D&D 5E Strength is agile

[The Grassy Gnoll]

If at first your thread doesn't convince, start another one but with pictures.

As many others, myself included, have pointed out, it's an arbitrary rule set - if you wish more granular detail you need to play or write a different game.

 

[Remathilis]

So, all this brings me to: "what's this got to do with the price of tea in China?" In other words, what does this change in D&D?

Strength Controls melee hit/damage, thrown weapon hit/damage, Athletics Checks, Str Saves (vs. push or movement), and Carry Capacity
Dexterity Controls ranged hit/damage, finesse melee hit/damage, AC, Dex saves (dodge/reflex), Acrobatics, Stealth, and Sleight of Hand checks, and Init.
Constitution Controls HP, and Con Saves (Poison, Disease, Body Manip)

Exactly what would the OP change to emulate "Strength is Agile"? Make saves vs. fireballs Strength saves? Make all to-hit Strength based?

What's the end-point here?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct claims to know what he is talking about. But then he says things like ‘aerobic exercise’ uses Dexterity, which makes less sense. For example, I have never heard anyone in D&D use a Dexterity check to jog or swim.

That's not what I said. I said agility exercises are aerobic as opposed to anaerobic. Which they are. They aren't designed to build muscle mass and strength. They are designed to build...wait for it....agility.

I don't know if you're truthful or not re: your dad, but assuming you are, maybe you need to pay attention to his workouts then. You've made claims about weight lifting, rock climbing, and parkour that are all way off, and anyone who actually does those things has told you they are way off.

Stop digging the hole. If strength and agility were the same, then explain why every activity that relies on agility as the primary factor (basketball guards, football WR and defensive backs, soccer players, dancers, acrobats, parkour, martial arts, etc), the people involved aren't big brutes of strength, but are cut and lean? The answer is simple. It's because strength and agility are only minimally correlated, but mostly completely unrelated. As I said before, sometimes they are even contradictory to each other.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

These guys are strong man competition winners:



Just sayin'...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Stop digging the hole. If strength and agility were the same, then explain why every activity that relies on agility as the primary factor (basketball guards, football WR and defensive backs, soccer players, dancers, acrobats, parkour, martial arts, etc), the people involved aren't big brutes of strength, but are cut and lean? The answer is simple. It's because strength and agility are only minimally correlated, but mostly completely unrelated. As I said before, sometimes they are even contradictory to each other.

Most of those examples are fairly high-strength in 5th ed terms as well. In 5th ed, Strength covers athleticism: fighting, running, jumping etc. not necessarily having big bulky muscles. Pretty much all of the examples you give are muscular, just not in the "huge weightlifter/bodybuilder" sense that you seem to be associating as the only way to have high strength.

Now there is nothing wrong neccesarily with playing a high strength character looking like a bulked-up bodybuilder if that is what you like. But as I pointed out earlier, and as ChrisCarlson has provided examples, even if you're reverting back to earlier edition definitions of Str; very high-Str people don't generally look like that.

Frankly I don't see any changes being required, and I took the OP as mostly stating the obvious. Most of the examples depicted are covered in the Athletics skill, which is based off strength anyway. I think much of the issue people are having with it is that the rules terms for something don't always have the same meaning as the word does outside the rules.

 

[Morlock]

Worrying over this can be fun, but not necessarily productive. If we were to break down relevant, inherent human abilities into stats, we're almost certain to get more than six. E.g:

Muscle speed: essentially a measure of fast-twitch muscle fiber percentage. Prime determinant of how fast you can run or perform gross motor activities like dodging, but nowhere near as correlated with reaction time as is typically supposed. Also involves other explosive tasks, like jumping.

Reaction time: how fast an impulse is carried by your nervous system up to your brain, the data is processed, and then carried back down your nervous system to trigger your reaction. Perhaps counter-intuitively from some perspectives, this is actually substantially correlated with IQ.

Agility: inherent ability at gross motor skills like dancing, tumbling, etc. Coordination, I guess.

Manual Dexterity: probably substantially correlated with IQ, and in some circumstances, reaction time. Think competitive twitch video gamers.

Strength: muscle power. Actually somewhat less correlated with striking damage than many assume. "Power" is more relevant; the strongest boxers don't hit the hardest, because speed contributes to power, too.

Stamina: conditioning, very much a matter of training, age, health, etc.

Power: how much energy you can generate in a very short interval (e.g., in a strike or push); function of strength and speed.

Health: immune system, etc.

Comeliness: beauty, youth, physical symmetry, proportion, etc.

Intelligence: problem solving ability and speed, memory

Charisma: quick wits, confidence, etc.

Willpower: determination, resolve, etc.

Those are the ones that jump out at me. I could see maybe breaking Memory out as its own stat. Also, not sure how to derive abilities like throwing a football. It doesn't seem all that correlated with agility - the best passers are often not "athletic", and people with good manual dexterity often can't throw worth a damn. There are probably lots of skills that are "their own thing" like this. On the other hand, maybe "aim" should be its own stat; I'm sure good passers have good inherent ability at stuff like archery, shooting a basketball, etc. "Hand-eye coordination" seems to be the parlance.

Then there's balance, which could be considered part of Agility, or its own skill.

Realism requires a computer to simulate, really. Any pen and paper system is going to have to do a lot of fudging, much of which is going to feel arbitrary, abstract, or both.

 

[Morlock]

EDIT: I would put the manual aspects of dexterity almost completely in the skill tree (disarm traps i.e)

I'd put IQ as the prime attribute for picking locks and disarming traps. Sort of like being a surgeon. Yes, you also have to have steady hands, but that's one of those threshold things like you mentioned in your post (upper-body strength for longbow).

A huge number of tasks are like this, once you really stop and think about them; way too complicated to accurately model in a simple way, even after you get past how abstract PnP RPGs already are.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Perhaps, just as an academic exercise, we should maybe arbitrarily assign a bit different methods of using the stats for determining to hit and damage bonuses. One of my major gripes in the melee system has since the early ages been the reliance on Str. I get that strong people can hit harder, but especially in armed fighting, harder does not mean more accurate (just look in system for the power attack feats). I know finesse weapons partially address this issue, but not completely.

What i would propose is the "minimum attribute needed" adjusted by a secondary requirement. If Str determines how hard you hit, and how well you can maintain muscle control when doing strenuous activities (like wielding a weapon), and Dex determines your hand to eye coordination, then how about each weapon having meaningful minimal strength requirements but the overall to hit bonus being more dependent on proficiency (training) and dexterity (talent)? I.E.
Dagger: Min Str:3
Short Sword: Min Str:6
Arming sword: Min Str: 10
Long sword/bastard sword: Min Str 12
Flail: Min Str: 14
Mace: Min Str:11 and so on.....

Str will still be the primary damage modifier and if you want to get real pedantic (and possibly overload the system) you can impose special bonuses for the type of damage dealt by the weapon. Like blunt weapons deal additional +1 damage for every +2 bonus you get from Str, while piercing damage could get its +1 from every +2 bonus of Dex and finally slashing weapons would get their +1 from every +2 bonus in proficiency. This would imply slashing weapons are the most "martial" ones, piercing the most "finesse" ones and bludgeoning weapons the most "brutish" ones...... This variation might require a return of the proficiency point though, unless you want to make different weapons effectiveness depending on what level the character is...... which is a bit too restrictive for me tastes. I certainly would not like to be less effective with slashing weapons just because i am not a high enough level.

I'd put IQ as the prime attribute for picking locks and disarming traps. Sort of like being a surgeon. Yes, you also have to have steady hands, but that's one of those threshold things like you mentioned in your post (upper-body strength for longbow).

A huge number of tasks are like this, once you really stop and think about them; way too complicated to accurately model in a simple way, even after you get past how abstract PnP RPGs already are.

That will also work and bring the rogues closer to their 2E thief cousins. I would go with this duality for most of the stats, skills and attributes actually. Like mixing constitution and wisdom (willpower) to determine how hard a character is to go down (Hit Points).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'd put IQ as the prime attribute for picking locks and disarming traps. Sort of like being a surgeon. Yes, you also have to have steady hands, but that's one of those threshold things like you mentioned in your post (upper-body strength for longbow).

A huge number of tasks are like this, once you really stop and think about them; way too complicated to accurately model in a simple way, even after you get past how abstract PnP RPGs already are.

But doesn't proficiency already help to model this "overlap" phenomenon?

Let's say medicine is considered primarily an "intuit when to do what" thing. Thus, it is a WIS skill. Anyone with a decent wisdom can get by with the basics. A high wisdom means you are quite good at it naturally. With proficiency you have the steady hands and serious practical hands on know-how to perform at a high level. Combined that with that high wisdom raw talent, and now you are amazing at it.

But, let's say instead you aren't the sharpest pencil in the box. So maybe you don't always "intuit when to do what" quickly enough in every situation. But you are still proficient, so you still have those steady hands and basic know-how to be able to power your way though none-the-less and hope for the best.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

But doesn't proficiency already help to model this "overlap" phenomenon?

It does up to point. And it's what i like about 5E the most. Training (proficiency) seams to matter as much or more then raw talent. However, at times i do miss the chance to differentiate a bit more between proficiency points or levels. And sometimes i'm not sure if the difference is great enough.