Rebalancing STR vs DEX

[Madeiner]

After seeing the paladin thread where somebody said how a dex-based paladin was a good idea, i decided to try and do something about the STR vs DEX balance in the game.
I feel dex is too useful compared to str. Warriors are most of the time better off using dex.

Let's try and compare them. I hope i don't miss anything important.
I'm greying out everything that i believe is equal, leaving only differences.
I'm also trying to evaluate every difference by relative importance, by giving 1 star (a marginal advantage that makes a difference only a few times, or an effect that is always available but not that usefl), 2 stars (an useful advantage most of the times, or a great advantage that comes up rarely) and 3 stars (something that makes a real difference all the time, or is exceptionally useful).

STR
- Better damage by virtue of damage dice (* or possibly **)
- Carrying capacity, if you use it (*)
- Can start grapples (*)
- Both STR and DEX can defend vs grapple
- Melee users get GWM

DEX
- More useful bonus for saves (***)
- Melee users can switch to ranged and retain damage capabilities (**)
- Better initiative (**)
- Can get AC without armor, or armor feats (** or *)
- More useful bonus for skills (* or **)
- Can still function is armor is somehow temporarily unavailable (*)
- Both STR and DEX can defend vs grapple
- Ranged users get Sharpshooter

This is my analysis, and i believe we need to either improve STR or nerf DEX.
What do you guys think? Did i miss anything? Do you agree balance should be improved?

[Strill]

Getting AC without armor is not an advantage. STR has the advantage of being able to use Full Plate without penalties, which is the best armor type.

[Kryx]

Oy, this topic again. I do not believe there to be an imbalance between the two options.

Comparison


DPR: Strength based options do significantly more DPR (~30-50%) than dex based options by virtue of the best option being Strength based (polearm). Polearm + GWM does more than Ranged + SS and significantly more than TWF or dueling.
Skills: Athletics vs Acrobatics, Stealth, and Sleight of Hand. Entirely campaign dependent, but overall even as Athletics covers 3 things (climb, jump, swim).
AC: Strength has higher AC at a gold cost while Dex has to invest in stat boosts and a feat (TWF) to match the AC of Plate. Dex does however have more defensive feat options, but those all come at a cost.
Saves: Dex has more saves (114 vs 78 by RAW). It's all up to the game once again. Dex is typically half damage while strength is typically prone, forced movement, and restrained. Under my altered saves (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1516505792) the numbers are better (106 vs 86). Strength saves are common enough to be valuable. You could in the end compare everything to Con (168 saves) and say the rest need to be fixed. Wis only has 92.
Initiative: Dex has a higher initiative


If you want to fix a stat I'd suggest looking at Int and to a lesser extent Cha for classes who don't use it as a main stat.

[Ouranos]

Could always look at 3.5 for both guidance and a cautionary tale. In 3.5 Dex and armor were treated as separate parts of AC, and there were conditions that could deny you one or the other. For example, most spell attacks were "Touch" attacks that ignored armor but not Dex, and conditions that could deny you Dex but you retained armor, so you had to have a balance between them.

[HammeredWharf]

Stats don't exist in a vacuum. For some classes and builds, it makes more sense to focus on Str, while for others it makes more sense to focus on Dex. I think the situation is fine at the moment. Kryx already mentioned most of the things I'd mention, but I'll add that Str gets a few decent thrown weapons, which do their job well enough most of the time in a typical dungeon setting with small distances.

[Citan]

@OP: I'm not sure there is a need to "balance" it. It all depends on DM after all, but if he really uses all the rules and gives every build a chance to shine Strength builds have no reason to feel "lesser" than Dex ones.
Like proposing quests or ways of conflict resolution based on one-on-one brawls, designing encounters where Athletics can provide the edge (like jumping over a large obstacle to get advantageous position, or charging and shoving prone > grapple a dangerous foe). Or just showing how a friend with 18 Strength saves your adventurer life by being able to carry all the great loot you found during the dungeon cleaning. :smalltongue:

@Kryx: and your opinion, again. :smack:
Note that I disagree on what you say on skills. None of those skills are campaign dependent at all imo, but if you had to "fingerpoint" some, it would be rather Athletics: after all, you need a situation where doing high jump or run is both feasible and useful, and there are easier ways to replace such skill with spells as would replacing, say, Sleight of Hand.

Also, Sleight of Hand can be used in any situation if you play a Rogue (it's part of your job after all) or generally a thief, and Stealth can be used as a basis whenever you feel an encounter is near or whenever you just want to go around unnoticed.

Where I agree though, is that comparing them does not make much sense, because even in mundane situations, creative players may find uses for Athletics.
Even a silly thing such as, in a tavern brawl, jumping directly above a table to surprise hit a drunk idiot provocking you. :smallbiggrin:.
Or intimidating someone, not with the Intimidation skill directly, but by displaying such a feat of power that the person understands it may be better to follow your opinion (I know, in PHB it's clearly under Charisma, but I find this illogical so I rule it out as Strength if you use physical mean).

So, basically, unless both players and DM are uncreative, I see no problem in how STR is actually. :)

[KorvinStarmast]

@ the OP: why do want to fix what isn't broken? There are a variety of other issues in this game that need some attention (Ranger, Sorcerer) whereas the stats are a way of building DIFFERENT characters. Balance does not mean what you think it means.

@Kryx: Charisma looks a bit "better" as a stat in isolation as soon as multiclassing comes into play.

Int, on the other hand, has narrower uses since some of the old advantages like additional languages per Int point were left in the dust a while back.

It appears that the devs have an eye on Int needing a bit more relevance based on their UA offering of the Rune user.

[sophontteks]

I was recently elected DM for a very long campaign, which means I don't have to put up with these ridiculous ability and armor rules anymore. This 'choose strength or dex' thing is not going to stand either. There are just a few too many things regarding abilities which have been dumbed down far too much for me.

First armor,
I haven't figured out exactly everything I want to change, but I think for starters I am going to make all the 'armor master' feats common features of that armor. Plate armor grants damage resistance, always. Players don't need to devote a whole feat to learn that plate armor is super hard to pierce. Similarly, medium armor grants +3 dexterity bonus. Its not very restricting to someone proficient in it and its almost always superior to leather. Heavy armor will additional grant +1 dex bonus. This is already balanced out by donning and doffing times, the ability to swim, climbing restrictions, squeezing limitations, increased fatigue, etc. I can make the use of heavy Armor a difficult choice and ensure that fighters will want to decide if Heavy Armor is the right choice for the situation.

Then dexterity and Strength
I want to look into a way for both dex and strength to play into attacks, rather then it being a choice. These abilities are compliments. A dex fighter with 12 strength should be hitting harder then a dex fighter with 8 strength. The inverse should also be true. This is exasperated by the dang magic items granting a static number rather then a bonus. I really don't like this. It just salts the wound for well-rounded characters and rewards dump stats even further.
I don't really know how I am going to mitigate this yet. Probably remove ability-bolstering magic items entirely, encourage players to make well-rounded characters, and allow them to use a portion of their secondary stat in combat rolls.

Finally intelligence,
I can only imagine the person who dictated the intelligence ability rules was picked on extensively for lacking intelligence. Far and away from a vital tactical skill, intelligence is almost universally useless.
1. Intelligence grants bonus skills.
2. Intelligence grants a bonus to group checks based on the leader's intelligence score (could even be a penalty).
Intelligence measures a characters level of education. Even though an intelligent character may not be perceptive enough to actually see the thief in the shadows, he is smart enough to know what danger to expect. An intelligent leader will thus be helping the party as a whole avoid pittraps, and encounters via deductive reasoning.

[Madeiner]

@ the OP: why do want to fix what isn't broken? There are a variety of other issues in this game that need some attention (Ranger, Sorcerer) whereas the stats are a way of building DIFFERENT characters. Balance does not mean what you think it means.


Yeah, i know it's a very low priority thing. (Btw, my homebrew already changed ranger and sorcerer to my/my players preference)
I would just like to see some incentive for people to play some STR based builds, because currently, of all the melees i have DMed with, 4 out of 5 characters are dex based and i'm tired of that.

[Citan]

Yeah, i know it's a very low priority thing. (Btw, my homebrew already changed ranger and sorcerer to my/my players preference)
I would just like to see some incentive for people to play some STR based builds, because currently, of all the melees i have DMed with, 4 out of 5 characters are dex based and i'm tired of that.

Aaaah, ok. Now I see your problem. So, do you know why your players tend to prefer Dex builds so much? Is it because mechanical bonuses (Initiative?)?
Is it because they tend to prefer classes which are usually built on Dex (Rogue, Ranger, Monk)?
Or is it because they actually feel that STR-based is lesser in some way (variety? efficiency?)?

Knowing so would help us help you. :)
If it's the latter, then you may need indeed to create houserules to make STR more appealing.
Otherwise, just taking ideas of situations or encounters where Athletics and big guys with heavy armor and weapons shine may be sufficient to entice your players in trying something new.


