Weapon Finesse: A feat that should not be?

[Marlowe]

I question the morality of this feat, and I'm not sure if it's ethically justified.

Okay. Seriously; why should this need to be a feat? Shouldn't it be an aspect of proficiency with the weapon?

It should be fairly obvious that you use a rapier differently from an axe, and a dagger from a hammer. One set of weapons calls for more speed and precision (call that Dex) and the other more directed force (call that Str). Somebody who is proficient with any of these weapons will use them with an appropriate technique. That's what proficiency means.

If you know how to use (are proficient with) a rapier you're not going to pick one up and try to swing like it's an axe, so why do you need to take an extra feat in order to reflect this? Would it not better, since finesse weapons are already labled as such, to make attack rolls with them use Dex by default? Or even use whichever stat is higher?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Bringing ethics into a feat discussion is a little heavy handed. It's not like Weapon Finesse kills kittens or makes orphans starve.:smalltongue:

That said, it's definitely a unnecessary feat tax. Two handed weapons already get benefits just from the fact that they get 1,5x Str to damage, in addition to double PA bonus.
Even without the necessity of taking WF, dex-based melee is at a pretty severe disadvantage.

I think it was based on the fact that dex already adds to AC and reflex saves, so getting more out of the stat costs you a feat. At least that seems like what the designers may have been thinking to me.
Getting rid of it is actually a pretty common houserule in the games i play.

[Ashtagon]

I question the morality of this feat, and I'm not sure if it's ethically justified.

This is why, in my campaigns, only chaotic characters are allowed to take this feat :smallbiggrin:

[Sewercop]

For my pleasure.. Define moral and ethics .. answer that old question since you know it.

{scrubbed}

[Sacrieur]

You don't get a Str bonus to your AC or Reflex save.

[Vhaidara]

I combine Weapon Finesse and deadly Agility, causing it to give Dex to hit and damage. And, beyond that, am on the verge of removing that as a feat tax and just making it a thing. Even with this rule, the only reasons the dude with a greatsword in my group (yes, only one of them, with 3 more playing dex based) isn't still topping damage is that he didn't minmas as much (far more balanced character) and he can't roll for ****.

[iceifur]

This has been a hot-button issue since it first appeared before the Supreme Wizards of the Coastly Court in the 2000 Rogue vs Blade case. In 2008, provisional dextrous attack licenses were granted to certain classes, but it wasn't until 2014 and the advent of the finesse weapon property that all classes could benefit from the ruling without feat taxes.

:smallsmile:

[Sacrieur]

I combine Weapon Finesse and deadly Agility, causing it to give Dex to hit and damage. And, beyond that, am on the verge of removing that as a feat tax and just making it a thing. Even with this rule, the only reasons the dude with a greatsword in my group (yes, only one of them, with 3 more playing dex based) isn't still topping damage is that he didn't minmas as much (far more balanced character) and he can't roll for ****.

Why not just get the Agile enchantment on your weapon instead? Save yourself a feat.

[Frozen_Feet]

I do agree it's something of a pointless feat. d20 systems would be better served by making minor things like this abilities inherent to a weapon, rather than the user.


For my pleasure.. Define moral and ethics .. answer that old question since you know it.

Morals (noun); principles, standards and habits in respect to right or wrong conduct.
Morals (noun); a sense of right or wrong arising from conscience.
Moral (adjective); Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior

Ethics (noun); the body of moral principles or values held by or governing a culture, group, or individual
Ethics (noun); The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession
Ethics (noun); The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
Ethical (adjective); Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics
Ethical (adjective); Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession

Do you want more? :smalltongue:

[Vhaidara]

Why not just get the Agile enchantment on your weapon instead? Save yourself a feat.

Because they're below level 4? Agile weapon means you're at +2 enhancement, which you can't afford for quite a while. And again, stupid taxation on a popular character concept (speed over power).

Also, not really seeing why this was said to me, since I make Agile completely redundant by having Weapon Finesse give both to hit and damage. Agile would only be giving Dex to damage, but since I also don't allow double dipping (2X to Y), that's totally pointless.

[Frozen_Feet]

Does Weapon Finesse serve as a prerequisite for anything useful?

Because if it does, it's probably better to nab the feat than spend a huge amount of cash on a weapon enchantment. Also, isn't there a semi-useful Tome of Battle maneuver or Feat which also gives Dex to damage?

[Snowbluff]

This has been a hot-button issue since it first appeared before the Supreme Wizards of the Coastly Court in the 2000 Rogue vs Blade case. In 2008, provisional dextrous attack licenses were granted to certain classes, but it wasn't until 2014 and the advent of the finesse weapon property that all classes could benefit from the ruling without feat taxes.

:smallsmile:
Well, except that you're missing an important fact. A light feycraft weapon could be used for dex to hit. Dungeon Master's Guide II, June 2005.


I combine Weapon Finesse and deadly Agility, causing it to give Dex to hit and damage. And, beyond that, am on the verge of removing that as a feat tax and just making it a thing. Even with this rule, the only reasons the dude with a greatsword in my group (yes, only one of them, with 3 more playing dex based) isn't still topping damage is that he didn't minmas as much (far more balanced character) and he can't roll for ****.
I would just give weapon finesse for free, then let them grab dex to damage themselves.

[heavyfuel]

Also, isn't there a semi-useful Tome of Battle maneuver or Feat which also gives Dex to damage?

A feat: Shadow Blade, though you are limited to Shadow Hand weapons, which aren't that great.

[Psyren]

The idea behind it (and don't shoot the messenger please) was that Dexterity is a more "valuable" stat than Strength, and so getting to base your melee attacks off it was designed to require a feat tax.

The fullness of time has shown that Dex to attack is not that powerful an advantage even with those ancillary benefits, so Weapon Finesse was first weakened to be accessible from level 1, then various classes got it for free. I think baking it into the light weapon rules is the way to go, but there are a lot of other feats you would have to edit for this to happen.

[Snowbluff]

A feat: Shadow Blade, though you are limited to Shadow Hand weapons, which aren't that great.

Spiked Chain, Unarmed Strikes, and dagger are on that list. "Not that great..." you have like 3 of the 5 best weapons for melee weapons in that grouping.
http://media.giphy.com/media/wPPnKgpyNHBvO/giphy.gif

[heavyfuel]

Spiked Chain, Unarmed Stikes, and dagger are on that list. "Not that great..." you have like 3 of the 5 best weapons for melee weapons in that grouping.

Oops, was AFB and totally forgot that Spiked Chain was in there. Still, daggers and unarmed aren't that great to be put in a top 5.

[Sewercop]

I do agree it's something of a pointless feat. d20 systems would be better served by making minor things like this abilities inherent to a weapon, rather than the user.



Morals (noun); principles, standards and habits in respect to right or wrong conduct.
Morals (noun); a sense of right or wrong arising from conscience.
Moral (adjective); Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior

Ethics (noun); the body of moral principles or values held by or governing a culture, group, or individual
Ethics (noun); The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession
Ethics (noun); The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
Ethical (adjective); Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics
Ethical (adjective); Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession

Do you want more? :smalltongue:

Yes, yes I do want more.
Please explain it without quoting a dictionary. Thousands have tried before you,maybe millions.

[Elricaltovilla]

I also let weapon finesse add dex to damage as well as to hit. But on the flip side, I add a homebrew feat called Muscle Memory that allows characters to use Strength in place of Dexterity for AC and Reflex Saves. It doesn't perfectly balance the two stats, but it brings them closer in line I feel.

I've actually never sat down and really done the math on Dex to damage vs. Str to damage. I ball parked it, and I never really cared much one way or the other, but now I'm kind of curious.

Let's say we have two characters (Human Warlords for full BAB and 3 feats at level 1), one with Str to damage, and one with Dex to damage. Both have a +4 modifier to start in their stat of choice. The Str character will have Power Attack and be two handing his weapon (greatsword), while the Dex Character will have Piranha Strike and the TWF line of feats, wielding a pair of kukri. As per Deadly Agility, Dex guy will have full dex to damage on his off hand attacks and for ease of my brain cakes, both characters will be assumed to hit with all their attacks for average damage.

Oh yeah, this is for PF as is my standard.


Level 1-
STR: 2d6+6, +3 PA. Avg Damage: 16
DEX: 1d4+4/1d4+4 , +2/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 16

Level 2- No Change

Level 3- No Change

Level 4- Belt +2, PA/PS increases, +1 Stat
STR: 2d6+7, +6 PA. Avg Damage: 20
DEX: 1d4+5/1d4+5, +3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 19

Level 5- No Change

Level 6- Extra Attack, Warlord BF (Improved TWF)
STR: 2d6+7/2d6+7, +6/+6 PA. Avg Damage: 40
DEX: 1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5, +3/+1/+3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 38

Level 7- +4 Belt
STR: 2d6+9/2d6+9, +6/+6 PA. Avg Damage: 46
DEX: 1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6, +3/+1/+3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 42

Level 8- +1 Stat, PA/PS increases
STR: 2d6+10/2d6+10, +9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 54
DEX: 1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6, +4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 46

Level 9- +6 Belt
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12, +9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 58
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 54

Level 10- No Change

Level 11- Extra Attack, GTWF
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +9/+9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 87
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +4/+2/+4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 81

Level 12- PA/PS Increases, +1 Stat
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +12/+12/+12 PA. Avg Damage: 96
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +6/+3/+6/+3/+6/+3 PS. Avg Damage: 93

Level 13- No Change

Level 14- No Change

Level 15- No Change

Level 16- +1 Stat, Extra Attack, PA/PS increase
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +15/+15/+15/+15 PA. Avg Damage: 140
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +6/+3/+6/+3/+6/+3/+6 PS. Avg Damage: 106

Level 17- No Change

Level 18- No Change

Level 19- No Change

Level 20- Haste, +1 Stat, +5 Inherent, PA/PS increase
STR: 2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18, +18/+18/+18/+18/+18 PA. Avg Damage: 220
DEX: 1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12, +8/+8/+4/+8/+4/+8/+4/+8 PS. Avg Damage: 168


Now this is just the bare minimum of enhancements, no +5 weapons, No Raging Barbarians or Alchemical Mutagens, which would scale strength better anyway because of the multiplier strength has on damage. Even with twice the attacks (on average), Two weapon fighting still stands steadily behind Two Handed Weapons. Adding Sneak Attack Dice might be enough to pull it ahead a little bit, and I didn't account for crits, but with just damage numbers, Strength scales much better across all levels.

[Psyren]

Oops, was AFB and totally forgot that Spiked Chain was in there. Still, daggers and unarmed aren't that great to be put in a top 5.

Daggers are extremely useful, even on non-sneaks. There's a lot of material to optimize them because they're so iconic, they can be used while grappled and swallowed, they are easily concealed etc.

Unarmed is also pretty powerful when optimized, and has the added advantage of being the only Shadow Hand weapon usable... while unarmed :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

Oops, was AFB and totally forgot that Spiked Chain was in there. Still, daggers and unarmed aren't that great to be put in a top 5.

Unarmed strike is the weapon people rack up damage dice with. You also have feats like snap kick as options.
Daggers can be thrown and concealed. They are an elegant weapon from a more civilized age.
Spiked Chain is the best exotic, nudging out the other exotic options.

The other 2 (well, in core at least) are scimitar and Greatsword. There are not a lot of better melee weapons past that.

[Psyren]

I also let weapon finesse add dex to damage as well as to hit. But on the flip side, I add a homebrew feat called Muscle Memory that allows characters to use Strength in place of Dexterity for AC and Reflex Saves. It doesn't perfectly balance the two stats, but it brings them closer in line I feel.

I've actually never sat down and really done the math on Dex to damage vs. Str to damage. I ball parked it, and I never really cared much one way or the other, but now I'm kind of curious.

Let's say we have two characters (Human Warlords for full BAB and 3 feats at level 1), one with Str to damage, and one with Dex to damage. Both have a +4 modifier to start in their stat of choice. The Str character will have Power Attack and be two handing his weapon (greatsword), while the Dex Character will have Piranha Strike and the TWF line of feats, wielding a pair of kukri. As per Deadly Agility, Dex guy will have full dex to damage on his off hand attacks and for ease of my brain cakes, both characters will be assumed to hit with all their attacks for average damage.

Oh yeah, this is for PF as is my standard.


Level 1-
STR: 2d6+6, +3 PA. Avg Damage: 16
DEX: 1d4+4/1d4+4 , +2/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 16

Level 2- No Change

Level 3- No Change

Level 4- Belt +2, PA/PS increases, +1 Stat
STR: 2d6+7, +6 PA. Avg Damage: 20
DEX: 1d4+5/1d4+5, +3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 19

Level 5- No Change

Level 6- Extra Attack, Warlord BF (Improved TWF)
STR: 2d6+7/2d6+7, +6/+6 PA. Avg Damage: 40
DEX: 1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5, +3/+1/+3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 38

Level 7- +4 Belt
STR: 2d6+9/2d6+9, +6/+6 PA. Avg Damage: 46
DEX: 1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6, +3/+1/+3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 42

Level 8- +1 Stat, PA/PS increases
STR: 2d6+10/2d6+10, +9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 54
DEX: 1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6/1d4+6, +4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 46

Level 9- +6 Belt
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12, +9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 58
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 54

Level 10- No Change

Level 11- Extra Attack, GTWF
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +9/+9/+9 PA. Avg Damage: 87
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +4/+2/+4/+2/+4/+2 PS. Avg Damage: 81

Level 12- PA/PS Increases, +1 Stat
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +12/+12/+12 PA. Avg Damage: 96
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +6/+3/+6/+3/+6/+3 PS. Avg Damage: 93

Level 13- No Change

Level 14- No Change

Level 15- No Change

Level 16- +1 Stat, Extra Attack, PA/PS increase
STR: 2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12/2d6+12, +15/+15/+15/+15 PA. Avg Damage: 140
DEX: 1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8, +6/+3/+6/+3/+6/+3/+6 PS. Avg Damage: 106

Level 17- No Change

Level 18- No Change

Level 19- No Change

Level 20- Haste, +1 Stat, +5 Inherent, PA/PS increase
STR: 2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18/2d6+18, +18/+18/+18/+18/+18 PA. Avg Damage: 220
DEX: 1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12/1d4+12, +8/+8/+4/+8/+4/+8/+4/+8 PS. Avg Damage: 168


Now this is just the bare minimum of enhancements, no +5 weapons, No Raging Barbarians or Alchemical Mutagens, which would scale strength better anyway because of the multiplier strength has on damage. Even with twice the attacks (on average), Two weapon fighting still stands steadily behind Two Handed Weapons. Adding Sneak Attack Dice might be enough to pull it ahead a little bit, and I didn't account for crits, but with just damage numbers, Strength scales much better across all levels.

Even with your homebrew feat to give Str reflex and touch AC, Dex still gets unique benefits like Initiative, Ranged to-hit, Acrobatics and Stealth. Not to mention that more attacks means more bonus damage (from weapon properties, buffs, class features etc.) which can redress your numerical balance easily. Your analysis has use, but as far as comparing the two stats in an actual game it doesn't paint the likeliest picture.

I'm okay with Dex to hit being free - or even just free for certain classes that are expected to rely on Dex - but you should have to spend some kind of resource (feat, GP or spell) on Dex to damage, and granting a similar tax to Strength does not even the scales imo.

[Marlowe]

It's really not helping the issue to point out that you could pay for an expensive enhancement to use your weapon correctly. Not when you're already supposed to be able to use the weapon correctly as part of your basic class proficiencies. That's as useful as giving a homeless person a Ritz brochure.


You don't get a Str bonus to your AC or Reflex save. Correct. You also don't get Dex to carrying capacity or, generally, to damage. Don't really see the point there.


Also, isn't there a semi-useful Tome of Battle maneuver or Feat which also gives Dex to damage? Only when you're in a Shadow Hand stance and only with daggers, shortswords, and some exotic weapons. Requires a Shadow Hand Maneuver and a Stance as prerequisites so if you're not at least dipping Swordsage that puts you at least three feats down, not counting Finesse itself.


It's not like Weapon Finesse kills kittens or makes orphans starve Hey, Starveling Orphans really need their feat slots! It's a heavily challenged class.:smallsmile:

Kittens, fortunately, get Finesse for free.

EDIT: heavily swordsaged.

[Elricaltovilla]

Even with your homebrew feat to give Str reflex and touch AC, Dex still gets unique benefits like Initiative, Ranged to-hit, Acrobatics and Stealth. Not to mention that more attacks means more bonus damage (from weapon properties, buffs, class features etc.) which can redress your numerical balance easily. Your analysis has use, but as far as comparing the two stats in an actual game it doesn't paint the likeliest picture.

I'm okay with Dex to hit being free - or even just free for certain classes that are expected to rely on Dex - but you should have to spend some kind of resource (feat, GP or spell) on Dex to damage, and granting a similar tax to Strength does not even the scales imo.

I never claimed that they were even. I merely claimed that it narrowed the gap a little bit.

I accounted for the possibility of extra damage sources closing the gap in my conclusion, but comparing those against each other would be a thesis sized effort, and this already took me 10 minutes to do.

[Marlowe]

Yes, yes I do want more.
Please explain it without quoting a dictionary. Thousands have tried before you,maybe millions.

For your pleasure;

Ethnics is money
Morals is sex
You so missed the joke
Enjoy ignore list.

[Frozen_Feet]

The idea behind it (and don't shoot the messenger please) was that Dexterity is a more "valuable" stat than Strength, and so getting to base your melee attacks off it was designed to require a feat tax.

Dexterity kinda is, for just the boost to Iniative it gives. It's also worth noting that the average boost given by many early feats was not much to speak off. Weapon Finesse easily beats Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus in utility for a high-dex character. The balancing point is there, it just happens to be wrong in the context of how the system turned out to be.


Yes, yes I do want more.
Please explain it without quoting a dictionary. Thousands have tried before you,maybe millions.

Those definitions only ended up in the dictionary because those millions of people agreed with each other, you know. :smalltongue:

[sleepyphoenixx]

Even with your homebrew feat to give Str reflex and touch AC, Dex still gets unique benefits like Initiative, Ranged to-hit, Acrobatics and Stealth. Not to mention that more attacks means more bonus damage (from weapon properties, buffs, class features etc.) which can redress your numerical balance easily. Your analysis has use, but as far as comparing the two stats in an actual game it doesn't paint the likeliest picture.

I'm okay with Dex to hit being free - or even just free for certain classes that are expected to rely on Dex - but you should have to spend some kind of resource (feat, GP or spell) on Dex to damage, and granting a similar tax to Strength does not even the scales imo.

You're forgetting that the dex-based fighter is investing 6 feats (or 4 with dex to hit & damage free) just to stay (almost) on par with the THFer, who has higher hit, only really needs Power Attack and can spend the rest of his feats on something else.

Is a small bonus to a few skills, a bit of touch AC + Initiative and what is probably the weakest save worth 5 feats? I don't think it is. It may be worth 3, if your dex is particularly high, but that's still debatable.

[Psyren]

Correct. You also don't get Dex to carrying capacity or, generally, to damage. Don't really see the point there.

Carrying capacity is almost completely irrelevant - even before extradimensional storage and mithral become attainable and commonplace, there is the very simple expedient of the pack mule.

Damage is a bigger issue, but you can either rely on another source of bonus damage instead (like sneak attack), or get it via items, or both. Add that to the other innate advantages of Dex and the parity vanishes in the other direction quickly.


I never claimed that they were even. I merely claimed that it narrowed the gap a little bit.

I accounted for the possibility of extra damage sources closing the gap in my conclusion, but comparing those against each other would be a thesis sized effort, and this already took me 10 minutes to do.

True and I understand. I was just pointing out that, once you do close that damage gap (which can be done without additional feats in most cases), Dex pulls ahead, even with Strength able to poach a few things from it via homebrew.


Dexterity kinda is, for just the boost to Iniative it gives. It's also worth noting that the average boost given by many early feats was not much to speak off. Weapon Finesse easily beats Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus in utility for a high-dex character. The balancing point is there, it just happens to be wrong in the context of how the system turned out to be.

And I totally agree. My only thought is that it's not a very interesting choice - if you are a dex-based class, you get it right away, and if not, you never even think about it. To me that's not good feat design. If it's something those classes need in order to function properly, at a minimum it should just be part of those classes from the start, opening up their first feat to be something that can actually differentiate their character. If you look at every Rogue 1 (or Rogue 3, in 3.5) they simply have to have Weapon Finesse. But the point of feats is that it's a way for character X of class Z to differentiate himself meaningfully from character Y of class Z, and you should be able to kick that process off from the start.

So in short, I would expect the Rogue, Ninja, Ranger and Monk (among others) to have an ability similar to Swashbuckler's Finesse from the start.

[Marlowe]

Carrying capacity is almost completely irrelevant - even before extradimensional storage and mithral become attainable and commonplace, there is the very simple expedient of the pack mule. Which is the first thing to die if there's an ambush, has to be guarded, can't be taken into a lot of situations, and doesn't help at all with basic armour and weapons.

Encumbrance is really punishing at low levels for the low (and even average) strength character, and remains so even at high levels in certain campaigns I've been in. Not every campaign has a magic shop in every hamlet, and reliance on porters and pack animals is a point of weakness that will be exploited.






Damage is a bigger issue, but you can either rely on another source of bonus damage instead (like sneak attack), or get it via items, or both. Add that to the other innate advantages of Dex and the parity vanishes in the other direction quickly.



True and I understand. I was just pointing out that, once you do close that damage gap (which can be done without additional feats in most cases), Dex pulls ahead, even with Strength able to poach a few things from it via homebrew.



And I totally agree. My only thought is that it's not a very interesting choice - if you are a dex-based class, you get it right away, and if not, you never even think about it. To me that's not good feat design. If it's something those classes need in order to function properly, at a minimum it should just be part of those classes from the start, opening up their first feat to be something that can actually differentiate their character. If you look at every Rogue 1 (or Rogue 3, in 3.5) they simply have to have Weapon Finesse. But the point of feats is that it's a way for character X of class Z to differentiate himself meaningfully from character Y of class Z, and you should be able to kick that process off from the start.

So in short, I would expect the Rogue, Ninja, Ranger and Monk (among others) to have an ability similar to Swashbuckler's Finesse from the start.

I agree that the DEX-based character should have to work harder for damage than the STR-based one, since damage is a big part of what STR is for.

But they shouldn't have to work harder to hit with an appropriate weapon. If a STR 6 DEX 18 Warlock picks up a dagger she should know to stick them with the pointy end instead of trying to use it to chop. That's what I would call Proficiency with the weapon. It should not have to be the result of spending one of your characters feats, or spending dosh on a special Magic Dagger of Real, Actual, Honest-And-For-True Proficiency, or taking a level in some class that someone's decided Is Actually Properly Proficient Instead Of Just Regular Proficient in such weapons.

[Elricaltovilla]

There are ways to boost damage for strength too that aren't available to dexterity. Strength based TWF is a thing, which removes Dex's extra attacks, and Rage is a massive damage increase that Dex characters can't match without losing out on either full BAB or dice based bonuses.

