None of those are the limitations we're talking about. None of them say, "you don't get 1.5x your Strength when using it two-handed" or even "you only get 0.5x Strength in your off-hand" (which both Fencing Grace and Slashing Grace do allow). They lock the two-handed option out via a completely different set of rules, so they provide no precedent for this discussion.
Agreed, but as people keep bringing them up, it's relevant to show that their supposed "restriction" of not allowing 1.5x Dex to two-handed is only peripheral to the fact that they don't even allow Dex to two-handed AT ALL.
RAW:
.
.
RAI:
This enhancement can only be placed on a melee weapon which is usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.
Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons.
Can't assume that it wasn't intended even though common sense tells us that it was missed in testing.
They really need more power gamers testing their stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW:** spoiler omitted **
.
.
RAI:** spoiler omitted **Can't assume that it wasn't intended even though common sense tells us that it was missed in testing.
They really need more power gamers testing their stuff.
Or, that caveat was intentionally left out, just like the limitation from concealment was removed from the Rogue's Sneak Attack, and ONLY the Rogue's Sneak Attack.
Intentionally giving the Rogue 1.5x Dex to Damage seems to fall in-line with the idea of making the Rogue stand out as a unique and desirable class in PFU.
---
You're also using an effect written by one design team to back up an RAI of the other.
Pathfinder Society, which is where Agile comes from, has an entirely different team behind it than those behind the PRD, and there are a number of instances where PRD and PFS rules butt heads and contradict one another as a result.
RAW:** spoiler omitted **
.
.
RAI:** spoiler omitted **Can't assume that it wasn't intended even though common sense tells us that it was missed in testing.
They really need more power gamers testing their stuff.Or, that caveat was intentionally left out, just like the limitation from concealment was removed from the Rogue's Sneak Attack, and ONLY the Rogue's Sneak Attack.
Intentionally giving the Rogue 1.5x Dex to Damage seems to fall in-line with the idea of making the Rogue stand out as a unique and desirable class in PFU.
---
You're also using an effect written by one design team to back up an RAI of the other.
Pathfinder Society, which is where Agile comes from, has an entirely different team behind it than those behind the PRD, and there are a number of instances where PRD and PFS rules butt heads and contradict one another as a result.
I kinda agree, if the addition of a word negates the effects of a FAQ
Then the addition/removal of a word can be an intentional change in the understood or established effects up to that point.
That's just it I suppose. We have to assume it was let off intentionally until told otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just it I suppose. We have to assume it was let off intentionally until told otherwise.
Now unfortunately I feel both interpretations have valid stands. 1.5 and .5 dex : 1 dex and 1 dex. So it doesn't clear up which to do, just that it's one of them.
It is game balance troll and not "logic" that is the problem. Dex to damage already skews the balance of the attributes and this would just make it worse.No it isn't. The existence of one totally fantasy element doesn't require every other element to be as totally fantasy.
It is a fool's errand to overtly apply "logic" to a fantasy game, and press it even further, for non-casters.Since a post got deleted:
Dex to Damage skews the balance for some classes. SOME. And it leaves most classes intact.
Dex to Damage has existed now for a long time, and even back in 3.5 (where Dex to Damage was more available), Strength was still the go-to-stat for most Melee characters.
Making 1.5x Dex to Damage for EVERYTHING would be crazy, yes, and could cause some issues, but there are three reasons why it's okay for a single Class to have this unique quality:
---
This requires a 3-level dive into Rogue in order to get, and the weapon in question needs to be Finesse-able anyway.
By default, that means that only the Elven Curve Blade and Sawtoothed Sabre are the only two weapons for which this applies.
You forget Spiked Chain. I'll admit it is more suckier option compared to 3.5 version, but it is 2 handed and finesseable.
|
You forget Spiked Chain. I'll admit it is more suckier option compared to 3.5 version, but it is 2 handed and finesseable.
By default, that means that only the Elven Curve Blade and Sawtoothed Sabre are the only two weapons for which this applies.
Sawtooth Saber isn't finessable. It's a one handed weapon, it only counts as light for TWF purposes.
The full list of one&two-handed finessable weapons that can get 1.5 STR (and thus 1.5 DEX) is as follows:
Spiked Chain
Elven Curve Blade
Aldori Dueling Sword
Elven Branched Spear
Estoc
|
|
Sawtooth sabers get brought into this discussion because you can dip swashbuckler or daring champion and then use Slashing Grace to TWF with them at minimal penalties.
