| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You will get very mixed replies, I guess.
Some people will tell you that it is too strong because dex does too much already.
Others will tell you it is totally ok because being forced to use strength for melee is bad.
I am in the first team and my opinion is that unless there is a feat that directly gives strength instead of dex to AC I do not want to see dex to damage.
Edit: Not that easy, at least.
Slashing grace +1 level swashbuckler or daring champion is investment enough.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any feat that allows non-casters even a slim chance to approach the power level of casters should be allowed.
There is no problem with this feat, you shouldn't even have to ask.
Dex does not 'do too much already', anyone arguing against this feat probably doesn't play fighter types...
Casters only need one stat to get bonus spells, harder to resist spells AND more spells per day.
Fighters need CON for HP, STR for combat and DEX for defense. Allow this feat.
No, you should not.
That's two feats that they have to use in order to still not catch up to the damage they could do with Strength. Think about the feats they could have taken instead to do things like improve spells or class abilities.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've allowed a similar feat in my Campaigns (although I called it Improved weapon finesse) except that it also required weapon focus in the weapon used. I had no problem with this at all since it allowed dex based fighters the ability to deal decent damage. I don't think it's broken with TWF because that requires even more of a feat investment.
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
So fighters should be nerfed because... um... why? Telling us not to bring up casters is like telling us not to complain about bringing a knife to gunfight, simply because our knife is better than someone elses knife.
I don't believe this feat would make DEX martials the only viable build, the hardest hitter I have seen so far uses the Vital Strike chain and a 2h weapon...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
So fighters should be nerfed because... um... why? Telling us not to bring up casters is like telling us not to complain about bringing a knife to gunfight, simply because our knife is better than someone elses knife.
I don't believe this feat would make DEX martials the only viable build, the hardest hitter I have seen so far uses the Vital Strike chain and a 2h weapon...
Really? If you think that Vital Strike makes for a powerful build... I don't know what to say.
Vital Strike is bad, and if you think Vital Strike is powerful... again - I don't know what to say.
And bringing up casters in a discussion about martial balance lets you throw anything at it. It isn't a matter of if it's balanced vs casters. It's if it's balanced vs other martial options. It's not.
I have to say, I often see people discussing fighter feats like this, and debating removing options for the already weak classes...
Why the hatred for martial characters?
We will all admit that casters are "OP", so why not allow the published materials to bring martial characters a little bit closer to the power level of the already existing casters?
Stop hating on martials.
The answer isnt' to nerf casters, and especially not to nerf fighters/martials, the answer is to allow the power level of martials to increase using PAIZO CREATED AND PUBLISHED MATERIALS!
*wheeze gasp* sorry, I'm just sick and tired of people saying stuff like 'dont drag casters into this' and 'this feat is to OP' (when you have to roll to hit, and it doesn't work at a range, and it isn't area effect, and you can't maximize damage with it, and you can't empower it, and you can't bounce it or make it daze people or freeze people or do acid damage or fire damage or sonic damage or negative energy damage or force a save or die situation etc etc etc).
Basically the idea is that anything to help martials wont change the balance of martials and casters. I'm pretty sure the reason casters are OP isn't because they do the most damage, it's that they change the world.
So fighters should be nerfed because... um... why? Telling us not to bring up casters is like telling us not to complain about bringing a knife to gunfight, simply because our knife is better than someone elses knife.I don't believe this feat would make DEX martials the only viable build, the hardest hitter I have seen so far uses the Vital Strike chain and a 2h weapon...
This is much more relevant for casters who want to be able to melee in addition to doing their caster stuff.
Taking strength out of the equation is a big thing for them. You seldom dump dex because it is too important. With dex to damage you can dump strength. If you are concerned about carrying capacity just add the muscle of society trait.A battle oracle, for example gains much by being able to ignore dex. Same for a cleric or some other builds.
A druid shifting into a tiny animal, for example, can be brutal with dex to damage.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why the hatred for martial characters?
...
Please don't straw-man me.
I primarily play martial characters. I prefer them despite knowing they're inferior at higher levels. But I don't want all of them to be pigeon-holed as dex characters unless I want to take a sub-par route.
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
So fighters should be nerfed because... um... why? Telling us not to bring up casters is like telling us not to complain about bringing a knife to gunfight, simply because our knife is better than someone elses knife.
I don't believe this feat would make DEX martials the only viable build, the hardest hitter I have seen so far uses the Vital Strike chain and a 2h weapon...
Really? If you think that Vital Strike makes for a powerful build... I don't know what to say.
Vital Strike is bad, and if you think Vital Strike is powerful... again - I don't know what to say.
And bringing up casters in a discussion about martial balance lets you throw anything at it. It isn't a matter of if it's balanced vs casters. It's if it's balanced vs other martial options. It's not.
Mythic vital strike. His damage averages around 260-270 in my game. You won't get damage like that with DEX based characters.
Again, why WOULDN'T someone bring up casters? The OP asked if they should allow the feat, not if it was unbalanced compared to other martial feats.
Some feats are better than others. Perhaps this feat was created in an attempt to bring fighters/martials closer in power to the other classes.
Telling someone to ignore an entire type of character (casters) doesn't really help you prove any kind of point. He asked if he should allow the feat, I say yes.
