I always thought the latter would make more sense. Swinging it harder doesn't make it more accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, that wouldn't answer the question of why you attack touch AC with strength rather than dexterity.
But there is also the playability factor to consider -- making all attacks into finesse attacks would require a lot of fiddling to get right.
But I wonder how people would allocate their stats if all attack rolls were based on Dex and all damage rolls were based on Str? You really could not afford to dump either stat in that case.
I really hate when people whine about Dex being "too good".
Mechanically, it's just kind of a holdover from D&D's origins. d20 games for the most part seem to favor essentially having an "attack" stat, and a "defense" stat. Over time, Dexterity has evolved to the state it is where with proper investment it can be an alternative offensive stat because the idea of a more finesse hero started being more desirable, and such a thing was basically impossible with balancing methods like point buy.
Everything they added to make the game more fun for everyone by not having them need pure positive stats took a little bit more away from realism.
There are plenty of games that use Dex for attack, Str for damage. Any White Wolf game is an example, and it works fine. Hell in those games both are viable since you get "threshold successes" so any overflow of your Dex to hit becomes additional damage. It'd probably work just fine in Pathfinder all things considered, just make everyone more Multi Ability Dependent, which dialing down on was the purpose of making Dexterity more flexible in the first place.
|
But I wonder how people would allocate their stats if all attack rolls were based on Dex and all damage rolls were based on Str? You really could not afford to dump either stat in that case.
This is basically how finesse weapons work in the PF2 playtest for anyone who isn't a rogue, and how archers work in the current edition. You prioritize DEX if you can because it's vastly more valuable than STR, then shore up STR over time to boost your damage.
The main reason it isn't fully implemented that way in PF1 is likely because of the inherent imbalance between the stats; STR affects accuracy, damage, Climb, Swim, and carrying capacity, while DEX affects AC, touch AC, Reflex saving throws, Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and on the right class or build, accuracy, damage, and carrying capacity (because higher Dex characters use lighter weapons and armor which allows them to hit similar, occasionally higher, numbers for offense and defense while carrying lighter loads).
PF1 is built upon a 3.5 paradigm that assumes that STR's ability to deal damage is so potent that it's okay for STR to have more limited effects outside of that space; STR is basically the "fighter" of ability scores in that its main purpose is assumed to be valuable enough that it doesn't need any versatility or flexibility outside of that niche. The degree to which DEX even in PF1 can largely subsume that role at this point in the game is similar to the fighter "problem" of other classes being able to fulfill the vast majority of it's intended niche while also being able to fulfill multiple other functions. If DEX served for accuracy by default without any investment, STR would be largely irrelevant since stat boosts are so limited you'd almost always want to prioritize other ability scores.
Basically, DEX requires investment because of a need for balance within the assumptions of the game's mechanics. In another system with different assumptions there's no reason you couldn't have it as a default accuracy booster in melee, and there are systems for which that's the case, including the new edition of Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, as a design principle, it's better for every attribute to be desirable. Some are going to be more desirable than others, but if a huge swath of characters can say "well, I don't need [stat]" and dump it, then there is a problem.
In general there's a discontinuity because half of the stats contribute to saves (which are always important) and half do not. If anything the stats that don't add to saves need to do more, giving reason to prioritize them over having a better saving throw.
Like this is a serious problem in the playtest in which you increase stats four at a time- virtually every character I saw increased Dex/Con/Wis and then whatever their primary stat was.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that dex is what you really need to actually hit someone is a fallacy from the get go.
You have to break parries, swing hard enough to knock shields aside and pierce hides, armor, and the resistance of magical deflection as well as swing 5lb of steel fast enough that people can't dodge out of the way. These are all functions of strength, not dexterity.
If you want to try to bypass these things with precise aim you take weapon finesse and get to use dex.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try boxing or wrestling over your weight class if you want to understand why strength can reasonably be adjudged more influential to combat manuevers. For the more stat ant of us, Sugar Ray Leanard was much more skilled and dexterous than Mike Tyson, this doesn't make it at all likely that he will win. The simple and brutal ability to overwhelm an enemies defenses is a very powerful thing. This is quite annoying if you are not the one with the greater strength.
