And even if the STR user probably wouldn't be using a Rapier doesn't make it any less mind-boggling that they are in fact better at using the Rapier than the DEX user on one of the most iconic DEX user weapons.
What?!!??
Both have the same bonus to hit but Strength user does way less damage. Between 3 and 14 less average damage. That's quite a hit, especially on a weapon that doesn't do much damage by itself.I don't know what you call a "DEX user", but it's definitely not a character that should use a weapon at all.
you can spend such resources to increase your damage
Such as? How is the DEX melee user getting more damage to their Melee attacks outside of an MCD?
There are certainly no General/Skill feats that can do that, which as was pointed out do alleviate the penalties of STR.
specific builds that overcome your weaknesses are specific builds that overcome your weaknesses
And when the DEX user has no comparable options to overcome their weaknesses?
Because that's exactly what I've been saying for like 10 comments. DEX Users are put in a box and told "You can be good at DEX and use finesse, but you won't be better than STR and we won't offer you any ways to make up the distance STR has on Athletics and Damage/Weapon Die".
I tend to run battlemaps that are 30x30, or something on the scale, my melee's aren't being intentionally penalized, but a ranged option is very useful.
So are you arguing that everyone should be running 150ft maps and therefore your anecdotal experience means that my grander point that not wanting to have to use Ranged weapons is a staple of all melee combatants?
What about a dungeon or inside a room or hallway? If you want to say those scenarios are a lot less common than a Barbarian being 75ft+ outside of range on the first turn, then your experience is truly nothing like mine (nor most encounters I've run over the last 2/3 years in this system).
And I think it's important to acknowledge that most APs do not do the "you start 150ft away from each other" schtick either. One of which was being talked about recently it all took place inside rooms of single/double Stride distances.
Even in the DEX melee users case, the 150ft room helps them do what exactly?
Spend less rounds closing the gap and hoping for some meager damage on their Ranged attack rolls while the Barbarian uses two move actions and chucks a spear or Demoralizes? (or Sudden Charge + Stride if within 75/90ft)
It's not like the DEX melee in the large room scenario is somehow much better, they still can't use any of their melee based feats (such as Snagging Strike or whatever) in combat.
Any character that can't use their Class Feats in combat isn't going to play well.
And even after all of that:
Barbarian Rapier > Swashbuckler Rapier
DEX Fighter Rapier < STR Fighter Rapier
And even if the STR user probably wouldn't be using a Rapier doesn't make it any less mind-boggling that they are in fact better at using the Rapier than the DEX user on one of the most iconic DEX user weapons.What?!!??
Both have the same bonus to hit but Strength user does way less damage. Between 3 and 14 less average damage. That's quite a hit, especially on a weapon that doesn't do much damage by itself.I don't know what you call a "DEX user", but it's definitely not a character that should use a weapon at all.
I have no idea what you mean here...
18 STR Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +4
Disarm = +4 + Athletics Prof
18 DEX Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +0 (if 10 STR)
Disarm = +0 (if 10 STR) + Prof
If you're saying that any STR user wouldn't be using a Rapier, yeah obviously, but it is ridiculous that a STR user is still better with a Finesse weapon than a DEX character can even attempt to be good at.
And even if the STR user probably wouldn't be using a Rapier doesn't make it any less mind-boggling that they are in fact better at using the Rapier than the DEX user on one of the most iconic DEX user weapons.What?!!??
Both have the same bonus to hit but Strength user does way less damage. Between 3 and 14 less average damage. That's quite a hit, especially on a weapon that doesn't do much damage by itself.I don't know what you call a "DEX user", but it's definitely not a character that should use a weapon at all.
I have no idea what you mean here...
18 STR Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +4
Disarm = +4 + Athletics Prof18 DEX Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +0 (if 10 STR)
Disarm = +0 (if 10 STR) + ProfIf you're saying that any STR user wouldn't be using a Rapier, yeah obviously, but it is ridiculous that a STR user is still better with a Finesse weapon than a DEX character can even attempt to be good at.
Yes, that's what I meant, your Dex user shouldn't use a weapon at all.
18 DEX Rapier = +4 + ProfDamage = +4 +1D6 or +2D6
And your comparison in your previous thread is wrong. You compare a melee character with an archer and Swashbucklers and Barbarians deal nearly the same amount of damage with a Rapier (but the Barbarian is an all out damage character when the Swashbuckler is more defensive, so, it's also an unfair comparison).
Yes, that's what I meant, your Dex user shouldn't use a weapon at all.
18 DEX Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +4 +1D6 or +2D6And your comparison in your previous thread is wrong. You compare a melee character with an archer and Swashbucklers and Barbarians deal nearly the same amount of damage with a Rapier (but the Barbarian is an all out damage character when the Swashbuckler is more defensive, so, it's also an unfair comparison).
Where are you getting Damage + 4 + 1d6. You don't get +4 to damage with a Rapier.
Also I'm not trying so much to compare different Classes.
A more fair comparison is DEX Fighter vs. STR Fighter or DEX Monk vs. STR Monk, so you're not comparing apples and oranges.
And in the above scenarios, DEX loses to the STR version on the same Finesse weapons every time.
But I'd really love to hear how the DEX user somehow got +4 damage
Yes, that's what I meant, your Dex user shouldn't use a weapon at all.
18 DEX Rapier = +4 + Prof
Damage = +4 +1D6 or +2D6And your comparison in your previous thread is wrong. You compare a melee character with an archer and Swashbucklers and Barbarians deal nearly the same amount of damage with a Rapier (but the Barbarian is an all out damage character when the Swashbuckler is more defensive, so, it's also an unfair comparison).
Where are you getting Damage + 4 + 1d6. You don't get +4 to damage with a Rapier.
Also I'm not trying so much to compare different Classes.
A more fair comparison is DEX Fighter vs. STR Fighter or DEX Monk vs. STR Monk, so you're not comparing apples and oranges.
And in the above scenarios, DEX loses to the STR version on the same Finesse weapons every time.
But I'd really love to hear how the DEX user somehow got +4 damage
There are 2 Dex-based melee classes that can use a Rapier: (Thief) Rogue and Swashbuckler.
Dex-based Fighter is an archer (unless you find Dex-based melee feats in the Fighter class, I haven't found any). And when it comes to Monk, the Dex-based Monk has more AC than the Str-based Monk (unless you go mountain but it has its own issues), so it's another comparison.
There are 2 Dex-based melee classes: (Thief) Rogue and Swashbuckler.
Patently false.
Champion, Ranger, Fighter, Monk, and any Rogue all have DEX as a primary.
You can sit there and say "YEAH BUT FOR ARCHERS" but that's not even close to true.
If your argument is seriously that anyone not building an archer on those classes when choosing DEX is "doing it wrong" then we can stop right here, I do not agree in the slightest.
After all, several people just argued how "it's good to have these stats on everyone!"
Dex-based Fighter is an archer (unless you find Dex-based melee feats in the Fighter class, I haven't found any).
Snagging Strike is an open-hand feat line. See Disarming Stance, Twin Parry (over half the weapons with Parry have Finesse), etc. There is clearly options for a less STR focused Fighter.
And when it comes to Monk, the Dex-based Monk has more AC than the Str-based Monk (unless you go mountain but it has its own issues), so it's another comparison.
Doesn't change the fact that the person who is using a Finesse weapon, a weapon known for being used by Dexterous characters, is doing it better than the DEX focused character (for all purposes including maneuvers).
There are 2 Dex-based melee classes: (Thief) Rogue and Swashbuckler.
Patently false.
Champion, Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Investigator, and any Rogue all have DEX as a primary.
You can sit there and say "YEAH BUT FOR ARCHERS" but that's not even close to true.
If your argument is seriously that anyone not building an archer on those classes when choosing DEX is "doing it wrong" then we can stop right here, I do not agree in the slightest.
After all, several people just argued how "it's good to have these stats on everyone!"
There are not a single Champion, Ranger and Fighter feat for Finesse weapons. There are tons of Ranger and Fighter feats for archers. So, make the maths. If you tell me that your "Dex user" is a Fighter, a Ranger or a Champion, then we can stop the conversation there, yes. These are just invalid builds, like stating that an archer Swashbuckler is really a thing.
Snagging Strike and the Buckler feats say hi.
Snagging Strike doesn't work with Finesse weapons, it works with any weapon.
Bucklers are not related to Dexterity either.So, not a single Fighter feat for dex melee fighters because dex melee fighter is not a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, not a single Fighter feat for dex melee fighters because dex melee fighter is not a thing.
Guess we're done here then.
If "DEX Melee Fighters are not a thing" is the argument that "defeats" the points I've made on DEX based characters being put in a conceptual box, then I guess I "concede".
I just feel like you are overstating the penalties in general. Let's compare two fighters who dump dex/str
18 DEX 10 STR
-Better reflex save
18 STR 10 DEX
-more damage (really hurts early on)
-1 more AC
-5 less movement
-carry more bulk, does this even matter? Since they would be using heavy armor anyway.
So yes early on a DEX Fighter would feel worse than STR but as you level it really wont feel much worse.
Paizo obviously thought DEX for manuevers was too good and I do agree for the most part. There are lots of other feats/class mechanics but at a base level really other than 1-3 they wont feel that much worse.
I just feel like you are overstating the penalties in general. Let's compare two fighters who dump dex/str
18 DEX 10 STR
-Better reflex save18 STR 10 DEX
-more damage (really hurts early on)
-1 more AC
-5 less movement
-carry more bulk, does this even matter? Since they would be using heavy armor anyway.So yes early on a DEX Fighter would feel worse than STR but as you level it really wont feel much worse.
Paizo obviously thought DEX for manuevers was too good and I do agree for the most part. There are lots of other feats/class mechanics but at a base level really other than 1-3 they wont feel that much worse.
Greatsword does 1d12 damage
A Rapier does 1d6
It's not "1-3" damage, it's 4-6 damage.
When Striking comes online, it grows by another 3 (avg of Greatsword) on the first Strikes of the round.
and "-1 AC" isn't really true when you consider a 12 for both (which is far more likely) since the damage differential is still large and the AC differential is then non-existant. Does the Fighter who has 12 DEX have to continue to invest in DEX? Nope. They only needed the 12 to get max AC since Prof takes care of the rest.
The Athletics maneuvers though? sorry even though you're 10% behind already, if you want to keep your level of success you have to advance it at every opportunity for Boosts or you fall behind the curve even further.
The -5 to Speed only applies if it's heavy, and if it's heavy, they eventually get a +3 to Reflex on Bullwark and are on a class with Armor Specialization.
Also the Speed can be overcome, the save can be overcome, the difference in damage and maneuvers cannot be bought.
If there was a Skill Feat/General Feat that allowed Finesse Maneuvers or any alleviation for DEX users at all like there is for STR users, then sure, but there really isn't.
And you failed to include maneuvers being at a 40% disadvantage, which is the most impactful portion of the above outside the damage.
Dex for maneuvers (well, disarm and trip) should come back, but it should be a property of "the character's training" rather than a property of the weapon. Simply because techniques other than "straight up overpower them" are more advanced techniques for getting someone on the ground.
Make "Agile Maneuvers" an expert level athletics feat or something.
Of course, the rapier being bad for disarming for a dex character doesn't seem a huge loss. When's the last time you saw a PC attempt a disarm check? It's pretty hard to land, since you need a crit success to actually accomplish anything.
Dex for maneuvers (well, disarm and trip) should come back, but it should be a property of "the character's training" rather than a property of the weapon. Simply because techniques other than "straight up overpower them" are more advanced techniques for getting someone on the ground.
Make "Agile Maneuvers" an expert level athletics feat or something.
Of course, the rapier being bad for disarming for a dex character doesn't seem a huge loss. When's the last time you saw a PC attempt a disarm check? It's pretty hard to land, since you need a crit success to actually accomplish anything.
Disarm? not that often.
Trip? Often.
And I feel similarly on the Skill Feat, but I'll be honest it's just a straight-up tax and there was nothing unbalanced about the weapons that currently have those maneuvers + finesse. They are all by and large much weaker weapons than other choices (Spiked Chain is garbage compared to Meteor Hammer/Elven Curveblade).
If someone is dumping strength they wouldnt use manuevers. Most likely they would use other skills or just attack. So that is a little silly to argue.
I feel like there are just way to many factors to start comparing everything. There are a lot of Pros and cons of DEX vs STR.
I could be wrong but I think finesse weapons are -1 damage per die on average compared to a similar weapon. Great sword isnt comparable at all to a rapier.
If someone is dumping strength they wouldnt use manuevers. Most likely they would use other skills or just attack. So that is a little silly to argue.
I feel like there are just way to many factors to start comparing everything. There are a lot of Pros and cons of DEX vs STR.
I could be wrong but I think finesse weapons are -1 damage per die on average compared to a similar weapon. Great sword isnt comparable at all to a rapier.
Ah so instead of -40% to maneuvers its "don't ever use them", and that means the DEX based Fighter is just as good as the other guy who can do the damage and can use those maneuvers?
Unlike Stealth/Thievery/Acrobatics, which for the most part are not combat skills, Athletics is the best (maybe only second to Medicine) skill in the game and has applicable combat actions. Even if you go secondary max on STR, you still are 10% behind and have now pidgeonholed yourself into maxing STR until 15 just to match the STR equivalent.
And sure, if you want to say "finesse weapons are down -1" you can, but the reality is that the two-handed DEX users cap at 1d8.
So that's a differential of 2 on Curveblade to Greatsword and 2 additional for each Weapon Die (which applies to more than just Striking, it's just the most common one).
I definitely do not agree that a dex fighter isn't a thing because there's no dex feats.
It might not be optimal but particularly archetypes open you up to build martial classes in all sorts of ways.
For instance you could do fighter martial artist which means legendary in unarmed attacks with access to stances and not being restricted to the few that don't require unarmored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 2 Dex-based melee classes that can use a Rapier: (Thief) Rogue and Swashbuckler.
Dex-based Fighter is an archer (unless you find Dex-based melee feats in the Fighter class, I haven't found any). And when it comes to Monk, the Dex-based Monk has more AC than the Str-based Monk (unless you go mountain but it has its own issues), so it's another comparison.
That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue. I really don't believe that's the case, and if it is, that's a pretty bad design goal to have. It would also prove Toker's point about finesse characters being relegated to having "uses finesse" as their whole gameplay identity, while Strength users can be whatever they want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also room for finesse weapons for "I'm a caster, and I don't have medium armor proficiency so I'm going to want a lot of dex for AC and I might someday swing a weapon at someone."
Like I've seen a lot of bards with rapiers, and also clerics of Cayden, Besmara, and Arazni tend to carry them. Dex is a massively more useful stat to clerics and bards than Str is.
I thought the finesse maneuver clarification ended up being up to DMs to decide.There is a clause that says GMs can change any skill check to be whatever they want, but I think that's meant to be applied to "When you're in a synchronized swimming contest, you can use CHA instead of STR to Athletics".
Yes I agree
The errata was made to explicitly disallow Finesse + Maneuvers (among other Maneuver things like True Strike and Inspire Courage).
You are speaking to intentions here. Do you have anything to directly support that or are you just making a judgment call based on how you see the effects?
I thought the finesse maneuver clarification ended up being up to DMs to decide.There is a clause that says GMs can change any skill check to be whatever they want, but I think that's meant to be applied to "When you're in a synchronized swimming contest, you can use CHA instead of STR to Athletics".
Yes I agree
You are speaking to intentions here. Do you have anything to directly support that or are you just making a judgment call based on how you see the effects?
The errata was made to explicitly disallow Finesse + Maneuvers (among other Maneuver things like True Strike and Inspire Courage).
Pure speculation, but given the clarification came in light of a Playtest comment from a DEV saying the opposite, I'd say that it more than likely is intentional to disallow DEX maneuvers (among other things, but it was definitely included on purpose).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
all I'm reading is that you think melee characters should invest in strength or else be weaker for not being strong while being in melee range.
my answer to that is.. Yes, and I'm glad that's the case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I've found plenty of APs start fights at long distances. Especially at higher levels. High level APs start printing maps with 10 or 20 foot squares instead of 5 foot squares.
Not all fights begin at long range, obviously, but there are entire books where you never really set foot indoors. Age of Ashes book 2 has some fights where ranged combat is really needed to wear down what would otherwise be pretty overwhelming forces, and the high strength low dex characters suck at that.
It kind of feels like strength being better is dependent on the game pretty generously staying to your comfort zone. Ranged is one example, but stealth is another. In PF1, you never tried sneaking if you didn't put ranks in it. In PF2, we have Follow the Expert, Quiet Allies, and the much more reliable rolling against perception DCs. Suddenly sneaking as an entire group is plausible, even without everyone being trained it. But nothing makes up for having bad dex, there. And I can't think of any campaign I've played in where the ability to sneak past whole encounters wouldn't have made a huge difference at least once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I am happier seeing every ability score having its distinct spot. I think allowing options for characters to melee with any attribute is a bad idea. Str and Dex based melee is different as it should be.
