Should strength be added to the attack roll?

[stewstew5]

I'm designing a ttrpg, and in it armour doesn't make you harder to hit, but more difficult to damage. Because of this, I'm wondering if strength should be added to the attack roll at all. I get that more strength means a more powerful swing, but that itself is more armour piercing and less actually connecting the blow. It is worth noting that because of design philosophies in the classes strength lends itself better to hard hitters and dexterity better to consistency over longer combat.
As well, your opponents dexterity is pretty much the only difficulty when it comes to connecting the attack

[Vorpal Glaive]

What kind of game is it, genre-wise?

That tends to impact how combat works.

[stewstew5]

What kind of game is it, genre-wise?

That tends to impact how combat works.

It's a grim fantasy, lots of sword and sorcery. Intended to be reminiscent of the likes of Conan, Xena, Gru and other similar works. The sort of place where even the mightiest barbarians could die in one or two good strokes of a sword

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not a fan of "strength" to attack in general.

I like a more abstract ability score, "attack", as it allows a player to RP their character however they want without needing to add even more stats to show different types of attacking.

Like with Pokemon. You can have two pokemon with high attack (Machamp and Kartana) but one of them has strength and one of them is dexterous (looks likenpaper even).

Allowing skills and RP to determine if a character is strong or not works rather well. A character with the Athletics skill will have more muscles than a character with Stealth skill (who may still have some muscles).

This allows for a lot of simple customization on the character's end.

[stewstew5]

I'm not a fan of "strength" to attack in general.

I like a more abstract ability score, "attack", as it allows a player to RP their character however they want without needing to add even more stats to show different types of attacking.

Like with Pokemon. You can have two pokemon with high attack (Machamp and Kartana) but one of them has strength and one of them is dexterous (looks likenpaper even).

Allowing skills and RP to determine if a character is strong or not works rather well. A character with the Athletics skill will have more muscles than a character with Stealth skill (who may still have some muscles).

This allows for a lot of simple customization on the character's end.

Attack and special attack

But as a genuine counterpoint strength and dex are still useful indicators for other things like skills and saves, as well as making different weapons of different damages equally viable

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Attack and special attack

But as a genuine counterpoint strength and dex are still useful indicators for other things like skills and saves, as well as making different weapons of different damages equally viable

You don't even need a special attack stat, if you set up skills to cover the magic or martial side of things.

Taking a skill that is a "strength" skill shows that a character is strong. That's your indicator. Having a Strength score at that point is redundant because you already have such an indicator.

If your skill is "big heavy weapons" you are proficient with them. You use yout attack stat for your attack roll and your damage roll will be modified by your "BHW" skill. This is what shows that the character is stronger than average. If you try to use a BHW without this skill, you won't deal as much damage, or even be able to hit as well because you won't be adding any proficiency bonus to the attack. You're going to be like a little kid swinging a giant axe.

To determine stuff like encumberance, base it off how many strength skills a character has. Got 0? 50 lbs. Got 1? 60 lbs... Or however you want the math to line up (these were spitball numbers).

At the end of the day, targeting and hitting something (along with damage and all that) is a combination of all your physical and mental abilities (situation depending) and breaking it down to strength doesn't feel right.

Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma can all play a part in a weapon attack... All at once. If I want to hit someone I need the strength to siwng my weapon, the dexterity to target, the intelligence of realizing how the target will react, the wisdom in knowing where to hit, and the charisma to either not telegraph my attack or scare them into making them easier to hit. Oh, and the constitution to be able to do it at least once, but hopefully more so.


Edit: Some generalist ability scores could be like: Attack, Initiative, Physical Defense, Mental Save, Luck, Sanity, and Honor.

[stewstew5]

You don't even need a special attack stat, if you set up skills to cover the magic or martial side of things.

Taking a skill that is a "strength" skill shows that a character is strong. That's your indicator. Having a Strength score at that point is redundant because you already have such an indicator.

If your skill is "big heavy weapons" you are proficient with them. You use yout attack stat for your attack roll and your damage roll will be modified by your "BHW" skill. This is what shows that the character is stronger than average. If you try to use a BHW without this skill, you won't deal as much damage, or even be able to hit as well because you won't be adding any proficiency bonus to the attack. You're going to be like a little kid swinging a giant axe.

