Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
that item is amazing thank you, it's so hard to find out the good items for classes.
that item is amazing thank you, it's so hard to find out the good items for classes.Yes. I believe they purposefully made the core classes the best as far as raw power is concerned.
And they made the later classes a little lower powered but best at fulfilling their thematic role.
And they really hit the target.
The only class widely recognized as a bit too strong is the Bard. IMO because they made it a full caster in addition to Inspire Courage : it was a new balance to find.
The only class likewise widely recognized as too weak is the Alchemist. Though there are concerns about the Magus.
And they try and find innovative ways to plug the holes while not destroying the balance of the whole system, like Shadow Signet.
Excellent work overall AFAIC.
I need to remember I have this item. I use so few attack spells on my Shadow Sorcerer I forget I have it.
|
Yes, you would definitely want those skills, but it doesn't leave room for other skills. You need those skills to function, which means there probably won't be a swashbuckler that's good with arcana or medicine or something. I think that the solution that the inventor class works with is pretty good. Automatic progression with crafting because the class needs it to function. Something like that for style specific skills would work to give more flexibility to the class.Well, the Swashbuckler is for the people who want to play a tumbling hero who talks, threatens, dances their way in a fight.
Why would they want to NOT increase these very skills ?
There was a thread about this not long ago, based on the Acrobat dedication.
I do not like the idea because it will give the Swashbuckler access to more legendary skills than most other PCs with automatic progression in a social skill, which are already far more valuable than most others.
I'd prefer we get archetypes or general feats that give the automatic progression in a social skill to any PC who takes them, similar to Acrobat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The swashbuckler being locked into certain skills is something that has come up before, and I think Paizo is somewhat receptive to it since they gave the iventor a free crafting progression. I'd also never call it a trade off, myself, as I'd never play the class unless I wanted to use those skills anyway. Getting free increases there would be nice and might be a worthwhile buff if you want to lean into it being a skills class instead of a combat class... but being restricted to a certain type of build doesn't actually make them functionally worse than another class that goes for the same build.
Is that really the tradeoff, though? I'd still invest in it even without the additional skill benefits. If I was to be making a Swashbuckler-like character with the Fighter or Rogue chassis instead of the Swashbuckler class, I'd still be heavily investing in my Style's skill. It's part of what I'd want to be good at when playing that character.The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
The fact that you are pidgeonholed into 2 out of 3 skills is a negative. Getting strict beneficts on the actions you get from the skills you are forced into is a positive. Yes, I would call that a tradeoff.
Bards are also forced into 1 or 2 skills most of the time and despite the class being as good as it is, that's a negative too. It doesn't matter that those skills are good or that thematically you would probably have picked them either way. Less room for choice is less room for choice, no matter the circumstances.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really the tradeoff, though? I'd still invest in it even without the additional skill benefits. If I was to be making a Swashbuckler-like character with the Fighter or Rogue chassis instead of the Swashbuckler class, I'd still be heavily investing in my Style's skill. It's part of what I'd want to be good at when playing that character.The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
The fact that you are pidgeonholed into 2 out of 3 skills is a negative. Getting strict beneficts on the actions you get from the skills you are forced into is a positive. Yes, I would call that a tradeoff.
Bards are also forced into 1 or 2 skills most of the time and despite the class being as good as it is, that's a negative too. It doesn't matter that those skills are good or that thematically you would probably have picked them either way. Less room for choice is less room for choice, no matter the circumstances.
It is a negative for customization, but that's not the same as a balance negative. A barbarian has no business being an Archer, but that just narrows the concepts you pick the class to play. It does not make it a weaker class.
It is a negative for customization, but that's not the same as a balance negative. A barbarian has no business being an Archer, but that just narrows the concepts you pick the class to play. It does not make it a weaker class.Is that really the tradeoff, though? I'd still invest in it even without the additional skill benefits. If I was to be making a Swashbuckler-like character with the Fighter or Rogue chassis instead of the Swashbuckler class, I'd still be heavily investing in my Style's skill. It's part of what I'd want to be good at when playing that character.The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
The fact that you are pidgeonholed into 2 out of 3 skills is a negative. Getting strict beneficts on the actions you get from the skills you are forced into is a positive. Yes, I would call that a tradeoff.
Bards are also forced into 1 or 2 skills most of the time and despite the class being as good as it is, that's a negative too. It doesn't matter that those skills are good or that thematically you would probably have picked them either way. Less room for choice is less room for choice, no matter the circumstances.
