A DEX-to-Damage Proposal that should make everyone happy


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

By the time the rogue gets a +5 weapon, they are probably looking at a lot of additional damage on a sneak attack, which means that the rogue has the potential to do an obscene amount of damage, especially with an agile weapon that lets them take reduced penalties for iterative attacks. This is good (I want the rogue to be able to do damage if that is their build focus), but a two-handed fighter is also going to be significantly behind a rogue in defensive abilities at this point, even if they are keeping their Dexterity as high as necessary to get best AC they can with the heaviest Armor they can. Or they can choose not to keep their AC up, and leave Dex alone while focusing on other attributes, meaning their AC will certainly be lagging and they will be at risk to high powered Reflex save-based attacks, because their attribute is low, and they are not advancing quickly in that save.

No rogue on the other hand will ever consider boosting strength, and will be free to be boosting, WIS, CON, DEX and another attribute of their choice (which will never be strength) every 5th level, this is a pretty ideal situation to be in because it means that they will be keeping up their defensive abilities very easily, with a minimal sacrifice to skill utility (as they will still be boosting either INT or CHA).

Realistically, the fighter is probably going to have to be boosting STR, CON and WIS and probably spending some attribute resources on boosting DEX, or Feat and equipment resources on boosting AC and Reflex saves or they will be in big trouble when they start running into wizards hitting them critically with AoE effects that the Rogue will probably be using Evasion not to be bothered by. So in exchange for doing a decent amount more damage per attack at higher levels (most of the time, since this is assuming the rogue hasn't gotten abilities by the time they have gotten their +5 weapon to do sneak attack every attack, and that by that point it is at least +3d6), The fighter will be significantly behind in at least one defensive ability and massively behind the rogue in terms of skills and skill feats.

I think it is fair to expect the rogue to invest in STR if they want to reach the damage level you set here as a bar, sacrificing some of their skill utility.

I think we probably need to wait and see what a rogue can do with Skill feats and stunts like feinting, intimidate, and other INT or CHA skill feats before we can say that rogue is well balanced without getting some kind of boost to damage, but I do think DEX to Damage is a sloppy means of balancing the class' damage output and will continue to create headaches for developers as players will want it accessible for players of every class, and the developers seem to be designing the other classes around the assumption that they won't be able to get it.

Narratively, it doesn't add anything to the game that static damage bonuses wouldn't be able to add just as easily, because a stronger character learning where to strike at people's vital openings, is still going to be more effective than a less strong person with the same training. DEX and STR are often portrayed as opposites of each other in some story telling traditions, but this is only really true in the case of strength building at the very extreme end of training (body builders who focus on muscle growth beyond what their bodies can functionally handle in daily life).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

This is as it should be frankly. But my grippli ninja held her ground at level 19 with a single Wakizashi. Once you get to the level where you start having +5 weapons, 10 damage per hit really doesn't matter a whole bunch, when you are averaging 70+ damage per hit, and usually each character is taking down one if not two or more mooks per round (and possibly even the BBEG in one round.)

1. 10 damage still matters when your fighter is dealing 70+ damage a hit, that's 1/7th their damage.

2. Damage isn't getting nearly that high in pf2 by the looks of it, it's the weapon damage + 6 from stat (7 with item) + probably about 20 from feats and class features. That brings the fighter to 59.5 damage per hit and the rogue to 49.5 if they have their stat item. That 10 damage from weapon choice accounts for about a 1/6th of the fighter damage, and 1/5th of the rogues.

Edit: numbers were wrong for late game damage boosts, it's seems to be about 17 ish damage for class and other boosts, rounded up to 20 for flat numbers and error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

By the time the rogue gets a +5 weapon, they are probably looking at a lot of additional damage on a sneak attack, which means that the rogue has the potential to do an obscene amount of damage, especially with an agile weapon that lets them take reduced penalties for iterative attacks.

