Ranged combat is not underpowered in PF2. Using a short bow is a very strong tactic, even if you don't have that great of a dex. As long as you can keep your accuracy within the 50/50 range against AC, you pretty much are getting three opportunities to get a critical hit with a weapon that is deadly. Even if you fall down to a -4 to hit vs AC, you are still getting 2 chances a turn to hit critically with bows, which means that significantly lower level archers are still trouble for their enemies, especially if they get to take advantage of terrain or other battlefield features, which is a lot easier to do with ranged weapons than melee weapons.
Deadly improves with weapon quality which means that at higher levels, those measly D6 short bows continue to devastate with critical hits.
There is a reason that ranged attacks get extremely limited attribute bonuses to damage. Not only do you get more attacks on average than melee characters, and thus improved chances of getting a critical hit, you get a massive bonus to damage when you do critically hit.
Attacking more with less penalties is the "balance" for agile weapons. There is definitely a reason why they developers chose not to give easy access to double strike and finesse strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst he is on the opposite end of the arguement as me, I can offer some mathematic insight on it. Most of my experience on this has been in PF1 playing Dex-attack Str-damage, however I also have experience with Scion, a system where that method is standard on everyone.
So Dex-attack Str-damage does viably work at a base level, in systems where everyone has to play by those rules. In Scion, I was a Dex-based character who liked to punch things, and we had a sword-weilding Str-based character. I would hit pretty much every attack, and my additional successes on top of the hit added to my damage. I did not do as much damage however as he did when he hit. However his odds of hitting were lower. Because we played by the same rules, we were both MAD.
In Pathfinder, I played a Vigilante in a game with a (third-party-using power gaming) Barbarian. My Vigilante abilities required me to use Dex for attack and Str for damage to get +1/2 level on damage. Pre level 8 I was essentially useless in combat because my damage was simply too small to matter and I required so many feats and class options just to be useful that I got a bit disgruntled that I didn't matter in most cases.
With the monster focus on high-optimised play according to the sheer quantity of TPKs in Doomsday Dawn, the difference of we'll put the max +4, at level 1 for damage is negligible. The arguement that the Str character needs Dex anyway is true of EVERY character because Critical Failing a Ref save can be a dead character, and getting crit from the tiers of success is, repeat, a dead character.
As compared to Starfinder, which holds the same type of design mentality that a maximized Dex light armor character should have the same KAC (equivalent AC) as a heavy armor character, heavy armor desperately needs a TAC boost. Getting crit when you're beat by 10 is going to result in a tonne of spell crits when you look at AC-5 for TAC. That's halfway to a crit for an attack likely to have about the same boosts to hit as a ranged attack. The Goblin Pyro from Bestiary shows the ranged spell attack bonus on monsters is equal to their normal ranged attack, which is devastating. The defenses problem is more an issue of overstrong monsters with understrong TAC on Heavy Armor.
A character using Dex to damage for melee (as it doesn't apply to ranged) adds early, assuming they're maxed, +4 per hit. In exchange, the largest die they will get is 1d8 compared to 1d12, which essentially means the damage variance is largely in favor of Str. Made even more extreme when it's 2d8 vs 2d12, and so on and so forth. I did this math for a different character in Starfinder where he got 2 different weapon choices with comparable damage. One had larger die consistently, the other had higher base bonuses. Die hit more consistent maximum while bonus had minimum, but over time the difference was well over 20 actually points of damage. By denying Dex to damage to non-Rogues, all you're saying is anyone who wants to go the specific path of using a weaker finesse weapon for Dex to attack (as there is little reason to pick a finesse weapon otherwise) need to also invest in Str or have a low glass cieling for potential.
TLDR; Heavy armor needs better TAC, but adding Dex to all finesse as damage makes negligible difference other than bringing up the baseline. It'll never outdo Str damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The max TAC difference for light vs heavy is actually 3.
Chainshirt has TAC 6 vs TAC 3 of the fullplate/grey maiden plate.
Studded leather with TAC 5 vs TAC 4 of the halfplate (the best heavy armor ingame that because it doesn't penalize your reflex save) is only a 1 difference.
It's most the extreme movement penalty and the ACP for low levels that is murderous on heavy armor users. (Mithral and Legendary proficiency in heavy armor removes the ACP completely, but that is at level 17/18).
Taking a page from Starfinder would be a good idea, removing the medium armors completely, giving heavy armors a +1 AC and lowering the movement penalty to -5 instead of -10. Make ACP go down if you have plenty of strength. Remove the idiotic clumsy trait as it only restricts heavy armor users to halfplate and penalizes the Grey Maiden for being one of the two options to get legendary in a heavy armor.
The max TAC difference for light vs heavy is actually 3.
Chainshirt has TAC 6 vs TAC 3 of the fullplate/grey maiden plate.
Studded leather with TAC 5 vs TAC 4 of the halfplate (the best heavy armor ingame that because it doesn't penalize your reflex save) is only a 1 difference.
Really? I came up with AC -4 (realized where I made my mistake) for Heavy Armor.
AC +6, TAC +2 with max +1 from Dex. Half Plate you're right is a point higher due to Dex.
Chain Shirt is AC +2, TAC +1 with max +5 from Dex.
*It dawns* Ohhh... You're referring to the TAC of Light vs Heavy where I'm looking at TAC vs AC of the armor involved.
I feel dumb now. >_>
I would rather see finesse weapons get a better damage die (or things like deadly) than have dex-to-damage become commonplace, honestly.
Mostly my issue with dex-to-damage is that I dislike the idea that strength applies nothing to damage. Being able to swing harder, or thrust more forcefully should result in more damage no matter where you are aiming.
I would rather give an option to let finesse weapon users do bonus damage while applying dex-to-hit and adding str-to-damage than have a replacement effect in the game which makes a stat almost useless. With how stat ups work these days having 14 strength at level 5 is not a huge ask.
Heck "Dex and Strength" to damage is more aesthetically pleasing to me than "Dex to Damage" even though the former is much much stronger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of SRD meant no 3rd party publishers could make their own splatbooks, though in response to this WotC put out more splatbooks than they have for any other edition. This meant everything stayed within the balance floor/celing WotC put out, but also meant the game's lifespan was only as long as WotC were willing to keep making books, which also ties into the first issue.
Finally someone who gets it. 4e wasn't particularly bad, it just had reputation. 2 of my favorite characters of all time (possibly 3) that I ever made were 4e characters. I ran the Encounters program from the Neverwinter season to the Feywild, as well as 2 Lair Assaults (the first two) and it was a really good time save for some problem players.
Those 2 characters I made though, my dual katar weilding rogue with Sly Flourish. I bring him back as an NPC in many a game I've run since, nicknamed "Vahn the Tornado Tihare". He would bound around and dealt damage based on Dex+Cha, it was silly but as a Striker he worked. Then Ser Amelia Lebangue, knight of Neverwinter and a sword and board fighter built around defending allies. I only grew tired with 4e when it started feeling like there were only really 4 classes with different flavours. Striker, Tank, Commander, 4th one I can't recall. Then again, I had to play 3-5+ games a week, running the same adventure multiple times a day. It wasn't a bad game, and it brought fresh ideas to the series like Wizards actually having HP!
Talking to 5th though and this supposed homogeniety, I really don't see it. Again, what a character can do to me means more than the numbers or anything. My paladin Alryn Maviir had essentially an anime-esque ultimate attack with all her resources at level 2. Divine Smite +Searing Smite + Heavy Weapon Master was a -5 attack roll that cost two spell slots but her greatsword would NUKE with 2d6(slashing)+2d8(holy)+1d6(fire)+10+(1.5×Str). Wasn't really optimized but I built this awesome heavy weapon fighter who could put everything into a single attack. Compare my rogue Deik who dual weilded daggers for the sake of defensive duelist. She played by getting the most our of her bonus actions darting around the battlefield with tumbles and tossing knives. Deik cannot get the smiting, Alryn cannot get that mobility, they are still very different, and building Alryn as a Dex character would be viable. Not as damage heavy, you'd lose the +10 and 1.5 Str, plus he weapon would be weaker, but their diversity comes from what they're given, not their numbers.
