|
They totally can do it with the current rules. No game have been broken so far (IMHO, The dervish archetype is a little too much, but it is due to class abilities otehr than dex to damage)
No, Bards (who are 6 level casters, so be careful what you argue for if you want to weaken casters) are greatly, greatly empowered if Dex can be their entire martial capability and they're fine totally dumping Strength and putting all those extra points into Dex and Cha.
They can - but at more cost and more limited than is being suggested here.
Excellent. If it's already happened it should be very easy to provide clear, concise numbers. Preferably in a civil fashion.Been done.
Several times.
Nobody listens.
Truthiness always beats out hard numbers.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter. The only thing dex to damage ever does is make you competent at dealing damage. If you add a bunch more feats to twf, then you get more damage. At the end of the day though you spend resources to do that at the expense of other things. Should spending feats to be effective at fighting in melee not actually make you competent in melee?
Your bard scenario involves, with the improved weapon finesse feat, at least five feats to two weapon fight for good offence (not great, just good) at the expense of difficulty casting in combat without further investment in quick draw.... So, this hypothetical character doesn't do what the player wants until level twelve. That's a long time playing something in a way that doesn't fit the image of your character and this includes a feat that doesn't even exist.
Does that seem really powerful?
They totally can do it with the current rules. No game have been broken so far (IMHO, The dervish archetype is a little too much, but it is due to class abilities otehr than dex to damage)
No, Bards (who are 6 level casters, so be careful what you argue for if you want to weaken casters) are greatly, greatly empowered if Dex can be their entire martial capability and they're fine totally dumping Strength and putting all those extra points into Dex and Cha.
Are you talking about the dervish dancer bard archetype? Because that thing is vastly more effective as a Strength-based character than it is as a Dex-based one.
Excellent. Where can I find them?Excellent. If it's already happened it should be very easy to provide clear, concise numbers. Preferably in a civil fashion.Been done.
Several times.
Nobody listens.
Found one with less than 10 minutes of using the forum's own search engine. Finding more.
... The heck are you searching, I had 118 pages and I gave up after the first five were junk. Thank you very much.
Looking over that... I'm honestly kind of confused by the intent of the test, as it seems like it was setting the Dex fighter up to fail. Two-handing, but only 1 Dex to damage. That is necessary for Power Attack to work full-out, sure, but... still a very odd choice even including that.
Still, even with that the numbers are close. Very close. That worries me greatly, because if the Fighter-- a class frankly better suited for Str builds-- can sit that close, I'm hesitant to imagine the results for a class better suited for it.
Hm. Simple test while I pattern out my own numbers for the odder classes then. Assume...
Case 1: Dex to hit and damage is freely available with any Finessable weapon.
Case 2:Dex to damage is available with any Finessable weapon after taking the Weapon Finesse feat (or gaining Swashbuckler's Finesse)
Case 3: Improved Weapon Finesse is a feat that adds Dex to Damage with all Finessable weapons.
We'll assume that "Dex to damage" herein means that all weapons gain +1 Dex. You don't get a bonus for two-handing, but you don't need Double Slice either.
Which classes would you use Dex-to-Damage with and why, under each case? Monk and Alchemist are the two that are really jumping out at me, alongside the obvious Sneak Attacking classes.
Slayer in particular might need a look-- I'm curious, are there any rules that you have to actually follow the Combat Style that you pick for Combat Style feats? I'm starting to see potential in taking Power Attack + Piranha Strike without needing to meet the 13 Str of Power Attack. Probably use it in some sort of natural attack build, so no power reduction from off-hands to worry about.
Something to ponder statting up at least.
I think I searched "Strength Dexterity DPR Comparison." The pages after it all ended up being from the same thread, so I gave up and tried to read the thread instead. It is located here, but honestly the thread's results feel inconclusive: thread
So this hypothetical slayer is going to use a weapon that is simultaneously light and not light? Come on man, stop muddying the water with this silliness.
a rapier fits the bill for both feats, as do one handed weapons used with an appropriate class ability.
==Aelryinth
Have a Ranger Dual Wielding Kukris with Piranha Strike, level 11 with style feats of 2 wpn fighting, improved 2 wpn fighting, and 2 weapon rend. Greater 2 wpn fighting is a trap feat at 11.
Give him weapon finesse and greater weapon finesse.
Compare him to a Falchion wielding Ranger with Power attack and other appropriate feats. Since he's not wasting feats on 2 weapon feat chain make sure to grab Improved Initiative, Iron Will, ect.
