I've played and DMed a decent amount, I've noticed that characters pump strength and grab a two-hand weapon seem to have minimum issues in games, or at least few in comparison to other characters. They start out with massive dps and great hit chance, they can generally one hit most things before they have a chance to fight back, and generally they make everyone else pale in comparison. And this is before you add in class features or power attack.
And while I realize that late game other classes have more options and can do many things a two-hand fighter can never hope to achieve, it does seem to me that strength-based melee characters never seem to struggle much, short of explicitly designed encounters meant to disable or put range between their opponents. A single melee attack will tend to exceed or equal spells until mid game- And by then, they've plenty of ways to gain additional attacks or tricks.
Barbarians in particular scare me, when they go 20 strength without raging and crush everything in literately one go.
Now, I haven't had as much experience with late game, but I was wondering if anyone else felt that Pathfinder enabled early game strength builds a tad too much, and that bumping strength above all else should have more apparent early game drawbacks, beyond just outside of combat.
And no, I don't feel that the Swashbuckler class really fixes this, as a Strength Swashbuckler is completely viable, and maybe even better than dex swashbucklers. Thoughts? Am I overestimating the strength stat? Underestimating other classes late game potential?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in Pathfinder is too good.
I think you vastly underestimate every other character build type.
THF have it easy. That is the simple solution to good DPR, it is not the only, or best solution to DPR. And then DPR isn't the only thing happening in the game, or in a combat, or in a round, or on a turn, or in an attack. So, just because someone can find the easy path the beast mode doesn't mean you need to break it. Ie, it's a feature, not a bug.
By CR 3, you'll find that individual players won't be 1-shotting things with consistency. CR 4+ monsters have enough hitpoints to reasonably last a round.
If you think STR builds are too good when it comes to damage, wait until you see a mid-level archer fighter, monk, or ranger. I'll discount the casters entirely, but they're present, as well. Shocking Grasp Magus is terrifying against monsters that aren't resistant/immune to Electricity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
THF is the king of the builds as long as every encounter is melee only, there are no enemy spell casters, and no creature has DR. Flying and swimming foes are impossible for these builds, and monsters with reach and combat reflexes are pretty are fairly effective, too.
Swarms suck at lower levels: the massive DPR can be completely useless against them (depending on size), and if you miss your first save and are nauseated, you can only move 20 ft (because of medium armor)...and every swarm moves more than 20 ft.
Fighter builds have terrible Will saves, few class skills, and no skill points. Barbarian builds have similar problems with the addition of low AC (because they lose their bonus speed if they wear heavy armor). This causes all sorts of fun problems:
My devastatingly-effective earthbreaker tank sat out one combat because her armor check penalty wouldn't let her get over the intervening 10-foot wall.
In another combat, none of our high DPR melee-builds had the correct knowledge skill that could have told us our weapons were only making the monster bigger.
I've seen way too many barbarians run into combat at 40 ft and take the first two rounds of full attacks from the bad guys while the medium-armored people (20 ft move) are still getting there. Once, a 4-armed magus (with 2 other attacks) took out both the barbarian and my cleric (who had cast Shield Other on the barbarian and was absorbing some of his damage) in 2 rounds, while the rest of the party was still getting into position.
There are some notorious haunts in different APs and scenarios that will drop the THF build in a single round.
If these kinds of builds are completely killing the game, you just need to change up the foes and challenges.
Secondarily, go check out all the "Dex to damage" threads. One of the current arguments is that the ease of success of Strength DPS builds is one of the few things keeping them superior to a Dex-build. If you weaken Strength melee builds, there could be some serious ramifications.
Secondarily, go check out all the "Dex to damage" threads. One of the current arguments is that the ease of success of Strength DPS builds is one of the few things keeping them superior to a Dex-build. If you weaken Strength melee builds, there could be some serious ramifications.
Strength builds still get to triple dip so even if you had an improved weapon finesse feat a two handed sword user gets a larger damage dice, +50 or +100% str bonus to damage and benefits from power attack. The dex character would also have to blow 2 feats to do that so a one handed strength user would have an extra 2 feats over his dex based counterpart.
I added a homebrew improved WF feat to the game which enabled dex to damage and treated it as precision damage. That was with core rules only as I do not allow things like piranha strike or whatever it is into the game.
