D&D General DMing Theory #2: Strong and Fast


Ok so 4E handles (most) stat combinations in general way better, but Dex/Strength especially. So here what makes it better:

  • There are only 3 saving throws not 6. The better of Strength/Con adds to your fortitude save. So Strength is a lot less of a dump stat than in 5e and someone with high dex still can profit from having a good strength.
  • From the stat distribution its quite normal to have 18/18/12/12/10/8 as starting stats. So main stat and secondary stat are equally high. Also on level 4/8/14/18(24/28) you increase 2 stats by 1. And feats are independant of that. So you can keep your secondary stat high without losing anything.
  • Subclasses are normally associated with a secondary stat. So if you are a Strength character like Fighter or Barbarian, chances are good you have a dex subclass which does profit from having dexterity high.
  • The different subclasses (and different stats) normally also have a theme/flavour to make different fighting styles feel more different, so a dex subclass would normally feel different from a con subclass dex is normally about mobility and precision while con is more about survivability like temp hp.
  • Then feats (of which you get more and automatically) are often dependant on certain stats. So if you want a specific feat you need some stats high enough.
  • This does include certain weapon specialization feats which makes them stat dependant. Like if you go Str Dex you can qualify for Heavy Blade, Spear and Flail Masteries, while going Str and Con allows you to reach Axe, Bludgeoning and Pick Mastery.
    • Which weapon you use can also change your way of fighting:
      • Weapons of course have some (slightly) different stats, like spears often having reach, swords are more precise etc.
      • They also bring different feats with them, starting with the expertise feats which almost everyone gets for one weapon group, where spear gets bonus damage when charging (so bonus when moving), pick gets bonus damage against creatures larger than you heavy blades gives a bonus against opportunity attacks (to move around).
      • Special non expertise feats for weapons also exist, like heavy blade has one which allows you to use a "maneuver" for opportunity attacks instead of a basic attack. (at will attacks)
      • Certain maneuvers also need specific weapons, or give a bonus with some weapons. Like weapon masters strike deals constitution bonus damage with an axe, lets you do an opportunity attack if the enemy shifts (movement which normally does not provoke opportunity attacks), a heavy blade gives a small bonus to AC for 1 turn, and a mace lets you move the target 1 square.
      • Different weapon groups also have different magical items. So certain enchantments can only be on an axe or a spear etc. (and in 4e you can "craft" your magical items, so its not just drop dependant.)
  • In addition you can get utility powers from your trained skills, and normally you want to train skills in which you have good stats. So being Strength based and being good in athletics lets you also choose an utility power allowing you to jump over an enemy etc.

So lets show a bit more how a Str/dex fighter with subclass etc. can be different to a non dex fighter:

  • On level 1 you can choose Instead of a bonus to hit with opportunity attacks, the ability to follow a target which moves away (dex modifier squares) and then attack it hitting it prone when hitting. Showcasing how you are faster/more mobile than a non dex fighter
    • Then you could potentially also take on level 1 the feat dragging flail which needs dex 15 (which normally means its your secondary stat) which lets you also move an enemy 1 square if you hit them prone with a flail.
  • When a target next to you which you had marked (like in soccer) dies, you can use the close the gap utility power (from level 2) to move up to your desterity modifier and mark another target.
  • With the advanced lunge maneuver (level 3) you can shift 1 (or 2 with a spear or light blade) before your attack and if you had combat advantage on the attack the target takes extra damage according to your dexterity. (Mobility maneuver with high precision bonus)
  • etc. there is every 2nd level 2+ maneuvers relying on dexterity.




But these does not really change the playstile / your mechanics, just your numbers. Maybe you try to stealth more if it is higher.

But with high strength you normally want heavy armor (or at least medium armor) which normally had disadvantage on stealth so using stealth is discouraged.


Thats the point if you have strength already then dex is just way less useful, since you can have good (even better) AC without dex, you dont want to use stealth because of the armor, and you already have a stat which lets you attack in melee (and with thrown at range).

Higher initiative and saves is nice, but the point you put into dex would elso go into con or wis which both are equally important or maybe even more important saves.