I was never trying to bring equality between the two stats, I don't think that makes sense to do. But if Dex gets a feat for attack and damage, it only makes sense to me that Strength should get a feat to poach some dex based stuff, and AC and Reflex are the two most useful.

[Seerow]

There are ways to boost damage for strength too that aren't available to dexterity. Strength based TWF is a thing, which removes Dex's extra attacks, and Rage is a massive damage increase that Dex characters can't match without losing out on either full BAB or dice based bonuses.

Depends on the source. There's always Ferocity variant rage that gets Dex and Str instead of Con and Str in extended 3.5.

[Psyren]

But they shouldn't have to work harder to hit with an appropriate weapon. If a STR 6 DEX 18 Warlock picks up a dagger she should know to stick them with the pointy end instead of trying to use it to chop. That's what I would call Proficiency with the weapon. It should not have to be the result of spending one of your characters feats, or spending dosh on a special Magic Dagger of Real, Actual, Honest-And-For-True Proficiency, or taking a level in some class that someone's decided Is Actually Properly Proficient Instead Of Just Regular Proficient in such weapons.

Yeah, I can get behind this. "If a weapon is light or has the finesse property, you use Dex or Str to hit, whichever is higher" would be an easy sentence to add to the Weapons and Attributes sections. (Didn't 5e do this?)

I still don't think encumbrance is that punishing or that mules are that death-prone, but I do concede that both of these depend on your GM's setting.

[heavyfuel]

(Didn't 5e do this?)

It did. It also lets you apply Dex to damage with light weapons

[Felyndiira]

Level 6- Extra Attack, Warlord BF (Improved TWF)
STR: 2d6+7/2d6+7, +6/+6 PA. Avg Damage: 40
DEX: 1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+5, +3/+1/+3/+1 PS. Avg Damage: 38

Just wanted to point out that PS scales at the same rate as PA (without the +50%, of course), so at level 4 it should be +4/+2/+4/+2.

This does change some of the numbers a bit, though I agree that ultimately (counting the 10-15% hit penalty from TWF, criticals from the kukri, and sources of additional damage with strength bonuses from rage/mutagen) the two perform similarly, with DEX being five feats down from the STR build.


Is a small bonus to a few skills, a bit of touch AC + Initiative and what is probably the weakest save worth 5 feats? I don't think it is. It may be worth 3, if your dex is particularly high, but that's still debatable.

I do agree that Weapon Finesse is a relic of the past 3.5 PHB, where feats were originally supposed to be just minor bonuses you can add to your character to be a little better at something (with some apparent exceptions). I'm usually willing to give Finesse for free if someone wanted to play a DEX character that isn't a 9/9 caster.

I just want to put a bit of perspective on the bonuses that DEX gives a character compared to STR:

A DEX focused character is going to put the majority of her bonuses into Dexterity. At high levels that's about +4 from stats, +2.5 from inherit, +2.5 from leveling for a total of +9 to bonuses (we assume that the STR build also eventually gets a belt of all physical stats for DEX, which also gives us a saving of 54000 GP). Assuming that the STR build will put at least a 12 into DEX, that's a difference of +8 Initiative, +8 AC, and +8 Reflex Saves in addition to various skills at later levels.

+8 Initiative is worth two feats by itself, going by improved initiative.

+8 AC is a bit harder to judge, since dodge is a poor feat. The difference between ceremonial armor and breastplate is 5 AC, putting the DEX warlord at a 3 AC advantage over the THF Warlord. AC doesn't really matter for high levels, so we look at mid levels - where the THF warlord doesn't have the money to put +DEX on his belt along with +STR.

The DEX fighter should have should have a +2 DEX from levels and a +4 DEX from a belt, alongside a 6 DEX advantage she started with for a total of +6 to AC from DEX. Since breastplate has a +5 AC, the TWF warlord will have a +1 AC compared to the THF warlord.

There's also the touch AC issue at mid levels. Touch AC is usually better than flat-footed AC, especially for high initiative DEX characters with high acrobatics. From the Shield Focus / Defensive Expertise feat chain (not counting shield proficiency) we can estimate that a +8 to touch AC is worth approximately two feats. We end up with a +6 to touch AC and a -5 in flat-footed AC; this should, thus, be worth a feat as well.

+8 Reflex is easily worth a feat, even if Reflex is the weakest of the three saving throws.

We'll ignore the assortment of skills for this argument.

Overall, the package that being DEX-focused gives you is, by estimation, at least four feats strong - and very strong at lower levels where having a +3 DEX and breastplate renders you almost impossible to hit by most physical attacks. Earlier feats are also worth much more than later feats, though, so I do agree that a three-feat tax off the bat is too harsh for it.

[Marlowe]

Is a small bonus to a few skills, a bit of touch AC + Initiative and what is probably the weakest save worth 5 feats? I don't think it is. It may be worth 3, if your dex is particularly high, but that's still debatable. ...It wasn't me who said this.:smallconfused:




I do agree that Weapon Finesse is a relic of the past 3.5 PHB, where feats were originally supposed to be just minor bonuses you can add to your character to be a little better at something (with some apparent exceptions). I'm usually willing to give Finesse for free if someone wanted to play a DEX character that isn't a 9/9 caster.

I just want to put a bit of perspective on the bonuses that DEX gives a character compared to STR:

A DEX focused character is going to put the majority of her bonuses into Dexterity. At high levels that's about +4 from stats, +2.5 from inherit, +2.5 from leveling for a total of +9 to bonuses (we assume that the STR build also eventually gets a belt of all physical stats for DEX, which also gives us a saving of 54000 GP). Assuming that the STR build will put at least a 12 into DEX, that's a difference of +8 Initiative, +8 AC, and +8 Reflex Saves in addition to various skills at later levels.

+8 Initiative is worth two feats by itself, going by improved initiative.

+8 AC is a bit harder to judge, since dodge is a poor feat. The difference between ceremonial armor and breastplate is 5 AC, putting the DEX warlord at a 3 AC advantage over the THF Warlord. AC doesn't really matter for high levels, so we look at mid levels - where the THF warlord doesn't have the money to put +DEX on his belt along with +STR.

The DEX fighter should have should have a +2 DEX from levels and a +4 DEX from a belt, alongside a 6 DEX advantage she started with for a total of +6 to AC from DEX. Since breastplate has a +5 AC, the TWF warlord will have a +1 AC compared to the THF warlord.

There's also the touch AC issue at mid levels. Touch AC is usually better than flat-footed AC, especially for high initiative DEX characters with high acrobatics. From the Shield Focus / Defensive Expertise feat chain (not counting shield proficiency) we can estimate that a +8 to touch AC is worth approximately two feats. We end up with a +6 to touch AC and a -5 in flat-footed AC; this should, thus, be worth a feat as well.

+8 Reflex is easily worth a feat, even if Reflex is the weakest of the three saving throws.

We'll ignore the assortment of skills for this argument.

Overall, the package that being DEX-focused gives you is, by estimation, at least four feats strong - and very strong at lower levels where having a +3 DEX and breastplate renders you almost impossible to hit by most physical attacks. Earlier feats are also worth much more than later feats, though, so I do agree that a three-feat tax off the bat is too harsh for it.

...Could you clarify what system you're talking about because it doesn't seem to be D&D 3.5.

[lsfreak]

...Could you clarify what system you're talking about because it doesn't seem to be D&D 3.5.

It's PF, but applicable to 3.5, they're taking the bonuses gotten from a high Dex and comparing them to feats to attempt to derive how many feats-worth of bonuses a high Dex gives you. I'm really not sure that's appropriate, though, given how notoriously underpowered flat bonuses tend to be.

I am sympathetic to the thought that Dex applies to a lot of things already, but I dislike feat taxes more. I prefer to let a set of weapons (light weapons, plus all slicing/stabbing swords [e.g. not falcata- and falchion-like swords], staves, spears, and maybe a few others) apply Str or Dex or both attack and damage rolls.

[Troacctid]

I've been very happy with the addition of "finesse" as a weapon property in 5th Edition, and it's absolutely a houserule I plan to use in any future 3.5 games I run.

[Seerow]

It's PF, but applicable to 3.5, they're taking the bonuses gotten from a high Dex and comparing them to feats to attempt to derive how many feats-worth of bonuses a high Dex gives you. I'm really not sure that's appropriate, though, given how notoriously underpowered flat bonuses tend to be.

I am sympathetic to the thought that Dex applies to a lot of things already, but I dislike feat taxes more. I prefer to let a set of weapons (light weapons, plus all slicing/stabbing swords [e.g. not falcata- and falchion-like swords], staves, spears, and maybe a few others) apply Str or Dex or both attack and damage rolls.

The problem is, if you do this there is literally no reason to ever play a strength based character again. Dex applies to Initiative, Reflex Saves, more and better skills, and gets a higher overall max AC (AND lets you get it while spending less money and maintaining better mobility!).

Basically if you are doing this, you need to make some new benefits for Strength to make it worth anything. Because nobody is going to be taking it just to act as a pack mule. +50% stat damage with two-handers really isn't going to cut it either.

[Vhaidara]

I think I see where the disconnect is here.
Some people want the game to be balanced against itself. In that case, yes, Strength needs more.

However, others (such as me), want character options to be enabled. When someone wants to play a beatstick, they usually want high damage and high durability. They want heavy armor. They want a big two handed weapon. They want to kill everything they hit in one or two shots (barring bosses). They want to be severing limbs with their mighty blows. Strength and Con currently cover this.

When someone wants a Dex based character, they usually want an agile combatant. If you look at fiction, the agile characters are usually insanely deadly, even in a straight up, 1v1 fight. They are mobile, they are able to get around behind the opponent, and they don't take the hits to begin with.

The problem is the gulf in feat costs. to make an effective Two handed fighter, you need... Nothing. Power Attack is very nice, but you are actually functional without it. This character is completely functional from level 1, regardless of class (Yes, it works as a wizard. Spend your feat on MWP)

Meanwhile, take a common trope of a character: he wields two daggers. You need Weapon Finesse, Deadly Agility, and TWF (chain), on top of spending twice as much money on magic weapons, leaving you with less to spend on defenses. This build requires 3 feats, meaning that you need to be Human and be in a class that provides a level 1 bonus feat.

Now, if you want to add in the ability to competently throw daggers as a ranged option (not an uncommon theme), add in Quick Draw and the Archery chain. This can't even be fit in until level 3 (7 is when you have Precise, if you skip ITWF)

The problem with the system is that Two Handed weapons require absolutely no feat investment to get going, while EVERY other fighting style (aside from naturals), requires 2-3 feats to achieve baseline comparison.

If I were to try and balance things, I would probably fold Con and Str into one stat and call it Bulk. Then either reduce the number of feats for other combat styles, or make it so that it takes a similar number of feats for THF to work, and then gives everyone 3 level 1 bonus combat feats

[Molosse]

To continue on themes already noted so far I would argue that Weapon Finesse, and the PF attachment Slashing Grace, serve a very important purpose, though one that ties into the Martial/Caster divide.

Notably having the ability to concentrate all of one's effort onto a single prime stat allows an individual character much greater efficiency, examples can be seen with many Caster classes for example. To that end, having a character able to concentrate all of it's efforts upon a single stat and in turn have that stat provide more than a simple benefit to it's main role is increasingly effective.

For example:
A Scarred Witchdoctor/Witch from PF can treat Con as it's casting stat and so, utilizing a SAD build, said Scarred Witchdoctor maintains full benefits to it's main purpose while gaining a strong knock-on in the form of a much large HP pool. In turn one can examine a Dex based martial and argue that to gain; Extra Initiative, Extra AC and Extra Reflex ranks above the ability to gain a static damage increase ala' 2-Handing.

