Please, explain to me why Dex to damage costs so much in terms of character resources

[Ckorik]

Any of them can be used in the mainhand - you only need a light weapon in your offhand for the reduction.

[Charon's Little Helper]

mplindustries wrote:

..., it seems your argument is now, "Dex to damage needs to wait through 3 levels/feats because a single, specific build using a single, specific weapon, is slightly stronger in ideal situations."

My arugment is that dex to damage is a powerful combat style and it should have significant costs involved to keep from being OP.

My example was to prove that dex to damage already does slightly higher DPR at a cost - while retaining all secondary advantages of a high dex. Not a bad balance at present. (though I still don't like it aesthetically - that's not a balance factor)

If you remove the bulk of the cost with Deadly Agility, it becomes even more powerful and removes the bulk of the drawback/balancing factor.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Ckorik wrote:

Any of them can be used in the mainhand - you only need a light weapon in your offhand for the reduction.

That's true for classes other than fighter (who invests too much in a single weapon) and if Deadly Agility is available. With Slashing Grace - you only get dex-to-damage for the chosen weapon.

[Deadmanwalking]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

Any of them can be used in the mainhand - you only need a light weapon in your offhand for the reduction.

That's true for classes other than fighter (who invests too much in a single weapon) and if Deadly Agility is available. With Slashing Grace - you only get dex-to-damage for the chosen weapon.

Fencing Grace + Effortless Lace allows the same TWF build as Sawtooth Sabres with a different (less obtrusive) look, one less Feat, and a bit more monetary investment.

Kalindlara wrote:

I wouldn't even mind the WF so much if it weren't chained to the swash-splash. :/

You can get Fencing Grace easily enough without Swashbuckler.

[Prince of Knives]

Hey, ah, folks? Are any of these calculations regarding TWF damage taking into account that having to move 10 or more feet turns off your TWF entirely, with all significant sources of pounce incentivizing Str instead of Dex?

[wraithstrike]

mplindustries wrote:

In Golarion, it was my understanding that sawtooth sabers are only found in the hands of red mantis assassins. In almost any other setting, I would be unlikely to include them.

This is not true. The Red Mantis assassins actually like for others to use their blades as long as they are used with the proper technique. Otherwise they may come to visit you.

Quote:

Then, I asked about common buff spells, which I see was ignored. I have never encountered a level 10 party without Haste (or Blessing of Fervor) and Enlarge Person. Oh, and the extra feats. Furious Focus, maybe? I'm sure there are others.

I actually mentioned haste, and that it pulls the two-hander ahead again.

wraithstrike wrote:

That weapon is not the issue. STR-Ranger, another poster here was the one that helped me notice the how good TWF was for certain classes.

mpl wrote:

Yes, but they are literally the only weapons in the game that both get Dex to damage from Slashing Grace and only give you a -2 penalty in the offhand. Everything else would hurt you accuracy or force you to go with a +1 Agile weapon instead of a +2 weapon, hurting both accuracy and damage. So, no, I kind of think the weapon is an issue here.

Maybe not the only issue, and I am impressed in general with how far TWF has come from the days of being a total joke, but I still don't think Dex to damage "broke" that build. As you said, it's good with Strength, too.

I specifically explained that I was going off of your idea that you wanted dex to be more open. Going off of that the weapon is not the issue. If you allow dex to be applied more openly the same thing happens with other weapons. If we are not discussing you wanting dex to be more open then what are we discussing?

Also I never said dex to damage "broke" anything.

Oh, I see you missed where I said I was applying it to other weapons as if it did work.

Well that confusion is cleared, but I am still confused as to what you are asking for since the math shows that dex to damage does matter. It gains a substantial margin at higher levels. I am predicting(via math) my level 11 slayer will have a 20 point difference between when he uses power attack(1 weapon), and when he uses TWF. If he had dex to damage I could ignore strength to a large extent, and the distance would be greater.

Like I said, I like the idea of dex to damage, but it should not come too cheaply.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Hey, ah, folks? Are any of these calculations regarding TWF damage taking into account that having to move 10 or more feet turns off your TWF entirely, with all significant sources of pounce incentivizing Str instead of Dex?

I did mention moving & DR both being disadvantages of TWF.

However - I'm not sure where you get the idea that "all significant sources of pounce incentivizing Str instead of Dex". The only one I can think of leaning that way at all is the barbarian - and not only do they have a dex archetype, but I believe the unchained version just increases to-hit & damage as opposed to improving stats at all. (Though I haven't run the #s - I don't think barbarian is a great TWF class anyway - even the dex variant.)

Other versions of pounce off the top of my head -

1. Wildshape can be either to something big or small.

2. Pummeling Charge/Flying Kick is equal both ways. Actually - monks tend to do best as dex builds or their defense suffers far too much.

3. Kitsune have a feat for pouncing - but since they get +2 dex & -2 str...

That's it off the top of my head.

None of them benefit more from strength than dex. If anything - the opposite is true since a dex build generally mean lighter armor, and lighter armor means a better charge/pounce range. Did I miss one that's strength based?

[wraithstrike]

Cap. Darling wrote:

@mpl

Dex to hit and damage is no little thing even if the bard is mostly a caster. I blame the min/max crowd for making us think that you can only contribute in mele if you can kill a CR APL dude in 3 rounds. If the bard want to be casti and have a high dex and be worth somthing in melee i dont mind him paying a few feats. He can get str as secondary stat and be good from level 1.
If he want to be dex based and be a caster bard he will be fine with dex to hit from level 1 and getting the rest later. Just like a figther that want to contribute in buffing need a decent cha and cant get battle cry until level 5.

It is 2 rounds. :)

And you do not need to min/max to make a 2 round kill. That is a basic character built to do damage as its primary job.

In addition the 2 round kill is assuming 2 full round attacks, not two actual rounds in gameplay, since unless you are an archer or pouncer you are not likely to start off the 1st round with a full round attack anyway.

Also nobody is saying you have to do X to contribute for every table. The baseline is assuming several things such as stock monsters from the book.

There is also no min/max crowd. Nobody can even agree on what min/max means. One person will tell you it means to focus all on one thing and ignore everything else. Someone else will say it means to minimize all weaknesses and maximize all of your strengths.

edit: ok, so 2 rounds is the standard. The super optimization standard is one round. :)

[Kalindlara]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

AncientSpark wrote:

I actually agree that I don't mind Dex to damage having opportunity cost, that being two feats (Weapon Finesse + one of the Dex to damage feats). What personally drives me nuts is that Dex to damage isn't playable from level 1 without Human, since Dervish Dance requires 2 ranks in Dance and Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace requires Weapon Focus as well as Weapon Finesse.

Is that just me or does that bother anyone else as well?

This is a big thing for me. I shouldn't have to be useless for two whole levels.

Oh come on... two levels? please... grab a crossbow for a while, or toss the odd alchemist fire. Provide flanks to the others or just use the aid another action. Walk around with the healing wand or have a potion ready for a downed combatant.

"Being useless" is entirely someone's choice and not something forced down their throat by lack of feats.

You probably meant "not optimized" for two levels, but if you really meant "useless" you're exaggerating, and if you don't see the wisdom in 'paying' for the privilege to use Dex to damage in the form of waiting two levels, then don't: from now on only play characters that have high STR and can dish lots of hurt right from level 1. You *have* a choice.

My "fighter" had +1 to hit for 1d6 damage. What do you call that?

This example comes from an actual campaign. I was trying to play a Dawnflower Dervish in Legacy of Fire. However, Dervish Dance isn't available at level one, so until then, I'm flailing around with a non-finessable scimitar.

I could have used a crossbow. I assume NPCs would have been hired to keep the wizard and oracle out of melee, since I would have been flagrantly disregarding my role as their protector.

I could have walked around with a healing wand. Which I had no way to use. At first level. You know how campaigns work, right? Or does your GM just start you with those?

I could have played some sort of totally generic out-of-the-box burly moron like everyone expects. At that point, if I can't play the character I came to play, why bother showing up?

[wraithstrike]

Assuming you want dex to damage I am assuming you had high dex. How are you only having a +1 to hit? Weapon finesse is available at level 1 for fighters.

[Kalindlara]

Not for scimitars.

[kestral287]

Since I already knew I was going to reply to this thread, let's beat an argument from over a hundred posts back for a moment:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

An example:

Had a group with a warpriest and dex to dmg was allowed.

What happened? This wp outclassed everyone in combat and was untouchable by npcs.
This was early levels, later levels it normalises.

Counterexample: I have a group in which the Dex-Alchemist is inferior to my Str-Magus in almost every category (he has a better Reflex save, by 1. Less initiative, less AC even when he chugs the Mutagen... he's better on the Dex skills simply because he's invested in some of them and for the most part I haven't). My character is the one who frustrated the GM by being untouchable unless he rolls a crit, and spends a lot of time playing meat shield to the Alchemist. We're still on the low end of levels.

Single examples don't mean much, because there's a lot of stuff in play behind the scenes.

Comparison between 2 different classes which can be built each in many ways (especially alchemist), generaly frontliners are more stereotypical (fighter ranger barb, exceptions will akways exist).

I assure you I can put together a magus with better defenses than str one (kensai, kapenia). You're totally right that there are.many things in play but you cant ignore examples because they are the basis to analyse anything practical, case studies.

You however bring another example which is as valid and does not invalidate any other.

The issue with dex to dmg in my opinion is that in some cases it can be too good. Most cases I think are those where a class has been given tools to compensate for having High dex but medium/low str or high str with medium/low dex (or low high saves). Add in Dex to dmg and this design principle doesnt function as well.

If Dex to dmg existed as easily as a feat, i know that personally i could make too weakness-free characters, easier than now. I really dislike no weaknesses because it is unintereating and gets your teammates killed when the gm challenges you.

1. The example Magus actually is a Kensai. It's a core aspect of the shenanigans involved.

2. Unless every character in your example was a Warpriest, the example stands.

3. The point of the counterexample is twofold: first, to indicate that singular examples are meaningless until you prove that they represent a larger trend. And second, to lead into exactly the argument that you made: with different classes comparisons fall apart. Which means that unless every character in your example is a Warpriest... you've indicated nothing.

4. The real difference-maker, for my group? System mastery. Which is another reason why the individual examples fall apart.

5. And, hilariously, the reason I built a Str-based Kensai? Under the operating conditions I built her under, she can hit harder and more accurately than her comparable Dex build. This is precisely because I can better access Str boosts than Dex boosts, a point mlp has been making repeatedly.

Could you make one with better AC? Sure. If I converted things wholesale to Dex, she'd be trading +4 to hit/damage for +10 AC (at level 20) over my current projections, but only +5 over my maximum at that level with the Str build. That is, however, well into the point of diminishing returns. The difference between AC66/71 and AC76 is, frankly, less noticeable than the difference between +39 to hit and +43 to hit. The cost of that +4 to hit/damage outweighs benefits at this point, and that's before we get into buff accessability.

Prince of Knives wrote:

Hey, ah, folks? Are any of these calculations regarding TWF damage taking into account that having to move 10 or more feet turns off your TWF entirely, with all significant sources of pounce incentivizing Str instead of Dex?

Technically not true; the Alchemist can run a Dex build about as well as Strength and can access Pounce via Beastmorph.

You can at best call it mildly inferior because the Dex-Mutagen cuts down Int, but that's a minor cost since you don't lose prepared extracts for it and the Alchemist doesn't work with DCs often. It might be a slight problem for bomb-throwing Alchs, but at that point we're outside the discussion anyway (and I emphasize 'slight' problem). Also, Unchained/Urban Barbarian beg to differ. Though in terms of raw numbers, the Unchained Barbarian is behind a straight Barbarian in damage output unless they have Greater Heroism running on them.

To switch gears, I asked this question this morning:

kestral287 wrote:

So, to those insisting that Strength get some more benefits...

Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?

Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?

I'm honestly curious.

I found the results interesting enough to compile and discuss.

Just a Guess wrote:

For me clearly AC.

But those wanting dex to damage already have dex to hit and want a second one.

To hit the second point now, the first will come at the end: Dex to hit is minimally useful without Dex to Damage; it merely forces you to divide your stats and results in a generally weak character overall. Archers can get away with it, but only because archery is such a strong combat style overall.

"mplindustries wrote:

If I could add Str to stuff Dex does, I would go with Initiative and, yeah, probably AC, but only because there's little else Dex does and I would want the movement speed from light armor. If there was a "you can move at normal speed in heavier armors" feat with a strength pre requisite, dex would mean very little.

In general, though, I would rather some consistency. I would prefer Dex to damage NOT be a thing at all, but since it is, I want it to be easier/less painful.

Seriously, what does a dex warrior do for the first 2 levels? What about the non humans reliant on Slashing Grace? What do for the first FOUR levels? It's not even like a spellcaster who can still cast color spray, sleep, grease, and other useful stuff.

Kudaku wrote:

Initiative, ranged attacks (but only with thrown weapons), the option to negate armor check penalties and/or movement speed penalties, and finally some more skill options.

If I could only do one of those, I'd go with strength to hit with thrown weapons. Strength becomes the best offensive stat for melee and close range combat, being able to switch seamlessly between two-handing their greataxe and lobbing throwing axes at the enemy if they run out of melee targets. Dexterity is still the more rounded stat, with decent offense and defense (via superior reflex saves) as well as high accuracy but lower damage output with bows and crossbows.

Bow users would still excel compared to thrown weapons since they don't need to sink 1-2 feats into the new "powerful throw" option, and they still have feats not available to throwing weapons (such as Manyshot).

Ventnor wrote:

Will saves.

Going to take this moment to point out that there's no way to get Dex to Will saves.

Overall, not as many answers as I'd really hoped but there are some commonalities.

Strength to Initiative would be interesting. For a while, I toyed around with the concept of a feat that let a character subtract their Strength score from enemies' initiative (I was torn between all enemies, one enemy, or all enemies within X range. Never resolved that and forgot about the feat).

The AC one... I found odd. This is largely because a while back, there was an 'Unarmored Warriors' thread that was asking for ways to make an unarmored combatant not Die Horribly. For fun I whipped up a feat that let a character add their Dex mod to AC twice, as long as they wore no other armor and didn't add any stat but Dex to AC. I sat down and ran the end-game numbers for a pair of Fighters and... Dex was only just ahead in AC. With double their Dex bonus. Now, sure, they didn't have actual armor on, but I was assuming full-out maxed Dex bonus (+13 modifier), which is beyond what any armor can grant. I actually expect that they'd be roughly equal, in a real game. The Fullplate Guy did have to spend more money, admittedly, but it was a small fraction of his wealth (I think like 5%).

Mobility makes a great deal of sense though. I know more than once I've turned away from heavy armor due to the reduced movement speed.

So! Follow-up question for folks who actually read all of this.

Assume you're in a world where Weapon Finesse II is a legal feat. It grants Dex-to-Damage with all weapons that you can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with, in melee only of course. In that world, you also have a feat that allows you to add your Str score to Initiative, and one to allow you to move at full speed in any armor (with a Str 15 requirement). Are you happy? Why or why not?

Scenario the second: Assume you're in a world where Super Weapon Finesse exists, which is as Weapon Finesse but also grants you Dex-to-Damage (essentially, you get both with one feat). The Swashbuckler/Daring Champion are altered to fit this paradigm. You have the same two feats as above. Are you happy? Why or why not?

[wraithstrike]

Kalindlara wrote:

Not for scimitars.

Then why not use another weapon until your scimitar comes online?

Sometimes the concept is not possible at level 1 for whatever reason. I dont think one or two levels of waiting is bad. I have had to wait longer for things to come online. You did not have to be stuck with that +1. You chose to do so. What you could not choose was to apply the feat to the scimitar.

It's not that I am not sympathetic. My build won't come online until level 5. I just look at it as my guy is still training to get to where he needs to be.

[Arachnofiend]

Bandw2 wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

I disagree--heavy armor is basically already Strength to AC.

my str 10 character with a mithral breastplate disagrees

Mithral Breastplate is light armor. Not even regular breastplate is heavy armor.

[Kalindlara]

I'm kind of with you on the scimitar/rapier thing, Wraithstrike. There were a lot of other issues with that campaign. Sorry if I came off as angry, but the tone of one of the posts I responded to really set me off.

