Dex to Damage (Again)


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

This is increasingly becoming another conversation about the weakness of Heavy Armor and while I am all aboard with finding ways to improve the IMMENSE disparity between these two playstyles, I'm not sure Dex to Damage (Again) is the right place.


I mean, we could always do "Str-to-AC" for heavy armor (possibly up to a cap.) I figure that would come close to balancing dex-to-damage, but Str>Dex Monks would still need something.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to make a note to all the people who think Dex to Damage is completely "unnecessary, stupid, doesn't make sense, etc.

As someone experienced with Fencing, I can tell you that physical might (Strength) doesn't really come into how much damage you can do when your weapon is a rapier or a dagger....

How well you fence is more dependent on your technique and agility...And both of those things are rolled into the Dexterity stat in this game.

Dueling Saber's are sharp...They can cut your nose and ears off without any resistance... If used right they are a deadly weapon.

Now someone mentioned that this damage, that is coming from quickly getting under someone's guard and stabbing them in interesting places, should be expressed with sneak attack or precision damage. My only problem with that, is that it doesn't reflect the increased benefit of being quick and agile.

Now...Realistically, I can do more damage by smashing through shields with a greatsword like Willam Walace then by precision stabbing/slashing with my Saber...But that is reflected in the things greater damage dice which gets even better as it's enchanted.

I've wielded an axe and felled tree's and I've wielded an epee and annoyed my fellow fencers...

Both are dangerous weapons if used right and both are used differently.

...

Anyway, all I'm saying is I think there is a place for a weaker, more agile fighter.

Have a good day!

Edit: Also, I someday dream of Charisma based fighting like Guybrush Threepwood. :) I want a Swashbuckler Insult Sword Fighting Module.
I'm only half kidding. I managed to pull it off in the first edition and found it greatly enjoyable.


How about giving dex-to-damage (in addition to strength to damage) for crits or under special circumstances (like when an opponent is flat footed)? Is that sufficient for people or is the world only in order when strength is useless for dex builds?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if modern fencing is really an appropriate model for everything in fantasy swordfighting because, unless things have changed a lot since I last fenced, we are not actually pushing our blades through people hopefully penetrating armor and puncturing vital areas like someone in a life or death situation would.

Which is to say I think a general dex-to-damage option would be fine if it had a prerequisite of, say, 14 strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't know if modern fencing is really an appropriate model for everything in fantasy swordfighting because, unless things have changed a lot since I last fenced, we are not actually pushing our blades through people hopefully penetrating armor and puncturing vital areas like someone in a life or death situation would.

Which is to say I think a general dex-to-damage option would be fine if it had a prerequisite of, say, 14 strength.

Thank you for responding Mr Cabbage!

There are still duels in some places...Spain and France I think though I don't remember the details to well.

Anyway, rapiers never really go through armor, they are narrow enough to hit the joints around it and you trust to the extreme sharpness to do the cutting job rather than Strength...It's not the most effective method in the world but it's interesting!

Look it up and you'll find some entertaining stories about ugly duelists who intentionally try to mar the faces of the pretty boys! (Actual story)

Anyway, I'm just saying that Dextarity based fighting is based off the same principles as fencing rather than traditional warfare. Therefore, it might be useful to look to it as a reference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lockweood, I feel like what you are describing lines up pretty perfectly with dexterity applying to hit, not to damage. I don't really have a huge stake in this, but what you are basically saying is you just need to be quick enough to land a hit and the sharpness of the blade does the rest of the work for you.

But if a strong person and an agile person hit the same spot on the same target, it seems unlikely that the agile person's rapier will penetrate further. (And if it does, it is probably based on technique, but that's better represented by proficiency not attributes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lockewood wrote:

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to make a note to all the people who think Dex to Damage is completely "unnecessary, stupid, doesn't make sense, etc.

As someone experienced with Fencing, I can tell you that physical might (Strength) doesn't really come into how much damage you can do when your weapon is a rapier or a dagger....

How well you fence is more dependent on your technique and agility...And both of those things are rolled into the Dexterity stat in this game.

Dueling Saber's are sharp...They can cut your nose and ears off without any resistance... If used right they are a deadly weapon.

Now someone mentioned that this damage, that is coming from quickly getting under someone's guard and stabbing them in interesting places, should be expressed with sneak attack or precision damage. My only problem with that, is that it doesn't reflect the increased benefit of being quick and agile.

Now...Realistically, I can do more damage by smashing through shields with a greatsword like Willam Walace then by precision stabbing/slashing with my Saber...But that is reflected in the things greater damage dice which gets even better as it's enchanted.

I've wielded an axe and felled tree's and I've wielded an epee and annoyed my fellow fencers...

Both are dangerous weapons if used right and both are used differently.

...

Anyway, all I'm saying is I think there is a place for a weaker, more agile fighter.

Have a good day!

Edit: Also, I someday dream of Charisma based fighting like Guybrush Threepwood. :) I want a Swashbuckler Insult Sword Fighting Module.
I'm only half kidding. I managed to pull it off in the first edition and found it greatly enjoyable.

Didn't actual historical rapiers actually the same weight as arming swords but longer? Those actually require more strength to wield effectively than an arming sword because their center of gravity is farther from the swordsman.