However it can be argued, as mentioned in the into of the post, that paying any Feat tax to make use solely of a given stat is an unfair burden placed upon Martial classes that remain relatively MAD to achieve a some-what balanced make up as opposed to the noted ability of Caster classes to concentrate upon their major casting stat and upon Con.

This is further exacerbated by the generally poor saves awarded to Martial classes, notably again within PF, as opposed to dedicated Casters.

[Marlowe]

Worth bearing in mind that the admittedly substantial benefits of high DEX, at least for a melee combatant, tend to be defensive and passive. Those given by STR tend to be proactive and aggressive. DEX helps you dodge things, but STR helps you kill things. The latter kind of benefit seems to be considered far more desirable, since you have infinite AC against a dead foe.

It would be odd the number of people who like the likes of Shock Trooper, Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, Punishing Stance; all things that improve your offense at the cost of your defense, if active problem-killing wasn't rated as trumping passive defense. So I think the argument that "Dex has better numbers so deserves to be taxed", to simplify a few people's point thus far, is kind of long on the abstracted maths of the game and short on acknowledging actual tactical experience.

[Elricaltovilla]

Say Marlowe, do the tiefling and aasimar have an opinion on weapon finesse?:smallbiggrin:

[DrMartin]

In my game I allow to apply whichever is higher between strength and dexterity to hit and damage, and it hardly breaks anything. I also give power attack and a bunch of the other "tax" feats for free to whoever qualifies. Mundane/martial characters needs the love :D

[Marlowe]

Say Marlowe, do the tiefling and aasimar have an opinion on weapon finesse?:smallbiggrin:

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Plnet.jpg

[squiggit]

Looks like a rather straight saber to me.


In my game I allow to apply whichever is higher between strength and dexterity to hit and damage, and it hardly breaks anything. I also give power attack and a bunch of the other "tax" feats for free to whoever qualifies. Mundane/martial characters needs the love :D

This. Pretty much. THFs don't vanish in a game where I let people have finesse/deadly agility for free. Nor does anything explode when I uncap AoOs or something like that.

[Elricaltovilla]

Don't even get me started on how messed up D&D's weapon names are. The Rapier is basically a stand in for both the actual rapier and the saber. The Falchion is actually a großes Messer. There's no Bec-De-Corbins, but they've got Lucerne Hammers. And exotic weapons as a category is just a friggin joke. Especially when you look at the art for the weapons/shields/armors and wonder how the heck anyone is actually supposed to wield or wear such a weapon without hurting themselves.

In short, I feel your pain Lily.

EDIT:


The problem is, if you do this there is literally no reason to ever play a strength based character again. Dex applies to Initiative, Reflex Saves, more and better skills, and gets a higher overall max AC (AND lets you get it while spending less money and maintaining better mobility!).

Basically if you are doing this, you need to make some new benefits for Strength to make it worth anything. Because nobody is going to be taking it just to act as a pack mule. +50% stat damage with two-handers really isn't going to cut it either.

I hear this argument brought up a lot, and I've never once had it actually be an issue. People who want to two hand greatswords are still gonna two hand greatswords whether Dex is all damaging or not. I've even played in games with things like free EWP for all weapons, and the BSF still picked the Greatsword over the Elven Court Blade. So, no, there is still a reason to play a STR based character: because you want to. Which I think is the best possible reason to play any character ever.

[squiggit]

The extra damage the guy with the greatsword is a bigger deal than I think people are giving it credit for.

Plus both 3.5 and Pathfinder (even without PoW) have access to dex to damage without too much trouble and this assertion that dex based martials utterly eclipse their strength based counterparts... hasn't happened in either game.

[Elricaltovilla]

The extra damage the guy with the greatsword is a bigger deal than I think people are giving it credit for.

Plus both 3.5 and Pathfinder (even without PoW) have access to dex to damage without too much trouble and this assertion that dex based martials utterly eclipse their strength based counterparts... hasn't happened in either game.

I absolutely agree with you on both points. Honestly it's about allowing people to fulfill character concepts mechanically. A feat for Dex to Attack and Damage is just mechanically representing a character style that's as iconic in fiction as the Full Plate wearing, greatsword wielding juggernaut. Both deserve equal support in my book, and luckily the math seems pretty on point.

[SangoProduction]

e5 has changed it so light weapons can all be finessed automatically, using dex for both attack and damage instead of str. Of course, light weapons automatically do less damage compared to all other types, so that in no way harms the balance. Woo, the rogue who got 20d6 on his sneak attacks can add an extra 8-10 points. That is so significant.

As there's no real good way to scale damage with light weapons, other than magic (which scales just as well with other weapons), then there's no reason not to just let them have dex for both attacks and damage.

[Psyren]

The thing about 5e though is that it's hard to get multiple attacks if you're not a fighter. So the rogue getting dex to damage would indeed only be an extra 8-10 damage there.

In 3.5/PF, that same rogue can easily end up with a Dex mod in the teens, and 6 attacks or more. Suddenly that number becomes a big more significant. Add in sneak attack, and all the other benefits high Dex gives you, and it's possible to see why some GMs want a feat tax in place to get Dex to damage, or just outright don't like it at all.

[Marlowe]

Looks like a rather straight saber to me.




I agree. But what's that then? In terms of the rules? Is it a rapier? A scimitar? A cutlass?




Don't even get me started on how messed up D&D's weapon names are. The Rapier is basically a stand in for both the actual rapier and the saber. The Falchion is actually a großes Messer. There's no Bec-De-Corbins, but they've got Lucerne Hammers. And exotic weapons as a category is just a friggin joke. Especially when you look at the art for the weapons/shields/armors and wonder how the heck anyone is actually supposed to wield or wear such a weapon without hurting themselves. And the Shortsword is a foil. And there isn't really a proper "Falchion". And a Greek hoplite would be illegal.

For the record, if was was going to actually build Lily and Conrad, then Lily would be mostly Factotum with some Warblade dips. Her dex would be higher than her str, but not by a lot (Tiefling racial bonus, basically), and her feats would be things like Font of Inspiration, Martial Stance, Font of Inspiration, Power Attack, Font of Inspiration, and maybe Font of Inspiration.

So she didn't really jump to the front of my mind in regards to this discussion.:smallsmile:

[Elricaltovilla]

I agree. But what's that then? In terms of the rules? Is it a rapier? A scimitar? A cutlass?

And the Shortsword is a foil. And there isn't really a proper "Falchion". And a Greek hoplite would be illegal.

For the record, if was was going to actually build Lily and Conrad, then Lily would be mostly Factotum with some Warblade dips. Her dex would be higher than her str, but not by a lot (Tiefling racial bonus, basically), and her feats would be things like Font of Inspiration, Martial Stance, Font of Inspiration, Power Attack, Font of Inspiration, and maybe Font of Inspiration.

So she didn't really jump to the front of my mind in regards to this discussion.:smallsmile:

Yeah that hoplite issue is a real problem, apparently.

I hope you take it as a compliment, but every time I see you post, I just automatically go to the images you made with the tiefling and aasimar characters and how funny they were. So I get disappointed when I don't see their pointy and slightly distorted faces.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Rapier.jpg

[Elricaltovilla]

Having fenced for a few years, no. I don't think it's odd that you can power attack with a rapier. You can absolutely put more force behind an attack at the cost of accuracy. That's basically what a lunge is after all.

And it makes even more sense if you accept the idea that D&D rapiers are halfway between real world rapiers and sabers. They have an edge capable of cutting, even if they're designed more for thrusting. Basically a side sword.

[Marlowe]

Having fenced for a few years, no. I don't think it's odd that you can power attack with a rapier. You can absolutely put more force behind an attack at the cost of accuracy. That's basically what a lunge is after all.

And it makes even more sense if you accept the idea that D&D rapiers are halfway between real world rapiers and sabers. They have an edge capable of cutting, even if they're designed more for thrusting. Basically a side sword.

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Spice.jpg

[atemu1234]

Don't even get me started on how messed up D&D's weapon names are. The Rapier is basically a stand in for both the actual rapier and the saber. The Falchion is actually a großes Messer. There's no Bec-De-Corbins, but they've got Lucerne Hammers. And exotic weapons as a category is just a friggin joke. Especially when you look at the art for the weapons/shields/armors and wonder how the heck anyone is actually supposed to wield or wear such a weapon without hurting themselves.

In short, I feel your pain Lily.

EDIT:



I hear this argument brought up a lot, and I've never once had it actually be an issue. People who want to two hand greatswords are still gonna two hand greatswords whether Dex is all damaging or not. I've even played in games with things like free EWP for all weapons, and the BSF still picked the Greatsword over the Elven Court Blade. So, no, there is still a reason to play a STR based character: because you want to. Which I think is the best possible reason to play any character ever.

Bec-de-corbins were statted in Dragon Compendium.

[Elricaltovilla]

Bec-de-corbins were statted in Dragon Compendium.

I don't own Dragon Compendium, and they still don't exist in Pathfinder. It's kind of a really small part of my post anyway. The point is that the weapons as they're defined don't make sense, not that Polearm Variant #37656 didn't make it into the PHB.

[Psyren]

I agree that many exotic weapons are not worth the feat, and some aren't even worth the name.

Note however that PF Rapiers look much closer to the real thing.


I don't own Dragon Compendium, and they still don't exist in Pathfinder.

Wait, what? Bec de Corbins were added in the APG.

[Elricaltovilla]

So they were. I stand corrected on that point. Still, not the argument I was making and a secondary issue altogether.

[atemu1234]

So they were. I stand corrected on that point. Still, not the argument I was making and a secondary issue altogether.

Sorry for the derail, just thought you should know.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Topic.jpg

[Psyren]

Erm... the thread has no tag at all, and both the title and the opening post could apply equally well to PF. You can't exactly blame us for the ambiguity here :smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Erm... the thread has no tag at all, and both the title and the opening post could apply equally well to PF. You can't exactly blame us for the ambiguity here :smalltongue:

Here's what the forum descriptions says...



D&D 3e/3.5e/d20

The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).

Pathfinder is about as relevant to this forum as, say, WotC's Call of Cthulhu, Mongoose Conan, or AEG's Stargate.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/PF.jpg

[Elricaltovilla]

It's rarely ever apparent whether a thread is specific to 3.0, 3.5, PF or any D20 system unless there's some sort of tag. Even then, people (like me this time) will wander in and start babbling about the wrong system. Didn't mean to upset you Marlowe, Miss Tiefling. I probably won't have anything more to add to the discussion though, since I decided to try and make myself an expert on Pathfinder, not 3.5.

[Psyren]

Here's what the forum descriptions says...



Pathfinder is about as relevant to this forum as, say, WotC's Call of Cthulhu, Mongoose Conan, or AEG's Stargate.

There are CoC, Conan and Stargate thread tags? Where? And I didn't know those games had a Weapon Finesse feat?

[Snowbluff]

Erm... the thread has no tag at all, and both the title and the opening post could apply equally well to PF. You can't exactly blame us for the ambiguity here :smalltongue:

Well, the thing is that you have ways around it in either edition. You have Feycraft, which is pretty expensive, and Agile in PF, which is also quite a bit more expensive. Personally, I don't like being the guy who needs items to work the purpose of a build, but a feycraft dagger is a welcome addition to an archer package.

[Felyndiira]

...It wasn't me who said this.:smallconfused:
My apologies; you didn't say that, sleepy did. I was entering quotes manually and accidentally put in the wrong name. (And, as other people have stated, I was discussing PF).

