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

[Cap'n Kobold]

To me the STR bow is a way for a dex character to add "stat damage" to his ranged attack - by applying his or her strength mod to ranged attack (not accuracy)

So ranged combat becomes MAD to balance the style vs melee styles, as a bonus?

Personally? No. There is a good argument for Str to hit for a bow, so its either all Dex or all Str for attack and damage.

The theoretical superiority of archery to two-handing or TWF to S&B or greatswords to greataxes or whatever else dealing with weapons, styles, and classes that don't do much else but use 'em, is often pretty marginal. 1/2 a point of average DPR seems to equal 'imbalance' when we're on that sort of topic.

The imbalance is not from the damage difference when they are both hitting. The imbalance is from the rounds it takes the target to cover the 600 feet to where the greatsword starts hitting.

Also that for a lot of monsters, melee is their primary if not only attack type so the archer gets to dish out the damage against minimal retaliation. Unlike the swordsman.

 

[LapBandit]

I think the *fundamental* root of that is adding dex to damage with ranged weapons...

So much this.

In my campaigns:
Bows are aimed with DEX and damage is modified with STR.
Crossbows are aimed with DEX and have no modifier.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The imbalance is not from the damage difference when they are both hitting. The imbalance is from the rounds it takes the target to cover the 600 feet to where the greatsword starts hitting.

So it's an imbalance on a featureless plane.

In theory, yes, sometimes ranged attackers have a huge advantage and can set up a beaten zone or crossfire and just cut the enemy to pieces as they try to close. Heck, not just in theory. But, you need clear fields of fire and sufficiently powerful ranged attacks for that to work. I know, Sharpshooter takes care of a lot of that 'but.'

Also in theory, sometimes melee attackers gain a huge advantage, when in close quarters, when trying to take & hold ground, when fighting in formation, when any other sort of action is required beyond poking small holes in things.

Maybe 5e is better at reflecting the former than the latter?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In a game where you 'miss' because your arrow bounces off armor?

This, but not just this. Also; an arrow fired with more force travels faster and on a flatter trajectory. This reduces a lot of variables that would cause an otherwise on-target arrow to miss. i.e. increases accuracy.

So it's an imbalance on a featureless plane.

In theory, yes, sometimes ranged attackers have a huge advantage and can set up a beaten zone or crossfire and just cut the enemy to pieces as they try to close. Heck, not just in theory. But, you need clear fields of fire and sufficiently powerful ranged attacks for that to work. I know, Sharpshooter takes care of a lot of that 'but.'

Also in theory, sometimes melee attackers gain a huge advantage, when in close quarters, when trying to take & hold ground, when fighting in formation, when any other sort of action is required beyond poking small holes in things.

Maybe 5e is better at reflecting the former than the latter?

No, the room is just very big. And white.

I'm aware that situations where you get the full range of your ranged weapon are rare. But you will often get one or two rounds of shooting while the melee and/or enemies are covering ground. Ranged attackers can also attack opponents (albeit with cover) that they couldn't otherwise reach, for example if the heavier melee types are holding a chokepoint.
The OP's issue was also with the fact that the dex-based ranged character can still fight effectively in melee, with only slightly less AC and damage than the Str types.

 

[Bardbarian]

This is a non issue, If you think ranged characters can out damage Melee, then you have not built melee optimally, In actual play there is a huge difference in damage in favor of melee, Sharpshooter merely makes ranged a viable alternative. The best groups have a little bit of both. Str is essential for grappling which may be the single most powerful form of combat in the game when used to it's full potential. Str characters get the best of both 2 handed weapons and grappling while ranged characters trade that for consistent damage over time and the safety of distance. Melee characters can cross the range of a ranged weapon usually within a round with the exception of the Heavy x-bow and Longbow though generally there is almost no combat beyond the melee fighter's range. Simply Mounting a horse gives a Melee character the ability to cross 135 feet and still take an action. These number can be exceeded with some trickery as well. When the BBEGs look for someone to dominate, they look to the guy with the 2 hander because they know it will hurt. Early on the balance goes back and forth dependent on level but by mid tier 2 the Str characters establish themselves at the top of the pecking order. If you think your ranged character does better, that's cool, have your fun. If you track the damage done in game, not on paper you'll see a different story.

 

[Bacon Bits]

A: Because you want to wield big weapons.
B: because you want to wear heavy armor.
C: because it thematically fits your character.
D: because you want to escape a grapple check....ever.

Erm, you can contest or escape a Grapple with a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

The best reasons I know of to make a Strength-based warrior are threefold:

(1) Athletics is awesome in melee;
(2) Some classes (Paladins and Barbarians) are almost forced down the Strength path due to stat requirements and role specialization;
(3) Strength has a slightly better AC.

All of these add up to basically the same thing: Strength makes better tanks. Yes, ranged combat is generally preferable to melee combat in 5E, but instead of investing in boosting Dex to 20, a Paladin probably just wants enough Strength to wear plate armor without slowing down (Str 15+) and a sorcerer or warlock cantrip. But even with that cantrip, he's likely to be the party's melee specialist, at least in my experience: he's the guy who is the first one into the teleportal and the last guy out of the snake pit. He's the guy who uses his bonus action to cast Thunderous Smite before hitting the young red dragon with his longsword for d8+2d6+3 (14) points of damage and knocking it 10' away and prone, and then rushes over and uses his Extra Attack to grapple it to keep it prone and at a disadvantage and unable to effectively target the other PCs besides him with its breath weapon. When you need a tank, that's the Paladin's job.

Plus, some PCs are just born strong but not agile, and they may not have the option to suddenly become Dex-based. I imagine some people are playing 3d6-in-order campaigns (I'd play one) and those people are undoubtedly glad to have the Str option available.

Overall, ranged combat is stronger than melee, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Dex is stronger than Str. It just means that Str is weaker than [some combination of Dex/Cha/Int/Wis which fits your class abilities and provides a good ranged attack].

 

[Flamestrike]

Dex is one stat that can be safely dumped for Fighter/ Paladin/ Melee type. The hit to AC is easily mitigated, and Dex saves are meaningless (generally just dealing more damage, that is also mititaged by virtue of you having a higher Con score). The hit to initiative is a bummer. Who cares about stealth; youre running around in plate anyways.

Grab Plate armor. Max Strength and Con. Take GWM.

Proceed to crush your enemies and see them driven before you.

 

[hejtmane]

Dex is one stat that can be safely dumped for Fighter/ Paladin/ Melee type. The hit to AC is easily mitigated, and Dex saves are meaningless (generally just dealing more damage, that is also mititaged by virtue of you having a higher Con score). The hit to initiative is a bummer. Who cares about stealth; youre running around in plate anyways.

Grab Plate armor. Max Strength and Con. Take GWM.

Proceed to crush your enemies and see them driven before you.

In a campaign I am running we have an archer with sharpshooter and despite some of the damage output they have been in as much danger as the melee. First I will modify monsters if need be to cover more ground; terrain, ambushes oh and evil archers and I do not make all monster dumb some make smart decisions on who they attack so my back line casters and archers have things to worry about

 

[BookBarbarian]

Just a few reasons off the top of my head to play a Strength based warrior:

Great weapon master
Polearm Master
Shoving
Grappling
Athletics Checks
Rage
Heavy Armor speed penalty

I'm probably missing others reasons.