|
But unarmoured targets are still attacked using Str instead of Dex.
Yes - because strength still means that you can swing your sword faster, and your strength makes it harder to black/parry.
Other than a particular style (finesse) actually swinging a sword/axe with good fine motor control doesn't do much.
Again - I think that you want dexterity to encompass all movement. In Pathfinder it doesn't.
| 2 people 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!
1) I remain unimpressed by the realism arguments on both sides. Too much "what I saw on TV." Get an in-depth interview with combat experts who specialize in the forms of combat being discussed and you'll start to sway me. My point is, I'm not even sure that Dex helping you beat an opponent more easily (in our system, that would be represented by damage) is unrealistic.
2) Tropes abound where a fast, agile character beats a massively stronger character. Whether it's realistic or not, it's believable enough that it's a common trope. That character trope should be viable in our fantasy game. When "smarter not harder" is a trope, it is always a form of being more skilled than the opponent. Martial skill is best represented by BAB, so Int should probably not add to damage/to hit.
3) If stats had different implications, it might be that Dex shouldn't be applied to damage. If dex just meant agility with fingers for lockpicking and acrobatic talent, it wouldn't make any sense to cause more damage. However, aim with ranged weapons is based on Dex, giving credence to the idea "Dex helps me place my attacks more exactly." More precise attacks causing more damage is a common idea, so Dex to damage is fairly intuitive.
4) Assassin characters and two-weapon fighters are essentially required to have a high Dex in this system. These are also character tropes that should be viable. Without Dex to damage, these builds perform poorly enough that they are mechanically unsound.
My counter question: if a Dex to damage option was balanced in such a way that both Str builds and Dex builds were interesting, desirable options to many classes, what's the problem with Dex to damage? Is it seriously because it strains your belief too much, when other parts of the system are even more unrealistic?
|
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.
So, as I suspected, while you're happy to characterise the Dex guy as weak you're not willing to characterise the Str guy as clumsy. This makes your comparison flawed.
He might know where he wants to hit, but he needs Dex to actually hit where he aims.
2) There is indeed BAB in real life...it's called experience in combat.
So...skill. Like I said.
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.
Wow! In your game a miss still causes damage if you're strong enough?
The strong guy moves faster because he's stronger, all other things being equal.
But that speedy blow, once launched, cannot be re-directed a couple of times in mid-blow to react to the Dex guy, meaning a predictable blow which is easier to defend. Yet this is what Dex guys can do.
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.
There's more to parrying than holding your sword up as a barrier. You re-direct a blade, using the forte of your own against the tip of your foe's, and leverage/fulcrum gives the advantage to the defender.
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.
Okay, much as I disagree with some of your points, it's fair to eliminate as many differences as possible so that we can focus on the differences between high Dex/low Str and high Str/low Dex (yes! LOW Dex!).
First, neither combatant wears armour. If Str to attack makes sense(!) then it should also make sense when the target is not armoured. AD&D 1st ed had attack roll modifiers found by cross-referencing weapon against AC (a fair idea but a flawed execution, hardly anyone used it).
Second both combatants are armed with a single rapier. This models a duel of honour in western Europe in the Renaissance. Why this? I'll agree that the Dex guy loses if both are armed with heavy clubs, but we need to use finesse weapons because this is what we're talking about in this thread: Dex to damage with finesse weapons.
I've been a trained fencer for over 30 years. Strong is better than weak, but not only is this 'true, but trivial', being really strong is much less of an advantage and being weak is much less of a disadvantage with this weapon, whereas the fencer's Dex matters much, much more. Even a weak fencer could easily run his foe completely through with little effort, due to the design of the blade. Being very strong won't run you through even more!
Certain things are possible with rapiers that weren't practical before. As the rapier developed into the smallsword, it became practical to use the same weapon for both attack and defence, obviating the need for a shield of parrying weapon. Attacks and parries are done at a much higher speed than with heavy weapons, simply because of the weight (and weight balance of the weapons. A compound attack with a rapier can alter attack vector more than once in a single attack, just using finger and wrist. This is all about manual dexterity, reflexes and hand-eye coordination:-
Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.
...and, let's face it, Dexterity does cover...manual dexterity!
Also, in this game system, how quickly you react to what an enemy does is a function of Dexterity (the Initiative mechanic), and has absolutely nothing to do with Str.
So the Str guy will find it difficult to respond in time to the changing attack vectors of a compound attack from the Dex guy, while the Dex guy can react quickly enough to an attack from the Str guy, whose attack is more likely to be simple rather than compound because it takes Dex to execute a competent compound attack. And this is with a rapier; imagine the Str guy trying to do this with a heavy weapon! 'Wielding a greatsword like a willow wand' might be poetic, but due to the weight and weight distribution of the weapon, it will always be slower than a rapier.
So, with the subject at hand (hight Str/low Dex versus high Dex/low Str, using a finesse weapon) Dex is paramount when deciding not only how often each is hit but also the likelihood of being run through. Accurate point placement with run you through, but a massive blow with the flat of the blade might sting for a minute.
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.
But not while the basket is trying to dodge!
You seem to think dex covers ALL coordination. That's blatantly untrue. Every single skill that uses dex disproves you.
Er...I just quoted the rule on how the game defines Dexterity! It covers hand-eye coordination! This is exactly the kind of coordination used when fighting with weapons!
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.
BAB gives you skill, not hand-eye coordination. According to the rules anyway. Both skill and hand-eye coordination affect the chance to successfully execute an attack, but this game system doesn't approximate reality as well as some other systems. In Stormbringer for example, Str, Dex, Int and Pow (willpower and luck) all modify the attack chance and all have equal weight. Yet, if I had to choose one, then I'd choose Dex. When it comes to damage, Str and Size dictate bonus damage, but lack of Dex would result in your damage being halved.
The D20 system doesn't model this reality very well; that there is more than one attribute that contributes to attack, damage, dancing...whatever. We have to choose a single ability score in this system. So we must choose the one that makes the most sense! Str makes the most sense for most melee weapons, but Dex makes the most sense for finesse weapons.
Your stance of ENTITLEMENT and 'this is how it should be' to such is what I am opposed to.
How do you, personally, tell the difference between someone saying that 'the game would be better if X', and a stance of ENTITLEMENT? is it whether or not they agree with you? Is it daring to suggest a rule change? What?
|
|
But unarmoured targets are still attacked using Str instead of Dex.Other than a particular style (finesse) actually swinging a sword/axe with good fine motor control doesn't do much.
Actually, where the orientation of the weapon is roughly symmetrical I'd agree. A club, mace, morning star etc. Doesn't need manual dexterity to ensure that when you hit that you hit with a damaging part of your weapon. But with a bladed weapon like an axe or a sword, a certain amount of dexterity is required in order to make sure that when you hit that the blade hits at the correct angle.
In our debate about Str versus Dex, we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that fighting involves both, and fighters train to improve both. Both are vital. The trouble is that this game system forces us to choose only one, so we must choose the one that makes the most sense.
For most melee weapons, Str makes the most sense, but for finesse weapons Dex makes more sense.
As has just been pointed out, the game system already acknowledges that ranged attacks are resolved with Dex not Str, even with weapons that can be thrown hard. Why does high Str make you more likely to hit with a telling blow in melee but not at range?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As has just been pointed out, the game system already acknowledges that ranged attacks are resolved with Dex not Str, even with weapons that can be thrown hard. Why does high Str make you more likely to hit with a telling blow in melee but not at range?
Because ranged weaponry is entirely different? Frankly - melee & ranged even sharing a single BAB is a bit of a stretch. As a martial artist who dabbles in marksmanship - I'm not NEARLY as good at hitting with a bullet as I am with a fist. (though I suppose that could be because I'm using strength to hit with my punches :P)
|
|
As has just been pointed out, the game system already acknowledges that ranged attacks are resolved with Dex not Str, even with weapons that can be thrown hard. Why does high Str make you more likely to hit with a telling blow in melee but not at range?Because ranged weaponry is entirely different? Frankly - melee & ranged even sharing a single BAB is a bit of a stretch. As a martial artist who dabbles in marksmanship - I'm not NEARLY as good at hitting with a bullet as I am with a fist. (though I suppose that could be because I'm using strength to hit with my punches :P)
Do you think that you'd be just as good with your fists if you contracted a condition that made you clumsy?
Call it the Rocky Balboa feat.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.
"I'm bleeding therefore I win" style. It's not a terribly uncommon tactic in MMA. Guys like Chris Leben, Matt Brown, Brad Pickett and plenty of others are happy to let their opponents wear themselves out by catching punches with their face.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
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.
You keep repeating your idea that Str to hit is unrealistic when it's really not. A high strength lets you power through parries, it lets you knock your opponents weapon aside, it lets you hit their shield so hard it hurts their arm, and so forth. If anything to be realistic Str should add to AC more than Dex should, as it really adds a lot more to your parrying options. In real fights being stronger than your opponent is a tremendous advantage in nearly every way. Being strong lets you use your greatsword with the speed and accuracy that a weaker person gets from a rapier. Strength helps you hit because it eliminates viable options for defense.
I used to think that "all attacks should be Dex!" was a reasonable argument until I learned some actual fighting with melee weapons. A strong guy can parry, block with a shield, or dodge. A weak guy can only dodge.
Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).
Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).
Iron muscle:
Your muscle are as tick as hide and provide you with more protection.Prerequisites: Strengh: 20, toughness
Effect: you may add your strengh modifier to your Natural armor.
Is it good? Sure. But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.
Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).Iron muscle:
Your muscle are as tick as hide and provide you with more protection.Prerequisites: Strengh: 20, toughness
Effect: you may add your strengh modifier to your Natural armor.
Is it good? Sure. But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.
This would be fine if dexterity to armour wasn't restricted by max dex.
But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.
Conan and Kenpachi are more examples of why Wounds & Vitality/Vigor are a better representation of cinematic health (and real health, at that) than traditional HP.
Wounds & Vitality/Vigor help to explain how characters can get "hit" often, but not really take severe damage until the climax of a story, while ALSO still being susceptible to Critical Hits and lucky shots.
In fact, W-&-V are a better system of damage for Dex fighters anyway.
You know ALL these posts saying that Dex warriors work best when being Crit-based characters? They're even more effective with Wounds & Vitality:
When an enemy only has 12-16 Wounds, a Dual-Kukri/Wakazashi wielding Rogue/Ninja with Improved Critical suddenly becomes really, really nasty, since they'll be chiseling away 2 Wounds at a time whenever they crit (which will be every 15-20) while the 2-handed Greatsword-wielding Barbarian is still working away at their Vigor.
My group's been using Wounds & Vigor/Vitality since one of our players introduced us to SpyCraft back in 2006 - it just works so much better than typical HP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Malachai, you're doing it again. I never said Dex guy was weak...that's YOU. I've said Str guy and Dex guy, and just assumed equal stats in the main one and equal stats in the off one.
So not only are YOU the one mischaracterizing the combatants, you're trying to blame ME for it.Can you understand why I'm not taking you seriously?
2) You're calling the ability to hit a skill, and then turning right around and saying it depends on Dex. I'm saying it's a skill, and complements a high Strength wonderfully.
2b) More words in my mouth. if you look at my examples you can clearly see I'm referring to your 'critical points'. the dex fighter MUST aim for the critical points. If he misses, his little pointy thing will bounce, be parried, avoided, and do nothing.
The Strength guy is ALSO aiming for those one shot kill points. But if he misses the 'point', his big heavy weapon can crush armor, break bones, stun, bruise, shock and do other things even if he didn't hit the primary target. Because it's a big heavy weapon.
3)The speedy blow, once launched, cannot be redirected...unless you're strong and it's a well-balanced blade. Also, it's not a thrust. If a fencer tries to stop a point-heavy greatsword that's just whisked through a third of an arc and is coming crosswise into his chest with his forte, he's not going to stop it with a parry...he's going to LOSE HIS HAND and probably the weapon in it. This is especially true when the weapon has 1-2 feet of reach on you!
