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

[BookBarbarian]

Jumping a chasm or breaking down an obstacle can certainly come up. But swinging or tightrope-walking and getting through and around obstacles can, too. You can always break down the door or pick the lock. You can snap your bonds or wriggle out of them. It's a little freaky how closely equivalent STR & DEX can be, and in 5e, especially, it's just a matter of declaring an action the DM will go for as using your better stat.

That Athletics is the only STR skill does work for you in one sense, if you can convince the DM to go with STR, you'll be proficient in the only skill he might call for to add to it. Oh, and if he doesn't go for Athletics, your Champion can finally use 'Remarkable' Athlete.

Agility would seem to offer up a lot of terrain-based advantages, too. Ducking in and out of cover, swinging from things, tumbling under them, etc...

...just not breaking them, so much.

I've found that most Acrobatics checks help the individual character, but more Athletics checks help the whole party. You might be able to wriggle out of those bonds, but the guy that can break out of them, can break everyone's etc.

Of course YMMV,

 

[Erechel]

Two weapons gives you two chances to hit, but it also givs you a chance to miss for less damage, evening out the DPR. You can't add in a feat to get Dex, you need a Fighting Style, which means you're giving up a different fighting style's boost. Adding DEX to ranged damage just puts it on par with STR damage from thrown weapons. The saving throw bit is actually false - another poster did an analysis of monsters in the MM, and turns out that, if you count all the various Dragons as one monster instead of 10, there are actually more Stregnth saving throws than Dexterity ones. The big Dex skills are Stealth and Acrobatics, compared to Athletics, quite likely Intimidate, and shoving/grappling; the difference in value here is entirely game dependant.

The two are roughly on par, with enough variation that it depends on the game.

That would be me. Big strength fan. I'm a little of a strong guy for my complexion .

T

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, tightrope walking across that pit isn't something you can just do. You have to set up the tightrope first - usually anyway. Which means strength to get across that pit - or firing an arrow I suppose.

And that ignores water. Acrobatics and Dex (which my autocorrect just turned to Sex, sigh), does nothing to help you swim. I've made it a point to add water hazards to pretty much every scenario now.

Adding 3 dimensions to encounters - balconies, trees, pits, water hazards, that sort of thing - pretty much makes STR very important.

 

[Argyle King]

Crossbow Expert allows you do it without Disadvantage, yes.

With the proper feats and class abilities, bows and hand crossbows reign supreme for pure damage.

Thing is, unless the DM is very lenient, you are going to be in melee, like it or not. And with the proper feats and class abilities, melee weapons and str builds give you more options and tactics. Polearm Master, Sentinel, Warcaster, Great Weapon Master, etc - they allow you to manipulate the battlefield, cast a spell, or just do even more damage.

Generally, it's just more fun being the melee guy. At least it is for me.

You don't just do the same attack over and over again (unless you choose to build your character that way). There are multiple viable melee builds and strategies, for both str and dex. Most of the ranged builds look pretty much the same, with only three main choices: Longbow or hand crossbow? Ranger, Ranger/Rogue, or Fighter? Sharpshooter? Every time. Crossbow Expert? Half the time.

For me, I generally find what I can do outside of combat more interesting.

In combat, I can find a lot of different ways to enjoy the game with a ranged character too. Admittedly, I do find it strange that combat in 5th often seems a lot more like the modern warfare tactics I'm familiar with than I expected, but with that being a part of the game, I can approach things a similar way and find ways to have fun with a ranged character that are similar to what I'd do in a modern setting. Still, I can somewhat agree that just saying "I fire my bow" every round might get boring for some (and likely for me too.) Generally, I like a little more variety than that, but, on the other hand, it's not a whole lot different from saying "I swing my sword" most of the time. I get the point you're making and maybe even agree with it a little bit, but it could also be argued that being an effective character in a wider variety of situations increases the ability of some players to have fun too.

For what it's worth, I do regularly make many choices that do not have optimization in mind at all. One of my favorite 5th Edition Characters to play was Folgerz Valdez, a humble coffee merchant swept into a life of adventure during the events of the Dragon Queen story. I was a bard/ranger with my mule Maxwell as my animal companion (from ranger) and friend, and I drove a cart (which coincidentally, was surprisingly useful in combat if I loaded the ranged characters onto it and drove around while they shot things.) Unfortunately, I didn't progress very far before non-gaming commitments conflicted with the times that game was available. Edit: However, I'm not the only person playing the game. I can still notice some of the perceived issues even if I'm not necessarily bothered by them on a personal level.

Even so, I think some small tweaks to 5th Edition would go a long way toward enhancing the feel of combat in-game and some of the perceived problems of how the game works.

As far as being forced into melee? I'm unsure that I completely agree with that. Unless I'm being magically teleported into a combat in which I'm in melee range of every possible target at all times, I still have the ability to make tactical decisions. Combat involves more than engaging the enemy. Being able to shoot, move, and communicate are integral parts of being an effective combat unit. If my goal is to stay at range, I have options for that in the same way that a wizard would. Part of tactics is choosing where and when a battle takes place. While that choice may not always be a luxury, it is still something which can be influenced by my actions, and I can choose how I approach a target.



Not directed at the person I quoted:
Despite the rants others have posted against 3rd Edition (and rightfully so because the issues were real problems), I think the better framework that 5th has could benefit from a little bit of the granularity found in 3rd. But I'm not advocating for going back to 3rd; only saying that there are still things which can be learned from it, even if you weren't a fan of the overall game. That's a different conversation though.

Thing is, tightrope walking across that pit isn't something you can just do. You have to set up the tightrope first - usually anyway. Which means strength to get across that pit - or firing an arrow I suppose.

And that ignores water. Acrobatics and Dex (which my autocorrect just turned to Sex, sigh), does nothing to help you swim. I've made it a point to add water hazards to pretty much every scenario now.

Adding 3 dimensions to encounters - balconies, trees, pits, water hazards, that sort of thing - pretty much makes STR very important.

Just wanted to say that a lot of the things you're saying about how to make STR relevant make a lot of sense to me.

 

[reelo]

I'm about to start DMing a campaign and my players made the following party:

Halfling Cleric (Str 10, Dex 10, Con 13)
Half-elf Rogue (Str 10, Dex 16, Con 8)
Gnome Wizard (Str 8, Dex 15, Con 12)
Aasimar Warlock (Str 13, Dex 14, Con 13)
Human Paladin (Str 13, Dex 11, Con 16)

As you can see, none of them are particularly Strength-based. Iirc, none of them are proficient in Athletics. You can bet I'll be using terrain features, combat actions and Str-based checks to make their life ... "interesting".


Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

As painful as it can be to watch people make fallacious appeals to popularity to back up false conclusions, it's particularly frustrating to see someone who's otherwise making perfect sense resort to one.

The few restrictions, limitations and risks faced by ranged attackers (especially those using ranged attacks that don't call for attack rolls, and thus don't even suffer disadvantage when engaged in melee) simply don't compensate for the obvious advantages of attacking from a distance.

Not sure what you mean.

If what you're saying is "ranged was good in 3E too" I don't disagree.

What I'm specifically pointing my finger at is how WotC for some reason thought it was a good idea to remove ALL of the following restrictions on the basic idea of picking up a bow and starting to shoot:

1. ranged fire requires a different ability than melee
2. ranged fire does less damage (no ability modifier to damage)
3. penalty to shoot into melee (target is in melee)
4. penalty to shoot from melee (archer is in melee)
5. you can't move into position, shoot, then retreat out of sight - you're either stuck out in the open before or after your shot
6. no "power attack" with ranged weapons
7. no dual-wielding with ranged weapons
8. archers gain penalties for cover
9. archers gain penalties for range
10. you can't stack a magic bow with magic ammunition

I've probably forgotten one or two, but these are the ten I could come up with from the top of my head.

Removing some of these in the name of more streamlined gameplay I could accept. Removing one or two of the most frustrating ones for archer lovers I can understand too.

But removing ALL of them?!?!?

I mean, the main advantage of range is still there:

• Shooting at range means the monster can't claw your eyes out, because his arms can't reach you.

Yet, removing ALL of these is what WotC decided to do.