The thing is, these characters were all fun. PF2, while I do like some aspects of it, with everything tied to what class you are it feels like every Rogue is one type of Rogue, every Paladin is one type of Paladin. I tried to recreate all four of these characters and only Ser Amelia even slightly resembled what she was capable of. Vahn as a rogue cannot exist properly because Katars are not Finesse, so he needs Str to hit with his Katars, which defeats the purpose of getting Dex to damage. He's still supposed to be a sly tactician so the new Rogue Intimidate structure kind of works for him to sneak attack, but being smart as he was doesn't do him any favors. He now needs Str, Dex, Wis, Cha minimum to support how he needs which doesn't work. Alryn, Paladins are a joke. That epic Smite move she could do in 5th just isn't there in PF2. They have no interesting abilities in the early levels and no more spells, so where is the diversity of choice? And Deik doesn't have any of those mobility options as a rogue at all, they just aren't there.
The choices PF2 provides are small adjustments to numbers in almost all of these cases, and the comparison to 4e comes from everything being an action card. Nothing wrong with it, but the big difference is 4e had cool action cards. 5e, every choice you do get to make tends to lock you on a path, but all classes have 3 generally cool different options that mean even 2 of the same class can be entirely different. That diversity isn't in PF2, it was barely in PF1. Starfinder has it, and I really like Starfinder.
In the system presented with how it is balanced, and with what each character needs to function due to the high DCs of actions and most of the difference coming from ability scores, giving finesse Dex to damage makes Dex-based characters up to par and not useless in the early levels, and makes negligible difference or compared to Str being a detriment in high levels. Giving it says "you can play this way if you want", rather than saying "if you want to use a Finesse weapon effectively you need to be a Rogue". I'm all for certain classes being the only ones able to do certain things, but basic functions like weapon choice and effectiveness should not be one of those things in a game where you are trying to tell people to be diverse and play what you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
basic functions like weapon choice and effectiveness should not be one of those things in a game where you are trying to tell people to be diverse and play what you want.That assumes you can't be a good dex user and not be a rogue. This is flatly false. Its another hyperbolic statement that is flatly not supported by fact.
You... Actually can't. Like, several people have run the numbers already. A dex-based character that has to use strength for damage is not viable. Yeah, some people are like "I've got a level 1 that it works on!" to which I kinda say "That's great, but when level 0 enemies have less than 10 hp, everything works. That won't scale well, I all but guarantee it."
But here, I'll gather the data and show you.
Spoiler:These are asuming a fighter, starting at 18 str, 16 dex (as that's the max you can do at level 1 with the standard generation, even though the str character doesn't need that high dex) and vice-versa. Also assuming vs an AC that gives a 10 to hit (both have the same accuracy), so 45% of attacks miss, 50% hit and 5% crit1-handers at level 1:
Dex (Rapier, d6 (average 3.5) damage, deadly d8 (average 4.5)):
0.5x(3.5+3)+0.05x(7+9+6)=4.35 average damage
Str (longsword d8(average 4.5) damage):
0.5x(4.5+4)+0.05(9+8)=5.1 average damage
(4.35/5.1)*100 = 85.29%, so a 14.71% increase in damage for the str2-handers at level 1:
Dex (Elven Curve Blade, d8 (average 4.5) damage, note: an uncommon weapon): 0.5x(4.5+3)+0.05(9+6)=4.5 average damage
Str (Greatsword, d12 (average 6.5) damage): 0.5x(6.5+4)+0.05(13+8)=6.3 average damage
(4.5/6.3)*100 = 71.43%, so a 28.57% increase for the str (a bigger gap, even with using an uncommon weapon for dex)Now let's kick this up a notch and go from the opposite end, level 20. These are assuming both characters have raised both str and dex at every opportunity through their carrers (so ending up with 22(+6) in their primary stat and 21(+5) in their secondary) and again assuming vs an AC that gives a 10 to hit (both have the same accuracy), so 45% of attacks miss, 50% hit and 5% crit.
