| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to add on to this again and say, if my post was unclear, 100% you could have a 10 strength fighter or monk or ranger and still be effective at dealing damage, even though you might be 6 points of damage behind what you could have. You're still going to be fine.
Also, with the way ability score increases work you're likely to not increase the same 4 stats the whole way (because increases above 18 only increases by 1 point instead of 2) means you're likely to end up with a 12 or even 14 strength at high levels if you care to.
So you're only like 4 points of damage behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to add on to this again and say, if my post was unclear, 100% you could have a 10 strength fighter or monk or ranger and still be effective at dealing damage, even though you might be 6 points of damage behind what you could have. You're still going to be fine.
Also, with the way ability score increases work you're likely to not increase the same 4 stats the whole way (because increases above 18 only increases by 1 point instead of 2) means you're likely to end up with a 12 or even 14 strength at high levels if you care to.
So you're only like 4 points of damage behind.
I disagree but only on the caveat that it's level dependant.
1-4 hard pass from me. A monk with 10str vs one with 18. Means your minimum becomes 1 instead of 5. 2 instead of 10 if both attacks from flurry land. That is utterly massive. That is the difference between mine as well not have shown up vs I am a credible threat. I know people like to use averages but let's face it in an actual game rolling low and having no passive added damage just feels and is terrible. Maybe a ranged character has to deal with this for a bit until we get striking runes but they also have a modicum of safety.
5-9 hard sell but not impossible sell. Your str goes up to 12 and you should have a striking rune giving you 2d6 per attack instead of 1d6. Your minimum for two attacks is now 6 vs 12.
10-14, this is where I start going ok we can not worry about that 10 starting str so much. Say you somehow have+2 striking runes in this range and an a couple elemental runes. You have 14 are vs other guys 20. Your minimum for two attacks is now 12 vs 18
High level range is fine, easy sell. +3 modifier vs +5 (unless your talking Max level). Probably have+3 striking and a couple elemental runes.
Your minimum damage is 18 vs 22 if I did my math right.
Level 20 it widens slightly but not by much.
So general rule for me. If I'm starting my character at level 10 or higher. I won't mind the lower starting strength. But before that I'm probably not gonna do that.
Heck I'm debating going 18str 16dex and accepting normal ac levels instead of slightly elevated just so I can start with 1 better athletic check rolls
I mean, the real truth for a monk is that you could start with 14 strength without trouble and be be fine for the rest of the campaign.
I think some people just want to push an agenda and try to prove a point by saying "Oh at 10 strength it's unplayable and I have to have dex to damage to make this work".
I will agree that for levels 1-4 it could be unfun, depending on how your damage dice rolls go. But low level combat is swingy, that's nothing really new.
So how much strength do people think a dex-based Scoundrel rogue needs in order to be considered viable?
So how much strength do people think a dex-based Scoundrel rogue needs in order to be considered viable?
At what level?
So if Dex monks should have Dex to damage, why should Dragon Style monks not have Str to AC and Reflex?
That's basically the equivalent.
So if Dex monks should have Dex to damage, why should Dragon Style monks not have Str to AC and Reflex?
That's basically the equivalent.
Not really as dex to damage had diminishing returns as you level while AC/reflex bonuses are always as valuable at 1st as they are at 20th. They just aren't "equivalent": would you take a +4 extra damage or a +1 extra ac/reflex at 20th? IMO, it's not even a contest and that's at a 1 to 4 ratio and not even 1 to 1.
Secondly, going by the way str in the game relates to AC, allowing armor like the old Sohei archetype would use the PF2 of str affecting AC by allowing heavier armors. I wouldn't have an issue if they wanted to add that along with dex to damage.
Additionally, we already have mountain stance for +4 AC... So there is already a replacement for dex to AC.
So how much strength do people think a dex-based Scoundrel rogue needs in order to be considered viable?At what level?
Well, I mean if I'm building a dex-based scoundrel rogue I want:
Dex- for obvious reasionsCha- because I need to feint to do my thing
Con- because I don't want to die
Wis- because those saves are important and I'd like to notice things.
So what's a reasonable minimum strength for a career for a scoundrel rogue?
|
Interesting points and I wish to thank you for these. I had some doubts about the level thing too, so thanks for the clarification.
Considering all this, why would one play a frontliner with low STR? If I get it right, it ends up always worse than the one with high STR, no matter the build.
I had fun building a STR-dumping martial in PF1. He was rather weak but had some nice tricks.
I feel that in PF2 a similar concept would be just boring : less efficient than the STR one and with no interesting tricks to make up for it in melee.
Maybe DEX-dumping frontliner will be more interesting.
Has anyone tried those two : STR-dumping frontliner and DEX-dumping frontliner? And what was it like?
|
|
So how much strength do people think a dex-based Scoundrel rogue needs in order to be considered viable?At what level?Well, I mean if I'm building a dex-based scoundrel rogue I want:
Dex- for obvious reasions
Cha- because I need to feint to do my thing
Con- because I don't want to die
Wis- because those saves are important and I'd like to notice things.So what's a reasonable minimum strength for a career for a scoundrel rogue?
Why go DEX-based for a scoundrel? Isn't STR better here?
Honest question. I am not trying to win the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it ends up always worse than the one with high STR, no matter the build.
Only in terms of raw damage done, but you're better at... whatever else you put the points into. So it's a trade off, which seems reasonable. 1 point of damage for +5% to a save or intimidating/feinting or... whatever.
Why go DEX-based for a scoundrel? Isn't STR better here?
Honest question. I am not trying to win the internet.
Well, Ruffian is the Str-based racket, notably in that it allows you to sneak attack with any simple weapon. Scoundrel can only sneak attack with an agile or finesse weapon or a ranged attack.
|
|
Well, Ruffian is the Str-based racket, notably in that it allows you to sneak attack with any simple weapon. Scoundrel can only sneak attack with an agile or finesse weapon or a ranged attack.Why go DEX-based for a scoundrel? Isn't STR better here?
Honest question. I am not trying to win the internet.
I get that. Which makes Scoundrel the CHA-based racket IMO, saying nothing about either STR or DEX.
So, STR brings us damage, bulk, heavier armor, Athletics and some other skills.
DEX brings us ranged attacks, AC, Stealth, Acrobatics and some other skills, as well as Reflex saves.
For pure melee purposes, I feel STR sounds better.
I honestly don't know why you'd play a melee character without strength.
If my character started between 1-9 the lowest I'd let my strength be is 14.
Scoundrel if you do 18 charisma you almost need 16dex to hit your starting ac cap of 18. Then you can put strength to 12. But that's gonna leave con and wisdom at 10 at very least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because of the minimum amount of 16 dex that you need to use light armor with maximum AC you might as well go all in in dex to reap all the benefits that this stat have to offer even if you end doing a little less damage than STR. And Swashbuckler will probably do the same except that one class patch.
I would be the type of person that would have STR at 10 because I like to be alive more than be doing damage. Unconscious character do 0 damage anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A human scoundrel can have medium armor to start and proficiency with a hatchet to have a 18 CHA, and STR 16 with a dex of 12 for maximum AC, only one less damage than a thief, and be the best face character in the game. By level 10, you can have a Dex of 16 and switch back to light armor before your proficiency boost matters. Scoundrels don't really need to max dex, which I think is cool.
But you could be a scoundrel with an 18 Dex, 16 CHA, 14 Con and a 12 Wis to start, get proficiency with the spiked chain, Trip and feint very well and almost always expect to attack with sneak attack even without moving into flanking/leaving yourself exposed. Again, by level 10
the damage difference is minimal and you are a brutal debuffer. Distracting feint is brutal if you have any blasting going on in your party.
The same is true of Dex based monks. Choosing not to boost strength will cost you a couple of points of damage with you attacks, but allows for a lot of interesting character options. What removing Dex to damage as a generic option has changed is the assumption that every character can choose between Dex or Str with the maximum consequence of 1 feat investment.