I'm also not entirely sure what +8 AC, +8 Reflex, and +8 Initiative is worth in 3.5 (dex focused vs. str focused). Well, +8 Initiative is still worth two feats due to Improved Initiative, that's for certain; but 3.5's feats can really get into "this is worth more than a full class level" territory.

For your opening post, though - I think STR to hit for light weapons was mostly to represent the weapon piercing through armor. Sure, you won't swing a dagger around like you would a greatsword, but a huge muscled man stabbing your plate armor with all his strength is going to be much more effective than an out-of-shape mook stabbing you with it. Shortswords and most other light weapons follow the same principle, and only the rapier is something I would see as being entirely dependent on DEX.

I do agree that it's a feat tax and probably unnecessary. Then again, this is 3.5, so feat taxes are everywhere.

[Segev]

For a little while now, I've been kicking around in my head the notion that one thing d20 would benefit from would be for every weapon to have a list of special abilities. Some are unlocked merely by being proficient with the weapon. Others might require Weapon Focus, or Greater Weapon Focus, or even Weapon Specialization.

Some weapons may unlock their abilities even if you have the feat for a different but related weapon (maybe a longsword gains some of its abilities even if your weapon focus is in bastard sword, as long as you also have the ability to wield the bastard sword one-handed).

These extra abilities can be used to further differentiate weapons, to make some weapons that are simply sub-par choices better, etc. For instance, the Bastard Sword might be a reach weapon when wielded one-handed. By allowing you the full extent of your arm, the longer blade actually extends further than the greatsword's, since the latter MUST have the restricted movement of two arms to support it.

I haven't done a lot of work on brainstorming this, but it seems a way to expand some of the fighter's uniqueness (not hardly bringing him up a tier, mind) and making more weapons more interesting.

[pawsplay]

I don't think that finesse should be a weapon property. Even though a rapier and an axe are wielded differently, they both are wielded with strength, and especially what D&D calls Strength. Using Dex instead is a valid use of a feat. A lot of people seem to think you need a high Dex to be "fast" but the game doesn't really make that distinction. Someone with a high BAB and Strength using a greatsword is going to be blindingly fast.

[Elricaltovilla]

Arguably, Strength and Dexterity should be collapsed into a single stat, as having stronger muscles leads to faster movement and vice versa. In the real world they're too interconnected to really be distinct. But I try not to think too hard about things like that, stats are a gaming construct, they don't really translate to actual ability or things stop making sense real quickly.

[Azoth]

I agree that the feat tax is annoying, and that it should be either a default option with light weapons and a few others (whips, rapiers, and the like). At the very least they could have had it add dex to damage as well for a single feat.

Now onto the whole every weapon is wielded with strength comment. I have to disagree strongly. While it is possible to put your strength behind any weapon, some are not by default used like a bludgeon. It is similar to the misrepresentation that all bladed weapons are sharp. Most hand a half or two handed swords were not sharp as their main use was not slicing flesh, and yet every greatsword wielder thinks he is cleaving flesh easier than a butcher.

[Optimator]

It should be fairly obvious that you use a rapier differently from an axe, and a dagger from a hammer. One set of weapons calls for more speed and precision (call that Dex) and the other more directed force (call that Str).

Strength is speed. Dexterity is reaction speed.

[Xerlith]

Arguably, Strength and Dexterity should be collapsed into a single stat, as having stronger muscles leads to faster movement and vice versa.

Untrue. Excess muscle mass can slow you down - it's not a rule, but these two are not interconnected the way you assume they are.
In my gym I see many bodybuilders that are painfully slow BECAUSE of their muscles.

[pawsplay]

Now onto the whole every weapon is wielded with strength comment. I have to disagree strongly. While it is possible to put your strength behind any weapon, some are not by default used like a bludgeon. It is similar to the misrepresentation that all bladed weapons are sharp. Most hand a half or two handed swords were not sharp as their main use was not slicing flesh, and yet every greatsword wielder thinks he is cleaving flesh easier than a butcher.

Most hand-a-half swords and greatswords were very sharp. They were used in various ways.

Strength does not mean "use like a bludgeon." Cutting or stabbing still involves strength. Moving a blade quickly requires strength. Not bulk, but Strength isn't bulk except incidentally. For instance, Large creatures can carry and lift twice as much, while having the same Strength.

[Optimator]

In my gym I see many bodybuilders that are painfully slow BECAUSE of their muscles.
True, but I guarantee you if you start doing squats and leg curls you'll run faster. Especially with a sprinting regiment.

[Frozen_Feet]

Explosive (plyometric) strenght is the prime trait you need move fast and hit things with either a weapon or your bare fists, so Strenght has its place as the default melee stat. Dexterity deals more with hand-eye co-ordination and reaction speed.

Ironically, if I have to name one finesse weapon, the sort which really needs precise hand-eye co-ordination and reaction speed, it's one that isn't finesseable by the rules.

It's the nuchaku.

[Keltest]

Personally I find the idea that a person would deliberately use a rapier in anything other than a civilian dual to be ludicrous in the first place. Magic or not, those things are never going to do serious damage through any sort of dedicated armor, and any non-rapier weapon is going to smash it to bits, so your only avenue for not getting smashed would be to move.

[Ashtagon]

Personally I find the idea that a person would deliberately use a rapier in anything other than a civilian dual to be ludicrous in the first place. Magic or not, those things are never going to do serious damage through any sort of dedicated armor, and any non-rapier weapon is going to smash it to bits, so your only avenue for not getting smashed would be to move.

That's probably the foil you're thinking of. The rapier is actually a reasonably sturdy weapon.

[Seerow]

It's interesting to see how much a forum's culture can change the context of an argument. Over on the Paizo official forums, there's a discussion running at the moment about why Dex to damage is so resource intensive to obtain, with Weapon Finesse really never being brought into question, but instead most of the argument being focused on whether class features or feats with weapon restrictions coming online at later levels is acceptable, or if it should be attainable earlier/easier/with whatever weapons. I just wanted to comment on it because I do find it funny how the discussion is framed so much differently over there, even as I disagree with their more conservative posters as much as I disagree with some of the more permissive posters here.

For what it's worth, I still stand by my initial sentiment, a feat for dex to hit or dex to damage is an acceptable cost to pay, given how much else dex provides. If Strength was made more effective at things other than straight hit/damage, I would have less problem with just giving dex to hit/damage away for free. Or if stats weren't all valued equally, so dex was harder to raise (as is the case in some point buy systems out there), that would be okay. But I just can't imagine running a game where Dex to hit/damage is free for everyone, and then still have a strength based warrior show up at the table without major changes in other areas.

Basically there's a few major things that need to be addressed in Dex vs Strength:

1) Armor Penalties. Proponents of free dex say dex's AC boost means nothing since heavy armor adds up to the same in the end. But armor penalties make this statement false. You may end up with the same total AC number, but the armor wearer is slower, has far worse skills, and is more vulnerable to casters (low touch AC). If you want the two to be considered equal, eliminating these penalties by some point during game play needs to happen.

2) Utility. Dex gets to apply to very useful skills like Stealth, Escape Artist, Tumble, Open Lock, and Sleight of Hand. It has some weak skills like Ride or Use Rope, and Open Lock gets replaced by low level wizard spells.... but Strength literally has Climb, Swim, and Jump. All three of which get obviated by low level spells, and even at lower levels are situationally useful at best. Closing the skill/utility gap is a must.

3) Defenses. This got touched on under armor penalties, but in addition to the better touch AC, high dex means higher reflex saves. Yes reflex save based spells tend to be HP damaging and not high on threat priority. It is still a meaningful defense that a strength based character has no answer to.

4) Initiative. Even more than any of the above, dexterity's initiative bonus is important. Initiative boosts are relatively rare in the game, and the name of the game is rocket tag. Going first is important, and a high dex character has the best chance of doing so.


Compared to these, Strength has two advantages:
1) Higher damage with two-handed weapons. Since two-handed weapons are not feat intensive, they are the go-to option for anyone wanting to fight on a low resource (feat or gold) budget. Once you get TWFing or Natural Attacks in (where dex to damage usually keeps full bonus and strength gets reduced to half on secondaries), dex tends to catch up; but for the average case Strength is a couple points ahead, and has a slightly larger damage die, putting them ahead about 3-6 points of damage even when the dex user gets dex to damage.

2) Carrying Capacity. Congratulations, you can obviate the need for a mule to cart your stuff around.


Various things I've considered or tried for boosting strength's general value:

1) To address the armor issue, two points:
First: make speed penalties from armor go away at a certain strength level. I tried tying this to encumbrance at one point, but honestly that gets complicated. For a simple version, I'd go something like if Str Mod > Armor Bonus/2 (round down), no penalty to base land speed. If Str Mod > Armor Bonus, no penalty to run speed. So if you have 18 strength, you move at 30ft in Full Plate. If you have 26 strength, you can even run at full speed in heavy armor.

Second: Let skill training negate ACP as it increases. Something like every 3 ranks in a skill negates 1 point of ACP while using that skill. So by the time you are high level, you just don't have ACP anymore with skills you are trained in. Yes, some people will totally be sneaking around in full plate. That's okay!

2) Utility/Skills: Several changes to make here.
First: Jump gets some stuff at higher ranks to make it more effective. By level 9 the Wizard has all-day flight and it's nothing special because there are other ways to get it earlier. Having a level 8-10 Fighter jumping straight up without the massive high jump penalty is not unreasonable.

Second: Climb and Swim get rolled together into an Athletics skill, and that gets a "Run" subskill added to it as well. Past a certain number of Ranks you just straight up gain a Climb and Swim speed, and the "Run" subskill is a basic "Move Faster" option, letting you spend a swift action to increase your speed based on skill check result for 1 round, each round this is used before taking a break increases the DC, failure leaves you fatigued.

Third: Add a new "Applied Strength" skill. Used for the generic "Break Stuff" skill checks and can be rolled to increase Max Lift/Push for heavy object/terrain manipulation. Possibly add an option for the skill check to be used to break grapples, similarly to escape artist.

Fourth: Add a few options for existing skills to use strength in certain situations if it is higher than the normal stat. For example, Balance with Strength when the balance check is caused by an opponent's action (so no balancing on tightropes, but if attacked on a slippery surface you can just take it without flinching); or using Strength in place of Cha for intimidate when making an overt threat (this is a common enough houserule anyway IME).


3) Defenses-Couple of different options here, but none that make a lot of sense.

First possibility is add strength to a save. Fort makes the most sense here, but any melee character is going to have high con anyway, making that substitution effectively useless. Will or Reflex are both good options, though figuring out how to fluff them is another matter.

Alternatively instead of applying to a specific save, you could go weird and do things like str bonus to saves vs Mind Affecting or the like. You could also try to add strength to a non-save based defense. Possibly some extra HP or Temp HP(mitigating the need for con so you can invest in a different secondary/tertiary stat), a small amount of DR, or even bonuses to touch AC. But honestly I think a save based defense is the best option, especially since saves are where most melee based characters are lacking numbers-wise.


Basically the idea is to shore up the drawbacks of armor, expand utility options, and shore up defenses. That leaves Strength with a slight edge in damage without investment, and Dex with the significant edge in initiative, and the two being relatively equal outside of that.

[Anlashok]

But I just can't imagine running a game where Dex to hit/damage is free for everyone, and then still have a strength based warrior show up at the table without major changes in other areas.

I guess I'm not seeing it. Dex to Damage is not hard to acquire in either game. Yeah, there's a cost, but it's a relatively minor cost, especially if you're just building a pure combat character.

And in both 3.5 and Pathfinder, Strength based characters are unequivocally better. I just don't see how giving a martial combat character one extra feat takes them from being outclassed to being completely and utterly dominant.

