So would it be too powerful to allow all characters to get Dex to damage on finesse weapons and what ability should thief rogues get to replace it?
It would change the balance of the game away from what was intended.
Thus far, dex to damage seems deliberately locked behind the rogue class.
Even if the option does become available to other characters, I would expect it come at the cost of at least one class feat. Possibly requiring multi-classing into rogue and spending another class feat to get that feature (which isn't currently an option).
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I personally wouldn't do it, since I think widespread dex to damage is a plague that gradually makes strength defunct. I loathe it.
However, I must concede that +stat to damage is a significantly smaller fraction of your damage in this edition, with weapon specialization and striking making up a big chunk of your damage. As such, universal dex to damage is not a game breaker.
If you did do it, perhaps let thief rogues gain a portion of their sneak attack damage with more regularity. +precision damage on every non-sneak attack?
Or you could give them a whole new ability unrelated to damage. Maybe a cool new debuff mechanic?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I just feel like Dex doesn't need to be any better than it is, even after taking initiative away from it. That's the only reason I wouldn't do this.
So, 5 years later, what would a more practiced opinion of the same home rule be? My players often complain on it, and I've frankly been hemming and hawing on whether to consider allowing it for some two years. On the one hand, I worry on whether or not it would overly bork the math, but on the other, I think my players would greatly appreciate it.
moosher12 wrote: So, 5 years later, what would a more practiced opinion of the same home rule be? My players often complain on it, and I've frankly been hemming and hawing on whether to consider allowing it for some two years. On the one hand, I worry on whether or not it would overly bork the math, but on the other, I think my players would greatly appreciate it. If I did do it, this is probably what I would consider doing, but as I said earlier, still not sure if I should.
Finesse Changes
Finesse weapons can now apply your Dexterity modifier to both your attack rolls and damage rolls. Additionally, the Rogue’s Thief Racket now grants you the Sly Disarm feat instead of Dexterity to damage rolls.
The Finesse trait and Rogue's Thief Racket now read as follows:
Finesse
You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls and damage rolls using this melee weapon.
Thief
Nothing beats the thrill of taking something that belongs to someone else. You might be a pickpocket working the streets, a cat burglar sneaking through windows, or even a consultant, testing your clients’ vaults for openings.
When a fight breaks out, you are adept at separating your opponents from their belongings. You gain the Sly Disarm feat without needing to meet its prerequisites.
You are trained in Thievery.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: So, 5 years later, what would a more practiced opinion of the same home rule be? My players often complain on it, and I've frankly been hemming and hawing on whether to consider allowing it for some two years. On the one hand, I worry on whether or not it would overly bork the math, but on the other, I think my players would greatly appreciate it. Don't. That's it. The whole reason to want to do this is to just make it easier to have dump stats and not have to make any decisions about if you want that extra damage or want something else.
Like, is the game actually made better by telling Flurry Rangers/Monks (who don't plan to do Trips/Grabs)/Rogues/etc that they can all just ignore STR completely with little downside? Not really, no.
It's not like we're even talking about huge amounts of damage here. If the players in question want to dump STR anyway, they will still do okay. Right now they're just being forced into having to actually prioritize what's more important to them and they'd rather just get benefits without that choice instead. So you'll get a whole lot of "well I'll max DEX then stick as much as I can into CON and WIS without having to worry about anything else" type of characters.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tridus wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, 5 years later, what would a more practiced opinion of the same home rule be? My players often complain on it, and I've frankly been hemming and hawing on whether to consider allowing it for some two years. On the one hand, I worry on whether or not it would overly bork the math, but on the other, I think my players would greatly appreciate it. Don't. That's it. The whole reason to want to do this is to just make it easier to have dump stats and not have to make any decisions about if you want that extra damage or want something else.
Like, is the game actually made better by telling Flurry Rangers/Monks (who don't plan to do Trips/Grabs)/Rogues/etc that they can all just ignore STR completely with little downside? Not really, no.
It's not like we're even talking about huge amounts of damage here. If the players in question want to dump STR anyway, they will still do okay. Right now they're just being forced into having to actually prioritize what's more important to them and they'd rather just get benefits without that choice instead. So you'll get a whole lot of "well I'll max DEX then stick as much as I can into CON and WIS without having to worry about anything else" type of characters. Which, to be fair, isn't that big a deal if you and your group are OK with that reduction of complexity and character choice. Not everyone wants to do that.
Another option you might consider is granting half of a character's Dex to their damage with Finesse weapons, making it more like Propulsive, and letting thief rogues retain their full damage. It allows thief rogues to keep their original selling point and also doesn't let Dex builds totally overshadow strength-based ones in the static damage department.
I'm not really a fan of Dex to damage overall, if I'm honest, and would rather the thief rogue had some other option rather than making it more of an option for everybody, but I think half Dex would be my solution if I was running a group who really wanted it.
Half Dex does sound like a nice middle ground. I might consider that.
Perpdepog wrote: Which, to be fair, isn't that big a deal if you and your group are OK with that reduction of complexity and character choice. Not everyone wants to do that. And this is also a big hangup that is what has me considering it in the first place. I too lean on the opinion that Strength for Damage and Dex for AC. Which is why I held such a home rule back from them since I began running 2E in late 2022. I gave them the sort of reasonings that Tridus brought up. But the fact of the matter is after 2 years of play, they still don't seem content with it, as I'd hoped they would come around over a prolonged period of actually playing the game. And it's brought up rather passionately once every few months their dislike of that one rule, which has me considering whether or not it'd be a net gain on the overall enjoyment level to allow it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Make finesse to give dex to dmg it's not a game breaking thing but as well pointed by Tridus it justs will create a reason to dump Str specially for characters focused into switch between melee and ranged.
GMG Alternative Scores variant already proposed this change but does this dividing dex into 2 stats.
IMO even Thief giving Dex to dmg being pretty interesting already creates an excessive spice to it. I know many players that only get Thief racket because of this and ignore the other rackets because they doesn't have this ability to put Dex into DMG.
So in the end this will only make classes like light fighers, bards, investigators, Laughing Shadow Magus, monks, rangers, eidolons, swashbucklers, thaumaturges and drifter gunslingers to ever dump their Str in order to put the points into Con or Wis.
YuriP wrote: Make finesse to give dex to dmg it's not a game breaking thing but as well pointed by Tridus it justs will create a reason to dump Str specially for characters focused into switch between melee and ranged.
GMG Alternative Scores variant already proposed this change but does this dividing dex into 2 stats.
IMO even Thief giving Dex to dmg being pretty interesting already creates an excessive spice to it. I know many players that only get Thief racket because of this and ignore the other rackets because they doesn't have this ability to put Dex into DMG.
So in the end this will only make classes like light fighers, bards, investigators, Laughing Shadow Magus, monks, rangers, eidolons, swashbucklers, thaumaturges and drifter gunslingers to ever dump their Str in order to put the points into Con or Wis.
That's a good pull. Haven't read that section of the GameMastery Guide in awhile, and I completely forgot about that optional rule (easy for me to forget as Dex to damage was only a subconcept of that rule). That does encourage me to be more willing to allow it though. Thank you for pointing it out.
If we are in homebrew territory, my main recommendation would be to probe said players with a proposition like a universal Class Feat that grants dex to finesse damage.
That would give you some idea of how sorely the players are bothered by the existing design, and if they want to spend a big chunk of their power budget to enable dex to damage like that, I think that is a fair-enough way to grant it (though to be clear, it's not balanced; it is powerful enough to be considered a Feat Tax for most players)
I super agree with those here saying **not** to just freely grant dex to damage because your players want it. That kind of thing is taking a hacksaw to the game design for a rather nakedly power-seeking desire.
And it would tell your players that they can repeat this homebrew request to gain more power later.
Minor observation: a high dexterity already, effectively, increases your expected damage with a finesse weapon against most targets because (unlike, say, D&D 5E) it increases the chance of a critical hit.
That's... very consistent with the concept of dexterity and a finesse weapon: a skilled, dexterous user having a better chance of doing more damage via precise aim.
Trip.H wrote: And it would tell your players that they can repeat this homebrew request to gain more power later. I'm leery of this reasoning; it feels overly suspicious. This kind of thing feels primed for setting up the "us versus them" mentality that can kill a playgroup. First, because if your players are the kind of people who would try manipulating you like that, then making options feats or whatever won't solve the problem; they'll just keep pushing. In that instance the answer is to have a discussion with the group and explain your position, not make them jump through hoops for the mechanical power they crave.
Second, does an increase in power really matter? Assuming the GM is OK with it and feels comfortable challenging the players when necessary does it matter too much if they give the players some stuff they want?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Perpdepog wrote: Trip.H wrote: And it would tell your players that they can repeat this homebrew request to gain more power later. I'm leery of this reasoning; it feels overly suspicious. This kind of thing feels primed for setting up the "us versus them" mentality that can kill a playgroup. First, because if your players are the kind of people who would try manipulating you like that, then making options feats or whatever won't solve the problem; they'll just keep pushing. In that instance the answer is to have a discussion with the group and explain your position, not make them jump through hoops for the mechanical power they crave.
Second, does an increase in power really matter? Assuming the GM is OK with it and feels comfortable challenging the players when necessary does it matter too much if they give the players some stuff they want? Increases in power are fine when they either don't impact anyone that much, or raise up the whole table.
They're not fine when they take one players character and make it suddenly better than another players character, especially to the point of eclipsing them. That is relatively rare in PF2 (its one of the benefits of the system), but someone playing a STR based character who isn't getting the benefits of DEX might feel rather put out that the people playing DEX characters complained enough and now get most of the benefit of STR without actually investing anything in it, making it easier for them to beef up something else and just be stronger in general.
This change won't break the game, but its certainly to the detriment of STR classes since they're not getting STR to AC/Reflex and have to work around those things in other ways.
Tridus wrote: Perpdepog wrote: Trip.H wrote: And it would tell your players that they can repeat this homebrew request to gain more power later. I'm leery of this reasoning; it feels overly suspicious. This kind of thing feels primed for setting up the "us versus them" mentality that can kill a playgroup. First, because if your players are the kind of people who would try manipulating you like that, then making options feats or whatever won't solve the problem; they'll just keep pushing. In that instance the answer is to have a discussion with the group and explain your position, not make them jump through hoops for the mechanical power they crave.
Second, does an increase in power really matter? Assuming the GM is OK with it and feels comfortable challenging the players when necessary does it matter too much if they give the players some stuff they want? Increases in power are fine when they either don't impact anyone that much, or raise up the whole table.
They're not fine when they take one players character and make it suddenly better than another players character, especially to the point of eclipsing them. That is relatively rare in PF2 (its one of the benefits of the system), but someone playing a STR based character who isn't getting the benefits of DEX might feel rather put out that the people playing DEX characters complained enough and now get most of the benefit of STR without actually investing anything in it, making it easier for them to beef up something else and just be stronger in general.
This change won't break the game, but its certainly to the detriment of STR classes since they're not getting STR to AC/Reflex and have to work around those things in other ways. That's fair and true. I'm working under the assumption that more than one person at the table is intending to be a Dex-based character based off the tone of Moosher12's post that necroed the thread. If that's not the case though, I'd be less inclined to offer Dex-to-damage than I already am.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I also don't think this is good.
But I can see that to your players it feels like a pain point that they're being cramped in their style.
One of the big design goals of PF2 is that you can make a good character in many different ways. But that means that no single way should obviously be the best way.
Giving dex to damage would narrow down the selection of good builds. You have the strength builds that now look worse by comparison - why choose between damage and defense when you can have both? And you also have the third group - casters that didn't have a ton of dex and also weren't in the high strength group. If the dex users start doing more damage, what are they getting?
---
I mean, you could go that way - give something extra to everyone.
* Dex to damage with agile/finesse weapons, including unarmed strikes.
* Let high Strength completely negate the speed penalty for heavy armor, and give all heavy armors Bulwark, and let it apply against all Reflex, not just damage (i.e. also against trip..). Unarmed strikes that don't use dex to damage go up a die size (like monks that use dragon style, because they don't get armor benefits).
* Give casters their casting stat back on cantrip damage, and also give it on all other damaging spells too. People liked their casting stat on cantrip damage, it meant a higher minimum damage. And most people think spell damage could be a bit higher anyway. If you thought it was confusing that only cantrips added spellcasting stat to damage - well, just give it to all spells.
Yeah, it's a power-up, but by raising everyone, you don't shrink the amount of possible good, fun character builds.
I've been workshopping some approaches on how to do it for my players. I am in agreememnt Strength needs to have something to compete. One thing I'm considering is letting Intimidation be allowed to run off of Strength rather than Charisma, as that is a home rule I often see ran in 5E games I also play in, and it simply makes sense to me.
While the 1/2 Dex to Damage seemed reasonable, as I use roll20, and implementing it would require my players to start using code to implement it, I think flat Dex to Damage would be the least troublesome. (the roll20 character sheet only gives a quick option for 1/2 Strength, and the average player is gonna struggle with copy pasting flat(@{dex_modifier}/2), or whatever the command would be in my practical experience. Knowing past experience, the likelihood of being asked repeatedly what the equation was again is enough for me to just go the easy path.
Conscious Meat wrote: Minor observation: a high dexterity already, effectively, increases your expected damage with a finesse weapon against most targets because (unlike, say, D&D 5E) it increases the chance of a critical hit.
That's... very consistent with the concept of dexterity and a finesse weapon: a skilled, dexterous user having a better chance of doing more damage via precise aim.
As I said, while I am in agreeement with keeping them seperate on principle, unfortunately this argument would not work on the players, because Dex is not any more accurate than Strength.
Perpdepog wrote: That's fair and true. I'm working under the assumption that more than one person at the table is intending to be a Dex-based character based off the tone of Moosher12's post that necroed the thread. If that's not the case though, I'd be less inclined to offer Dex-to-damage than I already am. Pretty much this: About half of my players are Dex, and the other half Strength across 2 games. (5 Strength, 4 Dex, 1 Casters). They look at the Strength players that have similar AC (and often actually higher) and Attack Modifier, but consistently much more damage, and 2 years of play hasn't quite calmed them toward my assurances.
Ascalpus wrote: I mean, you could go that way - give something extra to everyone.
* Dex to damage with agile/finesse weapons, including unarmed strikes.
* Let high Strength completely negate the speed penalty for heavy armor, and give all heavy armors Bulwark, and let it apply against all Reflex, not just damage (i.e. also against trip..). Unarmed strikes that don't use dex to damage go up a die size (like monks that use dragon style, because they don't get armor benefits).
* Give casters their casting stat back on cantrip damage, and also give it on all other damaging spells too. People liked their casting stat on cantrip damage, it meant a higher minimum damage. And most people think spell damage could be a bit higher anyway. If you thought it was confusing that only cantrips added spellcasting stat to damage - well, just give it to all spells.
Yeah, it's a power-up, but by raising everyone, you don't shrink the amount of possible good, fun character builds.
I'll consider these. Seem like decent approaches.
Ascalaphus wrote: Giving dex to damage would narrow down the selection of good builds. You have the strength builds that now look worse by comparison - why choose between damage and defense when you can have both? And you also have the third group - casters that didn't have a ton of dex and also weren't in the high strength group. If the dex users start doing more damage, what are they getting? I was worried about that. Why the first thing I did was ask the players with Strength characters secretly and individually what they thought of the prospect of me implementing Dex to Damage. Each of them said they didn't mind and liked the idea.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Feat-locking it is a good suggestion, assuming the players are finally wearing one down into foregoing well-crafted RAW. Another option worth considering is to introduce item effects. Below I'll explore some options for introducing dex-to-dmg, through specific magic weapons, runes, and consumable items. For instance, one could introduce a Specific Magic Weapon like this:
Kris of Player indulgence:
When rolling for damage from a strike with this +1 kris, replace the wielder's Dexterity modifier for the Strength modfier that is normally added.