Because of the minimum amount of 16 dex that you need to use light armor with maximum AC you might as well go all in in dex to reap all the benefits that this stat have to offer even if you end doing a little less damage than STR. And Swashbuckler will probably do the same except that one class patch.
I would be the type of person that would have STR at 10 because I like to be alive more than be doing damage. Unconscious character do 0 damage anyway.
We are talking scoundrel for this bit. My understanding is it changes the class stat to charisma meaning you can't get 18 dexterity.
For scoundrel I'd usually opt for range anyway though Wich devalues str even more.
Swashbuckler has a built in mechanic to shore up it's lower strength. Scoundrel and monk so not.
Little less is subjective as well and depends on what level you are. Level 1-4 your 10str Melee character will do 1 damage at minimum on a single hit while am 18 will do 5.
That is not a little less damage that's massive.
All rogues do have a way to shore up damage early though, through sneak attacks. This devalues strength as less of your overall damage comes from there.
If I were to build a Scoundrel I would probably max out DEX and get 16 (maybe 14) CHA. You don't need to choose charisma as your key ability score as a scoundrel after all. For STR, 12 or 14.
All rogues do have a way to shore up damage early though, through sneak attacks. This devalues strength as less of your overall damage comes from there.
If I were to build a Scoundrel I would probably max out DEX and get 16 (maybe 14) CHA. You don't need to choose charisma as your key ability score as a scoundrel after all. For STR, 12 or 14.
So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack
I feel like your all only playing at levels 10 and up.
Does it devalue it? Yes, but not enough at level 1-4 imo
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A human scoundrel can have medium armor to start and proficiency with a hatchet to have a 18 CHA, and STR 16 with a dex of 12 for maximum AC, only one less damage than a thief, and be the best face character in the game. By level 10, you can have a Dex of 16 and switch back to light armor before your proficiency boost matters. Scoundrels don't really need to max dex, which I think is cool.
But you could be a scoundrel with an 18 Dex, 16 CHA, 14 Con and a 12 Wis to start, get proficiency with the spiked chain, Trip and feint very well and almost always expect to attack with sneak attack even without moving into flanking/leaving yourself exposed. Again, by level 10
the damage difference is minimal and you are a brutal debuffer. Distracting feint is brutal if you have any blasting going on in your party.The same is true of Dex based monks. Choosing not to boost strength will cost you a couple of points of damage with you attacks, but allows for a lot of interesting character options. What removing Dex to damage as a generic option has changed is the assumption that every character can choose between Dex or Str with the maximum consequence of 1 feat investment.
Gonna have to steal that scoundrel build.
But I still disagree in the creation of interesting builds. Nothing you said you couldn't do while still having Dex to damage. If you think interesting is doing less damage than I'll stand corrected. Because that's really the only difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no one builds a STR 16 rogue if they all get Dex to damage for the cost of a feat. Interesting means that low DEX monks and rogues builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, low STR monk and rogue builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, and Monks and rogues both have good reasons not to have to tank one or the other.
That is what I mean by interesting. What easy access to Dex to damage eliminates from the game is characters boosting both attributes.
So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack
???
Are these numbers minimum damage? For which STR values? Keep in mind I'm advocating a 12-16 STR for most DEX builds.
So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack
I'm dumb, can you spell out the math for me? Also, why are you using minimum damage and not average?
That is what I mean by interesting. What easy access to Dex to damage eliminates from the game is characters boosting both attributes.
A don't see why. The game has non-finesse weapons that deal more base damage than finesse weapons/unarmed... That alone is a reason for str. A goblin sneak attacking with a Horsechopper is something dex to damage doesn't help with.
Sneak attack requires agile weapons or finesse weapons. I don't think there are any agile D8 weapons. There are finesse ones, but that doesn't really give any bonus to someone using STR.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack requires agile weapons or finesse weapons. I don't think there are any agile D8 weapons. There are finesse ones, but that doesn't really give any bonus to someone using STR.
Monks have some unarmed strikes that are, and could potentially get sneak attack via multiclassing. Those are the only ones I am aware of, though.
