| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've always thought it was a mistake that Dex to Damage options weren't constructed like the feat Steadfast Personality, which used the format "Add your Charisma modifier instead of your Wisdom bonus on Will saves against mind-affecting effects. If you have a Wisdom penalty, you must apply both your Wisdom penalty and your Charisma modifier."
Dump stats are a choice, and increase character build variety. PAINLESS dump stats, though, take variety away again, and aren't any good for the system.
Minmaxing isn't "badwrongfun" that no one should be allowed to do. Finding ways to combine options and make effective characters is one major way that people enjoy these games. However, if there is a clear answer to "what is the best way to make this character?" instead of a number of choices with real tradeoffs to consider, it is absolutely a failure of the system, and also takes depth out of the metagame of minmaxing.
By that reasoning all Rogue Rackets are "punitive" by restricting weapons that work with sneak attack and so are different spell lists!I mean, what if I were to make the statement "every Wizard you ever played had green eyes"? The two have nothing to do with each other and it's complete nonsense to try and manufacture a causal connection. And yet, "skills guy" somehow automatically equates to "uses daggers, shortswords, and precious little else"?
Screw that noise.
Every single class is then "punitive" by not being completely open to every option, which brings up why play a class based game at all then.
I really wouldn't care what color my eyes are. In 25+ years of gaming I can say it's never come up or mattered nor have I ever cared.
In a game with classes I expect classes to be restricted to/based around certain options that the class excels at. The combination of skills and dagger/finesse weapons is a common trope, so them being combined in the same class makes sense.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care that it's a small difference and wouldn't be unbalancing; I care that min-maxers don't gravitate towards 8 Str/18 Dex builds.With a different damage formula weighted towards weapon dice and the glut of level increases to stats, we're in a very different situation than PF1. With the difference being maybe +4 damage at 1st [and most likely going down as you level] and that many lost in using a finesse/agile weapon [lower die], it seems like a lot of worry over nothing. Static bonuses are just lower and less important in PF2.I definitely like the design of Dex-to-damage being a special thing that only certain rogues can do, and I hope that doesn't change.
Dex-to-damage became a plague in late 1e because it was almost always optimal, and I definitely don't want to see that return.
It's this kind of design discussion we see here on the messageboards that underly a lot of the deeper and trickier components of designing an overall system: you have to look past individual characters and into what the system is incentivizing and what character concepts are being eliminated (or heavily penalized). Both of you are right in your overall points: it probably wouldn't be unbalancing for an individual character to get a few more damage per Strike, or a few less, no matter where that came from. So on an individual character level, they're unlikely to disrupt the game they're in. But the true cost, in a system where extra Strike damage is Strength's biggest cherry, is not in whether you're hugely unbalancing the character with 10 Str/24 Dex vs other characters but whether you've effectively eliminated the interesting choice between playing a character who raises both Strength and Dex vs just Dex, leaving you with a situation where Dex-based characters who want some Strength for their concept are significantly penalized for doing so by way of other ability scores the 10 Strength character is raising (this chilling effect on character variety isn't unique to that particular decision; imagine also a situation where Wisdom could determine your number of trained skills if you wanted, or where Consitution could be used to determine melee attack damage, etc).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that reasoning all Rogue Rackets are "punitive" by restricting weapons that work with sneak attack and so are different spell lists!I mean, what if I were to make the statement "every Wizard you ever played had green eyes"? The two have nothing to do with each other and it's complete nonsense to try and manufacture a causal connection. And yet, "skills guy" somehow automatically equates to "uses daggers, shortswords, and precious little else"?
Screw that noise.
Every single class is then "punitive" by not being completely open to every option, which brings up why play a class based game at all then.
I really wouldn't care what color my eyes are. In 25+ years of gaming I can say it's never come up or mattered nor have I ever cared.
In a game with classes I expect classes to be restricted to/based around certain options that the class excels at. The combination of skills and dagger/finesse weapons is a common trope, so them being combined in the same class makes sense.
