D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say they weren't useful. I said they weren't universally very useful, which was your claim.

Sure, it's better to have a higher initiative modifier than a lower one. That doesn't mean that it's better to have a higher initiative than it is to have a higher INT-based spell attack roll.

I played a dwarf battlemaster for four levels, ending in an untimely death at the horns of a minotaur. DEX was my dump stat, because I was leaning in to the archetype. I fired a crossbow a several times over those four levels, and I hit a few times. Mostly I fought melee or used thrown weapons. Frankly, I didn't want to take the time to unequip my shield. I never, ever fell into a pit. DEX would not have helped my AC. I had enough hit points to survive any failed reflex saves -- though I can't remember any particular instances in which I failed the save. Low initiative was not a big deal.

I DMed for a high DEX wizard running from level 1 to 11. She succeeded in most of her DEX saves, and she still managed to be knocked out of the fight by area of effect spells that did enough damage, even on a save, to drop her. Several times. Nearly every time that I called for a DEX save. That saving throw modifier just wasn't much benefit to her.


Well, I have said (at least twice, in this thread, in conversation with you, I believe) that it's often more advantageous to have moderately high scores in multiple abilities than to have one high and one low.

In threads like this, it's easy to lose the context of the conversation. I admit I might have lost that context. But, for clarity, here's the context in which I'm making my comments:

* We're talking about the relative value of racial ASIs in different ability scores and how floating ASIs in TCoE might affect balance. So, when I say that DEX is not objectively better than INT (or any other stat), I mean, specifically, that a racial DEX ASI is not inherently better than one in INT. It depends on character and the way that character is played. I also mean that it is not universally the case that it's better to have a higher DEX than INT.

* You made a list of the ways in which DEX was better than INT, and you stated that none of the advantages that you enumerated were small factors. I said, and I maintain, that for some characters, some of those advantages are small, and some of them are non-factors all together. You simply over-stated your case.

How many characters have to care about those factors for it to matter according to you? What percentage? Giving up a couple anecdotes doesn’t really prove anything.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, you got to be bad at something, right? So I guess the question that should be asked is, if you have a choice, what would you prefer to be bad at?

 

[ECMO3]

You don't need to maximize it for it to be universally useful. There is no PC class that wouldn't benefit from better initiative, saves and AC. There are classes that don't see the same benefit from int.

There are many characters who will not get a better AC out of dexterity.

Moreover this logic is true for any stat.

 

[Irlo]

How many characters have to care about those factors for it to matter according to you? What percentage? Giving up a couple anecdotes doesn’t really prove anything.

???

I didn’t say those factors don’t matter. But to the point, a couple of anecdotes does prove it’s not universal.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, I have said (at least twice, in this thread, in conversation with you, I believe) that it's often more advantageous to have moderately high scores in multiple abilities than to have one high and one low.

I agree, with the caveat your main stat should generally be high.

For most characters that are not ranged martials or rogues a 14 Dex and 12 Intelligence is generally going to make for a better and stronger character than a 16 dexterity and 8 intelligence. If you are doing point buy those are the same costs.

That is not always true, but it is generally true and it is probably the most extreme example.

 

[Maxperson]

There are many characters who will not get a better AC out of dexterity.

Moreover this logic is true for any stat.

I said class, not character. Dex is objectively the more universally useful stat of the two for all classes.

Will a few narrowly focused int classes get more out of int? Sure. How many int classes are there compared to those that don't revolve around int? There are about as many dex focused classes. And dex generally helps the int characters, too. They generally don't want to get hit due to low hit points, so dex is pretty up their on their priority list as well. The same can't be said about dex classes and int. For the majority of classes that don't revolve around dex or int, dex is far and away the generally more useful of the two stats.

Dex and int are not equal. It's not even close. Dex outstrips int in usefulness and quality.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, you got to be bad at something, right? So I guess the question that should be asked is, if you have a choice, what would you prefer to be bad at?

I choose…forum debating!

 

[James Gasik]

Oh that's not good, then you're opinions will be dismissed and lambasted constantly....

Damn. I'm bad at forum debating too.

 

[Scott Christian]

I honestly feel like once it is an official publication, it is used by anyone who buys the book. I've never really seen a table, unless there is an uber-specific campaign, where everything wasn't allowed.

This was actually why so many people argue about minutia, like racial abilities. Because in gaming terms, they feel it is not a slippery slope fallacy to say, once it happens it will always be the rule, not the exception. I don't know if that's true, but I definitely get why people are fearful sometimes.

 

[Maxperson]

There are many characters who will not get a better AC out of dexterity.

Do you think that number will be the same or as high as those who do get a better AC from a dex bonus? Because I think that while there are "many"(in quotes because that number is small relative to the number that do get AC) characters who don't get a better AC out of dex, the vast majority of characters do get a bonus from it.

 

[Irlo]

I said class, not character.

I could give the fighter as an example of the class, and you could point to a fighter character that could get a helluva lot of benefit from DEX, and I could point to an equally valid fighter character that gets very little benefit from DEX, and we'd go 'round and 'round.

Dex is objectively the more universally useful stat of the two for all classes.

More universally? Okay, then. There are now degrees of universality.

You can't just say that it's not universal?

 

[Irlo]

Do you think that number will be the same or as high as those who do get a better AC from a dex bonus? Because I think that while there are "many"(in quotes because that number is small relative to the number that do get AC) characters who don't get a better AC out of dex, the vast majority of characters do get a bonus from it.

