|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh... excuse me, but the sai, nunchaku, bo staff, and katanas are actually iconic ninja weapons.Note that the katana was a weapon for samurai warriors. Not for monks.I can understand the dissatisfaction. Sai, Nunchaku, and Bo Staff are all on the list of Monk weapons, so why isn't Katana?
Sais and Nunchaku, yes.
Bo staff and katana? No.You're thinking of ninjato (ninja swords). They were cheaply made, and pretty much designed to be disposable.
As for the bo staff... how the heck would a ninja sneak around while carrying a 6-to-5-foot-long staff?
...Just because Donny uses one doesn't make it a historical ninja weapon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhhh... excuse me, but the sai, nunchaku, bo staff, and katanas are actually iconic ninja weapons.Note that the katana was a weapon for samurai warriors. Not for monks.I can understand the dissatisfaction. Sai, Nunchaku, and Bo Staff are all on the list of Monk weapons, so why isn't Katana?
Sais and Nunchaku, yes.
Bo staff and katana? No.You're thinking of ninjato (ninja swords). They were cheaply made, and pretty much designed to be disposable.
As for the bo staff... how the heck would a ninja sneak around while carrying a 6-to-5-foot-long staff?
...Just because Donny uses one doesn't make it a historical ninja weapon.
Point of clarification, I did not say that they were historical. I said they were iconic. They are the weapons of iconic ninja, making them iconic ninja weapons.
((I'll be done now... We have acknowledged the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...))
IMO, a "ninja" in PF2 is probably best simulated by a rogue with the vigilante and shadowdancer archetypes, as well as taking advantage of the regional access to "uncommon" weapons and equipment.
Alternately, you could possibly reflavor the vindicator using Lao Shu Po (or a similar choice) as the deity. Or maybe change the palatine detective from part of the Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye to the more "esoteric" training available to "ninja clans."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With ninja, samurai, and the original post, it's important to start with the concrete desired features rather than just the label, as otherwise you end up dancing around different interpretations.
Indeed, I have a character build I'm working on inspired by my D&D 2E ninja class character, and they're a swashbuckler - a class with a reason to do ninja flips as they move around! Plus they basically do pressure point attacks.
|
Western pop culture became enamored with the katana rather than weapons from other asian countries because of the strong interaction between Japan and the US and the US-made movies that created Western pop culture.
And the katana was the iconic weapon for the exotic and romantic figure of the samurai.
At this point, we are dealing with a symbol more than a weapon.
Western pop culture became enamored with the katana rather than weapons from other asian countries because of the strong interaction between Japan and the US and the US-made movies that created Western pop culture.
And the katana was the iconic weapon for the exotic and romantic figure of the samurai.
At this point, we are dealing with a symbol more than a weapon.
No, it was Japanese cinema that did this. I agree with the U.S.-Japanese tight relations helping, but Japanese cinema and anime which came to America in the 70s and 80s as well as the general martial arts craze that boosted the katana, ninja, and samuarai up as well as martial arts in general.
Japan and Hong Kong produced a ton of shows and movies that came to America in the 70s and 80s. It influenced American cinema, though American movies and TV shows were much crappier than the Japanese and Hong Kong movies and TV shows.
I grew up watching all that stuff as a 70s and 80s kid. We weren't watching American stuff as it sucked. We loved the martial arts movies coming from Hong Kong and Japan. Martial Arts Theater on weekends with Hong Kong movies produced by the Shaw brothers I think they were called. They made these amazing martial arts movies from Hong Kong. I still remember getting hooked by The Five Deadly Venoms.
Then you had Zatoichi with Shintaro Katsu and Kurosawa the acclaimed director making amazing samurai movies.
America tried to emulate these movies, but they sort of sucked. Chuck Norris did some decent movies, but not as cool as Hong Kong or Japan. America tried to make some ninja movies like American ninja and Way of the Ninja, but boy, they sucked.
No one makes martial arts, samurai, or ninja movies as well as the Japanese and Hong Kong directors. They made American kids back in the 70s and 80s love the katana, nunchaku, the samurai, ninja, and martial arts culture in general.
Of course, who can forget Bruce Lee. That dude was incredibly influential on American culture in the 70s and 80s. He was the Michael Jordan of martial arts. His Hong Kong movies were must watch T.V. for young American kids wanting to see cool martial arts films.
|
|
I mostly agree with you actually.
The asian influences that most made it into western pop culture come from a British colony (Hong Kong) and a country who opened itself to the outside world because of the US (Japan).
It is a chicken/egg thing from there IMO. I see reciprocical influences between the US pop culture and the movies from Hong Kong and Japan.
Especially Japan because of the strong contacts between both countries during the post-war US occupation.
Base-ball is Japan's most popular sport after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly agree with you actually.
The asian influences that most made it into western pop culture come from a British colony (Hong Kong) and a country who opened itself to the outside world because of the US (Japan).
It is a chicken/egg thing from there IMO. I see reciprocical influences between the US pop culture and the movies from Hong Kong and Japan.
Especially Japan because of the strong contacts between both countries during the post-war US occupation.
Base-ball is Japan's most popular sport after all.
True. It was a back and forth. Kurosaw was influenced by John Ford and American westerns and turned the samurai and the katana into a kind of gunfighter like swordfighter wandering the world selling their sword and ending up in scenarios where they ended up helping people.
Then Yojimbo by Kurosawa influenced Sergio Leone who made Fist Full of Dollars which was a copy of Yojimbo with a gunfighter instead of Samurai.
And amusingly enough, the most successful American made movie that was Eastern influenced was Star Wars. Lucas really like Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress movie and he modeled the Jedi Knights on samurai and Shao Lin monks. The lightsaber is basically a katana.
They all kept influencing each other creating amazing cinema and entertainment for us all.
On a side note, I still wish the katana was a finesse weapon. The katana and similar blades have always been depicted as a weapon that relies on speed and precision, not strength and brute force.
I don't know if we are too deep into this edition to ask for new things, but I would love if Paizo introduced "general" (for lack of a better name) class feats, or class feats that are automatically available to all classes. Feats like the Familiar feat lines and some spellshapes would likely make it much easier for Paizo when formating new books as they wouldn't need to think about taking certain feats and reprinting them.
I say this because the old PF1e "Now you can use X weapon with finesse" feats would be perfect in such a category. However, if I had to be totally fair, those feats were kinda busted. I would like more non-inventor weapon flexibility with traits because, well, the inventor sucks, and I think most people would want that on other martials that aren't craftsmen.
I don't know if we are too deep into this edition to ask for new things, but I would love if Paizo introduced "general" (for lack of a better name) class feats, or class feats that are automatically available to all classes. Feats like the Familiar feat lines and some spellshapes would likely make it much easier for Paizo when formating new books as they wouldn't need to think about taking certain feats and reprinting them.
That's mostly what archetypes exist for. For example, a character of any class can take the familiar master archetype to gain and/or improve a familiar without needing "feats... available to all classes."
For spellshape feats, each spellcasting class seems to have its own subset instead of giving the same spellshape options to every caster. Also, requiring a player to refer to a different book to see all of the class options is likely to be more irritating (and look like a money grab) than reprinting a (literal) handful (or two at most) of feats.
I say this because the old PF1e "Now you can use X weapon with finesse" feats would be perfect in such a category. However, if I had to be totally fair, those feats were kinda busted. I would like more non-inventor weapon flexibility with traits because, well, the inventor sucks, and I think most people would want that on other martials that aren't craftsmen.
The smith-warrior that forges their own equipment has a long history in mythology and fiction. And to be fair, PF2 kind of allows this; only the improvements are adding magical properties via the Magical Crafting feat (and Monster Crafting) instead of changing base equipment properties. PF2 makes this even easier than PF1 because the majority of magic items don't require the creator to cast spells.
Frankly, that there isn't a superior weapon for all circumstances is more of a feature than a bug in my opinion.
To be fair, you are totally spot on with archetypes effectively being "general" class feats. Still, for certain builds it can be quite a hassle to dip into an archetype to make X weapon finesse (if such archetype ever existed), but I guess that balances out adding such a strong trait on a weapon.
I know the "guy that tweaks their weapon" is the archetype the inventor tries (emphasis on tries) to emulate with at least the weapon innovation, but the "I have so much expertise with this huge sword that I use it on speed and precision alone rather than strength" that is really common in anime is, arguably, a more modern trope that most people, directly or indirectly, reference when playing Dex-characters in TTRGPs or videogames.
Not like I'm asking to finesse a greatsword, but I would like some flexibility or options to possibly finesse some weapons that normally aren't finesse-able. I also would like archetypes or class feats that allowed casters to have cool reliable backup weapons, kinda like hand of the apprentice for wizards. For example, let's say bards could use battle lutes or other instrument-like weapons with Charisma, an archetype with an eldritch blast-like attack like a 5e warlock, etc.
We could even hae later feats on the archetype to allow you to use the attack's item bonus to attack rolls on spell attacks with certain thematic spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never quite gives the feel you want on a character. I'm not sure why the designers keep making these weapons in a way that doesn't fit the fantasy use of them.
Well, that is easy to answer I think.
Because the writers aren't trying to fulfill any one person's idea of what the fantasy should be, and they aren't trying to play favorites with any one weapon.
Heck, in PF2 outside of the thief rogue, dex focused melee combatants just aren't really a thing. Or at least they're going to be increasing the strength nearly as much as dex (one because the system is generous with giving out ability score increases, and too because doing otherwise leaves damage on the table that you could be grabbing). If you were to start at high enough level, the damage bonus from strength becomes less relevant. But the other thing is that finesse weapons also tend to have lower damage die, which is yet another damage decrease, especially as you gain weapon damage dice.
Does that mean PF2 is bad because you can't make an effective Drizzt?
No. It means the game wasn't designed to support those specific fantasies, which is basically true of every game. There's going to be some idea that someone has that isn't supported well by the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the answer that their view of the fantasy certainly might not be the same as yours. There are plenty of such scenarios where someone wants a specific fantasy but refuses to engage with the elements that would fit that fantasy all because it doesnt say "Katana" or "Wizard" or "Sniper" on the can.
a monk wielding a katana certainly is possible if your view of the katana is a two handed curved sword as plenty of examples have already been given of weapons that can fullfill the flavor of "Katana" but isnt named such.
A monk using a curve blade and taking the mauler archetype is possible. Heck, you gain proficiency with katana from the Mauler Dedication, too: "You have familiarity with all melee weapons that require two hands to wield or have the two-hand trait. For the purposes of proficiency, you treat any of these that are martial weapons as simple weapons and any that are advanced weapons as martial weapons. If you are at least an expert in such a weapon, you gain access to the critical specialization effect with that weapon."
With monk being the way it is, The fantasy Paizo went with is that the Monk has honed their body and martial arts to perfection. So the question is.. what stops a fighter from fulfilling the idea of a monastic warrior?
They to hone their weapon skills to perfection and have special weapon techniques.
Nothing. The martial artist archetype says "hello." Or even wild mimic for the animal styles (with some extras that straight monks don't get).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean PF2 is bad because you can't make an effective Drizzt?
No. It means the game wasn't designed to support those specific fantasies, which is basically true of every game. There's going to be some idea that someone has that isn't supported well by the system.
Following up on this, some might call me mean or rude to say this, but I actually wish/hope people would stop bringing outside fantasy into Pathfinder and getting disappointed when they can't make their specific (often broken) power fantasy work in the game.
I know a lot of people do it, but the older I get the worse off I think TTRPGs are for it. Rather than looking at the system and getting inspired, they look at other sources and try to shoehorn that idea into the system (usually to their disappointment).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never quite gives the feel you want on a character. I'm not sure why the designers keep making these weapons in a way that doesn't fit the fantasy use of them.Well, that is easy to answer I think.
Because the writers aren't trying to fulfill any one person's idea of what the fantasy should be, and they aren't trying to play favorites with any one weapon.
Heck, in PF2 outside of the thief rogue, dex focused melee combatants just aren't really a thing. Or at least they're going to be increasing the strength nearly as much as dex (one because the system is generous with giving out ability score increases, and too because doing otherwise leaves damage on the table that you could be grabbing). If you were to start at high enough level, the damage bonus from strength becomes less relevant. But the other thing is that finesse weapons also tend to have lower damage die, which is yet another damage decrease, especially as you gain weapon damage dice.
Does that mean PF2 is bad because you can't make an effective Drizzt?
No. It means the game wasn't designed to support those specific fantasies, which is basically true of every game. There's going to be some idea that someone has that isn't supported well by the system.
Bad? No. Is it ridiculous you can't make a good Drizz't or a fast, dex-based katana wielder? Yes. You should very much be able to build an effective strength or dex-based attacker with nearly any weapon.
Anyone that does real fighting knows that hand-eye-coordination is far superior to strength for fighting, which is why you don't see bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongmen as the best fighters. Fight training focuses on being able to hit something fast and precisely.
If you went by D&D, they serve the fantasy that some Arnold as Conan looking dude is the greatest warrior with almost every weapon using massive strength and muscles to crush people. Why do they serve that fantasy while put so many limitations on the dex-based warrior?
So why not open things up more to serve the fantasy of the dex-based swordsman like Drizz't or a katana wielder? I certainly don't see any bodybuilder sized warriors using the katana in the movies. Most are fast, agile, precise users of the blade.
Is it that hard for the game designers to put this option in the game? Does it break the game to allow people to build to that fantasy with nearly every weapon?
I doubt it.
Now that this game is heavily divorced from the core D&D, I'd love to see the PF designers move to a battle system where dex or strength based fighters are equally viable and you can use either stat to hit. Str doing more damage and Dex having better AC.
The str-based focus in this game for hitting has always rubbed me the wrong way given real fighting works nothing like the biggest, strongest person always winning or being the best fighter, especially with weapons.
That won't get fixed any time soon. I'd sure like the game to mirror more fantasies than huge duty using huge weapon crushing foes or dex guy with smaller, agile weapon stabbing people.
