1.5x Dexterity Damage


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's only unclear because Paizo had pulled the football away from us so many times, we think it's always going to be pulled away.

Even after it's place on a punt tee with Lucy nowhere in sight, somehow, it must not be true that we can actually kick it this time.

It may be that this will be FAQed not to work.

But until then, the rules are what they say they are.


Shisumo wrote:

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?

You seem to be chunking the 1.5 strength mod as one entity. It isn't, it's strength mod that is then multiplied. Use dex instead of strength in that case, and you have dex mod, that is then multiplied. The rule for two handing is about a multiplication of the normal bonus, not a replacement of said bonus. When another mod is used instead of the normal mod, it's still multiplied as normal. The instead of in the wording is what clearly shows the substitution.

Let's use algebra as an example.

2y=3

Use x instead of y in the above equation. What does x equal?

Ambiguous? Nope. Should we not multiply the x by 2 in the example? Of course we should! x plainly equals 1.5.

The sentence you referenced is for clarification only. Instead of already implies that it has to be there to begin with. You can't substitute for what isn't there. It is redundant, and I'm assuming added as an attempt to head off rules debates. Unsuccessfully, it would seem.


You could just as easily say you have the str mod, multiply it, and then replace the modified str mod with your dex mod. As there you are still "replacing str with dex" doesn't matter that the str was modified before the change.


Unless clarified otherwise, I'm aligning with the Agile weapon property: No 1.5x Dex to dmg.

Undoubtedly this makes me irredeemably evil, utterly moronic, or both. ;-)


Finesse Training (Ex):
: At 1st level, a rogue gains Weapon
Finesse as a bonus feat. 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). Once this
choice is made, it cannot be changed. 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. The rogue can select a
second weapon at 11th level and a third at 19th level.
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level, a rogue can avoid even magical

Not trying to confuse anyone, but it does read differently just about any time i look at it.

It doesn't say that it replaces the strength modifier. Its, raw, a bonus equal to your dex bonus to damage instead of your strength modifier. That would be 1x dex on an elven curve blade, and 1x dex on something for two weapon fighting.

Which I'd be fine with. Two weapon fighting is underpowered anyway.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It doesn't say that it replaces the strength modifier. Its, raw, a bonus equal to your dex bonus to damage instead of your strength modifier. That would be 1x dex on an elven curve blade, and 1x dex on something for two weapon fighting.

Interesting; I hadn't considered that.

Hopefully this will make it to the top of the FAQ list.

Scarab Sages

The instead of clause makes it a replacement imo. I could be wrong, and as I said, it's better for me personally if it is 1x dex on TWF.

Of course it makes double slice a truly wasted feat if you want two weapon rend.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Not trying to confuse anyone, but it does read differently just about any time i look at it.

It doesn't say that it replaces the strength modifier. Its, raw, a bonus equal to your dex bonus to damage instead of your strength modifier. That would be 1x dex on an elven curve blade, and 1x dex on something for two weapon fighting.

Which I'd be fine with. Two weapon fighting is underpowered anyway.

But doesn't 'instead of' mean 'replace'? They seem to be synonymous to me...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Triune wrote:


Let's use algebra as an example.

2y=3

Your logic is circular. The damage rule says,

Quote:

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Nothing in there tells you what to do with a Dexterity bonus being added to damage. It only refers to Strength bonuses. To put it in your terms, it is not clear that we can simply substitute x for y in the equation because we have no specific reason to permit it, and you are assuming your consequent by positing the question in the first place.

Let's try a different scenario. Let's say that there was a feat that said, "Whenever you make a successful melee attack with a selected weapon, you add +2 instead of your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent you from adding your Strength modifier to the damage roll, you do not add this bonus." How would you handle two-handed fighting then? Or two-weapon fighting, for that matter?


Chess Pwn wrote:
You could just as easily say you have the str mod, multiply it, and then replace the modified str mod with your dex mod. As there you are still "replacing str with dex" doesn't matter that the str was modified before the change.

