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


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
willuwontu wrote:
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?

Way I see it (mostly based on PF1, not sure how PF2 changed this) :

Light or no armor to avoid penalties to skills that are critical to the Rogue + not that high HP made DEX bonus to AC mandatory

Acrobatics to get in sneak attack position because the Rogue's attack rolls were not that high

DEX to Reflex saves + Evasion is quite good too, but almost an afterthought

Many many Rogue skills benefit from DEX and the Rogue has the skill ranks to max them all

High Initiative so you can get your sneak attack right away

There are likely other benefits I forgot

A melee DEX-based Fighter gets far less benefits IMO


I'm not sure what I think about how DEX to damage should work under PF2 rules. All I know is that DEX to damage should be an option for the sake of builds that want or need it, and that it should be conditional or require investment and not just free for all (since it messes with the balance of character abilities).

Last, but not least, we should avoid basing any argument for/against DEX to damage on being a realistic simulation of anything and focus on the balance aspect of it. Why? Because AC throws any possible realism regarding "hitting thing with other things" out the window. There it goes. Dammit AC, stop it.
Your AC (not Touch AC, total AC) means two things: How good you are at evading and how much you're hurt by stuff colliding with you. That, by default, means two things that are equally ridiculous:
a) A high STR makes you better at using your hands to hit squishy stuff that moves faster than your hand-eye coordination can manage.
b) A high DEX makes you better at making anything you throw penetrate a stationary stone.

So, that said, I'm gonna tackle this one post I'm quoting not because I think I'll add anything useful to the discussion (other than that "don't invoke realism" bit) but because my inner pedantic nerd requires me to, I'm sorry and I bear you all no ill will.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm kind of okay with rapiers being *the* dex and str weapon, to be honest... just because these are four-foot long blades with an offense based on lunging and punching through whatever you're pointing at. Noodly armed folks need not apply. Pure dex folks should stick to daggers and kukri and the like.

I have used a rapier and, trust me, you don't need more than the bare minimum strength to use it. And regarding daggers, STR would be more important when using daggers than when using rapiers, precisely because the length of the rapier adds a lot of force to your swings, while a dagger doesn't have that benefit and relies only on how fast your muscles are and how much explosive force they can deliver. In fact, it's easier to use strength with a dagger than it is to use with a rapier, since the rapier's blade will probably bend (they're VERY bendy) if it hits resistance, diverting your force, where the dagger's blade should be sturdier and apply a higher percentage of your strength to the resisting object.

I mean, using a rapier for a while strains your arm, sure, but under PF rules that's CON, not STR anyways. The problem with your arms becoming tired is not that you can't swing them with enough force, it's that you proggressively lose control of the finer adjustments to your motor functions and as such it's harder to hit people with the pointy end. And the same goes for most bladed weapons, actually, since they require more finesse than raw strength; you barely need to put any force into the swing as long as the blade is properly sharpened and you hit the proper spot.
So if we're talking about realism, most bladed weapons should actually use DEX to hit anyways, and most of them should default to it for damage too.
Of course, hitting harder applying STR would make your hits better at breaking stuff (such as armor), so STR should add damage in cases where for example you don't actually hit flesh but you hit hard enough to damage it under the armor, but if we're talking rapiers it's gonna break apart before it breaks proper armor anyways.

And it's over, sorry about the rant.

TL;DR: Arguments regarding realism don't have a place in the discussion because the AC system is already too much of an abstraction to allow any sort of realism and because the weapon system is already wrong about the basic mechanics of hurting stuff with a weapon anyways, so anything trying to apply realism while still based on that is going to fall flat sooner or later. The only relevant point of discussion should be balance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
2Zak wrote:
The only relevant point of discussion should be balance.

