BerserkOne's page

...

In response to your analysis of Vanderhuge and Speedchunk, I will say that I don’t think you can really separate armor out of this discussion. The point of creating a Strength-based character is primarily melee combat, and for that you will need AC. That has to come from some combination of armor and Dexterity. As I said previously, it’s a good bet armor is as penalizing as it is on purpose, and that even if those penalties are reduced it will still be the case that lighter armor and more Dexterity will be superior to heavier armor. The tradeoff for not increasing Strength is less melee viability and the tradeoff for not increasing Dexterity is more armor penalties, and the relative value of those two tradeoffs is the measure of balance. I think just about everyone agrees that the armor penalty side of that equation is too severe in a general sense, but more specificity is required in order to make a judgement on how that tradeoff would be balanced under a regime where Dexterity was allowed to further encroach on the territory of Strength.

Building on that notion, if there were to be a dex-to-damage mechanic in the game, there would still have to be sufficient reason to invest in Strength for a character like Speedchunk. You’ve suggested that carrying capacity and Athletics checks alone are sufficient, and I respectfully do not agree. I don’t think many others will either. In fact, if we are to include Athletics in our comparison, then we must also include Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery, and that only further complicates the equation. And if we refrain from considering Athletics, then that only leaves carrying capacity. There would need to be some other reason to invest in Strength, something beyond what currently exists.

You point out in your damage analysis that I made both Bolt and Punt duelists, and that this is “the most favorable” comparison. In my opinion, it’s the only valid comparison. It’s true that Bolt could wield a two-handed weapon and deal more damage, but this would either be what you called “switch hitting”, or would be a different build entirely. Comparing a duelist and a great-weapon user is another apples-to-oranges scenario. Your own math bears this out. Just compare Bolt Vanderhuge with his long-time friend Dirk Hardpeck:

Bolt Vanderhuge (level 20)
Str (Legendary +5 Longsword, 6d8 (average 27) damage):
0.5x(27+6)+0.25x(27+6)+3*0.05x(54+12)=34.65 damage

Dirk Hardpeck (level 20)
Str (Legendary +5 Greatsword, 6d12 (average 39) damage):
0.5x(39+6)+0.25x(39+6)+3*0.05x(78+12)=47.25

(47.25/34.65)*100 = 136.36%, so 36.36% more damage from the greatsword, or a 26.67% damage reduction for playing as a duelist. To reiterate, these two have the same stats. That is the tradeoff for choosing one build over the other, which is presumably compensated by the other advantages granted to the duelist. You could argue whether or not those other advantages are of equal value to the lost damage, but that argument has nothing to do with Dexterity.

I should note here that I’m using the term “duelist” to refer to a combatant with a one-handed weapon, regardless of whether the other hand is free or holding a shield. The math remains consistent for both the true duelist and the sword-and-board character, and both paths are equally available to Bolt and Punt. On that note, let’s take a moment to revisit the original Vanderhuge/Speedchunk duelist comparison using the updated math that’s been provided.

Bolt Vanderhuge (level 20, same as above)
Str (Legendary +5 Longsword, 6d8 (average 27) damage):
0.5x(27+6)+0.25x(27+6)+3*0.05x(54+12)=34.65 damage

Punt Speedchunk (level 20)
Dex (Legendary +5 Rapier, 6d6 (average 21) damage, deadly 3d8 (average 13.5):
0.5x(21+0)+0.25x(21+0)+3*0.05x(42+0+13.5)= 24.08 damage

(34.65/24.08)*100 = 143.93%, so 43.93% more damage for Bolt, or a 30.52% damage reduction for Punt. This is considering that Punt has no Strength investment at all, but it’s likely that Bolt has at least 14 Dexterity in order to get down to half-plate armor. What if Punt had a similar investment in Strength?

Punt Speedchunk (level 20)
Dex (Legendary +5 Rapier, 6d6 (average 21) damage, deadly 3d8 (average 13.5):
0.5x(21+2)+0.25x(21+2)+3*0.05x(42+4+13.5)= 26.18 damage

(34.65/26.18)*100 = 132.38%, so 32.38% more damage for Bolt, or a 24.46% damage reduction for Punt. It’s striking (haha!) how close that difference is to the earlier comparison between Bolt and Dirk, isn’t it? Dirk is the unquestionable king of damage output, Bolt is a tier below with a ~25% damage reduction for using a one-handed weapon, and Punt is a tier below Bolt with another ~25% damage reduction for minimal Strength investment. I don’t think the symmetry of that math is coincidental.

With the math aside, I have to say that I find the “diversity of viable character concepts” argument uncompelling. Just because a concept exists doesn’t mean it fits, unaltered, into a game where different types of characters have to be balanced against one another. Many popular concepts are drawn from stories where they are intended to be “the main character” or else are deliberately better than other characters in order to fulfill some narrative purpose. What is Batman’s dump stat?

Let me illustrate this by presenting a different concept for your consideration. Classical Eastern literature occasionally presents an archetype of a “monk” who is heftily built and brutally strong. This archetype doesn’t work in Pathfinder 2E because low Dexterity on a monk would cripple that character’s AC. Should we add a str-to-AC feat? After all, this is a game based on a pseudo-medieval setting. The agile duelist concept is a bit anachronistic, but the hefty monk concept is actually attested in period literature. Surely it deserves to be viable, if the former does?

If DEX to damage was just a feature of finesse weapons, I"d be fine with it, but I'd also want STR to have a purpose than just damage then. At the very least, it should make heavier armor not suck so much.

Admittedly, much of what follows here is speculation. I have come to suspect that what some people are arguing about the balance between strength-based characters and dexterity-based characters misses a critical component of Paizo’s design intent. It isn’t enough to compare one character, 18 STR/10 DEX, with another, 10 STR/18 DEX, and see that they both have advantages and disadvantages. We must also compare 10 STR/18 DEX with 12 STR/18 DEX and see that the latter is appreciably better. And with strength only contributing to melee damage and carrying capacity, allowing another stat to also contribute to damage, even under limited circumstances, breaks that balance. This is not to say that dex-to-damage can’t exist in Pathfinder 2E, but it does suggest that substantive changes to what advantages strength conveys would be necessary.

That design intent is probably why heavy armor is so punitive. Lighter armor combined with more dexterity is meant to be better than heavier armor so that players will always have a reason to put a couple more points in dexterity. My understanding is that there is wide-spread agreement that armor penalties are too severe, and because of that I imagine that Paizo will make an effort to reduce them. They probably won’t remove them entirely, however, because their intent would remain that increasing dexterity would always convey an advantage over just wearing heavier armor. One possible compromise would be to invert that relationship.

If heavier armor was always superior to lighter armor regardless of the character’s dexterity score, and if heavier armor types had strength requirements, then dexterity-based characters would be incentivized to want better armor and to raise their strength in order to wear it without penalty. Our hypothetical 12 STR/18 DEX character would have a clear advantage over his 10 STR/18 DEX challenger even if they both dealt the same amount of damage.

The question is, does this go too far? Would this create a situation where a character could ignore dexterity without consequence? In my opinion, it does not. Part of the reason I believe those in favor of dex-to-damage are being characterized as “min-maxers” is that dexterity already influences so many different facets of the game compared to other attributes. Allowing strength to supersede dexterity as the best armor-building attribute still leaves plenty of other advantages to encourage raising dexterity, and it opens up a trade-space to allow dexterity more influence over damage. It’s also more consistent with the real world, since I’m pretty sure no actual person was ever so light on their feet, nor any actual armor ever so cumbersome, that people were somehow less resilient while wearing sturdier protection.

BerserkOne wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.

That isn't what Clumsy does. I've got the book open right in front of me. It makes the Dex Cap apply to Reflex Saves NOT the ACP.

What? No it doesn't.

[Flips through book]

"Clumsy. This armor's Dexterity modifier cap..."

Huh. I stand corrected. It seems in my attempt to clarify things I added more confusion. The corrected comparison should be:

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: +4 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.

BerserkOne wrote:

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.

Bolt and Punt are both level 1 in this example, if you scaled them up to level 12 (+3 items!) You would get

• Bolt Vanderhuge (+3 full plate)
• AC: 33 TAC: 28 ACP: -3 Ref: 13 Speed: 15'
• Punt Speedchunk (+3 Studded)
• AC: 32 TAC: 30 ACP: 0 Ref: 21
  speed: 25'

... The same math... Well I'll be, I went into this thinking that higher levels with better equipment would change things by SOME amount, but the...