Ultimately, I would say this question should read:
Do fighters deserve a chance to approach the power level of casters?
Some people think that they should be allowed that chance. You seem to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine.
OP, I beg of you to allow this feat... let the fighters have a chance... If you remove this feat, then you should FOR SURE take a long look at casters and bring them down to whatever power level you want the game to run at...
Before this thread gets derailed into the inevitable argument...
I would allow it. The feat is not so overbalancing that it is going to marginalize encounters. That is the balance I would use on whether something is "over-powered". I say, let them try it out and if you feel that a single feat is too powerful and marginalizing everything then say "Sorry man, perhaps we can try this route?" There is nothing wrong with allowing it on a trial basis and then go from there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
I highly suggest you compare what the potential benefits of each could be. Full Plate wearers have nothing to worry about until the endgame, and even then the difference of AC is minimal (the Dex guy loses out until then), and if you're comparing to something less than that, you're not facing a creature whose AC was to be worth a damn anyway.
A Dex TWF build has to invest in 2 separate weapons, which takes up to half their WBL by the endgame (versus only 25% from a Two-Handed Strength build), and they don't get as much freedom to invest in other types of equipment as a given Strength build would; after all, stat belts, resistance cloaks, protective rings, natural armor amulets, etc. are just as valuable when you think big picture.
Did I also mention you're giving up weapon properties and a crapton of feats that could be better spent elsewhere? If anything, the Swashbuckler route is even less of an investment in comparison to any other attempt to get Dexterity to Damage, because all it takes is a 1 level dip. No further investments needed. Last I checked, there was a certain 1 or 2 level class dip that other classes could take that would lead to shenanigans like this, and look what happened to it.
The other routes require limiting your weapon options significantly (I can use practically any two-handed weapon as a Strength build and pull superior numbers, versus the other, which is limited on its static bonuses in comparison, as well as highly inconsistent and will always pull lesser numbers), and several, valuable feats, to be used in order to get this thing to even work. So while Mr. Strength build is ready to go by 1st level, it takes the other guy a few levels before his capabilities even come online and actually work the way you want. Unless of course, you dip Swashbuckler and cheat the system, which seems to be a much easier way to pull it off, in which case it seems to be a class issue and not a stat issue.
You want stupidly OP, try an Oracle who gets Charisma to everything. AC, HP, Spells, Saves, Initiative, Movespeed, WBL, you name it, it's usable with Charisma. Not to mention the people trying to munchkin (essentially) double their main-stat to a certain statistic (which incidentally enough, several of these instances are in-fact Oracles).
It's OP with TWF.
At least with Paizo rules it requires a dip into Swashbuckler, using sawtoothed sabres, and arguably Double Slice (I think yes - but it's debatable) to get the same effect. And frankly - that's a bit OP. Not game-breakingly - but still OP.
This feat is stupidly OP.
(And don't bring up casters as a balance factor. Martials have their own balance - seperate from casters. [yes - casters past 9ish are OP and should be weakened - entirely different argument] This would make dex martials the only valid martials.)
I highly suggest you compare what the potential benefits of each could be. Full Plate wearers have nothing to worry about until the endgame, and even then the difference of AC is minimal (the Dex guy loses out until then), and if you're comparing to something less than that, you're not facing a creature whose AC was to be worth a damn anyway.
A Dex TWF build has to invest in 2 separate weapons, which takes up to half their WBL by the endgame (versus only 25% from a Two-Handed Strength build), and they don't get as much freedom to invest in other types of equipment as a given Strength build would; after all, stat belts, resistance cloaks, protective rings, natural armor amulets, etc. are just as valuable when you think big picture.
Did I also mention you're giving up weapon properties and a crapton of feats that could be better spent elsewhere? If anything, the Swashbuckler route is even less of an investment in comparison to any other attempt to get Dexterity to Damage, because all it takes is a 1 level dip. No further investments needed. Last I checked, there was a certain 1 or 2 level class dip that other classes could take that would lead to shenanigans like this, and look what happened to it.
The other routes require limiting your weapon options significantly (I can use practically any two-handed weapon as a Strength build and pull superior...
This... so much agree... good argument... yes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(TL;DR for the OP - You're fine. At worst I would add a "your strength penalty still applies" line to avoid any huge strength dumping, but allow +50% on two-hand to make up for it. Also it makes elven curve blade not silly, and I really want that weapon to make sense.)
You could give dex-to-damage and dex-to-hit for free to all characters and it still wouldn't raise the power cap. Dex-to-AC is a not a real benefit below +8 dex bonus thanks to max dexterity on armor, a point which most characters wouldn't reach until you're high enough level that any martial focus is going to cap out at decent.
The real advantage to dex-to-damage is the ability to boost initiative. Given that it would take 2 feats to get good dex-to-damage, and 1 feat is a +4 (Improved Init), I think dex-to-damage is safe.
TWFing is a non-argument as it takes several feats and extra cash to make work, at which point it damn well better be a good shtick.
My version of dex-to-damage: You may use your dexterity bonus in place of your strength bonus for determining damage when attacking with weapons with which you can use the weapon finesse feat. This bonus is modified in the same manner as your strength bonus (halved for off-hands, +50% for two-handing, etc). Your strength penalty, if any, still applies to your damage roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you plug everything into a DPR calculator, two-handing a weapon still does more damage than two-weapon fighting (even with Double Slice). When you throw in Power Attack, there is no comparison.
Even with Double Slice, your Power Attack damage bonus is always halved on your off hand but you take the attack penalty on all attacks, so Power Attack is a bad tradeoff for two-weapon fighters. (Piranha Strike, the dex-based equivalent of Power Attack, also contains the same restriction.) However, Power Attack is the single most useful feat for doing more damage.
The only way that two-weapon fighting competes with two-handing a weapon is when you have sneak attack. However, sneak attack classes are usually 3/4 BAB, which means their attack bonus is lower and scaling damage bonuses (like Power Attack and Piranha Strike) lag behind also. On top of that, you have the expense of enchanting two weapons instead of one, and damage reduction applies against each attack individually.
Unless you have some method for two-handing a finesse weapon (Elven Curved Blade is the only one I know of) AND you rule that Dex-to-damage is also done at 1.5 times like strength (not clear from the feat text), Dex-to-damage will never compete with Strength.
As far as Dex being "used for too much", that's really only an issue if you count skills. Dex-based fighters will only be able to wear light armor, so their "max dex+armor" bonus combinations equal out to a total of +8 to armor class. A standard breast plate starts at +9 (6 armor bonus and +3 max dex bonus). Full plate starts at +10 (9+1). Dex-based fighters have to spend money on mithral or magic armor long before the Str-based fighters have to.
Oh, your dex-based fighters will have a higher reflex save, too, but without evasion, that's not going to save their lives very often. Reflex-save-based spells tend to throw out a lot of damage (I have an arcanist who did 5d4+2 with burning hands at 2nd level, and 12d6+6 with fireball at 8th level--and I don't build casters very well). Half damage is still a ton of damage.
Besides, if your players decide to completely tank their strength in favor of Dex anyway, just remind them about their encumbrance.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here isnt martials vs casters. Casters dont care about this conversation. They are mocking the fools that still think the sharp bits of metal matter while they are gating in angels to deal with the problem.
The issue here is how relavent you want strength as a stat to be. If the investment to make dex pretty much on par with strength at its thing (melee) is just 2 feats (Weapon finese and deadly agility), then strength very well might end up even less important then charisma is for non-charisma based casters.
Remember this isnt a class by class issue. Its not like an oracle who can add charisma to everything, thats a specific class issue. These are feats, available to anyone. This is a system wide issue. If all you need to turn strength into a dump stat is 2 feats and a bag of holding, who ISNT going to do that?
To the OP. If the idea of having very few high strength characters in your game doesn't bother you. Go for it. It wont change much in the grand scheme of things. The same way charisma is dumpable for everyone but charisma based characters, strength will be dumpable for everyone but basically barbarians, bloodragers and I guess skalds.
To me that feels off. And its not about what combinations of feats and abilities can do more damage, its about the fact that in my mind, the dominant combat adventurer model is the big strong guy. If this feat were commonly accepted, that wouldnt be the case. While AC and damage might slightly edge out for strength/heavy armor characters until later levels, the countless other benefits of being high dex/low armor (reflex save, important skills bonuses, less issues with armor availabilty, lighter overall loads etc) will lead to that being the dominant mode of combat in the game.
Ultimately it is up to you to decide. As an advocate for martial characters, I say allow it.
Is this feat overpowered?
Of course not.
All it does is allow non-magic, non-ranged, non-area effect possible hits to do damage based off a different stat.
It doesn't make them fly, invisible, resistant to damage or able to teleport.
It doesn't make them move faster.
It doesn't make them harder to hit.
It just allows the use of DEX rather than STR.
The fact that it can benefit a class that isn't purely martial is irrelevant. An oracle using this is still a caster, THAT is was makes the character overpowered, not this feat.
Let martials have a chance.
|
|
Wow there are some good points brought up. Let me clearify the question.
Is it bad yo have so many things basés off a single stat instead of letting each stat do there own job. Not trying to question martial classes vs casters. Or justseems to me this would be like a fear that gives str to reflex Daves, ac bonus, and inti.
Normally yes, it would be bad. And any time you see it you should be wary.
However, in this case it turns out that further analysis shows that the benefit isn't so great. The short version is that only the initiative bonus turns out to be of real benefit.
Dex is for AC, sure, but if you look at max dex + armor bonus for all the armors you'll notice that they tend to be the same for all light armors, +1 for breastplate, +2 for full plate. This means dex-to-AC is only an advantage once you are better off without armor, which doesn't happen until +8 dex or higher (at which point the cost of bracers of armor may prove to make it difficult to take advantage of even then).
Reflex saves are the weakest save since they very rarely save you from any kind of save-or-lose spell. They will reduce the damage you take (or eliminate it with evasion), but HP loss is generally not your main concern. So it amounts to something nice, but not awesome.
Initiative, however, is really nice. The person who goes first gets to control the flow of combat to a certain extent. However, this is MUCH more valuable to caster classes who can lock down the tactical situation if they win init, but they won't have a solid use for dex-to-damage so they aren't really relevant. Still nice for martials or those with sneak attack, though.
So you have meh + okay + nice at the price of two feats. That seems fair enough for me.
|
|
The issue here isnt martials vs casters. Casters dont care about this conversation. They are mocking the fools that still think the sharp bits of metal matter while they are gating in angels to deal with the problem.
The issue here is how relavent you want strength as a stat to be. If the investment to make dex pretty much on par with strength at its thing (melee) is just 2 feats (Weapon finese and deadly agility), then strength very well might end up even less important then charisma is for non-charisma based casters.
Remember this isnt a class by class issue. Its not like an oracle who can add charisma to everything, thats a specific class issue. These are feats, available to anyone. This is a system wide issue. If all you need to turn strength into a dump stat is 2 feats and a bag of holding, who ISNT going to do that?
To the OP. If the idea of having very few high strength characters in your game doesn't bother you. Go for it. It wont change much in the grand scheme of things. The same way charisma is dumpable for everyone but charisma based characters, strength will be dumpable for everyone but basically barbarians, bloodragers and I guess skalds.
To me that feels off. And its not about what combinations of feats and abilities can do more damage, its about the fact that in my mind, the dominant combat adventurer model is the big strong guy. If this feat were commonly accepted, that wouldnt be the case. While AC and damage might slightly edge out for strength/heavy armor characters until later levels, the countless other benefits of being high dex/low armor (reflex save, important skills bonuses, less issues with armor availabilty, lighter overall loads etc) will lead to that being the dominant mode of combat in the game.
Just make strength penalty apply in addition to dexterity bonus when using the feat and the strength dump issue goes away without negating the validity of the fighting style. Between that, carrying capacity, and the fact that in the raw-damage department it only meets par with strength builds.. it should sort itself out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, if your players decide to completely tank their strength in favor of Dex anyway, just remind them about their encumbrance.
Like is said, this puts strength right in the same place as charisma is for most characters. You have to 'punish' the party by consistently pointing out the issues that are caused by this stat that doesn't matter to the character.
And, like the charisma thing, its easily bypassed. Light armor which you would wear if you have a high dex, is just that light. And there are a ton of magic items that help with encumberance. Heck there are mundane items that help. Not to mention, most people hate tracking encumberance in the first place.
So strength becomes a second class citizen of the stat world with charisma. I personally dont think this is a good thing. But again, it wont change like balance vs encounters, its just an overall game structure issue.
Wow there are some good points brought up. Let me clearify the question.
Is it bad yo have so many things basés off a single stat instead of letting each stat do there own job. Not trying to question martial classes vs casters. Or justseems to me this would be like a fear that gives str to reflex Daves, ac bonus, and inti.
Its basically about which concept you favor. People who like the big strong fighter being the 'default' combatant, worry this will marginalize that, and it sort of will. Heavy armor and low dex creates mobility issues, limits certain key skills, and means less reflex saves and initiative. If the only penalty to having a low strength is you need to take 2 feats, then in terms of overall effectiveness, it becomes a better route then high strength/heavy armor.
People who really like the acrobatic swashbucklery types want this feat to make their lives easier and have less hurdles to jump when creating their dextrous concepts.
And certainly I can understand that. I just think its better handled via classes, things like the swashbuckler then via feats. The reason being this will help people that dont need help. The biggest example is the magus. If you allow the dervish dance feat, a dex based scimitar magus is hands down better then any other kind of magus. The penalty of dervish dance (weilding only one weapon) is of no cosequence since the magus already needs to have a hand free for spells. The result, anytime anyone asks for advice here on the boards, dervish dance is the first thing mentioned. In addition, from what I hear, non-scimitar magi are an extreme rarity in pfs. That costs 2 feats and 2 skill ranks.
I dont want that sort of loss of variety and sameness of characters spread across the whole of martial characters. This feat very well might do that. As a result, in my game, any character can take a dervish dance like feat for any finesable weapon they choose (I rename it for their chosen weapon and change the skill ranks to 2 ranks in acrobatics instead of dance). But the restriction of the weakest combat style (one handed with off hand free) remains. This offers a balancing point between the advantages of light armor high dex, and the disadvantages of high strength heavy armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make strength penalty apply in addition to dexterity bonus when using the feat and the strength dump issue goes away without negating the validity of the fighting style. Between that, carrying capacity, and the fact that in the raw-damage department it only meets par with strength builds.. it should sort itself out.
So then the default strength for every martial character becomes 10. At a 10 str a light load is 33lbs. Add in a masterwork backpack and its 38. Plenty of room for studded leather, the backpack, a bedroll and other basic equipment. And that is again if you actually give a damn about carying capacity (which many groups dont want to bother with).
It wont sort itself out, as it didnt with magi in pfs. It will cause a major shift in the presense of strength vs dex builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow there are some good points brought up. Let me clearify the question.
Is it bad yo have so many things basés off a single stat instead of letting each stat do there own job. Not trying to question martial classes vs casters. Or justseems to me this would be like a fear that gives str to reflex Daves, ac bonus, and inti.Normally yes, it would be bad. And any time you see it you should be wary.
However, in this case it turns out that further analysis shows that the benefit isn't so great. The short version is that only the initiative bonus turns out to be of real benefit.
Dex is for AC, sure, but if you look at max dex + armor bonus for all the armors you'll notice that they tend to be the same for all light armors, +1 for breastplate, +2 for full plate. This means dex-to-AC is only an advantage once you are better off without armor, which doesn't happen until +8 dex or higher (at which point the cost of bracers of armor may prove to make it difficult to take advantage of even then).
This would be accurate if this feat was say, class specific. But that goes out the window because this is a feat not a class ability. The aformentioned magus creates a problem. He can have longlasting non-armor bonuses at 1st level with mage armor. The monk gains non armor related bonuses. Because this is a feat, we have to look how it applies to ALL cases in all games, not just the simplest ones. You cant look at it within the current paradigm of armor vs max dex. This will CHANGE that paradigm.
There are other examples that throw off this calculation too, mithral chain for instance, means light armor gains the advantage on heavy armor at +6 dex. Which is possible at 8th level without any magic items at all (18 natural, +2 ratial, +1 at 4 and 8), let alone with magic items.
Reflex saves are the weakest save since they very rarely save you from any kind of save-or-lose spell. They will reduce the damage you take (or eliminate it with evasion), but HP loss is generally not your main concern. So it amounts to something nice, but not awesome.
While the consequences of other failed saves are usually worse, reflex is by far the most COMMON save to make. Those very dire consequences are the reason why often save or lose effects are not applied to players. But hp loss on the other hand, all the time. Be it fireballs, traps, or hazards, I would wager that in a typical adventure, you would roll sever times more reflex saves then you do the others.
Initiative, however, is really nice. The person who goes first gets to control the flow of combat to a certain extent. However, this is MUCH more valuable to caster classes who can lock down the tactical situation if they win init, but they won't have a solid use for dex-to-damage so they aren't really relevant. Still nice for martials or those with sneak attack, though.
Yea, no casters would have use for dex to damage....except for battle clerics, druids, maguses, alchemist, inquisitors, warpriests, skalds, bards, battle oracles, hunters, and the odd eldritch knight. And ofcourse non of those classes have control spells that would benefit from going first. Right?
Again, this is a feat. It is universal. This doesnt just apply to a dex fighter, or rogues. This applies to EVERYONE. Feats need to have far greater consideration on the wide range of effects then class abilities do.
So you have meh + okay + nice at the price of two feats. That seems fair enough for me.
No, you have a complet change in the paradigm of combat in pathfinder for the cost of two feats. Again, I am not saying it should automatically be a no, but there are alot more considerations to make then you are stating
|
|
Just make strength penalty apply in addition to dexterity bonus when using the feat and the strength dump issue goes away without negating the validity of the fighting style. Between that, carrying capacity, and the fact that in the raw-damage department it only meets par with strength builds.. it should sort itself out.
So then the default strength for every martial character becomes 10. At a 10 str a light load is 33lbs. Add in a masterwork backpack and its 38. Plenty of room for studded leather, the backpack, a bedroll and other basic equipment. And that is again if you actually give a damn about carying capacity (which many groups dont want to bother with).
It wont sort itself out, as it didnt with magi in pfs. It will cause a major shift in the presense of strength vs dex builds.
And yet, the strength guy would still be a similarly good build with 1 feat instead of 3. And not be restricted on weapons (light only with pirahna strike, power attack takes 13 strength).
The problem with Magus is a problem with Magus. If a rule causes a problem with exactly one class then it's a problem with the class, not the rule. Want to prevent them from getting cheesier? "This cannot be used with spellstrike."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, the strength guy would still be a similarly good build with 1 feat instead of 3. And not be restricted on weapons (light only with pirahna strike, power attack takes 13 strength).
2 feats in the grand scheme of things dont matter after a point. Particluarly with the amount of potential benefits. Ask archers how horrible it is to have to take point blank shot, precise shot, and rapid shot while they are owning everyone in terms of damage output and not having to move while full attacking. Sure they might like to have those feats back, but in the end, there arent a huge amount of feats that let big tough guys be BETTER at hitting things. So those 2 saved feats dont mean anything in terms of a like to like comparison. Yes they could do OTHER things with those feats, but they are just feats, so they wont be doing anything spectacular. The dex based guy on the other hand gets a benefit in terms of high dex and a lack of an armor penalty on a ton of often used skills (acrobatics, and stealth are high on my list), and they are inherently faster (no penalty to speed) then heavy armor guys. They can already do more things then the strength guys.
The problem with Magus is a problem with Magus. If a rule causes a problem with exactly one class then it's a problem with the class, not the rule. Want to prevent them from getting cheesier? "This cannot be used with spellstrike."
Except thats not how the game works. The magus was designed with a certain state of the game (particularly if we say that dervish dance is in a different design space since its not part of the rpg line). Dex for ac, strength for damage. Its not the magus' fault if you change that state afterwards.
And its not just the magus. You know who would benefit tremendously from this change? Druids. Who needs to turn into a giant bear. He'll turn into a tiny magical creature with an ungodly dex, and a massive size bonus to hit and AC.
Again, this is a FEAT, not a class ability. Anyone can take it and exploit it. This doesnt just make dex based fighters more viable. It changes the state of combat in the whole game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you should. There is nothing overpowered with Dex to damage. Absolutelu nothing. The character is spending 2 feats still be considerably less damaging that a Str-based warrior who spent ZERO feats.
People keep mentioning the Magus, but that a poor argument:
1-Magi use Dex because they are forced into dueling, an underpowered combat style that simply doesn't benefit much from Str.
2- Str-based Magi are still very solid and can give any Dex Magus a run for his money!
I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't Double Slice for free, on top of the other benefits. Slashing Grace working with light weapons and/or allowing Effortless Lace feels a bit more balanced to me. Though at low levels Agile/Effortless Lace is not feasible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Kolokotroni.
This feat basically makes strength investment pointless. The fact that strength can still slightly outdamage it doesn't mean that much, when you're taking away pretty much the only thing strength gets to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP. My TWF rogue would hit harder than the barbarian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you should. There is nothing overpowered with Dex to damage. Absolutelu nothing. The character is spending 2 feats still be considerably less damaging that a Str-based warrior who spent ZERO feats.
People keep mentioning the Magus, but that a poor argument:
1-Magi use Dex because they are forced into dueling, an underpowered combat style that simply doesn't benefit much from Str.
2- Str-based Magi are still very solid and can give any Dex Magus a run for his money!
The reason the magus is brought up is because thats where the effects of this change can be seen. A magus isnt hurt by taking dervish dance. It fits right in with what he wants to do. So just about everyone is taking dex based magi.
And no, a str based magus is strictly worse then a dex based one with dervish dance. Since they already need to have a hand free for spells, theres no pain associated with being dex only except taking the feat. The limitation of a scimitar is not an actual limitation because its ideal for the combat style (high crit).
If you allow this feat, then it takes away any real loss that a dex based character faces besides taking the feat. Saying you are limited to light weapons for piranha strike is pointless since the ideal two weapon combat style is two identical light weapons. Yes you have to invest 3 more feats then a strength character (weapon finesse, deadly agility and two weapon fighting) but the benefits are such that after you manage to take all the needed feats, there isnt any loss. And consequently, that becomes the ideal when you consider all the other benefits.
Remember people, this isnt a martial vs caster thing. This is a feat, casters benefit from this too. In fact, if we do the math, I'd say the druid that wild shapes into the diminuitive animal (for a +6 size bonus to dex and +4 bonus to attack and AC) or a tiny magical beast (for +8 dex and +2 size to attack and AC), while not needing to worry about strength in addition to dex is making out like a bandit.
|
|
Can it make some builds more powerful? Sure! That's the entire point of a feat that opens new combat styles. Does it make any of them overpowered is the real question. In my opinion, no. I'm not scared of any of those dex-focused builds as a DM. Not at all.
But, you've clearly made up your mind. It's not worth attempting to argue with someone who has made a decision before entering a discussion.
Come to me with any build ideas that actually worry me and I will consider them appropriately. So far your best one is the Druid with tiny wildshaping, but such forms typically only get a single natural attack and unarmed strikes aren't particularly appealing. The Warpriest maybe? I'd have to chew on that one, but it's a possible. EDIT: Oh, a cat form gets a whole 3 attacks! I mean, joining the square and provoking is still a problem, but I'm sure your CMD is fine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadly Agility is taking out barriers to TWF with dex to damage. If you want Dex to damage, there are already Five methods that are Paizo.
Dervish Dance - Scimitar only, requires a free hand and a skill tax.
Slashing Grace - One handed only, requires a feat tax and a dip unless you only use Whip or Aldori Dueling Sword
Fencing Grace - Rapier only, requires weapon focus
Agile Weapons - Enchantment based, expensive.
Mythic Weapon Finesse - Mythic only.
Since Deadly Agility is equivalent to a mythic feat, it's overpowered. Period.
Is that level of being overpowered going to break your game? Probably not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else imagine this as Str is the high-school jock who is the star player and suddenly his teammate Dex makes a few good runs and now everyone is talking about Dex so Str is losing his mind because this is all he has when Dex is also got straight As and other stuff going for him?
Because this is how this argument has come off to me. I can literally imagine Str screaming "Don't take this away from it, its all I have!"
That feat looks very similar to one that I posted on the forums when Slashing Grace was released (and 'patched' with Fencing Grace)... the noticeable difference being that mine halved damage on off-hand attacks as is the case for Str...
Benefit: You may apply your Dex modifier in place of your Str modifier on damage rolls you make with any weapon that benefits from weapon finesse. This bonus is not increased if the weapon is used in two hands but is halved for an off-hand weapon.
I agree that you should always be wary of feats or abilities that substitute one stat for another, but in this case (with the tweak of reduced damage in the off-hand) I stand by the balance.
Would this feat allow more characters to take lower Str? Yes. But it certainly doesn't make Str obsolete- you still need it for power attack or else you're limiting yourself to only light weapons (so you can take piranha strike). It makes 2WF more accessible but that's already a very feat intensive build and now you're adding two more feats to it. And dismissing carrying capacity because a lot of people don't want to be bothered with it like saying "oh, well my group doesn't use Will saves so Wisdom doesn't matter"- you ignoring the rules doesn't make actual game balance there a non-issue. If you think Str will become a dump stat just use the actual written rules that keep it significant.
edit: Imbicatus does make a strong point regarding this basically replicating a Mythic Feat... if you want to disqualify it on those grounds I think you're well within your rights... personally I think the comparison is more a statement on Mythic Weapon Finesse being underpowered, but it's your world so its up to you (for example, Mythic Vital Strike dramatically increases damage output where Mythic Finesse only allows Dex builds to be competitive with Str ones and what Stabbity is about to say).
|
|
Deadly Agility is taking out barriers to TWF with dex to damage. If you want Dex to damage, there are already Five methods that are Paizo.
Dervish Dance - Scimitar only, requires a free hand and a skill tax.
Slashing Grace - One handed only, requires a feat tax and a dip unless you only use Whip or Aldori Dueling Sword
Fencing Grace - Rapier only, requires weapon focus
Agile Weapons - Enchantment based, expensive.
Mythic Weapon Finesse - Mythic only.Since Deadly Agility is equivalent to a mythic feat, it's overpowered. Period.
Is that level of being overpowered going to break your game? Probably not.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-feats/athletic-mythic
This is a mythic feat as well, for a +2 to two skills I haven't seen used in months and an auto-nat 20 if you spend one of your mythic points.. on checks that usually have to be made several times to make any real difference.
Comparing to mythic is a good thought, but isn't necessarily going to lead you to a good conclusion.
If you wanted a paizo-level paranoid writing of a dex to damage feat, try this one: "You may use your dexterity bonus in place of your strength bonus when dealing damage with weapons with which you can use weapon finesse. This bonus is halved for off-hand attacks, but not increased if wielding the weapon in two hands. Your strength penalty, if any, still applies. When making a full attack you can only use this feat if you attack with the same weapon for all attacks gained from that action."
Personally? I think the above would be too heavy-handed.
I have allowed but with 2 things.
1, they don't get full dmg on offhand attacks. There's a feat that specifically allows that and it's there to be fair for the ones who 2 weapon fight with str. That way the cleric who wants to duel wield sword and board isn't having to do more feats than the one who is duel wielding short swords to get the same end result.
2. I enforce encumberance rules. Wanna drop ur str down to 7? That's fine, now u are going to be dealing with penalties of medium and heavy loads. So yes agility effects a lot of things with damage added to it, but it's not something that dumping str will go without some type of drawback. Specially since I house rule that u can't bypass DR with a + magical weapon.
I do it this way so that both options are viable BUT at the same time, they both have pros and cons and that way both sides don't feel like one way is always better than the other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can it make some builds more powerful? Sure! That's the entire point of a feat that opens new combat styles. Does it make any of them overpowered is the real question. In my opinion, no. I'm not scared of any of those dex-focused builds as a DM. Not at all.
The issue isnt about making anything overpowered. I completely concede that in the grand scope of the game, nothing changes. What does change is the prevelance of an entire class of concepts. I am not scared of dex based builds. What I dont want is every single martial character to dual weild light weapons unless their concept specifically calls for something else. And that is what will happen. The same way almost all magic are dancing scimitar users, slowly but surely, the big heavy armor fighter will go away. Not because he is outclassed, but because the limitations his style present are no longer compensated by penalties in others.
But, you've clearly made up your mind. It's not worth attempting to argue with someone who has made a decision before entering a discussion.
As opposed to you? Who clearly is willing to entertain the consequences of supplanting strength with dex? As I said, I am not completely against anyone doing this. I just want everyone to consider the actual consequences of this change. This isnt just about making some dex based builds more viable. This is a fundamental change to the game.
Come to me with any build ideas that actually worry me and I will consider them appropriately. So far your best one is the Druid with tiny wildshaping, but such forms typically only get a single natural attack and unarmed strikes aren't particularly appealing. The Warpriest maybe? I'd have to chew on that one, but it's a possible. EDIT: Oh, a cat form gets a whole 3 attacks! I mean, joining the square and provoking is still a problem, but I'm sure your CMD is fine.
The provoking attacks is barely a problem, what with the +6 dex, +1 natural armor and +4 size bonus to ac (plus anything the druid already has up, like barkskin, wild armor, deflection bonuses, his existing dex (which can be enanced by magic) etc. And with that massive dex, a few ranks in acrobatics can even negate the problem entirely.
And maybe there arent alot of good choices for diminutive animal, but tiny magical beast? You bet your ass there are some multi attack magical beasts that would be great with the druids +8 size bonus to dex for turning into it. Sure the size bonus to ac and to hit is only 2. But somehow the druid will I am sure manage (probably with...you know magic).
Another thing. You are considering this exclusively from a player perspective. But what about the other side. You realize you would have to re-evaluate the cr of half the bestiary right? Animals can take weapon focus and weapon finese, any reason they couldnt take this feat? Not to mention all the intelligent high dex things in the bestiary(or am i alone as a gm that alters the feats my monsters take/ add class levels to monsters as a general course?). Basically any creature in the bestiary that has a weapon finesse and any other feat, will change that feat to deadly agility.
Are we really ready for fey to become the new super race behind a murderous army of quickling super predetors? With one class level (lets say rogue) the quickling goes from 1d4-1 +1d6 sneak attack, to 1d4+7 +2d6 sneak attack. With everything else it can do, is that still a cr 4 challenge?
Again, if this were say a rogue talent, or part of a fighter archetype, this is a different story. Those things are self contained. Their outside interaction is limited. This is a feat, with next to meaningless (IE everyone who would want this feat already has those things) prerequisites. This is a system wide change.
I'm lucky enough to game with a good group... we even roleplay our stats.
A STR 7 fighter would likely be mocked, until a fight broke out... but when we wanna play big burly hack and slashers... that's what we make.
I've got one guy who argues that STR 7 doesn't mean his character is little... I tell him that is exactly what it means.
Can you optimize more with this feat? Absolutely. Does it benefit casters? Sort of.
Is it more useful to martial types? I would say so.
If Paizo released a feat similar to this but for casters (say, something that allowed you to add your primary stat onto damage of spells), this same debate would occur. Problem is, Deadly Agility represents a large percentage increase in damage output (though not on par with a casters damage output), whereas a caster version of this (adding main casting stat to damage of spells) would represent a smaller percentage increase in damage, and thus people would argue it is a less overpowered feat...
All this back and forth seems silly to me, Caster>Gish>Martial.
This feat doesn't change that, thus, isn't overpowered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else imagine this as Str is the high-school jock who is the star player and suddenly his teammate Dex makes a few good runs and now everyone is talking about Dex so Str is losing his mind because this is all he has when Dex is also got straight As and other stuff going for him?
Because this is how this argument has come off to me. I can literally imagine Str screaming "Don't take this away from it, its all I have!"
Its kind of like that. Except we arent talking about a functioning game system, one in which we have literally seen (in the case of dervish dance and magus) that there are very real consequences (loss of variety) of taking away the only thing the Jock has. So while many rpg players might take perverse player in the "High School" the game, in which the "Jock" characters are completely inferior to the "Small Nerdy Kid", and over time no one plays Jocks anymore, that doesn't make for a very interesting story or game. A 'High School' story without the star athlete trope would feel like its missing something wouldn't it? Would saved by the bell have been as good without Slater? Even if he wasnt your favorite character, his presense is important to the story.
This change will effectively eliminate the slaters of the fantasy rpg world. Not because slater cant be all jockey. But because Zack and Screech will be just as athletic, and tough, but also have their other traits (intelligence, charisma etc) where as slater is just athletic and tough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this back and forth seems silly to me, Caster>Gish>Martial.
This feat doesn't change that, thus, isn't overpowered.
Again, its not about the feat being overpowered in the grand scheme of things. Dex to damage doesnt mean more then a single gate spell. Its about how it will change the dynamic of the game. And that will change. If your group has no problem with everyone but paladins and sorcerors playing 7 charisma characters and trying weasle their way out of being ugly and unpersonable, your problems with this feat will be limited. But given how many 'how do i punish low charisma' threads we have seen, and the aformentioned dervish dancing magus example, everyone else is going to have a problem with this feat.
So think of it in that context. Look at all the characters in the last few games of your group. If at least half of the non charisma based characters have a charisma of 10 or more, use this feat. If however that isnt the case, think long and hard first about how you want your game to look after a few campaigns.
|
|
I don't have to reconsider any of the Bestiary. I run them as-is regardless. I'd worry about it if I need to build a new creature or advance an existing one.
If the feat doesn't create any (new) overpowered characters, then what's the root problem? I assumed this is the entire root problem, but if it's not then I'm confused as to what exactly you're arguing against.
IMO, changing the game to allow new concepts without invalidating the old is a *good* thing. Having more options will always make existing options less common, even if the new options are fairly poor, so I'm not sure what your point is on that.
There are too many "one feat away from busting CR" creatures in the bestiary to count, with or without new feats. Monster design is notoriously finicky and any modifications to them have to consider the modified creature's CR as though it were a new creature entirely in order to have more than an okay shot of being fair. Even many existing creatures are quite questionable in that regard.
EDIT: Wait, are you arguing that this invalidates strength builds? Because I don't see that. The strength option is still good for any character that wants to spend a non-trivial number of feats on options other than their attack and damage, which is a not-uncommon occurance in my experience. Especially for characters (other than Rogue) with "Extra <Feat+ Equivalent>" as an option.
|
|
I've got one guy who argues that STR 7 doesn't mean his character is little... I tell him that is exactly what it means.
No it doesn't. It means he is weaker than most people. He could look like a weightlifter, but maybe he has a disease or curse that left him with a STR 7.
More realistically, Samwell Tarly in Game of Thrones likely has a STR 7. He is anything but little.
Physical appearance has nothing to do with your attribute scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all fighters turn into DEX based TWF, I feel bad for the gamers in that group. I have literally never seen that build in play save one character (a rogue in 3.5)...
If you build purely off optimal damage output rather than concept, you won't see fighters using this.
You will see a group of casters.
As someone considering playing a Bard in a new campaign, this feat excites me. I will likely take it, it looks awesome. I can use my dagger (I like the River Rat trait) and still contribute to combat without being Conan the Bard.
Yay!
If I tell my powergamer buddy about this (he probably already knows) he will likely build a sixteen class multiclass custom race TWF build who can carve GOD a new orifice, and will write up a ten page backstory explaining just how this weird mish-mash of optimal class/race optimization makes sense.
Everyone has their own playstyle. Not everyone will abuse the feat.