It helps a bit with initiative sure, but there are origin feats etc. which help even more.

And again it does not change what you can do, how you behave vs a non dex fighter, where having dex based maneuvers like in 4E do change your playstile.





14 dex is not secondary stat. Secondary stat normally means 16, so compare a real "dex fighter" to a real good fighter, not a pseudo dex fighter. Also 15 wis is stupid 14 wis and 10 dex is stronger.

The stats would more be:

  • 17 str, 16 dex, 14 con, 10 wis
  • 17 str, 16 con, 14 wis, 10 dex
So same amount of good saves, and -1 hp per level AND -1 hp per hit dice rolled in short rest. Also you traded +3 on dex skills (of which the best stealth is not really usable with your best armor options) vs +2 on wis skills, where perception is one of the most important skills.

Also the 2nd fighter could take a con based fighter subclass and has +1 to saving throws on their subclass features. (Like Rune Knight). While the 16 dex fighter has no subclass where the 16 dex would be usable.

Just a quick note - breastplate doesn't impose a stealth penalty, it's what my barbarian used until he could afford mitral half plate. For that matter mithral full plate doesn't have a stealth penalty either.

As far as 4e, I don't see how any of that is relevant since this is a 5e discussion.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, this is why I’m pretty ability score radical. If you want your druid to be impulsive and nimble? Ok, they’re impulsive and nimble. The ability scores are just numbers, don’t worry about what they “mean.” They mean nothing more and nothing less than their effect on your odds of success at their associated rolls.
In the multitudes of half-finished RPGs I've half-bottomed (Hi Eric's grandma!) half-designed, I had one that had ability scores like "Might", "Savvy" and "Innate" and other things marked where it applied. A caster-type might (heh) add Might to their Magical Force but not to any sorts of weaponry, while a Knight could add it to melee damage, shield checks, and how imposing they were.
 


Yeah, this is why I’m pretty ability score radical. If you want your druid to be impulsive and nimble? Ok, they’re impulsive and nimble. The ability scores are just numbers, don’t worry about what they “mean.” They mean nothing more and nothing less than their effect on your odds of success at their associated rolls.
I've been waiting for this response. I really love that this works for some people, but it doesn't jive right with me. My mind rebels against it.

"If ability scores only have mechanical meaning, why name like they do carry qualitative meaning?"

"Why not call them Abilities A, B, C, D, E and F - or name them after different legumes: Back Bean, Peanut, Lentil, etc.?"

Those are types of things my mind asks, and I have no answers to provide it. So I feel dirty ignoring the meaning behind the names of ability scores. I feel I'm acting dishonestly, and I hate wrapping my identity up in dishonest living (to my own psychological and financial detriment).

But really, I feel this is a fair way to play the game, even if something stops me from playing that way. It'd save me a lot of time and energy if I could properly wrap my head around your perspective.
 

Just a quick note - breastplate doesn't impose a stealth penalty, it's what my barbarian used until he could afford mitral half plate. For that matter mithral full plate doesn't have a stealth penalty either.

As far as 4e, I don't see how any of that is relevant since this is a 5e discussion.

Its essentially theorycrafting. 4E player's dont functionally exist.

Ill see if I can find the thread where we built a decent fighter to OPs requirements.
 

I've been waiting for this response. I really love that this works for some people, but it doesn't jive right with me. My mind rebels against it.

"If ability scores only have mechanical meaning, why name like they do carry qualitative meaning?"

"Why not call them Abilities A, B, C, D, E and F - or name them after different legumes: Back Bean, Peanut, Lentil, etc.?"

Those are types of things my mind asks, and I have no answers to provide it. So I feel dirty ignoring the meaning behind the names of ability scores. I feel I'm acting dishonestly, and I hate wrapping my identity up in dishonest living (to my own psychological and financial detriment).

