Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Prophet2b" data-source="post: 3755249" data-attributes="member: 36476">Well...  If we're talking the realistic here...  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> Swords were never really used to "shear through armor" or bash aside shields or things of that nature.  I live with the current AC rules because changing them tends to change too much in the game (and most of my players don't like that) - but D&D has quite possibly the least realistic combat system out of any role playing system I've seen.1) Dexterity is way more important when fighting with those things.  Not strength.  If you want to get through most armor, you use something like the warhammer (which has the little pick attached to it) or a spear or something along those lines.  Because puncturing armor is almost always more effective than trying to slash through it.2) The most effective way to kill a guy in a lot of armor was to knock him over and stab him.  Never slash through him.  Swords or axes are not really capable of pushing away shields - no matter how much strength you apply to them.  That's the beauty of the shield (and physics). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />3) The medieval martial arts most of the time were about accuracy.  The Germans, for example, developed an entire fighting style centered around getting at the chinks and holes in a person's armor.  They knew that going through the armor was entirely ineffective - going around it however...4) If what is actually taking place in D&D is the shearing through armor, well, then there ought to be some kind of check to break the hardness of the armor - which would, in effect, destroy the armor.  That can't be what's taking place, though, if you want combat to make any amount of sense at all.5) It doesn't take much to swing a sword very fast.  Proper swords are both light and balanced for that very reason.  Besides which, guys didn't just hack away at each other - they fought dextrously.  They looked for openings, struck at the most vital areas, or the places where the armor was weakest, etc.Now, TheLe is right - having a good dex doesn't necessarily mean you're accurate.  But...  I do believe dex would more accurately portray true fighting styles.  Of course, strength might, as well, depending on the weapon being used.I particularly like the Serenity role playing game for this reason.  No individual skill is 100% tied down to an attribute.  It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Most of the time, obviously, one skill and attribute will tend to go together.  But not always.In any case, I haven't houseruled dex over str, just because I think it would screw over too many fighter classes that have the inherent assumption that strength is the "to hit attribute".  That being said, I also don't play D&D for realistic combat scenarios.  Because... well... I'd just be all the more disappointed, if I did. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification