My first Homebrew attempt to fix the elven dex fighter/rapier and bow all too frequent build in my campaign: I need some advice!

[The Crimson Binome]

That is right. So what if we just say strength concepts are not viable under this rule set... its the same argument right?

Strength-based fighters have been the core of D&D, ever since day one. If you remove that, then it's arguably not even the same game anymore. To contrast, Dexterity-based fighters have only been viable in 5E.

A monk in light armor using strength is a fighter... you pretty much just removed the class, which is not very different from disallowing them.

How so? The class switches from Dex+Wisdom to Strength+Dex. The bonus AC from wearing light armor makes up for moving Wisdom to a lower priority. You probably end up with a few less HP, since you don't have as many dump stats. It's not a big change, except conceptually.

Was the armor thing confusing? I meant that they could still gain +Wisdom to AC, even while wearing light armor. Their over-all AC would probably stay the same, even accounting for lower Wisdom priority.

 

[TwoSix]

What's weird about this is that the rapier is not a particularly potent combat option in 5E. For a melee specialist, the optimizer's weapons of choice are the glaive and the greatsword, neither of which is a finesse weapon. Honorable mention goes to longsword if you want to go sword-and-board. Your min-maxers are not maxing very well.

Now, if you were talking about longbows being overpowered, that'd be another matter.

I don't think the complaint is about melee specialists, really. It's about the fact that fighters in general (in the OP's campaign) prefer Dex and ranged attacks; and when pressed into melee, they all fall back onto the same option, which is a rapier.

 

[ClaytonCross]

That . . . actually sounds like a real rapier there.

Cutting weapons in the real world are all finesse even the longsword. Cutting is for unarmored opponents and doesn't require mush strength if you have any technical skill. Piercing is generally considered finesse for armored or unarmored looking for week sponts but then you look at javelin, Lance, and even the heavy crossbow which are defiantly strength attacking through the armor instead of going around it. All bludgeoning weapons are strength with the exception of a sling and quarterstaff.... so I don't think it makes since to have a rapier as strength, but if you want variation in dex weapons you can make more of the one handed weapons 1d8 finesse (shortsword and falchion at least)or make the rapier 1d6 when used with finesse to it not better than all the other 1d6 finesse options then players are picking flavor between them instead of the 1 option with 1d8 damage. Doesn't mater which way you go so much as long as their are multiple top level equivalents they will stop just choosing the one.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Strength-based fighters have been the core of D&D, ever since day one. If you remove that, then it's arguably not even the same game anymore. To contrast, Dexterity-based fighters have only been viable in 5E.

That was intended as a joke to show that the argument swings both ways so the perspective evil dex would not exist if it was your only melee option the same as if strength was the only melee options. Hard to read it sub text, but I don't really want to get rid of strength as an option... I mean technically you could remove strength and dexterity and replace them with "martial combat skill" and simplify the problem then players being dex or strength is just how they describe how they fight. My point is dex and strength are more style choices than one being better than the other. When the 2d6 Greatsword Knight (fighter) swings 5 times at the "Samerai" Kensal monk who responds 4 attackes of 1d10, then the "Ninja" rogue jumps in attacking with once with a 11d6 stab to the back... they seem pretty well balanced with often around 20AC each.

So why does dexterity get a bad rap? I believe its perception issue. We currently have 2 rogues, a Rogue/monk, and a bard who sometimes fights in dex melee fights, I am a Warlock scout how uses CHA for melee and ranged, and we have a strength based Paladin. The paladin is way more powerful optimized by pure accident despite him owning everything and my warlock having kill everyone but the paladin and mon in battle royal one shot we did... we did not start with 3 rogues in our group, we had instead we had 2 strength fighters and wizard. Those PC died. I was already filling the rogue spot. We got a new player and they built new PCs and went that way. I asked why, and they all wanted to be sneaky one assassin, one a thief, the rogue/monk wants to play a "ninja", the bard just wanted to be a wizard again but thought it too cheesy to go wizard to wizard so he went arcane fighter full caster so it more of a stealthy melee wizard. I am still the scout as a warlock. The gym still complains about me being max/min when our rogue thief is FAR MORE max/min than I am and duplicated a lot of my skill making me redundant... no one took rogue because its was optimal, in fact most of the builds are based around the idea of the second rogue attribute. The assassin, is a face always trying to criminal stuff and explain his way through. The "ninja" is wisdom based with high perception and shadow magic trying to read people with incite and find their secrets while keep his own, the thief is basically a sell sword scout and is kind of trying to push me out because the player loves being the one that searches all the door for traps, so I keep watch and scout outside but he clears dungeons as I guard from the back with eldritch blast cover.

It is high a high dex group, but not for max/min optimization but narrative flavor. The Paladin who is optimized and DISTROYES everything ...no one complains about.

