| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bringing Dex to Damage back up because I agreed to see what the Swashbuckler looked like before I voiced my thoughts further on this matter. Can't help but notice something: It does not have Dex to Damage... But the Rogue Thief racket does.
So which is it? Is Dex to Damage so overpowered that you can't give it to the other class that begs for it, or is it magically fine for the Rogue? It can't be that the Swash has a source of bonus damage; the rogue has sneak attack. It seems like an elegant solution to do one of four things: either make dex to damage something that applies to all finesse weapons, make it a level 3 general feat, give it to the Swash, or replace it with something else on the Rogue entirely if you want to stick with claims it breaks the game (math has shown it doesn't, and I assume from the fact it's in the game at all that designers at Paizo would agree).
I like the first or second options because they don't hose the other dex-inclined classes like Investigator or Ranger, whereas the third option does. I don't like the fourth option, but I'd take it over limiting it to be class-specific, considering this system is supposed to be very modular and open and limiting this seems weird.
Serious replies only, please. I'm not a power gamer, I'm the GM for my groups a solid 90% of the time it feels like, I'd like more than a single option to present to my players when they say they want a dex-based melee character that wouldn't have an asterisk saying they'd actually be better off going Strength-based.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you assume it's all or nothing?
You're making the claim that either everyone should have it or no one should but, why?
Do you think Swashbucklers are underpowered as written? Do you have math to back that up?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't like Dex-to-Damage thematically and I'm happy to see Dex-Melee being pushed to be viable without it. It can stay on the rogue and only the rogue, ideally.
It's not like it's going to add *that* much damage anymore, and the difference between your strength mod and your dex mod is going to be at most 6 at level 20, whereas you get 6 precise strike dice at level 17 anyway.
The Swashbuckler especially should not be a class who is encouraged to have low strength, all the Eroll Flynn rope swinging stuff is not someone who is wispy should attempt. You don't need to be swole like the Barbarian, but "your fighting is improved by being at least moderately strong" is appropriate for the Swashbuckler.
The Swashbuckler already has their Precise Strike adding additional damage to all their agile or finesse weapon strikes while they have Panache in effect. This shouldn't be dismissed because it's effectively more damage than if they only added dexterity to damage as it's strength + precise damage which will increase as you do. There will be very few instances where you won't have Panache while in combat so you'll most likely always have it ongoing. Plus using the Finishers are just cool conceptually so losing the Panache to use one isn't a big deal.
Dexterity has its uses for AC, Reflex saves, skills and finesse weapons making it overall a good defensive and utility stat. One of the things I enjoy about 2E is that every stat has a defined purpose to warrant their use, and having mechanics where you can pigeonhole everything you need to do into a single stat makes for a rather unhealthy system as it removes any mechanical risk to the game by removing strategic stat distribution. And with the number of Ability Boosts you receive every 5 levels it helps strengthen your character where you'd want to be through natural progression.
Dex to damage should remain an exclusively Thief Rogue mechanic anyway because that's their niche ability. Speaking for myself, I feel like it's the least interesting rogue racket because of it. Honestly, ruffian and scoundrel just seem more interesting both mechanically and conceptually because of their emphasis on other ability scores to do more interesting things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(math has shown it doesn't, and I assume from the fact it's in the game at all that designers at Paizo would agree)
Paizo's been consistently on record saying they want to avoid X-to-Y as much as physically possible. The thief rogue, from all accounts, barely made it in.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Swashbuckler is an 18 DEX / 14 STR character both mechanically and conceptually, and that's fine. If Swashbucklers don't do enough damage with middle-ground strength then we just buff the amount of damage Precise Strike gives.
8 strength swashbucklers felt very strange in PF1, and I'd rather not repeat it. There are so many things this class wants to do that you'd expect above-average strength to accomplish.
|
IIRC the DEX to damage for the Thief was to specifically allow for a low-STR Rogue to be viable.
I was a big fan of DEX to damage in PF1. I made my peace with it only existing for a very special case in PF2.
I guess it could appear again for another low-STR martial, but Rogue is by far the most usual suspect for such a concept.
I am also in the camp of having it remain Thief only. And I don’t even like that
I have said before that I don’t think it makes sense
I can see the argument of allowing low strength rogues so they can apportion the abilities they need for skills and survivability elsewhere (all of the other stats)
This is less required for the swashbuckler
I also agree with the comment about how many Strength 8 swashbucklers there were in 1E. But that comes from min maxing and is something that it would be really good to see gone
I like Thief having Dex-to-Damage as it's the kinda thing the new players I run with often expect to be an option. If they want to play something dexterous that strikes hard I can point them in that direction.
