Why was dex made so powerful?

[arck]

Prof + Str to hit and Str to damage for bows makes significantly more sense than Dex not mattering at all.

Yes, you need to be able to hit the target - but that's what your proficiency represents. Training is what gives you proper aim (of any stats to add to that, I guess Int or Wis would make the most sense), dexterity is very abstract to apply to that.

At the very least, I don't know why they didn't make bows something that could be used with Str or Dex like finesse weapons. It makes no sense that strength doesn't confer any benefit to using a bow.

Simply because Str does not increase the damage of an arrow if you have drawn the bow to the limit, which although requiring str, does not require much str, in this case the bow works similar to a gun, it is not you that gives the damage, you Just aim where it hurts most. I agree that this requires proficiency, but dexterity is essential, any trembling changes the course, you have to have precision and patience.

[Cybren]

Simply because Str does not increase the damage of an arrow if you have drawn the bow to the limit, which although requiring str, does not require much str, in this case the bow works similar to a gun, it is not you that gives the damage, you Just aim where it hurts most. I agree that this requires proficiency, but dexterity is essential, any trembling changes the course, you have to have precision and patience.

This is a shoddy post-hoc justification.

[lperkins2]

This is a shoddy post-hoc justification.

Being stronger in no way lets you do more damage with a bow, provided you have enough strength to pull the bow to full draw. Being stronger does let you use a heavier bow, and does marginally increase accuracy, since you can hold the bow steady longer. Assuming you get a bow with a draw strength best suited to you, does it do more damage than a weaker bow? Not really.

It will have a marginally longer maximum range, since the arrow will have a marginally higher initial velocity, but it will also experience increased wind resistance, and slow down to just above the velocity of the weaker bow fairly quickly.

On a soft target, the terminal ballistics are also rather similar. Once the arrow head enters the target, there is a great deal of friction along the shaft of the arrow. Again, the resistance increases exponentially with velocity, so the penetration depth only increases a little with increased velocity. If you are at a short enough range for there to be a sizable velocity difference based on the power of the bow, the weaker bow is likely to penetrate all the way through the target, at which point the more powerful bow is not increasing the wound channel at all.

This is not to say that stronger bows are worthless, but they only really do much good against a hard target. The stronger bow can shoot arrows with heavier shafts and heavier heads, these heads can better penetrate armour, and the stronger shaft is less likely to shatter on impact (thereby wasting its kinetic energy).

If you wanted to overly complicate the rules, you could let a stronger character using a properly matched bow ignore a point or two of a target's AC, assuming the target AC was natural armour or heavy armour, but that hardly seems worth the hassle.

Edit: Just thought of a slightly less bad solution. You could impose a minimum strength requirement to use different types of bows, with +1 bows having a higher strength requirement.

[Doorhandle]

Am I missing something?

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications.

In 3.5, choosing dex-focus for a melee build had some trade-offs: it cost a feat to be at all viable, and often did less damage. However, it had benefits: such as better touch A.C, better lategame A.C, initiative and reflex saves.

In 5th it's a simple as picking up a finesse weapon, which meant that dex was suddenly increased in value: but it still aids initiative, A.C, and dex saves. So gotten more powerful for no tradeoff.

It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills.

Granted, for reasons that have already been covered it's not as unbalancing at it looks, but it sure looks unbalanced.

note: Not mentioning 4th edition because it was a non-issue there, as fourth worked very differently from other editions: basically everyone had an offensive start but it could be anything.

[qube]

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications.

In 3.5, choosing dex-focus for a melee build had some trade-offs: it cost a feat to be at all viable, and often did less damage. However, it had benefits: such as better touch A.C, better lategame A.C, initiative and reflex saves.

considering the mighty composite longbow, archer damage was still strength dependant

[mephnick]

It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills.

Eh, there's 3 Dex skills. Sleight of Hand almost never comes up and serves very few character concepts, Acrobatics is only good for evading grapples which ideally you won't be in and Stealth only serves a few class concepts. Athletics and STR checks are worth more than all 3 put together, unless stealth is mandatory for you (Assassin etc). Climbing, jumping, swimming, breaking doors, breaking bonds are all universally useful adventuring skills.

[toapat]

considering the mighty composite longbow, archer damage was still strength dependant

again, Strength is a floor on bows, not an actual conversion to your ability to deal damage with a bow. a Modern compound bow could utilize a 300 lb draw weight assuming you had fins welded to solid aluminum rods so the bow wouldnt simply shear through your projectile. It matters where you can put that arrow much more than how much energy the bow is able to store on a full draw.

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damage, because characters only gained a few pounds of maximum load, which more than half of that energy is wasted on bow deformation and not put into arrow acceleration. Recurve bows are somewhat more effective at deformation storage but nothing compared to modern compound bows which waste very little on arm deformation and instead store most of their energy through the cam rotation, bearings, and home spring.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it's the result of allowing Dex to damage without considering the implications.

Yes. While I'd like to see the monk retain the dex/str options for martial arts, I think you have put your finger on it.

In 5th it's a simple as picking up a finesse weapon, which meant that dex was suddenly increased in value: but it still aids initiative, A.C, and dex saves. So gotten more powerful for no tradeoff.

Not as much trade off, yeah, though there are still no two handed dex weapons beyond the two handers (monk weapons) monks use.

It doesn't help that there aren't a lot of strength skills, but there's plenty of dex skills.

Yeah, though there are a lot of applications of the strength skills in the dungeon, to include door opening, bar bending, and the grapple/shove combat actions.

The flip side of this has to do with accuracy:
I can shoot a pistol at a target all day, but without accuracy, do little to no damage. I heard from a firearms instructor the following:

"Speed is fine but accuracy is final."

I personally find that two handed (heavy) weapon damage is too low, though GWF goes a little way toward alleviating that.

[qube]

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damage

firstly composite bow (dating back to ancient times), not Compound bow (invented in 1966) .

Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

[Naanomi]

DEX and STR and Skill 'should' matter for damage of all weapons; but as an abstraction I'd say hitting an important spot (via DEX) is more important for arrow damage than penetration

[KorvinStarmast]

DEX and STR and Skill 'should' matter for damage of all weapons; but as an abstraction I'd say hitting an important spot (via DEX) is more important for arrow damage than penetration

Hmm. With arrow damage, penetration is everything.

[Naanomi]

Hmm. With arrow damage, penetration is everything.

Everything? So 18'' of penetration in the foot should do more damage than 6'' of penetration in the eye?

[Haldir]

Vastly overrated, it's honestly insane. Going first is a detriment in a lot of cases now that Delay doesn't exist and the Ready action being so costly.

People actually play with those silly restrictions? This is the one no-brainer as far as houserules go. Honestly, one of the only really foolish and thoughtless things that 5e does. Reminds me of imposing hit penalties to two weapon fighting in 3.P.

[Easy_Lee]

Everything? So 18'' of penetration in the foot should do more damage than 6'' of penetration in the eye?

Assuming an equally competent archer, more penetrating power is better (to a point). People make a big deal about aim, but it's more a matter of practice and being able to hold the bow steady than natural coordination, as I understand it. One of the best archers in the world looks like someone's mildly overweight fisherman uncle, and he can shoot an aspirin out of the air.

[mephnick]

People actually play with those silly restrictions? This is the one no-brainer as far as houserules go. Honestly, one of the only really foolish and thoughtless things that 5e does. Reminds me of imposing hit penalties to two weapon fighting in 3.P.

I'm glad 5e got rid of Delay. It was slow and annoying. Every combat became a "I delay." "I delay." "I delay." If you want that slow Seal Team 6 feel you can use Side Initiative.

* I'd think about Ready not using a reaction though, since it's already limited.

[Doug Lampert]

again, Strength is a floor on bows, not an actual conversion to your ability to deal damage with a bow. a Modern compound bow could utilize a 300 lb draw weight assuming you had fins welded to solid aluminum rods so the bow wouldnt simply shear through your projectile. It matters where you can put that arrow much more than how much energy the bow is able to store on a full draw.

In Pre-4E editions of DnD its frankly absurd that Compound Bows with heavier draws actually increased damage, because characters only gained a few pounds of maximum load, which more than half of that energy is wasted on bow deformation and not put into arrow acceleration. Recurve bows are somewhat more effective at deformation storage but nothing compared to modern compound bows which waste very little on arm deformation and instead store most of their energy through the cam rotation, bearings, and home spring.

The Mary Rose salvage effort completely changed our view of longbows, because prior to that you found all kinds of modern archer's who'd swear backward and forward that a bow with that heavy a draw was completely unusable in the field in practice and that the recorded draw weights were pure fiction.

Then we got examples of actual bows in good enough shape to figure out the original draw. In fact, the draws on those bows are never as LOW as 100lb. The skeletons of the archers show noticeable deformation from the stress of training to draw those bows. They drilled for a lifetime to be able to do that, and yet here you are claiming that all that effort to get the maximum possible draw-weight was almost meaningless.

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.

[Naanomi]

High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley types

[Pex]

I'm glad 5e got rid of Delay. It was slow and annoying. Every combat became a "I delay." "I delay." "I delay." If you want that slow Seal Team 6 feel you can use Side Initiative.

* I'd think about Ready not using a reaction though, since it's already limited.

People wanting to delay is evidence that initiative is overrated. Not everyone wants to go first.

[Aeson]

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.

As long as the arrow penetrates the target's armor in more than a minimal sense, the nature and severity of the injury (the "damage") inflicted has more to do with the type of munition (size and shape of the head, whether or not the head is barbed, etc) than with the draw weight of the bow. The high draw weight of historical bows and crossbows has more to do with a desire for a high effective range than with a desire to increase the "damage" that the bows and crossbows were capable of inflicting.

That being said, the distinction between armor penetration and "damage" is blurry in the real world and often overlooked in games, particularly those with relatively simple combat mechanics.

High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley types

A person whose muscles have been developed for drawing (or bending) a bow is not going to have the same build as the stereotypical 'muscley' type anyways. You aren't using all the same muscles, and you aren't using them in the same way.

[Easy_Lee]

People wanting to delay is evidence that initiative is overrated. Not everyone wants to go first.

I wonder if it would make more sense to roll initiative as a group, so the group with the highest roll goes first. If party wins then party goes, monsters go, then party, then monsters. That might encourage more teamwork, people helping with each others' actions rather than doing their own thing and not paying attention on others' turns. It would also reduce the power of dexterity, since you wouldn't need everyone in the party to have high initiative for the party to go first.

[Sindeloke]

Why are we making this distinction between armor penetration and damage to begin with? In D&D the two are profoundly conflated. Wearing armor does not, and never has, prevent someone from hitting you in the real world; it simply reduces the impact of a hit. In D&D it somehow provides avoidance, while hit points represent your ability to mitigate damage that makes actual contact. Consequently, even if an arrow from a heavier draw ignores more damage mitigation in the real world rather than doing more damage to the body, in D&D you represent that by increasing its potency against hit points, the default form of damage mitigation.

Actual real-world damage to the body doesn't have a direct correlation in D&D, unless maybe it's Con damage. Hit points cover a whole weird mishmash of concepts and can reasonably be used for literally any form of increased weapon effectiveness.

[Toofey]

I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex? I can't imagine doing so in 5E with respectable Con, unless you dumb all your mental stats - and that seems incredibly boring.

Just 2 maxed stats with decent con requires max level and doesn't leave much room for feats. How were previous editions with this?

*Puts on 2nd ed hat*

Stat advancement? What are you talking about?

[Naanomi]

A person whose muscles have been developed for drawing (or bending) a bow is not going to have the same build as the stereotypical 'muscley' type anyways. You aren't using all the same muscles, and you aren't using them in the same way.

Yes, muscles I'd argue are represented more by DEX than STR (for example, not 'weight capacity' type muscles)

[Pex]

I wonder if it would make more sense to roll initiative as a group, so the group with the highest roll goes first. If party wins then party goes, monsters go, then party, then monsters. That might encourage more teamwork, people helping with each others' actions rather than doing their own thing and not paying attention on others' turns. It would also reduce the power of dexterity, since you wouldn't need everyone in the party to have high initiative for the party to go first.

The trade off is action economy. There is a difference between one side doing all their actions then the other side compared to mixing it up of individuals of each side doing their thing. Focus fire is a big deal. One side could focus all their attacks against one opponent who could then be killed off before he gets to do anything or anyone on his side to prevent it or save him. Even if not killed he's close enough to death he needs to take a defensive action instead of the offensive action he was going to do.

[Easy_Lee]

The trade off is action economy. There is a difference between one side doing all their actions then the other side compared to mixing it up of individuals of each side doing their thing. Focus fire is a big deal. One side could focus all their attacks against one opponent who could then be killed off before he gets to do anything or anyone on his side to prevent it or save him. Even if not killed he's close enough to death he needs to take a defensive action instead of the offensive action he was going to do.

I suppose it would work better in a system with more reactions, so players and creatures could defend each other.

[Elric VIII]

The Mary Rose salvage effort completely changed our view of longbows, because prior to that you found all kinds of modern archer's who'd swear backward and forward that a bow with that heavy a draw was completely unusable in the field in practice and that the recorded draw weights were pure fiction.

Then we got examples of actual bows in good enough shape to figure out the original draw. In fact, the draws on those bows are never as LOW as 100lb. The skeletons of the archers show noticeable deformation from the stress of training to draw those bows. They drilled for a lifetime to be able to do that, and yet here you are claiming that all that effort to get the maximum possible draw-weight was almost meaningless.

Yeah, I'll take the guys who actually did it. They put in their records that draw weight mattered and was around 150lb, we now have evidence that they draw weight was around 150lb, and that they put a lot of effort into making it that heavy.

We also know that crossbows, with quite similar physics, used the absolute heaviest draw they could manage within the method used to span a particular bow. And heavier span bows used things like winches which crippled rate of fire, again senseless unless the guys building and using these weapons for real knew something you don't.

Just going to throw this out there: the benefit of a heavier draw is a longer lethal range. There is a point where it doesn' t matter how fast the arrow is going if you are close enough to the target. A 100lb now will do the same amount of "damage" as a 150lb now if your target is only 10 feet away. It's the 200 foot target that will take more "damage" from the 150lb now.

This is modeled by the range increment difference between a longbow and shortbow. AC and HP don't represent armor and meat. They both serve as a gamist abstraction of your ability to survive/dodge/block/absorb lethal blows.

[qube]

High strength 'should' have an effect on overcoming armorclass; but from a thematic standpoint I don't see either historical or fictional 'archer' types to be folks with 20+Strength; even given the 'deformation of skeletons' and all that... not do modern competitive sports or hunting archers (which I totally acknowledge is not the same thing). *Conceptually* archers are more associated with fast elves and sneaky Robin Hoods, not muscley types

To that I also agree. a 'Legolas' should be a better archer then a 'Gimli' - regardless of how it would work IRL.

> I'm curious about older editions. How exactly did stat advancement work
> if you were trying to raise both Strength and Dex?

*Puts on 2nd ed hat*

Stat advancement? What are you talking about?

*Puts on 3nd /3.5ed hat*
- 6 different items that give up to +6 on a certain ability scores
- 1 ability score with 1 point every 4 levels
- VERY expensive one-time use books that give a permanent +5 bonus (does not stack with other books)

(so the latter two were only used on the main ability score
A "standard" high level adventurer had 30-ish on his main stat.(16 from point buy, +2 racial, +6 item = 24, with a book and level stat increases)


Oh, and shout out to monster races & templates that gave huge racial bonusses (half dragon or centaur cost you a number of levels (think of it as multicalssing in a race instead of a class), but gave you, like, +8 on strength and other bonusses)


Edit:

Just going to throw this out there: the benefit of a heavier draw is a longer lethal range. There is a point where it doesn' t matter how fast the arrow is going if you are close enough to the target. A 100lb now will do the same amount of "damage" as a 150lb now if your target is only 10 feet away. It's the 200 foot target that will take more "damage" from the 150lb now.

I can only repeat myself:

Secondly, considering I have actually shot many different bow of various poundage, and pull out even more arrows out of targets - allow me to humbly disagree that it would be absured that there's a correlation between draw strength and damage. I sure as heck could feel the difference between a bow shot by a normal newbie bow (what I presume would be 10 str) and the guys with the heaviest bows (which I would presume to be 14-16 str; we're not talking about Dwane Thhe Rock Johnsons here)

(talking about targets of about 50 ft distance)

[Elric VIII]

The point is that degree of penetration is less related to "damage" than determining if penetration happens at all. An arrow penetrating 6" into your chest isn't realistically doing less to hurt you than the one that penetrates 12" instead. They are both taking you out of fighting condition. I do not deny that a stronger pull imparts more energy, I'm arguing that the most important part of a heavier draw is that the range of minimum penetration for lethality increases.

Think of it like this: the M40 sniper rifle fires 7.62x51 and has an effective range of 800m. The Mk12 rifle fires 5.56x45 and has an effective range of 600m. if I hold a M40 up to your head, you will be just as dead as if I hold a Mk12 that close. It doesn't matter how much more firepower 7.62 ammo has at that range. It's the 600-800m range where the difference in firepower matters. And this is covered by disadvantage at range.

[Saiga]

It'd also be covered by Strength to hit.

[Unoriginal]

Not to disrespect anyone's experience, but has anyone actually seen DEX being better than STR in practice?

So far it seems more that the arguments for DEX being that powerful are either theorycrafting that ignores what STR does or DMs deciding to houserule things that makes STR less relevant or DEX more important.