If classes had some "power budget" of sorts the skill limitation wouldn't affect it at all, in that I agree. I still think it is a negative big enough it should be compensated somewhere else.
The class is also forced into using mostly those 2 options in every combat regardless of them being the right choice or not. Overall I think the class has to many negatives and very few strengths for having low damage on top.
It is a negative for customization, but that's not the same as a balance negative. A barbarian has no business being an Archer, but that just narrows the concepts you pick the class to play. It does not make it a weaker class.Is that really the tradeoff, though? I'd still invest in it even without the additional skill benefits. If I was to be making a Swashbuckler-like character with the Fighter or Rogue chassis instead of the Swashbuckler class, I'd still be heavily investing in my Style's skill. It's part of what I'd want to be good at when playing that character.The tradeoff swashbucklers get is gaining additional benefits on their skill actions for being forced into Acrobatics and another skill. That is what a tradeoff looks like.
Dealing low damage on top for no reason is no tradeoff. Is a one sided loss.
The fact that you are pidgeonholed into 2 out of 3 skills is a negative. Getting strict beneficts on the actions you get from the skills you are forced into is a positive. Yes, I would call that a tradeoff.
Bards are also forced into 1 or 2 skills most of the time and despite the class being as good as it is, that's a negative too. It doesn't matter that those skills are good or that thematically you would probably have picked them either way. Less room for choice is less room for choice, no matter the circumstances.
If classes had some "power budget" of sorts the skill limitation wouldn't affect it at all, in that I agree. I still think it is a negative big enough it should be compensated somewhere else.
The class is also forced into using mostly those 2 options in every combat regardless of them being the right choice or not. Overall I think the class has to many negatives and very few strengths for having low damage on top.
Well yeah, the class basically runs on using dumb, suboptimal but flashy shenanigans. Swashbucklers aren't meant to make the right choice.
Now maybe they need a boost in power, but I don't think customization is the problem you think it is. The concept is just too tied to a particular thing. There are better classes if you don't want to do that thing.
More customization is almost always a good thing if it doesn't break something else.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
More customization is almost always a good thing if it doesn't break something else.
Maybe, but it is also a separate issue from whether the Swashbuckler is underpowered, which seems to be what this conversation is mostly about. And I think it is important to keep that distinction if we want Paizo to make changes.
You can address the lack of customization and power with the same change (free skill increases) but that only works if you want the class to double down as a skill monkey. If you think the real problem is that the class has low damage, then you need a different fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well yeah, the class basically runs on using dumb, suboptimal but flashy shenanigans. Swashbucklers aren't meant to...
The issue is that the game forces you into a loop and makes the class that should be doing unpredictable non-sense do the same few actions in a loop if they want to contribute in a fight. The current panache system seems to do anything but allow the player controlling the swashbuckler to have the freedom to do something dumb on a whim and have it work out in their favor.
If they were aiming for the free-flowing style of a Jack Sparrow or even Inigo Montoya they missed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's the idea with panache. There's the standard ways of getting it from your style skill and acrobatics, and then there's the more ambiguous GM dependent way. Do something cool, get panache.Well yeah, the class basically runs on using dumb, suboptimal but flashy shenanigans. Swashbucklers aren't meant to...The issue is that the game forces you into a loop and makes the class that should be doing unpredictable non-sense do the same few actions in a loop if they want to contribute in a fight. The current panache system seems to do anything but allow the player controlling the swashbuckler to have the freedom to do something dumb on a whim and have it work out in their favor.
If they were aiming for the free-flowing style of a Jack Sparrow or even Inigo Montoya they missed.
Yeah there's a ton of stuff you CAN do, it just situational. They didn't try to hard code in every example of something that gives you panache because they couldn't, not if they wanted it to be free flowing.
The class also leans on how good your GM is with environments, and that's definitely a skill not everyone has.
I feel like it should be that Str-based warriors should do more damage than Dex-based warriors. So the question is not "does the Swashbuckler do the most damage" but "is the Swashbuckler similar at doing damage as a finesse based ranger, fighter, champion, monk, etc."
Deal, but let swashbucklers pick a Str KAS and give them medium armor proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it should be that Str-based warriors should do more damage than Dex-based warriors. So the question is not "does the Swashbuckler do the most damage" but "is the Swashbuckler similar at doing damage as a finesse based ranger, fighter, champion, monk, etc."
