Access to +Dex to Damage

[Whirling Dervish]

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

If this were to happen, I’d also like to see the addition of Thievery as a signature skill change to a choice between say, thievery and stealth.

I’d be interested if folks think this is unbalanced. I just think it opens up a lot of new options in a single simple way.

[CommanderCoyler]

I'd much rather it just be a standard thing (for both finesse and ranged weapons), and rogue gets some sort of bonus instead. As it stands, you're triply punished for using a finesse weapon:
♦ They have smaller damage dice than non-finesse weapons (something that gets more and more relevant at higher levels with multiple dice from magic weapons).
♦ They use strength for damage, so you either need to put a lot into str (negating the point of using a finesse weapon in the first place) or do less damage.
♦ They either cost more money or have fewer other traits than a non-finesse weapon
Any one of these (preferably the third) would make them balanced. Right now I see no reason for non-rogues (and even rogues only because of SA, which barely makes up the difference in damage) to ever use a finesse weapon

[Micheal Smith]

The problem is that DEX to damage is absurdly broken. I know I read somewhere, where Paizo said it was a mistake for allowing all that they did with DEX to damage. I got several builds that only need DEX and they put MOST STR based characters to shame. Because I can get a high AC great reflex, all my DEX based skills help in combat, Acrobatics, Stealth etc. The only build I haven't been able to truly beat in damage is 2-Handed Fighters. Where STR based creatures don't get much more benefit out of STR outside of 2-Handed and 2 skills.

While I will agree with the issue with finesse weapons, I think straight allowing DEX to damage for some builds could be insanely broken.

If added to the Rogue Dedication I think there needs to be some sort of requirement. Not just giving it for taking the Dedication. Maybe 6th or 8th level feat with a 16 Dex.

[Mergy]

I honestly don't think it's broken anymore. The highest die finesse weapon is the elven curve blade or spiked chain at 1d8, or 1d10 if you're a cleric of Zon Kuthon I suppose. Most finesse builds are going to be running with a d6, and given how magic weapons now function by increasing the number of damage dice, strength weapons are going to be doing more damage most of the time. Dexterity has also lost its claim to Initiative except in ambush situations, so Dexterity is never going to be as powerful as it was.

I think all finesse weapons offering Dexterity to damage would work fine. Monks might need to be looked at closely, but perhaps the strength-based stances could have their die size increased to compensate.

[PossibleCabbage]

My preferred solution would be that "dex-to-damage" would be made a universal option requiring either 12 or 14 str. Largely because you need to be able to actually push the rapier through somebody in order for it to matter where you can aim it. Noodle-armed swordspeople should be poisoners, not swashbucklers. After that, take "dex-to-damage" off of the rogue since it's a wasted feature on strength rogues.

I figure this mirrors how heavy armor users want 12 or 14 dex to max out their armor class.

[Micheal Smith]

Mergy wrote:

I honestly don't think it's broken anymore. The highest die finesse weapon is the elven curve blade or spiked chain at 1d8, or 1d10 if you're a cleric of Zon Kuthon I suppose. Most finesse builds are going to be running with a d6, and given how magic weapons now function by increasing the number of damage dice, strength weapons are going to be doing more damage most of the time. Dexterity has also lost its claim to Initiative except in ambush situations, so Dexterity is never going to be as powerful as it was.

I think all finesse weapons offering Dexterity to damage would work fine. Monks might need to be looked at closely, but perhaps the strength-based stances could have their die size increased to compensate.

The point I was making is the fact that how broken it was in 1st edition they regretted allowing.So the fact to allow it in 2E might be a shaky issue. In 1E the die of the weapon at some point was irrelevant. In 2E it looks to be a completely different situation. It would be something I would very much like to see if done right.

[Madame Endor]

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

In the real world, people with high dexterity, but lower strength are never going to hit with more force, which is what in the game represents as the extra damage, but the advantage of dexterity over strength to get damage in is the ability to strike places on the body more precisely. Someone with more dexterity will be more able to, if they know how to, hit vital organs or arteries. When attacking someone wearing armor, they'll be more able to hit the weak spot or get a weapon between plates or scales where they can get more damage in. Not every attack by someone with high dexterity is going to do these things, but they're going to be more common for someone with higher dexterity and lower strength over someone with higher strength and lower dexterity.

In the game, characters with higher dexterity are already getting a bonus to AC, which compensates for the lower damage, but there may be ways to simulate real world advantages of dexterity.

* Maybe a feat that lets characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon get a critical success with being lower than 10 over AC on an attack.
* Maybe a feat gives characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon bleed damage on a critical.
* Maybe a feat lets characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon ignore some damage reduction.

If someone can prove statistically that higher dexterity has less advantage than higher strength, then maybe include something like the above without an extra feat when a character has high enough dexterity or uses a finesse or agile weapon.

[Unicore]

Madame Endor wrote:

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

In the real world, people with high dexterity, but lower strength are never going to hit with more force, which is what in the game represents as the extra damage, but the advantage of dexterity over strength to get damage in is the ability to strike places on the body more precisely. Someone with more dexterity will be more able to, if they know how to, hit vital organs or arteries. When attacking someone wearing armor, they'll be more able to hit the weak spot or get a weapon between plates or scales where they can get more damage in. Not every attack by someone with high dexterity is going to do these things, but they're going to be more common for someone with higher dexterity and lower strength over someone with higher strength and lower dexterity.

In the game, characters with higher dexterity are already getting a bonus to AC, which compensates for the lower damage, but there may be ways to simulate real world advantages of dexterity.

* Maybe a feat that lets characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon get a critical success with being lower than 10 over AC on an attack.
* Maybe a feat gives characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon bleed damage on a critical.
* Maybe a feat lets characters with higher dexterity or a finesse or agile weapon ignore some damage reduction.

If someone can prove statistically that higher dexterity has less advantage than higher strength, then maybe include something like the above without an extra feat when a character has high enough dexterity or uses a finesse or agile weapon.

The new critical rules actually do reward accuracy with extra damage. Thus with finesse weapons, a character with a high dexterity can compensate for a lower strength by using a weapon that can give them a much better chance of hitting and hitting critically. They have also largely corrected the problem that you have to focus on increasing just one attribute as you level up so if damage is a priority for your character, it is pretty easy to have a 12-14 starting STR and have that be 16 - 18 by the time you are 10th level. Also as you level up, the static bonus to damage from attribute becomes a much lesser deal, so gating something like Dex to Damage behind too high a level makes it not very useful.