And I'm sure the fighter has no damage boosts elsewhere as well in this scenario so that we can point and say "oh look dex to damage is op"


Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

Realistically, the fighter is probably going to have to be boosting STR, CON and WIS and probably spending some attribute resources on boosting DEX, or Feat and equipment resources on boosting AC and Reflex saves or they will be in big trouble when they start running into wizards hitting them critically with AoE effects that the Rogue will probably be using Evasion not to be bothered by. So in exchange for doing a decent amount more damage per attack at higher levels (most of the time, since this is assuming the rogue hasn't gotten abilities by the time they have gotten their +5 weapon to do sneak attack every attack, and that by that point it is at least +3d6), The fighter will be significantly behind in at least one defensive ability and massively behind the rogue in terms of skills and skill feats.

Yeah, they'll have to put in some effort into dex and con, but unlike the rogue they get more hp per level, and historically have had good fort save, making con less of a requirement for them (unlike the rogue), in addition to not needing to put into dex all the time (alternating dex and Con seems like it'd work quite well for their boosts) due to their armor capping their dex bonus. In addition, I imagine they'll have ways to use shields to help with reflex based spell saves.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

not if they are using a two-handed weapon, which was the basis of your damage claim. Fighters that choose to go the two-handed route sacrifice defense for damage. Rogues never sacrifice anything for damage. They don't even have that option


Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

I think it is fair to expect the rogue to invest in STR if they want to reach the damage level you set here as a bar, sacrificing some of their skill utility.

I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:


I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.

I still don't understand why you think that the rogue is giving something up for Finesse strike. It is a built in part of the class. There is no choice about it.


Secret Wizard wrote:

FINESSE STRIKER

Feat 1
General, Combat
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you may add your Dexterity modifier to damage instead of your Strength modifier. While using this feat, any attacks you make beyond the first take an additional -1 penalty to your attack roll.

It's very favorful and fits the rogue agenda.

I have said elsewhere that damage from Dexterity should be from speed, accuracy, or nimbleness. Gving the unpenalized Dex-to-damage to the first attack, the one without a multiple attack penalty, ties it to accuracy. Hence, it has the correct flavor.

In addition, by discouraging the later attacks, it encourages the rogue to take non-attack actions traditionally associated with rogues, such as moving into flanking position, or moving in for a single attack and away after the attack in Spring Attack style.

It's a win.

Well, 90% a win. The language leaves one detail unclear: can the rogue do Dex-to-damage on the first attack and then forgo Dex-to-damage on the second and third attacks to avoid the -1 penalty? And the rogue should get some form of Dex-to-damage as a class feature, rather than costing a feat. Maybe:

FINESSE STRIKE Rogue 1
On your first attack of your turn, if wielding a finesse or agile melee weapon, you may add your Dexterity modifier to damage instead of your Strength modifier.

Improved Finesse Strike Rogue Feat 1
Prerequisite Finesse Strike
If wielding a finesse or agile melee weapon after your first attack, you may take a -1 penalty to your attack roll. If you do, you may add your Dexterity modifier to damage instead of your Strength modifier.


Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Tallow wrote:
In PF2 that seems to be slightly different as the weapon die becomes much more important as lots of things multiply the number of dice used. But I'm still not sure its significant enough to matter as much as some make it out to be.

Actually it makes a world of difference, consider the following scenario a rogue with 22 dex, and a fighter with 22 str, both have +5 weapons, since their ability scores are the same I'm ignoring the damage it adds.

The rogues +5 d8 weapon deals 4.5x5=22.5 damage.

The fighters +5 d12 greatsword deals 6.5x5=32.5.

The fighter has a +10 damage advantage which is definitely significant, in pf1 he'd have only had a +2 advantage (although he'd have gotten 1.5 str), which isn't that much.

I think we probably need to wait and see what a rogue can do with Skill feats and stunts like feinting, intimidate, and other INT or CHA skill feats before we can say that rogue is well balanced without getting some kind of boost to damage, but I do think DEX to Damage is a sloppy means of balancing the class' damage output and will continue to create headaches for developers as players will want it accessible for players of every class, and the developers seem to be designing the other classes around the assumption that they won't be able to get it.

Narratively, it doesn't add anything to the game that static damage bonuses wouldn't be able to add just as easily, because a stronger character learning where to strike at people's vital openings, is still going to be more effective than a less strong person with the same training. DEX and STR are often portrayed as opposites of each other in some story telling traditions, but this is only really true in the case of strength building at the very extreme end of training (body builders who focus on muscle growth beyond what their bodies can functionally handle in daily life).