I mean, but should it...? Why? At this point Strength has more than enough advantages to stand on its own as a stat without needing to do more damage than the alternative, so why would that be? Flavor? I don't think making certain playstyles worse for flavor is generally a super nice thing to do.
Also Thief Rogue exists.
|
I feel like it should be that Str-based warriors should do more damage than Dex-based warriors. So the question is not "does the Swashbuckler do the most damage" but "is the Swashbuckler similar at doing damage as a finesse based ranger, fighter, champion, monk, etc."
Even if you had dex to damage on finesse weapons, non finesse weapons still have a higher damage dice, so str would still do more damage. Just not 2-3x the damage at low levels.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that there's an incentive to take STR that is not overwhelming.
It was very jarring to see in PF1E (and it is very jarring in 5E) that if you had a rapier or if you use unarmed strikes as a Monk, you had absolutely no incentive at all to... have some muscles?
Like it would deter from the abilities of your character even, to no combat advantage, to invest in STR?
So I 100% LOVE PF2E's approach, and I'm happy making Finesse characters that invest into STR to varying degrees depending how much damage output means to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Dex to damage is not only a rogue thing, but a specific kind of rogue thing, that seems fairly unlikely. I'm pretty sure there won't be any kind of big changes to classes.
I bet Paizo devs are as firm on this as they are about caster DCs.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it should be that Str-based warriors should do more damage than Dex-based warriors. So the question is not "does the Swashbuckler do the most damage" but "is the Swashbuckler similar at doing damage as a finesse based ranger, fighter, champion, monk, etc."Even if you had dex to damage on finesse weapons, non finesse weapons still have a higher damage dice, so str would still do more damage. Just not 2-3x the damage at low levels.
TBH this is what bugs me the most. I don't mind Str to damage but the fact that it's got such wonky scaling is annoying. It creates this sort of asymmetrical design where Strength is hugely important at level 1 but then just steadily loses value as the game drags on because weapons and class features scale so much better.
Like I'd consider taking even as high as 16 Str on a Swashbuckler or Investigator for Abomination Vaults... but if I was making that same character for Night of the Gray Death I might not put any points into it at all and that feels weird to me.
I feel like it should be that Str-based warriors should do more damage than Dex-based warriors. So the question is not "does the Swashbuckler do the most damage" but "is the Swashbuckler similar at doing damage as a finesse based ranger, fighter, champion, monk, etc."
The answer to that it depends on the level, enemy, and circumstances.
The rogue thief gets dex to damage from the start. The ruffian wants a high strength and can use simple weapons to sneak attack. Sneak attack is easier to set up than a finisher with fewer limitations due to the finisher tag. So you can sneak attack 3 times in a round once you move into position, whereas the finsher tag allows only a single big attack at maximum MAP.
I'm surprised the limitations on the finisher tag are not being discussed as it is a big limiter to damage for the swashbuckler.
Nearly every other class can use their abilities with minimal set up and no skill rolls required, the swashbuckler's major attack ability has limiting factors with the finisher tag and has set up issues with requiring specific skill rolls to recover panache that require an investment.
It makes you wonder how often a swashbuckler is supposed to use their precision damage bonus versus a finisher every round. But some have calculated on here that a finisher every round is the highest damage potential. Using the Finisher tag as written, I must agree because you don't want to risk a finisher miss using it when you aren't hitting with no MAP penalty.
Swashbuckler is one of those classes that you really have to want to play that very active style or you might have trouble enjoying the class. The class requires a lot of rolling and investment in skills you might not be accustomed to investing in. For example, a Wit Swashbuckler has to invest in quite a few languages to be sure to be able to use Bon Mot on the maximum possible creatures. It is unusual for a damage class to have to invest in languages.
Swashbuckler is not a class you play if you want an easy, everything works as expected play experience. It's a very swingy class with highs and lows.
Well, that's the idea with panache. There's the standard ways of getting it from your style skill and acrobatics, and then there's the more ambiguous GM dependent way. Do something cool, get panache.
The 'do something cool' method suggests doing things that are nearly suicidal as the book suggests that such tasks should have a very hard DC to be worth generating panache. It's almost never a better option than using your exactly 2-skills to gain panache.
Yeah there's a ton of stuff you CAN do, it just situational. They didn't try to hard code in every example of something that gives you panache because they couldn't, not if they wanted it to be free flowing.
The class also leans on how good your GM is with environments, and that's definitely a skill not everyone has.