1-handers at level 20:
Dex (Legendary +5 Rapier, 6d6 (average 21) damage, deadly 3d8 (average 13.5):
0.5x(21+5)+0.05x(42+27+10)=16.95 average damage
Str (Legendary +5 Longsword, 6d8 (average 27) damage):
0.5x(27+6)+0.05x(54+12)=19.8 damage
(16.95/19.8)*100 = 85.61%, so a 14.39% increase for the str2-handers at level 20:
Dex (Legendary +5 Elven Curve Blade, 6d8 (average 27) damage):
0.5x(27+5)+0.05x(54+10)=19.2 average damage
Str (Legendary +5 Greatsword, 6d12 (average 39) damage):
0.5x(39+6)+0.05x(78+12)=27 average damage
(19.2/27)*100 = 71.11%, so a 28.89% damage increase
Coyler had his math right, but he didn't bring it home in a way that paints a complete picture for comparison. But to start, let's be clear: a loss of 14-29% of damage is huge. Of note: his figures assume the strength character maxes dex as much as possible, and it influences the strength character's damage not at all. And it probably doesn't affect his AC much either. As you and others have pointed out, a strength character isn't going to need much more than a 14 in Dex. Case in point:
Spoiler: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)
A strength fighter who goes to only 12 dex is consistently going to match if not outperform someone maxing dex. In the AC arena, it's essentially a tie with a slight favor toward the strength fighter.
So a strength fighter beats a dex fighter on damage and AC in the current system. Allowing dex to damage gives Coyle's dex fighter 1 more point of damage, bringing that percentage gap down to, oh... 9-25% more damage in favor of the strength fighter.
But - and this is important - the theoretical 21 dex on Coyle's strength fighter was largely superfluous. Raynulf's example demonstrates that strength fighter could comfortably leave dex at 12... In much the same way a dex-to-damage fighter could comfortably leave strength at 12.
In the current system, the dex-to-hit-but-str-to-damage fighter is actually forced to pump two attributes to the max... Thus making all dex fighters forced to use strength for damage both more homogeneous (that thing you can't stop proclaiming your dread for) and less flexible in terms of their other stats than the strength fighter by 4 ability boosts... All while playing second stringer in combat. Presuming the math is based around the strength fighter's damage, the dex-to-hit-str-to-damage fighter is just outright less useful in essentially every way.
Now, for your inevitable counter-points:
"The strength fighter still needs 12-14 dex, the dex fighter can leave their str at 10." To which I will say "yes, this is true." However, you and others have pointed out the veritable cornucopia of ability boosts the system goes out of its way to hand out. Using one or two of those to round out AC is honestly probably a trade in the strength fighter's favor when you consider they have an upper damage range advantage of an easy 25%. The - at most - two ability boost advantage the dex fighter gains doesn't really outweigh that. Like not even close.
Your next point will be reflex saves. My counter-point is two-fold. First, reflex is the least important save. It protects you from some damage. You can heal that pretty readily, but I will grant it feels nice to just nope a substantial portion of an enemy's AoE damage. But... you know what can prevent the wrong people from taking damage, and thus obviate the need to heal at all? My second counterpoint: battlefield control. Strength characters have a lot of battlefield control in the Athletics skill. Tripping, shoving, grappling... I actually really like the added utility given to strength characters there and consider it far more valuable than a reflex save. One is a number boost, the other is a whole wealth of options.
Your last point, specifically, Datalore, will likely be some nonsense about player envy or comparisons to other systems. To that end, I have kept my argument purely to PF2, and stated the advantages to both without suggesting each should get what the other has. With that in mind and the above numbers, are you still going to say dex to damage still doesn't deserve to be an option in the playtest? Make it a level 3 general feat, let people see how it fares in the game, take it out of the final product if the sentiment is that it somehow breaks things in practice. The numbers suggest it won't be a problem, however.
