HTWMDS - Does Greater Strength Make You Better at Hitting Things?

[Jack7]

I have many years of experience as a boxer, and in my experience strength+skill+hand eye coordination make you better at hitting other people with your fist. Why is strength important? A couple of reasons that are not immediately obvious. The first is explosive power from strength allows you to hit targets more quickly, and to the suprise of your opponent. The second is that strength allows you to plow through a person's defenses. If i am bigger and stronger than someone else, it is much easier for me to hurt them, even if they are blocking.

You've got a real point there PP, but in this particular sense combat is very different from boxing. Because in boxing the intention is to hit someone without killing them, or being killed, meaning you intentionally put yourself at risk with the hope that your skill, strength, stamina, training, etc. are superior to that of your opponent.

There are attempts to block, and absorb, and to avoid, and evade. But you have to voluntarily expose yourself to being hit. The point of a fight is to fight and you can't fight unless you get in there and mix it up. Then again you know that being pummeled isn't generally lethal and that even a smasher to your sweet spot isn't gonna kill ya, though it may drop ya. In short boxing is for sport, and the objective is to win, and therefore when you are boxing you voluntarily expose yourself to a certain kind of danger, but generally speaking (unless something goes wrong) not to lethality.

Combat, and close combat with hand to hand weapons is totally different. You cannot afford to "expose yourself recklessly with the intent of winning" because even if you succeed then the other guy can still kill you simultaneously or wound you so badly you die anyways. You get up and dust yourself off from a lost match or a fist-fight, you don't get up from being dead. So risk to reward ratio is entirely different. You win by surviving while the other guy doesn't, you don't win on points or by TKO or by knock-out. If you get knocked out in combat you're dead. Or at least captured. Not just woozy. So combat means you don't take the same kind of chances in the same way as you do with a fight. And that's what I mean by saying D&D is set up for fighting techniques, not killing techniques. When you kill in combat you want it to be over as close to instantly as possible, in a fight you don't necessarily mind it going on awhile. So things like strength, which render stamina advantages and power advantages are great for fighting. But they aren't necessarily good for killing because you want killing to be quick (not how fast you stab but how fast you stab a killing point), so that the other guy can't kill, maim, cripple, or severely injure you or your buddies in the time you take to kill him. The point of a combat is to kill, not to be hit, take a blow, or be killed. the point is not to go toe to toes with a man, but to have him toes up immediately. The best combat is when the enemy dies and you aren't even injured. There is no incentive to fight in combat, but every incentive to kill and to actually avoid fights (fight meaning close encounters which expose you and your buddies to as much danger as your opponent).

So in combat knowing how to kill is far more important than anything else (if the real objective is to kill the opponent. I've seen guys stabbed dozens of times by people who didn't know what they were doing and the victim still lived. I've seen guys shot or stabbed just once by someone who knew exactly what they were doing and it was over before the victim hit the ground.

So I'm not disputing strength is helpful to some degree, but that's what I mean about the difference between real fighting and real killing, and between game fighting and game killing. I'm not necessarily saying that killing in D&D, or any other game, should be like killing in real life, but what I am saying is that killing in D&D is really nothing like killing in real life. And really nothing like real combat either.

(By the way, that doesn't mean it couldn't be more like real killing either, but the game would have to trade up "fighting" for "killing" and fantasy combat objectives for more real combat objectives.)


P.S. As an interesting side note, it has long occurred to me that this is one reason Fighters are called fighters in D&D, and not Warriors, or Soldiers, or something that immediately implies killing, or potential to kill. Because D&D "fighters" go about combat like fighters, not like killers.

Do you have a link? Sounds interesting.

As for the other PP, HW, try here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/pawsplay/1399-asymmetry-d-d-design.html

PP makes some good points about Asymmetry in Design

 

[Morrus]

It makes it more likely that you'll land a damaging blow, not that you'll connect at all. D&D being a system of approximation and abstractness (and very much not a realism simulator), the Strength score is just fine for this.

The real question is, on a gaming basis, is this rule fun and easy? Yeah, I'd say it is. Who cares what real-life martial artists, boxers, fencers, and physicists think? We're playing an abstract game, and we enjoy it!