As for the main conceit of the thread, I've never once seen a situation where easy Dex to damage would have ruined the game any more than any forum-optimized character. I'd rather have people be able to play the iconic characters they want. If that means the niche kukri-warpriest gets a little more powerful, so be it; I'd rather not render Dex-based characters useless just to stop that.

[wraithstrike]

kestral287 wrote:

Assume you're in a world where Weapon Finesse II is a legal feat. It grants Dex-to-Damage with all weapons that you can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with, in melee only of course. In that world, you also have a feat that allows you to add your Str score to Initiative, and one to allow you to move at full speed in any armor (with a Str 15 requirement). Are you happy? Why or why not?

Scenario the second: Assume you're in a world where Super Weapon Finesse exists, which is as Weapon Finesse but also grants you Dex-to-Damage (essentially, you get both with one feat). The Swashbuckler/Daring Champion are altered to fit this paradigm. You have the same two feats as above. Are you happy? Why or why not?

1. Strength to init makes no sense to me so I am already not happy. With dex to AC at least I can look at it as a precision type thing.

2. No. Being able to ignore a stat you want to use should be more than a one feat investment in this case. If you have to add a feat just to bring the original stat that is intended to be used back in line, that to me is not balance. In such a world strength should have some bearing on how fast you move in armor already, without needing a feat to do so.

To a large extent the game is about resource management. Strength really does not do a whole lot once you take away melee combat and carrying gear. So str would have to innately be tied to more things or dex would have to lose some things before I allowed dex to attack, and dex to damage all in one feat.

[Maezer]

kestral287 wrote:

Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?

Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?

From most popular to least, but I think they would all see more use than feats that currently increase the given Dex dependent rule.

1. Armor Class. Generally a feat nets you +1 rarely 2 AC. This could net you 4+, and lets you use light/no armor for likely increased speed to boot.

2. Ranged attack bonus. This would be such a boon for strength based melee combatants. I think you would see a fair number of archers taking it as well so they can get both hit and damage on one stat as well. Put them closer to where 2wf is currently.

3. Initiative. Initiative is really good. This could get a lot of mileage especially for a hybrid caster/fighter (think cleric/magus/bard). I think this would out scale improved initiative which is generally considered a reasonably good feat.

4. Reflex save. Going to provide you significantly more bonus than lightning reflexes.

5. Skills. Again this is likely to net you a greater benefit than Skill focus or the +2/+2 skill feats. And of course it would likely stack, so anyone focusing heavily on a given skill will want all the bonus it can get.

[Atarlost]

Maezer wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

Let's say you could have two feats. Each can add Strength to any one thing Dex does, replacing it outright. What do you go for?

Dial it back, say you had one feat. What do you go for?

From most popular to least, but I think they would all see more use than feats that currently increase the given Dex dependent rule.

1. Armor Class. Generally a feat nets you +1 rarely 2 AC. This could net you 4+, and lets you use light/no armor for likely increased speed to boot.

2. Ranged attack bonus. This would be such a boon for strength based melee combatants. I think you would see a fair number of archers taking it as well so they can get both hit and damage on one stat as well. Put them closer to where 2wf is currently.

3. Initiative. Initiative is really good. This could get a lot of mileage especially for a hybrid caster/fighter (think cleric/magus/bard). I think this would out scale improved initiative which is generally considered a reasonably good feat.

4. Reflex save. Going to provide you significantly more bonus than lightning reflexes.

5. Skills. Again this is likely to net you a greater benefit than Skill focus or the +2/+2 skill feats. And of course it would likely stack, so anyone focusing heavily on a given skill will want all the bonus it can get.

1. Dex greater than 16 doesn't contribute to AC unless you're armor restricted. But it's about fast twitch muscles and both strength and dexterity represent that in their primary effects.

2. Strength should be the only possible attack stat for bows and wisdom for crossbows. Dexterity has little to do with it. It's being able to hold the bow at full draw long enough to aim or having good eye sight.

3. Initiative has nothing to do with either strength or dexterity. Being able to act quickly is mental and belongs under intelligence or wisdom.

4. Again, strength and dexterity describe the same physical attribute for most purposes.

5. Stealth is about careful movement which I think would be fine motor control. Disable device is definitely fine motor control. Those two are definitely not under strength. Acrobatics is balance (no stat), proprioception (no stat), and fast twitch muscles. Fly is largely endurance and shouldn't be allowed under dex at all.

Really the stats should be merged with the stuff that doesn't belong in common moved off to con or int or wis.

[wraithstrike]

Dexterity in the game is also about hand-eye coordination, even though it is not directly stated. That is why it is applied to ranged weapons. I do agree that intelligence or wisdom would have been good for init. More likely a combination of either one with dexterity, since physical quickness would also matter.

[Errant Mercenary]

Kestral, fair points. However I think, at least for me this is a System mastery issue. I dont mind the nonoptimiser getting dex to dmg much. I mind the optimiser who can make a very potent and excesive character (example, said warpriest).

Damage is not my main concern, it is the combination of all that dex offers.

Simple excercise for your counter example: Build a str kensai. Then build a dex kensai. You get access to dex to dmg feat.
Tell me, which is superior? Which is the most well rounded? Which spends his point buy in fewer stats?
Better ac, init, skill, touch ac, reflex, to-hit (point buy reasons), most AoO(thou kensai later levels even this), most spells (pointbuy again), best ranged/ray touch, skills...etc.
Str kensai does a little more damage (something magus isnt lacking anyway).

Id chose the Dex one every time from a mechanic point of view (i play str magus too though :) )

I hope I illustrate what I mean and what posters in the thread say: Dex to dmg is cool but not when it makes str a straight inferior option every time.

The past 100 posts have dealt with DPR for various classes and dex/twf, so apart from a few outliers such as magus, this isnt a damage issue.

[Errant Mercenary]

Kalindlara wrote:

As for the main conceit of the thread, I've never once seen a situation where easy Dex to damage would have ruined the game any more than any forum-optimized character. I'd rather have people be able to play the iconic characters they want. If that means the niche kukri-warpriest gets a little more powerful, so be it; I'd rather not render Dex-based characters useless just to stop that.

Same here, allowing options is good.

But what when you got to give that character a challenge? You risk destroying every one else around him. Or they watch as 1 guy could solo the encounter.
The rules shouldnt make this harder. And you cant always tweak things (easy APs..).

This happens anyway with strong builds and some casters. Not a reason to let it happen more.

I advocate Dex to Dmg but with caveat. Make it a choice at character creation without feat tax but divide whaf Dex does into other attributes, for example. Or give STR more somewhere.

Dex to dmg as a single standalone feat makes strength obsolete. We're talking build rules and therefore balance between choices.

If someone thinks that balance is not necessary, there is no discussion to be had, the problem doesnt affect them :)

[Kalindlara]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

However I think, at least for me this is a System mastery issue. I dont mind the nonoptimiser getting dex to dmg much. I mind the optimiser who can make a very potent and excesive character (example, said warpriest).

I think this is part of my issue as well - when non-optimizers can't have nice things because of the possibility of optimizers using them.

I like that the Unchained rogue has access to Dex-to-damage. If they could find a way to grant it to a few others (swashbucklers - check, ninjas, dervish-style fighters, etc.) without granting it to everybody under the sun (magi probably didn't need it), I'd be a lot happier.

[Kalindlara]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

As for the main conceit of the thread, I've never once seen a situation where easy Dex to damage would have ruined the game any more than any forum-optimized character. I'd rather have people be able to play the iconic characters they want. If that means the niche kukri-warpriest gets a little more powerful, so be it; I'd rather not render Dex-based characters useless just to stop that.

Same here, allowing options is good.

But what when you got to give that character a challenge? You risk destroying every one else around him. Or they watch as 1 guy could solo the encounter.
The rules shouldnt make this harder. And you cant always tweak things (easy APs..).

This happens anyway with strong builds and some casters. Not a reason to let it happen more.

I advocate Dex to Dmg but with caveat. Make it a choice at character creation without feat tax but divide whaf Dex does into other attributes, for example. Or give STR more somewhere.

Dex to dmg as a single standalone feat makes strength obsolete. We're talking build rules and therefore balance between choices.

If someone thinks that balance is not necessary, there is no discussion to be had, the problem doesnt affect them :)

I never said balance wasn't necessary. Stop putting words in my mouth.

This warpriest build is being used as a reason to deny anyone ever from having Dex-to-damage. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statements.

As I said in my previous post, a way to give it to those who need it would be best. I'd be just fine with a way to restrict it from being used with two-weapon fighting.

[Errant Mercenary]

I did not state you said that, I was attempting to discuss possibilities of the Dex thing (dissociated from the patagraph that quotes you, the use of "someone" and a smiley).
Sorry if I made it sound such, please dont take things personally, I strive to understand and discuss.

I wrote earlier that things got designed before DEX/DMG and when it comes around it skips those design principles.
It isnt just the warpriest but many classes that create this result (see the DPR posts and combine with dex's utility).
Try it with palas, rangers, fighters, monks, etc, it just has better results.

I want to be able to chose Str knowing its not all around inferior to Dex, and vice versa. Dex to dmg without investment/ caveats makes Str inferior and we re back to square one.

[LoneKnave]

DEX to damage doesn't make monsters that destroy balance so much you can't challenge them without obliterating the others.

Even the hyper specialized TWF DEX fighter who doesn't get online until like level 8 wins by a scant 10% (and only when ignoring haste and other buff spells, AoOs, rounds you can't full attack in, etc.) of damage. If that STR fighter spends those 6-7 extra feats the DEX fighter is paying (and the extra money from only using one weapon) to patch up skills/saves/initiative, I wouldn't be surprised if he came out ahead.

No, what does that ("that" being destroy balance), is s~%* like having 2 bad saves and then having effects that remove you from an encounter on a failed save be a commonplace.

"Oh jeez, I could have this monster whose ability has a save DC that challenges the Wizard's Will, but doing so means that everyone without a strong Will save or immunity autofails the save. I know! I'll make failing a save result in the encounter being effectively over for that character! Genius!"

[Kalindlara]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

I did not state you said that, I was attempting to discuss possibilities of the Dex thing (dissociated from the patagraph that quotes you, the use of "someone" and a smiley).

Sorry if I made it sound such, please dont take things personally, I strive to understand and discuss.

I see. Sorry. :)

[Chengar Qordath]

Kalindlara wrote:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

However I think, at least for me this is a System mastery issue. I dont mind the nonoptimiser getting dex to dmg much. I mind the optimiser who can make a very potent and excesive character (example, said warpriest).

I think this is part of my issue as well - when non-optimizers can't have nice things because of the possibility of optimizers using them.

I like that the Unchained rogue has access to Dex-to-damage. If they could find a way to grant it to a few others (swashbucklers - check, ninjas, dervish-style fighters, etc.) without granting it to everybody under the sun (magi probably didn't need it), I'd be a lot happier.

It's not like taking away dex-to-damage would stop anyone from making an optimized character either. Besides, when it comes to optimizing everyone knows the best characters are casters, not sword-swingers.

[mplindustries]

wraithstrike wrote:

Well that confusion is cleared, but I am still confused as to what you are asking for since the math shows that dex to damage does matter. It gains a substantial margin at higher levels. I am predicting(via math) my level 11 slayer will have a 20 point difference between when he uses power attack(1 weapon), and when he uses TWF. If he had dex to damage I could ignore strength to a large extent, and the distance would be greater.

Like I said, I like the idea of dex to damage, but it should not come too cheaply.

I think I am actually convinced that Dex to damage, in the context of a game where there are ways to make a dual wielder with only a -2 penalty to hit (rather than the -4), is a dangerous thing.

So, in what context could it be ok to get it cheaply and easily?

kestral287 wrote:

Mobility makes a great deal of sense though. I know more than once I've turned away from heavy armor due to the reduced movement speed.

I basically never play characters wearing more than light armor because of the speed issue. I wouldn't want to play anyone with less than 30' speed, either, to be honest. Movement speed and reach are two of the most important factors in determining "true" DPR. Everything on paper showing all-the-time-full-attacking falls apart very quickly in actual play, because actually getting to the range that you can unload with a full attack is more than half the battle. In my experience, a single full attack for melee fighters is most common (archers are ridiculously unfair in that regard, and a totally different issue).

kestral287 wrote:

Assume you're in a world where Weapon Finesse II is a legal feat. It grants Dex-to-Damage with all weapons that you can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with, in melee only of course. In that world, you also have a feat that allows you to add your Str score to Initiative, and one to allow you to move at full speed in any armor (with a Str 15 requirement). Are you happy? Why or why not?

Sort of. I feel like both feats would become a tax on, well, everyone, because they're so useful. I don't like feat taxes. I'd rather both were automatic. Or actually, I'd rather none of the feats existed. I would, ideally, want all the stats to be equally useful. They're not, but I wish they were.

wraithstrike wrote:

1. Strength to init makes no sense to me so I am already not happy. With dex to AC at least I can look at it as a precision type thing.

I have to tell you, I don't think Dex to damage makes any kind of sense to me whatsoever, and Dex to hit barely does either, since a huge part of AC is punching through thick skin/plates/etc. Frankly, I think Strength to Initiative makes more sense, because Strength is the power of your muscles and power creates speed. Dexterity is, well...kind of a disjointed and confused stat because it somehow covers speed, which is actually Strength. In olden times, Dexterity was just meant to be ranged attacks--it was about fine manipulation and hand-eye coordination. I don't see how to justify it in a realistic way, so, I am left with only gamist reasons, and, well, it has a place from a purely mechanical perspective.

I actually liked this aspect of 4e design. Attributes kind of meant nothing beyond what you made of them. Charisma to hit in melee? Sure, why the hell not? You justified it--though, it did make it less simulationy and much more "your attack stat means you're more likely to be a talky skill guy" than anything else. Surely, there's some kind of half-way point?

wraithstrike wrote:

To a large extent the game is about resource management.

Yeah, I kind of hate that it is, but you're correct here.

[kestral287]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Simple excercise for your counter example: Build a str kensai. Then build a dex kensai. You get access to dex to dmg feat.

Tell me, which is superior? Which is the most well rounded? Which spends his point buy in fewer stats?
Better ac, init, skill, touch ac, reflex, to-hit (point buy reasons), most AoO(thou kensai later levels even this), most spells (pointbuy again), best ranged/ray touch, skills...etc.
Str kensai does a little more damage (something magus isnt lacking anyway).

For the character in question? Strength is more well rounded.

The additional two feats allowed far greater flexibility, and the gains of the Dex build were marginal-- again, I'm not overly concerned about 66 vs. 76 AC when I'm already intentionally dialing it back for the GM's sake. I'm far from worried about skills when I'm aiming my specialties elsewhere and really only care about a few of the Dex skills (Fly, which has low DCs, and Stealth, which is augmented by the Invisibility line and coupled with the fact that the character is not the designated party scout). Reflex saves are a minor issue at best given how little they matter in the long run. To hit is objectively four points worse, as I already explained. AoOs are kind of irrelevant given, yanno, Kensai (and it raises the feat cost up to three for Dex, not something that's affordable anyway). There is not a single spell in the game that benefits more from Dex that isn't outclassed by an equivalent Strength-oriented spell. Unless you mean to-hit for them, in which case... again, objectively worse for any Touch ranged spells, and the precious few ranged touch spells she's carrying or ever will carry (all of... one; I would rather aim a spell at your saves, given that anything that's bad at Touch AC is screwed versus a Magus by default) are targeting touch, which is the easiest thing to hit ever.

In exchange for a bunch of benefits that range from "irrelevant" to "gains at the margin", I get two feats and +4 to hit/damage. You're absolutely right, Magi do not have trouble with damage. They do have trouble with hitting. Their only long-duration accuracy booster only just offsets their reduced BAB (and does not offset Spell Combat), and its accuracy gains fall off as they level and become less likely to throw all of the +s into straight to-hit/damage (note that "as they level" here means "at level five"). Their short-duration accuracy boosters are extremely potent but eat up their key resource and their swift action. Thus, I'm exchanging marginal gains for valuable gains.

Those two feats are also giving me benefits. And what gains they're giving? Not marginal. They're boosting things that are actually needed.

