We have a feat for adding your shield bonus to some Reflex saves. Against all AoEs, I believe...
he he yes i imagine almost everybody take that one;)
Yeah, it's a shame that sword and board is only effective in Paizo Pathfinder if you play as a Ranger or Slayer.... who already have good reflex and evasion.
Now if you use third party products such a feat actually becomes useful since they actually support that combat style on other classes and make it have a use.
|
4e D&D allowed easy access to Dex to damage attacks. Some classes/attacks used Dex and some used Str, and you just chose which ones you liked. Hell, there were Intelligence attacks and Charisma attacks and everything else, too. You always did damage with the stat that made the attack. Strength was never replaced by Dex. Plenty of characters used Strength.
As mentioned, D&D 4E added Fort Saves to stuff Str does. That's not a small addition. They also allowed it to be used for attack and damage on some ranged weapons. Stats other than Str and Dex could also be used, reducing dependency on any one stat.
And even then, you generally needed Feats to use anything but Str on opportunity attacks or other opportunities for 'basic melee attacks'.
It's also much more based on Class, with what Class you play almost entirely determining what stats you need in combat as well as out, and different Classes taking into account what stats they use (and how useful they are otherwise) in their Class balance. So Classes that use worse stats can have advantages to make up for it.
In some ways, the same is true of Pathfinder, but not generally with the physical stats and not to nearly the same degree.
Likewise, in 5e, using Dex for damage is simply a function of weapon--weapons with the Finesse quality can use Dex for hit and damage by anyone, at no cost.
D&D 5E has a different AC paradigm. Specifically, Dex isn't used at all for AC if wearing heavy armor, and (due to hard-coded stat maximums) heavy armor results in about the same AC as light armor + maxed Dex. That makes Dex a lot less useful and necessary defensively...while the addition of a Str Save also helps Str in that regard. The Str build and the Dex build thus wind up with identical damage, AC, and Save distribution at high levels. The Dex build is sneakier and has better initiative, but also likely suffers a lower AC at lower levels,but is very equivalent.
In short, both these examples run up against being from different systems entirely, and thus not directly applicable, since Dex provides far less comparative advantages to Str in those systems.
Now, I'm totally cool with a Dex-to-damage Feat...but it should be a Feat, and you should need Weapon Finesse to get it. That provides some balance. The additional requirements Paizo puts on it (Weapon Focus or some skill ranks and use restrictions) seem a bit unnecessary to me, but not especially onerous. And Class abilities being hard to dip is usually a solid call.
An example:
Had a group with a warpriest and dex to dmg was allowed.
What happened? This wp outclassed everyone in combat and was untouchable by npcs.
This was early levels, later levels it normalises.
Heavy/medium armour
HIgh dex (ac, initiative, touch, reflex)
Dex dmg twf high crit weapons
If you have a rogue take dex to damage it is different from a frontliner taking it. I would like to see Dex to Dmg but I can see that it makes some characters too well rounded defensively, utility and damage wise for the investment.
I would like dex to not give Soooo much before a straight dex/dmg feat.
Ps: i love Monks but if tbey get dex/dmg, tell me what weakness does a monk have? (archetypes/qingon/unchained).
Saves, AC, touch ac, flatfooted ac, evasion? Defensively flawless. And you can build damage easily then (if you dont uoure using only core).
I think what Seranov is saying is this: The fact that strength is so superior to dex in terms of damage numbers is what is keeping it relevant as an ability score. Making Dex almost as good as strength in the "hitting things" department will make strength almost irrelevant.But when all Str has going for it is "HIT STUFF HARD" while Dex has numerous important effects, you're damn right it shouldn't be easy to have Dex further encroach on what is supposed to be Str's deal without at least a minor expenditure of resources.Even if "Hit Stuff Harder" is that significantly more damage? I think people are ignoring just how extreme the damage gap is.100% this.
Either you make them equivalent or you don't, and I'm very much in favor of the former. Making A strictly better than B in most things, and then making A nearly comparable to B's focus is downright ridiculous. It's not fair to people who enjoy B's shtick better, or the fluff involved, or whatever.