1. you can now use Dexterity for both your melee and ranged needs
2. you get to add Dexterity to ranged attack damage
3. no penalty to shoot into melee (even if you rule creatures can take cover behind your allies, this benefit is negated by the +2 from Archery Style)
4. the penalty to shoot from melee can be completely negated (Crossbow Archer Feat)
5. you're free to move both before and after your attacks, which is MUCH more useful for ranged fire than melee. Archers can stay completely out of line of effect except to readied attacks. Melee fighters rarely have such cover within their movement, and besides, it would provoke OAs
6. Just as there's GWM for melee, there's SS for ranged
7. for all practical purposes, Crossbow Expert grants you the same benefits as two-weapon fighting PLUS the TWF fighting style PLUS the Dual Wielder feat
8. The SS feat negate penalties for cover
9. The SS feat negate penalties for range
10. you CAN stack a magic bow with magic ammunition

Without feats, the archer is at least vulnerable to getting caught in melee combat. But many of the essential checks on ranged combat are still gone. With feats, however... Oh man what a clusterfrack. This edition effectively turns the SS CE hand crossbow wielder into the minmaxer munchkin's wet dream of a dream pixie magical fighter with twin 120 ft reach shortswords.

Did I mention they removed ALL TEN of the checks and balances on 3rd Edition ranged combat...?

 

[cbwjm]

You've always been able to stack a magic bow and magical ammunition. In 2e, you had to use magical ammo if you wanted to damage anything that required magic to hit.

3e allowed using Dex for melee as well as long as you took the feat, it didn't allow you to add Dex mod to damage though.

It might have been clarified but I think it could be debated that crossbow expert doesn't allow you to apply your Dex mod to the bonus attack unless you have the fighting style.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Not sure what you mean.

If what you're saying is "ranged was good in 3E too" I don't disagree.

What I'm specifically pointing my finger at is how WotC for some reason thought it was a good idea to remove ALL of the following restrictions on the basic idea of picking up a bow and starting to shoot:

1. ranged fire requires a different ability than melee
2. ranged fire does less damage (no ability modifier to damage)
3. penalty to shoot into melee (target is in melee)
4. penalty to shoot from melee (archer is in melee)
5. you can't move into position, shoot, then retreat out of sight - you're either stuck out in the open before or after your shot
6. no "power attack" with ranged weapons
7. no dual-wielding with ranged weapons
8. archers gain penalties for cover
9. archers gain penalties for range
10. you can't stack a magic bow with magic ammunition

I've probably forgotten one or two, but these are the ten I could come up with from the top of my head.

Removing some of these in the name of more streamlined gameplay I could accept. Removing one or two of the most frustrating ones for archer lovers I can understand too.

But removing ALL of them?!?!?

I mean, the main advantage of range is still there:

• Shooting at range means the monster can't claw your eyes out, because his arms can't reach you.

Yet, removing ALL of these is what WotC decided to do.

1. you can now use Dexterity for both your melee and ranged needs
2. you get to add Dexterity to ranged attack damage
3. no penalty to shoot into melee (even if you rule creatures can take cover behind your allies, this benefit is negated by the +2 from Archery Style)
4. the penalty to shoot from melee can be completely negated (Crossbow Archer Feat)
5. you're free to move both before and after your attacks, which is MUCH more useful for ranged fire than melee. Archers can stay completely out of line of effect except to readied attacks. Melee fighters rarely have such cover within their movement, and besides, it would provoke OAs
6. Just as there's GWM for melee, there's SS for ranged
7. for all practical purposes, Crossbow Expert grants you the same benefits as two-weapon fighting PLUS the TWF fighting style PLUS the Dual Wielder feat
8. The SS feat negate penalties for cover
9. The SS feat negate penalties for range
10. you CAN stack a magic bow with magic ammunition

Without feats, the archer is at least vulnerable to getting caught in melee combat. But many of the essential checks on ranged combat are still gone. With feats, however... Oh man what a clusterfrack. This edition effectively turns the SS CE hand crossbow wielder into the minmaxer munchkin's wet dream of a dream pixie magical fighter with twin 120 ft reach shortswords.

Did I mention they removed ALL TEN of the checks and balances on 3rd Edition ranged combat...?

Yep. They f*cked it up for exactly the reasons you suggest. Removing finesse weapons, and removing crossbow expert (negating disad in melee shooting) would help a lot. Personally I also think if you miss shooting into melee, there should be a chance of hitting a friend in the same melee (most simply, I like 33% chance).

 

[Hillsy7]

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.....

 

[Mephista]

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?