Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Riven213 09-13-07, 08:52 PM	I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I'm curious as to peoples' take on it. As anyone who plays a variety of d20-based games is aware, Dexterity is frequently by default the BAB modifier for both ranged and melee attacks. This was true in 3rd Edition, however, and while v.3.5 "cleaned up" a bit in this regard by making Weapon Finesse universal instead of weapon-specific, it left Strength as the default melee attack roll modifier. I do not know specifically why this is, but I am wondering if it is based more on the mechanics of the system as-is than actual sense or preference. Dex-based Fighters (and Dex-based combat classes in general) are an increasingly popular character choice; replacing Strength with Dexterity in this aspect eliminates the Weapon Finesse feat. Aside from freeing up a feat slot for Dex-based combatants everywhere, it also dramatically increases (in a much improved fashion) their weapon selection, and removes a prerequisite for certain other feats, prestige classes, etc. making them easier to pick up. A possible counter to this comes readily to mind (perhaps too readily for this to be the primary reason behind retaining Strength as the melee attack roll modifier): make Dexterity the primary attack roll modifier, and apply the Weapon Finesse feat (with the same qualifications as it currently holds) to damage, rather than the attack roll. It is also possible that Strength is simply seen as more appropriate in a fantasy game, where melee combat involves large people wearing thick, heavy armor and wielding big, non-finesse-minded weapons. I don't have any counterpoint to this, but it might not even be the case (hence my seeking of opinion).
Mojo_Rat 09-13-07, 09:10 PM	To be honest? I am not aware of any game that has Dex as the default stat for attacks. I suppose in D20 modern it may seem like that but thats just because ranged weapons have a much more prominent role but for melee it is still /strength/ The last version of Star wars (the one before Saga which i have never played) also used strength for melee. I doubt it's going to change. Although I admit needing a feat for dexterity based attacks maybe should not be needed.
Watchman 09-13-07, 09:20 PM	Conan D20 in essence gives Weapon Finesse to everyone for free (an approach I heartily condone), but that's about it far as I know. 'Course, that one and D&D are about the only D20 games I pay any attention to anyway so my perspective's a bit limited...
Alcalientre 09-13-07, 09:28 PM	Holding anything on target requires strength and coordination. Realistically, it shouldn't be one or the other. I think that strength seems more logical, as you can imagine that coordinating the movements of large, heavy objects would fall under the domain of strength. It's much harder to imagine getting any good hits while flicking your wrist around like a pansy. I like to imagine Weapon Finesse and dexterity based fighting in general as focusing more on your movements, not the movements of your weapon. A thought I had just now is that Weapon Finesse could be changed to "Agile Fighting" which is probably already a feat, which would add your dexterity bonus - those agile movements - to your strength modifier - the actual placing of the weapon. This seems overpowered, but remember that not many characters are going to invest heavily in both strength and dexterity. For most classes it's an either/or issue. And even if there is an issue, I'm sure it could be balanced somehow. I don't use this as a houserule, I'm not even sure it would be a good idea, I only came up with it just now. That's just how I like to think about the two abilities as they apply to melee combat.
StevenO 09-13-07, 11:05 PM	Unless you're looking at 3rd party material STR has always been the primary stat for melee and DEX for ranged. As for 3rd edition STR was even more firmly entrenched in melee as Weapon Finesse only applied to one weapon instead of all finessable weapons. Outside of DnD DEX may be the governing combat stat but that is generally due to a reduction in armor making the AC bonus more important and because there is (much) more ranged combat. However even those systems rely on STR when the characters get up close and personal. As for the idea that Weapon Finesse should be free for all take a look at this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=919842
Watchman 09-14-07, 05:50 AM	That thread did very little to convince me of it being anything else than a good idea. Truth be told if it was me I'd just use straight Dex for to-hits (or maybe the average of Dex and Str), as connecting with the other guy tends to be chiefly an issue of quick and decisive movement when it counts - hurting him is another story. Masters of old didn't emphasize improving their students' agility and coordination just for fun after all, and knightly combat training would not have included acrobatics and dancing without a purpose. But I digress.
smacfarl 09-14-07, 08:54 AM	I have to agree with Watchman and Riven. I think it agrees much more with common sense to have Dex rule the to hit modifiers on everything, while strength seems to be more related to which classes of weapons you can use and how much damage you can do with them. Actually I have some real concerns about how combat is actually supposed to work with armored characters. Sure it's an approximation, but armor has a certain amount of hardness, and unless you are aiming for very specific places on the wearer your attack has to penetrate it to do any damage. Seems to me that there should be a certain amount of damage reduction applied to the majority of hits on most armors not just adamanite, and that the armors should be tracked for the damage done to them. A lot of times an armored character will take damage and then heal, but never even think about the damage that has to have been done to the armor to actually make him bleed. I think about the scene in the Fellowship of the Rings when the troll impales frodo, and the mithril is strong enough to prevent the spear from piercing his flesh. Sure that may be over dramatic, but I have a hard time getting my head around a long sword slicing or piercing through plate mail, without a heck of a lot of strength behind it as well as a ridiculous sharp sword. Imagine if you have some fighter swinging a heavy maul unto the back of a lighter weight guy in adamanite armor. Seems like you might not dent the armor but you would knock him off balance and maybe onto his knees. However if you clock him in the back of the head the shock might break his neck, or damage his chin, even if the armor itself isn't deformed. Thoughts on this. Seems like it would be worth fleshing this stuff out and into 4E...
Watchman 09-14-07, 09:07 AM	Quite a few RPGs with combat systems of saner lineage than than of D&D do it that way already - the primary purpose of armour is to absorb damage so its wearer gets off with lesser or optimally no injuries, not cause stuff to bounce off entirely (plate is the about only type that can manage that, anyway). A character's strenght should govern his damage output and what kinds of weapons s/he can manage, the actual act of bringing them to bear on a target being a separate issue. Movie-Frodo would incidentally have gotten his innnards mushed. Mail, like all metal armour, is bloody difficult to get something sharp through, but in common with all flexible armours does unfortunately little to what is known as blunt trauma (which is one reason why you wore thick padding under it, but anyway). Indeed many of the methods for getting through the stuff cheerfully abused this detail, should they not be exploiting its inherent problem with pointy things. IIRC in the books Frodo just got speared in the side by a big Orc, which is rather saner. Leave it to Jackson and the crew to supply gratuitious ridiculousness where none existed... :rolleyes:
jacobi289 09-14-07, 09:23 AM	I think it should be an either/or type of thing, letting you choose whichever you want. You can use dex if you want to make quick, accurate strikes at undefended body parts, or you can make overwhelmingly strong strikes that blow through armor and hit so fast that they are difficult to evade or parry.
Case 09-14-07, 09:50 AM	I would sort of agree with an either/or type of thing, except that I think it should vary by weapon. Rapier? Dex bonus to attack Longsword? your choice. Great-axe? Str bonus to attack Something like that.
smacfarl 09-14-07, 09:58 AM	I don't really think the either or thing makes sense. Strength determines what class weapon you can wield effectively, and should make it easier to wield lighter weapons for longer without fatigue, but this effect is not measured in the game usually. If I have 10 strength I am going to have a hard time with a greataxe. To swing it effectively I am going to have to commit my whole strength all the time, and this is going to tire me out faster and expose me more an more between swings. If I have 16 strength, it's not a problem, I could swing the thing all day long. Now as a 16 strength guy if I move down to a rapier, it's going to feel like moving from a 16 lb bowling ball to a kids 8lber! However I may be less accurate because I overswing the thing, since I am used to a heavier weapon. But when I hit with it, man I'm definitely doing more damage. Am I doing more damage from my strength as a strong guy with a light weapon, than I would as a strong guy with a heavy weapon? I dunno, maybe. Strength should also be used to determine how much damage you add to a weapons strike. Now I can see sometimes you don't commit your full strength or really step into a blow. Consider a jab in boxing vs an upper cut. With the jab I place it quick and then I'm ready for something else, but if I step in with an uppercut I'm commited. If I hit with the uppercut I really wallop the guy, but if I miss, well I'm exposed, until I recover. So I can see a choice as to when to apply your strength, but I think whether the jab or upper cut actually connects is based on dexterity. Sure the jab of a stronger guy is going to hurt more even if he's not fully committed, but actually getting the glove to hit the other guy seems to be an all dexterity move. If not boxing, then consider the climatic battle in the movie Rob Roy, where a quick little guy takes on a big burly Scotsman.