I've built a lot of Magi. I've built 'em under your standard PFS-style constraints, I've built them under multiple add-on systems and awesome rolled stats, and a fair bit of what's in between. The reason this one is Strength-based is because that setup is more well-rounded in the constraints I was operating under. At one point, I actually worked out what it would take for me to become willing to switch this character to Dexterity. The answer was a triple gestalt. Anything less and Strength remained the better choice.

And frankly? That's a pretty universal truth of the Magus (and especially the Kensai). The reason Dexterity is ultimately preferred for the Magus, more than anything else, is to help them survive the early game. If they can do that, they'll pull a lot more mileage out of two good feat picks than they will getting some boosts to things they're already fantastic at.

And it's a general truth too: yes, high Dexterity renders you harder to hit, if you're operating outside armor concerns. Not only is that a huge if (I gave a brief look at what the concerns look like with armor in my last post), but it doesn't matter if your AC is already good. The larger advantage is movement speed, but even that's not as critical as it's made out to be: for the most part, you'd prefer for enemies to come to you.

Touch AC vs. Flat-footed is an argument that depends a lot on GM playstyle. Personally, I fear a low flat-footed AC far more. Things with Touch AC tend to be known and accounted for. If it's an incorporeal undead, you probably don't want it to touch you. If it's a caster, it can probably bypass your armor. If it has guns, it can bypass your armor if it gets into range. Etc. A smart and prepared character can account for these things.

Flat-footed? Unless you happen to be running something that can always act in the surprise round, flat-footed tends to get very lethal very fast. The surprise round/first round of an ambush are by far the most dangerous moments for a party, because they tend to be underbuffed and in positions that favor their enemies. Not good places to be. Touch might come up more often, but I'd wager flat-footed is more likely to make you dead.

Skills? I'll grant Stealth is important. The rest are... not.

It's important for somebody in the party to be good at Disable Device. But like a Face skill, you only need one guy to do it. Acrobatics depends on how often you need to disengage in combat, which is a tricky thing to do and generally not your best move. Fly is very useful but the DCs are low and you don't need it for the first third of the game or so. Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand are totally forgettable, as is Ride unless you're one of the three or four classes that uses it.

Initiative? Very useful. Also a lot of ways to bring it up, and it gets marginal very, very fast. End-game creatures tend to have a +12 at best.

Damage largely depends on the class. You need a class good at TWF to actually bank heavily on Dex based combat being a large success. Those do exist-- Slayer, Daring Champion being the big two-- but well, there was the long discussion about the Str vs. Dex Fighter a few pages back. The Dex Fighter did better-- until Haste was brought in. Or he got an AoO. Or Enlarge Person came in, being dramatically better than Reduce Person.

Don't get me wrong. I stand by the point I've made before, that a TWF Daring Champion at the mid to high levels is one of the best damage setups around. But the Daring Champion has a lot of special advantages that most classes don't, and one of the bigger ones is better interactions with things like AoOs and movement than virtually any other Dex-based class.

But that's like looking at a Barbarian and saying that clearly Strength is the best thing ever. Looking at the best of the best just says that when a martial class decides to abuse the ever-loving hell out of a certain stat, they can do it.

Looking at the baseline class, the Fighter? Seemed like Dex is better in a vacuum, Strength is probably better in a party. Going with different classes will alter which one becomes superior. In terms of raw damage yeah, I'm comfortable saying that a Dex-based Daring Champion is best at mid-to-high levels, but that doesn't mean that the Barbarian doesn't have a nasty setup of tricks and abilities to match the Champion every step of the way. Neither is intrinsically better than the other, until you can build a Dex-warrior that's inherently better than the best Barbarian at every level you can find (good luck with that. Guarantee it falls apart the moment we compare levels 1&2).

So yeah. Personally, I love Dex-based combat. And I've yet to be swayed by any argument that puts it firmly ahead of Strength.

[wraithstrike]

mplindustries wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Well that confusion is cleared, but I am still confused as to what you are asking for since the math shows that dex to damage does matter. It gains a substantial margin at higher levels. I am predicting(via math) my level 11 slayer will have a 20 point difference between when he uses power attack(1 weapon), and when he uses TWF. If he had dex to damage I could ignore strength to a large extent, and the distance would be greater.

Like I said, I like the idea of dex to damage, but it should not come too cheaply.

I think I am actually convinced that Dex to damage, in the context of a game where there are ways to make a dual wielder with only a -2 penalty to hit (rather than the -4), is a dangerous thing.

So, in what context could it be ok to get it cheaply and easily?

Well, if someone is only using it for one weapon strikers such as a magus or someone in light armor with a shield, but not TWF it is less invasive to strength.

Maybe treat it like the agile weapon property to an extent. It can be gained for two feats but only provides full dex to the primary hand and half dex to the offhand. Then give it a clause allowing double slice to give full dex to damage to both hands. This makes it availible early in the game. Now of course someone will want to use it with one-handed weapons, but I don't see a problem with that.
This new imaginary feat would require weapon finesse a prereq. It might not come online until level 3 for some people who are not humans or fighters, but it gives everyone the chance to use it, and since most optimizers know double slice is not a great feat it will stop people from taking it because it is a no-brainer for TWF. Right now those who want it for flavor reasons are probably feeling punished because the restriction is so that those only wanting it for mechanical reason wont get it too easily. If someone does take double slice early in the game it can slow them down elsewhere. TWF is arleady feat intensive.

mplindustries wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

1. Strength to init makes no sense to me so I am already not happy. With dex to AC at least I can look at it as a precision type thing.

I have to tell you, I don't think Dex to damage makes any kind of sense to me whatsoever, and Dex to hit barely does either, since a huge part of AC is punching through thick skin/plates/etc. Frankly, I think Strength to Initiative makes more sense, because Strength is the power of your muscles and power creates speed. Dexterity is, well...kind of a disjointed and confused stat because it somehow covers speed, which is actually Strength. In olden times, Dexterity was just meant to be ranged attacks--it was about fine manipulation and hand-eye coordination. I don't see how to justify it in a realistic way, so, I am left with only gamist reasons, and, well, it has a place from a purely mechanical perspective.

I agree that dex to damage is kind of gamist, which is why I have to see it as precision(not the game term) based attacks. You find a crack in the armor type of thing.

I understand that strength of your muscles has an impact on speed, but quickness can be had by those who are not strong, and a lot of strong people are not quick. Quickness and speed are similar but not the exact same thing. I think initiative should be a mental stat. You recognize combat is about to start, and you react first. Dexterity is tied to "quickness" in the game. That is why I think it is used.

[Frosty Ace]

Imma preface this by saying I am in no way no type of number expert. I do however frequently lurk these boards and have read a LOT of topics regarding not only this, but similar issues. Bear with me here.

So from what I am seeing here in these calculations is that if you can get dex to damage on a TWF Fighter, it then just barely is able to beat out THF in the most perfect of circumstances? Or rather, better than before, once again, in the most perfect of circumstances? And this also HAS to be a fighter, the class with the greatest number of static bonuses a class can possibly get consistently? Uhm... so? Damage wise, I don't see that as being a big deal. Mastering the art of being a blender > mastering the art of, "AAARRRGGH!!! GREATSWORD SMASH YOU!" when he can plant and get all of his attacks which damn near all of his feats are dedicated to.

As for the other issues of dex being that much better for all that it does, that is a fair point. But at the same time (And I am specifically talking about fighters here because ALL THE FEATS) if the THF takes feats in place of the twf feats, such as improved initiative, iron will, improved iron will, maybe a race feat like steel soul, cleave for clustered mooks, lunge for the almighty reach, maybe some maneuver feats, archery feats if you're feeling frisky, or what have you, doesn't this essentially just make the two... even? If anything, since you can just focus on will saves as a THF, you are arguably in a much better defensive position, not to mention you are more diversified in combat with a level of CC afforded by extra feats, as well as WAY more damage with mobility (#Especially if you spring for vital strike). Also, if the THF fighter has SOME dex, he will have a better AC (Heavy armor + armor training) given that encumbrance is a thing he will just laugh at.

