Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1658965" data-attributes="member: 5834">reNo, it doesn't make sense. That is why we compromised. When I wanted to make the change to Dexterity alone, we looked over the effect. It would have taken an insane amount of modification. Giants became incredible weak hit point sponges. Dragons combat ability was greatly reduced. A variety of demons and devils became substantially weaker. The number of modifications necessary to make D&D viable using Dex as the primary modifier was too great to consider it with because the AC system is based on Str. I completely agree and understand your argument now.However, we also found that allowing high dex fighters and creatures to use their Dex modifier did not significantly impact their combat advantage. They were still heavily outdamaged by stronger creatures. There dexterity bonus for Armor class did not outpace the attack modifier for Str, so Dexterity did not provide a significant advantage over a Str based fighter.The primary effect of using our rule for Dex and Str I will state again:1. No feat needed to be spent by a fighter wanting to use Dex instead of Str as their primary attribute.2. They can use weapons not normally finessable.It made for more viable and variable Dex-based fighters in the campaign. Yes rogues have a better chance to hit, but they still don't outshine the fighter.It takes a while to test a rule. If we find a rule to be lacking, we get rid of it. I've tried several rules and gotten rid of them because they slow down combat or provide an imbalanced advantage. This particular house rule made the cut. It does not slow down gameplay and does not provide a significant advantage.The "Dexterity as primiary stat used to modify attack" argument is completley separate from the House Rule "Dex and Str modifier are interchangeable". In the future, I would like to see D&D switch to a Dex based combat system like other modern game systems. I don't think you can do it right now and still use the core rules. Too much modification needed because of the reason you stated: the AC system is based on Str.Even with equal levels, the the better fighter is not often the Stronger fighter. Muhammad Ali beat fighters larger than he was because he was quick and well-conditioned. The majority of fighters he fought could be said to have been equal level (as in equal training), but because he was the quicker, more agile fighter, he offset their strength advantage. He would wear his opponent downThere are all kinds of examples of fighters who attempt to rely on Strength being defeated by superior speed/athleticism and reasonable strength. I Power Lift. I love Strength. I love being strong. I have all kinds of respect for guys like Bill Kazmaier, Gary Frank, Steve Goggins, Magnus Magnusson (many of the Nordic strongmen), Lou Ferrigno, and other such greats of strength sports. I also realize these men are not the best warriors on the planet. They are not conditioned for it. There great strength and size gives them some advantage, especially when it comes to hurting people. A well-conditioned fighter (especially using weapons) trained for speed with moderate strength will beat them more often than not. Things come at a cost. If you want to be strong, then you train for strength. If you want to be a good fighter, then you train to strong, fast, and durable. Strength is one of the least of the three components. In the future, I would like to see D&D use a combat system that doesn't reward strength as much as it does in combat. I'm a little tired of the best fighters in the game being huge, burly men who can press 400 lbs. or more over their heads. I know what a man who can press 400 lbs. over their head looks like, and they are not small (maybe short, but not small). It makes D&D combat look absurd with extremely muscular men dominating melee combat.</blockquote>

Verification