All Damage Use Str?

[sayaijin]

When I first made the jump from 3.5 to 5e, I didn't read all the rules and bumped my Str as a rogue since I rolled well and wanted to do more damage. Then I realized that in this edition, you don't use Str for damage on Dex attacks.

What if we did? What if attack rolls stayed the same (Str for Str weapons and Dex for Dex weapons), but the only ability mod you add to damage rolls is Str?

This would nerf the following:
Ranged weapons
Two weapon fighting
Rogues

Ranged weapons could use a nerf, using Dex instead of Str for damage could be part of the TWF fighting style, and rogues get most of their damage from sneak attack, not from ability mod.

This would buff the following:
Strength based melee combat
Hexblade [sigh]

What do you all think?

[Mastikator]

How would it interact with hex blades that can substitute charisma and artificer armorers that can substitute intelligence? Are they stuck with STR too or are we just nerfing the martials in favor of the already superior gish warriors? :smallsigh:

[PhantomSoul]

How would it interact with hex blades that can substitute charisma and artificer armorers that can substitute intelligence? Are they stuck with STR too or are we just nerfing the martials in favor of the already superior gish warriors? :smallsigh:

That would only be a problem if those (sub)classes existed!

[Willie the Duck]

What do you all think?

I think this change, in isolation, creates as many issues as it eliminates, and doesn't address the fundamental issues with the relative value of differing combat stats (and the classes/builds that use them). Artificers and hexblades (and I guess shillelagh builds) are spanners in the works, but also just warlocks or casters in general. All this does is address str-based martials vs. dex-based ones, and even then it leaves out what I think are the larger issues such as archery fighting style being better than the melee ones and instead focuses on what I'd perhaps call the low-hanging fruit. I think that this might be included in a reasonable potential rebuild of the game for a theoretical 6e -- along with a host of other changes -- but in isolation I don't know that it solves anything.

[heavyfuel]

I guess Monks now suck even harder than they already do, having to max 3 stats instead of 2, on top of needing good Con

[CheddarChampion]

This would be a pretty big nerf to Dex martials.
With this change, why play as a MAD archer when you can play as a SAD warlock?

[MoiMagnus]

Low level rogue would be very sad. That's the main downside IMO.
(And please don't apply this to Monks)

Additionally, one of the main reason Rogue is fun to play IMO is that you can dump Str and focus on mental ability score, to compete with spellcasters out-of-combat, without diminishing your combat effectiveness

=> In general, I feel that either martial should get away with dumping one of the 3 physical ability scores with no real downside, or spellcasters should not be able to get away with being single-ability-score based. The former is easier to do and is the current choice of 5e: allow martial to dump Str without losing damage (ranged weapons or light weapons), or to dump Dex without losing AC (heavy armour). If you remove Str from the obvious dump or martial, you should find a way to also remove such obvious dumps from Spellscaster too.

Sometimes I feel like the spell attack bonus, the spell DC, and the number of spell known/prepared should all three scale of different ability scores for casters.

Hexblade and the weapon-focussed Artificers are the only "martial" characters that are designed like spellcasters are (they use one single ability score for everything), and weirdly enough some peoples ban them from their table while finding the same design elements acceptable for spellcasters.

[Warder]

The simplification of ability scores (both baseline 5e and continuing through Tasha's) is one of my least favorite things about 5e. Ideally - to me - there should be upsides and downsides to every ability score for every class. SAD classes are boring class design, imho, and paladins and monks are among 5e's most interesting classes because they can be built in fairly different directions depending on which abilities you focus on.

But I also think this is too deeply ingrained into 5e to be fixed by switching damage over to be pure strength. Like others have pointed out, that just tips the scales further in favor of spellcasters. I'm sure it can be done, but not through any one simple change.

[Mastikator]

The simplification of ability scores (both baseline 5e and continuing through Tasha's) is one of my least favorite things about 5e. Ideally - to me - there should be upsides and downsides to every ability score for every class. SAD classes are boring class design, imho, and paladins and monks are among 5e's most interesting classes because they can be built in fairly different directions depending on which abilities you focus on.

But I also think this is too deeply ingrained into 5e to be fixed by switching damage over to be pure strength. Like others have pointed out, that just tips the scales further in favor of spellcasters. I'm sure it can be done, but not through any one simple change.

I wonder if maybe it was a mistake to give a single spellcasting ability to each spell casting class. If spell saving throw DC had a different ability modifier depending on school then all spell casters would have to start dumping con just to be good at everything. For example:
Intelligence: Divination and Illusion
Wisdom: Conjuration and Abjuration
Charisma: Evocation and Enchantment
Constitution: Necromancy and Transmutation

Ranged and melee spellcasting attack rolls get Dexterity

That would adequately hard nerf spell casters into the ground enough that I'd be comfortable also nerfing martial classes by forcing them to take both dexterity and strength. However I'd like to see all weapon attacks use dex as a to hit bonus, otherwise strength based martials will remain sad.

[Xervous]

Hand in hand with ‘everyone MAD’ is the concern of ability score generation and advancement. If the valuations are structured off point buy the advancement should be a continuation of that point buy. That choice between a few high stats and a well rounded spread will persist at higher levels, rather than giving way to single stats raised to cap as the typical default.

[loki_ragnarock]

I wonder if maybe it was a mistake to give a single spellcasting ability to each spell casting class. If spell saving throw DC had a different ability modifier depending on school then all spell casters would have to start dumping con just to be good at everything. For example:
Intelligence: Divination and Illusion
Wisdom: Conjuration and Abjuration
Charisma: Evocation and Enchantment
Constitution: Necromancy and Transmutation

Ranged and melee spellcasting attack rolls get Dexterity

That would adequately hard nerf spell casters into the ground enough that I'd be comfortable also nerfing martial classes by forcing them to take both dexterity and strength. However I'd like to see all weapon attacks use dex as a to hit bonus, otherwise strength based martials will remain sad.

I proposed something similar back in the 3e days and people *did not* like it.

But if it was me, I'd move it around a little more like this:
Int: for calculating spell to hit bonus (and adding to hit requirements many spells that don't have them, like Wall of Force, Force Cage, etc.)
Wis: for calculating spell DC
Cha: for maintaining concentration, determining number of spells a day via some formula like mod x character level in spell points.

It'd need a hell of a rework.

[sayaijin]

I proposed something similar back in the 3e days and people *did not* like it.

