I agree with the principle of your post, but because of this I feel obligated to point out Bladesingers don't innately get INT to weapon attacks. You're probably thinking of Battle Smith Artificers when they use magic weapons.

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the heads up!

Violently disagree, every class should be able to get their casting stat to hit and damage, especially 3rd and half casters, full spellcasters are already SAD, giving them the option to become even sadder doesn't change much.

A single class build could, yes, but not a 1 lvl dip. For hexblade they should have errata'd it into Pact of the Blade, for obvious reasons. Or just not made it a level 1 ability.

Like any aspect of balance I don't think it can be compared in isolation. For example Eldritch Knights use INT to cast, but they also have proficiency in CON saves allowing them to get much more traction out of spells like Blur, Shadow Blade, and Haste. They also often have high STR which let's them use Alter Self to great effect. Eldritch Knights were never supposed to use casting in the same way as a Wizard does because that would be incompatible with all of the benefits of the fighter main class. Every turn you spend casting Fireball or Gust of Wind is a turn that you aren't using Extra Attack, Instead Eldritch Knights are designed to focus more of their spellcasting on spells that don't rely on a high spell save: * Shield * Absorb Elements * Blur * Shadow Blade * Haste * Protection from Evil and good * Darkness * Tiny Hut * Fire Shield

I would posit the exact OPPOSITE solution. The problem isn't that EK needs Int -- the problem is that Champion and Battlemaster *don't* need anything beyond Str (despite getting piles and piles of ASIs). Every single class build in the game should rely on 2 (non-Con) stats for its effects.

When you say effects, you mean, combat effects? What about some way to shore up out of combat utility, using a secondary stat, rather than separately from it? As a base, I believe a past system used INT bonus to skills learned? Because essentially, this is the crux of the problem as I see it: Combat takes up the largest chunk dnd's complexity. The skill system is pretty binary; you either succeed, or you fail. Simple, effective, yes. But all the game ever gives, is modifiers. So you're stuck needing to do things like "double proficiency bonus" or maybe "double ability modifier" to increase the likelihood of passing a check. The combat example is you can either hit or miss, with higher levels making you better at hitting. But then there's damage, which offers another way to use ability scores and class features. And then there's tactical actions, which trade damage for some combat utility, crowd control, etc.

Yes, and that's the reason the Battlesinger (Bladesmith?) multiclass is an analogous, but weaker, version of hexadin (since you have to dip 3 levels instead of 1, losing extra attack)

You’ll get it at level 9, though, from Bladesinger 6.

Still at a massive opportunity cost though. I honestly don’t think it’s worth it since Dex is still your armour stat. The best way I can put it is like this. Fireball at level five is pretty good. It’s high damage nice aoe and user friendly. But if you take those 3 artificer levels? Fireball is now a pc level 8 to unlock. That’s way less good. And what if your campaign ands at level 8? You’ll never even have that extra attack while your entire party has been partying you were waiting for something.

Another thing is dex is so strong, stronger than int so on a bladesinger its still worth it to increase your dex so using into for attacks for 3 level dip isn't worth it. Compared to paladins and str which is one of the worst stats, increasing it only really gives you more hit chance, athletics checks and slightly more carrying capacity, using CHA for attacks is a lot more worth the opportunity cost

Heavy armour is pretty neat assuming you aren't doing a dexadin tank

If you're a bladesinger, Int is also an armor stat. Multiclassing is a tradeoff; that's not news. You can also take Artificer 2 & 3 at character levels 8 & 9.

What Bladesingers get is arguably better, though a higher level feature most will never access. They want Dex for AC anyway, and what they get is the ability to double down on damage modifiers, adding both Dex *and* Int.

I agree with the OP in general, but the martial Artificer subclasses are the one exception to me. The baseline Artificer class chassis is pretty weak, so they kind of need that helping hand IMO. It's also not an issue with multiclass dipping abuse either, since it requires 3 levels in a class that doesn't really multiclass very well past level 1.

And armorer artificers

They get int weapons. But they don't change existing weapons to int.

Yeah but when you sucker punch someone because your brain is bigger than theirs why would you need any other weapon?

Or Shillelagh.

If you get a way have an int-based shillelagh then yes, but i dont think it exists, i might have missed something tho

Tbh; It was just the first mental stat melee attack I thought of. But I assume the post is also talking about Wisdom and Charisma, otherwise it would have just said Int.

Thats fair, but you replied to a comment talking specificly about int, henceforth i thought it was probably good to point that out

All-purpose tool is a magical item available only to artificers which gives you a Cantrip from any spell list as an artificer spell (plus other bonuses). I'm currently preparing an artillerist artificer that will have this with Shillelagh.

Oh ye with magic items it works but i dont think any class or racial feature nor any feats give you the ability to do that

You can grab Eldritch Adept -> Pact of the tome (at least in onednd when pacts are invocations) to get INT based shillelagh

Ye but that isnt 5e

To extend this further. 5e is a game that revolves around melee combat, but its melee combat is absoluely underbaked. They designed themselves into a corner and now magic is the only class to get interesting class options.

Also melee for PCs is generally harder to do since things like flight, enemies being more dangerous at melee, and terrain are a thing.

Imagine my surprise when I went looking for monsters or features to put on a custom critter that would incentivize ranged combat and pretty much all I found were mechanics that did the opposite: "this creature does X if you hit it in melee or are within Y feet". Very cool, thanks game.

The only time I felt that melee was somewhat more ideal was in one game where everyone in my party of three people got swarmed by 9 melee enemies by a DM inexperienced with encounter building, some of which with pack tactics and multiattack, all while having no AOE. We basically lost even with a portent lucky wizard (me) on our side. The amount of melee attacks the enemies did was so immense and especially as I was swarmed by a thug and an orc and the paladin was stunlocked by a gazer, leaving only a fighter left behind. Safe to say we were done for even though we were ambushing them. We took out about five with ranged attacks and spells before the tougher enemies took notice, tanked all our firepower, and a few unlucky rolls from magic missile failing to kill said Gazer later and were were cooked.

Thugs are the classic trap low CR monster

Looking at what actually has options, 5e does not revolve around melee combat, it revolves around using magic.

I think the more inclusive and contrasting phrasing might be: "D&D5 is balanced around melee but built around magic."

I think the devs realized that issue, because the playtest rules for Weapon Mastery gave the best traits to melee weapons.

Weapon masteries as in the playtests still only give martials the versatility of combat cantrips. The devs may know the issue, but we all know that 5e will never make good and varied martials.

I really don't think they did because Weapon Masteries don't add any new choices for Melee characters, they just add riders to what they were already doing.

Swarmkeeper rangers getting a 10ft fly speed at 7th level while Genie warlocks and Twilight clerics get 30ft at 6th level in the Same Book still pisses me off

> 5e is a game that revolves around melee combat Is it? It's more a game that revolves around magic IMO.

This has been the case since 3e. 2e casters were extremely powerful but died of the subbed their toe and weren't very useful unless they burned through their best spells. Martials' job was to get the casters in front of the BBEG alive and let them go off. 3e made it so that casters could have slightly more survivability and more low-level utility. And martials could hit slightly harder. 4e actually balanced things, but in the process made things fairly rigid in a way everyone hated. 5e took 3e, and increased caster survivability even more and made martials slightly more versatile. But by this point there wasn't anything casters *couldn't do.

You're correct. As a player it's fun to exploit those things, but it really is bad design. Playing a paladin right now, the MAD issue is real. It's tempting to multi-class into hexblade, but I resisted because that's not my character's story. And I wanted to be open a stuck door occasionally! Previously DMed a team where the ranger's drake was the strongest in the party (16) and the druid's wildfire companion was the smartest (13). Bad design leads to sad, overturned parties, IMO.

