Nope. You may want something unrealistic, but that doesn't mean realism should be ignored. Realism should rule where it can without killing balance or destroying a lot of the universe (as it would with magic or monster types). And you don't really want to ignore realism or you'd champion Cha to damage and Wis to hit or something....
Of course, that have nothing to do with the fact that without some sort of dex to damage iñigo montoya sucks in PF unless he is a very specific cavalier archetype.
....
Was mister Montoya not a strong man as well?
Is the problem is with really low str, then some restrictiosn could be placed in the wording of the feat. Like "you add your dex bonus to damage but you also apply any penalty from low str".Was mister Montoya not a strong man as well?Nope. You may want something unrealistic, but that doesn't mean realism should be ignored. Realism should rule where it can without killing balance or destroying a lot of the universe (as it would with magic or monster types). And you don't really want to ignore realism or you'd champion Cha to damage and Wis to hit or something....
Of course, that have nothing to do with the fact that without some sort of dex to damage iñigo montoya sucks in PF unless he is a very specific cavalier archetype.
....
My problem with the feat is that i think just letting dex stand in for str is not in any way a flavor full way to make a nimble figther a good option. I want somthing else if small fast men are to compete with the big strong ones in my game. But smal guys with thin arms hit just as hard as big guys is not the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. You may want something unrealistic, but that doesn't mean realism should be ignored. Realism should rule where it can without killing balance or destroying a lot of the universe (as it would with magic or monster types). And you don't really want to ignore realism or you'd champion Cha to damage and Wis to hit or something.
Ignoring my more egregious examples of the lack of realism already present in this system doesn't strengthen your argument. You want mechanics just as unrealistic as Dex to damage, you just don't want ones that offend your personal tastes.
If to be an effective pirate wielded two cutlasses you needed Cha to damage, you bet I'd champion it. As it stands in this current system, it is Dex that needed for a large swath of character tropes that simply aren't mechanically a good idea right now.
It feels putrid to me, the thought of a very weak character going toe to toe with a very strong character, same skill level, and the very strong character not winning.
And that's your taste. Obviously everyone doesn't share it. Superheroes are a great example: extremely wide diversity of tropes that are all effective at one point or another. Are you really saying that your preferences, which are demonstrably not even vast majority preferences, should dictate what is available for other people in other games? They don't care what you find putrid, they shouldn't, and implying people's options should be limited based on what you don't like is selfish. Fortunately, limiting game options to a specific set of preferences is a foolish business decision for the developers, so they aren't going to listen to you.
A large part of what makes the PF system a very good one is that combat is realistically detailed, including rules for flanking, movement, etc...
You're calling a system where a humanoid creature can be cleanly hit several times with a greataxe wielded by a creature capable of benchpressing cars and walk away realistically detailed? You're calling a system where I can attack 6 times if I move only 5 ft. but can only attack once if I move 10 ft. realistic? You're calling a system where I can get an additional 10 attacks either way by people walking next to me realistic?
Those who want weak characters to stand toe to toe and win have too many other game systems to choose from and should choose one of them.
Dex to damage is something the developers of this game obviously don't have an issue with from a flavor standpoint since they've allowed it repeatedly. Their misgivings seem to be about balance, which I suggested should be the topic discussed here. Maybe you're the one playing the wrong game?
I keep seeing the dex to damage debate. While the limitations of whether or not dex to damage makes sense is not that relevant of an argument I don't think it's a dumb one. I'd feel the need to understand what the logic behind an ability is even if it's weird fantasy logic. I think the bigger question is whether or not it's balanced.
It is easy to fear dex becoming an uberstat. Pound for pound Dex does way more things that are way more significant. You don't really get scaling initiative and initiative is so important. Also it gives you AC against touch attacks. Plus it factors into a save and CMD. Then there are multiple skills needing dex making magic like Cat's Grace a huge boon to several things that you can do at once.
