| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if it was mentioned already, but Dex to Damage is currently in PF2. I saw a playtest on Youtube (GM was Jason himself) and first level Merisiel dealt 1d6+4 damage with her rapier. Didn't specify were that damage came from but the player mentioned she had Dex 18.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Dexterity isn't as powerful in P2e as it was in P1e. For starters, Initiative is now keyed off Perception asa baseline and can be determined with skills as well, so that decreases its use at the start of combat. Second, many skills that Dexterity used to apply to are now either based on a different score (Athletics for jumping) or are consolidated into less skills (such as Thievery). Third, the Proficiency system seems to have the side-effect of giving casters a decent hit chance even against normal AC untrained, and if you can gain Proficiency in stuff like spells or splash weapons then Touch AC may be unnecessary, which would further decrease its usefulness. Finally, larger weapons will deal more damage and scale better with magic enhancements than the smaller weapons typically associated with Dexterity, further balancing them against each other.
I was always a supporter of Dexterity to damage in P1e, just by virtue of being able to create a wider variety of character concepts with it, but now that Dexterity is less powerful I see no reason it shouldn't be a part of the new system. I still wonder how Agile weapons will affect that balance though. +5% and +10% crit chance on iterative attacks doesn't seem big but it could be with a high enough attack bonus.
I like "Dex to damage is automatic for certain weapons, but you subtract any Strength penalties from that". So you can't just dump Strength to 7 freely, and the cat doesn't get a damage bonus.
Like bows... sounds good.
So the answer is to make one stat irrelevant? Sigh I give up. you guys have fun. I'm out.
I am not a fan either. Dex is about taking less damage not doing more. That’s the style of a dex based combatant. They duck and weave slash and poke, they do not thunder away like a strength based combatant. Yet it does seem dex to damage seeks to do both, take less damage and do more. I’d rather not see the stat already on the edge of OP be pushed fully into OP.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no thematic issue with Dex increasing damage. The more dextrous you are, the better you can place your attacks. Piercing human flesh with a sharp weapon doesn't require enormous strength; it's about hitting the armor joints, or avoiding the tough boney bits.
Strength-to-damage builds are still likely to be more damaging overall - better damage dice, two-handed attack bonuses, etc. This should roughly balance out the AC bonus, and strong guys can get their AC from heavy armor anyway.
And the Dex-to-Initiative bonus is already gone from PF2. So all it needs is for Dex-based skills not to be vastly better than Str-based skills and we have two reasonably well balanced stats.
it does seem dex to damage seeks to do both, take less damage and do more. I’d rather not see the stat already on the edge of OP be pushed fully into OP.
We don't know enough about PF2 to compare these things. Maybe wearing heavy armor instead of light armor + Dex will be just as good as avoiding damage. We also don't know about the general usefulness of Strength and Dex. Maybe encumberance is a real problem at low Strength, maybe Athletics or some other Strength-Based skill allows some REALLY awesome moves.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Just going to point out, if you really want verisimilitude, even more should depend on Strength than currently does. For most of human history combat has been about being able to freely move big metal and wood implements while hauling your tired body around in heavy armor. If you want "realism," Strength should add to attack, damage, and AC in armor or while using a shield. Even smaller weapons like shortswords were more about battering aside your opponent's guard to get at their vital bits. A big hulking brute fighting an agile (but not strong) opponent IRL has a huge advantage.
That's why D&D started with Strength to hit and damage - the stronger character can knock aside his opponent's parry, and be back in position to strike before said opponent has recovered. Being more able to control your weapon and shield puts you more in control of the battle and of your opponent.
I don't have a lot of IRL fighting experience, but I have played a lot of boffer LARPs - and those weapons are almost by definition light finesseable things - 1 pound confections of foam and plastic. Strong players still have huge advantages against weaker players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to point out, if you really want verisimilitude, even more should depend on Strength than currently does. For most of human history combat has been about being able to freely move big metal and wood implements while hauling your tired body around in heavy armor. If you want "realism," Strength should add to attack, damage, and AC in armor or while using a shield. Even smaller weapons like shortswords were more about battering aside your opponent's guard to get at their vital bits. A big hulking brute fighting an agile (but not strong) opponent IRL has a huge advantage.
That's why D&D started with Strength to hit and damage - the stronger character can knock aside his opponent's parry, and be back in position to strike before said opponent has recovered. Being more able to control your weapon and shield puts you more in control of the battle and of your opponent.
