Will D&D make strength matter again?

[Zardnaar]

No, you don't get to add a feat into the discussion and call it even if I say the feat is not part of the discussion. Using shield master loses its effective rather quickly once you fight monsters bigger than you. Try using shield master in a campaign like against the giants. Completely worthless feat. Where as using a reaction to pump your AC is a big deal especially since the feat improves as you level.

I did. Use enlarge spell shield bash a storm giant prone.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If accuracy/precision is the reason we're adding dex bonus to damage, why are we not adding proficiency bonus to damage as well? Skill is just as important as natural ability, in my opinion anyways.

The real answer is that it's purely a game construct, to prevent finesse-type fighters from being terrible in melee combat. There was a big problem with finesse-type fighters in 3E, where they could spend a feat in order to make their attacks accurate enough, but there was nothing they could do to increase their damage to a meaningful level.

Remember, 3E started the trend of massive HP inflation, so fighters needed that extra damage in order to keep up. Rolling 1d6+0 for weapon damage was never going to drop a level-appropriate enemy. Sure, you could land a hit, but if that damage is trivial then the whole endeavor is a trap option. With 5E giving Dexterity to damage, at least finesse-weapons are no longer a trap.

It's just that their hand-wavy semi-abstraction raises more questions than it answers. If skill matters, then everyone should also add Proficiency to weapon damage rolls. And it's not like precision renders force irrelevant, so really everyone should be adding Strength and Dexterity and Proficiency to damage rolls... but that gets complicated, and it makes the math harder to balance, so they err on the side of more-balanced gameplay that doesn't make a ton of sense for how the world works.

 

[smbakeresq]

The real answer is that it's purely a game construct, to prevent finesse-type fighters from being terrible in melee combat. There was a big problem with finesse-type fighters in 3E, where they could spend a feat in order to make their attacks accurate enough, but there was nothing they could do to increase their damage to a meaningful level.

Remember, 3E started the trend of massive HP inflation, so fighters needed that extra damage in order to keep up. Rolling 1d6+0 for weapon damage was never going to drop a level-appropriate enemy. Sure, you could land a hit, but if that damage is trivial then the whole endeavor is a trap option. With 5E giving Dexterity to damage, at least finesse-weapons are no longer a trap.

It's just that their hand-wavy semi-abstraction raises more questions than it answers. If skill matters, then everyone should also add Proficiency to weapon damage rolls. And it's not like precision renders force irrelevant, so really everyone should be adding Strength and Dexterity and Proficiency to damage rolls... but that gets complicated, and it makes the math harder to balance, so they err on the side of more-balanced gameplay that doesn't make a ton of sense for how the world works.

This is correct and many of the DEX problems are solved by applying DEX to damage rolls only within short range or 30' or 60', a range close enough for precision to matter. You also need to bring back composite bows, which is a good idea anyway IMO. I did this and the effect at the game is better, the STR person hits less but does more damage, the DEX guys hit more often.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Remove sharp shooter and suddenly the fact that dex characters have superior ranged attacks stops mattering. It now becomes rare to have a fight happening at ranges outside of melee where the ranged character isn't suffering from cover or concealment. Melee becomes a better solution for most situations.

Additionally ranged weapons are paying a damage or defense premium for their range, since sharp shooter doesn't end up making the base weapon damage largely meaningless.

Out of combat? Athletics provides fundamental movement capabilities. Strength on it's own solves a lot of problems.

Plus everyone should be hurting when it comes to encumbrance.

And it's all pretty much academic, since everyone who isn't a wizard dumps intelligence.

 

[Yaarel]

Make Strength (athletics/acrobatics) responsible for ALL mobility stunts, including jump/tumble/balance and climb/fall. These are all Strength checks. Gymastics is an aspect of the ‘Strength’ category. Remove acrobatics, and include it in the athletics skill.

Make Dexterity responsible for slow cautious precise movements, only, such as stealth and aiming a bow.

Suddenly there is no ‘finesse’ weapon, because one uses Strength for agile weapons for the same reason that one uses Strength for grappling, wrestling, punching, and kicking.

 

[Lost Soul]

I did. Use enlarge spell shield bash a storm giant prone.

That must have been one wimpy storm giant

 

[Lost Soul]

The real answer is that it's purely a game construct, to prevent finesse-type fighters from being terrible in melee combat. There was a big problem with finesse-type fighters in 3E, where they could spend a feat in order to make their attacks accurate enough, but there was nothing they could do to increase their damage to a meaningful level.

Remember, 3E started the trend of massive HP inflation, so fighters needed that extra damage in order to keep up. Rolling 1d6+0 for weapon damage was never going to drop a level-appropriate enemy. Sure, you could land a hit, but if that damage is trivial then the whole endeavor is a trap option. With 5E giving Dexterity to damage, at least finesse-weapons are no longer a trap.

It's just that their hand-wavy semi-abstraction raises more questions than it answers. If skill matters, then everyone should also add Proficiency to weapon damage rolls. And it's not like precision renders force irrelevant, so really everyone should be adding Strength and Dexterity and Proficiency to damage rolls... but that gets complicated, and it makes the math harder to balance, so they err on the side of more-balanced gameplay that doesn't make a ton of sense for how the world works.

True, it is an artificial construct but it lends itself to some dumb game consequences like a kender with a shortsword toe to toe fighting against an armored knight. That shouldn't be possible and in older editions of D&D it was not. At least in 3rd a rogue had to flank an opponent and expose himself to danger. Now, its been totally made easy with advantage rules and adjacent allies. The rogue was never a damage dealer in any of the earlier editions. 3E tried to clean up a very arbitrary situation in backstab and it has really gone too far. Maybe if it were 2D6 every 4 levels instead of 1D6 every two then multi-class would be reined in a bit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

True, it is an artificial construct but it lends itself to some dumb game consequences like a kender with a shortsword toe to toe fighting against an armored knight.

The thing that always got to me was when I looked at the basic elementals. An air elemental hits just as hard as an earth elemental, and harder than a water elemental, because it has high Dexterity in spite of its low Strength. And it's bludgeoning damage, in any case, so it's not like they're sneaking a windy pseudopod between your armor plates or anything.

 

[Yaarel]

Instead of ‘Strength’, ‘Dexterity’, and so on, I would design the aptitudes as:

• Athletics
• Finetuning
• Perception
• Sociability

 

[smbakeresq]

I don't play the variant exactly, however often make it clear that the treasure cannot be carried but stronger character could manage more, and in no circumstance I have given a bag of holding as a magic item.

Try them in full. When their speed drops at first level due to armor they wont dump it anymore. The chain mail and shield cleric (with all normal adventuring gear) with 8 STR will cease to exist. It clears up problems before they start and forces players to make choices.