This is the point I'm trying to make. If everyone got, say, Dervish Dance or Fencing Grace as a free bonus feat at first level, people who just used strength and wielded that Scimitar in two hands would still vastly out-damage the ones who actually went for Dex to damage. Or, they could use Strength and just pick up a shield--now their AC is significantly higher than the Dervish Dancer's AND they're still dealing a great deal more damage because there are so many more relevant buffs to acquire.
If Dex to damage were just allowed with finessed weapons as is, they'd still be significantly far behind Strength-based damage, not "almost as good" as you two are suggesting.
As mentioned, D&D 4E added Fort Saves to stuff Str does. That's not a small addition. They also allowed it to be used for attack and damage on some ranged weapons. Stats other than Str and Dex could also be used, reducing dependency on any one stat.
I'd be thrilled if there were an easy way to get Strength to hit with some thrown weapons if we could get Dex to damage with others. There's a belt, but, well, that obviously creates a problem since you have at least two other build-critical belts taking up that slot (Str belts and Blinkback Belts, if we're talking throwing).
And even then, you generally needed Feats to use anything but Str on opportunity attacks or other opportunities for 'basic melee attacks'.
That was a case by case basis. Quite a few classes got non-Str basic attacks.
D&D 5E has a different AC paradigm. Specifically, Dex isn't used at all for AC if wearing heavy armor, and (due to hard-coded stat maximums) heavy armor results in about the same AC as light armor + maxed Dex.
You mean like how Full Plate gives +9 AC with 10 Dex, but the best AC you can get from light armor is +8 until very, very late in the game when you can finally get a Dex in he high upper 20s.
The Str build and the Dex build thus wind up with identical damage, AC, and Save distribution at high levels. The Dex build is sneakier and has better initiative, but also likely suffers a lower AC at lower levels,but is very equivalent.
I feel like Pathfinder works exactly the same way except that Strength save are replaced with CMD and Strength has a huge boost in damage over the Dex build (rather than nearly identical damage--which is not really the case in 5e, either).
An example:
Had a group with a warpriest and dex to dmg was allowed.What happened? This wp outclassed everyone in combat and was untouchable by npcs.
This is called "being a warpriest. What other classes were around? I find it very hard to believe a full BAB guy with a greatsword and 18 Strength wouldn't put him in his place very quickly. 2d6+9 at level 1 is crazy potent, and the guy can still probably get 18-20 AC depending on Dex.
Ps: i love Monks but if tbey get dex/dmg, tell me what weakness does a monk have? (archetypes/qingon/unchained).
Saves, AC, touch ac, flatfooted ac, evasion? Defensively flawless. And you can build damage easily then (if you dont uoure using only core).
No, you can't build damage easily. If you purely look at the sheet, it might look close, but bring in a pile of magic items and a few typical buffing casters, and see what happens.
Caster: "Here, I enlarge you."
Str Guy: "Yes! I gave up 2 AC, but now I do 4.5-5.5 more damage and look at this reach!"
Dex Guy: "Oh, I lost 2 AC, 2 points of accuracy, AND my damage is the same...hooray."
An example:
Had a group with a warpriest and dex to dmg was allowed.What happened? This wp outclassed everyone in combat and was untouchable by npcs.
This was early levels, later levels it normalises.Counterexample: I have a group in which the Dex-Alchemist is inferior to my Str-Magus in almost every category (he has a better Reflex save, by 1. Less initiative, less AC even when he chugs the Mutagen... he's better on the Dex skills simply because he's invested in some of them and for the most part I haven't). My character is the one who frustrated the GM by being untouchable unless he rolls a crit, and spends a lot of time playing meat shield to the Alchemist. We're still on the low end of levels.
Single examples don't mean much, because there's a lot of stuff in play behind the scenes.
Comparison between 2 different classes which can be built each in many ways (especially alchemist), generaly frontliners are more stereotypical (fighter ranger barb, exceptions will akways exist).
I assure you I can put together a magus with better defenses than str one (kensai, kapenia). You're totally right that there are.many things in play but you cant ignore examples because they are the basis to analyse anything practical, case studies.You however bring another example which is as valid and does not invalidate any other.
The issue with dex to dmg in my opinion is that in some cases it can be too good. Most cases I think are those where a class has been given tools to compensate for having High dex but medium/low str or high str with medium/low dex (or low high saves). Add in Dex to dmg and this design principle doesnt function as well.
If Dex to dmg existed as easily as a feat, i know that personally i could make too weakness-free characters, easier than now. I really dislike no weaknesses because it is unintereating and gets your teammates killed when the gm challenges you.
I really dislike no weaknesses because it is unintereating and gets your teammates killed when the gm challenges you.
You will always have a weakness. Every character has a weakness.
What you are talking about is having a very highly optimized character while your team mates do not. Dex to damage alone is not enough of a boost to take you from ok to super character. It can take you from really good to super character, but in that case the GM should be able to challenge you without making things too hard for the rest of the party.
So, to those insisting that Strength get some more benefits...
Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?
Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?
I'm honestly curious.
For me clearly AC.
But those wanting dex to damage already have dex to hit and want a second one.
I really dislike no weaknesses because it is unintereating and gets your teammates killed when the gm challenges you.
You will always have a weakness. Every character has a weakness.
What you are talking about is having a very highly optimized character while your team mates do not. Dex to damage alone is not enough of a boost to take you from ok to super character. It can take you from really good to super character, but in that case the GM should be able to challenge you without making things too hard for the rest of the party.
It turns strength from an important stat to a nearly useless one. Even with a VERY conservative calculation that equals at least 5 more likely 7-10 additional point buy points. A very big part of normal PB amounts.
What you are talking about is having a very highly optimized character while your team mates do not. Dex to damage alone is not enough of a boost to take you from ok to super character. It can take you from really good to super character, but in that case the GM should be able to challenge you without making things too hard for the rest of the party.
Absolutely correct. However i.think this is the heart of this discussion, how good is player 1 choice vs.player 2 or your choice between which character to play in a campaign. Dex to Dmg is too easily exploitable even by mistake to end up in the optimised scenario.
I want more options and I want them book printed, and dex is a wonderful fluff thing I wish was integrated since the start. It wasnt, so hammerimg it in with little cost does break many many builds (in the "why would you ever not do that" way.). I would like a choice that works and doesnt make holes in the system with such ease (can dream..).
I speak solely mechanicaly no Roleplay choices. I dont play like this but it is what we re looking at.
Ps if someone does a no weakness PC it is not easy as a DM to provide a fair challenge to your party week in week out and its exhausting. You get pretty good at strategy though...
This is the point I'm trying to make. If everyone got, say, Dervish Dance or Fencing Grace as a free bonus feat at first level, people who just used strength and wielded that Scimitar in two hands would still vastly out-damage the ones who actually went for Dex to damage. Or, they could use Strength and just pick up a shield--now their AC is significantly higher than the Dervish Dancer's AND they're still dealing a great deal more damage because there are so many more relevant buffs to acquire....I think what Seranov is saying is this: The fact that strength is so superior to dex in terms of damage numbers is what is keeping it relevant as an ability score. Making Dex almost as good as strength in the "hitting things" department will make strength almost irrelevant.But when all Str has going for it is "HIT STUFF HARD" while Dex has numerous important effects, you're damn right it shouldn't be easy to have Dex further encroach on what is supposed to be Str's deal without at least a minor expenditure of resources.Even if "Hit Stuff Harder" is that significantly more damage? I think people are ignoring just how extreme the damage gap is.100% this.
Either you make them equivalent or you don't, and I'm very much in favor of the former. Making A strictly better than B in most things, and then making A nearly comparable to B's focus is downright ridiculous. It's not fair to people who enjoy B's shtick better, or the fluff involved, or whatever.
If you can substantiate this example with str vs. Dex and how a shield will swing it to str build to having more AC i am willing to reexamin my stand.