I don't have a lot of IRL fighting experience, but I have played a lot of boffer LARPs - and those weapons are almost by definition light finesseable things - 1 pound confections of foam and plastic. Strong players still have huge advantages against weaker players.
But accurate thrusts are still where the damage comes from. Slashing with a sword is just not as deadly as a well-placed thrust (ask General Patton.)
If anything, your argument would support "Str to-hit, Dex to-damage". The Aryas of the world might have difficulty getting their opening with a parry, but once they land a blow then you are going to be really injured. Whereas the brute might have an easier time knocking away your defenses and scoring a blow, but a random slash is less harmful than a well-placed thrust, even if the slash has more power.
In some cases DEX builds superseded STR builds, by virtue of niche stupidity, such as the Elven Curve Blade being combined with Power Attack with a rogue investing a 13 into STR, and still getting 1.5 damage.
Anecdotally this build was also an Eldritch Scoundrel, who focused on either being able to rely on Greater Invisibility (spell that facilitates sneak attack with no feat investment) or building around Dimensional Savant (a multi-feat chain that resulted in Dimension Door enabling movement and treated one as flanking with themself which also created self-sufficient sneak attack). Both of these options were available on the same build. Luckily, the damage balanced because the Eldritch Scoundrel halves the available sneak attack damage, granted this specific build was also VMC magus which gave my player access to more cool abilities, like enhancing his Elven Curve Blade, and potentially adding his INT to attack rolls, or even changing his weapon to target touch.
That's not to say this build isn't still very strong - I don't know why I haven't tried it yet personally since I'm a huge fan of the archetype - it just strikes me as a lot of effort to put in for a less powerful tactic.
In my opinion "dex to damage" must be work like a quality of the weapon, not a feat.
The Dex builds have already been despised and devalued by new abilities and mechanics such as the power attack and weapon enchantment +X.
A large weapon with high dice damage has an advantage over small weapons such as dagger, shortsword or rapier. They need some simple use(without investment) or no one will choose them as a weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to point out, if you really want verisimilitude, even more should depend on Strength than currently does. For most of human history combat has been about being able to freely move big metal and wood implements while hauling your tired body around in heavy armor. If you want "realism," Strength should add to attack, damage, and AC in armor or while using a shield. Even smaller weapons like shortswords were more about battering aside your opponent's guard to get at their vital bits. A big hulking brute fighting an agile (but not strong) opponent IRL has a huge advantage.
That's why D&D started with Strength to hit and damage - the stronger character can knock aside his opponent's parry, and be back in position to strike before said opponent has recovered. Being more able to control your weapon and shield puts you more in control of the battle and of your opponent.
I don't have a lot of IRL fighting experience, but I have played a lot of boffer LARPs - and those weapons are almost by definition light finesseable things - 1 pound confections of foam and plastic. Strong players still have huge advantages against weaker players.
But accurate thrusts are still where the damage comes from. Slashing with a sword is just not as deadly as a well-placed thrust (ask General Patton.)
If anything, your argument would support "Str to-hit, Dex to-damage". The Aryas of the world might have difficulty getting their opening with a parry, but once they land a blow then you are going to be really injured. Whereas the brute might have an easier time knocking away your defenses and scoring a blow, but a random slash is less harmful than a well-placed thrust, even if the slash has more power.
The point is that strength enables accuracy - everybody wants to be accurate, not just slash away willy-nilly. Strength makes you better at accuracy because it's easier to hold the weapon steady and manipulate it however you want against inertia. All the agility in the world doesn't help if you're not strong enough to hold the weapon steady (which is actually my IRL problem with archery - I don't have the upper body strength to hold the bow steady once I've pulled back the string. I'm decent at Laser Tag because it's pure Dex, but archery will always be a problem because my bad Str inhibits my accuracy).
Honestly IMO your argument supports Str to hit, Int to damage - Strength gets your weapon where you want it to be, and Int tells you the best place for that.
I houseruled finesse weapons a few years ago. It was my first houserule if I remember correctly. That had a few implications at my table:
- A lot of Classes that are considering weak were present at my table (20 points) like the Monk or the Rogue.
- Classes like Bard or Alchemist had some utility in melee without having to specialize in it, just like the Cleric does.
- I had a Swashbuckler and a Virtuoso Paladin before the classes or archetypes exist.
- Two Weapon fighting was a decent option even if you are not Slayer or Ranger (which by the way still go Strength in TWF with their style for Power Attack).
- More small races who could go fight in melee which is nice.
