Cool, I don't think Str lowering those is anything to write home about, especially if the ACP does not apply to combat manoeuvres, regardless.Ah, of course, thanks, how does ACP work in PF2, which skills?Armor Check PenaltyThe ACP reduction thing isn't a Str-Rogue suggestion, though, that's a suggestion for a blanket rule change. And a good one.My mind has gone blank, what is ACP?Straight Penalty to Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth, and Thievery (Though not to Athletics checks made to perform combat maneuvers)
ACP might apply to acrobatics or thievery based combat maneuvers if those exist. I think the speed penalty is the bigger thing.
|
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.
You did it needs to be finesse or agile melee weapon or any ranged weapon. Max damage will probably be a composite longbow if you can find a way to get your enemies flat footed.
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.
I believe it requires that you use either an agile weapon or a finesse weapon. Truth-be-told, I don't know if there are any solid agile-but-not-finesse weapons that would make Strength rogues really cool beans. Also, I don't know if we have seen any agile or finesse two-handers.
Ninja'd~
|
|
The agile keyword is actually a big deal. I could easily see d10 two-hander with agile being a thing, or a d8 two-hander that has lots of keywords that benefits from other two-hander centric feats/abilities. I suppose we won't know until we see the full equipment list, but that's a promising thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...
Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.
Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.
|
Why is it important to dump Str?
That's part of the problem, dumping Dex is never, ever a good idea, so I don't see why Str should be singled out.
Depends on what you mean by dumping. In PF2 you can't dump stuff below 10 unless your Ancestry gives a penalty to it. We know that there's armor with a +0 Dex Mod, so going with Dex 10-12 is entirely viable for the whole game.
Why should Str 10 not be equally viable?
Well, Dex is not just about AC, by sticking with 10 Dex, you lose out on other aspects, like Ref saves, ranged weapon attacks, stealth, acrobatics.
As long as a 10 Str is equally viable to a 10 Dex, fine, but that is not the current situation in 3rd Ed/PF1 and 5th Ed.
Slight side note : what gives you the most frequent benefits in combat ?
STR that gives you bonus on melee attacks and on melee damage (doubly so in PF2 through higher weapon damage) ?
DEX that gives you bonus on reflex saves, ranged attacks, stealth and acrobatics ?
In my experience most combats quickly become melee, reflex saves are not that common in melee combat, stealth almost never happens in melee combat and even Acrobatics are not used once a round in melee combat
Combat takes a big place in the game as well as RL time and high emotional energy. Most of it is melee combat
DEX mod is rarely used while STR mod matters several times a round
Not to mention that it has a higher impact through killing your opponent faster thus avoiding the hazards and ill surprises of longer fights
In this light, DEX does not seem so much better than STR
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience most combats quickly become melee, reflex saves are not that common in melee combat, stealth almost never happens in melee combat and even Acrobatics are not used once a round in melee combatCombat takes a big place in the game as well as RL time and high emotional energy. Most of it is melee combat
DEX mod is rarely used while STR mod matters several times a round
Not to mention that it has a higher impact through killing your opponent faster thus avoiding the hazards and ill surprises of longer fights
In this light, DEX does not seem so much better than STR
With finesse Dex comes up with every attack roll just not necessarily the damage rolls.
Additionally being a dex focused character will mean you are 5ft faster (then a comparable max Str Dex 10 character) though it's hard to say how big of a deal that will be in PF2 combat.
Also a dex focused character is pretty likely to try and stealth into combat to get the initiative boost though admittedly that is only once per combat and probably no more than half of combats on the high end.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...
Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.
Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.
There's some evidence it doesn't advance as fast, though. There was a 3rd level Rogue at a demo game who only had 1d6 Sneak Attack.
And a Greataxe Barbarian, if axes have deadly, might be doing 2d12+1d8+12 damage on a crit (for 29.5 to the Rogue's 24.5...it's +8 and 25.5 if a Fighter's doing it, but he has a higher crit chance). This assumes Greataxe has Deadly, which it might not, but I'd be shocked if some two-handed weapon didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...
Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.
Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.
So in light of sneak attacks multiplying on crits, crits being easier to land with the rogue's now better accuracy, and sneak attacks being much easier to set up, why do we need to give the rogue an additional 4-8 damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in light of sneak attacks multiplying on crits, crits being easier to land with the rogue's now better accuracy, and sneak attacks being much easier to set up, why do we need to give the rogue an additional 4-8 damage?Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...
Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.
Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.
because rogues have a smaller base weapon die to multiply, less base sneak attack dice, and 1d4+4 at level 1 is better than 1d4+0 or 1d4-1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will be using a d6 weapon most of the time not a d4. Also note that at first level a Str focused character who dumps Dex has a lower AC than a Dex character who dumps Str. Eventually the gear enables a Strong character to catch up but also eventually mulitplying weapon damage (and increasing sneak attack damage) make the low Str a lot less important for the Dex character as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because rogues have a smaller base weapon die to multiply, less base sneak attack dice, and 1d4+4 at level 1 is better than 1d4+0 or 1d4-1.So in light of sneak attacks multiplying on crits, crits being easier to land with the rogue's now better accuracy, and sneak attacks being much easier to set up, why do we need to give the rogue an additional 4-8 damage?Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...
Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.
Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.
I don't think anyone here arguing against dex to damage is attempting to deny rogues some kind of damage bonus to avoid something like a 1d4+0, just that it might not be as necessary for all rogues everywhere to do 1d4 (or more likely 1d6) +4 base damage, regardless of build, (which is pretty much what will happen if they get a first level class feature granting dex to damage at level 1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing to consider if you make strength as necessary as dex you risk spreading a character too thin, to the point that you do not have a mechanically balanced character - MAD is a thing that a lot of these ideas would exacerbate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing to consider if you make strength as necessary as dex you risk spreading a character too thin, to the point that you do not have a mechanically balanced character - MAD is a thing that a lot of these ideas would exacerbate.
Are you worried that if you make Str as important as Dex then a Dex based character would still want Str in the same way a Str based character still wants Dex? Because that sounds balanced to me by definition.
Also the PF2 ability generation/boost system is more MAD friendly so that is less of a concern than it was in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.You did it needs to be finesse or agile melee weapon or any ranged weapon. Max damage will probably be a composite longbow if you can find a way to get your enemies flat footed.
Wait, that's what they're doing with the Rogue's choice of weapons? Copying 4E, 5E, and Starfinder's decision to say "Hey, since you're playing a character that is otherwise best expressed by the Rogue/Operative class, we're going to go ahead and assume that you must want him to be stuck with a hyper-specific selection of weapons"?
Ugh. Hopefully, we can tweak SA between now and P2E's launch to nip that character-concept-crushing restriction in the bud. And even if not as a function of the default class feature, maybe with a feat or a class feature allowing the Rogue to expand his weapon repertoire beyond "Ye Olde Stock Limited Liste".
I mean, this is P2E. Last I heard, one could jump dozens of feet straight up into the air. Or steal the pants off someone while they were still wearing said pants. If such things are possible, then surely I can shank someone with a claymore (or, for that matter, a ballista).
Now, yes, I get the numbers require some separation. Assuming the same modifier to damage, a 1st level Rogue with a finesse weapon doing, let's say: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d6 + stat in non-sneak attack situations will easily get outclassed by a Rogue with a greatsword doing 1d12 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d12 + stat normally. And that gap would only widen with additional weapon dice.
That just means tweak the numbers.
*1st level finesse SA: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 (min 2 + stat, max 12 + stat, avg 7 + stat)
*1st level finesse normal: 1d6 + stat (min 1 + stat, max 6 + stat, avg 3.5 + stat)
*1st level greatsword SA: 1d12 + stat + 1d6 (min 2 + stat, max 18 + stat, avg 10 + stat)
*1st level greatsword normal: 1d12 + stat (min 1 + stat, max 12 + stat, avg 6.5 + stat)
3 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword
*20th level finesse SA: 6d6 + stat + 10d6 (min 16 + stat, max 96 + stat, avg 56 + stat)
*20th level finesse normal: 6d6 + stat (min 6 + stat, max 36 + stat, avg 21 + stat)
*20th level greatsword SA: 6d12 + stat + 10d6 (min 16 + stat, max 132 + stat, avg 74 + stat)
*20th level greatsword normal: 6d12 + stat (min 6 + stat, max 72 + stat, avg 39 + stat)
18 avg dmg per hit difference favoring the greatsword
Too large. So let's tweak it. What happens when we halve the SA dice a sneak-attacking greatsword Rogue gets (besides making it where a greatsword Rogue isn't even using SA until later than 1st level)?
*20th level greatsword 1/2 SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d6 (min 11 + stat, max 102 + stat, avg 56.5 + stat)
18 avg dmg ahead on regular hits, 0.5 avg dmg ahead on SA hits
Okay, let's also say that SA dice for non-finesse weapons are d4s instead of d6s.
*20th level greatsword 1/2 reduced SA: 6d12 + stat + 5d4 (min 11 + stat, max 92 + stat, avg 51.5 + stat)
still ahead on regular hits, but behind on SA hits now
That's just off the top of my head. Undoubtedly, there are more and better ways it can be tweaked. And certainly other factors that would also need to be accounted for (crits, weapon properties, etc.). But if the math concerns of allowing a Rogue to use a greatsword (or other large weapon) can be resolved without resorting to "You're using a greatsword? No Rogue for you!!", isn't it infinitely preferable to go to every other length necessary before we redefine "Rogue" to mean "that guy who's not allowed to use a greatsword"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, did I miss something, or does sneak attack simply apply to all attacks that meet the criteria? It currently looks like, if you want to be a damage-dealing rogue, going Str. with a two-handed is the way to go, unless I missed something somewhere that said you need a finesse weapon to deal Sneak Attack damage.You did it needs to be finesse or agile melee weapon or any ranged weapon. Max damage will probably be a composite longbow if you can find a way to get your enemies flat footed.
Wait, that's what they're doing with the Rogue's choice of weapons? Copying 4E, 5E, and Starfinder's decision to say "Hey, since you're playing a character that is otherwise best expressed by the Rogue/Operative class, we're going to go ahead and assume that you must want him to be stuck with a hyper-specific selection of weapons"?
Ugh. Hopefully, we can tweak SA between now and P2E's launch to nip that character-concept-crushing restriction in the bud. And even if not as a function of the default class feature, maybe with a feat or a class feature allowing the Rogue to expand his weapon repertoire beyond "Ye Olde Stock Limited Liste".
I mean, this is P2E. Last I heard, one could jump dozens of feet straight up into the air. Or steal the pants off someone while they were still wearing said pants. If such things are possible, then surely I can shank someone with a claymore (or, for that matter, a ballista).
Now, yes, I get the numbers require some separation. Assuming the same modifier to damage, a 1st level Rogue with a finesse weapon doing, let's say: 1d6 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d6 + stat in non-sneak attack situations will easily get outclassed by a Rogue with a greatsword doing 1d12 + stat + 1d6 SA or 1d12 + stat normally. And that gap would only widen with additional weapon dice.
That just means tweak the numbers....
I'd say the fact that Rogue cannot apply Dex-to-Hit on big weapon would be balance enough. A rogue still wants high DEX for all his skills and such, and that is useless with a Greatsword. The lower hit % and crit is gonna add up.
That is how it works in PF1, and I don't see Rogues using mega weapons except for gimmicks. But at least they can use 'em.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There could be a feat to expand the weapon selection that it works with.
If there isn't though, I will be severely disappointed (granted I think it should work with all weapons from the start, but I can see the balancing reasons)
We know for a fact that there's at least one such Feat, allowing the use of maces and clubs to sneak attack. A guy played in a demo game and his character was a Rogue who had it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing to consider if you make strength as necessary as dex you risk spreading a character too thin, to the point that you do not have a mechanically balanced character - MAD is a thing that a lot of these ideas would exacerbate.
I feel like MADness is a lot less of a concern in PF2 since one can easily start with an 18/16/14/12/10/8 array or have 3 18s at level 5.
I think the long and short of it is that rogues should get more out of "investing in strength" than "you can carry more loot" and "recouping the opportunity cost of one feat for dex-to-damage."
The conflict between Strength and Dexterity on the offense is essentially a design problem.
If Strength is offense and Dexterity is defense, then at first glance a high-Strength character who deals double damage would be balanced by a high-Dexterity character who takes half damage. Each one by himself could defeat the same opponents. Alas, side by side on the same team, the high-Strength character will have moved on to his second opponent, protecting the rest of the party, while the high-Dexterity character is still waltzing with his first opponent. Thus, both Strength and Dexterity must be good at offense. (Constitution is not defense. It is endurance when defense fails.)
Strength is massive damage, and massive damage is strength. That niche is clear. Dexterity is speed and accuracy and nimbleness. The niche for Dexterity in offense is unclear. Accuracy is good for offense, but the bonus to the attack roll represents that and Dex-to-attack-bonus being better than the matching Str-to-attack-bonus would unbalance the mathematics of the attacks.
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition went for Dexterity is speed. Dexterity boosted initiative. An archer could have Rapid Shot and Manyshot for more attacks per round. A melee combatant would have Two-Weapon Fighting. The D&D designers were careful to not multiply Strength with those feats: bows had weak Str-to-damage and Two-Weapon Fighting split 1 times Strength-to-damage and 0.5 times Strength-to-damage to match the 1.5 times Strength-to-damage of two-handed weapons. Thus, Strength and Dexterity can have their own independent offenses that work together without being overwhelming together.
Earlier editions of D&D had backstab, the predecessor to sneak attack. That one was indirect, because the source of the damage was a rogue's Bckstab class feature and being able to stay in stealth, a Dex-based skill rather than Dex itself. Flanking for sneak attack in D&D 3.0 and PF1 is not Dex-based. High initiative to catch a foe flatfooted for sneak attack is another aspect of Dexterity as speed.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition's three actions per turn with attacks at -0, -5, and -10 penalties prevents Pathfinder 1st Edition's multiple attacks to represent speed. And Dex-to-damage steps on the toes of Str-to-damage. Moreover, making them mutually exclusive leads to the one-or-the-other dichotomy that Secret Wizard described.
Thus, we need a PF2 offense for Dexterity that works together with Str-to-damage without being overwhelming together.
One thing I'd like to see in stead of straight up dex-to-damage, would be increased crit-range (decreased Crit-threshold?).
Something like; lower the crit-threshold by 1/2DexMod. So at 18 dex you'd crit at AC+8 instead of AC+10.
That would feel much more appropriate to me as an abstraction for hitting more vital areas.
Could be feat locked, or even class-locked to rogue.
Dex-to-damage just feels cheap and as pointed out makes Strength redundant. And if we're going to have Dex-to-Damage with certain weapons should at least not benefit from strength to begin with.
Extra critical hits are Dexterity is accuracy, a good theme. However, critical hits are extra damage on a hit, and that is too close to Strength's massive damage.
What if we go the other direction, damage on a miss? Mark Seifter implied that in a comment about the Glass Cannon Podcast, "You might also have an ability that gives partial effects on a failure." The Paizo Blog: Critical Hits and Critical Failures mentioned that a fighter could deal damage on a miss:
The fighter can use the special certain strike action, which lets him strike with the following failure effect.
Failure Your attack deals the minimum damage. (Treat this as though you had rolled a 1 on every die.)
Imagine a Dexterity-prerequisite feat that a character can recover from an melee-weapon miss with a Dex-based attack if the margin is less than his Dexterity bonus, but the recovery deals only half damage. Or the recovery lets character spend an action to reroll the attack with the same penalties.
A lot going on here. so the problem with 1/2 Dex to damage is that makes weird things happen with the dex stat so o difference for a 12, 16, 20. All the ones with odd bonuses are kind of screwed over by that.
I guess when the play test come out if the difference in dice is enough to make a noticeable difference in damage from a str and dex build that would be enough but I still don't like the dex to damage being a standard class feature. Should definitely be a feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be much more inclined to make an ability available to add Str to AC instead of Dex when unarmored or in light armorThat's an interesting idea. What's the ingame rationale?I have no idea, which is probably the biggest problem with the idea.
