| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about realism, it should take a magic(or enhanced if you want to nitpick) or adamantine sword to cut through steel plated rhinoceros hide in the first place. Against that sort of enemy, your best bet is a great big guy with a great big hammer(if you can't get a bazooka or other modern anti tank weapon of course), not a great big sword. Generally that's represented by something like DR10/bludgeoning. Swords are for cutting soft fleshy things. Except certain specialized ones.
...Although while the guy the hammer works on wearing the monster down, the sword users should be focusing on slicing its tail for the extra carves... :P
On topic: I see people mention things like wanting Guybrush Threepwood to be a valid concept, and I totally get that. I agree that "agile fighter who relies on finesse instead of brute power to win" should be a character you can build.
However, I do strongly feel that "character who dumps Strength and doesn't suffer any meaningful drawback for it" should not be a valid concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all.
You are saying that nothing is comparable to damage, not even survivability...Then defensive spells make no sense, you should never take them.
Then sword and board style, and all shield feats, are utter garbage.
Then any kind of defensive feat is a trap, you should only ever choose offensive ones.
This wasn't even entirely true in PF1, I think it's much less true in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)
I.E.
Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,
2handers.
spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6
bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6
now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I feel like the thing is "better defense and less offense versus less defense and better offense" is a natural tradeoff. Since Nobody is bothered by how the sword and board fighter does less damage than the greatsword fighter, I'm not sure why "rapier person" does less damage than "huge axe person" is a concern.
One solution- how about a stance where entering it gives you dex-to-damage with appropriate weapons, but it also reduces your armor class and costs an action to enter? Or something like challenge, where you focus on fighting one person at a time and against everybody but that person you are flatfooted, but you add your dex to damage against that person.
|
making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)
I.E.
Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,2handers.
spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.
Under the assumption of current Potency I don't think we want multi dice damage for weapons, otherwise things get strange, I don't think we want to have to change multiple subsystems just to allow for dex to damage. That seems a bit excessive.
Under the assumption of current Potency I don't think we want multi dice damage for weapons, otherwise things get strange, I don't think we want to have to change multiple subsystems just to allow for dex to damage. That seems a bit excessive.making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)
I.E.
Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,2handers.
spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.
does not have to be strange.
with potency:
1d4->2d4->3d4->4d4...
or
3d6->6d6->9d6->12d6...
now some martials can throw fireball-like handful of dice.
On topic: I see people mention things like wanting Guybrush Threepwood to be a valid concept, and I totally get that. I agree that "agile fighter who relies on finesse instead of brute power to win" should be a character you can build.
However, I do strongly feel that "character who dumps Strength and doesn't suffer any meaningful drawback for it" should not be a valid concept.
Hello Mr. Astro!
Your last statement has been something I've been thinking about a lot while watching this thread....
So I wish to ask you, what would you add to strength so that it's useful even for the people who don't want to hit hard?
P.S. I'm pretty sure we're going to get an agile fighter of a sort when they release some kind of swashbuckler prestige class...but my dreams of Insult Swordfighting are still far away....
Good day!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Mr. Astro!
Your last statement has been something I've been thinking about a lot while watching this thread....
So I wish to ask you, what would you add to strength so that it's useful even for the people who don't want to hit hard?
P.S. I'm pretty sure we're going to get an agile fighter of a sort when they release some kind of swashbuckler prestige class...but my dreams of Insult Swordfighting are still far away....
Good day!
I think "sucks at dealing melee damage" is an acceptable drawback for low Strength. It may not hurt the wizard much, but that's because wizards typically avoid putting themselves in situations where they need melee attacks; ultimately, it's still limiting the wizard's options compared to a theoretical high Strength wizard.
So really that comes down to "Dex to damage can't completely overwrite Strength to damage", in my opinion. Like if there were a feat that let you apply half your Dex to damage with agile weapons, for example, while still applying Strength, that would fit what I am thinking of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every character cannot be the solution to every problem, especially one with only one weapon. Adding dex to damage is not the solution. It's a min/maxxer's way to get higher saving throws and more hit points and more...
** spoiler omitted **You got any argument to back that sentiment up? Any numbers? Or did you just come here to nay-say? The latter with nothing to back it up is not conducive to proper debate. I'll agree with you readily if you can use numbers to demonstrate that dex to damage would be inherently unbalanced for the system.
