No Love for the Dex-based fighter?

[Longneil]

Hey everyone, kinda new here but i wanted to ask about a something I've run into. I play dex-based fighters in pathfinder and even our home game right now. I love the build, yet as i look for guides on improving such a character, i see a lot of people raging or talking about how unfair it is. So heres my question, what do you guys think about it? Almost anytime I see it mentioned page after page of hate spring up, this is just coming from a curious player.

[(Un)Inspired]

I'm not sure if there's anything specifically unfair about them. There not terrible effective mechanically but I wouldn't call that unfair.

[PsyBomb]

Hey everyone, kinda new here but i wanted to ask about a something I've run into. I play dex-based fighters in pathfinder and even our home game right now. I love the build, yet as i look for guides on improving such a character, i see a lot of people raging or talking about how unfair it is. So heres my question, what do you guys think about it? Almost anytime I see it mentioned page after page of hate spring up, this is just coming from a curious player.

Fighter class itself, if you want to be truly Dex-based you need to dip into DSP for Deadly Agility at least. Otherwise, you're stuck on ranged combat (which will require decent Strength in 99% of cases)

[Peat]

It's the first I've heard of dislike for it as unfair. I suppose I can see why to an extent, as you get to be far more SAD as a Dex-based fighter, but you lose out on raw combat damage and pay a tax surcharge to do so.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bp4Q2cJ-7BXfj94byBuAB7T53ihTO08Ku1PSa2MJFkg/edit?pli=1 - here is a good guide if you haven't found it btw.

[Dayzgone]

From a mechanics stand point they are considered to be much weaker then there STR based cousins. Unless you have a source of additional damage (like a rouges sneak attack) you will not be doing enough to be considered viable in the mid to late game.

That being said, play whatever you want to play, if your having fun with a dex based fighter than that's all that counts.

[Psyren]

It's not that they're bad, it's just that so many other classes do Dex-based martial better that Fighter gets overlooked. Swashbuckler, Slayer, Brawler, Ranger, Rogue/Ninja, even Urban Barbarian - Fighter gets plenty of feats but they tend to come in behind these other classes even with that. And I haven't even gotten to the gishes yet.

The minimum benchmark to be a good Dex martial is the ability to add Dex to attack, then to either add Dex to damage or have a reliable bonus damage mechanic that is at least that good. Fighter can pull off the first two with a little effort, but many of the classes above can do all three of these easily, and then bring even more to the table (e.g. skills, deeds, talents, bonus attacks etc.) besides that.

[Aerris]

In case you are an elf, you can try converting Champion of Corellon Larethian to PF. It's from RotW afair and it's made for dex based fighters and paladins. Heck, even if you ain't an elf, you can drop the race restriction, entrance requirements are tough as hell even without it. It's a nice little class tho.

But yeah, all non-spellcasting classes get next to no love. It's a wizard-eat-wizard world after all.

[deuxhero]

There's really only one cases where dex based isn't going to be inferior to strength based, and that's Magus.

Dawnflower Dervish Bard gets pretty close to parity thanks to getting the needed feat for free at level 1, but its other melee improvement abilities can be used just as well, if not better, by a power attacking two handing Bard. Dex has a leg up on playing defenses, but both can keep starting/stopping Inspire Greatness to refresh a large pool of temp HP around half their TOTAL HP.

[Psyren]

But yeah, all non-spellcasting classes get next to no love. It's a wizard-eat-wizard world after all.

How much "love" do they really need though? Not-magic is supposed to be inferior to magic; so long as not-magic can handle CR-appropriate challenges with level-appropriate wealth, that's all that matters.

Now, I happen to enjoy ToB/PoW-style systems that give martials more to do, but that doesn't mean they are useless without said systems.


There's really only one cases where dex based isn't going to be inferior to strength based, and that's Magus.

I'm not sure I believe this - I think it's possible to build a Dex-based Slayer or Ninja (for example) whose DPR is on par with a Str-based Barbarian or Fighter.

But even if they are behind in raw damage, they still bring utility to the table in the form of trap removal, stealthing to key targets, debuffs/poisons/UMD etc.

[deuxhero]

Dex based slayer could do as an archer, but Ninja?

[Psyren]

Dex based slayer could do as an archer, but Ninja?

Greater Invis means strong defenses and lots of sneak attacks (including at range), and they are masters at tumbling around due to the +20 they can get. They can also take two useful Rogue archetypes (Scout and Bandit.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I dunno, between Slashing/Piercing Grace and Piranha Strike they do a lot better in Pathfinder than they did in 3.5. (The first two are pretty easy to pick up with a one-level Swashbuckler dip for the prereqs)

[The Grue]

Not-magic is supposed to be inferior to magic

On that we agree; though what you'd call "working as intended", I might qualify as a "failure of game design". I suppose it really comes down to the expectations of the player.

[Snowbluff]

As for magic versus mortal peasants, magic is harder to play and utilize correctly, so it should be stronger. Now, how strong is surely up for debate.

Dex based fighter is a bad option. By simple truth, you have to expend resources to get started. One feat for dex to damage, and another for dex to hit.

[Arutema]

I dunno, between Slashing/Piercing Grace and Piranha Strike they do a lot better in Pathfinder than they did in 3.5. (The first two are pretty easy to pick up with a one-level Swashbuckler dip for the prereqs)

Unfortunately, they are also mutually exclusive. One require a one-handed weapon, the other requires a light weapon.

[deuxhero]

It is however, not mutually exclusive with Dervish Dancer now that Effortless Lace exists (though Dervish Dancer bards never actually get the required weapon finesse).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Unfortunately, they are also mutually exclusive. One require a one-handed weapon, the other requires a light weapon.
Huh. I never noticed that. Well crap; I guess you're stuck with a 13 in Strength for Power Attack.

[Peat]

Huh. I never noticed that. Well crap; I guess you're stuck with a 13 in Strength for Power Attack.

Or dip Ranger, specializing in the Two-Handed Weapon feats, as that allows you to take Power Attack without the pre-requisites, which I assume means not needing to be STR 13...

[Spore]

On that we agree; though what you'd call "working as intended", I might qualify as a "failure of game design". I suppose it really comes down to the expectations of the player.

Personally I love the approach Blizzard did with World of Warcraft although their system only works if you can't dip out of classes. Even mundane classes have "quasi-magical" powers to fill the gap between them and magic users (rogues teleport to the enemy, hunters autoheal themselves because they're so damn motivated, and warriors stomp on the ground and everything close to them starts to bleed and is dazed).

In turn, wizards can't fly, warlocks can only bind demons and other summons by vastly sacrificing and tainting their essence and priests and druids can only cast either heal spells, damage spells or animal forms. It is kind of frustrating sometimes when your experienced druid character needs "Lore figure xy" to solve a quest he could doubly due to his backstory (it feels somewhat weird for a druid to not be able to tap into the emerald dream himself).

But alas, most classes are a healthy T3 for those purposes.


As for magic versus mortal peasants, magic is harder to play and utilize correctly, so it should be stronger. Now, how strong is surely up for debate.

Magic as the wizards practice is only harder in the way a wizard uses them fluffwise. Most other classes only have to revere a certain concept (druid, cleric) or simply have magic shoved up their behinds (spontaneous casters). This is in NO way harder to maintain than a certain level of combat training.

If the day has 24 hours and a fighter is practicing even 4 hours interrupted with breaks while a wizard is researching 8 hours, this doesn't mean magic should be twice as powerful.


Or dip Ranger, specializing in the Two-Handed Weapon feats, as that allows you to take Power Attack without the pre-requisites, which I assume means not needing to be STR 13...

Yes, that is correct. Although having Strength 13 or 14 never hurts your melee character (similar to having Dex 12 or 14 doesn't really hurt a Strength melee either). I am a quite inagile but average guy but I can't really see a character (other than maybe Tolkien elves) have Strength and Dexterity diverge very much. It just makes immersion very weird. You have this guy hitting stuff with even just iron short swords, yet he is not stronger than a fair maiden who does nothing but cross stitching all day long? Sorry but I can't accept that.

I have accepted that I can't close the gap between classes with pure attribute optimization.

[Psyren]

On that we agree; though what you'd call "working as intended", I might qualify as a "failure of game design". I suppose it really comes down to the expectations of the player.

I think it's a pretty weird expectation for anyone to have going into D&D myself. The starting point or degree of caster superiority may have differed between editions, and certainly the gap is widest in 3e - but (with the possible exception of 4e) it was always there.



Magic as the wizards practice is only harder in the way a wizard uses them fluffwise. Most other classes only have to revere a certain concept (druid, cleric) or simply have magic shoved up their behinds (spontaneous casters). This is in NO way harder to maintain than a certain level of combat training.

If the day has 24 hours and a fighter is practicing even 4 hours interrupted with breaks while a wizard is researching 8 hours, this doesn't mean magic should be twice as powerful.

Well, of course research/study time has nothing to do with it. Heck, Wizards are one of the few magic-using classes that even gets their power that way at all :smalltongue:


It is however, not mutually exclusive with Dervish Dancer now that Effortless Lace exists (though Dervish Dancer bards never actually get the required weapon finesse).

Ooh, now that's neat. My scimitar and whip builds have a new toy :smallsmile:

[Platymus Pus]

There are feats to gain dex to dmg multiple times though.
Double your base dmg for an extra feat or two? Sure.

[Arbane]

I think it's a pretty weird expectation for anyone to have going into D&D myself. The starting point or degree of caster superiority may have differed between editions, and certainly the gap is widest in 3e - but (with the possible exception of 4e) it was always there.


Yeah, but in low-level AD&D, the gap went the OTHER way. And I've seen plenty of RPGs where magic isn't automatically the best solution to all problems.

[atemu1234]

In case you are an elf, you can try converting Champion of Corellon Larethian to PF. It's from RotW afair and it's made for dex based fighters and paladins. Heck, even if you ain't an elf, you can drop the race restriction, entrance requirements are tough as hell even without it. It's a nice little class tho.

But yeah, all non-spellcasting classes get next to no love. It's a wizard-eat-wizard world after all.

No, I'm fairly certain wizards are dining on the succulent flesh of fighters.

[Ashtagon]

Is it just me, or is saying "Dex-based fighter" akin to saying "Charisma-based wizard"?

[atemu1234]

Is it just me, or is saying "Dex-based fighter" akin to saying "Charisma-based wizard"?

Nah, because fighter is generic enough to make it work.

[Snowbluff]

Magic as the wizards practice is only harder in the way a wizard uses them fluffwise. Most other classes only have to revere a certain concept (druid, cleric) or simply have magic shoved up their behinds (spontaneous casters). This is in NO way harder to maintain than a certain level of combat training.

If the day has 24 hours and a fighter is practicing even 4 hours interrupted with breaks while a wizard is researching 8 hours, this doesn't mean magic should be twice as powerful.

I wasn't talking in-game. In game, wizards are better because they are smart enough to use a resource and apply it correctly. Saying a wizard studying is no harder than a fighter training is like saying a club is just as hard to operate and maintain than a fighter jet. Or comparing geometry to calculus. Or comparing spear carving to rocket science. Or writing a "top 17 reasons to dye your hair" article to a doctoral thesis.

Out of game, a fighter pretty much only has to know the basic rules of the game, which is mostly attacking rules for them. A strong wizard has to know which spells are effective when, such as what types a spell won't work on, language-dependent affects, spell resistance, which saves are weak, when to say screw it and use a no save spell, and so one while also making attack rolls.

[Vhaidara]

There are feats to gain dex to dmg multiple times though.
Double your base dmg for an extra feat or two? Sure.

PF has a ruling that they don't stack. Also, the only time this would apply to the same weapon would be if you combined Dervish Dance with Slashing Grace, and all that gets you is x2 Dex with a scimitar. So, Magus is happy.

[Ashtagon]

Nah, because fighter is generic enough to make it work.

My way f thinking is that the Dex-based fighter is the rogue (formerly known as thief). That analogy goes all the way back to the Fritz Leiber stories which were one of the original D&D inspirations.

[Sacrieur]

There's always the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype which replaces all of those useless weapon/armor training class abilities with cooler ones. Plus since you're a fighter you get eight thousand feats to spend on stuff so taking a few feats to become Dex based is just fine.

Although I can't see why you would want a Dex-based fighter who isn't TWF.

I do have a warder I'm playing right now that Dex-based and only uses one light weapon. PoW really doesn't have a solid swordsage, which I should've ported over to PF when I made him. It works sort of well with some of the Broken Blade maneuvers and such.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but in low-level AD&D, the gap went the OTHER way.

Right, that's what I said. But there the gap wasn't due to "magic being weaker" - it was due to you simply not having ENOUGH of it, and lacking the physical attributes/training to compensate. Once you had more magic, you quickly took your rightful place as being dominant overall (other factors like player skill being equal.)


And I've seen plenty of RPGs where magic isn't automatically the best solution to all problems.

Not denying that, but to point out the obvious, those games aren't D&D.



Out of game, a fighter pretty much only has to know the basic rules of the game, which is mostly attacking rules for them. A strong wizard has to know which spells are effective when, such as what types a spell won't work on, language-dependent affects, spell resistance, which saves are weak, when to say screw it and use a no save spell, and so one while also making attack rolls.

This. There's an entire chapter of the PHB that Fighters more or less get to skip. That's a level of metagame complexity that the game rewards with increased power.


My way f thinking is that the Dex-based fighter is the rogue (formerly known as thief). That analogy goes all the way back to the Fritz Leiber stories which were one of the original D&D inspirations.

Indeed - or perhaps more accurately in PF now, the Slayer, which was designed to be a much more combat-oriented "rogue."

[Kurald Galain]

PF has a ruling that they don't stack. Also, the only time this would apply to the same weapon would be if you combined Dervish Dance with Slashing Grace, and all that gets you is x2 Dex with a scimitar. So, Magus is happy.

How's that work? Dervish Dance lets you "use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls" whereas Slashing Grace lets you "add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage". Since both are replacements, I'm having trouble seeing how this stacks?

[Psyren]

How's that work? Dervish Dance lets you "use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls" whereas Slashing Grace lets you "add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage". Since both are replacements, I'm having trouble seeing how this stacks?

I think he was saying that, prior to the FAQ ruling, you might have been able to convince your GM that having both let you somehow substitute it twice or something. That would've required a very liberal reading of Slashing Grace's "add."

[Vhaidara]

How's that work? Dervish Dance lets you "use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls" whereas Slashing Grace lets you "add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage". Since both are replacements, I'm having trouble seeing how this stacks?

I wasn't looking at them, forgot that they were both replacements.