PDA

View Full Version : Dex for melee damage?



Amador
2011-02-20, 12:57 AM
I am wondering if there is any way to apply dex to melee damage?

Ganurath
2011-02-20, 12:59 AM
If you have access to Tome of Battle, yes. The Shadow Blade feat lets you apply Dex to damage instead of Strength when using a Shadow Hand stance and one of the style's preferred weapons.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-20, 12:59 AM
Shadow Blade, or something similar, from ToB, but you need to be in a Shadow Hand stance.

EDIT: Swordsage'd!

Duncan_Ruadrik
2011-02-20, 01:32 AM
level 1 or 2 of Champion of Corellan in Races of the Wild.

gourdcaptain
2011-02-20, 01:41 AM
The Pathfinder feat Dervish Dance allows using dex for attack and damage when you have a scimitar in one hand with no weapon in the other.

slaydemons
2011-02-20, 02:30 AM
isn't there weapon finess? you know in the main book letting you put your dex modifier instead of your stength? playerhand book 3.5]

Edit: found it Weapon Finesse [General]
Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special
A fighter may select Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Natural weapons are always considered light weapons.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 02:33 AM
isn't there weapon finess? you know in the main book letting you put your dex modifier instead of your stength? playerhand book 3.5

Weapon Finesse allows you to use Dex instead of strength for your attack bonus with light weapons only (and a few exceptions like Rapier and Kusari-gama). Doesn't affect damage.

slaydemons
2011-02-20, 02:36 AM
ahh made a mistake then

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 09:16 AM
The Sword of Graceful Strikes, from Arms & Equipment Guide, also works IIRC

Greenish
2011-02-20, 10:38 AM
Look at X stat to Y bonus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732), under dexterity.

Shademan
2011-02-20, 10:42 AM
ask the DM?
if it makes sense I let my players do it.
the angry goblin berserker...no
the hermit monk...yes

offcourse, this means that I'm allowed to send bigger monsters at them

Cog
2011-02-20, 10:45 AM
the hermit monk...yes

offcourse, this means that I'm allowed to send bigger monsters at them
A monk needs far more than dex to damage to warrant such a reaction.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 06:49 PM
A monk needs far more than dex to damage to warrant such a reaction.

Depends on the type of monster. If you pick a monster that is vulnerable to the few strengths that monk has to him then you can throw a bigger monster at him. It is all relative you know.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 06:56 PM
A monk needs far more than dex to damage to warrant such a reaction.

You know, it's not too hard to make a pretty beastly monk without using any magic at all:


Hengeyokai or Changeling race, so you can go:
Warshaper. +4 Str and Con, larger natural weapons (aka your fists), not to mention reach and fast healing, all of which you can have constantly with the previously mentioned races. Did I mention immunity to crits?
Drunken Master. tumble charging, bonus damage with improvised weapons (which get to use your unarmed damage, so this just comes out to all-around bonus damage)
Fist of the Forest. CON to AC, fast unarmed damage progression, pseudo-rage.
Improved natural attack, which stacks with Warshaper's aforementioned class feature.

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 07:00 PM
You know, it's not too hard to make a pretty beastly monk without using any magic at all
Don't bother. Doesn't matter how many good builds use Monks as stepping stones, the class will always be seen as garbage here.
Back in 339, people used to have less of a bias.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:05 PM
Don't bother. Doesn't matter how many good builds use Monks as stepping stones, the class will always be seen as garbage here.
Back in 339, people used to have less of a bias.

Of course that brings back up a discussion about whether using just 1-2 levels of a class in a build really makes you as that class. Does the monk have strengths or does unarmed attack damage have the strength and monk is just the easiest way to acquire that ability? The eternal debate of class archetypes versus class abilities continues.

tyckspoon
2011-02-20, 07:06 PM
Don't bother. Doesn't matter how many good builds use Monks as stepping stones, the class will always be seen as garbage here.
Back in 339, people used to have less of a bias.

It's also basically a Warshaper/Unarmed Strike build that would come out basically the same if you put Improved Unarmed Attack on a Changeling/Hengeyokai. If you're going to argue for the Monk, it helps if you're doing it based on something that actually is a unique Monk property (it would also help if Monks had a unique Monk property.)

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 07:09 PM
Of course that brings back up a discussion about whether using just 1-2 levels of a class in a build really makes you as that class. Does the monk have strengths or does unarmed attack damage have the strength and monk is just the easiest way to acquire that ability? The eternal debate of class archetypes versus class abilities continues.

Well, in my group, nobody ever plays a core class straight through except (occasionally) the casters: wiz/cleric/druid. Fighters, rogues, bards, all going to be multiclass; the core is just to get into the stuff they REALLY want. Why is monk any different? In my eyes, ALL the core melee classes are garbage beyond the first few levels; prestige classes just have better/more interesting/more diverse stuff when compared to the high-level abilities the core melee classes get. Monk isn't alone in that.

*Note: By core, I mean strictly PHB. Don't have nearly as much experience with the other base classes.

Reynard
2011-02-20, 07:11 PM
If you have access to Tome of Battle, yes. The Shadow Blade feat lets you apply Dex to damage instead of Strength when using a Shadow Hand stance and one of the style's preferred weapons.