I'm dumb, can you spell out the math for me? Also, why are you using minimum damage and not average?So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack
Because average assumes your dice will agree with you. The amount of times I've done negligible damage just due to dumb luck is heart baking
1d6 weapon
1d6 sneak attack
4 is the modifier for the str rogue
You all can base your values off of average and that's fine. But I'm not optimistic enough in my rolls to tank my minimum.
So your difference becomes 2vs 6 for minimum I'm a single hit. 4 vs 12. With sneak attack???
Are these numbers minimum damage? For which STR values? Keep in mind I'm advocating a 12-16 STR for most DEX builds.
I too advocate that.
My example if just levels 1-4 10str vs 18.
I don't want to spend 4 levels dealing with that personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no one builds a STR 16 rogue if they all get Dex to damage for the cost of a feat. Interesting means that low DEX monks and rogues builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, low STR monk and rogue builds are playable and have some interesting things that they can do that other builds cant, and Monks and rogues both have good reasons not to have to tank one or the other.
That is what I mean by interesting. What easy access to Dex to damage eliminates from the game is characters boosting both attributes.
1- playable is not the same thing as interesting.
2- if you had Dex to damage they would still have things that the other cannot do.
3- most martial builds I build with general guidelines.
No armor non monk? 18 Dex, 16 if I cannot get 18. Monk I'll do 16 Dex 18 str and still maintain fighter level ac but with better action economy and mobility. Either way whichever stat is 18 str or Dex. The other is 16.
Light armor? 16 Dex, 18str
Medium armor? 12 Dex, 18str
Heavy armor? 10dex,18str
Any time I pick a class in melee that cannot have 18str I do 16.
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats. Being able to pick one and tank the either means you have points to spare if you want more hp. Better perception. More skills. Better face skills. Etc.
That's more interesting, suddenly my monk can be a minor tank. Or better ki DC. Or actually be a monk face.
This goes for making More interesting builds opening up dedications earlier like sorcerer/Bard etc.
It's to the point where I'll voluntary flaw my int/Cha just to start with 14con or wisdom. Though I don't always.
I've played a couple of low-strength melee fighters without dex-to-damage in PF2, and my personal impression is that it's fine. Worrying about "I rolled low and failed to drop the monster by one or two points, because I lack strength" is IMO like worrying about "I rolled low and failed to hit the monster because I am not a fighter."
Yes, your 12 strength tiger monk or scoundrel rogue will be worse at low levels than a higher strength character, but "delayed gratification on characters" is hardly a new thing in this family of games.
Sneak attack requires agile weapons or finesse weapons. I don't think there are any agile D8 weapons. There are finesse ones, but that doesn't really give any bonus to someone using STR.
I got confused with the goblin weapons: Dogslicer was the one with agile not Horsechopper. So you're right there. My bad.
I feel like it is worth noting that your 10 strength monk does the same damage as a 10 strength archer. Yeah, the archer gets to do it at range, but they still have the risk of rolling all ones on their d6s or d8s and doing crap damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3- most martial builds I build with general guidelines.
No armor non monk? 18 Dex, 16 if I cannot get 18. Monk I'll do 16 Dex 18 str and still maintain fighter level ac but with better action economy and mobility. Either way whichever stat is 18 str or Dex. The other is 16.
Light armor? 16 Dex, 18str
Medium armor? 12 Dex, 18str
Heavy armor? 10dex,18str
Any time I pick a class in melee that cannot have 18str I do 16.
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats. Being able to pick one and tank the either means you have points to spare if you want more hp. Better perception. More skills. Better face skills. Etc.
Damage is clearly the most important thing to you when you build a character, followed by AC. That is fine, but it comes with a cost in PF2. A rogue with a 14 CHA is plenty to be a very good party face, because they can keep their skills very high.
Maybe other folks disagree, but I don't really think that the monk should be able to be at nearly the top of AC, Attack, Damage, Saves, AND very good at skills, which is exactly what happens when they can gain access easily to Dex to Damage, and can tank STR. They can sink all of their attributes into Dex, Con and Wis, without sacrificing anything as far as damage output, and still have an extra stat to boost at level 1 and every stat boost.
There is nothing wrong with prioritizing damage over another thing your character might do, but with easy access to dex to damage, the monk isn't really making choices at all anymore. STR is a complete throw away score for a monk if they don't need it for damage. They don't wear armor, they don't need a large carrying capacity and they have access feats and weapon types that grant finesse to trip and disarm. The monk is actually the worst class to look at for making the Dex to Damage argument for these reasons.
The Dex based fighter and ranger and especially champion are worse off, but even with the champion, there are so many other things that the champion can do, AND so many attribute boosts, that completely tanking strength is not necessary to play a dex based champion, and if you do make that choice, you are doing that because you have something else that you are very excited about your character being able to do, other than an additional 3 to 5 points of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, the data from the playtest surveys had the "dex to damage is fine for some (but not all) rogues, and others for which it is entirely thematic, but it should not be a universal option" as the top pick, and "no one should have dex-to-damage" in second place with "dex-to-damage should be a universal option" behind those two.
So take that for whatever you like.
IMO, dex-to-damage is not thematically appropriate for monks, since in all those martial arts films your Bruce Lees, Gordon Lius, Donnie Yens, etc. were all pretty rocked up (but not swole- just wiry strong.) Low strength monks who stay that way should probably be mystic types, for which we need more class options.
We've certainly discussed dex to damage a lot during the playtest on the forums. I'm really glad it turned out the way it did, because I'm sick to death of game systems making dex/agility the god stat and strength a noob trap.
Dexterity is no replacement for strength. If you absolutely need the damage, and want to house rule a dex-to-damage rule... at the very least consider making bonus dex damage precision damage.
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats.
Then don't? "All finesse characters must have 18 strength" is a rule you've invented for yourself. It's not necessary. It's a self inflicted problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats. Being able to pick one and tank the either means you have points to spare if you want more hp. Better perception. More skills. Better face skills. Etc.That's more interesting, suddenly my monk can be a minor tank. Or better ki DC. Or actually be a monk face.
This goes for making More interesting builds opening up dedications earlier like sorcerer/Bard etc.
It's to the point where I'll voluntary flaw my int/Cha just to start with 14con or wisdom. Though I don't always.
Man, all the fighters I've build so far have had invested highly in both str and dex. In one instance, despite being primarily strength based melee I could have swapped to primarily dex with little change. He wore light armor because he didn't want the speed penalty. And I had room for con and wisdom as well. The character wasn't great at lots of skills, but wasn't meant to be. He invested in Athletics, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
He was fun and interesting to play because of the RP I made around him.
Why does increasing both stats increase or decrease how interesting or fun a build is?
It's about opportunity costs. You can sacrifice strength if you want more (or to be better at) skills. Or you can be good at damage, and AC (if you invest in both dex and strength) and can even be good at dex and strength based skills, and even wisdom based ones as well (like perception).
So I don't buy this argument that it's not interesting.
In fact, what's not interesting to me is allowing dex to damage on monks (or other characters) because it really means the optimal path is to eschew strength unless you want to do athletics and there are basically no options to the build.
You can play a dex focused character with 14 strength and end up just fine, and leave plenty of room for everything else you'd like to do.
Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.
These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.
So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.
Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting
Boosting both attributes is not interesting and it is not an interesting choice to make over other stats.Then don't? "All finesse characters must have 18 strength" is a rule you've invented for yourself. It's not necessary. It's a self inflicted problem.
I said I wouldn't go below 14 ever. But much more likely not below 16.
It's only self inflicted on the sense that the game allows you from levels 1-4 to trap yourself into a fun little game play loop of hope to hell you don't roll low for damage. Nothing more impressive than watching that produce flame double your damage while rolling minimum.
But some people like role playing mechanical deficiencies, I suppose that's valid and should be supported
I feel like it is worth noting that your 10 strength monk does the same damage as a 10 strength archer. Yeah, the archer gets to do it at range, but they still have the risk of rolling all ones on their d6s or d8s and doing crap damage.
As you said. They get docked for the safety of range.
So the first and only "face monk" feat that I can see is the Dragon roar feat which is 6th level. If I were going to do a face monk, I'd probably go Goblin:
STR: 18 Dex: 14 Con: 12 INT: 10 WIS: 8 CHA: 16
I'd go indestructible goblin to give the extra 4 HP, and Dragon Style at level 1. And probably goblin song just for the pure fun of it.
Yes my AC is 2 points below prime, but I hit like a dragon, am going to be pretty good at intimidate and Diplomacy. If the idea of being 2 points behind on AC is problematic, you can just swap the Dex and the CHA score, and be one point behind on your intimidate. Either way sounds like a really fun an interesting character. Monks are pretty mobile and you are going to need to make sure you don't leave yourself open to multiple attacks from enemies, but that all sounds like worth while choices to be making. Yes your Will save is going to be low, but not that low because you get expert at level 1 and have flexibility from the class for boosting it as you go to cover your lower attribute score.
I think maybe our big difference here is that I think having choices result in meaningful weaknesses is a positive thing for the game.
Unicore, read it all but still disagree. Not much else to say. 2e I'll only play a monk if I'm ok with no face/tertiary skills and features because the base mechanics no longer support it.
But if face DC's scale the same way as saves and AC? 14 starting Cha is secondary face at best. The emergency face when the Bard or sorcerer cannot be found.
Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.
These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.
So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.
Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting
Are you thinking a character only exists at levels 1-4? Are you ignoring stat bumps, and that for a DEX based character the +1-3 damage post level 5 matters very little? The difference between an 18 and a 19 is nothing, and the difference between an 18 and a 20 in your non-attack stat is minor verging on pointless.
A face monk won't have high STR and DEX, sounds like an interesting tradeoff to me. My only real concern is that off-build builds are currently unsupported by feats.
Still disagree. 2 less ac your taking a dirt nap at level 1.
You've given up on being perceptive I guess and your not intimidating many formidable opponents being that far behind.
This games tight math leads to my responses. I view a deviation greater than 2 from optimal as unacceptable/non viable for my means.
Still have fun with the game. I'll just play a sorcerer if I want to get l face and a fighter/champion if I want to tank ac. Etc. I'll stay in the little boxes the game outlines for me.
you could go 16 STR, 16 Dex and 16 CHA relatively easy. you'r abilty to intimidate enemies will make up for -1 to your attack.
Claxon, I now know your idea of interesting is being unable to build the character you want. According to you interesting is making a face monk with 10-12 to charisma and wondering why you keep failing your DC checks to be a face. Or being a damage dealer at level 1 and doing poor damage because you rolled 1s and had no static modifier. Or being in melee with crappy ac.
These things don't read as interesting to me. They read as frustrating and restrictive.
So 2e, outside of mountain style, every single one is just 18str/16dex or 16str/18dex. 12 in con or wisdom. Every ASI those 4 stats will get bumped, and this will be the only way I play a monk because that is how they are built.
Personally I do not buy your definition of interesting
Are you thinking a character only exists at levels 1-4? Are you ignoring stat bumps, and that for a DEX based character the +1-3 damage post level 5 matters very little? The difference between an 18 and a 19 is nothing, and the difference between an 18 and a 20 in your non-attack stat is minor verging on pointless.
A face monk won't have high STR and DEX, sounds like an interesting tradeoff to me. My only real concern is that off-build builds are currently unsupported by feats.
I've mentioned before that after level 4 the variance becomes less of an issue. But if I start a game within those levels I will stat accordingly.
It does not sound interesting to me. It sounds like a mistake. Though I do mountain style for 16 Cha build. That's as close as I can get and only thanks to said style.
you could go 16 STR, 16 Dex and 16 CHA relatively easy. you'r abilty to intimidate enemies will make up for -1 to your attack.
Or I could let the Bard/sorcerer do it.
Or mountain style and tank Dex I guess