agreed with) the same conclusions I have.
Pure intellect doesn't make a company, much less a game that can thrive off of its consumers; it's needed, and is a key aspect, but is not the only subject of importance. One needs social skills, publicity outlets, resource management, etc. Not all of that can be covered with being Mr. Smarty Pants, and the Devs know that.
Even so, Tels makes a great point, one that matches the laws of Nature itself. Being complacent in your abilities only leaves room for others to one-up your regime. If Paizo didn't pay attention to the customers, or make the game constantly growing and evolving like it is, they wouldn't make it as a company, because it would be one-upped by a company who does, and ends up making a significantly better product because of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.
The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...
Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.
The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...
The criticism isn't offensive. Its the line, "I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement." based on one simple issue like... not having Dex based damage feats.
It's like buying a car and being upset that there are laws in place that suggest you can't run people over without consequence. The car is not designed for that purpose.
~~~~~~To Darksoul the Painbringer.
I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'm not through the entire conversation, but you would think somebody that has done the numbers would present them. If you have run the numbers, I would like to see the results. I do customer service, and though this is anecdotal at best, 99% of customers in my experience don't know the subject matter so thuroughly that they can argue with me. It is my job to know the subject that I serve. Just like its Pathfinders job to do so. You may well have run the numbers, but I havent been presented with them.
Adding damage to Dex in the format may cause issues for them later down the line. Yes, they should always be working on better things, and evolving thier company, but needs to be careful to make the right moves. This may not be the right move. I just have a little trust in them to operate thier game and understand thier job.
~~~~~~~To Tels.
I have the ACG game, and havent foudn too many errors with it so far. Havent played it much or looked into it on the forums. Though you're making a point without even one example. You should be able to bring facts to bear. You dont have to bring them all, but something is better than nothing.
And the second part of your statement is exactly what bothers me. Its the attitude... I'm right for sure with no immediate proof shown and everybody is wrong. I'm the truth. I am all that is right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.
The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...
Remember, even if there's an obvious editing error in the books, the problem is with YOU, not the book. Obviously you're suffering from some sort of hysterical hallucination causing you to see misprints. It's the only explanation, other than the blasphemous suggestion that the devs are not perfect gods of perfection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
~~~~~~~To Tels.
I have the ACG game, and havent foudn too many errors with it so far. Havent played it much or looked into it on the forums. Though you're making a point without even one example. You should be able to bring facts to bear.
And the second part of your statement is exactly what bothers me. Its the attitude... I'm right for sure with no immediate proof shown and everybody is wrong. I'm the...
Generally speaking you don't need to present proof when talking about something that's considered common knowledge. Most people won't expect you to specify that the sky is usually blue while discussing the weather, for example.
That said, since you mentioned you haven't had the book in play or been paying much attention to the forums: The ACG is a good book, it has tons of interesting options and new ways to approach making and playing a character. It's also rife with spelling mistakes, editing snafus, omitted sentences, and unclear language, which range from trivial or even amusing (like the book cover) to class-breaking. The general theory is that the book was delayed by and being very crunch-heavy in general and an extra week of play testing (which it benefited greatly from), rushed through editing to reach the publishing deadline for GenCon, and came out without the level of polish we generally expect to see from Paizo.
There are numerous threads debating various problems presented in the book but rather than link you to all of those, I'll just give you the highlights. Deadmanwalking (who I think I can safely say is a fan both of Paizo and the ACG) has been doing an excellent job of compiling the trouble spots as he reads through the book and posting them in the "potential errors in the ACG" thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are numerous threads debating various problems presented in the book but rather than link you to all of those, I'll just give you the highlights. Deadmanwalking (who I think I can safely say is a fan both of Paizo and the ACG) has been doing an excellent job of compiling the trouble spots as he reads through the book and posting them in the "potential errors in the ACG" thread.
Aw, thanks man. *blushes*
And yeah, for the record, I'm a big fan of Paizo and think the ACG is mostly quite good.
Also...I'll hopefully finish up with the remaining chapters in the next week or so. This week's been busy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are numerous threads debating various problems presented in the book but rather than link you to all of those, I'll just give you the highlights. Deadmanwalking (who I think I can safely say is a fan both of Paizo and the ACG) has been doing an excellent job of compiling the trouble spots as he reads through the book and posting them in the "potential errors in the ACG" thread.Aw, thanks man. *blushes*
And yeah, for the record, I'm a big fan of Paizo and think the ACG is mostly quite good.
Also...I'll hopefully finish up with the remaining chapters in the next week or so. This week's been busy.
Anytime! I've been meaning to thank you for compiling that, actually. I think pointing out the errors in a clear and non-confrontational way is a much better way to handle the ACG editing than some of the more vitriolic comments that have been made lately. Your list also really helped my groups with hammering out solutions for some the problems the book pose while we wait for FAQs and erratas.