It allows more builds and classes to shine, more roleplay diversity and make the mad classes a little less frustrating. But it was not a good thing only for the players. My monsters were way more dangerous sometimes, as my NPC, and that was fun. I ran Council of Thieves and the Rogues were truly dangerous.
And it did not at all break my games. The best melee were still by far Barbarian, Mutagenic Warrior, Strength Brawler and Ranger with Power Attack or Two handed weapon. Strength favors dammage and Attack and a few strong feat, DEX enhanced mobility and utility outside of combat. And I had one tricky player who dumped Strength who failed a test against Strength drain. No one never did it again.
And it was nice to not having people trying by any means necessary to have DEX to dammage with things like dipping Swashbuckler Inspired Blade or only feeling forced to come from Katapesh or Quadira just to dance with a scimitar.
This is one of the things I like most about 5E. For me it is mandatory in PF2. And yes I had a few munchkin builds like Duelist Alchemist or stupid AC Monk. But I had way worse with Ragechimyst Barbarian or Scythe Paladin so.... If people want to break the game there will always be way to do that, at least with DEX damages you can do it in various ways.
It will be a huge selling point for me in PF2. And not having it will be one of the thing I could really have difficulty to accept.
So far it felt like a good idea to do it. And my friends since then have being DM too, and they kept some of my house rules, and but all of them. But DEX to dammage was always picked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very happy with my group's Weapon Finesse house rule, where all weapons that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat instead have the Finesse quality, allowing characters to use their Dex mod to calculate attack rolls, though damage is still calculated using Str. However, characters can take the Weapon Finesse Feat to allow them to add half their Dex modifer PLUS their Str modifier when calculating damage with a weapon with the Finesse quality.
This prevents Dex-based SAD characters from out-performing Str-based characters automatically, or just by taking a feat, while still rewarding a high Dex score when trying to recreate those lithe strikers we all love from fiction. It prevents them from just dumping Str, too, or else their incredibly high Dex score will be doing nothing more than canceling out their Str penalty when calculating damage.
I'b be really happy to see Dex-to-damage treated like this in 2E, but I'm not holding my breath, as the whole "halve this modifier and then add it to this modifier, now add that to your damage roll", while not all that complicated in my opinion, still seems like it's a bit too much for the streamlined system Paizo is going for. Still, I'd be disappointed to see Dex-based SAD character get Dex-to-damage for free, though I'm also against the feat-intensive builds required for full dex-to-damage 1E currently has. At the very least, I'd want to see Weapon Finesse just do both - Dex-to-hit and Dex-to-damage, so characters will at the very least need to invest a feat to get it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're not going to use Strength for anything, it really ought to be removed from the game.
Going by what we know of PF2, even with finesseable weapons and Dex-to-damage you still use Str for a bunch:
-Using any non-finesse weapon. Which includes pretty much all the high damage or two-handed ones. High weapon damage means a lot more in this edition, since a +3 Greataxe is 4d12 to a +3 Rapier's 4d6. That's +12 more damage per attack and probably 150% comaparative damage or thereabouts.
-Carrying capacity (this may matter more in the new edition...hard to say).
-Athletics Skill (and quite possibly other skills), which also includes combat maneuvers, apparently. So that's potentially a big deal.
Dex, meanwhile, does the following:
- Adds to a few skills (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery...maybe more but maybe not)
- Adds to AC in light armor (which, mechanically, probably just means people using it have slightly better movement)
- Adds to Reflex Saves.
That's...not a hugely unbalancing advantage to Dex, honestly. It definitely edges out Str a little bit, IMO, mostly because of the Save thing, but not enough that it's a big deal.
This is especially true if only Rogues get Dex to damage (something that may be true) or you need to spend some sort of Feat on it (something else that may be true). There's apparently at least one example of a character in the aforementioned playtests (an Alchemist) using a finesse backup weapon and not adding Dex to damage, so it doesn't seem universal.
** spoiler omitted **...In some cases DEX builds superseded STR builds, by virtue of niche stupidity, such as the Elven Curve Blade being combined with Power Attack with a rogue investing a 13 into STR, and still getting 1.5 damage.
Anecdotally this build was also an Eldritch Scoundrel, who focused on either being able to rely on Greater Invisibility (spell that facilitates sneak attack with no feat investment) or building around Dimensional Savant (a multi-feat chain that resulted in Dimension Door enabling movement and treated one as flanking with themself which also created self-sufficient sneak attack). Both of these options were available on the same build. Luckily, the damage balanced because the Eldritch Scoundrel halves the available sneak attack damage, granted this specific build was also VMC magus which gave my player access to more cool abilities, like enhancing his Elven Curve Blade, and potentially adding his INT to attack rolls, or even changing his weapon to target touch.