Watchman 09-14-07, 10:12 AM	"Big man, long fall." - a martial arts master :P D&D actually does have a mechanic in place for the "careful" way of fighting - Fighting Defensively - and most line infantry for example would spend much of their time using that, as most prioritized their own survival over smiting the enemy. Another reason why berserker-types were scary of course. What's somewhat lacking is one for a "committed" attack where you press on the attack heedless of the risk to yourself, in D&D terms the exact opposite of Frighting Defensively and Combat Expertise - there's a Feat which handles the latter somewhere, but a "built-in" option similar to Fighting Defensively is lacking. Not that it would be very difficult to reverse-engineer of course.
RobbyPants 09-14-07, 10:32 AM	It is also possible that Strength is simply seen as more appropriate in a fantasy game, where melee combat involves large people wearing thick, heavy armor and wielding big, non-finesse-minded weapons. I don't have any counterpoint to this, but it might not even be the case (hence my seeking of opinion). The reason D&D chose to use Str as the primary attack is because of the way armor is represented in the game. Note how your AC can be split into flat-footed and touch AC. This illustrates how both your ability to dodge, and ability to absorb/deflect blows is taken into account for your total AC. So the Str mod is used on attacks to help overcome armor. I'm still a little surprised that a melee touch attack would still use Str instad of Dex, but the fact that in 3.x AC could be split into flat-footed and touch was a good idea. Games like Diablo use Dex to determine how well you hit. You could (with a lot of work) convert D&D to do this, but you'd have to remove armor (partially or fully) form AC and have it work more like damage reduction. That way Str overcomes armor simply by dealing more damage (and having more get passed the DR). There's a variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) in Unearthed Arcana that already does this. Basically half of your AC (round up) is applied to AC and the other half (round down) is applied to damage reduction. It's an intersting idea, but it will drastically impact game balance. Heavy armored characters will see a big improvement in the early game, but later in the game, they will be taking much more damage than normal.
ruff0126 09-14-07, 10:54 AM	The way I have alway seen it was a game balance issue very few things are affected by Str to begin with; encumberance, a hand full of skills and melee att and all physical damage that is pretty much it. Where as Dex has a larger number of skills, init, ac, ranged to hit, including almost all spell that require a to hit roll and a saving throw. Don't you think it would be a but much to give Dex all att bonus at this point?
Watchman 09-14-07, 11:27 AM	The reason D&D chose to use Str as the primary attack is because of the way armor is represented in the game. Note how your AC can be split into flat-footed and touch AC. This illustrates how both your ability to dodge, and ability to absorb/deflect blows is taken into account for your total AC. So the Str mod is used on attacks to help overcome armor. I'm still a little surprised that a melee touch attack would still use Str instad of Dex, but the fact that in 3.x AC could be split into flat-footed and touch was a good idea.The minor issue with this is that Str handles the attack bonus even when the target doesn't have one point of Armour or Natural Armour bonus, but crazy amounts of stuff like Dex and Dodge bonuses instead... And, of course, the D&D armour system is kinda dumb and clunky to begin with. Don't you think it would be a but much to give Dex all att bonus at this point?Personally ? Not really. Skill and coordination, not brawn, have always been the central qualities of a good warrior. Stamina and horsepower hardly hurt and indeed are very beneficial overall, but there's a reason the training regime of ancient warriors was not that of weightlifters and bodybuilders.
Bihlbo 09-14-07, 11:34 AM	Conan D20 in essence gives Weapon Finesse to everyone for free (an approach I heartily condone), but that's about it far as I know. 'Course, that one and D&D are about the only D20 games I pay any attention to anyway so my perspective's a bit limited... One thing to keep in mind about Conan is that it uses a heavily modified system of rules for combat hits and damage. Since that system also includes other balancing factors that give a high-Str character different strengths and weaknesses compared to a high-Dex character, you simply cannot use it as the basis for a couple of house rules. You have to look at the whole impact of the changes in Conan and work to create the same balance when you house rule things. In other words, don't grab the weapon finesse rules from Conan without the Parry mod to AC and armor DR. The OP of this thread has so many things wrong.... As anyone who plays a variety of d20-based games is aware, Dexterity is frequently by default the BAB modifier for both ranged and melee attacks. This was true in 3rd Edition, however, and while v.3.5 "cleaned up" a bit in this regard by making Weapon Finesse universal instead of weapon-specific, it left Strength as the default melee attack roll modifier. I play a variety of d20-based games, I have friends who do too, and none of us have ever once heard of a game where Dex is the default modifier to your chance to hit in melee. So, your first sentence is wrong. Do you have any examples of games that do this? Because I have a strong hunch that the d20-based games you have in mind weren't made by a company that employs people to make sure there is balance in their rule changes. Also, "This was true in 3rd Edition" is a typo, I assume, because it's a wrong statement. Dex-based Fighters (and Dex-based combat classes in general) are an increasingly popular character choice This is only a true statement if you're referring to your own preference and choices, or if you're comparing the popularity of Dex-based fighters now to their popularity in the AD&D years. ...replacing Strength with Dexterity in this aspect eliminates the Weapon Finesse feat. Aside from freeing up a feat slot for Dex-based combatants everywhere, it also dramatically increases (in a much improved fashion) their weapon selection, and removes a prerequisite for certain other feats, prestige classes, etc. making them easier to pick up. Well, this is all true. But it's also true to say that giving every class proficiency in all armors eliminates the need to have extra proficiency feats and frees up the "lighter" classes to have better armor choices. But it's still a horrible idea. The point of making changes to the rules should never be to just make everything easier for all classes. A possible counter to this comes readily to mind (perhaps too readily for this to be the primary reason behind retaining Strength as the melee attack roll modifier): make Dexterity the primary attack roll modifier, and apply the Weapon Finesse feat (with the same qualifications as it currently holds) to damage, rather than the attack roll. This isn't a counter, nor is it a reason to retain Str as the melee modifier. It's a suggestion for the complete re-write of the melee combat rules. Something you haven't mentioned is the balance of Attribute use. If your chance to hit in melee and range were based off of Dex, that leaves Str with only three uses: melee damage (and you're suggesting removing this), carrying capacity, and 3 skills. It becomes the default dump stat. The obvious result of this is that every D&D game you'd play would feel far more modern in the way combat choices are made: why use a big sword when a good crossbow and lightweight materials means that no character ever needs a good Str score? Make sure all your fights are on dry, level ground and shoot at each other till someone botches enough rolls to drop. Why even have a Strength score at that point? The ideal design is that there are no dump stats, and you're suggesting making Str a dump stat for nearly every character. I think that alone makes this a bad idea.
BW0222 09-14-07, 12:06 PM	Riven213, Dexterity based fighters (and combat classes) are rarely effective fighters. They are far more appropriate for skirmish type actions since, without a reasonable strength, you can't stand toe-to-toe against much in D&D. Besides the fact that the strength based fighter can use heavier weapons, he does dramatically more damage because strength adds to damage. An 18/10 (str/dex) fighter using a longsword is doing 1d8+4 (average 9.5) vs. an 10/18 (str/dex) fighter using a rapier or shortsword doing 1d6 (average 3.5). The fighter is doing 2.75x times the damage. Using a two-handed weapon (say a two-handed sword) damage is 2d6+6 (average 13) or 3.70x the damage. In a typical fight this means that the high strength character is going to drop the creature in about half the time as the high dexterity character. At lower levels, the high strength character can get about the same AC as the high dexterity character by using heavier armor and/or shields -- which only costs realitively small amounts of gold. At higher levels, AC becomes less meaningful because creatures can hit more reasonable ACs at will. Since most monsters dramatically out damage humaniod PCs... dexterity-based fighters don't last long. If you figure out the number of rounds it takes a 5th-level PC to drop a 45hp dire wolf doing only 1d6 damage per attack... while it is doing 1d8+10 per attack to you. It gets worse when you start looking at folks with regeneration or damage reduction -- say a wererat or a troll. Other than classes which get lots of extra damage per attack, say rogues with sneak attack, dexterity based melee is typically only used as a back-up for characters who have a high dexterity for some other reason -- archer, skills, etc. Realistically, if you are going up front, all you can do with a dex-build it buy time for someone else (archer, wizard, rogue) to actually damage the opponent. In which case, you might as well skip attacking (and weapon finesse) and go total defense.
Kalis Atrud 09-14-07, 03:42 PM	Personally ? Not really. Skill and coordination, not brawn, have always been the central qualities of a good warrior. Stamina and horsepower hardly hurt and indeed are very beneficial overall, but there's a reason the training regime of ancient warriors was not that of weightlifters and bodybuilders. Skill is Base attack bonus, not dex. This is the major problem with people arguing dex for all attacks. They see strength users as skill less brutes. Your "skill" in combat is your BAB, strength just helps you get your weapon to the target quicker and with more force. Which is why your "Big man, long fall" quote is flawed. If each combatant is equally skilled, a stronger man will crush the weaker man in a straight up fight. Even if they aren't quite equal in skill, a stronger man can still have an advantage simply because strength is an advantage on the battlefield. Most "masters" do not face equally skilled opponents, they throw around their stronger students who have way less experience or other low experience fodder(by comparison). The fact is that if the wise old master had the physical attributes of his youth in addition to his experience, he would be a much deadlier opponent. Also, bodybuilders build for show, not power. There is a reason warriors of the past trained with their actual weapons and didn't train exclusively in ballroom dancing for coordination. They wanted combat skill and coordination(aka BAB).
