D&D 5E Idea that will most players will hate, but I think addresses a mechanical issue in game

[Vince_Snetterton]

Over the years I have seen I have no idea how many arguments about Dex being the god stat. I don't disagree.
There are also umpteen arguments about stats/abilities/what not tied to Str or Dex.

I propose something, that will infuriate most players, for all kinds of reasons.

Some weapon attacks require both a modicum of Strength AND Dexterity. In the real world, a top swordsman (not talking fencers), or archer, needs both.
So what happens if I said to my players:

"OK, when you use your Long Bow, you use your Dex and Prof to Hit, but you add (or subtract) your Str modifier for damage."
This concept can be applied to a myriad of the published weapons, though not all.
Anybody who has wielded a sledgehammer in the real world, or tried splitting wood, understands it not all about Strength.

Now, the cons to such an idea are not limited to the following:
1. More complexity for the players and DM, and we know that new age players hate complexity.
2. Dex, or Str, is no longer a dump stat, which will irritate most martial class players.
3. Martial class chars are taking the hit, while this has no impact on casters.

But...this is far more realistic, and the arguments about creating optimized chars loses some of its value.
Does this also mean that the base damage value of martial weapons has to be altered, to compensate for the inherent nerf to martial chars? Yes.
There are multiple cascade effects.

 

[RainOnTheSun]

If you're worried about complexity but you want strength to be more important, you could borrow a mechanic from Champions/Hero System. A lot of weapons in that system have minimum strength requirements. Maybe it takes a 13 Strength to be able to effectively use a longbow. At 15 Strength, maybe you can use a Composite Bow or a Great Bow or something that uses a d10 for damage and has a little more range.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The problem this creates is making all weapon users even more multi-ability dependent. Now fighters need str, dex, and con regardless of weapon choice, meaning they can't have more than a +1 in any mental stat, thus ruling out tactician, leader, and officer concepts. Barbarians are the same but moreso. Rangers need str, dex, con and wis, paladins need str, dex, con, wis and cha (meaning they now *must be dumb), and even monks are worse off. Hexblades need str, dex, con, and cha. Casters (including blastlocks) can still be single-ability dependent, though.

Any time you increase costs without increasing resources, you nerf pcs. Since these costs are already uneven by class, this will exacerbate the issue.

So unless you include a new way of generating stats that tends to get more high-ish numbers without increasing the amount of really high numbers, you'll increase the already problematic gap between weapon-users and casters.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But...this is far more realistic,

Not a pro to a lot of people

and the arguments about creating optimized chars loses some of its value.

I don't follow - you've made it harder to build an optimized weapon user, and easier to build an optimized caster.

Does this also mean that the base damage value of martial weapons has to be altered, to compensate for the inherent nerf to martial chars? Yes.
There are multiple cascade effects.

Of course, it also creates a synergy for certain builds to now get more damage than the game expects vis min-maxing, so we'll need to rebalance monsters.

 

[payn]

Over the years I have seen I have no idea how many arguments about Dex being the god stat. I don't disagree.
There are also umpteen arguments about stats/abilities/what not tied to Str or Dex.

True.

I propose something, that will infuriate most players, for all kinds of reasons.

Uh...ok lets do this.

Some weapon attacks require both a modicum of Strength AND Dexterity. In the real world, a top swordsman (not talking fencers), or archer, needs both.
So what happens if I said to my players:

"OK, when you use your Long Bow, you use your Dex and Prof to Hit, but you add (or subtract) your Str modifier for damage."
This concept can be applied to a myriad of the published weapons, though not all.
Anybody who has wielded a sledgehammer in the real world, or tried splitting wood, understands it not all about Strength.

Makes sense.

Now, the cons to such an idea are not limited to the following:
1. More complexity for the players and DM, and we know that new age players hate complexity.

This is something I hear ont he internets, but dont think is true. However, I dont know enough about it to actually argue against it.

2. Dex, or Str, is no longer a dump stat, which will irritate most martial class players.

Only in the sense that MAD is obviously inferior to SAD in design.

3. Martial class chars are taking the hit, while this has no impact on casters.

Actually, what if casters need Dex to aim touch and range spells, and casting stat for damage or what have you? Seems to balance out.

But...this is far more realistic, and the arguments about creating optimized chars loses some of its value.
Does this also mean that the base damage value of martial weapons has to be altered, to compensate for the inherent nerf to martial chars? Yes.
There are multiple cascade effects.

Applying it as a houserule to 5E has those drawbacks. Though, if you start with these assumptions in a new design, I cant see why it doesn't become expected in a heartbreaker or 6E.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Not a pro to a lot of people

I don't follow - you've made it harder to build an optimized weapon user, and easier to build an optimized caster.

Of course, it also creates a synergy for certain builds to now get more damage than the game expects vis min-maxing, so we'll need to rebalance monsters.

Both your comments echo some of the issues I listed. Yes, this would have a significant impact on game play, right down the line. And no, I never expect WOTC to even begin to think along these lines, as it goes in the exact opposite direction they want aka make the game easier and simpler.

This is more of a thought experiment where I elicit comments which I can then muse over and see if I can incorporate into my own game.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

True.

Uh...ok lets do this.

Makes sense.

This is something I hear ont he internets, but dont think is true. However, I dont know enough about it to actually argue against it.

Only in the sense that MAD is obviously inferior to SAD in design.

Actually, what if casters need Dex to aim touch and range spells, and casting stat for damage or what have you? Seems to balance out.

Applying it as a houserule to 5E has those drawbacks. Though, if you start with these assumptions in a new design, I cant see why it doesn't become expected in a heartbreaker or 6E.

I like the idea of casters needing to deal with Dex when making Spell Attacks.

 

[Faolyn]

In Level Up, some bows (and probably some other weapons; I haven't memorized the weapons table yet) have the Compound feature, which lets you use Strength instead of Dex, in the same way that some weapons let you use Dex instead of Strength.

 

[Mercurius]

If you're going for realism, how is adding STR bonus to longbow damage in any way realistic?

Let me explain. Let's say it takes a 12 STR to use a longbow to full capacity - that is, draw it back with no significant effort. How would increased strength do more damage, if both a 12 STR and 18 STR can draw it back fully? Adding STR bonus implies that a higher STR character can draw it back...more fully? Super-fully?

Now adding DEX for damage on a longbow doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes more sense than STR, imo.

Now penalizing for STR makes sense, or you could add a minimum STR, below which involves Disadvantage.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

If you're going for realism, how is adding STR bonus to longbow damage in any way realistic?

Let me explain. Let's say it takes a 12 STR to use a longbow to full capacity - that is, draw it back with no significant effort. How would increased strength do more damage, if both a 12 STR and 18 STR can draw it back fully? Adding STR bonus implies that a higher STR character can draw it back...more fully? Super-fully?

Now adding DEX for damage on a longbow doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes more sense than STR, imo.

Now penalizing for STR makes sense, or you could add a minimum STR, below which involves Disadvantage.

A reasoned argument. Definitely something that has to be added to the thought experiment.