Interchangable Dexterity and Strength

[Easy_Lee]

So here's one I thought I'd post for the playground's benefit. Right now, dexterity and strength have a few primary benefits each.

Dexterity:

Unarmored AC
More common saving throw
Better ranged weapons
Initiative

Strength:

Heavy armor (if proficient)
Shoving and Grappling
More variety and better melee weapons

Well, I've been doing some historical research lately for a book I'm writing, and I've come to the conclusion that the bolded ones above don't make a lot of sense, especially from a balance perspective if we're just talking games.


On strength, heavy armor is debatable, though I can see how being strong would more easily let you run around all day in the stuff, that's fine. Shoving and grappling, definitely. But being able to use more melee weapons? The vast majority of melee weapons didn't weigh more than ten pounds. Everyone and their mother could pick one up and swing it. The primary difference between a sword bouncing off of something versus cutting it was technique, and knowing how cutting works (you draw the blade along the thing, you don't chop like an axe). Even with an axe or a mace, hitting the target correctly and with good technique matters much more than just hitting it hard.

On dexterity, ranged weapon use doesn't make sense. War bows had about an 80 to 140 pound draw weight, meaning you had to be strong as hell (in your back and shoulders, primarily) to actually use one. Then you had to hold that arrow steady while taking aim. It's nothing like using a gun, which is just about lining up the shot properly. Initiative on dexterity? That doesn't make sense either. Being capable of detailed movement doesn't mean you should react faster. If anything, this should be about how fast you are on your feet and how quickly you can draw your weapons (which would be both strength and dexterity).

So, what do you guys think of this: Use either strength or dexterity for any weapon, whichever is higher, and initiative is controlled by the higher of strength and dexterity. That fixes the problem half this forum has with dexterity being the better stat due to initiative. Strength will still have the advantage of heavy armor, grappling, shoving, and being the most common skill check, while dexterity will still be the most common save, control unarmored AC, and control more skills.

[Ralanr]

I do like the idea, makes all martials more likely to go first.

[Slipperychicken]

So, what do you guys think of this: Use either strength or dexterity for any weapon, whichever is higher, and initiative is controlled by the higher of strength and dexterity.

Sounds like nonsense to me. You might as well go the Shadowrun route and make all weapon attacks controlled by the same stat (Agility, which also contributes to initiative), with strength only adding to damage of melee and bow attacks.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Not as good as your other flexible attributes system. :P But hey, it goes a little bit farther to freedom of character expression, so I'm cool with this one, too. Feels a bit wierd for strength to be initiative, but then again, thinking critically, dexterity doesn't make much sense anyway. Wisdom is probably what it always should have been.

[Ralanr]

Sounds like nonsense to me. You might as well go the Shadowrun route and make all weapon attacks controlled by the same stat (Agility, which also contributes to initiative), with strength only adding to damage of melee and bow attacks.

I could see that. I could also see crossbows getting no bonus damage because all you do is pull a trigger.

[Elbeyon]

I could see that. I could also see crossbows getting no bonus damage because all you do is pull a trigger. If there are two crossbowmen at the same skill level (both have equal proficiency), but one with better accuracy (one has better dexterity), assuming both hit which one do you think would have scored the better hit (more damage)? A person with better aim scoring a better hit makes perfect sense to me.

Now, at the same time proficiency does nothing to directly add to damage, but a class usually has a higher level ability that increases damage. So that could be argued to be skill to damage in some way.

[PotatoGolem]

If there are two crossbowmen at the same skill level (both have equal proficiency), but one with better accuracy (one has better dexterity), assuming both hit which one do you think would have scored the better hit (more damage)? A person with better aim scoring a better hit makes perfect sense to me.


This raises a good point- maybe some weapons should be limited to one or the other? I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of strength with a crossbow, or dexterity with a maul.

[Ralanr]

If there are two crossbowmen at the same skill level (both have equal proficiency), but one with better accuracy (one has better dexterity), assuming both hit which one do you think would have scored the better hit (more damage)? A person with better aim scoring a better hit makes perfect sense to me.

Now, at the same time proficiency does nothing to directly add to damage, but a class usually has a higher level ability that increases damage. So that could be argued to be skill to damage in some way.

If dexterity is just aim speed, then it could be assumed both aim for the same spot and hit. More damage in specific spots.

[Elbeyon]

If dexterity is just aim speed, then it could be assumed both aim for the same spot and hit. More damage in specific spots.If it's aim speed then the creature they attacked could have been ill-prepared to take the attack and taken more damage because of the quicker shot. If someone gets punched in the stomach, the person more prepared for it will take less damage. Quick attacks matter.

[Izha]

This raises a good point- maybe some weapons should be limited to one or the other? I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of strength with a crossbow, or dexterity with a maul.


A higher strength would let you use a more powerful crossbow, I guess. Dexterity with a maul isn't really as crazy as it seems, either. When using a heavy weapon like a maul or greataxe, the trick is to keep it moving - it isn't really possible to start and stop a weapon with that much mass easily, so you weave it around to keep the momentum going.

[Psikerlord]

I think str should be all melee weapons. Dex all ranged weapons. No cross over. But then I would have a feat that lets you use Dex for finesse melee weapons, and give a similar ability for free to rogues, monks and rangers.

As for initiative, just use the card deck method, where dex doesnt apply. If you take the alertness feat, you get 2 cards in the deck instead of one.

[Knaight]

Initiative being either dexterity or strength seems really odd. Sure, dexterity covers reaction time to some extent, but initiative makes a lot more sense tied to awareness, combat experience, etc. The best D&D analog would probably be Wisdom+Proficiency.

[djreynolds]

It's not a bad thought, but now with dexterity adding damage, I don't know. Using a bow takes some strength to pull, some stamina to hold it. But is that aspect constitution or strength. Rangers can add wisdom but not til later, that's cool. Like a hunter aiming for a specific area of the body, because he's experienced. But an assassin knows anatomy too. A doctor knows what's more likely to kill you. I guess finesse weapons are designed to be used with more agility. And proficiency scores account for experience. It's a good discussion though.

[ruy343]

So here's one I thought I'd post for the playground's benefit. Right now, dexterity and strength have a few primary benefits each.

Dexterity:

Unarmored AC
More common saving throw
Better ranged weapons
Initiative

Strength:

Heavy armor (if proficient)
Shoving and Grappling
More variety and better melee weapons


So, what do you guys think of this: Use either strength or dexterity for any weapon, whichever is higher, and initiative is controlled by the higher of strength and dexterity. That fixes the problem half this forum has with dexterity being the better stat due to initiative. Strength will still have the advantage of heavy armor, grappling, shoving, and being the most common skill check, while dexterity will still be the most common save, control unarmored AC, and control more skills.

I actually feel that the weapons table is just fine as is in this edition (contrary to popular opinion). I think that Str and Dex are applied properly in combat for to-hit and damage. However, there are some changes that I would entertain.


Take initiative bonus away from Dexterity and give it to Intelligence (making intelligence more important, and allowing "quickness of mind" to be the qualifier for a fast response in combat).
Allow characters with sufficiently high strength to avoid movement penalties for heavy armor.

[PoeticDwarf]

So here's one I thought I'd post for the playground's benefit. Right now, dexterity and strength have a few primary benefits each.

Dexterity:

Unarmored AC
More common saving throw
Better ranged weapons
Initiative

Strength:

Heavy armor (if proficient)
Shoving and Grappling
More variety and better melee weapons

Well, I've been doing some historical research lately for a book I'm writing, and I've come to the conclusion that the bolded ones above don't make a lot of sense, especially from a balance perspective if we're just talking games.


On strength, heavy armor is debatable, though I can see how being strong would more easily let you run around all day in the stuff, that's fine. Shoving and grappling, definitely. But being able to use more melee weapons? The vast majority of melee weapons didn't weigh more than ten pounds. Everyone and their mother could pick one up and swing it. The primary difference between a sword bouncing off of something versus cutting it was technique, and knowing how cutting works (you draw the blade along the thing, you don't chop like an axe). Even with an axe or a mace, hitting the target correctly and with good technique matters much more than just hitting it hard.