No, it's one thing to have a game able to express a common trope. It's another thing entirely to add in: "at the expense of other tropes that are only NOT enabled because you went out of your way to disallow them".
In P1E, Rogues start put proficient in a specific list of "commonly Rogue-y" weapons, but can sneak attack with anything under the sun.
Common tropes enabled: check
Uncommon tropes not disallowed: also check
No one's arguing against the first, it's just the second that never needed to spring out of the unholy depths from whence it came.
But the true cost, in a system where extra Strike damage is Strength's biggest cherry, is not in whether you're hugely unbalancing the character with 10 Str/24 Dex vs other characters but whether you've effectively eliminated the interesting choice between playing a character who raises both Strength and Dex vs just Dex, leaving you with a situation where Dex-based characters who want some Strength for their concept are significantly penalized for doing so by way of other ability scores the 10 Strength character is raising (this chilling effect on character variety isn't unique to that particular decision; imagine also a situation where Wisdom could determine your number of trained skills if you wanted, or where Consitution could be used to determine melee attack damage, etc).
IMO, the fact that str has other uses is enough to encourage variety. Escape, swim, climb, jump, ect are things that are common enough that tanking str and never raising it a bad thing especially if you're using it untrained. It'd suck if you're 8 str, 24 dex dude dies in a puddle because they can't swim or climb out... Then there's bulk... IMO, min/maxing dex in no way necessitates ignoring str [you have 3 other raises]. Now if damage was the only thing str did, it'd be different.
I feel like if "Dex to damage- ignore strength" becomes commonplace, the thing I, as a GM, would need to do to make that manageable is "be extremely strict RE encumbrance" which is not a thing I really want to do.
I feel like if "Dex to damage- ignore strength" becomes commonplace, the thing I, as a GM, would need to do to make that manageable is "be extremely strict RE encumbrance" which is not a thing I really want to do.
Don't str based checks come up?
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of those checks can be avoided and potentially become more avoidable. On your list, the most difficult to avoid, Escape, can be performed with Dexterity as well as Strength (Acrobatics). Climb and Jump can both be bypassed by flying (which also uses Acrobatics when necessary), and swimming is campaign dependent and usually doesn't ask for particularly difficult checks, such that trained with 10 Strength can handle a lot of swimming tasks. Compared to giving you a small but noticeable boost in your overall damage, that damage boost is going to be more directly relevant to your character in a wider variety of situations, giving the damage boost a fair amount of the overall weight in the cost/benefit comparison.
If you don't like min-maxers don't play with them.I don't care that it's a small difference and wouldn't be unbalancing; I care that min-maxers don't gravitate towards 8 Str/18 Dex builds.With a different damage formula weighted towards weapon dice and the glut of level increases to stats, we're in a very different situation than PF1. With the difference being maybe +4 damage at 1st [and most likely going down as you level] and that many lost in using a finesse/agile weapon [lower die], it seems like a lot of worry over nothing. Static bonuses are just lower and less important in PF2.I definitely like the design of Dex-to-damage being a special thing that only certain rogues can do, and I hope that doesn't change.
Dex-to-damage became a plague in late 1e because it was almost always optimal, and I definitely don't want to see that return.
Also if its a small difference and wouldn't be unbalancing then it is not unbalancing to deny Dex to damage. If 3 or 4 damage is not a big deal to have, then it is not a big deal to go without.
It works both ways. I think Dex to damage should be heavily restricted for all the reasons stated, it almost completely negates the importance of strength as an attribute and that is bad. It become the default choice for every build, saves on having to buy armour, more skills work of dexterity.
Dexterity is already in line for being the most powerful stat in game, it doesn't need more. Also from a purely logical point of view, dex to damage makes no 'real world' sense. You don't hit harder you are better able to control a (lighter) weapon to find an opening in the creatures defences. You are not by virtue hitting harder or targeting an area that will cause more damage to the creature.
