Anyone else have trouble with this? STR vs DEX

[jaappleton]

Now, there are many times where you have the option of going Strength or Dex focused. Melee Rangers and Melee Fighters, so long as you aren't using GWF, for example. And of course, the viable but not too often seen Strength Rogue. Even the Sword and Board Paladin can be perfectly fine as Dex or Strength focused

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?

[Crgaston]

It’s not really a struggle, as I prefer Dexy archer types, but yeah, I always like to have a 12 on those and a 14 on my Str builds. I just started with a Str based fighter/rogue last night.

[stoutstien]

Now, there are many times where you have the option of going Strength or Dex focused. Melee Rangers and Melee Fighters, so long as you aren't using GWF, for example. And of course, the viable but not too often seen Strength Rogue. Even the Sword and Board Paladin can be perfectly fine as Dex or Strength focused

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?

If your DM disregards encumbrance, grappling, and gives no distention of athletics in general then yes Dex is better.

[Lyracian]

Unless you are building that Pole-arm master it does seem Dex is better. Variant encumbrance rules help to make Str more viable.

Heavy Armour gets you one extra point of AC eventually. It will depend on how easy getting the cash or magical plate is your game.

I am the same and want to play the heavy Armour Fighter but it always seems the weaker choice.

Maybe we need more strength based traps and pits to jump making good athletics useful.

[stoutstien]

A good variant rule I use that you can only break a grapple using strength.
Man oh man do giant kin love to grab stuff.

[Unoriginal]

Now, there are many times where you have the option of going Strength or Dex focused. Melee Rangers and Melee Fighters, so long as you aren't using GWF, for example. And of course, the viable but not too often seen Strength Rogue. Even the Sword and Board Paladin can be perfectly fine as Dex or Strength focused

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?

DEX isn't better.

If you think that the benefits for STR builds aren't worth playing later in the round and getting hit a bit more by DEX save spells, then I have to question how you "want to go Strength" or to be "big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword".


The last character a player made for my campaign is a Variant Human STR Fighter with Heavy Armor Master. They're level 2. You can imagine how much butts it will kick next session.



If your DM disregards encumbrance, grappling, and gives no distention of athletics in general then yes Dex is better.

Yeah, like usual. DEX is only better if STR gets slapped down.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Now, there are many times where you have the option of going Strength or Dex focused. Melee Rangers and Melee Fighters, so long as you aren't using GWF, for example. And of course, the viable but not too often seen Strength Rogue. Even the Sword and Board Paladin can be perfectly fine as Dex or Strength focused

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?

Yes, its a flaw in the game. If you don't play weight restrictions (and who does? boooring), why play STR at all? Amazing how awesome little gnomes and halflings and waif thin elves can't even carry their starting gear...

You'd have to find ways to punish DEX equally since you can't make STR more useful. Eliminate the use of DEX to defeat a grapple.

Make the rapier a D6. No way outside of a crit it does more damage in a single blow than a shortsword thrust or a hit from a roman javelin.

Make longbow have a strength restriction to ST11.

Make medium Xbow take two actions to fire if STR 10 or less).

Add levels of exhaustion for anyone wearing armor (incl light) if STR less than 11.


Do you want to do this? No. Rant over.

[LudicSavant]

I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, Dexterity is usually better than Strength. However there are a few reasons to care about Strength, or having a Strength-compatible build. These are mainly...

- You want to grapple or shove things as a core function of your build.

- You want to be a Polearm Master, or take pre-severe-nerf Shield Master.

- Multiclassing requirements can occasionally make investing in Dexterity tough. This is mostly just an issue for Paladins.

- The wide variety of Strength-boosting magic items. This isn't a reason to have a high Strength score, but it is a reason to have a Strength-based build, especially if you can get your hands on any of the Giant's Belts that push your Strength beyond 20. Getting your Dexterity above 20, let alone without a baseline investment in it, is very difficult.

On the other hand, this could also be seen as a reason to not bother making a character who is actually burly as a result of their physique, rather than their gear.

[Tanarii]

If I want to be able to use melee weapins other than dagger, shortswords, scimitar or rapier, I'd want to play Str.

Locking yourself out of a multitude of magic weapon finds for your melee character seems ... unwise.

[LudicSavant]

If you don't plan to initiate grapples, you can escape them with Dexterity (Acrobatics) or other means.

Encumbrance in 5e is pretty generous, and in general there are a lot of low-investment ways to carry more weight (sometimes more weight than the Strength characters) without Strength if you want to.

Athletics likewise tends to have a lot of substitute solutions.

[Misterwhisper]

Str can make better use of:

Shield master due to better shove chance
Polearm Master due to none being finesse
Great weapon fighting same as PAM

Dex can make better use of:

Being able to cover both ranged and melee combat
Many more skills including one that is also a defense for grappling
A much more important save
Archery is just plain better in most cases
Throwing is very gimped so str based ranged combat is pretty bad


Both the same at:

Dual wielding not that anyone cares
Sword and board fighting


Honestly considering how much better the str based combat feats are than any of the dex ones I would not call it a problem.

The problem is athletics is the only str skill and you can just your acrobatics for defense instead.


Str is a stat one person in the group needs but dex is a stat just about everyone needs.

[stoutstien]

Yes, its a flaw in the game. If you don't play weight restrictions (and who does? boooring), why play STR at all? Amazing how awesome little gnomes and halflings and waif thin elves can't even carry their starting gear...

You'd have to find ways to punish DEX equally since you can't make STR more useful.

Make the rapier a D6. No way outside of a crit it does more damage in a single blow than a shortsword thrust or a hit from a roman javelin.

Make longbow have a strength restriction to ST11.

Make medium Xbow take two actions to fire if STR 10 or less).

Add levels of exhaustion for anyone wearing armor (incl light) if STR less than 11.


Do you want to do this? No. Rant over.

So str sucks because you don't like to play with the rules that make it useful and your solution is to rewrite all the different mechanics that affect Dex instead?

[Spiritchaser]

Don’t forget the other side of the coin

Most rogues make very poor second story folk. This is really annoying.

The excessive separation of strength and Dex is artificial, and awkward

But... it’s also much simpler than most other options.

[stoutstien]

If you don't plan to initiate grapples, you can escape them with Dexterity (Acrobatics) or other means.

Encumbrance in 5e is pretty generous, and in general there are a lot of low-investment ways to carry more weight (sometimes more weight than the Strength characters) without Strength if you want to.

Athletics likewise tends to have a lot of substitute solutions.

That's a problem with DM thinking they need to be flexible with ability checks instead of flexible with how skills work.
A test of strength should not be replaceable with anything else. Period.
Now there could be a case where you could use your proficiency with acrobatics to enhance that strength check but it's still a strength check.

[LudicSavant]

That's a problem with DM thinking they need to be flexible with ability checks instead of flexible with how skills work.
A test of strength should not be replaceable with anything else. Period.

What so, you think someone's a bad DM if they let you blow up a door by some means other than a Strength check, such as any of the many methods given to do so in the rules? Or if you can figure out a way across a chasm other than jumping? Or if you can lug 500 pounds without a single point in Strength because there are abilities that just let you do that? Or if they let you use Acrobatics to escape a grapple exactly like the rules say?

I think that blaming "a problem with DM thinking" for things that are just plain in the rules is pretty silly. And that if D&D only allowed one way to skin a cat, no exceptions, "period" it would be a significantly worse game.

[Aquillion]

If your DM disregards encumbrance, grappling, and gives no distention of athletics in general then yes Dex is better.But there are valid reasons for all of those houserules; encumbrance is a pain, using Acrobatics to escape from a grapple is both RAW and logical, and it's reasonable for the Dex-focused thief to be annoyed that they suck at climbing. (Yes, yes, I'm not interested in discussions about realism - skills are weak enough as-is without fixating on that. Thematically, the nimble thief is usually portrayed as better at climbing, in fiction, than the musclebound barbarian, and it's reasonable for players to want the game to cater to that.)

I feel like it's worth coming up with a list of additional small houserules or approaches that would add value to Strength:

1. Allow Strength for Intimidate checks (already an optional rule, I think, but it'd be worth codifying that it's always allowed.)

2. Encourage Strength ability checks. They do come up more than most other stats - bending bars, breaking locks, etc.

I feel like there's a way to simplify the encumbrance rules, too. It might be cool if certain objects were tagged as Heavy, and you're allowed to carry a certain number of Heavy things based on your Strength. This avoids detailed tracking of specific weight limits while still preserving the thematic that your strong barbarian type can carry more.

[Cynthaer]

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?
So, a lot of people are responding with general, abstract comparisons of Str and Dex, and that's fine.

I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.

To start with, would you mind picking a specific character concept that you'd like to build as Str, but feel compelled to build as Dex instead? Then we can explore the numbers on that a bit further.

[LudicSavant]

So, a lot of people are responding with general, abstract comparisons of Str and Dex, and that's fine.

I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.

To start with, would you mind picking a specific character concept that you'd like to build as Str, but feel compelled to build as Dex instead? Then we can explore the numbers on that a bit further.

Seems like a productive route.

Perhaps a Simic Hybrid with grappling limbs (which is basically like getting the benefits of Tavern Brawler, plus extra limbs that can't do fine manipulation) who can use thrown weapons with Extra Attacks because they can carry javelins in their extra limbs (they can't manipulate them well, but they can carry them and switching items between limbs is a non-action). And at close range they can shove/grapple people so they can't get up, maintain the grapple with their extra limbs, and have hands free for both a shield and melee weapon to go to town. Take advantage of Manta Glide to get around faster (since it converts falling speed into horizontal distance).

[stoutstien]

But there are valid reasons for all of those houserules; encumbrance is a pain, using Acrobatics to escape from a grapple is both RAW and logical, and it's reasonable for the Dex-focused thief to be annoyed that they suck at climbing. (Yes, yes, I'm not interested in discussions about realism - skills are weak enough as-is without fixating on that. Thematically, the nimble thief is usually portrayed as better at climbing, in fiction, than the musclebound barbarian, and it's reasonable for players to want the game to cater to that.)

I feel like it's worth coming up with a list of additional small houserules or approaches that would add value to Strength:

1. Allow Strength for Intimidate checks (already an optional rule, I think, but it'd be worth codifying that it's always allowed.)

2. Encourage Strength ability checks. They do come up more than most other stats - bending bars, breaking locks, etc.

I feel like there's a way to simplify the encumbrance rules, too. It might be cool if certain objects were tagged as Heavy, and you're allowed to carry a certain number of Heavy things based on your Strength. This avoids detailed tracking of specific weight limits while still preserving the thematic that your strong barbarian type can carry more.
Don't attach abilities to skill. That started the whole problem we have now with the ablity and skills.

I think the problem is a lot of people think if they have Dex really high they can safely dump strength and vise versa. You want to be a thief it's really good at climbing grab a 12 in str and 16 in dex. Then enhance it with expertise in both athletic and acrobatics.

[Lance Tankmen]

never had this problem as a DM, but i use variant encumbrance . people Act like its crazy to use, but just do 5Xstr because 90% of people dont wanna lose 10 ft of speed. I also track most my players and feel i do fine. dropping things is a free action so most my players set their back pack down before a fight.


so i track gear that cant be thrown off easy IE weapons armor belt pouches clothes, then anything on the back pack. if the pack and accessories brings you past your limit just drop it during a fight or invest in a cart/bag of holding, or dont dump str.

[deljzc]

Use an initiative system that doesn't use dexterity.

I like some of the ideas above as well. Particularly with a long bow/strength connection and maybe limiting rapiers to 1d6. Makes sense to me.

[Spiritchaser]

it's reasonable for the Dex-focused thief to be annoyed that they suck at climbing. (Yes, yes, I'm not interested in discussions about realism - skills are weak enough as-is without fixating on that. Thematically, the nimble thief is usually portrayed as better at climbing, in fiction, than the musclebound barbarian, and it's reasonable for players to want the game to cater to that.)



Im going to dwell on this a bit because I think it’s pretty relevant here.

Climbing checks come up a lot. I’d say at least once a play session minimum, and the penalty for failure can be... severe.

As you note, our view of rogues in fiction casts them as generally good climbers. 5e does not reflect this well.

Our experience of rock climbers will vary, but generally we’d perceive them as having high strength to weight ratio and excellent endurance, rather than maximized raw physical strength.

If we happen to climb ourselves, we’ll recall the slabby traverses or counterforce smears on weird angles that are almost all balance, these could well be DEX

The (?!?!) moments where no obvious move will work? those could be int or wis checks....

But probably 75%+ of the hard stuff feels like strength or endurance... Str or Con... unless you happen to seek out balance routes.

It doesn’t really add much to the game to include all these different checks... but it would add something if we could have characters who were well able to handle the conceptual space they occupy.

For me, Rogues, climbing and strength are a significant game shortfall in 5e.

[Willie the Duck]

For the most part, people are correct that Dex beats Str at exactly the point where you've already chosen a specific build -- i.e. excluding GWM, PAM, Shield Master (un-nerfed), etc. because of course then you choose Str and when the DM makes special allowances unhindering the Dex decisions (not just ignoring encumbrance and allowing Acrobatics to work for Athletics checks or whatnot, but also populating the treasure pile with Dex-specific weapons and studded leather armor). There's really nothing to say about this because 1) yes, plenty of DM's do do this, and/but 2) how exactly are you going to make a rulesystem resilient to DM's ignoring vast swaths of it (especially without making Str overpowered in games where the DM doesn't)?

The really big issues for me is the disparity between Dex save and Str save prevalence (which is, along with the nominal Int and Cha saves, is an overall game issue/design flaw that is very real, but not exactly Str-Dex exclusive) and the fact that a Dex-based ranged character (perhaps with SS and/or XBE) can draw a rapier and be OK at melee in a pinch, while a dedicated Str-based character (either S&B+SM or GWM/PAM/Senitinel) can't pinch hit in the ranged game nearly as well (especially post lvl 5, barring houserules for javelin drawing).

[Unoriginal]

Thematically, the nimble thief is usually portrayed as better at climbing, in fiction, than the musclebound barbarian, and it's reasonable for players to want the game to cater to that.



As you note, our view of rogues in fiction casts them as generally good climbers. 5e does not reflect this well.


Thief Rogue says hi. Then escapes with your valuables.




I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.


I have a question regarding this.

Jaapleton, what do you actually want out of a STR build?

Not focusing on what they can't do or can't do well. What do you want a STR character to do?

[Malbrack]

There are 2 tightly-related problems with Strength in 5e:
1. Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma saves come up way less frequently than Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom saves.
2. It is so easy to substitute Dexterity(Acrobatics) for Strength(Athletics) in many cases.

This leads to Strength being easy to dump for players at most tables. (Even if you play with encumbrance rules, studded leather is only 13 pounds.) In fact, almost 100% of the build guides recommend dumping at least one of Strength, Int, or Charisma.

Of course, that doesn't make Strength useless. There are plenty of builds who can make good use of it. It just ends up being treated more like Intelligence as an attribute (i.e., good for some, but not very useful for many).

[jaappleton]

So, a lot of people are responding with general, abstract comparisons of Str and Dex, and that's fine.

I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.

To start with, would you mind picking a specific character concept that you'd like to build as Str, but feel compelled to build as Dex instead? Then we can explore the numbers on that a bit further.

Fair. A solid point.

1. Bladelock. Not Hexblade. Starting with only Light Armor, its damn close to impossible to do it without MCing. There are certain ways, like VHuman for Medium Armor and just a point or two into Dex, or Warforged, even Tortle. But it makes you pick a race around it, in order to make it work.

2. Ranger. Odd they don't get Heavy Armor, but I kinda get it. Gotta be somewhat nimble stealthing around the wilderness, I suppose. But medium armor forces you to use SOME Dex. There's pretty much zero reason to go TWF as a strength based character, and they don't even get the Great Weapon Fighting style if you wanted to go that route.

[Unoriginal]

2. It is so easy to substitute Dexterity(Acrobatics) for Strength(Athletics) in many cases.

No, it's not.

The only easy substitution between Dexterity(Acrobatics) for Strength(Athletics) is to escape grapple checks. There is little to none overlap otherwise.

[Malbrack]

No, it's not.

The only easy substitution between Dexterity(Acrobatics) for Strength(Athletics) is to escape grapple checks. There is little to none overlap otherwise.

I see DMs allowing more than just escape from grappling to be covered by either.

Even in the rules as written, you can escape from bonds with either Strength or Dexterity. In one you "break free of bonds." In the other, you "wriggle free of bonds." But the effect is the same. You're free.

[Spiritchaser]

Thief Rogue says hi. Then escapes with your valuables.


Assassin rogue attempts to climb down inside lavatory, ready to stab the target in an especially vulnerable place, but falls in the... well you can guess.

Swashbuckler rogue falls out of the rigging

Scout rogue tries to get a good vantage point but falls out of a tree

There’s no conceptual need for the mastermind to climb...

[MrStabby]

For the most part, people are correct that Dex beats Str at exactly the point where you've already chosen a specific build -- i.e. excluding GWM, PAM, Shield Master (un-nerfed), etc. because of course then you choose Str and when the DM makes special allowances unhindering the Dex decisions (not just ignoring encumbrance and allowing Acrobatics to work for Athletics checks or whatnot, but also populating the treasure pile with Dex-specific weapons and studded leather armor). There's really nothing to say about this because 1) yes, plenty of DM's do do this, and/but 2) how exactly are you going to make a rulesystem resilient to DM's ignoring vast swaths of it (especially without making Str overpowered in games where the DM doesn't)?

The really big issues for me is the disparity between Dex save and Str save prevalence (which is, along with the nominal Int and Cha saves, is an overall game issue/design flaw that is very real, but not exactly Str-Dex exclusive) and the fact that a Dex-based ranged character (perhaps with SS and/or XBE) can draw a rapier and be OK at melee in a pinch, while a dedicated Str-based character (either S&B+SM or GWM/PAM/Senitinel) can't pinch hit in the ranged game nearly as well (especially post lvl 5, barring houserules for javelin drawing).

I do question how prevalent the difference in frequency of saves is. For the PCs yes - I can see the frequency of each save for each spell in the PHB, but this is what they put out, not what they face.

Strength saves are not rare in my campaign, and there are certainly ones you don't want to fail. Not just the entangling spells that bind you but monsters with grapple abilities or strength saves to avoid being swallowed whole. Also common are the Str ability check where you want to rely on your own strength a bit more as you can't count on a handy paladin being nearby to assist.



In general I would pick dex over strength for a featless game but add feats in and I think it flips. Certainly I think things like Polearm mastery/sentinel close the gap for a lot of characters. In interesting environments where positioning wrt cliff edges, venomous bushes, spiked pits etc matter then strength and the ability to shove/grapple matter a lot more.

[stoutstien]

I see DMs allowing more than just escape from grappling to be covered by either.
The classes that are meant to bypass these checks without using strength have the mechanics built in. Like a monk doesn't need to worry about low str as far as jumping or climbing with step to the wind and wall running.
If a DM is allowing players to bypass ability checks by substituting another one of course it's going to fell like your character has lost value because it has.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you're making climbing checks, check which edition you're playing. Normal surfaces don't require checks for anyone. Only "particularly smooth or vertical ones" may (and only at DM discretion) require a check at all.

[Spiritchaser]

The classes that are meant to bypass these checks without using strength have the mechanics built in. Like a monk doesn't need to worry about low str as far as jumping or climbing with step to the wind and wall running.
If a DM is allowing players to bypass ability checks by substituting another one of course it's going to fell like your character has lost value because it has.

Second story work is a big deal, but it doesn’t actually let you climb with Dex, and it’s only on thief...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Second story work is a big deal, but it doesn’t actually let you climb with Dex, and it’s only on thief...

You're not making climb checks at all under normal circumstances.

Plus, if you don't want to be worse at climbing, there's no need to dump STR. It's not like the two can't coexist on the same character. And if needed, you could even (heresy, I know), put expertise into Athletics. Covering up weak spots is a good use of class resources, after all.

[stoutstien]

Second story work is a big deal, but it doesn’t actually let you climb with Dex, and it’s only on thief...
rogues have multiple ways to be good at str ability checks. if a player decides to not take advantage of them they can only blame themselves. they can even make up with a low str score with expertise.

[Spiritchaser]

rogues have multiple ways to be good at str ability checks. if a player decides to not take advantage of them they can only blame themselves. they can even make up with a low str score with expertise.

Nor is there any law demanding that a fighter cannot take some Dex.

I am arguing that the rogue’s need for strength to do their job is as great or greater than a strength fighter’s need for Dex in order to do theirs.

[Bjarkmundur]

Heavy Armor being locked behind 13 and 15 str makes investment worth it for most. Without this Strength would only survive in barbarians

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nor is there any law demanding that a fighter cannot take some Dex.

I am arguing that the rogue’s need for strength to do their job is as great or greater than a strength fighter’s need for Dex in order to do theirs.

And that I can agree with completely. For some reason people think they all they can totally min max: 1 of STR/DEX and one mental score. And dump the others. Makes for bland, incompetent characters IMO.

[stoutstien]

Nor is there any law demanding that a fighter cannot take some Dex.

I am arguing that the rogue’s need for strength to do their job is as great or greater than a strength fighter’s need for Dex in order to do theirs.

which is true but fighters don't get expertise. also i challenge the premise of class=jobs or rolls.

@ phoenixphyre agree 100%. dumb stats shouldn't hamstring a character but it should be an opportunity cost

[Aquillion]

And that I can agree with completely. For some reason people think they all they can totally min max: 1 of STR/DEX and one mental score. And dump the others. Makes for bland, incompetent characters IMO.I think it's a bit silly to suggest that simple numbers can make a character bland. A character is more than a collection of stats.

But the more general point is that in the fiction D&D is generally based on, strength is unrelated to climbing - it's not what players would expect to use. Telling them "no, you must use Strength because these research papers show that in reality it is about upper-body strength" is silly. Telling them "no, you must use Strength because the book says you must use strength" is even worse.

I know you feel you're denouncing min-maxing, but it seems to me that what you're actually doing is demanding that players optimize - that is, if you get a new player at their table who went 8 Strength and 15 Dex to make their climbing-focused assassin (because that's their character concept and fiction has told them that that concept is reasonable), your answer is "nope, your assassin is incompetent. If you want to be able to climb, you should ignore your concept and optimize to be good at it."

You're not suggesting less optimization. You're just advocating a different kind of optimization.

That's bad for the game. The mechanics should reflect players' intuitions in a way that ensures that the most logical concepts simply work when represented in the mechanics in the obvious ways. People who optimize will always optimize - if you insist on only Strength for climbing, you're going to make the optimizers and min-maxers happy (in the long run, after some initial grumbling because they need to fiddle with their optimized builds), and will make the people who just take what makes sense to them in terms of character-concept sad.

That is why most people allow Dex for climbing. Not to make the optimizers happy - optimizers will do whatever is optimal, by definition, so if you tell them they need X, Y, and Z, they'll take X, Y, and Z regardless. The purpose of the houserule is to make the people who don't optimize happy.

(Well, and - if it's impossible to accurately represent the character you want in the game, that makes everyone unhappy. "Your waifish Assassin cannot be an absolute master of both bows and climbing" is not, IMHO, a good thing for the game to state, since those are, again, skills that are reasonably conceptually linked in many sources.)

[stoutstien]

I think it's a bit silly to suggest that simple numbers can make a character bland. A character is more than a collection of stats.

But the more general point is that in the fiction D&D is generally based on, strength is unrelated to climbing - it's not what players would expect to use. Telling them "no, you must use Strength because these research papers show that in reality it is about upper-body strength" is silly. Telling them "no, you must use Strength because the book says you must use strength" is even worse.

I know you feel you're denouncing min-maxing, but it seems to me that what you're actually doing is demanding that players optimize - that is, if you get a new player at their table who went 8 Strength and 15 Dex to make their climbing-focused assassin (because that's their character concept and fiction has told them that that concept is reasonable), your answer is "nope, your assassin is incompetent. If you want to be able to climb, you should ignore your concept and optimize to be good at it."

You're not suggesting less optimization. You're just advocating a different kind of optimization.

once again they can grab expertise in athletics. even with a 8 in str they would have a +2 at lv 2 and then end up with a +10.

[Aquillion]

once again they can grab expertise in athletics. even with a 8 in str they would have a +2 at lv 2 and then end up with a +10.Sure, but see the part I edited in. You're restricting their concept here, which I think you need at least some better justification to do. The game doesn't break by just letting the nimble assassin also be inherently good at climbing, and it fits more towards what players intuitively expect.

