Dex to Damage: The Thread


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Dex to damage is a controversial issue. How are you hoping they implement it in PF2?

Arguments against allowing dex to damage include:


  • (C1) Allowing Dex to-hit and to-damage, when it's already used for AC, Ref save, ranged attacks, and skills, creates overpowered PCs.

  • (C2) SAD characters are more powerful out-of-the-gate and also scale better than MAD characters, making the options unbalanced.

  • (C3) Higher AC allows for lighter armor and faster tactical speed, again creating characters that are more capable than Str-based characters.

  • (C4) Creating a 1:1 equivalence between Str and Dex, in that regardless of the "source" (Str or Dex) the fighting styles look identical and have the same effect on the target, is bland.

  • (C5) AC is more valuable in PF2 due to the >10< crit system, further increasing the defensive importance of Dex.

  • (C6) Nimble weapons will crit more often due to their decreased iterative attack penalties, which could already bolster Dex fighters.

  • (C7) It's not believable to have a 7 Str character doing tons of damage with a sword.

Arguments for dex to damage include:

  • (P1) In both fiction and real life many fighters rely more on speed and precision than strength (e.g., Arya Stark, Inigo Montoya, Jack Sparrow, D'Artagnan, and George Patton.) Many players want options to build these kind of finesse characters and still be deadly in a duel.

  • (P2) DPR in PF1 was still dominated by Str-based characters. Fully optimized swashbucklers could stay competitive using Precise Strike, but were never surpassing barbarians and other Str-based PCs.

  • (P3) In PF2, magic weapon damage scales off the weapon's damage die (instead of being a flat +1/+2/etc.) and so two-handed magic weapons will scale better finesse magic weapons. Additionally, the fact that finesse weapons typically have a smaller damage die already disadvantages Dex builds out-of-the-gate.

  • (P4) Starfinder-style ability boosts (i.e., increasing ~4 stats every 5 levels instead of 1 stat every 4 levels) will reduce the advantage that SAD characters have over MAD characters. Additionally, the devs have signaled ability-score-boosting belts and headbands will no longer exist, which also allows MAD characters to scale better against SAD characters.

  • (P5) Initiative is no longer usually based off Dex, as it will most commonly be a Perception check, with the option for using other skills in appropriate circumstances. This makes Dex significantly less powerful

Personally, I feel like the changes we already know (skill checks for Initiative, magic weapons scaling with damage die, increasing multiple stats simultaneously, lack of stat-boosting belts) are all plenty of justification to allow very easy means for getting dex to damage!

Issues of implementation that are worth discussion:

  • (I1) PF1 herky-jerky character advancement, when builds "come online" at a certain level (like getting Slashing Grace at level 5 and suddenly going from 0-60) was really frustrating from a player's perspective. That's why I'd like to see dex to damage easily available at level 1 (or at least a limited version of it, such as capping the damage bonus by your character level.)

  • (I2) Should dex to damage be a weapon special quality, or a feat?

  • (I3) What would be a good way to make Dex-based fighting "look and feel" different from Str-based fighting?

  • (I4) Should the rules still penalize SAD builds, such as by allowing Dex to damage but still subtracting your Str penalty, if you have one?

  • (I5) Should Dex-based fighting do precision damage instead of normal damage (so that you don't get the case where a water elemental is demolished by a rapier)?

  • (I6) Should critical hits look different or do extra damage for Dex-based fighting, on the theory that you are expert at hitting weak spots and critical organs?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd much prefer lethal grace style options be the default for dex based melee. Dex to damage makes Strength a lot less useful despite costing as much as Dex to increase. And a lot of the time I want a dex-based melee character to also not be weak, even if they aren't about to sling boulders at people. Finally, if the system has more systems that reward being MAD then it can reduce the advantage SAD characters have. Of course, these need to be genuine advantages, and not a struggle to break even, or else the system reinforces the SAD advantage. Still, would rather see options where 2 stats synergize with each other than see options where one begins to eclipse another.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not really a fan of Dex to Damage. My main reasons do revolve around Dex already being a strong attribute with lots of uses, but also that it doesn’t really make sense in my mind. Smaller more agile characters in movies, books and games don’t win fights by dealing more damage with individual blows from their small lithe frames, but by getting in more shots at more sensitive targets while avoiding the attacks of their opponents.

I would lean towards Dex being about more crits and getting in more damage that way. So Str builds consistently deal heavy damage but Dex builds get more damage on average due to more crits. I think what we have seen sort of indicates this being the direction things are going, with crits coming from rolling 10 higher than your target along with rolling a 20, so weapons with nimble(I think? Or is it agile that decreases the penalty of iterative attacks?) that can be used with Dex to hit will reward you choosing that route by being able to attack more with less penalty, thus having better chances of beating the target roll by 10 and this having more odds of crits overall.

I would love to see mechanics balanced between weapon properties and feats that allows for a PC with two daggers or one rapier that peppers their opponents with a bunch of strikes, with like half of them being critical hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Paradozen, lethal grace is a better solution than straight up dex-to-damage. No martial character is sitting with 7 strength, agile or no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's worth noting that almost all of the weapons that would get Dex have smaller damage dice than almost all of the weapons that use Str. So that is in itself a balancing factor.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
It's worth noting that almost all of the weapons that would get Dex have smaller damage dice than almost all of the weapons that use Str. So that is in itself a balancing factor.

my issue with this being the balancing factor is that then at the end of the day, Str builds will do more damage anyway, so why go with a Dex build based around hitting harder? I would much rather reward people going with a Dex build with a more distinct fighting style than just keeping a little less behind full-strength builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think it's important that, while strength pulled ahead in DPR in P1E, that a strength based fighter SHOULD be more effective at dealing damage than a character with a lower strengthx even if the dex and strength scores are equal. If the dexterity based character can keep up perfectly in terms of damage, outside of a certain niche(something similar to precision damage). You can argue that power attack and magic weapons are inherently stronger for bigger heavier weapons, and initiative is not tied to dex anymore, but dex isn't getting that much "weaker". We'll have to see armor class calculation, but AC is even more valuable than it was in pathfinder, +2 ac being capable of a MASSIVE amount of damage reduction, that the math on a great axe vs sword and board is in favour of the sword and board (WITH spending an action a round to raise your shield) all else being equal.

Adding dexterity to damage comes off as bland to me personally and like a cheap band-aid to solve a problem from the wrong side of the issue. (Which was the scaling of damage of strength/power attack builds which at least seems to have been addressed in P2E)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It always seemed odd to me too. Dex is probably already OP since it applies to AC, ranged to-hit, most skills, and sometimes melee to-hit.

We need to leave something for the other abilities...


DND 5e just straight up gives dex to damage not just on finesse weapons but ranged weapons as well, I think as long as the number of attacks you can hit with such a character is no longer in crazytown territory that just flat giving it to those weapon types with no feat required is fine.

Silver Crusade

Well, PF1 Unchained Rogue got Dex to damage and I imagine that says something about where the design team falls on the issue. But the Rogue blog should be today so hopefully we'll find out soon?

Anyway, do we even know enough about PF2 to speculate productively here? Probably not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogsplosion wrote:
DND 5e just straight up gives dex to damage not just on finesse weapons but ranged weapons as well, I think as long as the number of attacks you can hit with such a character is no longer in crazytown territory that just flat giving it to those weapon types with no feat required is fine.

That is one of the worst things about 5e in my opinion. Outside of a few niche builds everyone can safely dump Str.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly I prefer the way the game runs with solid built-in damage and accuracy without 'stat to Roll'

But it is a pretty big departure


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike Dex-to-Damage aesthetically. In my mind agile swordsfolk tend to have wiry strength (to do all that swinging from chandeliers). I'm happy to have "When you use dex-to-hit and strength for damage, add a big modifier" though.

Like maybe an option to add Dex and Str to damage would sit better with me? At least that way you'd be encouraged to invest in your strength at least a little.

But I just can't conceive of any incredibly weak people who are nonetheless extremely good at melee combat simply due to how dextrous they are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
DND 5e just straight up gives dex to damage not just on finesse weapons but ranged weapons as well, I think as long as the number of attacks you can hit with such a character is no longer in crazytown territory that just flat giving it to those weapon types with no feat required is fine.
That is one of the worst things about 5e in my opinion. Outside of a few niche builds everyone can safely dump Str.

oh yeah totally, except that the highest dps build in the game is strength based and magic heavy armor being the best makes dex to ac basically irrelevant. Not to mention in 5e you can dump pretty much any stat you want because headbands and belts are replacement stats rather than buffs. Casters can use their casting stat to hit with spells, some like the warlock can even use them for atk/dmg on weapon attacks and it's not even that good, but clearly dex to damage is basically satan.