But if it was me, I'd move it around a little more like this:
Int: for calculating spell to hit bonus (and adding to hit requirements many spells that don't have them, like Wall of Force, Force Cage, etc.)
Wis: for calculating spell DC
Cha: for maintaining concentration, determining number of spells a day via some formula like mod x character level in spell points.

It'd need a hell of a rework.

I really like where this is headed. Maybe Dex in general is the attack stat and Str the damage stat:

Str: non-magical damage modifier
Dex: non-magical attack modifier (to-hit bonus)
Con: hit points and maintaining concentration
Int: Number of spells known for casters or extra proficient skills for martials
Wis: accuracy of spell attacks (to-hit bonus and DC)
Cha: spell damage modifier

I like the idea of druids being the most likely to hit with spells, wizards knowing the most, and sorcerers/warlocks dealing the most damage with their spells.

I also like the idea of Dex fighters, rogues, and monks being the most likely to hit, but Str fighters and barbarians dealing the most raw damage.

[Angelalex242]

I can't say there's wisdom in making every class more MAD.

[Xervous]

I can't say there's wisdom in making every class more MAD.

Not with ASIs functioning as they do

[Yakk]

I have written a pile of feats and features that let you add both dex and strength to damage.

As it stands, dex based characters have little use for strength, and strength have a bit of use for dex.

So

1) Monks can add both dex and strength to damage with unarmed attacks under martial arts.
2) A bow feat on par with XBE/PAM lets you add strength and dex to bow damage.
3) A sword feat that on par with XBE/PAM lets you add strength and dex to blade damage.
4) A hammer feat that lets you add strength and con to hammer damage in par with PAM.
5) An axe feat that gives you damage in a different mechanism.

So a high-strength rogue grabs "master of the blade", and gets to add their strength to their blade damage (MotB includes a riposte attack, so despite the lack of taps it is still tempting for rogues).

[Willie the Duck]

I can't say there's wisdom in making every class more MAD.


Not with ASIs functioning as they do

I don't think any of this really works for the game we have now. For a theoretical alternate 5e/proposed 6e model, I can see some merit in making all classes require the same number of stats. Of course the more you do that, the less you can have that one fighter who has a decent Int for RP reasons or similar, and the only difference between two fighters (attribute-wise) is the order of priority for the different stats. At some point, I'd ask the basic question of whether we'd ended attributes' usefulness in defining a character.

[Amdy_vill]

When I first made the jump from 3.5 to 5e, I didn't read all the rules and bumped my Str as a rogue since I rolled well and wanted to do more damage. Then I realized that in this edition, you don't use Str for damage on Dex attacks.

What if we did? What if attack rolls stayed the same (Str for Str weapons and Dex for Dex weapons), but the only ability mod you add to damage rolls is Str?

This would nerf the following:
Ranged weapons
Two weapon fighting
Rogues

Ranged weapons could use a nerf, using Dex instead of Str for damage could be part of the TWF fighting style, and rogues get most of their damage from sneak attack, not from ability mod.

This would buff the following:
Strength based melee combat
Hexblade [sigh]

What do you all think?

I disagree that ranged weapons need a nerf if anything heavy weapons need a nerf or all other weapon types need a buff. I also don't think this buff strength-based melee combat as it doesn't change anything there unless you mean that by nerfing range combat you are buffing melee. this also doesn't buff hexbaldes given their 1st level abilities is to change thier roll and damage stat to cha.

I think in combination with some other balance changes this could work but just this one change would nerf combat styles that need buffing and not adress combat styles that need nerfing.

[Willie the Duck]

I disagree that ranged weapons need a nerf if anything heavy weapons need a nerf or all other weapon types need a buff.
Can you give us a reason why? As far as I can tell, the only reason to ever use a heavy weapon is if you want to employ GWM -- which is great but not better than Sharpshooter (which yes can be used with a longbow which is a heavy weapon, but probably is worse with a hand crossbow and XBE); or PAM (which, if not also with GWM, is better with a quarterstaff or spear).

[HPisBS]

...or PAM (which, if not also with GWM, is better with a quarterstaff or spear).

Now what gives you that idea? Aside from the bigger damage die, glaive / halberd also has Reach....

[Amdy_vill]

Can you give us a reason why? As far as I can tell, the only reason to ever use a heavy weapon is if you want to employ GWM -- which is great but not better than Sharpshooter (which yes can be used with a longbow which is a heavy weapon, but probably is worse with a hand crossbow and XBE); or PAM (which, if not also with GWM, is better with a quarterstaff or spear).

Heavy weapons are more of the nail in the coffin, thiers Polearm master, then sentinel, then all of the new damage feats, and savage attackers on top. it's not the heavy weapons themselves are the problem it's that of the 4 unique feats for melee combat a heavy weapon user can use 3 of them. it's more of a problem because we don't have a polearm master feat for other weapons types. you could argue this is more of a problem with polearms and that's valid. this is what makes being a heavy weapon melee character just the best choice.

some of these feats are usable on other melee builds but those builds can make use of all of the benefits of each feat like pams can. sheild master is a great idea but in practice, the feat is kinda bad.

I will admit range combat builds are better than most melee builds but not by enough. the three ranged feats do combo well but push you into a range dual wealding like build. and one of the feats is race locked.

this doesn't even touch on how well heavy weapon builds combo with class abilities. I don't think that the heavy weapon builds need a nerf I think they are fine and it feels rewarding to use. I feel other combat builds need to have similar options. these options should also be diverse, not just a set of feats for each other major combat type instead of a long list of feats for many weapons that each combo well with each other. a sential like a feat the combos well with how bonus action attack builds work the does not combo with sential well would help so on. a diveristy of feats that combo well with others but don't combo with every feat.

Tl;DR: its more the heavy weapons can combo with a long list of feat and gain great use out of all those feats using all of thier abilities where other weapon choices don't get this level of use out of those feats. so more weapons feats that work like this would be nice

[Willie the Duck]

I will admit range combat builds are better than most melee builds but not by enough. the three ranged feats do combo well but push you into a range dual wealding like build. and one of the feats is race locked.

This may end up simply being a difference of opinion, but I've found that even without Elven Accuracy, the XBE/Sharpshooter/archery fighting style combo performs about as well or better (the +2 really helping make the 'do I -5/+10?' question move to the affirmative) than the PAM/GWM/Sentinel combo, all without the issues of the 'what happens if you can't easily melee?' scenario.