I am personally opposed to Dex to damage being in the game at all, because their +/- 10 critical system does a much better job of representing how a character would hit more accurately and do more damage from it than a relatively lazy gamist mechanic like switching the damage dealing attribute. I would almost rather see the rogue's finesse strike add either a static +2 to damage, or a scaling + 1 to damage that goes up ever other or every third level, but caps at your Dex Modifier.

[erik542]

Unicore wrote:

I am personally opposed to Dex to damage being in the game at all, because their +/- 10 critical system does a much better job of representing how a character would hit more accurately and do more damage from it than a relatively lazy gamist mechanic like switching the damage dealing attribute. I would almost rather see the rogue's finesse strike add either a static +2 to damage, or a scaling + 1 to damage that goes up ever other or every third level, but caps at your Dex Modifier.

But the STR based character is just as accurate as the Dex character.

[Unicore]

erik542 wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I am personally opposed to Dex to damage being in the game at all, because their +/- 10 critical system does a much better job of representing how a character would hit more accurately and do more damage from it than a relatively lazy gamist mechanic like switching the damage dealing attribute. I would almost rather see the rogue's finesse strike add either a static +2 to damage, or a scaling + 1 to damage that goes up ever other or every third level, but caps at your Dex Modifier.

But the STR based character is just as accurate as the Dex character.

Yes but in turn they loose out on a bonus to reflex saves, AC, many more skills.

My original point is that in PF1, being more accurate only lead to more damage in getting your character to hit more. Now accuracy also increases your odds of hitting critically, thus having a feat that represents using dexterity to hit vital points more accurately isn't really necessary because you already have that factored in to using a finesse weapon. Narratively, the purpose behind "Finesse Strike" style feats is not present any more.

[Asuet]

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

It actually doesn't open up any builds. These builds are all viable already. No one has to dump any stats in this edition.

The damage is generated mostly through runes at higher levels. The added damagebonus from ability scores only matters on lower levels and that not even a lot since you can always start out with 14 or 16 str, even if you put the highest amount of points into dex.

Finesse striker is extremely underwhelming in regard to its combat benefit. What finesse striker actually does is that it allows the rogue class to spend more ability boosts on other stats like int, cha and wisdom that are used in the majority of skills.

[Malkyn]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

I'd much rather it just be a standard thing (for both finesse and ranged weapons), and rogue gets some sort of bonus instead. As it stands, you're triply punished for using a finesse weapon:

♦ They have smaller damage dice than non-finesse weapons (something that gets more and more relevant at higher levels with multiple dice from magic weapons).
♦ They use strength for damage, so you either need to put a lot into str (negating the point of using a finesse weapon in the first place) or do less damage.
♦ They either cost more money or have fewer other traits than a non-finesse weapon
Any one of these (preferably the third) would make them balanced. Right now I see no reason for non-rogues (and even rogues only because of SA, which barely makes up the difference in damage) to ever use a finesse weapon

This is basically the crux of it. Lay aside the rogue, let's talk math with regards to a dex-to-damage fighter and a strength-based fighter.

Most finesse weapons are a d6. Yeah, there's some fringe stuff that does a d8, but Finesse Striker specifies 1-handed. Specific trumps general, yeah, but order of precedence needs to be clarified there. Let's assume that yes, you could theoretically use those d8 weapons. The issue: if we're talking two-handing, strength-based characters easily go to a d12. Since the math actually favors the dex character, we'll keep things to 1-handers, at which point we're talking a d6 dex vs a d8 strength.

Now, late game weapons swing for 5 dice of damage, aka 5d6 vs 5d8.

Averages (throwing in the d10 and d12 for comparison ease):
5d6 = 17.5
5d8 = 22.5
5d10 = 27.5
5d12 = 32.5

So, in terms of a d6 vs a d8 or a d8 vs a d12, the dex fighting style actually loses anywhere from 5-10 points of damage respectively on a per-hit basis. 15 on the extreme end. The trade is that the dex fighter has better AC and possibly some better mentals (so a few more trained skills, initiative, or resonance points to throw around). When you account for the fact that PF2 is rather generous with ability boosts being thrown around, the boost to AC itself late-game is minimal (like 2 points of difference, which isn't negligible, but isn't huge).

The same does not work in reverse. In the current system, trying to use finesse weapons with no way to replace strength with dex is a fool's errand. You're behind on damage dice, and while you can try to scale your Strength up, the fact is that it's probably not going beyond an 18 or 20, at which point you're losing on damage dice and modifiers and gaining comparatively little in return.

The fact is that the rogue needs dex to damage and sneak attack to keep its damage in the "burst" category it's known for, and when it fails to set up sneak attack properly, it seriously threatens to fall behind (a problem that was actually worse in PF1 because even the Unchained Rogue was shackled to that 3/4ths BAB, lowering their practical damage substantially).

Now bear in mind that non-rogue classes that try to go dex-to-damage are unlikely to have an extra damage source as potent as the rogue's, and that dex-to-damage will no doubt be gated behind either the rogue dedication or a weapon property or (and this is the best solution, imho) a level 3 general feat, and I'm suddenly not sure it's a problem. At the very least, I think it deserves playtesting.

[CommanderCoyler]

Unicore wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I am personally opposed to Dex to damage being in the game at all, because their +/- 10 critical system does a much better job of representing how a character would hit more accurately and do more damage from it than a relatively lazy gamist mechanic like switching the damage dealing attribute. I would almost rather see the rogue's finesse strike add either a static +2 to damage, or a scaling + 1 to damage that goes up ever other or every third level, but caps at your Dex Modifier.

But the STR based character is just as accurate as the Dex character.

Yes but in turn they loose out on a bonus to reflex saves, AC, many more skills.

And a dex-based character with low str looses out on carrying capacity and athletics (so: climb, jump, swim and combat maneuvers)

Unicore wrote:

My original point is that in PF1, being more accurate only lead to more damage in getting your character to hit more. Now accuracy also increases your odds of hitting critically, thus having a feat that represents using dexterity to hit vital points more accurately isn't really necessary because you already have that factored in to using a finesse weapon. Narratively, the purpose behind "Finesse Strike" style feats is not present any more.

You don't seem to understand:

erik542 wrote:

But the STR based character is just as accurate as the Dex character.

So using dex for attacks and damage doesn't actually add anything, just allows more freedom in builds (you aren't required to have decent strength)

[Unicore]

CommanderCoyler wrote:

So using dex for attacks and damage doesn't actually add anything, just allows more freedom in builds (you aren't required to have decent strength)

It sounds like we have different ideas then because allowing more freedom of builds without adding anything to the Dex build (thus making it the superior build) is a good design to me.