On dexterity, ranged weapon use doesn't make sense. War bows had about an 80 to 140 pound draw weight, meaning you had to be strong as hell (in your back and shoulders, primarily) to actually use one. Then you had to hold that arrow steady while taking aim. It's nothing like using a gun, which is just about lining up the shot properly. Initiative on dexterity? That doesn't make sense either. Being capable of detailed movement doesn't mean you should react faster. If anything, this should be about how fast you are on your feet and how quickly you can draw your weapons (which would be both strength and dexterity).

So, what do you guys think of this: Use either strength or dexterity for any weapon, whichever is higher, and initiative is controlled by the higher of strength and dexterity. That fixes the problem half this forum has with dexterity being the better stat due to initiative. Strength will still have the advantage of heavy armor, grappling, shoving, and being the most common skill check, while dexterity will still be the most common save, control unarmored AC, and control more skills.

With that idea, you other stat is a dump stat. A fighter with a DEX of 8 and a CHA of 8 isn't longer in trouble. And it isn't logical (some bows are heavy, but you will always miss with 8 DEX). If you can focus on two stats it's too easy and DnD isn't longer DnD then.

Inteligence for initiative, that's where we're talking about. Nice idea.

[djreynolds]

Perhaps is just as fair to add your proficiency bonus to initiative rolls instead of ability score. Your experience trumps ability scores. A 20th level mage should win a duel with a 1st level fighter. Years of adventuring has taught you well. Just a thought.

[-Jynx-]

Bolded for big points, red as the responses.



Well, I've been doing some historical research lately for a book I'm writing, and I've come to the conclusion that the bolded ones above don't make a lot of sense, especially from a balance perspective if we're just talking games.

On strength, heavy armor is debatable, though I can see how being strong would more easily let you run around all day in the stuff, that's fine. - It's really not debatable, wearing chain mail of about 15-20lbs all day (especially doing strenuous activity) can be exhausting. But take plate armor that weighs so much more. Most knights only donned it right before battle it wasn't worn for nearly as long a period of time and is extremely taxing to fight in for any length of time. combine that with wearing it all day during fights, hiking, whatever? How is this debatable? Shoving and grappling, definitely. But being able to use more melee weapons? The vast majority of melee weapons didn't weigh more than ten pounds. Everyone and their mother could pick one up and swing it. - You're talking from inexperience. 10lbs feels very different when the majority of your swings rely on shoulder, back, and especially forearm muscles. Have you every tried swinging an arming sword for more than a half hour? It typically weighs under 3lbs but especially if you've never held a sword or used one for a long time your arms would be noodles in an hour. So no not everyone and their mother can use one. Try using a sledgehammer repeatedly for an hour, try cutting wood with an axe for an hour and see how tiring that is. Now combine that with the need to do so as quickly as possible as one needs to in the heat of combat? Come on Easy_Lee you need to apply some experience to posts like this rather than "so I read some stuff on the internet" The primary difference between a sword bouncing off of something versus cutting it was technique, - Really no that has more to do with armor and the weapon you're using... but it does require technique as well so you are half right. and knowing how cutting works (you draw the blade along the thing, you don't chop like an axe). Even with an axe or a mace, hitting the target correctly and with good technique matters much more than just hitting it hard. - Maces came about when shields began to decline in favor or heaver more protective armor like plate. While yes hitting someone with a mace in the head is more effective than say the leg, the idea of the mace is simply to make contact in the first place. The amount of force generated/concentrated is meant to disable/harm no matter where it hits but it's handicap is it's lacking guard, the way its weighted, and most importantly its lack of reach which is why it was preferred by men in plate to begin with (since gauntlets protect your hand, and full body armor allows you to feel more confident getting closer against an opponent with a longer weapon.)

On dexterity, ranged weapon use doesn't make sense. War bows had about an 80 to 140 pound draw weight, meaning you had to be strong as hell (in your back and shoulders, primarily) to actually use one. - The first thing you've referenced in your research that I completely agree with. In fact contrary to popular media archers are traditionally stronger than swordsmen because a bow requires much more strength in its draw/use than using the "standard" longsword. Then you had to hold that arrow steady while taking aim. It's nothing like using a gun, which is just about lining up the shot properly. - It should be noted that while I think longbows should have a STR requirement (like heavy armor does to use for example) that it does also take a considerable amount of accuracy to use a bow properly which is where dex comes in. Strength only lends to your ability to draw back the string, but letting loose the arrow and hitting the target (especially in the right spot) is all in Dexterity's territory. Initiative on dexterity? That doesn't make sense either. Being capable of detailed movement doesn't mean you should react faster. If anything, this should be about how fast you are on your feet and how quickly you can draw your weapons (which would be both strength and dexterity). - I can agree with this too. Since athletics is a STR check one could argue that reflexes in combat is as much STR as it is DEX so I think you should be able to choose either physical stat for initiative.

[djreynolds]

This thread has some similar ideas in the forums, along with finesse and sneak attack. But this is what happens when you can dump one as an attack stat totally now in favor of another. In original AD&D and other systems, ability scores had a little real world tie in. I've read an 18 dexterity you could be an Olympic fencer. A gymnast had good scores in both strength and dexterity. Point is what does someone with an 18 in dexterity and an 8 strength look like. What does that Olympic fencer have as a strength score? The designers need to give examples. Are we players considered to be average, that's okay? Ever since NWN, have players dumped stats regularly. What does an 8 dexterity equate to in the real world? Don't tell me an NFL lineman either.

[Sacrieur]

[ scrubbed ]

[D.U.P.A.]

This is just pointless overcomplicating of things, requiring martials to have good scores in every physical stuff. If such things apply, then everyone would just go caster, need to care only of one stats, no complications and damage pretty much equal on average.

[RustyArmor]

I'm thinking of doing a house rule where no stat applies to Initiative. Like most others I feel Dex is already a very good stat, and Initiative could arguably be thrown in line with just about any stat. So instead everyone just picking their best stat on current character I figure screw it.

[djreynolds]

This is just pointless overcomplicating of things, requiring martials to have good scores in every physical stuff. If such things apply, then everyone would just go caster, need to care only of one stats, no complications and damage pretty much equal on average.

Fair. Good point. You're right, especially with adventure league rules it'd be tough to get a 20 in your main attack stat and then strength too. Simple. I apologize for my whining. As for initiative, proficiency bonus seems fair. But anyone can select alert feat, especially spell casters. A fireball can save a lot game time.

[Raxxius]

Thematically, it makes sense for the wiley dexterous swordsman to strike with higher success, and for the strong brute to hit less but hurt more. Dex for to hit and Str for damage makes sense. All weapons which are man propelled need significant investment in force to do damage, anyone who has fenced with a rapier will attest to the need for a strong arm. It's a metal stick, not a feather duster.

However as people have mentioned, caster classes are a significant balance problem if you MAD combat.

[Icewraith]

I'd be down with longbows (possibly shortbows) using either STR or DEX to hit and damage.

Suggested houserule: The Fighter, Paladin, Monk, and Ranger classes gain an additional +1 to a second ability score when they gain an ASI. (The Barbarian is all about STR, the Rogue is all about DEX, Valor bards still have 9th level spells).

Edit: I like idea of an alternative initiative stat, but STR just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Steampunkette]

Worth noting: Wearing Chainmail is SO MUCH WORSE than wearing Plate Armor.

Plate Armor is lashed to your body from the ankles to the shoulders. Different parts are strapped to the body and then linked together with hooks and chains to bridge defensive gaps. You carry the weight across your whole form. Your calves, your thighs, your shoulders, your forearms... each plate section is supported by a different part of the body. Chain is worn over your shoulders. The entire weight of it is just sitting on your shoulders at all times.