Maybe something involving parrying/blocking attacks via binding weapons or grappling?
Possible In-game rational : you are so used to handling and carrying large amounts, including armor, that whenever you carry anything lighter than heavy armor (or medium armor if so desired by the devs), your moves are faster and more precise
That could impact Reflex saves as well as AC BTW :-)
It is what Goku did in one of the first seasons of DBZ. He was wearing lead-filled outer garments that were weighing him down and discarded them when his opponent in the tournament had him in a bind. Which made him lighter and thus faster :-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically? Sure. Realism is not exactly Pathfinder's priority
While it isn't the highest priority, it has been a priority in the past (when taken within the context of a universe where magic is real). It's why we have so many rules in PF1e that work to simulate (not recreate) real life.
Now you might say it's not a priority at all in PF2e, but that is different to saying it's not a priority in Pathfinder.
"Well then, it seems like it's time for the Sable Crusader to, ah, drop in!"
"Okay, so that's initiative... Athletics check for you and Perception for them."
So all fighters are going to try to Assassin's Creed swan dive into every fight just to get the highest bonus? Between that and perception being a quasi-stat we might as well just have initiative be a flat +4+proficiency mod based on level+level. After all, it's understandable players are going to try to game the system to get a whole extra turn in a combat. But it's also going to get tedious in the same way that having arbitrary number of successes before arbitrary number of failures in 4e's skill challenges (and in PF1e social challenges?) was tedious.
I'd be much more inclined to make an ability available to add Str to AC instead of Dex when unarmored or in light armor than get rid of Dex-to-damage.
Your going down the road of making stats nothing but window dressing again. Next we'll have INT being used for attack and damage rolls for melee weapons. No thanks. FInd a better way to express the two stats that make them equal but still feel distinct from each other.
|
|
DEX that gives you bonus on reflex saves, ranged attacks, stealth and acrobatics ?And AC, attack rolls with finesse melee weapons, and Initiative, no other score covers so much, and I do not agree with your assertion that most combats get into melee, early, ranged-based characters can often stay out of melee range.
AC actually turns into ACP and speed reduction after wealth allows for heavy armor
Spd might have more impact in PF2 but in PF1 it did not matter that many times in melee combat
Finesse melee weapons have lower damage as a design feature and this has a bigger impact in PF2
Not all DEX-based melee combatants should be Rogues with unearthly Stealth
As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with DEX to damage being gated behind a feat but I do not want it gated behind a specific class or a specific weapon à la Dervish Dance : it kills both diversity in builds AND verisimilitude
And if it was not clear before I apologize, but I am talking about DEX-based melee characters and NOT ranged attackers
IIRC, DEX to damage is a melee thing, not a ranged combat one
|
|
A lot going on here. so the problem with 1/2 Dex to damage is that makes weird things happen with the dex stat so o difference for a 12, 16, 20. All the ones with odd bonuses are kind of screwed over by that.
I guess when the play test come out if the difference in dice is enough to make a noticeable difference in damage from a str and dex build that would be enough but I still don't like the dex to damage being a standard class feature. Should definitely be a feat.
I agree and I even think it should not be gated behind a specific class
Maybe a universal archetype ?
Hmm I think just the feat is good enough. don't need an archetype. the fact that is is only finesse weapons and they do less damage is pretty limiting too. I think just the feat should be fine.
I think it it exists (which overall I am still against) it should be an archetype feat. Multiple classes would want it so a single class doesn't make sense but there still needs to be an opportunity cost.
Currently it appears to be a rogue only feature which I think will just encourage a lot of rogue dipping.
Yeah I wish it wasn't a base feature for the rogue. Should really of been a rogue feat if anything.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically? Sure. Realism is not exactly Pathfinder's priorityWhile it isn't the highest priority, it has been a priority in the past (when taken within the context of a universe where magic is real). It's why we have so many rules in PF1e that work to simulate (not recreate) real life.
Now you might say it's not a priority at all in PF2e, but that is different to saying it's not a priority in Pathfinder.