[Amdy_vill]

This may end up simply being a difference of opinion, but I've found that even without Elven Accuracy, the XBE/Sharpshooter/archery fighting style combo performs about as well or better (the +2 really helping make the 'do I -5/+10?' question move to the affirmative) than the PAM/GWM/Sentinel combo, all without the issues of the 'what happens if you can't easily melee?' scenario.

I do think on paper these builds look about the same but there are simply more abilities on classes and races the combo with melee attacks making them even more effective. the only class ability that these feats can't take advantage of is a sneak attack. i do tho think more ranged focuses subclasses and base class features would bring these two builds closer if not even. at the moment all range really has is generic support like hex, sneak attack and the few battle master maneuver or arcane archer. also to my knowledge ranged characters lack consistent ways of using their bonus action and reaction in combat witch is kinda big. even with that most weapons are still very weapon compared to these two builds. a power gap is ok just not a power gap like this.

Edit: its important to note we haven't talked about gish builds witch combo better with melee weapons given the gish class features are locked into melee weapons on top of warcaster the only real gish support feat I can think of having a reaction ability witch ranged builds can take advantage of most of the time, unlike melee. I think in general we need a lot more feats around different combat types. I also think the social encounter system needs a similar treatment getting several playstyles and feat support for each of them, as well as more class support for different playstyles in combat and social encountors.

[Yakk]

Focusing on compare/contrast:

PAM/GWM works with:
1. Barbarian reckless/rage
2. Paladin smites (divine and spells)
3. Warlock smites
4. Elven accuracy via Hexblade 3
5. Belts of Giant Strength
6. BM riposte

XBE/SS works with:
1. Sneak attack
2. Monk martial arts
3. Bladesong
4. Elven accuracy out of the box
5. Belts of Giant Strength via the Dart
6. Archery +2 fighting style
7. Stacking ammunition attack bonus with weapon attack bonus
8. Being more than 10' away from your foe
9. Swift Quiver

Plus other less important stuff (arcane archer tier stuff).

[Amdy_vill]

Focusing on compare/contrast:

PAM/GWM works with:
1. Barbarian reckless/rage
2. Paladin smites (divine and spells)
3. Warlock smites
4. Elven accuracy via Hexblade 3
5. Belts of Giant Strength
6. BM riposte

XBE/SS works with:
1. Sneak attack
2. Monk martial arts
3. Bladesong
4. Elven accuracy out of the box
5. Belts of Giant Strength via the Dart
6. Archery +2 fighting style
7. Stacking ammunition attack bonus with weapon attack bonus
8. Being more than 10' away from your foe
9. Swift Quiver

Plus other less important stuff (arcane archer tier stuff).

this is a good list but its important to note that some of these combos together and others don't. everything on the PAm list can combo together and thier are even some really powerful builds that to that to great effect. where the XBE/SS does not combo with everything on that list. I also think listing magic items is not a good idea as thier are both not certain and there are so many. their are many magic weapons we could point to that make heavy weapons better. those the bonus stacking is an importnat note

[Willie the Duck]

also to my knowledge ranged characters lack consistent ways of using their bonus action and reaction in combat witch is kinda big.

Bonus action -- Crossbow Expert. Reaction: true, but I've found that in-play the amount of reaction use that the melee builds get is not as large as I'd expected. Mind you, If you get Sentinel* up and running, it changes a lot of behavior because opponents can't run away, which is it's own benefit, but there still doesn't end up being all that many reactions used.
*It should be mentioned that both PAM/GWM/Sentinel and EA/SS/XBE combo is incredibly ASI dense, and probably more than most characters get to, at least at the levels where we really should be discussing Dex vs. Str instead of Dex vs. Str vs. Casters-running-away-with-the-game-regardless.

Regardless, if we're going to discuss in actual play instead of "on paper," then it should really be discussed the biggest elephant in the room: what does this PAM/GWM/Sentinel build do when they meet an opponent 30' in the air? To me, the ability to address that issue is a huge part of the benefit that the ranged builds have, and a reason I certainly don't feel that Heavy weapon melee needs any nerfing.

[Xervous]

Bonus action -- Crossbow Expert. Reaction: true, but I've found that in-play the amount of reaction use that the melee builds get is not as large as I'd expected. Mind you, If you get Sentinel* up and running, it changes a lot of behavior because opponents can't run away, which is it's own benefit, but there still doesn't end up being all that many reactions used.
*It should be mentioned that both PAM/GWM/Sentinel and EA/SS/XBE combo is incredibly ASI dense, and probably more than most characters get to, at least at the levels where we really should be discussing Dex vs. Str instead of Dex vs. Str vs. Casters-running-away-with-the-game-regardless.

Regardless, if we're going to discuss in actual play instead of "on paper," then it should really be discussed the biggest elephant in the room: what does this PAM/GWM/Sentinel build do when they meet an opponent 30' in the air? To me, the ability to address that issue is a huge part of the benefit that the ranged builds have, and a reason I certainly don't feel that Heavy weapon melee needs any nerfing.

Though 5e really harks on not needing magic items, if even a quadriplegic giant hoisted by a crane is hard for a LvL>10 fighter to engage it feels there’s something screwy afoot. Either the game shouldn’t be serving up such opponents as the norm for those levels, or the melees should have the features they need to play the game.

[quinron]

I don't think any of this really works for the game we have now. For a theoretical alternate 5e/proposed 6e model, I can see some merit in making all classes require the same number of stats. Of course the more you do that, the less you can have that one fighter who has a decent Int for RP reasons or similar, and the only difference between two fighters (attribute-wise) is the order of priority for the different stats. At some point, I'd ask the basic question of whether we'd ended attributes' usefulness in defining a character.
Emphasis mine.

I'm already starting to hit this point in my analysis. We've got things like low hit dice to reflect characters being archetypically less tough than other characters, but then you can just pump Con for them without much tradeoff since casters are SAD. We've got Charisma, a stat that, for 3/4 of characters, is strictly used to govern how socially influential they are; on the other 1/4 it's still that, but also governs their ability to magically exert their will on the world. And somehow you can be the world's best liar, but if your Wisdom is too low, you're totally incapable of knowing whether someone is lying to you.