If you say "let's have an ice cream", or "let's not clean the dishes", you aren't putting an argument forward, you are making a proposal. I don't need to back it up if I don't mind to, but that will make my proposal less compelling.
Here's the thing tho, in my opinion: the burden for letting DEX die is much lighter than keeping it around.
It's in no way a necessity for the game to function, as it was belied in your arguments saying it wasn't even that attractive as an option. I'm saying it's better for the game that way, and we should move a tiny step forward and simply plan the game without it. It's feasible. You can already make cool characters without it.
Why add it? It doesn't restrict character concepts. If you wanted to play a 8 STR Rogue, you already could even without DEX-to-damage, you just need to pick damage increasing options, and you get the points from creation to do things that a 16 STR Rogue couldn't.
So who is it for? Just for people who want to game character creation, or want to pretend different stat distributions mean concepts.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **You got any argument to back that sentiment up? Any numbers? Or did you just come here to nay-say? The latter with nothing to back it up is not conducive to proper debate. I'll agree with you readily if you can use numbers to demonstrate that dex to damage would be inherently unbalanced for the system.If you say "let's have an ice cream", or "let's not clean the dishes", you aren't putting an argument forward, you are making a proposal. I don't need to back it up if I don't mind to, but that will make my proposal less compelling.
Here's the thing tho, in my opinion: the burden for letting DEX die is much lighter than keeping it around.
It's in no way a necessity for the game to function, as it was belied in your arguments saying it wasn't even that attractive as an option. I'm saying it's better for the game that way, and we should move a tiny step forward and simply plan the game without it. It's feasible. You can already make cool characters without it.
Why add it? It doesn't restrict character concepts. If you wanted to play a 8 STR Rogue, you already could even without DEX-to-damage, you just need to pick damage increasing options, and you get the points from creation to do things that a 16 STR Rogue couldn't.
So who is it for? Just for people who want to game character creation, or want to pretend different stat distributions mean concepts.
What if I do not want to play a Rogue, but some other class ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why add it? It doesn't restrict character concepts. If you wanted to play a 8 STR Rogue, you already could even without DEX-to-damage, you just need to pick damage increasing options, and you get the points from creation to do things that a 16 STR Rogue couldn't.
So who is it for? Just for people who want to game character creation, or want to pretend different stat distributions mean concepts.
Swashbucklers.
A huge muscled barbarian, a backstabbing rogue, and a graceful duellist are three different basic character concepts. Why remove Dex-to-damage from Pathfinder? They already removed the 'dump strength to 7' and 'Dex-to-initiative' and 'weapon damage dice are a trivial part of damage' that made it hard to balance...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just some historical basis on Swashbucklers and Dex-to-Damage- this was not originally the intended damage increasing ability of the class. During the development of the ACG, there was no dex-to-damage and Precise Strike (adding your level to damage) was supposed to be the big flashy damage mechanic.
Slashing Grace originally just had the effect of letting you use Swashbuckler abilities which require one-handed piercing weapons with one-handed slashing weapons, but it was determined relatively late in the process that this was a really weak feat so the "dex-to-damage clause" was added without a lot of time to playtest it.
As a side effect, this meant that swashbucklers were much better with a cutlas than a rapier, so Fencing Grace was added as a hotfix in Advanced Class Origins, and at that point the genie was out of the bottle.
If we were to do a PF2 Swashbuckler, I would much rather see them eschew Dex-to-Damage and instead focus on something like the Precise Strike effect, as was originally intended. Adding Level to damage is a much more powerful effect than adding dex-to-damage in PF2, since your level is going to be higher than your DexMod at level 5 and thereafter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a key thing missing in this discussion is AC. DEX and STR characters can get the same AC, but STR characters can only get that AC by severely limiting their movement speed and taking penalties to multiple skills that are pretty useful to martial characters while also needing to spend more SP, in addition to having a weaker TAC and possibly being vulnerable to spells that target metal armor like shocking grasp. And some classes like Barbarian don't have access to that heavy armor anyways.
If DEX to damge was a thing that only took a measly general feat or two to obtain, I'm not sure there'd be a lot of point in playing STR characters. STR does damage, it does carrying capacity (which is rendered moot by a 20 sp pack animal and a cart or a bag of holding), and that's about it.
DEX also does ranged attack to-hits (to hit is generally going to matter more than an equivalent increase in damage, especially thanks to crits), it influences many more skill checks than STR, it still has the potential to influence initiative, it gains access to magical armor slightly earlier, its best options are very affordable, like it has a lot.