I disagree. If they somehow made Dex to damage completely balanced with Str I still would not like it. I would rather have them come up with a new system for gaining more damage from Dex instead of just making it identical to Str. That's just way too boring. I think that maybe a feat that can make it easier to get Criticals. Like when you attack with a finesse weapon using your dexterity, you can subtract half your dex mod from the threshold of a critical success. So if you had 18 dex, with this feat you could crit on AC + 8. That would increase damage, but in a way that's different then how Strength does. So that there's actually a difference between a dex based character and str based character other than just the weapons they use and the armour they wear.


Dire Ursus wrote:
2Zak wrote:
The only relevant point of discussion should be balance.
I disagree. [...]

I see your point and correct my assertion: The only relevant points of discussion should be balance and game mechanics.

Mostly: don't bring things from outside the game into this.

In any case, what you say looks cool but I prefer the boring but practical way for this, to be honest. In my case I don't want to make high DEX a special thing, I just want to be able to shank things without high STR.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I'm hoping the play test wont include dex to damage for anyone but the rogue.

For myself, I hope every cat, PC and/or wandering plant creature can get it. IMO, I see no reason to restrict it to a single class. I know I'm not going to be happy if my monk is forced to look like the hulk if I want to actually hit and damage anything. :P

Claxon wrote:
Because I feel it should be a rogue niche.

Seems as appropriate to have a dextrous and precise fighter or monk as it does to have a dextrous and precise rogue. "Hulk Smash" shouldn't be the only combat method.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

But the attack still hit you, from a purely targeting perspective, it just failed to penetrate your protective armor and damage you.

There are perfectly viable arguments for having armor make a target easier to hit but more difficult to damage, and there have been optional rules to cover this type of play in many iterations of the game.

Whether or not it makes sense all depends on how one views the abstract concept of Hit Points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like (and probably i'm wrong) that DEX to Damage shouldn't be an option, not for realism or balance, but because that would lead to the standarditation of PCs:

So, let's start from the widest diffusion of Dex to Damage: every light or finesse one handed weapon hit and damage is governed by Dex, like 5e did. This would push (under an optimitation point of view) every agile combattant to never raise their Str over 10.

Ok, let's try with "Feat gives Dex to damage". Well the result wouldn't be much different. Having a cost would make SOME people go with a decent Str and stick with that. But, because beign SAD is almost always optimal, many people would cry out "feat tax!"...and in my opinion they wouldn't be so wrong.

And, with the current option of Finesse Striker, we would have the same issue: people dipping like crazy Rogue 1 for their Monk, Rangers and Fighters. And those not dipping would complain about the cost needed to pay to achieve an optimal version of the character envisioned.

Dex to damage is like drugs man, increasing its cost doesn't decrease its demand: its an optimal choice to be as SAD as possible, and people will go to any lenght to obtain it...doing things like PUTING SKILL RANKS IN PERFOMANCE(DANCE), the horror...

Agile and swift warriors should receive benefits from their playstyle in a way that dosen't make a decent Str score useless. Yes there are multiple istances and examples of heroes and characters relying on their agilty more than on their strenght, but it never shows them having an 8 or 10 in their hypotetical character sheet.

I've seen many suggesting to implement the same mechanic used by one of the Vigilante's feats: adding a fixed bonus damage when attacking using Dex. IMO That would be a good start.


graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I'm hoping the play test wont include dex to damage for anyone but the rogue.

For myself, I hope every cat, PC and/or wandering plant creature can get it. IMO, I see no reason to restrict it to a single class. I know I'm not going to be happy if my monk is forced to look like the hulk if I want to actually hit and damage anything. :P

Claxon wrote:
Because I feel it should be a rogue niche.
Seems as appropriate to have a dextrous and precise fighter or monk as it does to have a dextrous and precise rogue. "Hulk Smash" shouldn't be the only combat method.

Considering that damage dice are going to be a much bigger part of damage, and we're not going to have the same sort of static buffs to damage, I don't think you need to worry about whether having a high stat it a major driving factor for overall damage.