Throwing this Kris into the game would a signficantly smaller commitment than homebrewingthe core game mechanics, and thus less disruptive. It's much harder for a strength-build (or mental stat-build) to begrudge the dexterious one unique item, but the complaining players would get what the request
Since you're dealing with several players, you could make this a unique set of weapons - three different kris[ses?] forged for some lore something something swords something people. Each kris has a unique effect - i.e. one adds the dex-mod as fire damage, one as cold and one as lightning or what have you. Every player will be able to hunt down a weapon for their character, but each weapon is markedly unique to the setting.
That it's a specific item means you get to lock the effect to less disruptive weapons. The kris has agile, finesse and deadly which are thematically appropriate. It also has a d4 damage-die, which partially offsets the +dex damage on a regular success compared to a d6 weapon - +4 dex +0 str deals as much damage with the Kris as +4 dex +3 str deals with a d6 weapon. Less than with a d8 weapon.
The interactions with item-rules is also beneficial. It effectively replaces property runes. That's a very payable cost until Flaming et al. becomes available.
Which happens to be an excellent point to survey which direction you want to take things. I'm somewhat sympathetic to 5e-players being upset with the lack of fin-Dex dmg when that's half their damage at low levels. But strength is an ever-diminishing proportion of damage dealt, while strength as a tertiary stat keeps catching up to Dexterity.
At higher levels, when characters are stacking potency runes, property runes and build features, it might be time to be a bit sterner about player expectations adjusting to the core framework of the game instead of the opposite. Giving them a specific magic item accomodates the players' request when they're least undeserving, without giving up much control on how it impacts the game. If you want players to have a bit more agency, though, you could introduce the:
Lesser Rune of Fatal Elegance - a level 3 weapon rune that can only be etched on finesse weapons:
Weapons empowered by this rune do not add the typical Strength attribute modifier to damage rolls. On a successful strike, the weapon deals additional precision damage equal to the average of your Strength and Dexterity modifiers.
This rune has a lot of similar benefits to the Kris. A rune is more exploitable in the sense that players can choose the runed weapon. This version of dex to dmg offsets that, however, by being a softer effect. A pure dex build, which would receive the most bonus damage, also deals the least damage with it - it's effectively the suggested half-dex to damage. You're still incentivized to invest into strength, but the pressure is lessened. There's less of a jump than with the Kris, where a player knowing they'll have access to it might completely neglect their strength and come to regret it once they outgrow the Kris.
Other property runes will eventually out-compete it when the time is ripe - but before level 8, runes are interesting but not as important to damage. If priced correctly, the rune would be a compelling option for dexterity-builds, but not so good one couldn't consider just investing in strength to have access to another rune.
A moderate rune that just adds dexterity to damage, and has some nice critical effect, should be fine to add around level 8. Assuming a +4 (soon +5) to damage, it's slightly ahead of the elemental runes' 1d6, which maintains the partially closed gap to strength builds' expected damage.
Potion of Dangerous Dexterity
Duration 1/10/60 minutes
While the potion is in effect, any succesfull melee strike adds your dexterity to damage. [Secondary effect that scales with potion level, maybe.] [Some downside, if you want to make it Dangerous Dexterity Mutagen, which prevents synergies with existing mutagens]
A consumable that lets you add dexterity to damage from finesse weapons. And non-finesse weapons. And lets the strength-build with decent dex benefit almost as much as you while the secondary-strength Dex-build is still ahead of you. Give them everything they've asked for and more, then see what happens.
Could also be a talisman that's attached to a melee weapon or handwraps, if you want to lessen the strain on action/hand-economy. A talisman activated for free would work well with a duration of 1 round, in addition to the above durations. That might be enough to indulge the fantasy, while obviously being less disruptive than doing the extra damage every round of the combat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Homebrewing the core mechanics can be heavy-handed, even if it's the obvious option when players want the core mechanics changed. Introducing objects that enables the player fantasy has significant benefits.
Especially for something like this, where the rule have good reason for being what they are. After changing the rules, the table might come to better understand why the rules were as they were. But then changing them back is suddenly the cumbersome step. Items are far more plastic - if they're not outgrown or "lost", they might still change as all things in the world do. As players wield the Kris, it might grow stronger as they unlock its powers - or its powers slowly ebbs with use.
This touches on another benefit - items character encounter are part of the story being told. Introducing homebrew to the core mechanics adds additional steps before the players can step into the world. A well-crafted items helps bring the players into the world in addition to supporting the desired playstyle.
Items also have relation between cost and payoff for the players to consider, which gives them agency in how/whether they chose to leverage them. (Feats are similar objects in this respect, and well-crafted feats can also be great for drawing players into the fantasy of their character and the world.)
Although in this case, there already is a cost and payoff - dexterity-builds can easily be close to strength-builds in +strength damage on strikes. They just need to invest in strength as a secondary or tertiary ability. Presumably the don't want to do to make this investment because they want their character to be cool at what dexterity represents in the game while also being cool at a core aspect that Strength represents in the game while also being cool at what some other stat(s) represent in the game. But the game in question is one that forces players to prioritize what they want to be cool at. It's a core design-assumption that this is a good thing. You can't build a copy of the fantasy protagonist with high strength, dexterity and constitution, and also high wisdom, charisma and intelligence - because your posed with meaningful choices to make. While the power-fantasy might seem appealing, I wouldn't encourage taking those choices aways, as Dex-to-dmg does. While the suggested items can hopefully contribute to some creative consideration, they're not recommendations.
Loose aside, but I've no qualms homebrewing Core mechanics. That's what I did in PF1, that's what I've already been doing here. For example I removed Signature Spells and Single Prepared Spell per Spell Slot because me and my players simply never liked it in 1E or 2E.
In the end, this is what I decided to do as far as the rule goes for anyone curious:
The Ruling wrote:
Finesse Changes
Finesse weapons can now apply your Dexterity modifier to both your attack rolls and melee damage rolls. Additionally, the Rogue’s Thief Racket has been modified with a new ability.
The Finesse trait and Rogue’s Thief Racket now read as follows:
Finesse
You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls and damage rolls using this melee weapon.
Thief Racket
You are adept at getting into places where you should not be, and taking what you should not have. You might be a pickpocket working the streets, a cat burglar sneaking into a guarded building, a locksmith, or a security consultant.
When a fight breaks out, you are adept at separating your opponent from their possessions. You can use Thievery instead of Athletics when you attempt a Disarm. When you use Thievery to attempt to Disarm and succeed, the target is off-guard against the next attack you make before the end of your turn. If you have the Sly Disarm feat, the target is instead off-guard against attacks you make until the end of your next turn.
You are trained in Thievery and one of the following skills of your choice: Acrobatics, Computers, Crafting, or Deception.
Intimidation Changes
You can use your Strength modifier instead of your Charisma modifier on Intimidation checks.
If it does not work, we'll see. So far all of my players, both the strength and dex ones are content with it. Only Strength gets a bonus to Thrown Weapons, and now Strength can use Strength to Intimidate.
Fortunately/Unfortunately I'm not really interested in resorting to a feat/gold tax. It just feels too GM versus player to me. Every time I see a GM try to do it, it just results in angry players when it's an issue that players feel should just be default.
I also agree with Yurip that Thief Rogue feels too good, whether or not it actually is. In my experience, whenever I get a rogue, it's either Ruffian or Thief and all the others have in fact been ignored because of the "It's just not better than Thief" excuse is one I've heard, even when the character concept is not necessarily a Thief. No amount of convincing the player otherwise will get them to change to Scoundrel or Mastermind.
As for Ascalphus, I decided not to boost Spellcasters further as they had a range advantage as is, and the ruling does not touch ranged attacks. They were, however, still elevated in the fact that all spontaneous casters no longer have signature spells and can freely upcast any spell they know, and that all prepared spellcasters now have a "Prepared Spell Repertoire" from which they can freely cast and upcast (though this is leaving the realm of the subject at hand). I'm still considering the Bulwark rule, but I don't think I'll add it unless the Strength players feel Intimidation is not enough, but current indications is they think it's already more than enough. I think it's an awesome rule, but I feel both would tip Strength a bit too far ahead in an accidental overcompensation.
As another honest aside and an honest consideration for anyone else contemplating what to do about Dex to Damage. Removing Dex to Damage altogether would also be a valid move. If you ask me, Dex to Damage does not feel appropriate for a Thief. If anything, a Duelist like a Scoundrel Rogue or a Swashbuckler or an Assassin archetype thematically deserves it more. Giving the Thief an ability to either steal from or disarm an opponent is certainly more thematically appropriate than Dex to Damage. I feel subconsciously much of the problem is it is tucked in a subclass that it doesn't even feel is the ideal fit for the ability. And removing the ability altogether would mitigate many complaints about it on the other side of simply making it universal
Honestly love that idea of using thievery for Disarm actions. I may suggest that to my group as an optional skill feat or something, not sure.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tridus wrote: Like, is the game actually made better by telling Flurry Rangers/Monks (who don't plan to do Trips/Grabs)/Rogues/etc that they can all just ignore STR completely with little downside? Not really, no. Being worse at Trips and Grabs is a downside. Morever, you're neglecting the fact that non-agile finesse weapons are generally worse than other non-agile weapons: the rapier is worse than the pick; the dueling sword is worse than the falcata. Dex builds would still do less damage; just not as much.
Tridus wrote: Right now they're just being forced into having to actually prioritize what's more important to them and they'd rather just get benefits without that choice instead. Ascalaphus wrote: Giving dex to damage would narrow down the selection of good builds. Both of your are saying that Dex to damage would reduce interesting build choices, when in fact it would increase them. It would give Dexterity-based classes more latitude in choosing between Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma for their fourth stat to increase (after the necessary Dex, Con, and Wis), and make Dexterity-based melee builds a viable (though far from dominant) option for fighters.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ludovicus wrote:
Being worse at Trips and Grabs is a downside. Morever, you're neglecting the fact that non-agile finesse weapons are generally worse than other non-agile weapons: the rapier is worse than the pick; the dueling sword is worse than the falcata. Dex builds would still do less damage; just not as much.
But they're quite good at dirty tricks. And you are getting something out of those agile weapons: you don't need to invest in STR.
Quote: Both of your are saying that Dex to damage would reduce interesting build choices, when in fact it would increase them. It would give Dexterity-based classes more latitude in choosing between Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma for their fourth stat to increase (after the necessary Dex, Con, and Wis), and make Dexterity-based melee builds a viable (though far from dominant) option for fighters. Except not really. DEX based melee builds are already viable. The idea that Rogues need damage help is... something. Swashbuckler just got major buffs. This isn't really a problem now, its going to buff things that largely don't need buffs.
You're also operating on the assumption that people will simply always max DEX/CON/WIS and then just have a 4th choice of things that don't matter, when if you have more options that do matter you can't just automatically do that.
You're not really making choices if you have no decisions or tradeoffs to make. All this is doing is taking what is already a very good ability score and making it stronger by making it do something that a weaker ability score currently does, thus making it easy for these players to simply not bother with STR at all. That's not expanding choices.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Coming from 5e, where dex fighters and dex paladins can switch hit, roll a bunch of skills, AND still be defensively/offensively optimal, I'm not a big fan of dex to damage. You just gotta understand that choosing dex means your damage potential is capped by your ability to pull out a comparatively accurate bow. That seems fair and just. A swiss army knife shouldn't hit like a machete. And if you don't use backup ranged on your dex martials....well I think you're missing half the appeal and purposely leaving half your power on the table. Just my preference
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would bare in mind that Dirty Trick is new, and I adopted the rule change before I've even heard Dirty Trick was a thing. Excellent that it is though. It even gave me a much better idea for an alternate thief racket. Also, my players are loving Dex to Damage so far, no problems yet (Think it helps that NPCs are getting the same buffs, so agile NPCs are a bit more threatening, but the player's knew that when I voiced that was a condition of allowing it, they haven't had any complaints thus far on that front, but time will tell). Anyway, enjoy the racket! Intention is to either use in a game where Dex to Damage is default, or in a game where Dex to Damage is turned off completely.