The virtues of Strength is easy to see as laughable despite str builds being easy and devastating. It handles CMB which is branded as more and more useless as you level, Strength builds have better armor which is an advantage negated by the multitudes of ways to improve AC without actual armor. You can carry more which is handled with a handy haversack unless you're carrying Batman levels of equipment. Str handles two skill checks that you aren't likely to do much in heavy armor anyway. About the only pro-str arguments I really take seriously are that you can abuse feats and effects like power attack and enlarge person and you have 2-3 more feats to work with.
Personally I'd say that I don't think that dex to damage is the way; I'm more in favor of making dex builds crit more, it just seems logical that when using manual dexterity you have less power but you're hitting the vitals more easily as opposed to straight up doing more damage. I think high dex should give you more access to crit multiplier and crit range increases. That said I do allow the generic dex to damage feat from Path of War in my games because I think eating two feats is enough of a price for such power. Also I have a lot of players reluctant to use third party material lately so I haven't seen enough of it to see how groundbreaking (or not) it is at late levels.
DEX to damage is only present in PF for a few very narrow classes and templates, AFAIK, not for the general public of fighting or semi-fighting classes.
Some (like me) prefer it that way, others don't. But it is a fact that there is no general DEX-to-damage ability available for just anybody to snap up for any light or slashing weapon they want.
Pandora is of course right to take exception with the idea that PF combat is "realistic" in any way. The most realistic system I recall was ICE/Rolemaster with their horribly detailed and time-consuming critical hit tables. Man, you really didn't want to take a critical in that game.
PF isn't realistic. It's a compromise between highly detailed and quick to play, and hopelessly mired in DD3.5 legacy design issues. But it's fun, innit? Otherwise we just wouldn't be here.
Personally I'd say that I don't think that dex to damage is the way; I'm more in favor of making dex builds crit more, it just seems logical that when using manual dexterity you have less power but you're hitting the vitals more easily as opposed to straight up doing more damage. I think high dex should give you more access to crit multiplier and crit range increases. That said I do allow the generic dex to damage feat from Path of War in my games because I think eating two feats is enough of a price for such power. Also I have a lot of players reluctant to use third party material lately so I haven't seen enough of it...
If I follow your idea, which is not bad: how would it be to get dex to damage when you crit? It would not be as ubber as the ''always dex'', but it would make dex build more powerfull and flavorfull.
If I follow your idea, which is not bad: how would it be to get dex to damage when you crit? It would not be as ubber as the ''always dex'', but it would make dex build more powerfull and flavorfull.Personally I'd say that I don't think that dex to damage is the way; I'm more in favor of making dex builds crit more, it just seems logical that when using manual dexterity you have less power but you're hitting the vitals more easily as opposed to straight up doing more damage. I think high dex should give you more access to crit multiplier and crit range increases. That said I do allow the generic dex to damage feat from Path of War in my games because I think eating two feats is enough of a price for such power. Also I have a lot of players reluctant to use third party material lately so I haven't seen enough of it...
Makes enough sense to me. I'd allow it if it was in something I bought. As far as I can tell there aren't any terrible problems with it.
Oh yeah, there is one problem; I allowed a feat that lets you do sneak attack damage when you crit. It became THE feat for ninjas and rogues which isn't terribly awful power-wise but it currently feels like I locked all rogues, ninjas, vivisectionists and slayers into crit fisher builds making me rethink the feat.
Oh yeah, there is one problem; I allowed a feat that lets you do sneak attack damage when you crit. It became THE feat for ninjas and rogues which isn't terribly awful power-wise but it currently feels like I locked all rogues, ninjas, vivisectionists and slayers into crit fisher builds making me rethink the feat.
and... where they ubber? I mean, sure they can become crit fisher (just like barbarian tend to be pouncing monster), but if it just made them a little bit better I don't see a problem here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, there is one problem; I allowed a feat that lets you do sneak attack damage when you crit. It became THE feat for ninjas and rogues which isn't terribly awful power-wise but it currently feels like I locked all rogues, ninjas, vivisectionists and slayers into crit fisher builds making me rethink the feat.
You could make it require rogue/ninja level 4 or some such (like all of the fighter only feats) since the slayer doesn't need the help. And being stuck as crit-fishers isn't the worst thing in the world.
Well the problem wasn't that it made the character too good, and in the rogue/ninja case 'too good' isn't a bad thing, but it was too good for the class. In the sense that it became a mandatory feat which steered people into narrow builds. Basically all the rogues and ninjas in my games (haven't seen it on an alchemist or slayer yet) have TWF, Weapon Finesse, the mentioned feat and wield wakizashis or some other light weapon with a good crit range. I'm more concerned that I killed variety than made rogues too powerful.
Kukris, scimitar, falchions, rapiers, ect already do that.
Most optimized melee builds have an 18-20 crit weapon, imp. Critical, ect.
Well the problem wasn't that it made the character too good, and in the rogue/ninja case 'too good' isn't a bad thing, but it was too good for the class. In the sense that it became a mandatory feat which steered people into narrow builds. Basically all the rogues and ninjas in my games (haven't seen it on an alchemist or slayer yet) have TWF, Weapon Finesse, the mentioned feat and wield wakizashis or some other light weapon with a good crit range. I'm more concerned that I killed variety than made rogues too powerful.
I see your point, but Pathfinder did made that with many class: the ''dervish dancer-shocking grasp magus, the musket master with a musket, the superstitious/ pouncing barbarian...
Sure, it kill a little bit the ''versatility'' by giving them a ''good build'' to fight alonside barbarian and paladin. In my opinion, there should be more feat like this one for rogue and ninja to make them more competitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the problem wasn't that it made the character too good, and in the rogue/ninja case 'too good' isn't a bad thing, but it was too good for the class. In the sense that it became a mandatory feat which steered people into narrow builds. Basically all the rogues and ninjas in my games (haven't seen it on an alchemist or slayer yet) have TWF, Weapon Finesse, the mentioned feat and wield wakizashis or some other light weapon with a good crit range. I'm more concerned that I killed variety than made rogues too powerful.I see your point, but Pathfinder did made that with many class: the ''dervish dancer-shocking grasp magus, the musket master with a musket, the superstitious/ pouncing barbarian...
Sure, it kill a little bit the ''versatility'' by giving them a ''good build'' to fight alonside barbarian and paladin. In my opinion, there should be more feat like this one for rogue and ninja to make them more competitive.
Well I haven't had a suck Rogue at the table since. So there's that.
Although early in the year I got my chance to try out a dervish dancing Magus and it felt cheesy making me think long and harder about dex to damage. I had the best AC in the party while wearing no armor at all, I was killing off more enemies in the party, I had more stealth than the rogue and had a higher average attack bonus than the Barbarian. Since I was a blade bound magus I needed almost zero gear that we found. by level 8 my total gear was around 5,000 gold. Guy was almost all benefits. In the particular situation of the Magus dex to damage makes str feel obsolete.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To all peaple... Realism is not the problem, THE PROBLEM IS SELECTIVE REALISM . Which is to say if you deliberately ask for dex to damage to be realist, but say "hey Charisma to initiative is totally fine" or "hey STR to hit chance is totally fine" then thats bad design, arbitrary and its stupid. A 7 Dexterity commoner with no feats has the same hit chance with a dagger of a guy with 30 dex, yeah thats totally realism
Dervish dance is basically built for the bladebound magus. Its requirements align perfectly with what a magus needs; empty hand, high crit weapon.
STR magi exist and they are quite competitive with the dervish magus, but harder to build and get online. I agree that it would be great if they got more support (Eldritch scion could have been it, but it turned out as it did...).
Also, I think the barb was doing something wrong, and I find it slightly amusing that you say the Rogue is not UP and how the Magus basically invalidated it in the same post. Sounds like you just stumbled onto a low-skill high-benefit build in a generally low optimization environment.
I was playing not GMing so the Str build and Rogue buffs were not online. Also the Barbarian was not a pounce build so there's that. Also due to third party support that particular situation is a bit moot because I gained some third party magus material specifically to broaden viable magus builds. I guess part of what I'm saying is that careful third party selection fixes everything including allowing dex to damage while keeping it in check.
In normal pathfinder, Dervish Dance felt cheesy and it only raised the optimization bar with little effort causing the group to complete the last book in Curse of the Crimson Throne in two sessions. And this is after making derped choices like refusing to use shocking grasp and blowing feats on dumb things like expanded arcana to get mage armor.
