| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 2e, but the recent removal of finesse maneuvering as a mechanic is what made me think I really need to start a thread about this. The main issue boils down to Dexterity-based martial characters having a lot of issues with build paths and early game damage.
Archers have the advantage of range, but their flat 1d6 damage with the usual preferred weapon (Shortbow) is so low that you can actually do more damage with cantrips for the first few levels (considerably more at level 3). And that's not even counting Electric Arc. Characters with a damage booster like Sneak Attack or Precision Edge get a little better, but the early levels are pretty sad if you are a Flurry Ranger archer, a Fighter, a Monastic Archer Monk or, god forbid, an archer Champion.
But archers do have the range advantage after all, so let's get into what I think are the real losers in this whole situation: Finesse melee characters. Finesse characters exist in a limbo, or a catch-22, or whatever you want to call it, because they have two options.
One of them is going full Dexterity and ignoring Strength, which promptly causes you to have all the aforementioned issues for archers, except you lose the one advantage they have. You have archer damage, but no range. Even Swashbuckler, the class that is explicitly made to fight in melee with finesse weapons, can barely do the same damage of a Greatsword swing from a Champion at level 1, with a finisher, if you have no Strength. A finisher that requires setup with a failure chance and extra actions. I won't even go in detail about Fighter, Flurry Ranger or any of those poor unboosted souls, who can do upwards of 60% less damage than their Str counterparts with similar weapons (Rapier vs Longsword, for example).
The other option is investing in Strength, which should be easy enough. Except... it isn't. 18 Dexterity and 16 Strength takes away almost all of your stat boosts at level 1, and Strength, unfortunately, is a stat that scales backwards as a secondary stat. What I mean by that is, the more you level up, the less signifcant Strength to damage is, going from about 90-110% extra damage to barely 10%. The more you level, the more you regret putting those points into Strength instead of the saving throw stats, which high level monsters can absolutely anihilate you with. And if you are a class that needs a third stat, like 90% of Swashbucklers, you have no option. The best you can ever get is 18 Dex/16 Cha/14 Str, which still leaves you with some not-so-great damage while also having low Con, low Wisdom and isn't even a valid array for a lot of ancestries.
Starting a finesse character at level 1 and leveling up to 20 or starting it at 11 and leveling up to 20 are two completely different experiences where one of them is clearly more satisfying, and I would definitely argue that's a problem.
Now, I won't pretend having high Dexterity instead of Strength does not have its advantages. You do have higher Reflex saves, you do have better ranged options, and you do have a wider array of skills, but Strength users have many options to cover from those weaknesses. Bulwark exists. Mighty Bulwark exists if you really want to push it. You can Trip with Bolas at a distance against flying enemies, or get some anti-air spells via Dedications or Ancestry feats. Most of the essential uses of Acrobatics can be covered by Athletics, and while Thievery and Stealth are good skills to have, not having them is not gimping your character in any way or form. I can very safely have an effective 18 Strength / 10 Dexterity character, but the only way to ever do the opposite and not having to slog your way through the early levels is playing a Thief Rogue.
And it's not like Strength doesn't have its own strengths (haha) either. They have bigger dice on weapons in general, and access to good two-handed weapons. Heavy Armor gives you +1 AC. Athletics is one of the most rolled skills in many games, and maneuvers, if Strength is your main stat and you're fully investing in it, can be amazing. Finesse characters used to be able to do this, but they can't anymore. The already weak characters got even weaker with the last errata.
I don't know what's the best solution for this. Letting more people use Dexterity to damage is an obvious suggestion, but given how a lot of people are more afraid of the ghost of Dexterity, the God Stat, than I'm afraid of fighting a Lesser Death as a Magus, that might not be the best solution. In the end, I just hope Paizo finds a way to give your dextrous warriors out there who prefer using their grace and precision to fight than their brawns some love. They really need it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of get what you're going for here and I think there are some legitimate points about leaving dexterity based melee in a slightly awkward spot, but there is an option between 18 Str/10 Dex and 10 Str/18 Dex.
I think generally the game wants and encourages you to not dump one third of the physical stat array if you want to mix it up in melee.
There is an option, but again, is that +1/+2 damage in the early levels that gets insignificant later really worth sacrificing your saving throws for? Or your secondary ability, if you're something like a Swashbuckler? I don't know, it just feels really bad in my opinion, no matter what you decide to do.
Also... I never had issues dumping Dex as a Str character in full plate, I pretty much always leave it at 10 and it worked just fine every time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I'm not a huge fan of the way level 1 stat distributions shake out.