Then there's Str/Dex. The fact is, if your Dex is high enough, you already get almost all the benefits of Str: you get near the same AC at a far cheaper cost, you get the same bonus to attack/damage rolls, you add your primary ability mod to initiative, and you're better at Stealth, so you're pretty likely to be able to attack twice before the enemy can attack even once.With Str, you get access to higher weapon damage (but only if you're within 5 ft. of the target), you're better at grappling (which only works if you're within 5 ft. of the target AND by default doesn't work on fully 1/3 of the game's size categories AND negates that extra weapon damage because it's using up one hand), you can jump farther (woop de doo), and you have a higher carrying capacity (which is basically irrelevant because of how much everyone's carrying capacity has been boosted AND is basically negated because you have to use it to carry all your heavy weapons and armor).

However, I don't think an exclusively Str-to-damage change would remedy any of this that much, even if it was only a change to finesse weapons and not yo stuff like Martial Arts. As others have said, it's kind of a crab bucket: you're fine-tuning martials to balance against each other while casters still sit on a ledge above the pile. The class I would see being hit worst by removing DeX-to-damage from finesse and ranged weapons is the ranger. And they've already got it hard enough.

[Amdy_vill]

Bonus action -- Crossbow Expert. Reaction: true, but I've found that in-play the amount of reaction use that the melee builds get is not as large as I'd expected. Mind you, If you get Sentinel* up and running, it changes a lot of behavior because opponents can't run away, which is it's own benefit, but there still doesn't end up being all that many reactions used.
*It should be mentioned that both PAM/GWM/Sentinel and EA/SS/XBE combo is incredibly ASI dense, and probably more than most characters get to, at least at the levels where we really should be discussing Dex vs. Str instead of Dex vs. Str vs. Casters-running-away-with-the-game-regardless.

Regardless, if we're going to discuss in actual play instead of "on paper," then it should really be discussed the biggest elephant in the room: what does this PAM/GWM/Sentinel build do when they meet an opponent 30' in the air? To me, the ability to address that issue is a huge part of the benefit that the ranged builds have, and a reason I certainly don't feel that Heavy weapon melee needs any nerfing.

how often have you met an enemy 30' in the air? I have only encountered this once while fighting a dragon right after my dm gave the members of the party without flying abilities flying. in a game so heavily built around on-the-ground combat with most classes having no answer to this probelm, throwing this problem out as a reasonable likelihood is just wrong, both here and at the table if you haven't informed your player about it or given them solutions. not only does this build not have an answer to this almost every non-caster has no answer to this. I do think verticality is something dnd needs but you would need to build every class with an option for it. currently, while every material class can use ranged combat outside of rogues and rangers and fighters built for it no martial class has a reasonable answer in their own kit for flying enemies or enemies with verticality. paladins, monks, barbarians, most combat bards, blood hunters (yes I count them with how many people use them), all weapons using combat clerics, and most artificers have not optioned outside of just use the attack actions. the artificer, bard, and cleric are reasonable the least affected by this but that still leaves 1/3 of all classes with no options and another 3rd requiring you to have either built around it or picked the right spells. and another 3rd that might have an option but could still be built in a way that makes this impossible(blade singers, necromancers, so on).

I do think that this "should" be a reasonable possibility in a game but with how 5e is built this is an unreasonable challenge. at the moment without you as the dm taking the time to inform and supply the players it's just not reasonable.

I have also reapetivly said heavy weapons don't need nerfing other weapon types need buffing.

[Willie the Duck]

Though 5e really harks on not needing magic items, if even a quadriplegic giant hoisted by a crane is hard for a LvL>10 fighter to engage it feels there’s something screwy afoot. Either the game shouldn’t be serving up such opponents as the norm for those levels, or the melees should have the features they need to play the game.

By level ten, they probably do, oftentimes a a magic item or a helpful ally with a spell at the right moment. However, if you have that solution, you really need to include it in the calculations as to relative value of each type of build. After all, if your melee build is succeeding because the party mage is casting Fly on you, that means they aren't casting some other concentration spell which they would be employing if your str-based character were instead a ranged build of some type.

[PhoenixPhyre]

By level ten, they probably do, oftentimes a a magic item or a helpful ally with a spell at the right moment. However, if you have that solution, you really need to include it in the calculations as to relative value of each type of build. After all, if your melee build is succeeding because the party mage is casting Fly on you, that means they aren't casting some other concentration spell which they would be employing if your str-based character were instead a ranged build of some type.

Even a STR-based fighter can pick up a bow and be ok with it, if suboptimal[1]. Not every situation has to be optimal for all builds. Now if you, as the DM, are routinely making situations that screw over the same specific players each time, maybe you should rethink that? You should have a mix of things that are optimal for all, optimal for some and difficult for others (mixing around who is optimal and who is not), mediocre for all, and difficult for all. That's part of being a good DM.

And yes, that means that you're going to have things jump out at the ranged folks at point-blank range. Or things that hide behind full cover. And things that fly. And things that ignore disabling spells. And things that ignore force damage. As well as things that cater to all of those styles.

[1] sure, if you go for crippling overspecialization, you're in trouble. So don't do that.

[quinron]

Even a STR-based fighter can pick up a bow and be ok with it, if suboptimal[1]. Not every situation has to be optimal for all builds. Now if you, as the DM, are routinely making situations that screw over the same specific players each time, maybe you should rethink that? You should have a mix of things that are optimal for all, optimal for some and difficult for others (mixing around who is optimal and who is not), mediocre for all, and difficult for all. That's part of being a good DM.

And yes, that means that you're going to have things jump out at the ranged folks at point-blank range. Or things that hide behind full cover. And things that fly. And things that ignore disabling spells. And things that ignore force damage. As well as things that cater to all of those styles.

[1] sure, if you go for crippling overspecialization, you're in trouble. So don't do that.

Good points, especially on encounter crafting. This is where I think mobility gets overlooked a lot - on average, non-human monsters are vastly more mobile than PCs. If they have even a little bit of reasoning power, they'll use that mobility to skate past the tanks and go for the archers & mages.

[Willie the Duck]

Even a STR-based fighter can pick up a bow and be ok with it, if suboptimal[1]. Not every situation has to be optimal for all builds. Now if you, as the DM, are routinely making situations that screw over the same specific players each time, maybe you should rethink that?
Why would you assume that I was doing that?
The discussion is the relative strength of various builds, with a sub-topic of the relative value of PAM/GWM/Sentinel-style builds as compared to EA/XBE/SS builds. I am brining up the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of build because it is pertinent to the discussion at hand, not because I'm out to screw over on character type or another. Are you somehow under the impression that I'm trying to take melee characters down a peg somehow? I'm suggesting that I disagree with the notion that 'heavy weapons need a nerf.' Did you lose sight of that?