I don't really want it anywhere else though and I think it's reasonable for Swashbuckler to be a 14/16 Str class.
IIRC the DEX to damage for the Thief was to specifically allow for a low-STR Rogue to be viable.
I was a big fan of DEX to damage in PF1. I made my peace with it only existing for a very special case in PF2.
I guess it could appear again for another low-STR martial, but Rogue is by far the most usual suspect for such a concept.
Also to make things like daggers viable on a rogue. Most swashbucklers are using things like rapiers anyway and given their athletic shenanigans it really does not make sense for swashbucklers to be a str dump class anyway.
Well, using DEX to damage instead of (DEX minus any strength malus) to damage was never a good idea for rogues, either.
This was a better design than full Stat replacement: https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Steadfast%20Personality
Nah, it doesn't need it, it isn't hard to take strength as a secondary stat on most finesse builds, it should be something few and far in between.
Some few points here are valid, some I will be answering by literally just quoting bits of my first post back at them because the replies sound like they read only the first sentence they laid eyes on. Concerns on this topic deserve a longer explanation I will not find much time for until the weekend, but it is coming. Wanted to say that now so people know I am going to reply.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, a big difference between PF1 and PF2 is in how stats are generated.
If you were "dex-based" in PF1, you wanted dex to damage because every resource you put into strength *could* have gone to dex instead; whether it's point buy or "gold spent on a belt" or whatever.
Now, stats go up four at a time so being dex-based means "one of those four goes to dex every time" but you still have three more stat ups to put wherever you like. So "more strength" doesn't mean "less dex" it means means "less of int,cha, wis, or con."
Using light armor Wich they are proficient in. 16str and 16 Dex is entirely doable. Or just run 14 str and 18 Dex.
It's a difference between 1 point of damage or 1 point if hit rating Wich is probably more valuable. Or you run with 1 less AC.
The issue is this makes swashbuckler 1 behind in something with no mechanical reasoning.
If I started at level 3 I'd just take medium armor proficiency and run 18 str 14 dex. Since you don't have to use finesse.
Minor but notable I guess.
The issue is this makes swashbuckler 1 behind in something with no mechanical reasoning.
I wouldn’t say no mechanical reasoning, at level one if they keep panache in the reserve, that puts their damage at +4 with the 14 STR which is on par.
And if they consistently get finishers they can edge the damage margin a fair amount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way to look at it is this: Dexterity is the stat for Acrobatics. Strength is the stat for Athletics. Ideally, a thief or swashbuckler should be good at each of those skills. But, IMO, the thief is more focused on acrobatics and the swashbuckler is more focused on athletics.
except its not?
The issue is this makes swashbuckler 1 behind in something with no mechanical reasoning.
I wouldn’t say no mechanical reasoning, at level one if they keep panache in the reserve, that puts their damage at +4 with the 14 STR which is on par.
And if they consistently get finishers they can edge the damage margin a fair amount.
i dont see how that outweighs anything unless you made it meaninglessly easy to gain panache.
i dont see how that outweighs anything unless you made it meaninglessly easy to gain panache.
The issue is this makes swashbuckler 1 behind in something with no mechanical reasoning.
I wouldn’t say no mechanical reasoning, at level one if they keep panache in the reserve, that puts their damage at +4 with the 14 STR which is on par.
And if they consistently get finishers they can edge the damage margin a fair amount.
As a third action it’s pretty simple to get panache with tumble through against most opponents, especially at low level.
It’s not a guarantee, but with 18 Dex Trained against most of the enemies I can see from -1 to 2 the odds are at least above 35% anid against things like Boggart Scour (typical level 1 enemy) you have a 65% chance of success.
And you can certainly tailor your strategy of holding panache until a moment arrives to gain panache.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i dont see how that outweighs anything unless you made it meaninglessly easy to gain panache.
The issue is this makes swashbuckler 1 behind in something with no mechanical reasoning.
I wouldn’t say no mechanical reasoning, at level one if they keep panache in the reserve, that puts their damage at +4 with the 14 STR which is on par.
And if they consistently get finishers they can edge the damage margin a fair amount.
As a third action it’s pretty simple to get panache with tumble through against most opponents, especially at low level.
It’s not a guarantee, but with 18 Dex Trained against most of the enemies I can see from -1 to 2 the odds are at least above 35% anid against things like Boggart Scour (typical level 1 enemy) you have a 65% chance of success.
