Is it logical

[awa]

I just hope that you didn't literally name a value "minimum required strength" when that's very much not what it actually is. It may make sense to note that particular number, but use a term that accurately describes what you're talking about, you know?

It is the opposite of helpful to define words and phrases against their already established normal usage. "An ogre isn't a humanoid, it's a giant." A giant is a just a big humanoid! If you want a word for the creatures affected by spells like charm person and dominate person, then how about, oh, I dunno, "person" maybe? Although you might want to think about what that's supposed to mean. What is this "creature type" supposed to represent; what's the difference between things that have this type and things that don't? And then ideally pick a word or words that already mean whatever it is! Failing that, make something up. Don't use words that already mean something else. That's bad! Stop doing it!

>:(

:P

Like, I get that meaning is determined by context, but it's hard to escape the context of standard usage. So adding an additional conflicting context tends to create ambiguity. No sense doing that unnecessarily unless you're trying to confuse people, y'know?

Given that the above is directed more at game writers in general than at you specifically, this is probably a poor place for it, but you set off a rant I've been sitting on.

this is the exact wording

Heavy rating the heavy rating of a weapon determines the minimum strength needed to wield it effectively. A heavy rating is typically two numbers, the first indicates the amount to use the weapon without penalty every point under this number results in a -2 to hit and deff. The second number refers to the Body needed to use it to its full potential characters with less than the listed Body may not benefit from Dex mods higher than 3 when attacking. Using a weapon in 2 hands reduces its heavy rating by 2.

[Slipjig]

I mean war bows have a pretty high heavy rating but how do daggers require lots of strength? Keeping in mind str still does the damage even for a dagger.

While speed is paramount when using a knife, if two fighters are equally fast, strength still matters in a knife fight. A significantly stronger fighter can just slam through a weaker opponent's block or parry. And the classic shot you see in movies of one character pressing the knife forward while the other character is pushing back. That's a straight STR vs. STR moment.

[awa]

While speed is paramount when using a knife, if two fighters are equally fast, strength still matters in a knife fight. A significantly stronger fighter can just slam through a weaker opponent's block or parry. And the classic shot you see in movies of one character pressing the knife forward while the other character is pushing back. That's a straight STR vs. STR moment.

Id probably run that as an opposed grapple which would be strength, and since str is applied to damage not dex the strong knife fighter has an advantage over a weak knife fighter even outside the grapple.

Its true that realistically being strong would allow you to smash through a foes defense and their are feats to that affect but at some point despite my desire for realism I must decide where to draw the line, trying to fit that into the core mechanics on top of dex to accuracy was more than I though it was worth.

[Mastikator]

I don't know the full extent of the mechanics of your homebrew game, but I can tell you how I did blocking in my homebrew game: you make an opposed attack roll, if you succeed the damage is halved. So if the attacker has sufficiently powerful attacks even their blocked attacks do heavy damage.
A player character can spend character points to take perks, perks such as "Deflection" which makes it so you take only 1/3rd of the damage, then "Deflection Mastery" where the damage goes down to 1/4th. (perks are meant to specialize specific actions).

You could do something like that, or perhaps it is an opposed attack roll where you roll damage, the damage you roll is then subtracted from the damage you receive.

[gbaji]

I just hope that you didn't literally name a value "minimum required strength" when that's very much not what it actually is. It may make sense to note that particular number, but use a term that accurately describes what you're talking about, you know?

Eh. I suppose we could argue the literal semantics of the phrase, but "minimum strength required to use without a penalty" seems wordy. As long as the terminology is used consistently in the game, I don't think there's a problem.

The alternative is that you define an actual "minimum strength", below which you literally cannot pick up and swing the weapon at all. But now, you're starting at the "penalized value", and moving upwards. IMO, this will cause even greater confusion, since most players are going to look at the stats of the weapon and if they see a listed strength value, assume that if they have that much strength then that's a weapon they should be able to select for their character. Saying "well, you can use it, but at a penalty, you actually need X higher strength to use it without a penalty" seems far far more problematic.

In fact, every game I can think of that puts stat values on weapons, shows us the minimum value needed to use the weapon without penaliies. And there's usually some rules written somewhere to cover "what happens if you pick up a weapon you don't have enough str or dex to use?". awa's rules just also include some values where if you have a high enough strength, and a high enough dex, you get a bonus. Which is more complex, but not a bad rule if you're into that level of complexity.

[Deepbluediver]

What exactly is the penalty? In D&D you technically need a Strength or Dexterity to use a weapon with no penalty, but the penalty/bonus just scales linearly with you're stat. There's not any kind of EXTRA penalty for being particularly weak or clumsy, and damage is still the same, so how is your system different in that regard?