Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7555256" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Got insane and called a cheater even If he really did, but that's fare.Yes and this forces them to have strength for melee however they don't have heavy armor proficiency so the need dex to have an AC higher that 12 from studded leather which would be suicide at pretty much every table I have played at. In contrast most strength characters are in classes with heavy armor proficiency uses strength for attacks and armor allowance so you your just shifting the optimizers to only strength since the tax of having strength and dex to fight is just too high.That's "great" until melee NPC characters surround your ranged characters in a tiny room and they are making all there attacks at disadvantage... Also, the argument is So they aren't complaining because their are dexterous fighters the are complaining because the tactical – optimizer – min-max players favor them. So what happens when the "tactical – optimizer – min-max players" favor strength? Do we then get rid of strength too? What about the Eldritch Knight... Strength and Intellect ranged cantrips. What about the Bladelock… melee subclass with eldritch blast Strength and Charisma? What makes these any different with than the dexbuilds? I do think the OP wants more strength fighters my point is the "why?". The OP points to min/max players and how good these characters are however their are strength builds that are just as optimized and the choice to be narrative is just a personal relation of that or not. So when the Eldritch Knights and HexBlade Warlocks over run the table... with the same tactical options will that be alright with the GM? If so then the only problem the OP is really having it they don't like player stealth builds which is game play style choice and largely narrative. If the OP doesn't like continually seeing the same builds over and over again, then limiting "tactical players" will result in the exact same problem with a different favored build, however, if the OP just wants player to play strength characters more... make strength characters more desirable and your opening up options which will make a more diverse table due to narrative choices. Your not going to change what makes player love about D&D by taking there favorite toy. You might get them to try new new toy by show how much fun it can be. I would make some strength melee tanks, guarding a small indoor room and working together push them down grapple them gaining advantage on attacks and putting party members at disadvantage on attacks then capture the party instead of wiping them. When they get their buts handed to them by new tactics they might think, "hmmm maybe my build is not so optimal after all and if we had one of these on our team we could do that too!" resulting in a mix of players for more tactics. The purposed changes are not "lets get player diversity" they are lets get ride of an entire type of play. Its an over reaction focusing on symptom of players having a favorite choice not the cause of them not seeing the value in other choices.</blockquote>

Verification