|
I think this is a decent way to describe the whole issue.
If I have a 24 Dex, which I think is an easy assumption that I could reach that. I would be getting a +7 to my ability modifier.
I think its fair to assume that the standard Dex build fighters/rangers/etc are relatively balanced with thier strength based counterparts in the current iteration. Dex may not have equal damage output, but they get other bonuses to help sustain them.
With the above information... balance and everything, please name me a trio of feats that provide a bonus to hit equal to +8, and bonus to damage equal to +7. Those three feat 'taxes' are what the chain provides. This is where the crux of the issue lies with me. Even assuming a decent strenght of 16... the effective bonuses are still +5/+4 which is pretty signifigant.
Also... you can get higher Dex than what is being presented as you advance and continue to get more and more bonuses because of it. You consolidate almost everything into one line of stats.
Edit:
If you want to argue the opposite way... provide me a set of three feats that provide a +5 bonus to Initiative, Reflex, AC, and several skill checks while having a 24 strength instead of Dex.
Melee Oracle:
1.Eldritch heritage(Arcane) gets you +4 to initiative and +2 to all skills (via familiar and aid another) and a scout. Alternatevely you can pick some other retardedly useful heritage.
2. Extra revelation: Charisma to AC
3. Divine protection. Obviously much better than + reflex
Optional:Leadership, gets you as much skills, spells, extra feats, AC, as you want or as your dm lets you
Optional: Multiclass bard >Pengeant of the peacock for all knowlege skills
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that the only people who want a more viable dexterity combat feat are optimizers, is doing yourself a disservice.
Here is how I see the dex to damage argument:
Dex to damage is already an option in the game. There are numerous ways of gaining it:
* Any agile weapon, or an agile amulet of mighty fists for natural attack stacking
* Scimitars with Dervish Dance.
* Slashing Grace with whips, Aldori Dueling Swords, or any weapon with one-level dip in Swashbuckler. There are several options to change the handed-ness of weapons, it is unclear how these interact with Slashing Grace. If they do qualify, the list of viable weapons that do not require a swashbuckler dip increases a fair bit.
* Duelist of the Falls
* (soon) Fencing Grace
Note that dervish dance and the agile option has been around for years without making strength character superfluous, while the other options have been added in the last year. From an outsider point of view, I think Paizo seems to be opening up to the concept, but haven't nailed down the mechanics around it yet.
Ironically, out of these I actually quite dislike the Agile enhancement and Dervish Dance. A +1 bonus for Agile is a steep price to pay at low levels (it becomes realistically affordable around level 6-7) and absolutely laughably cheap at the mid-high levels. Conversely the price of a feat remains unchanged at both low and high levels - feats are precious, while WBL scales so dramatically that what is a massive expense at level 5 is pocket change at level 9. Dexterity as a combat option should be balanced around feats, not WBL.
Dervish Dance approaches the problem from the other direction and arguably does a much better job of balancing the combat style, but due to flavor reasons is limited to a single weapon, the scimitar. The scimitar is arguably one of the best one-handed weapons in the game as it is - would it be problematic to add a similar feat with the same restrictions as Dervish Dance, but that worked with any light or one-handed weapon? I can't see why. Funneling the full range of character concepts who want to use dexterity at low levels through a single weapon was also less than ideal - the scimitar became extremely prevalent simply because it was the only option.
Dex to Damage with Two-Weapon fighting without eating the -4 penalty for one-handed weapons is a little trickier, but is absolutely still an option:
* Any two agile weapons
* One level dip into swashbuckler then Slashing Grace and Sawtooth Sabers
* Fencing Grace with Two Weapon Warrior
Dex-based TWF with Sawtooth Sabers is the best option, and comes online at level 3 with a one-level dip in swashbuckler.
My main issue with the options right now is not necessarily that they're limiting, but that the limitations do not make sense. Why can I get dex to hit and damage with a scimitar (one of the best one-handed weapons in Pathfinder) but not the mechanically far inferior but (imo) thematically far superior swordcane? Why can I twirl a 12 lb waraxe like a drill baton, but I just can't figure out this here kukri?
One of the characters I was most excited to make when the ACG was announced, was a dexterous swashbuckler who fought using a shortspear. Mechanically this character is awful, thematically I think the character concept is awesome. When the play test started I was elated to see that Swashbuckler Finesse opened up new weapon options (including shortspears!) and lobbied several times that they do not change Swashbuckler Finesse. There was several developer posts made about making a new "dexterity to damage"-feat available, that would "probably be similar to dervish dance". Personally I expected and hoped we'd get a feat that had similar restrictions as Dervish Dance, but that was limited to a chosen one-handed weapon rather than just scimitars. If I'd have gotten that feat, I would have been happy.
Instead... We got slashing grace. It's mechanically clunky (dex to damage but strength to hit? what?), strongly encourages dipping (something Pathfinder otherwise frowns on), and due to a nonsensical limitation to slashing weapons, excludes a number of the most thematically appropriate weapons for a finesse fighter - rapiers, swordcanes, daggers etc. If the restriction is in place to limit TWF with dexterity, then they failed since sawtooth sabers is a perfectly viable way to go for that. They also repeated the mistake made with Dervish Dance, restricting a previously large and varied combat style to a single weapon.