It's kinda like watching Star Trek and criticising the theory behind Warp Drive. Or watching Star Wars and complaining that the starship lasers make noises in space. Who cares? Was it a good story or not? Did you enjoy it? That's what matters.

In D&D, Strength makes it easier to hit. Cool, got it.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I

You've got a real point there PP, but in this particular sense combat is very different from boxing. Because in boxing the intention is to hit someone without killing them, or being killed, meaning you intentionally put yourself at risk with the hope that your skill, strength, stamina, training, etc. are superior to that of your opponent.

There are attempts to block, and absorb, and to avoid, and evade. But you have to voluntarily expose yourself to being hit. The point of a fight is to fight and you can't fight unless you get in there and mix it up. Then again you know that being pummeled isn't generally lethal and that even a smasher to your sweet spot isn't gonna kill ya, though it may drop ya. In short boxing is for sport, and the objective is to win, and therefore when you are boxing you voluntarily expose yourself to a certain kind of danger, but generally speaking (unless something goes wrong) not to lethality.

Combat, and close combat with hand to hand weapons is totally different. You cannot afford to "expose yourself recklessly with the intent of winning" because even if you succeed then the other guy can still kill you simultaneously or wound you so badly you die anyways. You get up and dust yourself off from a lost match or a fist-fight, you don't get up from being dead. So risk to reward ratio is entirely different. You win by surviving while the other guy doesn't, you don't win on points or by TKO or by knock-out. If you get knocked out in combat you're dead. Or at least captured. Not just woozy. So combat means you don't take the same kind of chances in the same way as you do with a fight. And that's what I mean by saying D&D is set up for fighting techniques, not killing techniques. When you kill in combat you want it to be over as close to instantly as possible, in a fight you don't necessarily mind it going on awhile. So things like strength, which render stamina advantages and power advantages are great for fighting. But they aren't necessarily good for killing because you want killing to be quick (not how fast you stab but how fast you stab a killing point), so that the other guy can't kill, maim, cripple, or severely injure you or your buddies in the time you take to kill him. The point of a combat is to kill, not to be hit, take a blow, or be killed. the point is not to go toe to toes with a man, but to have him toes up immediately. The best combat is when the enemy dies and you aren't even injured. There is no incentive to fight in combat, but every incentive to kill and to actually avoid fights (fight meaning close encounters which expose you and your buddies to as much danger as your opponent).

So in combat knowing how to kill is far more important than anything else (if the real objective is to kill the opponent. I've seen guys stabbed dozens of times by people who didn't know what they were doing and the victim still lived. I've seen guys shot or stabbed just once by someone who knew exactly what they were doing and it was over before the victim hit the ground.

So I'm not disputing strength is helpful to some degree, but that's what I mean about the difference between real fighting and real killing, and between game fighting and game killing. I'm not necessarily saying that killing in D&D, or any other game, should be like killing in real life, but what I am saying is that killing in D&D is really nothing like killing in real life. And really nothing like real combat either.

(By the way, that doesn't mean it couldn't be more alike real killing either, but the game would have to trade up "fighting" for "killing" and fantasy combat objectives for more real combat objectives.)




As for the other PP, HW, try here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/pawsplay/1399-asymmetry-d-d-design.html

PP makes some good points about Asymmetry in Design

You make some interesting points. What is your background?

I agree, and in my post I mentioned fighting with a knife is a whole different ball game than say a bat. But I think most of your example applies to stealth weapons like knives. I have some experience with training in knife combat (no actual knife combat experience). Fightiing with knives requires precision because it is a very close range, but also a very deadly weapon (which already makes it very different from D&D if you look at the damage a dagger does). But a longer range melee weapon, like a bat, responds more to the users' strength. Also, combat between armored knights is actually a little closer to the boxing scenario, because the armor allows you to fight while exposing yourself. And boxers don't open themselves up as much as you might think. Getting hit might not be lethal, but it will cause you to lose or get knocked out. Boxers are trained to be very conservative in their movements. If you watch a boxing match closely you will see this. And I think the closer two boxers are to each other in size and strength, the more significant this skill becomes. It is even significant when one boxer is greatly (but not overwhelmingly) smaller and weaker than the other. In fact, boxing is all about not exposing yourself. That is why boxers keep their shoulders high against their neck, keep their hands up, don't lift lift their chin when they punch, always fight with open eyes looking forward, bring their hands back immediately after strikin, etc. It may be a sport. But losing kills your career and your income. And even though it is usually not lethal, there is always the potential for death in the ring. Hence the referee commands "Protect yourselves at all times." So even in combat sports, where the stakes are much lower than in real life combat, the principle you bring up is important.