Edit: But I misunderstood this second post.

Getting dex to accuracy allows for characters to be good because they can get more critical hits and doing more interesting things than more damage with critical hits is a better design then trying to balance the amount of damage that a STR based character can do with the damage that a Dex based character.

Especially because making their damage output the same makes STR based characters pointless.

[Malkyn]

Unicore wrote:

Getting dex to accuracy allows for characters to be good because they can get more critical hits and doing more interesting things than more damage with critical hits is a better design then trying to balance the amount of damage that a STR based character can do with the damage that a Dex based character.

Especially because making their damage output the same makes STR based characters pointless.

Yeah, don't think anyone wants dex to damage to be equal to strength (that way does threaten to make Strength irrelevant), just want it to be viable so dex fighters can contribute to combat while being useful in other ways. Especially because dex fighter is a pretty common fantasy troupe and it is currently unviable in the system unless one plays a rogue. Even locking it behind the rogue dedication is rough on limiting the ability to pick it up in terms of concept(if you wanted a prestige class or another multiclass like fighter/wizard, for instance).

[Unicore]

Malkyn wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Getting dex to accuracy allows for characters to be good because they can get more critical hits and doing more interesting things than more damage with critical hits is a better design then trying to balance the amount of damage that a STR based character can do with the damage that a Dex based character.

Especially because making their damage output the same makes STR based characters pointless.

Yeah, don't think anyone wants dex to damage to be equal to strength (that way does threaten to make Strength irrelevant), just want it to be viable so dex fighters can contribute to combat while being useful in other ways. Especially because dex fighter is a pretty common fantasy troupe and it is currently unviable in the system unless one plays a rogue. Even locking it behind the rogue dedication is rough on limiting the ability to pick it up in terms of concept(if you wanted a prestige class or another multiclass like fighter/wizard, for instance).

Have you built any Dex-based Fighters? My primary playtest character is a Halfling Fighter that uses a sling-staff, but switch-hits into melee when necessary. The chracter only has a 12 STR at level 1, but has been fun to play and doesn't feel useless just because every melee hit doesn't do 1d12+4 damage.

[Malkyn]

Unicore wrote:

Have you built any Dex-based Fighters? My primary playtest character is a Halfling Fighter that uses a sling-staff, but switch-hits into melee when necessary. The chracter only has a 12 STR at level 1, but has been fun to play and doesn't feel useless just because every melee hit doesn't do 1d12+4 damage.

I'll confess I haven't played the game myself. Am currently GMing for one group who just started Doomsday Dawn (second session tomorrow, they steamrolled the 4 CR 0 goblins), plan to run a second group through after that. And yeah, the difference is going to be most minimal at level 1. d6+1 averages 4.5, the fighter with d8+4 averages 8.5. That kind of damage is relevant to level 0 and level 1 enemies, but I'm doubting it will scale well. Do see about let me know if your experience differs, if you could? I'd be very surprised, and would likely have questions about situation/build specifics to see if it's replicable on a general front.

Think I'll do my own indirect investigation on the matter, ask one of my players to make some dex-based non-rogues, see how it plays out.

What I've seen of my rogue's performance suggests they aren't overwhelming, at least at level 1. I'd have to see how that also scales, but one of my players is starting a level 1 as a rogue, so I'll get to see how that plays out. As it stands I almost think the issue might threaten to be not dex to damage but sneak attack. But we'll see how easily set-up/triggered it is to really tell.

[Unicore]

Malkyn wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Have you built any Dex-based Fighters? My primary playtest character is a Halfling Fighter that uses a sling-staff, but switch-hits into melee when necessary. The chracter only has a 12 STR at level 1, but has been fun to play and doesn't feel useless just because every melee hit doesn't do 1d12+4 damage.

I'll confess I haven't played the game myself. Am currently GMing for one group who just started Doomsday Dawn (second session tomorrow, they steamrolled the 4 CR 0 goblins), plan to run a second group through after that. And yeah, the difference is going to be most minimal at level 1. d6+1 averages 4.5, the fighter with d8+4 averages 8.5. That kind of damage is relevant to level 0 and level 1 enemies, but I'm doubting it will scale well. Do see about let me know if your experience differs, if you could? I'd be very surprised, and would likely have questions about situation/build specifics to see if it's replicable on a general front.

Think I'll do my own indirect investigation on the matter, ask one of my players to make some dex-based non-rogues, see how it plays out.

What I've seen of my rogue's performance suggests they aren't overwhelming, at least at level 1. I'd have to see how that also scales, but one of my players is starting a level 1 as a rogue, so I'll get to see how that plays out. As it stands I almost think the issue might threaten to be not dex to damage but sneak attack. But we'll see how easily set-up/triggered it is to really tell.

That was actually one of the reasons I decided to play a halfling fighter, because it was a character that didn't build well in PF1 either, and basically required Dex to Damage to function. My character is kind of being pushed into the roll of multi-class cleric in our actual game, so I am certain his combat effectiveness is going to drop, but I will try to keep a second character sheet handy that I go pure fighter on and see if it feels like he has decent options.

I am already pretty certain that using more than 2 feats to grab Dex to damage would feel like a massive disappoint as far as how much less important attribute damage is to overall damage contribution. I am pretty sure that if it took until 4th or 5th level to come on line, it would be a trap option for most characters, the one exception being the monk, for which it would still be game breaking/make half the class extremely sub-optimal.

The ease of boosting an ability score that starts at 12 or 14 to 18 is something that I think is being over looked by a lot PF1 players that are accustom to the idea that you only get to boost one ability score, especially with the fact that attributes that start at 18 only advance half as quickly.

[CoeusFreeze]

From my play experience, most characters who would use finesse weapons have stuck with using their fists. They weren't throwing them, and need some way to justify the extra action needed to pull them out.

Personally, I don't think that dex-to-damage should be a rogue-only thing at all. There are plenty of good reasons for why fighters, monks, and rangers should be able to utilize this ability without having to spec into rogue.

[DataLoreRPG]

I prefer this to be a special rogue only thing. Heavy and medium armor have large penalties and dex is too attractive an option if it can give everyone damage, bypass armor penalties (dex to ac with light) and make people good at range.

By making it rogue only, that also gives a the class a much needed extra bit of oomph.

Paizo has the design right just the way they have it now. Dont mess with success.

[CoeusFreeze]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

I prefer this to be a special rogue only thing. Heavy and medium armor have large penalties and dex is too attractive an option if it can give everyone damage, bypass armor penalties (dex to ac with light) and make people good at range.

By making it rogue only, that also gives a the class a much needed extra bit of oomph.

