Let's stop acting like strength can't be accurate

[CubicsRube]

Can we stop acting like d&d is remotely realistic?

 

[Guest 6801328]

In my mind how realistic (or not) accuracy and damage are, as functions either of dexterity or strength, is pretty much completely irrelevant.

ALL that matters is that the rules lead to interesting and difficult decision making. That everything is a trade-off. That no stat is universally superior to another, and likewise there's never a true "dump stat" (neither of which is currently the case, obviously).

This whole "pick Strength or Dexterity and the other stat is irrelevant" kinda sucks.

My ideal would be that Strength and Dexterity builds are both viable, but slightly differently mechanically (maybe one has greater +damage, and the other has greater crit chance). What is vital is that Dex builds can still do more damage with high Strength, and Strength builds can still do more damage with high Dexterity.

And I wouldn't stop at Strength and Dex. The more roles that all that stats play, the better.

 

[jasper]

Can we stop acting like d&d is remotely realistic?

What that is crazy talk!
My IQ test say I am at 138 so that a int 14
I have avg str so that 11 (psss jasper you were out breath loading those 6 bags of cement Saturday)
I hardly ever have a cold so that is 14 con ( psst you had the flu in Jan so 10)
I am various dexirious so 16( pss you can spell and tripped over two cats this weekend so 10)
I have 50 plus years of hard learning so I am wisdom 17 ( psst you had this bs talk Nov 1980 wise you ain't) (and you posting this to an international web forum.)

 

[Ancalagon]

Can we stop acting like d&d is remotely realistic?

Just because a lot of things in D&D are fantastical (fireballs! dragons! Ed Greenwood selling novels!) or "game-ified", doesn't meant that all realism has to be abandoned. There has to be a foundation of reality somewhere, otherwise it's just a giant LSD trip.

GM: "As you down the road, you hear rustling in the bushes: Goblins! they rush you, eager for your blood"
Player 1: I draw my sword and fall into a defensive stance!
Player 2: I put a banana peal in front of me
Player 3: I twist the road so it doesn't go by the goblin
GM: How do you do that exactly?
Player 3: I use the ring of road twisting
GM: aaaaand where does that come from?
Player 3: The blue cat spoke to me when I was in the bathroom, it said I could have it if I gave it my sister's number
GM: the snosberries *do* taste like snosberries... I'll allow it.

 

[Krachek]

Take a player on offensive line in NFL.

He is strong. No doubt.
He is quicker and have a better balance that we can suspect. Dex.
He got a good endurance. Con.
He is smart. The tactical book of a team have hundred of page. Int.
He observant. He can spot a weak or injured opponent or the slightest difference in defensive position. Wis
He is proud and confident and have a strong will to win and perform. Cha.

All these qualities made him a better player. I don't see any difference for a fighter.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Take a player on offensive line in NFL.

He is strong. No doubt.
He is quicker and have a better balance that we can suspect. Dex.
He got a good endurance. Con.
He is smart. The tactical book of a team have hundred of page. Int.
He observant. He can spot a weak or injured opponent or the slightest difference in defensive position. Wis
He is proud and confident and have a strong will to win and perform. Cha.

All these qualities made him a better player. I don't see any difference for a fighter.

Indeed, but when it comes to the (Heh) crunch, of actually tackling (or exchanging sword blows), what is important is the speed and power (Str) and the reflexes and steady footing (Dex).

Tactical awareness of a fight or similar situation is very important. I couldn't count the number of times I've tunnel-visioned on the opponent I was engaged with, only to be taken by surprise by someone attacking me from out of my vision. As are many of the other capabilities listed there. However in terms of actually hitting someone and not getting hit yourself, Str and Dex are the deciding factors outside of plain skill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The context was also a class that proponents have always been kinda militant about keeping mundane, with no reality-bending magic.

There's a vast excluded middle between mundane and reality-bending magic. Most characters from genre spend most of their time there.

But, magic (reality bending like wish or otherwise) is not a direct part of the discussion, which is inherently realism-driven. That D&D includes magic, of course makes the case for prioritizing realism in that context very weak. So it's a largely moot discussion in the first place.

The concept of being able to swing your sword using sheer force of will, rather than requiring athleticism or dexterity...

...is not at issue. For one thing no stat represents just force of will. In fact, that idea is split between WIS and CHA, with the former also encompassing insight & perception, and the latter everything from personal magnetism to deciet.

A Sorcerer or Psion attacking with CHA may be using sheer force of will.
A fencer or assassin or bravo doing so would be using intimidation or deceit or the like. Done well enough, his opponent could be left open to even a clumsy or feeble attack.
In that sort of case it wouldn't be attacking with 'just' CHA, merely a case of CHA being the most critical stat in resolving that particular action.

Obviously, there is only one way to solve this dilemma: we need more characteristics!

Splitting out manual dexterity and agility occurred to me in the 80s.
I was a teenager at the time, so it must have been a bad idea.

D&D's compromise of Strength for offensive attacks, and Dexterity for defence is a reasonable representation unless you want to start combining abilities into secondary stats.
...


A typical example of a high-dex, low str person is probably your stereotypical couch potato: overweight and has trouble running and climbing, but with the dexterity and precision honed by years of video games.

So you're saying the couch potato has good AC?

Yeah, I don't see how you can reconcile those assertions. Clearly, D&D DEX must include agility.

 

[Krachek]

Indeed, but when it comes to the (Heh) crunch, of actually tackling (or exchanging sword blows), what is important is the speed and power (Str) and the reflexes and steady footing (Dex).

Tactical awareness of a fight or similar situation is very important. I couldn't count the number of times I've tunnel-visioned on the opponent I was engaged with, only to be taken by surprise by someone attacking me from out of my vision. As are many of the other capabilities listed there. However in terms of actually hitting someone and not getting hit yourself, Str and Dex are the deciding factors outside of plain skill.

You're right.
In fact a person who have real experience in professional sports and combats can only laugh at DnD combat and skill system.
DnD is a romantic and utopic representation of reality!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Those who would give up essential Realism, to purchase a little temporary Simplicity, deserve neither" - Pathfinder fan (with apologies to B Franklin)

 

[GreyLord]

Someone referred back to old school D&D.

Back then Strength wasn't just raw power if I remember, but how well you could use that power. In otherwords...Someone else might be technically stronger than you, but if you knew who to use that strength better to be able to beat them...let's say in a wrestling match...then you would have the greater strength.

Dexterity on the otherhand was more related to balance and poise. If you shot a basketball, how often would you hit net. If you ran a hundred yards...could you beat everyone else. How nimble and quick were you was what Dexterity was based on.