To those suggesting "Dex-based fighting should look and feel different", do you have any suggestions on how to achieve that?

Many good points up above: I've added C5 (AC is more valuable in PF2), C6 (nimble weapons crit more often), and added a second part to P3 (finesse weapons have smaller damage dice to begin with.)

Honest question - has anyone recommending Lethal Grace actually used it with an average-Str character? The scaling seems awful to me. If you have a level 6 character with 10 Str (let's call her Arya,) you are adding +3 damage to a 1d6 damage weapon - which is half as much damage as a level 1 character who is using a greatsword with 18 Str (and I'm not even including Power Attack.) Granted you are more likely to hit... but you're also 5 levels higher. At best Lethal Grace allows you to have 14 Str and stay viable - but does it really make sense for Arya to have 14 Str?

To the camp of "You shouldn't be able to dump Str", does the (I4) solution (if you have a Str penalty, apply that penalty on your damage rolls) mollify you?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I have weird, mixed feelings about dex to damage. I like the ability to make a precise character that doesn't suck, but I'll echo the sentiment that it feels more appropriate for that to be accomplished by more frequent crits than by consistent, regular damage.

That's why I've liked what I've seen so far about the agile and deadly weapon properties, and how they're likely to work together. One makes you more likely to continue to crit as your turn goes on, the other makes you crit harder than you would otherwise.

I think the majority of my hesitance to allow easy dex to damage is how it makes it attractive to dump strength. As I mentioned in the other thread, it would remove a lot of my worry if a strength penalty were always applied to finessed melee weapons' damage, like it is with bows in PF1. At least as default. I'm fine with the idea that another layer specialized investment can alleviate it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just putting this out there, 'dumping' (say, 10-12) dex is fairly common for various builds as well.

The PF1 engine runs on specialization.

The only Ability Score I haven't often seen seriously forsaken is Constitution, and I have personally dumped that one.


I think Dex to damage is fine if it is handled similarly like in Starfinder.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Leedwashere wrote:
That's why I've liked what I've seen so far about the agile and deadly weapon properties, and how they're likely to work together. One makes you more likely to continue to crit as your turn goes on, the other makes you crit harder than you would otherwise.

I really like a Dex-based fighting style where damage comes from critting more often, or doing extra damage when you crit. My concern with easy and early Dex-to-damage is that it would limit the design space for interesting weapon properties and styles like agile and deadly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:

To those suggesting "Dex-based fighting should look and feel different", do you have any suggestions on how to achieve that?

Many good points up above: I've added C5 (AC is more valuable in PF2), C6 (nimble weapons crit more often), and added a second part to P3 (finesse weapons have smaller damage dice to begin with.)

Honest question - has anyone recommending Lethal Grace actually used it with an average-Str character? The scaling seems awful to me. If you have a level 6 character with 10 Str (let's call her Arya,) you are adding +3 damage to a 1d6 damage weapon - which is half as much damage as a level 1 character who is using a greatsword with 18 Str (and I'm not even including Power Attack.) Granted you are more likely to hit... but you're also 5 levels higher. At best Lethal Grace allows you to have 14 Str and stay viable - but does it really make sense for Arya to have 14 Str?

To the camp of "You shouldn't be able to dump Str", does the (I4) solution (if you have a Str penalty, apply that penalty on your damage rolls) mollify you?

I am in both the dex should be different and the you shouldn't be able to dump Str camps. I also think that using a dex based build you should fall behind in raw damage compared to a Str based build. Arya is awesome but without sneak attack or some other trick she is going to deal less damage than the mountain.

Personally I would make dex to damage cost a feat since it is so potentially powerful and include that if you have a Str penalty that still applies. And that would be enough to mollify me.

On the second point I would hope to see combat maneuvers be more useful in PF2 for both str and dex builds, that would help differentiate between them.

An athletics skill to knock and opponent prone or an acrobatics skill feat that allows you to make foes you tumble through flat footed would be cool. As viable options not trap options.

I also hope that weapon special qualities make a big difference in play style but I don't know enough about how those work to make any sort of prediction.


OK, I managed to slip in the "verisimilitude argument" as (C7) before the edit window expired.

Still curious how people would write rules for "different fighting styles" as opposed to just doing 1:1 swap of Str-to-damage for Dex-to-damage. I think it's an interesting idea, but I would want to see a form that allows for all of the iconic fighting styles we see in fiction/history, which is kind of a tall order. Simple "dex to damage" may lack flair, but it's very functional and allows for many different character flavors, so I'd be curious to see if people can come up with similarly versatile recommendations.

A lot of people seem to be in the camp "easier to crit", but with the >10< system that implies just overall greater accuracy. Which I suppose makes sense - maybe a dexterous fighter really does hit more often, crit more often, and fumble less often, at the expense of less damage per hit. But are we really likely to see that? Otherwise, would people be happy to see weapons that crit on AC+8 instead of AC+10, or is that getting too fiddly?


Dex fighters should feel different to Str fighters. They should be hitting more, and therefore critting more but each attack should be doing less damage. That said, with the way weapon work now with +1 weapons and adding extra dice it seems that should be pretty well covered. I would keep STR penalties, you still need average strength or you are penalised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Criting on things other than "threshold +10" removes the advantage of "is this a critical hit?" being nigh-instantaneous to figure. Might as well leverage the fact that our d20s are written in decimal notation.

I do wonder though, since apparently a +2 weapon now doesn't add 2 damage, it means you roll the weapon's damage dice two more times, now damage die size matters a lot more than it used to. So I wonder if we make sure that weapons one can use for dex-to-damage top out at say d6 for one handed weapons or d8 for two handed weapons if that wouldn't effectively differentiate the two styles.

Since the dex fighter with a +3 rapier will be rolling 4d6 +DexMod for damage whereas the str fighter with the +3 greatsword will be rolling 8d6+StrMod.


Maybe something like dex and a half to hit to offset a two handed str and a half to damage. I have not run the math on that though that might be too much.

EDIT: Looks like in the rogue blog they are adding debuffs to sneak attack so that might help a dex based characters attack be more useful without doing just more raw damage.


I'm of the opinion we can get more creative then strictly using dex to damage.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm happy to have "When you use dex-to-hit and strength for damage, add a big modifier" though.

This at a minimum would work. Could double your strength mod to put you more on par with strength builds.

RumpinRufus wrote:
To those suggesting "Dex-based fighting should look and feel different", do you have any suggestions on how to achieve that?

Maybe +1 weapon die (scales at higher levels to additional extra weapon die) at the sacrifice of using your strength mod to represent placing your weapon in more vulnerable places rather than using brute strength. If going shortsword: 2d6 = 7 vs 1d8+4 = 8.5. So damage wise about on par (if slightly lower) than a sword and board. But you have a better reflex score, and less penalties on dex skills and potentially comparable armor class.


RumpinRufus wrote:

OK, I managed to slip in the "verisimilitude argument" as (C7) before the edit window expired.

Still curious how people would write rules for "different fighting styles" as opposed to just doing 1:1 swap of Str-to-damage for Dex-to-damage. I think it's an interesting idea, but I would want to see a form that allows for all of the iconic fighting styles we see in fiction/history, which is kind of a tall order. Simple "dex to damage" may lack flair, but it's very functional and allows for many different character flavors, so I'd be curious to see if people can come up with similarly versatile recommendations.

A lot of people seem to be in the camp "easier to crit", but with the >10< system that implies just overall greater accuracy. Which I suppose makes sense - maybe a dexterous fighter really does hit more often, crit more often, and fumble less often, at the expense of less damage per hit. But are we really likely to see that? Otherwise, would people be happy to see weapons that crit on AC+8 instead of AC+10, or is that getting too fiddly?

Well, iirc there is a class of weapon that calculates the penalty for iterative attacks from -4 rather than -5 which would go a long way toward scoring more critical hits...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:

Dex to damage is a controversial issue. How are you hoping they implement it in PF2?

Arguments against allowing dex to damage include:


  • (C1) Allowing Dex to-hit and to-damage, when it's already used for AC, Ref save, ranged attacks, and skills, creates overpowered PCs.

  • (C2) SAD characters are more powerful out-of-the-gate and also scale better than MAD characters, making the options unbalanced.

  • (C3) Higher AC allows for lighter armor and faster tactical speed, again creating characters that are more capable than Str-based characters.