But really, I feel this is a fair way to play the game, even if something stops me from playing that way. It'd save me a lot of time and energy if I could properly wrap my head around your perspective.
Well, the reason the abilities have those names is that D&D is a very old game, and a lot of people who have played it for a long time have developed strong emotional attachments to certain aesthetic elements of the game and would complain that it doesn’t “feel like D&D” without them. The names of the abilities is one of these aesthetic elements. If you changed what they were called, the grognards would complain and probably quit playing.
 

Well, the reason the abilities have those names is that D&D is a very old game, and a lot of people who have played it for a long time have developed strong emotional attachments to certain aesthetic elements of the game and would complain that it doesn’t “feel like D&D” without them. The names of the abilities is one of these aesthetic elements. If you changed what they were called, the grognards would complain and probably quit playing.
It's not just grognards who've played the game for a long time. Lots of surveys and informal conversations show that a huge number of tables love rolling for ability scores and using the rolled scores to make a character, and a lot of those tables are people new to D&D. Polls seem to show something like 45-75% of responders prefer/use rolling, and anecdotally I've seen a lot of people who clearly don't qualify as grognards (if you're college-age now, it's not physically possible for you to have played the game for what I'd consider a long time) who come into organized play and seem surprised or disappointed that the systems use point buy or standard array.

If you ditched the basic format of six ability scores on the '3-18 but can raise it a bit, but not too much' and had them stop affecting class choices, it wouldn't just be the people who've been using them since the 70s or 80s that would be put off, there's a large chunk of the active player base.
 

Well, the reason the abilities have those names is that D&D is a very old game, and a lot of people who have played it for a long time have developed strong emotional attachments to certain aesthetic elements of the game and would complain that it doesn’t “feel like D&D” without them. The names of the abilities is one of these aesthetic elements. If you changed what they were called, the grognards would complain and probably quit playing.
Sure. But honestly, when I'm looking at a game, I'm not trying to understand the history of its development, I'm trying to figure out how to make use of it at my table.

Furthermore, the history doesn't change the fact that ability scores are, nominatively, supposed to measure something, and therefore, the thing being measured should exist in the game-space. That something, in my opinion, shouldn't be wholly abstract. The less abstract it is, the more easily I am able to relate to the game-space.

But I totally get why someone might decide to abstract away ability scores, allowing them to become purely mathematical constructs. I think it's cool people can think that way.
 

It's not just grognards who've played the game for a long time. Lots of surveys and informal conversations show that a huge number of tables love rolling for ability scores and using the rolled scores to make a character, and a lot of those tables are people new to D&D. Polls seem to show something like 45-75% of responders prefer/use rolling, and anecdotally I've seen a lot of people who clearly don't qualify as grognards (if you're college-age now, it's not physically possible for you to have played the game for what I'd consider a long time) who come into organized play and seem surprised or disappointed that the systems use point buy or standard array.

If you ditched the basic format of six ability scores on the '3-18 but can raise it a bit, but not too much' and had them stop affecting class choices, it wouldn't just be the people who've been using them since the 70s or 80s that would be put off, there's a large chunk of the active player base.
I was talking about the names of the abilities, not the process of generating the scores.
 

It's not just grognards who've played the game for a long time. Lots of surveys and informal conversations show that a huge number of tables love rolling for ability scores and using the rolled scores to make a character, and a lot of those tables are people new to D&D. Polls seem to show something like 45-75% of responders prefer/use rolling, and anecdotally I've seen a lot of people who clearly don't qualify as grognards (if you're college-age now, it's not physically possible for you to have played the game for what I'd consider a long time) who come into organized play and seem surprised or disappointed that the systems use point buy or standard array.

If you ditched the basic format of six ability scores on the '3-18 but can raise it a bit, but not too much' and had them stop affecting class choices, it wouldn't just be the people who've been using them since the 70s or 80s that would be put off, there's a large chunk of the active player base.

This.

Severe change got voted down in 5.5 surveys. Theres not enough grogs left to do that vs the modern intake.

People seem incapable of understanding D&D is its own thing and a lot of D&Disms are popular.

Grogs at best making up 10-15% of the playerbase iirc and thats if youre over 40+ years old. We're not a monolith either.
 

Remove ads

Top