D&D 5E STR and DEX fighter stupid?

[Zardnaar]

Its a trade off. Power vs utility. I have seen a lot off great weapon builds fall flat due to ranged encounters where there damage drops down to a single 1d6+str modifier and they no longer get multiple attacks either.

Dex based melee is likely a better trade off though if you want to switch to a bow.

 

[bid]

The basic fighter (and every class) should be what you want to play. Your priorities is choosing the options you'll have more fun with. Theme and archetype first, math later. D&D is a game, meant to have fun with those at the table. Not a math contest about who has the best DPS player unless that happens to be the way your group has fun. But I'm betting for most it's not.

So, you are arguing that for most players "the best DPS" is not what is fun. I can conclude that you believe pushing Dex20 to have the best DPS in the rare case where you meet a flyer is rarely fun. Which is the point I'm trying to make here. There's life outside of combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, you are arguing that for most players "the best DPS" is not what is fun..

No, I'm saying that don't let DPS drive you to build a class a certain way unless that's specifically what makes the game fun for you. Your comment seemed to be a blanket statement of how you should play a fighter. I disagreed. The #1 factor to tell you how to make a fighter is what best fits what you envision that fighter being. Make a high INT and WIS fighter, if that's what you want. That's where fun comes from, playing the type of PC you envision. What you described as how people should play fighters is what would make the game no fun for me unless I wanted to play that specific build. But if I wanted to play a charismatic swashbuckler fighter instead? Then I play that, even if it's not anywhere near optimized.

If you want to talk about optimized builds, ENWorld has a specific forum for that. Otherwise, blanket statements about how to optimize PCs as the "right way" doesn't belong here, because there isn't a right way to build a fighter other than what people have the most fun doing.

It's almost like the whole point of the game, any game (to have fun with friends) gets pushed aside and is replaced by another game. A game where the goal is to see who can min/max the best. D&D has never been a game with that objective in mind.

 

[Mephista]

Generalized PCs are more than effective in D&D because there's so many things your PC can be doing in the game, from combat, to exploration, to interaction. If anything, specialization sets you up for failure at some point. And then we get forum threads about how D&D is broken because your (general you) super specialized GWF should have options to do ranged damage as much as the archer ranger because unless you can be as effective as every other class at everything, the game is not balanced and broken.

If I recall correctly, you're slightly mistaken, as are those threads. D&D is designed to have specializations for several reasons. Most notably, the fact that D&D is meant to be played as a team, and you generally want a diverse party so that every person has their time to shine and work together - there's a reason we have base 4 classes instead of a single uber class. Hells, there's a reason we have several classes and subclasses, each with their own specialties and focuses. D&D does not support jack-of-all-trades very well by design. This is also supported by the surveys, where people actually said they wanted more options to specialize instead of being a generalist.

I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for the idea that you're supposed to easily play a generalist.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is not that you should not play a specialist... it is however that you should not overspecialize.
It is a good Idea to be a great weapon master, but it is a bad Idea to squeeze everything out of everything else for a 5% bonus that may be overkill in most situations. It is also to be noted, that your specialization should make you shine in those situations without completely overshadowing everyone else. Yes, being a very very deadly melee combatant is ok. Even doing twice as much damage as everyone else is more than ok. If all others still have the feeling to be able to contribute to your success. Same for ranged damage. If you are only doing 1d8-1 damage at a +1 bonus, you may be doing it wrong. You could go down from 2d8+4 to 2d8+3 and increase your ranged damage to 1d8+2, or +1 at least. That is by far not stepping on the ranged character´s toes. But it really helps everyone if you can get some damage in before closing to melee. A switch from bow to two handed sword is fast. So you have to hit a lot in melee later to make up for the lost ranged damage if you overspecialize.
Also a 14 in wisdom may help you not getting paralyzed by every hold person spell, that would negate all of your damage in a given round. No way to make up for it with a little +1 here or there.
One last point: If you are playing with 4 PCs, all of different basic rules classes, everyone only specializing in a single skill, no overlapping at all, how do you want to coordinate or compensate, when someone is taken out of combat by bad luck... A little bit versality helps.

60% specialization, 40% well roundedness should make your life better.

 

[bid]

What you described as how people should play fighters is what would make the game no fun for me unless I wanted to play that specific build.

You utterly missed the point, twice. There's life outside of combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You utterly missed the point, twice. There's life outside of combat.

I'm afraid it's you who "utterly missed the point". I know there's life outside of combat. The point is that you said how one should build a fighter. And I disagree with that because a most people don't give two turds about making the most/one of the most effective DPS builds. The point is that what should drive how a player builds a fighter is what kind of fighter they want to play, and not all GWF, STR20 like you said they should.

 

[bid]

The point is that you said how one should build a fighter.

The point is to bring concrete evidence that you cannot get Str20 and Dex 20 before level 14, and even at level 8 your Dex won't have moved forward. Therefore it is better to refine the goal.

It was mostly an answer to someone whining about being unable to hit flyers if you don't cap both. It's okay to have munchkin fantasies, but realism won't let you start as demi-god.

If you are confusing "basic fighter" with "what you want to play", maybe you should ask for clarifications first. If you consider the nitty gritty details should be avoided here, please ask to refrain from using them. Shouting "get off my lawn" doesn't work very well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The point is to bring concrete evidence that you cannot get Str20 and Dex 20 before level 14, and even at level 8 your Dex won't have moved forward. Therefore it is better to refine the goal.

It was mostly an answer to someone whining about being unable to hit flyers if you don't cap both. It's okay to have munchkin fantasies, but realism won't let you start as demi-god.

If you are confusing "basic fighter" with "what you want to play", maybe you should ask for clarifications first. If you consider the nitty gritty details should be avoided here, please ask to refrain from using them. Shouting "get off my lawn" doesn't work very well.

I'm not confusing anything. Even if you are only talking "basic fighter', which you are since that's the words you used, your statement on how to build a "basic fighter" is only true if the person happens to want to max out STR on a GWF. That's it. I'm pretty sure that's just a tiny percentage of people who want to play a fighter envision their fighter when they start thinking about types of characters they want to play. Therefore, you statement on what a basic fighter should look like is bad advice in general.

That's my point. That's what I was disagreeing with. I never disagreed with you about life outside of combat. Not sure how much clearer I can make it. And I'm not shouting anything at you. The weak ad hominem/strawman is pretty weak sauce.

 

[bid]

Even if you are only talking "basic fighter', which you are since that's the words you used, your statement on how to build a "basic fighter" is only true if the person happens to want to max out STR on a GWF.

And, pray tell, what is the first sentence of this thread? Could it be by any chance "Is playing a fighter with STR as a primary stat and DEX as a secondary stupid?"

I think my answer was 100% on topic, 100% on the "Theme and archetype" that you want and I don't see why you would have to disagree with it. That's what ticked me off.