I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'm not through the entire conversation, but you would think somebody that has done the numbers would present them. If you have run the numbers, I would like to see the results. I do customer service, and though this is anecdotal at best, 99% of customers in my experience don't know the subject matter so thuroughly that they can argue with me. It is my job to know the subject that I serve. Just like its Pathfinders job to do so. You may well have run the numbers, but I havent been presented with them.
Adding damage to Dex in the format may cause issues for them later down the line. Yes, they should always be working on better things, and evolving thier company, but needs to be careful to make the right moves. This may not be the right move. I just have a little trust in them to operate thier game and understand thier job.
Just so I am clear, when I mentioned run the numbers, simulations, aftershocks, etc. I am mostly talking about the game mechanics.
I'll create a separate thread about the subject, as it will bog down this thread considerably with what I am probably sure shall amount to a wall of text; it will take me some time to gather the data to post, but I'll definitely have it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.
The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...
The criticism isn't offensive. Its the line, "I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement." based on one simple issue like... not having Dex based damage feats.
It's like buying a car and being upset that there are laws in place that suggest you can't run people over without consequence. The car is not designed for that purpose.
~~~~~~To Darksoul the Painbringer.
I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'm not through the entire conversation, but you would think somebody that has done the numbers would present them. If you have run the numbers, I would like to see the results. I do customer service, and though this is anecdotal at best, 99% of customers in my experience don't know the subject matter so thuroughly that they can argue with me. It is my job to know the subject that I serve. Just like its Pathfinders job to do so. You may well have run the numbers, but I havent been presented with them.
Adding damage to Dex in the format may cause issues for them later down the line. Yes, they should always be working on better things, and evolving thier company, but needs to be careful to make the right moves. This may not be the right move. I just have a little trust in them to operate thier game and understand thier job.
~~~~~~~To Tels.
I have the ACG game, and havent foudn too many errors with it so far. Havent played it much or looked into it on the forums. Though you're making a point without even one example. You should be able to bring facts to bear. You dont have to bring them all, but something is better than nothing.
And the second part of your statement is exactly what bothers me. Its the attitude... I'm right for...
I am not talking about returning a book since I don't even have a copy of it yet thanks to s%&#ty distribution to Alaska. [Edit] This is not a fault of Paizo, this is just a fact of life with living up here.
I should clarify, I am not referring to the Adventure Card Game, I am referring to the Advanced Class Guide.
However, I have returned defunct or faulty products to companies in the past, but I have never done so with Paizo. My point was, if you buy a product, and it doesn't work as advertised or is full of errors, you should try to return it for a refund or switch.
As an example, I purchased a video game from a local Fred Meyer, only for the game to be damaged out of the box, I returned it and they swapped it for a working copy. Or I've bought a school text book that happened to be missing 2 chapters of the book due to a printing error. I returned the book and got a better version.
I've purchased computer games full of glitches before. Do you know what the company does then? They release patches that fix the glitches.
I have been following several threads debating the errors and mistakes in the Advanced Class Guide, and there are many. From missing rules text, to awful spelling mistakes, to horribly murky rules, this book is, in my opinion, the lowest quality product Paizo has released in a long time. Definitely the lowest quality product in their hardback rules line.
The Core Rule Book, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Adventurers plus all of the Bestiaries have all had errors in them; but none of them have matched up to what I've seen being reported with the Advanced Class Guide.
You have rules elements that don't work (like the Ecclesitheurge missing an entire class ability), or feats that are unclear or not working as intended (like Pummeling Style allowing use with any weapon), or issues like Slashing Grace, or a ring that lets you summon CR 7 creatures on the 4th level spell list.
There are lots of errors in the Advanced Class Guide, and I, as a customer, am going to criticize the book for it. There has also been an ongoing history of Gen Con release books being rushed and of lesser quality than other books because of time constraints. I see this as Paizo biting off more than they can chew with their current roster of employees.
This doesn't mean the employees themselves are lacking, the fact they can still be the top-runner in the industry with an ambitious productions schedule and release high quality products means they really are the best. But they are still human.
I still consider the Advanced Class Guide to be a high quality product, based off what I've seen and heard. The difference is that Paizo has set themselves a standard for their products, and so have their customers. The Advanced Class Guide falls below this standard by all reports.
Even people who consider themselves on the "Paizo Defence Force" or some such nonsense, have admitted the Advanced Class Guide is not up to par.
So why you are having such a particular issue with my post, I just don't know. I have tried to keep my posts in this thread clean, and on respectful. I'm sure I've failed here and there, but I feel I've kept mostly on point without getting overly harsh or critical. Especially if you look at some of the things I've said in the past.
I also feel this thread has been generally good all around in keeping the aggression and hostility down. I know from past experiences in such threads, a topic like this could have quickly erupted into bashing, insults and flaming of Paizo and other posters, but we've been pretty good in not going down that route.