As to the Str-based fighter picking up a bow, yes they can. If they haven't completely dumped strength, to hopefully will be acceptably good at too. However, means that a significant portion of the character-build investments are offline for that portion of the fight, and that has to be taken into consideration when you start rating relative effectiveness.


And yes, that means that you're going to have things jump out at the ranged folks at point-blank range. Or things that hide behind full cover.
Yes, you should. However, I feel this is another situation that favors the ranged build. When something jumps out at them point blank, their feat combo includes a built-in way of addressing the problem, consisting of XBE's being able to shoot while engaged in melee without penalty. I feel that, were PAM/GWM/Sentinel to have an equivalent sub-ability to address what to do when the enemy is unapproachable, that would be an argument towards relative parity.


[1] sure, if you go for crippling overspecialization, you're in trouble. So don't do that.
That's definitely a caveat for all of these X vs. Y type discussions. The optimal character often is the one that can address whatever the adventure throws at them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why would you assume that I was doing that?
The discussion is the relative strength of various builds, with a sub-topic of the relative value of PAM/GWM/Sentinel-style builds as compared to EA/XBE/SS builds. I am brining up the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of build because it is pertinent to the discussion at hand, not because I'm out to screw over on character type or another. Are you somehow under the impression that I'm trying to take melee characters down a peg somehow? I'm suggesting that I disagree with the notion that 'heavy weapons need a nerf.' Did you lose sight of that?

As to the Str-based fighter picking up a bow, yes they can. If they haven't completely dumped strength, to hopefully will be acceptably good at too. However, means that a significant portion of the character-build investments are offline for that portion of the fight, and that has to be taken into consideration when you start rating relative effectiveness.

Yes, you should. However, I feel this is another situation that favors the ranged build. When something jumps out at them point blank, their feat combo includes a built-in way of addressing the problem, consisting of XBE's being able to shoot while engaged in melee without penalty. I feel that, were PAM/GWM/Sentinel to have an equivalent sub-ability to address what to do when the enemy is unapproachable, that would be an argument towards relative parity.

That's definitely a caveat for all of these X vs. Y type discussions. The optimal character often is the one that can address whatever the adventure throws at them.

I tend to treat being 3 combat feats deep as being "cripplingly overspecialized". Although I'd be onboard for making the close-quarters point of CBE be crossbows-only. Or removing it entirely.

And I've found that the characters who are full-on archers tend to also be the types who really don't like getting hit. I've had a lot of success with having enemies that charge/teleport/ambush/burrow/whatever over to the sniper. Generally that forces them to get out of dodge and reinforcing the value of someone with Sentinel (who can stop that behavior). Or having archers on the other side providing counter-battery fire.

As for the bolded portion, yes, yes I did. I completely agree with you on that part.

[Amdy_vill]

I tend to treat being 3 combat feats deep as being "cripplingly overspecialized". Although I'd be onboard for making the close-quarters point of CBE be crossbows-only. Or removing it entirely.

And I've found that the characters who are full-on archers tend to also be the types who really don't like getting hit. I've had a lot of success with having enemies that charge/teleport/ambush/burrow/whatever over to the sniper. Generally that forces them to get out of dodge and reinforcing the value of someone with Sentinel (who can stop that behavior). Or having archers on the other side providing counter-battery fire.

As for the bolded portion, yes, yes I did. I completely agree with you on that part.

I honestly don't think anything in 5e can be cripplingly overspecialized given how shallow the game is and how little variation this is in the game. in a game where social encounters and skill encounters have more substance and contributed more to the game without using homebrew, I can see this being true, but 5e is not their outside of combat that game is the bare minimum. few spells have non combat application social encounters are a rule most people don't know about and the skill system has the same problems. if these systems and other non-combat styles of play have meat and depth, spending 3 of your 4 feats on combat would be a bad idea but 5e lacks the depth and the meat thier.

[Battlebooze]

I'd be fine with this, if all weapons used Dex stat bonuses to hit.


Lets make all martial characters MAD! :)

[Angelalex242]

U MAD Bro?

(Let's not.)

[Amdy_vill]

I'd be fine with this, if all weapons used Dex stat bonuses to hit.


Lets make all martial characters MAD! :)

I like this idea. its doesn't fix alot of the problems but it helps abit.

Also what does MAD mean. i see people using it alot but have not clue

[HPisBS]

I like this idea. its doesn't fix alot of the problems but it helps abit.

Also what does MAD mean. i see people using it alot but have not clue

Multiple Attribute Dependent.

And Monks would be really MAD with that. They already need to devote 4 of their 5 ASIs to raising their primary stats; adding Str on top of that would push the already mediocre martials way down in the damage dealing department. Even giving them an extra ASI or two wouldn't help all that much. And trying to personalize such a Monk with high tertiary stats or feats would just be gimping yourself all the more.

[sayaijin]

I like this idea. its doesn't fix alot of the problems but it helps abit.

Also what does MAD mean. i see people using it alot but have not clue

Multiple attribute dependent or multiple ability dependent means you need several scores to be high to play well. Think monks needing Cha, Str, and Con or monks needing Dex, Wis, and Con

Conversely, single attribute dependent means you can pretty much dump everything but one score. Think Hexblade and artificer with Int to attack and damage.

[sayaijin]

Multiple Attribute Dependent.

And Monk would be really mad with that. They already need to devote 4 of their 5 ASIs to raising their primary stats; adding Str on top of that would push the already subpar martials way down in the damage dealing department. Even giving them an extra ASI or two wouldn't help all that much.

Bah, you beat me.

Yes I realize some other rework would need to be done for this to work, but I feel like it better captures how weapons really work. I could easily see martial arts allowing monks to bypass this rule.

[HPisBS]

Bah, you beat me.

Yes I realize some other rework would need to be done for this to work, but I feel like it better captures how weapons really work. I could easily see martial arts allowing monks to bypass this rule.

Ultimately, for the system we have, where ASIs are so few and far between, I think only being "required" to focus on a single stat for attack / damage is the right way to go. Monks and half-casters (but especially Monks) demonstrate that MADness is rough with this system. Extending extra MADness to every weapon user is simply infeasible unless you also hand out extra ASIs like candy.

[sayaijin]

Ultimately, for the system we have, where ASIs are so few and far between, I think only being "required" to focus on a single stat for attack / damage is the right way to go. Monks and half-casters (but especially Monks) demonstrate that MADness is rough with this system. Extending extra MADness to every weapon user is simply infeasible unless you also hand out extra ASIs like candy.