I don't know what the problems are with Eldritch Scion but it quickly became my favorite thing ever.
|
All I really want from Improved Weapon Finesse is the ability to use a less restricted set of weapons at low levels, before I can afford Agile weapons. If you want to limit it to 1-handed like the current dex-to-damage feats to prevent two-weapon-fighting and 2 handed builds from existing, I really wouldn't care, I wasn't going to use those builds anyway.
Deadly Finesse
You is, like, well wicked wit' dat blade, bro. Innit.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Dex 15+
When you score a melee critical hit with a Finesse weapon, you gain a bonus to damage equal to your BAB plus your Dexterity bonus. If the critical modifier is x3, this bonus is doubled (and tripled for x4, etc.).
So a Dex 18, BAB+3 rogue4 does +7 damage. If using shortswords, that's +0.7 damage per hit on average. With a rapier, +1.05.
A Dex 24, BAB+12 slayer12 does +20. With a keen rapier that averages +6 per hit on average.
So it's modest at low levels (where IMHO the martials are OK and the rogue is passable) but comes online nicely at higher levels.
*casts silence on self*
*begins horrifying self-righteous rant for one side*
*ends rant*
*walks away*
|
1) yes, they are. Big guys can eye gouge and throat punch just like little guys can. And they're harder to block.
Clumsy big guys are less likely to execute a precise attack, and are easier to dodge/counter because they are slower.
2) Dexterity has nothing to do with it. He has the BAB, he moves faster because he has more power, and so he's harder to dodge and defend against. Conversely, it's easier for him to block some guy relying on precision and attacking fewer vulnerable spots.
Rubbish! There is such a thing as strength in real life, and there is such a thing as dexterity. But there is no such thing as 'base attack bonus' in real life. Trying to say that 'real' fighters have a high BAB is absurd.
If you mean 'skill', then there is skill in real life. But we are comparing equally skilled fighters, one with high Str/low Dex, and the other with high Dex/low Str. In order to compare these factors we must assume equal skill or the comparison won't work. So comparing these two, the strong guy might swing faster but he'll swing less accurately, therefore his attacks will be predictable. A dextrous fighter can start an attack in one vector and change the attack vector faster than the less dextrous guy can react to. Therefore the Str guy is likely to hit and more likely to be hit than the dextrous guy.
3) It's harder to move out of the way of someone who has more power and equal skill, and it's easier to get boxed in and herded. Blocking improperly can shatter a weapon and numb your whole arm. A low Str dex blocker has no choice but to try and evade and redirect. The Str guy, not being stupid, is going to minimize those options and force the dex guy to block with force. It's called smart fighting and leveraging your strengths. The blocker may expend less energy, but the Strength guy isn't expending a lot of effort to do what he does, simply because he's so much stronger and it's easier for him to swing the weapon.
Str guy isn't going to do tap parries like a fencer. He's going to crash the weapons together and force the dex guy into playing his game. Kindly keep in mind that he has POWER, and the finesse guy does not.
Trouble is, you're describing two fighters with equal skill and good Dex! So all you're saying is that strong is better than weak, not Str is better than Dex!
If we concentrate on equal skill, high Str/LOW Dex versus high Dex/low Str, then imagine the Str guy with a greatsword versus the Dex guy with a rapier. The Str guy benefits from huge blows. In order to execute a huge blow, he has to pull his weapon back to get a mighty swing. As he does so, the Dex guy lunges, the accurately placed point runs him through, and the fight is over. Even if the Str guy still fights on until he realises that he lost, his edge control is minimal, and therefore his angle of attack is predictable, so the Dex guy isn't even there when that mighty blow happens.
4) Crit blows are less likely to land, and everyone goes for them and knows where they are vulnerable. IF all you are throwing are crit blows, you're easy to defend against.
