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

[The Wonderful Rogue]

What about the Constitution based fighter? You will get like... 40-50% more HP and stuff..

Yeah.

not a bad idea but have in mind that you'll have a hard time in battle, my best friend is playing a cleric and his best stats are CON and WIS, and he always have a bad time when on the battlefield when it comes to his damage output, so he always tries to use spells more than anything so... best bet for that is maybe +3 or +4 DEX (or STR) and +5 CON if you wanna optimize your "tankiness"... and take the Tough feat, yes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

8 years - this might be new thread necromancy record for me!

Anyway, as it turns out: people still play strength based fighters, so the edge, if any, isn't enough to be an issue. Initiative is overrated and strength saves are pretty important too.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They are only d6 so you are an idiot if yo use them. It will turn into Pathfinder and its ranged weapons which only has two. The composite longbow and everything else. Unless you are a halfling or a class without access to martial weapons the rapier will be the finesse weapon of choice.

I think halflings can use rapiers. To my knowledge, small only gives you disadvantage on using heavy weapons.

 

[CleverNickName]

Since the attack and damage is going to be the same, and since heavy armor's AC bonus will more or less balance against a high Dex score, I think that these are more or less the same for Strength-based and Dexterity-based fighters. That leaves only two other advantages that Dexterity gives over Strength: initiative rolls and Dexterity saves (probably the most commonly-used save throw in the game.)

If this is an issue for you, you can make Initiative an Intelligence-based roll (to simulate quick thinking), and you can stock your dungeons with more harpies, quasits, specters, and other monsters that don't target Dexterity saves. Bards and rogues will be sad, though.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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. Because strictly better means better in every aspect.
No.
Better at ranged, better at ini, better at sneaking.
Worse at grappling, worse AC, worse carrying capacity.

 

[Stalker0]

This is an area where the DM has a lot of impact on the actual balance.

If the DM ignores grapple checks and does a lot of combats where switching between ranged and melee weapons is really useful, the dex fighter will feel like a god.

If grappling becomes a key aspect, or carrying capacity comes up once in a while, suddenly the strength fighter will feel better.


Now I do agree that in terms of just basic standard adventuring, yes the dex fighter is numerically superior most of the time. A DM can ultimately rebalance it pretty easy, but that imbalance does exist.

 

[Ancalagon]

8 years - this might be new thread necromancy record for me!

Anyway, as it turns out: people still play strength based fighters, so the edge, if any, isn't enough to be an issue. Initiative is overrated and strength saves are pretty important too.

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?

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

If you're comparing total damage dealt by each character for some reason it is. How much damage did everyone do in the last fight you were a player in? How often to do get to the end of a battle and think "that wasn't fun, but if I had had one more turn it would have been great!"

 

[Mannahnin]

If you're comparing total damage dealt by each character for some reason it is. How much damage did everyone do in the last fight you were a player in? How often to do get to the end of a battle and think "that wasn't fun, but if I had had one more turn it would have been great!"

I think that's less the issue than the idea that the bad guys may have gotten in an extra turn that they wouldn't have, if you had beaten them to the punch. This can add up to a drain on party resources/extra damage taken.

 

[Ancalagon]

If you're comparing total damage dealt by each character for some reason it is. How much damage did everyone do in the last fight you were a player in? How often to do get to the end of a battle and think "that wasn't fun, but if I had had one more turn it would have been great!"

oh it's not just "DPR calculations". You're literally doing less. You're playing less than the other player with a high initiative.