|
I've got one guy who argues that STR 7 doesn't mean his character is little... I tell him that is exactly what it means.No it doesn't. It means he is weaker than most people. He could look like a weightlifter, but maybe he has a disease or curse that left him with a STR 7.
More realistically, Samwell Tarly in Game of Thrones likely has a STR 7. He is anything but little.
Physical appearance has nothing to do with your attribute scores.
Eh, I would assert that physical ability scores correlate with physical appearance, though they do not always dictate them.
I would imagine that overall mass can come from Con just as well as Str.
I don't have to reconsider any of the Bestiary. I run them as-is regardless. I'd worry about it if I need to build a new creature or advance an existing one.
If the feat doesn't create any (new) overpowered characters, then what's the root problem? I assumed this is the entire root problem, but if it's not then I'm confused as to what exactly you're arguing against.
IMO, changing the game to allow new concepts without invalidating the old is a *good* thing. Having more options will always make existing options less common, even if the new options are fairly poor, so I'm not sure what your point is on that.
New options will make old options less common. But dex vs strength isnt new. There have been since the inception of this game, big tough guys and little fast characters. This isnt a new option. This is making an existing option better.
And my worry is not about making a specific concept less common, my worry is about making it nearly non-existant. In a world where this feat was in play, I certainly wouldnt play a strength based character unless i was making a barbarian or bloodrager. The benefits of dex drastically outweigh by desire for specific concepts, and there are lots of interesting concepts in the dex world, with next to no reason to not take them with this feat in play. And thats the point. This feat removes any mechanical inhibition to not play a dex based character.
Meanwhile strength based characters still have slower speeds/less mobility, armor check penalties, and lower saves/initiative. The two are no longer anywhere close to equal in terms of desirability.
This is also a very exploitable change. The druid example is just off the top of my head, but I am certain that lots of partial casters that are already very good will benefit alot from this feat, in addition to making the dex fighter an easier concept to pull off.
If your group is not guided by such concerns, again, go for it. If they are, you will see a significant dearth of strength based characters.
There are too many "one feat away from busting CR" creatures in the bestiary to count, with or without new feats. Monster design is notoriously finicky and any modifications to them have to consider the modified creature's CR as though it were a new creature entirely in order to have more than an okay shot of being fair. Even many existing creatures are quite questionable in that regard.Yes, but if you are going to make a fundamental change to how combat works (which dex to damage does) you NEED to re-evaluate them. The game is no longer the same as when those monsters were made.
Besides, if your players decide to completely tank their strength in favor of Dex anyway, just remind them about their encumbrance.
Like is said, this puts strength right in the same place as charisma is for most characters. You have to 'punish' the party by consistently pointing out the issues that are caused by this stat that doesn't matter to the character.
And, like the charisma thing, its easily bypassed. Light armor which you would wear if you have a high dex, is just that light. And there are a ton of magic items that help with encumberance. Heck there are mundane items that help. Not to mention, most people hate tracking encumberance in the first place.
It isn't the same at all. There is no mechanical penalty for a low charisma, so anything GMs do to make charisma matter feels like "punishing" the player for tanking a stat they don't care about.
Encumbrance is a rule. There is a mechanical penalty for a low strength. You can choose not to follow that rule or house rule it away, but that was your decision to make strength matter less, not the game designer's fault. Saying "encumbrance is too hard to track" is no different than saying "it's too much trouble to keep track of money--just assume the players can buy whatever they want." It's a GM's house rule, and it changes how the game works.
Studded leather is 20 pounds out of your 10 strength character's 38. That masterwork backpack that got you from 33 to 38 lbs weighs 4 lbs by itself. A short sword is 2 pounds. Need a shortbow for backup? There's another 2 lbs, plus 3 lbs for arrows. Your basic traveler's outfit is 5 lbs.
With no food, water, bedroll, torches, rope, or other standard adventuring gear, your 10 str character is carrying around 36 lbs. A waterskin or silk rope or bedroll or two days of rations puts him into medium encumbrance.
And he will still do significantly less damage than a strength-based, two-handed weapon wielder.
Everyone has their own playstyle. Not everyone will abuse the feat.
Absolutely true. So like I said. Do the charisma check on your group. How many not sorcerors/paladins/bards have a positive charisma? How many have at least a 10? If you roll, how often is the lowest stat charisma?
If the answer is, its mixed. This feat will be of limited issue.
Though you might want to consider a feat that helps strength based character more mobile, and have a better fort save or something. I think that might even thigns out.
Me, I will stick to having solutions in class instead of feats for dex based characters.