Whereas I still don't have a way to make a dexterous spear wielder a viable combatant compared to his otherwise identical strength-using counterpart. While there are numerous options available for mechanically superior weapons such as the scimitar, the poor shortspear can't be used with any of the options available.
Which brings us to strength... While it might not read like it, I absolutely do think that the strength attribute has some issues. While the game punishes you harshly for dumping dexterity, constitution, intelligence or wisdom by docking your HP, saves, initiative, and skills - it seems to go out of its way to make strength dumping viable.
* Strength affects two skills, which are the most useless skills in the game: Climb and swim. Both skills are replaced by low level spells, and even if you do put ranks in them the gain is minimal.
* Strength affects encumbrance, which is an extremely minor concern past level 2 or so since Pathfinder bombards you with options to make encumbrance a non-issue. Mithral, Ant Haul, levitating disk, heavyload belt, muleback cords, handy haversacks, bags of holding, portable holes, or the ever trusty mule are just some of the options available.
* Strength is used for breaking and entering. This should actually not be underestimated as it can come up fairly frequently at low levels before skills, items and spells allow you to reliably bypass such obstacles. However you only need one character in the party with a decent strength score to knock down a door, and once you get your hands on an adamantine weapon or the like the need for strength drops off dramatically.
* Finally, strength affects melee combat and ranged damage with bows. Anyone who relies on strength to contribute in combat (95% of all melee builds, 99% of all archers) have to boost strength, it is their most important stat by far. Everyone else (gunslingers, spellcasters, bolt aces etc) can happily dump it with no real downside.
So strength affects four aspects of your character, and you can safely dump it to the dregs as long as you spend a minimum of money to shore up the encumbrance and don't rely on strength for damage. Strength is binary. Either you depend on it for your main class features, or you can ditch it with minimal issues.
So letting dexterity "poach" strength's main selling point seems like a bad idea right? ...Not necessarily. Loosening Strength's stranglehold on damage would free up design space to make strength a more attractive ability score for other things than just "hulk smash", the same process Charisma has been going through over the past years. This thread has already mentioned the hurling belt a few times - why couldn't the ability to use strength on attack rolls with a thrown weapon of choice be a feat? What about strength to hit with slings, which would catapult the sling from a joke weapon to a serious and viable weapon alternative? We already have Intimidating Prowess, how about a feat that lets you use your strength modifier for your acrobatics and survival skills, or Handle Animal and ride?
There's plenty of design space to explore for the strength score, but the binary nature of the attribute makes it hard to justify creating those feats and options at the moment. Finally allowing dexterity to be a viable combat style in its own right (gaining defensive benefits at the expense of offensive power) would make strength more flexible as well.
Adding to my previous post, here's how I'd have personally preferred to have seen dexterity combat handled. This keeps the current feat progression more or less unchanged, but dramatically increases the number of weapon options available to accommodate character diversity:
We leave Weapon Finesse unchanged.
Then we add Improved Weapon Finesse, which would work as Dervish Dance does currently but with any one light or one-handed weapon chosen by the player, rather than only the scimitar. This covers the needs of the agile monk, sneaky rogue, and the swashbuckler who wants to use more unusual weapons such as the shortspear or sword cane as well as the rapier, katana and scimitar.
Finally we add Greater Weapon Finesse, which loses Dervish Dance's off-hand restriction and would grant dexterity to hit and damage with any two light or one-handed weapons. Why two weapons? Because TWF with two different weapons is iconically very common (e.g. rapier and parrying dagger) but diversifying weapons is generally punished harshly by the Pathfinder mechanics - numerous combat feats (weapon focus, improved critical etc) only allow you to benefit with one weapon, a design decision I'd like to step away from if possible.
I'd add a rider to all of the feats listed above that penalties to your strength score will still affect your attack and damage rolls. If you have Improved Weapon Finesse, a strength of 7 and a dexterity of 16 your damage bonus would thus be +1. I'd also clarify that while you use your dexterity modifier for damage with your attacks, that does not mean that other feats or options automatically change - for example a person with improved weapon finesse would still gain bonus damage from feats based on Strength if he had Dragon Ferocity or Double Slice.
The finesse-->improved finesse-->greater finesse progression follows what you can currently do with Sawtooth Sabres (EWP-->Weapon Finesse-->Slashing Grace), but leaves the choice of weapon up to the wielder and doesn't require sinking a level in a class you otherwise had no intention of playing.
The fairly harsh feat requirements for a shield or TWF user means that dex-based combat using both hands is primarily useful for classes that get lots of bonus feats - swashbucklers, warpriests, fighters, slayers, and rangers. You could dip various classes to get it online faster, which is how Sawtooth works now.
For classes that benefit from focusing on dexterity but doesn't necessarily want to use TWF such as rogues, magi, monks and brawlers, weapon Finesse & improved weapon finesse are good but not critical options. Two breeds of monks would show up - one focusing more on strength and damage output, the other focusing more on dexterity and defenses.
The barbarian, bloodrager, cavalier, inquisitor and the paladin are generally better off focusing on strength and less feat-intensive combat styles. They can still choose to go for dexterity, but it's a little outside their comfort zone unless they choose to multiclass to pick up some bonus feats.
