Dex to Damage (Again)


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dex to Damage: the option so underwhelming that the only class to get it had people clamoring for an option to get out of it.

Seriously, the numbers have been run, and dex to damage would not break the current system of PF2. I know further playtesting is going private at Paizo, but consider making the rogue "finesse striker" ability a 3rd level general feat and see how it does. In the interest of providing holistic suggestions, maybe keep the base ability as something a rogue can also elect to get as a class option at level 1, granting early access and not eating a general feat slot. In any event, the above link has some solid math that supports this and ties in nicely to the idea that PF2 will be a game with tighter math. As a bonus, enabling it means an entire character concept is not being shut down. Answering "I want to play an agile melee fighter" with "so you're locked into a singular rogue branch" is underwhelming.

And for the record, I'm not asking for dex-to-damage options to receive anything to close the damage gap. I'd just be happy to have the option to play a dex fighter. One of the things I enjoy about PF1 is the ability to have a player bring me a concept and me knowing exactly how to implement it, usually in several different ways depending on what the player wanted.

I very much like some of the ideas behind PF2. I especially look forward to the re-tooled monster math that ideally makes combat feel less like throwing numbers at each other until something dies. What I don't like is the entirely likely scenario of a player asking to play a concept based on any number of sword-wielders in popular media and telling them "Do you like rogues? Because I otherwise have nothing."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By level 10, without using magic items, a fighter can have an 18 in str, dex, and con. I don't particularly like how inflated stats currently are, but that's the way it is at this stage of playtest. I don't believe arguments that players don't have sufficient stats to play the builds they want within reason. I don't believe L20 arguments are worth much considering how few games historically have reached that level, but you can have all 18's at L20. Frankly, stats don't seem to matter at all anymore.

I get you want to play a fighter whose dex gives them bonuses to hit, to AC, to damage, and to reflex saves so they can dump str and min/max out the wazoo. I don't agree the inability to do this is limiting the game in an unhealthy way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
I get you want to play a fighter whose dex gives them bonuses to hit

Which the strength-based fighter can get from Strength.

The DM of wrote:
to AC,

Which the strength-based fighter can get from wearing heavy armor.

The DM of wrote:
to damage

Which the strength-based fighter can get from Strength.

The DM of wrote:
and to reflex saves

The main compensation you get for the terrible damage dice you get as a dex-based fighter?

The DM of wrote:
so they can dump str

It's not like you can dump it down to 7 like in PF1 for better points-buy...


The DM of wrote:
I get you want to play a fighter whose dex gives them bonuses to hit, to AC, to damage, and to reflex saves so they can dump str and min/max out the wazoo. I don't agree the inability to do this is limiting the game in an unhealthy way.

You're knocking over a bit of a straw-man there based on assumptions carried over from PF1 and not having read the post I linked to, which discusses essentially all of this.

The DM of wrote:
I don't believe L20 arguments are worth much considering how few games historically have reached that level, but you can have all 18's at L20.

And I agree, hence why the data I used has a level 1 analysis as well. Moreover, one of the stated goals of PF2 is that the math still works at higher levels. The breakdown provided even shows that the math stays consistent across levels, including level 20. Running the data at other levels strikes me as unlikely to turn up a substantial shift.

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.


Bah. Was going to reprint the post linked to in the first post underneath it, but ran out of time to edit. Anyway, here is the other post being referred to, reprinted with minor edits to work more stand-alone. I'm posting it here because I understand flipping to another thread threatens to be a hassle, apologies for not thinking to include it in my original post sooner.

Spoiler:

DataLoreRPG wrote:
Quote:
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.

CommanderCoyler wrote:

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% crit

1-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 str

2-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 str

2-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:

Raynulf wrote:

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.

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.

P.S.
Before you point out that dex 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.

The end note on sneak attacking was born out in play, by the by, but I'm aware that's anecdotal evidence. I mention it nonetheless due to a strong suspicion a numerical analysis would see me correct.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

let dex to damage die


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malkyn wrote:
The DM of wrote:
I get you want to play a fighter whose dex gives them bonuses to hit, to AC, to damage, and to reflex saves so they can dump str and min/max out the wazoo. I don't agree the inability to do this is limiting the game in an unhealthy way.

You're knocking over a bit of a straw-man there...

<snip>
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.

