I never liked the idea that slow and weak people could be great at swordfighting, which is basically what "to-hit with non-Str/Dex stats" means to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked the idea that slow and weak people could be great at swordfighting, which is basically what "to-hit with non-Str/Dex stats" means to me.
Ok, but what about not-slow, not-weak people who use their brains and exceptional knowledge. I mean I get your point, but I could see an Avenger using Wisdom as an abstract of where/when/why/how to strike, and Dexterity to push it just so to create the maximum damage or Strength (or even Constitution) to max out the impact. So Wis to hit, but Dex or Str(Con) for damage.
I know this is nigh heresy, but as Perception can be sidelined for Initiative, I’m happy to load other stats for strikes or damage. It will bork the “fine balance” of what stats are overloaded etc, but those can be moved around too. And I understand the implications are...thingy.
I think I’m finally realising that in my home games PF2 is going to be a bit more freeform. Just getting old and learning to love the bomb I guess...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked the idea that slow and weak people could be great at swordfighting, which is basically what "to-hit with non-Str/Dex stats" means to me.
Int can be used to predict your foes moves and use it's strength and mass against it. Wisdom can do much the same but instinctively instead or rationally. Both stats can be rationalized to also strike in a similar way to sneak attack by focusing more on weak points instead of brute force.
I mean IMO it's as bad if the great fighter doesn't have the smarts aim for the right place or have the intuition to avoid a parry as it every could if they didn't' have str or dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can be smart enough to realize an opening in your opponent's stance, but you still have to be able to quickly move the point of you weapon to get there which is not a thing that being smart/wise/charming helps at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can be smart enough to realize an opening in your opponent's stance, but you still have to be able to quickly move the point of you weapon to get there which is not a thing that being smart/wise/charming helps at all.
But you don't have to do so extra quickly by picking times when the opponent is committed. Like letting them overswing and poking an exposed flank.
I mean I can reverse what you said and it makes as much sense to me: 'Sure, you can be fast enough to move your weapon around but it's not of much use if you're just quickly flailing around with it and not looking for openings and weaknesses which is something dex and str don't help you with at all.'
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience in Monster Hunter tells me that you need a whole lot of attributes to kill a monster.
And it's the closest experience I have to killing actual monsters!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can be smart enough to realize an opening in your opponent's stance, but you still have to be able to quickly move the point of you weapon to get there which is not a thing that being smart/wise/charming helps at all.But you don't have to do so extra quickly by picking times when the opponent is committed. Like letting them overswing and poking an exposed flank.
I mean I can reverse what you said and it makes as much sense to me: 'Sure, you can be fast enough to move your weapon around but it's not of much use if you're just quickly flailing around with it and not looking for openings and weaknesses which is something dex and str don't help you with at all.'
Also drunken masters would say hold my beer, but they may not drink beer and may not let you hold it; also they might secretly be Ahnold-strong and Dexterity’s Midnight Runner, but the bit about them using non-traditional physical stats to end you stands. Or...more likely...sways.
And remember, experience comes into a lot of surviving...almost like if your level was a stat...Omigod, I just realised that adding level to things makes verisimilitudinous sense.
Thank you thread!!! I love the fact that I can come here, start spouting nonsense and then have actual tacit realisations.
Community at work. And thank you Paizo for hosting this misbegotten bunch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a lot of arguments to be made for why being agile and fast would be good, why having technical knowledge would be good, why having intuition would be good, and why having a psychological advantage over your opponent would be good.
But the thing is, with nearly all kinds of fighting, between two equal-nonstrength-stat characters, the stronger one would also realistically have an advantage.
You and your brother are both really agile, but your brother is just much stronger? I guess his precisely-placed punches are still going to hit harder. You're both good at reading your enemy and knowing exactly when the opening is going to come? If your brother is stronger, he's just gonna hit harder when that opening comes.
When you can almost always make an argument for "but people with high strength should be able to add it on top", it makes sense to just say that strength is the primary stat.
And a lot of this "being really skilled", "clever technique" kind of stuff is just covered by being higher level and having better proficiency.
There's only a few weapons where you can't really bring your strength into play as a major part of the damage and those tend to be ranged weapons like crossbows.
|
DEX is to hit with lighter (Finesse) melee weapons automatically. Anyone who knows how to use the weapon can do it, no special training needed.
STR is both to hit with any melee weapon (basically, you overload their defenses) and damage (as you crush the muscles, bones and so on : pure application of kinetic energy). Also no special training needed here.