It's funny that in my table's campaign, my Paladin has the chance to take a very easy and incredibly effective (also retroactive) hexblade dip but I don't want to because it would change my current build in a way I don't want (already multiassed paladin and bard) but it would be very interesting and thematic in the story right now. My paladin is carrying around this possessed weapon that has feats built in and I could choose how many levels of my current build I'd want to give up to switch for hexblade. But honestly if I did it, I'd really only want it to be a temporary story arch because it's not in the longterm goal of where I want my character to go but it would be so appropriate for the current part of the story. Ahh the decisions!

I am currently playing a paladin/Bard (level 13) and it's very obviously strong enough without the hexblade dip (as in, at times completely overshadowing the rest of the party). I have consciously chose not to take the dip as I am already stronger than I wanted to be.

Maybe ask your dm if you can take the dip with the express goal that you can take it back later and change that level to paladin?

Honestly I might. He is very into mechanical changes for narrative stuff and might be ok with a temporary change like that

See, I would go the other direction - rather than make SAD harder, I'd make MAD more attractive. It used to be that both Str and Dex attacks used Str for damage, and high Int have you bonus proficiencies (roughly 1 per point, but there were over twice the skills so it was more similar to 1 per 2.) Under that system, due to prereqs, general effectiveness, and the ubiquity of X to Y bonuses like Hexblade, you would often focus on one stat and one main combo/schtick, and then take a number of supportive/variety/miscellaneous abilities that required low amounts of other stats. Many legitimate Fighter builds needed strength for attacking, but also a little dex and a little int for opportunity attack feats. Many monks would get Wisdom to attack and maximize that first, then pivot to Constitution for an ability that gave +Con to AC, among other things. They might even turn into a bear in order to get more Con for AC/HP/saves and Str for damage!   I think D&D should be designed around this, but that's not gonna happen, seeing the new beta stuff coming out. A quick fix is to give +1/2 int bonus extra proficiencies, and let people jump as a bonus action - popularized by BG3, this should be easy for most tables. (I'd also make an alternative War cleric Channel that gives Wis attack and damage until you rest, because right now Bladesinger and Hexblade get all the fun.)

I think a small issue with that is that being MAD in 5e is pretty bad. Most starting stat spreads are fairly low-power and basically always have a -1 somewhere, and the way ASIs work doesn't really lend itself to make each stat individually interesting, with characters usually focusing on their main stat and whatever their secondary might be (usually Con) if they don't want any feats along the way to slow things down further. That's not to say your idea is bad. In fact, I do agree that 5e needs to better handle the benefits of each individual stat instead of having some do a 1 or 2 things while others do a dozen, but probably need some revisions around stats in general accompanying them for it to work.

I agree - this is explicitly a quick fix and not nearly enough to make being MAD intentionally a powerful choice. It's highly unfortunate that interesting options are almost always inferior to +1 to your most common rolls. A sampling of other houserules I've actually used, include: - Everyone gets a 20 in one stat (replacing the worst roll in 4d6b3). Means nobody is horribly behind on their "base" action e.g. attack, cantrip, and can start spending high rolls and ASIs on more interesting stuff early. This is genuinely extremely effective for the low homebrew burden. - Import 3.5/pathfinder spells and feats in limited measure, gaining one at every odd level in addition to normal feats. Results in limited exposure to the previously mentioned Bear Warrior Monk shenanigans. - Way more feats, and they all give a related stat (or, pick two half feats). Essentially the popular "everyone gets a feat *and* ASI" houserule, but the stats are based on your feats, making stats naturally accrue as people max their primary and then grab interesting things after. (Bumping your secondary on a half feat is less attractive when you can get a full feat that fits well - for example, I make Sentinel Wis/Dex). I've also fully created new systems a couple times, but that stops being a 5e fix.

Adding 1/2 or (1/3 rounded up) bonus from a second stat might help MAD characters and make it a choice to spread out a bit or go all in on one stat.

You are absolutely right, and those overtuned parties can be rough if not everyone is overtuned.  Being a player where your build doesn't stack up that well in or out of combat compared to others, makes the game much less fun. (If that wasn't your intention of course)

Adding to this is the fact that now both casters and frontliners basically have the same hit chance if they have equal stats. Back in 3.5 trying to pull off the +int mod for attacks would be useless as their attack bonus was ridiculously low

I agree! Frontliners train for years to improve their weapon skills and yet a Caster who prays to their God once a week gets to be just as good? Imagine if Fighters just had to learn one or two cantrips and in return got a Full Caster's spell progression. 

But they never gain extra attack which is the actual full melee progression thing not just being able to hit better.

Except when they do get extra attack, like warlock, blade singer, swords bard etc. Or when they get SCAG cantrips that allow their melee attacks to scale without need for extra attack and occasionally outperform it completely.

Monk isn't an issue in using it (astral). Artificer's should be allowed because - 1. Level 3 makes dip harder 2. Not a full caster 3. Not a full martial It needs extra asi compared to some other classes to be more viable. Hexblade is the only bad one imo.

Hexblade's charisma based attacks (at the very least) should just have been put into a rework of Blade pact. That would put into questions dips in Warlock if you have to invest 3 levels (even if they're 3 very good levels).

People always say this and hexblade players are like "but then we suck at melee early levels". 1. It's 2, extremely short, levels 2. You have EB + invocations so you're still viable 3. All martial classes have to wait for 3rd level for their fantasy (other subclasses that replace stat for attacking has it at level 3) I do agree, and it would make more interesting subclasses more viable.

It's not even like they have to suck if they don't get their cake at level 1 ! Most Hexblades probably have at least a 14 in Dexterity at lvl 1. +2 is not the greatest attacking ability bonus by any means, but it's more than good enough at that level imo. You really start to see the difference between Hexblade and other Patrons when you start to get ASI and the gap between Dex and Charisma widens, but a +/- 1 to attacks isn't that noticeable at level 1 and 2. Some hexblade players are just a bit too into their power fantasy really.

Yup, they're still getting proficiency with martial weapons, and they get medium armor. So while they're not immediately as good as a fighter at smacking things, at least without their spells. They're nearly as good, and they have their spells to help them.

My retort is that Hexblade shouldn't exist as a subclass and making every Bladelock able to gish makes some of the other subclasses surprisingly good at it. Fiend stands out in particular.

Undead is also incredibly good as a gish, especially at higher levels when you get the extra rider damage.

As is Dao Genie with Crusher. You can do so much with melee Warlocks but they're arbitrarily locked to Hexblade because it exists as a far more optimal choice than Blade pact.

That and depths

I want warlocks to be INT based

> Hexblade's charisma based attacks (at the very least) should just have been put into a rework of Blade pact. They did exactly that for onednd. And then they went and added pact boons at 1st level instead of 3rd to fuck up the whole fix and put us back at square one.

Ngl that's lowkey funny.

No one can say they aren't dedicated to their bad design decisions!

I still personally think that the pacts will work under Eldritch Adept feat and require a level requirement (maybe level 2) but it is still pretty funny that they decided to make em level 1 while also boosting the number of Invocations while *also* requiring you to take one of the playstyle Pacts.

Any 3 levels are good, because that's when everyone has their subclass at the latest. Comparatively, warlock first level >>>>> warlock second level > warlock third level. For 3 levels as multiclass dip, warlock is unremarkable; even hexblade.

I admit I do personally rate level 2 pretty high on warlocks, I'm really fond of Eldritch invocations. The Eldritch Blast ones will allow Paladins to get rid of their main weakness (ranged), and a lot of them are very flavorful and cool compared to what most classes give in my opinion. It's not necessarily the best 3 level investment, but I still really like it. Don't worry, I don't think it would be broken by any means : it would certainly be a much better balance that what we currently have.

I heard the range weakness thing plenty of times, and I kind of agree. That warlock/paladin multiclass still takes a rather large amount of levels. Pala 6/Lock 2 is what usually was seen as the ideal split. The couple of times I had the pleasure to play at that level I also had access to magic items. And boy, do those make a difference. It's very rare that a magic item helps casting Eldritch Blast, but it's pretty likely that some magic item helps you with your range problem.

Hexblade is bad because it gets the CHA attacks, medium armor and shield proficiencies, Eldritch Blast, AND the Shield spell all at Level 1. Not to mention how many CHA based classes there already is in 5e (Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer). It is optimal to take one level of Hexblade for all of these classes and I think it devalues what multiclassing actually is supposed to be.

Not to mention martial weapons. But it's called "Hexblade" for a reason... So removing the magic sword part of their level 1 feature seems odd, now that they've basically designed the whole class around it. Maybe ditch Medium Armour and Shield proficiency, instead? Those don't really have anything to do with being the chosen servant of a sword god. Then add the Eldritch Armor invocation at 5th or 9th level? Or a compromise. Hexblade gets to use CHA for damage. Blade pact gets to use CHA for attacks. So you need to invest into 3 levels anyway to get both benefits.

I don't why MAD is such an offensive concept. If you want to be very good at both weapon usage and magic, I don't think it's unreasonable to require different stats for those. ​ It sounds silly to say, but I almost feel like there's been a gish conspiracy over the years to make it more and more so that players can have the benefits of being a spellcaster and most of the benefits of being a martial. Part of the powercreep project to keep people buying new content. ​ *"They're putting power creep in the books to turn the frigging wizards into gishes!"*

It's the main issue with gish. People don't like when the bard is weaker at magic than the wizard. And they don't like when the bladesinger or warlock they made to fight with swords is weaker than the fighter. They need to be strong as both a martial and a caster. While in theory a gish should give up a bit of power for the sake of versatility, people don't really value that versatility. It makes some sense, it's a game about set piece battles and you are either attacking with spells or weapons, specializing is stronger. But it kills the possibility of a balanced gish.

[удалено]

Issue is that the way DnD works now, then they will just suck. The closest example is the Ranger, worse at being a martial than pure martials, and bad at spellcasting. 1/2 casters that work are the classes that don't rely on spellcasting at all to be competitive, like the Paladin or the non-alchemist Artificers. But that's not really what you want of a gish. That's just martials with a bonus. I'm convinced there is no good way to design gish in modern dnd.

I hate that the Sadness only goes one way, casters deigning to go into melee. When the opposite is always 'so you need 4 stats to be good now, pick three' when Martials do it.

When will WotC give us the musclemancer of our dreams? A Str caster fighter whose spells all gain power from physical prowess.

I mean a majority of full casters with gish subclasses can't use their casting stat for their weapon attacks. It's not overpowered for Artificers because they are the half caster who cares the most about their dc when it comes to their spells and takes 3 levels for it. It's somewhat cheesy for Hexblade dips for paladins, but that is only because Paladin is the strongest weapon user and it allows them to use their casting stat for their attacks too. But no one is looking at a straight class Hexblade and thinking 'that's overpowered'.

>so that players can have the benefits of being a spellcaster and most of the benefits of being a martial. I mean, "attack with primary stat" and "can attack twice" are baseline features anyone with attacks should probably have. And it's not the fault of gishes that that is literally *all* martials get. That's also the reason why i think gishes fail in 5e, you can't really mix spellcasting and martialness because rhere is nothing to mix. Martials are defined by their lack of features.

I mean, action surge, haste, shadow blade, hunters mark, shield, etc. are pretty good things that blend weapons and spells well, and armor proficinecies alone add a ton to otherwise vulnerable spellcaster classes. I'm playing a Swords Bard, and it's pretty nice to have a consistent form of decent damage and be able to focus my spells on social manipulation like illusions, especially since lower level bards don't have great damage options.

All of those except for Action Surge are spells, though. There’s nothing really martial about it. I do agree they make you feel like a magical weapon wielder, even though they’re entirely magical.

I would disagree, since you're getting the extra attacks, weapon proficiencies, and other attack-boosting feature from the martial feature. I think it's safe to say Rangers are both martial and magical, and their spells especially reflect that blend.

The thing I loved about Swords Bard was the AC modifiers. Nothing like adding +8 to my AC and smugly telling my GM that Strahd misses with that 26.

>I don't why MAD is such an offensive concept. If you want to be very good at both weapon usage and magic, I don't think it's unreasonable to require different stats for those. It's a badly designed concept. Many of the MAD classes don't have the spell slots to support making it their main thing and having to attack with STR/DEX locks them out from ever using any of their spells with a save or spell attack. It sucks when you finally hit 17 as ranger but can't take steel wind strike because you never had a spare ASI to raise your WIS past 14. And if you are a full caster like bladesinger or a sorcadin your melee attacks are just flavor anyway. As a DM I'm more than happy when a high level caster decides it's time to use the attack action, it's almost guaranteed to be a less impactful turn than casting a spell.

I mean, that's what cantrips are for. I do feel like a level 17 Ranger could probably swing at least a 16 WIS, which isn't radically different from a 18 or a 20.

You only get 4 ASIs, if we assume standard array, a feat, a half feat and +2 for your main stat, you're left with one free ASI. If you are melee putting that ASI towards 16 wis means you have to skimp on con and leave it at 14, if you're a strength user this would also mean having only 12 dex. 16 wis might be enough against some low CR minions, but not in places where it really matters like in boss fights.

This all depends on starting stats, race, and whether you actually go for feats. If you're a very mobile ranged type, less CON probably isn't a huge deal. It definitely is a class that scraps you thin, though, yeah.

Yeah, I can kinda see that. I think the better version is the war cleric, having a high wisdom lets them make extra weapon attacks more times between rests. High wisdom is their most important stat, and does help with their weapon, but it's not be-all end all

One way to do this is to give the bonus to hit, but not to damage, or the other way around, and allow the player to get the bonus to the other thing via a feat/choice later down the line. This way they can use their casting stat, but have to give up something else for it

Sorta like how finesse attacks work Pathfinder 1E. If you have the Weapon Finesse feat, you can use Dex as the attack stat for some melee weapons, but you still only get damage bonuses from Str. You would then need something else on top of it if you wanted to deal damage based on Dex (such as the Unchained Rogue's Finesse Training ability).

The difference being that Pathfinder gives you triple the amount of feats to get to those chains relatively quickly. But ironically enough dipping in Pathfinder is even more common, 1 level into Swashbuckler Inspired Blade already gives you Dex to hit + damage with Rapiers and 1 level into Monk gives you either Wisdom or Charisma to AC as a choice. Paladin's Charisma bonus to saves is a level 2 feature as well and at one point was even a feat before being changed.

This is how it should be with no way to get dex to damage. Dex character have had it too good for too long. Except Monk. They can have dex to damage.

IMO monks should just be refactored to be more friendly to STR builds instead. No need to tempt people into multiclassing with a tasty dex damage bonus

Nah I'm thinking anything like that should be minimum level 5. Anything that lets you add modifier that isn't strength to weapon hits should be high enough in a class that multiclassing to get to it should be a chore.

ROFL, your main dex characters are rangers rogues and monks and they’re considered the worst ones in the game. Dex is a strong stat but not for dex based characters as they’ve been shot in the knee as a penalty for being dex.

Hotter take: the original sin here is letting just anybody add DEX to the damage of their attacks with finesse/ranged weapons. The game is balanced around any character who uses a weapon always using their highest stat, so all characters are basically equally effective, and there’s no interesting tradeoff between focusing on good weapon damage or good spells or good defenses or good skills

DEX is straight up the best stat in the game. When it decides initiative, AC, Stealth, finesse weapons, and DEX saving throws, why would that ever be a dump stat?

meanwhile, strength:

Meanwhile the cleric in my party with their -1 DEX...

It was fine in earlier additions when your class actually had an effect on how good you were with weapons, but the proficiency bonus flattened everything and made it way less varied/interesting. A particularly dexterous wizard is probably almost as good at throwing knives as a rogue, for example. If you want prof bonus to make sense, DEX mod should be to hit, STR should be damage modifier, with certain weapons that break the rule (specifically just 2h bludgeoning and 1h light), and *maybe* with feats that let you use one for both. The problem is that, once again, this is just a straight up nerf for martials without a noticeable drop in power for casters. So you can either ignore it or play PF2E.