We have precision damage to indicate you have hit an area that will cause more damage than a regular hit would.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the true cost, in a system where extra Strike damage is Strength's biggest cherry, is not in whether you're hugely unbalancing the character with 10 Str/24 Dex vs other characters but whether you've effectively eliminated the interesting choice between playing a character who raises both Strength and Dex vs just Dex, leaving you with a situation where Dex-based characters who want some Strength for their concept are significantly penalized for doing so by way of other ability scores the 10 Strength character is raising (this chilling effect on character variety isn't unique to that particular decision; imagine also a situation where Wisdom could determine your number of trained skills if you wanted, or where Consitution could be used to determine melee attack damage, etc).
This is why I really hated the rogue having dex to damage in the playtest, but softened on its implementation in the final CRB. Having only one rogue build get it, and 2 other options that both do interesting other things, but benefit from strength prevented a situation where every rogue was going to be running around with a 10 STR.
The monk, on the other hand, is not really tied to class feature choices as much as feat choices. There really is not a clean way to introduce a dex to damage monk outside of feat, which would probably make all other dex stance options a complete waste of time, and even worse, make it available to other classes through multi-classing, which is exactly what the rogue build avoids.
A lot of those checks can be avoided and potentially become more avoidable.
You can, but that requires you to spend resources to do so: is it worth not spending one of your 4 stat upgrades for a method to avoid it? I think enough would do so to avoid the sameness worries.
PS: escape: myself, things like Clumsy make me wary of putting all my eggs in one basket for that.
Compared to giving you a small but noticeable boost in your overall damage
It's a small boost that usually just gets smaller as you level. Sure you could never touch str but I don't see the benefit it gets you.
I understand you're need to balance things Mark, but with the dynamic PF2 has in place, I don't see the danger of every min/maxer dumping str if dex to damage was easier to get. If it's truly a worry, limit how far the bonus can be different from str: for instance 'use dex for damage. The bonus can only be +2 greater than your str damage bonus [for instance if you have an 8 str and a 20 dex, your damage bonus is +1]' as that'd encouraging closer stats. With no point based system, there isn't a need to 'dump stat' things to boost your main stat so I don't think people wanting dex to damage automatically think 'now I can dump str'. I know I don't. Even if you focus on save stats, str, int and cha are matter of choice and your skills, with no huge returns for them.
PS: You could also make the dex damage precision damage so as to protect the racket's place.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But instead of giving other people dex-to-damage in a limited way, why not do something like the APG playtest Swashbuckler?
The swashbuckler never replaces strength, so increasing your strength is beneficial, unlike in PF1, but with Panache you're going to add scaling flat damage under an easy-to-meet condition.
Isn't it more interesting to do things like this than to make dex-to-damage more common?
For me, the problem I have with dex-to-damage conceptually is that it means "strength is not important for this character" when strength should be relevant to pretty much anybody who's going to be hanging out in stabbing range.
There really is not a clean way to introduce a dex to damage monk outside of feat, which would probably make all other dex stance options a complete waste of time, and even worse, make it available to other classes through multi-classing, which is exactly what the rogue build avoids.
A stance can make it self contained and unable to mix with the other stances. A 1d4 enforced attack with dex to damage for instance would compete with a 1d8 wolf jaw that uses str. I'm not seeing it take over the other options and since unarmed attacks aren't weapons, they are mostly useless to other classes.
But instead of giving other people dex-to-damage in a limited way, why not do something like the APG playtest Swashbuckler?
Sure, if you can invent something new AND interesting that also plays well with the mechanics.
For me, the problem I have with dex-to-damage conceptually is that it means "strength is not important for this character" when strength should be relevant to pretty much anybody who's going to be hanging out in stabbing range.
It doesn't have to: for instance, my suggestion that the bonus can't exceed the str bonus by too far.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's truly a worry, limit how far the bonus can be different from str: for instance 'use dex for damage. The bonus can only be +2 greater than your str damage bonus [for instance if you have an 8 str and a 20 dex, your damage bonus is +1]' as that'd encouraging closer stats.
I actually proposed something like that at one point, but simpler, just basically a feat/class option for a +2 circumstance bonus to damage that finesse characters could pick up that you add on top of Strength (this works out the same as your proposal, more or less, since a finesser will probably never have lower Dex than their Str mod + 2 and you won't end up with higher Str than your Dex mod - 2 unless you lower your accuracy, though some levels like 5-9 you'll match if Str is your secondary, gaining more damage from this proposal). It added some significant complexity though, for what it granted, so we ultimately didn't include it. It's a reasonable idea for a 1st level class feat if you want to add slightly more damage to Dex builds without disincentivizing Strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually proposed something like that at one point, but simpler, just basically a feat/class option for a +2 circumstance bonus to damage that finesse characters could pick up that you add on top of Strength
Cool. I've seen several 16 str, 18 dex characters proposed so that might let someone get +1 damage over a straight 18 str character at first: that's why I proposed a a cap of +2 str or dex.
Thanks for dropping in and letting us know you've thought it over and and the reasoning's behind this. You're one of the reason I've stuck with PF2 so far. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I really hated the rogue having dex to damage in the playtest, but softened on its implementation in the final CRB
I kinda went the opposite way. Conceptually I don't mind Dex to damage but the Thief's implementation frustrates me, simply because it becomes the defacto way to play a Dex rogue.
The Scoundrel flounders a bit by comparison, not only Strength for damage but adding additional incentive to invest in Cha too, all while feeling like it gets a less impactful gimmick than Dex to damage.
Part of it might be a more general issue with the way PF2 does stats. Getting four increases per level kinda nudges players subconsciously into investing in their three saves and then having one extra allocation left over. So wanting both Strength and Cha all of the sudden leaves you with two 'lesser' stats you're trying to invest in, which feels kinda bad over time, since it forces you to either neglect one of those stats or neglect your saves or initiative or ac, all of which are super important.
Dragon Monks kinda feel the same way with their intimidate stuff.
Kinda makes me wish PF2 did something like 4e where you could pick between two stats for each save category.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually proposed something like that at one point, but simpler, just basically a feat/class option for a +2 circumstance bonus to damage that finesse characters could pick up that you add on top of StrengthCool. I've seen several 16 str, 18 dex characters proposed so that might let someone get +1 damage over a straight 18 str character at first: that's why I proposed a a cap of +2 str or dex.
Thanks for dropping in and letting us know you've thought it over and and the reasoning's behind this. You're one of the reason I've stuck with PF2 so far. ;)
Yeah, your formulation is even more solid in terms of not providing higher damage at various levels, but it is more complex to calculate it (to give one example, it probably leads to issues where you are clumsy for more than 2 and you switch over between Dex and Str and don't take the straight clumsy penalty to damage), and I knew my proposal was already getting complex, but doing it as you say would work quite well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One nice symmetry I like is that monks have access to the highest damage, agile and finesse attacks in the game, with a d8 on Tiger, Wolf, and Tangled Forest. The only d8 weapons with the finesse tag (the Aldori Dueling Sword and the Elven Curve Blade) are not agile.
Over the course of a career, the striking rune is going to add 4 damage for using a d8 attack instead of a d6 attack.
4 is also the difference between "dex to damage" with a 24 dex and "str to damage" with a 16 str.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if Dex to damage were common, you'd basically only need to bump up five ability stats instead of spreading between 6.
Fighters would start all being Dex-based. Why bump Str when you can bump Dex, get the same damage, get AC, Reflex saves, and ranged attack.
If you're only bumping 5 stats, you'll end up with higher Wisdom and Con, probably. Since you don't bother with Str.
People already ignore Cha. Do we need a second stat to ignore?
Characters would start looking like this at 15 or 20th.
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 20 Int 20 Wis 20 Cha 10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if Dex to damage were common, you'd basically only need to bump up five ability stats instead of spreading between 6.
Fighters would start all being Dex-based. Why bump Str when you can bump Dex, get the same damage, get AC, Reflex saves, and ranged attack.
If you're only bumping 5 stats, you'll end up with higher Wisdom and Con, probably. Since you don't bother with Str.
People already ignore Cha. Do we need a second stat to ignore?Characters would start looking like this at 15 or 20th.
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 20 Int 20 Wis 20 Cha 10.
Due to the x4 stats increase every 5 levels and the tight PF2 math requiring near maxed out attributes, in my opinion this is no different than it is today. If my warpriest ever makes it to level 20 I have figured my stat line to be:
Str 20 Dex 12 Con 20 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 20.
So I also "dumped" 2 stats, namely DEX and INT instead of STR and CHA like in your example. You have a point though that due to the usefulness of each stat for any given character/build, many martials might start dumping STR and CHA if DEX to damage would be a general rule.
You have a point though that due to the usefulness of each stat for any given character/build, many martials might start dumping STR and CHA if DEX to damage would be a general rule.
Yea. Like Mark said, Str to damage is basically its cherry on top. If all it did was lessen your encumbrance, there'd be little point.
Plus, there needs to be ways for things to be special by being uncommon or rare. If it was something everyone could do, they'd have to come up with something else cool for the Thief racket.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all it did was lessen your encumbrance, there'd be little point.
Plus a useful skill. And heavy armor requires it and also bolsters ref saves and is needed for heavier weapons [larger damage dice]. It would have that appeal with or without dex to damage as you aren't going to have a 1d12 finesse weapon and all without having to spend resources on a dex to damage option. It HAS a point with or without the damage bonus.
Plus, there needs to be ways for things to be special by being uncommon or rare.
Not really as I've shown in my posts with Mark: you can do it in a way that's different from the thief racket. It could have a minimum based on str, it could be limited based on level [like up to 1/4 levels] or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spent four years playing a system that has dex-to-damage finesse, and in the end I actually really prefer what PF2e does. Your ability modifier is such a small portion of your damage once striking runes and such come online that it doesn't feel crippling to dump strength on a standard finesse character, but you can always choose to boost strength to up your numbers by that bit, mileage varies based on how much you're multi attacking, but I'm satisfied with the meta.
There's also no reason a high strength character has to be a beef cake, they can be wiry with compact muscles, or even just go full anime and give them an appearance that doesn't reflect their strength- strength characters in Pathfinder wind up doing feats with their strength that aren't remotely possible IRL, like damaging something many times their size.
Hell, my world outright asserts that when a strength/dexterity character is training, they absorb ambient magic that naturally occurs and their body uses it to grant them enhanced physicality, and their functionally super human abilities.
And heavy armor requires it and also bolsters ref saves
There's still stuff I'm learning. How does Str bolster Ref saves?
One thing I've figured out about armor- it doesn't really matter what type of armor you wear. Armor that gives higher AC has lower max Dex. So characters are all going to be within a couple of points of each other, whether they're in light or heavy armor. I mean, it matters a little bit, but not a lot.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plate Armor (and Hellknight Plate) has "Bulwark" which means that on reflex saves you add +3 instead of your dex modifier.
One of the things I like best about PF2 is how heavy armor makes dex non-essential for people who can wear heavy armor. You can be the Dwarf in heavy armor with 10 dex and just be fine. "Dex is not absolutely essential for every character" is a positive step and making dex-to-damage widely available would undo that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bulwark trait for something like Full Plate, gives +3 instead of Dex modifier on Reflex against AoE things like fireball. So indirectly Strength lets you use Full Plate which gives you Bulwark which could boost your Ref against certain attacks.
Heavy armor is actually better than other types from an AC and a traits perspective; you get more resistances from the armor traits, and heavy armors all give a combination equal to +6 AC, while other armors max out at some combination of armor + Dex equal to +5 AC (except I think Padded?)
And heavy armor requires it and also bolsters ref savesThere's still stuff I'm learning. How does Str bolster Ref saves?