DEX to damage requires special training so that not only you hit, but you also know how to twist the weapon for maximum damage.
I can easily see other stats used to hit or to do damage, but gated behind specific training rather than automatically usable by anyone.
I really like that you can't use any stat as the attack stat and I particular that you can't double it up with a spellcasting stat.
Gives every stat value for every class. The only stat I'm consistently dumping is INT as that is primarily a detriment to out of combat stuff.
I just don't like the 5e system where you take just enough strength to wear armor dip 1 lvl into hexblade and now are a paladin in heavy armor and use cha for spells and attacks.
Could even be a dwarf and run around with 8 str and 8 dex.
It's sort of an interesting dichotomy in paradigm. PF really wants your ability scores to matter no matter what class you pick while 4e/5e seem more interested in letting certain classes do certain things and don't care as much about what the ability score breakdown looks like.
Yeah, that's very much it. My recent experiences with 2e made me realize I'm really more fond of the latter. There isn't much value (for me, of course) in every stat being super well balanced if that means my players and I can't make the characters we want. Making Dex warrior-type characters has always felt so much like swimming against the current that we almost always end up going Str instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To fix this issue, I’d just add half your dexterity to damage with melee weapons.
Starting with 14-16 str is missing the point. Once you hit level 7-8, you just wasted 2-3 ability boosts that could have been put in stats that actually help you survive, rather than a stat that is now adding miniscule damage.
Likewise, you can start with +5 AC from heavy cheaper than splint. An armoured skirt + chain mail is 8gp, +breastplate is 10gp if you don’t want the noisy penalty (for whatever reason you care about stealth on your 10 dex character). If you don’t have heavy armour to start with (my magus didn’t) you’re only spending a single level at -1 AC before you can grab sentinel at level 2, which is going to be by far the most valuable archetype feat for you.
You ref saves are going to be worse until level 3ish when you can afford full plate. That’s fine, ref saves are relatively rare earlyish, and again, you’re only waiting until level 3 for an ability that applies to probably 90+% of ref saves you’ll make.
Meanwhile, people who want to play dex characters - specifically fighters, champions, monks and magi - are basically shooting themselves in the foot if they don’t put anything into strength at low levels, but it’s completely fine at higher levels. That paradigm isn’t great. You can always play an archer, but then why do finesse weapons even exist as an option at low levels if they’re going to suck that bad?
Solution? I recommend adding half dex to damage with finesse weapons (which are all melee). Gives them a small boost, not on par with strength, at early levels. The thief will probably need a change to their initial ability.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of the current viable options for dex-based melee:
- Rogues add dex-to-damage with the thief racket
- Fighters hit and crit the most
- Monks have the highest damage finesse attacks and the best action economy
- Rangers make the most attacks or get bonus precision damage
- Swashbucklers get bonus precision damage.
I'm not really convinced that this isn't enough. We're just coming from an edition in which archers and dex-based melee were the highest DPS options, so that those things are less potent in this edition (and being a str-based combatant is less penalized) just stands out even though none of this is bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the current viable options for dex-based melee:
- Rogues add dex-to-damage with the thief racket
- Fighters hit and crit the most
- Monks have the highest damage finesse attacks and the best action economy
- Rangers make the most attacks or get bonus precision damage
- Swashbucklers get bonus precision damage.I'm not really convinced that this isn't enough. We're just coming from an edition in which archers and dex-based melee were the highest DPS options, so that those things are less potent in this edition (and being a str-based combatant is less penalized) just stands out even though none of this is bad.
From all the things you mentioned, everything but the first is better achieved by either having high Str (which as mentioned by Exocist will become wasted stat points later) or straight up being a Str user in the case of Fighter and Ranger. Str Fighter still hits and crits the most, and Str Ranger still makes the most attacks or gets bonus precision damage... except for the first ~third of the game they also have a huge flat damage bonus without having to invest in 2 stats, and they can easily cover up for most of their supposed weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From all the things you mentioned, everything but the first is better achieved by either having high Str (which as mentioned by Exocist will become wasted stat points later) or straight up being a Str user in the case of Fighter and Ranger. Str Fighter still hits and crits the most, and Str Ranger still makes the most attacks or gets bonus precision damage... except for the first ~third of the game they also have a huge flat damage bonus without having to invest in 2 stats, and they can easily cover up for most of their supposed weaknesses.
a ranger would still have to dedicate into sentinel to get access to scaling heavy armor.
Or invest into dex to get full use out of medium armor.Also let's not ignore the benefit of being a dex fighter in that you can use ranged and thrown weapons equally as good as you can use finesse melee weapons.