Spoiler:Before you point out that rogues don't seem to under-perform on damage, that's the result of sneak attack. Take it away and watch them sink.Also, provided playtesting dex to damage as something like a level 3 general feat doesn't demonstrably break the game per feedback, I'd posit they should keep it for the final core rulebook. As a GM, it's easier to say "I don't want this option in my game" than it is to homebrew something balanced that allows that choice.
Dex-to-damage doesn't feel necessary in Pathfinder 2.0 as it does in 1.0 because much of your damage scaling comes from the bonus damage dice from magic weapons.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels like a red herring.
From the analysis, the overwhelming factor is the weapon damage dice. The static modifier is important at the lowest levels but rapidly loses relevance as levels go on.
The extension of this question becomes "what do you get in exchange for having worse damage dice?" That... honestly should probably come from combat options and class feats, not raw damage output.
The biggest issue the STR based fighter is going to face in matching the damage output CommanderCoyler lists in his math is when the enemy doesn't stand still and take the damage that the character is dishing out. That is very hard to factor into these kind of theory crafting situations, but the more damage the character does, and the more limited her movement is by heavy armor, the less likely she will be getting those hits in as enemies rightful avoid giving her more than one attack around. Enemies might also fight tactically against a character using a lighter blade, but will be less likely to sacrifice their own opportunities to attack, especially because the light armored character is going to be keeping up.
A fighter is going to be moving 15ft an action in heavy armor until level 17. Even assuming they have sudden charge, that is 45ft of moving and one attack action a turn. But a unencumbered enemy could be covering 50ft with only 2 movement actions. It is pretty reasonable to assume that there is going to be a significant loss in number of attacks for a two-handed fighter in comparison to ranged or more mobile Dex-based fighters. Probably at a rate of atleast to 2 to 1.
This is a huge part of why the short bow (and composite short bow) is a much better weapon then their damage output makes you think.
Spoiler:Dex-to-damage doesn't feel necessary in Pathfinder 2.0 as it does in 1.0 because much of your damage scaling comes from the bonus damage dice from magic weapons.
And, as stated elsewhere, dex weapons have smaller damage dice, and thus the difference is more pronounced. And that would be fine, the trade is not having to care about strength. Disallowing dex to damage puts a dex fighter behind on damage dice and ability boosts. See the above analysis for how that shakes out.
TL;DR: Read the thread before posting, please, lest you threaten to contribute nothing.
Spoiler:This feels like a red herring.From the analysis, the overwhelming factor is the weapon damage dice. The static modifier is important at the lowest levels but rapidly loses relevance as levels go on.
The extension of this question becomes "what do you get in exchange for having worse damage dice?" That... honestly should probably come from combat options and class feats, not raw damage output.
Strictly speaking, the trade is not caring about Strength. Most people are way overvaluing that. The most a Strength fighter needs to put into Dex is a 14, or even only a 12 (see above analysis). That puts the dex fighter two ability boosts ahead of the strength fighter, but the strength fighter deals an easy 25% more damage. Thus the strength fighter deals more damage, but a dex fighter has small buffs elsewhere, such as two extra trained skills, two more initiative and will saves, two more resonance points, or one instance of any two prior options mentioned in this sentence. And while I'd say that trade is in the strength fighters favor, I can make peace with it in exchange for the option existing to allow the fantasy of the agile fighter.
TL;DR: Better tertiary bonuses in the form of two more ability boosts, and the technical ability to switch-hit, as Unicore points out (although I'm responding to him next). I'd like the trade to be more substantial, but am okay with where it is now otherwise.
Spoiler:The biggest issue the STR based fighter is going to face in matching the damage output CommanderCoyler lists in his math is when the enemy doesn't stand still and take the damage that the character is dishing out. That is very hard to factor into these kind of theory crafting situations, but the more damage the character does, and the more limited her movement is by heavy armor, the less likely she will be getting those hits in as enemies rightful avoid giving her more than one attack around. Enemies might also fight tactically against a character using a lighter blade, but will be less likely to sacrifice their own opportunities to attack, especially because the light armored character is going to be keeping up.A fighter is going to be moving 15ft an action in heavy armor until level 17. Even assuming they have sudden charge, that is 45ft of moving and one attack action a turn. But a unencumbered enemy could be covering 50ft with only 2 movement actions. It is pretty reasonable to assume that there is going to be a significant loss in number of attacks for a two-handed fighter in comparison to ranged or more mobile Dex-based fighters. Probably at a rate of atleast to 2 to 1.