Watchman 09-14-07, 03:57 PM	You sort of forgot to mention a substantial difference in quickness also rather favors the faster guy. The usefulness of physical strenght - or as I like to call it, horsepower - comes above all from its role in striking power, ie. making a connecting blow tell, and should it be relevant, the management of heavier war gear without becoming unacceptably bogged down. Plus a couple of other peripheral things. Flesh by itself has some fairly severe shortcomings when dealing with weapons, so much of that is only really relevant if armour gets involved. Otherwise it doesn't take much in the way of mighty thews to skewer someone's innards lethally. Nonetheless, physical strenght does not have a direct connection with fighting skill in the same fashion as quickness, agility and coordination do. It is perfectly possible to be a highly skilled combatant without being strong (although it would be wise to engage in some determined physical conditioning to do something about that matter - which is easy enough, requiring primarily time and diligence; usually this aspect formed part of the weapon practice itself, so that the specific muscle groups necessary would be properly developed). But it is pretty much impossible to be both a skilled fighter and slow and clumsy - the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. As a side note, some Late Medieval Master of Defense was apparently fond of saying something along the lines of the practice of swordsmanship being good for one's bearing, breathing - and dancing skill. Go fig.
Kalis Atrud 09-15-07, 10:53 AM	The fast movement is aided by strength, not by dex. Strong muscles, trained for the job you want to accomplish, are faster than weaker muscles. There is a reason that sprinters have big strong leg muscles, strength is your speed. The reason powerlifters(not bodybuilders) can't totally crush martial arts masters isn't because of the masters quickness, but because the master is much more skilled(ie. has a higher base attack bonus) than the powerlifter who has no actual combat training. In theory, it should be almost impossible for a human physically inclined adventurer to get some crazy physical stat set up like Str 3 Dex 18 Con 10 or any combination thereof. The training you would undertake to become a warrior should be making all your physical stats excel(at least 12 in each). The average strength warrior should be no exception. Swinging the weapon over and over improves Str, Con, and (very slowly) base attack bonus. Working on dodging and weaving for hours inside the weapon train, would improve dex, class based defense if you use it, and con again. No warrior should be some 18, 18, 3 physical stat mismatch. It is perfectly possible to be a warrior with only slightly above average str, con, and dex. Skill(again BAB) in combat can really help with that. Being more dextrous doesn't mean you are faster, it means you are generally more coordinated. All the coordination in the world won't help you if you are too weak to move the sword. Weapon Finesse is the way of learning how to apply that general coordination into weapon coordination.
Watchman 09-15-07, 12:44 PM	Really ? You know, I'm kinda willing to bet that between lifting dumbbells and juggling baseballs, it's the latter that rather better develops the hand-eye coordination I need to punch someone's face in (or keep someone from doing so unto me). Doubly so as I actually know from empirical evidence it works that way. It does not require much in the way of muscular strenght to move swiftly - a good example of that are performance artists whose acts rely on quick and precise movements, especially if you compare them to people who for one reason or another have developed impressive amounts of physical strenght alone (eg. through heavy physical labor). What does require muscle is exerting force, which becomes important around the point your fist actually connects with the other guy's nose - the more power you can put behind it by various means, the more he hurts.
Kalis Atrud 09-15-07, 02:54 PM	The best way to develop coordination for punching somebody in the face, is to practice punching somebody in the face. Also, those who practice performance arts such as ballet and gymnastics are among the strongest people in the world, pound for pound.
EvilVegan 09-15-07, 03:09 PM	Make finessable weapons use dex. Make regular weapons use str. Extra damage is str based. Logistical problem solved. Dex for a great axe? Not so much. A little, but not much. Make a feat that allows int to damage for finessable weapons. Don't stack up dex to attack and damage, because it also does reflex and AC. Unless you want Dex to be the only stat ever and everyone only to play elves and halflings.
Watchman 09-15-07, 04:54 PM	The best way to develop coordination for punching somebody in the face, is to practice punching somebody in the face.No duh - why do you suppose ancient warriors spent time swinging practice swords at poles and chunks of clay ? And a lot of combat training involves endlessly "going through the moves" so they become "hardwired" and reflexive (which, incidentally, can just as well be all about developing the relevant coordination and practiced movement - many martial arts of, shall we say, less than practical orientation largely ignore the kind of training that would be required for the movements to also deliver damage effectively) ? But that's not what I was talking about. Also, those who practice performance arts such as ballet and gymnastics are among the strongest people in the world, pound for pound.But they tend not have that many pounds on the average, now do they ? This is also besides the point; any athlete will, obviously, by necessity develop the sort of physique he or she needs through training. But let me put it this way: all other things being equal, which one has the better basis to become an effective warrior on - the lithe agile ballet dancer, or the big bulky weightlifter or shot-putter ? The latter two, for obvious reasons, focus on developing their physical strenght and its direct application since that's what their event is focused on. By your logic they should then also have the physical capabilities better suited for the needs of combat... right ? But it doesn't work that way. As one longtime practicioner has remarked, "you win a sword fight by hitting the other guy first."
Cifer 09-15-07, 05:00 PM	I'd say let the system stay as it is right now. The first reason is that strength becomes important during attacks when the enemy parries or wears armor - the second reason is that melee attack rolls are one of the comparably few opportunities where a large strength score accomplishes something.
Kalis Atrud 09-15-07, 05:29 PM	If we assume they want to be warriors and have time to train for it, rather than just being thrown to the wolves as is, then the weightlifter should be the best warrior. Size and the ability to wear plate in an era before firearms is a great combination for a warrior.
Watchman 09-15-07, 06:13 PM	Nonsense. Plate's easy enough to wear anyway - it's light and well-balanced. It tends to demand stamina though, as it does a fine job trapping body heat inside the harness... But then again full plate was the Porsche and Rolls-Royce of personal armour; about the only ones who wore that were the warrior nobility, and they were thoroughly trained to fight from their early teens by default. Simple cuirasses, light and effective, were conversely something eventually almost every soldier wore, and quite comfortable enough (so much as any armour now is anyway). Frankly, all other things being equal in an one-on-one fight the quick man will more likely than not butcher the slower one. We're not talking about bare-knuckle boxing or wrestling here; we're talking about taking a human body apart with tools specifically designed to compensate for the obvious shortcomings humans have in natural weaponry. And with those, it tends to be the guy who can land blows on his opponent and avoid getting hit in return who wins - and strenght alone helps very little in that. You only need enough to handle your weapon effectively, although extra certainly doesn't hurt any (well, you anyway...). Humans go to bits readily enough with that already. It'd be a bit different, or at least more complicated, issue if we were talking about a line-infantry slugging match where there is little room to move, but we're not.
Kalis Atrud 09-16-07, 10:34 AM	The problem with your fast guy versus slow guy is, again, strength is speed. Dex is just your overall manual coordination and agility. Just because Thomas is a surgeon(ie highish dexterity, at least hopefully) doesn't mean that he would win in a fight against Billy the farmboy(highish strength) if we gave both swords. Billy's speed in a fight is probably quite a bit higher than you expect. Dexterity isn't speed, or else we would have surgeons and jugglers winning the 100 meter dash.
Holy_Beholder 09-16-07, 11:51 AM	The ideal design is that there are no dump stats, and you're suggesting making Str a dump stat for nearly every character. I think that alone makes this a bad idea. Strength should affect damage, but it also could affect what weapons you could wield. For instance, a str 7 rogue could make do with a rapier or short sword, but a long sword is a bit heavy, as is a greatsword. A bastard sword or long sword in two hands might work. So basically, if your medium and your strength is below 6 you count as small, and must either use small weapons or medium light weapons, or normal weapons in two hands. If it is above 16, you can use large weapons. Seeing as normal is 12, I think that that is reasonable. If armor provided both AC and DR(and if you went above the AC you ignored the DR) then this would work pretty well. 1d6-2 damage has a maximum of 4(average 1.5), and plate armor could probably have a good DR 8, and probably AC 8. Chain would be DR 6, AC 10, since its flexible. Leather might be DR 2, AC 4. So that rapier or short sword is going to go through. On the other hand your 16 strength guy wielding a large greatsword is going to be doing 2d8+4 damage, up to 20(average 13). This will be piercing the plate armor pretty reliably even if you don't find a gap.