These 'crit blows' you keep talking about; I'm not sure that your visualisation of them matches any kind of reality. You need accuracy (meaning point/edge control), but the Dex guy has that and has litre trouble executing them. A narrow blade can pierce a torso with very little Str, and nearly every torso hit will run them through. This is no more difficult for a high Dex guy than a massive swing is for a Str guy. Knowing that your torso is vulnerable to a rapier won't help the Str guy when the Str guy has to close the distance and take his weapon off line in order to attack, which gives the Dex guy all the opening he needs.
5) No, I'm talking about a Str fighter who has BAB. You keep ignoring the fact that BAB is coordination, control and skill in combat...BAB lets you hit stuff. BAB is all the finesse a Str guy needs. ANd he has the Strength to turn his BAB from endless hours of combat into control, precision and power.
Ah, so this is where you're going wrong! BAB is skill, but not co-ordination; that's Dex. You're not imagining a high Str/low Dex guy, you're imagining a guy with good scores in both! Since both guys you're comparing have high Dex, all you're comparing is high Str with low Str, and coming to the conclusion that strong is better than weak! True, but trivial.
6) Short swords are finesse weapons and been used in armies for three millennia. Likewise knives. Chains existed. So did stick fighting.
Finesse weapons existed. nobody used them finesse style, because in reality, finesse style doesn't work when you have to deal with armor and active defenses. Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee weren't awesome because they had high Dex. They were awesome because they were really, really good, much better then their opponents (higher BAB)...and they were STRONG.
Real fighters develop and benefit BOTH, and both are crucial. This game engine does an extremely poor job of reflecting that (unlike, say, Stormbringer), but we'd like a way to simulate Inigo Montoya and his ilk. The game let's us model many types of character, real and unreal, possible and impossible. The game cannot model reality, but it should certainly model fantasy, and a Dex based fighter that doesn't suck shouldn't be beyond the pale.
7) And thank you, it's not about fear, it's about equality. I turn that around and think you are the on suffering from fear that you won't get the option, and you want it.
I can see Dex being a heightened control option. It's inefficient, but if you are really good at it and train hard (i.e. burn a feat) it's viable.
Dex to damage makes no sense at all. Superior coordination does not help you chop down a tree or pound through a brick wall, and you should not do more damage as you get smaller. Everything lauded about 'more accurate blows' is a function of BAB and crits. It has nothing to do with Dex.
We fundamentally disagree. However we may wish the rules to be, we can realistically expect to achieve small changes, but not wholesale changes. Dex to damage is achievable (it has, in fact, already been achieved. Expanding the ability to 'finesse weapon's actually makes more sense than keeping it as restricted as it is), but we could certainly alter the system to more realistically reflect high Dex in the way that you suggest. Instead of Dex to damage (which might hurt innocent walls and such), add your Dex mod to the crit range. When nearly every single hit is a crit threat, that neatly reflects a high Dex fighter using a rapier, and would still allow Str to damage. This would model reality better than the rules do now, but I don't think for a moment that this game engine will change in this way; I do believe that Dex to damage is round the corner.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for those using a "don't bring up realism in my game!" argument - if you throw away all pretense at realism, why stop at Dex to damage? Why not a set of feats for all the ability scores that add to attacks and damage? We don't care about realism so go ahead and add your Con to hit.
Basically why is Dex to damage okay, but Int to damage is not?(Boy would that make a happy Magus) Stab smarter, not harder!
Here's a question for those using a "don't bring up realism in my game!" argument - if you throw away all pretense at realism, why stop at Dex to damage? Why not a set of feats for all the ability scores that add to attacks and damage? We don't care about realism so go ahead and add your Con to hit.
Basically why is Dex to damage okay, but Int to damage is not?(Boy would that make a happy Magus) Stab smarter, not harder!
Wile i kind of agree with you. We do already have a hideous con to damage feat.
|
|
I actually don't think Dex builds should do more damage than Strength builds, because lots of damage is supposed to be the major advantage of a Strength build. All I want is to do slightly less instead of massively less.
Currently you can - it just takes a couple feats. Just take slashing grace with an aldori dueling sword. (Admittedly - it takes exotic & WF aldori dueling sword as well - but I don't think they can really be considered feat taxes since they're both useful in their own right.)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
no idea what trope would be the con to hit thing.
