Finesse was a mistake.

[Black Jester]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view- the selection which weapons could benefit from finesse is completely arbitrary, with rapiers as notoriously tiring weapons requiring a lot of lower arm strength to wield properly really requiring more physical strength, while there is no real reason (and a lot of complaining) why a longsword (an actually less tiresome weapon to wield, especially when using both arms) isn’t.

It makes no sense from a balancing standpoint either, as Dexterity is already a very useful and commonly used ability with a clear purpose for most characters; adding the ability to attack with melee weapons to this, leads to more monolithic, and less interesting characters.
The solution is simple: Retire finesse as a unique trait. It is unnecessary. You can either expand it to all weapons, or, probably better, delete it in its entirety (and yes, this would allow you to make sneak attacks with any weapon, to the rejoicing of the few rogues who are familiar with martial weapons and are now able to use their greatsword. Ambushes with greatsword still make more sense (and maybe more fun) than precision strikes with a longbow, anyway.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I don't really agree with your premise. Melee rogues are already on the weaker side, and forcing them to split between Dex and Strength would make them pretty terrible to play, as far as classes go. And sneak attack with a greatsword just doesn't fit the flavor or class fantasy at all, and this would make it the best possible option, which is... not really ideal, in my opinion.

As for the simulationist point, I don't really think dungeons and dragons is a game going for ultra-realism. Fantasy tropes from media show dexterous, scrappy fighters running circles around big, strong brutes by using quick weapons like rapiers, and the rules are reflecting that to allow that fantasy.

[Kane0]

May as well make it a class feature then. Warlocks can use Cha, Artificers can use Int, why not let Rogues use Dex and Monks use Wis.

[Chaos Jackal]

Nah.

Simulationist arguments are pretty much dead in the water before they're even brought up - there's a lot of things that don't make much sense from a simulationist point of view in every edition of D&D to date and by now it should be pretty obvious that the system in no way represents reality. It's mostly about keeping appearances in certain things, otherwise it's the Wild West. Really, if we go into simulationist arguments, finesse isn't even in the top five mechanics that fail to appropriately represent reality. D&D never did that, was never meant to do that and frankly has a lot more to fix before it bothers with how realistic it is.

Balance arguments are more compelling and Dex is a bit of a god stat in 5e alright, but finesse isn't the perpetrator here. Balance-wise, finesse is a good thing. It reduces martial MADness, makes a number of martial classes semi-bearable (greatsword-wielding rogues might sound fun, until you realize that they still need that Dex for their AC as they can't wear heavy or even medium armor and let's not even talk about splitting attack and damage modifiers) and gets rid of the old annoyance of wasting a feat just so you wouldn't need Str as much (and you still wouldn't mind some Str even like that, since the old Weapon Finesse on its own only applied Dex to attack, not damage).

If anything, the issue with Dex is that it also boosts initiative and applies to ranged attack and damage rolls as well, ultimately making Str martials way worse in every manner. Decoupling initiative and/or ranged damage rolls from Dex is a much better way to go about pulling the stat back to be more in line with Str while not screwing over certain classes and killing what little variety in melee builds there is via removing finesse.

[Mastikator]

Finesse allows for dex PCs to exist at all IMO. If martials were required to have strength, dex, con then they may end up dumping all the mental stats. And that is incredibly lame.

If dex based martials have to take strength I'll demand that casters take strength too. Spells now have strength requirement. The magic causes a gyroscopic effect which counters the somatic component, str requirement is 10 + spell level. :smallcool:
Wizards must have 19 str to cast 9th level spells, sorry not sorry.

[Sindal]

Can't really add more to thr previous posts besides that I would need a much more compelling argument than the one posed to even consider changing finesse

[diplomancer]

A Rapier is not a finesse weapon because it doesn't take Str to wield it well; a Rapier is a finesse weapon because the archetypes that use a rapier (musketeers, pirates, swashbucklers, Prince Arutha and Jimmy the Hand, etc) are known for their agility and speed, not for their strength.

[animorte]

From what I understand, it may be an attempt at making Strength useful.

[GooeyChewie]

May as well make it a class feature then. Warlocks can use Cha, Artificers can use Int, why not let Rogues use Dex and Monks use Wis.

I'd like to go for something in the middle. Keep "finesse" as a weapon trait, but have it enable class features rather than inherently allow Dexterity on its own. Rogues would obviously have a feature that allows them to use Dexterity. Perhaps Hexblade could key off "finesse" instead of "lacks the two-handed property," for example.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Rapier is not a finesse weapon because it doesn't take Str to wield it well; a Rapier is a finesse weapon because the archetypes that use a rapier (musketeers, pirates, swashbucklers, Prince Arutha and Jimmy the Hand, etc) are known for their agility and speed, not for their strength. I'll get on board this band wagon. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

AH YES. That noted and overpowered build in 5e: the guy with a dagger

Nah. finesse weapons are used mostly as a backup weapon by ranged characters or casters. There are some strong builds that use them but not that many. Dexterity is strong but melee is weak, and melee dex builds are pretty much restrained to melee rogues and monks, which are both pretty weak relative to the field.

At most, it gives ranged characters a little more utility while making some builds like melee rogues possible.

[Pooky the Imp]

AH YES. That noted and overpowered build in 5e: the guy with a dagger

I mean, you'd certainly think so, given how many Dexterity-based races are stuck with 1d4 damage claws that can only be used with Strength. :smallyuk:

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm in favour of removing finesse, if you really need Rogues using Dexterity in melee I'd give it to them as a class ability like the Monk gets. Strength is already so useless I don't like weapons giving a way around one of the primary things it does.

As for ranged characters, I see no reason why they should be able to use DEX in melee. If they're in melee something's already gond wrong, their attacks being less accurate just feels fair to me. Maybe this is because I'm used to point buy systems where you'll have different bonuses even if you run both off the same stat.

Another option might be minimum strength ratings for weapons. If a rapier took 10 or 12 Strength to use properly you might get more Rogues investing in Strength or more melee rogues using other weapons.

[Rukelnikov]

I think the "best" solution would be for finesse weapons and ranged weapons in general, to make Dex for att, Str for damage, so you'd trade all the goodies of a high Dex for a bit of loss in damage. But 5e's simplistic design goes against that.

There's also a los of cases where Str for damage wouldn't make sense, like a crossbow, but no general rule will fit every single weapon to the letter.

[Segev]

I think this really is a solution in search of a problem. Yes, strength in 5e is a lesser-used stat, but you can legitimately build around it without needing Dexterity (any more than you need any other stat in 5e) if you want to, and when you do, it opens up options you otherwise don't have and creates a different playstyle.

It is a narrow set of options and builds that use Strength, but they exist, giving Strength a legitimate niche. And while dumping Strength remains a totally viable option, you give up some of the higher damage capabilities in the game (high level spells do outpace it, but not by a lot, especially if you avoid the nova-5-minute-adventuring-day).

Making Finesse a weapon property, letting dex go to damage if it was used to hit, and making strength allow for heavy armor that doesn't care about your dexterity were good changes. I think a couple of tweaks to reward particularly high strength might be in order - maybe a heavier armor or that heavy armor gets slightly better with an even higher strength, but it's largely fine.

Heck, Dexterity saving throws, while very common, are almost never save-or-suck saves, and thus if that's your dumped stat, all you're really doing is taking more damage from AoEs.

[Telwar]

TBPH, I'd remove the damage component from Finesse. You get accuracy, but without the strength behind it to actually penetrate, unless you also invested in Strength.

I'd also remove Dex from damage rolls from ranged weapons.

The one exception? Daggers in melee could use Dex to damage, just not thrown.


At least, that's my quick and dirty adjustment. A full fix would require a system rebuild, which we know WotC is loathe to be do.

[Skrum]

I'm really not getting the str hate. You need it for the best armor. Athletics is a top 3 skill. PAM and GWM are implicitly str-based feats. Str is a very good stat - I far more often lament a low str then low dex.

And to anyone suggesting splitting melee attacks between str and dex.... a pox on you and your ancestors.

[animorte]

I'm really not getting the str hate. You need it for the best armor. Athletics is a top 3 skill. PAM and GWM are implicitly str-based feats. Str is a very good stat - I far more often lament a low str then low dex.

And to anyone suggesting splitting melee attacks between str and dex.... a pox on you and your ancestors.

So... that's 4 whole things in the entirety of the game Strength is good for, two of which require the use of your ASI.

Impressive.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A Rapier is not a finesse weapon because it doesn't take Str to wield it well; a Rapier is a finesse weapon because the archetypes that use a rapier (musketeers, pirates, swashbucklers, Prince Arutha and Jimmy the Hand, etc) are known for their agility and speed, not for their strength.

Exactly. You can be strong but not have high STR. It's about archetype and approach, not physical metrics.

[Psyren]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view- the selection which weapons could benefit from finesse is completely arbitrary, with rapiers as notoriously tiring weapons requiring a lot of lower arm strength to wield properly really requiring more physical strength, while there is no real reason (and a lot of complaining) why a longsword (an actually less tiresome weapon to wield, especially when using both arms) isn’t.

It makes no sense from a balancing standpoint either, as Dexterity is already a very useful and commonly used ability with a clear purpose for most characters; adding the ability to attack with melee weapons to this, leads to more monolithic, and less interesting characters.
The solution is simple: Retire finesse as a unique trait. It is unnecessary. You can either expand it to all weapons, or, probably better, delete it in its entirety (and yes, this would allow you to make sneak attacks with any weapon, to the rejoicing of the few rogues who are familiar with martial weapons and are now able to use their greatsword. Ambushes with greatsword still make more sense (and maybe more fun) than precision strikes with a longbow, anyway.

One of the number one things 3.5 and PF forced dex-based martials to do was bend over backwards for dex to attack and damage. Like you're doing here, those older editions overvalued Dex as a stat and either kneecapped or overtaxed martials that wanted to build around it. 5e just threw all that clutter in the trash and said you get those things for free as long as you use one of a set of thematically appropriate weapons.

Rather than undo that progress, I suggest you just homebrew some finesse weapons that do what you seem to want. For example, if you want a "finesse greatsword," bring back the Elven Curveblade from 3.5 and give it the appropriate rules text.

[Segev]

So... that's 4 whole things in the entirety of the game Strength is good for, two of which require the use of your ASI.

Impressive.

"All Intelligence is good for is being a Wizard."

They're still strong options. Strength is more narrow than Dexterity, but you can build around it and, if you do, you're not required to go MAD. And, more importantly, heavy weapon builds are iconic in their own right, so it's not like they get neglected. If you build for high strength, you play differently than if you build for high dex, and you're not suffering for low dex the way you did in earlier editions because Strength can fuel high AC via heavy armor.

[Anonymouswizard]

TBPH, I'd remove the damage component from Finesse. You get accuracy, but without the strength behind it to actually penetrate, unless you also invested in Strength.

I'd also remove Dex from damage rolls from ranged weapons.

The one exception? Daggers in melee could use Dex to damage, just not thrown.


At least, that's my quick and dirty adjustment. A full fix would require a system rebuild, which we know WotC is loathe to be do.

Going back to 3.X style accuracy and damage? I wouldn't mind that, it's not actually that complicated. Alternatively you could move to the industry standard of DEX=+attack, STR=+damage, but those who dislike melee rogues needing Strength probably also dislike melee fighters needing Dexterity.

You'd probably give bows a Strength limit and crossbows a set +damage or bigger dice in exchange for a certain minimum strength.

I'd honestly make daggers a situational weapon, they deal low damage but you get Advantage on concealing them. Although I wouldn't personally be diverse to rogues just having some kind of plus to using them like in 13th Age.


ETA: yeah, because that +1 Dex bonus to AC in armour class was a big deal. 5e's heavy armour denying you your Dex bonus is nothing new, it's just less fiddly than it was in 3.X.

Although that was a 4e change anyway.

The other thing is, I just don't see high strength outside of builds that require it. If you're wearing heavy armour and/or using a heavy weapon you need it, but if you're not wearing heavy armour and picking a weapon then Dex offers significant benefits you're likely to make use of, whereas Strengths biggest benefits (grabs and especially shoves) can potentially be ignored completely. Meanwhile Dex helps with common saves, increases AC, increases Initiative, and helps protect against grabs and shoves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alternatively you could move to the industry standard of DEX=+attack, STR=+damage, but those who dislike melee rogues needing Strength probably also dislike melee fighters needing Dexterity.


As long as you require all casters to have all three of INT, WIS, and CHA to be effective. Martials are more likely to get hit, so they baseline need more CON. So saying "everyone who uses a weapon must have all three physical stats high" while saying "casters only need one mental stat and lesser CON, plus some DEX, unless they've got medium armor" is just more "martials can't have nice things and have to be chained to the Guy at the Gym, but casters get anything they want because magic".

[Witty Username]

A Rapier is not a finesse weapon because it doesn't take Str to wield it well; a Rapier is a finesse weapon because the archetypes that use a rapier (musketeers, pirates, swashbucklers, Prince Arutha and Jimmy the Hand, etc) are known for their agility and speed, not for their strength.

Shouldn't this argument apply to longswords as well?

The only problem I have with finesse is the rogue features, sneak attack being gated by it feels weird as it removes a bunch of thug archetypes and has non intuitive things like the longsword thing. I prefer a proficiency gate, or unrestricted.

[Anonymouswizard]

As long as you require all casters to have all three of INT, WIS, and CHA to be effective. Martials are more likely to get hit, so they baseline need more CON. So saying "everyone who uses a weapon must have all three physical stats high" while saying "casters only need one mental stat and lesser CON, plus some DEX, unless they've got medium armor" is just more "martials can't have nice things and have to be chained to the Guy at the Gym, but casters get anything they want because magic".

Oh, I really hate that 5e still gives us SAD casters. Ideally I want any character dropping any stat to potentially hurt.

[Segev]

As long as you require all casters to have all three of INT, WIS, and CHA to be effective. Martials are more likely to get hit, so they baseline need more CON. So saying "everyone who uses a weapon must have all three physical stats high" while saying "casters only need one mental stat and lesser CON, plus some DEX, unless they've got medium armor" is just more "martials can't have nice things and have to be chained to the Guy at the Gym, but casters get anything they want because magic".

To be fair, those who are arguing for Dex ceasing to be a god-stat by making Strength required for "everyone" (who is a martial) would probably argue that Dexterity and Constitution are already requirements for casters, too, because casters will always base AC on Dexterity and casters have such low hp that they need the Con score high to live.

You can argue against these points, but I am pretty sure they form a possibly-unexamined basis for the discussion.


My own assertion and argument is that Strength-based builds don't need Dexterity in 5e. Thus, Dexterity is not the god-stat it once was. More builds will need/want it than Strength, but you don't have to have Dexterity if you have a Strength-based build, and a Strength-based build represents a common archetype, so they're still well-represented, and it provides a different playstyle.

Yes, Athletics is only one skill, but it's one that comes up a lot, especially if you MAKE it come up a lot through playstyle, which high-strength characters are encouraged to do.

[Amechra]

The other thing is, I just don't see high strength outside of builds that require it. If you're wearing heavy armour and/or using a heavy weapon you need it, but if you're not wearing heavy armour and picking a weapon then Dex offers significant benefits you're likely to make use of, whereas Strengths biggest benefits (grabs and especially shoves) can potentially be ignored completely. Meanwhile Dex helps with common saves, increases AC, increases Initiative, and helps protect against grabs and shoves.

Do you see anyone cranking up a stat if they don't require it? ASIs are incredibly precious, after all.

[Psyren]

Oh, I really hate that 5e still gives us SAD casters. Ideally I want any character dropping any stat to potentially hurt.

If you want everyone to be MAD, would you also make it so they get more than three ASIs in the average game? Can they train their stats in some other way, e.g. exercise and study during downtime?

[Saelethil]

As long as you require all casters to have all three of INT, WIS, and CHA to be effective. Martials are more likely to get hit, so they baseline need more CON. So saying "everyone who uses a weapon must have all three physical stats high" while saying "casters only need one mental stat and lesser CON, plus some DEX, unless they've got medium armor" is just more "martials can't have nice things and have to be chained to the Guy at the Gym, but casters get anything they want because magic".

I don’t see anyone saying that casters should remain SAD. The proposals I’m seeing would require a full system rewrite anyway so why wouldn’t casters in this hypothetical overhaul be required to have higher mental stats across the board. It would be a major departure from 5e but it could be a very interesting game

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, those who are arguing for Dex ceasing to be a god-stat by making Strength required for "everyone" (who is a martial) would probably argue that Dexterity and Constitution are already requirements for casters, too, because casters will always base AC on Dexterity and casters have such low hp that they need the Con score high to live.

You can argue against these points, but I am pretty sure they form a possibly-unexamined basis for the discussion.


My own assertion and argument is that Strength-based builds don't need Dexterity in 5e. Thus, Dexterity is not the god-stat it once was. More builds will need/want it than Strength, but you don't have to have Dexterity if you have a Strength-based build, and a Strength-based build represents a common archetype, so they're still well-represented, and it provides a different playstyle.

Yes, Athletics is only one skill, but it's one that comes up a lot, especially if you MAKE it come up a lot through playstyle, which high-strength characters are encouraged to do.

The difference between "you are ineffective unless you max both DEX and STR and have a high CON" and "you want to max and have 14 DEX and 14 CON" is substantial.

But I agree that the idea that DEX is a god-stat is not all that well asserted. Is it stronger than it needs to be? Probably. I mean, I wouldn't complain much if [I]finesse were a class feature of rogues and, say, rangers. But then again I also wouldn't complain if fighters had a feature that said "ok, you can use STR for bows".

My personal preference is that
* If you just have physical stuff, you need one physical stat to be high and improved over the course of leveling. Others, including CON, may be nice to have, but not essential (as in "14 and never raised is fine").
* If you just have magical stuff, you need one mental stat to be high and improved over the course of leveling. Others, including CON may be nice to have, but not essential (same meaning as above).
* If you try to mix magic and physical, now you need one mental AND one physical stat to be high and improved over the course of leveling. Others may be nice to haves.

Why? Archetypes. I see attributes as being mostly archetype and approach, not physical simulation. The Strong Guy approaches things directly and isn't as good at subtle approaches or talky ones. The Nimble Guy prefers subtle and quiet to loud and overt and suffers when there's no other choice. And that's a class-bound fiction (for me). Barbarians are primarily the Strong Guy. Rogues are primarily the Nimble Guy. Etc. Secondary ability scores say what other parts are ok (alternate approaches). Weak stats say where weaknesses are.

That means
* no more CHA-sad hexblades or hexadins or anyone else. If you want to mix magic and weapons, your only option is to have two high stats, which eats away at your other choices.
* Barbarians and Fighters who prioritize STR are not incapable at range.
* Mostly, your armor should come from either armor + your primary stat for physical stuff or magic/class features for magical stuff. And, for the latter, should absolutely not be as good as a physical guy's protection. Weak (physically) and squishy are archetypal for casters.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you want everyone to be MAD, would you also make it so they get more than three ASIs in the average game? Can they train their stats in some other way, e.g. exercise and study during downtime?

Sounds good, I think WotC making some changes and ending up in 6e would be fine. Not a full rewrite like WotC likes to do, there's no need to change a lot of it, but I feel like changing some assumptions and updating classes and the like to match them is fine.

A feat at first level is fine, linked to background or just free. Shifting the magic rules so every caster uses at least two stats while casting is fine (and you know what, I'd be fine for one of those to be a physical stat). Moving a handful of basic combat functions to mental stats is fine. Front loading ASIs or giving people a couple of extras is fine (how about 3, 6, 9, 12, 17 or 3, 5, 8, 11, 16?). I think front loading ASIs might actually be better if WotC wants to focus on the first tenish levels.

[Snails]

I am going to join the chorus and agree that Finesse itself is not the problem, as it is a mechanically easy way to make Dex-based martials viable without adding a lot of rules. Having viable Dex-based builds without fuss is a good thing.

But I do think the Dex stat is too close to a god stat. That Str-based martials are still viable is not a strong argument that Dex is not overmodeled.

Where the Str-based build wins is if you are using the damage boosting feats to pump DPR. If you are not playing in a game with feats, or you mostly play T1 & T2, I think the Dex-based martials look like a much better deal to me. You get substantial advantage in Intitiative, ranged combat, and Dex saves -- all which come up a lot in T1 and T2, relative what Str will get you. Each of these three boosts are in the ballpark of "worth an ASI". The Str martial gets a nicer selection of feats, in the long run, but has to spend his precious ASI to get it. It is not even a given that a Str martial will have the whopping +1 AC edge, because that will depend on which magical armors become available when.

[Willie the Duck]

Fundamentally, people have said the salient parts already. Simulationist arguments (particularly applied selectively) are a tough sell since it isn't clear that 'realism' is a goal*. The end goal (for attributes and finesse) appear to be allowing genre emersion and allowing the nimble and slender character type to participate in the power fantasy. Strength is (like Intelligence) an under-utilized stat in this edition, while Dex is good for everyone.
*plus we just get unending back-and-forths over which weapons are more dex- or str- based, what the attributes actually mean, and whether participant X's 8 years of SCA trumps participant Y's 6 years of HEMA, regarding authority on the subject, etc. etc.

My thoughts (beyond agreeing with others):


The point of comparison I would make isn't 3e, as others have, but 2nd edition AD&D. In it, there were plenty of framing suggesting that PCs might want to play pirates and swashbucklers and dashing swordsman and skulking rogues (although not by that name yet) and so on. Yet the game system pretty much didn't include any ways to make that feasible (excepting if everyone bought in and then they chose/the DM just sent them on lower-threat adventures). All the kits and fighting styles together might net you 1-2 pts of AC and fighting with rapiers or sabres and main gauches that would (after all the proficiencies spent) almost approach a typical longsword character. So to play an Errol Flynn-style hero instead of a Schwarzenegger-in-head-to-toe-metal character was tactical suicide unless everyone agreed to just play that kind of game (requiring rebuilt loot drop tables, and just expect to get hit a lot). That's fine if you want to enforce the idea that, no really, you go adventuring, you want as much armor as you can and Errol should stay in the back and let the real combatants do the work. I don't think that's what people want.

My idea, and yes this is a complete rebuild (so all theoretical, but then I think this discussion has become mostly theory), would instead be to simply make stats matter less overall. 5e made stats matter more than any before, and instead of making characters more diverse, simply made more avenues for optimization. Instead, just make them govern skills (, maybe saves), # of languages, encumbrance, and similar tangential adventuring stuff. Let class and level dictate the primary aspects of combat and spells. How you would replace them would need to be playtested, but something like 'you have three combat values: melee, ranged, and spell; put a +1, +2, or +3 (you get one of each) into each category. You will gain some +1s to throw around as you gain levels.' Give rogues (and fighters who pick the 'lightly armored' fighting style) some kind of bonus (not directly tied to Dex) when wearing light armor. Now god-stats and dump stats are lessoned to what skills are best, how much you want to carry, etc.




Rather than undo that progress, I suggest you just homebrew some finesse weapons that do what you seem to want. For example, if you want a "finesse greatsword," bring back the Elven Curveblade from 3.5 and give it the appropriate rules text.
Or just remove the finesse weapon requirement for sneak attack, and stuff like that. If we are trying to open up character type options, a great/longsword-wielding Strogue would be on my list.

[KorvinStarmast]

My idea, and yes this is a complete rebuild (so all theoretical, but then I think this discussion has become mostly theory), would instead be to simply make stats matter less overall.

5e made stats matter more than any before, and instead of making characters more diverse, simply made more avenues for optimization.

Instead, just make them govern skills (maybe saves), # of languages, encumbrance, and similar tangential adventuring stuff. Let class and level dictate the primary aspects of combat and spells.

How you would replace them would need to be play tested, but something like 'you have three combat values: melee, ranged, and spell; put a +1, +2, or +3 (you get one of each) into each category. You will gain some +1s to throw around as you gain levels.'

Give rogues (and fighters who pick the 'lightly armored' fighting style) some kind of bonus (not directly tied to Dex) when wearing light armor. Now god-stats and dump stats are lessened to what skills are best, how much you want to carry, etc.

Or just remove the finesse weapon requirement for sneak attack, and stuff like that. If we are trying to open up character type options, a great/longsword-wielding Strogue would be on my list. There's an interesting idea. Would like to be in on the play test if it comes to that.

[Amechra]

]* no more CHA-sad hexblades or hexadins or anyone else. If you want to mix magic and weapons, your only option is to have two high stats, which eats away at your other choices.

The thing is that the Hexblade itself follows a perfectly cromulent archetype (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9). The question is A) whether or not that's an archetype that D&D should support and B) if that's the best way to support it.

...

You know, I honestly wonder how many of 5e's problems are a result of the ability score cap being 20 instead of 18? Like, I know why that was decided on as the cap (it's so that you can't roll "impossible" ability scores, though that's less of an issue post-Tasha's), but needing 2-3 ASIs to cap out one of your stats is really harsh when that's roughly half of the ASIs you ever get.

[windgate]

One reason strength is undervalued is that (some) players are resistant to things that penalize their characters for their dump stats. There are a bunch of things that can make strength matter but they are often optional and only matter outside of combat and thus get ignored.

One major example is the variant encumbrance rule (which I wish was the default instead of optional).

A person with a strength dump stat (8) cannot carry more than 40 lbs without a speed reduction (-10). The starting equipment backpacks of supplies weigh more than that. If you add in the weapons and armor, players can get an even worse penalty (-20 speed and disadvantage on dice rolls if greater than 10x strength) Depending on what's the rider is carrying, even a warhorse would have a speed penalty.


People might hate the nerf to their characters, but it does make a strong character more valuable because he is the only one able to carry the food and supplies without slowing everyone down. 15x your strength score for carrying weight makes transporting stuff trivial under the default rules (why should you even bother with purchasing the donkey / cart in the PHB?)

Edit: Finnese is fine. If anything, its the rapier that needs a tweak. maybe downgrade to a d6 damage dice with a conditional attack or defense benefit.

[Snails]

You know, I honestly wonder how many of 5e's problems are a result of the ability score cap being 20 instead of 18? Like, I know why that was decided on as the cap (it's so that you can't roll "impossible" ability scores, though that's less of an issue post-Tasha's), but needing 2-3 ASIs to cap out one of your stats is really harsh when that's roughly half of the ASIs you ever get.

The system makes sense as is if you subtract feats out of the picture. (And if you look at it this way, Dex looks much like a god stat IMO.)

But if you really, really want a game where everyone explores feats, then either simply give another ASI early in the PC's career, or make the starting stats more generous so that it is easier to have a 16 or 17 primary stat out of the starting gates.

[Psyren]

Or just remove the finesse weapon requirement for sneak attack, and stuff like that. If we are trying to open up character type options, a great/longsword-wielding Strogue would be on my list.

That works fine as a quick houserule too, if the issue is more to do with sneak attack specifically than with dex-based martials generally. I certainly wouldn't mind if sneak attack with e.g. clubs and saps made a comeback.

I'm personally okay with heavy melee weapons being too unwieldy to use with this kind of precision though, and if that means building Bozzok isn't doable in 5e, I personally won't lose too much sleep over that.

[Skrum]

So... that's 4 whole things in the entirety of the game Strength is good for, two of which require the use of your ASI.

Impressive.

Athletics comes up constantly. Grapple, shove, climbing, jumping, many ad-hoc combat actions; that's all athletics. I probably make more athletics checks than any other skill. It's really good, and I hate having low athletics.

Wearing plate is the easiest way to boost your AC, flat-out. There are others, but they usually require a ton of stat investment or other resources (or particular magic items). Str being usable for offense AND an easy 18 or 20 AC means str is not just a niche-use thing.

And yeah, PAM and GWM take further investment....they're also some of the best feats in the game. High str, and you can use one or both of them. SS being completely busted doesn't mean that str is bad.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I have deeply never understood the idea that Finesse should leave because of any idea of realism. (ie "Rapier's need a lot of hand strength.")

Let me be very clear. Real life weapons use requires all 6 stats.

Strength is your ability to make the strke connect with any type of lethal intent.

Dexterity applies to placement and movement of the weapon no matter what it is.

Constitution affects your ability to keep wielding the weapon for more than a few moments as even a 2 pound sword begins to grow incredibly heavy when held in proper guard and moved with speed.

Intelligence to know the techniques and movements and where to aim to make sure your blows matter.

Wisdom to read your opponent and adjust the changing field of combat.

Charisma to make your movements believable and apply feints, misdirection and such.

Yet for the sake of this being a GAME the stats are balanced the way they are to deal with various builds and archetypes.

[strangebloke]

If you ignore ranged DPR builds and just think about rapiers and shortswords and such, something like a STR paladin is pretty comparable to a DEX paladin. The STR paladin has a higher max AC and gets to that max AC quicker and without ASI investment. They get bigger weapons and access to big damage feats like GWM and PAM. Sure the Dexadin has better initiative and stealth and that's nice, but its a tradeoff.

DEX characters aren't better than STR characters because DEX is overall more useful a stat - though that does help. DEX characters are better because ranged DPR specialists are as efficient as melee DPR specialists, and melee is way more dangerous and has way more shortcomings. In a world where sharpshooter didn't exist, people wouldn't consider DEX a god stat.

Indeed, I would argue stats are sort of irrelevant, and MADness isn't a predictor of class strength. Currently every build wants DEX and CON to some degree. Initiative and HP are important. This would appear to make dex builds dominant, but in reality this isn't the case. It's casters. And casters aren't broken because they're SAD. Wizards are imo the best casters, and they're not SAD. They do want good DEX and CON a lot. Same goes for bards and warlocks. Casters are overpowered because spells are overpowered, and that's always been the reason. Cleric dips for armor aren't compulsory, they're arguably not even a good idea for most full casters. MAD martials like Paladins are the best martials, while SAD martials like rogues and barbarians are overall worse off. While SADness may be a strength, its pretty clear that other things are more important.

[RSP]

I’m for Finesse being limited to attack rolls, while having damage mod staying from Str.

I’d argue I’d way rather untether Sneak Attack to Finesse, and just have it usable on any weapon. There’s no mechanical reason why SA shouldn’t apply to any weapon attack.

Even the RAW (“you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction) doesn’t make sense. Can you not exploit a foe’s distraction with a great sword? Is that great sword less subtle that standing in front of your enemy and poking them with a rapier? Swinging a great axe is somehow less subtle than swinging a scimitar?

I mean, maybe slightly, but swinging a scimitar at someone’s face is already so far past the realm of “subtly” that I don’t think it matters.

[Sorinth]

From a gaming pov it's a good thing to have variety, for balance concerns the only real issue is Rapier because it's the only or practically only finesse weapon that doesn't pay the for Finesse. Make the Rapier a 1d6 weapon like it should be and there wouldn't be any balance concerns with finesse. You get to use the more useful stat but have a smaller damage die.

For a similationist pov there are so many problems that it's just not worth it. The 8 Str Longbow wielders are way worse then Finesse weapon users.

[AvatarVecna]

May as well make it a class feature then. Warlocks can use Cha, Artificers can use Int, why not let Rogues use Dex and Monks use Wis.

It's also harder to balance vancian against at-will abilities. What if we implemented a system where everybody had some stuff they can do any time, but then had a few big moves they could only pull once a day? And then maybe some stuff they can use a few times a day, but not constantly, that are sort of a middle ground?

[Sorinth]

It's also harder to balance vancian against at-will abilities. What if we implemented a system where everybody had some stuff they can do any time, but then had a few big moves they could only pull once a day? And then maybe some stuff they can use a few times a day, but not constantly, that are sort of a middle ground?

Isn't that 4e.

[diplomancer]

Shouldn't this argument apply to longswords as well?

No. Boromir and pretty much any archetypal medieval Knight in shining Plate Armor, if they use a shield, will probably be wielding something that we'd call, in D&D, a Long Sword.

[windgate]

Isn't that 4e.

Its also (kinda) short and long rest use abilities.

[animorte]

Athletics comes up constantly. Grapple, shove, climbing, jumping, many ad-hoc combat actions; that's all athletics. I probably make more athletics checks than any other skill. It's really good, and I hate having low athletics.

Wearing plate is the easiest way to boost your AC, flat-out. There are others, but they usually require a ton of stat investment or other resources (or particular magic items). Str being usable for offense AND an easy 18 or 20 AC means str is not just a niche-use thing.

And yeah, PAM and GWM take further investment....they're also some of the best feats in the game. High str, and you can use one or both of them. SS being completely busted doesn't mean that str is bad.

I could list many things where absolutely none of what you have stated is relevant or useful, but every skill is technically supposed to fill a niche. That's why they're different. And I would prefer to just go with the following:

This could easily be merely a circumstance of personal preference and experience. I've never found Strength to be nearly as useful as yourself. The situations just don't present themselves as much as most other stats when talking about skill checks. This is equally a matter of only being limited by your own creativity and the DM's ruling. Of course I rarely care to play the big bulky armored fellow that's in the front line. Dexterity just serves so so many more purpose, and is my favorite stat, so naturally we disagree.

[Psyren]

If you ignore ranged DPR builds and just think about rapiers and shortswords and such, something like a STR paladin is pretty comparable to a DEX paladin. The STR paladin has a higher max AC and gets to that max AC quicker and without ASI investment. They get bigger weapons and access to big damage feats like GWM and PAM. Sure the Dexadin has better initiative and stealth and that's nice, but its a tradeoff.

DEX characters aren't better than STR characters because DEX is overall more useful a stat - though that does help. DEX characters are better because ranged DPR specialists are as efficient as melee DPR specialists, and melee is way more dangerous and has way more shortcomings. In a world where sharpshooter didn't exist, people wouldn't consider DEX a god stat.

Indeed, I would argue stats are sort of irrelevant, and MADness isn't a predictor of class strength. Currently every build wants DEX and CON to some degree. Initiative and HP are important. This would appear to make dex builds dominant, but in reality this isn't the case. It's casters. And casters aren't broken because they're SAD. Wizards are imo the best casters, and they're not SAD. They do want good DEX and CON a lot. Same goes for bards and warlocks. Casters are overpowered because spells are overpowered, and that's always been the reason. Cleric dips for armor aren't compulsory, they're arguably not even a good idea for most full casters. MAD martials like Paladins are the best martials, while SAD martials like rogues and barbarians are overall worse off. While SADness may be a strength, its pretty clear that other things are more important.

I agree that archery might be a little too good. It's highly reliable output (bows have long enough range that you almost never need to reposition to hit a priority target), it's safe (an archer's defense is never that far behind a melee's and their ability to avoid danger is much higher), and the damage is on par with melee when it isn't just higher.

One way to nerf it without impacting dex-based melee would be to hand out magical ammunition (which must be rationed) rather than magical bows. Not only does this mean their DPR would start coming in behind melee in an average fight, it would also mean that subclasses that can make their ranged attacks magical like AA and Kensei would get a boost relative to other martial builds. They could then still use magic arrows against bosses or other hard fights when that boost is needed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree that archery might be a little too good. It's highly reliable output (bows have long enough range that you almost never need to reposition to hit a priority target), it's safe (an archer's defense is never that far behind a melee's and their ability to avoid danger is much higher), and the damage is on par with melee when it isn't just higher.

One way to nerf it without impacting dex-based melee would be to hand out magical ammunition (which must be rationed) rather than magical bows. Not only does this mean their DPR would start coming in behind melee in an average fight, it would also mean that subclasses that can make their ranged attacks magical like AA and Kensei would get a boost relative to other martial builds. They could then still use magic arrows against bosses or other hard fights when that boost is needed.

I think you could just do the following and get a lot of the way there:
* Change the Archery Style to no longer add accuracy (but do something else instead).
* Neuter SS's cover-ignoring thing. Just drop it off the map. No longer exists. The rest is ok in its absence, but bonkers in its presence.
* Make bows and arrows not stack. Because getting additional bonuses for having both magic bows and magic arrows is kinda odd.

Now you're paying an accuracy penalty most of the time for the added safety of range, instead of being above it most of the time. If you're not using the power attack bullet, a SS + archery style character is equal accuracy when the target has 3/4 cover and better if it doesn't have at least that. And now power attack only eats a -3 penalty most of the time instead of a -5 penalty.

[Damon_Tor]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view- the selection which weapons could benefit from finesse is completely arbitrary, with rapiers as notoriously tiring weapons requiring a lot of lower arm strength to wield properly really requiring more physical strength, while there is no real reason (and a lot of complaining) why a longsword (an actually less tiresome weapon to wield, especially when using both arms) isn’t.

It makes no sense from a balancing standpoint either, as Dexterity is already a very useful and commonly used ability with a clear purpose for most characters; adding the ability to attack with melee weapons to this, leads to more monolithic, and less interesting characters.
The solution is simple: Retire finesse as a unique trait. It is unnecessary. You can either expand it to all weapons, or, probably better, delete it in its entirety (and yes, this would allow you to make sneak attacks with any weapon, to the rejoicing of the few rogues who are familiar with martial weapons and are now able to use their greatsword. Ambushes with greatsword still make more sense (and maybe more fun) than precision strikes with a longbow, anyway.

Attacking with strength simulates punching a weapon through armor. Attacking with dexterity simulates fitting the weapon's blade through the gaps in the armor.

[Sorinth]

I think you could just do the following and get a lot of the way there:
* Change the Archery Style to no longer add accuracy (but do something else instead).
* Neuter SS's cover-ignoring thing. Just drop it off the map. No longer exists. The rest is ok in its absence, but bonkers in its presence.
* Make bows and arrows not stack. Because getting additional bonuses for having both magic bows and magic arrows is kinda odd.

Now you're paying an accuracy penalty most of the time for the added safety of range, instead of being above it most of the time. If you're not using the power attack bullet, a SS + archery style character is equal accuracy when the target has 3/4 cover and better if it doesn't have at least that. And now power attack only eats a -3 penalty most of the time instead of a -5 penalty.

It definitely seems like the Archery FS was meant to counteract the expected common Cover penalties so you'd be in that neutral position for Bounded Accuracy but then at some point later in the design they added SS without thinking about it. It probably would have been better for the Archery FS to be ignore Half-Cover and SS's cover bullet to be something like Steady Aim/Reckless Attack where you get advantage but suffer a penalty. I'd lean towards Steady Aim because it conflicts with CBE preventing those from stacking as nicely.

[Segev]

It definitely seems like the Archery FS was meant to counteract the expected common Cover penalties so you'd be in that neutral position for Bounded Accuracy but then at some point later in the design they added SS without thinking about it. It probably would have been better for the Archery FS to be ignore Half-Cover and SS's cover bullet to be something like Steady Aim/Reckless Attack where you get advantage but suffer a penalty. I'd lean towards Steady Aim because it conflicts with CBE preventing those from stacking as nicely.

How often does cover come up, in others' experience, even without SS being a factor? I almost never see it called for, in my experience.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

One way to nerf it without impacting dex-based melee would be to hand out magical ammunition (which must be rationed) rather than magical bows. Not only does this mean their DPR would start coming in behind melee in an average fight, it would also mean that subclasses that can make their ranged attacks magical like AA and Kensei would get a boost relative to other martial builds. They could then still use magic arrows against bosses or other hard fights when that boost is needed.

I hated it as a player in 2nd Edition AD&D but they used to use Magic Bows and Magic arrows together.

A +3 Bow gave you +3 to hit, but didn't add to damage and didn't penetrate damage resistance. The +3 Arrow gave +3 to damage and penetrated Damage Resistance but didn't help your aim.

Essentially they countered Ranged being superior by making it extremely expensive to outfit in comparison to melee.

[Willie the Duck]

How often does cover come up, in others' experience, even without SS being a factor? I almost never see it called for, in my experience.

I think if SS dumped the accuracy, but people still played SS or SS/XBE super-archery builds, there might be a lot of enemies dashing between outcroppings or massed troops with mantlets. Start using the historical ways people dealt with archers.

Of course that's correcting balance by lowering one martial option as opposed to bring the rest up to their level, so I'm not sure it's the best solution.

[Black Jester]

Nah.

Simulationist arguments are pretty much dead in the water before they're even brought up - there's a lot of things that don't make much sense from a simulationist point of view in every edition of D&D to date and by now it should be pretty obvious that the system in no way represents reality.

You assume – falsely – that aspects of the game like weapon properties are not based on an attempt to simulating one understanding or the other of how things are supposed to work ™: Why do you think weapons are sorted by damage type? Because of halft the dozen monsters or so that are resistant ton one type of weapon and not to the other, so the halfling can feel smug that he packed a backup sling when the party is facing skeletons? Or why do you think that plant creatures are usually resistant to piercing damage, but vulnerable to fire? Because that follows the inner logic of the game world and respects the intelligence of the players.
It doesn’t really matter if it represents reality (for instance, green living wood doesn’t burn all that well), but the solution must not be obviously stupid. Because things that are obviously stupid are only funny once when you recognize the idiocy, but continue to hurt the experience of the players from that point on through frustration and disappointment. A D&D game should be abstract, and fast and loose in its rules, I fully agree, but if you have two options of equal playability, complexity and worth, there is no reason not to take the one closer to actual lived experience and common sense.
Why do you think there is a limit on the Dexterity bonus to armor class in medium and heavy armor? Because you’d expect that it is harder to move and dodge in full plate than it is in a light armor. That’s it. It is a rule that exists to represent some idea of “realism”, for the simple sake that it is what people expect (and mocked the game during the AD&D era).
Removing finesse is not just fixing a mistake based on a misinformed attempt at verisimilitude (there is a reason why it didn’t exist in Gygaxian D&D), it also simplify the game by removing an unnecessary part.



Finesse allows for dex PCs to exist at all IMO. If martials were required to have strength, dex, con then they may end up dumping all the mental stats. And that is incredibly lame.

Stop using point-buy (as you should, it is a bad option leading to utterly predictable and repetitive cookie cutter characters) and roll for your attributes and this is a non-problem. Not fixing an issue because that would require to fix another bad rule is indeed incredibly lame.


If dex based martials have to take strength I'll demand that casters take strength too. Spells now have strength requirement. The magic causes a gyroscopic effect which counters the somatic component, str requirement is 10 + spell level. :smallcool:
Wizards must have 19 str to cast 9th level spells, sorry not sorry.


Where is the logic in that? What's the point of changing any rules simply out ouf spite? What is the interconnection between physical strength and muscle mass and spellcraft? A concept as vague and ephemeral (if not entirely superfluous) as Balancing alone isn’t a reason to do anything – respecting the intelligence of the players is, however.
(But, on a related issue, I think that Charisma-based spellcasting is quite a stretch. It would probably make the most sense to base all arcane spellcasting active rolls on Intelligence (including a reinstated max spell level based on the attribute), and saves on force of personality, or Charisma. This, however, would bloat the rules and adds another layer of complexity to the game that isn’t necessary. There are probably better ways to address caster issues that require fewer extra steps.)


A Rapier is not a finesse weapon because it doesn't take Str to wield it well; a Rapier is a finesse weapon because the archetypes that use a rapier (musketeers, pirates, swashbucklers, Prince Arutha and Jimmy the Hand, etc) are known for their agility and speed, not for their strength.

That position makes sense until you try it yourself. It is ver much a Dunning-Kruger approach to life, expecting reality to work according to one’s own faulty or incomplete assumptions and prejudices. Once you have first-hand experience and know how these things actually work, this becomes a sore point. Also, prejudices and assumptions are a bad replacement for actual thinking: neither sailors (that’s what pirates are) working on a tall ship nor musketeers carrying 15 pound weapons are going to be dainty dandies.
Also, I am a horrible rapier fencer, but at least I tried and I understand why I suck so hard (it is not because of my high dexterity).




One of the number one things 3.5 and PF forced dex-based martials to do was bend over backwards for dex to attack and damage. Like you're doing here, those older editions overvalued Dex as a stat and either kneecapped or overtaxed martials that wanted to build around it. 5e just threw all that clutter in the trash and said you get those things for free as long as you use one of a set of thematically appropriate weapons.

Requiring a feat isn’t “bending over backwards”. It is an annoyance, sure, but that’s all it was. Also, finesse was also a bad idea back then, and a symptom of the steep decline in actual thinking between AD&D and 3rd edition. AD&D was horribly organized, badly layouted and all kinds of convoluted, but the actual thought behind the rules were usually sound (or included alignment). D&D 3.5 tried to fix this by overregulating, overcontrolling and overbearing things with rules that are way to sterile and unflexing, contributing to the idea that the rules allow you to do things instead of offering a guideline that can be adjusted as needed.


Rather than undo that progress, I suggest you just homebrew some finesse weapons that do what you seem to want. For example, if you want a "finesse greatsword," bring back the Elven Curveblade from 3.5 and give it the appropriate rules text.

You assume that removing concrete connection between an attribute and the actions it represents is some sort of progress. I see it as a degeneration into arbitrariness. If you want arbitrariness, than go all the way. Pick your favourite attribute, use it to do whatever. Dexterity-based fencing isn’t any more sensible or any less stupid than Charisma-based climbing or Strength-based Lore skills. The brain is a muscle, or so I have heard, after all. So, I can probably weightlift myself to a phd, right?
Now, I am mildly opposed to lol random rules, especially if there is no downside from a complexity point of view to upgrade the game to a more sane view on how things actually work ™. Finesse is an inherently insubstantial rule with no real backbone except a lot of whining in the Dragon’s letter section back in the AD&D era. It is idiocy, but a stealthy one, more hidden than the idiocy of basing physical attacks on whatever is your highest attribute or constitution-based Arcana rolls (“now that I can run a Marathon in record time, I will know all the secrets of the occult!”).



The thing is that the Hexblade itself follows a perfectly cromulent archetype (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9). The question is A) whether or not that's an archetype that D&D should support and B) if that's the best way to support it..

Complete sidenote, but if the Hexblade is supposed to represent Elric, it is a complete failure of capturing the spirit of the source material. Elric is physically weak in his natural state, sure, but he certainly isn’t when Stormbringer is feeding him. The dependency, both physical and mental, is the whole thing about their relationship. Elric is an addict who knows what Stormbringer is going to do to him and his loved ones, he knows that the sword has an agenda and uses and abuses him, but he is too weak and dependent on it to abandon it.
D&D can represent that easily. Stormbringer is a sentient artifact weapon, granting absurd combat powers to an otherwise middling character. Something like a vampiric blade that also works as a sword of wounding or even a vorpal blade and grants a temporary boost to physical attributes based on recent kills.
Also, Elric still very much needs his physical strength to fight, even when wielding Stormbringer. I think it is in either the Vanishing Tower or in the Bane of the Black Sword when Stormbringer actually gets sated for a moment and stops channeling the souls of the slain to Elric, with pretty bitter results.

The hexblade on the other hand... bears no bitterness whatsover. Because conseuqences have fallen out of fashion, and anything but instantaneous gratification and masturbatory fantasies is bad. Bitterness is an aquired taste, after all, one reserved for a more adult taste. Children will always prefer the sugary sweetness of a consequence-free ride from one power fantasy to the next.

So, yes, What D&D needs is more Sword and Sorcery and less appeasing to the loudest complainers. I am well aware of the irony of that statement, thank you very much, that's the reason I made it.

[Sorinth]

How often does cover come up, in others' experience, even without SS being a factor? I almost never see it called for, in my experience.

I think in theory it should come up quite a bit since shooting past say your tank to hit the enemy should provide half-cover but yes it's something like encumbrance that is more often then not hand-waved away. I personally am generous with cover (For both players and monsters) and so that +2 AC is partly the cost of not worrying about hitting an ally on a miss. The rules "when the attack originates from the opposite side of the cover" can be interpreted more generously then most do.

[Dr.Samurai]

Strength should be the eminent ability score in combat, second to none.

Dexterity should be for slinking around in the shadows and dodging stuff. Maybe you can use it to hit but your target has resistance against your damage :smallamused:.

Re Cover: If an ally is engaged in melee with an enemy, they will provide cover to any archers trying to hit that enemy.

EDIT: Archery style is supposed to help mitigate the constant cover your enemies will be benefiting from, not just flat out make you more accurate than every other weapon user in the world.

[Schwann145]

Finesse isn't a problem.
The problem is an over-reliance on Base Ability Scores that are, frankly, very boring. The math in 5e makes your Ability Scores more important than anything else, and also one of the only ways you can customize yourself, and also use incredibly small increments which is kinda boring. The fact that the math is so small means tiny adjustments are highly valued... and also downward adjustments feel strongly penalizing, even when they're really not. No one is happy with a 12 in an important stat, even though you'll do just fine with it. The incredibly swingyness of a d20 roll is always going to have more impact than your little +1 or +2s here and there, but because there's so very little ability to control the math, those little adjustments feel so huge.
You could have a long and successful career as a 5e adventurer with a standard array that never increases, but the players would revolt at being stuck with such "bad" scores."

I'm going off on a tangent. My bad.

The bottom line is that "sense," common or otherwise, has basically never been applied to the rules and that's on purpose, because of sacred cows more than anything. Is a longsword easier to wield, physically, than a rapier? Yes. For a number of reasons. Reasons that will never ever see the light of day in D&D. Is that kinda dumb? Also yes. Is asking for little things like that to make a little more sense asking for "hyper realism" or the like? Not at all. You could totally overhaul 5e to be more realistic and still be a far shot from realism; that's how unrealistic the game has become.

Finesse wasn't a mistake, but so many other things on the path to finesse, as it exists now, were mistakes. But it's faaar too late to go back and adjust them now.
Or... they weren't mistakes. 5e is the most popular, best selling, edition by far and it's also the most hand-holding ez math edition by far. I'd like to think your average gamer can appreciate smarter games, but sales numbers don't lie, so I'm prob just wrong.

[kazaryu]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view- the selection which weapons could benefit from finesse is completely arbitrary, with rapiers as notoriously tiring weapons requiring a lot of lower arm strength to wield properly really requiring more physical strength, while there is no real reason (and a lot of complaining) why a longsword (an actually less tiresome weapon to wield, especially when using both arms) isn’t. this, as an argument, is kinda 'meh' to me. i honestly couldn't care less about simulationism. its a fantasy setting, who cares if they borrowed terms from IRL, the IRL terms don't define the in game weapons. in game mechanics do. ergo, it doesn't matter what a 'long sword' means IRL, in game it refers to a 1h/2h flex weapon that requires str to wield.



It makes no sense from a balancing standpoint either, as Dexterity is already a very useful and commonly used ability with a clear purpose for most characters; adding the ability to attack with melee weapons to this, leads to more monolithic, and less interesting characters. by this argument the game should have no designations at all. greatswords do more damage than longswords/rapiers. this is obviously useful for a player that wants to fight in melee and do good damage. having it deal so much damage leads to more monolithic, less interesting characters.



You can either expand it to all weapons,which...from a balance perspective just makes dex even better, meaning the only character that ever have a reason to invest in str are the ones that *really* want that extra 1ac from plate mail, or barbarians. how does this create more interesting characters? i mean from a mechanical perspective.

, probably better, delete it in its entirety (and yes, this would allow you to make sneak attacks with any weapon) and now melee is purely the domain of str based characters. How is this less monolithic?.

idk, it sounds like you really just want to SA with anything, in which case...just let rogues SA with anything. it probably won't break anything, and it actually could lead to more diverse characters. But the finesse property actually adds diversity. it allows both Dex and STR based characters to mix it up in melee. while still having distinct enough lines between them that you can have a barbarian fighting alongside a melee-dex fighter without it feeling like they're crowding each others territory.



How often does cover come up, in others' experience, even without SS being a factor? I almost never see it called for, in my experience.
i use cover whenever it seems appropriate (fairly often in my current group. as i have 2 ranged attackers (a sorcerer that likes his forebolt spam, and an archer ranger) and 2 melee focused characters (a barbarian and a moon druid). on top of which i almost always include terrain in my maps, specifically to allow for cover. the only time there was a fight that didn't have cover, it was an ambush, and the ambushers specifically chose to attack because there was no cover.

[diplomancer]

.
That position makes sense until you try it yourself. It is ver much a Dunning-Kruger approach to life, expecting reality to work according to one’s own faulty or incomplete assumptions and prejudices. Once you have first-hand experience and know how these things actually work, this becomes a sore point. Also, prejudices and assumptions are a bad replacement for actual thinking: neither sailors (that’s what pirates are) working on a tall ship nor musketeers carrying 15 pound weapons are going to be dainty dandies.
Also, I am a horrible rapier fencer, but at least I tried and I understand why I suck so hard (it is not because of my high dexterity.

What do you mean, try it out myself? Make a movie where an Arnie-type wields a Rapier? No? Oh, you mean fight with a rapier? Then you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the rules are trying to accomplish. I've never claimed "rapiers in real life don't require strength" or "pirates in real life were weaklings", so I guess the quite unnecessary and offensive Dunning-Krueger reference goes right back at you.



Look, if you want "realism", you're playing the wrong edition. TSR D&D had a far greater concern with realism than current D&D. I enjoyed it, in its day, but I much prefer 5e.

But if you really want to know what I like about Finesse weapons? They allow for Halfling Paladins (one of my favourite combos) that don't put too great a burden on my sense of verisimilitude. So as you see, everyone's sense of what is acceptable from a "realist" perspective varies. I deeply dislike the very idea of 20 Str halflings. So I don't play them, but I don't go around claiming the game should ban them.

[Psyren]

Requiring a feat isn’t “bending over backwards”. It is an annoyance, sure, but that’s all it was.

Dex to damage was not a simple feat in 3.5, nor even PF1. It required taking on an entire subsystem (Shadow Blade), or locking yourself into setting-specific religions (Champion of Corellon, Dawnflower Dervish), or having a steep drawback (Fierce enchantment) or dipping into unofficial Dragon Magazine material (and in almost every case it was even more restrictive than Weapon Finesse itself, locking you into a specific class ACF/PrC and a subset of finessable weapons or even a single weapon. And woe betide you if you wanted to dual-wield too, or use ranged weapons (Crossbow Sniper, oh wait you only get 1/2 dex, oh what about Dead Eye, both dragon magazine and only works within 30ft etc.)


Also, finesse was also a bad idea back then, and a symptom of the steep decline in actual thinking between AD&D and 3rd edition. AD&D was horribly organized, badly layouted and all kinds of convoluted, but the actual thought behind the rules were usually sound (or included alignment).

lmao. pull the other one.


You assume that removing concrete connection between an attribute and the actions it represents is some sort of progress. I see it as a degeneration into arbitrariness. If you want arbitrariness, than go all the way. Pick your favourite attribute, use it to do whatever. Dexterity-based fencing isn’t any more sensible or any less stupid than Charisma-based climbing or Strength-based Lore skills. The brain is a muscle, or so I have heard, after all. So, I can probably weightlift myself to a phd, right?

1) Slippery slope fallacy with some reductio ad absurdum thrown in (no one here is advocating for "weightlift phds" or "charisma climbing").
2) If you want to disallow Dex to damage in your 5e games, nothing is stopping you.

[Segev]

1) Slippery slope fallacy with some reductio ad absurdum thrown in (no one here is advocating for "weightlift phds" or "charisma climbing").

While I happen to agree with you, here, these aren't fallacies unless you can point to where the line is actually drawn. If your line is arbitrarily, "Nobody is calling for this," then you need to be able to say why they won't call for it when they get what they want. (Sorry, I am not trying to pick on you, but it is a pet peeve of mine when "slippery slope" is called out as if saying that disproves what it's called on. It doesn't. Slippery slope is not fallacious without a way to point out where and why it will stop using the assumptions and reasoning used to get to the point being currently objected-to.)

And the reason is quite simple: there's no fantasy archetype that calls for "charisma climbing." There is one that calls for "nimble and dexterous fencers." So it is fallacious, here, because the assertion that it is arbitrary is false. The dexterity-using finesse weapons support a particular archetypal fantasy. That is why they make sense, while "charisma climbing" does not.

[Psyren]

While I happen to agree with you, here, these aren't fallacies unless you can point to where the line is actually drawn. If your line is arbitrarily, "Nobody is calling for this," then you need to be able to say why they won't call for it when they get what they want. (Sorry, I am not trying to pick on you, but it is a pet peeve of mine when "slippery slope" is called out as if saying that disproves what it's called on. It doesn't. Slippery slope is not fallacious without a way to point out where and why it will stop using the assumptions and reasoning used to get to the point being currently objected-to.)

And the reason is quite simple: there's no fantasy archetype that calls for "charisma climbing." There is one that calls for "nimble and dexterous fencers." So it is fallacious, here, because the assertion that it is arbitrary is false. The dexterity-using finesse weapons support a particular archetypal fantasy. That is why they make sense, while "charisma climbing" does not.

I assumed the line was obvious, and the ease with which you described it supports that assumption and saved me time. So thanks!

[Schwann145]

1) Slippery slope fallacy with some reductio ad absurdum thrown in (no one here is advocating for "weightlift phds" or "charisma climbing").


To be fair, Cha as the attack/damage stat for melee already exists and kinda proves it's not so slippery a slope.

[GooeyChewie]

Why do you think there is a limit on the Dexterity bonus to armor class in medium and heavy armor? Because you’d expect that it is harder to move and dodge in full plate than it is in a light armor. That’s it. It is a rule that exists to represent some idea of “realism”, for the simple sake that it is what people expect (and mocked the game during the AD&D era).
Removing finesse is not just fixing a mistake based on a misinformed attempt at verisimilitude (there is a reason why it didn’t exist in Gygaxian D&D), it also simplify the game by removing an unnecessary part.

Actually, you've hit upon an area in which D&D very much does NOT base itself on how things actually work. Historical plate mail was well articulated, allowing for much greater flexibility than you might expect. A knight in full plate had very little restriction of movement. The real downside of plate was that it got hot and heavy very quickly. If D&D wanted historical verisimilitude regarding plate mail, it would require high Constitution to wear in combat, would cause exhaustion to wear for extended periods outside of combat, but still allow your full Dexterity bonus to AC. But D&D doesn't deal in historical accuracy; it deals in the fantasy genre, where knights wear shining armor 24/7 and lithe fencers parkour about the battlefield.

[Schwann145]

Actually, you've hit upon an area in which D&D very much does NOT base itself on how things actually work. Historical plate mail was well articulated, allowing for much greater flexibility than you might expect. A knight in full plate had very little restriction of movement. The real downside of plate was that it got hot and heavy very quickly. If D&D wanted historical verisimilitude regarding plate mail, it would require high Constitution to wear in combat, would cause exhaustion to wear for extended periods outside of combat, but still allow your full Dexterity bonus to AC. But D&D doesn't deal in historical accuracy; it deals in the fantasy genre, where knights wear shining armor 24/7 and lithe fencers parkour about the battlefield.

The whole story here is that this is unique to well-fitted plate armor. If you could afford such a thing, yes it was quite easy to move in. The piecemeal "half-plate" you can wear in 5e would absolutely be harder to move in and makes sense to penalize Dexterity, as well as the other forms of non-fitted-Plate heavy armor.

[Psyren]

To be fair, Cha as the attack/damage stat for melee already exists and kinda proves it's not so slippery a slope.