No matter how many or how few, and in no matter what proportion, it's not universal.

 

[Maxperson]

I could give the fighter as an example of the class, and you could point to a fighter character that could get a helluva lot of benefit from DEX, and I could point to an equally valid fighter character that gets very little benefit from DEX, and we'd go 'round and 'round.

Well, no. You couldn't point to the fighter as an example of a class that gets no AC benefit from dex. You can point to a subset of individual fighter characters that use heavy armor, but those aren't the class.

More universally? Okay, then. There are now degrees of universality.

Apparently there can be more infinite, so why not more universal.

 

[Irlo]

Well, no. You couldn't point to the fighter as an example of a class that gets no AC benefit from dex. You can point to a subset of individual fighter characters that use heavy armor, but those aren't the class.

Right. And you can only point to a subset of individual fighter characters that get an AC benefit from DEX. In fact, the very same character can sometimes get a benefit and sometimes get no benefit, depending on what they're wearing.

As I said, 'round and 'round. I'm getting off the carousel.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. And you can only point to a subset of individual fighter characters that get an AC benefit from DEX. In fact, the very same character can sometimes get a benefit and sometimes get no benefit, depending on what they're wearing.

As I said, 'round and 'round. I'm getting off the carousel.

Thing is, even fighters that don't get AC bonuses still get a save bonus vs. the most common save in the game and with initiative.

 

[James Gasik]

Second most common, nearly tied with Wisdom, I think, based on MM monsters, I believe it was.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In general, the only times that Dex isn't at least tied for best secondary stat, is when it is the primary stat.

I think that comparing Dex to the primary ability score of a class is rather missing the point. Primary ability scores are different depending on the class. I don't believe that anyone is arguing that Dex is better than Int for most Wizards, so I don't think that stating that it is is constructive.

There are many characters who will not get a better AC out of dexterity.

This does not disprove what they said.

Moreover this logic is true for any stat.

I feel the point at which people start to suggest that the situation of fighters making untrained Investigation checks meaning that Dex isn't generally better than Int for them, taking a breath could be beneficial.

I could give the fighter as an example of the class, and you could point to a fighter character that could get a helluva lot of benefit from DEX, and I could point to an equally valid fighter character that gets very little benefit from DEX, and we'd go 'round and 'round.

Indeed. And you could give the same argument for how Dex isn't as useful as Int for Wizards. Or how there are builds of Rogues, Rangers and Monks where Dex does not have to be the highest stat.
However what you are dancing around is that you are having to change the stat that you are comparing with each time.

 

[Helldritch]

If you want Dex to be less of a power house. Use side initiative. It removes it from initiative equation entirely. It also neuter the feat Alert unless you wish to go with "exceptions". But side initiative works great. Dexterity will still be very good, but it will be less of a "must have" second best for some classes.

 

[Irlo]

In general, the only times that Dex isn't at least tied for best secondary stat, is when it is the primary stat.

Paladin? Heavily armored cleric or fighter? Artificer (where DEX would probably be tertiary)?

I think that comparing Dex to the primary ability score of a class is rather missing the point. Primary ability scores are different depending on the class. I don't believe that anyone is arguing that Dex is better than Int for most Wizards, so I don't think that stating that it is is constructive.

I was responding to just that argument. The claim was the DEX is universally and objectively better than INT, and that each of the benefits of a high DEX modifier are significant (not small factors in the comparative analysis). My answer to that was: no, the value of DEX depends on class, class choices, and the distribution of ability scores overall. The value to a PC of those benefits of high DEX are not all significant.

It's not universal or objective.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, look at it like this. I can build a Paladin to use Strength or Dexterity. What does this actually mean?

-Strength Paladin can use heavy weapons. Strength Paladin can, after spending a lot of money, get a little more AC. Strength Paladin can lug around more gear, and is better at Strength saves (which generally only apply to effects that push you around or knock you prone). Strength Paladin is good at Strength skills.

-Dexterity Paladin has to use weapons with the finesse quality. They are better at using ranged weapons. Dexterity Paladin has to spend a lot less money on armor. Dexterity Paladin is better at Dexterity saves (which generally apply to effects that cause hit point damage or hinder movement in some way). Dexterity Paladin is good at Dexterity skills. Dexterity Paladin has better initiative. Dexterity Paladin is far better at Stealth.

The takeaway here is that the main advantage of Strength Paladin is more damage and being good at Strength skills. Strength saves don't come up often and the penalty for failing them is far less of an issue with other saves.

Dexterity Paladin is more versatile, being good with ranged weapons. They have better initiative (which you may find valuable), Dexterity saves are much more common than Strength saves, and taking less damage is always nice. Dexterity Skills vs. Strength skills is a preference, I find they are both nice. Dexterity Paladin doesn't have to wait as long to get their best armor. Dexterity Paladin is better at Stealth.

There are tradeoffs to both approaches, but Dexterity Paladin gets a bit more upside, if those things are important to you. Hence, one can say Dexterity seems like a better attribute to have than Strength.

But on the other hand, if you want more damage per hit, and you plan on using Great Weapon Master, the advantages of Dexterity over Strength are irrelevant. You can't make that choice, so even if Dexterity is the better attribute on paper, it makes no difference.