Fencing / Slashing Grace errata confusion...


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I was thinking of something more like Mighty Block, "when wielding a shield or other weapon type that can add to AC, you may add your strength modifier to your armor class, instead of your dexterity modifier."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.

Yes please. I really want this, albeit for another reason.

The fantasy archetype of the really strong dude wearing next to no armor is really common. They're all over books and movies and video games forever.

And it's basically impossible to pull this off with any kind of efficancy in Pathfinder because your survivability goes down the toilet if you don't either have high Dex or heavy armor.

I mean I guess you can just pump all your physical stats but that ends up being really inefficient, hard to do without a very high PB or very good luck with your rolls too.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
BadBird wrote:
is that people define 'viable' as 'does as much damage as a strength build would, but can dump STR and benefit from high DEX'.
That's because Strength Builds get the exact same damage [along with the side benefit of being able to carry as much s&+% as they want] WITHOUT paying numerous character resources.

Indeed, the strength-based build saves on some resources; the dex-based build draws some dex-based benefits. I'm not sure how "you need to spend a bit more to make dex-based work, then you get some dex-based benefits" is an example of how such builds 'aren't viable'.

In the example of the curved blade Fighter above, they arguably save two feats on Weapon Finesse and Advanced Weapon Training: Trained Grace, and they have no need of mithral armor (not that the dex-based build must buy mithral; 10,000 for +2AC and -3ACP is just such an awesome bargain that not grabbing it seems peculiar). The dex-based build ends up with a bit stronger or much stronger AC and/or better movement, depending on what armors and Fighter Archetypes we're talking about, and it ends up with substantially better initiative and Reflex. So; better initiative and improved AC and potentially mobility for a couple feats and maybe some cash... this is some kind of rip-off or un-viable burden?

Again, there isn't a 'viability' problem with dex-based. It could be argued that there's an optimization problem with dex-based, but you would have to be pretty obsessive about optimized damage and/or resources to really make that case.

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
In this case PAizo was never comfortable with dex to damage, and the low quality of the slashing/fencing grace feat shows it.

The idea that a feat which lets you completely switch your damage ability from strength to dex with a single one-handed weapon is anything but extremely potent is absurd. Fencing/Slashing Grace is an absolutely colossal boon to all kinds of different builds. It doesn't suck just because it's only amazingly good for some builds.

Snowlilly wrote:

Dexterity pushes a character into ever lighter armor to continue receiving a benefit... The only times you'll see a dexterity based character with a higher AC than a heavy armor wearer are:

1. The strength based character is not invested in AC
2. The dexterity based character is applying a second stat to AC (i.e. class feature).
3. At low levels where spells are effective at providing a surge in AC beyond what a non-caster can afford to match.

You're missing the fact that mithral heavy armor and/or the Armor Training class feature expand the benefits of DEX AC way beyond the norm - a level 11 Fighter with Armor Training 3 and mithral full plate can get a +6 DEX AC.

Besides the potential AC differences in heavy armor users, mithral medium armor doesn't restrict movement, has little-to-no ACP, and is easy to use without any armor proficiency at all, making it an extremely attractive and common choice for all kinds of melee builds. A dex-based character in a mithral breastplate will have a 'basic' 11AC armor bonus, where a normal fullplate character would have 10AC and restricted movement.


Melkiador wrote:
I was thinking of something more like Mighty Block, "when wielding a shield or other weapon type that can add to AC, you may add your strength modifier to your armor class, instead of your dexterity modifier."

And I'd add another feat that lets you choose a weapon type, and add a +1 shield bonus to AC for that weapon. So for two feats, you can get strength to AC for any weapon.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.
I personally, would like Str to thrown weapon attacks.

Well we do already have the Lesser and Greater Belts of Mighty Hurling so we know that it is possible under the magic/physics of the game. Having a feat that duplicates that effect would be great. Something that parallels Weapon Finesse but with prerequisites similar to Slashing/Fencing/Starry Grace, perhaps?

I wrote:

Brawny Thrower (Combat)

You are trained in using your strength to direct your thrown weapons toward your enemies.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Point-Blank Shot, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one kind of thrown weapon (such as the dagger). When throwing your chosen weapon you may use your Strength modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier on attack rolls.

