D&D 5E So Is The Dex Based Fighter Just Strictly Better?

[Krachek]

oh it's not just "DPR calculations". You're literally doing less. You're playing less than the other player with a high initiative.

ask for a refund from Wotc!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh, overall my assessment is that there are a LOT of builds that are not the one perfectly optimized build of fighter, but most of them, including a GWF STR build, are very close, and at the worst have 'money moves' where they can really earn their keep. The rest of the time such a character will easily pull their own weight and the random distribution of dice luck will still give them plenty of big moments.

Again, I see a lot of tangential statements that don't contradict what I said. Dex is better, on the net, to a pretty clear degree. It's not hurting yourself to not go Dex. But Strength is clearly second fiddle.

Like how much clearer do I have to be? I expressly said you still get things. You just aren't having a pure trade-off. All else being equal, a Dex Fighter is overall more effective than a Strength one, in much the same way that a Battle Master will be more effective than a Champion and a Paladin will in general be more effective than a Battle Master Fighter, even with all characters played with equal skill. The way 5e works in practice and the patterns of behavior usually demonstrated in most games will reward some choices consistently more than others. That doesn't mean there's NOTHING you get from those other choices. You just get less.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Only a 70% chance. Better than 2/3, almost 3/4.

I'm sorry, I don't consider that a positive whatsoever. Sure, it's not AS bad as always being super far behind. But it's definitely not good. At all.

Remember, if you have equal dexterity, you are behind 45-50% of the time...

This is just a 20-25% difference.

The trend is always the same: overexaggerating advantages, underestimating disadvantages.

 

[Mort]

Your math is flawed. You can't say everyone rolls average...

The "slow" PC only has a 70% chance to roll lower initiative than the "fast" PC (assuming a 5 point difference).

Keep in mind, IF feats are allowed +5 to initiative isn't "fast."

Without any cheesiness (which can get ridiculous), Fast at 4th level would be a +8 (16 dex, Alert feat). A war wizard or gloomstalker ranger can easily get to +10 by 4th level (and both have advantages to going early).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Keep in mind, IF feats are allowed +5 to initiative isn't "fast."

Without any cheesiness (which can get ridiculous), Fast at 4th level would be a +8 (16 dex, Alert feat). A war wizard or gloomstalker ranger can easily get to +10 by 4th level (and both have advantages to going early).

Yes. This is totally right. But then you are comparing apples and oranges.
I can totally have a strength based character with alert. And if I am strength based, I am not as much under preasure to keep my attack stat capped.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, I see a lot of tangential statements that don't contradict what I said. Dex is better, on the net, to a pretty clear degree. It's not hurting yourself to not go Dex. But Strength is clearly second fiddle.

Like how much clearer do I have to be? I expressly said you still get things. You just aren't having a pure trade-off. All else being equal, a Dex Fighter is overall more effective than a Strength one, in much the same way that a Battle Master will be more effective than a Champion and a Paladin will in general be more effective than a Battle Master Fighter, even with all characters played with equal skill. The way 5e works in practice and the patterns of behavior usually demonstrated in most games will reward some choices consistently more than others. That doesn't mean there's NOTHING you get from those other choices. You just get less.

Sure thing, not sure why any of that needed to be said. Some builds are slightly better than others, but none really stands head and shoulders above another, at least in terms of what are mainly non-casters. It surely isn't enough to make very many people not want to play something, IMHO. Honestly I wouldn't play a non-caster if I wanted to be maximally effective ANYWAY, so it is a bit moot...

I think, assuming you want to design your D&D game to be a fairly compelling depiction of the genre, 5e is probably pretty close to as balanced as you will really ever get. I'm sure this will elicit a long list of "but if only they'd done X it would be even closer" which I wouldn't probably dispute, but there's also the practical process of designing, publishing, and releasing a game. So, realistically it seems like major snafus were avoided overall.

 

[Mort]

Yes. This is totally right. But then you are comparing apples and oranges.
I can totally have a strength based character with alert. And if I am strength based, I am not as much under preasure to keep my attack stat capped.

The problem is, generally, for a strength based character Alert is a BIG investment vs. say PAM or GWM (or even sentinel). Fcusing on Initiative if you are strength based is rarely remotely optimal.

Except, of course, Strength also has the largest number of "cheats" re: magic. If your DM is (overly) generous with items that characters want, the Strength based character can dismiss focusing on strength advancement and still achieve a strength higher than possible with any other stat.

 

[CleverNickName]

How about an elf fighter with 20 Dexterity, wearing a set of gauntlets of ogre power?

I'm only half-kidding here. The GoOP is an Uncommon magic item from Table F, right up there with +1 swords and boots of elvenkind. Seems like this would be a pretty easy way to get the "best of both worlds," so to speak, if one were clearly better than the other.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think, assuming you want to design your D&D game to be a fairly compelling depiction of the genre, 5e is probably pretty close to as balanced as you will really ever get.

On this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think very highly of 5e's balance, and the several issues that have arisen from that balance over the years tell me I'm not wrong for thinking so. The TL;DR of my criticism is, they blew 2/3 or more of their playtesting cycle frittering around with stuff that was never going to work, putting all their eggs into baskets they had to abandon, and instantaneously abandoning ideas that actually would have worked if they'd been given a chance. We got a game that fundamentally only got about a year, year and a half of design by a reduced team. And it shows.

 

[Mort]

On this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think very highly of 5e's balance, and the several issues that have arisen from that balance over the years tell me I'm not wrong for thinking so. The TL;DR of my criticism is, they blew 2/3 or more of their playtesting cycle frittering around with stuff that was never going to work, putting all their eggs into baskets they had to abandon, and instantaneously abandoning ideas that actually would have worked if they'd been given a chance. We got a game that fundamentally only got about a year, year and a half of design by a reduced team. And it shows.

I think you're being WAY harsh on the designers.

Keep in mind that the goal was the game had to be D&D but "better" but not so much better that it wasn't D&D. That's a pretty tough design requirement!