Dex fighters are too good

I've talked about this before, but after tonight's session, in which we started a new campaign with level 1 characters. It became obvious to us all that dex fighters are just superior to strength fighters.  Strength has its place, mostly for shoving things around and such, but look at what you get.

dex:                      str:


Initiative               -
AC                         -
Attack                   Attack
Damage                Damage
reflex saves          carrying weight
escape grapples   escape grapples
agility stuff            strength stuff


At higher level, they both get the same AC potential, similar damage (str based weapons are a little higher, but once you've got tons of martial dice it's of no importance), so it seems that dex is the power stat for this system as is, and str is the dump stat. I think it's the dex bonus being applied to melee attacks that breaks it - ranged is fine, but melee makes str irrelevant.

Oh, and rogues are too awesome at everything compared to fighters. So many skills, and bonuses to all their skill checks, and their fighting ability is basically as good as a fighter. Perhaps consider lowering their attack bonus advancement a little (starting at 0 and ending at +4) just to give fighters a little something. That's my take on several sessions with the current playtest packet.  
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook

dex:                      str:

reflex saves          carrying weight


You're missing Strenght saving throw. Also in addition to weight capacity, Jump, Push and Disarm are also directly affected by your Strenght.
I think most people will agree with you on this point.  Although the Str fighter will have slightly better AC when all is said and done, I'm not sure that serves to balance this. 

There are also barely any mechanical reasons to take both dexterity and strength.  These abilities tend to go hand-in-hand in the 'real world' and the compelte lack of truly athletic characters in DDN is just odd. 
I think most people will agree with you on this point.  Although the Str fighter will have slightly better AC when all is said and done, I'm not sure that serves to balance this.   

Better AC? Mithril plate is 18. Mithril chain is 13 + 5 (20 dex) = 18. Both best AC's are 18, so I'm not sure where you get strength has a higher AC.

I think most people will agree with you on this point.  Although the Str fighter will have slightly better AC when all is said and done, I'm not sure that serves to balance this.   

Better AC? Mithril plate is 18. Mithril chain is 13 + 5 (20 dex) = 18. Both best AC's are 18, so I'm not sure where you get strength has a higher AC.




I don't have the charts in front of me, but I remember seeing a discussion on these forums comparing the AC of the two.  Although it did assume a +4 dex mod, and gave the str fight a shield.  Which would be a 2 AC difference from your example. 

I guess there's no reason why the dex fighter can't have a shield, but I was certainly thinking of more mundane armor options (like around lvl 5).  But, I have to admit that in that case, the Dex fighter dominates early, when the good heavy armor is super expensive. 

Yeah our examples were about what was possible, in the long run. In my campaign, they're on a series of islands and there's going to be swimming involved, and nobody took strength so it's going to hurt ;) But generally speaking dex certainly looks and plays superior to str for combat purposes. Outside combat, sure they're basically even.

Strength saving throws are to prevent being grappled, and you can use dex for that too (because DEX IS AWESOME). Str has its uses, but given the choice, 5 out of 6 players chose dex ;) 
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
Yeah our examples were about what was possible, in the long run. In my campaign, they're on a series of islands and there's going to be swimming involved, and nobody took strength so it's going to hurt ;) But generally speaking dex certainly looks and plays superior to str for combat purposes. Outside combat, sure they're basically even.

Strength saving throws are to prevent being grappled, and you can use dex for that too (because DEX IS AWESOME). Str has its uses, but given the choice, 5 out of 6 players chose dex ;) 



Small fix, lower dmg on all finese weapons.
That aside I would not write off Str. Any good adventure should have lots of climbing and swimming and consquences for failing that. Also I don't think you can use Dex in place of str saves. 
Throw some owl bears and gelatinious cubes at them  
Lol, good idea! And yes, they will rue the day they chose to ignore strength!

Dex gets plenty of out-of-combat uses as well, so Dex still comes out ahead in terms of usefulness.  I stand by my position that dex damage needs to be removed from melee weapons.
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
I think most people will agree with you on this point.  Although the Str fighter will have slightly better AC when all is said and done, I'm not sure that serves to balance this. 

There are also barely any mechanical reasons to take both dexterity and strength.  These abilities tend to go hand-in-hand in the 'real world' and the compelte lack of truly athletic characters in DDN is just odd. 



