PDA

View Full Version : Str rules supreme



weenie
2007-06-07, 04:08 PM
I think that the role of strength is way to significant in the d20 system. The fact that you get to add it to both, melee attack bonus and damage seems a bit strange. The barbarian's rage is a good example. It's perfectly understandable, that a person should be able to swing a weapon really hard when they're extremeley angry, but that the weapon's chance of hitting should increase is unrational. In my opinion dex bonus, and dex bonus only should be added to all melee and ranged attack rolls(well, and BaB and other bonuses..). I know this may overpower dex-relaying characters, but if you think about it, it really makes sense. A giant's swing is sureley going to sqush you like an ant if it hits you, but giants are not that quick by nature and there's a good chance you'll avoid the blow. The variant armor rules in unearthed arcana could be applied too, so that part of the armor bonus would convert into damage reduction. That would balance the new str/dex usage a bit and would make a fight appear much more realistic.

So, what do you think? Would it work? Has it ever been tried out?

Matthew
2007-06-07, 04:12 PM
No, it doesn't make more sense. It does make about the same sort of sense (i.e. not much). Dexterity already has more than enough uses, but if you need an explanation, Strength is required for Speed (and also to smash through armour that cannot be bypassed). I usually fall on the other side of the fence, though, I think Strength should be used for Ranged Attacks as well as Melee.

Indon
2007-06-07, 04:13 PM
Well, strength may add to melee attack and damage rolls, but...

Dexterity adds to Armor Class, Ranged attack rolls, and Reflex saves;

Constitution adds to Health and Fortitude saves;

Casting stats add to both spell counts and spell save DC's.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-07, 04:14 PM
Reminds me of old world of darkness, where you would roll dex+weaponry to hit, then strength + extra successes for damage. I don't think it would work very well in D&D, because it really hurts heavy armor wearers, and knights in armor are kind of an iconic figure in D&D.

And have you ever tried to swing a sword? Strength is definitely a factor there, unless the weapon is light.

Of course I'm mostly comparing my experience fighting in the SCA (fighting in plate armor with ritan weapons), to fighting in NERO (fighting in heavy armor with pvc pipe wrapped in foam).

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-07, 04:15 PM
The problems;

Armour based characters lose out on accuracy because wearing armour makes their dex useless.

Dex already adds to loads of skills, initiative, reflex saves and armour class.

A lot of large monsters will lose the ability to hit anything.

Some solutions;

Let monsters use strength for natural weapons. Since the weapons are part of the monster you can rationalise things.

Change initiative to intelligence or wisdom. This would make some sense and would stop dex becoming the ultimate stat.

Make sure that characters don't need heavy armour to get anywhere or give your armoured characters better equipment.

Piccamo
2007-06-07, 04:15 PM
No, it doesn't make more sense. It does make about the same sort of sense (i.e. not much). Dexterity already has more than enough uses, but if you need an explanation, Strength is required for Speed (and also to smash through armour that cannot be bypassed). I usually fall on the other side of the fence, though, I think Strength should be used for Ranged Attacks as well as Melee.

I can understand dexterity being used for melee attacks, but I do not see how strength would add to ranged attack bonus.

In any case, I feel for class balance every character should have to rely on 3 or more attributes to be effective. Everyone already has Con (so they don't have a tasty dose of death).

Jasdoif
2007-06-07, 04:16 PM
I usually fall on the other side of the fence, though, I think Strength should be used for Ranged Attacks as well as Melee.Like, for thrown weapons?

Indon
2007-06-07, 04:20 PM
I can understand dexterity being used for melee attacks, but I do not see how strength would add to ranged attack bonus.


For bows, it would be a more detailed version of the rule which penalizes attack with a composite bow if you lack the required strength; the easier it is to pull an arrow, the more steady you can hold it, the easier it is to fire reliably.

But still, dex makes more sense for ranged attack modifier.

dukexx
2007-06-07, 04:20 PM
Or perhaps drawing a bowstring farther back.

Edit: both beaten and topped.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-07, 04:20 PM
Strength makes sense when the assumption is that hitting is all about overcoming armour.

In an armour as DR game dexterity makes more sense, in the original edition of DnD strength made some sense and it has gone down from there.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-06-07, 04:21 PM
The rationale in the d20 system is that Armor Class represents both the enemy's chance to miss and the chance that one's armor will deflect the blow. Strength adds to Attack because it represents the ability to penetrate armor. Also, in general, stronger people have more control when they're swinging a long or heavy weapon like a sword or axe.

Out of game, there's something of a balance issue. Strength adds to melee attack, melee damage, carrying capacity (which no one really pays attention to), and about three skills and a couple of special combat moves. Dexterity, on the other hand, adds to ranged attack, Armor Class, about a dozen or more skills. My point here is, Strength is already nigh-useless to anyone who's not engaging in melee combat. Skillmonkeys, archers, casters, even melee druids don't need it. However, everyone likes Dex, although melee fighters in full plate can live without it. Take one more thing away from Strength and give it to Dex, you risk Dex becoming an uberstat that everyone wants.

Finally, for light weapons and anything else that can be used with precision, there is the Weapon Finesse feat.

That is a lot of simu-posts.

Driderman
2007-06-07, 04:23 PM
Well, in True20 dexterity is used to determine your melee to hit, while strength is used for the damage part. Works fine.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-07, 04:24 PM
Strength makes sense when the assumption is that hitting is all about overcoming armour.

In an armour as DR game dexterity makes more sense, in the original edition of DnD strength made some sense and it has gone down from there.

Yeah, I agree completely. A lot of new players get confused about what the attack roll actually is... it's not do I hit or not, it's does this attack land in a significant way. Pleanty of "misses" in melee combat should be seen/narrated as clanking of weapons against armor, shield or just plain falling without enough strength behind them... it's not always broad swinging misses and dodges.

Soepvork
2007-06-07, 04:25 PM
The problems;

Armour based characters lose out on accuracy because wearing armour makes their dex useless.


Not really, wearing heavy armor only makes Dex useless as far as AC is concerned:


Maximum Dex Bonus

This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer’s ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn’t affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#maximumDexBonus


So even in heavy armor a high Dex score can be useful

The_Snark
2007-06-07, 05:15 PM
Not really, wearing heavy armor only makes Dex useless as far as AC is concerned:



So even in heavy armor a high Dex score can be useful

But unless the character can't possibly get Strength or Constitution higher, it's almost always going to be better to boost one of those, for a heavy-armor wearer.

Also, using Dexterity to hit only makes sense when you're thinking about a rapier or longsword; something that can be twirled about. Instead, let's look at it applied to a greatsword. Being fast is only going to help you so much; to swiing the sword fast, you're going to need a lot of arm strength. Add that to the already-presented point that a lot of misses are actually just failures to penetrate the armor or shield... yeah.

Obviously, Dex is better for some lighter weapons. That's why there's Weapon Finesse. If you like, you could allow characters to use their Dex or Str with finessable weapons, to make it an easier style to use, or expand the list a little to include a few other appropriate one-handed weapons.

Matthew
2007-06-07, 05:25 PM
Indeed. Strength = Speed, as Thomas was fond of pointing out. The idea is that Strength contributes in D&D in both that way and in it's ability to overcome Armour. Bows and Thrown Weapons benefit from Strength in these ways, Cross Bows are obviously the exception.

Well, Dexterity does make sense, in its capacity as measure of spacial awareness and aim.

Soepvork
2007-06-07, 05:53 PM
But unless the character can't possibly get Strength or Constitution higher, it's almost always going to be better to boost one of those, for a heavy-armor wearer.


I agree, I just wanted to point out the common misconception about the Max Dex bonus of an armor

weenie
2007-06-07, 06:07 PM
So what about if bigger weapons had additional restrictions? I.e. with a greataxe you use dex or str, whichever is the lowest. In this case someone with a high str but low dex wouldn't be hitting stuff because his swings would simply not go in the desired direction, while someone with a high dex and low str simply isn't able to swing the weapon properly. I know it's getting a bit complicated, but the goal here is to make stuff more realistic, and complications are sadly a must.

Ashes
2007-06-07, 06:14 PM
I know it's getting a bit complicated, but the goal here is to make stuff more realistic, and complications are sadly a must.

Excuse me, but why on {someone}'s green Earth would you want to make D&D realistic?! It isn't, and it's not a good system for realism. Go play GURPS for realism. Play D&D for slaying a dragon while eating a sandwich. A MAGIC sandwich.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-07, 06:14 PM
I know it's getting a bit complicated, but the goal here is to make stuff more realistic, and complications are sadly a must.

Or you could just go with the system that's already in place. <_<

Koji
2007-06-07, 06:24 PM
Throw in "Improved Weapon Finesse"

Removes the restrictions for what melee weapons can take advantage of the weapon finesse feat, instead allowing dexterity to apply to the hit bonus for any melee attack.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-06-07, 06:25 PM
Seriously. D&D combat is fun as a tactical challenge, but as a simulation, it's pretty much worthless.

And I'd also like to add that dexterity and nimbleness aren't really a factor with any rigid weapon weighing more than a couple pounds. You need a lot of force behind a heavy weapon, not precision.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-07, 06:55 PM
And I'd also like to add that dexterity and nimbleness aren't really a factor with any rigid weapon weighing more than a couple pounds. You need a lot of force behind a heavy weapon, not precision.

EXACTLY. When you're waving around a heavy metal object, increased STRENGTH lets you wield it with more precision because you aren't fighting gravity and the object's inertia all the time.

NullAshton
2007-06-07, 07:02 PM
Actually I think I read it explained (somewhere, can't remember where) like this.

Strength affects how much your weapon 'hurts' of course. However, it also affects how fast you can swing a sword. Dexterity isn't speed like most people think, dexterity is how nimble you are and how good your reflexes are.

This same logic can be applied to many things. Jump is strength because you need to move yourself fast in order to jump far. Swim is strength because of the same thing.

Strength affects how often you can 'hit' someone because your sword is moving faster, thus penetrating armor more and making it harder for someone to get out of the way.

Lemur
2007-06-07, 07:47 PM
I'll argue that strength being overvalued doesn't even stand as an argument outside of D&D. Other d20 settings aren't as melee oriented as D&D, and strength doesn't necessarily have to be a focus stat for combat characters in, say, a Modern setting.

Thrawn183
2007-06-07, 08:24 PM
The real problem is it forces melee types to have good stats in all three physical attributes. We already have problems with players ignoring mental stats because they often don't benefit them enough. Making it even harder to put high rolls in mental stats? It just... doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

de-trick
2007-06-07, 08:25 PM
its called weapon finesse already thought of

geez3r
2007-06-07, 08:47 PM
Ok, here's how this works in my mind:

Using Str for attack rolls:
Using your Strength, you are able to swing large metallic objects at lethal velocity. You do this while still maintaining both your balance and a semblence of accuracy do to your training and ability to keep your weapon's inertia in check. Your opponent's defenses are bypassed by you 1) landing the blow before they have time to gather them, 2) you batter your opponent's sheild/weapon away with your superior strength or 3) your blow packs enough power to get through your foes' armor. This is essentially a quick, violent attack targeted at the general region of your foe's body.

Using Dex for attack rolls:
Using your finesse, you are able to attack in a different manner than your greatsword weilding peers. They attack in broad, furious strokes filled with nothing but power, but none the less effective. At Dexterious attack is powered not by the broad powerful motions of the arms and body, but by a simple flick of the wrist. In this fashion, you are able to attack from different angles than those of your peers, and even if your foe gets their sheild up in time, you twist your wrist and now strike at their unprotected thigh. These are essentially precise, almost surgical strikes at any weakness your opponent has. You do not break their defenses, you merely go around them.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 10:21 PM
I dunno, to be honest, a thrusting weapon requires a lot of Strength to penetrate armour, so the whole 'broad strokes' thing doesn't really wash with me. Driving a Sword (whether Short, Long or Great) or Spear into a large Animal or Monster also requires significant Strength, though precision must play a role somewhere along the line (but surely that's represented by skill, i.e. BAB and Weapon Focus, etc...).
Fact is, most Actions and Skills really require a combination of 'Attributes' to be successfully executed. Hiding is as much about Wisdom and Intelligence as it is about Dexterity. Tumbling is a Skill that really requires Strength as much as spacial awareness. Indeed, pretty much any physical action is a combination of Strength and Dexterity, and each could be justified in some way, but in the end, this is a mechanical issue.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-06-09, 11:05 PM
Well, I look at the Weapon Finesse feat as partly training in aiming for vulnerable spots; the joints in armor, near-surface tendons on large animals, etc.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 11:23 PM
Sure, and that's sensible, but it's only a partial explanation for why a Level 20 Character with Strength 3 and Dexterity 30 is a total badass with a Rapier (I think he can just about lift one...)