My hesitancy with the new system is that it is easy for everybody to get 18 in 4+ scores after mid levels. The issue being, to paraphrase Syndrome, when everyone is super, no one is.
No I wasn't that keen on the item ability score madness of the previous edition either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, not a single Fighter feat for dex melee fighters because dex melee fighter is not a thing.Guess we're done here then.
If "DEX Melee Fighters are not a thing" is the argument that "defeats" the points I've made on DEX based characters being put in a conceptual box, then I guess I "concede".
Paizo separated the Dex characters into 2 categories: Archers and Finesse users. In my opinion, for balance reasons, as having a character as strong as a melee martial at melee range and as strong as a ranged martial at range would be a bit overpowered.
Dex Fighters and Rangers are archers. Dex melee fighters and rangers are not supported by the game (I consider the complete absence of feats and class abilities as being the sign of absence of support).That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.
Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
It would also prove Toker's point about finesse characters being relegated to having "uses finesse" as their whole gameplay identity, while Strength users can be whatever they want.
Strength users can't be whatever they want. Strength-based Wizards are weak. Strength users must be from a class that support Strength-based combat. As the only Strength type of combat is melee martial, it makes all Strength based classes melee martials. It's not the case for Dexterity which supports 2 types of combat. So you have to check beforehand if a Dex-based class supports Finesse if you want to use it as a Finesse martial.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The benefits of having a good DEX in Medium armor are minimal. In Heavy Armor, they're basically non-existant.
Er...no they aren't. Well, maybe for heavy armor (since that requires more Str, adds to Reflex on its own, and reduces movement for everyone), but Medium Armor which you meet the Str Minimum for gains every single advantage from Dex that light armor does (Reflex Saves, Skills, mobility, etc.).
Now, whether that's worth foregoing Heavy Armor for is another matter, but acting like a Dex-based Fighter won't do it is just not an accurate examination of how characters actually work.
Can you go mid-DEX with Medium armor? Sure and it might be passable. It's still a higher investment cost than just going flat STR.
I mean, a higher investment in what sense? And for who? For a Fighter or Champion, possibly. For just about anyone else? Probably not so much. A Dex-based Ranger investing as much in Str as a Str-based one would need to invest in Dex (since they need some for their Medium Armor), for example, has equal AC, 2-3 less damage per attack (maybe a little more at high levels), much better Reflex Save, better ranged attacks, and better Skills in general (worse Athletics, but better Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery). Going more Str than that, the damage disparity goes down but their defenses suffer a bit.
That doesn't look worse to me, just different.
I stand by what I said, if you're using a Rapier + Snagging Strike as a Fighter (an ICONIC playstyle of a DEX person) you are literally more effective going Heavy Armor, maxing STR, and just using your free-hand for maneuvers than a full DEX user trying to make the same style work.
I mean, Fighters are one of two Classes in the game with native access to Heavy Armor, which increases their incentives to go Str-based pretty heavily. Using them as an example for Dex-builds having problems when they're one of the best Classes to use Str-builds and one of the worst for Dex-builds is gonna distort things quite a bit.
I still think a Dex-build melee Fighter is perfectly viable and has real advantages in skills and mobility, as well as ranged stuff, but they're legitimately giving up a fair amount for it and are probably legitimately weaker.
But that's one Class. Add Champion, which has no valid Dex build at all at the moment, and you have two Classes that Dex-based melee isn't really good for. Every other Class, except maybe Barbarian, the comparison looks a lot better (not even getting into Swashbucklers and Rogues, who are obviously both great at Dex-based melee).
|
That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
Most casters have SWP, if that, which precludes using martial finesse weapons such as rapiers or shortswords. Whatever purpose finesse weapons serve, it isn't for the benefit of spellcasters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most casters have SWP, if that, which precludes using martial finesse weapons such as rapiers or shortswords. Whatever purpose finesse weapons serve, it isn't for the benefit of spellcasters.That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
I mean, it partially is. The Dex 16 Druid in my AoA game is pretty happy he can use a dagger with Dex as a backup weapon (not that he usually needs to, but still).
That's not the primary use for Martial finesse weapons, but Simple finesse weapons do exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most casters have SWP, if that, which precludes using martial finesse weapons such as rapiers or shortswords. Whatever purpose finesse weapons serve, it isn't for the benefit of spellcasters.That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
Bards are proficient in both the shortsword and the rapier. I would say finesse weapons largely exist for classes required to use them (Rogues, Swashbucklers, sorta Investigators).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bards are proficient in both the shortsword and the rapier. I would say finesse weapons largely exist for Rogues, though.Most casters have SWP, if that, which precludes using martial finesse weapons such as rapiers or shortswords. Whatever purpose finesse weapons serve, it isn't for the benefit of spellcasters.That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
There are plenty of ancestries that have feats for martial finesse weapons: Tengu, halfling, elf, goblin and catfolk.
|
|
So, not a single Fighter feat for dex melee fighters because dex melee fighter is not a thing.Guess we're done here then.
If "DEX Melee Fighters are not a thing" is the argument that "defeats" the points I've made on DEX based characters being put in a conceptual box, then I guess I "concede".
Paizo separated the Dex characters into 2 categories: Archers and Finesse users. In my opinion, for balance reasons, as having a character as strong as a melee martial at melee range and as strong as a ranged martial at range would be a bit overpowered.
Dex Fighters and Rangers are archers. Dex melee fighters and rangers are not supported by the game (I consider the complete absence of feats and class abilities as being the sign of absence of support).That would imply that before the APG came out the finesse trait and all weapons that have it existed for the sole purpose of Thief Rogue.Finesse weapons are very important for casters as they have in general honorable Dexterity and low Strength.
It would also prove Toker's point about finesse characters being relegated to having "uses finesse" as their whole gameplay identity, while Strength users can be whatever they want.Strength users can't be whatever they want. Strength-based Wizards are weak. Strength users must be from a class that support Strength-based combat. As the only Strength type of combat is melee martial, it makes all Strength based classes melee martials. It's not the case for Dexterity which supports 2 types of combat. So you have to check beforehand if a Dex-based class supports Finesse if you want to use it as a Finesse martial.
FWIW I like the Finesse martial name.
|
|
The benefits of having a good DEX in Medium armor are minimal. In Heavy Armor, they're basically non-existant.Er...no they aren't. Well, maybe for heavy armor (since that requires more Str, adds to Reflex on its own, and reduces movement for everyone), but Medium Armor which you meet the Str Minimum for gains every single advantage from Dex that light armor does (Reflex Saves, Skills, mobility, etc.).
Now, whether that's worth foregoing Heavy Armor for is another matter, but acting like a Dex-based Fighter won't do it is just not an accurate examination of how characters actually work.
Can you go mid-DEX with Medium armor? Sure and it might be passable. It's still a higher investment cost than just going flat STR.I mean, a higher investment in what sense? And for who? For a Fighter or Champion, possibly. For just about anyone else? Probably not so much. A Dex-based Ranger investing as much in Str as a Str-based one would need to invest in Dex (since they need some for their Medium Armor), for example, has equal AC, 2-3 less damage per attack (maybe a little more at high levels), much better Reflex Save, better ranged attacks, and better Skills in general (worse Athletics, but better Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery). Going more Str than that, the damage disparity goes down but their defenses suffer a bit.
That doesn't look worse to me, just different.
I stand by what I said, if you're using a Rapier + Snagging Strike as a Fighter (an ICONIC playstyle of a DEX person) you are literally more effective going Heavy Armor, maxing STR, and just using your free-hand for maneuvers than a full DEX user trying to make the same style work.I mean, Fighters are one of two Classes in the game with native access to Heavy Armor, which increases their incentives to go Str-based pretty heavily. Using them as an example for Dex-builds having problems when they're one of the best Classes to use Str-builds...
It is indeed pretty obvious that the devs did not want Finesse Fighter to be as strong in melee combat as STR Fighter. Maybe because what would be the incentive to play a STR Fighter then?
You would be equal to the Finesse Fighter in melee combat ability and dreadfully worse at many things. Or only somewhat worse if you spend many resources to fill the gap.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, clearly, but it's a level 10 feat from an archetype. I don't expect every strength-based martial to take it.One important thing about heavy armor, is that tripping a heavy armor user is a piece of cake. They don't have Dexterity and many DMs don't apply Bulwark to trip as it only does negligeable damage on a critical success.Mighty Bulwark helps with this.I'd expect "every strength-based martial" that has a Dm that thinks "Every monster with a little bit of intelligence and coordination should trip" them to take it... :P
There is also Reflexive Shield that works with Mighty Bulwark.
I wonder how many Fighters and Champions will actually invest in Mighty Bulwark and similar feats.
I am always interested in optimizing my characters. So I tried to fit Mighty Bulwark in my Champion's build. Note that this means taking the Sentinel dedication feat that does absolutely nothing for a Champion.
In the end, it would come online so late that it would be insignificant while still costing me 2 really valuable Class feats.
Because all my previous Class feats are required for my initial concept.
All in all, it is just easier for me to boosts my Champion's DEX. Which I chose not to do because I preferred giving him more Trained skills thanks to INT.
But that is a choice, so everything working as intended as far as I am concerned.
Never did I say I want STR to be inconsequential.
I said the investment cost to be a good fighter while using DEX is higher than using STR.
No one has really refuted that, they've just said repeatedly I'm doing it wrong on Classes that have DEX as primaries.
And at no point was I ever interested in giving DEX people damage back, I actually don't think the damage is the issue. But locking DEX users out of 4 Basic Actions does and it vastly improved the tactics of the game.
Fighter 1 wants to be good at Demoralize and Fighter 2 wants to be good at Demoralize.
Both have equal investment opportunities to be good at Demoralize.
Fighter 1 wants to be good at Athletics and Fighter 2 wants to be good at Athletics.
Fighter 1 inherently gets to be maxed Athletics due to STR, Fighter 2 can never overcome their 18 DEX for maneuvers.
If you all think its great that DEX users across the board are less effective at using basic combat actions that were practically a staple of making combats more interesting, then good for you.
The DEX fighter being able to use Trip/Disarm was a good thing at my tables and now all my DEX players are going to have to find other ways to contribute to tactical combat (I guess CHA is their only option for remaining relevant because those are at least against Will).
The idea that a STR Fighter would be "pointless" if a DEX Fighter was allowed to use Trip/Disarm is hilariously wrong. The latter would still be weaker on damage, unable to use Grapple or Shove, unable to access Armor Specialization, etc.
"If you want to be able any good at Combat you need to make STR your secondary max" is exactly what people said about DEX in PF1/3.5.
So congratulations, board is flipped. All this pearl clutching about the poor STR user will do if DEX gets some Feats/Options is hilarious to me. When it comes to combat, nothing is better than STR, and if you've read my posts and think that I want that to change, then my point isn't coming through at all.
Literally the only thing I want is for some Maneuvers to be on the table in some form because action restrictions in a tactical game severly limit the complexity of combat.
Assurance in Athletics is as good for a DEX character as for a STR one.
I tried once to argue that Assurance was valuable for maneuvers and was told that I was wrong and that my CL 3 examples of 66% of them being vulnerable to a maneuver was "wrong".
Hivemind gonna hivemind.
And while it does help some (level 2 Rogue is literally blowing people out of the water here) that requires the DEX user to spend a Skill Feat just to be able to routinely use a maneuver against a below level opponent if they can guess the right weak DC (if they even have one).