Cha to attack/damage and Cha to climbing are very different things.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's inappropriate to dismiss arguments from realism with "D&D is not a simulation", because D&D very obviously tries to map to the real world where it can. It doesn't do so anywhere near perfectly because there are game constraints. But that doesn't mean we can just hand-waive away any ideas that appeal to realism. Especially when supplemented with balance arguments.

[diplomancer]

It's inappropriate to dismiss arguments from realism with "D&D is not a simulation", because D&D very obviously tries to map to the real world where it can. It doesn't do so anywhere near perfectly because there are game constraints. But that doesn't mean we can just hand-waive away any ideas that appeal to realism. Especially when supplemented with balance arguments.

As a matter of fact, 5e D&D very obviously tries to map out to fantasy archetypes where it can, and not necessarily to the real world; or, to be more precise, the fantasy archetypes carry more weight than any realism, so that, when they're in conflict, as in this case, so much the worse for realism.

Take finesse weapons out of the game and you've eliminated melee Rogues, a lot of melee Rangers, and Dexadins (notice that those are usually not the most optimized characters). And for what reason? "Because I tried to use a rapier and my arm was sore" ?Pull another one.

[Schwann145]

Cha to attack/damage and Cha to climbing are very different things.

Only in the "they're literally different things" sense (in the way an apple is not a bottle cap).
From a thematic perspective, they're equally ridiculous concepts.

[Dr.Samurai]

As a matter of fact, 5e D&D very obviously tries to map out to fantasy archetypes where it can, and not necessarily to the real world; or, to be more precise, the fantasy archetypes carry more weight than any realism, so that, when they're in conflict, as in this case, so much the worse for realism.
Yes, archetypes constrained by the real world. By all means, try to draw a line somewhere where it becomes too simulationist for you, but pretending like up is down and left is right and fire doesn't burn and light is dark in D&D world doesn't work. It maps to the real world. There's a reason that melee attacks default to Strength and not Intelligence, or that you need a certain amount of Strength to wear heavy armors. That's not "archetype", that's real world.

[diplomancer]

Yes, archetypes constrained by the real world. By all means, try to draw a line somewhere where it becomes too simulationist for you, but pretending like up is down and left is right and fire doesn't burn and light is dark in D&D world doesn't work. It maps to the real world. There's a reason that melee attacks default to Strength and not Intelligence, or that you need a certain amount of Strength to wear heavy armors. That's not "archetype", that's real world.

This very thread is very much proof that the archetypes are NOT constrained by the real world, or, at the least, that when these archetypes conflict with the real world, the real world loses. Same thing with Bows not needing Str.

[Psyren]

Only in the "they're literally different things" sense (in the way an apple is not a bottle cap).
From a thematic perspective, they're equally ridiculous concepts.

Magical energy guiding your strike towards an enemy regardless of your physical prowess has been a thing for decades and continues to exist in this edition (see spell attack rolls.) Nothing is being guided to anything else in the case of Cha climbing.

Even if we were to slide down this slope though, it still wouldn't have the effect the OP wants - we would just allow even more things to be based on other stats rather than disallowing Dex to hit/damage.

[kazaryu]

Yes, archetypes constrained by the real world. By all means, try to draw a line somewhere where it becomes too simulationist for you, but pretending like up is down and left is right and fire doesn't burn and light is dark in D&D world doesn't work. It maps to the real world. There's a reason that melee attacks default to Strength and not Intelligence, or that you need a certain amount of Strength to wear heavy armors. That's not "archetype", that's real world.

there's a difference between 'dnd worlds tend to look similar to the real world' (which is what you're referring to) and 'dnd rules attempt to simulate, accurately, the real world'. the latter is objectively, untrue. if it were true, then an unarmored/lightly armored person would, without magic, be incapable of approaching the safety of an armored person. historically plate mail was a massive step up from no armor or even light armor. it came with major drawbacks in terms of endurance, but people wore it anyway, if they could afford it. thats how much more effective it was.
If the rules were trying to simulate IRL, studded leather armor wouldn't be a thing.

What you're confusing with simulationist rules, is the fact that DnD is an RPG. It looks a lot like our world simply because we understand our world. so sure...gravity exists, that is true. but its not meant to simulate actual gravity...it works almost nothing like actual gravity. Sure, you can drown...but you go from 'conscious and running out of breath' to 'within 18 seconds of being dead' instantly. again...not how actual drowning/asphyxiation works. they use the terms 'long sword' and 'longbow' because they're words that we recognize, and get the general idea across. But they also trust that we, the players, are intelligent enough to understand that just because they happen to share the name of something that actually existed IRL, doesn't mean they're the same thing. they're very clearly not, because the rules don't match how the IRL object works

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I do agree with the idea that Dex builds tend to be stronger; while this is largely due to comparable damage that can be done at range with SS and sometimes by adding XBE, part of the issue is that when you 'catch' a Dex based ranged character in melee there isn't much of a consequence. In my mind that's largely due to 2 things. The biggest offender is the line in XBE that just allows you to keep shooting at 5' without penalty. The secondary issue, particularly in a featless game, is that comparable damage can be done in melee with a Dex based character. And that's in addition to a better stat for saves, initiative, and a stealth benefit that compensates for any AC bonus a Str based character would get.

That said, I'm not sure the starting point should be to remove finesse. Could it be removed from Rapier, or reduce Rapier damage to d6? Maybe. But in a game with feats it's probably not the place to start if you want to balance with Str. Then there's the whole line of thinking that says martials are inferior to casters anyway. If you subscribe to that, then it's probably a better idea to buff Str based martials.

[diplomancer]

I do agree with the idea that Dex builds tend to be stronger; while this is largely due to comparable damage that can be done at range with SS and sometimes by adding XBE, part of the issue is that when you 'catch' a Dex based ranged character in melee there isn't much of a consequence. In my mind that's largely due to 2 things. The biggest offender is the line in XBE that just allows you to keep shooting at 5' without penalty. The secondary issue, particularly in a featless game, is that comparable damage can be done in melee with a Dex based character. And that's in addition to a better stat for saves, initiative, and a stealth benefit that compensates for any AC bonus a Str based character would get.

That said, I'm not sure the starting point should be to remove finesse. Could it be removed from Rapier, or reduce Rapier damage to d6? Maybe. But in a game with feats it's probably not the place to start if you want to balance with Str. Then there's the whole line of thinking that says martials are inferior to casters anyway. If you subscribe to that, then it's probably a better idea to buff Str based martials.

I would not change Rapier; make it a d6 and now it's just a worse short sword, so you might as well eliminate it from the game. The only reason why Rapier is considered "too good" is because two-weapon fighting is so bad (in later tiers specially). But with better two-weapon fighting rules, a Rapier+Shield would be a nice trade-off of defense over offense when compared with two Short Swords.

Take away Finesse from the game and now pretty much all Dex characters (who survived the purge; as mentioned before, Dexadins won't survive it) will take the Crossbow Expert Feat at the earliest opportunity. They just can't afford to be caught in melee without it; and as it is such a powerful feat, in one fell swoop you've eliminated long bow archers, dexadins, many melee Rangers, and all melee Rogues; that doesn't sound like an improvement to the game.

[Rynjin]

"Dex sucks for damage dealing" was tried many times throughout the ages, with around 40 years of uninterrupted playtesting.

It sucked ass, unsurprisingly, and is part of the reason why Rogues have consistently been the weakest class in the game. And why Two-Weapon Fighting has historically sucked too for that matter. Introducing easily acquirable Dex to damage capability from 3rd party content, shockingly, resulted in overall build parity between Str and Dex builds.

The "issue" with 5e's implementation is not that Dex is too powerful, it's that other stats are too weak. With the removal of other incentives to use Str for damage dealing (1.5x stat to damage for two-handing, Power Attacking AND increased benefit from it, etc.), you're left with Dex to damag having no downside...or, more accurately, Str to damage having no particular UPSIDE.

You're chasing the wrong car on this one.

[Snails]

The "issue" with 5e's implementation is not that Dex is too powerful, it's that other stats are too weak. With the removal of other incentives to use Str for damage dealing (1.5x stat to damage for two-handing, Power Attacking AND increased benefit from it, etc.), you're left with Dex to damag having no downside...or, more accurately, Str to damage having no particular UPSIDE.

You're chasing the wrong car on this one.

I agree.

Dex is overmodelled in a number of ways that add up. Yet I do not think we want directly nerf the Dex fighter.

That does leave the question of why is Str such an exciting path. The main answers seem to be (1) because you have higher AC, and (2) because you can build the most super powerful multi-feat stacks. The first is a joke -- a much better Stealth and Initiative is vastly more valuable than one or two points of AC. The second is simply out of the level range that the vast majority of players spend time playing this game -- most players will rarely or never see such builds at their gaming table.

My suggestion would be to add a small bit of Damage Reduction to the heavy armors. That makes this Str path superior when facing many enemies, which usually hit for less damage. Of course, the Barbarian could use a bit of help, too....

[Segev]

I agree.

Dex is overmodelled in a number of ways that add up. Yet I do not think we want directly nerf the Dex fighter.

That does leave the question of why is Str such an exciting path. The main answers seem to be (1) because you have higher AC, and (2) because you can build the most super powerful multi-feat stacks. The first is a joke -- a much better Stealth and Initiative is vastly more valuable than one or two points of AC. The second is simply out of the level range that the vast majority of players spend time playing this game -- most players will rarely or never see such builds at their gaming table.

My suggestion would be to add a small bit of Damage Reduction to the heavy armors. That makes this Str path superior when facing many enemies, which usually hit for less damage. Of course, the Barbarian could use a bit of help, too....

Most players don't play in Tier 1 and Tier 2? :smallconfused:

GWM and GWF both come into play as early as level 4.

[Snails]

Most players don't play in Tier 1 and Tier 2? :smallconfused:

GWM and GWF both come into play as early as level 4.

And in those games, which level does SS come into play?

That the Str PC and the Dex PC both can select very powerful feats is an edge to neither path. The multi-feat stacks are eye-openers, though. It is probably fair to say that powerful combinations of the Str friendly feats are typically Tier 3+, and not commonly available at most tables. YMMV.

[Dr.Samurai]

there's a difference between 'dnd worlds tend to look similar to the real world' (which is what you're referring to) and 'dnd rules attempt to simulate, accurately, the real world'.
I already made this point. As I said, you can draw the line wherever you want, but saying "it doesn't make sense to use Dex for attacks/damage" can easily be "that doesn't look similar to the real world" rather than "that is not accurately simulating the real world".

But you can't dismiss an observation comparing D&D to the real world because it doesn't accurately simulate reality, because it doesn't have to accurately simulate reality. The fact that it is based on reality is enough to make the observation.

In other words, there's a difference between "I don't think cleaving true to that reality is worth losing out on swashbuckling/pirate/musketeer archetypes" and "D&D doesn't even try to be real so your point is invalid".

[kazaryu]

I already made this point. As I said, you can draw the line wherever you want, but saying "it doesn't make sense to use Dex for attacks/damage" can easily be "that doesn't look similar to the real world" rather than "that is not accurately simulating the real world". on the contrary. saying 'it doesn't make sense to use dex for attacks/damage' is inherently a simulationist argument, unless you recontextualize it into something that is actually relevant to DnD. for example, talking about game balance. Its not about 'drawing a line'. the creators of DnD would be well within their rights to completely re-write all laws of physics, and create a world that is completely incomprehensible in comparison to the real world. they could make it look completely different, act completely different. but then they'd run into a problem. language. words wouldn't exist for the things they'd need to create. so they'd have to create a new language...and teach it to players....while also teaching those players entirely unthought of concepts etc. obviously this is untenable. so instead they use language and visuals we're familiar with, in order to ground us. But its purely aesthetic. because the underlying physics principles are all different.

to put it another way... to say 'it doesn't make sense to use dex for attack/damage' would be like telling tolkein that hobbits don't make sense. and then trying to explain to him how IRL dwarfs don't have hairy feet and they don't have a predisposition for being sedentary. you're literally trying to tell the creators of the world...how their own world works. its bonkers.

[greenstone]

I would have eliminated the weapon tag "finesse" and replaced it with something like, "Any weapon two or more sizes smaller than you are can be wielded with STR or DEX, your choice."

The Rogue ability would be, "Any weapon one or more sizes smaller than you are can be used with sneak attack."

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not purely to avoid confusion and language issues.

You can't cleave to archetypes if you don't cleave to the reality they are based in.

So yes, it is very much about where do we draw the line.

[Goobahfish]

Whoa... big can of worms

Finesse is a kind of necessary concept for D&D, mostly because it kind of fails at anything approaching realistic armour. Also having a single Dex stat is probably a design fail too.


Attacking with strength simulates punching a weapon through armor. Attacking with dexterity simulates fitting the weapon's blade through the gaps in the armor.

D&D AC works if you think of Strength puncturing armour, Dex finding gaps and Dex being good at hitting 'dodgy' things but completely breaks when you consider a Strong character trying to hit an agile character (i.e. a Troll going after a Hobbit). The first RPG I played had armour as damage reduction and I was really perplexed when D&D had AC for both agile and heavily armoured characters as if that made any sense at all. If you follow this line of thinking you get:


Going back to 3.X style accuracy and damage? I wouldn't mind that, it's not actually that complicated. Alternatively you could move to the industry standard of DEX=+attack, STR=+damage, but those who dislike melee rogues needing Strength probably also dislike melee fighters needing Dexterity.

OR


TBPH, I'd remove the damage component from Finesse. You get accuracy, but without the strength behind it to actually penetrate, unless you also invested in Strength.
I'd also remove Dex from damage rolls from ranged weapons.


But obviously...


Finesse allows for dex PCs to exist at all IMO. If martials were required to have strength, dex, con then they may end up dumping all the mental stats. And that is incredibly lame.

This is basically one of the constraints. Requiring martials to have 2 stats by default (i.e. one for to-hit and one for damage) is really problematic from an already troubled archetype.


One of the number one things 3.5 and PF forced dex-based martials to do was bend over backwards for dex to attack and damage. Like you're doing here, those older editions overvalued Dex as a stat and either kneecapped or overtaxed martials that wanted to build around it. 5e just threw all that clutter in the trash and said you get those things for free as long as you use one of a set of thematically appropriate weapons.

Here we have the third component of the argument. 3.5 was really lame if you wanted to be a swashbuckler-style ranger or fighter. You seriously were just like a heavily armoured fighter... but did less damage. Like, what was the point? It didn't feel different, it just felt weak and lame.

Hence, Finesse makes a lot of sense in 5e given all those assumptions. It is limited to fairly iconic weapons (the rapier being a weird exception - damage being D8 seems degenerative). It limits rogues and some other abilities in a sensible way.