But for me dex 18 str 10 look at AC 14 and str 18, dex 10 look at 12 with a shield. Or str 16, dex 14 for same AC, but then damage is behind on str build. At high levels the str dude may get somthing but if dex to damage should be free from level 1 then other things should also be there.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the point I'm trying to make. If everyone got, say, Dervish Dance or Fencing Grace as a free bonus feat at first level, people who just used strength and wielded that Scimitar in two hands would still vastly out-damage the ones who actually went for Dex to damage. Or, they could use Strength and just pick up a shield--now their AC is significantly higher than the Dervish Dancer's AND they're still dealing a great deal more damage because there are so many more relevant buffs to acquire.
If Dex to damage were just allowed with finessed weapons as is, they'd still be significantly far behind Strength-based damage, not "almost as good" as you two are suggesting.
If it worked like Dervish Dance? Maybe. If it allowed a shield? No.
I'd be thrilled if there were an easy way to get Strength to hit with some thrown weapons if we could get Dex to damage with others. There's a belt, but, well, that obviously creates a problem since you have at least two other build-critical belts taking up that slot (Str belts and Blinkback Belts, if we're talking throwing).
Yeah, that'd be a very valid Feat, IMO.
That was a case by case basis. Quite a few classes got non-Str basic attacks.
I suppose, but that just goes back to the 'classes balanced against each other taking into account stat strengths' thing.
You mean like how Full Plate gives +9 AC with 10 Dex, but the best AC you can get from light armor is +8 until very, very late in the game when you can finally get a Dex in he high upper 20s.
Uh...you can casually have Dex 22 large parts of the time by 4th level at the latest, and a Mithral Chain Shirt by that time as well. For AC 20 and equal to the Full Plate guy, only for less money.
By the 'late game' you can be using Celestial Armor for AC 27 (from Dex and armor alone), while someone in Full Plate is at AC 24 (from the same stuff) at best (and even that requires Dex 12, while the Dex guy can have Str 10 or less). And that assumes you aren't allowed to upgrade the Celestial Armor, if you can it goes to AC 29.
Additionally, you'll have a 7 point or more better Reflex Save, at least +7 initiative, and better skills by quite a bit.
Most of these advantages are not applicable in 5E, and those that are are lesser differences due to bounded accuracy and how that works.
I feel like Pathfinder works exactly the same way except that Strength save are replaced with CMD and Strength has a huge boost in damage over the Dex build (rather than nearly identical damage--which is not really the case in 5e, either).
The damage boost of Str is not very applicable if you allow it on any weapon you like. At least not much. Elven Curveblades and similar weapons (or even one-handed ones wielded two-handed) make the damage difference minimal. Heck, a stat of 26, a BAB of +12, Slashing Grace, a +3 weapon, Power Attack and two-handing an aldori dueling sword you're doing 1d8+23 vs. the equivalent Str guy's 2d6+27. That's a 6.5 damage difference, which is meaningful, but not as meaningful as +3 AC, +7 Reflex Save, and +7 Initiative. That requires Str 13, but the Str build needs Dex 12 for that AC, too.
No, you can't build damage easily. If you purely look at the sheet, it might look close, but bring in a pile of magic items and a few typical buffing casters, and see what happens.
Caster: "Here, I enlarge you."
Str Guy: "Yes! I gave up 2 AC, but now I do 4.5-5.5 more damage and look at this reach!"
Dex Guy: "Oh, I lost 2 AC, 2 points of accuracy, AND my damage is the same...hooray."
Reduce Person has some serious benefits for Dex-guys though. +2 to hit, +2 AC, equivalent damage...that's a solid buff in its own right. Indeed, it sounds about as good as +4.5 damage, -2 AC and added Reach.
It turns strength from an important stat to a nearly useless one. Even with a VERY conservative calculation that equals at least 5 more likely 7-10 additional point buy points. A very big part of normal PB amounts.
I really dislike no weaknesses because it is unintereating and gets your teammates killed when the gm challenges you.
You will always have a weakness. Every character has a weakness.
What you are talking about is having a very highly optimized character while your team mates do not. Dex to damage alone is not enough of a boost to take you from ok to super character. It can take you from really good to super character, but in that case the GM should be able to challenge you without making things too hard for the rest of the party.