Yeah, it was pointed out in another thread that the design philosophy of 5e isn't realism but trope-ism. It seems they want people to mostly focus one ability score that defines a character: the strong warrior, wise druid/cleric, the knowledgeable wizard, etc. In that regard, if I want a game that better reflects realism, I should pick a different game.

[quinron]

Yeah, it was pointed out in another thread that the design philosophy of 5e isn't realism but trope-ism. It seems they want people to mostly focus one ability score that defines a character: the strong warrior, wise druid/cleric, the knowledgeable wizard, etc. In that regard, if I want a game that better reflects realism, I should pick a different game.

What frustrates me is that the usual defense of ability scores over class-only traits is that it supports diverse builds - strong wizards, charismatic fighters, tough rogues, etc. But each class (or each build, anyway) has at least one ability that it must prioritize, and part of choosing a class is choosing which score to prioritize. So while, yes, we can have a druid who is charismatic and personable rather than the typical antisocial sage, we can't have a druid who isn't some manner of sage, because progressing as a druid necessarily requires increasing your Wisdom. I'd almost prefer if the standard array was lowered and ASIs were reduced, but you had a fixed max score for your core stat that progressed as you leveled - so as a level 1 druid, you'll always have 16 Wis, which increases to 18 and then 20 as you level.

[Mastikator]

Bah, you beat me.

Yes I realize some other rework would need to be done for this to work, but I feel like it better captures how weapons really work. I could easily see martial arts allowing monks to bypass this rule.

Why do we need to "capture how weapons really work" when the players are Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch? And who in their right mind looks at that group and thinks "wow Hawkeye is killing it with that bow, we need to nerf him" :smallconfused:

[sayaijin]

Why do we need to "capture how weapons really work" when the players are Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch? And who in their right mind looks at that group and thinks "wow Hawkeye is killing it with that bow, we need to nerf him" :smallconfused:

There have been plenty of discussions on how to balance casters vs martials. This thread was to discuss one possible method of balancing ranged vs melee. I was trying to target realism as a way to balance, but as I admitted ~3 posts ago, 5e isn't a good platform for realism.

[PhantomSoul]

Why do we need to "capture how weapons really work" when the players are Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch? And who in their right mind looks at that group and thinks "wow Hawkeye is killing it with that bow, we need to nerf him" :smallconfused:

The Hulk, who doesn't get to kill much because Hawkeye kills everything before the Hulk can get close enough! (And yet it's the Hulk who gets knocked out when things go south, not Hawkeye

[Nefariis]

What frustrates me is that the usual defense of ability scores over class-only traits is that it supports diverse builds - strong wizards, charismatic fighters, tough rogues, etc. But each class (or each build, anyway) has at least one ability that it must prioritize, and part of choosing a class is choosing which score to prioritize. So while, yes, we can have a druid who is charismatic and personable rather than the typical antisocial sage, we can't have a druid who isn't some manner of sage, because progressing as a druid necessarily requires increasing your Wisdom. I'd almost prefer if the standard array was lowered and ASIs were reduced, but you had a fixed max score for your core stat that progressed as you leveled - so as a level 1 druid, you'll always have 16 Wis, which increases to 18 and then 20 as you level.

I could get behind something like this - Main stat ASI's are apart of character progression, leaving open the "normal ASI boosts" for off-stat flavor

[HPisBS]

Yeah, it was pointed out in another thread that the design philosophy of 5e isn't realism but trope-ism. It seems they want people to mostly focus one ability score that defines a character: the strong warrior, wise druid/cleric, the knowledgeable wizard, etc. In that regard, if I want a game that better reflects realism, I should pick a different game.

If you want more realism in your magical fantasy game, you might want Shadowrun. (Magic, but with some future tech and a "Matrix" internet.)


I could get behind something like this - Main stat ASI's are apart of character progression, leaving open the "normal ASI boosts" for off-stat flavor

Actually, primary stats raising as class features rather than free-floating ASIs could be a good solution.

But then there's all the classes (and some subclasses) that have multiple primary stats.

I guess just having the main ASI be the player's choice among the primary stats while the other ASIs can be anything else might be good enough.... Although, there's an argument to be made for martials (Barbarians, in particular) needing all 3 physical stats....

[Scarytincan]

As someone who suffered long enough in 3rd edition as a monk lover to finally have a BIT of breath of fresh air in this edition and STILL suffer from MAD limiting my love of feats.... Yeah no thank you. No thank you very much.

[Morty]

There's a definite discrepancy in how useful strength and dexterity are, but moving all damage to strength cripples many character concepts without really doing anything to address it.

[quinron]

If you want more realism in your magical fantasy game, you might want Shadowrun. (Magic, but with some future tech and a "Matrix" internet.)



Actually, primary stats raising as class features rather than free-floating ASIs could be a good solution.

But then there's all the classes (and some subclasses) that have multiple primary stats.

I guess just having the main ASI be the player's choice among the primary stats while the other ASIs can be anything else might be good enough.... Although, there's an argument to be made for martials (Barbarians, in particular) needing all 3 physical stats....

That is an issue. I think it could be, if not totally avoided, at least softened by making casters more dependent on multiple stats, e.g., Int always determines number of spells prepped/known regardless of class, and creating martial subclasses that specialize in a specific stat, so you can be a barbarian with high Str and low-to-medium Dex and/or, but your Str-based subclass gives you enough bonuses to make up for it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is an issue. I think it could be, if not totally avoided, at least softened by making casters more dependent on multiple stats, e.g., Int always determines number of spells prepped/known regardless of class, and creating martial subclasses that specialize in a specific stat, so you can be a barbarian with high Str and low-to-medium Dex and/or, but your Str-based subclass gives you enough bonuses to make up for it.

That would make wizards even more powerful (relatively)--they'd only need 1 stat (INT), where other casters would need 2 (INT + other).

[Eric Diaz]

If using 5e, I'd do the opposite: maybe allow longbows (or "composite" bows - I added some to my Manual of Arms (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291160/5e-Manual-of-Arms-Weapons?manufacturers_id=12430)) to use your Strength for damage.

This way you don't nerf Dex builds nor do you give an unfair advantage to Str (they still need Dex to hit).

[quinron]

That would make wizards even more powerful (relatively)--they'd only need 1 stat (INT), where other casters would need 2 (INT + other).