I hope the skills turn out better than in pf1, but I hold my reservations on the matter. Also, it's not really that sloppy of a design decision, it's an effective change that doesn't require a lot of changes and stop gaps to make sure it doesn't get broken. I'd love for it to be generally available, however restricting it also works fine and helps balance around certain classes not getting it (could be some class specific archetypes that open it up for others later).

Because narratively while the str person may have had the same training, he doesn't have the speed to take advantage of the opening, whereas the speedy dex guy does. If it's a guy with both high dex and str, they should be better than the pure str or pure dex guy in all combats, except pf can't (and shouldn't) convey that effectively without destroying balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.
I still don't understand why you think that the rogue is giving something up for Finesse strike. It is a built in part of the class. There is no choice about it.

I don't see why you think a version of that feature that rewards the player for ignoring it is a good idea. I also don't think it should be built into the class.

If its built in, forcing the player to invest in another stat just to be subpar in the end is a bad design decision.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.
I still don't understand why you think that the rogue is giving something up for Finesse strike. It is a built in part of the class. There is no choice about it.

I don't see why you think a version of that feature that rewards the player for ignoring it is a good idea. I also don't think it should be built into the class.

If its built in, forcing the player to invest in another stat just to be subpar in the end is a bad design decision.

My preference is for the feature to give a flat +2 damage bonus with finesse and agile weapons to everyone, that scales +1 every 5 levels. I don't think rogues would avoid using that feature, regardless of what attributes they invest in.


Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.
I still don't understand why you think that the rogue is giving something up for Finesse strike. It is a built in part of the class. There is no choice about it.

I don't see why you think a version of that feature that rewards the player for ignoring it is a good idea. I also don't think it should be built into the class.

If its built in, forcing the player to invest in another stat just to be subpar in the end is a bad design decision.

My preference is for the feature to give a flat +2 damage bonus with finesse and agile weapons to everyone, that scales +1 every 5 levels. I don't think rogues would avoid using that feature, regardless of what attributes they invest in.

I'm assuming theres a when using dex to hit condition in there that's missing.

The scaling rewards ones who favor str too much (making str/dex mandatory boosts), the nonscaling version favors those who ignore it's existence (making pure str builds necessary if you want to be relevant).

Using the same stat as the stat used to hit provides increases at a reasonable rate, without going too fast or slow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Unicore wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
I think it's fair for it to have a cost that isn't too high. Investing both class features and having to commit all their boosts is too high, especially when they'll still be outshone by other classes who've invested far less than them into damage, which allows the other classes to also have more utility.
I still don't understand why you think that the rogue is giving something up for Finesse strike. It is a built in part of the class. There is no choice about it.

I don't see why you think a version of that feature that rewards the player for ignoring it is a good idea. I also don't think it should be built into the class.

If its built in, forcing the player to invest in another stat just to be subpar in the end is a bad design decision.

My preference is for the feature to give a flat +2 damage bonus with finesse and agile weapons to everyone, that scales +1 every 5 levels. I don't think rogues would avoid using that feature, regardless of what attributes they invest in.

I'm assuming theres a when using dex to hit condition in there that's missing.

The scaling rewards ones who favor str too much (making str/dex mandatory boosts), the nonscaling version favors those who ignore it's existence (making pure str builds necessary if you want to be relevant).

Using the same stat as the stat used to hit provides increases at a reasonable rate, without going too fast or slow.

I am pro rewarding rogues that build for damage, investing in STR and Dex to get a +1 damage bonus every five levels. As you have pointed out, it will still be behind a full STR 2 handed fighter on damage.

I am also not in favor of adding a requirement of using Dex to attack. A ""pure strength rogue" is STR 16, and a rogue can go dex 18, str 16 if they really focus on it, which means that at best, the rogue is +1 damage ahead at level 1 (1d6+5). Since this feature is limited to rogues, it won't be available to anyone else so there will be no "pure STR" builds attempting to cheat the system by using vastly inferior weaponry to get what amounts to a +1 to damage at level 1, but a -1 to attack (if they have a 16 STR and a lower Dex).