How often did people actually try to kill each other with epees or dueling sabers or small swords or whatever?


Game Balance is important, and not just from a 'purity of mathematics' standpoint (although that level of elegance is nice to see, it's esoteric enough to be ignored). But Game Balance is important because another way to say 'game balance' is 'being fair to your players'. And honestly, when being fair to my players clashes with 'realism', I will choose the former every time.

Legolas keeps up with Gimli.

If our fantasy game doesn't allow for that, or only allows for it in a very restrictive sense (you gotta go Rogue, bruh, don't worry about the fact that Str dudes can be Fighers, Paladins, or Barbarians), we have failed our players.

HOWEVER...

If we really need to get down and dirty with a real life melee, well then, let's remember that hit points are a game representation of overall character health, and that damage points are a game representation of how effective your 6 seconds of attack were against that person's health (although 'realism' is a word that shouldn't be within a mile of the phrase 'hit points', but that's a topic for another time).

Now, if we're being realistic, a strong person will hit harder, but a nimble person will hit more times within that same 6 second period. So, Strength characters hit harder, but Dexterity fighters will get in more attacks per turn, right? Oh, nope, sure don't. Why? Because it would be a game balance nightmare.

So, what do we do? We can't give Dex fighters extra attacks, it's super hard. How about we just give them the same attacks, but also the same damage as Strength fighters? Once again, damage is just how effective your 6 seconds of attack were, and whether it's three quick fencing jabs to soft spots or a single crushing blow from a warhammer, you're equally hosed... but the rules don't bear that out. Where's the realism?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darcness wrote:

Game Balance is important, and not just from a 'purity of mathematics' standpoint (although that level of elegance is nice to see, it's esoteric enough to be ignored). But Game Balance is important because another way to say 'game balance' is 'being fair to your players'. And honestly, when being fair to my players clashes with 'realism', I will choose the former every time.

Legolas keeps up with Gimli.

If our fantasy game doesn't allow for that, or only allows for it in a very restrictive sense (you gotta go Rogue, bruh, don't worry about the fact that Str dudes can be Fighers, Paladins, or Barbarians), we have failed our players.

HOWEVER...

If we really need to get down and dirty with a real life melee, well then, let's remember that hit points are a game representation of overall character health, and that damage points are a game representation of how effective your 6 seconds of attack were against that person's health (although 'realism' is a word that shouldn't be within a mile of the phrase 'hit points', but that's a topic for another time).

Now, if we're being realistic, a strong person will hit harder, but a nimble person will hit more times within that same 6 second period. So, Strength characters hit harder, but Dexterity fighters will get in more attacks per turn, right? Oh, nope, sure don't. Why? Because it would be a game balance nightmare.

So, what do we do? We can't give Dex fighters extra attacks, it's super hard. How about we just give them the same attacks, but also the same damage as Strength fighters? Once again, damage is just how effective your 6 seconds of attack were, and whether it's three quick fencing jabs to soft spots or a single crushing blow from a warhammer, you're equally hosed... but the rules don't bear that out. Where's the realism?!

You balance it by giving Dex builds better mobility, reflex saves, and touch AC even as they fall a little behind in damage as well as giving dex weapons abilities like agile that allow them to be relatively more effective weapons to make multiple attacks with. They get all of that on top of having the versatility of being just as accurate while attacking in melee and at range while the paladin friend can only really ever hit anything in melee while being bad at actually closing distance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't know if modern fencing is really an appropriate model for everything in fantasy swordfighting because, unless things have changed a lot since I last fenced, we are not actually pushing our blades through people hopefully penetrating armor and puncturing vital areas like someone in a life or death situation would.

Which is to say I think a general dex-to-damage option would be fine if it had a prerequisite of, say, 14 strength.

It is. It's actually true with swords in general, which act like giant levers. For example, you don't need to be ripped to operate a steak knife because of the slashing motion, as opposed to chopping with an axe.

The only reason Strength is the attack and damage stat for melee weapons and is distinct from Constitution is that Gary Gygax wanted one stat per class- Fighterness/Strength, Wizardness/Intelligence, Clericness/Wisdom, and Rogueness/Dexterity- plus two stats that anyone can appreciate- Endurance/Constitution and Leadership/Charisma.

Combat was the purview of fighters, so it was keyed off Fighterness.


Darcness wrote:

Game Balance is important, and not just from a 'purity of mathematics' standpoint (although that level of elegance is nice to see, it's esoteric enough to be ignored). But Game Balance is important because another way to say 'game balance' is 'being fair to your players'. And honestly, when being fair to my players clashes with 'realism', I will choose the former every time.

Legolas keeps up with Gimli.

If our fantasy game doesn't allow for that, or only allows for it in a very restrictive sense (you gotta go Rogue, bruh, don't worry about the fact that Str dudes can be Fighers, Paladins, or Barbarians), we have failed our players.

HOWEVER...

If we really need to get down and dirty with a real life melee, well then, let's remember that hit points are a game representation of overall character health, and that damage points are a game representation of how effective your 6 seconds of attack were against that person's health (although 'realism' is a word that shouldn't be within a mile of the phrase 'hit points', but that's a topic for another time).

