Why is Str used for melee attack rolls instead of Dex?

[Azlan]

Well, gee! Judging from the replies here, it looks like D&D is the only RPG that has it right, and all those other RPGs are wrong.

Because "to hit" in D&D really means "to damage". The stronger you are, the more likely you will get a damaging blow through the target's defenses.

What if that "target's defenses" are due mostly to his Dex, the Dodge feat, a Tumble bonus, and so forth. What if you're attacking a monk wearing no armor at all: should your Str, and not your Dex, really give you a bonus to attack in this situation?

And why is your Str bonus included in touch attacks... ?

Plus Max Dex bonus from armor only effects AC, nothing else.

That doesn't seem right.

If a combatant with Dex 20 has Weapon Finesse with a flashing rapier, should he get his full Dex bonus to attack with that weapon while wearing platemail? (If that were the case, then fighters in the late Renaissance period wouldn't have quit wearing armor altogether as they gradually switched over to more agile weapons such as rapiers.)

And should a combatant wearing full plate armor be as dextrous with a longbow as he would be, wearing leather armor or none as all?

Strength equals more power and more speed. Without str, your ability to weild those weapons is severly penalized, because weilding a longsword for any period of time, and it gets HEAVY!!

A higher Str does give you more power, but it does *not* give you *more* speed. A high Str keeps you from being slowed down from wielding a big, heavy weapon. But if you're a slow, clumsy oaf to begin with, having a higher Str won't make you any faster.

From all the games i've been in by 15th level or so that just isn't true. 15 BAB, +8-11 str bonus, +4-5 weapon, +2-5 misc (bardic music, prayer, weapon focus, size, ect).

Yes, but in the example you gave (which I guess *is* typical for a 15th level fighter), the BAB is the *lead* contributing factor, which is what I was talking about. And consider the example of a 1st level fighter: +1 BAB, +3 Str bonus, +2 misc (Focus feat, masterwork weapon, etc.). Here, Str is the lead contributing factor.

I reiterate: It's only during a PC's first few levels that his Str bonus is a lead contributing factor in his melee attack rolls -- and it's during those first few levels that opponents are least likely to be the kind wearing the heavier armors (or having the "heavier" natural armors).

 

[SpikeyFreak]

And why is your Str bonus included in touch attacks... ?

Strength has a lot more to do with hitting (or touching) someone than you seem to realize.

If a 10 year old tries to touch me, I don't just twist and turn out of the way, I deflect his attempts. If I'm stronger than him, this is much easier to do. If he's stronger than me, its much harder to do (and I'm a real wuss if a 10 year old is stronger than I am).

I think its believable enough not to mess with because it will really cause a lot of strangeness if you change it.

--Simplistic Spikey

 

[Azlan]

If a 10 year old tries to touch me, I don't just twist and turn out of the way, I deflect his attempts. If I'm stronger than him, this is much easier to do.

Avoiding the "touch attack" of a 10-year-old has less to do with your superior Str than it does your superior height and reach. Besides: If you "deflect" his attempts, you probably still have been "touched" by him. (That's why your shield bonus, if you had one, wouldn't be counted toward your avoiding a touch attack.)

If that 10-year-old dug a bugger out of his nose and tried to wipe it on you, your superior Str would avail you little. Sure, you could use brute Str to knock him aside and send him sprawling, but you'd probably still end up with a bugger on your forearm.

 

[AuraSeer]

Well, gee wiz! Judging from the replies here, it looks like D&D is the only RPG that has it right, and all those other RPGs are wrong.

No one is claiming that this is the only right way. They're just saying that the d20 way can be logically supported in its own context; that doesn't necessarily mean GURPS or Champions or Werewolf are internally inconsistent.

It's just a game, after all. In reality, there are extremely complex interactions between speed and strength, which no game system tries to model faithfully. (I dunno about you, but I don't want separate stats for my bicep strength and my deltoid strength and the amount of stretch in my achilles tendon. Life's too short.)

 

[Azlan]

No one is claiming that this is the only right way. They're just saying that the d20 way can be logically supported in its own context; that doesn't necessarily mean GURPS or Champions or Werewolf are internally inconsistent.

The point I was trying to make is: If out of twenty of the leading RPGs, nineteen of those RPGs use Dex as the primary attribute for attacking with weapons (regardless of whether they're melee or missile weapons), and only one of those RPGs uses Str, then maybe the oddball RPG is more wrong than right in this matter, and not visa versa.

Myself, I think using Str and not Dex bonuses to attack with, with all melee weapons, is simply a carryover from 1st Edition D&D.

It's just a game, after all.

Of course. And it's just a debate, after all.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, for that matter, strength and dexterity are not indepedent measurements of physical skill. No published RPG uses realistic dexterity rules anyway, so why worry about it? (GULLIVER's natural encumbrance rules come closest.) You make it sound as if Str and Dex could be reasonably calculated as independent variables. I dare say that you have not played all that many organized sports, and I know you aren't a gymnest.

