HTWMDS - Does Greater Strength Make You Better at Hitting Things?

[Runestar]

If you can swing your weapon faster, your opponent should find it harder to evade your attack (which translates to a higher to-hit on your part).

Contrast a very fit athlete with a frail 90 year old man (lets assume both have the same bab, say the old man was also a capable athlete in his youth). Give them both a baseball bat each and ask them to take their best swing. You cannot tell me that strength plays no role in how often they can hit. The young man will swing his bat faster than the old man. I can probably see the old man's swing coming a mile away and dodge/parry it with ease.

So it is a combination of skill and strength.

 

[FunkBGR]

I've always been told that despite only attacking once per turn, a DnD combat is actually multiple strikes back and forth.

Greater strength therefore indicates that you make more of those strikes count, by puncturing their Armor, or whatever.

That's what makes sense to me.

 

[Jack7]

True, but when fighting a dragon, how often will a trained fighter miss actually making contact? How often won't a blow land on a shield, or be blocked by a weapon? I see the strength modifier meaning "super, you blocked my blow, but I'm so strong your arm is weaker now, and you are more tired". YMMV of course.

By the way, as a humorous side note I wouldn't be anywhere near close enough to hit a dragon with a sword. His neck and tail would double, triple, or quadruple my reach. Easily. If the dragon knew anything at all about real killing I'd be dead before I ever got that close. No, I'd kill him the right way. From a safe distance.

Contrast a very fit athlete with a frail 90 year old man (lets assume both have the same bab, say the old man was also a capable athlete in his youth). Give them both a baseball bat each and ask them to take their best swing. You cannot tell me that strength plays no role in how often they can hit. The young man will swing his bat faster than the old man. I can probably see the old man's swing coming a mile away and dodge/parry it with ease.

Assuming you guys are talking to me that's why I said this,

However hitting and throwing both are really determined by skill and practice, just like in boxing or sword fight (and I used to do both), not strength or dexterity. What strength and dexterity really do is augment skill and capability.

and this,

No matter how good or how much muscle control you have, unless you are well practiced and skilled you can easily miss a moving target in any effective way, especially a living one who knows what they are doing, if you are unskilled and unpracticed and untrained.

Yes, strength and dexterity and coordination and muscle control and speed all affect performance, but skill is paramount in being able to bring all of these elements together in a useful, effective, and efficient fashion.

I'm saying all things being equal, with combatants of basically equal potential, but variables being such as "this guy is stronger, or this guy is faster" then skill is what really counts in killing.

You see, and I think the game (a lot of games) gives a sort of false impression of what killing is really like - killing is a whole different ball game than fighting. Fighting requires certain kinds of skills, a certain kind of outlook, it puts certain kinds of pressures and requirements on the combatants, killing is a whole nuther beastie. A blood red one.

I've seen a lot of strong guys, pumped up double badd looking guys who aren't good killers. Couldn't kill their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen fast guys who aren't good killers too. You become good at killing by knowing where to put your bullet, or your blade, at the right spot where it will do the most amount of damage in the worst (or best, depending on how you want to phrase it) possible way.

[Sidenote: And that is one funny thing about the game. The real problem with analyzing in-game combat demands and tactics with real combat demands and tactics. In-game combat is mostly about killing (that's the stated and often real objective), but as PP pointed out in an excellent blog post about related matters, the game approaches combat like it is really about fighting (fighting technique). So in-game technique and in-game objective are at odds with what the real situation is in combat, and even with each other. Because real combat is not about fighting technique, it is about killing technique. And strength is not a killing technique, it is a possible killing tool, but only a possible one, and only one possible one of many.]

Yes, strength affects killing, possibly, but it doesn't make you a good killer, it just potentially makes you a better one if you are well trained at killing.

It is important, but by itself it doesn't make you a good killer and it doesn't make you good at hitting anything. Anything at all. Or good at hitting things effectively and efficiently, where you do the most effective and efficient amount of damage possible.

Yes, if all things were equal I'd rather have the strong and fast and good fighter at my side, for close quarters combat anyways.

But if it is a choice between the strong man or the guy who is good at killing, and it's a fight to the death, I'd much rather have the guy who knows how to kill. Because he knows exactly what he is doing, and how to get it done. It's not a fight to see who drops first for him, it's a fight in which he intends to do the dropping, and first, and fast, and thoroughly.