Finally, after implementing the above I'd remove the Agile enhancement from the game. The benefit it grants is problematic to balance via WBL since it's incredibly expensive at low levels and incredibly cheap at high levels.
Str gains +2 average damage per swing and reach if they go large, but aren't hitting any easier. As long as you aren't going small to tiny to lose reach then it's still pretty much in the favor of dex.
+2 to damage is on the very low end of what a size increase gives to a strength character, if they're using a two-handed weapon. Going from 1d10->2d8 or 2d6->3d6 is going to give +3.5 damage just on its own. Then another 1-2 damage for the strength boost.
Then there's the added reach, which is a bit hard to put into numbers, but carries all kinds of advantages.
So +2 to +4.5 damage and reach then. Only +2.5 more damage than what I said and only if you have a weapon that adds another die. Still minimal gains compared to dex that gave 10% more chance to hit. 10% to hit is worth more than +4.5 damage per swing.Str gains +2 average damage per swing and reach if they go large, but aren't hitting any easier. As long as you aren't going small to tiny to lose reach then it's still pretty much in the favor of dex.+2 to damage is on the very low end of what a size increase gives to a strength character, if they're using a two-handed weapon. Going from 1d10->2d8 or 2d6->3d6 is going to give +3.5 damage just on its own. Then another 1-2 damage for the strength boost.
Then there's the added reach, which is a bit hard to put into numbers, but carries all kinds of advantages.
2-5.5, depending on where your strength score is for the 1.5x bonus. And I don't think there are any commonly-used 2-handed weapons that only give +1 damage when up-sized. It'd have to have base damage of 1d6 or lower to give that little.
Also, don't underestimate reach. Getting an attack of opportunity or a full attack you normally would've missed out on is worth a lot more +2 to anything.
I think you're underestimating the other benefit of reach - namely not provoking AoOs. Reduce Person means you provoke an AoO from just about anyone you choose to attack, since you need to move into their square.
Conversely Enlarge person makes you large and grants you reach - effectively neutralizing the reach of other large creatures. Combine a reach weapon and enlarge person and suddenly you're controlling a fair bit of the battleground and can make attacks on huge creatures without fear of AoOs.
Someone said it best upthread. The vehemence with which people want a dex to damage option proves the potency of it.
Lumping everyone who agrees with you into one group isn't really the best way to start off your argument. People want dexterity to be a viable combat style for a number of reasons, foremost of which is generally "because it fits my character concept better", not "because it'll be ubr zomg".
You're going to argue a medium character going large for reach and in the next breath compare it to a small creature that gets reduced to tiny.
Absolutely! I think it makes much more sense to base the argument on a small dex user and medium str user.
Starting as a small character is a great idea for a dex user - you get a +2/+4 dex bonus and +1 to AC/+1 to hit with basically no downside. The smaller die size is not really an issue, since the difference between a d4 and a d3 is minimal. You'll probably eat a -2 str penalty, which I've already explained is easily overcome.
Conversely starting as a medium character is a great idea for a str user since you can avoid a -2 str penalty, likely pick up a +2 bonus instead, and you have better options for being Enlarged down the line. If there was a Large or Powerful Build race available like there were in 3.5, that would probably be the best option for strength.
If I were to make a truly optimized dex build I'd probably make a goblin, not a human. If I was restricted to core races I'd go with a halfling.
The comparison has to be done with minimal changes so it's only the thing being changed that is what's causing the differences. This is why you use a dex based TWF vs. a strength based TWF. Compare apples to apples and slowly modify the apple not apples to oranges which makes no comparison.
I don't think there's going to be much dispute that the feat chain which requires 19 dexterity is going to favor dex-based characters. Or that a well-optimized dexterity fighter will beat a poorly optimized strength fighter.
Really, your position could be summed up as "If we take away and minimize every single advantage strength-based fighters have, dex totally wins."
The comparison has to be done with minimal changes so it's only the thing being changed that is what's causing the differences. This is why you use a dex based TWF vs. a strength based TWF. Compare apples to apples and slowly modify the apple not apples to oranges which makes no comparison.I don't think there's going to be much dispute that the feat chain which requires 19 dexterity is going to favor dex-based characters. Or that a well-optimized dexterity fighter will beat a poorly optimized strength fighter.
Really, your position could be summed up as "If we take away and minimize every single advantage strength-based fighters have, dex totally wins."
Huh?
No one will argue this. Dex favors two weapon fighting and str favors two handed. No one is refuting this. The argument was compare a dex based TWF vs a str based 2HF.
That may have been what you wanted to say, but it's not what you actually said.
The comparison has to be done with minimal changes so it's only the thing being changed that is what's causing the differences. This is why you use a dex based TWF vs. a strength based TWF.
My bolding.
...My position can be summed up as "If we take away and minimize every single advantage strength-based fighters have, dex totally wins."?
Care to elaborate or you just like putting words in other people's mouths because it makes for some pointless arguments. Seriously... words turn to insults while not a single number is posted to quantify anything with appropriate values.
Aaand this is the part where we take a deep breath and step back for a little bit.
So now your comparison is skewed because you don't know if its being small vs being medium, being tiny vs being large, or str vs dex which is providing the benefits or the penalties. A small character becomes tiny with reduce person and now provokes AoO is a very poor argument for str is better than dex.
