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

[Ovinomancer]

Considering your last two posts are so indicative of your posting style, I'm not certain how you can hope to be seen as taking any kind of high road. Between my last two posts and your last two posts, guess which ones are in violation of the forum rules...

And I applaud your skill at dancing the line.

 

[Ovinomancer]

False, pal. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you Must have arguments and don't dismiss any reply. I read the posts, and even if I'm ready to compromise about some things, there are people that like to make straw man's, like ignore the OA, cover, ammo and prone rules and then complain about that as if they don't were a factor. I never denied that dexterity is powerful in 5e, but I don't had as much problems as many claimed. I've even uploaded an analysis about MM's saving throws, showing how much a fallacy is that the "most common save" is dexterity. Most of them are concentrated on a few high level monsters, but I accept that much more spells have Dex saves than Strength. I also never denied that Sharpshooter is a very powerful feat, specially if you are a variant human, but it really isn't the mother of all problems, and if it were, it is really easy to fix: don't allow feats. They are optional, after all, and it isn't really game breaking nor impedes other playstyles. They aren't the casters problem from prior editions. So save me the sarcasm

Your 1) is a strawman. "Javelins exist, so there's not problem of ranged vs melee"? Really, that's an argument?

Your 2) is a strawman. Prone was discussed (as was full cover). Doesn't address anything, especially because it's still forcing the opponent to take actions to counter your strengths without you having to do anything. And, once in melee range where prone is bad, the ranged characters are still on par with the melee monsters.

Your 3) is a strawman. It's not about 1 or 2 DPR. That just shows that it's as good as melee in optimum for melee conditions -- ie, that the ranged character is on par with the greatsword fighter in melee. At range, the DPR difference is 100% as the melee guy can't hit but the ranged character can. That 1 to 2 DPR difference in melee, where the ranged character should be at a severe disadvantage, is actually a very, very strong argument that ranged combat is unbalanced, not a trivial difference to be easily dismissed.

You've shown that you've only given a superficial reading of the arguments against, but you've trivialized and dismissed them all as irrelevant. Then you go onto say that the people making those arguments are just dogmatic and unlikely to accept contrary arguments, which is exactly what you're doing. Hence the irony of it all.

As an aside, your advice to just not use feats as a solution is a) unhelpful in the extreme -- everyone already knows that feats are optional, and expecting them to work well isn't unfounded or outrageous; and b) not really a solution. Even without feats ranged combat is still very strong in 5e for many of the reasons already listed -- higher attack chance from Archery style; similar damage; ability still added to damage; and, finally, everything that accrues to range like not being attacked, never wasting attacks, etc. Ranged combat was buffed in 5e. Failing to see this is failing to understand how the system actually works.

Now, all of that said, it might not be something you care about, and that's fine. I, myself, don't care about it enough to do much more than slightly nerf sharpshooter, and that only in 1 game I've run (I offered the choice in another game, and, surprisingly, the player took the +1 DEX over the -5/+10; it helped her more at the time). So you don't have to care about the arguments, but you shouldn't handwave them away either. And don't offer the 'well, then, don't do that' as advice. No one here really needs to be told that they don't have to do something that doesn't work -- they're here to either dissect what's not working (me) for better understanding so they can reach a decision for their game, or they're looking for constructive advice on how to fix it for their games. Or their just looking to kvetch about it. But no one, not one, is suddenly relieved that you've solved their problem by informing them they don't have to use feats.

 

[Hillsy7]

The old debate rested upon these facts:
Due to the archery fighting style, sharpshooter, and the extra attack from crossbow expert, the crossbow archer will deal roughly 25% more damage per round than a great weapon fighter.

Just as an aside, I did that maths on this in a previous post and its under about 1d6 difference on top of 40 points of damage per turn.

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 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)

 

[Ashkelon]

Just as an aside, I did that maths on this in a previous post and its under about 1d6 difference on top of 40 points of damage per turn.

I noticed a few things about your analysis that seem off. For one, you should use a range of ACs, not simply a flat 16 AC. Another thing worth adding in is magic weapons. Also, the calculations should be done at a range of levels, especially since many games don't ever make it past level 10.

If you use your rough calculations at level 8 with a +1 weapon vs a 17 AC you get the following outcome.
Polearm has 2 attacks at 6.3+5+10+1 for 22.3 * 2 = 44.6 and a bonus action attack at 19 for total DPR of 63.6
With 40% accuracy, you get 25.44 DPR.

The archer has 3 attacks at 3.5+5+10+1 for 19.5 * 3 = 58.5
With accuracy, you get 29.25 DPR.

The archer deals about 15% more damage than the polearm fighter (and about 25% more than the great sword fighter).

The archer could be an eldritch knight and have mage armor to have the exact same AC as the polearm fighter as well. So in actuality, the archer doesn't even need to trade their higher DPR for 1 AC. Not to mention that being at range naturally makes you targeted by enemies less often, so the archer will have the option of taking less damage than the melee fighter in any given situation.

Because the archer has +5 Dex and no disadvantage, this means that he will get a surprise round significantly more often than the polearm fighter.

Because the archer has range, he has full DPR capability while the polearm fighter is hindered. For example flying enemies means the fighter will have to resort to javelin use, cutting his DPR by 70%. Or if an enemy starts combat over 30 feet away, the polearm fighter will either have to dash up to engage, and thus have zero DPR for the turn, or move up and throw a javelin and hope that the enemy does not fall back and used their own ranged attacks. Also, the polearm fighter can be hindered by cover while the crossbow archer cannot.

So the difference between their two capabilities comes out to significantly more than slightly better damage for slightly worse AC.

 

[cmad1977]

Do everyone's party's have nothing but archers?
And, as usual, DPR analysis is useless.
Nobody has trees in their world? Or cliffs? Or Ropers?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hillsy7]

I noticed a few things about your analysis that seem off. For one, you should use a range of ACs, not simply a flat 16 AC.

True - I went for a mid point. Interstingly, using the numbers you have below and using non-extreme to hit ranges (4-17 for the GWF = 2-15 for the crossbowman), you get a damage output increase of between 3% and 30%. An even chance to hit gives a 10% difference

Another thing worth adding in is magic weapons.

Which is fair - also worth including then the propensity of certain types of magic weapons - e.g. are you more likely to find a magic bow, or a magic crossbow, a magic sword or a magic halberd. Having said that, I suspect polearm and hand crossbow magic weapon rarity is about the same, so yeah, you might get a bit of a swing to the crossbow due to additional damage on a hit (or 10% of the weapon bonus damage)

Also, the calculations should be done at a range of levels, especially since many games don't ever make it past level 10.

Again fair - I picked 12 because 1) I've never like the 4 attack evaluation (level 20 only), and prefer 3 attacks. and 2) it's the 4 ASI mark, so you can have both feats AND max out your attack stat, so it feels like the optimal level.

The archer deals about 15% more damage than the polearm fighter

Yup - about 1d6. That's mebbe the top end AC of general CR 8 (A quick scan through Orcpub has only the 2 dragons at >16AC and the rest are mostly 15-16).....but that's probably not an unfair pick.

(and about 25% more than the great sword fighter).

That however is a bit unfair. If GWF can't use a polarm, Crossbowman can't use a Hand Crossbow........

The archer could be an eldritch knight and have mage armor to have the exact same AC as the polearm fighter as well. So in actuality, the archer doesn't even need to trade their higher DPR for 1 AC.

Hmm...fair point - though a couple of things. If you go eldrich knight, you lose the extra damage options of the other 2 archetypes (More crits or Superiority Dice). A dispel costs you 3 AC or an action (20-40 damage depending on enemy AC)......

Not to mention that being at range naturally makes you targeted by enemies less often, so the archer will have the option of taking less damage than the melee fighter in any given situation.
Because the archer has +5 Dex and no disadvantage, this means that he will get a surprise round significantly more often than the polearm fighter.
Because the archer has range, he has full DPR capability while the polearm fighter is hindered. For example flying enemies means the fighter will have to resort to javelin use, cutting his DPR by 70%. Or if an enemy starts combat over 30 feet away, the polearm fighter will either have to dash up to engage, and thus have zero DPR for the turn, or move up and throw a javelin and hope that the enemy does not fall back and used their own ranged attacks. Also, the polearm fighter can be hindered by cover while the crossbow archer cannot.
So the difference between their two capabilities comes out to significantly more than slightly better damage for slightly worse AC.

This is where realistically the real argument lies about Crossbow Vs Polearm. 1) Situationally, which is better, and 2) how much extra damage does a Polearmer get from OAs, or how much damage is his locking down preventing the rest of the party taking (using DPR as the only measure here - the question is why build a STR fighter after all so you have to convert other perks into DPR), and finally 3) how much skill/concentration do you need to keep running at optimal DPR, and what's the DPR drop off for "poor play"?

Problem is those 3 things are very hard to measure compared to simple DPR calculations, which makes D&D pretty amazing. However, I would certainly argue that the situations and arguments are non-trivial (i.e. Ranged wins every argument/situation), which kinda brings the argument back to the OP: Why build a Strength fighter? To which the answer is: Lots and lots or reasons. Maybe Ranged is slightly better overall, doesn't mean you're not going to have fun or be brilliantly effective as a Melee Fighter....

 

[Ovinomancer]

Do everyone's party's have nothing but archers?
And, as usual, DPR analysis is useless.
Nobody has trees in their world? Or cliffs? Or Ropers?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, because then the problem wouldn't be apparent -- it's only when the ranged guys are next to the melee guys that the difference is apparent.

No, it's not useless. Like all models, it's wrong, but it can be very useful. I can say from experience that the damage output difference is noticeable in game, by the players. But then, I also have a noticeable difference between my greataxe wielding barbarian vs my sword and board paladin players -- the sword and board with 20 STR and duelist routinely deals far more damage than the 14 STR barbarian. That +3 to hit is huge, but the average damage on the longsword is higher than the average damage on the raging greataxe (+8 vs +5 (both magic) with the difference in die averages being less than 3). The effect in game seems larger even than the DPR whiteboard, but that's because it cuts against expectation -- that even a stronger person with a longsword can out-damage a raging barbarian with a greataxe. So DPR, while not perfect, is useful.

How, exactly, do you image this works out? Hide behind a tree at range? Great, no one can attack you -- push between melee and ranged. Take cover? Ranged guy can attack without penalty (assuming SS), melee guy still can't -- ranged win. Cliffs I'm not sure about how that's supposed to work for anyone. Ropers screw everyone, but the ranged guys are in the same boat at the melee guys, and 10' a round isn't exactly going to ruin their day. How did you think those things leveled the field?

 

[Darkness]

This thread has some civility issues. Folks, please aim at arguments about the topic at hand - and not at your fellow posters (including their perceived posting style, supposed mindset, etc.), please.

 

[cheeseguy]

Hello

A basic but big change when comparing 5e to 3e is the impact of dex. Dexterity has always been a very useful ability - it's tied in with more skills, esp important for stealth, and can also save your life (by say, catching yourself before falling over the edge of the waterfall or whatever). Strength's uses were more limited - a few skills, more carrying capacity but it had one big important use: hurting stuff.

Finesse characters were possible in 3e and quite viable in fact - their high dexterity often made them decent tankers, they were very mobile and good at stealth and acrobatics. The downside was they didn't do as much damage.

Now in 5e the master fencer (dex melee fighter) is just as dangerous as a strength based fighter. Because of how the AC works in 5e the ACs can be about the same, and the damage too - a high dex fighter doesn't try to cut off your head, he stabs you in the eye. Sure he can't carry as much as the strength fighter, but he doesn't have to be wearing heavy armor either.

Is this a problem? Well, probably not. Where it gets really problematic IMO is when archery comes into play.

It used to be that the archer was pretty weak in melee. She didn't have melee weapons focus, and her melee damage was low. In fact her archery damage wasn't super high either unless she took a high dex high strength character (but then her con usually suffered). Now since dex counts for damage, she only needs two good stats - dex and con for suitability. And if she is forced into melee? Well she's pretty good now with a finesse weapon!

If the party is in a situation where ranged attack are much superior, the dex melee fighter (that master fencer) will be highly effective - perhaps not as much as the specialist archer, but still far superior to the strength-based fighter.

The other advantages of dex (stealth, skills, life saving stuff) still remain. And ranged fighting is more effective for other reasons too (no penalties for firing into melee, cover and ranged penalties can be eliminated with a feat, ranged fighting style gives +2 accuracy). I'm thus left to conclude that in 5e dex is now vastly superior to strength.

Now, this is probably old news for you folks who aren't still learning 5e. I'm sure there were threads about this previously so... what were the conclusions? Am I wrong?

edit: Just to be clear, I consider the root of the problem to be the addition of dex to ranged damage

Well usually yeah I agree with you 100%... If I didn't like playing lunk heads however dex is far more useful and has many open windows for you to use in different situations, however pairing a dex warrior with a strength warrior... Dms nightmare

Sent from my Z963VL using EN World mobile app