You can't just knock away big heavy weapons coming in at velocity so easily. Thrusting weapons, sure. Ping, redirect momentum, especially nice, light things like rapier points. it becomes a bit harder with spears and 2h swords, and you can't really do it with crushing, cleaving and slashing weapons.
And there's also the problem that if you mess up, those casual hits break you wide open. A punctured lung is more survivable then a ten-inch bone-severing crash into your chest cavity.
And your entire martial tradition of fencing is based on foes not wearing armor, using shields, or wielding heavy weapons. A guy with a staff will clean your clock! You have no item of comparison to the true martial world to justify the viability of your weapons...except history noting that no fencing weapons were ever used until armor went OUT OF STYLE.
4) And lo, the Str guy has a lower AC then Dex guy. Wow, what news. Did I argue that point? no? Well, then.
Your restriction of the weapon to the rapier once again shifts the combat to a formal duel. What is the Str guy's best option here? It's to close in on the Dex guy and not pussyfoot around with footwork and parries. A formal exchange of blows back and forth is not a fight. Lack of armor plays directly to the Dex guy's advantage.
But, lo, the fact the str guy can get into the face of the dex guy and totally f'up his fighting style by getting inside his reach isn't occurring to you.
So, you've got this incredibly corner case example of Str vs Dex where all the conditions and rules favor the Dex guy. Please at least attempt some utility and realism.
5) Actually, it applies if the basket is trying to dodge, too, I'm afraid to inform you. Take the guy with average dex firing at a moving target with ten thousand rounds and some mook with high dex who has only fired 100 rounds. In reality, the guy with experience is going to be much better at hitting things then the guy with high coordination.
or to put it another way: This guy over here has killed ten thousand opponents X, and has average dex. This guy over here has killed 100 opponents X, and has great dex. Which is more dangerous?
6) Combat Skill/BAB translates directly to hand-eye coordination with the weapon you are using, just the way it translates to better dancing, better tightrope walking, better this, better that. You are better at putting the weapon where it needs to be at the moment you need it there. That screams hand-eye coordination. High combat skill IS hand-eye coordination for that purpose!
Sure, the Dex guy is better at ALL types of hand-eye coordination. But in combat, the Strength guy is also looking pretty. His training gives him what his stats do not.
And while you're focusing so incredibly intently on need for high coordination to hit a point in space, you're totally ignoring the need for Strength to penetrate the defense, be it armor/nat armor, speed to get the blow in Right Now, the force to overcome a block or parry, or the might to rattle something even if they do manage a block. Being able to align your blade precisely and deliver it to a point means nothing if you can't pierce the armor, beat the block, overcome the parry, or have enough force behind it to deal damage even if you miss your preferred target.
Dex only gives you half the attacking equation. Strength does all the rest.
It's these points which are really weakening your arguments, in addition to goalpost moving and putting words into my mouth, Marachai. we could go on with the total lack of realism of using a rapier against a dragon or grizzly bear, etc etc. But suffice it to say, the mere existence of decent armor in reality renders most fencing weapons completely useless.
History proved the point for thousands of years. As soon as armor comes onto the scene, you abandon fencing weapons for things that can actually penetrate a defense, not just hit a point in space.
==Aelryinth
This would be fine if dexterity to armour wasn't restricted by max dex.
Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).Iron muscle:
Your muscle are as tick as hide and provide you with more protection.Prerequisites: Strengh: 20, toughness
Effect: you may add your strengh modifier to your Natural armor.
Is it good? Sure. But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.
It should be:
You may substitute your Strength Bonus for your Dexterity bonus when figuring your AC, but only if you are in Medium or Heavier armor. Your max Dex Limit to AC in Heavy Armor is increased by 1 when using this feat.
or something similar.
As for Con to damage, you could actually do that in 4e...I think they had a power where whoever you hit that round took extra damage equal to your Con to represent the unending rain of blows you were smacking them with due to your unflagging vigor.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dexterity to Damage is already balanced, by the fact it is restricted to a limited selection of weapons, is limited by armor, and requires 2 feats the strength guy could spend boosting their damage even higher.
|
I'd just like the weapon selection to be a bit larger, apart from the curved elven blade (which doesn't mesh with the one-handed fighting style) there really isn't any better finesse weapon than the scimitar anyway.
What if Improved Weapon Finesse was limited to one-handed only? would people still have issues with it?
I'd just like the weapon selection to be a bit larger, apart from the curved elven blade (which doesn't mesh with the one-handed fighting style) there really isn't any better finesse weapon than the scimitar anyway.
What if Improved Weapon Finesse was limited to one-handed only? would people still have issues with it?
if it was limited to light and 1handed weapons or could be dual wielded, i still have no issues
I don't think anybody wants to add Dex to damage to a Greatsword.
Glaive/Naginata, maybe.
I don't think anybody wants to add Dex to damage to a Greatsword.
Glaive/Naginata, maybe.
i agree with adding it to the Glaive and Naginata, mostly because of the fact that Tiara from Faerie Fencer F uses dexterity based hit and damage with a Naginata and a Naginata is considered a Glaive Family weapon
but she flurries with the thing too and gains 1.5x dexterity bonus in addition to 1.5x pirahna strike bonus. in fact, she pirahna strikes with the thing and hits like she was a dragon style brawler with gloves of dueling
she doesn't hit like fang, but she has the second highest combo cap in the game, getting 7 attacks to fang's 8. but fang is the overpowered protagonist.
|
This would be fine if dexterity to armour wasn't restricted by max dex.
Edit: So I guess I'm saying Str to AC should be a feat because Realism(TM).Iron muscle:
Your muscle are as tick as hide and provide you with more protection.Prerequisites: Strengh: 20, toughness
Effect: you may add your strengh modifier to your Natural armor.
Is it good? Sure. But with that the ''Conan the barbarian with no armor'' or the ''Zaraki Kenpachi-try-to-hit-me'' idea could be pretty awsome.
