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

[Azlan]

First of all, armour absorbing damage is not really realistic.

Wrong! The primary effect of armor *is* absorbing damage; its secondary effect is deflecting damage. Wearing armor makes you harder to damage, not harder to hit.

Second, if you want to do it that way, why play D&D?

I want it "that way" because I'm hoping that if enough DMs and players switch over to some kind of "armor DR" house rules system, that it will somehow be incorporated into 4th Edition D&D (if and when that ever comes).

If you fight with a dagger against a guy in plate, the armour makes it harder to hit. That's ok for everyone?

Thing is, with 3E D&D the way it is, you have the same chance to penetrate heavy armor with a dagger that you do with a greatsword -- and that's just silly.

Btw: This should be in Houserules.

Maybe so. But the focus of my post here was not to present a set of alternative rules for "Dex instead of Str for melee attack rolls" and for "Armor absorbing damage instead of making it harder to hit". Instead, I merely wanted to debate the need for those alternative rules, in the first place.

 

[Azlan]

i might be wrong here but iirc the reason why people in the renaissance stopped wearing heavy armor was the appearance of the flintlock and muskets later on as well

That is correct. (Well, mostly.)

But my entire statement was: 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.)

The conclusion I was trying to make is not *why*, historically, fighters in the Renaissance gradually stopped wearing heavy armor; but *how* it would've been a great boon for fighters wielding rapiers to wear heavy armor *if* they were allowed their full Dex/finesse bonus to attack with, while wearing that armor.

 

[Celebrim]

Wrong! The primary effect of armor *is* absorbing damage; its secondary effect is deflecting damage. Wearing armor makes you harder to damage, not harder to hit.

You really didn't listen to darklone did you? Is that a direct quote from GURPS?

You've probably never swung a sword in your life and you are suddenly the expert on the physical interaction between a blade and a sheet of metal. He was trying to tell you something about the the difference between an expert swordsman and a skilled amatuer, but I don't think you caught it.

I have met several people before that having only experienced the D&D game system, make the assumption that from D&D you can draw various conclusions about reality and never notice D&D's unrealistic simplifications. This is the first time however I've met someone with the same problem after having been exposed to GURPS.

For one thing, don't you notice that GURPS is forced to eventually complicate its own system to take into account the fact it falls on its face with regards to really high armors and damages. In fact with really high armors and damages (as for vehicals), it gets plain stupid. To compensate, suddenly GURPS starts introducing these arbitrary penetration modifiers (double damage for purposes of bypassing armor, or divide armor by 10 when struck by this weapon, etc.) GURPS is forced to do that with high end damage because the problem becomes glaringly obvious, but it exists right down to the level of swords, clubs, and daggers. GURPS just chooses to by and large not address the issue because it wants to avoid slowing down combat too much.

 

[Azlan]

D&D tries to balance everything in the game versus every similar thing in the game - strength, dexterity, and charisma are supposed to be equally useful (at least in theory).

Statements similar to that have been made several times, throughout this discussion. But even the DM's Guide admits that not all ability scores are equal. Take a look at the "Ability Score Equivalences" table on page 24, and read the adjoining paragraphs, to see for yourself.

 

[Bauglir]

Well if I picture myself about to try and hit someone with a sword, I can see 2 approaches -

1. I can try and make a careful, precise strike, designed to take advantage of any weaknesses in my foe's armour, as well as to anticipate and lead any attempt to dodge away from the attack. This method would of course require some finesse and would be a feat of skill to pull off. Without practice this fighting style would be nearly impossible. More likely I'd go for option..

2. I can swing my sword as hard as I can at my foe, using all my strength. The stronger I am, the faster I can swing it (and therefore the less time my foe has to react and avoid the blow), and if the blow does connect, there's a good chance it'll punch right through that armour.. (or at least rattle them about inside it)

 

[Azlan]

You've probably never swung a sword in your life and you are suddenly the expert on the physical interaction between a blade and a sheet of metal.

There you go again, making personal assumptions about me.



Well, I *have* swung a real sword, numerous times in my life. And I've been a participant in the SCA. And I've been a student of Medieval/Renaissance history. And I have read numerous history and textbooks on Medieval/Renaissance arms & armor, which reside on my bookshelf and I refer to often. And I have gamemastered and played in many different RPGs for the past 20 years so. And...

And all that, plus a $1.50, will buy me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.



What I'm trying to say here is, judge me on the merits and validity of my statements here, and not on what you assume I have done (or, as you argue, I have not done) in my personal life.

 

[Essence]

<grimaces>

OK, I've never been in an honest fight with a sword. But I've studied iaijutsu (katana), ninpo taijutsu (ninjato and aiguchi with lots of other random toys), and kobujitsu (naginata and sai with lots of other random toys), as well as doing a whole bunch of live-action RPing with foam-and-kitespar swords and homemade chain- and scale-mail, and the occasional breastplate.

I can tell you this: the foam swords give a huge advantage to light, fast fighters, because they can change the direction of their swings and parry far more easily with the foam swords than they ever could with a wooden sword, much less a metal one.

And even with that advantage, the stronger fighters usually had a distinct advantage "to hit". Specifically, the stronger fighters could stop a swing that was obviously going to miss more easily, they could parry with enough force to throw the attacker off-balance, and they could blow through the parries of a weaker opponent.

I'm stronger than I am dextrous, but I've fought with a sabre against a bastard sword (both padded for training, but the same theories apply), and I can tell you, I was hard pressed to find an opening when the bastard sword was wielded by someone with a modicum of strength, even if he wasn't as well-trained as I was with my sabre. When we switched weapons, and I was "in my element" so to speak, the battle was even more one-sided.

As to armor: with light, foam swords, it sucks. <grin> You're much better off with the mobility when someone's weapon can follow you as easily as a foam bat will. Armor Check Penalty...truer words were never spoken.


Just the experience of a random college schmoe.


Essence
Champion of the Heterodoxy

 

[Celebrim]

Bauglir: Well it is slightly more complex than that. The situation is similar to that of hitting baseballs with a bat. The stronger person certainly has an advantage in such a contest (not necessarily I might note the speedier, Babe Ruth being notoriously slow footed compared to the average baseball player), but nearly as important as strength is _where you hit the ball_. A skilled batter contacts the ball dead center of the bat, in a portion of the bat designed to maximize the leverage of the batter and the time the ball is in contact with the bat. This results in the maximum transfer of energy to the ball and a good solid hit.

The situation is similar when dealing with a blade. Imagine that the batter was now swining a sword at the ball with the intention of cutting it in two. Now, he must contact the ball dead center, least its curving shape cause the ball to be deflected away by the blow and the ball only recieve a nick. More importantly, he must contact the ball in such a way that the blade of the sword is turn perpendicular to the plane of contact. If the blade contacts at an angle, it is the same (or worse) as hitting the ball on the curved edge. Only a portion of the blade's energy goes to cutting, and the remainder causes the blade and the ball to turn away, resulting in a glancing blow.

Experienced katana users note that a woman's first stroke with a katana generally does more damage than a novice man's, because the man tends to put too much power in his swing (before his ability to control such power) and does not make a clean cut on the target.

So in the case of swinging say a greatsword at an armored target using all your strength, unless your blow is clean we stop looking entirely at the ability of the armor to resist shearing forces and start looking at the armors ability to resist deformation and thereby turn the blade. It's possible that you'd hit the armor and crush and mangle it, or just tear it, or just bounce off.

 

[Bauglir]

Well it's more complicated of course (isn't it always )

I think any discussion on the matter would have to assume a simplified situation, bearing in mind that we're trying to equate a real situation with a 'best-fit' ruleset.

It's an assumption that the 'strong' fighter aims for a direct (clean) hit with the sword. Their relative degree of success is represented by their attack roll, made more difficult by the target attempting to get out of the way (After all, a set of full plate on a wooden dummy still grants the dummy AC8 - a direct hit is not guaranteed). My understanding of plate is that it functions somewhat similarly to the baseball example, where non-dead-center blows will simply glance off, with little impact on the wearer. What this means mechanically is that the plate wearer doesn't have to move as far to be safe from an incoming blow as a leather wearer.

The 'finesse' fighter focusses less on powering through the armour, and more on exploiting weaknesses in it, for example jabbing a rapier into joints.

Now whether or not this is how actual medieval combats were carried out I don't know. I doubt it.. mind you I also doubt they had wizards to throw fireballs in medieval times - D&D represents a fantasy world, where reality can sometimes bend a little for the sake of fun, much like a good action movie - I'm sure everyone's seen the various web pages about action movie physics..

My angle was to start with the ruleset, and to try and see how it might make sense, were I the character and not the player..

 

[Azlan]

My understanding of plate is that it functions somewhat similarly to the baseball example, where non-dead-center blows will simply glance off, with little impact on the wearer.

If deflection were the primary benefit armor, and not absorbtion, then you could make plate armor out of aluminum and still have pretty much the same benefit -- but, of course, that would be foolish. Afterall, breastplates have been around since the Bronze Age, yet a breastplate made out of bronze (or boiled leather, for that matter) is vastly inferior to one made out of steel.

So, I say that absorbtion should be at the crux of any combat rules for armor (and for weapons being used again armor), with deflection being a secondary factor. Yet D&D has this backwards.

Which, I guess, is the main reason why Str gives a bonus for melee attacks and not Dex. (Of course, all along my argument has been that this, too, is backwards.)