Is there a reason dexterity based builds are still lacking in damage?

[Dye]

I've always been frustrated with builds in pathfinder that were dexterity based because they aren't going to compete with strength based builds. I hoped this would get address in 2e, but am left disappointed.

Looking at the rules right now, why would I want to play an archer or any melee using a finesse weapon if I can just go into playing a barbarian and instantly double my damage output just because I chose the strength stat? Is it really that far fetched of an idea that if you are dexterous enough to put a well placed arrow or knife in the right spot, that you won't be able to deal as much damage as someone smashing a mourningstar through armor?

I am very disappointed this hasn't been addressed and I know a handful of other players that share similar feelings. Can't we at least compromise in the middle and get like half your dex mod added to ranged weapons and finesse weapons? Just so those of us that like dex builds aren't falling completely behind?

[Secret Wizard]

Dye wrote:

Is it really that far fetched of an idea that if you are dexterous enough to put a well placed arrow or knife in the right spot, that you won't be able to deal as much damage as someone smashing a mourningstar through armor?

I mean, let's say a morning star and an arrow hit a person in the same spot, and they are traveling at the same velocity... given the mass of the morningstar, the impact should have much more power... so yeah, count me down as team Morningstar.

Also, there's no reason why you should suffer due to damage. Take Monks for example – getting STR 14 DEX 18 is super easy on character creation (and otherwise attainable at 5th level), and that's a great combination to deal damage.

Less-damage oriented classes like Bards have less tools to make STR 14 DEX 18 give them a lot of damage like Monks do, but STR 14 DEX 18 makes sure that Bards have much more AC. A STR 18 DEX 14 Bard, conversely, would deal more damage, but have less armor.

What are you trying to build? Maybe I can make you have your character work.

[JDLPF]

The reason Dex to damage isn't available is due to how many things already key off Dex in comparison to Str.

Str gives carrying capacity, melee and thrown damage, and one skill (Athletics).

Dex gives AC, TAC, Ref saves, ranged attack, and three skills (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery).

Taking damage from Str and giving it to Dex unfairly weights the choice between the two.

Personally, I feel happy that the designers haven't given a means of Dex to damage.

[MrShine]

JDLPF wrote:

The reason Dex to damage isn't available is due to how many things already key off Dex in comparison to Str.

Str gives carrying capacity, melee and thrown damage, and one skill (Athletics).

Dex gives AC, TAC, Ref saves, ranged attack, and three skills (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery).

Taking damage from Str and giving it to Dex unfairly weights the choice between the two.

Personally, I feel happy that the designers haven't given a means of Dex to damage.

This, precisely.

I'm not against Rogues (or another class) getting a form of Dex to damage for a specific situation and/or subset of weapons - I just don't think it should be low-cost, or ubiquitous.

Tricky line to walk.

Re: ranged weapons - I think getting to attack from a distance is a fine trade for extra damage. It didn't stop bows being "OP" in PF1, after all! (although I do think the whole composite str bonus was pushing it a bit in that regard)

[PossibleCabbage]

Strength builds should do more damage than dex builds, full stop.

However, this is balanced by dex folks generally having better defense than strength builds. "More offense for less defense, or vice versa" is pretty much a standard trade in game design.

I'm more concerned with whether str builds have enough of an edge on dex builds in the damage department, honestly.

[Ediwir]

To be honest, Strength should be used for ranged weapons and Dexterity for melee weapons.

But I will lose this battle anyways, so let's stick to a balancing approach and say that Dexterity does way too much already.

[Asuet]

Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

[Gloom]

Realistically, your Strength should only ever be like 2-8 points lower than your Dexterity on a focused Dexterity character. Losing out on 1-4 points of damage only really matters when starting out, and given the amount of damage you end up getting from Magic Weapons it's less of an issue.

It's not like it was before where you were relying on every single point of damage.

If you are playing a Melee or Ranged character and you want to make sure that your damage keeps up make sure you have at least a 14-16 strength.

[shroudb]

Asuet wrote:

Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

My half melee alchemist/rogue doesn't have space for strength.

Dex, con, wis, int are more important than piddling 1-4 damage

[Secret Wizard]

shroudb wrote:

Asuet wrote:

Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

My half melee alchemist/rogue doesn't have space for strength.

Dex, con, wis, int are more important than piddling 1-4 damage

But you have poisons, which are the purpose of being half-melee, right? That's what you use your attack for.

[shroudb]

Secret Wizard wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Asuet wrote:

Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

My half melee alchemist/rogue doesn't have space for strength.

Dex, con, wis, int are more important than piddling 1-4 damage

But you have poisons, which are the purpose of being half-melee, right? That's what you use your attack for.

correct. But still, 4d6 vs 4d6+3 at a +3 weapon, isn't really that important even if poisons weren't an added bonus.

(until I can find a way to reliably apply potent poisons in a bow in a round (i can do so, but only at the start of combat, before drawing my bow)

i'm experimenting with a familiar doing old shenanigans atm.

[ikarinokami]

Ediwir wrote:

To be honest, Strength should be used for ranged weapons and Dexterity for melee weapons.

But I will lose this battle anyways, so let's stick to a balancing approach and say that Dexterity does way too much already.

it should be dex to hit on mellee and range

and str to damage on range and meleee.

[Arrow17]

Am happy that Dex to damage is only available to rogues and quite frankly it should be eliminated for rogues also. There are enough stat bumps in PF2 to come away with a decent strength score. Dex to damage is not needed.