It should be:
You may substitute your Strength Bonus for your Dexterity bonus when figuring your AC, but only if you are in Medium or Heavier armor. Your max Dex Limit to AC in Heavy Armor is increased by 1 when using this feat.
or something similar.
As for Con to damage, you could actually do that in 4e...I think they had a power where whoever you hit that round took extra damage equal to your Con to represent the unending rain of blows you were smacking them with due to your unflagging vigor.
==Aelryinth
Interestingly in 4e there is CON/WIS/DEX/STR/INT/CHA to both hit and damage and nobody made a fuzz about it, it actually worked pretty well. Dex classes were not ZOMG unbalanced, actually STR classes were among the best if not the best. However its true that skills, ac and saves were distributed much more evenly between stats, maybe the problem is not the "stat to X" but how the distribution has been made in pathfinder is deliberately detrimental for a number of reasons.
so i just feel like throwing my perverbial stick into the ring.
Any physical stat could be used to increase your chances to hit in melee.
Strength - easier control and acceleration over weapons regardless of size. meaning you'll hit harder and more true. Also, this allows you to break parries and essentially turn enemy armor into a weapon, as stabing chain mail forcefully enough will still do a ton of HP damage in that you'll have your air knocked out of you, or a broken bone, etc.
Dexterity - finer control, meaning your stabbing in between the plates or chain patches to hit his open spots.
Increased damage though? I kinda see it but your overall damage increased by an increase in to-hit, being more precise doesn't make the blow do more. It can be argued your hitting more precise/critical locations, but this is more about knowledge and experience and strength would still allow you to hit home these areas more than dexterity could, with the same weapon mind you.
Constitution - f&&% it, you don't get tired and pain doesn't slow you down, just keep hammering his defense til he shows an opening. same issue with dex on explaining damage though, you could be described as being in better condition than your opponent and thus your blows are relatively more damaging.
you can also describe all physical stats for AC
Strength - ability to move your shield in teh way faster or block enemy attacks in parries easier. strength makes your defense unyielding as blows fall upon solid defense.
Dex - I'm actually sort of annoyed, as along with reflex saves, they play dexterity as your mental reaction time or something. which is wisdom as it's used for perception to act in surprise rounds for instance.
HOWEVER, being able to precisely move your squishy bits exactly out of the way and keep yourself from stumbling on the rebound keeps your defense consistent. in essence you keep your feet/hands in the proper locations, even while being pressured, and keep your balance.
constitution - mostly abstracted out as HP, but you basically can keep your defense up longer, you keep your shield raised and don't tire even when your opponent is still trying to swing his way past it. all in all this is mostly actually in game used as fort save and HP. but it can still be thought as a form of not getting hit.
Interestingly in 4e there is CON/WIS/DEX/STR/INT/CHA to both hit and damage and nobody made a fuzz about it
Saying people didn't complain about 1 weird thing about 4E is like saying that people don't complain about a specific shot in The Phantom Menace.
It's really just the tip of the iceberg, and was really just endemic of the whole problem of 4E: That being that 4E's idea of "balance" was to make everything identical.
Every class's Powers - all of them - could be ported to another class without issue. You could take a Wizard Power, give it to a Fighter, and change the word "Arcane" to "Martial" and voila! In fact several abilities WERE identical abilities: "Use: 1/Combat; 1d6+Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha damage"... woooow... SUCH design brilliance!
None of the stats mattered... everything functioned identically across all classes, anyway, but for ONE minor trick that was supposed to differentiate that class from all others, yet didn't (Rogue had a pitiful Sneak Attack, the Paladin had Smite, and those abilities never mattered in the wake of Powers).
And there really weren't any mechanical differences between all 6 stats - so having feats and powers which, cumulatively, made you use only 1 stat for everything about your class were really just Feat Taxes. WOTC would have been better off having players roll one single Allstat that's called something different for each class, rather than eat up option space and make people think that different stats actually mattered.
---
TL;DR - The system was just everyone driving identical cars, with identical keys, but with different paint jobs, different name plates, and sometimes a different set of fuzzy dice in the mirror that didn't really affect how the car performs at all.
Considering how spectacularly 4E failed and how many people jumped ship to Pathfinder, citing IT as something that "worked" is like citing the Challenger for safety features.
|
|
I'd just like the weapon selection to be a bit larger, apart from the curved elven blade (which doesn't mesh with the one-handed fighting style) there really isn't any better finesse weapon than the scimitar anyway.
What if Improved Weapon Finesse was limited to one-handed only? would people still have issues with it?
It should be all finesse weapons. Incidentally, this should also be the weapons to which Swashbucklers add their level to damage, rather than 'one handed piercing', which means heavy picks are swashbuckler weapons but daggers are not(?!?).
It should be all finesse weapons. Incidentally, this should also be the weapons to which Swashbucklers add their level to damage, rather than 'one handed piercing', which means heavy picks are swashbuckler weapons but daggers are not(?!?).I'd just like the weapon selection to be a bit larger, apart from the curved elven blade (which doesn't mesh with the one-handed fighting style) there really isn't any better finesse weapon than the scimitar anyway.
What if Improved Weapon Finesse was limited to one-handed only? would people still have issues with it?
don't forget adding the glaive and naginata to the list of finesse weapons, especially if you want either a Wushu Oriented build or something like Tiara from Faerie Fencer F.
|
|
@Aelyrinth: I know it was me that set up the comparison. This is so we could compare Str and Dex.
You're saying that hand-eye coordination is a function of BAB, and I say it's a function of Dex. The game agrees with me.
When fighting with a rapier, the entire torso is target area, because being run through is far more deadly than any cut. A normal blow with normal Str will probably be fatal, whereas a slashing weapon will be stopped by the ribs, maybe breaking some.
I make no apologies for using rapier combat in my example, since we are discussing the subject of finesse weapons and whether Str or Dex is the most important ability score when fighting with them.
