Why was dex made so powerful?

[JNAProductions]

Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

[robbie374]

Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

Archers are martials, and they stay at a distance better than casters, but they are SAD with Dex.

[Willie the Duck]

Casters work just fine as is. Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and lore bards are sitting with studded leather/mage armor/dragon sorcerer and balancing between pumping their Dex as much as they can or just staying in back since they will not be using it for much except AC (and skill checks and for lore bards the occasional attack). Valor bards and med. armor clerics will be making hard choices about wanting a 14 dex and whether to then go for a 18-20 dex, a 14 Dex and high strength (as a combat stat), or forgoing a combat stat and using spells. Heavy armor clerics of course will need that 15 strength (or be a dwarf) or be slowed, and also need to decide between fighting with Str or with spells (or shillelagh).

Virtually all of those cases involve making hard choices about whether or not to pump a stat, even though they will not be using it like they use their casting stat or like a fighter uses their combat stat. And frankly, that's the point. There is no classes broadly and very few builds in total (except maybe a hill dwarf nature cleric, where you know exactly what you're supposed to do), where you aren't constantly having to balance different priorities. That seems to be one of the biggest successes of this edition.

Not really. Casters can stay at a distance more easily than martials can, and in addition, some casters (like Clerics) can get away with pretty measly Strength and Dexterity scores. A Dwarven (to avoid being slowed by armor) Cleric can have 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and still move at full speed in full plate.

Yes, that one, very specific build (well, two-shillelagh fighter and cantrip fighter, although what cantrip-boosting domained cleric type gets heavy armor?) can do so.

[qube]

> That's either 2 holes in your lunges instead of one; or more organs shredded. Lethality wise, 12" > 6".

Health is an abstraction. Therefore damage is not directly related to how much an attack hurts me. It represents how long I can stay in the combat.

... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.

The point with the guns is that it doesn't matter how strong you are when shooting a gun, it matters what gun you use and how far away you are. A bow is (mostly) the same way.

I'm not sure in what world you live, but

• 'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
• Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
• ...

For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...

the guy who pulls his 28" bow to 36" isn't going much further than the guy who draws it to 28".

And, here a magic trick: Same bow, stronger guy does get his arrow further/has more penetration power/ ... then the weaker guy.

So, lets say, you're someone who draws at 40 lb, and thus has a 40 lb bow.
And lets put that bow in the hands of a guy who's able to draw 50 lb bows.

Take of the string and twist it a few times, making it shorter; then put the string back on.
magic: your 40 lb bow is now a 50 lb bow.

Why you're trying to introduce the idea that PCs would be shooting with bows that have a drawweight that doesn't correspond with their strength, is beyond me. Or even "coïncidently" forget to mention what happens if someone tries to shoot with a bow that's too heavy for them ...
Heck you might as well go back to your gun example: yes, strength matters: if you can't handle the kickback, it don't really matter how well you aim.

[robbie374]

Casters work just fine as is. Wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and lore bards are sitting with studded leather/mage armor/dragon sorcerer and balancing between pumping their Dex as much as they can or just staying in back since they will not be using it for much except AC (and skill checks and for lore bards the occasional attack). Valor bards and med. armor clerics will be making hard choices about wanting a 14 dex and whether to then go for a 18-20 dex, a 14 Dex and high strength (as a combat stat), or forgoing a combat stat and using spells. Heavy armor clerics of course will need that 15 strength (or be a dwarf) or be slowed, and also need to decide between fighting with Str or with spells (or shillelagh).

Virtually all of those cases involve making hard choices about whether or not to pump a stat, even though they will not be using it like they use their casting stat or like a fighter uses their combat stat. And frankly, that's the point. There is no classes broadly and very few builds in total (except maybe a hill dwarf nature cleric, where you know exactly what you're supposed to do), where you aren't constantly having to balance different priorities. That seems to be one of the biggest successes of this edition.

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

[smcmike]

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

All non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

You know that casters get spells, right?

[Easy_Lee]

Casters don't need high AC or initiative because they have more methods to avoid damage. Wizards have mage armor and the shield, druids have wildshaping, bards and clerics qualify for decent armor. Warlocks have it the worst, but they have plenty of invocation and patron options to increase their survival. And let's not forget that most casters can go invisible.

The idea proposed above is that archers, since they're SAD, get to benefit from good AC and good damage, the best initiative, and good damage avoidance due to their range all at once. That's true. The power of archers in 5e is well known.

But don't forget that archers don't get opportunity attacks, and not all classes have the option of going ranged. Barbarians and paladins do better on the front lines. Rogues do as well if they can get stay alive and get consistent reaction attacks (sentinel, marital adept: riposte, etc.). And last I checked, nobody beats barbarians for damage in the long run.

So I don't think it's an issue. The only two melee-capable classes for whom ranged damage is the clear best option are Hunter rangers and warlocks. Rangers are range-ers, and Beast Conclave Rangers are actually better in melee based on my analysis. And warlocks have agonizing EB, which is mildly OP. For everyone else who has reason to be in melee range, range vs melee is a trade-off.

[JNAProductions]

Right, like Barbarians, who have no need for anything but Strength!

Wait, they need Constitution and Dexterity too.

And it's not like a Wizard who pumps Intelligence to the exclusion of all else is anything even approaching bad.

In addition, what ways are there to boost attack rolls? You have proficiency bonus (applies to save DCs), stat mod (applies to save DCs), Bless (Bane works on saves), Magic Items (there are some for save DCs too), Paladin's Sacred Weapon (Bend Luck or similar can impose disadvantage on saves), so... Seems about equal.

Not to mention, attack rolls target AC, always and forever. Saves can be targeted on the opponent's weak save. There is no "weak AC".

[Elric VIII]

... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.

I'm not sure in what world you live, but

• 'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
• Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
• ...

For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...

And, here a magic trick: Same bow, stronger guy does get his arrow further/has more penetration power/ ... then the weaker guy.

So, lets say, you're someone who draws at 40 lb, and thus has a 40 lb bow.
And lets put that bow in the hands of a guy who's able to draw 50 lb bows.

Take of the string and twist it a few times, making it shorter; then put the string back on.
magic: your 40 lb bow is now a 50 lb bow.

Why you're trying to introduce the idea that PCs would be shooting with bows that have a drawweight that doesn't correspond with their strength, is beyond me. Or even "coïncidently" forget to mention what happens if someone tries to shoot with a bow that's too heavy for them ...
Heck you might as well go back to your gun example: yes, strength matters: if you can't handle the kickback, it don't really matter how well you aim.

You seem to be conveniently missing the point about abstraction, but I guess I can't expect much from you.

In earlier editions, it was true that low STR meant less damage with bows. That was dropped for simplicity and balance, not realism.

Do you understand that higher caliber bullets penetrate body armor? It's not that they shoot you better, it's that they get past your protection. Since AC is not just deflection, but dodging ability as well, you cannot say that STR is a strictly better way to model hitting with a bow. How do you not understand the concept of abstraction even a little? At this point I'm just going to assume you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Naanomi]

Those SAD martials are what... non-EK fighters and non-AT rogues (maybe, depending on skill choices)? Everyone else is generally shopping for at least two stats plus CON

[Willie the Duck]

... yeah ... err ... I hate to break it to you, but there's, like, a correlation between lethality and ability to stay in combat.

I'm not sure in what world you live, but

• 'cop killers' are bullets with superious penetration power
• Elephant Rifles - rifles that need to do more damage - are guns with a higher caliber
• ...

For some odd reason, The Real World does tell us power & penetration are important ...

I'm sure you think you are being awfully clever, but I just want to make sure you realize that all these bolded little snipes are reasons for the rest of us not to take you seriously.

Also, cop killer bullets and elephant guns/high caliber weapons are almost diametric opposites. They don't belong in the same example.

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

All non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

Where did I say that everything is the same class to class? I said casters are fine as is. The fighter (exclusively) can be Strength or Dexterity SAD*. That's great. Does that allow the fighter to run away with the game? I've never heard people say that the fighter is the breakout class of 5e (paladins and bards, both decidedly MAD, tend to be the talked-of surprise hits). You're really going to have to flesh out your argument (and what I actually said that is the problem, since I didn't say what you mentioned) before I can respond any better.
*SAD being 'SAD as we all understand, with Con also important, and no one not needing any attributes, since saves and skills based upon them still exist

[Knaight]

A lot of it has to do with the construction of dexterity as a statistic. The six attributes originated in an attempt to reduce the vast majority of character capability to six numbers (skills weren't there yet, saves and attacks are comparatively niche), and that meant that a lot of things had to be bundled together, even if they don't necessarily make a lot of sense. While wisdom is the best example of this being nonsensical, dexterity is probably the best example of this being extremely powerful. Reflexes, gross motor skills, and fine motor skills all have relatively little to do with each other, but they're bundled, and this produces weird effects like archers (who need dexterity because of how it effects aim) also getting to dodge easily with no additional point expenditure, and vice versa.

[robbie374]

Right, like Barbarians, who have no need for anything but Strength!

Wait, they need Constitution and Dexterity too.

Everybody benefits from multiple options, but Barbarians get extra benefit from Con, unlike everyone else. They also get free bonuses to Str and Con at level 20. Also, they can wear armor if they want to, and they can go pure strength if they want: the only disadvantage to Heavy Armor is the loss of Fast Movement, and otherwise they don't have to be Dex-based at all, making them very much SAD. (Remember that for all classes, SAD ignores the need for and value of Con.)

I have been corrected. Barbarians are in the unfortunate position of gaing lots of benefits from all three of Con, Dex, and Str. It is hard to make a SAD barbarian.

And it's not like a Wizard who pumps Intelligence to the exclusion of all else is anything even approaching bad.

But this Wizard certainly stays even more squishy, and is terrible against most spell saves.

In addition, what ways are there to boost attack rolls? You have proficiency bonus (applies to save DCs), stat mod (applies to save DCs), Bless (Bane works on saves), Magic Items (there are some for save DCs too), Paladin's Sacred Weapon (Bend Luck or similar can impose disadvantage on saves), so... Seems about equal.

Attacks and saving throws both get proficiency bonuses and stat mods.
Bless and Bane work on both, but using Concentration is a much higher cost for casters than non-casters.
Attacks have fighting styles to benefit them. There is nothing similar for saving throws.
Magic Items that boost attacks are readily available at a variety of rarities, but for casters, there are only the Robe of the Archmagi and the Rod of the Pact Keeper. The latter only applies to warlocks, and Bards, Clerics, and Druids get nothing at all.
Paladin's Sacred Weapon helps attacks, but not save DCs. This is only for one Oath for Paladins.
Sorcerers get Heightened Spell, and Wild Mage Sorcerers get Bend Luck. These aren't "always on" like most attack bonus buffs, but there's something at least. Attack bonuses also get a benefit from metamagic.

Altogether, there are far more, and far more accessible, ways to improve attacks than saving throw DCs.

Not to mention, attack rolls target AC, always and forever. Saves can be targeted on the opponent's weak save. There is no "weak AC".

Comparing attack and save bonuses against average monster abilities by level, targeting AC is almost always better at all levels in all tiers of play.
The only save that consistently outperforms is Intelligence, ranging from -2% to +6% against AC, but most spells have Dexterity and Wisdom saves.
Dexterity is usually worse than AC, ranging from -7% to +2%.
Wisdom is always worse, ranging from -1% to -15%.
Targeting Con or Str is abysmal, and Cha is between Wis and Dex.

These numbers do not factor in bonuses to attack or saving throws other than proficiency bonus and stat modifiers. The Magic Item benefits and other buffs described above tilt the benefit even more strong in favor of attacks over saving throws.

One could of course argue that the impact of failed saves is a bigger deal than the impact of too-low AC, but likeliness to hit is strongly in favor of attacks.

[robbie374]

Where did I say that everything is the same class to class? I said casters are fine as is. The fighter (exclusively) can be Strength or Dexterity SAD*. That's great. Does that allow the fighter to run away with the game? I've never heard people say that the fighter is the breakout class of 5e (paladins and bards, both decidedly MAD, tend to be the talked-of surprise hits). You're really going to have to flesh out your argument (and what I actually said that is the problem, since I didn't say what you mentioned) before I can respond any better.
*SAD being 'SAD as we all understand, with Con also important, and no one not needing any attributes, since saves and skills based upon them still exist

I mostly agree with you. My main point is that it is easier to make a SAD non-caster than a SAD caster. I think the trade-offs are more consequential for casters. There are lots of ways to make any character MAD, and frequently it is beneficial to do so. I don't think that there is much of a problem as it is, but I think the argument for Dex being too important is closely linked to the importance of Dex for caster AC.

[smcmike]

Also, they can wear armor if they want to, and they can go pure strength if they want: the only disadvantage to Heavy Armor is the loss of Fast Movement,

You need to reread the Barbarian class.

But this Wizard certainly stays even more squishy, and is terrible against most spell saves.

A squishy wizard? The horrors!

[robbie374]

You need to reread the Barbarian class.

A squishy wizard? The horrors!

Oops! I thought there was something in there about heavy armor and rages. I will amend my previous comment.

Yes, wizards are squishy when SAD. Which is fine, and Dex is not as important as the thread suggests.

[JNAProductions]

Barbarians don't get heavy armor proficiency.

Fighting Styles typically give a slight damage boost. Only archery style gives an accuracy boost, and that's there to mitigate cover (which is just pure gravy with Sharpshooter, admittedly).

In addition, you do realize with 27 point buy, with a +1 Int race, you can easily go 12, 12, 12, 16, 11, 11? Ignoring whatever your other stat bonus is. Hell, on a Half-Elf, you can go 12, 12, 12, 16, 12, 13! That's all good stats, with Int being the best, of course.

And, while I agree that there's no Fighting Styles for magic users, saves have a much more debilitating effect than attack rolls do.

[robbie374]

In addition, you do realize with 27 point buy, with a +1 Int race, you can easily go 12, 12, 12, 16, 11, 11? Ignoring whatever your other stat bonus is. Hell, on a Half-Elf, you can go 12, 12, 12, 16, 12, 13! That's all good stats, with Int being the best, of course.

One interesting thing about the whole debate that Dex is too strong is the insistence that everybody needs Dex to get to max AC. In reality, getting high AC through Dex is rather difficult compared to Str. Max AC Str requires only Str 15, whereas Max AC Dex requires Dex 20, and still lags against Str AC. The much maligned Medium Armor is really the way to go, if you can get it, needing only Dex 14, or Dex 16 with Medium Armor Master. The best way to get better AC is to get better armor. Go figure.

Even better than a Half-Elf, a Gnome can get 12, 13, 12, 16, 12, 12, setting up for a better feat option. And a nice boring human can improve it to 13, 13, 13, 16, 12, 12, or one ASI behind at 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11.

[Tanarii]

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same.

This is so back to front, it's a little mind-boggling.

[qube]

I'm sure you think you are being awfully clever, but I just want to make sure you realize that all these bolded little snipes are reasons for the rest of us not to take you seriously.

Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented

I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

In earlier editions, it was true that low STR meant less damage with bows. That was dropped for simplicity and balance, not realism.

I am well awere of that. You will note #87 "To that I also agree. a 'Legolas' should be a better archer then a 'Gimli' - regardless of how it would work IRL.". However, you were making a case for strength not being relevant for RL bows.

you cannot say that STR is a strictly better way to model hitting with a bow. How do you not understand the concept of abstraction even a little?

As for your first line, actually, I would be able to make a case for that: considering the simple fact that better strength = better able to aim without trembling muscles = better aim; while my agility & nimble-fingeredness (to name just a few synonyms of dexterity), are pretty irrelevant for putting the sight over the target).

As for understanding the concept of abstraction: you said it yourself: It represents how long I can stay in the combat. I'm not a professional, but with my experience, when when facing equivalent people - but the person with the stronger bow (and is able to draw it) will have a better chance to kill someone. (even against unarmored opponents, a weak arrow could get stuck in a rib, while a powerful arrow could pierce bone; a weak error could get lodged in your body before it hits a vital organ; while the stronger arrow gets pushed in hard eough to hit it; etc ... you know ... the things that are a low damage die roll).

Heck, consider crossbows. At one time they were banned because they were thought to be too lethal for the knights (well, armor wearing nobility).


You can use other excuses why archery should be dex based - from game balance to fantasy archetypes - but not abstraction. If hit points are an abstraction of how long I can stay in the combat - draw strength has a serious impact on that.

[Easy_Lee]

This is so back to front, it's a little mind-boggling.

It is a bit weird. If a wizard has low Dex and Con but high Int, it isn't the end of the world. If a fighter has low Dex and Con but high Str, it might be. Anyone on the front lines needs higher Con.

[Willie the Duck]

Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented

I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

Ooh. I forgot to respond to that one, thanks!

I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

I see no one here who has any verifiable relevant experience. Unless someone is willing to out their real personage and show their body of experience (at medieval bow archery), it's just one internet person's word. That or give me references, name some books I should be reading (I will do so, if widely available). I'm not going to take yer word for it, there's too many "experts" on forums like this.

I'm not saying that "people who 'think stuff'" isn't a problem, it's just that AFAIC, that contributes equally to both sides.

[Pex]

Perhaps. But do consider that your claim - that my snarkyness is the reason - seems to be contradicted by Beelzebubba, who before my snarkyness, commented

I'm just so glad that the dude with applicable real life experience is being dismissed consistently by the people who 'think stuff'.

It tells me the D&D community I know and love is alive and well.

I thought that was about me. Looked insulting at first but then another read through led to a praise interpretation. I just let it go.

Very well done.

[Tanarii]

As for your first line, actually, I would be able to make a case for that: considering the simple fact that better strength = better able to aim without trembling muscles = better aim; while my agility & nimble-fingeredness (to name just a few synonyms of dexterity), are pretty irrelevant for putting the sight over the target).

It might help if you stop using synonyms for the English word dexterity. Not And start thinking in terms of the D&D ability score Dexterity.

[strangebloke]

DEX is an abstraction. DEX is connected to 'dexterity' only insofar as they are cognates.

DEX is a abstract character attribute that refers to a character's natural (untrained) ability to do things that require DEX. It's a self-defining statblock. So we shouldn't be asking 'does it make sense to use DEX for archery?', but rather 'what must DEX comprise in order to be the unifying factor between these various checks?'

STR is used for:
full-body aerobic strength (The ability to bear up under heavy burdens and move ably in heavy armor)
cardio (athletics)
full-body anaerobic strength (melee combat with most weapons, wrestling, lifting heavy loads, STR saves)

DEX is used for:
reaction time (initiative, DEX saves)
anaerobic core strength. (acrobatics)
anaerobic upper arm and back strength (ranged weapons, as well as acrobatics to a lesser extent)
precision (finesse weaponry)

In reality, these concepts are close together and there's much overlap between them. that distinguishing between them is pointless. But if I had to draw a distinction, I would do it thusly: STR is general physical aptitude. DEX is lean, specialized muscle gained through training for a specifc task. (like fighting, or backflipping, or shooting)

Yes, it's totally unrealistic, with these definitions, to have a 16 DEX 8 STR elf maiden that can shoot a longbow 4 times in the span of 6 seconds. What do you want from me?

[Vogonjeltz]

As far as I understand it, feats are optional rules. So leaving those aside for a second...

Two fighters start off. Fighter (A) is Str16 Dex10 Con16. Fighter (B) is Str 10 Dex16 Con16.
Fighter (A) uses a longsword and shield
Fighter (B) uses a rapier and shield

Fighter (A) gets +2 Str. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 athletic skill checks, +1 strength saves
Fighter (A) can eventually get fullplate, for a max AC of 21.

Fighter (B) gets +2 Dex. This gives him +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 initiative, +1 dex skills, +1 dex saves
Fighter (B) with studded leather has a max AC of 20.

Between the two, dexterity just seems downright better. Sure, Fighter (A) could grab a great sword and pick up great weapon master, but Fighter (B) could just as easily pick up sharpshooter.

But between the two, just looking at stats...Str seems to get the short end of the stick. Did the designers really think that +1 max AC is worth losing out on one of the best saves, many skills, and initiative?

And furthermore...is there anything from the designers on this? Because I'm used to pathfinder, where getting dex to damage means jumping through several flaming hoops with your shoe laces tied together and an angry badger mauling your face. It isn't easy. Here, it is just offered up to you.

Hell...even using a bow, which normally requires alot of strength, only uses dex now.

Am I missing something?

Your analysis valuation is way off.

First, Dexterity saves are the least important saves (despite their frequency) they, in virtually every case, boil down to less damage taken in a one off instance. Strength saves on the other hand, although less frequent, are virtually all to avoid an ongoing condition. That is far more important a save to make, especially for a Fighter.

Second, Strength checks are used both offensively and defensively in combat, Dexterity checks can only be used defensively. That means Dexterity has only half the capability of Strength in combat, that's a big deal.

And, although there's nothing wrong with using a bow, it gets disdvantage on attacks when enemies are 5 feet away. Unless it's a shoot out, I can't imagine why that wouldn't occur.

That doesn't even get into Encumberance, the difference between 8 str and 20 is 180lbs, it could mean the difference between additional loot, additional provisions, being able to execute maneuvers against an enemy, or even rescuing an ally from a bad situation.

Lastly, the main purpose of initiative is to be able to extricate yourself from a bad situation before anything actually happens. If you're planning on fighting, then the turn order rarely makes a meaningful difference (and virtually all of the disadvantages can be negated fully by the Alert feat).

[Unoriginal]

I'm cool with decisions and weighing priorities.

AllAlmost all non-casters can be SAD, having a single score they can prioritize over all others. No casters can be SAD, doing the same. Non-casters can max their favorite stat and then have fun with feats or secondary stats to their hearts' content. Casters have to sacrifice already weak survivability to do the same, or don't get a shot at expanding their characters.They can sometimes spend extra actions and reactions burning limited spell slots to help out. On top of that, there are lots of ways for martials to improve their attack bonuses, and almost none for casters with save DCs.

How is this balanced?

Martials are OP! How dare Warriors of the Coast make it so that the casters are good at spells but are fragile and limited in other ways, especially in regular combat?

This is hyperbolic sarcasm, I know, but still. The principle of balance is that all the classes get to shine at different points, not to have them all do great at the same points.

Hard decisions are great, but don't ignore the facts that martials have to make many fewer.

I've no problem with people thinking this is fine and there is no problem, but don't pretend that everything's the same class to class.

"everything's the same class to class" does not mean "balanced".

[Easy_Lee]

Acting first in combat is a big deal if you need to cast a spell to prepare for combat. Winning initiative against a dragon can save a wizard or druid from immediately getting KO'd by its breath attack.

Speaking of dexterity saves, they're much more important the less HP your class has. Barbarians, especially raging bear totem ones, can fail a few dexterity saves and keep going. A wizard, as above, might only need to fail one to go unconscious.

Strength is better in melee combat than dexterity, but dexterity is better at range. Considering there are several ways to avoid disadvantage in melee on ranged attacks, and even more ways to stay out of melee range to begin with, dexterity is by no means inferior in combat.

I don't think there's a problem with dexterity versus the other stats. But I had to set the record straight.

[thereaper]

The OP seems to be missing something. It's not strength that is poor; it's longsword and shield on a Fighter. That combination is for Paladins.

[Bahamut7]

On a side note, in 4e, you could use Dex or Int to boost your AC if you wore light armor as this implied you were smart enough to react ahead of time. 4e also had 3 other defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) that could be boosted by 1 of 2 stats. For example, Fortitude could be boosted by Strength or Constitution.

The problem is that all other systems in D&D did not use this and therefore, Dex has become this OP stat that in most cases mean you cannot ignore. When you have choices, you can have variety and better RP.