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

[noob]

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

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

[Droppeddead]

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

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

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

I have found this to work quite well.

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

Exactly.

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

CR 1: Giant Spider is the earliest case.

[Unoriginal]

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

Why? Is it an Arthur Dent-only campaign?

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

Why? Is it an Arthur Dent-only campaign?

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

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

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

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

The opening post answers this a bit

Mage armor, shield, natural armor, or unarmored defense all get you a decent ac. Take the right fighting styles or spells. You can even bump it up with a dip in bladesinger if you like. You can play most (all?) classes with a DEX focus too so really... most classes are still viable.

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

[Theodoxus]

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

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

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

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

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

ETA:

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

The opening post answers this a bit

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

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

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

[verbatim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why do you assume it has to be resourceless?

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

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

[Tes]

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

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

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

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

[x3n0n]

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

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

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

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

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

And why do you assume it has to be resourceless?

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

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

Granting the premise:

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

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

[strangebloke]

My hot take:

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

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

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

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

[Willowhelm]

My hot take:

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

My hot take:

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

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

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

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

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

Optimized thread titles decreases this effect. (Although the current title is a nice music reference)

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Willie the Duck]

My hot take:

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

My hot take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[strangebloke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the first place, I completely agree. As said in my first post, the classes that can use strength are in the minority, and even then its only an option with pros and cons (except for barbarian, who need strength but can also get dexterity easily.)

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

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

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

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

Obviously you can get total cover by lying prone, but you won't always. As usual I'm doing a poor job explaining myself because I've got some specific instances from my home game in mind, involving a lot of shrubbery (which couldn't provide full cover at all). Just disadvantage by itself is bad (you won't be using SS) but the +x AC is really what kills it.

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

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

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

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

My hot take:

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

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

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

A dexterity character has no weapon-dice larger than a D8

This is also not accurate.

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

Without Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, you also run into problems like "enemies lying prone behind cover" and "getting swarmed while exploring a narrow dungeon."

There are tons of great Dex builds that don’t rely on ranged attacks. And even ones that use ranged attacks that can negate prone by means other than Sharpshooter!

[*]stealth (but only if you're using light armor or a breastplate

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5eNeedsDarksun]

My hot take:

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

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

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

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

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