There is a heck of a lot less fatigue in wearing Plate than there is wearing Chain. Regardless of how long the person in question wears it.

[Easy_Lee]

There is a heck of a lot less fatigue in wearing Plate than there is wearing Chain. Regardless of how long the person in question wears it.

Contrary to popular opinion, a fitted mail shirt is not only comfortable, but also largely silent. This is another one of those things d&d got wrong.

[Once a Fool]

On strength, heavy armor is debatable, though I can see how being strong would more easily let you run around all day in the stuff, that's fine. Shoving and grappling, definitely. But being able to use more melee weapons? The vast majority of melee weapons didn't weigh more than ten pounds. Everyone and their mother could pick one up and swing it. The primary difference between a sword bouncing off of something versus cutting it was technique, and knowing how cutting works (you draw the blade along the thing, you don't chop like an axe). Even with an axe or a mace, hitting the target correctly and with good technique matters much more than just hitting it hard.

It's not so much the weight as the balance. Take (what D&D calls) the longsword and a tai chi sword. They look almost identical and have equivalent weights. But the longsword has most of its weight in the blade to add momentum to its damage. A tai chi sword's balance point is usually just above the index finger. They function quite differently.

It's not even so much the strike, primarily. It's the stuff inbetween: recovery after a swing or thrust, maintaining a guarded position, moving into position from which to strike.

The tai chi sword can do these things with minimal strength exertion and can therefore be used with great finesse. The longsword requires strength to do these things continually and consistently. It can be used with grace, but that grace requires strength. Even keeping the blade in motion is very different, as the momentum of the blade-weighted weapon will make changes of direction much wider (and require quicker changes to fight the momentum).


On dexterity, ranged weapon use doesn't make sense. War bows had about an 80 to 140 pound draw weight, meaning you had to be strong as hell (in your back and shoulders, primarily) to actually use one. Then you had to hold that arrow steady while taking aim. It's nothing like using a gun, which is just about lining up the shot properly. Initiative on dexterity? That doesn't make sense either. Being capable of detailed movement doesn't mean you should react faster. If anything, this should be about how fast you are on your feet and how quickly you can draw your weapons (which would be both strength and dexterity).

The D&D longbow strikes me as more akin to a modern archery bow than an English longbow. With such smaller bows, I'm okay with the way they work, now. Quicker shots with less pull but more accuracy could make up the damage that a full pull would produce. I'd also be okay with allowing a strength substitution for such bows. A true longbow would have a damage die equivalent to a crossbow, a greater range than the D&D longbow, and use the average of strength + dexterity modifier.

Crossbows, on the other hand, are a little more difficult (particularly the heavy ones). Even if you accept a world in which they can be hand pulled, instead of cranked, the speed at which a character can do so implies great strength, but the firing of said weapon does not. At that point, accuracy is the only thing that matters. The best solution, then, is to establish a minimum strength score to load a heavy crossbow.

Finally, for cyclical initiative, I would have combatants use either dexterity or intelligence. (I'm leery of any system that completely excises dexterity, incidentally, because that takes away one of the few nifty little perks that the champion gets.)

For (rolled) initiative systems that have a declaration of actions phase, I would have combatants declare actions in the order of ascending intelligence and have the actual roll use dex. In the case of sided initiative, I would use the highest modifier on each side.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not so much the weight as the balance. Take (what D&D calls) the longsword and a tai chi sword. They look almost identical and have equivalent weights. But the longsword has most of its weight in the blade to add momentum to its damage. A tai chi sword's balance point is usually just above the index finger. They function quite differently.

It's not even so much the strike, primarily. It's the stuff inbetween: recovery after a swing or thrust, maintaining a guarded position, moving into position from which to strike.

The tai chi sword can do these things with minimal strength exertion and can therefor be used with great finesse. The longsword requires strength to do these things continually and consistently. It can be used with grace, but that grace requires strength.

Oh really? So you believe a balance point is what determines whether a weapon can be used with finesse?

http://www.peterjohnsson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dynamics4swords.png

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y40snITLi6o/maxresdefault.jpg

Then here's this:
http://home.comcast.net/~o.tsun/ThreeDragon/images/Qing2.jpg

They're all pretty close to the hilt, but the tulwar (comparable to a scimitar) is a bit far out even with the disk on the pommel. If you had a point about how "tai chi" swords are capable of more finesse than a longsword, somehow, then your point is false.

[Person_Man]

Seems fine to me. Though if we're proposing homebrew solutions, I would go a step farther an rebalance all 6 ability scores so that they're roughly equal to each other. Maybe:

AC = 13 + higher of Strength or Dexterity. (Higher strength lets you wear heavier armor, higher Dex just makes your harder to hit).

To-hit with weapons = 1d20 + higher of Strength or Dexterity + Proficiency bonus

Strength: AC/To-Hit as described above, Athletics, Saving Throws to resist being moved, paralyzed, stunned, etc.

Dexterity: AC/To-Hit as described above, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Saving Throws to avoid explosions/area of effect.

Constitution: Hit points, Concentration checks, Saving Throws against poison, disease.

Intelligence: Arcana, History, Nature, Religion, Medicine, Saving Throws against most mental effects.

Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Perception/Investigation (combined), Survival, Initiative.

Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion, saving throws against Fear, bonus Inspiration points whenever you gain a level.

Note that in the above setup, having high Dex and Str are wasted, as they are in the current RAW. But this is mostly unavoidable in a system with 6 ability scores.

[Friv]

I'm thinking of doing a house rule where no stat applies to Initiative. Like most others I feel Dex is already a very good stat, and Initiative could arguably be thrown in line with just about any stat. So instead everyone just picking their best stat on current character I figure screw it.

Initiative bonus equals your Proficiency bonus, call it a day.

(Possibly allow for martial-types to have Initiative Expertise or something.)

[Easy_Lee]

Seems fine to me. Though if we're proposing homebrew solutions, I would go a step farther an rebalance all 6 ability scores so that they're roughly equal to each other. Maybe:

AC = 13 + higher of Strength or Dexterity. (Higher strength lets you wear heavier armor, higher Dex just makes your harder to hit).

To-hit with weapons = 1d20 + higher of Strength or Dexterity + Proficiency bonus

Strength: AC/To-Hit as described above, Athletics, Saving Throws to resist being moved, paralyzed, stunned, etc.

Dexterity: AC/To-Hit as described above, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Saving Throws to avoid explosions/area of effect.

Constitution: Hit points, Concentration checks, Saving Throws against poison, disease.

Intelligence: Arcana, History, Nature, Religion, Medicine, Saving Throws against most mental effects.

Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Perception/Investigation (combined), Survival, Initiative.

Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion, saving throws against Fear, bonus Inspiration points whenever you gain a level.

Note that in the above setup, having high Dex and Str are wasted, as they are in the current RAW. But this is mostly unavoidable in a system with 6 ability scores.

I like this, though I worry that we're moving towards a complete overhaul rather than a tweak. Not that I have anything against that...5e could use a few overhauls and simplifications.

[Once a Fool]

Oh really? So you believe a balance point is what determines whether a weapon can be used with finesse?

Not wholely, but yes, using the D&D definition of finesse, it is a major contributor. Have you tried it?

Note, I'm not talking grace, here, which often involves strength. It is a physical reality that the further out the balance point is, the more momentum a swing will have. Keeping a weapon in motion is graceful and can help negate the need to fight that momentum, but the more weight on the other side of the balance point, the wider the arcs must necessarily be. Many of the pictures you showed of heavier blades with balance points relatively close to the hilts would not qualify for D&D finesse, because too much of the weight is too far out to be able to use small, precise arcs without fighting the momentum. And if you aren't keeping the weapon in motion, that's even worse.

