Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6904656" data-attributes="member: 996">As the OP phrased it, both.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; STR+DEX, rather than the Slayer's +DEX to basic attacks, is elegant in 5e, because 5e makes it seamless to use either STR or DEX as your attack stat.&nbsp; DEX would be doubling up, that phrasing eliminates that particular potential 'abuse,' making either STR or DEX automatically fall into a 'secondary' attribute status. Neat and tidy.&nbsp; (That wouldn't have worked for the Slayer, because any stat might be used for a basic attack via feats, and using DEX for a basic attack required either a feat or a feature).&nbsp; 4e used adding a secondary stat to damage as a striker role-support feature quite a bit.&nbsp; The artful-dodger rogue got it in the form of an at-will, for instance, the Pit Fighter PP got WIS to damage at 16th, etc.&nbsp; As the game progressed it got to be less and less limited bonus, Sorcerers with any sorcerer power, from 1st on - the Essentials Thief being the most extreme case, not only getting it's striker damage bonus across the board, but simply doubling up on DEX to damage instead of using a secondary attribute.&nbsp; In 4e/E it wasn't (quite) a broken mechanic, because classes that got it didn't generally get to make a lot of multiple attacks against a single target (the Ranger was the poster boy for that, with Twin Strike and did not get a static damage bonus, but extra dice 1/round).&nbsp; You could still push it with the odd encounter or daily that did so or let you make a minor action attack (like a bonus action attack in 5e), which was a prime damage optimization trick.&nbsp; (Disclaimer:&nbsp; Striker was my least-favorite role, so this is mainly second hand info.)In 5e, between Extra Attack and bonus action attacks any 'static' (as we called 'em in 3e) damage bonus is potentially problematic.&nbsp; (Really, it's multiple attacks of any kind that have always proven problematic in every edition.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6904656, member: 996"] As the OP phrased it, both. ;) STR+DEX, rather than the Slayer's +DEX to basic attacks, is elegant in 5e, because 5e makes it seamless to use either STR or DEX as your attack stat. DEX would be doubling up, that phrasing eliminates that particular potential 'abuse,' making either STR or DEX automatically fall into a 'secondary' attribute status. Neat and tidy. (That wouldn't have worked for the Slayer, because any stat might be used for a basic attack via feats, and using DEX for a basic attack required either a feat or a feature). 4e used adding a secondary stat to damage as a striker role-support feature quite a bit. The artful-dodger rogue got it in the form of an at-will, for instance, the Pit Fighter PP got WIS to damage at 16th, etc. As the game progressed it got to be less and less limited bonus, Sorcerers with any sorcerer power, from 1st on - the Essentials Thief being the most extreme case, not only getting it's striker damage bonus across the board, but simply doubling up on DEX to damage instead of using a secondary attribute. In 4e/E it wasn't (quite) a broken mechanic, because classes that got it didn't generally get to make a lot of multiple attacks against a single target (the Ranger was the poster boy for that, with Twin Strike and did not get a static damage bonus, but extra dice 1/round). You could still push it with the odd encounter or daily that did so or let you make a minor action attack (like a bonus action attack in 5e), which was a prime damage optimization trick. (Disclaimer: Striker was my least-favorite role, so this is mainly second hand info.) In 5e, between Extra Attack and bonus action attacks any 'static' (as we called 'em in 3e) damage bonus is potentially problematic. (Really, it's multiple attacks of any kind that have always proven problematic in every edition.) [/QUOTE]

Verification