All I am saying is that this corner case is not really good grounds for debate for every other class and how dex will be the absolute bestest evar. Honestly, the only characters that would gain a lot, and I mean A LOT from this would be rogues/ninjas and monks. The former not really caring for strength in the first place what they value most is accuracy and sneak attack dice, and both of them being arguably the weakest classes in the game. Most other classes have much better options to choose from than exclusively TWF for their feat choices. I guess certain oracles coud really benefir from this, but they only really need CHR for their stupid good stuff, and dex and str would honestly become a matter of preference at that point.

So I ask, in the context of outside of the fighters (Since I feel tTHF and TWF kind of even out when considering all the circumstances of combat), would it really be THAT bad? The character benefitting from it the most being two classes that, iconically, are extremely dexterous and, again, iconically, do not rely on absolute hulking strength.

As for how dex specifically impacts damage... isn't that what martial training is all about? Anyone can get strong. Just lift heavy **** all day long and throw it across the yard. I see dex as a perfection of technique, hence why high dex is needed for twf (So you don't cut your own head off with that there double-sword). I'm likely stronger than a lot of boxers out there, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't rip me a new one. Ironically, the argument of "finding weaknesses" is an argument I would make for wis to hit, and for monks, perhaps even damage (Masters of bodies, monastic, they're too damn MAD, blah blah blah). Maybe a feat with a pre-req of ranks in perception and good enough wis or something. I dunno.

[kestral287]

Frosty Ace wrote:

So from what I am seeing here in these calculations is that if you can get dex to damage on a TWF Fighter, it then just barely is able to beat out THF in the most perfect of circumstances? Or rather, better than before, once again, in the most perfect of circumstances? And this also HAS to be a fighter, the class with the greatest number of static bonuses a class can possibly get consistently? Uhm... so? Damage wise, I don't see that as being a big deal. Mastering the art of being a blender > mastering the art of, "AAARRRGGH!!! GREATSWORD SMASH YOU!" when he can plant and get all of his attacks which damn near all of his feats are dedicated to.

To correct a misconception: Fighter was picked for being a relatively neutral class. It's not required for Dex-TWF by any means, nor is it the optimal choice for such.

Frosty Ace wrote:

As for the other issues of dex being that much better for all that it does, that is a fair point. But at the same time #And I am specifically talking about fighters here because ALL THE FEATS#, if the THF takes feats in place of the twf feats, such as improved initiative, iron will, improved iron will, maybe a race feat like steel soul, cleave for clustered mooks, lunge for the almighty reach, maybe some maneuver feats, archery feats if you're feeling frisky, or what have you, doesn't this essentially just make the two... even?

Debatable. Most of those feats offer marginal benefits. Improved Initiative and Iron Will are solid choices. II will keep the Strength warrior more comparable in Initiative for longer. Iron Will grants a boost to the Will save, though a much smaller one than the boost to Reflex that the Dexterity warrior is going to possess. Your Mileage May Vary on which is preferable.

Ultimately the answer to this comes down to A. which specific feats are taken (realistically, after Weapon Focus and Power Attack you have three-four feats to play with, depending on how the GM rules Double Slice) and B. play/GM styles. For example, Cleave is nice if the GM lines up lots of mooks or you have some way to force them to line up. If they scatter, not so much.

Frosty Ace wrote:

If anything, since you can just focus on will saves as a THF, you are arguably in a much better defensive position, not to mention you are more diversified in combat with a level of CC afforded by extra feats, as well as WAY more damage with mobility #Especially if you spring fro vital strike#. Also, if the THF fighter has SOME dex, he will have a better AC #Heavy armor + armor training# given that encumbrance is a thing he will just laugh at.

Already answered the first half, but the obvious counterpoint to the second half: That means the Two-Hander is investing resources into Dexterity to match what the TWF Guy does naturally. This is now offsetting the TWF Guy's native disadvantage in resources. To actually make this argument you would need to find the balance point, which is tricky because it shifts with levels.

Frosty Ace wrote:

All I am saying is that this corner case is not really good grounds for debate for every other class and how dex will be the absolute bestest evar. Honestly, the only characters that would gain a lot, and I mean A LOT from this would be rogues/ninjas and monks. The former not really caring for strength in the first place what they value most is accuracy and sneak attack dice, and both of them being arguably the weakest classes in the game. Most other classes have much better options to choose from than exclusively for their feat choices. I guess certain oracles coud really benefir from this, but they only really need CHR for their stupid good stuff, and dex and str would honestly become a matter of preference at that point.

To repeat myself, the Fighter was specifically chosen to not be a corner case.

The corner case is a high-level Order of the Dragon Daring Champion who can afford to spam Challenges and carry around a pair of +5 Effortless Laced Falcatas.

Also, classes that can realistically use Dex to Damage:

-New Rogue, who still may be better off two-handing. We'll see tomorrow.
-Ninja and old Rogue, sort of. Kind of incompetent either way.
-Swashbuckler
-Daring Champion Cavalier. To a lesser extent, other Cavaliers. Much lesser.
-If explicitly built for the mid-to-high levels and in a game where everything is Smiteable, Paladin
-Ranger and Slayer (especially Slayer) can flop between the two easily. Depends on what you want for them, since they can also run an awesome Str-based TWF build. Thanks to Two-Weapon Rend, the Str setup actually does slightly more damage at the cost of a few advantages elsewhere.
-Fighter, if he wants
-Alchemist, if he wants and can't find better ways to blow feats
-Magus and Bard, who can both also use Strength
-Monk. But not the new Monk, based on what's been laid out so far. We'll see tomorrow, but the fact that Flurry works with a handful of two-handed weapons doesn't bode well for the Dex Monk.
-Not the Oracle; most optimized Oracles are already replacing most of what Dex governs (Initiative, Ref save, AC) with Cha, so it makes little sense to blow a couple feats on Dex-to-damage

Somebody will probably throw the Shaman or something at me, but that should about cover it.

Frosty Ace wrote:

So I ask, in the context of outside of the fighters #Since I feel tTHF and TWF kind of even out when considering all the circumstances of combat#, would it really be THAT bad? The character benefitting from it the most being two classes that, iconically, are extremely dexterous and, again, iconically, do not rely on absolute hulking strength.

Shocking nobody, in the context of the neutral case the differences are minimal and the result is, well... neutral.

Also, seriously, can the hashtags stop?

[Kudaku]

For what it's worth our houserules aren't quite as permissive as Deadly Agility. We make the off-hand attack still use the .5 ability modifier, we include any strength penalty the character has to the damage roll, and we restrict Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend to strength builds.

The key elements for me are:

1. Weapon Finesse + Deadly Agility comes online early, at level 1 if you're playing a human or a class with a bonus feat. Because as has already been mentioned, playing 1-4 levels where you're completely useless in combat sucks.

2. Dex-based combat should work with a variety of weapons. You should not be pigeonholed into using a small list of weapons with very specific flavor. If your character wants to fight with a plain dagger he can, and without being a member of a clan of assassins or worshipping a specific deity. Rapiers and scimitars are arguably some of the strongest weapons in their categories anyway, there's little reason not to allow mechanically inferior finesse weapons the same benefit.

3. You don't need to dip swashbuckler to make dex-based combat work. I don't mind the swashbuckler as a class, but generally speaking I really dislike required dips to make a concept get off the ground.

[wraithstrike]

Frosty Ace wrote:

Imma preface this by saying I am in no way no type of number expert. I do however frequent lurk these boards and have read a LOT of topics regarding not only this, but similar issues. Bear with me here.

So from what I am seeing here in these calculations is that if you can get dex to damage on a TWF Fighter, it then just barely is able to beat out THF in the most perfect of circumstances? Or rather, better than before, once again, in the most perfect of circumstances? And this also HAS to be a fighter, the class with the greatest number of static bonuses a class can possibly get consistently? Uhm... so? Damage wise, I don't see that as being a big deal. Mastering the art of being a blender > mastering the art of, "AAARRRGGH!!! GREATSWORD SMASH YOU!" when he can plant and get all of his attacks which damn near all of his feats are dedicated to.

That is false you do not have to be a fighter at all. Actually the ranger, paladin, and I think slayer both get more damage out of two weapon fighting and two handed fighting. I don't know what you mean by "most perfect of circumstances" because in both cases both the two-hander, and the twf'er were both getting full round attacks so they both had the best situation. As the games goes on TWF pulls ahead by a lot, and that is with a strength build. Now for me the damage from a dedicated DPR machine whether it is a two-hander or twf'er is going to shred most monsters in the book, so the issue is really that dex is reaching over taking things from strength.