Obviously the idea would be that wizards would have to depend on the other abilities as well - Wis could determine spell save DC for all characters, Cha would determine extra spell slots, stuff like that. I have no firm ideas here; just throwing out some things I've seen suggested elsewhere to try to lessen the issue of martials on the whole being more MAD than casters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Obviously the idea would be that wizards would have to depend on the other abilities as well - Wis could determine spell save DC for all characters, Cha would determine extra spell slots, stuff like that. I have no firm ideas here; just throwing out some things I've seen suggested elsewhere to try to lessen the issue of martials on the whole being more MAD than casters.

And now you've lost a lot of the thematic difference between the casters (ie Wizards being the smart ones, druids being in-tune with nature, bards being charismatic). Point being, these sorts of things are all connected and the thematics are just as important as the mechanics. Or more so where I'm concerned.

It's one reason I strongly believe that the decisions about the game have to be made with archetype and theme in mind, not some idea of realism. The ability scores, especially, are only loosely tied to anything realistic. If you want to fix casters vs martials, find some other way that addresses the problem directly[1]. Trying to be "realistic" founders on a lot of rocks in D&D, this being one of them.

[1] ie cut the crap out of the spells and give them real class features, not "spell list == class features". But that's a horse I won't continue to flog.

[HPisBS]

... If you want to fix casters vs martials, find some other way that addresses the problem directly[1]. Trying to be "realistic" founders on a lot of rocks in D&D, this being one of them....

Yeah, the way I see it, the way to deal with that issue is to lift martials up, rather than knock casters down. It's cool and fun to cast (sometimes literally) earth-shaking spells! High level martials should get some kind of super-cool and superhuman stuff to do besides just hitting more or harder.

Eagle Eyes for Rangers, Powerful Build for Barbarians (stackable with the racial version), ...um... a passive Enhance Ability for Fighters? Something like that.

Edit:
While I'm at it, Charm of Treasure Sense for high-level Rogues, and maybe Divine Sense becoming explicitly passive / infinite-use for Paladins. Monks could stand to have infinite Step of the Wind and Patient Defense, and even let Deflect Missiles work on all attacks for that round (but still a max of 1 throw-back).

[quinron]

And now you've lost a lot of the thematic difference between the casters (ie Wizards being the smart ones, druids being in-tune with nature, bards being charismatic). Point being, these sorts of things are all connected and the thematics are just as important as the mechanics. Or more so where I'm concerned.

It's one reason I strongly believe that the decisions about the game have to be made with archetype and theme in mind, not some idea of realism. The ability scores, especially, are only loosely tied to anything realistic. If you want to fix casters vs martials, find some other way that addresses the problem directly[1]. Trying to be "realistic" founders on a lot of rocks in D&D, this being one of them.

[1] ie cut the crap out of the spells and give them real class features, not "spell list == class features". But that's a horse I won't continue to flog.

It's not a question of realism; it's a question of mechanics. Casters have fewer scores that need to be prioritized, especially compared to Str-based martials (who have to give up ranged competency for survivability, or vice versa), which means casters - already harder-hitting than martials - don't incur as much opportunity cost to become optimized.

Even on the subject of theme, though, you can find the right mechanic to tie to a score such that it still reflects the class's core concept. If high Int means more spells prepared, we could say that the defining trait of wizards is their ability to prepare a lot of different spells, which has traditionally been at least partially the case. Obviously there'd have to be some related element to make sure that wizards are usually/always the highest-Int characters, which could be accomplished by the "fixed and/or maxed core ability" concept I pitched a few posts back.


Yeah, the way I see it, the way to deal with that issue is to lift martials up, rather than knock casters down. It's cool and fun to cast (sometimes literally) earth-shaking spells! High level martials should get some kind of super-cool and interesting stuff to do besides just hitting more or harder.

Eagle Eyes for Rangers, Powerful Build for Barbarians (stackable with the racial version), ...um... a passive Enhance Ability for Fighters? Something like that.

Edit:
While I'm at it, Charm of Treasure Sense for high-level Rogues, and maybe Divine Sense becoming explicitly passive / infinite-use for Paladins. Monks could stand to have infinite Step of the Wind and Patient Defense, and even let Deflect Missiles work on all attacks for that round.

Depends on what kind of game you're angling for. If you like the "superhuman" vibe that D&D has been getting more comfortable with each edition, that's fine; I think your suggestions are a pretty good baseline for getting into that zone. Personally, I'd like something that's not necessarily more realistic, but more grounded, and considering I tend to be pretty happy with where martials lie on the "realism vs fun-to-play" spectrum, I think it's better that we clip the wings of the classes that can literally shape reality. I'm looking for and suggesting ways to accomplish that; if you'd rather see superhuman warriors and thieves, feel free to ignore me.

[HPisBS]

If you like the "superhuman" vibe that D&D has been getting more comfortable with each edition, that's fine; I think your suggestions are a pretty good baseline for getting into that zone.

Thanks. :smallsmile:

Though I also think that more social / societal stuff would be a good fix for them. If Wizards can conjure up Walls of Stone and even a whole Mighty Fortress, then martials should eventually get some way to contribute to a home base, too.


Personally, I'd like something that's not necessarily more realistic, but more grounded, and considering I tend to be pretty happy with where martials lie on the "realism vs fun-to-play" spectrum, I think it's better that we clip the wings of the classes that can literally shape reality. I'm looking for and suggesting ways to accomplish that; if you'd rather see superhuman warriors and thieves, feel free to ignore me.

If that's what you prefer to play, then I guess I'll go ahead and become that guy who says "So just don't play in tier 4, and maybe not even tier 3. Cuz that's where things start getting 'out of control.'" ... Curse you for making me become that guy :smalltongue:


Imo, tier 3+ is where the real fun lies, and is a big part of why I'm so drawn to casters. I want my fantasy characters to be fantastical. Or at least to have fantastical capabilities. Which is also why Rune Knight and Echo Knight appeal to me but most Barbarians and other Fighters don't.

[strangebloke]

If using 5e, I'd do the opposite: maybe allow longbows (or "composite" bows - I added some to my Manual of Arms (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291160/5e-Manual-of-Arms-Weapons?manufacturers_id=12430)) to use your Strength for damage.

This way you don't nerf Dex builds nor do you give an unfair advantage to Str (they still need Dex to hit).

Yes, came here just to say this. What strength characters really need is something that corresponds to the finesse melee weapons. Special strength-based ranged weapons are inferior to dexterity based weapons.

