STR. Huh. What is it good for? (Please read OP for context)

[Willowhelm]

This is in some ways an extension of a couple (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620892-Help-building-playing-an-quot-Ordinary-quot-adventurer) of older threads (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?620645-No-Equipment-Build-Ideas) of mine. What can I say? Some ideas just keep bouncing around.

I like the idea of a party who don't look like adventurers normally do. They're not wearing armor. They're not carrying packs with rope, pitons, lamps and 10 foot poles. They don't have weapons and magic items. They just look like regular commoners. You wouldn't give them a second glance.

Even given these limitations, a lot of aspects of the game are easy enough to deal with. Casters can have foci without being too suspicious. Mage armor, shield, natural armor, or unarmored defense all get you a decent ac. Take the right fighting styles or spells. You can even bump it up with a dip in bladesinger if you like. You can play most (all?) classes with a DEX focus too so really... most classes are still viable.

So every time I start to build a character for this party they end up with a moderate or low STR.

So what use is STR? With a rogue dip, or the skill expert feat (and probably other ways) you can gain expertise in athletics - that covers a lot. If you take some races, classes or subclasses you can gain other little bits and pieces to help with STR related things. You can have guidance, Psionic Energy dice, Superiority dice, reliable talent, inspiration etc etc to help too.

What is your party missing if it doesn't have a character with high STR?

1) You can't wear heavy armor without penalty (except dwarfs) but this party doesn't wear armor anyway so that's fine.
2) You can't use some heavy hitter weapons.

What else? That's the big question... What is strength good for?

(The alternative question is how do you build a STR based character for this party? How do you get a decent AC on a STR based character without armor? Is there any mechanical reason for a DM not to just let the barbarian AC work from STR + CON instead of DEX + CON?)

Last thought: I'm more than happy to hear people's suggested party configurations. Particularly if they actually work from 1-20. All official sources. (including Tasha's), feats, multiclassing, point buy.

[Jerrykhor]

What is Strength NOT good for? Moving heavy obstacles, opening heavy stone doors, fastball specials, german suplexes.... Its the Chad ability score for a reason.

[Greywander]

1. Grappling, though Athletics expertise goes a long way. Basically the same story as for climbing/swimming/etc.

2. Carry weight, though a Bag of Holding or other extradimensional storage will mostly solve this issue. If you're not wearing heavy armor, then that saves you a lot of weight as well.

3. STR weapons, such as greatswords and particularly polearms. Basically, there are certain builds that only work as STR builds, such as anything using PAM. Then again, are we carrying weapons? Although it is also used for unarmed strikes for anyone that isn't a monk.

[Trask]

Really good if you're in a campaign that utilizes the things its good at. Not so good if you aren't.

Thats the main problem, scores like Dex and Con are "always on" so to speak, there are very few regular scenarios where they aren't useful. Strength can be really, really good, but only if carrying, pushing, shoving, grappling, lifting, climbing, and all that good stuff are things you regularly do and not things your DM skips over, or WORSE, lets Dexterity do as well. (I swear if I play with another DM that lets you climb with Dex...) :smallmad:

[Lunali]

If your whole party is low STR, you won't often notice how useful STR could be. This is both because you will find solutions to problems based on the abilities that you have available, and because the DM will generally throw challenges at your party that you are capable of facing.

[ImproperJustice]

I really have seen an entire adventure grind to a screeching halt when the level 5 party of dexadins and casters got stuck behind a heavy rock that fell across the only door leading out of the room they were in.
They had to camp for two days before the Cleric used Sending on the nearby town leaders to ask for help.
Nobody had a shovel or crowbar either.
It was very embarrassing.


At low levels, having someone with a decent jump distance is handy, and Str helps with that. As well as lowering people and things up and down and across ropes.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I largely agree in the sense that Dex covers a lot, including hit and damage with a more versatile set of weapons. Acrobatics can be used (usually defensively) to resist a lot of things that you might otherwise use strength for. The strength related tasks some of the other posters gave as examples should probably be impacted for most strength based characters lugging around an extra 70 lbs of armor. (A 12 strength character could likely lift as much as an armored 16 strength character)
But my main take-away would be that your party sounds a lot like the group that we had that was by far our most lethal. They killed a lot of stuff without warning and from a distance. My Paladin with a 1 level Rogue dip covered a lot of the issues you brought up with Expertise in Athletics. In the party sense the one armor wearing Strength based character ended up being more in the way than anything, so the player just made up a new one.

[OldTrees1]

They just look like regular commoners. You wouldn't give them a second glance.


What kind of commoners? Str 11-12 might help with your cover story.

As others said, Str checks that don't use Athletics are a place Str shines. A Dex Bard with Str 12 might be enough.

Oh and Str saves, but a Dex Paladin of Ancients can help with that.

[Luccan]

Athletics Expertise is good, but if we're dipping, why not do that dip with a Str character and make it even better? There's no subbing Dex with Str in this scenario, but it does have things it can do that Dex can't. Obviously most Str focused characters care a lot about armor, but Barbarians don't have to. Keeping in mind with no equipment you're looking at 20 as your best AC, a Barb X/ Rogue 1 can treat Dex as a tertiary, bumping it to 14 when they have a free ASI (has to be minimum 13 to multiclass), and spend their focus on Con and Dex instead. Since they've got that Athletics Expertise, they can focus on being a grappler.

Edit: if they're allowed to carry around gear that looks like normal tools, a big hammer or pick from mining can probably serve as a Martial weapon, so they could also go to town with that.

[strangebloke]

Dexterity is much better for almost every character, yes. Out of 13 classes, only 5 classes (paladin, fighter, ranger and barbarian, cleric) have any amount of direct support for focusing strength, and of those only 1, (barbarian) is required to focus strength.

So if you're a paladin or fighter, why would you ever choose strength? Well:
-You want to be buff (this is a fantasy rpg)
-Your party likely won't have a "strong guy" for situations were athletics is required
-You want to use grapples and shoves
-You want higher weapon damage and amor class

It's purely a question of generalization vs. specialization

[Theodoxus]

3. STR weapons, such as greatswords and particularly polearms. Basically, there are certain builds that only work as STR builds, such as anything using PAM. Then again, are we carrying weapons? Although it is also used for unarmed strikes for anyone that isn't a monk.

Hexblades fix that for those with decent Charisma and the will to dip Warlock.

Battlesmiths fix that as well, though with a higher starting cost (3rd level) and the need for a magical weapon; though there are ways around that as well.

Basically, outside of lifting heavy objects, there's little [need] for a highish strength. Heck, with powerful build, you don't really need a highish strength. A 10 Str Firbolg should be capable of getting out of the trap Improper Justice mentioned...

[LudicSavant]

What is your party missing if it doesn't have a character with high STR? Not much, really. Everything Strength does has other ways to be accomplished. Grappling/shoving isn't the only way to move people around, control them, or create Advantage (and doesn't work on quite a few kinds of enemies anywho, making it a situational tool in the first place). Other ways of dealing damage are at least as mathematically hard-hitting (and yes, I'm counting optimized GWM/PAM builds in that comparison). And the skills tend to be things that have lots of ways of being solved. There are a hundred ways to get through a door other than kicking it down, a hundred ways to get across a chasm other than leaping it, a hundred ways to cart more gear around besides having a greater STR, etc.

It's quite possibly the least valuable saving throw type (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612120-Hierarchy-of-Saving-Throws), too. So I'd say it is perhaps the least valuable attribute overall. Though even the least valuable attribute is still valuable, mind.

[elyktsorb]

About as much as Intelligence is tbh. I've personally used grappling and STR related checks far more than I've used INT ones.

[Eldariel]

Not much, really. Everything Strength does has other ways to be accomplished. Grappling/shoving isn't the only way to move people around, control them, or create Advantage (and doesn't work on quite a few kinds of enemies anywho, making it a situational tool in the first place). Other ways of dealing damage are at least as mathematically hard-hitting (and yes, I'm counting optimized GWM/PAM builds in that comparison). And the skills tend to be things that have lots of ways of being solved. There are a hundred ways to get through a door other than kicking it down, a hundred ways to get across a chasm other than leaping it, a hundred ways to cart more gear around besides having a greater STR, etc.

And even to that end, everything on that list can be done by anyone under the influence of Polymorph, or any summoned/conjured creature with decent Strength (most of them have that), etc. Tenser's Floating Disk even negates the carrying issues pretty well, and that's a level 1 Ritual on Wizard list (the class that can automatically cast all their rituals from book at no cost but scribing). One could (perhaps a bit facetiously) say that not having a Strength-character costs you 50 gold (or 25 if you're a Conjurer).


About as much as Intelligence is tbh. I've personally used grappling and STR related checks far more than I've used INT ones.

Your DM doesn't use Investigation and Knowledges or...? The big difference is, Str is generally only one means to an end while the information available through Int is often simply not available through other means.

[AvatarVecna]

One thing I noticed when going through adventures looking for explicit DCs is, raw Strength checks are super-common. Any time you come upon a lock, busting things open is an option. A big strong barbarian and somebody providing Help can take a solid stab at busting down most doors or busting open chests or ripping apart iron bars on a cage with a few rounds of effort. It's louder than picking, but it's also probably faster, so it's a nice option for if you don't have a lockpick (such as if they got taken from you before you were locked in jail) or when speed is more important than stealth (such as busting out of a self-destructing dungeon). Not having a big guy who can bust things down definitely limits your options.

Jumping is based on Str - both roll-less jumping and Athletics checks. Things giving triple jumping can help with that, but this means that really big jumps (where you need both a big Str/Athletics guy, and a Jump effect), your mobility is more limited.

Athletics is how you shove and grapple, which are solid for nonlethally taking enemies. That's not to say it can't be done - if you're in melee anyway, you can just choose to not knock them out with the last blow - but sometimes actually dealing damage isn't something you wanna do (restraining a friend temporarily mind-whammied, arresting a corrupt noble and you gotta be careful about procedure, avoiding auto-retaliation aura kinda monster powers, etc). It's just another tool that's no longer in the toolbox.

EDIT: Carrying Capacity is still technically an issue, but it's also generally a small one: normal CC rules are really generous, and alternate CC rules are really punishing, and maybe 5% of games I've played in have used the latter. When even a Str 8 halfling can carrying 90 lbs before he has issues, CC doesn't tend to be problem.

[Waazraath]

Really a lot.

- especially tier 1, but also tier 2 you can't just throw spells at every cliff and chasm, without casters are risking to run dry before the adventure is over; athletics is good;
- carrying the loot (magic items aren't a given, and specific ones like bags of holding really aren't unless you have an artificer in the party);
- carrying a fallen combat when running away from a combat that was more than you could chew; in the best case, it prevents character death (or allows raise dead, when high level enough), in the worst case it allows you to re-use the fallen comrades items/loot);
- it makes grappling a helluvalot easier;
- kicking in doors, pulling free stuck party members, holding ropes where party members are tied to, clearing a path obstructed by heavy objects;
- using some of the best combat related feats use heavy weapons/armor: GWM, Sentinel/PAM, Heavy armor master (at least tier 1 and 2);
- str saves are quite common in my experience, after the 'big 3' (wis con dex) the most common;

Of course, you can have an effective party without it. But that goes for every ability score (bar con) and every class. That's a big + for the system imo, but that also means you can ask for almost every aspect character building "do we really need it", which is a feature and not a bug.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Really a lot.

- especially tier 1, but also tier 2 you can't just throw spells at every cliff and chasm, without casters are risking to run dry before the adventure is over; athletics is good;
- carrying the loot (magic items aren't a given, and specific ones like bags of holding really aren't unless you have an artificer in the party);
- carrying a fallen combat when running away from a combat that was more than you could chew; in the best case, it prevents character death (or allows raise dead, when high level enough), in the worst case it allows you to re-use the fallen comrades items/loot);
- it makes grappling a helluvalot easier;
- kicking in doors, pulling free stuck party members, holding ropes where party members are tied to, clearing a path obstructed by heavy objects;
- using some of the best combat related feats use heavy weapons/armor: GWM, Sentinel/PAM, Heavy armor master (at least tier 1 and 2);
- str saves are quite common in my experience, after the 'big 3' (wis con dex) the most common;

Of course, you can have an effective party without it. But that goes for every ability score (bar con) and every class. That's a big + for the system imo, but that also means you can ask for almost every aspect character building "do we really need it", which is a feature and not a bug.
So going through this point by point with the comparison to what the OP suggested, and I did with my Rogue 1/ Paladin X (13 str with Expertise in Athletics) vs a Str based character who starts at 16:
1) At tier 1 both are equal in athletics. By tier 2 assuming the Strength based character uses a Str ASI my Rogue/Paly is one better
2) Carrying loot: The weight of the armor is roughly equal to the extra carrying capacity for strength based.
3) Carrying a party member: see #2
4) Grappling: see #1. Yes you can get expertise on the Str based to make it better, but again otherwise it's a wash.
5) Straight Strength rolls: Here the Str based character has it.
6) Combat: opening a bigger can of worms here, but my experience with a stealth based no heavy armor party was that we were way more effective through a combination of range and stealth. If the baddies ever got close enough then yes PAM etc would be better, but mostly they didn't.
7) Strength Saves: Yes Str is probably more common than Int and Chr, but way less so than Dex, so a clear winner for Dex here.
In my mind the OP is basically correct. I'd go further and say from a combat point of view the heavy armor wearer is a liability due to stealth limitations.

[Droppeddead]

And even to that end, everything on that list can be done by anyone under the influence of Polymorph, or any summoned/conjured creature with decent Strength (most of them have that), etc. Tenser's Floating Disk even negates the carrying issues pretty well, and that's a level 1 Ritual on Wizard list (the class that can automatically cast all their rituals from book at no cost but scribing). One could (perhaps a bit facetiously) say that not having a Strength-character costs you 50 gold (or 25 if you're a Conjurer).

How often do you see commoners who summon great beasts, polymorph themselves or conjures a floating disk?

That said and back on topic. The biggest problem with Strength is that it's rather often that DMs handle it incorrectly. Carry capacity is often ignored, acrobatics is often used when Athletics should be used and so on. When strength is used for all the things strength is supposed to be used for (and we've had some very good examples in this thread) it is, if not vital, then very useful. Also, if we are talking about commoners, what kind of commoners? Clerks? Dock workers? farm hands? Because if it's the latter two and those can't lift heavy stuff, they're pretty crappy at their jobs and probably should get fired or at least get some suspicious glances.

[LudicSavant]

How often do you see commoners who summon great beasts, polymorph themselves or conjures a floating disk? Slightly more often than I see PCs playing unexceptional commoners.

[elyktsorb]

Your DM doesn't use Investigation and Knowledges or...? The big difference is, Str is generally only one means to an end while the information available through Int is often simply not available through other means.

When the party doesn't have Investigation or Knowledges (because none of them are wizards or artificers) then the dm stops using those things as a challenge. However, there are plenty of examples where people who don't invest in STR still do things that require it.

[Eldariel]

When the party doesn't have Investigation or Knowledges (because none of them are wizards or artificers) then the dm stops using those things as a challenge. However, there are plenty of examples where people who don't invest in STR still do things that require it.

Is this really how people play? I've got a Lore Bard who invested Expertise in Investigation specifically because he doesn't have the Int but it's an important skill for the concept; i.e. compensate for weaknesses rather than ignore them. Do people only find the maximum values worthwhile?

[Sandeman]

Well, it depends on what type of campaigns you are playing.
But if you are going on an adventure in the rough wilderness. You might need much food, gear and appropriate clothing.
And any loot you find will need to be carried back.
High STR is always welcome in this type of situation.

[LudicSavant]

When the party doesn't have Investigation or Knowledges (because none of them are wizards or artificers) then the dm stops using those things as a challenge. However, there are plenty of examples where people who don't invest in STR still do things that require it.

This is kinda like saying that the DM will just remove magic traps from the game if nobody takes Arcana. I mean, maybe your DM will, but there are plenty of examples where people who don't invest in Int still do things that require it. A Symbol can mess you up.

[Droppeddead]

Slightly more often than I see PCs playing unexceptional commoners.

How is that relevant? The thread is about characters who look like normal commoners.

(Funny remark, by the way. I like it. :smallsmile: )

[elyktsorb]

Is this really how people play? I've got a Lore Bard who invested Expertise in Investigation specifically because he doesn't have the Int but it's an important skill for the concept; i.e. compensate for weaknesses rather than ignore them. Do people only find the maximum values worthwhile?


This is kinda like saying that the DM will just remove magic traps from the game if nobody takes Arcana. I mean, maybe your DM will, but there are plenty of examples where people who don't invest in Int still do things that require it. A Symbol can mess you up.

I mean I've played in games where no one has Int based skills and the DM doesn't remove those requirements, we just didn't care? Like, yeah we still ran into magic traps, or situations where investigation would be useful, but we just did other stuff.

I personally don't care for compensating for weaknesses because usually a party will end up having someone else who is good at that thing, so why bother compensating for something that's going to be delegated to someone else most of the time.

Or in the case of no one being good at something, we just work around it. I guess I just run with more parties that do Str related shenanigans despite not being invested in it.

[Amnestic]

When the party doesn't have Investigation or Knowledges (because none of them are wizards or artificers) then the dm stops using those things as a challenge.

Just speaking for myself but...I don't stop. If the party has ended up building themselves into a corner, then so be it, they're going to miss out on a lot of additional information.

Does that apply to other things too for your group? If no one takes proficiency in Perception does the DM just drop that as a challenge, no more sneaky enemies? If you've not got anyone who's invested in the 'face' skills does your DM just have everyone trust+believe you for free?

[Kane0]

I’m the kind of DM that wont reveal a secret door that the party missed, so if they arent strong enough to lift a heavy thing then thats fine, thats one option not available to them and the game carries on.

Mind you I do tailor some things to the party, but not to the point of ‘nobody made a talky character? Thats okay i’ll make sure theres no talky bits’

[Unoriginal]

It's not because something can be worked around that said something isn't important/meaningful. The fact you're spending efforts working around it shows it is meaningful.

Sure, you can take a 2lvl Rogue dip or a feat for Expertise + one level of Hexblade for one big weapon used with CHA + be a Dwarf to not care about armor slowing you down + have a mule or spend spell slots to carry your equipment... and you'll have invested significantly more than just making a STR-based character, for less results or for less freedom.

There wouldn't be that many topics about how to duplicate the effects of having high STR if having high STR wasn't interesting.

[Waazraath]

So going through this point by point with the comparison to what the OP suggested, and I did with my Rogue 1/ Paladin X (13 str with Expertise in Athletics) vs a Str based character who starts at 16:
1) At tier 1 both are equal in athletics. By tier 2 assuming the Strength based character uses a Str ASI my Rogue/Paly is one better
2) Carrying loot: The weight of the armor is roughly equal to the extra carrying capacity for strength based.
3) Carrying a party member: see #2
4) Grappling: see #1. Yes you can get expertise on the Str based to make it better, but again otherwise it's a wash.
5) Straight Strength rolls: Here the Str based character has it.
6) Combat: opening a bigger can of worms here, but my experience with a stealth based no heavy armor party was that we were way more effective through a combination of range and stealth. If the baddies ever got close enough then yes PAM etc would be better, but mostly they didn't.
7) Strength Saves: Yes Str is probably more common than Int and Chr, but way less so than Dex, so a clear winner for Dex here.
In my mind the OP is basically correct. I'd go further and say from a combat point of view the heavy armor wearer is a liability due to stealth limitations.

Before going into specifics, yeah, if you make a comparison with a build specifically made to counter the disadvantages of having a low strength, by having expertise in athletics and (in your case) still a moderately high strength (13), you don't miss out on too much. But or course, that says nothing about strenght in general. Most builds won't have expertise in athletics, and the big advantage of not using strenght is that you can dump an 8 into it, and have higher scores in the abilities that do matter for your character. Expertise in athletics and str 13 aren't typical. I'd argue it is much more common that, if you have a party without a str fighter or barbarian, you'll have a dex fighter or monk. And then most of your counters don't apply.

Futhermore, when going into the specifics:
#1 and #4 see above, fine with a specific build but this cannot be taken as the default for a non-str character;
#2 and #3 might be correct in the beginning, but str will be raised to 20 for a str character, raising carrying capacity with 60lb, while armor increases only 10 lb (chain to full plate);
#6: no can of worms afaic, just different playstyles and campaign settings. If this works, fine. For many parties and especially in dungeon environments, it won't.

[elyktsorb]

Just speaking for myself but...I don't stop. If the party has ended up building themselves into a corner, then so be it, they're going to miss out on a lot of additional information.

Does that apply to other things too for your group? If no one takes proficiency in Perception does the DM just drop that as a challenge, no more sneaky enemies? If you've not got anyone who's invested in the 'face' skills does your DM just have everyone trust+believe you for free?

I'll refer you to my above post where I mention I've played in groups where that does and doesn't matter.

But the best I can tell you is. Maybe? I've never played a game where there wasn't at least one person with perception (heck I doubt I've played a game where less than half the people don't have perception) I've definitely played games where people don't have face skills and despite that we never got to a point that we couldn't continue playing. Did we roll those face skills? Yeah probably, probably failed most of them.

In the case of dm's reducing the amount those groups faced those challenges because they couldn't deal with them very well. I have no clue, because I don't specifically ask the dm if they did or not for the most part. I can tell you that because we didn't have those skills we never went out of the way to use them.

I can also tell you I've played games where I have taken skills like Nature, or had tool proficiencies like Poisoner's Kit and barely ever got to use them.

But in a lot of those groups, despite us not having high str's we still did things that required str checks. So I dunno, different strokes I guess.

[noob]

Imagine you want to impersonate a brutish knight that wants to meet the king.
I guess that you could possibly do a str check for that: you walk stomping around and showing you have so much muscle people can see it through your heavy full plate armour then when the guards comes in saying they suspect you are not a knight because they never heard your name you lift a guard and threaten to duel them if they do not let you meet the king and so on.
There is a lot of situations where muscle should be able to substitute for charisma when interacting with militarily inclined people or doing shows of strength to convince people.

[Willowhelm]

How is that relevant? The thread is about characters who look like normal commoners.

(Funny remark, by the way. I like it. :smallsmile: )

They look like commoners. They’re not limited to actually being commoners. That’s the difference.

[Droppeddead]

They look like commoners. They’re not limited to actually being commoners. That’s the difference.

That's the point I was making. So, thanks for repeating what I just said?

[Willowhelm]

That's the point I was making. So, thanks for repeating what I just said?

My apologies. It read to me like you were arguing the opposite. I read it as saying that you needed strength because these “commoners” couldn’t go around casting spells to solve their problems.

[KorvinStarmast]

Over the last year, I have stopped using Dex as a sub for strength, as a DM.

If you need to climb, up or down, Athletics is the skill. Go.
Granted, crossing a narrow board over a chasm can be Agility.
For avoiding a contested grapple, I'll allow agility/Dex.
It fits my sense of verisimilitude.

To get out of one, Athletics or Strength if you want to do the ability check thing.

I have found this to work quite well.

Plus: with all of the game bloat and Tasha's feats, you can get proficiency or expertise in Athletics pertty easily. That becomes a character choice ... and choices have consequences.

I've got a bard with a 12 strength and Expertise in Athletics. She's surprisingly good and breaking grapples, and shoving things and creatures out of the way or away from allies. :smallcool: The trick is (in universe-wise)
(1) strong legs and (2) leverage

[Segev]

You need to consider, as well, what Strength investment lets you NOT spend other resources on.

With a high Strength, you can actually dump Dex in 5e: heavy armor doesn't use dexterity (nor apply it as a penalty to your AC), so a 15+ Strength means you can safely have an 8 Dex as far as AC is concerned. (Obviously, the Dexterity save being poor is a bad thing.) You also don't need Dex for medium-range combat, since Thrown weapons can use Strength even for attacking at range.

Strength also means you can power through a lot of crowd control spells. This is less of an ability to dump other things, and more of a note that you can force enemies to have to target multiple saves. If the whole party are high-dex/wis, but low strength, one entangle or web will do the trick. If the party are a mix of strength, dex, and wis-focused, you'll need tasha's hideous laughter and web to take out most of the party.

And then Strength gives you options that you don't otherwise have. Resource-less door-breaking, grappling, etc. are all things that just take actions, rather than costing spell slots or the like. And expertise in Athletics on a medium-strength character is still investing in Strength even if you're not going all-out...and will still lose against the rogue/anything that is a strength-primary character with expertise in athletics. Note that any "well, yeah, then you're hyper-specializing" argument can be countered by pointing out that the only thing different is taking a high strength; the investment to get expertise in Athletics is the same. It just does even more for the high-strength character.

So, yes, you can dump Strength if you take care to spend other resources to shore up that weakness.

[Unoriginal]

So, yes, you can dump Strength if you take care to spend other resources to shore up that weakness.

Exactly.

If you're spending ressource to avoid the issues of low STR, it means that a) you recognize there ARE things STR is good for, since not having it has issues b) you recognize that high STR is worth at least as much as the ressources you're spending to avoid the issues of not having it.

[Willowhelm]

You need to consider, as well, what Strength investment lets you NOT spend other resources on.

With a high Strength, you can actually dump Dex in 5e: heavy armor doesn't use dexterity (nor apply it as a penalty to your AC), so a 15+ Strength means you can safely have an 8 Dex as far as AC is concerned. (Obviously, the Dexterity save being poor is a bad thing.) You also don't need Dex for medium-range combat, since Thrown weapons can use Strength even for attacking at range.

<snip>

So, yes, you can dump Strength if you take care to spend other resources to shore up that weakness.

Out of interest, did you read the original post? This isn’t a question of whether STR can be useful in general, or what the benefit of high STR is. It is a question about when it is necessary. When do you need it, and you can accept no substitute? (Or your substitute is so build-breaking my sub optimal as to be near unplayable)

From the OP - All armor is off the table. It isn’t an option. Given that, DEX can’t be a dump stat except in some really exceptional builds (Bladesinger-monk or bladesinger-barb?).

So the question is what does a party with no STR character lose out on? So far in this thread it seems like some rare cases where the only option is a raw strength check (not athletics) at such an early stage there is no magic work around.

People have brought up the control spells requiring a strength saving throw. At what level would you expect to come across a caster with that as an option? It seems to me that by that point you’d have other ways to resolve it?

I’d say a jump over a hole could be an athletics check. A standing jump or a jump for height would be strength mostly. (Obviously your default distances with no check are still based off strength alone)

So what other situations are just raw strength checks with no work around?

[OldTrees1]

So the question is what does a party with no STR character lose out on? So far in this thread it seems like some rare cases where the only option is a raw strength check (not athletics) at such an early stage there is no magic work around.

These are not as rare as one might think. Lifting / moving weights tends to be raw STR.

However I think a Bard would be a decent alternative to having STR.


People have brought up the control spells requiring a strength saving throw. At what level would you expect to come across a caster with that as an option? It seems to me that by that point you’d have other ways to resolve it?

CR 1: Giant Spider is the earliest case.

[Unoriginal]

From the OP - All armor is off the table. It isn’t an option.

Why? Is it an Arthur Dent-only campaign?



Given that, DEX can’t be a dump stat except in some really exceptional builds (Bladesinger-monk or bladesinger-barb?).

Without armor most of the characters are going to die, high DEX or not.

Investing at minimum a 16 in DEX at character creation and two ASIs to get only 15 AC is just not good for any character.

So in the conditions you're presenting to make STR not needed, only Tortles, Lizardfolks, Monks, Barbarians, Dragoborns who spend another ASI on a racial feat, Dragon Sorcerers and Warlocks who take the Invocation for at-will Mage Armor can hope to have decent AC without spending daily ressources. If they put a 16 in chargen and two ASIs in DEX (aside from the Tortle).

[OldTrees1]

Why? Is it an Arthur Dent-only campaign?
The opening post answers this a bit, and the other threads it links to elaborate a bit more.

I like the idea of a party who don't look like adventurers normally do. They're not wearing armor. They're not carrying packs with rope, pitons, lamps and 10 foot poles. They don't have weapons and magic items. They just look like regular commoners. You wouldn't give them a second glance.




Without armor most of the characters are going to die, high DEX or not.

Investing at minimum a 16 in DEX at character creation and two ASIs to get only 15 AC is just not good for any character.

The opening post answers this a bit

Mage armor, shield, natural armor, or unarmored defense all get you a decent ac. Take the right fighting styles or spells. You can even bump it up with a dip in bladesinger if you like. You can play most (all?) classes with a DEX focus too so really... most classes are still viable.
However it depends on the difficulty. AC 15 at Tier 3 is not that much worse than normal for backline characters.

[Theodoxus]

So what other situations are just raw strength checks with no work around?

Raw feats of strength... Iron Man challenges, arm wrestling, other such competitions where magical aid is frowned upon at best.

The thing is, the same argument can be made for every attribute. You can have an all low Dex or Int or Cha party. Provided you either recognize that there will be some things that will be more difficult, or will require a different work around to deal with it. You can even shore up each of those deficiencies the same as you're talking about strength.

Funny enough, to me, it's CON, Huh. What is it good for? It controls 2 things: saves and hit points. Talk about a minor stat. Of all the attributes in D&D and clones, it's the one I really wish would just disappear. Any Constitution saves could be replaced with Strength. And hit point bonuses can just disappear as far as I'm concerned. If you really wanted to, you could replace them with your Proficiency Bonus if you just really HAD to have a boost... maybe for the more martially inclined. Barbarian for sure, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger, sure. Monk, maybe... perhaps even the martially inclined Cleric Domains could get a boost at 1st level (War, Tempest, Order, Forge...) - could even do full or half PB based on heavy armor proficiency, I suppose...

Other subclasses might get such a boost. Hexblade might get half PB. (though really, HB already has a ton of bennies).

ETA:
However it depends on the difficulty. AC 15 at Tier 3 is not that much worse than normal for backline characters.

in that case, I'd ask the table to run a Tortollan campaign. 17 AC without magic items and equipment... we're all casters and martials with Unarmed combat (either monk or fighting style). Are staves ok? we could look like pilgrims...

[Unoriginal]

The opening post answers this a bit, and the other threads it links to elaborate a bit more.


Thank you. Don't see why it's "they don't wear armor" rather than "they're hiding they're wearing armor", though.




The opening post answers this a bit

Well I disagree with the opening post. Outside of Unarmored Defense (which require MADness as we all know), any of those methods give you below decent AC unless you're investing more than a bit in several of them.



However it depends on the difficulty. AC 15 at Tier 3 is not that much worse than normal for backline characters.

Can't have only backline characters, that's the thing. Unless your PC group is expert at fleeing.

[verbatim]

You need to consider, as well, what Strength investment lets you NOT spend other resources on.

With a high Strength, you can actually dump Dex in 5e: heavy armor doesn't use dexterity (nor apply it as a penalty to your AC), so a 15+ Strength means you can safely have an 8 Dex as far as AC is concerned. (Obviously, the Dexterity save being poor is a bad thing.) You also don't need Dex for medium-range combat, since Thrown weapons can use Strength even for attacking at range.

This is true but I think also part of the problem.

If you want to focus on something other than dex while still having a good AC you have limited options


Heavy Armor
Medium Armor with dex = 14
Tortle's base AC is 17
Loxodon's base AC is 12 + CON (UA Stone Sorcerer is 13 + CON)


Having AC that isn't high is not the end of the world if you're a backline character, but most people who want to play a character that focuses on high strength probably don't want to be backline characters in the first place, and they also don't want to feel like they have to be constrained to wearing specific armor or playing a specific race to make that happen without investing heavily in Dex.

[Willowhelm]

Thank you. Don't see why it's "they don't wear armor" rather than "they're hiding they're wearing armor", though.

Well I disagree with the opening post. Outside of Unarmored Defense (which require MADness as we all know), any of those methods give you below decent AC unless you're investing more than a bit in several of them.


They don’t wear it because i don’t see how you can reasonably hide that you’re wearing it (in the scenario given). That is the challenge of the thought experiment.

I really don’t see how the AC part is something you can just flat disagree with. Mage armor is as good as light armor for a dex based character. Anyone can have someone else cast it on them. Anyone can take a feat or a one level dip to get it for themselves. With an 18 in dex (Tasha custom with a half feat) you can have AC 16 at the start.

If people accept one level dips to pick up other armor proficiencies, what’s the issue with a one level dip for Mage armor?

Unarmored defence can be AC 16 at the end of chargen - either an 18 and a 14 or two 16s and only goes up from there with each ASI.

It does mean all characters are dependent in some part on dex for AC. But if you’re maxing WIS then monk has you covered so dex can be secondary. If you’re a bladesinger then INT has you covered. Paladins aren’t great if you want to be heavy CHA but then a sorcerer or warlock dip can get you Mage armor. (Or a flat 17, and potentially shield on top)

And why do you assume it has to be resourceless?

I accept it isn’t going to be the best AC you can get but i don’t think it is below decent and I don’t think it is that much of an investment.

The challenge is building a viable party of characters with these restrictions. Figuring out how to cover the weakness is the fun part of the challenge.

[Tes]

Never quite understood the claim that STR is easy to neglect, especially on at least one of the frontliners.
A STR char will almost always have Athletics and be good at it quite naturally.
While a full Dex char can substitute Acrobatics vs a common Grappling Action that doesn't work vs a lot of special Monster Grappling effects that are STR checks.
Medium Armor classes using CHA (all the Hexblade dips), WIS (Shilleagh builds) or INT (Wizard/Artificier Gish) will have to go slightly out of their way to pick up Acrobatics Proficiency.

I've seen more than a few Clerics and Warlocks Shoved and stabbed to death by a couple Goblins. Pushed off from high places or Grappled by the usual nasties that can apply it as a side effect on hit.
Sure you can cast Longstrider or Spiderclimb to get places, the Fighter is pretty likely to be able to solve a scenario where that is required ressource neutral.
Active Grappling to keep something trapped in a Spell Effect pairs nicely with a multitude of casters. From Spiritguardians, to Fog Clouds, Silence and Anitmagic Zones.

As soon as Extra Attack is in the mix, the most generic Barbarian can grapple something, drag it 15 feet and push it into a chasm, floor hazard, trap, spikes.... Omnidirectional, unlike i.e. Repelling Blast.
A savy GM can also let the monsters attempt the same against Players, where again STR is the best passive defense.
This can also serve as a non lethal option to help a partymember clear AOOs, end a fight in a nonlethal chokehold without hexing their lights out in a social situation and ofc what what other said above (brute force approach to doors, chests and social interactions).

Suffering the consequences of low STR might be a lot less threatening than WIS or CHA saves when those are relevant. STR based checks fall off in relevance at some time in T2, but there's pretty much always going to be a bruiser around that can threaten the party to do horrible things to them with STR or an important enemy spellcaster that can be tag teamed into a suplex while casting is made impossible via a secondary partymember.

[x3n0n]

They don’t wear it because i don’t see how you can reasonably hide that you’re wearing it (in the scenario given). That is the challenge of the thought experiment.

I really don’t see how the AC part is something you can just flat disagree with. Mage armor is as good as light armor for a dex based character. Anyone can have someone else cast it on them. Anyone can take a feat or a one level dip to get it for themselves. With an 18 in dex (Tasha custom with a half feat) you can have AC 16 at the start.

If people accept one level dips to pick up other armor proficiencies, what’s the issue with a one level dip for Mage armor?

Unarmored defence can be AC 16 at the end of chargen - either an 18 and a 14 or two 16s and only goes up from there with each ASI.

It does mean all characters are dependent in some part on dex for AC. But if you’re maxing WIS then monk has you covered so dex can be secondary. If you’re a bladesinger then INT has you covered. Paladins aren’t great if you want to be heavy CHA but then a sorcerer or warlock dip can get you Mage armor. (Or a flat 17, and potentially shield on top)

And why do you assume it has to be resourceless?

I accept it isn’t going to be the best AC you can get but i don’t think it is below decent and I don’t think it is that much of an investment.

The challenge is building a viable party of characters with these restrictions. Figuring out how to cover the weakness is the fun part of the challenge.

Granting the premise:

Athletics: expertise and/or Way of the Astral Self
Carrying: Powerful Build races, possibly Wild Shape and/or Floating Disk depending on context
Jumping: Monk, Psi Warrior, Wild Shape, sometimes rope plus ally or grappling hook or Mage Hand
Raw Str checks, usually to break stuff: crowbar? Astral Self. Bardic Inspiration. Otherwise difficult without magic (e.g. Guidance, Enhance Ability).

In general, an adventure writer already can't assume that *everyone* in the party is good at all of these, so having one or two ways to fix it might be enough.

[strangebloke]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well. A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 and can't convert the archery style into easy bonus damage, leading to them having lower DPR on top of lower AC. Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." This isn't to pretend that melee doesn't have severe limitations, but the tradeoffs work a lot more in favor of melee characters when feats are off the table.

Beyond that, the many boons of dexterity don't end up working as promised in practice, especially for paladins and clerics. The usual benefits of being high dex are

stealth (but only if you're using light armor or a breastplate, both of which mean far lower AC until you max dexterity, which both takes a long time and isn't advisable for clerics)
ranged play (which is mediocre for paladins and clerics)
initiative (unless you can kill/disable a big threat on the first turn it isn't really that important)
dexterity saves (this I will grant you)

[Willowhelm]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.



Your hot take is noted but totally not the case here. Please read the OP for context.

(Is that really a thing you need to state? Do people just read a title and jump straight to posting without reading anything else?)

[OldTrees1]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well. A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 and can't convert the archery style into easy bonus damage, leading to them having lower DPR on top of lower AC. Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." This isn't to pretend that melee doesn't have severe limitations, but the tradeoffs work a lot more in favor of melee characters when feats are off the table.


This particular discussion seems to stem from the character concepts (look like commoners = no armor or greatswords). So it might be started by a slightly different root cause.

A Rogue does not need a weapon bigger than a dagger.
Some of the characters might be casters.
Some Dex Paladins used a 1d8 weapon without concern.
I thought Monks could be Dex without concern.


(Is that really a thing you need to state? Do people just read a title and jump straight to posting without reading anything else?)
Optimized thread titles decreases this effect. (Although the current title is a nice music reference)

In general on the forum both the title and the opening posts could be considered the topic. It kinda depends on if they think the opening post is a reply to the title/topic or if the opening post is the topic. This is especially true on long threads (this is not a long thread).

Sanity check: I was right about greatswords also being out for being too conspicuous right?

[MaxWilson]

What is your party missing if it doesn't have a character with high STR?

1) You can't wear heavy armor without penalty (except dwarfs) but this party doesn't wear armor anyway so that's fine.
2) You can't use some heavy hitter weapons.

What else? That's the big question... What is strength good for?

(3) Pulling other characters out of Gelatinous Cubes (and other oozes).

[Willie the Duck]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well. A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 and can't convert the archery style into easy bonus damage, leading to them having lower DPR on top of lower AC. Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." This isn't to pretend that melee doesn't have severe limitations, but the tradeoffs work a lot more in favor of melee characters when feats are off the table.

Beyond that, the many boons of dexterity don't end up working as promised in practice, especially for paladins and clerics. The usual benefits of being high dex are

stealth (but only if you're using light armor or a breastplate, both of which mean far lower AC until you max dexterity, which both takes a long time and isn't advisable for clerics)
ranged play (which is mediocre for paladins and clerics)
initiative (unless you can kill/disable a big threat on the first turn it isn't really that important)
dexterity saves (this I will grant you)


I mean, that is certainly part of it (the perception, and why it keeps coming up. I think there's more to it than that. For one thing, for most everyone who is not a hyper-focused frontline fighter, there is little to no combat-downside to focusing on Dex instead of Str. Sure, even without GWM a PAM-fighter or reckless barbarian will do better with a Str-based weapon, but the sword&boarder (be it fighter, cleric, paladin, hexblade, valor bard, etc.) loses little by choosing rapier instead of warhammer or longsword. Plus, given that you can't always pick your battlefield, the situation that a melee character forced to switch hit to ranged is more hamstrung if they are Str-based (and thus are throwing one javelin regardless of attacks/turn instead of pulling out a longbow) is pretty frustrating. Regardless, I think Trask is on to something with the point about Dex and Con being "always on." More to the point, Dex and Con are good for everyone, while Str is good for the characters who specialize in it. I think that informs a huge part of the perception.

[MaxWilson]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well. A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 and can't convert the archery style into easy bonus damage, leading to them having lower DPR on top of lower AC. Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." This isn't to pretend that melee doesn't have severe limitations, but the tradeoffs work a lot more in favor of melee characters when feats are off the table.

Minor nitpick: without Sharpshooter and GWM, warlocks eclipse both Str and Dex fighters in the DPR department. Banning feats makes the problem worse.

Main nitpick: even with Sharpshooter (or Spell Sniper for warlocks), enemies lying prone behind cover is still a problem, because (1) Sharpshooter does nothing to remove disadvantage against prone targets, and (2) Sharpshooter doesn't help you ignore total cover, and lying prone makes total cover possible even when the obstruction is only a couple feet high.

Getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon is also worse for Str than Dex fighters, because with Dex fighters (or any ranged attackers in the party), you can use that narrow dungeon to block a chokepoint with one Dodging PC and maybe some Web spell or other spell support, while everybody else rains down destruction with ranged weaponry. With Str fighters, by vanilla RAW at least, you have to throw daggers at half-speed or worse (one dagger per object iteraction, which means one per round) instead of shooting twice or more per round with a longbow (or Eldritch Blast).

Dex fighters can also boost their damage via spells like Shadow Blade just as easily as Str fighters can.

[Segev]

In terms of "looking like commoners," I am not clear from the OP whether this is just a slight aesthetic or an actual "we're fooling people" concept. If you're up around mid-levels (9+), seeming becomes an option and you don't even have to worry about what you're actually wearing. A Hat of Disguise comes on even earlier, as an Uncommon item.

Strength is good for a lot. It is not good for defense in the specific case where you absolutely, positively, don't want to wear heavy armor. But otherwise, I don't really see "it's not worth anything" to be even remotely true, considering that it does, in fact, enable good defense if you're not applying extra restrictions. Or if you have disguise magic.

[strangebloke]

Your hot take is noted but totally not the case here. Please read the OP for context.

(Is that really a thing you need to state? Do people just read a title and jump straight to posting without reading anything else?)

The discussion has clearly moved to the broader question of "what is strength good for" which is also the title of the thread.

And my post answered that question: its good for damage without feats and for paladins and clerics. I maintain that questions like in the OP wouldn't come up since everyone would know that dexterity means lower AC and damage.

And really, I've already answered the OP: You can build almost any party because only five classes are even capable of focusing strength and only one class has to focus strength. And in the case of the barbarian, you'd have a very easy time disguising yourself as a commoner anyway, so long as you don't rely on a giant greataxe for damage. TWF with knives/hatchets works just fine for barbarian.

The only real thing you're going to notice from a build perspective is that you can't really use shields or medium armor or heavy weapons (including crossbows and longbows) because they're too obtrusive. This will in turn lead to your party really lagging behind on damage and AC, something that already plagues a purely dex-based party for all the reasons outlined above. There's no real way to work around this, short of getting alternate forms of AC (tortle, mage armor) or relying heavily on rogues and monks.


I mean, that is certainly part of it (the perception, and why it keeps coming up. I think there's more to it than that. For one thing, for most everyone who is not a hyper-focused frontline fighter, there is little to no combat-downside to focusing on Dex instead of Str. Sure, even without GWM a PAM-fighter or reckless barbarian will do better with a Str-based weapon, but the sword&boarder (be it fighter, cleric, paladin, hexblade, valor bard, etc.) loses little by choosing rapier instead of warhammer or longsword. Plus, given that you can't always pick your battlefield, the situation that a melee character forced to switch hit to ranged is more hamstrung if they are Str-based (and thus are throwing one javelin regardless of attacks/turn instead of pulling out a longbow) is pretty frustrating. Regardless, I think Trask is on to something with the point about Dex and Con being "always on." More to the point, Dex and Con are good for everyone, while Str is good for the characters who specialize in it. I think that informs a huge part of the perception.
In the first place, I completely agree. As said in my first post, the classes that can use strength are in the minority, and even then its only an option with pros and cons (except for barbarian, who need strength but can also get dexterity easily.)

But I do think that the idea that "str is selfish, dex is selfless" is wrong. Being more hardy and dealing high damage is no more selfish than any other playstyle, and a STRogue focused on proning enemies is nothing if not a selfless character concept. Indeed, I think part of the reason that strength should be strongly considered by the classes that benefit from it is specifically because its a specialized role that few can fill. It's very possible to end up in a party where the lowest dex is 14 and the highest strength is 8, and while there's no obstacles that require strength, I always have to go "Hmmmmm" when people propose building specifically to compensate for a lack of strength, or expending big spell slots to do so. Polymorphing yourself into an elephant to break down a door is not the most efficient use of a spell slot, lol.

Minor nitpick: without Sharpshooter and GWM, warlocks eclipse both Str and Dex fighters in the DPR department. Banning feats makes the problem worse.

I view the Warlock's encroachment on the martial niche to be a completely separate problem, driven by the hexblade, by DM's being needlessly stingy with magic weapons in t2 and t3, as well as some other things. FWIW I'm not actually arguing that GWM and SS should be banned, merely that SS specifically is such a strong feat that it completely warps how the DEX/STR tradeoff is viewed.

Main nitpick: even with Sharpshooter (or Spell Sniper for warlocks), enemies lying prone behind cover is still a problem, because (1) Sharpshooter does nothing to remove disadvantage against prone targets, and (2) Sharpshooter doesn't help you ignore total cover, and lying prone makes total cover possible even when the obstruction is only a couple feet high.
Obviously you can get total cover by lying prone, but you won't always. As usual I'm doing a poor job explaining myself because I've got some specific instances from my home game in mind, involving a lot of shrubbery (which couldn't provide full cover at all). Just disadvantage by itself is bad (you won't be using SS) but the +x AC is really what kills it.

Getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon is also worse for Str than Dex fighters, because with Dex fighters (or any ranged attackers in the party), you can use that narrow dungeon to block a chokepoint with one Dodging PC and maybe some Web spell or other spell support, while everybody else rains down destruction with ranged weaponry. With Str fighters, by vanilla RAW at least, you have to throw daggers at half-speed or worse (one dagger per object iteraction, which means one per round) instead of shooting twice or more per round with a longbow (or Eldritch Blast).

Dex fighters can also boost their damage via spells like Shadow Blade just as easily as Str fighters can.

But who's best to be the dodging PC? Why, its the str fighter! ;)

This is a key reason that strength characters can be good: there will usually only be one in the party, if that.

(moreover, we're thinking of a different scenario. I would consider a 15 foot wide room to be 'narrow,' and I'd consider 'swarmed' to involve an ambush with lots of enemies from multiple directions. Kobolds in the walls)

[LudicSavant]

There are so many other great Dex builds you could try and enjoy besides Sharpshooter! Don’t sleep on them! :smallsmile:


My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well.

That’s not accurate. There are Dex builds that mathematically outperform GWM builds that don’t use Sharpshooter.


A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 This is also not accurate.

For example four of the Dex builds I posted recently in the Eclectic thread use a 2d4, 1d10, and 1d12 weapon die, and a fifth uses Shadow Blade for a 2-4d8 weapon die.


Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." There are tons of great Dex builds that don’t rely on ranged attacks. And even ones that use ranged attacks that can negate prone by means other than Sharpshooter!



stealth (but only if you're using light armor or a breastplate Or mage armor or natural armor or unarmored defense or mithral armor or medium armor master or even regular half-plate, eating the disadvantage and still having a +3 or more Stealth advantage over the alternative, which can sometimes be all the build needed to nudge it into “good at stealth” territory. For example one of the recent builds I posted is stealthier with Disadvantage than many Stealth-using characters are without it, just as a side effect.

Also, the “taking a long time” argument falls flat in practice — at low levels heavy armor often doesn’t even have an AC advantage at all! For example the level 1 medium armor is cheaper (by enough to afford a healing potion with Herbalism) and provides the exact same AC as the level 1 heavy armor. And again, even with disadvantage your stealth is still better. Worst case is that you just transition from a perfectly capable medium armor approach to a light armor one as you level.

And of course it’s currently possible to max Dex by level 4 with Point Buy or standard array (using custom lineage) or level 1 (if rolling).


initiative (unless you can kill/disable a big threat on the first turn it isn't really that important)

Mathematically, Initiative is immensely impactful, and this should be unsurprising given that the difference between beating Team Monster in initiative and not is an entire extra turn worth of actions — more than an Action Surge. “Killing them on the first turn” is entirely unnecessary to see this major effect.

And that’s not even all it does. Not only is it effectively an entire extra turn of actions, but it also matters that those actions are first. The natural tactical advantage of acting first means allowing you to seize more desirable positioning, remove anyone “caught out” from vulnerable positions, get your defenses up, or control the enemy to prevent their actions.

[Willowhelm]

The discussion has clearly moved to the broader question of "what is strength good for" which is also the title of the thread.


Your signature asks to call you out when you’re being rude.

I think that ignoring the contents of the original post, the contents of the original poster’s replies in the thread and the thread creator’s intention for the thread in order to add your own self described “hot take” that is not relevant... is rude.

I made the thread. If the discussion has moved to other topics I can ask that it stay on topic and move back. Ignoring that request outright is rude.

The title is a reference to a classic song lyric. If you think the entire context of a thread should be in the title then why would any thread even have a first post with contents other than “title”?

This is a rhetorical question. Don’t answer it.

[Tanarii]

Str is good for being able to use a wider variety of found Magic weapons.

The "context" is a bit of a fallacy. It presupposes you're have a group that's all high Dex and ranged. That results in closing off certain options, like high AC melee combat range PCs. Yes, if you eliminate one of the things Str is good for, there is a much more limited number of things Str is good for.

[MaxWilson]

But who's best to be the dodging PC? Why, its the str fighter! ;)


Yes... or the Forge Cleric 1/Illusionisy X (with Str or the Mobile feat or Longstrider or a mount or just a willingness to be slow), or the Life Cleric 1/Necromancer X, or one of the Necromancer's zombies in chain mail + shield. Or a conjured elemental, etc.

Melee meat shields are relatively fungible, moreso than ranged strikers.



This is a key reason that strength characters can be good: there will usually only be one in the party, if that.

(moreover, we're thinking of a different scenario. I would consider a 15 foot wide room to be 'narrow,' and I'd consider 'swarmed' to involve an ambush with lots of enemies from multiple directions. Kobolds in the walls)

Okay, that's fair. I'll say that I've been pleasantly surprised in the past at the positive impact of adding a Str-based tank (Str 16 Cha 16+ Lucky human paladin) to a team of three Dexy skirmishers (shadow monk, bardlock, necrolock). It's nice to have someone tanky to willingly stick their necks out, go first through dark doorways, ford dark underground rivers, etc.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

My hot take:

The only reason this discussion comes up is because Sharpshooter exists.

Without Sharpshooter, dex-based damage falls way behind strength-based damage even if you ban GWM as well. A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 and can't convert the archery style into easy bonus damage, leading to them having lower DPR on top of lower AC. Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon." This isn't to pretend that melee doesn't have severe limitations, but the tradeoffs work a lot more in favor of melee characters when feats are off the table.

Beyond that, the many boons of dexterity don't end up working as promised in practice, especially for paladins and clerics. The usual benefits of being high dex are

stealth (but only if you're using light armor or a breastplate, both of which mean far lower AC until you max dexterity, which both takes a long time and isn't advisable for clerics)
ranged play (which is mediocre for paladins and clerics)
initiative (unless you can kill/disable a big threat on the first turn it isn't really that important)
dexterity saves (this I will grant you)


I think you undervalue the combo of Stealth (with a possibility of surprise or avoiding combat entirely) and Initiative for Dex. A party arranged this way will often get 2 sets of attacks off before the baddies get any. And, no it's not just for killing something in turn 1; that benefit continues throughout the battle, more than compensating for a couple of AC points.

[MaxWilson]

I think you undervalue the combo of Stealth (with a possibility of surprise or avoiding combat entirely) and Initiative for Dex. A party arranged this way will often get 2 sets of attacks off before the baddies get any. And, no it's not just for killing something in turn 1; that benefit continues throughout the battle, more than compensating for a couple of AC points.

The value of initiative depends chiefly upon metagame factors, like how much has to happen before the DM decides that combat has started and it's now time to shift to turn-by-turn action declarations (if you're using vanilla PHB RAW initiative). For example, taking your turn first or last at 120 yards against a bunch of Frost Giants is irrelevant: what really matters is who has the longer range on their attacks and who has faster movement. Losing initiative when you're hidden by Pass Without Trace also doesn't hurt. But if the DM is the type to make a squad of Githyanki Knights and yound adult red dragons suddenly plane shift in from the Astral Plane thirty feet behind you and immediately attack for no reason, in that case initiative matters a lot, especially if the PCs are in Fireball Formation.

[Segev]

For example, taking your turn first or last at 120 yards against a bunch of Frost Giants is irrelevant: what really matters is who has the longer range on their attacks and who has faster movement.

To be fair, Strength is the least likely stat to be useful at 120 yards/360 feet. Dex or a casting stat are far more likely to be important.

[Amnestic]

Losing initiative when you're hidden by Pass Without Trace also doesn't hurt.

It can do - they can use reactions, since their Surprise condition will have worn off if they beat you on initiative. How much that matters will depend on the encounter and what they can do as a reaction, but it could completely negate an attack if they're a monk with deflect arrows, for instance. Monsters also can't take legendary or lair actions per MM errata, so even if they lose their first turn beating you on initiative means they get to unleash those sooner. That's not inconsequential.

[MaxWilson]

It can do - they can use reactions, since their Surprise condition will have worn off if they beat you on initiative. How much that matters will depend on the encounter and what they can do as a reaction, but it could completely negate an attack if they're a monk with deflect arrows, for instance. Monsters also can't take legendary or lair actions per MM errata, so even if they lose their first turn beating you on initiative means they get to unleash those sooner. That's not inconsequential.

Requesting clarification:

What are they reacting to, in the scenario you're imagining? Is there someone else who isn't hidden, and they're reacting to them instead?

Otherwise, I'll say "good nitpick but orthogonal to my point: you don't have to give away your presence just because your turn rolls around, you'll wait until the situation is advantageous, so turn order doesn't matter until you decide to act."

[Amnestic]

What are they reacting to, in the scenario you're imagining? Is there someone else who isn't hidden, and they're reacting to them instead?

Otherwise, I'll say "good nitpick but orthogonal to my point: you don't have to give away your presence just because your turn rolls around, you'll wait until the situation is advantageous, so turn order doesn't matter until you decide to act."

Right, and when you decide to act, you roll initiative. And if they beat you, they're no longer surprised when your turn comes around, letting them do reactions (and lair/legendary actions). That's how the mechanics of initiative and surprise work. Even if you're successfully hiding.

[Theodoxus]

I'm still a little uncertain of why Str is bad in this scenario of looking like commoners. Is it because you think they'd be bulky and look out of place? Because there's a LOT of classic fantasy out there with the 'mule' character. Is it that, sans heavy armor, they're SOL? Because Dex and Str are not mutually exclusive. Every decent barbarian will at least have a 14 Dex to start their career in medium armor, unless they rolled really well - or are ok with 3 15s and a Vhuman (with the 3 8s that go along with it).

I still think "disguising" the party as a tortollan pilgrimage solves 99.99% of your problem. You can have a high strength guy, a high dex guy, a high int guy, a high wis guy and a high cha guy, all with ACs equal to an 18 dex guy using Mage Armor, without having to cast it every 8 hours. That's a massive savings in both Dex allocation and spell slots.

[Willowhelm]

I'm still a little uncertain of why Str is bad in this scenario of looking like commoners. Is it because you think they'd be bulky and look out of place? Because there's a LOT of classic fantasy out there with the 'mule' character. Is it that, sans heavy armor, they're SOL? Because Dex and Str are not mutually exclusive. Every decent barbarian will at least have a 14 Dex to start their career in medium armor, unless they rolled really well - or are ok with 3 15s and a Vhuman (with the 3 8s that go along with it).



It isn’t. That’s a thing that people in the thread have run with. All I said is they can’t wear armor. I even said:


The alternative question is how do you build a STR based character for this party? How do you get a decent AC on a STR based character without armor?

A non-variant human 16/16/16/9/9/9 barbarian can start with ac 16 and work their way up. It’s just that the stats are “wasted” compared to a fighter with a single level dip in barb for the armor class, who sticks to dex. The fighter would be a little less MAD. The str character has to chose between bumping their str vs upping their ac. Normally this isn’t a concern because strength builds have armor and shields. (Personally I’d let a tavern brawler use found items as shields but it’s pretty iffy)

It gets trickier when you want to be a class that is already MAD and needs another stat (e.g. if you need to throw in CHA for the paladin). Even if the DM lets you smite with half a brick in a sock without tavern brawler (i would - improvised weapon is still a weapon) you’re going to be having a tough time picking up those “standard” feats like GWM, PAM etc.

Which leads to what makes going STR worthwhile? Which leads to a lot of people getting worked up like you said there’s no reason for strength at all and dex is the only choice.

[Tanarii]

Otherwise, I'll say "good nitpick but orthogonal to my point: you don't have to give away your presence just because your turn rolls around, you'll wait until the situation is advantageous, so turn order doesn't matter until you decide to act."
If combat began, they already know you're there. The check is for surprise once combat begins, not to hide until your first turn comes up.

If you didn't initiate combat, then yeah sure, but there's also no initiative roll in that case.

[Theodoxus]

ok. so only stipulation is no armor? Or no armor and no bulky weapons?

And what, exactly, are these characters going to be fighting/encountering?

Eh, still doesn't really matter.

I'd roll a party of Tortles. They'd be capable of handling whatever came along, presumably away from the prying eyes of whomever they're hiding out as commoners for, and use the captured loot/weapons to overpower the next set of slightly harder baddies, slowly increasing their gear score until they need to stash it in a copse of trees when they Town Portal back home, disguised once again as commoners.

[Willie the Duck]

But I do think that the idea that "str is selfish, dex is selfless" is wrong. Being more hardy and dealing high damage is no more selfish than any other playstyle, and a STRogue focused on proning enemies is nothing if not a selfless character concept. Indeed, I think part of the reason that strength should be strongly considered by the classes that benefit from it is specifically because its a specialized role that few can fill. It's very possible to end up in a party where the lowest dex is 14 and the highest strength is 8, and while there's no obstacles that require strength, I always have to go "Hmmmmm" when people propose building specifically to compensate for a lack of strength, or expending big spell slots to do so. Polymorphing yourself into an elephant to break down a door is not the most efficient use of a spell slot, lol.

I didn't say, "str is selfish, dex is selfless," although looking back I can see where you got that. What I said was "Dex and Con are good for everyone, while Str is good for the characters who specialize in it," and by that I mean that every character benefits from having a high Dex and Con (even someone like a Str-based martial) -- they give HP, initiative, common saves, and so forth (self-benefits, if not selfish ones), and as such those characters to who are not tasked with the strength role benefit from them. Strength, on the other hand, is mostly (so some exceptions, such as encumbrance) doesn't do much for the non-str-based character. Obviously a party benefits from having someone in said party who can knock down doors, wrestle the big bad, and so forth. Similarly, someone in the party should have a high Int score (for investigation, knowledge skills, and such), but for the average cleric or paladin or the like, it is a relatively safe dump stat (until the mind flayer encounter, of course).

[Theodoxus]

That's always true though. A generalized party will always succeed easier than a hyper specialized one, especially if everyone is hyper specialized in the same general way (all high dex, for example).

A jerk DM will target your weaknesses and rout the party with relative ease if no one is capable of dealing with a high strength challenge.

[LudicSavant]

A jerk DM will target your weaknesses and rout the party with relative ease if no one is capable of dealing with a high strength challenge.

What are all these hypothetical challenges that actually require high Strength, rather than merely having high Strength on the list of ways to solve it?

[Tanarii]

What are all these hypothetical challenges that actually require high Strength, rather than merely having high Strength on the list of ways to solve it?
Lots of wolves and boars.

[Willowhelm]

ok. so only stipulation is no armor? Or no armor and no bulky weapons?

And what, exactly, are these characters going to be fighting/encountering?

Eh, still doesn't really matter.

I'd roll a party of Tortles. They'd be capable of handling whatever came along, presumably away from the prying eyes of whomever they're hiding out as commoners for, and use the captured loot/weapons to overpower the next set of slightly harder baddies, slowly increasing their gear score until they need to stash it in a copse of trees when they Town Portal back home, disguised once again as commoners.

Tortles first: you still only have a base AC of 17 so it doesn’t just magically solve all the problems. I also think that a group of tortles would be quiet exceptional and noteworthy. They wouldn’t exactly be unremarkable.

As for the restrictions... I’ll try and come up with a specific scenario if it will help but:

No armor - it is obvious on sight to anybody that you are not your average bear.
No weapons - a belt dagger perhaps or whatever utilitarian option is available in the culture. You can’t get away with a pick axe unless you’re going mining and you don’t get a sword unless you take it from someone during the fight you’re using it in.
No magic items - this can be waived once you have the ability to conceal their aura but they still have to be “subtle” and pass as a commoners possession.
Pass a close inspection/pat down when going through a security check (at low levels in particular you won’t be teleporting, and maybe the location is protected)

And once you’re inside - you’re still a competitive adventuring party. Ready for a heist, a fight, or whatever else comes your way.

And if nobody sees the action, once you leave again - nobody thinks it would be you to blame.

[MaxWilson]

What are all these hypothetical challenges that actually require high Strength, rather than merely having high Strength on the list of ways to solve it?

Trial by caber tossing contest?

[OldTrees1]

What are all these hypothetical challenges that actually require high Strength, rather than merely having high Strength on the list of ways to solve it?

Considering their description:

They're not wearing armor. They're not carrying packs with rope, pitons, lamps and 10 foot poles. They don't have weapons and magic items. They just look like regular commoners.

I think a dungeon sealing itself closed behind the party might be a concern. Think of a stone slab. Certain tools would give alternative solutions, but low gear parties might be in trouble.


However the opening poster reminded us that they are wondering how you would make a Str based character that conforms to the equipment & description limitations. What would a no armor Str based character look like? Someone keeps mentioning turtles but I wonder if there are alternatives.

What about a strong farmhand? STR Barbarian with a shovel.

[MaxWilson]

Right, and when you decide to act, you roll initiative. And if they beat you, they're no longer surprised when your turn comes around, letting them do reactions (and lair/legendary actions). That's how the mechanics of initiative and surprise work. Even if you're successfully hiding.

Again, not untrue but orthogonal to my point: when you decide to act, it's because the situation is favorable now (e.g. the guards have left the room and the Fire Giant queen is alone, and you've poisoned six arrows with Carrion Crawler venom and are ready to douse the lights with your object interaction so she has to fight you in the dark). The queen is getting "turns" before you act, but they don't hurt you because she doesn't know you're there, so she's not acting effectively against the threat you present.

Again, you're not wrong that getting 5E-jargon "surprise" on top of that can make the scenario even easier, but IME that kind of surprise is less important than getting to choose your terms of engagement.

[LudicSavant]

I think a dungeon sealing itself closed behind the party might be a concern. But I've solved exactly that problem before, without using Strength. So that can't be it.

What would a no armor Str based character look like? Someone keeps mentioning turtles but I wonder if there are alternatives.

A Barbarian who rolled well enough to wanna use Unarmored Defense is the only thing leaping to mind.

[MaxWilson]

However the opening poster reminded us that they are wondering how you would make a Str based character that conforms to the equipment & description limitations. What would a no armor Str based character look like? Someone keeps mentioning turtles but I wonder if there are alternatives.

What about a strong farmhand? STR Barbarian with a shovel.

<racks imagination>

A common housecat (actually a Druid, can Wildshape into an Ape as needed, or an Earth Elemental if a Moon Druid). May or may not be an actual Dreamlands cat druid instead of a human druid. Can also conjure strong creatures if needed.

A 7' tall, broad-shouldered man in business clothing with spectacles, and an abacus (GWM Eldritch Knight with Mobile feat disguised as an accountant, can Mage Armor + summon greatsword as action + bonus action, uses Expeditious Retreat + Mobile instead of AC).

A 5' 2" man with average brown eyes and unremarkable features dressed like a servant (actually a 6' 2" Warbearian (Barb 2/Warlock 1+) with Mask of Many Faces invocation).

A burly tradesman with a huge trunk on the back of a mule (a bog-standard cavalier while incognito; the trunk contains plate armor and weaponry). Removing your armor does not actually require any special class features, it just requires enough guts to let yourself be unarmored and vulnerable for a while.

[Willowhelm]

<racks imagination>

A common housecat (actually a Druid, can Wildshape into an Ape as needed, or an Earth Elemental if a Moon Druid). May or may not be an actual Dreamlands cat druid instead of a human druid. Can also conjure strong creatures if needed.

A 7' tall, broad-shouldered man in business clothing with spectacles, and an abacus (GWM Eldritch Knight with Mobile feat disguised as an accountant, can Mage Armor + summon greatsword as action + bonus action, uses Expeditious Retreat + Mobile instead of AC).

A 5' 2" man with average brown eyes and unremarkable features dressed like a servant (actually a 6' 2" Warbearian (Barb 2/Warlock 1+) with Mask of Many Faces invocation).

A burly tradesman with a huge trunk on the back of a mule (a bog-standard cavalier while incognito; the trunk contains plate armor and weaponry). Removing your armor does not actually require any special class features, it just requires enough guts to let yourself be unarmored and vulnerable for a while.

The Druid/cat doesn’t exactly rely on strength and indeed is likely to dump it.

I like the eldritch knight but can you give an idea how that could work at lower levels? There’s a long way to go between level one and the setup you describe.

Mask of many faces is (very) useful but fails the close inspection/pat down and magical detection. I do like it though. Problem is the ac is still very dex reliant and you’re getting pretty MAD if you want STR and ac in that setup?

Huge trunk with armor - not really the inconspicuous vibe I’m going for. Think about going through airport security, a stadium or a concert? You also are going to be remembered as the guy lugging that chest around not some no name labourer from the fields...

Keep them coming!

[tsotate]

I like Path of the Beast barbarians for my unarmed, commoner-looking Strength builds. That might just be because I have one lined up to play as the "monk" of our next campaign with a DM who has a nigh-pathological hatred of Stunning Strike, though.

[x3n0n]

I like the eldritch knight but can you give an idea how that could work at lower levels? There’s a long way to go between level one and the setup you describe.

That sounds like v.human Mobile fighter for levels 1&2. Perhaps quarterstaff or dual dagger, rely on Mobile.

Then everything magical mentioned comes online at 3rd level: Weapon Bond, Mage Armor, and Expeditious Retreat (plus cantrips and another Evocation or Abjuration spell). Follow roughly normal Str-fighter progression from there?

[LudicSavant]

In addition to the Barbarian, there's also Loxodon for non-Dex-based natural armor.

[Pex]

Really good if you're in a campaign that utilizes the things its good at. Not so good if you aren't.

Thats the main problem, scores like Dex and Con are "always on" so to speak, there are very few regular scenarios where they aren't useful. Strength can be really, really good, but only if carrying, pushing, shoving, grappling, lifting, climbing, and all that good stuff are things you regularly do and not things your DM skips over, or WORSE, lets Dexterity do as well. (I swear if I play with another DM that lets you climb with Dex...) :smallmad:

Stay away from my barbarian game DM. I have to keep reminding him every . . . single . . . time. I WANT that advantage, darnit! :smallyuk:

Encumbrance is in the rules. It's a matter of enforcement. It is true for me I'm not a fan of strict adherence to it. Bulk is what matters, not weight. However, even if handwaving it carrying capacity matters. Sometimes you need to lift or push things. In pure munchkinism, parties like to take the weapons and an armor or two from the orcs they killed to sell. If the DM accepts the idea of putting it all in one large backpack or better the treasure chest they looted all the gold and potions from someone needs to carry it. Not worrying about minutiae math, as long as the 18 ST character says he'll carry it the party can bring it to town to sell.

In combat shoving to move or trip has value. You can defend with Acrobatics (DX), but you must use Athletics (ST) to do the shoving. Same with grappling. It's teamwork play. It can be very important your opponent is prone and/or can't move Right Now to stop him from doing something or make it easier for party members to finish him off. In one game my barbarian wrestled an iron golem. I needed to do that so the spellcasters could find us a way out of a trapped room with a Prismatic Wall without being bothered. The rogue did the killing of the golem with sneak attack. In another game I climbed a wall (It's Strength, DM), grappled a mindflayer hiding in an alcove, and threw him on the ground so the rest of the party could attack him. Yes, I'm very proud of these moments. :smallbiggrin: My strength mattered a great deal.

[Theodoxus]

Tortles first: you still only have a base AC of 17 so it doesn’t just magically solve all the problems. I also think that a group of tortles would be quiet exceptional and noteworthy. They wouldn’t exactly be unremarkable.

I mean, if your premise is "what's the highest AC you can possibly get with only a bit of magic that isn't readily detectable, yet can't be seen with bog standard metal detector/magic detector at a stadium concert" then you're not going to do much better than a 17. You'd need a pair of 18s on your barbarian or monk to top it. Since talking about rolling is never wise when it comes to theoretical char builds, it's gonna be a few levels before you top the tortle's AC.

As for unremarkable, that's completely campaign specific. If it's a humanocentric universe and tortles haven't been seen in the last 200 years, you have a point. If it's Wojick Universe and TNMT is a super common trope, you kinda don't. And if it's Azerothian on the coasts of the Zandalar and Kul Tiras, then my little pilgrimage group would be a very common sight.

But sure, let's toss tortles aside because heaven forbid we keep the damn goalposts in one place.

You probably don't want a whole group of barbarians and/or monks. You'd be missing out on a lot of utility and combat usefulness without casters and probably a ranger. But most groups don't have more than 1 or 2 strength guys (and during session zero, 9/10, if two folks want to play the strength tank, one gives up the idea to the other. So, you're really looking for 1 dude with strength, in this otherwise unremarkable band of brothers. And lo and behold, the barbarian fits your needs perfectly. Yeah, he'll probably stand out a bit, looking like the Man of Steel in his snug fitting plaid shirt, but singing "I'm a lumberjack" will solve that little problem.

So, to answer the meta question, What is strength good for? It's good for the lone barbarian in the party to pull the team out of the proverbial fire gelatinous cube and any other dire straights. MC with a level of rogue to 1) really play up that dagger fighting with a touch of sneak attack (hello reckless attack!) and 2) getting Expertise in Athletics for that amazing Rage-tastic Advantage with Expertise grappling build you might as well maximize on.

For the secondary question, would it be OP to have the barb's Unarmored Defense key off Strength and Con instead of Dex? Uh, yeah.

[MaxWilson]

The Druid/cat doesn’t exactly rely on strength and indeed is likely to dump it.

And yet it has Strength whenever it needs it. YMMV though. I was just answering OldTrees1's question with what came to mind for me.


I like the eldritch knight but can you give an idea how that could work at lower levels? There’s a long way to go between level one and the setup you describe.

Human Fighter, take the Mobile feat. At level 3, learn Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor, and Shield as your three spells. Take GWM if desired at level four.


Mask of many faces is (very) useful but fails the close inspection/pat down and magical detection. I do like it though. Problem is the ac is still very dex reliant and you’re getting pretty MAD if you want STR and ac in that setup?

I wasn't trying to make a spy immune to patdowns, just to imagine an answer to OldTrees1's question, "What would a no armor Str based character look like?" and the answer that came to mind was "he might not look anything at all like his true self." But if you do want to be immune to patdowns, it's the same character, only without an illusion. He's a 6' 2" guy with no weapons (until he summons one) and no armor, just clothes. The illusion is frankly superfluous, but it was part of the mental image so I kept it.


Huge trunk with armor - not really the inconspicuous vibe I’m going for. Think about going through airport security, a stadium or a concert? You also are going to be remembered as the guy lugging that chest around not some no name labourer from the fields...

Again, this is the first time I've heard of any close inspection/pat down requirement. I don't see any such requirement in the OP.

I don't know why a guy with a trunk, truck, or wagon, labelled as something innocuous like "melons" or "dirty laundry", would be particularly conspicuous or memorable. The key component is being willing to be vulnerable sometimes by not wearing your armor everywhere all the time like PCs tend to do, only when combat is imminent. Where you keep the armor the rest of the time frankly isn't the point. A level 3 Artificer can make a bag of holding--if you're that worried about it add Artificer 3 to the party and call it done.


I mean, if your premise is "what's the highest AC you can possibly get with only a bit of magic that isn't readily detectable, yet can't be seen with bog standard metal detector/magic detector at a stadium concert" then you're not going to do much better than a 17. You'd need a pair of 18s on your barbarian or monk to top it. Since talking about rolling is never wise when it comes to theoretical char builds, it's gonna be a few levels before you top the tortle's AC.

I disagree. If you can quantify what fraction of rolled stats qualify for a given build, I think it's fine to talk about it. A build that only 0.6% of rolled stats qualify for isn't of much interest, but a plan that 25% of rolled stats qualify for can be interesting, and a build that 99% of rolled stats qualify for is interesting in a different way as a fallback plan for when your rolls are poor. If your 99% build is fun and interesting, you can roll stats without anxiety, although you may still be excited when you get to play a 25% or a 4% build.

[Willowhelm]

That sounds like v.human Mobile fighter for levels 1&2. Perhaps quarterstaff or dual dagger, rely on Mobile.

Then everything magical mentioned comes online at 3rd level: Weapon Bond, Mage Armor, and Expeditious Retreat (plus cantrips and another Evocation or Abjuration spell). Follow roughly normal Str-fighter progression from there?

I’m not very familiar with the eldritch knight but it seems like they’re taking a hit on their AC (from Mage armor) to go STR plus mobile (and so try to avoid being where the bad guy is)? How are those ASIs getting used exactly?

Does this work well? It’s not a style of play I have any experience with.

[Theodoxus]

I’m not very familiar with the eldritch knight but it seems like they’re taking a hit on their AC (from Mage armor) to go STR plus mobile (and so try to avoid being where the bad guy is)? How are those ASIs getting used exactly?

Does this work well? It’s not a style of play I have any experience with.

Outside of a Darksun game where metal armor doesn't exist for 1st and 2nd level characters (or higher without a generous DM), I doubt anyone would play such a character. I mean sure, of the millions (billions?) of characters played since 5E's inception, I'm sure someone somewhere said 'Hey, I'm gonna play a vhuman but purposefully nerf myself until nigh-unplayability by going Fighter, but not using any armor and walking around with a shillelagh (no, silly, not the cantrip, I'm a fighter!) and use Mobile to run around doing a d4+str on a hit. It'll be a hoot!'

But seriously, no. It doesn't work well outside of your very specific unarmored scenario, and even then, there are much better options. But if someone is already playing those options, sure. It's a decent 5th wheel. :smallwink:

[tsotate]

Encumbrance is in the rules. It's a matter of enforcement. It is true for me I'm not a fan of strict adherence to it. Bulk is what matters, not weight. However, even if handwaving it carrying capacity matters. Sometimes you need to lift or push things. In pure munchkinism, parties like to take the weapons and an armor or two from the orcs they killed to sell. If the DM accepts the idea of putting it all in one large backpack or better the treasure chest they looted all the gold and potions from someone needs to carry it. Not worrying about minutiae math, as long as the 18 ST character says he'll carry it the party can bring it to town to sell.

Or the party could just have an actual mule. What looks more commoner-like than having a cheap beast of burden?

[MaxWilson]

I’m not very familiar with the eldritch knight but it seems like they’re taking a hit on their AC (from Mage armor) to go STR plus mobile (and so try to avoid being where the bad guy is)? How are those ASIs getting used exactly?

Does this work well? It’s not a style of play I have any experience with.

With Mage Armor and e.g. Dex 14, and no physical shield because you're busy greatswording with two hands, your AC won't be great (AC 15, +5 when you Shield), but it's respectable, and with the proposed build AC isn't your primary defense anyway--Mobile skirmishing is.

It works... okay. It's nothing like as optimal as simply going e.g. Shepherd Druid and blanketing the field with summons, or even going Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert and not having to get into melee in the first place, but I've seen AC 16 druids rely on Primal Savagery + Mobile as a secondary strategy, and it works okay-ish. I've also seen Barbarians rely on Mobile plus their level 5 speed boost to offset the negative effects of Reckless, and again, it works okay (reduces damage taken by maybe 50% overall against melee monsters, which makes it sort of similar to having AC 19-20ish). I'm confident therefore that the EK would be a viable Str-based character for the party.

That's not to say that he wouldn't be even stronger if he ditched Str for Dex and Sharpshooter and/or cheese like Tasha's Bladesinger, but nobody asked how to maximize effectiveness, only how to make viable Str characters. If you really want to maximize effectiveness in a covert scenario you should do like Ludic Savant said and forget about Str and solve Str-related problems in other ways.

[Willowhelm]

But sure, let's toss tortles aside because heaven forbid we keep the damn goalposts in one place.

<snip>

For the secondary question, would it be OP to have the barb's Unarmored Defense key off Strength and Con instead of Dex? Uh, yeah.

The problem with goalposts is that then people become very fixated on getting the ball in the net. Closed questions get closed answers. Open questions get open answers. I’m after the hive mind coming up with things I am unaware of, rather than a single solution to a single problem. I will try and come up with some rules to make it clearer.

Meanwhile - why does making unarmored defence go off con and strength make it OP?

[LudicSavant]

The problem with goalposts is that then people become very fixated on getting the ball in the net. Closed questions get closed answers. Open questions get open answers. I’m after the hive mind coming up with things I am unaware of, rather than a single solution to a single problem. I will try and come up with some rules to make it clearer.

Meanwhile - why does making unarmored defence go off con and strength make it OP?

I can say that making unarmored defense go off of Strength would make it a stronger ability than it currently is, since a Barb is generally better off maxing Strength than Constitution already. As for whether that makes anything OP depends on where you're setting the bar, I suppose.

[Theodoxus]

As for whether that makes anything OP depends on where you're setting the bar, I suppose.

Fair point.

The way I see it, Barbs already don't need a ton of Dex. In a non-scenario game, they're good with a 14, maybe 16 Dex if they take MAM. Their Dex saves are boosted by Danger Sense, so even if not proficient, they still going to make most Dex saves. The only real reason someone would boost Dex is for the AC benefit (with UD) and possibly the Initiative boost.

Switching out Dex for Str means the Barb can basically ignore - or at least put it roughly the same as Wisdom. It's a nice have, not a must. And, maybe less OP and more "gosh that's nice", Primal Champion will boost their AC to 24 instead of 22 (and that's with maxing both Con and Dex (probably over Str). With this change, Dex is set at whatever the player feels is decent at 1st level and never touched again. You'll have 20s in Str and Con by 16th level at least, and certainly by 19th, boosting both to 24 at 20.

Your hits will hit hardest, you'll have the most HP possible, and your AC will be higher than a typical barbi your entire career. As far as I'm concerned, it's OP because it elevates the class ahead of its peers. And, it's an unnecessary change.

[Elbeyon]

Stay away from my barbarian game DM. I have to keep reminding him every . . . single . . . time. I WANT that advantage, darnit! :smallyuk:

Encumbrance is in the rules. It's a matter of enforcement. It is true for me I'm not a fan of strict adherence to it. Bulk is what matters, not weight. However, even if handwaving it carrying capacity matters. Sometimes you need to lift or push things. In pure munchkinism, parties like to take the weapons and an armor or two from the orcs they killed to sell. If the DM accepts the idea of putting it all in one large backpack or better the treasure chest they looted all the gold and potions from someone needs to carry it. Not worrying about minutiae math, as long as the 18 ST character says he'll carry it the party can bring it to town to sell.

In combat shoving to move or trip has value. You can defend with Acrobatics (DX), but you must use Athletics (ST) to do the shoving. Same with grappling. It's teamwork play. It can be very important your opponent is prone and/or can't move Right Now to stop him from doing something or make it easier for party members to finish him off. In one game my barbarian wrestled an iron golem. I needed to do that so the spellcasters could find us a way out of a trapped room with a Prismatic Wall without being bothered. The rogue did the killing of the golem with sneak attack. In another game I climbed a wall (It's Strength, DM), grappled a mindflayer hiding in an alcove, and threw him on the ground so the rest of the party could attack him. Yes, I'm very proud of these moments. :smallbiggrin: My strength mattered a great deal.

How is that munchkinism? Weapons and armor are valuable. Looting battlefields has always been a thing in history. People would hack armor off the dead if needed, break apart equipment for valuables, and loot anything that they thought was valuable (which was often weapons and armor).

[Willowhelm]

Fair point.

The way I see it, Barbs already don't need a ton of Dex. In a non-scenario game, they're good with a 14, maybe 16 Dex if they take MAM. Their Dex saves are boosted by Danger Sense, so even if not proficient, they still going to make most Dex saves. The only real reason someone would boost Dex is for the AC benefit (with UD) and possibly the Initiative boost.

Switching out Dex for Str means the Barb can basically ignore - or at least put it roughly the same as Wisdom. It's a nice have, not a must. And, maybe less OP and more "gosh that's nice", Primal Champion will boost their AC to 24 instead of 22 (and that's with maxing both Con and Dex (probably over Str). With this change, Dex is set at whatever the player feels is decent at 1st level and never touched again. You'll have 20s in Str and Con by 16th level at least, and certainly by 19th, boosting both to 24 at 20.

Your hits will hit hardest, you'll have the most HP possible, and your AC will be higher than a typical barbi your entire career. As far as I'm concerned, it's OP because it elevates the class ahead of its peers. And, it's an unnecessary change.

So with the normal rules they might have a conservative 19 or 20 AC with medium armor and a shield. Perhaps boosted with +1's from bracers or a magical shield? While they boost their STR and CON as normal.

With the proposed change they would have a similar AC right up to level 20 where their capstone would be extra nice for them. Even then - an AC of 24 at level 20 doesn't seem excessive.

[OldTrees1]

But I've solved exactly that problem before, without using Strength. So that can't be it.

Neat, how did you do it?
Did it rely on equipment that this party would not have?
Can it be done at level 1? (The opening poster was worried about a 3rd level ability)

Unfortunately I have not encountered that situation without proper gear or a strong individual.

[LudicSavant]

Neat, how did you do it?
Did it rely on equipment that this party would not have?
Can it be done at level 1? (The opening poster was worried about a 3rd level ability)

Unfortunately I have not encountered that situation without proper gear or a strong individual.

Depends which method of being sealed in we're talking about. Most recent instance was via teleportation (and, yes, there are abilities that can do this at level 1, like the Eladrin teleport that can even bring someone with you).

Any raw lifting feat that can be accomplished by a human-range strong individual with bare hands can also be accomplished Dr. Stone style, at a bare minimum. Also, the difference between a 16 and an 10 is just a +3 on Strength checks... a difference that can be overcome by, say, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die or casting Guidance or gaining Advantage or the like.

[Theodoxus]

So with the normal rules they might have a conservative 19 or 20 AC with medium armor and a shield. Perhaps boosted with +1's from bracers or a magical shield? While they boost their STR and CON as normal.

Possibly, though most barbarians don't want a shield, rather opting for large weapons. Also, there's a fine line with barbarians between having decent AC and having too much. The last thing you want is for your enemies to ignore you because they can't hit you. Reckless Attack greatly helps in that regard, but barbarians tend to be a lot stickier with lower ACs. Something about an easy target just makes some folks (DMs) salivate. This would appear to be a contradiction to my original point, but I'll expand on that.