Deadly Agility is taking out barriers to TWF with dex to damage. If you want Dex to damage, there are already Five methods that are Paizo.
Dervish Dance - Scimitar only, requires a free hand and a skill tax.
Slashing Grace - One handed only, requires a feat tax and a dip unless you only use Whip or Aldori Dueling Sword
Fencing Grace - Rapier only, requires weapon focus
Agile Weapons - Enchantment based, expensive.
Mythic Weapon Finesse - Mythic only.Since Deadly Agility is equivalent to a mythic feat, it's overpowered. Period.
Is that level of being overpowered going to break your game? Probably not.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-feats/athletic-mythic
This is a mythic feat as well, for a +2 to two skills I haven't seen used in months and an auto-nat 20 if you spend one of your mythic points.. on checks that usually have to be made several times to make any real difference.
Comparing to mythic is a good thought, but isn't necessarily going to lead you to a good conclusion.
If you wanted a paizo-level paranoid writing of a dex to damage feat, try this one: "You may use your dexterity bonus in place of your strength bonus when dealing damage with weapons with which you can use weapon finesse. This bonus is halved for off-hand attacks, but not increased if wielding the weapon in two hands. Your strength penalty, if any, still applies. When making a full attack you can only use this feat if you attack with the same weapon for all attacks gained from that action."
Personally? I think the above would be too heavy-handed.
Yeah, history has shown that Paize has some ... very strange ideas about what constitutes good game balance.
Letting a martial with charisma as a secondary state add charisma to just will saves? MADNESS! Letting a caster with charisma as their primary stat add charisma to all saves? Perfectly reasonable and balanced.
It isn't the same at all. There is no mechanical penalty for a low charisma, so anything GMs do to make charisma matter feels like "punishing" the player for tanking a stat they don't care about.
Technically, there are mechanical penalties since you'd be taking a negative on any charisma-based skills and charisma checks. Though in my experience most GMs who decide to punish low charisma instead do things like have children pelt you with garbage, people scream and run away when you try to talk to them, etc. Basically, a bunch of passive-aggressive BS to go after the player for having wrongbadfun.
|
|
Little fast characters was nearly a non-option. If you exempt builds that find a dex-to-damage source then I have seen precisely 0 of them. The two-weapon fighters always went Ranger to avoid needing heavy dex.
There are plenty of things wrong in the system that need re-evaluation with new content but never will see it. It's slightly wonky, but as long as the CRs still match up then there's no problem.
If I had the time to I would rewrite the system such that 2 feats for dex to damage didn't have weird corner cases that are mildly problematic, but for now I'll settle for the fact that this isn't PFS and my players won't create insane and silly builds just to hit those cases, and even if they did they would probably just take that as an opportunity to spend the rest of their resources on utility rather than doubling down on the shtick.
So if the OP wants a quick and easy answer: Do you have a power-gamer at your table? Might be a bad idea. No? Perfectly reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't the same at all. There is no mechanical penalty for a low charisma, so anything GMs do to make charisma matter feels like "punishing" the player for tanking a stat they don't care about.
Sure there is a penalty. Its called social interaction. One that is easily bypassed by taking a few ranks in skills, or just plain ignoring it (as many groups do).
Encumbrance is a rule. There is a mechanical penalty for a low strength. You can choose not to follow that rule or house rule it away, but that was your decision to make strength matter less, not the game designer's fault. Saying "encumbrance is too hard to track" is no different than saying "it's too much trouble to keep track of money--just assume the players can buy whatever they want." It's a GM's house rule, and it changes how the game works.
Yes it is a rule, but again its one thats often ignored and also easily bypassed. Mostly because its obnoxious to track.
Studded leather is 20 pounds out of your 10 strength character's 38. That masterwork backpack that got you from 33 to 38 lbs weighs 4 lbs by itself. A short sword is 2 pounds. Need a shortbow for backup? There's another 2 lbs, plus 3 lbs for arrows. Your basic traveler's outfit is 5 lbs.
Worn clothing doesnt count towards encumberance. So at very low levels maybe you wear leather armor (not drastically uncommon in the first place. By 4th or 5th level you can at least aford muleback cords, and also a handy haversack that outright solves the problem.
With no food, water, bedroll, torches, rope, or other standard adventuring gear, your 10 str character is carrying around 36 lbs. A waterskin or silk rope or bedroll or two days of rations puts him into medium encumbrance.
And he will still do significantly less damage than a strength-based, two-handed weapon wielder.