  • (C4) Creating a 1:1 equivalence between Str and Dex, in that regardless of the "source" (Str or Dex) the fighting styles look identical and have the same effect on the target, is bland.

  • (C5) AC is more valuable in PF2 due to the >10< crit system, further increasing the defensive importance of Dex.

  • (C6) Nimble weapons will crit more often due to their decreased iterative attack penalties, which could already bolster Dex fighters.

  • (C7) It's not believable to have a 7 Str character doing tons of damage with a sword.

1. I disagree. There were many balancing points behind Dexterity versus Strength, and even then, having Dexterity to Attack and Damage doesn't mean a whole lot when an Archer can do just as much damage, if not more, without going through what the Pathfinder developers viewed as shenanigans.

1a. Strength characters with heavier armors had comparable AC, with differences in Flat-Footed V.S. Touch AC being significantly higher than the other, with this difference being only noticable in the very late game, where characters with 13+ Dexterity modifier would actually pull ahead from any other character in the game in terms of AC. The sole reason why this is the case is Maximum Dexterity Bonus on armors, and the late scaling of Dexterity modifiers.

1b. The Reflex Saves are really only relevant if you're facing a lot of those saving throw types. If you're facing Fortitude or Will saves (which are the worse of the saves to deal with), you won't be as durable, and the bonuses to Reflex Saves will be negligible, considering what those kinds of effects usually do, which Reflex Saves do nothing to help against. (If anything, a rebalancing on saving throw effect consequences would be more in order than this being an issue.)

1c. The only major Dex skills are Fly, Disable Device, and Acrobatics. Boosting the usefulness of 3 situationally good skills (one of which is for Expendables, another of which is exclusive to those who can actually fly, and the other gets outscaled very easily in the endgame) is hardly balance breaking.

1d. You forgot to mention Initiative, since that was really the only major balance-breaking attribute that Dexterity improves at a rate well beyond anything else, but quite frankly, at the times when Initiative is the only thing that matters, even Dexterity-based characters lose out simply because LOLWizards.

1e. They also didn't have to spend feats just for their schtick to function; they spent feats for their schtick to function better than what it usually is, or to shore up other obvious weaknesses (remember those saving throws I mentioned earlier? Yeah, some Great Fortitude and Iron Will are probably better than spending two feats just to actually function in combat).

2. This has been an issue regardless of Dex to Damage. The only way you're going to fix this is if you make each attribute affect certain things equally, and since the value of each attribute varies based on which character, class, race, etc. you pick...you're almost never going to end up having this stuff fixed without completely redoing the game, or just making everybody the same exact thing and nobody capable of one-upping anyone else. But those games are both boring and stupid (in my opinion, anyway, maybe some people actually like those games, in which case I recommend they play something like Chess or Checkers, a game which actually has this paradigm).

3. No it doesn't. A Paladin in Full Plate and using a Light Shield can have just as much AC as a character with lighter armor, boosted Dexterity, and a Buckler, if not moreso because Dexterity modifiers haven't skyrocketed to the threshold that base armor bonuses (not including enhancements) can't keep up with. As for tactical speed, remember a Barbarian or Bloodrager in Mithril Full Plate is just as fast as Dexter McDexface on the battlefield, and he's a lot scarier.

4. It's a good thing Paizo isn't doing this, now, isn't it? Refer to the points I made in response to C2 above.

5. The only thing having an AC higher than 20 + enemy's attack bonus will do is make them more likely to critically fail. Which isn't a bad thing, and makes tanks with absurd AC actually fun to play, as they watch bad guys screw up so bad every time they try to hit them. But it actually makes those characters worse, because now smarter enemies have even less reason to go after those sorts of characters. So no, it's not really more valuable, it's just different. Which, depending on who you are, is either a good thing or a bad thing, especially since Critical Fails are now a part of the game.

6. They will also hit more often too. Sounds like the rule works as intended, since nimble weapons are generally more precise than other, less flexible weaponry.

7. Sure it is. I've had slight taps in the groin area from objects that have resulted in me doubling over in pain for a good 30 seconds, simply for hitting at just the right spot with just the right amount of force. I'm not saying that every Dex-to-Damage character is a cheap shooter, so-to-speak, but that they deal their damage through sensitive pressure points that are highly vulnerable. After all, being nimble is technically counterintuitive to being strong or powerful.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dex-to-Damage felt needed in PF because your damage scaling heavily relies on your ability score modifier to damage. If you can't add it or have to rely on two different ability scores for attack/damage, then you will fall way behind the curve.