And, for what it's worth, the scimitar, which relies on wide slashes and momentum to function probably shouldn't be a finesse weapon (in D&D terms), anyway.


http://www.peterjohnsson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dynamics4swords.png

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y40snITLi6o/maxresdefault.jpg

Then here's this:
http://home.comcast.net/~o.tsun/ThreeDragon/images/Qing2.jpg

They're all pretty close to the hilt, but the tulwar (comparable to a scimitar) is a bit far out even with the disk on the pommel. If you had a point about how "tai chi" swords are capable of more finesse than a longsword, somehow, then your point is false.

Again, not grace, which often involves strength, but D&D finesse, which allows it to be replaced by dexterity.

Perhaps a demonstration of the physics involved would help illustrate these principals:

Take a baseball bat, one handed, near the base of the grip. Swing it around some. Try to change course in mid-swing. Notice how it feels to fight the momentum? Keep the bat in motion. Notice how wide your arcs have to be? Try to make the arcs smaller. Notice how much effort that takes? Hold the bat upright for as long as you can with your arm (the one you're using) extended in front of you. How's your shoulder doing? How long did you hold out? Notice how difficult it was to keep the bat balanced upright?

Take a break, such that your arm and shoulder are no longer tired.

Now, change your grip such that you are now holding the bat somewhere near the middle. Swing it around some. Try to change course in mid-swing. Notice how much less you have to fight the momentum? Keep the bat in motion. Notice how much smaller your arcs can be? Try to make them smaller. Notice how much less effort that takes? Hold the bat upright for as long as you can with your arm extended in front of you. Notice how much easier it is to keep the bat upright? How long did you hold out this time?

Same weight. Different balance points. Big difference.

[Easy_Lee]

We're getting way off topic, debating the difference between real world finesse and d&d finesse. I'd rather not use what I'm capable of wielding as an example of what everyone should be able to use effectively, because that's going to be pretty heavily skewed.

Regardless of weapon, it can be used with subtlety, or against a distracted opponent, or used to hit someone from behind. All of those things would qualify as a stealthy attack. More importantly, different strokes for different folks. Unless someone can come up with a genuine balance concern that makes more than a few trivial damage points of difference, I'm going to assume that the finesse requirement for sneak attack accomplishes nothing.

[Once a Fool]

We're getting way off topic, debating the difference between real world finesse and d&d finesse. I'd rather not use what I'm capable of wielding as an example of what everyone should be able to use effectively, because that's going to be pretty heavily skewed.

Fair enough. I was merely attempting to make some points relevant to those in the OP: namely, that D&D's traditional usage of strength to hit and damage with using melee weapons makes a certain amount of sense and that the exclusion of some melee weapons from being able to substitute dexterity for strength to do so also makes a certain amount of sense.


Regardless of weapon, it can be used with subtlety, or against a distracted opponent, or used to hit someone from behind. All of those things would qualify as a stealthy attack. More importantly, different strokes for different folks. Unless someone can come up with a genuine balance concern that makes more than a few trivial damage points of difference, I'm going to assume that the finesse requirement for sneak attack accomplishes nothing.

Sneak attack is whole other can of worms. It would be nice iCal light weapons could be used to do it, if only to allow for the possibility of a sap.

Balance-wise, opening sneak attack up to any weapon would have significant implications if you allow feats, particularly for heavy weapon users.

Great Weapon Master's +10 per attack is a pretty hefty bump even without sneak attack added in once per turn. That's a non-trivial damage increase to one of the most damaging options in the game.

Polearm Master might be even worse (but not worse than having both, of course). The rogue's bonus action disengage would allow the rogue to trade the bonus action non-sneak attack granted by Polearm Master (assuming the main attack hit) to withdraw from a melee opponent means that that opponent cannot close without suffering a sneak attack opportunity attack (assuming sneak attack conditions have been met. Throw in Sentinel on top of all that and things can get real crazy.

All that said, opening up all one-handed melee weapons to allow sneak attack probably wouldn't throw things too far out of balance.

[Ralanr]

It seems like a feat would answer this. Problem is that making a class specific feat would warrant all classes getting class specific feats.

Or just a house rule.

[Talcan]

It seems like a feat would answer this. Problem is that making a class specific feat would warrant all classes getting class specific feats.

Or just a house rule.
A feat would likely be the best way around this. Perhaps word it like:
Graceful. " Your dexterity is so great you can move all but the largest weapons with ease and accuracy.
Players with this feat may treat any weapon without the Heavy property as if has Finesse".
This way a player must invest in to this rather than applying it to all weapons?

[Magic Myrmidon]

Isn't that feat rather weak compared to most of the feats in 5e? I mean, most feats have at least 2 uses. Also, it kind of feels like a feat tax, which seem to have been carefully avoided after 3.5. It even feels like it is basically a feat chain, because you'd need to take that feat, THEN take great weapon master to use the style you wanted in the first place.

[Ralanr]

Isn't that feat rather weak compared to most of the feats in 5e? I mean, most feats have at least 2 uses. Also, it kind of feels like a feat tax, which seem to have been carefully avoided after 3.5. It even feels like it is basically a feat chain, because you'd need to take that feat, THEN take great weapon master to use the style you wanted in the first place.

The feat says weapons without the heavy property. So taking GWM wouldn't give anything

[-Jynx-]

Worth noting: Wearing Chainmail is SO MUCH WORSE than wearing Plate Armor.

Plate Armor is lashed to your body from the ankles to the shoulders. Different parts are strapped to the body and then linked together with hooks and chains to bridge defensive gaps. You carry the weight across your whole form. Your calves, your thighs, your shoulders, your forearms... each plate section is supported by a different part of the body. Chain is worn over your shoulders. The entire weight of it is just sitting on your shoulders at all times.

There is a heck of a lot less fatigue in wearing Plate than there is wearing Chain. Regardless of how long the person in question wears it.

While yes plate mail is constructed and latched to the body so that the whole body bears the weight, it still weights between 75-110lbs. Regardless of how well distributed that weight is, it's far more tiring than 20-25 lbs. For what it's worth, since chainmail usually also has belt around the waist that helps alleviate some of that shoulder pressure. It's still not as evenly distributed as plate mind you, but it's better than you make it sound. You can wear chainmail all day, plate not so much.

[Magic Myrmidon]

The feat says weapons without the heavy property. So taking GWM wouldn't give anything

Ah. Then this feat doesn't actually open up any possibilities besides maybe moving from a d8 to 2d6, which is hardly worth a feat.

[Easy_Lee]

Ah. Then this feat doesn't actually open up any possibilities besides maybe moving from a d8 to 2d6, which is hardly worth a feat.

A feat which allows one to treat any weapon as finesse and adds one to dexterity might be reasonable.

[Talcan]

A feat which allows one to treat any weapon as finesse and adds one to dexterity might be reasonable.

I was thinking that way too Easy_Lee but i wasn't sure if it would be balanced... this perposed feat also opens up 1d10 damage using longswords, battleaxes and warhammers as 2h...

[Easy_Lee]

I was thinking that way too Easy_Lee but i wasn't sure if it would be balanced... this perposed feat also opens up 1d10 damage using longswords, battleaxes and warhammers as 2h...

It would add a maximum of 2.5 damage / attack and one DEX, without allowing the user to surpass the damage dealt by a normal great weapon user. Compared to polearm mastery, which adds up to 7.5 damage per round, I think it would be fine.

[Dienekes]

While yes plate mail is constructed and latched to the body so that the whole body bears the weight, it still weights between 75-110lbs. Regardless of how well distributed that weight is, it's far more tiring than 20-25 lbs. For what it's worth, since chainmail usually also has belt around the waist that helps alleviate some of that shoulder pressure. It's still not as evenly distributed as plate mind you, but it's better than you make it sound. You can wear chainmail all day, plate not so much.

No. An entire suit of field plate weighed about 50 lbs. Less than a modern soldiers kit. If you get it fitted, you can do acrobatics in them. Show plate, or tourney plate could be heavier because it was not designed to ever be used on a battlefield, but I have never heard of one going above 100 lbs. Where did you get that number?

For another example, a mail hauberk weighed around 15-30 lbs, depending on size and coverage.