Neutronium_Dragon 09-16-07, 01:33 PM	Your attack bonus is modified by Strength because in D&D, the attack bonus represents not just your ability to connect to the target, but to punch through the physical defenses which they have - chiefly armor, but also natural armor and other modifiers. That is a function of strength. Design-wise, it's a bad idea to just apply Dex to attack for free because it overloads an already-powerful stat.
Watchman 09-16-07, 02:02 PM	The problem with your fast guy versus slow guy is, again, strength is speed. Dex is just your overall manual coordination and agility. Just because Thomas is a surgeon(ie highish dexterity, at least hopefully) doesn't mean that he would win in a fight against Billy the farmboy(highish strength) if we gave both swords. Billy's speed in a fight is probably quite a bit higher than you expect. Dexterity isn't speed, or else we would have surgeons and jugglers winning the 100 meter dash.Uhh... I don't know about you, but I'd definitely tie any surgery-related skill to Intelligence. The specialised manual dexterity involved is largely handled by the skill itself. Trust me on this one. I am a qualified watchmaker, which is more or less the mechanic equivalent of a surgeon. The guys who get into that kind of training aren't master jugglers or ballet dancer; but they do need to be fairly smart, at least in certain specialised ways. And I can assure you my professional training didn't make me one bit more agile or particularly improve the speed I can move my limbs with; it did teach a fair bit of precision manual dexterity and a lot of ability to visualize and comprehend complex machinery though. In other words, you're not even comparing apples and oranges - you're comparing apples and cheese. Replace Tom the Surgeon with Randy the Dancer, and you'd be on the right track. We're talking about *that* kind of agility here, the sort the Dexterity stat (or in any case all of its combat-relevant parts); familiarity with your own body and its movements and the ability to make it move like you want to, quick feet, fast reflexes, good hand-eye coordination etc. Not a very specialized form of manual dexterity. And strenght don't cover a jack of that. If you went and started splitting hairs about IRL I'd concede some points certainly, but the Str stat in D&D is an abstract and measures quite specifically your ability to extert force on the world around you and that alone. Also, your point about the strenght needed to move a weapon is pointless. Swords were mostly pretty light; about a kilogram or a bit more, not anything anyone in decent condition is going to have a problem swinging a while with. (That assigning at least some weapons a "Minimum Str Required" score, as for example H_B proposes, would be perfectly realistic and credible is a quite different thing - surviving training manuals and treatises on combat skills do exhort any warrior to only choose weapons that actually suit his physique, after all.) The strong guy isn't going to tire as fast, true (although in D&D this is abstracted under the stat Con and has nothing to do with Str...), but that's a cold comfort if he no longer has a head. The scenario, obviously, has to assume both fighters are wielding weapons they can actually manage - a small quick dude would not voluntarily even try to use a weapon designed for big strong fellows, such as a big Danish axe, after all. Instead he'd pick eg. a spear - fairly light, simple to use, easy to manage, quite lethal, and has a good reach. Nevertheless the point stands; all other things being equal, in armed but unarmoured combat it is the fast man who wins. You win such a fight by being somewhere your opponent's weapon isn't (which requires good reflexes and adroit movement) and getting your weapon where he is. And it takes rather little strenght to, say, render someone hors de combat with a gut shot - indeed, perfectly common untrained amateurs these days manage it easily enough with teesy-weensy knives... Or sever tendons in a forearm. Or deliver a deep stab into the thigh, quite likely crippling the leg and potentially opening a rather major artery. And so on. The thing is that just the fact Burly Bob can lift a horse don't by itself help him a jack hitting the small and weasely but quick and agile Dirty Pete; the terrible power he can put behind his blows avails him naught if he's flatly too slow to actually connect with Pete, who sure as Hell isn't going to helpfully stand there getting hit. Nosirree, Pete'll be taking a step or few back (an inch is as good as a mile anyway, if you miss) - and more likely than not come back in to inflict grievous bodily harm on Bob while the latter is recovering from his cow-killer swipe. Or he might actually come in and gut Bob before he gets off his mighty blow, for that matter; you win a sword fight by cutting the other guy first, as it were. Just plain being substantially quicker than the other guy is a major advantage, as you can potentially land a blow before he even registers it coming.
Neutronium_Dragon 09-16-07, 02:07 PM	Getting the first blow in is represented by initiative (which Dex helps), not attack bonus. The strong guy can probably also manage a bigger weapon - which means he has a reach advantage. Mr. Quick is going to have a problem getting in there to strike when he'll be skewered halfway along. It's not like the strong guy is somehow rendered super-clumsy and unable to do anything other than wild side-to-side swings, after all. IOW, being quick is nice, but it's not an "I win" button.
kalstrand 09-16-07, 02:19 PM	Strength should affect damage, but it also could affect what weapons you could wield. For instance, a str 7 rogue could make do with a rapier or short sword, but a long sword is a bit heavy, as is a greatsword. Except that the difference in weight between a rapier and a longsword is negligable. In fact if its a rapier with a really fancy basket hilt and a very simple longsword the rapier could very easily weigh more than the longsword.
Watchman 09-16-07, 02:32 PM	We're assuming ceteris paribus here save for one guy being substantially quicker and the other substantially stronger here. If you're going to do any theoretical comparision like this the first thing you do is strip away all the extraneous stuff - all other things being equal, right ? Ergo, about comparable size (which does not directly relate to physical strenght anyway - a tall guy can be light and skinny, a short guy all toned muscle) ergo basic reach, equal skill (ie. none), no psychological advantages, equal weapons etc. Getting the first blow in is represented by initiative (which Dex helps), not attack bonus.If the other guy can move his amateur hand fast enough to have his sword in my throat before I even realize it's coming, nevermind have the time to raise my amateur hand with sword to parry it, from both participants being battle-ready, where does that not equal attack bonus I ask you ? Heck, serious martial artists devote crazy amounts of time to nothing more than being able to throw a basic blow simply fast enough the other bugger can't react to it in time... IOW, being quick is nice, but it's not an "I win" button."With this thing alone, even the strongest opponent is defeated." - a riddle "Victory." - answer to the above Or as some US general succintly put it, "in war there can be no substitute for victory." The only "I win button" there is is being overwhelmingly better at fighting than your opponent, and obviously that one can only be determined ex post facto rendering the point somewhat moot. No, being faster is hardly any quarantee of victory; but all other things being equal it goes a darned long way. If I'm fast enough to consistently be somewhere else than your blows are going to, and fast enough my blow connects while you're still wondering where the fig my hand suddenly disappeared to, then I'd say it's one bloody big advantage. And it avails you naught in that situation if you can bend a damn I-beam with your bare hands.
Kalis Atrud 09-16-07, 02:43 PM	snip High Strength isn't necessarily bulky and slow, stop assuming it is. Nobody would consider all football players bulky and slow, some have quite a bit of instant speed and power if they need it. One of the problems with the human body is just how fragile it is. It is very likely for Billy the farmboy to be able to inflict a potentially fatal blow on Randy in unarmored weapon combat even if Randy does strike first with a mortal wound. The fact is that Randy the dancer may be agile(or may just have a lot of time invested into learning to dance, ie "skill points") but he isn't superhumanly so. In reality, just because you have stabbed somebody, doesn't mean they won't get a chance to retaliate, just because you have mortally wounded them. Nothing about Dex says it covers speed, it just says hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. Just because you move in first, doesn't mean you strike last. Also, we are assuming all things being equal, except one person is more agile, and the other is stronger. DEX isn't speed, and never will be no matter how much you keep using quicker when you mean more agile.
Holy_Beholder 09-16-07, 08:38 PM	Except that the difference in weight between a rapier and a longsword is negligable. In fact if its a rapier with a really fancy basket hilt and a very simple longsword the rapier could very easily weigh more than the longsword. By D&D rules, the rapier can be finessed, which is why I allowed it. And pick up a rapier and an arming sword(the real word for long sword) and the rapier is longer if it is the same weight, which is a very real advantage. If they are the same length, the rapier is probably lighter. And the basket hilt keeps the balance towards the hand, which makes it more maneuverable, although armor is going to be really irritating now.
Cifer 09-16-07, 09:29 PM	@Holy beholder The problem with that system is that it doesn't do anything to help STR that's not de facto the case in the RAW anyway. I've yet to see a character with low strength use a two-handed weapon even when there is no mechanical "you're not allowed to", because a lot of the better abilities of heavy weapons need a high STR - beginning with power attack and 1 1/2 times str to damage. You're restricting str 7 guys to rapiers? That becomes a restriction as soon as they'd like to use something else. It's the same thing as saying "I've decided to weaken wizards. Therefore, they are not allowed to use the Shield Bash attack." Right now, the only thing your rule does is strengthen an already really important stat and weaken a rather ambigous one.