It's not a straw man argument if you use it yourself. It's hypocritical.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dexterity to damage is unnecessary, and even Rogues shouldn't get it. If it's critical to boost damage, that boost should come from things like sneak attack, precision damage, or other various flat or scaling modifiers, and it should never replace the strength bonus to damage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: a strong, agile person should deal more damage with a weapon than merely an agile person.

If stacking strength *and* dexterity damage options out-damages pure strength options, that's fine since it takes both ability, class feature, and/or feat investiture to get there. Personally, I would prefer if dex-only characters fall a bit behind strength only characters in damage, due to the ancillary benefits of dexterity, but I wouldn't raise hell if it was on-par.

If the complaint is then "But I want to deal the most damage possible without dipping into strength" then I say "tough nuts".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, Str to hit and damage is one of the biggest sacred cows. If you think about it, Dex makes more sense for slashing weapons. (As opposed to chopping weapons like axes) Swords are basically giant levers, so you don't need to be strong. For example, you don't need to be ripped to operate a steak knife. Meanwhile, plenty of games downplay the role of strength in archery, thinking archers should look like Legolas with no muscle mass. When in reality, English longbows may have had draw weights of as much as 180 lbs. In other words, you're literally lifting a 180 lb weight with two fingers, and with Rapid Shot, doing it as rapidly as 5 times in 6 seconds.

The only reason that Strength is the important stat for most of attacking is that Gary Gygax wanted a stat for each class. The six ability scores were Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma- in order, Fighterness, Wizardness, Clericness, Rogueness, and then Endurance and Leadership for everyone. Melee combat was the purview of fighters, so Fighterness was the natural ability score to use.

The Dex fighter crowd makes sense, because in moving away from that model of ability scores, there's no longer any intuitive reason that you shouldn't be able to finesse a weapon. Str to attack and damage is part of the sacred cow that is the 6 ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A major problem of dex to damage is that it's a huge portion of your damage at level 1, but as you level up that portion becomes smaller and smaller.

If dex to damage is possible it should be free for everyone, or come with other things so its impact remains consistent across all levels.

How one handed vs agile vs two handed weapons are balanced compared to each other already has the annoying issue of their relative balance changing as they level. It would be much better if their expected damage was a consistent ratio to one another. Class features like sneak attack and duel wielding feats should be based around a new stable base, not what we currently have.

Currently two handed weapons do about 23% more damage at level 1, but 35% more at 20.

If it was:
Two handed gets +1 to damage.
One handed gets +1 to hit.
Then two handed weapons would do 16% more from level 1 to 20, which lets us get rid of changing grip as an action and makes a much funner game I think.


WatersLethe wrote:

Dexterity to damage is unnecessary, and even Rogues shouldn't get it. If it's critical to boost damage, that boost should come from things like sneak attack, precision damage, or other various flat or scaling modifiers, and it should never replace the strength bonus to damage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: a strong, agile person should deal more damage with a weapon than merely an agile person.

If stacking strength *and* dexterity damage options out-damages pure strength options, that's fine since it takes both ability, class feature, and/or feat investiture to get there. Personally, I would prefer if dex-only characters fall a bit behind strength only characters in damage, due to the ancillary benefits of dexterity, but I wouldn't raise hell if it was on-par.

If the complaint is then "But I want to deal the most damage possible without dipping into strength" then I say "tough nuts".

IMHO, it can really depend on the system and how they define damage and how weapons deal damage.

If you are just looking at the I strike a pig with my blade and measure the kinetic energy (or other way to measure damage) you get one result vs your attack is a result of multiple attack actions resolved by 1 roll and can involve many small cuts/bash's or 1 lunge or 1 swing or combat combo maneuver.

There are also a few weapons out there that can break if they are used by too strong a person or in a strong way. Just as well as there are weapons that greatly benefit a person having a high strength.
But a lot of games do not have the necessary game details to try and represent this so go for easy rules such as; weapons with "this" trait can use dex instead of str for damage.

MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
How one handed vs agile vs two handed weapons are balanced compared to each other already has the annoying issue of their relative balance changing as they level.

They aren't, though. They removed TWF giving extra attacks. The balance was from being able to use a greatsword to deal 2d6+1.5*Str in one hit vs a rapier and shortsword to also deal 2d6+1.5*Str, but in two hits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a fan of widespread access to Dex damage. I believe that every stat needs a solid purpose in the game and that there should be a trade-off for raising any one stat above another. Dexterity already has a large number of benefits attached to it boosting AC, reflex saves, ranged attacks, finesse weapon attacks, etc. On the other hand, Strength boosts your carrying capacity (until you get a bag of holding), melee attacks, and damage. If Dexterity gains the ability to do everything Strength can, then what is the point of having Strength as a stat?

