Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Skeetweasel 05-30-07, 12:33 AM	Should the Str or Dex modifier play that big off a role in the roll for attack? It seems to make more since that training, not physical strength, would determine what chance a warrior has a hitting an opponent. Training would seem to be more helpful to a dexterous warrior than just a player given ability. I think there should be some benefit to hit because of a high str or dex score, but the effect should be less than it currently is. Should the Dex modifier have that much of an effect to AC? I say training is again the answer. The defense bonus in the Unearthed Arcana does this somewhat but it needs to be written to be used with armor not just in place of it. Dex modifier does have some place in AC but it seems to play too big of a role for me. I really believe stats play too big of a role in a character. Training should be able to overcome any slight the character had at creation. Now of course each stat should have a main purpose. Str for damage, Con for hit points, Int for arcane spells, etc. But "to hit" bonuses should come mainly from classes. So should skill boosts. Maybe even saves. I would like to see more emphasis put on training from classes and less on what stats can do. Thanks in advance for your ideas on improving the game we all love.
SageBahamut 05-30-07, 12:35 AM	I prefer to use Dex to hit in all situations. It doesn't matter if you're strong enough to knock down a wall if you're too clumsy to hit the damn thing.
Shiftkitty 05-30-07, 12:46 AM	Here's how we do it. STR for hit bonus (stronger guys can swing swords and axes faster, giving them more power and the target less time to react), DEX for anything that requires aim, such as hitting a specific location, ranged attacks, etc. For bows and other ranged weapons that require physical strength to get the power out of it, you hit with your DEX bonus, but damage with half your STR bonus. (After all, your arm is strong, but that string can only take so much tension. And being a generous DM, I round up.) When we're calling shots, we use a chart from Flying Buffalo's "Desperadoes" for damage multiplication, doing normal damage for anything that's armored (like the family jewels). We just feel that a dagger in the eye is going to do more than 1d4 of damage just as soon as it gets to the brain. Our reason behind the STR*.5 bonus is obvious if you shoot an arrow into a target with different pulls on the bow. A wussy pull is only going to put the arrow so deep, but a good strong pull is going to bury that sucker. A crossbow or other mechanically powered weapon relies on it's own manufacture for power, so doesn't get character-related bonuses for damage. (Sometimes, when we're working this sort of thing out, we actually have some archaic weaponry and a good sized backyard to test things out in. It's not that we're going for realism, we just get this "Hey, I wonder if this would be feasible?" look and out we go! Not the dagger in the eye part, though. ;) )
Shiftkitty 05-30-07, 12:49 AM	I prefer to use Dex to hit in all situations. It doesn't matter if you're strong enough to knock down a wall if you're too clumsy to hit the damn thing. Good point. We had a discussion once based on an article in Black Belt Magazine about who you'd put money on, Bruce Lee or Muhammed Ali. I'm still not sure who I'd bet on. I mean, Bruce Lee could score tons of hits on Muhammed Ali, but all Muhammed Ali would need is that one punch... I feel both skills are important.
Skeetweasel 05-30-07, 01:19 PM	Good point. We had a discussion once based on an article in Black Belt Magazine about who you'd put money on, Bruce Lee or Muhammed Ali. I'm still not sure who I'd bet on. I mean, Bruce Lee could score tons of hits on Muhammed Ali, but all Muhammed Ali would need is that one punch... I feel both skills are important. But neither Lee nor Ali are great fighters because they are strong or dexterous. It is because they are very well trained. I just believe that training, i.e. base attack, feats, class features should determine chance to hit. Not brute strength or whatever dexterity is supposed to measure. Just for fun I wouldn't bet on either. Now if you put Hoyce Gracie in the mix, I'll take that bet.
calvinNhobbes 05-30-07, 05:00 PM	The issue is that real life is very complex and D&D, as a game, is trying to simplify it. Strength and dexterity are intricately related biomechanically. Dexterity can simply be thought of as the ratio of strength to mass. The more negligible the mass due to strength, the easier it is to manipulate.
Shiftkitty 05-30-07, 10:12 PM	Okay. Fine. Go all college on us. jk So a smaller character, and presumably a lighter one, should have a better chance to hit, but won't necessarily do very well on the damage roll unless he has a damage point boost due to training, which we might tack on as a skill? (Gears are turning in my head, can you hear the rusty squeaking?) What stat would be the skill's ability modifier? Int? (To learn the principles) Wis? (To be able to apply them in an out-of-class context, which is an issue for some folks...), an average of more than one ability modifiers? I'm thinking this could cover not knowing just how to hit, but where. Would barbarians and rangers get any kind of automatic ranks? Their very existence depends on knowing where to hit your target, such as in hunting.
