Making Weapon Finess a Freebie?

[Rystil Arden]

Think of it this way: what if all reach weapons required a feat to have that reach? That would suck, right?

This is a false analogy. A reach weapon's reach is based on the physical make-up of the weapon. It will always be long enough to reach the opponent by its own intrinsic qualities. On the other hand, finessable weapons may be built to allow a graceful style of attack, but that requires special training to unlock compared to the "just swing it really hard" style.

That said, this doesn't mean I'm speaking up against free Weapon Finesse per se, I just dislike false analogies.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

To be absolutely clear here..I got this idead from the Mongoose d20 Conan ruleset...

I plan on changing the rules of my D&D game so that character with a dex modifier higher than their Str modifier may use their Dex modifier for melee attacks with light/finesseable weapons and unarmed attacks, gaining the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat w/o having the feat.

As an old Runequest/GURPS/skill based RPG/etc player, I have been programmed into believing that Dex should be inportant for making melee attacks darnit!!

I don't care so much for realism here, just what makes for a good game and "feels right." So arguments about how a high dex person is going to know how to use a hand axe or how to poke through armor with a dagger are wasted on me, if I wanted realism I'd probably go with Call of Cthulhu (ironically...). My players a pretty combat happy bunch, and they don't powergame, so it's a nice little perk for the high dex rogue and caster types. Flashing blades in moonlit alleyways and all that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't really see people with naturally high dex naturally being able to just know how to use their dexterity to hit say with a hand haxe instead of using strength.

Whyever not? It isn't really any big stretch once you accept the principles that big muscles let you use a rapier better by default.

Although I've not considered using it in D&D I don't think it would be a problem at all. Effectively it is just saying that certain weapons (from a list) can be used with finesse rather than strength. It becomes a characteristic of the weapon, rather than the person.

 

[Ibram]

Weapons Finess as a rule not a feat was the very first thing I implemented IMC after reading Conan d20. It gives a slight boost to rogues/monks and allows other characters (like archer types) to be somewhat effective in melee without taking away from their ranged feats.

The way I see it is that for finessable weapons, such as the Rapier, learning how to use your dex for the attack is part of your proficiency with the weapon. By gaining proficiency with the weapon (through a class feature or the weapon focus feat) you can then use the weapon for finesse attacks rather then strength attacks.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is a false analogy. A reach weapon's reach is based on the physical make-up of the weapon. It will always be long enough to reach the opponent by its own intrinsic qualities. On the other hand, finessable weapons may be built to allow a graceful style of attack, but that requires special training to unlock compared to the "just swing it really hard" style.

What makes you sure that Strength is the most obvious ability for melee attack rolls since the start? One could see that Dexterity should more realistically be the base ability, since the matter is swinging the weapon in the right way to aim the target.

The Str-based melee rolls come IMO from a very old assumption (I suppose from OD&D) that BIG weapons require high strength, and the stronger you are the easier it is to swing them. How much is that true with a dagger? Is it realistic that a bodybuilder uses a dagger better?

I wouldn't change how it works (I don't want to make Dex more powerful than it already is), but I'm just trying to say here that not everything, even the basic rules, are always so well-realistic if you think about it. A reach weapon is obviously longer than most other weapons, that's quite a fact, but so is a dagger effectively lighter than a greatclub... Why can't someone state that it should instead take a feat to use Str with a dagger, and "unlock" the Str-based use?

 

[pbd]

Must say I agree

Only certain, brute strength, weapons would benefit form a high strength in attacking and I believe MORE weapons would benefit from high dex for attacking.

For heavy two-handed weapons like big axes, hammers, pole arms, and two-handed swords strength would be the major player. But for smaller "quicker" weapons, the finessable list and probably many additional one-handed martial weapons, dex would be more important. Also, several weapons could wither be strength OR dex mod weapons (maybe a hand axe or pick could either just be powerred theropugh armor or maneuverred to vulnerable spots), but this is getting too involved.

I don't think it is unbalanced to make WF a freeby, I think it is more realistic.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The reason lies in the D&D abstraction of Armour Class, something which has always been a bit odd, but most of us accept. Higher strength lets you penetrate the Armour/NaturalArmour better, and in earlier editions, Armour was our main source of AC. The problem comes in 3.x where there are many people with high AC that doesn't come from Armour at all (just dodging and such), which muddles the issue. Certainly, when I fence I don't need strength because I only need to depress the tip with about 500 micronewtons of force. But if I want to hurt the other fencer, despite his kevlar body-covering and his mask, I'm going to need to hit very hard.

That said, I agree with you. The basic rules are not realistic. But no matter whether or not they are, reach weapons are a false analogy for weapon finessable weapons. Bob the Village Idiot can pick up a guisarme (with the nonproficiency penalty and all) and use it with reach, having never trained in combat in his life or seen a guisarme before because the weapon is just long. On the other hand, Bob would not be able to fight with finesse with a rapier, having never seen one before.

And please, I am *not* arguing against allowing Weapon Finesse for free. I am arguing against manipulative rhetoric.

 

[apesamongus]

This is a false analogy. A reach weapon's reach is based on the physical make-up of the weapon. It will always be long enough to reach the opponent by its own intrinsic qualities. On the other hand, finessable weapons may be built to allow a graceful style of attack, but that requires special training to unlock compared to the "just swing it really hard" style.

How do you use a whip with the "swing it really hard" style. You falseness is false. Personally I question why dex isn't used for most weapons. It seems that being able to control the weapon should be more important than swinging it hard.

Yes, in the D&D paradigm "hitting" an opponent includes both making contact and damaging, but that's an argument as to why strength is ALSO important, not why dex isn't.

Seriously, give me one good reason why Jim with Dex 20 Strength 14 shouldn't hit and damage an opponent more often with his longsword than Frank with Dex 12 Strength 14.

 

[Rystil Arden]

How do you use a whip with the "swing it really hard" style. You falseness is false. Personally I question why dex isn't used for most weapons. It seems that being able to control the weapon should be more important than swinging it hard.

Yes, in the D&D paradigm "hitting" an opponent includes both making contact and damaging, but that's an argument as to why strength is ALSO important, not why dex isn't.

Seriously, give me one good reason why Jim with Dex 20 Strength 14 shouldn't hit and damage an opponent more often with his longsword than Frank with Dex 12 Strength 14.

If you can't crack the whip hard enough, you aren't going to hurt anyone with it. But then, you are using a bit of spotty rhetoric too by putting words in my mouth. I never argued that there didn't exist certain weapons that don't use strength very much. I argued that allowing reach weapons to have reach for free was a false analogy for allowing the entire spectrum of light weapons to gain weapon finesse for free. You know what? It still is. I don't see how this is even a point of contention.

Seriously, give me one good reason why Jim with Dex 20 Strength 14 shouldn't hit and damage an opponent more often with his longsword than Frank with Dex 12 Strength 14.

Let me say it again for you: I am not saying this is wrong!
I am just saying that it could be possible that Joe with no combat training or idea how to wield the weapon he is using, 16 Dex, and 2 Strength might not be able to hit more often with an arbitrary weapon, say a short sword, than Frank with 14 Strength and 10 Dex. I am not saying that with training Joe should not hit better than Frank. Heck, I'm not even saying that Joe should not hit better than Frank without training. I am saying that it is possible that there exists some Joe, somewhere out there, who does not know how to fight with finesse and cannot hit better than Frank with arbitrary weapon (not something specific and exotic like a whip), whereas it is impossible that Joe with a guisarme does not have 10-ft reach. This is why it is a false analogy. If I sound too pedantic, I apologise, but I felt that after being misunderstood twice by assuming that I could just explain simply, I had to go all-out this time.

Bottom Line: Please do not keep arguing with me if you think I am saying that Weapon Finesse should not be a free feat or that Dexterity should not rule attack rolls. I am not saying this. I'll give a simple diagram of what I was arguing against: Since A (which is obviously true) is true, then B (which might be true, but is not an analogue to A or derived from A, although it is made to seem related to A, so using A as evidence to B is misleading) must be true. An example: A: Military officers gain veteran benefits if they survive after the war is over, and their families get a stipend if they die. B: D&D players should gain the same veteran benefits as military officers after a campaign is over because both military officers and D&D players were fighting against the enemy, and the family of the player should get a stipend if her character is killed in the campaign.

 

[DreamChaser]

How do you use a whip with the "swing it really hard" style.

You don't. Which is why, under the 3.0 system, whips were a ranged weapon, which made overall more sense IMO.

Seriously though, the Strength v. Dexterity debate has occurred so many times it is not worth talking about.

The is one reason I can see not to give Finesse for free: archer builds, especially elven archer builds. Something that limits this very easy to abuse build is that they aren't as good with their melee weapons because they don't tend to be as strong (in the higher levels w/ magical help perhaps but not from the start). If they want to make up for that, they need to use a feat which delays their archery feats a bit (a short delay for a fighter but a delay at lower levels when it will count the most).

Overall, WF as a freebee makes some sense, but so does Point Blank Shot. Really, it is a circumstance not a technique. I think ultimately, short term (i.e. low level) balance was the reason for making these feats, not pure realism.

DC