If you opt to go check out some of the other threads discussing the Advanced Class Guide, you'll find a lot more hostile posts and comments than you will find here. If you want to go on some crusade against people, do it there. Because frankly, I just don't care to respond to your posts any further if you keep up with this topic.
|
|
Anytime! I've been meaning to thank you for compiling that, actually. I think pointing out the errors in a clear and non-confrontational way is a much better way to handle the ACG editing than some of the more vitriolic comments that have been made lately.
You're quite welcome, and I feel similarly, though I'm mostly doing it just to have a coherent list in one place. For my own use, as well as that of others.
Your list also really helped my groups with hammering out solutions for some the problems the book pose while we wait for FAQs and erratas.
Yay! I'm glad it's been actively useful to someone. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game.
Means nothing if no one is willing to play it.
Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things.
LOL, just LOL.
They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives.Pity then their math is so constantly WRONG. not to mention the wealth of supposedly uncomparables.
You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.
While sometimes true, this is not one of those times. The is no logical reason why a generic dex to damage feat does not exist out side of the devs deliberately not printing one is the face of the math behind the game.
You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.
Previous experience says otherwise.
The product is not faulty because you say it is....
Nope, it IS badly edited, rife with power imbalance and non-sensical decisions, and has an entire section that boils down to paizo telling itself it sucks at class design.
You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.While sometimes true, this is not one of those times. The is no logical reason why a generic dex to damage feat does not exist out side of the devs deliberately not printing one is the face of the math behind the game.
You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.Previous experience says otherwise.
This ability you're speaking on could make Dexterity strictly better than Strength with only one feat.
It could add 4 damage shift or even more with no real penalty. I don't see how that is balanced.
So why you are having such a particular issue with my post, I just don't know. I have tried to keep my posts in this thread clean, and on respectful. I'm sure I've failed here and there, but I feel I've kept mostly on point without getting overly harsh or critical. Especially if you look at some of the things I've said in the past.
I also feel this thread has been generally good all around in keeping the aggression and hostility down. I know from past experiences in such threads, a topic like this could have quickly erupted into bashing, insults and flaming of Paizo and other posters, but we've been pretty good in not going down that route.
If you opt to go check out some of the other threads discussing the Advanced Class Guide, you'll find a lot more hostile posts and comments than you will find here. If you want to go on some crusade against people, do it there. Because frankly, I just don't care to respond to your posts any further if you keep up with this topic.
The issue I'm having with your post seems to be that its mostly wrapped up with not having a direct to Dex damage and that you're demanding it. I think Slashing Grace is fine based on the wording. You get your Dex to damage that is limited. I don't see it being that big a deal. As I stated before, I believe a Direct to Damage Dex feat would make strength pointless except for with two hand weapons. Dex already has Reflex Saves, and Armor bonus. Ranged attacks. More skills than Strength. You can already reduce change out the to hit function, and now you want to get the dex function.
Its not really the errors in the ACG that i'm having an issue with. Its the Dex to damage thing that bugs me, and your demanding for it.
To me, your request seems... lets not say overpowered... but it make Dexterity outshine Strength too much.
I may have been too aggressive originally, and I apologize for it, but the basic statment on the thread title I think is too much. I think Slashing Grace is well crafted and designed specifically so that you cannot use light weapons, and to be limited.
They said they were going to do something that was dex to damage, and they did that. Its just not everything you hoped for.
Its just not everything you hoped for.Exactly. It fails to live up to expectations so people are rightfully stating their objections.
+1.
Even the designer said it was a mistake.
Did he specify?
Did he specifically say the mistake was that it wasnt a direct dex ability, or that it effected one hand weapons instead of light weapons?
You have not provided any quotes or anything from the designer, so I can't really quantify what was said.
So why you are having such a particular issue with my post, I just don't know. I have tried to keep my posts in this thread clean, and on respectful. I'm sure I've failed here and there, but I feel I've kept mostly on point without getting overly harsh or critical. Especially if you look at some of the things I've said in the past.
I also feel this thread has been generally good all around in keeping the aggression and hostility down. I know from past experiences in such threads, a topic like this could have quickly erupted into bashing, insults and flaming of Paizo and other posters, but we've been pretty good in not going down that route.
If you opt to go check out some of the other threads discussing the Advanced Class Guide, you'll find a lot more hostile posts and comments than you will find here. If you want to go on some crusade against people, do it there. Because frankly, I just don't care to respond to your posts any further if you keep up with this topic.
The issue I'm having with your post seems to be that its mostly wrapped up with not having a direct to Dex damage and that you're demanding it. I think Slashing Grace is fine based on the wording. You get your Dex to damage that is limited. I don't see it being that big a deal. As I stated before, I believe a Direct to Damage Dex feat would make strength pointless except for with two hand weapons. Dex already has Reflex Saves, and Armor bonus. Ranged attacks. More skills than Strength. You can already reduce change out the to hit function, and now you want to get the dex function.
Its not really the errors in the ACG that i'm having an issue with. Its the Dex to damage thing that bugs me, and your demanding for it.