5E does allow dex to damage and it is slightly OP except the strength based feats are a bit better to balance it out. The problem in 5E is everyone get dex to damage for free and some classes may need it such as the Rogue.
Archery and greatsword is really the king of 3.x martial types and has been since 3.5, 3.0 power attack was a flat rate for two handed and one handed weapon users.
I think you vastly underestimate every other character build type.
THF have it easy. That is the simple solution to good DPR, it is not the only, or best solution to DPR. And then DPR isn't the only thing happening in the game, or in a combat, or in a round, or on a turn, or in an attack. So, just because someone can find the easy path the beast mode doesn't mean you need to break it. Ie, it's a feature, not a bug.
Heck, one of the main reasons THF is considered such a good weapon style compared to the others is that it requires so few feats, so characters have plenty of feats to spend on the "everything else" part of the game.
|
@Mekura,
You are vastly overestimating the str builds.
They usually start out really good, but unless they get plenty of support as they creep towards the 2 digit levels, they will soon find themselves badly outclassed.
Archers, as an example, would outpace a melee str build around lvs 7-8.
For example, say the lv 9 party is facing a monster with 15 feet reach. A melee str build will have to take an aoe to get to the target. An archer can just start shooting away. And if the combat starts within the 15 foot reach? A properly spec archer can shoot without concern about aoe, but the str-build still have to walk up to the target.
And once you start thing about spells... fly.. invisi, blur, mirrior image, etc.
There are a ton of ways for a spell caster to out class a Str-build.
The different builds may progress at different speeds, strs susually start off well early, magic users slowly build up as they level up, etc.
But no single build is able to dominate it all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level antipaladin 1, cleric 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature
Duration 1 round
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
You give the target a mental urge to kill its nearest ally, which it obeys to the best of its ability. The target attacks its nearest ally on its next turn with a melee weapon or natural weapon. If necessary, it moves to or charges to the nearest ally in order to make this attack. If it is unable to reach its closest ally on its next turn, the target uses its turn to get as close as possible to the ally.
This is the easy foil to those builds. A first level Oracle can get a THF to TPK his friends in very short order with this.
|
|
I recently used this on my party's level 2 Lizard Folk (Advanced Race Guide modified to be playable at level 1) Bloodrager. He was only a 5' step away from a Half Elven Rogue 1/Arcanist 1. When he failed his save he took the 5'foot step and launched a full claw/claw/bite on him and dropped him to -1 (would have been worse but he missed one attack and rolled poor damage on another).
The change to the battle field was drastic and immediate, with the rogue wizard out of the picture, and the bloodrager suddenly a liability, the party had to change how they approached the fight. eventually, their attacker escaped because of it.
Thats why fighters should take iron will & improved iron will.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "dex to damage" is allowed, especially if power attack is allowed on a dex build, the str build become a joke.
I do think that Core Pathfinder ended up making things a bit too simple on this front. In 3.5 only one race had a Str bonus, and had two -2's to make up for it. Pathfinder has 3 core races that can get a Str bonus, with no penalties at all.
Also, 15 point-buy is supposed to be the norm, but PFS has raised the expectation (at least on the boards) to 20, which also makes hitting that 20 Str at first level quite a bit easier (15 would require 20 Str, 4 10's and an 8, or equiv.)
All-in-all, "too good"? No. "Over-done"? Yes. Also true of damage builds in general.
I think this is more about how two weapon fighting and sword and board (two weapon fighting in drag) are crappy.
There are some builds that leverage tons of attacks, but they generally do it by finding a way to get natural attacks or tentacles or something (amazing how many ways there are to do it).
I really can't recollect a straight two weapon fighter doing well in those dpr olympics or such, or seeing an interesting build using it.
They are only crappy because stre based fighters (two handed ones) get to triple dip with strength.
1. Larger damage dice.
2. 50 or 10% strength bonus
3. Power attack slanted heavily towards two handed weapons.
5E and 3.0 did not favor power attack so heavily, 1 and 2 were problems in 3.0. I think they over compensated from 2E where sword and board and dual wielding was the way to go.
5E basic rules is the best weapon system I have seen from a D&D type game along with Adventurer Conquer King (ACKs). 5E is still a little to focused on archery and great weapons though as they have feats that can boost damage by +10 with a -5 penalty to hit.
