Pokey-pokey

[charlesk]

Anyone else, as a DM, getting bored with fighters/barbarians/paladins all preferring dex-based builds using rapiers over strength-based builds? Dex builds are simply stronger in 5e, and rapiers do as much damage as longswords, so why not?

I've been in multiple games now where, even with the barb rules only giving a damage boost to strength-based attacks, they build for Dex anyway because of the huge advantage on AC it gives in this bounded accuracy system.

It's a small thing, and doesn't bother me THAT much, but I think it's sad to see so many martials doing this because it's more "efficient".

I also miss damage resistance that varied based on the creature, rather than just "slashing, piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons" or nothing.

Watching a couple of guys destroy an iron golem by poking it with a pointy stick is just somehow unsatisfying. :)

[Klorox]

Unless it's an AL game, I'm instituting old school resistances for golems and skeletons and the like.

Yes, DEX is too good. DEX is the god stat in this edition.

The only way to nudge these optimized guys is to give them stuff they can't carry and crazy crap like that.

[Flashy]

Though dex fighter and paladin are fairly popular, I have no idea why anyone interested in "efficiency" would go dex barbarian. It makes you very marginally less MAD in exchange for Reckless Attack and bonus rage damage, neither of which works with dex weapons.

I've seen a couple crazy rogue multiclass builds that involved dex with a couple levels of barbarian, but I can't imagine why anyone who was doing barb 20 would ever use a finesse weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Anyone else, as a DM, getting bored with fighters/barbarians/paladins all preferring dex-based builds using rapiers over strength-based builds? Dex builds are simply stronger in 5e, and rapiers do as much damage as longswords, so why not?

I've been in multiple games now where, even with the barb rules only giving a damage boost to strength-based attacks, they build for Dex anyway because of the huge advantage on AC it gives in this bounded accuracy system.

It's a small thing, and doesn't bother me THAT much, but I think it's sad to see so many martials doing this because it's more "efficient".

I also miss damage resistance that varied based on the creature, rather than just "slashing, piercing and bludgeoning from non-magical weapons" or nothing.

Watching a couple of guys destroy an iron golem by poking it with a pointy stick is just somehow unsatisfying. :)

Sounds like your guys have not yet fully explored the optimization space in 5E. Eventually they'll realize how strong Athletics is in melee and switch over. An Iron Golem isn't so impressive when it's flat on its back.

Dex fighters are stronger than Str fighters, but that's because of the tactical flexibility intrinsic to ranged combat. In melee, Dex plays a respectable second-fiddle to Strength.

If you miss damage resistance that varied by weapon type, check out skeletons, black puddings, ochre jelly, and fiendlocks. It's not a lot but it's something.

================================================== ==


Unless it's an AL game, I'm instituting old school resistances for golems and skeletons and the like.

Old school resistances for golems... I guess that would be "Completely immune to all magic except Fireball, which heals it, and Lightning Bolt, which slows it." Sorry warlocks, you're out of luck...

[ZenBear]

I made bows usable with STR. It balances out the stats a little bit, but DEX still is and always has been the god stat.

[charlesk]

I made bows usable with STR. It balances out the stats a little bit, but DEX still is and always has been the god stat.

I've actually thought of this myself. Also about simply nerfing the rapier to d6 and adding lots of resistances to things that shouldn't be overly harmed by being poked with a stick.

I should have been more clear about the barbarian, usually it's a dip, and they simply do it for the rage.. dex builds are so good they don't even care about losing the strength bonus damage. See it all the time.

As for Athletics, you're right, most people don't use it creatively.. but they get advantage on such checks when raging, and that makes up for a lot of strength-dumping.

[miburo]

How does Dex have a "huge" AC advantage? At level 1 as a fighter I could have chainmail with 16 AC. Scale Mail matches this with +2 Dex, but with Studded Leather I'd need +4 Dex to match this. Once you get plate mail, you are now up to 18 AC, which a Dex-based char cannot match (without taking a feat such as Medium Armor Master).

Also if you want to use two-handed weapons you kinda have to use strength, and even sword-and-boarders benefit from high strength due to Athletics (Shield Master --> Trip/Shove bonus action).

Don't get me wrong, I see the Dex-based advantage in ranged weapons, initiative, etc. I kind of like the idea about making short bows and longbows into strength based weapons (pull is important in that case) as it really helps out strength-based fighters at range.

[Finieous]

Dex-based Crossbow Expert builds? Yeah. Dex-based rapier melee builds? No, and that's not optimized, unless we're talking about rogues with fighter/barbarian/paladin dips.

[mephnick]

Yeah, Strength melee have nothing to fear from Dex melee. I'd much rather take a couple points off my initiative and reflex and be able to reliably grapple, trip, shove, shield bash, power attack, pole arm etc etc. Sure, you can escape a grapple or shove with Dex, but you never have control over the situation.

Also the ability to break a door down seems useless until you actually have to do it to save a hostage. Oops.

[Foxhound438]

GWM is the god feat tho... it's better than sharpshooter because of its bonus action attack to help sweep up mooks. PAM is also super great, only dex PAM option is monk, and there it's redundant... and what about heavy armor? more AC without needing a feat... And what about the pile of better greatswords and longswords etc that you get in AL? i don't see any shark-tooth rapiers or scimitar Hazerawns dropping anywhere around here... And even then, you could use a finesse weapon with strength...

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, Strength melee have nothing to fear from Dex melee. I'd much rather take a couple points off my initiative and reflex and be able to reliably grapple, trip, shove, shield bash, power attack, pole arm etc etc. Sure, you can escape a grapple or shove with Dex, but you never have control over the situation.

Also the ability to break a door down seems useless until you actually have to do it to save a hostage. Oops.

The importance of Athletics is one of those things that isn't obvious about 5E at first glance. At first, Dex looks like a god stat, but once you see a good multiattack grappler in action you realize that controlling enemy movement/advantage/disadvantage is actually really powerful, and Dex only gives you defense against being grappled, not the ability to exploit grappling yourself.

Currently I'm actually looking for ways to make Acrobatics more useful (probably involving 3D battlespaces) because right now, even Dex-based characters are strongly tempted to take Athletics proficiency instead of Acrobatics. I don't mind Athletics being stronger but I do want at least a few scenarios, like fighting on a ridgetop, that can only be exploited by Acrobatics-proficient characters.

[Corran]

Currently I'm actually looking for ways to make Acrobatics more useful (probably involving 3D battlespaces) because right now, even Dex-based characters are strongly tempted to take Athletics proficiency instead of Acrobatics. I don't mind Athletics being stronger but I do want at least a few scenarios, like fighting on a ridgetop, that can only be exploited by Acrobatics-proficient characters.
I attest to that. Or at least my 13 str / 18 dex character does.

ps:To the op. Besides archery, you only have TWF and S&B that can work with dex builds (as there are no two handers or heavy melee weapons that are finesse). TWF sucks, unless maybe you are playing a rogue, in which case you are dex based either way and your character works in a very specific way and is not directly comparable to straightforward melee str characters , such as fighters and barbarians. S&B would generally work better with dex instead of str, but there are things like the str requirement for armors (regarding movement penalty) and like shield master, that compensate for the better initiative and dex saves. And if you are looking for damage output, thanks to the power gap in feats like GWM, PM when compared to DW (an obvious trap), this is the str edition.

[charlesk]

In terms of barbarians, many people build these as tanks, not as damage dealers. For this purpose it seems to me dex builds are flatly superior: you can put everything into dex and mostly ignore strength, and end up with a higher AC, much better dex save (especially if you take shield mastery), etc. You can also put points into wisdom for saves there.

Maybe that's niche but even if you are after a balanced build, being able to do more damage with the same stat that raises your AC is a big deal.

[Corran]

In terms of barbarians, many people build these as tanks, not as damage dealers. For this purpose it seems to me dex builds are flatly superior: you can put everything into dex and mostly ignore strength, and end up with a higher AC, much better dex save (especially if you take shield mastery), etc. You can also put points into wisdom for saves there.