Now, if we're being realistic, a strong person will hit harder, but a nimble person will hit more times within that same 6 second period. So, Strength characters hit harder, but Dexterity fighters will get in more attacks per turn, right? Oh, nope, sure don't. Why? Because it would be a game balance nightmare.

So, what do we do? We can't give Dex fighters extra attacks, it's super hard. How about we just give them the same attacks, but also the same damage as Strength fighters? Once again, damage is just how effective your 6 seconds of attack were, and whether it's three quick fencing jabs to soft spots or a single crushing blow from a warhammer, you're equally hosed... but the rules don't bear that out. Where's the realism?!

If we're going down the realism rabbit hole, don't forget about dexterity mattering far more than strength with bladed weapons and unarmed attacks in real life. The best way to cause more damage with a sword isn't to swing it harder, it's to make sure the cutting edge is aligned as well as possible with the body of your target.

As for unarmed attacks, when a martial artist punches, most of the damage less by muscles and more by the bones that are being launched by the muscles, so higher strength will only get you so far while higher dexterity (at least the way Pathfinder defines it.) means you're punching faster. Even with the real life meaning of fine muscle control, it means you're controlling more muscles in your body and can therefore hit harder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Lockweood, I feel like what you are describing lines up pretty perfectly with dexterity applying to hit, not to damage. I don't really have a huge stake in this, but what you are basically saying is you just need to be quick enough to land a hit and the sharpness of the blade does the rest of the work for you.

But if a strong person and an agile person hit the same spot on the same target, it seems unlikely that the agile person's rapier will penetrate further. (And if it does, it is probably based on technique, but that's better represented by proficiency not attributes.

You present a good point Mr. Morgan! (Pun not initially intended)

Allow me to present an appropriate riposte!

Think of it like Sneak attack dice dependent on speed rather than surprise.
A dexterity bonus to hit just means you actually connected because the guy couldn't dodge in time and you got under his guard.
A dexterity bonus to damage means you slashed the guy across the stomach and disemboweled him. (Sorry for the gory picture)

Your increased manuel dexterity allowed you to flick the sword downwards across his belly rather than bounce off his ribs.

Contrast this with Strength.
A strength bonus to hit means that you ploughed through his guard and reached his skin.
A strength bonus to damage means that your axe bit deeper into his skull.

Your increased might allowed you to quickly smash the guy with an overhead chop, overpowering his shield arm and biting into his head.

...

Do you see what I mean?

I came back to this after making dinner so I would like to say something...
Sorry everyone....I kinda derailed the thread in a different direction...Wasn't my intention.

We can borrow from real life in order to make the themes of the game make sense...But if you take it too far you risk making the fantasy game loose it's charm.
Find the balance if you can...

...

...

Also, you fight like a Dairy Farmer!

Good Evening


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Darcness wrote:

Game Balance is important, and not just from a 'purity of mathematics' standpoint (although that level of elegance is nice to see, it's esoteric enough to be ignored). But Game Balance is important because another way to say 'game balance' is 'being fair to your players'. And honestly, when being fair to my players clashes with 'realism', I will choose the former every time.

Legolas keeps up with Gimli.

If our fantasy game doesn't allow for that, or only allows for it in a very restrictive sense (you gotta go Rogue, bruh, don't worry about the fact that Str dudes can be Fighers, Paladins, or Barbarians), we have failed our players.

HOWEVER...

If we really need to get down and dirty with a real life melee, well then, let's remember that hit points are a game representation of overall character health, and that damage points are a game representation of how effective your 6 seconds of attack were against that person's health (although 'realism' is a word that shouldn't be within a mile of the phrase 'hit points', but that's a topic for another time).

Now, if we're being realistic, a strong person will hit harder, but a nimble person will hit more times within that same 6 second period. So, Strength characters hit harder, but Dexterity fighters will get in more attacks per turn, right? Oh, nope, sure don't. Why? Because it would be a game balance nightmare.

So, what do we do? We can't give Dex fighters extra attacks, it's super hard. How about we just give them the same attacks, but also the same damage as Strength fighters? Once again, damage is just how effective your 6 seconds of attack were, and whether it's three quick fencing jabs to soft spots or a single crushing blow from a warhammer, you're equally hosed... but the rules don't bear that out. Where's the realism?!

If we're going down the realism rabbit hole, don't forget about dexterity mattering far more than strength with bladed weapons and unarmed attacks in real...

Hmm, this makes me interested in the discussion now, as a martial artist with nearly 3 years of Karate training. XD

I can definitely attest that Dex and Str are both important. Aim is very important, and holy crap is there a lot to coordinate in throwing proper punches. Arm pointing, hand position, stance, hip motion (Seriously, arm-only punches are weaksauce compared to something with some torque), etc.

But it's also vital to have your muscles trained enough to be able to perform nuanced movements and to generate the force to do real damage.

But then again karate is not just about training better strength but also training to maximize the strength you have so you can be deadly even with moderate strength.

And this is all coming from someone who is at least 6'2" and 230-240 lbs. I am stronger than most people of my own rank and even some above, but I am also slower and less agile than a LOT of students of my rank or better, and even a few below. Granted this is partly due to the fact that the majority of them are teenagers and I am mid 20s. Though my agility has improved drastically and closed that gap a lot.