The major tradeoff is that finesse weapons deal less damage. Strong bois gotta be the kings of damage if they've got to choose between being slow or being squishy, and it gives a reason for some characters to be both dexterous and strong.
I think it's also worth bringing up how 5e handles this, as 5e does DEX to damage by default. DEX does still increase initiative, but otherwise it does more or less the same stuff it does in PF2. But in exchange for all this, STR characters get STR to hit and damage for thrown weapons, they get the highest possible AC in the system in the form of plate armor, heavy armor does not decrease movement speed nor does it penalize any physical activity other than Stealth, and Strength saves are a thing that come up sometimes. Yes, they're two different systems, but they share a lot of DNA and clearly STR needed some extra stuff to be competitive with DEX. I'm not sure all that would go away if 5e lost +DEX to init.
I'm not necessarily opposed to having DEX to damage, but if that's going to be the case then I think STR would need to get some things in return like not having 33-40% slower movement speed in heavy armor until high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Helmic;
true,
Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,
But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.
1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage
1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage
2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage
2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage
Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage
Bows: str+dex+wis
@Helmic;
true,
Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,
But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.
1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage
1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage
2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage
2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage
Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage
Bows: str+dex+wis
IMHO, yes this add's flavor and keeps some realism in the game vs just looking at numbers and saying I need to do this because this has this value and that in my opinion throws off the game.
Also is 2H F weapon supposed to be : str+2 (x) dex or str+2+dex?
Also the other option to keep numbers lower is to have totals divided by some value. And IMHO is also good for young players to practice simple math or to provide an app for those who think they are math challenged.
MDC
It is str + 2×dex.
But, I'm still at a loss should it be 2×str + 1×dex or 1×str + 2×dex
I want Dex to damage to stick around, but I think the solution is to add min-STR requirements for weapons and fighting styles with said weapons (since it can be harder to wield some weapons one handed or wielding two at once).
I'd also like sufficient Strength to lower the skill and move speed penalties of heavier armors, so it no longer feels like your paying a large price for going the high strength and low dex route.
I wouldn't go as far as igor's route in adding massive base weapon dice to progressively harder to wield weapons, but something like requiring somewhere around 14 STR to dual-wield short-swords is a nice compromise that could allow for dex-dmg without leaving Str as a dump stat. And obviously daggers it could be something lower to compensate for the weaker dmg dice.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry guys, there is no way.
There are just WAY too many variables that you're trying to throw into the most basic thing people want to figure out, which is how much damage does this do.
They need to keep that formula simple, and tossing a half dozen or more 2+(X*Abi Mod) , 2x Str 1x Dex is just overly complex.
This isn't harnmaster guys.
i would put strength requirements on the heavier or better weapons to balance Dexterity to damage. technically, 5e made a splatbook armor called spidersilk clothes gave a Dexterity based character the same end game AC as a plate Wearer without requiring armor proficiency, plus spidersilk clothes could be enchanted further. both Spidersilk and Plate give you an 18 AC from just armor and dexterity except Spidersilk requires a 20 dexterity to get that high, doesn't require proficiency and has no strenth requirements.
but strength saving throws, athletics skill, carrying capacity, thrown weapons, strength based variant composite bows, the use of alternate attributes for skill checks depending on the circumstance, and the fact that failing a strength saving throw is usually quite debilitating when it does occur are huge factors 5e does to balance strength. even if the rapier deals the same damage as a longsword with a damage type that becomes better if you use the critical hit chart due to an increase in the percentage of delivering instant death attacks from piercing damage in place of bludgeoning or slashing. which is less about dexterity being broken and piercing becoming a broken damage type when you use the optional critical hit charts.
I'm sorry guys, there is no way.
There are just WAY too many variables that you're trying to throw into the most basic thing people want to figure out, which is how much damage does this do.
They need to keep that formula simple, and tossing a half dozen or more 2+(X*Abi Mod) , 2x Str 1x Dex is just overly complex.
This isn't harnmaster guys.
Complex?
Are you joking?
I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.
Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like messing with the damage math in house rules isn't going to cause major repercussions since all it's going to do is make combat more/less fast or deadly since it's just "more/less damage." Like a general feat to add your highest non-str score to damage in addition to strength probably wouldn't break anything.