Maybe that's niche but even if you are after a balanced build, being able to do more damage with the same stat that raises your AC is a big deal.
Str barbarians are inherently tanky due to many of their class and path features. Survivability is also a function of how much damage you can do, as killing enemies faster means less incoming damage. I am not saying that dex barbarians are an option not worth of considering or that is impossible to play, but imo they are a suboptimal choice, and in almost every scenario a str barbarian will perform better. Barbarian features are designed to work better with str builds, there is much of overlaping and poor synergy between some of the most important barbarian features when employing a dex build. Perhaps in some very corner case situations a dex barbarian would be a better suit to a party, but in all of those situations a class other than a barbarian would fit better.

The only real dilemma imo is when going S&B, and then the trade offs of a str and dex build kind of match each other.

[JoeJ]

Use the variant encumbrance rules and Strength dumping becomes less attractive.

Also, in the real world, the rapier wasn't really a thing until around the beginning of the Renaissance. If your setting is based earlier than that you'd be entirely justified in ruling that it doesn't exist.

[ruy343]

I'm playing in a party where my monk is the character with the highest strength since the paladin, rogue, wizard and fighter are all dex-based. As a result, my monk is the party grappler/helper/shove-er, and our party loves it. I never realized just how helpful strength could be until I started doing those things...

However, everyone I'm playing with plays dex-based characters because it means that you're less MAD: You NEED high AC for protection, and you also NEED a good attack roll bonus or you get a lot of wasted turns. Also, Dex is a very important saving throw, and Acrobatics is essential for escaping those guys who do go for brute strength. As a result, DEX is the obvious choice for an optimizer.

That said, I have successfully played dex-dump characters without a problem, which shows that it's still viable, even if not optimized :smallbiggrin:

[Finieous]

However, everyone I'm playing with plays dex-based characters because it means that you're less MAD: You NEED high AC for protection, and you also NEED a good attack roll bonus or you get a lot of wasted turns. Also, Dex is a very important saving throw, and Acrobatics is essential for escaping those guys who do go for brute strength. As a result, DEX is the obvious choice for an optimizer.


But you don't need high Dex for AC -- you just need armor. You don't need high Dex for attack rolls -- Str works exactly the same, except you have better options for high damage to go with it. Dex is an okay saving throw, but it's mostly just damage. You don't need Acrobatics to escape those guys who go for brute strength...in fact, you can instead be one of those guys.

Not sure why it needs repeating, but Dex focus isn't optimized for a melee build unless you're a rogue.

[Corran]

Not sure why it needs repeating, but Dex focus isn't optimized for a melee build unless you're a rogue.
Pretty much this.
It is also an option worth considering for certain S&B builds.

[Finieous]

Pretty much this.
It is also an option worth considering for certain S&B builds.

I agree, but if I'm S&B, I really want Shield Master. And then I want Athletics, which is based on Strength. If I really want a Dex S&B build, then I want Expertise (Athletics), so then see my note about rogues. :smallbiggrin:

[Corran]

I agree, but if I'm S&B, I really want Shield Master. And then I want Athletics, which is based on Strength. If I really want a Dex S&B build, then I want Expertise (Athletics), so then see my note about rogues. :smallbiggrin:
Shield master is exceptional for some builds, but less important for some other builds (always talking about S&B). For example, builds that rely on weapon cantrips rather than extra attack, dont have much use of shield master.

[MaxWilson]

But you don't need high Dex for AC -- you just need armor. You don't need high Dex for attack rolls -- Str works exactly the same, except you have better options for high damage to go with it. Dex is an okay saving throw, but it's mostly just damage.

If you fail your Dex save against a spider web or Web spell, and then you can't get free because your Strength is rubbish, you're going to be a sad panda. Same thing if you fail your Dex save to grab a cliff edge when you've been pushed off it. Not only is that potentially up to 20d6 damage, but more importantly being at the bottom of a cliff also isolates you from the rest of the party and basically removes you from the combat. Tripping over a caltrop triggers a DC 15 Dex save unless you're moving at high speed, and if you fail you stop moving and lose 10' of movement until healed, which again limits your mobility and makes you easier to kill. Beholders can petrify you if you fail your Dex save. Etc.

I think the "Dex is just damage" meme is about 50% wrong.

[Finieous]

Bear in mind we're talking Str vs. Dex melee builds here.


If you fail your Dex save against a spider web or Web spell, and then you can't get free because your Strength is rubbish, you're going to be a sad panda.


Your Strength isn't "rubbish," because you're a Strength build.



Same thing if you fail your Dex save to grab a cliff edge when you've been pushed off it. Not only is that potentially up to 20d6 damage, but more importantly being at the bottom of a cliff also isolates you from the rest of the party and basically removes you from the combat.


I'd rather not get pushed off the cliff. Actually, I'd rather push my opponent off the cliff and let him worry about grabbing the edge. Good thing I'm a Strength build!



Tripping over a caltrop triggers a DC 15 Dex save unless you're moving at high speed, and if you fail you stop moving and lose 10' of movement until healed, which again limits your mobility and makes you easier to kill. Beholders can petrify you if you fail your Dex save. Etc.


Yes, there are exceptions, such as caltrops and beholders, which is why I said Dex saves are "mostly just damage."



I think the "Dex is just damage" meme is about 50% wrong.

I think your opinion is 50% wrong 90% of the time. Or something.

[charlesk]

I think the "Dex is just damage" meme is about 50% wrong.

It's also a bit "hand-wavey". Damage is most of what combat in D&D is about. And Dex is one of the "big three" saves.. strength is not. The fireballs start flying at level 5, if not sooner.

Every time you bump up dex in a dex build you are bumping to-hit, damage, an important save, and your AC. Every time you bump strength in a strength build you are bumping to-hit, damage, and a much less important save. You aren't helping your AC at all.

Now they did do a good job of balancing out light, medium and heavy armor in terms of AC. The strength-based build won't improve AC but it probably starts out a bit higher. However that save really is important.

In addition, if your DM is being in any way realistic about armor handling, full plate is not a lot of fun. It's expensive, large, bulky and noisy. Even if you aren't the rogue, it's nice to not be "Sir Clanksalot" going through an unknown place. Taking it on and off is a chore, and if you get caught while sleeping your AC suddenly is close to nothing. (I recall this happening to our cleric in a campaign a couple of times and it was not pretty.) And don't fall in the water...

Now think about a barbarian. Okay they get bonuses for attacks with strength. But otherwise? Their unarmored defense feature is based on dex and not strength, and that's a big deal. Need a strength save? Don't dump strength entirely, and you get advantage while raging, that's good enough for most uses. If you want to be the tank you are going to use a shield, and shield mastery makes that dex save even more important.

Whatever the rationale, every time I play or DM I seem to be dealing with dex-based martials. They may not be optimal in terms of dealing damage, but they are very flexible.

[Finieous]

It's also a bit "hand-wavey". Damage is most of what combat in D&D is about.


"It's just damage" means 1) being wounded has no effect on your combat capability until your hit points are reduced to 0, 2) 5e gives you a metric ton of hit points, and 3) 5e makes it easy to mitigate and heal hit point damage. Being prone, grappled, restrained, poisoned, stunned, etc., does have an effect on your combat capability, and these conditions are generally not as easily mitigated or removed.



Whatever the rationale, every time I play or DM I seem to be dealing with dex-based martials. They may not be optimal in terms of dealing damage, but they are very flexible.

I'm probably repeating myself, but Dex-based martials are awesome, and probably optimal overall. It's just that the optimal ones use Crossbow Expert and focus on range. Dex-based melee-focused builds aren't optimal, but I do very much agree that they're versatile.

[SharkForce]

dex builds do have the advantage on stealth. but, as has been noted, strength builds (melee at least) generally have the advantage once the actual fighting starts.

barbarians in particular really don't need dex that badly. unarmored defense is really not all that good unless you have amazing rolls. and even then, it isn't that much better than armour.

reckless attack is amazing, giving it up (and more importantly GWM to make it even more amazing) is not a minor cost. and a dexbarian with no control and crap damage is not a tank, because before i waste any of my time dealing with you i first must care that you are even there. dexbarian? yeah, that's not going to stop the hill giant from stepping over him and kicking the wizard in the face. so what if there's some tiny little lame excuse for a warrior with an oversized toothpick.

so sure, go ahead, make your theorycraft barbarian with 20 dex and 20 con. put a shield on there, go ahead. you'll be super hard to kill, but nothing is going to care because your damage is not very far ahead of the wizard spamming firebolt, except that unlike the wizard you don't also throw fireball, web, hypnotic pattern, fear, wall of force, etc, and can safely be ignored because that laughable amount of damage is all you do.

now, i'm not one to care much for (almost) pure melee builds. but dangit, if all i'm bringing to the party is damage, i will at least have the common decency to be substantially better at dealing damage than a spellcaster's cantrip. also, i wouldn't bring only melee damage, because of nothing else a strength build will also have the ability to grapple and shove, which means that even if the thing you're fighting isn't impressed by your damage you can still make your presence felt.

about the only fix i feel really needs to be added to strength builds is to tear the section of the book that says you can only draw one weapon per turn out of the book and burn it (if you're not fond of that idea, simply adding a sticky note that says "you can throw as many things as you have attacks" in its place will also do the job, but is far less dramatic).

[charlesk]

"It's just damage" means 1) being wounded has no effect on your combat capability until your hit points are reduced to 0, 2) 5e gives you a metric ton of hit points, and 3) 5e makes it easy to mitigate and heal hit point damage. Being prone, grappled, restrained, poisoned, stunned, etc., does have an effect on your combat capability, and these conditions are generally not as easily mitigated or removed.

I understand that, but I am not sure I agree with 1 entirely. You may not fall down but if you are at 1/4 health your combat capability has most definitely been affected if you don't want to very soon be at 0.

As for "prone, grappled, restrained"... most restrained conditions imposed by monsters are via grappling, and that can be defended with dex or strength. You only need strength if you are doing the grappling, and, well, grappling doesn't buy you a whole lot when a PC does it in most cases.

A quick search indicates to me maybe 4 or 5 spells in the entire PHB where Strength helps with a save-or-suck. It's just not as important as people make out here.



barbarians in particular really don't need dex that badly. unarmored defense is really not all that good unless you have amazing rolls. and even then, it isn't that much better than armour.

You don't need amazing rolls to get 16 Con and 16 Dex with racials. Add a shield and you're at 18 AC right out of the box. It only goes up from there. And no armor to have to muss with.



so sure, go ahead, make your theorycraft barbarian with 20 dex and 20 con. put a shield on there, go ahead. you'll be super hard to kill, but nothing is going to care because your damage is not very far ahead of the wizard spamming firebolt, except that unlike the wizard you don't also throw fireball, web, hypnotic pattern, fear, wall of force, etc, and can safely be ignored because that laughable amount of damage is all you do.

I don't need to theorycraft it, I've been in multiple games with dex-based tanky barbarians or barb dips, and they are highly effective. They may not do as much damage but they can still do damage. And there are other means of control (Sentinel, etc.)

If it's between a barbarian and a wizard, they are going to go for the wizard either way. If you deal more damage, that's even more reason to bypass you. A tank with Sentinel is going to keep that hill giant off the wizard a lot more than a guy with GWM.



now, i'm not one to care much for (almost) pure melee builds. but dangit, if all i'm bringing to the party is damage, i will at least have the common decency to be substantially better at dealing damage than a spellcaster's cantrip.

There actually aren't a lot of melees that are wholly or even primarily about damage. A rogue with sharpshooter provides more DPS than pretty much any frontliner. So does a warlock. It's really neither here nor there.
For better or worse, a sorcerer/pally multiclass is probably going to lay the smack down better than any fighter or barbarian.

[Finieous]

I understand that, but I am not sure I agree with 1 entirely. You may not fall down but if you are at 1/4 health your combat capability has most definitely been affected if you don't want to very soon be at 0.


How has my combat capability been affected? How does being at 1/4 health affect my movement rate, attack rolls, damage rolls, spellcasting? My 16th-level tempest cleric can do everything at 35 hit points that he can do at 140, and he can do it at 100% effectiveness. Compare this to games with "death spirals" where wounds cause ability impairment. You get hurt, which makes you worse at fighting, which makes you get hurt worse, which makes you even worse at fighting, etc. In those games, it most certainly "isn't just damage."



