Torture does not work in the abstract, but it totally works in situations where you can check the answer. Like if you ask "what is the command word to this item" then you can test it right there... Doesn't make it any less evil though.
It matters because not every game is an adventure path where there is a defined story the bridge serves. The bridge could have been a previously described piece of background in the PCs home city. Say there is an old manor accessible only by this bridge that the PCs saw at level 1, but at level 5 the DM decided to put a plot-hook in the manor. So now its important to know how to evaluate the bridge because we want to know "is this even hard for heroes of level 5?"
That doesn't help much though. Random != Free will.
I think the main problem comes up when people who take this view then decide that they'd ranter not die at all. Then you get Pharasma getting upset with you and Murats knocking on your door. The meta issue is that if you don't feel any attachment to your (character's) soul but you play with someone who does. That generates an intractable disagreement about the cosmology. You can see it in this thread! Some people say "why defy Pharasma, you heretic!" While others say "It's my life! I only have one."
What if a demoralizec critical made the target frightened 2 and slowed 1?
I would suggest that it gives Frightened 1 and the frightened level can't be reduced as long as the creature can sense you. That way it would encourage the enemy to run and hide for a turn but not be as strong as a true fear effect. A crit success would set the frightened level at 2 so that a creature would need to run away for longer. They would then become bolstered once the frightened condition fell off.
I'm playing Dead Suns in Starfinder right now and I just hit level 10. The level 10 stat bump really bothers me. I am playing a divine Gish and my strength is 18. Normally, Id want to bump it to 19 because I am playing a strength-focused melee character, but I know that Dead suns ends at level 12 so there is no point to me boosting my strength. This feels really weird. I think it would be even worse if I was playing a home game, got a 19 and then the game ended at level 14. I'd feel really sad. Odd stats should either do something cool or we should not have them. And carrying 1 more bulk is not cool...
So a few things. First your group is kinda undersized, and the sea serpent is a solo level 12 monster. It sort of makes sense that it would be a near impossible fight for you. Mark has also said that monsters at that level have all their numbers ~2 points too high... I do find that in P2 you need at least 2 front-liners and a combat-healer to have a good chance in hard fights. The other thing I noticed is that unlike P1, you can't rely on your AC and saves to protect you. You absolutely have to have a high con score if you want to be on the front lines. That said, boss fights are kinda super lethal. Solo encounters used to be bad in P1 because action economy was on the PC's side. They are still bad in P2, but because the boss blows through the balance window.
Divine Wrath says:
You will notice there is no save type but a four-degrees entrance.
Class identity is how easy it is to identify the class when you are playing with/as it. take a P1 monk for example: it has a lot of identity as a lightly armored, slightly mystic martial artist. You can tell someone is playing even an archetyped monk based on what they do and how they fight (most of the time). P2 backgrounds have almost zero identity. Consider: can you tell me the background of your last character without looking it up? I know I can't.
The untrained thing worries me. It means you can never hit when doing nonlethal damage.
Do they have to be dwarf fighters specifically? You have access to a ton of disabling spells at level 6. If they must be fighters you can use a Cytillesh stun vial. DC 20 is pretty high at level 6 and the dwarves can throw several vials. It goes like this: 1. Dwarves sneak up on the guard.
2 Things you need to decide/remember: The DC to hear a fight is usually -10, but you can fudge it a bit if the target is not fighting back. The dwarves also can't be wearing heavy armor because of the ACP, so if the PCs catch them they are in trouble. I'd set the DC to detect them at 10 + the dwarves' stealth bonus. Remember that sleeping characters get -10 to perception. Also, don't worry if the ambush fails. The PC who rolled high on perception will feel good, you will still have a hard fight with one PC disabled right away, and you will get your exposition anyway.
Ya, that makes sense. I guess my complaint is that I would prefer a broader fluff-defined class identity instead of A tighter mechanical identity. I think its easier to write content for the fluffier classes; leads to more player customization. That being said, you may be right that Paizo is going in the opposite direction. Then new books won't contain new class feats for the fighter, but might contain new classes, like "Marksman" or something to that effect.