Paizo has the design right just the way they have it now. Dont mess with success.

Giving the rogue an exclusive ability that any class should logically be able to grab is the same kind of philosophy that led to most standard combat abilities being fighter-only. This is a flawed paradigm because of how drastically it constricts character construction, and a more open system (where dex-to-damage and several fighter feats are open to any class) would dramatically improve character creation across the board.

If dex is too attractive to melee characters right now (which I find hard to believe because finesse weapons lag behind strength-based ones in damage and dex-based characters can't combat maneuver with nearly the same capacity), I think a better solution would be buffing heavier armor by reducing the penalties and increasing the AC bonuses.

[DataLoreRPG]

I dont think its a "flawed paradigm" at all. It avoids cookie cutter builds. Open systems suck. If I wanted an open system, I would play BRP, GURPs or Savage Worlds. I am not playing those because I want a class based game with PCs that play differently and have different abilities thanks to their class.

If your solution is to make heavy armor the same as light armor by removing the penalties, then, frankly, your solution is lame. This is another way to homogenize characters and make the game less interesting.

[CoeusFreeze]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

If your solution is to make heavy armor the same as light armor by removing the penalties, then, frankly, your solution is lame. This is another way to homogenize characters and make the game less interesting.

Not so much remove as reduce. A -1 on medium and a -2/-3 on heavy should be enough to display the expected encumbrance without completely gimping the character's ability to move around. What's more important is increasing the armor bonus from heavy armor to the point where taking it is worthwhile, which I have elaborated upon elsewhere.

[CommanderCoyler]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

I dont think its a "flawed paradigm" at all. It avoids cookie cutter builds. Open systems suck. If I wanted an open system, I would play BRP, GURPs or Savage Worlds. I am not playing those because I want a class based game with PCs that play differently and have different abilities thanks to their class.

If your solution is to make heavy armor the same as light armor by removing the penalties, then, frankly, your solution is lame. This is another way to homogenize characters and make the game less interesting.

There is a difference between opening some things to all classes and turning it into an open system.

Also armour is already all the same (they all give +7 AC), just heavier armours have massive penalties against all sense of game balance and realism

[DataLoreRPG]

Sounds awfully samey to me. Currently, all stats feel viable. You can make a dex fighter and be darn good at this very moment. The game is generous with stats to allow you to do it.

It does require investment however. You may want to drop some points in strength. That choice ensures that those that go full strength are able to do more damage both by the die and with the stats. Its elegant.

Giving everyone dex to damage does nothing but remove a meaningful character development choice and adds what is essentially an optimal path. Trying to mitigate that by making armor basically all work the same is even more lame.

What is drawing me to PF2 from 5E is that in 5E, characters end up very samey. I want to avoid that. PF2 is doing great work by gating things behind class. That limits the homogenization of characters and makes party dynamics fresh every time you put together a new campaign.

Guys, stop trying to make the game lame.

[Malkyn]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

I prefer this to be a special rogue only thing. Heavy and medium armor have large penalties and dex is too attractive an option if it can give everyone damage, bypass armor penalties (dex to ac with light) and make people good at range.

You're forgetting that dex-able weapons are limited on die size, and with magic weapons adding more dice to roll, die size matters quite a bit. Without sneak attack, a dex-to-damage rogue won't be able to keep up in the damage department. The same can be said of any dex-based fighter. See my above post for the math that backs that up.

[DataLoreRPG]

Maybe the damage wont be as good. But can stealth better, has way better reflect saves, has better ranged options, better touch ac and can move faster.

What, hes supposed to do the exact same damage too? Lol. Seriously folks, Dex to Damage is fine as a small rogue perk to help differentiate the class a bit.

When you factor everything in (like the sheer amount of stat bumps you get) and consider the way magic weapons calculate damage, this conversation is just plain silly.

[Raynulf]

Whirling Dervish wrote:

Personally, I’d like to see the Rogue Dedication offer access to Finesse Striker (the rogue Dex to damage ability) rather than Surprise Attack. This small change opens up a wealth of builds (e.g., Dex-based but still melee paladins, fighters, barbarians, rangers...)

Dex to damage is a tough choice in a game. Take 5E for example; In that system the 'norm' is to go Dex based unless you either are playing a barbarian or have access to heavy armor. The reasoning is simple: Dex builds tie their AC, Attack, Damage and one of the most common saves to one ability score, making it vastly more efficient than Strength builds, who require gear (specifically heavy armor) to give decent AC.

In Pathfinder 1, Dex builds struggled to rival Strength builds in effectiveness, simply due to the fact that armor gave so much AC, all armor had a max Dex bonus to AC, and Strength based characters could wield a two-handed weapon to gain more damage from their Strength and Power Attack than a Slashing/Fencing Grace character could. I would argue that Dex to damage was too restricted in Pathfinder 1 (though OP with swashbucklers, who were designed to make Dex builds work without Dex to damage).

Looking at Pathfinder 2, something that is immediately evident is the fact that heavy armor doesn't grant enormous AC bonuses. Indeed, Dex based characters can easily rival their heavily armored compatriots in AC, even without all of the troubles associated with heavy armor. See below

AC Comparisons:

1st: Dex 12 Fighter in chainmail (AC 15 / TAC 13); Dex 18 Rogue in studded leather (AC 17 / TAC 15)
2nd: Dex 12 Fighter in fullplate (AC 19 / TAC 15); Dex 18 Rogue in studded leather (AC 18 / TAC 16)
5th: Dex 12 Fighter in fullplate+1 (AC 23 / TAC 19); Dex 19 Rogue in studded leather+1 (AC 22 / TAC 20)
10th: Dex 12 Fighter in fullplate+2 (AC 29 / TAC 25); Dex 20 Rogue in studded leather+2 (AC 29 / TAC 27)
15th: Dex 12 Fighter in fullplate+3 (AC 36 / TAC 32); Dex 21 Rogue in studded leather+3 (AC 35 / TAC 33)
20th: Dex 12 Fighter in fullplate+4 (AC 43 / TAC 39); Dex 22 Rogue in studded leather+4 (AC 41 / TAC 39)

Next, when wielding a weapon in two hands you do not increase your Strength modifier to damage with it - the benefit is entirely in the weapon damage dice.

Or in fewer words; In Pathfinder 2, Dex to damage would simply give you a much better deal than Strength + Heavy Armor, even with some classes getting Expert, Master or even Legendary proficiency in heavy armor (leaving Medium armor to fall by the wayside, it seems?). That being said, given that the Dexterous daredevil hero is an extremely popular character archetype, I would have suggested the solution is to try and make heavy armor more appealing rather than limit the Dex-to-Damage to rogue only.

