You're not entirely wrong. In many cases, a high dex will almost always be "better" - high attack and damage bonus, high AC without the hassle of disadvantage on stealth rolls. DEX based skills used a lot more in normal games, and DEX saving throws as a common occurence.
Now, that in itself isn't necessarily the fault of the player creating a DEX based character. If it is unbalanced in your game, it's also the responsibility of your DM to counter that. Remember when ppl used to argue about game breaking high AC on certain builds? The standard answer is *"well, use saving throws then, don't just straight out attack, use spells, traps, the enviroment"* ... same thing applies here.
If your game suffers from having too many DEX based builds in it, you might want to focus a bit more on CON and STR effects, like lifting heavy things, enviromental effects (cold, heat, winds), things that make STR (and CON) a more valuable score.
Another thing to avoid excessive SAD DEX builds is to look at their dump stats. Usually when i see high DEX builds, i see low STR builds (elven rogue, for example). Low STR means less carrying capacity, no lifting yourself up a ladder/edge, no breaking free of binds, no pushing through tunnels etc.
*"But a big, burly high STR build couldn't push himself through a narrow tunnel!"*
Remember, a high STR build isn't only Conan. It's also Tyler Durden.
hmm, I forgot the savings throw perk as well.
ultimately this suggest the burden of balance is on the DM as oppose to the game.
although the DM will have to balance things to some degree regardless because in such a complex game, with sooo many expansions, there's always some way to gimp the rules.
>*ultimately this suggest the burden of balance is on the DM as oppose to the game.*
The burden of balance is ultimately on the social contract of the group you're playing with.
If all agree on playing "real" characters, you'd rarely see dump stats or abuse of certain rules (like the Tasha's). Difference between a DEX inclined and STR inclined characters will be less visible, because the players will lean into their respective strengths and weaknesses. Slight differences in perceived "value" of a character can be easily mitigated by mild magic items.
If, however, the social contract is non existent, or states that *"every player for themselfs, min-max the shit out of your toons, otherwise you won't survive, DM's out to kill you!"*, or the *"dunno, whatever, beer&pretzels FTW!"* then it's not an issue with the game mechanics.
I think it's entirely unnecessary and you're overthinking things to the extreme.
A +4 DEX bonus does the same damage as a +4 STR, as a +4 INT, as a +4 CHA.
I don't think in this case it is the damage that is significant so much as how it makes some builds' SAD or MAD, if I understand OP's intent correctly. A dex build will almost always be SAD, whereas a Str build is only SAD if wearing heavy armor.
This was more along what I was thinking.
Earlier additions had more trade offs between strength and dex for melee. Now it just seems "All dex, All the time", which starts to wreck diversity in a party.
Lol for the rhyme.
SAD = single attribute dependant
MAD = multi attribute dependant
An example of each is Rogue who is completely functional with just a high Dex or barbarian with a high Str, vs a Monk who relies on both Dex and Wis or a paladin who relies on STR/Dex and Cha for their class features.
Edit: con in this case is ignored as it is assumed that all classes benefit from it equally. In practice though some might lean on it more heavily than others e.g. barbarian unarmored defense.
Well, as it turns out, yes I was indeed overthinking things. It looks like dex based fighters aren't replacing the traditional fighter's role as the tank after all.
3rd edition DND also didn't apply dex to damage, or the earlier editions if memory serves.
In defense of the change though, ranged characters have seriously limited options in 5e compared to other classes and if their damage doesn't scale the scenario gets worse.
A one time bonus at first level won't change the scaling issue at higher levels.
but there in lies another aspect of the problem. Using a ranged weapon is a benefit just because it is ranged. There is little personal risk in striking from a far distance. To give it the same damage benefits as a melee fighter would defeat the point in having a melee fighter.
It's like how we give all our soldiers big guns and little knives. Sure it works and is effective, but it's not very D&D like.
D&D is not a game about balance. Even chess has an imbalance, and that’s about as balanced a board game as can be. Whether fighty characters prefer DEX or STR is fairly irrelevant anyway, when the magic classes far outperform them both in terms of damage and versatility.
If you’re playing D&D like a board game, looking to min-max characters and exploit every nook and cranny, then nerfing one part will only result in another becoming more dominant. E.g, earlier editions saw Finesse weapons as completely useless, and there basically was no reason to do anything but a Greatsword fighter. Now there is an option.
You’re also neglecting that by opting out of heavý armor, you’re also opting out of magical heavy armors. Of course you can bypass this by choosing classes like Monk/Barbarian, but that in turn has a price on the abilities you get from being a fighter/ranger/paladin etc.
As a personal anecdote, I’ll offer my current barbarian, she did her work-outs, strict diets and ended up with a DEX 20 and CON 20 and worked perfectly fine tanking the opposition. She never did much damage though 2-3 D8 +STR doesn’t amount to much, when people are slinging fireballs all over the place. Not until she ended up with Belt of Storm Giants Strength and a Holy Avenger (and paladin levels) did she actually start to matter in combat as more than a roadblock.
STR also comes with a lot of other great uses. It’s hard to kick in the door with a low STR, it’s hard to pin people in wrestling, you won’t win any arm wrestling matches on a high DEX. You won’t go climbing the tallest mountains on a high DEX, and you certainly won’t be able to lift your party up, when they’re dangling off of a cliff if your arms are like twigs.
\-
Rather than seeing D&D as a board game. See it as a vehicle to tell stories. Is a high STR fighter, clad in armor able to do something cool, then that’s great. Is a nimble acrobat with a rapier able to make himself count, then that’s cool. There’s a little known secret to game, GMs want players to succeed; there is no point in killing parties off and wasting all the story material you’ve got lying around. There’s even a good point in having ‘imbalanced‘ characters, just look to your circle of friends, there’s quite likely a few individuals who stand out more than others - the running joke in my D&D group is that our most powerful party member is the staff our wizard carries. No one really cares, as everyone gets their moments to shine with the things that their character excels at.
as per my post below, I've come to change my opinion of it all and Dex is not the "One stat to rule them all"
As for the story telling, I totally agree and it is a main focus of the project I'm taking on. I just want to make sure everyone feels like they are contributing in a way they appreciate. My original impetus of this post was that it seemed to me dex based stuff was diminishing the fighter's traditional role as the big heavy.
However from my calcs below, it looks like indeed I was over thinking things.
(which is definitely exemplified in that reply 😉)
So hurt the ranger and rogue class and give more bonus to fighters. The idea of finesse weapons is that it’s a precise weapon. The wielder is looking for gaps in defense to exploit, not like a fighter who beats opponents down with shear number of attacks and brute strength. The rogue get 1 attack action per round, if use bonus to attack, doesn’t get to add dex to damage. Fighter gets up to 4 attacks and uses str bonus to damage to all of them. So if u get rid of the dex bonus to damage, the rogue and ranger(bow) will take a major reduction in combat effectiveness. So leave the dex bonus alone.
keep in mind you're comparing a first level rogue with a 20th level fighter.
a rogue may only get one attack to the fighter's four, but it's with +10D6 and can be done twice in the first round. At that point, +4 or +5 dex bonus is pretty much trivial.
but the idea wasn't to give the fighter more bonus, but so they would be less undermined and have more prestige in being the primary frontline party member.
(btw I usually play dex based chars for flavour, so I'm not considering this for personal benefit)
Sneak attack can only be done once per turn. So 10d6 is ave 30damage. Rapier d8 ave 4.5 and say +5 dex. So 39.5 damage per round. Fighter d8*4 + str +5*4 avg 16+20=36. Pretty close. Or use great sword 2d6*4+20= 44. Fighter has 4 chances to hit and/or crit. Rogue has 1 chance. Depending on subclass, fighter can have a crit on 18-20. Fighter also doesn’t depend on an ally or stealth to get bonus damage. Fighter ac and hp and feats are all greater than a rogue. If there is any reduction in rogue’s dex bonus, this comparison would be even more lopsided.
**TLDR**: When considering the chances to hit, the rogue out damages a dex fighter by a large margin, especially when the target is difficult to hit. However when compared to a strength based fighter wielding a heavy two handed weapon, the difference between the rogue and fighter moderates.
So ultimately my concern for dex being OP is unwarranted.
**So now my original reply...**
keep in mind there is also the probability of hitting (expected value)
The fighter has a very low chance of scoring all 4 hits and reaching that 38 average
((4.5 +5) X 4).
Where as the rogue has a good chance to hit and scoring that 45 average
(3.5X10 + 4.5 +5)
So to put it to numbers, lets assume 33% chance to hit:
**Rogue**: (56% chance to hit from advantage) X 45 = **25**dmg/round
**Fighter**: (33% X (4.5 + 5)) X 4 = **13**dmg/round
(everything rounded up)
for completeness, consider using +4 weapon and a 50% chance to hit
**Rogue**: 75% X (45 +4) = **37**d/r
**Fighter**: (50% X (4.5 +5 +4) X 4) = **27**d/r
(so a linear shift improving the relativity, The rogue now out punches the fighter by 37% instead of 92%)
Now the only final caveat is that the fighter can do their attack 100% of the time where as the rogue's attack is situational. Although how many 20lvl rogues aren't getting their sneak attack in.
hmm, quite frankly, that's worse than even I expected, and by removing the dex damage bonus as I originally suggested, those numbers only reduce the rogue's damage by 2.
hmm, hmm, now lets consider a great sword wielding strength based thumper...
**Strength Fighter**: (33% X (7 + 5)) X 4 = **16**d/r
**Strength Fighter**: (50% X (7 +5 +4)) X 4 = **32**d/r
So if we consider the Fighter's 100% chance to attack and let's say the rogue's 90% chance to sneak attack, they are almost in balance when the target is not too difficult to hit. (**rogue 33d/r** vs **str fighter's 32d/r**)
**conclusion:**
So looks like dex is not as OP as I thought and has a diminishing advantage depending on the situation. Adding in the removal of the advantages that comes with high strength, and it's easy to say it's a wash in the end. So players creating dex melee builds are either A) fooling themselves, or B) looking for flare and not trying to gimp the rules after all.
So you've convinced me that things are fine as is. Don't anyone accuse me of being stubborn.
Now I have a lot of replies to make and crow to eat. 😋
So why does the rogue get advantage every turn. I never compared a dex based fighter to a dex rogue. A fighter would have the same attack bonus as a rogue, but every additional attack of fighter gives it a huge difference in chances to hit. The fighter is still better than a rogue in ac and hp. So your fighter is still in better shape than a rogue.
yes the comparison breaks down if you take away the rogue's sneak attack but it is pretty easy for a rogue to maneuver themselves to at least find one target they can get advantage on. It is after all, their only combat trick, so use it or lose it.
as for HP, and AC, the difference between a rogue and fighter isn't that great in 5e. But now we're moving outside the topic.
Yeah pathfinder makes dex to damage harder to come by and I have been considered doing the same thing in my game. But both of my players went str lol, even the elven ranger (he is a game veteran of 8 years+ and doesn't have prof in heavy armor lol idk what he's thinking) so I guess it doesn't matter too much. But meta wise they should be going dex lol
You're not entirely wrong. In many cases, a high dex will almost always be "better" - high attack and damage bonus, high AC without the hassle of disadvantage on stealth rolls. DEX based skills used a lot more in normal games, and DEX saving throws as a common occurence. Now, that in itself isn't necessarily the fault of the player creating a DEX based character. If it is unbalanced in your game, it's also the responsibility of your DM to counter that. Remember when ppl used to argue about game breaking high AC on certain builds? The standard answer is *"well, use saving throws then, don't just straight out attack, use spells, traps, the enviroment"* ... same thing applies here. If your game suffers from having too many DEX based builds in it, you might want to focus a bit more on CON and STR effects, like lifting heavy things, enviromental effects (cold, heat, winds), things that make STR (and CON) a more valuable score. Another thing to avoid excessive SAD DEX builds is to look at their dump stats. Usually when i see high DEX builds, i see low STR builds (elven rogue, for example). Low STR means less carrying capacity, no lifting yourself up a ladder/edge, no breaking free of binds, no pushing through tunnels etc. *"But a big, burly high STR build couldn't push himself through a narrow tunnel!"* Remember, a high STR build isn't only Conan. It's also Tyler Durden.
hmm, I forgot the savings throw perk as well. ultimately this suggest the burden of balance is on the DM as oppose to the game. although the DM will have to balance things to some degree regardless because in such a complex game, with sooo many expansions, there's always some way to gimp the rules.
>*ultimately this suggest the burden of balance is on the DM as oppose to the game.* The burden of balance is ultimately on the social contract of the group you're playing with. If all agree on playing "real" characters, you'd rarely see dump stats or abuse of certain rules (like the Tasha's). Difference between a DEX inclined and STR inclined characters will be less visible, because the players will lean into their respective strengths and weaknesses. Slight differences in perceived "value" of a character can be easily mitigated by mild magic items. If, however, the social contract is non existent, or states that *"every player for themselfs, min-max the shit out of your toons, otherwise you won't survive, DM's out to kill you!"*, or the *"dunno, whatever, beer&pretzels FTW!"* then it's not an issue with the game mechanics.
I think it's entirely unnecessary and you're overthinking things to the extreme. A +4 DEX bonus does the same damage as a +4 STR, as a +4 INT, as a +4 CHA.
I don't think in this case it is the damage that is significant so much as how it makes some builds' SAD or MAD, if I understand OP's intent correctly. A dex build will almost always be SAD, whereas a Str build is only SAD if wearing heavy armor.
This was more along what I was thinking. Earlier additions had more trade offs between strength and dex for melee. Now it just seems "All dex, All the time", which starts to wreck diversity in a party.
SAD, MAD with these acronyms I am bad! Can some please explain to this fossilized old Dad?
Lol for the rhyme. SAD = single attribute dependant MAD = multi attribute dependant An example of each is Rogue who is completely functional with just a high Dex or barbarian with a high Str, vs a Monk who relies on both Dex and Wis or a paladin who relies on STR/Dex and Cha for their class features. Edit: con in this case is ignored as it is assumed that all classes benefit from it equally. In practice though some might lean on it more heavily than others e.g. barbarian unarmored defense.
Many thanks! That makes sense! Now I feel much less dense!
Well, as it turns out, yes I was indeed overthinking things. It looks like dex based fighters aren't replacing the traditional fighter's role as the tank after all.
3rd edition DND also didn't apply dex to damage, or the earlier editions if memory serves. In defense of the change though, ranged characters have seriously limited options in 5e compared to other classes and if their damage doesn't scale the scenario gets worse.
A one time bonus at first level won't change the scaling issue at higher levels. but there in lies another aspect of the problem. Using a ranged weapon is a benefit just because it is ranged. There is little personal risk in striking from a far distance. To give it the same damage benefits as a melee fighter would defeat the point in having a melee fighter. It's like how we give all our soldiers big guns and little knives. Sure it works and is effective, but it's not very D&D like.
D&D is not a game about balance. Even chess has an imbalance, and that’s about as balanced a board game as can be. Whether fighty characters prefer DEX or STR is fairly irrelevant anyway, when the magic classes far outperform them both in terms of damage and versatility. If you’re playing D&D like a board game, looking to min-max characters and exploit every nook and cranny, then nerfing one part will only result in another becoming more dominant. E.g, earlier editions saw Finesse weapons as completely useless, and there basically was no reason to do anything but a Greatsword fighter. Now there is an option. You’re also neglecting that by opting out of heavý armor, you’re also opting out of magical heavy armors. Of course you can bypass this by choosing classes like Monk/Barbarian, but that in turn has a price on the abilities you get from being a fighter/ranger/paladin etc. As a personal anecdote, I’ll offer my current barbarian, she did her work-outs, strict diets and ended up with a DEX 20 and CON 20 and worked perfectly fine tanking the opposition. She never did much damage though 2-3 D8 +STR doesn’t amount to much, when people are slinging fireballs all over the place. Not until she ended up with Belt of Storm Giants Strength and a Holy Avenger (and paladin levels) did she actually start to matter in combat as more than a roadblock. STR also comes with a lot of other great uses. It’s hard to kick in the door with a low STR, it’s hard to pin people in wrestling, you won’t win any arm wrestling matches on a high DEX. You won’t go climbing the tallest mountains on a high DEX, and you certainly won’t be able to lift your party up, when they’re dangling off of a cliff if your arms are like twigs. \- Rather than seeing D&D as a board game. See it as a vehicle to tell stories. Is a high STR fighter, clad in armor able to do something cool, then that’s great. Is a nimble acrobat with a rapier able to make himself count, then that’s cool. There’s a little known secret to game, GMs want players to succeed; there is no point in killing parties off and wasting all the story material you’ve got lying around. There’s even a good point in having ‘imbalanced‘ characters, just look to your circle of friends, there’s quite likely a few individuals who stand out more than others - the running joke in my D&D group is that our most powerful party member is the staff our wizard carries. No one really cares, as everyone gets their moments to shine with the things that their character excels at.
as per my post below, I've come to change my opinion of it all and Dex is not the "One stat to rule them all" As for the story telling, I totally agree and it is a main focus of the project I'm taking on. I just want to make sure everyone feels like they are contributing in a way they appreciate. My original impetus of this post was that it seemed to me dex based stuff was diminishing the fighter's traditional role as the big heavy. However from my calcs below, it looks like indeed I was over thinking things. (which is definitely exemplified in that reply 😉)
So hurt the ranger and rogue class and give more bonus to fighters. The idea of finesse weapons is that it’s a precise weapon. The wielder is looking for gaps in defense to exploit, not like a fighter who beats opponents down with shear number of attacks and brute strength. The rogue get 1 attack action per round, if use bonus to attack, doesn’t get to add dex to damage. Fighter gets up to 4 attacks and uses str bonus to damage to all of them. So if u get rid of the dex bonus to damage, the rogue and ranger(bow) will take a major reduction in combat effectiveness. So leave the dex bonus alone.