This is to say, my greater strength lets me hit really hard, and even having lesser agility than others I've worked past a lot of my weaknesses to get pretty good accuracy and technique to my moves. But at the same time the human body has so many weak points that someone with decent strength and better agility than me could do severe damage to someone. I might be able to send someone back a few feet if I catch them right with a great punch, but both myself and a physically weaker individual could cripple someone with a joint shot just as well as the other.

And there's often a mutual respect for the opposite style to what you possess. I've had smaller students intimidated by me more than once, even when they are higher rank, but conversely I wouldn't ever want to try fighting some of these quick kids who can kick me across the jaw, particularly not one that hook-kicked me in the back of the head in sparring tonight. And conversely, he might not want to fight me after I took him to the ground about 5 seconds later when I caught his next kick to the body. We both have advantages that we recognize in each other and wouldn't want to have to go up against.

But then all these points muddle some, too. Is finer technique from muscle tone (Str), coordination (Dex), or lots of training (Level)? Same question to landing sharper blows that deal more damage, I'm sure there are other facets as well. (Real answer, all of the above. Just posing the hypothetical because as it stands you're rarely incorporating Str and Dex into the same attack in PF, even more so if Dex to Damage is available). Real-life physicality and especially fighting prowess are a multilayered beast, you really can't narrow it down to one factor/stat. Buff bros who be clumsy have major weaknesses and can be fought quite well by a weaker foe who knows what they're doing, you will get dodged around or redirected so much and hit in places where your strength doesn't mean jack. An agile opponent who lacks the strength or training to hit hard enough to crack a rib or hyperextend a joint similarly has problems, good luck hitting someone who knows what they're doing without them dodging, blocking, or tanking it and then countering the crap out of you.

To put it another way, it only takes so much competence to counter an MAD build IRL, inferior ability scores or not. At least in martial arts.

My takeaway from all this? WHY ARE WE TRYING TO TAP REALISM FOR THIS? FIGHTING IS COMPLICATED, Y'ALL! XD

Seriously though, some of the discussion here has convinced me Dex to damage isn't such a bad idea perhaps. It is well handled by the downsides existing (It counts towards a weapon's traits, finess 1H weapons cap at 1d6, 2H at 1d8, while other weapons cap at d8 and 1d12 for 1 and 2H, though they do pay in traits so that's not as full of a consideration). I do have an eh area here though as I don't like the idea of, say, a Str based short sword fighter being worse off than a Dex based one. I rather like the idea of a buff dude who prefers light weapons for one reason or another. But if certain weapons are meant for Str, maybe others should be better wielded as Dex. Idk. It's a really tricky balancing act, I don't envy Paizo for having to work with it. XP

But seriously tho, don't bring RL martial arts into Pathfinder. It makes me think to hard, and I already do enough of that trying to run the bloody game. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are we talking about realism in this thread? Good question. Aside from humble-bragging, it's distracting from the real reason OP wants dex to damage: Having to focus on dex and str takes away from points they could be using to buff all their other stats. It's a min/max argument that has gone overboard for years by players who want their dex bonus to affect everything important (to hit, dmg, AC, reflex, skills) so they can dump str (min) and max out everything else.

It's an even more imbalanced proposition in PF2 with the ability to have 18's in everything, and it's less important than ever to have extra stat bonus damage when the average extra damage from a +1 longsword (4.5) for example is greater than a +4 bonus anyway.

This argument is not about playing a certain style of character. You can already do that. It's about min/maxxers arguing for more juice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a feat allows Dex to damage, there must be another feat that makes you use Str for AC, Reflex saves and ranged hits.
How's that?


The DM of wrote:

Why are we talking about realism in this thread? Good question.

This argument is not about playing a certain style of character. You can already do that. It's about min/maxxers arguing for more juice.

Once again, the stats used to be defined as fighterness and rogueness. Realism comes up, because a consequence of trying to use the 6 ability scores as the perfect model for anything (I'm looking at you, Pokemon TTRPG) is people wondering why they can't make [insert character who's better at finesse than brute force]. I don't think it's coincidental that Dex fighters weren't a thing until 3.0.


Megistone wrote:

If a feat allows Dex to damage, there must be another feat that makes you use Str for AC, Reflex saves and ranged hits.

How's that?

There is for AC. you need more strength for more bulk of heavy armor.

and thrown weapons are str?

Now, I agree that heavy armor has too much penalty attached to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about a feat that lets you apply your dexterity to damage, but only up to your proficiency rank in whatever you're attacking with?

That would only be +1 or +2, a maximum of +3 if you somehow get access to Legendary. Easily matched by a moderate strength investment, and handily beaten by proper strength use getting +4 to +6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still like my idea back when dex to damage was being discussed before. I think dex to damage is lazy and it doesn't make sense why someone with dumped str and high dex does the same amount of damage as someone with high dex and high str. I think a cool little niche for dex character would be criticals.