Relying on real world physics for an argument is not exactly a good idea. Besides, there are quite a few martial arts that teach exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. It's entirely possible to be a warrior without being pound-for-pound as strong.What I'm going to talk about here is something my players and I have been having issues with for the little over a year we've been playing 2eThe main issue boils down to Dexterity-based martial characters having a lot of issues with build paths and early game damage.I don't really have any words of comfort.
Pathfinder 2 just isn't interested in the 5th Edition concept of warriors without physical strength.
You need Strength to do physical damage.
Yes, this kind of nullifies the idea of finesse fighters, since if you need Strength anyway, why not go Strength instead of Dexterity and rely on armor to protect you?
And the answer is "that's exactly how warriors act in both real-life and games like AD&D".
The real reason behind "finesse fighters" is that some humans weren't strong enough to become a warrior. These individuals had to rely on subterfuge to compensate for their short-comings in the physical strength compartment.
They became rogues. Or they turn to sorcery. Or they choose peace, and become healers.
tl;dr: nothing (except game build theory) says Dex must be equal to Str. That's mostly something 5th Edition tells the kids today (and turns Dex into a super-stat in the process).
If you want to be a warrior Strength is not optional.
Even judo, the most provably effective martial art that is founded and advertised upon the concept of using technique to outmaneuver assailants, has weight classes in every level of competition primarily because weight/strength are massive advantages.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From all the things you mentioned, everything but the first is better achieved by either having high Str (which as mentioned by Exocist will become wasted stat points later) or straight up being a Str user in the case of Fighter and Ranger. Str Fighter still hits and crits the most, and Str Ranger still makes the most attacks or gets bonus precision damage... except for the first ~third of the game they also have a huge flat damage bonus without having to invest in 2 stats, and they can easily cover up for most of their supposed weaknesses.
Eh. Sufficient flat damage makes the Str bonus less impressive. Swashbucklers benefit from some Str, but can easily get by with Str 10. So that's at least Swashbucklers and Rogues who can skimp on it.
And just in general, while the damage is lower, Reflex Saves are much higher in the long run, and often in the short run as well as compared to anyone not in Full Plate (and modestly ahead even of Full Plate). Reflex Saves are pretty relevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, it’s not that dex melee is “slightly” weaker at 1-3, it’s so incredibly weak that you’re basically throwing your actions away.
I’ve seen a dex champion getting played in Plaguestone, and heck the first time I started up my magus it was dex based with a whip (lasted like 2 sessions before I asked to respec to strength). You hit worse than a wet noodle. Doing 1d4+0 or 1d6+0 against a HP bar of 30 or 45 is basically a waste of an action. Even critting and doing 2d6 doesn’t do much. 2d6+1d8 from a rapier does a bit, but even that is still far less damage than a strength user with a long sword does. They do more than double (closer to 2.5x) your damage on a normal hit, and still nearly double (~70% more) your damage on a crit. Dex melee still carries the inherent risk of melee as well, it’s not risk free.
Now archery, I agree is ok. The damage is the lowest at the points where the range is most pronounced. But archery is also part of the problem here. A shortbow does more damage than a rapier (same weapon dice, higher deadly). You can flank with a shortbow if you’re so inclined, and very few monsters have AoO at low levels so you’re unlikely to even get punished for doing so. Oh, and it also has a 60ft range. Unless you were literally forced to (such as swashbuckler requiring agile or finesse melee weapon) why would you ever pick a rapier?
Now I do recognise this may create a disparity at high levels as well. After all, I do also think once you get to about level 15, dexterity becomes a much better stat than strength. Your reflex saves become relevantly higher (+5 vs +3) and of course, the damage gap is still shrinking. With how many monsters get super fast, fly or are generally difficult to approach at that level, archery becomes the best weapon choice, and strength gets left behind (dex melee still isn’t good but at least you don’t hit like a wet noodle anymore).
That’s why, in addition to “finesse trait adds half dex to damage”, I’m also going to implement a second houserule “thrown weapons use strength to hit”. The point is to solidify the combat role of the two stats - dex is primarily ranged with a worse melee option and does less damage, strength is primarily melee with a worse ranged option.
The thing is, it’s not that dex melee is “slightly” weaker at 1-3, it’s so incredibly weak that you’re basically throwing your actions away.