Int, on the other hand, has narrower uses since some of the old advantages like additional languages per Int point were left in the dust a while back.
I still don't understand these heavy critics on Intelligence. Sure, build-wise it's a very limited stat (basically for Wizards, AT and EK only). But skills-wise, this is one of the most important stats.
For non STR-builds, it may be better to dump STR than INT in many situations (of course, depends of character concept and party composition).

[RenaldoS]

I personally find it annoying that STR fighters have been typecast into using javelins and other throwing weapons, instead of things like longbows that actually require a great deal of strength.

[sophontteks]

Aaaah, ok. Now I see your problem. So, do you know why your players tend to prefer Dex builds so much? Is it because mechanical bonuses (Initiative?)?
Is it because they tend to prefer classes which are usually built on Dex (Rogue, Ranger, Monk)?
Or is it because they actually feel that STR-based is lesser in some way (variety? efficiency?)?

Knowing so would help us help you. :)
If it's the latter, then you may need indeed to create houserules to make STR more appealing.
Otherwise, just taking ideas of situations or encounters where Athletics and big guys with heavy armor and weapons shine may be sufficient to entice your players in trying something new.
Probably all of the above. Dex was strong back when a feat was needed to use it with weapons at all. Now its free, and the advantages of heavier armor are at best marginal without strength fighters expending feats of their own.

Really that's the problem in the nutshell. Strength needs feats to work, dex just works. Kinda silly that dex gets all these cool side-advantages, but if a 20 str barbarian wants to cleave his opponent with a greataxe, he needs to expend a feat first. The most clear BS feat cost is in armor. I have to expend a feat to learn that plate is hard to pierce. Yeah, no thanks.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I find it hard not to envision Str builds of traditionally Dex or other stat based builds. Str-based Valor Bards, Melee Rangers, and Blade Warlocks are all excellent, on top of the standard selection of Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter and Paladin. That's seven out of twelve classes that can optionally use Str more effectively than Dex, or over half.

However I do think more classes can afford to *dump* Str than Dex.

Str:
Max Str: Barbarian, Bard (Valor), Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger (Melee), Warlock (Pact).
Dump Str: everyone else

Dex:
Max Dex: Monk, Rogue, Ranger (Archer)
High Dex: Bard (Lore), Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Max 14 Dex: Barbarian, Bard (Valor), Cleric (3/7 domains), Ranger (Melee)
Dump Dex: Cleric (4/7 domains), Fighter, Paladin

[Kryx]

There are no houserules or DM Buffs needed to make Strength stronger in my opinion. Some prefer 3.X's way of managing stats and you're free to houserule that for flavor, but there is no mechanical reason imo (clear enough that this is my opinion, Citan?)

And I say this as a person very interested in balancing the game. I've done so with Sorcs, Saves, and a few smaller changes to feats.

If players prefer Dex builds then ask them why. Maybe they don't want to hulk smash. That's ok.

[Finieous]

Oy, this topic again. I do not believe there to be an imbalance between the two options.


I agree, and don't think it's really arguable otherwise, in a feats-allowed game. I think it's a bit of an issue in the default no-feats game, but I think that suggests that where balance is concerned, feats aren't really optional in the game design.

Most people seem to be playing feats-allowed games, though, so I assume the topic keeps coming up because they haven't taken a close look at the mechanical advantages of heavy weapons.

[sophontteks]

tell me what is wrong with...
giving all non-reach two-handed weapons cleave.
giving all polarm weapons reaction against targets moving within 5 feet.
giving all heavy armor damage resistance.
giving all medium armor +3 dex bonus.

or conversely, whats wrong with making weapon finesse a feat?

this is a serious question because i plan to run my game like this. All these sound like weapon properties to me. i can work the extra bonuses i to other feats that need a buff. this frees strengh from its feat requirement too and just feels right to me.

i know the heavy armor looks too strong, but trust me when i say characters will see plenty of other downsides to heavy armor while adventuring, and will likely want to have some medium armor handy too.

[Kryx]

tell me what is wrong with...
giving all non-reach two-handed weapons cleave.
giving all polarm weapons reaction against targets moving within 5 feet.
giving all heavy armor damage resistance.
giving all medium armor +3 dex bonus.
All but the DR are perfectly fine and mechanically balanced since you're allowing all weapon users to be stronger. Though you're changing the balance of the game by a fair amount. Classes like monk and rogue are weaker as previously they had a feat up on classes like Paladin who took a feat for Polearm/GWM. Classes like Fighter who use feats are less important, etc etc.
Also if you're going to default Polearm/GWM you might as well do it with everything - TWF, S&B, etc.