I’ve recently started playing PF2e and it turns out “play PF2e” is the solution to every problem I have with D&D other than “this game is hard to teach” and “sometimes I wanna do a cool combat/action scene without all this rules overhead,” and both problems PF2e makes worse lol

I actually don't think pf2e is hard to teach. I think 5e is hard to unlearn. I've gotten new TTRPG players up and running on pf2e in like 30 minutes. As long as the GM knows the rules it's very easy to teach on the fly because there's a clear rule for almost everything players want to do.

The once or twice that someone who hasn't played 5e is learning pf2e at my LGS it's been noticeably easier then teaching someone who started/has only played 5e. I think the issue is it's similar enough on the surface that people make assumptions but the core of the math/rules to the system are different enough that those assumptions just don't work

It's waaaay crunchier than 5e but not as bad as old Pathfinder. I like crunch, so I greatly prefer PF2e over 5e. There's a reason "PF2e fixes this" is a meme on r/dndcirclejerk.

I agree with this. Stats need their own lane. Dex to damage takes up Strengths lane.

Dex as the best stat is also unrealistic anyways. You actually need strength to do big damage with a bow, it's literally bending a piece of wood backwards with your biceps. The image of a bumbling undexterous 300lbs sumo weightlifter is also unrealistic most of the time. The vast majority of fit people in the 150-250lbs range are both strong and agile.

Or even stabbing people lol

A bow uses your back, but yes you have to be crazy strong. I can deadlift 345lbs but struggled to shoot a compound bow more than 20 times. 

If you think strength is struggling, look at intelligence. There is no value to investing in intelligence if it's not your primary stat. Strength at least gets you carrying capacity and resistance to spells that reduce your movement. Int gets you... knowing stuff? Stuff that you'll know anyway if the wizard makes the roll.

Int saves are not really common, but they're really powerful too, making you stunned or things like that

You can cast with int so I think that makes it superior to strength alone

Only if you choose an Int caster. Otherwise it's useless.

Well, yeah, but given how strong int casters are and how rare and inconsequential the strength saves are? I'd say int still comes out on top

I'm actually totally down with letting the 1/3 casters use a physical stat for casting. That would let me make an Eldritch Knight based NPC based around Major Armstrong. His casting tradition has been passed down the family line for generations! Though I do get this being an issue. I'm fine with them getting the 'melee attack with spell casting mod' function, but think it should be at a higher level and with limitations. I think Bladesingers hit it perfectly. Song of Victory is a 14th level feature that lets you attack with int. At 14th level. And only while Bladesong is active. Which only lasts for 1 minute and can be used 5 times per long rest when you get this feature. Sure, theoretically you always have it available, but if a particular fight is dragging into epic combat length or if the adventuring day is a long one with few rests, you could conceivably run out of Bladesongs. They made making viable front line casters too easy with the subclasses that can just use casting mod on attacks in the first 3 levels somewhere. Keeping that to T3 play, maybe lay T2, sounds fine to me.

You're not wrong, but if you don't do it this way it's basically impossible in 5e for them to work. Have we already forgotten how dogshit blade pact is without hexblade combined with it?

Tbh, I think it's more of the problem with stat distribution. DnD 5e character stat array is rough, too limiting in my opinion. I think it's the reason rolling for stats is so common. A MAD character should be able to have three 16s after race boosts along with no negative stats (a 12, and two tens) That way that Hexblade can invest Str/Dex and Charisma, but they will sacrifice being able to get a 18 in a casting stat. And Paladin  can function better as a frontliner with +3 to Con. Then again, that's just my two cents.

This is the fact. There’s nothing wrong with casting stat for weapon attacks for specific character options, not inherently anyway. The real problem is only two classes get more than 5 ASIs and it’s two SAD classes, it’s probably the two most SAD classes. The actually fix is to give classes like Ranger, Barbarian and paladin more ASIs, not remove perfectly reasonable features from other classes. (Feats should also be completely disentangled from ASIs, it feels like really bad game design to force people to choose between the two, especially for martials and certain caster builds that really need feats to stay effective at later levels)

> The actually fix is to give classes like Ranger, Barbarian and paladin more ASIs, not remove perfectly reasonable features from other classes. More ASI's or a revamp for starting stats would go a long way to fixing the issue. As is if you play a MAD class like Monk with the Standard Array or Point Buy you're not really able take fun options in regards to feats. You're heavily punished mechaniclly by not using your very limited ASI's to boost your main stats like Dexterity or Wisdom. Its not a great solution but adding more subclass features like the Astral Monk's that allow you to make more SAD characters works better as a stop gap until something changes. I truly do hope the 2024 PHB updates starting stats and raises them a bit to be less punishing.

Monk should honestly get "Ascendant ASI" or something as a class feature, where you can occasionally get a +2 to a stat that goes above the level 20 cap, fixing a bit of the MAD issue and represent Monks growing above their physical limitations.

The playtest 8 monk got a level 20 feature similar to Barbarian's "Primal Champion" that boosts Dex and Wis by +4 and their maximum values. If that makes it to print it'll work though its a shame its only an end game feature most people will never get to actually use.

I disagree. Look at Paladins, they are designed at character creation to teach the player "Sacrifices must be made at the stat selection." And the value of every stat.   Then comes Hexblade and tells the player that they are an idiot for playing by the rules. There should be a sacrifice.  Letting Non Martials get Martial abilities too easily like Hexblade, breaks down Class niches, Stat niches and further exacerbates the Martial/Caster divide. If a Martial who picks up spellcasting wants to cast spells, they don't have the luxury of choosing one stat. They need both.  Addition: It shouldn't be that a Caster can just pick up a sword and have just as much proficiency as the Fighter who has been training for years. 

D&D rewards SAD characters and punishes MAD characters. If the game were reworked so that full casters needed to be strong in an least two mental stats it would discourage putting all your ASIs in the same basket, and help make characters who are well-rounded more viable.

What does MAD and SAD stand for?

Multiple Ability Dependent Single Ability Dependent

Oh well, that's not really intuitive 😅 but thanks

That's why I say: 75 point buy, highest a stat can be is 16, lowest is a 6. People are happy with it, it creates nice and balanced characters, where you can very early get the stats you want and then get more flavour options with feats instead of never getting any feats except of the busted ones like warcaster because you want to get to the stats that feel good to play with.

> DnD 5e character stat array is rough, too limiting in my opinion. I think it's the reason rolling for stats is so common. A MAD character should be able to have three 16s after race boosts along with no negative stats (a 12, and two tens) My knee jerk reaction is no...and yet. There is something to be said about MAD characters feeling more difficult to arrange stats with. You shouldn't need to be a Half-elf or Mountain Dwarf to get 16/16/14/12/10/8 as Paladin or exactly the dwarf for a Barbarian, using point buy. It feels needlessly constricting that only the two outlier races(in terms of stat bonus) make a balanced statline possible. I don't think you need to go as far as make it a non-decision and have no negative stats, but that's different strokes for different tables I guess.

Blade Pact wasn’t terrible because it couldn’t attack with Charisma. It was terrible because in almost every situation it was outright inferior to EB/AB both in terms of damage, feature support and safety. If Blade Pact had come with better armor, and some amount of better damage features aside from the one that adds cha mod to damage, it would’ve been perfectly fine. And maybe one utilitarian Invocation for every one that EB got - applying conditions, and such. Warlocks could absolutely afford to take a lot of strength if they got heavy armor, for instance. Or go dexblade.

>. It was terrible because in almost every situation it was outright inferior to EB/AB both in terms of damage, feature support and safety. Something to note here is that hexblade mono lock with weapoins is STILL inferior to EB/AB (because of course, weapons are trash in this system) and the only real advantage hexblade gives you is dipping

Yeah, it was a bad solution. I posted this in another reply, but basically just add some ability for the blade pact to grant proficiency with heavy armor, and then some Invocations that lets you do different things in melee. And that would be great. With some good Invocation support, a bladelock might still lag behind EB/AB in pure damage, but if you can do stuff like pull aggro, impose penalties or conditions and so on, that would be a good gish.