It appears to me that PF2 does attempt to define classes by their mechanical niche. I don't like it, but it's obviously there. Monk has how many non-skirmishing feats, 5? If your argument is that the fighter being defined by its mechanical niche has forced other classes to become too defined by a mechanical niche as well, then I agree with you. If a class is defined solely by mechanics than mechanics are weirdly restricted, and if they are defined solely by fluff, then classes are mostly interchangeable. So I am not actually sure what you mean by "skirmisher," so forgive me if I appear to be straw-manning you. It seems to me that at least half of the monk's class feats are encouraging him to stand still. - Stances all take an action, which suggests that your first round is supposed to go: stance > move > flurry. - the monk gets an option of 2 action strike every 4th level that adds a rider effect (and encourages a turn of 2-action strike > flurry) - Tangled forest stance straight-up makes it hard for enemies to move away from you - There is a grappling feat chain. Also, most of the possible unarmed strikes are all agile. That means that your 3rd and 4th attacks are at a higher chance to hit. This again encourages you to stand still and make strikes. The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying. The ranger has no bow synergy :( The fighter has all the bow feats.
I used to play a lot of Magic: The Gathering, with its five-color system of traits. Green started as the creature color, with the best creatures for attacking. But Wizards of the Coast realized that the game was more fun when all colors had good creatures on the battlefield. Before they clarified their vision to give green a better role, green got marginalized as the color of big, bland creatures, because no-one was allow to have the best creatures all around. I didn't know that about green, but that is exactly what I was trying to say :) Thus, Tactician Warrior or Craftsman Warrior would be my goals for fighter class. I like imagining that the fighter could be split into 3 classes: a Wisdom focused, Charisma focused and Intelligence focused one. The int-fighter is the warrior scholar who fights by knowing his enemy. The wis-fighter is the disciplined mystic swordsman. The cha-fighter is the battle-field commander. Unfortunately, the monk is already the wis-fighter, and the bard is the cha-figher. So I only had an int-fighter to suggest.
You could make a game where classes are defined by their mechanical niche (see strong hero, fast hero, etc.. in d20 modern) but Pathfinder 1 and 2 are not that game. First, we already have baggage attached to classes. We have canon paladins of Erastil that are not about tanking at all, but about being light armor-wearing archers. Second, you are supposed to get 11 class feats in P2. Since we expect the ability to pick from new options every level, you need at least 33 feats per class. I challenge you to come up with 33 unique abilities around the theme of "mobile skirmisher." Finally, Paizo is already not using your approach. Look at the monk's ki powers. Why does a mobile skirmisher get magic? That makes no sense. But it does make sense if the monk's theme is "ascetic, self-sufficient warrior"
When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes? Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job. P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!" So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion: Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.
Oh I agree that you can make a game that's not balanced around being at full. But my argument is that P2 *is* balanced around 100% HP. If my fighter was not at full or near full HP each fight he would go down in one the turn instead of two.
Hooray I got a Mark response! Achievement get :) That's a good use-case. Touche. I guess I was disappointed by this incarnation of the assist action because the fighter has a "ranged assist" feat and I thought that it would be neat to do that with my 3rd action. Part of it is that I don't think that there are enough non-class-gated martial options for the third action; by my count there are: • Raise Shield
I think its important for the base system to have enough options there so that the classes can then add twists on the baseline.
I was locking at the Assist action when trying to find neat uses for my third action, and then I noticed this: You help an ally attack the enemy or foil the enemy’s attacks against one of your allies. Choose one enemy you’re adjacent to and one ally adjacent to that enemy. Then, attempt a melee attack against the enemy’s AC. Assist targets AC and has a critical failure case where it applies -2 to your ally. If you are expected to have a ~50% chance to hit, making an Assist attack with your 2nd or 3rd attack seems counterproductive. Yet to make giving up your primary attack worthwhile, your own damage output needs to be about 1 tenth of your ally. I could maybe see a save-focused spell-caster using Assist, but they have no way to use Assist at range or any desire to be in melee. Assist is such an iconic action that it would be sad to see it relegated to being super niche. My quick fix would be to give Assist attacks +10 to hit (or target AC-10). That way, giving up your primary attack may be something you want to do to give a stronger friend +4 to hit, but it makes using your 3rd attack something that's not counter productive.
