|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when the Villain Codex was released I was quite happy to hear that it included the new feat "Two-Weapon Grace". Finally, I thought, a Dex-to-damage build for two-weapon fighting that might provide viable builds to stay up to scratch with a two-handed fighter. Y'know something in line to how the Advanced Class Guide tried to patch up One-handed Dex fighter builds.
Quick note: when I say "fighter" I don't mean the class, it's more a reference to the build.
But I revisited that feat this week and was distraught to find that I'd misread it initially, and that it actually imposes a further -2 penalty to attack rolls when used. WHY? Why would you even make this feat if you're going to just add this egregious cost to what is already a feat-heavy build?
I crunched the numbers, and it turns out that you can get maybe 2 damage per hit extra, compared to a strength-based-damage two-weapon fighting build. I apologize for all the hyphens by the way, I swear I'm trying to use them correctly. The problem is that this extra 2 points of damage, comes at the cost of even more feats to make it work.
And feats are only one of the costs associated with two-weapon fighting. The simple fact is that you are less likely to hit on a per-attack basis. Sure, in the long run you land more blows, but your damage-to-attack ratio is way off compared to every martial character who swing a greataxe or a falchion. This problem is only exacerbated as DR becomes the norm for enemies you face up against. DR punishes two-weapon fighters twice as hard, because the little damage they put out gets soaked up that much faster.
The last big cost of two-weapon fighting is the monetary cost. You now have two weapons to maintain and upgrade instead of one. When single-weapon fighters are reaching their +5 enhancement bonus, the two-weapon fighter is still struggling to make ends meat to make sure both their weapons are at a +4.This once again makes DR a bigger problem for the two-weapon fighter.
Now in case it wasn't obvious, I LOVE two-weapon fighters, or rather, the concept of two-weapon fighters. I have three of them in PFS, heck one of them is high enough a level to take on the seeker arc. But they simply underperform at a table when paired with some schlub waving about his oversized hurtstick with two-hands.
Some of the arguments I've seen for nerfing two-weapon fighting is that bonuses are more pronounced, like a rogue's sneak attack, a ranger's favored enemy bonus, or a bard's inspire courage. IF this is the reasoning behind it then I feel unconvinced. My rogue has never landed more than one sneak attack in a round, inspire courage doesn't really help enough with DR issues, and favored enemy is too situational.
I'd really like to know why two-weapon fighting is designed to perform so poorly, I'm probably missing something rudimentary, but I just can't see it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, two things really. One is that Paizo is exceedingly cautious/restrictive about dex-to-damage and especially about combining dex-to-damage with anything else.
The other is that bonuses to attacks really are that pronounced. Whether it's sneak attack, favored enemy, bardic inspiration, rage (with double slice), studied target (slayer) or studied combat (investigator); there are a lot of ways to get damage to every attack you make.
The irony is that the classes you think of as natural 2WF users (fighters, rogues), actually aren't that great at it. Rangers/slayers (using weapon style feats to bypass Dex requirements and going full-strength) and investigators (using studied combat) are much better at it.
But yeah, I agree that it's an unloved option.
|
First off, this is only for dex based non-fighters, non-rouges, and non-Rangers. Fighters are better off using dex to hit, str to damage, and using Trained Grace. UnRouges don't need it at all because of finesse training.
Rangers and Slayers are better off being str-based and using combat style to gain the TWF feats.
So this does help TWF dex builds that have a dex focus. There are ways to offset the penalties, but you would be more accurate without it. Its an option that may be useful for some builds.
Couldn't you just dip three levels in Unchained Rogue, saves feats, but does cost three levels.
To answer the OP, it's more DEX combat they hate that TWF. :P
Sadly, I think the feat is more for the line "If you attack without using your off-hand weapon, you can use the aforementioned feats despite your other hand being occupied" than TWF. Now you can have things in your off hand. This should allow it to work with Spell Combat.
To answer the OP, it's more DEX combat they hate that TWF. :P
Sadly, I think the feat is more for the line "If you attack without using your off-hand weapon, you can use the aforementioned feats despite your other hand being occupied" than TWF. Now you can have things in your off hand. This should allow it to work with Spell Combat.
No magus in their right mind will take this feat, however. They just don't have the feats to support it in a timely matter, and one of them is completely redundant. It's basically Dervish Dance or it's nothing.
No magus in their right mind will take this feat, however. They just don't have the feats to support it in a timely matter, and one of them is completely redundant. It's basically Dervish Dance or it's nothing.To answer the OP, it's more DEX combat they hate that TWF. :P
Sadly, I think the feat is more for the line "If you attack without using your off-hand weapon, you can use the aforementioned feats despite your other hand being occupied" than TWF. Now you can have things in your off hand. This should allow it to work with Spell Combat.
You're thinking of a character starting at 1st but I've seen plenty of games start higher. A 5th level character can have the feat.
As to TWF being redundant, not really. If something shuts down your casting, you can use it as a backup and it can be used with ranged/thrown weapons. Not super useful but not redundant.
So while it's true Dervish Dance is the normal way for the magus, someone is going to go this route JUST to have a dex magus that doesn't have to have a scimitar like every other dex magus clone...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because dex already supports initiative, AC, a saving throw, and a half dozen adventure supporting skills. No games designer in their right mind is eager to increase the supremacy of dexterity more than already exists.
They hate TWF because in the contest of Full attack V full attack it has the best numbers possible for the full attack.
Lv20 paladin attacks of 20/15/10/5 for dX+y*1.5
lv20 paladin attacks of 18/18/13/13/8/8/3 half for dx+y half for dx+y/2
Add a nice CHA of lets say +10 when smiting to accuracy, and the 20 damage per hit and just base we have
Lv20 paladin attacks of 30/25/20/15 for dX+y*1.5+20
lv20 paladin attacks of 28/28/23/23/18/18/13 half for dx+y+20 half for dx+y/2+20
at lv20 the typical CR20 AC is 36 and CR23 is 40. Throw in the +5 weapon and a +10 str and we get
45/40/35/30 against cr 20 3 hits auto land and 1 needs a 6. vs boss 2 auto hit and I need a 5 and 10 to hit.
v
43/43/38/38/33/33/28 against cr 20 4 hits auto land and I need 3,3,8 for 3 more hits. vs boss it's 4 hits auto land and I need 7,7,12
*Auto land means hits on a 2.
Since you have this HUGE attack roll steroid and even bigger damage per hit steroid the DPR you can put out on a smited full attack is INSANE, and much bigger than a THW. (this is why archer paladin's are so mean, basically TWF at range) I'm auto hitting at least twice as much and likely hitting more times than you possibly can. And the +20 damage PER HIT means I'm getting at least 40 sometimes 60 more damage a round, pre crits.
Because it's cool
Because dex already supports initiative, AC, a saving throw, and a half dozen adventure supporting skills.
So slightly less than Cha can modify? :P
Cha = Initiative, AC, all saving throws, all talking skills, all knowledge skills, CMD, casting stat, hit, dam... Somehow game designers seem eager to increase the supremacy of cha MORE than already exists as they keep adding things that use it. Why are they not "in their right mind" for cha but 'sane' for dex?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If people would just stopping thinking of TWF as a generic option any schlub could take, and think of it as a okay option in the right hands (fighters with trained grace, slayer/rangers who can ignore the dex prereq, URogues which can be fully dex based, etc) then TWF is a good option (or at least competitive) option.
But not every class is capable of supporting it well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that reality has any place in a discussion of Pathfinder's rules... but in the real world Two-Weapon Fighting techniques are notably inefficient and ineffective.
The most notable examples of Two-Weapon Fighters I can think of were using their odd-hand weapon as a substitute for a Buckler (or for similar defensive purposes).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I understand, most warriors would enter the battlefield with a shield and a one-handed weapon because having a good shield was significantly better than having an extra weapon, of course the shield could also be used as a weapon (besides just blocking).
Pathfinder doesn't really simulate this well either.
Imagine if shields gave you something besides a static AC bonus, like a miss chance. Or even an opportunity to use an AoO to block an attack from the enemy, something like parry mechanics. The truth is it would be much too powerful to just give away to everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah they could have easily double, or tripled the Base AC bonus from shields and not significantly upset the balance of the system. But that would have made the system less backwards compatible, which was an important goal early on.
The most notable examples of Two-Weapon Fighters I can think of were using their odd-hand weapon as a substitute for a Buckler (or for similar defensive purposes).
Main-gauche, trident daggers and sword breakers where often paired with a fencing weapon like a rapier or sabre. The off hand weapon was generally used to parry and trap the opponents weapon while the main hand to attack.
Other examples are a backsword and dagger, Eskrima [knives and sticks/clubs], kendo [two swords are an allowed style], Wing Chun and butterfly swords, ect. Having seen people using two weapons at a time that knew what they where doing, it wasn't "inefficient and ineffective". It just takes more time to learn than a weapon or shield.
Having to spend years training is part of what makes a style inefficient, and supposedly justifies the massive feat taxes imposed by Pathfinder. Also several of your examples were exactly the notable examples I was talking about. The Main-Gauche and Sai in particular were what I was imagining as I wrote.
It is certainly one of the reasons why bows were eventually replaced by crossbows and firearms in warfare. Historically they weren't considered to be much more effective weapons, they just took less time to train people to use... although IIRC both crossbows and firearms were notable for generally being better at piercing plate armor, that element isn't so well represented by Pathfinder.
Shields are seriously underappreciated by the Pathfinder Ruleset. Humans have used shields in warfare for most of our history, and continue to do so today. A good shield can have a greater impact on your survivability than good body armor.
|
Because dex already supports initiative, AC, a saving throw, and a half dozen adventure supporting skills.So slightly less than Cha can modify? :P
Cha = Initiative, AC, all saving throws, all talking skills, all knowledge skills, CMD, casting stat, hit, dam... Somehow game designers seem eager to increase the supremacy of cha MORE than already exists as they keep adding things that use it. Why are they not "in their right mind" for cha but 'sane' for dex?
Most of that requires one or more of:
Using a subpar (though brilliantly thematic and I LOVE IT) weapon.
Worshipping a specific goddess while exactly her alignment, so no Paladins here, not even Gray ones.
Dropping a feat to utilise both of the above.
Taking levels in one of two specific classes, one of which can have debilitating penalties for dipping and the other of which is notoriously character-restrictive and denies you the goddess above.
Being dead (you didn't mention HP but yes it can be for HP too).
So it's not exactly an easy option. If you want to have some sort of hyper-specific undead Oracle build that keys Cha to literally everything, then you TOTALLY can, but you can't be anything else but that Oracle. Also you'll be restricting yourself a lot, which is bad form for a Desna follower.
In addition, if you only get SOME of these, you're still investing in one of the more class-specific ability scores.
SO! It's possible, but not exactly game-breaking.
(A direction that I really do like on the whole Dex-attacking thing is the Lethal Grace/Trained Grace option. Giving you bonuses for using quick, accurate strikes while still using your strength to deal damage, just like in real-life martial arts. Good on ya, Paizo.)
|
|
although IIRC both crossbows and firearms were notable for generally being better at piercing plate armor, that element isn't so well represented by Pathfinder.
Your entire post is insightful and I completely agree.... with everything except this bit about crossbows. Well, you're correct at close-range, to be sure, but at any kind of long range, a bolt had much less stopping and piercing power than a good armour-piercing arrow because a bolt had much less mass.
What you say about shields is also correct for everyone not wearing full-plate. The reason why full-plate was so amazing was that it WAS a wearable shield. You could hew at your enemies with a halberd all day and not worry about arrows so much... That's also a reason why shields were so useful, btw. Duck under a shield and that sun-blocking volley will just be absorbed by your now significantly heavier shield, because the archers don't get to wind around your guard like a sword-user would.
Plate armour did the same, except that there's no guard to wind around. Plate armour effectively made you immune to slashing damage and near-immune to piercing unless your opponent could render you immobile. Bludgeoning could hurt eventually... if it could get through all those layers of gambeson underneath the armour. Even high-power bodkin-pointed arrows didn't do much because it was expertly shaped to deflect the force of an arrow. You were effectively an unstoppable, expensive tank, until some bright spark came up with the idea of accelerating lead to supersonic speed directly in front of your face. Goodbye several millennia of constantly improving armour technology, hello gunpowder.
Not that reality has any place in a discussion of Pathfinder's rules... but in the real world Two-Weapon Fighting techniques are notably inefficient and ineffective.
The most notable examples of Two-Weapon Fighters I can think of were using their odd-hand weapon as a substitute for a Buckler (or for similar defensive purposes).
For medieval warfare, sure. For duelling, it was about as effective as any other fighting style, just significantly more difficult to learn over using a shield. They were used fairly similarly, in fact, usually by parrying blades using both blades crossed and then alternating blades for strikes when opportunities arise. Shields were equally as effective as both weapons and defence. It was most notable as a sign of skill, but was reasonably functional as a duelling technique.
So you'd be insane to try this on a battlefield, particularly when armies would rely so heavily on shield walls and defensive formations against enemy missiles (not just arrows, but javelins, axes and all sorts of stuff) and an enemy formation using spears, but in scenarios that adventurers will encounter it can be more functional.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that reality has any place in a discussion of Pathfinder's rules... but in the real world Two-Weapon Fighting techniques are notably inefficient and ineffective.
The most notable examples of Two-Weapon Fighters I can think of were using their odd-hand weapon as a substitute for a Buckler (or for similar defensive purposes).For medieval warfare, sure. For duelling, it was about as effective as any other fighting style, just significantly more difficult to learn over using a shield. They were used fairly similarly, in fact, usually by parrying blades using both blades crossed and then alternating blades for strikes when opportunities arise. Shields were equally as effective as both weapons and defence. It was most notable as a sign of skill, but was reasonably functional as a duelling technique.
So you'd be insane to try this on a battlefield, particularly when armies would rely so heavily on shield walls and defensive formations against enemy missiles (not just arrows, but javelins, axes and all sorts of stuff) and an enemy formation using spears, but in scenarios that adventurers will encounter it can be more functional.
If it's harder to learn for merely about-the-same functionality, then it is an inferior style.
HOWEVER, Pathfinder is forgiven in this for requiring superhuman levels of co-ordination for the better forms of Two-Weapon-Fighting, since this actually does make sense. The reason it's so hard in real life is because your body is trying to throw its weight in two completely different ways at the same time, while co-ordinating the positions of two blades that get in each others' way while still doing the standard back-and-forth observing your opponent and checking your own technique WHILE trying to keep yourself alive... you actually need superhuman dexterity to do it effectively, or WAY too much training to be truly effective. This is why it's feat-heavy and points-heavy in Pathfinder, because it's nigh-impossible for a regular human to be striking at full strength that much while keeping any modicum of accuracy.
You can file this under Pathfinder-Fighters-Are-Already-Superhuman, by the way. Just in case anyone tries to tell you that they always have to be 100% realistic. They should follow some sense of in-universe consistent realism, but they should also be able to do things that no human should be able to do, because once they're past that level 3-5 mark, they're past anything we know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My last three posts have been, in order:
Entirely about game mechanics. (Except for that parenthetical addendum.)
Entirely about real-world arms and armour.
A consideration of the two and how they should reasonably interact.
Am I... a Nerd? I may have to tell my family.
So it's not exactly an easy option.
Much like dex right? ;)
If you want to have some sort of hyper-specific undead Oracle build that keys Cha to literally everything, then you TOTALLY can, but you can't be anything else but that Oracle.
1 SINGLE level of oracle only. A single level dip is hardly a problem. Note that scaled fist monk also gets CHA to AC/CMD.
Also you'll be restricting yourself a lot, which is bad form for a Desna follower.
Are you? A single level of oracle and a deity choice? That doesn't seem very restrictive to me.
In addition, if you only get SOME of these, you're still investing in one of the more class-specific ability scores.
Why would you only get some? that's like saying you should pick up str options on a dex build.
SO! It's possible, but not exactly game-breaking.
Yes, JUST like dex...
(A direction that I really do like on the whole Dex-attacking thing is the Lethal Grace/Trained Grace option. Giving you bonuses for using quick, accurate strikes while still using your strength to deal damage, just like in real-life martial arts. Good on ya, Paizo.)
I don't see it any more "real life" than other options. "accurate strikes" in game are described as precision damage, which lethal/trained grace isn't.
|
|
although IIRC both crossbows and firearms were notable for generally being better at piercing plate armor, that element isn't so well represented by Pathfinder.Your entire post is insightful and I completely agree.... with everything except this bit about crossbows. Well, you're correct at close-range, to be sure, but at any kind of long range, a bolt had much less stopping and piercing power than a good armour-piercing arrow because a bolt had much less mass.
What you say about shields is also correct for everyone not wearing full-plate. The reason why full-plate was so amazing was that it WAS a wearable shield. You could hew at your enemies with a halberd all day and not worry about arrows so much... That's also a reason why shields were so useful, btw. Duck under a shield and that sun-blocking volley will just be absorbed by your now significantly heavier shield, because the archers don't get to wind around your guard like a sword-user would.
Plate armour did the same, except that there's no guard to wind around. Plate armour effectively made you immune to slashing damage and near-immune to piercing unless your opponent could render you immobile. Bludgeoning could hurt eventually... if it could get through all those layers of gambeson underneath the armour. Even high-power bodkin-pointed arrows didn't do much because it was expertly shaped to deflect the force of an arrow. You were effectively an unstoppable, expensive tank, until some bright spark came up with the idea of accelerating lead to supersonic speed directly in front of your face. Goodbye several millennia of constantly improving armour technology, hello gunpowder.
Actually plate armor was effective against the early firearms. The problems was that to be effective it had to be heavy, personally fitted to the wearer and very pricey.
During the siege of Malta by the Turks plate armored knits were almost invulnerable, but several of them died for heart attacks or heat strokes, as they were unable to rest and refresh during long fights.
i think the designers assume a lower level of optimization than what I tend to see (and probably what most forumites see)
As you increase optimization, the attacks do more damage, combats become shorter and more mobile. In a 6 round fight where round 1 is move up and attack and then twf for 5 rounds twf is pretty good. If your party moved up, kills, moves up, kills, moves up, kills, twf is a waste of a feat. The more damage you do, the more you move towards the latter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Slashing Grace is a horrifically designed mess, and the less feats that interact with it, the better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Slashing Grace is a horrifically designed mess, and the less feats that interact with it, the better.
*golfclap*
This is not about Paizo hating TWF, it's about Paizo hating DEX-to-damage, rightfully so.
I posited my stance on DEX-to-damage for Pathfinder in this thread.
I'm just gonna repost here why I think DEX-to-damage is GOOD for D&D 5E, which in turn is why I think it's wrong for Pathfinder, because it lacks all of these things:
[re[post]
WHY DEXTERITY TO DAMAGE WORKS IN 5E AND NOT IN PATHFINDER
I think that many people who are missing several important points that make STR and DEX balanced in the context of 5E which are not found on Pathfinder. I will proceed to list the ones that I consider important:
- Limited damage: This is a very important one. In DND 5E, damage growth is restricted. Using a 1d8 rapier has an actual drawback when compared to using a 2d6 greatsword because there are no compounding bonuses to damage to trivialize weapon damage. In Pathfinder, at high enough level, a 1d6 rapier will outclass a 2d6 greatsword simply because it has a higher critical range; but even without considering that, weapon damage gets buried below a pile of modifiers quite fast. In 5E, however, damage modifiers are limited as there is no massive stat growth. This makes the choice of weapon have an effect throughout the whole game.
- Limited attribute growth: In 5E, attributes are capped at 20. This makes it easy to calculate how big the benefit of focusing on a given attribute will be for a player for the designers, and they balanced different types of armors around that. In Pathfinder, you have infinite stat growth coupled with stat belts, tomes, several types of temporary buffs and succubus romancing. The way Pathfinder is built allows for single-attribute investments to reach ridiculous levels (which is one of the reasons why full-casters have it so easy in this game). Allowing a player to cheat attribute economy is a munchkin's dream, and having the ability to simply forgo STR in calculations baseline without obsoleting STR builds requires heavy tweaking of the system... in turn, this is tied with the next point:
- Limited applicability of DEX within subsystems: In 5E, DEX is not vital to many subsystems. The best example of this is AC. In 5E, DEX has no bearing to your AC if you go with heavy armor. You may be rocking 7 DEX and take no penalty to AC. Due to limited scaling on skill challenges, proficiency in a skill and a moderate modifier is a good enough way to pass them. Furthermore, while DEX saving throws are very numerous, STR saving throws also exist (even if they are scarce). By contrast, Pathfinder's DEX is a super-attribute, providing bonuses to many skills that have massively inflated DCs to beat, there are no STR saving throws, having low DEX is discouraged for even heavy plate users (hell, Fighters are encouraged to keep 14-16 DEX even while wearing it), and initiative modifiers scale to ridiculous levels.
However, the reasons why DEX-to-damage (and baseline Finesse) work in 5E also belie the fact that without it, Finesse would be unviable for that game. To cite a simple example, if a 5E character had to invest both in STR and DEX in a system with limited attribute growth, they'd be so stat-starved they would not be able to function properly.
[end of repost]
|
|
So it's not exactly an easy option.Much like dex right? ;)
To get Charisma to ALL of those things that Dex already does for free? It's considerably harder than getting Dex to damage, which requires specialisation in one of the better weapons (or some of the less good ones) and two feats. Or three levels in one of the most dip-friendly classes.
If you want to have some sort of hyper-specific undead Oracle build that keys Cha to literally everything, then you TOTALLY can, but you can't be anything else but that Oracle.1 SINGLE level of oracle only. A single level dip is hardly a problem. Note that scaled fist monk also gets CHA to AC/CMD.
All of those things you mentioned cannot, to my knowledge, be achieved with one single level, unless you want to spend all of your feats on the extras (which is simply not worth it). That Monk ALSO gets his Dex (both bonus and penalty) to AC, so you're not replacing the need for Dex, just alleviating it.
Also you'll be restricting yourself a lot, which is bad form for a Desna follower.Are you? A single level of oracle and a deity choice? That doesn't seem very restrictive to me.
Yes, plus using a Starknife for all of your attacks and being rigidly Chaotic Good.
In addition, if you only get SOME of these, you're still investing in one of the more class-specific ability scores.Why would you only get some? that's like saying you should pick up str options on a dex build.
You only get some because getting all of them is considerably difficult. You could absolutely get all of them, but it wouldn't be useful.
SO! It's possible, but not exactly game-breaking.Yes, JUST like dex...
Dex-to-damage could well be game-breaking if given for free. I actually like where it is now, but I much prefer the Lethal/Trained Grace option.
(A direction that I really do like on the whole Dex-attacking thing is the Lethal Grace/Trained Grace option. Giving you bonuses for using quick, accurate strikes while still using your strength to deal damage, just like in real-life martial arts. Good on ya, Paizo.)I don't see it any more "real life" than other options. "accurate strikes" in game are described as precision damage, which lethal/trained grace isn't.
It's more "real-life" (which is not the be-all-and-end-all) because no-one could realistically land a blow without having a measure of co-ordination and no-one could realistically deal much damage with it without putting strength into it. Obviously for some weapons the dexterity is less important (like a mace) and for some it is more important (the rapier), but for all of them they need strength to deal damage. Sure you could slash a jugular for massive damage in theory, but unless you're specialised to do that and have literally superhuman dexterity, you're not going to do that in combat... which is why it should take at least two feats to pull off, realistically, unless your entire life is dedicated to being tricksy and nimble like most Rogues' is.
Game-balance wise, it's trivially easy to get almost everything except skills to run off Dexterity, and rather hard to get as much to run off another skill, though there are a few ways to do so with Charisma.
Actually plate armor was effective against the early firearms. The problems was that to be effective it had to be heavy, personally fitted to the wearer and very pricey.
During the siege of Malta by the Turks plate armored knits were almost invulnerable, but several of them died for heart attacks or heat strokes, as they were unable to rest and refresh during long fights.
Is that so? Fascinating! I shall have to check that out.
As firearms improved, of course, Plate did become useless. I didn't realise it hung on quite so long though.
@Secret Wizard... I actually really agree with most of that. I don't think it SHOULDN'T exist, but I think it should be a challenge that you have to build for.
To be fair, Slashing Grace is a horrifically designed mess, and the less feats that interact with it, the better.*golfclap*
This is not about Paizo hating TWF, it's about Paizo hating DEX-to-damage, rightfully so.
I posited my stance on DEX-to-damage for Pathfinder in this thread.
I'm just gonna repost here why I think DEX-to-damage is GOOD for D&D 5E, which in turn is why I think it's wrong for Pathfinder, because it lacks all of these things:
In that same thread, Secret Wizard, I pointed out that Dex builds are still as powerful in other ways, and they are ranged builds.
Yes hello that's me but frankly that was a year ago so I feel my opinion has matured a bit.
In that I think Dex builds are even worse than I initially thought and that I think most classes that do utilise Dex to damage in some capacity is usually so weak they hardly hold a candle to a well made fighter or some other martial that overwhelmingly uses Strength. While I could say that this is largely due to the restrictions in the feats themselves, I think it's because Paizo have done a good job at releasing content recently that mostly only strength builds can utilise and keeps them strong, while the most recent dex feat is the monstrosity that is Two-Weapon Grace. In the games current state, I think Paizo have achieved a reasonable balance for Dex to damage, and I honestly don't think it needs to be tweaked at all.
It's because that hypothetical power is entirely crammed into the later stages of a Dex builds lifespan, and don't really outclass Strength at all. Swashbuckler is practically the only exception because it has level to damage,but this is entirely late game. If that wasn't there, there is no contest even from modifiers alone. I don't think there is any other martials whose damage modifiers from using only 1x their Dex could outpace a martial using a two-handed weapon and Strength. Remember, falchions are a weapon that exists. They use the same crit modifiers as a rapier, on a better weapon base, using Strength and getting 1.5x strength to damage. Why use a rapier when you could use a falchion?
Magus is and will be the exception here, not because I think it is strong due to builds that use Dex to Damage, but because I think it is redundant to even bring up Magi as an example of why limiting Dex to Damage is necessary or why Dex to Damage shouldn't exist. Because I feel Magus is a damage monster and little else, and they are a spellcaster so they generally can do things other classes cannot. They also do damage regardless of how you build them, since their damage is riding off their spell power. Hence why these restrictions came into effect. Only magus actually abused Dex to damage in the first place. For anyone else, it was just really bad or the classes that did use it were pretty weak already.
And for that reason I seriously don't think URogue is at all indicative of everything wrong with Dex to Damage. I think it is the only option that has done it right because it's a class feature and one locked behind three levels of investment to reach. Finesse Training was the best change they ever made to the Rogue. It has made URogue competitive, and means their damage isn't completely negated after a certain point in their career, and their damage scales whether they are sneak attacking or not, because it's based on their stat investments and not just class features.
They interact better with most abilities and buffs, and they don't suffer from thinly stretched attributes which would detract from their other features. They also have a great deal of freedom in the way they build and what options they take, meaning they aren't as punished for taking options that don't immediately increase their damage, since their class features provide that for them. These were problems throughout Core Rogue's lifespan, and what rendered them completely unable to fulfill the niche they were designed to do. It's why any class that pouched their features or utilized skills better than a rogue was taken over playing a rogue. URogue is the opposite of every problem Dex melee builds suffer from, but on a class that wants to do things outside of just dealing damage. That seems genuinely fair, and gives URogue a unique identity among the other classes.
I don't think your arguments hold water anymore, dude. I don't think it ever really did unless we're talking about Magus, who sort of ruined it for everyone else.
I also still hold the opinion that ranged builds are all the problems you proclaim melee builds cause, but with a great deal more safety and reliability. If Dex to damage builds were such a problem, I'm surprised you don't have anything to say about archers when these discussions come up.
EDIT: Whoops wrong link, and I can't seem to find the post anymore. I thought I had the right link to the swashbuckler breakdown but it turns out it was the wrong one. Oh well.
Threads like this are just so cringe-y. What's next: Why does Chess hate Pawns?
That isn't quite an appropriate analogy. Paizo didn't invent the Two-Weapon Fighting rules whole-cloth, they inherited most of the mechanics from Wizards of the Coast. They've had to make due with the ruleset they adopted ever since. Starfinder will be their first real opportunity to overhaul the ruleset (which is why I am personally so excited to see what they do with it).
|
|
I agree that the Rogue does it best, but I also think that Dex-to-damage SHOULD be difficult for most others because... well... it keys your offence stat to your defence stat. If you have Dex-to-damage, then you already have Dex to weapon-based maneuvers and can easily get it to your other maneuvers. The only things you need Strength for now are climbing, swimming, and carrying stuff, except one of the first items you can get increases your carrying capacity, and once you get a better belt then you can use one of myriad other magical ways to carry stuff. As for climbing and swimming, those are things you can prepare for and easily overcome through spending a little bit of coin or being in a party with a spellcaster.
If you're Strength-based, you still can't dump Dexterity and you have to be conservative with your choices, but a Dexterity-based build can easily dump Strength and then throw everything into Dexterity.
For ranged builds... well, true for the Gunslinger, but every other ranged build I can think of still needs Strength to be effective. Plus the Gunslinger is so hyper-specialised like the Rogue that I think it's good that it gets Dex-to-damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threads like this are just so cringe-y. What's next: Why does Chess hate Pawns?
Because imperialists historically saw lower class folk as either property or bodies they could throw at their enemies to die for them and their political machinations. Chess is just a game of imperialist history! BREAK THE BOARD!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the Rogue does it best,
..on paper.
the problem is that you are not always full attacking. You are not always flanking. The concordance of the two is even rarer than random because you usually get into flanking position by moving. When you look at everything that can go wrong, you need to be full attacking a flanked or flat footed foe that CAN be sneak attacked (they're rarish in the monster manual but scenario and module writers love them) that doesn't have a miss chance on them AND takes your full attack routine to kill. Full round sneaks are amazing when they happen but your typical two weapon fighting rogue doesn't have the resources to make them happen regularly.
|
|
I agree that the Rogue does it best,..on paper.
the problem is that you are not always full attacking. You are not always flanking. The concordance of the two is even rarer than random because you usually get into flanking position by moving. When you look at everything that can go wrong, you need to be full attacking a flanked or flat footed foe that CAN be sneak attacked (they're rarish in the monster manual but scenario and module writers love them) that doesn't have a miss chance on them AND takes your full attack routine to kill. Full round sneaks are amazing when they happen but your typical two weapon fighting rogue doesn't have the resources to make them happen regularly.
Except that there are three separate reliable ways for a rogue to consistently enable sneak attacks without flanking. Improved/Two weapon feint, Enforcer+Shatter Defenses, and Circling Mongoose.
Flagged this for a move, since this isn't really a rules question, it's a rant.
Except that there are three separate reliable ways for a rogue to consistently enable sneak attacks without flanking. Improved/Two weapon feint
costs you an attack and your best attack at that.
this is.. 9th level minimum? Rocket tag is fully in place. If you don't one shot it the party combined will.Enforcer+Shatter Defenses
9th level also i think
and Circling Mongoose.
requires that you keep hitting while using a fighting style that penalizes your attacks.
The only rogue i've had any luck getting full attack sneaks with is a mouser swashbuckler foxform blender flanking from inside the square, because that makes flanking REALLY easy and he has a way to pin people in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and Circling Mongoose.
requires that you keep hitting while using a fighting style that penalizes your attacks.
This is trivialized by Canny Tumble.
Btw:
LV1. TWF, Dodge
LV3. Twist Away
LV5. Canny Tumble
LV7. Mobility
LV8. Spring Attack
LV9. Mongoose
Yes this delays ITWF to 10th level.
To be fair, Slashing Grace is a horrifically designed mess, and the less feats that interact with it, the better.*golfclap*
This is not about Paizo hating TWF, it's about Paizo hating DEX-to-damage, rightfully so.
I posited my stance on DEX-to-damage for Pathfinder in this thread.
I'm just gonna repost here why I think DEX-to-damage is GOOD for D&D 5E, which in turn is why I think it's wrong for Pathfinder, because it lacks all of these things:
[lots of stuff]
I've been running a campaign for 4.5 years with a mixture of Dexterity-based and Strength-based from levels 1 to 17. I made Weapon Finesse a free feat and created a (way better balanced) feat that gives Dexterity-to-damage based on the Deadly Agility feat from Dreamscarred Press's Path of War.
Dex-to-damage is totally balanced as long as:
1) A Dexterity build cannot gain the benefits of two-handing weapons.
2) Gish classes cannot gain the feat at 1st level.
3) Requires a feat.
4) Limited to finesse weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like two weapon fighting IRL is more about "I have a second weapon with which to parry and potentially counterattack" not "I wave both of my arms holding sharp things so as to make more cuts."
I know selective realism is the cause of a lot of problems, but does two-weapon fighting really need to be good? How many characters out there are strong concepts hamstrung by how TWF isn't very good?
Like it genuinely seems that the point of TWF is more "make a bunch more attacks in order to deal even more damage" and less "the fantasy I want to indulge requires me to be able to do this."
To get Charisma to ALL of those things that Dex already does for free? It's considerably harder than getting Dex to damage, which requires specialisation in one of the better weapons (or some of the less good ones) and two feats. Or three levels in one of the most dip-friendly classes.
In the 2-3 feats you for dex to damage, you get cha to hit/dam, Ac, Ref or CMD, and initiative. So YES, it's equivalent to DEX and in fact is a bit better since you could TWF unlike using feats for dex to damage.
All of those things you mentioned cannot, to my knowledge, be achieved with one single level, unless you want to spend all of your feats on the extras (which is simply not worth it). That Monk ALSO gets his Dex (both bonus and penalty) to AC, so you're not replacing the need for Dex, just alleviating it.
It only requires a single level of multiclass. You might need a feat for a feature, like cha to know skills, but in the end you're looking around the same number of feats as dex to damage so again, pretty equivalent.
Feat: Initiative, free: AC - ref or CMD, free: all talking skills, Feat: all knowledge skills, free: casting stat, Feat: hit and dam. So 3 feats: a FAR cry from "all your feats" and equivalent to dex to damage.
Yes, plus using a Starknife for all of your attacks and being rigidly Chaotic Good.
And dervish dance forces scimitar. Or a finessable light or one-handed slashing weapon. Starknife vs those stands up pretty well and can TWF too.
As to alignment, I don't find CG much of a hindrance. We aren't talking LG and paladin type falling here.
Really what you're saying is like complaining about the +2 to hit from Pharmasma's obedience because you have to be N and use a dagger. Most people agree it's one of the best obedience options out there.
You only get some because getting all of them is considerably difficult. You could absolutely get all of them, but it wouldn't be useful.
Difficult? What's difficult? You could have ALL the options I posted, except paladin saves, at 3rd, so I'm having a REALLY hard time seeing "considerably difficult".
Dex-to-damage could well be game-breaking if given for free. I actually like where it is now, but I much prefer the Lethal/Trained Grace option.
Oh, I don't think for free. 2 feats without the extra fiddly bits about off hands seems fine to me. I've seen several games using 3rd party feats that JUST add damage to dex as a second feat and the games ran fine.
It's more "real-life" (which is not the be-all-and-end-all) because no-one could realistically land a blow without having a measure of co-ordination and no-one could realistically deal much damage with it without putting strength into it.
The idea behind "damage with it without putting strength into it" is one where you use a foes strength against them. Remember that even in Dex combat, you could be using the equivalent of a 10-11 strength [+0 modifier] and have no effect on the damage. SO it's not that you are not using NO co-ordination or strength but focusing on one or the other with those options while Lethal/Trained Grace offers a balance version.
I like the Lethal/Trained Grace from a balance/game perspective but not from a logic perspective. People tend to go with there strengths [in and out of the game]. It's generally 'hulk smash' or 'precise stabs' as the game and life rewards specialization. It's the rare person trains opposing aspects and tries to use them both at the same time.
|
|
Sorry, brain's been frazzled over exams so I missed the response here.
Actually I agree with you about the Charisma thing on reflection. It does still require some more specifics than dex-to-damage. Not as much more as I thought, but some. I guess it should probably be pushed further up the Oracle class to prevent that being abused as much as you say it should be able to (with which I'm inclined to agree).
About that last bit... Using a foe's strength against him requires, and this is a hugely forgotten notion, a decent amount of strength of your own. If you have a purely dex-to-damage build in this game, you could have a strength of 3 and still be able to out-damage the poor strength-based sap who had to spread his stats to avoid tanking his AC. In actual combat (again, not the be-all-and-end-all), you need a decent amount of both strength and dexterity, which I think abilities like Lethal Grace allow for very nicely. You need that benchmark Strength, but can focus on Dexterity to your heart's content.
Obviously this isn't the best system to simulate that in, and that's fine. I just feel like giving easy Dex-to-damage is a little too powerful and that, while I do like the concept of a purely dexterous attacker, something needs to be done about Dex' control of all the abilities first. Str-to-AC is a nice idea when it comes to armour, for instance. (Plus being restricted by weapon types makes a lot of sense, though I'd like it if different weapons were chosen. The Scimitar is, by and large, a brute-force cutting weapon, while the Longsword is a versatile and flexible tool that would suit finesse perfectly.)