Since the game basically demands you silo your stats to the maximum in whatever your core stat is, that only really leaves you five boosts to distribute everywhere else. Which, as you've pointed out, gets really limiting if you're at all MAD.
Combine that with the double whammy of the game's math and it makes it really hard to build a character who feels like they've got a broad foundation at all.
FWIW, I usually aim for 14 strength on most of my finesse characters, but I agree it doesn't feel great, because that's not enough to make maneuvers worth using and that +2 damage depreciates fast and not that much slower if I spend boosts on strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbucklers are also likely affected by their default Finisher being Confident Finisher, which does half of the extra damage on a failure. Every single time, Paizo generally accounts for "half damage on a miss" or similar mechanics in the math, and every single time, it isn't easily felt or satisfying to the end user even if it's roughly equal with other options, judging by all of the reports about save spells and Alchemists.
Finesse martials as a whole, I don't think I have a particular issue with. Picking whatever Strength you want for its secondary stat uses and riding out the damage curve seems fine, though I admittedly lack direct experience of the very low levels this topic is about (played a Crane Stance Monk around Lv 6 and found it nice).
As for low-level stat distributions, Know Direction responded to this in their houserules draft by basically requiring key stats to be maxed out no matter what but giving extra ability boosts to go elsewhere, if I remember correctly. It's not a bad idea given the math, though there are kinks to work out. :o
Finesse martials as a whole, I don't think I have a particular issue with. Picking whatever Strength you want for its secondary stat uses and riding out the damage curve seems fine, though I admittedly lack direct experience of the very low levels this topic is about (played a Crane Stance Monk around Lv 6 and found it nice).
I found levels 1-3 to be absolutely horrible. It gets a little better at 4, 5 and 6, and after level 7 you're pretty much fine. It's less damage, but it's not "every point of Str I'm missing is a 15% penalty" less damage like it is in the first few levels.
I agree level 1-3 would be the worse levels for these classes. Everything else should be fine though of course depending on the class.
I played a precision ranger with a crossbow and felt very strong overall.
About the whole MAD discussion I feel starting with 14 in a stat is actually very good IMO. I love the 18 14 14 14 10 8 or 12 if human build for level 5+. Mainly because a 14 means after level 5 you are only -1 to someone who started with an 18. Imo this build feels the weakest at 1-4 because of the -2 behind someone.
I still would probably say "finesse/ranged" characters are probably better off than casters though. Caster imo take until 5 or 7 to really start to feel great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree level 1-3 would be the worse levels for these classes. Everything else should be fine though of course depending on the class.
I played a precision ranger with a crossbow and felt very strong overall.
About the whole MAD discussion I feel starting with 14 in a stat is actually very good IMO. I love the 18 14 14 14 10 8 or 12 if human build for level 5+. Mainly because a 14 means after level 5 you are only -1 to someone who started with an 18. Imo this build feels the weakest at 1-4 because of the -2 behind someone.
I still would probably say "finesse/ranged" characters are probably better off than casters though. Caster imo take until 5 or 7 to really start to feel great.
The problem of course is lasting that long. And while I do see the point of the 'boost' system it does leave some awkward things. Especially for trying to make a gymnast swashbuckler. I tried to find decent ways to do it, and none really felt satisfying.
The problem of course is lasting that long. And while I do see the point of the 'boost' system it does leave some awkward things. Especially for trying to make a gymnast swashbuckler. I tried to find decent ways to do it, and none really felt satisfying.
Just wanted to quote this part again "The problem of course is lasting that long". This is definitely a small problem since from a pure power perspective for low level campaigns I am pretty sure STR based melee would reign supreme but I feel other classes are still quite viable at low levels. This is very campaign dependent, if I ran any sort of homebrew I would level players from 1-5 really fast since IMO that is when characters really feel good, there is an argument that casters feel best at 7+ though due to proficiencies. I think this is true for every TTRPG and video games. There are always classes that don't feel "great" until certain levels.
I also wanted to add imo this is the biggest problem with PFS. Since it takes 3 5 hour sessions to get a level making a character that is "bad" for early levels can be rough.
If I was making a gymnast swashbuckler I would go 18 Dex 16 Str 14 Con (12 if human). Imo all the other Swashbuckler's are harder since they need some combination of Dex>Cha>Con>Str. There are of course some issue's with gymnast other than stat spread though. Mainly just the fact that to gain panache you increase you MAP. Also with this build you have issues where you don't really have any good non MAP actions.
IMO PF2E has a much better stat system than any other system I have played for allowing characters to be MAP for two main reasons, you get 4 ability boosts which is amazing compared to 5e/PF1 and the "everything after 18 just adds 1" this allows characters to actually spread their points.