No, it's in addition to your regular Strength bonus.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:16 PM
Well, in my group, nobody ever plays a core class straight through except (occasionally) the casters: wiz/cleric/druid. Fighters, rogues, bards, all going to be multiclass; the core is just to get into the stuff they REALLY want. Why is monk any different? In my eyes, ALL the core melee classes are garbage beyond the first few levels; prestige classes just have better/more interesting/more diverse stuff when compared to the high-level abilities the core melee classes get. Monk isn't alone in that.

*Note: By core, I mean strictly PHB. Don't have nearly as much experience with the other base classes.

Well that was partly my point. D&D has always been a class based game (though sometimes race was a class) but 3e is unique in that while it is a class based game it is very close to being classless. Class archetypes are overall weak in concept but can be used to pick abilities up to get what you want. For instance the monk class can be used as an easy way to pick up unarmed damage for your pugilist character which you can augment using some other class levels to get what you want. You therefor have a pugilist character that has monk levels but is not really a monk archetype by class in any meaningful way. Every other edition of D&D is more strongly associated with strong class archetypes. Nothing is wrong going either way but it is an issue for some (and a great boon to others).

Later 3.5 material addressed this by making classes more useful by taking more levels. This helped make it easier to play those as strong archetypes. Hence why swordsage is a very common alternative as a monk class archtype.

Jarian
2011-02-20, 07:21 PM
No, it's in addition to your regular Strength bonus.

That's a contested point, as the table says it replaces strength. Obviously this argument holds no water if you slavishly follow the text trumps table rule, but it shows, at the least, intent.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:24 PM
That's a contested point, as the table says it replaces strength. Obviously this argument holds no water if you slavishly follow the text trumps table rule, but it shows, at the least, intent.

You assume intent. It could be a typo or what they wanted to do earlier but they changed their minds and forget to change the table. For all we know the text is the final intent (or only intent) of the feat. In the end we cannot know the intent for sure, but we do know what the final text says and that it is the actual rules we use.

Jarian
2011-02-20, 07:25 PM
I think you missed the entire middle section of my post there.

Cog
2011-02-20, 07:33 PM
You know, it's not too hard to make a pretty beastly monk without using any magic at all: (List)
Besides true shinken's entirely accurate response, I'd like to point out that I said a monk needs more than dex to damage to become high-tier competitive... and you came me exactly that, a list of things other than dex to damage, more than half of them various ways of taking fewer monk levels. Thank you for making my point for me.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:36 PM
I think you missed the entire middle section of my post there.

Actually I did not. You know what the rule actually says and what the rule of thumb is (text trumps table) but then you talk about intent and I am just pointing out that it does not absolutely show intent but it could be host of different things and intent is only one of them. In fact, in my mind, intent is less likely than a typo in the table entry.

Daftendirekt
2011-02-20, 07:37 PM
Actually I think I was making a mixed point. Monk to me doesn't mean "Monk 20". Monk to me means a monk-like build that starts with and is based off of the monk's fighting style.

But whatever, not the point of the thread.

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 07:38 PM
It's also basically a Warshaper/Unarmed Strike build that would come out basically the same if you put Improved Unarmed Attack on a Changeling/Hengeyokai. If you're going to argue for the Monk, it helps if you're doing it based on something that actually is a unique Monk property (it would also help if Monks had a unique Monk property.)

But Wizards are still good even though they share their spell list with everyone and their grandma and you can get a familiar from a feat. No bias at all. Right.

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:49 PM
But Wizards are still good even though they share their spell list with everyone and their grandma and you can get a familiar from a feat. No bias at all. Right.

Well to be honest wizard the class is "meh". Wizard the spell casting class ability is amazing. You are right about how people often complain about melee multiclassing and spellcasters get a pass since they have less incentive to stay then melee due to lack of class features but do not have to since spellcasting is the only class feature that matters in this case. Frankly a wizard5/master specialist10/archemage5 is not so much a wizard from a class archtype but is a strong use of the wizard spell casting mechanic and makes for a good build to represent a wizard type character.

true_shinken
2011-02-20, 07:54 PM
Frankly a wizard5/master specialist10/archemage5 is not so much a wizard from a class archtype but is a strong use of the wizard spell casting mechanic and makes for a good build to represent a wizard type character.

Glad we're on the same page. My problem here is that something like Monk/Warshaper/Drunken Master (or whatever) is not seen as a 'good monk build', but your aforementioned Wizard/Master Specialist/Archmage is considered a 'good wizard build'. Doesn't Monk/Warshaper/Drunken Master represent a good monk type character?

MeeposFire
2011-02-20, 07:59 PM
Glad we're on the same page. My problem here is that something like Monk/Warshaper/Drunken Master (or whatever) is not seen as a 'good monk build', but your aforementioned Wizard/Master Specialist/Archmage is considered a 'good wizard build'. Doesn't Monk/Warshaper/Drunken Master represent a good monk type character?

It makes for a fine character indeed. It being a good "monk" type characteris dependent on the characterization, as in you could be from a monastary and be very monk like or you could be a self trained raging drunkard that has never been involved in anything like the monk type character would have been and the monk level is just a way of getting class features needed in the build (that is not a bad thing). But as a monk class archetype? No it is not but then again that is only a problem if you believe in the use of strong class archetypes used in the other versions of D&D. If you like the use of classes as just vehicle for obtaining individual class abilities then it is not a problem at all and if you like 3.5 it would be assumed that you would so no problem.

slaydemons
2011-02-20, 08:00 PM
Before this goes on a LARGE rant on builds and archetypes don't forget the original question was could you put your dex modifier to your damage roll