The issue I have with Heavy Armor getting DR is Medium armor already has a stat investment of 3 to equal heavy armor - balance wise Medium shouldn't cost an additional feat like it does RAW.


i know the heavy armor looks too strong, but trust me when i say characters will see plenty of other downsides to heavy armor while adventuring, and will likely want to have some medium armor handy too.
Maybe you have some houserules that have it give exhaustion when slept in (I do), or harder to swim in (I do on any armor that has stealth disadv).

That said I'm not trying to convince you what to do in your game - you're free to do what you want in your game. I don't think it's far off though. The weapon properties is an interesting idea.

[sophontteks]

heavy armor is going to be very imbalanced, but it is essentially going to be the fighters formal business suit. he cant wear it except for special occasions. its just too limiting for what most adventures require characters to do. if a character expects a fight he can don his plate and be a badass. its like an extra option available to him.

this means more often then not im forcing strength users to wear medium armor which will help balance.

[Malifice]

Or you could just dump dex and wear heavy armor.

It's not roticed.

[Kryx]

@sophontteks: do you have other weapon props? I'd be curious to see your ideas. Maybe a new thread?

[Malifice]

Anyone who thinks dex is OP hasn't seen a great weapon fighter in action. They also probably don't bother with encumbrance, and combat manouvers relying on athletic probably don't get a look in.

[Madeiner]

Aaaah, ok. Now I see your problem. So, do you know why your players tend to prefer Dex builds so much? Is it because mechanical bonuses (Initiative?)?
Is it because they tend to prefer classes which are usually built on Dex (Rogue, Ranger, Monk)?
Or is it because they actually feel that STR-based is lesser in some way (variety? efficiency?)?


I would totally expect most rogues/rangers/monk to go on dex
However, i don't expect most fighters to go for it, but they do. Because well, why not?

My players know full well that i don't like high optimization (actually, based on this forum's standards, apparently i don't like even light optimization) and they are not optimizers by nature.
Basically, they are going to think this: i'm going to do 1dN+5 damage, however i attack. If i do it with strength, good, that's what i get. If i do it with dex, i also get initiative, better ranged weapons, and better saves, and marginally better skills.
After many months of 5e, i can count the number of Str saves the PCs had to make on my hand, and they were usually low-impact ones.

Admittedly, some of this is my fault: i don't use encumbrance (the players decided they don't want the system) except by common sense, i usually build boss monsters that cannot be grappled by virtue of their combat mechanics, and i removed the -5/+10 part on both sharpshooter and GWM.

[Theodoxus]

Couple changes I'd make - not strictly related to the Str/Dex divide, mostly they were mentioned :smallwink:

First, GWM and Sharpshooter - go back to the PF idea of Power Attack and Deadly Aim: Instead of a static -5, +10, you subtract your proficiency bonus to gain 2*Prof bonus to damage.

So, a VHuman GWM at 1st level will be -2 to hit, and +4 damage. A typical 1st level fighter or barbarian will be doing a lot of damage on a hit (and will hit more often) but won't 1 shot (typically) like they would when dealing 14+ minimum with the book feat. This does mean they top out at -6/+12, but by end game, is that really so terrible? (keep the rest of the two feats as is; Precise Shot and Cleave are nice riders).

Second - more on topic; add the total of Str and Dex to both hit and damage. Finesse simply determines if a weapon can be used for sneak attack. Martial characters have an edge over casters (who still will be hitting often, just not as hard; though spells typically do a lot more damage than melee attacks). This has a two fold affect: it makes Str somewhat important to dex builds, and vice versa, and it encourages more gish-like caster builds.

Third, and this is more radical - I'm thinking of using a 4th ed-esque save structure. Pick groups of Primary/Secondary saves and use the average of the two. Much like skills, the player defends their choice at character creation. Perhaps the fighter feels he wants Str/Dex, Con/Int and Wis/Chr - feeling that he can use a burst of strength to jump out of the way of a Fireball; can wriggle out of a ensnaring trap; can shrug off the effects of Maze and think his way to a poison cure; can deduce a charm and seduce an illusion (ok, that one's weak - but I'm sure a player could come up with some charisma based reason to shrug off a Wisdom save).

Another player might pick Str/Wis, Dex/Int, Con/Chr - whatever... the classes primary save determines the proficiency bonus for the pair. The other two don't receive proficiency bonuses. Monks, I'm not sure if the level 14 ability is strong enough now - might grant proficiency in the other two, and Expertise in their original. Likewise, Resilient is boosted - enough to not grant a +1 Attribute bonus? Maybe...

By averaging the two attributes mods, it discourages dump stats. I think you'd find a lot of average stat builds using SPBI - and standard humans might see a resurgence. +1 to all stats is a pretty good boost when you're trying to be strong in every category.

Obviously, all three changes would need to be implemented together - 14 Str/14 Dex is the new 18 - and a +2 Str/Dex save is arguably better than a +4 Str, +0 Dex.

I'd even argue for a Dex/Wis average for Initiative, though I think with a calming of the high Dex desire, it might not be an issue...

[Kryx]

If i do it with strength, good, that's what i get. If i do it with dex, i also get initiative, better ranged weapons, and better saves, and marginally better skills..
This whole thread discusses this. Many of us do not believe the situation you outlined is the case. If you're going to make a thread about balance issues you should at least respond to people refuting your opinion on the balance instead of simply restating it.

[Finieous]

I would totally expect most rogues/rangers/monk to go on dex
However, i don't expect most fighters to go for it, but they do. Because well, why not?

My players know full well that i don't like high optimization (actually, based on this forum's standards, apparently i don't like even light optimization) and they are not optimizers by nature.
Basically, they are going to think this: i'm going to do 1dN+5 damage, however i attack. If i do it with strength, good, that's what i get. If i do it with dex, i also get initiative, better ranged weapons, and better saves, and marginally better skills.
After many months of 5e, i can count the number of Str saves the PCs had to make on my hand, and they were usually low-impact ones.

Admittedly, some of this is my fault: i don't use encumbrance (the players decided they don't want the system) except by common sense, i usually build boss monsters that cannot be grappled by virtue of their combat mechanics, and i removed the -5/+10 part on both sharpshooter and GWM.

So it sounds like your players are optimizers and that you do get optimization in your game -- you're just getting a different kind of optimization ("always focus on Dex") because of the way you set up, run and houserule your game. It sounds like you probably discourage characters that leverage high Strength with class abilities and feats to output high damage as "optimized," that you ignore some of the campaign advantages of high Strength, and that you consciously build encounters to defeat Strength-focused strategies. If you've created a situation at your table where damage is just "weapon die + ability mod," then yes, why not focus on Dexterity, indeed? It's clearly the optimal choice.

Since you do care about balance, my best advice would be to reintroduce some of those elements of the game design that balance the two abilities. Not encumbrance, necessarily -- if your table doesn't like it, don't use it. But don't discourage Strength-leveraging characters as "optimization," encourage the Athletics-based combat maneuvers in the DMG, allow Great Weapon Masters to power attack, etc. Then, if your fighters still opt for Dex, at least it's because that's what the players prefer and not just that they're optimizing for the idiosyncrasies of your game.

[Citan]

There are no houserules or DM Buffs needed to make Strength stronger in my opinion. Some prefer 3.X's way of managing stats and you're free to houserule that for flavor, but there is no mechanical reason imo (clear enough that this is my opinion, Citan?)

Aoh, I'm very sorry if I sound agressive or "pushy". :/
I didn't have any critic behind my post, I just found amusing how you started yours ("this topic... again") so I just wanted to make a small tease by making a similar start in answer to yours. Seems it came off bad, my apologies.


tell me what is wrong with...
giving all non-reach two-handed weapons cleave.
giving all polarm weapons reaction against targets moving within 5 feet.
giving all heavy armor damage resistance.
giving all medium armor +3 dex bonus.

or conversely, whats wrong with making weapon finesse a feat?

this is a serious question because i plan to run my game like this. All these sound like weapon properties to me. i can work the extra bonuses i to other feats that need a buff. this frees strengh from its feat requirement too and just feels right to me.

i know the heavy armor looks too strong, but trust me when i say characters will see plenty of other downsides to heavy armor while adventuring, and will likely want to have some medium armor handy too.
I would probably go with first option.
Giving cleave to all two-handed seems not to far off, just giving additional options to players.
It probably makes TWF even less interesting in comparison though.

Don't understand your thought about giving +3 max bonus on Medium Armor? Isn't that favoring Dex even more?

I would suggest another possibility (with the same principle of taking feat bonus): making heavy armor reduce damage by 3 when you are proficient with it and have STR enough to avoid speed penalty.

Also...

I would totally expect most rogues/rangers/monk to go on dex
However, i don't expect most fighters to go for it, but they do. Because well, why not?

Admittedly, some of this is my fault: i don't use encumbrance (the players decided they don't want the system) except by common sense, i usually build boss monsters that cannot be grappled by virtue of their combat mechanics, and i removed the -5/+10 part on both sharpshooter and GWM.
I think you gave a pretty clear diagnostic of what the problem is. Not wanting to be rude, but the problem lies mainly with you here imo. You basically voided Strength of a good part of its perks...
Indeed, why bother with Strength if you don't have to care about all these things, and cannot make classic power builds? Having a slightly better damage die (heavy weapon) becomes indeed too light a benefit to compare with finesse and ranged weapons and DEX perks.

Just reintroduce all of this (with or without houserules), warning them beforehand, and they will change their opinions naturally.

If you didn't want encumberance because it's a hassle, you may use a medium way: don't fine-track individual carry weight, but design some quests with very heavy and interesting loot. This will force players to either have one of them being strong, or use precious spells, or hire a NPC.

If you still don't want the special GWM/Sharp feats, and want to entice to use Strength, maybe do a houserule such as a power hit feat:
Once per turn, when you wield a heavy weapon, you can sacrifice your movement to instead focus on an aimed, powerhouse attack: make a melee attack against an enemy within your reach, with advantage. On a hit, you inflict bonus damage equal to your Strength modifier and the hit creature must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus). On a fail it is incapacitated for a turn.
>> Trading extra attack (since it uses action) for better chance to hit, extra damage and a small chance to incapacitate.
Well, I just wrote it on the fly, so maybe it's lackluster or cheesy, IDK...

[Ketiara]

Oy, this topic again. I do not believe there to be an imbalance between the two options.

Comparison


DPR: Strength based options do significantly more DPR (~30-50%) than dex based options by virtue of the best option being Strength based (polearm). Polearm + GWM does more than Ranged + SS and significantly more than TWF or dueling.
Skills: Athletics vs Acrobatics, Stealth, and Sleight of Hand. Entirely campaign dependent, but overall even as Athletics covers 3 things (climb, jump, swim).
AC: Strength has higher AC at a gold cost while Dex has to invest in stat boosts and a feat (TWF) to match the AC of Plate. Dex does however have more defensive feat options, but those all come at a cost.
Saves: Dex has more saves (114 vs 78 by RAW). It's all up to the game once again. Dex is typically half damage while strength is typically prone, forced movement, and restrained. Under my altered saves (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1516505792) the numbers are better (106 vs 86). Strength saves are common enough to be valuable. You could in the end compare everything to Con (168 saves) and say the rest need to be fixed. Wis only has 92.
Initiative: Dex has a higher initiative


If you want to fix a stat I'd suggest looking at Int and to a lesser extent Cha for classes who don't use it as a main stat.

Thank you! youve said it with math arguments that ive never been able to, ill deffo show this to my DM

[Madeiner]

This whole thread discusses this. Many of us do not believe the situation you outlined is the case. If you're going to make a thread about balance issues you should at least respond to people refuting your opinion on the balance instead of simply restating it.

I am carefully reading what people are suggesting here.
The part you quoted was intented to explain how i think my players are deciding whether to use STR or DEX.


So it sounds like your players are optimizers and that you do get optimization in your game -- you're just getting a different kind of optimization ("always focus on Dex") because of the way you set up, run and houserule your game. It sounds like you probably discourage characters that leverage high Strength with class abilities and feats to output high damage as "optimized," that you ignore some of the campaign advantages of high Strength, and that you consciously build encounters to defeat Strength-focused strategies.




If you've created a situation at your table where damage is just "weapon die + ability mod," then yes, why not focus on Dexterity, indeed? It's clearly the optimal choice.


Well, i guess somehow i may have reinforced that idea. But i didn't really do much to encourage that.
I mean, i changed the feats, but nobody wanted to get them anyway, even before i changed them.
It's true that i usually discourage grappling in a few cases (say, 20% of the boss fights?) because i introduce mechanics that wouldn't work well if you could easily alter parts of it.

I also believe part of the problem is previous experience -- you try to grapple in pathfinder, you either are built exactly for that and nobody can resist, or you have no chance of succeding -- and my players remember that all too well (even after repeated attempts in 5e where i showed them the benefits of bounded accuracy where even the wizards have a good chance to make str checks).

However, when you said that if you reduce combat to weapon die + mod, you might as well take DEX, i really thought that's the problem right there.
You need OTHER things (feats, checks) to make STR look good. You don't need anything to use DEX. That's the problem i suppose, and the less optimized the players are, the bigger the problem is.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would just like to see some incentive for people to play some STR based builds, Why does this need an incentive? In our current game, our Bear Totem Barbarian is boosting strength. He didn't need an incentive to do it, and he hits like a ton of bricks.

@Citan:
I still don't understand these heavy critics on Intelligence. Sure, build-wise it's a very limited stat (basically for Wizards, AT and EK only). But skills-wise, this is one of the most important stats.
For non STR-builds, it may be better to dump STR than INT in many situations (of course, depends of character concept and party composition). That 'importance' depends on the campaign. In ours, it has not surfaced, but in a more urban setting I can see how it could grow in importance as a party tries to get the information it needs to accomplish a given objective.

Strength
Athletics

Dexterity
Acrobatics
Sleight of Hand
Stealth

Intelligence
Arcana
History
Investigation
Nature
Religion

Wisdom
Animal Handling
Insight
Medicine
Perception
Survival

Charisma
Deception
Intimidation
Performance
Persuasion

[Citan]

Why does this need an incentive? In our current game, our Bear Totem Barbarian is boosting strength. He didn't need an incentive to do it, and he hits like a ton of bricks.

@Citan: That 'importance' depends on the campaign. In ours, it has not surfaced, but in a more urban setting I can see how it could grow in importance as a party tries to get the information it needs to accomplish a given objective.

Hey, I'm sorry to go off-topic, but I'm really puzzled by this. Do your players never try an Arcana check to see if they know about a creature's weakness or what spell the enemy mage is casting? A Religion check to try and get on the good side of a clerical order by demonstrating the knowledge of their traditions? A History or Nature check to remember the shortest way to get through a region? Investigate to find a hidden passage?

There are only a few examples of what you can do with the skills, and I see potential uses for them in basically any situation...

I mean, sure it would be annoying for all if the players "spammed" these kinds of checks, but waiting for the DM to call them explicitely is a bit sad also... :/

I like when my players uses them from time to time spontaneously, either to emphasize their role or mechanically exploit 100% of their character...

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey, I'm sorry to go off-topic, but I'm really puzzled by this. Do your players never try an Arcana check to see if they know about a creature's weakness or what spell the enemy mage is casting? As I am one of six players, this question doesn't make that much sense. Not the DM. A small amount of that is done and a roll tried, Insight as well, but it's rare the way the campaign runs. As I said, the utility of those skills varies from campaign to campaign.

[Kryx]

Aoh, I'm very sorry if I sound agressive or "pushy". :/
I didn't have any critic behind my post, I just found amusing how you started yours ("this topic... again") so I just wanted to make a small tease by making a similar start in answer to yours. Seems it came off bad, my apologies.
No worries, I thought you were annoyed. :(




Strength
Athletics

Dexterity
Acrobatics
Sleight of Hand
Stealth
I believe when presented as just titles 3 > 1 can be deceiving. In reality Strength is 1/3 the cost!

Str:

Climb
Jump
Swim
Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
Break free of bonds
Push through a tunnel that is too small
Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
Tip over a statue
Keep a boulder from rolling

Dex:

Acrobatics (balance and some stunts)
Sleight of Hand (Thievery and concealing small items)
Stealth (being unnoticed)
Control a heavily laden cart on a steep descent
Steer a chariot around a tight turn
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Securely tie up a prisoner
Wriggle free of bonds
Play a stringed instrument
Craft a small or detailed object


So lets eliminate some. Tieing up a prisoner is largely not useful after you buy some manacles for 2g so we'll cross that off. Playing a stringed Instrument is mainly handled by performance. Crafting a small item is fluff. Steering a vehicle would actually be handled by that tool.
Stuff that matters:

Str:

Climb
Jump
Swim
Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
Break free of bonds
Push through a tunnel that is too small
Push heavy stuff

Dex:

Acrobatics (balance and some stunts)
Sleight of Hand (Thievery and concealing small items)
Stealth (being unnoticed)
Control a vehicle
Pick a lock
Disable a trap
Wriggle free of bonds


With those in comparison I, again, think that they are quite equal.

[Vogonjeltz]

After seeing the paladin thread where somebody said how a dex-based paladin was a good idea, i decided to try and do something about the STR vs DEX balance in the game.
I feel dex is too useful compared to str. Warriors are most of the time better off using dex.

