WhiteShark's page

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying "ignore statistics" I'm saying "apply statistics correctly."

By which I mean say a chance is a chance, rather than saying words like "actual" as if it were a synonym for "probable", or treating the DPR math as some kind of a guarantee rather than just the most likely of various probable outcomes.

The only way you can reasonably compare combat math build choices is through a comparison of averages. Your real nitpick here seems to be that I said "actual" instead of "probable"; indeed, that was a poor choice of words. I was just trying to get across the point that average damage taken decreases linearly as is demonstrated extremely clearly by the calculations I did. There is nothing incorrect about my usage of statistics here. What is incorrect is the insistence that AC increases do not provide a linear benefit.

I have no interest in debating on this particular point any further, but if you have any other feedback, I'd be interested in hearing it.

WhiteShark wrote:

...the actual damage you receive decreases linearly...

That's not how random chance and die rolls work, though. A 1 in 20 chance is not a thing that occurs exactly 1 time out of 20, so there is no "the actual damage you receive" other than after actual play decisions and dice rolls are made.

Everything before that point is just theory.

Yes, and I suppose it's also impossible to compare DPR between builds because unless you actually played those characters and made those rolls it's not real. In fact, all of statistics is actually just a spook because until it actually happens it's just "theory", which clearly can have no bearing on reality.

Sarcasm aside, you basically are just saying that all statistics and number crunching don't matter. I've already mathematically proven that the average damage you receive decreases linearly as your AC rises. The obvious truth that it won't play out exactly like that every time (can't, actually, because the average is a decimal number) doesn't change the fact that the average decreases linearly. If somebody were to play a commoner in 3.5 and roll a 20 on every single check, dominating the campaign through sheer luck, it wouldn't change the fact that by the numbers a commoner is absolute garbage compared to any PC class.

Ignoring statistics isn't a very good way to engage in a discussion about a math-based game system. If that's the argument you're going with, there's not much point in debating any further.

I missed this since it isn't mentioned in the ABP rules, but I just now realized that you are supposed to get extra Deadly dice at Greater and Major Striking runes, so Devastating x3 and x4 in ABP. I wanted to do a quick recalculation of Rogue damage under my rules with that in mind.

Thief Rogue Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Dex + 6 master + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d6+4d4+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d4 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly x 3 devastating attacks)

Non-Thief Rogue Level 20
Damage 4d6+3d4+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 3d4 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly x 3 devastating attacks)

Full Sneak Attack

Thief hits 50% of the time for 37 damage and crits 15% of the time for 87.5 damage.
Average: 31.625
Non-Thief Rogue hits 50% of the time for 34.5 damage and crits 15% of the time for 82.5 damage.
Average: 29.625

Half Sneak Attack

Thief hits 50% of the time for 32 damage and crits 15% of the time for 77.5 damage.
Average: 27.625
Non-Thief Rogue hits 50% of the time for 30.75 damage and crits 15% of the time for 75 damage.
Average: 26.625

Not a huge change, but it is good to know. Factoring that in increases the average damage of both by 1.35 and pushes them into the Monk~1-handed Fighter continuum for damage. That said, a 1d8 damage die without Deadly still yields a greater average than a d6 with d8 Deadly; the gap is just not as big as I thought. Once more the main reason Rogue does well is Sneak Attack.

WhiteShark wrote:

Your view implies that the Thief Rogue, for example, is overpowered. I do not find that to be the case because of its significantly reduced combat effectiveness compared to a Str melee.

I've said all the meaningful mathy design things I can, pretty much, so I thought I'd just share an anecdote regarding a thief rogue and some strength builds.

One of the campaigns I've run so far included a thief rogue (elf, maxed out dex and 10 strength) and also had a sword & board favoring champion and a max-strength monk. The two strength build characters' players were constantly joking about how broken the thief was, calling him "the whole party" and stuff like that, and commenting on how that character was constantly dealing heaps of damage compared to them (sometimes because they'd spend their turns moving into position while the thief would Strike multiple times with a short bow, but also because of the player being lucky enough with dice to land pretty frequent critical hits). The real hilarious part, for me at least, was that the party's sorcerer kept rolling poorly when trying to Identify Magic and the thief would then give it a try thanks to Occult training and would always manage to roll high enough, and someone cracked the line "Kills most of our enemies, barely ever gets hurt, master of magical knowledge... if he could heal himself and flank for himself the rest of us would be out of a job."

I'm not saying a thief rogue is overpowered. I am saying it's near the high-end of the character power scale in a ton of ways though.

Ah, now I think we may have come upon the crux of the issue. I will do some comparisons based on the builds you mentioned above along with a 1-handed Str Fighter to see how they fare.

1-Handed Champion Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Str + 20 level + 6 master + 3 potency
Damage 4d8+13 = 1d8 longsword x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization

Str Monk Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Str + 20 level + 6 master + 3 potency
Damage 4d10+13 = 1d10 dragon stance unarmed x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization

1-Handed Fighter Level 20
Attack +38 = 7 Str + 8 legendary + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d8+15 = 1d8 longsword x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization

Thief Rogue Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Dex + 6 master + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 8d6+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d6 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Level 20 Moderate monster has AC 44.

Champion hits 50% of the time for 31 damage and crits 15% of the time for 62 damage.
Average: 24.8
Monk hits 50% of the time for 35 damage and crits 15% of the time for 70 damage.
Average: 28
Fighter hits 50% of the time for 33 damage and crits 25% of the time for 66 damage.
Average: 33
Thief hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 15% of the time for 86.5 damage.
Average: 33.475

So it would seem that if we continue to assume Sneak Attack on every hit, the Thief Rogue actually exceeds 1-handed Str melee builds as well as Str monk in damage. Of course, by this same measure it also exceeds non-Rogue Dex builds. Out of curiosity, I want to see what it would be like if we assumed Sneak Attack only half the time.

Damage 6d6+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 2d6 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief hits 50% of the time for 34 damage and crits 15% of the time for 72.5 damage.
Average: 27.875

Now I understand your viewpoint. When compared to 1-handed Str melee, the Thief Rogue seems to range from equivalent to superior in melee combat while simultaneously boasting better ranged capabilities and out of combat utility. The Fighter holds his own in melee here and should be getting superior defensive benefit out of his shield, but won't have the ranged capabilities. The Monk only matches the half Sneak Attack comparison and has less utility out of combat, though he does ultimately have better saves, AC, and mobility. The Champion should also have even higher AC as well as strong abilities to defend himself and others, but clearly pays for it in damage.

The gap in damage between two-handed Str melee and one-handed Str melee is larger than I anticipated, but it makes sense because of the lower damage dice. I also see that the Barbarian's bonus damage and the Fighter's superior proficiencies make a big impact as well. On the other hand, the Monk to me seems to simply be weak in the original design. He absolutely needs Dex for AC because all his abilities require him to be unarmored but without Str his damage will be pathetic. He can theoretically skip Dex with Mountain Stance, but his damage will suffer. The Champion I'm not sure about; while it has the lowest damage of the bunch so far, his defensive utility with a shield should in theory be quite strong. I suppose that hinges upon how effective shields are, which is not a topic I have thoroughly considered.

So, here is my new conclusion. I believe that the problem you are perceiving is actually a problem with the power of Sneak Attack, not Dex as an ability score. Dex builds that do not get Dex to finesse damage have very low damage. I'll use a Fighter just for simplicity; obviously another class with lower proficiencies would be even worse off.

1-Handed Dex/Str Finesse Fighter Level 20
Attack +38 = 7 Dex + 8 legendary + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d6+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 5 Str + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical 1d8 deadly)

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 27 damage and crits 25% of the time for 58.5 damage.
Average: 28.125

Comparing to the Thief above, we can see that a Fighter (who has the best proficiencies in the game combined with the best bonus from Greater Weapon Specialization) who boosts Dex as high as possible followed by Str for damage barely beats a Thief Rogue who only gets Sneak Attack half the time. If it were not a Fighter there would be no competition at all, and on top of that the Rogue will still have better utility out of combat. Now let's try with Dex to finesse damage.

Damage 4d6+15 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Dex + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical 1d8 deadly)

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 29 damage and crits 25% of the time for 62.5 damage.
Average: 30.125

Not a whole lot of difference. The Fighter still loses to the Thief Rogue who manages to get Sneak Attack on the majority of his attacks, and again the comparison would be totally one-sided were it not for the Fighter's superior proficiencies. One more comparison, this time with "normal" proficiencies instead of Fighter ones.

Average Dex Combatant with Master Proficiency Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Dex + 6 legendary + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d6+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical 1d8 deadly)

Average Dex Combatant hits 50% of the time for 27 damage and crits 15% of the time for 58.5 damage.
Average: 22.275

Now that is the lowest damage figure we've seen yet. A non-Fighter, non-Rogue Dex build falls far, far behind the Thief Rogue even with Dex to finesse damage. To me, this pinpoints the problem. Sneak Attack is effectively a band-aid for the pathetic damage of Dex builds under the default rules. A non-Thief Rogue needs Sneak Attack to keep up, and non-Rogue Dex builds simply can't. The problem is that the Thief, who has Dex to finesse damage, doesn't really need that bandaid.

Conclusion: Non-Thief Dex builds still need Dex to finesse damage to not fall hopelessly behind. They will remain acceptably behind due to damage dice alone, as demonstrated in the last calculation. Sneak Attack, on the other hand, could possibly use a nerf to bring Rogues into line, based on the potency of the Thief Rogue even under the default rules. Certain party combos can make it very easy for a Rogue to get Sneak Attacks on the majority of their attacks, so I don't think the required conditions are necessarily enough, especially given that it keeps them ahead even if they only get it half the time.

On that note, let's try a sample calculation wherein we have nerfed the Sneak Attack damage die to a d4.

Damage 4d6+4d4+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d4 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief hits 50% of the time for 37 damage and crits 15% of the time for 78.5 damage.
Average: 30.275

And one more with half assuming Sneak Attack only half the time.

Damage 4d6+2d4+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d4 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief hits 50% of the time for 32 damage and crits 15% of the time for 68.5 damage.
Average: 26.275

That's starting to look better. Our one-handed Fighter beats them handily as he should, the Monk should at least break even most of the time and have better defense, and the Champion... well, the Champion is still behind here, but I'm hoping that their defensive utility and healing are enough to make up for it. Not totally certain about that yet.

Since my houserules effectively make all Rogues Thieves, I still need to find something to give to Thieves in particular. I haven't fully settled on that. The default rules basically just give them more damage and a skill training. Perhaps I could change the scaling of Sneak Attack to end at 3d4 and give the Thief an extra d4, since extra damage is their main draw under the default rules. It might warrant a name change to Assassin. Let's try one more calculation assuming a 3d4 Sneak Attack.

Damage 4d6+3d4+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 3d4 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Rogue hits 50% of the time for 34.5 damage and crits 15% of the time for 73.5 damage.
Average: 28.275

And once more, half Sneak attack.

Damage 4d6+(3d4/2)+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + (3d4 Sneak Attack / 2) + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Rogue hits 50% of the time for 30.75 damage and crits 15% of the time for 66 damage.
Average: 25.275

Now they are down to the Champion-Monk spectrum. They still have better ranged attacks and out of combat utility, but will have worse defenses. This seems fair. They are one-handed weapon combatants, so obviously they lose in damage dramatically to two-handed Str builds, which is again fine. Rogues who want to focus on dealing damage can still pick Thief to get an extra damage die without becoming superior in all areas. Non-Thief Rogues can pick a different racket without feeling totally gimped or forced to invest everything into Str just for damage (although they might still choose to for HP and Fort under my system).

WhiteShark wrote:

For each point that the monster's AC increases, our fighter does exactly 4.1 less damage on average. This no doubt changes slightly once the crit range gets down to 5% and stays there, but I think the above calculations are enough to demonstrate that outside of extreme mismatches, AC increases provide a linear benefit.

Minor point: Crit range getting down to 5% isn't only the result of "extreme mismatches" like you seem to be implying. It can happen as a result of multiple attack penalty, or even just not being the absolute best-case-scenario attack bonus the game has to offer at a given level (fighters are exceptional, not a baseline example).

Good point here. I'll take my calculations from before and jump up the AC some more to see how it goes after that point is reached.

Last test at Monster AC 47.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 10% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 28.7

Monser AC 48

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 5% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 24.6

Monser AC 49

Fighter hits 45% of the time for 41 damage and crits 5% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 22.55

Monster AC 49

Fighter hits 40% of the time for 41 damage and crits 5% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 20.5

As expected, there is a point where the value of AC diminishes when the crit rate can no longer go below 5%, but after that point it's simply a shallower linear decrease in average damage. Before crit hits the minimum 5% the decrease was 4.1 average damage per point of AC; after the crit hits the minimum of 5%, the rate becomes 2.05 average damage per point of AC. Let's test when that point gets hit against a moderate monster of equal level.

Average Character Level 20
AC 44 = 10 base + 6 proficiency + 20 level + 4 breastplate + 1 Dex + 3 potency

Moderate monster attack at Level 20 is 36.

First Attack
Monster hits Average Character 50% of the time and crits 15% of the time.

Second Attack
Monster hits Average Character 35% of the time and crits 5% of the time.

Third Attack
Monster hits Average Character 10% of the time and crits 5% of the time.

So, you are correct here. The value of AC is already diminished for the second attack since the crit rate can go no lower. To get as clear a picture as possible, let's see how much damage a single point of AC saves you on average across all three attacks.

Moderate Level 20 monster does 37 damage on average.

First Attack Average: 29.6
Second Attack Average: 16.65
Third Attack Average: 7.4
Total: 53.65

Increasing Average Character AC to 45.

First Attack Average: 25.9
Second Attack Average: 14.8
Third Attack Average: 5.55
Total: 46.25

1 AC = 7.4 damage prevented across three attacks on average. Of course, the AC increase gets more valuable if you assume the monster isn't doing three attacks a turn because then a higher ratio of the attacks will have no MAP, which is where AC does the most work. Interesting stuff. It seems difficult to objectively compare that to Speed, but maybe it can be done. My gut feeling is that a higher Speed might save you from one extra Strike per fight unless the combat begins at extreme range. Let's see if I can reuse my scenario from before.

Last time it took three rounds for our heavy armor melee to close the gap against a ranged attacker standing 100 feet distant. Let's see how long it takes him to do so if we increase his Speed by 5.

Round 1

DF moves away and attacks twice. Current Distance: 125 feet.

SF strides three times. Current Distance: 50 feet.

Round 2

DF moves away and attacks twice. Current Distance: 75 feet.

SF strides three times. Current Distance: 5 feet, melee combat.

Wow! Taking the scenario from before, 5 feet of extra Speed actually saved our Str Fighter from not one but two attacks! It seems obvious that the greater the starting distance, the greater the relevance of Speed, but that's still pretty impressive. In my experience combats don't typically (I know, I know) begin that far apart, so I'll go with my gut instinct that extra Speed will save you from one free ranged attack on average. If we assume that it's saving you from the monster's first attack in the round with no MAP, then that means it's worth about 29.6 HP if you have average AC and the monster does moderate damage. To match that amount of prevention, you will need to take 4 full rounds of triple strikes with your bonus point of AC. This isn't exactly a fair comparison since ranged attacks will typically do less, though. It also must be factored in that the AC is applying to ranged attacks as well.

It seems to me that there are diminishing returns on Speed as well, since Speed beyond what you need to save yourself an action is essentially wasted. That's a difficult thing to quantify, though, since the distance you start at is variable, as is monster Speed. Anyway, I've gone quite a bit deeper then I expected, but I've come around to the notion that full plate and medium armor are actually fairly well balanced against one another. I believe it's mainly a decision based on environment; if you are doing a lot of fighting in open areas the medium armor is likely better, but in enclosed spaces or dungeons the full plate seems better. Kudos to Paizo for balancing that well.

Also, I already showed you want I meant by it being a non-linear increase when I illustrated the relative difference in chance to not take any damage (5% more chance is a bigger change the lower your chance is, and a smaller change the higher your chance is - it's not a linear change despite always being another 5%)

I know what you're trying to say here, but it's essentially a numbers trick. Yes, if you go from the monster missing you 5% of the time to 10% of the time, that's a 100% increase in the chance you have to avoid relative to the previous chance, and going from 10% to 15% is only a 50% increase relative to the previous chance, and so on and so forth. At the same time, the actual damage you receive decreases linearly, because the absolute total chance of you dodging an attack is increasing linearly by 5% at a time. To demonstrate again, I'll take my calculation from above and carry it a step further.

Moderate Level 20 monster does 37 damage on average.

First Attack Average: 29.6
Second Attack Average: 16.65
Third Attack Average: 7.4
Total: 53.65

Increasing Average Character AC to 45.

First Attack Average: 25.9
Second Attack Average: 14.8
Third Attack Average: 5.55
Total: 46.25

Increasing Average Character AC to 46.

First Attack Average: 22.2
Second Attack Average: 12.95
Third Attack Average: 3.7
Total: 38.85

Decrease of average damage taken per point of AC: 7.4, just as it was earlier, because the chance of avoiding the attack increased linearly. Yes, going from 45 AC to 46 AC (40% chance of dodging to 45% chance of dodging) is only a 12.5% increase relative to the previous dodge rate, but that doesn't matter at all, because the absolute dodge rate goes up 5% each time and the actual damage you take decreases by the same amount each time (until your AC gets so high that you are hitting the diminishing return on it by the second monster attack).

I want to say that I really appreciate you engaging with me on this topic, and while we may not agree, I believe I have been able to get a deeper understanding of the system through our conversation, particularly as concerns armor types and the power of the Rogue class. I'll post my latest revision of Condensed Scores here.

Condensed Scores
・Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
・Con is removed.
・Str includes everything Con did.
・Dex modifier can be applied to finesse weapon　damage.
・Sneak Attack die sized is reduced from d6 to d4.
・Ruffians and Scoundrels only gain one extra Sneak Attack die at 9 and 17.
・In addition to granting bonus Skill Trainings at level 1, you also receive a number of Skill Increases equal to your Int bonus. These Skill Increases cannot increase a skill above expert. When your Int bonus increases through an Ability Boost or Apex Ability (from ABP), you gain an additional Skill Training and Skill Increase. This Skill Increase can increase a skill from expert to master if you are level 7 or higher, and can increase a skill from master to legendary if you are level 15 or higher.
・Cha modifier is applied to Will saves instead of Wisdom modifier.
・The free boosts at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are reduced in number from 4 to 3.

EDIT: Fixed a couple of numbers that were wrong due to copy paste. Answers remained correct.

WhiteShark wrote:

I also don't think you can assume that every combat will begin with the party Avoiding Notice and thus getting to apply their Dex to Initiative.

Don't waste time arguing against things no one claimed.

My point here was simply that it is an objective nerf to Dex since it is not guaranteed to be useful for Initiative rolls.

WhiteShark wrote:

It is guaranteed that you can use Wis for initiative

There is no more guarantee that you'll be using Wisdom for initiative than there is that you'll be using Dexterity. Both get used based on either what activity the player has chosen for their character, or what the GM decides is appropriate based on circumstances.

I concede this point. I had thought the rules indicated that you could always default to Perception if you so choose, but upon rereading it simply says that you'll "typically" use Perception.

WhiteShark wrote:

Speed is a genuine consideration, but I thought we weren't taking into account Bulk? If we are accounting for Bulk, allow me to point out that a character who went further into Str can make up for the extra Bulk of full plate with his higher Bulk limit. I think 1 point of AC is a pretty big deal in a game where that's a 5% greater chance of a monster not just hitting but also critting you.

Bulk as applies to limits of everything a character can take with them on their adventure isn't something to take into account - that's what can be replaced with a hireling or a pack animal. But the bulk you can handle from weapons, armor, and other items intended for use in battle without getting slowed down does matter.

...And higher Str contributes to said Bulk Limit, so it can be counted as a legitimate advantage of the Str ability which you discounted earlier.

And being able to have a medium armor, a 2-handed melee weapon, a ranged weapon, ammunition, all the various magic items you've found over a few levels of play stuffed in belt pouches and bandoliers, and still have some bulk left over for a spare weapon or two (for another damage type or material purposes) and a tool kit too if you want rather than having to give up 2 bulk worth of some of that is significant.

This seems like it might be a legitimate point in favor of medium armor, so I'll do a comparison to consider it. Starting at level 1; yes, I know you can't typically afford full plate or a composite longbow at level 1.

Level 1, Str 18, Bulk Limit 9, heavy armor
Full plate - 4
Longsword - 1
Steel Shield - 1
Composite Longbow - 2
50 arrows - 5L
Backpack - 0 (holds 2 Bulk for free)
Bandolier - 0
Healer's Tools - 1
Adventuring Miscellany - 4xL and 2 more bulk into backpack, including magic items

Level 1, Str 18, Bulk Limit 9, medium armor
Breastplate - 2
Longsword - 1
Steel Shield - 1
Secondary 1-handed weapon - 1
Tertiary 1-handed wepaon - 1
Composite Longbow - 2
50 Arrows - 5L
Backpack - 0 (holds 2 Bulk for free)
Bandolier - 0
Healer's Tools - 1
Adventuring Miscellany - 4xL and 2 more bulk into backpack

Here I attempted to consider all of your suggested uses for the extra Bulk that medium armor affords. It seemed to me that the primary difference was in the ability to carry spare melee weapons outside of a backpack. I looked through the magic items, but consumables seemed to all fall into the Light category of bulk, meaning that the full plate wearer could still carry plenty of them. Unless we're talking about gishes, a Str melee won't care about Wands or Staves. Other magic items are themselves worn items and either have negligible bulk or would replace items already on the list instead of adding to it.

So, while this does seem to be a genuine point in favor of medium armor, I don't think it is an enormous advantage. Secondary weapons will likely not be as powerful as primary weapons since your runes will be concentrated on your primary weapon. I also assumed in both cases that the ranged weapon of choice was the 2 Bulk composite longbow, but a Str melee who isn't focusing on ranged combat could easily swap that out for a composite shortbow without suffering that badly in damage. The spare Bulk that medium armor affords also becomes much less relevant at level 10 when both builds achieve Str 20 and thus a Bulk Limit of 10.

Still, factoring in this advantage along with a higher Speed and easier affordability at levels 1-2, I begin to see why players you know might have chosen medium armor over full plate. Personally I do not find it as valuable as the higher AC and Bulwark effect, but it is good to see that it's not the no-brainer I thought it was.

Also, the importance/impact of 1 more point of AC isn't actually a linear benefit despite the linear math of the game. If your enemy has a 30% miss chance and you get 1 higher AC to make that a 35% miss chance you've improved your defense by almost 17%, but if it's a 45% miss chance, making that a 50% miss chance is only 11% better defense.

+1 AC is actually an exactly linear benefit in most cases. +1 AC means that there is one less number on the d20 on which a monster hits you and one less number on the d20 where the monster crits you. I'll compare using damage averages from the level 20 fighter above versus a monster of increasing AC.

Two-handed Fighter Level 20
Attack +38 = 7 Str + 8 legendary + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d12+15 = 1d12 greatsword x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization

Level 20 Moderate monster has AC 44. Calculating first attack only with crits.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 25% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 41

Increasing Monster AC to 45.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 20% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 36.9

Increasing Monster AC to 46.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 15% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 32.8

Increasing Monster AC to 47.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 10% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 28.7

A pattern emerges. For each point that the monster's AC increases, our fighter does exactly 4.1 less damage on average. This no doubt changes slightly once the crit range gets down to 5% and stays there, but I think the above calculations are enough to demonstrate that outside of extreme mismatches, AC increases provide a linear benefit.

Meanwhile a difference of 5 feet of speed can change the number of attacks coming your way, which is much more significant.

I most certainly agree that 5 feet of speed is significant and probably the single most relevant factor in comparing medium and heavy armor. However, I'd like to do a comparison here as well to see how big of a difference it makes in a situation where a ranged attacker is attempting to kite and a full plate melee is attempting to gap close. I'll be somewhat generous to the ranged attacker side so that I cannot be accused of unfairly favoring the Str melee. No feats to avoid complications.

Str Fighter (SF) Level 1
AC 18 = 10 + 6 full plate + 2 trained
Attack +9 = 4 Str + 1 level + 4 expert
Damage 1d8+4 = 1d8 longsword + 4 Str
Speed 20

Dex Fighter (DF) Level 1
AC 17 = 10 + 4 breastplate + 1 Dex + 2 trained
Ranged Attack +9 = 4 Dex + 1 level + 4 expert
Ranged Damage 1d8+1 = 1d8 composite longbow + (3 Str / 2)
Melee Attack +9 = 4 Dex + 1 level + 4 expert
Melee Damage 1d6+4 = 1d6 rapier + 4 Dex
Speed 25

Starting distance 100 feet apart; Ranged goes first.

Round 1

DF First Attack vs SF
Hits 50% of the time for 5.5 damage and crits 10% of the time for 11 damage.
Average: 3.85

DF Second Attack vs SF
Hits 30% of the time for 5.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 11 damage.
Average: 2.2

DF moves away. Current distance: 125 feet.

SF spends all three actions moving toward Ranged. Current Distance: 65 feet.

Round 2

DF repeats its actions from the first turn. Current Distance: 90 feet.

SF once more approaches with all three actions. Current Distance: 30 feet.

Round 3

To avoid volley penalties, DF takes the same actions as before but in reverse. Current Distance: 55 feet.

SF Strides three times and closes the gap. Current Distance: 5 feet, melee combat.

Round 4

At this point DF has done an average of 18.15 damage to SF. However, he is now in close combat with SF and must either switch to melee or start suffering Volley penalties. Both options have clear drawbacks: if he Releases his bow, Steps away, and draws a melee weapon + shield, he is out several actions. If he Steps away and attacks twice with his bow, he suffers Volley penalties. To test the potential of Dex in this scenario under my Condensed Scores, we'll say he does the former.

DF Steps away, Releases his bow, and spends two actions drawing a rapier and a shield.

SF Steps forward and attacks twice.

SF First Attack vs DF
Hits 50% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 15% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 6.8

SF Second Attack vs DF
Hits 35% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 3.825

Round 5

DF counters with two attacks and a shield raise.

DF First Attack vs SF
Hits 50% of the time for 7.5 damage and crits 10% of the time for 15 damage.
Average: 5.25

DF Second Attack vs SF
Hits 30% of the time for 7.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 15 damage.
Average: 3

At this point, if this was actually Level 1, SF would likely have fallen unconscious. However, I would like to continue the comparison to see how long it takes for the two to break even.

SF attacks twice and shield raises.

SF First Attack vs DF
Hits 50% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 5.1

SF Second Attack vs DF
Hits 25% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 2.975

SF total HP lost: 26.4
DF total HP lost: 18.7

Round 6

DF repeats the two strikes and shield raise combo.

DF First Attack vs SF
Hits 45% of the time for 7.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 15 damage.
Average: 4.125

DF Second Attack vs SF
Hits 20% of the time for 7.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 15 damage.
Average: 2.25

SF does likewise.

SF First Attack vs DF
Hits 50% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 5.1

SF Second Attack vs DF
Hits 25% of the time for 8.5 damage and crits 5% of the time for 17 damage.
Average: 2.975

SF total HP lost: 32.775
DF total HP lost: 26.775

Doing the math on the average damage, I can see that it will take 3.5 more rounds (so effectively 4) for our SF to break even, a total of about 10 rounds. A good showing for Ranged combat! At long distance, on a large open field, and going first, our ranged combatant comes out significantly ahead - as should be expected. At the same time, this advantage is at its most pronounced at low levels. As ability scores rise, so too will the difference between the damage of the composite bow, which only gets half Str mod to damage, and melee, which gets full Str mod to damage. Our DF could have potentially stretched out his advantage for even longer if he moved twice each turn and only attacked once, but I feel this begins to stretch the applicability of the scenario; in my experience, many fights take place in enclosed areas or with obstacles/concealment that would make that tactic impossible.

Again, my conclusion remains the same. Ranged combat is good! Speed is good! I have acknowledged both of those facts previously. At the same time, I still do not feel that ranged combat is good enough on its own to justify Dex for a Str melee. Under my rules, even one who wishes to primarily focus on ranged combat would still invest heavily in Str for the composite lonbow, and thus the Dex-to-finesse-damage is not as big of a buff to them as it may seem. As for the the heavy armor vs medium armor debate, it primarily hinges on Speed. Here I concede that medium armor is competitive, even if I do not think it is quite as good as heavy armor for a Str melee.

WhiteShark wrote:

There are a multitude of ways to increase your speed and effective gap closers. Fighter and Barbarian get Sudden Charge, Barbarian can get extra speed while raging, any caster with Longstrider at level 2 can apply an 8 hour +10 Speed buff, Fleet exists as a feet, Rogues and Rangers have Quick Draw, etc.

Once you start incorporating feats into one side of the comparison, you either incorporate spending those feats on the other side of the comparison or your comparison is a failure.

Fair. I have not reviewed all the class feats that could be especially applicable to maintaining distance for ranged combat. From skimming through the CRB it seems to me most movement abilities are either equally applicable to gap closing and gap maintaining or are more effective at gap closing, but until I have done a thorough review I will not press this point.

WhiteShark wrote:

A full Dex build using longbows would still be severly limited by the 1d8 damage die and lack of bonus damage compared to a Str melee

Ranged should do less damage than melee if the two are meant to be balanced because of the non-damage factors of the game.

Yes, I agree that ranged should do less damage than melee, just as I agree that Dex builds in general should do less damage than melee. I never contended otherwise. Once again, it is a matter of degree. A regular longbow will do significantly less damage than melee, which is fine. My point was that the significantly lower damage output of a longbow, even a composite one, means that it is not worthwhile for a Str melee to invest in Dex under Alternative Scores for that alone.

For example, a hyper-simplified comparison between a 1-handed Strength melee build and a ranged-focused build: Round 1 of combat, character goes before enemies - melee character Strides into position, Raises a Shield, and Strikes, then is subject to 3 Strikes from their enemy. - ranged character Strikes, then Strikes, and then Strides to a hopefully better position, then their enemy Strides, possibly twice, and Strikes at them once (or perhaps still gets 3 Strikes, but also with ranged weapons, so still less damage than would be faced by a character in melee, typically speaking).

I understand your point here, but if the Str melee's strikes do higher average damage than the Dex ranged character's (particularly if the Str melee is using a two-handed weapon) and they boast higher AC to boot, then I feel that there is no particular imbalance. Even though in general I concede that if we consider feats it should be on both sides, I must point out that all three of the primary Str melee classes (Barbarian, Champion, Fighter) automatically receive or can (and should) take Attack of Opportunity by level 6. Not only that, but as levels rise, the number of monsters that also possess AoO rises significantly. What this means is that once the gap has been closed either way, ranged attacks will become dramatically less useful since you cannot merely play keep away unless you're a Rogue with Mobility. At that point you will either have to switch to a finesse weapon (which is effective but not nearly so much as a Str melee weapon and requires actions) and lose the benefits of your ranged combat feats, or continue to kite at close range while suffering volley penalties and the threat of creatures with reach and AoO.

The ranged character, despite not adding an ability score to damage, has likely inflicted more damage and received less damage relative to their melee-favoring counterpart. And it doesn't require an "empty field" for that to be the case, just any space in which that movement is possible.

If the ranged character only had one round of extra attacks over the melee character, the damage-dealt gap will almost certainly be closed by round 3 at the latest and likely by the end of round 2. Since full plate will have higher AC the damage-received gap may not be as large as you think, and once the monsters reach melee with the ranged character they will actually be at a disadvantage in that regard as well. While a ranged weapon boasts a dramatic advantage in a scenario like the one I used in my comparison above, a single round of extra ranged weapon strikes does not make that large of a difference.

And while the strength-focused character has next to no ability to say "I'm going to switch to ranged for a bit" and stay effective, the ranged-focused character can switch to a finesse weapon and stay effective.

True. This is accounted for by the lesser damage of ranged/finesse weapons, the higher AC of plate armor, the lessened ability for Dex builds to utilize Athletics for combat maneuvers, and the comparative squishyness of a Dex build that dumps Str under both Alternative Scores and my Condensed Scores.

Focusing on damage + ability modifier, rather than a full view of the wider system's impact and implications results in a skewed view of what an ability score is or isn't worth.

In turn, I would say that focusing overly much on the broader applications of Dexterity while discounting the significant mathematical differences in combat between Dex and Str builds also results in a skewed view of an ability score's value. Your view implies that the Thief Rogue, for example, is overpowered. I do not find that to be the case because of its significantly reduced combat effectiveness compared to a Str melee. Which, again, is fine - the Thief Rogue will have greater utility out of combat. The fact that non-Thief Dex builds lose so very much combat effectiveness for so little in return is what strikes me as unbalanced, in addition to the other problems with Default Scores.

WhiteShark wrote:

Dex is far more limited than it was in the previous edition.

That's not something that I find to be as true as others are claiming. I get that initiative is an important thing and providing other things to influence it besides Dex has certainly closed the gap between dexterity and other ability scores... but even that hasn't really reduced the effectiveness of Dex because it applies to initiative in nearly every instant a player wants for it to via the Avoid Notice exploration activity.

So it's not a 100% downgrade on even that element of what Dex used to do, since other ability scores got the boost of "you can use these for initiative if you want to" and Dex got the boost of "now it's only one good roll to have good initiative and use stealth to your advantage instead of having to get two good rolls in a row for the same."

True, it's not a 100% downgrade, but I also don't think you can assume that every combat will begin with the party Avoiding Notice and thus getting to apply their Dex to Initiative. How often will that happen? That's difficult to say for sure. Still, it is a downgrade. It is guaranteed that you can use Wis for initiative; it is no longer guaranteed you can do so with Dex. The value of Dex has objectively diminished in this regard.

WhiteShark wrote:

The choice of medium armor + Dex over full plate for a Str build is truly baffling when full plate will have higher AC until 24 Dex is achieved at level 20

It has nothing to do with such high-level things... which I think you are talking about light armor rather than medium armor, because medium armor's AC potential is topped-out with a 14 Dexterity.

Ah, sorry, I got caught up thinking about Dex build AC and full plate build AC and forgot that we were discussing medium armor. What I meant to say there is that at level 20 a character with Dex 24 does have 1 more point of AC than a full plate user while wearing no armor, but users of any other type of armor will lag behind at least 1 point without fail.

It's comparisons between 1 point of AC with a Speed penalty and less bulk available to carry other useful items with, because extra bulk for things like weapons and that extra bit of Speed to get around a battlefield outweighs - in their view - a little extra protection.

Speed is a genuine consideration, but I thought we weren't taking into account Bulk? If we are accounting for Bulk, allow me to point out that a character who went further into Str can make up for the extra Bulk of full plate with his higher Bulk limit. I think 1 point of AC is a pretty big deal in a game where that's a 5% greater chance of a monster not just hitting but also critting you.

And it really doesn't have anything to do with expectations caused by PF1 since we haven't played that system for years prior to starting up some PF2 - it's just a conclusion drawn by looking at the combat system and seeing that whichever side of a combat can spend more actions attacking the other side sooner has a distinct advantage, and the players would rather not be the ones going Stride, Stride, Raise a Shield (for example) while their enemies are going Strike, Strike, Strike (for example).

I do think ranged combat ability is valuable, just not as valuable as you do. There are a multitude of ways to increase your speed and effective gap closers. Fighter and Barbarian get Sudden Charge, Barbarian can get extra speed while raging, any caster with Longstrider at level 2 can apply an 8 hour +10 Speed buff, Fleet exists as a feet, Rogues and Rangers have Quick Draw, etc. There's also an action cost to drawing a melee weapon when the gap is closed if you were using a ranged weapon before. Drawing a melee weapon also requires an Interact action, so if your opponent has Attack of Opportunity then you must also spend an action avoiding it via a Step or similar if you don't want to face tank it.

There is a reason why I've been focused on the ranged combat benefits of Dexterity while pointing out what I think are errors in your estimation - it's that when you say nobody really uses ranged weapons I see a system with an action economy that heavily favors ranged combat and I think "that must be a them having a preference thing" because if your range is superior enough to your enemy's you can be harming them while they can't even attack you.

I never claimed that nobody uses ranged combat or that it isn't valuable, I just don't think that it is valuable enough on its own to justify putting points into Dex under Alternative Scores for a Str melee. I applaud intelligent use of ranged weapons, but unless your campaign largely takes place on open fields, I simply don't see how pumping Dex for ranged combat alone would be worthwhile. On the other hand, if Dex offers both Reflex and ranged combat applicability to a Str melee, then there is a real incentive to invest some points into it.

Is ranged combat good under my Condensed Scores? Certainly; as you say, you can be harming enemies while they can't even attack you. Is it overpowered? I think not. A full Dex build using longbows would still be severly limited by the 1d8 damage die and lack of bonus damage compared to a Str melee, even a 1-handed Str melee. A full Dex+Str build using composite longbows would be more effective - but even after feat expenditure its damage still would not match a 1-handed Str melee. Such a build would also be relatively locked into ranged combat and wouldn't have as many capabilities outside of it due to feat selection.

If a build that solely focuses on range combat, going so far as to invest in both Str and Dex heavily for maximum possible damage with a composite longbow, still cannot keep up with 1-handed Str melee damage, then it seems safe to say that a Str melee who just puts a couple of boosts into Alternative Scores Dex for ranged combat will not be very effective at all with it. They will have a significantly worse hit and crit chance than a Dex buid and they won't have the feats to back it up. In my estimation, that seems like a very low return on investment.

So, my conclusion on Alternative Scores remains the same. If ranged combat is frequent enough to warrant a Dex investment, then you might as well give up on Str melee and make a Dex build. If it isn't frequent enough to warrant boosting Dex for ranged combat alone, then it's safe to completely dump it. That's not balanced; it's binary. Dex needs to offer more to the Str melee archetype to make it worthwhile, just as Str under the default rules needs to offer more to casters to make it worthwhile.

The goal of keeping Dex valuable to all character archetypes brings me back to its Default Scores version, and the observation that Dex melee builds that are not Thief Rogues suffer greatly in terms of combat capability leads me to give it mod-to-finesse-damage. I find the Thief to be a good model of balance for "utility" type builds; it trades some combat capability for increased utility out of combat. The problem is that it only achieves this via its unique Dex-mod-to-finesse-damage trait; others Dex builds, like Scoundrel Rogues, do not gain enough utility in exchange for their massive drop in combat effectiveness. In this regard, though I'm aware that many others would say otherwise, I feel like I'm simply patching an oversight in the game design.

Just saw this video and it echoes pretty much everything I had observed on my own. Dex is far more limited than it was in the previous edition. I think when I do playtest it will be with the Dex to finesse weapon damage version. The lower die size of finesse weapons really is limiting and non-Thief Rogues really do fall very far behind, which kills build diversity.

I know we have our different experiences, but I can't help but wonder if the players you know are being unduly influenced by the power of Dex in 1E. The choice of medium armor + Dex over full plate for a Str build is truly baffling when full plate will have higher AC until 24 Dex is achieved at level 20. Personally I'm coming to Pathfinder 2e with relatively fresh eyes; not only have I not played any RPGs in a while (with the last one being GURPS), but it's probably been close to a decade since I played 3.PF. I don't mean that as an insult, just that when I examined the ability scores I don't think I had many preconceptions about which ones were "good".

I don't intend to change my stance on Dex again before playtesting, but I am curious if anyone has suggestions for patching the Thief racket to make it not redundant under my rules. The comments under that video suggested allowing the Thief to treat any 1-handed weapon as a finesse weapon which is certainly a damage buff but thematically ends up making them feel like a Ruffian.

To reiterate, this is my final draft version (absent a patch for the Thief racket) of my houserules that I intend to try out:

***Condensed Scores***
・Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
・Str includes everything Con did
・Dex modifier may be added to finesse weapon damage
・In addition to granting bonus Skill Trainings at level 1, you also receive a number of Skill Increases equal to your Int bonus. These Skill Increases cannot increase a skill above expert. When your Int bonus increases through an Ability Boost or Apex Ability (from ABP), you gain an additional Skill Training and Skill Increase. This Skill Increase can increase a skill from expert to master if you are level 7 or higher, and can increase a skill from master to legendary if you are level 15 or higher.
・Cha modifier is added to Will instead of Wis modifier
・Backgrounds only give one boost
・The free boosts at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are reduced in number from 4 to 3

***Sample Stats at 20 (Condensed Scores)***
10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 ancestry
14 12 10 10 10 background
16 12 10 10 10 class
18 14 12 10 10 free
19 16 14 10 10 level 5
20 18 16 10 10 level 10
21 19 18 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 10 level 20

WhiteShark wrote:

Some campaigns will involves more ranged combat, and in those Alternative Scores works great. In campaigns that don't, it simply creates a new dump stat, which means it fails at its goal to make all abilities attractive.

That's no more true than it would be for me to say that the existence of campaigns with next to no combat encounters "creates a new dump stat" out of whatever gets you extra hit points.

Which is to say, it is true. Both you and I must make assumptions about a typical campaign in order to weigh the value of the ability scores. If a typical campaign involved zero combat, then it would be fair to say that abilities and classes geared toward combat are underpowered. If a typical campaign took place underwater, then we could say that all non-water breathing ancestries are underpowered and undesirable - because they would be.

WhiteShark wrote:

I do not see how granting an extra 2 HP per level even hypothetically makes the game work as intended. I also don't see how something that makes the game work as intended can be considered "not necessary".

You misunderstand. I was pointing out that something being more attractive to players doesn't actually equate to it being necessary from the standpoint of "does this make things work as intended?"

I used the example of extra HP specifically to highlight a change that, like your proposal to enhance what dexterity does above what the default rules for it are, would be "attractive" while not actually being necessary for game functionality.

My goal is to balance the abilities such that any potential character can find value in all of them. This increases build variety and makes character building a more interesting and rewarding experience for players. When I state that an ability is "desirable" or "attractive", I mean that when a player is making a character, it is something toward which they would consider allocating some of their limited resources. The key here is "limited". Your HP example is "attractive" in that most players would take extra HP if it were simply offered them, but would it be "attractive" when weighed against another option? That's what I mean when I say "attractive": that an option remains valuable even when compared to other options. Ideally this would be the case for all abilities.

WhiteShark wrote:

If you could give me an example where Alternative Scores does a better job of making all abilities desirable for all characters than Condensed Scores, I would gladly consider it.

It's not about doing a better job of making scores desireable - it's about how you achieve your clearly more desireable rules by being far more favorable to players than is called for by the system.

You're aiming at making scores more balanced, but the target you are hitting is actually making dex-favoring builds more potent than those which favor strength, and you're saying that's not the case and "proving it" by insisting that major benefits of Dexterity are only relevant in "nontypical" campaigns - when the reality is that there is no such thing as "the typical amount of combat in which ranged weapons would be of good use."

Again you misunderstand my use of the term "desirable", but you accurately state that my objective is balance. A system is unbalanced if, out of a set of options, some are generally superior to others. If I have options A and B, and option A is obviously better in most or all cases, then it is the more "desirable" option and it is not balanced with B. You again insist that there is no such thing as a "typical" amount of ranged combat, but by that same logic we can also say there is no typical amount of social interaction, roleplaying, combat, exploration, or anything else. Trying to measure the value of ability scores in a vacuum is a hopeless task. Is Str valuable in a campapign where you never have to lift anything or hit anyone? Certainly not, but such a campaign would indeed be atypical.

WhiteShark wrote:

It seems to me that your real contention is that Dex is already overpowered in the default rules and that my adjustments take this further. I contend that this is false because of the damage limitations of finesse and ranged weapons as well as the existence of full plate armor.

That is my contention, yes. As for "damage limitations" and "the existence of full plate armor" I encourage you to consider two things: 1) that there is more to the game, by design even if not by your particulars of play experiences, than who does the most and takes the least damage, and 2) only two classes default to proficiency in heavy armor, and neither manages to be capable of starting play with plate armor, so it's actually a rare case that a character uses it and thus shouldn't be treated as the default armor option by which the "strength builds" are judged.

I know it likely won't matter to you, given how you've responded to my other attempts to illustrate the flaw in your reasoning that dex isn't already good enough, but do you know how many characters I've seen built that plan on using plate armor so far? Not a single one, despite champion being the class I've seen the most characters built in. And the reason why is because favoring dex, even just enough to max out the potential of medium armor, is viewed as a more attractive option.

1) I am well aware that combat and DPR are not the be-all end-all of the system, which is why I readily acknowledged and approved of Dex builds falling behind in terms of such. As I stated earlier, it is a matter of degree. The question is, does a Dex build offer enough in other areas to make up for its inferiority in combat? Obviously your answer is that it offers more than enough.

2) Yes, only two classes offer access to full plate armor, just as only one subclass of one class offers the ability to actually ignore Str as a melee damage stat. The inability to purchase plate armor at level 1 with base starting wealth seems of small relevance since you should be able to afford it by the end of level 1 or mid level 2 at the latest. That hardly seems like a long enough time to lock yourself into medium armor for the following 18 levels.

I confess that I really do not understand how one could view medium armor as having greater value for a class that naturally has access to heavy armor. Full plate gives greater AC, a bonus to Reflex against damaging abilities, and resistance to perhaps the most common damage type if you get armor specialization. For a Str melee, it severely reduces the utility of Dex even under Default Scores. It's far worse under Alternative Scores where the desirable elements of Dex get split across two different abilities. I accept your claim that this what you have observed, but it seems very strange to me.

Now, before you conclude that this discussion has been entirely fruitless, I want you to know that I really have weighed your thoughts on Dex as an ability. While I do not agree that it is overpowered in its default state, I can see how allowing it to add to finesse weapon damage as well might be too much. From what I have seen elsewhere, contrary to what you say, finesse builds do not normally ignore Str entirely because of its necessity for damage. Since that is the case and my changes buff Str already, then perhps there is no need to add to Dex's current responsibilities. Here is the version I am considering using in a playtest:

***Condensed Scores***
・Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
・Str includes everything Con did
・In addition to granting bonus Skill Trainings at level 1, you also receive a number of Skill Increases equal to your Int bonus. These Skill Increases cannot increase a skill above expert. When your Int bonus increases through an Ability Boost or Apex Ability (from ABP), you gain an additional Skill Training and Skill Increase. This Skill Increase can increase a skill from expert to master if you are level 7 or higher, and can increase a skill from master to legendary if you are level 15 or higher.
・Will is keyed to Cha
・Backgrounds only give one boost
・The free boosts at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are reduced in number from 4 to 3

***Sample Stats at 20 (Condensed Scores)***
10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 ancestry
14 12 10 10 10 background
16 12 10 10 10 class
18 14 12 10 10 free
19 16 14 10 10 level 5
20 18 16 10 10 level 10
21 19 18 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 10 level 20

Wow, this is great! I was working on something similar for my homebrew ancestries but you've gotten a lot farther with making generic use feats, which I really appreciate. When I was going through the official ancestries and heritages, it seemed to me that there were two types of heritages. One type was a single ability, which I'll call a "whole" heritage. The other type of heritage would have two smaller abilities, what I'm calling a "half" heritage. I've made a list of abilities I've found in each, I'll go ahead and post it here.

***Whole Heritage effects***

defensive reaction for +2 against something general
low-light vision to darkvision
+2 skill bonus under specific circumstances
natural weapon
normal vision to low-light vision
ignore specific difficult terrain
skill increase at 1 and 5
general feat
no fall damage
swim speed
sustenance type effect
multiclass dedication feat
special scaling attack
success to critical success on specific saves
unique

***Half Heritage effects***

1/2 level elemental resistance
environmental resistance
cantrip
extra sense
extra HP
skill feat
hands free
+2 on saves versus specific effect
improved skill action
+1 to skill in certain circumstances

WhiteShark wrote:

I make some assumptions about what a "typical" campaign is based on my cumulative experience; I have to, otherwise I have no basis to compare the ability scores.

That's false.

If you know that other campaign experiences can differ, and the way in which they can differ - in this case, knowing that campaigns can involve more ranged-combat-favoring encounters than you are used to - you can use that knowledge to adjust your basis for comparison, and it would be more accurate across all possibilities of what your future campaigns could be if you did.

I addressed this in my last post. Some campaigns will involves more ranged combat, and in those Alternative Scores works great. In campaigns that don't, it simply creates a new dump stat, which means it fails at its goal to make all abilities attractive. Condensed Scores does not create a dump stat in either case, therefore succeeding where Alternative Scores fails.

I was also making a point that in my personal experience of a typical campign, its theme would be need to be substantially altered to make Alternative Scores work, whereas this is not necessary for Condensed Scores. Even so, this is ultimately tangential to the main point, which is that Condensed Scores works in more types of campaigns than Alternative Scores because it does not necessitate a heavy (or even moderate, by your standards) focus on ranged combat to make each ability attractive.

Because "I haven't had a campaign that [insert variable detail here]" and "There is no such thing as a campaign that [insert variable detail here]" are entirely different statements.

I neither said this nor implied it.

Your conclusion is thus inaccurate because the base information you are using to arrive at it is also inaccurate. Your condensed scores rules are only more attractive in the same way that "every character gets an extra 2 HP per level" would be attractive - it's just giving extras that aren't necessary in order to make the game work as intended.

I do not see how granting an extra 2 HP per level even hypothetically makes the game work as intended. I also don't see how something that makes the game work as intended can be considered "not necessary".

You have also failed to prove that my conclusion is incorrect. You state that my base information is inaccurate, but you do not demonstrate how, instead declaring that I am not considering the experience of others. I did my best to consider cases as favorable to Dex and Str as I could in my comparison and found that only Condensed Scores made each ability valuable in both. If you could give me an example where Alternative Scores does a better job of making all abilities desirable for all characters than Condensed Scores, I would gladly consider it.

It seems to me that your real contention is that Dex is already overpowered in the default rules and that my adjustments take this further. I contend that this is false because of the damage limitations of finesse and ranged weapons as well as the existence of full plate armor. On this you are free to disagree with me, but if this is your true objection, please don't argue on the basis that Alternative Scores is better at making each ability valuable than Condensed Scores. I have already demonstrated that this is not the case with my comparison above.

WhiteShark wrote:

I was arguing that if my GM upscaled the amount of ranged combat to make Dex more useful and not as a setting consideration, I would object.

How would you even notice, though?

If one added only a little, it may not be obvious. However, I believe that making Alternative Scores Dex attractive to a Str melee would require enough ranged combat to halfway invalidate their build choices. If every other fight requires me to pull out my bow when I'm a greatsword fighter, I might begin to question why I'm a greatsword fighter to begin with.

Do you view a campaign that happens to involve a lot of undead as "upscaled the amount of undead" or is it just a normal campaign?

No, obviously a large of amount of undead are to be expected in a campaign themed around fighting undead. Similarly, if the campaign was about a band of Robin Hood-style bandits raiding the King's property, I would certainly expect a lot of ranged combat. However, based on my personal experience, most campaign themes will not feature ranged combat as a consistently necessary activity for melee characters.

Your argument that you would be objecting to there being enough ranged combat to validate Dexterity as a worthwhile investment hinges upon there being an agreed upon 'standard amount' of ranged combat scenarios for a campaign to have.

You also seem to be arguing against your own stated goal since your goal is to make ability scores feel fairly balanced against each other, but are insisting that "include opportunities for dex to shine" is objectionable.

I want all the ability scores to be desirable to as broad a pool of character builds as possible in a typical campaign. I make some assumptions about what a "typical" campaign is based on my cumulative experience; I have to, otherwise I have no basis to compare the ability scores. I do not believe that forcing GMs to go out of their way to include opportunities for Dex to shine is the same thing as making Dex desirable for a character in a typical campaign.

Wis will be useful organically in nearly any campaign because of Perception alone. Charisma, if it is allowed to apply to Will saves, will be useful to any character because of the swathe of Will affecting abilities in the game. Str under the default rules does not come into use at all for many characters, but under Alternative Scores and my Condensed Scores it will naturally be useful for HP and Fortitude if nothing else. Default and Condensed Dex are both obviously useful to anyone, at least for Reflex. Int still feels lacking, but I have ideas for allowing it to grant extra Skill Trainings.

So, under Condensed Scores (and with a buff to Int), each ability will be naturally desirable in a typical campaign without forcefully adding more ranged combat. Under Alternative Scores, a GM is forced to shift the focus of his campaign toward ranged combat if he wishes for Alternative Dex to be desirable to non-Dex builds.

Here's another way to put it. With Condensed Scores, a GM should be able to create a wider array of fantasy campaigns while maintaining the usefulness of each ability score to all characters. Under both the Default Scores and Alternative Scores, the range of campaign themes that will naturally make all ability scores appealing narrows significantly.

Let's say that a hypothetical GM is running a Robin Hood themed campaign. Here's how the various abilities compare under each system.

Default
Str is at best useful for composite bow damage.
Dex is useful for Reflex and AC.
Con is obviously useful.
Wis is useful for Initiative and Will saves.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is mostly useless.

Alternative
Str is useful for HP, Fortitude, and composite bow damage.
Dex is useful for ranged attack.
Agi is useful for Reflex and AC.
Wis is useful for Initiative.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is useful for Will saves (Intimidate, etc.)

Condensed
Str is useful for HP, Fortitude, and composite bow damage.
Dex is useful for ranged attack, AC, and Reflex.
Wis is useful for Initiative.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is useful for Will saves.

Default Scores fails to make all abilities attractive. Alternative Scores shines here; that's to be expected in a campaign featuring a high amount of ranged combat, and I don't dispute it. At the same time, Condensed Scores also makes all abilities attractive.

Now let's say we had a campaign about knights in shining armor. Our honorable knights do not use cowardly ranged weapons and instead tilt at one another upon horseback. Again, how useful is each ability score under each system?

Default
Str is useful for attack and damage.
Dex is useful for Reflex (avoiding trips, falling, etc).
Con is obviously useful.
Wis is useful for Initiative and Will saves.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is mostly useless.

Alternative
Str is useful for attack, damage, HP, and Fortitude.
Dex is useless.
Agi is useful for Reflex.
Wis is useful for Initiative.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is useful for Will saves (Intimidate, etc.)

Condensed
Str is useful for attack, damage, HP, and Fortitude.
Dex is useful for Reflex.
Wis is useful for Initiative.
Int is mildly useful for skills.
Cha is useful for Will saves.

So, we have two campaigns with opposite themes. Neither even touches upon spellcasting but all mental abilities are useful under both Alternative and Condensed. However, the story changes when it comes to physical abilities. Under Alternative Scores, Dex is very useful in the campaign prominently featuring archery. On the other hand, in the knight campaign, Dex is completely useless. This is in contrast to Strength, which remains useful in both campaigns.

Conclusion: if Condensed Scores makes all ability scores as attractive as Alternative Scores does in the same campaigns but also allows for campaigns in which all ability scores are attractive that Alternative Scores does not allow for, and if allowing Dex to add to Finesse weapon damage does not unbalance Dex builds (as shown by my comparison above), then Condensed Scores is equal to superior or superior than Alternative Scores in all situations.

Edit: Spelled out the usefulness of Str in each entry. Skills are not mentioned in the comparison aside from Int because of its contribution to total skill rainings. If you look at a Dex entry listing ranged attack, AC, and Reflex and think "super stat", please consider that Alternative Scores Str does just about as many things as Condensed Scores Dex and yet is not considered a super stat.

WhiteShark wrote:

Personally I would feel somewhat aggravated if my GM threw in a bunch of extra ranged encounters to punish me for not boosting an attribute that is otherwise useless to me.

Not only are you describing a catch-22, since the attribute is only "useless" to you because you don't view the scenario I describe as normal play...

but you're touching on an argument of how tailored the encounters in a campaign should be to the characters built for them: should ranged encounter frequency be related to player investment in ranged combat? should traps only show up if players have invested in finding/disabling them? should the party ever face a monster whose weakness they cannot exploit?

And all of that is a separate thing from what ability scores should or shouldn't do, except that ability scores should certainly facilitate a scenario existing in which it is beneficial to have a high rating in a particular score.

I am firmly in the camp that outside of the most basic issues (the atmostphere should be breathable to the PC races, the campaign shouldn't start with the party in a certain death fight against the BBEG with no way out, etc.) the campaign world should simply exist independent of the party's capabilities. That said, what you were suggesting is that the GM intentionally add more ranged combat to validate those who invested in Dex solely for its ranged combat application and to punish those who didn't. I was arguing that if my GM upscaled the amount of ranged combat to make Dex more useful and not as a setting consideration, I would object.

In my experience, scenarios where a melee character must resort to ranged combat are not common enough nor long enough to justify putting boosts into Dex under Alternate Scores for a Str melee. In order for Dex to be attractive to a Str melee, it needs to have its default capabilities bare minimum. In a world of full plate armor and what I have experienced as a "normal" amount of ranged combat, splitting off the defensive attributes from Dex into Agi makes Dex a clear dump stat for Str melee, which is something we're trying to avoid. Perhaps in your games ranged combat is much more common, but the fact that you mention the need for a GM to increase the amount of ranged combat to validate Dex boosts seems to contradict that premise.

The reason I go further than just maintaining Dex as is and instead allow it to add to Finesse damage can be seen in the comparisons above. I would be willing to discuss whether the Dex-to-finesse damage is necessary when Con has already been rolled into Str, but it would require acknowledging the remarkable lack in Finesse-without-Thief-and-Str damage.

WhiteShark wrote:

Perhaps I'm not oldschool enough, but the games I'm in rarely have hirelings.

Has nothing to do with being "old school." It's entirely just seeing a solution to a problem that is present in the rulebook (page 294, hireling (1 day) unskilled 1 sp).

The difference between old-school and new-school in regards to hirelings is that old-school games had a strict limit as to how many you could employ based on your charisma, and new-school games just limit you based on how much money you are willing to spend on them.

I meant in mentality, not in actual rules. I'm aware that hireling rules exist, but like I said, the groups I play in don't usually make use of them. Additionally, while the book doesn't seem to have any rules about it, I imagine most GMs would not rule that a hireling was brave enough or loyal enough to follow a party into some of the more dangerous situations common to adventurers. Either way I don't think Bulk Limit is central to my argument, it's just a nice extra for Str.

Apparently I replaced Scoundrel in my head with "silvertongue" from the descriptive text. Please read all instances of "Silvertongue" above as Scoundrel, since I can no longer edit the post.

INT - may instead give Skill Increase (Trained to Expert only) or additional Skill Feat per +1

After some consideration I'm thinking that there's no reason to not be quite generous here. The two Int based classes, Wizard and Alchemist, are widely regarded as being on the weaker side (the Alchemist far more so). Starting skills and Skill Increases from class are also generally bountiful. Since the goal is to make Int widely desirable, here's my take:

In addition to granting bonus Skill Trainings at level 1, you also receive a number of Skill Increases equal to your Int bonus. These Skill Increases cannot increase a skill above expert.

After searching the CRB I can't find any rules on how increases to Int after level 1 affect Skill Trainings. Addressing that as well:

When your Int bonus increases through an Ability Boost or Apex Ability (from ABP), you gain an additional Skill Training and Skill Increase. This Skill Increase can increase a skill from expert to master if you are level 7 or higher, and can increase a skill from master to legendary if you are level 15 or higher.

I think the claim that dex builds will want strength for damage isn't exactly as true as you think it is.

And a dex build should fall behind a strength build when it comes to melee damage because while that's all the strength build can do with that one score, a dex build can use ranged weapons too.

And when it comes to things outside the offense/defense spectrum, such as skills, dex has a more versatile and more impactful set of things it affects. Athletics doesn't really stack up when compared to either Stealth or Thievery in terms of impact on the game, and dex still gets acrobatics on top of those.

I don't necessarily disagree that Dex should fall behind Str in terms of damage because of its greater utility in skills and ranged combat, but it's a matter of degree. In order to examine this further, I'll stop being lazy and do some comparisons.

Default Ability Scores, using ABP

Two-handed Fighter Level 1
Attack +9 = 4 Str + 4 expert + 1 level
Damage 1d12+4 = 1d12 greatsword + 4 Str

Dragon Barbarian Level 1
Attack +7 = 4 Str + 2 trained + 1 level
Damage 1d12+8 = 1d12 greataxe + 4 Str + 4 Draconic Rage

Silvertongue Rogue Level 1
Attack +7 = 4 Dex + 2 trained + 1 level
Damage 2d6 = 0 Str + 1d6 rapier + 1d6 Sneak Attack (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief Rogue Level 1
Attack +7 = 4 Dex + 2 trained + 1 level
Damage 2d6+4 = 4 dex + 1d6 rapier + 1d6 Sneak Attack (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Level 1 Moderate monster has AC 15. Calculating the first attack only (no MAP). Including Crits.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 10.5 damage and crits 25% of the time for 21 damage.
Average: 10.5
Barbarian hits 50% of the time for 14.5 damage and crits 15% of the time for 29 damage.
Average: 11.6
Silvertongue hits 50% of the time for 7 damage and crits 15% of the time for 18.5 damage.
Average: 6.275
Thief hits 50% of the time for 11 damage and crits 15% of the time for 26.5 damage.
Average: 9.475

With Dex to Finesse damage and sneak attack, the Thief Rogue falls behind the Fighter, but not by much. All seems well there, but the Silvertongue who dumped Str as well falls much further behind.

Two-handed Fighter Level 10
Attack +23 = 5 Str + 6 master + 10 level + 2 potency
Damage 2d12+8 = 1d12 greatsword x 2 devastating attacks + 5 Str + 3 Weapon Specialization

Dragon Barbarian Level 10
Attack +21 = 5 Str + 4 expert + 10 level + 2 potency
Damage 2d12+15 = 1d12 greataxe x 2 devastating attacks + 5 Str + 2 Weapon Specialization + 8 Dragon Specialization Ability

Silvertongue Rogue Level 10
Attack +21 = 5 Dex + 4 expert + 10 level + 2 potency
Damage 4d6+2 = 1d6 rapier x 2 devastating attacks + 2d6 Sneak Attack + 0 Str + 2 Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief Rogue Level 10
Attack +21 = 5 Dex + 4 expert + 10 level + 2 potency
Damage 4d6+7 = 1d6 rapier x 2 devastating attacks + 2d6 Sneak Attack + 5 Dex + 2 Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Level 10 Moderate monster has AC 29. Calculating as before.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 21 damage and crits 25% of the time for 42 damage.
Average: 21
Barbarian hits 50% of the time for 28 and crits 15% of the time for 56 damage.
Average: 22.4
Silvertongue hits 50% of the time for 16 damage and crits 15% of the time for 36.5 damage.
Average: 13.475
Thief hits 50% of the time for 21 damage and crits 15% of the time for 46.5 damage.
Average: 17.475

Here the Thief begins to fall farther behind even with his Dex-to-damage and assumed Sneak Attack. The Silvertongue is starting to seem like a non-combatant entirely.

Two-handed Fighter Level 20
Attack +38 = 7 Str + 8 legendary + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d12+15 = 1d12 greatsword x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 8 Greater Weapon Specialization

Dragon Barbarian Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Str + 6 master + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 4d12+29 = 1d12 greataxe x 4 devastating attacks + 7 Str + 6 Weapon Specialization + 16 Dragon Specialization Ability

Silvertongue Rogue Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Dex + 6 master + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 8d6+6 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d6 Sneak Attack + 0 Str + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Thief Rogue Level 20
Attack +36 = 7 Dex + 6 master + 20 level + 3 potency
Damage 8d6+13 = 1d6 rapier x 4 devastating attacks + 4d6 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization (Critical +1d8 deadly)

Level 20 Moderate monster has AC 44. Calculating as before.

Fighter hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 25% of the time for 82 damage.
Average: 41
Barbarian hits 50% of the time for 55 and crits 15% of the time for 110 damage.
Average: 44
Silvertongue hits 50% of the time for 34 damage and crits 15% of the time for 72.5 damage.
Average: 27.875
Thief hits 50% of the time for 41 damage and crits 15% of the time for 86.5 damage.
Average: 33.475

So from levels 1 through 20 a consistent pattern emerges. The Barbarian sits at the top, with Fighter just below him. That seems fair; the Fighter gets to wear heavier armor. The Thief steadily lags behind the Fighter. He must work harder to reach his damage potential because it relies on sneak attack and he is limited by the damage dice of finesse weapons. While the Elven curve blade exists as a 1d8 damage die finesse weapon, it requires being an Elf and expending a feat. I'll do one more calculation at level 20 assuming the Thief is an Elf and took Elven Weapon Familiarity:

Damage 4d8+4d6+13 = 1d8 elven curve blade x 4 devastating attacks + 4d6 Sneak Attack + 7 Dex + 6 Greater Weapon Specialization

Thief hits 50% of the time for 45 damage and crits 15% of the time for 90 damage.
Average: 36

So, a meaningful increase, but not enough to close the gap. Now, as you said, a gap between the raw DPR of a Str melee and a Dex melee is fair. Dex gets overall more utility through its skills and applicability to ranged combat. However, your statement that a non-Thief Finesse build doesn't care about Str under the Default Scores seems unfounded in light of the Silvertongue's very poor performance. Finesse builds are already quite limited by their choice of weapons, which have poorer damage dice than Str weapons. It's brutal that they must then also boost Str or be a Thief in order to not fall completely by the wayside. A Finesse Dex Fighter using duelling weapons, for example, would not even have the benefit of Sneak Attack to keep up. Without Str, they would perform even worse than the Silvertongue.

Conclusion: Allowing Dex to apply to Finesse damage does not unbalance Dex even with its other capabilities because of the limitations of Finesse weapons. While Dex provides more overall utility, even with Dex-to-Finesse-damage it cannot keep up with Str builds. Under Condensed Scores, Dex builds will value Str for HP and Fortitude and Str builds will continue to value Dex for Reflex and ranged combat. Casters will value both for the same reasons. Dex does not become a super stat.

Also, "better at carrying things" is almost entirely irrelevant because dex builds have less encumbering gear and any character can utilize pack animals or hirelings that carry things for them.

Perhaps I'm not oldschool enough, but the games I'm in rarely have hirelings. Pack animals do obviate the need for high bulk limits during travel, but I was picturing scenarios within a dungeon where you needed to carry a comrade or something similar.

As for my position on this, I can sum it up by saying that I feel the alternate scores presented in the GMG are nearly on the mark - with the only issue being that new-dex is slightly unappealing so it could use something to boost it, so long as it doesn't take that thing from Agility... which really just leaves options like "the GM makes sure to include situations wherein using a ranged weapon is obviously a better choice than moving into melee would be" so that the thing which only new-dex does has an opportunity to shine.

Personally I would feel somewhat aggravated if my GM threw in a bunch of extra ranged encounters to punish me for not boosting an attribute that is otherwise useless to me. Feat selection will generally cause you to specialize in melee or ranged, so even if I did put spare boosts into Dex it still wouldn't feel very good. As you say, it could use something else to boost it. Where I disagree is in thinking that thing can't come from Agility.

I was considering, instead of bringing some scores down a notch, propping some scores up a notch:

In general I appreciate this type of thinking, but I believe that in order to make the ability scores desirable to as many characters as possible, some redistribution is necessary.

ST - may key Thrown weapon attack rolls

This makes Str more valuable for throwing builds, but it remains a dump stat for the average character. It's not a bad idea for the Default Scores, but it might be too much extra under Alternate or Condensed.

INT - may instead give Skill Increase (Trained to Expert only) or additional Skill Feat per +1

I like the idea of additional Skill Increases quite a lot. I will have to meditate on how/when they would be granted, but it feels thematic and useful.

CHA - may key Will saving throws

If by "may" you mean that Wis will also still apply to Will, then this is mostly a buff to Cha casters. The average character will still prefer Wis for the Perception bonus in addition to the Will bonus.

It's worth noting that "but now I want more ability scores at decent values than before" is the point of the presented alternate ability scores.

The default rules paradigm results in the only ability scores "every character needs" are Con, Wis, Dex, and whatever their particular class/build uses and maybe a little extra Int for more skill training. So you've got a bunch of scores which are safe to "dump" because there isn't much impact on what the character is going to be doing.

The alternate set of scores combines a "dump stat" with an "everyone wants it" stat by combining Str and Con, and makes another "dump stat" more valuable by having Cha apply to Will saves instead of Wis.

It then tones down the most versatile of the default ability scores by splitting it into an "offense" ability (Dex) and a "defense" ability (Agi).

What may bean issue with the alternate set of ability scores is that the newly-invented Dex might not do quite enough for people that would have a little of the old Dex for defense purposes to feel like putting points into the new Dex instead of just not being good with ranged attacks, and Int remains useful according to designers but useless according to numerous players because "it gives you extra skills and languages".

I do see your point about trying to make all the stats at least somewhat valuable to all characters, and I agree that the Alternate Scores Dex doesn't seem valuable enough to the average non-Dex build. The thought occurred to me that moving Reflex from Dex to Int under my Condensed Scores could in theory distribute things more evenly, but it might be difficult thematically. I played D&D 4e and I'm not opposed to Reflex getting its bonus from Int, but it seems hard to justify it only receiving its bonus from Int even if Dex is higher.

So maybe I need to think about this harder when redistributing. What are the most valuable things that each attribute does under the default rules?

Str: Melee to-hit, Melee damage
Dex: Ranged to-hit, Finesse to-hit, AC, Reflex
Con: HP, Fort
Int: Skill trainings
Wis: Perception, Will
Cha: nil

So, Will to Cha seems like an absolute no brainer, and Str remains a dump stat for any non heavy armor melee build. Okay, so let's review the Alternate Scores version:

Str: Melee to-hit, Melee damage, HP, Fort
Dex: Ranged to-hit, Finesse to-hit, Finesse damage
Agi: AC, Reflex
Int: Skill trainings
Wis: Perception
Cha: Will

Makes a lot of sense to me, but as you said, many (including me) don't see Dex as having any value if you're going a Str-melee build. Thus, the condensed version:

Str: Melee to-hit, Melee damage, HP, Fort
Dex: Ranged to-hit, Finesse to-hit, Finesse damage, AC, Reflex
Int: Skill trainings
Wis: Perception
Cha: Will

Are there any dump stats left? Everybody wants Str for HP/Fort at least. Non-Dex melee will still consider Dex for Reflex and ranged, and everybody else will of course want Dex. Wis for Perception/initiative is of course important for everybody, and ignoring Cha means less Will. If anything it seems like Int remains the only dump stat. I don't think extra languages is that meaningful once you have access to Comprehend Language. As for skill trainings, let's consider that.

There are 16 non-Lore skills in the game. The average class has access to 4 skills, and background gives 1 more aside from Lore. That means that in a party of 4 you should have everything covered, and you can still have most to everything covered in a party of 3 if any of you have more than 10 Int or a class with a higher than average number extra skills. The only saving grace here is that Int contributes to 5 skills, the highest number that any attribute contributes to. Is that enough? Hard for me to say.

So, in my estimation, my Condensed Scores does a better job of removing dump stats than Alternative Scores. No new dump stats are created. Dex does technically get more valuable, but so does Str and Cha, and I believe that the "weight" is more evenly distributed.

WhiteShark wrote:

...Dex builds suffer versus heavy armor Strength builds under both the default and variant...

I think you might be the first person to think that. Most people refer to Dex (the default version that doesn't also add to damage sometimes) as a "super stat"

It's one trait but you can bank your offense (which you get both ranged and melee options with just this trait), defense, and skill identity on it and come out near the top of the pack in every case.

I don't believe Dex is a superstat in 2e with the way full plate armor works and initiative changes. Anyone melee with access to heavy armor never needs to put a single stat boost into Dex unless they also are trying to be good at ranged weapons, but their feat choices are going to mostly lock them into melee regardless.

The thing is, Dex is good for AC, but a Str based melee doesn't need any attribute for AC since full plate armor exists. A Str build gets damage and to-hit out of their main attribute and doesn't have to care about an AC attribute at all. Dex builds, on the other hand, still want Str for damage, which makes them MADder.

Let's break down what Str and Dex would do exactly under this change, item by item:

Str: Melee To-hit, Melee Damage, HP, Fortitude, Bulk Limit, Check Penalty, Athletics
Dex: Finesse To-Hit, Finesse Damage, Ranged To-hit, AC, Reflex, Stealth, Thievery, Acrobatics

Comparing that to what they do by default, it seems to me that a Str build cares about Dex about as much as it cared about Dex before, but a Dex build cares more about Str.

To me that looks fairly even; Dex contributes to a couple more skills, Str makes you better at carrying things. You could argue that Check Penalty doesn't matter much since you would only be wearing armor whose check penalty you can negate anyway, which I concede.

Perhaps I'm overestimating how bad the MAD is for Dex builds. I haven't run the math on average damage numbers between a Str melee build and a Dex melee build, but I have a hard time seeing how a Dex build could keep up without the Thief racket (i.e., Dex to damage) or heavily investing into Str.

What would you say about simply rolling Con into Str but without giving Dex-to-damage? Alternatively, I had someone comment in the original thread asking if it wasn't sufficient to just move Will to Cha and leave everything else alone. Would you say that's your position as well?

There is a fear of Dex becoming an Uber stat that seems like a carry over from 1E

I can certainly understand that, but the way things are distributed currently, it seems to me that Dex builds lag behind. Perhaps I am underestimating the value of Reflex.

Dex is more limited by default now due to not always being initiative and a stricter cap on the AC boost. This is partially offset by weapon finesse now being effectively free

But it is arguably still more versatile as it allows melee and ranged attack rolls.

Even so, I think Dex builds will likely end up specializing in one or the other through their feat choices, so I don't know how big of an advantage that really is.

I hadn’t considered that the new variant actually away from Dex characters. Why not just move will to charisma and leave everything unchanged? Does that unbalance things . It spreads out the most common initiative and a key saving throw

I guess it comes down to which spell caster do you think should/needs to be able to boost their will by their key ability score - sorcerer or cleric/druid

Since cleric uses charisma secondary anyway then it kind of actually is a question of “who should benefit from this portion of the stats spread” - Druids or sorcerers ? A slightly weird hole to be in. But I’d suggest sorcerers need more of a boost in a direct match up

I have yet to play either Sorcerers or Druids/Clerics, but my impression from reading online is that people rate the Sorcerer below both in terms of power, and I agree that separating the primary initiative attribute and the Will save attribute is a good idea regardless. I don't think that alone unbalances anything; my only fear is that it does not go far enough.

Connected to the above - has anyone used the different stats or considered using them?

Would be interesting to know how it works out in practice . It seems rather niche as a variant

I just finished making my character for a game that starts next Friday and the GM offered Alternative Scores as an option for any PC. Since I'm playing a Fighter, it seemed like a no brainer to take it since it meant focusing most of the things I want into Str alone. That's part of what got me thinking about this. I'll try to remember to post how it goes.

Reading the Alternate Scores variant rule in the GMG made me really start thinking about the distribution of "weight" between the ability scores. After making a list of everything each score did and also thinking about the greater M(ultiple) A(ttribute) D(ependency) that Dex builds suffer versus heavy armor Strength builds under both the default and variant, it seemed to me that Alternate Scores didn't go far enough. Inspired by Mark's post here, here's my take on evening out the "weight" of ability scores. Please tell me what you think.

EDIT: I am aware that, just like Alternate Scores, this invalidates part of the Thief racket. I feel that fixing ability scores for all Dex builds is worth doing so, and that a different houserule for Thief could be applied.

Condensed Ability Scores
Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
Str includes everything Con did
Dex includes everything that Dex and Agi did under Alternative Scores
Will is keyed to Cha
The free boosts at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are reduced in number from 4 to 3
Total Boosts at level 20: 20 (under the old system it was 25)

Sample Ability Scores through level 20 (Default Ability Scores)
10 10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 10 race
14 14 10 10 10 10 background
16 14 10 10 10 10 class
18 16 12 10 10 10 free
19 18 14 10 10 10 level 5
20 19 16 10 10 10 level 10
21 20 18 10 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 12 10 level 20

Sample Ability Scores through level 20 (Condensed Ability Scores)
10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 race
14 14 10 10 10 background
16 14 10 10 10 class
18 16 12 10 10 free
19 18 14 10 10 level 5
20 19 16 10 10 level 10
21 20 18 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 12 level 20

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I... actually really appreciate the fact that's a consideration, speaking as a char op player who loves the care put into the character building metagame.

If you weren't designer tomorrow (gods forbid, your work is fantastic) and had the freedom to completely distort your table from the core assumptions, do you have a favorite?

Hmmm, I might use a variant of the ability score variant that perhaps doesn't split Dexterity into Agility and Dexterity and makes a few other small tweaks to what the scores do, but then requires major changes to the way ability scores are calculated and advanced since it winds up with 5 stats instead of 6 (because it still combined Str and Con). We didn't have space to include that, but I like it better than either the set of ability scores we are now using or the one I pitched for GMG.

I was discussing the Alternate Scores rule with a friend today and my conclusion is that Dex builds suffer under both that variant and the default rule. To me it seems that a light armor, finesse weapon user wants:

Str (damage)
Dex (to-hit and AC)
Con (HP)
Wis (initiative)

Whereas a heavy armor melee type wants:

Str (to-hit, damage)
Con (HP)
Wis (initiative)

Under the variant rules, Dex builds seem to have it just as bad:

Str (HP)
Dex (to-hit, damage)
Agi (AC)
Wis (initiative)

But heavy armor Strength builds get even better:

Str (to-hit, damage, HP)
Wis (initiative)

I tried to think of my own alternative Alternative Scores to rectify the problem and I concluded that it could only be done by adding a new ability score or subtracting an existing one. That's when a friend told me that you, Mark, had said something similar here. I took a look at your post and fleshed out the idea a bit more, and I'm curious what you (or anybody else who wants to comment) think:

Condensed Ability Scores
Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
Str includes everything Con did
Dex includes everything that Dex and Agi did under Alternative Scores
Will is keyed to Cha
The free boosts at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are reduced in number from 4 to 3
Total Boosts at level 20: 20 (under the old system it was 25)

Sample Ability Scores through level 20 (Default Ability Scores)
10 10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 10 race
14 14 10 10 10 10 background
16 14 10 10 10 10 class
18 16 12 10 10 10 free
19 18 14 10 10 10 level 5
20 19 16 10 10 10 level 10
21 20 18 10 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 12 10 level 20

Sample Ability Scores through level 20 (Condensed Ability Scores)
10 10 10 10 10 base
12 12 10 10 10 race
14 14 10 10 10 background
16 14 10 10 10 class
18 16 12 10 10 free
19 18 14 10 10 level 5
20 19 16 10 10 level 10
21 20 18 10 10 level 15
22 20 18 12 12 level 20

EDIT: I also made a thread here since I feel this could develop into its own topic.