Bonus damage in 5E is usually a static modifier so it is the same if you are using a longsword or great sword.
ACKs is a bit different. One handed weapons deal 1d6 damage, two handed 1d10 while dual wielding grants a +1 bonus to attack. Specializing in any of these forms grants a +1 bonus to hit, damage or AC so you have a clear choice between damage, defence or accuracy.
+3 avg damage two handed weapon
+2 AC with shield
+2 to hit dual wielding
Note ACKs is a clone of BECMI so +3 damage actually matters a lot especially with cleave rules in the game.
Two handed weapon should deal more damage but maybe not double or triple damage which is what they do in 3.5/PF.
To fix it you need a 2nd edtion of Pathfinder or a new 3.5 system. IN my home brew fighters the weapons only deal more damage not 50% extra and power attack has gone bye bye but will likely return as a -5 to hit +10 damage regardless of what weapon you are using.
Nothing in Pathfinder is too good.
True. Except full casters. And archers. And Gunslingers. And especially Paladin/Gunslingers. And...
The sun is a wondrous body. Like a magnificent father!
I've played and DMed a decent amount, I've noticed that characters pump strength and grab a two-hand weapon seem to have minimum issues in games, or at least few in comparison to other characters. They start out with massive dps and great hit chance, they can generally one hit most things before they have a chance to fight back, and generally they make everyone else pale in comparison. And this is before you add in class features or power attack.
So you have a high strength guy with power-attack who goes first in combat (one-hit before the other one can fight back) and has lots of skill points (generally they make everyone else pale in comparison) without class features.
Could you elaborate how you build that one?
A fighter can deal lots of damage and can get two feats to start without being human. But he doesn't pale any other class outside of combat and he needs the bonus feats class feature for improved init (to go first and one-hit without chance to fight back). He also doesn't get perception as class skill and because of that will rarely act in surprise rounds at low levels.
I could try other classes but I guess not a single one can do what you describe.
If I assume that you just meant: He deals more damage than others and doesn't need to invest much, you are right. But casters are still stronger. If built right from level 1.
STR also doesn't give anything but damage.
Dex gives AC, initiative and saves, Con gives hp and saves, Wis gives higher saves, Int gives skillpoints. Cha doesn't give anything.
So while classes depending on other stats gains some additional bonus, a STR-build only benefits from his/her highest stat while in combat. If you want a high STR, especially with a 15-point build, you'll have dumped some other stats and now suffer for that (except CHA, unless you do that pesky thing called roleplaying). If you want anything else, you'll dump STR and don't care.
Yes, it's easy to build an effective two-handed STR-based fighter... who'll then be easily outsmarted/outmanouvered by anything based on not charging directly into melee.
|
STR also doesn't give anything but damage.
And carrying capacity
Yes, it's easy to build an effective two-handed STR-based fighter... who'll then be easily outsmarted/outmanouvered by anything based on not charging directly into melee.
Make sure your strength build can do more than just charge into melee; bring a bow, invest in a few skills.
Nevermind: it does not matter how many times people point out how easy it is to get skill points on a fighter people will stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it.
So I need Cha to RP now? Who says?
16 12 14 10 12 7
Perfectly viable 15 PB Str based character right there. Wear heavy armor, you'll be aight. Bumb it up to 16 14 14 10 10 10 or 16 14 14 12 12 7 for 20 PB games (which IME is the majority).
And why would you ever dump Str? Seriously. I personally like having gear (Someone with 7-8 Str is living on the edge. Of Medium encumbrance, constantly).
I'd also like to ask you to point out something that makes Dex based melee characters inherently better at anything based on not charging into melee too.
Hint: There isn't one. TWFing and dueling are just as based on the "Stand still and full attack" paradigm as anyone else.
You seem to be under the misconception that high Str imposes some sort of limiting factor on a character's other options, which isn't the case. Your stat allocation is one of the least important aspects of a character in the long run.
A Fighter, regardless of his stat focus, is going to suck at everything but "I hit it with a stick", "I hit it with multiple sticks", and "I hit it with sticks from range". That's the Fighter, not his stats.
Likewise a Str based Inquisitor and a Dex based Inquisitor are equally likely to be awesome at a bajillion things apiece, in combat and out. Which is again, the class not the stats.