This archetype is so cool. It's good at what it does but does not seem OP on a first read. I wish I was starting a new campaign soon :( Edit: This is actually just Yasuo the Archetype :) Were you inspired by the League of Legends champion?
To make matters worse, to actually want to activate the owlbear claw you need to have the following situation come up: 1. You must have 1 resonance left over that you don't plan on using for heals.2. You need to score a crit. 3. That crit must not itself win you the fight. That is, the outcome must still be in doubt after you resolve the crit. 4. The crit specialization of your weapon must matter at that moment. 5. You must not already have the critical specialization for your weapon. That's a pretty narrow range of levels and circumstances... They should have just put a potency crystal there. That is at least a cool trinket because it has a powerful effect, saves action economy, and is useful for every group.
Some random thoughts on the video. I think his bigger point of players selling "cool items" for pluses is because the "cool items" often wern't. Many such items have crippling action requirements and poor save DCs that don't scale with your other options. Also, you were disincentivized from selling good high value items by the 1/2 price sell-back rule. Drop a +2 sword on a level 3 party and ask them if they would trade it for 2 +1 swords! 4 +1 swords is more likely, but I think they would just give it to the front-liner in 80% of situations. I think that "spreading yourself thin" problem is solved by limiting the number of bonuses. Pathfinder limited AC to 4 common, buy-able, bonuses: Armor, Natural Armor, Deflection, Shield. The problem came up with miss-pricing "rare" AC bonuses, such as luck and insight. Maybe you could have some bonus types not stack "horizontally." For example, you can only have 1 luck bonus on your character. Whether your luck bonus is in AC or to hit or in acrobatics is up to you, but you only get one.
What bothers me is that Paizo still has not patched this issue, even though Mark has said that it is a problem. In P2, the difference between "best at hitting" and "good at hitting" is just 10%, and this is what the monsters are off by. The errors in the bestiary are basically invalidating all playtest experience.
That's great in theory. I wrote this thread after a play-test where our level 4 barbarian, with 72 hp, went down consistently within 2 rounds in relevant but non-boss encounters. In a world like that, you can't decide to "risk it and push ahead" because being below full HP is suicide. Besides, there are plenty of other interesting resources to manage: spells, spell points, resonance, etc...
Its just basic economics. Why would I cast a cure spell on a peasant for 1 gp when I can have a knight pay me 10 gp? I have to eat too. So we shouldn't pay doctors because they are just good guys? I also said nothing about emergency circumstances. This is purely buying a cleric's spell slots. Plus; What if I am a cleric of Abadar? Commerce is practically a sacrament.
Encounters are balanced around characters being at full HP entering combat, so just do that! Say resting for 15 minutes fully recovers your HP. To make combat threatening, every time you go unconscious, you take a wound. When you have 3 + Con modifier wounds, and take a wound you become crippled, applying penalties to most things. When you take a wound while crippled, you die. Sleeping heals some number of wounds and there may be mid-level spells that will remove wounds. Done.
I've been comparing P1 and P2 a bunch this last week and trying to put my finger on why I felt so dissatisfied with P2. Its especially vexing because playing P2 is actually pretty fun, and has much of the feel of playing first edition pathfinder. I think my main dissatisfaction with P2 comes from the incredibly narrow range of possible bonuses that the 4 degrees of success system forces on it. You can't have a character with an attack bonus or defense bonus be too far out of the range that the system expects or there will be tons and tons of crits. This exacerbate the effect of a small accuracy bonus; transforming it into a large damage bonus. I started comparing this to how 3.5 and P1 approached balance and I noticed this: P1 takes a limited-resource balance approach. It gives you a certain number of resources, like feats, gp, point-buy etc, and asks you to spread them around to different offenses and around 6 defenses. The idea is that you can be average across the board, or specialize in some number of those fields. And it mostly works, as long as you avoid the blatantly broken combos and as long as the challenges you encounter attack all of your defenses, at least sometimes. This shifts a lot of the balance burden on to encounter design. Its this build sub-game that was one of my favorite parts of pathfinder 1 and it gave context to all of the combat that I would engage in later. I also feel that the P1 approach gives more design space to create new and distinct options later on. My suggestion would be to significantly expand permissible bonuses by level. Such that a combat focused character can have a 30%+ chance to crit on their first attack. However, to prevent accuracy from being godly, you would remove bonus damage on crits and replace it with weapon specialization effects. This gives a sneaky crit confirmation mechanic for the more powerful crit effects that would require a save. Further, to prevent unhittable AC and worthless attacks, make it so that misses, but not critical misses, are instead a graze and do minimum damage or have some other minor effect. So an Strike with a Greatsword would look like:
Fireball would look like this:
Heighten (+1): Increase the damage by +2d6 and the persistent damage from a critical failure by 1 point of damage.