Right now I'd say that Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom are all in a good place as they are attached to multiple important features that all characters want. They don't need to get even more added to them. Strength is okay as long as it's damage niche doesn't have other stats start replacing it. Intelligence and Charisma seem to be the two that need work, as other than casters who absolutely need them, many characters can ignore them with little impact (especially depending on how resonance changes in the future).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas.

Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use.

And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage.

With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.


RazarTuk wrote:
citricking wrote:
How one handed vs agile vs two handed weapons are balanced compared to each other already has the annoying issue of their relative balance changing as they level.
They aren't, though. They removed TWF giving extra attacks. The balance was from being able to use a greatsword to deal 2d6+1.5*Str in one hit vs a rapier and shortsword to also deal 2d6+1.5*Str, but in two hits.

I was talking about the play test. Look at their expected damage by level, the ratio changes a lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dex does enough stuff already without adding to damage.

I'd rather see Int-to-Damage at this point.


citricking wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
citricking wrote:
How one handed vs agile vs two handed weapons are balanced compared to each other already has the annoying issue of their relative balance changing as they level.
They aren't, though. They removed TWF giving extra attacks. The balance was from being able to use a greatsword to deal 2d6+1.5*Str in one hit vs a rapier and shortsword to also deal 2d6+1.5*Str, but in two hits.
I was talking about the play test. Look at their expected damage by level, the ratio changes a lot.

I know. They removed the extra attacks from wielding multiple weapons, which is what damage dice were balanced around. I've done the math, and TWF doesn't compare to just picking up a Zweihänder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally against dex to damage, without enough investment.
"Being a rogue" is enough; I'm still not sure if anything less than that, like a "Finesse Fighting Dedication", would be.

Using the same stat for everything is not only powerful, it's ugly. And luckily in PF2 we won't have that "killer house cat" madness, anyway.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dex to Damage needs to die on the same hill Leadership and Synthesist Summoner are sent to.

Good riddance, Dex has been to important and powerful for 20+ years.


I think hiding Dex -> Damage behind a feat is a nice idea, but maybe make it an archtype, and have a few other features thrown in that makes tanking Str for Dex less awful for a fighter (Duelist Prestige class anyone?) without making it dominate EVERYTHING.


Well, this exploded in a way I should have anticipated. Would be nice if it felt like half the thread didn't skip reading the post linked to.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Spoiler:
let dex to damage die

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.

The DM of wrote:
Spoiler:
Malkyn wrote:
The DM of wrote:
I get you want to play a fighter whose dex gives them bonuses to hit, to AC, to damage, and to reflex saves so they can dump str and min/max out the wazoo. I don't agree the inability to do this is limiting the game in an unhealthy way.

You're knocking over a bit of a straw-man there...

<snip>
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.
It's not a straw man argument if you use it yourself. It's hypocritical.

And... What? In the interest of saving time, I'm going presume you don't know what a straw-man is. Here. I provided facts and numbers to support my argument, and I never misconstrued what you've said as something else. You, on the other hand, have seen that I support dex to damage and immediately leapt to "you clearly just want an uber-build," which is actually not the case, and is clearly not something I ever said. In fact, if you actually read what I linked, I do the opposite by saying that dex to damage would deal less damage than strength to damage, and that's actually okay, especially in light of the fact that yeah, getting to ignore Strength is quite good, but the trade is dealing 25% less damage overall, which generally is not going to be worth two ability boosts and being slightly better at reflex saves, which are already the least important save. A failed Reflex saves makes you take damage. A failed Fort or Will save can take you out of a fight outright, if not make you a liability.

TL;DR: Dex to damage would not overshadow Str to damage.

WatersLethe wrote:

Spoiler:
Dexterity to damage is unnecessary, and even Rogues shouldn't get it. If it's critical to boost damage, that boost should come from things like sneak attack, precision damage, or other various flat or scaling modifiers, and it should never replace the strength bonus to damage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: a strong, agile person should deal more damage with a weapon than merely an agile person.