To me, your request seems... lets not say overpowered... but it make Dexterity outshine Strength too much.
I may have been too aggressive originally, and I apologize for it, but the basic statment on the thread title I think is too much. I think Slashing Grace is well crafted and...
Now that you've changed the focus of your posts...
I disagree on Slashing Grace being a well designed feat. My largest issue with Slashing Grace is that it fails on thematic levels. It makes no sense for weapons like battle axes or bastard swords to have a dex to damage option, but traditionally dexterity based weapons like the rapier, dagger, or shortsword to not have them.
Yes, I know there will be a Fencing Grace option in a non-core product later on for rapiers, but that still doesn't handle the issue. Slashing Grace, as it exists, fails as a thematic dex to damage feat.
Even disregarding the rapier, there are many light weapons that deal slashing damage that are more deserving of a dex to damage option than a battleaxe.
By all rights, the feat should read . Hell, I'd be fine with a SLashing Grace feat and a Piercing Grace feat that were functionally identical in that they would, ideally, allow for dex to damage with piercing/slashing weapons.
I also would not mind for a hypothetical Piercing/Slashing Grace to allow for any weapon with which you have weapon focus to be useable with the feat as long as it meets the requirements. This would allow for a person to have multiple dex to damage options, at the cost of more and more Weapon Focus feats.
Its just not everything you hoped for.Exactly. It fails to live up to expectations so people are rightfully stating their objections.
+1.
Even the designer said it was a mistake.
Did he specify?
Did he specifically say the mistake was that it wasnt a direct dex ability, or that it effected one hand weapons instead of light weapons?
You have not provided any quotes or anything from the designer, so I can't really quantify what was said.
He did specify that not allowing for the rapier to have a dex to damage option was a mistake. See my original post for a link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This ability you're speaking on could make Dexterity strictly better than Strength with only one feat.
2 feats. And it still wouldn't deal as much damage. Nor would it help with carrying capacity or common Str checks, such as breaking doors.
It'd be a fair trade off.
It'd be a fair trade off.
Well we can't have that can we.
Once the martials get a taste of fairness they'll just want more and more until James Jacobs personally burns your spell book.
Now that you've changed the focus of your posts...
I disagree on Slashing Grace being a well designed feat. My largest issue with Slashing Grace is that it fails on thematic levels. It makes no sense for weapons like battle axes or bastard swords to have a dex to damage option, but traditionally dexterity based weapons like the rapier, dagger, or shortsword to not have them.
Yes, I know there will be a Fencing Grace option in a non-core product later on for rapiers, but that still doesn't handle the issue. Slashing Grace, as it exists, fails as a thematic dex to damage feat.
Even disregarding the rapier, there are many light weapons that deal slashing damage that are more deserving of a dex to damage option than a battleaxe.
By all rights, the feat should read light or one-handed slashing weapon. Hell, I'd be fine with a SLashing Grace feat and a Piercing Grace feat that were functionally identical in that they would, ideally, allow for dex to damage with light or one-handed piercing/slashing weapons.
I also would not mind for a hypothetical Piercing/Slashing Grace to allow for any weapon with which you have weapon focus to be useable with the feat as long as it meets the light or one-handed piercing/slashing requirements. This would allow for a person to have multiple dex to damage options, at the cost of more and more Weapon Focus feats.
.
See... When you say it fails on thematic levels... I disagree. If you've ever seen people fighting with bastard Swords, or katanas... they can be very quick, which I associate with dexterity. Accuracy I also equate to dexterity so getting the blade into the right part of the armor or to target with accuracy may be where the Dex comes from. I agree that thematically you would typically associate piercing weapons with dex damage, but I dont think it is specifically relegated to piercing weapons.
Thematically the light piercing weapon should likely be the choice but for balance I can see that the damage from Dex on the feat may have been designed to specifically avoid being mixed with Weapon Finesse.
Again, I feel that if Dex Damage was too easy, then Strength would largely be a dump stat, particularly if it required only one feat.
This ability you're speaking on could make Dexterity strictly better than Strength with only one feat.2 feats. And it still wouldn't deal as much damage. Nor would it help with carrying capacity or common Str checks, such as breaking doors.
It'd be a fair trade off.
2 feats if both damage and attack were being used, but thats not what I stated. Carrying capacity can be managed with a carriage or pack animal. Sure breaking doors and some skills still are strength, but I do not agree that it would make strength anything but a dump stat.
If Dexterity can encroach on Strengths territory, what stats get to encroach on Dexterity's territory?
Side statement regarding the issue - I'm not 100% against the idea for Dex to damage, and I realize that Strength would still have two handed weapons and be useful for one hand builds, but I feel like there is nothing that really does the job of Dexterity. I'd like to see more flexibility for mundane only classes, but it still effects non mundane classes too. My issue is that there is no counterbalance to the concept.
