D&D 4E STR 'to-hit' bonus departing in 4e?
- Thread starter ogre
- Start date
epochrpg said:
Monk's AC represents not only the dodging of blows, but also the deflection and blocking of blows. As such, strength logically should make a difference - after all, blocking or deflecting a powerful blow is more difficult than a wimpy one.
That said, from a purely realistic point of view, dexterity does make more sense as the stat to use for the calculation of 'to hit' probabilities. But strength is a realistic enough ability score for the purpose and dexterity is already among the more powerful ability scores. Now, if they decided to split dexterity in two, say, coordination and deftness, where each new score would take over some functions of dexterity, then it would be a different matter, but we already know that 4E will keep 6 ability scores and we can reasonably assume they will be the same 6 ability scores that were found in 3.X edition.
Armor stops you from getting hit and actually hitting someone doesn't mean you "hit" them. That's how D&D defines armor class and hit points. Having dex as your attack modifier makes a lot more sense when armor absorbs damage and taking damage means you're actually getting clobbered. Additionally, moving attack to dex would create some serious balance issues and some very bizarre looking characters. Dex would become THE stat for fighters, meaning you'd end up with a bunch of heavy armor wearing, great sword swinging, weak and agile guys. Strength bonus to damage is of very little value in comparison to hitting more often. Take a look at True20 - it's a system that runs off this mechanic. Dex is THE stat for combat as it affects both attack and defense, and it's been mathematically shown that a character with X dex virtually always beats a character with X strength. The higher the value of X, the more true this is. To compensate, T20 allows str to add to defense if you're using a shield, but even then, high dex still comes out on top. And damage in T20's combat system is brutal. A +5 to damage is the difference between being wounded and being effectively dead. In D&D, where hit points at high levels are over a hundred, +5 damage (especially when you're hitting only once a round) is far less important.
There are so many "realism" issues with D&D, that I'm satisfied with rules that make the archetypes work. Warriors are strong, rogue-like characters are fast. Works for me.
There are so many "realism" issues with D&D, that I'm satisfied with rules that make the archetypes work. Warriors are strong, rogue-like characters are fast. Works for me.
JDJblatherings
First Post
epochrpg said:
A strong person can swing a weapon faster and with more percision because they aren't impeded by the bulk of the weapon as much as a weaker person is. so a fighter with STr of X+4 is much better then a fighter of STR X at getting the dmage dealign part of the weapon where he wants when he wants, thus showing being strong makes it easier for strong person to hit an unarmored monk.
Roger
First Post
ogre said:
We have the 4e stats for the spined devil; a few relevant bits seem to be:
Level 6 Skirmisher
ATTACKS
Melee 2 claws +9 vs AC each; 2d4+4
Str +7(19) Dex +5(14) Con +5(15) Int +5(15) Wis +5(14) Cha +5(15)
That would seem to imply that the Strength bonus is not a to-hit bonus in the same way it was in 3e, unless a Level 6 Skirmisher would otherwise have a BAB of +2 (in 3e terms.)
Cheers,
Roger
Will said:
No, I don't think you can use Dexterity for conducting touch attacks. Blocking and deflecting touch attacks even with bare hands still makes some sense, though, because the attacker must do the 'touching' in order for the touch attack to work. Touch attacks are not merely a matter of contact, otherwise a successful attack by a monk against a vampire would level drain the monk.
Roger said:
I interpret it differently. There is apparently a uniform progression of +1/2 a bonus per level for all modifiers used to modify d20 rolls. Consequently, the 19 in strength gives a +4 bonus, but the fact that the spined devil is at level 6 gives him an extra +3 to all d20 rolls (including strength rolls, hence the apparent strength bonus +7). All classes are also supposed to give fixed bonuses to things like saves and attack, and I would guess the skirmisher monster class gives a fixed +2 bonus to attack. That all adds up to a +9 attack bonus.
Warbringer
Explorer
Roger said:
No, the +7 is for STR based skill checks... 1/2 level (6)+str (3+4)
So, +9 is +3 (1/2 level) +2 (melee bonus for skirmisher) +4 str...
or another way Str +7, +2 melee bonus for skirmisher
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
