Why was dex made so powerful?

[grumbaki]

As far as I understand it, feats are optional rules. So leaving those aside for a second...

Two fighters start off. Fighter (A) is Str16 Dex10 Con16. Fighter (B) is Str 10 Dex16 Con16.
Fighter (A) uses a longsword and shield
Fighter (B) uses a rapier and shield

Fighter (A) gets +2 Str. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 athletic skill checks, +1 strength saves
Fighter (A) can eventually get fullplate, for a max AC of 21.

Fighter (B) gets +2 Dex. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 dex skills, +1 dex saves
Fighter (B) with studded leather has a max AC of 20.

Between the two, dexterity just seems downright better. Sure, Fighter (A) could grab a great sword and pick up great weapon master, but Fighter (B) could just as easily pick up sharpshooter.

But between the two, just looking at stats...Str seems to get the short end of the stick. Did the designers really think that +1 max AC is worth losing out on one of the best saves, many skills, and initiative?

And furthermore...is there anything from the designers on this? Because I'm used to pathfinder, where getting dex to damage means jumping through several flaming hoops with your shoe laces tied together and an angry badger mauling your face. It isn't easy. Here, it is just offered up to you.

Hell...even using a bow, which normally requires alot of strength, only uses dex now.

Am I missing something?

[MrStabby]

I tend to find them a little more even than other people say (though dex is usually a little better).

Strength saves/checks are really common. Any kind of restrained condition is usually resisted by strength - there are a good number of spells that do that as well as monster abilities. Dex saves tend to just dodge damage but a restrained condition can effectively take a character out of the game for several turns.

Strength also allows better AC for those not wanting to immediately max their attack stat. Say a paladin who wants to boost charisma earlier or a fighter who wan't to multi-class.

Then there is the attacks. A shove can often be a really powerful move by a fighter. Any kind of interesting environment will reward shoving. Enemy blocking a door? Move them out the way. Guarding a bridge? Push them off. Bad guy being hard on the Party? Push him prone. Maybe you have casters in the party? Push enemies back into their spell effects instead.

[suplee215]

Well not even counting feats (which brings up the argument of "optional, but find me that one game where the DM does not allow feats before I ignore their help in the balance of the game") you ignore the greatsword's damage boost. 8.33 (GWF) is beating the 6.5 from a rapier (duelist). Then in my opinion (has to do research to double checks) the races that give str bonuses tend to have more offensive racial bonuses (+4 total ability improvements for dwarf, savage attacks for half-orcs). And the athletic to push is not bad at all as making an enemy prone or pushing him off a bridge is going to be extremely powerful.

[Talionis]

I agree with you Dex is the most important stat. Even characters with heavy armor and a spell casting Stat want good initiative and Dex saves. The three most important saves Dex, Con, Wisdom.

But remember with any system something will be the most important. The opposite question is why is intelligence the preferred dump Stat for nonWizards? Something also has to be the worst.

[Pex]

Initiative is overrated. For particular characters it is very important to go first as often as possible, like Assassin Rogue, but it's not as if not going first means you're worthless. In some cases you want the bad guys to come to you such as you're too far to reach them anyway if you're a melee warrior. Using a bow is great. It's possible to use both even if you didn't take archery style. There is also merit in knowing what your enemy is doing before you act. The swinginess of the d20 also means having +5 initiative does not guarantee you first place. Good chance, yes, but not something you can solely rely upon.

You don't need Dex for high AC.

Dex saving throws are important, but unless you have evasion you're taking damage anyway. There are ways to mitigate it. Paladins have Lay On Hands and add Cha to Dex. Fighters have Second Wind. Bear barbarians have resistance. It's certainly nice to have a good Dex save but not having it doesn't make you the suck.

Nothing wrong with preferring Dex over Str, but that's your personal taste not a universal command.

[Cybren]

Dex is the most powerful stat because of the long-standing obsession with ninjas that geek culture has endured for multiple decades.

[suplee215]

Also unless your DM rules you can use acrobatics for it, jumping and other useful skills are based on athletics (str). So having a 20 dex and dumping str means you might fall into the pit of lava if you can't get a bridge.

[Naanomi]

Access to two handed weapons tends to a slight damage boost as well over DEX even without feats and class features

[Armored Walrus]

Also see the "Incorporating Torchbearer Ideas in 5e" thread to see how ignoring encumbrance helps devalue Str.

Your 10 Str fighter can wear his studded leather, carry a longbow, a quiver with 20 arrows, a rapier and a shield, a backpack with enough food and water for 1 day in the wilderness, and a handful of coins before he's encumbered. (with the optional encumbrance rules) Hand him a few days' worth of food and water, a couple days worth of torches, some magical items, a few hundred coins, a smattering of gems, and suddenly he's encumbered even with the default encumbrance.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Dex is seen as a powerful stat because there is a tradition of resolving physical actions using dice while leaving things like cognition, comprehension and behaviour up to player fiat.

If the game was played such that being wise and intelligent mattered for how a character generally functions in the world, and character Wisdom and Intelligence affected this, there would be less complaints that character Dexterity generally affects things where being quick and agile matters.

[ruy343]

As others have said, the disparity in power isn't as great as many neckbeards would have you believe. Some benefits of high strength include:


Increased ability to grapple or shove opponents (shaping the battlefield) with Athletics
Ability to access higher armor classes by wearing heavy armor (A 20 Dex character with leather armor and a shield maxes out at 19 without class-based benefits/spells/feats/magic items. Meanwhile, a 15 Str character can access an AC of 20 with Plate armor and a shield, although that does require money.). This benefit makes having a high strength score a good choice for characters that are hoping to max out a different stat (such as wisdom for a cleric) without sacrificing their AC.
Higher damage dice - to some players, this matters (as mentioned previously)
Higher carrying capacity (as mentioned previously)

[mephnick]

Initiative is overrated. .

Vastly overrated, it's honestly insane. Going first is a detriment in a lot of cases now that Delay doesn't exist and the Ready action being so costly.

[djreynolds]

Well with dex a longbow becomes very dangerous, much more than a javelin or spear. And high acrobatics can negate high athletics skill.

But since the game isn't PvP, we don't see the huge benefits of a high dex.

That said right out off the gate, strength and heavy armor are better at least until say 6-8 Level when dex stats are maxed

[MeeposFire]

Vastly overrated, it's honestly insane. Going first is a detriment in a lot of cases now that Delay doesn't exist and the Ready action being so costly.

Agreed. Yes if you play certain characters like an assassin or most wizards going first can be very important (assassin) or at least a fair boon (most wizards) but for many characters it is a slight benefit or even not desired if your strategy requires for your allies to go first or to wait for the enemy t make their move.

[Malifice]

Am I missing something?

Do you use encumbrance?

Try it and see why Strength is important.

[imanidiot]

Do you use encumbrance?

Try it and see why Strength is important.

My 8th level fighter just with starting gear and a few odds and ends he picked up has 161 pounds of gear. Anyone who doesn't trqck encumbrance should start. It matters more thqn you think.

[Malifice]

My 8th level fighter just with starting gear and a few odds and ends he picked up has 161 pounds of gear. Anyone who doesn't trqck encumbrance should start. It matters more thqn you think.

Our Swashbuckler dumped Str to 8.

He was barely able to wear his studded leather, carry his 2 shortswords, a few daggers and some very basic and rudimentary adventuring gear without being encumbred.

He dumped most of his travellers kit (bedroll, most rations, eating utensils etc) in town before setting off.

I then mercilessly trolled him as the DM about how he was eating with his hands during short rests like a pig, sleeping in the rain without a bedroll (Make me a Con save or lose a level of exhaustion...) and so forth.

Luckily we had a PC with the 'can gather food for 6 people' background or he would have starved.

He treasures his bag of holding now at 16th level.

[Zejety]

Vastly overrated, it's honestly insane. Going first is a detriment in a lot of cases now that Delay doesn't exist and the Ready action being so costly.

You could always just use the dodge action on your turn though, the result being the same as having a lower initiative but with Dodge's benefits before your first turn. That's pretty decent on top of the actual benefits of going first.

[Galactkaktus]

initiative is not overrated. If you have a fighter that kills an opponent in three hits.

If you win initiative
1 you hit the opponent
2 the opponent makes an attack against you
3 you hit the opponent
4 the opponent makes an attack against you
5 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 2 attacks against you

If you lose initiative
1 the opponent makes an attack against you
2 you hit the opponent
3 the opponent makes an attack against you
4 you hit the opponent
5 the opponent makes an attack against you
6 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 3 attacks against you so in this particular scenario you take roughly 50% more damage if you lose initiative.

[Afrodactyl]

initiative is not overrated. If you have a fighter that kills an opponent in three hits.

If you win initiative
1 you hit the opponent
2 the opponent makes an attack against you
3 you hit the opponent
4 the opponent makes an attack against you
5 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 2 attacks against you

If you lose initiative
1 the opponent makes an attack against you
2 you hit the opponent
3 the opponent makes an attack against you
4 you hit the opponent
5 the opponent makes an attack against you
6 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 3 attacks against you so in this particular scenario you take roughly 50% more damage if you lose initiative.

But it's not as important when you have multiple PCs, as they will also be attacking/receiving attacks.

Once its gone round once and changes to a rolling order, it only really matters if there's something that happens at the start of each round.

[Galactkaktus]

But it's not as important when you have multiple PCs, as they will also be attacking/receiving attacks.

Once its gone round once and changes to a rolling order, it only really matters if there's something that happens at the start of each round.

If a pc that won intitiative at any point in the combat kills an opponent you've reduced the amounts of attacks your party takes by 1 regardless of how many pcs there are.

[lt_murgen]

Do you use encumbrance?

Try it and see why Strength is important.

+ a whole bunch to this.

[Afrodactyl]

If a pc that won intitiative at any point in the combat kills an opponent you've reduced the amounts of attacks your party takes by 1 regardless of how many pcs there are.

Look at the second part of what I said. After the first round, it's moot, as it just turns into a continual cycle of them, then them, then them. If any pc kills an opponent before the opponent next gets to act, they've reduced the number of incoming attacks, regardless of whether that pc won initiative or came last. Initiative only matters in the first round.

[qube]

But between the two, just looking at stats...Str seems to get the short end of the stick. Did the designers really think that +1 max AC is worth losing out on one of the best saves, many skills, and initiative?
...
Am I missing something?well ... playing a DEX 8 tank for a decent amount of time ...
yes, +1 AC is worth it. Don't forget that if an enemy can only hit you on a 17, 18, 19 or 20; +1 AC means getting het 25% time less.
skills? yeah, don't really care about sleight of hand or stealth or athletics to begin with.
Reflex save is usually against damage spells. As a fighter, I got this thing called hit points.
Init ... that's the only thing that got hurt by dumping dex. (but ya gotta dump something, right? My 13 CHA got me inspiring leader & fighter multiclass paladin)

TL;DR: I dumped dex and haven't regretted it.


initiative is not overrated. If you have a fighter that kills an opponent in three hits.

Result the opponent makes 3 attacks against you so in this particular scenario you take roughly 50% more damage if you lose initiative.Well, lets see about that, shall we? The difference between 2 & 3 rounds... lets take CR7, alphabetically first: Giant Ape. (+2 init; 2x: +9 for 22 damage)

18 Dex fighter (+4 init, AC: 12+4 +2 shield+1 defense = 19)
61.75% chance to win init; takes 22 damage per round
--> 22 + 22 + ( (100-61.75%) * 22 ) = 52.415 damage
8 dex fullplate fighter (-1 init: AC: 18+2 shield +1 defense = 21).
34% chance to win init; takes 17.6 damage per round
--> 17.6 + 17.6 + ( (100-34%)*17.6) = 46.816 damage

so ... err ... edge, the guy with 5 lower initiative.

[Willie the Duck]

As far as I understand it, feats are optional rules. So leaving those aside for a second...

Okay, they are optional, yes. However, leaving them aside is also a decision. The game is not going to play exactly the same with feats and without feats. I don't think it's controversial to say that feats disproportionately benefit the Str-based martials more than it does the Dex-based. So is it perhaps the case that Dex wins out a bit without feats and Str wins out with feats? Hardly cut and dried, but a reasonable hypothesis. Regardless, while it is theoretically possible to design a system with perfect balance between Dex and Str for both with and without feats, I suspect that the added constraints would have lead to a less enjoyable system, not a more enjoyable one.


And furthermore...is there anything from the designers on this?...

The designers are notoriously uninterested in "but why..." questions. I have a long list of things that will probably never be answered.


Because I'm used to pathfinder, where...

In P3e/F and before, you never really could dump one or the other totally (in 2e and before, what you really wanted was to max both Str and Dex). The entire concept of Str or Dex is really a new one (and something of a false one, as people have mentioned re: encumbrance, etc.). Did they do it perfectly? Well, I guess not for everyone.


Hell...even using a bow, which normally requires alot of strength, only uses dex now.


And this I think is where the intended balance comes from-the dex fighter gets to switch-hit between the moderate rapier and best-of-ranged longbow, while the str fighter punches hard with the greatsword, but then has to lob javelins if he has to go ranged. Whether those are balanced choices depends on how often your front-liners have to switch to ranged combat.



If a pc that won intitiative at any point in the combat kills an opponent you've reduced the amounts of attacks your party takes by 1 regardless of how many pcs there are.

Yes, and if they wasted/used-inefficiently the first round of any combat, they've invested heavily to get little benefit. Whichever scenario happens more tells us how useful initiative is.


Well with dex a longbow becomes very dangerous, much more than a javelin or spear. And high acrobatics can negate high athletics skill.

How well acrobatics and athletics are interchangeable is very DM- and player-decision- dependent. If you ever want to be doing the grappling, then acrobatics is a poor substitute for athletics. Likewise, if the DM isn't letting you use acrobatics instead of athletics for various skills, then you'll really want to have high numbers in both.


That said right out off the gate, strength and heavy armor are better at least until say 6-8 Level when dex stats are maxed

This is important to remember. The game doesn't start at endgame, so worrying about the 1 pt. AC differential at that point isn't the whole picture.

[Saiga]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex? I can't imagine doing so in 5E with respectable Con, unless you dumb all your mental stats - and that seems incredibly boring.

Just 2 maxed stats with decent con requires max level and doesn't leave much room for feats. How were previous editions with this?

[Pex]

initiative is not overrated. If you have a fighter that kills an opponent in three hits.

If you win initiative
1 you hit the opponent
2 the opponent makes an attack against you
3 you hit the opponent
4 the opponent makes an attack against you
5 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 2 attacks against you

If you lose initiative
1 the opponent makes an attack against you
2 you hit the opponent
3 the opponent makes an attack against you
4 you hit the opponent
5 the opponent makes an attack against you
6 you kill the opponent
Result the opponent makes 3 attacks against you so in this particular scenario you take roughly 50% more damage if you lose initiative.

Being overrated does not make it worthless, but you still cannot guarantee going first with a high Dex. Having a good AC (high STR, heavy armor) could mean the opponent misses you despite going first, so you're not always taking the 50% more damage.

[Armored Walrus]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex? I can't imagine doing so in 5E with respectable Con, unless you dumb all your mental stats - and that seems incredibly boring.

Just 2 maxed stats with decent con requires max level and doesn't leave much room for feats. How were previous editions with this?

In 2e you didn't raise stats once you rolled them, unless magic. At least that's how I remember it.

And I seem to remember that Str applied to damage with a bow and Dex applied to "to hit"?

(I'm sure someone who actually currently still plays 2e can correct me)

[Finieous]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex?

You didn't. You might find magic that increased an attribute (or lowered one). The only exception was the weird cavalier in AD&D Unearthed Arcana.

Anyway, Dex isn't unbalanced in 5e. Ranged is, but that's entirely a function of two feats, IME.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex? I can't imagine doing so in 5E with respectable Con, unless you dumb all your mental stats - and that seems incredibly boring.

The entire concept of expected increased stats is a 3e and later invention. Previous editions, you never naturally gained attributes. However, temporary magic (e.g. gauntlets of ogre power) or permanent boosts (e.g. manual of gainful exercise) were well represented in the treasure charts. Oh and in some editions wishes could raise your stats and wishes were as common as <insert personal experience here>. I say that because there seems to be no consensus. I do know that, when EGG sat down to write 1st edition AD&D, he added that wishes used to try to raise an attribute from 16 to 17 takes 10 wishes, meaning that there must have been enough wishes flying around in oD&D to warrant this rule.

So, other than having an additional attribute vying for attention (and wishes, and putting a good roll in there in the first place), strength and dexterity were pretty independent. You wanted as much of both as you could. Strength was definitely "the" warrior stat (although the +3 ranged to-hit/-4 AC you got from an 18 Dex might compete with the +3 hit/+6 damage of an 18/00 Strength, the psychological value of getting that 18 strength and getting to roll that percentile dice was game-changing). But there was no dumping one over the other or anything. Every fighter wanted as much of all of them as they could.

[KorvinStarmast]

I get the feeling that there is a deep narrative reason for that, since quick and agile, and 'ducking just in the nick of time" is both a cinematic and comic book based way to add drama or tension (resolved) to an action scene. Also, martial arts.

Also see the "Incorporating Torchbearer Ideas in 5e" thread to see how ignoring encumbrance helps devalue Str. yeah.

Your 10 Str fighter can wear his studded leather, carry a longbow, a quiver with 20 arrows, a rapier and a shield, a backpack with enough food and water for 1 day in the wilderness, and a handful of coins before he's encumbered. (with the optional encumbrance rules) Hand him a few days' worth of food and water, a couple days worth of torches, some magical items, a few hundred coins, a smattering of gems, and suddenly he's encumbered even with the default encumbrance.

Do you use encumbrance? Try it and see why Strength is important. This.
My 8th level fighter just with starting gear and a few odds and ends he picked up has 161 pounds of gear. Anyone who doesn't trqck encumbrance should start. It matters more than you think. This also.
I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex?
OD&D and Basic Didn't have it; AD&D didn't have it unless you played Cavalier in UA; 2e didn't have it. Your stats stayed the same forever unless something magical happened to raise or lower them. (Or an item like the girdle of Stone Giant Strength ...)

I always tried to make sure I had decent dex for all characters in those days, when we didn't just roll straight numbers, since it was useful for both tossing things and dodging things. And reaction, if you got a really good roll.

Here's a note from Greyhawk, OD&D, Supp 1, that was nearly a default OD&D source: the only class that got an armor class boost for higher dex as the Fighting Man. (IIRC< page 14).

Giving everyone dex improved AC was OK, IIRC it was present in both AD&D and Basic/Expert/, so the choice to make dex more valuable came very early in the game.

[Armored Walrus]

Giving everyone dex improved AC was OK, IIRC it was present in both AD&D and Basic/Expert

I know it was in AD&D because I remember all my wizards having a high dex for specifically that reason.

[toapat]

Between the two, dexterity just seems downright better. Sure, Fighter (A) could grab a great sword and pick up great weapon master, but Fighter (B) could just as easily pick up sharpshooter.

But between the two, just looking at stats...Str seems to get the short end of the stick. Did the designers really think that +1 max AC is worth losing out on one of the best saves, many skills, and initiative?

And furthermore...is there anything from the designers on this? Because I'm used to pathfinder, where getting dex to damage means jumping through several flaming hoops with your shoe laces tied together and an angry badger mauling your face. It isn't easy. Here, it is just offered up to you.

Hell...even using a bow, which normally requires alot of strength, only uses dex now.

Am I missing something?

about 2/3rds of dex saves also allow strength, and there are some non-dex strength saves.

strength characters have access to Javalins as a ranged weapon, so Dex chars and Str Chars dont really have that as a weakness. STR gets alot more damage from GWM than dex from SS, and the GWF style is more damage than the Archer combat style.

by default, the MM has alot more mundane combat damage than magical, so that +1 AC cap matters.

initiative in 5E is significantly less Omnipotent than in the first 7 editions of DnD, where going first meant the difference between a TPK and a FFlawless Victory at the highest possible power playlevel.

Bows are exclusively dex weapons because the draw strength of a bow doesnt really matter once it passes ~100 lbs. it matters that you can put the arrows where they will deal the most damage, because you cant hit the point where shock alone becomes a major risk factor against survival

[Willie the Duck]

initiative in 5E is significantly less Omnipotent than in the first 7 editions of DnD, where going first meant the difference between a TPK and a FFlawless Victory at the highest possible power playlevel.

Seven... I'm having a hard time grouping the pre-5e game into 7 categories. If you do 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, then you are splitting Original/basic/classic into 3 categories which... there would be at least 4, more if RC and the later sets aren't part of BECMI. If you would be so kind, could you split these out into your 7 versions (or make your own schema)?

0e D&D
0e D&D + GH supplement
holmes D&D
b/x D&D
becmi D&D
RC D&D
The Dungeons & Dragons Game (Denning Boxed set, 1991)
The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game (1994)
1e AD&D
2e AD&D
2e + PO books
3e
3.5
4e
4essentials


Bows are exclusively dex weapons because the draw strength of a bow doesnt really matter once it passes ~100 lbs. it matters that you can put the arrows where they will deal the most damage, because you cant hit the point where shock alone becomes a major risk factor against survival

I'm sure there are individuals with far more expertise than I who would argue either way about draw strength mattering or not, but I definitely think you are putting more thought into the historicality/realism of this than the designers. Bows are Dex weapons because they wanted to allow Dex-only combat builds (statement of opinion, of course).

[strangebloke]

As with most things, its a trade-off.

STR characters can get max AC without having more than 16 STR, and can dump DEX entirely.
DEX characters needs to max DEX to get max AC.

STR saves are uncommon, but tend to be pretty important. (restrained condition, usually)
DEX saves are common, but tend to be be pretty unimportant. (aoe damage resistance)

STR characters can push, grapple, and use other handy combat maneuvers.
DEX characters have a 30% chance to beat STR characters in initiative

STR characters can build for Heavy Weapons and pole arms, which have awesome feat support and open up lots of melee opportunities.
DEX characters can use ranged weapons without missing a beat. (ranged weapons also have awesome feat support)

Basically, as I see it, STR characters are generally better in melee, with more options and relevant abilities. DEX characters have the advantage of not being entirely married to melee. Encumbrance rules sort of make strength more important, but not really, since you can just get a mule or a friendly barbarian to carry your things.

[GlenSmash!]

As with most things, its a trade-off.

STR characters can get max AC without having more than 16 STR, and can dump DEX entirely.
DEX characters needs to max DEX to get max AC.

STR saves are uncommon, but tend to be pretty important. (restrained condition, usually)
DEX saves are common, but tend to be be pretty unimportant. (aoe damage resistance)

STR characters can push, grapple, and use other handy combat maneuvers.
DEX characters have a 30% chance to beat STR characters in initiative

STR characters can build for Heavy Weapons and pole arms, which have awesome feat support and open up lots of melee opportunities.
DEX characters can use ranged weapons without missing a beat. (ranged weapons also have awesome feat support)

Basically, as I see it, STR characters are generally better in melee, with more options and relevant abilities. DEX characters have the advantage of not being entirely married to melee. Encumbrance rules sort of make strength more important, but not really, since you can just get a mule or a friendly barbarian to carry your things.

I think this is an excellent summary of the important points.

[Willie the Duck]

I think this is an excellent summary of the impotent points.

You got to love unintentional humor. :biggrin:

[Ninja-Radish]

A bad design decision is what it was. They made Dex the uber stat and now Strength is close to worthless. It's pretty easy to dump Strength altogether and not have any issues at all.

Same with mental stats: plenty of uses for Wisdom and Charisma and practically no use for Intelligence unless you're playing a Wizard. 5E is full of Wisdom and Charisma casters but only one class that has a use for Int? Bad decision.

[strangebloke]

I think this is an excellent summary of the impotent points.

thanks!

Also, as an aside: if you can't get heavy armor (most classes can't) you basically need to build DEX to some degree.

[Easy_Lee]

Strength isn't less useful on every build, just most of them. Dexterity is the more important stat only if you don't need strength.

Saying dexterity is better than strength is like saying wisdom is better than intelligence. The latter is true until you play a wizard. The former is true until you play a PM fighter.

[jas61292]

Strength isn't less useful on every build, just most of them. Dexterity is the more important stat only if you don't need strength.

Saying dexterity is better than strength is like saying wisdom is better than intelligence. The latter is true until you play a wizard. The former is true until you play a PM fighter.

Alternatively, the former is true until you get caught in an entangle spell. The latter is true until you face intellect devourers.

It's easy to see what abilities have more derived features based on them, but a crippling flaw on any ability is a crippling flaw. The fact that you never use any class ability or skill based on an certain ability isn't saving you when your brain is being eaten. And every single stat has things like that to worry about.

Also, personally, I find the notion that Dex is a better save than Str to be misguided. It is more common, sure... if you are only facing PC style spellcasters. The notion that it is a common save is highly rooted in analysis of spells, but I feel like Str saves from monsters are what I actually see more often.

[mephnick]

It's also weird that no one has to jump across, push or climb anything in 5e. Damn lazy kids these days, adventuring without ever having to do anything physical somehow.

[KorvinStarmast]

thanks!

Also, as an aside: if you can't get heavy armor (most classes can't) you basically need to build DEX to some degree. Medium Armor Master and a 16 Dex go together nicely with Half plate, and you lose the disadvantage to stealth checks. I have this with my Champion.

[GlenSmash!]

You got to love unintentional humor. :biggrin:

Yikes! Is that an issue with low Strength or low Dex?

thanks!

Also, as an aside: if you can't get heavy armor (most classes can't) you basically need to build DEX to some degree.

True. I've started many a barbarian with 16 Strength, and 14 Dex. The occasional Ranger too.

[90sMusic]

Strength weapons do more damage.
Athletics can be used to knock targets prone to give everyone advantage on attacks against them.
Strength saves help you from being grappled/restrained by the multitude of enemies with those effects built into their attacks that bypass the normal athletics/acrobatics rules for grappling.
Athletics lets you climb things while the dex guy with low or even negative strength is going to suffer.

Strength is just as useful in different situations. People just see initiative and AC bonus when wearing light or no armor and flip out about it.

Perception is the best, most used skill in game but I never see people argue for maxing wisdom with ASI unless cleric/druid.

[Armored Walrus]

Yikes! Is that an issue with low Strength or low Dex?

Probably more related to low Con :P

[GlenSmash!]

Probably more related to low Con :P

^Truth.

Is there a spell for this by the way? Bigby's standing <censored>?

[Pex]

^Truth.

Is there a spell for this by the way? Bigby's standing <censored>?

It's why Mage Hand was created.

[Galactkaktus]

well ... playing a DEX 8 tank for a decent amount of time ...
yes, +1 AC is worth it. Don't forget that if an enemy can only hit you on a 17, 18, 19 or 20; +1 AC means getting het 25% time less.
skills? yeah, don't really care about sleight of hand or stealth or athletics to begin with.
Reflex save is usually against damage spells. As a fighter, I got this thing called hit points.
Init ... that's the only thing that got hurt by dumping dex. (but ya gotta dump something, right? My 13 CHA got me inspiring leader & fighter multiclass paladin)

TL;DR: I dumped dex and haven't regretted it.

Well, lets see about that, shall we? The difference between 2 & 3 rounds... lets take CR7, alphabetically first: Giant Ape. (+2 init; 2x: +9 for 22 damage)

18 Dex fighter (+4 init, AC: 12+4 +2 shield+1 defense = 19)
61.75% chance to win init; takes 22 damage per round
--> 22 + 22 + ( (100-61.75%) * 22 ) = 52.415 damage
8 dex fullplate fighter (-1 init: AC: 18+2 shield +1 defense = 21).
34% chance to win init; takes 17.6 damage per round
--> 17.6 + 17.6 + ( (100-34%)*17.6) = 46.816 damage

so ... err ... edge, the guy with 5 lower initiative.

Same example with 20 dex instead of 18 (+5init AC:12+5+2+1 defense = 20)
66% chance to win init takes 19,8 damage per round
--> 19,8 + 19,8 + ((100-66%)*19,8)=46,332
8 dex fullplate fighter (-1 init: AC: 18+2 shield +1 defense = 21).
34% chance to win init; takes 17.6 damage per round
--> 17.6 + 17.6 + ( (100-34%)*17.6) = 46.816 damage

So ... err ... edge the guy with 6 more initiative.

[Finieous]

Same example with 20 dex instead of 18 (+5init AC:12+5+2+1 defense = 20)
66% chance to win init takes 19,8 damage per round
--> 19,8 + 19,8 + ((100-66%)*19,8)=46,332
8 dex fullplate fighter (-1 init: AC: 18+2 shield +1 defense = 21).
34% chance to win init; takes 17.6 damage per round
--> 17.6 + 17.6 + ( (100-34%)*17.6) = 46.816 damage

So ... err ... edge the guy with 6 more initiative.

That's...not an edge. It proves the point (again) that an improved chance of winning initiative is overrated, even in a 1-on-1 fight. It's even more overrated in an actual D&D fight.

[qube]

Same example with 20 dex instead of 18 (+5init AC:12+5+2+1 defense = 20)
66% chance to win init takes 19,8 damage per round
--> 19,8 + 19,8 + ((100-66%)*19,8)=46,332
8 dex fullplate fighter (-1 init: AC: 18+2 shield +1 defense = 21).
34% chance to win init; takes 17.6 damage per round
--> 17.6 + 17.6 + ( (100-34%)*17.6) = 46.816 damage

So ... err ... edge the guy with 6 more initiative.yes, a 6 point init difference overcompensates a 1 point of AC difference with less then half a damage per combat.


Praise the Dexterity
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/51/08/ef51086fa62baa27883e3417bc40748e--dark-souls-solaire-dark-souls-art.jpg

Hey, considering 15 stat +2 racial +2 from one ASI is only 19 ... you mind if the strength fighter takes heavy armor mastery, boosting his strength to 20 (like your 20 dex), but also getting 3 damage reduction (putting him at 40.432 damage, or 5.9 damage per combat over the dex fighter? :smalltongue: )

[Galactkaktus]

yes, a 6 point init difference overcompensates a 1 point of AC difference with less then half a damage per combat.


Praise the Dexterity
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/51/08/ef51086fa62baa27883e3417bc40748e--dark-souls-solaire-dark-souls-art.jpg

Hey, considering 15 stat +2 racial +2 from one ASI is only 19 ... you mind if the strength fighter takes heavy armor mastery, boosting his strength to 20 (like your 20 dex), but also getting 3 damage reduction (putting him at 40.432 damage, or 5.9 damage per combat over the dex fighter? :smalltongue: )

Fine by me since the dex fighter will have either atleast 8 more hp because of one higher con mod or in the case of mountain dwarf 5 more speed and other racial bonuses if you use the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array.

[Galactkaktus]

But just to be clear i prefer a str fighter because it opens up the option of grappling or shoving an opponent. And i think it can be advantageous to act after the spellcasters in the party with stuff like fireball and buffs/debuffs.

[qube]

Fine by me since the dex fighter will have either atleast 8 more hp because of one higher con mod or in the case of mountain dwarf 5 more speed and other racial bonuses if you use the 15,14,13,12,10,8 array.16 actually, as your max hp increases with 1 hp / lvl, AND when you use your hit dice to heal, you heal 1 extra

still ... I'd take 5.9 / combat over 16 in total.

[Galactkaktus]

16 actually, as your max hp increases with 1 hp / lvl, AND when you use your hit dice to heal, you heal 1 extra

still ... I'd take 5.9 / combat over 16 in total.

To nitpick further 12 every long rest and 4 extra that you get when you go beyond the amounts of hit dice you regain on every long rest. And if you consider critical hits the damage from an attack from a giant ape should deal 1,4 more damage per attack to both the dex and str fighter. Which should lower the 5,9/combat to 5,452/combat.

[toapat]

Seven... I'm having a hard time grouping the pre-5e game into 7 categories. If you do 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, then you are splitting Original/basic/classic into 3 categories which... there would be at least 4, more if RC and the later sets aren't part of BECMI. If you would be so kind, could you split these out into your 7 versions (or make your own schema)?

I'm sure there are individuals with far more expertise than I who would argue either way about draw strength mattering or not, but I definitely think you are putting more thought into the historicality/realism of this than the designers. Bows are Dex weapons because they wanted to allow Dex-only combat builds (statement of opinion, of course).

the first 7 editions of DnD are:

ODND
BECMI/ADND
BDND (we dont talk about this one)
2nd Ed
2nd Revised
3rd ed
3rd Revised

4 + 4E are #8 + 9 of the 10 editions.

Draw strength matters. but it matters significantly less once you pass a certain point when compared to being able to put the projectiles on target.

[Finieous]

the first 7 editions of DnD are:

ODND
BECMI/ADND
BDND (we dont talk about this one)
2nd Ed
2nd Revised
3rd ed
3rd Revised

4 + 4E are #8 + 9 of the 10 editions.


This is truly a bizarre listing. Why would you combine AD&D (1977-79) with the entirely different BECMI line (1983)? Is "BDND" Holmes Basic (1978) or Modvay/Cook B/X (1981)? Why don't we talk about it/them? I guess we really don't talk about RC (1991)!

[Willie the Duck]

This is truly a bizarre listing. Why would you combine AD&D (1977-79) with the entirely different BECMI line (1983)? Is "BDND" Holmes Basic (1978) or Modvay/Cook B/X (1981)? Why don't we talk about it/them? I guess we really don't talk about RC (1991)!

I will agree, this listing has no basis in history. No way are BECMI and 1e AD&D the same thing (especially not if 2e and 2e revised aren't the same edition).

RC not being distinct I at least get. It is often considered part of BECMI, as are the '91 and '94 boxed sets. Although whether the minor differences between those and the Mentzer originals (or even the difference between the 1st and second printing Mentzer originals for Basic and Expert) are bigger differences than the differences between Mentzer and Moldvay is a pretty subjective case.

[Finieous]

I will agree, this listing has no basis in history. No way are BECMI and 1e AD&D the same thing (especially not if 2e and 2e revised aren't the same edition).

RC not being distinct I at least get. It is often considered part of BECMI, as are the '91 and '94 boxed sets. Although whether the minor differences between those and the Mentzer originals (or even the difference between the 1st and second printing Mentzer originals for Basic and Expert) are bigger differences than the differences between Mentzer and Moldvay is a pretty subjective case.

Yeah, unless you just list out all the separate releases, you have to do some subjective groupings. I'd actually lump OD&D and Holmes Basic together. B/X is its own line. BECMI/RC is its own line.

[Saiga]

Prof + Str to hit and Str to damage for bows makes significantly more sense than Dex not mattering at all.

Yes, you need to be able to hit the target - but that's what your proficiency represents. Training is what gives you proper aim (of any stats to add to that, I guess Int or Wis would make the most sense), dexterity is very abstract to apply to that.

At the very least, I don't know why they didn't make bows something that could be used with Str or Dex like finesse weapons. It makes no sense that strength doesn't confer any benefit to using a bow.

[arck]

Prof + Str to hit and Str to damage for bows makes significantly more sense than Dex not mattering at all.

Yes, you need to be able to hit the target - but that's what your proficiency represents. Training is what gives you proper aim (of any stats to add to that, I guess Int or Wis would make the most sense), dexterity is very abstract to apply to that.

At the very least, I don't know why they didn't make bows something that could be used with Str or Dex like finesse weapons. It makes no sense that strength doesn't confer any benefit to using a bow.

Simply because Str does not increase the damage of an arrow if you have drawn the bow to the limit, which although requiring str, does not require much str, in this case the bow works similar to a gun, it is not you that gives the damage, you Just aim where it hurts most. I agree that this requires proficiency, but dexterity is essential, any trembling changes the course, you have to have precision and patience.

[Cybren]

Simply because Str does not increase the damage of an arrow if you have drawn the bow to the limit, which although requiring str, does not require much str, in this case the bow works similar to a gun, it is not you that gives the damage, you Just aim where it hurts most. I agree that this requires proficiency, but dexterity is essential, any trembling changes the course, you have to have precision and patience.

This is a shoddy post-hoc justification.

[lperkins2]

This is a shoddy post-hoc justification.

Being stronger in no way lets you do more damage with a bow, provided you have enough strength to pull the bow to full draw. Being stronger does let you use a heavier bow, and does marginally increase accuracy, since you can hold the bow steady longer. Assuming you get a bow with a draw strength best suited to you, does it do more damage than a weaker bow? Not really.

It will have a marginally longer maximum range, since the arrow will have a marginally higher initial velocity, but it will also experience increased wind resistance, and slow down to just above the velocity of the weaker bow fairly quickly.

On a soft target, the terminal ballistics are also rather similar. Once the arrow head enters the target, there is a great deal of friction along the shaft of the arrow. Again, the resistance increases exponentially with velocity, so the penetration depth only increases a little with increased velocity. If you are at a short enough range for there to be a sizable velocity difference based on the power of the bow, the weaker bow is likely to penetrate all the way through the target, at which point the more powerful bow is not increasing the wound channel at all.

This is not to say that stronger bows are worthless, but they only really do much good against a hard target. The stronger bow can shoot arrows with heavier shafts and heavier heads, these heads can better penetrate armour, and the stronger shaft is less likely to shatter on impact (thereby wasting its kinetic energy).

If you wanted to overly complicate the rules, you could let a stronger character using a properly matched bow ignore a point or two of a target's AC, assuming the target AC was natural armour or heavy armour, but that hardly seems worth the hassle.

Edit: Just thought of a slightly less bad solution. You could impose a minimum strength requirement to use different types of bows, with +1 bows having a higher strength requirement.

[Doorhandle]

Am I missing something?

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications.

In 3.5, choosing dex-focus for a melee build had some trade-offs: it cost a feat to be at all viable, and often did less damage. However, it had benefits: such as better touch A.C, better lategame A.C, initiative and reflex saves.

In 5th it's a simple as picking up a finesse weapon, which meant that dex was suddenly increased in value: but it still aids initiative, A.C, and dex saves. So gotten more powerful for no tradeoff.

It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills.

Granted, for reasons that have already been covered it's not as unbalancing at it looks, but it sure looks unbalanced.

note: Not mentioning 4th edition because it was a non-issue there, as fourth worked very differently from other editions: basically everyone had an offensive start but it could be anything.

[qube]

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications.

In 3.5, choosing dex-focus for a melee build had some trade-offs: it cost a feat to be at all viable, and often did less damage. However, it had benefits: such as better touch A.C, better lategame A.C, initiative and reflex saves. considering the mighty composite longbow, archer damage was still strength dependant

[mephnick]

It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills.

Eh, there's 3 Dex skills. Sleight of Hand almost never comes up and serves very few character concepts, Acrobatics is only good for evading grapples which ideally you won't be in and Stealth only serves a few class concepts. Athletics and STR checks are worth more than all 3 put together, unless stealth is mandatory for you (Assassin etc). Climbing, jumping, swimming, breaking doors, breaking bonds are all universally useful adventuring skills.

[toapat]

considering the mighty composite longbow, archer damage was still strength dependant

again, Strength is a floor on bows, not an actual conversion to your ability to deal damage with a bow. a Modern compound bow could utilize a 300 lb draw weight assuming you had fins welded to solid aluminum rods so the bow wouldnt simply shear through your projectile. It matters where you can put that arrow much more than how much energy the bow is able to store on a full draw.

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damage, because characters only gained a few pounds of maximum load, which more than half of that energy is wasted on bow deformation and not put into arrow acceleration. Recurve bows are somewhat more effective at deformation storage but nothing compared to modern compound bows which waste very little on arm deformation and instead store most of their energy through the cam rotation, bearings, and home spring.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications. Yes. While I'd like to see the monk retain the dex/str options for martial arts, I think you have put your finger on it.


In 5th it's a simple as picking up a finesse weapon, which meant that dex was suddenly increased in value: but it still aids initiative, A.C, and dex saves. So gotten more powerful for no tradeoff. Not as much trade off, yeah, though there are still no two handed dex weapons beyond the two handers (monk weapons) monks use.


It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills. Yeah, though there are a lot of applications of the strength skills in the dungeon, to include door opening, bar bending, and the grapple/shove combat actions.

The flip side of this has to do with accuracy:
I can shoot a pistol at a target all day, but without accuracy, do little to no damage. I heard from a firearms instructor the following:

"Speed is fine but accuracy is final."

I personally find that two handed (heavy) weapon damage is too low, though GWF goes a little way toward alleviating that.

[qube]

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damagefirstly composite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow) bow (dating back to ancient times), not Compound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bow) bow (invented in 1966) .

Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

[Naanomi]

DEX and STR and Skill 'should' matter for damage of all weapons; but as an abstraction I'd say hitting an important spot (via DEX) is more important for arrow damage than penetration

[KorvinStarmast]

DEX and STR and Skill 'should' matter for damage of all weapons; but as an abstraction I'd say hitting an important spot (via DEX) is more important for arrow damage than penetration Hmm. With arrow damage, penetration is everything.

[Naanomi]

Hmm. With arrow damage, penetration is everything.
Everything? So 18'' of penetration in the foot should do more damage than 6'' of penetration in the eye?

[Haldir]

Vastly overrated, it's honestly insane. Going first is a detriment in a lot of cases now that Delay doesn't exist and the Ready action being so costly.

People actually play with those silly restrictions? This is the one no-brainer as far as houserules go. Honestly, one of the only really foolish and thoughtless things that 5e does. Reminds me of imposing hit penalties to two weapon fighting in 3.P.

[Easy_Lee]

Everything? So 18'' of penetration in the foot should do more damage than 6'' of penetration in the eye?

Assuming an equally competent archer, more penetrating power is better (to a point). People make a big deal about aim, but it's more a matter of practice and being able to hold the bow steady than natural coordination, as I understand it. One of the best archers in the world looks like someone's mildly overweight fisherman uncle, and he can shoot an aspirin out of the air.

[mephnick]

People actually play with those silly restrictions? This is the one no-brainer as far as houserules go. Honestly, one of the only really foolish and thoughtless things that 5e does. Reminds me of imposing hit penalties to two weapon fighting in 3.P.

I'm glad 5e got rid of Delay. It was slow and annoying. Every combat became a "I delay." "I delay." "I delay." If you want that slow Seal Team 6 feel you can use Side Initiative.

* I'd think about Ready not using a reaction though, since it's already limited.

[Doug Lampert]

again, Strength is a floor on bows, not an actual conversion to your ability to deal damage with a bow. a Modern compound bow could utilize a 300 lb draw weight assuming you had fins welded to solid aluminum rods so the bow wouldnt simply shear through your projectile. It matters where you can put that arrow much more than how much energy the bow is able to store on a full draw.

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damage, because characters only gained a few pounds of maximum load, which more than half of that energy is wasted on bow deformation and not put into arrow acceleration. Recurve bows are somewhat more effective at deformation storage but nothing compared to modern compound bows which waste very little on arm deformation and instead store most of their energy through the cam rotation, bearings, and home spring.
The Mary Rose salvage effort completely changed our view of longbows, because prior to that you found all kinds of modern archer's who'd swear backward and forward that a bow with that heavy a draw was completely unusable in the field in practice and that the recorded draw weights were pure fiction.

Then we got examples of actual bows in good enough shape to figure out the original draw. In fact, the draws on those bows are never as LOW as 100lb. The skeletons of the archers show noticeable deformation from the stress of training to draw those bows. They drilled for a lifetime to be able to do that, and yet here you are claiming that all that effort to get the maximum possible draw-weight was almost meaningless.

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.

[Naanomi]

High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley types

[Pex]

I'm glad 5e got rid of Delay. It was slow and annoying. Every combat became a "I delay." "I delay." "I delay." If you want that slow Seal Team 6 feel you can use Side Initiative.

* I'd think about Ready not using a reaction though, since it's already limited.

People wanting to delay is evidence that initiative is overrated. Not everyone wants to go first.

[Aeson]

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.
As long as the arrow penetrates the target's armor in more than a minimal sense, the nature and severity of the injury (the "damage") inflicted has more to do with the type of munition (size and shape of the head, whether or not the head is barbed, etc) than with the draw weight of the bow. The high draw weight of historical bows and crossbows has more to do with a desire for a high effective range than with a desire to increase the "damage" that the bows and crossbows were capable of inflicting.

That being said, the distinction between armor penetration and "damage" is blurry in the real world and often overlooked in games, particularly those with relatively simple combat mechanics.


High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley types
A person whose muscles have been developed for drawing (or bending) a bow is not going to have the same build as the stereotypical 'muscley' type anyways. You aren't using all the same muscles, and you aren't using them in the same way.

[Easy_Lee]

People wanting to delay is evidence that initiative is overrated. Not everyone wants to go first.

I wonder if it would make more sense to roll initiative as a group, so the group with the highest roll goes first. If party wins then party goes, monsters go, then party, then monsters. That might encourage more teamwork, people helping with each others' actions rather than doing their own thing and not paying attention on others' turns. It would also reduce the power of dexterity, since you wouldn't need everyone in the party to have high initiative for the party to go first.

[Sindeloke]

Why are we making this distinction between armor penetration and damage to begin with? In D&D the two are profoundly conflated. Wearing armor does not, and never has, prevent someone from hitting you in the real world; it simply reduces the impact of a hit. In D&D it somehow provides avoidance, while hit points represent your ability to mitigate damage that makes actual contact. Consequently, even if an arrow from a heavier draw ignores more damage mitigation in the real world rather than doing more damage to the body, in D&D you represent that by increasing its potency against hit points, the default form of damage mitigation.

Actual real-world damage to the body doesn't have a direct correlation in D&D, unless maybe it's Con damage. Hit points cover a whole weird mishmash of concepts and can reasonably be used for literally any form of increased weapon effectiveness.

[Toofey]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex? I can't imagine doing so in 5E with respectable Con, unless you dumb all your mental stats - and that seems incredibly boring.

Just 2 maxed stats with decent con requires max level and doesn't leave much room for feats. How were previous editions with this?


*Puts on 2nd ed hat*

Stat advancement? What are you talking about?

[Naanomi]

A person whose muscles have been developed for drawing (or bending) a bow is not going to have the same build as the stereotypical 'muscley' type anyways. You aren't using all the same muscles, and you aren't using them in the same way.
Yes, muscles I'd argue are represented more by DEX than STR (for example, not 'weight capacity' type muscles)

[Pex]

I wonder if it would make more sense to roll initiative as a group, so the group with the highest roll goes first. If party wins then party goes, monsters go, then party, then monsters. That might encourage more teamwork, people helping with each others' actions rather than doing their own thing and not paying attention on others' turns. It would also reduce the power of dexterity, since you wouldn't need everyone in the party to have high initiative for the party to go first.

The trade off is action economy. There is a difference between one side doing all their actions then the other side compared to mixing it up of individuals of each side doing their thing. Focus fire is a big deal. One side could focus all their attacks against one opponent who could then be killed off before he gets to do anything or anyone on his side to prevent it or save him. Even if not killed he's close enough to death he needs to take a defensive action instead of the offensive action he was going to do.

[Easy_Lee]

The trade off is action economy. There is a difference between one side doing all their actions then the other side compared to mixing it up of individuals of each side doing their thing. Focus fire is a big deal. One side could focus all their attacks against one opponent who could then be killed off before he gets to do anything or anyone on his side to prevent it or save him. Even if not killed he's close enough to death he needs to take a defensive action instead of the offensive action he was going to do.

I suppose it would work better in a system with more reactions, so players and creatures could defend each other.

[Elric VIII]

The Mary Rose salvage effort completely changed our view of longbows, because prior to that you found all kinds of modern archer's who'd swear backward and forward that a bow with that heavy a draw was completely unusable in the field in practice and that the recorded draw weights were pure fiction.

Then we got examples of actual bows in good enough shape to figure out the original draw. In fact, the draws on those bows are never as LOW as 100lb. The skeletons of the archers show noticeable deformation from the stress of training to draw those bows. They drilled for a lifetime to be able to do that, and yet here you are claiming that all that effort to get the maximum possible draw-weight was almost meaningless.

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.

Just going to throw this out there: the benefit of a heavier draw is a longer lethal range. There is a point where it doesn' t matter how fast the arrow is going if you are close enough to the target. A 100lb now will do the same amount of "damage" as a 150lb now if your target is only 10 feet away. It's the 200 foot target that will take more "damage" from the 150lb now.

This is modeled by the range increment difference between a longbow and shortbow. AC and HP don't represent armor and meat. They both serve as a gamist abstraction of your ability to survive/dodge/block/absorb lethal blows.

[qube]

High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley typesTo that I also agree. a 'Legolas' should be a better archer then a 'Gimli' - regardless of how it would work IRL.


> I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work
> if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex?

*Puts on 2nd ed hat*

Stat advancement? What are you talking about?

*Puts on 3nd /3.5ed hat*
- 6 different items that give up to +6 on a certain ability scores
- 1 ability score with 1 point every 4 levels
- VERY expensive one-time use books that give a permanent +5 bonus (does not stack with other books)

(so the latter two were only used on the main ability score
A "standard" high level adventurer had 30-ish on his main stat.(16 from point buy, +2 racial, +6 item = 24, with a book and level stat increases)


Oh, and shout out to monster races & templates that gave huge racial bonusses (half dragon or centaur cost you a number of levels (think of it as multicalssing in a race instead of a class), but gave you, like, +8 on strength and other bonusses)


Edit:

Just going to throw this out there: the benefit of a heavier draw is a longer lethal range. There is a point where it doesn' t matter how fast the arrow is going if you are close enough to the target. A 100lb now will do the same amount of "damage" as a 150lb now if your target is only 10 feet away. It's the 200 foot target that will take more "damage" from the 150lb now.
I can only repeat myself:


Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

(talking about targets of about 50 ft distance)

[Elric VIII]

The point is that degree of penetration is less related to "damage" than determining if penetration happens at all. An arrow penetrating 6" into your chest isn't realistically doing less to hurt you than the one that penetrates 12" instead. They are both taking you out of fighting condition. I do not deny that a stronger pull imparts more energy, I'm arguing that the most important part of a heavier draw is that the range of minimum penetration for lethality increases.

Think of it like this: the M40 sniper rifle fires 7.62x51 and has an effective range of 800m. The Mk12 rifle fires 5.56x45 and has an effective range of 600m. if I hold a M40 up to your head, you will be just as dead as if I hold a Mk12 that close. It doesn't matter how much more firepower 7.62 ammo has at that range. It's the 600-800m range where the difference in firepower matters. And this is covered by disadvantage at range.

[Saiga]

It'd also be covered by Strength to hit.

[Unoriginal]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

[Naanomi]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.
Not really; nore *prevalent* definetly because of how Armor works... 4 classes 'normally' want Strength 15+ (and not all versions of those classes); whereas 9+ classes usually want DEX 14+.

So I see more DEX at the table but it isn't 'stronger' to me

[Tanarii]

Not really; nore *prevalent* definetly because of how Armor works... 4 classes 'normally' want Strength 15+ (and not all versions of those classes); whereas 9+ classes usually want DEX 14+.

So I see more DEX at the table but it isn't 'stronger' to me
Here's how I see it in play, as a general rule, throug level 10:

Str Fighters, HA Clerics (4/7), and Paladins generally dump Dex with their 8.

Barbarians, Bards, non-HA Clerics (3/7), Druids, and Arcane Artillery (Sorc, 'lock, wiz) generally start Dex 12 or 14. Some light/no armor wearers eventually raise Dex to 16, but Con is more common to raise.

Dex-Fighters, Rogues, Rangers and Monks almost always Max Dex.

[Waazraath]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

Nope. The campaign I'm playing atm the str melee fighter is performing just as well as the dex melee fighter. Bit more damage, bit more often hit himself (rapier with shield vs great weapon fighter, no shield).

In the campaign I'm DM'ing though, STR has proven superior, since the STR char is still alive and kicking and the DEX char was dead by session 3. Of course, that had nothing to do with the fact that the STR char was a barbarian and the DEX char a rogue that should have kept his ass out of melee in the first place.

[Pex]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

With the people I play with no one cares. Warriors tend towards strength. The rogues and monks like their dexterity. Everyone does their own thing, like what they can do, are happy when others do their own thing, and no one resents anyone for anything. The gaming world as presented on these forums have been so not what my actual play experience has been that it is no wonder I'm often on the opposite side of the so called Forum Norms Of Belief Of How The Game Works, including of course 3E/Pathfinder.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wonder if it would make more sense to roll initiative as a group, so the group with the highest roll goes first. If party wins then party goes, monsters go, then party, then monsters. We did that in earlier editions. As noted below, the "focus fire" thing was one of many things that upset anything like balance.

*Puts on 2nd ed hat* Stat advancement? What are you talking about? Unless one was a 1e UA Cavalier, yeah. What was that?
Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice? My monk, but that's a niche case.

3. Of course, that had nothing to do with the fact that the STR char was a barbarian and the DEX char a rogue that should have kept his ass out of melee in the first place. There's that.
Everyone does their own thing, like what they can do, are happy when others do their own thing, and no one resents anyone for anything. The gaming world as presented on these forums have been so not what my actual play experience has been that it is no wonder I'm often on the opposite side of the so called Forum Norms Of Belief Of How The Game Works, including of course 3E/Pathfinder. +1 for all that.
Party tries to get the best results for all players so that we get a team win.
Who'd have thunk that? :smalleek:

[qube]

The point is that degree of penetration is less related to "damage" than determining if penetration happens at all. An arrow penetrating 6" into your chest isn't realistically doing less to hurt you than the one that penetrates 12" instead. They are both taking you out of fighting condition. I do not deny that a stronger pull imparts more energy, I'm arguing that the most important part of a heavier draw is that the range of minimum penetration for lethality increases. Err ... 6" penetration arrow is an arrow stuck in your body; 12" penetration is one that went through. That's either 2 holes in your lunges instead of one; or more organs shredded. Lethality wise, 12" > 6".

So, I'm not sure what your point was, but you seem to make an excelent case for strength to damage.

(or did you try to make the argument 1d8+2 kills and 1d8+6 kills ... so there is no +4 damage difference between the two?)

[Beelzebubba]

I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

[Cybren]

Being stronger in no way lets you do more damage with a bow, provided you have enough strength to pull the bow to full draw. Being stronger does let you use a heavier bow, and does marginally increase accuracy, since you can hold the bow steady longer. Assuming you get a bow with a draw strength best suited to you, does it do more damage than a weaker bow? Not really.




1) why are you assuming that
2) the issue is that strength is required to physically manipulate the object. You know that whole bit about archer skeletons from the middle ages being deformed on one side right?



It will have a marginally longer maximum range, since the arrow will have a marginally higher initial velocity, but it will also experience increased wind resistance, and slow down to just above the velocity of the weaker bow fairly quickly.

On a soft target, the terminal ballistics are also rather similar. Once the arrow head enters the target, there is a great deal of friction along the shaft of the arrow. Again, the resistance increases exponentially with velocity, so the penetration depth only increases a little with increased velocity. If you are at a short enough range for there to be a sizable velocity difference based on the power of the bow, the weaker bow is likely to penetrate all the way through the target, at which point the more powerful bow is not increasing the wound channel at all.

This is not to say that stronger bows are worthless, but they only really do much good against a hard target. The stronger bow can shoot arrows with heavier shafts and heavier heads, these heads can better penetrate armour, and the stronger shaft is less likely to shatter on impact (thereby wasting its kinetic energy).

If you wanted to overly complicate the rules, you could let a stronger character using a properly matched bow ignore a point or two of a target's AC, assuming the target AC was natural armour or heavy armour, but that hardly seems worth the hassle.

Edit: Just thought of a slightly less bad solution. You could impose a minimum strength requirement to use different types of bows, with +1 bows having a higher strength requirement.

Again, this is all just a nonsense post-hoc justification. It's okay that D&D isn't realistic. Trying to argue that something that isn't realistic is realistic is silly.


again, Strength is a floor on bows, not an actual conversion to your ability to deal damage with a bow. a Modern compound bow could utilize a 300 lb draw weight assuming you had fins welded to solid aluminum rods so the bow wouldnt simply shear through your projectile. It matters where you can put that arrow much more than how much energy the bow is able to store on a full draw.

You mean a ceiling on the bow, right? You could under draw a medieval longbow, you couldn't overdraw it. The strength of the bow is the ceiling on damage, not the floor.

[Naanomi]

No one is saying that it doesn't take a lot of muscle to use a bow effectively; just that the muscle isn't the kind represented by strength... weight lifting, bludgeoning power, etc. Of course archery takes muscle, Dexterity *is* in part that kind of muscle; much like gymnastics takes incredible muscles but they aren't 'DnD Strength Muscles'

Body building competition guys are not going to be superior archers just because of their muscle mass

[Kane0]

Haha, much like my Gymbro mate that when asked if he wants to join a funrun with me just laughs.

[Cybren]

No one is saying that it doesn't take a lot of muscle to use a bow effectively; just that the muscle isn't the kind represented by strength... weight lifting, bludgeoning power, etc. Of course archery takes muscle, Dexterity *is* in part that kind of muscle; much like gymnastics takes incredible muscles but they aren't 'DnD Strength Muscles'

Body building competition guys are not going to be superior archers just because of their muscle mass

Gymnastics does in fact use D&D strength muscles. Bows are muscle powered weapons. Literally all the kinetic energy of the projectile is created by the users muscles. You can't use a medieval warbow effectively if you aren't strong.

[Naanomi]

Gymnastics does in fact use D&D strength muscles. Bows are muscle powered weapons. Literally all the kinetic energy of the projectile is created by the users muscles. You can't use a medieval warbow effectively if you aren't strong.
Acrobatics is DEX based, strength has nothing to do with it at all :smallwink:

So your arguement is that all successful archers also could lift great weights and carry heavy loads? Are naturally gifted climbers and swimmers? Can all break free from ropes and tangled vines with ease? DnD Dexterity is all about muscles too, just in different groupings... aspects of CON are also probably about muscle groups. There isn't enough differentiation in the system, perhaps, to really tease out the difference

And regardless, at the end of the day, I still contend that the facts of historical archery pale in importance to the *imagey* and *conceptualization* of an archer... which with few exceptions focus on quickness and aim, tend towards stealth and cunning, are much easier to envision in light armor... much more than heavy weapon users toting fullplate that strength mechanically lends itself too

(The exceptions being Goliath, Odysseus, and Houyi that I can recall, both of which get a lot of emphasis on their bow size and strength... though the first eventually settled on a javalin, and the latter two are described in ways that make me feel they rolled really well all the way down the stat list)

[Malifice]

Barbarians are pushed into Strength. They dont have an option. As are any PAM or GWM fighters. And most Paladins.

Most of my 'martials' soup up Strength and dump Dex. Rangers, Rogues and archery specialist fighters are the exception.

Dex is actually a great stat to dump. You can cover the AC hit with heavy armor, Dex saves are rarely 'save or lose' just generally damaging effects etc. You can cover Acrobatics with Athletics, but Stealth takes a hit (but you're wearing full plate anyways so who cares). The only place it hits you is initiative, which can be partly ameliorated if you desire with the feat that grants +5 to initiative.

Plus (as already mentioned) encumbrance.

I dont know about you guys but I police encumbrance. I see a lot of Strength 8 guys really struggling at low level to carry even basic adventuring equipment, food, water, weapons and armor.

[smcmike]

(The exceptions being Goliath, Odysseus, and Houyi that I can recall, both of which get a lot of emphasis on their bow size and strength... though the first eventually settled on a javalin, and the latter two are described in ways that make me feel they rolled really well all the way down the stat list)

Yeah, Odysseus also being remarkably strong on top of everything else is just unfair. The DM shoulda insisted on in-person rolls I think.

[Pex]

Acrobatics is DEX based, strength has nothing to do with it at all :smallwink:


Female gymnasts perhaps. It's why they tend to be petite, but good leg muscles help. Male gymnasts are muscular. They need upper body strength for the pommel horse and rings along with dexterity. Dexterity is a bit more important for high bar, vault, and floor, but they need strength as well for grip on the bar and leverage to gain height.

[smcmike]

Female gymnasts perhaps. It's why they tend to be petite, but good leg muscles help. Male gymnasts are muscular. They need upper body strength for the pommel horse and rings along with dexterity. Dexterity is a bit more important for high bar, vault, and floor, but they need strength as well for grip on the bar and leverage to gain height.

Naanomi's point (I think) is that in the game, Acrobatics is covered by DEX, and that therefore the strength that is required to perform Acrobatics in the real world is represented by DEX. I don't think anyone was suggesting that acrobats don't have to be strong, regardless of sex.

[Cybren]

So your arguement is that all successful archers also could lift great weights and carry heavy loads? Are naturally gifted climbers and swimmers? Can all break free from ropes and tangled vines with ease? DnD Dexterity is all about muscles too, just in different groupings... aspects of CON are also probably about muscle groups. There isn't enough differentiation in the system, perhaps, to really tease out the difference
In D&D terms yes. Especially since D&D doesn't have the granularity to handle different strengths to different sides of your body.



And regardless, at the end of the day, I still contend that the facts of historical archery pale in importance to the *imagey* and *conceptualization* of an archer... which with few exceptions focus on quickness and aim, tend towards stealth and cunning, are much easier to envision in light armor... much more than heavy weapon users toting fullplate that strength mechanically lends itself too

See, I have no problem with "D&D uses dex for archery for aesthetic/genre purposes". It's the attempt to justify it as realistic after the fact. We can just accept that that D&D doesn't need to be realistic instead of trying to couch decades of rules that reference other rules that reference movies and comic books as somehow rooted in realism

[Naanomi]

See, I have no problem with "D&D uses dex for archery for aesthetic/genre purposes". It's the attempt to justify it as realistic after the fact. We can just accept that that D&D doesn't need to be realistic instead of trying to couch decades of rules that reference other rules that reference movies and comic books as somehow rooted in realism
I am thinking more about literature and mythology than movies and comics... Beleg Strongbow and Robinhood, Susan and Lucy, graceful Artemis and swift Arjuna, etc. Foundational inspirational figures in the fantasy genre

[Willie the Duck]

This is a shoddy post-hoc justification.

I am quoting you, because I want to use this term 'post-hoc justification,' but I am (hopefully) aiming this at both 'sides' of this equally.

Hit points are a shoddy post-hoc justification. Separating Dexterity and Strength as two whole, discrete, and separable traits is a shoddy post-hoc justification. Pretending any of this is anything other than a justification to create gamable characters is holding the game up to expectations it never claims to meet. Any one of us can pick Dex to damage, or Str to damage, and then find real world or thematic points to justify it and declare those points as more important than the points those who disagree bring up. But those are almost the definition of post-hoc justification for the conclusions we wanted to reach in the first place.

We can all make appeals to 'realism' and then use it to justify our pre-conceived notions of what is most important, and it's just as fallacious as the other sides. The truth is that reality is exceedingly complex, and any decision we make in the game is going to leave out some portion of it. But the idea that position X is more realistic is pretty suspicious.

And again I mean this going towards both camps.


Why are we making this distinction between armor penetration and damage to begin with? In D&D the two are profoundly conflated. Wearing armor does not, and never has, prevent someone from hitting you in the real world; it simply reduces the impact of a hit. In D&D it somehow provides avoidance, while hit points represent your ability to mitigate damage that makes actual contact. Consequently, even if an arrow from a heavier draw ignores more damage mitigation in the real world rather than doing more damage to the body, in D&D you represent that by increasing its potency against hit points, the default form of damage mitigation.

Actual real-world damage to the body doesn't have a direct correlation in D&D, unless maybe it's Con damage. Hit points cover a whole weird mishmash of concepts and can reasonably be used for literally any form of increased weapon effectiveness.

^^^ this.



Assuming an equally competent archer, more penetrating power is better (to a point). People make a big deal about aim, but it's more a matter of practice and being able to hold the bow steady than natural coordination, as I understand it. One of the best archers in the world looks like someone's mildly overweight fisherman uncle, and he can shoot an aspirin out of the air.

I would call that an argument to reduce the influence of attributes on to-hit and damage, and bring more focus to competency (perhaps proficiency bonus to damage instead?).



Female gymnasts perhaps. It's why they tend to be petite, but good leg muscles help. Male gymnasts are muscular. They need upper body strength for the pommel horse and rings along with dexterity. Dexterity is a bit more important for high bar, vault, and floor, but they need strength as well for grip on the bar and leverage to gain height.

You two aren't going to agree, because you have different conceptions of what the attributes mean.

[Pex]

You two aren't going to agree, because you have different conceptions of what the attributes mean.

It's not about agreement. There's a miscommunication somewhere. I was referencing applying attributes to real life gymnasts, that it's not dexterity only.

[Willie the Duck]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

Most people seem to use feats, which definitely makes Strength based martial types a lot more popular.

Overall, however, it seems that things like 'does the DM enforce encumbrance?,' 'does the DM hand out more dex-based magic items in the treasure if the party has dex-based characters?' and 'does the DM let people get inventive with acrobatics replacing athletics for solving certain situations?' has a strong influence on this.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not about agreement. There's a miscommunication somewhere. I was referencing applying attributes to real life gymnasts, that it's not dexterity only.

It can be, depending on how you define 'dexterity.'

[smcmike]

It's not about agreement. There's a miscommunication somewhere. I was referencing applying attributes to real life gymnasts, that it's not dexterity only.

Right, real life gymnasts need to be strong. That strength is covered, in the game, by DEX.

Or not? I dunno, it's a rough fit. I agree with the point above that "shoddy post-hoc justifications" are a perfectly valid way to do things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right, real life gymnasts need to be strong. That strength is covered, in the game, by DEX.

Or not? I dunno, it's a rough fit. I agree with the point above that "shoddy post-hoc justifications" are a perfectly valid way to do things.

Agreed. In my experience, asking why ability scores work the way they do and comparing things to real-world examples just makes things less clear. Why is DEX (or STR, or CON, or ...) the way it is? Because of a few things: a) D&D tradition, b) a semi-arbitrary slicing of the multi-dimensional spectrum of human ability into 6 discrete elements will always have oddities, and c) the system is an abstraction for game purposes. The real characters don't have ability scores--that's just the game's way of exposing their capabilities to the players. It's a UI, not an attempt at accurate emulation of in-universe reality.

[Elric VIII]

Err ... 6" penetration arrow is an arrow stuck in your body; 12" penetration is one that went through. That's either 2 holes in your lunges instead of one; or more organs shredded. Lethality wise, 12" > 6".

So, I'm not sure what your point was, but you seem to make an excelent case for strength to damage.

(or did you try to make the argument 1d8+2 kills and 1d8+6 kills ... so there is no +4 damage difference between the two?)

Health is not meat, so damage is not how much something is impaled inside you. My level 2, 20 health fighter isn't getting stabbed through the heart three times before he goes down. If I get hit in the chest with an arrow in real life, it doesn't matter if it went in 6" or 12" since I'm unlikely to be in fighting condition either way.

Health is an abstraction. Therefore damage is not directly related to how much an attack hurts me. It represents how long I can stay in the combat.



The point with the guns is that it doesn't matter how strong you are when shooting a gun, it matters what gun you use and how far away you are. A bow is (mostly) the same way. You can overdraw a recurve bow, but you get severely diminishing returns. So the guy who pulls his 28" bow to 36" isn't going much further than the guy who draws it to 28".

3rd had composite bows of various str values to represent bows with a heavier draw. This allowed you to use dex to hit and add str to damage, up to the value of the bow. They got rid of that in 5e in favor of using dex to damage to represent both the ability to hit and where you hit effectively.

[robbie374]

The issue with Dex is less that it is too powerful and more that it is too necessary.

Every class can benefit from Con, an equal opportunity ability score.
Non magic users can focus on Dex or Str and dump everything else.
Magic users have to focus on Wis, Int, or Cha, and also have to have notable Dex or Str.

Any balance problem between Dex and Str goes away if you use encumbrance. (Why is encumbrance the only variant rule that nobody uses?) If the encumbrance rules sound too complicated, change them to permit a player to carry a number of objects equal to his strength score. Count a pouch of gold or quiver of arrows, etc., as one object.

But casters are all MAD and usually can benefit only from Dex rather than Str. Fix this problem by allowing their primary stats to be useful for defense, and the Dex problem will quickly go away.


Ways ability scores could be used for defense:

Dex: dodge attacks
Str: wear heavy armor that blocks attacks
Cha: dissuade attacks (your natural Charisma causes assailants to question whether they actually want to harm you: they lose heart when they attack you, and miss more often)
Wis: sniff out attacks (your improved Insight and Perception help you notice attacks before they come, giving you a better chance of escaping)
Int: understand attacks (your experience and Intelligence have taught you how attacks work and what makes them tick: you also know how to adjust your position to minimize their effects)

Armor: You can replace your Dexterity modifier with your Charisma, Wisdom, or Intelligence modifier when you calculate your AC. You may not add the same modifier twice.

[JNAProductions]

Eh... Not a fan of that. It makes casters (including half and third casters) too good, since they now pump EVERYTHING off one stat (except HP).

Plus, what do you do for Monks? Do they get Wisdom*2 to AC?

No, not a fan at all.

[robbie374]

Eh... Not a fan of that. It makes casters (including half and third casters) too good, since they now pump EVERYTHING off one stat (except HP).

Plus, what do you do for Monks? Do they get Wisdom*2 to AC?

No, not a fan at all.

On Monks, that's why I specified that you can only add a given modifier once.

Non-casters already "pump everything off one stat". Why shouldn't casters?

Half- and third-casters are still MAD, as they have to use Int, Wis, or Cha for magic and Str or Dex for non-magic. They can choose a difference AC calculation, but they still need multiple strong ability scores.

[smcmike]

On Monks, that's why I specified that you can only add a given modifier once.

Non-casters already "pump everything off one stat". Why shouldn't casters?

So casters are too MAD compared with noncasters? Is this really a problem you think the game has?

[robbie374]

So casters are too MAD compared with noncasters? Is this really a problem you think the game has?

Is it bad to be MAD? If so, casters are at a disadvantage. If not, there's no problem, and the whole point of this thread, that Dex is too strong, is mediated.

[JNAProductions]

Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

[robbie374]

Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

Archers are martials, and they stay at a distance better than casters, but they are SAD with Dex.

[Willie the Duck]

Casters work just fine as is. Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and lore bards are sitting with studded leather/mage armor/dragon sorcerer and balancing between pumping their Dex as much as they can or just staying in back since they will not be using it for much except AC (and skill checks and for lore bards the occasional attack). Valor bards and med. armor clerics will be making hard choices about wanting a 14 dex and whether to then go for a 18-20 dex, a 14 Dex and high strength (as a combat stat), or forgoing a combat stat and using spells. Heavy armor clerics of course will need that 15 strength (or be a dwarf) or be slowed, and also need to decide between fighting with Str or with spells (or shillelagh).

Virtually all of those cases involve making hard choices about whether or not to pump a stat, even though they will not be using it like they use their casting stat or like a fighter uses their combat stat. And frankly, that's the point. There is no classes broadly and very few builds in total (except maybe a hill dwarf nature cleric, where you know exactly what you're supposed to do), where you aren't constantly having to balance different priorities. That seems to be one of the biggest successes of this edition.


Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

Yes, that one, very specific build (well, two-shillelagh fighter and cantrip fighter, although what cantrip-boosting domained cleric type gets heavy armor?) can do so.

[qube]

> That's either 2 holes in your lunges instead of one; or more organs shredded. Lethality wise, 12" > 6".

Health is an abstraction. Therefore damage is not directly related to how much an attack hurts me. It represents how long I can stay in the combat. ... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.


The point with the guns is that it doesn't matter how strong you are when shooting a gun, it matters what gun you use and how far away you are. A bow is (mostly) the same way.I'm not sure in what world you live, but
'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
...
For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...


the guy who pulls his 28" bow to 36" isn't going much further than the guy who draws it to 28".And, here a magic trick: Same bow, stronger guy does get his arrow further/has more penetration power/ ... then the weaker guy.

So, lets say, you're someone who draws at 40 lb, and thus has a 40 lb bow.
And lets put that bow in the hands of a guy who's able to draw 50 lb bows.

Take of the string and twist it a few times, making it shorter; then put the string back on.
magic: your 40 lb bow is now a 50 lb bow.

Why you're trying to introduce the idea that PCs would be shooting with bows that have a drawweight that doesn't correspond with their strength, is beyond me. Or even "coïncidently" forget to mention what happens if someone tries to shoot with a bow that's too heavy for them ...
Heck you might as well go back to your gun example: yes, strength matters: if you can't handle the kickback, it don't really matter how well you aim.

[robbie374]

Casters work just fine as is. Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and lore bards are sitting with studded leather/mage armor/dragon sorcerer and balancing between pumping their Dex as much as they can or just staying in back since they will not be using it for much except AC (and skill checks and for lore bards the occasional attack). Valor bards and med. armor clerics will be making hard choices about wanting a 14 dex and whether to then go for a 18-20 dex, a 14 Dex and high strength (as a combat stat), or forgoing a combat stat and using spells. Heavy armor clerics of course will need that 15 strength (or be a dwarf) or be slowed, and also need to decide between fighting with Str or with spells (or shillelagh).

Virtually all of those cases involve making hard choices about whether or not to pump a stat, even though they will not be using it like they use their casting stat or like a fighter uses their combat stat. And frankly, that's the point. There is no classes broadly and very few builds in total (except maybe a hill dwarf nature cleric, where you know exactly what you're supposed to do), where you aren't constantly having to balance different priorities. That seems to be one of the biggest successes of this edition.

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

[smcmike]

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

All non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?


You know that casters get spells, right?

[Easy_Lee]

Casters don't need high AC or initiative because they have more methods to avoid damage. Wizards have mage armor and the shield, druids have wildshaping, bards and clerics qualify for decent armor. Warlocks have it the worst, but they have plenty of invocation and patron options to increase their survival. And let's not forget that most casters can go invisible.

The idea proposed above is that archers, since they're SAD, get to benefit from good AC and good damage, the best initiative, and good damage avoidance due to their range all at once. That's true. The power of archers in 5e is well known.

But don't forget that archers don't get opportunity attacks, and not all classes have the option of going ranged. Barbarians and paladins do better on the front lines. Rogues do as well if they can get stay alive and get consistent reaction attacks (sentinel, marital adept: riposte, etc.). And last I checked, nobody beats barbarians for damage in the long run.

So I don't think it's an issue. The only two melee-capable classes for whom ranged damage is the clear best option are Hunter rangers and warlocks. Rangers are range-ers, and Beast Conclave Rangers are actually better in melee based on my analysis. And warlocks have agonizing EB, which is mildly OP. For everyone else who has reason to be in melee range, range vs melee is a trade-off.

[JNAProductions]

Right, like Barbarians, who have no need for anything but Strength!

Wait, they need Constitution and Dexterity too.

And it's not like a Wizard who pumps Intelligence to the exclusion of all else is anything even approaching bad.

In addition, what ways are there to boost attack rolls? You have proficiency bonus (applies to save DCs), stat mod (applies to save DCs), Bless (Bane works on saves), Magic Items (there are some for save DCs too), Paladin's Sacred Weapon (Bend Luck or similar can impose disadvantage on saves), so... Seems about equal.

Not to mention, attack rolls target AC, always and forever. Saves can be targeted on the opponent's weak save. There is no "weak AC".

[Elric VIII]

... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.

I'm not sure in what world you live, but
'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
...
For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...

And, here a magic trick: Same bow, stronger guy does get his arrow further/has more penetration power/ ... then the weaker guy.

So, lets say, you're someone who draws at 40 lb, and thus has a 40 lb bow.
And lets put that bow in the hands of a guy who's able to draw 50 lb bows.

Take of the string and twist it a few times, making it shorter; then put the string back on.
magic: your 40 lb bow is now a 50 lb bow.

Why you're trying to introduce the idea that PCs would be shooting with bows that have a drawweight that doesn't correspond with their strength, is beyond me. Or even "coïncidently" forget to mention what happens if someone tries to shoot with a bow that's too heavy for them ...
Heck you might as well go back to your gun example: yes, strength matters: if you can't handle the kickback, it don't really matter how well you aim.

You seem to be conveniently missing the point about abstraction, but I guess I can't expect much from you.

In earlier editions, it was true that low STR meant less damage with bows. That was dropped for simplicity and balance, not realism.

Do you understand that higher caliber bullets penetrate body armor? It's not that they shoot you better, it's that they get past your protection. Since AC is not just deflection, but dodging ability as well, you cannot say that STR is a strictly better way to model hitting with a bow. How do you not understand the concept of abstraction even a little? At this point I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Naanomi]

Those SAD martials are what... non-EK fighters and non-AT rogues (maybe, depending on skill choices)? Everyone else is generally shopping for at least two stats plus CON

[Willie the Duck]

... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.

I'm not sure in what world you live, but
'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
...
For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...


I'm sure you think you are being awfully clever, but I just want to make sure you realize that all these bolded little snipes are reasons for the rest of us not to take you seriously.

Also, cop killer bullets and elephant guns/high caliber weapons are almost diametric opposites. They don't belong in the same example.




I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

All non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

Where did I say that everything is the same class to class? I said casters are fine as is. The fighter (exclusively) can be Strength or Dexterity SAD*. That's great. Does that allow the fighter to run away with the game? I've never heard people say that the fighter is the breakout class of 5e (paladins and bards, both decidedly MAD, tend to be the talked-of surprise hits). You're really going to have to flesh out your argument (and what I actually said that is the problem, since I didn't say what you mentioned) before I can respond any better.
*SAD being 'SAD as we all understand, with Con also important, and no one not needing any attributes, since saves and skills based upon them still exist

[Knaight]

A lot of it has to do with the construction of dexterity as a statistic. The six attributes originated in an attempt to reduce the vast majority of character capability to six numbers (skills weren't there yet, saves and attacks are comparatively niche), and that meant that a lot of things had to be bundled together, even if they don't necessarily make a lot of sense. While wisdom is the best example of this being nonsensical, dexterity is probably the best example of this being extremely powerful. Reflexes, gross motor skills, and fine motor skills all have relatively little to do with each other, but they're bundled, and this produces weird effects like archers (who need dexterity because of how it effects aim) also getting to dodge easily with no additional point expenditure, and vice versa.

[robbie374]

Right, like Barbarians, who have no need for anything but Strength!

Wait, they need Constitution and Dexterity too.

Everybody benefits from multiple options, but Barbarians get extra benefit from Con, unlike everyone else. They also get free bonuses to Str and Con at level 20. Also, they can wear armor if they want to, and they can go pure strength if they want: the only disadvantage to Heavy Armor is the loss of Fast Movement, and otherwise they don't have to be Dex-based at all, making them very much SAD. (Remember that for all classes, SAD ignores the need for and value of Con.)

I have been corrected. Barbarians are in the unfortunate position of gaing lots of benefits from all three of Con, Dex, and Str. It is hard to make a SAD barbarian.


And it's not like a Wizard who pumps Intelligence to the exclusion of all else is anything even approaching bad.

But this Wizard certainly stays even more squishy, and is terrible against most spell saves.


In addition, what ways are there to boost attack rolls? You have proficiency bonus (applies to save DCs), stat mod (applies to save DCs), Bless (Bane works on saves), Magic Items (there are some for save DCs too), Paladin's Sacred Weapon (Bend Luck or similar can impose disadvantage on saves), so... Seems about equal.


Attacks and saving throws both get proficiency bonuses and stat mods.
Bless and Bane work on both, but using Concentration is a much higher cost for casters than non-casters.
Attacks have fighting styles to benefit them. There is nothing similar for saving throws.
Magic Items that boost attacks are readily available at a variety of rarities, but for casters, there are only the Robe of the Archmagi and the Rod of the Pact Keeper. The latter only applies to warlocks, and Bards, Clerics, and Druids get nothing at all.
Paladin's Sacred Weapon helps attacks, but not save DCs. This is only for one Oath for Paladins.
Sorcerers get Heightened Spell, and Wild Mage Sorcerers get Bend Luck. These aren't "always on" like most attack bonus buffs, but there's something at least. Attack bonuses also get a benefit from metamagic.

Altogether, there are far more, and far more accessible, ways to improve attacks than saving throw DCs.


Not to mention, attack rolls target AC, always and forever. Saves can be targeted on the opponent's weak save. There is no "weak AC".

Comparing attack and save bonuses against average monster abilities by level, targeting AC is almost always better at all levels in all tiers of play.
The only save that consistently outperforms is Intelligence, ranging from -2% to +6% against AC, but most spells have Dexterity and Wisdom saves.
Dexterity is usually worse than AC, ranging from -7% to +2%.
Wisdom is always worse, ranging from -1% to -15%.
Targeting Con or Str is abysmal, and Cha is between Wis and Dex.

These numbers do not factor in bonuses to attack or saving throws other than proficiency bonus and stat modifiers. The Magic Item benefits and other buffs described above tilt the benefit even more strong in favor of attacks over saving throws.

One could of course argue that the impact of failed saves is a bigger deal than the impact of too-low AC, but likeliness to hit is strongly in favor of attacks.

[robbie374]

Where did I say that everything is the same class to class? I said casters are fine as is. The fighter (exclusively) can be Strength or Dexterity SAD*. That's great. Does that allow the fighter to run away with the game? I've never heard people say that the fighter is the breakout class of 5e (paladins and bards, both decidedly MAD, tend to be the talked-of surprise hits). You're really going to have to flesh out your argument (and what I actually said that is the problem, since I didn't say what you mentioned) before I can respond any better.
*SAD being 'SAD as we all understand, with Con also important, and no one not needing any attributes, since saves and skills based upon them still exist

I mostly agree with you. My main point is that it is easier to make a SAD non-caster than a SAD caster. I think the trade-offs are more consequential for casters. There are lots of ways to make any character MAD, and frequently it is beneficial to do so. I don't think that there is much of a problem as it is, but I think the argument for Dex being too important is closely linked to the importance of Dex for caster AC.

[smcmike]

Also, they can wear armor if they want to, and they can go pure strength if they want: the only disadvantage to Heavy Armor is the loss of Fast Movement,

You need to reread the Barbarian class.



But this Wizard certainly stays even more squishy, and is terrible against most spell saves.

A squishy wizard? The horrors!

[robbie374]

You need to reread the Barbarian class.

A squishy wizard? The horrors!

Oops! I thought there was something in there about heavy armor and rages. I will amend my previous comment.

Yes, wizards are squishy when SAD. Which is fine, and Dex is not as important as the thread suggests.

[JNAProductions]

Barbarians don't get heavy armor proficiency.

Fighting Styles typically give a slight damage boost. Only archery style gives an accuracy boost, and that's there to mitigate cover (which is just pure gravy with Sharpshooter, admittedly).

In addition, you do realize with 27 point buy, with a +1 Int race, you can easily go 12, 12, 12, 16, 11, 11? Ignoring whatever your other stat bonus is. Hell, on a Half-Elf, you can go 12, 12, 12, 16, 12, 13! That's all good stats, with Int being the best, of course.

And, while I agree that there's no Fighting Styles for magic users, saves have a much more debilitating effect than attack rolls do.

[robbie374]

In addition, you do realize with 27 point buy, with a +1 Int race, you can easily go 12, 12, 12, 16, 11, 11? Ignoring whatever your other stat bonus is. Hell, on a Half-Elf, you can go 12, 12, 12, 16, 12, 13! That's all good stats, with Int being the best, of course.

One interesting thing about the whole debate that Dex is too strong is the insistence that everybody needs Dex to get to max AC. In reality, getting high AC through Dex is rather difficult compared to Str. Max AC Str requires only Str 15, whereas Max AC Dex requires Dex 20, and still lags against Str AC. The much maligned Medium Armor is really the way to go, if you can get it, needing only Dex 14, or Dex 16 with Medium Armor Master. The best way to get better AC is to get better armor. Go figure.

Even better than a Half-Elf, a Gnome can get 12, 13, 12, 16, 12, 12, setting up for a better feat option. And a nice boring human can improve it to 13, 13, 13, 16, 12, 12, or one ASI behind at 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11.

[Tanarii]

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same.

This is so back to front, it's a little mind-boggling. :smalleek:

[qube]

I'm sure you think you are being awfully clever, but I just want to make sure you realize that all these bolded little snipes are reasons for the rest of us not to take you seriously.Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented


I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.


In earlier editions, it was true that low STR meant less damage with bows. That was dropped for simplicity and balance, not realism.I am well awere of that. You will note #87 "To that I also agree. a 'Legolas' should be a better archer then a 'Gimli' - regardless of how it would work IRL.". However, you were making a case for strength not being relevant for RL bows.


you cannot say that STR is a strictly better way to model hitting with a bow. How do you not understand the concept of abstraction even a little?As for your first line, actually, I would be able to make a case for that: considering the simple fact that better strength = better able to aim without trembling muscles = better aim; while my agility & nimble-fingeredness (to name just a few synonyms of dexterity), are pretty irrelevant for putting the sight over the target).

As for understanding the concept of abstraction: you said it yourself: It represents how long I can stay in the combat. I'm not a professional, but with my experience, when when facing equivalent people - but the person with the stronger bow (and is able to draw it) will have a better chance to kill someone. (even against unarmored opponents, a weak arrow could get stuck in a rib, while a powerful arrow could pierce bone; a weak error could get lodged in your body before it hits a vital organ; while the stronger arrow gets pushed in hard eough to hit it; etc ... you know ... the things that are a low damage die roll).

Heck, consider crossbows. At one time they were banned because they were thought to be too lethal for the knights (well, armor wearing nobility).


You can use other excuses why archery should be dex based - from game balance to fantasy archetypes - but not abstraction. If hit points are an abstraction of how long I can stay in the combat - draw strength has a serious impact on that.

[Easy_Lee]

This is so back to front, it's a little mind-boggling. :smalleek:

It is a bit weird. If a wizard has low Dex and Con but high Int, it isn't the end of the world. If a fighter has low Dex and Con but high Str, it might be. Anyone on the front lines needs higher Con.

[Willie the Duck]

Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented


I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.


Ooh. I forgot to respond to that one, thanks!


I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

I see no one here who has any verifiable relevant experience. Unless someone is willing to out their real personage and show their body of experience (at medieval bow archery), it's just one internet person's word. That or give me references, name some books I should be reading (I will do so, if widely available). I'm not going to take yer word for it, there's too many "experts (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/katanas-are-underpowered-in-d20)" on forums like this.

I'm not saying that "people who 'think stuff'" isn't a problem, it's just that AFAIC, that contributes equally to both sides.

[Pex]

Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented


I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.



I thought that was about me. Looked insulting at first but then another read through led to a praise interpretation. I just let it go.

Very well done.

[Tanarii]

As for your first line, actually, I would be able to make a case for that: considering the simple fact that better strength = better able to aim without trembling muscles = better aim; while my agility & nimble-fingeredness (to name just a few synonyms of dexterity), are pretty irrelevant for putting the sight over the target). It might help if you stop using synonyms for the English word dexterity. Not And start thinking in terms of the D&D ability score Dexterity.

[strangebloke]

DEX is an abstraction. DEX is connected to 'dexterity' only insofar as they are cognates.

DEX is a abstract character attribute that refers to a character's natural (untrained) ability to do things that require DEX. It's a self-defining statblock. So we shouldn't be asking 'does it make sense to use DEX for archery?', but rather 'what must DEX comprise in order to be the unifying factor between these various checks?'

STR is used for:
full-body aerobic strength (The ability to bear up under heavy burdens and move ably in heavy armor)
cardio (athletics)
full-body anaerobic strength (melee combat with most weapons, wrestling, lifting heavy loads, STR saves)

DEX is used for:
reaction time (initiative, DEX saves)
anaerobic core strength. (acrobatics)
anaerobic upper arm and back strength (ranged weapons, as well as acrobatics to a lesser extent)
precision (finesse weaponry)

In reality, these concepts are close together and there's much overlap between them. that distinguishing between them is pointless. But if I had to draw a distinction, I would do it thusly: STR is general physical aptitude. DEX is lean, specialized muscle gained through training for a specifc task. (like fighting, or backflipping, or shooting)

Yes, it's totally unrealistic, with these definitions, to have a 16 DEX 8 STR elf maiden that can shoot a longbow 4 times in the span of 6 seconds. What do you want from me?

[Vogonjeltz]

As far as I understand it, feats are optional rules. So leaving those aside for a second...

Two fighters start off. Fighter (A) is Str16 Dex10 Con16. Fighter (B) is Str 10 Dex16 Con16.
Fighter (A) uses a longsword and shield
Fighter (B) uses a rapier and shield

Fighter (A) gets +2 Str. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 athletic skill checks, +1 strength saves
Fighter (A) can eventually get fullplate, for a max AC of 21.

Fighter (B) gets +2 Dex. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 dex skills, +1 dex saves
Fighter (B) with studded leather has a max AC of 20.

Between the two, dexterity just seems downright better. Sure, Fighter (A) could grab a great sword and pick up great weapon master, but Fighter (B) could just as easily pick up sharpshooter.

But between the two, just looking at stats...Str seems to get the short end of the stick. Did the designers really think that +1 max AC is worth losing out on one of the best saves, many skills, and initiative?

And furthermore...is there anything from the designers on this? Because I'm used to pathfinder, where getting dex to damage means jumping through several flaming hoops with your shoe laces tied together and an angry badger mauling your face. It isn't easy. Here, it is just offered up to you.

Hell...even using a bow, which normally requires alot of strength, only uses dex now.

Am I missing something?

Your analysis valuation is way off.

First, Dexterity saves are the least important saves (despite their frequency) they, in virtually every case, boil down to less damage taken in a one off instance. Strength saves on the other hand, although less frequent, are virtually all to avoid an ongoing condition. That is far more important a save to make, especially for a Fighter.

Second, Strength checks are used both offensively and defensively in combat, Dexterity checks can only be used defensively. That means Dexterity has only half the capability of Strength in combat, that's a big deal.

And, although there's nothing wrong with using a bow, it gets disdvantage on attacks when enemies are 5 feet away. Unless it's a shoot out, I can't imagine why that wouldn't occur.

That doesn't even get into Encumberance, the difference between 8 str and 20 is 180lbs, it could mean the difference between additional loot, additional provisions, being able to execute maneuvers against an enemy, or even rescuing an ally from a bad situation.

Lastly, the main purpose of initiative is to be able to extricate yourself from a bad situation before anything actually happens. If you're planning on fighting, then the turn order rarely makes a meaningful difference (and virtually all of the disadvantages can be negated fully by the Alert feat).

[Unoriginal]

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Martials are OP! How dare Warriors of the Coast make it so that the casters are good at spells but are fragile and limited in other ways, especially in regular combat?

This is hyperbolic sarcasm, I know, but still. The principle of balance is that all the classes get to shine at different points, not to have them all do great at the same points.



Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

"everything's the same class to class" does not mean "balanced".

[Easy_Lee]

Acting first in combat is a big deal if you need to cast a spell to prepare for combat. Winning initiative against a dragon can save a wizard or druid from immediately getting KO'd by its breath attack.

Speaking of dexterity saves, they're much more important the less HP your class has. Barbarians, especially raging bear totem ones, can fail a few dexterity saves and keep going. A wizard, as above, might only need to fail one to go unconscious.

Strength is better in melee combat than dexterity, but dexterity is better at range. Considering there are several ways to avoid disadvantage in melee on ranged attacks, and even more ways to stay out of melee range to begin with, dexterity is by no means inferior in combat.

I don't think there's a problem with dexterity versus the other stats. But I had to set the record straight.

[thereaper]

The OP seems to be missing something. It's not strength that is poor; it's longsword and shield on a Fighter. That combination is for Paladins.

[Bahamut7]

On a side note, in 4e, you could use Dex or Int to boost your AC if you wore light armor as this implied you were smart enough to react ahead of time. 4e also had 3 other defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) that could be boosted by 1 of 2 stats. For example, Fortitude could be boosted by Strength or Constitution.

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore. When you have choices, you can have variety and better RP.

[Unoriginal]

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore.

Except it did not become "this OP stat", actually.

[thereaper]

Dex is certainly incredible at what it does, and for many builds it becomes almost pointless to use strength instead of just dexterity (I ran into this when trying to make a Valor Bard build that was also decent at Rogue-type skills).

But Str also has its advantages. Specifically, two-handed weapons.

[Unoriginal]

Dex is certainly incredible at what it does, and for many builds it becomes almost pointless to use strength instead of just dexterity (I ran into this when trying to make a Valor Bard build that was also decent at Rogue-type skills).

...dexterity is incredible at what it does because it's the only thing that do what it does?

Or are you talking about using Dex in combat?

[qube]

I see no one here who has any verifiable relevant experience. Unless someone is willing to out their real personage and show their body of experience (at medieval bow archery), it's just one internet person's word. That or give me references, name some books I should be reading (I will do so, if widely available).Considering I used my "expertise" to note


Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

If you're willing to go to great lengths of reading a book, you could brush up on your physics, or you could instead just visit a local archery club.

Or, some physics calculation I did myself, if you're too laisy to do the research: With kinetic energy being, mv²/2, turned into the units used for bows, that is Fps² * (Weight of Arrow) / 450,240 = Arrow’s Kinetic Energy (https://www.wasparchery.com/blog/calculate-the-kinetic-energy-of-your-arrow). Not that the specific numbers matters much, but it just shows KE ~ Fps²

Now, what does this to draw weight? you gain about 1 1/4 fps per # draw weight (http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=350488&forum=2),

And how does this abstract thing of "draw weight" relate to strength? using some shop (https://www.yeoldearcheryshoppe.com/drawlength.php) to see what they advise on people using:


Small child 50-70 lbs
Child 70-100 lbs
Most women, boys from 100 - 130 lbs
Women above average strength; youth boys 130 - 150 lbs
Most men 150-180 lbs Target
Most men 150-180 lbs Bowhunting or 3D
Muscular young men and larger men 180 lbs and up
10-15 lbs
15-25 lbs
30-40 lbs
40-50 lbs
40-55 lbs
50-65 lbs
60-70 lbs


(I've bolded what I would categorise as 10 to 16)

OK, OK, but what about the base fps? Apparently medival longbow's were about 68 lb and 133.7 fps (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html), it's simple maths from here on out: (using Ñ as unit proportionally to Newton)

the dude of STR16 gets a short of 133.7² = 18K Ñ ,
the dude of STR10 gets a shot of (133.7- (30*1.25) )² = 96.2² = 9K Ñ


Conclusion: a 6 point difference in strength creates an arrow 2 times stronger

edit: maths error 30-40 & 60-70 differ 30, not 40.


It might help if you stop using synonyms for the English word dexterity. Not And start thinking in terms of the D&D ability score Dexterity.Okidoki. To quote PHB.


Strength
Strength measures bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force.

Dexterity
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance.

I still stand by what I said: There's a solid case to be made that using "bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force" is a better way to model archery than "agility, reflexes and balance" - considering you want to put your 'cross-aim' on the exact spot with tense mussles but without tremmor; and stronger bow shoot faster arrows*, which are thus harder to dodge.

*: the above calc would point out a 6 point strength difference gives an around about 40% faster (133.7 / 96.2 = 1.4)

[Cybren]

On a side note, in 4e, you could use Dex or Int to boost your AC if you wore light armor as this implied you were smart enough to react ahead of time. 4e also had 3 other defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) that could be boosted by 1 of 2 stats. For example, Fortitude could be boosted by Strength or Constitution.

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore. When you have choices, you can have variety and better RP.

That's not a paradigm without its flaws. The representational value of both the defenses and the ability scores is diminished the more abstract they become

[strangebloke]

Considering I used my "expertise" to note


His point was that, as a dude in the internet, your expertise could be anything or nothing. People on the internet have been known to be dishonest.

Not that I disagree with your general point. Archery is so physically demanding that uncovered skeletons of longbowmen have massively warped shoulder blades to the incredible force exerted on them during archery.

But this is a setting where running in a straight line is no faster than running in circles. Homebrew the text for dexterity in the PHB to include ', forearm, back, and core strength' and call it a day. Acrobatics should request strength as well.

[Talamare]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

[robbie374]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

I think that is a bigger problem of which this Dex issue is a symptom. Why aren't all the ability scores necessary for all characters? Clearly no character can be great at everything, but the concept of a dump stat should not exist. The choice to sacrifice one stat for another should be a choice that has significant consequences regardless of your class.

Now, having a party of characters with different strengths is great, and should be the way to address weak stats, but there should still be consequences for choices. As it is most characters can completely ignore two or more stats with only minimal inconvenience.

[Naanomi]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back
I disagree, it made INT important for characters that chose to make it important by selecting it. 4e still had dump stats, you just had more freedom to choose what they were (at a loss of differentiation between the stats to begin with). Neither is better in my mind, but it is disingenuous saying that 4es system made INT important for most characters

[Tanarii]

Okidoki. To quote PHB.


Strength
Strength measures bodily training, athleric training and the extend to which you can exert raw physical force.

Dexterity
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance.Better. :smallbiggrin: And a good counter to those that like to argue that Dex is 'wiry strength'.

[Willie the Duck]

His point was that, as a dude in the internet, your expertise could be anything or nothing. People on the internet have been known to be dishonest.

Okay, that was clear. Good. The point is that we have no method to verify the personal experience.


Considering I used my "expertise" to note...

If you're willing to go to great lengths of reading a book, you could brush up on your physics, or you could instead just visit a local archery club...

Or, some physics calculation I did myself, if you're too laisy to do the research:

I am going to assume that you did take offense. The entire point was that we know nothing of each other personally, so I am sorry that you took it personally.

I'm not going to rise to those jibes. I believe you would not have made them had you not interpreted my statements as an attack.

However, I will point out one thing about the model. So far as I can tell, we're not talking about how many feet per second the arrow launches at, but about hitting and downing an opponent. That is going to take into account multiple factors, some of which launch speed/penetrating power might be less useful than stopping power or even diametrically opposed (much like the elephant gun/cop killer bullet dichotomy).

With that regard, I'm absolutely sure we do not have an expert in the room. I don't even know what it would take--I guess a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds? Maybe something else. Definitely a unique skillset.

The closest I'd expect here might be a cop or deer hunter. Any of those around?

[qube]

I am going to assume that you did take offense. The entire point was that we know nothing of each other personally, so I am sorry that you took it personally.

...

With that regard, I'm absolutely sure we do not have an expert in the room. I don't even know what it would take--I guess a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds? Maybe something else. Definitely a unique skillset. I have no clue why you think I take it personally. you are in fact right. We don't know each other. The fastest & cheapest way to understand bows is to visit a archery club (oppôsite to spending hours and hours reading a book about it), or learn how to calculate kinetic energy yourself.

The thing is though, this is all basic stuff. It comes close to only wanting to accept 1+1=2, if it's told to you by a professor with multiple degrees in mathematics. You need to be a medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds or else you don't know enough about bows? Sorry mate - but there seems to be an issue with your bar-setting system.

(FYI: considering bullets work nothing like arrows, I'm not sure a cop will be able to help you ... )


However, I will point out one thing about the model. So far as I can tell, we're not talking about how many feet per second the arrow launches at, but about hitting and downing an opponent. That is going to take into account multiple factors, some of which launch speed/penetrating power might be less useful than stopping power or even diametrically opposed (much like the elephant gun/cop killer bullet dichotomy).Oh, so ... like this (http://www.bestrecurvebowguide.com/which-draw-weight-to-choose/)? Which draw weight should one use:


deer, elk, turkey
grizzly bear, ox, cape bufalo
target shooting
40 lbs. draw weight or more
55 lbs. or more
any

I would also like to note on that that in certain States and counties, bow hunting has a minimum draw weight (most of the time 40 lb).


Considering they reccomend stronger bows for animals in D&D that typically have more hp ... would that be sufficient correlation?

[Zalabim]

The issue you run into with this comparison is that the stronger person in real life doesn't use the same bow as the weaker person in real life. In D&D, everyone is using the same bows, so different levels of strength aren't going to have different effects, because the effect comes from the bow. Down that path lies 3.x's Composite Bows with different strength ratings.

[qube]

The issue you run into with this comparison is that the stronger person in real life doesn't use the same bow as the weaker person in real life. In D&D, everyone is using the same bows, so different levels of strength aren't going to have different effects, because the effect comes from the bow.That is assuming everyone uses the weakest bow humanly koboldly possible ... Why woul a mighy race of centaurs craft militairy bows (not child toys), that have a draw poundage of {6 strength score} ?

Now, you're ting in that a kobold and a centaur (?*) would be able to use a kobold bow with same efficiency (a.k.a. same bow, different efficiency)
... but a kobold wouldn't be able to draw a centaur bow like a centaur could (a.k.a. same bow, different efficiency).

*: too laisy to check out 5E centaurs. I just recall from ye old days they had +8 strength. Just pick any race that uses medium weapons with massive strenght

Other then this, I already adressed how you can increase the poundage of a bow by twisting (and thus shortening) the string**. IRL it's not a miracle solution (in the end, the bow's shape & substance(prob. wood) must be able to handle the pressure) but if you considering in-game bowmen always have their bow strung, I think this RL limitation can be hand-waved away.

(** technically you decrease the draw length, but the further you draw, the harder it becomes (requiring more strength), and the more energy will be transferred into the arrow ... so basically the same thing as higher draw poundage)

[Waazraath]

It's partly because of the weight of all the previous edition

I think 4e did an AMAZING job making all the stats more popular.
INT was no longer the most garbage stat since it also provided both increases to a common Save and AC

I'm hoping they bring that back

Huh? Suggesting that Int was 'no longer the most garbage stat' in 4e implies that it was in 3rd. Which is really weird, because in 3rd, you int score defined the number of skills you had. And there were a lot of very usefull skills in 3rd, and the number was much higher than in 5e. If third had dump stats, it was Cha and (for casters) Str.

[smcmike]

Huh? Suggesting that Int was 'no longer the most garbage stat' in 4e implies that it was in 3rd. Which is really weird, because in 3rd, you int score defined the number of skills you had. And there were a lot of very usefull skills in 3rd, and the number was much higher than in 5e. If third had dump stats, it was Cha and (for casters) Str.

Accurate, though big dumb fighters could dump INT, so long as they weren't trying to follow the combat expertise chain.

[Willie the Duck]

I have no clue why you think I take it personally.

What I saw as some very snide and condescending responses that would make sense if you were being defensive. If that is how you respond when you haven't taken offense... well I guess no skin off my nose, so let's move on.


You need to be a medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds or else you don't know enough about bows? Sorry mate - but there seems to be an issue with your bar-setting system.

The primary point is that I do not trust a stranger on a D&D site who says that they are an expert is weapons (or armor, or martial arts), because of a consistent pattern of over the years seeing (and this is another exaggeration example for effect, like the 'd20 katana' link) guys with 3 years of karate classes claiming to be martial arts experts. Therefore, I am looking for a referenceable, outside source. Sure, a professor, or bow-hunting magazine, health reports on impaling injuries, documentaries, the point is being able to point to it and say, 'you don't have to take my word for it, look.'



(FYI: considering bullets work nothing like arrows, I'm not sure a cop will be able to help you ... )

That was indeed grasping at straws. There just aren't that many people with experience in using a bow to actually drop a living target (which is why I've mentioned hunters).



Oh, so ... like this (http://www.bestrecurvebowguide.com/which-draw-weight-to-choose/)?
Yes, Perfect!


Considering they reccomend stronger bows for animals in D&D that typically have more hp ... would that be sufficient correlation?
Probably... and here's where we'd have to insert a whole "what do hp represent" discussion into the middle of this one. It certainly draws correlation between draw weight and something akin to what I'll make up a term and call Dropping Power. Making what you are shooting eventually bleed out. Actually, now that I look at it, the elk and deer (who are closer to beers than they are to turkeys) are in the low-weight category, presumably because you don't mind if they take a while to die (unlike a bear). So more like stopping power (something close to how I imagine hp).

What it doesn't do, is tell us how much of the total-stopping-power is contributed by draw-weight/strength, and how much is hitting the right part of the beast. So whether it is sufficient probably depends on what question each thread reader really wants answered. Does real-world (lower case) strength have a positive impact on an archer's ability to drop an opponent? Undoubtedly. What is the strength/coordination admixture? Unknown. Does it matter for D&D? Doubt there's a consensus.

[smcmike]

What it doesn't do, is tell us how much of the total-stopping-power is contributed by draw-weight/strength, and how much is hitting the right part of the beast.


This question also brings up the difference between high fantasy and realism. Does killing Smaug require a unrealistically high-powered bow, or unrealistically precise aim at a weak point? Either way, you aren't going to be able to model it with a few archer using a real bow, right?