No good reason whatsoever for not being able to make a Drizz't or dex-based katana wielder right next to strength based scimitar or katana wielder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Homebrew, if you'd find it interesting for your games:
After some playtesting, I was playing around with dex to damage as a general rule. What I ended up doing was giving finesse weapons the additional option to replace full strength to damage with half dex to damage.The idea was that players would still be rewarded for choosing strength, as it will simply give the better number, but if you maxed dexterity, you'd at least get a +2 (potentially +3 at level 20 if you max dex, whereas Strength can start with +4, and reach +7 at Level 20, both of these accounting for an apex item). Not as beefy, and still gonna be overshadowed by expertise and weapon enchantments, much like Strength was, but this small increase did a lot to make players feel less upset about their damage numbers at low levels when they chose a dex character, and made non thief-rogue/swashbuckler dex feel a bit more satisfying to play among my players.
Finesse
You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon, and can use half your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on damage rolls using this melee weapon. Additionally, if your weapon has either the disarm, grapple, ranged trip, shove, or trip traits, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on Athletics checks to use this weapon to Disarm, Grapple, Shove, or Trip.
I usually do, but that doesn't stop me from stating what I'd like to see going forward.
The huge strong dude being the ultimate fighter has been a D&Dism from the beginning that was somewhat changed in 3E, but moved step or two back to in PF2 for some reason.
This is another one of those areas where I think 5E handled it a bit better than PF2. Similar to how 5E handled changes to Vancian casting maintaining the core, but making everyone a spontaneous caster.
I hope PF designers in the future now that they are divorced from D&D take some more moves away.
I have trouble believing that during the playtest everyone wanted PF2 to keep the heavy strength focus for weapons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBF, it might be a bit of an overreaction that Dex in PF2 is limited to only attack rolls with finesse or ranged weapons.
However, considering that Dex in PF2 is still valuable to AC, Ref saves, and multiple useful skills while Str is a lot less valuable outside of Athletics and melee/thrown weapons, it's probably a good thing for system balance that you can't just focus on Dex to "optimize" a character the way you could in 3.x/PF1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBF, it might be a bit of an overreaction that Dex in PF2 is limited to only attack rolls with finesse or ranged weapons.
However, considering that Dex in PF2 is still valuable to AC, Ref saves, and multiple useful skills while Str is a lot less valuable outside of Athletics and melee/thrown weapons, it's probably a good thing for system balance that you can't just focus on Dex to "optimize" a character the way you could in 3.x/PF1.
Or you can be like 5e, and make every stat except for Constitution viable for attacking with.
Uhhhh... excuse me, but the sai, nunchaku, bo staff, and katanas are actually iconic ninja weapons.Note that the katana was a weapon for samurai warriors. Not for monks.I can understand the dissatisfaction. Sai, Nunchaku, and Bo Staff are all on the list of Monk weapons, so why isn't Katana?
Only if you're a Ninja Turtle...lol. The sai is a chinese weapon isn't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you're a Ninja Turtle...lol. The sai is a chinese weapon isn't it?Uhhhh... excuse me, but the sai, nunchaku, bo staff, and katanas are actually iconic ninja weapons.Note that the katana was a weapon for samurai warriors. Not for monks.I can understand the dissatisfaction. Sai, Nunchaku, and Bo Staff are all on the list of Monk weapons, so why isn't Katana?
Sai are from Okinawa, aka Ryukyu. Okinawa was its own region, with a notable usage of Chinese elements, but was still closer to Japan culturally and was eventually taken over by Japan.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad? No. Is it ridiculous you can't make a good Drizz't or a fast, dex-based katana wielder? Yes. You should very much be able to build an effective strength or dex-based attacker with nearly any weapon.
Anyone that does real fighting knows that hand-eye-coordination is far superior to strength for fighting, which is why you don't see bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongmen as the best fighters. Fight training focuses on being able to hit something fast and precisely.
If you went by D&D, they serve the fantasy that some Arnold as Conan looking dude is the greatest warrior with almost every weapon using massive strength and muscles to crush people. Why do they serve that fantasy while put so many limitations on the dex-based warrior?
So why not open things up more to serve the fantasy of the dex-based swordsman like Drizz't or a katana wielder? I certainly don't see any bodybuilder sized warriors using the katana in the movies. Most are fast, agile, precise users of the blade.
Is it that hard for the game designers to put this option in the game? Does it break the game to allow people to build to that fantasy with nearly every weapon?
I doubt it.
Now that this game is heavily divorced from the core D&D, I'd love to see the PF designers move to a battle system where dex or strength based fighters are equally viable and you can use either stat to hit. Str doing more damage and Dex having better AC.
The str-based focus in this game for hitting has always rubbed me the wrong way given real fighting works nothing like the biggest, strongest person always winning or being the best fighter, especially with weapons.
That won't get fixed any time soon. I'd sure like the game to mirror more fantasies than huge duty using huge weapon crushing foes or dex guy with smaller, agile weapon stabbing people.
No good reason whatsoever for not being able to make a Drizz't or dex-based katana wielder right next to strength based scimitar or katana wielder.