I feel like messing with the damage math in house rules isn't going to cause major repercussions since all it's going to do is make combat more/less fast or deadly since it's just "more/less damage." Like a general feat to add your highest non-str score to damage in addition to strength probably wouldn't break anything.
It would have a fairly significant impact on the kinds of characters players would build, though, as players have no reason to pass up something that powerful. Like I'm talking wizards taking that feat since a thrown 1d4 dagger with a +4 from their INT will outpace the damage done by their cantrips, sometimes outdamaging them with a single action, with absolutely no actual investment into optimizing for that sort of combat. With optimization, a wizard with 16 STR would be dealing 9.5 damage on average with that feat. A greatsword user without the feat would be looking at 1d12 + 4, which is 10.5 average damage. Anything less than a greatsword strike is going to struggle compared to that wizard's stupid dagger.
Yes, I think that homebrew might break a few things.
|
|
Complex?
Are you joking?
I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.
Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D
Pathfinder 2E has as part of it's intent to SIMPLIFY the multitude of things that needed to be accounted for when determining the total and final result of any given roll. I would bet my hat that you're in the minority if you feel that adding this much complexity to the most basic and common action in the game could be beneficial. If a game system requires the players to have to 'stop and do the math' literally every time they pick up a different weapon, it's going to make turns go longer, it's going to frustrate new players, and it's going to INFURIATE folks who have problems with math.
"Neener neener I'm good at math, people who cant r dum" is the message I'm drawing from your post, though I don't think you likely intended it that way...
There are indeed games out there that are GREAT for trying to simulate things like combat, Social Roleplay, tactics, skills etc... but Paizo is trying to make this an inclusive game, and tacking on 2-5 new different modes to calculate damage that anyone would need to memorize, or create a notecard for doesn't strike me as player friendly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Complex?
Are you joking?
I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.
Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D
This is less about IQ and more about ease of use.
Especially considering "I can to that math easily" is not the same as "Everyone can do that math easily late at night near the end of a long session after a busy day at work." The less complicated the most basic math at the heart of the game is, the easier it is to play and run, especially when everyone isn't exactly at their best.
Not to mention that dice+mod works consistently when compared with the rest of the system, as opposed to one subsystem using multiple modifiers along with double and triple modifiers.
Complex?
Are you joking?
I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.
Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D
This is less about IQ and more about ease of use.
Especially considering "I can to that math easily" is not the same as "Everyone can do that math easily late at night near the end of a long session after a busy day at work." The less complicated the most basic math at the heart of the game is, the easier it is to play and run, especially when everyone isn't exactly at their best.
Not to mention that dice+mod works consistently when compared with the rest of the system, as opposed to one subsystem using multiple modifiers along with double and triple modifiers.
This isn't about doing math on the fly.
You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.
Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.
When you get new weapon your write it down again.
If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.
Goal should be better game not simpler.
This isn't about doing math on the fly.
You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.
Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.
When you get new weapon your write it down again.
If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.
Goal should be better game not simpler.
You'd also have to re-math it out any time your relevant stats changed. Which thankfully isn't likely to be as common as PF1e (where stuff like Core Rage, various stat-boosting spells, Enlarge/Reduce Person, Stat Drain, etc etc existed and multiple could be thrown around in almost any given fight) but there's still the issue of someone just picked up their first Potent item... or had their Potent item stolen... and now has to re-do all their weapon stats. And maybe this happens 2/3 of the way into the session... and maybe the player's had a bit to drink since that happens at some games... on top of all the stuff Charon mentioned... yeah no, as much as I'm a mathophile myself I can see the appeal of simpler math.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but why not take the 5e approach?
Heavy Armor provides 2 more AC than a maxed out Dex user in light. Medium armor provides equal protection with the possibility of a feat to make a dex based character still have 1 less AC than a Heavy Armor user. For those not familiar feats are huge in 5e so that’s a big investment.
So for PF2, instead of heavy and light armor being even, make heavy with slightly more AC. That’s balanced by light having more skill access and less movement penalties (though 5e added high str negates movement penalties due to heavy armor which is a great effect too). If they are adding dex to damage it should not be class locked. It should be accessible to all classes for a feat. Sadly it seems fighting styles are all getting class locked though.
So in summary for PF2 it could be STR gets better AC, 1 extra feat, and 2-handed flexibility (better damage) while DEX gets better skills, movement, and ranged flexibility.
The swashbuckler in PF1 wasn’t badly designed because of dex to damage. Dex to damage was balanced quite well. Those opposed to it usually forgot to include the high feat cost (weapon finesse and slashing / fencing Grace) and extreme focus on one weapon (which is admittedly minimal in organized play but can be brutal in a home game).
Also, we saw a renaissance of dex based characters mot because it was broken powerful but because in previous 3rd edition / PF dex based concepts weren’t viable. Finally there were abilities that made them viable though as others have stated they were poorly implemented (put in multiple feats / unchained rogue locked rather than a single feat that allowed dex to damage with all finesse weapons).
Where the swashbuckler was too powerful was +1 level to damage which when paired with power attack / piranha strike put them at higher damage than a 2-hander. That paired with inherently AC buffs and access to shields, front loaded feats and class features that allowed dex based concept so to be realized from level 1, and no higher level class features that incentivized battlefield movement over stand and fight were its problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the reason the Swashbuckler was terrible in PF1 has nothing to do with combat- being hard to hit and doing a bunch of damage is the sine qua non of the class. Problem with the Swashbuckler was "everything else". Any situation in which problems could not be solved by poking holes in something or avoiding whatever is trying to poke holes in you, it was pretty hopeless at.
even with Deadly Agility from Path of War Allowed in a Home Game, for a 2 Feat Cost to get Dex to Damage with all finesse weapons instead of a 3 feat cost to get Dex to damage with 1 sword. that was still 2 Feats the Dex Build was behind the Str Build, and Dex Builds Still Couldn't Dump Str because Power Attack was drastically superior to Piranha Strike and Strength was still needed to effectively use Bows. so Arguably, you would have a Dex build who needs like 14 strength rather than a Dex build who can get away with 5 Strength (which is nonexesistent)
Deadly Agility from Path of War was a feat i felt Paizo should have had in the core rulebook from the start, its sole requirement being weapon finesse and its benefit being dex to damage with all finesse weapons, while fully benefiting from double slice when dual wielding. or adding 1.5x dexterity bonus with elven curveblade.
Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but why not take the 5e approach?
Heavy Armor provides 2 more AC than a maxed out Dex user in light. Medium armor provides equal protection with the possibility of a feat to make a dex based character still have 1 less AC than a Heavy Armor user. For those not familiar feats are huge in 5e so that’s a big investment.
So for PF2, instead of heavy and light armor being even, make heavy with slightly more AC. That’s balanced by light having more skill access and less movement penalties (though 5e added high str negates movement penalties due to heavy armor which is a great effect too). If they are adding dex to damage it should not be class locked. It should be accessible to all classes for a feat. Sadly it seems fighting styles are all getting class locked though.
So in summary for PF2 it could be STR gets better AC, 1 extra feat, and 2-handed flexibility (better damage) while DEX gets better skills, movement, and ranged flexibility.
The swashbuckler in PF1 wasn’t badly designed because of dex to damage. Dex to damage was balanced quite well. Those opposed to it usually forgot to include the high feat cost (weapon finesse and slashing / fencing Grace) and extreme focus on one weapon (which is admittedly minimal in organized play but can be brutal in a home game).
Also, we saw a renaissance of dex based characters mot because it was broken powerful but because in previous 3rd edition / PF dex based concepts weren’t viable. Finally there were abilities that made them viable though as others have stated they were poorly implemented (put in multiple feats / unchained rogue locked rather than a single feat that allowed dex to damage with all finesse weapons).
Where the swashbuckler was too powerful was +1 level to damage which when paired with power attack / piranha strike put them at higher damage than a 2-hander. That paired with inherently AC buffs and access to shields, front loaded feats and class features that allowed dex based concept so to be realized...
I really do like having heavy armor just straight be better for AC, and then maybe toning down class features that try to boost that further so as to give Fighters and Paladins the option to choose whatever armor they want.
I'm not sure I want to feat tax things, though. Like I'd rather maybe heavier armor just not have the movement penalty (which better reflects reality anyways and is more fun) and for DEX to damage being just innate to martial characters, or maybe even all characters? If characters have to spend feats to operate at a basic level instead of working immediately at level 1, I don't think that's a good thing. Remember that, at least for now, everyone only gets a general feat at level 3 - that's at least going to be three sessions of play for most folk, having two "dead" sessions seems pretty extreme for something as basic as dealing proper damage with a weapon.
