| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's less propping up Strength and more "not taking away its relevance for anyone who wants to use a finesse weapon"
This doesn't make any sense to me. I take a finesse option BECAUSE I want to diminish the relevance of strength in combat. If I cared about str, I wouldn't want/need a finesse option.
It's bizarre in the extreme that a strong, agile rogue will do the same exact damage as a weak, agile rogue.
I never thought so. A strong rogue never did more sneak attack damage because their strength was higher. If your damage is from hitting vulnerable places with a light weapon, strength has a much smaller effect than a 20 pound hammer swing that relies on inertia to bypass defenses...
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.
I don't see how it's NOT as you now have the possibility of having 3 attack numbers depending on which type of weapon you use: base for a bow, reduced for normal finesse weapons and the double reduced for the finesse weapons that the feat applies to. Seems like a mess to me. [I'm assuming that any feat would be extra limited to weapons usable]
My point was that there are countless ways to get a bonus to damage that doesn't make strength worthless for finesse builds.
I agree. What I don't agree with is that making sure 'strength is a factor' is important and something that is a requirement.
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.
And? The dex build spent feats and has a limited selection of lower dice weapons. It seems balanced IMO without the need to tie in str.
Currently Dex to damage is not a feat
Was this in a blog, dev comment, web show and/or in the playtest book? I haven't seen definitive answer but with the number of info streams I could have easily missed it.
As to dex to damage and feats, since EVERYTHING almost is a feat, it's hardly a stretch to think that if/when we get a generic dex to damage option, it'll be a feat. As such, it seems apropriate to talk about it.
As far as potential forward thinking feats, these feats are going to be class-based and not open as general options for all classes.
I'm not sure how you can say that. Mark has said that nothing in the playtest is written in stone, so even the base rules are in flux.
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 an issue if everything can get the feat. Even without multiclassing. With a general feat.
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.
I don't think CERTAIN devs like dex to damage. They might be waiting to see how it works with rogues before making a general one available [with some devs hoping it goes one way or the other]. I'm not thinking THIS in the one place that is written in stone.
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.
I can only hope you are wrong. I don't mind limited weapons but preventing unarmed attack seems quite odd. And it seems to have little effect as monks DO have a feat to use weapons.
It was on the twitch stream where Mark discussed the Bard. It was implied by his statements that in the playtest the only Dex to damage option was the rogue feature and that you couldn't get it through multiclsssing. Specificially he was discussing a Bard/Fghter multiclass that was very powerful and how one of the only things preventing that build from being too powerful was the fact that it was MAD needing to buff Str.
I never thought so. A strong rogue never did more sneak attack damage because their strength was higher. If your damage is from hitting vulnerable places with a light weapon, strength has a much smaller effect than a 20 pound hammer swing that relies on inertia to bypass defenses.That gives an idea, instead of dex to damage, rogues get an additional 2+dex mod to damage for their sneak attacks instead of 1d6, this additional damage goes up by dex mod each time you'd get another dice (2*dex)+2 instead of 2d6, (3*dex)+2 instead of 3d6 etc.
I wouldn't mind rogues getting something like this but I would expect it to be some kind of variable number instead of a straight up bonus.
It was on the twitch stream where Mark discussed the Bard.
Thanks. I don't look at all those internet video things so I thought that might be it.
It was on the twitch stream where Mark discussed the Bard.Thanks. I don't look at all those internet video things so I thought that might be it.
They are interesting but I don't know if I have gotten anything definitive out of them. Based on what Mark said I think dex to damage is a rogue only feature (not feat) and that it isn't available via multi classing but he didn't actually say that.
Was this in a blog, dev comment, web show and/or in the playtest book? I haven't seen definitive answer but with the number of info streams I could have easily missed it.
The Finesse Striker class feature is listed on the pregen character sheet in its full wording. It is a rogue class feature granted at level 1 and not a feat. It can only be used with agile and finesse weapons.
It seems like most folks are not excited about this being the Dex to damage option, but opinions as to why are quite varied.
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build. The class is very clearly built around characters having both STR and DEX as the number 1 and number 2 attributes, with the choice being which one. The STR monk is a joke if the DEX monk can get +Dex to damage with as little as one or two feats.
Generally speaking, any change or option is going to have to be very simple to be in the base rules. +1/2 mods to damage might be optional house rules or things that go in an "unchained" type book, but they are not going to see print in the core rulebook. The rogue, along with the fighter, needs to be a pretty straight forward easy builds to make so I think any options that require more than a sentence to explain and work on the character are not likely to make the CRB.