But I guess it's something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember that thread. I thought Assurance in Athletics was bad for the reasons you outline below.Assurance in Athletics is as good for a DEX character as for a STR one.I tried once to argue that Assurance was valuable for maneuvers and was told that I was wrong and that my CL 3 examples of 66% of them being vulnerable to a maneuver was "wrong".
Hivemind gonna hivemind.
And while it does help some (level 2 Rogue is literally blowing people out of the water here) that requires the DEX user to spend a Skill Feat just to be able to routinely use a maneuver against a below level opponent if they can guess the right weak DC (if they even have one).
But I guess it's something.
Assurance in Athletics is good for anyone who wants to spend 3rd actions to debuff below-level enemies that have low-enough saves instead of doing something else. That isn't me, though.
I just realized something else.
All the talk of having +4 or +5 from armour only comes into play either if you're a Mountain Stance monk or after you've played a while. The cheapest heavy armour is 13 gold, and while I only have the 'starting at higher level' chart to work with you have to survive first level before you can actually afford that (or just buy splint mail and punch stuff since you can only afford that and your pack). It's fine to theorize about how neat you'll be in heavy armour, but you're starting out in medium.
Sinking a few points into Dexterity for a Strength build starts to sound a little better now.
I just realized something else.
All the talk of having +4 or +5 from armour only comes into play either if you're a Mountain Stance monk or after you've played a while. The cheapest heavy armour is 13 gold, and while I only have the 'starting at higher level' chart to work with you have to survive first level before you can actually afford that (or just buy splint mail and punch stuff since you can only afford that and your pack). It's fine to theorize about how neat you'll be in heavy armour, but you're starting out in medium.
Sinking a few points into Dexterity for a Strength build starts to sound a little better now.
If the DM allows armored skirts then you can transform medium armor into heavy for 2gp raising AC by 1 and lowering the dex cap by 1, strength requirement by 2,...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we have different opinions but we agree on the facts.
I said the investment cost to be a good fighter while using DEX is higher than using STR.
Agreed if by DEX fighter, you mean Finesse Fighter. In my opinion, Finesse Fighter just doesn't work well. It is playable, but compared to a Strength-based Fighter it's weak.
If you all think its great that DEX users across the board are less effective at using basic combat actions that were practically a staple of making combats more interesting, then good for you.
I think there's a strong opinion in here. You have the right to consider that maneuvers are a "staple of making combats more interesting" but you also have to consider that some players don't care at all about combat maneuvers (I mean, not as much as you). Most of my melee characters don't increase Athletics.
The DEX fighter being able to use Trip/Disarm was a good thing at my tables and now all my DEX players are going to have to find other ways to contribute to tactical combat (I guess CHA is their only option for remaining relevant because those are at least against Will).
In my opinion, Disarm should be based off Acrobatics. First, because like you I find it logical for a very dexterous character to be strong at disarming, but also because Disarm is very common on Finesse weapons. And, as a side note, it would increase the value of Disarm, as it's currently hyper weak, but making it the only Acrobatics-based maneuver would justify its weakness compared to other maneuvers.
So congratulations, board is flipped. All this pearl clutching about the poor STR user will do if DEX gets some Feats/Options is hilarious to me. When it comes to combat, nothing is better than STR, and if you've read my posts and think that I want that to change, then my point isn't coming through at all.
Now, I think you are going into hyperboles. Rogue is commonly considered a pretty solid class. Swashbuckler is weaker but still perfectly playable. Dex-based Monks are as good as Str-based Monks. In my opinion, your statement is way to general. Finesse users are fine. Now, if you speak again of the Finesse Fighter, then, we are back to my first comment.
If the DM allows armored skirts then you can transform medium armor into heavy for 2gp raising AC by 1 and lowering the dex cap by 1, strength requirement by 2,...I just realized something else.
All the talk of having +4 or +5 from armour only comes into play either if you're a Mountain Stance monk or after you've played a while. The cheapest heavy armour is 13 gold, and while I only have the 'starting at higher level' chart to work with you have to survive first level before you can actually afford that (or just buy splint mail and punch stuff since you can only afford that and your pack). It's fine to theorize about how neat you'll be in heavy armour, but you're starting out in medium.
Sinking a few points into Dexterity for a Strength build starts to sound a little better now.
I understand there. Of course, that's a bit of an if. I'd rather not stake my build on that. Also, you need either chain shirt (five gold), scale (four), chainmail (six), or breastplate (eight). So that's six gold on your starting armour at minimum.
I understand there. Of course, that's a bit of an if. I'd rather not stake my build on that. Also, you need either chain shirt (five gold), scale (four), chainmail (six), or breastplate (eight). So that's six gold on your starting armour at minimum.If the DM allows armored skirts then you can transform medium armor into heavy for 2gp raising AC by 1 and lowering the dex cap by 1, strength requirement by 2,...I just realized something else.
All the talk of having +4 or +5 from armour only comes into play either if you're a Mountain Stance monk or after you've played a while. The cheapest heavy armour is 13 gold, and while I only have the 'starting at higher level' chart to work with you have to survive first level before you can actually afford that (or just buy splint mail and punch stuff since you can only afford that and your pack). It's fine to theorize about how neat you'll be in heavy armour, but you're starting out in medium.
Sinking a few points into Dexterity for a Strength build starts to sound a little better now.
I built a characte for a friend that spent 14gp on a composite shortbow at lvl 1 xD. Being a Monk helped.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a strong opinion in here. You have the right to consider that maneuvers are a "staple of making combats more interesting" but you also have to consider that some players don't care at all about combat maneuvers (I mean, not as much as you). Most of my melee characters don't increase Athletics.
And the ones that don't care, don't have to take Athletics as a Skill.
