What is the essence of D&D

[Oofta]

Being able to use Dexterity to damage at range and for finesse weapons was a mistake. It makes Dexterity way too good.

Not to mention that someone with a 3 strength could use a longbow if they can lift it. Longbows require significant strength. I blame people conflating longbows with modern composite bows ala The Hunger Games.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not to mention that someone with a 3 strength could use a longbow if they can lift it. Longbows require significant strength. I blame people conflating longbows with modern composite bows ala The Hunger Games.

Oh come on, don’t be silly.

The “culprit”, insofar as one is needed, is simply that Dex and Strength aren’t wholly separate attributes, and they don’t map perfectly to muscle power and coordination. Nearly all Strength activities require Dexterity, and vice versa, but 5e isn’t, and shouldn’t be, concerned with the level of granularity required to model that directly.

Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Instead, you are coordinated enough to use a great sword effectively even with a low Dexterity score, and strong enough to use a bow even with a low Strength score. Because it’s simple, and the game runs better this way.

Simple? Less complex, sure. "Runs better?" well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Arguably, archery (ranged options, in general) ended up 'too good' in 5e, because 5e tried so hard to simplify & speed up combat. Bring back old-school handling of cover & concealment, firing into melee, ranged attacking/casting in melee, etc... and you'd have less issue with ranged options being too good - and, more complex rules & slower combat...

3E had all that, and yet archery was even more imbalanced, because archers were the ones who could reliably stand and full attack every round. And adding insult to injury, Rapid Shot had no melee equivalent unless you were a monk.

So (setting aside 4E because class powers mattered far more than any intrinsic virtues of archery or melee), 5E is in a bit of a "two steps forward, one step back" position here, as far as I'm concerned. And as you note, it's way easier to run, so maybe that last step is just sideways.

 

[Campbell]

You are not really looking at meaningful difference in at the table complexity. All that stuff should be precalculated.

 

[Garthanos]

Ugh. Don't get me started.

Having an uberstat that:

INT and I think CHA can be used on a spell to do ANYTHING a spell can do at all.... hurray for the ubermeister

 

[Garthanos]

Simple? Less complex, sure. "Runs better?" well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.

Sure but is it conformant with your identified ESSENCE of D&D - if you are going to argue that don't stop now. ... the fighting classes simpley must be MAD


Archery
Perception (Wisdom) to ranged target.
Constitution (Stamina) to steady your aim
Strength to use a Stronger Bow
Dex grace to reload quickly.

MAD MAD mad I say

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Simple? Less complex, sure. "Runs better?" well, it runs a bit faster, perhaps, but archery being 'too good' and DEX is das uberstat argue not necessarily better.

Perception vs reality.

IME, people still very much run strength characters.

Also IME, the balance “gap” is much smaller than it seems from reading forums or from over-analyzing the books.

I do recommend making Barbarian Unarmored Defense 12+Dex+Con, or simply 13+Con, though, on a side note.

But looking at Dex Fighter va strength fighter, is there actually a meaningful power gap in favor of Dex? I would argue that there isn’t.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... the fighting classes simpley must be MAD

they must be downright furious.