I disagree, game balance is the MOST important reason for decision. Dex does a lot, while strength does little besides melee attack rolls, damage, and athletics.
Besides, one can make a dex based weapon user. But you have to accept that you will have weapons with lower damage die and have less bonus to damage (assuming you don't increase strength).
In exchange you can use lighter armor, you increase a saving throw, you use it for ranged attacks, and can use it for acrobatics, stealth, and thievery.
Without strength being dominant for melee usage, dexterity would be too strong. It was a problem in PF1 and D&D, and I consider it one of the best changes to the game to not have it be as viable as it was in the past. So you can make your dex based warrior, but will need to accept that you wont deal as much damage.
In any event, I normally see melee character increasing strength, dex, con, and wisdom unless their class requires the use of charisma or intelligence to do its thing. And at that point it depends on what armor the class has (scaling) access to for how they invest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally quite glad that you CAN go str+dex and be rewarded for doing so. The either/or mentality is what I find irritating.
In either case, most dex builds get other damage boosting effects to make up for their lack of raw weapon and ability score damage. In my experience, it's felt pretty good in play. The only strength based build I see regularly making people question their damage output is a big two-handed barbarian.
As for the topic of the OP: I still don't think we've heard what specific goals they have for the character beyond the words "Monk" and "Katana".
There are plenty of str+dex concepts that would work quite well with a katana and light armor. You even have boosts left over for wis and con.
With more specificity of the requirements we could all help a lot better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think it helps to reimagine strength more to how it is used in PF2 than old DND descriptions. The Player Core describes strength as "physical power" and "physical might." While being a big muscled warrior is often how that is portrayed, I don't think that should be the limit of the fantasy and I don't think that is the designers intent. It is also how good one can use those muscles. Skillful warrior characters in media are not shown as weak, so I think it would be helpful to remember big strength doesn't just mean big muscles.
In PF2 terms, a character like Drizzt level 16 isn't Str 13 Dex 20 like DnD2e, he is probably Str 5✓ Dex 5. Though he could easily be Str 5 Dex 5✓ and only be a point behind on attacks and damage. He is both acrobatic and athletic in the books, and sword fights against I chose Martial Disciple as the background and went heavily into Str and Dex. Probably 2 free boosts from ancestry instead of the usual Elf spread.
Agreed. I think a lot of the "I want to be a dex melee" crowd should understand what that really means is "I want to be focused on dex (more than strength, but still need almost as much strength) and use light armor."
TBF, it might be a bit of an overreaction that Dex in PF2 is limited to only attack rolls with finesse or ranged weapons.
However, considering that Dex in PF2 is still valuable to AC, Ref saves, and multiple useful skills while Str is a lot less valuable outside of Athletics and melee/thrown weapons, it's probably a good thing for system balance that you can't just focus on Dex to "optimize" a character the way you could in 3.x/PF1.
A Strength-based martial can ignore Dex if they really want in PF2e. If you have heavy armor proficiency, a full plate allows you to ignore Dex exists for its two biggest selling factors (AC and Reflex), but even without it, just a regular medium armored Str-based martial with a breastplate and a +1 to Dex is more than enough to work. Like, 90% of my characters a breastplate Str-based martials and I never felt particularly bothered or in need of more Dex to have better Reflex saves.
Dex skills aren't bad, but aren't must haves (except arguably Stealth, but I'll go into details later). Acrobatics as a skill hardly comes up (at least in the APs and homebrew campaigns I played) but if you happen to have a good Acrobatics modifier its useful for stuff like tumble through, which is a fantastic movement tool, but not something I particularly miss when I'm Str-based personally. Thievery is weird because it sounds like a really useful skill in practice but its actually (at least in APs) highly optional. APs always offer you alternatives like Athletics to open doors, and while that would suggest you that you are making noise and alerting enemies, I recall more than a few times in Abomination Vaults where the option to use Athletics was there and there weren't enemies around to alert. Stealth is widely considered one of the strongest skills and with good reason, but in my experience it can be skipped too. With Follow the Expert and/or being trained in Stealth with at least a +1 Dex is usually enough for those moments when hiding is needed, but even then, due to how other skills like Medicine work, I find that the "we need to hide because we can't fight" isn't a situation that comes up that often, if at all. Taking all I said into account, I feel Dex's only selling point in PF2e is Stealth, which isn't even 100% mandatory.
