|
I do loathe the tendency to say "just make it a feat!" for so many things. That's why I tossed in the bit about monk bonus feats and rogue talents. Others may also qualify for swapping that shtick in. It's not 3 feats at my table since I give weapon finesse for free.
I would like to point out that a dex focus like this is more than a sidegrade. It's a hidden upgrade. You don't upgrade your combat shtick, that's true, but you DO upgrade your initiative, reflex saves, and a couple useful skills. Other benefits are even less obvious, but they exist. A hair too much for one feat, maybe a bit light for two.
Show me a build that abuses this feat.
I mean it.
Show me, with a 15 point buy build.
I've never actually played a 15 point buy used. I've only seen 20 or rolled (effectively 20+ due to method used).
I could probably come up with something that abuses it, but I don't feel like it since I'm not exactly much of a detractor of it anyway. One abuse does not a bad rule make (for home games).
|
|
Show me a build that abuses this feat.
I mean it.
Show me, with a 15 point buy build.
The only thing that is going to abuse the feat is shapeshifters going super small and then murdering whatever it wants with its hummingbird beak.
Though this is nothing that can't already be done with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists.
This has more to do with how the system handles size than anything else.
This is why I tossed in the Str penalty bit, since those small forms also penalize strength. By the time you've negated that penalty you're invested enough in Strength that I say go for it.
It *is* really cheesy though that druids can keep their armor bonus with no drawbacks due to the Wild property.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop using the word "cheesy" in reference to s%+& functioning as intended. It is beyond obnoxious.
No, you should not.
That's two feats that they have to use in order to still not catch up to the damage they could do with Strength. Think about the feats they could have taken instead to do things like improve spells or class abilities.
Oops. I thought the thread title was "should I ban", not "should I allow".
Change my first line to "Yes, you should."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do loathe the tendency to say "just make it a feat!" for so many things. That's why I tossed in the bit about monk bonus feats and rogue talents. Others may also qualify for swapping that shtick in. It's not 3 feats at my table since I give weapon finesse for free.
I would like to point out that a dex focus like this is more than a sidegrade. It's a hidden upgrade. You don't upgrade your combat shtick, that's true, but you DO upgrade your initiative, reflex saves, and a couple useful skills. Other benefits are even less obvious, but they exist. A hair too much for one feat, maybe a bit light for two.
(he then said some other stuff too)
It doesn't give your character new functionality.
Gaining Power Attack lets you trade hit chance for damage. Gaining Two Weapon Fighting lets you make an extra attack with your off hand. Gaining Improved Trip lets you make trip attacks at a bonus and without provoking.
Spending 2+ feats to gain dex to both hit and damage allows you to make standard attacks with stats to back them up.
It isn't new it isn't an upgrade.
You've made an argument that the feat itself allows the build as a whole to have a "hidden upgrade," but none of that relates to the feat itself being a gate to a character being able to function doing standard actions.
I do applaud you for giving Weapon Finesse for free at your table. I've considered doing the same for Weapon Finesse, Power Attack, and Combat Expertise as I see them all essentially as foregone conclusions and the sooner they're given out the sooner most builds utilizing them can move on to interesting feats and therefore interesting gameplay.
Deadly Agility/Improved WF do enable certain things that would not have been possible before, such as an unarmored martial that isn't a monk or natural-armor-based. It also allows TWFing to be truly effective without the need for playing a class that bypasses those pre-requisites, and I'm sure there are other weird hidden "enables". These are not immediately made obvious, unfortunately.
As for the rest, my table is not run like my posts might suggest:
My freebie list contains Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Combat Expertise, Eschew Materials, and Point-Blank Shot. And one skill focus related to the character's background.
Some feat lines have been merged as well to avoid feat taxing, such as the two-weapon fighting line (merged from 3->1) and the vital strike line (also 3->1).
I have a 10 page house-rule document that denotes a lot of small silly fixes, feat tax removals, AoO removal, magic item simplification, and lots of other things. (EDIT: Looks like it's 16 pages now, actually.)
While it is deplorable that feats are often spent on bonuses instead of truly new things, this is the design pattern Pathfinder follows and must continue to follow to remain internally consistent. The feats I propose are not what I would use in my home games as I am far more lenient and tend towards the philosophy that feats should enable new approaches, not simply give bonuses. And that's what these feats effectively are, simple numerical bonuses. they're cheaper than typical for such bonuses due to the catch-up effect, but still numerical.