Indeed, a comment from several of my players is that many of their character concepts now go along the lines of: "Rogue, multiclass <insert other class here>, because it works so much better". Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the rogue being popular, but I don't necessarily want half the party consistently being various flavors of rogue when the game has a dozen classes at launch.

TL;DR For full Dex modifier to damage to be readily accessible and balanced, medium and heavy armor would need to be more appealing - either by offering improved protection (maybe some DR?) or fewer penalties (e.g. ditching armor check penalties or speed reduction).

At least, that's my 2c

[Mergy]

Keep in mind that the very best you can do with a finesse weapon is 1d8 (the spiked chain and the elven curve blade), both of which require two hands. Even with Dex to damage a strength build would have more potential once magic weapons came into play.

[DataLoreRPG]

I will just repeat by making dex damage available to all and decreasing heavy/medium armor penalties all you are doing is making the game worse.

If you want to go damage, go strength. If you want to go mobile, go dex. For the benefits of both, you can be a rogue but you arent quite the combat beast other martial classes are.

These are meaningful choices. Making everything samey is the worst possible option. It is why I am leaving 5E despite sinking quite a bit into 5E books. It has that same samey design you guys are championing here.

[CommanderCoyler]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

I will just repeat by making dex damage available to all and decreasing heavy/medium armor penalties all you are doing is making the game worse.

If you want to go damage, go strength. If you want to go mobile, go dex. For the benefits of both, you can be a rogue but you arent quite the combat beast other martial classes are.

These are meaningful choices. Making everything samey is the worst possible option. It is why I am leaving 5E despite sinking quite a bit into 5E books. It has that same samey design you guys are championing here.

Please stop just saying 'its making it worse' and instead say 'it's making it worse because...'. This thread is full of legitimate reasons why dex to damage should be a thing (balance, more build options etc) and you naysaying. It is not a proper argument.

And with the above I am not diminishing your concerns. Dex is a strong stat, it adds to (ignoring attacks): reflex, stealth, theivery and acrobatics. Strength is too though, it adds to (again, ignoring attacks): carrying capacity and athletics, which may seem less but every combat manuver as well as some alternate movement types (climb, jump, swim) are tied to athletics.

I, and many others in this thread, feel that giving everyone access to dex for damage would not break the game or make it worse. In fact it would make the game healtier.

As an example of how weak finesse/ranged weapons are right now in pf2: 1d6/1d8 damage isn't going to do much to a level 1 monster's typical 20hp, 1d8+4/1d12+4 is going to do significantly more. As has been stated before, this just gets worse as you level and get magic items.

[Malkyn]

Raynulf wrote:

Dex to damage is a tough choice in a game. Take 5E for example; In that system the 'norm' is to go Dex based unless you either are playing a barbarian or have access to heavy armor. The reasoning is simple: Dex builds tie their AC, Attack, Damage and one of the most common saves to one ability score, making it vastly more efficient than Strength builds, who require gear (specifically heavy armor) to give decent AC.

In Pathfinder 1, Dex builds struggled to rival Strength builds in effectiveness, simply due to the fact that armor gave so much AC, all armor had a max Dex bonus to AC, and Strength based characters could wield a two-handed weapon to gain more damage from their Strength and Power Attack than a Slashing/Fencing Grace character could. I would argue that Dex to damage was too restricted in Pathfinder 1 (though OP with swashbucklers, who were designed to make Dex builds work without Dex to damage).

Looking at Pathfinder 2, something that is immediately evident is the fact that heavy armor doesn't grant enormous AC bonuses. Indeed, Dex based characters can easily rival their heavily armored compatriots in AC, even without all of the troubles associated with heavy armor. See below

** spoiler omitted **...

I actually do agree with making heavier armors more attractive in exchange for opening up dex to damage. Worth noting your math assumes maxed out dex, which means that number comparison isn't going to get any worse if you do open up dex to damage. And the "rogue - multiclass to something else" is absolutely something I'm already seeing my players do at part 2 (level 4) of Doomsday Dawn. I do think people super worried about dex being tied to so many things are forgetting how easy it is to boost Dex to 18 to make other numbers be comparable. Worth noting that none of the special materials boost max dex anymore, which I feel is a mistake in a system where so many stat boosts are granted every 5 levels. If Paizo wants to charge something for dex to damage, I'm fine with rogue getting it for free, everyone else should be able to snag it as a level 3 general feat.

[DataLoreRPG]

Quote:

'it's making it worse because...'

Because such changes make the stats mean less. It makes armor mean less. It makes whats on your sheet mean less.

Lets let bows calculate their to hit off strength while we're at it. Lets go 5E and use spell mod for spell attacks. "Low dex but I have the accuracy of a master archer with my eldritch blast on my charismatic plate armor wearing hexblade!"

There is another issue. PF2E is WISELY gating many things behind class. As soon as you open that up to all it becomes a defacto prereq for all dex based builds. As a one off special ability for a less frontline focused class, its one thing but the situation shifts when fighters and rangers start poaching it. Then its just an unbalancing feat tax - which, IMO, this edition has largely managed to avoid.

So, in short, you are talking about making heavily armored juggernauts feel virtually identical to agile swashbucklers, adding feat taxes and reducing build diversity.

So, ya, making the game lame.

I will say again, dex based characters are good right now. They stack up well against strength based characters at this moment. There is ZERO need for this.

[Gaterie]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Lets go 5E and use spell mod for spell attacks. "Low dex but I have the accuracy of a master archer with my eldritch blast on my charismatic plate armor wearing hexblade!"

This point is actually better in D&D 5 than in Path 2.

D&D 3 introduced the concept of "touch AC" to allow casters to hit with rays, even with a low BAB and a not-so-great Dex. This doesn't work well: the discrepancy between AC and TAC becomes huge as the CR goes up, actually many high-CR creature have a lower TAC than low-CR creatures.

Path 2 decided to keep TAC... But reduce the difference between AC and TAC. The difference between AC and TAC is between 1 and 3, depending on the creature (It's the same for PCs: TAC = AC-(1 for light armor, 2 for medium, 3 for heavy)). That's... more or less the difference between Dex and the casting ability. Hence a wizard using a ray has 2 less to-hit than a rogue and he attacks the AC-2.

At that point, you could simply remove the TAC, and use the casting stat to attack instead of Dex. The end result is exactly the same, but you've simplified the game by removing an unneeded complexity - and armor are more balanced that way, since heavy armors give the same protection as light armors (right now, the only purpose of heavy armors is to get high penalties and being more vulnerable to rays in exchange of nothing).