Quote:

As for the other issues of dex being that much better for all that it does, that is a fair point. But at the same time #And I am specifically talking about fighters here because ALL THE FEATS#, if the THF takes feats in place of the twf feats, such as improved initiative, iron will, improved iron will, maybe a race feat like steel soul, cleave for clustered mooks, lunge for the almighty reach, maybe some maneuver feats, archery feats if you're feeling frisky, or what have you, doesn't this essentially just make the two... even? If anything, since you can just focus on will saves as a THF, you are arguably in a much better defensive position, not to mention you are more diversified in combat with a level of CC afforded by extra feats, as well as WAY more damage with mobility #Especially if you spring fro vital strike#. Also, if the THF fighter has SOME dex, he will have a better AC #Heavy armor + armor training# given that encumbrance is a thing he will just laugh at.

This is not just about the fighter, and you can make a good enough character even while investing in TWF to make those other investments you thing you are getting by only only THF not all that important.

Most full BAB characters are going to hit if they have a decent dex without any archery feats. Iron Will and improved init can be taken by both the TWF and THF guy since the classes that help TWF the most ranger and slayer get bonus feats. They don't get that many less than the fighter as is.
Basically you can load up on TWF feats and still shore up your defenses. You are not loosing much. If you go THF you can pick up some other feats, but they are not making up for everything someone gets by getting that dex feat. That dex feat is going to give you a nice AC, better reflex saves, higher init, and so on. That is a lot for one feat.

Quote:

All I am saying is that this corner case is not really good grounds for debate for every other class and how dex will be the absolute bestest evar. Honestly, the only characters that would gain a lot, and I mean A LOT from this would be rogues/ninjas and monks. The former not really caring for strength in the first place what they value most is accuracy and sneak attack dice, and both of them being arguably the weakest classes in the game. Most other classes have much better options to choose from than exclusively for their feat choices. I guess certain oracles coud really benefir from this, but they only really need CHR for their stupid good stuff, and dex and str would honestly become a matter of preference at that point.

This is not a corner case, and the numbers show it, and every class that wants to go TWF gets a lot from this, not just rogues or monks.

As an example if I want to go sword and board TWF paladin I only have to push 2 stats instead of 3. That is huge when it comes to point buy and saving money.

I can go
str 14 dex 15 con 13 int 8 wisdom 10 cha 15
Dex is needed to qualify for TWF feats, and str is needed to do damage that matters. For the rest of the career both dex and str have to be pushed.
At level 11

str 14 dex 21 con 13 int 8 wisdom 10 cha 19

Damage 1d8+5 and 1d8+2

OR

str 12 dex 16 con 14 int 8 wisdom 10 cha 14

Enough str to wear light armor, and maybe mithral heavier armor later on.

At level 11

str 12 dex 22 con 16 int 8 wisdom 10 cha 18

Damage 1d8 + 9 and 1d8+ 8

More constitution, same modifier on charisma meaning smite is equivalent. This disparity grows larger as the levels increase.

Quote:

So I ask, in the context of outside of the fighters #Since I feel tTHF and TWF kind of even out when considering all the circumstances of combat#, would it really be THAT bad? The character benefitting from it the most being two classes that, iconically, are extremely dexterous and, again, iconically, do not rely on absolute hulking strength.

As for how dex specifically impacts damage... isn't that what martial training is all about? Anyone can get strong. Just lift heavy **** all day long and throw it across the yard. I see dex as a perfection of technique, hence why high dex is needed for twf #So you don't cut your own head off with that there double-sword#. I'm likely stronger than a lot of boxers out there, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't rip me a new one. Ironically, the argument of "finding weaknesses" is an argument I would make for wis to hit, and for monks, perhaps even damage #Masters of bodies, monastic, they're too damn MAD, blah blah blah#. Maybe a feat with a pre-req of ranks in perception and good enough wis or something. I dunno.

Yeah it is that bad, and choosing the monk and rogue dont exactly help your case. A middle ground class like an inquisitor would have been better for you.

Martial training is not helping you because this topic is not all about the fighter class. It is just the class chosen for this exercise. You seem to be making an appeal to emotion, but emotion does not lead to balanced rules.

[Kudaku]

Using the fighter sidesteps the massive feat requirements needed to make Sawtooth Sabres work and comparing at level 10 distracts from the fact that the build only really comes together at about level 6 though.

1. Swashbuckler 1, because you need to dip. Goodbye capstone (not that many games reach it). Gain Finesse as a bonus feat.
1. Exotic Weapon Proficiency
2. Fighter 1, you're now playing the class you actually wanted to play. Gain Weapon Focus.
3. Fighter 2, gain Slashing Grace.
3. Feat for level 3, Two-Weapon Fighting
4. Fighter 3, nothing happens
5. Fighter 4, gain Weapon Specialization: Sawtooth Sabre
5. Double slice
6. Fighter 5, nothing happens.
6. Feat for level 6, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

Have you tried building a sawtooth sabre-build with a cavalier or a bard? It's a pain in the ass. Meanwhile the strength user is happily picking up Power Attack at level 1 and then spending his other resources on whatever weapon he wants.

[Frosty Ace]

Don't know why my post had those hastags in place of parentheses. That's... really weird.

Also, wraith, the last part of my post had nothing to do with rules or anything. Just adding to the mini-discussion of how dex thematically even impacts doing damage. Don't really have anything else to add. Except by perfect circumstances I meant full-round attack.

[wraithstrike]

Frosty Ace wrote:

Don't know why my post had those hastags in place of parentheses. That's... really weird.

Also, wraith, the last part of my post had nothing to do with rules or anything. Just adding to the mini-discussion of how dex thematically even impacts doing damage. Don't really have anything else to add. Except by perfect circumstances I meant full-round attack.

The reason why we use full attacks is to find out potential damage. We know that the first round of combat is not likely to give us a full attack unless you are an archer or you have pounce.

[Just a Guess]

Entryhazard wrote:

Dex can translate to blade momentum too

For that to work the blade needs a meaningful mass. That's why I liked the fact that slashing grace works with one-handed weapons but not with light ones.

[Errant Mercenary]

Kestral you make really compelling arguments and I am mostly swayed, i do want dex pcs to be competitive.

However it is still those few corner cases (warpriest, daring champion, monks with twist away and solid build) that concern me. These are player choices and I can stop them by saying "nope you cant play X its ridiculous". With dex to dmg I cant give it to a player but not to another, making that Skills/dex rogue hit like a fly.

Im just bothered the system has these gaping holes of disparity, making more is not what i consider healthy. It adds "no please pick something else" when this game should be "yes thats flavourful and works well too". (I do have issues with any over the top build you can imagine).

So either Dex gives less, str does more (if you decide on str), or there's a middle ground. I allowed Dex as a precision based damage (in a heavy humaoid campaign) but the player thought it wasnt good enough and took energy damage instead.

[Errant Mercenary]

I start by thinking Ill write a short reply and boom! Text Crit!

Anyway, my arguments consider Dex-Dmg with minimal investment (choice, feat, etc) not as currently found in PF.

So MlpIndustries the above post answers your initial question from my point of view. I agree that at the moment dex-dmg is a messy, not elegant affair rules wise.

[RDM42]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having a setting is not a houserule.

Removing legal game options is generally considered a houserule.

And from what I understand - while sawtoothed sabres were originally a Red Mantis Assasin weapon - and they all use them - they actually encourage others to use them as well. Otherwise Red Mantis Assaisins would be rather easy to spot.

So are you saying by saying "Removing legal game options is generally considered a houserule." That not using every book published by Paizo is a house rules? Really?

[kestral287]

Kudaku wrote:

Have you tried building a sawtooth sabre-build with a cavalier or a bard? It's a pain in the ass. Meanwhile the strength user is happily picking up Power Attack at level 1 and then spending his other resources on whatever weapon he wants.

Not that hard.

Cavalier, Daring Champion:
1: Champion's Finesse, Weapon Focus, Half-Elf: EWP Sawtooth Sabre
3: Slashing Grace
5: Combat Reflexes
6: Two-Weapon Fighting
7: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

The Cavalier doesn't want to be TWFing until around 7-9 anyway (not enough Challenges), and he doesn't have to worry about coming online late since he can also one-hand and use Precise Strike. If he really wanted to, he could pull Combat Reflexes to shuffle things forward and be operational at level six, or slot in Chain Challenge and be full effective at ninth (my personal preference; that also gives you some more wealth to throw around).

Realistically, I'd mix the two with something like this:

1: Champion's Finesse, Weapon Focus (Scimitar), Human: Slashing Grace (Scimitar)
3: Combat Reflexes
5: Chain Challenge
6: Two-Weapon Fighting
7: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting

By 6th you can easily afford a 2500 gp Effortless Lace for your second scimitar ,(though I'd still consider pushing things back to fit in another feat you like. Or Double Slice, if your GM requires it-- personally, I'd slot in Extra Challenge, push everything else back one, retrain Extra Challenge to Double Slice at 7th in that case. This build is operational from first (albeit less damaging than the two-handed Fighter) and gradually grows in potency from there.

Bard is a lot trickier, but, well... that's the Bard's problem. He's better suited to be an archer than a Dex-TWFer anyway

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Kestral you make really compelling arguments and I am mostly swayed, i do want dex pcs to be competitive.

However it is still those few corner cases (warpriest, daring champion, monks with twist away and solid build) that concern me. These are player choices and I can stop them by saying "nope you cant play X its ridiculous". With dex to dmg I cant give it to a player but not to another, making that Skills/dex rogue hit like a fly.

Im just bothered the system has these gaping holes of disparity, making more is not what i consider healthy. It adds "no please pick something else" when this game should be "yes thats flavourful and works well too". (I do have issues with any over the top build you can imagine).

So either Dex gives less, str does more (if you decide on str), or there's a middle ground. I allowed Dex as a precision based damage (in a heavy humaoid campaign) but the player thought it wasnt good enough and took energy damage instead.

You have those problems now. I doubt it would be all that hard for somebody to build a Cha-Whore Oracle that you can't break (Cha to AC, CMD, all saves, initiative, and spells). That would give you the same problem. Or the Wizard nabs Simulacrum and starts abusing it-- "no please pick something else" is pretty much the textbooks response to that one.

So to me, frankly, yeah. "No please pick something else" is a reliable and effective solution.

I've dialed back a character when I noticed my GM wasn't having fun trying to deal with her. I've switched out spells, I've rebuilt pieces, all kinds of stuff. Because if my GM isn't having fun, the table isn't having fun-- and from a more selfish point of view, turning the game from a, well, game into a chore for the GM seems like the surest way to kill a campaign.

I actually have one of those Cha-whore Oracles sitting in the wings, in case I needed the character (except infinitely worse, because it's a gestalt game and the GM had laughed at the idea of Mystic Theurge being broken in gestalt... Kaouse did some brainstorming on that front when I mentioned it in another thread, and the result was what I can lovingly call "total and complete b#!%+@&#"). I know damn well I'm not running him under this GM unless he starts up a very different game. It wouldn't be fun for anybody.

So instead I built another Oracle, who was also my first-ever attempt to deliberately pattern a build off an anime character... and if I need one, I can roll in with the powerful-but-nowhere-near-as-bad-as-she-could-be Satsuki. Because I know what's appropriate for my table and what isn't.

I suppose your table might have a different dynamic than mine, but to me it's a very cooperative and open thing. In the Runelords game I'm running, next session I know I'm going to drop an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists (which I've modified to work the same as any other weapon, save the +1 requirement) for the Monk. And I have no problem with that. I trust that he won't make some kind of super-build, but if he does try it, then I can either talk to him or upgrade things on my end. But more likely, he's just going to enjoy his build actually being functional instead of a target. I call that a win, not breaking the game.

[Kalindlara]

kestral287 wrote:

And I have no problem with that. I trust that he won't make some kind of super-build, but if he does try it, then I can either talk to him or upgrade things on my end. But more likely, he's just going to enjoy his build actually being functional instead of a target. I call that a win, not breaking the game.

This is pretty much where I am, both as a GM and a player. :)

[Ckorik]

RDM42 wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having a setting is not a houserule.

Removing legal game options is generally considered a houserule.

And from what I understand - while sawtoothed sabres were originally a Red Mantis Assasin weapon - and they all use them - they actually encourage others to use them as well. Otherwise Red Mantis Assaisins would be rather easy to spot.

So are you saying by saying "Removing legal game options is generally considered a houserule." That not using every book published by Paizo is a house rules? Really?

That's how I run my games. If it's published it's allowed unless I go out of my way to deny it.

My current game banned:

Summoner
goblin pcs
drow pcs

that's it. All options open and I even offered to let my ranger rebuild when the advanced class guide came out (because it fit her theme better - she declined)

[Errant Mercenary]

Kalindlara wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

And I have no problem with that. I trust that he won't make some kind of super-build, but if he does try it, then I can either talk to him or upgrade things on my end. But more likely, he's just going to enjoy his build actually being functional instead of a target. I call that a win, not breaking the game.

This is pretty much where I am, both as a GM and a player. :)

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, and at my table I would do the same. Or design some horrific encounter which plays to that player's capricious habits to let himself get killed by them, when there were other obvious options. Ahem.

This dex to damage though has to take into account PFS and stuff like that (which I dont play so it does really not affect me). Really just discussing for the thought excercise.

Best case scenario Ive found is Dex damage be precision damage (it's rather fitting too), for example rogue unchained (stop everyone and their mother dipping 3 levels rogue just to get WFin+Damage).

[Charon's Little Helper]

wraithstrike wrote:

Frosty Ace wrote:

Imma preface this by saying I am in no way no type of number expert. I do however frequent lurk these boards and have read a LOT of topics regarding not only this, but similar issues. Bear with me here.

So from what I am seeing here in these calculations is that if you can get dex to damage on a TWF Fighter, it then just barely is able to beat out THF in the most perfect of circumstances? Or rather, better than before, once again, in the most perfect of circumstances? And this also HAS to be a fighter, the class with the greatest number of static bonuses a class can possibly get consistently? Uhm... so? Damage wise, I don't see that as being a big deal. Mastering the art of being a blender > mastering the art of, "AAARRRGGH!!! GREATSWORD SMASH YOU!" when he can plant and get all of his attacks which damn near all of his feats are dedicated to.

That is false you do not have to be a fighter at all. Actually the ranger, paladin, and I think slayer both get more damage out of two weapon fighting and two handed fighting. I don't know what you mean by "most perfect of circumstances" because in both cases both the two-hander, and the twf'er were both getting full round attacks so they both had the best situation. As the games goes on TWF pulls ahead by a lot, and that is with a strength build. Now for me the damage from a dedicated DPR machine whether it is a two-hander or twf'er is going to shred most monsters in the book, so the issue is really that dex is reaching over taking things from strength.

Yeah - with current core rules a Slayer would probably get the most out of TWF when he can get SA. With Effortless Grace Samurai would probably get the most out of it. (Challenge/specialization with dual wielding katanas & dex to damage anyone?) I specifically chose to use Fighter because TWF isn't especially advantageous to them.

But the higher DPR wasn't really the point of my DPR proof at all. It was that - even with current rules it's an extremely effective combat style in terms of DPR. Even if it was identical it'd be worth it, as their initiative is +6ish (worth a 1.5x feats) their reflex is +6ish (worth 3x an admittedly weak feat) they have more mobility and/or AC, better skills etc.

Therefore - if it's already potent with the current hurdles - said hurdles shouldn't be removed.

(Of note - I'm talking purely from a mechanics/balance perspective. I'm not weighing in on the aesthetics here.)

[Kalindlara]

Then maybe Two-Weapon Fighting is at fault, and not Dex-to-damage. :)

[Kalindlara]

What if easy Dex-to-damage options just had text preventing them from being used easily with Two-Weapon Fighting?

Then people who wanted to be competent could do so, and Two-Weapon Fighting would be where it used to be.

[Cap. Darling]

I think the dex as precision damage May be a good plan, that way some one both strong and dexterious can benefit from it as well.