Thief Racket
You are adept at getting into places where you should not be, and taking what you should not have. You might be a pickpocket working the streets, a cat burglar sneaking into a guarded building, a security consultant who gives advice to deter theft, or a locksmith that works with the local guard.
When a fight breaks out, you deftly confound your foes with sly tactics. You gain the Dirty Trick skill feat. When you successfully perform a Dirty Trick, the target is off-guard against the next attack you make before the end of your turn. On a critical success, the target is off-guard against attacks that you attempt against it until it uses an Interact action to end the effects of the Dirty Trick.
You are trained in Thievery and one of the following skills of your choice: Acrobatics, Athletics, Computers, or Deception.
So on the topic of the Threadmaker..
Lady Wrath wrote: So would it be too powerful to allow all characters to get Dex to damage on finesse weapons and what ability should thief rogues get to replace it? How stable do you people think this Dex Archetype build would be? It adds to AC over the Strength options but gets a slightly lower damage and limits the Maneuver options, whilst also losing out on a Monk Feat. As the levels grow to 5 and beyond, the difference between the Strength builds & Dexterity build seems to fade with how costly attribute bonuses gets.
Feather Monk
Any thoughts?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TorresGlitch wrote: How stable do you think this Dex Archetype build would be? It adds to AC over the Strength options but gets a slightly lower damage and limits the Maneuver options, whilst also losing out on a Monk Feat. As the levels grow to 5 and beyond, the difference between the Strength builds & Dexterity build seems to fade with how costly attribute bonuses gets.
Feather Monk
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Any thoughts?
It's straight up a significant powercreep over everything the monk has.
The d4 is irrelevant since it gets replaced by Stances.
You give them a significantly upgraded version of a pre-existing level 4 feat for free (Flurry of Maneuvers).
You give them the equivalent of 16-18 strength with no downside.
At that point, why even have Str monks? For +1 damage at the expense of everything else?
shroudb wrote: TorresGlitch wrote: How stable do you think this Dex Archetype build would be? It adds to AC over the Strength options but gets a slightly lower damage and limits the Maneuver options, whilst also losing out on a Monk Feat. As the levels grow to 5 and beyond, the difference between the Strength builds & Dexterity build seems to fade with how costly attribute bonuses gets.
Feather Monk
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Any thoughts?
It's straight up a significant powercreep over everything the monk has.
The d4 is irrelevant since it gets replaced by Stances.
You give them a significantly upgraded version of a pre-existing level 4 feat for free (Flurry of Maneuvers).
You give them the equivalent of 16-18 strength with no downside.
At that point, why even have Str monks? For +1 damage at the expense of everything else? You make good points, my idea is cracking apart.
The Flurry of Maneuvers makes for a good baseline, I'd delay the option in my post to optional lvl 4 feat.
Naming it 'Feathered Maneuvers' (lvl4 Skill Feat): Allowing the maneuvers Trip & Grapple as part of a Flurry of Blows.
Secondly, replacing the lvl 2 Skill Feat for a fixed skill feat: 'Athletic Finesse Maneuvers': Allowing you to add 4/5th your Dexterity Modifier inplace of Strength on Trip, Grapple, Disarm & Sunder Maneuvers.
As a Strength Monk, you would have that +1 to Dmg, can use the Athletic skill to reposition and Shove etc foes, you can carry more stuff & have that +1 Monk Feat, will have +2 skill feats, but will have about 2 less AC and weaker Dex skills.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
