Yes, there is strategy in fencing, but strategy is the equivalent of experience.
Not really. I've beaten people much more experienced than I was due to strategy (you could say I was using my levels in gamer, I guess--but my skills there are still Int based).
In other words, strategy is the equivalent of levels in D&D terms. You can have the smartest guy in the world and because he is inexperienced, an experience stupid person with a similar Dex is still going to beat him in fencing.
Sure, but if he's very experience he might very well have the advantage over someone with similar or even higher Dex but lower Int.
What we're talking about isn't "what abilities help you when you're untrained," but "what abilities provide a the limit on your skill". In D&D3, someone with low Str is never going to be able to be as good, given equivalent experience, at using a polearm as soemone with a high Str. In the real world, sure, experience will raise their strength (wait for it), but they'll still, given greater intelligence and a mind suited for it, be able to exceed someone with a high Str and lower intelligence given enough experience given to both.
Coordination, speed, and agility (i.e. Dex) is a lot more important in fencing than intelligence (i.e. Int). The ability to combine footwork with bladework is coordination and timing (and obviously experience / practice / muscle memory), not intelligence per se. Dex is not more important than experience (i.e. levels).
Actually, I'd say those are all levels (exeperience), and not Dex, per se. As my mestro says, "timing will save you when speed won't." Given skill, speed and strength are almost irrelevant to fencing; what matters is training, observation/analsysis, and stategy (and, of course, skill).
I think the real world, all physical stats automaticlaly grow with training (and arguably all mental stats as well); my Dex and Strength (and most of the Dex has stayed) measurably and noticably grew while I was seriously training. But the limiter is skill and strategy.
Dex is obviously better than Str for light bladed weapons, but it's also obviously better than Int as well.
Only weapons where the action is fast enough that you have to rely pretty much entirely on muscle memory, not strategy. Daggers? Oh, yes. Rapiers, or even smallswords, not so much.
An intelligent person might learn fencing faster, but he won't be significantly better than an equally coordinated and experienced person because the other equally experienced person will be using similar tactics.
Really? How many not-very-bright high level chess players do you know?
Now, lets go down the list a little:
Strength is the most important stat in combat. If you've got enough strength and a weapon that supports it (a mace, hammer, or heavy blade) your opponent's strategy, speed, and any other fancy tactics don't mean a thing; you can just overpower whatever they put in your way.
Dexterity is the most important stat in combat. If you're fast enough you can dodge whatever they attack you with and place your blows in the gaps between their defenses--and with good enough timing you don't have to be a lot faster than they are -- just fast enough that they can't touch you.
Int is the most important stat in combat. Once you've got enough skill; enough strength, and enough Dex to wield your weapon correctly, combat is all about figuring out what you're opponent is doing and formulating a strategy to defeat it. Your training will make sure you've got the timing to execute; but the smarter fighter is, all things being equal, going to win.
Charisma is the most important stat in combat. Once you've trained enough to be able to use your weapon competently, a fight really depends on who is in control; who is asking the questions and who is answering them -- and if you can project into the fight, you're going to be that person. Sure, your opponent may think they have a strategy -- but if you're the one calling the shots, they're going to be dancing to your tune.
Wisdom is the most important stat in combat. Once you've trained enough to be able to fight competently, a fight is all about observation and understanding. Observe your opponent and you can get inside their head -- once you've done -that-, you know what they're going to do next and can counter it before they change their mind. And even if you can't get inside their head, by observation you can catch patterns in your opponent' style that even they aren't aware of, and exploit those patterns. Plus, in a mass battle, you're going to be the only one who isn't caught unawares by someone coming from an unexpected direction.
..And back to point by point for a bit.
What you call tactics or strategy, I call levels. It doesn't matter which melee weapon a person uses, the ability to use it the proper way at the proper time (i.e. tactics or strategy) is mostly based on experience and practice (i.e. levels).
But those aren't strategy. Those -are- based on training. Strategy is the high level stuff; the bits you think about when you're watching your opponent's previous fight or have a pause to think about things (or just enough time for the stategy part of your brain to kick in). Actual fighting is far too reaction-based and fast to strategize; but what choices you make there can be and should be informed by strategy based on knowledge of your opponent.
And if you think that heavy weapons do not have tactics just like rapiers, you are mistaken. Feints, footwork, timing, all of it applies to any type of melee weapon.
Of course...although to varying degrees. Daggers are just deadly -- and when you get in that close, speed is going to matter a lot. You train differently for different weapons, and what skills you use changes as well.
No doubt, intelligence and decision making influences everything we do in life, but there's no way we should boil combat ability in a game down to Int.
The thing is, -some- people's combat ability boils down to Int (mine does). Other people's combat ability...well, I've met some pretty dumb guys who were pretty damned good, so maybe not so much. In the end, it's a complex, ever-shifting gestalt between physical abilities (which can grow with experience or shrink with atrophy) and mental abilities (which can do the same damned thing). You can't easily model it in a game. But if you're going with a heroic exaggerated setup where PCs tend to be paragons of one thing or another, modeling it with a movable attack stat with some restrictions isn't actually that bad a way of doing it. It's a simplification, sure, but it's actually much more reasonable than the <=2nd edition "Dex is to-hit, Str is damage" or the 3rd edition "Str is melee, Dex is ranged or light weapon melee".
), six years later they'd beat all their peers consistently.
