LogFAQs > #896678591

shadowsword87 posted...

-Most martial finesse weapons actually suck for damage, which is why finesse is so useful.

I feel like I'm missing something here, because that sentence doesn't seem to make sense. I'd assume martial finesse weapons sucking for damage would make finesse LESS useful. Because they're always going to be worse than Strength-based alternatives if you have the option (and aren't, say, a Rogue or a spellcaster who can't use them).

Unless what you're saying is that the ability to substitute Dex for Str is itself a positive, because then you're basically able to boost a single stat (Dex) to improve both attack/damage and defense, because in the alternative scenario boosting Str only improves attack/damage, while you're forced to rely on heavier armors (without a Dex boost) for defense.

Or conversely, if you're saying that finesse is a necessity for non-martial classes who are stuck with things like daggers or shortswords because they can't actually wield the Strength-based weapons, which essentially allows the character to offset a weaker weapon (somewhat) by using it more precisely and with more skill rather than with brute force.



shadowsword87 posted...

The max damage die you can get is a d8 with a rapier, which isn't great, but it's what any dex character has to deal with, it's not special.

Yeah, which was the core point of my original question. If trading a Str build for a Dex build
means you're stuck with weaker weapons, and with you not getting the sort of class abilities that, say, the Rogue has to compensate, then choosing Dex over Str is essentially always a poor choice - it implies Fighters and Paladins should ALWAYS go the Str route, and leave Dex for Rogues and Rangers.

Basically, if Dex characters have shitty weapons, and you have a scenario where you can choose to either go Str or Dex, why would you ever go Dex?

My question was mostly whether or not the damage lost was effectively compensated for in other ways, or if it was minimal enough that sacrificing it for flavor isn't TOO bad a choice, or if it's such a catastrophic nerfing that only an idiot would ever do it. I can't really juggle the numbers and multiple data points in my head to really feel out just how drastic a handicap it is.



shadowsword87 posted...

-Shields are actually really good in 5e (which is a +2 AC), WotC has really made it hard getting a crazy high AC. Most monsters have a bounded AC up to 20, with a few, few of them getting all the way up to a whole 25 AC! This means showing up with 18 AC is actually pretty good and not the default for basically every class.

Yeah, I've noticed that in the online games I watch. Even when the PCs get into higher levels and are carrying around significant amounts of magical gear, they never seem to get all that high.

My assumption is that a tanky build with magical heavy armor and a shield could put up a 20+ AC, but almost every other class is topping out somewhere around 16-18 or so.

Then again, most of what I watch is narrative-heavy RP where every player is pretty much suboptimal as hell, so that might just be them all totally sucking.

(Not that I'd even necessarily want an optimal min-max'd build even if I was playing in a game - like I told SoBe back when we were in KoL, that sort of playstyle just saps all joy out of me.)


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family