With the proposed change they would have a similar AC right up to level 20 where their capstone would be extra nice for them. Even then - an AC of 24 at level 20 doesn't seem excessive.

The problem is as I noted. You're going to push as much Dex as you're comfortable with at chargen and then ignore it. A standard Barbarian, especially one pushing for UD is going to want to increase their Dex as much as possible. Along with their Con for both AC and HP, and their Str for hit and damage. That's 3 attributes all wanting/needing to get to 20 as quickly as possible. Starting with 3 16s (however you want to get there), that's 6 ASI to get all to 20. Something is taking a back seat to the road to 20. Maybe you get Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Belt of Giant Strength - both decent options, that sadly make your capstone not quite as good, and probably better suited to the Dex Fighter whose 8 Str can now be boosted to let him wear plate. But regardless, along the way, each level, you're going to need to decide if you're boosting Str, Dex or Con. Either your Hit/Dam gets better at levels 4 and 8 or your AC does (and possibly HP).

With switching to Str instead of Dex, you're only dealing with 2 attributes, for a total of 4 ASI, leaving a free one for a feat. Boosting Str at levels 4 and 8 not only increases hit and damage, but AC as well. You're literally more powerful than any other melee combatant. A Fighter might get more attacks and will want to boost their Str to 20 asap as well, but they don't have your HPs. A Paladin is still TAD, as is the Ranger. (And both get spells natively to offset the lack of attacks the Fighter gets; one could certainly play either class without boosting their casting stat, but that's a self-imposed nerf.)

I agree that a 24 AC isn't excessive at level 20, that's why I said "gosh that's nice". Because it is. You'll be darn near immune to things that according to Bounded Accuracy should still be hitting you and to my point above, you're a lot less sticky in regards to things that are your level. But also, the rest of your level 20 party is bringing a lot of bigger guns to bear, and the concept of 'tank' or 'striker' or 'controller' kinda all go out the window at the top tier anyway.

[OldTrees1]

Depends which method of being sealed in we're talking about. Most recent instance was via teleportation (and, yes, there are abilities that can do this at level 1, like the Eladrin teleport that can even bring someone with you).

Any raw lifting feat that can be accomplished by a human-range strong individual with bare hands can also be accomplished Dr. Stone style, at a bare minimum. Also, the difference between a 16 and an 10 is just a +3 on Strength checks... a difference that can be overcome by, say, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die or casting Guidance or gaining Advantage or the like.

Good examples

Fey Step is limited by sight, which explains why you said it could depend.

Yeah in 5E even if a Str check is used, you don't necessarily need to be a Str expert unless there is a time limit or it is pushing the limits of your capabilities. In those cases Bardic Inspiration / Guidance also expand the limits. Earlier I mentioned a Bard for a similar reason.

Advantage might have been assumed, most of these cases are ones where a crowbar, shovel, or pick would be useful. However this party is not as well equipped.

That said, I suspect at least one of them should have a Str of 10-12 to maintain their unassuming commoner appearance.

[Willowhelm]

For those interested in more concrete rules and a clearer scenario - I have done my best with a new thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629711-5e-(Party)-Throwdown-The-unremarkables&p=24997679#post24997679). Hopefully this thread can continue as more of a general discussion about what the strengths of STR are and what weaknesses a party faces without a STR based character.

[Willowhelm]

The problem is as I noted. You're going to push as much Dex as you're comfortable with at chargen and then ignore it. A standard Barbarian, especially one pushing for UD is going to want to increase their Dex as much as possible. Along with their Con for both AC and HP, and their Str for hit and damage. That's 3 attributes all wanting/needing to get to 20 as quickly as possible.

This seems to contradict your earlier post where you said a normal Barb could just get by with medium armor with a dex of 14 or 16.

I agree that moving UD from DEX to STR makes life easier for them, but it hardly seems OP from these comparisons? Instead of starting with 14 or 16 DEX and spending no ASIs on it they can now dump it lower (but i wouldn't expect them to go too far due to the noted benefits of DEX) and then actually have a decent mental stat too. Is the OP nature that it would then open it up as a dip for other classes (eg paladin)?

I really don't see it as that big a change. Similar to making a non-int caster into an int-caster it doesn't seem like it will break too much simply because that stat isn't already relied upon for many other aspects. It isn't like it suddenly makes them STR-SAD and they can suddenly excel at casting, social encounters, ranged and melee combat and have some expertise in there too like another stat/class combo might!

[Willie the Duck]

I disagree. If you can quantify what fraction of rolled stats qualify for a given build, I think it's fine to talk about it. A build that only 0.6% of rolled stats qualify for isn't of much interest, but a plan that 25% of rolled stats qualify for can be interesting, and a build that 99% of rolled stats qualify for is interesting in a different way as a fallback plan for when your rolls are poor. If your 99% build is fun and interesting, you can roll stats without anxiety, although you may still be excited when you get to play a 25% or a 4% build.

And beyond that, if you systematically rule out rolled stats in the discussion, you ignore a form of gameplay in which a non-zero percentage of players will be playing. Given that we semi-regularly see theoretical char builds threads for gestalt play or the like, rolled stats doesn't seem like too outlandish a parameter. so long as you label your assumptions when bringing them into the discussion, there aren't many that should be off the table.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Late to the party - But

Strength - PAGE 195 of the PHB top right corner talks about contests of skill. Anytime anything comes up not explicitly covered in the rules that seems like a contest of skill between two or more characters becomes opposed ability check rolls adding proficiency when necessary.


Grappling is used as the go to example on how this is intended to work.


One last note - Grappling only replaces one of your attacks within the attack action - It can be concluded that other maneuvers will only replace attacks as well within reason.


Strength can be used for the following - Stop vocalization of words or spells, blinding for one round, applying the deafened condition, throwing things or people, disarming a person, giving the sickened condition etc. Anything your player can reasonably come up with can be handled with an opposed check. With multiple attacks for instance you can reasonably say your fighter can "Grapple a wizard, disrupt somatic components, and disrupt verbal components and get one attack in at 20th level." And it would all be handled by opposed rolls replacing one attack with said maneuver.

Strength is incredibly important, it just isn't handled explicitly in the rules and having a GM comfortable with that is where it falls apart.

[KorvinStarmast]

A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8 Kensei Monk is on the phone and wants to have a word ... :smallsmile:

Encumbrance is in the rules. It's a matter of enforcement. It is true for me I'm not a fan of strict adherence to it. Bulk is what matters, not weight. However, even if handwaving it carrying capacity matters. Sometimes you need to lift or push things.

In combat shoving to move or trip has value. You can defend with Acrobatics (DX), but you must use Athletics (ST) to do the shoving. *golf clap* good stuff, and it fits how we play at my table.

[Amnestic]

With multiple attacks for instance you can reasonably say your fighter can "Grapple a wizard, disrupt somatic components, and disrupt verbal components and get one attack in at 20th level."

Just how many limbs do this fighter have exactly?

[anthon]

i think 5e str runs into a few rubber hits the road problems.

first, the lifting/encumbrance/dragging/hurling heavies numbers are way low. Super weak strength IIR

"Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfocJZas7U4

ok, so this guy lifts 1005 lbs. What is his strength? DM fiat?


Dex is about 3/4ths of all players' primary weapon attack bonus. Str is the 1/4, but

1. there's vast numbers of monsters with insane high strength - much higher than the 20 max, meaning you are frequently going to lose any displays of strength showing off and only get humiliated.
2. there's a surplus of strength granting items, but a dearth of dexterity items. The ratio is something like 6:1.


So reasonably,

3:1 weapons 6:1 magic items and 6:1 contested checks:
3x6x6 = 108 reasons to complain...

and that's before we consider the Strongmen of today who are stronger than our strongest barbarians (go ahead. do the math. I'll wait)

[anthon]

Just how many limbs do this fighter have exactly?


fighter walks up behind wizard and reverse wraps strong arm around throat gagging him disrupting verbal components, then lifts him off the ground backward like a german suplex setup causing arms to flail ruining somatic components, then with his other hand, applies a swift hammer fist to the groin...


is what i would say if STR were super good.

[Amnestic]

and that's before we consider the Strongmen of today who are stronger than our strongest barbarians (go ahead. do the math. I'll wait)

Well a barbarian with 24 strength can carry 24x15lbs which is 360lbs. That's about 163kg. They can do that all day without any sort of impact on their performance whatsoever. They run, do long jumps (24'), do high jumps (10' - a google tells me this is better than the current world record, and I'm guessing that our guys weren't weighed down by 360lbs of stuff when they tried), do forced marches and just generally do everything you'd expect of an adventurer.

They can lift twice that, so 720lbs, or roughly 330kg, again without issue, all day, without stopping. They are limited in this regard in that their speed has dropped from [x] to 5' every 6 seconds. They can't do a normal long jump but they can do a standing long jump, allowing them to leap 12 feet forwards. They can also do a standing high jump of 6' vertically, again while carrying 720lbs, all day, without issue or exhaustion. They can even swing a sword and avoid attacks, dodge dragonfire, etc., without any sort of negative impact, they just can't move as quick.

Like, yes, a short burst of strength is above the carrying/lift capacity, but carrying/lift capacity isn't a short burst, it's consistent, persistent numbers.

[Willie the Duck]

first, the lifting/encumbrance/dragging/hurling heavies numbers are way low. Super weak strength IIR

"Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet."

<link>
ok, so this guy lifts 1005 lbs. What is his strength? DM fiat?

Honestly it is just the dragging/hurling rules with which seem too out there. 15*18 or 15*20 is not unreasonable for a max amount one can carry around relatively indefinitely.
DM fiat (or a Str-check) really should work better than a formula for lifting, dragging, and throwing. I know AD&D had a max press number assigned to each strength score, and it was a bad idea even then (they had bend bars and lift gates checks, and those were more purpose-designed). When the PCs run into a great-lift obstacle, there are going to be so many circumstantials on top of a pure pound weight (which honestly the DM likely pulled out of their rear) that how much a person/character could press under controlled circumstances would not be a direct correlation to success.

[Theoboldi]

Am I the only who really doesn't get the question? I mean, sure, most of the stuff that strength does really isn't irreplacable, but that goes for most of the things the other stats do as well. The argument starts from a point where strength is disadvantaged, and then explicitely goes out of its way to pick options to replace it. Which.....sure, if you go out of your way to replace the uses of strength, you won't need a character who has it. :smallconfused:

That said, from a purely roleplaying perspective in this particular scenario, it would be very valuable to have at least some characters with decent strength. While the commoner statblock in the Monster Manual is so generic and simplified that they have a flat 10 statline, your characters will look very out of place among farmhands, dockworkers, laborers, and any other commoner groups who make their living by heavy labour. You could get around this with illusions, sure, but since it's already been mentioned once that you want something patdown-proof, that's not exactly a great idea.

And while strength characters lose out on some of their best features in this scenario, I'd be even more concerned with how rough most casters would have it due to their requirements for focuses. Druids could potentially get by with a reasonably cheap and disguiseable sprig of mistletoe as their cheapest option from the PhP, but clerics and any arcane casters would be completely screwed! Their cheapest options are at least 5 gold, and no commoner would be walking around with an amulet or stuff worth that amount of money! That is of course assuming that such an item would be visibly so expensive, but I cannot imagine them being so without looking the part. You'd essentially be stuck with just using Verbal and Somatic Components, but that would surely cut down your spell-list by quite a bit?

[Theodoxus]

Looks like a max press, if we're going off the 1005# example, assuming that guy is the equivalent of a 20 strength (since there's no indication he's a 20th level barbarian, nor using magic items), would be 50x Str score. 5 lbs. is a little wiggle room... or maybe this guy is a demi-god and got his Str to 21 and he's not quite maxing out at 1020 lbs.

I can imagine this weight lifter could probably jog around with a 400 lb. backpack, doing all the crazy athletic stuff Amnestic described probably close to all day (or as close as reasonably acceptable for a real life human being that D&D fails to represent in any realistic fashion...

[Segev]

For "feats of strength" lifting, how about you add the result of your Strength(Athletics) check to both your strength score and the multiple used to determine max lift/carry?

A simple 8 on such a roll is all a strength 20 character would need to manage a lift and hold of 1005 pounds. (1067, actually, would be the limit, and a 7 would be 999 pounds.)

[MaxWilson]

And while strength characters lose out on some of their best features in this scenario, I'd be even more concerned with how rough most casters would have it due to their requirements for focuses. Druids could potentially get by with a reasonably cheap and disguiseable sprig of mistletoe as their cheapest option from the PhP, but clerics and any arcane casters would be completely screwed! Their cheapest options are at least 5 gold, and no commoner would be walking around with an amulet or stuff worth that amount of money! That is of course assuming that such an item would be visibly so expensive, but I cannot imagine them being so without looking the part. You'd essentially be stuck with just using Verbal and Somatic Components, but that would surely cut down your spell-list by quite a bit?

Not as much as you'd think, especially if you use a spell component pouch with just your components for today's prepared spells. Carrying some bat guano (Fireball) and a white feather (Fear) might be kind of gross but it's plausible that you could conceal that from an initial pat-down. Frankly I think you'd have decent odds of getting a 1lb. crystal through a patdown as well (e.g. inside a compartment built into your boots), or disguising a wand as part of something else (compartment inside a shovel handle?). There's also the option of having an Eldritch Knight bind your staff as a bonded weapon so he can summon it for you.

I think I'd be more worried about costly components, e.g. it might be tough to smuggle in the 1500 gp of ruby dust for Forcecage (although at that level you can Sequester a bag of ruby dust to make it permanently invisible if you really want to).

It's an interesting constraint that will definitely make play more memorable, but I think not a crippling one.

[Ogun]

If one could casta single spell to get a high strength all day, it would be OP.
Would you allow mage hand and/or unseen servant to have 10 strength?
Probably not, and they can't even attack.
You can do without it , but you will be spending resources to duplicate what you can do with Strength.
Honestly, I used to use undead minions, not for the eviluz but you just couldn't beat them for cheap disposable lumps of hit points and strength.
Just having them as cover was awesome.

[Theoboldi]

Not as much as you'd think, especially if you use a spell component pouch with just your components for today's prepared spells. Carrying some bat guano (Fireball) and a white feather (Fear) might be kind of gross but it's plausible that you could conceal that from an initial pat-down. Frankly I think you'd have decent odds of getting a 1lb. crystal through a patdown as well (e.g. inside a compartment built into your boots), or disguising a wand as part of something else (compartment inside a shovel handle?). There's also the option of having an Eldritch Knight bind your staff as a bonded weapon so he can summon it for you.

I think I'd be more worried about costly components, e.g. it might be tough to smuggle in the 1500 gp of ruby dust for Forcecage (although at that level you can Sequester a bag of ruby dust to make it permanently invisible if you really want to).

It's an interesting constraint that will definitely make play more memorable, but I think not a crippling one.

Good points all around, though I must point out that if you hide them that much these focuses and components will not be easy to pull out in case a fight starts. Not the worst drawback, considerung the entire strategy is to look harmless, but definitely risky if you get ambushed by bandits or wild animals of some sort.

(Funnily enough, wouldn't a bunch of badly armed peasants get attacked more often than heavily armored adventurers? Not necessarily through a higher random encounter rate, just those same encounters turning violent more often. They do make more enticing bait, after all.)

Perhaps a Psionic Soul sorcerer would be really good in this scenario? Either that or a bard, who can pretend to only be a minstrel. They don't need expensive instruments, at all. And I also wonder how much you could also get around this stuff via spell selection.

[Kane0]

Currently DMing a dungeoncrawl that turned into a little jungle survival and naval campaign, so far str has been used for:

- forcing open stuck doors and containers
- Grapples
- STR saves (forced movement and prone effects)
- Carrying loot and equipment (especially long hauls)
- Long periods of bushwacking (combined with con to avoid exhaustion)
- Moving obstacles (ruined masonry and fallen trees are suprisingly common)
- Climbing and swimming (especially in rough conditions)
- Some crafting (smithing and lumberwork primarily)
- Handling vehicles

The party is short on casters so theres nobody that can just drop a floating disk or knock spell whenever they want, so the strong characters are getting quite a workout. I have to keep reminding the guys that Mage Hand only exerts up to 10lbs of force.

Oddly enough, due to the luck of the dice it also appears that nobody but the STR characters are any good at throwing grappling hooks either.

Edit: I forgot some downtime things like bar brawls and arm-wrestling, but thats more flavor stuff.

[Willowhelm]

Not as much as you'd think, especially if you use a spell component pouch with just your components for today's prepared spells. Carrying some bat guano (Fireball) and a white feather (Fear) might be kind of gross but it's plausible that you could conceal that from an initial pat-down. Frankly I think you'd have decent odds of getting a 1lb. crystal through a patdown as well (e.g. inside a compartment built into your boots), or disguising a wand as part of something else (compartment inside a shovel handle?). There's also the option of having an Eldritch Knight bind your staff as a bonded weapon so he can summon it for you.

I think I'd be more worried about costly components, e.g. it might be tough to smuggle in the 1500 gp of ruby dust for Forcecage (although at that level you can Sequester a bag of ruby dust to make it permanently invisible if you really want to).

It's an interesting constraint that will definitely make play more memorable, but I think not a crippling one.

A creation bard in the party can help with the costly components (i believe). I think they'll be in a place to start creating them in a similar time frame to when you start to really need them? (I haven't done the reading to figure out the limitations there) Similarly you have other spell options like demi plane, instant summons, magic chest(?) etc by that point i think.

I also think that a staff isn't inherently magical in of itself? So it would be fine for someone to have a walking stick with them... Not very suspicious at all (Insert gandalf/theoden scene here)

A big ol' spellbook full of arcane writing though... that's not normal!

[Eric Diaz]

Well, Str and Dex are often redundant, so they are good for the same things: AC, attacks, damage, avoid grappling, etc.

Dex is good at some additional things (initiative, playing a lute apparently), and you can start a grapple with strength. Strength lets you break doors, Dex lets you pick locks (although I'm not sure that the game spells this out).

Overall, I find Dex a lot better, but Sr is far from useless.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/dexterity-god-stat-that-failed.html

[MaxWilson]

A creation bard in the party can help with the costly components (i believe). I think they'll be in a place to start creating them in a similar time frame to when you start to really need them?

I confess to not paying much attention to classes in Tasha's. I read the Creation Bard rules once, couldn't see any reason for it to exist (it's the same niche as Lore from what I could see: the bardy bard) and put it back on my shelf. Currently I use the Cthulhu 5E book more than Tasha's.

On that note, a Dreamlands cat with the Supernatural Feline trait would be terrific in this kind of game. Your spell focus just turns into an odd marking on your fur.

[Willowhelm]

I confess to not paying much attention to classes in Tasha's. I read the Creation Bard rules once, couldn't see any reason for it to exist (it's the same niche as Lore from what I could see: the bardy bard) and put it back on my shelf. Currently I use the Cthulhu 5E book more than Tasha's.

On that note, a Dreamlands cat with the Supernatural Feline trait would be terrific in this kind of game. Your spell focus just turns into an odd marking on your fur.

What source is the dreamlands cat from?

[Thunderous Mojo]

What source is the dreamlands cat from?
This one: https://petersengames.com/the-games-shop/cthulhu-mythos-for-5e/

Dreamland Cats are my favorite player facing option. I don't wish to threadjack...but I highly recommend the book.

Firstly, it details the main Cthulhu mythos Elder Gods, and lists the books and authors that referenced them. That alone yields a great reading list.

Secondly, the book provides excellent guidance and ideas.

The caveat, is that this is 3PP material. Much of the book approaches the mechanics in a way that differs, slightly, from the approach WOTC has taken. To me personally, this is a selling point....for other's it might be a demerit.

[Pex]

Or the party could just have an actual mule. What looks more commoner-like than having a cheap beast of burden?

You can't bring a mule everywhere. Even so, having a high strength character means you don't need a mule.


How is that munchkinism? Weapons and armor are valuable. Looting battlefields has always been a thing in history. People would hack armor off the dead if needed, break apart equipment for valuables, and loot anything that they thought was valuable (which was often weapons and armor).

It's called being facetious.

[Elbeyon]

You can't bring a mule everywhere. Even so, having a high strength character means you don't need a mule.



It's called being facetious.Gotcha. Believe it or not, I have seen people say looting weapons and armor from monsters is meta and poor etiquette. "The monster's weapons and armor is not part of the loot table, and players would get too rich if the dm let players loot weapons and armor. That stuff is not meant for the players."

10char

[diplomancer]

Gotcha. Believe it or not, I have seen people say looting weapons and armor from monsters is meta and poor etiquette. "The monster's weapons and armor is not part of the loot table, and players would get too rich if the dm let players loot weapons and armor. That stuff is not meant for the players."
Yes; I was somewhat annoyed when the party fought off an Animated Armor in Death House, and my Forge Cleric wanted to fix it.
DM- "It's all mangled up"
Me- "That's alright, I have Mending"
DM- "OK, you cast Mending and it turns to dust"
Me-...:smallmad::smallconfused:

DMs, please, don't make your players face opponents with Plate at level 1 if you don't want your PCs to have Plate at level 1.

[noob]

Yes; I was somewhat annoyed when the party fought off an Animated Armor in Death House, and my Forge Cleric wanted to fix it.
DM- "It's all mangled up"
Me- "That's alright, I have Mending"
DM- "OK, you cast Mending and it turns to dust"
Me-...:smallmad::smallconfused:

DMs, please, don't make your players face opponents with Plate at level 1 if you don't want your PCs to have Plate at level 1.
it could have been worse
"the magic flows in the armour and you feel your hand get cold"
(cue reanimated armour fight this time with the armour being undead)

[Willie the Duck]

Gotcha. Believe it or not, I have seen people say looting weapons and armor from monsters is meta and poor etiquette. "The monster's weapons and armor is not part of the loot table, and players would get too rich if the dm let players loot weapons and armor. That stuff is not meant for the players."

Yes; I was somewhat annoyed when the party fought off an Animated Armor in Death House, and my Forge Cleric wanted to fix it.
DM- "It's all mangled up"
Me- "That's alright, I have Mending"
DM- "OK, you cast Mending and it turns to dust"
Me-...:smallmad::smallconfused:
DMs, please, don't make your players face opponents with Plate at level 1 if you don't want your PCs to have Plate at level 1.

I think the main logic there would be that they want to have the PCs facing humanoid (or at least arms and armor-bearing) opponents without that being an extra payday compared to things with scales and fangs. Drow (whose equipment was ruined by sunlight exposure) were rumored to be have been invented to have levelled enemies without the PCs then being able to get all their stuff. Personally I don't see the need (and feel it breaks verisimilitude, along with an interesting challenge for the PCs to figure out how to cart all these suits of armor back to town), since instead of (ex.) plate mail you can just give them splint or even rusty chainmail and a +1/2 unexplained AC boost, since NPCs and monster entries don't need to follow PC rules.

[diplomancer]

I think the main logic there would be that they want to have the PCs facing humanoid (or at least arms and armor-bearing) opponents without that being an extra payday compared to things with scales and fangs. Drow (whose equipment was ruined by sunlight exposure) were rumored to be have been invented to have levelled enemies without the PCs then being able to get all their stuff. Personally I don't see the need (and feel it breaks verisimilitude, along with an interesting challenge for the PCs to figure out how to cart all these suits of armor back to town), since instead of (ex.) plate mail you can just give them splint or even rusty chainmail and a +1/2 unexplained AC boost, since NPCs and monster entries don't need to follow PC rules.

Yep. Just give them a shield, come on, this is not hard. Even if you want them to have 2-handed weapon damage, adjust their Str upward, give them dueling fighting style, multiattack, whatever. But saying "you've defeated the enemy with the plate mail" "great, I want it", "oops, it's dust now" is not cool at all.

[Willie the Duck]

Yep. Just give them a shield, come on, this is not hard. Even if you want them to have 2-handed weapon damage, adjust their Str upward, give them dueling fighting style, multiattack, whatever. But saying "you've defeated the enemy with the plate mail" "great, I want it", "oops, it's dust now" is not cool at all.

Plate mail, sure. Don't bother including it if you don't want the PCs to go to that well. The PCs picking over every bandit troupe for their hide armor and greatclubs just so they can go sell them for pennies -- I can see going either way on whether it adds to the game (but again, would not 'magic it away' or whatever).

[diplomancer]

Plate mail, sure. Don't bother including it if you don't want the PCs to go to that well. The PCs picking over every bandit troupe for their hide armor and greatclubs just so they can go sell them for pennies -- I can see going either way on whether it adds to the game (but again, would not 'magic it away' or whatever).

I'd say that this is more an indication of a DM who does not give enough treasure; truth is, there isn't much use for money in 5e (and that's its own problem), so if players are doing that it's probably just easier to give them enough treasure that they won't bother (or, if DM really wants to be stingy, make it very difficult to find a willing buyer for a price that makes it worthwhile; if players complain about the low price, explain to them how a guild system works, and how they, not being part of the appropriate guild, are simply not trusted by the buyers, leading to severe discounts).

[Willowhelm]

Yes; I was somewhat annoyed when the party fought off an Animated Armor in Death House, and my Forge Cleric wanted to fix it.
DM- "It's all mangled up"
Me- "That's alright, I have Mending"
DM- "OK, you cast Mending and it turns to dust"
Me-...:smallmad::smallconfused:

DMs, please, don't make your players face opponents with Plate at level 1 if you don't want your PCs to have Plate at level 1.

Death house also just has suits of plate standing decoratively iirc so you don’t even need to fix the magical one you just beat up.

But then it also has the option that everything taken from the house turns to dust when you leave so... ymmv.

I got to wear the plate while we were there but it didn’t last after we left. And the AC boosting items from the basement weren’t there. But the DM did let me get half plate as a reward from an NPC so... swings and roundabouts.

Of course in the context of the OP... you need to have a decent STR to even take advantage of the situation and you won’t be keeping it for long anyway because plate is expensive and obvious... but it is an example of how a normal looking PC might come across plate mid-dungeon and take advantage of it.

[Tanarii]

Plate mail, sure. Don't bother including it if you don't want the PCs to go to that well. The PCs picking over every bandit troupe for their hide armor and greatclubs just so they can go sell them for pennies -- I can see going either way on whether it adds to the game (but again, would not 'magic it away' or whatever).
That'd be far less of a problem if 5e had solid encumbrance and coin weight rules.

[OldTrees1]

I'd say that this is more an indication of a DM who does not give enough treasure; truth is, there isn't much use for money in 5e (and that's its own problem), so if players are doing that it's probably just easier to give them enough treasure that they won't bother (or, if DM really wants to be stingy, make it very difficult to find a willing buyer for a price that makes it worthwhile; if players complain about the low price, explain to them how a guild system works, and how they, not being part of the appropriate guild, are simply not trusted by the buyers, leading to severe discounts).

In 5E there are several low level gp sinks but then it runs out. This makes it easy to see the result of that mundane gear as an ASAP shopping list rather than a career long shopping list.

That means "giving enough treasure" might have limited effect until it satisfies the entire shopping list. Otherwise the Fighter might still pick up the enemy swords (even if they sell for 1gp per pound instead of 2.5 gp per pound).

Of course talking to the players would be another solution. And sometimes multiple partial solutions work together to become a full solution.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Just how many limbs do this fighter have exactly?

You only need two.

For example - Disrupting the vocalizations of a wizard who is attempting to cast a spell is as simple as popping them in the mouth.

Disrupting complex hand gestures doesn't actual mean holding hands. It means that you smash a fist in the way disrupting the gesture for a second as the spell falls apart.

Then you punch the person in the face.

Grappling isn't just holding on to someone for 6 seconds. It's an abstract. Your character is shoving, grabbing shirts, shifting positions, punching and kicking, blocking counter blows. It's a continuous violent bloody affair, melee combat. It's not a video game where the character's stand there taking turns swinging at each other. Over the six seconds the characters are moving, shouting, breathing, swinging swords, crafting their next plan and dodging attacks.

That disruption is only happening as part of that six seconds.

[Amnestic]

You only need two.

For example - Disrupting the vocalizations of a wizard who is attempting to cast a spell is as simple as popping them in the mouth.

They're not casting on your turn.



Disrupting complex hand gestures doesn't actual mean holding hands. It means that you smash a fist in the way disrupting the gesture for a second as the spell falls apart.

They're not casting on your turn.



Grappling isn't just holding on to someone for 6 seconds. It's an abstract.

Grappling applies the Grappled condition, which does exactly the following and nothing more.

A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
The condition ends if the Grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
The condition also ends if an Effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the Grappler or Grappling Effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell.




Your character is shoving, grabbing shirts, shifting positions, punching and kicking, blocking counter blows. It's a continuous violent bloody affair, melee combat. It's not a video game where the character's stand there taking turns swinging at each other. Over the six seconds the characters are moving, shouting, breathing, swinging swords, crafting their next plan and dodging attacks.

That disruption is only happening as part of that six seconds.

Yes, turns are abstracted into a six second round. Acting on another persons turn inside the round already exists, by way of the Reaction mechanic (and, fyi, casting a spell doesn't provoke an OA, unless you've got the mageslayer feat). The six second round is irrelevant to what you're talking about, much in the same way that it would be irrelevant if I started claiming casters can magic missile your eyeballs (100% accuracy) to inflict the blind condition in addition to damage.

And for that matter, if you're just punching them then it's not really a contested strength check is it? It's an attack roll. Where does their strength come into it exactly?

I'm not saying I wouldn't let a grappler impact restrictions on a caster - if they succeed a grapple, they can try another contested check to use another arm to block off a spell component, that seems pretty reasonable to me, but people only have so many arms and you can only block so many types of components.

Unless you get a dog pile going I suppose. Or play a simic hybrid.

[Segev]

They're not casting on your turn.



They're not casting on your turn.



Grappling applies the Grappled condition, which does exactly the following and nothing more. What's being discussed is other uses for Strength (Athletics) checks that are not covered by the RAW except where they say other uses exist. "I have this mage grappled; I want to cover his mouth so he can't talk," seems a reasonable thing to treat similarly to a grapple, with similar mechanics for determining success or failure. Success for the aggressor means the mage can't speak for a round, or possibly until he breaks the grapple, depending on DM ruling.

[Amnestic]

What's being discussed is other uses for Strength (Athletics) checks that are not covered by the RAW except where they say other uses exist. "I have this mage grappled; I want to cover his mouth so he can't talk," seems a reasonable thing to treat similarly to a grapple, with similar mechanics for determining success or failure. Success for the aggressor means the mage can't speak for a round, or possibly until he breaks the grapple, depending on DM ruling.

I'm not sure if you're just reiterating what I said to agree with me or if you missed my last paragraph, along with the quotes I was responding to.

Boutsofinsanity clearly wasn't talking about using a pseudo-grapple to impact a spell component since he said "punch them in the hand/mouth", and actively dismissed the grappling comparison ("holding hands").

Grappling costs limbs, and I think impacting a spell component at the cost of one is a fairly reasonable tradeoff, especially since most races won't be able to fully shut down a caster since they've only got two arms.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I'm not sure if you're just reiterating what I said to agree with me or if you missed my last paragraph, along with the quotes I was responding to.

Boutsofinsanity clearly wasn't talking about using a pseudo-grapple to impact a spell component since he said "punch them in the hand/mouth", and actively dismissed the grappling comparison ("holding hands").

Grappling costs limbs, and I think impacting a spell component at the cost of one is a fairly reasonable tradeoff, especially since most races won't be able to fully shut down a caster since they've only got two arms.

Right so let me lay out how this would work. You only need two arms. It needs to be described as a player at the table would describe it to make sense. We will use for the sake of argument a level 5 fighter with action surge and hand wave the dice rolls for success.

DM - Ok Bob the fighter, your initiative, the enemy caster is 15 feet away, what do you do?

Bob - "I advance fifteen feat and I shoulder check the mage to the ground!"

DM - "Ok that will consume one of your attacks, you have one more.

Bob - "I Uh, I crouch down to the wizard and pin his arms with my knee and hold him there, then I action surge!" (This is a grapple, the player just described it with fluff. The Dm knows this.)

DM - "Great, the wizard snarls at you as magic courses through your body speeding up your reactions to speed. You have an extra action."

Bob - "Ok, I want to slam my forearm into his mouth whenever he tries to cast to disrupt his casting."

DM - "No problem, you slam your forearm into his mouth and whenever he tries to wiggle away you keep interfering."

Bob - "Alright for my last attack Ill just do an attack roll, I slam the pommel of my longsword into his face".

Dm - "Violently as he struggles beneath you you slam your longsword pommel into his face while you hold him down."

As a DM you could call for having two hands free. But that would honestly be nerfing in a lot of ways the pure physicality of having strong physical characters. There are many ways to grapple, lock arms and legs with body weight and other limbs that inhibit movement. Someone like Francis Ngannou is only going to need one limb to interfere with a 10 strength wizard on the ground. If the fighter had even more attacks he could reasonable interfere with physical components as well and get an attack off. Why? Because they are complex and only need to be disrupted for a second before the wizard has to start over. A 350 lb armored man smashing you in the face is going to make concentrating on your hands and complex gestures difficult to accomplish if they are dedicating some of their "Offensive ability" to it.

That's all i'm saying is that we underestimate what you can do with strength. The general consensus on the boards is that non-magic characters are weak. Well, if we want to fix that, use page 195 and let your players get nuts with some strongman feats of strength.

[Willowhelm]

Right so let me lay out how this would work. You only need two arms. It needs to be described as a player at the table would describe it to make sense. We will use for the sake of argument a level 5 fighter with action surge and hand wave the dice rolls for success.

DM - Ok Bob the fighter, your initiative, the enemy caster is 15 feet away, what do you do?

Bob - "I advance fifteen feat and I shoulder check the mage to the ground!"

DM - "Ok that will consume one of your attacks, you have one more.

Bob - "I Uh, I crouch down to the wizard and pin his arms with my knee and hold him there, then I action surge!" (This is a grapple, the player just described it with fluff. The Dm knows this.)

DM - "Great, the wizard snarls at you as magic courses through your body speeding up your reactions to speed. You have an extra action."

Bob - "Ok, I want to slam my forearm into his mouth whenever he tries to cast to disrupt his casting."

DM - "No problem, you slam your forearm into his mouth and whenever he tries to wiggle away you keep interfering."

Bob - "Alright for my last attack Ill just do an attack roll, I slam the pommel of my longsword into his face".

Dm - "Violently as he struggles beneath you you slam your longsword pommel into his face while you hold him down."

As a DM you could call for having two hands free. But that would honestly be nerfing in a lot of ways the pure physicality of having strong physical characters. There are many ways to grapple, lock arms and legs with body weight and other limbs that inhibit movement. Someone like Francis Ngannou is only going to need one limb to interfere with a 10 strength wizard on the ground. If the fighter had even more attacks he could reasonable interfere with physical components as well and get an attack off. Why? Because they are complex and only need to be disrupted for a second before the wizard has to start over. A 350 lb armored man smashing you in the face is going to make concentrating on your hands and complex gestures difficult to accomplish if they are dedicating some of their "Offensive ability" to it.

That's all i'm saying is that we underestimate what you can do with strength. The general consensus on the boards is that non-magic characters are weak. Well, if we want to fix that, use page 195 and let your players get nuts with some strongman feats of strength.

The only obvious issue is you only get one reaction so you’re only going to stop one casting attempt. Calling that as a readied action means you have used your action so you won’t be getting an attack action on your action surge turn.

There is a game balance/mechanical issue in that you’re giving any character the option of a melee counter spell.

There’s no requirement that the casting disruption be strength based. You're also opening the door to other “called shots”. Eg your dex archer calls that they will shoot the wizard in the face when they begin casting.

Or your grappler might now say they’re going to pin an opponent’s sword arm so they can’t attack. Or disarm them. Etc etc.

This isn’t what a grapple allows so it’s cool flavour and all but it’s not how the mechanic works in 5e.

[Tanarii]

Right so let me lay out how this would work. Grapple isn't wrestling, arm bars, or kneeling on someone.
Grapple requires a free hand and stops movement. That's it.

They really should have called it Grab like in 4e.

[CapnWildefyr]

Well, you can certainly run a party with all 'low' strength, just like you can with other stats, too. As others have said, it's a matter of where you want to spend your resources. If your table has short combats, even at low levels maybe your OK with using a spell slot on mage armor. If your combats last longer, maybe it's not as reasonable.

But Dex can skills can't substitute for some things, such as:

Being charged and holding the line. Sure, there are spells like web. But how many do you have at each tier? If you have to hold a corridor against 20 hobgoblins, sure you've got spells to clear the corridor but simply having Dex-based PCs kill the lead 2 hobgoblins won't do it. The rest could just use the corpses like battering rams and shove you backwards. Overrun, not knock prone.
Being shoved. Sometimes it's even being hit by something heavy. You've already been hit, it's reasonable for that to be a STR check.
Wade across a strong, wide river. Sure you can build a raft, but not in all circumstances, and guess what? STR check to push the raft.
Climb a rope, for example, out of a pit (because your STR was too low to climb out on your own).


I know that there are spells to help with these things, but as other have brought up, it's a matter of resource expenditure. Can you afford to use spells to do mundane tasks? YMMV.

[Tanarii]

Well, you can certainly run a party with all 'low' strength, just like you can with other stats, too.
Be an interesting discussion of what the consequences of being a party of all Dex, Int, Wis or Cha dumpers would be.

[Willowhelm]

But Dex can skills can't substitute for some things, such as:

Being charged and holding the line. Sure, there are spells like web. But how many do you have at each tier? If you have to hold a corridor against 20 hobgoblins, sure you've got spells to clear the corridor but simply having Dex-based PCs kill the lead 2 hobgoblins won't do it. The rest could just use the corpses like battering rams and shove you backwards. Overrun, not knock prone.
Being shoved. Sometimes it's even being hit by something heavy. You've already been hit, it's reasonable for that to be a STR check.
Wade across a strong, wide river. Sure you can build a raft, but not in all circumstances, and guess what? STR check to push the raft.
Climb a rope, for example, out of a pit (because your STR was too low to climb out on your own).


I know that there are spells to help with these things, but as other have brought up, it's a matter of resource expenditure. Can you afford to use spells to do mundane tasks? YMMV.

Can you explain the hold the line example mehanically? 5e doesn’t have that mechanic built in... enemies can move through you as difficult terrain iirc and only a sentinel hit or a grapple on the page will stop them in their tracks I think. Neither of those mechanics are STR based.

Being shoved is explicitly an athletics check contested by athletics or acrobatics so... expertise and/or dex have got that covered.

Wading across a river is tricky. If it involves strength then I’d say it’s too risky. In real life there are techniques to get this done and adventurers carry rope, right? (Except in the context of the OP...)

Climbing a rope - this could be a strength check in some circumstances but in most it is not. Climbing a rope with knots is trivial even with an 8 STR. (I wouldn’t even ask for a roll.) Climbing a rope without knots is also quite easy with the right techniques or next to impossible depending on the size of the rope. I believe this is another athletics check in the rules so subject to the expertise work around again.

The only time it’s a raw feat of strength is when people do it in a deliberately obtuse fashion (eg no legs) and in reality there is also a lot of technique there too.

Of course a wet rope and slippery terrain while under fire from the enemy... could be a different ball game.

[CapnWildefyr]

Can you explain the hold the line example mehanically? 5e doesn’t have that mechanic built in... enemies can move through you as difficult terrain iirc and only a sentinel hit or a grapple on the page will stop them in their tracks I think. Neither of those mechanics are STR based.

Being shoved is explicitly an athletics check contested by athletics or acrobatics so... expertise and/or dex have got that covered.

Wading across a river is tricky. If it involves strength then I’d say it’s too risky. In real life there are techniques to get this done and adventurers carry rope, right? (Except in the context of the OP...)

Climbing a rope - this could be a strength check in some circumstances but in most it is not. Climbing a rope with knots is trivial even with an 8 STR. (I wouldn’t even ask for a roll.) Climbing a rope without knots is also quite easy with the right techniques or next to impossible depending on the size of the rope. I believe this is another athletics check in the rules so subject to the expertise work around again.

The only time it’s a raw feat of strength is when people do it in a deliberately obtuse fashion (eg no legs) and in reality there is also a lot of technique there too.

Of course a wet rope and slippery terrain while under fire from the enemy... could be a different ball game.

Holding the line/shove - I'm thinking crowd control here. Trying to stop from being overrun by a small mob of enemies. BTW You cannot move through a hostile creature's space unless it's 2 sizes bigger. If you are largely outnumbered, even if you out-level the enemy, they can just press and squeeze and overrun you. In game terms, I guess that ends up as just advantage, but they might (depending on group roll vs help) have really good odds of success. I can see a DM calling that a straight str check instead an athletics check -- is being overrun really a shove attack? It's a group thing, not a single action.

And wading a river -- A lot easier with someone strong to carry a rope across first. This is straight strength, IMO, not athletics. It doesn't require skill, like being a strong swimmer, just the ability to resist the onrushing water.

Please understand - I'm just trying to show a couple situations where having a high strength is straight-up useful. You can generally find another way to do things, depending on situation. And that's the real kicker: in a thread, it's easy to replace STR, but in a game, so much depends on what resources and time you've got left, and what's going on, etc. I mean, maybe your casters are low on spell slots, or the characters with athletics expertise are too low on hp to be on the front-line, that sort of thing.

Maybe a related question is: Is a party that dump-stats STR as capable as a party that tries to maintain more balance stat- and skill-wise? I know one forum-goer (sorry, I forget who) plays at a table where the entire party is always the same class...

[Kane0]

5e doesn’t have that mechanic built in... enemies can move through you as difficult terrain iirc
Not that i'm aware. Creatures can move around your space but not through it, otherwise the Halfling's Ninble trait would be useless

[Willowhelm]

. Maybe a related question is: Is a party that dump-stats STR as capable as a party that tries to maintain more balance stat- and skill-wise? I know one forum-goer (sorry, I forget who) plays at a table where the entire party is always the same class...

