Then you should get rid of GWM, what you are saying is archers are not allowed to damage people but because I have a big sword I win. Polearm +gwm puts archers even further behind since they can not go crossbow expert and sharpshooter
D&D 5E the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
Then you should get rid of GWM, what you are saying is archers are not allowed to damage people but because I have a big sword I win. Polearm +gwm puts archers even further behind since they can not go crossbow expert and sharpshooter
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
Not to go too GoT but:
I think most folk do consider the theme or type of character over optimisation, on the whole. The Jaime Lannister/Hound/Brienne of Tarth will go STR whereas the Arya Stark/Oberyn Martell/(shudder) Drizzt fan will probably go DEX (PM notwithstanding).
In terms of melee, there's an equal balance - cf Oberyn v The Mountain. And that's pretty "true to life", i think. The bruiser gets run rings round by the Fleet, but the Bruiser keeps on keeping on.
Your archery point is good: why would an archer necessarily be a wiz with a rapier? But as it is a game, and there are six stats to rule them all, six stats to roll from, six stats to build the game and in the rule book find them, there is no logical way to hive archery off.
Unless you rule DEX to hit and STR for ranged damage. But that spoils the notion of Amy McAimersson who kills with beautiful precision despite her elfin lithe build; and Blastum McHardhitter who relies on sheer force to drive his arrows right up to the fletching in his enemies' guts.
Truth is, most people who make an archer type love the archery side rather than the DEX mechanic itself; they'll likely keep back at range most of the time because the bow is their thing. Others who love the idea of a nimble, acrobatic dual wielding terror will make a DEX fighter for melee and the fact they're handy with a bow is neither here nor there because they want to be in the thick of it whirling their scimitars.
I think most folk do consider the theme or type of character over optimisation, on the whole. The Jaime Lannister/Hound/Brienne of Tarth will go STR whereas the Arya Stark/Oberyn Martell/(shudder) Drizzt fan will probably go DEX (PM notwithstanding).
In terms of melee, there's an equal balance - cf Oberyn v The Mountain. And that's pretty "true to life", i think. The bruiser gets run rings round by the Fleet, but the Bruiser keeps on keeping on.
Your archery point is good: why would an archer necessarily be a wiz with a rapier? But as it is a game, and there are six stats to rule them all, six stats to roll from, six stats to build the game and in the rule book find them, there is no logical way to hive archery off.
Unless you rule DEX to hit and STR for ranged damage. But that spoils the notion of Amy McAimersson who kills with beautiful precision despite her elfin lithe build; and Blastum McHardhitter who relies on sheer force to drive his arrows right up to the fletching in his enemies' guts.
Truth is, most people who make an archer type love the archery side rather than the DEX mechanic itself; they'll likely keep back at range most of the time because the bow is their thing. Others who love the idea of a nimble, acrobatic dual wielding terror will make a DEX fighter for melee and the fact they're handy with a bow is neither here nor there because they want to be in the thick of it whirling their scimitars.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Archers are currently winning, so moving archers back is just moving them closer to melee. And honestly, melee damage should have a higher ceiling than ranged. Ranged is safe, melee is dangerous.
In other wards only magic user can be safe at range with damage ok got it sorry that just seems crazy to me. Then again what ever it is your game I know what I do as a player and I am not even a guy that plays ranged toons
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
That's silly. The only at-will ranged damage that's roughly equitable with archery is eldritch blast with agonizing blast, and that's without Sharpshooter. An archer with Sharpshooter has much better damage in almost all cases to a ranged magic at-will attack.
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
Not aimed at the OP, just a general observation...
The thing is, D&D is on the players' side. It wants them to be able to hit and kill the monsters. It wants everyone to be able to feel that their character is cool, whether they're playing a Fafhrd or a Grey Mouser.
The only time this kind of discussion comes up is when people want their character to be, not cool, but the coolest.
Unless you're going toe-to-toe with another PC, which is generally Not The Point, it isn't tremendously important to the game, which is a collaborative effort. It's not a competition. Rejoice in your party's DEX-based character and all the hella good damage he deals. He's on your side, just like the STR-based Amazon in the group. One might do more damage than the other, or be more versatile when called upon, but that's ok. You're on the same team.
Go on, says D&D. Beat ten bells out of that bad guy. Feels good, right? Focus on that - and the looting of the corpses afterwards*, rather than any jealousy about who has a better AC or whatever.
There. My halfpenny's worth, for what it's worth.
*D&D, instilling proper values to impressionable minds since 1974.
The thing is, D&D is on the players' side. It wants them to be able to hit and kill the monsters. It wants everyone to be able to feel that their character is cool, whether they're playing a Fafhrd or a Grey Mouser.
The only time this kind of discussion comes up is when people want their character to be, not cool, but the coolest.
Unless you're going toe-to-toe with another PC, which is generally Not The Point, it isn't tremendously important to the game, which is a collaborative effort. It's not a competition. Rejoice in your party's DEX-based character and all the hella good damage he deals. He's on your side, just like the STR-based Amazon in the group. One might do more damage than the other, or be more versatile when called upon, but that's ok. You're on the same team.
Go on, says D&D. Beat ten bells out of that bad guy. Feels good, right? Focus on that - and the looting of the corpses afterwards*, rather than any jealousy about who has a better AC or whatever.
There. My halfpenny's worth, for what it's worth.
*D&D, instilling proper values to impressionable minds since 1974.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
One of my houserules is that bows can use either Strength or Dexterity. Thus I don't find that Dex characters win in versatility as much as they might with the base rules. They still have a slight edge in ranged combat, but I don't think its any worse than the slight edge that Strength has in melee.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
No. I said exactly what I said. If it was not clear, I am happy to explain further. But thank you for you input.
Rune
Once A Fool
I disagree with the OP's initial premise. I find that Dexterity and Strength are well-balanced in 5e (until you throw in Crossbow Expert and, especially, Sharpshooter, which destroy that balance - but that's a problem with the feats). I think the OP is undervaluing athletics a bit. Grappling and Shoving are two of the most powerful martial options in the game (especially when they interact) and, while Dex can help you avoid them, Strength helps you do them.
Edit - Also, Strength saves may be a lot less common than Dex saves, but when they happen, it's generally much worse to fail one.
Edit - Also, Strength saves may be a lot less common than Dex saves, but when they happen, it's generally much worse to fail one.
Last edited:
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
[MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] meant to click XP not laugh. Obviously have v low DEX.
Similar Threads