I'd have to go pull up the character sheet, but iirc he also had the invisibility trick, and in the Unchained RAE this translated to an incredibly versatile build.
At the point this happened, haste was already a factor, granting an extra primary attack as well, so his full round attacks were something like [swift action ability/spell]/+x/+x/-5.
Does anyone have time to run a calculation/simulation on the idea of "1.5xDex to-hit and no dex-to-damage"? (I think it's a very compelling idea, in that it achieves the "look-and-feel" difference of a nimble warrior hitting more often for smaller damage, critting more often, and fumbling less often, vs the hulking brute who hits like a truck but less often and with more fumbles.) But, I'm not sure how the numbers will work out.
I'd be curious to see how the Power-Attacking greataxe user (+5/+0 for 2d12+6/1d12+6) fares in DPR vs a dex-and-a-half rapier wielding rogue (+7/+3/-1 for 1d6+1 on a normal hit and 2d6+1d10+1 on a crit, assuming a nimble deadly weapon.) Obviously we don't have exact details on all the specifics, but seeing a rough breakdown of DPR vs AC would be interesting proof-of-concept on the "1.5xDex to-hit" idea.
The devs have also signaled crit riders will be more important in PF2, so we certainly wouldn't want dex-based to do more DPR than two-handed Power Attack. I'm also not sure if a 1d6 nimble deadly weapon is going to exist, so if needed to make the numbers work, one of the qualities could be dropped or the damage die could be scaled back. If Dex-based did just slightly less damage than normal (non-Power Attack) fighting, that could solidify its niche - worse but comparable for damage, more (weaker) hits, more crits, less fumbles, and with higher touch AC.
Not to be a bummer, but if I recall correctly, they've already stated that they will not be including Dex to Damage (at least in the core rules).Do you have a reference? I feel like that would have made the headlines on this forum...
My mistake. I misread something referring to "Dex Damage", which was actually about ability damage.
Just going to point out, if you really want verisimilitude, even more should depend on Strength than currently does. For most of human history combat has been about being able to freely move big metal and wood implements while hauling your tired body around in heavy armor. If you want "realism," Strength should add to attack, damage, and AC in armor or while using a shield. Even smaller weapons like shortswords were more about battering aside your opponent's guard to get at their vital bits. A big hulking brute fighting an agile (but not strong) opponent IRL has a huge advantage.
That's why D&D started with Strength to hit and damage - the stronger character can knock aside his opponent's parry, and be back in position to strike before said opponent has recovered. Being more able to control your weapon and shield puts you more in control of the battle and of your opponent.
I don't have a lot of IRL fighting experience, but I have played a lot of boffer LARPs - and those weapons are almost by definition light finesseable things - 1 pound confections of foam and plastic. Strong players still have huge advantages against weaker players.
But accurate thrusts are still where the damage comes from. Slashing with a sword is just not as deadly as a well-placed thrust (ask General Patton.)
If anything, your argument would support "Str to-hit, Dex to-damage". The Aryas of the world might have difficulty getting their opening with a parry, but once they land a blow then you are going to be really injured. Whereas the brute might have an easier time knocking away your defenses and scoring a blow, but a random slash is less harmful than a well-placed thrust, even if the slash has more power.
I will rather be hit by Arya than by the Mountain, mind you.
Arya, with all her training could not even defeat Brienne of Tarth, because that woman was stronger. Imagine her fighting a healthy Hound, or The Mountain That Rides, or Khal Droggo. I don't think she has the edge, by any means.
In real worlds terms: Vitaly Klitscko will KILL Manny Pacquiao.
Besides that, I hope they find a way to make both Arya and The Hound characters interesting
I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.Core rogue uses str to hit and damage.You dont like DEX to damage then use the core version.
But what about people playing 2ndE for whom that’s not an option?
And that doesn’t take away the feel bad from getting an entire class ability that you have no use out of and makes your build seem out of place for the class. You just have the sucky “I am not even using finesse weapons” feeling swapped for “I don’t get debilitating strike or skill unlocks, so this is just a worse class overall.”
Or we could scrap Stat to Damage entirely.
That also makes things worse for STR-based builds.