It's a catch 22:
Put arbitrary limits on any optimization test and you risk adversely effecting one side more than the other, skewing results.
Don't put arbitrary limits in place and determining the effect of Dex or Strength will be much harder.
|
|
Arbitrary comparisons are not comparisons, they are at most numeric falacies.
Now if it has been stablished:
STR is better for damage
DEX is more versatile
So how is dex broken? I have heard post of people saying DEX is ZOMG is imbalanced, it does everything, etc. This is batantly false. Dex requires feat chain to work, so why is it bad to get benefits for investing resources? It has also been stated and has not been disproven that feats, unlike dex to damage cant be bought so how is this wrong again?
Whatever, in the interest of keeping this thread unlocked let's get back on topic!
I threw together a dexterity based goblin fighter using the currently existing options - dipping swashbuckler and slashing grace. I didn't bother listing skills, but other than that everything should be there.
Male Goblin Mouser Swashbuckler 1/Mutation fighter 9
None Small humanoid (goblinoid)
Init +10, Senses darkvision (60 ft.)
=================================================
DEFENSE
=================================================
AC 28, touch 22, flat-footed 17 (+4 armor, +10 Dex, +2 Natural, +1 size, +1 dodge)
hp 88 ((10d10)+19)
Fort +10, Ref +19, Will +10
=================================================
OFFENSE
=================================================
Speed 60 ft, fly 90
Melee Sawtooth Saber +1 (small) +25/+25/+20 (1d6+27/17-20) and Sawtooth Saber +1 (small) +25/+20 (1d6+19/17-20)
STATISTICS
=================================================
Str 13, Dex 31, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 12, Cha 5
Base Atk +10; CMB +10; CMD 31
Feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Sawtooth Sabre), Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Sabre), Slashing Grace (Sawtooth Sabre), Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Arcane Strike, Weapon Specialization (Sawtooth Sabre), Improved Weapon Focus (Sawtooth Sabre), Improved Critical (Sawtooth Sabre), Iron Will
Traits Indomitable Faith, Lightbringer
Other Gear Sash of the War Champion, +4 Dexterity Belt, +1 Sawtooth sabre (2), Cloak of Resistance +3, Gloves of the Duelist, Boots of Haste, Wand of Mage Armor, 1250 GP.
=================================================
SPECIAL ABILITIES
=================================================
Darkvision Goblins can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Fast (Ex) Goblins have a base speed of 30 ft.
Spirit Animal (Wooly Rhinoceros)
Light-bringer You were born with a blessing of the Dawnflower. Once per day, you can use light as a spell-like ability. Your caster level is equal to your character level.
His attack and damage rolls break down like this:
attack: 10 (bab) + 10 (dex) +2 (Greater Weapon Focus) +5 (weapon training) +1 (haste) +1 (size) +1 (magic weapons) -3 (power attack) = +27, or +25 with TWF.
Damage: 1d6 (sabre) + 10/5 (dex) +2 (weapon specialization) +5 (weapon training) +1 (enhancement) + 6/+3 (power attack) +3 (arcane strike) = 1d6+27 on main hand attacks, 1d6+19 on off-hand attacks.
DPR calculations can be found here.
.85 (30.5) + .20 *1*.85*30.5
.95 (22.5) + .20*1*.95*22,5
.85 (22.5) + .20*1*.85*22.51
28,975 + 5,975 = 34,77
28,975 + 5,975 = 34,77
25.925+ 5, 185 = 31,11
22.5+4,275 = 26,77
19,125+3,826= 22,95
Final DPR is 150,37.
The above stats assume that Mage Armor and haste are active (haste from boots, mage armor from wand) and that he has consumed his mutagen, which would last 90 minutes at his level. The flight speed comes from his Wings discovery.
His DPR is ~150, enough to kill a CR 10 monster in one round (target HP is 130) but a bit lower than it could be: I assumed that Double Slice does not work for dexterity builds (asked Mark about this earlie, I think it's a reasonable ruling that Double Slice is limited to strength) so I did not take Double Slice or Two Weapon Rend. If Double Slice does work with dexterity it would add about 16 DPR. To really milk the DPR meter I could have taken Desperate Battler rather than Improved Weapon Focus, but it's been my experience that you'll frequently have an ally within 10 feet while in combat - I think it's a cheesy feat for a DPR comparison since it'll give a false impression of always being active.
I spent less WBL on his weapons than I would have wanted to as I wanted to make his saves somewhat viable. +10/+10 on fortitude/will saves and 88 HP is frankly lower than I'd normally feel comfortable with, but it'll get the job done. Boots of haste takes a big chunk out of his WBL - in a party where he could reasonably expect Haste to be provided by a spellcaster, an additional +1 enhancement on both weapons would be a viable alternative. Since his attack bonus is already fairly good I'd consider an elemental enchant for some extra damage.
If we replace Improved Weapon Focus with Desperate Battler (and assume it is always active), Iron Will with Double slice (and assume it works for dex), the resistance cloak with vicious weapons -in short, the optimal all-offense all the time scenario- we'd have a hasted average DPR of 203,79. That could gain a few more points if you're willing to really trash your saves and HP by dumping con or wis for con and taking offensive traits, but in my opinion not worth it.
