Dex vs. Str

[Celtavian]

As you would in D&D - most people in these worls are non-elite NPCs, and only get 3 x 11 and 3 x 10, or, in 3.5 sometimes this new non-elite array.
Most athlets like you describe probably would have to rely on skill ranks and feats (like athletic, acrobatic, skill focus).
And if you look at these atlethes, you will always note that their muscles don`t look weak, even if not all will look like Arnies.

In D&D terms, Arnie would still be a naturally better climber, swimmer, and fighter just by virtue of his higher strength. As has been proven time and time again in real fighting matches, Strength is not the big determining factor in winning a fight.

 

[DM_Matt]

Its silly to try to prove that Mr. Dex can beat Mr. Str, because in DND you work in a group. If Mr. Dex's enemies know who he is, they'll just ignore him and fight his friends, occasionally taking a handful of dmg from Mr. Dex. A super-AC character contributes virtually nothing to the party unless the baddies are ignorant.

 

[Victim]

Most of the other composite attributes are fairly well-rationalilzed. Strength is the worst rationalized composite attribute because it affects lifting capacity as well as muscular coordination in melee combat and for swim and climb checks. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a top flight fighter, climber, or swimmer in the real world with a 16 or 18 strength. Real hard pressed.

I disagree that other composite attributes are well rationalized. Wisdom is common sense, willpower, intuition and perception. I can see intuition and perception linked fairly easily. But common sense and willpower not only linked together but also tied to perception? Considering that willpower is likely going to be described by those on the other side of the table as stubborness, we'd probably find those elements of wisdom to be opposed to each other. Or how about the inclusion of pain tolerance with health or fitness?

Every class, stat, and even many skills are package deals. You have to play up the parts important to your character and push the rest off to the side. Strength is no more broken for reflecting power and athleticism than the Fighter/Swashbuckler is broken for in theory being able to use heavy armor. I doubt max press figures as heavily into character concepts as the ability to whip a greatsword around with the same ease that I swing a whiffleball bat.

If strength was as unimportant as you suggest, we wouldn't need drug tests for athletes because steriods would be at best worthless and at worst counterproductive.

 

[Pax]

Its silly to try to prove that Mr. Dex can beat Mr. Str, because in DND you work in a group. If Mr. Dex's enemies know who he is, they'll just ignore him and fight his friends, occasionally taking a handful of dmg from Mr. Dex. A super-AC character contributes virtually nothing to the party unless the baddies are ignorant.

You mean, all of your party's opponents are intelligent? They never face a simple skeleton, a pack of wolves, or even a Golem? They always fight fully-sentient humanoid or near-humanoid enemies, and never animals, undead, constructs, or even things so alien that their ability to discern gender (let alone "agile versus powerful") is all too easily called into question ...?

 

[Celtavian]

re

I disagree that other composite attributes are well rationalized. Wisdom is common sense, willpower, intuition and perception. I can see intuition and perception linked fairly easily. But common sense and willpower not only linked together but also tied to perception? Considering that willpower is likely going to be described by those on the other side of the table as stubborness, we'd probably find those elements of wisdom to be opposed to each other. Or how about the inclusion of pain tolerance with health or fitness?

Better rationalized than a person being able to lift an enormous amount of weight and also having incredible ability at wielding a sword?

Every class, stat, and even many skills are package deals. You have to play up the parts important to your character and push the rest off to the side. Strength is no more broken for reflecting power and athleticism than the Fighter/Swashbuckler is broken for in theory being able to use heavy armor. I doubt max press figures as heavily into character concepts as the ability to whip a greatsword around with the same ease that I swing a whiffleball bat.

You could just as easily use Dex as the primary stat for swinging around a sword and it would be more realistic. You could require a certain level of Strength to wield a particular weapon if you wanted to capture the feel that a stronger person can wield a larger weapon.

Dex to hit and Str for damage enhances verisimilitude.

If strength was as unimportant as you suggest, we wouldn't need drug tests for athletes because steriods would be at best worthless and at worst counterproductive.

Do you have the notion that the sole function of steroids is to enhance strength? Enhancing strength is a side effect of steroid use, not the primary effect.

Steroids are used for muscle recovery after a workout. They enhance your metabolism and the processes involved in muscle building after you have torn your muscles down during an intense workout. Athletes take steroids to enhance and maintain their physical capabilities, not necessarily strength, but everything involved with the muscles.

I could discuss all aspects of strength from muscular endurance to muscular power. The scope of the D&D game will never cover such aspects of Strength, so I'm not going to worry about it.

I did notice that D&D finally embraced a point based skill system, a definite improvement over the proficiency system. Other game systems have been using a point based skill system for years. Now its time to kill another sacred cow and move to a Dex based combat system to further improve D&D's verisimilitude. I'm hoping they do it in 4th edition.

 

[Darklone]

Well, obviously we can't tell you what we mean... but IMHO moving to a dex based combat system would weaken D&Ds verisimilitude (and IMHO: realism). I can only see this working out in a balanced way if they remove all 6 main attributes and replace them by something more simple.

Yihaa, this thread is like discussing about whether or not armour should give DR and how "realistic" that would be !!!

 

[Bauglir]

You mean, all of your party's opponents are intelligent? They never face a simple skeleton, a pack of wolves, or even a Golem? They always fight fully-sentient humanoid or near-humanoid enemies, and never animals, undead, constructs, or even things so alien that their ability to discern gender (let alone "agile versus powerful") is all too easily called into question ...?

Consider this then - potential foes can be divided into 2 main groups along this line of thinking: Non-intelligent, and intelligent.

The dex-fighter is effective vs one of these groups. The str fighter is effective vs both.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Well, obviously we can't tell you what we mean... but IMHO moving to a dex based combat system would weaken D&Ds verisimilitude (and IMHO: realism). I can only see this working out in a balanced way if they remove all 6 main attributes and replace them by something more simple.

Yihaa, this thread is like discussing about whether or not armour should give DR and how "realistic" that would be !!!

It has only increased the verisimilitude of other games. It would do the same for D&D. Combining lifting strength and muscular coordination isn't a very realistic way of handling melee combat. The two are synonymous in the current version of the D&D combat system.

I do understand what they intended for D&D strength. I just know too much about strength and how it functions to buy into it. I still play D&D for its other advantages.

It would take some serious revisions to switch to a dex based combat system. Once they did it, I would bet money that it would draw even more people to the game. One of the big hits on D&D is that its combat system isn't very realistic. Dex based combat systems are more realistic than Str based. They force fighter types to focus on both Dex and Str, which is a more realistic representation of the type of training a fighter would receive.

If you wanted to make a big, burly fighter that hit less often, but very hard, you could. (Str concentrated fighter)

If you wanted to make a fighter that hit more often, but not very hard, you could. (Dex concentrated fighter)

Or you could make a fighter with balanced Str and Dex. (balanced)

As it is right now, the stronger you are means you hit both more often and harder as well as being able to lift immense weights and break down doors like nothing. Let's just say the D&D combat system could do alot to improve. The big advantage right now is that the system is simple and fast paced. That I like.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The last thing I would want to see is a move back to 2nd ed where every fighter has to have good dex and str. Actually, after my 2nd ed. years I can't stand dex heavy fighters.

If there were to be any modifications I would want to see a system where combat experience can match spectacularly high ability scores. Something along the line of a cap on a defensive bonus.

 

[sledged]

If there were to be any modifications I would want to see a system where combat experience can match spectacularly high ability scores. Something along the line of a cap on a defensive bonus.

I once considered adjusting a PC's ECL based on how far above/below average the character's stats were. Though, I never went through with it because I thought it'd be more trouble than it was worth.