Edit: Frankly, if you scrap Stat to Damage entirely, that means entirely. No CHA bonus on paladin's Smite Evil, no adding cleric's CHA bonus to channel DCs, no adding spellcaster's attribute bonus to spell DCs -- none of it. If you make martial builds worse, then everyone else must get worse too.
I do wonder is Strength is going to be able to play a more active role on defense now. Like with "readying a shield" taking an action that could be an attack, I could see some way to utilize one's strength to block more forcefully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without Stat to damage, Strength probably should dissapear as a stat. It already does very little, and damage is like half of what it does.
I doubt that's the path Paizo is planning to follow.
I do wonder is Strength is going to be able to play a more active role on defense now. Like with "readying a shield" taking an action that could be an attack, I could see some way to utilize one's strength to block more forcefully.
I would absolutely be fine with a shield's AC bonus being equal to half your Strength bonus. Or alternately, when you take the Block reaction, you add your Strength score (half your Strength? At /least/ your Strength modifier?) to the effective Hardness of the shield for the amount you get to negate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda really like the idea of a shield enabling you to apply your strength bonus to your AC. Requiring an action to raise your shield seems like a pretty good balance to me, and if they are including Dex to damage on some weapons it would be a pretty interesting approach to making the two attributes useful to focus on.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to consider when balancing Str vs. Dex is that flat-footed is a lot different now - in PF1e, a heavy armor wearer doesn't get or need much Dex, but also doesn't lose much when flat-footed, whereas the light armor/high Dex character has their AC nuked by the condition. But in PF2e, flat-footed is only a -2AC and its occurrence is rarer as well. So a high Dex character is already stronger right from the get-go.
I think stat-to-damage should be a weapon quality. So a regular weapon uses strength and a finesse weapon uses dex. For the non-primary stat, I would also add a penalty for stats below 10. So if you are using a finesse weapon with a dexterity score of 16 and strength of 7, your bonus damage is +3 (dex) -2 (str) = 1. That way you can't safely dump either, but you still have a primary stat.
It really shouldn't be a "user" quality. If you try to use a rapier like a greatsword, you won't be effective. That's because it's a precision weapon, where speed is more effective than strength. On the flipside, strength is more effective when using, say, a battleaxe or warhammer. You need some speed, but strength is what you really care about. Some weapons could go either way, and that would be easy to implement as well.
Dex to attack as a feature of finesse-able weapons, Dex to Damage as a feat (either general, or class for certain martial classes), available at 1st level (or 1st level for certain martial classes, higher for others). Requires some commitment, but not too much.
This is how my thinking lines up, and how I run it in my game as well.
|
|
This is how my thinking lines up, and how I run it in my game as well.Dex to attack as a feature of finesse-able weapons, Dex to Damage as a feat (either general, or class for certain martial classes), available at 1st level (or 1st level for certain martial classes, higher for others). Requires some commitment, but not too much.
All evidence also points to this being how it officially works in PF2 at the moment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with these arguments is simple:
Dex to Damage infringes on Strength, which is one of the weakest Ability Scores in the game.
If there is Dex to Damage it should not be a 1:1 ratio.
A 16 Dex should not get +3 damage. They should add some of their Dex to damage. Around 1/2.
So an 18 Strength gets +4 Attack/Damage
An 18 Dex, with feat/weapon, gets +4 Attack / +2 Damage.
And Strength should always factor into melee damage. Always.
If you've got an 18 Dex and a 7 Str then you should have an attack and damage calculation like:
Attack: BAB +Dex Mod +Feat +Weapon Bonus
Damage: BAB +(Dex/2) +Str +Feat +Weapon Bonus
So assuming level 3 with a +1 from a feat on a non-magical 1d6 weapon, the above would have:
Attack +8 (3+4+1)
Damage: 1d6+0 (2-2)Whereas an 18 Dex 14 Strength...
Attack +8 (3+4+1)
Damage: 1d6+4 (2+2)This allows Dex to be competitive, without gimping Strength.
But is it competitive? Really? When the Str user is power attacking at +5/+0 for 2d12+6/1d12+6 damage, and the Dex user is attacking at +5/+1/-3 for 1d6+3 damage, that doesn't seem competitive.
I don't have issue with "Str malus should always apply to damage", I think that's reasonable. But Dex-based fighting should be truly comparable to Str-based, it just should not surpass it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with these arguments is simple:
Dex to Damage infringes on Strength, which is one of the weakest Ability Scores in the game.