The book suggests that any of these things should require a scaling very hard DC check to be worthy of panache. That will often be so much worse than your two chosen skills as to be a waste of an action or three at best and suicidal at worst.
|
|
The book suggests that any of these things should require a scaling very hard DC check to be worthy of panache. That will often be so much worse than your two chosen skills as to be a waste of an action or three at best and suicidal at worst.Yeah there's a ton of stuff you CAN do, it just situational. They didn't try to hard code in every example of something that gives you panache because they couldn't, not if they wanted it to be free flowing.
The class also leans on how good your GM is with environments, and that's definitely a skill not everyone has.
If you're a 10th level swashbuckler, you could have an acrobatics modifier of +23 (+10 level + 6 master + 5 DEX + 2 item before circumstance/status bonuses, and a Intimidate modifier of +21 (one lower CHA mod, one lower item bonus). It won't be hard to generate panache against weaker enemies - if you're targeting the average save of a level 9 creature, it'll be around DC 27-28 (just picking the mid point of a smattering of creatures of that level). If you're going up against a hard boss though, it can be difficult - picking a 13th level creature, the Millindemalion will have a Ref DC of 37, and a Will DC of 33. The Very Hard DC for your level is 32, so you'll have better odds (and about 50% or greater for both of the above skills) vs the "suicidal" Very Hard DC than vs the boss.
It's not always going to be true, but when you're up against a boss monster that isn't well suited to your style (for example, a gymnast would be targeting DC 30 vs that Millindemalion), it's often the better choice. It's also not a waste of an action or three in many cases - as in the example above, even the less-good skill still has about 50% chance of success. The odds to improve later on, but even early they're not horrific - a Very Hard DC for level 3 is DC 23, and your best skill will likely be +12 (+3 level + 4 expert + 4 stat + 1 item).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like swashbucklers. Conceptually, they are just fighters or rogues that wanted to lean towards the other. In PF1, they had mechanical significance because they got dex to damage and had the broken parry/riposte ability. In PF2 it seems that the devs have taken a stance against dex to damage and they clearly want enemies to be able to pose a threat via actually being able to consistently hit at least once. So, the swashbucklers have lost their mechanical significance. Which, for me, is all that they ever had. The concept behind a swashbuckler could easily be accomplished by a fighter or rogue base class. It's entire concept is the flavor. And, flavor can be added to any character. My opinion is that it never should have been a class in PF2, but just an archetype. Just like it was way back in 3.0, a prestige class that was a focus/add-on.
All of that said, I understand the draw of the concept, but I have never felt that draw. I do not chastise folks for feeling that draw, I just suggest that they play fighters.
|
|
I don't like swashbucklers. Conceptually, they are just fighters or rogues that wanted to lean towards the other. In PF1, they had mechanical significance because they got dex to damage and had the broken parry/riposte ability. In PF2 it seems that the devs have taken a stance against dex to damage and they clearly want enemies to be able to pose a threat via actually being able to consistently hit at least once. So, the swashbucklers have lost their mechanical significance. Which, for me, is all that they ever had. The concept behind a swashbuckler could easily be accomplished by a fighter or rogue base class. It's entire concept is the flavor. And, flavor can be added to any character. My opinion is that it never should have been a class in PF2, but just an archetype. Just like it was way back in 3.0, a prestige class that was a focus/add-on.
All of that said, I understand the draw of the concept, but I have never felt that draw. I do not chastise folks for feeling that draw, I just suggest that they play fighters.
That feels pretty dismissive actually.
So, like a rogue that feints and gets sneak attack?
Ya I tend to agree that swashbuckler, to me, has always been either a type of fighter, a type of rogue, a combination of both via multiclassing.
However, I'm very biased, as I believe there should really only be three classes and a ton of archetypes and subclasses. (Fighter, rogue, spell caster).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO they have a pretty solid mechanical niche. The ran thrives on doing dumb stunts, and some players are all about working dumb stunts into their routine over optimal turn usage.
I suspect part of why many forum goers dislike them is because this sample group is biased towards the optimizer end of the player spectrum. (Though that's not likely the case with Leo, given how they feel about monks needing dexterity.) But I know plenty of players that love wasting actions on sick flips.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How soon we forget that the PF1 Swashbuckler was a hybrid of the fighter and the gunslinger (and IMO much less flavorful and interesting than the PF2 version thereof.)
The reason that the Swashbuckler is a class unto itself rather than a kind of another class is that the archetype of "ostentatious showoff badass" is all over media, and not something that really describes either the fighter or the rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is probably because I think that swashbucklers have nothing that really makes them unique to me. What they once had, mechanics, was trimmed out of PF2.