They should add a new weapon type which allows half of your dex modifier to be added to your critical threat. So if you have +4 dex you can crit at 8 higher than their AC instead of +10. They should use this very sparringly only on weapons that are low damage dice. I'm thinking rapier, maybe the katana, shortsword, dagger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Why are we talking about realism in this thread? Good question. Aside from humble-bragging, it's distracting from the real reason OP wants dex to damage: Having to focus on dex and str takes away from points they could be using to buff all their other stats. It's a min/max argument that has gone overboard for years by players who want their dex bonus to affect everything important (to hit, dmg, AC, reflex, skills) so they can dump str (min) and max out everything else.

It is distracting from the main point, and needlessly complicates things, that's why I called it a rabbit hole, I was trying to point out realism can be debated endlessly, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't agree that that means the op is a dirty horrible min maxer, though.

Quote:
This argument is not about playing a certain style of character. You can already do that. It's about min/maxxers arguing for more juice.

Nope. It's about playing a certain style of character effectively. namely the fancy pants swashbuckler that prefers finesse over brute Force. Note the subtle differences in appearance between Zorro and Conan.

And sure he could just be a rogue, but rogues are expected to find traps and be all silver tongued. Seems like an option for a swashbucklery fighter is what's being asked for. And then they could fix the excessive penalties for heavy Armor while they're at it like OP suggested several times. Or would fixing those not be enough to balance out the end result?

Dire Ursus wrote:
I think dex to damage is lazy and it doesn't make sense why someone with dumped str and high dex does the same amount of damage as someone with high dex and high str.

Saying it Doesn't make sense is just another way of saying it's unrealistic. Bugs Bunny lives there.

Dire Ursus wrote:
They should add a new weapon type which allows half of your dex modifier to be added to your critical threat. So if you have +4 dex you can crit at 8 higher than their AC instead of +10. They should use this very sparringly only on weapons that are low damage dice. I'm thinking rapier, maybe the katana, shortsword, dagger.

That might be interesting, I don't know how much it would help, but it sounds cool. I guess it would be kind of like keen from pf1?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
The DM of wrote:

Why are we talking about realism in this thread? Good question. Aside from humble-bragging, it's distracting from the real reason OP wants dex to damage: Having to focus on dex and str takes away from points they could be using to buff all their other stats. It's a min/max argument that has gone overboard for years by players who want their dex bonus to affect everything important (to hit, dmg, AC, reflex, skills) so they can dump str (min) and max out everything else.

It is distracting from the main point, and needlessly complicates things, that's why I called it a rabbit hole, I was trying to point out realism can be debated endlessly, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't agree that that means the op is a dirty horrible min maxer, though.

Quote:
This argument is not about playing a certain style of character. You can already do that. It's about min/maxxers arguing for more juice.

Nope. It's about playing a certain style of character effectively. namely the fancy pants swashbuckler that prefers finesse over brute Force. Note the subtle differences in appearance between Zorro and Conan.

You absolutely can play the swash bucklery fighter without dex to damage. Dex to damage is one of the dullest ways to fill that design space as all it does is take away character options (0 point being an 18 Str/Dex character.) What being a swashbuckler needs is feat support that makes that sort of thing more interesting. Stuff like the broader crit range idea above (representing masterful strokes) action economy and MAP advantages representing skill and speed (e.g an Action that lets you Strike and Step, increasing your Step distance to 10 if you have 16 Dex, 15 if you have 20 or 20 at 24) etc.

Scarab Sages

Since the game is already centered around this whole extra dice philosophy, what if we made finesse weapons deal bonus dice of damage when used with Dexterity. Perhaps with a Finesse value, similar to Deadly?

"Finesse: You can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with a Finesse weapon instead of your Strength modifier. If you do, your attack with the weapon deals the listed additional damage. You do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a finesse weapon."

Or something to that effect. That way, finesse weapons have a distinct flavor, Strength characters aren't trying to abuse the extra damage, and we have a way of providing additional damage that ignores attributes. You would see a value like "Finesse (1d6)" next to a shortsword, or maybe even "Finesse (1d8)" next to a dagger, providing niche benefits for certain weapon types that make them better in specific circumstances. You could even say, much like Deadly, that a Legendary finesse weapon adds two of those dice instead of one.


Davor wrote:

Since the game is already centered around this whole extra dice philosophy, what if we made finesse weapons deal bonus dice of damage when used with Dexterity. Perhaps with a Finesse value, similar to Deadly?

"Finesse: You can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with a Finesse weapon instead of your Strength modifier. If you do, your attack with the weapon deals the listed additional damage. You do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a finesse weapon."

Or something to that effect. That way, finesse weapons have a distinct flavor, Strength characters aren't trying to abuse the extra damage, and we have a way of providing additional damage that ignores attributes. You would see a value like "Finesse (1d6)" next to a shortsword, or maybe even "Finesse (1d8)" next to a dagger, providing niche benefits for certain weapon types that make them better in specific circumstances. You could even say, much like Deadly, that a Legendary finesse weapon adds two of those dice instead of one.

That would make a shortsword straight up stronger than a greatsword. You need less stats to weild it appropriately, it costs less, takes less hands, has agile, weighs less and deals more damage (2d6+4 vs 1d12+4!)