I would envision it as the fighting style of "let my opponent hit me until they get tired and make a mistake, then exploit that opening." Basically outlasting your foe until they are too exhausted to defend themselves.
Heck I've seen a 3PP that let someone use Str for Knowledge checks. If you can vaguely justify that, adding Con to hit isn't a challenge to rationalize.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
That is a great idea. I have a hard time seeing it as a straight con to hit, but I would love to see a counter attack feat that is based on con.
The way I would really make a "wear your opponent out" sort of feat would be a scaling bonus that improves every round you end in their threatened area, capping at your Con bonus. Or something like that.
|
|
That is a great idea. I have a hard time seeing it as a straight con to hit, but I would love to see a counter attack feat that is based on con.The way I would really make a "wear your opponent out" sort of feat would be a scaling bonus that improves every round you end in their threatened area, capping at your Con bonus. Or something like that.
It's probably be better to keep it simple. Base it off of Crane Riposte.
Example: Vengeance Style: If you give up an attack, when you're hit in melee you can then make an AOO at the same to hit of the attack which you gave up, only with a bonus to attack & damage equal to your con modifier.
It'd mostly be useful when making a full attack and giving up a lower iterative attack. It'd be more likely to hit with an extra +3 or so with the con mod added in, not to mention the extra damage.
That is a great idea. I have a hard time seeing it as a straight con to hit, but I would love to see a counter attack feat that is based on con.no idea what trope would be the con to hit thing.
I would envision it as the fighting style of "let my opponent hit me until they get tired and make a mistake, then exploit that opening." Basically outlasting your foe until they are too exhausted to defend themselves.
Heck I've seen a 3PP that let someone use Str for Knowledge checks. If you can vaguely justify that, adding Con to hit isn't a challenge to rationalize.
Call it the Rocky Balboa feat.
|
Actually - I've heard in many of the 5th ed reviews that one negative is that they have to come up with fluff reasons to actually use strength instead of dexterity.
And if you don't care about realism - why do you even want dex to damage? Just pretend that strength is dex.
Sorry, if someone has already done this (there's 150 posts between this and mine) but I wanted to respond.
I actually was one of those people who decried Dex-to-Damage in 5th Ed. But with a little digging you see reasons why it actually isn't too overpowered:
- Armor is much more balanced between heavy and light.
- The "Thrown" weapon property that uses Str for Attack rather than Dex.
- There are STR saves in addition to the typical REF/WILL/FORT.
- STR-based heavy weapon fighters are the only ones that qualify for power attack.
- A lot of bonuses to damage are now extra dice, which benefits weapons with larger damage dice more.
At first blush, it seems like dex-to-damage is overpowered . . . and truthfully, archery still is, but it is in Pathfinder, too . . . but it works out.
|
|
Yours wasn't the only review of 5e I've read which suggested dex builds being OP, but it's certainly possible that it's only a first blush thing.
Nonetheless - if it is balanced in 5e - it goes to show that such a balance - from a pure mechanical perspective - needs to go futher than just giving dex to damage with certain weapons.
|
|
Yours wasn't the only review of 5e I've read which suggested dex builds being OP, but it's certainly possible that it's only a first blush thing.
Nonetheless - if it is balanced in 5e - it goes to show that such a balance - from a pure mechanical perspective - needs to go futher than just giving dex to damage with certain weapons.
I'm inclined to agree. I feel like a big part of the reason that it works in 5E is because they ditched touch AC and tied a save to every single stat instead of the Big 3.
Dex-to-Damage could work in PF, but there needs to be some balancing against str. And something still needs to be done about archery.
|
|
Yours wasn't the only review of 5e I've read which suggested dex builds being OP, but it's certainly possible that it's only a first blush thing.
Nonetheless - if it is balanced in 5e - it goes to show that such a balance - from a pure mechanical perspective - needs to go futher than just giving dex to damage with certain weapons.
Neatly achieved in PF by by making it cost two feats, and still ending up worse than Str.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) yes, they are. Big guys can eye gouge and throat punch just like little guys can. And they're harder to block.Clumsy big guys are less likely to execute a precise attack, and are easier to dodge/counter because they are slower.