I think you are barking at the wrong tree :smallsmile:

[Delnatha]

IMO, the problem is the rapier. The base die for finesse weapons should have been capped at a d6 since the best 1h str weapons are a d8. You could then balance overall damage output by adjusting sneak attack damage and other abilities but the base atk damage for a finesse weapon should have been slightly less since dex can be used for offense, defense, more skills, and is a better saving throw than strength.

[GooeyChewie]

I already made this point. As I said, you can draw the line wherever you want, but saying "it doesn't make sense to use Dex for attacks/damage" can easily be "that doesn't look similar to the real world" rather than "that is not accurately simulating the real world".

But you can't dismiss an observation comparing D&D to the real world because it doesn't accurately simulate reality, because it doesn't have to accurately simulate reality. The fact that it is based on reality is enough to make the observation.

In other words, there's a difference between "I don't think cleaving true to that reality is worth losing out on swashbuckling/pirate/musketeer archetypes" and "D&D doesn't even try to be real so your point is invalid".

Plenty of posters in this thread have pointed out that Finesse enables Flynn-esque archetypes. Nobody is claiming that the fact that D&D is not a simulation invalidates the original post entirely, only that this fact means pointing out how something could more accurately simulate reality does not necessarily mean the rules should change in that way.


It's not purely to avoid confusion and language issues.

You can't cleave to archetypes if you don't cleave to the reality they are based in.

So yes, it is very much about where do we draw the line.

The archetypes are based in fantasy, not reality. Heck, the majority of classes can literally use magic spells. Those certainly aren't based on reality.


IMO, the problem is the rapier. The base die for finesse weapons should have been capped at a d6 since the best 1h str weapons are a d8. You could then balance overall damage output by adjusting sneak attack damage and other abilities but the base atk damage for a finesse weapon should have been slightly less since dex can be used for offense, defense, more skills, and is a better saving throw than strength.

Strongly disagree. As diplomancer already pointed out, dropping Rapier to 1d8 would make it strictly worse than a Shortsword. Dex-based melee damage is not the problem. If there is a problem, it's either in the combination of Sharpshooter/Archery Fighting Style or in that Strength should have more uses (or a combination of those two).

[t209]

And this is why Warhammer had Weapon and Ballistic Skill and Call of Cthulhu had "(insert weapon) skill".

[PhoenixPhyre]

The archetypes are based in fantasy, not reality. Heck, the majority of classes can literally use magic spells. Those certainly aren't based on reality.


Right. The fantasy archetypes in 5e are extensions and alterations of real life, plus a huge dose of myth, popular culture, self-feeding (archetypes that build on media properties that were based on D&D). Any resemblance to real life at this point is, to a degree, accidental. Just enough remains to make it recognizable. But it's more based in Hollywood reality than real reality. A modern D&D (using the same concepts and methods) would have gunslingers who don't need to reload nearly as often as they do in real life. Or people doing acrobatic flips while firing full auto in guns akimbo accurately and curving bullets all over the place.

[Sorinth]

IMO, the problem is the rapier. The base die for finesse weapons should have been capped at a d6 since the best 1h str weapons are a d8. You could then balance overall damage output by adjusting sneak attack damage and other abilities but the base atk damage for a finesse weapon should have been slightly less since dex can be used for offense, defense, more skills, and is a better saving throw than strength.

Agreed, and it's worth noting that dex via Initiative has an inherent damage boost because going earlier/more often means more total damage. So even with a lower damage die/DPR they might still pull ahead in overall damage output.

[Dr.Samurai]

Plenty of posters in this thread have pointed out that Finesse enables Flynn-esque archetypes. Nobody is claiming that the fact that D&D is not a simulation invalidates the original post entirely, only that this fact means pointing out how something could more accurately simulate reality does not necessarily mean the rules should change in that way.
It doesn't have to necessarily mean the rules should change to be a point made and included. That's also why I mentioned that it was supplemented with balance concerns. But to say "not simulationist so doesn't matter" is dismissive and misses the point.

The archetypes are based in fantasy, not reality. Heck, the majority of classes can literally use magic spells. Those certainly aren't based on reality.

This is just playing with words. You just referenced Flynn-esque archetypes, which is "fantasy" in so far that it is fiction, but still very heavily grounded in the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is just playing with words. You just referenced Flynn-esque archetypes, which is "fantasy" in so far that it is fiction, but still very heavily grounded in the real world.

Only barely. It's anachronistic, and flynning (the fighting style, which is what matters here) is entirely showmanship and completely impractical for actual combat. It's all about making people believe they're fighting, while being completely choreographed and ritual. Which is rather the point--the Errol Flynn archetype is entirely a Hollywood creation. Especially as applied to more Robin-Hood-esque types. But it's the genesis for much of our concept of swashbuckling as a style.

[Mastikator]

Stop using point-buy

No.


and roll for your attributes and this is a non-problem. Not fixing an issue because that would require to fix another bad rule is indeed incredibly lame.4d6b3 is likely to lead to a set of good and bad rolls which means it has the same "drawback" as point buy.



Where is the logic in that? What's the point of changing any rules simply out ouf spite? What is the interconnection between physical strength and muscle mass and spellcraft? A concept as vague and ephemeral (if not entirely superfluous) as Balancing alone isn’t a reason to do anything – respecting the intelligence of the players is, however.
(But, on a related issue, I think that Charisma-based spellcasting is quite a stretch. It would probably make the most sense to base all arcane spellcasting active rolls on Intelligence (including a reinstated max spell level based on the attribute), and saves on force of personality, or Charisma. This, however, would bloat the rules and adds another layer of complexity to the game that isn’t necessary. There are probably better ways to address caster issues that require fewer extra steps.)Spite is the main ingredient for sure, the point was that even as good as dex warriors are, spell casters are better still.

You see (very generally, there are outlyers here, strength paladins are stronger than sorcs IMO)
Arcane spell casters > Divine spell casters > Half casters >>>> dex warriors > strength warriors

Saying that dex warriors are too good because they're a bit better than strength warriors is incredibly myopic, they're not "a little too good", they're the second worst option. Just buff strength warriors.

[diplomancer]

No.

4d6b3 is likely to lead to a set of good and bad rolls which means it has the same "drawback" as point buy.

Spite is the main ingredient for sure, the point was that even as good as dex warriors are, spell casters are better still.

You see (very generally, there are outlyers here, strength paladins are stronger than sorcs IMO)
Arcane spell casters > Divine spell casters > Half casters >>>> dex warriors > strength warriors

Saying that dex warriors are too good because they're a bit better than strength warriors is incredibly myopic, they're not "a little too good", they're the second worst option. Just buff strength warriors.

It's even worse than that; because grant all of that, and the truth still would be "dex ranged warriors > strength warriors. Dex melee warriors, specially in a game with feats, are usually worse than Str warriors. Even in a featless game, unless you have DM-tailored magical items, I'd say that advantage would still go to Str melee warriors. Dex melee warriors main advantage, apart from Initiative,, is "not sucking if they can't get to melee", and even that is pushing it, since they will probably have a shield on their arms (meaning, they can't use Bows and Crossbows), though that IS a usually overlooked advantage of two weapon style over Rapier+Shield. But dex martials are still fun to play, and people enjoy playing them. Why take that away? You're not even solving the problem of Dex being better than Str, you're just saying "Dex is exclusively for Ranged (already the optimal way to play a Dex character), Str is for melee".


I would have eliminated the weapon tag "finesse" and replaced it with something like, "Any weapon two or more sizes smaller than you are can be wielded with STR or DEX, your choice."

The Rogue ability would be, "Any weapon one or more sizes smaller than you are can be used with sneak attack."

Great. Now you can't play a Halfling Dexadin. The only way to play a Halfling Warrior is building him for Str (which, as I've mentioned before, I find far harder to accept than agile warriors using Rapiers; though YMMV, I do point out that I don't believe Str halflings should be banned from the game because I, personally, find them objectionable. I only wish others would do the same courtesy). Might as well ban small races, because that's the sort of rule that's impossible to balance. Give them enough features to compensate, and all you will have is small race casters, who don't care about weapons anyway. Don't give them enough features to compensate, and now they're strictly worse options.

[Arkhios]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view--

There's your answer(?) to your "problem".

Nowhere in the system there is an assessment that the game is supposed to be simulationist by nature.

[Chronic]

My fixes to this kind of problems:

Initiative can be determined by either a dexterity check or a strength check.

While wearing a heavy armor, if you are proficient with it and check the strength prerequisite, you gain a damage reduction of 2 against Piercing, Bludgeoning and Slashing damage. Stack with the feat heavy armor master.

Every full martial character get:
Martial mastery
At 2rd level, they gain proficiency in either athletics or acrobatics. At level 7, they gain expertise in the skill chosen at level 2.
Starting at 3rd level, Martial characters gain access to two Battlemaster maneuvers. They gain an additional maneuver at level 7, and another at level 10.
They gain 2 superiority dice, which are d6, and gain an additional superiority dice at level 7, they regain all of the expanded superiority dice after taking a long rest.
At 7th level, they regain all of the expanded superiority dice after taking a short or long rest.
At 10th level, the superiority dices become d8, then become d10 at 18th level.
A player character can only benefit once from the Martial Mastery or the Combat Superiority feature, even if he multiclass.

Martial with access to spells do not gain it but get specific buff if needed.

feats not available:
Great weapon master
Sharpshooter
Elven accuracy

I have also tried to balance casters by reworking spell lists and features.
There is also many other changes.

[Goobahfish]

My fixes to this kind of problems:

Initiative can be determined by either a dexterity check or a strength check.

While wearing a heavy armor, if you are proficient with it and check the strength prerequisite, you gain a damage reduction of 2 against Piercing, Bludgeoning and Slashing damage. Stack with the feat heavy armor master.


The first one seems pretty strange? Strength has never really been associated with speed in the game.

The second is basically against the D&D ethos but is really where it should have gone a long time ago. As soon as there is any damage reduction in the game which is easily available and isn't a double/half thing, then things like two-weapon fighting vs big two-hander become contextual choices (which is interesting) which means they can be slightly imbalanced compared to each other in exchange for being better in some circumstances and worse in others.

The second half... well that is broadly where I went as well (as in martials should be interesting).

[Chronic]

I honestly could not care less about strength not being associated with speed for my part, I just care about martial having a good initiative overall, it's 100% a game design decision. But I can understand why some people could be bothered.

For some people who might be interested, here is the link to the document compiling my house rules.
Not everything has been thoroughly tested, not everything is used all at once, but my players seem to like it a lot overall.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w91k1ASy2j-NitVaii5Ih6TLwoV9Xfym/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=108361120139064883498&rtpof=true&sd=true

[Segev]

Perhaps the best way to help a martial be faster in initiative order would be to either grant him advantage on initiative or grant him proficiency in initiative (or both). The Champion Fighter kind-of gets this at level 7, since initiative is a Dexterity check and thus he can add half his proficiency to it. This could be done per class as a class or subclass feature, and assigned at the level determined to be too high to dip if that's a concern.

[GooeyChewie]

It doesn't have to necessarily mean the rules should change to be a point made and included. That's also why I mentioned that it was supplemented with balance concerns. But to say "not simulationist so doesn't matter" is dismissive and misses the point.
1. The original post was suggesting a rules change. I don't disagree (or seeing anybody else disagreeing) with the fact that Finesse weapons using Dexterity often bears little resemblance to reality. The counterarguments to the original post are about why that fact doesn't mean the rules should change. If you aren't agreeing with the original post that Finesse should be removed from the game, then I'm not sure what point you consider made, included and dismissed.
2. I would agree that only pointing out what D&D does not do (simulationist) would be dismissive. But plenty of posters in this thread have pointed out what D&D does do (fantasy archetypes). So the argument is not so much "not simulationist so doesn't matter," but rather "D&D is not necessarily simulationist, and here are good sound reasons why it is not simulationist in this case."
3. The balance concerns have also been addressed in this thread. Dexterity may indeed be considered a top-tier ability score, but melee martials are perhaps the least contributing factor to Dexterity's popularity. WotC would be better served by adjusting other aspects of the game, such as tuning down Ranged builds and providing more uses for Strength.



This is just playing with words. You just referenced Flynn-esque archetypes, which is "fantasy" in so far that it is fiction, but still very heavily grounded in the real world.
Errol Flynn was known for portraying swashbucklers who favored finesse and dexterity over raw strength, represented in D&D by Finesse weapons allowing the use of Dexterity instead of Strength. I don't agree that Flynn-esque archetypes are grounded in the real world. But even if I did, then it would invalidate the original premise of the thread that such archetypes do not make sense from simulationist point of view.


For some people who might be interested, here is the link to the document compiling my house rules.
Not everything has been thoroughly tested, not everything is used all at once, but my players seem to like it a lot overall.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w91k1ASy2j-NitVaii5Ih6TLwoV9Xfym/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=108361120139064883498&rtpof=true&sd=true
I am interested! Thank you! I don't have the time to go in depth on it right now, but I'll bookmark it and give feedback (via PM so as to not derail the thread).

[KorvinStarmast]

Perhaps the best way to help a martial be faster in initiative order would be to either grant him advantage on initiative or grant him proficiency in initiative (or both). The Champion Fighter kind-of gets this at level 7, since initiative is a Dexterity check and thus he can add half his proficiency to it. This could be done per class as a class or subclass feature, and assigned at the level determined to be too high to dip if that's a concern. I'd like to see that particular feature improved a bit, but yes, it's a start.

[diplomancer]

Perhaps the best way to help a martial be faster in initiative order would be to either grant him advantage on initiative or grant him proficiency in initiative (or both). The Champion Fighter kind-of gets this at level 7, since initiative is a Dexterity check and thus he can add half his proficiency to it. This could be done per class as a class or subclass feature, and assigned at the level determined to be too high to dip if that's a concern.

Though it is a nice boost to martials, it doesn't solve the problem of Dex being, overall, better than Str.

[Amechra]

Errol Flynn was known for portraying swashbucklers who favored finesse and dexterity over raw strength, represented in D&D by Finesse weapons allowing the use of Dexterity instead of Strength. I don't agree that Flynn-esque archetypes are grounded in the real world. But even if I did, then it would invalidate the original premise of the thread that such archetypes do not make sense from simulationist point of view.0

Heck, Errol Flynn is also notorious for not actually knowing how to use the swords that he waved around, because the point was that he was a handsome actor who otherwise played the part of a lovable rogue really well.

As a result, fencing weapons should use Charisma.

[animorte]

Heck, Errol Flynn is also notorious for not actually knowing how to use the swords that he waved around, because the point was that he was a handsome actor who otherwise played the part of a lovable rogue really well.

As a result, fencing weapons should use Charisma.

Hexblade/Swashbuckler it is!

[Selion]

Strongest melee characters use polearm and GMW, also, full plate AC is better than light armor + max Dex AC, so this point is not even a issue.
Dual wielder / sword and board Dex characters are viable options, but are usually weaker than heavy weapons users

If anything, Dex based initiative is the big selling point, stats are otherwise not that unbalanced

The weird thing is that martial ranged characters do almost the same damage as melee, because of crossbow expert, but everything about that feat is a mistake.

[diplomancer]

I believe one other mistake people make is to forget how abstract the ability scores are. Of course If you have very high Dex you have developed muscles, and are not at all a "dainty dandy". You wouldn't be able to pull out the Acrobatic stunts that you can do if you didn't. It's just that these muscles are not the same muscles we associate with the "Str archetypes", being mostly about Core strength.

I'm not sure I've even seen an Errol Flynn movie, but, assuming he did his own stunts, I'm pretty sure he was quite fit, whatever his swordfighting skills; but the way the archetype maps out to D&D is "high Dex". Sure, if realism was the goal you could require both Str and Dex for a lot of different things, and maybe in an "everybody's a martial with high stats" game it could work. But in D&D, with its all powerful casters, you really don't want to go down that road, and sacrificing some realism to overall balance is a good idea.

Alternatively, and I think that's a much better idea that deserves some thought, you could perhaps merge Dex and Str in just one stat; that could work out alright and be an interesting boost to martials to boot (and to a few other corner cases, like the non-Hexblade Pact of the Blade Warlock). It's what I'd recommend to those bothered by Finesse. But the six ability scores are a sacred cow.

[Chronic]

I am interested! Thank you! I don't have the time to go in depth on it right now, but I'll bookmark it and give feedback (via PM so as to not derail the thread).
I think this version of the document is read only but can be commented on. Pm is fine too. Do not hesitate, always happy to have feedback.
On the subject at hand:
Now that I think of it, I do believe that the rapier is overtuned compared to other melee weapon with finesse.

For the idea of giving advantage on init for strength based characters, why not, but why have a specific feature that involve rolling, when using strength modifier provide a fairly similar boost, albeit invariable. I mean advantage is in average +3.5 on a d20 roll, main ability score usually goes from +3 to +5. I'll go for straight and simple for this. Plus it has the added advantage of a character being able to still receive advantage on init from a feature or an outside source.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I believe one other mistake people make is to forget how abstract the ability scores are. Of course If you have very high Dex you have developed muscles, and are not at all a "dainty dandy". You wouldn't be able to pull out the Acrobatic stunts that you can do if you didn't. It's just that these muscles are not the same muscles we associate with the "Str archetypes", being mostly about Core strength.

I'm not sure I've even seen an Errol Flynn movie, but, assuming he did his own stunts, I'm pretty sure he was quite fit, whatever his swordfighting skills; but the way the archetype maps out to D&D is "high Dex". Sure, if realism was the goal you could require both Str and Dex for a lot of different things, and maybe in an "everybody's a martial with high stats" game it could work. But in D&D, with its all powerful casters, you really don't want to go down that road, and sacrificing some realism to overall balance is a good idea. Alternatively, you could perhaps merge Dex and Str in just one stat; that could work out alright and be an interesting boost to martials to boot (and to a few other corner cases, like the non-Hexblade Pact of the Blade Warlock). It's what I'd recommend to those bothered by Finesse. But the six ability scores are a sacred cow.

Exactly. STR, the ability score, mostly maps into being jacked. The kinda no-neck, bulging muscles, brute force kind of person. Most of what we'd think of as a gymnast's physique (and gymnasts are super strong) or a triathalon competitor or most non-weightlifting-event olympic athletes maps onto DEX. It has very little to do with trying to measure bench press or deadlift or anything else like that. Just like INT is not IQ. They're all archetypal. Sure, it takes a certain kind of intelligence and "presence" (charisma, roughly) to really fight well (you can't be a drooling moron or a shrinking violet that backs down in the face of challenge). But it doesn't take INT or CHA to do so.

[Segev]

Though it is a nice boost to martials, it doesn't solve the problem of Dex being, overall, better than Str.

What, other than initiative, does a Str-based character need Dex for?

AC? He's probably wearing heavy armor, so no.

Dexterity saves? Fair; everyone has some save or another they're bad at.

Dexterity checks? Fair, but again, everyone has abilities they're not good at. And Dexterity doesn't have a disproportionate number of things calling for checks to be rolled on it, especially not for the strength-based guy who calls for his own preferred stat to be rolled in a lot of cases because of its use in combat.

Am I missing something?

[strangebloke]

Dexterity is fine. Martials being able to focus the best stat in the game is fine. These characters aren't overpowered and if they are the entire problem comes down to sharpshooter, not finesse. A sharpshooter samurai isn't breaking the game they're just pretty solid within a couple niches, and the rapier isn't part of what makes them strong.

Similarly, a cleric using rapier and shield might be powerful, but not because of the rapier.

Dexterity is fine.

Strength needs to be better though

[Segev]

Strength needs to be better though

I am not sure I agree that it needs to be better, but I am not opposed to it being better. Do you have any ideas for how it could be made better?

[strangebloke]

I am not sure I agree that it needs to be better, but I am not opposed to it being better. Do you have any ideas for how it could be made better?

Plate armor gives ac 15+ prof

Base speed is reduced to 20 and strength gives a movement bonus equal to str mod times 5.

Not hard to fix, really.

[Segev]

Plate armor gives ac 15+ prof

Base speed is reduced to 20 and strength gives a movement bonus equal to str mod times 5.

Not hard to fix, really.

I am not parsing this. Can you elaborate on it? I am either brain farting hard or the shorthand you're using is just not registering. Thanks!

[diplomancer]

What, other than initiative, does a Str-based character need Dex for?

AC? He's probably wearing heavy armor, so no.

Dexterity saves? Fair; everyone has some save or another they're bad at.

Dexterity checks? Fair, but again, everyone has abilities they're not good at. And Dexterity doesn't have a disproportionate number of things calling for checks to be rolled on it, especially not for the strength-based guy who calls for his own preferred stat to be rolled in a lot of cases because of its use in combat.

Am I missing something?


If proficiency to initiative was given to martials, it would be given to Dex martials; so Dex martials would still have better initiative.

[windgate]

Plate armor gives ac 15+ prof

Base speed is reduced to 20 and strength gives a movement bonus equal to str mod times 5.

Not hard to fix, really.

Interesting...

so at low levels, AC would be 17 but it scales up to 21 at end game. 24 /w Shield and defense fighting style. Assuming something similar for chain and scale (and possibly half-plate)?


I like the scaling movement speed but it might have a problematic relationship with variant encumbrance (which already exists as a motivation to have strength).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I would not change Rapier; make it a d6 and now it's just a worse short sword, so you might as well eliminate it from the game. The only reason why Rapier is considered "too good" is because two-weapon fighting is so bad (in later tiers specially). But with better two-weapon fighting rules, a Rapier+Shield would be a nice trade-off of defense over offense when compared with two Short Swords.

Take away Finesse from the game and now pretty much all Dex characters (who survived the purge; as mentioned before, Dexadins won't survive it) will take the Crossbow Expert Feat at the earliest opportunity. They just can't afford to be caught in melee without it; and as it is such a powerful feat, in one fell swoop you've eliminated long bow archers, dexadins, many melee Rangers, and all melee Rogues; that doesn't sound like an improvement to the game.

That line is XBE is exactly where I would start if I was going to limit Dex based martials. For all everyone goes off about SS and the amount of damage you can do (which is true) and the overpowered Archery Fighting Style (which is also true) there's no downside to being trapped close in if you have XBE. I don't like it thematically or from a balance issue. If you did this, then in feated games at least the trade off for a Dex build would have a down-side to compensate for all the benefits.
As a side note there are probably too many times, at least in published mods, where you can substitute a Dex based skill check for a Str based one.
But overall, I can't say I agree with the OP. Finesse, at least in games with Feats is the least of the issue.

Simply, a melee martial out of range is at a severe disadvantage; why should the same not be true for a ranged one?

Edit: I guess I should mention the one house rule our group does employ that impacts this balance. We just don't add a Dex modifier to initiative. It's simple, actually makes it quicker and easier for the DM, and does effectively add a little boost for Str based characters by nerfing others. In part we did this for balance, but also none of us could figure out why Dex would be impactful to speed for (as an example) a Cleric casting a spell or turning undead.

[Segev]

If proficiency to initiative was given to martials, it would be given to Dex martials; so Dex martials would still have better initiative.

Okay, and...?

I thought the point was that martials needed to be better at going before casters, not that strength martials needed to go as fast as dex martials.

[diplomancer]

Okay, and...?

I thought the point was that martials needed to be better at going before casters, not that strength martials needed to go as fast as dex martials.

And I thought the point, at least in this thread, was that, overall, dex martials were better than str martials, and something should be done to balance them. I don't necessarily agree with that point, but, for those who do, improving the initiative of all martials would not solve the issue.

If the issue is just to boost martials vis a vis casters, that is indeed a nice boost (specially after Gift of Alacrity was added to the game).

[Dr.Samurai]

Only barely. It's anachronistic, and flynning (the fighting style, which is what matters here) is entirely showmanship and completely impractical for actual combat. It's all about making people believe they're fighting, while being completely choreographed and ritual. Which is rather the point--the Errol Flynn archetype is entirely a Hollywood creation. Especially as applied to more Robin-Hood-esque types. But it's the genesis for much of our concept of swashbuckling as a style.
Then Dexterity would not apply, because dexterity does not govern showmanship.

The concept is about being lightly armored and, as it pertains to D&D, NOT muscled. That's it. If you didn't care about not being strong or being lightly armored, you'd just make them use Strength, because Jumping and Climbing are both governed by Strength and very much fit the swashbuckling concept, and Strength governs melee attacks.

Because Dex is the AC stat, you need it to capture the "lightly armored" part of the concept. You don't need it to make attacks because Strength already does that. But if you want to avoid having the character actually "be strong", then you want to avoid them relying on Strength, hence Dexterity.

The first one seems pretty strange? Strength has never really been associated with speed in the game.
Strength governs Jumping, which can avoid difficult terrain.
Strength governs Swimming.
Strength governs Climbing.
Strength governs whether you can move at full speed in Heavy Armor.
Strength governs how much you can carry before being slowed down by Encumbrance.
Strength governs most saving throws that overcome effects that grapple or restrain you, or knock you prone.

It is clear to me that Strength is the speed stat in 5E. It's not clear to me how Dexterity governs speed though.

[Psyren]

It's not clear to me how Dexterity governs speed though.

Initiative and Reflex. It's a different kind of speed, but it's speed.

[Dr.Samurai]

Initiative and Reflex. It's a different kind of speed, but it's speed.
Ah yes, good call!

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not sure I've even seen an Errol Flynn movie, but, assuming he did his own stunts, I'm pretty sure he was quite fit, whatever his swordfighting skills; but the way the archetype maps out to D&D is "high Dex". Sure, if realism was the goal you could require both Str and Dex for a lot of different things, and maybe in an "everybody's a martial with high stats" game it could work. But in D&D, with its all powerful casters, you really don't want to go down that road, and sacrificing some realism to overall balance is a good idea. .

I took a couple film courses and realized that I hadn't actually seen anything but clips*. Regardless, you don't really have to. Most of the people who have seen his stuff don't remember exactly what he played. I was certain until checking wikipedia that he'd played one of the three musketeers in an adaption. Daffy Duck, in the short The Scarlet Pumpernickel (where I probably first learned my swashbuckling tropes) seemed to have thought Flynn played the pimpernel role (actually Leslie Howard). The actor's archtype surpasses his actual filmography. The point is he played swashbucklers, pirates, and Robin Hood, and all the other iconic types of 'pre-modern fighting types who don't look like the out-bench press wrestlers or linebackers,' well enough that evoking his name explains the style. And it's really the style or type that is at issue. People want to be able to play that type of character, and then game can either tell them no (not a great option), pretend to tell them yes (what happened in 2e, not a great option), or find a way to make it work. Attributes as fulfilling archetypes instead of pure physical qualities** we can compare to realism isn't (to my knowledge) codified in the rules, but it is a way to explain how a low-strength PC can wield a rapier well that allows this archetype to be possible.
*of his work, but also stuff like the old Tarzan movies, much of noir, etc., it is worth going back to watch some of these, although yes, anyone who cares about realistic fighting will not be satisfied by a movie culture which came out of live theater and vaudeville
**something the OP cares about, but in that case I would love to hear an alternate avenue to the archetype being playable.



And I thought the point, at least in this thread, was that, overall, dex martials were better than str martials, and something should be done to balance them. I don't necessarily agree with that point, but, for those who do, improving the initiative of all martials would not solve the issue.
I've always thought that overall adventuring experience (in other words level, as represented by PB) would be a good alternate to a given attribute.

[KorvinStarmast]

Initiative and Reflex. It's a different kind of speed, but it's speed.
Quickness, not speed. :smallwink:

[strangebloke]

I am not parsing this. Can you elaborate on it? I am either brain farting hard or the shorthand you're using is just not registering. Thanks!
Plate armor gives an AC value that is equal to 15 plus the proficiency of the wearer. It deflects more blows if you know how to take advantage of the armor's shape. This means that at the levels where you'd normally get plate mail it would function normally, giving 18 AC, which is really strong for that level...

but then as levels climb, so does your max AC, capping at 21 without any other enchancements.

Currently, full plate is really bad. Disadvantage on stealth checks, STR requirements to wear it without a speed reduction, vulnerability to certain spells, high GP cost. Making it the gold standard for AC pumping at higher levels would go a long way toward making it attractive.

Secondly, I'd lower movement speeds for everyone by ten, but then have STR give you extra movement speed. Currently, a big reason STR builds are bad is because they have poor ranged options and can't get into melee. Similarly a big reason DEX builds are good is because they can leverage their speed to kite opponents.

With this houserule every character wants some strength so that they can move when needed. You can dump it, but then you're stuck with low movement which makes you unable to contribute in a lot of situations. This doesn't hurt ranged characters that badly since their advantages offset the low movement speed, but STR-based melee characters get to be very very fast. +5 gives you +25 movement, which means that your GWM barbarian guy is going to be way more consistently dangerous.

Interesting...

so at low levels, AC would be 17 but it scales up to 21 at end game. 24 /w Shield and defense fighting style. Assuming something similar for chain and scale (and possibly half-plate)?


I like the scaling movement speed but it might have a problematic relationship with variant encumbrance (which already exists as a motivation to have strength).
Variant encumbrance would work fine with this, though admittedly there'd probably need to be some extra work done on my numbers. Maybe keep base speed the same and give a +10 movement speed bonus if you have 15 or more STR.



It is clear to me that Strength is the speed stat in 5E. It's not clear to me how Dexterity governs speed though.
STR is pushing past obstacles
DEX is reacting to things.

[PhantomSoul]

Quickness, not speed. :smallwink:

speed, not Speed :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Currently, a big reason STR builds are bad is because they have poor ranged options and can't get into melee. Similarly a big reason DEX builds are good is because they can leverage their speed to kite opponents.

Personally I would rather just buff the ranged options available to Str. Like Javelins should probably be 60/150 and not require Thrown Style for you to toss more than one of them (bake that into the Extra Attack feature instead.) And rage should definitely apply to thrown weapon damage.

