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.
In the context of answering why people were objecting to using mental stats for hit and damage for a particular class, however, that class having to remain mundane, without magic is important to note. Rightly or wrongly, people generally associate being able to use mental abilities to wield weapons with magic, or a different edition.
While 4e did it regularly, I can't think of many 5e examples of using an ability other than Str to use a weapon outside of Finesse or magic use.
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.
Yep. I don't think that many people have an objection to being able to use Charisma to gain an advantage (at least against intelligent opponents) though feints and similar deceptions. The issue in my mind at least is where the physical stats are rendered irrelevant: that rather than feints simply used to gain the upper hand, the ability to strike and the damage dealt is entirely unconnected to how fast, powerful, or precise the combatant is.
Everyone draws that line in a different place I think: that is just where mine is.
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.
Under D&D's combat model, where avoiding attacks doesn't require athleticism, and getting a blow past your opponent's guard doesn't require reflexes, grace etc.
Hence my point that the D&D combat rules are a compromise. Between applying a mix of stats to each roll, and not taking a combatant's physical capabilities into account at all.
Taking the right angle is incredibly important in the art of tackling ... I would say Int or Wis is "accuracy" in the tackling example. Doesnt matter how fast, strong, quick of foot or agility you are. If you don't take the right angle you slide off or the runner can avoid you easily.
Fair enough. I would have called that the contribution that skill (proficiency bonus) provides.
Darts and firing a bow ... Darts are Aiming. I dont think someone who has nimble fingers is great at darts if he has poor depth perception. Same with firing a bow. Also, bow requires strength ... but D&D uses concentration to be a CON save so I think aiming might be more CON driven.
Could be. If a fight or similarly strenuous activity is going on for a long time, I sometimes call for Con checks. I also houseruled that bows have Finesse, so can apply Str instead of Dex. There is an argument for concentration-based aiming, but I think I might only apply it to weapons like crossbows and firearms. Possibly like feinting: an action that can be used to gain advantage on a subsequent attack rather than used for the attack itself.
Come on, you don't want to know what your pH balance score is?
I think dexterity covers most types of balance. Would having a caustic personality make a difference?