It's been noted time and time again that Dex builds have not taken over the game, even with the existence of Dervish Dance, Aldori Swordlord, and Agile enhancements.
2 feats if both damage and attack were being used, but thats not what I stated. Carrying capacity can be managed with a carriage or pack animal. Sure breaking doors and some skills still are strength, but I do not agree that it would make strength anything but a dump stat.
Dex to attack rolls but not to damage is pretty weak (Weapon Finesse by itself is meh). And pack animals can't carry your armor and weapons (unless your enemies are willing to wait a minute while you put up your best set of armor). Power Attack is also a pretty big deal. Intimidating Prowess and Cornugon Smash are quite awesome too.
If Dexterity can encroach on Strengths territory, what stats get to encroach on Dexterity's territory?
Side statement regarding the issue - I'm not 100% against the idea for Dex to damage, and I realize that Strength would still have two handed weapons and be useful for one hand builds, but I feel like there is nothing that really does the job of Dexterity. I'd like to see more flexibility for mundane only classes, but it still effects non mundane classes too. My issue is that there is no counterbalance to the concept.
I do agree that Str could use a boost. Here are ideas that I put in practice in my games:
- Power Attack and Combat Expertise are not feats, but general actions that anyone with BAB +1 can take when making an attack. However, Power Attack can't used in conjunction with Weapon Finesse (You have Piranha Strike for that, which isn't as good as PA, but okay).
- Shield Focus, instead of increasing your AC by +1, simply allows you to add your Str modifier to AC instead of adding Dex, as long as you're using a shield.
2 feats if both damage and attack were being used, but thats not what I stated. Carrying capacity can be managed with a carriage or pack animal. Sure breaking doors and some skills still are strength, but I do not agree that it would make strength anything but a dump stat.Dex to attack rolls but not to damage is pretty weak (Weapon Finesse by itself is meh). And pack animals can't carry your armor and weapons (unless your enemies are willing to wait a minute while you put up your best set of armor). Power Attack is also a pretty big deal. Intimidating Prowess and Cornugon Smash are quite awesome too.
If Dexterity can encroach on Strengths territory, what stats get to encroach on Dexterity's territory?
Side statement regarding the issue - I'm not 100% against the idea for Dex to damage, and I realize that Strength would still have two handed weapons and be useful for one hand builds, but I feel like there is nothing that really does the job of Dexterity. I'd like to see more flexibility for mundane only classes, but it still effects non mundane classes too. My issue is that there is no counterbalance to the concept.
I do agree that Str could use a boost. Here are ideas that I put in practice in my games:
- Power Attack and Combat Expertise are not feats, but general actions that anyone with BAB +1 can take when making an attack. However, Power Attack can't used in conjunction with Weapon Finesse (You have Piranha Strike for that, which isn't as good as PA, but okay).
- Shield Focus, instead of increasing your AC by +1, simply allows you to add your Str modifier to AC instead of adding Dex, as long as you're using a shield.
I feel like its mathematically more likely that Dex to hit has higher results than Dex to Damage since a miss results in 0 damage. Pack animals can carry you in armor though. Even then, I feel like the armor bonus from Medium Armor is enough to be protective and without being helpful since magical bonuses can really help. I've even been dipping one level of sorcerer so I dont have to really wear armor and use Mage Armor or Shield instead.
Id like to add a feat called Withstand... or something like that. Where you use Strength modifier to Reflex instead of Dex. Some things like that would be enough to help counterbalance it.
Well, yeah... Dex to damage, but not to attack rolls is even worse than Dex to attack rolls but not to damage. You need both to make it actually useful.
Now that you've changed the focus of your posts...
I disagree on Slashing Grace being a well designed feat. My largest issue with Slashing Grace is that it fails on thematic levels. It makes no sense for weapons like battle axes or bastard swords to have a dex to damage option, but traditionally dexterity based weapons like the rapier, dagger, or shortsword to not have them.
Yes, I know there will be a Fencing Grace option in a non-core product later on for rapiers, but that still doesn't handle the issue. Slashing Grace, as it exists, fails as a thematic dex to damage feat.
Even disregarding the rapier, there are many light weapons that deal slashing damage that are more deserving of a dex to damage option than a battleaxe.
By all rights, the feat should read light or one-handed slashing weapon. Hell, I'd be fine with a SLashing Grace feat and a Piercing Grace feat that were functionally identical in that they would, ideally, allow for dex to damage with light or one-handed piercing/slashing weapons.
I also would not mind for a hypothetical Piercing/Slashing Grace to allow for any weapon with which you have weapon focus to be useable with the feat as long as it meets the light or one-handed piercing/slashing requirements. This would allow for a person to have multiple dex to damage options, at the cost of more and more Weapon Focus feats.
.See... When you say it fails on thematic levels... I disagree. If you've ever seen people fighting with bastard Swords, or katanas... they can be very quick, which I associate with dexterity. Accuracy I also equate to dexterity so getting the blade into the right part of the armor or to target with accuracy may be where the Dex comes from. I agree that thematically you would typically associate piercing weapons with dex damage, but I dont think it is specifically relegated to piercing weapons.
Thematically the light piercing weapon should likely be the choice but for balance I can see that the damage from Dex on the feat...
Who needs dex when you can just be fabulous? (Loradin+Noble Scion... I am looking at you)
Now that you've changed the focus of your posts...
I disagree on Slashing Grace being a well designed feat. My largest issue with Slashing Grace is that it fails on thematic levels. It makes no sense for weapons like battle axes or bastard swords to have a dex to damage option, but traditionally dexterity based weapons like the rapier, dagger, or shortsword to not have them.
Yes, I know there will be a Fencing Grace option in a non-core product later on for rapiers, but that still doesn't handle the issue. Slashing Grace, as it exists, fails as a thematic dex to damage feat.
Even disregarding the rapier, there are many light weapons that deal slashing damage that are more deserving of a dex to damage option than a battleaxe.
By all rights, the feat should read light or one-handed slashing weapon. Hell, I'd be fine with a SLashing Grace feat and a Piercing Grace feat that were functionally identical in that they would, ideally, allow for dex to damage with light or one-handed piercing/slashing weapons.
I also would not mind for a hypothetical Piercing/Slashing Grace to allow for any weapon with which you have weapon focus to be useable with the feat as long as it meets the light or one-handed piercing/slashing requirements. This would allow for a person to have multiple dex to damage options, at the cost of more and more Weapon Focus feats.
.See... When you say it fails on thematic levels... I disagree. If you've ever seen people fighting with bastard Swords, or katanas... they can be very quick, which I associate with dexterity. Accuracy I also equate to dexterity so getting the blade into the right part of the armor or to target with accuracy may be where the Dex comes from. I agree that thematically you would typically associate piercing weapons with dex damage, but I dont think it is specifically relegated to piercing weapons.
Thematically the light piercing weapon should likely be the choice but for balance I can see that the damage from Dex on the feat...
Being quick with a blade, especially a heavier blade like a bastard sword, is not truly an application of dexterity or strength, but an application of power.
Strong men can lift hundreds of pounds over their head, but a powerful man can lifts hundreds of pounds over his head in a short amount of time.
Swinging around a bastard sword or a katana requires a fair bit of strength, as they are heavier blades than that of something like a rapier, or a main gauche, or a sabre.
But, using a rapier, or a dagger, in a fight, is heavily reliant on being quick and agile in it's use of the blade. A dagger does not penetrate very far, so you need to be able to get the dagger in where it can actually do some damage. Using a dagger on defense is also far less to do with stopping an attack, as much as deflecting an attack.
Same with a rapier, you don't use your great strength to thrust with a rapier, most of the rapiers movement is controlled with the fingers. Adjusting your grip and manipulating the pommel with the fingers gives you the correct amount of control.
One of my best friends has been fencing since he was in high school and was the captain of his fencing team. He's shown me videos of his fights, in things like tournaments with the foil, or fights like the SCA, or fights using blunted, but more 'real' rapiers using real combat techniques. In none of these fights, are the people burly bruisers or overly strong people. Every person I've seen using weapons like the rapier, are of smaller builds, with speed and grace in their movements. Every person is nimble and agile.
So yes, based off what I've seen in real life, what I've heard from one of my best friends who has been fencing for over 10 years, and with how media has portrayed people who use weapons like shortswords and kukri, Slashing Grace does fail on a thematic level.
Being quick with a blade, especially a heavier blade like a bastard sword, is not truly an application of dexterity or strength, but an application of power.Strong men can lift hundreds of pounds over their head, but a powerful man can lifts hundreds of pounds over his head in a short amount of time.
Swinging around a bastard sword or a katana requires a fair bit of strength, as they are heavier blades than that of something like a rapier, or a main gauche, or a sabre.
But, using a rapier, or a dagger, in a fight, is heavily reliant on being quick and agile in it's use of the blade. A dagger does not penetrate very far, so you need to be able to get the dagger in where it can actually do some damage. Using a dagger on defense is also far less to do with stopping an attack, as much as deflecting an attack.
Same with a rapier, you don't use your great strength to thrust with a rapier, most of the rapiers movement is controlled with the fingers. Adjusting your grip and manipulating the pommel with the fingers gives you the correct amount of control.
One of my best friends has been fencing since he was in high school and was the captain of his fencing team. He's shown me videos of his fights, in things like tournaments with the foil, or fights like the SCA, or fights using blunted, but more 'real' rapiers using real combat techniques. In none of these fights, are the people burly bruisers or overly strong people. Every person I've seen using weapons like the rapier, are of smaller builds, with speed and grace in their movements. Every person is nimble and agile.
So yes, based off what I've seen in real life, what I've heard from one of my best friends who has been fencing for over 10 years, and with how media has portrayed people who use weapons like shortswords and kukri, Slashing Grace does fail on a thematic level.