If you think strength builds are too good, that tells me you and your friends are operating pretty low under the optimisation ceiling of various classes.
This is a good thing: pathfinder balance tends to work out when everyone is a poor optimiser (within reason). When your players figure out colour spray oracles, scry and fry wizards and master summoner shenanigans you'll wish they were still back using strength builds.
Also: I find it hilarious that someone above said full casters and gunslingers were both too good in the same breath....
Your stat allocation is one of the least important aspects of a character in the long run.
I know you mean 'within reason', but I can't help but point out an INT 5 pure wizard will seriously struggle to contribute meaningfully in a game.
I also respectfully disagree with this particular point: if this were the case, MAD characters would suffer a lot less than they do. Stat allocation makes a big difference at early levels especially, where most games are played. The differences between a dumped and optimised stat are considerable (up to +8 even at level 1) which is much more important than paltry BAB or sneak attack differences that early. Later on is a different beast of course, but if you count correct item purchases as 'allocation', the problem becomes even more pronounced.
I agree with everything else you talk about. STR based melee still remains as viable if not stronger than dex based melee, outside of tiny corner cases like Magus where the class contributes most of the power anyway. You would dump str on a synthesist or non-melee full caster, though.
I'm speaking more in a general range. At low levels a 16 Str is noticeably worse than an 18, but not cripplingly so, and the difference is so miniscule as to disappear at higher levels.
But, it still is the case that class makes a bigger difference regardless.
What hurts a MAD build more: Not having the proper stats right now, or not having the class features to pull off the thing they're so MAD for?
The Monk class is meh because it's MAD, true, but that is also a function of the class (forcing you to invest in just about every stat without giving commensurate reward).
I'm speaking more in a general range. At low levels a 16 Str is noticeably worse than an 18, but not cripplingly so, and the difference is so miniscule as to disappear at higher levels.
But, it still is the case that class makes a bigger difference regardless.
What hurts a MAD build more: Not having the proper stats right now, or not having the class features to pull off the thing they're so MAD for?
The Monk class is meh because it's MAD, true, but that is also a function of the class (forcing you to invest in just about every stat without giving commensurate reward).
Totally agree with you given your caveat. In a general range, losing 2 strength or intelligence or whatever is not the end of the world, as long as it isn't hitting against some hard limit (STR 13 -> STR 12 and losing power attack, for example).
I would never try to claim stats are more important than class. Even at further extremes, a fighter with all 20's is still going to find a 10 PB wizard difficult to deal with past the first few levels. They aren't irrelevant though, especially for MAD classes who don't have an obvious focus, or if a player has missed the 'important' stat altogether (CHA 10 sorcs or what have you). Most particularly I see a lot of STR dumped DEX rogue builds that absolutely suck in combat from 1-3 due to very poor stat allocation (DEX>CHA>INT>CON>WIS>STR). Rogue is very misleading about vital stats IME -- monk is also reasonably bad.
Heck, fly & wind wall/fickle winds completely neuters any martial. There are some really esoteric builds which can get a flying mount which have an outside chance at doing something useful. And generally you can't get a flying mount until you are relatively higher level.
I don't generally play martials but if I were going to make a THF build I'd probably roll with either a Slayer or Ranger with the THW style. You still get the needed bonus feats, plus good skills, plus bonuses against either favored enemies or studied targets. Of course, they lose out on armor training and weapon training, but still...
As for THF being broken good? Nope. There are many viable builds for various things. THW sacrifices the AC of a sword-and-board fighter, the range of an archer, the sheer number of attacks you get from tWF... each build has strengths and weaknesses, as it should be.
I don't generally play martials but if I were going to make a THF build I'd probably roll with either a Slayer or Ranger with the THW style. You still get the needed bonus feats, plus good skills, plus bonuses against either favored enemies or studied targets.
I think the "switch-hitter" is a bit better. You take the ranger combat feat path for archery, and get power attack with your regular feat. Decent strength, compound longbow, fire while at range, drop it and whip out a greatsword for closequarters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, strength builds should be easier and generally more effective at combat than other builds.
From what I have been able to find out, it is very nearly universal in all forms of combat (not talking about missile weapons of course) that once they get past a certain level of expertise. The successful competitors spend most of their time strength training. It is the most efficient use of their limited training time.
Having a punch, throw, or block just that tiniest bit more technically perfect in form, speed, or precision is not as effective as more strength behind it.