I’ve seen a dex champion getting played in Plaguestone, and heck the first time I started up my magus it was dex based with a whip (lasted like 2 sessions before I asked to respec to strength). You hit worse than a wet noodle. Doing 1d4+0 or 1d6+0 against a HP bar of 30 or 45 is basically a waste of an action. Even critting and doing 2d6 doesn’t do much. 2d6+1d8 from a rapier does a bit, but even that is still far less damage than a strength user with a long sword does. They do more than double (closer to 2.5x) your damage on a normal hit, and still nearly double (~70% more) your damage on a crit. Dex melee still carries the inherent risk of melee as well, it’s not risk free.
Now archery, I agree is ok. The damage is the lowest at the points where the range is most pronounced. But archery is also part of the problem here. A shortbow does more damage than a rapier (same weapon dice, higher deadly). You can flank with a shortbow if you’re so inclined, and very few monsters have AoO at low levels so you’re unlikely to even get punished for doing so. Oh, and it also has a 60ft range. Unless you were literally forced to (such as swashbuckler requiring agile or finesse melee weapon) why would you ever pick a rapier?
Now I do recognise this may create a disparity at high levels as well. After all, I do also think once you get to about level 15, dexterity becomes a much better stat than strength. Your reflex saves become relevantly higher (+5 vs +3) and of course, the damage gap is still shrinking. With how many monsters get super fast, fly or are generally difficult to approach at that level, archery becomes the best weapon choice, and strength gets left behind (dex melee still isn’t good but at least you don’t hit like a wet noodle anymore).
That’s why, in addition to “finesse trait adds half dex to damage”, I’m also going to implement a second houserule...
Even light/medium armors have str requirements. Having a +0 to damage means you literally just ignored STR. That's a silly way to build a character that's focused on dex IMO
edit: i guess its only a requirement of 10. Still you should always have SOME strength as melee.
I really like that you can't use any stat as the attack stat and I particular that you can't double it up with a spellcasting stat.
Yep, fair point.
Gives every stat value for every class. The only stat I'm consistently dumping is INT as that is primarily a detriment to out of combat stuff.
Again, I broadly agree, but I’m not against changing just which those stats actually are. I’m not really sure I’ve ever dumped a stat, but not having to sounds like a plus to me.
I just don't like the 5e system where you take just enough strength to wear armor dip 1 lvl into hexblade and now are a paladin in heavy armor and use cha for spells and attacks.
Could even be a dwarf and run around with 8 str and 8 dex.
I couldn’t agree more. One of the first things that bugged me about my forays into 5e were mechanical leaps like this that seemed to invalidate the reason to have rules in the first place. So I’m cognisant and wary of such tweaks, but still open to appreciating them where they work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly unrelated, I've got to say I wasn't entirely thrilled about PF2's version of multiclassing, but now that we've had a year to get used to it going back to 5e or even starfinder feels weird.
Just avoiding dips entirely makes so much sense now that I can hardly believe I didn't like it straight out the gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have 3 chances to increase strength on any character (ancestry, background, and the last step). So if you start with a strength of 10, that was a choice. Strength on its own is a very weak stat, since other than attack/damage the only things it matters for are athletics and "how much stuff you can carry."
Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.
Can't say I agree: For instance, soft martial arts like Aikido and Taiji Chuan are about deflecting the attacker’s force to his or her disadvantage, with the defender exerting minimal force and requiring minimal strength: they focus on flexibility, and endurance, with less emphasis on strength training. Attacks use leverage, nerve points and the opponents own momentum.
I'm familiar with these as I practiced taekwondo and hapkido when I was younger. I'd say I was a str 10 on a good day and I wasn't bad at melee. Circular movements, pressure points and even joint locks don't take great strength to pull off. I know from experience, it doesn't take much strength to hyperextend a finger. [it's a quick and easy way to discourage someone from continuing to grab you when you bend a pinky the wrong way]
The thing is, it’s not that dex melee is “slightly” weaker at 1-3, it’s so incredibly weak that you’re basically throwing your actions away.
I’ve seen a dex champion getting played in Plaguestone, and heck the first time I started up my magus it was dex based with a whip (lasted like 2 sessions before I asked to respec to strength). You hit worse than a wet noodle. Doing 1d4+0 or 1d6+0 against a HP bar of 30 or 45 is basically a waste of an action. Even critting and doing 2d6 doesn’t do much. 2d6+1d8 from a rapier does a bit, but even that is still far less damage than a strength user with a long sword does. They do more than double (closer to 2.5x) your damage on a normal hit, and still nearly double (~70% more) your damage on a crit. Dex melee still carries the inherent risk of melee as well, it’s not risk free.