Technically, Bolt and Punt are level 2 because full plate has that as a level requirement. At level 1 Bolt would have had either chain mail or a breastplate, meaning his AC would have been 17 and he'd be slightly faster.

The 25% damage difference assumes that both characters are using a two-handed weapon. For Speedchunk, that means an Elven curved blade or a spiked chain, which are d8 weapons, while Vanderhuge gets a d12 greatsword or maul. If we assume that both characters are duelists, the damage difference is slightly less than 15%. A d8 longsword is much closer to the d6 rapier. In fact, that difference gets steadily closer to 14% as they approach level 20 and the modifier accounts for less of the overall damage.

So, again, is 14.5% extra damage worth all the penalties Bolt is receiving from his armor? That is the measure of balance between strength-based and dexterity-based Fighters.

Edit: Just to make clear, those percentages are based on the example submitted above, which assumes dex-to-damage is present. That scenario represents the new balance which is being proposed.

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.

BerserkOne wrote:

As long as this discussion is going to address things that "RL Fighters" can do that seem beyond the capabilities of Fighters (or any melee combatant) in the game, there are two big ones that stand out for me.

1) Why do we need to spend an Interact action to switch the grip on a weapon? I am reasonably confident that I, as a person with no martial training or physical conditioning to speak of, can swing an item of the approximate weight and dimensions of a bastard sword at least three times in six seconds with any combination of one- or two-handed grips. Switching the grip on a weapon is trivial. Moreover, it is utterly, laughably trivial considering that with the same action cost we can draw an arrow from a quiver, nock it on the bowstring, draw the bow, aim, and release the arrow.

2) Why don't shields have the "Shove" property included in the relevant weapon table entries? It would seem historically that pushing an opponent with one's shield was a major tactic of fighting with one, to the point that whole armies would form a line do it in coordination during the age of the shield-wall. But the only way to get anything resembling it here is to take the shield critical specialization and hope for a critical hit when striking with it.

Just my two cents worth.

1) I initially saw it as to keep the one/two handed weapons from being too much of a gimme choice, and to make casting with a 2h weapon trickier. With Somatic actions no longer taking free hands (Though material still does) this is less of a thing, and overall I've warmed less to the action cost to re-grip (I was glad they made dropping grip a free action, and I will be surprised if re-gripping remains an action in the CRB).

2) Huh, good point. Hadn't really thought of it but yeah, would totally be good. It would make Doubling Rings hype for a Sword and Boarder too, as copying your weapon potency to the shield would keep your Shove checks boosted even if you don't have an Athletics boosting items.

Or as I...

When did they change the re-grip rules? I must have missed that.

On the topic of shoving with shields, it's not as though there is no precedent for shields to have weapon properties. All the light shield entries have "Agile." At the very least the heavy shield should get "Shove."

It occurs to me that many of the issues being debated here could apply to Paladins and Barbarians as easily as Fighters. When we talk about armor penalties and the viability/availability of different combat maneuvers it almost seems more like a discussion of strength-based characters vs dexterity-based characters and spell-casters than a discussion of any one specific class.

As long as this discussion is going to address things that "RL Fighters" can do that seem beyond the capabilities of Fighters (or any melee combatant) in the game, there are two big ones that stand out for me.

1) Why do we need to spend an Interact action to switch the grip on a weapon? I am reasonably confident that I, as a person with no martial training or physical conditioning to speak of, can swing an item of the approximate weight and dimensions of a bastard sword at least three times in six seconds with any combination of one- or two-handed grips. Switching the grip on a weapon is trivial. Moreover, it is utterly, laughably trivial considering that with the same action cost we can draw an arrow from a quiver, nock it on the bowstring, draw the bow, aim, and release the arrow.

2) Why don't shields have the "Shove" property included in the relevant weapon table entries? It would seem historically that pushing an opponent with one's shield was a major tactic of fighting with one, to the point that whole armies would form a line do it in coordination during the age of the shield-wall. But the only way to get anything resembling it here is to take the shield critical specialization and hope for a critical hit when striking with it.

Just my two cents worth.