That still does not change what I said, and a player that is good enough take over a campaign is not likely to be stopped by 5 pb. Also it is more like 5 to 7, not 7 to 10.
What you are talking about is having a very highly optimized character while your team mates do not. Dex to damage alone is not enough of a boost to take you from ok to super character. It can take you from really good to super character, but in that case the GM should be able to challenge you without making things too hard for the rest of the party.
Absolutely correct. However i.think this is the heart of this discussion, how good is player 1 choice vs.player 2 or your choice between which character to play in a campaign. Dex to Dmg is too easily exploitable even by mistake to end up in the optimised scenario.
I want more options and I want them book printed, and dex is a wonderful fluff thing I wish was integrated since the start. It wasnt, so hammerimg it in with little cost does break many many builds (in the "why would you ever not do that" way.). I would like a choice that works and doesnt make holes in the system with such ease (can dream..).
I speak solely mechanicaly no Roleplay choices. I dont play like this but it is what we re looking at.
Ps if someone does a no weakness PC it is not easy as a DM to provide a fair challenge to your party week in week out and its exhausting. You get pretty good at strategy though...
The cost now is not all that great now. You take weapon finesse and the agile ability. Neither of those takes up enough of your resources to take to prevent super character, and those two resources also dont make you into super character.
As for "no weakness" such a thing is not really possible unless you are in a monty haul campaign, and in that case the GM is already in trouble if he is expecting balance.
So, to those insisting that Strength get some more benefits...
Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?
Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?
I'm honestly curious.
For me clearly AC.
But those wanting dex to damage already have dex to hit and want a second one.
If I could add Str to stuff Dex does, I would go with Initiative and, yeah, probably AC, but only because there's little else Dex does and I would want the movement speed from light armor. If there was a "you can move at normal speed in heavier armors" feat with a strength pre requisite, dex would mean very little.
In general, though, I would rather some consistency. I would prefer Dex to damage NOT be a thing at all, but since it is, I want it to be easier/less painful.
Seriously, what does a dex warrior do for the first 2 levels? What about the non humans reliant on Slashing Grace? What do for the first FOUR levels? It's not even like a spellcaster who can still cast color spray, sleep, grease, and other useful stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strength does only a few things:
1) Melee hit and damage
2) Encumbrance
3) Climb and Swim
2 & 3 become irrelevant by level 5. You have enough magical storage options and magical flight options such that you don't need to worry about it. Heck, most characters already don't bother putting skill points into climb or swim. Encumbrance isn't an issue so long as you don't super dump your str. Leaving strength at 10 is probably sufficient for most dex builds, while finding a dump stat someplace else.
The only useful thing strength gets to do is to hit and damage. Dex could always crowd in on that with weapon finesse, but it was restricted to a largely inferior weapon group and since it didn't allow dex to damage still required a split on dex and str when building your character. You were much more likely to end up with a 14/16 combo instead of an 10/18. If an easy path to dex to damage exist, you invalidate the one useful thing strength really gets to do. And then you might as well just remove the stat from the game.
At this time, I think the wall that dex to damage has to sit behind to work is good. I ran the math, and I've seen that trying to build a dex based ranger/slayer TWF just doesn't work as well as simply building a strength based one because of the number of feats required to get everything working leaves you behind, especially when considering the additional things those feats can allow you to do. Like Improved Two Weapon Feint. The current system is exactly where it needs to be.
You can make your dex based character, but it doesn't invalidate the existence of a strength based one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
I'm sure you know this but it's because Dex already modifies AC, initiative, Ref saves and ranged attack bonus.
It would be unbalanced to allow dex to damage without some kind of efforts.
To allow this would lead to an escalation of added perks for other stats such as STR to AC, DR X/- with X equal to STR bonus and STR to all CHA checks (cause musclely people get what they want by simply stating "do you even lift, bro? )
To the OP:
I'm sure you know this but it's because Dex already modifies AC, initiative, Ref saves and ranged attack bonus.
It would be unbalanced to allow dex to damage without some kind of efforts.