I also think you are raising the issue of knowledge and experience verse raw talent. Clearly, if you know where to hit someone, you can do a lot more damage with a lot less fuss. And I think D&D caters to this position by making levels so important.

 

[ProfessorPain]

It makes it more likely that you'll land a damaging blow, not that you'll connect at all. D&D being a system of approximation and abstractness (and very much not a realism simulator), the Strength score is just fine for this.

The real question is, on a gaming basis, is this rule fun and easy? Yeah, I'd say it is. Who cares what real-life martial artists, boxers, fencers, and physicists think? We're playing an abstract game, and we enjoy it!

It's kinda like watching Star Trek and criticising the theory behind Warp Drive. Or watching Star Wars and complaining that the starship lasers make noises in space. Who cares? Was it a good story or not? Did you enjoy it? That's what matters.

In D&D, Strength makes it easier to hit. Cool, got it.

but, but, but there is no sound in space...

I agree. This is one of the least attractive tendancies you find in gaming, and one that great shows like the simpsons has lampooned over and over for good reason. Its a game, and it is pretty pointless debating how realistically the stats are applied to different actions. Honestly every action probably requires a mix of 3 or more stats. But that isn't how the game is built. Every game approaches stats a little differently, and as long as the stats use is believe its great. If Charisma allowed you to hit things more accurately, I could see people grumbling. But this is a minor distinction we are debating here.

 

[xechnao]

It makes it more likely that you'll land a damaging blow, not that you'll connect at all. D&D being a system of approximation and abstractness (and very much not a realism simulator), the Strength score is just fine for this.

The real question is, on a gaming basis, is this rule fun and easy? Yeah, I'd say it is. Who cares what real-life martial artists, boxers, fencers, and physicists think? We're playing an abstract game, and we enjoy it!

It's kinda like watching Star Trek and criticising the theory behind Warp Drive. Or watching Star Wars and complaining that the starship lasers make noises in space. Who cares? Was it a good story or not? Did you enjoy it? That's what matters.

In D&D, Strength makes it easier to hit. Cool, got it.

I think the error here is the assumption that abstract equals artificial. An abstraction makes real world sense and is the human method to register things. Language is a tool of abstractness for example.
Artificial OTOH is something that has no natural meaning -it is something that does not connect with nature.
Rpgs need to be abstract by definition. They do not need to be artificial though.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I think the error here is the assumption that abstract equals artificial. An abstraction makes real world sense and is the human method to register things. Language is a tool of abstractness for example.
Artificial OTOH is something that has no natural meaning -it is something that does not connect with nature.
Rpgs need to be abstract by definition. They do not need to be artificial though.

I think he is saying it is just a game. And Strength makes enough sense that it shouldn't be a problem.

It is important to remember, that no matter what physical stat you use to determine how well someone hits in melee, there are going to be problems. There is also the need to balance mechanics with one another. If Dex does extra duty by taking care of ranged combat, initiative, Armor Class and accuracy in melee, then it is much more valuable than strength-- even strength still takes care of damage in melee. By the same token one could make the argument that AC should be improved by STR or CON on the grounds that being beefier, makes you harder to hit effectively. Or that INT should factor into ranged attacks and melee attacks, because being a 'smart' fighter is just as important as being a strong or fast one. All these arguments serve to stroke the egos of the people making the argument. They are just different ways of slicing things up.

There will always be the strength is more important than/Skill is more important than/Dexterity is more important than, argument no matter what stat you use. You are never going to satisfy everyone. But I think the poster is right, that strength is just fine for making your melee attack better.