Spoiler:

... And as I explained in another thread, just remove Con - it does nothing useful right now - , and put its benefits under Str: Str to HP and Fort.

With that modification, Str has a major impact on damages and a minor impact on defenses. If you allow Dex to damage with finesse weapons (no feat required), Dex has a minor impact on damage (finesse weapon deal low damages, even with Dex to damages) and a major impact on defenses. Maybe you need some tweak to balance this, but the base chassis works like casters: a Wis-caster doesn't need Int or Cha.

[DataLoreRPG]

Lets make one stat called stat and be done with it.

[CommanderCoyler]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

'it's making it worse because...'

Because such changes make the stats mean less. It makes armor mean less. It makes whats on your sheet mean less.

Lets let bows calculate their to hit off strength while we're at it. Lets go 5E and use spell mod for spell attacks. "Low dex but I have the accuracy of a master archer with my eldritch blast on my charismatic plate armor wearing hexblade!"

There is another issue. PF2E is WISELY gating many things behind class. As soon as you open that up to all it becomes a defacto prereq for all dex based builds. As a one off special ability for a less frontline focused class, its one thing but the situation shifts when fighters and rangers start poaching it. Then its just an unbalancing feat tax - which, IMO, this edition has largely managed to avoid.

So, in short, you are talking about making heavily armored juggernauts feel virtually identical to agile swashbucklers, adding feat taxes and reducing build diversity.

So, ya, making the game lame.

I will say again, dex based characters are good right now. They stack up well against strength based characters at this moment. There is ZERO need for this.

I at least would like dex to damage (and a more unified/streamlined spellcasting/powers system to make things easier for casters and more interesting for martials a la 4e, but that's a seperate issue) to be a base ability, not a feat tax. Every class should have a way of attacking off their primary stat that keeps them in line with the others, it opens up more build options: that can only be good for the game!

As it stands now, finesse/ranged weapons are ~5 damage per attack behind at level 1 and getting worse as they level, leading to ~10 behind. I would love to see that gap closed to 0 and weapons be more differentiated, as they currently are (just enhance that), by traits etc. D&D 4e had a cool set of weapon feats to differentiate between groups e.g. light blades got to target reflex, hammers got con-mod damage on a miss, as well as each class getting their main stat for attacks and damage.
Finesse/Ranged weapons being weak worked... better in 3.5 and the lick of paint that was pf1 (I wouldn't say well because I, and many others, would compltely ignore finesse and ranged weapons there too) because enemies had such low hp that all that mattered was hitting the enemy, the damage would overkill anyway.
I also agree with you and a lot of others that the armour system needs a big overhaul. Right now there is no reason to take heavy armour with its [b]huge[/i] penalties.

[Malkyn]

I actually don't advocate for dex to damage dealing as much damage as strength to damage does (and let me assure you, part 2 of Doomsday Dawn proved strength was better at damage when I ran it for my group (giant totem barbarian and rogue multiclassed fighter)). However, the agile hero is definitely a fantasy mainstay, and so letting it be viable, which it currently is not without being a rogue seems a bit remiss. Yeah, it will have a few points of better AC, but when it loses a minimum of 5 damage per attack for that, that's actually a substantial trade.

Imagine a feat that says "your attacks deal 10 less damage, but you gain +3 AC". Dex no longer contributes to initiative, and strength now contributes to a few vital skills itself, including basically all of the combat maneuvers. As a result, skill considerations go out the window and yeah, Reflex saves are important, but so are combat maneuvers. In fact, you could argue that by virtue of the skill and the combat maneuvers being tied behind the same skill - Athletics - Strength actually has a bit of a leg up there versus all the skill splitting needed for the dex skills.

[DataLoreRPG]

Things to remember

1. Strength builds need to invest in some dex (probably getting it to about 14 or so in my estimation). When you consider that, dex builds having to put some points into strength is fair and doesnt make them much more MAD at all. Again, dex build still benefits from strength - alot of folks here seem to conveniently forget this. You get a ton of stat boosts over time. Dex to damage for all makes armor users more MAD.
2. Dex builds can attack at ranged WAY better than strength builds. That is a huge benefit. Right now, you can make a dex fighter who can be good in melee and phenomenal at range. Remember, you dont need 50 feat taxes to be a great archer anymore. It is very balanced.
3. Dex builds have much more mobility and have much greater acrobatics. This allows them to tumble through enemies and move to set up flanks much more effectively than a strength build. This helps the party in different ways thank just raw damage.
4. Dex builds great defenses. Ac is as good or better than a strength build. Better TAC and reflexes by far.
5. Dex builds are stealthier. Way way stealthier. This has combat and non combat applications.

Strength builds will be completely unattractive if they are not the go to stat for melee damage. Sure, the strength does more damage but he gives up the dex guys mobility and flexibility. Those who to the fiction should remember that, by and large, the fiction is made up of strong men. Conan, the Mountain, etc. The exceptions are a few rogues. PF2 models this perfectly.

If they up the damage of the dex guy, then make armor less penalized, two things happen.
1. The two different characters become almost the same character except the guy is armor is slightlt worse
2. The game becomes, I say again, lame

Here is what is happening. I mean no disrespect by this but it must be said. People think they know what they want. They wamt thier character to have EVERYTHING. They dont want class gated stuff. They want all the special powers. They see one dude with something cool and rather than appreciate the cool stuff their character can do, they ask for that other character's cool thing. It happens in rpgs over and over (mmos, ttrpg, etc). All this player envy eventually leads to games where all characters are the same and stats are largely cosmetic.

This sort of thing leads to crap games.

[Isaac Zephyr]

Seen a few mentions of it, but my two cents.

Just put Dex to Damage on all Finesse weapons by default. AKA, pull a 5e. That's how it works there, even for Monks who in 5e are pretty much a Dex-Wis class. You've got more ability boosts in PF2, so making all classes mono or dual ability isn't as critical.

In Starfinder, Finesse is replaced by Operative, which gives Dex to attack rolls but there is no Dex to damage at all. Instead the class often using Operative weapons gets 4 attacks on full attack, so the Specialization bonus of + level to damage is halved for balance. Works fine there.

Biggest thing though for me saying just make Finesse neutral Dex to damage though? Agile weapons. There's this weird middle ground on Rogues with Agile only weapons applying under Finesse Striker, so they become Str for attack roll, Dex for damage, and the Katar is on this list of Agile-only Rogue weapons. It creates the backwards problem of Finesse, you need the Str to hit, why not just make a Str-based Rogue? That would be cool. You can still Sneak Attack with Agile-only and with (though the options are not in PF2 as of yet) additional weapon proficiency you could have all sorts of cool new Rogue builds.

