Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Strength is agile
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6819806" data-attributes="member: 6804148"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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. </p><p>Dagger: Min Str:3</p><p>Short Sword: Min Str:6</p><p>Arming sword: Min Str: 10</p><p>Long sword/bastard sword: Min Str 12</p><p>Flail: Min Str: 14</p><p>Mace: Min Str:11 and so on.....</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TheLoneRanger1979, post: 6819806, member: 6804148"] 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. 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Strength is agile
Top