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually 2d6 and 1d12 are pretty much the same, as your average is about 7 on each die, actually had this come up with a laser weapon in starfinder that did 2d4 instead of 1d8, long story short it looked better on paper, but in practice all you do id raise the lowest possible roll by 1. Granted that weapon had other problems as well (Used 10 charges per shot) but in the end it wound up doing the same damage as a normal equal level laser weapon.

Now granted the accuracy improvement counts for something, it's not all that much stronger, still problematic though and the idea could use some work.


MER-c wrote:

Actually 2d6 and 1d12 are pretty much the same, as your average is about 7 on each die, actually had this come up with a laser weapon in starfinder that did 2d4 instead of 1d8, long story short it looked better on paper, but in practice all you do id raise the lowest possible roll by 1. Granted that weapon had other problems as well (Used 10 charges per shot) but in the end it wound up doing the same damage as a normal equal level laser weapon.

Now granted the accuracy improvement counts for something, it's not all that much stronger, still problematic though and the idea could use some work.

Even if it is "basically the same" it is still better than the great sword in every other way mentioned.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excuse me while I cut in but I thought the proposal would be to add additional Dice INSTEAD of giving any flat bonuses to the Damage.

So it would be 1d12+4 VS 2d6 +0

The Greatsword still comes out ahead almost EVERY time.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Excuse me while I cut in but I thought the proposal would be to add additional Dice INSTEAD of giving any flat bonuses to the Damage.

So it would be 1d12+4 VS 2d6 +0

The Greatsword still comes out ahead almost EVERY time.

Ah in that case it is better. It still leads to the weird situation of the 18 str character doing the same damage with a short sword as a 8 str character. I'm not sure that is something to strive for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Excuse me while I cut in but I thought the proposal would be to add additional Dice INSTEAD of giving any flat bonuses to the Damage.

So it would be 1d12+4 VS 2d6 +0

The Greatsword still comes out ahead almost EVERY time.

Ah in that case it is better. It still leads to the weird situation of the 18 str character doing the same damage with a short sword as a 8 str character. I'm not sure that is something to strive for.

They would still get their strength bonus to damage, though. If the 18 strength character attacked with a shortsword using Dex to hit, they would deal 2d6+4 under this proposal (I think), versus 2d6-1 for the 8 strength dude.

It would certainly be useful for approximating "multiple quick strikes" but I don't know how the other math works out for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Megistone wrote:

If a feat allows Dex to damage, there must be another feat that makes you use Str for AC, Reflex saves and ranged hits.

How's that?

,

There is for AC. you need more strength for more bulk of heavy armor.
and thrown weapons are str?

Now, I agree that heavy armor has too much penalty attached to it.

Heavy Armor is not actually more AC. All armor gives +7 AC if you hit the dex cap. So the "advantage" of full plate is that you maximize your AC with a Dex of 12. Once the rogue with studded leather hits 20 dex, or once the druid in hide armor hits 18 Dex they will have the same AC as you (and a higher touch armor class).

In PF2 the only reasons someone would choose to wear heavy armor are:
- My mental image of my character is wearing plate mail.
- My class gives a higher proficiency bonus to heavy armor.

For everybody else, dex is just a better investment for defense.

Scarab Sages

WatersLethe wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Excuse me while I cut in but I thought the proposal would be to add additional Dice INSTEAD of giving any flat bonuses to the Damage.

So it would be 1d12+4 VS 2d6 +0

The Greatsword still comes out ahead almost EVERY time.

Ah in that case it is better. It still leads to the weird situation of the 18 str character doing the same damage with a short sword as a 8 str character. I'm not sure that is something to strive for.

They would still get their strength bonus to damage, though. If the 18 strength character attacked with a shortsword using Dex to hit, they would deal 2d6+4 under this proposal (I think), versus 2d6-1 for the 8 strength dude.

It would certainly be useful for approximating "multiple quick strikes" but I don't know how the other math works out for it.

Not quite. I specifically mentioned that ones Strength modifier was NOT added to damage in my proposal.

The idea is that the average dice of damage roughly approximate adding the ability score modifier without a direct correlation. 1d6 being ~3, scaling up to ~7 at high levels. There are lots of factors, but not adding an ability modifier to the damage was part of that suggestion.

In the above example, an 18 Strength character wielding a shortsword using Strength to hit would deal a flat 1d6 damage because he is using a shortsword in an suboptimal way, and the weapon isn't designed to utilize the wielder's strength. A Strength 18 character using Dexterity to hit would deal 2d6 damage, no modifier, the same as an 8 Strength character, but the point is that a finesse weapon isn't designed to deal damage based on the strength of the wielder, but the wielder's precision (i.e., Dexterity).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


In PF2 the only reasons someone would choose to wear heavy armor are:
- My mental image of my character is wearing plate mail.
- My class gives a higher proficiency bonus to heavy armor.

For everybody else, dex is just a better investment for defense.

Not only for Defense, but for Offense (Ranged Attacks and Spells), Skills, Saving Throws, and more!

Honestly a simple enough fix for this is probably already in the works and I don't expect any huge changes given the fact that NOTHING was changed for them in the Update phase. I imagine we'll likely be seeing another +1 Armor Bonus from Medium/Heavy Armor in general, and likely the addition of BENEFICIAL Armor Traits instead of them currently only being penalties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Why are we talking about realism in this thread?