Non-Rogues get Dex to damage and Rogues get more potential build paths. Win win?

[DataLoreRPG]

Win win? No. More like lose lose. We lose character diversity. We lose meaningful choice. We gain only homogeniety.

[Isaac Zephyr]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Win win? No. More like lose lose. We lose character diversity. We gain homogeniety.

How do we lose diversity? Opening an option to everyone means they have that option, thus giving more options which directly gives diversity.

Also, when you said: "Strength builds will be completely unattractive if they are not the go to stat for melee damage. Sure, the strength does more damage but he gives up the dex guys mobility and flexibility..."

You were already wrong because you already pointed out: "You get a ton of stat boosts over time."

Str is no longer only used for damage. The major thing that has crippled most of my Dex builds? Carrying capacity. Now in PF2 it would directly affect all Combat Maneuvers since Agile Maneuvers is no longer a thing. Additionally PF2 focuses significantly more on additional weapon dice, as Starfinder now does, and it is a system that works quite well. When your damage comes mostly from die numbers, a +4-6 really doesn't change much. Doubly so when you consider as pointed out, Finesse weapon dice are generally smaller.

So even on a Dex build like a Rogue, you're likely still investing in Str for your Athletics checks alone. Everyone else, Paladins and others it's their key ability, and better weapons still use Str.

The homogeniety is present from PF1, where if you wanted to play a viable Dex-based character, you had to have minimally Weapon Finesse, but very likely 3-4 other feats, preventing you coming online until around level 8. All Dex characters had to have the same few feats. Take that away and those same Dex characters can diversify into other types of characters while still being functional, and not having a level restriction for usefulness.

[DataLoreRPG]

I would not invest a single point in strength as a rogue. Not a single point. I would stay at 8 if it was penalized even. In a game with bags of holding, bulk means little. I have never seen encumbrance ever matter. There are always ways around it

As to how you get less diversity when you open up options, look at any skill based game. The number of effective builds tend to be far less than class gated games since players poach the fewer general options to make homogenized builds. I am getting sick of repeating this, so, if you want to disagree with me on this go ahead.

I just hope the devs have enough sense not to cave on this stuff.

[Gaterie]

...I'm not sure you've read the rules.

You don't have a bag of holding, because you have to afford for your magic weapon (weapons if you want ranged and melee), your magic armor, your magic +Per item, your magic +skill items. And you don't have many magic items to begin with.

Without the best weapon, you don't deal level-appropriate damage (and you don't hit to begin with). Without the best armor, level-appropriate monster quickly crit you to death - let's not talk about the occasional Level+2 monster. Without the +Per, you always act last and can't see any hidden level-appropriate monster - even with a +Per item you will often act after the monsters and fail to see anything. Without the +skill items, your skills fail on anything level-appropriate.

You won't have a bag of holding before level 6, and even then, it means you have one less usable skill (in other words, if you take the bag of holding you have at most 1 usable skill). As a rogue, it's sad to have only one usable skill because you don't have enough Str and you need a bag of holding...

[DataLoreRPG]

So? Your armor and weapons are relatively light. You can make it work.

If the best argument the optimizers calling for dex for damage have is bulk, that is just laughable.

[CommanderCoyler]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Things to remember

1. Strength builds need to invest in some dex (probably getting it to about 14 or so in my estimation). When you consider that, dex builds having to put some points into strength is fair and doesnt make them much more MAD at all. Again, dex build still benefits from strength - alot of folks here seem to conveniently forget this. You get a ton of stat boosts over time. Dex to damage for all makes armor users more MAD.

Wut? (bolded for what that is directed at)

DataLoreRPG wrote:

2. Dex builds can attack at ranged WAY better than strength builds. That is a huge benefit. Right now, you can make a dex fighter who can be good in melee and phenomenal at range. Remember, you dont need 50 feat taxes to be a great archer anymore. It is very balanced.

If 'good in melee and phenomenal at range' is a piddly d6/d8 damage with maybe a +1 or +2 modfier, I'd hate to see what you'd count as 'broken'.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

3. Dex builds have much more mobility and have much greater acrobatics. This allows them to tumble through enemies and move to set up flanks much more effectively than a strength build. This helps the party in different ways thank just raw damage.

Strength characters are actually more mobile than Dex at present, tumble is largely pointless as OAs are few and far between so you can just move around anyway to flank. Strength gets access to climb, jump and swim for more mobility, plus punting enemies around, grabbing them etc.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

4. Dex builds great defenses. Ac is as good or better than a strength build. Better TAC and reflexes by far.

5. Dex builds are stealthier. Way way stealthier. This has combat and non combat applications.

Strength builds will be completely unattractive if they are not the go to stat for melee damage. Sure, the strength does more damage but he gives up the dex guys mobility and flexibility. Those who to the fiction should remember that, by and large, the fiction is made up of strong men. Conan, the Mountain, etc. The exceptions are a few rogues. PF2 models this perfectly.

As has been said before, the boosts to combat manuvers, mobility and carrying capacity will balance it out

DataLoreRPG wrote:

If they up the damage of the dex guy, then make armor less penalized, two things happen.

1. The two different characters become almost the same character except the guy is armor is slightlt worse
2. The game becomes, I say again, lame

As I've said before, armour needs a boost anyway, to make the heavier armours worth their investment.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Here is what is happening. I mean no disrespect by this but it must be said. People think they know what they want. They wamt thier character to have EVERYTHING. They dont want class gated stuff. They want all the special powers. They see one dude with something cool and rather than appreciate the cool stuff their character can do, they ask for that other character's cool thing. It happens in rpgs over and over (mmos, ttrpg, etc). All this player envy eventually leads to games where all characters are the same and stats are largely cosmetic.

This sort of thing leads to crap games.

Not at all, I just want everyone to be on an even field power-wise. Having one class/build be inherently better than all others just means everyone's gonna play that class/build and the people that don't are worthless. This was my main problem with 3.5, one that pf1 didn't fix at all, that casters could do everything martials could do (usually better too) and more. It is also why why D&D 4e is my favourite rpg system of the many I've played: It gets the perfect level of balance where everyone can feel like they're contributing, while still making each class feel different through mechanics

[Gaterie]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

So? Your armor and weapons are relatively light. You can make it work.

If the best argument the optimizers calling for dex for damage have is bulk, that is just laughable.

