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

[xechnao]

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.

To me heroic-fantasy is one thing and super hero another. To me heroic-fantasy is the ability of having chances to create certain options on the battlefield.

 

[ProfessorPain]

To me heroic-fantasy is one thing and super hero another. To me heroic-fantasy is the ability of having chances to create certain options on the battlefield.

The hit point system in D&D doesn't seem to prevent this. There are also plenty of combat options in 3E, and 4E allows for lots of ways to manipulate the battle field Neither makes a very good war game however. Is there something specific that bothers you about either system when it comes to having options on the field of battle?

 

[xechnao]

The hit point system in D&D doesn't seem to prevent this. There are also plenty of combat options in 3E, and 4E allows for lots of ways to manipulate the battle field Neither makes a very good war game however. Is there something specific that bothers you about either system when it comes to having options on the field of battle?

Something specific? I guess it is the general focus on specific micro-managing rather than counting the situation based on the terrain-field situation.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Something specific? I guess it is the general focus on specific micro-managing rather than counting the situation based on the terrain-field situation.

Do you mean the emphasis on skirmish battles and individual combat manuevers over larger movement of troops, and the layout of the battle field?

 

[Morrus]

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'm afraid I didn't understand a word of that! Could you rephrase it for me?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm afraid I didn't understand a word of that! Could you rephrase it for me?

I think this is a little vague too, but I think there's a good point in there. Perhaps rephrase as a spectrum with artificial on one end and [what?] on the other. {Abstract is a little too... abstract, if you know what I mean}

While this is a little off topic, it is certainly something of interest for this series of debates as a whole.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

These are two excellent points!

They cover a variety of situations in the D&D equation without leaving any gaps. For example, imagine you had two identical fighters except that one has +3 to hit due to strength. With an identical (as much as it can be) attack, one might "miss", not penetrating the targets defenses while the other will just "hit", due purely to greater strength.

Now in D&D, this extra strength can be tracked to penetration of the armor. But what if as earlier posts exampled, you used armor as damage reduction instead (a more "realistically modelled" mechanic)? Why did the stronger combatant "hit" while the other "missed". ProfessorPain's two examples (which I will note other poster's highlighted), provide the answer. Either the stronger combatant was quicker, or the greater strength was able to bullock through the defender's parrying or blocking. In fact, this has satisfied me enough to shift my position on the debate - until someone can sway me back. However, the consensus so far seems to be that Strength does in fact make you better at hitting things.

These arguments tend to degerate though, and one can easily make an argument that Dex is more important, or that it really depends on the weapon being used. Dex probably matters more for a knife, while strength is probably better for a club. But D&D has to work mechanically at the end of hte day, so they can't make it 100% simulationist. Someone already pointed out the problem with creating Uber Stats, and my guess is that was what shaped most of the decisions about stats in D&D.

Too true, as the basic attributes stand (perhaps the most sacred of sacred cows).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Umbran]

I occasionally take part in events of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and sometimes I put on armor, and whack people with sticks.

The basic rules for scoring a hit are simple - the other guy has to feel that the shot would have gotten through his armor, you have to hit hard enough for the opponent to feel it through the plates he's wearing.

It seems to me that in a real fight, if you don't go for a grapple, in order to really hurt the other guy, you most often have to break his armor. We're talking popping rivets, bending plates, breaking rings, and slicing through leather. And you need force to do it, lots of it, because that stuff is mostly hefty leather and strong metals.

So, yeah, I think being stronger helps you actually hit so that you do damage. You don't actually need to have armor play as damage reduction to do this - D&D's way of going about it isn't so bad.

 

[xechnao]

Do you mean the emphasis on skirmish battles and individual combat manuevers over larger movement of troops, and the layout of the battle field?

Nope. I mean direct emphasis on terrain rather than micro-managing arithmetic bonuses. Know immediately your risks in each case so you can directly focus on things like... how is the battlefield regarding your options and what you decide to do. I guess make without the miniatures.
For this to make any sense I believe the whole combat system should be reworked. For example initiative would not indicate mechanically who may moves x squares and attack first but who may decide last what he is going to do after hearing what the others want to do. Then start taking actions with the winner of initiative going first. Each action one decides to take coming with its chances to allow counter-reactions to other people's actions and a "weight" meter indicating how difficult may indeed be for other people to counter-react to one's actions. And of course no need to treat enemies individually if they do not matter for this purpose. Just treat them as groups, what they control, what they threaten etch.

Hehe I am struggling to see if I can work on this now

 

[Jack7]

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.

PP, in case this was misunderstood, I personally never said strength was immaterial. Especially in hand to hand combat. I said it was not definitive when it comes to killing. Killing efficiency is.

Strength may very well be definitive in winning a brawl or a fight, which is a different kind of fight than a killing combat situation.

Strength also doesn't make you better at hitting if the other person is well trained in combat unless their movement is restricted in some way, or they are tied to a place, or voluntarily engage in a stand up fight.

From what I'm understanding of your examples you are saying strength tells after a blow (after someone has been successfully struck, someone can also successfully use speed and training to avoid blows), and that can very well be true. But it doesn't make you better at hitting, and especially not at killing, unless you know how to hit, which comes into play from skill, training, and practice.

Let me put it this way. The very first time you sparred, and that's a static fight compared to a lethal combat (you are purposely engaged with each other to fight in a face-off), were you very good at hitting your partner? Probably not. In time you practiced and learned proper technique. Then you became good at hitting the other guy. You learned how to actually fight.

Now once you learned to fight well, then you could apply your strength properly. Your strength had effect whereas before (even if you had been at the same relative level of strength) you would have been less than ideally effective.

Same thing with killing, and real combat.
First you have to know what you're doing, and then later you can better exploit your other talents, speed, muscle control, strength, power, movement, tactical knowledge, accuracy, even intuition, and so forth.

A novice may be fast, or strong, or anything else, but generally speaking he's probably not very good, or the strongest boxers, or fastest, would always be the most effective boxers. Or the strongest men the best killers. But they are usually not.

First a guy gets good at what he is doing and then he becomes dangerous. But he is not dangerous just because he is strong, he is potentially more dangerous if he knows what he is doing and is also strong. That is to say that every advantage helps once you know what you are doing, but almost none do if you don't know what you are doing.

I hope that better explains what I was saying.