[stoutstien]

Sure, but see the part I edited in. You're restricting their concept here, which I think you need at least some better justification to do. The game doesn't break by just letting the nimble assassin also be inherently good at climbing, and it fits more towards what players intuitively expect.
the game gets funky when players are taught to try to apply what stats and skills they are good at to every situation. and for once i actually do blame bad DM habits. DM should think in terms of what ability check to use and then skills not the other way around.

so that assassin would still be at moving up and down to get into position for the kill. it may just be a d20+ str mod+ acrobatics roll.

[Zigludo]

So, a lot of people are responding with general, abstract comparisons of Str and Dex, and that's fine.

I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.

To start with, would you mind picking a specific character concept that you'd like to build as Str, but feel compelled to build as Dex instead? Then we can explore the numbers on that a bit further.


The first character I ever made in 5th Edition was a Variant Human Battlemaster. I planned on using Sentinel, Defense fighting style (first I wanted to take Protection but I was dissuaded by a more experienced player), and a sword and shield. I was really excited about "supporting from the front" with maneuvers and Sentinel attacks and generally putting my enemies into really annoying situations by being difficult to get rid of.

I originally planned on using Strength and heavy armor because, hey, that seems a bit more thematically appropriate, doesn't it? But the more I read into the mechanics, the more I was disappointed by the advantages of Strength over Dexterity for my build:

-The Rapier deals just as much damage as the Longsword when combined with a shield.
-Battlemaster maneuver DCs can key off of Strength or Dexterity, which isn't what I had imagined at first. (Pushing attack can use Dexterity? Okay.)
-Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatics) are equally effective for escaping grapples.
-Chain mail and scale mail give equal amounts of AC at level 1.
-Higher initiative would mean I would be more able to act before the enemy and protect my friends.
-Better Dexterity saving throws would mean a serious increase to my durability in combat and while exploring dungeons and the like.

I eventually realized that, for my build, pumping Strength would mean giving up Dexterity saving throws and initiative, for slightly better AC once I had obtained 1500 gold, and slightly better throwing weapons compared to the Dagger. Overall, Dexterity was the better attack stat.

But rather than give up I just changed my build, lol. I took Shield Master instead, so that I could use Strength to improve the shoves I was performing every turn. Then I took Polearm Master and switched to a Spear, which requires Strength instead of Dexterity. Then I pick up Sentinel. Is that a totally optimized build path? Nah, but I did have fun.

It kind of goes to show what I feel about Strength in general for 5th Edition; it's not always less useful than Dexterity, but it is more niche. Barbarians almost definitely want Strength. Paladins, too. Everyone needs enough to carry their gear, but then they don't really want any more. It's more like a casting stat, whereas Dexterity is up there with Constitution - it's useful for every single character.

[LudicSavant]

I do question how prevalent the difference in frequency of saves is. For the PCs yes - I can see the frequency of each save for each spell in the PHB, but this is what they put out, not what they face.

So I decided to check and went through the Monster Manual. This took me a bit so I hope you guys find it helpful. Here's what I found.

- Approximately 60 Strength saving throws.
- Several of them provide very little detriment to non-Strength characters. For example, "make a Strength save or you get Disadvantage on Strength-based attacks and checks." Kay.
- Most of them just knock you prone or provide a temporary impairment to movement.
- A whole lot of these are from the "animals" subsection.
- Often, multiple things had to go wrong (not just failing the Strength save) for failing the Strength save to really matter.
- They were mostly single target.

- Well over 100 Dexterity saving throws (it was past 100 before I got to counting spells).
- They tended to do something nasty immediately. Often damage (sometimes an awful lot of it), a debilitating effect, or both.
- Some would grapple/prone/slow/immobilize or the like, much like Str saves.
- They more frequently targeted multiple PCs (meaning that more saving throws would be made by characters).

I think it's also safe to say that the DMG has more Dex saves (I could only find a couple Str saves in the DMG, but tons of Dex saves), and that the spell list does too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't believe I've ever had someone make an ability check to climb a surface. I've had them make checks to avoid getting pulled off the surface by someone, but not to climb.

That said, if someone came with a character (why aren't they making it at session 0 like everyone else?) and said that
* their concept involves being able to climb well
* they dumped STR
* and didn't put at least proficiency into Athletics

I'd say that they are being inconsistent. They want to have their cake and eat it too, just like someone who makes the following claim:
* My character is great at talking to people, everyone loves him and does what he says.
* I dumped CHA
* I don't have proficiency in any of the social skills.

That person modeled their character in a way that is incompatible with the mechanics of the game and needs to rebuild. It's that simple.

@LudicSavant: DEX is intentionally a "strong" save (along with CON and WIS). As a result, I'd argue that it should be weak for ability checks.

[stoutstien]

So I decided to check and went through the Monster Manual. This took me a bit so I hope you guys find it helpful. Here's what I found.

- Approximately 60 Strength saving throws.
- Several of them provide very little detriment to non-Strength characters. For example, "make a Strength save or you get Disadvantage on Strength-based attacks and checks." Kay.
- Most of them just knock you prone or provide a temporary impairment to movement.
- A whole lot of these are from the "animals" subsection.
- Often, multiple things had to go wrong (not just failing the Strength save) for failing the Strength save to really matter.
- They were mostly single target.

- Well over 100 Dexterity saving throws (it was past 100 before I got to counting spells).
- They tended to do something nasty immediately. Often damage (sometimes an awful lot of it), a debilitating effect, or both.
- Some would grapple/prone/slow/immobilize or the like, much like Str saves.
- They more frequently targeted multiple PCs (meaning that more saving throws would be made by characters).

I think it's also safe to say that the DMG has more Dex saves (I could only find a couple Str saves in the DMG, but tons of Dex saves), and that the spell list does too.

Yea, wizard really didn't do a good job of making every save relevant. Int is in the same boat. A lot of spells that have force movement are con saves for some reason. The premise of weak/strong saves was a bad move.

[Mellack]

So I decided to check and went through the Monster Manual. This took me a bit so I hope you guys find it helpful. Here's what I found.

- Approximately 60 Strength saving throws.
- Several of them provide very little detriment to non-Strength characters. For example, "make a Strength save or you get Disadvantage on Strength-based attacks and checks." Kay.
- Most of them just knock you prone or provide a temporary impairment to movement.
- A whole lot of these are from the "animals" subsection.
- Often, multiple things had to go wrong (not just failing the Strength save) for failing the Strength save to really matter.
- They were mostly single target.

- Well over 100 Dexterity saving throws (it was past 100 before I got to counting spells).
- They tended to do something nasty immediately. Often damage (sometimes an awful lot of it), a debilitating effect, or both.
- Some would grapple/prone/slow/immobilize or the like, much like Str saves.
- They more frequently targeted multiple PCs (meaning that more saving throws would be made by characters).

I think it's also safe to say that the DMG has more Dex saves (I could only find a couple Str saves in the DMG, but tons of Dex saves), and that the spell list does too.

I agree that they are not balanced, but don't underestimate the power of getting knocked prone. There is a reason shield master is a feat. Our group had a ranger with a wolf pet. Knockdown strength save every time that wolf hit. Failure meant advantage for everyone to attack before the prone enemy's turn, which translated to a lot of extra damage usually.

[patchyman]

Assassin rogue attempts to climb down inside lavatory, ready to stab the target in an especially vulnerable place, but falls in the... well you can guess.

Swashbuckler rogue falls out of the rigging

Scout rogue tries to get a good vantage point but falls out of a tree

There’s no conceptual need for the mastermind to climb...

Well, sure, if they dump Str and don’t take Ath proficiency. The solution is... don’t do that. And if it is really important to you, use one of your 4 (or 6 for the scout) expertise on Ath.

[Lyracian]

And if needed, you could even (heresy, I know), put expertise into Athletics. Covering up weak spots is a good use of class resources, after all.
That is what I have done on my arcane trickster so she can climb.


I'd like to take a more concrete example, and see if we can make you feel good about an actual Str character.

To start with, would you mind picking a specific character concept that you'd like to build as Str, but feel compelled to build as Dex instead? Then we can explore the numbers on that a bit further.
For a one off game I built a Str Fighter with Criminal background giving him Thieves Tools skill. I then went to pick a lock in the dungeon and realised this, Dex 10, character was not really very good at doing so...

[Pex]

No problem at all. Initiative is overrated. It's nice going first but not absolutely crucial. Particular class abilities may want to, and that's fine. Being overrated doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Heavy armor can give high AC too. As for saving throws, yes, you'll make DX saves a lot more than ST saves. That's a matter of personal taste how crucial the difference is. I don't care.

If you value DX more than ST, good for you. I don't need permission to like ST and willingly dump DX should I decide to do so. AC is important to me, so if I can wear heavy armor I will. If not then I take DX into consideration and the character likely doesn't need ST anyway, exception being the barbarian. Fortunately for me I found a balance for my barbarian with the help of dice rolling for ability scores. I'm personally not happy trying to make a barbarian with Point Buy, but that's my issue with Point Buy. If you have no trouble with it, hooray.

For those who enjoy archery, by all means DX all the way.

[stoutstien]

That is what I have done on my arcane trickster so she can climb.


For a one off game I built a Str Fighter with Criminal background giving him Thieves Tools skill. I then went to pick a lock in the dungeon and realised this, Dex 10, character was not really very good at doing so...
Depending on how DM runs locks. With a 10 Dex and Prof you can get past most locks just not as soon as a Dex focused character

[JakOfAllTirades]

Pex makes some good points.

In my experience, STR v. DEX often comes down to class, and more classes prefer DEX over STR. The Barbarian is the only one I can think of with class features that specifically call for use of STR. (I've seen guides for creating DEX based Barbarians; no idea if they're playable.) The other martial classes can go either way. Maybe this would be less of an issue if there were more classes that leaned more towards STR as a default.

In other words, it could considered be a game design issue.

[PwrHngryTortois]

1. Allow Strength for Intimidate checks (already an optional rule, I think, but it'd be worth codifying that it's always allowed.)



That's a cool rule, I'd allow it at my table

[Zigludo]

Pex makes some good points.

In my experience, STR v. DEX often comes down to class, and more classes prefer DEX over STR. The Barbarian is the only one I can think of with class features that specifically call for use of STR. (I've seen guides for creating DEX based Barbarians; no idea if they're playable.) The other martial classes can go either way. Maybe this would be less of an issue if there were more classes that leaned more towards STR as a default.

In other words, it could considered be a game design issue.

There are also some feats that work exclusively from Strength: Great Weapon Master's power attack, Polearm Master, and (one might argue) Heavy Armor Master.

[2D8HP]

Some (well me and maybe a couple others) argue that longbow use is more strength related and longsword use is more dexterity dependent, but just ignoring that (*rant* *rave* *grumble* *fume*) I'd saw DEX is usually better except that when I played Lost Mines of Phandelver it seemed that Athletics rolls were up there with Perception rolls, now you could play a Rogue with Expertise in Athletics and Perception to shore up those rolls if you dump STR (and WIS), but I'd hesitate "dumping" too much.

[JackPhoenix]

Nor is there any law demanding that a fighter cannot take some Dex.

I am arguing that the rogue’s need for strength to do their job is as great or greater than a strength fighter’s need for Dex in order to do theirs.

So, around zero?

[R.Shackleford]

Now, there are many times where you have the option of going Strength or Dex focused. Melee Rangers and Melee Fighters, so long as you aren't using GWF, for example. And of course, the viable but not too often seen Strength Rogue. Even the Sword and Board Paladin can be perfectly fine as Dex or Strength focused

And I want to go Strength. I want to like it. Being big and burly, raining down heavy strikes of my sword.

....but Dex is so much better. Better saving throw, better Initiative, often times its much more tied to your armor class, etc.

Anyone else struggle in picking Str over Dex when given the chance?

This is why the rogue is the most well designed martial class, probably of all time, whennit comes to D&D.

Being able to focus on one ability score, dex or str, but not be worthless in the other is the exact thing that martials need. With no investment a rogue can equal a fighter in athletics.

Expertise is broken that way, but I think it's a good broken. Martials need more broken abilities as magic is users get abilities that get to ignore/change the rules so to speak. So, I'll try to call expertise a rule bender, like spells, rather than broken as broken has a negative connotation.

Strength focus does have its advantages over dexterity focus. Jumping is an overlooked ability (again though, the strength rogue is amazing at this due to cunning action). Even under the nicer rules for carrying capacity, strength is a very nice ability score.

The issue is that the game has shifted focus away from exploration, like the need to bend bars or lift objects, and have shifted toward combat where dexterity does have way more uses. Acrobatics is a defensive skill, initiative is awesome, stealth in combat is useful, and many other things.

One issue is that strength outside of combat can be replicated via other means. Get enough people together and you can lift something heavier than what one can do alone. Need to climb? Unless it's adverse conditions and you need an athletics check... You just climb.

There are some options only available to strength though. Reach weapons that do more than 1d4 damage and can work with certain feats, rage (tho, Wolf Totem works awesome with dex + small race), reckless attack, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

I think strength should apply to medium armor the way that dexterity does. There has been plenty of reasons why in the past with fluff, but mechanically, it would allow a strength based medium armor character and that would balance out well (dex = light armor, str = heavy, dex/str = medium). We already have core wis or con to AC, so strength isn't a stretch at all.

At the end of the day I think for myself I choose strength builds because of the fluff more so than mechanics BUT I find myself never really dumping dex (unless im a cleric, then I dump dex down to 8).

The best way to fix this is to make AC and initiative based on proficiency and class.

[Tanarii]

Our experience of rock climbers will vary, but generally we’d perceive them as having high strength to weight ratio and excellent endurance, rather than maximized raw physical strength.

If we happen to climb ourselves, we’ll recall the slabby traverses or counterforce smears on weird angles that are almost all balance, these could well be DEX
I climb regularly, at least once a week. Strength (Athletics) for most 5e climbing checks, keeping in mind that normal climbing doesn't require a check at all, so difficult climbs, makes perfect sense to me. Strength, at least what 5e Strength says it represents, "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force", is definitely the core of all climbing. Dex traits of "agility, reflexes, and balance" can be relevant, especially balance. But the ability to use your muscles to exert force is always important.

Blatant appeals on my part to personal anecdote, experience no one can verify, real world <-> game abstraction mapping, etc etc. :smallamused:

[Spiritchaser]

I climb regularly, at least once a week. Strength (Athletics) for most 5e climbing checks, keeping in mind that normal climbing doesn't require a check at all, so difficult climbs, makes perfect sense to me. Strength, at least what 5e Strength says it represents, "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force", is definitely the core of all climbing. Dex traits of "agility, reflexes, and balance" can be relevant, especially balance. But the ability to use your muscles to exert force is always important.

Blatant appeals on my part to personal anecdote, experience no one can verify, real world <-> game abstraction mapping, etc etc. :smallamused:

In the general case I wouldn’t disagree on any point

That said, the hardest climb I ever tried (and failed at) was actually mostly about balance. I could get every move, every sequence of 4 moves, and one time, every move but the last

Never got it all though.

Lots of balancing on sloped holds, and keeping your feet juuust perfect while you moved or you were off. Sure there were a few strenuous moves, but those weren’t what made it hard.

If I HAD to set that in 5e, I’d actually make it Dex (athletics), and if it was a first run through I might also require int (athletics) for this crazy sequence you needed near the beginning, maybe fail the int check and you make the Dex check at disadvantage...

But... I’d probably never do that. It just wouldn’t be interesting enough to be worth the time, confusion or trouble.

Going with strength (athletics) or con (athletics) makes the most sense most often, and if I go with that people know what to expect.

[Talionis]

Yes it’s a major issue. There are three important stats and three minor Stats. Dex Con and Wisdom are the important stats. It’s why no class has proficiency with two of them.

Intelligence is the worst Stat. Which pains most players because Generally players like to play smart characters.

Strength just doesn’t do enough in this edition. These choice lead to most Monks having 8 strength which seems silly.

[Aquillion]

Yea, wizard really didn't do a good job of making every save relevant. Int is in the same boat. A lot of spells that have force movement are con saves for some reason. The premise of weak/strong saves was a bad move.It's intentional, and I'm not sure I'd even say it's an entirely bad idea. Reasons:

1. History. They wanted to draw back in 3.5e players after the frosty reception 4e got. And 3.5e used only Wisdom (Will), Dex (Reflex), and Con (Fortitude) saves.

2. More importantly, though, having different saves used for different things makes the choice of save for a spell more meaningful and interesting; making some saves more rare ensures that the things that do call for them feel special. Spells like Phantasmal Force or Synaptic Static feel cooler and more interesting because they target a rarely-used save (Intelligence) that is often, on monsters, fairly low.

I feel it'd be a mistake to make them all equal just for equality's sake. Distinctions like that help keep the game flavorful rather than just being a collection of stats.

Also, it's important to recognize that (contrary to the people criticizing "minmaxing" above), dump stats aren't a problem to be solved. They're a central part of D&D's design - you're supposed to be good at some things and bad at others; classes are intentionally designed to encourage you to favor certain stats and disregard others. When a wizard leaves their Strength at 8, or a Barbarian does the same with their Intelligence, they're playing the game as it's meant to be played. Not the only way it's meant to be played, but they're not doing anything wrong.


Strength just doesn’t do enough in this edition. These choice lead to most Monks having 8 strength which seems silly.Monks are a special case because of their risk of MADness, which they suffered from in prior editions. Thematically, almost every stat could be important to them except Intelligence and Charisma... but the game is designed and balanced around prioritizing three stats, not four.

The need for Dex + Str + Con + [other stat] in many classes and the difficulties it posed when designing / balancing classes was the reason why 5e mostly split Dex and Str into alternative paths that rarely required both.

Now, you probably could design around Monks needing / wanting four stats, and balance them in a way that they're still fun and playable even if the player has to choose and let one of those four drop. But it would lead to the class being very swingy when rolling stats, which isn't really desirable, either; and it would make it harder for new players to use, since you'd need to make an immediately difficult decision at chargen.

[Arkhios]

Sometimes, yes, it has been a nagging thought in the back of my head, as I often feel compelled to optimize a character build but I also struggle with urges to realize a flavorful concept, in which case the less optimal solution would triumph.


Slightly off topic, but from time to time I've been toying with an idea of letting one "combine" strength and dexterity bonuses (negatives would be ignored) up to a total maximum of +5 for damage rolls with some weapons, for a more "realistic" feel (specifically, weapons that might realistically deliver a bigger punch because of your physical effort. As such, crossbows wouldn't benefit, but bows would)

E.g. Str 14 and Dex 12 would be combined to a +3 damage bonus, but a Str 18 and Dex 14 would still be max +5, even though the bonuses are +4 and +2, respectively.

I'm aware this might become weird if/when someone managed to increase either stat above 20, but I think it wouldn't be too big of a bonus if in those cases the total maximum would also increase accordingly.

Also, this house rule wouldn't affect which stats were used for attack rolls.

[Aussiehams]

I like the idea of Finesse letting you to add Dex to hit, but damage is still based off strength.

[Arkhios]

I like the idea of Finesse letting you to add Dex to hit, but damage is still based off strength.

...as it was in 3rd edition.

[Lyracian]

never had this problem as a DM, but i use variant encumbrance . people Act like its crazy to use, but just do 5Xstr because 90% of people dont wanna lose 10 ft of speed. I also track most my players and feel i do fine. dropping things is a free action so most my players set their back pack down before a fight.
I have also been trying to use variant encumbrance rules

Sturm Brightblade Str 16 Paladin can carry 80 Lbs unencumbered
Plate, Shield, Long Sword = 74 lbs
He can barley manage a pouch and some rations before he is slowed down.

Tasslehoff Str 8 Dex 18 Fighter carry 40 Lbs unencumbered
Studded Leather, Shield, Rapier, Longbow, 40 Arrows = 25 Lbs
Plenty of spare carrying capacity for backpack with tools and rope.

Goldmoon Str 8 Cleric
Breastplate, Shield, Mace = 30 Lb
Once again can carry a small pack without difficulty.

I have seem some nice variant encumbrance systems where Strength is used to determine the number of significant items you can carry or the amount that goes in your backpack. Of course this moves it over into House Rules rather than Variant rules.

[R.Shackleford]

...as it was in 3rd edition.

Well, only slightly, you could add pretty much every ability score to damage... All at once... In some capacity.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have also been trying to use variant encumbrance rules

Sturm Brightblade Str 16 Paladin can carry 80 Lbs unencumbered
Plate, Shield, Long Sword = 74 lbs
He can barley manage a pouch and some rations before he is slowed down.

Tasslehoff Str 8 Dex 18 Fighter carry 40 Lbs unencumbered
Studded Leather, Shield, Rapier, Longbow, 40 Arrows = 25 Lbs
Plenty of spare carrying capacity for backpack with tools and rope.

Goldmoon Str 8 Cleric
Breastplate, Shield, Mace = 30 Lb
Once again can carry a small pack without difficulty.

I have seem some nice variant encumbrance systems where Strength is used to determine the number of significant items you can carry or the amount that goes in your backpack. Of course this moves it over into House Rules rather than Variant rules.

Right. Variant encumbrance, combined with the seriously skewed weights of things, makes STR an all-or-nothing proposition. Either you max STR (in which case you can't carry all that much extra), or you leave it normal and wear leather armor and still have room to spare.

Note that the various "packs" that the classes come with weigh tons (the heaviest is something like 65 lbs all by itself, with most over 30 lbs).

[Arkhios]

Well, only slightly, you could add pretty much every ability score to damage... All at once... In some capacity.

What? How? Are you sure you're not confusing 3rd edition and 4th edition?


...actually, on second thought, don't tell me how. I really don't want to know! :smallbiggrin:

[R.Shackleford]

What? How? Are you sure you're not confusing 3rd edition and 4th edition?


...actually, on second thought, don't tell me how. I really don't want to know! :smallbiggrin:

3e. Go look for a guide here on giantitp for 3e/3.5 that's something like X stat to Y bonus or whatever (maybe PersonMan did it?).

4e you couldn't do this, but 3.5? Yeah, you could get a lot of stacking.

Edit: I'm Lawful Evil, I want you to know, just because you don't want to know.

[Arkhios]

3e. Go look for a guide here on giantitp for 3e/3.5 that's something like X stat to Y bonus or whatever (maybe PersonMan did it?).

4e you couldn't do this, but 3.5? Yeah, you could get a lot of stacking.

Edit: I'm Lawful Evil, I want you to know, just because you don't want to know.

...aaand the dreaded reverse psychology worked! ...kind of. You didn't really tell me the details, only where to find them. Luring the prey to its doom. Truly Lawful Evil, you are!

[GlenSmash!]

I almost always take Strength over Dex. If I can't grapple and shove something, my fun gets pretty limited. Combined with GWM, PAM or both I'm having an even better time.

I do wish the Weapon feats had seen a further tweaking and were published. A few of those would give me more options as a strength guy.

Fellhanded for example would be my favorite Barbarian feat.

[Tanarii]

Going with strength (athletics) or con (athletics) makes the most sense most often, and if I go with that people know what to expect.
That's pretty much my point of view.

I do find it funny that climbing or jumping or swimming so often brought up in discussions about ability checks, either about which ability should be used or what is an appropriate DC. Because all of them explicitly are No Check Required by default.

[Puh Laden]

That's pretty much my point of view.

I do find it funny that climbing or jumping or swimming so often brought up in discussions about ability checks, either about which ability should be used or what is an appropriate DC. Because all of them explicitly are No Check Required by default.

Unless there's something else making them hard (climbing ship rigging in a storm, a gap that is just beyond base jump distance, choppy sea water). Which I feel like is what a DM would want to do a lot of the time anyway, to make things more interesting in a combat or exploration encounter.

Anyway, I've also seen it be argued that low initiative for a melee tank can be desirable anyway because it means you don't get in the way of AoEs or of the ranged characters on the first turn (by providing half-cover to enemies).

[Tanarii]

Unless there's something else making them hard (climbing ship rigging in a storm, a gap that is just beyond base jump distance, choppy sea water). Which I feel like is what a DM would want to do a lot of the time anyway, to make things more interesting in a combat or exploration encounter.
For sure, and I do end up having a fair number of climb and jump checks anyways, since I run a dungeon and wilderness adventuring site based game. But "a fair number" isn't the same thing as "go-to example".

Especially when examples are actually given, it's pretty clear a lot of people are still thinking in 3e "roll for everything" terms, especially when it comes to climbing, jumping, picking locks, and finding/disarming traps. All bread and butter dungeoneering tasks, and all not a challenge in 5e unless you're under some kind of time pressure, or it's a particularly dangerous or difficult task. (i.e. No automatic success due to time, interesting consequences for failure, possible to fail.)