This is really bizarre to me because the PF2 swashbuckler, regardless of whether you think it's good enough or not, has some pretty stand out mechanics and a unique combat routine. The PF1 swashbuckler was basically the same as every other martial. The class was incredibly forgettable and basically failed to deliver on its own fantasies completely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary role of the Swashbuckler in PF1 was letting people take a 1 level dip in it to enable their investigators or other feat starved classes that wanted to do finesse.
This was, for the record, a bad thing.
|
|
IMO they have a pretty solid mechanical niche. The ran thrives on doing dumb stunts, and some players are all about working dumb stunts into their routine over optimal turn usage.
I suspect part of why many forum goers dislike them is because this sample group is biased towards the optimizer end of the player spectrum. (Though that's not likely the case with Leo, given how they feel about monks needing dexterity.) But I know plenty of players that love wasting actions on sick flips.
But that isn't a mechanical niche. It is a flavor niche. You could just as easily use sick flips and play a rogue or fighter.
Side note: I'm probably quite a bit closer to the optimizer side than not. I just look at the game as a whole and note that a difference of 1 isn't really that huge.
That is probably because I think that swashbucklers have nothing that really makes them unique to me. What they once had, mechanics, was trimmed out of PF2.This is really bizarre to me because the PF2 swashbuckler, regardless of whether you think it's good enough or not, has some pretty stand out mechanics and a unique combat routine. The PF1 swashbuckler was basically the same as every other martial. The class was incredibly forgettable and basically failed to deliver on its own fantasies completely.
Unique specific mechanics, sure. But I can just as easily play a 'swashbuckler' with a fighter base and duelist archetype. And that character is not going to be required to do ostentatious stuff just to function as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could, yeah, but then you wouldn't have those unique mechanics. So that's a choice you have to make. If it works for you, that's good, but I'm not really seeing a problem in having the other option for other players too.
|
|
"swashbuckler should not exist" is a bad take. Sure, you could flavor a fighter or rogue to be flashy, but that's like saying why play an inventor, when you could just play a fighter with high crafting.
Or a summoner with a construct eidolon
The flavor does not make the class, the mechanics do. And while rogues and swashbucklers both do precision damage, finishers are not sneak attacks.
Right, because a sneak attack doesn't need very much wind up and thus can be done more often.
You could, yeah, but then you wouldn't have those unique mechanics. So that's a choice you have to make. If it works for you, that's good, but I'm not really seeing a problem in having the other option for other players too.
And this is may be where I differ. Because I see those 'unique mechanics' as a shackle for the class. In order to get your 1 big finisher you have to get panache. Call me weird, but I prefer to have options for my turns instead of a set-in-stone 1-2-3.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an entirely different kettle of fish to say "class A should not exist" than it is to say "class A is not really for me, I prefer classes B and C".
Personally, I love the PF2 Swashbuckler and would rather play one than a Thief Rogue.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Non-str state to damage isn't really necessary, though it is more potent at low levels. As you level up the static modifier from strength is somewhat laughable.
If I were starting with a higher level character that wasn't using strength to attack, I would consider not bothering with it at all.
Archer characters I've made in PF2 didn't bother with it because it was such a miniscule bonus.
So I'm gonna say nah, we don't need non-Str bonuses to damage. Strength is already a less optimal stat (except you are often forced to use it for attack rolls) so adding things which reduce it further is a bad route IMO.
After you get your additional weapon damage die the damage bonus you would have gotten from adding that other stat just isn't going to be a big deal.
Non-str state to damage isn't really necessary, though it is more potent at low levels. As you level up the static modifier from strength is somewhat laughable.
If I were starting with a higher level character that wasn't using strength to attack, I would consider not bothering with it at all.
Archer characters I've made in PF2 didn't bother with it because it was such a miniscule bonus.
So I'm gonna say nah, we don't need non-Str bonuses to damage. Strength is already a less optimal stat (except you are often forced to use it for attack rolls) so adding things which reduce it further is a bad route IMO.
After you get your additional weapon damage die the damage bonus you would have gotten from adding that other stat just isn't going to be a big deal.
"After" is a very key word there. Early game exists, and it's probably the most commonly played stage of the game. People shouldn't be punished for wanting to play certain classes or builds during it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"After" is a very key word there. Early game exists, and it's probably the most commonly played stage of the game. People shouldn't be punished for wanting to play certain classes or builds during it.Non-str state to damage isn't really necessary, though it is more potent at low levels. As you level up the static modifier from strength is somewhat laughable.