I like the way dex works with melee but regarding ancestries, I'm gonna implement free boosts instead of the set ones.
Something like "instead of the recommended ancestry boosts you can use 2 free boosts", Which I hope becomes an optional variant eventually anyway.
I made a monastic archer monk for a friend and started it with 14 strength to both get something out of propulsive and for a damage boost to melee. Had to gimp int and cha for that tho.
I don't know what "finesse maneuvering" was. Could someone explain?
My PF2 Ironfang Invasion campaign started heavy with finesse characters: elf ranger, halfling rogue, and gnome rogue. The fourth character, a gnome druid, had Dexterity 14 and Strength 10. In the preliminaries to the campaign, I warned them of the plot, that they would be refugees from an invasion hiding in a forest, so they made stealthy high-Dexterity characters trained in Nature and Survival. The ranger had the highest strength, Str 12. He boosted it to Str 14 at 5th level.
The gnome rogue has thief racket which adds her Dexterity to damage in melee. However, she prefers to snipe from hiding at range for sneak attack damage. Stealth was her first expert proficiency. The elf ranger relies on multiple attacks, either with archery or with Twin Takedown and a weapon in each hand. He has a reasonable chance of hitting with the 2nd and 3rd attack due to flurry edge.
The halfling rogue with scoundrel racket and Cha 18 multiclassed to sorcerer at 2nd level. He switched to ranged attacks with cantrips for the +4 spellcasting modifier bonus to damage. And he took Magical Trickster at 4th level to occasionally add sneak attack damage. And the druid relied on spells all along.
A fifth player joined the party at 3rd level, a goblin champion. And she was also a low-Strength high-Dexterity character. She did not rely on her own damage. She was built for defense (light armor and sturdy shield) and her velociraptor animal companion was the offense.
Tactically, the party wins through good defense rather than quick damage. They know how to exploit terrain. Everyone except the champion has good ranged attacks, so when they can enforce combat at range, they win. Once they had to retreat up to a higher cavern while fighting xulgath warriors underground. When the xulgath responded by throwing javelins, they rejoiced. They had bows and could deal twice the damage. All they had to do was kill any xulgath trying to climb 30 feet up to them. Another time against hobgoblin soliders they holed up in an abandoned tavern, with the champion blocking the door. They could shoot from the 2nd-floor windows, hiding between shots, to safely deal damage. They killed 360 xp in enemy soldiers that day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what "finesse maneuvering" was. Could someone explain?
Prior to the errata, RAW if you had a finesse weapon with a trait associated with a combat maneuver such as trip or disarm, you would be able to use your dexterity modifier instead of strength for the check. The errata clarified things so that it no longer works this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5e isn't really a good thing to look to on ability balance, where Dexterity is literally superior to Strength in ever way. More skills, similar AC, get to add Dex to damage even on ranged attacks, Dexterity saves being the most common save, and Dexterity being the initiative score. There's no real mechanical incentive to go strength unless you're a barbarian.
Edit: When I said clarification, I meant clarification of what the developers wanted. Yes, RAW changed, but the developers clarified their intent.
I don't know what "finesse maneuvering" was. Could someone explain?Prior to the errata, RAW if you had a finesse weapon with a trait associated with a combat maneuver such as trip or disarm, you would be able to use your dexterity modifier instead of strength for the check. The errata clarified things so that it no longer works this way.Just to point out: you can't both claim a) RAW worked a certain way and b) the errata contained clarification.
Either the RAW did work that way, and now it don't. In this case something changed; that is, we're talking errata, not clarifications.
Or the RAW always worked a certain way and still do. In this change something stayed the same; that is, we're talking clarifications, not errata.
Cheers
As we had a Dev chime in and clarify that it worked before this errata, it's very hard to say that the RAW didn't work that way before it. There has been an alteration done in how we are expected to read the RAW.
EDIT: To clarify, we where told that dex maneuvers with finesse weapons was the way it worked so the flip in this errata is unexpected.
I like the way dex works with melee but regarding ancestries, I'm gonna implement free boosts instead of the set ones.
Something like "instead of the recommended ancestry boosts you can use 2 free boosts", Which I hope becomes an optional variant eventually anyway.I made a monastic archer monk for a friend and started it with 14 strength to both get something out of propulsive and for a damage boost to melee. Had to gimp int and cha for that tho.
For balance, if you do this, I recommend picking a human level 1 ancestry feat as a bonus that all humans get. Normally I'd say "human heritage" but there's only 3, so in this one instance a bonus feat would be easier.