No, he wont. Slightly less, maybe. But the basics of the numbers are
2handing a greatsword 2d6+1.5 strength on a character that cant really afford a 10 dex, as he needs to fill out his armors dex mod and have a reflex save, so he has a lower strength.The dex guy, dual weilding shortswords 2d6+1.5 dex on a dex that will be slightly higher because he can in fact afford a 10 strength, which he can remove as a problem with one of several low cost magic items.
You arent going to find an easy set of parameters to compare the two, but the truth is, the difference in overall damage will be negligable. The dex character will certainly do ENOUGH damage to do his job. And sure hes down 3 feats. But if we cross off power attack for piranha strike, how many feats actually exist that make the two hander better at murdering things? The feat cost stops being a cost after a while.
At low levels, there is still a little back and forth. By 6th level, theres no longer a reason to be a str base character.
Everyone has their own playstyle. Not everyone will abuse the feat.Absolutely true. So like I said. Do the charisma check on your group. How many not sorcerors/paladins/bards have a positive charisma? How many have at least a 10? If you roll, how often is the lowest stat charisma?
If the answer is, its mixed. This feat will be of limited issue.
Though you might want to consider a feat that helps strength based character more mobile, and have a better fort save or something. I think that might even thigns out.
Me, I will stick to having solutions in class instead of feats for dex based characters.
Guess I'm lucky, we rarely see characters with stats lower than ten in my group. INT gets dumped more than CHA at my table...
Of course, we allow Leadership, which may influence things.
Little fast characters was nearly a non-option. If you exempt builds that find a dex-to-damage source then I have seen precisely 0 of them. The two-weapon fighters always went Ranger to avoid needing heavy dex.
There are plenty of things wrong in the system that need re-evaluation with new content but never will see it. It's slightly wonky, but as long as the CRs still match up then there's no problem.
If I had the time to I would rewrite the system such that 2 feats for dex to damage didn't have weird corner cases that are mildly problematic, but for now I'll settle for the fact that this isn't PFS and my players won't create insane and silly builds just to hit those cases, and even if they did they would probably just take that as an opportunity to spend the rest of their resources on utility rather than doubling down on the shtick.
I tell you what. If you trade me a feat that allows strength to fort saves (instead of con) and dex based skills(probably just acrobatics and stealth), and another that negates armor check penalties and reduced spead for medium and heavy armor for having a high strength (lets say 15 plus), I'll concede the dex to damage feat.
Then you have for the most part retained balance, and it will be a pure concept choice.
|
|
Little fast characters was nearly a non-option. If you exempt builds that find a dex-to-damage source then I have seen precisely 0 of them. The two-weapon fighters always went Ranger to avoid needing heavy dex.
There are plenty of things wrong in the system that need re-evaluation with new content but never will see it. It's slightly wonky, but as long as the CRs still match up then there's no problem.
If I had the time to I would rewrite the system such that 2 feats for dex to damage didn't have weird corner cases that are mildly problematic, but for now I'll settle for the fact that this isn't PFS and my players won't create insane and silly builds just to hit those cases, and even if they did they would probably just take that as an opportunity to spend the rest of their resources on utility rather than doubling down on the shtick.
I tell you what. If you trade me a feat that allows strength to fort saves (instead of con) and dex based skills(probably just acrobatics and stealth), and another that negates armor check penalties and reduced spead for medium and heavy armor for having a high strength (lets say 15 plus), I'll concede the dex to damage feat.
Then you have for the most part retained balance, and it will be a pure concept choice.
All of those things, aside maybe from movement speed, are relatively minor. I would give all but the move speed boost for one feat without worry. Str-based fort sounds a lot stronger than it is thanks to the fact that characters with High Str also either have or want high con anyway for HP and usually have high base fortitude.
I rarely consider the movement speed since most people I've seen top themselves out at Mithril Breastplate, which doesn't slow them, or toss on fly speeds from various sources which makes reduced speed a non-issue (even Overland Flight is still 30ft with heavy armor). I will have to concede this facet pushes dex-to-damage (with no limitations) slightly above one feat (even using power attack as the bar-setter).
Perhaps use the heavily restricted dex-to-damage feat and allow a second one to open up two-handed damage bonus or attacking with more than one weapon while using it? Still keep strength penalty, though. Not a problem at my table, but it sounds like it's a problem for others. At least 10 strength is plausible for good melee damage output via skill.
EDIT: The main struggle I would have with giving you your strength-focusing feats is theming it concisely.
It isn't the same at all. There is no mechanical penalty for a low charisma, so anything GMs do to make charisma matter feels like "punishing" the player for tanking a stat they don't care about.
Sure there is a penalty. Its called social interaction. One that is easily bypassed by taking a few ranks in skills, or just plain ignoring it (as many groups do).
Encumbrance is a rule. There is a mechanical penalty for a low strength. You can choose not to follow that rule or house rule it away, but that was your decision to make strength matter less, not the game designer's fault. Saying "encumbrance is too hard to track" is no different than saying "it's too much trouble to keep track of money--just assume the players can buy whatever they want." It's a GM's house rule, and it changes how the game works.
Yes it is a rule, but again its one thats often ignored and also easily bypassed. Mostly because its obnoxious to track.
Studded leather is 20 pounds out of your 10 strength character's 38. That masterwork backpack that got you from 33 to 38 lbs weighs 4 lbs by itself. A short sword is 2 pounds. Need a shortbow for backup? There's another 2 lbs, plus 3 lbs for arrows. Your basic traveler's outfit is 5 lbs.
Worn clothing doesnt count towards encumberance. So at very low levels maybe you wear leather armor (not drastically uncommon in the first place. By 4th or 5th level you can at least aford muleback cords, and also a handy haversack that outright solves the problem.
With no food, water, bedroll, torches, rope, or other standard adventuring gear, your 10 str character is carrying around 36 lbs. A waterskin or silk rope or bedroll or two days of rations puts him into medium encumbrance.
No, he wont. Slightly less, maybe. But the basics of the numbers are...And he will still do significantly less damage than a strength-based, two-handed weapon wielder.
2D6+1.5 DEX?
How does that work? Surely you mean 1D6+DEX, and also 1D6+.5 DEX...
Damage reduction needs to be taken into account on each attack, you don't total it before applying it (unless I'm doing it wrong).
I don't know why I'm still reading this thread. It seems to boil down to a few pertinent points:
a)some people don't want casters involved in the conversation
b)the feat on its own makes melee users slightly more powerful
c)only casters should be allowed to thrive using a single stat
It is point c that really bugs me.
I mean, even IF DEX was all you 'needed' to be martial, it isn't. You need CON. You're going into hand to hand combat!
I made an undead Sorcerer once... CHA as primary stat for casting... AND helps HP. Yay. THAT was an OP build.
Huge disparity between classes. This feat benefits fighters more than casters... casters are already 'broken' compared to fighters, heaven forbid a twf comes CLOSE to how much damage a caster does.
If anything, this feat should be RESTRICTED to fighters, not taken away from them. Give it a BAB requirement or something.
If we are discussing houseruling to balance it, just declare that spellcasters can't take it at all.
Little fast characters was nearly a non-option. If you exempt builds that find a dex-to-damage source then I have seen precisely 0 of them. The two-weapon fighters always went Ranger to avoid needing heavy dex.
There are plenty of things wrong in the system that need re-evaluation with new content but never will see it. It's slightly wonky, but as long as the CRs still match up then there's no problem.
If I had the time to I would rewrite the system such that 2 feats for dex to damage didn't have weird corner cases that are mildly problematic, but for now I'll settle for the fact that this isn't PFS and my players won't create insane and silly builds just to hit those cases, and even if they did they would probably just take that as an opportunity to spend the rest of their resources on utility rather than doubling down on the shtick.
I tell you what. If you trade me a feat that allows strength to fort saves (instead of con) and dex based skills(probably just acrobatics and stealth), and another that negates armor check penalties and reduced spead for medium and heavy armor for having a high strength (lets say 15 plus), I'll concede the dex to damage feat.
Then you have for the most part retained balance, and it will be a pure concept choice.
I sincerely hope that Paizo does something like this. Fighters need more love.
|
Recently started a new ap and the othe GM and I are both players because someone else decided to try thier hand at running the show. A lot of guys showed up with dex builds and as you would suspect our damage output at low levels was pretty bad, but they kept saying wait til lvl 3. When level 3 hit they all took deadly agility and current GM allowed it. That got me reserching the feat.......
I was curious how other feel about it. I am currently in the boat that having so many skils and abilites based off one stat is slightly over power.One of them is a twf and this one feat not only changes his prime damage stat but applys it to his off hand as well? Please send me some advice as I will be running things agian one day should I allow this feat.
If Paizo allows something similar (but limited to holding it with one hand) it, why not a 3rd party version.
Having a Dex built character is no different if he was a Str based character with two weapon fighting (minus the off hand damage). The trade off, I don't have to worry about Dex interfering with my armor.
VS. The Dex based character won't have full plate because it limits their dex mod to AC.
Simple trade offs. BUT just my opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My table plays a lot of Cha-based characters; in current play between 2 campaigns we have a summoner, ninja, bloodrager, paladin, and oracle (plus a fighter, cleric, and alchemist). I think the alchemist might have a Cha penalty but I'm not sure. I played a druid once with higher Cha than Int, and added a human racial +2 to Cha on an Inquisitor because I didn't want a 9 Cha.
Retaining Str penalty to damage would prevent abuse from tiny or diminutive druids and bestiary fixtures.
I do have a problem with getting full Dex to your off-hand as part of the feat, essentially bundling it with Double Slice, since the main downside to Dex-to-Damage is feats. For my current campaign I introduced a similar feat but when two-weapon fighting both weapons are treated as off-hand weapons (must be light, and add only half your Dex to damage). It helps the ninja feel he's contributing, but he still doesn't outfight the Str fighter or the eidolon.
Options to get Str to more things sounds fine to me, especially the feat to reduce or eliminate movement penalties in heavier armour.
To the OP - if no one in your group is feeling unhappy and they're not trivializing encounters, don't worry about it.
If anything, this feat should be RESTRICTED to fighters, not taken away from them. Give it a BAB requirement or something.
Only if you let rogues and monks get it at the same level - they could use some help with the agile fighter concept.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summary of conversation to date:
*** Start of Summary ***
Dex to damage is not Overpowered but allowing it does have the major game effect of devaluing Strength. Dex-based fighters become about as good as Strength-based fighters, leaving little mechanical reason to ever be Strength-based. So long as you are OK with this global change, allowing Dex-to-damage is probably fine.
*** End of Summary ***
Here's an extreme example of Dex-to-Damage as an Exploit [Songbird of Doom]. This obscenity shows what a powergamer can do with Dex-to-Damage. Kudos to this thread's OP, for showing us a brilliant build that abuses Dex-to-Damage.
My personal opinion: I loathe Dex-to-damage and rarely allow it. I am a martial arts aficionado. I observe that a lot of non-martial-artists see a skillful exchange of blows and, not really understanding what they see, interpret it as an agile exchange of blows. I think this is the origin of the whole Dex-to-damage meme. I hate it. I don't think it's overpowered, but I do think it's lame and stupid.
Any feat that allows non-casters even a slim chance to approach the power level of casters should be allowed.
There is no problem with this feat, you shouldn't even have to ask.
Dex does not 'do too much already', anyone arguing against this feat probably doesn't play fighter types...
Casters only need one stat to get bonus spells, harder to resist spells AND more spells per day.
Fighters need CON for HP, STR for combat and DEX for defense. Allow this feat.
Caster need CON for hit point and Fort save, Dex for defense and Reflex save. I've never seen a caster survive with out those two stats above 10 unless we started at 10th level or higher.
A fighter follows the same but instead INT they put it on STR. STR still does little compared to a casting stat though. So the argument stands.
I do like Deadly Agility, especially in my campaign where I houseruled all characters receive Weapon Finesse for free if they meet the prerequisites. I explain why I like it in this post. The only problem I ever had with Dex-to-damage had to do with gish classes. Dex builds offset the weaknesses of gish classes while giving them the combat prowess of martials. This is something Deadly Agility deliberately averts.
Heh. Just realized this is third party.
I don't use third party stuff in my games, thus, due to my own rules, would not allow this feat unless paizo published it.
:D
Conceptually, I still think you should allow it if you use third party stuff...
Anyone else imagine this as Str is the high-school jock who is the star player and suddenly his teammate Dex makes a few good runs and now everyone is talking about Dex so Str is losing his mind because this is all he has when Dex is also got straight As and other stuff going for him?
Because this is how this argument has come off to me. I can literally imagine Str screaming "Don't take this away from it, its all I have!"
Despite allowing this feat (Its really not that bad considering you need two feats to do it) this has been my main argument against Dex to damage. Surely we can open up more creative design space by having dex do something else for damage or effectiveness than just stat replacement. Straight damage is Str's schtick, why does everyone want to hone in on it's territory? This is why I never allow Deadly Agility without also allowing a feat that grants Str to attack rolls on thrown weapons.
That said, why is dex to damage such a huge topic? I've played dex characters since the beginner box and it wasn't until I started going to the forums that its an actual thing and I never had problems with my dex characters when dex to damage wasn't on the table at all and then suddenly dex builds are outright unviable because they don't get this one thing that we all want but will make arguments as to why its still not good enough. I know that I'm not at many tables where we're optimizing the hell out of everything but this is just one of the many problems that I've literally never seen or even talked about outside of these forums making me very curious about how this goes down at other tables.
It also feels wierd, like we're all on the same paradigm of 'get X mod to Y result' that getting dex to damage is the only viable way to make dex viable. You know what I wished for when I ran dex characters in pfs? I wanted more attacks with my rapier, I thought that made sense as opposed to just getting my dex to damage, just doing the same thing Str does. Can we collectively not think of anything else to do with dex that we want? No countering or parrying? No crit range manipulation or extra attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summary of conversation to date:
*** Start of Summary ***
Dex to damage is not Overpowered but allowing it does have the major game effect of devaluing Strength. Dex-based fighters become about as good as Strength-based fighters, leaving little mechanical reason to ever be Strength-based. So long as you are OK with this global change, allowing Dex-to-damage is probably fine.
*** End of Summary ***Here's an extreme example of Dex-to-Damage as an Exploit [Songbird of Doom]. This obscenity shows what a powergamer can do with Dex-to-Damage. Kudos to this thread's OP, for showing us a brilliant build that abuses Dex-to-Damage.
My personal opinion: I loathe Dex-to-damage and rarely allow it. I am a martial arts aficionado. I observe that a lot of non-martial-artists see a skillful exchange of blows and, not really understanding what they see, interpret it as an agile exchange of blows. I think this is the origin of the whole Dex-to-damage meme. I hate it. I don't think it's overpowered, but I do think it's lame and stupid.
Martial art is combo of both agility and strength. The key strength though is core strength not bulging biceps. That keeps your center and maximizes your agility and maximizes the efficiency of strength in blows. How much you can arm curl doesn't matter when your agility and core strength allow you put you weight direct behind the blow in small surface area maximizing you damage.
So I have no problem with dex to damage but I think any feat that allows it should have a prerequisite Str of 13. Nothing worse that seeing a 7 str fighter with dex to damage. That's just stupid.
I'll back deadly agility as soon as we have a way to get strength to AC.
I'd be fine with that if it was capped by max Dex bonus to AC and did not function while raging. Barbarians would benefit from that feat more than other martials, which is a problem imho as they are strongest as-is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The math supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My own play experience supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My reasonable conclusion is: It's not overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2D6+1.5 DEX?
How does that work? Surely you mean 1D6+DEX, and also 1D6+.5 DEX...
Damage reduction needs to be taken into account on each attack, you don't total it before applying it (unless I'm doing it wrong).
There are lots of circumstances that will alter the damage one way or another. As you mentioned, dr can be a factor, but DR can also be bypassed. The dex based character can have a slightly higher dex then the strength based character can have strength, because the strength character also needs enough dex to fill out his armor (to keep the AC comparison roughly equal). Things like debuffs, being disarmed, positioning, will all alter the balance of who does more damage, my point is they are roughly equivalent at their core.
I don't know why I'm still reading this thread. It seems to boil down to a few pertinent points:
a)some people don't want casters involved in the conversation
b)the feat on its own makes melee users slightly more powerful
c)only casters should be allowed to thrive using a single stat
a) full casters dont belong in the conversation because they arent affected one way or another. No one things dex to damage makes a rogue better then a wizard. The issue is what happens to strength based fighting. And ofcourse, partial casters are very much part of this conversation. Many of them will benefit tremendously, as one of their principal problems (multi ability score dependency), is reduced is scope.
b) No it doesnt. It just changes the stat they use. The actual peak effectiveness of a martial character doesnt change at all. All it does is change how its done by default. Currently default is big guy with high strength. This will change the default to high dex character. Thats it. The numbers will change slightly, but not enough to matter when actually compared to whats needed to overcome encounters.
c) I dont even know where this is coming from? Who is arguing for that? Aside from the fact that casters do need at least con and usually some dex to function, I still dont think casters should get away with just one stat. But again, that isnt the question here. Thats a different problem. If you want to talk about caster martial issue, I'm totally on your side. Heck for my game I am re-writing magic as a whole to try and sort out that mess.
But that doesnt have any bearing on this problem. This doesn't ease the caster martial issue, because being mad only changes your chances of success (like if a wizard needed int and wisdom or something) chances of success isnt the problem with caster martial disparity. Its the fact that spells can do too many things when compared to the tools martials have.
The actual issue here is what this change will do AMONG CHARACTERS WHO FIGHT THINGS. Nothing else matters because nothing else changes. Wizards and clerics are still walking miracles/violators of time and space.
It is point c that really bugs me.
I mean, even IF DEX was all you 'needed' to be martial, it isn't. You need CON. You're going into hand to hand combat!
I made an undead Sorcerer once... CHA as primary stat for casting... AND helps HP. Yay. THAT was an OP build.
Huge disparity between classes. This feat benefits fighters more than casters... casters are already 'broken' compared to fighters, heaven forbid a twf comes CLOSE to how much damage a caster does.
As written, no it doesnt benefit fighters more then all casters. Many of those casters also hit things. This feat probably benefits them MORE then it does fighters. Fighters will only change slightly, but those already powerful classes, fighter mage types that get some of the best of both worlds? They will actually see tremendous benefits, as they have one less stat to worry about AND they have the tools to best exploit this new option.
If anything, this feat should be RESTRICTED to fighters, not taken away from them. Give it a BAB requirement or something.
If we are discussing houseruling to balance it, just declare that spellcasters can't take it at all.
Making it a fighter only feat is sort of silly, what about rangers, rogues, etc? They need this just as much, and there is just as large a range of concepts that are neglected. As for saying spellcasters cant take it, how exactly do you define that? I know of no feat in the game that says 'if you can cast spells, you cant take this feat'. Does it apply to a paladin? Does it apply to races with spell like abilities? What about rogues that take the talent to cast cantrips? That is VERY nebulous game design territory, and also goes against every precedent about how feats operate.
If you want to restrict it to certain classes, it should be a class ability, not a feat.
By the way, dont forget, if you make it a fighter feat, numerous other classes, such as the magus count as a fighter for the purpose of qualifying for feats. Are you going to state in the feat specific exemptions for every class you dont want to have it? Doesn't that seam silly to you?
The math supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My own play experience supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My reasonable conclusion is: It's not overpowered.
Just because it isn't overpowered doesnt mean its a good idea. Something that makes fundamental changes to the way fighting works in the game have greater consequences then just the raw amounts of damage you can put out.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing worse that seeing a 7 str fighter with dex to damage. That's just stupid.
I formed my opinions on this topic after GMing for a series of PC fighters with 7 STR and Dex-to-damage.
It's certainly not overpowered. It just breaks my personsal suspension-of-disbelief more than magic spells and fire breathing dragons. Like voska66 said, stupid. Not overpowered, though.
Heh. Just realized this is third party.
I don't use third party stuff in my games, thus, due to my own rules, would not allow this feat unless paizo published it.
:D
Conceptually, I still think you should allow it if you use third party stuff...
This amuses me because Deadly Agility is more well designed and had significantly more playtesting than Slashing Grace (a feat from a hardcover Paizo book). Slashing Grace wasn't playtested at all. The Dex-to-damage property was thrown in at the last minute to make the feat more appealing.
I mean this in a demeaning way. Keeping your campaign to only Paizo material makes things much simpler.
Just because it isn't overpowered doesnt mean its a good idea. Something that makes fundamental changes to the way fighting works in the game have greater consequences then just the raw amounts of damage you can put out.The math supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My own play experience supports the fact that it isn't overpowered.
My reasonable conclusion is: It's not overpowered.
It makes no "fundamental change to how fighting work". It shifts the damage from one stat, to another stat.
At the end of the day you're still rolling a d20 to attack, your weapon dice plus a stat modifier and other s*++ for damage, and doing everything else you would normally do.
This isn't a "fundamental change", it's barely more than a cosmetic one. The only difference you see in a Dex to damage character over a Str one is the former has a higher AC and the latter one has higher damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdote
In my games I allowed Deadly Agility and here is what I've seen
-Str martials deal more damage baseline. They have str*1.5, better power attack, and larger damage die. Out the gate they only need one feat and they get to spend more feats on other options.
-Most strong melee buffs involve increased size and str. These buffs are bad for Dex builds. These buffs also increase damage die and reach.
-A lot of the Dex based characters used Deadly Agility to increase contribution and make viable characters that previously would have been failures.
-The Ninja was now able to contribute in fights vs oozes, elementals, displaced, and true seeing/see invisibility targets.
-The damage they dealt was never extravagant, but it felt like an appropriate contribution.
In terms of reflex save, yes the dex based characters have lots of it. Then again that's not uncommon considering the best martials have decent reflex or just don't care about spells of the reflex variety (Looking at you Rangers, Slayers, Barbarians, and Paladins).
In terms of skills the dex characters were better at dex based skills. This was probably the biggest advantage they had over str characters.
Initiative. At level 1 a 2-4 point difference. At higher levels maybe a 10 point difference. This is pretty significant.. oh wait for martials it really isn't. Yay I won initiative! Time to leave formation and not get hit by the haste buff! Actually time to delay until my Wizard and Cleric go.
AC: At only early and very late levels will a Dex based character have significantly better AC in my experience. At low levels when everyone has a chain shirt. Then suddenly Breastplate happens and the guy with 14 dex has as much AC as the dude with 18 dex+chain shirt. In the case of Full plate and 12 dex (10 AC) it requires dex dude to have 22 dex and a chain shirt.
TL;DR :I've found that Deadly agility mainly allows previously less powerful character concepts to become viable. Main trade off is raw damage/DR penetration for better Dex skills.
People cite muleback cords as making encumbrance moot... They only increase your effective Str by 8 (to 15 if you took a 7, which still isn't that high) and it eats up your shoulder slot, so no cloak of resistance for you (or any other cloak, pauldrons, etc)
TL;DR :I've found that Deadly agility mainly allows previously less powerful character concepts to become viable. Main trade off is raw damage/DR penetration for better Dex skills.
This.
I played a Halfling dex-based fighter in a Legacy of Fire campaign. He eventually dual-wielded kukris with the agile property to give Dex to damage.
The build started off very low in DPR but eventually (level 8+) it increased substatially. It ended up being similar to what a Strength based 2H fighter could do for damage.
There are 2 drawbacks to a Dex based fighter: 1) low damage at early levels. 2) who is going to carry the treasure? There needs to be someone in an adventuring party with the capacity to carry significant weight without getting heavily encumbered. If it isn't the fighter, who is it?
Fighter class skills don't align well with high dexterity, low strength.
Someone above mentioned having parity by giving a feat that grants strength to AC. Which of course already exists, it's called heavy armor proficiency.
Someone above mentioned having parity by giving a feat that grants strength to AC. Which of course already exists, it's called heavy armor proficiency.
That's a horrible feat. Str is the easiest to buff stat in the game.
Con to AC would make more sense though.
Heavy armor proficiency is a terrible feat?
Heavy armor proficiency is a terrible feat?
Yes.
|
|
Heavy armor proficiency is a terrible feat?Yes.
Depends on the character. It rates all the way from "worse than worthless" to "great". Only a fighter with armor training can get the "great" though. Everyone else gets a good or lower. Obviously most arcane casters, monks, etc get a "worse than worthless".
Heavy armor proficiency is a terrible feat?
Both are.
|
|
Since I didn't initially notice that the feat the OP posted does NOT reduce the damage on off-hands, and at least one non-trivial additional benefit of being dex focused was pointed out to me, I rescind my support of using the Deadly Agility feat as-is.
However, I have placed a draft of a 2-feat replacement thereof:
Benefit: You can add your dexterity bonus to damage instead of your strength bonus with weapons with which you may use the Weapon Finesse feat or any class feature that mimics it. If you have a strength penalty, your effective dexterity bonus is reduced by an amount equal to that penalty for the purposes of these damage rolls.
You reduce this bonus to damage in the same manner and circumstance as you would your strength bonus to damage (e.g. -50% for off-hand attacks), but do not increase it for wielding a weapon in two-hands or any other similar circumstance.
You can only apply this feat with a full attack if you pick a single weapon and make all attacks granted by that action with that specific weapon. This does not allow you more attacks than you could normally take with that weapon; for example, a character with TWFing would be unable to apply that feat because it requires the use of more than one weapon. However, a Monk could still make all of their flurry of blows attacks because they can make them all with a single weapon.
The coordination and focus required to use this feat prohibits casting a spell in the same round. If you have already cast a spell this round, you cannot use this feat until the beginning of your next turn. If you have already used this feat, you cannot cast a spell until the beginning of your next turn. The spell Feather Fall is exempt from these restrictions.
Special: A monk may select this as a 2nd level bonus feat. A rogue may select this in place of a rogue talent.
Prerequisites: Improved Weapon Finesse
Benefit: You are no longer restricted to use of a single weapon in a full attack when using Improved Weapon Finesse. In addition, your dexterity bonus to damage is increased in the same circumstances as your strength bonus (e.g. +50% for two-handing a finesse weapon, such as the Elven Curve Blade).Lastly, you can now cast a spell in the same round as using this feat, but you must cast the spell defensively (regardless of other circumstances) and the DC for that concentration check is increased by +5. The spell Feather Fall is still exempt.
Special: A monk may select this as a 6th level bonus feat, but must have Improved Weapon Finesse. A rogue may select this in place of an advanced rogue talent, but must possess the Improved Weapon Finesse feat first.
Add BAB requirements to taste.
OMG those feats are so bad.