Weight class is another thing that D&D 3rd edition and its derivatives never (thankfully) addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weight class was effectivly and more simply subsumed as a part of strength and size. A serious improvement, if not completely perfect. I realize that it seems unfair to some, but the alternative just leads to silliness like pixies holding the bridge against the charging giants.
Isn't size category kinda like weight class? Obviously there's no 50 foot tall boxers in real life but the basic idea is the same.
Accuracy is overrated. If your weapon is large enough, it doesn't matter where you hit someone, as long as you hit hard enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that AC is a composite number. It is the ability to get out of the way, but it is also the ability to take a blow without damage (particularly the armor or natural armor portion) and even the dodge portion would depend a lot on how fast the attack is, which for most weapons would be more based on raw muscle power than agility.
Given that, STR is a perfectly reasonable default. Those who want to stick a rapier through a helmet visor at just the right moment, rather than bashing so hard and fast that the helmet doesn't matter and the head can't get out of the way should take weapon finesse.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
DEXTERITY =/= AGILITY
The word Dexterity refers to adeptness with the fingers. Slight of Hand and Disable Divice are perfect examples of Dexterity based skills, but Acrobatics/Fly/Ride/Stealth are really more "Agility" skills.
Agility isn't really a thing in Pathfinder, and it's kind of the middle ground between Strength and Dexterity so everything "Agility" based got put into one of those two stats.
Almost everything "Agility" based got given to Dexterity (most skills/AC/Initiative) but attack rolls and CMB were left in Strength. CMD somehow got both Strength and Dexterity (which does make sense). Carrying Capacity gives a little more back to Strength since all Strength/Dexterity based skills are reduced if you carry a medium or heavy load.
The most "Realistic" way to do things would be to add "Agility" as another stat, use that for attack rolls, Strength for damage rolls and use the Armour as DR rules variant (and Dexterity is used for Ranged attacks and "Rogue skills"). Of course then you come to the realisation that Hit-Points are not realistic (at all), so you have to come up with something new there as well. By this point you're basically designing a new game.
The problem people have with Strength vs Dexterity is the way they perceive these two stats in relation to "Agility". When you understand that high Strength does not mean you're a slow, lumbering hulk (gymnasts are RIPPED) then you shouldn't have a problem with using Strength for attack. Likewise if you accept that "Agility" is partially Dexterity-based you shouldn't have a problem with Dexterity to attack/damage.
I personally don't have a problem with Dex-to-damage in its current form in pathfinder. It takes 2-3 feats and generally comes out with significantly lower DPR compared to their Strength counterparts, but with a trade-off of higher defences, skills and mobility.
Like everything in games like this there is a trade-off between realism and ease-of-use. It's not perfect, but it's obviously good enough that it has everyone here coming back for more.
From ability descriptions
"Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance."
If I could use Dex to hit without needing Weapon Finesse, I'd never make a Str based character. Heck, I hardly make them now! Even with the extra feats needed to make one, it's my go-to.
Dex based characters are viable because of the bonuses to AC, Touch AC, and Reflex save. Str based characters are viable because they have a higher Flat-footed AC, can use armor with a higher bonus, and don't need feats for a basic attack for either accuracy or damage. It's a trade off.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think DEX to Damage option should be balanced by a STR to AC option, something like:
Powerful Block: You can add your STR instead of your DEX to your AC when weilding a shield.
Agree Dave, though Unbalancing Attacker, or even Shrug It Off might not limit it to sword and board types. I can tell you from experience though that shield-work is less dependent or even helped by strength than you might think. I can give you anecdotal evidence that it is hard to get off a good shot when you are being pushed around a field of battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex to Damage is limited to certain types, Str to AC being limited as well makes sense to me.
