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

[Oofta]

Yes, by definition.
Str characters are better in melee than dex based ones.
But then other people have that backwards and I guess adding finesse to bows does not hurt that much and it makes the choice between dex or str a style. For fairness sake we should also add finesse two handed weapons and better light and medium armor.

Technically it is power creep, but I look at it as trying to balance the scales a bit because dex is far too good. Dex based PCs already have better initiative, better stealth, better dex saves which are likely the single most common saving throw in the game for PCs.

About the only thing a dex based build misses out on is on the high end of AC and even that is typically only a 17 AC for dex builds vs 18 AC for strength at higher levels. Two-handed weapons do a tiny bit more damage overall, but even GWM is, by far, overshadowed by sharp shooter.

I don't think the game is balanced when 1 PC can hit a squirrel at 200 yards with no disadvantage while the other has to get within 10 yards and can only throw 1 per turn while the archer can fire 6 with an action surge. Most bow hunters will tell you that the effective range is around 30-60 yards. Draw weight has quite a bit to do with range and of course shooting a stationary target is significantly further.

So I make bows versatile. If throwing, you can throw as many as you have attacks. You can call that power creep, and I guess it is. For me? It's called better game balance.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Wat.

Okay, let me get this straight. The proposal here is to add finesse to a weapon that currently is dex only (it was late when I posted, so I didn't pay attention to the exact weapon being modified), and that somehow, by being a weapon that can now be "finessed," it would then be subject to strength modifiers as an option where it wasn't before.

A weapon with the "Finesse" property can use either Str or Dex.
That is literally what I wanted bows to be able to do.

Please tell me this hasn't been confirmed as RAI. Because that is possibly the dumbest interpretation of that weapon property I can think of. Did no one look up what the word "finesse" meant before they came up with that? Yeah, I get that 5E is sometimes not great with the way it words its rules, but common sense here, people. Please?

Generally finesse means "with skill". There is just as much skill and control involved using Str for a weapon as Dex. The word already wasn't a very good fit for the games mechanic named after it, so using that word to represent the games mechanic it already did wasn't an issue for us.

I think that when your house rule makes the game less comprehensible, it's a bad house rule. "It doesn't mean anything" doesn't really work when the word means the opposite of what you're trying to make it mean.

As for the rest of the earlier paragraph and this post: - I'm not sure if I have upset you somehow in (presumably) a different thread, but I assure you I didn't intend to.

Yes, by definition.
Str characters are better in melee than dex based ones.
But then other people have that backwards and I guess adding finesse to bows does not hurt that much and it makes the choice between dex or str a style. For fairness sake we should also add finesse two handed weapons and better light and medium armor.

I've not seen a need to do that for either balance or realism purposes yet.

It brings up STR-based characters at range to where Dex-based characters are in melee, but DEX has so many other subsidiary benefits that evening the score there doesn't seem to have overbalanced anything.

 

[Blue]

No, although mechanically speaking they are clearly the most obvious. I'm saying all magic items with a mechanical benefit to anything a PC does make that PC more powerful. That needs to be accounted for, and telling people that magic items aren't necessary isn't a good solution for most tables. I've never been in a game where players didn't want magic items. Again, that seems like a DM curated world sort of thing.

Yes, and what does this have to do with the discussion?

No one is telling anyone magic items aren't needed or necessary. In the slightest. I was vocal about giving characters items, I really don't know where that statement is coming from.

We are not discussing that magic items don't help characters, either. This was purely a discussion "are plus X magic items required for all characters because the designers factored them into character advancement math to deal with on-level challenges".

Please, you've strayed to some other point that we aren't talking about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, and what does this have to do with the discussion?

No one is telling anyone magic items aren't needed or necessary. In the slightest. I was vocal about giving characters items, I really don't know where that statement is coming from.

We are not discussing that magic items don't help characters, either. This was purely a discussion "are plus X magic items required for all characters because the designers factored them into character advancement math to deal with on-level challenges".

Please, you've strayed to some other point that we aren't talking about.

Fair enough. Magic items are absolutely not required by the math (they, in fact, skew the math in 5e). I do feel, however, that they are functionally required for the full enjoyment of most tables.

 

[cowpie]

I streamline initiative by doing partial group initiative. Both sides roll initiative with a DEX mod, and then half the winning side goes, then half the losing side, back and forth.
When everyone rolls initiative, the highest roll represents the whole party's initiative. This lets DEX help the whole party, but lowers the individual impact of DEX on specific characters.

 

[Nefermandias]

In my experience, 5E players don’t want realism and don’t want challenges and don’t want anything less than perfectly optimized characters. The majority of 5E players seem to want fantasy superheroes or demigods from the start.

They also find absurd the idea that character death is a natural part of the game.

Just look at how many Reddit threads we get every day with players complaining about their characters getting killed and even more threads with DMs asking for "help" to not TPK their parties with some published module.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Technically it is power creep, but I look at it as trying to balance the scales a bit because dex is far too good. Dex based PCs already have better initiative, better stealth, better dex saves which are likely the single most common saving throw in the game for PCs.

About the only thing a dex based build misses out on is on the high end of AC and even that is typically only a 17 AC for dex builds vs 18 AC for strength at higher levels. Two-handed weapons do a tiny bit more damage overall, but even GWM is, by far, overshadowed by sharp shooter.

I don't think the game is balanced when 1 PC can hit a squirrel at 200 yards with no disadvantage while the other has to get within 10 yards and can only throw 1 per turn while the archer can fire 6 with an action surge. Most bow hunters will tell you that the effective range is around 30-60 yards. Draw weight has quite a bit to do with range and of course shooting a stationary target is significantly further.

So I make bows versatile. If throwing, you can throw as many as you have attacks. You can call that power creep, and I guess it is. For me? It's called better game balance.

I don't take the bait and agree that it is A solution to the perceived problem.

 

[Undrave]

They also find absurd the idea that character death is a natural part of the game.

'cause they're invested. Why is that a bad thing??

We're FAR from the time where Bob the Fighter could die and be replaced in 5 seconds by his brother Bob II. Character generation takes a while, story is important to players and all that investment feels wasted if your character just die. Especially if its just because of a single bad roll.

 

[Nefermandias]

'cause they're invested. Why is that a bad thing??

We're FAR from the time where Bob the Fighter could die and be replaced in 5 seconds by his brother Bob II. Character generation takes a while, story is important to players and all that investment feels wasted if your character just die. Especially if its just because of a single bad roll.

Didn't say anything about bad or good. It is what it is.

 

[overgeeked]

'cause they're invested. Why is that a bad thing??

We're FAR from the time where Bob the Fighter could die and be replaced in 5 seconds by his brother Bob II. Character generation takes a while, story is important to players and all that investment feels wasted if your character just die. Especially if its just because of a single bad roll.

More’s the pity. Makes for an incredibly boring game when the PCs have infinite plot armor. When combined with the need for all the kewl powers and never failing at anything and never being challenged, it’s a wonder there’s still any game or dice left. Should just be a DM sitting there telling the players how amazing, perfect, and awesome they are. Makes the games where the dice are only used to determine how much the PC’s succeed by make a lot more sense.