Swinging around a Katana or bastard sword require some strenght, but even those weapons will deal more damage to the human form with a more accurate strike. The Katana required quickness as well. Greater strength may make you more able to bring the blade to bear for an attack, but if you hit the first time you don't need the second attack really.
They didnt stop using Armor because of rapiers and blades like that. They stopped using armor because the gun became so much easier to use and it wasnt even so much that it penetrated armor better than a longbow, but that cheap troop became more important than heavy expensive troop.
You don't see burly bruisers and things like that because armor is not a factor. Being able to support 80 pounds of armor doesnt matter in fencing. A rapier is going to have a tougher time against somebody wielding a two handed sword in plate armor. The reach alone is going to be troublesome, but the game doesnt really seem to take that into consideration.
Also, you being exposed to rapiers and fencing does not make you an authority on other types of combat that are not fencing.
Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.
All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!
[/pointless snark]
[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.
Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.
All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!
[/pointless snark]
[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.
And that post does not reek of arrogance at all...
Let me tell you one thing, as a Person who knows how to use a Katana, I can honestly say that the blade does require MUCH more skill and dexterity to use than any amount of strength.
The thing you are not catching is that the Bastard Sword and the longsword were designed to CHOP. They are designed to hack through things through sheer might. The Katana, with it's curved blade and dual alloy design, is meant to slice through things. When you wield a Katana, your strength actually means very little in the grand scheme of things. The true power of the Katana comes of the sharpness of the blade and the more slicing manner in which you slash wiht the weapon (you kind of flick if you will like you would if you were long fishing. That is the best way I can describe it.). The power in your cut tends to actually come from your two top fingers on your left hand and your pinky on the right (assuming standard grip).
In fact, many of the best Katana wielders in the world are actually not very big people.... The thing with the Katana comes more from perfection in form and speed of draw more than sheer might.
Disclaimer: This is not a dig at either Jayde or Tels,, but I can't help appreciate the irony.
For the past ten years I've seen hundreds if not thousands of posts across multiple forums arguing back and forth on why you could use weapon finesse with small fast light weapons like daggers and rapiers, but not with big cumbersome weapons like spears or katanas?
They used the exact same arguments as Jayde and Tels, only in reverse. It's like I'm caught in a mirror universe right now.
I feel like its mathematically more likely that Dex to hit has higher results than Dex to Damage since a miss results in 0 damage. Pack animals can carry you in armor though. Even then, I feel like the armor bonus from Medium Armor is enough to be protective and without being helpful since magical bonuses can really help. I've even been dipping one level of sorcerer so I dont have to really wear armor and use Mage Armor or Shield instead.
You can feel anyway you want about mathematics but the nice thing about mathematics is that it works the same way no matter how you feel about it. By the way, you are wrong. DPR on STR based builds will always outpace DEX builds, particularly if you charge them 2 feats to pull it off.
Tell you what, give me an example of the most egregious DEX to damage ability you can imagine and I will run DPR numbers on it at any level you like and compare it to a STR based character and a guarantee you that STR will win every time.
This isn't about trying to bleed power out of a build to make it the next best thing, it's about building a character that works/acts differently than the same non-caster we've been playing for 5 years AND doesn't suck/punish you for the effort.
Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.
All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!
[/pointless snark]
[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3rb?Ignore-v4
Funny thing is....
There are actually very few weapons that cannot be wielded with dex over strength...
Spears- The chinese are shining examples of this. Rather than jabs and thrusts, they instead tend to implore more short cuts and quick movements by making quick adjustments with the tail end of the spear. Additionally are also well known for utilizing both ends of a spear as a weapon...
Quarterstaffs/Bo staffs- Monkey king.... do I need to say more?
Nearly any curved blade- meant to utilize speed and precision...
Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.
Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.
Then a WIS/INT conglomerate which is your "primary" casting stat that requires 10+x to cast x level spell, and then CHA which is the "secondary" casting stat for determining save DC and extra spells per day. All casters would use the same stats in the same way.
All four stats would have a "save" associated with them, so the game would go to four saves. In this system martial characters will have the best saves and "mundane" skills while casters need all four stats, get fewer skills, and have worse saves. Once I get everything finalized and playtested I will post it in the HB forum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.
All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!
[/pointless snark]
[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.
And that post does not reek of arrogance at all...
Let me tell you one thing, as a Person who knows how to use a Katana, I can honestly say that the blade does require MUCH more skill and dexterity to use than any amount of strength.
The thing you are not catching is that the Bastard Sword and the longsword were designed to CHOP. They are designed to hack through things through sheer might. The Katana, with it's curved blade and dual alloy design, is meant to slice through things. When you wield a Katana, your strength actually means very little in the grand scheme of things. The true power of the Katana comes of the sharpness of the blade and the more slicing manner in which you slash wiht the weapon (you kind of flick if you will like you would if you were long fishing. That is the best way I can describe it.). The power in your cut tends to actually come from your two top fingers on your left hand and your pinky on the right (assuming standard grip).
