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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 876 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Care should be taken when stating what people thinks.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I, for one, prefer disabusing people from preconceived notions. The fact that a parrying dagger is needed is not only important for balance (check out the Duelist PrC, which works perfectly with having an off-hand dagger to trigger Parry), but also to be able to live a fantasy properly.

Again, I'm talking about reasons things might've gotten left out, not my own opinions. And am becoming seriously annoyed about being quoted incompletely and out of context.

Hell, in the same post you're both quoting, I specifically note that my own vision of an archetypical swashbuckler did include a parrying dagger, I just don't assume I'm typical.

So...please stop acting like my theories on what might be going on in other people's heads are my own opinions. It's kind of annoying, given that they aren't.


It still leaves all us sad little Monk-lovers out in the dark though, relying on being the Hulk as opposed to being the Flash for damage.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I wonder just how many cookie cutter Inspired Blade 1/Kensai Magus 19 builds we are going to see in the future.

In fact, I think we can feasibly see a lot of 1 level dips into swashbuckler just to turn this feat online and let you use DEX on nonstandard finessable weapons.

I think most Magus builds will keep using Dervish Dance. This way they save a feat and don't lose their CL.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
I wonder just how many cookie cutter Inspired Blade 1/Kensai Magus 19 builds we are going to see in the future.

Not many, given that Inspired Blade is apparently hyper-tied to the Rapier...and a Kensai can get and make use of Fencing Grace without the dip. Especially since rapier is one of the best Kensai weapons anyway...

master_marshmallow wrote:
In fact, I think we can feasibly see a lot of 1 level dips into swashbuckler just to turn this feat online and let you use DEX on nonstandard finessable weapons.

This might well happen, I suppose. Though I'd be more inclined to suspect large numbers (and by 'large numbers' I mean a large percentage of those that might've grabbed Dervish Dance previously) of people will start using rapiers instead...

Lemmy wrote:
I think most Magus builds will keep using Dervish Dance. This way they save a feat and don't lose their CL.

I agree. though I think Fencing Grace will see a fair amount of use as well, especially among Kensai, for whom it actually requires less prerequisites (No Perform and they already have Weapon Focus).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


So...please stop acting like my theories on what might be going on in other people's heads are my own opinions. It's kind of annoying, given that they aren't.

Now if only those reasons weren't so utterly backwards, because that's what people are reacting too.

"Because it's not iconic" is really just that stupid. Even if we Weren't talking about a class named "Swashbuckler."

Liberty's Edge

9mm wrote:

Now if only those reasons weren't so utterly backwards, because that's what people are reacting too.

"Because it's not iconic" is really just that stupid.

*shrugs* My point was that this might be a reason nobody thought of it, not that it's a reason such things shouldn't been available. There's sort of a big difference between the two.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I think most Magus builds will keep using Dervish Dance. This way they save a feat and don't lose their CL.
I agree. though I think Fencing Grace will see a fair amount of use as well, especially among Kensai, for whom it actually requires less prerequisites (No Perform and they already have Weapon Focus).

Ah, that's true. I forgot Kensais get free Weapon Focus.

Dervish Dance is still slightly better since the weapon count as both S and P damage, but you're right.

Still... I can't help but wonder: Why do the devs think that requiring between 6 and 9 feats to play as a dexterous duelist TWFing with Rapier & Dagger is a good idea.

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:

Ah, that's true. I forgot Kensais get free Weapon Focus.

Dervish Dance is still slightly better since the weapon count as both S and P damage, but you're right.

Eh. There's Versatile Weapon for that. And a Human Kensai can get Fencing Grace at level 1, rather than waiting for 3. And a rapier is lighter (relevant if dumping Str).

Lemmy wrote:
Still I got to wonder... Why does Paizo think that requiring between 6 and 9 feats to play as someone TWfing with Rapier & Dagger is a good idea.

There's a reason I House Rule that any weapon specific Feat can be taken for a specific pair of weapons (the downside being that if you do it this way, you don't get the bonus unless you have both since the fighting style you're trained in uses both in synch with each other). Seems balanced and I highly recommend it.

Grand Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I think most Magus builds will keep using Dervish Dance. This way they save a feat and don't lose their CL.
I agree. though I think Fencing Grace will see a fair amount of use as well, especially among Kensai, for whom it actually requires less prerequisites (No Perform and they already have Weapon Focus).

Ah, that's true. I forgot Kensais get free Weapon Focus.

Dervish Dance is still slightly better since the weapon count as both S and P damage, but you're right.

Still... I can't help but wonder: Why do the devs think that requiring between 6 and 9 feats to play as a dexterous duelist TWFing with Rapier & Dagger is a good idea.

Mostly because they seem to think the numbers in combat actually matter.

The other reasons gets censored on these boards.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Ah, that's true. I forgot Kensais get free Weapon Focus.

Dervish Dance is still slightly better since the weapon count as both S and P damage, but you're right.

Eh. There's Versatile Weapon for that. And a Human Kensai can get Fencing Grace at level 1, rather than waiting for 3. And a rapier is lighter (relevant if dumping Str).

I'd rather not depend on a 2nd/3rd level spell... But okay.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Still I got to wonder... Why does Paizo think that requiring between 6 and 9 feats to play as someone TWfing with Rapier & Dagger is a good idea.
There's a reason I House Rule that any weapon specific Feat can be taken for a specific pair of weapons (the downside being that if you do it this way, you don't get the bonus unless you have both since the fighting style you're trained in uses both in synch with each other). Seems balanced and I highly recommend it.

I simply use the homebrew version of DD I shared earlier in this thread (under the name of "Improved Weapon Finesse).

Dervish Dance: You can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to all attack and damage rolls made with weapons affected by Weapon Finesse. This damage is not increased by any condition or effect that would allow you to add 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage (such as wielding your weapon 2-handed) but it is still reduced for off-hand attacks. You cannot use this ability while donning a shield of any kind.

Prerequisite: BAB +1, Dex 13, Weapon Finesse

Special: Characters with the Panache class feature can use this ability while donning a buckler.

It's not like this makes characters more powerful, since TWFing with 2 different weapons is pretty much the weakest combat style there is.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


It seems to me that "one-handed slashing weapons" is descriptive. I see no reason for it to mean one-handed melee weapons category that are slashing and only that.

It's how the nomenclature is used. "light piercing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "light" category that does "piercing" damage. "one handed slashing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "one handed" category that does "slashing" damage.

The RAI might be otherwise by the text is rather clear.

Note that this is also the official reason why you can't be a pistol wielding duelist, because pistols aren't "one handed piercing weapons" even though they're one handed and do piercing damage.

Heck, on that same page, the Duelist also specifies that it works with light or one handed weapons. Which again disagrees with your supposition by indicating that the two are different categories.


master_marshmallow wrote:
PRD Weapons wrote:

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength modifier applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half his Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls made with that weapon.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

link

You are incorrect, sir, please stop and take a moment to read the book.

You didn't show anything.


swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


It seems to me that "one-handed slashing weapons" is descriptive. I see no reason for it to mean one-handed melee weapons category that are slashing and only that.

It's how the nomenclature is used. "light piercing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "light" category that does "piercing" damage. "one handed slashing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "one handed" category that does "slashing" damage.

The RAI might be otherwise by the text is rather clear.

Note that this is also the official reason why you can't be a pistol wielding duelist, because pistols aren't "one handed piercing weapons" even though they're one handed and do piercing damage.

Heck, on that same page, the Duelist also specifies that it works with light or one handed weapons. Which again disagrees with your supposition by indicating that the two are different categories.

While this person is talking sense.

Fair enough.

EDIT: I do wonder why Paizo thinks Duelist can't be someone wielding a single pistol. Especially when you consider the dueling history of the country they are based in...

Contributor

swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


It seems to me that "one-handed slashing weapons" is descriptive. I see no reason for it to mean one-handed melee weapons category that are slashing and only that.

It's how the nomenclature is used. "light piercing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "light" category that does "piercing" damage. "one handed slashing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "one handed" category that does "slashing" damage.

The RAI might be otherwise by the text is rather clear.

Note that this is also the official reason why you can't be a pistol wielding duelist, because pistols aren't "one handed piercing weapons" even though they're one handed and do piercing damage.

Heck, on that same page, the Duelist also specifies that it works with light or one handed weapons. Which again disagrees with your supposition by indicating that the two are different categories.

So that means if I have Swashbuckler's Finesse, Slashing Grace, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Katana, then I can substitute my Dex for Str on attack rolls and damage rolls while wielding the katana in two hands, correct?

The katana is technically a one-handed slashing damage with special rules for using it in two hands. Also, the one-handed rules specifically note that a one-handed weapon can be used in two hands. Finally, nothing in the swashbuckler ever says you can't wield a weapon in two hands.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
So that means if I have Swashbuckler's Finesse, Slashing Grace, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Katana, then I can substitute my Dex for Str on attack rolls and damage rolls while wielding the katana in two hands, correct?

The feat does say "...When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed..."


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


It seems to me that "one-handed slashing weapons" is descriptive. I see no reason for it to mean one-handed melee weapons category that are slashing and only that.

It's how the nomenclature is used. "light piercing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "light" category that does "piercing" damage. "one handed slashing weapon" refers to a weapon of the "one handed" category that does "slashing" damage.

The RAI might be otherwise by the text is rather clear.

Note that this is also the official reason why you can't be a pistol wielding duelist, because pistols aren't "one handed piercing weapons" even though they're one handed and do piercing damage.

Heck, on that same page, the Duelist also specifies that it works with light or one handed weapons. Which again disagrees with your supposition by indicating that the two are different categories.

While this person is talking sense.

Fair enough.

EDIT: I do wonder why Paizo thinks Duelist can't be someone wielding a single pistol. Especially when you consider the dueling history of the country they are based in...

It might be overpowered in a game in which mages exist.


Because it's totally nonsensical to have a Duelist using a pistol when Jack the Grey is over there telling reality to sit down and shut up.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Because it's totally nonsensical to have a Duelist using a pistol when Jack the Grey is over there telling reality to sit down and shut up.

The same dev team who thinks generic dex>damage is off the table and pistol wielding duelists don't work greenlit Sacred Geometry.

So who knows.


Sorry, I forgot to color-code my last post for *absolute sarcasm and snark.*

It's utterly ridiculous.


Except for gunslingers. They NEED dex to damage.

Cause that makes sense, "I point my gun at your wound FASTER!"

So where is that options for crossbows?


Not sure, but I think the bolt ace from the ACG may get it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Could you guys *not* get so hostile or snarky? I've been informed that we're unlikely to get a designer response here (at least as far as Mark is aware) because the tone in this thread is really hostile and combative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not being hostile, at least not intentionally. I'm more pointing out that some of the design decisions they're making do not make sense, at all. Sacred Geometry, for example, was seen as a perfectly fine Feat to print, but something to cause Dexterity to be used as a calculator for damage instead of Strength is seen as 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'

I see a logical disconnect here, and, frankly, I don't understand how they could come to that reasoning. So, it's either sarcasm with some snark, or give up on ever getting any explanation as to why this is the thought process, and resign myself to never being able to play any form of Melee fighter that isn't King Kong shrunk down to Medium size.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Could you guys *not* get so hostile or snarky? I've been informed that we're unlikely to get a designer response here (at least as far as Mark is aware) because the tone in this thread is really hostile and combative.

Unfortunately for the designers, this is one of Paizo's biggest cock-ups in a long while, and is part of a long string of 6 years worth of work that has confirmed many an opinion of the dev teams attitudes. Opinions I might add that are removed as "flame baiting" on this board.

But I suppose it's easier to stick your head in the ground than admit your mistakes.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

I'm not being hostile, at least not intentionally. I'm more pointing out that some of the design decisions they're making do not make sense, at all. Sacred Geometry, for example, was seen as a perfectly fine Feat to print, but something to cause Dexterity to be used as a calculator for damage instead of Strength is seen as 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'

I see a logical disconnect here, and, frankly, I don't understand how they could come to that reasoning. So, it's either sarcasm with some snark, or give up on ever getting any explanation as to why this is the thought process, and resign myself to never being able to play any form of Melee fighter that isn't King Kong shrunk down to Medium size.

I dunno, maybe because Sacred Geometry was released in a non-core rule book line book so the Pathfinder Design Team doesn't have final say of what goes into it?

Remember, neither Dervish Dance nor the agile property were released in the core rules line of books either. There's a lot of stuff released in the other lines of books that the design team has no say over, so they can't be blamed for every rule released in every book especially if the books aren't directly under their purview.

That's not to say they didn't have a hand in the book, as there is a lot of 'cross team development' but that doesn't mean Jason, or Stephen, or Sean had a hand in the creation of Sacred Geometry.

Hell, I mean, look at James Jacbos. His job is to guide the development of Golarion and gives the O.K. on the adventure paths but he hasn't read every book and sometimes hasn't even read books in an AP.

They have different teams working on different rules and publishing different stuff all the time. Not every bit of rules information is handled by the Pathfinder Design Team. Their job is the development of the hardback books, like Ultimate Magic, or the Advanced Players Guide.


I would assume that non-rule books like that which feature sacred geometry are most certainly not held to the same standard as the PRD rule books. They are setting books for a particular setting.

Sacred Geometry is one of my favorite feats because it helps dispel the idea that material from that line of books is meant for every game.


I think people are mostly venting their frustration at this point...

A viable alternative for Dex-based characters is something people have wanted for a long time, so the poor execution of Slashing Grace is very frustrating. Especially when a better solution is so simple and obvious.

I for one, never take Weapon Focus... It's a boring feat that IE has minimal effect in actual game play (hitting stuff 1 additional time every 20 rolls is not very good, not even a little interesting), so the idea of having to spend up to 9 feats to play a classic Rapier & Dagger duelist is painful.

The fact that a dev believes Dex-to-Damage is too good even for Mythical is mind-boggling and makes players lose hope that we might one day get a better version of something we should already have.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

I'm not being hostile, at least not intentionally. I'm more pointing out that some of the design decisions they're making do not make sense, at all. Sacred Geometry, for example, was seen as a perfectly fine Feat to print, but something to cause Dexterity to be used as a calculator for damage instead of Strength is seen as 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'

I see a logical disconnect here, and, frankly, I don't understand how they could come to that reasoning. So, it's either sarcasm with some snark, or give up on ever getting any explanation as to why this is the thought process, and resign myself to never being able to play any form of Melee fighter that isn't King Kong shrunk down to Medium size.

I dunno, maybe because Sacred Geometry was released in a non-core rule book line book so the Pathfinder Design Team doesn't have final say of what goes into it?

This.


Oddly enough, I didn't say the Design Team. I said "I don't understand why they (They, in this instance, being Paizo as a whole, as the people behind Pathfinder) can give the OK on something like Sacred Geometry, or Dazing Spell, for that matter, but a Dexterity-to-damage Feat is, to paraphrase Mr. Jacobs, 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'"

The design decision, as a whole, on this doesn't make sense to me, at all. I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, personally, but it doesn't change the fact that this Feat is not good for what it is supposed to do, and I don't understand why.