If stacking strength *and* dexterity damage options out-damages pure strength options, that's fine since it takes both ability, class feature, and/or feat investiture to get there. Personally, I would prefer if dex-only characters fall a bit behind strength only characters in damage, due to the ancillary benefits of dexterity, but I wouldn't raise hell if it was on-par.

Stacking Str and Dex doesn't cause a Finesse fighter to out-damage a Str fighter. Please read the post I linked to. The Finesse fighter loses on damage by about 29%. Only 25% if the Finesse fighter is allowed Dex to Damage, though they do proceed to gain about two ability boosts over the Str fighter since they can ignore Str. I've actually said that's probably about right since Dex does do some other nice things. I even clarified that I'm not asking for Dex to Damage to be as good as Strength to Damage, I'm making a case that allowing it as an option is not unbalancing and has pros and cons.

WatersLethe wrote:
Spoiler:
If the complaint is then "But I want to deal the most damage possible without dipping into strength" then I say "tough nuts".

Again, not what I'm pushing for. See above on straw-manning. In fact, it almost sounds like if you look at the numbers used, we'd be in agreement.

Igor Horvat wrote:

Spoiler:
I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas.

Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use.

And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage.

With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.

Savage Worlds does that, and it's interesting. I have somewhat mixed feelings on the matter, because as somebody who played both a martial and a caster, the caster has to only raise one stat versus the martial's two. Which actually does bring me around to the part where people are strangely okay with casters being Single Attribute Dependent, but if you propose similar for martials the result is, as demonstrated here, a HOW DARE YOU mentality. Someone else in the previous thread proposed rolling Con into Str to give Str more use, and while that's very interesting as well, it won't fly for the same reason str requirements on weapons won't fly, it's just not a thing present in PF1, people would regard it as "not Pathfinder enough." To say nothing of how much better strength would be in PF2 than it already is if it did everything Con does.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Spoiler:
Dex does enough stuff already without adding to damage.

I'd rather see Int-to-Damage at this point.

Most of the benefits of Dex are scattered into a number of things that don't amount to much anymore, especially taking out of the base roll for initiative (which is fine, honestly).

And Int to hit and damage does have some basis in reality as well. It would make the image of the tactical fighter who exploits openings, for instance, more of a playable reality. Would want to run some numbers to make sure it doesn't strictly out-perform Str by limiting the weapon choices, much like how Dex is limited on weapon choices, but not something I'm inherently opposed to so long as it is mathematically in line with other options that aren't Str for damage (such as Dex for damage).

Megistone wrote:

Spoiler:
I'm totally against dex to damage, without enough investment.

"Being a rogue" is enough; I'm still not sure if anything less than that, like a "Finesse Fighting Dedication", would be.

Using the same stat for everything is not only powerful, it's ugly. And luckily in PF2 we won't have that "killer house cat" madness, anyway.

I propose it as a general feat with the express idea that that is plenty of investment, especially considering general feats are comparatively rare. Locking it behind more than one dedication feat is a step too far, in my opinion, considering you'd be giving up a class feat for still worse damage than the party's barbarian or Str fighter. I halfway support it being free with Finesse weapons, but I'm aware that's step too far for most, and so I propose the aforementioned feat tax.

nick1wasd wrote:
Spoiler:
I think hiding Dex -> Damage behind a feat is a nice idea, but maybe make it an archtype, and have a few other features thrown in that makes tanking Str for Dex less awful for a fighter (Duelist Prestige class anyone?) without making it dominate EVERYTHING.

Giving it other things is not an inherently bad idea in exchange for a few feats, but it is worth noting that people seem a bit stuck on the PF1 idea that tanking Str gets the Dex fighter better Dex at character creation or something, which it distinctly doesn't, since point buy is out the window.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malkyn wrote:
Most of the benefits of Dex are scattered into a number of things that don't amount to much anymore, especially taking out of the base roll for initiative (which is fine, honestly).

Armor class and reflex saves matter consistently more than static damage, and stealth is a very good skill. Dex is already a stronger stat than strength even without encroaching on strength's territory.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree entirely, and personally think if anything Dex needs nerfed more still.

I'd rather see options for a CON or STR based viable build be improved or created, but as it stands DEX is a primary/secondy Stat for literally EVERY Non-Full Plate wearer.