You'd also have to re-math it out any time your relevant stats changed. Which thankfully isn't likely to be as common as PF1e (where stuff like Core Rage, various stat-boosting spells, Enlarge/Reduce Person, Stat Drain, etc etc existed and multiple could be thrown around in almost any given fight) but there's still the issue of someone just picked up their first Potent item... or had their Potent item stolen... and now has to re-do all their weapon stats. And maybe this happens 2/3 of the way into the session... and maybe the player's had a bit to drink since that happens at some games... on top of all the stuff Charon mentioned... yeah no, as much as I'm a mathophile myself I can see the appeal of simpler math.This isn't about doing math on the fly.
You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.
Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.
When you get new weapon your write it down again.
If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.
Goal should be better game not simpler.
yes, I also see appeal of simple math, but not at the expense or quality of the game and balance of the game.
I would rather spend 10mins more on character sheet than play another version of 4E.
That was the aim if 4E, more streamlined, simplified(read; dumbed down) version of DnD.
That is why we have PF in the 1st place as people were not so impressed by 4E.
Also you have now single stat to damage, and you will also need to recalculate if you get some temporary stat change.
If that happens more so what. If it makes maybe a better game.
Am working on a reply, folks. Have been for about a week, on and off. About to travel for the holidays, and in the interest of not sacrificing making a complete and solid point in a single post in favor of time, I'm afraid said reply will have to wait until the 25th, at the earliest. I will say this: my jumping off point remains that no one has satisfactorily addressed why the only class to get Finesse Striker - the Rogue - was suddenly desperate for alternatives. It couldn't have been an issue with the smaller weapon dice on Finesse-able weapons being an issue, because loads of people insist Dexterity to Damage for all would be super broken, and therefore it must be broken on the Rogue too, right? Ah, it was concept? People liked the idea of a brutish Rogue? It's almost like the idea of a strongman isn't exclusive to the barbarian concept. Much like how the idea of an agile fighter isn't exclusive to the rogue concept. Goodness.
I'll address personal replies to me at a later point in time, but some of you could really stand to speak to the points I'm making instead of jumping straight to making unflattering assumptions about my motives. Argumentation 101: when you smear the person making an argument as your first resort, you have no counter-argument of actual substance.
For those giving the matter due consideration and willfulness to discuss numbers or actual effect on gameplay within the bounds of PF2, I thank you, and will have more for you when I return from my trip.
Am working on a reply, folks. Have been for about a week, on and off. About to travel for the holidays, and in the interest of not sacrificing making a complete and solid point in a single post in favor of time, I'm afraid said reply will have to wait until the 25th, at the earliest. I will say this: my jumping off point remains that no one has satisfactorily addressed why the only class to get Finesse Striker - the Rogue - was suddenly desperate for alternatives. It couldn't have been an issue with the smaller weapon dice on Finesse-able weapons being an issue, because loads of people insist Dexterity to Damage for all would be super broken, and therefore it must be broken on the Rogue too, right? Ah, it was concept? People liked the idea of a brutish Rogue? It's almost like the idea of a strongman isn't exclusive to the barbarian concept. Much like how the idea of an agile fighter isn't exclusive to the rogue concept. Goodness.
I'll address personal replies to me at a later point in time, but some of you could really stand to speak to the points I'm making instead of jumping straight to making unflattering assumptions about my motives. Argumentation 101: when you smear the person making an argument as your first resort, you have no counter-argument of actual substance.
For those giving the matter due consideration and willfulness to discuss numbers or actual effect on gameplay within the bounds of PF2, I thank you, and will have more for you when I return from my trip.
The rogue gets it because it's conceptually OK for a rogue to just never boost STR. I honestly feel like Brute rogue isn't quite in a good spot yet because of issues I brought up - they have to deal with ACP to make use of that armor which makes them really bad at the skills they should be good at, and their weapon selection is sort of not fitting their theme. Instead they just get early access to critical specialization effects if they land a crit while sneak attacking with a simple weapon that doesn't deal more than a d8 after all your abilities that might modify that.
Finesse Striker, by contrast, just gets DEX to damage and that's honestly all it needs to be viable over all the stuff the other classes get. When class option is literally juts one thing, on one line, and the other options still need more stuff to be on par with that, that's a good sign it's really damn strong.
If DEX to damage was just a feature of finesse weapons, I"d be fine with it, but I'd also want STR to have a purpose than just damage then. At the very least, it should make heavier armor not suck so much.
Bumping my post to next page for visibility.