Lina_Inverse 05-30-07, 10:25 PM	Should the Str or Dex modifier play that big off a role in the roll for attack? Strengh. Regardless about bad arguements of how dex should benefit to-hit, strengh would do absolutely nothing if it didn't add to-hit. Training would seem to be more helpful to a dexterous warrior than just a player given ability. You mean like +100% at level 20? verus +50% or so for supernatural strengh? I think there should be some benefit to hit because of a high str or dex score, but the effect should be less than it currently is. Can't change the +5% per +1 without using an entirely new system non-valid concept. I really believe stats play too big of a role in a character. Training should be able to overcome any slight the character had at creation. Your quite wrong. There really isn't much a disscussion i can make because your not in a game design mindset at all and are completely overvaluing purely level based bonus. Str for damage Practically worthless. But "to hit" bonuses should come mainly from classes. So should skill boosts. Maybe even saves. Why name a purely mechanical reason to strip customization from characters. Thanks in advance for your ideas on improving the game we all love. Clearly you don't love it and have no desire to improve it.
Rhialto 05-31-07, 05:57 AM	I think training DOES account for the majority of bonuses on to hit rolls. If we assume a 22 to be a respectable stat for a non-munchkin level 10 build, that's a +6 bonus. Choose the right class, and you have +10 on your attack roll from training. Clearly, training counts for far more than raw ability, even without any rules being changed. Strength is applied on hit rolls, because a "hit" isn't just about making contact, but about making contact with enough force to hurt.
bobothechimp 05-31-07, 12:58 PM	Training = BAB
trapspringer 05-31-07, 03:58 PM	The issue is that real life is very complex and D&D, as a game, is trying to simplify it. Strength and dexterity are intricately related biomechanically. Dexterity can simply be thought of as the ratio of strength to mass. The more negligible the mass due to strength, the easier it is to manipulate. T3h win. The system as it stands is workable and logical as long as you remember that it is a gross simplification. It's easier to bend your rationale around the system than the other way around. Find a way to explain it so works for you without changing much.
Skeetweasel 05-31-07, 05:55 PM	Strengh. Regardless about bad arguements of how dex should benefit to-hit, strengh would do absolutely nothing if it didn't add to-hit. Carrying weight limit, lifting weight limit pushing or pulling weight limit, jump checks, climb checks, swim checks, strength checks, damage. You mean like +100% at level 20? verus +50% or so for supernatural strengh? Over 85% would be more appropriate. Earlier editions of D&D used a much smaller % of strength to-hit. Can't change the +5% per +1 without using an entirely new system non-valid concept. "New system non-valid concept"? WTF does that mean? Your quite wrong. There really isn't much a disscussion i can make because your not in a game design mindset at all and are completely overvaluing purely level based bonus. "game design mindset"? Again WTF? Are you a designer? What systems have you designed? Practically worthless. So you don't use strength for damage? What a terrible "game design mindset." Why name a purely mechanical reason to strip customization from characters. You are clearly just a player and have never DM'ed since you are concerned about you power level. Clearly you don't love it and have no desire to improve it. This is just ignorant. Trying to balance a broken system doesn't make me any less of a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. Much like criticizing the president doesn't make me any less a fan of the USA. Thanks for this completely worthless post. If you want to play standard D&D, go to those forums. This is a house rules forum. If you have nothing more to add than, "You should play the game the way it is written and if you don't, you do enjoy D&D", I don't need that advice. If you want to participate in the discussion, do so without the insults. I am not wrong, and I can value level based bonuses as much as I want. It is my game. Not yours. Play it the way you want to but let me play it the way I choose. And clearly your a jerk and love a broken system mindlessly. Thanks for all you level headed, informed people. It is a shame there are so many who don't understand that a forum of discussion is not a place to just so "you're wrong." And I know spelling doesn't count but it is "strength", "versus", "discussion", and "arguments". I would hope on the day of the National Spelling Bee, I would at least be debated by a someone who could spell these simple words. It is humorous to be jabbed at by someone who can't spell the first ability score listed in the PHB, even though these forums have an automatic spell check.