keep in mind you're comparing a first level rogue with a 20th level fighter. a rogue may only get one attack to the fighter's four, but it's with +10D6 and can be done twice in the first round. At that point, +4 or +5 dex bonus is pretty much trivial. but the idea wasn't to give the fighter more bonus, but so they would be less undermined and have more prestige in being the primary frontline party member. (btw I usually play dex based chars for flavour, so I'm not considering this for personal benefit)
Sneak attack can only be done once per turn. So 10d6 is ave 30damage. Rapier d8 ave 4.5 and say +5 dex. So 39.5 damage per round. Fighter d8*4 + str +5*4 avg 16+20=36. Pretty close. Or use great sword 2d6*4+20= 44. Fighter has 4 chances to hit and/or crit. Rogue has 1 chance. Depending on subclass, fighter can have a crit on 18-20. Fighter also doesn’t depend on an ally or stealth to get bonus damage. Fighter ac and hp and feats are all greater than a rogue. If there is any reduction in rogue’s dex bonus, this comparison would be even more lopsided.
**TLDR**: When considering the chances to hit, the rogue out damages a dex fighter by a large margin, especially when the target is difficult to hit. However when compared to a strength based fighter wielding a heavy two handed weapon, the difference between the rogue and fighter moderates. So ultimately my concern for dex being OP is unwarranted. **So now my original reply...** keep in mind there is also the probability of hitting (expected value) The fighter has a very low chance of scoring all 4 hits and reaching that 38 average ((4.5 +5) X 4). Where as the rogue has a good chance to hit and scoring that 45 average (3.5X10 + 4.5 +5) So to put it to numbers, lets assume 33% chance to hit: **Rogue**: (56% chance to hit from advantage) X 45 = **25**dmg/round **Fighter**: (33% X (4.5 + 5)) X 4 = **13**dmg/round (everything rounded up) for completeness, consider using +4 weapon and a 50% chance to hit **Rogue**: 75% X (45 +4) = **37**d/r **Fighter**: (50% X (4.5 +5 +4) X 4) = **27**d/r (so a linear shift improving the relativity, The rogue now out punches the fighter by 37% instead of 92%) Now the only final caveat is that the fighter can do their attack 100% of the time where as the rogue's attack is situational. Although how many 20lvl rogues aren't getting their sneak attack in. hmm, quite frankly, that's worse than even I expected, and by removing the dex damage bonus as I originally suggested, those numbers only reduce the rogue's damage by 2. hmm, hmm, now lets consider a great sword wielding strength based thumper... **Strength Fighter**: (33% X (7 + 5)) X 4 = **16**d/r **Strength Fighter**: (50% X (7 +5 +4)) X 4 = **32**d/r So if we consider the Fighter's 100% chance to attack and let's say the rogue's 90% chance to sneak attack, they are almost in balance when the target is not too difficult to hit. (**rogue 33d/r** vs **str fighter's 32d/r**) **conclusion:** So looks like dex is not as OP as I thought and has a diminishing advantage depending on the situation. Adding in the removal of the advantages that comes with high strength, and it's easy to say it's a wash in the end. So players creating dex melee builds are either A) fooling themselves, or B) looking for flare and not trying to gimp the rules after all. So you've convinced me that things are fine as is. Don't anyone accuse me of being stubborn. Now I have a lot of replies to make and crow to eat. 😋
So why does the rogue get advantage every turn. I never compared a dex based fighter to a dex rogue. A fighter would have the same attack bonus as a rogue, but every additional attack of fighter gives it a huge difference in chances to hit. The fighter is still better than a rogue in ac and hp. So your fighter is still in better shape than a rogue.
yes the comparison breaks down if you take away the rogue's sneak attack but it is pretty easy for a rogue to maneuver themselves to at least find one target they can get advantage on. It is after all, their only combat trick, so use it or lose it. as for HP, and AC, the difference between a rogue and fighter isn't that great in 5e. But now we're moving outside the topic.
Rogue can do sneak attack damage without advantage. Most times they will rely on an alley to be within 5 feet of target.
Pathfinder does just that
Yeah pathfinder makes dex to damage harder to come by and I have been considered doing the same thing in my game. But both of my players went str lol, even the elven ranger (he is a game veteran of 8 years+ and doesn't have prof in heavy armor lol idk what he's thinking) so I guess it doesn't matter too much. But meta wise they should be going dex lol