One option I considered was to take a one level dip in Urban Barbarian for controlled rage. A level in Barbarian would boost our fort save a little bit, and controlled rage would give us a +4 shifting bonus to either dexterity or constitution. In the end I avoided it to keep the build somewhat centered and because we'd otherwise lose out on save progression, a bonus feat and a weapon training upgrade.
Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the character? Does this seem like a decent baseline for comparison?
Correct on both accounts. Power Attack was a slip on my part, currently playing with a GM where PA and CE are default options rather than feats.
The extra +1 is because I thought the sash of the war champion improved weapon training rather than armor training. Well, at least that frees up 4k gold :).
Hm, just noticed I forgot to edit out Indomitable Faith from the template when I input my numbers. Disregard Indomitable Faith, the correct traits are Lightbringer and Spirit Animal.
Anything else?
Edit: It's getting late here, so I'm going to call it a night for now. I'll leave the build up for a while so you can all pick it apart, then post a revised one with the suggested changes in a day or two.
You have 1 skill point per level to be super useful out of combat with.
The build has 11 skill ranks before favored class points. Personally I prefer to put FC points in HP since it's a fighter - skills aren't really a priority. I probably could make a decent skill fighter, but not without hurting his offensive power and utility a fair bit since Lore Warden and Mutation Warrior are incompatible. That said, getting caught up in skills of all things when comparing the viability of strength and dex builds seems like an unnecessary sidetrack.
You should make a more rounded character and see how it fares instead of dumping things to max out dex. DPR shouldn't be the only thing of value.
While I agree that I optimized primarily for combat, overall I actually think this is a fairly rounded character - His saves, AC and HP are decent for a fighter, his to hit and damage is viable, and he gains flight at level 7. Dumping int and cha on a fighter is a time-honored tradition for a reason - unless you're going for an unusual build (demoralize springs to mind), int and charisma brings very little to the table. I would expect a THF comparison build to dump cha and int as well.
But please feel free to post your own dex/int/cha fighter build! It'd be great to have more baselines to compare. :)
In the meantime, does anyone have any other input, corrections or suggestions for my goblin?
All I meant was you could drop your starting dex to 17 from point buy to get int back to 10 and still end with a 30 dex. Or dex 16 and int 13. Squeezing every point of DPR means your character generally sucks outside of combat. The point is to make a functional character at all levels not someone who has huge DPR at level 10.
My starting dex is already 17. The point buy before racial modifiers is as follows:
Str 15 (-2)
Dex 17 (+4)
Con 13
Int 7
Wis 14
cha 7 (-2)
Changing DEX to 16 would give me +3 pb. 3 PB is enough to improve INT from 7 to 9, which in turn would mean I'd get a grand total of +1 skill point from my single level in swashbuckler. Otherwise there would be no change in my character build.
A better idea would be to put the extra 3 PB into my constitution, bringing it up to a baseline of 14. That would mean an extra +10 HP, and +1 on fortitude saves. This is probably the more optimal choice when strictly considering the build at level 10, since in a vacuum the difference between 30 and 31 dex is nonexistent. The reason I put starting dex at 17 rather than 16 is because I like the extra dex modifier between levels 4 and 8 - it's right around when the build is coming together, and the +1 helps it pull its weight at the early-mid game before it has all the various sources of extra damage.
Having one skill point a level is not a well rounded character. You say it's a time honored tradition to dump int and charisma, yet the biggest complaint about fighters on these boards is the lack of skills and use in social situations. Maybe there's some correlation here...
The fighter issue is more complex than lack of skill points, though giving the class 4 skill points per level is certainly not a bad change. That is however a debate I'd rather not see sidetrack this topic, so I'm just going to refer you to any of the multitude of "why fighters suck"-threads.
Just caught your edit!
You should also be making human characters as a baseline of comparison as is the case all over these boards. Picking a race that grants a +4 dex and -2 Str is hardly fair comparison. It's not dex winning it's your race.
Not sure where you get that idea, the DPR olympics threads are littered with all the races of the rainbow. Human is the most common race in comparison builds not because of some industry standard but because it's usually the most optimal choice - the fighter dexterity build is unusual in that it's one of the arguably few things humans/half-elves/half-orcs are not the best at by default.
Restricting the build options to a human would slant the comparison towards strength right from the get-go. If you have an issue with goblins, feel free to make a comparison build with a halfling instead. The result should be roughly identical, though the saves would be slightly higher and the DPR slightly lower.
You could just as easily drop your strength to 14 and take your 8 build points to make a better character. An 18 starting stat is already huge. Pushing for 20-21 is only optimal for DPR and gimps every other facet of your character.
A pre-modifier strength of 14 would mean the character can't qualify for power attack. Dropping strength from 15 to 14 would save me 2 build points, not 8.
Trying to make a goblin STR build to compare vs. a DEX build is biased which is why you choose human because they get a single +2 which can go in STR or DEX and doesn't offer up much beyond the bonus feat and skill point per level and are equal in any build.
I certainly wouldn't require a competing strength build to use the goblin race. Where did you get that idea? Whoever goes for the strength option would be free to pick whatever race they want. Personally I'd recommend half-orc for +2 strength and the bite attack.
Which race/class gets the highest DPR isn't the purpose of this thread. It's to compare the merits of DEX vs. STR. Throwing in all sorts of races doesn't help this analysis and only produces more variables that don't give conclusive information. Like I said before it won't be the stat determining things, but your race.
And the merits of strength vs dex are directly and dramatically affected by races - small races are the natural choice for a dex user, while a medium (or if possible, Large) race would be the natural pick for a strength user. Restricting the comparison to a single race that promotes one option over the other slants the results right from the start. That's why you don't restrict the race options to either a human (favors strength) or a halfling/goblin/whatever (favors dexterity) but rather allow both.
I've no desire to look at why fighters suck threads. Fighters don't suck. Optimizers that aim at only DPR and dump a classes only means of contributing outside of combat suck at building characters.
You are entirely entitled to your own opinion. That said, I respectfully disagree - Based on personal experience, countless examples of personal anecdotes as well as convincing statistical arguments, it's my belief that fighters are sub-par and struggling to keep up with the other classes in the game. But again, that is not what we're here to discuss.
If this is all about DPR let me refer you to any of the multitude of "DPR Olympics" threads, since this isn't contributing to the topic of the thread.
Again, the argument was made that TWF dex users do more damage than THF strength users, and that making dex to damage available for TWF would break the game. I asked several times for someone to corroborate that with a build, but since no one volunteered I put one together myself using currently existing rules - there's no homebrew in my build. The goblin I posted above is not "all about DPR" - it is a viable fighter build with a decent balance between offense and defense.
Dexterity...
...Was not what you said...
Then this is no longer an evaluation of "Strength V.S. dexterity: A Comparison of Form, Ability, and Power", and is now your typical DPR thread.
No, it's not.
Negative. The merits of stats are independent of other factors. Merits exist based on the stats themselves. What you're talking about is the merits of race. A 20 strength isn't any better for a human as it is for an elf or a Halfling or any other race. 20 strength gives each race the same benefits.
No, it doesn't. 20 strength baseline turns into 22 for a human, and 18 for a halfling. Right off the bat we have a +2 modifier difference. Come on, this should be obvious.
How do you figure humans favor Str? This is not true.
To borrow your previous reply, 'negative'.
Humans are the most neutral race which is why they get used for comparison.
Human 15 pt buy.
Str 7
Dex 18
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 13
Cha 7This guy loves strength.
Halfling 15 pt buy.
Str 5
Dex 18
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 13
Cha 9
+1 to hit and AC from being small, -1 average damage for using small weapons.
Hey look, this guy is exactly like your dex human except better! It's almost like a race with the small size is inherently better for dexterity users.
So he's not all about DPR he's all about combat of which the biggest portion for any martial is... Dun, dun, dun. DPR. Well rounded does not mean good at combat. Saying he's built strong offensively and defensively is moot as this is the entire point of a dex build. You balance out your DPR to gain more defensive capability along with some added versatility.
If you honestly think the biggest portion of combat for any martial is DPR you're way off-base - you're much better off balancing offense (to hit and damage), defense (saves, AC/miss chance) and utility (like being able to fly). There's a reason the gunslinger is tier 5 despite putting out massive DPR numbers.
I've asked you several times now to go ahead and post your own fighter build. Any chance that might actually happen? Right now we're the only two people who have posted in this thread in the last 24 hours and frankly I'm getting tired of this conversation. Without some fresh input I think I'm going to consider further posts in this thread pointless.
So, random comment/questions:
Since when in 3e games been classes that lended towards creating well rounded characters? They have a pitiful number of skill points, and are relatively MAD, with few (any?) ways to change X to Y. They rely entirely on out of class resources (because their bonus feats are specifically only for combat) to increase their Out-of-Combat potential. There is certainly an argument that their bonus feats make this pill less painful to swallow, but it's still one that most other classes don't have to.
Paladin's get healing and bonuses for focusing on charisma, Rangers get their favored enemy bonus applied to social skills and more skill points per level, Monks get a bunch of weird powers and more skill points, and even Barbarians get more skill points per level.
Now if we're talking "well-rounded" in combat, then we're still going to hit a snag for a couple of reasons, but mainly that Pathfinder inherently rewards specialization. It's in general (There are exceptions) very easy to fall into the awful situation of "master of none" when you try to diversify skills.
Honestly, the whole "well-rounded" discussion seems more like an end-around to try and get at the character being too optimized/min-maxed or something similar. Look, I'll be the first to admit that DPR is the RBI of Pathfinder, and not really that useful in gauging a character's real ability contribute in combat. However, it does offer an accepted way to compare raw damage output, which was the original question.
Honestly, the whole "well-rounded" discussion seems more like an end-around to try and get at the character being too optimized/min-maxed or something similar. Look, I'll be the first to admit that DPR is the RBI of Pathfinder, and not really that useful in gauging a character's real ability contribute in combat. However, it does offer an accepted way to compare raw damage output, which was the original question.The point of well rounded is to create a character that can perform in a variety of ways not just "AMDAMAGE BRiNG PAIN". A character that would have been played from level 1 and grew into the character being presented as a level 10 or whatever.
Important for games at a table, but not relevant to the main question. Again, if we're talking in-combat abilities (crossing difficult terrain, flight, AC, saving throws). Out of combat issues are irrelevant to the to original question of whether dexterity builds do more damage than strength builds.
Theory crafting a level 10 character with many dump stats, next to no skills, and very little utility beyond swings hard isn't much of a character. In actual play the character is likely to not have survived due to their ineptitude or imbalance, or your sheer boredom of waiting to full attack, based on chasing a single statistic that is a poor representation of a character.
[insert snarky comments about the failings Pathfinder martial classes here]
DPR is based on always full attacking, not being under negative conditions, always winning initiative, and not facing any real in game scenarios. In real game play all those DPR calculations mean nothing except to someone that can meet the previously mentioned criteria 100% of the time.
No arguments here. DPR is pretty much useless as a way to observe actual character power. It only looks at a character's production when they full attack, but doesn't tell you how, or how often the character is able to get into a situation where they can full attack.
E.G. A fighter could have higher DPR than a Barbarian, but that won't necessarily take into account that the Barbarian has pounce.
The point of well rounded is to create a character that can perform in a variety of ways not just "AMDAMAGE BRiNG PAIN".
With respect, if that is your goal then the best solution is not to make the fighter something he is not (a skill class) but to not play a fighter. Point for point the fighter gets less out of investing in skills than any other class in the game. If you want a viable full BAB martial that can bring some excellent skills to the table you'd be much better off playing a cavalier, a slayer, or a ranger.
A character that would have been played from level 1 and grew into the character being presented as a level 10 or whatever.
Theory crafting a level 10 character with many dump stats, next to no skills, and very little utility beyond swings hard isn't much of a character. In actual play the character is likely to not have survived due to their ineptitude or imbalance, or your sheer boredom of waiting to full attack, based on chasing a single statistic that is a poor representation of a character.
The boredom of playing a full-attack-only character is a drawback of the fighter in general, not my character specifically. Truth be told, if I had the option to choose another class to base my comparison on I would have created a slayer or ranger, since I find those classes much more interesting both to build and to play. If I wanted to chase DPR I would have chosen a paladin, since situationally they do far more damage than fighters. However I picked fighter for my build since I found the fighter build theJayde posted interesting, and wanted to see what it looked like if the character chose to spread his WBL and feats more evenly rather than focusing exclusively on damage per round.
DPR is based on always full attacking, not being under negative conditions, always winning initiative, and not facing any real in game scenarios.
Agreed. It also ignores the advantages of reach, THF's inherent advantage when making an attack of opportunity, and the dramatic variation created by mobility options like as pounce, flight or the ability to ignore difficult terrain. It also encourages an unfortunate chase for "the biggest number" which creates lopsided builds, like the +3 will save TWF-with-vicious-weapons fighter that was posted here earlier.
DPR is a flawed stat, and looking at it in isolation is an excellent way to get lost in the argument. However, being flawed does not make it inherently useless. I look at a DPR number as a part of the whole - as long as I keep the limitations of the statistic in mind and adjust for that by considering the whole build, I can get a better general idea of how a character will perform in combat than if I didn't have access to a DPR estimate.
I know his intent and called him on it already, but he assured me it's not about DPR.Flawed, kudakus intent is to compare str and dex dpr, it one kind of comparison and its a valid comparison.
On the same vein, "min max" name come from uber specialization, the system does encourage this
No, I assured you it wasn't "all about DPR". Like I said earlier, the build was designed to balance offense (of which DPR is one aspect) as well as defense and general utility. If I wanted to maximize his DPR, I could have pushed it up by roughly ~50. However, I would not be able to do so without sacrificing other aspects of the character such as saves and HP. Chasing DPR at the expense of every other aspect of your character leads to min/maxing rather than optimizing and is folly, but considering the DPR as one aspect among many is a viable way of evaluating the performance of a character.
While I'm not terribly familiar with baseball statistics, after a quick skim of Wikipedia I believe RBI is roughly similar to DPR in that it is a useless number in isolation, but a somewhat relevant statistic when considered while taking other factors into account?
I also told him to make a proper evaluation you need to limit variables to isolate what changes and by how much, but comparing a small goblin TWF with dex to a large anything 2HF with STR is supposed to be fair comparison.
I never said you should compare to an ogre or a large race, I said if a Large race was available that would be the best race option for a strength build.
What you are describing is not a so much a "proper evaluation" (since proper implies it's the only form of evaluation that is viable) but rather an isolated evaluation. Like squirrel_dude pointed out, this is essentially a catch-22. By limiting the factors affecting the comparison your comparison ignores important aspects of strength v dexterity and so becomes less relevant.
If you want to make a truly isolated comparison between strength and dex (which I do not, since I do not find them too abstract to be useful) rather than using humans as a baseline you should ignore the modifiers introduced by races and simply use size templates.
The premise of this thread is to discuss the concept of contrast between both Strength to Attack/Damage and Dexterity to Attack/Damage. The advantages and drawbacks of a small race is a highly relevant factor when discussing that contrast.
While I'm not terribly familiar with baseball statistics, after a quick skim of Wikipedia I believe RBI is roughly similar to DPR in that it is a useless number in isolation, but a somewhat relevant statistic when considered while taking other factors into account?
I think that this is directed at me, or tangentially related to me, so I'll answer it.
So the RBI (or Runs Batted In) is a stat that tells you how many runs scored when the batter was at the plate. Walks, Hits, Sac Flys all count towards it if someone scored. It's useful as a team statistic. IE. That team batted in 200 runs, while this other team only batted 100. Team 1 is probably much better on offense.
However, it's almost useless as a measure of individual offensive output because it's almost completely reliant on who is in front of you. Unless you hit a home-run, you need the players in front of you to already be one base to get an RBI. it also isn't telling you how they put those runs across. Is it only sac flies, sac bunts, or Infield Singles, or is it line drive singles, doubles, home-runs, and the occasional walk?
DPR does a similar thing. It tells you your raw production (damage), without saying how you're doing it ( Mounted Charging? Archery? Reliance on team buffs?), or whether you can do it consistently (Flight? Difficult Terrain? Not getting dominated?).
DPR answers the question "How much damage can I do," not "how effective is my character in combat?"
I think that this is directed at me, or tangentially related to me, so I'll answer it.
Gotcha, thanks. :)
I really feel bad for all the effort kudaku made that were buried in this thread, there are some good things in there.
I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't feel bad for me! The writeup I did earlier comparing the current dex options and then putting together the alternate dex to damage feats actually really helped me. It gave me a chance to organize my thoughts and analyze the options that are already in the game. In fact, the process made me revise my original opinion on the interaction of dex to damage.
While I was a little disappointed that I didn't get more feedback on the ideas in the two threads I posted it in, it don't consider it wasted effort. :)
|
And it is only 1 or 2 feats to get DEX to damage, not 3. In addition, martial classes are far from marginalized at higher levels.It's only 1 if you count a PrC with earliest entry at 6. If you spend 5 levels doing s&!+ty damage then that's a terrible option, and not one worth considering.
For dex-to-damage to be any good it has to kick in early enough that it's worth playing the character. L6 is in no way early enough. There are games that never even get that far.
Not so, you only start getting a huge gap between STR and DEX after 5th or 6th level, before that it is only about a +3 difference, so waiting until 6th level is not as onerous as many make it out to be. My DEX ftrs start with a 14 STR anyhow.
the DPR contests use any race you want to use because they are making builds.
If you are doing a COMPARISON, however, you need as much to remain the same as possible.
That is inherently impossible if you are using a race with inherent favoritism for Dex.
In other words, you can't build a viable Str build for comparison out of a Halfling. The inherent -2 to str and +2 to dex renders comparisons moot.
You can do a comparison with humans. You simply flip flop the stat mix of Str and Dex, assuming the racial bonus was used on one or the other, and proceed from there.
And then you do a straight up comparison.
The fact that dex builds appeal to small characters and dex-raising races is no different then Str builds appealing to Large Characters who raise Str. A human shows favoritism to neither, and so comparison builds should use human.
==+Aelryinth
the DPR contests use any race you want to use because they are making builds.
If you are doing a COMPARISON, however, you need as much to remain the same as possible.
That is inherently impossible if you are using a race with inherent favoritism for Dex.
In other words, you can't build a viable Str build for comparison out of a Halfling. The inherent -2 to str and +2 to dex renders comparisons moot.
You can do a comparison with humans. You simply flip flop the stat mix of Str and Dex, assuming the racial bonus was used on one or the other, and proceed from there.
And then you do a straight up comparison.
The fact that dex builds appeal to small characters and dex-raising races is no different then Str builds appealing to Large Characters who raise Str. A human shows favoritism to neither, and so comparison builds should use human.
==+Aelryinth
It seems I'm not explaining my reasoning very well (no snark intended) so I'll try and explain it step by step:
If we ignore the differences between races for the moment, the change from a medium PC to a small PC are: -2 strength, +1 AC, +1 to hit, downsize weapon die by one step, -1 CMD, and +4 to stealth checks.
* This is a net gain for the dex user. He gets a -2 penalty to a stat he doesn't care about and +1 to AC and +1 to hit is a good trade for a -1 average weapon damage. Barring external factors, the best race for a dexterity build is a small race.
* This is a net loss for the str user. He gets a -2 penalty to his most important stat, and +1 to hit doesn't make up for it because he also gets a -1 to hit and damage from losing strength. Barring external factors, the best race for a strength build is a medium race.
If your comparison uses a medium race such as the human as a baseline, you're giving the dexterity user a handicap - he misses out on a +1 bonus to hit and AC right from the start, an advantage that is inherent in core to favor to dexterity over strength. Similarly, using a small race such as the halfling as a baseline gives the strength user a handicap since he gets a net total of -4 strength and has to use smaller damage dice.
So using a halfling or a human as a baseline slants the scales one way or another. Instead of doing that, you either make comparison characters where the strength build is a human and the dex build is a halfling, or let people make a build that uses size templates like the one I outlined above, but ignores race-specific bonuses such as the human bonus feat or the halfling save bonus. The former is more relevant for showing the benefits of each attribute in a general sense (including race options that will favor one or the other and may or may not be balanced), while the latter is better for isolating the inherent differences of the attribute without considering outside factors.
By basing your comparison on the human (a medium race) you are slanting your comparison base towards the strength user right from the start.