20 point buy
Only magic items being big 5. Make sure the 2 Kukris cost combined is not greater than the 1 Falchion.
Statistics of interest
To hit on a single attack
Full attack to hit
Damage per hit
Max damage on a full attack
DPR
Saves
movement speed
initiative
This should be an easy comparison.
Hm. Simple test while I pattern out my own numbers for the odder classes then. Assume...
Case 1: Dex to hit and damage is freely available with any Finessable weapon.
Case 2:Dex to damage is available with any Finessable weapon after taking the Weapon Finesse feat (or gaining Swashbuckler's Finesse)
Case 3: Improved Weapon Finesse is a feat that adds Dex to Damage with all Finessable weapons.
Interesting challenge. I think the answer would be more or less the same to all of the above, the only thing that would change would be the prevalence of the build. For example, if dex-to-damage required no feats (case 1) then it would be a very good option for investigators, if dex-to-damage requires two feats (case 3) then most investigators will want to pass on it unless they're humans, start at a higher level, or are confident they'll be playing in a long-term campaign.
That said, here goes:
Most classes that are encouraged via class features to not use two-handed weapons and otherwise do not care would benefit significantly more from investing in dex than strength. Magi (spell combat), damage-focused monk (flurry), damage-focused brawler (flurry), and swashbuckler (precise strike) all spring to mind. The prevalence of the dervish dance magus is a good example of this effect already in play. It's worth noting that maneuver-focused brawlers and monks will likely still want high strength.
Most classes that are not encouraged to use any particular weapon and only have access to light armor proficiency, but still want to mix it up in melee would arguably benefit more from dex than strength. Bard, Rogue, Alchemist, (beatstick) Summoner, Ninja, Investigator, and Skald would probably all consider that a beneficial trade. That said, these classes could also gain extra damage, reach and other options if they go with strength and a two-handed weapon -ie both options are perfectly viable.
Many classes in the latter group get proficiency with martial finesse one-handed weapons (rapier in particular), but not good martial two-handed weapons (greatsword, glaive etc). Conversely the (few) classes in that group who gain proficiency with martial good two-handed weapons, usually get all martial weapons. IE the system itself seems to encourage light-armor classes to use one-handed finesse weapons.
Magus actually have no penalties to wielding a 2 handed weapon. Grasping and ungrasping is a free action.
Let go, cast spell, grab on. No interuption to spell combat or spell strike.
In fact str based falchion Magi are the HIGHEST damage Magi.
Magus actually have no penalties to wielding a 2 handed weapon. Grasping and ungrasping is a free action.
Let go, cast spell, grab on. No interuption to spell combat or spell strike.
In fact str based falchion Magi are the HIGHEST damage Magi.
Spell Combat is a full round action - you need to qualify for Spell Combat for the full action, or else you can't use it. IE you need to have a free hand while making your attacks as part of Spell Combat.
The free action grab ungrab thing is a nice trick, but it doesn't work for magi.
a rapier fits the bill for both feats, as do one handed weapons used with an appropriate class ability.
==Aelryinth
First, piranha strike only works with light weapons, which the rapier is not. Second, piranha strike explicitly states that it doesn't work with power attack.
Edit: Finally, if you have to pull a whole load of multiclassing and shenanigans to prove your point, then your point wasn't very good to begin with.
I took the position that since it is finessable as a weapon even though it's not light, the poster would let it work with Piranha Attack.
I will also kindly note that Power Attacks works with ALL weapons in Pathfinder, including Light ones, so technically...Happily, you are correct and you can't use them both at once. Unless, of course, you had some other feat that let you do so.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically classes that have class features that suit high dexterity benefit more from high dexterity.
Pretty much, my philosophy professor would say,
"Valid, but trivial".
|
No, Bards (who are 6 level casters, so be careful what you argue for if you want to weaken casters) are greatly, greatly empowered if Dex can be their entire martial capability and they're fine totally dumping Strength and putting all those extra points into Dex and Cha.
A melee-oriented Bard is both a less powerful build and one of the most MAD classes in the game, needing high Charisma, high Dexterity, good Strength, (or high strength, good dexterity for an Arcane Duelist) good Constitution, and decent Intelligence. Wisdom is the only dump stat available to such a Bard that doesn't have access to DEX-to-damage, which still hurts them as they're lowering their most important save and most important skill. Even with access to DEX-to-damage, they need to spend 2 feats to get it on a class and build that is quite feat intensive already.
