Dex to Hit

[Tetsubo]

Six pounds is heavy when you are swinging it around for an extended time. Heck, even your arms get heavy and difficult to strike effectively with frightfully fast. Just ask any boxer.

While I agree in principle, the modern era might not be a good example.

I can't think of any modern era person that practices martial skills the way that a D&D fighter would. Note I didn't say martial arts. Even the absolutely best trained modern era martial artist isn't using their skills in the way a D&D fighter would be. No martial artist is putting their life in danger three to four times a *day*. Swinging a six pound sword (which is on the absolute upper end of sword weights...) isn't really going to slow down a D&D fighter type. The game mechanics just aren't that "fine".

Regardless, I never used the Dex to hit rule again. Weapon Finesse for the high Dex crowd works just fine...

 

[Meeki]

Using dex to hit with melee weapons just seems silly anyways. Imagine a 4 str 18 dex human trying to weild a greatsword. He would never hit! I also fight in the SCA as a rapier fencer and I will tell you strength is very improtant, it improves the speed of your attacks, the force you can exert behind binds, and how stable your parry is. Dexterity would help me move and aim but I really think my ability to move my blade quick is due to strength not dexterity. Intelligence is probably more important in fencing then dexterity, its a very patient, thinking, and angle based sport.

 

[GreatLemur]

2/ AC is an abstraction. Strength is not just how hard you swing, it's how swiftly you can swing something quite heavy, how well you can force your foe's shield aside, and how fast you can change your weapon's momentum to take advantage of momentary gaps in your target's defenses. It's also how well you can rip through armor and deal damage -- the +8 AC from fullplate doesn't indicate that it helps you dodge attacks!

The trouble with this justification, of course, is that Strength still modifies unarmed attacks against unarmored targets.

But the mechanical justification is a pretty damn good one. Dexterity is a hugely important stat already. If you're going to give melee attacks to Dex, you've got to take away a few things, too. (Personally, I like the idea of moving ray and projectile attacks, Reflex saves, and intiative over to Wisdom, and then giving Will saves to Charisma and Heal checks to Intelligence. Plus some other skill-shuffling. But I cannot pretend to know the balance such an array of changes.)

EDIT: Damn, eschwenke beat me to a bunch of the stuff I said. Teach me to post before reading the whole thread...

Clerics and Druids will be going first; Rogues (who often use Wisdom as a dump stat) will be going last? Yuck.

Rename Wisdom (never a well-defined stat, in any edition) something like "Perception" or "Alertness", and see if Rogues still dump stat it. For that matter, it'd probably make sense to move divine casting elsewhere, if you're going to end the whole "Wisdom" thing. Maybe to Charisma (which could be named "Willpower" or something) so that the divine types can keep their good Will saves.

Of course, this is all so much re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, with 4e on the horizon. I can't wait for that to come out so I can start screwing around with it.

 

[Dread October]

While Dex does make more sense as the 'to-hit' stat, it doesn't work well in D&D. Basically the entire system is engineered to make Str offensive and Dex defensive, and changing it really screws with balance everywhere. Maybe your players are non-power gamers and their tank characters will still have high Str despite its lack of worth under your house rule, but in most games it just wouldn't fly.

I use Dex to hit in my homebrew game system, but it only works because I've designed everything from the ground up.

STR being Offensive and DEX being Defensive is actually not something that effect game balance. I'm using a sample size of 12 players in one group of certain temperments and styles and 9 players in a completely different group with different temperments and styles.

The only real common factor here is me.

I could have said That I use CON for Damage and WIS doe defense and I really don't think anything would change except the style of play of some characters. You'd see a lot more folks thinking twice before opening doors and mouthing off and an Indiana Jones type guy could be a lot more popular.


When most folks assign stats, the choose in order of importance to them by class mostly.
Only a Heavy Hitter needs to consider STR first but the question is just does he was to actually have a better chance to hit more often. It's likely that DEX is his second or third most important stat anyway. If he has an 18 STR, he probably still has a 16 DEX. This would mean that he may miss early but with tactics, when he hits, he's a killer.

If he has a 16 STR and an 18 DEX then he can whittle at his opponents and with tactics, cream them.

I'm not seeing where game balance is really affected. Tyhe only thing I could see would be things like Giants getting screwed and I liked the way around that by allowing a feat to make STR a to hit stat.

 

[Dread October]

Using dex to hit with melee weapons just seems silly anyways. Imagine a 4 str 18 dex human trying to weild a greatsword. He would never hit! I also fight in the SCA as a rapier fencer and I will tell you strength is very improtant, it improves the speed of your attacks, the force you can exert behind binds, and how stable your parry is. Dexterity would help me move and aim but I really think my ability to move my blade quick is due to strength not dexterity. Intelligence is probably more important in fencing then dexterity, its a very patient, thinking, and angle based sport.

Dude.

Why would a 4 STR having guy bother with a Greatsword unless he also has a 4 WIS? By the rules, as they currently stand, it would make more sense for a guy with a 4 STR and an 18 DEX to either stay home and run track or become a Wizard....depending.

I use DEX as a measure of how fast or how accurate. I use STR as a measure of how much. Not to cast a shadow on your experience in SCA, but this is D&D which being what it is, is just a game and how you get by in stage combat is another thing entirely.

 

[Dread October]

Swinging an actual thick heavy bar (say, a sword) takes strength, first and foremost, not dexterity. And the stronger you are, the faster you can swing it and get it to vulnerable spots before the opponent evades you. Agility might not be irrelevant, but once you have the strength to wield a weapon dangerously, techniques to hit the joints in armor are just that - techniques, which require training, practice and more practice - i.e. base attack bonus.

Seriously though - strength is crucial if you're trying to swing anything remotely heavy.

I agree that swinging a heavy bar would require some amount of STR but honestly, it's not STR that allows you to do this effectively, I'd argue that that is a function of CON. Any guyb swinging a big heavy bar probaly has a decent CON so it really makes no difference.

Training and Practice are all about developing the SKILL to be effective is battle. This is Dexterity and Agility. Strength is important. Once you hit the armor, you want to cause bruises, break bones, puncture armor and people, etc. Usung DEX to hit doesn't actaully change that. A person can be "dangerous" by dropping a sword from a tree, swinging it in a circle above his head or throwing it across the room. This doesn't mean he is also deadly.

There are already rules for over powering opponents. I never changed those. Didn't change Grappling either.

base attack bonus is a measure of training and experience as well and has nothing todo with the STR of the character. Melee attack bonus does but I've just removed the need for 2 separate lines for Ranged and Melee.

Now your attack bonus' aren't tied to the stats you rolled. They are tied toyour preference as a gamer.

Nellick the Razor isn't deadly with a Bow because he has a average Strength. He's deadly with a bow because he likes tobe known for being deadly witha freaking bow.

Angmar the Hangman isn't brutal with his axe because he sucks with a bow. He's never tried a bow because it's cowardly and some bull . He likes the axe because he likes to be real close when the head pops off. Oh crap! Here he comes again!!!!

See?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The only real common factor here is me.

Okay, so test out this house rule and tell us how it works out. It's certainly been discussed enough, so if you still like it then try it. I foresee an absence of heavily armored characters in favor of more finesse/mobility types. Maybe that's what you want, so go for it!

 

[Dread October]

Okay, so test out this house rule and tell us how it works out. It's certainly been discussed enough, so if you still like it then try it. I foresee an absence of heavily armored characters in favor of more finesse/mobility types. Maybe that's what you want, so go for it!

Well that's just it. I've been using this house rule for 4 years and I've found it to not be unbalancing.

The armor choices vary as well. The DEX to hit doesn't penalize someone for wearing heavier armor. One group were specically told that their characters came from a "Low Man" sort of barbarian culture so no one wore anything tougher than chain in their case. They also knew they they would run into conflicts with Knighted, "High Men" at some point who would have no problem with heavier armor in some cases but they themselves were generally armored according to the mission at hand.

The second group actually played the "High Men" and as near as anyone could tell, their choice of armor had everything to do with the look and feel of the character than what DEX meant in combat.

There was a lot more concern for how much it slowed them down or if they fell in water than for the merits of half plate.

Remember that in the era of LoTR and PotC movies, the swashbuckler is full on in everyone's mind. Now when folks picture an armored warrior, something like Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind. Armor took a hit but not because of combat changes.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

In realty weapons like the rapier and club do not really fare well against full plate, with the exception of a crit.

I think it really depends on what kind of full plate you're referring to. From my study of the Tower of London catalog, it appears that 14th anc 15th C. plate armor is equivalent to 16 guage plate. And I've seen some nasty dents from rattan on 16 ga. plate armor. Man, I'd hate to see what live steel does…

On the other hand, there is evidence from late 15th and early 16th C. sources that sword-proof armor existed and even pistol-proof. The Tower of London allegedly has some 17th C. breastplates and helm which are less than 10 guage!

This is yet another reason why I prefer armour as DR rather than AC.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I also fight in the SCA as a rapier fencer and I will tell you strength is very improtant, it improves the speed of your attacks, the force you can exert behind binds, and how stable your parry is. Dexterity would help me move and aim but I really think my ability to move my blade quick is due to strength not dexterity. Intelligence is probably more important in fencing then dexterity, its a very patient, thinking, and angle based sport.

I was a heavy weapons fighter and only fought rapier in a few fighter practices (which I won each time ). But my experience in a fencing class over 3 months definitely suggested dexterity. I took the class with my friend Gunther (a very strong and big Florentine fighter) and we had our assess handed to us by college age girls.

I suppose based on your experience and Gunther's and my own, perhaps the answer is to say that rapier fighting uses strength but fencing uses dexterity. But that also suggests to me that the rapier is not a light weapon in the D&D sense in the same way that a dagger or shortsword is.