Now archery, I agree is ok. The damage is the lowest at the points where the range is most pronounced. But archery is also part of the problem here. A shortbow does more damage than a rapier (same weapon dice, higher deadly). You can flank with a shortbow if you’re so inclined, and very few monsters have AoO at low levels so you’re unlikely to even get punished for doing so. Oh, and it also has a 60ft range. Unless you were literally forced to (such as swashbuckler requiring agile or finesse melee weapon) why would you ever pick a rapier?
Now I do recognise this may create a disparity at high levels as well. After all, I do also think once you get to about level 15, dexterity becomes a much better stat than strength. Your reflex saves become relevantly higher (+5 vs +3) and of course, the damage gap is still shrinking. With how many monsters get super fast, fly or are generally difficult to approach at that level, archery becomes the best weapon choice, and strength gets left behind (dex melee still isn’t good but at least you don’t hit like a wet noodle anymore).
That’s why, in addition to “finesse trait adds half dex to damage”, I’m also going to implement a second houserule...
Is half dex to damage in addition to strength or instead of? Because the former means a 18 dex/16 strength rapier does better damage than a 18 strength longsword which doesn't really solve the problem, while the latter makes characters who actually want to invest moderately in strength objectively worse. Both make for weird stat incentives at different levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have 3 chances to increase strength on any character (ancestry, background, and the last step).
For me that's part of why it's frustrating. Stat boosts are such a premium in PF2 it can be really hard to juggle them in a satisfying way, especially when you're talking about investing in a stat that essentially gets less relevant the longer the campaign drags on.
Maybe that's the bigger gripe though. If it's not specifically your engine, Strength (and Intelligence, really) have a sort of diminishing return where the value of your investment gets progressively less important the higher your level. That's not great.
Is half dex to damage in addition to strength or instead of? Because the former means a 18 dex/16 strength rapier does better damage than a 18 strength longsword which doesn't really solve the problem, while the latter makes characters who actually want to invest moderately in strength objectively worse. Both make for weird stat incentives at different levels.
I mean, it's not like the current system doesn't make for weird stat incentives at specific levels. If you start at level 1, you basically need to spend a bunch of stat boosts in Str to not be completely useless as a martial character, with said boosts becoming less and less relevant as the game progresses. If you start at level 15, I'm not sure if anyone in their sane mind would have Str higher than 10 on a Dex character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting point to bring up.
I don't think every strategy needs to be equally good at every point in the game. That's not what you're directly arguing for - I think the point you're trying to make is that compared to the endgame power level the early-game power level is too low - but I don't see why that's necessarily a problem either. Unless everything has the same power-level then isn't this sort of issue that you'd expect to pop up?
That is what I'm arguing for, actually. Is it an achievable goal? No. But I think the game should strive to be as close to this as possible, and in a lot of points it looks like it doesn't even try. This one is an example, there any many others (caster-main gishes, offensive spellcasting, shield blocking as a Druid, a lot of feats that start out good but scale terribly, etc).
|
|
Is half dex to damage in addition to strength or instead of? Because the former means a 18 dex/16 strength rapier does better damage than a 18 strength longsword which doesn't really solve the problem, while the latter makes characters who actually want to invest moderately in strength objectively worse. Both make for weird stat incentives at different levels.
Instead of strength if you choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly unrelated, I've got to say I wasn't entirely thrilled about PF2's version of multiclassing, but now that we've had a year to get used to it going back to 5e or even starfinder feels weird.
Just avoiding dips entirely makes so much sense now that I can hardly believe I didn't like it straight out the gate.
I’m kind of the complete opposite. This “dedication” nonsense is entirely dipping. Don’t want to be a fighter, but want that sweet sweet Fighter stuff? Dip a lil dedication feat and you’re good to go! Want your fighter to have some spellcasting? Dip a lil sorceror dedication feat and now you have dragonblood!!!
It isn’t multiclassing, it’s feat sipping for non-class abilities. I hated VMC in PF1 for the same reason, and can’t stand dedications in PF2. Right up until I want to multiclass, find out I can’t and will have to “bend the knee” grudgingly and take one. But it isn’t multiclassing, no matter how many times you try and say it is. You *don’t* have a second class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even light/medium armors have str requirements. Having a +0 to damage means you literally just ignored STR. That's a silly way to build a character that's focused on dex IMO
edit: i guess its only a requirement of 10. Still you should always have SOME strength as melee.
If that’s your argument then the current system is broken in many ways.
For one, this standard doesn’t apply to strength, who I guess can be argued need dex for ranged if they want to make ranged attacks.