The option of changing sneak attack damage to Dex modifier damage is very interesting, but won't happen if it requires getting multiplied every time the rogue would get another SA die, and especially not if it requires an extended function, even if it is a relatively simple one like (2+dex mod)*2 . Maybe the first sneak attack die should be a straight Dex mod though to make sneak attacks less swingy generally. 4 damage every time is better than a D6, and even 3 (for the rare rogue build with a 16 Dex) would be decent enough if the rogue gets a +2 scaling damage bonus with the agile and finesse weapons and has other interesting things to do with INT and CHA.
The Finesse Striker class feature is listed on the pregen character sheet in its full wording.
I knew this and it had no impact of the existence of a more general option for dex to damage as I hadn't seen the part Bardarok mentioned.
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build.
I haven't seen anything in the preview info that suggests this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build.I haven't seen anything in the preview info that suggests this.
The STR monk's only advantage over the DEX monk, is that it will hit harder. Monks don't usually carry much stuff around and don't wear armor, so the only other usually reasons to boost STR are non-starters. If a monk can do as much damage with DEX as they can with STR, then every monk will be built with a 10 STR and an 18 Dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The STR monk's only advantage over the DEX monk, is that it will hit harder. Monks don't usually carry much stuff around and don't wear armor, so the only other usually reasons to boost STR are non-starters. If a monk can do as much damage with DEX as they can with STR, then every monk will be built with a 10 STR and an 18 Dex.
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build.I haven't seen anything in the preview info that suggests this.
Str monks will still do more damage due to bigger weapon die on dragon style. But it means most monks will be Dex based since they can do almost as much damage, dump Str and pick up some Int or Cha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It was the other way around. He'd originally limited his strength training because he felt slower and didn't like the body builder look. Over time he started more serious strength training noticing that he only felt slower, but was really quite a bit faster. He avoided glamour muscle lifting focusing on the muscles he actually used in order to maintain flexibility. The whole idea that strength and speed can be separated is silly.
It works in fantasy themes, but you won't find a real world example of it, so it's probably best to talk about fantastic things you'd like to see emulated rather than real life things.
This doesn't make any sense to me. I take a finesse option BECAUSE I want to diminish the relevance of strength in combat. If I cared about str, I wouldn't want/need a finesse option.
Ahhh... I see the problem now, and why I said what I did earlier.
I want str to always be relevant. I don't want dex to damage to ever be as good at dealing damage. It shouldn't be, until strength gets options that make it as good as dex at doing things.
I want the role of dex in combat diminished. If dex to damage is to happen, it should half to give up a lot of other things, IMO.
Honestly, if you all the mechanics and flipped the names associated with them (so you get str to AC, but not to damage, etc) I think we would be having the reverse conversation. Saying that there needs to be a a str to damage feat. Maybe there is an aspect of character representation, but in my experience it's solely about optimization.
And unihindered optimization is something I want less of. I like the tight balance of Starfinder.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Str monks will still do more damage due to bigger weapon die on dragon style. But it means most monks will be Dex based since they can do almost as much damage, dump Str and pick up some Int or Cha.The STR monk's only advantage over the DEX monk, is that it will hit harder. Monks don't usually carry much stuff around and don't wear armor, so the only other usually reasons to boost STR are non-starters. If a monk can do as much damage with DEX as they can with STR, then every monk will be built with a 10 STR and an 18 Dex.
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build.I haven't seen anything in the preview info that suggests this.
It would certainly result in Dex Monks dumping Str, but their damage would be nowhere near as high.
6d6+7 (for an average of 28) is just nowhere near 6d10 +7 (for an average of 40).
|
Str monks will still do more damage due to bigger weapon die on dragon style. But it means most monks will be Dex based since they can do almost as much damage, dump Str and pick up some Int or Cha.The STR monk's only advantage over the DEX monk, is that it will hit harder. Monks don't usually carry much stuff around and don't wear armor, so the only other usually reasons to boost STR are non-starters. If a monk can do as much damage with DEX as they can with STR, then every monk will be built with a 10 STR and an 18 Dex.
Dex to damage absolutely wrecks the new Monk build.I haven't seen anything in the preview info that suggests this.It would certainly result in Dex Monks dumping Str, but their damage would be nowhere near as high.
6d6+7 (for an average of 28) is just nowhere near 6d10 +7 (for an average of 40).