No amount of feat investment should do this, I'm ok with it being a Class Feature in a few instances to allow for different PCs to "feel" different but as for allowing it as a basic General Feat ... no way jose


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Spoiler:
Malkyn wrote:
Most of the benefits of Dex are scattered into a number of things that don't amount to much anymore, especially taking out of the base roll for initiative (which is fine, honestly).
Armor class and reflex saves matter consistently more than static damage, and stealth is a very good skill. Dex is already a stronger stat than strength even without encroaching on strength's territory.

See my original post. A Str fighter can leave Dex at 12 and have better AC than a Dex fighter. With some penalties, sure, but the trade is not caring about Dex and excessive penalties on armor seems like an issue with armor moreso than allowing Dex to Damage. Besides, Str feeds into Athletics, a skill that is easily on par with Stealth in terms of importance in PF2. That is a somewhat subjective determination, however, so I'm inclined to call that distinction a wash. As for Reflex vs Strength, the thing is this: the static modifier to damage quickly stops mattering. Others have pointed that out, and it's very true. Where being Str-based matters is in the size of the damage dice you're talking about. See my original linked post for how that shakes out; the increased damage dice size on Str weapons is worth about 25% more damage, even allowing for Dex to Damage as a thing. In exchange, on the extreme end, 12 vs 24 Dex for Reflex saves is a difference of +6 modifier, or an additional 30% chance to make a Reflex save. Now I personally think Reflex is way over-valued as a save, but that's an opinion, so instead I'll put it this way: Dex to Damage loses 25% of its damage in exchange for gaining an additional 30% chance to pass a Reflex save.

Considering one frequently takes half damage on save, it is generally more valuable to kill your enemies faster (the +25% more damage) than it is to have a +30% to take 50% damage on a save, especially when damage on PCs can frequently just be healed. That becomes even more apparent when you account for the fact that outside particularly large battles, the PCs tend to have action economy advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malkyn wrote:
Well, this exploded in a way I should have anticipated. Would be nice if it felt like half the thread didn't skip reading the post linked to.

Sorry Malkyn, I should clarify. I intentionally worded my post in terms of what "should" be not what "is" because the game is under development and current playtest math is of limited value.

As others have noted, damage dice from magic weapons is a huge factor and may not survive as is into the next edition. You can argue all day about how valuable the ancillary benefits of dexterity are, as well as the other weapon traits on agile weapons, but it's all theoretical right now.

That's why I boil it down to what I think the final outcome should be.

1. Only one stat should be added to any given roll. For damage, that should be strength.

2. There should be a variety of flavorful dexterity based damage boosts that make a pure dex fighter at most on par with a strength one in damage, regardless of how the weapon damage and other effects play out.

3. A character that boosts both dexterity and strength should have the opportunity to be rewarded for those investments, not punished.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Spoiler:
I disagree entirely, and personally think if anything Dex needs nerfed more still.

I'd rather see options for a CON or STR based viable build be improved or created, but as it stands DEX is a primary/secondy Stat for literally EVERY Non-Full Plate wearer.

No amount of feat investment should do this, I'm ok with it being a Class Feature in a few instances to allow for different PCs to "feel" different but as for allowing it as a basic General Feat ... no way jose

Str-based builds don't need help being viable, they're already the break-away damage dealing method of choice. Con could stand to be more proactively used, I'll agree, but that isn't really in the here or there of this thread, alas. Will gladly discuss things in that direction if you start up a thread on the matter and I notice it.

That said, in the current system, Dex is nobody's primary stat, and is a secondary stat for those that don't wear armor. It's a tertiary/dump for heavy armor types. Even rogues who might still use a Finesse weapon without Finesse Striker aren't using their dex as their primary means of dealing damage, but their sneak attack dice, and in most of those cases they'll skip the Finesse weapon and start sneak-attacking with a greataxe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we bring back general dex to damage, can we get 1.5x str back as well?


WatersLethe wrote:
Spoiler:
Malkyn wrote:
Well, this exploded in a way I should have anticipated. Would be nice if it felt like half the thread didn't skip reading the post linked to.

Sorry Malkyn, I should clarify. I intentionally worded my post in terms of what "should" be not what "is" because the game is under development and current playtest math is of limited value.

As others have noted, damage dice from magic weapons is a huge factor and may not survive as is into the next edition. You can argue all day about how valuable the ancillary benefits of dexterity are, as well as the other weapon traits on agile weapons, but it's all theoretical right now.

That's why I boil it down to what I think the final outcome should be.

