Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4645305" data-attributes="member: 11300">These are two excellent points!They cover a variety of situations in the D&amp;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 &quot;miss&quot;, not penetrating the targets defenses while the other will just &quot;hit&quot;, due purely to greater strength.Now in D&amp;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 &quot;realistically modelled&quot; mechanic)? Why did the stronger combatant &quot;hit&quot; while the other &quot;missed&quot;. 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.Too true, as the basic attributes stand (perhaps the most sacred of sacred cows).Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 4645305, member: 11300"] 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 [B][I]does [/I][/B]in fact make you better at hitting things. Too true, as the basic attributes stand (perhaps the most sacred of sacred cows). Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification