Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6868254" data-attributes="member: 6787650">The best reasons I know of to make a Strength-based warrior are threefold:(1) Athletics is awesome in melee;(2) Some classes (Paladins and Barbarians) are almost forced down the Strength path due to stat requirements and role specialization;(3) Strength has a slightly better AC.All of these add up to basically the same thing: Strength makes better tanks. Yes, ranged combat is generally preferable to melee combat in 5E, but instead of investing in boosting Dex to 20, a Paladin probably just wants enough Strength to wear plate armor without slowing down (Str 15+) and a sorcerer or warlock cantrip. But even with that cantrip, he's likely to be the party's melee specialist, at least in my experience: he's the guy who is the first one into the teleportal and the last guy out of the snake pit. He's the guy who uses his bonus action to cast Thunderous Smite before hitting the young red dragon with his longsword for d8+2d6+3 (14) points of damage and knocking it 10' away and prone, and then rushes over and uses his Extra Attack to grapple it to keep it prone and at a disadvantage and unable to effectively target the other PCs besides him with its breath weapon. When you need a tank, that's the Paladin's job.Plus, some PCs are just born strong but not agile, and they may not have the option to suddenly become Dex-based. I imagine some people are playing 3d6-in-order campaigns (I'd play one) and those people are undoubtedly glad to have the Str option available.Overall, ranged combat is stronger than melee, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Dex is stronger than Str. It just means that Str is weaker than [some combination of Dex/Cha/Int/Wis which fits your class abilities and provides a good ranged attack].</blockquote>

Verification