This is (in theory) the niche occupied by throwing weapons except for the slight (read: massive) problem that they simply don't work at all and totally suck.

IMO nearly all these problems are minimized if you add a line of text to the "thrown" property that says "after making an attack with a thrown weapon, you may draw another thrown weapon." and then also cut the range of all ranged weapons and cantrips (except poison spray lel) in half. There is no reason that 120/150 foot range with no disadvantage or feat support should be a thing.

[neonchameleon]

This comes close to one of my core problems with 5e - the undermining of tactics in the game. In most editions (and most games) if you get into melee with NPC archers* they are in deep trouble. In 5e if you melee an archer they pull out a shortsword - and their damage falls from d8 to d6 but it being a finesse weapon means they are still as effective as before. (A related problem is that spellcasters are also at near full strength when caught in melee; they just need to use attack spells that force saves rather than that roll to hit).

* PC archers tend to have things like fighting styles or feats so this isn't such an issue because they actually specialise in their weapons

[quinron]

If that's what you prefer to play, then I guess I'll go ahead and become that guy who says "So just don't play in tier 4, and maybe not even tier 3. Cuz that's where things start getting 'out of control.'" ... Curse you for making me become that guy :smalltongue:


Imo, tier 3+ is where the real fun lies, and is a big part of why I'm so drawn to casters. I want my fantasy characters to be fantastical. Or at least to have fantastical capabilities. Which is also why Rune Knight and Echo Knight appeal to me but most Barbarians and other Fighters don't.

Honestly, I usually don't play in those tiers; I struggle to keep my games together long enough to get past ~level 5, and because half of a given group is usually new, I can't start at higher levels without the players being totally lost. That said, I'd probably still prefer to play in tier 2 to low tier 3 anyway, given the choice.

I'll pick up the pro-martials side of martials v. casters, but in my usual tier 1-2 games, it's not martials v. casters that's the issue; it's Dex-based martials v. Str-based martials (which is why I stuck my nose in this thread). When DCs are balanced in such a way that attacks hit about 2/3 of the time (which, as I recall, is the baseline assumed by the designers) and the AC of monsters and PCs is roughly the same, Dex-based martials excel by being able to key initiative, AC, attack, and damage all off one ability. I wouldn't blame a player who, like at least 2 of mine, has been in about 4 games but barely made it out of tier 1, for drawing the conclusion that Str-based combat is a sucker's game.


Also, you're only being "that guy" in response to me making the most "that guy" possible statement: "If that's the game you want to play, then fine, but I'm going to play it my way." Fair play.:smallbiggrin:

[sayaijin]

Ultimately, I wanted to do a few things with this idea:
1) Balance Dex and Str martials
2) Add more variety to character creation

Dex becomes the martial Accuracy stat (to-hit)
Str becomes the martial Damage (some multiplier of Str mod added to attacks like in 3.5)

Con can still be health

Int mod can be number of skills proficient or number of spells known.
Wis can be caster accuracy stat (to hit and DC)
Cha can be caster damage stat (some multiplier of Cha mod added to spells)

3) Add some more realism to the game
Point 2 was where some people mentioned eliminating all SAD characters, and make it such that everyone is more MAD. You then get to choose what kind of character you want to be: high accuracy/low damage or low accuracy/high damage.

Obviously this might require increasing point buy but perhaps not.

[Morty]

Making dexterity the accuracy attribute and strength the damage attribute hasn't always worked out too hot in the past. There's a reason why dexterity is widely known as the main combat attribute in various Storyteller systems - less so in newer ones, I guess. Ultimately, your damage is 0 if you miss. Though I guess it doesn't matter how much you beat the enemy AC by in D&D, so at least the "more accuracy means more successes and more damage" issue isn't there.

Having said that, a martial character is ultimately still going to ideally need both, which means less points going towards attributes that help them with tasks other than hitting things with weapons for damage. This reduces character variety and contributes to an already major problem.

[HPisBS]

... Dex-based martials excel by being able to key initiative, AC, attack, and damage all off one ability....

As opposed to Str-based only being able to key AC, attack, and higher damage off of one ability? Remember, Str is required for most heavy armor. It's just that it stops scaling at 15 Str. Would it help if Str martials could get some "massive armor" option – or better yet, a tower shield – that requires 17+ Str or something?

- Also, Str gets shoving (prone) and grappling. But Dex gets stealth, so that part kinda evens out.

[quinron]

As opposed to Str-based only being able to key AC, attack, and higher damage off of one ability? Remember, Str is required for most heavy armor. It's just that it stops scaling at 15 Str. Would it help if Str martials could get some "massive armor" option – or better yet, a tower shield – that requires 17+ Str or something?

- Also, Str gets shoving (prone) and grappling. But Dex gets stealth, so that part kinda evens out.

I think that would help, yes. There's also the fact that given the escalation of the costs of the heaviest armor, the degree to which you're able to use your Strength to improve your AC also depends on how readily your DM disperse gold or salvageable armor. If you want to run a game with a lower treasure rate, you're handicapping your Strength-based characters until they can save up for plate.

Then there are the surprise mechanics, which tie into my problem with Dex-to-initiative - Dex-based characters are innately better at both Stealth and initiative; if they succeed on both Stealth and initiative, they're attacking twice before the Str-based characters attack once. Heavy armor makes you significantly worse at Stealth, so you're nigh-incapable of being able to act in the surprise round, and if you're not pumping Dex you're probably also further down the initiative order. By far the most common disappointment I see from my players is when I run pre-written adventures and the rogue/ranger ends up sneaking up to kill half the enemies before the fighter even gets a chance.

As far as Athletics maneuvers, grappling and shoving both require a free hand and take an action. Grappling occupies that hand until you stop, so while you're grappling, you either a) can't use your weapon if you're sword-and-boarding, b) can't use your shield if you're sword-and-boarding, or c) can't use your weapon if you're two-handing, which is the worst-case scenario because you lose offense in addition to having sacrificed defense.

And as for the Athletics/Stealth equivalence: If you succeed on your Stealth roll, you get a bonus round and have advantage on attacks against anyone who hasn't detected you; if you fail it, you just don't get that round - there's no innate penalty. If you succeed on your Athletics roll, you spend an action and (assuming you pushed) likely get advantage on at least one attack; if you fail your Athletics roll, you lose that action and get no advantage. So I don't think it's fair to call the two equal.