D&D 5E Dex vs. Str

[Horwath]

[MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION];

For bows I see STR are a requirement.

I.E. for longbows;
Oak longbow(weak), requires str 8, 1d6 damage, range 120/480
Ash longbow(default), requires str 10, 1d8 damage. range 150/600
Yew longbow, requires str 14, 1d10 damage, range 170/680
Ironwood(duskwood) longbow, requires str 18, 1d12 damage, range 190/760
Dragonbone longbow, requires str 20, 2d6 damage, range 200/800

 

[Mephista]

@MephistaFor bows I see STR are a requirement.

I just missed the part that said all ranged use Dex, and thought that one could use Str to shoot a bow. Either way, that has nothing to do with the discussion here in this thread.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Strength as the stat used to hitting and damage, and Dex as the more defensive stat seems to fit fairly well. You could look at crushing the armour table down a bit to remove some entries and reducing the AC of the best armour, but allow Dex to apply to any armour as long as you make the Str requirement for it.

I've not noticed a huge issue with people dumping one or the other as an optimisation measure. I wouldn't call my group powergamers though. I think that the only Str/Dex related houserules that we have is allowing Bows to use either Str or Dex, and removal of the Finesse requirement for Sneak Attack.





Maybe. Its a bit more fiddly, and D&D's combat system, particularly the way armour/tough skin works to reduce hit chance to hit muddies the waters rather.
Keeping Str to hit and damage, and Dex to AC fits as well: Grace and balance can be useful when trying to land a blow in melee, but probably contribute more to avoiding them, and athleticism and power are needed to get out of the way of attacks, but probably contribute more to hitting overall.

The idea of the completely lumbering, very clumsy warrior or the weak flabby fighter with no muscle tone or power is a very D&D development, and I agree that it doesn't make much sense as a general concept.

I find that overly punitive toward Dex. Without a hit or damage bonus a 20 Dex / 8 Str rogue would...suck. Majorly. You'd need massive class bonuses to compensate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

1st. Constitution should be removed and it's role merged into strength.

That way strength cannot be dumped on dex character without negative side to it.

It would also incorporate lots of saves into it.

Maybe, but that's a major change to D&D.

2nd. rapier and longsword cannot have same damage. Versatile property is next to useless and cannot be valued same as finesse and/or light property.

How is Finesse more "useful" than Versatile? You can't actually do anything with it, it just allows a different sort of build to wield it. The game could have been written so that all the non-Finesse weapons had a property called "Awkward" ("Cannot use Dexterity as your attack stat") and there would be zero impact on the game.

So Finesse doesn't actually have any "value" to those who use it. Not like Reach or Light or even Versatile, however rarely the last one is actually utilized. (I will agree it would be nice if there were more incentives to occasionally go 2H, besides the +1 damage.)

So;

Longsword 1d10 damage(1d12 versatile)

Rapier, 1d8 damage, finesse

Arming sword 1d8 damage, light

Short sword, 1d6 damage, light, finesse

2Handed heavy weapon(greatsword, greataxe, maul), 2d8 damage, 2handed, heavy

2Handed finesse weapon; 1d12 damage, 2Handed, finesse.---->this could be a place for katana. IMHO not a finesse weapon but many people wants it to be.

This way is also damage difference between str and dex builds.

No. Making damage creep up is not going to solve anything. And the game does not need a Katana. Or any more weapons, really.

 

[GreenTengu]

I wouldn't combine Dexterity and Strength-- I think it would be better to combine Strength and Constitution. Both stats are generally about being bigger and more muscly.

I really think the idea of a character who would be high on strength and low on constitution or visa-versa would be quite an unusual niche-- any character created organically is going to excel or struggle with both.

But a high-dexterity, low muscle character is considerably more common of a notion.

Moreover, if you just remove the rapier from the weapons list all together, it fixes half the balance issue between Str and Dex fighters. Though since the later gets to go first in combat, gets better AC up until the Str fighter can get platemail (and has MUCH better AC if ever caught outside of armor) and gets accurate and powerful ranged attacks... the balance isn't entirely struck.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I find that overly punitive toward Dex. Without a hit or damage bonus a 20 Dex / 8 Str rogue would...suck. Majorly. You'd need massive class bonuses to compensate.

I think that that is a reason why D&D has the finesse mechanic: to make low-strength martial characters effective.

But that suggestion was intended towards the original idea of the thread, which was to prevent precisely what you are talking about: a martial character completely dumping one of Strength and Dex, and maxing the other rather than having a balance of the two.

How is Finesse more "useful" than Versatile? You can't actually do anything with it, it just allows a different sort of build to wield it. The game could have been written so that all the non-Finesse weapons had a property called "Awkward" ("Cannot use Dexterity as your attack stat") and there would be zero impact on the game.

So Finesse doesn't actually have any "value" to those who use it. Not like Reach or Light or even Versatile, however rarely the last one is actually utilized. (I will agree it would be nice if there were more incentives to occasionally go 2H, besides the +1 damage.)

I believe that they were referring to the value of Finesse in terms of it enabling the otherwise more advantageous Dex-build instead of having to put ability points in Strength in order to use a d8 weapon.

No. Making damage creep up is not going to solve anything. And the game does not need a Katana. Or any more weapons, really.

Agreed. a two-handed Finesse weapon is a pretty weird concept to start with. Arming sword seems covered by Longsword already. (And I wouldn't have thought of arming swords as commonly dual-wielded either, so I'd be unsure of giving them the Light property.)

I wouldn't combine Dexterity and Strength-- I think it would be better to combine Strength and Constitution. Both stats are generally about being bigger and more muscly.

I really think the idea of a character who would be high on strength and low on constitution or visa-versa would be quite an unusual niche-- any character created organically is going to excel or struggle with both.

Its a little odd. Best example that I could come up with would be a body-builder-like character, capable of a lot of power, but not good at sustained effort. But they would also need to incorporate the general sickliness and lack of ability to fight off disease and poisons etc.
As you say, its a bit of a struggle.

But a high-dexterity, low muscle character is considerably more common of a notion.

I actually find it really hard to come up with an example of a high-dex, low-str character for threads like this.
High Str and Dex characters are fairly common and recognisable, from Conan to Bruce Lee.
Low-str, high-dex would be someone like Bilbo Baggins perhaps? But hobbits are described as quite athletic. Need an example of someone graceful and balanced but unathletic. A couch-potato with quick hands from playing console games perhaps?
Likewise, athletic-but clumsy is also a tricky combination to think of an example.

 

[Horwath]

Maybe, but that's a major change to D&D.

well, we cant have that

How is Finesse more "useful" than Versatile? You can't actually do anything with it, it just allows a different sort of build to wield it. The game could have been written so that all the non-Finesse weapons had a property called "Awkward" ("Cannot use Dexterity as your attack stat") and there would be zero impact on the game.

So Finesse doesn't actually have any "value" to those who use it. Not like Reach or Light or even Versatile, however rarely the last one is actually utilized. (I will agree it would be nice if there were more incentives to occasionally go 2H, besides the +1 damage.)

It has that value. It can be used by all melee characters and utilizes "off" melee stat. That forces some kind of penalty.
Versatile is rubbish. If you have duelist style it is worse that one handed usage. haha!

No. Making damage creep up is not going to solve anything. And the game does not need a Katana. Or any more weapons, really.

well, it's better than reducing all finesse damage. 1d6 rapier, 1d4 shortsword, 1d2 dagger??

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I just missed the part that said all ranged use Dex, and thought that one could use Str to shoot a bow. Either way, that has nothing to do with the discussion here in this thread.

Sorry, that confusion may be my fault:
I mentioned allowing Str or Dex to be used for bows as a houserule.

 

[jaelis]

The issue with this is that it makes Dex builds MAD, but not Str builds. In other words, a Str build can dump Dex, but a Dex build can't dump Str.

Thus the fighting style for Dex fighters. Rogues will be OK still I think. Other random characters have to choose, that's what we're after right?

If the logic of adding to Dex to damage is that accuracy lets you do more damage, why wouldn't it apply to both? Alternatively, accuracy IS more damage (you hit more often) so adding Dex to damage is like double-dipping.

I find the argument that stronger characters can pull heavier bows/crossbows pretty compelling. If two characters have the same dexterity, and one is burly and the other is a wimp, all in all I think I'd much rather get shot by the wimp.

If it is realism you're after, we have a long way to go. Obviously both strength and dexterity contribute to how likely you are to hit with any weapon, and how much damage it is likely to do. But it seems a reasonable simplification to say that ranged attacks depend more on Dex and melee attacks depend more on Str.

 

[snickersnax]

I'm liking dexterity to hit and strength for damage.

1) It corrects some problems with tiny high dexterity creatures doing ridiculous amounts of damage (animate objects).

2) It reduces overall damage output by melee and ranged and could help fights last more than one to three rounds. Some may like short fights, but I prefer fights to last just a little longer (I think 3-5 rounds would be a better balancing point).

3) For me it make a lot of sense that dexterity improves aim, strength delivers damage. I know some folks want to see strength improve to hit because of armor and the D&D combat system, but if a person is unarmored why would strength improve chances to hit? Better to be consistent, and since I'm wanting to add in extra damage for two-handed fighting (see below), strength doesn't need to add to hit.

4) Rogues are not punished any more than everyone else in this system. In fact rogues may be the least impacted because most of their damage comes from sneak attack.

It does create a few other things that may need to be considered:

1) Now that combat classes have been made a bit more MAD, maybe spell casting attack rolls should also rely on dexterity to hit.

2) Some other mechanic needs to be considered for two-handed fighting, because dexterity builds now favor large damage weapons, which doesn't make any sense. I think the obvious choice is to add in extra strength damage for two handed weapons (either x1.5 or x2). A cool way to handle this would be for GWM to allow double strength bonus instead of -5/+10.

3) Strength for ranged weapons seems appropriate, but may require a special bow. For considering two-handedness consider how the weapons are drawn. Longbow/shortbows draw with one hand, crossbow draws with two, heavy crossbow draws with two and an additional lever. slings are one handed, staff slings are two-handed. Alternatively strength bonus to ranged weapons could be part of SS and drop the -5/+10.