Making Weapon Finess a Freebie?

[pbd]

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.

Personally I think using strength as the basic "to hit" stat is either a hold-over from earlier additions where it was probably used for simplicity sake. Now I can see it being primarily str to hit to reduce the number of "good" stats a viable character needs, but that arguement is kind of week.

Personally, I think a reasonable house rule would be to allow finesse for free and even expand the number of finessable weapons (but don't get carried away, a greatax ain't finessable). Possibly, some weapons should allow the choice of dex vs. str bonus for attack (a longsword or maybe handax could, feasibly, be weilded either way), but this might be taking it too far...

pbd

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

Personally, instead of having it be a feat I'd have it be a requirement. IE any weapon that would qualify for the finesse feat MUST be used as if finessed, so that you can't use your str mod to hit with that even if you want to. Making it a rule instead of a "free feat" feels better to me.

Personally, I think a reasonable house rule would be to allow finesse for free and even expand the number of finessable weapons (but don't get carried away, a greatax ain't finessable). Possibly, some weapons should allow the choice of dex vs. str bonus for attack (a longsword or maybe handax could, feasibly, be weilded either way), but this might be taking it too far...

pbd

I'd think that the last bit would be too far. But I can see a feat allowing you to finesse a normally unfinessable weapon. Especially with rules stating you MUST finesse normally finessable ones (as I suggested). Then you could also have a feat allowing you to strength based attack a finessed weapon. Redundant, perhaps... noone is likely to take it, but to be fair it should be there.

 

[Meeki]

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.

Nope. It is the style of fighting. To penetrate (hit) a breastplate its all in the muscle pretty much or getting through natural armor. Rapiers need force behind them to do much of anything, if we are getting into realism then a rapier shouldn't be able to penetrate full plate at all the blade would break. The fighting you are thinking of with a rapier might be a style of fighting congruent to the early renaissance, such as having your hand in the air. However within the "fantasy time" of D&D this style would not be congruent, it just wouldnt provide enough force to go through any metal plate armor. I've been messing around with rapiers for a long while (fencing and such) and can tell you it takes training to use your dex. If opponents are unarmored I can see dex being a large factor in hitting the target because you dont need much force, however armored opponents my first reaction would be to thrust like you would a dagger, down at my side and thrust into the armor's ridges, NOT anything that can use dex easily. It is not a characteristic of the weapon. Rapiers in the PH are not dueling rapiers they are designed for war and can be used as slashing weapons although not per the D&D rules. Rapiers are possibly the ONLY weapon I can see having an intrinsic finess"ibility" and only against opponents with light armor on. Daggers are a horrible example if looking at them from a reality stand point, they were used in combat alot to finish off an armored opponent by applying brute FORCE behind a point (strength).

Also, I think people are confusing what the term "to hit" means. When you hit something in D&D it means you exert enough force to cause damage (less damage reduction) not just touch them with the weapon. You have to get through that full plate or 5 natural armor, this requires strength. Using dex to hit with all weapons is just foolish, how can a great axe possibly use dexterity to hit. I can see why some people think this because you have to aim and hit just right, but this is, I argue, part of base attack NOT dexterity. The more seasoned you become at martial combat the easier it is for you to know where to hit someone. Even the most dexterous elf is not going to be able to get through full plate with a hand axe with strength 8 unless he has some serious training. I recognize you can say that they can just hit the "weak" spots of the full plate but D&D assumes not.

 

[Ibram]

I dont think that the original poster was refering to the use of dex for ALL attacks, just with specific weapons like the Rapier. A finesse attack is (IMO) more about striking vulnerable places in an opponents armor rather then just battering through the armor. You still need strenght to cause damage though.

 

[Meeki]

I dont think that the original poster was refering to the use of dex for ALL attacks, just with specific weapons like the Rapier. A finesse attack is (IMO) more about striking vulnerable places in an opponents armor rather then just battering through the armor. You still need strenght to cause damage though.

Even when striking vulernable places you still need to penetrate, thus the reasoning for making someone take a feat. Gaps in full plate can be covered in something as heavy as chain or a simple gammison.

 

[pbd]

Nope. It is the style of fighting. To penetrate (hit) a breastplate its all in the muscle pretty much or getting through natural armor. Rapiers need force behind them to do much of anything, if we are getting into realism then a rapier shouldn't be able to penetrate full plate at all the blade would break. The fighting you are thinking of with a rapier might be a style of fighting congruent to the early renaissance, such as having your hand in the air. However within the "fantasy time" of D&D this style would not be congruent, it just wouldnt provide enough force to go through any metal plate armor. I've been messing around with rapiers for a long while (fencing and such) and can tell you it takes training to use your dex. If opponents are unarmored I can see dex being a large factor in hitting the target because you dont need much force, however armored opponents my first reaction would be to thrust like you would a dagger, down at my side and thrust into the armor's ridges, NOT anything that can use dex easily. It is not a characteristic of the weapon. Rapiers in the PH are not dueling rapiers they are designed for war and can be used as slashing weapons although not per the D&D rules. Rapiers are possibly the ONLY weapon I can see having an intrinsic finess"ibility" and only against opponents with light armor on. Daggers are a horrible example if looking at them from a reality stand point, they were used in combat alot to finish off an armored opponent by applying brute FORCE behind a point (strength).

Also, I think people are confusing what the term "to hit" means. When you hit something in D&D it means you exert enough force to cause damage (less damage reduction) not just touch them with the weapon. You have to get through that full plate or 5 natural armor, this requires strength. Using dex to hit with all weapons is just foolish, how can a great axe possibly use dexterity to hit. I can see why some people think this because you have to aim and hit just right, but this is, I argue, part of base attack NOT dexterity. The more seasoned you become at martial combat the easier it is for you to know where to hit someone. Even the most dexterous elf is not going to be able to get through full plate with a hand axe with strength 8 unless he has some serious training. I recognize you can say that they can just hit the "weak" spots of the full plate but D&D assumes not.

Sorry that arguement doesn't hold.

Hitting armored opponents isn't generally about going through the armor, it is about stiking vulnerable places; there are very few weapons that could acually puncture armor. Even a large ax would have trouble with full plate and only heavy crossbows would be effective ranged weapons. Also, if this was how hitting meant puncturing armor, every combat would require a new suit of armor. With moe compete armor (full plate versus breastplate) there is greater coverage, better joint protection in particular, and thus greater protection.

In combat scoring a hit on an opponent generally means finding a weak spot int he armor, at joints or the sides, and this would take more finesse than anything...

pbd

 

[pbd]

Even when striking vulernable places you still need to penetrate, thus the reasoning for making someone take a feat. Gaps in full plate can be covered in something as heavy as chain or a simple gammison.

Also, your argument is only possible for armors which provide total body coverage. Historically most armors cover only the torso, upper arms, and thighs; full plate is rare. Wounds usually occur around the armor coverage areasand at connections, not through the armor.

If hitting meant penetrating armor, a breastplate would be as effective as full plate; they both use a similar thickness of metal.

pbd

 

[Ibram]

Even when striking vulernable places you still need to penetrate, thus the reasoning for making someone take a feat. Gaps in full plate can be covered in something as heavy as chain or a simple gammison.

Chain provides less protection against thrusting attacks (such as a rapier or a dagger) then does full plate, and even then you still have eye slits and such open.

Dexterity is simply adding to you ability to strike that vulnerable spot, not penetrate it (which is where the damage comes in).

Remember how abstract the d20 system is when it comes to combat, armor makes it harder for you to be hit while in reality armor mitigates the damage delt from a blow that connects. And a good hit with an axe will lay anyone flat, regardles of if they had been hit twice before or ten times before.

 

[Krinkle]

Chain provides less protection against thrusting attacks (such as a rapier or a dagger) then does full plate, and even then you still have eye slits and such open.

Dexterity is simply adding to you ability to strike that vulnerable spot, not penetrate it (which is where the damage comes in).

Remember how abstract the d20 system is when it comes to combat, armor makes it harder for you to be hit while in reality armor mitigates the damage delt from a blow that connects. And a good hit with an axe will lay anyone flat, regardles of if they had been hit twice before or ten times before.

Maybe its time to bring back Weapon vs. Armor adjustments and Speed Factor.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Wow, I amazed at how furious this debate has turned...I'm afraid if I started talking more about my house rules someone head would explode or something.

Anyways, I'm glad that in the 21st century theres so many experts at fighting for your life with archaic weapons here, I wouldn't want to meet a lot fo you on the battlefield, some of you have to be at least 9th level in fighter to have all this medieval combat wisdom..