Negative Dexterity

[elyktsorb]

IS there any sort of build that would benefit from having negative dexterity?

[Heavenblade]

I don't think there is a way one could BENEFIT from a negative ability modifier - but you could simply not care about it.

Play a strength based martial with a heavy armor and non-finesse weapon, and just dont use dexterity for your skills

[elyktsorb]

I don't think there is a way one could BENEFIT from a negative ability modifier - but you could simply not care about it.

Play a strength based martial with a heavy armor and non-finesse weapon, and just dont use dexterity for your skills

Mainly I'm thinking about benefits to moving last in turn order, as that's the only obvious thing a negative dex would allow you to manipulate.

[Chugger]

Mainly I'm thinking about benefits to moving last in turn order, as that's the only obvious thing a negative dex would allow you to manipulate.

That's a good point. A cleric who likes to cast spirit guardians and go up just behind the front line characters would benefit from going last or near last.

You can also benefit from a low dex score in a point-buy system if you want, for example, to start with high scores in three important stats for you. A variant human paladin can start with 16 str and cha, 15 con but takes resilient con feat, making it 16, and an 8 in wis dex and int. There is a price to pay. While low dex doesn't hurt ac for a heavy armor wearer, you do have a -1 on dex (and wis) STs - until you get aura.

Instead of picking a low dex to "go last" you can always ready a move. It's not the same as doing a normal turn - you just get the one thing - while in a normal turn you can move, do an action, do a bonus action. Having a low dex wouldn't guarantee you'd go last - you might roll a 20 - a 19 might still go first and would not likely be last.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I believe that RAW going last gives you an "extra" reaction, so someone who is very focused on reactions could benefit, in a way. E.g. a Sentinel build.

However, I doubt it would ever outweigh losing actions and bonus actions.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

A rogue may want to be last for his allies to get near the enemies for SA.
The only problem is that it only work with strange rogue who will probably go barbarian for reckless attack so he will already have advantage for SA.

A lot of time I wanted to bring my turn to the end as a caster.

[GlenSmash!]

I like to go last on my cleric, in case I need to cast a clutch heal spell

[Arkhios]

I'm not joking one bit: A barbarian with ridiculously high constitution acting as the group's tank.

Lower AC and actively managed Reckless Attack, as well as greater damage potential gives enemies somewhat more incentive to focus their attacks on the barbarian instead of others. However, a lot higher than usual amount of hit points, and resistance to damage taken gained from Rage, keeps a barbarian alive quite a bit longer than anyone else.

My suggest in this hypothetical build would be a Bear Totem Warrior Barbarian wielding a one-handed weapon, a shield, and - depending on their constitution modifier - medium armor (if it would give them better AC than they would have without).

Imagine this:

Tasha's Hill Dwarf: +1 Str, +2 Con
1st level: Str 16, Dex 8, Con 17, and shield: AC 14 (10, -1 dex, +3 con, +2 shield); Hp 16 (effectively "32" with rage)
4th level: Str 16, Dex 8, Con 18, and shield: AC 15 (10, -1 dex, +4 con, +2 shield); Hp 53 (effectively "106" with rage); Dwarven Fortitude feat (+1 con)
8th level: Str 16, Dex 8, Con 20, and shield: AC 16 (10, -1 dex, +5 con, +2 shield); Hp 109 (effectively "218" with rage)
12th level: Str 16, Dex 10, Con 20, and shield: AC 17 (10, +0 dex, +5 con, +2 shield); Hp 161 (effectively "322" with rage)
16th level: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 20, and shield: AC 18 (10, +1 dex, +5 con, +2 shield); Hp 213 (effectively "426" with rage)
19th level: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 20, and shield: AC 19 (10, +2 dex, +5 con, +2 shield); Hp 252 (effectively "504" with rage)
20th level: Str 20, Dex 14, Con 24, and shield: AC 21 (10, +2 dex, +7 con, +2 shield); Hp 305 (effectively "610" with rage)

[Devils_Advocate]

Mainly I'm thinking about benefits to moving last in turn order, as that's the only obvious thing a negative dex would allow you to manipulate.
But Initiative is cyclical. Going first puts you in the same place in the order as going last, but with an additional turn at the start. Characters who are best at responding to others' actions may benefit less from that extra turn, but something very weird would have to be going on for it to be a drawback.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

But Initiative is cyclical. Going first puts you in the same place in the order as going last, but with an additional turn at the start. Characters who are best at responding to others' actions may benefit less from that extra turn, but something very weird would have to be going on for it to be a drawback.

But the order is what important especially for the first round even more if you want to use the minimum amount of resources.

Did you ever said " I want to be after the bard so I can attack an enemy with feri fire" as a melee character that don't know which one of the enemies is going to fail the save and wanted to stay out of the AoE?
Or maybe wanted to be healed with healing word before your turn instead of before the bandit that stand over your body?

So many times I want to be the last in the order but can't.

[sithlordnergal]

Ehhh, generally your healers are the ones that want to go last, and that's about it. Classes that focus on Control, Buffing, or Damage will want to go higher in the initiative order. That way they can get the first strike in, buff the party before they take their turns, or debuff the enemy before they have a chance to get in formation/the party gets in the way. Maybe if you're going to a special Reaction based build, since you're always guaranteed that you won't be hit by something unexpected after you've used said reaction since you regain it as soon as your turn ends, and everyone else has gone before you. But even then...ehhh?

[Devils_Advocate]

"You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn." Player's Handbook, page 189.