 

[Jack7]

I agree, and in my post I mentioned fighting with a knife is a whole different ball game than say a bat. But I think most of your example applies to stealth weapons like knives. I have some experience with training in knife combat (no actual knife combat experience). Fightiing with knives requires precision because it is a very close range, but also a very deadly weapon (which already makes it very different from D&D if you look at the damage a dagger does). But a longer range melee weapon, like a bat, responds more to the users' strength. Also, combat between armored knights is actually a little closer to the boxing scenario, because the armor allows you to fight while exposing yourself. And boxers don't open themselves up as much as you might think. Getting hit might not be lethal, but it will cause you to lose or get knocked out. Boxers are trained to be very conservative in their movements. If you watch a boxing match closely you will see this. And I think the closer two boxers are to each other in size and strength, the more significant this skill becomes. It is even significant when one boxer is greatly (but not overwhelmingly) smaller and weaker than the other. In fact, boxing is all about not exposing yourself. That is why boxers keep their shoulders high against their neck, keep their hands up, don't lift lift their chin when they punch, always fight with open eyes looking forward, bring their hands back immediately after strikin, etc. It may be a sport. But losing kills your career and your income. And even though it is usually not lethal, there is always the potential for death in the ring. Hence the referee commands "Protect yourselves at all times." So even in combat sports, where the stakes are much lower than in real life combat, the principle you bring up is important.

You've got a good point about armored knights. Although armor rarely worked like it seems in films. And it depended a lot upon the era and what kind of weapon the armor was facing and how good a killer the guy trying to penetrate the armor was. Technology matters in killing efficiency. For instance no armor stood up to a good longbowman, but an armored knight against a militia man with a hoe had a real good chance of killing if he could keep his feet and could actually catch or corner the other guy. (And that's what makes battle different than combat too. In battle you run at the other guy, like in boxing, with the intention of hitting and killing him before he drops you. In combat you may or may not go at the other guy. If you can help it you don't. Instead your killing effectiveness goes at the other guy, not you.)

But as for boxing, I used to box too. Yeah, you're right, you have no intention of getting hit but then again you have to get close enough to get hit. Intentionally.By that I mean you don't want to expose vulnerable areas purposely but you also know that to take the fight to your enemy you must expose yourself intentionally. If your opponent throws wide his chest is exposed, in order to exploit that you have to throw a blow of your own, meaning you have to expose yourself. You can't win without walking up, or dancing up, toe to toe with the other guy. You have to get close enough to touch him and land blows. He has to do the same because in boxing your limited to the mechanical advantage you have with your own physique.

So you have to be willing to risk getting hit to hit back, or to hit first.

In the best combat situations, on the other hand, you put your opponent at "opportunity disadvantage." You don't come in arm length to arm length (if you can possibly help it - you don't slug it out with weapons that cut off body parts or pierce vital organs) where a few miliilimeters or inches determine the variation in reach. Your opponent carries a knife, you carry a sword. Your opponent carries a sword, you carry a spear. Your opponent wants to fight hand to hand, you shoot him with a longbow. He wants a dogfight with cannons, you shoot a missile at him from a distance over the horizon line. Real killing is about killing advantage, not toughness endurance. Or ideally even exposure to risk, though, to tell you the truth few things are as inherently risky as killing. There are just too many variables to make the job "safe." And it shouldn't be safe. It is hard and terrible and depending on the situation, horrible and immoral. It can also be necessary to save the lives of innocents, women, and children. But ideally that is what killing is all about, being able to kill while staying safe, not killing while exposing yourself.

You make some interesting points. What is your background?

I think in this context you probably may mean one of these things: I used to box and fight, I have some tactical experience, I have experience in criminal affairs (violent crime mostly) and I've done some weapons designing.

Anyways PP, real good discussion, all the way around.

 

[ProfessorPain]

You've got a good point about armored knights. Although armor rarely worked like it seems in films. And it depended a lot upon the era and what kind of weapon the armor was facing and how good a killer the guy trying to penetrate the armor was. Technology matters in killing efficiency. For instance no armor stood up to a good longbowman, but an armored knight against a militia man with a hoe had a real good chance of killing if he could keep his feet and could actually catch or corner the other guy. (And that's what makes battle different than combat too. In battle you run at the other guy, like in boxing, with the intention of hitting and killing him before he drops you. In combat you may or may not go at the other guy. If you can help it you don't. Instead your killing effectiveness goes at the other guy, not you.)

