D&D 5E So Is The Dex Based Fighter Just Strictly Better?

[GMforPowergamers]

Fair enough, though I think that what D&D calls the 'short sword' really should have been the 'arming sword' in effect. I think a lot of this came about due to the sizes of dice available, you had d4 (dagger), and d8 was picked as sort of the 'standard assumed potency of a Chainmail weapon'), so a d6 'short sword' was wedged in there. Actually in the original rules ALL weapons just did d6 damage, with a couple of exceptions, so the differentiation happened at Greyhawk, but it seems like the above was the process that happened. Then the 'big weapons' were all called two-handed sword at that time, and 1e added the 'bastard-sword', which forced the 'longsword' down to being one-handed, etc. The other weird one, that has vanished and was really entirely random, was the 'broadsword' of 1e that did 2d4 damage, lol.

i am sure the shortsword was the base and the longsword did MORE like you said they all did d6 once upon a time

 

[Helldritch]

In 1e STR adds to both attack and damage bonus with melee weapons, and thrown weapons, and DEX does the same for missile weapons. DEX also adds to AC if it is high enough. There is no 'heavy' or 'light' armor in classic D&D, DEX always adds to your AC, even in field plate. Basically you want a high value in BOTH, but since attack and damage bonuses are hard to get, and melee is neigh unavoidable at some point (and ranged attacks have a LOT of ugly restrictions on them, like if you fire into melee you hit some random target, like it could be your own guys).

The upshot being, you CAN be a 'bow expert', but it is unlikely a D&D fighter will be deliberately built with DEX primary in most cases, at least in core 1e. Once you add in dual wielding and weapon specialization, then it might be more attractive to with DEX, as it removes dual wielding penalties and being a specialized dual wielding shortsword buzz saw is not such a bad way to go! OTOH there is a rule that allows you to make unusually high pull 'strength bows' that get a damage bonus from STR, which kinda balances things.

Overall, your fighter can be effective with just a high DEX, OR just a high STR. The STR guy is maybe the more solid choice (great weapons with high STR vs large monsters basically rules). Of course GoOP are a thing, if your DEX fighter can get those, or a girdle, yikes. There are also magic bracers that grant fixed ACs. Not as good as armor, but presumably DEX bonus piles on top of that, and gives you some nice mobility, etc. A STR fighter might use that plus a strength bow, for instance if you REALLY want to be a STR archer!

1st bolded. Nope. Dex was not added to ranged damage weapons. Never was. See page 11 1ed PHB.
The only way to add damage to ranged weapons (not thrown) was to have either a bow of strength, a specialization in bow and or magical arrows and a magical bow. Some spells such as flame arrow could contribute. But without specialization in bow, or a magical weapon and ammunition you were done for. Even the Strength bows were from a Dragon Magazine and you might not have a DM that would allow it.

2nd bolded. Yep there are mentions such a knights in heavy armor and "vilains" in light armor in the texts and such but no mechanical difference in how dex was applied to them.

3rd Bolded. Yep Dex would alleviate the dual wielding penalty but would not add to damage. And with a high dex, there were chances that your strength score would not be that great. But at least there were gloves of ogre's strength and girdles of giant strength or simply the strength spell.

4th bolded. No strength would never be added to bow attacks (or crossbows). Only if you DM allowed Strength bows from the Dragon Magazine would you see that. And it was not every DM that would allow them. A lot of people would come into tournament and would want to add dex damage bonus to bow but there were never any! It was a houserule. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, I agree that those are sensible sword categories. But that's what 5e basically has. Sure, it is a bit weird that dedicated one handed swords are called short swords (which is too specific for a broader category) but still. And of course rapier just is too good and its rules shouldn't exist (to add something relating to the actual topic of the thread.)

I am not that expert on all the different nuances of how various weapon stats play out in 5e. In STYLISTIC terms I think it might be fair to distinguish between a rapier and a sword, as rapiers are pretty much pure stabbing weapons, and not actually much use as general arms, being more of a dueling or maybe self-defense weapon. In naive terms it seems like making them purely DEX based is at least thematic.