We can agree that strong is better than weak and dextrous is better than clumsy, no matter which melee weapon used. We can also agree that with most weapons the Str rating has more influence on the combat than the Dex rating. What I'm trying to point out is that when using finesse weapons Dex is more important than Str. In a game like Stormbringer, Str, Dex, and Int all modify your chances so this discussion wouldn't exist. But in PF/D&D only one ability can be used, so we must choose the ability that has the most influence. I've no objection to Str being used for most weapons, but Dex makes more sense for finesse weapons.
What this game system actually says is that Str is still the ability that modifies attacks with finesse weapons, unless you have special training in the form of the feat, and then you may use Dex instead. I've never heard any objection to that, even from you. I suspect that there may be objections to a feat that allows Con to attack!
The game system still has Str to damage with finesse weapons. Is it really so strange that extra training in the form of a feat, building on the training already put in to get Weapon Finesse, should result in using Dex instead of Str to damage, with finesse weapons?
Both experience and natural ability count. When taking a player who's shot 10,000 baskets (experience), do you think his accuracy won't be affected if he gained a condition that made him clumsy?
Take NFL quarterbacks: more experience is better than less experience, but natural talent counts much more. Rookie quarterbacks with immense natural ability will out-perform very experienced players who don't have the talent. One of the inaccuracies of a level-based system is that it doesn't model reality very well in this regard. In PF a 90 year-old 20th level fighter with Str/Dex/Con of 7 will win (nearly) every time against a 20-year old 1st level commoner with Str/Dex/Con of 18. This doesn't reflect reality very well. In real life, the 20 year-old athlete beats the pensioner (nearly) every time.
Or, you know, these guys
@chbgraphicarts: I agree! Thank god for PF and it's diverse martial options in and out of combat.
I can't tell if you're joking? In combat martial options involve full attacking, full attacking, pounce charging, lance charging, full attacking, and full attacking.
Interestingly in 4e there is CON/WIS/DEX/STR/INT/CHA to both hit and damage and nobody made a fuzz about itSaying people didn't complain about 1 weird thing about 4E is like saying that people don't complain about a specific shot in The Phantom Menace.
It's really just the tip of the iceberg, and was really just endemic of the whole problem of 4E: That being that 4E's idea of "balance" was to make everything identical.
Having changed so much in a single edition-crossover, 4e got a lot of complaints -- some of them even legitimate -- and edition warriors especially seem to find joy in finding trivial bits of 4e to nitpick. So I've seen some trivial, petty petty complaints leveled at 4e. So you'd think I'd remember seeing complaints that rogues attack and damage with Dex, or that paladins can attack and damage with Cha, or that wardens can add Con to AC instead of the Dex/Int, or any of the other things that make 4e amazing. But I haven't. Not once.
So you're going to have to do better than "But we can't compare PF to 4e, because...it's 4e! Amirite, fellow 4e-haters? Amirite? Hur hur hur!" and some uninformed rantings, if you want to argue that Dex to damage is inherently problematic.
Considering how spectacularly 4E failed and how many people jumped ship to Pathfinder, citing IT as something that "worked" is like citing the Challenger for safety features.
Considering how big that chip on your shoulder is, listening to you critisize 4e is like listening to an old school grognard criticize PF for being "the latest expansion of D&D's Magic: the Gathering edition."
Anyhow, if 4e makes you see too much red to accept its example of Dex to damage, look at 5e. 5e finesse weapons give the wielder the option of Str or Dex to attack and damage, and it's a simple property that various mundane weapons have.* Not one feat required. Again, no complaints as far as I'm aware, on either the balance front or the 'realism' front.
Dex to damage may or may not be problematic balance-wise in PF -- I don't know, I haven't run the numbers -- but it is by no means inherently problematic. Balance-wise or fluff-wise.
*Oddly, the finesse weapon property specifies that a player can't opt to add say, Dex to attack and Str to damage. Which is weird, because I can't imagine why anyone'd want to use both stats...
|
|
if it was limited to light and 1handed weapons or could be dual wielded, i still have no issuesI'd just like the weapon selection to be a bit larger, apart from the curved elven blade (which doesn't mesh with the one-handed fighting style) there really isn't any better finesse weapon than the scimitar anyway.
What if Improved Weapon Finesse was limited to one-handed only? would people still have issues with it?
It already CAN be done when TWF, it just takes a specific build. (A 1 level dip into swashbuckler with Slashing Grace on Sawtoothed Sabres.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take NFL quarterbacks: more experience is better than less experience, but natural talent counts much more. Rookie quarterbacks with immense natural ability will out-perform very experienced players who don't have the talent. One of the inaccuracies of a level-based system is that it doesn't model reality very well in this regard. In PF a 90 year-old 20th level fighter with Str/Dex/Con of 7 will win (nearly) every time against a 20-year old 1st level commoner with Str/Dex/Con of 18. This doesn't reflect reality very well. In real life, the 20 year-old athlete beats the pensioner (nearly) every time.
That is an issue with level based systems. However - I don't think that comparisons can be made to real life. A 20th level character is nearly a demi-god. Real life would be an E6 game at most. :P
I don't think the game entirely has it thought out what the physical representation of dex is.
is it reaction time, precise movement, or accuracy? it's sort of all of these things, even though these are largely mental things and are even slightly covered by some mental stats. like wisdom and perception being used to counter a surprise round. yet, dex is still used to counter a surprise fireball.
|
|
Interestingly in 4e there is CON/WIS/DEX/STR/INT/CHA to both hit and damage and nobody made a fuzz about itSaying people didn't complain about 1 weird thing about 4E is like saying that people don't complain about a specific shot in The Phantom Menace.
It's really just the tip of the iceberg, and was really just endemic of the whole problem of 4E: That being that 4E's idea of "balance" was to make everything identical.
Every class's Powers - all of them - could be ported to another class without issue. You could take a Wizard Power, give it to a Fighter, and change the word "Arcane" to "Martial" and voila! In fact several abilities WERE identical abilities: "Use: 1/Combat; 1d6+Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha damage"... woooow... SUCH design brilliance!
