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

[hejtmane]

No. I said exactly what I said. If it was not clear, I am happy to explain further. But thank you for you input.

Just to make it clear if I was a player I think it is unfair at the end of the day it is your game and this is 5E so your call. I am not a guy that plays ranged generally I am a guy that likes to get in the middle and scrap.

 

[Salamandyr]

Just to make it clear if I was a player I think it is unfair at the end of the day it is your game and this is 5E so your call. I am not a guy that plays ranged generally I am a guy that likes to get in the middle and scrap.

That's fine. I like to get in the middle and scrap as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to make it clear if I was a player I think it is unfair at the end of the day it is your game and this is 5E so your call. I am not a guy that plays ranged generally I am a guy that likes to get in the middle and scrap.

He's right, though, even without feats ranged is flat out superior to melee combat. The damage is comparable, you have a better chance to hit, and you cannot be hit back except for by other ranged combatants, which are uncommon in the current rogues gallery of D&D. An archer character is slightly more effective at hurting things (the 10% better chance to hit from archery fighting style outweighs the 1-2 point average damage difference from greatweapons) and is far more effective at not getting hurt in return.

This is better just core, as the difference is really mostly on the not getting hurt side. But when you add in feats, with crossbow expert and sharpshooter, you've removed all possible situational penalties from ranges combat (disadvantage in melee range, cover, and long range) and added more damage capacity. The melee fight feat just adds more damage. The archers, who were ahead on avoiding damage before feats, now are ahead on causing damage, too.

Ranged combat is, IMO, the largest error in the combat engine of 5e. It's manageable, which is good, but it exists.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Not brought up so far, but there's also an advantage with magical weapons. If rolled randomly, a strength warrior can use anything while a dexterity warrior will have to hope a finesse weapon appears. Some of the better ones are specifically described as longswords as well.

 

[Salamandyr]

He's right, though, even without feats ranged is flat out superior to melee combat. The damage is comparable, you have a better chance to hit, and you cannot be hit back except for by other ranged combatants, which are uncommon in the current rogues gallery of D&D. An archer character is slightly more effective at hurting things (the 10% better chance to hit from archery fighting style outweighs the 1-2 point average damage difference from greatweapons) and is far more effective at not getting hurt in return.

This is better just core, as the difference is really mostly on the not getting hurt side. But when you add in feats, with crossbow expert and sharpshooter, you've removed all possible situational penalties from ranges combat (disadvantage in melee range, cover, and long range) and added more damage capacity. The melee fight feat just adds more damage. The archers, who were ahead on avoiding damage before feats, now are ahead on causing damage, too.

Ranged combat is, IMO, the largest error in the combat engine of 5e. It's manageable, which is good, but it exists.

This, and to add insult to injury, when the pincushioned monsters finally do get within melee range, the archer can whip out their finesse weapons and be almost as much of a threat in melee as they are at range. Compare to a Strength fighter, who, having dumped Dexterity, cannot hit anything out past javelin range, and whose extra attacks go wasted because they can't draw more than one thrown weapon per round.

 

[Ancalagon]

He's right, though, even without feats ranged is flat out superior to melee combat. The damage is comparable, you have a better chance to hit, and you cannot be hit back except for by other ranged combatants, which are uncommon in the current rogues gallery of D&D. An archer character is slightly more effective at hurting things (the 10% better chance to hit from archery fighting style outweighs the 1-2 point average damage difference from greatweapons) and is far more effective at not getting hurt in return.

This is better just core, as the difference is really mostly on the not getting hurt side. But when you add in feats, with crossbow expert and sharpshooter, you've removed all possible situational penalties from ranges combat (disadvantage in melee range, cover, and long range) and added more damage capacity. The melee fight feat just adds more damage. The archers, who were ahead on avoiding damage before feats, now are ahead on causing damage, too.

Ranged combat is, IMO, the largest error in the combat engine of 5e. It's manageable, which is good, but it exists.

I think the *fundamental* root of that is adding dex to damage with ranged weapons. Remove that and things seem to fall more or less into "place" again.

In fact I'm very tempted to do so. The melee "finesse" fighter is unaffected. The more "casual" archers still have significant tactical advantage as you outlined. A specialist archer can still do significant damage, but if they want to match a strength melee fighter they must invest not only feats but into strength and a "strength bow".

 

[Ancalagon]

and whose extra attacks go wasted because they can't draw more than one thrown weapon per round.

It might not be exactly as RAW but we've always allowed drawing the thrown weapon to be part of the attack. I mean what is harder: drawing a throwing knife from a series of sheathes strapped to your chest - each individually sheathed, each with a convenient handle? Or a very long narrow stick with a pointy/hooky end, packed in a cylinder with at least a dozen other such objects?

 

[ccs]

I'm thus left to conclude that in 5e dex is now vastly superior to strength.

Am I wrong?

No. Dex has been more important than Str since before I opened my Basic rulebook all those years ago.
It affected your AC, it affected your to-hit rolls at range, & it affected your initiative.
Then in AD&D it affected your race/class selection, lv caps & thief abilities.
Then along came feats & finesse weapons. And it was the key to one of your saves.
Now it adds to ranged damage.

True, Str has gained things as well. But Dex was & still is ahead of it. So yes, mechanicly Dex > Str.

Fortunately this game has always been about more than just the raw #s. So in reality Dex is not more important than Str.

 

[Salamandyr]

It might not be exactly as RAW but we've always allowed drawing the thrown weapon to be part of the attack. I mean what is harder: drawing a throwing knife from a series of sheathes strapped to your chest - each individually sheathed, each with a convenient handle? Or a very long narrow stick with a pointy/hooky end, packed in a cylinder with at least a dozen other such objects?

Totally reasonable, and something I bet a lot of people do at their table, but if we were to strictly limit that to throwing knives (not assuming you do, just riffing on the example you gave), then it once again advantages the dex fighter (finessable thrown weapon), because the strength fighter is more likely to be using a javelin or hand axe, both of which would be harder to draw than an arrow or a crossbow bolt.

I started giving my monsters what amounted to unlimited spears to throw because between the wizard and the archer ranger, very little were getting into melee range. So now I can occasionally force the ranger to make a concentration check to keep spike stones or hunters mark up.

 

[Ancalagon]

No. Dex has been more important than Str since before I opened my Basic rulebook all those years ago.
It affected your AC, it affected your to-hit rolls at range, & it affected your initiative.
Then in AD&D it affected your race/class selection, lv caps & thief abilities.
Then along came feats & finesse weapons. And it was the key to one of your saves.
Now it adds to ranged damage.

True, Str has gained things as well. But Dex was & still is ahead of it. So yes, mechanicly Dex > Str.

Fortunately this game has always been about more than just the raw #s. So in reality Dex is not more important than Str.

I agree with you except your final sentence. If dex was already dominant (it was), why make it even more dominant by adding to ranged damage?