Either way, people could move in these things. People could run, jump, do cart wheels, flip. An immobile soldier is a useless one.

And yes, you didn't wear plate if you could avoid it, but once you were put in it, you were in it for the day. You were trained to wear these things non-stop until you went to sleep.

As to weapon usage.

Attributes don't really make sense. Is Dexterity hand-eye coordination? Is it finger dexterity? Because to be perfectly honest, hand-eye is a little important. But if you're using a weapon and you swing it at something you're really going to be trying to move that object to the point of attack as fast as you can, which is really trait of Strength. Up to a point anyway. Once your muscles start getting in the way it stops being useful. But yeah, your weapon is really not going to go to the exact accurate spot you're aiming for outside of an action movie. Your target is going to move around. However, getting your arm to acceerate fast to a spot is really an exertion of force, which is why, in general it makes sense to use Strength for melee weapons.

But even that is just a gross oversimplification of what's going on. Really, skill, training, and consistency are far more important than who's stronger or faster. Because once you get to that level of training, you should have the strength and agility necessary to use your weapon anyway.

[strangebloke]

Requiring both dex and str makes martials MAD.

Pretty sure this is fixable by an expanded weapons table. Like a really super awesome martial bow that requires 15 str to wield. Yeah, you need to go MAD, but you pick up a 2d8 bow or something, so its even and realistic. The other (non-str) bows just are small and deal small damage.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that historically, you do need strength to wear armor and use bigger weapons. With weapons in particular, it ain't the weight, its the leverage.

Dex saves are reflex saves, so its reasonable that the guy with faster/more precise reflexes shoots first.

[-Jynx-]

No. An entire suit of field plate weighed about 50 lbs. Less than a modern soldiers kit. If you get it fitted, you can do acrobatics in them. Show plate, or tourney plate could be heavier because it was not designed to ever be used on a battlefield, but I have never heard of one going above 100 lbs. Where did you get that number?

For another example, a mail hauberk weighed around 15-30 lbs, depending on size and coverage.

Either way, people could move in these things. People could run, jump, do cart wheels, flip. An immobile soldier is a useless one.

And yes, you didn't wear plate if you could avoid it, but once you were put in it, you were in it for the day. You were trained to wear these things non-stop until you went to sleep.



You are referring to pre-gunpowder era plate mail, where you are correct plate is a bit lighter between 50-60lbs depending on your size. I however refer to 1500s+ plate after the gun-powder era where plate was made heavier to withstand, well, bullets. I use that plate in these examples because while we may not have bullets I'm sure a fireball or eldritch blast is at least comparable.

To shed a bit more light on my point I'd refer you here (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14204717). Where they test period-specific plate (between about 60 to 100lbs) during various levels of exercise (mainly a treadmill) and note the strenuous amount of energy it takes to do so. Further highlighting the points that plate was worn for short bouts during a battle but was never meant for an all day wear.

Edit: At least not the later version of plate that is.

[Once a Fool]

It would add a maximum of 2.5 damage / attack and one DEX, without allowing the user to surpass the damage dealt by a normal great weapon user. Compared to polearm mastery, which adds up to 7.5 damage per round, I think it would be fine.

It's not the damage from the one feat that matters, though. It's the synergy with Great Weapon Master + Polearm Master + Sneak Attack that represents the massive damage boost.

If you allow heavy weapons to be treated as finesse, you will never see another Great Weapons build without levels of rogue in it.

[Easy_Lee]

In any case, I'm pretty sure that historically, you do need strength to wear armor and use bigger weapons. With weapons in particular, it ain't the weight, its the leverage.

Dex saves are reflex saves, so its reasonable that the guy with faster/more precise reflexes shoots first.

If you scroll up a bit, this has been addressed. Two-handed weapons typically weighed less than double as much as a comparable one-handed weapon, and were actually less tiring to wield because of using two hands. War bows took a lot of training because they often had over a 100 pound draw weight. Plate armor for field use might weigh 50 pounds, meaning anyone could wear it for a while but it took stamina and conditioning to wear it all day, not strength. And while strength might help one swing a mace or hammer, swords and spears are all about technique and accuracy. It doesn't actually take any strength to cut something, and you drag the blade along the target rather than chopping when using a sword. The depth of the cut is a factor of skill, not power.

Basically, D&D gets everything ass-backwards when it comes to historical weapons and armor.

[Once a Fool]

You are referring to pre-gunpowder era plate mail, where you are correct plate is a bit lighter between 50-60lbs depending on your size. I however refer to 1500s+ plate after the gun-powder era where plate was made heavier to withstand, well, bullets. I use that plate in these examples because while we may not have bullets I'm sure a fireball or eldritch blast is at least comparable

Fireball doesn't care about AC and Eldritch Blast relies on multiple attacks vs. the AC to rack up its damage, so...not comparable. To be comparable, you would need a ranged single-blast spell that approached (DMG) firearm damage.

Which, of course, is easily done.

[-Jynx-]

Fireball doesn't care about AC and Eldritch Blast relies on multiple attacks vs. the AC to rack up its damage, so...not comparable. To be comparable, you would need a ranged single-blast spell that approached (DMG) firearm damage.

Which, of course, is easily done.

Oh sure, let's split hairs on what I'm comparing to real life bullets vs. fantasy magic, but skip over the important parts of armor weight and encumbrance accompanied by research.

An eldritch blast is still comparable by DnD standards (if you look at gun damage available in other editions as an example. Gun dmg die are really no different than weapon die) but we have heavy crossbows, which is also what this level of plate mail was set to arm against, I'd also make the argument that DnD-level long bows are also stronger than real life bullets (or at least comparable), but we can keep splitting hairs on the irrelevant bits if you'd like.

Edit: Also the PHB pg. 145 does stat Plate at 65lbs so it's logically assumed to be the later period (15th century and beyond) plate.

[Dienekes]

You are referring to pre-gunpowder era plate mail, where you are correct plate is a bit lighter between 50-60lbs depending on your size. I however refer to 1500s+ plate after the gun-powder era where plate was made heavier to withstand, well, bullets. I use that plate in these examples because while we may not have bullets I'm sure a fireball or eldritch blast is at least comparable.

To shed a bit more light on my point I'd refer you here (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14204717). Where they test period-specific plate (between about 60 to 100lbs) during various levels of exercise (mainly a treadmill) and note the strenuous amount of energy it takes to do so. Further highlighting the points that plate was worn for short bouts during a battle but was never meant for an all day wear.

Edit: At least not the later version of plate that is.

No, I'm not. 16th century non-parade or tourney armor was about 50-60 lbs. The heaviest I have ever seen was a 17th century parade piece that weighed 94. Nothing I've found has a battle piece above 60.

I've seen the running article. Here's the major problem. They got people who were not trained in armor, to wear the armor and then go do the activity without training. Squires were trained in becoming knights since they were 7. Armor was practiced in. Give a runner a modern soldiers pack and tell them to go run and they will not get far because that's not what they've trained themselves to do. Get a soldier a pack and tell them to run and they'll do better, because that's what they have trained for.

We have written evidence of how armor was used. You put it on, and you're stuck in it until you get someone to help you take it off. This could be hours, simply because a charge and rush into melee happened. Hell, there is evidence of knights being told to dismount and fight in the infantry ranks.

Now did they swing their sword for an hour straight? Hell no. No one did that.

[Ralanr]

Ah. Then this feat doesn't actually open up any possibilities besides maybe moving from a d8 to 2d6, which is hardly worth a feat.

1d10. All 2d6 weapons have the heavy property

[strangebloke]

If you scroll up a bit, this has been addressed. Two-handed weapons typically weighed less than double as much as a comparable one-handed weapon, and were actually less tiring to wield because of using two hands. War bows took a lot of training because they often had over a 100 pound draw weight. Plate armor for field use might weigh 50 pounds, meaning anyone could wear it for a while but it took stamina and conditioning to wear it all day, not strength. And while strength might help one swing a mace or hammer, swords and spears are all about technique and accuracy. It doesn't actually take any strength to cut something, and you drag the blade along the target rather than chopping when using a sword. The depth of the cut is a factor of skill, not power.