Given that I posted this in response to an argument for not having Dex-to-damage in PF2 because it's not realistic, and the fact that PF1 has Dex-to-damage, I disagree that PF1 is invested in realism as much as the person I was responding to seems to want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there is certainly a lot more hanging on Dex than there is strength. One thing to note with regards to what each attribute gives is noting that AC parity for the 2 stats is not on equal footing. For heavy armour users it also comes with increased material cost as well as sacrificing mobility. I quite like the idea of having it reduce ACP as a result, though I'd have the speed penalties negated by sufficiently high strength as well.
One thing this thread has me reflecting on is what each adds to the melee combat equation. There are main areas, 'to hit' and 'to damage'.
Both Str and Dex contribute to the 'to hit' part in terms of accuracy and overcoming defences (armour penetration). Fair enough.
Rationalising Dex 'to damage' is harder particularly where precision based damage is supplied by other means (e.g. sneak attack). To me, if you are hitting areas where precision makes a difference to damage, then you may as well be scoring a critical hit.
With that in mind, perhaps 'to damage' should be the sole jurisdiction of Str. Confirming critical hits should be conveyed using Dex based attack, representing the hand eye coordination to hit critical target areas, giving more damage through increased critical chance.
the fact that PF1 has Dex-to-damage, I disagree that PF1 is invested in realism as much as the person I was responding to seems to want.
How long were the devs quite strongly against dex to damage? How many splatbooks, hardcover expansions and staff turnover did it finally take before Paizo reversed course on that decision?
If dex to damage is the benchmark we're using for this discussion (and I don't see anything wrong with that) I think Pathfinder was as invested as realism as the poster wanted early on in it's lifespan and its divergence from that realism is a relatively recent phenomenon.
|
|
the fact that PF1 has Dex-to-damage, I disagree that PF1 is invested in realism as much as the person I was responding to seems to want.How long were the devs quite strongly against dex to damage? How many splatbooks, hardcover expansions and staff turnover did it finally take before Paizo reversed course on that decision?
If dex to damage is the benchmark we're using for this discussion (and I don't see anything wrong with that) I think Pathfinder was as invested as realism as the poster wanted early on in it's lifespan and its divergence from that realism is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Dervish Dance was in Qadira, gateway to the east released in june 2009. Granted, it was in its 3.5 incarnation since PF1 had not yet been released.
Its PF1 version appeared in the Inner Sea Guide released in march 2011
The Agile weapon property for PF1 appeared in The Pathfinder Society Field Guide that was released in july 2011
Apparently DEX to damage has been plaguing Pathfinder for a long long time and is not a recent phenomenon at all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently DEX to damage has been plaguing Pathfinder for a long long time and is not a recent phenomenon at all
Fair enough. I had it stuck in my head that there was at least one dev (I want to say Jason?) who was steadfast against dex to damage (which isn't negated by your examples as they were setting specific which I believe was done by a different team), but regardless of all that it is accurate to say dex to damage has been in Pathfinder for a long time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dex to damage as a general feat is clearly not something the Developers are looking at right now, as it would completely defeat the changes made to the Monk class. Making it so that the Strong monk gets STR to AC to balance the issue points to a completely different kind of game than what pathfinder is, if the point is just to let every character base every important game factor off of one attribute. We might as well just have flat +4 bonuses to everything (or at least AC/Attack/Damage) and let characters describe how they got their bonuses themselves. (this is not an option I am interested in, but is what attempting to promote 1 attribute systems does.
Instead we can see that the developers have deliberately moved away from "ultimate attribute builds."
Paladin's can no longer ride charisma for AC, damage (while smiting) and saves. Casters that want to do damage need Dex or Str to hit with touch attacks.
The strange exception is the Alchemist, which is a clearly a pet project right now and the INT to resonance probably does need to be looked at closely in play-testing.