While it mathematically works out the same, the free boosts instead of set ones is a slight power increase that is accounted for in the Human ancestry.
I like the way dex works with melee but regarding ancestries, I'm gonna implement free boosts instead of the set ones.
Something like "instead of the recommended ancestry boosts you can use 2 free boosts", Which I hope becomes an optional variant eventually anyway.I made a monastic archer monk for a friend and started it with 14 strength to both get something out of propulsive and for a damage boost to melee. Had to gimp int and cha for that tho.
For balance, if you do this, I recommend picking a human level 1 ancestry feat as a bonus that all humans get. Normally I'd say "human heritage" but there's only 3, so in this one instance a bonus feat would be easier.
While it mathematically works out the same, the free boosts instead of set ones is a slight power increase that is accounted for in the Human ancestry.
really? I always thought the human ancestry feats stronger than other ancestries. Unconventional weaponry, multi talented, natural ambition, innate spell feat tree, up to 2 general feats at lvl 1.
A ton of builds I try only work on humans because of these.
That's why the GM has to pick one to assign instead of just letting the player pick two. One like Cooperative Nature or Haught Obstinancy wouldn't be too bad. It'll have an impact, but only in certain instances and are bland enough that it could conceivably apply to any human group. As a bonus, since humans have a stupid number of level 1 feats compared to other ancestries, this would let one of the lesser picked ones get play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
makes sense. I like the flavour of ancestry impacting ability stats but at the same time I've had builds become suboptimal because of them. Which was particularly annoying when I was trying to make a build for a new player based on his input.
Like a dwarven sorcerer needs to take the 2 extra flaws to get 18 cha and can't get more than 14 dex as a result.
Cooperative Nature sounds like the perfect free lvl 1 feat.
I don't know what "finesse maneuvering" was. Could someone explain?Prior to the errata, RAW if you had a finesse weapon with a trait associated with a combat maneuver such as trip or disarm, you would be able to use your dexterity modifier instead of strength for the check. The errata clarified things so that it no longer works this way.Just to point out: you can't both claim a) RAW worked a certain way and b) the errata contained clarification.
Either the RAW did work that way, and now it don't. In this case something changed; that is, we're talking errata, not clarifications.
Or the RAW always worked a certain way and still do. In this change something stayed the same; that is, we're talking clarifications, not errata.
Cheers
As we had a Dev chime in and clarify that it worked before this errata, it's very hard to say that the RAW didn't work that way before it. There has been an alteration done in how we are expected to read the RAW.
EDIT: To clarify, we where told that dex maneuvers with finesse weapons was the way it worked so the flip in this errata is unexpected.
I had to search several times to find the change in the errata:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
I remember arguing in a forum thread that the d20 roll in an Athletics-based action with the attack trait was both a skill check and an attack roll. This was not "confusion," this was trying to deduce the undefined meaning of "attack roll."
The elf ranger I mentioned in my prior comment did use her weapon finesse when tripping with a kukri. She preferred Twin Takedown, which gave Strikes rather than Trips, but tripping a high-level enemy rogue with Uncanny Dodge did let the rogues use their sneak attack against him. I am going to have to talk to my players about the change and whether they want to houserule it back to the pre-errata version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2 just isn't interested in the 5th Edition concept of warriors without physical strength.
You need Strength to do physical damage.
Well, I could maybe agree here if it wasn't for that fact that all those issues are zap out of existance (no pun intended) as soon as you start leveling up. I said "early game wonkiness" in the title for a reason: this is an early-game-only problem. At the very high levels, the difference in damage is almost completely negligible, at least for builds with or without Strength that use the same kind of weapon. An 18 Str Fighter using a longsword starts out doing 96% more damage than 18 Dex / 10 Str using a rapier, which drops to about 30% as soon as you get to level 7 and ends up at ~19% more.
The main point here isn't even that finsse fighters are completely unviable, because they aren't. The point is that the level you start the campaign at when using one completely dictates if your experience is going to be good or terrible, and even dictates how you're spending your stat boosts or not, which is an inconsistency that I really don't think is healthy for the game.
I am going to have to talk to my players about the change and whether they want to houserule it back to the pre-errata version.
I asked before today's game.
The druid's player, a biophysicist, claimed that tripping is more about Dexterity than Strength in reality so removing a Dexterity option was a step away from reality. The ranger's player was not clear why some attacks with a kukri could use finesse and others couldn't. The other players more or less did not want to change from how we played the rule for a year.
We houseruled to nullify the finesse maneuver errata.
Thank you for the explanation so that we could make an informed decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it funny when someone mentions something should be balanced a certain because it is more "real". Also if you are really strong it is much much easier to trip someone.