Here is a thought to reduce the impact of four degrees of success. What if we remove the bonus damage on crits and replace it with the critical specialization effects. That way we could have a wider range of bonuses without breaking the damage math.
One allows you to utterly break the game by copy-pasting builds you find online and the other won't let you tie your shoes and talk at the same time for fear of you destroying the universe. Languages in P1 were always a little under-powered because everyone and their pudding had a unique racial language, so even if you maxed linguistics and had 10 languages, the likelihood that you would have the correct language for a situation was never high. Add to that that comprehend languages and tongues come online pretty early and it was all kind of pointless. P2 nerfed the number of languages you get but did not really reduce the number of languages that exist (that I can see) so it makes it even less useful.
Lets talk about Tanking in P1 and P2. First thing I want to get out of the way is that I am not talking about aggro management as has been introduced to us by MMOs and other such games. We've never really had aggro in Pathfinder, and if we did it would be a mind-effecting effect so would not be that reliable :p However, Pathfinder 1 has always had the ability to play a tank in the sense of a martial controller. A spell-casting controller makes areas of the battlefield unpleasant for enemies to enter. For example: casting grease means that enemies need to move away from it or risk repeated reflex saves. A martial controller accomplishes this with by managing 2 factors: 1. Being able to take more punishment then the average PC
A straightforward barbarian build is partway a tank already. Enemies don't want to stand near the barbarian because he will full attack them, they don't want to even pass near him to get to softer targets because he will AoO them. A more tank focused build might wield a reach weapon and have ways of preventing enemies from leaving their threatened area. E.g. they might take the Stand Still feat. However it's accomplished, the existence of a tank role makes combat more interesting because positioning is more important for everyone involved. Now let's get to some playtest experiences! (spoilers for Doomsday Dawn 1 ahead) I wanted to build a tank for this adventure since I like playing martial characters and I like battlefield control. For the first few encounters I played a monk, but the last two encounters took place on a different day and my DM let me switch out for a fighter. As a monk I was disappointed in my ability to control pretty much anything. The lack of an attack of opportunity was really striking and the lack of AC meant that I was more of a glass cannon. So since I missed AoOs, I figured I'd switch to a fighter with a reach weapon! It felt pretty good to wade into the middle of a bushel of goblins and have them care that I was there. Walking up to a spell-caster meant that he couldn't avoid an attack from me and cast a spell (because he would need to Step twice). Unfortunately, I was still basically as squishy as anyone else. My AC was maybe a point or two higher then other people and I had a few more HP, but there was no way I could reliably survive a round of focused fire from 4 goblins and 1 commando. Since I was the only front-liner in the party and I won initiative I was almost guaranteed to be focused down. I only survived because the goblin caster got greedy and ignored me to cast burning hands at my allies. In the final boss fight of the dungeon I tried to protect my comrades by going mano-a-mano with the vampire/hobgoblin thing. My AoOs again felt good for taking out the dire rats, but the boss's attack bonus and damage was so high that I went down in two rounds. He then proceeded to fight 1v4 against the rest of the party and kill them all. Conclusions
I kind of like that AoOs are rare because more creatures provoke them, though I think that's more to do with the 5ft-step not being free then anything about who gets to use them. I think that every class interested in being in the thick of things needs a way to control the area around them. This could be something unique to each class, or the attack of opportunity, but it has to come online at level 1 because it is critical to the tactics of pathfinder combat. Finally, I think as it stands now a pathfinder 2 party needs 2 front-liners that can trade enemy focus between them with careful positioning. My friend also suggested that a cleric with the Healing Hands feat could sort of do the same thing by using his absurd amount of free healing to keep the party's primary tank up and kicking round after round. This isn't really good or bad. Just an observation. This may change at higher levels but because progression is pretty linear my intuition says it should remain true. We will see :)
By the way, does anyone actually know what the DC for Grab Edge is supposed to be? There's a simple pit trap in Rose Street Revenge. Of course, instead of telling me what the Grab Edge DC is, it tells me to see the Acrobatics Skill, which basically says "The GM sets the DC". AAARRGH! I'd use the level of the pit to pick the row from the chart on page 337. I'd choose the difficulty (trivial, low, high, severe, extreme) Based on the conditions. Low as the base line; a higher one if it's raining or something.