You are judging the feats I posted here in the context of a home game, but there were not created for that purpose. They were created for a PFS-style "assume the worst" situation.
|
I'm always surprised when this much hubbub comes up about dex to damage. There are tons of ways to get it now (yay you've made a monk with an Agile AoMF), and if it means everyone will stop dipping swashbuckler so much I'm all for it. Mostly I think it can bring a lot of player's characters up to speed earlier (less money, class, or feat investment).
Frankly, I think it makes more sense than an agile weapon.
"This PC not only stabs you, but he can twist the knife (literally) due to his training"
compared to
"umm... magic? *shrugs*"
If you really are worried about the STR vs DEX martial balance, maybe you should add a prerequisite for power attack? Sounds kinda stupid right? Piranha Strike the dex equivalent has one (Sure you'll have weapon finesse anyway, so I'm not really sure why they feel it must be a prerequisite, is it so new players know they take that first?).
|
Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists still frustrates me because the class that should thematically be able to accomplish DEX-damage through training and skill alone is still having to buy his signature flavor in the form of a caster's handiwork.
Further diminishing the monk's flavor as a self-sufficient non-materialistic ascetic adds to that grief.
I am in the first team and my opinion is that unless there is a feat that directly gives strength instead of dex to AC I do not want to see dex to damage.
There's an option like that, it doesn't even require a feat. It's called "I can wear heavier armor without losing the benefits of my main stat even before mithral becomes an option".
Sure, it makes pure DEX TWF builds better, but STR TWF builds aren't much behind, if at all. Even having to take double slice, they are still ahead by one feat.
Adding onto you LoneKnave.
By allowing 3rd party feats from Dreamscarred Press (of which Deadly Agility is), strength 2-weapon fighters already get a boost.Prodigious 2-weapon fighting allows the character to use strength to qualify for 2-weapon fighting feats, count one-handed weapons as light weapons for their off hand weapon, and I think get full power-attack too (not 100% on that one. Going off memory)
As someone considering playing a Bard in a new campaign, this feat excites me. I will likely take it, it looks awesome. I can use my dagger (I like the River Rat trait) and still contribute to combat without being Conan the Bard.Yay!
First you yell: "Give martials love, this is not for casters!" Then you tell us that you want to use it so that your caster is better at combat. Just what I said would be the main issue and which was dismissed.
The Bard is good enough without it. But now he can take one stat out of the equation and be better off in the end.This feat benefits partial casters and casters more because it takes away from their drawback of being MAD.
I am in the first team and my opinion is that unless there is a feat that directly gives strength instead of dex to AC I do not want to see dex to damage.
There's an option like that, it doesn't even require a feat. It's called "I can wear heavier armor without losing the benefits of my main stat even before mithral becomes an option".
Sure, it makes pure DEX TWF builds better, but STR TWF builds aren't much behind, if at all. Even having to take double slice, they are still ahead by one feat.
Yea yea, the heavy armor strawman.
Heavy armor has more drawbacks than needing higher strength, so the comparison is not well thought through. It would be a "legal" comparison without the other drawbacks of heavy armor.
Or, he could just use any of the existing options instead with a bigger weapon to get DEX to damage with. Dagger seems like a stylistic choice.
Also, I chortled at the idea of full casters being MAD, thanks.
EDIT: unless you mean 4/9 and 6/9 under partial casters and casters (meaning 9/9 would be full casters).
I mean casters wanting to melee (because why would I talk about wizards in a thread about weapons?).
So I include melee builds of druids, clerics and oracles into the MAD crowd alongside melee builds of bards, inquisitors, hunters and EK.
How the hell is it a strawman? A character with heavy armor can pretty easily match, or at least approach the AC of a high dex character up until the levels where AC stops mattering.
If you had an STR to AC feat, those characters would have higher AC than the DEX characters always.
If you really want to port some of the DEX stuff over to STR, try something like a "muscle reflex" feat that gives bonus to initiative and reflex saves based on STR instead of DEX.
It is a strawman because it ignored the penalties to skills and movement speed you have by wearing heavy armor that you do not have when wearling light armor with a high dex.
Who gets around that? Fighters (the worst martial class) and some casters like metal oracles.
How the hell is it a strawman? A character with heavy armor can pretty easily match, or at least approach the AC of a high dex character up until the levels where AC stops mattering.
If you had an STR to AC feat, those characters would have higher AC than the DEX characters always.
If you really want to port some of the DEX stuff over to STR, try something like a "muscle reflex" feat that gives bonus to initiative and reflex saves based on STR instead of DEX.
It is a strawman because it ignored the penalties to skills and movement speed you have by wearing heavy armor that you do not have when wearling light armor with a high dex.
Who gets around that? Fighters (the worst martial class) and some casters like metal oracles.
Or, you know, anyone wearing Mithral Celestial Plate at high levels, which is really the only place you're going to see any appreciable difference either way.
Either way, it's not a strawman. Look up the definition of terms before you use them, it saves you some embarrassment.
Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills.
Ok, you're THAT kind of player.
The intelligent kind?
Intelligence is a great thing, however you distribute it every one is of the opinion that he has enough.
Ok, you're THAT kind of player.Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills.
The kind of player that suggests a heavily armored knight is not the usual archetype to be flipping cartwheels or picking pockets and locks?
How scandalous.
Ok, you're THAT kind of player.Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills.
Acrobatics
ClimbDisable Device
Escape Artist
Fly
Ride
Sleight of Hand
Stealth
Swim
Those are the skills have have an armor check penalty. They are all situational to the point that they don't matter 99% of the time, can easily be replaced by easily accessible magic, and/or are bleh in the hands of someone without high dex anyway, so you are likely to fail with them anyway without full rank investment (and maybe even then).
So yeah:
The intelligent kind?
"Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills." Is something fundamentally different to "I wear heavy armor so I will not try to do cartwheels"
Intelligent PCs with heavy armor might learn to swim and/or climb in well enough to survive doing it in armor. Just as an example.
Edit: And Lone knave's statement was a blanket statement about skills. Not just about those penalized by armor.
Edit: And Lone knave's statement was a blanket statement about skills. Not just about those penalized by armor.
I saw it as a given that only skills related to the armor check penalty was what was being referred to. Unless we're talking about Fighter. Poor fighter.
"Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills." Is something fundamentally different to "I wear heavy armor so I will not try to do cartwheels"
Intelligent PCs with heavy armor might learn to swim and/or climb in well enough to survive doing it in armor. Just as an example.
Edit: And Lone knave's statement was a blanket statement about skills. Not just about those penalized by armor.
One shouldn't make snide comments about the lack of another person's intelligence if one lacks the ability to view sentences and posts in context to the larger discussion.
He was the one bringing in intelligence. I just took what was handed me on a silver plate and used it.
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)
It doesn't need to eat up a slot. Shadow Piercings and Magical Tattoos are things. This makes muleback cords 1500gp for Shadow Piercings and 2000gp for Magical Tattoos and you STILL can fit two more shoulder items in the slot... There should NEVER be an issue with having too many items for a slot.
Idea for new Feats:
Shield Brawn
When using a shield, add your STR modifier to the shield AC bonus.
Bad Ass
When wearing medium or heavy armor, add CON modifier to any existing natural AC bonus
Barbarian Awesomeness
If using a two handed weapon, you may now add your STR bonus as a deflection bonus, stacking with any existing bonus. Because AWESOME.
If the character has an armor bonus of 0, double this feats bonus.
Monk Fix
Monks who take this may now perform a free move action each round. This may only be used for movement.
Also, increase CMB by 4 and CMD by 8.
Anyone who says these are 'unrealistic' or don't fit the 'theme' of the game... is playing a caster. If you can cast Time Stop, I can use my strong arms to defend myself. :P
They aren't well thought out, or tested, I literally just pulled them out of thin air right now, but honestly, reading over them, I kinda want to implement them in my game and see how it works.
I realize this post is WAY off topic, but in a way, I think it makes a point: feats that aren't specific to casters, and can buff martial, should generally be allowed. Martials are generally recognized as garbage. Hybrid classes that don't focus as much on STR or CON won't benefit as much from these...
Everyone seems hung up on the comparison of a feat that offers str to ac. Lets try a diffrent comparison. Say a single feat allows a caster to change their prime casting stat ie: a sorcer now uses wisdom instead of chrisma. Would that be a fair swap for just one feat. Thats a bonus to will saves and prception prehaps the best skill in the game?
Of course that is unfair. Casters don't need to get more broken.
You can make a first level sorcerer using cantrips at a 55 foot range to do 1D3+5 rolling on a 4 to hit (touch).
They get worse from there. (scarier, I mean)
I'm not sure if Point Blank is included in that... also, this isn't including 3rd party stuff, which can boost them a lot more as I understand.
I am in the first team and my opinion is that unless there is a feat that directly gives strength instead of dex to AC I do not want to see dex to damage.
There's an option like that, it doesn't even require a feat. It's called "I can wear heavier armor without losing the benefits of my main stat even before mithral becomes an option".
Sure, it makes pure DEX TWF builds better, but STR TWF builds aren't much behind, if at all. Even having to take double slice, they are still ahead by one feat.
Adding onto you LoneKnave.
By allowing 3rd party feats from Dreamscarred Press (of which Deadly Agility is), strength 2-weapon fighters already get a boost.Prodigious 2-weapon fighting allows the character to use strength to qualify for 2-weapon fighting feats, count one-handed weapons as light weapons for their off hand weapon, and I think get full power-attack too (not 100% on that one. Going off memory)
This. I made the argument before that Dex to damage is nothing if str also has some options to be versatile.
This. I made the argument before that Dex to damage is nothing if str also has some options to be versatile.
Would everyone who likes deadly agility allow the feat described by Adam B.?
I can't speak about what the feat really does, because I could not find it. But my guess would be: If it does what he stated it does few people would allow it.
|
Would everyone who likes deadly agility allow the feat described by Adam B.?
This. I made the argument before that Dex to damage is nothing if str also has some options to be versatile.
Absolutely. We had a 20 Str fighter in Curse of the Crimson Throne who was allowed to TWF with bastard swords as if they were light, because he was strong enough that they weren't any harder to use.
I don't think letting this feat in will do much. Two handed fighters are still the top of melee damage per strike. If you go TWF sword and board gives the best advantage of offense and defense, and you need some strength to for the armor, shield, weapons, and so on. This dex feat would twf'ers who use two weapons(not shield), and rely on light armor. It also helps the magus, but it surely not the end of strength based combatants as a choice.
If one feat does all that I feel it's too much.
Prodigious 2-weapon fighting allows the character to use strength to qualify for 2-weapon fighting feats, count one-handed weapons as light weapons for their off hand weapon, and I think get full power-attack too(not 100% on that one. Going off memory)
So it does:
- allows the character to use strength to qualify for 2-weapon fighting feats- count one-handed weapons as light weapons for their off hand weapon
- get full power-attack
Having a feat that allows TWF via strength or one that allows to count a 1-handed weapon as light for off-hand penalties. But all of the above is too much for one feat when compared to what feats normally do.
In a revised feat system where feats are a meaningful and sensible class ability such a feat would be ok.
Everyone seems hung up on the comparison of a feat that offers str to ac. Lets try a diffrent comparison. Say a single feat allows a caster to change their prime casting stat ie: a sorcer now uses wisdom instead of chrisma. Would that be a fair swap for just one feat. Thats a bonus to will saves and prception prehaps the best skill in the game?Of course that is unfair. Casters don't need to get more broken.
You can make a first level sorcerer using cantrips at a 55 foot range to do 1D3+5 rolling on a 4 to hit (touch).
They get worse from there. (scarier, I mean)
I'm not sure if Point Blank is included in that... also, this isn't including 3rd party stuff, which can boost them a lot more as I understand.
So feat os only balanced depending on whom it benifts? So its acceptable to swap prime stars for one feat if your a martial class but not any other to me that dont work. If its balanced anyone one should be able to swap their prime stat, or no one should. Its also the fact that its at the cost of a single feat if the prequistes where stuff maybe i could get on board
Prodigious Two-Weapon Fighting [Combat]
Your great physical might allows you to wield two large weapons with ease.
Prerequisite: Strength 13
Benefit: You may fight with a one-handed weapon in your offhand as if it were a light weapon. In addition, you may use your Strength score instead of your Dexterity score for the purpose of qualifying for Two-Weapon Fighting and any feats with Two-Weapon Fighting as a prerequisite.
This is the feat in question and it does not have the text people are finding questionable. Nothing about boosting power attack for off hands.
Also this feat is pretty cool for Str characters since they have less feats taxed for 2WF compared to a Dex person (Dex person was Weapon Finesse and Deadly Agility, Str person just needs this). Though the Dex person would have advantages of higher dex.
Ehh Double Slice is over rated. It's just a stepping stone to 2 weapon rend in my eyes.
Ok, you're THAT kind of player.Nobody in heavy armor cares about skills.
The kind of player that suggests a heavily armored knight is not the usual archetype to be flipping cartwheels or picking pockets and locks?
How scandalous.
By that same token, its rediculous to think that a tiny waify guy with a pair of butter knives can do comparable damage to someone like the mountain from game of thrones with an unreasonably large sword.
The 'this doesnt fit' comment works both ways.
The comment about strength feats is basically saying that if you are going to give 2 feats that let dex to strength's thing, then there should be feats that lets strength do dex's thing. Though honestly, I'd be satisfied with a feat that removes the armor check and speed penalties for armor and one that lets you add str to dex skills.
And no magic items dont fix this any more then the agile enhancement fixes dex to damage. Not all games have free access to various magic items, or has them at all. If feats do it for dex, they should do it for strength.