The problem isn't the bulk of your weapons. The problem is the mumber of magic items you get, and the fact you absolutely need those items because the monsters are über-legendary in every possible field. At any level you have 6 magic items (and a few gps), and 3 of those are your weapon, your armor and a +Per item. Another one is another weapon if you want a ranged and a melee weapon.

That's 2 item left. Skills are basically impossible to use if you don't have an item (you can use the skills without items, but you're unlikely to succeed a level-appropriate roll - and you're even more unlikely to beat a monster on any skill). You're talking about skills, there's no way your Stealth can beat any monsters' Per if you don't get the best +Stealth magic item you can get. So your last two items are two +skill items, so there are two thing you can sometime succeed at.

The end.

Did I mention the bag of holding among those items? No, i didn't. Because there's no room for it. If you want a bag of holding, you have to remove either your second weapon (so you suck at range), or you have to remove one +skill item (so you can use 1 skill, no more). Is it worth it? Given the low number of magic items you have, and the high stats of every monsters, is it really worth it to spend one of your items on something fun which won't prevent a TPK?

[DataLoreRPG]

Quote:

Wut? (bolded for what that is directed at)

If you give all dex to damage, they have far less impetus to invest in strength. But strength users are still strongly incentivized to go at least 14 dex.

Quote:

If 'good in melee and phenomenal at range' is a piddly d6/d8 damage with maybe a +1 or +2 modfier, I'd hate to see what you'd count as 'broken'.

Ya, you will do less damage. If you want to do more damage in melee, go strength or rogue. Wow, look at that, ameaningful choice!

Quote:

Strength characters are actually more mobile than Dex at present, tumble is largely pointless as OAs are few and far between so you can just move around anyway to flank. Strength gets access to climb, jump and swim for more mobility, plus punting enemies around, grabbing them etc.

Speaking as someone who has been dming this since release, that is flatly false. Most combat doesnt take place in a wide gladitorial pit and climbing, jumping and swimming are FAR less valuable Combined than tumble in most situations.

Quote:

As has been said before, the boosts to combat manuvers, mobility and carrying capacity will balance it out

Combat manuevers are highly situational. While they are useful, claiming they balance out all that dex gives is ludicrous.

Quote:

As I've said before, armour needs a boost anyway, to make the heavier armours worth their investment.

Kinda contradictory with your previous points. Also, as I've stated reducing penalties does nothing but make characters samey.

Quote:

Not at all, I just want everyone to be on an even field power-wise.

Nope. All PCs do NOT need the same exact DPR. Builds needs to feel effective and have a use. They not need to be mathemtically equal in all respects.

[CommanderCoyler]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

Wut? (bolded for what that is directed at)

If you give all dex to damage, they have far less impetus to invest in strength. But strength users are still strongly incentivized to go at least 14 dex.

You haven't answered the question: Str characters already need some dex for AC, how would changing something unrelated make them more MAD?

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

If 'good in melee and phenomenal at range' is a piddly d6/d8 damage with maybe a +1 or +2 modfier, I'd hate to see what you'd count as 'broken'.

Ya, you will do less damage. If you want to do more damage in melee, go strength or rogue. Wow, look at that, ameaningful choice!

Your 'meaningful' choice: 'Do what I say or go home'

An actually meaningful choice would be if you got the same amounts of damage, but traits (or, as I gave as my example earlier, feats) mean the difference between weapons.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

Strength characters are actually more mobile than Dex at present, tumble is largely pointless as OAs are few and far between so you can just move around anyway to flank. Strength gets access to climb, jump and swim for more mobility, plus punting enemies around, grabbing them etc.

Speaking as someone who has been dming this since release, that is flatly false. Most combat doesnt take place in a wide gladitorial pit and climbing, jumping and swimming are FAR less valuable Combined than tumble in most situations.

Speaking also as someone who has been dming this: No, combat doesn't always take place in your hypothetical arena, but it's also not on a featureless plane either. There should be obstacles for characters to vault over (jump), hide behind etc, which would necessitate their relevant skills. Doesn't make tumble any more useful. Also climb/jump/swim should see a lot of out-of-combat.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

As has been said before, the boosts to combat manuvers, mobility and carrying capacity will balance it out

Combat manuevers are highly situational and impose MAP. While they are useful, claiming they balance out all that dex gives is ludicrous.

Not alone, but the uses of Str (other than attacks) as a whole I'd say would balance out the uses of Dex (again other than attacks, and as a whole)

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

As I've said before, armour needs a boost anyway, to make the heavier armours worth their investment.

Kinda contradictory with your previous points. Also, as I've stated reducing penalties does nothing but make characters samey.

It's not contradictory to say that more than one part of the game needs fixing...

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

Not at all, I just want everyone to be on an even field power-wise.

Nope. All PCs do NOT need the same exact DPR. Builds needs to feel effective and have a use. They not need to be mathemtically equal in all respects.

I did not say that every PC needs to be on the same DPR. I said every PC should be able to contribute to the same degree. What I'm saying is that weapons should have the same or very similar (expected) DPRs and how you wield them (i.e. your class) makes the big difference:

To use 4e as an example again: Rangers and Rogues are both strikers (i.e they're both expected to do damage), but both do so in different ways. Rangers choose one target to be their quarry and do extra damage to that target alone, this represents them being hunters focused on one target. Rogues deal their sneak attack to targets they have combat advantage again (what would be flat-footed in this edition), this represents them being opportunists picking the right moment to strike. Rangers use str for melee attacks, Rogues use dex but it's their features and power choices that define how they work.

(Also, minor point: Could you please put the name of the person you're quoting in the quotes. Not doing so makes it seem as though you don't think we're people)

[DataLoreRPG]

Quote:

You haven't answered the question: Str characters already need some dex for AC, how would changing something unrelated make them more MAD?

In comparison to dex builds, obviously

Quote:

Your 'meaningful' choice: 'Do what I say or go home'

Lol, we are done

[Malkyn]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Quote:

You haven't answered the question: Str characters already need some dex for AC, how would changing something unrelated make them more MAD?

In comparison to dex builds, obviously

Quote:

Your 'meaningful' choice: 'Do what I say or go home'

Lol, we are done

Question, dude: you played the game at all, or are you an armchair analyst? If the latter, do you have numbers to back up your claims? Because plenty of people are giving data on how the two would be different but competent in their own ways. People are suggesting ways to make certain shortfalls work (heavier armor really does need some adjusting, dex to damage or no). But all I've seen you do is play goal-keeper. So, you got numbers supporting your nay-saying? Have you tried playing a dex-based non-rogue martial? Do you have any empirical evidence that things currently work fine when so many disagree?