Quote from Sangheilioz >>

Quote from ElderWizard72 >>

The two handed weapon fighter in your example is averaging about 17 points per round ONLY if they take a -5 to hit penalty from the feat.  Otherwise both their average and max damage is going to be less than the 2 weapon fighter.  And a -5 to hit is effectively attacking at disadvantage.

 

Without feats the average damage for two characters with 16 dex wielding 2 short swords vs 16 strength with a great axe is:

1d6+3/1d6+3 = 13  points avg

VS

1d12+3 reroll 1s and 2s once only = 10 points avg

 The great weapon fighting style is extremely weak it only adds about 0.8 points to the avg damage with a 1d12 weapon and slightly better 1.33 points to the avg with a 2d6 weapon.  So the avg goes up about a point and the max damage doesn't go up.  With 2 weapon fighting the average damage goes up by whatever your dex modifier is so 1-5.  So even if your DeX is only a 12 the avg damage is already as good as the great weapon style.  And the max damage actually increases.

But the major point is that with the current balance their is littlenreasonnto build a strength based fighter because the DeX based fighter can deal essentially just as much damage in melee but because they have a higher dexterity they have further advantage on AC and initiative as well as dex based saving throws with are most AoE spells.

I mentioned the -5/disadvantage in my post, but thanks for reiterating it. A level-1 16 STR character using a two-handed weapon they're proficient in, is getting a +5 bonus to attack rolls from their proficiency and STR bonuses. This bonus only increases over time as their proficiency bonus improves and/or their STR increases. So taking a -5 to do 10 extra damage just makes it a straight roll at the lowest levels, and a reduced positive bonus at higher ones. Even if it means you miss half the time, doing that extra +10 damage when you do hit is still  an average of 10 damage per turn, so you're breaking even.

The big issue with the two handed DEX fighter is that they have to use their Bonus Action to make that second attack. So if you've got a STR-based fighter with bonus actions available (Like a Cleric who's cast Spiritual Weapon, for example), they're going to be MUCH more versatile while still maintaining significant damage output, if not outright stacking extra damage on from their Bonus Action abilities. In a vacuum where attacks are the only things you can do, your point absolutely stands up, but tying up the Bonus Action is a much bigger deal than you're giving credit to.

If your dual-wielder runs into a situation where they need to use their bonus action for literally anything other than attacking (casting/moving hex/hunter's mark, controlling Spiritual Weapon, using any number of magic items, etc) then they're cutting their damage in half for that round. Heck, if they miss with either attack, the same thing happens, and just because they're not taking a -5 to the attack roll doesn't mean they're going to be hitting every time.

 
So your strength gives you nothing... but your dex will gives you more initiatives, more AC and more damage. but strength gives you literally, just athletics... oh right, dexterity also gives you better chances at surviving most AOE and easily counters Athletics. want me to go on at why dexterity is way too focused and why strength needs the boost reguardless of 2 handed weapon abusivness ?

think about it, the only reason people go strength is because they like brutes to begin with. min/maxing standpoint... there is literally next to no reason to go strength ! this is why the grappling monk builds do not work, because they require strength and any monks who are worth their salt will tell you that dropping strength is better then dropping dexterity. when the only two classes that could benefit from strength preffer to go dexterity, you realise how weak the stat is.

Fighter have it easier on strength versus dexterity... i'll give you that... but barbarian... its uncalled for ! going dexterity is much better then being strength based. for one, you have no armor, thus no need for the strength requirement. much like everyone else, you can dual wield. and with feat, rapiers at it. poking machine much. at 5th level, extra attack. thats 3 attacks for barbarian dex fighters. they gain the maximum AC they can get by maxing only 2 stats, while the strength based barbarian needs a 3rd stat to be maximised, something much difficult to do without losing either con or dex. which are both necessary for unarmored defense. advantage on inititiave and high initiatives makes better at tanking. want me to go, the only reason to go strength for a barbarian is literally to have huge athletic skill. aside from that, no reason to go strength.

tell me.... what is the strength stat any good for. dexterity gives way too much abilities. even constitution is a better choice for anyone due to more health. and in 5e, you needs the health boost. strength, is probably as good a stat as intellect is. which is ammounting to next to nothing. at least intellect boost 5 skills, even strength cannot claim that with its sole 1.

its not just weapons and damage that are warranting us to go dexterity instead of strength... it is the fact that strength gives you nothing in 5e. while dexterity gives you everything.
the change i'm doing is not to boost damage because of unbalancing... it is because i want strength to actually give you something to think about when you are making that barbarian or that fighter. heck even a monk will think twice before going all dex if he consider his unarmed strikes doing 1.5x their damage. that's all i am looking for. a way for people to think twice before dropping strength. because right now, most of my characters cannot even give a reason why they are strength based. Dexterity is where its at.


EDIT:
you also mention a fighter keeping his bonus action for versatility... can i ask you... aside from second wind, what do they have as a bonus action ?
for all i know, those fighters and barbarians have nothing that gives them bonus actions. the fighter only has second wind. can't take anything else... so basically that fighter of yours will be losing his bonus action every rounds. except the one round where he will need to boost his health. at that point he's better off using it for attacking and not wasting precious actions. same for barbarians. the only thing that gives him a bonus action, is his rage. and his frenzy if he is that kind of barbarian. again, wasting an action in the hope that you can do anything with it is not a good deal. so in the end, better swing those axe around.

remember, bonus actions and actions aren't interchangeable and unless something specifically tell you that you can use your bonus action, you don't have any.

Quote from ElderWizard72 >>

In all instances the heavy weapon fighter is worse off than the 2 weapon fighter.  They have to take a massive penalty that the 2 weapon fighter doesn't in order to put out the same damage.  But even then it's not as flexible because the 2 weapon fighter can target 2 seperate opponents.  And it gets even worse when magic weapons come into play.

 

All of your examples with regards to the bonus action use case are spell casters, most of which won't be using a heavy weapon anyway.

 

The Two-handed weapon user gets much stronger when you start getting multiple attacks too. A dual wield fighter at level 5 gains another 1d6 + 3 damage, which adds another ~6 damage on average?, but the Two-handed fighter gains another 1d12 +3 (+10 with GWM) and effectively doubles their damage output, all while still being able to use bonus actions for either more damage (Polearm Master etc) or any number of other useful abilities.

Spellcasters don't use heavy weapons? Paladins never use heavy weapons? Or Clerics? What about Fighters? Eldritch Knights have plenty of bonus action spells, and other Fighter subclasses get features they can use their bonus action for too. Heck, I've seen some creative Warlock and Ranger builds that manage to make heavy weapons viable. Not to mention Barbarians and their bonus action raging. There's a ton of magic items and feats that leverage the Bonus Action as well. Polearm Master is one I mentioned above, and tons of magic items (like animated shield, for example) are activated and/or controlled with bonus actions.

Quote from DnDPaladin > 

So your strength gives you nothing... but your dex will gives you more initiatives, more AC and more damage. but strength gives you literally, just athletics... oh right, dexterity also gives you better chances at surviving most AOE and easily counters Athletics. want me to go on at why dexterity is way too focused and why strength needs the boost reguardless of 2 handed weapon abusivness ?

think about it, the only reason people go strength is because they like brutes to begin with. min/maxing standpoint... there is literally next to no reason to go strength ! this is why the grappling monk builds do not work, because they require strength and any monks who are worth their salt will tell you that dropping strength is better then dropping dexterity. when the only two classes that could benefit from strength preffer to go dexterity, you realise how weak the stat is.

Fighter have it easier on strength versus dexterity... i'll give you that... but barbarian... its uncalled for ! going dexterity is much better then being strength based. for one, you have no armor, thus no need for the strength requirement. much like everyone else, you can dual wield. and with feat, rapiers at it. poking machine much. at 5th level, extra attack. thats 3 attacks for barbarian dex fighters. they gain the maximum AC they can get by maxing only 2 stats, while the strength based barbarian needs a 3rd stat to be maximised, something much difficult to do without losing either con or dex. which are both necessary for unarmored defense. advantage on inititiave and high initiatives makes better at tanking. want me to go, the only reason to go strength for a barbarian is literally to have huge athletic skill. aside from that, no reason to go strength.

tell me.... what is the strength stat any good for. dexterity gives way too much abilities. even constitution is a better choice for anyone due to more health. and in 5e, you needs the health boost. strength, is probably as good a stat as intellect is. which is ammounting to next to nothing. at least intellect boost 5 skills, even strength cannot claim that with its sole 1.

its not just weapons and damage that are warranting us to go dexterity instead of strength... it is the fact that strength gives you nothing in 5e. while dexterity gives you everything.
the change i'm doing is not to boost damage because of unbalancing... it is because i want strength to actually give you something to think about when you are making that barbarian or that fighter. heck even a monk will think twice before going all dex if he consider his unarmed strikes doing 1.5x their damage. that's all i am looking for. a way for people to think twice before dropping strength. because right now, most of my characters cannot even give a reason why they are strength based. Dexterity is where its at.