I agree 100%.  When I think of a fantasy hero that might be described as a warrior, I think of conan or drizzt or aragorn, and I don't picture any of them as being weak or clumsy.  The best warriors have high dexterity AND high strength, but in the would of D&D Next there is no (mechanic) reason to ever increase both.

My suggested fix is to split up the bonuses and make them more consistant.

DEX: always grants +hit and +AC, even for heavy armor

STR: always grants +damage and +hit, even for ranged weapons (you draw back harder on a crossbow/bow and it will hit harder and/or pierce armor, explaining the hit and damage bonuses) for ranged 

The hit bonus from dex and str can stack.  If it's unbalancing (I don't think it would be) you could adjust it so each stat gives 1/2 it's bonus as a +hit bonus, instead of the full bonus.

The AC bonus for dex, combined with heavy armor might seem too strong, but realize that a warrior going this route is raising dex at the expense of con and would have fewer HP.  By focusing fully on getting the best possible AC, he would be missing out on HP, and leaving himself weak against magic or area damage.  It worked fine in second edition, anyway.
Put your players in a situation where strength is required and they'll regret not taking it - seriously, it's still good to have at least 1 very strong person in the party, for the purpose of something like, lifting and holding up a heavy stone door that's enchanted to be highly resistant to magic so that players can pass. Let's see them find a dextrous way through that one
Put your players in a situation where strength is required and they'll regret not taking it - seriously, it's still good to have at least 1 very strong person in the party, for the purpose of something like, lifting and holding up a heavy stone door that's enchanted to be highly resistant to magic so that players can pass. Let's see them find a dextrous way through that one


I didn't say strength had no use - my little charty thing up top delineates what each stat is good at. But dex is just superior to have, with the only downside being 'feats of strength' that I will surely put them up against. 

I liked the idea of dex giving +hit and str giving +damage, thus a warrior needs to be agile AND strong to be truly great. Just a thought. 
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook

I agree, dex right now seems the best choice, but that's a collateral effect of weapon damage not having enough of an importance.


Right now a warrior disarmed will punch you with just about the same damage. Fix this issue and you fix the dex issue too.


I agree, dex right now seems the best choice, but that's a collateral effect of weapon damage not having enough of an importance.


Right now a warrior disarmed will punch you with just about the same damage. Fix this issue and you fix the dex issue too.



There are a couple of things I'd do to help out the STR fighter - T-H Weapons gain +1 to hit and Hvy Armor gaining a bonus to your Dex Save. (The idea being that heavy protection helps shield you from cones of cold, fireballs, etc.) Perhaps even a +1 to your Dex save with a shield as well.

But one thing I really believe they are doing right is in how they're handling skill eventually trumping weapon choice. By handling it this way it opens up any character concept you want with any weapon you want and it would be viable in the game. The idea being you become so skilled at killing it matter little what you use to kill with (though there still is a small difference) - all character concepts "win", from Riddick-style dagger fighters to greataxe-swinging dwarves.
These are very good points, and yes, my group started out with very few weapons and unarmed was almost as good as the weapons they had (we have one strength guy, but he wasn't too happy with his choice by the end). Certainly there's scope for a little more specialization with weapons to take you ahead of the pack, so to speak.
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
These are very good points, and yes, my group started out with very few weapons and unarmed was almost as good as the weapons they had (we have one strength guy, but he wasn't too happy with his choice by the end). Certainly there's scope for a little more specialization with weapons to take you ahead of the pack, so to speak.


We're seeing some of that already with feats like Hold the Line, Warding Polearm, Shield Bash, Sniper, etc. which grants you some extra utility with your weapon of choice. But basic damage improvement feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Mastery wisely boost all weapons you are proficient with. That way you're not pigeon-holing yourself into a specific weapon if you happen to run across an awesome magic weapon that isn't one you're "specialized" in.
Belts of giant strength, nuff said.
Belts of giant strength, nuff said.



Given bounded accuracy, I think these are kind of broken, to be honest. There's also nothing to say that we won't get some kind of Boots of Quickling Speed or something that boosts Dex to stupid levels. I'm not a big fan of them, but it does remind me of 1st and 2nd Edition, which I think is somewhat of a plus. I never really liked the modular design of +2, +4, +6 Items of Attribute Boosting from 3.X. I personally like magic items coming in two flavors: ubiquitous (Potion of Cure Light Wounds) and scarce (Guantlets of Ogre Strength). 

Also... why don't any of the Miscellaneous Magic items require attunement? That could go a long way to balancing them. Maybe even make a system of attunement "points" where different items (such as Legendary/Artifact) require more attunement "points" to use.
Belts of giant strength, nuff said.



Given bounded accuracy, I think these are kind of broken, to be honest. There's also nothing to say that we won't get some kind of Boots of Quickling Speed or something that boosts Dex to stupid levels. I'm not a big fan of them, but it does remind me of 1st and 2nd Edition, which I think is somewhat of a plus. I never really liked the modular design of +2, +4, +6 Items of Attribute Boosting from 3.X. I personally like magic items coming in two flavors: ubiquitous (Potion of Cure Light Wounds) and scarce (Guantlets of Ogre Strength). 

Also... why don't any of the Miscellaneous Magic items require attunement? That could go a long way to balancing them. Maybe even make a system of attunement "points" where different items (such as Legendary/Artifact) require more attunement "points" to use.



But this thread is about Dex being better then str and there are no dex items in this playtest only str enhancments. Drop a coupld of these belts in there and all the dex guys would be

But to each his own. I'm just not seeing where Dex is that much better then Str. If these guys were in the campaign I'm in now they wouldn't last that long. We've needed str way more then we've needed dex.

But this thread is about Dex being better then str and there are no dex items in this playtest only str enhancments. Drop a coupld of these belts in there and all the dex guys would be


See, I was thinking that dropping Belts of Giant Strength would make all the STR guys go

Beacuse there is no reason the DEX guys couldn't pick up the belts and rock attack and damage with their Strength bonus (their probable finesse weapons allow both). Compared to the STR guys, the DEX guys would even still have their AC and Initiative bonuses.
But this thread is about Dex being better then str and there are no dex items in this playtest only str enhancments. Drop a coupld of these belts in there and all the dex guys would be


See, I was thinking that dropping Belts of Giant Strength would make all the STR guys go

Beacuse there is no reason the DEX guys couldn't pick up the belts and rock attack and damage with their Strength bonus (their probable finesse weapons allow both). Compared to the STR guys, the DEX guys would even still have their AC and Initiative bonuses.



I guess we just need to see where they go with martial dice. I think they need to change martial dice into weapon dice and reduce the amount they get so a fighter only get a new weapon die every 4 levels so by 20th he only has 5dW and eliminate the MDB.
Martial dice seem to be causing a lot of issues with this playtest.

I don't really have a problem with MDD or MDB. I do think the mechanic is a little wonky that Monks and Rogues have the same progression as fighters. Maybe they should give fighters a D8 MDD, Monks a D6, and Rogues a D4. Spent the same way on manuevers, but secures the fighter's supremacy on damage output.

Personally, I think the problem is STR to hit and DEX to damage. Eliminate those factors and you make both attributes relatively important. Provide some kind of bonus to heavy and medium armor (maybe a "bonus HP" mechanic while wearing them) to give a reason to wear heavy armor rather than light + Dex and to balance out the Initiative bonus and I think it addresses a lot of things adequately.

You can't take away the to hit from str or your just empowering Dex again. None of the melee calsses should have to rely on two different stats to be effective.


There are lots of problems with MDD if you read any of the post about MDD. This is just another issue casused by MDD. By changing MDD to WDD then your putting value back into using str based weapons.


You can't take away the to hit from str or your just empowering Dex again. None of the melee calsses should have to rely on two different stats to be effective.


There are lots of problems with MDD if you read any of the post about MDD. This is just another issue casused by MDD. By changing MDD to WDD then your putting value back into using str based weapons.




Given the other benefits DEX provides, I could see leaving the STR to hit in. I have read the MDD threads, but fall in the camp that likes that a fighter's ability to kill has more to do with skill than weapon choice. It supports multiple fighter types, which I think is a good thing. To balance that, I do think 2-handed weapons need something more than higher base damage. Maybe Strength Modx1.5 to damage a la 3.x

You can't take away the to hit from str or your just empowering Dex again. None of the melee calsses should have to rely on two different stats to be effective.


There are lots of problems with MDD if you read any of the post about MDD. This is just another issue casused by MDD. By changing MDD to WDD then your putting value back into using str based weapons.




Given the other benefits DEX provides, I could see leaving the STR to hit in. I have read the MDD threads, but fall in the camp that likes that a fighter's ability to kill has more to do with skill than weapon choice. It supports multiple fighter types, which I think is a good thing. To balance that, I do think 2-handed weapons need something more than higher base damage. Maybe Strength Modx1.5 to damage a la 3.x



I believe a fighters ability to kill is reflected in the levels he obtains. A fighter that is wielding a long sword and a shield should not be doing as much dmg as a fighter wielding a Greatsword. As many have pointed out, with MDD the dmg difference between the two doesn't exist, so why would you ever go with a big weapon when you can have extra protection and do the same dmg. For balance reasons it doesn't work. That's why MDD should be changed to WDD.
With MDD adding another .5 dmg from str too two handers still isn't good enough. THat's only going to be like 2 more points of dmg, once again MDD makes that useless.
I believe a fighters ability to kill is reflected in the levels he obtains. A fighter that is wielding a long sword and a shield should not be doing as much dmg as a fighter wielding a Greatsword. As many have pointed out, with MDD the dmg difference between the two doesn't exist, so why would you ever go with a big weapon when you can have extra protection and do the same dmg. For balance reasons it doesn't work. That's why MDD should be changed to WDD. 
With MDD adding another .5 dmg from str too two handers still isn't good enough. THat's only going to be like 2 more points of dmg, once again MDD makes that useless.



Considering HP are abstract, I don't really have a problem with a sword and board guy doing relatively the same damge at higher levels. A fighter, regardless of what they're armed with, should be absolutely deadly, whether with a dagger or greatsword (slightly deadlier with a greatsword). While the +1 AC boost from a shield (maybe higher if you have a magic shield) is nice, it mathematically reduces your chance of getting hit by 5%. It's up to each player's playstyle which of those two factors is more important.

With that said, I think the main thing sword and board has going for it is that there are feats/manuevers dedicated to that style. There really aren't any for Two-Handers (which is odd since there are feats for just about every other style). For balance? How about making Cleave and Glancing Blow only useable when wielding heavy. two-handed weapons? Or actually make feats dedicated to that style, which are sorely lacking. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Considering HP are abstract, I don't really have a problem with a sword and board guy doing relatively the same damge at higher levels. A fighter, regardless of what they're armed with, should be absolutely deadly, whether with a dagger or greatsword (slightly deadlier with a greatsword). While the +1 AC boost from a shield (maybe higher if you have a magic shield) is nice, it mathematically reduces your chance of getting hit by 5%. It's up to each player's playstyle which of those two factors is more important.


Indeed. While I do think T-H weapons could use a little something extra (say, +1 to hit) the skill-based damage should definitely be kept to d6s for all weapons. That way you support the widest range of character concepts.

With that said, I think the main thing sword and board has going for it is that there are feats/manuevers dedicated to that style. There really aren't any for Two-Handers (which is odd since there are feats for just about every other style). For balance? How about making Cleave and Glancing Blow only useable when wielding heavy. two-handed weapons? Or actually make feats dedicated to that style, which are sorely lacking. 


So far...

Yeah, it's a bit unusual but I *highly* expect we'll see TH (...non-polearm) utilty feats emerge before it's all said and done.
I don't really have a problem with MDD or MDB. I do think the mechanic is a little wonky that Monks and Rogues have the same progression as fighters. Maybe they should give fighters a D8 MDD, Monks a D6, and Rogues a D4. Spent the same way on manuevers, but secures the fighter's supremacy on damage output.


I love this idea. There's no reason the dice have to be the same type for all the classes.
Epic fantasy action adventure! - free ebook
I believe a fighters ability to kill is reflected in the levels he obtains. A fighter that is wielding a long sword and a shield should not be doing as much dmg as a fighter wielding a Greatsword. As many have pointed out, with MDD the dmg difference between the two doesn't exist, so why would you ever go with a big weapon when you can have extra protection and do the same dmg. For balance reasons it doesn't work. That's why MDD should be changed to WDD. 
With MDD adding another .5 dmg from str too two handers still isn't good enough. THat's only going to be like 2 more points of dmg, once again MDD makes that useless.



Considering HP are abstract, I don't really have a problem with a sword and board guy doing relatively the same damge at higher levels. A fighter, regardless of what they're armed with, should be absolutely deadly, whether with a dagger or greatsword (slightly deadlier with a greatsword). While the +1 AC boost from a shield (maybe higher if you have a magic shield) is nice, it mathematically reduces your chance of getting hit by 5%. It's up to each player's playstyle which of those two factors is more important.

With that said, I think the main thing sword and board has going for it is that there are feats/manuevers dedicated to that style. There really aren't any for Two-Handers (which is odd since there are feats for just about every other style). For balance? How about making Cleave and Glancing Blow only useable when wielding heavy. two-handed weapons? Or actually make feats dedicated to that style, which are sorely lacking. 



Well then we'll just have to disagree. By your agurments then all weapons should just be the same dmg and where back to square one with Dex being more powerful Str. By making Martial dice based off the weapon your using you're pretty much doing the same thing that you suggested about chaging martial dmg dice. Fighters will have bigger martial dice because they will be using bigger weaopn, Monks will have d6's. and rogues will have d6's or d4's.

Not to mention that by basing MDD off of the weapon your using you're sticking to the overall theme of D&D. 2e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using. 3e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using, and 4e all atk dmg was based off the dmg you were using. Change MDD to be based off the weaspon dmg and it address a lot of issues people were complaining about with MDD.

OP, try this with your group and let us know how it works.

Well then we'll just have to disagree.


I'm fine with that, but...

By making Martial dice based off the weapon your using you're pretty much doing the same thing that you suggested about chaging martial dmg dice. Fighters will have bigger martial dice because they will be using bigger weapons...

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid, You're essentially relegating any fighter who wants to be a supremely effective damage dealer to using a two-handed weapon. The approach that the current packet is taking allows for a variety of different character concepts.

Not to mention that by basing MDD off of the weapon your using you're sticking to the overall theme of D&D. 2e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using. 3e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using, and 4e all atk dmg was based off the dmg you were using.

That's not entirely true. I believe it was definitely true in 4e, but 3.X had a variety of damage additive feats and class features that had nothing to do with the type of weapon you were wielding. Consider Weapon Specialization. It provided a static damage bonus each time you used a specific weapon, but the bonus didn't scale based on the size of the weapon, it was the same for daggers as well as greatswords (IIRC, it may have even worked that way in 2e). 1e and 2e also had weapon speed mechanics to provide realism and balance to big and small weapons. Maybe we should bring those back too.

Edit: Under MDD = WDD, katanas will rule the earth. 1d10 and finessable? Prioritize DEX, take the AC and Initiatve boost. I still maintain the way to fix 2HWs is to provide them with manuevers and feats and I'd start with Cleave, Glancing Blow, and (not that we've seen it yet) Power Attack.
Well then we'll just have to disagree.


I'm fine with that, but...

By making Martial dice based off the weapon your using you're pretty much doing the same thing that you suggested about chaging martial dmg dice. Fighters will have bigger martial dice because they will be using bigger weapons...

That's exactly what I am trying to avoid, You're essentially relegating any fighter who wants to be a supremely effective damage dealer to using a two-handed weapon. The approach that the current packet is taking allows for a variety of different character concepts.

Not to mention that by basing MDD off of the weapon your using you're sticking to the overall theme of D&D. 2e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using. 3e all atk dmg was based off the weaspon you were using, and 4e all atk dmg was based off the dmg you were using.

That's not entirely true. I believe it was definitely true in 4e, but 3.X had a variety of damage additive feats and class features that had nothing to do with the type of weapon you were wielding. Consider Weapon Specialization. It provided a static damage bonus each time you used a specific weapon, but the bonus didn't scale based on the size of the weapon, it was the same for daggers as well as greatswords (IIRC, it may have even worked that way in 2e). 1e and 2e also had weapon speed mechanics to provide realism and balance to big and small weapons. Maybe we should bring those back too.

Edit: Under MDD = WDD, katanas will rule the earth. 1d10 and finessable? Prioritize DEX, take the AC and Initiatve boost. I still maintain the way to fix 2HWs is to provide them with manuevers and feats and I'd start with Cleave, Glancing Blow, and (not that we've seen it yet) Power Attack.



