D&D (2024) Dexterity too good?

[Pauln6]

I used to limit quivers to 12 arrows and quarrels to 10 bolts. If you carry extra, it bumps you up on the encumbrance chart due to bulk. Rather than do complex book-keeping, you can also just bump people up the encumbrance chart (or just reduce movement speed by 10 feet) if they wear armour based on their strength, e.g light armour Str11+, medium Str13+, heavy Str15+. It's fairly simple and easy to achieve with points buy but makes certain optimiser builds a bit harder to achieve.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The same is true for dex and stealth and thievery. You can gatekeep things behind locked doors or behond u beatabke foes. But who would do that?

Str might allow you to take a shortcut by climbing, breaking doors, rowing agains a strong current.

I always find it interesting where having dex dependend challenges are just normal adventuring things, but if someone asks for strength checks, it is gate keeping.

I didn't make any claim that Dex checks didn't have the same limitation. I'm merely pointing out that even though Str can do things that nothing else can -- which seemed to be the argument upthread -- that doesn't mean Str is necessarily more valuable.

In other words, you're making the same counterpoint I am.

 

[Clint_L]

I can't speak to what happens at other tables, but at my own str based classes are generally the heavy hitters. CritRoleStats also tracks damage dealt through three campaigns and over 300 games, and strength-based classes are consistently at or near the top. If you look at DPR tier rankings, who is consistently near the bottom? Dex-based classes.

On top of that, the theory crafters have been at it and shown the new weapon masteries to be a much bigger damage buff than most folks realize. Right now, dex-based classes are slightly behind but competitive, but that will soon change, for rogues at least (though hopefully they get at least one mastery; I can't recall if they will).

The issue with strength being under-utilized is legit, but I don't think that should be wrapped up with dexterity. One issue is that it has almost no application to skill checks. Another is that some of the things that used to be really important (encumbrance and carrying capacity, in particular) are now mostly hand-waved. Damage dealing is not really a problem for those classes; rather, it's that they tend to have fewer options inside and outside of combat. I could see strength being tied to more than just damage - what about giving more combat options that could sit on top of attacks, and that use a DC predicated upon strength? You could also tie strength to more skills, such as persuasion, intimidation, performance, survival, etc., perhaps by making it an alternate option, or by letting players choose to average multiple attribute bonuses for different skill checks.

 

[NotAYakk]

It isn't that Dex is too good. It is that Strength is no better than int/wis/cha.

Con: needed by everyone for HP
Dex: needed by everyone for AC/Initiative

Other stats: Adds to skills, your combat abilities if that is your stat of choice, saves.

Next, Con/Dex/Wis get "bigger" saves, Wis gets perception, and Cha is basically all social interaction.

Int in theory gets knowledge stuff. If the DM uses it to leak monster weaknesses, it is pretty useful.

Strength gets encumbrance, climbing, jumping.

...

Dex has XBE+SS+Archery style for +1 attack, -3 to hit, 3d6+30 damage (40.5) (+other mods*3)
Str has GWM+PAM+GWF style for +1 attack, -5 to hit, 2d10+1d4+30 damage (45.6) (+other mods*3) and a reaction attack and reach.
Str has PAM+Dueling style for +1 attack, -0 to hit, 2d6+1d4+6 damage (15.5) (+other mods*3) and a reaction attack and a shield.

The +5ish damage Str gets over Dex isn't really worth the -2 to hit it costs.

OTOH, Str-based advantage is easier. Barbarians get it for free, and prone is an easier condition to apply than anything that gives a ranged PC advantage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn't make any claim that Dex checks didn't have the same limitation. I'm merely pointing out that even though Str can do things that nothing else can -- which seemed to be the argument upthread -- that doesn't mean Str is necessarily more valuable.

In other words, you're making the same counterpoint I am.

Then I misunderstood you. Ok. Both are more or less equal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, I have reservations about changes to dex/str that seem intended to benefit classes like fighter/barbarian/paladin, for whom dex is secondary/tertiary (again, some fighters excepted) at the expense of rogue/ranger/monk, for whom dex is primary. If you link weapon damage die to strength, that hurts those classes by making them even more MAD.

If anything, it's the dex-based classes that are going to need a damage buff, especially once weapon masteries happen.

The problem here is that Dex and Con are secondary or tertiary stats for literally every class in the game that's not Dex-primary other than paladins, many fighters, and some clerics. But the endless parade of Dex 14 characters (or rarely dex 16 on a 16/16 stat split) gets boring. I don't actually mind Con being everyone's secondary; it feels thematic that adventurers are tough thanks to the School of Hard Knocks. But not that they are all nimble with the exception of some fighters, most paladins, and some clerics.

I can't speak to what happens at other tables, but at my own str based classes are generally the heavy hitters. CritRoleStats also tracks damage dealt through three campaigns and over 300 games, and strength-based classes are consistently at or near the top. If you look at DPR tier rankings, who is consistently near the bottom? Dex-based classes.

Str primary has never been the problem and they are indeed the front line heavy hitters. The problem is that I'd estimate about 50% of characters I've seen that are not Str-primary or Dex-primary have Dex 14, Str 8. (The Str primary characters are roughly 75% Int 8). The power of primary stats and of secondary stats are two different issues.

 

[Corinnguard]

I prefer DEX-based characters because I like the idea of dancing across the battlefield, dodging blows while landing my own. I just can't see myself being a tank.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The same is true for dex and stealth and thievery. You can gatekeep things behind locked doors or behond u beatabke foes. But who would do that?

Str might allow you to take a shortcut by climbing, breaking doors, rowing agains a strong current.

I always find it interesting where having dex dependend challenges are just normal adventuring things, but if someone asks for strength checks, it is gate keeping.

Never seen requiring strength checks as gatekeeping. Just something that is normally easily bypassed by magic or even racial options; lifting's easily changed and climbing, jumping, and swimming are all easily replacable by magic - and lifting is not only magic, a Str 10 Goliath is as good at lifting as a Str 20 human. Stealth mostly gets overwhelmed by Pass Without Trace.

But that's avoiding the core issues. Literally everyone not in heavy armour likes having AC from dexterity. Literally everyone likes a high initiative. And Dexterity is one of the big three saves (Dex/Ref, Con/Fort, Wis/Will) while Str saving throws are rare. Dexterity is a good candidate for secondary stat for almost everyone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Dexterity is a good candidate for secondary stat for almost everyone.

Yes. As it has been for the last 28 years I played D&D...

So is con. Wisdom joined 20 years ago.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes. As it has been for the last 28 years I played D&D...

So is con. Wisdom joined 20 years ago.

In the TSR era Dexterity was nothing like as overwhelming. For that matter in the 3.0/3.5 era if you were a dex-type you couldn't drop Str at low-medium levels; you didn't come with Weapon Finesse and ranged damage used Str.

And in the 4e era Int would cover for Dex on the saving throws and AC (and Cha for Wis on saves). So Dex was marginally better but only marginally.

5e is the most dominant Dex has ever been.