D&D 5E the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?

[Hillsy7]

So, lets say, for a minute, that Mearls magically activates his time machine, sends himself back in time, and nerfs existing bow tactics.

Now, how does this solve the ranged issue? We still have eldritch blast snipers and other long distance magic users. How does one resolve this issue?

To be fair to the OP, his point was about DEX based vs STR based fighters, not ranged clases in general.

Though it's still a valid point concerning unnerfing ranged attacks in 5e.....

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK - Seems to me the balance here is about right between Joe McPolearm, and Susan McCrossbow. If you check the numbers using a non-trivial to-hit chance (say 1d20 + 10 Vs AC 16 = 75%), the damage output in pure numbers is basically the same with a nudge to the Hand Crossbow

Joe has GWF style, GWM, and Polearm Mastery. Susan has Archery Style, SS, and CE. They are both level twelfth level and so get 3 attacks

Joe:
To hit chance with GWM = 50%
Average Damage per attack = 6.3 (1d10 rerolling 1&2) + 5 (STR) + 10 (GWM)
Average Damage with Polearm bonus = 3 (1d4 rerolling 1&2) + 5 (STR) + 10 (GWM)
Total = 81.9
Total with Hit % = 40.95

Susan:
To hit chance with GWM = 60% (+10% from Archery Style)
Average Damage per attack = 3.5 + 5 (DEX) + 10 (SS)
Average Damage with CE = 3.5 + 5 (DEX) + 10 (SS)
Total = 74.0
Total with Hit % = 44.4

So conclusively, Susan does more damage per turn against Combat Dummies to the tune of about 1d6 per round. Case closed.

Now there's another argument about AC here, in that all things being equal, Joe has an AC 1 higher than Susan at level 12. In context this is a 5% damage reduction. Against a CR12 Erinyes which can do 60 points of damage per turn on average on 3 hits, and factoring the to-hit % benefit from an AC of 1, Joe takes 3 points of damage less per turn on average, or about 1d6 per round. Therefore, you are transferring damage output, to damage mitigation. This is a valid choice in design between Joe and Susan (Yes Susan can wear Plate but at Level 12 she wont have the ASI necessary for STR 15 unless CON is dropped, which basically mitigates the benefit from AC anyway)

Now, here's where things get interesting.....

On an infinitely flat plane, Susan is now utterly badass. With her 120ft range, she's dropping every melee enemy before it gets a hit on her (assuming she has the ammo) by moving and firing each turn. Joe by contrast wastes rounds running up to it. Flying creatures give Joe a headache. Not so Susan (assuming the don't fly more than 120ft away).

However, Move indoors and things change. Most rooms are less than 30 feet to a side, and so most enemies will reach everyone inside in 1 round. Joe now doesn't have to worry about wasting turns - enemies come to him. Susan's higher Initiative helps attack first, but that means moving and holding an action every turn to attack something running at her (Again assuming she isn't jumped by something she didn't see - Fighter's tend towards low perception/investigation). In this Joe begins to shine because of a better AC (5% damage mitigation), GWM, and Opportunity attacks. And for Joe that OA range is 10ft, not 5. Immense!

Once Joe has something pinned down, they can't leave or they take an attack, increasing his potential DPR. This is supplemented by GWM in confined spaces - when he kills something he gets a free attack. When his Crits (5% of the Time) he gets a free attack. This constantly ups Joe's DPR when in melee, preferably against 1 or more enemies. Joe loves it.

By contrast something can run at Susan, attack, then dart behind a door (or behind a tree in a densely packed forest). Susan doesn't want to be in melee, but she can't open a door without being 5 feet. She can't stop them doing it because she hasn't got a melee weapon, and even if she has her DPR bonus from it is going to be poor compared to Joe - all her perks are focused on ranged weapons. It potentially gets worse for Susan if things are tight AND she's got allies - LoS becomes a bit of an issue, and she's relegated to just dealing damage. By contrast, Joe is locking down enemies, protecting the group, and dealing possibly more damage that Susan. In a tightly packed space, frankly, Joe is a machine.



So what does that tell us purely from a DPR standpoint. In a situation that favours a Ranged attacker, Susan McCrossbow is better. In a situation that favours a Melee Attacker, Joe McPolearm reigns supreme.

So a Ranged based Fighter is better at Ranged, and a Melee based Fighter is better in Melee.......huh, Who'd've Thunk it.....

Solo, maybe, and ignoring the benefit for range that there's never a dead attack -- so long as there's an enemy in range, you can make an attack while melee guys have to close to do so.

But, in a dungeon, the melee character is usually in front, and takes the brunt of the bad guys whilst holding them off of the ranged character, who gets in all of their attacks without having to take attacks in return. Even if everyone in the party is equally engaged, once the ranged fighter wins free they can attack without risk while the melee brute has to reenter melee. At best you analysis shows that in close terrain the two are equal, with one gaining a 10% damage output over the other's 5% improved damage reduction (over time, assuming all attacks are of equal damage).

 

[The Old Crow]

Solo, maybe, and ignoring the benefit for range that there's never a dead attack -- so long as there's an enemy in range, you can make an attack while melee guys have to close to do so.