For two, it doesn’t hold up once you hit level 7-8. 10 strength is perfectly fine past then, it only screws you in the early game.
For three, most classes need 4 stats - str or dex, wis, con and their main stat. Occasionally their main stat is one of the above, but magi and dex champions specifically cant really afford to put anything in strength because magi need INT and champions want cha (at least 12, though they don’t really need it, it does more than strength does). Once you move past that, the other two problem classes I mentioned - Fighter and Monk. If you go 16 str you lose a lot of survivability relative to the strength based version (though it can be argued that non mountain monks need 16 dex). If you go 12 strength.. well it’s a big damage bonus in the level 1-3 range, but sort of becomes mostly irrelevant by level 4, and completely irrelevant by level 7-8.
I’m aiming to fix the curve somewhat so that dex melee, relative to strength, always hovers around the same % of DPR, as well as give dex melee a reason to exist instead of every dex character being better off as an archer unless they’re forced to be melee.
Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.Can't say I agree: For instance, soft martial arts like Aikido and Taiji Chuan are about deflecting the attacker’s force to his or her disadvantage, with the defender exerting minimal force and requiring minimal strength: they focus on flexibility, and endurance, with less emphasis on strength training. Attacks use leverage, nerve points and the opponents own momentum.
I'm familiar with these as I practiced taekwondo and hapkido when I was younger. I'd say I was a str 10 on a good day and I wasn't bad at melee. Circular movements, pressure points and even joint locks don't take great strength to pull off. I know from experience, it doesn't take much strength to hyperextend a finger. [it's a quick and easy way to discourage someone from continuing to grab you when you bend a pinky the wrong way]
and in actual competitive martial arts aikido and tai chi are literal jokes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and in actual competitive martial arts aikido and tai chi are literal jokes.Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.Can't say I agree: For instance, soft martial arts like Aikido and Taiji Chuan are about deflecting the attacker’s force to his or her disadvantage, with the defender exerting minimal force and requiring minimal strength: they focus on flexibility, and endurance, with less emphasis on strength training. Attacks use leverage, nerve points and the opponents own momentum.
I'm familiar with these as I practiced taekwondo and hapkido when I was younger. I'd say I was a str 10 on a good day and I wasn't bad at melee. Circular movements, pressure points and even joint locks don't take great strength to pull off. I know from experience, it doesn't take much strength to hyperextend a finger. [it's a quick and easy way to discourage someone from continuing to grab you when you bend a pinky the wrong way]
But are they "super comfortable in melee"? I'd say so. And I think you're underestimating the actual martial art of tai chi [as opposed to hobby/exercise forms]. Chen style tai chi, for instance, focuses on it as a martial art.
EDIT: I forgot to say something about aikido: it's situation is much like tai chi. It has lately taken a shift to a spiritual/fitness focus instead of self defense/combat effectiveness focus. It actually has solid moves, it's just that the current training doesn't focus on effectively using them but on a choreographed 'dance' of pre-arranged forms.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But are they "super comfortable in melee"? I'd say so. And I think you're underestimating the actual martial art of tai chi [as opposed to hobby/exercise forms]. Chen style tai chi, for instance, focuses on it as a martial art.and in actual competitive martial arts aikido and tai chi are literal jokes.Strength 8-10 characters should not be people who are super comfortable in melee, this is spellcaster range IMO.Can't say I agree: For instance, soft martial arts like Aikido and Taiji Chuan are about deflecting the attacker’s force to his or her disadvantage, with the defender exerting minimal force and requiring minimal strength: they focus on flexibility, and endurance, with less emphasis on strength training. Attacks use leverage, nerve points and the opponents own momentum.
I'm familiar with these as I practiced taekwondo and hapkido when I was younger. I'd say I was a str 10 on a good day and I wasn't bad at melee. Circular movements, pressure points and even joint locks don't take great strength to pull off. I know from experience, it doesn't take much strength to hyperextend a finger. [it's a quick and easy way to discourage someone from continuing to grab you when you bend a pinky the wrong way]
There’s a reason you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting. That being said, this isn’t a realistic game. Everything the entire swashbuckler class does in combat would probably leave you dead, and of course, you can’t throw fireballs in real life either. The reason I want dex melee buffed despite however realistic it might be for it to suck, is for mechanical balance. There’s no point having an option that exists to be worse than the others (and dex melee is just pretty much inferior to archery as it currently stands), unless you spell out exactly why you’d want to use it (solely as a backup weapon, and even then the logistics of money you need for a second runed weapon, and the action cost to stow/drop your bow and draw your backup instead of just moving away make it pretty bad even then).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if a martial art is gonna get your butt kicked in the octagon it probably shouldn't be under consideration for an appropriate Pathfinder fighting style. PF2 Fighters start making mince meat of real world jiu jitsu champions pretty quickly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a reason you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting.