One thing I've figured out about armor- it doesn't really matter what type of armor you wear. Armor that gives higher AC has lower max Dex. So characters are all going to be within a couple of points of each other, whether they're in light or heavy armor. I mean, it matters a little bit, but not a lot.
STR doesn't bolster reflex saves, but full plate (which has penalties that require significant STR to reduce) does have this property:
"Bulwark: The armor covers you so completely that it provides benefits against some damaging effects. On Reflex saves to avoid a damaging effect, such as a fireball, you add a +3 modifier instead of your Dexterity modifier."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ohhh. Okay!
I generally don't read a lot of things until they come up in my game. No one has actually worn heavy armor yet, so this is new to me.
A lot of the reason I lurk on the boards so much is to see where other people ask questions and, if it's a question I had too, I can see the answers people gave them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's still stuff I'm learning. How does Str bolster Ref saves?
Sorry, I could have worded it better: Others have already explained what I meant.
Luckily, they all understood what you meant!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your game health view on getting half dex to damage?
IMO it's fine as long as it is in place of Strength like the original rules.
A good compromise would be to make it similar to a Level 10 Rogue Dedication feat, with all of the same rules and restrictions as the Thief racket. Since it's a later feat hard-capping at +3 with significant restrictions, it won't hurt game balance any more than a spellcaster taking Dangerous Sorcery for their blasting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of having str, dex, con, and wis on Monk you could have dex, con, wis, and int or cha. Honestly, int does very little for you in PF2 as does Charisma. Basically unless Cha/Int stat has skills you want to focus in underneath they don't matter very much, just like strength doesn't matter much if you've got a method of using dex to attack/damage.
Thinking about it, raising int to get a collection of trained skills is less useful in the current system. You have to actively pick which skills advance further in proficiency, and at some point, a trained skill is about as useful as using that pathfinder dedication to get scaling on untrained skills.
Rogues are one of the few classes with enough skill upgrades to worry about this... and they are the ones with dex to damage.
To expand on this, I believe it is also in part because natural attacks are treated as unarmed attacks for things.What makes you think the intent is punitive?
Unarmed attacks, and counting them as weapons for certain effects, and the different rules for natural weapons were kind of a weird mess in 1E. I think that the 2E approach to unarmed attacks was intended to bring consistency, and limit unintended feat interactions, not to punish anything.
I'm not going to say that perfect clarity was achieved, but it does seem to be the goal.
I think they were also cleaning up natural attacks. I am a veteran of the "catfolk barbarian alchemists that was raised by half orcs" threads, so I know how much of a mess those were.
Pulling unarmed strikes back from that weird middle ground also let them avoid "Wait, why can't we do this with claws? The monks can do it" arguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your game health view on getting half dex to damage?
Darksol did a great job talking about whether the character would do too much damage if you subbed half Dex modifier instead of Strength (as I said above and just as Darksol concluded, they wouldn't), but you're probably better off with the twist I presented on graystone's proposal with the feat that just gives you +2 damage and adds Strength as well. It's rare to be in a game where half Dex modifier is more than +2 (you need to be level 10+ with a level 17 apex item, or level 20 without the apex item), and that way you can add Strength and get more damage on top of that, or stop and ignore Strength if the +2 is enough for you. But either way, you are getting to fully decide whether to use Strength. Half dex instead of Strength sort of puts you in this limbo where you have to go all in on Strength as your secondary ability score to exceed half dex, and you get no damage benefits for modest investment, whereas +2 and Strength gives you a varying damage benefit for each time you decide to raise (or not raise) Strength, keeping the decision making interesting at various levels.
investing in Dex is already viable even if you intend to wear full plate.