Sure. And I don't really want inventing profiles for things just because a name for the weapon exists, if there isn't design space for it in the rules. That's how we end up with things like the trident.

Yeah, well, those were really hunting tools and AFAIK their only actual use as weapons was in the Roman gladiatorial context (undoubtedly they appeared somewhere else, but they were never a serious military weapon AFAIK). Its another of those 'hair splitting' things though, as there are various designs of pole arm that have some similar features, lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

1st bolded. Nope. Dex was not added to ranged damage weapons. Never was. See page 11 1ed PHB.

Sigh, OK, you got me, but it isn't PHB P11 where you need to look, but DMG p64 where it is really spelled out. The PHB is fairly vague, though 'attacking' MOST often refers to to-hit. In any case, it isn't really all that big a factor in the equation, as missile weapons already UNIVERSALLY fire with higher rates than once per round, so they normally represent a much greater damage potential overall than say, a sword (albeit that advantage shrinks somewhat at higher levels).

The only way to add damage to ranged weapons (not thrown) was to have either a bow of strength, a specialization in bow and or magical arrows and a magical bow.

Weapon specialization doesn't really exist in core 1e. There are some rules for it in UA, though to be perfectly honest I don't think we used anything much from that book very often, except the spell lists and maybe some items. I don't recall exactly what UA has to say about missile weapon damage. Strength always applied to thrown weapons, though. Strength Bows are kind of an 'optional rule' anyway, mentioned only in passing on DMG p64 and being stated as not a 'standard' kind of equipment. At best you have to go find someone to make them for you at increased cost, although they DO add to BOTH attack and damage bonus! Frankly this was an option that we mostly disallowed in our games anway, as it was a bit over the top (if you allow it, even at a considerably GP expense, DEX becomes a mostly useless combat ability, at least until 2e).

Some spells such as flame arrow could contribute. But without specialization in bow, or a magical weapon and ammunition you were done for. Even the Strength bows were from a Dragon Magazine and you might not have a DM that would allow it.

Well, it is in the DMG on p64 as a very brief one sentence thing. IIRC the article you mention gives actual costs and whatnot.

2nd bolded. Yep there are mentions such a knights in heavy armor and "vilains" in light armor in the texts and such but no mechanical difference in how dex was applied to them.

3rd Bolded. Yep Dex would alleviate the dual wielding penalty but would not add to damage. And with a high dex, there were chances that your strength score would not be that great. But at least there were gloves of ogre's strength and girdles of giant strength or simply the strength spell.

4th bolded. No strength would never be added to bow attacks (or crossbows). Only if you DM allowed Strength bows from the Dragon Magazine would you see that. And it was not every DM that would allow them. A lot of people would come into tournament and would want to add dex damage bonus to bow but there were never any! It was a houserule. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I know about strength bows, as I said above. Its one of those ambiguous things, not strictly an 'optional' rule, as DMG p64 states their existence, but its not spelled out how that works, and it definitely has the character of being 'optional' in practice. I don't actually think its a very good rule to put in practice myself, as it makes the ultimate archer a purely STR-based guy (although interestingly the DMG doesn't actually state that the DEX and STR bonuses don't BOTH apply, although that would be a pretty nasty rule if say you got GoOP and an 18/00 STR bow!).

Anyway, all of this is much more cleanly handled in WotC era D&D. 5e could probably afford to allow a type of STR bow, it wouldn't hurt balance any, really.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am not that expert on all the different nuances of how various weapon stats play out in 5e. In STYLISTIC terms I think it might be fair to distinguish between a rapier and a sword, as rapiers are pretty much pure stabbing weapons, and not actually much use as general arms, being more of a dueling or maybe self-defense weapon. In naive terms it seems like making them purely DEX based is at least thematic.

The issue is that it is a finesse weapon that does as much damage than the best one handed strength based weapons. And dex is otherwise more useful stat than strength, hence the topic of the thread.

Sure, there should be some sort of light piercing sword you can use with dex, but short sword already has proper and not unbalanced stats for that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The issue is that it is a finesse weapon that does as much damage than the best one handed strength based weapons. And dex is otherwise more useful stat than strength, hence the topic of the thread.

Sure, there should be some sort of light piercing sword you can use with dex, but short sword already has proper and not unbalanced stats for that.

I suppose, though now you are representing a few things with one weapon entry. Not that I'm super offended by that personally. I mean, reflavoring really is a perfectly good approach...

 

[Minigiant]

Question?

If a fighter does a Yokozuna Banzai drop on an orc, is that a Constitution attack?

Could a fighter just tank the fire-breath with his 20 Con and just sit on the dragon?

 

[ECMO3]

As the title says. This is assuming you are not using a two handed weapon and are using a 16 dex at level 1 PC and a rapier or a 16 strength 1d8 one handed weapon as the other. Both fighters are using shields as well.

No.

A strength-based fighter will have more melee weapon options and better AC. He will also be better at grappling and shoving.

The weapon options are substantial. You say your dex fighter is fighting with a rapier .... which is fine until you find a magic longsword, war pick or morning star. At that point you are either using a non-magic rapier for worse damage or using the other d8 magic weapon without a strength bonus.

 

[Helldritch]

Sigh, OK, you got me, but it isn't PHB P11 where you need to look, but DMG p64 where it is really spelled out. The PHB is fairly vague, though 'attacking' MOST often refers to to-hit. In any case, it isn't really all that big a factor in the equation, as missile weapons already UNIVERSALLY fire with higher rates than once per round, so they normally represent a much greater damage potential overall than say, a sword (albeit that advantage shrinks somewhat at higher levels).

Weapon specialization doesn't really exist in core 1e. There are some rules for it in UA, though to be perfectly honest I don't think we used anything much from that book very often, except the spell lists and maybe some items. I don't recall exactly what UA has to say about missile weapon damage. Strength always applied to thrown weapons, though. Strength Bows are kind of an 'optional rule' anyway, mentioned only in passing on DMG p64 and being stated as not a 'standard' kind of equipment. At best you have to go find someone to make them for you at increased cost, although they DO add to BOTH attack and damage bonus! Frankly this was an option that we mostly disallowed in our games anway, as it was a bit over the top (if you allow it, even at a considerably GP expense, DEX becomes a mostly useless combat ability, at least until 2e).

Well, it is in the DMG on p64 as a very brief one sentence thing. IIRC the article you mention gives actual costs and whatnot.

Yes, I know about strength bows, as I said above. Its one of those ambiguous things, not strictly an 'optional' rule, as DMG p64 states their existence, but its not spelled out how that works, and it definitely has the character of being 'optional' in practice. I don't actually think its a very good rule to put in practice myself, as it makes the ultimate archer a purely STR-based guy (although interestingly the DMG doesn't actually state that the DEX and STR bonuses don't BOTH apply, although that would be a pretty nasty rule if say you got GoOP and an 18/00 STR bow!).

Anyway, all of this is much more cleanly handled in WotC era D&D. 5e could probably afford to allow a type of STR bow, it wouldn't hurt balance any, really.

On the bolded part: I fully agree with you on that one. Maybe allow ST crossbows as the Cranequin and the Windlass crossbows were gauged with different pulls in mind. The windlass is more of what I perceive as a "heavy crossbow" as the winding action allows for really great pulls.

As for p.64. This is strickly in the province of DMs adjudication and since missile weapons were already "exceptions" in which all bonuses from hit and damage from magic would stack (+1 bow, +1 arrow = +2 hit/dmg), almost all DMs I knew at that time would not allow these under any circumstances. The dragon magazine only codified it. So in effect, you were stuck with thrown weapons if you wanted to use Strength. A I do agree that it was not a good "optional" to put in practice. The solution we have now is a bit more elegant, but still, it makes dexterity the king stat of all stats.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A strength-based fighter will have more melee weapon options and better AC. He will also be better at grappling and shoving.

The weapon options are substantial. You say your dex fighter is fighting with a rapier .... which is fine until you find a magic longsword, war pick or morning star. At that point you are either using a non-magic rapier for worse damage or using the other d8 magic weapon without a strength bonus.

If the treasure was random, then perhaps. But it usually isn't. It is decided by a human GM, who doesn't want to be a jerk and will let you find items that are actually useful for you.