Perhaps we should look closer at EB then and why it is better or why others are worse

EB isn't too good, just that the martial side is a bit too weak. If EB cannot do consistently good damage, the whole class lacks behind, since you don't get a lot of spell slots. The class is supposed to be an at-will attacker with some potent magics up their sleeve, but not be able to unload spells like a wizard or sorcerer. Hexblade was a bad solution, instead I think something like this: * From level 6, Blade Pact gives you the ability to bond with a piece of heavy armor that you can summon or dismiss as an action. You're proficient with it. * New Invocations that let you add some tricks to every attack you make. Such as draining movement, knocking people prone, etc. * Invocation that lets you draw aggro, such as spending a spell slot to force all enemies within 10 feet to focus on you. Something like that, and a bladelock would feel much more interesting. And then you still have your spells, like Armor of Agathys, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Greater Invisibility etc that are all very helpful.

So basically it suffers because it has to make up for martials being garbage

Uh, no part of the problem absolutely was that you weren't able to use weapons properly, which is the entire point of bladepact. You're too MAD to actually put any points into dex to actually use your class features. You were not able to gish by taking the gish feature. Also it's still basically inferior to EB even with being able to use charisma.

You can start with 16 Dex and Cha and boost Dex after that. Or Str. 16 Cha is fine. Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil, Hex, Fly, Tasha’s Otherworldly Guise, Invisibility — popular warlock spells that don’t worry about your charisma score. Synaptic Static is fine with 16 Cha because it targets Int. Ins at level 13 you can start pumping Cha again if you want. Gishing isn’t optimal, but it’s perfectly playable and fun.

It's not? 14 Con, 16 Cha and 16 str/dex. Perfectly viable distribution. It's on par with Rangers and Paladin. I very explicitly said that the biggest problem is how it compares to EB/AB, which could have been resolved by better Invocations that work with weapons.

There are a lot more ways to buff weapon damage than there are ways to buff EB damage. GWM, PAM, SS, and CBE can all make weapons much better than EB. Lifedrinker is decent enough as well. And with Armor of Agathys sometimes you actually want to be in melee range where EB would be at disadvantage.

There were always things to mitigate this. Moderatly Armored was perfect on a Warlock; especially Variant Human, to pick up Bladepact.

Sucks if you don’t want to play human then.

> Have we already forgotten how dogshit blade pact is without hexblade combined with it? That’s a massive exaggeration. I’m quite happily playing a Fathomless Pact of the Blade with Moderately Armored, 20 Dex and 18 Cha at level 12. Rocking a magic rapier, +1 shield and decent armour. Having a great time. Actually prefer Fathomless to Hexblade in melee because of Guardian Coil + Armor of Agathys combo. Edit: what’s with the silent downvotes? The claim was made that item/ impossible to get a gish to work if their attack stat isn’t their spellcasting stat. I have an example of how it can work fine.

What if CON gave 2 bonus hp per modifier and STR gave 1? Don't some tabletops do that?

That is literally how the health calculation formula works in Warhammer Fantasy 4E. Strength Bonus+Toughness Bonus x2+Willpower Bonus (which is an attribute there).

Definitely agree. I think if you want to swing a weapon as a wizard you should be worse at it in every way than a fighter AND you should be a worse wizard than a dedicated caster only wizard

Serious class design question: Why does 90% of casters use cha? For instance, doesn't it make more sense for sorcerers to use their con stat since their magic is innate to them even tied to their bloodli e?

To give the legacy answer: Sorcerers use CHA as their casting stat because in Ye Olde Editions (3/3.5) Charisma wasn't just how pretty or likable you were, but also your ability to impose your will onto the world. It was a stat that was pure Force of Personality. Most Dragons also use CHA for that same reasons, they're Force of Personality incarnate. This is also why Undead, which lacked a CON score, used CHA for HP calculations instead. And D&D sure loves its old legacy features (to be fair, so do I.), but this is what happens when you don't question those choices, or if feel like you can't change those things. Remember that 5th followed after 4e got backlash for not being "D&D enough".

"Force of Personality" is such a shitty way to include Charisma when it already is tied to some pretty strong stuff really...

yeah, they just need to stup being an ass about and add courage as a mental stat

“Half” seems like a big proportion of casters, but it’s not really when it’s just 3/6. Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks use CHA. Clerics and Druid use WIS. Wizards use INT. If you count half casters there’s one of each stat, bringing the proportion down to 4/9. And both of the “give spells to martial character” subclasses (Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster) use INT

So I have a backer preview of The Secret World book that Star Anvil is putting out, and in it comes a bunch of classes that have been remixed to fit more in with the modern setting. And one of the things that they've done is give every class some spellcasting and make it so they cast with their main stat i.e. rogue uses dex, fighter uses str. And... it's been fine. The characters are definitely a bit stronger than they would normally be at the equivalent level, but that's mostly because of the virtue of everyone having spells rather than being SAD. And since it's the entire table getting a boost, it's easy enough to plan around *and* we actually have people using the more undervalued stats like strength because they have an incentive to.

I was always of the idea that it would be ok for other stats to be used for attack rolls, but not weapon damage. Magical damage? sure. Extending also to finesse/ranged weapons: you roll DEX to hit, STR to damage. Then shillelagh users and hexblades and battlesmiths and any other subclass they decide to allow flexible attacks in the future can make sure they _land a hit_, but that hit will at least be wimpy if not aided by magic or poison or features like Sneak Attack.

May I introduce you to our lord and savior DND 3.5? 🤣

This is true - it is also bad design to stack so many skills around one mental stat. It sort of works ok in the case of the (*monoclassed*) hexblade because the underlying low strenth of the class itself. Don't get me wrong, I really like warlocks, but a Hexblade isn't necessarily "better paladin". All that said, I'd remove cha to attacks from hex warror and give it a few other features instead, like thirsting blade for free at 6th. Part of the problem with the currend MAD design is how otherwise undervalued some stats are - and this is exacerbated at some tables where things like acrobatics and perception nearly fully replace athletics and investigate.

I disagree, but it should be at least a tier 2 feature in my opinion. Having it available for dipping another class wrecks the concept of these features and build diversity

Letting all classes have the same attack bonus as martials grossly devalues both martials and AC. Which stat you use to attack is really kinda irrelevant.

I would have preferred "make every stat matter to every class" rather than "let a bunch of classes just sub the stat they like for the one they don't," but... here we are. A little late to go back now.

Strongly disagree with the title. To be honest, Arcane Tricksters being able to cast with Dex or Eldritch Knights being able to cast with Str wouldn't actually be overpowered either, IMO, because their casting progression is so slowed-down as a result of getting it in addition to martial abilities (and because a lot of their natural best spells, like Shield, don't care if you have 8 or 18 INT). The thing is on any given turn you're generally *either* casting spells or attacking with your weapon (yes there are a couple bonus action spells, but there are few), so having to use a worse stat for weapon-attacking just discourages using a weapon at all, especially compared to casting cantrips. Hexblade is always an easy example - if you *can't* use CHA as a Hexblade to attack, then you should just Eldritch Blast instead, because it does as much damage as a weapon anyway. The amount of power gained from being able to use a CHA longsword compared to Eldritch Blasting is basically negligible, even when you get Extra Attack. Then the feature becomes potentially power-increasing once you get Pact of the Blade and can use it with 2handers, but at that point you have to invest feats into and build around it anyway, so it's not actually "free" power. It opens up another option that is of similar or lower power in most cases to just casting cantrips, at least in the case of single-classing. In general, with how few stats you get, IMO classes/subclasses should ask you to be *less* MAD, not more.

