Dex Bonus to Damage?

[Arkhandus]

Heaven forbid a swashbuckler should be able to do more than just tickle people with his fencing blade. -_- :\

 

[AnonymousOne]

Crossbow Sniper -

Prereq - Weapon Focus (Any crossbow)
Provided you are using the Crossbow for which you have Weapon Focus
You can sneak attack or skirmish out to 60'
add 1/2 Dex Mod (rounded down) to Damage

 

[Phlebas]

Improved critical seems to be quite effective at getting the best damage out of finesse weapons, especially if wielded 2-handed by a rogue with flanking......

OK its not a replacement for STR damage bonus, but its a pretty effective use of a Feat to increase damage

 

[comrade raoul]

Heaven forbid a swashbuckler should be able to do more than just tickle people with his fencing blade. -_- :\

That's what the actual swashbuckler's Int bonus to damage is for.

It's true that the swashbuckler is underpowered, but a couple of multiclass feats in Complete Scoundrel fix that. (One basically gives fighters swashbuckler AC--encouraging the swashbuckler to mostly take levels in the fighter class--the other basically gives swashbucklers rogue-grade sneak attack, making them offensive powerhouses.)

 

[comrade raoul]

I still don't cease to be surprised at what Bo9S allows to be gotten away with...

I still don't cease to be surprised that there are people who would actually allow it in their campaigns.

 

[Mort]

I still don't cease to be surprised that there are people who would actually allow it in their campaigns.

Yes, it's just a horrible idea to have fun effective warriors that can actualy *gasp* have a chance at keeping up with the spellcasters at high levels.

More on topic, unless you take a level in swordsage, the investment required for shadow blade (I don't have the book in front of me, but you need the feat, another feat for a shadowhand stance, I think you need some shadow hand manuevers as well more feats, but I could be incorrect here) is quite prohibitive.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, it's just a horrible idea to have fun effective warriors that can actualy *gasp* have a chance at keeping up with the spellcasters at high levels.

Hush! You know fighters can't have nice things.

More on topic, unless you take a level in swordsage, the investment required for shadow blade (I don't have the book in front of me, but you need the feat, another feat for a shadowhand stance, I think you need some shadow hand manuevers as well more feats, but I could be incorrect here) is quite prohibitive.

Three feats for Shadow Blade:

6th level: Martial Study (Shadow Jaunt)
Then: Martial Stance (Island of Blades)
Finally: Shadow Blade

You could start 3rd level, but the maneuver choices are inferior.

2nd or 3rd level: Martial Study (Shadow Blade Technique)
Then: Martial Stance (Island of Blades)
Finally: Shadow Blade

Cheers, -- N

 

[Aleolus]

Guys, he's looking for a feat to add dex, I believe. And I have one.

Superior Finesse
Prerequresites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse (any)
Effect: Pick one weapon for which you have the Weapon Finesse feat. You may add your Dex bonus to damage instead of your Str.

 

[comrade raoul]

Okay, I know this is a bit of a hijacking, but I can't resist a response.

Yes, it's just a horrible idea to have fun effective warriors that can actualy *gasp* have a chance at keeping up with the spellcasters at high levels.

I know this is the refrain that Tome of Battle partisans like to give, but often the examples they give of abusive spellcasters rely heavily on lots of material from supplements, or rely on highly specific combinations of spells. In those cases, the problem seems to be with the supplemental material or the individual spells, not the spellcasters--and it seems like a simpler solution is just to prohibit the supplements or nerf the offending spells. Why design a whole new set of classes stronger than anything in the SRD, even the cleric? I've asked this a bunch of times, but I've never really seen an answer.

Hush! You know fighters can't have nice things.

You know, I'm pretty sure that's actually the biggest problem with the Tome of Battle material. I actually agree with people who say the fighter is too weak--but I think the wrong solution is designing classes that make the fighter irrelevant. Fighters (and barbarians, and paladins) are iconic enough that they should be generally playable, and giving players a choice between a fighter and a fighter++ just punishes people with less experienced or those who for whatever reason don't want the added complication of a lot of maneuvers. That is, the fighter should have nice things--not the "warblade."

I should note that, on the whole, I really like the Tome of Battle--I just think the warblade, the crusader, most of the feats and lots of maneuvers (mainly Devoted Spirit and White Raven ones) are over the top. These are enough to make accepting the book whole hog disastrous, but with some pruning, I think it's a fantastic resource. (IMC I've basically replaced the monk with a slightly modified swordsage, for example, and given fighters and rangers a limited number of maneuvers as they progress. It works great.)

 

[Mort]

So as not to completely derail and hijack this thread, I started a new thread on Bo9S and vs. other classes here. Lets keep this thread on topic for the poor OP.