High Strength Attacks vs High Dex Defenses...

[Rashak Mani]

Still not convinced of the strong = fast thing... especially bigger creatures where swinging or moving big limbs and weapons in fact is slower due to the sheer size of them. (Takes longer to swing that huge axe... due to size alone.)

 

[Darklone]

Dragonheart example: He survived due to his huge amount of hitpoints.

 

[maddman75]

It's based on strength because of weapon *control*. Look at the forearms of pro fencers sometime. They have forearms like popeye. Why? The foil is only a couple of pounds and doesn't really need to be swung with any great force.

The high strength allows control over the weapon as a fight drags on, allowing the attacker to place the business end exactly where they want it, when they want it.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Quick fix

STR vs DEX is usually pretty balanced among medium-sized creatures (high str orc vs high dex elf). But among creatures that are large size or bigger, the advantage goes to STR.

One way to balance this would be to increase the size modifier penalites to balance STR. For example:
Fine +12
Diminutive +8
Tiny +4
Small +2 (I've broken the pattern for small to keep small PC's relatively balanced vs their medium-sized companions)
Medium 0
Large -4
Huge -8
Gargantuan -12
Colossal -16

This would require adjusting AC and attack bonus modiers, plus CR, but could be done quickly.

 

[Rashak Mani]

One thing I thought might be possible is adjusting very strong monsters attacks by the amount of armor worn... so the less armor you wear the less likely his strength is being thrown against your shield/armor.

So a leather armor using character in fact has only 2 AC "going against" the Giants Str.... a full plate armor is 8 AC "going against" a Giants sheer strength. Thou I do agree that part of the strenght goes into better weapon handling and speed... not all or most of it does.

So if for example a giant has +6 Str to attack... he would get that fully vs. Full Plate Armor. (In other words no change) and against a nimble leather armor he would get only +2 Str bonus to hit corresponding to the 2 AC. (So a -4 to attacks in this case.) A Breast Plate at 5 AC would mean the Giant attacking with -1 penalty unless a shield is carried too.

Formula = Str Bonus - Armor of the "target" = penalty to attack.

This would make fighting Giants better with little armor... or a lot of armor in fact... not sure that is a good thing... You can create a different scale... half the AC difference being taken from the Giants attack. So leather would provide only a -2 to the attack... no armor would mean a -3. I think this is best:

2nd better Formula = (Str Bonus - Armor Target) / 2 = penalty to attack.

+6 str - 2 leather = 4/2 = 2 penalty attack
(Bigger giant) +8 str - 2 leather = 6/2 = 3 penalty attack

No Armor +6 - zero = 6/2 = -3 attack penalty
+8 - zero = 8/2 = -4 penalty

Heavy Armor +8 str - 7 Breast and Shield = 1/2 = 0.5 = ZERO
+10 str - 7 breast and shield = 3 = 1 penalty.

Really heavy armor shouldnt penalize thou... (+10 - 12 magic armor = +2 to hit.) Only "negative" results. Your trying to survive those hits with sheer metal vs weapon.

Most higher level PCs have magical armor... so the AC bonus usually isn't too far from the Str bonus... and some creatures even thou they are very strong seem nimble enough in that their attacks aren't Strength mostly based. DM adjucates. Monks will benefit way more thou from this... which in a low magic/low power world to a medium power world isn't that bad actually.

Naturally once that big weapon connects... the full strength hits and damages accordingly.

Just a suggestion... feel free to ignore

 

[Felix]

Simplicity?

or, if yoiu don't like that...

Take two greataxe wielding fighters. The weapon is heavy, and therefore requires a bit of momentum to do damage. The fighter who specializes in Dex has a hard time adjusting the swing of the axe to when his opponent dodges. The high-Str guy has an easier time of it because his higher Str translates into more control of the heavy weapon.

So when you think the big strong guy is attacking you with a horozontal chop, you duck low (Dodge feat). If the guy has a high Str, he can stop mid-swing and chop down on you (he rolled your AC). It is his Str that allows him to control his weapon to react to your dodges.

Make sense?

[Edit] I think the "big slow movement" of Ogres and other large creatures is represented by the penalty to attack, yeah? That, and they have an AC penalty to overcome.

 

[Desdichado]

It's an abstraction. This has honestly never occured to me as a problem, and I don't see it as one now. If you go down this slope, you've got to start changing all kinds of other things that don't make sense either. Presumably you've already done away with hit points? 'Coz that's a worse cunundrum than this one.

 

[The Souljourner]

Big monsters are not necessarily all that slow. They do get a size penalty to attack and AC, which represents the difficulty in fighting someone smaller than you. However, think about this - the nimble fighter dodging a medium greataxe can do so fairly easily - the axe head is only about a foot wide and the handle about 5' long (approximately). Now try it against the huge greataxe. 4' wide head and 20' long handle. There's a heck of a lot more axe that needs to be dodged!

Yes, bigger is more dangerous in D&D, they did that on purpose - the bonuses and penalties for becoming larger always work out to your advantage. It had to be that way - bigger things are *supposed* to be more dangerous. If a great wyrm gold dragon couldn't hit a first level rogue, it would be a pretty silly game.

-The Souljourner

 

[Mercule]

If not Complete Warrior, then Unearthed Arcana surely will.

I believe Defensive Bonus has already been confirmed for UA.

I'll definitely be using it. Not because I have a problem with the str vs dex thing, but because I hate the collection of magic items required at higher levels.

 

[Atridis]

First, I presume that everyone here acknowledges that D&D makes no real attempt to be realistic, even while discussing "realism" topics such as this. The basic mechanic, established 20+ years ago, is simply flawed (from that perspective - it's a much more enjoyable system than those that try to be realistic, imo).

That said, I've always thought that part of a character's defensive ability is reflected in his Hit Points. The Fighter successfully ducks beneath the swing of the Hill Giant, "expending" 6 HP in the process. But it's a rationalization, and it just that "feels wrong." Although I've never played, the Star Wars damage system seems to pursue this idea more transparently. Maybe Spycraft also. d20 Modern uses a Class Defense Bonus that increases with Experience Level, much like BAB.

You're right that D&D unwary characters get into an unwinnable Armor Class race (I find it usually begins around 5th level, and starts to become foolish by 8th or 9th). Eventually, monsters and high-level warriors almost never miss each other. My most successful Fighters have always been of the high-HP variety. My best 2ndEd Fighter had a 15 Str and a 13 Dex, but he had 80 HP by 7th level. He got kicked around like a soccer ball, but he won more than he lost.