If your party isnt abusing the mechanic honestly I really dont think it matter much to rule dexterity works for manuevers. Hopefully you dont rule they count as attacks though because that can make them too strong imo.
There is a really easy way to abuse the rule though...
Starting stats of...
Dex: 16 (18 if a dex class)
Con: 14
Main/secondary stat: 18 (16 if Dex)
Now equip a whip and use your skill increases on Athletics which means you have perfect defense and perfect combat maneuvers at range for no downsides on ANY class. I feel that is the main reason they ruled it this way.
Have every non weapon based character do this and I guarantee every encounter will be much easier.
Also it feels really weird that DEX characters are actually much better trip characters with your ruling than STR characters who sacrifice defense.
Of course most martials probably will start with 14 str anyways so it barely matters. With the clarification starting with a 14 str just nets a -1 after 5.
In lieu of a mechanical solution as I have no first hand experience with 2e from which to offer suggestions, I'd instead suggest communication & planning. Have a talk with your players on what level you want to run at vs what level they want to start at/what classes they want to play & what level those classes are most fun at, while also taking into account the honest likelihood of how long the campaign is likely to last; i.e., is it likely to last long enough to get into the levels where a problem like this works itself out or will the story come to a conclusion/will the game fall apart before then?
Also whether or not you use the initial RAW or the Errata is entirely up to you & your table as are any houserules you want to make/adopt.
Of course this is all assuming a home game & not organized play, & that you're not running a full AP from level 1 for that first bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your party isnt abusing the mechanic honestly I really dont think it matter much to rule dexterity works for manuevers. Hopefully you dont rule they count as attacks though because that can make them too strong imo.
The Athletics actions Force Open, Grapple, Shove, Trip, and Disarm have the attack trait; therefore, they are attacks. Removing the attack trait would make them stronger, because then they would not generate multiple attack penalties nor be subject to multiple attack penalties. The only advantage to the attack trait is that it removes the armor check penalty, and high-Dexterity characters typically where no armor or light armor with at most a -1 check penalty. The multiple attack penalty is much more hindering than a -1 check penalty.
Also it feels really weird that DEX characters are actually much better trip characters with your ruling than STR characters who sacrifice defense.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition balanced defense better, so high-Strength characters don't sacrifice defense.
A character wit Dex 18 and unarmored defense training could wear no armor for an AC of 14+proficiency.
A character with Str 10, Dex 18, and light armor training would wear Leather Armor with +1 item bonus to AC and +4 Dex Cap, for an AC of 15+proficiency.
A character with Str 12, Dex 16, and light armor training would wear Studded Leather Armor with +2 item bonus to AC and +3 Dex Cap, for an AC of 15+proficiency.
A character with Str 14, Dex 14, and medium armor training would wear Hide Armor with +3 item bonus to AC and +2 Dex Cap, for an AC of 15+proficiency.
A character with Str 16, Dex 12, and medium armor training would wear Chain Mail with +4 item bonus to AC and +1 Dex Cap, for an AC of 15+proficiency.
In contrast, a character with Str 16, Dex 12, and heavy armor training would wear Half-Plate Armor with +5 item bonus and +1 Dex Cap, for an AC of 16+proficiency.
A 2nd-level character with Str 18, Dex 10, and heavy armor training would wear Plate Armor with +6 item bonus and +0 Dex Cap, for an AC of 16+proficiency.
Sorcerers, witches, and wizards are trained in unarmored defense alone. Alchemists, bards, investigators, oracles, rogues, and swashbucklers are trained in light armor. Barbarians, druids, and rangers are trained up to medium armor. Champions, clerics, and fighers are trained up heavy armor. Monks are a special case, expert in unarmored defense. I don't see the martial characters giving up AC for high Strength. Their reflex save might suffer, but plenty of other builds have fortitude and will saves that suffer.
In PF2 high Dexterity is more balanced. It is no longer the ability score for high initiative, because initiative is often a wisdom-based Perception roll. Dexterity is not the king of skills, with only Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery skills to its name. Intelligence has 5 skills, Wisdom has 4, and Charisma has 4.
Finally, tripping with a whip works just as well with high Strength as it does with high Deterity. And a high-Strength character can also trip well with the reach weapons bladed scarf, bo staff, fauchard, guisarme, horsechopper, and meteor hammer.
Ah, don't forget that dex based AC is capped at +5 since even "unarmored armors" have this weird max dex, and your dex can get up to +7
Explorer's Clothing has that +5 Dex Cap. However, running around naked or in a loincloth or in a monk's robe has no such Dex Cap. (The vine leshy sorcerer in my campaign is naked.)