For folks arguing that STR classes are single attribute classes, there is a reason the barbarian is seen as a glass cannon and fighters and paladins have to sacrifice so much mobility. STR does not, and should not, affect any defense. STR character have to focus on at least one other defensive stat (Dex or Con) and that usually leaves them fairly open to one other major weakness.
the Dex to Damage build is popular because it can pretty much avoid having any weakness (because actually being weak low strength is no weakness).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no I agree if it were up to me I would not have dex to damage at all. I'm just trying to work out what seems like a reasonable compromise. Dex to hit and no dex to damage would be my preference for rogues. I really don't think it would put them that far behind in damage. It might also encourage them to bu up a 12 or 14 str for the little extra damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AC actually turns into ACP and speed reduction after wealth allows for heavy armorSpd might have more impact in PF2 but in PF1 it did not matter that many times in melee combat
Finesse melee weapons have lower damage as a design feature and this has a bigger impact in PF2
Not all DEX-based melee combatants should be Rogues with unearthly Stealth
As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with DEX to damage being gated behind a feat but I do not want it gated behind a specific class or a specific weapon à la Dervish Dance : it kills both diversity in builds AND verisimilitude
And if it was not clear before I apologize, but I am talking about DEX-based melee characters and NOT ranged attackers
IIRC, DEX to damage is a melee thing, not a ranged combat one
I think speed and mobility are something the developers are trying to promote with a lot of the action economy and removal of general Attacks of Opportunity. I think they are counting on us to make sure that feels right in the play test.
Certainly getting rid of combats where two enemies stand next to each other and attack as many times as possible is a good design goal.
I am curious about why you feel like Dex to Damage increases diversity of builds. If it was true that attribute was the only way or even the obvious best way to increase damage, then I would agree that having only one attribute attached to damage would be a problem. But Pathfinder has a long tradition of having other ways to make up damage, and personally I think having some of those take center stage for Dex builds is a better design than just letting Dex alone cover everything.
The way attributes work in PF2, every rogue probably is going to have an 18 in Dex, with maybe one or two 16 Dex builds viably possible, but a character is easily going to have two or three other attributes in the 14+ range. So there really isn't an argument that rogues couldn't focus on damage and still keep their dex maxed out if finesse strike gives a flat +2 bonus. Anyone looking to do absolute maximum damage on every hit is probably still better off being a barbarian with a two-handed weapon, as a 16 STR 18 DEX rogue is still going to be limited by weapon selection.
Rogues damaging attacks should come from tactical superiority, ensuring they get sneak attack, and making sure that sneak attack is worth it when you get it. Which means that sneak attack should probably account for about 50% of a rogue's damage whether they hit critically or not.
The problem with this is that people get enamored by that sneak attack damage and think that they should be able to hit with it every round, and when they can't, they feel like their character is useless.
That is why I think/hope that the rogue is much more about getting a bag of nasty tricks that they can do with their feats to control the battle field and that building towards that, instead of damage, should be a completely viable build for a rogue that doesn't want to spend character resources on upping their damage.
To me, that is real character diversity - when characters that focus on different attributes are functionally different characters. Dex to damage only makes rogues have no good reason to invest in strength. If Dex to damage is a feat, it becomes a feat tax for a class invested in Dexterity as a primary attribute, not an option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious on how you think having more options besides str to damage doesn't increase the diversity of builds.
I am pro options for damage, I am not pro tying them to attribute switching.
Yes, they have a long tradition of letting players use dex to damage rather than str to damage. The few times they did something else a la the vigilante talent and shifter claws feat, it proved to be subpar to getting an agile weapon, and significantly worse than going pure str. The other ways of increasing damage were not all that many nor as easy to access as stat to damage. And frankly, giving flat damage boosts is a bad way to go about it, as they encourage multiclassing to abuse it, or just are too low to compensate for what you gave up in terms of investment when you could just invest in a single stat and do better making you either cripple yourself or feel bad for wasting something.
This is a symptom of of people perceiving attribute increases as the best or only way to increase damage. I agree that finding ways to game agile and finesse weapons is likely to be a problem in PF2 if they start making things like elven curveblades that qualify for this class feature (finesse strike is already a default class feature for the rogue at this point). The multi-classing shenanigans don't go away by having finesse strike be the path of getting Dex to damage, and there is already one known class that gets half wrecked with easy access to dex to damage.
Why shouldn't I feel bad when I can't use a major class feature, that's like rolling a % for a spellcaster to be unable to cast spells that turn and not expecting them to feel bad when they can't cast.
This one is tricky because the truth is that there are a lot of classes that really don't gel well into a party, unless the party is built around making it happen. Rogues are one class that can fall into this category quite easily if the rest of the party wants to barge a head, and smash their way through encounters. 4e created a monster by calling the rogue a striker because a bunch of gamers are now under the impression that the purpose of the class is to inflict maximum damage all the time. That is not why the class has sneak attack. Sneak attack is built around careful planning to get the upper edge in combat before it begins.
So you think that a rogue that invests in Dex is going to play exactly like a barb that invests in str? I really hope you don't. Even a rogue that invests in str is going to feel different from a rogue that invest in dex. Being able to effectively contribute in combat in a game that is 80% combat is a good way for players to be able to feel like their character is good, forcing them to need to invest more in order to be able to contribute effectively only makes the player feel bad.
I think a rogue built around dex is the only kind of rogue there is in PF2 right now and there are no real in class advantages from other attribute dedications. I'd like Dex/Str rogues to be the damage dealing option. I'd like Dex/Int and Dex/Cha rogues to have interesting and unique nasty trick options.
I'd like there to be different kinds of Barbarian builds too, and I'd want a rogue built on Str to play differently than a Barbarian built on strength as well.
If the only way martial characters can contribute to combat encounters is by being the absolute best at inflicting damage, all the time, then I have a big problem with the game design, because it pushes all of them into one role. That is limiting options. Trading out two points of damage for the ability to have more flexibility, including combat flexibility feels like a meaningful choice that Dex to damage gets rid of because every rogue will have an 18 Dex.
The arguments about trying to make strength meaningful is primarily a result of things like dex to damage and Int to damage taking away STR's biggest value. I would argue that STR to AC is a bad idea and not a good compromise for adding in Dex to damage. It is difficult to contextualize narratively and is a feature designed to bypass primary game mechanics. By and large, I feel like attribute dependence is already too big a part of character identity, in that the game suffers when each class has only 3 or 4 different attribute builds that are optimal (much less 1 or 2). Attribute switching feats (especially to major game play mechanics: AC/HP/Attack/Damage/Spell DC) become the easiest ways to really break the game. I am not saying that I believe that none of these should ever happen, but damage is one that seems so easy that a lot of other systems have lazily adopted it, but it has played a big role in limiting what are fun builds of different classes, especially when damage can be made to sync up with the classes primary stat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most maneuvers seem Str-based, so Str seems to give more options in combat than Dex. I'm cool with that, since Dex gives more options outside combat, but from a combat perspective Strength is currently giving more options and better damage (as well as equal AC via heavier armor) even with Dex-to-damage as an available option.
Really, I think any complaints about Dex-to-damage are deeply premature until we see the actual way the system works and what advantages Strength has from a combat perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, I think any complaints about Dex-to-damage are deeply premature until we see the actual way the system works and what advantages Strength has from a combat perspective.
DEX-to-damage sucks.
That is an opinion I have, and I wish it wasn't there in the game.
But this thread was made under the assumption DEX-to-damage will stick in the CRB, unfortunate as it may be.
If DEX-to-damage is a thing, then give me a reason why Rogues would still want STR.
If maneuvers are wieldy and interesting, sure, I could see how Rogues with some STR could be valuable. But in 5E, STR-Rogues were a gimmick build because of how punishing maneuvers were to apply.
Bulk is a non-issue.
And then... STR doesn't do a single other thing for them.
So yeah, I want DEX-to-damage to be gone to have more build choices. A Rogue will always boost DEX for accuracy, and they'll have the option to boost STR for damage, but given they get a broad choice of attribute boosts, boosting INT/WIS/CHA/CON should also have their advantages.
Otherwise, I'd like STR to be a more fun option for classes as a . I don't need STR to be good if you want to swing a hammer. That's always a thing. But what about people who aren't primarily a bruiser? Can't they get some value out of STR?