You actually aid the non-casting, underpowered Fighters much less than others if there's Dex to damage, because they can wear heavy armor.
It does aid the Fighter, or more specifically the weaker Fighter builds. I don't see why Rogues and Monks can't have a nice thing just because it doesn't benefit Strength-based Fighters.
Tell you what, you suggest a feat that effectively fixes one of the major problems of playing a Strength Fighter and I'll be right there backing you up.Full divine casting Clerics and Oracles would also be helped by Dex to damage (FULL CASTERS, OMG!), as they can't wear heavy armor and thus can dump Str and be good martially while getting extra AC from Dex.
Ok, so they can spend a feat to get 5 extra damage per swing, (assuming Strength 8, Dexterity 18) I'm not fussed. Any Cleric or Oracle wading into combat pretending to be a martial character isn't spending those actions using the things that makes their class so powerful.
..... I've been doing it wrong this whole time......... Oops.
Anyway, I picked Ranger because Slayer Favors 2 wpn fighting because of bonus sneak dice.
Fighter sort of works, but the base class doesn't like low str builds or you waste a lot of features. Hate Fighter bonus feats too.
Didn't pick Paladin, Barb, Gunslinger, ect for obvious reasons.
You actually aid the non-casting, underpowered Fighters much less than others if there's Dex to damage, because they can wear heavy armor.It does aid the Fighter, or more specifically the weaker Fighter builds. I don't see why Rogues and Monks can't have a nice thing just because it doesn't benefit Strength-based Fighters.
Tell you what, you suggest a feat that effectively fixes one of the major problems of playing a Strength Fighter and I'll be right there backing you up.
Yeah, fighters can actually do pretty decently with finesse builds (if they can get dex-to-damage), since a dex-fighter can take advantage of their Armor Training ability to get away with wearing more armor than most dex builds.
None of the things you suggest make the game more fun or balanced. This is not a simulation.
Only Martials and half casters need to actually manage stats.
A 15 PB Wizard and 25 PB Wizard are not too different performance wise.
15 to 25 PB on Warpriests, Inquisitors, Rangers, Slayers, Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Brawlers, ect have a large difference in performance.
If you mean its more strategic because every melee character has the same stat loadout and casters still don't give a hot damn because they still carry the chumps anyway, then yes I guess the game becomes more strategic.
Your propagating a double standard. Martial characters need to be Gilgamesh to keep up with the party wizard, not the same as us. I really cant fathom this disassociation. How does making one group work within the confines of the real world work at all when the other group, making up two thirds of the classes, does not?
Yay! Class number one is like a totally good warrior who can fight like a tonne of town guards without breaking a sweat.
Meanwhile, the other guy is basically Zues....
|
|
The key, beyond realism (and realism should matter as well), is that everyone should have to make choices and trade-offs.
Allow me to list the trade-offs of dumping Strength in favour of Dex to damage:
- Losing 2 feats- Having more restricted weapon options
- Losing out on access to the best melee damage feat in the game
- Not being able to apply 1.5 times your main ability modifier to damage
- Lower carrying capacity
- Lower CMD
- Much lower CMB
- Being awful at Strength checks (the most common ability check)
- Penalties to swim and climb checks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the goal is to make deciding between strength and dexterity a more interesting/harder decision, then why not make it a more interesting choice?
Add a feat called "Improved Weapon Finesse" that grants you dex to damage without having to jump through any ridiculous hoops: you don't have to use a rapier or a scimitar (two of the best weapons around), dip swashbuckler, or buy a prohibitively expensive enchantment. You invest two feats (or however many the designers feel comfortable with), and you can rely on dexterity in combat.
Simultaneously add feats that make strength do more than "hrrk I punch hard, carry and break things". A feat that lets you use strength to hit with throwing weapons, for example. We already have this feature in the Belt of Mighty Hurling, but like the Agile enhancement the price means it's extremely unlikely to come online before level 7 and it doesn't play well with the Blinkback Belt (mandatory for throwers past level 5) so most people don't build around it.
Suddenly throwing is a viable build concept (lower range and more feat intensive but less MAD than archery) compared to other ranged weapons, and strength users can contribute more in fights that aren't melee friendly.
The dex user invests two feats to get dex to hit and damage, the strength user invests two feats (quickdraw, "mighty hurling")to get strength to hit and damage with thrown weapons.
The dex user has better initiative, better touch AC, slightly better AC on average, better reflex saves, he's faster (light/no armor) and he has slightly better skill options.
The strength user has more damage at melee and more damage at range, better buff options, (much) better CMB, (much) higher encumbrance, higher flat-footed AC, can benefit from a better range of weapons, and can break down doors etc.
Does anyone disagree with this? It looks spot-on to me at first blush.
Thanks! Some of that assessment was based that on personal experience over the past years, since I've been tinkering with some variations on the topic for a while. I was never really a fan of Paizo's restrictive rulings on a dexterity-based approach to combat.
I originally house ruled Dervish Dance to work with any finesse weapon since I found the scimitar-only restriction unnecessarily restrictive, then gradually added other options when I saw that dex-based combat didn't immediately overwhelm the melee scene in my games. Currently I'm using "Improved Weapon Finesse" - two feat investment, and you get dex-to-damage with any finesse weapon. I do have a few restrictions in place (Double Slice doesn't work with dex-based damage for example) to keep dex in check, but overall I've been very happy with the result. In my current game I have a strength-based Warpriest with a Longhammer and an inspired blade swashbuckler working side-by-side, neither one overshadowing the other.
The one thing I will say is that the strength-based monk became more or less extinct after I made the Dervish Dance ruling - all the monks I've seen in play have chosen to go with dexterity (or in one memorable case, wisdom) options. I understand why that happened since the monk relies on a ridiculously large amount of ability scores, but I think it's a shame that the muscle monk can't catch a break and I'm considering adding some more house rules to make strength-based monks more viable.
For about the 10th time in this thread, I'm all for making casters more MAD and have suggested ways to do so. What I oppose is making others less MAD, because how to allocate stats should be a tough decision.
Why? It is unlikely for Casters to suddenly need a secondary stat whereas a Martial is far more likely to gain an easier method of stat allocation ala "Improved Weapon Finesse."
More or less, your argument realistically amounts to, "No, Martials should forever be more stat dependent because I want Casters to be more stat dependent as well despite that probably never happening."
No offense, but I don't believe pursuing Character Generation as a challenge in of itself is a noble goal. I think all that time and energy is better spend making it easier so that one can actually focus on playing their character. Dumping stats for one shouldn't even probably exist.
I'll also debunk the Reflex increase as a positive. Reflex saves are the least dangerous saves in the game with the caveat of one series of spells and another in particular.
Then there's the whole realism factor of why fighting sports have weight classes if small, quick guys were as good at battle as big, strong ones...but realism isn't required to make the case of why Str shouldn't be added to Cha as a stat that can generally be safely dumped.If strength is always more important than speed and agility, then how come they don't need weight classes in fencing?
You can't use unarmed fighting sports as an example of realistic armed melee combat.
And since realism is a priority, I assume you have a house rule that reloading early firearms requires 10 full-round actions (reduced to 7 with the Rapid Reload feat)?
Modern Rapier has no weight classes because it's not fighting. It's scoring touches. Touches have literally NOTHING to do with strength, it really is pure finesse. The killing factor in Rapier fencing is REACH, and it's counterbalance is SMALLNESS. The one means you can lunge and be immune to riposte, and the other means you have no cross-section and are nigh impossible to land a touch on.
So, yeah, you CAN use unarmed fighting sports as an example of realistic armed melee combat. They show off both finesse and brute strength and how directly applicable they are to combat. If Rapier fencing was about killing people instead of touching them, and armor could be worn, you would very, very quickly see the weak, dexterous types getting forced out of the sport in favor of the fast, strong, powerful types who could actually land damaging blows through or around armor.
It's Modern Rapier Fencing which is unrealistic, not boxing or UA combat.
And let's not get into old school firearms.
Let me reiterate: Most of the opposition for a Dex to damage feat comes from the fact there is no counterbalancing Str to Utility abilities feat. If such existed as a counterpoint, Dex to damage opposition would fade away.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but I don't believe pursuing Character Generation as a challenge in of itself is a noble goal. I think all that time and energy is better spend making it easier so that one can actually focus on playing their character. Dumping stats for one shouldn't even probably exist.I actually think characters with weaknesses are interesting, as long as they're true weaknesses. With Dex to damage, low Str isn't even a true weakness. Character generation should not be trivial. In the best strategy games, as few decisions as possible are trivial.
Using more of a limited resource to accomplish a similar level of efficiency is the definition of a weakness in any strategy game.
Also, what?! Character creation should be a strategy game? What? No! The strategy game part of Pathfinder should be the application of resources during play, both in and out of combat. Creating an effective character shouldn't be that. Not at all. No. This is not a PvP or deck-building game, it's a cooperative storytelling game.
Also, what?! Character creation should be a strategy game? What? No! The strategy game part of Pathfinder should be the application of resources during play, both in and out of combat. Creating an effective character shouldn't be that. Not at all. No. This is not a PvP or deck-building game, it's a cooperative storytelling game.In that case, you should allow unlimited points. Someone can have 20+ in every stat. Maybe the story that player wants to tell is that of a superheroic character who's great at everything.
Or you can admit that it's a limited resource strategy game. The fact that it's not competitive doesn't change that. And any limited resource game works better the more thinking goes into allocating the resources.
Are you seriously advocating for ivory tower game design?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. "Ivory Tower game design is not informing the player of how options within that game work." When did I ever suggest that players not know what each stat does, or anything like that?
Ivory tower design isn't not letting players now how options work. It's making cool options cost more resources, and reward players who are able to find different combinations of abilities that reward them with more power. Whatever, that's a semantics argument.
I see now that you weren't trying to argue that the game would be better if it was more complicated, with more complex choices. You're arguing that the game should force you to pay more costs for the powers you gain. That characters and players should make a decision between do I want +1 to X and -1 to Y, or -1 to X and +1 to Y. Right?
Here are my problems with that.
1. It's ignoring opportunity cost. Every level I take in one class is a level I can't take in another class. Every feat I take that grants me one ability, is a feat I can't use on something else. +1 to X, and +1 to nothing else is a cost payed.
2. If character generation is a strategy game, it should be less Civilization/Stratego, and more Kingdom for Kefflings. Players should be making choices, but the emphasis shouldn't be a cost-benefit analysis of every ability they're taking. Character creation should be relatively easy and simple.
Aside/On the main topic if "Improved Weapon Finesse"
I'm not sure if I've weighed in on the topic of "Improved Weapon Finesse" or not. It's late, forgive me. I'm just going to say this: The concept of "core" material in Pathfinder is stupid and arbitrary, and it is the only reason that this discussion is taking place. You can find any mechanic you want online, for free, save for there sometimes being a change in the names of the specific ability, feat, or spell. Even the hardback/softcover book split fails to solve the issue in this case. Dervish dance is in a hardcover book.
The bemoaning that the introduction of a feat providing dexterity to damage with finessable weapons would bring an end to strength builds is absurd given that context. Improved Weapon finesse has existed for 3 years now. It's just been tied down to scimitars. Strength builds are still popular in every level of play, hold up against dex builds in every level of play, and have always held up fine when it comes to theorycrafting. There's nothing to talk about.
I can find a newspaper article from 1956 that says a direct stab wound to the heart is survivable 70% of the time (if you receive surgery). In more recent news (and slightly more scientific) a direct stab wound to the heart is survivable 32.6% of the time. That's... pretty freaking high, actually. I doubt that "clean hits" immediately end fights if people can survive a knife through the heart long enough to get treatment a third of the time.
Well, I would point out that there's often a big gap between injuries you can survive with immediate medical attention and injuries that render you incapable to fighting effectively.
|
|
"Survive" is a bit different from still being capable of fighting. Either way, the strength of the wielder is not a factor in those sorts of injuries, more important factors are the shape of the blade, the location and angle the blade pierced the heart, and if the wound was opened larger by twisting or slicing movements during the thrust.
Either way, this is Pathfinder, realism isn't exactly something the system is known for.
I'd hate to see a 5 Str Halfling competent in melee because everyone knows that couldn't happen.
[citation needed]
The key, beyond realism (and realism should matter as well), is that everyone should have to make choices and trade-offs.
If you dump a stat, it should have consequences.
For about the 10th time in this thread, I'm all for making casters more MAD and have suggested ways to do so. What I oppose is making others less MAD, because how to allocate stats should be a tough decision. Dumping a stat should be an option, but one that should have consequences. No double standards: Every stat should matter to everyone, to the extent possible (for me, within realistic confines).
Spot on, Oly! There should be advantages and disadvantages to every major character-creation decision, especially to stat allocation.
Which is one reaon why I'm glad DEX-to-damage is not a standard, across-the-board thing. My only regret is that there are a few culturally marginal and ill-considered options that *do* allow DEX to damage.
I mean, there's no more reason that every DEX-based character be a whirling dervish from the sandy realms of Araby than for every spellcaster to have been an orphan raised in the Wayang arts in Minata.
Without standard across-the-board DEX-to-damage abilities, a DEX-based build will still have some need of strength, or will have to accept the trade-off from having an average or below average STR.