Basically, D&D gets everything ass-backwards when it comes to historical weapons and armor.

Pick up a freaking sledgehammer. The biggest of them weigh only ten pounds. You can't wield a warhammer or mace with DEX, sorry.

Str=Stamina according to the rules, so yeah, its reasonable to have a str requirement for heavy armor and weapons. You need the muscle to keep going without getting exhausted. Is it weird that DnD has no place for a highly conditioned, lean swordsman? Maybe, but replacing it with dex is silly.

Ultra-fast reflexes and precision are well and good, but they don't do jack towards letting you wield a zweihander. (Which DOES chop and rely on the force of the blow, by the way.)

realistically, yeah, you need power AND precision. But why be so mean to martials?

[Easy_Lee]

Pick up a freaking sledgehammer. The biggest of them weigh only ten pounds. You can't wield a warhammer or mace with DEX, sorry.

Str=Stamina according to the rules, so yeah, its reasonable to have a str requirement for heavy armor and weapons. You need the muscle to keep going without getting exhausted. Is it weird that DnD has no place for a highly conditioned, lean swordsman? Maybe, but replacing it with dex is silly.

Ultra-fast reflexes and precision are well and good, but they don't do jack towards letting you wield a zweihander. (Which DOES chop and rely on the force of the blow, by the way.)

realistically, yeah, you need power AND precision. But why be so mean to martials?

On the contrary, constitution is more comparable to stamina than strength, by the rules. And to address your egregious error above, a sledgehammer is not a freaking weapon, nor is it balanced like one. Comparing a sledgehammer to a war maul is like comparing a polesaw used for cutting branches to a halberd, or comparing a farming scythe to a glaive. It makes no sense.

And regarding your dexterity = reflexes bit, just what in the hell do you expect rogues are doing to raise their dexterity and accuracy? Hint: it involves exercise and muscle development, just not the strongman variety.

[Dienekes]

And while strength might help one swing a mace or hammer, swords and spears are all about technique and accuracy. It doesn't actually take any strength to cut something, and you drag the blade along the target rather than chopping when using a sword. The depth of the cut is a factor of skill, not power.

Basically, D&D gets everything ass-backwards when it comes to historical weapons and armor.

You see I disagree with this. You do need strength to use a sword and a spear. But it's not muscle man strength it is firm, quick burst strength of using your body as a lever. Accuracy is kind of a weird term. If you are trained with your sword and you thrust, you can generally aim it to the head, or to the gut, arms are a bit harder. But overall, you're not going to get precise accurate attacks because everything is moving. Not that accuracy isn't useful, but most of the time your trying to just move your weapon to a general area on your target and trying to get it there as fast and hard as you can, which is largely modeled off of Strength in D&D.

But again, it would probably be most accurate to just not have Str and Dex apply at all and just hav minimum Str and Dex requirements to use certain weapons. Practice makes skill and will develop the necessary muscles.

[Easy_Lee]

You see I disagree with this. You do need strength to use a sword and a spear. But it's not muscle man strength it is firm, quick burst strength of using your body as a lever.

The word you're looking for is "technique." Every living human on the face of the earth capable of lifting a spear is capable of killing an animal with it. Having the knowledge of how to wield the weapon and, more importantly, when the use of a weapon is appropriate is the rarer skill, as murderhobo PCs everywhere have proven.

[Dienekes]

The word you're looking for is "technique." Every living human on the face of the earth capable of lifting a spear is capable of killing an animal with it. Having the knowledge of how to wield the weapon and, more importantly, when the use of a weapon is appropriate is the rarer skill, as murderhobo PCs everywhere have proven.

Well the first plain isn't true, but I take it for using hyperbole and aren't thinking about cripples.

But no, well yes, technique is best. As I said after the section you quoted. But you do need some strength to push your body to make the sword strike work.

Take a baseball pitcher, they can throw that ball faster because they can move their body in the specific way to throw that ball faster and stronger than the average human can. Just looking at the muscles necessary to throw that ball, they're going to be stronger than your average man. The same is true for swordsmanship, you do need strength to get the weapon to accelerate as fast as you can get it. But that strength is only up to a point, once you get strong enough to move in that way getting stronger won't really help you much. Finger dexterity and even hand-eye coordination are much the same. Once you have a good grip on the blade finger dex doesn't really matter, and hand-eye coordination only matters so long as you can get your weapon roughly to the area you're trying to get it to go. Which really isn't that hard. You're not going to be attacking specific minute details, it won't happen. As long as your arm moves out to where you naturally want it to go you're fine. Personally, I think of the two Strength is ever so slightly more important to get those fast moves in. But both are so far down the list from technique I don't really see the need for them to be added to your attack roll.

[Ralanr]

This reminds me of a houserule my DM used when we all first started tabletop rpg (pathfinder)

Dex to hit and Str for damage. Ranged weapons could use dex for both, but no one in our party really did that, (Two sword Samurai, 3rd party Swashbuckler, Summoner, Alchemist, and a Sorcerer).

[-Jynx-]

No, I'm not. 16th century non-parade or tourney armor was about 50-60 lbs. The heaviest I have ever seen was a 17th century parade piece that weighed 94. Nothing I've found has a battle piece above 60.

In the interest of not constantly disagree with one another lets settle on 60-65lbs. The weight in PHB says 65 for their version, and 60 is my minimum and your maximum. So that can at least be a number we agree upon.


I've seen the running article. Here's the major problem. They got people who were not trained in armor, to wear the armor and then go do the activity without training. Squires were trained in becoming knights since they were 7. Armor was practiced in. Give a runner a modern soldiers pack and tell them to go run and they will not get far because that's not what they've trained themselves to do. Get a soldier a pack and tell them to run and they'll do better, because that's what they have trained for.

True, training in your certain equipment obviously makes a huge difference and your example of modern military luggage is a good point. Now I first and foremoest am not nearly as well informed about modern military so I'm treading lightly here: Rucksack, armor, weapons, etc. on your modern day soldier probably weights in the same 65ish lb range yes? Maybe a bit more? Do they enter combat with the rucksack though as well? And how heavy is just that alone compared to the armor?

Take firefighters for example, their gear can weigh in around 65ish lbs. They are trained in using that on a regular basis. They however do not, and can't stay fully suited up for long periods of time. Due to the weight, strenuous activity, and heat (which is a big factor mind you, but hey look how prevalent fire damage is in DnD) firefighters will suffer overexertion. Even when not in a burning house, you wouldn't see a firefighter in gear all day long because its too exhausting. It's overly hot and it's heavy.



We have written evidence of how armor was used. You put it on, and you're stuck in it until you get someone to help you take it off. This could be hours, simply because a charge and rush into melee happened. Hell, there is evidence of knights being told to dismount and fight in the infantry ranks.

Now did they swing their sword for an hour straight? Hell no. No one did that.

Yes but that is fighting, when in war they didn't have the luxury of taking it off, however they did not wear it all day. Chain mail yes, but not plate that I know of. If you have sources that show me otherwise please enlighten me.

[Dimcair]

This thread jumps around between the (terrible) comparison of a game system to real life and a mechanical balance discussion.

If the former I am absolutely not interested, these discussions never lead to anything and who really cares about how realistic it is as long as the balance is right? If you feel more comfortable to fluff Dexterity and Strength to Stamina and Accuracy go right ahead, no one is stopping you, it just wont make a difference.

That leaves the mechanical debate: Evaluating the balance of main attributes needs to take into consideration what classes usually go along with that attribute. It is mechanically favorable to play some classes with strength as a main attribute. These classes often go along with other benefits like high hit die etc.. And now you need to take all these contingencies into consideration.... good luck.

If you want to hand out initiative bonuses all around, the same thing applies. Maybe lighter armored Dex based characters are meant to have that initiative bonus, and the thick skinned berserker can live without it. Same thing applies, good luck.