[Talderas]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.

I am currently playing a Halfling barbarian pir... er sailor using the sealord UA path. My rolls, DM had us roll rather than point buy, gave me a 15, two 14s, a 13, a 11, and a 10. Given those starting stats it was impossible for me to start with anything higher than a +2 modifier for strength. I allocated my stats as 14 str, 14 dex, 15 con, 10 int, 11 wis, and 13 cha which racial adjustments brought me up to 16 dex and con.

In practice, increasing dex provide me less net benefit than increasing str or constitution. A lot of this has to do with unarmored defense, danger sense, and later advantage to initiative which greatly depresses the value of gaining a +1 dex modifier leaving mostly a +1 to stealth checks as the main benefit that my class doesn't encroach on. Swapping to a finesse weapon style isn't that advantageous. Right now I have a +1 advantage on attack rolls but a -1 disadvantage on damage rolls (can't get rage damage bonus with finesse weapons). That attack bonus advantage is greatly offset by reckless attack. The amount of advantage rolls barbarian gets in dex based benefits does help to devalue the benefit of increasing dex over str. I also need to wrap back around to the fact that I'm playing a Halfling and how the Lucky trait behaves with advantage rolls. While you can't reroll both ones on an advantage roll if you get doubles you do get to roll one of them. That nets an increase in success rate when rolling with advantage.

My first ASI I went ahead an increased constitution by 2 since it gave me +1 AC, +1 to con saves, +1 to the DC of my path ability, and +4 hit points. It's the only stat increase that provided me with clear direct offensive and defensive increases. The others provide clear offensive or defense benefits. If I went with dexterity I would have gotten +1 AC, +1 to dex saves/stealth checks, +1 initiative, and +2 to attack rolls if I swapped with finesse weapons. If I had elected for strength it would have saw me with +1 attack rolls, +1 damage, and +1 to str saves/checks.

I play my barbarian with a little more fluidity in weapon style and a lot of it is influenced because I'm not a bear totem barbarian although in practice I haven't seen damage sources that I'm not resistant to in a rage, longsword+shield, longsword two-handed, or longsword and handaxe.

[Spookykid]

I do consider myself a semi-expert, knight archer in adrian empire, build bows and arrows.

If you talking a grizzly, which people thought was insane to take down with a bow, its totally placement but you still have to get through the hide and into vital organs. Once your bow hits a certain poundage and can penetrate, everything else is bonus.

good archery resource https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/

[qube]

Does real-world (lower case) strength have a positive impact on an archer's ability to drop an opponent? Undoubtedly.And that's what I was saying ... Perhaps you can understand now why I came of as snarky when people claim only a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds could credibly make such statements?


> Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

I am currently playing a Halfling barbarian I'm not sure barbarian is the best example. Considering rage only works on strength; it would be like using rogues as example why DEX is a superior stat. The comparision is in a void, with no {stat-only} class features

[Ixidor92]

Just speaking from personal experience, I don't feel like dex is an overpowered stat at all in this edition. Now granted, I'm coming from a background primarily in 3.5, but what they did was allow a player who wants a dex-based character to do so without needing to plan out their character build extensively. Apart from myself, most of my friends enjoy d&d on a fairly casual level, so when someone wants to play a dex-based character in 3.5 I need to work with them either through butt-tons of magic items that are tailored to them, or sit in and help them with their build, which neither of us particularly enjoys. In 5e, that's no longer a concern. You only have to worry about what weapons and armor your character can use effectively, which is true for every character. In the specific example given (dex fighter with rapier vs str fighter with longsword) yes the dex fighter looks like they have a slight advantage, but that doesn't account for what types of monsters they'll be fighting in the regular adventuring career, or what environments they'll be fighting in. Ultimately I'm glad for the change, since now my players can just make the cool characters they want to and we don't have to sit down for an hour-long session of how they'll be effective with the other party members.

[Willie the Duck]

And that's what I was saying ... Perhaps you can understand now why I came of as snarky when people claim only a forensic surgical consult or medieval combat anthropologist with a specialty in battlefield wounds could credibly make such statements?

So you did take offense? And this is not your standard, completely situation-neutral behavior? That is actually very reassuring. Thank you for clarifying.

Okay, well, again, I will simply reiterate my point that I wanted, for my own threshold of being convinced, some external linkage to be pointed to that we could check out. I did specify hunter as an option, in the surgeon-referencing passage where I stated that just foot-per-second calculations didn't tell us enough--and what you have brought forth after that statement is externally verifiable hunting information. From my perspective, this case can be simplified to:
P1: I posit this, based on my experience.
P2: I as a policy don't trust claims made on forums, can you reference a source? We're talking about dropping from wounds, not just archery, so I would think it should be something in the realm of x,y,z
P1: You mean like this <z-related reference>?
P2: Yes, excellent!
And scene!



I'm not sure barbarian is the best example. Considering rage only works on strength; it would be like using rogues as example why DEX is a superior stat. The comparision is in a void, with no {stat-only} class features

Agreed. Seems like rogue, fighter, fighter-rogue, and paladin would be the intuitive choices. Although, if you can make a dex-based barbarian work, that would be a pretty compelling anecdote in favor of dex! Talderas's case seems more like making the best of a rough situation (starting with <16 in your combat stat as a martial class).

[Willie the Duck]

I'm coming from a background primarily in 3.5, but what they did was allow a player who wants a dex-based character to do so without needing to plan out their character build extensively. Apart from myself, most of my friends enjoy d&d on a fairly casual level, so when someone wants to play a dex-based character in 3.5 I need to work with them either through butt-tons of magic items that are tailored to them, or sit in and help them with their build, which neither of us particularly enjoys.

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.

[Ixidor92]

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.

That would be my guess too. At the end of the day, even if dexterity were objectively more powerful in most situations than strength (which I don't think it is) the important question is does a strength based character in a game feel inferior to a dex based character in the same game, and I haven't seen evidence of that in the 5e games that I've played.

[Tanarii]

Without hearing from the developers, that seems to me like the most likely reasons why they made the shift to automatic finesse for appropriate weapons and dex damage with ranged weapons (and strength to attack with thrown weapons is probably a compensatory thing). From a gamist perspective, it is at least in theory great that any given combat class only needs 1 of Dex or Str to fight, given that any given spellcaster (excluding multiclass) will only need one stat as their attack/enemy-save modifier.
THAC0 / BAB was primarily driven by your class & level in Classic/AD&D/3e. Having a high Str or Dex could provide a high relative bonus at low levels, but as you gained levels it rapidly became a fairly small part of your chance to hit.

To 'to hit' / Save DC are (very roughly) derived 1/2 from proficiency and half from ability score mod in 5e. That makes having your primary or secondary apply to your classes main method of attack a necessity.

In short, if Rogues and Monks were going to be able to make Melee attacks, along with allowing it as an option for some classes that make them as secondary attacks, either they each needed special feature like Martial Arts, or there needed to be some generic limited way to use Dex for Melee attacks.

I just wish they'd thought through the Rapier before giving it the same one-handed damage as Str one handed weapons.

[Talamare]

I think that is a bigger problem of which this Dex issue is a symptom. Why aren't all the ability scores necessary for all characters? Clearly no character can be great at everything, but the concept of a dump stat should not exist. The choice to sacrifice one stat for another should be a choice that has significant consequences regardless of your class.

Now, having a party of characters with different strengths is great, and should be the way to address weak stats, but there should still be consequences for choices. As it is most characters can completely ignore two or more stats with only minimal inconvenience.

I feel like I 80% agree with this.

The core system is kinda of poorly designed in that they basically added stats without consideration to what the stats do.
WoW and many MMOs had similar problems with time. While initially all stats provided some small benefit, it caused too many issues with stupid/greedy players getting the wrong stats for their class.

I worry that at this point DnD is too set in stone to purge stats or completely revamp the system.

Let's use some more Video Game examples...
Elders Scrolls basically threw away their core Stat System in favor of emphasizing their Skill bases system
Fallout still has their SPECIAL system, but its considered by many by far one of the most awkward systems around. All stats are important... and All stats are garbage... depending on how you play.


I don't know, let's go on a tangent for a moment.
I think having stats completely removed is a bad idea. I understand the arguments for it "then you're 100% free to roleplay 100% freely". Which is kinda of true, but there is also the problem in that if you're told to imagine absolutely anything without limitations you end up not imagining very much. So I feel stats provide a guide to be able to imagine even more creative things.

So you do need stats and you need for them to matter.

=========
I want to talk about the Firefly RPG system for a little bit that involves only 3 core stats, Mental, Physical, Social. You only really have 3 levels for each one. Good, Neutral, Bad. The difference being a d6, d8, or d10. The thing about it is that this isn't actually enough to succeed at anything. Then there are dozens of substats like Piloting, Shooting, Survival, Craft... etc... That are analogous to skills in DnD. Except unlike Skill these affect EVERYTHING you can do, as well as unlike the current Skill System in DnD that is binary Trained or Not Trained. They each have several levels of "training", depending on your specific character. So, I could have a d8 for Crafting, a d4 for Shooting, a d10 for Melee Combat... etc

Depending on the situation a roll could use any combinations of the 2. So if you're teaching someone how to fix an engine you might use Craft & Social. If you're attempting to shoot rope that will drop a chandelier on someone; you might roll Mental and Shoot.

Oh, as well as the system is designed to scale the punishment and reward. If you fail by a small margin the punishment for failure will be small. Hell, it might even still be successful. but with alternative consequences. As well as if you succeed with a large margin, you basically get affected by a 'Bard Inspiration' type dice.

The major downside to the Firefly RP system is that while the RP system is fairly rewarding... the Combat in this system is pretty pathetic. There is no real tactical gameplay. Not to mention it's always at the mercy of die rolls.
==========
I'm also reminded of a simple game on Steam called Punch Club, it also uses 3 core stats. The core stat themselves affect everything your character does which is cool. So there is no core dump stat... but this game is a bright star in how to basically do skills wrong.

Example, if you focus strength your abilities do a ton of damage but cost a ton of energy... So they made a bunch of Strength based skills have special effects to make them cost less energy.
if you focuses stamina, you would have a ton of energy but low damage; the goal is to outlast your oppoent... So they made Stamina skills cost a ton of energy, and deal much higher base damage.

Basically, if you focused a stat to have a unique fighting style. Then the unique moves you would unlock for doing so... basically cancelled your strengths and fixed your weaknesses. Meaning in the end, despite everyone having vastly different builds... Everyone fought exactly 100% the same.
===========

I'ma stop ranting for now, I'll rant more later

[rigolgm]

DEX is clearly better than STR, even for most combat classes.

I think a big problem is how little DMs/players bother with encumberance/lifting considerations. Lifting capacity is the only thing that brings STR even close to DEX in terms of efficiency.

Unless you're only using the basic encumberance rules, a simple 'explorers pack' alone contains so much equipment that it's almost heavy enough to impose a 'minus 10' movement penalty on a player with STR10.

I bet there are a lot of PCs out there (especially those legions of STR10, DEX20 Fighters and Rangers etc) who probably should be receiving that penalty.

I know it's DM discretion and optional, but I think it's balanced and good for roleplaying (get a mule! don't be tooled-up like a battleship!).

[KorvinStarmast]

I think a big problem is how little DMs/players bother with encumbrance/lifting considerations. Lifting capacity is the only thing that brings STR even close to DEX in terms of efficiency.

Unless you're only using the basic encumbrance rules, a simple 'explorers pack' alone contains so much equipment that it's almost heavy enough to impose a 'minus 10' movement penalty on a player with STR 10.
Yep. In our games, encumbrance rules are in play.

[mephnick]

Also idiot DMs allowing Acrobatics to replace Athletics for climbing and other things because they've watched too much anime. Athletics should be the most important skill in the game if you're actually adventuring.

[Knaight]

Also idiot DMs allowing Acrobatics to replace Athletics for climbing and other things because they've watched too much anime. Athletics should be the most important skill in the game if you're actually adventuring.

Spells eat into this more than a little, and there's other skills that are also really important for adventuring. Perception and Survival come to mind.

[mephnick]

Spells eat into this more than a little, and there's other skills that are also really important for adventuring. Perception and Survival come to mind.

Oh sure. But comparing Dex specifically, most of the Dex skills are actually pretty useless in most situations, which is part of why I wonder where this idea that Dex is God came from. Dex is one of my go to dump stats.

[Cybren]

Oh sure. But comparing Dex specifically, most of the Dex skills are actually pretty useless in most situations, which is part of why I wonder where this idea that Dex is God came from. Dex is one of my go to dump stats.

dex can be used for attack, AC, initiative, more skills, and a more common saving throw.
Strength can be used for attack, AC (by access to heavier armor), one frequently useful skills, and a much less common saving throw.

Under the default encumbrance rules, strength doesn't really matter much, but it does in variant encumbrance, so in some games strength is more important that way, but otherwise, you get more "for free" if your primary attack stat is Dex, but I don't really think it's _that_ relevant.

[Twizzly513]

Don't forget that Str fighters get magical armor eventually. Assuming best possible scenario, +3 plate and +3 shield along with the protection fighting style gives you a total of 27 AC. This is high level but still

[Eric Diaz]

Just a note:

All this talk about longbows requiring strength (I think they do, but have nothing to add to the conversation), nobody thinks that rapiers should use some strength too?

EDIT: also, even though I am not a fan, here is one house rule: you damage dice is limited to 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of you Str for off-hand, main hand and two handed weapons. Round up. Using a d8 weapon in one hand would require Str 15; d12 weapons with two hands, Str 16.

Probably too fiddly and punishing.

I'd rather give some bonuses; half Str bonus to finesse weapons, half Dex bonus for Str weapons. You'd use the same numbers for grappling and avoiding a grapple. Well, just brainstorming here.

[Tanarii]

Also idiot DMs allowing Acrobatics to replace Athletics for climbing and other things because they've watched too much anime. Athletics should be the most important skill in the game if you're actually adventuring.
Climbing doesn't require any check at all unless you're doing something extreme. Nor jumping. Nor swimming Basically, basic adventuring stuff aspect of Athletics is considered automatic.

You still need it if you're planning to Climb (Sheer) Walls like an old-school Thief though.

[Avonar]

Man, wait until you play the Yawning Portal dungeons where if the combined strength of the whole party isn't high enough, you miss out on goodies.

[Erit]

Just a note:

All this talk about longbows requiring strength (I think they do, but have nothing to add to the conversation), nobody thinks that rapiers should use some strength too?

EDIT: also, even though I am not a fan, here is one house rule: you damage dice is limited to 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of you Str for off-hand, main hand and two handed weapons. Round up. Using a d8 weapon in one hand would require Str 15; d12 weapons with two hands, Str 16.

Probably too fiddly and punishing.

I'd rather give some bonuses; half Str bonus to finesse weapons, half Dex bonus for Str weapons. You'd use the same numbers for grappling and avoiding a grapple. Well, just brainstorming here.

Grod's Law: You cannot compensate for bad game mechanics by making them annoying to use.

[Eric Diaz]

Grod's Law: You cannot compensate for bad game mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Fair enough!