There are tai chi in the The Asian Games and wushu, that includes tai chi, has applied to be added to the Olympics plus it's a competitive sport in china. And As I said in my edit in my last post, aikido isn't seen in competition because it's not taught to be competitive and not because it's not capable of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a reason you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting.There are tai chi in the The Asian Games and wushu, that includes tai chi, has applied to be added to the Olympics plus it's a competitive sport in china. And As I said in my edit in my last post, aikido isn't seen in competition because it's not taught to be competitive and not because it's not capable of it.
Sorry but aikido is not capable of it. No aikidoka will ever out grapple or out strike the likes of a George's st pierre or a demetrious Johnson, etc. The sheer lack of sparring has resulted in it having techniques that frankly arent effective in real fights. Wushu is also kind of a meme art.
In this day and age you can find the best martial artists very easily, because we have a unified sport that allows every martial art to compete. And every successful fighter since 2000 has been successful by using one of or a combination of BJJ, Judo, Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, Karate and Free/folk style wrestling. There has never been and I'd bet as much money as I had available at any given time on my life that there never will be a world champion that actually utilizes aikido or tai chi specific techniques as a base.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a reason you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting.There are tai chi in the The Asian Games and wushu, that includes tai chi, has applied to be added to the Olympics plus it's a competitive sport in china. And As I said in my edit in my last post, aikido isn't seen in competition because it's not taught to be competitive and not because it's not capable of it.
Something being an Olympic sport does not mean it's a serious combat art. Olympic Fencing, for example, is pretty useless in a real fight. The same is generally true of Tai Chi, and several other arts.
The Olympians in those sports are incredible athletes, capable of amazing precision to stay within the tournament rules they play under, but that doesn't mean they'd have a prayer in a fight with someone similarly skilled at something like Krav Maga or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Many 'sport' martial arts forbid outright a variety of good combat strategies in tournament and thus train you entirely out of the reflexes to deal with those strategies. Some of that is inevitable in a tournament setting (ie: no eye gouging), but 'sport' arts take that tendency far enough to make them no longer especially useful outside the tournament setting.
For something to be viewed as a 'competitive' martial art, it needs to be competitive with other martial arts. Things like MMA involve just such interdisciplinary competitions, and you basically don't see successful Aikido or Tai Chi practitioners there.
Notably, this has nothing to do with whether the style of martial arts is 'hard' (ie: striking, kicking, etc.) or 'soft' (ie: grapples, throws, etc.). Jiu Jitsu in all its forms is a 'soft' art, focused on grappling and even throws, and it's widely considered one of the best martial arts by serious competitors in such arts. But Aikido and Tai Chi? Not so much. Taekwondo is likewise not usually considered a serious combat art, despite being a 'hard' art, while several other 'hard' arts are considered quite good.
One piece of advice I've run into from people who know what they're talking about is pretty simple: If the martial art's training methodology doesn't involve at least some full speed, full contact, sparring it's probably not a serious combat art. It it does, it's much more likely to be solid. There are basically no Aikido dojos or practitioners who do such sparring, and vanishingly few Tai Chi or Taekwondo dojos that do that either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but aikido is not capable of it. No aikidoka will ever out grapple or out strike the likes of a George's st pierre or a demetrious Johnson, etc. The sheer lack of sparring has resulted in it having techniques that frankly arent effective in real fights. Wushu is also kind of a meme art.
There is nothing wrong with the moves: it's just NO experience with them in a fight. Jack Slack, notable as a mixed martial arts (MMA) striking analysis, says "Once you strip away the cult-like hierarchy of throwing oneself through the air for sensei, Aikido contains a good number of mechanically sound techniques and principles."
There has never been and I'd bet as much money as I had available at any given time on my life that there never will be a world champion that actually utilizes aikido or tai chi specific techniques as a base.
I think there is a VERY fundamental disconnect here: when has this EVER been about who is the best? The post was about "super comfortable in melee", IE competent, not "the best": I've never stated what was the best, never implied it or anything close.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something being an Olympic sport does not mean it's a serious combat art. Fencing, for example, is pretty useless in a real fight. The same is generally true of Tai Chi, and several other arts.