But as for boxing, I used to box too. Yeah, you're right, you have no intention of getting hit but then again you have to get close enough to get hit. Intentionally.By that I mean you don't want to expose vulnerable areas purposely but you also know that to take the fight to your enemy you must expose yourself intentionally. If your opponent throws wide his chest is exposed, in order to exploit that you have to throw a blow of your own, meaning you have to expose yourself. You can't win without walking up, or dancing up, toe to toe with the other guy. You have to get close enough to touch him and land blows. He has to do the same because in boxing your limited to the mechanical advantage you have with your own physique.

So you have to be willing to risk getting hit to hit back, or to hit first.

In the best combat situations, on the other hand, you put your opponent at "opportunity disadvantage." You don't come in arm length to arm length (if you can possibly help it - you don't slug it out with weapons that cut off body parts or pierce vital organs) where a few miliilimeters or inches determine the variation in reach. Your opponent carries a knife, you carry a sword. Your opponent carries a sword, you carry a spear. Your opponent wants to fight hand to hand, you shoot him with a longbow. He wants a dogfight with cannons, you shoot a missile at him from a distance over the horizon line. Real killing is about killing advantage, not toughness endurance. Or ideally even exposure to risk, though, to tell you the truth few things are as inherently risky as killing. There are just too many variables to make the job "safe." And it shouldn't be safe. It is hard and terrible and depending on the situation, horrible and immoral. It can also be necessary to save the lives of innocents, women, and children. But ideally that is what killing is all about, being able to kill while staying safe, not killing while exposing yourself..

These are all very valid points, and I don't dispute any of them. But I have to wonder if they apply mostly to modern combat. I am just having trouble picturing a medieval-style warrior, worrying about putting his opponent at opportunity disatvantage. Also, I don't dispute the value of skill at all. I just think that strength plays a role in certain kinds of melee combat. I can only speak from my boxing experience and what I have seen in street fights. I don't have you tactical or weapon design background. But in the situations I have seen (beer bottles smashed on guys heads, and bats being used), strength played an important role in landing a solid blow. Obviously minmizing your own exposure to injury is still important, but I don't see how that factors out strength in circumstances where hitting harder with more mass, will help you plow through someone who is trying to deflect. I have never been in a life or death combat scenario, so I admit, these situations may not translate directly into the kind of combat we are discussing.

I think in this context you probably may mean one of these things: I used to box and fight, I have some tactical experience, I have experience in criminal affairs (violent crime mostly) and I've done some weapons designing..

Just curious what was informing your opinion here.

 

[xechnao]

I think he is saying it is just a game. And Strength makes enough sense that it shouldn't be a problem.

It is important to remember, that no matter what physical stat you use to determine how well someone hits in melee, there are going to be problems. There is also the need to balance mechanics with one another. If Dex does extra duty by taking care of ranged combat, initiative, Armor Class and accuracy in melee, then it is much more valuable than strength-- even strength still takes care of damage in melee. By the same token one could make the argument that AC should be improved by STR or CON on the grounds that being beefier, makes you harder to hit effectively. Or that INT should factor into ranged attacks and melee attacks, because being a 'smart' fighter is just as important as being a strong or fast one. All these arguments serve to stroke the egos of the people making the argument. They are just different ways of slicing things up.

There will always be the strength is more important than/Skill is more important than/Dexterity is more important than, argument no matter what stat you use. You are never going to satisfy everyone. But I think the poster is right, that strength is just fine for making your melee attack better.

I disagree that if some game-design has certain problems you cant have a game that does not have them. It is a matter of good design.

Btw, I believe dex influencing your defense and str influencing the melee hitting success is reasonable as design. If I have a critic point to make about D&D is the hit point and the I go you go design around it. I would rather see a design based on battlefield control options and risks.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I disagree that if some game-design has certain problems you cant have a game that does not have them. It is a matter of good design.

Btw, I believe dex influencing your defense and str influencing the melee hitting success is reasonable as design. If I have a critic point to make about D&D is the hit point and the I go you go design around it. I would rather see a design based on battlefield control options and risks.

I don't have really have an issue with HP in D&D. In other games I would. But D&D is about heroes and high fantasy. Having high hit points is a great way to keep the major players on the field despite heavy damage.