To determine stuff like encumberance, base it off how many strength skills a character has. Got 0? 50 lbs. Got 1? 60 lbs... Or however you want the math to line up (these were spitball numbers).

At the end of the day, targeting and hitting something (along with damage and all that) is a combination of all your physical and mental abilities (situation depending) and breaking it down to strength doesn't feel right.

Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma can all play a part in a weapon attack... All at once. If I want to hit someone I need the strength to siwng my weapon, the dexterity to target, the intelligence of realizing how the target will react, the wisdom in knowing where to hit, and the charisma to either not telegraph my attack or scare them into making them easier to hit. Oh, and the constitution to be able to do it at least once, but hopefully more so.


Edit: Some generalist ability scores could be like: Attack, Initiative, Physical Defense, Mental Save, Luck, Sanity, and Honor.

I meant special attack the pokemon stat. 'Twas a joke.

However, having strength be like a skill can still be an issue, because let's say your character with 0 strength skill is required to make a general strength check. Do they simply get no pluses? Then how do you represent characters that are atrociously weak? Are DC's simply higher? That throws off the balance of a d20 skill system (which my system in question is) where a 10 represents something a person who isn't especially strong (or dexterous, wise etc.) Can do pretty consistantly. But then, you say, make the DC's higher and make your generic strength character some skill points in strength. The issue with that is that it detracts points from other areas of a build, and believe it or not being very good in something doesn't make you bad at everything else, and being decent in something doesn't make you less good at the things you're good at.

That's not even addressing how useful a stat like strength is for skills like jump or climb (I loathe the condensing of the 3.5 strength skills into athletics). A strong person is going to be better at climbing than a non-strong character (assuming they have the same amount of points in climb) simply because strength is so key to climbing. This could be solved in a way similar to 3.5's skill synergies, but it would need to be much more in-depth and complex to be as all encompassing as a system like that needs to be

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I meant special attack the pokemon stat. 'Twas a joke.

However, having strength be like a skill can still be an issue, because let's say your character with 0 strength skill is required to make a general strength check. Do they simply get no pluses? Then how do you represent characters that are atrociously weak? Are DC's simply higher? That throws off the balance of a d20 skill system (which my system in question is) where a 10 represents something a person who isn't especially strong (or dexterous, wise etc.) Can do pretty consistantly. But then, you say, make the DC's higher and make your generic strength character some skill points in strength. The issue with that is that it detracts points from other areas of a build, and believe it or not being very good in something doesn't make you bad at everything else, and being decent in something doesn't make you less good at the things you're good at.

That's not even addressing how useful a stat like strength is for skills like jump or climb (I loathe the condensing of the 3.5 strength skills into athletics). A strong person is going to be better at climbing than a non-strong character (assuming they have the same amount of points in climb) simply because strength is so key to climbing. This could be solved in a way similar to 3.5's skill synergies, but it would need to be much more in-depth and complex to be as all encompassing as a system like that needs to be

Jump and Swim can fall under Atheltics. Becausez well, that's athletic stuff.

Having "breaking stuff" (rename) and expanding more strength checks helps.

D&D ability scores are redundant and just not all that useful if you have a proper skill system and class features.

Just use a proficiency bonus scale for different things.

Why have more than one feature of a system that tells you exactly the same thing?

[stewstew5]

Jump and Swim can fall under Atheltics. Becausez well, that's athletic stuff.

Having "breaking stuff" (rename) and expanding more strength checks helps.

D&D ability scores are redundant and just not all that useful if you have a proper skill system and class features.

Just use a proficiency bonus scale for different things.

Why have more than one feature of a system that tells you exactly the same thing?

So would a professional swimmer be just as good at jumping as say, a hurdler or long-jumper?

I dont get your argument here

Not really, regardless of training some people are just better predisposed to certain things, as well as it being nice to have a relatively static bonus (since it only changes when you change it, as opposed to proficiency which is less in your control). As well, how you get the skill points greatly affects what they mean. If it's based off intelligence it only makes sense for these points to be towards mental skills, as being smarter doesn't make you predisposed to being stronger (and technique can only take you so far)

Once again I dont get your argument here

To make it more fine-tuned and able to better encompass all the different ways someone can be good at something

Regardless of this (very intetesting) discussion, this system uses stats and that's not changing. Should strength be incorporated into the attack roll if the attack roll isn't to overcome armour?