2) Dexterity has nothing to do with it. He has the BAB, he moves faster because he has more power, and so he's harder to dodge and defend against. Conversely, it's easier for him to block some guy relying on precision and attacking fewer vulnerable spots.Rubbish! There is such a thing as strength in real life, and there is such a thing as dexterity. But there is no such thing as 'base attack bonus' in real life. Trying to say that 'real' fighters have a high BAB is absurd.
If you mean 'skill', then there is skill in real life. But we are comparing equally skilled fighters, one with high Str/low Dex, and the other with high Dex/low Str. In order to compare these factors we must assume equal skill or the comparison won't work. So comparing these two, the strong guy might swing faster but he'll swing less accurately, therefore his attacks will be predictable. A dextrous fighter can start an attack in one vector and change the attack vector faster than the less dextrous guy can react to. Therefore the Str guy is likely to hit and more likely to be hit than the dextrous guy.
...3) It's harder to move out of the way of someone who has more power and equal skill, and it's easier to get boxed in and herded. Blocking improperly can shatter a weapon and numb your whole arm. A low Str dex blocker has no choice but to try and evade and redirect. The Str guy, not being stupid, is going to minimize those options and force the dex guy to block with force. It's called smart fighting and leveraging your strengths. The blocker may expend less energy, but the Strength guy isn't expending a lot of effort to do what he does, simply because he's so much stronger and it's easier for him to swing the weapon.
Str guy isn't going to
1) He's not CLUMSY. Where's this 6 dex argument coming from? He's a SKILLED COMBATANT with average Dex. He has excellent control of himself, he knows what to hit and where, and the power to get his blows where he wants them to land. Everything he wields is 'lighter' and easier to control because he's so strong.
BAB is combat and control with a weapon.
IF we were talking about clumsy big guys they are easier to hit, but happily they don't fight finesse style so restricting themselves to weak points is unnecessary.
2) There is indeed BAB in real life...it's called experience in combat.
Your example falls down because now you're having Str guy fight stupid - Fewer options? He isn't reliant on hitting special points - he has more options. A miss from him is still likely to hurt and jar his opponent - that's the advantage of being brutally strong. A miss from his opponent isn't going to do anything.
The strong guy moves faster because he's stronger, all other things being equal. Dex is not speed of movement. Dex guy can react quicker, and he'll have to, to have any chance at a parry, but he's also at a penalty on the parry because he's weaker.
3) Wait, now you're moving the goalposts to FIGHTING STYLE? WTF? And Str guy is STUPID?
Rapier guy lunges...and his rapier bounces off STr guy's breastplate. He could have tried for the throat, but the Str guy's massive swordhilt safeguards the face and upper body, and all the damn armor is protecting the other vital spots.
Str guy's is moving forward as dex guy lunges and slams the hilt of his very big weapon into Dex guy somewhere, anywhere...it's like getting hit by a mace. As Dex guy rocks back, a sword moving with the speed of a willow wand comes down, crashes through the desperate parry, and opens him up like a gourd. If he misses the throat, he hits the collarbone and either breaks it or cleaves it open.
I mean, COME ON. Now strong = stupid? If nothing else, Greatsword guy can thrust perfectly fine with his weapon...he can 2h Thrust with it, most greatswords have half grips designed to be used that way! And the hilts are virtual shields in and of themselves. You're talking stupidity in a duel completely set to favor a fencing style.
4) And if the Str guy is wearing a breastplate, his torso is fine. That puny rapier isn't going to punch through anything, and now his rapier is out of position and he's going to be hacked up. Indeed, unless he can somehow do an instant kill, the Greatsword guy is going to complete his motion and hack him in two, while the 2h guy deals with his little hole.
All he has to do is guard against a heart thrust, or shot to throat or eye. Rapier guy has to understand that unless he can somehow stop the 2h guy in midswing (and remember, you're talking 2 feet of extra reach) he's dead. He can't parry that sword, all he can do is dodge.