I answered "you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting" which is wrong.
If the martial art's training methodology doesn't involve at least some full speed, full contact, sparring it's probably not a serious combat art.
I don't think any martial art doesn't include full contact and sparring: even aikido involves contact, the issue is that you know what the move is before hand: it's just missing unscripted sparring and without that it's not a practical combat combat martial art. That doesn't mean someone trained in it couldn't gain that experience by sparring outside the martial art and learn to use the moves in a practical way.
As to Tai Chi, it has styles that are quite practical: there are even variations that teach swords, fan, staff, spear, halberd, rope dart, three sectional staff, wind and fire wheels, lasso, whip, chain whip and/or steel whip.
Slightly unrelated, I've got to say I wasn't entirely thrilled about PF2's version of multiclassing, but now that we've had a year to get used to it going back to 5e or even starfinder feels weird.
Just avoiding dips entirely makes so much sense now that I can hardly believe I didn't like it straight out the gate.
I’m kind of the complete opposite. This “dedication” nonsense is entirely dipping. Don’t want to be a fighter, but want that sweet sweet Fighter stuff? Dip a lil dedication feat and you’re good to go! Want your fighter to have some spellcasting? Dip a lil sorceror dedication feat and now you have dragonblood!!!
It isn’t multiclassing, it’s feat sipping for non-class abilities. I hated VMC in PF1 for the same reason, and can’t stand dedications in PF2. Right up until I want to multiclass, find out I can’t and will have to “bend the knee” grudgingly and take one. But it isn’t multiclassing, no matter how many times you try and say it is. You *don’t* have a second class.
Yes, the lack of a second class is exactly what I like. I never was comfortable with multiclassing or chasing complicated builds. I always preferred staying in a single class if possible, and by late PF that usually was. Getting a feat, and one that isn't very much stronger than class feats already available to my class, works a lot better for me.
We also have very different definitions of dipping. I'm talking about taking a level or two to get the benefits of the front-loaded classes, not just picking up an class feature or three. Can you imagine what the former might look like with some of the classes we have in PF2? Forget the stuff like ancestry feats and backgrounds; just combining the level one class features of, say, the swashbuckler and the bard would result like 10 class features to track.
As for the latter, which this system is doing, already was present with in pf1 with archetypes; every class basically getting a version of the gunslinger's basic operating feats, but not grit, being the classic example. Being able to port class abilities to a different class without waiting for a splatbook two or three years down the road just makes a lot of sense to me. That some abilities you never get if you aren't of the proper class is in its own way appealing, though I expect archetypes are going to chip that away to nothing in due time.
The one thing I understand about real world combat sports, is that if one person really wants to take this thing to the ground, then probably both people fighting are going to end up on the ground.
That's why size and strength are not things you can just hand-wave away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, lots there to think about. I see your points and they make sense, even if they don’t align with my preferences.
|
|
I answered "you almost never see Aikido or Tai Chi in any form of competitive fighting" which is wrong.
And I was trying to say (perhaps badly), that 'competitive fighting' generally means IME, at least among the people I've heard use the term, something like MMA that allows multiple styles.
Beating other people trained in the same style means absolutely nothing about how good the style is at fighting people of other styles, kind of definitionally.
I don't think any martial art doesn't include full contact and sparring: even aikido involves contact, the issue is that you know what the move is before hand: it's just missing unscripted sparring and without that it's not a practical combat combat martial art. That doesn't mean someone trained in it couldn't gain that experience by sparring outside the martial art and learn to use the moves in a practical way.
I'd generally agree with most of this, though if it's not 'unscripted' I'm not sure it really counts as sparring. Practicing, sure, but not sparring. So our disagreement here seems to mostly be a difference in terminology.
As to Tai Chi, it has styles that are quite practical: there are even variations that teach swords, fan, staff, spear, halberd, rope dart, three sectional staff, wind and fire wheels, lasso, whip, chain whip and/or steel whip.
A fair number of weapon using martial arts styles are also not great. Honestly, probably a greater number than unarmed styles since they see less real usage, and it's generally been longer since someone has used them seriously.
I can't speak to those of Tai Chi specifically, except inasmuch as I haven't heard good things, but just having weapon styles doesn't mean it's a particularly good combat art.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're on this tangent, I can speak to Tae Kwon Do as I've studied it; it is not a very practical combat art. The basics are there, but anything after the basics is more likely to get you overextended than anything else.
Though we did actually do full-contact, full speed sparring. It's just not usually done at the tournament level, which are more about style and technique than anything else.