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-09, 11:42 PM
By total badass, you mean deals 1d6-3 dmg?

Matthew
2007-06-10, 12:09 AM
His Damage sucks alright (1D6-4 by the by), but the point is that Armour penetration is unaffected by Strength (Hell, if he's a Swashbuckler 20 with a high enough Intelligence his damage probably won't even suck that bad).

Justin_Bacon
2007-06-10, 12:47 AM
I think that the role of strength is way to significant in the d20 system. The fact that you get to add it to both, melee attack bonus and damage seems a bit strange. The barbarian's rage is a good example. It's perfectly understandable, that a person should be able to swing a weapon really hard when they're extremeley angry, but that the weapon's chance of hitting should increase is unrational.

Please remember that there is no such thing as a "to hit" roll in D&D3. There is an attack roll, and this roll determines whether you DAMAGE someone, not whether you hit them.

Now, that being said, the system is a compromise: Both Dexterity and Strength should factor into whether you can damage other people with a melee attack, but trying to make both factor into a roll is overly complicated.

Personally, I recommend ditching the Weapon Finesse feat: Let people either add their Dexterity bonus or their Strength bonus to their attack roll. This isn't unbalanced, and it allows dexterous swashbucklers to perform more naturally within the system.

Quietus
2007-06-10, 02:19 AM
Well, I look at the Weapon Finesse feat as partly training in aiming for vulnerable spots; the joints in armor, near-surface tendons on large animals, etc.

To me, that represents attack bonus. Weapon Finesse represents taking that knowledge, and working with light weapons to apply your superior hand-eye coordination to strike at those spots from unexpected angles, as opposed to the typical strength-based roll, which is more of a "I want to hit that spot, now I'll swing fast enough that they can't get their sheild in the way" mentality.

Dervag
2007-06-10, 04:16 AM
No, it doesn't make more sense. It does make about the same sort of sense (i.e. not much). Dexterity already has more than enough uses, but if you need an explanation, Strength is required for Speed (and also to smash through armour that cannot be bypassed). I usually fall on the other side of the fence, though, I think Strength should be used for Ranged Attacks as well as Melee.Strength makes sense for ranged damage from certain kinds of weapons, but not for accuracy.

The real challenge in inflicting damage with a weapon is delivering a good solid thwack to the right point. Once you've got the basic targeting down, your ability to deliver that thwack determines your effectiveness.

With melee weapons, targeting is not very difficult. The weapon is supposed to be an extension of your body, and the target is within a yard or so. If you paint a bullseye on a target and tell someone with an axe or a sword or a spear to hit the bullseye, you'd be pretty surprised if they miss. That would indicate that they're either noticeably impaired or almost completely untrained.

With melee weapons, the difficulty in getting good with them, so that you can reliably strike a target capable of defending itself, is that melee weapons move slowly enough that your enemy can try to dodge or parry, and that man-portable armor can stop almost anything that one can swing. This is because you can't put every last ounce of force into the strike of a melee weapon without leaving yourself fatally vulnerable to counterattack.

Ranged weapons eliminate that vulnerability. You can spend extra time winding up for a throw, or stretching a longbow until it has stored a lot of energy, or cranking a crossbow. The shot from a ranged weapon will usually go faster than the swing of a melee weapon, so your opponent has a harder time dodging. This makes delivering the necessary 'thwack' somewhat easier, but there's a cost.

With ranged weapons, targeting becomes much more of a challenge. While the human brain is hardwired to solve ballistics problems such as "throw the rock at the gazelle," it's not as simple as hitting something with an object in your hand. Also, the target is much farther away, requiring a lot more in the way of precision.