Except that that would be instead of strength mod AND its multiplier, which is not what the rule says. It says instead of strength mod. The multiplier is separate. The rules for two handing multiply the strength mod you're adding. When you add your dex mod instead, strength is replaced with dex in the appropriate rule. The rule is about multiplication, not strength.

If your view were to be correct, you wouldn't add 1x dex mod instead of 1.5x strength mod. You wouldn't use your dex at all. Because in that case you would only add your dex when you would normally add just your strength bonus, not when you add 1.5x your strength bonus. The replacement event never occurs, so the rule would default to 1.5x strength. This is a non issue though, as you're not adding (1.5xstrength), you're adding strength and multiplying it by 1.5.

Back to a math example, if I were to ask:

A bridge with (some capacity) can support 1.5 cubic meters of steel added to it. Add lead instead of steel. Could it still support the weight?

Your total damage is damage dice plus 1.5 strength modifier added to it. Add dexterity instead of strength. What's your total damage?

Would you ask if it should still be 1.5 in the first example? Then why ask in the second? (Sorry for the math examples, but if I'm ever stuck I like to think of problems in math terms to get to the most direct logical conclusion.)

The 1.5 is the quantity of bonus, not the bonus itself.


Modifying a str bonus doesn't stop it from being the str bonus. 1.5 str is the str bonus for 2H, now replace the str you were going to add to the attack with the dex mod. This is a completely valid way to interpret the RAW. The words can mean this just as easily as they mean your way.


Shisumo wrote:
Triune wrote:


Let's use algebra as an example.

2y=3

Your logic is circular. The damage rule says,

Quote:

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Nothing in there tells you what to do with a Dexterity bonus being added to damage. It only refers to Strength bonuses. To put it in your terms, it is not clear that we can simply substitute x for y in the equation because we have no specific reason to permit it, and you are assuming your consequent by positing the question in the first place.

Let's try a different scenario. Let's say that there was a feat that said, "Whenever you make a successful melee attack with a selected weapon, you add +2 instead of your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent you from adding your Strength modifier to the damage roll, you do not add this bonus." How would you handle two-handed fighting then? Or two-weapon fighting, for that matter?

We permit substitution of x for y because we are told to. That's what "use x instead of y" means. That is what "dexterity modifier instead of her strength modifier" also means. Are you claiming the given math example is ambiguous in what it's asking? I would respectfully disagree. I am not assuming anything, I am simply pointing to an analogous example. Think of it as referencing an already solved proof. I'm not sure where you get circular logic from that, perhaps you could further explain?

To answer your question, it's simple. You would add +3 (1.5x+2) when you two hand it, 2 for the main hand and 1 (0.5x+2) for the off hand when you two weapon fight. Replace all instances of "your strength modifier" with "+2", and the rules work just fine. I fail to see the problem.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Triune wrote:

Back to a math example, if I were to ask:

A bridge with (some capacity) can support 1.5 cubic meters of steel added to it. Add lead instead of steel. Could it still support the weight?

Your total damage is damage dice plus 1.5 strength modifier added to it. Add dexterity instead of strength. What's your total damage?

Would you ask if it should still be 1.5 in the first example? Then why ask in the second? (Sorry for the math examples, but if I'm ever stuck I like to think of problems in math terms to get to the most direct logical conclusion.)

The 1.5 is the quantity of bonus, not the bonus itself.

I almost hate to do this, because it's kind of a "gotcha" thing, but it is actually a good analogy, it just doesn't point where you think it points.

The answer to your first question (and by extension, your second) is "I have no idea," because lead and steel have different specific gravities, so 1.5 cubic meters of steel and the same volume of lead don't weigh anything close to the same amount. We can't treat the two metals the same way, because they are fundamentally different substances with different properties. (Lead masses about 1.5 times what a comparable volume of stainless steel does.)