Yeah. Seems like an interesting question. Almost like it was the impetus behind the OP... ;P

I’d forgotten the two sizes restriction on the movement so yes, you can block the corridor. I agree that it should be a raw STR thing at some point but it’s definitely a DM ruling because RAW shoves can be resisted with DEX too. Even more than that - just being in the square (even prone) is enough to block. You don’t have to actively resist anything if they don’t explicitly shove you.

[Drynwyn]

Can't have only backline characters, that's the thing. Unless your PC group is expert at fleeing.

I mean, you totally can, especially after level 5 or so. At that point, various good summoning options like Animate Dead and the Tasha's Summon line become available for all your frontline needs- but even without a designated frontline, 'squishy' classes are still quite survivable if you build with an eye towards that. A level 1 wizard only has 4 fewer hit points than a fighter (8 vs 12 is a likely case, or 8 vs 13 in an edge case) and comparable AC (plus access to Shield for emergencies). The fighter will only sometimes take an extra swing to take down.

[Eldariel]

Not that i'm aware. Creatures can move around your space but not through it, otherwise the Halfling's Ninble trait would be useless

There's the optional Tumble-rules for Acrobatics in the DMG but other than that, no.

[CapnWildefyr]

Yeah. Seems like an interesting question. Almost like it was the impetus behind the OP... ;P


I think you'd have to compare party strengths vs party strengths to do that (pun intended :smallamused:), not "can you get by without a STR build PC." Beyond my desire to calculate. :smallbiggrin:


I’d forgotten the two sizes restriction on the movement so yes, you can block the corridor. I agree that it should be a raw STR thing at some point but it’s definitely a DM ruling because RAW shoves can be resisted with DEX too. Even more than that - just being in the square (even prone) is enough to block. You don’t have to actively resist anything if they don’t explicitly shove you.

This is a point where the rules are lacking, I think. There's a big difference between one person trying to push you down vs standing in front of an angry mob. RAW handles the single-person shove. Not sure what would be appropriate; maybe disadvantage for the defender, advantage for the mob? I'd feel like you need quantity modifiers for each side... maybe an opposed check, with DC increasing based on the opponents' numbers, and disadvantage applied if you're not using STR--just kidding. Disadv/higher DC maybe if the defenders do not have big shields or weapons that would let them block the mob and push them back. Killing a few mob-goers won't stop the rest if they are determined or if there's just too many (because the
ones pushing forward don't realize the ones in front are getting killed, they trample them anyway).

I don't usually get into homebrew rules in posts, but... Assuming small numbers of defenders (as in, <5), who are spending their action(s) trying to not get overrun, and off the top of my head without thinking :smallyuk::


DC
Diff in numbers, attackers vs defenders


use shove rules
<5


10
5-10


20
11-25


30
26-50


40
50+



Just tried to escalate the DC quickly as the number in the mob increases, because of the sheer mass of muscle. Just have one defender roll.

[BoutsofInsanity]

The only obvious issue is you only get one reaction so you’re only going to stop one casting attempt. Calling that as a readied action means you have used your action so you won’t be getting an attack action on your action surge turn.

There is a game balance/mechanical issue in that you’re giving any character the option of a melee counter spell.

There’s no requirement that the casting disruption be strength based. You're also opening the door to other “called shots”. Eg your dex archer calls that they will shoot the wizard in the face when they begin casting.

Or your grappler might now say they’re going to pin an opponent’s sword arm so they can’t attack. Or disarm them. Etc etc.

This isn’t what a grapple allows so it’s cool flavour and all but it’s not how the mechanic works in 5e.

First I want to clear up two misconceptions.

1. The reason you have to grapple before engaging in disrupting of vocalizations for casting is because, in the game, if you decided to not grapple the character, in order for the caster to end the vocalization disruption they just have to walk away. Unless the fighter uses sentinel to stop the caster's movement, as soon as the caster walks out of melee range they aren't being interfered with anymore. Grappling isn't actually necessary for the disruption as far as I'm concerned. It just stops the caster from ending the effect.

2. I'm suggesting, much like the "Grapple Maneuver" that the fighter isn't using a readied action to "disrupt at the opportune" as a reaction, he is instead applying a condition that is contested by the Wizard's ability check that takes place over the course of the round to vocalize spells. You can flavor it however you want.


I absolutely am opening myself to called shots. 100%. The Archer in your example loses their action, and reaction, to on a chance, disrupt a spell casting from a caster, with an arrow, that feasibly has to first hit the AC of the Wizard and forces most likely a save. The Wizard doesn't lose a spell slot, they just don't cast the spell that turn. That's more than a fair trade in my book. The Wizard in this situation should find cover, cast shield or pass their save to cast a spell if the Archer is willing to expend so much of their actions disrupting one spell while ignoring other targets. I am 100% about that.

If a creature wants to expend attacks to apply conditions instead of damage, every turn to prevent attacks and such, that's 100% fine with me. Pinning arms, stripping weapons, all of these things I'm cool with. Some are more difficult then others, but this is reasonably what someone in real life can already do. I've stated before, if you think that you are going to stop someone who is 6 feet 7 inches tall weighing 270 lbs covered in armor from busting your weak self all over in real life your fooling yourself. The weak sauce Wizard who can command hellfire can't do it if he is getting stomped on. My advice to the Wizard would be, don't let the fighter get close in the first place. Or have more friends.


THIS ALL GOES BACK TO EVERYONE SAYING MARTIAL CHARACTER'S ARE NOT AS GOOD AS CASTERS. Well here is a, albeit not efficient way for them to up their competitiveness. And every time it's brought up I get a bunch of people who say "That's not how it works!!". Well if you want your games to be "I stand and swing sword" I guess you are right. OR you can open your mind to the possibility that big strong people can do more than "I hit good."

[Tanarii]

THIS ALL GOES BACK TO EVERYONE SAYING MARTIAL CHARACTER'S ARE NOT AS GOOD AS CASTERS. Well here is a, albeit not efficient way for them to up their competitiveness. And every time it's brought up I get a bunch of people who say "That's not how it works!!". Well if you want your games to be "I stand and swing sword" I guess you are right. OR you can open your mind to the possibility that big strong people can do more than "I hit good."
Thats because you're house ruling stuff that's far more powerful than anything even the DMG suggests as action variants.

I agree casting rules are far too hard to disrupt in 5e. But if you're going to introduce house rules, be clear about it. Then people won't tell you that's not how it works.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Thats because you're house ruling stuff that's far more powerful than anything even the DMG suggests as action variants.

I agree casting rules are far too hard to disrupt in 5e. But if you're going to introduce house rules, be clear about it. Then people won't tell you that's not how it works.

I appreciate the discussion. I'm very passionate about this subject in particular.

It's kind of been implied heavily by the design team and within the rulebook about how to make rulings about abstract things.

Page 195 has contests of skill.

The PHB and DMG talk about resolving things that aren't concrete.

What I'm offering, is with a read of the book, you can do all sorts of things not explicitly codified within the rules. Think about it this way.

If a brand new player who doesn't have all the gaming baggage us grognards have sits at your table and is in the middle of combat. Asks you this question.

"Hey DM, I read in the casting section of the PHB that spells have all these component thingys. I want to have my cool fighter dude try and stop the wizard from casting since I'm in melee range. How do I do that? Can I like, grab his hands or something? Or like choke him so he can't speak?"

What do you tell the brand new player who has expressed an action they wish to do in that situation? I hope you tell them what they need to do to accomplish said goal. Telling them no all of the sudden turns D&D into a video game for reals. Because if it's not "Coded" within the rules it can't be done. Then you really are playing a video game. Just with a worse computer.

This could also do with disarming a weapon, stopping someone from pressing a button, hell grabbing the sword of someone and just holding on, preventing a swing. All of these actions are something someone can reasonably do within the bounds of physicality. They aren't explicitly expressed within the rules as actions you can do. 5e expressly doesn't want to pull a Pathfinder and codify every action that could be taken and gives tools to DM's to adjudicate how to accomplish those goals.


That's why I get so passionate about it. Strength is the easiest ability score to show as an example of something that isn't codified. And it's a passion of mine to prevent this game from having to have everything be codified explicitly in the rules. I think, my hypothesis, is that this game is intended to be flexible and adjudicated by a DM. Mike Mearls has in several talks explained that the purpose behind the design of 5e was to empower and protect good dungeon masters. An explicit repudiation of 3.0's design philosophy of protecting players from Bad DM's.


I think people are allowed to play RAW if they wish. I think that's a mistake and isn't maximizing the system's intended purpose. This isn't a board game with set rules. I don't think my ruling is homebrew. I think it's intended design within the system of 5e.

[Willowhelm]

I
I think people are allowed to play RAW if they wish. I think that's a mistake and isn't maximizing the system's intended purpose. This isn't a board game with set rules. I don't think my ruling is homebrew. I think it's intended design within the system of 5e.

My players are not rules lawyers or power gamers or optimisers so I am pretty lenient (I think). I would let most of this fly with no concerns. I’m just aware of the balance issues when it becomes a standard practice instead of a one off cool idea.

In the context of this thread though - what you describe is not limited to strength. Even if we say they need to grapple first to have the chance to do it - there’s an athletics check for that, then the attack could be dex... it isn’t necessarily a raw strength contest.

My PC or my party do not need to invest in strength to have the kind of encounter you’re describing.

[BoutsofInsanity]

My players are not rules lawyers or lower gamers or optimisers so I am pretty lenient (I think). I would let most of this fly with no concerns. I’m just aware of the balance issues when it becomes a standard practice instead of a one off cool idea.

In the context of this thread though - what you describe is not limited to strength. Even if we say they need to grapple first to have the chance to do it - there’s an athletics check for that, then the attack could be dex... it isn’t necessarily a raw strength contest.

My PC or my party do not need to invest in strength to have the kind of encounter you’re describing.

Absolutely agree. I think strength is going to make the most sense most of the time in terms of imposing your will physically on an opponent. But wanting to trip someone using dexterity is something I would say is within bounds of the system. A quick flourish to disarm someone with a maneuver is totally a dexterity move.


Again I think strength is the most relevant and straightforward approach but you can with the right description and action / attack sacrifice get there other ways. I'm a big fan of using different ability scores for things.

Logos, Pathos, and Ethos are different ways of approaching a persuasive argument for example. And allowing persuasion with Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma depending on the argument made by a character might have different effects if the target of their roll values logic over emotion for example. The fluidity of the system of 5e is what attracts me to it.

[Tanarii]

My players are not rules lawyers or power gamers or optimisers so I am pretty lenient (I think). I would let most of this fly with no concerns. I’m just aware of the balance issues when it becomes a standard practice instead of a one off cool idea.

Mine would raise bloody hell if I nerfed their casters (which is most classes in the game) that hard by making it a fairly simple opposed check.

If it required being a series of checks, a Grapple (e.g. Grab) followed by one check per component type prevented, which how I read the proposed rule, they might accept it. Because then Orcs and other basic humanoids with only a single attack couldn't do it.

[KorvinStarmast]

What do you tell the brand new player who has expressed an action they wish to do in that situation? I hope you tell them what they need to do to accomplish said goal. Telling them no all of the sudden turns D&D into a video game for reals. Because if it's not "Coded" within the rules it can't be done. Then you really are playing a video game. Just with a worse computer. Yep, that's an issue with a portion of the player base. Too much emphasis on "rules ~ code" rather than as Rules are a toolset to enable play ... @PhoenixPhyre had a great post about that a few months back.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Mine would raise bloody hell if I nerfed their casters (which is most classes in the game) that hard by making it a fairly simple opposed check.

If it required being a series of checks, a Grapple (e.g. Grab) followed by one check per component type prevented, which how I read the proposed rule, they might accept it. Because then Orcs and other basic humanoids with only a single attack couldn't do it.

That's, literally how it works.

Fighter's Turn

I take the attack action.

I grapple the caster -> Opposed Check sacrificing an attack

I Shove Prone the caster -> Opposed check sacrificing an attack

I action surge

I prevent verbal components -> Opposed check sacrificing an attack

I Prevent somatic components -> Opposed check sacrificing an attack

Caster's Turn

- I attempt to break grapple as an action because that's all I can do. -

Fighter's Turn

I take the attack action - Grapple is maintained as per rule set.

I maintain the verbal component preventative -> Opposed check sacrificing an attack

I don't maintain the somatic component and instead use my second attack for damage and make an attack roll with advantage cause target is prone. -> Attack roll

Caster's Turn

I cast a somatic only spell because the fighter isn't preventing it this turn instead of trying to escape the grapple.

------
The fighter in this scenario at level 5 sacrifices all their damage and offensive capabilities to lockdown a caster. And make opposed rolls each turn. That doesn't seem broken to me at all. The Wizard should have never let the fighter get close in the first place. Hell if you really wanted to be mean, you could just wrap it all into one attack and say "Fighter sacrifices an attack to prevent spell casting for this round like a grapple ability. It's up to you to rule how you would handle it.

[Willowhelm]

That's, literally how it works.


There’s a bit missing here. That’s literally how it works (in the proposed example where I have made an on the fly decision about a case outside of the RAW)

And we’ve already noted it opens up the option for called shots and a lot else.

Now your player says they are just going to ready an action to punch the wizard in the when they start casting. No grapple. No prone. No second attack.

You now are back to making a mechanical justification for why that is/isn’t allowed vs your eleborate take down. It’s still just as plausible from a “real world” scenario...

Again, I’m lenient. I’d probably allow it. I’d probably even give them inspiration! I also probably would not have the npcs do this stuff to the pcs unless it became a regular occurance or that npc is “special” in some way.

[BoutsofInsanity]

There’s a bit missing here. That’s literally how it works (in the proposed example where I have made an on the fly decision about a case outside of the RAW)

And we’ve already noted it opens up the option for called shots and a lot else.

Now your player says they are just going to ready an action to punch the wizard in the when they start casting. No grapple. No prone. No second attack.

You now are back to making a mechanical justification for why that is/isn’t allowed vs your eleborate take down. It’s still just as plausible from a “real world” scenario...

Again, I’m lenient. I’d probably allow it. I’d probably even give them inspiration! I also probably would not have the npcs do this stuff to the pcs unless it became a regular occurance or that npc is “special” in some way.

Well a punch doesn't disrupt the casting in that way. It's not the damage that's doing it. They are sacrificing damage and attacks to specifically prevent casting. You can add however much mechanics onto it that you want.

Stopping casting in this instance for me requires -> Sacrificing attacks or action economy, an opposed ability check or saving throw, and you aren't doing damage. It's a trade off. Further in my grappling example it's within melee range.

A regular opportunity attack isn't going to cut it for me personally. But I could see an argument made for it, but I wouldn't implement it as it seems for me, too far as the rules explicitly don't have damage as a disruption to casting a spell. It stops concentration. But not casting. It's assumed that a Wizard when struck can continue working a casting for example. But explicitly that Somatic, Verbal and Material components are required to cast spells. In that case, if someone wants to target those - Say shooting an arrow called out specifically at the hand gestures (Burning an action, Reaction, and damage for example) to disrupt the casting I'd allow it. It's still going to require an ability check or save on the Wizard's part. That's more than a fair trade off in my opinion.

But at your table you can handle it however you want. However many actions or attacks it takes. I just don't want someone to tell a player that they can't because it's not explicitly stated within the PHB.

[Willowhelm]

Well a punch doesn't disrupt the casting in that way. It's not the damage that's doing it. They are sacrificing damage and attacks to specifically prevent casting. You can add however much mechanics onto it that you want.

Stopping casting in this instance for me requires -> Sacrificing attacks or action economy, an opposed ability check or saving throw, and you aren't doing damage. It's a trade off. Further in my grappling example it's within melee range.

A regular opportunity attack isn't going to cut it for me personally. But I could see an argument made for it, but I wouldn't implement it as it seems for me, too far as the rules explicitly don't have damage as a disruption to casting a spell. It stops concentration. But not casting. It's assumed that a Wizard when struck can continue working a casting for example. But explicitly that Somatic, Verbal and Material components are required to cast spells. In that case, if someone wants to target those - Say shooting an arrow called out specifically at the hand gestures (Burning an action, Reaction, and damage for example) to disrupt the casting I'd allow it. It's still going to require an ability check or save on the Wizard's part. That's more than a fair trade off in my opinion.

But at your table you can handle it however you want. However many actions or attacks it takes. I just don't want someone to tell a player that they can't because it's not explicitly stated within the PHB.

And this is why people stick to RAW. You’re still going to someone’s have to “tell a player they can’t because it isn’t explicitly stated within the PHB”. You said:

“I wouldn't implement it as it seems for me, too far as the rules explicitly don't have damage as a disruption to casting a spell”

So now you are going to are outside the RAW but only sometimes. You still have to draw a line somewhere and the further you stray from RAW the more you have to think of the consequences or retroactively change your ruling or risk just inconsistency.

If you have an entire homebrew for advanced grappling then that sounds awesome. You can balance it appropriately and give consistent rules for when PCs can and can’t do certain actions. What you’ve presented here is very reasonable but only works because of a lot of assumptions you already have about the rules. Your player that is just asking to do cool things is still going to be frustrated when you tell them

“ Well a punch doesn't disrupt the casting in that way.”

Why not? Why can’t I poke their eyes and cause blindness? Why can’t I discombobulate them with simultaneous strikes to the ears and deafen/stun them?

Because the game mechanics are not built that way. Stunning strike is a monk thing. You don’t have called shots. Normal attacks don’t impose those conditions.

The game mechanics are not built that way for grappling either. You’re in homebrew territory, not just common sense or rule of cool.

(Apologies for lack of formatting - on phone)

[noob]

And this is why people stick to RAW. You’re still going to someone’s have to “tell a player they can’t because it isn’t explicitly stated within the PHB”. You said:

“I wouldn't implement it as it seems for me, too far as the rules explicitly don't have damage as a disruption to casting a spell”

So now you are going to are outside the RAW but only sometimes. You still have to draw a line somewhere and the further you stray from RAW the more you have to think of the consequences or retroactively change your ruling or risk just inconsistency.

If you have an entire homebrew for advanced grappling then that sounds awesome. You can balance it appropriately and give consistent rules for when PCs can and can’t do certain actions. What you’ve presented here is very reasonable but only works because of a lot of assumptions you already have about the rules. Your player that is just asking to do cool things is still going to be frustrated when you tell them

“ Well a punch doesn't disrupt the casting in that way.”

Why not? Why can’t I poke their eyes and cause blindness? Why can’t I discombobulate them with simultaneous strikes to the ears and deafen/stun them?

Because the game mechanics are not built that way. Stunning strike is a monk thing. You don’t have called shots. Normal attacks don’t impose those conditions.

The game mechanics are not built that way for grappling either. You’re in homebrew territory, not just common sense or rule of cool.

(Apologies for lack of formatting - on phone)

It is however a fairly reasonable homebrew if you liked the casting dynamics of ad&d to say that casting can be disrupted by being hurt while you are casting (with the exception of spells that can be cast only while being hit or hurt such as shield because else it makes really odd logical effects).

[BoutsofInsanity]

And this is why people stick to RAW. You’re still going to someone’s have to “tell a player they can’t because it isn’t explicitly stated within the PHB”. You said:

“I wouldn't implement it as it seems for me, too far as the rules explicitly don't have damage as a disruption to casting a spell”

So now you are going to are outside the RAW but only sometimes. You still have to draw a line somewhere and the further you stray from RAW the more you have to think of the consequences or retroactively change your ruling or risk just inconsistency.

If you have an entire homebrew for advanced grappling then that sounds awesome. You can balance it appropriately and give consistent rules for when PCs can and can’t do certain actions. What you’ve presented here is very reasonable but only works because of a lot of assumptions you already have about the rules. Your player that is just asking to do cool things is still going to be frustrated when you tell them

“ Well a punch doesn't disrupt the casting in that way.”

Why not? Why can’t I poke their eyes and cause blindness? Why can’t I discombobulate them with simultaneous strikes to the ears and deafen/stun them?

Because the game mechanics are not built that way. Stunning strike is a monk thing. You don’t have called shots. Normal attacks don’t impose those conditions.

The game mechanics are not built that way for grappling either. You’re in homebrew territory, not just common sense or rule of cool.

(Apologies for lack of formatting - on phone)

Glad you brought up eyepokes and deafness and stuff.

I'd totally allow that and do allow that. It's an opposed roll like everything else. Burns attacks.

Honestly though, I base it off the Battle Master as a template. The battle master does it as carriers on attacks and more efficiently. But if a battle master can do it, I say anyone can. Just not as effectively or by doing damage.

Thats me though.

It also depends on your definition of homebrew and house rules. Which by your definition I guess I am.

[noob]

Glad you brought up eyepokes and deafness and stuff.

I'd totally allow that and do allow that. It's an opposed roll like everything else. Burns attacks.

Honestly though, I base it off the Battle Master as a template. The battle master does it as carriers on attacks and more efficiently. But if a battle master can do it, I say anyone can. Just not as effectively or by doing damage.