The far bigger issue for monks is whether the strength based monk will have a viable AC rather than whether it will do enough damage.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhh... I see the problem now, and why I said what I did earlier.
I want str to always be relevant. I don't want dex to damage to ever be as good at dealing damage. It shouldn't be, until strength gets options that make it as good as dex at doing things.
It isn't. All Dex-to-damage suggestions have been restricted to finesse weapons, which do notably less damage than non-finesse ones.
I want the role of dex in combat diminished. If dex to damage is to happen, it should half to give up a lot of other things, IMO.
Why? Dex in combat does precisely one thing and two half things by default:
-Reflex Save
-With specific equipment (ie: finesse weapons) it adds to to-hit. Finesse weapons are weaker than other weapons, at least in terms of damage.
-With specific equipment (ie: lighter armor) it adds to AC. This is the best armor of you have the Dex for it.
That's maybe a little more than Strength (which is to-hit and damage, plus most combat maneuvers), but certainly not a whole lot more. Dex-to-damage would win out if it were free ala 5E, but as a Feat? Not so much.
Honestly, if you all the mechanics and flipped the names associated with them (so you get str to AC, but not to damage, etc) I think we would be having the reverse conversation. Saying that there needs to be a a str to damage feat. Maybe there is an aspect of character representation, but in my experience it's solely about optimization.
As others have noted, you can get equal AC to high Dex people with a low Dex score via Heavy Armor. This has some opportunity costs, but they aren't huge.
And unihindered optimization is something I want less of. I like the tight balance of Starfinder.
This is sort of inevitable in PF2 given the system's own tight math. Regardless of Dex-to-damage or the lack thereof.
It would certainly result in Dex Monks dumping Str, but their damage would be nowhere near as high.
6d6+7 (for an average of 28) is just nowhere near 6d10 +7 (for an average of 40).
Level 20 with a +5 weapon is a bad place to do a comparison at this point since there are 20 levels of features and feats we know next to nothing about. For most of the game it will be a lot closer than that.
Additionally dex monks have agile attacks so if you compare over two or three attacks it becomes smaller discrepancy.
Though as the game currently stands both dex monks and str monks need to keep both dex and str near maxed. Which i am personally totally fine with.
As others have noted, you can get equal AC to high Dex people with a low Dex score via Heavy Armor. This has some opportunity costs, but they aren't huge.
Your TAC is a lot lower though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The far bigger issue for monks is whether the strength based monk will have a viable AC rather than whether it will do enough damage.
Absolutely true. And an issue I'm concerned about. A Class Feat for Wis instead of Dex to AC seems like a solid call there, but does noyt exist yet. We'll see if it's needed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 20 with a +5 weapon is a bad place to do a comparison at this point since there are 20 levels of features and feats we know next to nothing about. For most of the game it will be a lot closer than that.
By 3rd you probably have a +1 weapon. That's 2d6+4 vs. 2d10+4 right there, and that comes to 11 vs. 15. That's almost exactly the same percentage difference in damage (it's actually a tad higher).
Additionally dex monks have agile attacks so if you compare over two or three attacks it becomes smaller discrepancy.
This is true. The amount of damage is still a fair chunk higher, though.
Though as the game currently stands both dex monks and str monks need to keep both dex and str near maxed. Which i am personally totally fine with.
I'm sorta not. I'd like that to be a valid style of Monk, but not the only valid style of Monk.
Your TAC is a lot lower though.As others have noted, you can get equal AC to high Dex people with a low Dex score via Heavy Armor. This has some opportunity costs, but they aren't huge.
3 points at most, maybe less if the Dex guy wants Stealth (Studded Leather has a 2 point swing, while Full Plate seemingly has a 4 point one at most).
It's a relevant difference, but not a make or break one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking I agree with your math but disagree with your conclusions on how it will affect the game in play. I don't think there is any chance that either of our opinions will change without more evidence which luckily is only a week away.
I think Dex to damage is a bad mechanic since it encourages dumping Str. I also think max dex from heavy armor is a bad mechanic but I don't see them changing to a DR system anytime soon so I think it is a necessary evil. Additionally you still have a lot more incentive to buff Dex with a heavy armor character than you do to buff Str as a dex based character with dex to damage so a Str 18 Dex 14 character still has significant advantages over a Str 18 Dex 10 character. Advantages which come close to balancing the +4 Int or Cha that the 18/10 character got instead.