If I were starting with a higher level character that wasn't using strength to attack, I would consider not bothering with it at all.
Archer characters I've made in PF2 didn't bother with it because it was such a miniscule bonus.
So I'm gonna say nah, we don't need non-Str bonuses to damage. Strength is already a less optimal stat (except you are often forced to use it for attack rolls) so adding things which reduce it further is a bad route IMO.
After you get your additional weapon damage die the damage bonus you would have gotten from adding that other stat just isn't going to be a big deal.
I don't think of it as a punishment, I think of it as a reward for those who are investing it a stat that doesn't do much for them besides get them damage.
Pretty much everyone can use either strength or dex for attack rolls at this time. Dex comes with a very high return on investment being a part of AC, reflex saves, skills, potential initiative and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of. Strength (outside of damage) controls your attack roll (and if you asking for alternative bonuses to damage you're not going that route) and some minor skills that if you weren't planning on using already, aren't attractive enough to worry about.
Other sources to damage is kind of a non-decision if it's available (in most people's mind). Unless there are big draw backs to it, I think you would see most people pick it up so they could forget strength as a stat even exists.
And then, it's still only relevant for the early game.
No, I say let the the strength users have their niche! Dex users don't need to be on the same level!
Now, I do think there is potentially room to make things interesting by having other stats to attack roll but it would have to be carefully balanced. An archetype using monk weapons with wisdom could be interesting, but you'd have to make sure that the weapon dice didn't exceed what finesse weapons could do. Something along that line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much everyone can use either strength or dex for attack rolls at this time. Dex comes with a very high return on investment being a part of AC, reflex saves, skills, potential initiative and probably other stuff I'm not thinking of. Strength (outside of damage) controls your attack roll (and if you asking for alternative bonuses to damage you're not going that route) and some minor skills that if you weren't planning on using already, aren't attractive enough to worry about.
I don't think that's a very fair analysis of where the stats currently stand at, for a multitude of reasons:
- For the characters that actually matter for this discussion, martials, Strength governs AC as much as Dex does. With the appropriate armor, the only thing you need to max your AC with no penalties is having your Str + Dex be a total modifier of 4, in any arrangement. Not to mention heavy armor is based on Strength and has a +1 AC on top of that.
- Bulwark exists, and the great majority of Reflex stuff does damage. There's also Mighty Bulwark to cover it even more if you happened to be a medium armor character who wanted to acquire heavy with Sentinel. This doesn't make the disadvantage nonexistant but it gives Strength users a lot of ways around it.
- Stealth Initiative is good, but until level 15 it has the considerable downside of eating one of your group's exploration activities for pretty self-centered benefits. Good, but still has a tradeoff. It's also not something you can really rely on cause sometimes you're the one being ambushed.
- If you think Athletics is a minor skill use, I don't think we've been playing the same game at all. Sure, it's one skill, but it's one skill that does a lot. 90% of physical-related checks, strategic mobility and problem solving with climbing, jumping and swimming, and a huge combat tool in maneuvers. Due to the way skill modifiers scale vs saves, maneuvers are pretty much the most accurate physical thing you can do to enemies, and they have very strong tactical and teamwork applications, as well as feat support in many different classes and archetypes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I know this isn't what you mean, but you can already use non-str stats for damage, you just have to cast spells! What I find interesting is that the casting stats for bonus damage on spells generally have multiple uses beyond spell damage, like skills and saves, while str, even though it has an important skill function, is generally focused on physical attacks. And often at higher proficiency than equal level casting. I would venture to say that this is intentional, and any non-str stat constant adjustment beyond the very few exceptions would mess with the balance, especially at low level.
Heavy armor does have a +1 but requires specific class selection or archetype selection. And bulwark is limited to that same heavy armor, and therefore those same very specific class/archetype selections.
Most martial characters do not fall into that category though.
Athletics is useful, but you either planned to use it or not. It's a nice thing to invest in if you're planning to be strength based, but for characters going the dex route I feel like they've already written that off.
Of course, the biggest benefit to getting a different stat to damage is that you can ignore strength. I don't think that is a reasonable request. Every character (except thief rogues) has to deal with spreading stats around and the consequences of their stat selection. It's a trade-off, and I don't see a justification for changing the balance as is.