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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 876 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 29 people marked this as a favorite.

As some people may know, a new feat, Slashing Grace, was released in the Advanced Class Guide. Many people are unhappy with the feat as the mechanics of the feat itself are clunky, extremely limiting, and denies iconic weapons from being function able with the feat.

Another poster on the forums copy/pasted the feat into the Advanced Class Guide thread that I will quote here:

Advanced Class Guide wrote:

Slashing Grace (Combat)

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Issues with the feat above include the following:

1) The feat is limited to a single one-handed slashing weapon. This means that weapons in the 'light' weapon category, either piercing or slashing, are not applicable with this feat; such weapons include the dagger, shortsword, wakizashi etc. One handed piercing weapons, like the rapier, do not benefit from this feat either; the big one in this group being the Rapier, the single most iconic swashbuckling and fencing weapon in all history.

2) The feat allows weapons to benefit from their dexterity score to damage, but not on attack rolls. So except for the Aldori Dueling Sword and the Whip (to my knowledge) there are no other one-handed finesseable weapons that also deal slashing damage. This means that the only class that truly benefits from this feat is the Swashbuckler, because they have the ability to apply their dexterity score to more weapons than the traditional weapon finesse feat.

3) The feat harms iconic images with the above limitations of problem #1. You can have a character wield a battleaxe and get his dexterity score to damage, but not a rapier. You can benefit from Dex to Damage with a Bastard Sword, but not a dagger (a common weapon that is paired with rapiers). There are a great many weapons in the game that *should* benefit from Dex to Damage, and yet they are restricted due to the language in the feat itself.

4) Weapons that should be capable of benefiting from a Dex to Damage feat, aren't capable of doing so. They can still benefit from the agile weapon property, but that means the character is entirely reliant on a magical weapon using a weapon property from a non-core rule line book; something many GMs don't allow or have issue with.

5) The feat restricts the option of fighting with multiple different weapons as you can only take the feat once. So unless you have someway of fighting with two one-handed weapons at a reduced penalty, such as sawtooth sabres, then you can't do something like fight with a rapier and dagger (even if the weapons were viable selections), unless you have enough wealth to afford at least a +1 agile enhancement for both weapons.

Now, you may question how such a massive oversight came to be? Well, Jason Bulmahn did weigh in on the feat itself in the thread with this post.

I will quote the main explanation, as the post itself is rather long:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So, this feat originally had nothing to do with damage. It was just a way for the swashbuckler, and a few other classes, to use slashing weapons with some of their class features. Thats it. As the book was getting close to print, we were looking over it and felt that was just too weak. The damage component was added to make the feat more attractive. It was not until after it went to the printer that we realized the odd case we had created (that you cannot get Dex to damage on a rapier). Since this was obviously a vital part of the iconic character for that class, we saw it as a real problem and started looking for a solution.

So, the reason this feat is so limiting is a mistake on their part; an oversight that was unintentional. Now, this does send up red flags in my mind and I will explain why.

During the ACG playtest, we, the players, were promised a more generic dex to damage feat. Based on my reading of the above post, it sounds to me that the Dex to Damage option only came about because they felt the feat itself need a little more 'oomph' in power and attractiveness. Now, if they were already promised to give out a Dex to Damage feat, then why was the Dex to Damage option tacked onto a feat at the last minute?

Purely my own interpretation, but it feels to me, as if though they weren't going to include the Dex to Damage option at all! This hurts me as a customer because I place a lot of trust in Paizo as a company to keep their word, and it feels like they only managed to do so by sheer coincidence.

However, that is neither here nor there. It is entirely my own feeling and though it doesn't have any bearing on the outcome of this thread, I felt the need to express it.

Now, Jason also went one step further to say that they, as the designers, realized the issue with Slashing Grace, but only after the final edition was sent to the printers. So he promised to fix this, but including a feat called Fencing Grace in the upcoming Player's Companion: Advanced Class Guide Origins. He even included the proposed feat in the post for us to use:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FENCING GRACE (COMBAT)

Your extreme style and fluid rapier forms allow you to use agility rather than brute force to fell your foes.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier).
Benefit: When wielding a rapier one-handed, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The rapier must be one appropriate for your size.
In addition, if you have the panache class feature, you gain a +2 bonus to CMD against attempts to disarm you of your rapier while you have at least 1 panache point.

While this solves the issue of the Rapier being denied a Dex to Damage option, it still doesn't fix the issue with the other multitude of weapons that are more deserving of a Dex to Damage feat than a battleaxe.

My question, is should Paizo release a FAQ/Errata to fix the Slashing Grace feat to make it a more generic Dex to Damage option than what currently exists?

Why is it that I can't play a Dexterous Dagger Wielder that gets Dex to Damage, without becoming Mythic, but I'm able to wield an axe and get my dexterity to attack and damage? Why is a battleaxe more 'dexterous' than a weapon like a dagger? Or a shortspear? Or a shorsword? Or a wakizashi?

Should a more generic Dex to Damage feat function more like Dervish Dance, allowing only a single weapon to benefit from dex to attack rolls and damage? Should it be allowed to be taken multiple times, so a character that wants to fight with two weapons can do it, but it requires a heavy feat investment?

How do you feel about this? What are your thoughts?

To the Paizo Admins, I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but, as it's not errata, and more of a discussion on whether or not errata should even be done, I felt it would fit best here.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

TL/DR Slashing Grace is unsatisfactory as a dex to damage feat option as it is highly restrictive of what weapons it can be used with, has clunky mechanics, only truly works with the Swashbuckler base class, and denies iconic weapons the option to be used effectively.

Jason Bulmahn explained how the feat came about, and spoilered a feat coming about in an upcoming product to address only one aspect of the many issues of Slashing Grace.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like a more generic Feat is reasonable, but not really required. A character who wants this ability can have it with the rapier (the single most iconic weapon to have this ability), and that seems sufficient to me, to be honest.

That said, if you do want a generic version, I think the thing to hope for/request is another new Feat rather than an errata on an existing one. One that applies to any one light weapon seems very possible, for example, and would fill in most of the holes you seem to feel there are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. This is one of those losing battles for Paizo. STR is still important since it enables Power Attack and its feat line, and Furious Focus is a very good feat. Perhaps STR is missing some attractive, sure...

...but Dex to damage is not broken. If anything, it is a feat tax in terms of EWP and WF to a great number of martial classes and archetypes that should be viable.

Confining them to the Scimitar, or, in the future, the Rapier does nothing but remove what should be the focus of Pathfinder - create diversity.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

As a player I want a generic dex to damage with light/one-handed weapons feat, but I also know that there are a lot of players that would take up arms if that happened. I think Paizo is trying to satisfy both camps at the same time, which is simply impossible.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
As a player I want a generic dex to damage with light/one-handed weapons feat, but I also know that there are a lot of players that would take up arms if that happened. I think Paizo is trying to satisfy both camps at the same time, which is simply impossible.

The problem here, as I see it is, is that Strength is the more superior option by far. That's really not up for debate as strength gives you a 1.5 return when 2 handing, strength opens up options like Power Attack which also gives 1.5 return when 2-handing.

Dexterity has no such option and the feat Piranha Strike, the 'finesse' counterpoint to Power Attack, also doesn't have a 1.5 return option.

At the same time, if a Dex to Damage option were available, it's not denying those who don't want to use it, the ability to not use it. People who don't want Dex to Damage don't have to use it if they don't want to. Conversely, those who want Dex to Damage can't use it, because the option doesn't exist.

Anecdote: In my experience, there are more people who want Dex to Damage, than there are those who don't. There are even less people who would do something drastic like be entirely opposed to the feat, or quit the game over it, than there are those who don't feel it is necessary, but wouldn't really care one way or another if it existed.


I think the major problems with fencing grace is that it doesn’t solve the problem, it is only making it worse by possibly denying us a fix.
They promised us a dex-to-damage feat in a core book line book and we still haven’t got one that can be used by anyone but the Swashbuckler.
I don’t think we are the only gaming group that uses the core books/PRD. Using splat books can be problematic, especially if you are a GM or a new player.

Also splat books don’t get support in the core book line.
I know they said they were going to address the issue after Gen con and that would have been fine. Instead of doing just that they offer the fencing grace that isn’t a fix. Fencing grace indicates that they don’t want to give us a dex-to-damage feat (that anyone can use), at least not in the core book line. It also indicates that they don’t want to fix the problem, at least not in the ACG or in any core book.
They should fix the Slashing Grace feat.

If they want to keep fencing grace so be it, but fix Slashing Grace.
If splat books are the solution then we could just as well use feats such as Dervish Dance. Funny enough Fencing grace only applies to rapiers so no light weapons, no short swords, daggers, light maces, Kukris, Sickles, etc.

edit:

If dumping str is such a big problem why not just a 11 or 13 str as a prereq?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I expounded at length already that I feel that it is absurd to give dex-to-damage to large clunky one-handed slashing weapons like the bastard sword, falcata and battleaxe, but not to light piercing and slashing weapons and to one-handed piercing weapons. There just is no logical explanation to this, as far as I can see.

Fencing Grace is a band-aid on a gaping wound of plausibility (one I'll gladly take, though) and I hope Paizo realizes how bizarre this should look to everybody and will adjust accordingly in the near future.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

I feel like a more generic Feat is reasonable, but not really required. A character who wants this ability can have it with the rapier (the single most iconic weapon to have this ability), and that seems sufficient to me, to be honest.

That said, if you do want a generic version, I think the thing to hope for/request is another new Feat rather than an errata on an existing one. One that applies to any one light weapon seems very possible, for example, and would fill in most of the holes you seem to feel there are.

If a feat was available to all without dipping into swashbuckler I honestly wouldn’t mind that feat was limited only to weapons that could be used with weapon finesse. I could even take it if it came with a str 13 prereq, what I can’t accept is the that we still haven’t got it in the core book line.

We get a class that takes the best from the sorcerer and the wizard and gets to swap spells during the day, but letting people add dex to damage when using a rapier, short sword or dagger is apparently not something the core book line can support.

I seriously don’t get in.


I would be fine if it was a built-in swap.

At creation that is, a player could select for their PC to have one attribute handle damage, while the other applied to AC, Init, and Ref saves.

Perhaps strength applying to Ref could be thought of as a powerful dodge, and strength to AC would just be a tough physique.

Liberty's Edge

Zark wrote:

If a feat was available to all without dipping into swashbuckler I honestly wouldn’t mind that feat was limited only to weapons that could be used with weapon finesse. I could even take it if it came with a str 13 prereq, what I can’t accept is the that we still haven’t got it in the core book line.

We get a class that takes the best from the sorcerer and the wizard and gets to swap spells during the day, but letting people add dex to damage when using a rapier, short sword or dagger is apparently not something the core book line can support.

I seriously don’t get in.

I think you're putting a lot more emphasis on having things in the core book line than Paizo themselves ever does. I've noticed no major differences in balance between the core book line and supplements. Yeah, some bad stuff gets in there, but the only real difference seems to be that core book line bad stuff gets fixed (Prone Shooter and Antagonize, I'm looking at you). There's nothing magical about the core book line, with most of the author pool being the same, and all the non-core stuff is still available for free on d20pfsrd or the Archives of Nethys. In short...I'm not actually sure why anyone would say "core book line only" as a game restriction (especially on things like Feats), and don't think Paizo is primarily targeting the (rather small) demographic that does that.

Also, check the Jason Bulmahn quote above. They aren't intentionally avoiding putting it in or anything, they just missed that the Rapier got left out, and then fixed it where they could rather than make both the name and mechanics of one of their Feats not make sense (ie: Slashing Grace doesn't make a good generic Dex-to-damage Feat either mechanically or thematically).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One on side I don't want dex to damage to be too easy to get. The game is about choices. On the other hand TWF'ers, need some help, and the dex based character concept could also get some help.

I would just require weapon focus for the specific weapon and weapon finesse as prereqs for this feat. Any weapon with which you had weapon finesse could use it as long as it was a one handed(or light) piercing or slashing weapon.

As for TWF, I would let the feat scale for free, and yes I would allow double slice to work for with the dex damage so you could get full damage when using the off-hand weapon.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zark wrote:

If a feat was available to all without dipping into swashbuckler I honestly wouldn’t mind that feat was limited only to weapons that could be used with weapon finesse. I could even take it if it came with a str 13 prereq, what I can’t accept is the that we still haven’t got it in the core book line.

We get a class that takes the best from the sorcerer and the wizard and gets to swap spells during the day, but letting people add dex to damage when using a rapier, short sword or dagger is apparently not something the core book line can support.

I seriously don’t get in.

I think you're putting a lot more emphasis on having things in the core book line than Paizo themselves ever does. I've noticed no major differences in balance between the core book line and supplements. Yeah, some bad stuff gets in there, but the only real difference seems to be that core book line bad stuff gets fixed (Prone Shooter and Antagonize, I'm looking at you). There's nothing magical about the core book line, with most of the author pool being the same, and all the non-core stuff is still available for free on d20pfsrd or the Archives of Nethys. In short...I'm not actually sure why anyone would say "core book line only" as a game restriction (especially on things like Feats), and don't think Paizo is primarily targeting the (rather small) demographic that does that.

Also, check the Jason Bulmahn quote above. They aren't intentionally avoiding putting it in or anything, they just missed that the Rapier got left out, and then fixed it where they could rather than make both the name and mechanics of one of their Feats not make sense (ie: Slashing Grace doesn't make a good generic Dex-to-damage Feat either mechanically or thematically).

A don't agree.

The Dervish Dance is not in the Core line (nor is the agile weapon prop). James has allread said that Jason wasn’t too keen on having that in a core book, and now we get the second dex-to-damage feat in another splat book.

I think it is pretty obvious they don’t want a dex to damage in the core book line. Especially since the feat that is the ACG can’t be used (by anyon else than the SB) unless you use a weapon from a splat book. The Slashing Grace will cause confusion. Also people will wonder if this is intentional.

Tels wrote:
Purely my own interpretation, but it feels to me, as if though they weren't going to include the Dex to Damage option at all! This hurts me as a customer because I place a lot of trust in Paizo as a company to keep their word, and it feels like they only managed to do so by sheer coincidence.

Strange thing is the feat actually looks like “give them a feat they can’t use”.

It gets worse if you are using TWF. Say you are a TWF rogue.
You can’t use any light weapons with Slashing Grace feat and you can’t use TWF if you want dex to damage due to the attack penalties from not using at least one light weapon.

Why not more TWF love? Why no support in the core book line?

I agree with wraithstrike: "I agree that one side I don't want dex to damage to be too easy to get [unless you are a swashbuckler], The game is about choices. On the other hand TWF'ers, need some help, and the dex based character concept could also get some help."

Liberty's Edge

Tels wrote:
Purely my own interpretation, but it feels to me, as if though they weren't going to include the Dex to Damage option at all! This hurts me as a customer because I place a lot of trust in Paizo as a company to keep their word, and it feels like they only managed to do so by sheer coincidence.

Oh, yeah, I posted a response to this point in the other thread. Here it is again if you missed it:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I think you're reading way too much into Jason's comment. I think the Dex-to-damage was included into Slashing Grace as opposed to being its own separate thing because the Feat was too weak, not that that's why it was included at all.

The primary reason for a Dex-to-damage Feat was pretty clearly that people thought they needed one. The 'this Feat's too weak' thing was just why Slashing Grace got a boost instead of them doing something else.


I noticed that, so I will also repeat myself.

If Fencing Grace is supposed to be the fix, it doesn’t fix anything. It only make things worse. Slashing Grace still don’t work unless you are a Swashbuckler. It is still a feat any class can pick but no one except the Swashbuckler can benefit from it. Slashing Grace is still broken, nothing has changed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slashing Grace works with the Whip and the Aldori Dueling Sword. That's not completely useless...and it's far from the only Feat that's somewhat niche for anyone not a specific Class.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Slashing Grace works with the Whip and the Aldori Dueling Sword. That's not completely useless...

Eh, Aldori Dueling Sword is from a spalt book (and not even a light weapon, so no TWF)

edit:
Whip is hardly a typical melee weapon.

The feat doesn't work unless you use a whip or splat books and even then you can only use it with two weapons any no TWF. If you use it with whip you have to pick the whip chain so at least 3 feats.
so in theory you can use it with a whip, but not really.
You can take it but not use it is hardly a good argument.

A bit like any class, even fighters, can pick meta magic feats.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


and it's far from the only Feat that's somewhat niche for anyone not a specific Class.

I never said it was. In fact it looks like class feature disguised as a feat, but if they had added Swashbuckler as prereq it still don’t work with light weapons or the rapier.

The feat needs a fix.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tels wrote:
Purely my own interpretation, but it feels to me, as if though they weren't going to include the Dex to Damage option at all! This hurts me as a customer because I place a lot of trust in Paizo as a company to keep their word, and it feels like they only managed to do so by sheer coincidence.

Oh, yeah, I posted a response to this point in the other thread. Here it is again if you missed it:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I think you're reading way too much into Jason's comment. I think the Dex-to-damage was included into Slashing Grace as opposed to being its own separate thing because the Feat was too weak, not that that's why it was included at all.

The primary reason for a Dex-to-damage Feat was pretty clearly that people thought they needed one. The 'this Feat's too weak' thing was just why Slashing Grace got a boost instead of them doing something else.

I understand your point, but that doesn't change how I feel about that passage. To me, it seems we only got a Dex to Damage option on accident, and that's how it's going to continue to feel unless Jason or someone else expands more on how it came about.

If a generic Dex to Damage feat was intended to be added to the ACG like they promised in the playtest and blog posts, then we would have gotten a feat that was designed, from the ground up, to be a dex to damage feat. Instead, based off Jason's own post, they merely tacked the dex to damage option on the end of a subpar feat.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

once again Paizo's refusal to follow Grod's Law bites them in the butt.

First they keep the weapon requirements of the Duelist PrC on the swashbuckler. Then realizing that this means Swashbucklers can't use the premiere dueling sword of the setting the give us Slashing Grace v.1. they find slashing Grace v.1, weak, now instead of going to the problem: the fact that they are constraining Swashbuckler weapons for no reason, they tack on dex-to-damage to make slashing grace "good". Now because this now means Rapiers still don't get dex to damage, we get Fencing Grace to patch the patch, while a swashbuckler that wanted to use Nun-chucks is just flat SOL.

Imagine a world where the Swashbuckler didn't have needless weapon restrictions on class abilities, which means we never needed to buff Slashing grace, or to patch it with Fencing Grace, and could have just have Weapon Grace: use Dex instead of str when determining damage.


While light weapon are not one handed weapon by RAW. Perhaps there was a slight error while writing the feat and it's actualy meant to include light weapon.

After all, light weapon cannot be used two handed, so that makes them one handed weapon (as the way you wield them). I think it's just an unfortunate confusion with the fact one-handed weapon are a specific category of weapon that dosn't include actualy all one-handed weapon.

if we read the feat as allowing weapon that are "wielded" one handed rather then allowing weapon that are part of the "one handed weapon table" It become acceptable. Then the only main oversight is the rapier, explaining the fix-feat.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the Devs really do not want to make the DEX to damage ability available and gave it very reluctantly and with great restrictions, only to widen them little by little under the pressure of its popularity. But always in restricted and awkward ways.

It would have been far more simple to either ban it completely or make it available in a simple and efficient way.

The Middle Road choice we seem to have so far does not satisfy most people IMO.

That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I proposed an alternative feat to have been written into the ACG that would have gone as follow:

Proposed Feat wrote:

Greater Weapon Finesse

Your skill and speed with your weapon allows your quick and agile strikes to land devastating blows.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (chosen weapon)

Benefit: You may replace your strength modifier for your dexterity modifier on damage rolls with any finesseable weapon with which you have weapon focus.

Special: Characters with Swashbucklers Finesse and similar abilities that allow them to treat a weapon as a finesseable weapon or use their dexterity score on attack rolls with a weapon are treated as if they have weapon finesse with that weapon for the purpose of this feat and it's prerequisites.

Such a feat would allow any weapon that qualifies for weapon finesse to have a dex to damage option.

Then, for a Slashing Grace feat, I would have done the following.

Proposed Slashing Grace wrote:

Slashing Grace

You are able to use your speed and agility when fighting with a slashing weapon.

Prerequisites: BAB 3, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (chosen weapon)

Benefit: A light or one-handed slashing weapon with which you have weapon focus with is treated as if it were a finesseable weapon even if it otherwise isn't. In addition, the weapon can be treated as a light or one-handed piercing weapon for the purpose of class features that require it, such as a duelist's or a swashbuckler's precise strike. This weapon must be appropriately sized for you.

Special: Characters with Swashbucklers Finesse and similar abilities that allow them to treat a weapon as a finesseable weapon or use their dexterity score on attack rolls with a weapon are treated as if they have weapon finesse with that weapon for the purpose of this feat and it's prerequisites.

What the above two feats do together is make a Dex to Damage character feasible. The Greater Weapon Finesse feat allows for any finesseable weapon to gain Dex to Damage as long as you have Weapon Focus in it.

This means that:

1) It limits the Dex to Damage to a Weapon Focused weapon. So people could have multiple Weapon Focus' if they need to, such as Weapon Focus (rapier) and Weapon Focus (shortsword) if they want to TWF and get Dex to Damage on both weapons. It's a heavy feat investment, but it's possible.

2) It allows for outliers like the Elven Curved Blade or the Aldori Dueling Sword to qualify automatically for Dex to Damage.

3) A character that wants to be an agile combatant with an axe, can do so, but they need Slashing Grace as Slashing Grace lets them qualify for Weapon Finesse and Greater Weapon Finesse.

With these two feats, I can't imagine there would be much, if any, discussion at all, except for the odd person who would want to play an agile warrior with a hammer, or club.


22 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
That said, the Devs are the Devs (and do an awesome job BTW) and we, the customers, will make do with what they give us ;-)

NO! That is absolutely a horrible view point to take on the merchant/customer relationship!

I'm not saying Paizo makes bad products, I don't think that, but I need to expand upon this line here.

A customer is not a slave with no voice with which to express his or her displeasure. If we want changes in the wares of a merchant, we have to speak up and voice our displeasure or nothing will happen.

If customers only had to sit back and voicelessly accept any and all wares that came our way, then business wouldn't make better and better products. There would never need to be a patch for an iPhone to fix an issue, because Apple could just ignore us.

If a business wants to stay in business, then they need to listen to the feedback of it's consumers and adapt to meet demands.

I REFUSE to make do with a faulty product. I can, and have, and will, return a product to a company that does not work like it is supposed to and demand either my money back, or a replacement.

I have never had to do so with Paizo, and I don't suspect I will in the future. But to think that a customer is just supposed to lay back and take it when they get a product is undeniably wrong.


It's a whole lot of noise considering all of this can be fixed simply by reading slightly differently the feat. (see my previous post which was completely ignored)

Having a badly designed mechanism is no faulty product by the way, so whatever they print you can't return a book for that. At least you can't do it by the law.

As your feat suggestion, perhaps adding that the weapon must be used without a shield would be good to put it in line with the 2 existing option for dex to damage (dervish and swordlord). Also you need a line about not getting 1.5 dex damage if you 2-hand.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is that at this point the devs should be designing feats properly. Instead we keep getting more of the same. I like Pathfinder. I like what the devs have done with the rules for the most part. I do feel like their is a huge disconnect from what some of the fans want. To what they give us. If fans say don't give us a feat similar to Dervish dance. Yet they do just reworded. Why would we be happy. Yes I can houserule it. But I should not have to. They also seem to love feat taxes even when the fans have told them that they don't.

I also agree with Tels. As I said I like the majority of the product. I'm not going to simply keep quiet and ignore rules from them I don't like. If no one says anything nothing will change. Mind you even if we the fans speak up it seems nothing will change either.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

When some fans say they don't like it. You are not necessarily the majority and catering to those who shout the loudest or most often is not usually a good business strategy. It isn't just your game, in other words, and acting like it is, is bloody annoying to others.


It seems like you can get "Dex-to-hit" or "Dex-to-damage", just not both in the majority of cases.

Works for me.

Liberty's Edge

I never said I was part of the majority. Or when I mentioned some fans the fans that they were. All I asked is that they listen to the feedback and possibly take it into account when designing new things for the game. Or are we no longer allowed to do so.

They don't have to listen to all feedback. Neither should they just simply ignore it either. If a certain feat causes a negative reaction from the fans. I see no reason to repeat it again with other feats. If they insist on repeating the same mistakes they can't really be surprised if the new material gets the same reaction imo. I can't understand why the devs can't seem to find the proper middle ground. Either the feat is too good. or not worth it. Or great fluff yet the crunch barely matches the fluff.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A good way to balance against str dumping would be to make str penalties still apply to the damage.

Scarab Sages

Petty Alchemy wrote:
As a player I want a generic dex to damage with light/one-handed weapons feat, but I also know that there are a lot of players that would take up arms if that happened. I think Paizo is trying to satisfy both camps at the same time, which is simply impossible.

Those same players taking up arms is the reason Mythic Weapon Finesse was changed to its current form.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Prerequisite: BAB +1, Dex 13, Weapon Finesse

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

TA-DAAAAAA!!!

Is is really that hard?

Paizo made an option that should exist all along a "Mythical" option, so now they refuse to give players a Dex-to-Damage feat without severely limiting it and adding pointless prerequisites.

As 9mm pointed out, you cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really appreciate the lack of an easy way to make your dexterity be both your strength and dexterity. I don't understand the posters saying that strength is a stronger attribute than dexterity. You basically have 3 offense stats (Strength, Intelligence, Charisma) and 3 defense stats (Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom) in pathfinder. Some classes are considered strong simply because they can use a defense stat for offense or vice versa. For example a caster druid can easily get by with 7 strength, 10 intelligence, and 7 charisma by using wisdom for offense and have very high defense values. Paladins can dump wisdom and constitution lower than anyone else because they have charisma pulling triple (or quadruple with Noble Scion) duty. Giving an easy way to make dexterity sub for strength is opening the door to insanity like a druid who wildshapes into some tiny bird who tears giants heads off. I appreciate them trying to model closely how a fencer can turn accuracy into power without making strength irrelevant. I would like to see a way to do so with weapons such as daggers, saps, nunchucks, and other light weapons that currently need the agile enhancement to do so.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
As a player I want a generic dex to damage with light/one-handed weapons feat, but I also know that there are a lot of players that would take up arms if that happened. I think Paizo is trying to satisfy both camps at the same time, which is simply impossible.

The problem here, as I see it is, is that Strength is the more superior option by far. That's really not up for debate as strength gives you a 1.5 return when 2 handing, strength opens up options like Power Attack which also gives 1.5 return when 2-handing.

Dexterity has no such option and the feat Piranha Strike, the 'finesse' counterpoint to Power Attack, also doesn't have a 1.5 return option.

At the same time, if a Dex to Damage option were available, it's not denying those who don't want to use it, the ability to not use it. People who don't want Dex to Damage don't have to use it if they don't want to. Conversely, those who want Dex to Damage can't use it, because the option doesn't exist.

Anecdote: In my experience, there are more people who want Dex to Damage, than there are those who don't. There are even less people who would do something drastic like be entirely opposed to the feat, or quit the game over it, than there are those who don't feel it is necessary, but wouldn't really care one way or another if it existed.

The people that don't want Dex to damage aren't arguing that Dex will allow you to do damage on-par/greater than Str (well, some might but they probably haven't done the maths).

The argument I most often see is that Dex does too much. Init, reflex, AC, and with a few feats, to-hit and damage. Str applies to hit and to damage, and there are no feats to extend its usage into replacing Dex things.


We already have a weapon property that deals dex to damage, does it make that much of a difference if there's a dex to damage feat? You're either going to eat money or eat a feat either way.


Its troubling to me that three feats are required to get you a +1 weapon property. I really feel like that is the design bias that is crippling any combat class.


Gregory Connolly wrote:
I really appreciate the lack of an easy way to make your dexterity be both your strength and dexterity. I don't understand the posters saying that strength is a stronger attribute than dexterity. You basically have 3 offense stats (Strength, Intelligence, Charisma) and 3 defense stats (Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom) in pathfinder. Some classes are considered strong simply because they can use a defense stat for offense or vice versa. For example a caster druid can easily get by with 7 strength, 10 intelligence, and 7 charisma by using wisdom for offense and have very high defense values. Paladins can dump wisdom and constitution lower than anyone else because they have charisma pulling triple (or quadruple with Noble Scion) duty. Giving an easy way to make dexterity sub for strength is opening the door to insanity like a druid who wildshapes into some tiny bird who tears giants heads off. I appreciate them trying to model closely how a fencer can turn accuracy into power without making strength irrelevant. I would like to see a way to do so with weapons such as daggers, saps, nunchucks, and other light weapons that currently need the agile enhancement to do so.

The thing that bugs me about this argument is that classes and concepts that would benefit from it that aren't all that strong get shafted because an already strong class would get stronger, kinda like how the AoMF sucks for monks. I think having dex to damage be somewhat difficult would be a lot better if the game rewarded spreading attributes around a lot more than consolidating them.


wraithstrike wrote:

One on side I don't want dex to damage to be too easy to get. The game is about choices. On the other hand TWF'ers, need some help, and the dex based character concept could also get some help.

I would just require weapon focus for the specific weapon and weapon finesse as prereqs for this feat. Any weapon with which you had weapon finesse could use it as long as it was a one handed(or light) piercing or slashing weapon.

As for TWF, I would let the feat scale for free, and yes I would allow double slice to work for with the dex damage so you could get full damage when using the off-hand weapon.

Why not just finesseable weapons? Would it really be such a travesty to let the Elven a Curve Blade use DEX for damage?

I think a feat which has prerequisites of weapon finesse, and weapon focus should allow you to pick any finesseable weapon and use DEX instead of STR to damage.

Silver Crusade

I think people are overreacting.

Although I am firmly in the "Dex to damage is fine" camp the reality is that lots of people disagree and the devs can NOT completely satisfy both camps.

Like all compromises their "pay a cost to use Dex for damage" is
a) deeply flawed
b) probably about as good an answer as they can come up with.

I haven't got the book yet, but I suspect that the swashbuckler will be fairly competitive with str based builds, although doing less damage on average. I can live with that. And if I end up waiting a couple of months to get the rapier feat or end up buying an agile weapon I can live with that too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

i didn't want to be a Negative Nancy in the other thread but I'm glad that someone else feels the same way. in the Swashbuckler playtest thread the community hit the developers over the head with the fact that, despite their insistence otherwise, dex-to-damage is not broken. it is still inferior to a STR-based character and it is actually needed to make a DEX-based Swashbuckler better than a STR-based one.

and that's where some of this dex-to-damage obsession came from - in the playtest a Swashbuckler was more effective prioritizing strength over dex and that makes no sense whatsoever.

but in that thread they said we'd get dex-to-damage so all was well. sweet, i can play Dex-based without feeling like a chump. when i read Jason's post the first thing i thought was, "wait, there wasn't going to be a dex-to-damage feat in the book until Slashing Grace was determined too weak?" despite us showing them otherwise, despite us telling them over and over that they had created a Swashbuckler that was better built STR-based, and despite them saying we were going to get dex-to-damage, Jason just told us that they decided against dex-to-damage anyway and only threw it in last minute (and only for slashing weapons, wtf?).

and THAT makes absolutely no sense. dex-to-damage is so powerful that you insist it is mythic. it is so powerful that you spend time defending your stance on it in the Swashbuckler playtest thread, and in the time intervening you choose to not include it in the book. and then, at the last minute, you toss it in as a sweetener for another feat? it goes from being too powerful for a feat to being an add-on within another?

this whole thing makes no sense. Jason's response is either a load of bull or their process really is this disjointed and illogical. personally i think him lying to us in that response is less damning than accepting that they spent all that time deciding that dex-to-damage was too powerful and then tossing it in last-minute as a sweetener. if that's their process why should we have any faith in them whatsoever?

i just started playing a rapier-based swashbuckler and my DM has a simple rule, if it is printed i can use it. i guess i'll just have to accept that i'm a chump because i didn't create a swashbuckler with STR as a primary stat (from what we've heard nothing has been done to change this if you don't use Slashing Grace) or that uses a slashing weapon (i can't use the rapier feat until it is printed).