Again, it is important to me that rogues have real and powerful reasons for focusing on something other than damage (powerful class feats that build off of CHA and INT), which we won't be able to see until the playtest. But I am all in favor of the DEX and then STR rogue as being the best pure damage dealer of the Rogue builds. That makes a lot of narrative sense to me.


Mathmuse wrote:


Well, 90% a win. The language leaves one detail unclear: can the rogue do Dex-to-damage on the first attack and then forgo Dex-to-damage on the second and third attacks to avoid the -1 penalty?

Working as intended. If the user, which can be a Rogue or a Bard or whatever, sticks to one attack a turn (and thus voluntarily choose to avoid a high focus on output and perhaps do more disarming, feinting, etc.), then you should have no disadvantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.

I just really like the idea of a strong guy being able to hit harder. Strength for damage please. Lets let Dex to Dex things...

Scarab Sages

Mathmuse wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.

5e actually kinda does this, and it's a really neat idea, and really makes a lot of sense. You have skill proficiencies, and they have general attribute association (Dex for Stealth, Charisma for Intimidation, etc.), but the game also says, and expects, that your DM can ask for skill checks using different stats. You could, for example, have a character make an Athletics (Intelligence) check to determine how far a gap is, or just how hard you'd need to throw something to hit a target at X distance. Lots of neat stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys.. I was joking.. I don't want Str to Stealth.


Constitution to Knowledge (Arcana) or riot


Str to Int! The brain is a muscle, right?

(Not Int-based skills... Int itself.)


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Constitution to Knowledge (Arcana) or riot

"Turns out you pick up a lot of knowledge about the arcane when you go drinking with wizards."


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.

I just really like the idea of a strong guy being able to hit harder. Strength for damage please. Lets let Dex to Dex things...

You're right, lets keep str to damage and let dex do dex things.

And multiple attacks is definitely a dex thing.

Quick Blows
Whenever you make a strike action while using dexterity to attack with a finesse weapon and are wielding two finesse weapons, you may make 1 attack with each weapon with the same attack bonuses instead of only attacking with one of them. These attacks have a -2 penalty. These attacks count as one attack for the purposes of iterative strikes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.

5e actually kinda does this, and it's a really neat idea, and really makes a lot of sense. You have skill proficiencies, and they have general attribute association (Dex for Stealth, Charisma for Intimidation, etc.), but the game also says, and expects, that your DM can ask for skill checks using different stats. You could, for example, have a character make an Athletics (Intelligence) check to determine how far a gap is, or just how hard you'd need to throw something to hit a target at X distance. Lots of neat stuff.

Which in practice just amounts to the players trying to argue why their best stat is applicable in this situation every time a skill check comes up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Can we also use CON for diplomacy and STR for stealth please?

"I only deal with people who can keep up with me in drinking," said the dwarven ambassador as he downed his third ale.

"Sneaking on the ground? That is where everyone looks. Climb up to the roofs if you want to stay out of sight," said the orcish burglar.

I just really like the idea of a strong guy being able to hit harder. Strength for damage please. Lets let Dex to Dex things...

You're right, lets keep str to damage and let dex do dex things.

And multiple attacks is definitely a dex thing.

Quick Blows
Whenever you make a strike action while using dexterity to attack with a finesse weapon and are wielding two finesse weapons, you may make 1 attack with each weapon with the same attack bonuses instead of only attacking with one of them. These attacks have a -2 penalty. These attacks count as one attack for the purposes of iterative strikes.

They way agile weapons work in pf2e, and the way crits are based on accuracy, not just luck, dex DOES affect damage when using light weapons, and multiple weapons. Just in a different WAY than str does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I just really like the idea of a strong guy being able to hit harder. Strength for damage please. Lets let Dex to Dex things...

You're right, lets keep str to damage and let dex do dex things.

And multiple attacks is definitely a dex thing.

Quick Blows
Whenever you make a strike action while using dexterity to attack with a finesse weapon and are wielding two finesse weapons, you may make 1 attack with each weapon with the same attack bonuses instead of only attacking with one of them. These attacks have a -2 penalty. These attacks count as one attack for the purposes of iterative strikes.

They way agile weapons work in pf2e, and the way crits are based on accuracy, not just luck, dex DOES affect damage when using light weapons, and multiple weapons. Just in a different WAY than str does.

Yes, using dex to hit is completely different from using str to hit (which you can still use for Finesse weapons iirc).

Just like how using dex for damage is completely different from using str for damage.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can make a good argument to use just about any stat for any purpose. For damage it's especially easy

Str to damage? I hit harder.
Dex to damage? I hit more accurately.
Con to damage? I easily ignore the enemy hits on me and thus find it easier to hit vital points.
Int to damage? I can calculate the best way to hit my enemies.
Wis to damage? I can read my opponents moves and hit where they leave open.
Cha to damage? I dunno, something about resonance? Charisma apparently makes you magical.

But obviously for balance reasons the game doesn't let you easily use any stat for any purpose, regardless of whether you can logically justify it.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I just really like the idea of a strong guy being able to hit harder. Strength for damage please. Lets let Dex to Dex things...

I posted my views about Strength and damage 4 days ago at The STR / DEX Dichotomy in 5E comment #178. My hey sentences were, "Strength is massive damage, and massive damage is strength," and "Dexterity is speed and accuracy and nimbleness." At the core, I agree with CraziFuzzy.

Unfortunately, the PF2 rogue will have the most flavor if the rogue does not require high strength for damage. Other classes, such as monk and ranger, ought to combine good dexterity and good strength. We don't need a third class out of twelve that does so. Barbarian, fighter, and paladin need Strength, too, so the classes are not ignoring the strong person hitting hard role.

The pregen of Merisiel elf rogue has the following rogue ability:

FINESSE STRIKER*
When you attack with an agile or finesse one-handed melee weapon,
you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage instead of your Strength
modifier.

(Oops, I forgot to restrict my Finesse Strike and Improved Finesse Strike to one-handed weapons.)

Therefore, the PF2 rogue already had Dex to damage. Secret Wizard is attempting to invent a version of Finesse Striker that stays truer to Dex to Dex things. He limits Finesse Striker more and ties it to accuracy, a Dexterity theme.

CraziFuzzy wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

You're right, lets keep str to damage and let dex do dex things.

And multiple attacks is definitely a dex thing.

Quick Blows
Whenever you make a strike action while using dexterity to attack with a finesse weapon and are wielding two finesse weapons, you may make 1 attack with each weapon with the same attack bonuses instead of only attacking with one of them. These attacks have a -2 penalty. These attacks count as one attack for the purposes of iterative strikes.

They way agile weapons work in pf2e, and the way crits are based on accuracy, not just luck, dex DOES affect damage when using light weapons, and multiple weapons. Just in a different WAY than str does.

The summary of agile weapon property on Merisiel's sheet says, "Agile The multiple attack penalty with this weapon is reduced to –4 and –8." Critical hits and agile weapons relate to attack bonus, which is more often Strength than Dexterity.

As for Quick Blows, which is modeled on the PF2 monk's Flurry of Blows, an extra attack (or three extra attacks since it lacks the Flurry of Blows limit of one per turn) is drastic and does not favor Dexterity. Compare two rogues, Brutus with Strength 16 and Dexterity 12 and Dexter with Strength 12 and Dexterity 16. Suppose that while using Quick Blows Brutus needs a 13 or higher to hit, which is 6 hits out of 20 swings. Then Dexter, while using Quick Blows hits on a 11 or higher, 8 hits out of 20 swings. Brutus's average damage per strike action would be (8/20)(1d6+3) = 2.6 damage per strike. Dexter's average damage per strike action would be (10/20)(1d6+1) = 2.25 damage per strike. For the second attack, the odds shift toward dexterity: 0.975 for Brutus and 1.125 for Dexter, but not enough to make up the difference on the first attack. So Strength and Dexterity are about of equal value to Quick Blows.

Maybe if Quick Blows had no Strength bonus to damage, then it would be dominated by the Dexterity bonus to hit.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Cha to damage? I dunno, something about resonance? Charisma apparently makes you magical.

It's easier to strike a vital spot when they're distracted by your GORGEOUS THIGHS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

CHA-To-Damage
Cutting Remark: If you would be able to perform a verbal casting action this round, your may add your Charisma Modifier to damage rolls with weapons instead of Strength, and your weapons automatically cause nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage.