Maybe if you're more specific? What single feat is a dex-based martial going to take that they can't take right now that would push them so far up and over the top as to completely eliminate THF from the game?

[Azoth]

Most hand-a-half swords and greatswords were very sharp. They were used in various ways.

Strength does not mean "use like a bludgeon." Cutting or stabbing still involves strength. Moving a blade quickly requires strength. Not bulk, but Strength isn't bulk except incidentally. For instance, Large creatures can carry and lift twice as much, while having the same Strength.

They were sharp compared to a hammer, but not to most weapons we would consider finessable.

This is because the blades were designed with different intents and applications. Most light blades (daggers, shamshirs, ect.) were designed to cut flesh, cloth, and leather.

Your hand and a half and two handed swords were designed to survive repeated blade impacts with heavier armors before finding purchase on flesh. This means that they had thicker and duller cutting edges than most smaller blades. It was necessary for them to not crack, bend, or blunt rapidly with each impact.

For example, most pocket knives and dagger length blades are sharpened at a 30°-40° angle. A lot of manufacturers put a near 60° angle edge to larger swords. Which do think would be considered dull/bludgeoning and which would be considered sharp?

[Afgncaap5]

Having seen all the debate so far, and having always been a bit confused by the need for a Weapon Finesse feat before (and after my recent discover of the Shadow Blade feat), I think I'm going to start house ruling that Finessable weapons may always use Dex to attack, and that I'll amend Weapon Finesse to allow for applying dexterity to damage, with Shadow Blade basically just being an alternate form of Weapon Finesse, and making it so that any feats requiring Weapon Finesse as a feat will instead require the prerequisites for Weapon Finesse.

Which, I suppose, means that someone could become a Duelist with just Dodge, Mobility, and one Shadow Hand stance.

...and that a slightly different set of weapons might be finessable for Shadow Hand users, though in this case Finesse refers to damage and not attack. Or I could just... assume that someone who both qualifies for Weapon Finesse *and* has a Shadow Hand maneuver can use both sets of weaponry as appropriate.

...I can probably live with that.

[Frozen_Feet]

I agree that Run skill and increases to movement speed should accompany high strength, strength already has great utility in breaking and lifting stuff. It's just ignored, because people don't pay attention to exact weights of stuff.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce1.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce2.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce3.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce4.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce5.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce6.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce7.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce8.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce9.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce10.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/reinforce11.jpg

[Snowbluff]

Having seen all the debate so far, and having always been a bit confused by the need for a Weapon Finesse feat before (and after my recent discover of the Shadow Blade feat), I think I'm going to start house ruling that Finessable weapons may always use Dex to attack, and that I'll amend Weapon Finesse to allow for applying dexterity to damage, with Shadow Blade basically just being an alternate form of Weapon Finesse, and making it so that any feats requiring Weapon Finesse as a feat will instead require the prerequisites for Weapon Finesse.

Which, I suppose, means that someone could become a Duelist with just Dodge, Mobility, and one Shadow Hand stance.

...and that a slightly different set of weapons might be finessable for Shadow Hand users, though in this case Finesse refers to damage and not attack. Or I could just... assume that someone who both qualifies for Weapon Finesse *and* has a Shadow Hand maneuver can use both sets of weaponry as appropriate.

...I can probably live with that.
Shadow Blade is additive with Strength, so it having more requirements makes sense in this case.

[Elricaltovilla]

@Seerow: You keep saying that you just can't see how anyone would play a STR based character if Dex to damage was free and easy to give out, but the fact is that it is pretty easy to get. In both PF and 3.5 there are multiple options to get Dex to damage, and I've played multiple games where the option was both on the table and off the table, and I've seen no reduction in the number of Strength based characters that come to tables I play at or run. So maybe you'd never play a Strength character again at a Dex to Damage table, but I would and I have, and I love it. The numbers are already out there that show that STR and DEX are comparable damage stats, if you TWF and have sneak attack damage to tack onto your Dex based attacks.

Pointing to AC and saying "Dex is better because it's got better AC and Saves" is a bit silly when the consensus on this forum and other OP forums is that REF Saves are silly and optimizing AC is a sucker's game. Initiative only matters to the point where you can reliably go before your enemies and eliminate them in one shot, which is much easier to do if your damage is sky high (which again, is much easier with Strength).

So yes, Dex might have more general utility, but Strength is still the damage king.

@Marlowe: You could theoretically two hand a rapier, not in official fencing as that would be against the rules, but it'd be no different than two handing a spear or other piercing weapon, save that your hand positioning would be a bit poor because they usually lack the grip space for two hands.

You're now the 3rd person who's missed my point about weapons in 3.5/PF. I was listing examples of weapons I know of that don't make sense as written (or, I thought, not written) in comparison to real world weapons. The specific weapons mentioned are irrelevant to the point I was making.

And it's in the nature of threads to meander on to other topics, or explore material from other systems. There's a 3.0 tag for a reason, and that's there to indicate that you don't want to discuss material from the other tags. If Pathfinder was off the table you should have said so. Us pathfinder guys don't have our own subforum, we have to share it with the rest of the D20 community. This forum is not about 3.5, even if the majority of threads discuss it. It's about the D20 system.



The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).


That's why there's tags.

[Vhaidara]

Also, again, I raise this response to why people would play Str characters: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

The people who want to be effective Dex based characters should not be required to take 2 feats, on top of whatever their combat style requires (Dex based combat styles are usually feat intensive), while Str based combat styles require 1 OPTIONAL feat (Power Attack) to work.

For perspective on why this frustrates me, I'll use the Harbinger class. I generally hate using Str based characters. I just don't like playing them. However, Harbinger, with no bonus feats, lends itself VERY poorly to feat intensive combat styles. For example, I was building one as a duelist. This calls for the following (imo): Weapon Finesse, Deadly Agility, Combat Expertise (prereq), Improved Disarm, and possibly Improved Feint. However, this also ignores that I want to take feats that support Harbinger as a class (Grasp of Darkness and Dark Authority). For my basic combat style, it takes me 2 feats. For my full combat style, I need 3 more. As a non-human character with no class bonus feats, that means I don't achieve baseline effectiveness until level 3, and don't reach the full scope of abilities my character is described as having until level 9. And don't get to start having the character actually explore the options available to her class until level 11+.

Meanwhile, if I'd just gone Strength based, I would have been 100% functional in my full potential from level 1, and already be able to start exploring the Harbinger feats.

Now, why does a character who trained as a duelist since she was a child need to achieve 10 more levels to represent that than the character who, in the same upbringing, used a greatsword instead of a rapier?

[Snowbluff]

I like Int harbinger better. :smalltongue:

[Elricaltovilla]

I like Int harbinger better. :smalltongue:

I need to download that updated PDF...

Still, Int harbinger is only viable at mid levels and up. You still need some strength to carry you through til level 7-10 and since Int is additive, not replacement, it still helps to have some strength or dex.

[Keltest]

That's probably the foil you're thinking of. The rapier is actually a reasonably sturdy weapon.

Ive seen rapiers, and ive seen broadswords, short swords, and longswords. The rapier would not stand up to a dedicated attack from any of the non-rapiers we had, to the point where we were forbidden from even trying. I will grant that I maybe exaggerated on its inability to penetrate armor, but unless youre just ignoring the enemy's weapon completely, you still would never take that thing into an actual battle.

[Vhaidara]

so your only avenue for not getting smashed would be to move.

Also, isn't that kind of the core of Dex combat? Dodging and redirection, as opposed to full stop blocking and taking the hit?

[Keltest]

Also, isn't that kind of the core of Dex combat? Dodging and redirection, as opposed to full stop blocking and taking the hit?

Theoretically, sure. And in D&D mechanics where AC is AC no matter where it comes from, that works fine. In reality, someone who was twirling around the battlefield like a ballerina would be dead a lot faster than the guy wearing plate armor with a shield and sword who could shrug off the blows.

[Vhaidara]

Theoretically, sure. And in D&D mechanics where AC is AC no matter where it comes from, that works fine. In reality, someone who was twirling around the battlefield like a ballerina would be dead a lot faster than the guy wearing plate armor with a shield and sword who could shrug off the blows.

In reality, the guy wearing robes and twiddling his fingers while throwing batcrap at people isn't going to do very much either. In DND, he's the one you (try to) gank first.

[Red Fel]

Arguably, Strength and Dexterity should be collapsed into a single stat, as having stronger muscles leads to faster movement and vice versa. In the real world they're too interconnected to really be distinct. But I try not to think too hard about things like that, stats are a gaming construct, they don't really translate to actual ability or things stop making sense real quickly.

I rather like how Kingdom of Loathing did it, to be honest - three stats, Moxie (sort of Dex+Cha), Muscle (sort of Dex+Str+Con), and Mysticality (sort of Cha+Int+Wis). I think the Tri-Stat system did something similar. But none of those are d20, so that's neither here nor there.


Untrue. Excess muscle mass can slow you down - it's not a rule, but these two are not interconnected the way you assume they are.
In my gym I see many bodybuilders that are painfully slow BECAUSE of their muscles.

There are different kinds of muscle building, is the point. There's the lean, toned muscle that carries with it muscle memory and training, for acrobatic feats and dexterous leaping and rolling. Then there's the powerful, layered muscle that makes you think of bushy mustaches, sparkly oiled torsos, and this technique has been passed down the Armstrong family for generations!

Grouping both under Str alone is mostly fallacious. The former is a hybrid of Dex and Str (with a bit of Con), the latter of Str and Con.



http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Reinforce9.jpg

Objection! Only a few that benefit full attacks? Let's double-check that. Burning Blade: Boost, +1d6 +1/IL fire damage to all attacks this turn. Punishing Stance: Stance, +1d6 damage, -2 AC. Assassin's Stance: Stance, gain sneak attack +2d6. Lion's Roar: Boost, after downing an opponent, you and allies gain +5 to damage rolls this round. Tactics of the Wolf: Stance, when flanking, you and allies gain a bonus of 1/2 your IL to damage. Searing Blade: Boost, +2d6 +1/IL fire damage to all attacks this turn. Giant's Stance: Stance, deal damage as if you were one size category larger. Fiery Assault: Stance, attacks deal +1d6 fire damage. Inferno Blade: Boost, +3d6 +1/IL fire damage to all attacks this turn. Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip: Boost, add rend damage if you deal multiple attacks.
Yes, Desert Wind has disproportionate representation on this list, but there's a lot more to it than you seemed to suggest. While some maneuvers (the X Blade boost chain, Punishing Stance, etc.) add a damage boost by default, others (Lion's Roar, Tactics of the Wolf, Girallon Anime Name Rip) require a bit of smarter planning - but they still add more to a full attack than to a standard attack or strike.

I'm aware that it's a semantic debate - it's still not a lot of material, when you consider just how much there is out there. But it's worth noting that you've got a little more than four maneuvers, three of which are Desert Wind/fire.


Also, again, I raise this response to why people would play Str characters: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

The big advantage to an optimized Str build, as opposed to an optimized Dex build, in my mind, is the all-or-nothing attack. Yes, if you do a great TWF build, with damage bits tacked on all over, you're generating damage and you're hard to hit. A really exceptional Str build isn't designed around hitting a lot, or avoiding hits, or having a good touch AC. It's about scoring one, solid hit, that demolishes an enemy before he can attack anybody else. One big hit with one ridiculously disproportionate weapon, designed to do damage that has to be measured in scientific notation. And there is a certain visceral appeal in playing that character.