I don't think that any real world experience you might have is really relevant, since the the rules don't really simulate the real world well at all. Shield based STR to AC fits a more cinematic world just fine, and I think it would provide enough of verisimilitude for most players.
I'd be fine averaging Strength and Dexterity then adding that to your attack rolls/CMB rolls (instead of either one) as a house-rule if my players ever throw a fit over the divide.
Honestly, I'd love to see Constitution get some more love. I have a couple house rules to encourage Con investment, but it still tends to lag. The consensus seems to be: Make it a 12 and move on.
Also, Shields giving Strength to AC isn't an awful idea though I would rather it provide CON to AC as using a shield is frigging exhausting. That way you have far fewer cases of enlarged Barbarians becoming invulnerable.
A 12 in Con? Do the players want to be squished? Hope they chose classes with high HD and Fort saves.
Heather,
I believe the common wisdom is that hit points beyond what is needed to avoid instakills is just delaying the inevitable, so it is better to focus on doing or preventing damage. There are many guides touting this with convincing graphs and notes. Barring the true believer it is all a matter of taste and playstyle.
I'm totally for more feats that give you more from Str or Con. There's stuff that has a Str requirement, but most of them like Int-requiring non-spell feats hover around the 13 mark, where Dex prereq feats go as high as 19.
But yeah, more stuff like Intimidating Prowess that gives more function to Str or Con, in order to balance out the number of Dex feats would be cool. Hell, I think there's an archtype I stumbled on that subbed the Dex requirement on Two-Weapon Fighting to a Str requirement. More accessible stuff like that would be really cool.
Maybe so, but still... If I had done that with my current character, she would have died several times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, some of it has to be down to GM style and the type of players you have at your table. But yeah, 4/6 of the party currently has 12 Con or less (we have a Witch with 8).
I'd like to note that I have VERY generous bonuses for possessing a high constitution score in my campaign. Instead of taking 1/2 your level up HP you may roll it and reroll any result equal to or less than your Con modifier. Additionally, if your normal (post Stat belt) Con modifier ever exceeds your HD (for instance +7 modifier with a d6 HP) then you substitute your Con Modifier for your die roll resulting in you gaining double con mod HP.
I even threw them in a dungeon recently where folks had to go through all kinds of environmental Hazards requiring Fort saves and they blew through it with ease. Still can't get folks to invest in Con.
EDIT: High con providing DR or ER would be a cool idea, would need to find a way to work that into the game. Might just make it a setting thing, I've been thinking of running a Kineticist only game and that would fit nicely.
Sorry Heather,
I was unclear, common wisdom is one of my sarcasm go-to phrases ...the "wisdom" Is not universally correct and presumes there is only one way to play. You probably don't play that way, nor do I. As I said, it is just a matter of tastes and playstyles. If you play their way said wisdom is valid, but since not everyone does, it is not common.
My kinetisist would be a monster with those bonuses XD the build plans on ending with a 42 con with elemental overflow going.
It only applies to your "permanent" score, so no Elemental Overflow/Mutagen/Etc since that resets every day. Still results in some absurd HP if you build towards it. I try to encourage folks in directions they might normally avoid, for instance I have composite Crossbows that cannot be reloaded if you lack the strength modifier applied to them. It actually makes non-bolt ace crossbows reliable as a long term weapon instead of being level 1 fodder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighting with weapons is as much about understanding space and being able to rapidly ascertain what the other fighter needs to do in order to hit you. You could just as easily make a case for int-based accuracy. Or wis-based if you want to make it about the reflexiveness of that mental ability. Being strong and fast certainly helps, and you need a certain baseline of strength to make a weapon do particular things, but at the same time, no one is really mentally capable of performing up to their body's peak physical potential, so it's not too hard to make a case for the mental side of fighting outweighing the physical.