None of the stats mattered... everything functioned identically across all classes, anyway, but for ONE minor trick that was supposed to differentiate that class from all others, yet didn't (Rogue had a pitiful Sneak Attack, the Paladin had Smite, and those abilities never mattered in the wake of Powers).
And there really weren't any mechanical differences between all 6 stats - so having feats and powers which, cumulatively, made you use only 1 stat for everything about your class were really just Feat Taxes. WOTC would have been better off having players roll one single Allstat that's called something different for each class, rather than eat up option space and make people think that different stats actually mattered.
---
TL;DR - The system was just everyone driving identical cars, with identical keys, but with different paint jobs, different name plates, and sometimes a different set of fuzzy dice in the mirror that didn't really affect how the car performs at all.
Considering how spectacularly 4E failed and how many people jumped ship to Pathfinder, citing IT as something that "worked" is like citing the Challenger for safety features.
I think 4e had problems, really terrible problems, but i also think pathfinder has terrible problems. Balance is one of them. But 4e also got many things right. Martial caster disparity? non existant, skills? all classes can contribute, saves? much better organized. And no, its not true all classes were balanced, it looks like you are one of those guys who hasnt played 4e or just tested for try, there were even tiers for classes, altought they were divided by role efficiency and not by "i can do everything/i can do thing" tiers like in 3.5 and PF.
And yeah as demostrated dex to damage is not Inherently problematic because 4e and 5e use it and they also have Skill/AC/init use of dex and yet its not a single difining thing in the game. As i said before i think the problem is that Ability scores are not equal in utility/power and i think that the main issue and why people feel so violated when they touch STR niche which is damage, since STR doesnt "seem to have any other use"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, its not true all classes were balanced, it looks like you are one of those guys who hasnt played 4e or just tested for try, there were even tiers for classes, altought they were divided by role efficiency and not by "i can do everything/i can do thing" tiers like in 3.5 and PF.
No - 4e wasn't perfectly balanced. But they did lean heavily towards to easy way of balancing - symmetry.
A game of chess or checkers is almost perfectly balanced, with a slight advantage towards the person who plays first. It's because the sides are symmetrical.
Unfortunately - symmetry can get boring, especially in a co-op game. 4e does have somewhat better balance, especially the martial/caster disparity. But they did it by removing the differences between martials and casters, and making the classes much closer to being symmetrical. Saves on monsters are all within a couple points etc.
(I do like some things 4e did. But going far too symmetrical between classes/monsters was a major issue.)
|
|
You're saying that hand-eye coordination is a function of BAB, and I say it's a function of Dex. The game agrees with me.No it doesn't. If it did - then dex would be the focus of getting a hit. It isn't. BAB is.
If this was a skill based system, then hand-eye coordination would be the natural, untrained, ability score component (or one of them) and skill/experience would be another.
But in this level-based system, hand-eye coordination is part of the definition of Dex, while BAB represents general combat skill and experience.
This game system combines a single stat with BAB. when using a finesse or ranged weapon, the hand-eye coordination factor is from the Dex bonus and the skill/experience factor is from BAB.
In real life, both Str and Dex would combine with skill. This game system forces us to choose one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelyrinth: I know it was me that set up the comparison. This is so we could compare Str and Dex.
You're saying that hand-eye coordination is a function of BAB, and I say it's a function of Dex. The game agrees with me.
When fighting with a rapier, the entire torso is target area, because being run through is far more deadly than any cut. A normal blow with normal Str will probably be fatal, whereas a slashing weapon will be stopped by the ribs, maybe breaking some.
I make no apologies for using rapier combat in my example, since we are discussing the subject of finesse weapons and whether Str or Dex is the most important ability score when fighting with them.
We can agree that strong is better than weak and dextrous is better than clumsy, no matter which melee weapon used. We can also agree that with most weapons the Str rating has more influence on the combat than the Dex rating. What I'm trying to point out is that when using finesse weapons Dex is more important than Str. In a game like Stormbringer, Str, Dex, and Int all modify your chances so this discussion wouldn't exist. But in PF/D&D only one ability can be used, so we must choose the ability that has the most influence. I've no objection to Str being used for most weapons, but Dex makes more sense for finesse weapons.
What this game system actually says is that Str is still the ability that modifies attacks with finesse weapons, unless you have special training in the form of the feat, and then you may use Dex instead. I've never heard any objection to that, even from you. I suspect that there may be objections to a feat that allows Con to attack!
The game system still has Str to damage with finesse weapons. Is it really so strange that extra training in the form of a feat, building on the training already put in to get Weapon Finesse, should result in using Dex instead of Str to damage, with finesse weapons?
Both experience and natural ability count. When taking a player who's shot 10,000 baskets (experience), do you think his...
Again, you're misconstruing what I'm saying.
Hand/eye coordination is one of the functions of Dex. When fighting, BAB is the skill that takes over, just like Dancing Skill takes over when doing that. It manifests as increased hand/eye coordination for purpose of what you are doing. As I noted before, a 10 Dex 10 Rank Dancer looks every bit as graceful as a 20 Dex 5 ranks dancer. Similarly, BAB manifests as increased hand/eye coordination in combat, above and beyond your stats. That's just what it IS.
The entire torso is a bad target if that torso is armored. It's why fencing is non-viable in serious melee combat.
A poke through the chest can slow you down and will eventually kill you. Hacking an axe into someone's chest will probably maim them and almost immediately cripple them. Both are lethal, but one stops the enemy's counterpoint.
Dex to damage doesn't make sense because 'precision hits' are covered by crits and/or sneak attacks. Furthermore, Dex to damage makes no sense against objects or hardness. Hitting a point accurately is a to hit roll, not a damage roll. Driving it in emphatically is a damage roll, and requires force and power, not precision. Precision already did its job.
As for the basketball, it's a ranged attack roll. Of course being clumsy will affect the shot. So would having an injured arm, for that matter, and so uneven Strength. But we abstract that all away and ignore it because we don't use a Wound system that penalizes for injury.