And the problem is, if that greatsword doesn't land perfectly...it's still landing. It can break bones, rupture skin, crunch armor. If the Dex guy DOES parry and guard...it can still crunch right through the parry and the armor and do what it needs.
You're equivocating that Str can't overcome a defense. Not all defenses are dodging. There's parrying and armor, and Str is much better suited to dealing with those, not to mention that the power and speed of a Strong man is better at getting to someone trying to dodge before a defense is effective then a precise thrust at average speed. You're equivocating that just because a blow is aimed precisely that it is going to land. Against a Dex guy, you respond correctly, or you get hit. Against a Str guy, you respond in time and with sufficient force...or you get hit.
And you automatically chose the biggest, slowest type of sword he can use. What if Str guy is also using a rapier? Do you still think that thing is going to be SLOW? He's going to be wielding it as easily as a feather and driving it like a piston!
5) No, that's where you're misunderstanding and extemporizing in favor of your beloved stat. Skill and repetition build control. Natural coordination makes you better at it, but doesn't do it all. Someone who practices ten thousand free throws can sink as many as some guy with 18 dex who has only done it a hundred times.
You seem to think dex covers ALL coordination. That's blatantly untrue. Every single skill that uses dex disproves you. Someone with 10 ranks of Dance and 10 dex looks as skilled and graceful dancing as someone with 1 rank of Dance and a 28 Dex.
You seem to think Dex does it all. It does not...it's only a part of the combat cycle, and BAB is the 'skill ranks' that apply here.
6)Fighters develop BAB, and get exposed to different weapons to determine how to deal with them. But Finesse style is and has always been a niche for those warriors not strong enough to be effective otherwise.
It's REALITY. Simulating Inigo Montoya is fine. Now I want to simulate an armored knight, and that armored knight should kick Inigo's arse. Nobody used thin pointy swords in real combat for thousands of years because it didn't work when the enemy wore armor!
So, you are abandoning reality arguments for "I want" arguments. I have no problem with that, but just be clear that the 'real basis' for what you want Does Not Exist.
7) If we're dealing with lack of reality, I have no problem with Dex to damage if Strength gets the counterbalancing utility feats. I would prefer Dex to damage to be precision damage, at the very least, but if Strength gets some feats to boost AC and other stuff and not rely on Dex for those, I'm happy from a balance standpoint.
Your stance of ENTITLEMENT and 'this is how it should be' to such is what I am opposed to.
==Aelryinth
Dex to Damage is just fine. It's much better when it's counted as "precise damage". So things without clear weaknesses dont take this damage. It's been suggested in this thread before.
More realistic and doesnt break anything.
The only "issue" with Dex to damage might be with Monks and light/no armour classes. Monks become a realistic choice and a menace in the battlefield which will be difficult to bring down. Just like any other character.
If you are concerned that dex to damage is a problem, you should very very concerned about the swashbuckler who adds Dex AND level to damage. If swashbucklers are not trumping and walking over STR characters (fighters, barbs, rangers, slayers) then there really is not a problem.
|
|
Here's a question for those using a "don't bring up realism in my game!" argument - if you throw away all pretense at realism, why stop at Dex to damage? Why not a set of feats for all the ability scores that add to attacks and damage? We don't care about realism so go ahead and add your Con to hit.
Basically why is Dex to damage okay, but Int to damage is not?(Boy would that make a happy Magus) Stab smarter, not harder!
Here's the answer for those who've asked the question: it's because Dex to damage is realistic.
At least as realistic as Str to attack. The fluff behind Str to attack is that because armour makes your harder to hit (but does not lessen the damage taken in any way), then the attack roll represents an attack that not only hits the target but also penetrates its armour. But unarmoured targets are still attacked using Str instead of Dex.
Any game cannot be totally realistic without taking one hour to resolve every single attack, so we need something that is playable. Any game cannot totally divorce itself from realism, or we couldn't make sensible decisions in an environment which doesn't make sense. So each game has to find its own balance point between playability and realism, and the games derived from D&D (like Pathfinder) have a game in which Str is used for attack rolls and Dex isn't. With that particular balance point, then Dex to damage is as playable and as realistic as Str to attack.
Con to damage is not.