Mathmuse wrote:
(...) Brutus needs a 13 or higher to hit, which is 6 hits out of 20 swings. Then Dexter, while using Quick Blows hits on a 11 or higher, 8 hits out of 20 swings. (...)

Man, you failed at Math, Mathmuse :P

13 or higher is 8 out of 20, and 11 or higher is 10 out of 20.

Everything else is ok :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Cha to damage? I dunno, something about resonance? Charisma apparently makes you magical.
It's easier to strike a vital spot when they're distracted by your GORGEOUS THIGHS.

....I'm now completely sold on Charisma to damage.


RafaelBraga wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
(...) Brutus needs a 13 or higher to hit, which is 6 hits out of 20 swings. Then Dexter, while using Quick Blows hits on a 11 or higher, 8 hits out of 20 swings. (...)

Man, you failed at Math, Mathmuse :P

13 or higher is 8 out of 20, and 11 or higher is 10 out of 20.

Everything else is ok :P

Oops, I had originally had those numbers as 15 or higher for 6 out of 20 and 13 or higher for 8 out of 20, but decided to increase their chances by 2 so that the second attack had bigger numbers. I forgot to edit the 6 and 8 to 8 and 10 in the text, though I changed them in my calculations.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Cha to damage? I dunno, something about resonance? Charisma apparently makes you magical.
It's easier to strike a vital spot when they're distracted by your GORGEOUS THIGHS.
....I'm now completely sold on Charisma to damage.

Sounds like those words were ... charismatic


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jokes aside (there have been some good ones!), I am all for using different ability scores for a Skill check, depending on the situation: Athletics check using Con instead of Str to swim/tread water for many hours, Str for an Intimidate check instead of Cha, by bulging/flexing/displaying your ability to squash heads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Jokes aside (there have been some good ones!), I am all for using different ability scores for a Skill check, depending on the situation: Athletics check using Con instead of Str to swim/tread water for many hours, Str for an Intimidate check instead of Cha, by bulging/flexing/displaying your ability to squash heads.

This i support without a joke!


Personal opinion? No dex to damage...but no str to hit. Even someone using a fairly heavy weapon required finesse and control, while someone using a small sword needed strength. Any actual warrior I can think of in fantasy or history really would have had a decent score in both. The people with very lopsided str/dex distribution tend to be mooks, side characters or bit players.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Personal opinion? No dex to damage...but no str to hit. Even someone using a fairly heavy weapon required finesse and control, while someone using a small sword needed strength. Any actual warrior I can think of in fantasy or history really would have had a decent score in both. The people with very lopsided str/dex distribution tend to be mooks, side characters or bit players.

I would love it if they make armor giving DR and not interfering with your chance to be hit.

I think fewer things could make me happier and more satisfied with this new edition.


Yes. That would be great. Shields should add to your ability to avoid being hit. But making damage avoidence and damage mitigation two ways of handling being attacked, so long as both are viable and have pros and cons, would be amazing.


RafaelBraga wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Jokes aside (there have been some good ones!), I am all for using different ability scores for a Skill check, depending on the situation: Athletics check using Con instead of Str to swim/tread water for many hours, Str for an Intimidate check instead of Cha, by bulging/flexing/displaying your ability to squash heads.
This i support without a joke!

Right on, one of the rules during the 5th Ed playtest that they included as a variant. I am not too thrilled about tying combat manoeuvres to Skills, due to how it has worked out in 5th Ed, but it looks like the maths are very tight in this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dex to damage will never make everyone happy.

Since there are at least some people who would prefer it didn't exist in any incarnation.

My personal preference for Pathfidner 1.0 was that I only liked the Unchained Rogue version of dex to damage, that was gated behind 3 levels in the class. I didn't like other classes, basically anyone that wasn't trying to focus on str in the first place, trying to get dex to damage.

Without seeing the whole of the rules it hard to know how good dex is as to whether or not its justified to allow dex to damage in general. In PF1 dex was too good, contributing to too many things, it should have never been allowed to add to damage (with the exception of rogues).


Yeah I don't think the new rogue should be balanced around requiring dex to damage to function. I feel like with a dex build the advantage is higher mobility and in theory AC but I guess with armor that's not going to be as much of an advantage if any. Now I will say and I don't know for certin yet but it does look like build with str still have the potential of doing more damage but it still means your build is going to be all in. So do you require both dex and str do you require on or the other should they be interchangeable or distinct. Their is a lot to consider.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I don't think the new rogue should be balanced around requiring dex to damage to function. I feel like with a dex build the advantage is higher mobility and in theory AC but I guess with armor that's not going to be as much of an advantage if any.

Yeah, also benefits Ref saves, ranged attacks, melee attacks with some weapons, Initiative (when in Stealth mode), Acrobatics, etc; Dex already has a lot going for it.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I don't think the new rogue should be balanced around requiring dex to damage to function. I feel like with a dex build the advantage is higher mobility and in theory AC but I guess with armor that's not going to be as much of an advantage if any.
Yeah, also benefits Ref saves, ranged attacks, melee attacks with some weapons, Initiative (when in Stealth mode), Acrobatics, etc; Dex already has a lot going for it.

Your right but I don't feel like I was arguing that and I think everyone pretty well knows all that by now or at least one would hope.


I'm hoping the play test wont include dex to damage for anyone but the rogue. As it will be easier to add it in an as an option, if it's not too powerful, than it it would be to remove it. There is much more wailing and gnashing of teeth when removing an option.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
I'm hoping the play test wont include dex to damage for anyone but the rogue. As it will be easier to add it in an as an option, if it's not too powerful, than it it would be to remove it. There is much more wailing and gnashing of teeth when removing an option.

It's been confirmed that Rogue is the only one that gets dex to damage in the playtest. And even then it's something they are going to look at closely. I imagine one of the pregens in the playtest will be a rogue attempting to abuse dex to damage as much as possible, and the surveys will be about how they performed compared to the rest of the party.


RafaelBraga wrote:
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Personal opinion? No dex to damage...but no str to hit. Even someone using a fairly heavy weapon required finesse and control, while someone using a small sword needed strength. Any actual warrior I can think of in fantasy or history really would have had a decent score in both. The people with very lopsided str/dex distribution tend to be mooks, side characters or bit players.

I would love it if they make armor giving DR and not interfering with your chance to be hit.

I think fewer things could make me happier and more satisfied with this new edition.

That's not how armour works though.

You don't go like "oh I feel slightly less stabbed" or "well good thing that arrow got only halfway through".

Armour is made to have impacts glance off.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon wrote:

Dex to damage will never make everyone happy.

Since there are at least some people who would prefer it didn't exist in any incarnation.

My personal preference for Pathfidner 1.0 was that I only liked the Unchained Rogue version of dex to damage, that was gated behind 3 levels in the class. I didn't like other classes, basically anyone that wasn't trying to focus on str in the first place, trying to get dex to damage.

Without seeing the whole of the rules it hard to know how good dex is as to whether or not its justified to allow dex to damage in general. In PF1 dex was too good, contributing to too many things, it should have never been allowed to add to damage (with the exception of rogues).

I do not understand why only Rogue should get it

In fact I feel Rogue should be the last to get it because they already have so many benefits from high DEX


The Raven Black wrote:

I do not understand why only Rogue should get it

In fact I feel Rogue should be the last to get it because they already have so many benefits from high DEX

I don't understand, what benefits do they get from high dex already that other classes don't?


The Raven Black wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Dex to damage will never make everyone happy.

Since there are at least some people who would prefer it didn't exist in any incarnation.

My personal preference for Pathfidner 1.0 was that I only liked the Unchained Rogue version of dex to damage, that was gated behind 3 levels in the class. I didn't like other classes, basically anyone that wasn't trying to focus on str in the first place, trying to get dex to damage.

Without seeing the whole of the rules it hard to know how good dex is as to whether or not its justified to allow dex to damage in general. In PF1 dex was too good, contributing to too many things, it should have never been allowed to add to damage (with the exception of rogues).

I do not understand why only Rogue should get it

In fact I feel Rogue should be the last to get it because they already have so many benefits from high DEX

Because I feel it should be a rogue niche. And everyone else benefits the same amount from having dex as the rogue does, as far as I am aware the rogue gets no special benefits from having dex that others do not, except dex to damage.

51 to 100 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / A DEX-to-Damage Proposal that should make everyone happy All Messageboards