Let's stop acting like strength can't be accurate

[Rossbert]

I've been seeing a lot of talk all over the place about wanting this or that weapon to be finesse often reflect some particular real-world combat style or experience. The pike in particular seems to come up a lot.

While some weapons obviously rely on pure unadulterated strength for their damage (looking at you maul), many other regular weapons can be a strong source of precise, accurate. While the long sword was often used to bash against armor causing deformation and eventual suffocation, the benefit of it compared to a mace was the extra control and precision that could pierce openings if needed.

The reason (in my head) for finesse weapons being specially called out (other than some game balance issues) isn't that they are inherently more accurate than a long sword, but because they don't necessarily need much strength to use. Whipping around a short sword or dagger just doesn't require a lot of strength to maneuver, it can be helpful but isn't required. A bigger weapon can often be just as precise, but you NEED to be fairly strong to exert that level of control of your big length of metal.

That said there is obviously nothing wrong with choosing to describe your weapon attacks as brutally bashing and slicing, but we shouldn't feel that just because a sword or spear isn't finesse doesn't mean it can't narratively be a whirling, flowing instrument of elegant death.

It does mean that you have to make tough choices with stat distribution, but I feel that is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I've not seen that sort of thread here recently, although they do tend to pop up from time to time.

They're probably driven by character optimisation concerns more than attempts at realism in general, but 5e D&D Finesse is a pretty tricky subject anyway.
I generally regard it as a necessary evil required to allow some fantasy trope character concepts to be viable within the game.

Is there any current thread in particular that launched this particular train of thought?

 

[Rossbert]

There was one discussing Oberyn Martell that pops up now and then, but the most recent catalyst was a post on a Facebook, but I dislike using that a platform for discussions (way too many notifications).

 

[Satyrn]

I mean, every time I bash an orc on the head witn my maul there's a hefty dollop of accuracy involved, so, uh yeah. Right on!

 

[Warpiglet]

How much realism to we actually want?

Both strength and dexterity are very relevant in truth. We want to hit weak spots and do so with force.

And beyond that, in any mass combat, without constitution, your blows would start to get slow and weak rather quickly.

An overall athleticism is probably most important in truth. Then of course if we are grappling, strength might start to win out. I try not to pull at the realism thread too hard when I play. It is less satisfying when I do!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Both strength and dexterity are very relevant in truth. We want to hit weak spots and do so with force.

And beyond that, in any mass combat, without constitution, your blows would start to get slow and weak rather quickly.

Yes, and if you can intimidate or trick an opponent (CHA) you can turn the fight in your favor, similarly, if you can see through your opponent's gambits or show of bravado (WIS), and, if you can devise a lethal strategy well in advance (INT), that could carry the day.

That has come up in another thread, recently, and every stat could conceivably be critical at some point in a fight. DEX, INT & CHA, in particular, early in a fight. CON and WIS, particularly, later in one. (STR's contribution is just obvious.)

There are examples of games that have gone there, to an extent. When he worked on developing RuneQuest, Steve Perrin, a founding member of the SCA, was dissatisfied with the way D&D modeled medieval combat, and what RQ ultimately did for weapon attacks was a % based on skill with the weapon (primarily) modified by STR, DEX, INT, SIZ & POW. (SIZ and POW obviously, differed from D&D stats, SIZ prettymuch doubled-down on STR, literally how big you are; POW (power) was a mystical stat used in dealing with spirits, gods, & magic, WIS would be the closest D&D analog not already in RQ). That weapon skill also advanced as a result of actually using that weapon, in actual fights, and from training with it afterwards, independently of advancement in other skills.
Revolutionary, for '78. Still not that bad, really.

How much realism to we actually want?

In a game with quixotic 'Vancian' magic and races like gnomes and tabaxi (among many others, those aren't nearly the worst offenders, they just popped into my head because they've been played in my 5e games) and monsters like gelatinous cubes?
How much realism can we get away with /pretending/ to want?

 

[Warpiglet]

Yes, and if you can intimidate or trick an opponent (CHA) you can turn the fight in your favor, similarly, if you can see through your opponent's gambits or show of bravado (WIS), and, if you can devise a lethal strategy well in advance (INT), that could carry the day.

That has come up in another thread, recently, and every stat could conceivably be critical at some point in a fight. DEX, INT & CHA, in particular, early in a fight. CON and WIS, particularly, later in one. (STR's contribution is just obvious.)

There are examples of games that have gone there, to an extent. When he worked on developing RuneQuest, Steve Perrin, a founding member of the SCA, was dissatisfied with the way D&D modeled medieval combat, and what RQ ultimately did for weapon attacks was a % based on skill with the weapon (primarily) modified by STR, DEX, INT, SIZ & POW. (SIZ and POW obviously, differed from D&D stats, SIZ prettymuch doubled-down on STR, literally how big you are; POW (power) was a mystical stat used in dealing with spirits, gods, & magic, WIS would be the closest D&D analog not already in RQ). That weapon skill also advanced as a result of actually using that weapon, in actual fights, and from training with it afterwards, independently of advancement in other skills.
Revolutionary, for '78. Still not that bad, really.

In a game with quixotic 'Vancian' magic and races like gnomes and tabaxi (among many others, those aren't nearly the worst offenders, they just popped into my head because they've been played in my 5e games) and monsters like gelatinous cubes?
How much realism can we get away with /pretending/ to want?

I don't want a ton. If they have a list of composite scores you can plug in and play with as a bonus, it would be fine. Frankly though, how many people care?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't want a ton. If they have a list of composite scores you can plug in and play with as a bonus, it would be fine. Frankly though, how many people care?

Well, the other thread it just came up in was a homebrew, and the context was an objection to a weapon attack using just CHA or INT...

So, people care about this level of realism when criticizing each others amateur designs.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well..
In warhammer frpg (the second edition) weapon accuracy was a "stat". Strength only affected how hard you hit.

It was a much more realistic system overall. You rolled to hit, your enemy attempted to parry or dodge, you rolled for location and damage, reduced said damage based on armor worn...

I.e. it took longer :/

 

[ccs]

I don't care how you describe your stats +s.