I'm sorry, but who uses the mythic rules? Not me (and neither does PFS, for that matter).
People who play Wrath of the Righteous, and people who want to play a superhero game but can't be bothered to learn a different system.
^Intended as hyperbole, but I can't help but wonder if there's a nugget of truth in there.
I really wanted to use Mythic tiers to boost non-casters (and mythic gives martials a lot of cool stuff), but even a single tier supercharges casters so hard it's ridiculous. Now I just farm the Mythic feat section for homebrew material. For example (Mythic) Acrobatic is an interesting feat for non-mythic characters. +4 to acrobatic/fly checks and once per day you can treat your roll as a natural 20.
It's not about mythic rules per se Derek the Ferret, it's about Mythic Weapon Finesse and a dev saying that they thought it was too powerful for even mythic, let alone normal pathfinder. Some dev's think dex to damage is JUST that strong.
Weapon finesse fighter:
I'd like to use my dex to hit and damage.
'OMG! that's too strong, you've got to jump through a dozen hoops to do that! Better make it only work with a single weapon too!'
Oracle:
I can only add my Cha to AC, CMD, spellcasting and initiative. But can't I use that single stat for more?
'You're a caster? Sure, here have a feat to add it to every save too! Oh and here is another feat to allow you to add it a second time on mind-affecting effects!'
Mythic Weapon Finesse
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: When using Weapon Finesse, you may also use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on your damage rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty doesn’t apply to either the attack rolls or the damage rolls.
Even without mythic there is a point where PF is a superhero game.
Agreed, though how "super" you actually become it heavily depends on what class you're playing. Either way I'd argue Mythic speeds up the process quite dramatically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm fine now. I have weapon ribbons. The Ferret has been sated
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat as written enforces a hidden additional tax on top of the two feats it already requires, and heavily penalizes dexterity-based TWF. In order to make dexterity to hit and damage work with a single weapon you need either three feats for Weapon Finesse/Weapon Focus/Slashing Grace and one or more additional feats to gain proficiency with a one-handed weapon that you can use with weapon finesse (EWP: Aldori Dueling Sword, EWP: Whip&Whip Mastery etc), or three feats and a level of swashbuckler.Or Fencing Grace.
I kind of don't understand the Slashing Grace threads anymore because Fencing Grace solves a lot of the issues. If you want Dex to Damage with a Swashbuckler, take Slashing Grace. If you want to use a Whip, take Slashing Grace. If you want to be a Cleric, Magus, whatever, with Dex to Damage? Take Fencing Grace. Or Dervish Dance, if you'd rather.
Especially now that Effortless Lace is a thing, the problem's kind of gone. TWF Dex to Damage? Fencing Grace + one Effortless Lace.
Before the lace, it was an issue of limited weapons. Not everyone wants to use a rapier after all (or multiclass to swashbuckler). With the lace, it's a 2500gp per weapon you ever use. if you can keep a single weapon and just upgrade it then it's not too bad. However if you're in a game where upgrades are new weapons, the cost can add up. The fact that it can be sundered is another issue if your DM uses that.
The lace is a nice item but it's not a cure-all. Myself, I'd much rather have a feat way to accomplish this as I don't want to have to carry a box of extra lace around in case my weapon gets stolen, sundered, rusted, ect. It's the reason I'm leery of agile weapons. It fine as long as you KNOW you'll always use that exact weapon.
It's not about mythic rules per se Derek the Ferret, it's about Mythic Weapon Finesse and a dev saying that they thought it was too powerful for even mythic, let alone normal pathfinder. Some dev's think dex to damage is JUST that strong.
A good portion of this is a leave-over from 3.5
Strength and THF were still the greatest non-spell way to do damage in 3.5, but Dex was already pretty close to a god-stat with just how MUCH it did in the game. Adding rules which allowed Dex to both Attack AND Damage basically made Strength an utterly worthless stat to lots of players, since all it had left was carrying capacity.
Things like Sneak Attack, Skirmish, critical hits, and other abilities strongly favored two-weapon fighting because they cared more about numbers of attacks than whether a player was holding a weapon with one hand or two, and with Dex to Attack and Damage, you got that much more damage in, as well.