To allow this would lead to an escalation of added perks for other stats such as STR to AC, DR X/- with X equal to STR bonus and STR to all CHA checks (cause musclely people get what they want by simply stating "do you even lift, bro? )
We already have this escalation to some extent. High int is just a few feats to making one int skill stand in for 3 cha skills.
It seems to be 2-3 feats that is the Price. We May end with a system where feats are balanced with stats that way.
In general, though, I would rather some consistency. I would prefer Dex to damage NOT be a thing at all, but since it is, I want it to be easier/less painful.
You have a good point there.
I for my part liked systems that gave dex (or equivalent) to hit and strength to damage for all weapons. So you needed both to be a competent warrior type. In pathfinder some classes mainly need one stat and other classes aim to have the same. And a second point is that the range in which stats can be is too large. If the max for stat was 20 for PCs you could afford to build a well rounded guy. But as is your goal has to be to get your main stat as high as possible and because of that the desire to use this high stat for lots of things increases.|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I may catch some flak for this, but one problem I have with Dex to damage is conceptualizing what it represents in the game world. How exactly is being more agile translating into more effective strikes? Sure, against anatomical opponents you can justify hitting them in more harmful areas. But that falls apart as soon as you're attacking an ooze or elemental. How is being dexterous helping you inflict more damage on a smooth stone wall?
These objections are intended for the context of a low level game where the characters are still realistic. I can handwave away mythic or high level PCs doing this because they are legendary beings at that point.
I offered Dex to damage only as precision damage (Agile enchantment, feats). This is so far what ive felt most comfortable with.
Dex can translate to blade momentum too
Many keep stating that Str builds inherently have higher damage than Dex to damage builds.
That's simply not true.
Even with current Paizo rules - the highest viable melee DPR at middling-high levels is a TWF dex-to-damage build. And that's ignoring all of the secondary advantages of dex builds.
That is, like, 7 feats down the drain?
|
|
That is, like, 7 feats down the drain?Many keep stating that Str builds inherently have higher damage than Dex to damage builds.
That's simply not true.
Even with current Paizo rules - the highest viable melee DPR at middling-high levels is a TWF dex-to-damage build. And that's ignoring all of the secondary advantages of dex builds.
After dipping a level into Swash (powerful dip anyway) - it takes an extra 3 feats to get dex to damage - one of which is Weapon Focus which virtually every martial takes anyway - another is exotic weapon prof which also gives increased base damage. Then just the TWF feats. (And it's debatable whether they'd need Double Slice to get full dex to damage off-hand, so they may save a feat there.)
And it's not 'down the drain' if it leads to the most powerful combat style in the game.
Dex can translate to blade momentum tooWhy would it? It's your muscles/strength which enable you to swing a sword faster.
For a lot of folks dex is the speed stat:)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a lot of folks dex is the speed stat:)Dex can translate to blade momentum tooWhy would it? It's your muscles/strength which enable you to swing a sword faster.
Oh - I forgot about all of the athletes taking dexterity enhancing drugs so that they can hit a baseball better. ;)
As for "no weakness" such a thing is not really possible unless you are in a monty haul campaign, and in that case the GM is already in trouble if he is expecting balance.
Well to be honest if I give my players a 30 point build I'll rebuild the monsters too - as most monsters are built with the elite array (which is 15 point I think).
That's the thing - if I scale *all* the numbers up on all the players - I just do so for the monsters. Playing a game where there is no challenge isn't fun, the only reason to scale the numbers up for the players is to enable MAD classes to function and get feats they'd otherwise be locked out of, it really isn't to make sure your barbarian has a 24 strength at level 1.
Dex to damage *as it currently stands* isn't as unbalanced as it appears at first glance though. For a single weapon - you are behind. For two weapons the feat investment makes you behind. Every TWF feat, weapon finesse feat, and other feat to make the build work is a STR based melee taking power attack, improved critical, bleeding critical, etc.
Very few classes have the feats to toss around and not feel like they are missing out on 'fun' options to make a dex based build work - for all the advantages dex to damage gives it takes away as well which is why it's not OP as some are suggesting.
So, to those insisting that Strength get some more benefits...
Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?
Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?
I'm honestly curious.
Initiative, ranged attacks (but only with thrown weapons), the option to negate armor check penalties and/or movement speed penalties, and finally some more skill options.
If I could only do one of those, I'd go with strength to hit with thrown weapons. Strength becomes the best offensive stat for melee and close range combat, being able to switch seamlessly between two-handing their greataxe and lobbing throwing axes at the enemy if they run out of melee targets. Dexterity is still the more rounded stat, with decent offense and defense (via superior reflex saves) as well as high accuracy but lower damage output with bows and crossbows.
Bow users would still excel compared to thrown weapons since they don't need to sink 1-2 feats into the new "powerful throw" option, and they still have feats not available to throwing weapons (such as Manyshot).
|
|
Dex to damage *as it currently stands* isn't as unbalanced as it appears at first glance though. For a single weapon - you are behind. For two weapons the feat investment makes you behind. Every TWF feat, weapon finesse feat, and other feat to make the build work is a STR based melee taking power attack, improved critical, bleeding critical, etc.Very few classes have the feats to toss around and not feel like they are missing out on 'fun' options to make a dex based build work - for all the advantages dex to damage gives it takes away as well which is why it's not OP as some are suggesting.
I actually agree. Dex to damage isn't too bad currently. While it's the most powerful style at upper levels (and lower levels for some classes such as magus) - you're giving up utility to get it. (Though it still messes with my sensibilities a bit from a fluff perspective.)
If you removed the heavy entry fee though - it'd quickly become OP.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Dex to damage were just allowed with finessed weapons as is, they'd still be significantly far behind Strength-based damage, not "almost as good" as you two are suggesting.
It's close enough that going Strength is a straight suboptimal choice for most people because ALL IT DOES IT MAKE YOU HIT HARD. That's literally the extent of its benefit for most people. You're damn right it should be better at it BY A LOT than the stat that does a bunch of other things AND gives them damage.
If they equalize it, I have no problem with Dex-to-damage being a no-investment thing. But they haven't, so Dex currently has a LOT of bonuses over being Str-based in pretty much every category that isn't doing damage. That's why it has a short feat chain and isn't innate.
The elegance of the THW is how few feats it requires to be effective.
TWF is always going to yield better damage, regardless of the stat being used.
It is typically assumed that someone who wants DEX to damage is going to want to be using two weapons, because it really wouldn't make sense any other way, save for Dervish Dance.
That said, DEX to damage does marginalize characters. Piranha Strike makes Power Attack worthless. So long as you can carry 10ish lbs (light armor, weapon, handy haversack) then you don't need STR, at all.
In 5e your stats all matter equally as far as defenses go, you have STR based save, and STR is tied directly to whether or not you can move in armor. You also don't get your DEX to AC in heavy armor.
It's not even a comparable system.
That is, like, 7 feats down the drain?Many keep stating that Str builds inherently have higher damage than Dex to damage builds.
That's simply not true.
Even with current Paizo rules - the highest viable melee DPR at middling-high levels is a TWF dex-to-damage build. And that's ignoring all of the secondary advantages of dex builds.
After dipping a level into Swash (powerful dip anyway) - it takes an extra 3 feats to get dex to damage - one of which is Weapon Focus which virtually every martial takes anyway - another is exotic weapon prof which also gives increased base damage. Then just the TWF feats. (And it's debatable whether they'd need Double Slice to get full dex to damage off-hand, so they may save a feat there.)
And it's not 'down the drain' if it leads to the most powerful combat style in the game.
Any Two-Handed with power attack lags behind just a little and Just spent one feat to get there
Contributor
|
I will say that I would rather have easy-access (by 1st level) Dex to damage in the game than Pirahna Strike.
There's letting Dex-based characters be competent, and then there's stealing Strength's toys outright. If PS wasn't there, Dex characters might be tempted to go Str 13 for Power Attack.
|
Contributor
|
I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.
Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?
This is a big thing for me. I shouldn't have to be useless for two whole levels.