I don't know if it's been talked about yet or not, but if PF2 uses the ability score advancement from Starfinder it will be fine to start out with moderate to no strength, and focus more on dex with the ability to raise your strength to compensate for damage as you level up. Classes like the monk could rely more on high damage dice on their fists to be level with other classes.

VanCucci wrote:
I've seen many suggesting to implement the same mechanic used by one of the Vigilante's feats: adding a fixed bonus damage when attacking using Dex. IMO That would be a good start.

I think this is the best way to approach it, abilities that say "when using dex to attack and str for damage you gain +1 damage/per x levels" and set the values at whatever is needed for balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I don't know if it's been talked about yet or not, but if PF2 uses the ability score advancement from Starfinder it will be fine to start out with moderate to no strength, and focus more on dex with the ability to raise your strength to compensate for damage as you level up.

I'm not sure why I should be forced to "compensate" and take a stat I don't think fits my character. Being able to up strength is far different than WANTING to up strength.

VanCucci wrote:
Agile and swift warriors should receive benefits from their playstyle in a way that dosen't make a decent Str score useless.

I don't agree. Strength manages just fine without a dex score in combat, I don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true. I'm not sure why str having the benefit of not using a feat isn't enough to make it a viable style of fighting.


Why not both?

Finesse - This weapon quality allows anyone wielding the weapon to use either their Str or Dex on attack rolls. This Weapon Quality is on all light weapons, as well as others traditionally used with finesse in mind, such as Rapiers, Elven Curve Blades, etc.

Weapon Finesse (Combat)
Benefit:
When attacking with a weapon with the Finesse Weapon Quality, you add half your Dex modifier to the damage, in addition to your full Str modifier.

Got a stupid-high Dex score and dumped Str? You'll still come out on top, but not be considered overpowered. Got a high Dex score and left Str at 10? You're rewarded for that by not having your Str pull down your Dex-to-damage. Do you have a good Dex score, and still invested in Str? Congratulations, your Str remains relevant.

Plus, this system makes sense - If you have the most nimble person in the world, but he's borderline sickly from how weak he is, that person isn't going to deal as much damage when swinging a weapon of any kind as someone with more muscle mass, even if the second person isn't all that strong. Speed and finesse certainly helps in the absence of strength, but combining both should always be better. And yet, this system wouldn't leave high-str/high-dex characters as unstoppable damage-dealers - even the highest investment in Dex is going to be doing an extra 2-4 more damage per hit next to a similarly strong character, and that similarly-strong character will likely be using a heavier weapon, anyway.

Example:

Finesse Frank has Str 16 (+3), Dex 18 (+4). He uses a Shortsword, and deals 1d6+5 (full str plus half Dex) for an average of 8.5 damage per hit.

Strength Steven has a Str 18 (+4) and doesn't factor his Dex into his attack or damage. He uses a Longsword and deals 1d8+4 for an average of 8.5 per hit.

Frank has the stats to support TWF and can double his damage for a small penalty on his attack rolls, but so too can Steven use a Greatsword instead and increase his damage by 50% (2d6+6, avg 13) at no penalty.

I think some balancing would need to be kept in mind when adding Weapon Finesse to monsters that have much higher stats than most PC's would be expected to have, but for the most part, this system always seems like the best solution to Dex-to-damage to me.


I suspect you could do just as well by introducing a subattribute known as "sveltness" or even a "svelte strength" feat. Most of the str vs dex debates (combat?) seems to come down to, "I want a leaner (sexier) build for my character." Heavier muscles aren't seen as attractive. For example:

* Women's bodybuilding for decades was controlled to enforce "femininity qualities" which prevented contenders from bulking up, and demanded leaner muscle structure
* Women are given a message that says, "you don't want to be too muscled"
* Even poor George in Gunnerkrigg Court faced criticisms from fans over being "too bulked"

Atop societal pressures, there's:

* The trope of the lean, trickster whip of a guy
* The trope that dexterity = smarts, while brawn = less smart

Divorce strength from looks, or enable it to have an innate, "magical"-ness to it to where a 18 strength person didn't /look/ like an 18 strength person, and it'd solve a large issue for a number of people who grew up around these constraints.