Targeting ability is mostly a function of things that D&D models as dexterity. A dextrous character, regardless of strength, is presumed to have good reflexes, good kinesthetic awareness of their surroundings, and good hand-eye coordination. They will be better at getting their arrows into the center of a target. They will be better at throwing an axe with the exact right amount of speed, so that it spins around its center twice and the axehead sticks in the orc rather than spinning one and a half or two and a half times and thumping the orc with the haft of the axe.

However, they may not be any better at delivering the necessary force. So for weapons where the kinetic energy of the shot is not predetermined by the weapon's design (such as a crossbow), it makes sense for increased strength to give you the ability to shoot harder and deal more damage. But except for very specific cases, such as attempting to drill through a stationary piece plate armor using a longbow, it does not make much sense to link strength to the probability of dealing damage in the first place. In the general case, hit probability is determined by precision and coordination, not by the amount of force behind the throw.


The problems;

Armour based characters lose out on accuracy because wearing armour makes their dex useless.You could just rule that the maximum Dex bonus imposed by armor doesn't apply to ranged weapons. It would make the bookkeeping marginally more difficult, but not by that much.


A lot of large monsters will lose the ability to hit anything.The weakness of large monsters hitting small targets is already covered by the Size modifiers, if you ask me. You're right that it wouldn't be appropriate to double-penalize them by counting their (presumably) low dexterity against them for melee combat.


Change initiative to intelligence or wisdom. This would make some sense and would stop dex becoming the ultimate stat.Possibly, though there are plenty of archetypal intelligent or wise characters who cannot react quickly in a battle. Whereas there are relatively few archetypal agile characters who cannot react quickly in a battle.


So what about if bigger weapons had additional restrictions? I.e. with a greataxe you use dex or str, whichever is the lowest. In this case someone with a high str but low dex wouldn't be hitting stuff because his swings would simply not go in the desired direction, while someone with a high dex and low str simply isn't able to swing the weapon properly. I know it's getting a bit complicated, but the goal here is to make stuff more realistic, and complications are sadly a must.Because you can be devastatingly effective with a huge axe even though you can't dodge like a ninja. High dexterity lets you dodge like a ninja; for a human character, having your dexterity maxed out is as about good a defense against enemy weapons as wearing a suit of chain mail.

Dervag the Barbarian may not be able to dodge like a ninja, but he can still chop his enemies in half with a greataxe in his hands. You don't need exceptional precision to be effective with an axe; normal humans possess enough precision to be effective without having exceptional dexterity.


His Damage sucks alright (1D6-4 by the by), but the point is that Armour penetration is unaffected by Strength (Hell, if he's a Swashbuckler 20 with a high enough Intelligence his damage probably won't even suck that bad).Well, the simple excuse is that any tolerably simple system for using numerical scores to determine effects (like the D&D system) will break down in extreme cases. The flip side of the problem is that a Barbarian 20 with Strength 30 and Dexterity 3 and a good, solid Power Attack feat chain can kill nearly anything in the game with a few hits from his axe, even though he's so clumsy that a freakin' cow should be able to get out of his way.

Profound lack of dexterity should be just as crippling in combat as profound lack of strength, or nearly as crippling. The D&D system doesn't do a very good job of modelling extremely low-stat characters, because it isn't really designed for that purpose. It's better at modelling the effects of very high abilities than very low ones.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-10, 04:52 AM
A minor problem is that dexterity in DnD is also agility.

Dexterity is the ability to use your hands. This is why it applies to sleight of hand checks.

To me it makes more sense for a stat called dexterity to be involved in wielding weapons than it does for that stat to be involved in dodging things.

Also, why does dexterity apply to initiative? It should be intelligence or wisdom, probably intelligence. Initiative is about acting and thinking fast not about being able to repair a fiddly watch.

It makes sense for the same statistic that applies to armour class to apply to reflexes. Why that stat is dexterity is something that was lost somewhere in the confusion of DnD's origins.

Ceres
2007-06-10, 06:07 AM
In my homebrewed system, Melee attack bonus is split into two categories: To-Hit modifier and damage modifier. Likewise, armour-class is split up into dodge-bonus and armour-bonus. To-Hit is based on dexterity, and the blow is considered a hit if you beat the opponents dodge-bonus. Then you switch to-hit for damage modifier, and compare it to the opponents armour to determine damage.

This system requires a little bit more number-juggling, but is also, in my eyes, a much more realistic system. If you want to have a look, it is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2223721#post2223721). Still work in progress, though.