In fact, many of the best Katana wielders in the world are actually not very big people.... The thing with the Katana comes more from perfection in form and speed of draw more than sheer might.
** spoiler omitted **...
Arrogance? Why? Because I'm tired of the guy being bound and determined to treat me as some sort of mustache twirling villain out to destroy or ruin Paizo?
Do you see him attacking anyone else in this thread who also agrees the Slashing Grace feat is not a good one?
Go back and read his posts; a search by date in this thread tells me that this is his first post.
He quotes a post I made rebutting someones comment that, as customers, we just need to be happy with what we are given. I refuse to be a voiceless consumer, taking only what I'm given with no input on future decisions. His response to my post is that, essentially, I don't actually know what I want an that Paizo actually does know what I want so I need to accept what Paizo gives me because they are smarter and wiser than I ever could be.
How about this one? Wherein he demands that I produce undeniable proof that the Advanced Class Guide is full of errors. I even mentioned in the post that he is response to, that if he had actually been paying attention to the response to the ACG, that he would already know this. There's a whole thread dedicated to the errors in the book, including errors that make some options unplayable, like archetypes, or horrible spelling and grammar mistakes. Deadmanwalking has been going through the book chapter by chapter outlining every little error he's finding and it's staggering.
Or the one he made earlier here. Where he tells me that 1) Slashing Grace is a well designed and good feat, and 2) He tells me that my asking for a better designed feat bugs him.
Based off his previous response, being that Paizo is infinitely smarter and wiser than I am and that I don't actually know what it is that I want, it doesn't surprise me.
Or how about the fact that Slashing Grace absolutely failes on thematic levels when the most thematically appropriate weapons to be used with a dex to damage option, don't function with it. In his opinion, it is better for a bastard sword, or a battle axe, to have a dex to damage option, than it is for a dagger, or wakizashi.
I don't know where you get off calling me arrogant at all. I outlined all of the problems with this feat, and the overwhelming consensus of this thread and others, is that Slashing Grace is not a well designed feat and needs to be fixed.
If I had said I was a better game designer than Jason Bulmahn, or Sean K Reynolds, that would be arrogance. If I said I knew more about game design than Jayde does, that would be arrogance. But I didn't do that.
What I did, was get snarky because I am tired of the guy personally attacking me like I'm a villain out to hurt Paizo. I don't see him attacking anyone else who agrees with my initial post, or who else has posted information saying the same thing.
I also don't see him going off on other people who've said far more hostile things than I ever did in this very own thread. Like the people who've said things like "Martials can't have nice things" Or "Paizo only like Casters" or something to that vein.
Frankly, I just don't give a damn to see his comments anymore. I've been discussing this subject since the day the ACG came out, and have made multiple posts on nearly every page on this thread. I consider that a rarity as most OP abandon threads shortly after a few pages. So yes, I'm tired of people trying to attack me over this subject, especially when they're trying to paint me as some villain who doesn't even know what it is that I want out of the game and that I'm too stupid to know that Paizo is full of people infinitely smarter than I am.
Tels, if you don't mind it coming from a dragon, I will hug you. :D
You may have died in a ball of electricity just now, if so, I apologize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing you are not catching is that the Bastard Sword and the longsword were designed to CHOP. They are designed to hack through things through sheer might. The Katana, with it's curved blade and dual alloy design, is meant to slice through things.
In a civilian fencing context, the longsword could be wielded with every bit as much speed and finesse as a katana. Maybe even more: The longsword had a thinner blade (owing to its monosteel construction) and could therefore have a longer blade for the same weight. The longsword also had a straight blade, which I'm given to understand is much more "wieldy" than a curved one. The longsword could cut perfectly well but more emphasis was given to the thrust, especially as plate armor became more and more common. The curved blade of the katana further sacrifices reach for cutting ability, and the cutting advantage of a slightly-curved blade over a straight one seems to be overrated to boot. I don't see how the katana's construction would make it better at cutting; the steel of a longsword and the slightly harder steel at a katana's edge would slice through clothing / not-slice through armor to basically the same degree.
In fact you could say that the longsword could chop, even though it wasn't an ideal weapon for that task, because the blade was a single piece of "springy" steel. If you tried to chop with a katana, you'd risk bending it because part of its "dual alloy design" is that soft iron spine.
From what I've heard, it seems historical katanas ran the gamut from light fencing weapons to heavy battlefield choppers anyways. You're not actually comparing modern sport fencing katanas to (your idea of) medieval longswords, are you?
Edit: Tacking on a mini-rant here. Who could possibly have looked at a longsword and decided it should be a slashing-only weapon?
Edit 2: Forget katana vs. longsword. The absurdity of Slashing Grace should become instantly and undeniably apparent when you note that it works with katanas but not wakizashis.