How so? The class switches from Dex+Wisdom to Strength+Dex. The bonus AC from wearing light armor makes up for moving Wisdom to a lower priority. You probably end up with a few less HP, since you don't have as many dump stats. It's not a big change, except conceptually.

Was the armor thing confusing? I meant that they could still gain +Wisdom to AC, even while wearing light armor. Their over-all AC would probably stay the same, even accounting for lower Wisdom priority.

To me a monk is a dex based fighter in robes. When you put them in armor they become a fighter. When you make them strength the just become a barfighter brawler who will likely use the same gear as any other fighter. It is conceptually a fighter subclass at that point and the biggest part of what makes the monk different from fighters is gone. The same for putting armor on Barbarians.

Maybe you feel different but I have no interest in reskinning fighters for all martial rolls. We start doing that then we only need 2 classes. Fighter and Caster with everything else being subclasses. I prefer greater variety.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That was intended as a joke to show that the argument swings both ways so the perspective evil dex would not exist if it was your only melee option the same as if strength was the only melee options.

The difference is that Dexterity already goes toward so many things, while melee is the only real thing that Strength does. If you remove Finesse weapons, then Dexterity is still a very useful stat. If you remove Strength-based melee weapons, then Strength becomes the universal dump stat.

Hard to read it sub text, but I don't really want to get rid of strength as an option... I mean technically you could remove strength and dexterity and replace them with "martial combat skill" and simplify the problem then players being dex or strength is just how they describe how they fight.

I'm in favor of having one stat to govern all melee combat, but I would want to call it "Strength", for the sake of tradition. I don't really see the benefit to allowing alternate descriptions, such as fighting purely with finesse such that Strength becomes a non-factor. To me, that's a very slippery slope, which inevitably leads back to 4E-style using Constitution to attack. You need to draw the line somewhere, and I see nothing wrong with limiting melee to Strength-only.

To me a monk is a dex based fighter in robes. When you put them in armor they become a fighter. When you make them strength the just become a barfighter brawler who will likely use the same gear as any other fighter. It is conceptually a fighter subclass at that point and the biggest part of what makes the monk different from fighters is gone. The same for putting armor on Barbarians.

I know it's just a matter of preferences and expectations, but to me, a monk is a Strength-based fighter in not-necessarily armor. The bar-room brawler isn't even a concept worth entertaining, because it would be so pitifully ineffective when compared to a fighter in armor, and monks are amazing because they actually can perform comparably with their bare hands. Simply using the same stat to hit with is not sufficient to conflate the two, anymore than a paladin is like a warlock because they both use Charisma.

When you're talking about light armor, in D&D, that's the stuff that rogues and ninjas wear. It's "studded leather", or some other nonsense that gives minimal protection, but is sufficient to fulfill the mechanical role required of it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The difference is that Dexterity already goes toward so many things, while melee is the only real thing that Strength does. If you remove Finesse weapons, then Dexterity is still a very useful stat. If you remove Strength-based melee weapons, then Strength becomes the universal dump stat.

At my tables as a player and as a GM, we track weight, encumbrance (variant), and carrying capacity. With that alone Strength is not a dump stat. Even as a scout, I had low strength and quickly realized I couldn't even loot the bad guys because I couldn't carry much more than my own pack and a few hundred coins. So if your not tracking coin weight, encumbrance PHB p176 for that horrible 10 speed, limiting what the party can carry based on the lift/carry/drag stats in the PHB p176, or using grapple/shove PHB p195, using athletics (strength) for climbing, swimming, & jumping PHB p175, or strength tests for trying to force a stuck doors and break locks or even strength as an alternate intimidation (strength) as suggested in the box "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities" PHB p175 … Then sure strength is only used for melee, but not by rules but because your choosing to ignore it and the rules to which it applies then wondering why no one is using it....

I'm in favor of having one stat to govern all melee combat, but I would want to call it "Strength", for the sake of tradition. I don't really see the benefit to allowing alternate descriptions, such as fighting purely with finesse such that Strength becomes a non-factor. To me, that's a very slippery slope, which inevitably leads back to 4E-style using Constitution to attack. You need to draw the line somewhere, and I see nothing wrong with limiting melee to Strength-only.

Sure, that's a valid opinion to take. However, I feel like stripping dexterity melee out is like saying a light weight boxer is not an athlete because heavy weight boxers exist. Their is something to be said for skill and speed vs power as separate fighting styles. I don't want ninja based on sumo strength. Thematically I like the separation. As I said I don't want one stat, because as you said its a slippery slope. I like skill (dexterity), strength, and toughness (constitution) as my variable on any fighter. Less seems like a lose of variety and more seems nit picky. That is absolutely opinion and preference. If I have a complaint its that a longsword is strength weapon in D&D even though its a back balanced cutting weapon make for speed as skill ….so I just have to remind my self its a fantasy game somethings are not perfect. You have your desire and I have mine. So what's wrong with players liking the skilled fighter stereotype over the strong brute stereotype? The mountain vs that fancy guy with a stick?