My issue is taking Athletics as a DEX melee Class and being pretty awful at maneuverrs for no real reason.
You can say it's a strong opinion, but the reality is that at my tables Players used whatever actions they could to try to be interesting. The Action Economy is one of the BEST parts of PF2, almost unanimously.
By removing 4 basic combat maneuvers from an entire slew of DEX focused classes (which DEX is a combat stat) you remove action variability and stifle combat complexity (one of the reasons my groups like the game).
In my opinion, Disarm should be based off Acrobatics. First, because like you I find it logical for a very dexterous character to be strong at disarming, but also because Disarm is very common on Finesse weapons. And, as a side note, it would increase the value of Disarm, as it's currently hyper weak, but making it the only Acrobatics-based maneuver would justify its weakness compared to other maneuvers.
I don't really care how they allow Maneuvers for DEX characters, but maneuvers are DEX based actions.
See most Finesse weapons have Trip or Disarm? Why is that?
Because the themes of using Trip/Disarm are tightly coupled with DEX users.
Disqualifying DEX themed actions from Finesse Melees as you put it is my biggest issue.
If it were Acrobatics, I think that would be too strong (funneling skills would be better than the previous ruling on Weapons with Finesse and Maneuvers) but I'd take whatever I can get at this point.
Now, I think you are going into hyperboles. Rogue is commonly considered
You mean the one Class that can pretty much ignore STR entirely because they get DEX to damage and vastly more Skill Feats/Increases to alleviate the Athletics issues?
I would never argue the Rogue isn't one of (if not THE) best classes in the game.
But it's not Rogues I'm talking about.
Rangers, Champions, Fighters, Monks, and even sometimes Swashbucklers (circumstances pending) suffer from the Athletics issue.
The fact that a DEX based Monk is worse at Maneuvers than a Barbarian is absurd. And if you want to argue that all martial artists are "STR based" to the point where they would have 18 always, then we have very different understandings of martial arts.
There are lots of martial arts (heck, honestly even Judo/Jui Jitsu has quite a few DEX based grappling manuevers) that promote the balance between the two and using your opponents STR/weight against them.
A hip toss in Jui Jitsu isn't a "STR move", it's a swift DEX based move where you use the opponents weight and your body angles to flip them.
Not to get all "I kNoW MaRtIAl ArTS" because that's not my point, I am just saying that I know for a fact there are maneuvers/tactics in martial arts that are specifically not STR, they are skill derived swift/dexterous actions that require perfect body placement in order to derive results.
And just about every martial art has some form of a maneuver.
Regardless, if my Swashbuckler has to hulk a weapon out of your hand when they use a Rapier, conceptually that's not only not accurate it goes against most themes (even in Paizo's own game where finesse weapons have these maneuvers).
The value people place on maneuvers is their own, but being able to invest and use them when you want to without having to compromise your character concept because Paizo wants all DEX users to be in that conceptual box of "no maneuvers for you!" is something I think needs a look.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compared to STR-based Fighters, Finesse Fighters always had less AC and less damage (because less STR and finesse weapons have smaller damage die) and comparable Reflex saves (Bulwark).
Now that finesse maneuvers are no longer a thing, there is no reason to play a DEX-based melee Fighter. And even Gymnast Swashbucklers need pretty good STR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a strong opinion in here. You have the right to consider that maneuvers are a "staple of making combats more interesting" but you also have to consider that some players don't care at all about combat maneuvers (I mean, not as much as you). Most of my melee characters don't increase Athletics.And the ones that don't care, don't have to take Athletics as a Skill.
My issue is taking Athletics as a DEX melee Class and being pretty awful at maneuverrs for no real reason.
You can say it's a strong opinion, but the reality is that at my tables Players used whatever actions they could to try to be interesting. The Action Economy is one of the BEST parts of PF2, almost unanimously.
By removing 4 basic combat maneuvers from an entire slew of DEX focused classes (which DEX is a combat stat) you remove action variability and stifle combat complexity (one of the reasons my groups like the game).
In my opinion, Disarm should be based off Acrobatics. First, because like you I find it logical for a very dexterous character to be strong at disarming, but also because Disarm is very common on Finesse weapons. And, as a side note, it would increase the value of Disarm, as it's currently hyper weak, but making it the only Acrobatics-based maneuver would justify its weakness compared to other maneuvers.I don't really care how they allow Maneuvers for DEX characters, but maneuvers are DEX based actions.
See most Finesse weapons have Trip or Disarm? Why is that?
Because the themes of using Trip/Disarm are tightly coupled with DEX users.
Disqualifying DEX themed actions from Finesse Melees as you put it is my biggest issue.
If it were Acrobatics, I think that would be too strong (funneling skills would be better than the previous ruling on Weapons with Finesse and Maneuvers) but I'd take whatever I can get at this point.
You mean...
Now, I think you are going into hyperboles. Rogue is commonly considered
As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength. BJJ and Judo both explicitly have weight classes because of how much strength and weight distribution matter. And unless you think you're going to imanari roll an orc I dont see how it's that relevant in a weapons based system to begin with.
Seriously. Try rolling with someone who's 40 lbs lighter than you or has no muscle mass. Tripping is absolutely a move that requires strength as well as technique, and it shows when you give against people significantly weaker or stronger than you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength. BJJ and Judo both explicitly have weight classes because of how much strength and weight distribution matter. And unless you think you're going to imanari roll an orc I dont see how it's that relevant in a weapons based system to begin with.
Seriously. Try rolling with someone who's 40 lbs lighter than you or has no muscle mass. Tripping is absolutely a move that requires strength as well as technique, and it shows when you give against people significantly weaker or stronger than you.
Your experience with BJJ is not unique. I was a practitioner for quite a while.
