Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?

[mmadsen]

Why? Because playing a Str18 Dex18 guy the same way as a Str18 Dex3 guy doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between finding the best way to play your character within the rules as written and determining what the rules should be in the first place.

Fanaelialae's question isn't, How do I make my high-Dex character more effective in combat?

His point is that in real life an agile fighter is quite effective, because of his agility, even when he doesn't have the initiative, isn't using ranged weapons, etc. The current D&D rules don't model this well.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don'T know PF well enough but I disagree for 3e. The Tome of Battle included everything you needed to buid a Dex-based melee combatant that was just as effective as a Str-based one.

Good point.

I'll ammend my comment to, "3E never, and 3.5E, until the very end of its lifespan as an in-print product, did not do Dex-based melee well. PF still does not (and, in fact, has gone backwards in many regards vs. 3.5E)."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's a difference between finding the best way to play your character within the rules as written and determining what the rules should be in the first place.

True.

Fanaelialae's question isn't, How do I make my high-Dex character more effective in combat?

Then it needs to be phrased as something besides:

Quote:
An 18 STR / 3 DEX fighter is just as good offensively as an 18 STR / 18 DEX fighter.

Which is demonstrably untrue or:

That's all situational though. In a bog standard fight, there's little to no difference and that runs counter to my experience.

Which begs a comparison of experiences within the system.

His point is that in real life an agile fighter is quite effective, because of his agility, even when he doesn't have the initiative, isn't using ranged weapons, etc. The current D&D rules don't model this well.

Which is not the fault of the abilities themselves. Rather, that is the fault the combat rules that depend on them, such as awarding additional attacks based on class (monk) or level instead of Dex, or arguably overpenalizing fighting with 2 weapons (which is more difficult to master).

And even so, there are rules that support Dex-based PCs, such as the Combat Reflexes feat tree, which has let me make some very nasty warriors.

It's not that there are no paths to make effective Dex-based martial characters, it's that there are far more paths for the Str-based PCs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for clarifying my point [MENTION=1645]mmadsen[/MENTION]!

True.




Then it needs to be phrased as something besides:



Which is demonstrably untrue or:



Which begs a comparison of experiences within the system.

It is demonstrably true as long as you don't try adding corner-cases. I'm talking about a straight-up sword fight, which is hardly an unreasonable scenario. You can think of it as a duel, if that helps. Offensively, dexterity does nothing. Do you really expect Low Dexterity to go running back and forth to help High Dexterity trigger his Combat Reflexes? Nonsense. The defensive difference might help HD hit LD more often, but (leaving aside 4e) attack bonuses have traditionally scaled far better than defenses, meaning that at a certain level it becomes meaningless as they both hit each other on anything other than a natural 1.

Even if we accept your premise that HD will use different tactics, it's very situational. There's no practical advantage to drawing and shooting me with your bow (1d8 damage + 4 str mod if composite in 3.x) if I can just draw my greatsword and charge you (1d12 damage + 6 str mod). That's assuming I either don't have or don't bother to use power attack. Shooting the low dex fighter with a bow is only advantageous if they meet at a far enough distance that it will take him multiple rounds to reach high dex fighter. Otherwise, it's an unwise decision, since 1d8+4 < 1d12+6. IME, encounters usually start much closer than at a range of 300 feet.

Even in the case of 18 Dex vs 3 Dex, the initiative bonus does not guarantee that HD will go first. It sways the odds in his favor, but if (for example) HD rolls a 1, LD only needs a 10 or higher. The odds are significantly in HD's favor, but it's by no means a guaranteed success. Keep in mind that this is such an extreme example that you're unlikely to see it in play! Someone with perfect dexterity vs one of the clumsiest oafs on the planet. If LD does win initiative, that advantage is his for the rest of the combat.

Which is not the fault of the abilities themselves. Rather, that is the fault the combat rules that depend on them, such as awarding additional attacks based on class (monk) or level instead of Dex, or arguably overpenalizing fighting with 2 weapons (which is more difficult to master).

And even so, there are rules that support Dex-based PCs, such as the Combat Reflexes feat tree, which has let me make some very nasty warriors.

It's not that there are no paths to make effective Dex-based martial characters, it's that there are far more paths for the Str-based PCs.

I don't think you can really blame the combat rules. What context should we examine ability scores from if not from how they interact with the other rules of the game? It isn't as though there are arcane formulas in the combat section that make dexterity's utility less than realistic. The bonuses are right on the ability score tables listed under Dexterity.

Besides, my argument wasn't that in some alternate universe Dex might be realistically modeled. I'm referring to Dexterity as used in our universe. Where it is not realistic. The other ability scores, to varying degrees, are also unrealistic. In large part that's because they are merely a simplification that is answerable to gamist principles (the designers seem to have made some token effort to balance ability scores in each edition).