Those are my concerns with the mechanic. I think that Str based builds and Dex based builds will be competitive and I don't actually think that dex would damage will kill of Str builds in PF2 like it did in 5e primarily because of the weapon damage dice scaling. (Until of course someone comes along and adds a d8 finesse weapon and then we would be in the same place 5e is).
I think allowing a general access dex to damage feat would kill of the 18 Dex 14 Str or similar builds and that is the problem I have with it. Even costing a feat doesn't seem like enough of a cost to balance the ability to dump Str.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if Dex-to-Damage went in a different direction: Dex-to-DR Penetration? That fits the flavor of nimbly sliding past your enemy's defenses whilst still providing Strength the honor of King of Damage.
Accurate Strikes
You are practiced in slipping past enemy defenses, making every hit count. When you hit with a weapon with the Agile and/or Finesse properties, you ignore an amount of resistance equal to 1/2 your level, up to your Dexterity Modifier. If you critically hit your target, you bypass double the amount of resistance. You can only benefit from Accurate Strikes while wielding a single weapon with the Agile and/or Finesse properties.
This keeps it flavorful while doing something that Strength doesn't do (though there could be a Strength version of it that works differently, perhaps with an attack penalty or something), focuses on a mostly unused playstyle (the singleton), and helps close the damage gap when it counts, but otherwise doesn't contribute as much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Davor, I'd love Armor-as-DR, and using some other stat to bypass DR. (Maybe Int, though?)
I doubt PF2 would ever get shifted into that style of game, though.
A proposal I liked was increasing the armor check penalty of light armor, and then letting Strength reduce the ACP. That's probably too fiddly.
|
|
Davor, I'd love Armor-as-DR, and using some other stat to bypass DR. (Maybe Int, though?)
I doubt PF2 would ever get shifted into that style of game, though.
A proposal I liked was increasing the armor check penalty of light armor, and then letting Strength reduce the ACP. That's probably too fiddly.
While we won't have Armor-as-DR it is entirely likely that we will see armor RUNES of resistance (Theoretically 5 & 10, maybe even 15 depending on what high-level math looks like) that can be bypassed either by magic weapons, or may only apply to physical damage. Given this possibility, and given that we already know that some monsters will have resistances to something (especially at higher levels), Resistance Penetration is a niche that I think could actually work really well, and adds Dex-to-Damage in an interesting way.
The issue is that there's a lot less resistances (per the dev's and is shown by weakness), and unlike str to damage, this does not apply to all attacks so it should be even greater than you dex mod as well.
Right, but the point is that it works as a unique way to provide Dex-to-Damage. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think Dex. Mod. +X may be a bit overkill, and makes the feat too tempting to non-Dex. characters.
The more i read: "we probably will not get armor as DR in PF2" the most sad and unhyped i become :(
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.
To an extent. Plate, for certain, was designed to have swords glance off. But you also have things like a gambeson, worn by itself or beneath plate and mail, which was more about robbing a blow of it's momenetum, or force in the case of crushing weapons, which is more about mittigating damage than stopping it outright.
Regardless, any game system is going to fail to capture the complexities of late medieval combat, arms and armor. I personally prefer a system where there's a differentiation between fully dodging a blow and having it fail because of your armor. It's unrealalistic yes, but so is the current AC system. It's also mostly idle spitballing and wishing: Paizo isn't going to go through the massive rebalancing that would be needed for such a system.
It's also secondary to my more salient point of how to put dex to damage to bed.
The more i read: "we probably will not get armor as DR in PF2" the most sad and unhyped i become :(
I know it is off topic but I feel the same way. Due to the new crit system they can't really let there be a significant AC difference between the armor types, in fact it looks like even unarmored AC will only be a point or two lower. I know that a single point means a lot more in the new system but using a class feature and taking an armor check penalty to skills and maybe a speed reduction to be one point ahead in AC and behind in TAC seems underwhelming. For a little bit I legit thought they were going to do armor as DR. Once I saw how little air there could be in the AC values and then they talked about shields as DR, and then... nothing.
|
|
The issue is that there's a lot less resistances (per the dev's and is shown by weakness), and unlike str to damage, this does not apply to all attacks so it should be even greater than you dex mod as well.Right, but the point is that it works as a unique way to provide Dex-to-Damage. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think Dex. Mod. +X may be a bit overkill, and makes the feat too tempting to non-Dex. characters.Right, it's not a bad idea, and is certainly one that made me mull over it for a bit. I guess the big issue I have with it is that it doesn't allow dex based characters to be effective participants in your average combat.