In play, the biggest advantage I've seen for ranged is the ability to be able to target anyone within range and line of sight, so they can use their attack in the most effective way possible in any given situation. They have been able to take out foes with only a few hit points remaining and force concentration checks. Those in melee are more often stuck just fighting whoever is nearest.

Unfortunately, as long as there are unlimited range attack cantrips in the game, nerfing archery doesn't appear to be a good solution because it will just mean spellcasters will be the better archer. I think the only solution is to add some houserules to give melee more interesting options (not gated behind feats) that affect the battlefield. Cleaving, charging, and pushing are all things I think melee fighters should be able to do as a bonus.

 

[MrHotter]

The advantages/disadvantages of strength and dex fighters is meant to be built into the system and each gets their own flavor of useful weapons, armor, and feats. A DM who does not agree with the built-in rules can make some changes to help the balance at their table.

The ranged/melee weapon fighters also have advantages and disadvantages built into the system.

By RAW, the ranged weapon user gets:
PRO:
ranged attacks
CON:
Disadvantage on ranged attacks if hostile creature within 5 feet.
Half cover for targets in melee.
no melee weapon in hand for opportunity attacks.

The feats help remove the disadvanges for those wanting to specialize in ranged weapons, but the melee weapon user will also get feats to help them.

I know I would not want to be in a party of all ranged players. The melee players are still important for a group in order to keep separation between the ranged/support characters and the monsters.

 

[Mephista]

To be fair to the OP, his point was about DEX based vs STR based fighters, not ranged clases in general.

Though it's still a valid point concerning unnerfing ranged attacks in 5e.....

The OP started this thread over a year ago, and specifically said "I consider the root of the problem to be the addition of dex to ranged damage." The thread is about archers versus greatsword/polearm/sword+board, but ignores other considerations in the game, such as casters, or Strength-based throwing options.

So conclusively, Susan does more damage per turn against Combat Dummies to the tune of about 1d6 per round. Case closed.

Side note. You forgot to add in the reflexive "I attack when someone approaches me" attack of the polearm master. In which case, Joe pulls ahead with about 47 damage versus Susan's 44.

 

[Mephista]

nevermind

 

[Hillsy7]

Solo, maybe, and ignoring the benefit for range that there's never a dead attack -- so long as there's an enemy in range, you can make an attack while melee guys have to close to do so.

But, in a dungeon, the melee character is usually in front, and takes the brunt of the bad guys whilst holding them off of the ranged character, who gets in all of their attacks without having to take attacks in return. Even if everyone in the party is equally engaged, once the ranged fighter wins free they can attack without risk while the melee brute has to reenter melee. At best you analysis shows that in close terrain the two are equal, with one gaining a 10% damage output over the other's 5% improved damage reduction (over time, assuming all attacks are of equal damage).

Ah - but conversely our melee fighter gets *more* attacks through OA's and GWM and in close quarters, there's still never a dead attack because he can move into melee. So no, the melee polearm fighter isn't just comparable, he's better. And he can't be hit and run behind total cover - because they can't run - and so minimising the risk of dead attacks through clever monster positioning.

AND on top of that he's not only dealing out more damage, he's protecting the party at the same time while Susan McCrossbow is just dealing damage. Saying "look I've got no dead attacks" while Joe McPolearm is doing 2 jobs at once is a pretty ty argument. Susan McCrossbow can't do that job.

All the time Joe McPolearm is doing the tanking job as well as pounding out damage (And more damage at that), he's worth more to your group than Susan. In terrain that favours melee fighters. In terrain that favours Ranged fighters, Joe's damage output drops, and he can't tank as well, therefore Susan is worth more

As I said - the two are pretty well balanced.

 

[S'mon]

Ime female players quite often play high str male PCs. Moving on...

The dex 8 half orc imc was doing ok with heavy armour and str 17, except his init sucked. Now I am trying a house rule that init is static and the higher of your int or dex. He rolled int 16 so that's sorted.

 

[Hillsy7]

The OP started this thread over a year ago, and specifically said "I consider the root of the problem to be the addition of dex to ranged damage." The thread is about archers versus greatsword/polearm/sword+board, but ignores other considerations in the game, such as casters, or Strength-based throwing options.

Fair point

Side note. You forgot to add in the reflexive "I attack when someone approaches me" attack of the polearm master. In which case, Joe pulls ahead with about 47 damage versus Susan's 44.

Holy Hacking Halberds Batman! How have I never read that properly?!?! I always thought it was just an extension of OA's to reach!

So yeah, in melee favourable terrain the STR fighter is significantly up on the DEX crossbow-er. OAs everywhere......how have I not made a polearm fighter yet?!?!?

 

[Corwin]

I've found this perceived problem, of ranged exceptionalism at some tables, can be exacerbated by lax observance of encumbrance rules and ease of ammunition access.

DM: "You've been shooting three crossbow bolts every round of every fight this entire dungeon. Aren't you just about out by now?"
Player: "Nah. I bought six hundred bolts last time I was in town. That's enough for two-hundred combat rounds worth of shooting!"
DM: "..."
Player: "You said we could buy whatever mundane adventuring gear we wanted at book prices."
DM: "Six hundred crossbow bolts?! Where do you even keep them all?"
Player: "In quivers on my belt. I bought thirty of those too."
DM: "..."