Will D&D make strength matter again?

[Mistwell]

In our games, which I've played since the beta test, strength has never been a lesser ability to dex.

We play in a lot of dungeons, mostly published adventures but some homebrew.

We:

1) have never once found a magic rapier, and
2) very rarely find a magic ranged weapon, and
3) find a LOT of magic longswords and the occasional magic greataxe, and the occasional magic shield and heavy armor,
4) find ourselves in a lot of rooms which are so tight that staying at range is often not easily done, and
5) we seem to find a need to grapple and/or shove someone every third session or so.

This combination of factors makes strength as important as dex in our games. Someone wants to use the magic longsword or greataxe. Someone wants to be tromping around in magic heavy armor and with a shield. And given the lack of magic item shops, if we were to pass up the opportunity to use these items it would seem foolish versus all those creatures with resistance to non-magic attacks. And then, it's fun to grapple and shove people sometimes

Bottom line, we've never found dex to outshine str. It does so on paper maybe or in white room theorycrafting, but when the theory hits the published adventures it just doesn't work out as well.

 

[Lost Soul]

I don't think it is. I've never understood the fuss about it. I've seen no shortage of Str based characters when I play.

It is simply because it effects too much of the game. Dex gives you AC & reflex saves, initiative, attack and damage bonus with both melee and ranged weapons not to mention a broad array of skills. No other stat has such a broad effect over both combat and non-combat as Dex does. Its too good

 

[Lost Soul]

In our games, which I've played since the beta test, strength has never been a lesser ability to dex.

We play in a lot of dungeons, mostly published adventures but some homebrew.

We:

1) have never once found a magic rapier, and
2) very rarely find a magic ranged weapon, and
3) find a LOT of magic longswords and the occasional magic greataxe, and the occasional magic shield and heavy armor,
4) find ourselves in a lot of rooms which are so tight that staying at range is often not easily done, and
5) we seem to find a need to grapple and/or shove someone every third session or so.

This combination of factors makes strength as important as dex in our games. Someone wants to use the magic longsword or greataxe. Someone wants to be tromping around in magic heavy armor and with a shield. And given the lack of magic item shops, if we were to pass up the opportunity to use these items it would seem foolish versus all those creatures with resistance to non-magic attacks. And then, it's fun to grapple and shove people sometimes

Bottom line, we've never found dex to outshine str. It does so on paper maybe or in white room theorycrafting, but when the theory hits the published adventures it just doesn't work out as well.

I find dexterity outshines strength dramatically when multiclass martial/rogue characters come into play. You can cherry pick rogue levels that really stack a ton of damage on to multiple attacks and you get a huge defensive buff by using the feat that allows you to add dex to AC as a reaction to an attack. Strength is only useful if you go two-handed and even then it is outmatched by a fighter/rogue very quickly.

 

[Lost Soul]

That looks complicated. It would be simpler and more-balanced if you just said that Strength-based melee weapon attacks did extra damage (+1d6 for one-handed, or +1d8 for two-handed), but even that would be more complicated and unbalancing than it would need to be in order to get the idea across. Strength-based melee fighters are not lacking for damage in this edition.

Please elaborate on too complex. All I did was give a weak sneak attack feature that you can get 1 extra die of damage per attack. So at 5th level you get an extra two dice to add to damage rolls per round. I could have simply made it an extra die of damage per attack but I wanted to give an option of a 'smite' like power where you can pour all of your dice into one attack or break them up with multiple attacks which may be more beneficial when fighting hordes of weaker enemies. Martial classes differ from rogues in that multiple attacks is their theme. I feel that multiple attacks from a fighter should be as deadly as a rogue's single attack but they should have the option to break up extra damage on opponents. Otherwise it functions exactly as sneak attack for strength weapons. It would also limit martial (fighter, barbarian, paladin)/rogue builds which I am growing tired of seeing in my groups. Multiclassing is too good for rogues, average for martials and meh for casters

 

[Sleepy Walker]

Optional encumbrance can be a messy way to make strength more relevant in your game.

I know since I decided to track it I've certain had double thoughts about ever making a PC with a strength less than 12 and an uneasy feeling with a strength of 14 if I plan on wearing any armor 40lbs or more. Tack on basic gear, food, water, a few tricks like holy water or alchemist fire, and my characters are already losing 10 feet of movement easy. Not a problem outside of combat, but everybody else might not like moving 10-20 feet a turn that when the arrows start flying or that stone ball starts rolling.

 

[Horwath]

Remove constitution.

Add it's mechanics to strength.

Done.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you tired of Dexterity being the 'God' stat of D&D? DO you pine for the 3E and older versions were high strength was essential to melee combat success? Are you tired of the rapier replacing the longsword and battle axe as the go to weapon for most adventurers? I am and I am looking for suggestions to validate strength as combat option outside of the tired great weapon master arc. Here is a suggestion for barbarians and fighters, maybe even paladins and rangers who focus on strength instead of finesse.

Combat Mastery
At Level 5 for barbarians, paladins & rangers and levels 5, 11, 16 and 20th for fighters you get a bonus damage pool of dice that refreshes each round. The dice you receive is a D8 for one handed melee weapons and D10 for heavy weapons. These dice DO NOT STACK with dice provided by sneak attacks. You receive one extra die per attack you receive when using the attack option with the strength attribute only. You do not receive an extra die for two weapon fighting. When you attack you state how many extra dice you roll if you hit. You can use all of the dice on one attack or split them up among multiple attacks. Any dice not used up before the end of the round are lost. You must state the amount of extra dice to add to the attack damage BEFORE making your attack roll(s). The dice refresh each combat turn.

Thoughts?

Too strong. What the heck were you thinking?

 

[CubicsRube]

Remove constitution.

Add it's mechanics to strength.

Done.

They are such a sacred cow the 6 attributes. But if i were to have my way id have strengtgh encompassing con, and deex and agility split into seperate attributes.

No more agile and high ac jewellers!

 

[Caliban]

It is simply because it effects too much of the game. Dex gives you AC & reflex saves, initiative, attack and damage bonus with both melee and ranged weapons not to mention a broad array of skills. No other stat has such a broad effect over both combat and non-combat as Dex does. Its too good

Meh, not in my experience. It's good, but not "too good". I have not seen Dex based melee characters outshine Str Based melee characters. Ranged? Yes. But that's more a problem with the benefits of the archery Archery Style + Sharpshooter combo.

 

[AmerginLiath]

In our games, which I've played since the beta test, strength has never been a lesser ability to dex.

We play in a lot of dungeons, mostly published adventures but some homebrew.

We:

1) have never once found a magic rapier, and
2) very rarely find a magic ranged weapon, and
3) find a LOT of magic longswords and the occasional magic greataxe, and the occasional magic shield and heavy armor,
4) find ourselves in a lot of rooms which are so tight that staying at range is often not easily done, and
5) we seem to find a need to grapple and/or shove someone every third session or so.

This combination of factors makes strength as important as dex in our games. Someone wants to use the magic longsword or greataxe. Someone wants to be tromping around in magic heavy armor and with a shield. And given the lack of magic item shops, if we were to pass up the opportunity to use these items it would seem foolish versus all those creatures with resistance to non-magic attacks. And then, it's fun to grapple and shove people sometimes

Bottom line, we've never found dex to outshine str. It does so on paper maybe or in white room theorycrafting, but when the theory hits the published adventures it just doesn't work out as well.

The classic distribution of magic weapons (codified in 1st Edition to steeply favor swords, especially among intelligent weapons) is one of the key sources of the choice of Kong’s words by characters and, to a degree, the choice to play characters able to wield them. Especially given the rarity of magic weapons compared to recent editions (those editions wherein players were used to choosing Dexerity-focused characters), having those few finds be Strength-focused will help tailor the campaign toward those types of characters as it progresses, especially toward higher levels (Dex characters will, by comparison, need to invest in feats and ASIs that a fighter with a magic sword doesn’t have the same pressing need for).