Edit: I agree that 'design decision' may be a bad choice of wording, but I cannot, in my frustration with this, come up with a better way of putting it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Could you guys *not* get so hostile or snarky? I've been informed that we're unlikely to get a designer response here (at least as far as Mark is aware) because the tone in this thread is really hostile and combative.

That's sorta what I've been trying to get at for a while now...

9mm wrote:
Unfortunately for the designers, this is one of Paizo's biggest cock-ups in a long while, and is part of a long string of 6 years worth of work that has confirmed many an opinion of the dev teams attitudes.

That's certainly one opinion, but it's not the only one, and more importantly is one that can be expressed politely...not that that's happening, mind you.

9mm wrote:
Opinions I might add that are removed as "flame baiting" on this board.

I don't think I've ever seen a single opinion about the developers' choices that didn't constitute a personal attack be removed.

9mm wrote:
But I suppose it's easier to stick your head in the ground than admit your mistakes.

Not wanting to be publicly berated or verbally abused to no good effect isn't precisely the same thing as sticking one's head in the sand...


There is really no excuse for dazing spell.

Scarab Sages

master_marshmallow wrote:

I wonder just how many cookie cutter Inspired Blade 1/Kensai Magus 19 builds we are going to see in the future.

In fact, I think we can feasibly see a lot of 1 level dips into swashbuckler just to turn this feat online and let you use DEX on nonstandard finessable weapons.

None: or at least none that are well built.

Giving up Weapon Master when you can get dex-to-damage with Dervish Dance is beyond stupid.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Oddly enough, I didn't say the Design Team. I said "I don't understand why they (They, in this instance, being Paizo as a whole, as the people behind Pathfinder) can give the OK on something like Sacred Geometry, or Dazing Spell, for that matter, but a Dexterity-to-damage Feat is, to paraphrase Mr. Jacobs, 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'"

The design decision, as a whole, on this doesn't make sense to me, at all. I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, personally, but it doesn't change the fact that this Feat is not good for what it is supposed to do, and I don't understand why.

Perhaps Tels meant to reply to anlashok who more directly said that.

There definitely seems to be some more lee-way with a ridiculous feat that involves magic. Because, well, magic.

Personally, I don't think a TWF dex-to-damage feat would be too powerful. But then again, I also think something like Agile is good enough. I just wish you didn't need a +2 weapon for it (Amulet of Mighty Fists-style). And that it was core.


I'm fairly certain he meant to respond to me, but I could be mistaken. He'd be correct to take the textual tone he did, but I know I am frustrated, and have had to work to not get genuinely angry at it at first.

I honestly want to know why Dex-to-Damage is considered overpowered, yet many of the metamagic Feats in the core line are A-OK.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yay! My dextrous, battleaxe-wielding halflings can apply their Dexterity to damage finally. Yay!

*A shadowy figure whispers "but they still can't finesse said axes" into Ravingdork's ear*

What!? :(


I think the idea that dex to damage = bad stems from the idea that the rogue's sneak attack damage should justify making her dex focused, and that being dex based is so mind boggling strong as to justify everything else about the rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Oddly enough, I didn't say the Design Team. I said "I don't understand why they (They, in this instance, being Paizo as a whole, as the people behind Pathfinder) can give the OK on something like Sacred Geometry, or Dazing Spell, for that matter, but a Dexterity-to-damage Feat is, to paraphrase Mr. Jacobs, 'almost too powerful for Mythic.'"

The design decision, as a whole, on this doesn't make sense to me, at all. I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, personally, but it doesn't change the fact that this Feat is not good for what it is supposed to do, and I don't understand why.

Edit: I agree that 'design decision' may be a bad choice of wording, but I cannot, in my frustration with this, come up with a better way of putting it.

Mr. Jacobs did not say that. Based off the Ask James thread, Mr. Jacobs is perfectly fine with a Dex to Damage option, in fact, it's why Dervish Dance and the agile property exist.

I can't find the quote right now, but I believe, in the past, one of the Design team (as in Mark, Jason and Stephen who make the hardback rule books) said that they didn't include agile in Ultimate Equipment because they were worried about people switching over to entirely Dex based builds and no longer playing Strength characters.

The concern has turned out to be unfounded. After many complaints and many playtests and many instances of math and reports proving it wrong, the PDT finally decided to allow a Dex to Damage option into the Core line of books. It's just unfortunate the feat itself is a clunky one.

What was said about Mythic Weapon Finesse, was Mr. Jason Bulmahn expressing his concern that that Mythic Weapon Finesse was perhaps too powerful for Mythic as someone could, almost totally, obviate the need for strength if they do it right.

Obviating the need for strength is something they're concerned about. I can understand why they're concerned, but as someone who has built many Dex characters with even a 10 strength, I always find myself toeing the Encumbrance line. As many of those characters have been monks, Encumbrance is a very bad thing!

The point is, the Pathfinder Design Team is in charge of books like the Advanced Class Guide. They aren't in charge of what comes out of the Player Companion line, or the other Golarion products.

Yet people still get up and arms and blame them for everything that comes out. I've seen a lot of comments like, "Why can't Monks get a nice feat but Casters get Sacred Geometry" or "No Dex to Damage but the PDT gives Casters Sacred Geometry" "No move and attack but casters get Sacred Geometry"

The Pathfinder Design Team is not responsible for the existence of Sacred Geometry! So stop blaming them for it.

I would like to see Jason, or Stephen, or even Sean come in here and talk about a more likeable and useable Dex to Damage option in the core line of books. But if people keep getting so vile and hostile against them, I can't see why they would even bother. They're just going to come in and lock the thread if people keeping tossing around insults like what's been included so far.

Bottom line is the:

If you want input from the Design Team, START. BEING. NICER!


Well, let's examine Slashing Grace and see what we get. Here are my thoughts, I spoilered it for length:

This may ramble on for a bit, but I think I may be onto something:
SG has rather manageable prerequisites - weapon finesse makes sense, weapon focus is a common and popular feat, and if you don't have a dexterity of at least 13 there's really no point in taking the feat. I would expect SG to come online between level 1 (human fighter) and level 5 (halfling druid) depending on the character build, with most builds picking it up around level 3 - same level as Dervish Dance.

You can treat your weapon as piercing, but that's a side show. The real key here is the dexterity aspect. It allows dexterity to damage (but not hit) with one-handed (but not light) slashing (but not piercing or bludgeoning) weapons. That's a lot of limitations, clearly those are put in place for a reason.

Limiting it to one-handed weapons means SG is of limited use for TWFers since they wouldn't want to eat the -4 penalty, though the sawtooth sabres sidestep that by being one-handed slashing weapons that are treated as light weapons for TWFing.

Limiting it to damage, but not to hit means it's of limited use for dexterity SAD characters that don't have acccess to Swashbuckler's Finesse, though the aldori dueling sword and the whip sidestep that by being one-handed slashing weapons that qualify for normal weapon finesse.

So far we've established that three weapons benefit more than the rest from the current wording of Slashing Grace. All three weapons require other feats in order to be used, and the sawtooth sabre, which is the only viable TWF option, needs both a proficiency feat and a dip in Swashbuckler for its full potential. Two of the weapons are also iconic for Golarion, which I doubt is an accident.

Your options for using a one-handed slashing weapon dex-SAD are:
*spending two skill ranks on perform: Dance and two feats on Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance. The downside here is that you can't use shields, but you can still wield rods, scrolls or potions.

*Spending no feats at all and dipping a level of Dawnflower Dervish bard, gaining Dervish Dance as a bonus feat. The drawbacks are the same as listed above.

*spending two feats on Weapon Focus and Slashing Grace, then dipping Swashbuckler for Swashbuckler's Finesse.

* Spending four feats on Weapon Focus, EWP: Aldori Dueling Sword, Weapon Finesse and Slashing Grace.

And your options for using two-weapon fighting dex-SAD without eating the brutal -4 penalty are:

*Spending three feats on EWP: Sawtooth Sabres, WF: Sawtooth Sabres and Slashing Grace, then dipping Swashbuckler for Swashbuckler's Grace. This is especially unfortunate for double weapons such as the dire flail or the two-bladed sword, which typically already require a feat investment.

Reading between the lines, I get the impression that Paizo thinks the full potential of "dex to damage" should cost more resources than two feat slots by only giving the maximum advantage to weapons that already have feat or class level taxes, and put the SG limitations in place to encourage players to use those weapons. Aldori blades and sawtooth sabres both require EWP to get going, while whips require both Weapon Focus and Whip Mastery. All other slashing weapons that qualify for SG require a level in Swashbuckler, which is painful in a system that's not very open to class dipping.

I expect the ACG origins book will include archetypes for the aldori sword master and red mantis assassin that grant proficiency and bonus feats to lessen the investment needed to make Slashing Grace work for their chosen weapons, which would make those archetypes the go-to option for dexterity based fighting. In the meantime anyone trying to make dex work with TWF and light or double weapons will have to make do with the Agile enhancement, and anyone who wants to make dex work with a one-handed slashing weapon but can't fit EWP or dip swashbuckler will have to make do with Dervish Dance.

One thing that makes me sad is that Dervish Dance is effectively still your best option if you want to base your combat style off dexterity or you're short on feats, though it should be noted you can't use dervish dance with a shield. Unlike Slashing Grace, you can dip for it with a single level. If you want to take it the normal way you're still a feat ahead of someone who did the same with Slashing Grace. And the scimitar is still the best one-handed martial slashing weapon in the game. So after all this time and debate and speculation, I don't really expect things to massively change - the scimitar is still the go-to weapon for anyone who wants to base his combat style off of dexterity and fighting with a one-handed weapon, such as the magus.

Edit: It took me quite a while to check up all the facts I use in this post, not to mention actually writing it. I'd really appreciate it if you could point out any mistakes you see. Thanks! :)


I actually meant to respond to Nocte, because he brought up Sacred Geometry. Lots of people have been blaming the Design team for Sacred Geometry feat recently, and it's, frankly, been getting annoying.

I'm not innocent lamb in this thing. I've gotten upset and angry for the Design team before, but I've always made sure they were the ones that actually did something. Like nerfing Crane Wing, or during the ACG playtest when myself and a great many posters felt like Sean was ignoring our feedback.

But the point is, direct your anger where it's responsible. Don't blame the Design Team for something that came out in another book that they weren't involved with.


Ravingdork wrote:

Yay! My dextrous, battleaxe-wielding halflings can apply their Dexterity to damage finally. Yay!

*A shadowy figure whispers "but they still can't finesse said axes" into Ravingdork's ear*

What!? :(

Last I checked, the Swashbuckler's finesse could apply to them.


Yeah, my bad on the Jacobs/Bulham thing, I somehow mentally substituted one for the other.


Tels wrote:
I actually meant to respond to Nocte, because he brought up Sacred Geometry. Lots of people have been blaming the Design team for Sacred Geometry feat recently, and it's, frankly, been getting annoying.

Lot's of people want to assume everything printed with a Paizo Pathfinder logo on it is a rule book.

That is not an illogical assumption. What I find illogical is anyone who assumes Sacred Geometry is a serious feat meant for standard play. But that requires a person to be able to look at what they thought were rule books and see them as something else.

EDIT: IMO Sacred geometry puts a lot of the 3.5 "hax" power builds to shame.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scavion wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Yay! My dextrous, battleaxe-wielding halflings can apply their Dexterity to damage finally. Yay!

*A shadowy figure whispers "but they still can't finesse said axes" into Ravingdork's ear*

What!? :(

Last I checked, the Swashbuckler's finesse could apply to them.