Watchman 09-17-07, 03:07 AM	High Strength isn't necessarily bulky and slow, stop assuming it is. Nobody would consider all football players bulky and slow, some have quite a bit of instant speed and power if they need it.Never did. What exactly the difference in agility and quickness stems from is completely irrelevant to the scenario - it is the difference that matter. Also, you're only conditionally correct. A big muscle-bound fellow is not necessarily clumsy and awkward - but the less he's actually practiced moving his bulk adroitly, the more likely it is that he is. Football players are athletes whose sport requires a fair bit of agility and nimble movement; which is why they train specifically to improve those areas too. The same way swordsmen don't just swing heavy practice swords to build up their ability to deliver strong blows - they spend inordinate amounts of attention on footwork, swiftness of movement etc. so that those blows will go where they want them to when they want them to. Unarmed martial artists don't train just hitting hard - they spend a lot of effort "getting fastest the furthest", as it were. And so on. Conversely, ever watched thos World's Strongest Man contests ? I have. The blokes are certainly phenomenally strong, no doubt about it; but they're also bulky and awkward, having trained solely for feats of strenght and power output. Indeed the muscle and body volume most have developed for it seems to literally be getting in their way when they move (after a certain point you can only add more power output by developing muscle volume, so...). By your logic these men should be fearsome warriors by the virtue of their great physical power alone, but it doesn't work that way - unless they first trained out that ponderous awkwardness, they'd just have been sitting ducks in a Medieval fight. This doesn't apply to just humans, either. It is an erroneous commonplace that the heavy warhorses of bygone times were huge ponderous beasts akin to draft horses; this is not so, already by surviving skeletal and pictorial evidence. Surviving texts on the subject specifically emphasize the necessity of agility in a battle mount (somewhat relative as horses aren't exactly the most lithe animals around of course; the beasts were duly trained to improve this part, just as humans were), and sternly warned their audiences against choosing ones overly weighed down by raw muscle mass and size. One of the problems with the human body is just how fragile it is. It is very likely for Billy the farmboy to be able to inflict a potentially fatal blow on Randy in unarmored weapon combat even if Randy does strike first with a mortal wound. --- In reality, just because you have stabbed somebody, doesn't mean they won't get a chance to retaliate, just because you have mortally wounded them.This is certainly true (albeit it is also just as likely Billy will be too busy choking on his own blood and about passing out in agony and wound shock to do more than gurgle) and would suck for Randy, but I don't see what the price of tea in China has to do with the topic at hand. The fact is that Randy the dancer may be agile(or may just have a lot of time invested into learning to dance, ie "skill points") but he isn't superhumanly so.Good luck becoming a good dancer without becoming fairly coordinated and graceful in the process, I'd say. Goes for any such physical discipline that requires a lot of accurately coordinated full-body movement. As an aside, you do realize that what are essentially specialized forms of dance - kata or whatever form practice, singly or in groups, now is called in the relevant culture - form an important part of combat training do you ? It's all about learning to move smoothly and surely as needed. The assorted war-dances and the like also tended to have a similar purpose (on top of their ritual and magical meanings), drilling the warriors in the basic footwork and fighting movements. Nothing about Dex says it covers speed, it just says hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. Just because you move in first, doesn't mean you strike last. Also, we are assuming all things being equal, except one person is more agile, and the other is stronger. DEX isn't speed, and never will be no matter how much you keep using quicker when you mean more agile.Just what meaning you are using for the word "speed", anyway ? Earlier you were talking about distance running too. We're not talking about ground speed here, which is an entirely different matter - horses aren't exactly agile, but they sure run fast as Hell because they're built to do so, whereas little monkeys are nimble as anything but not exactly the swiftest runners around - but the speed of reflexes, of swiftness of arm and leg, of being able to tell your body and limbs do this and being able to follow through without delay. Agility, adroitness, speed, reflexes, coordination... there's many terms for that kind of thing, most of them to a greater or lesser degree overlapping and interchangeable; the lot of them is also what the D&D Dex stats, also per definition as per PHB, encompasses. Stop wasting my time with red herrings, will you ?
Kalis Atrud 09-17-07, 06:33 AM	By speed, I mean how fast you move an object or yourself, in this case a weapon. STR is better for moving the weapon and moving in faster and DEX helps you react to the danger better and prepare to fight and helps you dodge in the actual fight(what with the reacting to danger better and better hand-eye coordination). I've done plenty of kata in my time. I'm not the most agile, tough, or strong person either(is it possible for all stats to be dump stats?), but with enough practice I could do my kata in karate just as well as the other students in my class. Repetition of what you need to do can close the distance between different levels of natural ability. All other things being equal, Randy is just as likely to win the fight as Billy. Being able to dodge and parry better(it isn't that Billy can't, he just isn't as good at it as Randy) doesn't help when Billy's attacks knock Randy's sword out of the way. Moving in first to strike doesn't help when Randy's sword doesn't move fast enough to take advantage of the openings he sees and Billy, with average dex, has time to move out of the way.
Watchman 09-17-07, 08:37 AM	Dex is what measures how fast your arm moves (including the "data transfer" from the CNS, the time it takes for the muscles to start carrying out the order, and how adroitly and accurately the muscles and tendons actually realize it). Str is what measures how much stuff besides its own inherent mass your arm moves, ie. the degree of force it can exert on objects. See the difference ? The two govern entirely different aspects with but a barest minimum of overlap. And nowhere in the scenario are we assuming weapons heavy enough they'd actually meaningfully slow down your arm - for all we care they might be using long knives or smallswords. Being able to dodge and parry better(it isn't that Billy can't, he just isn't as good at it as Randy) doesn't help when Billy's attacks knock Randy's sword out of the way....assuming Randy's stupid enough to let him do it and doesn't evade instead. Why the Hell would you let a stronger opponent batter your weapon aside like that if you can help it ? Retreating from the attack is in any case one of the more instinctive defensive moves humans do. Not that Billy could necessarily exploit the opening before Randy got his wepaon back into line, anyway - remember, we're assuming a telling difference in speed here. Nonetheless, those are among the random vagaries of combat (ie. the specific tactical decisions the participants make etc.) which can affect the outcome to any direction. We're not discussing those here, but which all other things being equal assuming minimal or no actual combat training (ie. more or less the equivalent of most 1st-level D&D characters) is more advantageous - superior speed and agility, or superior strenght and horsepower. We can move this beyond humans too of course if you want - let's assume a very strong but for one reason or another clumsy creature, say a Troll or Ogre with Str 20+ but Dex for one reason or another at something pitiable like 6. On what grounds can you really argue that superb power would make up for its hopeless ponderosity and lack of speed when it tries to get its claws/greasy mitts on a light but nimble opponent who sure as Hell isn't going to cooperate with the effort, say an Elf warrior of Str 10-12 but Dex 20+ ? For something of a real-world comparision I refer you to bullfighters... :D
Nom 09-17-07, 09:47 AM	Dex is what measures how fast your arm moves (including the "data transfer" from the CNS, the time it takes for the muscles to start carrying out the order, and how adroitly and accurately the muscles and tendons actually realize it). Str is what measures how much stuff besides its own inherent mass your arm moves, ie. the degree of force it can exert on objects.No. Dex measures how quickly you can decide to start your arm moving and your ability to feel a particular grip on the weapon. Anything actually relating to moving the thing along a pre-determined path at speed is Str. In fact, most of the time you're not going to be jerking or jabbing any decent sized weapon; you're going to be swinging it very fast, preferably in a manner that allows the energy from one swing to be carried into the next. And any "fine adjustments" are going to be made as you're committing to the stroke; the aim is that you've been cunning (why don't we add Int to all attacks and Wis to all defenses?) enough to figure where the opponent isn't defending and strong/fast enough to deliver the blow before the opponent can counter it or despite his attempted counter. Yes, a better sense of timing (Dex) will definitely help. But all the timing in the world is pretty useless against an armoured opponent unless you have the speed to deliver a telling blow (Str).
Watchman 09-17-07, 10:07 AM	Armour was defined away from the equation from the start if you recall, and I distinctly remember repeatedly mentioning it is specifically something strenght output definitely plays a part in - producing enough of an impact to get through such an obstacle. This is however more of an issue with the bass ackwards way D&D treats armour; it should be an obstacle to damage from a connecting blow, not to actually getting a blow connect in the first place. As an aside, actually as far as I know just about all really powerful strike types are rather slow and easy to "read", plus have a nasty tendency to leave the user open to hostile attentions - which is why they were normally only used as "finishers" after the enemy had first been sufficiently staggered, disordered and/or slowed down by more careful and less committed attacks. The thing is, in D&D you're still using Str even if *all* the AC bonuses the other guy gets are type Dex and Dodge... See the logical problem ? If one doesn't want to start fiddling with the AC system, perhaps it would work better to use the average of Str and Dex to "cover all the bases" as it were and give some lighter/more agile weapons the option of being used with just Dex (ie. Finesseability) - and perhaps some particularly heavy and cumbersome ones (Greataxe and the like spring to mind as immediate candidates) with just Str ? I have some issues with that last one really, but given the somewhat ossified way D&D treats stats - ie. the all but utter inability to improve them after character creation - it might be necessary, if only to avoid excessively troubling people who managed to roll weird stat allocations for their combat types.
