Totally Reprising Strength

[Mike Sullivan]

Okay, so dig this:

What if Strength didn't give you a bonus to hit with melee weapons -- instead, Dexterity did.

However, Strength gave you twice the normal damage bonus with one-handed weapons (three times your strength bonus to damage with two-handed weapons, one time your normal damage bonus with an off-hand weapon). Penalties are a flat -2*Str Penalty.

Ignore, for the moment, class balance -- just consider Fighters for a while. Would Strength be a worthwhile stat to get/boost/spend money on/beg the Wizard to spend spells on? Or would you just ratchet up Dexterity until your nose bled?

Then, that said, would Rogues become overdominant with their Sneak Attack/High Dex Already Thanks So Much?

Would archers be a problem?

 

[comrade raoul]

First, if you're doubling bonuses, why not use a more gradual rate and just use (Str - 10) for melee damage bonuses? (that is, odd-numbered strength scores provide odd-numbered bonuses).

I imagine fighters would probably value strength and dexterity roughly equally -- melee damage is important, after all, and the payoff of a higher strength would be very significant. Almost nobody would wear heavy armor, as most mid-to-high level fighters would invest in a high enough dexterity for mithril chain shirts and the like.

Rogues probably wouldn't change very much. I imagine that your system would in essence just give rogues Weapon Finesse for free -- a feat that almost all rogues take. Since most serious combat rogues fight with Finesse, they'd hardly change at all.

Archers wouldn't change very much either. If anything, they might be more balanced, as the additional strength would probably benefit melee combatants to a greater extent. Would the best mighty composite bows offer +8 bonuses to damage, or just +4?

The biggest change I see is that melee combat would become much more dangerous. An orc with a greataxe would become a very serious threat to a low-level party. One hit with that greataxe would deal 1d12+6 damage -- which would almost always take out relatively frail low-level characters in one hit and stand a very good chance of downing even the tougher fighters or barbarians.

At high levels -- as melee monsters tend to get strength scores in the 20s or 30s -- things would change even more drastically. I hate to imagine a fire giant with a two-handed weapon.

The problems with heavy armor and high-strength monsters would prevent me from using this system in a campaign.

edit: Also, two-handed styles would dominate, as the extra strength damage would make shields much less desirable. Consider the 18 Str, mid-level fighter -- he'd be silly to choose the +3 AC, 1d8+9 (average 13.5) +1 shield and +1 longsword combo over the 2d6+13 (average 20) +1 greatsword option.

(one more revision): But come to think of it, the melee monsters I mentioned earlier would likely be much less accurate than they are now, as they tend to have significantly greater Strength than Dexterity. A Str 40, Dex 10 great wyrm would kill most characters in one bite, but likely hit only on a 20.

 

[Technik4]

As comrade_raoul said, I think your system breaks down at higher levels of play and makes Dex the uber stat. I wouldn't write off rogues getting this for free so easily. TWF is soon to become 1 feat cheaper, and feat choosing used to be the hardest part about playing a straight rogue (why low level rogues found it irresistable to multi into fighter).

I think the only stat that needs serious reprisal would be CHA, as it affects so little (though so much more than previous editions).

Technik

 

[Mike Sullivan]

First, if you're doubling bonuses, why not use a more gradual rate and just use (Str - 10) for melee damage bonuses? (that is, odd-numbered strength scores provide odd-numbered bonuses).

That's probably what I'd actually do if I went this route, but I figured it would be easier to describe it as "double strength bonus."

Would the best mighty composite bows offer +8 bonuses to damage, or just +4?

I don't know. Probably +8.

The biggest change I see is that melee combat would become much more dangerous. An orc with a greataxe would become a very serious threat to a low-level party. One hit with that greataxe would deal 1d12+6 damage -- which would almost always take out relatively frail low-level characters in one hit and stand a very good chance of downing even the tougher fighters or barbarians.

Right, though his chance of hitting would drop significantly.

I don't really like first level very much -- I prefer to start at 2nd or 3rd, so the one-hit-kills thing doesn't bother me too much (and I don't consider it a fundamentally bad thing that strong Orc wielding a two-handed axe is likely to take out a very inexperienced character in one hit).

At high levels -- as melee monsters tend to get strength scores in the 20s or 30s -- things would change even more drastically. I hate to imagine a fire giant with a two-handed weapon.

Yeah... That would be my big problem, I think. Not so much that they do a lot of damage, but the combination of unlikely hitting and high damage makes the whole thing a rather silly lottery.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

[Norfleet]

I wouldn't say strength would become less useful even with the linkage between to-hit and strength reduced. Strength's primary purpose for many non-strength oriented characters already has less and less to do with to-hit. Strength's real purpose lies in your character's ability to loot and pillage. Without a high strength, the character lacks the ability to loot his surroundings, which cuts into his income.