I know it's just a matter of preferences and expectations, but to me, a monk is a Strength-based fighter in not-necessarily armor. The bar-room brawler isn't even a concept worth entertaining, because it would be so pitifully ineffective when compared to a fighter in armor, and monks are amazing because they actually can perform comparably with their bare hands. Simply using the same stat to hit with is not sufficient to conflate the two, anymore than a paladin is like a warlock because they both use Charisma.

I agree with your first statement, but to me, a Monk is like a Ninja skill (aka dex) and no armor and Strength with no armor is Conan the Barbarian and strength with armor is The Mountain.

When you're talking about light armor, in D&D, that's the stuff that rogues and ninjas wear. It's "studded leather", or some other nonsense that gives minimal protection, but is sufficient to fulfill the mechanical role required of it.

Sure they could of put the gambeson as a better descriptive match and look but if I am thinking monk I am thinking like Bruce Lee without a shirt and the wisdom dexterity combo of reading your opponent and dodging then punching in the week spots is the monk I think of. Like Ip Man vs Mike Tyson the strength based barbarian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HvnRvUSHr4

They are not the same and I like the separation in D&D. I have no problem with all my players wanting to be Ip Man/Jet Lee ninja rogue monks if they are not interested in being Conan the Barbarian or the Mountain. To me, it is a narrative choice and the since we do use all the strength rules I mentioned above and we do some small level of party planning, we always have a couple of players using strength shoving people around, carrying gear, and grappling prone enemies so the party can all gain advantage on attacks until the enemy breaks free. We also usually have a healer and tank at the start of the campaign. Though I healer left for IRL reasons and we didn't change the current party because of that we just got more careful. That said we have a paladin tank, so he can do some amount of healing anyway.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Strength-based fighters have been the core of D&D, ever since day one. If you remove that, then it's arguably not even the same game anymore. To contrast, Dexterity-based fighters have only been viable in 5E.

They've been viable since 3rd edition - and they should be. The Princess Bride is one of the most popular D&Dish fantasy movies with my group.

 

[ClaytonCross]

They've been viable since 3rd edition - and they should be. The Princess Bride is one of the most popular D&Dish fantasy movies in my group.

agreed.

I mean, I played an awesome duel wielding ranger in 3.5 so ya that was a think but also even in red box "Elf" was a thing sure stats were different but the depiction was defiantly not elfs can fight in melee the must only use bows because they are soooo weak. nope. Sure 5e has defiantly made it better but I mean it is better. So reverting to old designs that aren't as good as an example of we should do in 5e seems confused and backwards. 5e might not be perfect but it has been extremely well received because they have learned a lot over the years and used it to improve the game immensely. If you disagree with that... why are you playing 5e instead of earlier editions?

The problem with the dex fighter is not the dex. Its the perception that everyone playing a rogue is playing because they what to optimize when it might just be they are interested in playing Robin Hood than playing the mountain clanking around in full plate. Sure there are more dex fighters in general but that's not 0 strength fighters and as I have pointed out it has a lot to do with GMs under valuing strength over skill in role play and players following their GMs example. When you make strength matter by using the rules that exist instead of hand waving them, you see more players using strength because you give them a chance to feel strong. Why would I want to play strong character when I look over and see the dex character carrying the cart on his back effortlessly and easily unlocking doors I can't knock down because I never even get a roll? If I do knock the door down its just,"okay after a bit you manage to knock the door down" with no ceremony to it but no one hand waves dexterity checks for some reason. I want to roll when I play D&D. Hand waving is very often a sign of the GM being board or worrying the players not rolling are. I usually don't mind watch other players stories.

 

[lingual]

Part of the problem is the min-maxing that gives Dex fighters and rapiers a bad name.

A dex fighter with 12 strength? Perfectly fine. Even a 10 is ok

A dex "fighter" with 8 strength? Kind of lame.

 

[5ekyu]

Part of the problem is the min-maxing that gives Dex fighters and rapiers a bad name.

A dex fighter with 12 strength? Perfectly fine. Even a 10 is ok

A dex "fighter" with 8 strength? Kind of lame.

But... do you also have problems with clerics or soldiers or other non-barbarisns with 8 int or 8 cha?

My suggestion for GMs eho get put off by 8s in one stat or another is "raise the minimums to 10 across the board."

Me, an 8 strength will cause plenty of issues in practical adventuring **and** seem to bite you more often than say the same score in INT pt CHA would - at least as far as unanticipated events hit.

So, I do not have an issue with 8 str guys as long as they dont hsve problems when it comes time to see thst fallout.