Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ancalagon" data-source="post: 6867459" data-attributes="member: 23">HelloA 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</blockquote>

Verification