Did realism stop mattering, then? Can we dispense with all the arguments about how fighters shouldn't be able to leap tall buildings because they can't do that in reality and it ruins certain peoples sense of verisimilitude, and allow a whole range of heroic non-magical abilities from myths and legends (personally I'd like Finn McCool's ability to speak any tongue)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "a high strength, high dexterity character should do more damage than a low strength, high dexterity character" is the absolute crux of my problem with how dex-to-damage works in PF1e.

I am 100% fine with Dex-to-damage as a concept, but against any implementation of it that makes your Str not matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think "a high strength, high dexterity character should do more damage than a low strength, high dexterity character" is the absolute crux of my problem with how dex-to-damage works in PF1e.

I am 100% fine with Dex-to-damage as a concept, but against any implementation of it that makes your Str not matter.

Agree 100%. I had no problem with things like trained grace, lethal grace, or shifter's edge in PF1- whereby if you are using dex to-hit and str for damage, you add some other scaling bonus to damage (twice your weapon training bonus, or half your level respectively.) All of these were great since it meant your dextrous combatant actually wanted to have enough strength to do all of that rope climbing and chandelier swinging that someone of their profile should be doing.

What I *hated* and do not want to see back was people with 7-10 strength who were competent melee fighters with no use whatsoever for strength.


I'm okay with a 7 Strength character being a competent melee fighter.

But they should be a worse melee fighter than a 14 Strength character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that the main way they kept strength from being completely dumpable was carrying capacity, which was widely ignored.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
The problem is that the main way they kept strength from being completely dumpable was carrying capacity, which was widely ignored.

Even when it wasn't ignored, it was avoidable because dex weapons and armor are all light and the game is full of ways to carry equipment weightlessly:

Pack animals, porters, floating disks, party members, extra light materials like mithril, bags of holding, etc etc.


There is one way to make a Str-dump character sweat though: Shadows. :P

I had a player who was playing a Str-dump kobold wizard. He was a total powerhouse of a blaster, nearly unstoppable in combat, clutched the party out of a lot of rough places. Then as a level 10-ish party there was an encounter with a pack of shadows that was supposed to be a light diversion.

I watched this fearless wizard's player stop, do the math on his touch AC vs his Str score, and then dimension door 800 feet away and refuse to return until the rest of the party promised that every single shadow had been slain. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

There is one way to make a Str-dump character sweat though: Shadows. :P

I had a player who was playing a Str-dump kobold wizard. He was a total powerhouse of a blaster, nearly unstoppable in combat, clutched the party out of a lot of rough places. Then as a level 10-ish party there was an encounter with a pack of shadows that was supposed to be a light diversion.

I watched this fearless wizard's player stop, do the math on his touch AC vs his Str score, and then dimension door 800 feet away and refuse to return until the rest of the party promised that every single shadow had been slain. XD

For sure~ Stat drain is the bane of min-maxers everywhere.


What does it mean to you "a competent STR combatant vs a competent DEX combatant?"

If you use more than 1 stat (yes I know it is a bit more complex) then you can do some things such as have STR or DEX be more of a benefit; "to hit" or "apply to damage" or even different damage die.
I know of one game that has different damage die based on how you use the weapon to attack. ie slash vs stab or slice vs crush, etc.
For example you could do this:
Short Sword (ST) d=1d6+STR Mod
Short Sword (Dex) d=1d4+Dex Mod
And then you could have feat(s) that adjust the Dex damage more towards the STR number.
But again that is a more complex system and IIRC it is also in at least one other game out there somewhere. (I just do not remember where at this time.)

Realism:
IMHO, I and most people I know prefer PnP games to be somewhat based on realism and video games to not be. We generally play PNP games longer if they are more realistic than just chart based or formula based and increase in stats, skills or other areas are arbitrary.

But as always you group and play styles may be different and I am very curious as to how it will all work out.

MDC


Excaliburproxy wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

There is one way to make a Str-dump character sweat though: Shadows. :P

I had a player who was playing a Str-dump kobold wizard. He was a total powerhouse of a blaster, nearly unstoppable in combat, clutched the party out of a lot of rough places. Then as a level 10-ish party there was an encounter with a pack of shadows that was supposed to be a light diversion.

I watched this fearless wizard's player stop, do the math on his touch AC vs his Str score, and then dimension door 800 feet away and refuse to return until the rest of the party promised that every single shadow had been slain. XD

For sure~ Stat drain is the bane of min-maxers everywhere.

This (stat drain) should be a major tool in most games to prevent stat min/maxers from unbalancing the game (unless they want to RP such things).

MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

What does it mean to you "a competent STR combatant vs a competent DEX combatant?"

If you use more than 1 stat (yes I know it is a bit more complex) then you can do some things such as have STR or DEX be more of a benefit; "to hit" or "apply to damage" or even different damage die.
I know of one game that has different damage die based on how you use the weapon to attack. ie slash vs stab or slice vs crush, etc.
For example you could do this:
Short Sword (ST) d=1d6+STR Mod
Short Sword (Dex) d=1d4+Dex Mod
And then you could have feat(s) that adjust the Dex damage more towards the STR number.
But again that is a more complex system and IIRC it is also in at least one other game out there somewhere. (I just do not remember where at this time.)

