Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7555724" data-attributes="member: 6775031">The difference is that Dexterity already goes toward so many things, while melee is the only real thing that Strength does. If you remove Finesse weapons, then Dexterity is still a very useful stat. If you remove Strength-based melee weapons, then Strength becomes the universal dump stat.I'm in favor of having one stat to govern all melee combat, but I would want to call it &quot;Strength&quot;, for the sake of tradition. I don't really see the benefit to allowing alternate descriptions, such as fighting purely with finesse such that Strength becomes a non-factor. To me, that's a very slippery slope, which inevitably leads back to 4E-style using Constitution to attack. You need to draw the line somewhere, and I see nothing wrong with limiting melee to Strength-only.I know it's just a matter of preferences and expectations, but to me, a monk is a Strength-based fighter in not-necessarily armor. The bar-room brawler isn't even a concept worth entertaining, because it would be so pitifully ineffective when compared to a fighter in armor, and monks are amazing because they actually can perform comparably with their bare hands. Simply using the same stat to hit with is not sufficient to conflate the two, anymore than a paladin is like a warlock because they both use Charisma.When you're talking about light armor, in D&amp;D, that's the stuff that rogues and ninjas wear. It's &quot;studded leather&quot;, or some other nonsense that gives minimal protection, but is sufficient to fulfill the mechanical role required of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7555724, member: 6775031"] The difference is that Dexterity already goes toward so many things, while melee is the only real thing that Strength does. If you remove Finesse weapons, then Dexterity is still a very useful stat. If you remove Strength-based melee weapons, then Strength becomes the universal dump stat. I'm in favor of having one stat to govern all melee combat, but I would want to call it "Strength", for the sake of tradition. I don't really see the benefit to allowing alternate descriptions, such as fighting purely with finesse such that Strength becomes a non-factor. To me, that's a very slippery slope, which inevitably leads back to 4E-style using Constitution to attack. You need to draw the line somewhere, and I see nothing wrong with limiting melee to Strength-only. I know it's just a matter of preferences and expectations, but to me, a monk is a Strength-based fighter in not-necessarily armor. The bar-room brawler isn't even a concept worth entertaining, because it would be so pitifully ineffective when compared to a fighter in armor, and monks are amazing because they actually can perform comparably with their bare hands. Simply using the same stat to hit with is not sufficient to conflate the two, anymore than a paladin is like a warlock because they both use Charisma. When you're talking about light armor, in D&D, that's the stuff that rogues and ninjas wear. It's "studded leather", or some other nonsense that gives minimal protection, but is sufficient to fulfill the mechanical role required of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification