Weapon Finesse

[Nifft]

What do people think of this Feat change:

Weapon Finesse [General]

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 or higher.

Choose one of three categories: light weapons, rapiers and halfspears (provided the character can use either in one hand), or whips and spiked chains (provided the character is at least Medium-size).

Benefit: With any weapon in the selected category, the character may use a Dexterity modifier instead of a Strength modifier on attack rolls. Since the character needs the second hand for balance, apply the armor check penalty of any shield worn to attack rolls. Furhtermore, the character does not benefit from any Strength bonus to damage (though a penalty would still apply), unless the character has Weapon Focus with the selected weapon, in which case Strength bonuses apply.

-- Nifft

 

[Crothian]

well, whip is a ranged weapon so it already uses dex.

I think grouping things together like this is not a good idea. Having only apply to one weapon really makes sense,m otherwise you will really be taking too much away from strength.

 

[Jasperak]

I don't think the original feat needs to be changed. It is balanced and IMHO better than weapon focus and almost as good as Weapon focus and Specialization, depending of course on the character.

 

[Jeph]

I don't think that grouping weapons is neccassary either. However, I do think that it should be available for other weapons, to . . . maybe with a higher BAB prereq? Like, +3 or +5 for 1-handed, non-light weapons, and +9 or +11 for 2-handed weapons?

 

[Aaron2]

I've always let Weapon Finesse apply to all weapons (i.e. you are either a Finesse fighter or a Strength fighter).

People who normally take Finesse do it anyway, people who wouldn't normally take Finesse don't. So it hasn't been unbalancing.

The only characters that really get an advantage are two-weapon fighters with high dex that use different weapons (instead of the usual dual shortswords). They're such a small crowd (and nerfed anyway) that it doesn't make much difference.


Aaron (lower bookkeeping is my motto)

Here's some more ....

Have Weapon Focus/Spec apply to groups of weapons (swords, axes, hammers etc).

Dodge gives a +1 bonus against everyone. I roll all my bad-guy rolls at once and it was a pain to specifically roll the "dodged guy" plus I got sick of hearing "I dodge the guy who is going to hit me."

 

[Ravellion]

Have Weapon Focus/Spec apply to groups of weapons (swords, axes, hammers etc).

I wouldn't do that... it makes the sacrifice for choosing one weapon too low. It's like "Yeah, I've been traing with the scimitar for 5 years now, and I've got a really cool one"."have this". "Ooh, an even shinier short sword, I'll master that in... oooh... a jiffy." Also two weapon wielders will have specialised really quickly in both of their weapons, taking the one perk of a double weapon away IMO.

Dodge gives a +1 bonus against everyone. I roll all my bad-guy rolls at once and it was a pain to specifically roll the "dodged guy" plus I got sick of hearing "I dodge the guy who is going to hit me."

I know this technically isn't broken, the feat chain afterward is already pretty powerful, so I kind of think of this feat as a feat you have to spend to get access to the rest. Still, I can't agree with you on this one, whether the player or the DM has to deal with it, it's more bookkeeping than it's worth.

 

[Aaron2]

I wouldn't do that... it makes the sacrifice for choosing one weapon too low. It's like "Yeah, I've been traing with the scimitar for 5 years now, and I've got a really cool one"."have this". "Ooh, an even shinier short sword, I'll master that in... oooh... a jiffy." Also two weapon wielders will have specialised really quickly in both of their weapons, taking the one perk of a double weapon away IMO.

I'm not so fond of the shortsword/shortsword combo as being, hands down, the best around. You save two feats for the cost of 1 point of damage (average of 1d8 vs 1d6). I favor variety. With the ability to upgrade you magic weapon in 3e, I found that most players stick with a favorite weapon(s) anyway.


Aaron

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I play two Short Sword (or two Long Sword) because most of the double weapons are simply stupid. The Double-Sword is the least offensively stupid of them, but even then, is difficult to carry reasonably and shouldn't be as effective as twin Long Swords anyway. Luckily, none of my players use them, so I haven't had to nerf the stupid things.

The only double weapon that makes sense is the Quarterstaff, which is a vastly under-rated weapon.