[Reach Weapon]

Do you have any ideas for how it could be made better?


Simply, a melee martial out of range is at a severe disadvantage

Change the item interaction text to specifically allow grabbing a handful, pile, bunch or similar tight grouping of like items in a single swipe and then add or alter ranges for the following items:

Light Hammer, Battleaxe, Lance, Trident & War-hammer (5'xSTR Modifier / 10'xSTR Modifier)
Hand-Axe (10'xSTR Modifier / 25'xSTR Modifier)
Javelin (20'xSTR Modifier / 40'xSTR Modifier)
Greataxe, Maul & Pike (2.5'xSTR Modifier / 5'xSTR Modifier)

[Dr.Samurai]

STR is pushing past obstacles
DEX is reacting to things.
Indeed.

If there's a race through an obstacle course that requires climb checks, swim checks, jumping, and resisting other effects that would slow, immobilize, or knock you down (requiring half your speed to stand up from), the Strong character will win over the Dexterous character, all other things being equal.

One of the suggestions I would make for making Strength matter, is simply to incorporate the types of obstacles that test Strength. I have no data on this apart from the comments I read on these forums, but it seems to me that there just aren't enough calls for Strength/Athletics, whether it's holding a frontline and preventing a monster from tripping you or grabbing you and picking you up and pressing forward, or whether its an obstacle course of a battlefield that requires Athletics to progress and also to resist setbacks.

I think the game wants these things to be important, but they really aren't in most games.

@Psyren: Agree re ranged weapons as well.

[sithlordnergal]

We know what finesse does – allowing to use Dexterity instead of Strength to make melee attacks with some weapons. It is also an awful, bad ability. Why? Because it neither makes sense from simulationist point of view- the selection which weapons could benefit from finesse is completely arbitrary, with rapiers as notoriously tiring weapons requiring a lot of lower arm strength to wield properly really requiring more physical strength, while there is no real reason (and a lot of complaining) why a longsword (an actually less tiresome weapon to wield, especially when using both arms) isn’t.

It makes no sense from a balancing standpoint either, as Dexterity is already a very useful and commonly used ability with a clear purpose for most characters; adding the ability to attack with melee weapons to this, leads to more monolithic, and less interesting characters.
The solution is simple: Retire finesse as a unique trait. It is unnecessary. You can either expand it to all weapons, or, probably better, delete it in its entirety (and yes, this would allow you to make sneak attacks with any weapon, to the rejoicing of the few rogues who are familiar with martial weapons and are now able to use their greatsword. Ambushes with greatsword still make more sense (and maybe more fun) than precision strikes with a longbow, anyway.

I actually disagree with this, simply because it removes the viability of Dex based fighting. I recently made a 3.5 Rogue, and was given a harsh reminder of how screwed over martials get in 3.5. Not due to magic, but due to martial weapon mechanics. In order to make an effective Rogue in 3.5 you needed:

- Dexterity for AC, cause you really only had Light Armor, and Ranged attacks

- Strength for melee attacks and all damage

- Intelligence for Skills

- Constitution cause you need HP

Now, there was Weapon Finesse, which allowed you to use Dexterity for Melee Attack rolls, but I could not find a feat that allowed you to use Dex instead of Str for damage with martial weapons. So you were stuck with making sure you had at least a 10 in your Strength in order to avoid dealing damage with a -1 penalty. Additionally, the bonus damage from ability scores usually didn't matter much because 3.5 had so many magic items, and you were expected to have so many, that they made up for any penalties you might have had. Plus the numbers ballooned to a point where +1 and +0 were effectively the same.


5e changed all of that. By adding the Finesse trait, they made it so you can have a Dexterity based martial character without worrying about pumping up Strength. Because in 5e, those ability score modifiers matter a lot more. A +1 has a lot more impact in 5e then it did in 3.5.

Now, I have seen suggestions of making it so only certain classes can use Dex over Strength. I would say that's a poor idea. By restricting the use of Dexterity to a small number of classes, like the Ranger and Rogue, you lose every other martial class that could use Dexterity over Strength. Or you make multiclassing a requirement for those classes. Now I'm sure you could patch this with Fighting Styles or whatever, but those come at a pretty high opportunity cost. You end up in a similar situation as Dual Wielding is in, where its just not a good option to take.

Of course some people may see that as a boon, since they are under the impression that Dex is better than Str. But I feel those people are pointing at the wrong problem. The reason Dex is "better" than Str isn't due to Finesse Weapons, its because there are very few good Strength based Range weapons and the amount of spells and abilities that use Dexterity saves.

Think about it, what is the best non-magical Thrown weapon in the game? Welp, its the Javelin. It has a range of 30/120, deals 1d6 damage, and can be wielded in one hand. But due to rules on drawing weapons, you can really only throw one Javelin at a time, unless you start your turn with a Javelin already drawn. Compare that with the Shortbow, it has a range of 80/320, deals 1d6 damage, can be fired multiple times in a round, and is Two-Handed.

Like it or not, the Shortbow is just a better ranged weapon then the Javelin. Sure, you can use a Shield when you use a Javelin, but Shortbow has a better range, same damage, and can be fired multiple times in a round. And that's just a Shortbow, it gets outclassed by the Longbow in every single aspect.

Wanna fix the Str/Dex issue? Then make better Thrown weapons. Make a weapon that lets you draw it as part of the attack action to throw it, give it a longer range, and hell, make it a d8 weapon to match the Longbow. Boom, you fixed a lot of the issues with Dex vs. Str.


EDIT: I also saw some people talking about how Sharpshooter is the cause for Dex being "better". Once again, I think this is directed at the wrong thing. Compare Sharpshooter to Great Weapon Master, I'd actually say the two feats are pretty equal to each other. Sharpshooter lets you make attacks at Long Range without Disadvantage, ignore 1/2 and 3/4ths cover, and add +10 damage at a -5 penalty. Unless you're using a Hand Crossbow, Net, Blowgun, or Dart, that first bit isn't going to come up very often because most 5e combat is down within 150ft. The second benefit depends on the DM, but if your DM is adding a lot of 1/2 and 3/4th cover, chances are there's also full cover to negate it, otherwise there's just no cover at all. Finally, it lets you make an attack with a -5 to hit for +10 damage.

All in all, its benefits are on par with Great Weapon Master. Sharpshooter's benefits are more niche, while Great Weapon Master's bonus attack happens more often. The reason Sharpshooter seems better is because of the Archery Fighting Style. I am willing to bet that if we changed the Archery Fighting style from adding +2 to hit to rerolling your damage dice if you roll a 1 or 2, or if we changed Great Weapon Fighting to add +2 to hit, the two styles would be seen as being equal.

[strangebloke]

Personally I would rather just buff the ranged options available to Str. Like Javelins should probably be 60/150 and not require Thrown Style for you to toss more than one of them (bake that into the Extra Attack feature instead.) And rage should definitely apply to thrown weapon damage.

I think its more fun to create multiple unique playstyles. Having STR be able to do most of the same things DEX does - but worse - is not ideal IMO. I think STR builds should be uniquely capable at getting in on enemies, dealing damage and/or disrupting them, in exchange for being less efficient against flyers and in exchange for putting themselves at risk.

[Mastikator]

I think its more fun to create multiple unique playstyles. Having STR be able to do most of the same things DEX does - but worse - is not ideal IMO. I think STR builds should be uniquely capable at getting in on enemies, dealing damage and/or disrupting them, in exchange for being less efficient against flyers and in exchange for putting themselves at risk.

I think the (mostly loved) Giant path UA for barbarians show exactly this. For example being able to shove further with high strength score. Maybe very high strength characters should have the option to trip opponents that are two size categories rather than one.

I also think higher levels should factor in harder with extreme feats of strength, like a barbarian ripping out a tree from its roots and using it to crush several opponents. That could be available specifically to high level fighters and barbarians

[Psyren]

I think its more fun to create multiple unique playstyles. Having STR be able to do most of the same things DEX does - but worse - is not ideal IMO. I think STR builds should be uniquely capable at getting in on enemies, dealing damage and/or disrupting them, in exchange for being less efficient against flyers and in exchange for putting themselves at risk.

I think "Str is Dex but worse" is massively overblown around here.

Str already has plenty of unique things it can do that Dex can't. You can't scoop up a fallen ally with Dex and escape the battlefield when things are going south. Dex can get you past locked doors, but Str can get you past locked, stuck, and barricaded ones too. Or carrying loot - your DM might be nice enough to give you magical storage, but that's not a guarantee in 5e the way it was before, especially at low-mid levels. And you can't scale walls or clear chasms with Dex (well, the latter with a very permissive DM maybe.) And combat-wise, grapple can be a pretty reliable and resourceless form of control. In short, Str is too often dismissed or undersold imo.

[Sorinth]

I think its more fun to create multiple unique playstyles. Having STR be able to do most of the same things DEX does - but worse - is not ideal IMO. I think STR builds should be uniquely capable at getting in on enemies, dealing damage and/or disrupting them, in exchange for being less efficient against flyers and in exchange for putting themselves at risk.

Well the natural playstyle difference is the grapple/shove, with DMG overrun and disarm could be made to be strength based as well. Upgrading those base options would probably go a long way to making a strength fighter and a dex fighter feel different in combat. For example if they made standing up from prone trigger OAs then you'd probably see a lot more shove attacks since they can recoup the action economy cost, or you could just have them to half damage on success, so you are still trading damage for control but it's just not as big of a difference. Grapple could by default cause Str mod damage (Min 1) at the start of the grappled creatures turn and it would know doubt see more play without being super strong.

It all comes down to how powerful and complex you want to make it. And there's a strong argument that the 5e designers got it right by keeping things simple but even a small and straightforward boost like having the Shove attack push distance be based on the difference in opposed checks (Round up to nearest 5') would help differentiate str/dex builds a little more.

[Damon_Tor]

D&D AC works if you think of Strength puncturing armour, Dex finding gaps and Dex being good at hitting 'dodgy' things but completely breaks when you consider a Strong character trying to hit an agile character (i.e. a Troll going after a Hobbit). The first RPG I played had armour as damage reduction and I was really perplexed when D&D had AC for both agile and heavily armoured characters as if that made any sense at all.

I don't see the problem. If your blow never connects in the first place then it doesn't matter whether you're going for gaps in the armor or try to pierce through it. Some game systems have these as two different rolls: 1 roll to hit, 1 roll to see if you bypass or punch though armor, then a third roll for damage. But that's three rolls where two will do just fine, so I don't really care about adding a fiddly dodge/to hit system on top of an armor/piercing system. 5e combines them into one thing, and that works fine.

In 5e the chance to hit a guy with a given weapon (as opposed to bypass the armor) is mostly a function of weapon skill, ie proficiency. So if you'd really like it to be granular you could say that if you miss by an amount less than your proficiency bonus you "hit them" but the armor took the hit, either because you missed the gap you were going for (if finesse) or because your strike didn't have the power to punch through the armor.

[Goobahfish]

Strength governs Jumping, which can avoid difficult terrain.
Strength governs Swimming.
Strength governs Climbing.
Strength governs whether you can move at full speed in Heavy Armor.
Strength governs how much you can carry before being slowed down by Encumbrance.
Strength governs most saving throws that overcome effects that grapple or restrain you, or knock you prone.

It is clear to me that Strength is the speed stat in 5E. It's not clear to me how Dexterity governs speed though.

So... Elves have high Dex. Elves are quick.
AC in light armour literally determines how quick your 'reflexes' are to avoid being hit. Likewise a Reflex save is about jumping out of the way of something. Climbing isn't fast, Swimming isn't fast. It is actually weird that Strength governs Athletics at all especially jumping (that said, it was this way in 3.5).

Also seriously the argument is about speed in heavy armour? So not being able to physically move because you are too weak thus dictates how fast you can move unencumbered. That is drawing a long bow.

Of course, in my own system I use Agility for climbing and jumping (rather than Strength or Dexterity) and Wit for initiative (because it makes far more sense to me).

[AvatarVecna]

Isn't that 4e.

(That's the joke.)

[strangebloke]

I think the (mostly loved) Giant path UA for barbarians show exactly this. For example being able to shove further with high strength score. Maybe very high strength characters should have the option to trip opponents that are two size categories rather than one.

I also think higher levels should factor in harder with extreme feats of strength, like a barbarian ripping out a tree from its roots and using it to crush several opponents. That could be available specifically to high level fighters and barbarians
If you have a DM who's really permissive with you then you can do things like this. Most players like strong characters being able to do things like this. It should be supported in the rules.

I think "Str is Dex but worse" is massively overblown around here.

Str already has plenty of unique things it can do that Dex can't. You can't scoop up a fallen ally with Dex and escape the battlefield when things are going south. Dex can get you past locked doors, but Str can get you past locked, stuck, and barricaded ones too. Or carrying loot - your DM might be nice enough to give you magical storage, but that's not a guarantee in 5e the way it was before, especially at low-mid levels. And you can't scale walls or clear chasms with Dex (well, the latter with a very permissive DM maybe.) And combat-wise, grapple can be a pretty reliable and resourceless form of control. In short, Str is too often dismissed or undersold imo.
Its overblown to a degree, and I've gone into situations where STR is probably better. Most notably paladins who want to go into melee, since they can just start with 16 STR and get good AC while picking up feats/+CHA asis.

But nah, fighters, rogues, monks, and rangers are almost strictly better with a DEX focus. Everything you're describing isn't a unique or unavoidable thing. Athletics is a decent skill but you can just take the skill/expertise, hyperfocusing the ability isn't worth it. Grappling frankly sucks ass and isn't very useful except against specific enemy types. It limits your offensive potential while doing nothing else. It's fun and there are some niche cases where it kicks ass but its not a great strategy.

Certainly, boosting the playstyle and giving it more unique advantages wouldn't be bad for the game's health.

Well the natural playstyle difference is the grapple/shove, with DMG overrun and disarm could be made to be strength based as well. Upgrading those base options would probably go a long way to making a strength fighter and a dex fighter feel different in combat. For example if they made standing up from prone trigger OAs then you'd probably see a lot more shove attacks since they can recoup the action economy cost, or you could just have them to half damage on success, so you are still trading damage for control but it's just not as big of a difference. Grapple could by default cause Str mod damage (Min 1) at the start of the grappled creatures turn and it would know doubt see more play without being super strong.

It all comes down to how powerful and complex you want to make it. And there's a strong argument that the 5e designers got it right by keeping things simple but even a small and straightforward boost like having the Shove attack push distance be based on the difference in opposed checks (Round up to nearest 5') would help differentiate str/dex builds a little more.
Grappling, disarming, and overruning all kind of suck, and even if you need to get them you're better off getting expertise in Athletics than focusing on the ability score.

Ability mod damage isn't a good idea.

Boosts to grappling would be fine, yeah. But movement speed bonuses are IMO the biggest thing.