I would love an option like this, and I think the prerequisites, especially limiting the benefits to one weapon type, keep it from being overpowered.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I would say if I was doing a strength to AC feat, it would probably look like this:

Quote:

Armored Might

Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency

Benefit: While wearing heavy armor, the character may add their their strength bonus to armor class rather than dexterity.

Would keep it nice and thematic, and avoid some of the balance concerns by locking out mithril armor. Granted, I'd personally put it medium or heavy to give more classes access to it, and just live with anyone wearing mithril full plate.

This is pretty much genius. Keep it restricted to heavy armor user in order to balance it out. But yeah... marvelous!


Melkiador wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Thematically, dexterity shouldn't add to damage. Strength adding to AC is the same thing.
Thematically, dex to damage makes a lot of sense. Heck, it's turned on by default in DnD5e for finesse weapons, no feats needed.
Explain how it makes sense without confusing dexterity with BAB. Because anything you can say about dex to damage applies much more for BAB to damage.

Your dexterity allows you to place your strikes in more vulnerable areas, or angle your strikes in such a way that they do more damage when they connect.

Or maybe you could ask the DnD5e design team, unless you think they're a bunch of thematic noobs. ;)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Gisher wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
We just need a feat that allows you to add your strength to your armor class, then it won't seem as broken that dex can do everything.
I personally, would like Str to thrown weapon attacks.

Well we do already have the Lesser and Greater Belts of Mighty Hurling so we know that it is possible under the magic/physics of the game. Having a feat that duplicates that effect would be great. Something that parallels Weapon Finesse but with prerequisites similar to Slashing/Fencing/Starry Grace, perhaps?

I wrote:

Brawny Thrower (Combat)

You are trained in using your strength to direct your thrown weapons toward your enemies.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Point-Blank Shot, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: When you take this feat, choose one kind of thrown weapon (such as the dagger). When throwing your chosen weapon you may use your Strength modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier on attack rolls.

I would love an option like this, and I think the prerequisites, especially limiting the benefits to one weapon type, keep it from being overpowered.

I don't like this one. Aiming should stay a thing based on dexterity. Like encumbrance being a thing based on STR. Now, low dex people can overcome their carrying capacity weakness via magic items, so for high STR people who somehow find themselves in the less enviable situation of having to throw stuff instead of smacking people physically, then something like an improved seeking weapon that lets you bridge your low dex gap up to say, 18 DEX, is what we should have (maybe it already exists? but what I'm thinking of is instead of an item that stacks with your dex like belt of dex, make up 'gloves of quickness' that lets you aim as if you had Dex 18... kinda like we used to have Gauntlets of Ogre power for low STR folks -- bam! you're STR 18/00 now! enjoy!)

Now, a feat that lets you ignore DR or yields more damage on all thrown weapons would be more in line with the higher impact / hits generated by high STR characters.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Thematically, dexterity shouldn't add to damage. Strength adding to AC is the same thing.
Thematically, dex to damage makes a lot of sense. Heck, it's turned on by default in DnD5e for finesse weapons, no feats needed.
Explain how it makes sense without confusing dexterity with BAB. Because anything you can say about dex to damage applies much more for BAB to damage.

Your dexterity allows you to place your strikes in more vulnerable areas, or angle your strikes in such a way that they do more damage when they connect.

Or maybe you could ask the DnD5e design team, unless you think they're a bunch of thematic noobs. ;)

That's a matter of skill and training better represented by various forms of Precision damage, such as sneak attack and precise strike, because that is LITERALLY what those class abilities are supposed to represent.

Dex to damage to 5e is a different beast and the game system is designed on a different frame despite a ton of similarities, with completely different expectations of what a character is capable of with given stats and numbers not having wild variation available in pathfinder, and thematic ties can change between editions.


MusicAddict wrote:

That's a matter of skill and training better represented by various forms of Precision damage, such as sneak attack and precise strike, because that is LITERALLY what those class abilities are supposed to represent.

Dex to damage to 5e is a different beast and the game system is designed on a different frame despite a ton of similarities, with completely different expectations of what a character is capable of with given stats and numbers not having wild variation available in pathfinder, and thematic ties can change between editions.

Or it can be represented thematically by Dex to Damage, literally. As far as the differences with DnD5e, those are game mechanics and balance differences, not thematic differences. You still stick monsters with pointy weapons.

I mean, you're arguing this like it's some sort of objective fact rather than a deeply subjective opinion. Which is odd, because DnD LITERALLY is the baseline thematic yardstick for fantasy roleplaying.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

That's a matter of skill and training better represented by various forms of Precision damage, such as sneak attack and precise strike, because that is LITERALLY what those class abilities are supposed to represent.

Dex to damage to 5e is a different beast and the game system is designed on a different frame despite a ton of similarities, with completely different expectations of what a character is capable of with given stats and numbers not having wild variation available in pathfinder, and thematic ties can change between editions.

Or it can be represented thematically by Dex to Damage, literally. As far as the differences with DnD5e, those are game mechanics and balance differences, not thematic differences. You still stick monsters with pointy weapons.

I mean, you're arguing this like it's some sort of objective fact rather than a deeply subjective opinion. Which is odd, because DnD LITERALLY is the baseline thematic yardstick for fantasy roleplaying.

See, I'm in the camp that I don't mind dex to damage too teribly much in a thematic sense, as long as it's properly tied behind the idea of "heavy skill and training" and isn't effective against foes that DON'T have that kind of weakness(meaning, said dex to damage should be precision damage, but then there'd be all sorts of riots...)

Personal opinion I think Dex to damage should have stayed out of pathfinder in its entirety not because it's mostly thematically inappropriate, but because it's unpleasant to the core of the rules and in my experience has tended to pidgeonhole classes and has twisted a number of classes and builds into a fine mess, because I've seen countless Inspired blade 1/Invesigator x and an endless number of dervish dancing magi, because the quickest and easiest dex to damage overwhelms it all.

The biggest thematic counterpoint I have for dex to damage is that it so often runs afoul of "I need it to fit my theme" and comes up with characters that should lack the strength to handle even the weaker spots in a even a dire beast's hide.

(Edits have been made to better articulate myself, fix my grammatical errors as I've noticed them during second and third reads and my lack of typing anything coherent out for ages still feels like it shows)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Your dexterity allows you to place your strikes in more vulnerable areas, or angle your strikes in such a way that they do more damage when they connect.

Then lets say you have two dex based characters with the same stats and training. Except one has a 5 in strength and one has a 16 in strength, but both have an 18 in dex. How does it make thematic sense that the stronger character wouldn't be doing more damage when hitting these vulnerable areas at perfect angles?

It doesn't make thematic sense that strength wouldn't be a factor when dealing damage. Even if you can hit the perfect spot at the perfect angle, you need to have the strength to do something about it. But also under your logic, the dex to damage should go away any time your target has concealment, because you can't find a pefect spot with a perfect angle if you can't see it.


Rather than a dex to damage feat, it would be more thematically correct to have something like this feat.

Quote:

Dexterous Strikes

You have trained to hit the best spots at the best angles.

Prerequisite(s): Dex 15, Weapon Finesse

Benefit: When wielding a weapon that can benefit from weapon finesse, your attacks with that weapon deal 2 more damage.

This could be followed up with an improved and greater version for 19 and 23 dex.


Melkiador wrote:

Rather than a dex to damage feat, it would be more thematically correct to have something like this feat.

Quote:

Dexterous Strikes

You have trained to hit the best spots at the best angles.

Prerequisite(s): Dex 15, Weapon Finesse

Benefit: When wielding a weapon that can benefit from weapon finesse, your attacks with that weapon deal 2 more damage.

This could be followed up with an improved and greater version for 19 and 23 dex.

We could implement the same kind of feat chain for Power Attack, for much the same reason.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:

Rather than a dex to damage feat, it would be more thematically correct to have something like this feat.

Quote:

Dexterous Strikes

You have trained to hit the best spots at the best angles.

Prerequisite(s): Dex 15, Weapon Finesse

Benefit: When wielding a weapon that can benefit from weapon finesse, your attacks with that weapon deal 2 more damage.

This could be followed up with an improved and greater version for 19 and 23 dex.

We already have an example of something like this "Dex to hit but strength to damage" in the form of Vigilante's Lethal grace, and seeing a weaker scaling( similar scaling to arcane strike) without any penalty other than using both stats seems appropriate, because more than one feat for this kind of damage boost seems inane for any class other than the fighter.


Really I think all we need is an Improved Weapon Finesse feat that lets you sub dex to damage instead of str for finessable weapons.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Really I think all we need is an Improved Weapon Finesse feat that lets you sub dex to damage instead of str for finessable weapons.

But then you add a clause to try to keep people from TWFing and you open up a whole can of worms/sticky rules questions. The development team is clearly worried about letting people base everything on dex, so I doubt they're just going to give us deadly agility.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Really I think all we need is an Improved Weapon Finesse feat that lets you sub dex to damage instead of str for finessable weapons.
But then you add a clause to try to keep people from TWFing and you open up a whole can of worms/sticky rules questions. The development team is clearly worried about letting people base everything on dex, so I doubt they're just going to give us deadly agility.

They did, Mythic Weapon Finesse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Your dexterity allows you to place your strikes in more vulnerable areas, or angle your strikes in such a way that they do more damage when they connect.
Then lets say you have two dex based characters with the same stats and training. Except one has a 5 in strength and one has a 16 in strength, but both have an 18 in dex. How does it make thematic sense that the stronger character wouldn't be doing more damage when hitting these vulnerable areas at perfect angles?

One could raise similar questions about a strength-based fighter with 5 in dexterity vs 16. How is someone that clumsy hitting just as accurately and effectively?

Personally, I've always liked the suggested rules patch of having dex-to-damage still count any strength penalty the character has against their damage.


And any penalty to Dex included in the attack roll?


And someone with poor stamina should run out of energy far faster in the fight and not be able to swing their weapon as often without difficulty.

And someone with greater tactical acumen or situational awareness should be better at spotting holes in their opponent's defenses or using special techniques to better allow them to attack and harm their enemy.

So really every stat except maybe charisma should contribute to your attack and damage rolls!


Snowlilly wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Really I think all we need is an Improved Weapon Finesse feat that lets you sub dex to damage instead of str for finessable weapons.
But then you add a clause to try to keep people from TWFing and you open up a whole can of worms/sticky rules questions. The development team is clearly worried about letting people base everything on dex, so I doubt they're just going to give us deadly agility.
They did, Mythic Weapon Finesse.

So, Paizo thinks having Dexterity to Damage is a Mythic-only benefit.

Gotcha.

I guess that means the Unchained Rogue has Mythic Rules. Almost no table is gonna use it now...


swoosh wrote:

And someone with poor stamina should run out of energy far faster in the fight and not be able to swing their weapon as often without difficulty.

And someone with greater tactical acumen or situational awareness should be better at spotting holes in their opponent's defenses or using special techniques to better allow them to attack and harm their enemy.

So really every stat except maybe charisma should contribute to your attack and damage rolls!

Well, CHA should add to AC for everyone. Nobody wants to mess up a pretty face!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, Paizo thinks having Dexterity to Damage is a Mythic-only benefit.

Gotcha.

I guess that means the Unchained Rogue has Mythic Rules. Almost no table is gonna use it now...

This is the poorest use of logic I've seen all year. Bravo.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Well, CHA should add to AC for everyone. Nobody wants to mess up a pretty face!

Considering that in actual melee combat, feinting and misdirection is key, Charisma should add to both attack and defense.


TOZ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, Paizo thinks having Dexterity to Damage is a Mythic-only benefit.

Gotcha.

I guess that means the Unchained Rogue has Mythic Rules. Almost no table is gonna use it now...

This is the poorest use of logic I've seen all year. Bravo.

I know, right? It's almost like it was supposed to be sarcasm.

Oh wait...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I know, right? It's almost like it was supposed to be sarcasm.

That would be the logic I spoke of.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Well, CHA should add to AC for everyone. Nobody wants to mess up a pretty face!
Considering that in actual melee combat, feinting and misdirection is key, Charisma should add to both attack and defense.

I think the bottom line is that the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder are massively abstracted, which makes how a lot of the stats apply somewhat arbitrary. You could make a pretty reasonable case for any of the big six having an impact on one's prowess in melee combat.

Strength: Need to smash through the opponent's defenses and armor, and hit hard enough to do damage.

Dexterity: Slipping past your opponent's blocks and finding weak points in their armor, striking precisely at weak points and vitals.

Constitution: High-intensity combat is exhausting. Someone who's panting and gasping for breath is no match for someone who can still fight at full effectiveness.

Intelligence: Strategy and brains over brawn. Tactical planning and analysis is the key to defeating your enemies.

Wisdom: To steal some Sun Tzu: "Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."

Charisma: As the previous post said, fainting, misdirection, and mind-games are a major part of melee combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing I am particularly peeved about is that the Vigilante's Lethal Grace is actually an elegant solution to the dex-to-damage problem. It helps make up for Dex based characters having poor base damage, but it still incentivizes strength about as much as archery does.

Of course, the PDT naturally decided to shackle an effective system patch to an extremely narrow subset of characters instead of making it widely available. *sigh*


Snowblind wrote:

The thing I am particularly peeved about is that the Vigilante's Lethal Grace is actually an elegant solution to the dex-to-damage problem. It helps make up for Dex based characters having poor base damage, but it still incentivizes strength about as much as archery does.

Of course, the PDT naturally decided to shackle an effective system patch to an extremely narrow subset of characters instead of making it widely available. *sigh*

Trained Grace Advanced Weapon Training does something that is effectively similar, if a bit weaker at 20 (but with Gloves of Dueling, way more frontloaded than Lethal Grace).


Yeah but if snowblind's problem is that lethal grace is class specific another class specific option doesn't really help.


BadBird wrote:


A basic level 9 Fighter who two-hands an Elven Curved Blade with 14STR and high DEX will do around ~25ish damage, which really isn't that different from the ~30ish damage a strength-based character would be doing. Throw in Trained Grace, and the difference almost completely disappears. The DEX-based Fighter's Armor Training and mithral full-plate means that they're getting several points more AC than the STR-based Fighter, and they have much better initiative.

Even a basic TWF fighter without Advanced Weapon Training who goes 16STR (as opposed to a STR-based TWF Fighter, who needs 17DEX) will end up with quite viable damage rolls - and again, throw in Trained Grace and the damage difference disappears.

This sounds unlikely. I would like to see your example builds.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

I would say if I was doing a strength to AC feat, it would probably look like this:

Quote:

Armored Might

Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency

Benefit: While wearing heavy armor, the character may add their their strength bonus to armor class rather than dexterity.

Would keep it nice and thematic, and avoid some of the balance concerns by locking out mithril armor. Granted, I'd personally put it medium or heavy to give more classes access to it, and just live with anyone wearing mithril full plate.
This is pretty much genius. Keep it restricted to heavy armor user in order to balance it out. But yeah... marvelous!

I don't think it needs to be just Heavy armor. I think Tower Shield should work too (since it restricts Dex just as badly).

BTW, he write "their" twice.

Armored Might
Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency or Tower Shield Proficiency
Benefit: While wearing heavy armor or wielding a Tower Shield, the character may add their strength bonus to armor class rather than dexterity.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Personally, I think two think easier Dex to damage wouldn't be horrible. HOWEVER, I also think all dex based damage should be counted as precision damage, giving it downside and risk as well.


Starbuck_II wrote:


I don't think it needs to be just Heavy armor. I think Tower Shield should work too (since it restricts Dex just as badly).
BTW, he write "their" twice.

Armored Might
Prerequisite: Heavy Armor Proficiency or Tower Shield Proficiency
Benefit: While wearing heavy armor or wielding a Tower Shield, the character may add their strength bonus to armor class rather than dexterity.

Frankly I think the armor restriction is wholly unnecessary to begin with. Heavy armor (for non-fighters) basically already has the idea of low/limited dex baked into the class feature, so it has minimal impact either way.

And as I said before, high strength light armor is all kinds of garbage right now, so I don't really see why the feat needs to protect against the option.


While we're discussing ideals, I find the game works better when the only 'stat' that affects attack and damage is BAB.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
While we're discussing ideals, I find the game works better when the only 'stat' that affects attack and damage is BAB.

I feel like that's going to require a considerable requirement since if Strength doesn't help you fight, beyond "do you have enough to carry your stuff" it's not very useful then. You'd have to either give STR better skills associated, remove magical solutions for climbing, swimming, etc., or make the game revolve more around opening stuck doors or lifting rusty portcullises, etc.


It does require a significant rework. I use Strength for encumbrance and strength checks, dex for init, int for aknowledges... Very minimalist regarding the application of ability scores.


No Dex to AC? How does that work out for you?

Monsters would be a pain in the *ss to rebalance.


I use a static AC formula based on level and armor, supplemented by feats or level powers.

No monster rebalancing, I use their battle statistics as written.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I use a static AC formula based on level and armor, supplemented by feats or level powers.

No monster rebalancing, I use their battle statistics as written.

? You add monster STR to attack and damage, but not for PCs?

What about NPC humanoids in general?

Seems like dumping str and dex is no big deal then, does CON still add HP? Do WIS/INT/CHA boost save DCs and bonus spells?


PC's don't need STR to attack and damage because they get the PC progression of Attack and Damage relative to their Archetype [Heroes get the most, Dabblers get a useful middleground and Mages are heavily reliant on spells.]

NPC humanoids are either humanoid monsters pulled out of the books with their own statistics or their NPCs custom crafted according to my own rules, using the same system as the PCs.

Con does not add HP [but is used for Endurance type checks, holding breath, stamina, etc etc etc]

Wis/Int/Cha have no effect on save DCs and Bonus Spells [but are kept as 'maximum spell level which can be cast.']


kyrt-ryder wrote:

PC's don't need STR to attack and damage because they get the PC progression of Attack and Damage relative to their Archetype [Heroes get the most, Dabblers get a useful middleground and Mages are heavily reliant on spells.]

NPC humanoids are either humanoid monsters pulled out of the books with their own statistics or their NPCs custom crafted according to my own rules, using the same system as the PCs.

Con does not add HP [but is used for Endurance type checks, holding breath, stamina, etc etc etc]

Wis/Int/Cha have no effect on save DCs and Bonus Spells [but are kept as 'maximum spell level which can be cast.']

So basically, PCs end up with 13's across the board with 14's in their 'important' stats?


I've been using a 3d6 12 times, take the best 6 for ability score generation but any could work.

The math I've worked out to for all the old 'ability score functions' roughly comes out to 16 across the board.


Do you find the reduced importance on stats makes MAD characters more powerful?


kyrt-ryder wrote:

PC's don't need STR to attack and damage because they get the PC progression of Attack and Damage relative to their Archetype [Heroes get the most, Dabblers get a useful middleground and Mages are heavily reliant on spells.]

NPC humanoids are either humanoid monsters pulled out of the books with their own statistics or their NPCs custom crafted according to my own rules, using the same system as the PCs.

Con does not add HP [but is used for Endurance type checks, holding breath, stamina, etc etc etc]

Wis/Int/Cha have no effect on save DCs and Bonus Spells [but are kept as 'maximum spell level which can be cast.']

This sounds like a massive system overhaul. Would you consider making a compilation of the changes? I'm really curious to see what you've done.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Do you find the reduced importance on stats makes MAD characters more powerful?

It makes MAD not exist.

G-T Waifu: that makes two people this week wanting to see, I think I'll go public with my rules soon.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Do you find the reduced importance on stats makes MAD characters more powerful?

It makes MAD not exist.

G-T Waifu: that makes two people this week wanting to see, I think I'll go public with my rules soon.

Yeah, I realize that. I'm asking if it makes the characters that typically rely on multiple stats more powerful. Paladins generally aren't expected to start with 18 STR/CON/WIS/CHR, and are balanced appropriately. Wizards are assumed to start with an 18 (or 20) INT.

So it seems to me that a class like Paladin would gain a lot more under your system than a class like Wizard.


If you're asking if this system helps the characters most in need of help, the answer is yes.

In a system where stats are not applied to attacks and defenses, abilities like Smite* and Divine Grace and Monk's AC boost don't exist either, characters have those characte resources freed for other things.

*Smite is an interesting case necause part of it [a flat nonus relative to level] fits my vision but the rest [stat-based, alignment-based] does not.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Paladins generally aren't expected to start with 18 STR/CON/WIS/CHR, and are balanced appropriately. Wizards are assumed to start with an 18 (or 20) INT.

So it seems to me that a class like Paladin would gain a lot more under your system than a class like Wizard.

I'm not sure that's actually true though. It's reasonably consistent that the more SAD a character is the better off they tend to be and vice versa.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fencing / Slashing Grace errata confusion... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.