Let's try and compare them. I hope i don't miss anything important.
I'm greying out everything that i believe is equal, leaving only differences.
I'm also trying to evaluate every difference by relative importance, by giving 1 star (a marginal advantage that makes a difference only a few times, or an effect that is always available but not that usefl), 2 stars (an useful advantage most of the times, or a great advantage that comes up rarely) and 3 stars (something that makes a real difference all the time, or is exceptionally useful).

STR
- Better damage by virtue of damage dice (* or possibly **)
- Carrying capacity, if you use it (*)
- Can start grapples (*)
- Both STR and DEX can defend vs grapple
- Melee users get GWM

DEX
- More useful bonus for saves (***)
- Melee users can switch to ranged and retain damage capabilities (**)
- Better initiative (**)
- Can get AC without armor, or armor feats (** or *)
- More useful bonus for skills (* or **)
- Can still function is armor is somehow temporarily unavailable (*)
- Both STR and DEX can defend vs grapple
- Ranged users get Sharpshooter

This is my analysis, and i believe we need to either improve STR or nerf DEX.
What do you guys think? Did i miss anything? Do you agree balance should be improved?

Str can also be used for shove and overrun. Given the power of a grapple/shove combo as a status effect, I think it's seriously undervaluing it to only have that listed as one star (shoving someone out a window is incredibly powerful).

I'd also advise that Dexterity saves are typically just for 1/2 damage, whereas Strength saves are usually to prevent being restrained, or having a status effect applied. Typically those are substantially more dangerous for their effect with cumulative attacks. For example: Fireball save against 9d6 typically prevents 15 damage. The advantage provided to an attacker by your being knocked prone can mean the difference between a miss and a crit (critical chance on a normal roll is 1/20 or 5%; critical chance that same roll with advantage is 39/400 or 9.75%, nearly doubled) which can mean substantially more damage in a round.

Anyway, thought for food.

[Malifice]

Str can also be used for shove and overrun. Given the power of a grapple/shove combo as a status effect, I think it's seriously undervaluing it to only have that listed as one star (shoving someone out a window is incredibly powerful).

I'd also advise that Dexterity saves are typically just for 1/2 damage, whereas Strength saves are usually to prevent being restrained, or having a status effect applied. Typically those are substantially more dangerous for their effect with cumulative attacks. For example: Fireball save against 9d6 typically prevents 15 damage. The advantage provided to an attacker by your being knocked prone can mean the difference between a miss and a crit (critical chance on a normal roll is 1/20 or 5%; critical chance that same roll with advantage is 39/400 or 9.75%, nearly doubled) which can mean substantially more damage in a round.

Anyway, thought for food.

Absolutely. I would take a failed Dex save over a failed Str save anyday.

Getting restrained, swallowed, grabbed, shoved, tripped etc sucks.

[Crusher]

One other possibility, especially if your group is inexperiened is that they may be leaning towards DEX because at low levels it *is* better than STR. Full plate is great, but the PCs wont be able to afford it for a while (level 4-ish in my campaign, anyway), Polearm Master and GWF cant both be gotten until level 4 minimum, and GWF is frustrating to use on the nastiest (and usually best armored) monsters (the ones you really want to use it on) until you get your prof bonus up and maybe find a magic weapon.

Dex, on the other hand, works fine right out of the box. A party focusing on low level power (say 1-4) is going to miss some of STRs' benefits. It might be worth doing a little educating.

[djreynolds]

The real cause is the marginal need of dexterity by non-martial caster types. Really only two types of characters "need" dexterity.

First casters can wear armor, so dexterity is "less" appealing and points are put in constitution.

Second cantrips and ranged attack spells are based off their casting stat, no need for dexterity for aiming. Cantrips are also more dependable for damage for a caster than old elf wizard with his bow.

The alert feat is worth +5 towards initiative, or a 20 in dexterity. Might be a better choice for those struggling with low initiative rolls.

Yes the dex save is huge, but resilient in dexterity, if you have space for the feat, will give you an upgrade on that save rather than again putting ASI into dexterity. And again a dip in rogue at first level can fix this.

So really, unless you're an archer or dexterity based fighter or an unarmored draconic sorcerer, IMHO, you are worried about being grappled or pinned or shoved.

Nothing wrong with a wizard taking proficiency in athletics or acrobatics, or even a dip in rogue or bard for expertise.

But strength will allow even a wizard with the armor proficiency a huge AC upgrade and save a spell dedicated mage armor, because he can walk around and cast in full plate, but then even a belt of giant strength will fix that.