However, the really broken part of that whole equation was the damage-multiplying abilities, not Dex to Damage. Pathfinder either lacks most of those abilities, or has toned them down some, and there are significantly more ways to pump Strength than to pump any other stat.
But the stigma against it still persists because of the ridiculous damage outputs those builds could produce, how much Dex-to-attack played into enabling them, and how much Dex-to-damage incentivized them.
The Devs could very honestly make an Improved Weapon Finesse feat and it would only serve to make things like the Rogue or Monk better. They'd just need to make sure they don't redo the mistakes of 3.5 and make oodles and oodles of extra abilities that just multiply damage out the wazoo, and Dex-to-damage TWF could be almost as good as Strength-based THF.
I always appreciated the irony of how Divine Protection and Steadfast Personality were printed in the same chapter of the same book, and the only real difference between the two feats is that one requires you to be a 5th level spellcaster and one does not.
What's that? You're a Charisma-focused Oracle and you're worried about your saves? Enjoy a +8 bonus on all saves against everything, all the time.
What's that? You're a swashbuckler who has charisma as a secondary stat and is unlikely to ever go above 16? Here, enjoy your +3 on will saves as an insight bonus against some spells, if they're mind affecting. Maybe.
To be fair, an insight bonus is actually better than an untyped bonus in many cases post the FAQ on ability mod bonuses. For example, an untyped Cha-based bonus to Will saves would be next to worthless for a Swashbuckler, as it wouldn't stack with Charmed Life. Whereas Steadfast Personality stacks nicely.
Also, virtually any Will save that you actually care about is always going to be mind-affecting.
But yeah, +Cha on all saves is pretty insane.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between channel feats and Slashing Grace is that people without Channel CANNOT take channel feats. On the other hand, Slashing grace can be taken by ANYONE. But it's useless. Also multiclassing in PF is an inferior option a lot of the time.
You're right. Channel feats have the Channel Energy ability listed in the requirements.
What requirement would you add so that Slashing Gracing can only be taken by Swashbuckler AND Cavalier AND Duelist AND any other class that has a similar class ability which only works with one-handed piercing weapons? Oh, and you only get four words to do it. (That's how many Channel Smite uses).Like Channel Smite, Slashing Grace is a class-ability-dependent feat. There's just no way to simply limit the feat to the appropriate classes (especially since any future class with a relevant ability can take it.)
Either just be happy that any character can get some small benefit, or pretend that Slashing Grace is a Swashbuckler-Only feat.
Then go make the house rule you so obviously long for and have fun.
The discussion may have moved past this already, but...
We still have the situation where a character can add their Dexterity to battleaxe damage, but not dagger damage.
Not so. The agile enchantment will let you add your dex bonus to damage on a dagger. As long as you're not dealing with antimagic fields or artifact daggers (such that they can't be enchanted), this will usually be a superior option. It's often cheaper to pay with gold than it is to do so with feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like Channel Smite, Slashing Grace is a class-ability-dependent feat.
You got a source on that chief?
Given that the thread for "potential errors" in the ACG has more posts (twice as many, in fact) than the book has pages, I think the far more likely reason for Slashing Grace being essentially nonfunctional is because of a mistake, not because somebody decided, consciously, to make a Feat that only functions for one class and an archetype introduced in the same book, plus a PrC.
But I'll take your challenge here:
There's just no way to simply limit the feat to the appropriate classes (especially since any future class with a relevant ability can take it.)
Add the words "Precise Strike class feature" to the prerequisite line (or simply "Precise Strike" if I'm allowed to use LESS than 4 words, the parameters weren't entirely clear.). Because currently the only 3 classes it works with all have that. Since we're already going with an absurdly narrow interpretation of "appropriate classes" that works just fine.
You got a source on that chief?
Like Channel Smite, Slashing Grace is a class-ability-dependent feat.
Ummm.... the feat itself? A large portion of the feat specifically states it only works in conjunction with class abilities that function in a certain way.
Not to mention 2 different devs weighed in on the intent of the feat.
Pointlessly argumentative much, chief?
But I'll take your challenge here:
There's just no way to simply limit the feat to the appropriate classes (especially since any future class with a relevant ability can take it.)Add the words "Precise Strike class feature" to the prerequisite line (or simply "Precise Strike" if I'm allowed to use LESS than 4 words, the parameters weren't entirely clear.). Because currently the only 3 classes it works with all have that. Since we're already going with an absurdly narrow interpretation of "appropriate classes" that works just fine.
But then the Swashbuckler couldn't use it, not having the Precise Strike class feature. Or would it only work with his precise strike Deed?
What about the Hooded Champion Ranger? Does he not get to refill his Panache Points with slashing weapons anymore? Can a Magus with Flamboyant Arcana refill his?
Can the Kata Master Monk still expand his weapon repertoire is he so desires? He doesn't get Precise Strike either.
Clearly, your feat requirements need to be reconsidered.
You got a source on that chief?
Like Channel Smite, Slashing Grace is a class-ability-dependent feat.
Ummm.... the feat itself? A large portion of the feat specifically states it only works in conjunction with class abilities that function in a certain way.
Not to mention 2 different devs weighed in on the intent of the feat.
Pointlessly argumentative much, chief?
Which devs? Got a quote?
[
But then the Swashbuckler couldn't use it, not having the Precise Strike class feature. Or would it only work with his precise strike Deed?
Hence why I amended it pending your approval that I could use less than 4 words. "Precise Strike" fixes that problem right up (assuming it was even a problem to begin with).
What about the Hooded Champion Ranger? Does he not get to refill his Panache Points with slashing weapons anymore? Can a Magus with Flamboyant Arcana refill his?
Can the Kata Master Monk still expand his weapon repertoire is he so desires? He doesn't get Precise Strike either.Clearly, your feat requirements need to be reconsidered.
Clearly, those classes are not "appropriate".
I get to decide that arbitrarily. Because. Same reason you can, I guess.
Though two of your examples are flawed anyway. The Hooded Champion only regains Panache through bows anyway, and none of his other Deeds are dependent on one-handed or ight piercing weapons either, so Slashing Grace would do nothing for him, and Flamboyant Arcana is likewise in the same boat: The Magus uses his Arcane Pool to fuel them, and cannot restore that the same way a Swashbuckler can Panache. In addition, neither of the Deeds require a specific wepaon of any kind whatsoever.
So you're down to the Kata Master not being able to restore Panache or use Deeds and such with Slashing Grace...but considering he can do it with Unarmed Strikes and Monk weapons anyway (which are the only weapons you'd ever uses as a Monk in the first place with an archetype that still has Flurry), I don't feel bad leaving the Kata Master out at all.
So no, I don't think my Feat requirements need to be reconsidered after all.
To be fair, the ability to grab a single level of Swashbuckler to use Slashing Grace gets wrecked.
To be fair, the ability to grab a single level of Swashbuckler to use Slashing Grace gets wrecked.
Obviously someone with only a single level of Swashbuckler isn't an "appropriate" character for it then.
I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
Why are expecting this fantasy game to follow the rules of reality?
Why are expecting this fantasy game to follow the rules of reality?I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
I'm not - but I'm expecting a level of game balance and the preventing of easy ways to mitigate what would otherwise be considered sacrifices (like dumping a stat).
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.There is!
Look up Arshea's Celestial Obedience. One of its boons is exactly that-- Cha to AC, but only while wearing revealing clothing.
Next?
So what you're saying is that it's okay to swap one stat for another, as long as it's situational and limited in its use?
Sounds like Slashing Grace...
I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
I use the Cha to AC idea in my games (via particular archetypes) and would allow it as a feat alongside Dex to damage.
I use the Cha to AC idea in my games (via particular archetypes) and would allow it as a feat alongside Dex to damage.I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
Would the Cha to AC be in addition to or instead of the Dex bonus to AC?
|
The discussion may have moved past this already, but...
We still have the situation where a character can add their Dexterity to battleaxe damage, but not dagger damage.Not so. The agile enchantment will let you add your dex bonus to damage on a dagger. As long as you're not dealing with antimagic fields or artifact daggers (such that they can't be enchanted), this will usually be a superior option. It's often cheaper to pay with gold than it is to do so with feats.
That however leads to oddness involving weapons that intuitively should be DEX-damage requiring magic to work, while the unintuitive choices are the ones PCs can deal DEX-damage with through their own skill(feats).
Would the Cha to AC be in addition to or instead of the Dex bonus to AC?I use the Cha to AC idea in my games (via particular archetypes) and would allow it as a feat alongside Dex to damage.I, personally, think someone without strength shouldn't be able to do as much damage as someone with it. The feat exists because in niche cases it might be possible - the feat is limited because it might be possible in niche cases. All is well in the world.
Conversely: I think there should be a feat that lets you use CHA to boost AC - because if you look really good, someone might be a bit distracted and miss easier... That is just as 'valid' an argument as universal Dex to Damage... Ability scores are all important, adn are the first thing to define a character - and should not be thrown aside so easily.
In addition. I type it as a deflection bonus, which does mean however that it won't stack with ring of protection.
If nothing else this thread reminded me I need to pick up Path of War.Yes. Deadly Agility? Want.
I'm extremely curious about what it can offer existing PF classes in terms of highly mobile combat.
There's a Feat chain that grants manuevers from a single Discipline. Pick Veiled Moon, take the tree up high enough, and snag Stance of the Ether Gate. Now you can teleport up to your speed as a Move at will and it counts as DD for the Dimensional Agility line.
Path of War is great.
You can also use Wis to attack and damage...yeah, totally consistent.
Forget the more specialized attribute twisting.
We're talking about a system where a 20STR/3DEX character is more likely to hit a foe than a 19STR/19DEX one. A clumsy-as-hell character shouldn't have lethal accuracy in melee any more than a weak character should have high damage, but it's build right into the bedrock of the game, and 'reality' takes a back seat to broad concepts. All that can be done is to accept a high level of abstraction and work with it to make a wide variety of characters viable.
I think that the idea behind Strength being important to melee accuracy is that no matter how nimble you are, if your Strength isn't enough to guide the weapon accurately (including getting it through vulnerable spots in armor so that it doesn't just bounce off), you can't reliably get it to go where you need it to go, unless you are using a Finessable weapon. That said, D&D went overboard with this, all the way back to 1st Edition. Even if not using a Finessable weapon, if you dump Dexterity, you ought to get a penalty to hit; likewise, to avoid the problem in which a better-written Slashing Grace replacement (like the Weapon Grace I linked above) allows Tiny and smaller creatures to do absurd damage, if you dump Strength, you ought to get a penalty to damage (and maybe even a cap to the Dexterity-based bonus) even when using such a feat (so, since most Tiny and smaller creatures seriously dump Strength, problem solved).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sooner or later I really want to test a houserule that says AB = STR+DEX, base AC = 11. It has surprisingly small consequences for what seems like a massive change, other than the fact that 'strength character' vs. 'dex character' disappears, replaced by a wide-open field of choice.
So, rather than replacing Str to hit/damage, you might add Dex and Str instead? So low Str characters take both their Str penalty and get their Dex bonus?
You would choose one bonus or the other, but always add penalties.
Also, right now, Finesse doesn't take into account size, EXCEPT for the extremely coarse-grained measure of giving Tiny and smaller creatures Weapon Finesse. It would require a major rework, but would be cool if what was Finessable depended partly on size.
^Yes . . . except that Strength to Hit still works even against unarmored targets.
Isn't there a feat in Advanced Class Origins to help with that?
Fencing Grace which is rapier specific. sigh
Earlier in the thread someone said that the "ability mod bonuses" FAQ change meant that an untyped bonus would be useless for a swashbuckler with charmed life - can someone please explain that to me and include links? I've read what I thought was the FAQ in question and I don't see how to arrive at that conclusion.
Charmed Life adds your Charisma bonus to the save. This is an untyped Attribute bonus.
Per the FAQ, it will now no longer stack with other abilities that add your Charisma bonus to a save, like Divine Grace, or Divine Protection which add your Cha mod to all saves.
which FAQ - where are you seeing that? Can you please provide a link (I believe you, I just can't find that FAQ)