I suspect that any unarmored-defense clothing that can be enchanted with armor runes, such as Explorer's Clothing, will have that +5 Dex Cap. So what the very-high-Dexterity character would give up is the armor runes.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The choice of "dex or strength" is basically- "a little more defense or a little more offense". You can choose to emphasize one at the expense of the other and eventually shore up your weaknesses as you level, but letting a stat excel at both has balance problems.
Remember that Strength does nothing except athletics checks,carrying capacity, and to-hit/dmg.
Requiring agile fencer melee types to invest in like 14-16 strength just sits with me better than all the 7-10 Str dex-to-damage types we saw in PF1.
Wouldnt running around without armor be really bad? Since you cant use runes so your saves would be gimped. Or is there a way to improve your saves in other ways?
There are quite a bit of magic items in 2e I have to look at.
Bracers of Armor would let you get the same effects as fundamental armor runes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bracers of armor also have a dex cap of +5.
There is probably a design space for a similar item with a lower item bonus and a dex cap of +6 or +7, so that "increasing your dex past 20" feels meaningful, but it might not be worth the column inches for a high level magic item with an item bonus of +2, a dex cap of 6, that gives +3 to your saves.
The basic model of "You get +5 from your dex and item bonuses with up to +3 from fundamental runes, and an additional +1 for heavy armor or something similar that impedes your movement" seems unlikely to change.
I could see it as a specific, high level armor. Perhaps a level 17 item when your Dex finally outpaces bracers and explorer clothing. I don't think it fits in PF2 paradigm as a general item though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my spitball for the specific item would be a level 18 item that has a dex cap of 6 (or 7) an item bonus to AC of 2 (or 1), a major resiliency rune, and the ability to accommodate both talismans (explorer's clothing doesn't) and runes (bracers don't.)
It's super narrow though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The choice of "dex or strength" is basically- "a little more defense or a little more offense".
Which one is which? Presumably you mean Str is offense, because it contributes directly to damage in a way Dex doesn't for anyone other than thieves.
But the Str character also gets higher AC via heavy armor... and access to maneuvers, which have both offensive and defensive applications... and because of the aforementioned MAD issue, the Str character is likely to have either more HP/Fort or more Will/initiative than their Dex-focused counterpart. Or both. Plate even helps by giving you a bonus against most reflex saves.
Requiring agile fencer melee types to invest in like 14-16 strength just sits with me better than all the 7-10 Str dex-to-damage types we saw in PF1.
Tbh I agree with you, though it is a little weird to me that 18 Dex/10 Str is considered so far beyond the pale while 18 Str/10 Dex is basically the standard.
|
Which one is which? Presumably you mean Str is offense, because it contributes directly to damage in a way Dex doesn't for anyone other than thieves.
But the Str character also gets higher AC via heavy armor... and access to maneuvers, which have both offensive and defensive applications... and because of the aforementioned MAD issue, the Str character is likely to have either more HP/Fort or more Will/initiative than their Dex-focused counterpart. Or both. Plate even helps by giving you a bonus against most reflex saves.
A lot of those are advantages of Heavy Armor, not Strength. The two are not synonyms, and indeed Heavy Armor is relatively rare, being exclusive to two Classes and a single Archetype. A few are advantages of Con, not Str.
A direct comparison, ignoring Skills, makes for the following differences other than AC (which is indeed often no difference):
Strength:
+Damage
Dexterity:
+Reflex Save
That's an offense vs. defense difference, right there, and definitely in the direction suggested. Heavy Armor allows for a lot of defensive boosts as opposed to anything lighter, but that's separate from the direct merits of Dex and Str and comes at the cost of mobility, obviousness, and more money.
Tbh I agree with you, though it is a little weird to me that 18 Dex/10 Str is considered so far beyond the pale while 18 Str/10 Dex is basically the standard.
No, Dex 12-14 is standard. Medium Armor (or less) is the normal armor for most Str based characters. Only Fighters and Champions get Heavy Armor and thus less Dex than that.
No, Dex 12-14 is standard. Medium Armor (or less) is the normal armor for most Str based characters. Only Fighters and Champions get Heavy Armor and thus less Dex than that.
Well, after the APG it's relatively so easy to get heavy armor on the characters that will actually want it that I don't think I ever built a Str character with more than 10 Dex. Meanwhile, non-Thief finesse users have absolutely zero ways to compensate for the damage they're losing that isn't throwing away half their level 1 ability boosts. There is no "Bulwark for damage" weapon that adds your Str modifier or +3, whichever is higher.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, after the APG it's relatively so easy to get heavy armor on the characters that will actually want it that I don't think I ever built a Str character with more than 10 Dex. Meanwhile, non-Thief finesse users have absolutely zero ways to compensate for the damage they're losing that isn't throwing away half their level 1 ability boosts.