[Edit] Oh, also I have included something called "minimum strength required" for weapons, or "msr". Your attack roll is penalized if your strength is lower than this number. Thus the notion that to-hit is determined by strength because of a weapons weight is also included.

[Another Edit] Oh, and by standard D&D rules, it is my belief that maximum dexterity bonus applies only to armour class, and does not affect ranged attack rolls, skill-checks and so on. Check your player's handbook.

goat
2007-06-10, 06:44 AM
To me, that represents attack bonus. Weapon Finesse represents taking that knowledge, and working with light weapons to apply your superior hand-eye coordination to strike at those spots from unexpected angles, as opposed to the typical strength-based roll, which is more of a "I want to hit that spot, now I'll swing fast enough that they can't get their sheild in the way" mentality.

I normally think of weapon finesse as being the application of your dexterity in movement to your attacks. It's your ability to dodge, weave and slip past your opponent's defences, using only light weapons because it's more of a quick flick of the wrist than a fast swing of the whole arm. With a weapon that's too heavy, your movements are slowed by the weight, and you simply can't make the fine movements fast enough.

The swashbuckler's intelligence bonus I see as being a detailed knowledge of armour construction and anatomy. He's not only dodging and weaving, slipping past the defences, he's dodging, weaving, and then stabbing through the unarmored joint of your armour into a main artery, or your kidney, or your left lung.

The problem with low strength isnt that bad. With a str 3, you can carry 10lbs as a light load, so your 2lb rapier is 20% of your easy carrying capacity. With a str of 13, 50lbs is your light load, and the heaviest single hand weapons come in at about 8lbs, some 16% of your carrying capacity. Yet we have no problem with a strength 13 character (who is above average remember, 10-11 (33-38lbs)) using any one one handed weapon with impunity.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 06:51 AM
[Another Edit] Oh, and by standard D&D rules, it is my belief that maximum dexterity bonus applies only to armour class, and does not affect ranged attack rolls, skill-checks and so on. Check your player's handbook.

You are correct. There is just a tendency not to wear armor that doesn't let you use all of your dexterity bonus to AC, because touch AC is generally more valuable than flat-footed AC. Thus, that guy in full plate probably doesn't have more than a +1 dex mod. If he had a +2, he'd be in a breastplate.

Matthew
2007-06-10, 07:05 AM
Strength makes sense for ranged damage from certain kinds of weapons, but not for accuracy.
Sure, but remember that the Ranged Attack Roll represents not only accuracy, but Armour Penetration. Also, the faster the weapon travels, the harder it is to dodge (so I understand), which is also a factor of Strength, rather than Dexterity.


The real challenge in inflicting damage with a weapon is delivering a good solid thwack to the right point. Once you've got the basic targeting down, your ability to deliver that thwack determines your effectiveness.

Yes indeed, which is a combination of Strength, Dexterity and Skill.


With melee weapons, targeting is not very difficult. The weapon is supposed to be an extension of your body, and the target is within a yard or so. If you paint a bullseye on a target and tell someone with an axe or a sword or a spear to hit the bullseye, you'd be pretty surprised if they miss. That would indicate that they're either noticeably impaired or almost completely untrained.

Maybe, though without training or experience it's surprisingly easy to miss a static target with an over hand blow. Chopping wood, for instance. It doesn't take too long to become proficient, of course. In any case, D&D models the difference in distance orientated combat via range increments.


Ranged weapons eliminate that vulnerability. You can spend extra time winding up for a throw, or stretching a longbow until it has stored a lot of energy, or cranking a crossbow. The shot from a ranged weapon will usually go faster than the swing of a melee weapon, so your opponent has a harder time dodging. This makes delivering the necessary 'thwack' somewhat easier, but there's a cost.

Sure, to be clear, I don't think Strength should eliminate Dexterity, but I do think it's just as valid an Attribute Modifier for Ranged Attacks.


However, they may not be any better at delivering the necessary force. So for weapons where the kinetic energy of the shot is not predetermined by the weapon's design (such as a crossbow), it makes sense for increased strength to give you the ability to shoot harder and deal more damage. But except for very specific cases, such as attempting to drill through a stationary piece plate armor using a longbow, it does not make much sense to link strength to the probability of dealing damage in the first place. In the general case, hit probability is determined by precision and coordination, not by the amount of force behind the throw.

For Cross Bows and Guns and such, the Strength of the user probably shouldn't matter too much (though it has it's role), but for Bows and Thrown Weapons I cannot really see the argument for the Attack Roll not being a combination of Strength and Dexterity.


You could just rule that the maximum Dex bonus imposed by armor doesn't apply to ranged weapons. It would make the bookkeeping marginally more difficult, but not by that much.

Ceres is quite right, the Maximum Dexterity only applies to Armour Class (a common mistake). You add your full Dexterity to ranged Attack Rolls and Skills regardless of Armour worn. The Armour Check Penalty takes care of everything else.


Well, the simple excuse is that any tolerably simple system for using numerical scores to determine effects (like the D&D system) will break down in extreme cases. The flip side of the problem is that a Barbarian 20 with Strength 30 and Dexterity 3 and a good, solid Power Attack feat chain can kill nearly anything in the game with a few hits from his axe, even though he's so clumsy that a freakin' cow should be able to get out of his way.

Profound lack of dexterity should be just as crippling in combat as profound lack of strength, or nearly as crippling. The D&D system doesn't do a very good job of modelling extremely low-stat characters, because it isn't really designed for that purpose. It's better at modelling the effects of very high abilities than very low ones.
Yes indeed, I quite agree. Though, one could argue that a crippling Dexterity's penalties to Armour Class are sufficient, those can also be overcome.
To be clear (because I think there may be some confusion here), I don't think Strength should shunt out Dexterity for 'realism' reasons. I think any Attack is likely to be influenced a combination of Strength and Dexterity, but that D&D does not currently model this.
You make a good case for Dexterity being more valuable in Ranged Combat. I do think Speed and Armour Penetration remain good reasons for Strength to play a role in the Attack Roll, however.
The way I run things in my Home Brew D&D game, you use the worst penalties and best Bonus from Dexterity and Strength with regard to Ranged Attacks (though not exactly for Melee Attacks; except for Parries and Manouevres you don't add your Dexterity Bonus, but you do if it has a Penalty - mechanical reasons, rather than reality, or maybe just a holdover and unwillingness to let go).

I would love to see combined attributes implemented in D&D in this way, but at the moment it's use X or Y or add X to Y, so I'm still going to plump for it being possible to use Strength over Dexterity for Ranged Attacks made with Thrown Weapons or Bows.

Closet Skeleton: Dexterity adds to AC for fluff reasons because it's also spacial awareness. Of course, mechanically, it adds to AC because it almost always has done. I think originally it might have been conceived as being more than just dodging, perhaps parrying and such.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-10, 12:06 PM
I never said that armour check penalty affected anything other than dex bonus to armour class. Its just that if you're wearing heavy armour you're going to dump dex because it won't be helping you as much. Therefore you'll miss a lot if all attack rolls are based off dexterity.

If you have the dexterity then its always best to wear something with high max dex but lower armour class bonus because you'll get a lower armour check penalty and speed reduction.

I had this problem with some variant d20 modern rules where I based all attack rolls of dexterity but found that nobody would play the advanced class that gave bonuses for wearing heavy armour since it was too inaccurate, so I had to increase the class's base attack.

You may have just been clarifying max dex bonus, but since it appeared to have been in response to something I posted I felt the need to clarify myself.

Matthew
2007-06-10, 12:11 PM
I was replying to Dervag, who appears to have made the error in his response to something you had written (the error was his, not yours).

Only this bit was directed at what you wrote in Post #37.


Closet Skeleton: Dexterity adds to AC for fluff reasons because it's also spacial awareness. Of course, mechanically, it adds to AC because it almost always has done. I think originally it might have been conceived as being more than just dodging, perhaps parrying and such.

It's just a thought about Dexterity, Dodge Bonuses and Armour Class. Sorry for any confusion.

Ceres
2007-06-10, 12:26 PM
You may have just been clarifying max dex bonus, but since it appeared to have been in response to something I posted I felt the need to clarify myself.

No problem, skeleton. I was just a bit uncertain about the rules myself, having played my total homebrew campaign.