Thats me though.

It also depends on your definition of homebrew and house rules. Which by your definition I guess I am.

Blind being a very powerful condition should be 1: preventable with legendary saves and 2: need more than just an opposed roll to be inflicted.

[KorvinStarmast]

... if you liked the casting dynamics of ad&d to say that casting can be disrupted by being hurt while you are casting (with the exception of spells that can be cast only while being hit or hurt such as shield because else it makes really odd logical effects). I have some 3.x players who really dislike that 5e removed the OA against you for casting a spell near melee range ... but since some spells are melee range, I think the decision to not get that fiddly was a very good one. The disad for ranged spell attacks in melee range suffices.

[Segev]

I'm not sure if you're just reiterating what I said to agree with me or if you missed my last paragraph, along with the quotes I was responding to.

Boutsofinsanity clearly wasn't talking about using a pseudo-grapple to impact a spell component since he said "punch them in the hand/mouth", and actively dismissed the grappling comparison ("holding hands").

Grappling costs limbs, and I think impacting a spell component at the cost of one is a fairly reasonable tradeoff, especially since most races won't be able to fully shut down a caster since they've only got two arms.Largely agreed. I would argue that you could have your grapple BE holding him by a hand or two to keep from gesturing, and your other hand clamping his mouth, though. Heck, I'd allow either stopping somatic or verbal components with the same limb you're grappling them with. You'd need a second limb to stop the other. (I'd still require a separate action/check to make the additional debuff happen, though.)

[Trask]

I have some 3.x players who really dislike that 5e removed the OA against you for casting a spell near melee range ... but since some spells are melee range, I think the decision to not get that fiddly was a very good one. The disad for ranged spell attacks in melee range suffices.

I find its too lax, especially as you climb the levels and spell attack rolls become more rare. I do think that an OA for casting a spell might be too much, very punishing for gish classes, but maybe there could be some workaround there. I don't know. What I do know is that its near impossible to stop spellcasting and that feels annoying sometimes.

[Tanarii]

Largely agreed. I would argue that you could have your grapple BE holding him by a hand or two to keep from gesturing, and your other hand clamping his mouth, though. Heck, I'd allow either stopping somatic or verbal components with the same limb you're grappling them with. You'd need a second limb to stop the other. (I'd still require a separate action/check to make the additional debuff happen, though.)
My feel is that if you 'grapple' someone like that, as opposed to a 5e Grapple, you're at the point where you're effectively Restrained yourself in the process.

[noob]

My feel is that if you 'grapple' someone like that, as opposed to a 5e Grapple, you're at the point where you're effectively Restrained yourself in the process.

So basically you can pick between a 5e soft grapple and a 3.5 grapple that turns anybody reading the rules off insane?

[Tanarii]

So basically you can pick between a 5e soft grapple and a 3.5 grapple that turns anybody reading the rules off insane?
Hahaha yup.

No seriously though, the way many people envision grappling is something akin to wrestling or a martial art form. The majority of which you don't use unless you're one-on-one. Because while it very effectively controls the target, it leaves you largely defenseless against anyone else.

Outside of movies where the hero uses someone else as a anti-bullet body shield or an improvised thrown weapon of course. :smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

I find its too lax, especially as you climb the levels and spell attack rolls become more rare. I do think that an OA for casting a spell might be too much, very punishing for gish classes, but maybe there could be some workaround there. I don't know. What I do know is that its near impossible to stop spellcasting and that feels annoying sometimes.

IME it's fine to grant opportunity attacks for being paralyzed or spellcasting (without Warcaster--I replace the cast-a-spell-as-a-reaction bullet with "your spells don't trigger opportunity attacks"). It gives warriors a little bit more of a role in the party (Booming Blade doesn't compete as much with Extra Attack, unless you invest in Warcaster, in which case the Fighter probably invested in something like GWM), but it's not something spellcasters can't work around by having high AC or using good positioning. It also makes the game more logical (especially w/rt paralyzation) which is important to me.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Honestly though, I base it off the Battle Master as a template. The battle master does it as carriers on attacks and more efficiently. But if a battle master can do it, I say anyone can. Just not as effectively or by doing damage.

I take a similar approach as well. Ideally, I want the player to describe what they do:
"I throw my mug at the one eyed bartender, and then pick up and grab the table and run and try to pin the bartender's two ruffian sons against the wall. While my character does this, he shouts at the bartender: "Don't start none, there won't be none!"

This makes the game more fun, and keeps me engaged, as a DM.



Because the game mechanics are not built that way. Stunning strike is a monk thing. You don’t have called shots. Normal attacks don’t impose those conditions.
The game mechanics are not built that way for grappling either.

Page 271 and Page 272 of the DMG, specifically, and the DM's Workshop section of the DMG, more broadly, would refute your point.


You’re in homebrew territory, not just common sense or rule of cool.

Does the appellation applied to the rule truly matter? Who cares about 'Labels' if the rule used is better than the 'RAW' write up?

Quite a few rules in 5e, have their origins in "Houserules".
"Houserules" had no pejorative connotation, in 1e AD&D, despite how popular currents today are attempting to use the word.

Sometimes, the different rules modules of D&D actually don't work well together, or at all. In 5e this would be the Stronghold rules in the DMG. In 1e AD&D...this would include quite a few different things.

Successful 'Houserules', should hopefully make the game run more smoothly.

Role Playing can contain an improvisational component, which doesn't have to be limited to conversation, and can include combat or other tiers of play.

[Elbeyon]

Stuff like that could work as long as mages can do the same thing. So, like magic missile popping people's eyes. Spike growth cuts up people's legs so much they can't walk. Firebolt sets people on fire or can shoot someone in the hand to disarm (or dishand) them.

[Willowhelm]

I take a similar approach as well. Ideally, I want the player to describe what they do:
"I throw my mug at the one eyed bartender, and then pick up and grab the table and run and try to pin the bartender's two ruffian sons against the wall. While my character does this, he shouts at the bartender: "Don't start none, there won't be none!"

This makes the game more fun, and keeps me engaged, as a DM.



Page 271 and Page 272 of the DMG, specifically, and the DM's Workshop section of the DMG, more broadly, would refute your point.



Does the appellation applied to the rule truly matter? Who cares about 'Labels' if the rule used is better than the 'RAW' write up?

Quite a few rules in 5e, have their origins in "Houserules".
"Houserules" had no pejorative connotation, in 1e AD&D, despite how popular currents today are attempting to use the word.

Sometimes, the different rules modules of D&D actually don't work well together, or at all. In 5e this would be the Stronghold rules in the DMG. In 1e AD&D...this would include quite a few different things.

Role Playing can contain an improvisational component, which doesn't have to be limited to conversation.

This is way off the topic of the thread.

I have already said I am lenient and would allow this stuff and even give my players inspiration for RP.

I can do that and also recognise that when you do it, you are opening up a lot of mechanical issues especially if you try to justify anything as how it would really work.

Because of that a lot of people prefer to just stick to RAW because it makes playing easier and for some that clarity and strictness actually makes the game more fun. They want to know exactly what they can and can’t do so they can build and plan. If you pick your class and build and everything else so you can be a master grappler and then the next player just calls out a cool description and gets to do something you’ve been building toward for 8 levels... that’s not fun for everyone.

It’s possible to believe all that at the same time and it isn’t contradictory.

There isn’t just a single right way to play.

[Thunderous Mojo]

In the example BoutsofInsanity provided, the Fighter sacrificed an Action Surge and nearly all of their DPR for two Rounds, before the spellcaster's escape.

I have no problem with a Evoker asking to make a 'Called Shot' with a Scorching Ray spell to hit a particular area.

Since Magic Missile requires no rolls, nor no saving throw against the spell's damage, as a matter of balance I would state allowing Magic Missile to also automatically add the Blinded Condition is too excessive powerful to allow.

As a DM I would ask the player what they would be willing to alter of the spell to make this happen. If the player was willing to make a DC 15 Intelligence: Arcana check and turn Magic Missile into a Magic Blast spell for this Cast a Spell Action only, I as a DM would be fine with it.

Magic Blast ...it would automatically strike the eyes, causing 1d4 per eye struck, and could only strike two eyes, before needing to Upcast. Creature affected is Blinded until the end of their next turn. CON saving throw for 1/2 damage and no Blinded condition.

[Chaos Jackal]

People care about the "labels" because RAW is the one frame everyone knows about. You can't possibly make arguments in an online forum using your table as a reference, because it's likely that other posters aren't familiar with what you do at your table, while the RAW might not be used by everyone to the same extent, but it's the common denominator, the one thing you can base discussions on and make sure everyone is or can be on the same page (literally and figuratively).

It's also what makes every system what it is, and not something else, or just freeform RP. Labels are important. Frames are important. The RAW is important. The system is important. Because without these, it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful conversation, since everyone would be talking about their own game.

As such, in the kind of thread that discusses mechanics of this frame and system, any arguments of the sort "you can change X and Y" or "limiting yourself to the RAW is bad/narrow/not the point/not the intention" might not be wrong in content, but they're wrong in context and irrelevant to the thread.

In this case, being able to invent a bunch of grapple variants, even if those variants are better defined and don't have unwanted or unexpected effects on other areas of the game, doesn't showcase the value of Str. Rule 0-ing an issue doesn't mean there's no issue, as the Oberoni fallacy states. It either proves nothing if there's no issue, or it showcases the exact opposite, as in, that your need to make grapple variants is precisely because Str isn't worth all that much in the first place.

[diplomancer]

People care about the "labels" because RAW is the one frame everyone knows about. You can't possibly make arguments in an online forum using your table as a reference, because it's likely that other posters aren't familiar with what you do at your table, while the RAW might not be used by everyone to the same extent, but it's the common denominator, the one thing you can base discussions on and make sure everyone is or can be on the same page (literally and figuratively).

It's also what makes every system what it is, and not something else, or just freeform RP. Labels are important. Frames are important. The RAW is important. The system is important. Because without these, it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful conversation, since everyone would be talking about their own game.

As such, in the kind of thread that discusses mechanics of this frame and system, any arguments of the sort "you can change X and Y" or "limiting yourself to the RAW is bad/narrow/not the point/not the intention" might not be wrong in content, but they're wrong in context and irrelevant to the thread.

In this case, being able to invent a bunch of grapple variants, even if those variants are better defined and don't have unwanted or unexpected effects on other areas of the game, doesn't showcase the value of Str. Rule 0-ing an issue doesn't mean there's no issue, as the Oberoni fallacy states. It either proves nothing if there's no issue, or it showcases the exact opposite, as in, that your need to make grapple variants is precisely because Str isn't worth all that much in the first place.

The problem, here, is that RAW clearly states you can improvise actions, and that in that case, the DM decides how to adjudicate it. Doing this is pure RAW.


IMPROVISING AN ACTION

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

[Chaos Jackal]

The problem, here, is that RAW clearly states you can improvise actions, and that in that case, the DM decides how to adjudicate it. Doing this is pure RAW.

...yes, that's an extension of Rule 0.

Yes, rules are guidelines. Yes, I'm aware Rule 0 exists. Yes, the DM is god. And that's why Rule 0 shouldn't be used when discussing a system's mechanics. If anything is possible and nothing is solid, there's no point discussing anything other than to relate personal anecdotes. We discuss the guidelines instead because they are the most solid thing available that allows for examining a system and differentiating it from other systems.

My DM might declare that a character can abandon all extra attacks in order to make a supercharged blow, attempting to instantly shatter a target's skull. A pure Str check with DC X, reduced by 5 for every extra attack you have. Just because my DM said that doesn't mean going out in a forum thread or an online chat or a cafeteria with some other people from a different table and claiming a Str fighter is superb because he gets an instakill attempt every turn and gets to reduce the DC more than others. It isn't a valid argument in whatever conversation I might be having in the forum thread, online chat, or cafeteria.

That goes for extreme cases like giving a character the ability to instantly kill something as well as less extreme cases like modifying Acrobatics to allow you to climb a wall. Being able to create an action for everything isn't an argument for the existing system's capabilities. Otherwise, every rules system becomes automatically flawless as long as its developer includes a Rule 0. And that's obviously not the case.

Again, Rule 0 proves nothing at best, and is contradictory at worst. And I don't have anything to argue or discuss about when it's involved.

---

Str is indeed not a very useful stat. It's not useless, but the things it does are probably among the most easily replicable in the game, and the risks you're running into by having low Str are also typically among the most easily avoidable, with the effects of not avoiding them often being among the least debilitating.

A party with a commoner look arguably won't run into many carrying capacity issues, so that's one common problem mostly off the table. Something like Athletics Expertise (which is now available to everyone via Skill Expert if feats are open) can go a long way into addressing common and/or recurrent Str-requiring situations, and for specific situations you can do a lot through things like teleportation. You might not be able to entirely and flawlessly cover everything, but with a little effort and the proper classes you can cover a lot.

Refer to LudicSavant's first post on the first page too. Str is valuable, but not as valuable as other stats. And the ease with which you can replicate its effects contribute to this.

[Segev]

My feel is that if you 'grapple' someone like that, as opposed to a 5e Grapple, you're at the point where you're effectively Restrained yourself in the process.



No seriously though, the way many people envision grappling is something akin to wrestling or a martial art form. The majority of which you don't use unless you're one-on-one. Because while it very effectively controls the target, it leaves you largely defenseless against anyone else.

Outside of movies where the hero uses someone else as a anti-bullet body shield or an improvised thrown weapon of course. :smallamused:I like to think of 5e's "basic grapple" as being akin to grabbing somebody by the collar, lapels, or the scruff of their neck. You've got a grip on them and are using one of your hands to maintain it, and they're not going anywhere, but otherwise, you're both pretty free to act, still. These other things we're discussing are not directly codified, just noted in the rules as possibly existing in the umbrella of other possible strength actions.


The problem, here, is that RAW clearly states you can improvise actions, and that in that case, the DM decides how to adjudicate it. Doing this is pure RAW.Exactly. They're easy-to-miss RAW, because they're not fully codified, but Grapple and Shove are given as examples of how to define what you can accomplish with a successful opposed Strength check, and what might oppose it.


...yes, that's an extension of Rule 0.Not quite, in this case. I mean, yes, rule 0 still applies, but it's not "an extension of rule zero" to apply other rules that state there are more things you can do than are listed, and that the listed examples are examples of how to do them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Stuff like that could work as long as mages can do the same thing. That is utterly unnecessary. They already have magic. Magic has gotten too easy under WoTC's watch. (rant excised as it adds no value to the point in using Strength)

[Elbeyon]

That is utterly unnecessary. They already have magic. Magic has gotten too easy under WoTC's watch. (rant excised as it adds no value to the point in using Strength)If improvised actions are allowed, everyone should be able to improvise. The game's balance would change otherwise.

[Segev]

If improvised actions are allowed, everyone should be able to improvise. The game's balance would change otherwise.

Everyone can improvise. It's just a question of what can BE improvised.

A wizard can improvise coming up with a brand new spell, but the DM will still determine how much time and expense that takes, as well as how hard it is. Such things are things people tend to like having systems for, due to the complexity. Improvised actions tend to be easier to come up with for physical abilities, because they're closer to what we do in real life. "I want to clamp my hand over his mouth" is a lot easier to figure out the steps to accomplishing than, "I want to know the inner workings of that ancient dragon's mind."

[Elbeyon]

Everyone can improvise. It's just a question of what can BE improvised.

A wizard can improvise coming up with a brand new spell, but the DM will still determine how much time and expense that takes, as well as how hard it is. Such things are things people tend to like having systems for, due to the complexity. Improvised actions tend to be easier to come up with for physical abilities, because they're closer to what we do in real life. "I want to clamp my hand over his mouth" is a lot easier to figure out the steps to accomplishing than, "I want to know the inner workings of that ancient dragon's mind."Sure! Improvising will require some improvising, but I don't agree with the premise that physical abilities are easier to improvise. "I want to use my magic missile to stab his tongue" is as easy to figure out as clamping someone's mouth shut.

[Pex]

Magic has its own improvisation issues. See Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Minor Image, Silent Image, Major Image, Charm Person, Simulacrum, Wish . . .

[Trask]

Magic has its own improvisation issues. See Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Minor Image, Silent Image, Major Image, Charm Person, Simulacrum, Wish . . .

Very true, we accept all sorts of improvisational rulings for magic. We should be open to them with martials too.

I think it would help if there were some baseline ways to do it, rather than pure improv, replacing an attack seems the most obvious.

[Elbeyon]

Magic has its own improvisation issues. See Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Minor Image, Silent Image, Major Image, Charm Person, Simulacrum, Wish . . .


Very true, we accept all sorts of improvisational rulings for magic. We should be open to them with martials too.

I think it would help if there were some baseline ways to do it, rather than pure improv, replacing an attack seems the most obvious.That's not improvised like the book means it. Those are spells with open ended mechanics. An improvised action is something entirely new that does not exist in the base game! It's basically homebrew on the spot! Improvised magic would be using the Shield spell to deflect arrows back at an archer, or using Ray of Frost to make ice cubes in a drink. It's changing the rules, improvising. STR can certainly be used for improvised actions.

[Tanarii]

Magic doesn't need improvisation in D&D. It's no structured for it at all, and the balance of resources isn't built around it either. If you want that, the entire Magic system needs an overhaul.

Improvisation for physical acts is much trickier. There needs to be some degree of open-ended improvisation in the category of doing things.

But there's no reason Martial attacks can't be a strictly defined "use X ability, get Y result" system, either on a limited resource or not, for combat maneuvers. And of course, that already exists. Battle masters are already there for the former, and grapple is an open ended one. And Barbarians and Monks and Rogues get their versions.

What D&D martial combat doesn't have going for it is a complex melee resolution system. Attacks, blocks, feints, parries, dodges, and armor absorbing hits. That's the real martial equivalent that would be needed for truly mundane combat complexity. And not everyone would want.

[noob]

Magic doesn't need improvisation in D&D. It's no structured for it at all, and the balance of resources isn't built around it either. If you want that, the entire Magic system needs an overhaul.

Improvisation for physical acts is much trickier. There needs to be some degree of open-ended improvisation in the category of doing things.

But there's no reason Martial attacks can't be a strictly defined "use X ability, get Y result" system, either on a limited resource or not, for combat maneuvers. And of course, that already exists. Battle masters are already there for the former, and grapple is an open ended one. And Barbarians and Monks and Rogues get their versions.

What D&D martial combat doesn't have going for it is a complex melee resolution system. Attacks, blocks, feints, parries, dodges, and armor absorbing hits. That's the real martial equivalent that would be needed for truly mundane combat complexity. And not everyone would want.

I think that what could be interesting in a more complicated melee system would be adding intercepting as a base action (You can when you are close enough put yourself between an attack and someone that is attacked to try to block it yourself or take it)
Right now you can prevent spells from being cast on allies but if they are attacked there is very few interactions possible.

[Segev]

Sure! Improvising will require some improvising, but I don't agree with the premise that physical abilities are easier to improvise. "I want to use my magic missile to stab his tongue" is as easy to figure out as clamping someone's mouth shut.

Not bad. If I were DMing that, I'd probably actually make you make an attack roll despite magic missile auto-hitting. Fail, and you still hit and do damage, but whatever special effect you were going for doesn't work. I'd have to agree that the special effect wasn't too overpowered, but "I am readying my action to smack him in the mouth with a magic missile if he tries to call out for the guards," I could reasonably agree he might be silenced until the start of your next turn, or something.

[KorvinStarmast]

If improvised actions are allowed, everyone should be able to improvise. The game's balance would change otherwise. Spells do what they say they do, that's one of the blance points in the game already. I invite you to examine the many forum discussions on the martial versus caster balance over the past five years. "Casters need more options" isn't a problem that needs solving
Magic doesn't need improvisation in D&D. It's no structured for it at all, and the balance of resources isn't built around it either. If you want that, the entire Magic system needs an overhaul.

Improvisation for physical acts is much trickier. There needs to be some degree of open-ended improvisation in the category of doing things. Yes

[Trask]

That's not improvised like the book means it. Those are spells with open ended mechanics. An improvised action is something entirely new that does not exist in the base game! It's basically homebrew on the spot! Improvised magic would be using the Shield spell to deflect arrows back at an archer, or using Ray of Frost to make ice cubes in a drink. It's changing the rules, improvising. STR can certainly be used for improvised actions.

I guess that I didn't mean improvisation in the sense of spinning up new mechanics from nothing, rather than many spells (and indeed, entire schools of magic) rely on a DM to adjucate and apply the effects and give him considerable leeway to do so.

With that as a precedent, and advice from the book telling us that more is (and should be) possible than what is only represented by the rules, it should not be controversial that a character should be able to use his strength or dexterity score to do more than the most elementary things. The only controversy is what they should be able to do, and how, in that there is considerable space for DM ruling to affect the outcome, just the same as it is with an illusion spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

there is considerable space for DM ruling to affect the outcome, just the same as it is with an illusion spell. Illusion spells are a great example on where improvisation is already wide open for the spell caster.
So to is magic mouth (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide-(-Official-Rules-Technique-)):smallwink: