What is the essence of D&D

[Oofta]

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.

I don't get too worked up about historical accuracy but traditional longbows typical had draw weights of 150 lbs or more depending on who you ask. In addition, I don't consider myself particularly dextrous but I was a pretty good shot with both firearms and archery because of time spent in my misspent youth. But I would never go hunting with a kiddie bow that I got when I was 10. There's just no way the arrows had enough force behind them to do significant damage.

What bugs me is that a high Dex PC can have practically everything a strength based PC has and more. Ranged? Hands down far better. One handed melee? Same. AC? Close enough that it doesn't matter much.

At what cost? Umm...they can't grapple which I don't remember anyone using. Climbing sucks but there's probably going to be a workaround because you're never going to have an entire party with good strength. As a DM I have to go out of my way to find reasons for strength to matter.

I've considered limiting damage from bows to double your strength bonus or your dex mod in my home campaign for longbows. If you want to dump strength, use a shortbow. I already allow reinforced bows that you can buy to add strength instead of dex to attack and damage.

I don't want to over complicate things. I don't want to nerf dex. I just want some balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don’t know, I’ve certainly found 5e vastly easier to run than anything other than 4e.

Sure. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather run 5e than 3e, for instance, in no small part because there's less chargen-like tedium on the DM side of the screen, and less guff from players. But 5e /is/ a real challenge to run, it's just, well, for me, more a matter of emotional energy. I have to be 'up' to run a good 5e session. Firing on all cylinders. IDK, hard to describe, I guess. It takes something to take control of and responsibility for the game, the way that 5e invites me to (the way felt 1e did, too, which is no small part of it, /and/ why I like it).

While it might involve tedious prep, and I wouldn't /want/ to run 3e again, I could, even on an 'off' day, run a well-prepared 3e adventure and deliver a decent experience fairly consistently.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?

And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?

That's right - it'd still be mighty simple.

* - exceptions being to-hit only (NOT damage!) for a few small and-or exotic weapons e.g. rapier and whip.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

What?

C'mon, Oofta. No half measures here.

Nerf it. Nerf it HARD.

Make Dex the INT of stats.

Yeah, you heard me rapier-lovers. I'd explain this to you, but you dumped int and you're too stupid to figure it out.

Sorry, my inner Sir McStabsalot just won't let me nerf rapiers because they're just so AWESOME!!!

Besides, what would all those Drizzt wannabes do without dual wielding rapiers? Hmmm ... maybe you have a point.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

True - but, y'know, they'd be hosed in melee... and...er.. could run out of arrows. Same deal as casting, really, writ smaller.

Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.

 

[Garthanos]

Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.

Druidzilla was the one I think I accidentally started making .... definitely melee. I would have expected a Cleric one to be rangy?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?

And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?

That's right - it'd still be mighty simple.

* - exceptions being to-hit only (NOT damage!) for a few small and-or exotic weapons e.g. rapier and whip.

Blech.

I think you missed the “and runs better” part. People want to play Dex-first characters without being nerfed just keep Strength “safe” from being a second tier stat in the minds of optimizers.

Letting any reasonably light weapon use Dex for attack and damage is also much simpler than having a small number of “specialty” weapons (which the rapier shouldn’t be one of, it’s a standard weapon) use Dex for hit and strength for damage.

But even if we view them as equally simple, finesse as per 5e wins due to facilitating more play-styles and character concepts without creating a requirement of high system mastery to enjoy a classic and pretty basic archetype.

Edit: as for strength requirements, the answer is “noticeably”. The question then becomes, “is it noticeable enough that it interferes with just playing the game and enjoying it?” And “does the game lend itself to needing Strength on a Dex based character just to use more weapons, or will a fairly tight point buy ensure that nearly all point-buy games will see most Dex characters using the same weapons so they have stat room for con and skill-related stat bumps?”

I’d much rather see higher int and wis and cha than enforce strength necessity on characters whose story isn’t about being strong.

We know the 5e parkouring archer rogue is reasonably fit and probably “skinny-buff”, because they are able to run jump and climb at high speeds while shooting a longbow. Requiring a 14 strength to do all that just narrows what the character can be in secondary skills, without actually adding anything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Although to be fair, CoDzilla was a melee build.

It was a caster build that could dominate in melee to rival an indifferently-powergamed fighter, if it felt like it, sure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So how much less simple is it to just slap a minimum strength requirement on some weapons e.g. longbow, greatsword, and a few others?

I don't have a quantifiable unit we all agree on, but, less simple is more complicated.

And how much less simple would it be to remove dexterity from to-hit and damage for nearly all* melee weapons?

"nearly" no more or less simple. Entirely, would be a simplification.

People want to play Dex-first characters without being nerfed just keep Strength “safe” from being a second tier stat in the minds of optimizers.

I do see a definite virtue in 5e (finally) making the choice to play a big-stick bruiser or dancey swashbuckler a fairly seamless one, in melee.

It's strained, though, that the same choice doesn't work out as well when it comes to ranged. The DEX character can be a very capable ranged combatant, with a /long/ range, good-damage weapon, quite easily, even if in no way optimized for it. Even optimized, the STR character is going to have a much shorter range, and issues with making a lot of ranged attacks. It wouldn't take much - 'Composite" Bows that take STR for hit & dam, for instance - to make that fairly seamless, too, though.

...but, DEX still comes out ahead for prevalence of saves, AC bonus compatible with stealth/mobility/hanging out in a peaceful town, skill basis, & initiative.