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

[Zardnaar]

Without feats dex is better. With feats dex is still better with the exception of dex based melee. Dex to damage was the kicker and it was brought up in the playtest but either ignored or was popular. I have lways thought.

strr= damage
dex = more attacks but weaker (rapid shot/strike)
ranged =accuracy.

So some feat allowing dex based melee an extra attak as a bnous action. Even crossbow expert is not that bad without sharpshooter which is the main offender. Even the archery style+ CE is fine.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

Without feats dex is better. With feats dex is still better with the exception of dex based melee. Dex to damage was the kicker and it was brought up in the playtest but either ignored or was popular. I have lways thought.

strr= damage
dex = more attacks but weaker (rapid shot/strike)
ranged =accuracy.

So some feat allowing dex based melee an extra attak as a bnous action. Even crossbow expert is not that bad without sharpshooter which is the main offender. Even the archery style+ CE is fine.

I agree completely that sharpshooter is the main offender. Strength and Dexterity are similar enough that it does not skew the game outside of acceptable tolerances, but sharpshooter is just nuts (particularly in the hands of a multi-attacking fighter). To add insult to injury you get a +2 to hit with archery style. It also compounds that this is an option available to battle master fighters that can also bend the banded accuracy system. You are left with a ranged attacker that does far too much damage by out competing the melee combatant that takes much more risk.

 

[ccs]

Dexterity is still flat better than Strength (a dex warrior is a threat for a hundreds of feet, a strength fighter is barely a threat outside of five feet) but it's not completely overshadowed.

You know, just because I might roll up a str based fighter and (probably) don't add as many +s at range as I do in melee, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use a bow. Or invest in those ranged feats. Or use magic bows.
See, I'm a FIGHTER. My job is to FIGHT. Sometimes that means doing so at range....
And why in the 9 hells would I tank my Dex? Even if it's not adding to my AC when I'm wearing heavy armor (wich isn't 24/7 btw as I'm not a turtle or something), it IS adding to my initiative.

 

[Zardnaar]

You know, just because I might roll up a str based fighter and (probably) don't add as many +s at range as I do in melee, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use a bow. Or invest in those ranged feats. Or use magic bows.
See, I'm a FIGHTER. My job is to FIGHT. Sometimes that means doing so at range....
And why in the 9 hells would I tank my Dex? Even if it's not adding to my AC when I'm wearing heavy armor (wich isn't 24/7 btw as I'm not a turtle or something), it IS adding to my initiative.

Unless you roll stats you won't have enough scores to go around and you will still lose a round changing weapons. Archers just keep firing.

 

[Salamandyr]

You know, just because I might roll up a str based fighter and (probably) don't add as many +s at range as I do in melee, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use a bow. Or invest in those ranged feats. Or use magic bows.
See, I'm a FIGHTER. My job is to FIGHT. Sometimes that means doing so at range....
And why in the 9 hells would I tank my Dex? Even if it's not adding to my AC when I'm wearing heavy armor (wich isn't 24/7 btw as I'm not a turtle or something), it IS adding to my initiative.

What Zardnar said. Also, what you said is my point. Because a dex fighter can easily tank his strength, and pay very little penalty for it. The reverse is not true.

A Strength fighter could use a bow--he wouldn't be very effective with it, but he doesn't really have any other options. A dex fighter could use a greatsword, but he wouldn't be very effective with it, but he does have other options.

Even with point buy, a dex fighter can easily spread his points around, to be good at the social and exploration game by having decent intelligence and charisma, while losing nothing in combat (or just max out Constitution and Wisdom to completely dominate), while a strength fighter actually loses effectiveness at his main skill in order to have a few extra points in Int or Charisma.

ADDENDUM: When I get to play, I usually play standard human, exactly because I like all those pretty numbers and having bonuses at lots of different things. So I've usually got a 14 in my Dexterity even when I'm playing a Strength focussed character. But I also know that my choice to have that isn't making me a more powerful character, even if it does make me a little more flexible. But that's a choice I've made, and one the costs of that choice is I'll be overshadowed by others at the table who chose to make more focussed characters. And the dex primary guys are often more​ flexible than my character while sacrificing almost nothing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It might not be exactly as RAW but we've always allowed drawing the thrown weapon to be part of the attack.

It's one of those things it's easy to carry over from recent editions without even noticing you're doing it. Ruling in favor of it is probably better than having an actual rule for it in the form of a feat tax, anyway.

If dex was already dominant (it was), why make it even more dominant by adding to ranged damage?

If DEX was going to be a serious contender with STR in melee, it had to be able to output comparable DPR, and with this edition going with multi-attacking, that meant having the same static damage mods, so DEX had to add to STR or the DEX-based melee type that D&D had struggled with throughout the classic era and into 3e a bit would have been 'non-viable,' however much of an uberstat DEX'd've remained.

Giving STR types better ranged options might've closed the gap. Somebody mentioned 'STR bows,' for instance, an heavy-draw bow could certainly work that way.

 

[jaelis]

Well, I've seen Str fighters and Dex fighters at my table. If one of them was 'better' than the other, it wasn't obvious.

 

[Sunseeker]

A: Because you want to wield big weapons.
B: because you want to wear heavy armor.
C: because it thematically fits your character.
D: because you want to escape a grapple check....ever.

 

[Ancalagon]

If DEX was going to be a serious contender with STR in melee, it had to be able to output comparable DPR, and with this edition going with multi-attacking, that meant having the same static damage mods, so DEX had to add to STR or the DEX-based melee type that D&D had struggled with throughout the classic era and into 3e a bit would have been 'non-viable,' however much of an uberstat DEX'd've remained.

Giving STR types better ranged options might've closed the gap. Somebody mentioned 'STR bows,' for instance, an heavy-draw bow could certainly work that way.

Ah, but note that I said "ranged damage", not just damage. I'm fine with the dex-based weapon master doing his thing in melee.

To me the STR bow is a way for a dex character to add "stat damage" to his ranged attack - by applying his or her strength mod to ranged attack (not accuracy)

 

[Tony Vargas]

To me the STR bow is a way for a dex character to add "stat damage" to his ranged attack - by applying his or her strength mod to ranged attack (not accuracy)

So ranged combat becomes MAD to balance the style vs melee styles, as a bonus?

[sblock="peeve - not even a 'pet peeve,' just a stray peeve wandering by that smelled the tangent - be careful, it may be feral or even rabid."]
The theoretical superiority of archery to two-handing or TWF to S&B or greatswords to greataxes or whatever else dealing with weapons, styles, and classes that don't do much else but use 'em, is often pretty marginal. 1/2 a point of average DPR seems to equal 'imbalance' when we're on that sort of topic. [/sblock]