Alongside the level 1 rocket tag issue if the GM wins initiative and rolls high, as some have been reporting in the playtest, my worry is that players benchmark their power against the monsters they face. The fact that many monsters PCs meet have better attack bonuses than the players could ever achieve can be demotivating and make players feel inadequate. It is kind of silly, but players do it all the time, at least in my experience. I think that bench-marking against creatures you face is very reasonable. It is a simulationist view of the game. The thinking goes: The bonuses I have to my attack represent my martial skill with my weapon. Even if I can't "see" the bonus of enemies in game, if a goblin is hitting me more often then I could hit my evil twin, then I feel like said goblin is more skilled then me. This is very discouraging if the fantasy you are trying to play out is "blade master." I think a better mechanic even in PF1 is aid-another. I've had players at level 1 that CR 1/3rd foes needed a 20 to hit. So they would roll a bunch of aid-anothers to get one or two hits with a much higher chance. Along with flanking, which large groups of foes have an easy way of setting up, they can remain a threat. Incidentally, Starfinder has this exact problem but even worse, and It's about 1/2 the reason I will probably never play that game again after my current campaign ends D:
I would like it if we just dropped deity alignment and used anathemas to control which clerics can worship whom. I think anathemas are much more clear role-play hooks then alignment, especially since no two people can agree on what Chaos and Law are.
There's no amount of time that would be guaranteed to be sufficient. You could release the game to playtest, find a lot of issues, make a lot of changes to fix them, release the game to a second playtest, find a lot of new issues, make a lot of changes to fix them, release the game to a third playtest, find a lot of new issues... If you keep finding "a lot of issues" that are worth fixing after 4 cycles, doesn't that imply you have a pretty big problem? I mean, you will always have complaints from someone since you can't please everyone, but that would no longer be "a lot of issues".
My thinking is that a classes' defining/non-feat abilities need to be build-independent. For example, barbarian rage and monk flurry work with all weapons and are pretty distinct.
I really dislike the "no defiance" part of the anathema. If my totem is an evil Dragon, I doubt that evil dragons will be nice to me in turn... I see no reason that a barbarian that respects the ideal of a red dragon's power would not want to test himself against an actual red dragon.
First, a food for thought question: Why would you choose to build a class-based system over a class-less system which just has a bunch of talents to choose from? There can be many answers to this question, but I think the most useful is that a class-based design lets you introduce a sub-system that defines a given class in a way that you would struggle to make both balanced and deep if you were limited to only using talents. Spells are the flagship example of such a system, but we can see other uses in PF1. Consider the barbarian's rage. Every aspect of the class is built around manipulating rage with rage powers in various ways. When someone says "What is the barbarian class about? The answer is rage." Or consider the Magus. The Magus is defined by the existence of spell combat and spellstrike; from level 1 to level 20. Heck, even the fighter had an identity. It was "I get to take feat chains real fast." I contend that the classes that really captured people's imagination in PF1 were those with a strong defining feature or features that brought the class together from a mix of mechanics into a coherent concept. I think that many non-spellcasters (and even some spellcasters) in PF2 are not about anything. Consider the fighter; he gets 4 abilities that are not static number boosters or part of the standard progression: 1. An attack of opportunity
Are any of those features so exiting that you would say "I want to play a fighter because I get a flexible feat!"? "But Knight", you might say, "the classes define which list of talents you have access to." Well my hypothetical friend, this does create an identity, but I think it makes for a weak and negative identity. Since many classes don't have any meat to build on in the actual class table their class feats necessarily stand alone. That means that you can't say "a monk is defined by his combat styles" because half of all monks actually use swords or something like that. I also say that this identity is negative because the classes are defined by what they can't do almost as much as by what they can. And psychologically it feels bad to have to say "Well I want to play an archer so I guess I have to be a fighter because they are the only ones with archery feats..."
