Sorry, but being able to disarm your enemies, steal their weapons, reduce their damage for the rest of the fight, is a trap? Really!? Also, and I might be wrong about this (I don't have the playtest packet on me right now), but don't unarmed attacks take a penalty to hit? I swear I remember reading something like that... I could be wrong.
Disarm is a twitchy mechanic to include. In past eds it's been problematic because it was devestating to magic-weapon dependent players and meaningless to most monsters. Prudent weapon-users (PC or NPC) would simply carry multiple weapons to deal with the possibility (and other issues, like needing to bludgeoning or use silver, etc). With bounded accurracy and less emphasis on magical weapons, disarm might be even less meaningful - except against the PC with a really cool magic sword, of course.
Sorry, but being able to disarm your enemies, steal their weapons, reduce their damage for the rest of the fight, is a trap? Really!? Also, and I might be wrong about this (I don't have the playtest packet on me right now), but don't unarmed attacks take a penalty to hit? I swear I remember reading something like that... I could be wrong.
Disarm is a twitchy mechanic to include. In past eds it's been problematic because it was devestating to magic-weapon dependent players and meaningless to most monsters. Prudent weapon-users (PC or NPC) would simply carry multiple weapons to deal with the possibility (and other issues, like needing to bludgeoning or use silver, etc). With bounded accurracy and less emphasis on magical weapons, disarm might be even less meaningful - except against the PC with a really cool magic sword, of course.
Im wondering if the Expertise Dice also solves the problem of dependence on items. Even if you disarm a Fighter presumably the fist still comes with Expertise Dice.
The issue isn't with Strength. It has always been with Dexterity being too strong. IMO, I'd have Wis be the projectile weapon attack/defense ability, and let Dex be for melee/thrown only. Similarly, I could see Dex giving AC vs melee/thrown attacks, and Wis vs ranged attacks. Wis is the perception ability. Being able to determine where that arrow is being aimed at is more important than blindly moving somewhere else.
Bows use STRENGTH! Seriously, military longbows had draws well in excess of 100lb, the actual values based both on historical references and the actual bows pulled out of the salvage of the Mary Rose have draws that modern archers swore up and down were IMPOSSIBLE prior to the Mary Rose salvage because no one could be strong enough to draw such a bow.
Holding a heavy bow steady enough to aim at full draw on a 150lb draw bow requires enourmous physical strength. Require this in game.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
Sorry, but being able to disarm your enemies, steal their weapons, reduce their damage for the rest of the fight, is a trap? Really!? Also, and I might be wrong about this (I don't have the playtest packet on me right now), but don't unarmed attacks take a penalty to hit? I swear I remember reading something like that... I could be wrong.
The problem is that disarming is really only useful against other martial types. Considering the near demand for silver and cold iron weapons, compounded with the need for weapons with multiple damage types against skeletons and whatnot, a regular fighting man is likely going to have more than one weapon at a time. Drawing a weapon is a free action, therefore you're wasting your action.
No sense in disarming a wizard, as they can shocking grasp, no sense in disarming a monster, as they have natural attacks and spell-like abilities.
Therefore, you're using disarming with your strength modifier, assuming it's your primary stat against another fighting man whose defense against that is either strength or dexterity, which either are also likely their primary stat, you're practically just having a roll off to see who wins the contest, as the modifiers are likely to be similar.
You have no real incentive to disarm people. It sounds cool on paper, but it's horrible in execution. It's seriously a trap.
If we're discussing potential ways to consolidate abilities, why not go all the way down?
Physical - covers strength, con, dex, endurance, hit points, resistances, etc. Mental - covers spells, intelligence, wisdom, skills, etc. Social - cover charisma, appearance, influence, empathy, etc.
At the beginning of the game, you decide what you want your PCs primary, secondary, and tertiary traits to be. Fighter? Physical primary. Mage? Mental primary. Bard? Social primary. Depending on your secondary trait, your class gets modified based on it. A Fighter built with Physical as a primary and Social as a secondary would be geared better to use Intimidate and other social skills, not to mention being a good kick-off base for the Warlord. Mages with Mental as a Primary and Physical as a Secondary would make good sword-mages or war-mages.
Strength is really valuable in role playing, and mildly useful in combat.
Breaking down doors, escaping from chains/rope, knocking people off cliffs... there are useful and entertaining things you can do with strength.
Also, finesse weapons aren't very good so you might as well have high attack AND high damage.
It really depends what kind of adventure you are playing and how creative the players are. Remember that you don't need high dexterity for high AC, heavy armor is actually better protection in DnD Next.
I played a dexterity based fighter and I recognize that unless you are using ranged weapons you are at a disadvantage compared to strength fighters. Clerics are also better off focusing on strength versus dexterity.