1. Only one stat should be added to any given roll. For damage, that should be strength.

2. There should be a variety of flavorful dexterity based damage boosts that make a pure dex fighter at most on par with a strength one in damage, regardless of how the weapon damage and other effects play out.

3. A character that boosts both dexterity and strength should have the opportunity to be rewarded for those investments, not punished.

Ah. A fair distinction. I would normally disagree with your first point, but given the parameters you establish in points 2 and 3, I would actually be satisfied with your proposed outcome. My issue stems from that not being the case, alas, which is where what I suspect might've been a certain amount of talking past each other came from.


I think people who are shying away from Dex-to-damage are in part doing so out of a concern of a return to PF1e, where Dex-to-damage characters had a significant advantage over Str-to-damage characters in flexibility and arguably power as well.

I also think that if Dex-to-damage is readily available, it needs to not make Str a dump stat for people who take it; there needs to still be a reason to want Strength. That's a general thing, though - ideally, every character should want every stat, because then the interesting choice is in what you choose to specialize in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I don’t really want Dex to damage. That effectively makes Strength based characters and Dexterity based characters the same with damage being weapon plus your stat. If we are having Dexterity based builds then a better approach would be to make them different in the way Strength and Dexterity (or neither) are applied. Maybe Dexterity builds favour many attacks against large single attacks for strength builds, I’m sure there are other possibilities too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen dex to damage be overpowered. I think it should come packaged with finesse. You can have it free if you're using a rapier/dagger/etc. It's not going to outshine the str to damage characters who get bigger damage dice, especially since magic weapons multiply the damage dice. It would only let light armor characters and switch hitter builds be viable in melee.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A real issue with "dex-to-damage" being generally accessible (either through a feat or as a property of finesse strikes) is that this wildly unbalances the monk. As it stands (and this is unlikely to change much in the final version) all monks need dex because you do not wear armor. Even 18 Str monks will start with 16 Dex. So if I could easily get dex-to-damage the only good reason for a monk to boost Str over 10 (or 8) would be "if you're really invested in dragon or fallen stone stance, and you want to do combat maneuvers". If I'm going for *anything* else, I have no use for strength since I don't even need to carry stuff.


BerserkOne wrote:

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.

Bolt and Punt are both level 1 in this example, if you scaled them up to level 12 (+3 items!) You would get
  • Bolt Vanderhuge (+3 full plate)
  • AC: 33 TAC: 28 ACP: -3 Ref: 13 Speed: 15'
  • Punt Speedchunk (+3 Studded)
  • AC: 32 TAC: 30 ACP: 0 Ref: 21
    speed: 25'
... The same math... Well I'll be, I went into this thinking that higher levels with better equipment would change things by SOME amount, but the gap is ACTUALLY the same! +1 AC, -2 TAC, Reflex difference of 8... I know the damage gap has been done over and over again (aprox 23% gap in favor of Bolt), but the DISTANCE IS THE SAME IN DEFENSE STATS, WITH HIGHER NUMBERS IT'S THE SAME! WHY PAIZO WHY?!?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
A real issue with "dex-to-damage" being generally accessible (either through a feat or as a property of finesse strikes) is that this wildly unbalances the monk. As it stands (and this is unlikely to change much in the final version) all monks need dex because you do not wear armor. Even 18 Str monks will start with 16 Dex. So if I could easily get dex-to-damage the only good reason for a monk to boost Str over 10 (or 8) would be "if you're really invested in dragon or fallen stone stance, and you want to do combat maneuvers". If I'm going for *anything* else, I have no use for strength since I don't even need to carry stuff.

I think that's a minor flaw of Strength's one-trick-pony-ness, yes most people need it, but for the exact same reasons as the other guy who needs it. I also think Monks should be doing the Athletics thing because if they don't, who will? The Fighter with his massive ACP in full plate who moves at a snail's crawl? The Barbarian who's job is better spent wacking things with a giant stick because "MUH RAGE ONLY MAKES ME HIT HARDER, NOT GRAB HARDER!"? No, you want the really fast dude who can slip past the body guard types to headlock the wizard before he Power Word Kills you, or you don't have someone do the Athletics thing, in which case the wizard goes un-headlocked, and Power Word Kills you. I know 5e is heretical heresy of hereticalness, but dex-to-damage Monks in that system work really well, but not so well that they overwhelm everything in front of them. Granted that's in part that EVERY STAT IS A SAVING THROW and while they're few and far between, fudging a STR Save WILL ruin you day... Hard... I think the present stat system, while not FUBAR, is a mess. I also think a lot of people feel that making any 1 stat a dump for a given build is some horrible crime and you must be tried in the courts of the balance gods for such an act! Which I just don''t understand, yes min-maxing is annoying, yes every stat should hold SOME value, but not everyone needs every single stat boosted to 18 to live their lives properly, and shame on the man who leaves one stat at 10! BUUUTTTT that's just my take on things, I know everyone has a different background and different horror stories that makes them feel like X is bad because Y, I just haven't

personally found an X for the dex-to-damage Y.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
BerserkOne wrote:

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.

Bolt and Punt are both level 1 in this example, if you scaled them up to level 12 (+3 items!) You would get
  • Bolt Vanderhuge (+3 full plate)
  • AC: 33 TAC: 28 ACP: -3 Ref: 13 Speed: 15'
  • Punt Speedchunk (+3 Studded)
  • AC: 32 TAC: 30 ACP: 0 Ref: 21
    speed: 25'
... The same math... Well I'll be, I went into this thinking that higher levels with better equipment would change things by SOME amount, but the...

Technically, Bolt and Punt are level 2 because full plate has that as a level requirement. At level 1 Bolt would have had either chain mail or a breastplate, meaning his AC would have been 17 and he'd be slightly faster.

The 25% damage difference assumes that both characters are using a two-handed weapon. For Speedchunk, that means an Elven curved blade or a spiked chain, which are d8 weapons, while Vanderhuge gets a d12 greatsword or maul. If we assume that both characters are duelists, the damage difference is slightly less than 15%. A d8 longsword is much closer to the d6 rapier. In fact, that difference gets steadily closer to 14% as they approach level 20 and the modifier accounts for less of the overall damage.

So, again, is 14.5% extra damage worth all the penalties Bolt is receiving from his armor? That is the measure of balance between strength-based and dexterity-based Fighters.

Edit: Just to make clear, those percentages are based on the example submitted above, which assumes dex-to-damage is present. That scenario represents the new balance which is being proposed.


Best thing would be that str or some combination of abilities are used for bonus damage.

I.E.

1handed weapons 2×str mod
2Handed weapons 3×str mod

Finesse melee or thrown str+dex mod
2handed melee finesse 2×str+1×dex mod

bows: dex+wis mod
Composite bows str+dex+wis mod


I'd accept half dex to damage.


They could just remove ability score from damage and just keep it for to hit, like having damage = half level number of dice. That way spell damage and weapon damage could scale in the same way.


Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.


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

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.

If I were designing ability scores from the ground up, this would be one of the changes.

Body covers all of Constitution and most of Strength.

Agility covers all of Dexterity and the to-hit parts of Strength.

Mind covers all of Intelligence and most of Wisdom.

Spirit covers Charisma and the Wisdom as it applies to Will saves against charm and compulsion.

All four are reasonably well-defined. And especially because each one now has a saving throw, they all have penalties for being dumped.


Igor Horvat wrote:

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.

Combine wisdom and charisma while you're at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
BerserkOne wrote:

The comparison which has been presented of the relative AC of the strength-based Fighter and the dexterity-based Rogue seems disingenuous. The Fighter's armor class is higher because the Fighter has class features that increase his proficiency with armor, whereas the Rogue gets other features, such as his many extra skill increases. Since we are talking about dex-to-damage as a general feat, it seems only fair to limit AC comparisons to situations where those proficiency differences don't apply. Thus, let's consider two human Fighters, one Str 18/Dex 12, one Str 12/Dex 18, and both level 2 (when full plate first becomes available). I'm going to call these two Fighters Bolt Vanderhuge and Punt Speedchunk, mostly for my own amusement.

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: -1 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft

In this comparison, we see that Vanderhuge indeed has a slight lead in AC, but a -2 deficit in TAC. But when we consider the penalties he's taking on his skill checks, reflex save, and movement speed it's clear that he is still paying a price for not investing in dexterity. Heavy armor is not the equal of the attribute.

Compare this to the versatility of Speedchunk. He is much faster, better at all non-combat uses of athletics, can fight in melee or at range, and has far more survivability against an enemy spell-caster. From a balance perspective, we must ask ourselves what damage output difference is the equivalent of all those advantages.