Kalis Atrud 09-17-07, 11:22 AM	Dex is what measures how fast your arm moves (including the "data transfer" from the CNS, the time it takes for the muscles to start carrying out the order, and how adroitly and accurately the muscles and tendons actually realize it). Str is what measures how much stuff besides its own inherent mass your arm moves, ie. the degree of force it can exert on objects. ... Not that Billy could necessarily exploit the opening before Randy got his wepaon back into line, anyway - remember, we're assuming a telling difference in speed here. Strength is how fast you move something or yourself, dex is how fast you decide to move something as Nom said. It isn't a telling difference in speed, it is a telling difference in strength and reaction. The bull fighter analogy is flawed as the bullfighter just has to face an animal, not something with a similar level of intelligence(we hope;) ). An D&D elf versus an ogre of similar skill(again dex is not skill or speed) would be very tough for the elf to overcome. The ogre isn't just stronger, he is also tougher. Unless the elf is doing something like firing arrows from trees, the ogre will win.
Watchman 09-17-07, 11:28 AM	Anything actually relating to moving the thing along a pre-determined path at speed is Str.On what basis ? What the two stats' bonuses are used for already makes it patently clear Dex is the one which manages virtually all movement-related, especially fast and precise actions.In fact, most of the time you're not going to be jerking or jabbing any decent sized weapon; you're going to be swinging it very fast, preferably in a manner that allows the energy from one swing to be carried into the next.Which if anything sounds like it's Dex turf - fast and precise movement. Str determines how much Newtons you actually get out of it. And any "fine adjustments" are going to be made as you're committing to the stroke; the aim is that you've been cunning enough to figure where the opponent isn't defending and strong/fast enough to deliver the blow before the opponent can counter it or despite his attempted counter....which are primarily an issue of skill (ie. BAB) and, again, being able to move in a fast and coordinated enough fashion. Not something a strong but clumsy bugger would be all that good at - bulging biceps don't add much to your coordination and speed - but very much something a quick weakling could do quite easily (that he'd have an issue in the terminal damage departement is a different issue). Are you incidentally quite aware you're trying to argue away Weapon Finesse here ? (why don't we add Int to all attacks and Wis to all defenses?)Very funny. Because hand-to-hand combat is a motor skill; any baboon can learn it with enough practice without becoming a whit more clever otherwise. The dumb baboon is just that much more prone to falling for any clever tricks and tactics its opponent might try to pull outside the actual exchange of blows...
Watchman 09-17-07, 11:34 AM	The bull fighter analogy is flawed as the bullfighter just has to face an animal, not something with a similar level of intelligence(we hope;) ).Irrelevant. The Bull is, after all, *very* strong but not exactly the most agile thing around. It basic problem - that power amounts to nothing if it cannot be brought to bear on its intented target - remains the exact same for a sentient tool-user, and on a more abstract level for example an army as well. An D&D elf versus an ogre of similar skill(again dex is not skill or speed) would be very tough for the elf to overcome. The ogre isn't just stronger, he is also tougher. Unless the elf is doing something like firing arrows from trees, the ogre will win.Price of tea in China again. How the combat might end is completely irrelevant; it is a scenario for underlining the very real conceptual problem of using the Str bonus (alone) as the stat bonus for attack rolls. Because you're not going to be able to come up with a credible explanation as to how the big lug is supposed to be able to compensate with its horsepower for its clumsiness in order to nail the fast little bugger tormenting it.
Watchman 09-17-07, 11:55 AM	(again dex is not skill or speed)Given what its established uses in the rules are, I'm actually somewhat impressed you can make the latter claim with a straight face.
Kalis Atrud 09-17-07, 05:22 PM	Irrelevant. The Bull is, after all, *very* strong but not exactly the most agile thing around. It basic problem - that power amounts to nothing if it cannot be brought to bear on its intented target - remains the exact same for a sentient tool-user, and on a more abstract level for example an army as well. Price of tea in China again. How the combat might end is completely irrelevant; it is a scenario for underlining the very real conceptual problem of using the Str bonus (alone) as the stat bonus for attack rolls. So you bring up bullfighting, and elves and ogres, and I am discussing the price of tea in China? The fact is that the average lone elf stands no chance in a straight up fight(with or without weapons) with the average lone ogre, which makes sense both in reality and game rules. As to the last post, explain how hand eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance cover movement speed rather than movement precision and reaction.
Watchman 09-17-07, 06:15 PM	So you bring up bullfighting, and elves and ogres, and I am discussing the price of tea in China?Learn to recognize a figure of speech. :rolleyes: The meaning, obviously, is that what you were talking about was about as relevant to the topic as the proverbial price of tea in China. The fact is that the average lone elf stands no chance in a straight up fight(with or without weapons) with the average lone ogre, which makes sense both in reality and game rules.Which is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about, which is what physical quality they employ to land blows on one another. As to the last post, explain how hand eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance cover movement speed rather than movement precision and reaction.Movement speed as in the ability to be move adroitly this way and that so, for example, the other guy's sword just missed you by a comfortable margin and you're now in a position to exploit the gap delivering this attack opened in his defenses, and can thrust out your hand like this so he gets a ventilated lung before he can react ? A damn lot. Movement speed as in how many seconds you need to dash 100m, ie. ground speed ? That never had any role in the discussion anyway, and I seem to recall explaining that at least once already. If you don't mind me asking, do you actually have any arguments that aren't Missing The Whole Point Of The Debate or semantics ? Because I'm getting the feeling my time and attention are being wasted on irrelevancies here.
Nadaka 09-17-07, 06:25 PM	the stronger you are, the faster you can accelerate a weapon. The faster you can accelerate a weapon the less likely some is going to be able to dodge, and the more kinetic energy you have to pierce armor. Yes. Strength bonus to attack makes perfect sense both against dodgy opponents and armored ones.
Holy_Beholder 09-17-07, 06:34 PM	On the other hand, being able to move and accelerate a weapon really fast isn't going to do you much good unless you are able to aim it well, as well as move with the blow. I have fenced, and while being strong is an advantage, being fast is more of one. With heavier weapons, strength comes into more importance. Lets say we are dealing with someone with 1 dex and 20 strength against someone with 1 strength and 20 dex. Now lets assume that they are both using rapiers. The guy with 20 strength will be able to accelerate his weapon a lot, however, he will probably off balance afterwards. The guy with 20 dex jumps back, jabs him, and fails to pierce his shirt(:censored: denim). In addition, you usually want to dodge a weapon before it moves, so you have to see what they are going to do, and get out of there or put your weapon in the way before they do. Which means that when the guy with 20 strength pulls his weapon back, the guy with 20 dex moves in a quick circle around him, then the sword moves. If the guy with 20 strength had higher dex, he would have been more able to compensate for the dodge by changing the angle with precision, but he doesn't have that. So the 20 dex guy stabs him in the side, and is stopped because of the pressure between 2 ribs. So neither of them are going to do much. You need both speed and strength, and the speed helps you hit more, as well as not be hit. On the other hand, being strong is a very good thing when you are dealing with armor, or if your wimpy enough, a denim shirt.
Watchman 09-17-07, 06:41 PM	the stronger you are, the faster you can accelerate a weapon. The faster you can accelerate a weapon the less likely some is going to be able to dodge, and the more kinetic energy you have to pierce armor. Yes. Strength bonus to attack makes perfect sense both against dodgy opponents and armored ones.So you're claiming the weightlifter can swing a sword faster than a juggler-acrobat by the virtue of his brawn alone ? By extension, that also means his arm... See anything wrong with this picture ?
Holy_Beholder 09-17-07, 06:43 PM	Actually, he can move it faster, or rather it is faster in mid swing. However, after one swing, the gap between it and the next is going to be longer. So would be the time when he moves it half way through to deal with a dodge. The strong guy has a sword that moves fast, but it turns late. Big disadvantage.
Watchman 09-17-07, 06:46 PM	I'd say he was a bit slower at getting it going in the first place too, mind you.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-17-07, 07:08 PM	While I agree that dex makes more sense to help people hit, balance wise it doesn't work. Dex already determines initiative, AC and reflex saves. About the only way you might be able to make dex the attack roll stat is if you combined the use of strength and con. That way strength could be bonus damage, bonus hp and fortutide. Of course this involves condensing the 6 ability score system into 5, which will never happen. 6 ability scores for whatever reason is a super sacred cow.
Kalis Atrud 09-17-07, 08:30 PM	So neither of them are going to do much. You need both speed and strength, and the speed helps you hit more, as well as not be hit. On the other hand, being strong is a very good thing when you are dealing with armor, or if your wimpy enough, a denim shirt. Problem is that just touching somebody with the rapier isn't succeeding in an attack roll. You have to inflict actual damage for that. Dex is fine for touch attacks(which is just reaching out with your weapon and touching them without doing any damage), but a normal attack roll is to check if you have done damage. Touching the guy and doing nothing because his muscles block your damage isn't a successful hit in D&D. Dex helps in fencing, because all you need to do is touch them. If the requirement was to cause a bleeding through the fencing armor, then strength would be very helpful. Again by movement speed I mean how fast you move your sword or yourself. Changing directions at the drop of a hat with precision is agility, the actual movement speed is strength trained for speed and instant power.
Nadaka 09-17-07, 08:32 PM	So you're claiming the weightlifter can swing a sword faster than a juggler-acrobat by the virtue of his brawn alone ? By extension, that also means his arm... See anything wrong with this picture ? Weight lifters do not practice swinging stuff. Hell, they don't even try to get strong. All they really care about is bulk, and the more bulk they have the more weight they have to get moving, countering some or all of the increased acceleration. So, who hits faster, Bruce Lee? or one of those painted dudes from Circe De Sole'? Yes, a stronger person can swing faster and harder than someone who is less strong but more agile. Its not only time tested by millions of melee combatants over the last few thousand years, but is a simple consequence of physics. A stronger person can apply more force in a given amount of time. Force = Mass * Acceleration by applying more force to a given mass in a given period of time the object WILL move faster. Actually, he can move it faster, or rather it is faster in mid swing. However, after one swing, the gap between it and the next is going to be longer. So would be the time when he moves it half way through to deal with a dodge. The strong guy has a sword that moves fast, but it turns late. Big disadvantage. Also not true. Again a stronger person has more force at their command. This only adds to the ability to redirect an object in motion. I'd say he was a bit slower at getting it going in the first place too, mind you. Also not true. F = MA... I am not saying that strength is the only valuable factor. I am saying that it is universally applicable to all melee attack rolls. Here is a good example. compare Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Jackie Chan has more dexterity. Bruce Lee had more strength. Who do you thing can throw a faster punch?
Nom 09-17-07, 08:47 PM	(edit: about half of the contents of this post have already been covered by Kalis and Nadata) With heavier weapons, strength comes into more importance.Actually, the mass of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. As long as you're above a certain minimum threshold, you want your weapon to be as light as possible. In general, the weapon's mass is not the primary instrument of doing damage. Rather, the weapon is there to transfer your power into the opponent. You want to spend your strength getting your weapon moving fast and accurately. Spending it getting some over-weight hunk of mass up to a vaguely useful spend is a waste; it won't do as much damage, it will be easier to avoid (slower), and it will tire you out a heck of a lot quicker, not least because you have to support that weight even when the weapon is not actually mid-swing. This is true even of thrusting weapons. Sport epee fencers are taught not to but their body behind a lunge. Why? Because in sport epee, your goal is to merely touch the opponent with the tip of the weapon, and thus a powerful lunge is (1) over-commiting and (2) more likely to punch through the protective body armour and cause real injury. Whether using a spear, rapier, or dagger, the objective is not to merely touch the opponent with the point of the weapon, the objective is to ram the weapon through the opponent's armour and outer flesh into their vitals. This is best done not by putting the tip in the right place and then asking the opponent to hold still while you get your weight behind the weapon, but by putting your whole weight behind the stab from the word go. The only time you don't put your Str and body weight behind the stab is if you don't actually intend to make this blow count (ie a feint). So yes, if all you care about is making contact with the opponent, Dex is probably a more "realistic" modifier than Str. In fact, Str is probably almost irrelevant in such a situation, as long as you're strong enough to manoeuvre the weapon. But in most combat situations, the objective is to wound the opponent, not merely touch him, and wounding is about delivering as much power as possible. Yes, reflexes and manual precision will help in this process, but it's fundamentally a matter of speed and power. To illustrate a bit further, let's not consider the stupid example of 20/1. Let's compare Str 10, Dex 18 vs Str 18, Dex 10. Let's also be careful that we are talking about ability to strike to wound, and not confusing dodging in there (which affects AC in the D&D model). Thus, let's not consider these guys trying to hit each other, but against a single Dex 14 target. This guy is fairly light on his feet, and will do a good job of dodging and parrying. He is also wearing light body armour, say a chain shirt with a leather jerkin underneath for comfort and to help protect against light piercing weapons. He also carries a buckler. AC 17, if you're counting. The more Dextrous guy has an advantage - he can react more quickly than his opponent, which gives him a degree of initiative (common, not game usage). When the opponent moves his shield or tries to dodge, the more dextrous guy can make adjustments more quickly. However, his swings (or thrusts) are going to be slower and weaker, and although he can react sooner his lesser strength will mean that he is less able to actually redirect his swing (if it was the same speed). He'll be better at spotting openings, but less able to actually exploit them once spotted. When he does hit, he'll hit more softly, and the target will find his weaker blows easier to block and deflect. In contrast, the Stronger attacker won't be as quick off the mark. He'll continually be playing catch-up against his opponent. That might not matter, since when he does swing it will be significantly quicker, and thus harder to dodge, harder to block, and more likely to penetrate armour. Even his misses will be more effective, since the opponent will have more energy to divert or dissipate and thus will be slower to recover. In terms of game modelling, I've seen the suggestion of using Dex to hit and Str to damage. This is flawed in two key ways: (1) It fails to model that a faster, harder swing is more likely to contact. (2) It fails to consider that the existing mechanics reward hitting more than damage. 2-h Power Attack at 2:1 is about the minimum to-hit/damage trade off that values to-hit over damage appropriately; actual values could be closer to 3:1 or more. A flat +1 hit Dex / +1 Str damage suggests that a successful strike in physical combat is primarily about reflexes and manual dexterity, with speed and power making a small extra contribution. If anything, the reverse is true. (Side issue: why is this discussion always about Dex to-hit? Why not have the opposite discussion about Str defense? Watch any non-fencing fight scene and it's quite clear that the stronger person has a big advantage in parrying and blocking)
Holy_Beholder 09-18-07, 08:56 AM	(edit: about half of the contents of this post have already been covered by Kalis and Nadata) Actually, the mass of the weapon is pretty irrelevant. As long as you're above a certain minimum threshold, you want your weapon to be as light as possible. In general, the weapon's mass is not the primary instrument of doing damage. Rather, the weapon is there to transfer your power into the opponent. You want to spend your strength getting your weapon moving fast and accurately. Spending it getting some over-weight hunk of mass up to a vaguely useful spend is a waste; it won't do as much damage, it will be easier to avoid (slower), and it will tire you out a heck of a lot quicker, not least because you have to support that weight even when the weapon is not actually mid-swing. You need a somewhat heavy weapon to effectively deal with armor. While getting through the holes in the armor, especially full plate is easier with a light weapon, you still have to deal with chain mail, and a rapier isn't all that great at dealing with it. While a heavier weapon, especially one weighted at the end works a lot better at dealing with armor. Of course, odds are that anyone wearing full plate is on a horse anyways, but thats kind of beside the point.
Nadaka 09-18-07, 09:30 AM	rapier? not good at dealing with chain mail? 1: The rapier came into play after the decline of widespread chain mail. 2: thrusting the pointed tip of a rapier through the mesh of a chain shirt would be quite easy. 3: what are you smoking?
Captain_Kobold 09-18-07, 11:20 AM	Rapiers generally have trouble wth chain mail. Getting the point into one of the holes in the mesh is fairly easy. It then stops because it cannot exert enough force to deform the rings as the blade widens. The rapier and "fencing" type styles developed after armour, particularly chain, ceased to be commonplace. I'd stick to the current rules. If you intend to effectively give away free weapon finesse feat to everyone, you can, but it will place more emphasis on a stat that already governs several other useful abilities. Regarding the Real life Strength/Dexterity comparison: The weightlifter/dancer analogy is flawed. The dancer does not move faster because his Dex is higher. He moves faster because his Strength-to-weight ratio is much higher. In the abstraction of the D&D system, neither Strength nor Dex governs speed. Strength is muscle and physical power, Dex is coordination, agility, reflexes and balance. Being able to spin around in a flashy series of maneuvers does not denote ability to hit any more than being able to cut through treetrunks. As soon as you start trying to hit an opponent who will be dodging, parrying etc however, and lacking the special training represented by the Weapon finesse feat, strength becomes more useful. Part is due to the armour system, but part is due to the superior leverage and control afforded by a greater strength that allows you to adjust a weapons' trajectory mid-swing, or push through an opponents' guard. Bear in mind, that even against the relatively squishy human body, a blow that connects does not necessarily cause hit point damage. The difference is between a blow that cuts or hurts, and one that actually injures.