[Dienekes]

So I do swordfighting. And if you’re interested in reflecting reality I can say pretty safely say “Ehhh- well kinda? I mean it’s not perfect, but probably better than Dexterity? Maybe.”

The thing is that with both swinging and thrusting a weapon, you’re only really trying to get roughly in the area that lets you kill the guy. While being stronger let’s you move your arms with more force thus making your attack quicker and so harder to dodge. But really, you shouldn’t be trying to dodge a weapon longer than a dagger anyway. No matter how fast you move, the opponent can swing their arms faster. You want to parry. But, generally speaking, if you’re stronger you can strike through your opponent’s parry. But if you’re too strong, or at least too heavily muscled you actually limit your field of movement and get in your own way when trying to perform a strike. There’s a reason the best power lifters don’t often transition into martial arts and just wreck the competition. There’s an upper limit to how much you can apply, that is admittedly based on your body type. Bruce Lee decided to loose muscle mass and strength at one point because he felt it was limiting his movement too much. When his upper strength was nowhere near the level a heavyweight boxer was pulling. Mostly because of their size and shape. Same’s true for weapon fighting.

Then we get into reaction time. This is also important for attacking, being able to see and react to your opponent’s actions as quick as possible is really useful. Especially for pulling off a successful feint or cut around. This could be modeled by Dex or Wis. And you may think well Feinting could be it’s own special move. But cutting around or avoiding the enemy’s parry is a pretty integral part for basically every strike you make after the first. You’re not going to just whale on the enemy’s weapon after they parry you, right? Of course not, that’s stupid. So if we wanted to make this strike a single roll it’d probably be some combination of Str and either Dex or Wis.

Then there’s Constitution. So, here’s a thing. A lot of weapon martial arts training is actually just endurance training while holding something. Fights are tiring. Go get your average schlub to go into a fight and they’ll be out of breath after a few punches. And everything they throw after that point is weak and easily avoided. Then watch a professional boxer and see how many strikes they throw in quick succession before they step back from each other and take a breather. Often even before the round bell. In a fight you don’t get these pre-planned breaks. Once you’re out of stamina you’ve pretty much lost. From what we know of knight’s training sure they trained what we might think of as strength and dexterity. But much more than that, much more than they even trained their weaponry or horsemanship (which is probably a more important skill to have to determine your accuracy with a weapon while riding than anything else) was how much endurance training they did.

So all that said. I don’t think any single attribute can ever model fighting. Strength is probably the best option. But it should be secondary to skill.

Actually, if you wanted to more perfectly model combat and the thoughts put into it. Every person would have something like “maintaining points.” You need to spend them to maintain your attributes and skills each level and you only have a limited number. If you don’t spend your time maintaining your strength it will go down. If you don’t spend your time maintaining your weapon skill it will go down. Etcetera. With the higher up the modifier the more maintaining points it costs. You can keep a +1 Str mod with just an hour of exercise a week. But a +5 that takes time. There are guys who spending all day at the gym to get those gains. The character would then have to determine what they need to maintain to be the most effective.

Ok, that ridiculous thought experiment aside. To sum up. Strength is ok. I find it hard to think of a better single attribute to use (provided we keep the D&D 6, and not add Fighting like M&M did which has its own problems). But it’s a really bad model. And if you want to go more complicated mixing of stats for different aspects of attacking, that sounds cool, but is liable to get very complicated and will weaken your martial characters in general. Especially if the mages remain SAD.

[stewstew5]

So I do swordfighting. And if you’re interested in reflecting reality I can say pretty safely say “Ehhh- well kinda? I mean it’s not perfect, but probably better than Dexterity? Maybe.”

The thing is that with both swinging and thrusting a weapon, you’re only really trying to get roughly in the area that lets you kill the guy. While being stronger let’s you move your arms with more force thus making your attack quicker and so harder to dodge. But really, you shouldn’t be trying to dodge a weapon longer than a dagger anyway. No matter how fast you move, the opponent can swing their arms faster. You want to parry. But, generally speaking, if you’re stronger you can strike through your opponent’s parry. But if you’re too strong, or at least too heavily muscled you actually limit your field of movement and get in your own way when trying to perform a strike. There’s a reason the best power lifters don’t often transition into martial arts and just wreck the competition. There’s an upper limit to how much you can apply, that is admittedly based on your body type. Bruce Lee decided to loose muscle mass and strength at one point because he felt it was limiting his movement too much. When his upper strength was nowhere near the level a heavyweight boxer was pulling. Mostly because of their size and shape. Same’s true for weapon fighting.