EDIT:
you also mention a fighter keeping his bonus action for versatility... can i ask you... aside from second wind, what do they have as a bonus action ?
for all i know, those fighters and barbarians have nothing that gives them bonus actions. the fighter only has second wind. can't take anything else... so basically that fighter of yours will be losing his bonus action every rounds. except the one round where he will need to boost his health. at that point he's better off using it for attacking and not wasting precious actions. same for barbarians. the only thing that gives him a bonus action, is his rage. and his frenzy if he is that kind of barbarian. again, wasting an action in the hope that you can do anything with it is not a good deal. so in the end, better swing those axe around.

remember, bonus actions and actions aren't interchangeable and unless something specifically tell you that you can use your bonus action, you don't have any.

Please see my response above, but also, you may want to rethink your argument about barbarians. Their features, rage especially, only work with Strength-based attacks and checks.

Beat me to it.  First off, I'm not sure what the actual damage difference would turn out to be for a fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting style compared to Great Weapon Fighting style, but it's negligible.  TWF allows you to add your bonus to your offhand attack as well, but GWF allows you to re-roll 1's and 2's on your 2 damage die.  That adds up.

Secondly, as stated by Sangheilioz, using two-handed weapons will see far more damage output once you get Extra Attack(s), of which you also get to re-roll your 1's and 2's.

Quote from Sangheilioz >>

Quote from ElderWizard72 >>

In all instances the heavy weapon fighter is worse off than the 2 weapon fighter.  They have to take a massive penalty that the 2 weapon fighter doesn't in order to put out the same damage.  But even then it's not as flexible because the 2 weapon fighter can target 2 seperate opponents.  And it gets even worse when magic weapons come into play.

 

All of your examples with regards to the bonus action use case are spell casters, most of which won't be using a heavy weapon anyway.

 

The Two-handed weapon user gets much stronger when you start getting multiple attacks too. A dual wield fighter at level 5 gains another 1d6 + 3 damage, which adds another ~6 damage on average?, but the Two-handed fighter gains another 1d12 +3 (+10 with GWM) and effectively doubles their damage output, all while still being able to use bonus actions for either more damage (Polearm Master etc) or any number of other useful abilities.

Spellcasters don't use heavy weapons? Paladins never use heavy weapons? Or Clerics? What about Fighters? Eldritch Knights have plenty of bonus action spells, and other Fighter subclasses get features they can use their bonus action for too. Heck, I've seen some creative Warlock and Ranger builds that manage to make heavy weapons viable. Not to mention Barbarians and their bonus action raging. There's a ton of magic items and feats that leverage the Bonus Action as well. Polearm Master is one I mentioned above, and tons of magic items (like animated shield, for example) are activated and/or controlled with bonus actions.

 again, tell me, what have those classes actually using their bonus actions (Every Turns) because if they are not using it Every Turns then they are wasting actions.
i played pretty much all classes and subclasses and i have min/maxed pretty much all of them, there was no way an eldritch knight can go every rounds with his bonus actions. there is no way a spellcaster can go every round with his bonus actions and there is certainly no way a cleric with spiritual weapon be able to deal as much damage as a dual wileding fighter... first and foremost... he doesn't have 2 attacks, clerics do not get multi attack. if he is a war cleric, his extra attack is using his bonus action, he cannot use spiritual weapon as well. they both use bonus actions. its one or the other. if he decides to go 2-handed with extra attack 2- handed. thats still just 2 attacks, where barbarian and fighters gets 3. Eldritch knight, which spell is he using as a bonus action ? for all i know... that 3rd attack with the rapier will be better. and here is why...

dual wiedling is better then 2-handers for 2-handers only swing once. if they miss, there is no more opportunity for them, its done. so its spikey damage at best. either they hit or they don't. dual wielders have two hits. if the first miss, they lost a bunch of damage, but have still a chance at inflicting, any damage at all. that bonus action is one more rolls and that roll is important. the same way a reckless barbarian is better at hitting things then anything else. sure he gets hit a lot, but he has no choice. more chances at critting or hitting an opponent outweights the fact he gets hit often. the same is true for any other characters who can use their bonus actions to hit something. whacking something is still better then the alternatives of just losing a bonus action, in case of.

again... versatility doesn't mean better. nor is anything else for that matter...
bonus actions are not crowded, and if you bring magical gears into the mix... i'll tell you how wrong you are, the best magical gears you can have don't use the bonus actions, they are passives that gives you a boost. and with each magical gear i add, i either get more protection or more damage. and with that damage i end up killing stuff much more rapidly then your any class that uses versatility to try and survive. in the end, in 5e... good AC, good Dexterity and good Damage makes you a beast.

again... i min/max a lot and i watch a ton of forums for it... when i say dexterity is much stronger then strength... its because the maths of it all adds up to a lot more then you give classes credits for. strength is just outmatched in this edition.

You only get one bonus action, no matter what.  A Fighter can get a whole lot of attacks, and occasionally double the amount.  An extra 1d6 + 3-5 damage that you get once per turn does not make up the difference that can be obtained through attacking 1-3 extra times at 2d6 + 3-5 rather than 1d6 + 3-5.  And if they take the GWM feat - which they should - they can often use their bonus action for another one of those 2d12+w/e attacks.  It's superior by far.

Quote from Jaysburn >>

Beat me to it.  First off, I'm not sure what the actual damage difference would turn out to be for a fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting style compared to Great Weapon Fighting style, but it's negligible.  TWF allows you to add your bonus to your offhand attack as well, but GWF allows you to re-roll 1's and 2's on your 2 damage die.  That adds up.

Secondly, as stated by Sangheilioz, using two-handed weapons will see far more damage output once you get Extra Attack(s), of which you also get to re-roll your 1's and 2's.

 and again, you are only looking at damages...
compare to dexterity, see for yourself how much dexterity gives you compared to that strength of yours.

mathematicians and power gamers have already calculated those 1s and 2s averages... you are wrong... in averages rerolling those 1s and 2s will only really net you 1.5 damage on average. sure it helps, but its nothing stellar. you also have to take the next number which can actually reroll the 1s and 2s and you'd be stuck with the numbers still. that's why mathematically, the ability isn't great. TWF on the other hand, actually gives you a net increase of at least 3 points of damage. also a net increase in critical chances because you get another die roll. which in turn increases further the damage output chances. all of these have to be calculated. the reason barbarians gets so much damage is actually because they can make reckless attacks on every attacks, without that... they'd be doing a whole lot of nothing. but with reckless attack... they up their chances at critting, they up their chances at hitting by +5. because yes advantages amount to a +5 to your hit. more hits, more die rolls, more damage. its what we call... Stable Damage, or Steady damage. something other classes like fighters or paladins or clerics cannot do with 2-handers, because they don't have much things that enables them to roll more. a single roll makes a huge difference. say both have a string of bad luck at level 5... no feats cause they use ASI to max out their stats first. that fighter is looking at 2 misses and is out of breath. thats 4d6+10 down the drain ! that paladin, down the same road... that fighter dexterity though... he has a 3rd attack. he still has a chance at doing 1d6+5 still. heck even has a chance at 2d6+5 if he crits. all that cause of a third die roll. sure... the other fighter can deal 4d6+10 damage if he hits with both... sure our dex fighter can deal 3d6+15 if he hits with all 3. but reality is... that 2 handers swings twice only... we hit 3 times... the bell curve tells us that we have better chances at actually hitting the opponent then you. we will be doing more damage then you in the long run because in the long run, we have rolled more then you.

thats why i say, mathematics, tell us you are wrong in thinking averages are better... they are, if you don't count how many rolls you must do. reality being that a single roll difference... is pushing our dex fighter further then you mathematically.

I made a simple house rule when it comes to DEX based melee combat.  Dexterity modifiers only deal HALF damage (rounded down) on Melee Attacks. So now that 20 DEX character is only dealing an extra +2 damage when it hits. The bonus to hit the opponent stays at +5, the maximum bonus damage with a 20 DEX is just +2. I did not make any adjustments for STR based attacks.

Let's step away from the two weapon fighting for a moment because I think it's actually a red herring in the argument that strength based characters are broken in 5e.  2 weapon fighting is also broken but that's a different argument.

Instead let's compare 2 fighters.  One has a 16 dex and the other has a 16 strength.  So the dexterity based fighter goes rapier and shield and takes the dueling fighting style.  The strength based fighter goes greataxe and the great weapon fighting style.  We then get the following.

Rapier = 1d8+3+2 damage

Avg=9.5

Max 11

Great axe = 1d12+3

Avg= 10.5

Max 15

The avg damage between the two is 1 point.  The great weapon fighter has a slightly higher possible max damage but at the expense of 2 points to his AC.

And the same difference will scale as each character levels up with extra attacks.

So the avg damage from the dexterity based fighter is virtuly the same as for the strength based fighter.  But the dexterity based fighter has better AC and better AoE saving throws.  Better chance of success from the multitude of dex based skills.  Better initiative.  Better attacks with ranged weapons etc.

The great weapon fighting style scales almost exactly with the dueling fighting style for avg damage.  So the strength based fighter gets almost no advantage for being strength based.  Meanwhile the dexterity based character will do almost as much damage as the strength based one on avg but with all the added benefits that come with a higher dexterity.

So the fighting styles are somewhat balanced but that leaves the strength vs dexterity fighter builds completely unbalanced.

And this is why I made my house rule the way I did

Let's look at a maxed out fighter.  Has 20 strength, and 4 attacks total through Extra Attack.

TWF:
BA: 8.5(1d6+5)  A:  8.5(1d6+5) + 8.5(1d6+5) + 8.5(1d6+5) + 8.5(1d6+5) = Average of 42.5 damage.  One more attack is a bit more chance for a crit, but not that much.

GWF:
A: 12(2d6+5) + 12(2d6+5) + 12(2d6+5) + 12(2d6+5) = Average of 48 damage.  Not even including the supposed 1.5 average extra damage per attack from GWF, which would bring it to 54 average damage.  It's better.  If they have GWM, they have the potential for a Bonus Action attack, bringing the total to 66.

Maybe I'm missing something?  A minimum of 5.5/ maximum of 23.5/ average 14.5 more damage per turn sure seems better to me.  A crit with 1d6+5 is an average of 12, so even if you do crit because of your bonus attack with TWF, you're still not reaching the average with the GWM bonus attack included.  Which would give the GWF equal chance to crit, anyway...

I know it's just looking at damage; dexterity is definitely more versatile, that's the trade off.

Jaysburn, any extra damage is better than none. Sure.  The question is: does the very minor damage difference balance against all the other benefits of high dexterity vs high strength in the game.

You are comparing great weapon fighting against 2 weapon fighting at 20th level.  Where there is the greatest difference.  At 1st through 4th level 2 weapon fighting does more damage.  Part if the reason, from your example, that GWF does a little bit more damage at 20th level is because 2 weapon fighting is also broken in 5e.  Because it doesn't scale past 4th level.

But if you compare a Dexterity based fighter with the dueling fighting style vs a great weapon fighter at 20th level the difference in average damage is 4 points.  1 for each attack.  And the dex based fighter gets a shield on top of that as well as all the other benefits that come with a high dexterity.

Ronll, I think your solution of dropping the damage from dexterity based melee attacks is a viable alternative to help balance the strength vs dexterity.  But my view is that it's not quite enough.  But if given the choice between. RAW and your solution I would take your house rule.

Quote from ElderWizard72 >>

Ronll, I think your solution of dropping the damage from dexterity based melee attacks is a viable alternative to help balance the strength vs dexterity.  But my view is that it's not quite enough.  But if given the choice between. RAW and your solution I would take your house rule.

 Thank you. Dex will always be a much more important stat in D&D simply because it does so much more than just attacking. But now my players have to think twice about building a purely DEX based melee attacker as opposed to the good ol' fashioned Knight or Barbarian that can cut a creature in two with pure brute strength.

overal, there is no way we can fix the difference between strength and dexterity without breaking some important ruling down.
i'd argue that lowering th edamage from exterity is a bad move considering in reality that a sword is deadlier then a mace. a simple twist of th wrist is enough to cut off 1 pound of flesh. thats more then enough to kill a man. and a rapier in fencing really doesn't require strength at all. so when it comes to relaity, both can easily be used and strength doesn't really add anything to sword fights. but its not like we're searching to bring reality back into the game.

we're trying to solve a fundamental problem where players are forced to take the better of two stats and can dump a stat that usually required for classes.
in all... only barbarians are forced to take strength because it requires a 13 to take up the class. then raging gives you more damage only on melee based attacks.
and barbarians the only class truly capable of being a grappler build. but all that comes at the expense of his saving throws, initiatives, skills and AC. unless he actually drops constitution instead of dex. which it does the same still.. less defense because less life point and less AC to unarmed defense. overall, the only class that truly benefits from strength...  has to drop many usefull things in order to be good at strength. while all the other clases can literally get it all without any good reason.

as for saying that even a warlock can be strength based... i'd also argue with you that a "good" warlock, would be using hexblade to do just that and that hexblade ability allow him to drop strength entirely to become a charisma dealing damage melee beast. so again, dropping strength as if it was a dump stat. Cleric for the same reasons are not great fighters. they are average to say the least.. their spiritual weapon do not use strength at all. their extra attack if war cleric, same deal as they can simply take on a rapier and drop strength entirely.

the only argument that warrants an actual talk here is the 2-handers and the armors who requires strength in order to wear. but then again, 2-handers do not have any requirement in strength, so by using them with low strength you are still capable of doing most damage by dropping only a fraction of your to-hit and a fraction of your damage. when it comes to paladins, they can easily outshine that weakness by smiting. if you ask me thats not a big weakness. putting a  14 in strength is enough for anyone to do anything strength wise. so you really dont need much in strength.

overall thats what i got from the argument, as damage is really the only thing that makes the argument and damage is not even close to making it out for all the versatility that dexterity gives you. but again, what can we do to solve that problem... next to nothing without breaking fundamental laws of the game. for my part, 3e had the best fighting system of them all. one of such things would be to transfer intimidation to strength instead of charisma, but the problem of that would mean that people who are not strength based cannot intimidate people and thats just wrong. also intimidation with strength means you have to be brutal with the person, akin to torture. thats a whole different beast. so that is no for me.

overall conclusion for me is to either remove the damage from dexterity melee attacks entirely or double up the damage from strength. because i don't know what else to do to get strength to the same level without breaking anything aside damage. even there, removing dexterities damage, seems to me like overkill, i like a semblance of reality in my games. i'm not asking much, but i do like a semblance of reality. and sorry but in reality, you don't need strength at all to kill a man with anything slashing or piercing.

overall if people wanna be true to reality, then maces should be doing double damage versus plates and armor in generals. because those armors cannot do much against the bludgeoning damage. most armors are made to stop piercing and slashing damage. in the same vein, none of the maces should ever use dexterity. maces are all about strength technics to actually hit the strongest you can. if anything this is where we can actually toy around to make strength something... but would that be really something ?

overall i'm lost and i think the only real solution i can give at this point. that is simple and effective. is to give strength users 2x their modifiers to damage. looking at anything else, much less realistic to me. and while i like dexterity, i just cannot ignore that strength is  a necessity.

just a small anecdote though...
one of my group right now is using revolvers and the far west like weaponry in a far west type continent discovery setting.
its funny how everyone ditched entirely melee combat for guns and all. now none of them can actually climb a mountain.  and while i tryed to make some burly big men to show them that 2-handers can still be a thing.. i must admit that the things they lost by all together dropping strength, is nothing compared to what they gained by staying all together, ranged people.
i will also say that warforged are scary with their AC.

The first sentence in your lecture was "i'd argue that lowering the damage from dexterity is a bad move considering in reality that a sword is deadlier then a mace. a simple twist of the wrist is enough to cut off 1 pound of flesh. thats more then enough to kill a man. and a rapier in fencing really doesn't require strength at all. so when it comes to reality, both can easily be used and strength doesn't really add anything to sword fights. but its not like we're searching to bring reality back into the game." (I had to edit your spelling.....)

Yet your final conclusion was "overall i'm lost and i think the only real solution i can give at this point. that is simple and effective. is to give strength users 2x their modifiers to damage. looking at anything else, much less realistic to me. and while i like dexterity, i just cannot ignore that strength is  a necessity."  (your grammar was a bit better this time....)

Am I supposed to take your long winded lectures seriously when you say my solution is a bad move, yet you come to the same conclusion as I did, that Strength damage should be twice as much as DEX damage, which is exactly what I did, and then some? That's hilarious!! And if you're going to try and convince us that a Rapier (finesse) can penetrate Plate Armor as effectively as a Longsword (STR based), then you're making an even bigger mockery of your "so when it comes to reality, both can easily be used and strength doesn't really add anything to sword fights."  comment.

I think the idea of a dex-based rapier penetrating plate to deal more damage than a str-based longsword makes sense in the idea of the weapon being dexterously manipulated between the weak points of the armor to strike at the squishy figure underneath. lol of course I just wanted to comment on how I also feel like that's best represented by something like the Rogue's sneak attack or something like landing a critical hit.

Quote from TransmorpherDDS >>

I think the idea of a dex-based rapier penetrating plate to deal more damage than a str-based longsword makes sense in the idea of the weapon being dexterously manipulated between the weak points of the armor to strike at the squishy figure underneath. lol of course I just wanted to comment on how I also feel like that's best represented by something like the Rogue's sneak attack or something like landing a critical hit.

 
Yes, someone who actually gets how the combat system is meant to abstract reality. 

you do realise that a full plate has padding protecting every single joints and every single place you could put the rapier in. and that padding is strong enough to stop a rapier from penetrating right ? while i do understand that dexterity is what drives a rapier, hence why i said it doesn't take strength to kill with a sword. you have to understand that armors were designed knowing that flaws would appear and thus eventually finding solutions to patch those flaws. the full plate is  a great exemple of how it made people invulnerable in combat. weapons are used to cut the tensile strength, but a rapier needs a lot of strength to bypass a leather armor. and the padding of full plate that protects the joints are all leather armor. so basically, your rapier would need to pass by the helmet visor since everything else is protected.

i think we'll both agree that realism here would make the rapier one of the weakest weapon in 5e.
again... hit points isn't representative of how badly hurt you are. hit points are not your physical status.

Ronll... first off, thanks for trying to convince a french man to type better in english.. really appreciated, but grammar isn't my strong suit not even in my own language, so thank you for your corrections. though i do not think i'll get any better anytime soon. so i'll tell you, correct me all you want...

as for my lecture... it is not a lecture... but hey... think of it as you want.
i do not like your method compared to mine because of the fair point that your method requires calculation with rounding, mine do not. making  mine a better solution to a system that requires it to be simple. again, thats my opinion you think whatever you want. in 3e, strength did 1.5x more damage then dexterity. and 2-handers did 2x the damage. removing the 1.5x is the bit i am about. your solution though... would yield a half solution. sure its already half way through, but its only half a solution. because losing 3 points of damage isn't too much and honestly, if it was me... i wouldn'T care losing that much compared to what dexterity gives off. compare it to my solution where players loses all the way up to 5 points of damage and now you get players starting to think. because that barbarian or fighter is now able to do upward of +20 on damage in 4 attacks. while yours only diminish the initial attacks. mine actually upgrades the strength.

let's see the biggest difference...
Mine (Str): fighter 16 strength, 4 attacks Great sword, nothing else... 8d6+24 damage !
Mine (Dex): fighter 16 dexterity, 5 attacks Short swords, nothing else... 5d6+12 damage !
Yours (Str): fighter 16 strength, 4 attacks Great sword, nothing else... 8d6+18 damage !
Yours (Dex): fighter 16 dexterity, 5 attacks Short swords, nothing else... 5d6+5 damage !

now lets pump this up a bit, lets take a rogue which you actually diminish as well. same for monks. same for pretty much any classes at it.
my vision of it, doesn't change a thing for anyone, except those who decides to use strength instead. making strength the only change.
again your vision of it, changes dexterity for everyone, making everyone weaker. mine changes only strength.
aking only those who decides to pick it, stronger.

thats my problem with your method and why i preffer mine.
again, i'll say it again and again, this is my opinion and you are not obliged to use it. the same way i am not obliged to think your vision is better.
i'll also add that my "i'm lost" part was about the fact that aside from pumping strength damage i was lost as to what else i could add to it to push it to dexterity level.

You do understand that weapons like the stiletto dagger and certain versions of the Shortsword were specifically designed to slip in between the gaps in armor and punch through both the gambeson and mail that were worn underneath plate?

You do realize that in reality the Rapier was invented and became popular during a point in history after advances in things like Crossbows and black powder weapons had already made heavy armor obsolete?

You do realize that D&D is abstracting a nearly 1,000 year history of technological advancements in arms and armor into a game mechanic simple enough for an 8 year old to play?