I would love if PF3e did away with Constitution as an attribute and merged it with Strength. While this would sound against the case I made earlier with Dex not being as good as it seems and buffing Strength even more would lean the balance towards the later even more, with just two physical attributes it would be a huge bonus to Dex characters because they have to invest into both Strength and Constitution anyways if they wan't to deal actual damage and not go down in a single swing, which this would make easier, while Str characters would have their few weak spots a little more secured. Heck, I would be lying if I didn't say that I would love if you could attack with Strength or Dexterity intercheangeably but only Strength applied to damage. Like Deriven said, IRL combat is more about finesse than raw strength, and it would contribute to martials feeling more physically capable as well. Fabula Ultima is a system that allows for more than one stat to be used to attack and, while vastly different than D&D or PF, that concept could be implemented in a future edition and it would work wonderfully, even if everything else was left as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's just me, but because stat increases are so generous, unless I have a need for charisma or int (most characters I play don't) I always end up increasing dex anyways.
And I prefer increased dex over heavy armor, primarily because you will generally get a better overall bonus to your reflex save and you wont have a speed penalty. It may not sound like much, but I really don't like the speed penalty of heavier armor.
But I think a martial character that increases strength and dex is perhaps one of the most well rounded characters you can make. And unless you were intent on being the face or the knowledge guy (atypical for martial characters) you're pretty well served by increasing both.
Ultimately, I like that's where the game is at.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dumping dex as a strength martial is not sunshine and roses. Without going into Sentinel dedication for Mighty Bulwark you're a trip magnet. You also give up a bunch of your carry capacity afforded by your strength for the heavier armor, spend more actions moving around the battlefield, have trouble getting carried out of danger, and may have to spend more feats just to get into the proficiency to start with.
It can be worth it but for many of my characters it's definitely not.
100%
As I said, I'd only not increase dex if I had another ability score that I needed more.
Like a Magus needs INT.
So then you have to decide on a balance between strength, dex, wis, con, and int (and ignore the part that playing a starlit span magus is probably the most effective magus and you're probably just worse off by going melee). I'd probably prioritize dex and int, and kind of alternate between strength, wis, and con in terms of increasing them.
Strength might be the easiest sacrifice in the sense of having spellstrike to augment your attack damage, but you can't spellstrike every round which means you have rounds where you're damage might be very low without having a decent strength modifier. But then again it's more a problem at low levels where you only have 1 damage die and no runes like flaming to help tack on damage. At high levels, the amount of damage you deal relative to your strength modifier means a lower strength isn't that impactful (for pure damage).
It's actually why I kind of ignore propulsive on bows because getting to a +4 strength just for 2 extra damage....not worth it IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.
I...Bad? No. Is it ridiculous you can't make a good Drizz't or a fast, dex-based katana wielder? Yes. You should very much be able to build an effective strength or dex-based attacker with nearly any weapon.
Anyone that does real fighting knows that hand-eye-coordination is far superior to strength for fighting, which is why you don't see bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongmen as the best fighters. Fight training focuses on being able to hit something fast and precisely.
If you went by D&D, they serve the fantasy that some Arnold as Conan looking dude is the greatest warrior with almost every weapon using massive strength and muscles to crush people. Why do they serve that fantasy while put so many limitations on the dex-based warrior?
So why not open things up more to serve the fantasy of the dex-based swordsman like Drizz't or a katana wielder? I certainly don't see any bodybuilder sized warriors using the katana in the movies. Most are fast, agile, precise users of the blade.
Is it that hard for the game designers to put this option in the game? Does it break the game to allow people to build to that fantasy with nearly every weapon?
I doubt it.
Now that this game is heavily divorced from the core D&D, I'd love to see the PF designers move to a battle system where dex or strength based fighters are equally viable and you can use either stat to hit. Str doing more damage and Dex having better AC.
The str-based focus in this game for hitting has always rubbed me the wrong way given real fighting works nothing like the biggest, strongest person always winning or being the best fighter, especially with weapons.
That won't get fixed any time soon. I'd sure like the game to mirror more fantasies than huge duty using huge weapon crushing foes or dex guy with smaller, agile weapon stabbing people.
No good reason whatsoever for not being able to make a Drizz't or dex-based katana wielder right next to strength based scimitar or katana wielder.
You are flat out wrong. Once again PF2 over-corrected, so the problems from PF1 no longer exist.
AC is in a narrow range whether your Dex is 24 or 10. Armor class along with other stats being used for AC that stacked to create insane ACs in PF1. PF2 got rid of that in a variety of ways:
1. Armor class is narrow with dex bonus from AC capped at +5 (no armor) to +0 heavy armor with heavy, strength-based armor providing a better AC than even a high Dex character.
2. Strength has a greater effect on combat maneuvers, which are extremely powerful in PF2. As far as I know there is no way to use Dex for combat maneuvers.
3. Strength increases damage and Dex increases reflex saves. Due to the way they built AC, Str and Dex are not a wash for AC and in fact Str might even be a little better since heavy armor is the best AC in the game.
4. Wisdom increases perception which is now the primary initiative stat.
So no, the problems in PF1 with Dex don't exist, so would have been completely fine to allow it to hit now. The problems with Dex and AC stacking period no longer exist in PF2 which was the primary reason Dex was out of line in PF1.
PF2 is layered balance. They have a bunch of changes that created a balance point and reinforced it. Because of this it would absolutely not break the game at all to allow Dex as an attack stat to hit, so long as you keep all the other layered limiters in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. Strength has a greater effect on combat maneuvers, which are extremely powerful in PF2. As far as I know there is no way to use Dex for combat maneuvers.
One that I can think of: Tumbling Opportunist from the acrobat archetype allows the use of Acrobatics instead of Athletics to trip. Granted, it requires an archetype and can't be taken until 10th level.
This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.
I could agree to that, but I think generally speaking d10 and d12 weapons wouldn't be on that list, do recognize that there are a few that currently have d10 as an option (Talwar). My point is that there would need to be restrictions on what was allowed to work.
...Bad? No. Is it ridiculous you can't make a good Drizz't or a fast, dex-based katana wielder? Yes. You should very much be able to build an effective strength or dex-based attacker with nearly any weapon.
Anyone that does real fighting knows that hand-eye-coordination is far superior to strength for fighting, which is why you don't see bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongmen as the best fighters. Fight training focuses on being able to hit something fast and precisely.
If you went by D&D, they serve the fantasy that some Arnold as Conan looking dude is the greatest warrior with almost every weapon using massive strength and muscles to crush people. Why do they serve that fantasy while put so many limitations on the dex-based warrior?
So why not open things up more to serve the fantasy of the dex-based swordsman like Drizz't or a katana wielder? I certainly don't see any bodybuilder sized warriors using the katana in the movies. Most are fast, agile, precise users of the blade.
Is it that hard for the game designers to put this option in the game? Does it break the game to allow people to build to that fantasy with nearly every weapon?
I doubt it.
Now that this game is heavily divorced from the core D&D, I'd love to see the PF designers move to a battle system where dex or strength based fighters are equally viable and you can use either stat to hit. Str doing more damage and Dex having better AC.
The str-based focus in this game for hitting has always rubbed me the wrong way given real fighting works nothing like the biggest, strongest person always winning or being the best fighter, especially with weapons.
That won't get fixed any time soon. I'd sure like the game to mirror more fantasies than huge duty using huge weapon crushing foes or dex guy with smaller, agile weapon stabbing people.
No good reason whatsoever for not being able to make a Drizz't or dex-based katana wielder right next to strength based scimitar or
You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with your position one little bit.
But I'm going to choose not to engage with you rather than have a protracted argument about our views.
Have a great day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Bad? No. Is it ridiculous you can't make a good Drizz't or a fast, dex-based katana wielder? Yes. You should very much be able to build an effective strength or dex-based attacker with nearly any weapon.
Anyone that does real fighting knows that hand-eye-coordination is far superior to strength for fighting, which is why you don't see bodybuilders, powerlifters, and strongmen as the best fighters. Fight training focuses on being able to hit something fast and precisely.
If you went by D&D, they serve the fantasy that some Arnold as Conan looking dude is the greatest warrior with almost every weapon using massive strength and muscles to crush people. Why do they serve that fantasy while put so many limitations on the dex-based warrior?
So why not open things up more to serve the fantasy of the dex-based swordsman like Drizz't or a katana wielder? I certainly don't see any bodybuilder sized warriors using the katana in the movies. Most are fast, agile, precise users of the blade.
Is it that hard for the game designers to put this option in the game? Does it break the game to allow people to build to that fantasy with nearly every weapon?
I doubt it.
Now that this game is heavily divorced from the core D&D, I'd love to see the PF designers move to a battle system where dex or strength based fighters are equally viable and you can use either stat to hit. Str doing more damage and Dex having better AC.
The str-based focus in this game for hitting has always rubbed me the wrong way given real fighting works nothing like the biggest, strongest person always winning or being the best fighter, especially with weapons.
That won't get fixed any time soon. I'd sure like the game to mirror more fantasies than huge duty using huge weapon crushing foes or dex guy with smaller, agile weapon stabbing people.
No good reason whatsoever for not being able to make a Drizz't or dex-based katana wielder right next
I don't want to make my argument incomplete should you choose to try to rebut it.
Since I was on my way to work, let me add in a few more layers to further show why it is irrelevant if you use Dex to hit now:
5. Abilities are easier to increase now with more starting ability bonuses making it very easy to meet the minimum for Dex for AC.
This also is additive with four ability boosts per 5 levels making abilities easier to build up than ever to max out AC within the narrow range.
6. Abilities are range bound with a maximum of 24 with an Apex item for a single stat and a minimum of 10. This is on top of the rangebound AC.
7. Ability boosting items and spells are severely limited with a single Apex item at level 17. So no more ability bonus item stacking with spells and items. All gone.
This means bonuses are same the across the board with circumstance, item, and status bonuses all providing parity with buffing for any class with any stat.
PF2 has successfully made Strength and Dex equal in value for martial classes. Probably the lowest value stat in PF2 is intelligence. Dex is more valuable to casters to meet the minimum AC requirement unless they too want to use heavier armor and hit with a weapon better. You can build either way. Charisma is a good stat with a high value for social skills and as a casting stat. Con is its usual solid self adding hit points and Fort saves.
It was good design in my opinion which is why I think PF2 designers can now take the guard rails off and let Dex and str serve as the attack stats for nearly all weapons.
I could probably think of some more, but suffice it to say that dex and strength are of equal relative value with strength probably being a little more valuable than dex to most martial classes given the power of combat maneuvers, the value of heavy armor with plate armor providing a minimum save bonus equal to a 16 Dex as well as the highest AC, and the overall power of the Athletics skill for a wide variety of activities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dex skills aren't bad, but aren't must haves (except arguably Stealth, but I'll go into details later). Acrobatics as a skill hardly comes up (at least in the APs and homebrew campaigns I played) but if you happen to have a good Acrobatics modifier its useful for stuff like tumble through, which is a fantastic movement tool, but not something I particularly miss when I'm Str-based personally. Thievery is weird because it sounds like a really useful skill in practice but its actually (at least in APs) highly optional. APs always offer you alternatives like Athletics to open doors, and while that would suggest you that you are making noise and alerting enemies, I recall more than a few times in Abomination Vaults where the option to use Athletics was there and there weren't enemies around to alert. Stealth is widely considered one of the strongest skills and with good reason, but in my experience it can be skipped too. With Follow the Expert and/or being trained in Stealth with at least a +1 Dex is usually enough for those moments when hiding...You'd probably like the Alternative Scores optional rule from the GameMastery Guide. It even gives full dex to damage. Archives of Nethys: Alternative Scores.
Yeah, no. I knew that variant and it makes stuff worse. The only good changes are merge Constitution into Strength and Charisma for Will saves (which I like because I also would probably merge Intelligence and Wisdom, though Will saves would scale with Charisma instead), but splitting Dex is just wrong, even with Dex to damage.
Maybe it's just me, but because stat increases are so generous, unless I have a need for charisma or int (most characters I play don't) I always end up increasing dex anyways.
Let's say you are playing a Str martial that wants to demoralize. Three of your four increases are likely going to be Str, Con, and Cha, with the last one remaning to either Dex or Wis. Wisdom contributes to Perception, thus initiative, and Will saves, which IMO are the actually dangerous saves you don't want to fail (not to mention most martial classes tend to have good reflex saves too, while martials with good will saves seem to be less common). As I said, most of the characters I played didn't have more than a +1 Dex modifier and I barely felt I needed more than that, while Dex characters need take as much increases in Str as in Dex for damage (finesse weapons are usually weaker damage-wise than pure Str weapons like greataxes or greatswords, so you need that Str modifier to keep up).
For the record, I'm not trying to argue Dex is a bad stat, I'm arguing that Dex is a bad stat for a Str martial or at least not as desirable as Str is for Dex martials. Casters still favor Dex over all the other physical attributes since they can't meet the AC threshold without it, and the classes that favor Dex martials like rogues or swashbucklers have a lot going on for them, but IMO playing a Dex fighter, thaumaturge, or inventor (unless you are ranged) seems like a trap to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like a Magus needs INT.
That is debatable. I'm playing a remastered Magus in Gatewalkers and find myself doing just fine with the more limited number of Attack Roll spells. Ukang ignores Int for Str (for Athletics to Trip) and Dex as a Twisting Tree Magus. He only Spellstrikes with attack spells and, otherwise, only casts utility spells. His Spell Attack and Spell DC are irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be real with y'all, this is a really long argument about what is and isn't a katana. Just take a Temple Sword or Wakizashi, it's not that complex.
Someone mentioned Drizzt's "Scimitars", but didn't mention that the reason they are "Scimitars" is because weapon fluff is free as long as mechanics fit. Gary Gygax (or maybe one of the other early writers of D&D) didn't want to put out stats for all the varieties of curved swords and made the decision that all curved swords are scimitars. Elven sabers, Orc cleavers, machetes, shamsirs, pirate cutlasses, whatever, they are all scimitars. So you see Drizzt in all the art with what [i]aren't[/b]
I don't know why it's so hard to say your monk's temple sword, his personal sword that he's been training with his entire career as a monk, is some sort of katana variation. Maybe customized to be weighted for martial arts. I think this forum likes arguing too much sometimes.
This is why we need a feat that allow a Monk to treat a signature weapon as if it had the Monk trait.I could agree to that, but I think generally speaking d10 and d12 weapons wouldn't be on that list, do recognize that there are a few that currently have d10 as an option (Talwar). My point is that there would need to be restrictions on what was allowed to work.
If the Khakkara is legal as a Monk weapon, I don't see a problem with others, like the Talwar :)