Having different weapon dmg doesn't take away from character concepts, it adds to it.

Regulating feats to certain weapons is worse and takes away from character concepts even more. What about Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, that scene in the hallway where he takes out three guys in sucession. That's Great Cleave. You'll be taking away stuff like that if you regulate feats to specific weapons. It doesn't make any sense that somebody with a long sword can't power attack.

My fellow gamer/DM of D&D for 30 years said if all dmg is the same regarless of weapon he might as well just use his fist. A lot of gamers out there don't want their weapon to be just flavor text. They want their decision in choice of weapon to matter. Which is why a lot of people are complaing about the MDD.



Regulating feats to certain weapons is worse and takes away from character concepts even more. What about Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, that scene in the hallway where he takes out three guys in sucession. That's Great Cleave. You'll be taking away stuff like that if you regulate feats to specific weapons. It doesn't make any sense that somebody with a long sword can't power attack.


They're already doing this though. There are feats specifically for sword and board, polearm fighters, bow wielders, even light weapon users (look at the text for Deflect and Riposte). In any event, there is a mechanical difference betwen a dagger and greataxe (5 avd gamage, the difference is enough to take out a human commoner, which makes sense). But there really isn't a reason why a character whose raison d'etre is to kill people shouldn't be equally adept at that with a dagger or a greataxe.

P.S. I am bothered that unarmed attacks don't generate opportunity attacks anymore. I think that should return and provide a reason to disarm a fighter.

P.P. S. The Princess Bride scene could easily be replicated with Whirlwhind Attack, which is not weapon specific.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Having different weapon dmg doesn't take away from character concepts, it adds to it.

Regulating feats to certain weapons is worse and takes away from character concepts even more. What about Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, that scene in the hallway where he takes out three guys in sucession. That's Great Cleave. You'll be taking away stuff like that if you regulate feats to specific weapons. It doesn't make any sense that somebody with a long sword can't power attack.

My fellow gamer/DM of D&D for 30 years said if all dmg is the same regarless of weapon he might as well just use his fist. A lot of gamers out there don't want their weapon to be just flavor text. They want their decision in choice of weapon to matter. Which is why a lot of people are complaing about the MDD.


IMO, it is better to distinguish specialization in weapons with utility-style feats. Maybe not something as generic as cleave and power attack but to offer different advantages like we see with Warding Polearm and such.

I really don't want to see martial dice based off weapon damage - Forged Fury is right, you might as well chuck out the bulk of the weapons table if you do that. Most players will simply gravitate to the handful of highest base damage weapons. The way they're doing it now it allows you to change your weapon style without taking a (serious) hit in damage output. This is a very good thing IMO.

And since, in true D&D fashion, you're likely to find a wide range of magic weapons you're going to be good with anything you might find (soul-stealing dagger, mace of disruption, short sword of sharpness, hammer of thunderbolts, Wave, Whelm, Blackrazor, etc, etc.).
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Having different weapon dmg doesn't take away from character concepts, it adds to it.

Regulating feats to certain weapons is worse and takes away from character concepts even more. What about Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, that scene in the hallway where he takes out three guys in sucession. That's Great Cleave. You'll be taking away stuff like that if you regulate feats to specific weapons. It doesn't make any sense that somebody with a long sword can't power attack.

My fellow gamer/DM of D&D for 30 years said if all dmg is the same regarless of weapon he might as well just use his fist. A lot of gamers out there don't want their weapon to be just flavor text. They want their decision in choice of weapon to matter. Which is why a lot of people are complaing about the MDD.


IMO, it is better to distinguish specialization in weapons with utility-style feats. Maybe not something as generic as cleave and power attack but to offer different advantages like we see with Warding Polearm and such.

I really don't want to see martial dice based off weapon damage - Forged Fury is right, you might as well chuck out the bulk of the weapons table if you do that. Most players will simply gravitate to the handful of highest base damage weapons. The way they're doing it now it allows you to change your weapon style without taking a (serious) hit in damage output. This is a very good thing IMO.

And since, in true D&D fashion, you're likely to find a wide range of magic weapons you're going to be good with anything you might find (soul-stealing dagger, mace of disruption, short sword of sharpness, hammer of thunderbolts, Wave, Whelm, Blackrazor, etc, etc.).



