Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="comrade raoul" data-source="post: 859513" data-attributes="member: 554">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.</blockquote>

Verification