The same thing basically holds for this discussion. You want to say that adding Dex instead of Strength means that it should be treated the way Strength is. But there's no inherent reason to do so - Strength and Dex aren't the same stat, and things that apply to the one don't automatically apply to the other.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Modifying a str bonus doesn't stop it from being the str bonus. 1.5 str is the str bonus for 2H, now replace the str you were going to add to the attack with the dex mod. This is a completely valid way to interpret the RAW. The words can mean this just as easily as they mean your way.

Except it doesn't say "the strength bonus", it says "her strength modifier", which references a specific number. 1.5x her strength modifier is another number entirely, it is without doubt not the same as her strength modifier. If you go by your interpretation, you can't replace while two handing because "her strength modifier" never comes up, her strength modifier times 1.5 is the only thing that comes up. If you treat them as a single entity, and not a coefficient, the whole system falls apart.

Also, that is not that the language used means. See the math example above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...this is a multi-page argument about whether it's clear or not; I'm pretty sure the question has answered itself...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Triune wrote:


We permit substitution of x for y because we are told to.

No, we aren't. We're told to use x. We are not told that 2x=3 as well.

Triune wrote:
I am not assuming anything, I am simply pointing to an analogous example. Think of it as referencing an already solved proof. I'm not sure where you get circular logic from that, perhaps you could further explain?

"An already solved proof" is what I mean by circular logic. It has not, in fact, been solved. By assuming that 2x=3 as well, then you can "prove" that the two values should be treated the same. But there's no reason to do that. The actual situation is closer to:

2y=3
x=?, unless y=[null], then x=[null]

because that's actually all the information we're given. You're assuming that somewhere in the rules is something that says "Treat a substituted bonus the way the original bonus would be treated," but that rule does not exist.

Triune wrote:
To answer your question, it's simple. You would add +3 (1.5x+2) when you two hand it, 2 for the main hand and 1 (0.5x+2) for the off hand when you two weapon fight. Replace all instances of "your strength modifier" with "+2", and the rules work just fine. I fail to see the problem.

I do give you points for consistency at least.


Triune wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Modifying a str bonus doesn't stop it from being the str bonus. 1.5 str is the str bonus for 2H, now replace the str you were going to add to the attack with the dex mod. This is a completely valid way to interpret the RAW. The words can mean this just as easily as they mean your way.

Except it doesn't say "the strength bonus", it says "her strength modifier", which references a specific number. 1.5x her strength modifier is another number entirely, it is without doubt not the same as her strength modifier. If you go by your interpretation, you can't replace while two handing because "her strength modifier" never comes up, her strength modifier times 1.5 is the only thing that comes up. If you treat them as a single entity, and not a coefficient, the whole system falls apart.

Also, that is not that the language used means. See the math example above.

Cool, then you can't replace while two handing. Since 2H adds 1.5 str bonus and not just a str bonus. Thus it falls under the clause, "If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier." As you are not adding your str mod to a damage roll but the result of some calculation based on your str mod.


Shisumo wrote:
Triune wrote:

Back to a math example, if I were to ask:

A bridge with (some capacity) can support 1.5 cubic meters of steel added to it. Add lead instead of steel. Could it still support the weight?

Your total damage is damage dice plus 1.5 strength modifier added to it. Add dexterity instead of strength. What's your total damage?

Would you ask if it should still be 1.5 in the first example? Then why ask in the second? (Sorry for the math examples, but if I'm ever stuck I like to think of problems in math terms to get to the most direct logical conclusion.)

The 1.5 is the quantity of bonus, not the bonus itself.

I almost hate to do this, because it's kind of a "gotcha" thing, but it is actually a good analogy, it just doesn't point where you think it points.

The answer to your first question (and by extension, your second) is "I have no idea," because lead and steel have different specific gravities, so 1.5 cubic meters of steel and the same volume of lead don't weigh anything close to the same amount. We can't treat the two metals the same way, because they are fundamentally different substances with different properties. (Lead masses about 1.5 times what a comparable volume of stainless steel does.)

The same thing basically holds for this discussion. You want to say that adding Dex instead of Strength means that it should be treated the way Strength is. But there's no inherent reason to do so - Strength and Dex aren't the same stat, and things that apply to the one don't automatically apply to the other.

