Weapon damage for low Str

[GutterFace]

something came up i hope you guys can help our table with. please bear with me as i explain.

if you have a Str of 10, your Mod is 0. therefore with a long sword you deal no extra damage. same with a 2h sword. 0*1.5 is still 0. so no extra damage. we all know this.

WHAT if you have an 8 Str, -1 Mod. your long sword is now 1d8-1. what happens with a 2h weapon? by MATH -1*1.5 is -1.5 damage (rounded to -1)

but since you are using 2 arms/hands in combat wouldn't this deficit get cut in half? From -1.5 to a -.5?

i know this is semantics and before you say if you have a -Str you shouldn't be in melee. out melee had the strength drained the hell out of him....and thus the question was asked...

thoughts???

[Averis Vol]

something came up i hope you guys can help our table with. please bear with me as i explain.

if you have a Str of 10, your Mod is 0. therefore with a long sword you deal no extra damage. same with a 2h sword. 0*1.5 is still 0. so no extra damage. we all know this.

WHAT if you have an 8 Str, -1 Mod. your long sword is now 1d8-1. what happens with a 2h weapon? by MATH -1*1.5 is -1.5 damage (rounded to -1)

but since you are using 2 arms/hands in combat wouldn't this deficit get cut in half? From -1.5 to a -.5?

i know this is semantics and before you say if you have a -Str you shouldn't be in melee. out melee had the strength drained the hell out of him....and thus the question was asked...

thoughts???

doesnt work that way. Via PHB on damage:


Damage
If you score a hit, roll damage and deduct it from the target’s current
hit points. Add your Strength modifier on damage rolls involving
melee and thrown weapons. If you’re using a weapon in your off
hand, add one-half your Strength modifier(if it’s a bonus). If you’re
wielding a weapon with both hands, add one and a half times your
Strength modifier (if it’s a bonus.)

[GutterFace]

so negative Str (mod) works the same for 1 and 2h.....interesting.

[Shining Wrath]

OTOH, if you have a negative dex modifier to AC, you are more likely to be hit under normal conditions than you are if you're flat-footed.

[Seerow]

OTOH, if you have a negative dex modifier to AC, you are more likely to be hit under normal conditions than you are if you're flat-footed.

For what it's worth this is one of those things I've never seen not houseruled away in a situation where it came up.

[Averis Vol]

For what it's worth this is one of those things I've never seen not houseruled away in a situation where it came up.

The only way I can rationalise it is that you're so clumsy, standing still is a better defense then blundering around and actively opening yourself up to attacks. But this is more a problem with me practicing swordsmanship and not understanding how the designers could think strength is more important to your swordplay then your dexterity.

[VoxRationis]

While I acknowledge that dexterity is extremely vital to any form of martial art, I believe the idea behind the Strength-to-attack-bonus thing is that:
A) Medieval weapons are heavy, and take lots of force to move quickly enough to strike with;
B) People wear armor, which takes momentum to penetrate.
I'm not sure, but to me it seems like it's a holdover from the wargaming origins of D&D. In a large battle, most people have armor of some sort and most people are using heavier weapons, rather than fencing with epees. Thus, if you want to land a telling blow, rather than simply touch the opponent, you need to have more strength. Obviously, this makes assumptions about combat scenarios and combat styles that don't always apply in the game as is, and is a bit of an abstraction anyway.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Weapon Finesse has been a thing since Core, though, so the designers DID recognize "lighter weapons use more dexterity than strength to work well."

Seriously, even Japanese katanas (heavy, often two-handed weapons by Japan's standards) weighed less than many longswords in Europe. And swords were generally considered sidearms in medieval Europe, so yeah.

That said, on the topic of this thread, yeah. No extra penalty to low Strength.

[Averis Vol]

While I acknowledge that dexterity is extremely vital to any form of martial art, I believe the idea behind the Strength-to-attack-bonus thing is that:
A) Medieval weapons are heavy, and take lots of force to move quickly enough to strike with;
B) People wear armor, which takes momentum to penetrate.
I'm not sure, but to me it seems like it's a holdover from the wargaming origins of D&D. In a large battle, most people have armor of some sort and most people are using heavier weapons, rather than fencing with epees. Thus, if you want to land a telling blow, rather than simply touch the opponent, you need to have more strength. Obviously, this makes assumptions about combat scenarios and combat styles that don't always apply in the game as is, and is a bit of an abstraction anyway.

Realistically, if you were part of an army you had some leathers if you were lucky. armor was rediculously expensive, and only wealthy knights would have it. Also, DnD is absolutely wrong with weapon weights. a longsword (bastard sword) weighs around 2 and a half lbs, a claymore (greatsword) is about 4 on the heavy side.

Also, armor is meant to fit snugly and only minorly inhibits movement, along with being spread out along your body, the weight wasn't that much when you consider that armor doesnt have to be that thick to protect finely. As a final point, if someone was wearing plate armor, your chances of harming them were fairly low. your best bet would be to half hand your sword and try to throw him to the ground. before using your blade as a spear and stabbing him in the throat.

[TuggyNE]

OTOH, if you have a negative dex modifier to AC, you are more likely to be hit under normal conditions than you are if you're flat-footed.

This is also not true.
A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Bonus is used instead of modifier, and for good reason.

[VoxRationis]

I didn't say I agreed with the concept. I too think that Dexterity should be more important. It seems silly that the average giant, with its enormous Strength, has a very high hit rate completely bypassing its minor penalty to attack due to its size. I was just trying to explain what I thought the rationale was.
And for the armor thing, I wasn't referring to Strength being required because you were in armor, I was referring to Strength being required if you wanted to pierce the enemy's armor.

[CombatOwl]

so negative Str (mod) works the same for 1 and 2h.....interesting.

The logic being that if you have a strength bonus, the leverage of the weapon lets you exploit it to better effect. If you have a strength penalty, you're not making any special use of the weapon's size and leverage.