Should I bother to try a subwoofer?

I had Dynaudio confidence 3's (similar in bottom end spec's to your speaker I think) and went to Vandy 5a's with internal 500wpc powered subs.
For me getting the bottom end of the frequency range reproduced at appropriate sound pressure levels was really a big deal and added a lot of enjoyment.
A caveat is that you really need sub(s) that allow themselves to be individually tuned to blend with your speakers and to react appropriately to room resonances, otherwise you are buying a boom box that is maybe only good for movies or whatever.
In my opinion.
Still miss the Confidence 3's sometimes. Seems like every good speaker has certain songs that really make it shine.

"Subs are for people that(dont' you mean who?) buy the wrong speakers." That's the dumbest blanket statement I've read on this forum in a long time!

Yeah...this subject seems to engender some weirdly snarky responses to what is a basic reality: Subs make the lower freqencies audible. Is that so wrong? Also there is something to be said for the imaging capabilities of small baffle speakers that don't have much bass combined with a good sub (like a REL) that can be a magic formula, without having to spend $97,000 on a pair of Rockports (speakers...not shoes).

When you listen to live music, the slam and attack that makes it "live and present" is sub driven.......why is it so wrong to try to have it at home?

I have found that the better the quality of the main speaker the greater the improvement with a sub in added ambience and low level resolution. The addition of the sound of the hall for classical music the greater the retrieval of very low level sounds. I also have Maggie 3.6r's that get well down into the 30's but sound better with a sub crossed over below 40 and volume set so you just barely notice that the sub is on