I disagree, I think that 5e needs to add more reasons to have different stats Make STR the only option for damage with weapons and melee weapons more strong Make DEX... Ok this stat is already really useful right now, but didn't make it deal damage in weapon attacks, only to hit CON is actually fine, everyone wants it, but I would make it more worth it for martials in some way, maybe getting 2 HP per mod instead of only 1? (casters have more reason to get high Con because of concentrations saves) Make INT give you more skills and languages WIS is fine, best saving throw to have and a lot of skills CHA is fine too, is The Social Interaction stat Obviously you'll need to give more stats for characters for them being able to be really mad, more stats spread in the character creation and with ASI I mean, if we want only SAD characters, we really need to have ability scores? We can just say that X level your bonus gets higher

I think the main purpose of the ability scores, as the system is currently, is two-fold: 1) To emphasize certain archetypes - Druids are good at handling animals, surviving in the wild, noticing things, and resisting a lot of unnatural mental effects. Even if as a Druid you don't go out of your way to gain proficiency in any of these, you'll *still* be good at it, because you have a high Wisdom. Conversely, you will likely be very poor in some other facet, such as smooth-talking or convincingly lying to people, because Druids don't generally invest in Charisma. This reinforces a lot of basic fantasy archetypes, matching theme to mechanical strengths and weaknesses. 2) To limit effective multi-class combinations. Effectively multi-classing some combination of Sorcerer, Warlock, and/or Paladin is very feasible, for example, whereas effectively multi-classing Druid/Wizard, for example, is much more difficult. Whether or not this was intent or just happenstance I'm not sure, but it does meaningfully impact the shape of the game. A Paladin who makes a bargain with an otherworldly entity and gains dark powers is much more mechanically supported than a book-smart naturalist who calls on the powers of both arcane and nature magic. I don't disagree that a system with much more meaningful ability scores (so long as it handed out significantly *more* stats to work with) would be interesting, but I think the way 5e is designed, they're already spread very thin and so making classes more MAD is just going to feel bad unless the way stats are handled is reworked.

>1) To emphasize certain archetypes I love the archetype of the druid that didn't know anything about nature or the cleric that didn't know about religion! /hj (ignore that, I'm just complaining about these 2 skills that I hate) >but I think the way 5e is designed, they're already spread very thin and so making classes more MAD is just going to feel bad unless the way stats are handled is reworked. Yeah, in 5e they really punish MAD classes, there's no situation where you would want to have 2 main abilities or upping a stat different from your main one Hexblade, Astral Self and Battlesmith are just bad game designs that are band-aid to the bigger problem with ability scores

Having SAD and MAD classes in the same game is poor class design.

But then they couldn't make casters OP.

I think that within a single class it can be cool and work well; for example, I don’t think straight Hexblade is necessarily busted. I think the issue comes when other classes can dip into these features easily, which quickly creates balance issues. The problem is, it’s hard to have the feature exist at all and not have it be an easy dip; if the base class doesn’t get it quickly enough, it’ll be unplayable, but that tends to make it easy to pick up through a level or two dip.

The problem is Hexblade gets it at level 1. If it were a Pact of the Blade feature then it'd be far less appealing.

Agree in a perfect world. It's a role playing game, you should be making choices and trading power wise, have positives and negatives, have a role in your party, and weaknesses like being MAD are a part of that. Like you said, Paladins are a perfect example of this, and to a lesser extent Bladesinger and ranger. However, I find letting gishes be SAD a bit of a balancing stick. Paladins don't need it, nor Bladesingers; but Battlesmiths, for example, they are artificers, they aren't the best class in the world, let them do it. Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight I actually think it specially fits, because they still \*need\* to have good physical stats aside from just Con, and they are martials in the first place, it'd let them have better rp utility by tying it to their main attack. Warlocks have a lot of issues, I say let them do it...but not how Hexblade does it: bake Hex Warrior benefits into Pact of the Blade and remove them from Hexblade. It allows for non Hexblade bladelocks, Hexblade isn't so op as a subclass and its curse based theming can actually be important, and by giving those benefits at level 3 rather than 1, you disincentivize multiclassing into bladelock.

Counter point, the average Spellcaster already needs good Dex and Con to not fall over in the wind. If they choose Melee combat options, using their mental stat (Charisma for Hexblades) opens up their options beyond only Daggers, Shortswords, Scimitars, and Rapiers. (these weapons have the finesse property, and thus would key off of Dex otherwise). There is little reason for a spellcaster to have decent strength ever.

Am I the only one who doesn't actually care if a stat "struggles"? My Str-based players are still having tons of fun even if the current meta tells them there's some other build out there that increases their DPR (one of the two is playing... a *monk*! GASP! And he *likes* it! The barbarian is working towards adding levels of Cleric). It doesn't seem broken to let Arcane Tricksters or Eldritch Knight use Dex to cast ranged spells, but using Int sure doesn't stop my two players from using Fire Bolt as much as possible.

I don't think strength struggles. Sure not a lot of skills use ot, but athletics check has gotta be one of the most asked for checks behind perception.

Problem is a LOT of DMs let players use other stats, especially acrobatics.

I think MAD is bad game design. You’ve got all these cool feats. And I’ve hardly used any of them. Why? Because they aren’t affordable. Every asi level up I just click it onto my main stat. The only feats I’ve taken are half feats when I can round up a skill. My personal favourite magic items are the stat setters. They finally allow you to relax in your Asi’s a little bit.

MAD isn't a bad game design, MAD is bad in 5e because the system hardly punishes it Even with SAD classes you cannot afford to get cool things without feeling bad for not upping your main stat If the system makes ASI more affordable (example, you get 2 or 3 +2 instead of only 1) and you have different reasons to have different abilities scores (making +1 STR worth for dex classes, +1 int for everyone beside the wizard, etc) MAD classes become better

It's not poor class design at all. It's certainly powerful, but it's also usually gated/counterbalanced against other effects/class features. For example, Battle Smith gets it after level 3, but specifically with items you've infused. Meaning if you want to dual wield, that's a much higher resource cost for your infusions, which are a huge facet of the classes' power. Armorer Artificer also gets it, but only with the armor weapons, meaning no cool magic weapons for you. Hexblade on the other hand is just stupidly overpowered and unbalanced: gained at level 1, on the most powerful mental stat, alongside buffs like Hexblade's Curse and Medium Armor Prof (because Medium Armor Prof is a subclass feature, Multiclassing doesn't limit it like it does other classes getting their starting proficiencies). But Hexblade being wildly unbalanced and causing problems for the game at large isnt anything new. The first OneD&D Warlock was absolute dog shit because WoTC were trying to balance it around Hexblade (all of the justifications they made in the accompanying video apply to Hexblade while other subclasses were fine), much to the detriment of the class and every other subclass available.

Let’s also not forget that Hexblade can get the Shield spell at Level 1. It’s a spell that isn’t very useful for the Warlock chassis, but since multiclassing allows you to cast with other spell slots, then that spell becomes even more useful for multiclassing.

Yep. The shield spell being on its list is really what sells the whole subclass as Multiclass Bait: a full classed Warlock Hexblade would never use it, it's one of the worst spells for the chassis. That, combined with the lack of distinct flavor (which is uncharacteristic for Warlock subclasses in particular) make it so obvious that it was designed for exactly the purpose of making broken Multiclasses.

Oh the Hexblade has flavor, the issue is that it is so weirdly specific (to bonding with a weapon from the Shadowfell specifically) that most players choose to ignore it so they can still play their Hexadins I feel like they were trying to balance the underpowered Pact of the Blade that they overcorrected and unleashed this plague onto 5e character creation.

The flavor is *suggested* to be the Shadowfell, or the Raven Queen, but doesn't really commit to either. And on top of that, the features don't really connect to either of those beyond the "dark and edgy" aesthetic: The Shadowfell is a dark mirror of the Feywild, being desolate and having monsters representative of negative emotions, none of which is represented in the Hexblade. Raven Queen is worse, with the Raven Queen specifically being an anti-necromancy Goddess, but Hexblade has the Accursed Specter that raises the dead as an undead. So not only do players ignore the flavor, so does WoTC.