It is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I think something like an Aldori Swordlord archetype (based off the Aldori Duelist archeytpe like the Hellknight is on the Signifer) could get something like dex-to-damage stance (which works only with an aldori dueling sword and a free hand) as a feat 12 or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you're a fighter who's going to wear full plate, you might want to get that 18 dex for those situations where you need to pull out a ranged weapon. It conceivably helps in more situations than does Int or Cha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that applying one of the four ability score increases to Wis is considered to be better than Int or Cha for a martial build simply because it increases your will save, I'd say that the same logic applies to Dex and reflex saves.
That's a MAJOR investment, especially at lower levels: you need an 18 str for the plate, an 18 dex to get ANY benefit from ref saves [and none to AC], boosts for wis and con for saves. IMO, you'd see more impact for more of your playing time with int [skill boosts at lower levels matter] and/or cha [skills, especially Demoralize are well worth it.
ranged attack
This is about the only solid reason i can see to go out of your way to have full plate and a high dex. Seems like a niche switch hitter build instead of a overwhelming trend. The main draw of full plate is the ability to boost your ref save and AC without a dex investment: if you ignore both, you might as well wear lighter armor.
TBH, I think something like an Aldori Swordlord archetype (based off the Aldori Duelist archeytpe like the Hellknight is on the Signifer) could get something like dex-to-damage stance (which works only with an aldori dueling sword and a free hand) as a feat 12 or something.
I'd rather not lock the option behind a particular area/region so that dex to damage character don't all come from there. Better it be an archetype like the juggler one that could come from just about anyplace: so 'free hand Duelist' instead of Aldori Duelist seems the best. I heard plenty of people complain every magus grew up in Minata because of Wayang Spellhunter so I wouldn't want it to be a similar situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that applying one of the four ability score increases to Wis is considered to be better than Int or Cha for a martial build simply because it increases your will save, I'd say that the same logic applies to Dex and reflex saves.That's a MAJOR investment, especially at lower levels: you need an 18 str for the plate, an 18 dex to get ANY benefit from ref saves [and none to AC], boosts for wis and con for saves. IMO, you'd see more impact for more of your playing time with int [skill boosts at lower levels matter] and/or cha [skills, especially Demoralize are well worth it.
Additionally- not all saves are created equal. I haven't gone over the full spell list and bestiary... but if it is anything like PF1, then the order of importance is relfex<fort<will.
Reflex saves usually concern something that will disadvantage you in a fight- dodging damage, avoiding pit falls, etc. Fort saves can involve things that are a bit more long term- I often see it with poisons, saves against ability damage, etc.
Will? Will is the save that can destroy an entire character or cause TPK. The classic enchantment problem is still there- making a high damage character with a low will save means you murder your own party faster when you get controlled. Additionally, its associated with stuff that involves souls, such as "is that monster going to destroy your soul". It is the save you make when you have to worry about an eldritch horror driving you insane just by existing.
The new crit failures further worsen this concern. The hazier control spells seem like they give worse conditions than 'take double damage from that blast spell'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
investing in Dex is already viable even if you intend to wear full plate.It is?Given that applying one of the four ability score increases to Wis is considered to be better than Int or Cha for a martial build simply because it increases your will save, I'd say that the same logic applies to Dex and reflex saves. The ranged attack bonus and Dex skills solidify this sentiment.
It's not so much that it increases your will saves, but it also increases your Perception, AKA Initiative, as well. Since Perception is such a valuable "skill" in-combat (initiative) and out-of-combat (finding treasure and/or progressing AP plot), Wisdom is the de facto attribute of this game, even over Dexterity. Very rarely, if ever, will Dexterity boost both a saving throw and your initiative, and Dexterity affects just as many skills (Stealth, Thievery, Acrobatics) as Wisdom (Religion, Nature, Medicine), so it doesn't win out in that regard either (though application of said skills certainly is a factor, that varies based on character and class and expected party role). We can say that it also boosts AC over Wisdom, but with the current armor paradigm, people can have relatively equal AC regardless of what armor you wear. The only people that lose out are people who don't have any armor, because even with a 7 Dexterity Mod, you're losing out on the +3 Item Bonus to Saves that the game assumes you to have. With the tight math, that's a serious disadvantage across the board. So either you sacrifice AC to get that Saves bonus, or you just don't absolutely need to have that crazy amount of Dexterity anymore.
