I noticed a lot of debates over as well as clamors for a means to add dex to damage. It's a good idea, it allows for finesse based characters to be more viable, but the biggest argument is that it leaves STR out in the cold too easily. With dex handling a lot of skills, a save, initiative, and AC/CMD its easy to see where allowing it to govern weapon damage can be hard to swallow.
But that's besides the point, the question I want to ask in this thread is 'What can Strength do?'. Not just in the game as is, but what it does outside of normal rules, what it should do and what it could do.
What do you think Strenth should be able to do that it doesn't already do?
In the game as it is, as far as I can see, Strength handles;
Weapon attack (can be replaced with weapon finesse)
Weapon damage
Carrying capacity (can be replaced with a number of items/spells)
CMB
Swim
Climb
Can replace Cha for intimidate with a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You pretty much nailed what it does. Weapon damage is really the only important thing left that strength does alone.
If you remove that feature and allow dex to damage you completely remove the point of having strength as a ability score except at exceptionally low levels before you have access to items and spells that mitigate carrying capacity.
If you just generally allowed dex to damage you wouldn't see martial strength builds anymore. Which would suck. You would have big strong fighters, you would have dex based fighters that did as much damage, but with better AC, better reflex save, a better modifier to more skills.
There is no good argument for generally allowing dex to damage except people want to have their cake and eat it to.
You pretty much nailed what it does. Weapon damage is really the only important thing left that strength does alone.
If you remove that feature and allow dex to damage you completely remove the point of having strength as a ability score except at exceptionally low levels before you have access to items and spells that mitigate carrying capacity.
If you just generally allowed dex to damage you wouldn't see martial strength builds anymore. Which would suck. You would have big strong fighters, you would have dex based fighters that did as much damage, but with better AC, better reflex save, a better modifier to more skills.
There is no good argument for generally allowing dex to damage except people want to have their cake and eat it to.
I don't exactly mind having Dex to damage but I have a hard time justifying unless STR gets some love too. So I wanted to ask whey people thought Strength should possibly be able to do when modified with a feat. For example: Would you agree to Strength being used in place of Dexterity to jump? Would you agree to Stregth being used in place of Charisma for diplomacy checks against humanoids with 15 STR or higher?
Strong characters still have advantages in weapon choice (Falcata FTW), 1.5 x STR to damage for a two-handed weapon, lower feat requirements (no need for Weapon Finesse and Unnamed-Dex-to-Damage-Feat), and polymorph-based buffing (becoming smaller than small to get DEX kills your reach, and the only other option is elementals, which aren't ideal forms). So additional Dex-to-damage options won't totally destroy it (especially when you consider we already have Dervish Dance and Agile weapons).
Ideally, the sacred cow of Constitution should be slain and Strength or "Body" encompass hitpoints and Fortitude as well, but that is probably a step too far for even a new edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind Dex to Damage but Dex should only carry you so far. You still need the str to drive the dexterity orient precise attack home. I'd say a feat that allow dexterity to do damage up to twice you str bonus would make sense. So if you had a Str of 13 and Dex of 20 you could use dex to do +2 damage instead of +1. But grab the belt of giant strength +6 and and now you do +5 damage can do up to +8 if your Dex gets that high. Now strength is still used.
I would mind the Dex to Damage debate less if they offered a more complete swap. Meaning, you could pick which ability handled:
To hit/damage
versus
Init, AC, Ref saves
...and select which attribute you wanted to handle each group. Perhaps strength helps you spring/jump out of the way more completely, for example.
This would be more even across the board, but I don't think anyone would take me up on it.
I always find it odd when this comes up and people handwave carrying capacity. What people always seem to forget is that while sure, you can get around the issue of how you're going to get all this loot back to town with a bag of holding or a handy haversack, you still need to deal with the weight of everything you can't stick in that bag. This includes your weapons (and possibly torch, shield, etc.), armor, clothing, magic items, and of course, the bag of holding itself. Generally, you also want a bit of a buffer too in case you ever have to pick something else up briefly.
There's also a rather large number of feats requiring decent strength, and, of course, CMD.
Bottom line, if you're the sort of character that wants dex as your damage stat, you still generally need as much dex as Mr. Two-Handed Power Attacker needs dex.
CMB is based off of strength, but can be switched to dexterity with a feat. This is in line with spending a feat to use dexterity for attacks. The problem with combat maneuvers 1) have limited use at lower levels 2) become difficult to effectively use at higher levels 3) are often a worse choice that hacking something to death or casting a spell.
I suggest that 1) the feat allows both strength and dexterity together to determine CMB, just like CMD is and 2) even though combat maneuvers got a needed boost from 3rd ed to PF, they need another boost at mid and high level. Even spending 3-6 feats leaves combat maneuvers lack luster compared to other options.
I also suggest using the humble strength check from time to time.
It makes me sick to my stomach that the best combat rogues are strength based and wear heavy armor.
Intimidating prowess let's you add STR to intimidate checks and many melee builds depend on intimidate.
Dex to Damage has been argued to death. It's already in the game (albeit not in a core-line book), and the loss of damage and feats are about the right price for the advantages you gain.
Fighters aren't all going Swordlord on us. Rangers and Paladins aren't suddenly going Dervish Dance, they even make better switch-hitters focusing on Strength, not Dex. Barbarians haven't all switched to Urban Barbarians with Agile Elven Curve Blades. Even for Magi, Dex focus is not a plainly superior option.
Strength is still king of melee. Meanwhile, Gunslingers are adding Dex to ranged attacks.
If you keep it to finesse weapons (and scimitars) and disallow using 1.5* for 2h (but still having 1x/0.5x for dual-wield), it will still be inferior to Strength builds for pure damage output, while allowing flavor.
i'd allow the 1.5* for 2handed finesse builds and 1x/1x for dual wield, it's still inferior to strength both due to the feat tax, and due to the fact that it is easier to pile on strength bonuses than dexterity bonuses, and easier to do so while gaining a lot more reach and reach is pretty darn important.
|
The game shows that increasing your Strength is easy, and that it is generally better than Dexterity for damage. A 9 Strength Wizard can get his Strength to over 50 if he tries. There is a feat chain that adds +14ish to Strength. Power Attack[a large source of Melee damage] requires a minimum Strength, and for the most part can't apply its full potential to Finessable weapons.
Dexterity is a Defensive stat, so it is harder to increase since in Pathfinder, Offense>Defense by a fair margin. It applies to a bunch more skills and to AC and Initiative. It also is limited by Armour, and after a certain point, increasing Initiative becomes trivial, especially if your only role is to stand still and beatstick things to death. It has a bunch of feats to compensate it providing no offensive potential [Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, Two-Weapon Fighting, Dervish Dance, Mythic Weapon Finesse, Exotic Weapon Proficiency [Elven Curve Blade]] and then some gear you can buy [Agile, Mithral, Elven Curved Blades*].
So, all adding Dexterity-to-Damage in the general Weapon Finesse feat, or even adding Improved Weapon Finesse would do is to make a character invest less money and feats into a fighting style that is potentially less effective then Strength. It makes them easier to make Dexterity-builds do damage without needing something like Smite or Sneak Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there can be dex to damage I want an option for str to AC. Naked barbarians should be a thing that don't suck.
If there can be dex to damage I want an option for str to AC. Naked barbarians should be a thing that don't suck.
Barbarians don't need AC, they have DR. Though I can see Strength adding to DR in some way as a class feature for Barbarians (if Invulnerable Rager didn't already exist) and Monks.
If there can be dex to damage I want an option for str to AC. Naked barbarians should be a thing that don't suck.
Honestly, if this were to happen I'd rather do Con to AC. It seems more in line to the options you get with dex to damage (since you're fairly restricted in weapons, and even with dex to damage, you're looking at less damage for a greater feat investment, just to be less MAD), and it's more in line with flavor, since it seems less based on how hard you hit things, and more on how much you can withstand damage. It still cuts down MADness, somewhat, since CON is always useful, so it's not like you're trading off to a stat you otherwise ignore, but you can't just be completely strength focused and get the best of both Offense and Defense.
If my barbarian can have Con to AC I'll turn a blind eye to Dex to damage.
Hmm... a feat that adds a natural armor bonus based on CON might be interesting & thematic... anybody willing to playtest it? The only issue I see is that I've never seen anybody actively boost CON, it's generally set at first then occasionally boosted by belts later...
Note: we cannot let the scarred witch doctors know about this idea! They are already ridiculous enough as it is...
As for str vs. dex builds, it seems fairly balanced as is. I've heard of people going even further (like having all light weapons run naturally off dex for everything) without seeing a reduction in str builds. I find the notion that dex to damage invalidates str-builds kinda dubious. WE NEED MOAR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!
For the record I'd rather discuss things strength could do that's normally reserved for other stats rather than argue Dex to damage.
For the record I'd rather discuss things strength could do that's normally reserved for other stats rather than argue Dex to damage.
That's the difficulty with attempting constructive discussions... they always diverge to the point that's in question...
Now, I would mind FORT from strength. Wouldnt be bad, but it would kinda be like the dex-based rogue's reflex...