This probably will not be the case for 2nd Edition as every class will likely get scaling damage like in Starfinder.


Bardarok wrote:

Maybe something like dex and a half to hit to offset a two handed str and a half to damage. I have not run the math on that though that might be too much.

EDIT: Looks like in the rogue blog they are adding debuffs to sneak attack so that might help a dex based characters attack be more useful without doing just more raw damage.

I like the idea of Dex increasing your to-hit even more than at a one-to-one ratio. Definitely leads to more crits that way. Might be a little too much, but it’s a cool idea to work on.

I love what I read in the Rogue preview, and also really like the idea of Dex based characters dishing out status effects from hitting pressure points and sweet spots, but we have already seen that fighters get the ability to deal status effects with their strikes, so that doesn’t seem like it will be unique to Dex fighters.

On a side note I really don’t want the Rogue to be the go-to class for Dex builds. The Unchained Rogue getting weapon finesse and Dex to damage automatically really felt bad when i wanted to build a Strength based Rogue and basically wasted a major new feature for the class. Both Rogues and Fighters should be able to be built with either option just as well.

On the topic of OP’s question on how to make Dex fighting more distinct, I would say a combination of higher crit rate, be that from more accurate strikes or from increasing the number of strikes made, and Dex-based combat maneuvers or other options like flurry attacks.

Something like a feat that if you are wielding two daggers or another finesse weapon you can spend two actions to make two attacks without penalty. So flurry but not limited to the monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am all for Dex to damage especially for ninjas, rogues, and swashbucklers.


In PF1RAE, Dex builds became just as viable and common as STR builds thanks to the inherent relationship between TWF and DEX.

Granted, on any build other than the Unchained Rogue (the most common DEX builds ime) this required a large amount of feat taxes (Finesse, TWF, [damage] grace, Weapon Focus, TWG), and resulted in the comparably same penalties as power attack by the time most builds came online.

The results were that most Power Attack (STR) builds relied on one big hit, where Two-Weapon (DEX) builds made multiple attacks and added their damage together to find similar results. Naturally, sneak attack builds that could come from Improved Feint invalidating Two-Weapon Feint added an extra layer of reliability to their to-hit, which largely mitigated the medium BAB track and created vastly different play styles that were both equally viable.

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.

On the other end of the spectrum, we had 'rogues' that were built by taking the slayer class and combining it with VMC rogue which literally gave the slayer back everything it lost from the process of hybridizing the rogue (additive sneak attack, trapfinding and evasion no longer requiring talents meant that some talents were then freed to spend on options that otherwise replaced what feats you would have taken at the appropriate levels) and this build functioned even better because not only did the slayer have full damage potential as the rogue, but it also was capable of building for two weapons without the need for, but not limited by on a STR build.

If the new rogue builds and other such classes can get this kind of variety in PF2 straight out of the box I will be happy, regardless of what happens to DEX/damage.


While I do actually like Dex to damage, a few other alternatives I would also be okay with might include:

  • Finesse weapons get Dex to hit and Int to damage.
  • Finesse weapons get Dex to hit and Str to damage, like PF1 with WF; you only need to beat AC by 5 with a Finesse weapon to get a crit instead of beating it by 10.
  • Finesse weapons get Dex to hit and Str to damage, like PF1 with WF; as long as you hit the same target with two or more attacks on the same turn with a finesse weapon, you do Dex mod in bonus damage, like a version of the old Rend ability.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

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).


The idea behind DEX to damage is that nimble fighters more easily hit targets where it hurts. I think this should translate into some mechanic that makes crits easier to get.

Something like this:

Add DEX to hit instead of STR. If your attack hits, add DEX again to your attack roll. If your new result would beat your opponent's AC by 10, you crit.

That might be too good, but I think it is along the lines of what agile fighters thematically do.


thflame wrote:

The idea behind DEX to damage is that nimble fighters more easily hit targets where it hurts. I think this should translate into some mechanic that makes crits easier to get.

Something like this:

Add DEX to hit instead of STR. If your attack hits, add DEX again to your attack roll. If your new result would beat your opponent's AC by 10, you crit.

