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

[Tony Vargas]

Are we allowed to blame the group of people who were the designers of 5e?

No.
Well, unless you extend that blame to everyone who participated in the playtest and surveys, and everyone who complained so loudly and bitterly about the prior WotC editions that all that was deemed necessary.

 

[Argyle King]

The trick here is, what does "balance" actually mean?

To me, balance means that no given option is so obviously better than any other options that it makes no sense to choose those other options. I use Two Weapon Fighting in 2e as the best example - you doubled your damage output at the cost of 1 point of AC (the best a shield could give). There was absolutely no reason not to do this. Very, very imbalanced.

But between ranged and melee? Meh. This is not an issue I'm seeing. For one, you're giving up other options as well - no defensive style, for example, meaning that you cannot protect your allies. Plus, the ranged guy needs something in front of him or her. The argument that they are "just as good in melee" isn't really true. You're limited to finesse weapons (d8 rapier at best) and have no feats or abilities which add to your melee capablilities. Plus, if you actually play standard array PC's, you're limited to a 16 Dex, 15 STR (presuming human) at 1st level. You're going to be spending two feats to get that Dex to 20, 2 MORE feats to get those ranged feats - we're looking at very high level characters here.

But, I suspect that a lot of the problems are a combination of either die rolled/point buy characters and DM's who do not pay a lot of attention to tactics at the table. AP's are so easy anyone can succeed? Yup, that's true. If the DM constantly soft pedals encounters and doesn't bother to actually spend any time on tactics. Fair enough.

Difficulty in 5e isn't found in the mechanics. It's found in what you do with them.

Not to nitpick, but what I've seen other players do is use the variant human to start with a feat and then play a class (such as fighter) which grants feats more often.

Otherwise, good points...


Even so, from my own experience (which is admittedly anecdotal), I've found that a team built around ranged combat works pretty well in 5th Edition. You can gain a lot of combat flexibility without necessarily losing a whole lot.

 

[The Old Crow]

I never claimed it wasn't significant. The point I was making was that it wasn't a legitimate comparison to look at numbers of a polearm master class getting the reaction attack every round.

I agree with you there. Just wanted to emphasize that getting an extra attack in can be significant especially in short battles. Dex characters can do this in general, without having to have a specific build that took a specific feat, because of their better initiative. The top of the order will simply average more at bats. If a character goes first and it takes four rounds to kill a foe, that character has reduced the damage the foe does by 25% because it will only get three rounds worth of attacks in. This won't happen every time and there are so many variables in combat, but it will happen with every high Dex character (simple solution is to not add Dex to initiative).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your typical 5th-level game is clearly far different than my example would imply. But that's cool. To each their own. I ditched magic item wish lists, expected treasure, and build-necessary item acquisition an edition ago. That you still play that way is fine and all. But I would caution you not to make assumptions about how 5e is typically played by using your playstyle as any kind of baseline.

Also, BTW, not one of those items you listed is a common magic item. Two are uncommon, one is rare. FYI.

3rd level, and that reference was to the 'no magic' example I gave on how ammo is a non-issue with only a minor effort. I picked 3rd level because generally you can easily afford ammunition at that point -- the cost is trivial.

But you go ahead and pretend that all I said was that magic items can make that minor effort completely trivial, if you need that to be right. I don't mind.

 

[Corwin]

3rd level, and that reference was to the 'no magic' example I gave on how ammo is a non-issue with only a minor effort. I picked 3rd level because generally you can easily afford ammunition at that point -- the cost is trivial.

Wait. How is a fighter get 3-shots-per-round at only 3rd level? Are you sure you are familiar enough with how 5e works to be having this conversation? You do realize that even if you have crossbow expert, for variant human, the extra attack from the feat takes your bonus action, right? And that you only get one bonus action per turn? And that you need a free hand to load a crossbow, even with the feat removing the load property? So dual-wielding them is still out there too. Maybe you are saying the fighter is using his action surge to get the third shot in? Sure, I guess. But that's only once per short rest. Not reliably every round, as my example noted.

Also, that you consider bags of holding, portable holes, and quivers of Elhonna are common in your 3rd-level games, I'm even more sure you aren't speaking to the baseline assumptions of 5e. Sure, you can play it that way. More power to you. But I'd caution you not to presume others are playing it like that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait. How is a fighter get 3-shots-per-round at only 3rd level? Are you sure you are familiar enough with how 5e works to be having this conversation? You do realize that even if you have crossbow expert, for variant human, the extra attack from the feat takes your bonus action, right? And that you only get one bonus action per turn? And that you need a free hand to load a crossbow, even with the feat removing the load property? So dual-wielding them is still out there too. Maybe you are saying the fighter is using his action surge to get the third shot in? Sure, I guess. But that's only once per short rest. Not reliably every round, as my example noted.

Also, that you consider bags of holding, portable holes, and quivers of Elhonna are common in your 3rd-level games, I'm even more sure you aren't speaking to the baseline assumptions of 5e. Sure, you can play it that way. More power to you. But I'd caution you not to presume others are playing it like that.

Again, it's okay that you selectively quote and misrepresent my posts so that you can continue to be right. I understand, I do. You go on.

But, on the off chance you're actually interested, by 3rd level a party usually has enough funds that ammunition is trivially cheap. A ranged character can carry, without issue, 30-40 arrows or bolts at the ready and usually twice as much more stored. This is historical, and along with a wide range of other kit. But let's limit the spares to only another 30 or so. Every character in the party can carry a bundle of excess ammo without much trouble (they're light, and bundled aren't much space, and can be tied to the outside of a backpack). So, for a 4 man party, the archer/crossbowman can easily have 30 round ready and another 120 rounds round the party that can be readied within a minute. This can be done at 3rd level because it doesn't require anything special and at 3rd, 150 rounds of ammo is affordable. It just gets easier as you go up, and, by 11th when you can make 3 attacks a round, the cost isn't even trivial. And that provides 10 rounds of sustained fire before having to spend a few rounds swapping in a new bundle, if you limit to only 30 rounds ready at a time.

It's a ridiculously trivial issue, one solved by every army ever even before getting to the baggage claim. Modern squads do it with the support weapon ammo as part of their standard kit.

If, as I point out, you add some common magic items, the trivial problem becomes unworthy of mention. Magic isn't necessary, it just makes it ridiculously easy to solve.

 

[Corwin]

Oh, I see now. You weren't actually addressing my posts or points. Just quoting me seemingly at random then going off on tangents. Copy that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, I see now. You weren't actually addressing my posts or points. Just quoting me seemingly at random then going off on tangents. Copy that.

Heh, the old 'don't quote stealth response' paired with the 'nuh-uh, YOU are!' You're a fun bag of trick, Corwin, don't change!

 

[Caliban]

Now, now, you're both pretty.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now, now, you're both pretty.

Stalker.