How other RPG's handle thier affairs is irrelevant. 95% of all CRPG's use D&D's familiar hit point system (and for that matter it is pervasive in first person shooters of various sorts as well), but that is hardly a realistic system. It is merely a conveinent and familiar abstraction.

What makes you think that you can compare a system using completely different measurements to D&D? D&D is predicated on entirely different assumptions. D&D uses completely different abstractions to keep combat simple enough that it doesn't bog the game down. Other systems use thier own abstractions with varying degrees of success.

Every system breaks down somewhere near one or more of its abstractions and produces seemingly illogical results. You have cited a breakdown near the touch attack boundary using the standard rules, but conversely using dexterity to determine 'to hit' would breakdown every bit as bad near the boundary of total armor for the simple reason that neither dexterity nor strength fully accounts for the dual nature of D&D's armor abstraction. But then, no system fully accounts for reality when it abstracts armor and if you were as familiar with those systems as you claim you'd know that.

For that matter, you'd probably have enough rules knowledge to devise a good fix rather than spouting some (pardon me but) naivity about using dexterity to determine to hit bonuses.

D&D has already made a big step forward towards a more realistic system at the cost of a slight degree of more complexity when it separated AC into named bonuses. This was a house rule of mine as far back as 12 years ago, so if you had some playing experience this would have not been an unexpected change.

A more realistic system would take the extra step of separating the attack bonuses into named bonuses - notably into two camps: 'accuracy' and 'penetration'. Weapons of various types would have enherent 'accuracy' and 'penetration' bonues depending on their nature. Strength would contribute to penetration. Dexterity would likewise contribute to accuracy. AC's in general would need to be bumped upwards by 4-8 points depending on your system to keep things balanced. Accuracy would not count against armor bonuses. Penetration would not count against dodge bonuses. Your various objections would disappear, but they would do so at the cost of keeping track of two or three other modifiers per attack, and making up to two additional math calculations per attack.

But talking about fixing the problem by shifting the burden from strength to dexterity is to be frank quite ridiculous, and comments about D&D being the oddball RPG that has got it all wrong are just lame and shows me you hadn't done alot of thinking about this before you decided to open your mouth and stick your tongue out at the board and the game's designers.

 

[Geoff Watson]

What RPGs are you talking about anyway?
I can only think of two off the top of my head that use just Dexterity for melee attacks (Gurps and HERO). I can think of others that use Strength only (Shadowrun), both (Mechwarrior) or something else (BESM uses Body, Mind, and Soul).

Geoff.

 

[Gumby]

Somebody get a torch and a bucket of acid.

 

[Azlan]

Originally posted by Celebrim
You make it sound as if Str and Dex could be reasonably calculated as independent variables.

If Intelligence and Wisdom can be calculated as independent variables, why can't Str and Dex?

I dare say that you have not played all that many organized sports, and I know you aren't a gymnest.

You "know"... ? What, you make this personal assumption about my non-RPGing endeavors based on my debate, here? P-lease. Give me a break.

How other RPG's handle thier affairs is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Don't you realize, most of the "innovations" -- i.e. the game mechanics and concepts -- in 3E D&D were taken from other RPGs that came out after 1st and 2nd Editions D&D?

95% of all CRPG's use D&D's familiar hit point system... It is merely a conveinent and familiar abstraction.

So, then, are you saying D&D nowadays is more in league with "arcadey, Diablo-like" computer RPGs than it is with its true peers, the "pencil & paper, tabletop, person-to-person" RPGs?

D&D uses completely different abstractions to keep combat simple enough that it doesn't bog the game down.

Heh. I've seen the myriad rules for attacks of opportunity, for flanking, and for the various combat actions (normal, partial, full-round, move-equivalent, etc.) bog the game down. Not that I'm suggesting we do away with any of those rules, but just that "abstraction" and "simplicity" are not the be all to end all, in 3E D&D.

...and if you were as familiar with those systems as you claim you'd know that. For that matter, you'd probably have enough rules knowledge to devise a good fix rather than spouting some (pardon me but) naivity about using dexterity to determine to hit bonuses.

Again with the personal assumptions (attacks?) on me. Well, at least this time you're assuming things about me regarding my RPGing endeavors.

...and comments about D&D being the oddball RPG that has got it all wrong are just lame and shows me you hadn't done alot of thinking about this before you decided to open your mouth and stick your tongue out at the board and the game's designers.

I didn't say D&D has got it *all* wrong, or even suggest that. I didn't even say or suggest that D&D has got it *mostly* wrong. The focus of the discussion here was, as the title says, "Why is Str used for melee attack rolls instead of Dex?"

Now it's my turn to make a personal assumption: Judging by how you're getting bent all out of shape, here, over what I've said; and by how you're twisting around what I've said and expounding upon it (with seemingly your own agenda); I dare say that you, Celebrim, are a D&D zealot. And I *know* you are a D&D rules lawyer.

 

[hong]

Hello, Azlan! Welcome to our friendly mailing list!