Now it is different for those pursuing it as an art form rather than a combat competition. If you are trying to be the best at X martial art, you will be judged based on the form and precision.
If however, your goal is to come out of the cage match with most of your bodily fluids inside of you… Well, you will be doing a lot of raw muscle training.
Look at history.
Dueling swords were basically a way to say “I’m so well trained that I can win using this elegant blade rather than to simply hack you into pieces with those ugly commoner type weapons.” (That would be the analog of in-game needing a higher level character using a dueling sword to beat a brute with a greatsword.)
The samurai only added the two-weapon style fairly late in their history as an art form and a way to demonstrate their superb training. Even the acknowledged masters of it would say that in a serious fight they would use a single blade with both hands.
No army fielded frontline troops wielding an epee, whip, or twin daggers.
Sword and board in front with pole arms for formation fighting. Irregular troops usually used the biggest, heaviest, longest weapons they could get. Big axes, big maces, claymores, long heavy spears, etc...
Because that is what worked best.
The non-strength based fighting form only work as well as they do in games like PF because so many of the patrons want them so very badly to be as good or better than strength based fighting. If they didn’t write it into the rules the gamers would write it in themselves or switch systems. The other forms are only in shouting distance of strength based due to customer demand rather than all these cries of realism or balance. They shouldn’t be balanced and it would be unrealistic to expect them to be so.
Having said that. I also find it more fun to play a martial that uses something other than raw strength to win. I’m glad the system is written to allow them to be in the same ballpark. But I don’t think it should be just as effective to be a wiry guy using twin daggers as to a great big guy using a great sword.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If however, your goal is to come out of the cage match with most of your bodily fluids inside of you… Well, you will be doing a lot of raw muscle training.
It amazes me how often people don't believe this. Or often don't want to believe it. There's a reason that boxing/MMA have weight classes.
It comes down to the classic 'A good big man will always beat a good little man.'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, dueling swords worked great because
Not many people walked around the city's clanking away in plate armor.
It doesn't matter how many sit ups you can do, sharp pointy steel still goes right through you without stopping.
It amazes me how often people don't believe this. Or often don't want to believe it. There's a reason that boxing/MMA have weight classes.
It comes down to the classic 'A good big man will always beat a good little man.'.
And a bad little man would lose to both.
Except in D&D. Because he's a wizard. And he can use magic.
But accepting that normal boundaries on realism don't apply is bizarrely selective for people on the Paizo forums for some reason.
It amazes me how often people don't believe this. Or often don't want to believe it. There's a reason that boxing/MMA have weight classes.
It comes down to the classic 'A good big man will always beat a good little man.'.
And a bad little man would lose to both.
Except in D&D. Because he's a wizard. And he can use magic.
But accepting that normal boundaries on realism don't apply is bizarrely selective for people on the Paizo forums for some reason.
Not really.
I can accept that magic will allow the brilliant little guy to win.
But in many of these discussions, you will find people citing real world 0.1% limit cases as to why it makes sense that a two-weapon fighting build should be just as (or even more) capable than any other build or it isn't realistic/fair that strength builds do more damage. Or that it isn't balanced that strength builds do more damage.
I expressing my opinion that it is realistic and fair. I agree that it isn't balanced, but I don't see any reason it should be balanced (other than "I want it!").
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strength builds aren't too good. Other builds aren't good enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you remove strength builds advantage on damage you might as well just remove strength from the damn game. While carrying capacity is minorly relevant, strength's only real purpose for existing within the game is to deal damage. If you put dex based builds on par damage wise with strength then you have a build that is superior is every facet. It will have better AC, better saves, better init, and equal damage.
So, dex based builds should be less damaging than strength based builds. You close that gap and you might as well just pack up everything that is strength based and move along.
If you want to start letting strength builds add their strength to Reflex Saves, Init, and AC I'd be happy to see dex builds dealing out the same damage. Until that time...no dice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how many times people say it, armor class is not going to be much different between dex and strength based characters.
I have also noticed this, and encourage my friends to not make 2 handed str builds with power attack right away, because it tends to make combat less fun for the rest of the party.I've played and DMed a decent amount, I've noticed that characters pump strength and grab a two-hand weapon seem to have minimum issues in games, or at least few in comparison to other characters. They start out with massive dps and great hit chance, they can generally one hit most things before they have a chance to fight back, and generally they make everyone else pale in comparison. And this is before you add in class features or power attack.