Deadly Agility is a thing, and DSP is one of if not the most reputable 3PP out there.
I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.
Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?
if you dont dump str you Can do ok until level 3. It May not be spectacular but it Can be ok since low level badguys dont have lots of hit points. But if you start with 5 in str then i see your problem. But dont feel with you;)
If it is PFS spend the free rebuilt and take a level dip in figther at 1(mutation warrior if it is legal)
I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.
Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?
You're not alone here. Setting aside the nonsensical restriction to one-handed weapons which I expect to be resolved with the ACG errata, the Weapon Focus requirement really kills Slashing Grace for a lot of classes. Weapon Focus is a good feat in its own right, but using it as a restriction on Slashing Grace really just means Slashing Grace is delayed for another two levels, and that Dervish Dance is still the better option unless you want to use Slashing Grace with TWF (God help you).
Unfortunately I don't think the WF requirement is going away since it's also in place on Fencing Grace. Fingers crossed though!
Any Two-Handed with power attack lags behind just a little and Just spent one feat to get thereTwo-handed with PA lags noticably in DPR (moreso the higher the level). The dex build also has better AC, mobility, initiative, reflex, and skills.
That was not my experience when running math on THF and TWF. Dex will have worse mobility since it's more tied up in full attacks, puts out less DPR than a dedicated THFer, has about the same AC (better touch, worse flat-footed), and somewhat better skills and initiative. I agree that they will be far ahead on reflex saves and (I believe you failed to mention) ranged attacks.
Mutation Warrior is not legal, unfortunately. :)
shame.
|
Contributor
|
I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.
Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?
You're not alone here. Setting aside the nonsensical restriction to one-handed weapons which I expect to be resolved with the ACG errata, the Weapon Focus requirement really kills Slashing Grace for a lot of classes. Weapon Focus is a good feat in its own right, but using it as a restriction on Slashing Grace really just means Slashing Grace is delayed for another two levels, and that Dervish Dance is still the better option unless you want to use Slashing Grace with TWF (God help you).
Unfortunately I don't think the WF requirement is going away since it's also in place on Fencing Grace. Fingers crossed though!
I wouldn't even mind the WF so much if it weren't chained to the swash-splash. :/
|
|
This is a big thing for me. I shouldn't have to be useless for two whole levels.I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.
Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?
Oh come on... two levels? please... grab a crossbow for a while, or toss the odd alchemist fire. Provide flanks to the others or just use the aid another action. Walk around with the healing wand or have a potion ready for a downed combatant.
"Being useless" is entirely someone's choice and not something forced down their throat by lack of feats.
You probably meant "not optimized" for two levels, but if you really meant "useless" you're exaggerating, and if you don't see the wisdom in 'paying' for the privilege to use Dex to damage in the form of waiting two levels, then don't: from now on only play characters that have high STR and can dish lots of hurt right from level 1. You *have* a choice.
|
|
That was not my experience when running math on THF and TWF. Dex will have worse mobility since it's more tied up in full attacks, puts out less DPR than a dedicated THFer, has about the same AC (better touch, worse flat-footed), and somewhat better skills and initiative. I agree that they will be far ahead on reflex saves and (I believe you failed to mention) ranged attacks.
Two-handed with PA lags noticably in DPR (moreso the higher the level). The dex build also has better AC, mobility, initiative, reflex, and skills.
Not mobility as in run & swing. Other than a few classes with pounce-abilities - every class is pretty stuck full attacking. But since they can wear lighter armor - that makes them faster unless they're a dwarf.
I can run the numbers for you on THF / TWF comparison if you want. (probably just re-post from my earlier stuff so I don't have to re-math it) TWF has higher DPR past the first few levels - especially when they can ignore Str while THF can't ignore Dex.
At all but levels 3-7ish Dex builds will have higher AC. To have the same AC, a STR build would need a dex of 16 with mithril plate - a significant investment. And that's not counting late game celestial armor or any class abilities which give you more dex bonus to AC. Nor does it count classes which are inherently limited to lighter armors for class ability reasons. (Magus/Brawler etc)
And you're right - I forgot to mention ranged attacks.