And you can certainly tailor your strategy of holding panache until a moment arrives to gain panache.
the moment you get to your first skill proficiency buff you have to make a choice. acrobatics or your styles secondary stat, wich should already be 1-4 behind your acrobatics score due to how stats work.
i know 2e is a different game and 65% success rate is largely the most optimal you are ever going to get. But that means 35% of the time you dont gain panache, and are a bad fighter. error on the side of more than that if you didnt focus on making your dex/acrobatics the best it can be.
This is why the best build ive found thus far is just a tumbler unbreakable goblin with +2 to tumble through checks, to actually bump that 65% chance up.
But if you realistically got 2/3 rounds renewal on panache, that’s relatively substantial in its own right as long as you land the finisher.
Now it gets rough if you don’t land your finisher, but tumble behind, feint and intimidate can certainly help on rounds following.
I’m not sure what the amount comes out to, it’s swingy for sure, but I don’t hate that as a concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you realistically got 2/3 rounds renewal on panache, that’s relatively substantial in its own right as long as you land the finisher.
Now it gets rough if you don’t land your finisher, but tumble behind, feint and intimidate can certainly help on rounds following.
I’m not sure what the amount comes out to, it’s swingy for sure, but I don’t hate that as a concept.
if it was a game of consistency with a swingy class, fine, but its a swingy game with a swingier class. so sometimes you just have a bad run and it feels worse than say..a fighter, barbarian, monk or ranger having a series of bad rolls.
I think they need automatic acrobatics skill progression, freeing up you to invest into your styles skill at the same rate.
If they got expert acrobatics at level 2 I wouldn’t hate that, or allow them to choose their style skill (I could see some fencers going deception).
If they got expert acrobatics at level 2 I wouldn’t hate that, or allow them to choose their style skill (I could see some fencers going deception).
i mean their acrobatics scales automatically as if its the first skill you choose to become more proficient in, but its a bonus, you can still invest into another skill at those same levels
this would prevent the issue where there is just little to no reason to use your style panache generation when tumble through is a substantially safer, more repeatable, and easily focused on as well as providing you with better base stats for your role of a melee based martial.
If they got expert acrobatics at level 2 I wouldn’t hate that, or allow them to choose their style skill (I could see some fencers going deception).i mean their acrobatics scales automatically as if its the first skill you choose to become more proficient in, but its a bonus, you can still invest into another skill at those same levels
this would prevent the issue where there is just little to no reason to use your style panache generation when tumble through is a substantially safer, more repeatable, and easily focused on as well as providing you with better base stats for your role of a melee based martial.
The reason would be if you want to apply the Debuff from Demoralize or use Deception to create a diversion to possibly hide or make the target flat footed. Or if you wanted to Trip/Grapple/Shove a target. The actions have uses outside of solely generating panache.
Tumble is good but it doesn't do anything but generate panache unless you have a feat, and in that case it would make Feint less useful. But it also provokes AoO and anything else that triggers on movement on a fail.
If they got expert acrobatics at level 2 I wouldn’t hate that, or allow them to choose their style skill (I could see some fencers going deception).i mean their acrobatics scales automatically as if its the first skill you choose to become more proficient in, but its a bonus, you can still invest into another skill at those same levels
this would prevent the issue where there is just little to no reason to use your style panache generation when tumble through is a substantially safer, more repeatable, and easily focused on as well as providing you with better base stats for your role of a melee based martial.
The reason would be if you want to apply the Debuff from Demoralize or use Deception to create a diversion to possibly hide or make the target flat footed. Or if you wanted to Trip/Grapple/Shove a target. The actions have uses outside of solely generating panache.
Tumble is good but it doesn't do anything but generate panache unless you have a feat, and in that case it would make Feint less useful. But it also provokes AoO and anything else that triggers on movement on a fail.
Those issues are easier to overcome with tumble than the other style skills
Tumble is good but it doesn't do anything but generate panache unless you have a feat, and in that case it would make Feint less useful. But it also provokes AoO and anything else that triggers on movement on a fail.
And in the case of Feint being less useful, that's only if they don't pair Tumble Behind with the Feint feat that allows applying a different penalty (-2 to attacks), which when combined is quite good (I built a level 2 Swashbuckler with this and plan to use it during the next or so of the campaign I'm running currently).
Given that AoO's and reactions that target movement are going to be on less than 50% of enemies, I wouldn't call that necessarily an issue.