Is Dexterity still a good stat? Sure, especially if you are wearing lower armor and if you have skill/ability functions keyed to Dexterity. But it's nowhere near as advanced or limitless compared to an attribute like Wisdom, making it no longer the bee's knees it was in 1E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am personally strongly against dex to damage in any form. It makes str build obsolete and reduces its importance as a stat. Maybe I wanna play a strong monk or strong rogue.. well their would be no reason too. You would get nothing out of it. So now Orc rogue is a terrible mix because of it. It ripple effects to quite a few areas.
Very rarely, if ever, will Dexterity boost both a saving throw and your initiative
Not sure very rarely is accurate. Stealth for Initiative is probably the easiest skill to end up using.
an 18 dex to get ANY benefit from ref saves
Not really disagreeing that plate characters can get away with low dex, but I keep seeing posts suggesting Bulwark works on everything, but its bonus only actually applies to reflex saves to avoid damage.
With it being so easy to dip into cantrips, I'd imagine Charisma would be the new stat bump. Since cantrips level up automatically, even for a fighter. That Cha is damage, baby,!
Maybe I wanna play a strong monk or strong rogue.. well their would be no reason too. You would get nothing out of it.
That just isn't true at all. Iron Sweep, Falling Stone and Dragon Tail aren't finesse attacks requiring str for hitting and damage. Katar, Bo Staff, Kama and Temple Sword aren't finesse. 11 of the simple weapons aren't finesse for the Ruffian Rogue. The existence of the Thief racket now doesn't do it now so why would it then?
Basically, if you want to str, you're not losing out: your monk/rogue is using bigger dice for damage so doing more damage overall than a dex one. Your rogue too can pick a bigger dice and use things like reach that a dex one can't. It's myopic to to focus on the benefits of dex to damage but ignore the weapons you'd be locked into because of it. Dex doesn't help you hit with a 1d10 Dragon Tail attack.
Not really disagreeing that plate characters can get away with low dex, but I keep seeing posts suggesting Bulwark works on everything, but its bonus only actually applies to reflex saves to avoid damage.
Often, the spells not included allow include an athletics/acrobatics check instead. [like grease/web] A good athletics [why not with a good str] and assurance [acrobatics] can get you through a lot, sometimes with a better roll than the save.
Instead of having str, dex, con, and wis on Monk you could have dex, con, wis, and int or cha. Honestly, int does very little for you in PF2 as does Charisma. Basically unless Cha/Int stat has skills you want to focus in underneath they don't matter very much, just like strength doesn't matter much if you've got a method of using dex to attack/damage.Thinking about it, raising int to get a collection of trained skills is less useful in the current system. You have to actively pick which skills advance further in proficiency, and at some point, a trained skill is about as useful as using that pathfinder dedication to get scaling on untrained skills.
Rogues are one of the few classes with enough skill upgrades to worry about this... and they are the ones with dex to damage.
To expand on this, I believe it is also in part because natural attacks are treated as unarmed attacks for things.What makes you think the intent is punitive?
Unarmed attacks, and counting them as weapons for certain effects, and the different rules for natural weapons were kind of a weird mess in 1E. I think that the 2E approach to unarmed attacks was intended to bring consistency, and limit unintended feat interactions, not to punish anything.
I'm not going to say that perfect clarity was achieved, but it does seem to be the goal.
I think they were also cleaning up natural attacks. I am a veteran of the "catfolk barbarian alchemists that was raised by half orcs" threads, so I know how much of a mess those were.
Pulling unarmed strikes back from that weird middle ground also let them avoid "Wait, why can't we do this with claws? The monks can do it" arguments.
Yeah if I was unclear, I don't think skills only at trained have any real value. To me there is no appreciable value in having extra skills that stay at trained only, so I don't think int is worth investing in unless you have int based skills you want to raise.