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

[ECMO3]

It's easier than before to mitigate a low or average DEX with the use of heavy armor.

Your 16 DEX fighter:

AC 17 with light armor (studded leather, DEX, and shield)

AC 18 with medium armor (scale mail, 2 from DEX, and shield)

AC 18 with heavy armor (chain mail and shield)

It really doesn't make that much of a difference this time around.

I don't think this tells the complete story.

You need both a 20 strength and studded for a 17 with light armor, that makes it largely undoable for most in tier 1 and still requiring specific builds in tier 2. Later on as you get money and more ASIs it is easily doable, but that is at a high level where virtually every strength-based guy can be in plate.

At the other end of the spectrum, Chain Mail requires a 13 strength or it lowers your speed to 20 (unless you are a Dwarf).

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Many DMs use purchased adventures where the magic is already in there. Many others determine randomly. I have only had one DM that I played with that actually tailored magic to the characters and most of those were items primarily useful out of combat items.

Further giving out an awesome magic longsword is not being a "jerk" it is actually rewarding the players who did not min-max their character into a corner with a very narrow build.

In any adventure players get naturally rewarded for good character choices and penalized for bad choices. Suggesting a DM should hand out a magic Rapier because his Tank can only use a Rapier, is like suggesting he should only use enemies that do low damage with attacks because the barbarian decided to roll with an 8 Constitution.

I am playing a game with 3 PCs right now - a Sorcerer who does not use weapons, a Arcane-Trickster/Arcane-Archer who is dex-based and primarily an Archer but mixes it up with booming blade sneak attack occasionally (me) and a dex-based gloomstalker. The Sorcerer has a 10 strength, the Ranger has a 10 strength, the Rogue/Fighter has an 8. So far the only magic weapon we have found is a magic staff and no one is complaining. The Ranger uses it (at a big hit and damage penalty) when we run into creatures resistant to non-magic weapons.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't disagree. We used to have the "bastard sword" which was the step up from the "longsword". The longsword was basically a Viking/Carolingian/Norman sword that could only be used 1 handed doing 1d8 and the bastard sword was effectively versatile IIRC that did 1d10 if used 2-handed. There were rapiers as well, but they were 1d6, same as short swords.

The is accurate in the D&D world but I think this is historically backwards. A Bastard sword was I believe exclusively a 1-handed weapon where a traditional longsword was intended to be wielded with 2 hands.

I think the Arming Sword would be a longsword. When I think of a D&D shortsword I think of a Roman Legionaires sword.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Gotta say, given your otherwise intensely old-school preferences, I'm extremely surprised to hear this sentiment from you. I would've expected you to be 100% the "you get what you get, the world doesn't care what equipment is useful to you" type.

----

WRT the rapier, personally, I think it's fine. The issue isn't that the rapier is overpowered (because it's not); it's that 5e flattened weapons so hard, it left no room for doing other, more interesting things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The is accurate in the D&D world but I think this is historically backwards. A Bastard sword was I believe exclusively a 1-handed weapon where a traditional longsword was intended to be wielded with 2 hands.

No, they mean the same thing. A sword that is primarily meant to used with two hands, but can can be effectively used with one if needed.

I think the Arming Sword would be a longsword.

Except arming sword is for one handed use.

When I think of a D&D shortsword I think of a Roman Legionaires sword.

Sure, gladius definitely is an archetypal short sword.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gotta say, given your otherwise intensely old-school preferences, I'm extremely surprised to hear this sentiment from you. I would've expected you to be 100% the "you get what you get, the world doesn't care what equipment is useful to you" type.

I'm intensely old school? That's news to me!

WRT the rapier, personally, I think it's fine. The issue isn't that the rapier is overpowered (because it's not); it's that 5e flattened weapons so hard, it left no room for doing other, more interesting things.

There really isn't much design space with weapons. IIRC 4e had more features weapons could have, so there could be a greater number of different combinations. It was kinda nice, though I recall there was some balance issue with that too. It is kinda a matter of taste whether you want weapon selection to be a important minigame, or mainly just an aesthetic preference with some broad strokes mechanical categories. But I think rapier is OP. Not significantly, but I think the game would be better without it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm intensely old school? That's news to me!

That has been my impression, yes. Since I don't know you personally, that impression could be entirely false.

There really isn't much design space with weapons. IIRC 4e had more features weapons could have, so there could be a greater number of different combinations. It was kinda nice, though I recall there was some balance issue with that too. It is kinda a matter of taste whether you want weapon selection to be a important minigame, or mainly just an aesthetic preference with some broad strokes mechanical categories. But I think rapier is OP. Not significantly, but I think the game would be better without it.

I can't recall any serious imbalance issues with 4e's weapon properties. The only real "issue" was the ways weapons interacted with feats, but that was intended as a space for players to explore if they were interested. (There were many ways to build a more powerful character, and "specialize in a specific weapon type" was only one path.) For example, long swords were classified as heavy blades (basically, swords that use Str) while rapiers were classified as light blades (finesse bladed weapons: daggers, sickles, short swords, etc.) The two categories were similar, but some magic items could only be one type, and some feats only applied to light blades, not heavy blades.