And the difference between the talented young guy and experienced older guy tends to be 1-2 pts, someone level 2-3 vs someone level 3-4. Of course stats matter more at low levels.
If he was a level 10 vs level 5, you'd see the gap. This is reflected in anime stuff where highly experienced older guys beat the snot out of talented younger guys, when in the real world it's completely the other way around. A level 20 with all stats at 12 will beat a level 10 with all stats at 20. But that's not the real world.
Even with finesse weapons, the ability to punch through a defense is important and useful. Better/worse is another argument. But saying you can't use strength with a precision weapon, especially with a high BAB, just doesn't compute.
==Aelryinth
And no, its not true all classes were balanced, it looks like you are one of those guys who hasnt played 4e or just tested for try, there were even tiers for classes, altought they were divided by role efficiency and not by "i can do everything/i can do thing" tiers like in 3.5 and PF.No - 4e wasn't perfectly balanced. But they did lean heavily towards to easy way of balancing - symmetry.
A game of chess or checkers is almost perfectly balanced, with a slight advantage twoards the person who plays first. It's because the sides are symmetrical.
Unfortunately - symmetry can get boring, especially in a co-op game. 4e does have somewhat better balance, especially the martial/caster disparity. But they did it by removing the differences between martials and casters, and making the classes much closer to being symmetrical. Saves on monsters are all within a couple points etc.
(I do like some things 4e did. But going far too symmetrical between classes/monsters was a major issue.)
Yeah, as I recall the big thing about 4E that everyone hated was all classes working on the At-Will/Encounter/Daily power system, and things like removing iconic races/classes from Core. The smaller under-the-hood changes like smoothing out save progressions, skill consolidation (which I'll note Pathfinder actually used) and eliminating HP rolls were all things I'd count in the system's favor.
|
|
Hand/eye coordination is one of the functions of Dex. When fighting, BAB is the skill that takes over, just like Dancing Skill takes over when doing that. It manifests as increased hand/eye coordination for purpose of what you are doing. As I noted before, a 10 Dex 10 Rank Dancer looks every bit as graceful as a 20 Dex 5 ranks dancer. Similarly, BAB manifests as increased hand/eye coordination in combat, above and beyond your stats. That's just what it IS.
You're conflating hand-eye coordination with learned skill. It's certainly possible to create a game engine where these are treated as the same thing, but this game system doesn't.
When taking a shot at range, part of the way this game system treats the modifiers to that roll is that part is from natural untrained ability score. In this case, they choose Dex, the ability which is defined as including coordination. The other main part is from learned skill/experience. In one of your previous posts you mentioned that a guy who had shot 1000 times would be better than a guy who has only shot 50 times (or similar numbers). Fair enough, I agree. But this difference is measured in the game by the BAB gained from experience and the class levels bought with it, what the real world would categorise as skill. But the game system also gives a modifier from the Dex score, and since Dex covers coordination, then the part of the total modifier that comes from hand-eye coordination is the part which is given by the Dex modifier, and this mirrors real life natural ability.
Dex to damage doesn't make sense because 'precision hits' are covered by crits and/or sneak attacks. Furthermore, Dex to damage makes no sense against objects or hardness. Hitting a point accurately is a to hit roll, not a damage roll. Driving it in emphatically is a damage roll, and requires force and power, not precision. Precision already did its job.
Driving the point of a rapier through a torso takes very little strength.
We have to work within the basic design parameters of the system. A better simulation of the influence Dex has on damage would be to modify the crit range of any weapon you use by your Dex mod. In the hands of a fencer of Dex 7, then the rapier would only crit on a nat 20, while in the hands of a fencer with Dex 26 and Improved Critical, then the rapier would threaten a crit on a 7-20. this would accurately model our tropes of Inigo Montoya et al, where nearly every attack is a possible run through, and it would also help protect all those delicate bricks that you seem so concerned about. If PF used this system I'd be pleasantly surprised. Shocked actually. But this is beyond my expectations of this game and what the devs seem willing to do. What they could be open to is Dex to damage.
Lest we forget, the realism we look for in the game is not the realism of real life (dragons? Wizards?), but the realism of kur fantasy tropes. We should be able to make and play heroes that resemble our shared fantasy tropes, and if we can accept dragons and wizards, there should be no problem in suspending our disbelief enough to allow Dex to damage alongside fire-breathing and wishes.
And the difference between the talented young guy and experienced older guy tends to be 1-2 pts, someone level 2-3 vs someone level 3-4. Of course stats matter more at low levels.
Er...not sure where you're getting those figures from, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.
If he was a level 10 vs level 5, you'd see the gap. This is reflected in anime stuff where highly experienced older guys beat the snot out of talented younger guys, when in the real world it's completely the other way around. A level 20 with all stats at 12 will beat a level 10 with all stats at 20. But that's not the real world.
This is what I was talking about earlier! You seem quite happy to accept the unrealistic but common trope of 'experienced older guy beats snot out of healthier younger guy', but unwilling to allow the even more common trope of 'lightly-armoured dextrous fighter beats the snot out of a heavily-armoured strong dude'. Play what you want to play, but it's poor form to tell other people what tropes you'll allow them to play.
Even with finesse weapons, the ability to punch through a defense is important and useful. Better/worse is another argument. But saying you can't use strength with a precision weapon, especially with a high BAB, just doesn't compute.
I don't believe that a finesse weapon cannot be used with strength, either in the game or in reality. I'm saying that some weapons are designed to benefit from high Dex and reduce the role of strength, and with those weapons, given that this game system insists that we choose a single ability when in reality both abilities would influence the result, then the best choice is Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachai, you're trying really, really hard to say that high BAB is not equivalent of excellent hand/eye coordination for the purposes of weapon-wielding, and I'm not buying it. It is indeed skill and practice and repetition, and how it manifests is improved hand-eye coordination in melee combat. You have greater control, focus, and deftness with your weapon from long practice. It's going to manifest as the equivalent of better precision and faster speed.
It's certainly not increased POWER, now, is it? Nor is it fantastic insight. A guy with 10 BAB and 12 Dex spinning around a weapon will be every bit as graceful and coordinated with his weapon as some guy with 5 BAB and 22 Dex. Except, of course, he gets twice as many attacks.
Driving a rapier through a chest can take tremendous force, if that torso is wearing a leather cuirass and not skin. it's night impossible if you are wearing scaled mail or a breastplate, and I don't even want to think about dragonscale.
Basically, unless you've a soft target, you're wrong on this point. And you are consistently arguing for soft, squishy targets to make your point. How about a treant? Gorgon? Elemental? Drake? IN effect, your argument is weapon design does what it does, it is not an argument for Dex. Indeed, you could say it's an argument against any ability bonus whatsoever to damage. Increasing the threat range also makes no sense, as I could make the same argument for ANY weapon that more penetration = better crit chance, and high Str definitely allows for more penetration.
I'm getting those figures from the real world. The highest level human who ever lived in reality might be level 6. The rest of us tend to be level 2-3. Elites might be 4th. The best in the world MIGHT be 5, but are likely just talented 3's and 4's.
And at low levels, stats are more important then levels for many purposes.
And no, that's not what you were talking about earlier. Old guys beat young guys is a trope, not reality, but it's a trope Pathfinder reflects in the level system.
Young guy beats old guy is reality, because in real life levels are limited and stat mods dominate when levels are limited.
Dexterous guy manhandles armored guy is a trope, it is NOT a reflection of reality. Barring a significant skill gap, armored guy will win that fight...that's why people wore armor for 3000 years to fights. So, armored guy beats unarmored guy has the advantage of both trope and reality on its side. INigo Montoya's victory is better reflected by the fact he's one of the greatest swordsmen in the land, i.e. high level, and the soldiers are mooks. IN 4E, they'd be 1 hp minions, there to be disposed of to show how awesome the characters are.
If you want to throw reality out the door, by all means. But you've been trying to justify it with reality, and it's just not the case. The problem we have with Dex to damage is not existence, it's that Str gets nothing to counterpoise it. Anything can be handwaved and arguments made for it in a magical realm.
But Strength gets no love in return, and every other stat chips away at it. Balance!
==Aelryinth
Here's a compromise that brings dex guys to the table without dex to damage. This should only work if there is no way to get dex to damage.
agile combatant: prerequisites: weapon finesse, dex 19
Agile combatants are gifted at exploiting their enemies weaknesses by leveraging their agility. While using a light or finesse weapon, the critical threshold is increased by one for every two points of your dexterity modifier. This feat overlaps with the improved critical feat.
the only way I can consider dex to damage is that through better posture and thus stability and force, the character is better able to leverage his body weight as his force instead of his muscle strength.
I can't believe this is even being debated. Just for balance, Strength has to have the most important role in damage. It's debatable whether the default for "to hit" with light weapons should be Strength or Dexterity. If I'd designed it, I might have made "to hit" by default Dexterity, but with a feat, the reverse of Weapon Finesse, it could become Strength; though with heavy weapons the "to hit" would be Strength based.
Still, it's one feat to get "to hit" with light weapons based on Dexterity, so it's not a big deal.
But letting Dexterity do everything in combat is pretty ridiculous. The tropes referred to about smaller weaker guys outmaneuvering bigger guys generally involve outsmarting them.
Bringing up 4e as if it's a good thing makes little sense to me on a PF board, because don't we play PF rather than 4e because we wanted further development but don't like the 4e changes?
I'd support as suggested a feat allowing Dexterity to increase critical hit chances, but it should be on the confirmation roll, stacking with Critical Focus and Weapon Finesse, which might add the Dex modifier to critical confirmation rolls, reflecting precision. Adding to critical threat ranges runs too much risk of being overpowered, but making confirmation easier seems reasonable.
I don't agree here. Sure balance is important, but the most important part of a game la Pathfinder is ''am I able to do X Idea''? We're not talking about a jedi character, but a dex based character, something any story got (be it Legolas with his 2 knifes, Dartagnan or even Zhao Yun from Legend of the 3 kingdoms). And now, it's not possible, except if you go Magus or Swatchbukler. And I found it quite bad for ''concept'' creation.
Will it be broken? I doubt it. Initiative is not that important for a melee (in fact, you like when you start with a pesky goblin in your face), Dex will not be a great advantage in AC at low level (heavy armor and medium armor will do the job) and it should do less damage than the classic strengh build (nobody here talk to give the 1.5X Dex to two-handed damages). Also, dex to damage should help what? Magus? They already got it with Dervish Dancer. Rogue and Ninja? Well, they would be closer to being good... Fighter? The number one MAD class, giving it the option to drop Strengh to 11 is not that ''awsome''.
No, it would not be ''too good for the game''. For 2 feats you could do almost the damage of a strengh build with 0 feat... Add power attack and weapon focus and the Stregn build stay a little bit in front of the Dex build. But just a little bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance argument is defeated by the existance of dex to damage, if dex to damage was broken every fighter and barbarian would be using dervish dance and this is not true.
Not completely defeated. Dervish Dance can't let you fight with 2 weapons, or use a 2 handed weapon (elven blade). So sure, the gap in power is here, and only some class (like the Magus) can exploit it.
even with 1.5x Dex to damage when finessing a dex based glaive or dex based curve blade, the 2 feats is a huge investment when you only get one per 2 levels before race and class. not every PC is a human character with 7 extra bonus feats to spare, 6 of which are blatantly combat feats and those that come anywhere close in the number of feats, tend to have the downside of having highly restricted lists to choose those feats from. plus with the limitiation to finesseable weapons and the need to still have some strength for ranged combat and for wearing your gear, most people aren't really going to logically dump their strength below 13 unless they wanted to only be good with finesse weapons, and a strength of 14 works pretty well with a composite bow.
with a sub 12 strength, there isn't a lot of good light armor you can wear except the silken ceremonial robe or darkleaf leather, when with a 13ish, you can wear mithril kikko, the best light armor in the game for those without medium armor proficiency and carry a workable backpack