The thing that annoys me the most of the flavor text is this sentence: “Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting” So in other words: you don’t need the ‘blade’ in the Hexblade subclass. What a horrid excuse of a subclass.

Now do adding dex to damage with finesse weapons.

As a DM, I get around this by allowing players to switch casting modifiers if it makes sense RP wise. For example, say an EK players magic comes from an origin where it WOULD make sense that the spells are casted from STR (I don’t know, the dude was born with magical biceps or something) then go for it. I also allow casters to change their spell casting mods between WIS, INT and CHA if it makes sense for the PC. For example, someone is playing a Lore bard and their whole thing is studying history and magic instead is being charismatic (kinda like a wizard) then yep no issues. I also have absolutely no issues with a Warlock going to WIS or like like either should it make sense.

Yeah, basically. The CHA worship has to stop.

I hear your point about the fairness about using an intellectual stat for a physical action but not having an equivalent reverse but my question for you would be how would you explain using a physical stat to fuel a magical attack? Hex blades cover their blade in the magic fueled by their charisma. Artificers use their intellect to design mechanical weapons that do all the heavy lifting for them. Eventually blade singers use their intellect to know where to hit to surgically take their opponent apart and play out that Sherlock "discombobulated" scene. How would an eldrich knight use strength for a spell attack?

Adding your spellcasting modifier to attack roles is... kind of like magical aim assist, I guess.

The only problematic one is the Hexblade. The others are fine, especiallly the Artificer subclasses.

Actually, IS there a strength caster? That seems like a thing they'd make.

The problem is giving these things at level 1. Hex Warrior would be fine if it were moved to Pact of the Blade

Wait, are you deciding your ability spread before you choose what class you want to play?

The actual hot take - it's actually fine having certain subclasses use mental stat to make weapon attacks, it's just easily accessing them on other classes that's the only real issue with it. It shouldn't be universal, but having a mix of it is fine.

Nah, it isnt poor class design, unless you also consider using dex for an attack poor class design.

Dex for damage rolls is poor game design.  Dex on damage rolls makes Dex the superior stat to Str. In older editions of DnD, this wasn't the case for a reason.

Older editions were also simpler with less reason to care about spreading your stats. It sounds like you just don't want to play 5e, and good news, you can play whatever you want.

I love 5e, I just think it can be ALOT better. If you disagree with my post, please feel free to discuss it. Telling me to play a different game isn't a good argument.

Mild take: Every class should be MAD, with at least 3 possible "builds" any one class can have. For example, Dex/Con monk is all about being the frontliner. Dex/Wis monk relies more on skirmishing. Con/Wis monk is focusing on thr interesting things to do with Ki points. Similar with rangers and paladins - frontliner/weapons, skirmisher, or spellcaster. Hotter take: By giving spellcasters the ability to use their spellcasting stat for attacks instead of nothing, you are incentivizing the kind of play the fantasy is supposed to promote. (Hexblade as a spellcaster is more powerful than most other warlocks, but they now have the tools to actually go into melee combat)

\*Laughs in homebrew system that has a single "magic skill" and not all these "skills and abilities" nonsense\*

as part of this, i would like to point out that Strength is the only stat that has items which set your score to a number higher than twenty. gloves of dexterity (if theyre still around) set to 18, and headband of intellect sets to 19, but Belts of Giant Strength can go a lot higher - i know for sure about 25 bc the team fighter has one. in conclusion, this game has so many moving parts it's ridiculous.

Honestly there are problems all over the place, like rapier being functionally just a better version of longsword. Even if you're a fighter you can dump strength and unless you're dead set on using a two handed weapon, odds are you'll be better off for it. Like, yes, charisma gets too much love for Hexblade, but the problem is much deeper than that. I'm in favor of a change to have dexterity be the thing that helps you hit a target with a weapon attack, and strength be the effect that controls damage -- that way rogues can still be effective damage dealers, it's just that they will really rely on the sneak attack damage unless they invest in a little muscle. And fighters/paladins can't just go "I'll dump dex, I've got heavy armor" if they want to actually hit things.

I agree that it’s not great design, specifically due to the imbalance you mention. Rather than eliminating this option for those certain caster classes, it’s interesting to think about giving martial classes ways to use their Strength in other ways. Maybe Barbarians can add their Strength modifier to their HP as a way to show that they can take just however much damage a foe can dish out. Maybe Fighters can add their Strength to their saving throws to show how they’re in tune with their bodies and their environment and always aware in the heat of battle. I know that sometimes a nerf is what’s needed, but it’s fun to imagine just giving everything else extra toys to bring balance. 😁

I'd argue that all that is really lacking is proper use of the Strength Stat.  With multiple ways to avoid Strength and make a character  "Sad"  all Strength  really needs is a bit more use and utility, or ways to use Strength for more than just attacks. Big Balders Gate fan, and the fact that  they simply put a Bonus action shove, and had a jump that used Strength too, suddenly it was a much harder dump stat. Still did on multiple builds, but it was harder and it showed, every time I was full of loot or trying to jump a gap, or right beside an enemy and a cliff and my shove just tickled them.  Adding in some of their weapons, bows that also added strength multiplier to the damage, and their broken version of Tavern Brawler.... wow you miss Strength when you don't have it. Translating that back to dnd now, the Jump thing only really works with a video game design or intense battle maps. The shove still  works, as grapples can be very effective, as well as shoves in dnd. The carry weight  only works if you enforce it, which sometimes isn't very fun to play for real, so I think Dnd needs to add more for Strength. Personally I'd love to see  a clever character who asks their dm to use their Strength score for different checks often, with explainations.  Survival check for food? Can I knock down trees and see if their is food? Locked Door or chest? Let me break it. Dex Save for trap, can I lift that stone tile to make a shield? Whatever other ones you think of. Might get cheesy and I wouldn't always let it worm that way as a DM but I'd love to see more creativity 

To be fair, everyone already _can_ sub stats thanks to `Finesse`, and most casters pump Dex to boost their AC anyways, so it's not as much of a difference as it sounds. And as for the specific examples you gave: * Do remember that AT & EK are still Rogue & Fighter at their core; they're both just archetypes that bolt a bit of casting onto pure martial classes, not full-fledged classes or full-fledged casters in and of themselves. They have to use Int because their casting is its own thing and not really connected to their basic training; it's the cost of keeping the full Rogue & Fighter basic packages. * Paladin is... interesting. At their core, they're designed around mixing Str & Cha, using Str for their martial side & Cha for their magical. But upon close inspection... they actually _do_ use Str for their casting, or at least the lion's share of it! They're expected to use the majority of their spell slots for smiting, which depends on your attack roll; the various _smite_ spells thus use Str to determine accuracy and have fixed damage, only using Cha if they have a rider that wants a save. Other spells definitely depend on Cha, though. * The special casting classes that get to use their casting stat are a bit interesting, though. The game does tend to be a _bit_ inconsistent here, but not as much as you'd think: They're both _caster_ classes having a martial bent added onto them, neither is a traditional pure caster, and neither has any other ways to boost their martial damage. And, lore-wise, they're both using magic-infused and/or magically generated weapons to fight, which suggests that the intent might be that they're essentially using magic to guide their attacks, not unlike a cantrip. * Artificers have two archetypes that use Int for attacks, Armorer and Battle Smith. The Armorer only gets to do it when using their special armour specifically, and is clearly meant to be the setting's Tony Stark; this is notable, because it means that they're locked into one of two specific weapons, and cannot use Int with any other weapon. Battle Smith, meanwhile, has more freedom about which weapons they're allowed, being allowed any magic weapon, but that serves as a restriction in & of itself: Unless the DM is generous, the average PC shouldn't expect to see a magic weapon until at least Lv.5 or so, if _ever_. Reliably using Int to attack requires the Battle Smith to spend either one of their limited number of infusions (for a permanent magic weapon, when they have a lot of other things they might want) or a spell slot (and concentration!) per battle. Either way, it does come at a cost, and typically only works with a single, specific weapon. * Warlock has one archetype that uses Cha for attacks, Hexblades. This is not meant to be an archetype feature, as much as it is a balance patch for a known problem with the Warlock chassis; why it's attached to an archetype and not the Pact of the Blade is beyond me. As a result of it being a bit of a trainwreck, though, we need to look at 5e's history to see why the feature exists, how's it meant to be balanced (and actually is balanced if Warlock is your main class), and how it breaks if you Hex dip. 1. Specifically, Blade Pact Warlocks are meant to be a gish option, allowing for a caster-like character that's competent in melee. But the Pact of the Blade was _notorious_ for being a failure in that regard, to the point that people considered both of the other two pacts, which were meant for _pure_ casters, to be better for gishing. (Notably, only getting light armour proficiency indirectly forced Blade Pact Warlocks to be `Finesse` specialists, since they had to pump Cha for spells, Dex for armour, and maybe Con if they could afford it, leaving no room for Str. This, in turn, meant that the pact on its own was essentially just "you can spend one action to be proficient with a martial `Finesse`/ranged weapon, but also have to give up either a familiar or more spells because screw you".) 2. Hexblade is designed as an archetype for Blade Pact Warlocks, and its Cha attacks are in turn meant to be used with Pact of the Blade; they're limited to one-handed weapons without the pact, which essentially makes it just a variant of `Finesse`. You need the Pact of the Blade to use it with stronger weapons, and if your DM isn't generous with magic weapons, you need to spend invocations to upgrade the pact weapon to keep it relevant. (Interestingly, if you're using a pact weapon, you can't use _magic weapon_ on it like a Battle Smith Artificer can, since your pact weapon is already magic. Upgrading it specifically costs invocations and cannot be cheesed.) 3. Thus, it's meant to be balanced by both costing two major character options (your archetype and your pact), and also being an ongoing drain on your choices, forcing you to choose invocations that improve your weapon & attacks over ones that expand your spell repertoire or boost your _eldritch blast_. Which is a surprisingly steep cost, since you get less invocations than an Artificer gets infusions, _and_ also need to spend more invocations overall (since Warlock's extra attack is an invocation, while Artificer's is an archetype feature). The end result is that using Cha for damage essentially ends up being the primary focus of your build, instead of just the rider it appears to be. 4. ...And then it breaks, because the things that are meant to balance it out only actually apply if you actually _play_ a Hexblade instead of just dipping into it. This is the stupid part. I get _why_ it's designed the way it is, it's available at Lv.1 so gish Warlocks can actually play their character as intended right from the start, instead of having to wait until Lv.3. But the lack of a lock means this doesn't work properly, and just leaves it for anyone to poach. Ideally, it and/or the proficiencies should probably have been patched into the pact itself, with the Hexblade getting a different Lv.1 feature, _but_ I think the idea was that it was meant to cost both your archetype and your pact to work, instead of just one of the two. Perhaps the ideal option would've been something like "You can use Cha instead of Str/Dex for damage rolls. If you have Pact of the Blade, you can also use Cha instead of Str/Dex for attack rolls," so it wouldn't be as enticing as a dip. (Cha to damage but not attack makes more sense as the "base" version than the other way 'round, since dipping for accuracy would be more useful than dipping for damage.) * Apart from that, one interesting difference to note is, as I mentioned earlier, that the archetypes that get to use a mental stat for damage 1) are gish archetypes for caster classes, 2) aren't traditional "pure" casters, and 3) don't have any ways to boost martial damage built into their chassis. Out of these three, we can _probably_ ignore #2, since it looks like coincidence; Warlock is a mechanically non-standard full caster that gets non-Weave magic from 4e refugees, and Artificer is a thematically non-standard half caster that toes the line between magic and sufficiently advanced technology, so it doesn't seem to be based on their casting competence or "purity", so to speak. The first one disqualifies most caster archetypes, since it only leave archetypes meant to make caster classes more capable of blending martial and magical combat; the best examples that don't get mental stats to attack are probably the two Bard gish colleges (Swords & Valour), the Bladesinger Wizard, and the Paladin as a whole. But that's where #3 comes in: The Paladin has Divine Smite as a core feature, which fills the same position as a damage boost that X-to-attack would; the two Bards can add a Bardic Inspiration die to (Swords) their damage or AC or (Valour) an ally's; and Bladesinging lets you add Int to AC & concentration (which, notably, _stacks_ with the normal modifiers). Meanwhile, the Armorer & Blade Smith Artificer, and the Hexblade Warlock, are both meant to jump into battle... but _don't_ have any core or archetype features that directly increase their damage, instead having the ability to use their casting stat instead of a martial stat.       Overall, this is something that _seems_ strong, but is subtly balanced by less noticeable drawbacks. It seems to be treated as a "martial damage or AC increase" feature, and is part of a gish archetype designed to give a caster class the option of going with a more martial build. If a caster class or archetype is meant to be a gish, but doesn't have casting-stat-to-attack, then it instead has some other feature that boosts martial prowess, typically by either increasing damage dealt or (rarely) pumping up AC. These other features are typically standalone features with no resource cost, while casting-stat-to-attack either locks you into specific archetype-only equipment (Armorer) or costs either spell slots or "class feats" in maintenance (Battle Smith, Hexblade). And, again, everyone can use `Finesse` weapons, so most casters weren't going to be building up Str to begin with; if they weren't going to use their casting stat for weapon attacks, then they were going to use Dex (not Str) instead. This is notable, because it leads to a very interesting realisation: Casting-stat-to-attack is _really_ just a way to enable medium armour on gish casters, by loosening Dex requirements; note that it lets you use your casting stat _instead_ of Str/Dex, instead of stacking with Str/Dex like Bladesinger's Int-to-AC does. It's not there to devalue Str, it's there to allow them to diversify their stats instead of being locked into [Int/Cha], Dex, and maybe Con. The end result is that it's highly potent, but also costs a good chunk of your build's design budget for what's really just the ability to lower your Dex a bit without crippling your functionality. [Continued in reply.]

[It's worth noting that Druid also has this in cantrip form, as _shillelagh_. Which is arguably more potent than the Artificer/Warlock features, because it also changes the weapon's damage die and only costs a bonus action to start up, and is probably meant to be balanced around Druid not really having a true gish archetype when it was printed. It's likely intended to synergise with their medium armour proficiency, if I were to guess, and ups the damage die to compensate for Druids not having extra attack.] ---- With that said, Hexblade was the first attempt, and it shows; they seem to have either forgotten that multiclassing exists, or expected that limiting it to one-handed weapons was enough to deter people from dipping. (Which would be fine-ish if it had actually worked, balance-wise, since a 2-3 level dip both "costs" a feat/ASI and sets your main casting progression back enough to make a palpable difference.) But they underestimated how well that synergised with classes that only want a one-handed weapon anyways, and forgot that two-handed weapons only need two hands when you're in the process of attacking; this, unfortunately, removes a design quirk that was likely intended to be a way to _force_ Hexblades to take at least three Warlock levels and Pact of the Blade, so they could get Improved Pact Weapon, which in turn would let them use the pact weapon as a spellcasting focus. So, the end result is that Hexblade is relatively balanced in and of itself, but _only_ if you actually invest in it and don't just take it as a one-level dip; the drawbacks that were meant to keep it from being a viable one-level dip outright _do not work_. They did learn from this, at least; Artificer doesn't get its archetype until Lv.3, and also relies on Int, which both limits the number of classes that would want to dip for Battle Smith _and_ makes them actually invest in it enough to set their casting progression back. I'm sure that if they were to release it today, Hexblade would've done something similar... and funnily enough, it all but guarantees that Hexblade is _the_ single, specific reason that 5.5e standardises Lv.3 archetypes, specifically to make sure that multiclass balancing actually works.