I've been playing for years and this has always bothered me, but why do the strength and dexterity stats seem to be swapped in the weirdest ways. For instance take the longbow, a weapon with a draw weight of at least 120lb’s but it requires dex to use? Then on the other side you have the longsword, a weapon that's best used by making dexterous swings to take advantage of the weak points in armour. I get why something like a greatsword or battleaxe requires strength as you just reign down blows on your enemy. This also carries over into the proficiencies as well. Things like Intimidation, it just doesn't make sense. I can’t imagine the scenario where a half-ork barbarian with 24 str/con and a massive battle axe would be intimidated by mere words, because whatever was said the answer from the half-ork would be the same “ORK SMASH!!!”, roll for Initiative. Armour using strength makes sense as well as jump distance. But from playing the game It just feels like the strength stat is being used in a very odd way or the weapons make no sense. Just seems to me that either strength and dex needs to be looked at or the weapons need a complete overhaul. It would open up so many more interesting builds that aren't really overpowered but just feel a lot better to play. I find that most fighter builds I end up putting 3 or 4 levels into a hexblade warlock with ‘pack of the blade’ and ‘Improved pact weapon’ to move the strength requirement to charisma as it's used in so many proficiencies. I end up only doing slightly less damage than a fighter but have masses more utility both in combat and outside of combat as well as a bunch of spells that really fit a fighter play style. For instance a 16 fighter / 4 warlock. Has just a many feats only loses one attack and has no need of the strength stat and gets eldritch blast, hex, curse, wrathful smite. Stick on some +3 studded leather and you have 20 AC, 3 attacks, a bonus action to cast spells and you can still sneak. As well as Action surge to lay out some real pain.
Good to see I'm not the only one that finds it a bit odd. I kind of agree with you about the longsword but the fact that it weighs the same as the whip just naggs at me.
A lot of these are just legacy rules. Str for melee, dex for ranged is how it’s always been. I seem to remember there being a rule in a previous edition where a longbow had a str minimum, but I could be wrong. They do kind of get at the issue with finesse weapons using dex. And thrown weapons using str. But really the whole design philosophy of 5e is to keep things simple. So instead of going weapon by weapon and having different stats govern each one, we get four broad categories. I agree with lyxen that what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but sometimes you just kind of have to go with the idea that this is a game, not a simulation.
Oh and I’m also a big fan of alternate stats for skill checks.
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
The honest answer? Because elves traditionally have a bonus to dexterity and they are also traditionally elite archers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
...a Sling has a longer range than a Longbow? Gonna need a source on that...
A modern crossbow is extremely easy to use, yes. But a Medieval/Renaissance crossbow was definitely not. But the ability to penetrate Knight armor at short range made the ability to use one extremely valuable. By comparison, in the same time period, the ability to use a bow passably was pretty common.
Definitely agreed on the longbows from horseback thing, though. A Longbow would be too big to use from horseback. Trying to draw the bow, you'd hit the horse. Assuming you weren't knocked off balance trying to hold it up while the horse is galloping along.
I have extensive experience in melee combat and, in my experience, STR, DEX, and INT are all things that have a significant effect on how good someone is at fighting. CON is certainly a factor if the fight isn't over quickly. A case could be made for WIS too.
D&D tries to allow meaningful choices whilst retaining a fairly simple rules model.
I have extensive experience in melee combat and, in my experience, STR, DEX, and INT are all things that have a significant effect on how good someone is at fighting. CON is certainly a factor if the fight isn't over quickly. A case could be made for WIS too.
D&D tries to allow meaningful choices whilst retaining a fairly simple rules model.
I could even make a case for Cha since “feints” are a form of bluffing, so (Persuasion) or (Deception). And (Intimidation) never hurts in a fight.
But that's the part I don't don't get. There's no simplicity of design when it comes to spell casters. So why the in-equality between the two disciplines.
'Spell casters you have all of these options to choose from, weapon fighters you can pick 1 or 2 of a handful of weapons. It's like the game doesn't want you to take a class that uses weapons'.
I mean why bother with different classes if a group of 6 wizards can do it.
DEX and WIS are probably like... the most versatile stats. They're involved in the most different skill checks and are probably the most common saving throws. Although it can be a pain because it sometimes feels like you're being punished in-game if you don't make sure your character has high stats for these abilities.
a group of 6 wizards is going to struggle if something gets into melee range. Certain subclasses such as bladesinger can pump their AC, but if something actually lands a hit, they can't take it too well. Spell casters are just as simple as melees are; they are generally single-stat dependant when it comes to their offensive capabilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
...a Sling has a longer range than a Longbow? Gonna need a source on that...
A modern crossbow is extremely easy to use, yes. But a Medieval/Renaissance crossbow was definitely not. But the ability to penetrate Knight armor at short range made the ability to use one extremely valuable. By comparison, in the same time period, the ability to use a bow passably was pretty common.
Definitely agreed on the longbows from horseback thing, though. A Longbow would be too big to use from horseback. Trying to draw the bow, you'd hit the horse. Assuming you weren't knocked off balance trying to hold it up while the horse is galloping along.
Bows always take much longer to train than crossbows. Well, at least not until you get those funky bows with pulleys. You have aim it while your arms are supplying the motive force. Crossbows have two separate skills - input the energy, then aim, which makes them ALWAYS easier to learn how to use.
Slings and long bows both use human muscles to power them directly. Slings store the energy in rotational torque, bows in the string. Slings can build it up, so they take longer to fire, while bows constantly have the energy trying to escape through your arms, you have to fire quicker. It should be noted that a particularly strong and well trained bowman might be able to meet the range of your average slinger, if they had the best bows (composite bows), but the work of aiming it while also supplying the power is very difficult.
TLDR, primary sources says: Good bow can have a range of 200-400 meters, but not really accurate much beyond 200 meters. Extreme Sling range was claimed to be 500 meters. In 1981 a Mr. Larry Bray got an Olympic record of 437 meters with a sling and a stone projectile. Larry Bray says he could have gotten as far as 600 meters if he ignored the rule requirements for an Olympic qualified sling and used a lead bullet rather than a stone.
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
Slings used to be pretty OP (in the real world). Huge range, tremendous accuracy with enough training, easy to make and available ammunition.
No wonder David beat Goliath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
Slings used to be pretty OP (in the real world). Huge range, tremendous accuracy with enough training, easy to make and available ammunition.
No wonder David beat Goliath.
But can a rock punch through armour as well as a bolt or arrow? (Legitimately curious.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
You don't have to use rocks, you use a lead bullet. It's all a question of Energy. Regular bows, slings and thrown weapons all use human muscle 1.0. Same energy supply without cheating = same potential penetration/damage.
But Crossbows have an advantage. You can build a crossbow to store more energy than a human muscle 1.0 can supply, then add a gear + crank system to 'upgrade' human muscle 1.0 to muscle + gear advantage 2.0
As such, a Heavy type crossbow that use a crank should be able to punch through armor better than an arrow or sling.
You can also go for the oval pulley bows, called compound bows (I always mistakenly call them complex bows because they are freaking complex). Those effectively have some leverage similar to the crank, but because they only use two pulleys, and are designed to be fired quickly, their leverage advantage does not compare to a good crank crossbow.
So highest penetration medieval style non-chemical weapon is a cranked heavy crossbow.
I have extensive experience in melee combat and, in my experience, STR, DEX, and INT are all things that have a significant effect on how good someone is at fighting. CON is certainly a factor if the fight isn't over quickly. A case could be made for WIS too.
D&D tries to allow meaningful choices whilst retaining a fairly simple rules model.
Was just going to say this too - ease of use. But depending on character could you just swap them to make sense in your campaign? Extra work for you I suppose. - would it be hard on character creation to choose like, str based fighter or a dex based fighter? Then have the algorithms do everything else for you?
The other easy option is "Dex to hit, Str for damage", but once you get into that you also wind up with whether AC makes sense (armor doesn't realistically make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to hurt, which is way more relevant to a kobold with a club than to a giant with a club) plus you've added MAD to all martial characters so you should probably rework spellcasters as well, ...
A Welsh Longbow or such has tremendous draw weight that you have to train to handle. But it's still your aim, your dexterity that directs where the arrow goes.
You can argue Dex to any melee weapon but your case is fiction only. The European arming swords (longsword) rely on impact and solid percussive cuts. They're also garbage against armor on general. You don't rely on finding a chink, you use a flail, hammer, etc.
If you wanted to be completely realistic you'd probably use Dex for To Hit and Str for Dmg on everything. But that gets complicated and weird mechanics wise.
If we're being super realistic you also have to basically give everyone in any armor including padded resistance to slashing, bludgeoning has interesting interactions with Chain and Plate type armors, piercing ignores anything not plate.
All in all it'd be very complex, but if you're table is up to it, there's a lot that could change.
The Arming Sword and Longsword were not the same thing. People often conflate them, but they are different. An Arming Sword was a side “arm,” more of a backup/piecetime weapon. A personal defense weapon. It was strictly one-handed. They were longer than a shortsword, but shorter than a longsword.
The Longsword was part of a classification of swords generally referred to as “hand-and-a-half swords.” Hand-and-half swords were balanced in such a way that they could be used one-handed with a shield in the beginning of the fight, and by the time your shield broke and your swordarm started to get tired, you could then wield it two-handed for the rest of the fight because of the extra grip length. The very name “Longsword” refers not specifically to the length of the blade, but the extra length of hilt as well. These were swords designed for more than just self defense.
The Arming Sword and Longsword were not the same thing. People often conflate them, but they are different. An Arming Sword was a side “arm,” more of a backup/piecetime weapon. A personal defense weapon. It was strictly one-handed. They were longer than a shortsword, but shorter than a longsword.
The Longsword was part of a classification of swords generally referred to as “hand-and-a-half swords.” Hand-and-half swords were balanced in such a way that they could be used one-handed with a shield in the beginning of the fight, and by the time your shield broke and your swordarm started to get tired, you could then wield it two-handed for the rest of the fight because of the extra grip length. The very name “Longsword” refers not specifically to the length of the blade, but the extra length of hilt as well. These were swords designed for more than just self defense.
Of course you are correct about the rest.
D&D 5e decided to simplify by eliminating a bunch of categories of weapons (such as longsword vs broadsword) that lacked meaningful distinction in previous editions, and real world historical distinctions don't map very well to the categories in any edition. If you encountered a weapon with a heavy 33" blade but a short hilt (so not convenient to wield in two hands), what would you call it? I'd call it "longsword, but not versatile".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been playing for years and this has always bothered me, but why do the strength and dexterity stats seem to be swapped in the weirdest ways. For instance take the longbow, a weapon with a draw weight of at least 120lb’s but it requires dex to use? Then on the other side you have the longsword, a weapon that's best used by making dexterous swings to take advantage of the weak points in armour. I get why something like a greatsword or battleaxe requires strength as you just reign down blows on your enemy. This also carries over into the proficiencies as well. Things like Intimidation, it just doesn't make sense. I can’t imagine the scenario where a half-ork barbarian with 24 str/con and a massive battle axe would be intimidated by mere words, because whatever was said the answer from the half-ork would be the same “ORK SMASH!!!”, roll for Initiative. Armour using strength makes sense as well as jump distance. But from playing the game It just feels like the strength stat is being used in a very odd way or the weapons make no sense. Just seems to me that either strength and dex needs to be looked at or the weapons need a complete overhaul. It would open up so many more interesting builds that aren't really overpowered but just feel a lot better to play. I find that most fighter builds I end up putting 3 or 4 levels into a hexblade warlock with ‘pack of the blade’ and ‘Improved pact weapon’ to move the strength requirement to charisma as it's used in so many proficiencies. I end up only doing slightly less damage than a fighter but have masses more utility both in combat and outside of combat as well as a bunch of spells that really fit a fighter play style. For instance a 16 fighter / 4 warlock. Has just a many feats only loses one attack and has no need of the strength stat and gets eldritch blast, hex, curse, wrathful smite. Stick on some +3 studded leather and you have 20 AC, 3 attacks, a bonus action to cast spells and you can still sneak. As well as Action surge to lay out some real pain.
Good to see I'm not the only one that finds it a bit odd. I kind of agree with you about the longsword but the fact that it weighs the same as the whip just naggs at me.
A lot of these are just legacy rules. Str for melee, dex for ranged is how it’s always been. I seem to remember there being a rule in a previous edition where a longbow had a str minimum, but I could be wrong.
They do kind of get at the issue with finesse weapons using dex. And thrown weapons using str.
But really the whole design philosophy of 5e is to keep things simple. So instead of going weapon by weapon and having different stats govern each one, we get four broad categories.
I agree with lyxen that what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but sometimes you just kind of have to go with the idea that this is a game, not a simulation.
Oh and I’m also a big fan of alternate stats for skill checks.
Almost all the ranged weapons are horrendously unrealistic.
Slings for example have the longest range in real life. Crossbows are really easy to use - they should all be simple weapons. Shortbows are if anything HARDER to use than long bows and should be martial weapons. And you can't use a long bow on a horse, that is the why short bows exist.
The honest answer? Because elves traditionally have a bonus to dexterity and they are also traditionally elite archers.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
...a Sling has a longer range than a Longbow? Gonna need a source on that...
A modern crossbow is extremely easy to use, yes. But a Medieval/Renaissance crossbow was definitely not. But the ability to penetrate Knight armor at short range made the ability to use one extremely valuable. By comparison, in the same time period, the ability to use a bow passably was pretty common.
Definitely agreed on the longbows from horseback thing, though. A Longbow would be too big to use from horseback. Trying to draw the bow, you'd hit the horse. Assuming you weren't knocked off balance trying to hold it up while the horse is galloping along.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersGame balance and simplicity of design.
I have extensive experience in melee combat and, in my experience, STR, DEX, and INT are all things that have a significant effect on how good someone is at fighting. CON is certainly a factor if the fight isn't over quickly. A case could be made for WIS too.
D&D tries to allow meaningful choices whilst retaining a fairly simple rules model.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I could even make a case for Cha since “feints” are a form of bluffing, so (Persuasion) or (Deception). And (Intimidation) never hurts in a fight.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But that's the part I don't don't get. There's no simplicity of design when it comes to spell casters. So why the in-equality between the two disciplines.
'Spell casters you have all of these options to choose from, weapon fighters you can pick 1 or 2 of a handful of weapons. It's like the game doesn't want you to take a class that uses weapons'.
I mean why bother with different classes if a group of 6 wizards can do it.
DEX and WIS are probably like... the most versatile stats. They're involved in the most different skill checks and are probably the most common saving throws. Although it can be a pain because it sometimes feels like you're being punished in-game if you don't make sure your character has high stats for these abilities.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
a group of 6 wizards is going to struggle if something gets into melee range. Certain subclasses such as bladesinger can pump their AC, but if something actually lands a hit, they can't take it too well. Spell casters are just as simple as melees are; they are generally single-stat dependant when it comes to their offensive capabilities.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Bows always take much longer to train than crossbows. Well, at least not until you get those funky bows with pulleys. You have aim it while your arms are supplying the motive force. Crossbows have two separate skills - input the energy, then aim, which makes them ALWAYS easier to learn how to use.
Slings and long bows both use human muscles to power them directly. Slings store the energy in rotational torque, bows in the string. Slings can build it up, so they take longer to fire, while bows constantly have the energy trying to escape through your arms, you have to fire quicker. It should be noted that a particularly strong and well trained bowman might be able to meet the range of your average slinger, if they had the best bows (composite bows), but the work of aiming it while also supplying the power is very difficult.
Proof that slings have longer range, wikipedia says it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon), their primary sources is https://chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling.
TLDR, primary sources says: Good bow can have a range of 200-400 meters, but not really accurate much beyond 200 meters. Extreme Sling range was claimed to be 500 meters. In 1981 a Mr. Larry Bray got an Olympic record of 437 meters with a sling and a stone projectile. Larry Bray says he could have gotten as far as 600 meters if he ignored the rule requirements for an Olympic qualified sling and used a lead bullet rather than a stone.
Slings used to be pretty OP (in the real world). Huge range, tremendous accuracy with enough training, easy to make and available ammunition.
No wonder David beat Goliath.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But can a rock punch through armour as well as a bolt or arrow? (Legitimately curious.)
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You don't have to use rocks, you use a lead bullet. It's all a question of Energy. Regular bows, slings and thrown weapons all use human muscle 1.0. Same energy supply without cheating = same potential penetration/damage.
But Crossbows have an advantage. You can build a crossbow to store more energy than a human muscle 1.0 can supply, then add a gear + crank system to 'upgrade' human muscle 1.0 to muscle + gear advantage 2.0
As such, a Heavy type crossbow that use a crank should be able to punch through armor better than an arrow or sling.
You can also go for the oval pulley bows, called compound bows (I always mistakenly call them complex bows because they are freaking complex). Those effectively have some leverage similar to the crank, but because they only use two pulleys, and are designed to be fired quickly, their leverage advantage does not compare to a good crank crossbow.
So highest penetration medieval style non-chemical weapon is a cranked heavy crossbow.
Was just going to say this too - ease of use. But depending on character could you just swap them to make sense in your campaign? Extra work for you I suppose.
- would it be hard on character creation to choose like, str based fighter or a dex based fighter? Then have the algorithms do everything else for you?
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
The other easy option is "Dex to hit, Str for damage", but once you get into that you also wind up with whether AC makes sense (armor doesn't realistically make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to hurt, which is way more relevant to a kobold with a club than to a giant with a club) plus you've added MAD to all martial characters so you should probably rework spellcasters as well, ...
Your understanding is a bit off.
A Welsh Longbow or such has tremendous draw weight that you have to train to handle. But it's still your aim, your dexterity that directs where the arrow goes.
You can argue Dex to any melee weapon but your case is fiction only. The European arming swords (longsword) rely on impact and solid percussive cuts. They're also garbage against armor on general. You don't rely on finding a chink, you use a flail, hammer, etc.
If you wanted to be completely realistic you'd probably use Dex for To Hit and Str for Dmg on everything. But that gets complicated and weird mechanics wise.
If we're being super realistic you also have to basically give everyone in any armor including padded resistance to slashing, bludgeoning has interesting interactions with Chain and Plate type armors, piercing ignores anything not plate.
All in all it'd be very complex, but if you're table is up to it, there's a lot that could change.
The Arming Sword and Longsword were not the same thing. People often conflate them, but they are different. An Arming Sword was a side “arm,” more of a backup/piecetime weapon. A personal defense weapon. It was strictly one-handed. They were longer than a shortsword, but shorter than a longsword.
The Longsword was part of a classification of swords generally referred to as “hand-and-a-half swords.” Hand-and-half swords were balanced in such a way that they could be used one-handed with a shield in the beginning of the fight, and by the time your shield broke and your swordarm started to get tired, you could then wield it two-handed for the rest of the fight because of the extra grip length. The very name “Longsword” refers not specifically to the length of the blade, but the extra length of hilt as well. These were swords designed for more than just self defense.
Of course you are correct about the rest.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D&D 5e decided to simplify by eliminating a bunch of categories of weapons (such as longsword vs broadsword) that lacked meaningful distinction in previous editions, and real world historical distinctions don't map very well to the categories in any edition. If you encountered a weapon with a heavy 33" blade but a short hilt (so not convenient to wield in two hands), what would you call it? I'd call it "longsword, but not versatile".