Werral 09-18-07, 05:48 PM	Here's an idea: How about giving each weapon a max dex bonus? A bit like the max dex for armour. So you can add your full dex with a dagger or rapier, but maybe a max of +2 with a big choppy weapn like a greatsword and so forth. You could keep Str useful by making a minimum Str to use a weapon - so you need at least Str 14 to use a halberd or greataxe say. You could also say that you add your Str when confirming a Crit. Just an idea.
smacfarl 09-19-07, 02:43 AM	So I think what is bogging this conversation down is a clear definition of just what strength is and what dex is. What are they supposed to represent in the D&D model, and do these things jibe with reality? D&D is fundamentally a game based around the 6 ability point scores. There's a combat game and then there are skill/roleplaying mini games played around the combat, but the combat game is really the focus of the majority of abilities. Also I think it makes sense to forget about the skills/abilities divisions in 3.5 and previously when trying to figure out how things should work for 4.0. It's also pretty clear that the early version of D&D were just not very good abstractions, but rather over elaborate patchworks put up to justify an initial existing set of decisions. That we've all had to live with these limitations for almost 30 years, is more a testament for our desire for the game than the details of the game itself. So I think the thing we should all be trying to model here, rather than picking random examples is a boxing match. Or heck even an ultimate fighting match, using mixed martial arts. What are the essential qualities needed for such combat? How much does strength play? How much does stamina play? How much does the speed of hands and feet play? How much does being able to take punishment play? How much does reaction time matter? And how do you behave as you get tired and hurt? How much does being able to read your opponents intentions matter? How much does deceiving your opponent with your intentions matter? How much knowledge of your fighting style and your opponents fighting style matter for your attack and defense choices? I think if we all together walk through the details of one of these matches, even a hypothetical one we can get closer to figuring out what are those essential qualities needed to really model this kind of interaction, and then map them back to ability scores, in a sensible fashion. If you think about the details of a boxing match, D&D really doesn't have much to say in the 3.5 or under incarnation, but it could have a lot to say in a 4.0 version. I think the idea of AC as it exists needs to be put aside, and think rather about a d20 attack value vs a d20 defense score for a sequence of moves, stemming entirely from ability scores and current physical conditions within the event. If we can model a boxing match, I think 4.0 would be much healthier for it. It would be nice to here from the 4.0 staffers on this thread at this point.
Watchman 09-19-07, 06:53 AM	Then again, these rules also apply to combatants other than humans... Which reminds me, war elephants -probably the strongest creatures ever on any real-world battlefield- apparently had serious trouble catching dudes in shirts who could move out of the way, unlike the heavy infantry who could be easily trampled flat in their close-order ranks. Just thought that worth pointing out...
Corzat_the_Gray 09-19-07, 03:43 PM	(Man, it took me all afternoon to write this up at work, so I apologize if I repeat myself at all or if it seems like I'm rambling) Strength as the ability (score) to attack makes sense to me as it is countered by Dexterity added to Armor Class of the opponent. The arguments in this thread seem to forget that most of the points being made are already figured into the game mechanically. Rather than try to convince me why DEX should be the default attack attribute, convince me why STR should not be. Look at how the game rules already account for this: STR shows the ability (of a generic, non-focused character) to wield a weapon well. A character with a low STR will not be as adept at wielding a weapon as a character with the STR to be able to twirl a blade like it was a piece of straw. STR becomes a part of the function when determining a hit because of this. DEX shows the ability (of a generic, non-focused character) to get out of the way of a blow. A character with a low DEX is not as adept at dodging blows as a character that dances around his opponent as though he were standing still. DEX becomes a part of the function when determining a hit because of this. As an example lets look at what happens when 2 fighters square off against each other. Both are Fighter 1, with no feats applied (general, non-focused), going only off of class and Attributes (STR and DEX). Unarmored and fighting with short swords. Neither opponent is flat-footed. Fighter A won initiative and gets the first swing, and Fighter B then is forced to defend himself. Fighter A: Base Attack to hit is +1 showing his training and work with weapons, from his class. This base is augmented by how well he can swing a weapon, represented by his Strength score. So depending on how well he can swing his weapon, either a bonus or penalty from STR, will be added to his training, Base Attack Bonus, to determine his ability to hit. Fighter B: Base AC of 10. This base is then augmented by how well he can get out of the way of the blow, represented by DEX. So depending on how well he can dodge the blow, either a bonus or penalty from DEX, will be added to his Base AC to determine his ability to avoid the hit. By looking at this example both a character with a bonus to STR and a character with a bonus to DEX would each have an affect on the chances to hit. If all things being equal including the respective bonuses where the STR and DEX bonuses are the same the only factor that is in question is the roll of the dice showing the actual "chance" that someone has to hit another. Now, since we have our control we can start adding variables such as feats. Let's refer back to previous example and see what we can do... Both are Fighter 1. Fighter A standard build for High STR. Fighter B standard build for High DEX. Fighter A has stats of 10 for all but STR where he has an 18 and a bonus of 4. Fighter B has stats of 10 for all but DEX where he has an 18 and a bonus of 4. Fighter A Feats: Weapon Focus (Great Axe), Power Attack Fighter B Feats: Dodge, Weapon Finesse Weapon Focus shows us that the high STR fighter has chosen to narrow his training to a single weapon to increase his odds of scoring a hit and show his expertise with his selected weapon. The same fighter has also focused on committing himself to a blow in such a way that he forgoes accuracy in favor of increased damage, Power Attack. Weapon Finesse shows us that the high DEX fighter has trained to take advantage of his own nimbleness to score a hit and has trained in those weapons that will allow him to take full advantage of that tactic. Dodge was also a natural choice to compliment his already impressive prowess at avoiding a hit. Now when the attack occurs, using the example above with Fighter A winning initiative (however unlikely, it does happen) and getting the first swing: Fighter A: BAB +1 WF +1 STR +4 PA -1 His bonus to hit will be +5 Fighter B: DEX +4 Dodge +1 His bonus to avoid the incoming blow will be +5 So depending on what Chance (the rolling of the dice) leads to will determine if the hit occurs. Fighter B does have a slight advantage in this (I think... never can remember those averages) as he does already basically take 10 on this roll and end up with 15, whereas Fighter A is stuck with the luck of the dice on whether or not he surpasses Fighter B's Armor Class of 15. If Fighter A does connect, he will lay the punishment on B due to wielding a larger, more damaging weapon that he sacrificed accuracy on a swing for even more damage if he does connect. Next up is Fighter B. Fighter B: (Short Sword) BAB +1 Finesse +4 His bonus to hit will be +5. Fighter A: His bonus to avoid the incoming blow will be +0 Here, there is a decidedly noticeable difference in the probable outcome of the two hits. The Dexterous fighter shows a clear advantage over the Strength based fighter, but only in relation their unarmored state. In this situation the high DEX fighter is more likely to connect than the high STR fighter; not because Dexterity more accurately determines the likelyhood of connecting than Strength but because Dexterity more accurately determines the likelyhood of avoiding a strike. While you can train to compensate through a feat, in general the STR/DEX discrepancy on attack doesn't amount to much since a high STR can be countered by a high DEX in relation to Defense which is also technically part of the attack roll as it sets the DC of the Attack Roll. Now don't get me wrong, I can see where this thread is coming from, and from a real world stand-point it would make sense that your ability to land a blow in melee stems not from how strong you are but from how likely you are to place a blow as determined by your nimbleness and agility and quickness of arm. But, in game terms attack is more easily defined as a relation to strength since defense is a relation of dexterity. It's all a function, game wise, left to the roll of the dice, and rather than it be a DEX vs. DEX roll they made it a STR vs. DEX roll. I have no problem with that in a game where a person can blow up a city just by waving his arms around and chanting some words, and maybe throwing a ball of bat poo into the mix. I mean, c'mon, STR has got to be good for something other than damage and encumberance.
Watchman 09-19-07, 09:13 PM	I mean, c'mon, STR has got to be good for something other than damage and encumberance.*slightly puzzled expression* What, why ? Isn't that what people actually use it for ?
Corzat_the_Gray 09-20-07, 07:31 AM	*slightly puzzled expression* What, why ? Isn't that what people actually use it for ? True... Just trying to share the usefulness of stats, I guess. ;)