As for "prone, grappled, restrained"... most restrained conditions imposed by monsters are via grappling, and that can be defended with dex or strength. You only need strength if you are doing the grappling, and, well, grappling doesn't buy you a whole lot when a PC does it in most cases.


I was just comparing conditions to hit point damage here, not arguing for the superiority of one saving throw to another. Conditions impair, hit point damage doesn't. Ergo, "it's just damage."

[pwykersotz]

How has my combat capability been affected? How does being at 1/4 health affect my movement rate, attack rolls, damage rolls, spellcasting? My 16th-level tempest cleric can do everything at 35 hit points that he can do at 140, and he can do it at 100% effectiveness. Compare this to games with "death spirals" where wounds cause ability impairment. You get hurt, which makes you worse at fighting, which makes you get hurt worse, which makes you even worse at fighting, etc. In those games, it most certainly "isn't just damage."

It's not that your capability overall has been affected, it's that your risk assessment is encouraging you to make different decisions. It will affect the direction you move, the frequency of your attack rolls versus other actions, and which spells you cast. Your cleric can do the same things at 35hp that he can at 140, but presumably he won't if this combat took him from 140 to 35. His current battle plan doesn't seem to be good for his survival odds.

I tried a campaign where damage caused penalties once. I didn't like it. Too fiddly and depressing.

(Just my 2cp, carry on)

[SharkForce]

As for "prone, grappled, restrained"... most restrained conditions imposed by monsters are via grappling, and that can be defended with dex or strength. You only need strength if you are doing the grappling, and, well, grappling doesn't buy you a whole lot when a PC does it in most cases.

A quick search indicates to me maybe 4 or 5 spells in the entire PHB where Strength helps with a save-or-suck. It's just not as important as people make out here.


You don't need amazing rolls to get 16 Con and 16 Dex with racials. Add a shield and you're at 18 AC right out of the box. It only goes up from there. And no armor to have to muss with.


I don't need to theorycraft it, I've been in multiple games with dex-based tanky barbarians or barb dips, and they are highly effective. They may not do as much damage but they can still do damage. And there are other means of control (Sentinel, etc.)

If it's between a barbarian and a wizard, they are going to go for the wizard either way. If you deal more damage, that's even more reason to bypass you. A tank with Sentinel is going to keep that hill giant off the wizard a lot more than a guy with GWM.


There actually aren't a lot of melees that are wholly or even primarily about damage. A rogue with sharpshooter provides more DPS than pretty much any frontliner. So does a warlock. It's really neither here nor there.
For better or worse, a sorcerer/pally multiclass is probably going to lay the smack down better than any fighter or barbarian.

- a substantial amount of those conditions come from monster attacks, not from spells. many of them also restrain you, which is generally worse than prone.

- so... 16 AC or 18 with a shield. aka exactly the same as 14 dex + scale mail + shield aka exactly the same amount as chain mail + shield. making it exactly 0 points of AC better than a starting strength-based character could have.

- so you're going to pull off 2 max stats *and* a bunch of feats. uh-huh. yeah, remember when i said it was only a realistic problem with rolled stats? still only a realistic problem with rolled stats, because for a barbarian, you'll have your build done at level 19 assuming you started with a pair of 16s for dex and con. 2 ASIs for dex, 2 for con, 1 more for sentinel (and only sentinel, no shield master for you), and you're only allowed a single level dip. this *is* a theorycrafted build, unless you roll stupid high stats, and then, well, what else is new, the game isn't designed to handle that terribly well.

- if they're going to ignore you over the wizard no matter what, why do you need armour class at all?

- melee builds are perfectly capable of doing more damage than a typical rogue. it is possible, with some pretty specific optimization paths or party optimization, to get a rogue to do as much consistent damage as a raging barbarian with GWM and PM, but we're talking about getting reaction attacks consistently to pull that off. rogues do solid, respectable DPR, but no, it is not as high as the high-end DPR two-hander strength builds.

also, i disagree that grappling and shoving are irrelevant for a melee warrior... prone cuts an enemy's movement to half or forces them to take disadvantage on attacks, and gives advantage to all melee attacks against them. that isn't as bad as restrained or paralyzed, but it's pretty significant. grappling is generally a remarkably consistent way of making sure that an enemy *cannot* ignore you because it is stuck standing right next to you and cannot simply walk past. it furthermore stops them where you use it rather than once they've walked past you (opportunity attacks trigger when they leave your threatened space, so they will already be behind you when you hopefully hit them. and by them, i really mean it, because you only get one reaction per round anyways, the rest can go right back to fully ignoring you).

frankly, grappling and shoving are probably the most significant advantages to having a melee warrior in the party at all, especially if enemies just ignore them as a rule and go after the wizard, because they provide some means of forcing enemies to pay attention to them whether they like it or not.

[Finieous]

It's not that your capability overall has been affected, it's that your risk assessment is encouraging you to make different decisions. It will affect the direction you move, the frequency of your attack rolls versus other actions, and which spells you cast. Your cleric can do the same things at 35hp that he can at 140, but presumably he won't if this combat took him from 140 to 35. His current battle plan doesn't seem to be good for his survival odds.


No, you're right, it will change my decision-making. One decision might be to say, "Abracadabra! My hit points are now 105. LOL." Which gets back to the point of how plentiful hit points are, how easy it is to mitigate damage, and what a simple matter it is to restore them. But who knows, maybe it's just me. I simply haven't found hit point damage to be a major concern in a pretty by-the-book campaign. In my experience, "it's just damage" is a useful rule of thumb when comparing different capabilities. YMMV, and that's cool.



I tried a campaign where damage caused penalties once. I didn't like it. Too fiddly and depressing.


Definitely don't want it in a heroic fantasy game, or really any heroic or cinematic game. Really do want it in gritty, "realistic" sci-fi or modern game.

[charlesk]

- a substantial amount of those conditions come from monster attacks, not from spells. many of them also restrain you, which is generally worse than prone.

From what I've seen, at least as many restrain effects are prevented with high dex as high con.



- so... 16 AC or 18 with a shield. aka exactly the same as 14 dex + scale mail + shield aka exactly the same amount as chain mail + shield. making it exactly 0 points of AC better than a starting strength-based character could have.

Yes... starting. The strength-based character's AC is pretty much done, unless he finds magic armor, which is kind of a non-starter. Unarmored defense can be pushed to 22 AC, and this is not very hard to do especially for a barb/fighter mix.



- so you're going to pull off 2 max stats *and* a bunch of feats. uh-huh.

You have to make some choices. Even a straight barb can get an AC of 20 with shield master and sentinel. Mix with fighter and it can be 22 without too much difficulty. And the dex and con boosts, again, are helping things aside from AC: hit points, and two important saves. Bumping strength has few secondary benefits.



- if they're going to ignore you over the wizard no matter what, why do you need armour class at all?

It's your scenario, not mine.



- melee builds are perfectly capable of doing more damage than a typical rogue.


I'll take your word for it. I'm sure both are capable of considerable damage. In my experience, people who want to do a lot of damage don't roll fighters or barbs. They roll them because they want battlefield control or tanking.



frankly, grappling and shoving are probably the most significant advantages to having a melee warrior in the party at all, especially if enemies just ignore them as a rule and go after the wizard, because they provide some means of forcing enemies to pay attention to them whether they like it or not.

We just disagree on this one. I've played frontliners and every time I've considered grappling, I've been forced to realize that taking that guy out of the fight also means taking ME out of the fight. And he can still attack me anyway. And even cast spells. The grappling condition in 5e is very weak in general.

It's only super useful IMO in encounters where the party outnumbers the bad guys, or say to take out a BBEG caster. And if your DM is any good, that should be very hard for you to do. Any caster worth grappling is going to be flying, invisible or have teleport spells.

As in 3e, I'd prefer my grappling be done by summons, so I can actually do something useful rather than roll on the ground wrestling.

[Finieous]

We just disagree on this one. I've played frontliners and every time I've considered grappling, I've been forced to realize that taking that guy out of the fight also means taking ME out of the fight.


That's not true. As long as you have a free hand, you can still attack (or make an unarmed strike if you don't have a free hand) or cast a spell or grapple another opponent. You can even move and bring the grappled opponent with you.