Is it? In this new edition? I'm pretty sure that's just not true, actually. Or at least not that we know of.
Let's look per stat:
Strength:
-Most melee attacks, including all the big weapons
-Melee and Ranged Damage
-Carrying capacity
-The Athletics skill (which includes Combat Maneuvers)
Dexterity:
-Ranged attack rolls
-Melee attack rolls with some smaller weapons (and damage with the right Feat/Class Ability)
-AC bonus in light armor
-Reflex Save
-At least three skills (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery)
Constitution:
-HP per level
-Fortitude Save
Intelligence:
-Bonus skill proficiencies at 1st (this is speculative but well supported)
-Bonus on several skills
Wisdom:
-Perception Bonus (this is usually used for Initiative)
-Will Save
-Probably some skills
Charisma:
-Resonance
-Probably Social Skills
That looks good for Dex and Wis, those look like very good stats. But Str doesn't look notably weaker than most of the others.
I've always liked the idea of gaining your strength modifier as a natural armor bonus (dumping doesn't penalize), simply cause the concept of being swol and having abs of steel would be interesting.
I assume you have the same thing in mind I do:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/e8/d1/13e8d1045cda96f48284f607bbf9d198.jp g
I would gladly homebrew a feat that makes your strength bonus a natural armor bonus just to put this guy in.
On a more serious note, this discussion has definitely made me more positive on the idea of Dex to Damage. As long as it is a weapon property and not a feat sink, and maybe there are also feats that can only be used with finesse weapons. I still like the idea of Dex increasing your attack bonus even more than strength does, this increasing your crit chances though.
Edit: Another idea, throw another attribute into the mix: Int allowing you to ignore an amount of your targets AC equal to your bonus? Give High Int & Dex characters an interesting edge?
Strength:
-Most melee attacks, including all the big weapons
-Melee and Ranged Damage
-Carrying capacity
-The Athletics skill (which includes Combat Maneuvers)Dexterity:
-Ranged attack rolls
-Melee attack rolls with some smaller weapons (and damage with the right Feat/Class Ability)
-AC bonus in light armor
-Reflex Save
-At least three skills (Acrobatics, Stealth, Thievery)
I rather enjoy my fighters getting DEX to AC while wearing full plate.
Never forget, Armor Training allows fighter to benefit from significantly more DEX than other classes.
As an example: The fighter in the campaign I just completed had a 26 STR and a 20 DEX. That was +5 to her AC while in full plate.
|
|
I rather enjoy my fighters getting DEX to AC while wearing full plate.
Never forget, Armor Training allows fighter to benefit from significantly more DEX than other classes.
As an example: The fighter in the campaign I just completed had a 26 STR and a 20 DEX. That was +5 to her AC while in full plate.
Sure, but with a stated goal of limiting the difference in ACs for any particular level of character (or at least narrowing the gap as compared to PF1), I rather doubt bonuses like that are gonna carry over too much into PF2. And PF2 is what we're discussing.
Sure, but with a stated goal of limiting the difference in ACs for any particular level of character (or at least narrowing the gap as compared to PF1), I rather doubt bonuses like that are gonna carry over too much into PF2. And PF2 is what we're discussing.I rather enjoy my fighters getting DEX to AC while wearing full plate.
Never forget, Armor Training allows fighter to benefit from significantly more DEX than other classes.
As an example: The fighter in the campaign I just completed had a 26 STR and a 20 DEX. That was +5 to her AC while in full plate.
So, you are advocating making Armor Training less functional for fighters in PF2?
Or do you just want to eliminate meaningful choices by having all the numbers come out the same regardless of stat allocation.
If the second, the solution is simple. Play a game with no stats.
|
|
So, you are advocating making Armor Training less functional for fighters in PF2?
All indications are that Fighters don't get Armor Training in PF2.
And if they did, it would almost certainly be a Proficiency boost, which is a flat AC enhancer the game is already balanced around, rather than something different and Dex-based.
And, to clarify, I am advocating nothing. I'm talking about the way the game actually seems to work based on the stuff we've seen thus far.
Or do you just want to eliminate meaningful choices by having all the numbers come out the same regardless of stat allocation.
If the second, the solution is simple. Play a game with no stats.
Again, I'm not advocating anything. I'm making the statement that, by their own words, the people at Paizo want to narrow the gap between the best AC at 20th and the worst AC at 20th to something less than 20 points of difference (or possibly around 20 if you throw in a shield). This'd hold true to an even greater degree at lower levels.