Ancestral Paragon gives you a feat but does not say you can avoid is perequisites. No conflict and no heritage feat :)
Different schools are good at different things. If they will had damage, utility and defense, them your choice of school does not matter.
Am i reading it wrong? It looks like Wild shape completely replaces your combat statistics. I thought we dumped that in PF1 because it made physical stat investment irrelevant for druids.
I noticed this too. I think that this is a combination of the general feats and skill feats being listed in the class table, and class features being more sparse because they did not want to force build-defining choices. This exacerbates the problem of feeling lame because the class features that you do get are important but bland +1s. I also feel that some classes' feats are less exciting then others. Compare the paladin to the monk. The paladin's options are all extremely bland, but the monk's choices are awesome: a) A defensive stance + better jumping
And the feats get more awesome as you go. Oh and the first ability you get is a double strike for one action...
The Ki-strike monk feat is required by all the other ki-powers. It seems like this breaks the idea that feat trees should only exist for feats that build on the previous feat. I think it would be better if those down-stream powers only required a ki-pool. That way we could add alternative entry points for ki users. That being said, all the ki powers already increase your ki pool, why not just ditch the requirement all together? That way Ki-strike will be an option if you want a slightly larger ki pool (Adding Wis instead of a flat +2.)
I personally liked the option of both VMC and taking different levels.
For what it's worth, sometimes people house rule without being up front about it. Ex: a GM might ban the summoner, but it won't come up until someone tries to play one.
I really like Wind Leaper Its finally a way of jump scaling into the late game. I am building a speed optimized character and I am looking forward to jumping 30 ft straight up :)
I've always seen the monk as the warrior-mystic. The fighter should be able to build a punch-good character. Ki is absolutely core to my idea of the monk and I am sad that the Ki-Strike feat is so unexciting. Its also lame that every ki-user has to start with the same feat. It would be cool if there were three or four entry points into the ki feat tree.
Since all the items draw from the same pool, it implies that all item activations are equally powerful. No one who has a +5 sword even considers attacking with their untrained foot. That's kind of my point. This is only a problem if its in the game's design goals to have swordsmen kick people sometimes. I think it is a design goal to have interesting low-level items, but not necessarily consumables, remain useful into later levels. Incidentally, I think that the "Ki Strike" power is also a problematic symptom of our love of resource pools. It will either be a feat tax, or it will make all other monk powers weaker to justify its existence.
I think Resonance is an interesting approach to get rid of the X/Day items, however I think there is an unintended consequence that I've not yet seen addressed. Since all the items draw from the same pool, it implies that all item activations are equally powerful. This means that players are dis-incentivized from even keeping their old cloak from level 5 once they get access to some other level 10 cloak, because its more useful to activate the level 10 spell-in-a-can then a level 5 one. The old level 5 X/Day item remains just as useful at later levels, while in the new system the relative value of one point of resonance increases. One way of working around this would be to multiply all resonance amounts by 3 (or some other number) and have resonance costs for lower level items go down as PCs level up. Or you could flip it and have resonance pools double/triple at levels 8/16. Then you multiply the resonance costs of every item of those levels as appropriate. This way, weaker items remain interesting.
Indeed. We also now have confirmation that adding Dex instead of Str to damage with finesse weapons is a Class Feat rather than being freely available. So Str is mostly good too. Man this forum moves fast :p Personally, I don't like locking combat styles behind a class like this. If only Rogues can do the lightly-armored martial build then it forces anyone who wants to play that style of character to play a rogue. It also means that every class that a designer wants to open that style to needs to have an in-class way of matching the rogue's class feat. I think dex-to-damage either needs to be a general feat or not exist at all.
|