[Elricaltovilla]

Ive seen rapiers, and ive seen broadswords, short swords, and longswords. The rapier would not stand up to a dedicated attack from any of the non-rapiers we had, to the point where we were forbidden from even trying. I will grant that I maybe exaggerated on its inability to penetrate armor, but unless youre just ignoring the enemy's weapon completely, you still would never take that thing into an actual battle.

Against plate mail wearing, destrier riding shock troops with lances? Sure, you don't want to bring a rapier to that fight. But Knights were the tanks of the medieval age. Even an actual greatsword wasn't a preferred weapon for dealing with a guy in plate. Most soldiers ran around in boiled leather or (if they were lucky) chainmail, which a rapier would be much more serviceable against.

[Keltest]

Against plate mail wearing, destrier riding shock troops with lances? Sure, you don't want to bring a rapier to that fight. But Knights were the tanks of the medieval age. Even an actual greatsword wasn't a preferred weapon for dealing with a guy in plate. Most soldiers ran around in boiled leather or (if they were lucky) chainmail, which a rapier would be much more serviceable against.

Relatively, but im not just talking about armor penetration here. Swing an arming sword or broadsword against a rapier. Watch which weapon breaks first.

[Dolour]

Against plate mail wearing, destrier riding shock troops with lances? Sure, you don't want to bring a rapier to that fight. But Knights were the tanks of the medieval age. Even an actual greatsword wasn't a preferred weapon for dealing with a guy in plate. Most soldiers ran around in boiled leather or (if they were lucky) chainmail, which a rapier would be much more serviceable against.

actually two-handers were used to lob riders out of their saddle, utilizing the whooping mass of such a weapon, so it kinda WOULD be your weapon of choice against mounted knights...
im just saying. :p

/edit: allso, i find some of the arguing really poor.
being a muscle packed beast doesent make you ANY nimble, if anything the opoosite is the case, as observable with some of nowadays muscle-monsters...
"fusing" dex and str. you really gotta be darn eager to whore that extra +1 to argue like that. -.-

[Segev]

My understanding - and I could be wrong, as I'm no expert - is that you see "muscle-bound" individuals being slowed by their musculature because of two things:

1) They're not really improving strength, just bulk. It supposedly has something to do with the kind of exercise used to build the muscles. High weight, low rep, designed to push them hard and get them to flood with blood for short-term response. Lean muscle under the bigger, bulkier ones produces more consistent results and supports the bulkier ones in most real strength pursuits, but is built by more consistent and long-term effort (i.e. not-quite-so-high weight, lots more reps). I tend, when I bother to try, to probably under-shoot even that lower weight mark, however, and my reps are not high enough. This is why I don't weight lift much and don't see much results when I do. I keep meaning to go back and try again, but that involves investment of time and money.

2) They're not stretching enough, or in the right ways. Lots of exercise will only improve your flexibility in the directions you strain, and can actually diminish it in others if you don't stretch to ensure that the response of your body to the stress doesn't over-heal and tighten everything. Building lots of muscle without maintaining flexibility will make them feel like they're "in the way," when in reality it's just that your body is not flexible enough to move rapidly in the ways you might want.


Gymnasts are actually frightfully strong, but most people would agree that their "primary" stat is Dex, just to look at how they move. Trained martial artists and bodybuilders who are looking at more than just "looks" also tend to be very fast. As somebody else said, speed is mostly a result of explosive strength.

Reaction speed is at least half based on that, because it doesn't matter how quickly you notice something if you can't move fast enough to meaningfully respond. The other half of reaction speed is perception.

Interestingly, somewhere in all of this is muscle memory. Most of what we do day to day is muscle memory. Typing all of this on the keyboard, if I stop to think about what my fingers are doing, I get a little fumble-fingered. Move your mouse to highlight this sentence. Most of what you just did, you didn't think about. Your hand and arm know inherently where to move.

It's not known, to me, anyway, whether muscle memory really lies in the muscles. It feels like it does; your body has patterns with which it is familiar and about which you needn't think too much to get highly accurate results. Other things, which you haven't practiced as much, take conscious thought and feel awkward, even if you technically have the muscles and reflexes to be able to do them well. It could be engrained neural patterns in the brain, or it could be something encoded closer to the active muscles (brain stem, spinal cord, even maybe nerves in your limbs?). I tend to think it's the first, though, simply because I know how adaptable the brain is and how it can learn new tricks that become instinctive with practice.


All of this is getting somewhat tangential to my main point in this post, however: Strength and Dexterity are a lot more linked than D&D makes them out to be.

That said, it's a game. It plays to our stereotypes and expectations, not to reality. And that's fine.

From a balance perspective, Strength doesn't do nearly as much as Dex does. Therefore, something is needed to prevent finessable weapons from just making Strength a universal dump stat. A whole feat for just Dex to hit, though, might be both too much and too little.

[Seerow]

I guess I'm not seeing it. Dex to Damage is not hard to acquire in either game. Yeah, there's a cost, but it's a relatively minor cost, especially if you're just building a pure combat character.

That cost makes all of the difference in the world. It is a barrier to entry, and makes someone more interested in doing things besides maximum possible damage default to strength, or gives the strength based character more room to invest feats into their preferred combat style.


And in both 3.5 and Pathfinder, Strength based characters are unequivocally better. I just don't see how giving a martial combat character one extra feat takes them from being outclassed to being completely and utterly dominant.

Again, my point was never about how letting someone take dex to hit or dex to damage as a feat makes them dominant. My point is that giving those things for free makes them better. For any fighting style other than power attacking with a two hander, a dex based character is coming out ahead (whether it's TWFing, Archery, AoO control, or something whatever else).

When power attacking with a two-hander, the strength based character comes out ahead by 3-6 points of damage per hit, including the increased damage dice, during the levels where most people are going to be playing. It is "unequivocally better", but my contention is that margin of increased damage is not high enough to offset dexterity's other advantages.


Maybe if you're more specific? What single feat is a dex-based martial going to take that they can't take right now that would push them so far up and over the top as to completely eliminate THF from the game?

It's not about any single feat, it's about opportunity cost and barrier to entry. When there are feat costs involved, the strength based warrior is getting his feats online several levels earlier. Yes he will end up with 1 or 2 extra feats at the end, but the most important part is when he takes those important early feats and has them much earlier, the extra feats at the end of progression will be a comparatively minor boon.

Or imagine this: What if you got dex to hit and damage for free, but Strength got a clause added saying as long as it is at least 16 at level 1, and remains your highest stat at all levels, you gain 2 bonus feats. So now while Dex gets the extra utility and such, but strength gets more flexibility in being able to choose what they want to improve on (even if that is just more damage). Right now that is effectively the tradeoff being made, it is just not that explicit.


I agree that Run skill and increases to movement speed should accompany high strength, strength already has great utility in breaking and lifting stuff. It's just ignored, because people don't pay attention to exact weights of stuff.

Breaking Stuff is actually really hard, because they set base DCs around 20-25, so until you have godlike strength you can't even reliably pass average checks. But yes I agree that exact weights and encumbrance are things people generally ignore. Having a skill that actively improves that is the sort of thing that can encourage players to give a second look and realize "Oh hey, I can actually meaningfully affect that". That goes double when you have the high check necessary to say break off a large piece of whatever first. I agree that alone wouldn't be enough but also giving it some grapple utility puts it on par with escape artist as a situational skill with a useful combat niche.


@Seerow: You keep saying that you just can't see how anyone would play a STR based character if Dex to damage was free and easy to give out, but the fact is that it is pretty easy to get.


Easy to get is not the same as free. That's really the core point. "Easy" as in blow a feat or two is fine. "Free" as in "Pick up a weapon and you get this benefit" leaves Strength as a woefully weak stat, giving the player a small amount of increased damage in exchange for losing out on all of dexterity's utility and extra defense.


In both PF and 3.5 there are multiple options to get Dex to damage, and I've played multiple games where the option was both on the table and off the table, and I've seen no reduction in the number of Strength based characters that come to tables I play at or run. So maybe you'd never play a Strength character again at a Dex to Damage table, but I would and I have, and I love it. The numbers are already out there that show that STR and DEX are comparable damage stats, if you TWF and have sneak attack damage to tack onto your Dex based attacks.

Again I am not saying that dex to damage should be off the table, I am saying it should not be free. It sounds like your experience is at tables where it is an option to pick up through feats/class features, not just given out freely to everybody. These are very different things, and they seem to be getting conflated. Stat additions or substitutions you have to work for are fine, ones that are automatically free for everyone affect the game at a much more fundamental level, and require you to evaluate the balance of all aspects of the stat.


Pointing to AC and saying "Dex is better because it's got better AC and Saves" is a bit silly when the consensus on this forum and other OP forums is that REF Saves are silly and optimizing AC is a sucker's game. Initiative only matters to the point where you can reliably go before your enemies and eliminate them in one shot, which is much easier to do if your damage is sky high (which again, is much easier with Strength).

1) Optimizing AC may be a sucker's game, but it's also generally acknowledged that touch AC is worthwhile, because that will stop spells that will ruin your day. Guess what Dexterity's advantage is? Also optimizing AC is a sucker's game because of the rapidly increasing costs and resources you have to sink to keep up. Essentially Free Touch AC isn't something you can just scoff at and say is meaningless.

2) Reflex Saves aren't the best, but that does not make having reflex worthless. It's one of those things where if you have a bad reflex save, it won't kill you, but you will definitely notice when you have a useful reflex save. It is just not like Fort or Will where if you don't have it or immunities you are going to die a horrible death after rolling a single save below a 15.

3) You're seriously downplaying initiative here. There's a very small number of things that apply to initiative, and outside of casters that number gets even smaller. A dex based character is far more likely to go first, and their damage isn't going to be so much lower as you are implying.


So yes, Dex might have more general utility, but Strength is still the damage king.

A strength based character is going to be running 3-6 points of damage per hit higher than a dex based character fighting the exact same way. That slight edge is in fact an edge, but that is not enough to make up for what is lost except to the most narrow minded of players.


Also, again, I raise this response to why people would play Str characters: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

The people who want to be effective Dex based characters should not be required to take 2 feats, on top of whatever their combat style requires (Dex based combat styles are usually feat intensive), while Str based combat styles require 1 OPTIONAL feat (Power Attack) to work.

[quote]For perspective on why this frustrates me, I'll use the Harbinger class. I generally hate using Str based characters. I just don't like playing them. However, Harbinger, with no bonus feats, lends itself VERY poorly to feat intensive combat styles. For example, I was building one as a duelist. This calls for the following (imo): Weapon Finesse, Deadly Agility, Combat Expertise (prereq), Improved Disarm, and possibly Improved Feint. However, this also ignores that I want to take feats that support Harbinger as a class (Grasp of Darkness and Dark Authority). For my basic combat style, it takes me 2 feats. For my full combat style, I need 3 more. As a non-human character with no class bonus feats, that means I don't achieve baseline effectiveness until level 3, and don't reach the full scope of abilities my character is described as having until level 9. And don't get to start having the character actually explore the options available to her class until level 11+.

Meanwhile, if I'd just gone Strength based, I would have been 100% functional in my full potential from level 1, and already be able to start exploring the Harbinger feats.

For everyone asking "What difference does having those extra couple of feats make?" here's a perfect example right here. Though it is being exaggerated how far behind it is by insisting that Improved Disarm and Improved Feint are required before you can start working on other stuff. In practice you'd start taking Harbinger feats at level 5, not level 11, but the general point of "dex not coming for free forces delays in other things, giving strength an advantage" is real.

[Red Fel]

I imagine that part of the bias in favor of Str is the general notion that everyone is getting stronger as they level. Yes, even the mage. You go on enough adventures, you're getting tougher - in theory, if not mechanically. Strength is simple. Strength is something everyone can do. Everyone can push things, can lift things, albeit to varying degrees of effectiveness. Logically, everyone is able to apply their strength to the task at hand.

Dex, by contrast, is trained. Despite being an "innate" ability score, most functions of Dex - agility, precision, evasion - result from practice and training. Aside from the basics of motor skill advancement, most people don't naturally become more dexterous as they grow unless they work at it. In a sense, Dex is more like a skill than an ability score. It makes sense, from that perspective, that it requires a higher feat tax to bring your Dex to bear in combat than it does to wield your Str.

I'm not saying I agree with that perspective, mind you. Yes, you can simply swing a weapon harder to try to deal more damage, but that's not always wise, nor is it always more effective; if anything, swinging a weapon smarter is more valuable. (Sadly, ways to bring your Int or Wis to bear are even rarer.) What I'm saying is that, from the perspective of Dex requiring more training to use properly than Str does, I could see more feats being needed to use it properly.

I could also see a system in which the various additional applications of Dex or Str are given freely to characters who qualify for them, based on ability score and possibly BAB. That just makes sense; it's a natural evolution of training and improving the ability score, and it's something nice for non-casters, who deserve better.

[Dolour]

From a balance perspective, Strength doesn't do nearly as much as Dex does. Therefore, something is needed to prevent finessable weapons from just making Strength a universal dump stat. A whole feat for just Dex to hit, though, might be both too much and too little.
to be fair here, when i think of classic dex classes, those that pop my mind are allso classes with quite some free feats...
sure, fighters get tons of bonus feats too, but they really need them. :p

/edit:

Dex, by contrast, is trained. Despite being an "innate" ability score, most functions of Dex - agility, precision, evasion - result from practice and training. Aside from the basics of motor skill advancement, most people don't naturally become more dexterous as they grow unless they work at it.
well, the same is true for working out and growing stronger. if you dont put any effort into it, your not mysteriously growing any stronger over time.
your not a reptile after all... ~~

[Red Fel]

well, the same is true for working out and growing stronger. if you dont put any effort into it, your not mysteriously growing any stronger over time.
your not a reptile after all... ~~

Here's the thing. I hand you a stick, point you at a fixed target, and say "Hit it." You will, barring a profound lack of coordination, hit the target. I then bark, "Hit it harder!" You will, in all likelihood, be able to do so.

I hand you a stick, point you at a moving target, and say, "Hit it." You may or may not hit it. I make the target move faster now, and say, "Hit it again!" You are now less likely to hit it, unless you have trained.

Yes, physical power (Str) doesn't develop on its own; it has to be trained like any other ability score. But it does not take nearly as much training to learn the basics of bringing it to bear, of using that power. "Hit it harder" isn't a terribly complex instruction to follow. Again, I know that there's a difference between simply using your strength, and using it smartly (see the evolution of movie fight scenes from cowboy punches in saloons to everybody suddenly knowing precisely where to insert an elbow). But the basics are fairly straightforward.

But agility and coordination (Dex) are more complicated; "Hit it with greater accuracy" isn't always a thing you can just do, it's something you specifically have to work on. I don't like it, and I don't think it justifies what amounts to imposing feat taxes on what should be an otherwise legitimate playstyle, but there it is.

[Dolour]

Here's the thing. I hand you a stick, point you at a fixed target, and say "Hit it." You will, barring a profound lack of coordination, hit the target. I then bark, "Hit it harder!" You will, in all likelihood, be able to do so.
thats not the point, wich is that if i spend my spare time doing something that requires nimble fingers, my fine motor skills will improove.
if i do strong man contests, ill grow stronger ina similar way.
if i hang out on the couch drinking beer and watching the latest moron-container neither of those will improove.
(edit: prolly your int score will severely drop, but thats a different topic... ~~)

your statement assumes a lack of motivation to hit as hard as you can in the first place, whereas the physical ability is what matters.
i cant lift anything too heavy for me coz ima lazy sack of crap, in the same way i cant repair a swiss clock if im not used to working smallish stuff.

[Segev]

I think I get where you're coming from, Red Fel, but I'm not sure I agree. "Hit it harder" translates to "put more effort into it," in the short term. "Hit it more accurately," in the short term, likewise is just "more effort." Both can involve trade-offs of extra time (psyching up, aiming) or concentration (which we just HOPE works).

In the long term, both are really just training, and both involve different amounts of work depending on your (body's) natural talents and proclivities. Whether it's a lot of strenuous exercise just to increase your sheer force, or a lot of meticulous practice to engrain specific muscle memory, neither is "harder" inherently to train than the other.

I, personally, find training accuracy easier than muscle, just because I haven't got a gene in my makeup that doesn't scream in horror at the prospect of pushing my muscles to their limits for extended periods of time, while practicing accuracy is just a matter of repetition (and tedium, admittedly).

[Snowbluff]

I need to download that updated PDF...

Still, Int harbinger is only viable at mid levels and up. You still need some strength to carry you through til level 7-10 and since Int is additive, not replacement, it still helps to have some strength or dex.

Was the first part of accursed will moved? Because unless it was, the best way to maintain a good attack rating is a system of int+str or int+dex, but not a lot of the physical score. The point cost between 14 and 16 is pretty high. Extra damage comes from your maneuvers, but that isn't your primary role. Control based combat is. If you want more damage, you can get out of your Harbinger specific schools for ones like Thrashing Dragon.

[lsfreak]

2) Carrying Capacity. Congratulations, you can obviate the need for a mule to cart your stuff around.

I think this is overly dismissive. A chain shirt + a longsword + a dagger takes up a Str10 character's entire limit less 3 pounds before they start taking encumbrance penalties. Once you're in a mithril breastplate, you're still rather limited once the christmas tree effect comes into play: mithril breastplate, two weapons + a bow + 20 arrows, gloves + belt + cloak of whatever only leaves you with 7 pounds of leeway, less if you're using a belt or gloves that have a listed weight (gloves of dex and belt of battle don't).


1) To address the armor issue, two points:
First: make speed penalties from armor go away at a certain strength level. I tried tying this to encumbrance at one point, but honestly that gets complicated. For a simple version, I'd go something like if Str Mod > Armor Bonus/2 (round down), no penalty to base land speed. If Str Mod > Armor Bonus, no penalty to run speed. So if you have 18 strength, you move at 30ft in Full Plate. If you have 26 strength, you can even run at full speed in heavy armor.
Just pingponging ideas around, I've thought about Str instead increasing tactical speed. It makes little to no sense that armor impacts tactical speed in the first place, but making Str count at extra +5 or +10 speed during fights (but not during travel) might go a ways make it compare well to Dex.


Your hand and a half and two handed swords were designed to survive repeated blade impacts with heavier armors before finding purchase on flesh. This means that they had thicker and duller cutting edges than most smaller blades. It was necessary for them to not crack, bend, or blunt rapidly with each impact.
This isn't really right, at all, from what I know. Most of the records we have in fechtbuecher of longsword combat was what we'd call cuts, chops, slices, or thrusts, the latter of which can work against mail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM) but by avoiding, not puncturing, the armor. You can swing at someone in plate if you need to, but ideally you'd be halfswording (i.e. thrusting, into unprotected areas), mordhau (clubbing with pommel/guard), or grappling so you can knife them in the neck. Off the top of my head I don't remember seeing fechtbuecher showing hewing motions during armored fighting, it's all one of those three (predominantly the last). And longswords - overlapping D&D bastard/great swords - were fairly flexible (https://youtu.be/n6Zzm0UbUm4?t=4m30s) (see also the mail tests) unless they were designed specifically for thrusting. The true two-handed swords might be a little different, but then they were wielded more like spears than swords in the first place.


Personally I find the idea that a person would deliberately use a rapier in anything other than a civilian dual to be ludicrous in the first place. Magic or not, those things are never going to do serious damage through any sort of dedicated armor, and any non-rapier weapon is going to smash it to bits, so your only avenue for not getting smashed would be to move.
Your intuition is correct. It was strictly a civilian weapon for self-defense and dueling, not a weapon or war.

[Troacctid]

Isn't the common wisdom that tripping and Power Attacking are the premier melee tactics in 3.5? Both of those are Strength-based and mostly incompatible with a Weapon Finesse build. Giving everyone Weapon Finesse for free doesn't make those options any less viable, it just adds new options, like Two-Weapon Fighting or, I dunno, whatever. That's what happened in 4e and it's what's happening in 5e. You're not going to make Strength obsolete--especially considering that Weapon Finesse doesn't give Dex to damage.

I mean, if you for some reason think Monks are overpowered, it's definitely a buff to Monks, I guess.

[pawsplay]

They were sharp compared to a hammer, but not to most weapons we would consider finessable.


My understanding is that most battle blades, including heavy ones, were extremely sharp. They weren't "sharp compared to a hammer," they were as sharp, in their own fashion, as probably anything in your kitchen. Probably sharper, if you don't cook that much.



This is because the blades were designed with different intents and applications. Most light blades (daggers, shamshirs, ect.) were designed to cut flesh, cloth, and leather.


Sure.



Your hand and a half and two handed swords were designed to survive repeated blade impacts with heavier armors before finding purchase on flesh. This means that they had thicker and duller cutting edges than most smaller blades. It was necessary for them to not crack, bend, or blunt rapidly with each impact.


No, no sword is designed for repeated impacts with heavier armors. It will probably happen, but it's not by design.



For example, most pocket knives and dagger length blades are sharpened at a 30°-40° angle. A lot of manufacturers put a near 60° angle edge to larger swords. Which do think would be considered dull/bludgeoning and which would be considered sharp?

Wakizashi are also designed with deeper angles on the blade, but not because they weren't sharp. It was because they were usually expected to chop, rather than slice, and were more likely to be involved in a parry. Regardless of design, virtually all historical swords were between about 2.5 and 3.5 pounds (things like Scottish claymores and late-era greatswords get bigger, up to maybe twice that at the top end) and were sharp, because the professionals who purchased them and used them wanted the deadliest thing they could get.

Rapiers are not to be confused with estocs or epees. A rapier is a 2.5 to 3 lb. sword. Although lighter than an arming sword (like a knight's sword) in construction, it is made of the same materials, more advanced construction, and weighs about the same. It is a civilian weapon, but it was assumed it would be used in blocks and parries against other weapons. So, while less rugged than an arming sword, it's probably still tougher than a scimitar or a katana, edge-to-edge. It's a direct descendant of cut-and-thrust swords, which is a modern anachronistic term for a sword that has rapier-like properties but still has a broader, triangular blade, like a battle sword.

Even though a rapier is not optimized for heavy battlefield use, it's a perfectly serviceable weapon, just as a scimitar is a fine blade even on foot, though it was was designed for cavalry use. Since Japanese warriors needed a sword that was good on foot or on horse, they turned the scimitar/dao into the katana by straightening it somewhat, making it a compromise blade. There are always compromises in design. But a rapier is, in essence, a kind of battle blade. Misericordes have rapier-like blades, but shorter, and were used as side-arms and to perform coups de grace.

The 18th century, the age of firearms, saw the rapier give way to the smallsword and later, more specialized fencing weapons.

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather2.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather3.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather4.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather5.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Leather6.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Leather7.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Leather8.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Leather9.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/Leather10.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather11.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather12.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather13.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather14.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/leather15.jpg

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s1.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s2.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s3.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s4.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s5.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s6.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s7.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s8.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s9.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s10.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s11.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s12.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s13.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/s14.jpg

[Marlowe]

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/21.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/22.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/23.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/24.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/25.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/26.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/27.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/28.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/29.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/30.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/31.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/32.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/33.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/34.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/35.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/36.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/37.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/38.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/39.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/40.jpg
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/41.jpg