D&D 5E the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

A basic but big change when comparing 5e to 3e is the impact of dex. Dexterity has always been a very useful ability - it's tied in with more skills, esp important for stealth, and can also save your life (by say, catching yourself before falling over the edge of the waterfall or whatever). Strength's uses were more limited - a few skills, more carrying capacity but it had one big important use: hurting stuff.

Finesse characters were possible in 3e and quite viable in fact - their high dexterity often made them decent tankers, they were very mobile and good at stealth and acrobatics. The downside was they didn't do as much damage.

Now in 5e the master fencer (dex melee fighter) is just as dangerous as a strength based fighter. Because of how the AC works in 5e the ACs can be about the same, and the damage too - a high dex fighter doesn't try to cut off your head, he stabs you in the eye. Sure he can't carry as much as the strength fighter, but he doesn't have to be wearing heavy armor either.

Is this a problem? Well, probably not. Where it gets really problematic IMO is when archery comes into play.

It used to be that the archer was pretty weak in melee. She didn't have melee weapons focus, and her melee damage was low. In fact her archery damage wasn't super high either unless she took a high dex high strength character (but then her con usually suffered). Now since dex counts for damage, she only needs two good stats - dex and con for suitability. And if she is forced into melee? Well she's pretty good now with a finesse weapon!

If the party is in a situation where ranged attack are much superior, the dex melee fighter (that master fencer) will be highly effective - perhaps not as much as the specialist archer, but still far superior to the strength-based fighter.

The other advantages of dex (stealth, skills, life saving stuff) still remain. And ranged fighting is more effective for other reasons too (no penalties for firing into melee, cover and ranged penalties can be eliminated with a feat, ranged fighting style gives +2 accuracy). I'm thus left to conclude that in 5e dex is now vastly superior to strength.

Now, this is probably old news for you folks who aren't still learning 5e. I'm sure there were threads about this previously so... what were the conclusions? Am I wrong?

edit: Just to be clear, I consider the root of the problem to be the addition of dex to ranged damage

 

[matskralc]

In general, Dex seems more valuable. It's probably trickier for a Dex based fighter to come up with as much AC as a Str based fighter in plate mail can, though. A Str based fighter in plate with a shield and the protection fighting style has, what, AC 21? A Dex based fighter in studded leather with a shield, +5 Dex, and protection fighting style gets up to 20. It's "only" 1 off, but if I need to roll a 15 to hit Mr Fast, then the 16 that I need in order to hit Mr Strong is reducing his damage taken by roughly, what, 17%.

A grappling/shoving fighter can be very good and a Dex build won't help with a whole lot.

The variant encumbrance rules can make Strength matter, too. You can carry up to 5 times your strength score before losing 10 feet of movement. Mr Fast might not need heavy armor, but he's not carrying as much gear/loot, either. If he's Str 10, he's got 31 lbs left after studded leather/shield. Mr Strong, at 20 Str, has 44 lbs left after armor/shield. Of course, that just encourages dumping Int even more than the game already does for non-wizards.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not everyone makes their characters based on min/maxing. In fact, most don't. Most people play a character based on a thematic archetype they have in their head that has very little to do with metagaming or mechanics.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Mostly because weapons and armor.

There are no Dex weapons that are 2 handed. If you want a Polearm or to roll 2d6 for damage, you pretty much need strength

As for armor, heavy armor has the edge, and it scales faster since it doesn't require 20 in a stat for max AC.

 

[mellored]

Dex gives you almost as much damage, and almost as much AC. But it's still less.
Also, Strength can throw javelins so it has a ranged option as well.
Plus knocking someone prone and grapple are Str based.
Plus feats like shield master and heavy armor master.

So there are plenty of situations where Str is better.

That said archery style is generally better synergy with sharp shooter and crossbow expertise have better synergy then the Str damage. But it's not vastly better, or always better.

 

[Illithidbix]

You get to wear heavy armour and use weapons that use D10 + Reach OR D12 or 2D6 Damage. + Great Weapon Fighting Style.

Also to use Athletics to grapple or Shove Prone and then use Action Surge to kurb stomp.
Esp. given so few monsters or NPCs are proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics.

You can use Acrobatics to *oppose* shoves/grapples etc but playing Dex focused Rangers/Monks I have found I oddly miss the option to knock a foe down at times.

Also because sometimes I want the aesthetic of a armour clad bruiser with a huge weapon.

 

[hejtmane]

It depends on what you want out of the character you could dip Barbarian 13 strength dump stat and you can get to 20 without shield for a 1 level dump for a 2 level in barbarian you can also get advantage on dex saving throw. Then all your asi focus is dex,con and feats if you want.

Then again a dex fighter with studded leather and shield and defense is 20

Studded plus max dex is 17
plate is 18
Half plate (14 dex) 17 ac with feat and a 16+ dex ac 18

I would say that the difference is small when it comes to AC

Dex dis advantage is only one 1d8 finesse weapon and no 2 handed weapons
Then again a dex hand crossbow with crossbow expert and sharpshooter can match any fo the 2 handed dps feat builds

Strength is where you go if you want plate 2 Handed weapons and more 1d8 weapon options

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I feel like the fight of Prince Oberyn vs. The Mountain is somehow applicable here.

That being said, as others have said, sometimes you need a nimble character, sometimes you need brute strength. The great thing about 5e is the versatility and validity of different play styles.

 

[Salamandyr]

Dex is overpowered in 5e...definitely. A big part of this is less to do with finessable weapons than with ranged combat being seriously overpowered relative to melee combat.

That being said, Strength does have a few things going for it.
The highest damage weapons are strength based.
Plate Armor doesn't absolutely require high strength, but is more useful if you have it.
Athletics is more useful than Acrobatics (though not more useful than stealth...*sigh*)
A high strength and athletics opens up some cool combat options.
The Barbarian class lives on it.
If your campaign uses encumbrance (I know, right?), then a high strength lets you carry more stuff.

I got rid of the sharpshooter feat, and disallowed the rapier. Dexterity is still flat better than Strength (a dex warrior is a threat for a hundreds of feet, a strength fighter is barely a threat outside of five feet) but it's not completely overshadowed.

 

[Salamandyr]

Dex is overpowered in 5e...definitely. A big part of this is less to do with finessable weapons than with ranged combat being seriously overpowered relative to melee combat.

That being said, Strength does have a few things going for it.
The highest damage weapons are strength based.
Plate Armor doesn't absolutely require high strength, but is more useful if you have it.
Athletics is more useful than Acrobatics (though not more useful than stealth...*sigh*)
A high strength and athletics opens up some cool combat options.
The Barbarian class lives on it.
If your campaign uses encumbrance (I know, right?), then a high strength lets you carry more stuff.

I got rid of the sharpshooter feat, and disallowed the rapier. Dexterity is still flat better than Strength (a dex warrior is a threat for a hundreds of feet, a strength fighter is barely a threat outside of five feet) but it's not completely overshadowed.