There is a lot of conjecture behind a statement like this, particularly in regards to having an effective understanding of the math behind PF2. I'm not trying to poo-poo the idea of it, but rather than assuming that Dexterity-based characters will be ineffective without Dexerity-to-Damage, we should work under the idea that Dexterity-based characters will be viable even if they don't have Dexterity-to-Damage, and that anything else will be an element on which they can focus to improve their abilities, just like Strength-based characters. (After all, you weren't considered a decent damage-dealing character without Power Attack in PF1 the vast majority of the time, which had nothing to do with your Strength score other than the minimum requirement.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more i read: "we probably will not get armor as DR in PF2" the most sad and unhyped i become :(I know it is off topic but I feel the same way. Due to the new crit system they can't really let there be a significant AC difference between the armor types, in fact it looks like even unarmored AC will only be a point or two lower. I know that a single point means a lot more in the new system but using a class feature and taking an armor check penalty to skills and maybe a speed reduction to be one point ahead in AC and behind in TAC seems underwhelming. For a little bit I legit thought they were going to do armor as DR. Once I saw how little air there could be in the AC values and then they talked about shields as DR, and then... nothing.
I really have hope that at some point they at least give it a try.
Cause in this system, its "easier" to streamline it a lot more. That way dex could be hit and defense, strength damage, con could even be also used to other defensive stuffs...
And could open up opportunities for other things like Int with a feat to reduce DR for some classes, maybe wis to crits... or many and many ideias to the point i think that each person in this thread could give a legitime good idea to a feat (that should have be balanced, of course, but probably a good starting point).
I dont know, feels like THAT opportunity throwed away.
Specially, as the new alchemist items in alchemist preview and the alchemist himself, its much easier to balance around when you start with it from the beginning.
|
|
This is something I felt necessary to pull out, I don't want a character who's viable, I want one who can be effective in the thing that makes up 75-80% of PF (combat). A dex based character using a greatsword is viable, just not effective. From my perspective, forcing a player to be MAD and contribute even less effectively all around isn't fun.
First, for what it's worth, I really don't have a horse in the whole "Dex-to-Damage" race. I don't really care if characters are adding Dexterity to damage on Greatswords, because the feel is different, and I've seen groups struggle with things just because the whole group is a bunch of weaklings. But since it irks some people, I'm proposing a solution that could make it more palatable with a different feel that accomplishes a similar task.
Second, in regard to viability: Viable is a word that gets thrown around a lot, and means a lot of things to different people. For the purposes of the game, though, we need to agree on a definition. The common definition is "Capable of working SUCCESSFULLY". I've capitalized the last word because it's important. When you say:
A dex based character using a greatsword is viable, just not effective.
You're not agreeing to this basic definition of what viability means. Viability and effectiveness are essentially the same thing. So when I say that a Dex-based character should be viable without applying Dexterity to damage rolls, what I mean is "Character X accomplishes his job within the party successfully regardless of whether he applies his Dexterity bonus to damage rolls", then you can make applying Dexterity to damage rolls a bonus (or some similar sort of benefit) which helps them do this task a form of specialization. For example, if the baseline for the Rogue is "Skillful character with situational damage spikes", he shouldn't need any feats to accomplish this task. He can have some that specialize him towards doing that role even better (obviously at the expense of not specializing in other areas), but the baseline for the class should be "Is successful at the general role it has been given" or, in layman's terms, classes should do "What they say on the tin".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not agreeing to this basic definition of what viability means. Viability and effectiveness are essentially the same thing.
For me I think viability means it hit the bare minimum to get by while effective is a median result. This puts the viable option at struggling while effective one is the norm.
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
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.
See for me a dex based monk should be one more focused on pressure points and avoidance so you would rely on the stunning fist like mechanic more so then just pummeling someone. It seems more thematically correct to me.
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.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.
Having a high str does not automatically mean your a body builder type. I'm not the first one to bring up martial artists like bruce lee, but yeah I feel like their is a lot of ways to represent a high str. For a bruce lee type you would probably need a good str and a good dex to be accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See for me a dex based monk should be one more focused on pressure points and avoidance so you would rely on the stunning fist like mechanic more so then just pummeling someone. It seems more thematically correct to me.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
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.
I agree: I just think that a jab to pressure point is a great reason for dex to damage. IE, where they hit is more important than just hitting it as hard as possible.
I agree: I just think that a jab to pressure point is a great reason for dex to damage. IE, where they hit is more important than just hitting it as hard as possible.See for me a dex based monk should be one more focused on pressure points and avoidance so you would rely on the stunning fist like mechanic more so then just pummeling someone. It seems more thematically correct to me.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
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.
was that 4 or 5 now?
See I like more of the idea of the mechanics representing the styles differently then the same. The difference between karate which I think is genrally more a of a str based hit them hard type of martial arts and say some forms of Jujitsu which pretty well just care about hitting the target and really the amount of force that target is hit is not as important. So to me it feels more thematic for the pressure point for dex based to be more about stunning or status condition and the hard styles being more impact and breaking bones which would be HP damage.Ofcourse Like people have said really it should always be dex to hit and str for damage and armor should be DR. I've seen systems that work that way however and their is problems there too.
was that 4 or 5 now?I agree: I just think that a jab to pressure point is a great reason for dex to damage. IE, where they hit is more important than just hitting it as hard as possible.See for me a dex based monk should be one more focused on pressure points and avoidance so you would rely on the stunning fist like mechanic more so then just pummeling someone. It seems more thematically correct to me.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
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.
5 I think. ;)
I just don't want every monk to have the 'kirk two handed punch' as the default attack because 'hulk smash' is the only way to make one. As interesting as that can be once in a while, I greatly prefer the other way.
Oh no I know what you mean with the two fist punch thing no example needed. I don't want that igther. I think I've pretty well summed up what I want with the monk. Str based monk more damage and breaking stuff dex monks more finesse redirection and pressure point strikes.
str figther atypical dex figther would be a duelist swashbuckler.
str rogue is a thug dex rogue is atypical.
Hmm how about a feat that give you another attack if you have a high dex score? so the str based would do more overall damage but if you did a dex build you would get another attack instead. Which would probably work super nice with sneak attack. this would be instead of dex to damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm how about a feat that give you another attack if you have a high dex score? so the str based would do more overall damage but if you did a dex build you would get another attack instead. Which would probably work super nice with sneak attack. this would be instead of dex to damage.
I think this would end up adding more damage and work than plain old dex to damage. Interesting idea though.
dex to damage is simple: swap a capped stats.
Extra attacks have multiple dice and different attack/damage modifiers like sneak attack or multiple attack penalties.
Hmm how about a feat that give you another attack if you have a high dex score? so the str based would do more overall damage but if you did a dex build you would get another attack instead. Which would probably work super nice with sneak attack. this would be instead of dex to damage.I think this would end up adding more damage and work than plain old dex to damage. Interesting idea though.
dex to damage is simple: swap a capped stats.
Extra attacks have multiple dice and different attack/damage modifiers like sneak attack or multiple attack penalties.
That true and the idea would need some more refinement but it feels more appropriate for dex then just adding to damage to me anyways.
I think something like Armor giving resistance, and having ways around it would be a really cool add on system for an Unchained book that gives us more ways to play and use a base platform to create a more customized setting. It would be great for a grittier game where you wanted players thinking about different armor types for facing off against different kinds of weapons.
I don't see it as a base-line rule that needs to be in the game for all players though. I think it could easily be intimidating and a lot for new folks to remember.
|
|
Same, or rather similar. To me viable means it works (and is thus an option) it does not mean that it works effectively.You're not agreeing to this basic definition of what viability means. Viability and effectiveness are essentially the same thing.For me I think viability means it hit the bare minimum to get by while effective is a median result. This puts the viable option at struggling while effective one is the norm.
@Both: I mean, I'm glad that's how you feel about the word, but that's not what the word means. I capitalized the imperative word "SUCCESSFULLY" to highlight that being viable at something means to do it in such a way that it accomplishes its aim or purpose. If a wizard wielding a greatsword is possible within the game system, but does not accomplish the point of doing so (i.e., producing reasonable damage output for a single member of a party), then it is not viable.
But, I digress. We can argue until we're blue in the face about subjective interpretations of words. Characters should be able to be EFFECTIVE in combat without applying Dexterity to their damage rolls, since the system assumes this at the baseline level, and requiring characters to take a feat for it would make the baseline option a trap, which is shallow game design.
I still think my feat that gives half dex mod to crit threshold idea would satisfy the most players. Dex based character are getting a damage boost in a way that's thematically and mechanically different from Str characters. And it doesn't punish characters that want both dex and str.