And yes, I agree weight does play a factor, I rolled with a guy that was in fact about 40lbs above me several times (and my teacher was even higher than that).
Regardless, an Arm bar is still an arm bar, a guillitine is still a guillitine, and a hip-toss is NOT a STR based moved (you literally pivot and use your hip for the lift).
I am not saying Grapples shouldn't be STR based, I am saying there are maneuvers that are not STR based and its one of the reasons that people generally learn BJJ in the first place because it has holds/tosses/etc. that a person who IS smaller can use on a larger opponent.
And this is a game. 1 to 1 realism isn't a requirement, its more important that themes/concepts are able to live in the game.
My point is with the proper training, yes, DEX maneuvers should be possible and they do in fact exist even in real life martial arts.
There are quite a few people on these forums with MA experience as far as I know, so I wouldn't assume your experience in MMA/MA gives you any kind of inherent knowledge over others here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength.
People saying martial arts don't rely on strength causes you to experience a PTSD flashback?
Not the most surprising trigger I've heard of (that honor goes to pudding), but t's up there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength.People saying martial arts don't rely on strength causes you to experience a PTSD flashback?
Not the most surprising trigger I've heard of (that honor goes to pudding), but t's up there.
It's not even what was said.
I said there are specific moves in martial arts that aren't STR based, which is 100% true.
Never did I say that being strong or having STR didn't matter because that would be an outright lie.
The reason there are weight classes in BJJ/Judo is specifically that its easier to gain positioning (mount, guard, etc.) to then try to execute a move. But the move itself is rarely a "strong" one, especially in BJJ since most chokes/holds don't even require a lot of pressure (it's all about where the pressure is applied, not the amount). Sure a heavy person might be able to snap your arm on an armbar faster than a weaker person (or even completely break out of an armbar due to improper technique or utter lack of any strength) but the weaker person can still execute the same move against a stronger person with the proper training on how to apply the move.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is taking Athletics as a DEX melee Class and being pretty awful at maneuverrs for no real reason.
You derived from what I was answering to, but I think it's because we mostly agree.
I don't have a point of view on Dex-based maneuvers. On one hand, I understand that it's sad to have only one type of martials able to properly use maneuvers, on the other hand I'm all for balance and as such I would perfectly accept something a bit illogical to maintain balance between classes.Unlike you, I consider that Strength as an attribute is quite bad. Everything you get from Strength, Dex-based martials compensate it with class features. Rogues get Sneak Attack, Monks get higher damage dice on Finesse attacks, Swashbuckler get Finishers. So, what is the point of Strength? In my opinion, maneuvers. If you give them to Dexterity, I don't see any reason to go Barbarian over Rogue. Rogue does similar damage, if he is also as good as maneuver then what will be the Barbarian shtick that the Rogue doesn't have?
My issue is taking Athletics as a DEX melee Class and being pretty awful at maneuverrs for no real reason.You derived from what I was answering to, but I think it's because we mostly agree.
I don't have a point of view on Dex-based maneuvers. On one hand, I understand that it's sad to have only one type of martials able to properly use maneuvers, on the other hand I'm all for balance and as such I would perfectly accept something a bit illogical to maintain balance between classes.Unlike you, I consider that Strength as an attribute is quite bad. Everything you get from Strength, Dex-based martials compensate it with class features. Rogues get Sneak Attack, Monks get higher damage dice on Finesse attacks, Swashbuckler get Finishers. So, what is the point of Strength? In my opinion, maneuvers. If you give them to Dexterity, I don't see any reason to go Barbarian over Rogue. Rogue does similar damage, if he is also as good as maneuver then what will be the Barbarian shtick that the Rogue doesn't have?
I mean considering that I was playing with both a Barbarian and a Rogue with the old Finesse rules (where it did apply), and there was at no point the Rogue felt "better" or outshining the Barbarian at all, I just dont agree on the latter points.
There are lots of things STR based characters can do, even other maneuvers that DEX characters couldn't (grapple/shove). And of course Damage.
Not to mention the other aspects of Athletics, which are still important (Break, Climb, Swim, Jump).
Damage-wise Barbarian blows Rogue out of the water even if we assume higher than regular sneak attacks.
Most of your concerns seem to be with Rogues.
If you put a "Prerequisite Trained in Martial Weapons" at the top of the Athletics DEX feat, it pretty much excludes them without them spending extra to get it.
If it were a Class Feat, then you just don't give it to Rogues at all. Let Monks, Fighters, Rangers, Champions, and Swashbucklers who want to buy into that do it. Then if the Rogue wants it they have to MCD, which to me is more than fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike you, I consider that Strength as an attribute is quite bad. Everything you get from Strength, Dex-based martials compensate it with class features. Rogues get Sneak Attack, Monks get higher damage dice on Finesse attacks, Swashbuckler get Finishers. So, what is the point of Strength? In my opinion, maneuvers. If you give them to Dexterity, I don't see any reason to go Barbarian over Rogue. Rogue does similar damage, if he is also as good as maneuver then what will be the Barbarian shtick that the Rogue doesn't have?
How exactly does the math on that work? Even a Thief Rogue, that has the so feared Dex-to-damage, will not be the same damage as a two-handed Barb with Rage. At level 1 a Thief Rogue vs a Dragon Barb will be 2d6+4 (11) vs 1d12+8 (14.5). At level 7 it's 4d6+6 (20) vs 2d12+14 (27). Even if you take a level like 5 (18 vs 21) or 11 (24.5 vs 28) where Rogues have the scaling advantage, Barbarian will still be ahead. And that's not even considering the Rogue damage bonus requires a certain situation, while the Barbarian's doesn't.
No, finesse maneuvers won't make Dexterity characters outshine Strength in all aspects. And the Thief Rogue, being the only character to have Dex to damage, is pretty much the best case scenario for your theory.