I haven't got around to reading the Swashbuckler yet. Still, kind of sucks that it's not more general. What if I don't want to play a swashbuckler?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big thing that we learned from the Swashbuckler playtest thread was that STR based swashbucklers were still ultimately better choices than DEX based ones, unless Dervish Dance was involved, and DD was not involved until the 2nd round of the play test because Slashing Grace did not yet exist in its original form.

The other big thing we set into stone was that DEX to damage already exists, and because of that SRM was willing to talk to us and they supposedly caved into giving us this feat.

The fact that they forgot rapiers and are adding those in as an extra feat in another book at least shows us that the devs are willing to give us DEX for damage, granted not all at once like we want.

Agile Weapon wrote:

This enhancement can only be placed on a melee weapon which is usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.

Keen Weapon wrote:
This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll. This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
Improved Critical (Combat) wrote:

Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.

Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.

Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.

Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.

If we extrapolate relevant text, we can combine these already existing options into what we all really wanted for a DEX to damage feat imo.

Weapon Agility wrote:

Attacks made with your chosen weapon are quite deadly.

Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, Weapon Finesse.

Benefit: When using a light weapon or a weapon with the finesse quality, a wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply their Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of their Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.
Special: A swashbuckler who takes this feat can apply it to any weapon they can use with their Swashbuckler's Finesse ability.

Scarab Sages

Tels wrote:
If you want input from the Design Team, START. BEING. NICER!

The people opposed to dex-to-damage currently have the exact opposite incentive.

If turning the thread hostile maintains the status quo, then why should people seeking to block dex-to-damage calm down?


Ravingdork wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Yay! My dextrous, battleaxe-wielding halflings can apply their Dexterity to damage finally. Yay!

*A shadowy figure whispers "but they still can't finesse said axes" into Ravingdork's ear*

What!? :(

Last I checked, the Swashbuckler's finesse could apply to them.
I haven't got around to reading the Swashbuckler yet. Still, kind of sucks that it's not more general. What if I don't want to play a swashbuckler?

It's a 1 level dip, and you already want weapon finesse anyway.

Grand Lodge

Tels wrote:
The Pathfinder Design Team is not responsible for the existence of Sacred Geometry! So stop blaming them for it

Quality Control is still the Leads responsibility. They may not have wrote it, but they did sign off on it.

Liberty's Edge

@Kudaku:

You don't need to spend a Feat on Weapon Finesse if you dip Swashbuckler (while you list it as needed).

Also, you're leaving out an important balancing factor that I think explains why Dervish Dance is the cheapest option: It restricts you from using shields, something the other versions don't do. That's between -1 and -7 AC right there, and thus rather important.


Tels wrote:

I actually meant to respond to Nocte, because he brought up Sacred Geometry. Lots of people have been blaming the Design team for Sacred Geometry feat recently, and it's, frankly, been getting annoying.

Also, if you look at my posts, I did *not* bring up Sacred Geometry, that would be Anlashok underneath me. I brought up my frustration with it, true, but I wasn't the one to mention it. I was actually referring to the core metamagic Feats, and, well, that happened.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

@Kudaku:

You don't need to spend a Feat on Weapon Finesse if you dip Swashbuckler (while you list it as needed).

Also, you're leaving out an important balancing factor that I think explains why Dervish Dance is the cheapest option: It restricts you from using shields, something the other versions don't do. That's between -1 and -7 AC right there, and thus rather important.

Great catch, thanks! I edited my post. I'm not sure the shield is as big an advantage you list though, many classes (bards, inquisitors, alchemists and magi for example) want to keep the hand free for spellcasting, or use it to hold other things, such as wands or rods.

Do you agree with the thought process I went through for explaining the restrictions on slashing grace?

301 to 350 of 876 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A More Generic 'Dex to Damage' Feat - Includes ACG All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.