I really have to disagree with you on almost everything posted here.
Strength has practically no use in roleplaying, whatsoever.
Breaking down a door is better alleviated by picking the lock(dex based). Plus, it's quieter, therefore much more versatile.
Escaping bonds is easier with dex(16 DC for dex, 19 DC for str).
The combat options such as push are poor actions in general, which can be contested with dexterity or strength, no advantage to the strength based person initiating the push, grab, or whatever.
Finesse weapons share the same properties as their martial counterparts of equal size, but suffer a single lower die. This results in an average damage of 1, maybe 2. That's a minor inconvenience at low levels, completely negligible at mid levels, a total non-issue at high levels. Especially since low level monsters largely die in a single hit, maybe two, regardless of your damage output.
The AC bonus of heavy armor is a virtue of the armor and not strength at all. That, and heavy armor is expensive. Plate mail is 5000 GP. You're not getting that any time soon. That, and heavy armor limits dexterity, which shows the sheer virtue of dexterity.
A dex based fighter not using a ranged weapon only suffers if he chooses not to use that ranged weapon. A strength based fighter has zero ranged weapon options for his primary stat. Not even throwing weapons.
The newest DMG states DC 16 for both strength and dexterity to break out of rope/manacles.
Besides, if you have an expert rope tier, then I would rule as a DM that you can't wriggle out of it anyways (or at least make the DC much higher).
I wouldn't rely on the DMG to come up with these DCs either... they are just suggestions. Not every door has a lock you can pick, maybe its magically sealed and you either break it down or go the long way...
Strength based characters do get thrown weapons (just axes currently but I would add hammers (no mention) and javelins (dexterity))
I admit its kind of crappy until you get a returning weapon but if you take away the +1 enhancement bonus it shouldn't be too rare/expensive.
Armor does not limit Dexterity in DnD next, it only restricts your bonus to AC. I think its kind of silly that you can wear plate mail and still use your full +4 bonus for having 18 dexterity but thats what the rules state.
Much of the discussion regarding this issue seems to be rooted in previous editions. In DnD Next they actually are doing a pretty good job at balancing things out, though obviously there are fewer strength based skills in the backgrounds section. This is why I said its more useful for groups that improvise rather than use the provided materials verbatim.
I am not saying that Strength is way better, but I don't see why I should sacrifice AC and a small bonus to damage just so I can sneak around more easily. My goal was to have someone run around and poke people with a rapier but with the new dual wielding rules, and looking at the 1 hand damage potential... I felt like I was turned into an archer or a slightly weaker traditional warrior.
If we're discussing potential ways to consolidate abilities, why not go all the way down?
Physical - covers strength, con, dex, endurance, hit points, resistances, etc. Mental - covers spells, intelligence, wisdom, skills, etc. Social - cover charisma, appearance, influence, empathy, etc.
At the beginning of the game, you decide what you want your PCs primary, secondary, and tertiary traits to be. Fighter? Physical primary. Mage? Mental primary. Bard? Social primary. Depending on your secondary trait, your class gets modified based on it. A Fighter built with Physical as a primary and Social as a secondary would be geared better to use Intimidate and other social skills, not to mention being a good kick-off base for the Warlord. Mages with Mental as a Primary and Physical as a Secondary would make good sword-mages or war-mages.
Because “physical” deserves more nuance. After all, a rock is also physical.
There are good scientific (structural engineering) and medical (sports) reasons to distinguish between endurance and agility.
NicolBolas: To alleviate large blocks of quoted text, I'll outright avoid quoting.
Manacles specifically in the equipment section actually say DC 19 dexterity, DC 21 strength. This may just be an inconsistency. Can you tell me where it references equal DC for both strength and dexterity when escaping bonds?
I don't believe you can use strength to break down a magically sealed door. It's magic, afterall. An excuse I loathe, but is omnipresent.
I never noticed the throwing axe until you mentioned it, so I thank you for that, but it's pretty miserable considering it weighs SEVEN pounds and has 1/5 the range of a longbow. Also, since magical weapons are supposed to be a good deal more rare in this edition, getting a returning throwing axe seems unlikely. The DM would basically have to hand a strength fighting man one to give him ANY ranged viability.
Unfortunately, my group does not houserule, it does not improvise, it follows the rules as written, so whatever gets released is what we work with. All I can do is pray that the game will have some semblance of balance upon release, but as written, it's not. Not by a long shot.
I feel your pain regarding characters. In order to be a polearm and longbow user, I have to sacrifice absolutely everything else, leaving me with a poor constitution, dumb as a rock, and socially uncouth statistically speaking. My stats are spread way too thin to be effective. Don't even get me started on cutting down fighter maneuvers known or lowering expertise dice, and I've yet to find feats that I would actually be interested in taking.