Skeetweasel 05-31-07, 06:08 PM	I think training DOES account for the majority of bonuses on to hit rolls. If we assume a 22 to be a respectable stat for a non-munchkin level 10 build, that's a +6 bonus. Choose the right class, and you have +10 on your attack roll from training. Clearly, training counts for far more than raw ability, even without any rules being changed. Strength is applied on hit rolls, because a "hit" isn't just about making contact, but about making contact with enough force to hurt. I am not sure a whole +4 difference makes it clear that training counts for far more than raw ability. Choose a cleric attack bonus class and that difference is only +1. If people are fine with training only counting for slightly more than raw power, please keep playing that way. I am not. Just because you can bench 500 pounds, doesn't mean you should have a better chance to hit in a fight.. I does mean that if you happen to hit, it will most likely be very painful. I appreciate all of you who say that D&D is a game and it can't be real. I will agree with that. But I have recently spent time with my old 1st edition books. Ability scores had a much smaller role in the capabilities of characters. Training played a much larger part. I would just like to see that again.
Zyrusticae 05-31-07, 06:35 PM	Oi... do you mean those old systems where a character didn't get any bonuses from a stat until it was way up there (15 or higher)? ...Man, I really don't know what to say to ya. By the way, virtually nobody, given a normal point-buy value to buy from (25 points), would put 18 in a single attribute. That's 16 points. For one attribute. And only nine for the rest. Now, sixteen is far more reasonable - that's 10 in one stat and 15 for the rest. It's a +3 at level one. If someone keeps putting it into it until level twenty, that's twenty-one, or a +5. Compare that to a +20 BAB at level 20 for a fighting character. Magical enchantments don't count - that is not natural ability, and a lot more magical assistance. The game, mind you, tends toward the abstract side of things, so if it really bothers you that much, you could simply rule that strength and dexterity actually represent a portion of that character's training, the character's ability to adapt above and beyond that of other characters. I don't think that's too much of a stretch for you to make, is it?
Lina_Inverse 05-31-07, 08:40 PM	Carrying weight limit, lifting weight limit pushing or pulling weight limit, jump checks, climb checks, swim checks, strength checks, damage. D&D is a combat focused game, only one of those applies to combat and thats damage, i will get to that in it's own section. Over 85% would be more appropriate. Earlier editions of D&D used a much smaller % of strength to-hit. Earlier editions delayed the aquisition of bonuses until 15, but an 18 had an equal effect on to-hit, +4. Except basic D&D which used ability modifiers(like d20) that capped at +3. "New system non-valid concept"? WTF does that mean? The d20 system does things in intervals of +5% and ties just about everything to a stat as a part of it. Changeing that changes the most basic assumptions of the system. Breaking that would violate one of the primary intentions of 3rd edition, making the system internally consistent. "game design mindset"? Again WTF? A mind set wherein one is looking at the rules. Ie game design. So you don't use strength for damage? Damage is practically irrelevant as one scales the level system. At first level +hit and +damage are pretty compareable in value, but by 20th level +to-hit might be giving around +20 damage per round while +damage will give an insignifigant +1.5 damage per round. As you can see, removing +to-hit from strength makes the attribute worthless for who it should be best for melee combatants. You are clearly just a player and have never DM'ed since you are concerned about you power level. Incorrect, i never get to play(sadly). You clearly have no right to make rules however as you don't understand the system. Trying to balance a broken system doesn't make me any less of a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. You clearly don't even know what your talking about, your trying to weaken strength which is clearly the worst attribute in the game. Your concept offers no real benefit to the game and clear penalties, a bad idea is a bad idea.
starfire311 05-31-07, 10:49 PM	But neither Lee nor Ali are great fighters because they are strong or dexterous. It is because they are very well trained. I just believe that training, i.e. base attack, feats, class features should determine chance to hit. Not brute strength or whatever dexterity is supposed to measure. Just for fun I wouldn't bet on either. Now if you put Hoyce Gracie in the mix, I'll take that bet. exactly, that is why at low levels when you are untrained your abiltie scores play a huge roll in landing a blow, but at higher levels they are less important for example 1st level fighter with 16 strength and weapon focus has a +5 AB, +3 from stats, +2 from training) 60% is stats take level 20 fighter with 21 nat strength(27 with belt of strength), and WF, GWF, MWM, and +5 weapon, he has a +37 AB, but only 13% is from raw stats, and 65% is from training and 22% from magic.