Then we get into reaction time. This is also important for attacking, being able to see and react to your opponent’s actions as quick as possible is really useful. Especially for pulling off a successful feint or cut around. This could be modeled by Dex or Wis. And you may think well Feinting could be it’s own special move. But cutting around or avoiding the enemy’s parry is a pretty integral part for basically every strike you make after the first. You’re not going to just whale on the enemy’s weapon after they parry you, right? Of course not, that’s stupid. So if we wanted to make this strike a single roll it’d probably be some combination of Str and either Dex or Wis.

Then there’s Constitution. So, here’s a thing. A lot of weapon martial arts training is actually just endurance training while holding something. Fights are tiring. Go get your average schlub to go into a fight and they’ll be out of breath after a few punches. And everything they throw after that point is weak and easily avoided. Then watch a professional boxer and see how many strikes they throw in quick succession before they step back from each other and take a breather. Often even before the round bell. In a fight you don’t get these pre-planned breaks. Once you’re out of stamina you’ve pretty much lost. From what we know of knight’s training sure they trained what we might think of as strength and dexterity. But much more than that, much more than they even trained their weaponry or horsemanship (which is probably a more important skill to have to determine your accuracy with a weapon while riding than anything else) was how much endurance training they did.

So all that said. I don’t think any single attribute can ever model fighting. Strength is probably the best option. But it should be secondary to skill.

Actually, if you wanted to more perfectly model combat and the thoughts put into it. Every person would have something like “maintaining points.” You need to spend them to maintain your attributes and skills each level and you only have a limited number. If you don’t spend your time maintaining your strength it will go down. If you don’t spend your time maintaining your weapon skill it will go down. Etcetera. With the higher up the modifier the more maintaining points it costs. You can keep a +1 Str mod with just an hour of exercise a week. But a +5 that takes time. There are guys who spending all day at the gym to get those gains. The character would then have to determine what they need to maintain to be the most effective.

Ok, that ridiculous thought experiment aside. To sum up. Strength is ok. I find it hard to think of a better single attribute to use (provided we keep the D&D 6, and not add Fighting like M&M did which has its own problems). But it’s a really bad model. And if you want to go more complicated mixing of stats for different aspects of attacking, that sounds cool, but is liable to get very complicated and will weaken your martial characters in general. Especially if the mages remain SAD.

This is an incredible amount of insight I dont have (I'm a decent fencer and mma'ist but never really took it anywhere). That skill and technique you were talking about is easy to model as proficiency, where it provides a bonus but without you dont get many bonuses, even from your stats(at least in my system).
As well, I've never modeled strength as just deadlift capability, but your deadlift, development, brawn and muscle quality, dexterity not just as speed but as speed, muscle developement and muscle memory, etc. etc. so I feel that that context may be worth note

[Breccia]

There are two schools of thought.

1) Strength helps you penetrate armor.
2) Strength helps you swing a weapon faster, making it harder to dodge, parry, or otherwise avoid.

The D&D rules seem to say "both" since Str adds to the attack roll, whether the enemy is armored or not.

Furthermore, you add Str to your attack roll, even if you're using a wooden club against adamantium full plate -- armor the club has zero chance of penetrating.

So the answer in my game would remain "add Str to attack rolls as the normal rules".

However, I doubt anyone will mind if you say it doesn't. If you go that route, strongly consider a kind of "armor penetration" class ability, feat, weapon stat or monster modifier, depending on how realistic you want your magic and dragons game to be. Again, a wooden club shouldn't penetrate adamantium full plate when wielded with human strength, but neither should padded leather armor reduce damage from an adamantium dirk.

Honestly this is not the first time this topic has come up, so you might not have to reinvent the wheel. I'm as sure there are other posted rules/numbers/options on these forums as I am that my brother's dog wants this toast I'm eating while responding.

In any event, good luck, and let us know how it goes!

[Breccia]

So would a professional swimmer be just as good at jumping as say, a hurdler or long-jumper?

Well, in 5E there's only the one skill, so, yes. There's a whole simplicity vs. realism spectrum, 5E leans red.