but go ahead. i dare you to find any strength dual wielder ! if you can show me how often that happens i will agree that dex doesn'Mt do more attacks... but from what the multitude of characters on DDB shows... all dual wiedlers ends up being dex based. thus dexterity makes more attacks, because strength based dual wielder are very very low. but hey... continu to deform my words for the sake of your argument.
My table has a Dual Wielding Fighter that uses STR that runs around in full plate armor so I guess I win the dare? I feel that your basing an argument from "the multitude of characters on DDB shows" is a very narrow viewpoint. How many DnD shows are there online? Maybe a couple of hundred? That does not give a good sample size compared to how many groups there are that play DnD globally.
but go ahead. i dare you to find any strength dual wielder ! if you can show me how often that happens i will agree that dex doesn'Mt do more attacks... but from what the multitude of characters on DDB shows... all dual wiedlers ends up being dex based. thus dexterity makes more attacks, because strength based dual wielder are very very low. but hey... continu to deform my words for the sake of your argument.
My table has a Dual Wielding Fighter that uses STR that runs around in full plate armor so I guess I win the dare? I feel that your basing an argument from "the multitude of characters on DDB shows" is a very narrow viewpoint. How many DnD shows are there online? Maybe a couple of hundred? That does not give a good sample size compared to how many groups there are that play DnD globally.
It's not even based on a sample size. It's a claim based on a belief that of course everyone plays the game this way. And even if it was true, Great Weapon Master and Pole Arm Master are two feats that give pure strength-based melee characters bonus action attacks for less investment than duel-wielders need. The claim isn't based on how the game is played, it's based on an evidence-free assumption about how the game should be played.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
“but go ahead. i dare you to find any strength dual wielder ! if you can show me how often that happens i will agree that dex doesn'Mt do more attacks”
Theres a guy playing a fighter that dual wields battle axes in a game I DM. He is in fact the only dual wielder in any of the games I am currently running. And he wears heavy armour. And clearly he uses strength not Dexterity. From your last statement I can now see that you didn’t mean the dexterity stat allows you to make more attacks but that there are more people using dexterity when dual wielding so therefore more attacks are being made using the dexterity stat in general. That’s patently absurd. You have no evidence whatsoever to back that up. You have no clue what goes on in other peoples games. It’s what you think is happening.
There are numerous people using strength based characters. Of my 5 active characters, 1 is a caster warlock. 1 is a strength based battlemaster fighter / grave cleric, 1 is a bugbear barbarian using a glaive, polearm master, and sentinel - and he absolutely destroys enemies in combat, 1 is a swarm keeper ranger/genie warlock that fights using booming blade and cloud of daggers and she is ridiculously good in combat, and 1 is a phantom rogue skill monkey that doesn’t dual wield. In the 3 games I run, only one guy went for a dual wielder and he used strength, took the fighting style and feat, and uses battle axes.
Stop acting like a spoilt child throwing a temper tantrum because you aren’t getting your own way. DNDBeyond des not represent all of the players that play dnd. In fact only a small number of players use it and even less use the forums or do the polls and surveys. It is just one of hundreds of imo much better websites. Basing your entire argument of what the entire dnd community do on the statistics that dndbeyond put out is just plain stupidity.
I honestly can't be bothered to quote anymore, but you had some really dumb examples of why two weapon fighting is better than one weapon.
You said that, if you have two people with identical stats and extra attack, one with a greatsword and one with two shortswords, the person with two shortswords would do more damage. Here was your reasoning; if both of the characters miss one of their attacks, then they both do 2d6+mod damage, and if both of the characters miss two of their attacks, then the greatsword does 0 damage and the shortsword does 1d6. Therefore, two weapon fighting is better.
This is an atrocity to math. The thing about combat is that you don't miss a set amount of attacks each turn; each attack has a chance to miss. If you attack three times instead of two, then you're more likely to miss more attacks, just like you're more likely to hit more as well. Sure, if both of the characters miss two attacks then the shortswords will prevail, but that's unfair to the greatsword since the greatsword has a lower chance of missing two attacks than the shortswords. On average, the greatswords WILL do more damage.
Your argument about consistent damage is pretty weak. Sure, consistent damage is generally preferable, but it is not worth sacrificing significant average damage for a tiny bit of it. People choose Eldritch Blast because it deals force damage, works amazingly with agonizing blast/hex/other stuff, AND because it deals consistent damage without any decrease to average damage. Consistent damage is not the only reason, or even really the main one.
I also don't understand why you're arguing at all at this point. If you're so insistent on two-weapon fighting being amazing and only being viable for dex builds, wouldn't that go against your main point of strength being good? I just don't understand.
NOTE: dual wielder feat + mounted combatant feat + two lances is pretty rad
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
“again dual wielding is so good in this edition... the lost of modifier isn't even a problem. and if you do feats as well, it gets better... i get that 2-hander can also have feats and stuff tagged to it... but the reality is... 2-handers are too spikey. they are literally hit or miss. except if you are a barb with reckless attack, that literally makes the build worth it. dual wielding is so much better for steady damage.“
2 fighters at Level 5,
Fighter 1 has 18 Dex, dual wields rapiers, has two weapon fighting style and feat. Assuming all attacks hit he makes 2 regular attacks and 1 bonus action attack for 1d8+4 so a max of 36 damage and averaging 25.5 discounting crits.
Fighter 2 has an 18 strength with great weapon fighting style and polearm master. He makes 2 glaive attacks doing 1d10+4 and a bonus action attack for 1d4+4. Giving a max of 36 and an average of 27 due to boost from his fighting style. This doesn’t include the extra reaction attacks from increased number of opportunity attacks given by polearm master so potentially making a 4th attack for 1d10+4.
They both make the same number of attacks, and in some rounds the strength based glaive wielder makes more, they both have the same max damage, but the strength based fighter does slightly more on average. And extra opportunity attacks so the glaive fighter is ahead. At level 6 the glaive fighter takes great weapon master and adds 10 damage to each attack and the bonus action attack is going to increase to 1d10+4 on several rounds, while the dual wielder cannot increase damage so now the glaive user has a max damage of 60 v’s 30 and an average 57 against the dual wielders 25.5 so there is literally no contest here. And none of this takes into account that the glaive user is fighting at a distance so is getting hit less. So you clearly have no understanding of how the different builds are made or optimised.
“if you have the choice between firebolt, a crossbow that deals 1d10. or eldritch blast, you will pick eldritch blast every times. cause of the number of attacks it does.”
Again you are over simplifying due to a lack of understanding how the system works. EB does have more attacks than firebolt sure, but the damage is the same 1d10 at first level, 2d10 or 1d10 times two at 5th. Comparing it with a crossbow is stupid though as they aren’t remotely the same thing.
A level 20 warlock with a 20 charisma is making 4 attacks with eldritch blast doing 1d10+5 per hit assuming they took agonising blast.
A level 20 fighter with 20 strength, polearm master and great weapon master, and a glaive is making 4 attacks at 1d10+15 and 1 attack of 1d4+15.
A level 20 fighter with a 20 Dexterity, two weapon fighting style and dual wielder, using any 2 d8 melee weapons is making 4 standard attacks for 1d8+5 and a bonus action attack for another 1d8+5 so isn’t even in the same ballpark as the glaive user at this point
They all have the same chance to hit - in fact the fighter probably has better as they will likely have a magic weapon. The glaive fighter is clearly doing more damage unless you add in other effects like hex or other spells.
The crossbow user is clearly limited by the loading and ammo property but that can be covered by the artificer repeating weapon infusion. So a battle smith with a 20 intelligence, sharpshooter and crossbow expert would be making 2 attacks at 1d10+16 and would have an additional +1 on the attack so more likely to land the attack. And possibly a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow for 1d6+15 or a rend attack from their iron defender.
So again, simple math and an understanding of how the rules actually work show how your examples are wrong.
Im sorta new to dnd in general but I know enough to say that strength is a dump stat for most classes and what I read a second ago from you dnd paladin just sounded moronic and wasn't backed in any sort of way. But for ex: it isn't worth it for a warlock to go higher in strength than say 12 or 14 AT THE most, assuming they didn't go hexblade or pact of chain, they get the most from dex and using a dex based weapon. Warlocks don't really benefit from a higher str stat. Maybe when the encumbrance becomes a thing but that's what barbs and paladins are for. I am currently playing a warlock and my lowest stat is str at 10 and my dex is 19, and to be fair I wouldn't have it any other way. My dm doesn't care to much at how much I'm carrying unless I have an absurd amount of stuff in my single backpack. And if you are truly worried about encumbrance, then get a pack animal and dump your stuff in its inventory. But as I said before I'm newer and aren't as experienced. So dont let my words twist your balls.(Unless they do.)
no there is no rules... as i said often and say it again and again i'm talking about dexterity dropping strength dual wielding...but go ahead. i dare you to find any strength dual wielder ! if you can show me how often that happens i will agree that dex doesn'Mt do more attacks... but from what the multitude of characters on DDB shows... all dual wiedlers ends up being dex based. thus dexterity makes more attacks, because strength based dual wielder are very very low. but hey... continu to deform my words for the sake of your argument.
again dual wielding is so good in this edition... the lost of modifier isn't even a problem. and if you do feats as well, it gets better... i get that 2-hander can also have feats and stuff tagged to it... but the reality is... 2-handers are too spikey. they are literally hit or miss. except if you are a barb with reckless attack, that literally makes the build worth it. dual wielding is so much better for steady damage.
I typically only run str builds on my fighter/palys, because as beardsinger has pointed out, they typically do on average more attacks/more dpr, and not only that generally have a higher to hit ratio then that of twf's, but if I ever go TWF, its pure strength because its just better in the overall?
also like, im sorry but duel weilding compared to PAM, sentinal, GWM? there is no comparison, in dpr or amount of to hits....idk what you thinking but your words through this have not been very smartly thought out
Intelligence is easily the worst stat in the game. Followed very closely by Strength. Very closely.
The only reason they're even worth not-dumping is if your class itself relies on one of them. In all other cases you can safely dump them to 8 and you're better for it.
I'm not sure it is helpful to pretend this isn't the case. Every minmax build out there shows this to be true.
You'll be fine with a low str. You'll be fine with a low int. The odds of either of those backfiring is really super small. You still have dex, con, wis, and cha. These stats are responsible for 95%+ of anything you'll ever be doing.
If something heavy needs moving hire a peasant to come drag it away. Or 10 peasants. Manual labor is cheap. Or let the dumb fighter move the heavy object. Even he was smart enough to dump his Int.
And if you need to Knowledge something just ask somehow who knows. That's a Cha check. Boom, mystery solved with the power of friendship.
Does "the party" benefit from having someone with a high Strength or Intelligence? Yes. Yes, it does. But only one. Having a whole team with high Str is a recipe for disaster. Like, cool, yall can lift rocks or whatever. Meanwhile the whole party goes last in initiative and ends up having to spend the first round dashing to get into place because they're all melee fighters. GL.
No, the ideal party has one guy who bit the bullet for the team and has a high Str. And another who is the high Int investigation//Knowledge bro. Everyone else is some combination of dex, wis, and cha. (and con is good on everyone regardless)
So in summary. Strength? Not as bad as Intelligence, but they're bother better at 8.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ? if a stat is useless in most cases then its not worth keeping... so what you guys are literally suggesting is that strength and intelligence be literally removed from D&D as they are completely useless in most cases... if that is again the case, then why bother keeping them.
but its obvious none of you will ever try to understand my point and will always point me into the min/maxing community which do not care about role play... hence why none of those builds will ever have observer as a feat or even alert... cause its clearly not adding DPR... i'm gonna go as far as to say that all of you only seems to look at DPR and not at the rest... and the solutions you all come to seems to be... pour some money on the thing you wanna do and it solves it... to that i will say then... i have never met a problem that couldn't be solved by an axe ! which requires strength...
but ok... i will concede to you guys that DEX is far supeiror in damage then STR... oh wait... you all prooved that STR is better at DPR... so why you all dumping it then ? again... if the stat is useless in most cases, like many of you said 95%.... then why are WotC keeping the stat... let's all suggest they remove it entirely then...
final point... which i already said often already... i'm a min/maxer... i don'T just dump INT and STR... i dumped DEX, i dumped CHA, i dumped WIS i even dumped CON for a wizard... you're honestly only doing the metagaming thing if you decide everything based on how much value your stats are... you're determining your gameplay based on what you should for the game, not for the character. which leads you to a single outcome... all of yours characters are always the same...
though i understand that D&D is a mathematical equation... it can be solved many ways... limiting yourself to INT and STR dump is basically saying... i just want the best all the time, reguardless of its the same all the time... but ok...
i get it people... i apparently make no sense and i am apparently the only one thinking strenght is a good stat.
so there you have it folks... WotC in one D&D should remove STR and INT entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ? if a stat is useless in most cases then its not worth keeping... so what you guys are literally suggesting is that strength and intelligence be literally removed from D&D as they are completely useless in most cases... if that is again the case, then why bother keeping them.
They're not useless. They're just not worth investing your few points into instead of into a more useful/impactful ability.
The stats represent characteristics of your character. Removing them doesn't make any sense and no one has advocated this.
but its obvious none of you will ever try to understand my point and will always point me into the min/maxing community which do not care about role play... hence why none of those builds will ever have observer as a feat or even alert... cause its clearly not adding DPR... i'm gonna go as far as to say that all of you only seems to look at DPR and not at the rest... and the solutions you all come to seems to be... pour some money on the thing you wanna do and it solves it... to that i will say then... i have never met a problem that couldn't be solved by an axe ! which requires strength...
Your argument is that these stats are better than everyone thinks they are. Your arguement wasn't about roleplaying.
but ok... i will concede to you guys that DEX is far supeiror in damage then STR... oh wait... you all prooved that STR is better at DPR... so why you all dumping it then ? again... if the stat is useless in most cases, like many of you said 95%.... then why are WotC keeping the stat... let's all suggest they remove it entirely then...
DPR isn't the end-all be-all. Even if a high Str build can squeeze out a couple more DPR is meaningless when compared to every they can't do to compensate. They gave up dex saves, dex skills, and initiative to do it.
And no one, at all, has made the argument that Strength or Intelligence shouldn't be stats. Idk where you're getting that from or why. They represent how strong your character is and how smart he is. That is valid stats. They should stay. BUT when compared to the other stats they just aren't as helpful to your adventuring career as a different ability score would have been.
final point... which i already said often already... i'm a min/maxer... i don'T just dump INT and STR... i dumped DEX, i dumped CHA, i dumped WIS i even dumped CON for a wizard...
Every class works different. And everyone acknowledged that if your primary ability Score is str, or is Int, for your class, that you're not going to dump it. Obviously. You've instead volunteered yourself as your party's one smart or strong guy.
you're honestly only doing the metagaming thing if you decide everything based on how much value your stats are... you're determining your gameplay based on what you should for the game, not for the character. which leads you to a single outcome... all of yours characters are always the same...
When discussing the relative values of the 6 primary ability scores, yes, we are having a metagame discussion. Your OP is a metagame post about a metagame topic. Yes.
though i understand that D&D is a mathematical equation... it can be solved many ways... limiting yourself to INT and STR dump is basically saying... i just want the best all the time, reguardless of its the same all the time... but ok...
Your argument wasn't and isn't that Strength is a better role-playing stat. C'mon.
We're talking about how mechanically powerful the stats are.
i get it people... i apparently make no sense and i am apparently the only one thinking strenght is a good stat.
You're absolutely welcome to your opinion but you're posting here to convince all of the people who read it to change their opinions. People don't seem to want to, which is also fine, because they're also welcome to their opinions. We must all accept that.
so there you have it folks... WotC in one D&D should remove STR and INT entirely.
No. They should just balance them and make them equally good as the other four.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ? if a stat is useless in most cases then its not worth keeping... so what you guys are literally suggesting is that strength and intelligence be literally removed from D&D as they are completely useless in most cases... if that is again the case, then why bother keeping them.
You're the only person who's actually calling them useless. The rest of us have just pointed out that on average, Strength and Intelligence are less useful of stats if they're not the primary stat for your class. Literally no one said that you should dump stat Intelligence on a wizard or Strength on a barbarian, just that if you're playing any other class than wizard or artificer you can get away with having Intelligence as your lowest stat and likewise with Strength and any class that isn't a Barbarian or one that wears heavy armor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ? if a stat is useless in most cases then its not worth keeping... so what you guys are literally suggesting is that strength and intelligence be literally removed from D&D as they are completely useless in most cases... if that is again the case, then why bother keeping them.
but its obvious none of you will ever try to understand my point and will always point me into the min/maxing community which do not care about role play... hence why none of those builds will ever have observer as a feat or even alert... cause its clearly not adding DPR... i'm gonna go as far as to say that all of you only seems to look at DPR and not at the rest... and the solutions you all come to seems to be... pour some money on the thing you wanna do and it solves it... to that i will say then... i have never met a problem that couldn't be solved by an axe ! which requires strength...
but ok... i will concede to you guys that DEX is far supeiror in damage then STR... oh wait... you all prooved that STR is better at DPR... so why you all dumping it then ? again... if the stat is useless in most cases, like many of you said 95%.... then why are WotC keeping the stat... let's all suggest they remove it entirely then...
final point... which i already said often already... i'm a min/maxer... i don'T just dump INT and STR... i dumped DEX, i dumped CHA, i dumped WIS i even dumped CON for a wizard... you're honestly only doing the metagaming thing if you decide everything based on how much value your stats are... you're determining your gameplay based on what you should for the game, not for the character. which leads you to a single outcome... all of yours characters are always the same...
though i understand that D&D is a mathematical equation... it can be solved many ways... limiting yourself to INT and STR dump is basically saying... i just want the best all the time, reguardless of its the same all the time... but ok...
i get it people... i apparently make no sense and i am apparently the only one thinking strenght is a good stat.
so there you have it folks... WotC in one D&D should remove STR and INT entirely.
1. No one is suggesting they be removed from the game, the only person here who us, is you, and its a horrible idea
2. you brought up dpr yourself, and the amount of hits that dexterity gets over strength, saying its better, when if your looking at just dpr alone as you suggested in a few of your replies to folk, when addressing the TWF thing, strength still outdoes it. No one was talking about roleplay and I would 100% argue that even the min/max community cares about roleplay as well, its just a pretty big trope that they dont
3. also, your post was about a metagame topic, and youve treated it as such, so your gonna get replies like that...and by the way, if you dump strength, and intelligence, your definitely not the GOAT and never will be.
4. no, they are good stats, for what they are meant for, but their areas dont cover much, so wizards should expand what they cover.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ?
They aren't useless, they're merely inferior. The reality is, in any given party:
Everyone strongly needs Con, because hit points and Con saves.
Everyone strongly needs Dex, because initiative, Dex saves, and (for everyone but heavy armor users) AC
Everyone modestly needs Wisdom, because perception and Wisdom saves.
One character needs Charisma, to be the party's face. Everyone else can get away with Not Rolling.
One character might need Intelligence, to solve lore problems. In practice, DMs aren't going to make adventures unplayable without making a lore check, so if no PC comes up with an answer, the Face can probably get an answer. Or they'll stumble across something.
One character might need Strength, to solve brute force problems. Pretty much all such problems can be solved by Magic, however, so a party without anyone strong is likely to be okay.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ?
They aren't useless, they're merely inferior. The reality is, in any given party:
Everyone strongly needs Con, because hit points and Con saves.
Everyone strongly needs Dex, because initiative, Dex saves, and (for everyone but heavy armor users and tortles) AC
Everyone modestly needs Wisdom, because perception and Wisdom saves (I would say only one person is needed for perception but wis saves are important).
One character needs Charisma, to be the party's face. Everyone else can get away with Not Rolling.
One character might need Intelligence, to solve lore problems. In practice, DMs aren't going to make adventures unplayable without making a lore check, so if no PC comes up with an answer, the Face can probably get an answer. Or they'll stumble across something.
One character might need Strength, to solve brute force problems. Pretty much all such problems can be solved by Magic, however, so a party without anyone strong is likely to be okay.
I think Int and Charisma are similar in that having someone good at lore and investigation can makes things easier for the party DMds aren't going to make an adventure without it. In the same way having someome good at charisma checks can make things easier but no having no highh charisma characters shouldn't blank the campaign (the difference is more characters have charisma as a primary stat.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ?
They aren't useless, they're merely inferior. The reality is, in any given party:
Everyone strongly needs Con, because hit points and Con saves.
Everyone strongly needs Dex, because initiative, Dex saves, and (for everyone but heavy armor users and tortles) AC
Everyone modestly needs Wisdom, because perception and Wisdom saves (I would say only one person is needed for perception but wis saves are important).
One character needs Charisma, to be the party's face. Everyone else can get away with Not Rolling.
One character might need Intelligence, to solve lore problems. In practice, DMs aren't going to make adventures unplayable without making a lore check, so if no PC comes up with an answer, the Face can probably get an answer. Or they'll stumble across something.
One character might need Strength, to solve brute force problems. Pretty much all such problems can be solved by Magic, however, so a party without anyone strong is likely to be okay.
I think Int and Charisma are similar in that having someone good at lore and investigation can makes things easier for the party DMds aren't going to make an adventure without it. In the same way having someome good at charisma checks can make things easier but no having no highh charisma characters shouldn't blank the campaign (the difference is more characters have charisma as a primary stat.
Yeah Int and Cha can be similar in a lot of ways, and, in theory you only need one charismatic character. Buy in practice that isn't true. Players don't just sit around the table silently not interacting with NPC until they pass a note to the Bard who does all the talking. Inevitably most characeters find themselves making social skill checks at one point or another, and can easily stumble into problems if they're just making situations worse all the time because of it. Though, sometimes that is also pretty fun.
Impromptu side quest! Fight the merchant lords bodyguards. Sure sure you came here to ask him for help locating the mcguffin but after the party barbarian started talking, battle was basically inevitable. Lol.
It is far less often that the party needs to split their focus all on Int based checks. Maybe at a library? Or solving a series of puzzles in different rooms but simultaneously? Seems like it'll be rare.
But needing to talk to more than one person at the same time? All the time in civilization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My table has a Dual Wielding Fighter that uses STR that runs around in full plate armor so I guess I win the dare? I feel that your basing an argument from "the multitude of characters on DDB shows" is a very narrow viewpoint. How many DnD shows are there online? Maybe a couple of hundred? That does not give a good sample size compared to how many groups there are that play DnD globally.
It's not even based on a sample size. It's a claim based on a belief that of course everyone plays the game this way. And even if it was true, Great Weapon Master and Pole Arm Master are two feats that give pure strength-based melee characters bonus action attacks for less investment than duel-wielders need. The claim isn't based on how the game is played, it's based on an evidence-free assumption about how the game should be played.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
“but go ahead. i dare you to find any strength dual wielder ! if you can show me how often that happens i will agree that dex doesn'Mt do more attacks”
Theres a guy playing a fighter that dual wields battle axes in a game I DM. He is in fact the only dual wielder in any of the games I am currently running. And he wears heavy armour. And clearly he uses strength not Dexterity. From your last statement I can now see that you didn’t mean the dexterity stat allows you to make more attacks but that there are more people using dexterity when dual wielding so therefore more attacks are being made using the dexterity stat in general. That’s patently absurd. You have no evidence whatsoever to back that up. You have no clue what goes on in other peoples games. It’s what you think is happening.
There are numerous people using strength based characters. Of my 5 active characters, 1 is a caster warlock. 1 is a strength based battlemaster fighter / grave cleric, 1 is a bugbear barbarian using a glaive, polearm master, and sentinel - and he absolutely destroys enemies in combat, 1 is a swarm keeper ranger/genie warlock that fights using booming blade and cloud of daggers and she is ridiculously good in combat, and 1 is a phantom rogue skill monkey that doesn’t dual wield. In the 3 games I run, only one guy went for a dual wielder and he used strength, took the fighting style and feat, and uses battle axes.
Stop acting like a spoilt child throwing a temper tantrum because you aren’t getting your own way. DNDBeyond des not represent all of the players that play dnd. In fact only a small number of players use it and even less use the forums or do the polls and surveys. It is just one of hundreds of imo much better websites. Basing your entire argument of what the entire dnd community do on the statistics that dndbeyond put out is just plain stupidity.
I honestly can't be bothered to quote anymore, but you had some really dumb examples of why two weapon fighting is better than one weapon.
You said that, if you have two people with identical stats and extra attack, one with a greatsword and one with two shortswords, the person with two shortswords would do more damage. Here was your reasoning; if both of the characters miss one of their attacks, then they both do 2d6+mod damage, and if both of the characters miss two of their attacks, then the greatsword does 0 damage and the shortsword does 1d6. Therefore, two weapon fighting is better.
This is an atrocity to math. The thing about combat is that you don't miss a set amount of attacks each turn; each attack has a chance to miss. If you attack three times instead of two, then you're more likely to miss more attacks, just like you're more likely to hit more as well. Sure, if both of the characters miss two attacks then the shortswords will prevail, but that's unfair to the greatsword since the greatsword has a lower chance of missing two attacks than the shortswords. On average, the greatswords WILL do more damage.
Your argument about consistent damage is pretty weak. Sure, consistent damage is generally preferable, but it is not worth sacrificing significant average damage for a tiny bit of it. People choose Eldritch Blast because it deals force damage, works amazingly with agonizing blast/hex/other stuff, AND because it deals consistent damage without any decrease to average damage. Consistent damage is not the only reason, or even really the main one.
I also don't understand why you're arguing at all at this point. If you're so insistent on two-weapon fighting being amazing and only being viable for dex builds, wouldn't that go against your main point of strength being good? I just don't understand.
NOTE: dual wielder feat + mounted combatant feat + two lances is pretty rad
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
“again dual wielding is so good in this edition... the lost of modifier isn't even a problem. and if you do feats as well, it gets better...
i get that 2-hander can also have feats and stuff tagged to it... but the reality is... 2-handers are too spikey. they are literally hit or miss. except if you are a barb with reckless attack, that literally makes the build worth it. dual wielding is so much better for steady damage.“
2 fighters at Level 5,
Fighter 1 has 18 Dex, dual wields rapiers, has two weapon fighting style and feat. Assuming all attacks hit he makes 2 regular attacks and 1 bonus action attack for 1d8+4 so a max of 36 damage and averaging 25.5 discounting crits.
Fighter 2 has an 18 strength with great weapon fighting style and polearm master. He makes 2 glaive attacks doing 1d10+4 and a bonus action attack for 1d4+4. Giving a max of 36 and an average of 27 due to boost from his fighting style. This doesn’t include the extra reaction attacks from increased number of opportunity attacks given by polearm master so potentially making a 4th attack for 1d10+4.
They both make the same number of attacks, and in some rounds the strength based glaive wielder makes more, they both have the same max damage, but the strength based fighter does slightly more on average. And extra opportunity attacks so the glaive fighter is ahead. At level 6 the glaive fighter takes great weapon master and adds 10 damage to each attack and the bonus action attack is going to increase to 1d10+4 on several rounds, while the dual wielder cannot increase damage so now the glaive user has a max damage of 60 v’s 30 and an average 57 against the dual wielders 25.5 so there is literally no contest here. And none of this takes into account that the glaive user is fighting at a distance so is getting hit less. So you clearly have no understanding of how the different builds are made or optimised.
“if you have the choice between firebolt, a crossbow that deals 1d10. or eldritch blast, you will pick eldritch blast every times. cause of the number of attacks it does.”
Again you are over simplifying due to a lack of understanding how the system works. EB does have more attacks than firebolt sure, but the damage is the same 1d10 at first level, 2d10 or 1d10 times two at 5th. Comparing it with a crossbow is stupid though as they aren’t remotely the same thing.
A level 20 warlock with a 20 charisma is making 4 attacks with eldritch blast doing 1d10+5 per hit assuming they took agonising blast.
A level 20 fighter with 20 strength, polearm master and great weapon master, and a glaive is making 4 attacks at 1d10+15 and 1 attack of 1d4+15.
A level 20 fighter with a 20 Dexterity, two weapon fighting style and dual wielder, using any 2 d8 melee weapons is making 4 standard attacks for 1d8+5 and a bonus action attack for another 1d8+5 so isn’t even in the same ballpark as the glaive user at this point
They all have the same chance to hit - in fact the fighter probably has better as they will likely have a magic weapon. The glaive fighter is clearly doing more damage unless you add in other effects like hex or other spells.
The crossbow user is clearly limited by the loading and ammo property but that can be covered by the artificer repeating weapon infusion. So a battle smith with a 20 intelligence, sharpshooter and crossbow expert would be making 2 attacks at 1d10+16 and would have an additional +1 on the attack so more likely to land the attack. And possibly a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow for 1d6+15 or a rend attack from their iron defender.
So again, simple math and an understanding of how the rules actually work show how your examples are wrong.
Im sorta new to dnd in general but I know enough to say that strength is a dump stat for most classes and what I read a second ago from you dnd paladin just sounded moronic and wasn't backed in any sort of way. But for ex: it isn't worth it for a warlock to go higher in strength than say 12 or 14 AT THE most, assuming they didn't go hexblade or pact of chain, they get the most from dex and using a dex based weapon. Warlocks don't really benefit from a higher str stat. Maybe when the encumbrance becomes a thing but that's what barbs and paladins are for. I am currently playing a warlock and my lowest stat is str at 10 and my dex is 19, and to be fair I wouldn't have it any other way. My dm doesn't care to much at how much I'm carrying unless I have an absurd amount of stuff in my single backpack. And if you are truly worried about encumbrance, then get a pack animal and dump your stuff in its inventory. But as I said before I'm newer and aren't as experienced. So dont let my words twist your balls.(Unless they do.)
And...?
I typically only run str builds on my fighter/palys, because as beardsinger has pointed out, they typically do on average more attacks/more dpr, and not only that generally have a higher to hit ratio then that of twf's, but if I ever go TWF, its pure strength because its just better in the overall?
also like, im sorry but duel weilding compared to PAM, sentinal, GWM? there is no comparison, in dpr or amount of to hits....idk what you thinking but your words through this have not been very smartly thought out
Intelligence is easily the worst stat in the game. Followed very closely by Strength. Very closely.
The only reason they're even worth not-dumping is if your class itself relies on one of them. In all other cases you can safely dump them to 8 and you're better for it.
I'm not sure it is helpful to pretend this isn't the case. Every minmax build out there shows this to be true.
You'll be fine with a low str. You'll be fine with a low int. The odds of either of those backfiring is really super small. You still have dex, con, wis, and cha. These stats are responsible for 95%+ of anything you'll ever be doing.
If something heavy needs moving hire a peasant to come drag it away. Or 10 peasants. Manual labor is cheap. Or let the dumb fighter move the heavy object. Even he was smart enough to dump his Int.
And if you need to Knowledge something just ask somehow who knows. That's a Cha check. Boom, mystery solved with the power of friendship.
Does "the party" benefit from having someone with a high Strength or Intelligence? Yes. Yes, it does. But only one. Having a whole team with high Str is a recipe for disaster. Like, cool, yall can lift rocks or whatever. Meanwhile the whole party goes last in initiative and ends up having to spend the first round dashing to get into place because they're all melee fighters. GL.
No, the ideal party has one guy who bit the bullet for the team and has a high Str. And another who is the high Int investigation//Knowledge bro. Everyone else is some combination of dex, wis, and cha. (and con is good on everyone regardless)
So in summary. Strength? Not as bad as Intelligence, but they're bother better at 8.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
again... to all of you... then why do we still keep the stats then ?
if a stat is useless in most cases then its not worth keeping... so what you guys are literally suggesting is that strength and intelligence be literally removed from D&D as they are completely useless in most cases... if that is again the case, then why bother keeping them.
but its obvious none of you will ever try to understand my point and will always point me into the min/maxing community which do not care about role play... hence why none of those builds will ever have observer as a feat or even alert... cause its clearly not adding DPR... i'm gonna go as far as to say that all of you only seems to look at DPR and not at the rest... and the solutions you all come to seems to be... pour some money on the thing you wanna do and it solves it... to that i will say then... i have never met a problem that couldn't be solved by an axe ! which requires strength...
but ok... i will concede to you guys that DEX is far supeiror in damage then STR... oh wait... you all prooved that STR is better at DPR... so why you all dumping it then ?
again... if the stat is useless in most cases, like many of you said 95%.... then why are WotC keeping the stat... let's all suggest they remove it entirely then...
final point...
which i already said often already...
i'm a min/maxer... i don'T just dump INT and STR... i dumped DEX, i dumped CHA, i dumped WIS i even dumped CON for a wizard...
you're honestly only doing the metagaming thing if you decide everything based on how much value your stats are... you're determining your gameplay based on what you should for the game, not for the character. which leads you to a single outcome... all of yours characters are always the same...
though i understand that D&D is a mathematical equation... it can be solved many ways... limiting yourself to INT and STR dump is basically saying... i just want the best all the time, reguardless of its the same all the time... but ok...
i get it people... i apparently make no sense and i am apparently the only one thinking strenght is a good stat.
so there you have it folks...
WotC in one D&D should remove STR and INT entirely.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
They're not useless. They're just not worth investing your few points into instead of into a more useful/impactful ability.
The stats represent characteristics of your character. Removing them doesn't make any sense and no one has advocated this.
Your argument is that these stats are better than everyone thinks they are. Your arguement wasn't about roleplaying.
DPR isn't the end-all be-all. Even if a high Str build can squeeze out a couple more DPR is meaningless when compared to every they can't do to compensate. They gave up dex saves, dex skills, and initiative to do it.
And no one, at all, has made the argument that Strength or Intelligence shouldn't be stats. Idk where you're getting that from or why. They represent how strong your character is and how smart he is. That is valid stats. They should stay. BUT when compared to the other stats they just aren't as helpful to your adventuring career as a different ability score would have been.
Every class works different. And everyone acknowledged that if your primary ability Score is str, or is Int, for your class, that you're not going to dump it. Obviously. You've instead volunteered yourself as your party's one smart or strong guy.
When discussing the relative values of the 6 primary ability scores, yes, we are having a metagame discussion. Your OP is a metagame post about a metagame topic. Yes.
Your argument wasn't and isn't that Strength is a better role-playing stat. C'mon.
We're talking about how mechanically powerful the stats are.
You're absolutely welcome to your opinion but you're posting here to convince all of the people who read it to change their opinions. People don't seem to want to, which is also fine, because they're also welcome to their opinions. We must all accept that.
No. They should just balance them and make them equally good as the other four.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You're the only person who's actually calling them useless. The rest of us have just pointed out that on average, Strength and Intelligence are less useful of stats if they're not the primary stat for your class. Literally no one said that you should dump stat Intelligence on a wizard or Strength on a barbarian, just that if you're playing any other class than wizard or artificer you can get away with having Intelligence as your lowest stat and likewise with Strength and any class that isn't a Barbarian or one that wears heavy armor.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
1. No one is suggesting they be removed from the game, the only person here who us, is you, and its a horrible idea
2. you brought up dpr yourself, and the amount of hits that dexterity gets over strength, saying its better, when if your looking at just dpr alone as you suggested in a few of your replies to folk, when addressing the TWF thing, strength still outdoes it. No one was talking about roleplay and I would 100% argue that even the min/max community cares about roleplay as well, its just a pretty big trope that they dont
3. also, your post was about a metagame topic, and youve treated it as such, so your gonna get replies like that...and by the way, if you dump strength, and intelligence, your definitely not the GOAT and never will be.
4. no, they are good stats, for what they are meant for, but their areas dont cover much, so wizards should expand what they cover.
They aren't useless, they're merely inferior. The reality is, in any given party:
I think Int and Charisma are similar in that having someone good at lore and investigation can makes things easier for the party DMds aren't going to make an adventure without it. In the same way having someome good at charisma checks can make things easier but no having no highh charisma characters shouldn't blank the campaign (the difference is more characters have charisma as a primary stat.
Yeah Int and Cha can be similar in a lot of ways, and, in theory you only need one charismatic character. Buy in practice that isn't true. Players don't just sit around the table silently not interacting with NPC until they pass a note to the Bard who does all the talking. Inevitably most characeters find themselves making social skill checks at one point or another, and can easily stumble into problems if they're just making situations worse all the time because of it. Though, sometimes that is also pretty fun.
Impromptu side quest! Fight the merchant lords bodyguards. Sure sure you came here to ask him for help locating the mcguffin but after the party barbarian started talking, battle was basically inevitable. Lol.
It is far less often that the party needs to split their focus all on Int based checks. Maybe at a library? Or solving a series of puzzles in different rooms but simultaneously? Seems like it'll be rare.
But needing to talk to more than one person at the same time? All the time in civilization.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.