Bolt and Punt are both level 1 in this example, if you scaled them up to level 12 (+3 items!) You would get
  • Bolt Vanderhuge (+3 full plate)
  • AC: 33 TAC: 28 ACP: -3 Ref: 13 Speed: 15'
  • Punt Speedchunk (+3 Studded)
  • AC: 32 TAC: 30 ACP: 0 Ref: 21
    speed: 25'
... The same math... Well I'll be, I went into this thinking that higher levels with better equipment would change things by SOME amount, but the...

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

Two, really, SHOULD the armor gap grow over levels? Now the question of whether or not the armor gap should be bigger in the first place is another discussion entirely, but being x% less likely to get hit is just as valuable at level 1 as it is at level 20. A growing gap could easily get out of hand and ruin viability of lighter armor builds. Not to mention Heavy Armor sheds some of its penalties at later levels so the sacrifice made is even lower, and the benefits of heavy armor (Namely being able to put more boosts in non Dex scores without losing AC) grow at later levels as you get more boosts. So heavy armor already has some payoff at later levels without a growing AC gap.

Don't get me wrong, I think heavy armor should have less drawbacks than it does now, and I think armor should also offer perks other than AC in the same vein as weapon traits, with heavy armor being made better by having better/more/more suited to heavy fighters traits rather than a large AC gap (I'm down for maybe medium beating light by 1 point in armor+max dex and heavy beating light by 2 but no more than that. And that only if more classes get access to armor proficiency boosts and the classes with those boosts already get them for all armor types. Even this I'm iffy on given that Light armor already imposes on your ability scores much more than heavy and takes much longer to fill out to your Dex cap. I'd much rather just see armor check penalty removed and armor traits instated, following PF2's trend of making x better than y at z by nuanced abilities and features instead of just bigger numbers.), but that's irrelevant to the current point.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.

Combine wisdom and charisma while you're at it.

I have a variant where int,wis&cha are reworked into Willpower and Cunning.

Willpower is for casting spells(all) and Will saves(duh!) and forceful part of the mind, like possible paladins auras, frightful presence, etc.

Cunning would cover most skills(excluding athletics, acrobatics, stealth, thievery), be used for bonus languages, bonus skills, etc... The finesse part of the mind


Exactly in agreement with Edge93 - I can't see any reason why the gab should get bigger at higher levels. Why should one person be punished more the higher level they are?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.


BerserkOne wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.

That isn't what Clumsy does. I've got the book open right in front of me. It makes the Dex Cap apply to Reflex Saves NOT the ACP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
BerserkOne wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.
That isn't what Clumsy does. I've got the book open right in front of me. It makes the Dex Cap apply to Reflex Saves NOT the ACP.

What? No it doesn't.

[Flips through book]

"Clumsy. This armor's Dexterity modifier cap..."

Huh. I stand corrected. It seems in my attempt to clarify things I added more confusion. The corrected comparison should be:

Bolt Vanderhuge (full plate)
AC: 19 TAC: 15 Armor Penalty: -5 Reflex Save: +4 Speed: 15ft

Punt Speedchunk (studded leather)
AC: 18 TAC: 17 Armor Penalty: -1 Reflex Save: +7 Speed: 25ft


BerserkOne wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Two things:

One, Armor check penalty DOES NOT APPLY TO REFLEX SAVES. I'm not sure where that is coming from except a harsh misreading of the rules. If it did heavy armor would be unusable because it not only makes you stupidly vulnerable to failing against Reflex saves, which not only includes damage effects but also mobility hampering ones, but would also jack the heck out of your crit fail chances.

So the Reflex difference should be 3 points, not 8.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS. See, armor has traits much like weapons do, but in the case of armor those traits add additional penalties instead of additional benefits. One of those traits is Clumsy. It makes your ACP apply to your reflex save. The gap is 8 points. Nick1wasd's math is correct.

Actually you're wrong. Clumsy does not make ACP apply to Reflex Save (or other things). It makes Max Dex apply to Reflex Saves (and other things). So a character in Full Plate with +7 Dexterity would still only add +1 of that to their Reflex Save, but would not apply the additional -5 (or I guess -2 by that point probably) ACP on top of that.

EDIT: Super Ninja'd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people have confused that "Clumsy applies your ACP to reflex saves" instead of "Clumsy applies your max dex to your reflex saves" so this is probably something worth considering when doing armor traits for the final book (personally I would prefer armor traits be "generally positive" like weapon traits though.)

1 to 50 of 120 << 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.