This is a huge part of why the short bow (and composite short bow) is a much better weapon then their damage output makes you think.
The problem with what-ifs is that they quickly threaten to spiral out of control and make any and all figures irrelevant. And you can scenario-craft your way into making most things situationally useless. Watch: What if a dex fighter or archer gets grappled? What about entangled? What about tanglefoot bags? All of those have strength-based escapes, and would - as such - hamper the dex fighter far more than the strength fighter.
Point is, being hung up on what-ifs is pointless. In an open, featureless field, your scenario has some merit, but having just run a barbarian and a rogue in the same party through Part 2 of Doomsday Dawn - which was a bit of a poster child at times for outdoor empty spaces - I assure you that the 15ft barbarian had no trouble closing on and murdering enemies like the hyenadon in one round.
Your mention of ranged weaponry is also not without merit - a dex fighter is going to be a more capable switch-hitter. However, this is with regards to discussing melee fighting, and while the agile hero can pull a crossbow and shoot something, it isn't typically in line with the fantasy of playing that type of character, and so a melee-intended dex fighter is pretty unlikely to be supporting their ranged switch-hitting with class feats to support it. And thus it feels less like a bonus to playing a dex fighter and more like an "Oh. Yeah, I guess I can do that too?" It's not what you make that character for, most of the time.
TL;DR: Having the option to switch hit is okay, but it's not what dex fighter enthusiasts are here for, so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The extension of this question becomes "what do you get in exchange for having worse damage dice?" That... honestly should probably come from combat options and class feats, not raw damage output.
I mean it's pretty simple, from investing in dex rather than strength, you get:
- Better reflex save- Better skill use (1 skill is str based, 3 are dex-based)
- Armor that doesn't get in your way (no speed reduction, no ACP, no downsides like clumsy or noisy).
- Better armor class at low levels.
Plus, this is PF2 not PF1 so having a 14 str by level 5 is pretty painless (you boost skills 4 at a time), so you're down all of 2 points of damage from lacking dex-to-damage. I have two dex based martials for PF2 (a Dwarf Monk who uses tiger style and an elf rogue who uses a curve blade) neither seems incomplete without dex-to-damage. I mean, the absolute most damage dex-to-damage would add over one's career is 8 per hit (a 8 str gnome or halfling with a 24 dex from 20 levels and a potent magic item), but most people who want to fight in melee are going to be able to manage a 16 or 18 by level 20 so we're talking about 3-4 extra damage on a 20th level character.
I mean it's pretty simple, from investing in dex rather than strength, you get:
- Better reflex save
- Better skill use (1 skill is str based, 3 are dex-based)
- Armor that doesn't get in your way (no speed reduction, no ACP, no downsides like clumsy or noisy).
- Better armor class at low levels.Plus, this is PF2 not PF1 so having a 14 str by level 5 is pretty painless (you boost skills 4 at a time), so you're down all of 2 points of damage from lacking dex-to-damage. I have two dex based martials for PF2 (a Dwarf Monk who uses tiger style and an elf rogue who uses a curve blade) neither seems incomplete without dex-to-damage. I mean, the absolute most damage dex-to-damage would add over one's career is 8 per hit (a 8 str gnome or halfling with a 24 dex from 20 levels and a potent magic item), but most people who want to fight in melee are going to be able to manage a 16 or 18 by level 20 so we're talking about 3-4 extra damage on a 20th level character.
You, like many others, are overlooking the reduced damage dice finesse weapons contend with. See above analysis for details. Lacking dex to damage (especially because RAW Finesse Striker doesn't work with an elven-curve blade (and thus the most accurate comparison would really be a d6 vs a d12, which is not even factored into the above)) in addition to dealing with the lower dice is a case of kicking the dex fighter while it's already down.