PFS2 - DEX to Damage


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Is there any way to get DEX to Damage?

I know we can get DEX to Hit, but I haven't seen a way to get DEX to damage yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krell44 wrote:

Is there any way to get DEX to Damage?

I know we can get DEX to Hit, but I haven't seen a way to get DEX to damage yet.

Only way to do so in the game right now is to be a Rogue with the Thief racket.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way, but I'm cool with Dex to Damage coming into very specific builds (like Thief racket rogues), but I would hate for it to just be a standard thing that people can get. It was frustrating enough to hear from people "...and that's why you can just dump everything into Dex and the build works!" back in PF1.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
Krell44 wrote:

Is there any way to get DEX to Damage?

I know we can get DEX to Hit, but I haven't seen a way to get DEX to damage yet.

Only way to do so in the game right now is to be a Rogue with the Thief racket.

And I would rate this fairly unlikely to change.

Dex to damage is a much smaller benefit in 2e than it was in 1e, but it also opens the doors to some serious design issues if it becomes widely available.

I doubt there will ever be an easier way to get it that "be a specific class with a specific path", although I could see some other classes getting it. In particular, though, I don't think it will ever be available at the archetype, multiclass, or especially general feat level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Strength is easier to get for dexterity builds than it was in PF1 and your ability score represents less of your total damage than it did in PF1. DEX 18 / STR 14 Scoundrel Rogues work well enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very happy they did not make the mistake of Dex to damage being any kind of default, as 5th Ed did.


MaxAstro wrote:
Dex to damage is a much smaller benefit in 2e

Could I ask you to expand on what you mean?

Liberty's Edge

Zapp wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Dex to damage is a much smaller benefit in 2e
Could I ask you to expand on what you mean?

I can.

Your total Dex is lower (+7 bonus max, and that only at 20th level) and bonuses from other sources are generally higher (especially at higher levels), so it's a smaller portion of the damage, especially since raising Strength is easier, allowing you to add that and have it only be a few points less. And a few points matter on to-hit, but a lot less on damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

CHA is pretty nice this time around, a lot of good skills are covered by it, and now that anyone can pick any skills. A Sorcerer with Intimidate and Diplomacy is really useful.


Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.

Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Charisma lets you qualify for several decent Multiclass Dedications, and if you're really worried about investing into more worn items then there's the incredible investiture feat that requires 16 Charisma.

I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.
Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.

Cha is better than Int as it stands now, with the amount of "trained skills" you get already, and Int only giving trained skills, it's much less important that having at will -1 to everything debuffs as well as being competent in gather information and etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.
Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.
Cha is better than Int as it stands now, with the amount of "trained skills" you get already, and Int only giving trained skills, it's much less important that having at will -1 to everything debuffs as well as being competent in gather information and etc.

I think gaining a number of trained skills equal to your Int modifier is pretty juicy; if only 5th Ed went this route.


Colonel Kurtz wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.
Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.
Cha is better than Int as it stands now, with the amount of "trained skills" you get already, and Int only giving trained skills, it's much less important that having at will -1 to everything debuffs as well as being competent in gather information and etc.
I think gaining a number of trained skills equal to your Int modifier is pretty juicy; if only 5th Ed went this route.

not really.

you alredy get enough from class+background+MC either way.

there really isn't that big of a deal.

in 5th you have like 3 skills/tools lol in pf2 you have anything between 6-8, there's no comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

Charisma lets you qualify for several decent Multiclass Dedications, and if you're really worried about investing into more worn items then there's the incredible investiture feat that requires 16 Charisma.

I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.

I don't agree, I think this was the time to make Cha matter to everyone; like maybe some sort of luck replacement score or something. Maybe another year would have helped.

I think of Kirk, Cha is his main schtick, gets him out of a lot of jams.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.

Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.

And while I might start with 10 charisma, the final build usually end with at least 18 charisma.


Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.

As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.
As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).

yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.
As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).

yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

*Looks at CRAFT*


shroudb wrote:


yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

The most important kind of knowledge is already farmed out to a number of skills: creature identification skills (table 10-7)


Zapp wrote:
shroudb wrote:


yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

The most important kind of knowledge is already farmed out to a number of skills: creature identification skills (table 10-7)

yes, the key word here is NUMBER of skills. like 4-5 of them.

not 1.

p.s.:
yes, i do find the Craft (everything) obnoxious as well, but at least it's not AS important as "all social skills simultaneously" and there are skill feats that are specific enough since a few require specialty crafting.


shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.
As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).

yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

Acrobatics and Athletics are rather redundant, now that you mention it. Don't know many weak acrobats.

To be honest, Skills have always seemed slightly tacked onto the D&D system, to me, ever since non-weapon proficiencies.

Skill systems seem to work better when they are based on that (CoC, etc), and actually using the skill advances said skill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Gloom wrote:

Charisma lets you qualify for several decent Multiclass Dedications, and if you're really worried about investing into more worn items then there's the incredible investiture feat that requires 16 Charisma.

I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.

I don't agree, I think this was the time to make Cha matter to everyone; like maybe some sort of luck replacement score or something. Maybe another year would have helped.

I think of Kirk, Cha is his main schtick, gets him out of a lot of jams.

Eh....

It's already possible to make a Charisma focused character that can do things similar to Kirk?

I'll echo the point that several others have here. IMO Charisma can be more important than Intelligence for a lot of characters.

Intelligence does impact your number of trained skills and languages at the start of the game, but the impact isn't as much as you might think. 2-3 trained skills is the equivalent of around a single feat.

The Ancestry Lore feat gives a character 2 skills and a Lore Skill, Humans get plenty of trained skills, you can get a single feat that lets you use your level to untrained skill checks... and as a Human you can get the Ancestry Feat that does that AND lets you use the trained actions.

All in all Charisma isn't in as bad of a place as you're trying to frame it in.


Gloom wrote:
All in all Charisma isn't in as bad of a place as you're trying to frame it in.

Yikes, nothing to do with using the trendy "framing" word. It is what it is; I actually thought they could have been onto something with Resonance, some good design space, like the Occultist being the master of Resonance, and using Int instead of Cha.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Gloom wrote:
All in all Charisma isn't in as bad of a place as you're trying to frame it in.
Yikes, nothing to do with using the trendy "framing" word. It is what it is; I actually thought they could have been onto something with Resonance, some good design space, like the Occultist being the master of Resonance, and using Int instead of Cha.

having playtested Resonance, it was a horrible mechanic.

That aside, They did buff Cha by making its skills quite better and much more accessible.

Now there isn't a single character, be it a combat focused or not, that doesn't benefit from at least one Cha based skill by quite a bit.


shroudb wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Gloom wrote:
All in all Charisma isn't in as bad of a place as you're trying to frame it in.
Yikes, nothing to do with using the trendy "framing" word. It is what it is; I actually thought they could have been onto something with Resonance, some good design space, like the Occultist being the master of Resonance, and using Int instead of Cha.
having playtested Resonance, it was a horrible mechanic.

Of course, better implementation was in order.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
having playtested Resonance, it was a horrible mechanic.

You are far, far, far too kind to just call it "horrible".

Colonel Kurtz wrote:
I actually thought they could have been onto something with Resonance

Could they? sure. Should they? Noooooooooooooo! If I only got to pick one thing that changed and I had to pick the worst thing in the playtest to go, Resonance would have been my top 3 choices. :P

PS/EDIT: sorry for the misquote on the second quote shroudb, fixed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I feel DEX has in PF2 the location that STR had in PF1. Good if it fits your specialty but far from universally useful.


Keep bringing back the classics!


shroudb wrote:
Zapp wrote:
shroudb wrote:


yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?

The most important kind of knowledge is already farmed out to a number of skills: creature identification skills (table 10-7)

yes, the key word here is NUMBER of skills. like 4-5 of them.

not 1.

Yes, that's what I wrote?

Not all knowledge skills are Int-based Lore skills.


Zapp wrote:
Not all knowledge skills are Int-based Lore skills.

But int lets you have enough trained skills to pick them all up. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I feel DEX has in PF2 the location that STR had in PF1. Good if it fits your specialty but far from universally useful.

I think the biggest change here is that dexterity doesn't get any sort of AC advantage over strength - you never get to the point where you can fit into Celestial Armor and your AC explodes. Hell, a max dex/min strength character doesn't even have much of an advantage on reflex saves over a min dex/max strength character because of the Bulwark property on Full Plate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really disappointed more int doesn't allow you more increases to expert or greater levels of proficiency in skills.

I do feel a bit pigeonholed at times, but for having access to all skills the Untrained Improvisation feat gets you a bonus as though you we're trained (you add your level, eventually), but you can't perform the trained only functions of skills.

Still, I think it's pretty useful.

Sovereign Court

Yeah it feels a bit like high Int gets you in on the ground floor on a couple of skills, but that's where you're staying. Sure, you get your level as a bonus unlike Untrained, but to really keep up you need to at least progress a bit in the direction of Expert+


Ascalaphus wrote:
Yeah it feels a bit like high Int gets you in on the ground floor on a couple of skills, but that's where you're staying. Sure, you get your level as a bonus unlike Untrained, but to really keep up you need to at least progress a bit in the direction of Expert+

Getting a skill increase every level helps. ;)


I wonder if the forthcoming Swashbuckler will get dex to damage. I kind of hope they still have an incentive to boost strength, since for all that chandelier swinging and climbing you're going to want at least a Str of 14.


graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Yeah it feels a bit like high Int gets you in on the ground floor on a couple of skills, but that's where you're staying. Sure, you get your level as a bonus unlike Untrained, but to really keep up you need to at least progress a bit in the direction of Expert+
Getting a skill increase every level helps. ;)

Currently only the rogue gets that though.

And I understand they want to make the rogue best at skills.

But it mostly feels like the rogue has about the right amount of skills and everyone else has too few.

Or at the very least certain classes, like Bard, feel like they should have more skill increases than they do. Currently every class (I think) except Rogue ends up with being able to become Legendary in 3 skills.

I also feel like having more skills than you can increase the proficiency levels too isn't really worthwhile, since most of the "good" uses of skills require skill feats, which either require higher levels of proficiency to take, or have effects which only become good at higher levels of proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:
I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.

I mean you say that, but every other stat in the game gives some sort of passive benefit, except Cha.

Personally I would have moved Will to Cha when Wisdom got Initiative, since covering initiative, perception and will saves seems a little overloaded to me (and wisdom was already amazing in 1e).

I get wanting to nerf dex from 1e but buffing wisdom and leaving cha where it is feels weird.

Claxon wrote:
Currently only the rogue gets that though.

This is one thing I kinda hate. Classes like Bard and Ranger went from being high skill classes to just baseline and that feels pretty jarring.

I mean it's nice not having the Fighter et al. just be terrible at skills for no good reason, but I'm not sure I like high-skill being the sole purview of rogues either. Investigators will probably get good skill increases too but that doesn't really change the point.


Claxon wrote:
Or at the very least certain classes, like Bard, feel like they should have more skill increases than they do. Currently every class (I think) except Rogue ends up with being able to become Legendary in 3 skills.

It'd be nice to see a bit more variety in skill increases other than normal and twice that.

Claxon wrote:
I also feel like having more skills than you can increase the proficiency levels too isn't really worthwhile.

Depends on the skill and the DC's you'll need to make really. Just reliably being able use the Aid action can be worthwhile without increased proficiency.


graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:


Claxon wrote:
I also feel like having more skills than you can increase the proficiency levels too isn't really worthwhile.
Depends on the skill and the DC's you'll need to make really. Just reliably being able use the Aid action can be worthwhile without increased proficiency.

still, having a feat being like +4 to a stat doesn't paint the stat in any impressive light.

especially since it also lost it's "uniqueness" in having all the knowledge skills.

the least they could have done is make it so that all Recall Knowledge checks used either the skill stat or Int, whatever you choose.


shroudb wrote:
still, having a feat being like +4 to a stat doesn't paint the stat in any impressive light.

I'm not getting what you mean by this. What feat are you talking about?


graystone wrote:
shroudb wrote:
still, having a feat being like +4 to a stat doesn't paint the stat in any impressive light.
I'm not getting what you mean by this. What feat are you talking about?

Natural skill in this case: +2 trained skills of your choice. +4 to Int just adds 2 trained skills as well.

All archetype feats as well, aside from their actual MC benefits, offer 1-2 trained skills, a general feat adds 1 more trained skill, and etc.


Squiggit wrote:
Gloom wrote:
I'm glad they didn't make it an innate function of the stat because then it would feel very clunky and almost require you to invest into it where almost no other stat feels like you actually NEED to invest into it.

I mean you say that, but every other stat in the game gives some sort of passive benefit, except Cha.

Personally I would have moved Will to Cha when Wisdom got Initiative, since covering initiative, perception and will saves seems a little overloaded to me (and wisdom was already amazing in 1e).

I get wanting to nerf dex from 1e but buffing wisdom and leaving cha where it is feels weird.

Bingo; I know some houserule the choice of Wis or Cha for Will saves/defence (ala 4th Ed) in 3rd Ed/PF1.


shroudb wrote:
graystone wrote:
shroudb wrote:
still, having a feat being like +4 to a stat doesn't paint the stat in any impressive light.
I'm not getting what you mean by this. What feat are you talking about?

Natural skill in this case: +2 trained skills of your choice. +4 to Int just adds 2 trained skills as well.

All archetype feats as well, aside from their actual MC benefits, offer 1-2 trained skills, a general feat adds 1 more trained skill, and etc.

*shrug* Looking at it like that, it's like a free feat or 2 and that's fine by me as it stacks with those other options: it lets me get all the skills trained at 2nd with my rogue multiclassing into wizard at 2nd. That and arcana, crafting, lore, occultism and society are int based: those can literally allow rolls on every recall check, Subsisting, Decipher Writing, Forgery, Identify Magic/Learn a Spell for 2 types of magic, Earn Income, repair, and all crafts. I don't feel int got cheated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

This is one thing I kinda hate. Classes like Bard and Ranger went from being high skill classes to just baseline and that feels pretty jarring.

I mean it's nice not having the Fighter et al. just be terrible at skills for no good reason, but I'm not sure I like high-skill being the sole purview of rogues either. Investigators will probably get good skill increases too but that doesn't really change the point.

I can't speak for Ranger, but the Bard still has great skilling options. Bardic Lore, for instance, lets you do Recall Knowledge checks on literally every single subject, and can hit Expert, so while you might be -4 compared to someone with Legendary in a Lore or say Arcana, you can literally recall from all subjects.

Versatile Performance meanwhile lets you use Performance to Make an Impression, Demoralize, and Impersonate instead of Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Deception (and lets you get the skill feats from those skills with Performance's proficiency).

Taking Eclectic Skill lets you add your level to all untrained skills and lets you do any skill check that requires you to be trained. Bump that up to any skill check that requires you be Expert when you hit Legendary Occultism (that's also when Bardic Lore bumps up to Expert).

Hell, Inspire Competence lets you use your Performance to Aid your ally on a skill check, and bumps up any failures to successes. Legendary in Performance? Auto Critical Success.

The Bard definitely still has a role as a skilling character, it's just not set up the same as the Rogue.


graystone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Or at the very least certain classes, like Bard, feel like they should have more skill increases than they do. Currently every class (I think) except Rogue ends up with being able to become Legendary in 3 skills.

It'd be nice to see a bit more variety in skill increases other than normal and twice that.

Claxon wrote:
I also feel like having more skills than you can increase the proficiency levels too isn't really worthwhile.
Depends on the skill and the DC's you'll need to make really. Just reliably being able use the Aid action can be worthwhile without increased proficiency.

That's what Untrained Improvisation is for. I think you can Aid even your not trained in the skill, and Untrained Improvisation gives you effectively free "trained" in all your skills, except for uses that are restricted to trained only.


Mewzard wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

This is one thing I kinda hate. Classes like Bard and Ranger went from being high skill classes to just baseline and that feels pretty jarring.

I mean it's nice not having the Fighter et al. just be terrible at skills for no good reason, but I'm not sure I like high-skill being the sole purview of rogues either. Investigators will probably get good skill increases too but that doesn't really change the point.

I can't speak for Ranger, but the Bard still has great skilling options. Bardic Lore, for instance, lets you do Recall Knowledge checks on literally every single subject, and can hit Expert, so while you might be -4 compared to someone with Legendary in a Lore or say Arcana, you can literally recall from all subjects.

Versatile Performance meanwhile lets you use Performance to Make an Impression, Demoralize, and Impersonate instead of Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Deception (and lets you get the skill feats from those skills with Performance's proficiency).

Taking Eclectic Skill lets you add your level to all untrained skills and lets you do any skill check that requires you to be trained. Bump that up to any skill check that requires you be Expert when you hit Legendary Occultism (that's also when Bardic Lore bumps up to Expert).

Hell, Inspire Competence lets you use your Performance to Aid your ally on a skill check, and bumps up any failures to successes. Legendary in Performance? Auto Critical Success.

The Bard definitely still has a role as a skilling character, it's just not set up the same as the Rogue.

The bard used to be able to be skilled at a lot of things, not just knowledge checks, through PF1 Versatile Performance. Honestly, recall knowledge checks is one of the least interesting (though admittedly very useful) things to me. I didn't want to make a knowledgeable bard, I wanted a bard who had lot of other skills.

As far as Versatile Performance in PF2, while it sounds good, the things I want to do with Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Deception are a lot more than the things it allows. I want to lie well, I want to use Intimidate to coerce, and use Diplomacy to Make Requests. If it simply allowed you to completely replace all uses of those 3 skills then I'd be happy with it. But I think if you want a diplomatic, intimidating, or deceptive bard your still going to want to take the actual skills.

I built a bard and ran into this very issue. I wanted to be good at performance, diplomacy, and deception. And all of the uses of it, not just some. I don't have enough skill increases to also increase Occult proficiency, so Bardic Lore and Eclectic Skill are useless to me.


One key thing about Versatile Performance is that because of Virtuosotic Performer skill feat and only needing one skill item you're also going to be better than a pure Intimidate/Diplomacy/Deception trained individual. It's worth it just to be the best demoralizer in the game without investing in intimidation or an intimidate skill item.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Questions / PFS2 - DEX to Damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.