Skeetweasel 05-31-07, 11:26 PM	D&D is a combat focused game, only one of those applies to combat and thats damage, i will get to that in it's own section. Okay, move your little figures around the grid and play war. Is the miniatures game fun? We don't see D&D as just a combat simulator. But to each his own. Earlier editions delayed the aquisition of bonuses until 15, but an 18 had an equal effect on to-hit, +4. Except basic D&D which used ability modifiers(like d20) that capped at +3. I have my 1st edition PHB and a revised 2nd edition PHB that read a +1 to hit was not granted until a 17 strength score and capped at +3 with an 18/00. Which earlier edition are you talking about? The d20 system does things in intervals of +5% and ties just about everything to a stat as a part of it. Changeing that changes the most basic assumptions of the system. Breaking that would violate one of the primary intentions of 3rd edition, making the system internally consistent. I can't disagree with the +5% intervals. I just don't like the infinitely scaling system with stats that shouldn't have that much effect in game. To me, strength is not the most important component of accurate attacks. It should only be a small part of the full attack bonus. A mind set wherein one is looking at the rules. Ie game design. I am trying to look at game design. I think this one stinks. Damage is practically irrelevant as one scales the level system. At first level +hit and +damage are pretty compareable in value, but by 20th level +to-hit might be giving around +20 damage per round while +damage will give an insignifigant +1.5 damage per round. As you can see, removing +to-hit from strength makes the attribute worthless for who it should be best for melee combatants. Does everyone on these boards play 20th characters all the time? I always see, "well at 20th level." At the most, 5% of all gaming occurs at 20th level. And that is assuming all campaigns run that long. Keep in mind we play from level 1. Playing the character from the bottom is important to our gaming style. Character development is more about personality to use than what feats or skills you take. Incorrect, i never get to play(sadly). Even though we seem to have opposing views, I feel for you. No one in our group will DM either. I am always stuck behind the screen alone. You clearly have no right to make rules however as you don't understand the system. You clearly don't even know what your talking about, your trying to weaken strength which is clearly the worst attribute in the game. Your concept offers no real benefit to the game and clear penalties, a bad idea is a bad idea. I'll group this mess together. I can make any freakin' rule I choose. I have a group of loyal players that allows me to tinker with the system to enhance play. We are all old gamers. I am the youngest and I started in '86. My concept is to eliminate characters that are based just on stats. By lessoning the impact on stats I can increase the effect of class level, reduce many LAs and add sorely needed class bonuses to make the class worthwhile to take. I know that taking strength completely out of the equation or even limiting its effects will change the game. But something will be put in its place to make up for it, maybe even surpass it. I try to err on the players side. When I make these changes, the players will have at least the same chance or more than the current system. As I have stated before, I think training should have the most impact on a characters abilities. That is my opinion and no one has come close convincing me that brute strength is key to combat accuracy. I was going to lay off the atrocious spelling until that last "you have no right to make rules" even though its my game, but man, get a dictionary.
Skeetweasel 05-31-07, 11:36 PM	exactly, that is why at low levels when you are untrained your abiltie scores play a huge roll in landing a blow, but at higher levels they are less important for example 1st level fighter with 16 strength and weapon focus has a +5 AB, +3 from stats, +2 from training) 60% is stats take level 20 fighter with 21 nat strength(27 with belt of strength), and WF, GWF, MWM, and +5 weapon, he has a +37 AB, but only 13% is from raw stats, and 65% is from training and 22% from magic. Decent example. But please no 20th level examples. I don't play 20th level much. No more than 5% of the time. And by 20th level a fighter should not have 13% of his attack chance from his base strength. With the magic, strength counts for more 1/5 of any chance to hit. For me that is just too much. .
calvinNhobbes 06-01-07, 12:30 PM	Skeetweasel, I understand your point that training should count for something (and in game it does), but I think you are seriously underestimating how much being "physically gifted" counts for physical competitions. Example: why is it that an overwhelming number of professional athletes in contact sports (football, basketball, hockey, boxing, mixed martial arts, etc) retire before the age of 40? It is not because they've somehow lost their training or experience (in fact they are arguably at their peak in this regard). It is because they have physically started to deteriorate. The human body reaches it's maximum physical potential in the mid twenties. By their late thirties, they have lost enough physical ability that they are unable to compete against the inexperienced younger but physically superior athletes.