"When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn." Player's Handbook, page 190.

Initiative is cyclical. It goes around the circle, not down the line, ya dig? Going first means that you do go after everyone else, unless combat is finished before everyone gets a turn. Everyone goes after everyone else provided that combat lasts at least two full rounds! And if you don't want to act on your turn, then you can skip your turn, and then you go after everyone else does -- again, provides that the fight isn't over. Because that's how initiative works. It's not a thing where everyone takes one turn and then combat is over, and if the parties involved still want to fight then that's too bad for them. Everyone takes one turn and then everyone takes a turn again in the same order, over and over, until they're done.

Am I making myself clear?

It's unfortunate that simply delaying your initiative to go after immediately after another specific creature doesn't seem to be an explicit option in 5E -- at least, not in the PHB? -- but that's what house rules are for.

[LudicSavant]

Mainly I'm thinking about benefits to moving last in turn order, as that's the only obvious thing a negative dex would allow you to manipulate.

It is never beneficial to act last in turn order. Now, those who know me know I'm not the type to use 'all/never' statements hastily. So how can I make such a broad generalization? Because if you wanted to create that state, you could simply pass your turn (if you ended up going first). You literally already DO have a turn available after everyone else, due to the cyclical nature of initiative.

If you're going first and can't think of anything to do with your actions, then you should try to figure out why that is and stop it from being the case. First turn advantage in D&D 5e is pretty enormous and you should be taking advantage of it.

The functional difference between "going first" and "going last" is that if you go first, you get +1 turn in the combat. There is no circumstance in which +1 turn is bad for you. If you go first, you'll still get to cast that clutch heal spell after everyone else has taken a turn... as the first person in the next round.

[nickl_2000]

Even the rogue, who is most dependent on allies being near a target for damage can just simply ready an action.

[LudicSavant]

Even the rogue, who is most dependent on allies being near a target for damage can just simply ready an action.

Yeah. Not only that, but in order for going last to be better than going first, they wouldn't merely need to have a suboptimal turn (such as missing sneak attack), they would have to have a turn that is worth literally less than zero.

If you're doing nothing but plinking for minor damage, it's still better to go first than last, because that's damage you wouldn't have done otherwise (and you still get the benefit of that 'going last' action in the form of going first next round).

[Whit]

Accordingly no one thinks 8 in a stat means anything for how you play your below average character so low scores don’t mean you’re stupid dumb weak clumsy etc
So you could do 8,8,8 15,15,15 any stat you choose or you could add/subtract to 3,3,3,18,18,18 and put it anywhere.

[CheddarChampion]

Aside from the initiative thing, dexterity grants boosts to dex skills, dex saves, sometimes AC, sometimes to-hit rolls, sometimes damage rolls, and having 13+ qualifies you for some multiclassing.

Having a penalty instead would grant a penalty to dex skills, dex saves, sometimes AC, sometimes to-hit rolls, sometimes damage rolls, and disqualifies you from certain multiclassing.

A build that wants to fail dex saves? Nothing would benefit.
A build that wants to fail dex checks? If you want to fail you could just choose to do something poorly on purpose.
A build that wants to not qualify for multiclassing? Just don't multiclass.
A build that wants a low to-hit or damage bonus? If you want to be ineffective, sure.

But A build that wants a low AC? Yes.
The spells Armor of Agathys and Fire Shield both activate if you get hit. You can cast Hellish Rebuke if you get hit. The Fiend Warlock can take advantage of all of these.

Dump Dex and get as much Con and Cha as you can. You want low AC but lots of HP and a high spell save DC. Cast AoA with the highest spell slot you can. Cast Hellish Rebuke when you get hit. Cast Flame Shield on your first turn of combat then move to melee range with some enemy bruiser. For your Fiendish Resilience pick, choose whatever will make you resist ranged attacks (piercing vs archers, fire vs a red dragon, etc.).

A multiclass with fire or ice dragon sorcerer could be good, it will grant you more spell slots see and a bonus to fire or cold damage. And a little extra HP. Just make sure you have the option to not increase your AC. Maybe a split of Warlock 7/Sorcerer 13?

[MinotaurWarrior]

The functional difference between "going first" and "going last" is that if you go first, you get +1 turn in the combat.

Sure, but there are other positions than first and last.

A guy with Sentinel who is ahead of the squishies in marching order, facing melee only enemies, might want to go in between two enemies, so that two enemies have their speed reduced to zero, not one. If he goes first, then one more monster gets back to the wizard and eats his face.

Or, though this is preposterously unlikely, a rogue could start in hiding right next to an enemy, get an OA against that enemy when they move, attack on their turn, and then get an OA either when they (readied action move) or their uncontrolled mount takes voluntary movement again on another turn. If that monster went first and the rogue went second, they would still be on the top of initiative after their "bonus" third sneak attack killed this guy.

In real play, I think that, at best, this mitigates low initiative for sentinel builds. What the above points really demonstrate is how delaying your turn at will is more powerful than readied action, but in the actual rules, a lower Dex mod will produce that "ideal" result less often than it will just give you fewer turns.

[LudicSavant]

In real play, I think that, at best, this mitigates low initiative for sentinel builds. What the above points really demonstrate is how delaying your turn at will is more powerful than readied action, but in the actual rules, a lower Dex mod will produce that "ideal" result less often than it will just give you fewer turns.

Right. Being able to willfully delay after knowing the initiative order would have a lot of benefits, if it was a thing that existed. But it doesn't, and there's far less value to delaying your initiative prior to seeing the order.