If a couple guys are eating your wizard, rather than poke one a time or two for 1d8+Dex mod while they continue eating your wizard, you could grab them and drag them to the other side of the room, then Action Surge to knock them both prone. Now they're grappled and prone with Speed 0 and your wizard can do what he wants.



And he can still attack me anyway. And even cast spells. The grappling condition in 5e is very weak in general.


If he's prone, his attack rolls (melee or spell) suffer disadvantage and yours gain advantage. That's not a weak tactical position. It would be cool if you could muzzle casters when they're grappled, but I suspect it would make them too much of a cakewalk.

[MaxWilson]

I think your opinion is 50% wrong 90% of the time. Or something.

Whereas I view you as a pretty reasonable fellow. From my perspective, we don't often agree, but that's more to do with a difference in preferences (e.g. CAW vs. CAS or simulationist vs. narrativist(?)) and not because you are wrong. Hope everything is okay for you at home and at work.

[Finieous]

Whereas I view you as a pretty reasonable fellow. From my perspective, we don't often agree, but that's more to do with a difference in preferences (e.g. CAW vs. CAS or simulationist vs. narrativist(?)) and not because you are wrong. Hope everything is okay for you at home and at work.

I was joking. I should have put in a little smiley thing. The nugget of truth, though, is that I was just thinking yesterday that I seem to argue with you a lot. And I realized that when I do it's because I agree with the vast majority of what you post, but then I find some bit that seems odd or mistaken and latch on like a terrier to a postman's ankle.

I got the impression our preferences were similar (CAW, simulationist), though my actual play has tended to CAS/narrativist simply because that seems to be the popular thing these days (and probably since about 1983 or so). I do sometimes feel that some of your views are perhaps too influenced by your avowed practice of creating "test parties" and running simulations with them -- my suspicion is that this is often the source of some of what I perceive as the "odd bits" in your posts, but that's little more than a hunch.

In any case, the "50% wrong 90% of the time" bit was supposed to be a light-hearted, Yogi Berra-esque one-liner and probably came off as nasty and spiteful. So, sorry about that.

[charlesk]

That's not true. As long as you have a free hand, you can still attack (or make an unarmed strike if you don't have a free hand) or cast a spell or grapple another opponent. You can even move and bring the grappled opponent with you.


Okay, fair enough. I happen to be playing a martial right now (well, a weird MC) who isn't super strong but it's decent (13) especially with a rage going. I'll give grappling another shot if the opportunity presents itself.

Though probably not a hill giant. :)

[EvilAnagram]

Honestly, I have two Fighters, a Paladin, and a Valor Bard in my group, and only the bard is Dex based.

[MBControl]

A lot of people have touched on this already, but you know the situation, so adapt. Somebody mentioned to bring their carry limit into play. If they have a lot of low strength fighters, send in some bowling balls. By that I mean, bring in some grapple and charge type monsters. Watch them lose that STR save time after time.

You also have the freedom to make what ever monsters you want, and apply whatever stats and abilities you want. Or simply change the stats of an Iron Golem and change it's name Bedrock Golem or something. Make their weapons less effective.

I've also had a DM start rolling party Initiative rather than individually which removes some of the DEX advantage as well. I don't really like this style, but it was helpful.

[LordVonDerp]

Now they did do a good job of balancing out light, medium and heavy armor in terms of AC. The strength-based build won't improve AC but it probably starts out a bit higher. However that save really is important.

In addition, if your DM is being in any way realistic about armor handling, full plate is not a lot of fun. It's expensive, large, bulky and noisy. Even if you aren't the rogue, it's nice to not be "Sir Clanksalot" going through an unknown place. Taking it on and off is a chore, and if you get caught while sleeping your AC suddenly is close to nothing. (I recall this happening to our cleric in a campaign a couple of times and it was not pretty.) And don't fall in the water...
.
The strength build's armor will start 2 points higher than the dex build, and increases whenever he finds better armor. The dex build, however, can only increase his AC when he gets ability score increases.

Most characters don't need to sneak.

Full plate doesn't affect swimming.