trapspringer 06-01-07, 12:54 PM	CnH:I would like to point out that Men keep packin' on muscle mass until they are about forty. The risk of injury increases dramatically enough that it isn't practical to take advantage of that fact. Just wanted to make sure we aren't sellin' the old guys short. You are, of course, basically entirely correct and I am not trying to suggest anything to the contrary. SkeetWeasle: I agree with you that, IRL, strength is a tertiary consideration when it comes to landing a hit. Of course this varies considerably from technique to technique (for example the difference between a jab and low-section round kick). Still, one can generally make contact relying primarily on agility and precision. One problem in your supposition is that "hitting" involves finding a gap in an opponent's armor. It might be that D&D characters power through an opponent's armor. In that sense strength would be very important in "hitting" because of the way armor works in D&D (which is to say it makes it harder to "hit" rather than absorbing damage). That major hole in your argument aside, I do strongly agree that it's totally not cool for everyone to bust out the "but at level 20..." argument. I think that is extremely irrelevant to most players. 'Course you still gotta' recognize that even at level 10+ fighters aren't much compared to their wizardly counterparts. If you take away this advantage from melee combatants you will need to give them some sort of compensation, no?
calvinNhobbes 06-01-07, 01:27 PM	CnH:I would like to point out that Men keep packin' on muscle mass until they are about forty. The risk of injury increases dramatically enough that it isn't practical to take advantage of that fact. Just wanted to make sure we aren't sellin' the old guys short. You are, of course, basically entirely correct and I am not trying to suggest anything to the contrary. It depends on what you you mean by "packing". I just turned 29, far from "old", but I can say it is alot harder to just maintain my strength, let alone increase it, compared to when I was in college. When I was 22, just looking at a dumbbell added 5 pounds of muscle it seemed! :D But you are correct, the mid-late twenties range I gave is more for woman, while it is more like early-mid thirties for men when they reach their peak anabolic hormone levels. One problem in your supposition is that "hitting" involves finding a gap in an opponent's armor. It might be that D&D characters power through an opponent's armor. In that sense strength would be very important in "hitting" because of the way armor works in D&D (which is to say it makes it harder to "hit" rather than absorbing damage). That is pretty much how I justify it as well trapspringer. Skeetweasel, I've spent alot of time (too much) screwing around with combat/armor variants and making up my own, and I've realized that more realism does not equal more fun. But since you seem very adamant, when I get the time I'll post some of them to see what you think of it.
Metafictional 06-01-07, 06:30 PM	As an old school gamer, I once saw an article that explained this principle (for the old AD&D). The idea is, Strength is supposed to grant not only more damage, but more consistent damage in melee combat. The best way to make damage more consistent, is to allow characters to inflict damage more often, ie, by granting a "to hit" bonus on their attacks. It's not that they are any more accurate, it's simply that when a strong character attacks, he's much more likely to hurt you. AC being kind of abstract, a lot of people think it's all about actually hitting a foe, but in reality, your AC determines how likely someone is going to HURT you, not hit you. The same article mentioned that, you could remove the "to hit" bonus from Str, but you would have to increase the damage bonus as well. This unfortunately leads to a system where a high Str character hits you less often, but when he does, OUCH. Power Attack, to my mind, was specifically created for players who are boggled at +Str to hit (I know, Power Attack goes off BAB, but the principle of trading accuracy for damage is valid, I think). I won't get into Defensive fighting or Combat Expertise, though, that's harder to explain. So +Strength to hit in melee is actually a good mechanic for what Strength is really doing for you. It's an artefact from an earlier version of the rules. And yes, I think +Str for touch attacks is just plain stupid.
Xaer 06-01-07, 11:23 PM	Kinda hard to work with when simplified, but I like to think of it this way: Me and the other DM at my site occasionally swordfight. I may not be strong overall, but my strength to mass is ridiculous enough that I was the winner of several high school chinup contests against hundreds of stronger people. The other DM is large and not as coordinated, but has tons of sheer muscle. When he fights with a small weapon, or I with a large, I win. As such, I tend to use DEX for attack on small weapons and ignore the weapon finesse feat. Larger weapons get STR to attack, because the ability to move the weapon quickly lies in the ability to heft it, not to be able to move exactly precisely. Damage is trickier, but I go with STR, simply due to the fact that his blows obviously hurt me a lot more than mine hurt him. Bows would use strength as well, though anything with predetermined firepower(crossbows, guns) add nothing to damage(this isn't final fantasy, pulling the trigger harder doesn't increase damage).
Shiftkitty 06-02-07, 11:23 AM	Pulling the trigger harder increases damage? LOL! That reminds me of the waaaaaay back old days when we'd be chasing each other around the yard with toy guns. We'd snap the pistols like whips. I guess the idea was that our imaginary would go faster if we gave them that extra snap!
Rhialto 06-02-07, 02:01 PM	If you've ever used a bow, you'll know that strength has more to do with whether you are able to draw the bow at all than how far/hard it goes. I've always found the idea that strength gives a bonus to damage for any bow (or any other projectile for that matter) as ridiculous. I can, however, see a strong case for bows that do more damage but have a higher than usual minimum strength requirement to use.
Shiftkitty 06-03-07, 10:13 AM	Hmm, maybe that translates out better than my concept of how far you can pull the bow back. I feel that less tension on the string is going to send the arrow at a slower speed, thus making it more vulnerable to variations in flight, and will give less penetration power at impact. Am I wrong, or correct only to a minute degree that wouldn't make a difference? What's terminal velocity for a regular arrow, and how much pull does it take to achieve it?
trapspringer 06-03-07, 01:23 PM	Really it's more binary than that. Either you can draw a composite bow past the point where it "breaks" (stops fighting you) or you can't.
Rhialto 06-03-07, 02:08 PM	ok, there's two issues here... With traditional bows (that includes shortbows, long bows, recurve bows, and compound bows), either you can pull it back far enough to loose an arrow ith it, or you can't. It is possible to "overdraw" a bow, pulling the strong back farther than teh normal archery stance would require, but that is very inefficient. it doesn't really add usefully to the force behind the arrow, since that extra energy tends to translate into the arms vibrating rather than pushing the arrow. It actually marginally reduces the life expectancy of the bow, since you're stressing the arms beyond what they were designed for. Conversely, anyone can "underdraw" a bow, IF they are strong enough to draw it to its normal draw weight. If you aren't strong enough to draw a given bow normally, you won't have any meaningful accuracy when underdrawing a bow; it actually takes far more strength to hold and aim an underdrawn bow compared to a normal-drawn bow, as you can't lock your arms into a stance properly that way. Anyone can pull back any bow and have an arrow fly from it somewhere. But aiming it is another matter entirely. Executive summary: Overdrawing is possible for someone whose strength is equal or over teh design strength of the bow. Since the effect is to shorten the life expectancy of the bow (the extra energy tends to goes into shaking the bow rather than pushing the arrow), there's no reason to do so. Underdrawing isn't practical for someone too weak to draw that bow normally. It may be done by someone who could draw it normally. Since the result would be a significant penalty to range and damage, they wouldn't normally have much reason to underdraw. All this goes out the window when it comes to compound bows. Note that compound bows and composite bows are very different beasts. A composite bow is made from multiple materials glued together. The differeing tensile strengths of the various component materials is what makes a composite bow more powerful than a regular bow of the same length, but they are not really that different in terms of how they feel when drawn. A compound bow is a relatively modern (1970s or so) invention, and features a rather complex puilley system on the string. They have a very heavy draw weight initially, but once you draw it past a certain point, their draw weight drops to almost zero. It isn't really possible to overdraw these with any real effect, as the pulley system in this case absorbs all the extra energy (although at least you won't damage the bow by overdrawing). the issues with underdrawing are pretty much identical to regular bows. Stringing a bow This is where minimum strength is really significant. unless you are actively expecting combat, you won't travel around with your bow strung. having a strung bow puts stress on the arms; accidents can happen, and the stress could cause the string to suddenly break, possibly causing a nasty whiplash to anyone nearby. Normally, an archer would string his bow about 10 minutes before he expects to start loosing arrows. And if you aren't strong enough to string up your bow, then you probably aren't cut out for archery.
Skeetweasel 06-03-07, 02:34 PM	On the subject of strength bows, I have always thought the extra strength needed to use you the meant more tension. When I was a lad, I had my own recurve bow but it was only 40 lbs of tension. This is in comparison to the longbow of 120 lbs my father shot. I always figured a strength bow was just a bow of higher tension closer to the 120 lb longbow than to the 40 lb recurve.
Rhialto 06-03-07, 03:18 PM	On the subject of strength bows, I have always thought the extra strength needed to use you the meant more tension... That would be my take on it too. Although personally, I'd revamp the entire weapons system, and impose minimum Str and Dex scores for just about everything.
starfire311 06-04-07, 10:46 AM	That major hole in your argument aside, I do strongly agree that it's totally not cool for everyone to bust out the "but at level 20..." argument. I think that is extremely irrelevant to most players. 'Course you still gotta' recognize that even at level 10+ fighters aren't much compared to their wizardly counterparts. If you take away this advantage from melee combatants you will need to give them some sort of compensation, no? my argument had nothing to do with level 20 at all, it had to do witht eh fact that in DnD as you level up your chance to hit begins to depend more and more on training than on stats, much like IRL.