Yes, but Slashing Grace stops working if you use the weapon two handed.
Also, Swashbuckler's finesse doesn't make any one handed piercing weapon finessable. It's a class ability that allows you to use finesse with it. But any other ability or weapon enchantment that requires a finessable weapon won't work as you are relying on swashbuckler.
You can't enchant an agile trident, despite the fact that a swashbuckler can finesse it. Likewise, you must choose a legal Weapon Finesse weapon for Finesse training.
In addition, starting at 3rd level,
she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with
Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers).
Sawtooth sabers get brought into this discussion because you can dip swashbuckler or daring champion and then use Slashing Grace to TWF with them at minimal penalties.Yes, but Slashing Grace stops working if you use the weapon two handed.
Also, Swashbuckler's finesse doesn't make any one handed piercing weapon finessable. It's a class ability that allows you to use finesse with it. But any other ability or weapon enchantment that requires a finessable weapon won't work is you are relying on swashbuckler.
You can't enchant an agile trident, despite the fact that a swashbuckler can finesse it. Likewise, you must choose a legal Weapon Finesse weapon for Finesse training.
In addition, starting at 3rd level,
she can select any one type of weapon that can be used with
Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers).
Eh, I'd probably rule that under the "realiable access" clause of feat prerequisites.
If you've got a Falcata with an Effortless Lace on it, and you wanted to take Finesse Training - Falcata, you're fine, so long as the Falcata in question is Finesseable; if you pick up another Falcata that doesn't have a Lace on it, then you don't get the Dex to Damage 'cause you don't also get Finesse.
|
I can see it both ways:
Agile gives us a precedent for a similar but not identical ability, but was not designed by the PDT.
RAW says DEX instead of STR and calls out if an effect would deny STR then you can't use DEX either, possibly inferring just a numerical swap of the two modifiers, using all the CRB rules for how STR interacts with hands on a melee weapon.
-- or --
The assumed incomplete rule very well might be intentional. Add DEX to damage (period no penalty for off-hand) could be the deliberate new status quo for rogues. The much more common dual-wielding rogues get a bonus by eliminating a feat tax (Double Slice) and the rarer 2-handing finesse rogues pay for their more frequent crits and big dice with lower modifiers.
and isn't the whole point of unchained rogue more awesome with less hurdles to jump, but without the power creep of a whole new class?
FAQ requested either way.
Not that this has anything to do with RAW or RAI but if any of you have ever seen japanese weapon demonstrations where middle aged japanese men (equating something on the str 12 range) split iron helms in half you would be a full believer in 1.5x dex damage to 2h weapons.
Speed, precision, weapon design and knowledge of how to use that weapon masterfully can equal any 7' tall brute with a bastard sword.
just 2 coppers for all the people discussing the believability of dex equating str in regards to dealing damage with a weapon.
|
|
Eh, I'd probably rule that under the "realiable access" clause of feat prerequisites.
If you've got a Falcata with an Effortless Lace on it, and you wanted to take Finesse Training - Falcata, you're fine, so long as the Falcata in question is Finesseable; if you pick up another Falcata that doesn't have a Lace on it, then you don't get the Dex to Damage 'cause you don't also get Finesse.
I would too in a home game. For the purpose of what the rules allow, it's clear that it only allows normal finesse weapons.
Allowing Swashbuckler Finesse or Effortless Lace to apply to the selection is a house rule.
Some FAQs are answered pretty quickly after the material is released, usually when the intent is clear to the team (but not to the audience) and the repercussions are bad for the class. Other times it can take years - Simulacrum has been begging for a FAQ ever since the CRB was first published.
How long in general does it take for them to FAQ something like this?
If it gets to be the highest FAQed Item, a week or two. If it doesn't get more FAQs, who knows.
Just my two cents, but the rules here seem crystal clear. You use dex instead of strength. See the word strength? Use the word dexterity instead. Off hand is .5 dex, two hand is 1.5 dex. Where is the confusion again?
Yes, this has not been possible before. This is a new rule, which means new possibilities. Yes, you may think it's overpowered or unrealistic. This doesn't change the rule. The rule says A, you do A. Make any house rules you like, that's your right, but recognize that they are house rules. Play PFS? Then this is how it should be run, whether you like it or not. At least until it's ruled otherwise. Personal preference has no place in RAW discussions.
RAW has a horrible track record for being right in the long run even when it exists. This goes doubly for raw read to your advantage.
Its not "house rule" to notice that every time they add dex to damage they stop this from working and conclude that they don't want this working.
If the ability allowed rogues to replace str with dex, then of course 1.5x damage for 2Hs would make sense. However that is not how the rule is written. The unchained rogue does not have their str replaced by their dex when using Finesse Training. They simply are using the dex mod, instead of the str mod for damage.
I would also agree that this would mean that off hand hits were 1x dex mod, if not for the punitive line at the end of the ability, saying anything that disallows str mod from adding to damage applies to dex. Off hand damage disallows .5 str damage, so it does the same to dex with Finesse Training when twf.
TL:DR
1h 1xdex
twf 1xdex & .5xdex off hand
2h 1xdex
|
|
If the ability allowed rogues to replace str with dex, then of course 1.5x damage for 2Hs would make sense. However that is not how the rule is written. The unchained rogue does not have their str replaced by their dex when using Finesse Training. They simply are using the dex mod, instead of the str mod for damage.
That is what it says. "Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll." What is that other than replacing STR with DEX? If you make a successful melee attack with a Spiked Chain, you deal 1.5 x you Strength Modifier. Finesse Training allows you to replace your Strength modifer with your Dexterity modifier. The weapon applies the 1.5 x the modifier damage as normal because nothing in the ability stops it from doing so, unlike every other previous non-mythic option.
That is what it says. "Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll." What is that other than replacing STR with DEX?
In order of likelihood
1) That they forgot there were a pair of two handed finessible weapons and thought that finessible wouldn't run into this problem.
2) That (dex mod) replaces (strengthmod x1.5) on two handed finessible weapons
3) That the elven curve blade is supposed to give 1.5x dex damage.
Just my two cents, but the rules here seem crystal clear. You use dex instead of strength. See the word strength? Use the word dexterity instead. Off hand is .5 dex, two hand is 1.5 dex. Where is the confusion again?
Yes, this has not been possible before. This is a new rule, which means new possibilities. Yes, you may think it's overpowered or unrealistic. This doesn't change the rule. The rule says A, you do A. Make any house rules you like, that's your right, but recognize that they are house rules. Play PFS? Then this is how it should be run, whether you like it or not. At least until it's ruled otherwise. Personal preference has no place in RAW discussions.
RAW has a horrible track record for being right in the long run even when it exists. This goes doubly for raw read to your advantage.
Its not "house rule" to notice that every time they add dex to damage they stop this from working and conclude that they don't want this working.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Every single time you apply a rule not justified purely by RAW, it's a house rule. Just because you think you have some insight into the minds of the developers, it doesn't make the text on the page change. Just because things have been done differently before, it doesn't make the text on the page change. The text says do A, you do A. If they change it later, go by that, but the fact of the matter is they haven't changed it. Until they do, the words say what they say, they don't spell out an exception (as agile does, something that only goes to prove my point), and thus it's 1.5 dex when two handing.
Just as an aside, rules read in the most advantageous way would be the full dex to each hand interpretation, a combat style that's a natural fit for sneak attackers. But that's not what the rules say. Assuming your opposition's argument is from a position of power gaming is in poor taste.
P.S. House rules are not a bad thing by the way, but they should be understood as what they are, especially for society play. No one should feel inferior for playing by house rules.
Edit: That's why you don't post without reading.
Almost 50 FAQ requests so far. I'm interested in seeing what the devs think of this, although I'm almost positive it'll end up being no 1.5x Dex.
|
|
I would also agree that this would mean that off hand hits were 1x dex mod, if not for the punitive line at the end of the ability, saying anything that disallows str mod from adding to damage applies to dex. Off hand damage disallows .5 str damage, so it does the same to dex with Finesse Training when twf.
That's not what disallowing is.
The exact text is "If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity Modifier." TWF does not, in fact, prevent you from adding your Strength modifier to the damage roll.
An effect that would qualify is this, from the monk of seven forms' lightning finish ability: "At 1st level, as an immediate action, a monk of the seven forms can make a single attack with a manufactured light or one-handed slashing weapon he is currently wielding against any target he has successfully hit at least twice with his unarmed strike during his turn. This attack deals normal damage but without the normal Strength bonus to damage." (bold added) In that instance, the Strength bonus is prevented, so the Dex damage would be as well. The Two Weapon Fighting rules explicitly say you are adding your Strength bonus, albeit at a reduced rate, to the off-hand weapon.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Every single time you apply a rule not justified purely by RAW, it's a house rule.
No. Its not.
A house rule changes the way something works. An interpretation figures out how something is supposed to work.
Raw is a myth. It doesn't exist. There are multiple ways the exact same words can be read. Game balance is an, if not the, important consideration to take into account when deciding between alternate and completely valid readings of a rule.
Just as an aside, rules read in the most advantageous way would be the full dex to each hand interpretation, a combat style that's a natural fit for sneak attackers. But that's not what the rules say. Assuming your opposition's argument is from a position of power gaming is in poor taste.
Its a conflict of interest to both interpret and benefit from the same rule. Thats the problem, and its why there are a lot of really bad arguments for overpowered things. This is a really good argument for overpowered things. Its just not going to hold up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a conflict of interest to both interpret and benefit from the same rule. Thats the problem, and its why there are a lot of really bad arguments for overpowered things. This is a really good argument for overpowered things. Its just not going to hold up.
It's not over powered though. You are still required to put enough STR for power attack to make the 1.5 to dex compare with a two handed STR build as none of the possible 1.5 dex weapons work with piranha strike.
That 13 str on a build that could otherwise be an 8 or 10 is a serious investment and reduces the benefit of dex to damage.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Every single time you apply a rule not justified purely by RAW, it's a house rule.
No. Its not.
A house rule changes the way something works. An interpretation figures out how something is supposed to work.
Raw is a myth. It doesn't exist. There are multiple ways the exact same words can be read. Game balance is an, if not the, important consideration to take into account when deciding between alternate and completely valid readings of a rule.
Just as an aside, rules read in the most advantageous way would be the full dex to each hand interpretation, a combat style that's a natural fit for sneak attackers. But that's not what the rules say. Assuming your opposition's argument is from a position of power gaming is in poor taste.Its a conflict of interest to both interpret and benefit from the same rule. Thats the problem, and its why there are a lot of really bad arguments for overpowered things. This is a really good argument for overpowered things. Its just not going to hold up.
If RAW didnt't exist, the game would be unplayable. Every single rule would be open to interpretation. Heck, if what you claimed was true, language would be a useless pile of uncertainty.
It's not. Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them. Game balance is in fact an important consideration when deciding between valid interpretations, but your interpretation is invalid. It is based solely on balance, and not ambiguity. You are starting with an assumption and trying to shoehorn the rules into fitting it. But the rules simply don't say what you want them to.
You also don't seem to understand my point. The correct interpretation of this rule does not lead to a benefit. Your interpretation leads to a benefit, as it would imply that you get full dex mod on off hand attacks. This would be more optimal on a class that wants to use two weapon fighting because of a large static bonus to damage, such as sneak attack. Please don't misunderstand, YOU are in fact arguing for the more powerful interpretation.
Also I only really play spellcasters, I couldn't have less stake in this argument if I tried :P.
That is what it says. "Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll." What is that other than replacing STR with DEX? If you make a successful melee attack with a Spiked Chain, you deal 1.5 x you Strength Modifier. Finesse Training allows you to replace your Strength modifer with your Dexterity modifier. The weapon applies the 1.5 x the modifier damage as normal because nothing in the ability stops it from doing so, unlike every other previous non-mythic option.If the ability allowed rogues to replace str with dex, then of course 1.5x damage for 2Hs would make sense. However that is not how the rule is written. The unchained rogue does not have their str replaced by their dex when using Finesse Training. They simply are using the dex mod, instead of the str mod for damage.
I understand how mods are added to damage. However Finesse Training does not say that dex replaces str. It simply allows the dex mod to be add damage to certain weapons. Note the difference in wording with Finesse Training and something like the witch hex, Prehensile Hair.
Finesse Training does a specific thing. Expecting it to do more seems to go beyond the scope of the ability. I personally would like to have Finesse Trainin do 1.5x dam with 2h, because I think its cool, but it doesn't work that way as written.
Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them.I have several pages of forum thread to submit in evidence to contradict this statement.
The fact that people can argue over and disagree with an unambiguous fact does not make said fact false, or even ambiguous.
I can probably submit a thousand pages of people arguing for geocentrism across the ages, but it doesn't make heliocentrism any less true.
RAW
Greatsword 2d6 +
1.5*STR
1*DEX
Total
Greatsword 2d6+1*DEX--------------------------------------------------------------------
Also RAW
Greatsword 2d6 +
1.5*STR
- 1*STR + 1*DEX
Total
Greatsword 2d6 + 0.5*STR + 1*DEX|
|
Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them.I have several pages of forum thread to submit in evidence to contradict this statement.The fact that people can argue over and disagree with an unambiguous fact does not make said fact false, or even ambiguous.
I can probably submit a thousand pages of people arguing for geocentrism across the ages, but it doesn't make heliocentrism any less true.
Truth and ambiguity are almost entirely unrelated concepts.
Unambiguous facts may sometimes produce arguments or disagreements, but they are almost never divided into fairly equal camps.
Also, heliocentrism is most definitely ambiguous, even from the perspective of celestial mechanics, as bodies in space orbit each other.
|
|
RAW
Greatsword 2d6 +1.5*STR1*DEXTotal
Greatsword 2d6+1*DEX
--------------------------------------------------------------------Also RAW
Greatsword 2d6 +
1.5*STR- 1*STR + 1*DEXTotal
Greatsword 2d6 + 0.5*STR + 1*DEX
The standard rule is Weapon Damage + (1.5*[STR Modifier])
If you were using a Spiked Chain, the damage is 2d4 + (1.5*[STR Mod])
If you are replacing your Strength Modifier with your Dexterity modifier, the damage is 2d4 + (1.5*[DEX Mod])
You are not changing the properties of two handed weapon. You are simply replacing STR instead of DEX.
Frankly I don't know why I am arguing this. I have no plans on making a two-hander dex unchained rogue, but I do have a TWF Dagger rogue. If I was posting out of self interest, I'd be arguing against 1.5 Dex and for 1*Dex on off-hands.
Not that this has anything to do with RAW or RAI but if any of you have ever seen japanese weapon demonstrations where middle aged japanese men (equating something on the str 12 range) split iron helms in half you would be a full believer in 1.5x dex damage to 2h weapons.
Speed, precision, weapon design and knowledge of how to use that weapon masterfully can equal any 7' tall brute with a bastard sword.
just 2 coppers for all the people discussing the believability of dex equating str in regards to dealing damage with a weapon.
That would be more along the lines of the fighter's weapon training or weapon specialization. Also, they're still technically using strength, it's just that their perfect form allows them to apply their strength very well in that particular movement. It's like how not every super strong guy can throw a good punch, but if you teach a super strong guy to punch well, he'll be much more dangerous than a small guy with the same training. There's a reason that heavyweight UFC fights usually don't last long. Dex to damage to me would be having the accuracy to stab someone in the armpit if they're wearing armor or consistently stab people in the groin or eyes.
Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them.I have several pages of forum thread to submit in evidence to contradict this statement.
Yes, however the disagreement comes nearly universally from a balance or precedent argument, not any ambiguity in the rules themselves. I have yet to read a compelling rules argument that contradicts my viewpoint.
If this was the first time dex to damage was allowed I doubt there would be much discussion. That alone should be highly telling.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Raw is a myth. It doesn't exist.If RAW didnt't exist
The correct interpretation of this rule
You missed his point. Nearly every rule is interpreted. There isn't "one true RAW", since nearly every sentence can have multiple interpretations.
This rule isn't clear enough, so it has multiple interpretations. For example what do you deal on offhand? 0.5 DEX, 1.0 DEX, or 1.5 DEX?
|
|
Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them.I have several pages of forum thread to submit in evidence to contradict this statement.Yes, however the disagreement comes nearly universally from a balance or precedent argument, not any ambiguity in the rules themselves. I have yet to read a compelling rules argument that contradicts my viewpoint.
If this was the first time dex to damage was allowed I doubt there would be much discussion. That alone should be highly telling.
Several other people have been so compelled, however. Yours is not the only perspective here.
To be more specific, the ambiguity is in whether using Dex instead of Strength subjects Dex to the same modifiers that Strength is subject to. The rules are silent on the matter.
Raw is a myth. It doesn't exist.If RAW didnt't exist
The correct interpretation of this rule
You missed his point. Nearly every rule is interpreted. There isn't "one true RAW", since nearly every sentence can have multiple interpretations.
This rule isn't clear enough, so it has multiple interpretations. For example what do you deal on offhand? 0.5 DEX, 1.0 DEX, or 1.5 DEX?
Completely untrue, you're focusing on all the rules you've seen argued, but ignoring the literally hundreds of other rules that are perfectly clear. The clear rules outnumber the ambiguous ones by a huge margin.
The rule says you use dexterity modifier where you would use strength modifier. If it's normally 1x strength, it's 1x dex. If it's normally 1.5x strength, it's 1.5x dexterity. I believe you can answer your own question.
Does the rule on fractions of modifiers change when using dex in place of strength? No, of course not, why on earth would it? There is nothing special about dex as a stat that would change any of the pertinent rules. Replace the word strength with the word dexterity, and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace the word strength with the word dexterity, and there is no ambiguity whatsoever.Except the rules don't say to do that.
The rules are written in Plain English, and the rules of English pretty much rules out any other interpretation.
Under what construct of Plain English does "Use dexterity instead of Strength" allow you to leave things out, add things or change things beyond changing strength for dexterity? It doesn't. Taking that sentence at face value simply means replace strength with dexterity where ever you see it. How is anything else justifiable? It seems to me that the arguments against are founded on peoples own preconceived notions of either what they think it should be, or what it has been until now.I'm not saying 1.5 strength is right, I'm saying until the rule is clarified that is exactly what the rule says right now. Without adding, changing or taking anything away other than exactly what it tells you too.
If RAW didnt't exist, the game would be unplayable.
If RAW IS LAW! was the case the game would be unplayable.
Every single rule would be open to interpretation. Heck, if what you claimed was true, language would be a useless pile of uncertainty.
Some days.
It's not. Some statements are straightforward and unambiguous. This rule is one of them.
It's pretty close.
Game balance is in fact an important consideration when deciding between valid interpretations, but your interpretation is invalid. It is based solely on balance, and not ambiguity.
You are starting with an assumption and trying to shoehorn the rules into fitting it. But the rules simply don't say what you want them to.
I'll admit to more than a little rules lawyering cheese in my reasoning, and to show horning an attempt to get to a particular answer. Its because of what I expect the answer to actually be.
This was partially an attempt to see how well I could shoe horn it... and you're right. its an awefull lot of popped laces. For PFS i'd probably let a player do it, but with a surgeons general warning that this is probably going to change, do not use if nursing pregnant or may become pregnant...
You also don't seem to understand my point. The correct interpretation of this rule does not lead to a benefit. Your interpretation leads to a benefit, as it would imply that you get full dex mod on off hand attacks.
It would not. The rules are seldom consistent and yes I'm being inconsistent as hell here.
This would be more optimal on a class that wants to use two weapon fighting because...
That might be intentional.
Slightly off topic but I don't consider that much of a boost.
It would. I think its a trap though, based on playing, playing with and DMing a large number of rogues...
A rogue requires flanks. Flanks don't always happen.
A two weapon fighter has to hold still. That isn't always possible.
Moving is how you flank.
Getting the two together often requires either a grand celestial alignment of HALLELUJAH proportions.
|
|
The full rules text is "Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier."
First, there is a scalar implicature: by offering specific rules for what happens to Dex when Strength is prevented from applying, the rules imply that other, potentially similar rulings that would link Dex and Str do not apply, because the rule would have been written more broadly if they did.
Second, things that affect Strength modifiers don't automatically affect Dexterity modifiers. There's no "transitive property" built into the system that determines how this kind of substitution works. Obviously, ability penalties are tracked separately, for instance; things that impact the Strength and Dexterity scores are clearly distinct. What makes Strength and Dexterity modifiers so different from Strength and Dexterity scores?
she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier
Is pretty clear
1*dex and 0.5*dex for two weapon fighting and 1.5*dex for two handed finesse weapons.
Additionally the second sentence implies that you treat dex as if it were str for all purposes related to the atk roll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifierIs pretty clear
Once again, I point to the whole rest of the thread to prove that it isn't.