Realism:
IMHO, I and most people I know prefer PnP games to be somewhat based on realism and video games to not be. We generally play PNP games longer if they are more realistic than just chart based or formula based and increase in stats, skills or other areas are arbitrary.

But as always you group and play styles may be different and I am very curious as to how it will all work out.

MDC

Realism in this case means much more complexity, and not everyone will agree on what's "realistic" in this case anyway.

See my above post on dexterity being more important in fighting and how an apparent martial artist basically said "you're sorta almost right but not really and fighting is complicated so let's not go by what's realistic in this case."

I still maintain that if we really want to be realistic, a sword cares more about whether it's edge is aligned with the thing you're trying to slashy slash than how hard you swing it. It's not like a bladed weapon has to cut all that deeply to seriously injure someone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I don't agree that that means the op is a dirty horrible min maxer, though.

Then re-read OP's last post before he got called out for admitting he was exactly that and then stopped posting:

Malkyn wrote:
And yes, a dex fighter could boost strength and dexterity, but then you're behind on damage modifier and dice damage. You're also behind on four ability boosts at that point, if not more.

The Dex to Damage argument is for min/maxxers to get more juice. It's too greedy for my tastes when you can have an 18 in every physical stat by L10 in PF2. What else are we discussing regarding dex to damage?


The DM of wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I don't agree that that means the op is a dirty horrible min maxer, though.

Then re-read OP's last post before he got called out for admitting he was exactly that and then stopped posting:

Malkyn wrote:
And yes, a dex fighter could boost strength and dexterity, but then you're behind on damage modifier and dice damage. You're also behind on four ability boosts at that point, if not more.
The Dex to Damage argument is for min/maxxers to get more juice. It's too greedy for my tastes when you can have an 18 in every physical stat by L10 in PF2. What else are we discussing regarding dex to damage?

I already read it and I think you need to read it more in context with other stuff he said. He's been arguing a Dex based character is far behind in damage, and yes ability boosts. Because if my concept is "swashbucklery dude who uses finesse to win instead of strength," then pushing strength to 18 contradicts that concept, therefore the concept becomes invalid at most tables as everyone yells at the swashbucklery fighter for sucking.

Other people in this thread have convinced me there are other possible solutions to that than Dex to damage. Fine. But they should do something to make it a valid concept, agile rapier master guy shouldn't be less valid than big stompy vein asplody greatsword guy.

The argument that was brought up earlier that Dex to damage makes Pinnacle of physical prowess 18 Dex and strength guy pointless is fair though. Someone above mentioned finessing light weapons adding damage dice which was intriguing...


Corwin Icewolf wrote:


Other people in this thread have convinced me there are other possible solutions to that than Dex to damage. Fine. But they should do something to make it a valid concept, agile rapier master guy shouldn't be less valid than big stompy vein asplody greatsword guy.

No, it shouldn't.

The agile rapier master guy does less damage per hit, but has advantages in other areas.


What if dex to hit and dex to damage were reduced by ACP, and ACP was also reduced by str?

That might even help the monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:

What if dex to hit and dex to damage were reduced by ACP, and ACP was also reduced by str?

That might even help the monk.

Why would it help the monk? The monk doesn't interact with ACP in any way. It also doesn't really change the situation past the very early levels. The armour that you want as a dex user has low ACP that goes away with quality improvements.


Megistone wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:


Other people in this thread have convinced me there are other possible solutions to that than Dex to damage. Fine. But they should do something to make it a valid concept, agile rapier master guy shouldn't be less valid than big stompy vein asplody greatsword guy.

No, it shouldn't.

The agile rapier master guy does less damage per hit, but has advantages in other areas.

I'm not sure his current advantages allow him to contribute as much to combat as the damage from strength, though. I mean...

So he's better with his backup ranged weapon than greatsword guy, but the amount anyone cares about this advantage is proportional to the amount they care how good they are with their back up ranged weapon, which is probably not a lot. They won't have a back up ranged weapon worth speaking of at higher levels anyway.

His AC and reflex saves are better, so more survivability, yeah but if he's not damaging things that won't help him much if the rest of the party goes down.

K so the next is mobility, well he wouldn't have such a big advantage in mobility is the heavy Armor penalties were reasonable.

Genuine question: Is that all of them or did I forget some?

Artificial 20 wrote:

What if dex to hit and dex to damage were reduced by ACP, and ACP was also reduced by str?

That might even help the monk.

I think you may be confusing helping the monk with hurting Dex based classes that aren't the monk.


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

To complicate things further, we're not always talking about humans fighting other humans. In fact, that's a pretty tiny minority of fights in a lot of games.

If we're talking about realism with a strong guy and an agile guy both fighting a giant magical lizard covered head to toe in the equivalent of steel plated rhinoceros hide... edge alignment is only going to get you so far. Edge alignment and mighty thews, though, now we're really getting somewhere.

I don't buy the argument that some weapons aren't designed to be used with more strength, because that would have to be a tiny minority of edge cases and also at some point we've got magic reinforced weaponry designed to fight humans being used against literal living mountains. If using too much strength in such a case is a problem, we've got some serious issues.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Dex to Damage (Again) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.