/rant


FanaticRat wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I really appreciate the lack of an easy way to make your dexterity be both your strength and dexterity. I don't understand the posters saying that strength is a stronger attribute than dexterity. You basically have 3 offense stats (Strength, Intelligence, Charisma) and 3 defense stats (Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom) in pathfinder. Some classes are considered strong simply because they can use a defense stat for offense or vice versa. For example a caster druid can easily get by with 7 strength, 10 intelligence, and 7 charisma by using wisdom for offense and have very high defense values. Paladins can dump wisdom and constitution lower than anyone else because they have charisma pulling triple (or quadruple with Noble Scion) duty. Giving an easy way to make dexterity sub for strength is opening the door to insanity like a druid who wildshapes into some tiny bird who tears giants heads off. I appreciate them trying to model closely how a fencer can turn accuracy into power without making strength irrelevant. I would like to see a way to do so with weapons such as daggers, saps, nunchucks, and other light weapons that currently need the agile enhancement to do so.
The thing that bugs me about this argument is that classes and concepts that would benefit from it that aren't all that strong get shafted because an already strong class would get stronger, kinda like how the AoMF sucks for monks. I think having dex to damage be somewhat difficult would be a lot better if the game rewarded spreading attributes around a lot more than consolidating them.

I actually find this specific problem to be one of the biggest in Pathfinder. Monks can't have nice things because of druids. Summoners make consumable too cheap and hence get banned. Rogues can't have nice things because of alchemists and ninjas. Fighters can't have nice things because of other classes archetypes. It isn't really resolvable because the build focus and customizability that make pathfinder popular prevent developers from being too restrictive. If they force you to use suboptimal yet flavorful classes to get the ability to do something cool, that is basically a class tax. People already get upset about things like maneuver master or crossblooded sorcerer dips, and this would make that phenomenon much more prevalent I think.

We like the game because it isn't too balanced, then we complain about the lack of balance. Classic gamer paradox.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still think that the most strange thing is that they think that dex-to-damage is okay with bastard swords and dwarven waraxes, but not light piercing and slashing weapons. I really would like to hear from them how they came by that reasoning.

Liberty's Edge

Would certainly help the MAD Swashbuckler. Let's see, STR for damage, Dex because it's a dex class, high con because it's a frontline fighter with weak saves, int because you'll be the parties skill monkey, Cha for class features and you'll likely be the party face, Wis because you're a frontline fighter with weak saves.

Monks and rogues could also see a lot of benefit. Even fighters. But monks, rogues, and fighters are just plain bad so no one really cares about that.

The logic that monks and swashbucklers have to be weak "because druids" is flawed and one of the games biggest problems.


While I think slashing grace is only poorly worded and include all weapon you can "wield" one-handed I am still puzzled by something:

There already was a dex to damage feat, dervish dance. It worked quite well. I never saw anyone complain about the OPness of dex scimitar user. The wording was even great for the swashbuckler (one handed piercing for class feature). Just taking that feat and extending it to other weapons would have been fine.

But instead, they make a new feat that have really weird wording.


The logical conclusion is that if Paizo has refused to release a general feat for non-mythic play, and instead skirted around it 3 times, there must be some reservations they have about adding Dex to Damage.


man what the hell guys


Cheapy wrote:
The logical conclusion is that if Paizo has refused to release a general feat for non-mythic play, and instead skirted around it 3 times, there must be some reservations they have about adding Dex to Damage.

Err, yeah. Now explain Slashing Grace.


Cheapy wrote:
The logical conclusion is that if Paizo has refused to release a general feat for non-mythic play, and instead skirted around it 3 times, there must be some reservations they have about adding Dex to Damage.

The problem is that by now anyone who doesn't really care about flavor and is willing to invest a little can get it anyway. All the scimitar wielding magi can attest to that.

Just allowing it for all finessable weapons doesn't really change the balance issues. Especially if you keep the "no shield" limitation.

It just means some people won't take it because they want to avoid the cheese or don't like the flavor while the munchkins will happily grab it anyway. Grod's law wins again.

Silver Crusade

Cheapy wrote:
The logical conclusion is that if Paizo has refused to release a general feat for non-mythic play, and instead skirted around it 3 times, there must be some reservations they have about adding Dex to Damage.

Nah. The logical conclusion is, rabble rabble rabble rabble!

:-P

Scarab Sages

Lemmy wrote:
You cannot use this ability while donning a shield of any kind.

Discriminating against the TWF fighter with a light shield?


Artanthos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You cannot use this ability while donning a shield of any kind.
Discriminating against the TWF fighter with a light shield?

Not really, no. Just didn't want to get AC to sky-rocket too easily. I didn't even remember you could use light shields with Weapon Finesse.

Anyway, while I do think a paying a single feat to get both Dex to attack and Dex to damage is too cheap, having to pay 3 feats is way to expensive. OTOH, 2 feats is a fair price. It makes the character concept viable without overtaxing it and still gives Str builds an edge (not only they get to add 1.5 their attribute modifier to damage rolls, they are also 2 feats ahead of the Dex-based warrior).

I don't really understand why Paizo is so afraid of Dex-to-Damage, if Dervish Dance proved anything, is that it's not that powerful of an effect. Dex-based feats are still not nearly as common or effective as Str-builds.

Besides a general Dex-to-Damage feat would come really close to fixing vanilla Monks!

1 to 50 of 876 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.