Making Weapon Finess a Freebie?

[Cyberzombie]

Wow, I amazed at how furious this debate has turned...I'm afraid if I started talking more about my house rules someone head would explode or something.

Anyways, I'm glad that in the 21st century theres so many experts at fighting for your life with archaic weapons here, I wouldn't want to meet a lot fo you on the battlefield, some of you have to be at least 9th level in fighter to have all this medieval combat wisdom..

It happens from time to time. Usually, this place is cool and civil, but sometimes we get invaded by people under the mistaken impression that this is the *Rules* forum, rather than the *House Rules* forum.

In the past, I've had *all* weapons use Dex for attack rolls. In 3e, I don't think I'd want to do that. Dex is already a must-have stat; don't need to make it even more important. But making the "finessable" weapons use either Str or Dex would be a fine change in my mind.

 

[jayaint]

Personally, I think just removing the "+1 BAB" prereq solves most of this. All the talk of armor and fighting styles seems silly. One could de-construct the entire SRD in the name of "realism" if those arguments are to be held up. I mean, these same people are playing characters who believe in MAGIC and WIZARDS, right?

-jay

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Haha, no doubt. If I was interested in realism I'd use Unisystem, or Call of Cthulhu or GURPS....there is no place for realism in the world of levels & classes.(& beholders & raisedead)

I know that messageboards tend to be sewers, but I am amazed at the hot blooded reactions that simple querries about my house rules have provoked on this and other boards....if I wasn't so used to flames, etc. from other forusm I'd be scared to post ANYTHING here.

 

[reanjr]

I started doing this after about 2 months of playing 3e. I also break weapons into groups, though. Some are always finessed, some are never finessed, some can be either. Spiked Chain is the archetypal finesse-only weapon, Greataxe for never finessed, and Shortsword for either. Size doesn't matter so much as logic (my own internal logic which tries to but may or may not mesh with reality).

Daggers and Knives, Small Swords - Either
Large Swords, Axes, Picks and Hammers - Never finessed
Flails, Chains, Monastic Weapons - Always finessed
Polearms - case-by-case, usually Either

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Strength is about more than armor penetration. You need strength to turn a parry into an opportunity for a riposte. You need strength to force someone else's weapons (or claws) out of the way for a good shot. Hell, you need Strength in order to defend yourself with a melee weapon-- though I wouldn't even consider adding Strength modifier to AC.

Also, despite the more obvious role of Dexterity, your ability to make precision attacks with any weapon much larger than a dagger depends on Strength-- you need strong muscles in the forearms and wrists in order to control a weapon properly, and you need endurance in order to maintain that precision over half a minute of sustained activity, especially after using those muscles for parrying and trying to open up angles of attack.

Still, I wouldn't say it's a major problem to allow Weapon Finesse for free, or to remove the BAB +1 requirement. After all, Dexterity for finesse weapons makes more sense to most people, and feels more right in play. I just wouldn't ever force a character to use Dexterity in melee, even with a rapier. (Only exception... spiked chain. Of course, I have no intention of changing this rule, so that's irrelevant.)

As for heated replies... this thread has been entirely civil. Noone's been insulted, noone's sworn, unless you count my own use of mild profanity, and noone's been threatened. You didn't get heat-- you got analysis. I really wish half my House Rules threads would get this kind of interest.

 

[pbd]

As for heated replies... this thread has been entirely civil. Noone's been insulted, noone's sworn, unless you count my own use of mild profanity, and noone's been threatened. You didn't get heat-- you got analysis. I really wish half my House Rules threads would get this kind of interest.

I'll show you #&$^$%$^#ing civil!

Oh, and I agree more or less with your points about strength in combat, but think agility and quickness are just as important.

I think, overall, some weapons are more influenced by strength and some are more influenced by agility and quickness. I think reanjr's mechanic of breaking weapons into finesse, strength and both groups is a good way to work this out.

pbd

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Yeah, it actually is pretty elegant. If I were to house rule this, I'd probably adopt that system.

 

[Li Shenron]

The reason lies in the D&D abstraction of Armour Class, something which has always been a bit odd, but most of us accept. Higher strength lets you penetrate the Armour/NaturalArmour better, and in earlier editions, Armour was our main source of AC. The problem comes in 3.x where there are many people with high AC that doesn't come from Armour at all (just dodging and such), which muddles the issue. Certainly, when I fence I don't need strength because I only need to depress the tip with about 500 micronewtons of force. But if I want to hurt the other fencer, despite his kevlar body-covering and his mask, I'm going to need to hit very hard.

IMHO, the D&D armor is not entirely about absorbing part of the blow (natural armor is more about that), but also in covering the body. A breastplate doesn't have a lesser AC bonus than a fullplate because the layer is thinner, but because it leaves parts of the body uncovered.

All in all AC is a mix of things, and as you mentioned there are many bonuses which don't seem to be less effective against Str (luck, deflection...), but I think it's fair that the general rules are simple, even if that means not wholly realistic.

 

[poilbrun]

I'll show you #&$^$%$^#ing civil!

Oh, and I agree more or less with your points about strength in combat, but think agility and quickness are just as important.

I think, overall, some weapons are more influenced by strength and some are more influenced by agility and quickness. I think reanjr's mechanic of breaking weapons into finesse, strength and both groups is a good way to work this out.

pbd

Actually, wasn't there an rpg (Rolemaster maybe?) where your to-hit bonus was derived from both Strength and Dexterity (agility in that game, if I remember correctly)?

 

[Fairome]

First off, I heart WF. I tend to either play Grey Mouser-style rogues or Warcraft-style Paladins, and the rogues are always finessin' like a mug.

Ergo, I might be a bit biased towards WF as a free feat.

However, to counter, yes, you NEED Str to do damage with a hit. No Str, no penetration, no blood-and-gore, no corpse to Spring Loot (Move, loot and move again in a round.) However, most of what you're pentrating is armor and such. Ergo, the Str bonus to melee attacks. Not only does it balance game mechanics, by making Strength have more of a purpose than just damage rolls, but also, it does represent one level of realism.

That's just a review of what people have said.

The thing is, it only represents a level of realism that is necessary because of an unrealistic aspect of d20. Armor is AC, not DR.

I would fully support the WF as a free feat rule, but I would only consider it balanced if you then used the Armor-as-DR rules from UA. You can then use Dex for those weapons that are Finesse, and Str for those that aren't. (And I fully support Str as the to-hit for a greatsword. You can hit somebody pretty easy with that, it's just a matter of getting it going at them. Err... not that I'd know.) You also see the importance of a high Str in damage, because, really, that piddly little rapier ain't doin' jack against full plate, unless you score a critical hit, such as a vulnerable spot in the joints.

See where I'm goin' with this?