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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 876 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Tels wrote:
snip

Hostility? Maybe a tiny bit, but it was moreso an observation. Sacred Geometry is greenlit while frankly innocuous martial feats are laughed out of the room.

I disagree with Sacred Geometry not being fair game though.

Plus while I could be nicer, this is a two way street. I mean, the best way to get people like me to shut up would be to actually fix it.


Artanthos wrote:
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?

This is actually a sadly common tactic on the forums - If you want debate shut down, start a flamewar so that posts get deleted, threads get locked, and the criticism is never addressed.

Liberty's Edge

Kudaku wrote:
Great catch, thanks! I edited my post.

No problem. Always happy to be of assistance. :)

Kudaku wrote:
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.

Actually, a buckler stops none of that, and is still bonus AC (+1 to +6). And even a light shield doesn't stop casting. Magus actively forbids a shield, but it's really the only class to do so (though spell failure effectively does on a few others).

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

I'm not entirely sure, actually. It might be that thought out...or some things might just have gotten missed or not thought about.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
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.

I actually missed his post entirely. I apologize for thinking you brought it up, I just saw your post directly under my 'please stop the snark' post and saw you talking about Sacred Geometry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


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

You should pay better attention.


It is a bit disconcerting when observing the differences in design philosophy between martial and caster feats.

Sacred Geometry and Dervish Dance for example. Sacred Geometry is a quirky, grossly overpowered, with a design philosophy of making a feat interesting without worrying about power level. Fairly reasonable prerequisites that are required for feat use.

Dervish Dance on the other hand is laiden with prerequisites and restrictions. Only 1 weapon, cant use the other hand. Its designed to function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
anlashok wrote:
Tels wrote:
snip

Hostility? Maybe a tiny bit, but it was moreso an observation. Sacred Geometry is greenlit while frankly innocuous martial feats are laughed out of the room.

I disagree with Sacred Geometry not being fair game though.

Plus while I could be nicer, this is a two way street. I mean, the best way to get people like me to shut up would be to actually fix it.

Ok, I don't understand this post. I point out to you that the Pathfinder Design Team didn't make Sacred Geometry, I even mention that the Design team didn't want Dex to Damage at all, but agreed to do so after lots of proof and discussion. Yet you still bring it up?

Ok, lets phrase it this way...

Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

There is a known disjunction between the Golarion product line and the Rule book line of designers. The Golarion product line is allowed to include far more powerful options in it, because those rules are not considered to be part of the core rules of Pathfinder. They are apart of the rules of Golarion.

If you play Pathfinder on Faerun, the books about Golarion are not entirely applicable because Golarion is different from Faerun.

How about an analogy?

You buy a car. The has a few issues, but over all, it's fine.

You buy a stereo system. Installing the stereo system causes the back window to vibrate too much and shatter.

So you blame the car maker for not making a better window.

Does that make sense?

The guys in charge of making the core system are not responsible for the guys making the additions to the world in which the system is played.

Stop blaming the car for the window breaking.


Eh, it happens Tels. It really boils down to a feeling of, and I hate to say it, "Martials cannot have universally nice things." Every time they get something even half-decent, there's a catch, or a boatload of prerequisites, or a necessity to be one specific class to get the benefit out of it, and meanwhile, on the caster side, have Divine Grace!

Edit: So yeah, it's a lot of frustration talking, with a side of confused head scratching.


anlashok wrote:
Plus while I could be nicer, this is a two way street. I mean, the best way to get people like me to shut up would be to actually fix it.

At the same time, they are already willing to give us a Dex to Damage option. We just need to convince them to fix the one that is not working, instead of introducing another one.

Instead, you want to go on about how you don't have to be nice until they give you what you want?

You know what that sounds like? A 4 year old throwing a tantrum. Kicking mommy in the leg isn't increasing the chances of you getting that sucker.


It's not known how Paizo operates as a company. All we know is that Jason Bulmahn - Pathfinder Lead Designer - Has his name on the book [PF Campaign Setting: Occult Mysteries] next to "authors". I realize the ACG is a seismic volume and would have kept everyone busy, but Sacred Geometry in its current state really shouldn't have made it past him.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


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

Or perhaps you should. I've seen quite a lot of people disagree with the folks at Paizo, over almost everything under the sun...and only the impolite or deeply unpleasant ones (and not even all of those) got deleted. The seem to pretty universally focus on whether you're being polite and reasonable over whether you're in agreement with them.

I have seen a few times a thread that was bringing up a topic that seemed incendiary got locked...but no posts were deleted, and I've only seen even that very rarely.

Liberty's Edge

Athaleon wrote:
It's not known how Paizo operates as a company. All we know is that Jason Bulmahn - Pathfinder Lead Designer - Has his name on the book next to "authors". I realize the ACG is a seismic volume and would have kept everyone busy, but Sacred Geometry in its current state really shouldn't have made it past him.

Sacred Geometry isn't in the ACG. Unless they reprinted it there...which would be deeply odd.


Tels wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Tels wrote:
snip

Hostility? Maybe a tiny bit, but it was moreso an observation. Sacred Geometry is greenlit while frankly innocuous martial feats are laughed out of the room.

I disagree with Sacred Geometry not being fair game though.

Plus while I could be nicer, this is a two way street. I mean, the best way to get people like me to shut up would be to actually fix it.

Ok, I don't understand this post. I point out to you that the Pathfinder Design Team didn't make Sacred Geometry, I even mention that the Design team didn't want Dex to Damage at all, but agreed to do so after lots of proof and discussion. Yet you still bring it up?

Ok, lets phrase it this way...

Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

There is a known disjunction between the Golarion product line and the Rule book line of designers. The Golarion product line is allowed to include far more powerful options in it, because those rules are not considered to be part of the core rules of Pathfinder. They are apart of the rules of Golarion.

If you play Pathfinder on Faerun, the books about Golarion are not entirely applicable because Golarion is different from Faerun.

How about an analogy?

You buy a car. The has a few issues, but over all, it's fine.

You buy a stereo system. Installing the stereo system causes the back window to vibrate too much and shatter.

So you blame the car maker for not making a better window.

Does that make sense?

The guys in charge of making the core system are not responsible for the guys making the additions to the world in which the system is played.

Stop blaming the car for the window breaking.

I think it is fair to say that complaints targeted at the "Paizo design team" is actually targeted at "editors, writers, and developers of the various pathfinder product lines."

Also, just because they chose to organize themselves in to compartments doesn't mean that the excuse, "well I'm the left hand and I don't have any editorial control or knowledge about the alleged right hand," hold any water at all. Their internal organization is completely irrelevant to the consumer.

Also, (just to illustrate how terrible this argument is), I believe that 99%+ of DEX to damage proponents would be fine with a straight DEX to damage feat in the companion line. So why is it that the companion line can put out feats like sacred geometry but not a straight DEX to damage?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
It's not known how Paizo operates as a company. All we know is that Jason Bulmahn - Pathfinder Lead Designer - Has his name on the book next to "authors". I realize the ACG is a seismic volume and would have kept everyone busy, but Sacred Geometry in its current state really shouldn't have made it past him.
Sacred Geometry isn't in the ACG. Unless they reprinted it there...which would be deeply odd.

I mean, the book containing Sacred Geometry was being written at the same time as the ACG, so people were probably very busy working on the core line book.

The point is, though I can understand how busy the design team would have been at the time, a customer shouldn't make excuses for the company he buys a product from.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


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

Or perhaps you should. I've seen quite a lot of people disagree with the folks at Paizo, over almost everything under the sun...and only the impolite or deeply unpleasant ones (and not even all of those) got deleted. The seem to pretty universally focus on whether you're being polite and reasonable over whether you're in agreement with them.

I have seen a few times a thread that was bringing up a topic that seemed incendiary got locked...but no posts were deleted, and I've only seen even that very rarely.

Your ignorance of action is not proof of the negative.

I have seen it on many (read: more than 10 different threads in the last 12 months) occasions. It happens, without question.


Tels wrote:
snip

I got you the first time. The problem is that, despite that, you end up with

-Martial feats of significantly less power and overladen with restrictions.

-Problems compounded with new content rather than improved upon

-"solutions" apparently directed at telling people to stop complaining rather than looking at ways to alleviate design issues.

-The Arcanist. Ignore Sacred Geometry altogether. There's the Arcanist in the same book!

The "Design team didn't make Sacred Geometry" is possibly more worrying than comforting, even if it's a valid defense. Since it indicates that Paizo doesn't really have the same QC standards on Companion material despite it still being official Pathfinder content (and therefore totally fair game).

What's worse, if we're to talk the position that feats like that exist because Companion designers are allowed to play fast and loose, then it makes one wonder when looking at Martial feats released in similar product lines if that's really what they thought "going crazy" with a martial character is.


Tels wrote:


Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

What you seem to miss is that someone in Group A signed off on group D's work. So the blame falls on both. If someone under you screws something up and you signed off on it, aren't you both to blame?

Second, group A should know what group D made, even if it's after the fact. Saying a dex to damage feat is too strong when they know of feats like Sacred Geometry is mindboggling. Even is they didn't raise the bar, they should know how high it is.


BigDTBone wrote:

I think it is fair to say that complaints targeted at the "Paizo design team" is actually targeted at "editors, writers, and developers of the various pathfinder product lines."

Also, just because they chose to organize themselves in to compartments doesn't mean that the excuse, "well I'm the left hand and I don't have any editorial control or knowledge about the alleged right hand," hold any water at all. Their internal organization is completely irrelevant to the consumer.

Also, (just to illustrate how terrible this argument is), I believe that 99%+ of DEX to damage proponents would be fine with a straight DEX to damage feat in the companion line. So why is it that the companion line can put out feats like sacred geometry but not a straight DEX to damage?

Dervish Dance, the go-to feat for Dex to Damage was released in the Inner Sea World Guide. It's a none-core rule book for the Golarion setting, and it was written by a ton of authors.

ISG wrote:

Project Lead: James Jacobs

Contributing Authors: Keith Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Clinton J. Boomer, Jason Bulmahn, Joshua J. Frost, Ed Greenwood, Stephen S. Greer, Jeff Grubb, James Jacobs, Michael Kortes, Tito Leati, Mike McArtor, Rob McCreary, Erik Mona, Jason Eric Nelson, Jeff Quick, Sean K Reynolds, F. Wesley Schneider, Leandra Christine Schneider, David Schwartz, Amber E. Scott, Stan!, Owen K.C. Stephens, Todd Stewart, James L. Sutter, Greg A. Vaughan, Jeremy Walker, and JD Wiker.

The agile weapon property appears in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide and was written by Erik Mona, Mark Moreland, Russ Taylor, and Larry Wilhelm.

The people that brought you Sacred Geometry are also the ones that gave your Dervish Dance and the agile weapon property.


The animosity is growing instead of declining.

Makes me sad that the angry posters are scaring the devs away from a perfectly good and level headed conversation about game design.


Tels wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think it is fair to say that complaints targeted at the "Paizo design team" is actually targeted at "editors, writers, and developers of the various pathfinder product lines."

Also, just because they chose to organize themselves in to compartments doesn't mean that the excuse, "well I'm the left hand and I don't have any editorial control or knowledge about the alleged right hand," hold any water at all. Their internal organization is completely irrelevant to the consumer.

Also, (just to illustrate how terrible this argument is), I believe that 99%+ of DEX to damage proponents would be fine with a straight DEX to damage feat in the companion line. So why is it that the companion line can put out feats like sacred geometry but not a straight DEX to damage?

Dervish Dance, the go-to feat for Dex to Damage was released in the Inner Sea World Guide. It's a none-core rule book for the Golarion setting, and it was written by a ton of authors.

ISG wrote:

Project Lead: James Jacobs

Contributing Authors: Keith Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Clinton J. Boomer, Jason Bulmahn, Joshua J. Frost, Ed Greenwood, Stephen S. Greer, Jeff Grubb, James Jacobs, Michael Kortes, Tito Leati, Mike McArtor, Rob McCreary, Erik Mona, Jason Eric Nelson, Jeff Quick, Sean K Reynolds, F. Wesley Schneider, Leandra Christine Schneider, David Schwartz, Amber E. Scott, Stan!, Owen K.C. Stephens, Todd Stewart, James L. Sutter, Greg A. Vaughan, Jeremy Walker, and JD Wiker.

The agile weapon property appears in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide and was written by Erik Mona, Mark Moreland, Russ Taylor, and Larry Wilhelm.

The people that brought you Sacred Geometry are also the ones that gave your Dervish Dance and the agile weapon property.

This would be compelling if sacred geometry limited metamagic choices to toppling and silent. Why should DEX to damage have to wear a straight jacket?

On agile, why can it not be a feat? Why must I sacrifice my enhancement bonus?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

The animosity is growing instead of declining.

Makes me sad that the angry posters are scaring the devs away from a perfectly good and level headed conversation about game design.

Let's be honest, that ship sailed 3 years ago. We haven't had true, candid, and open design conversations on the boards since ultimate magic.


graystone wrote:
Tels wrote:


Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

What you seem to miss is that someone in Group A signed off on group D's work. So the blame falls on both. If someone under you screws something up and you signed off on it, aren't you both to blame?

Second, group A should know what group D made, even if it's after the fact. Saying a dex to damage feat is too strong when they know of feats like Sacred Geometry is mindboggling. Even is they didn't raise the bar, they should know how high it is.

Except I'm not sure that the PDT has to 'sign off' on anything that shows up in the Golarion products.

So... because someone else on a different team included a grossly over-powered feat, the people in the core rule book line have to start allowing in more powerful feat for those who don't benefit from the first OP feat?

You know what that is? Power Creep, pure and simple.


Tels wrote:
graystone wrote:
Tels wrote:


Group A makes something.
Group B makes something.
Group C makes something.
Group D makes something.

The thing Group D makes annoys a lot of people, so instead of complaining to Group D about it, people complain about how Group A is the one who made it and should be blamed for it?

What you seem to miss is that someone in Group A signed off on group D's work. So the blame falls on both. If someone under you screws something up and you signed off on it, aren't you both to blame?

Second, group A should know what group D made, even if it's after the fact. Saying a dex to damage feat is too strong when they know of feats like Sacred Geometry is mindboggling. Even is they didn't raise the bar, they should know how high it is.

Except I'm not sure that the PDT has to 'sign off' on anything that shows up in the Golarion products.

So... because someone else on a different team included a grossly over-powered feat, the people in the core rule book line have to start allowing in more powerful feat for those who don't benefit from the first OP feat?

You know what that is? Power Creep, pure and simple.

No, you keep insisting on making distinctions based on internal company organizations. I don't care how Paizo organizes their tasks and staff. The point is both products say "pathfinder" on the cover, and are both products intended to be used in the same game.


Tels wrote:


Except I'm not sure that the PDT has to 'sign off' on anything that shows up in the Golarion products.

I should hope the PDT reviews them.

Quote:


So... because someone else on a different team included a grossly over-powered feat, the people in the core rule book line have to start allowing in more powerful feat for those who don't benefit from the first OP feat?

You know what that is? Power Creep, pure and simple.

We're not talking about power creep when it comes to Slashing Grace. And I hope you're not denying that there's power creep in the core line.


BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The animosity is growing instead of declining.

Makes me sad that the angry posters are scaring the devs away from a perfectly good and level headed conversation about game design.

Let's be honest, that ship sailed 3 years ago. We haven't had true, candid, and open design conversations on the boards since ultimate magic.

You're not helping.


Tels wrote:
So... because someone else on a different team included a grossly over-powered feat, the people in the core rule book line have to start allowing in more powerful feat for those who don't benefit from the first OP feat?

That's kind of how things work. Separating the groups of developers into arbitrarily defined separate entities doesn't change the fact that Pathfinder is one game and Paizo is one company.

Quote:
You know what that is? Power Creep, pure and simple.

Eh. Martials have needed the power creep for a while anyways.

And to nitpick: It's not. The power creep already exists, this would just be adjusting things to be on par (and they weren't before hand anyways).

It's also a bit silly to call something like "slashing grace without the hoops" power creep anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The animosity is growing instead of declining.

Makes me sad that the angry posters are scaring the devs away from a perfectly good and level headed conversation about game design.

Let's be honest, that ship sailed 3 years ago. We haven't had true, candid, and open design conversations on the boards since ultimate magic.
You're not helping.

Jesus with a peace pipe roman-riding atop two doves couldn't help this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
You're not helping.

The carrot and stick approach would work better if there was any evidence the carrot actually existed =P.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.


Athaleon wrote:
Tels wrote:


Except I'm not sure that the PDT has to 'sign off' on anything that shows up in the Golarion products.

Golarion products are PFS-legal, so I should hope the PDT at least reviews them.

Quote:


So... because someone else on a different team included a grossly over-powered feat, the people in the core rule book line have to start allowing in more powerful feat for those who don't benefit from the first OP feat?

You know what that is? Power Creep, pure and simple.

We're not talking about power creep when it comes to Slashing Grace. And I hope you're not denying that there's power creep in the core line.

The PDT isn't in charge of what is, or is not legal in PFS. That's the responsibility of the PFS team.

No, what I'm talking about is people pointing fingers at the PDT saying the PDT allowed Sacred Geometry, so now they demand to have an equally beneficial martial feat.

The PDT didn't make Sacred Geometry. Demanding an equally powerful feat to that of one that doesn't appear in the core line is nothing but pure power creep.

I'd rather limit the power creep to as slow as possible instead of the leaps and bounds that would result from designing future feats around the power levels of Sacred Geometry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it amusing that power creep is considered worse than unbalanced material.

In truth Paizo has done a good job at preventing any and all powercreep in their rule book line. Wizard just sets a really high bar for magic, while rogue and fighter set really low bars for anything not magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The PDT didn't make Sacred Geometry

who did? Because I'm seeing Paizo's lead designer with a writing credit on Occult Mysteries. And Paizo's head editor.

So...


Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.

So Nature Oracles can get AC, Saves, Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus all Skill checks and Initative based off Charisma?

I'm well aware of what making a truly SAD caster can do in a game. I've built one.

A 3rd party company (can't recall the name) introduced a class called the Eldritch Godling that can opt to choose any stat they wish to cast from. That means they can cast from their Strength Stat. They also have a method of getting Strength for their saving throws instead of Con/Dex/Wis. They can also choose to get Oracle Mysteries and replace any of the Cha abilities of the Oracle with the Stat of their choice (so Strength).

So now you have a Caster who casts from Strength, gets AC from Strength, gets Saves from Strength, attack and damage from Strength, and can even change out some of his skills for Strength. The only thing he really doesn't get is HP, the rest of the skills and Initiative.

[Edit] Added a link to the True SAD Caster.


Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.

This is a decent point. The ACG has some silly stuff in it too.

Plus Sacred Geometry is really sort of off topic.


anlashok wrote:
Quote:
The PDT didn't make Sacred Geometry

who did? Because I'm seeing Paizo's lead designer with a writing credit on Occult Mysteries. And Paizo's head editor.

So...

Just because he's got a writing credit doesn't mean he wrote the damned thing.

Like I said before, the Paizo crew taps into all of the teams when it comes to contributing towards a book. I don't have the book myself, so I don't know everything that's in it. But if Jason wrote articles for it, he gets a writing credit.

The Golarion products have a lot less limitations on what is and is not acceptable in the books because those are books written for Golarion.

If Sacred Geometry had been released in a core rule book, I'd absolutely be with everyone else at asking why the PDT made Sacred Geometry but martials can't get Dex to Damage. But they didn't make it, another team of writers did.


Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.

Can you elaborate for hte unfortunate ones that don't have the book yet?


Tels wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.

So Nature Oracles can get AC, Saves, Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus all Skill checks and Initative based off Charisma?

I'm well aware of what making a truly SAD caster can do in a game. I've built one.

A 3rd party company (can't recall the name) introduced a class called the Eldritch Godling that can opt to choose any stat they wish to cast from. That means they can cast from their Strength Stat. They also have a method of getting Strength for their saving throws instead of Con/Dex/Wis. They can also choose to get Oracle Mysteries and replace any of the Cha abilities of the Oracle with the Stat of their choice (so Strength).

So now you have a Caster who casts from Strength, gets AC from Strength, gets Saves from Strength, attack and damage from Strength, and can even change out some of his skills for Strength. The only thing he really doesn't get is HP, the rest of the skills and Initiative.

I'm not really sure what bringing in what appears to be an intentionally OP class (it's called the Eldritch Godling for Ashera's sake) has to do with anything?

The Nature Oracle gets AC, saves, CMD, casting, and initiative from charisma. You really don't care about anything else for a class that has a spell list designed for buffing teammates and comes with an animal companion to do your damage for you.


Tels wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Quote:
The PDT didn't make Sacred Geometry

who did? Because I'm seeing Paizo's lead designer with a writing credit on Occult Mysteries. And Paizo's head editor.

So...

Just because he's got a writing credit doesn't mean he wrote the damned thing.

Like I said before, the Paizo crew taps into all of the teams when it comes to contributing towards a book. I don't have the book myself, so I don't know everything that's in it. But if Jason wrote articles for it, he gets a writing credit.

The Golarion products have a lot less limitations on what is and is not acceptable in the books because those are books written for Golarion.

If Sacred Geometry had been released in a core rule book, I'd absolutely be with everyone else at asking why the PDT made Sacred Geometry but martials can't get Dex to Damage. But they didn't make it, another team of writers did.

Like I said. Valid argument. I just think the fact that it's official pathfinder material doesn't really make it any better.

Either way I guess arguing bout sacred geometry isn't really getting us anywhere.

Can you agree at least that a more functional slashing grace Isn't going to be power creepy?


anlashok wrote:
Quote:
The PDT didn't make Sacred Geometry

who did? Because I'm seeing Paizo's lead designer with a writing credit on Occult Mysteries. And Paizo's head editor.

So...

Yeah, make a list of those that you'd think are group A and you'll find a few of them listed in the book...


Tels wrote:


If Sacred Geometry had been released in a core rule book, I'd absolutely be with everyone else at asking why the PDT made Sacred Geometry but martials can't get Dex to Damage. But they didn't make it, another team of writers did.

Does it matter if it a PDT product? it is Paizo book.

...But, lets not talk about that feat, it is better for everyone to pretend it does not exist, and it is certainly off topic here.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Tels wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.

So Nature Oracles can get AC, Saves, Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus all Skill checks and Initative based off Charisma?

I'm well aware of what making a truly SAD caster can do in a game. I've built one.

A 3rd party company (can't recall the name) introduced a class called the Eldritch Godling that can opt to choose any stat they wish to cast from. That means they can cast from their Strength Stat. They also have a method of getting Strength for their saving throws instead of Con/Dex/Wis. They can also choose to get Oracle Mysteries and replace any of the Cha abilities of the Oracle with the Stat of their choice (so Strength).

So now you have a Caster who casts from Strength, gets AC from Strength, gets Saves from Strength, attack and damage from Strength, and can even change out some of his skills for Strength. The only thing he really doesn't get is HP, the rest of the skills and Initiative.

I'm not really sure what bringing in what appears to be an intentionally OP class (it's called the Eldritch Godling for Ashera's sake) has to do with anything?

The Nature Oracle gets AC, saves, CMD, casting, and initiative from charisma. You really don't care about anything else for a class that has a spell list designed for buffing teammates and comes with an animal companion to do your damage for you.

Silly, it's a caster so it's ok...


Arachnofiend wrote:


The Nature Oracle gets AC, saves, CMD, casting, and initiative from charisma. You really don't care about anything else for a class that has a spell list designed for buffing teammates and comes with an animal companion to do your damage for you.

Not sure if I'm scared of that or I really want to play it.

Also, comparing semi-core paizo material to intentionally broken third party stuff seems silly.


anlashok wrote:
Can you agree at least that a more functional slashing grace Isn't going to be power creepy?

I don't think it would be Power Creep at all!

...

Well, maybe a little bit. But it's an acceptable power creep. One that I'm perfectly okay with. I did make this thread after all and I was one of the people making the 'loudest ruckus' in the ACG thread too.


Nicos wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Sacred Geometry isn't a valid argument, is the fact that a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma? Oracles have divine grace in-class now, and that came in the same book as Slashing Grace and was approved by the same people. The Gnomes are celebrating while the Halflings weep.
Can you elaborate for hte unfortunate ones that don't have the book yet?

I don't have it yet either, but there's a new feat for divine casters that lets you add charisma to your saves. Requires 2nd level divine casting, 5 levels in Kn. Religion, and one of the divine class features (so that those martials that might want to get more out of charisma can't pick up the feat with a spell-like ability without dipping into a real class).


Tels wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Can you agree at least that a more functional slashing grace Isn't going to be power creepy?

I don't think it would be Power Creep at all!

...

Well, maybe a little bit. But it's an acceptable power creep. One that I'm perfectly okay with. I did make this thread after all and I was one of the people making the 'loudest ruckus' in the ACG thread too.

Yay common ground!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:


No, what I'm talking about is people pointing fingers at the PDT saying the PDT allowed Sacred Geometry, so now they demand to have an equally beneficial martial feat.

That's not what we're saying at all.

The feat that spawned this thread was that when we finally got a Dex To Damage feat in the core line of books, it came so laden with caveats that the thing doesn't even function properly anymore. And of course it comes at the end of a 3-feat chain. While none of us were "in the room", it does have the appearance of hesitation from a dev team reluctant to just make Improved Weapon Finesse.

All this frustration and venting comes from a perception that there is a logical disconnect at the PDT: On the one side, things like Crane Wing, Weapon Cords, Flask Rogues, and Spring Attack + Vital Strike get deep-sixed for being overpowered. We were told by Jason Bulmahn that "Mythic Weapon Finesse might be too powerful even for Mythic", which I'm sorry to say is laughable. On the other side, casters get Dazing Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Grace, Prohibited Schools softened into Opposition Schools, and a dozen other things I could mention. It gives the perception of a dev team that agonizes over balance decisions when it comes to martials (the weaker classes), but just blithely piles treats onto casters (the stronger classes) who didn't even ask for them.


Artanthos wrote:


1. Strength users get this benefit [boost attack]
2. Strength users can get this x1.5
3. Strength users gain higher AC by wearing heavier armor.
4. And lower Flat Footed AC
5. Depends on class/build. Not better than a 7th level fighter.
6. And lower carrying capacity
7. If you're focusing on melee, how many of either are making? If you're not focusing on melee, strength was never an option for ranged builds.
8. How often do you get the opportunity for even a single AoO? My kensai is allowed 5/round (from int bonus) and has yet to make 2 in the same round.

Edited stuff:

  • 1. I never denied this.
  • 2. I never denied this, but as pointed out by SKR: “assuming that choice is especially appropriate for that character, it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want that thing anyway." Swashbuckler is not going to use Greatswords anyway.” We can all agree that using dex 18 to damage is better than using str 10 or 12 to damage. Right?
  • 3. Heavier armor means higher ACP, more encumbering, worse move, worse touch AC, more wealth spent. Again: “it's not really a limitation because the character would probably want [or not want] that thing anyway."
  • 4. Flat Footed AC is something I already pointed out. What you fail to point out is that this usually isn’t a problem if you have a high dex score. Also the AC differs isn’t more than 3 by higher levels when you can get mithral medium armor. Heck some builds even use medium armor from the start, such as Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Cleric, Druid, etc. Again: ...not going to use Heavy armor anyway...
  • 5. You are speaking of one class out of 32 classes that gets armor training and not even all fighters gets armor training and they can’t benefit from it until level 7, if they even get armor training. Some classes can even use heavy armor and some builds don’t want it. Again: ...not going to use Heavy armor anyway...
  • 6. Sorry I don’t get it. If this is a problem, which it isn’t at higher levels, why would you mind a str prereq to the feat?
  • 7. A) Never use a bow? B) Switch hitters? 3) Those that want to be versatile? 4) casters that enter melee and that uses rays at times? 5) etc. etc.
  • 8. Depends on your build. A CAGM Barbarian, archers or a whip specialist wouldn’t mind it. I’m sure there are other builds. Even a normal none-reach build can benefit from it in certain situations, although I agree this isn't often.

Edit:

BTW, you do know that I agree that this feat should be fixed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Tels wrote:


No, what I'm talking about is people pointing fingers at the PDT saying the PDT allowed Sacred Geometry, so now they demand to have an equally beneficial martial feat.

That's not what we're saying at all.

The feat that spawned this thread was that when we finally got a Dex To Damage feat in the core line of books, it came so laden with caveats that the thing doesn't even function properly anymore. And of course it comes at the end of a 3-feat chain. While none of us were "in the room", it does have the appearance of hesitation from a dev team reluctant to just make Improved Weapon Finesse.

All this frustration and venting comes from a perception that there is a logical disconnect at the PDT: On the one side, things like Crane Wing, Weapon Cords, Flask Rogues, and Spring Attack + Vital Strike get deep-sixed for being overpowered. We were told by Jason Bulmahn that "Mythic Weapon Finesse might be too powerful even for Mythic", which I'm sorry to say is laughable. On the other side, casters get Dazing Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Grace, Prohibited Schools softened into Opposition Schools, and a dozen other things I could mention.

An easy way to put it is martials keep getting kicked in the groin and casters keep getting ice cream. I'm not asking to get ice cream, I just want them to stop kicking me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never realized the line between being respectful and stockholm syndrome was so fine.


Athaleon wrote:
Tels wrote:


No, what I'm talking about is people pointing fingers at the PDT saying the PDT allowed Sacred Geometry, so now they demand to have an equally beneficial martial feat.

That's not what we're saying at all.

The feat that spawned this thread was that when we finally got a Dex To Damage feat in the core line of books, it came so laden with caveats that the thing doesn't even function properly anymore. And of course it comes at the end of a 3-feat chain. While none of us were "in the room", it does have the appearance of hesitation from a dev team reluctant to just make Improved Weapon Finesse.

All this frustration and venting comes from a perception that there is a logical disconnect at the PDT: On the one side, things like Crane Wing, Weapon Cords, Flask Rogues, and Spring Attack + Vital Strike get deep-sixed for being overpowered. We were told by Jason Bulmahn that "Mythic Weapon Finesse might be too powerful even for Mythic", which I'm sorry to say is laughable. On the other side, casters get Dazing Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Grace, Prohibited Schools softened into Opposition Schools, and a dozen other things I could mention.

I can understand that, I'm frustrated too. When the Crane Wing Nerf came out, I got frustrated enough with that I made a thread where myself and others didn't hold back and just started venting about some of the things the PDT actually was responsible for (like the Monk/Flurry Fiasco). We all knew we were going to get a 3-day ban or longer, but, at that point in time, I really didn't care.

I do agree there is a disconnect between what is acceptable for a martial, and what is acceptable for a Caster. Martials are still being tied down by what is possible by a real world gymnast, or martial artist, or knight, while casters are not.

But that is for a discussion in another thread. The point of this thread was to talk about possible errata or the possibility of a better, more generic Dex to Damage feat that actually works.

351 to 400 of 876 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.