/edit: Oh and if you can't decide whether its a mechanical debate or a real life comparison to fictional game rules, at least keep your posts on one of the two shores and don't built paper bridges

[djreynolds]

I know I'm a novice gamer. But a fresh eye is good. Someone posted me after that the game is fine when it simplified down. But for the experienced gamer, you of course need more.

Dexterity for sneak attacks by rogues because you have training where to land a crippling strike and have the coordination.

A finesse weapon because it's a surgical strike hitting between weak points in armor, or a nerve cluster or organ, whatever. Understood. Simple. Aside from the rapier, the damage is usually 1d6.

Now for the monk, it is assumed, and I know all about assuming things, but you're kicking and head butting and elbowing as well as landing hand strikes. Not every strike is a finesse strike. You could homebrew, that multiclass rogue/monk may have the training once per turn to land a sneak attack on an adversary.

Strength based weapons are designed for trauma not finesse. It's simple not perfect. You could homebrew that if you want to land sneak attacks with a long sword you need the strength to swing that sword and the dexterity to land a precision attack. A critical hit assumes you swung your weapon and hit somewhere precious and have been awarded that extra damage. And any weapon may score that critical hit and champions are more likely to because of training.

I'm not sure if dexterity or strength are interchangeable, but are perhaps proportional. Swinging a great sword does require some practice and some muscle just to do. Splitting logs does require some dexterity to land the hit. You could have strength requirements to swing martial weapons like a great axe. The question is, does dexterity help land that hit and you use your dexterity score to actually hit the target, ranged or not. And add strength only for damage. Proficiency scores represent the practice you've put into training.

You could homebrew that a rouge could use a battle axe to land sneak attacks if he had the demonstrated strength and dexterity to do so. Have strength requirements for weapons. Have deterity requirements for finesse weapons or they are not finesse. Having an 18 strength and an 8 dexterity, I feel, would not qualify you for sneak attack damage because you are not employing said weapon nimbly.

A paladin/ rogue will have a 13 in strength and dexterity, and seasoned DM may allow that character to use any weapon to sneak attack with because he meets the need for both abilities.

Okay, now you can kill me. Thanks.

[Dimcair]

qed. needtowrite10words

[Easy_Lee]

A finesse weapon because it's a surgical strike hitting between weak points in armor, or a nerve cluster or organ, whatever. Understood. Simple. Aside from the rapier, the damage is usually 1d6.


Not the sneak attack description given in the book
Doesn't explain why you need advantage, why it does equal damage to armored and unarmored foes, or why it works against opponents with undiscernable anatomy
The idea that you can accurately hit a nerve cluster or anything of the sort in a fight is ludicrous, particularly since rogues don't necessarily have the kind of training to even identify those things (medicine prof)

Fails on all counts, I fear.

There is neither a game balance nor RP reason why rogues should be limited to finesse weapons. And the concept of finesse weapons is pretty dumb, TBH.

[1Forge]

Yeah this might work, I mean think about it games use dexterity for ranged attacks and str for melee (which makes no sense considering the average longsword was 2 lbs and bow draw could be as much as a hundred lbs) I fence and while holding a sword needs endurence, it's more important that you can parry faster and stab quicker then your opponent. (and drawing a bow back is hard you have to be very strong)

[djreynolds]

Yeah this might work, I mean think about it games use dexterity for ranged attacks and str for melee (which makes no sense considering the average longsword was 2 lbs and bow draw could be as much as a hundred lbs) I fence and while holding a sword needs endurence, it's more important that you can parry faster and stab quicker then your opponent. (and drawing a bow back is hard you have to be very strong)

Awesome. Now a personal question, if that's okay. Now I can throw some weights around in the gym, but a fencer is a complete athlete. Yes? Meaning you gotta have endurance. You just don't fence. You jog and do pull ups and push ups. So in your opinion, what does someone is the real world with an 18 dexterity equate to. What does someone with an 18 strength look like? What did Bruce Lee have for stats.

[Takewo]

I marvel at how it seems that hitting at people with a sword is either a matter of strength or a matter of dexterity. Especially considering the fact the what exactly the abilities represent still remains a mystery (yeah, now someone is going to paste a description from the Player's Handbook, funny, see how everyone interprets it differently in this post).

Personally, if I wanted to homebrew this I'd just get rid of the abilities and use approaches from FAE. Nonetheless, I don't really see a problem with it. I think we can all agree that both strength and dexterity are needed to use a weapon effectively (as well as pretty much any other ability, if we want to keep it real). That said, the degree in which a concrete person uses dexterity and strength to smite with a concrete weapon will depend on the person's abilities and the weapon's properties. Therefore, what's the problem with letting people choose what they want to use? Let's say that choosing dexterity over strength doesn't mean that you don't use strength at all. It just means that you use both strength and dexterity but dexterity is more relevant for you. And the other way round with strength.

[djreynolds]

Valid point. But you just took the wind out of my sails. I'm thinking this over way too much. You're right, just play.

[djreynolds]

So here's one I thought I'd post for the playground's benefit. Right now, dexterity and strength have a few primary benefits each.

Dexterity:

Unarmored AC
More common saving throw
Better ranged weapons
Initiative

Strength:

Heavy armor (if proficient)
Shoving and Grappling
More variety and better melee weapons

Well, I've been doing some historical research lately for a book I'm writing, and I've come to the conclusion that the bolded ones above don't make a lot of sense, especially from a balance perspective if we're just talking games.


On strength, heavy armor is debatable, though I can see how being strong would more easily let you run around all day in the stuff, that's fine. Shoving and grappling, definitely. But being able to use more melee weapons? The vast majority of melee weapons didn't weigh more than ten pounds. Everyone and their mother could pick one up and swing it. The primary difference between a sword bouncing off of something versus cutting it was technique, and knowing how cutting works (you draw the blade along the thing, you don't chop like an axe). Even with an axe or a mace, hitting the target correctly and with good technique matters much more than just hitting it hard.

On dexterity, ranged weapon use doesn't make sense. War bows had about an 80 to 140 pound draw weight, meaning you had to be strong as hell (in your back and shoulders, primarily) to actually use one. Then you had to hold that arrow steady while taking aim. It's nothing like using a gun, which is just about lining up the shot properly. Initiative on dexterity? That doesn't make sense either. Being capable of detailed movement doesn't mean you should react faster. If anything, this should be about how fast you are on your feet and how quickly you can draw your weapons (which would be both strength and dexterity).

So, what do you guys think of this: Use either strength or dexterity for any weapon, whichever is higher, and initiative is controlled by the higher of strength and dexterity. That fixes the problem half this forum has with dexterity being the better stat due to initiative. Strength will still have the advantage of heavy armor, grappling, shoving, and being the most common skill check, while dexterity will still be the most common save, control unarmored AC, and control more skills.

Dude this is great thread. It's a good discussion cause I like the "iron scoundrel" type fighter/rogue. You see it in movies sometimes and try to create that vision. I like how a battle master can trip or push, and its just as much about skills, ability, and savy. Great thread.

[-Jynx-]

I suppose to satiate the situation a bit each weapon could have a Str/dex requirement that maybe lets you add both modifiers to damage (but say half the modifier rounded up?) forcing you into certain weapons based on the physical skill of a character. Though that would be awful limiting for a lot of people.

[djreynolds]

To sneak attack you need to be a rouge, which means you have a 13 dexterity. To wield heavy armor you need a 15 strength. These scores are easily obtainable with Adventure league ability scores. I think a ranger knows where to shoot a deer, and a rogue had to receive some training on how to sneak attack and where to land it. A DM may allow you to sneak attack with a maul with those abilities. As for initiative, the Alert feat is awesome. I think proficiency scores for initiative showcases the experienced gained from surviving that long.

Great thread, cool discussion all around

[1Forge]

Awesome. Now a personal question, if that's okay. Now I can throw some weights around in the gym, but a fencer is a complete athlete. Yes? Meaning you gotta have endurance. You just don't fence. You jog and do pull ups and push ups. So in your opinion, what does someone is the real world with an 18 dexterity equate to. What does someone with an 18 strength look like? What did Bruce Lee have for stats.

Bruce lee? probobly a 20 in dex a 18 in con, and a 19 in str. But i havent seen many of his movies lately.

18 dex? probobly an adult who is very good at tennis, fencing, or kung-fu not extra-ordinary just very good.

18 str? probobly an adult who is very good at baseball (batter), football (lineman), or boxing.

[Easy_Lee]

Bruce lee? probobly a 20 in dex a 18 in con, and a 19 in str. But i havent seen many of his movies lately.

18 dex? probobly an adult who is very good at tennis, fencing, or kung-fu not extra-ordinary just very good.

18 str? probobly an adult who is very good at baseball (batter), football (lineman), or boxing.

Real humans can't fight giants. D&D people are, by necessity, on a whole other level. People failing to realize this is why mundane power is always so limited compared to magic.

[Calen]

I had been bouncing an idea around in my head a little while ago that might have some bearing here.

Dexterity controls the Accuracy of all weapons (1d20 + DEX) - This represents the coordination to land attacks.
Strength controls the Damage of all weapons (1W + STR) - Putting more force behind attacks.

Would also be affected by damage types
Piercing - Least bonus from strength - Possible higher crit ranges. (Maybe a 1W + Str[cap 2?] with a feats or fighting styles that let you add Dex)
Slashing - Middle ground (1w + Str)
Crushing - High bonus from strength - Accuracy penalty - Brutal Dice (Possibly mimic the Great weapon fighting feat but required with crushing weapons)

Certain weapons like bows and crossbows might have exceptions to this rule.
Crossbow STR might effect load speed (or the access to feats)
Bow STR would help with range or damage despite being a piercing weapon

Now this method does encourage Dex over Str but I think would help encourage more balanced characters.

Also Initiative could just as easily be switched over to Wis (Knowing that combat is about to start)

[Steampunkette]

Initiative as Strength: Bringing weapons to bear, locking muscles to stop movement and get into a fighting posture, or being able to use muscle memory to react more quickly.
Initiative as Dexterity: Generic Speed.
Initiative as Intelligence: Knowing what to do and when to do it.
Initiative as Wisdom: Knowing a fight is coming.
Initiative as Charisma: Being so stunningly attractive or having such a powerful presence that enemies wait to see what you do before reacting.

Lots of ways to describe Initiative as different stuff.

Honestly, at this point I kind of want to create four new stats separate from the base stats.

Fighting
Speed
Health
Magic

Fighting determines physical Attack and Damage.
Speed determines Initiative Mod and Movement Speed.
Health determines HP
Magic determines Spellcasting Attack and Damage and DCs.

The core stats are your saves, skill bonuses, carrying capacity, and class abilities. But Magic can be subbed for Wizard Intelligence or Cleric Wisdom for some stuff. Finesse allows Dex instead of Fighting for weapons. Some other interesting ideas... I'll write up a homebrew thread for it.

[Dienekes]

In the interest of not constantly disagree with one another lets settle on 60-65lbs. The weight in PHB says 65 for their version, and 60 is my minimum and your maximum. So that can at least be a number we agree upon.



True, training in your certain equipment obviously makes a huge difference and your example of modern military luggage is a good point. Now I first and foremoest am not nearly as well informed about modern military so I'm treading lightly here: Rucksack, armor, weapons, etc. on your modern day soldier probably weights in the same 65ish lb range yes? Maybe a bit more? Do they enter combat with the rucksack though as well? And how heavy is just that alone compared to the armor?

Take firefighters for example, their gear can weigh in around 65ish lbs. They are trained in using that on a regular basis. They however do not, and can't stay fully suited up for long periods of time. Due to the weight, strenuous activity, and heat (which is a big factor mind you, but hey look how prevalent fire damage is in DnD) firefighters will suffer overexertion. Even when not in a burning house, you wouldn't see a firefighter in gear all day long because its too exhausting. It's overly hot and it's heavy.



Yes but that is fighting, when in war they didn't have the luxury of taking it off, however they did not wear it all day. Chain mail yes, but not plate that I know of. If you have sources that show me otherwise please enlighten me.

I mean the account of Agincourt http://deremilitari.org/2013/02/battle-of-agincourt-1415/ clearly says that the knights got their armor on in the morning far before the battle officially started and just just hung out until their turn. Going a bit earlier, King Edward's letters of his campaign shows knights putting on their armor and entering a battle array in the morning and just waiting there all day http://deremilitari.org/2013/03/edward-iiis-letter-detailing-his-campaign-in-france-1339/. There is also the battle of Fornovo account http://deremilitari.org/2013/04/alessandro-beneditti-the-battle-of-fornovo-1495/ which has the King of French order his men to ready themselves for battle then moving his entire position to get better ground and appear to remain so throughout the remainder of the battle, which involved several skirmishes along the baggage train until a final major battle broke out, which admittedly only lasted an hour before the sides broke apart. Still means they wore their armor for a very large portion of the day.

Which makes sense, to go back to your firefighter, or my soldier example. You can wear the full firefighter display all day, if you need to. Firemen have worn full gear and fought fires for 8 hours at a time before in emergencies, it just sucks and no one wants to do it. A modern soldiers gear, which as I said is heavier (and not as evenly distributed I might add) than plate armor, yet they still carry that crap with them all day while they march. As to if they fight with it, the answer I've been told is, depends. If they're prepared and ready for an upcoming fight, no they ditch it at camp, if they're not that lucky then they more or less have to. The opposite of a medieval knight in a way.

Anyway, it's not a matter of can't do it. It's about not wanting to. I've worn plate armor for 5 hours straight once, and let me tell you, that is uncomfortable, and annoying. I would not suggest doing it, especially if it's a cheap non-fitted for you kind like I was wearing.

[djreynolds]

Initiative should be just proficiency score. A 10th level sorcerer has been in more fights than 1st level fighter.
As for armor, the English archers ripped up those French knights. I'd make longbows 1d10. They rip through plate mail like a bullet.
Military body armor and combat load is like maybe 50lbs. That's armor, ammo, say a light machine gun. Maybe an assault pack. Medic pack is extra or a radioman's pack.
I like dex to hit and strength damage. But if it is gonna ruin gameplay? I leave it to more experienced players.

[Dienekes]

Initiative as Strength: Bringing weapons to bear, locking muscles to stop movement and get into a fighting posture, or being able to use muscle memory to react more quickly.
Initiative as Dexterity: Generic Speed.
Initiative as Intelligence: Knowing what to do and when to do it.
Initiative as Wisdom: Knowing a fight is coming.
Initiative as Charisma: Being so stunningly attractive or having such a powerful presence that enemies wait to see what you do before reacting.

Lots of ways to describe Initiative as different stuff.

Honestly, at this point I kind of want to create four new stats separate from the base stats.

Fighting
Speed
Health
Magic

Fighting determines physical Attack and Damage.
Speed determines Initiative Mod and Movement Speed.
Health determines HP
Magic determines Spellcasting Attack and Damage and DCs.

The core stats are your saves, skill bonuses, carrying capacity, and class abilities. But Magic can be subbed for Wizard Intelligence or Cleric Wisdom for some stuff. Finesse allows Dex instead of Fighting for weapons. Some other interesting ideas... I'll write up a homebrew thread for it.

There's a system you might want to look into called Warrior Rogue Mage. It's free and it basically does this. There are only 3 stats: Warrior which gives health and melee attacks and generally stuff that you'd expect a warrior to do. Rogue which gives ranged attack, knife attack, and a bunch of skills, and Mage which is really intelligence and magic.

The only problem is that it's a very bare-bones system, with only a handful of feats to define a character by. But it's probably the easiest system I know to homebrew for.