Now, I think that 4e might've had too many categories, and hung perhaps a bit too much off of them. But a streamlined, focused version could do a lot of good. For example, we could have:

Blunt (hammers, clubs, maces, staves, etc.)
Heavy blades (big swords, glaives, scimitars, scythes)
Light blades (daggers, rapiers, sickles, short swords, etc.)
Polearms (hopefully self-explanatory)
Axes (ditto)
Spears (spear, trident, javelin, lance)
Maybe Flail (flail, morningstar, spiked chain, nunchaku, kusarigama, etc.)

You could potentially drop Fail and fold Spear into Polearm if you prioritize parsimony over all else, but I think seven groups makes for a nice number--not too many as to be unwieldy, not too few as to be limiting. This is essentially already present in the design of several feats, such as Pole Arm Master and Great Weapon Master, so it's not like this is doing much of anything except making certain feats and fighting styles simpler to use.

Between having feats to make these various weapon groups more interesting, adding in weapon properties as I mentioned in a previous thread, and reviewing the weapons so we can address issues like the completely pointless trident or the "short sword and long sword are kinda meh compared to rapier," I think you could massage 5e into being a system where weapons have interesting depth IF you care to invest into it, but even Fighters can just get by with Fighting Styles and basic weapon choices.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That has been my impression, yes. Since I don't know you personally, that impression could be entirely false.

Mostly false, I'd say. I'm not particularly old school. Like you probably wouldn't say Critical Role is particularly old school, and that's basically very close to my preferred style.

I can't recall any serious imbalance issues with 4e's weapon properties.

I have a recollection that the ones which had better hit bonus were usually the best choice, especially as riders of many powers relied on hitting. But I might be wrong, it has been a long time since I've played that edition.

The only real "issue" was the ways weapons interacted with feats, but that was intended as a space for players to explore if they were interested. (There were many ways to build a more powerful character, and "specialize in a specific weapon type" was only one path.) For example, long swords were classified as heavy blades (basically, swords that use Str) while rapiers were classified as light blades (finesse bladed weapons: daggers, sickles, short swords, etc.) The two categories were similar, but some magic items could only be one type, and some feats only applied to light blades, not heavy blades.

Now, I think that 4e might've had too many categories, and hung perhaps a bit too much off of them. But a streamlined, focused version could do a lot of good. For example, we could have:

Blunt (hammers, clubs, maces, staves, etc.)
Heavy blades (big swords, glaives, scimitars, scythes)
Light blades (daggers, rapiers, sickles, short swords, etc.)
Polearms (hopefully self-explanatory)
Axes (ditto)
Spears (spear, trident, javelin, lance)
Maybe Flail (flail, morningstar, spiked chain, nunchaku, kusarigama, etc.)

You could potentially drop Fail and fold Spear into Polearm if you prioritize parsimony over all else, but I think seven groups makes for a nice number--not too many as to be unwieldy, not too few as to be limiting. This is essentially already present in the design of several feats, such as Pole Arm Master and Great Weapon Master, so it's not like this is doing much of anything except making certain feats and fighting styles simpler to use.

Between having feats to make these various weapon groups more interesting, adding in weapon properties as I mentioned in a previous thread, and reviewing the weapons so we can address issues like the completely pointless trident or the "short sword and long sword are kinda meh compared to rapier," I think you could massage 5e into being a system where weapons have interesting depth IF you care to invest into it, but even Fighters can just get by with Fighting Styles and basic weapon choices.

Yeah, I think one could easily build a little more crunch on 5e chassis and that would allow having wider variety of weapons with mechanical niches.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Between having feats to make these various weapon groups more interesting, adding in weapon properties as I mentioned in a previous thread, and reviewing the weapons so we can address issues like the completely pointless trident or the "short sword and long sword are kinda meh compared to rapier," I think you could massage 5e into being a system where weapons have interesting depth IF you care to invest into it, but even Fighters can just get by with Fighting Styles and basic weapon choices.

I've not commented, but I've read this thread with great interest for the last week or so. This tangent brings up an intriguing point about which I've wondered for several days now. I agree that as the RAW stand, short swords and long swords feel pretty meh-y, especially compared to rapiers for fighters with strong DEX scores.

What I've been pondering, though, is the matter of armor and its limitations in 5e. In the original AD&D, plate armor or full chain mail armor didn't kill your DEX bonuses the way they do now (unless my middle-aged memory is betraying me yet again). What it did do, though, was cost a fortune. I'm considering going back to that arrangement for my party's next campaign. But my thinking here is that the medium and heavy armor ought to come with some kind of additional restriction, so my nutty notion this morning was, "Well, what if such armor precluded proficiency with finesse weapons?" (Hand-to-hand only--let's leave ranged weapons out of the hypotheticals for the moment.) That is to say, suppose going with medium or heavy armor required also going with the STR-based weapons, but at the benefit of a killer AC; might that work?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

I mean there's a pretty wide spectrum between the pure random treasure game and the "player gets exactly the weapon tailored to their particular needs when they would like it" game. While I think few DMs would keep a player from ever getting a magic rapier, many of us incorporate some magic loot in the world that is not particularly tailored to player needs, whether it be because of random loot, because we are playing a published adventure which has some loot designed to fit the needs of an average group, because we find only having the exact items optimized for the group breaks immersion, because it made story sense for the thing to be in the game, or because we just like seeing what the group will do with whatever it is. A strength-based martial character in the party is often in a position to make use of a lot of items that other characters can not.

I would posit that the average generalist strength-based fighter at the average table gets cooler weapons he can use and gets them sooner and more frequently than the average weapon specialist, whether the specialist be polearm master or rapier-wielder.