And while I realize that late game other classes have more options and can do many things a two-hand fighter can never hope to achieve, it does seem to me that strength-based melee characters never seem to struggle much, short of explicitly designed encounters meant to disable or put range between their opponents. A single melee attack will tend to exceed or equal spells until mid game- And by then, they've plenty of ways to gain additional attacks or tricks.
Barbarians in particular scare me, when they go 20 strength without raging and crush everything in literately one go.
Now, I haven't had as much experience with late game, but I was wondering if anyone else felt that Pathfinder enabled early game strength builds a tad too much, and that bumping strength above all else should have more apparent early game drawbacks, beyond just outside of combat.
And no, I don't feel that the Swashbuckler class really fixes this, as a Strength Swashbuckler is completely viable, and maybe even better than dex swashbucklers. Thoughts? Am I overestimating the strength stat? Underestimating other classes late game potential?
What kind of builds make good fun in your games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbows, probably. Drag combats out.
That's fun, right?
Look at history.
Dueling swords were basically a way to say “I’m so well trained that I can win using this elegant blade rather than to simply hack you into pieces with those ugly commoner type weapons.” (That would be the analog of in-game needing a higher level character using a dueling sword to beat a brute with a greatsword.)
The samurai only added the two-weapon style fairly late in their history as an art form and a way to demonstrate their superb training. Even the acknowledged masters of it would say that in a serious fight they would use a single blade with both hands.
No army fielded frontline troops wielding an epee, whip, or twin daggers.
Sword and board in front with pole arms for formation fighting. Irregular troops usually used the biggest, heaviest, longest weapons they could get. Big axes, big maces, claymores, long heavy spears, etc...
Because that is what worked best.The non-strength based fighting form only work as well as they do in games like PF because so many of the patrons want them so very badly to be as good or better than strength based...
Appeals to reality tend to completely ignore the fact that we're dealing with a system so abstract that a 17STR/17DEX character is worse at connecting with a blow than an 18STR/3DEX one. In reality there is no "strength build vs. dex build" dichotomy, there's only an entire spectrum of possibility where failing at either end can and will get you killed. Assuming you have enough strength and the opportunity to efficiently run a sword through someone's vitals or slice open their neck, speed, timing and wits take over. Armor just makes everything even more complex in a way that the system has zero intention of dealing with. If Pathfinder forces people into an abstract 'strength vs dexterity' dichotomy, then it might as well allow both sides to work reasonably well; the only real problem should come from being a weakling or an uncoordinated mess - and neither gets punished like it should.
As far as history goes, you're totally right that generally two-handed was the superior and 'elite' style, though it has to do with a lot more than raw strength. Saying that dueling swords were some kind of poncey statement is just wrong; dueling swords were about having the lighter, faster weapon when you didn't need to worry about armor. A somewhat weaker man (but strong enough) who was mentally and physically faster could quite possibly kill a stronger opponent.
Looking to TV-martial-arts, where there are no lethal weapons and everyone gets their paycheck and goes home afterwards, is hardly a good comparison to people who trained from youth to live or die by their skills. The last royally sanctioned duel in Medieval France ended with the smaller, weaker underdog killing one of the King's knights by jamming a blade up into his thigh through his knee-joint and cutting an artery; he was the one who had issued the challenge over an insult in the first place.
No matter how many times people say it, armor class is not going to be much different between dex and strength based characters.
So you think they should have equal damage but better defenses?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how many times people say it, armor class is not going to be much different between dex and strength based characters.So you think they should have equal damage but better defenses?
I'm curious how you reached that conclusion from someone saying that dex builds do not have superior armor class.
|
I'm curious how you reached that conclusion from someone saying that dex builds do not have superior armor class.No matter how many times people say it, armor class is not going to be much different between dex and strength based characters.So you think they should have equal damage but better defenses?
Improved Reflex saves is still better defenses. Significantly better Touch AC is still better defenses. Hell, even improved Initiative is technically better defenses, because if you can go before the bad guy and kill him first, he does less damage. And this is also completely ignoring the fact that Dex has a number of really neat and useful skills, while Strength has... Climb and Swim.