I would however, absolutely love to see Dex to damage for missile fire whether for thrown or fired ranged attacks. Bows and Crossbows need some damage boosts

[shroudb]

Arrow17 wrote:

Am happy that Dex to damage is only available to rogues and quite frankly it should be eliminated for rogues also. There are enough stat bumps in PF2 to come away with a decent strength score. Dex to damage is not needed.

I would however, absolutely love to see Dex to damage for missile fire whether for thrown or fired ranged attacks. Bows and Crossbows need some damage boosts

bows are deadly enough (ughh puns...) and with only 1 class having access to AoO, I really don't see the need to buff them even further.

Crossbows could see a tiny bit of buff, but i'd rather it be in the form of a trait rather than straight up damage.

[Dye]

Secret Wizard wrote:

Dye wrote:

Is it really that far fetched of an idea that if you are dexterous enough to put a well placed arrow or knife in the right spot, that you won't be able to deal as much damage as someone smashing a mourningstar through armor?

I mean, let's say a morning star and an arrow hit a person in the same spot, and they are traveling at the same velocity... given the mass of the morningstar, the impact should have much more power... so yeah, count me down as team Morningstar.

Also, there's no reason why you should suffer due to damage. Take Monks for example – getting STR 14 DEX 18 is super easy on character creation (and otherwise attainable at 5th level), and that's a great combination to deal damage.

Less-damage oriented classes like Bards have less tools to make STR 14 DEX 18 give them a lot of damage like Monks do, but STR 14 DEX 18 makes sure that Bards have much more AC. A STR 18 DEX 14 Bard, conversely, would deal more damage, but have less armor.

What are you trying to build? Maybe I can make you have your character work.

An archer. Archers have been my go to class in every video game, but in every table ttrpg, I've found them lack luster because it's been 1D8. I roll a 1. Well my round is basically wasted. Thanks. That's really what started the rant. Rogues have their ways around it through certain feats, but archers have always gotten the shaft.

Arrow17 wrote:

I would however, absolutely love to see Dex to damage for missile fire whether for thrown or fired ranged attacks. Bows and Crossbows need some damage boosts

This is truly the part that has me upset. I have always loved playing archers in games, but in ttrpgs I've always found them underwhelming in comparison to running in with a greatsword.

[Secret Wizard]

Dye wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

Dye wrote:

Is it really that far fetched of an idea that if you are dexterous enough to put a well placed arrow or knife in the right spot, that you won't be able to deal as much damage as someone smashing a mourningstar through armor?

I mean, let's say a morning star and an arrow hit a person in the same spot, and they are traveling at the same velocity... given the mass of the morningstar, the impact should have much more power... so yeah, count me down as team Morningstar.

Also, there's no reason why you should suffer due to damage. Take Monks for example – getting STR 14 DEX 18 is super easy on character creation (and otherwise attainable at 5th level), and that's a great combination to deal damage.

Less-damage oriented classes like Bards have less tools to make STR 14 DEX 18 give them a lot of damage like Monks do, but STR 14 DEX 18 makes sure that Bards have much more AC. A STR 18 DEX 14 Bard, conversely, would deal more damage, but have less armor.

What are you trying to build? Maybe I can make you have your character work.

An archer. Archers have been my go to class in every video game, but in every table ttrpg, I've found them lack luster because it's been 1D8. I roll a 1. Well my round is basically wasted. Thanks. That's really what started the rant. Rogues have their ways around it through certain feats, but archers have always gotten the shaft.

Arrow17 wrote:

I would however, absolutely love to see Dex to damage for missile fire whether for thrown or fired ranged attacks. Bows and Crossbows need some damage boosts

This is truly the part that has me upset. I have always loved playing archers in games, but in ttrpgs I've always found them underwhelming in comparison to running in with a greatsword.

Oh yeah weapon style support is trash at the moment. Half Strength is also pretty boring.

[Dye]

Secret Wizard wrote:

Oh yeah weapon style support is trash at the moment. Half Strength is also pretty boring.

I was planning on a fighter archer, but looked through all the feats and am left thoroughly disappointed again. Ranger doesn't look much better. Haven't looked at rogue yet.

[Zman0]

But, not adding Dex doesn't matter that much because of how damage scales in P2. You fire a longbow for d8 vs greatsword for d12+str. By endgame with +5 weapons that is 5d8 vs 5d12+6. That added strength bonus matters less and less with every additional weapon die.

[Unicore]

Ranged weapons are going to see big advantage in the number of attacks and thus opportunities for critical hits since they wont have to be moving as much. I highly recomend trying a archer fighter if it is a class you generally like, but it currently looks underwhelming. See if it plays that way. Point blank shot is a good feat.

[shroudb]

Zman0 wrote:

But, not adding Dex doesn't matter that much because of how damage scales in P2. You fire a longbow for d8 vs greatsword for d12+str. By endgame with +5 weapons that is 5d8 vs 5d12+6. That added strength bonus matters less and less with every additional weapon die.

well, to be fair (i don't think that ranged needs dex to damge) but dices are always deceptive in nature, like gambling.

that +6 next to the 5d12 SEEMS small, but it's close to 20% of the total damage (32.5 average without it, 38.5 with it)

if that +6 was on the bow, it would raise the average damage of 22.5 to 28.5, or else, more than 25% damage increase