I mean, if you don't want another Archetype, already have Medium Armor, and don't mind a meaningful AC penalty at 1st level, sure. I'm not saying that Heavy Armor can't be acquired, I'm saying it isn't standard or assumed by the game.
It is true that Heavy Armor provides defensive advantages for relatively few character building resources in way that is not normally available for offensive advantages...but it does so at the in-play cost of decreased mobility, which is no small disadvantage in PF2. Any similar increase in offense for Dex-based characters would likewise need to have a cost.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of those are advantages of Heavy Armor, not Strength.
And? The two aren't synonyms, but it's a stretch to simply discount the advantage of heavy armor out of hand when it's readily available for most strength based characters. Dragon/Gorilla monks are going to struggle with their MADness, but that's more like a specific issue of theirs than anything else.
At the very least, it's significantly more readily available than any comparable alternative for Dexterity focused builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is true that Heavy Armor provides defensive advantages for relatively few character building resources in way that is not normally available for offensive advantages...but it does so at the in-play cost of decreased mobility, which is no small disadvantage in PF2. Any similar increase in offense for Dex-based characters would likewise need to have a cost.
There's also an argument to be made that Reflex saves are something you will roll every once in a while, while, as a martial, damage is something that is relevant for 90% of the rolls you make for the rest of your life. But anyway, "a similar increase in offense for Dex-based characters with a cost" could be one way of, like I said, give finesse users more love. The problem is... because of the aforementioned fact that this is something you'll be rolling almost every turn, it would probably become almost mandatory.
The -5 speed penalty is whatever, honestly. Mobility is important in PF2 but it's also one of the easiest things to acquire. Fleet, some ancestry feats, Trick Magic Item for a wand of Longstrider, Boots of Bounding, Boots of Speed, etc. etc. etc. And this is where part of my complaint comes from, it's so easy for a Strength-based character to invest on stuff to get rid of pretty much every single disadvantage they have, while the most Dex characters can do in this regard outside of putting points in Str anyway is... going Acrobat for Jumping?
It is true that Heavy Armor provides defensive advantages for relatively few character building resources in way that is not normally available for offensive advantages...but it does so at the in-play cost of decreased mobility, which is no small disadvantage in PF2. Any similar increase in offense for Dex-based characters would likewise need to have a cost.There's also an argument to be made that Reflex saves are something you will roll every once in a while, while, as a martial, damage is something that is relevant for 90% of the rolls you make for the rest of your life. But anyway, "a similar increase in offense for Dex-based characters with a cost" could be one way of, like I said, give finesse users more love. The problem is... because of the aforementioned fact that this is something you'll be rolling almost every turn, it would probably become almost mandatory.
The -5 speed penalty is whatever, honestly. Mobility is important in PF2 but it's also one of the easiest things to acquire. Fleet, some ancestry feats, Trick Magic Item for a wand of Longstrider, Boots of Bounding, Boots of Speed, etc. etc. etc. And this is where part of my complaint comes from, it's so easy for a Strength-based character to invest on stuff to get rid of pretty much every single disadvantage they have, while the most Dex characters can do in this regard outside of putting points in Str anyway is... going Acrobat for Jumping?
Long Jump is under Athletics, the Strength-based skill.
If we dismiss heavy armor as too specialized for most characters, we still have medium armor. Chain Mail has a +1 Dex Cap, so it requires only Dex 12 for maximum AC. I often select Con 12 and Wis 12 for the fortitude and will saving throws, because 12's are common in PF2 ability scores. Selecting Dex 12 for reflex saving throw fits the pattern.
Strength 14 is great. It gives +2 damage even on finesse melee weapons and +1 damage on propulsive ranged weapons. What are the similar benefits of Dexterity 14? I have seen high-Strength martial characters pull out their emergency bow when fighting a flying creature, only to miss a lot due to low Dexterity. Thus, medium Dexterity is good for unavoidable archery.
On the speed issue I am very confused about the argument that "it is easy to fix". Everything that you mentioned doesnt even negate the -5 speed penalty.
Since everything you mentioned is an investment that a non heavy armor user could get and be 5 faster
Reflex saves happen a lot so imo DEX is great overall and just fine as a main atribute.
I think everyone agrees yes 1-3 is worse for finesse characters but it is a small part of the game. Like I said before casters are horrible in those levels too.