A svelte strength feat could have a side benefit of improving a person's interactions with races that value that quality, I guess, or let you fit through tighter spaces more easily, not unlike that one lean frame feat for mounts.

(Disclaimer: I think muscles are equally beautiful. I've just seen the "looks" argument come in too many times to not recognize that it is this thing that people want.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MuddyVolcano wrote:

I suspect you could do just as well by introducing a subattribute known as "sveltness" or even a "svelte strength" feat. Most of the str vs dex debates (combat?) seems to come down to, "I want a leaner (sexier) build for my character." Heavier muscles aren't seen as attractive.

Divorce strength from looks, or enable it to have an innate, "magical"-ness to it to where a 18 strength person didn't /look/ like an 18 strength person, and it'd solve a large issue for a number of people.

I know for myself, it wouldn't make a difference. I'd STILL have to pump iron to hit/damage instead of being nimble and accurate or, you know, actually be accurate. I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
I don't agree. Strength manages just fine without a dex score in combat, I don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true. I'm not sure why str having the benefit of not using a feat isn't enough to make it a viable style of fighting.

Not really. Most str based characters still have usually a +2 to dex. Maybe more if they can't wear heavy armour. And I would bet that full plate isn't going to be as restrictive in the new edition. You would NEVER see a str based character dump dex because you're losing AC points at that point. Meanwhile with dex to damage you'd be able to dump str all you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
graystone wrote:
I don't agree. Strength manages just fine without a dex score in combat, I don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true. I'm not sure why str having the benefit of not using a feat isn't enough to make it a viable style of fighting.
Not really. Most str based characters still have usually a +2 to dex. Maybe more if they can't wear heavy armour. And I would bet that full plate isn't going to be as restrictive in the new edition. You would NEVER see a str based character dump dex because you're losing AC points at that point. Meanwhile with dex to damage you'd be able to dump str all you want.

And no one wants to compromise a very common saving throw: Ref. Dumping Dex always negatively effects your PC, Str, not so much.


graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

(And forgive me, but I'm going to say "I think muscles are equally beautiful," again. There's girls out there that need to hear that. :D)


Dire Ursus wrote:
graystone wrote:
I don't agree. Strength manages just fine without a dex score in combat, I don't see why the reverse shouldn't also be true. I'm not sure why str having the benefit of not using a feat isn't enough to make it a viable style of fighting.
Not really. Most str based characters still have usually a +2 to dex. Maybe more if they can't wear heavy armour. And I would bet that full plate isn't going to be as restrictive in the new edition. You would NEVER see a str based character dump dex because you're losing AC points at that point. Meanwhile with dex to damage you'd be able to dump str all you want.

They aren't investing in it and it's at most an afterthought that never gets looked at again: it's never a MAJOR concern that you'll have to maintain and improve dex to stay competitive as opposed to what's been suggested here.

Dumped stats: the new game doesn't allow for this so it's not something that needs going over.

Dire Ursus wrote:
Meanwhile with dex to damage you'd be able to dump str all you want.

Will you? You have no need to carry anything? Resist a grapple [it's a str skill check now]? You can't assume you'll have anything magic to help with resonance and it's Cha link. So I can't say I find anything about str troubling in this scenario: don't forget you'd pay a feat to do it and if we're going by PF1 standards, that's the kind of thing you could use to snag bonuses to AC to fill in for the AC you didn't get for taking dex.


MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.

It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Even if strength can represent accuracy

Not really. PRD: "Strength measures muscle and physical power."

"Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance."

Physical hand/eye coordination aligns quite well with one of those while having nothing to do with the other...

And as I mentioned, I think 'I don't want to look like a bodybuilder' goes beyond simple looks as prodigious strength doesn't fit with their idea of their character: even is you accept that strength could be accuracy, it comes along with being able to bench press people...

Silver Crusade

Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.

This has gone to a bad place.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.
This has gone to a bad place.

Apologies, I have edited, different countries and all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.

He did bodybuilding but specifically limited it so as to not reduce his speed, agility and flexibility. At a point, more muscle means less mobility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.
This has gone to a bad place.

There will always be a number of people who play RPGs who believe that anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as they do themselves is a power-hungry munchkin who wants to have badwrongfun. Even when all people are asking for are options, balanced options, so that they can try to approximate their ideas with the mechanics that are available.


Moro wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

But the attack still hit you, from a purely targeting perspective, it just failed to penetrate your protective armor and damage you.

There are perfectly viable arguments for having armor make a target easier to hit but more difficult to damage, and there have been optional rules to cover this type of play in many iterations of the game.

Whether or not it makes sense all depends on how one views the abstract concept of Hit Points.

wat

if your character ducks behind a table to gain cover, and an attack misses you, couldn't it mean that the attack hit the table?

what's the difference between that an armor?

being struck on the ARMOR part of ARMOR means you haven't been struck.

unless it's a bludgeoning weapon, but then glancing is even more important. boobplate would give your character weakness against that.


graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
He did bodybuilding but specifically limited it so as to not reduce his speed, agility and flexibility. At a point, more muscle means less mobility.

True, and in the end, if you want to be good at squishing people's heads with your bard hands, just bite the bullet and be big and strong, there is a reason in nature the bigger mammal generally wins.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Apologies, I have edited, different countries and all.

I'll accept the apology, but lets not pretend it was a cultural thing...


Moro wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.
This has gone to a bad place.
There will always be a number of people who play RPGs who believe that anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as they do themselves is a power-hungry munchkin who wants to have badwrongfun. Even when all people are asking for are options, balanced options, so that they can try to approximate their ideas with the mechanics that are available.

As there will always be people that get defensive over ill-perceived threats to their approach, and then lash out, almost belligerently.


graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Apologies, I have edited, different countries and all.
I'll accept the apology, but lets not pretend it was a cultural thing...

Let's not lower the tone, I was just going for, let's say, Twilight-type imagery, sorry, folks.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Moro wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

But the attack still hit you, from a purely targeting perspective, it just failed to penetrate your protective armor and damage you.

There are perfectly viable arguments for having armor make a target easier to hit but more difficult to damage, and there have been optional rules to cover this type of play in many iterations of the game.

Whether or not it makes sense all depends on how one views the abstract concept of Hit Points.

wat

if your character ducks behind a table to gain cover, and an attack misses you, couldn't it mean that the attack hit the table?

what's the difference between that an armor?

being struck on the ARMOR part of ARMOR means you haven't been struck.

unless it's a bludgeoning weapon, but then glancing is even more important. boobplate would give your character weakness against that.

There were rules for varying different armors vs. weapon damage types in many games as well.

In any case, I was simply trying to illustrate the other point of view for you. It definitely can be "how armor works" in many cases, especially in a game where a shield takes damage and becomes useless as it prevents blows from landing. It is an equally valid viewpoint, particularly at this point in time, as the game is still in development and it may be possible to add something that reflects this into the core rules.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:
graystone wrote:


I think most people that are saying "I don't want to look like a bodybuilder" are including the background stuff that goes with that. It's just not the build but what it takes to get it.

I think we're on similar pages. Not completely, but we're very close.

I've run into the "looks" argument so often. Even if strength can represent accuracy, they "don't want to look like a body builder."

Bruce Lee does not look like a bodybuilder, and he was strong. Also, Sneak Attack, for the Rogue, makes up for brawn.
It does. I imagine things come down to perception, you know? How a character looks is very important to the person playing them.
And the whole cake and eat it too thing/wish fulfilment, a bit, I want to look like a hot, 17-year old slightly built model, but able to deal max DPR and rip balor's heads off with my bare hands.
This has gone to a bad place.
There will always be a number of people who play RPGs who believe that anyone who doesn't play the game exactly as they do themselves is a power-hungry munchkin who wants to have badwrongfun. Even when all people are asking for are options, balanced options, so that they can try to approximate their ideas with the mechanics that are available.

I was talking about the reference to a hot 17 year old model. That's creepy as balls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

One thing I've kind of always wanted to do with an RPG but never really been able to is play a character who is very good with a wide variety of weapons, including both melee and ranged weapons. The idea of them not being wedded to any particular thing and switching freely feels bad ass to me and it's something I would like to do. I've sadly not played enough starfinder to see if I can do it there. Probably, I could.


Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

I suppose we could do something similar to up above and add both str and dex to damage when using a finesse weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

I'm not particularly for Dex to damage specifically, other than I am always in favor of more options rather than fewer, but in the case you describe, you already have the advantage from using the default Str for damage, and not having to use a resource in order to get Dex to damage, as well as gaining all the other many benefits of having a decent Dex.


Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

You have several advantages. #1 you don't have to spend a feat for basic function. #2 is you spend the feat, you have backup options for stat drain/damage. #3 you have both good ranged and melee attacks by default. #4 you have a good base for skills, like athletics for grapple checks and acrobatics got maneuvering.

So IMO, you aren't losing a thing by upping both stats and don't deserve any boost because you already have plenty of advantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Moro wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
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.

But the attack still hit you, from a purely targeting perspective, it just failed to penetrate your protective armor and damage you.

There are perfectly viable arguments for having armor make a target easier to hit but more difficult to damage, and there have been optional rules to cover this type of play in many iterations of the game.

Whether or not it makes sense all depends on how one views the abstract concept of Hit Points.

wat

if your character ducks behind a table to gain cover, and an attack misses you, couldn't it mean that the attack hit the table?

what's the difference between that an armor?

being struck on the ARMOR part of ARMOR means you haven't been struck.

unless it's a bludgeoning weapon, but then glancing is even more important. boobplate would give your character weakness against that.

There were rules for varying different armors vs. weapon damage types in many games as well.

In any case, I was simply trying to illustrate the other point of view for you. It definitely can be "how armor works" in many cases, especially in a game...

Sorry if this somehow disappoint you people, but armor works by dissipating energy. Be it medieval armor, modern armor, safety vest used by industries, or any kind of armor.

Strikes rebound of armor cause they fail to penetrate. This is a consequence of the inability of the impact of getting rid of all energy in that tiny fraction of a section and the system (weapon-target) needing to conservate momentum, so the weapon deviate in the easiest direction possiblem.

When a blow do penetrate the armor, specially "softer" armors like leather, even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all) if they had hit a target without armor. Even as the armor is penetrated, it dissipated it maximum energy... maybe too few to save from a killing blow maybe, or maybe just enough to miss the hearth.

You can use AC abstraction for sure, but it in NO WAY is "more realistic" than a DR equivalent.

This principle is well know in physics and is used daily both to manufacture safety equipment and, as strange as it sounds, cars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:
even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked

Wicked good job theah


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll agree with those of you who think Dex to Damage is a lazy solution. There's no need for it if there are other methods that grant finesse builds bonuses to damage and also don't take away strength's natural benefit to damage.

Examples:

A scaling flat "precision" bonus damage to each attack, which stacks with strength.

Further increases to chance to hit for second and third attacks, thereby increasing average damage per round.

Increased accuracy against flat footed or flanked opponents.

Treating your strength score as higher for attacks with finesse weapons.

Your exceptional control lets you treat finesse weapons as extra deadly, granting them a higher effective damage dice.


willuwontu wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked

Thank you dude, everytime i think i mastered your language i learn i still have a lot to learn :P


graystone wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
What about those of us that would want to make a strong and agile based character? If dex to damage was readily available in the game, it'd be removing that build since you aren't gaining anything from raising your str other than carrying capacity which I think we all know is not a high priority on most characters. Especially ones that are dexterous. I want there to be an advantage to having balanced str and dex.

You have several advantages. #1 you don't have to spend a feat for basic function. #2 is you spend the feat, you have backup options for stat drain/damage. #3 you have both good ranged and melee attacks by default. #4 you have a good base for skills, like athletics for grapple checks and acrobatics got maneuvering.

So IMO, you aren't losing a thing by upping both stats and don't deserve any boost because you already have plenty of advantages.

These are interesting arguments for PF1, but do not apply to PF2's construction of Dex to damage very well. I do not think it is very likely that Dex to damage gets moved to a feat, since it is only applicable to rogues at this juncture any way, and if it is extended to other classes eventually, it will probably be in the form of class or archetype feats that apply to very specific sets of weapons (probably even more restricted than that of the rogue).

I also think it is premature to assume that dex based characters are not going to be able to get access to using Dex to skills such as athletics, which is clearly going to be the best route to go for a rogue that ever wants to do combat maneuver, since their STR will never be as high as fighters, paladins, barbarians and rangers.


RafaelBraga wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
even the wickest blow would be even wicker ( i dont know if this word exist at all)

Coming to help you

It seems like you meant to say weakest and weaker.

Or you may have meant

Even the most wicked blow would be even more wicked

Thank you dude, everytime i think i mastered your language i learn i still have a lot to learn :P

It may not be an English word yet, but I kind of like the construction of "wickest" and "wicker." Being a language of thieves and pirates, you may just be ahead of your times.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that most non Dex-to-damage solutions almost necessitate raising Strength (often they even favor Str over Dex), which tends to have some unfortunate spillover effects for those who want to play high Dex/low Str characters.

There are exceptions (my previous suggestion of Int or Cha to damage, for example), but raising damage dice or flat damage bonuses have a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I'll agree with those of you who think Dex to Damage is a lazy solution. There's no need for it if there are other methods that grant finesse builds bonuses to damage and also don't take away strength's natural benefit to damage.

I'm unsure how using an easy, simple and viable method is lazy. IMO your suggestions seem roundabout and more complicated than needed: you're reinventing the wheel in an effort to prop up strength for: reasons. I haven't seen anything that indicated strength NEEDS propped up as it's viable out of the box and comes with bigger dice weapons than dex weapons.

Unicore wrote:
I do not think it is very likely that Dex to damage gets moved to a feat, since it is only applicable to rogues at this juncture any way, and if it is extended to other classes eventually, it will probably be in the form of class or archetype feats that apply to very specific sets of weapons (probably even more restricted than that of the rogue).

So it's not going to be a feat but instead it'd be a feat? I'm confused here. We were talking about why it should or shouldn't be a feat, not if it currently is one.

Unicore wrote:
I also think it is premature to assume that dex based characters are not going to be able to get access to using Dex to skills such as athletics, which is clearly going to be the best route to go for a rogue that ever wants to do combat maneuver, since their STR will never be as high as fighters, paladins, barbarians and rangers.

I'm not going to assume that that ARE going to get a bypass for the stat as the rogue doesn't have that ability in the pregen sheet. If they DO then that's an extra feat which is a cost on it's own.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

The problem is that most non Dex-to-damage solutions almost necessitate raising Strength (often they even favor Str over Dex), which tends to have some unfortunate spillover effects for those who want to play high Dex/low Str characters.

There are exceptions (my previous suggestion of Int or Cha to damage, for example), but raising damage dice or flat damage bonuses have a problem.

This is only the case if there is no trade off comparable to + attribute to damage, from assigning attribute points outside of strength. If intimidate can be used to keep a foe from attacking on their turn on a critical success, it is very possible that a +1 to Intimidate checks will become much better than a +1 to damage. I strongly agree with your previous statement that we need to see what else the rogue can do before we know if pure damage is the obvious "best" rogue build or not before we know if maximizing damage is worth sacrificing the ability to do amazing things with the rogues other resources.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's less propping up Strength and more "not taking away its relevance for anyone who wants to use a finesse weapon"

Switching the function of one stat to another is already not a clean solution because it mucks with attribute expectations. It's bizarre in the extreme that a strong, agile rogue will do the same exact damage as a weak, agile rogue.

Also, I don't see how tweaking the attack penalty of second and third attacks for finesse weapons (which already have special rules for that) is convoluted.

My point was that there are countless ways to get a bonus to damage that doesn't make strength worthless for finesse builds.

If you're going all in for damage, you can increase both strength and dex, but nothing would require you to pump strength if a pure dex build is doing decent damage through other means than dex to damage.


graystone wrote:


Unicore wrote:
I do not think it is very likely that Dex to damage gets moved to a feat, since it is only applicable to rogues at this juncture any way, and if it is extended to other classes eventually, it will probably be in the form of class or archetype feats that apply to very specific sets of weapons (probably even more restricted than that of the rogue).

So it's not going to be a feat but instead it'd be a feat? I'm confused here. We were talking about why it should or shouldn't be a feat, not if it currently is one.

Fair enough, I was not being clear.

Currently Dex to damage is not a feat, it is an automatic ability available only to rogues, so arguements about its current limitations centering around it having an opportunity cost of a feat don't apply to Dex to damage as it currently exists in PF2.

As far as potential forward thinking feats, these feats are going to be class-based and not open as general options for all classes.

This is problematic for moving Dex to damage to a feat, because multi-classing does open up picking feats from other classes, but does not open up all class options.

A first level Dex to damage feat for the rogue means all classes have access to that feat by multi-classing into rogue.

I don't see the developers liking this route as it will have the kind of long ranging, difficult to predict outcomes that led to Dex to Damage being moved out of the general feat options to begin with.

Future feats that grant something like Dex to damage, are probably going to have to be very carefully structured around not giving general access to Dex to damage with large swaths of weapons, and probably there will never be a first level attribute swapping feat option that can be used to give dex to damage with unarmed attacks as it will have massively negative impacts on their entire new build of the Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


Future feats that grant something like Dex to damage, are probably going to have to be very carefully structured around not giving general access to Dex to damage with large swaths of weapons, and probably there will never be a first level attribute swapping feat option that can be used to give dex to damage with unarmed attacks as it will have massively negative impacts on their entire new build of the Monk.

My proposal for penalties for additional attacks were made with the Monk specifically in mind.

As Flurry is based upon strengthening additional attacks, getting a penalty for those is non-trivial.


With regard to armour, it's worth remembering that most hit point loss is minor cuts and bruises - there's a reason you don't get worse at fighting until you hit 0. If you've got armour as DR, then someone hitting you in the chest with a sword hard enough to do damage in spite of you wearing chain doesn't mean that this person cut through your chain; it means that enough of the force got through to hurt you. If it was a particularly nasty blow, then you might have a broken rib or two - when if you hadn't been wearing chain, you might instead be dead.

With regard to STR vs DEX, all of the movement stuff that involves agility also involves strength to some extent. For example, let's take that old scene of there being a guard just about to discover you, except when he turns the corner, you're gone. After he leaves, you drop down from the ceiling. If you aren't strong enough to hold your own body weight above your head for an extended period, you're also not strong enough to pull off something like that. If you struggle to do sit ups while dangling by the legs, your stomach muscles aren't strong enough. If you can't do pull ups and hold yourself at the highest point for at least five minutes, your arm muscles aren't strong enough.

In Pathfinder 1e terms, that's a minimum of 12 in strength for humans (minimum weight is 95lb for a human female or 130lb for a human male, both of which fall under 12 provided you're not carrying any gear); ideally 13-14. Dexterity 18, Strength 14 and a +2 to damage from being a Rogue is functionally identical to getting Dexterity to damage, with the added bonus of being better at climbing and being able to pull off impressive physical stunts that require both strength and agility.

101 to 150 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