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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 876 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why even bring up Sacred Geometry? Caster oriented feats have been broken since core! What is Spell Perfection, Dazing Spell, ect?


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.

I agree, it's an acceptable power creep, as long as the feat is balanced.

I mean they hand out divine grace to clerics and others. THAT is a Power crep and it doesn't cost two (or actually 3) feats.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:

Your ignorance of action is not proof of the negative.

Nor is your assertion proof of a positive. But perhaps what's going on here is a difference in definitions. Perhaps you and I define what constitutes reasonable and polite discourse, or what constitutes a personal attack, somewhat differently from you. I'm completely serious about this, by the way.

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

So almost a thread a month. Out of hundreds or thousands. Noted.

But if they were strategic threads, that would likely keep certain topics from being brought up, I admit. So, that being the case, what topics were they on?

I doubt a simple listing of the topics will get your post deleted (and hey, if it does you've been vindicated), and with only around a dozen, you should be able to remember at least some of their topics. Please, tell me what kind of content is being suppressed.

BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Really? Huh. I'd rather thought I'd read some...


Tels wrote:
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...

I should also add that airing all of your gripes, and frustrations and anger in this thread isn't going to help getting a better dex to damage option at all. Pointing out Sacred Geometry and then comparing it to Slashing Grace isn't going to put them in any better mood to actually give us what we want.

Frankly, I would love nothing more for Jason, or Stephen to come into this thread and chat with us about Slashing Grace and other dex to damage options. But if all they are going to get is, "YOU GAVE CASTERS SACRED GEOMETRY! WHY MARTIALS NOT HAVE NICE THINGS!" Then they're not going to want to come in here at all, as indicated by Mark Seifter with this post and some further replies to it.


Tels wrote:
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...

Me, I'd like to see a simple easy feat. All you need is weapon finesse to take it and all it does is allow "any weapon that you can use weapon finesse with you may use dex instead of str for damage." I fail to see the need for pointless restrictions to one weapon or multiple prerequisite feats needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tels wrote:
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...
Me, I'd like to see a simple easy feat. All you need is weapon finesse to take it and all it does is allow "any weapon that you can use weapon finesse with you may use dex instead of str for damage." I fail to see the need for pointless restrictions to one weapon or multiple prerequisite feats needed.

I agree, but I'd rather see the restrictions and a useable feat, then no feat at all.


Rename "Weapon Finesse(Mythic)" to "Improved Weapon Finesse"

Done. Pat selves on back. Bake a cake. Everyone wins.

Mostly I find Slashing Grace a bit skin-crawly by being a perfect feat for weapon finesse characters that doesn't actually work on normal finessable weapons.

So it's swashbucklers and magii and that's basically it.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Then again, the editing policy of mass-deletion makes it rather hard to say for sure what has gotten people in trouble with the mods.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue is that we have made the reasonable arguments and we have been constructive as to what we want in terms of dex-to-damage. The devs are flat out wrong on this one, but for whatever reason they've ignored player feedback.

The math is there, the playtesting is there, we KNOW that easy access to dex-to-damage would not hurt the game and would do a lot to improve it. I don't think there's anything left we can do but complain, because being reasonable and logical about it obviously didn't help.


Tels wrote:


I agree, but I'd rather see the restrictions and a useable feat, then no feat at all.

Well, what we got isn't what I'd call useable even with the needless restrictions. I might as well say what I want if this is what they think we want.


graystone wrote:
Tels wrote:


I agree, but I'd rather see the restrictions and a useable feat, then no feat at all.
Well, what we got isn't what I'd call useable even with the needless restrictions. I might as well say what I want if this is what they think we want.

Yes, I agree. Slashing Grace is not an acceptable dex to damage option.


Arachnofiend wrote:

I think the issue is that we have made the reasonable arguments and we have been constructive as to what we want in terms of dex-to-damage. The devs are flat out wrong on this one, but for whatever reason they've ignored player feedback.

The math is there, the playtesting is there, we KNOW that easy access to dex-to-damage would not hurt the game and would do a lot to improve it. I don't think there's anything left we can do but complain, because being reasonable and logical about it obviously didn't help.

Have to agree on this one. Most the arguments for Dex-to-damage were played out years ago, so there's really nothing new to be said. The problems with slashing grace were all outlined quite clearly by the first page, now all that's left is rehashing the same old arguments.


Perhaps they should have some sort of vote with a variety of different options to find the option people 'most' like?

For example:

A) A feat that is a straight upgrade to Weapon Finesse like Mythic Weapon Finesse is.

B) A feat that operates much like Dervish Dance in that it's limited to a single weapon.

C) A feat that is limited only by a previous feat in the chain, like allowing any finesseable weapon with which you have Weapon Focus to gain Dex to Damage.

D) A 'Piercing Grace' to match Slashing Grace and a 'Light Weapon Grace' for the Light weapons.

E) No Dex to Damage option at all.

Etcetera and so on.


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 just checked my Facebook feed and saw someone asking about a Swashbuckler 1/Kensai Magus X build :P


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Your ignorance of action is not proof of the negative.

Nor is your assertion proof of a positive. But perhaps what's going on here is a difference in definitions. Perhaps you and I define what constitutes reasonable and polite discourse, or what constitutes a personal attack, somewhat differently from you. I'm completely serious about this, by the way.

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

So almost a thread a month. Out of hundreds or thousands. Noted.

But if they were strategic threads, that would likely keep certain topics from being brought up, I admit. So, that being the case, what topics were they on?

I doubt a simple listing of the topics will get your post deleted (and hey, if it does you've been vindicated), and with only around a dozen, you should be able to remember at least some of their topics. Please, tell me what kind of content is being suppressed.

BigDTBone wrote:
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.
Really? Huh. I'd rather thought I'd read some...

I'm happy to go dig up and link the threads, but just for a quick idea:

Multiple threads discussing bastard swords,
Multiple threads discussing armor spikes,
Multiple threads discussing TWF with THW,
Multiple threads discussing crossbows,
Multiple threads discussing monk IUS damage and brass knuckles,
Multiple threads discussing free actions,
Multiple threads discussing crane wing,
Multiple threads in the ACG playtest,

Had multiple posts deleted which contained concise, well-reasoned, and frank criticism of design choices. Many that I recall were completely analytical and devoid of any affect whatsoever.

As to definitions, I feel that a post which is concise and well-reasoned, which presents all of (1)game theory, (2) mathematical analysis, (3) live play experience, and (4) playtested suggestions is both polite and respectful. Additionally, I do not believe criticism is impolite. Additionally additionally, I don't believe that a poster is required to first fluff the nethers of the PDT before making criticism to be considered polite. *On the last point, I feel this way because I have more respect for the PDT than that. They are freaking grown-up professionals. They have grown up egos and don't need customers to sugar coat their opinions or fluff their parts before offering criticism.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:

I'm happy to go dig up and link the threads, but just for a quick idea:

Multiple threads discussing bastard swords,
Multiple threads discussing armor spikes,
Multiple threads discussing TWF with THW,
Multiple threads discussing crossbows,
Multiple threads discussing monk IUS damage and brass knuckles,
Multiple threads discussing free actions,
Multiple threads discussing crane wing,
Multiple threads in the ACG playtest,

Had multiple posts deleted which contained concise, well-reasoned, and frank criticism of design choices. Many that I recall were completely analytical and devoid of any affect whatsoever.

Are you aware that when the people at Paizo delete a post, they also delete all posts that reply to even part of that post? Even hitting 'Reply' then deleting all text from that post results in your post being deleted when that one is. That's just how the deletion system works.

So this doesn't inherently mean those posts were targets for deletion. Indeed, I've seen individual posts that were very polite deleted as well...but that was right next to equally polite posts saying basically the same things that weren't deleted. So...I pretty much assume they're collateral damage, and have pretty good evidence of that, having lost some of my own posts in this way, then reposted more or less the same arguments but without quoting anyone and had those posts stick around (all assuming the post wasn't off-topic to begin with).

BigDTBone wrote:
As to definitions, I feel that a post which is concise and well-reasoned, which presents all of (1)game theory, (2) mathematical analysis, (3) live play experience, and (4) playtested suggestions is both polite and respectful. Additionally, I do not believe criticism is impolite. Additionally additionally, I don't believe that a poster is required to first fluff the nethers of the PDT before making criticism to be considered polite. *On the last point, I feel this way because I have more respect for the PDT than that. They are freaking grown-up professionals. They have grown up egos and don't need customers to sugar coat their opinions or fluff their parts before offering criticism.

I agree with pretty much all of this...but seldom see it without insults such as "What kind of idiots designed this?" or "Clearly Paizo has no idea what game balance is." thrown in for good measure. And yes, that second one is pretty clearly an insult.

Now, individual posts are sometimes quite polite, but I hardly blame the folks at Paizo for not being willing to wade through the stream of abuse and unsupported criticism for the few posts that actually present compelling arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


I agree with pretty much all of this...but seldom see it without insults such as "What kind of idiots designed this?" or "Clearly Paizo has no idea what game balance is." thrown in for good measure. And yes, that second one is pretty clearly an insult.

Now, individual posts are sometimes quite polite, but I hardly blame the folks at Paizo for not being willing to wade through the stream of abuse and unsupported criticism for the few posts that actually present compelling arguments.

I will whole heartedly agree that the reasons some good posts get deleted are understandable. Without going into details or pointing fingers, I also believe that some or one Paizo employee who may or may not or both work for Paizo any longer had issues with criticism and would delete posts because he/she/they didn't like to read about their mistakes. I also believe this person/group of persons had a difficult time understanding the difference between criticism and person attacks, as in he/she/they felt attacked personally when a poster would offer reasonable criticism. I also believe that contributed to the animosity and adversarial tensions on the boards between the PDT and many users. I also believe that those tensions will not fully go away until Paizo officially acknowledges an issue exists/existed and apologizes to the community. I'm not holding my breath on that.

Also, if anyone thinks they know the person/people I'm talking about then you are correct. Don't bring up their identity/identities because it is a sure fire way to get this thread locked down.

Liberty's Edge

BigDTBone wrote:
I will whole heartedly agree that the reasons some good posts get deleted are understandable. Without going into details or pointing fingers, I also believe that some or one Paizo employee who may or may not or both work for Paizo any longer had issues with criticism and would delete posts because he/she/they didn't like to read about their mistakes. I also believe this person/group of persons had a difficult time understanding the difference between criticism and person attacks, as in he/she/they felt attacked personally when a poster would offer reasonable criticism. I also believe that contributed to the animosity and adversarial tensions on the boards between the PDT and many users. I also believe that those tensions will not fully go away until Paizo officially acknowledges an issue exists/existed and apologizes to the community. I'm not holding my breath on that.

I wasn't involved for this bit specifically, so I can't comment one way or another. However, either way...isn't that particular problem gone at this point and thus no longer a factor going forward?

I mean, yeah, some people might still be upset...but that's an explanation for their behavior, not a good reason to continue it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I will whole heartedly agree that the reasons some good posts get deleted are understandable. Without going into details or pointing fingers, I also believe that some or one Paizo employee who may or may not or both work for Paizo any longer had issues with criticism and would delete posts because he/she/they didn't like to read about their mistakes. I also believe this person/group of persons had a difficult time understanding the difference between criticism and person attacks, as in he/she/they felt attacked personally when a poster would offer reasonable criticism. I also believe that contributed to the animosity and adversarial tensions on the boards between the PDT and many users. I also believe that those tensions will not fully go away until Paizo officially acknowledges an issue exists/existed and apologizes to the community. I'm not holding my breath on that.

I wasn't involved for this bit specifically, so I can't comment one way or another. However, either way...isn't that particular problem gone at this point and thus no longer a factor going forward?

I mean, yeah, some people might still be upset...but that's an explanation for their behavior, not a good reason to continue it.

There are still some raw feelings, probably on both sides. It is going to take a pretty generous amount of back and forth before people start to really get past it. Folks are passionate about this game and hurtful things were said and hurtful actions taken against a large portion of the community by powerful influence. Now the concern is gone but memories are still fresh.

I think a bunch of folks were holding out hope that this book was going to be a pivot away from that past and instead feel about 50% let down and 50% kicked in the shins. Thus the short tempered and frustrated posts.


Guys, I would like to take the thread back to its original intent and prove that a general "Dex to Damage" feat wouldn't break the game.

I will now compare the DPS of two otherwise equal Human Fighters, 20 point buy system, with non-magical equipment.........

Compared a Dex fighter with a Str fighter, using non-magical armor. Dex fighter used Elven Curved Blade, Str fighter used Falchion.
For the purpose of the comparison, Dex damage adds only 1 times Dex, even while dual-wielding.

Spoiler:
Dex fighter has 22 AC (16 touch, 16 flat footed), 10/9/6 saves, 5 Init
Attacks for +22/+17/+13, 1d10+11 damage (15-20/2), +22/+13/+8, 1d10+19 damage on a Power Attack
Str 13, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 7
Base Atk +12; CMB +13; CMD 29
Feats Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Dodge, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Curve Blade (Elven)), Furious Focus, Greater Weapon Focus (Curve Blade (Elven)), Greater Weapon Specialization (Curve Blade (Elven)), Improved Critical (Curve Blade (Elven)), Improved Weapon Finesse, Power Attack, Toughness, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Curve Blade (Elven)), Weapon Specialization (Curve Blade (Elven))

Gets 5 additional AoO

Spoiler:
Str fighter has 22 AC (13 touch, 19 flat footed), 10/8/7 saves, 6 Init
Attacks for +22/+17/+13, 2d4+13 damage (15-20/2), +22/+13/+8, 2d4+25 damage on a Power Attack
Str 20, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +12; CMB +17; CMD 30
Feats Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Dodge, Furious Focus, Greater Weapon Focus (Falchion), Greater Weapon Specialization (Falchion), Improved Critical (Falchion), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Toughness, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Weapon Specialization (Falchion)

Gets 2 additional AoO

In conclusion:
- AC total: Tied - STR has higher Flat Footed, DEX has higher Touch.
- Saves: +1 Ref for Dex, +2 Will for STR.
- Initiative: +1 for STR.
- Attack: Average hit for STR deals +1.5 damage more; average Power Attack for STR deals +5.5 more; double that for criticals.
- CMB and CMD: STR gets a slight edge on CMD, but +4 to CMB unless DEX takes Agile Maneuvers, which in this case it doesn't. However DEX can go around this by doing Trip and Disarm maneuvers.
- AoO: Dex here has a huge edge with 3 more AoO.

So basically you are paying for 3 feats to get 3 more AoO, +1 Ref, switching around some flat footed AC for touch AC, some skill boosts to Acrobatics and the like... and then a bunch of negatives.

STR also has much more build versatility and already qualifies for Improved Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes could be anything else.

If someone wants to do these calculations with magical armor, be my guest.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that Dex-to-damage is fine...that build really doesn't highlight the issues involved.

Try, say, a Slayer build where they dump Str all the way down (and still get Power Attack and Furious Focus because a slayer can do that). Make the other one a Slayer build as well (which means he'll need to invest a Feat in Heavy Armor Proficiency...and it'll still be problematic even then due to Combat Style). That may well still support Str being equally good or better, but it's a fairer example of what people are worried about, given the point-buy based advantages.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

While I agree that Dex-to-damage is fine...that build really doesn't highlight the issues involved.

Try, say, a Slayer build where they dump Str all the way down (and still get Power Attack and Furious Focus because a slayer can do that). Make the other one a Slayer build as well (which means he'll need to invest a Feat in Heavy Armor Proficiency...and it'll still be problematic even then due to Combat Style). That may well still support Str being equally good or better, but it's a fairer example of what people are worried about, given the point-buy based advantages.

That Slayer would move 20 ft. per round at most, to start with, because of Heavy Armor, and also, low STR means you can't wear Heavy Armor without being heavily encumbered.

I don't really know Slayer progression though, so I couldn't know how to map that out perfectly... but I assume the Slayer would benefit from Weapon Finesse, but the Slayer has enough IFS in itself that it doesn't really matter.

Plus, my hunch tells me Slayer/Student of War PrC will work better than straight up Finesse Slayers, because SoW can get Int to AC instead of Dex and has a class feature that allows them to ignore critical hit and sneak attack immunity, which is very important for late game for Slayers, who already use Int to study targets (assuming they do).

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:
That Slayer would move 20 ft. per round at most, to start with, because of Heavy Armor, and also, low STR means you can't wear Heavy Armor without being heavily encumbered.

I was suggesting comparing two Slayers like you compared two Fighters. The Heavy Armor one would be the Str 20 guy, not the Str 7 one (who'd be in light armor to go with his sky-high Dex...he could probably afford a 22).

Secret Wizard wrote:
I don't really know Slayer progression though, so I couldn't know how to map that out perfectly... but I assume the Slayer would benefit from Weapon Finesse, but the Slayer has enough IFS in itself that it doesn't really matter.

IFS means in this context? Sorry, haven't seen that one before.

And it doesn't have to be Slayer, that was just the first example that came to mind (and probably the best, to be fair). I'm mostly just suggesting that Fighter isn't the best class to make this comparison with.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Plus, my hunch tells me Slayer/Student of War PrC will work better than straight up Finesse Slayers, because SoW can get Int to AC instead of Dex and has a class feature that allows them to ignore critical hit and sneak attack immunity, which is very important for late game for Slayers, who already use Int to study targets (assuming they do).

Eh. Student of War isn't bad, but I wouldn't expect it to be especially common among Slayers or anything. Their own bonuses are basically better at everything with the exception of Int to AC...and that doesn't kick in until 8th level. On a class that can't use Heavy Armor. And who use Sneak Attack to supplement their already Fighter-level damage, not make up for not dealing damage otherwise.

And Slayers don't use Int to study targets. Studied Target doesn't utilize Int at all. You may be thinking of Studied Combat (the similarly name Investigator ability that does use Int)...but Slayers have no more use for Int than Rangers or rogues.

In short...I doubt Student of War will be more common for Slayers than a Dex-focused build.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
That Slayer would move 20 ft. per round at most, to start with, because of Heavy Armor, and also, low STR means you can't wear Heavy Armor without being heavily encumbered.

I was suggesting comparing two Slayers like you compared two Fighters. The Heavy Armor one would be the Str 20 guy, not the Str 7 one (who'd be in light armor to go with his sky-high Dex...he could probably afford a 22).

Secret Wizard wrote:
I don't really know Slayer progression though, so I couldn't know how to map that out perfectly... but I assume the Slayer would benefit from Weapon Finesse, but the Slayer has enough IFS in itself that it doesn't really matter.

IFS means in this context? Sorry, haven't seen that one before.

And it doesn't have to be Slayer, that was just the first example that came to mind (and probably the best, to be fair). I'm mostly just suggesting that Fighter isn't the best class to make this comparison with.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Plus, my hunch tells me Slayer/Student of War PrC will work better than straight up Finesse Slayers, because SoW can get Int to AC instead of Dex and has a class feature that allows them to ignore critical hit and sneak attack immunity, which is very important for late game for Slayers, who already use Int to study targets (assuming they do).

Eh. Student of War isn't bad, but I wouldn't expect it to be especially common among Slayers or anything. Their own bonuses are basically better at everything with the exception of Int to AC...and that doesn't kick in until 8th level. On a class that can't use Heavy Armor. And who use Sneak Attack to supplement their already Fighter-level damage, not make up for not dealing damage otherwise.

And Slayers don't use Int to study targets. Studied Target doesn't utilize Int at all. You may be thinking of Studied Combat (the similarly name Investigator ability that does use Int)...but Slayers have no more use for Int than Rangers or rogues.

In short...I doubt Student of War will...

There are a *few* Slayer abilities that key off of Int, at least in the second playtest, like the Slayer's Capstone Death Attack ability. But other than that, the Slayer can pretty much just leave Int at 10 and call it good.


Oohhhh, I mixed it up with the Investigator!

Yeah, sorry, I am really unsure of what ACG classes entail.

Once I know the full breakdown of one, I could try comparing DPS... I assume that the Dex build, with an Improved Weapon Finesse feat, will come out ahead, at the cost of versatility.

Even tanking Strength to -7, though, only nets you +2 CON and +1 WIS/INT/CHA or +1 DEX and +2 WIS/INT/CHA using point buy. Perhaps better optimized with a +4 Dex race (Goblins? Monkey Goblins?) to put Dex through the roof, but still hardly earth shattering considering the feat investment.

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:

Oohhhh, I mixed it up with the Investigator!

Yeah, sorry, I am really unsure of what ACG classes entail.

It's cool, just clarifying.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Once I know the full breakdown of one, I could try comparing DPS... I assume that the Dex build, with an Improved Weapon Finesse feat, will come out ahead, at the cost of versatility.

Depends on what you mean by versatility. There are a lot more Dex skills than Str ones...

Secret Wizard wrote:
Even tanking Strength to -7, though, only nets you +2 CON and +1 WIS/INT/CHA or +1 DEX and +2 WIS/INT/CHA using point buy. Perhaps better optimized with a +4 Dex race (Goblins? Monkey Goblins?) to put Dex through the roof, but still hardly earth shattering considering the feat investment.

Ah, but we're not talking tanking it from 10, but from 13, where your build has it. That's 7 points, and enough to turn a 16 into an 18. Or do a lot of other things.


BigDTBone wrote:
As to definitions, I feel that a post which is concise and well-reasoned, which presents all of (1)game theory, (2) mathematical analysis, (3) live play experience, and (4) playtested suggestions is both polite and respectful. Additionally, I do not believe criticism is impolite. Additionally additionally, I don't believe that a poster is required to first fluff the nethers of the PDT before making criticism to be considered polite. *On the last point, I feel this way because I have more respect for the PDT than that. They are freaking grown-up professionals. They have grown up egos and don't need customers to sugar coat their opinions or fluff their parts before offering criticism.

This. Sadly, over the years I've rather seen some of them (with other notable exceptions) have extremely thin skin when it comes to taking constructive criticism of their work and consider almost any criticism to be a personal attack. Maybe it is because of their workload being so high, maybe for other reasons, but I've had this persistent feel over the last years that they have difficulties accepting criticism and that they either cannot or simply don't want to explain their design processes to the fans, especially if fans complain that those decisions make no logical sense.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Secret Wizard wrote:
Even tanking Strength to -7, though, only nets you +2 CON and +1 WIS/INT/CHA or +1 DEX and +2 WIS/INT/CHA using point buy. Perhaps better optimized with a +4 Dex race (Goblins? Monkey Goblins?) to put Dex through the roof, but still hardly earth shattering considering the feat investment.
Ah, but we're not talking tanking it from 10, but from 13, where your build has it. That's 7 points, and enough to turn a 16 into an 18. Or do a lot of other things.

I was tanking from 13.

Dex is usually 15 before racial attribute bonus, so with 7 points you could only take it to 17 and have 1 useless point left. (I guess you could lower Will to 12 and take Cha to 8 or Int to 14)

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
This. Sadly, over the years I've rather seen some of them (with other notable exceptions) have extremely thin skin when it comes to taking constructive criticism of their work and consider almost any criticism to be a personal attack. Maybe it is because of their workload being so high, maybe for other reasons, but I've had this persistent feel over the last years that they have difficulties accepting criticism and that they either cannot or simply don't want to explain their design processes to the fans,

I haven't noticed this particular tendency to any great degree, but I could've missed it.

magnuskn wrote:
especially if fans complain that those decisions make no logical sense.

This, however, is perfectly understandable. I don't know if you'd consider the statement "Your decisions make no logical sense." an insult if directed at you...but I can think of few accusations more likely to result in me punching someone in the face. In short, I'd consider that a deeply insulting statement if made in that fashion, and I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.

Now "I don't understand your logic, please explain it." is another matter...but people tend to phrase it the way you do here.


From my experience in the ACG playtest on the subject of how criticism is handled.

It was readily apparent in the Hunter and Brawler playtest the conclusions that Magnuskn has stated.

The Swash and Investigator playtests were handled super professionally and the dev in charge was a gentleman even when the playtesters didn't deserve it.

The Arcanist, Warpriest, and Shaman playtest had very very little back and forth interaction, but the dev most definitely read the thread completely and reacted to criticisms via changes to the doc as opposed to with the people. This was acceptable to me.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
This. Sadly, over the years I've rather seen some of them (with other notable exceptions) have extremely thin skin when it comes to taking constructive criticism of their work and consider almost any criticism to be a personal attack. Maybe it is because of their workload being so high, maybe for other reasons, but I've had this persistent feel over the last years that they have difficulties accepting criticism and that they either cannot or simply don't want to explain their design processes to the fans,

I haven't noticed this particular tendency to any great degree, but I could've missed it.

magnuskn wrote:
especially if fans complain that those decisions make no logical sense.

This, however, is perfectly understandable. I don't know if you'd consider the statement "Your decisions make no logical sense." an insult if direted at you...but I can think of few accusations more likely to result in me punching someone in the face. In short, I'd consider that a deeply insulting statement if made in that fashion, and I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.

Now "I don't understand your logic, please explain it." is another matter...but people tend to phrase it the way you do here.

Well... to be fair, Slashing Grace is a feat that doesn't make much logical sense with which weapons it gives dex to damage when compared to which weapons it doesn't.

It does however, make a sort of convoluted sense as to why it does with the explanation that only after they sent it off did they catch the mistake.

You know what? I bet the beefing up of Slashing Grace got done during one of those '4 A.M. Designer Binges' that happens sometimes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Well... to be fair, Slashing Grace is a feat that doesn't make much logical sense with which weapons it gives dex to damage when compared to which weapons it doesn't.

This also is a slightly different statement. It's a statement that the Feat doesn't make sense in-world, not that the thought process behind it didn't.

Tels wrote:

It does however, make a sort of convoluted sense as to why it does with the explanation that only after they sent it off did they catch the mistake.

You know what? I bet the beefing up of Slashing Grace got done during one of those '4 A.M. Designer Binges' that happens sometimes.

My personal theory is that they were near the end of the process and went "Okay, we have two problems with the Swashbuckler. The Slashing Grace feat is kinda bad, and apparently people really want a Dex to damage Feat." And someone said "Why don't we kill two birds with one stone?"


Is it everyone getting divine grace or just swashbucklers?

Because without it, swashbuckler is a 5 level dip class. You just can't be a front liner with the worst saves in the game.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Is it everyone getting divine grace or just swashbucklers?

Because without it, swashbuckler is a 5 level dip class. You just can't be a front liner with the worst saves in the game.

Swashbucklers don't get it as a Class Feature.

That said...there is a Feat that grants it...though it requires a 2nd level Divine Spell and a Domain. One level of Trickery Domain Cleric fulfills that requirement, of course. A dip I expect to not be uncommon at all among Swashbucklers. It also requires 5 ranks of Knowledge (Religion), but that's hardly the end of the world.

There are also some other Feats to increase saves (one each for Fortitude and Will) that might help (I believe there's been some reference to being able to use your Reflex Save for another Save, but I could be wrong about that)...but details are sketchy on the Forum thus far, so we'll see how valid those are as an option.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

This, however, is perfectly understandable. I don't know if you'd consider the statement "Your decisions make no logical sense." an insult if directed at you...but I can think of few accusations more likely to result in me punching someone in the face. In short, I'd consider that a deeply insulting statement if made in that fashion, and I doubt I'm alone in that feeling.

Now "I don't understand your logic, please explain it." is another matter...but people tend to phrase it the way you do here.

And I disagree. If someone told me that something I wrote makes no logical sense, my very first instinct is not to go "Why, you little..." but rather "why would he say that" and examine what I wrote in that particular instance. Then again, I'm a historian, so maybe it is because I expect the feedback I get to be from people of the same profession. Gamer on gamer criticism seems to be for me in the same vein, especially since developers are nothing more than "ascended gamers" in most instances.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
My personal theory is that they were near the end of the process and went "Okay, we have two problems with the Swashbuckler. The Slashing Grace feat is kinda bad, and apparently people really want a Dex to damage Feat." And someone said "Why don't we kill two birds with one stone?"

And then apparently nobody said "Wait a minute, that means that you can get dex-to-damage with a bastard sword but not a dagger?" It seems a rather non-trivial oversight.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Is it everyone getting divine grace or just swashbucklers?

Because without it, swashbuckler is a 5 level dip class. You just can't be a front liner with the worst saves in the game.

Swashbucklers don't get it as a Class Feature.

I was thinking it was something to make charmed life ... well, usable. so that it was a non action or something.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
And I disagree. If someone told me that something I wrote makes no logical sense, my very first instinct is not to go "Why, you little..." but rather "why would he say that" and examine what I wrote in that particular instance. Then again, I'm a historian, so maybe it is because I expect the feedback I get to be from people of the same profession. Gamer on gamer criticism seems to be for me in the same vein, especially since developers are nothing more than "ascended gamers" in most instances.

There's a difference between academic discourse and critiques and normal conversation. In academic discourse, such a thing is indeed expected, and entirely reasonable (I'm a Psych Major, not a historian, but the principle's generally the same)...but it's not generally acceptable in normal conversation. And this forum has a lot more in common with conversation than it does with formal academic discourse.

In particular, academic discourse and critique have rather specific standards for what kinds of statements are and are not appropriate (and who is qualified to make them)...which this forum does not in the same way (nor to nearly the same degree). A forum where we could indulge in something like formal discourse about the quality of various game elements is an excellent idea...but this forum isn't remotely that, and commenting like it is isn't really appropriate.

I doubt most Professors would react any better to an undergrad telling them their latest paper was pure crap in the middle of class or while they're having a pleasant conversation with friends than the Paizo staff have to random people on the internet saying the same. This is true even if the student is right. And that's a much closer example to the situation we're talking about here than a more formal discourse among colleagues. Now, this situation doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Professor, depending on how they react, but it certainly reflects less than nicely on the student.

Now, one might argue that the content should matter more than the form of that content...but that's not how people work. If you attack them, they get defensive, and are less likely to respond positively. Which we surely want them to do. After all, the goal isn't to prove to the Internet that you are Smarter Than Paizo (tm), it's to have a conversation and (hopefully) get either answers to the 'Why?' of things or possibly some changes made.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Is it everyone getting divine grace or just swashbucklers?

Because without it, swashbuckler is a 5 level dip class. You just can't be a front liner with the worst saves in the game.

Swashbucklers don't get it as a Class Feature.
I was thinking it was something to make charmed life ... well, usable. so that it was a non action or something.

Me too. Sadly, it appears not. Still, there do seem to be Feats that actually help, rather than just make the problem less bad, so that's something.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
My personal theory is that they were near the end of the process and went "Okay, we have two problems with the Swashbuckler. The Slashing Grace feat is kinda bad, and apparently people really want a Dex to damage Feat." And someone said "Why don't we kill two birds with one stone?"
And then apparently nobody said "Wait a minute, that means that you can get dex-to-damage with a bastard sword but not a dagger?" It seems a rather non-trivial oversight.

Oh, agreed. As noted...late nights and time pressure may have been involved.

I'm personally willing to roll with it as long as there's a solution for the rapier, though. And there is.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Is it everyone getting divine grace or just swashbucklers?

Because without it, swashbuckler is a 5 level dip class. You just can't be a front liner with the worst saves in the game.

Swashbucklers don't get it as a Class Feature.
I was thinking it was something to make charmed life ... well, usable. so that it was a non action or something.
Me too. Sadly, it appears not. Still, there do seem to be Feats that actually help, rather than just make the problem less bad, so that's something.

I still don't know why Swashbucklers were given only reflex as a good save. I distinctly remember a number of swashbucklers that could drink people under the table. Fortitude should have been another good save of theirs :(

Liberty's Edge

Tels wrote:
I still don't know why Swashbucklers were given only reflex as a good save. I distinctly remember a number of swashbucklers that could drink people under the table. Fortitude should have been another good save of theirs :(

Agreed. I'm seriously considering House Ruling that for my games (or the Charmed Life = Divine Favor thing), but I'm gonna have a look in the book and maybe see how one does in play before I do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

There's a difference between academic discourse and critiques and normal conversation. In academic discourse, such a thing is indeed expected, and entirely reasonable (I'm a Psych Major, not a historian, but the principle's generally the same)...but it's not generally acceptable in normal conversation. And this forum has a lot more in common with conversation than it does with formal academic discourse.

In particular, academic discourse and critique have rather specific standards for what kinds of statements are and are not appropriate (and who is qualified to make them)...which this forum does not in the same way (nor to nearly the same degree). A forum where we could indulge in something like formal discourse about the quality of various game elements is an excellent idea...but this forum isn't remotely that, and commenting like it is isn't really appropriate.

In your mind. Sorry, but I think we disagree here. Yes, we are no professional designers, but since forum posters have ascended to be so (most recently Rogue Eidolon), the distinction seems very thin and far from the "professor" and "undergrad" distinction you tried to make below.

The rules of the game follow their own logic, but that logic is still in most instances math based and/or based on historical or pop culture-historical "facts". That nobody yet in several hundred posts has even tried to make a case that there is any sort of logical reason bastard swords should get dex-to-damage over daggers should tell you how absurd the technical aspect of Slashing Grace is to everybody who has seen the feat. Every other designer in any field of public interest who put out something this flawed for public consumption would have to content with people questioning their competence.

I do not understand why there is the desire on a part of the messageboard population to mollycoddle the developers from justified criticism. Do you expect their design decisions to get any better if they never receive criticism? Are they precious flowers who just cannot deal with having their decisions criticised? I generally think better of them than that.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


I doubt most Professors would react any better to an undergrad telling them their latest paper was pure crap in the middle of class or while they're having a pleasant conversation with friends than the Paizo staff have to random people on the internet saying the same. This is true even if the student is right. And that's a much closer example to the situation we're talking about here than a more formal discourse among colleagues. Now, this situation doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Professor, depending on how they react, but it certainly reflects less than nicely on the student.

Flawed comparison, given how much more compentent and accomplished professors are to students, compared to developers to gamers. Yes, we are not professional writers/game developers. But many of us have titles in different fields or work in other highly paid jobs and are veterans of the game.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, one might argue that the content should matter more than the form of that content...but that's not how people work. If you attack them, they get defensive, and are less likely to respond positively. Which we surely want them to do. After all, the goal isn't to prove to the Internet that you are Smarter Than Paizo (tm), it's to have a conversation and (hopefully) get either answers to the 'Why?' of things or possibly some changes made.

I completely agree that the goal isn't to prove that we are smarter than the developers. The goal is to give constructive criticism, which is then answered by them taking the criticism to heart and (hopefully) explaining their reasoning behind why they did it. I also completely agree that cursing at the developers is counterproductive, but I disagree with you about at what level criticism stops being constructive and gets personal. I personally hope that the developers are up for a robust conversation about the topic and, from past interactions with many of them, I think a lot of them are able to handle criticism even if a little of snark is in there. There has been a constant factor in the past which prevented much of a constructive conversation to take place, but since that factor is not there anymore, I do hope that we have better communication in the future.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
In your mind. Sorry, but I think we disagree here. Yes, we are no professional designers, but since forum posters have ascended to be so (most recently Rogue Eidolon), the distinction seems very thin and far from the "professor" and "undergrad" distinction you tried to make below.

All Professors were once students, too. The distinctions aren't quite as clear cut in this field given the lack of a specific academic credential to be a "Licensed RPG Designer" or some such, but they certainly exist. Still you perhaps have a point, see below.

magnuskn wrote:
The rules of the game follow their own logic, but that logic is still in most instances math based and/or based on historical or pop culture-historical "facts". That nobody yet in several hundred posts has even tried to make a case that there is any sort of logical reason bastard swords should get dex-to-damage over daggers should tell you how absurd the technical aspect of Slashing Grace is to everybody who has seen the feat.

I'm not arguing that Paizo is perfect and all-knowing, or that they don't screw up. I'm arguing that any disagreements with their policies should be made politely, so as to make them more inclined to listen (and out of a basic concern for them as fellow human beings).

Additionally, I feel like they've already admitted to having screwed up (by leaving the rapier out), and taken steps in the direction of fixing it (Fencing Grace) and that the reaction in this thread to that step is likely to make them consider not even bothering to make the attempt in future because evidence suggests it won't help to ameliorate the situation. I'd much rather praise them to the skies for Fencing Grace to encourage them to make more Dex-to-damage Feats in the future, and suspect that would be both more pleasant and more effective.

magnuskn wrote:
Every other designer in any field of public interest who put out something this flawed for public consumption would have to content with people questioning their competence.

And the folks at Paizo are, in fact, getting this kind of commentary. Witness this thread.

And more importantly, with a very few exceptions for truly offensive (as opposed to just bad) material, I'd argue strongly that those designers in other fields should be treated politely as well. Inevitably, there'll be vitriol, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to minimize it and keep discussions friendly and productive.

When I was a child, like I'm sure happens to all children, I got told that "The world isn't fair." my immediate response internally was "No, but we should try and make it more fair, not use the unfairness as an excuse to be unfair ourselves." (Not in those words, mind you...) This sort of discussion, in any field, will never be perfectly polite, but we should all strive to make those we take part in more so.

magnuskn wrote:
I do not understand why there is the desire on a part of the messageboard population to mollycoddle the developers from justified criticism. Do you expect their design decisions to get any better if they never receive criticism? Are they precious flowers who just cannot deal with having their decisions criticised? I generally think better of them than that.

Oh, I'm all for constructive criticism. But the form it's delivered in needs to be tailored to the medium it's being conveyed in, and certain kinds of blunt language are less than courteous in this particular medium. In short, I'm not suggesting a change in content (ie: the actual criticism) but in tone and form (ie: precisely how such criticism is delivered).

Additionally, as noted, I'm only singling Paizo out inasmuch as I'm posting on their forum right now about their stuff. I think almost all creators (and, indeed, almost all people) should probably be treated this way.

magnuskn wrote:
Flawed comparison, given how much more compentent and accomplished professors are to students, compared to developers to gamers. Yes, we are not professional writers/game developers. But many of us have titles in different fields or work in other highly paid jobs and are veterans of the game.

Okay, switch it to a Physics Professor who reads a lot telling the Creative Writing Professor their analysis of a particular work sucks. In front of his class. The point remains that it's someone with less formal qualifications in the area in question (and, on average, less actual qualifications as well) correcting them in a rather rude fashion and in a debatably inappropriate forum.

My point was basically that it's not the same social dynamic a colleague in the same field correcting them in a medium designed for precisely that.

magnuskn wrote:
I completely agree that the goal isn't to prove that we are smarter than the developers. The goal is to give constructive criticism, which is then answered by them taking the criticism to heart and (hopefully) explaining their reasoning behind why they did it. I also completely agree that cursing at the developers is counterproductive, but I disagree with you about at what level criticism stops being constructive and gets personal. I personally hope that the developers are up for a robust conversation about the topic and, from past interactions with many of them, I think a lot of them are able to handle criticism even if a little of snark is in there. There has been a constant factor in the past which prevented much of a constructive conversation to take place, but since that factor is not there anymore, I do hope that we have better communication in the future.

Oh, I think a lot of them have a pretty thick skin at this point. I just feel like erring on the side of courtesy is seldom a mistake, and (as noted above) some people are gonna be rude no matter what. The position I advocate will never become a universal reality, but if I can get people to move a little closer to it, that'd be pretty great.

Basically, while I do think perfect politeness would be great, I don't even hope to achieve that. I'm probably aiming pretty close to what you're talking about, really...I just think many people will take "Well, it's okay if you're a little snarky." as a license/endorsement from whoever says it for going way farther than they should. So advocating always being polite (in addition to being an ideal I strive for) is a better way to create this kind of atmosphere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Deadmanwalking.

There are certain posters who pretty much post in a very aggressive manner, incorporate subtle (or not so subtle insults in their postings), or will beat a dead horse into the ground, even after devs explain why X happened, or after realizing their opinion was not in the majority.

For you, this is a hobby that you can kick back and relax too, and you can post anything you want. If you don't like a topic or don't want to deal with something, you can just ignore those posts. IIRC, Paizo actually expects most of their staff to interact with the forums in some capacity. Note that most companies don't require this of there staff. So yeah...I think if you are expecting any sort of feedback or acknowledgement of a concern after heaping piles of abuse on them, it's just hilarious. And yes, calling developers stupid or claiming they don't do there jobs (after pulling off 7 days of overtime getting product done) is pretty much insult.

Incidentally, as I have posted once before, there is criticism and constructive criticism. I am in academia, and have had to review a variety of scientific papers. If I wrote in a review "This person is stupid and clearly doesn't understand the method they are reviewing" There is absolutely nothing constructive in that sentence. If you want your opinion taken seriously, tone and content are important.I would probably never be invited back to review for that journal. Furthermore, again from personal experience, nothing shuts down a dialogue faster than snarky responses or vague assertions. This kind of stuff produces a disconnect, which will just result in the person dismissing further criticism from the party, and may enforce earlier stances.

By all means, post historical notes, examples from the game, or math/theory work. But couch it in a neutral tone

I don't think it's mollycoddling to flag posts or ask people to be a bit more civil. I think if you consider "civility" as mollycoddling, than you have some very odd viewpoints on how the world works.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
...a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma...

Please point me to that build.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
...a Nature Oracle can now get literally everything except HP from charisma...
Please point me to that build.

Well, off the top of my head, Nature's Whispers + Noble Scion (War) + Divine Protection makes it the basis for all your defenses and Initiative. Add in the fact that you can be an offensive spellcaster, with a Bonded Mount for backup melee support...and that's basically everything but skills and HP. Lunar Oracle can do the same with a better Animal Companion, too.

I assume that's what's being talked about...


Arachnofiend wrote:
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).

I...what?, to all saves?

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
I...what?, to all saves?

According to people with the book, yes. It's intended to duplicate the Paladin's Divine Grace.

All Oracles will of course have this Feat from now on...


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm not arguing that Paizo is perfect and all-knowing, or that they don't screw up. I'm arguing that any disagreements with their policies should be made politely, so as to make them more inclined to listen (and out of a basic concern for them as fellow human beings).

Additionally, I feel like they've already admitted to having screwed up (by leaving the rapier out), and taken steps in the direction of fixing it (Fencing Grace) and that the reaction in this thread to that step is likely to make them consider not even bothering to make the attempt in future because evidence suggests it won't help to ameliorate the situation. I'd much rather praise them to the skies for Fencing Grace to encourage them to make more Dex-to-damage Feats in the future, and suspect that would be both more pleasant and more effective.

Fencing Grace sure helped to make people feel better, but it appeared to be a bandaid on a wound of the writers own making. I am not saying that people shouldn't have been more appreciative of it (I for my part shut up about the entire topic after Jason posted the feat), but it is legit for us to still ask about the background of how this entire problem came about. And, yes, it should be done more politely than many managed so far, but not necessarily so super-polite that we can't call a spade a spade.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And the folks at Paizo are, in fact, getting this kind of commentary. Witness this thread.

And more importantly, with a very few exceptions for truly offensive (as opposed to just bad) material, I'd argue strongly that those designers in other fields should be treated politely as well. Inevitably, there'll be vitriol, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to minimize it and keep discussions friendly and productive.

When I was a child, like I'm sure happens to all children, I got told that "The world isn't fair." my immediate response internally was "No, but we should try and make it more fair, not use the unfairness as an excuse to be unfair ourselves." (Not in those words, mind you...) This sort of discussion, in any field, will never be perfectly polite, but we should all strive to make those we take part in more so.

We don't disagree here on the basic matter, just on the degree to which it is applied. While I think that it is fair game to use stronger language when not targeted at the writers themselves but only at the object of criticism, as far as I can see you already think that this is too much.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh, I'm all for constructive criticism. But the form it's delivered in needs to be tailored to the medium it's being conveyed in, and certain kinds of blunt language are less than courteous in this particular medium. In short, I'm not suggesting a change in content (ie: the actual criticism) but in tone and form (ie: precisely how such criticism is delivered).

Additionally, as noted, I'm only singling Paizo out inasmuch as I'm posting on their forum right now about their stuff. I think almost all creators (and, indeed, almost all people) should probably be treated this way.

See above. We have a disagreement about how the criticism is to be delivered. I separate criticism delivered at a certain topic from personal critisim of the developers, while you seem to think that the distinction is much less clear than what I perceive it to be.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Okay, switch it to a Physics Professor who reads a lot telling the Creative Writing Professor their analysis of a particular work sucks. In front of his class. The point remains that it's someone with less formal qualifications in the area in question (and, on average, less actual qualifications as well) correcting them in a rather rude fashion and in a debatably inappropriate forum.

My point was basically that it's not the same social dynamic a colleague in the same field correcting them in a medium designed for precisely that.

Yes and I see that point as wrong. By the logic you just stated, only other game designers should make criticisms about the developers decisions and if we as non-game designers were to make any critisms, we had to make them on another messsage board. I think not.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh, I think a lot of them have a pretty thick skin at this point. I just feel like erring on the side of courtesy is seldom a mistake, and (as noted above) some people are gonna be rude no matter what. The position I advocate will never become a universal reality, but if I can get people to move a little closer to it, that'd be pretty great.

Basically, while I do think perfect politeness would be great, I don't even hope to achieve that. I'm probably aiming pretty close to what you're talking about, really...I just think many people will take "Well, it's okay if you're a little snarky." as a license/endorsement from whoever says it for going way farther than they should. So advocating always being polite (in addition to being an ideal I strive for) is a better way to create this kind of atmosphere.

And I am also for being polite to each other. However, my extent of what still constitutes polite debate extends further than yours and clearly separates criticism of the person from criticism of the subject matter.

401 to 450 of 876 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.