So if you are playing a campaign where you will be 1-3 for a long time it is safe to say A LOT of characters are worse off. Even in those campaigns just take 14-16 Str and you are golden.
It is just such a minor issue. The difference between a Str character vs Caster (non cleric/bard) is 100x worse at level 1.
Long Jump is under Athletics, the Strength-based skill.
Acrobat Archetype has a 7th level Skill Feat that lets you High Jump and Long Jump with Acrobatics, that's what I meant.
On the speed issue I am very confused about the argument that "it is easy to fix". Everything that you mentioned doesnt even negate the -5 speed penalty.
Since everything you mentioned is an investment that a non heavy armor user could get and be 5 faster
Speed is something that has pretty diminishing returns. 20ft. speed vs 25 is pretty significant. 40 vs 45 is not. Low level creatures don't have all that much speed, so you also don't need all that much speed. When you do start needing it, both the Full Plate and the non Full Plate character can get enough bonuses that the 5ft. speed is negligible. Hope that clarifies what I meant, even if you disagree.
Reflex saves happen a lot so imo DEX is great overall and just fine as a main atribute.
Which saves happen most often is quite game dependant. In the games I've played/ran, Fortitude has been way more common than Reflex at low levels because of poisons and diseases. But yeah, Reflex saves are not negligible, but they don't happen as often for martial characters as attacking people. Plus Bulwark exists on a 2nd level item, and things that Bulwark don't protect against, those are quite rare. Even something like Engulf or Swallow Whole have some damage attached to them.
I think everyone agrees yes 1-3 is worse for finesse characters but it is a small part of the game. Like I said before casters are horrible in those levels too.
So if you are playing a campaign where you will be 1-3 for a long time it is safe to say A LOT of characters are worse off. Even in those campaigns just take 14-16 Str and you are golden.
It is just such a minor issue. The difference between a Str character vs Caster (non cleric/bard) is 100x worse at level 1.
Yes, casters are bad at low level, and yes, this is definitely a problem. But "casters sucking at low level" is something that is brought up at least twice per week, so I thought of talking about other characters who suck at low levels as well. I don't think any class should be a chore to play when you're starting out.
Plus... well, casters do more early damage with Electric Arc than Dex-based martials if they're not something like a Ranger or a Rogue. And even after level 4 you're still looking at the Str character doing about 50% more damage. I'd say things balance out more at level 7 (which coincidentally is the same level it does for casters).
I feel like comparing the 18STR/10DEX to the 10STR/18DEX character feels off to me, especially if we are talking about early levels. As does the 18DEX/16STR build. It seems like most characters are better suited to having at least a little of both, but you can get away with only a little bit of either.
Full plate is great, but you can't actually build a level 1 character with it. That means that until you get your first big loot score 10 dex is leaving you a point behind. That's still equal to medium AC if buy splint mail, but that's 13 of your 15 starting gold and you haven't even bought a weapon yet. Plus, only 2 classes start trained in it. By level 2, you can probably afford full plate if your party is willing to splurge their combined wealth on you. And you have access to it, obviously.
Speed is something that has pretty diminishing returns. 20ft. speed vs 25 is pretty significant. 40 vs 45 is not.Low level creatures don't have all that much speed, so you also don't need all that much speed.
Low level creatures include most of the real world animals. Lions, tigers, and bears all have plenty of speed. Most quadrupeds or fliers seem to have 35+ speeds.
Also, creatures being slow doesn't really mean you can be slow either, unless one of you is running away from the other. (That includes stuff like hit and run tactics.) In most other scenarios losing that speed can cost you actions to reach an enemy or downed ally, or prevent you from being able to quite reach that flanking position.
You know what low level creatures lack, in my experience? Ranged attacks. That means one of the best early game strategies is peppering enemies with arrows until they can close. And 10 Dex characters suck at that. There is a pretty good chance they couldn't afford a longbow anyway, with how expensive their armor is.
So while the full plate character does better damage in a white room, they also struggle to get into position and they wind up far less flexible. The Sentinel Ranger does better on rounds it can just stand bang, but the dexterity ranger does better when it comes to positioning and can get "free damage" on range rounds.
Also... I guess I am struggling to figure out what is being compared to what here. It feels like only champions and fighters have a comfortable route to 10 dex anyway, and Champions usually need to put those boosts they save into CHA. Fighters are a thing, but they also published a class that is basically just a finesse fighter.
The only real viable 10 dex character at level 1, I think, is the mountain style monk (as the feats that get you a higher dex cap don't show up until later). That does invite the unresolved mountain style argument about "what, precisely, turns this off" but the differences here are unlikely to come up at low levels anyway.