Some good points but we still haven't resolved the issue of Dex being more powerful then Str.

Yeah, I think we got off on a tangent. I think my only complaint with your method of MDD = WDD is the katana. 1d10, finesse. Yeah, you're losing an average of 6 points of damage per round assuming max MDD (1d10 vs. 1d12, not factoring in +Damage bonus from stats)), but you get higher initiative, arguably more chances to save (looking at spells for example), and probably the same AC.

Then again, maybe this is just a problematic weapon. When you drop the die down to a D8 (rapier, scimitar, spiked chain) the difference is more meaningful (Difference of 12 points of damage on average). I think you would have to put in a rule that finessable weapons could have a damage die no greater than DX (probably 8). I think it is going to relegate character concepts to certain classes. Want to play a knife-fighter? Better roll up a Rogue so your sneak attack makes your MDD worthwhile.

We have another thread going on about armor which might address the STR/DEX issue in an entirely different way.

The WDD would add a second problem: parry.


A warrior with a two handed sword would parry more damage than one with sword and shield.


One thing could be giving each weapon it's set of MDD, example: Greatsword MDD 1d10 offensive 1d4 defensive, Short sword MDD 1d6 offensive 1d8 defensive. If i use a greatsword then i'll use d10 for deadly strike, but d4 for parry. The short sword would offer more damage mitigation, but at the cost of damage.


You could design many kind of shields, some that improve the defensive dice by one category and others that offer extra dice but only for parry.


This way you can add another layer of design to weapons. Then you can give the warrior an ability that passively increases all MDD by 1 category.

Some good points but we still haven't resolved the issue of Dex being more powerful then Str.


Getting back on track...

I'm wondering if it would just be enough to give Heavy Armor and Heavy Weapons a little nudge in utility.

There's no reason to have a movement penalty for heavy armor, perhaps reduce your running speed, but basic movement...? Armor was designed to move in. And due to the level of protection you're gaining, having heavy armor grant a bonus to your Dex Save could work. The idea being armor helps shield you from fireballs, cones of cold, etc.

Heavy weapons could grant you a +1 bonus to hit which also helps make strength a little more attractive.


Some good points but we still haven't resolved the issue of Dex being more powerful then Str.


Getting back on track...

I'm wondering if it would just be enough to give Heavy Armor and Heavy Weapons a little nudge in utility.

There's no reason to have a movement penalty for heavy armor, perhaps reduce your running speed, but basic movement...? Armor was designed to move in. And due to the level of protection you're gaining, having heavy armor grant a bonus to your Dex Save could work. The idea being armor helps shield you from fireballs, cones of cold, etc.

Heavy weapons could grant you a +1 bonus to hit which also helps make strength a little more attractive.






But that is changing the weapon quality. The argument before was all those things should be the skill of the character. IF a heavy weapon can't do more MDD then for the same reason it shouldn't provide a better chance to hit.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but my arguments about MDD had nothing to do with weapon diversification and everything to do with my view that MDD are simply an inherent measure of martial skill independent of the weapon used. I don't see a problem with a 2HW having some inherent benefit over other weapons. Most already inherently average about 2 or 3 more damage per round as is.
In defence of Dex-fighters...

In this playtest, Dex fighters are a bit more versatile than Strength fighters, but I think this is a good thing. (Personally, I fence, so I absolutely believe that being an effective martial artists requires agility to a far greater extent than being able to lift heavy things.) Arguably, the main point of a weapon is to obviate the need for guns. This is blatantly obvious in the case of guns, but also true for swords. Also, Dex fighters were totally nerfed in earlier editions.

Strength fighters do have some niche abilities (tripping, disarming, wresetling) and perhaps they need a few more. Some suggestions:


  • Sundering;

  • Strength requirements to use better, heavier shields (Google "dueling shield");

  • Full speed in heavy armor;

  • Can run near full-speed in heavy armor with a strength check;

  • Strength modifier damage to "Glancing blow";

  • Minimum strength requirements to do things like wield two long-swords at once; 


Slightly off topic, but I also hate the Belts of Giant Strength. I loath the idea that somebody would dump Strength during character creation, anticipating finding one. Further, I dislike attribute-boosting in general, it caused way too much math in the middle of combat. Version 4.0 seemed to fix this somewhat.
Sign In to post comments