(I believe density is the term you were looking for, as specific gravity is a ratio and not really applicable here, so I'm gonna assume you put that and go from there.)

Come on now, you're just being intentionally obtuse. You know full well the problem is perfectly solvable, and that the whole nature of the problem relies on the different properties (in this case, density) of the substances. Of course they don't weigh the same amount, that's... the entire point. But assuming you do know the density of the substances involved, or, in the analogous case, the quantity of your strength and dexterity modifiers, there is no issue.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assure you that "I have no idea because the densities are different" is the wrong answer.


The question I have here is WHY a rogue would want to use a two handed weapon, they aren't exactly the stealthiest/most subtle weapons about.


Shisumo wrote:
Triune wrote:


We permit substitution of x for y because we are told to.

No, we aren't. We're told to use x. We are not told that 2x=3 as well.

Triune wrote:
I am not assuming anything, I am simply pointing to an analogous example. Think of it as referencing an already solved proof. I'm not sure where you get circular logic from that, perhaps you could further explain?

"An already solved proof" is what I mean by circular logic. It has not, in fact, been solved. By assuming that 2x=3 as well, then you can "prove" that the two values should be treated the same. But there's no reason to do that. The actual situation is closer to:

2y=3
x=?, unless y=[null], then x=[null]

because that's actually all the information we're given. You're assuming that somewhere in the rules is something that says "Treat a substituted bonus the way the original bonus would be treated," but that rule does not exist.

Triune wrote:
To answer your question, it's simple. You would add +3 (1.5x+2) when you two hand it, 2 for the main hand and 1 (0.5x+2) for the off hand when you two weapon fight. Replace all instances of "your strength modifier" with "+2", and the rules work just fine. I fail to see the problem.
I do give you points for consistency at least.

Actually what I said was "Use x instead of y in the above equation." That's not an ignorable line. It's also not an assumption, it is an instruction, just as the rule is an instruction. This may be where you're getting tripped up. You may be trying to say the analogy itself is weak, that is something else entirely, but circular logic it isn't. If you care for a better analogy, then I'll point you to the second one I used.

You seem to not be understanding though, that the point of the analogies is to show that "instead of" is a perfectly clear term. Not that x=1.5, or that a bridge can't support weight. The point is, you know what the question is asking.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No. "Instead of" is not perfectly clear, because you are taking it to mean, "use X instead of Y and do all the things that you did to Y to X," but it could just as easily mean "use X instead of Y, and since X and Y have no other relationship, stop there."

I respond poorly to personal attacks, so I'm not going to continue this further.


Shisumo wrote:

No. "Instead of" is not perfectly clear, because you are taking it to mean, "use X instead of Y and do all the things that you did to Y to X," but it could just as easily mean "use X instead of Y, and since X and Y have no other relationship, stop there."

I respond poorly to personal attacks, so I'm not going to continue this further.

Yes, but if you substitute a variable in an equation, you don't ignore the rest of the equation. It really doesn't matter is the variables have some sort of relationship or not. The math still has to be done. You can't not multiply x by 3 because it's not related to y. Just as you can't not multiply a dex bonus by 1.5 because it isn't a strength bonus.

As I pointed out above, by your logic you're not using dex instead of strength, you're using dex instead of 1.5x strength, something the rule doesn't allow you to do.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

dragon style rogue might be interesting


So...is it clear that this isn't clear yet? :P


14 sided die wrote:
The question I have here is WHY a rogue would want to use a two handed weapon, they aren't exactly the stealthiest/most subtle weapons about.

'

No rule that says you can't backstab someone with a balistae

Grand Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Modifying a str bonus doesn't stop it from being the str bonus. 1.5 str is the str bonus for 2H, now replace the str you were going to add to the attack with the dex mod. This is a completely valid way to interpret the RAW. The words can mean this just as easily as they mean your way.

Modifying it means it is no longer your Str bonus. If your Str bonus is 2, then 1.5 times your Str bonus is 3, which is, undeniably, not your Str bonus. At no time can you possibly prove that 2 is 3, or vice versa.

From thesaurus.com:
Instead: Synonyms:
rather
alternately
alternative
as a substitute
in lieu
in place of
in preference
on behalf of
on second thought
preferably

As a substitute, in lieu of, in place of, all mean that, you are using Dex in the same fashion as Str.

For those who want to apply the Agile property limitation, where does Finesse Training include the text of that limitation? Is that limitation in any other rules text in Pathfinder?

And, to be honest, that limitation, and the limitation in Piranha Strike, should not exist. IMO, they should be errataed out, rather than applying them to other, new, things, instead.

Agile, and Piranha Strike, are both "better than nothing" but not up to where either of them should be. Not when the preferred alternative to Piranha Strike was getting a 13 Str and taking Power Attack instead. Yuck.

Not to mention that both of them, like Finesse Training, already includes other, incredibly limiting, language already.

Power Attack? The only limitation is a 13 Str.
Piranha Strike? Along with the similar Dex 13 limitation, it is also limited to a subset of weapons, and limits its ability to less than that of Power Attack when using the same weapon.
Why? Is Dex that much more desirable over Str? And carries so many more powerful benefits over Str that you have to be penalized for having a good Dex?

Can you use Piranha Strike as a prerequisite for Improved Sunder instead of Power Attack?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
14 sided die wrote:
The question I have here is WHY a rogue would want to use a two handed weapon, they aren't exactly the stealthiest/most subtle weapons about.

'

No rule that says you can't backstab someone with a balistae

Alas, there is in PF.

Damage: This column gives the damage typically dealt by the engine. If the engine has a special mode of attack or damage, this space is marked by the words “see description.” If the siege engine does not deal any damage, but rather is a tool for getting close to or over fortifications, this entry features a dash (—). Some ranged siege engines can be loaded with special ammunition that affects or overrides the weapon’s typical damage or range. As large and imprecise weapons, siege engines do not deal sneak attack damage or any other kind of precision damage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

I guess i don't understand why it wouldn't be 1.5 dex.

Agile says this:

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.

At this point you can apply 1.5x Dex to damage. Otherwise you wouldnt need to say:

This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons. The agile weapon enhancement can only be placed on melee weapons that are usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

The problem I see is that either people selectively are choosing what rules to believe, or they are choosing to believe that it works just like agile, even though it specifically doesn't say that. The exception in Agile proves the rule. 1.5x Dex works. In order to prevent it, you would need a FAQ/errata to change the wording to be identical to Agile.

You have a rule that shows you need specific wording to prevent 1.5 damage, therefore 1.5 damage is allowed in its absence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Taenia wrote:
You have a rule that shows you need specific wording to prevent 1.5 damage, therefore 1.5 damage is allowed in its absence.

Precisely this.

Specifics are everything, and agile has a specific limitation that this power lacks. Much like buckling your seatbelt, 1.5 dex on an ECB with this power isn't just a good idea...

It's the RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is what Unchained Rogue actually says:

Unchained Rogue wrote:
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.

This is the relevant part (to our discussion) of the text.

Notice that they use the wording "Instead of" to indicate how you switch from strength to dex.

This is what Agile Weapon says:

Archives of Nethys wrote:
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. The agile weapon enhancement can only be placed on melee weapons that are usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

Here they use "In place of" to indicat how you switch from strength to dex.

Can we all agree that "instead of" and "in place of" are basically the same thing? If we can, then wouldn't the disallowing text from agile weapon need to be in Finesse Training for it to be disallowed? Otherwise why have it in agile weapon at all?
I honestly fail to see how it could be interpreted any other way, and from what I've read noone who interpreted it differently have really offered up any rule text to support their interpretation.

Whether or not the rule SHOULD be different is irrelevant in a rules forum. Personally speaking though I honestly fail to see why it should be different.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is not confusing just certain people have preconceived notions of how Dex to damage works. Those arguing against 1.5 Dex must look at outside text, such as Agile or Slashing Grace, and nothing actually in Finesse Training to support their stance. Why? Because if you use text in Finesse Training it shows you swap dex for str period. It's really simple and no reason for paizo to waste page space reiterating how it works.

+1 for 1.5 Dex


I for one predict an FAQ ruling of 0.5x Dex on the offhand and 1x Dex for Two-handing. Not because of how that reasoning has any semblance of sane logic in its justification, but because the alternatives provide too much power creep for official play. I'll be genuinely surprised if this doesn't end like that 1/day Paragon Surge ruling.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

what finesseable weapons can you even two-hand for 1.5 damage? i'm guessing their all elven and thus exotic for most people.


The elven curve blade, the elven branched spear, the aldori dueling sword, the estoc, and the spiked chain. I believe Swashbuckler Finesse would add most one-handed piercing weapons to that list.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:


Can we all agree that "instead of" and "in place of" are basically the same thing? If we can, then wouldn't the disallowing text from agile weapon need to be in Finesse Training for it to be disallowed? Otherwise why have it in agile weapon at all?

I'm pretty sure the inclusion of text does not mean that it is required or not redundant. I'm fairly confident I've seen design posts specifically regarding that, especially in a world with limited character count due to copyfitting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
The elven curve blade, the elven branched spear, the aldori dueling sword, the estoc, and the spiked chain. I believe Swashbuckler Finesse would add most one-handed piercing weapons to that list.

slashing grace doesn't make a weapon finesseable unless you have swashbuckler levels. at which point, why does this ability even matter?

edit: ah, you mean swashbuckler's in general. i misread, yeah i suppose you could two-hand a pick.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
The elven curve blade, the elven branched spear, the aldori dueling sword, the estoc, and the spiked chain. I believe Swashbuckler Finesse would add most one-handed piercing weapons to that list.
slashing grace doesn't make a weapon finesseable unless you have swashbuckler levels.

I'm not talking about slashing grace, I meant a level 1 swashbuckler that also has three levels of unchained rogue.


Xethik wrote:
Lifat wrote:


Can we all agree that "instead of" and "in place of" are basically the same thing? If we can, then wouldn't the disallowing text from agile weapon need to be in Finesse Training for it to be disallowed? Otherwise why have it in agile weapon at all?
I'm pretty sure the inclusion of text does not mean that it is required or not redundant. I'm fairly confident I've seen design posts specifically regarding that, especially in a world with limited character count due to copyfitting.

A world of limited character count actually makes any text written important, which seems to contradict the first sentence of your post.

In any case, you can absolutely state that just because it was spelled out for agile weapon doesn't mean that it has to for Finesse Training, but I would ask you why you'd think that dex is limited from 1.5 dex to damage when two-handing (with a legal weapon)?
See in my head "instead of" and "in place of" is basically the same as saying replacing. And if you replace Strength with Dex then why wouldn't it get multiplied when two-handing? There is no text suggesting that it shouldn't be in the Finesse Training ability.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Lifat wrote:


Can we all agree that "instead of" and "in place of" are basically the same thing? If we can, then wouldn't the disallowing text from agile weapon need to be in Finesse Training for it to be disallowed? Otherwise why have it in agile weapon at all?
I'm pretty sure the inclusion of text does not mean that it is required or not redundant. I'm fairly confident I've seen design posts specifically regarding that, especially in a world with limited character count due to copyfitting.

A world of limited character count actually makes any text written important, which seems to contradict the first sentence of your post.

In any case, you can absolutely state that just because it was spelled out for agile weapon doesn't mean that it has to for Finesse Training, but I would ask you why you'd think that dex is limited from 1.5 dex to damage when two-handing (with a legal weapon)?
See in my head "instead of" and "in place of" is basically the same as saying replacing. And if you replace Strength with Dex then why wouldn't it get multiplied when two-handing? There is no text suggesting that it shouldn't be in the Finesse Training ability.

Ah, but the text isn't always limited. Sometimes, you can fit an extra two or three sentences on a page because there is space. So the reminder text is great when you can get it in (Agile) but you may not have the luxury elsewhere (Finesse Training). Anyways, this is all theoretical. I'm just saying it's not a good argument to use lack of text as proof of intended rules.

Also, I think 1.5 Dex with a two-hander is correct in this case and if it is not, then 1x Dex on off-hand is. So I'm not fighting for my beliefs here.

Sovereign Court

I think the Agile text is a very weak argument for not getting 1.5 Dex to damage. That book is not a core line book and was written several years ago by a different development team.

It's not reasonable to expect people to use the rules in a rather dated non-core book to properly use a new core-line book.

Is it a deviation from prior practics? Well, a little bit, but there wasn't a whole lot of prior practice, just one case. It's not like Finesse Training is the one exception to a a majority, there's only Agile. All the other Dex to damage options couldn't be used 2H anyway, so they don't say anything one way or the other about how to apply Dex to a 2H weapon.

Meanwhile, it's always been possible to get the full +3 power attack bonus while using a Dex to damage weapon in two hands. So apparently "hitting extra hard with two hands" is not at odds with Dex to damage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kaisc006 wrote:

This is not confusing just certain people have preconceived notions of how Dex to damage works. Those arguing against 1.5 Dex must look at outside text, such as Agile or Slashing Grace, and nothing actually in Finesse Training to support their stance. Why? Because if you use text in Finesse Training it shows you swap dex for str period. It's really simple and no reason for paizo to waste page space reiterating how it works.

+1 for 1.5 Dex

First, this is the rules forum, which is why I'm being a stickler for wording.

Text of Finesse Training: 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.

It doesn't say that it "swaps" or anything entirely equivalent (although it's pretty close, so outside the rules forum I wouldn't begrudge paraphrasing that way). It says you add your dex mod instead of you strength mod. I suspect you're correct about the intent, but I don't agree that it's as clear-cut as you're saying without outside rules.

I would agree with you that it was clear if they said "she uses her dexterity modifier instead of her strength modifier to determine damage" or something like that. Instead it directly says we ADD the dexterity modifier instead of the strength modifier. Take out strength and add dexterity and we get .5Str+1Dex. On offhand, the halving is a form of partial prevention, so in a reasonable world we'd add .5Dex. I could easily RAW-torture that to say we're not adding <Strength modifier> so we don't add <Dex modifier> either.

Again, in my games I'd say 1.5Dex on 2HF and 1/.5 on 2WF. But I can't agree that the RAW is clearly in agreement with me (or you) on that.


Xethik wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Lifat wrote:


Can we all agree that "instead of" and "in place of" are basically the same thing? If we can, then wouldn't the disallowing text from agile weapon need to be in Finesse Training for it to be disallowed? Otherwise why have it in agile weapon at all?
I'm pretty sure the inclusion of text does not mean that it is required or not redundant. I'm fairly confident I've seen design posts specifically regarding that, especially in a world with limited character count due to copyfitting.

A world of limited character count actually makes any text written important, which seems to contradict the first sentence of your post.

In any case, you can absolutely state that just because it was spelled out for agile weapon doesn't mean that it has to for Finesse Training, but I would ask you why you'd think that dex is limited from 1.5 dex to damage when two-handing (with a legal weapon)?
See in my head "instead of" and "in place of" is basically the same as saying replacing. And if you replace Strength with Dex then why wouldn't it get multiplied when two-handing? There is no text suggesting that it shouldn't be in the Finesse Training ability.

Ah, but the text isn't always limited. Sometimes, you can fit an extra two or three sentences on a page because there is space. So the reminder text is great when you can get it in (Agile) but you may not have the luxury elsewhere (Finesse Training). Anyways, this is all theoretical. I'm just saying it's not a good argument to use lack of text as proof of intended rules.

Also, I think 1.5 Dex with a two-hander is correct in this case and if it is not, then 1x Dex on off-hand is. So I'm not fighting for my beliefs here.

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from. To me though, leaving the text out on how to handle two-hander/off-hander in this paragraph is a bit like being asked to solve a math equation without having the needed definitions and axioms in place


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i see RAW either means off-hands get 1x dex or two-handers get 1.5 dex, i'd prefer the later option.


dragonhunterq wrote:

It replaces strength, no proviso's, no conditions, no limitations. Until there is an FAQ/errata to the contrary it is a direct 1:1 replacement. If you would get 1.5 strength you get 1.5 dex.

i agree with this man right here

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Ascalaphus we have to be careful using that argument or it leads to the buffet problem (just pick and choose which rules you want to believe and which you don't) Regardless, it is a Paizo product, written by their team and has not been updated in Pathfinder or PFS since written.

And if you go by RAW you can't choose to ignore a Rule that is written, even if you agree or disagree with it. The fact is we have a precedent, that supports one interpretation of RAW. I expect that we will see an Errata to bring it in line but until then, I don't see how we can interpret it any way else.

Lantern Lodge

Berinor wrote:

I would agree with you that it was clear if they said "she uses her dexterity modifier bonus instead of her strength modifier to determine damage" or something like that. Instead it directly says we ADD the dexterity modifier instead of the strength modifier.

From the CRB, Combat Chapter, Damage: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result...When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus.

Getting Started, Strength: You apply your character's Strength modifier to:... Damage rolls with a melee weapon or thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions:.. two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus).

The above text shows Strength modifier and bonus are the same in the context of two-handed fighting.

Finesse Training: 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.

There is no ambiguity here. You can make an argument that you don't like how the rule works but per RAW it is clearly 1.5 Dex.

Xethik wrote:
I'm pretty sure the inclusion of text does not mean that it is required or not redundant.

The core rules text outlines how a rule works, then additional sentences may be necessary when applying limiting factors or exceptions to existing rules.

In the case of limiting factors, Agile: This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons...

In the case of exceptions, Nimble Moves: ...This feat allows you to take a 5-foot step into difficult terrain.

Because there is no existing rule stating you cannot get 1.5 Dex, Paizo does not need to write an exception sentence. Heck, an argument could be made that Agile proves you DO get 1.5 Dex because they needed to apply a limiting factor.


Taenia wrote:

Ascalaphus we have to be careful using that argument or it leads to the buffet problem (just pick and choose which rules you want to believe and which you don't) Regardless, it is a Paizo product, written by their team and has not been updated in Pathfinder or PFS since written.

And if you go by RAW you can't choose to ignore a Rule that is written, even if you agree or disagree with it. The fact is we have a precedent, that supports one interpretation of RAW. I expect that we will see an Errata to bring it in line but until then, I don't see how we can interpret it any way else.

The problem with that logic however is that your working off an assumption still. Your assumption is that they left text out of Finesse Training on accident and meant for it to work like Agile.

The other side is the assumption that it was left out on purpose because it works differently.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

kaisc006 wrote:
You can make an argument that you don't like how the rule works but per RAW it is clearly 1.5 Dex.

Or you can point out that just because that is the interpretation you have for the rules, that isn't the ONLY RAW interpretations possible.

Lantern Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Or you can point out that just because that is the interpretation you have for the rules, that isn't the ONLY RAW interpretations possible.

Then please link text within Finesse Training to other rules to support your stance.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can't link text that's not there, and the absence of such text actually comprises the counterargument. The finesse training RAW does not include specific, explicit rules for how to treat the replacing stat outside of one particular context, a scenario in which Str bonuses would be prevented from applying. Since it tells you there and only there to treat Dex the same way you'd treat Strength, the scalar implicature is that you do not otherwise modify Dex the same way you'd modify Strength.

In essence, the argument goes like this: if we're supposed to just replace Str with Dex in every context and treat them exactly the same way, why only call out this one special and fairly rare corner case? That would have been covered already. Since they did call out this one case to say we should treat Dex like it were Strength when it happens, it follows logically that otherwise we do not treat them the same way.

151 to 200 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 1.5x Dexterity Damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.