That might be too good, but I think it is along the lines of what agile fighters thematically do.

I always just figured that's what precision damage was, if it came from Precise Strike, Sneak Attack, et whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.


FlySkyHigh wrote:
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...

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.

I agree, it was not a good idea to include Finesse Training without at minimum an archetype that trades it away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.

Well, except having more resources to put towards other goals while the dex rogues are dumping feats/class abilities into trying to catch up.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.
Well, except having more resources to put towards other goals while the dex rogues are dumping feats/class abilities into trying to catch up.

Explain.

Edit:
I think other rogues that dump str would just be better at other things. +4-+8 to damage shouldn't ruin them. it should just be a extra sprinkle on top. The half-orc who chose to deal more damage isn't as good at other things that a rogue needs to be good at its a trade off.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm against Dex to damage it makes my half-orc rogue having a good strength score pointless except for carrying loot.
Well, except having more resources to put towards other goals while the dex rogues are dumping feats/class abilities into trying to catch up.

Explain.

Edit:
I think other rogues that dump str would just be better at other things. +4-+8 to damage shouldn't ruin them. it should just be a extra sprinkle on top. The half-orc who chose to deal more damage isn't as good at other things that a rogue needs to be good at its a trade off.

That's what the thing. Dex Damage people are giving up character resources. All character resources being relatively equal, they're behind the 8 ball compared to your strength rogue to fulfill their concept.

If the other feats aren't powerful enough to make up the gap that's a systemic problem that should be addressed.


I think it was necessary in PF1 to give them that option I'm all about the unchained rogue but it may not be required in PF2 and If it isn't then I feel it will be all the better for it.

Also the rogues that aren't investing into str are getting other things out of it. The resource isn't wasted just put elsewhere. Damage isn't the rogues only job.

If a rogue gets the automatic dex to damage the it absolutely invalidates all rogue str builds. Half-orc rogues would be pointless. I'd rather keep dex to hit str to damage if rogue would rather have a higher wisdom and int then str I say more power to him he will do a little less damage (honestly what like 3-5 points less?) but be better at other things.

Also I've seen plenty a play do other things to harass and help their team win then do a ton of damage as well.


RumpinRufus wrote:
To the camp of "You shouldn't be able to dump Str", does the (I4) solution (if you have a Str penalty, apply that penalty on your damage rolls) mollify you?

Not for me. Ignoring the fact that a -2 to damage using PF1 doesn't slow down a lot of builds much, I'd rather see rewards for investing in both stats by having them work well together, not penalizing them refusing to cooperate. I like Lethal Grace because it works well when Dex and Strength are complimenting each other. More options that build off of two stats working towards the same goal are what I want to see. Make SAD no longer the best by giving benefits to being MAD in areas of specialization since the game has historically rewarded it far more than generalization.


What if instead of adding dex to damage we got rid of str to damage?

As long as the stats are being used to hit the correlated stat already ends up giving more damage. PF2 will undoubtedly have new damage formulas. Once you add in feat reqs needing certain stats (like current 13 str for power attack) it may fulfill its role already.

From my understanding they are trying to get rid of static bonuses to damage anyway...


Rylar wrote:
What if instead of adding dex to damage we got rid of str to damage?

This has worked great in my games


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the answer is to make one stat irrelevant? Sigh I give up. you guys have fun. I'm out.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
So the answer is to make one stat irrelevant? Sigh I give up. you guys have fun. I'm out.

I assume this was directed my way.

How does using a stat as a prereq make it useless? Maybe armor needs a specific strength to wield without incurring a penalty, or weapons need a str score to wield properly.

If we are swinging around 3d12 axes do we really need +6 damage?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
So the answer is to make one stat irrelevant? Sigh I give up. you guys have fun. I'm out.

Considering that I was talking about my games, all stats are of equally low relevance.

Strength is carrying capacity and raw strength checks.

Dexterity is Initiative and nothing else

Constitution is strictly endurance not health or saving throws.

Int is knowledge (not skills in general, just bonus knowledge skills)

Wisdom is insight

Cha is influence


I think dexterity should help hitting with certain weapons (even with many of them), but should add to damage only on specific circumstances.
Easy dex-to-damage can bring to the point where an house cat can slaughter an average human.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Dex to Damage: The Thread All Messageboards