I'm not saying that I think they should get rid of ability scores. All I'm saying is that I'm open to the possibility that there might be something that works better. In that case, I'd be okay with replacing ability scores with something that works better. Alternately, since ability scores don't work all that realistically with regard to the combat rules, I'd be fine with those interactions being removed and ability scores only modifying skills.

 

[Bedrockgames]

With regards to ability scores and realistic combat, that is a whole debate on its own (and one I think not easily resolved). I.E. How important is str vs dex in a real fight. I am fine with drawing on two (say mixing dex and str), but a negative score in either should have a dragging effect. Don't care for "pick the best of the two" approaches.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Runequest (in different versions), Hero, and GURPS all have different answers to the "how should Dex affect the melee fight" question. Each of their solutions has its own set of issues. I'm sure this is true of most games that confront the problem, even ones that separate out "manual dexterity" from "agility" from "reflexes" or however you want to do it.

Not that trading some of these issues wouldn't be preferable for some play styles, but I think it is a bit of a high bar to say that we could tweak D&D Dex into something "better". We can definitely tweak it into something different, but whether those trades are worth it across the whole of D&D players of a given edition is another question.

This is the way I feel about all D&D ability scores. They have their issues. So does every other set of choices, including dropping ability scores altogether. So all else being equal, for a D&D version, I'd prefer to start with the assumption that the six scores will be kept as close to their current names and meanings as possible. If tweaks can unlock something that feels even more true to the "real D&D spirt" (whatever that is)--or more likely, the "real D&D spirit for the version being built," then fine.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm talking about a straight-up sword fight, which is hardly an unreasonable scenario.

Just considering the offensive side of things, in a fight between a high-Dex and low-Dex fighters with identical AC, HP, and DPR (and ignoring all feats/build issues):

i) But for the corner case of Formal Duel scenario- which probably has rules against doing so- I'd still open up the fight with a ranged attack. The chance to deal damage at range as they close means the high-Dex PC immensely increases his odds of winning.

2) Assuming a cinematic style fight- such as in an Errol Flynn movie- the high-Dex PC still has an advantage over his clumsy compadre as they move through the castle, fighting over tables, on tables, down stairs, etc. He is, if nothing else, more likely to keep his footing. He is also more able to successfully incorporate throwing an improvised weapon at his foe, including the ever popular set of things that can blind you when they hit you in the face: a glass of wine, a bowl of soup, a mug of hot cider, a handful of sand or sawdust.

3) The high-Dex PC will still have the initiative advantage nearly every round, meaning he strikes first, which means he deals damage first. And given statistically identical HP & DPR, that means he wins the fight nearly every time. (If you want to move the goalposts by ignoring the offensive advantage of initiative, we have nothing to talk about.)

Together, I think I've illustrated a significant difference between the two, even if its just a straight up mano-a-mano fight.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Just considering the offensive side of things, in a fight between a high-Dex and low-Dex fighters with identical AC, HP, and DPR (and ignoring all feats/build issues):

i) But for the corner case of Formal Duel scenario- which probably has rules against doing so- I'd still open up the fight with a ranged attack. The chance to deal damage at range as they close means the high-Dex PC immensely increases his odds of winning.

2) Assuming a cinematic style fight- such as in an Errol Flynn movie- the high-Dex PC still has an advantage over his clumsy compadre as they move through the castle, fighting over tables, on tables, down stairs, etc. He is, if nothing else, more likely to keep his footing. He is also more able to successfully incorporate throwing an improvised weapon at his foe, including the ever popular set of things that can blind you when they hit you in the face: a glass of wine, a bowl of soup, a mug of hot cider, a handful of sand or sawdust.

3) The high-Dex PC will still have the initiative advantage nearly every round, meaning he strikes first, which means he deals damage first. And given statistically identical HP & DPR, that means he wins the fight nearly every time. (If you want to move the goalposts by ignoring the offensive advantage of initiative, we have nothing to talk about.)

Together, I think I've illustrated a significant difference between the two, even if its just a straight up mano-a-mano fight.

1) A face-to-face fight is hardly a corner case. In any in-door situation, you're a lot likelier to face off at melee range than at ranges where bows grant an advantage. Outside, unless you're on a flat plain, you're still likely to encounter enemies closer than not.

I've already demonstrated that opening a close combat with a ranged weapon will cost you advantage, not gain it. Even ignoring Power Attack, if you attack me with a 1d8+4 bow and I charge you with a 1d12+6 greatsword, I have the advantage. Until you draw a melee weapon, you can't even make opportunity attacks against me. How is that supposed to be an advantage?


2) It's cool that you have such a cinematic style of game, but I haven't met any DM who required a Dexterity check to move up and down stairs. Unless someone casts a Grease spell or makes a trip attack, keeping my footing in D&D typically isn't a concern.

The efficacy of those kinds of improvised weapons will vary quite significantly depending on the DM, since sawdust isn't exactly codified by the rules. If you use your standard action to fling sawdust at me and it only costs me a -2 attack penalty for a round, you're disadvantaged. My attack will still probably hit you and that will make it all the likelier that I will win.


3) Unless you're playing 2nd edition or earlier, initiative is only rolled once at the beginning of the fight. While winning initiative is certainly an advantage, luck plays a very significant role when it comes down to a single roll. It's only if initiative is rolled frequently that the luck factor is downplayed. As it stands, it's far from impossible for the low dex fighter to win the roll, therefore initiative bonus is not the most influential factor in combat. Sure it's nice to have, but it doesn't come close to ensuring victory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) A face-to-face fight is hardly a corner case.

*facepalm*

I didn't say it was. I said "a Formal Duel" was a corner case- IOW, a fight with rules imposed on it that would preclude participant from doing things like attacking from range, using improvised weapons, or any weapons but for their own bodies and whatever weapons were provided.

Without those rules in place, the high-Dex PC is a fool not to take advantage of his superior Dex via ranged attacks, etc. if he is able.

In any in-door situation, you're a lot likelier to face off at melee range than at ranges where bows grant an advantage.

A bow is not the only ranged weapon. A trained fighter- as I think we are assuming these to be- can be deadly with a thrown knife or other similar weapon.

Outside, unless you're on a flat plain, you're still likely to encounter enemies closer than not.

Outside, I probably have a ranged weapon or a ranged/melee weapon at the ready as opposed to a pure melee weapon.

And even if I don't, Mother Nature gives me rocks, sticks, and the ever-popular handful of dirt.

I've already demonstrated that opening a close combat with a ranged weapon will cost you advantage, not gain it.

Just as I've demonstrated that opening combat at range if that is possible is an advantage.

Even ignoring Power Attack, if you attack me with a 1d8+4 bow and I charge you with a 1d12+6 greatsword, I have the advantage.

Not if I hit you at range AND manage to drop & draw my greatsword before you can successfully close. And if my Dex is 18, I'm probably planning on doing exactly that.

BTW, I do this all the time in game. That extra attack at range...yummy. Better still if I can actually arrange to fight in a retrograde while pelting you at range as you try to close.

2) It's cool that you have such a cinematic style of game, but I haven't met any DM who required a Dexterity check to move up and down stairs. Unless someone casts a Grease spell or makes a trip attack, keeping my footing in D&D typically isn't a concern.

You're assuming the warriors are just going up and down and around in a perfectly clear setting.

If I'm a high-Dex fighter- Hell, any fighter- I'm going to use the environment to my advantage if I can. If that means kicking a chair in the path of the clearly clumsier fighter, I will. If that means choosing to fight in difficult footing because I think you can't hack it, I will.

Its called "tactics."

The efficacy of those kinds of improvised weapons will vary quite significantly depending on the DM, since sawdust isn't exactly codified by the rules.

This IS true...but I've yet to encounter a DM that wouldn't consider a target hit in the eyes by something like hot soup or a glass of wine at least temporarily blinded (as in at least 1 round, probably 1d4).

SRD

Blinded: The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

and

SRD

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

Which is more than a -2 attack penalty for a round. Your attack will probably miss.

3) Unless you're playing 2nd edition or earlier, initiative is only rolled once at the beginning of the fight. While winning initiative is certainly an advantage, luck plays a very significant role when it comes down to a single roll.

If we're talking 3Ed or 3.5Ed, the Dex18 PC will have a +4 to initiative (range 5-24, average 14.5), and the Dex3 PC will have a -4 modifier (range 1-16, average 8.5*). That is a serious advantage in probability, especially since, unless initiative is simultaneous, the person who falls first will not have a "retributive" strike in D&D. If they do identical DPR (since we're not talking about Feats, builds, etc.) and have identical HP, the guy who goes first wins every time, statistically speaking.




* This is even skewed slightly in the favor of the low-Dex PC, since the system does not allow for negative Initiative rolls, nor did I account for the fact that the low-Dex PC has multiple chances of rolling a modified 1. If it did, the range would be -3-16, with an average of 6.5.

 

[Fanaelialae]

*facepalm*

I didn't say it was. I said "a Formal Duel" was a corner case- IOW, a fight with rules imposed on it that would preclude participant from doing things like attacking from range, using improvised weapons, or any weapons but for their own bodies and whatever weapons were provided.

Without those rules in place, the high-Dex PC is a fool not to take advantage of his superior Dex via ranged attacks, etc. if he is able.



A bow is not the only ranged weapon. A trained fighter- as I think we are assuming these to be- can be deadly with a thrown knife or other similar weapon.



Outside, I probably have a ranged weapon or a ranged/melee weapon at the ready as opposed to a pure melee weapon.

And even if I don't, Mother Nature gives me rocks, sticks, and the ever-popular handful of dirt.



Just as I've demonstrated that opening combat at range if that is possible is an advantage.


Not if I hit you at range AND manage to drop & draw my greatsword before you can successfully close. And if my Dex is 18, I'm probably planning on doing exactly that.

BTW, I do this all the time in game. That extra attack at range...yummy. Better still if I can actually arrange to fight in a retrograde while pelting you at range as you try to close.



You're assuming the warriors are just going up and down and around in a perfectly clear setting.

If I'm a high-Dex fighter- Hell, any fighter- I'm going to use the environment to my advantage if I can. If that means kicking a chair in the path of the clearly clumsier fighter, I will. If that means choosing to fight in difficult footing because I think you can't hack it, I will.

Its called "tactics."



This IS true...but I've yet to encounter a DM that wouldn't consider a target hit in the eyes by something like hot soup or a glass of wine at least temporarily blinded (as in at least 1 round, probably 1d4).



and



Which is more than a -2 attack penalty for a round. Your attack will probably miss.



If we're talking 3Ed or 3.5Ed, the Dex18 PC will have a +4 to initiative (range 5-24, average 14.5), and the Dex3 PC will have a -4 modifier (range 1-16, average 8.5*). That is a serious advantage in probability, especially since, unless initiative is simultaneous, the person who falls first will not have a "retributive" strike in D&D. If they do identical DPR (since we're not talking about Feats, builds, etc.) and have identical HP, the guy who goes first wins every time, statistically speaking.




* This is even skewed slightly in the favor of the low-Dex PC, since the system does not allow for negative Initiative rolls, nor did I account for the fact that the low-Dex PC has multiple chances of rolling a modified 1. If it did, the range would be -3-16, with an average of 6.5.

The D&D rules preclude you from attacking with ranged weapons in melee combat!

What does high dex fighter plan to do; shift every round in order to gain ranged attacks without suffering opportunity attacks? What if he's flanked or backed against a wall? It isn't as though you can just make ranged attacks whenever the heck you want without provoking, and giving your opponents free shots against you is poor tactics.

Unless you have a character built to take advantage of ranged combat (which, by necessity, means he's not as good at melee combat as a melee specialist), ranged combat is an inferior choice unless the encounter starts at a great distance (minimum 70 feet). IME, the vast majority of encounters begin between 25 and 50 feet.

Ranged weapons deal less damage than their melee counterparts (Composite Longbow vs Greatsword). They force one to choose between range (being able to make attacks at distances that deny their opponent attacks due to movement) or being able to make opportunity attacks (because thrown weapons don't have great range increments). The only significant advantage that ranged weapons have if that they can give you free attacks while you enemy is moving if you're far enough.

Yes, please throw a 1d3 rock at my greatsword wielding fighter. Considering his poor dexterity, I'm sure he could use the laugh.

This is D&D. While there are certainly situations where difficult terrain might be a concern, it is not the norm. If you kick a chair in my path, on my turn I'll just walk around it. Even when difficult terrain is a concern, it typically reduces movement speed rather than requiring dexterity checks. What is your fighter trying to do, lure mine out onto a clothesline?

And on a related note, how the heck is you fighter running around like a cinematic energizer bunny on speed without provoking opportunity attacks from my fighter? Because let me tell you, if you're provoking from me every round to kick chairs and throw rocks at me, I'm pretty sure my tactic of taking an attacks every round will triumph.

I have yet to encounter a DM who makes it that easy to blind a target. Even if he did, a 1 round blinding favors me. You waste your standard action blinding me, while I can still take my attack on my turn (albeit, with significant penalties). Blinding for 1d4 rounds is very generous. At that point you may as well allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to cast Blindness because combat usually only lasts 3-4 rounds in 3.x. You're neglecting to consider the fact that if you choose to blind me, you're giving up your attack for that round.

I already admitted that the high dexterity fighter has the advantage with regard to initiative. However, let's assume for a moment that the initiative roll is a life-or-death throw. You win the roll, my character dies; I win the roll, your character dies. Would you really be willing to risk the life of a beloved character on a single die roll like that? Even if I were playing the high dex fighter, I certainly wouldn't take those odds because there's too much chance associated with those rolls. It happens all too often that a player rolls for a "sure thing" and is shocked to see a natural 1 or 2, and this is far from a sure thing.

In any case our experiences appear to be very different, because we don't seem to to see eye-to-eye and I rather doubt at this point that we will.