But then there's a ton of different factors that drastically change what is and isn't useful from situation to situation. Dueling weapons tend to be very technical and take a lot of skill to use effectively where weapons designed for large scale combat tend to favour simplicity to the point where some soldiers in some situations may not really be making much use of their "stats" at all.
Reality runs on rules so complicated as to appear vastly inconsistent. Fighting is messy and unpleasant and doesn't have comfortably predictable outcomes most of the time. Tabletop needs to have rules that can be quickly understood so the players can rely on them at least somewhat. So ultimately, which stat you use for hitting is a mechanical choice because stats are made up things that are only loosely connected with reality in the first place.
I'm totally for more feats that give you more from Str or Con. There's stuff that has a Str requirement, but most of them like Int-requiring non-spell feats hover around the 13 mark, where Dex prereq feats go as high as 19.
But yeah, more stuff like Intimidating Prowess that gives more function to Str or Con, in order to balance out the number of Dex feats would be cool. Hell, I think there's an archtype I stumbled on that subbed the Dex requirement on Two-Weapon Fighting to a Str requirement. More accessible stuff like that would be really cool.
Enter the Rage Prophet!! The CON stat of a rage prophet is your go stat for the entire class. It is added to your concentration and added to your spell DC's, which IMO is brutal!
Picture this: my rage prophet has a CHA score of 20 (18 base with hb of alluring cha +2) and a CON of 20 (base 16 with a belt of +4). So, without raging, the spell DC's are 10+5(cha)+5(con)+spelllevel, that is a base save of 20! Just add the spell level for the actual DC!
Being a rage prophet, I have acces to cleric spells like Righteous might (+4 con), and acces to rage, to that would result in a base save of 10+5(cha)+9(con)=24. If rage progresses to +6, that would be a save DC of 25 thanks to CON. When using Divine Vessel with the anarchic aspect (Oracle only spell, +8 con), greater rage +6 con, the base save is 10+5+12=27!! Base save! So for a, I don't know, say Slay Living , that DC would be a whooping 33!! (spell level 6 for using it with the furious spell metamagic feat). It can be even boosted more with a headband of +6 and belt of CON +6, and lvl advancement bonus, reaching into demigod tier saves (DC 40 for a lvl 9 spell at lvl 17!)
And that is all beside the usual benefit of s$~$load of HP and a skyhigh FORT save.
If memory serves, Mark Siefter posted during the early previews for 2E Pathfinder that he considered splitting Dex into two stats, but in play there was very little difference that with the unified Dex stat.
Isn't size category kinda like weight class? Obviously there's no 50 foot tall boxers in real life but the basic idea is the same.
Size category is nowhere near as finely broken down as sports weight classes, as nearly all adult humans are in the same size category (Medium).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't size category kinda like weight class? Obviously there's no 50 foot tall boxers in real life but the basic idea is the same.Size category is nowhere near as finely broken down as sports weight classes, as nearly all adult humans are in the same size category (Medium).
Weight class isn't as meaningful of a distinction in Pathfinder because the scale is so much larger. The difference between 250 and 300 pounds isn't really relevant enough to have a stat for when both of those people are trying to fight 800 pounds.
It would also mean that any STR-based character needs to be as big as they can be to be viable, and that wouldn't be very fun.
Isn't size category kinda like weight class? Obviously there's no 50 foot tall boxers in real life but the basic idea is the same.Size category is nowhere near as finely broken down as sports weight classes, as nearly all adult humans are in the same size category (Medium).
Weight class isn't as meaningful of a distinction in Pathfinder because the scale is so much larger. The difference between 250 and 300 pounds isn't really relevant enough to have a stat for when both of those people are trying to fight 800 pounds.
It would also mean that any STR-based character needs to be as big as they can be to be viable, and that wouldn't be very fun.
Older variants of DnD sorta had Weight Class with 18 Strength having a percentile value that scaled to 100 before you could reach 19 (super human) strength and these different levels all had different modifiers.
It sucked. Size categories are much neater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was a wrestler for many years. It makes perfect sense why Strength would apply and not Dex.