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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

That is a lot of caveat.

Since you can't be a greatsword fighter in plate as a dex fighter, and you suck at ranged attacks as a str fighter, I'm more inclined to say that we need more parameters, but not on the fighter build in question.

Better overall, better at a given type of task, better in terms of letting the player model their concept satisfyingly?

 

[Ancalagon]

With eight years of 5e under our belts, I think we can overall say that yes, the Dex Fighter is generally better than the Str Fighter. It's not "oh honey, no, don't hurt yourself like that" to play a Str Fighter, but you're definitely giving up more than you get as a whole, even if you're still getting something. Features like Duelling style close part of the damage gap, or you can specialize in defense, especially if you can bum a mage armor off of an ally spellcaster at higher levels. Str Fighters are much more dependent on feats and tend to be focused on their one trick, while Dex Fighters are naturally versatile, slightly mitigating some weaknesses of the class (dealing with flying enemies, for example.) Dex is straight up better as a defensive and offensive stat due to Initiative and saving throws, and is obviously far more useful as a utility stat.

So...yeah. Especially in a world where any sort of Strength-boosting item can be acquired, the Dex Fighter is pretty much just better. Even without that, while it may not be unequivocally better in all conceivable circumstances, it's certainly closer to "just better" than it is to "pure trade-off."

I played a non-optimized dex fighter who was a rune knight and ... I did juuuuust fine.

That being said, there is a lot of utility in having one party member being really strong.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heh, now make yourself a Tabaxi Burst speed of 60, climb for free, and you have a better inherent weapon for that moment when some pud jumps you while you have your longbow out. Stupid awesome! Definitely true though that melee damage cannot top a GWF at high levels, nor a good barbarian build. As a TWF OK, my AC is a point or two behind, but I'm not USUALLY getting my butt pounded, cause I'm up a tree peppering you with arrows. Few times I got pinned into a close fight it hurt some, but it was worth the trade.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not sure I understand. Dueling fighting style benefits dex based builds just as much as strength based. Otherwise I agree.

Strength only gets a damage edge with two-handed weapons. If you're using a one-handed weapon and a shield, you get literally no unique combat benefits for going Str vs Dex. Hence, I'm not comparing longsword-and-shield vs rapier-and-shield, but rather greatsword vs rapier-and-shield.

 

[Mort]

Heh, now make yourself a Tabaxi Burst speed of 60, climb for free, and you have a better inherent weapon for that moment when some pud jumps you while you have your longbow out. Stupid awesome! Definitely true though that melee damage cannot top a GWF at high levels, nor a good barbarian build. As a TWF OK, my AC is a point or two behind, but I'm not USUALLY getting my butt pounded, cause I'm up a tree peppering you with arrows. Few times I got pinned into a close fight it hurt some, but it was worth the trade.

Sharpshooter may not top, but it will compete with GWM, especially with Archery fighting style. And you have A LOT more range and mobility and 0 penalty firing into melee. If you can get Sharpshooter AND crossbow expert (which variant human can manage by 4th) you now have 0 penalty firing FROM melee. Even with the ASI loss it will easily compete with GWM and PAM and again, the range and mobility (so you're not taking near as much damage) is hard to beat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I played a non-optimized dex fighter who was a rune knight and ... I did juuuuust fine.

That doesn't contradict anything I said, so I'm not sure what your point is.

That being said, there is a lot of utility in having one party member being really strong.

Frankly, I don't see it. Athletics proficiency and Strength save proficiency is usually going to be enough. And a lot of things let you use either Athletics or Acrobatics to deal with problems anyway.

I grant that there is  marginal utility in having at least one strong character on a team. Let it be the Barbarian or Paladin or even Cleric, someone who actually gets more out of it or won't be giving up nearly as much in the doing. Again, as I said, it's NOT at the level of "oh honey, don't do this to yourself," but you do give up more than you get by going Strength. If literally no one else in the party wants to do that, then sure, you can take one for the team. But that's essentially the new Brother Bactine argument, and that's not a ringing endorsement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sharpshooter may not top, but it will compete with GWM, especially with Archery fighting style. And you have A LOT more range and mobility and 0 penalty firing into melee. If you can get Sharpshooter AND crossbow expert (which variant human can manage by 4th) you now have 0 penalty firing FROM melee. Even with the ASI loss it will easily compete with GWM and PAM and again, the range and mobility (so you're not taking near as much damage) is hard to beat.

Yeah, for some reason which I have forgotten I went with TWF, which was definitely not the min/maxed option. With a 20 DEX I was still a quite effective archer that nobody could pin down easily. I also got hold of some magic claws, which came in a pair and thus I was getting the +1 damage bonus a few times a round at higher levels, and with judicious choices of maneuvers even more extra attacks are easy to get (admittedly a bigger weapon benefits almost as well here and will do more damage overall, as I say TWF is not optimum).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That doesn't contradict anything I said, so I'm not sure what your point is.


Frankly, I don't see it. Athletics proficiency and Strength save proficiency is usually going to be enough. And a lot of things let you use either Athletics or Acrobatics to deal with problems anyway.

I grant that there is  marginal utility in having at least one strong character on a team. Let it be the Barbarian or Paladin or even Cleric, someone who actually gets more out of it or won't be giving up nearly as much in the doing. Again, as I said, it's NOT at the level of "oh honey, don't do this to yourself," but you do give up more than you get by going Strength. If literally no one else in the party wants to do that, then sure, you can take one for the team. But that's essentially the new Brother Bactine argument, and that's not a ringing endorsement.

Eh, overall my assessment is that there are a LOT of builds that are not the one perfectly optimized build of fighter, but most of them, including a GWF STR build, are very close, and at the worst have 'money moves' where they can really earn their keep. The rest of the time such a character will easily pull their own weight and the random distribution of dice luck will still give them plenty of big moments.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Initiative is overrated?

Say you have a battle with 4 PCs and 4 bad guys. Say the fight last 4 rounds. Say you have a bad initiative, and everyone rolls "average" so you are last in the round. As we assume the PCs will win, the PCs will end the fight on round 4.

There is a 3/4 chance that your "slow" PC will not be the one finishing the fight, which means there is a 3/4 chance that you won't get a 4rth turn. That's a pretty massive penalty isn't it?

Your math is flawed. You can't say everyone rolls average...

The "slow" PC only has a 70% chance to roll lower initiative than the "fast" PC (assuming a 5 point difference).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your math is flawed. You can't say everyone rolls average...

The "slow" PC only has a 70% chance to roll lower initiative than the "fast" PC (assuming a 5 point difference).

Only a 70% chance. Better than 2/3, almost 3/4.

I'm sorry, I don't consider that a positive whatsoever. Sure, it's not AS bad as always being super far behind. But it's definitely not good. At all.