Now like I said strength has its place (everything does to some degree or another), and it's not an either/or situation, but strength doesn't necessarily make you good at killing. Or even at fighting.
Practice does.

 

[maddman75]

From a purely gamist perspective, having Dex be the score for defense and Reflex resistance and to hit for ranged combat makes it enough of an uber-stat as it is. Make melee to hit go off that as well and you'll have every martial PC with his highest score in Dex.

 

[pawsplay]

Yes, strength affects killing, possibly, but it doesn't make you a good killer, it just potentially makes you a better one if you are well trained at killing.

In D&D, level is vastly more important than Str for hitting (killing). A 5th level warrior with Str 14 has a better chance to hit than a first level half-orc barbarian who is berserking (Str 21). Level is probably a good measure of ability to kill.

In D&D, the only time Strength is used for muscle mass is basically when you look at encumbrace. Everything else you use Str for, including melee combat, grappling, jumping, climbing, breaking things, and so forth, is really about applying power and agility. So equating Str to athleticism is probably good. Conversely, lifting is based for more on size (Large creatures can carry twice as much) and many tasks involving muscles, such as resisting fatigue, are based on Con.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...but as PP pointed out in an excellent blog post about related matters...

Do you have a link? Sounds interesting.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ProfessorPain]

I have many years of experience as a boxer, and in my experience strength+skill+hand eye coordination make you better at hitting other people with your fist. Why is strength important? A couple of reasons that are not immediately obvious. The first is explosive power from strength allows you to hit targets more quickly, and to the suprise of your opponent. The second is that strength allows you to plow through a person's defenses. If i am bigger and stronger than someone else, it is much easier for me to hurt them, even if they are blocking. That said, boxing isn't sword fighting. But I do think some of these principles apply to melee combat as well. I would also add, as I pointed out before, that hand eye coordination (which I guess translates into Dex) and skill are important as well. I haven't been in any real sword fighting situations, who has, but I have been in fights that involved things like baseball bats, and I still think strength helps you hit, because it lets you get through someones defenses with more explosive energy.

These arguments tend to degerate though, and one can easily make an argument that Dex is more important, or that it really depends on the weapon being used. Dex probably matters more for a knife, while strength is probably better for a club. But D&D has to work mechanically at the end of hte day, so they can't make it 100% simulationist. Someone already pointed out the problem with creating Uber Stats, and my guess is that was what shaped most of the decisions about stats in D&D.

 

[ProfessorPain]

In D&D, level is vastly more important than Str for hitting (killing). A 5th level warrior with Str 14 has a better chance to hit than a first level half-orc barbarian who is berserking (Str 21). Level is probably a good measure of ability to kill.

In D&D, the only time Strength is used for muscle mass is basically when you look at encumbrace. Everything else you use Str for, including melee combat, grappling, jumping, climbing, breaking things, and so forth, is really about applying power and agility. So equating Str to athleticism is probably good. Conversely, lifting is based for more on size (Large creatures can carry twice as much) and many tasks involving muscles, such as resisting fatigue, are based on Con.

This is a really good point. Strength isn't just about brute force. It helps with other things like explosive energy, which is more about hitting something fast from a stationary position. And it is about athleticism overall. But I do think they factor in size with STR. Grappling is a good example. Bigger guys usually grapple better (unless you are talking about something like BJJ), but for standard wrestling or "tussling" size factors in. Breaking things, you can probably include mass. Remember power is all about speed AND mass. That is why strength factors into damage.

 

[Obryn]

More strength improves weapon control. a stronger fighter can strike faster and harder without overextending. when parrying, parried, or when making or resisting beats and binds, a stronger fighter's weapon can be brought back into position and under control more quickly, and renders it more difficult for their opponent to retain control of their own weapon.

Yep, all of the above. It's tough to overestimate how important strength is in actual combat. Training is #1, but from there it's mostly strength.

What D&D doesn't factor in (but other games like Runequest do) is that size is hugely important, too. Reach is insanely helpful, and height almost never hurts.

-O

 

[ProfessorPain]

Yep, all of the above. It's tough to overestimate how important strength is in actual combat. Training is #1, but from there it's mostly strength.

What D&D doesn't factor in (but other games like Runequest do) is that size is hugely important, too. Reach is insanely helpful, and height almost never hurts.

-O

I agree size is important, but I think D&D makes use of it in a broad sense, particularly 3E. It justn't doesn't make a mechanical distinction sizes within each size category.