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

[Piratecat]

Azlan,

D&D uses strength instead of dexterity to determine melee attack rolls for several reasons:

1. It provides differentiation between melee and ranged attacks, assuring that one or the other will tend to be preferred by any character

2. It reinforces D&D's tradition of having effective front-line warriors depend on their muscles instead of their reaction time

3. As written, strength is considered the most valuable stat. With default melee attack adjustments modified by dexterity, it was concluded that dex would become the most valuable stat above and beyond the degree to which strength already occupied that position. In other words, dex would suddenly become the uber-stat in a way that strength never was.

Make no mistake, using strength for melee attacks is a sacred cow and one of the things that defines D&D. Don't interpret that fact to mean that it's "simply a carryover from 1st Edition D&D." It's a conscious design decision.

I am left with the impression that the style of combat mechanics that you're looking for in a game falls more towards the "simulation" than the abstraction. D&D combat is definitely an abstraction that's tweaked towards fast, fun combat. Back during playtesting I yammered for a parrying mechanice to be added to the rules. The designers decided not to, because that was a simulation already covered by other abstract mechanics such as expertise.

There's a general guideline mentioned in this month's Dragon that if a house rule doesn't improve the game, there's no point in having it. Other than a nebulous assurance that using dex to hit is more realistic, I can't come up with any significant advantages to that system.. although I can easily think of quite a few disadvantages. It seems to me to be change for the sake of change, and not for a concrete improvement in gameplay.

Hey, on a moderator-y level, it's a fine thing to encourage discussion. It's less cool to approach it with an agenda or an unwillingness to understand other peoples' points of view. When someone like Hong starts saying "Welcome to the club," it's time to make sure that you're trying to keep an open mind.

 

[Piratecat]

Oh, almost forgot. If you want to pursue the armor/DR discussion, please start another thread in House Rules and link it in this thread. I'd just as soon not move this thread over because the focus changed.

 

[Celebrim]

"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."

I think you have that backward. If absorbtion was the primary benefit of armor, then you could make it out of aluminum and it would still have pretty much the same benefit. 'Absorbtion' of force depends on armor's ability to distribute the impact of a blow across a wider surface area, and to slow down the blow by turning the damage into mechanical deformation. Deflecting the blow depends upon the armors ability to minimize the time that the force is applied to the armor. Absorbtion is more a matter of thickness than type of material. If absorbtion was the primary benefit, a relatively thick layer of lightweight aluminum would be just as effective as a thinner layer of face hardened steel. The reason that steel is better than iron, and iron better than bronze, principally has to do with the materials ability to avoid being 'bitten' by the blow of another hard material.

But really, this is all simplification and to get realistic we need to start resolving blows with physics equations.

Which clearly doesn't make as good of a pen and paper game system as abstracting the system somewhat.

Why are you convinced that there is one good way to do it?

 

[Darklone]

Azlan, if you think you want a system like you described, look around for Ken Hoods (I think it was him) Grim 'n Gritty rules. It's exactly what you want.

About realistic combat: Yeah, I've been doing all that martial arts stuff, fencing, archery, LARPing and last but not least medieval swordfighting. With real swords (blunted edge), not those 3kg uber steel clubs that some people think are medieval swords.

My experience against armoured targets was: You score a hit or you don't. You don't hit him just a little bit cause the armour absorbed part of your "damage". Archers against armoured targets: Either you hit or you don't. Hitpoints are another matter though (Oops, that's the 15th arrow that hit me today...)

If you hit him just a little bit, then the armour "deflects" or "absorbs" or "however you wanna call it" all. I don't count bruises though. (That's subdual damage IMHO )

As for D&D: As many guys said, change their definition of the attributes, and you need a totally different system which will not necessarily be more realistic. Actually, IMHO D&D is pretty realistic concerning armours.

 

[Petrosian]

Regarding the dagger and greatsword penetrate equally well and the notion that that is somehow wrong...

DnD is intended to streamline combat and to focus decisions on various elements. Its also intended to encourage FANTASY style characters and events, not REAL LIFE or historical simulationist.

In REAL WORLD, their would not be a dagger guy character expecting to do well at all against a plated fighter.

In fantasy, the dagger expert rogue should not be a character eliminated from consideration because of trolls supertough hide and the plate armor hanging offf most of his adversaries after the early levels.

Weapon selection in fantasy novels and characters is often more of a statement about the character's personality and is only rarely a choice reflecting the actual combat intricacies and differences of the weapons.

DND, by not delving too far into those differences, does anyone recall the never used weapon vs armor type chart from 1e?, leaves that vital aspect to a large extent to character flavor.

If you don't like the str adds tohit and armor is block not reduce, then house rule them. As you observe, if enough people play that way, not if enough people argue that way, then it may change later.

However, if inciting change by popular fiat is your goal, actual play results is a better tack than sustaining a one-vs-many thread which simply points to your opinion being a minority one.

Come back in house rules a year from now with a detailed rules set that works better and see if that gets a different response than "maybe dnd is wrong?" repeated over and over.

or, not. your call.

enjoy your games.

 

[Azlan]

[This was formerly a reply that was inadvertantly posted twice, but could not be deleted.]

 

[Azlan]

D&D uses strength instead of dexterity to determine melee attack rolls for several reasons:

1. It provides differentiation between melee and ranged attacks, assuring that one or the other will tend to be preferred by any character

2. It reinforces D&D's tradition of having effective front-line warriors depend on their muscles instead of their reaction time

I see. So, D&D is no more a simluation of medieval combat than is a console game like Final Fantasy, and all the medieval armor and weapons are, for the most part, mere costumes and props.

Hmm... Maybe I *really* should consider switching to another system besides 3E D&D (much as I like most of the other aspects of it). Because, with D&D seems to come a certain mindset that somehow just doesn't jibe with me.

3. As written, strength is considered the most valuable stat. With default melee attack adjustments modified by dexterity, it was concluded that dex would become the most valuable stat above and beyond the degree to which strength already occupied that position. In other words, dex would suddenly become the uber-stat in a way that strength never was.

As I've already stated, Dex would not be the uber-stat if the "Max Dex Bonus" restriction for wearing armor was placed on attack rolls, Reflex saves, etc., as well as on AC.

Make no mistake, using strength for melee attacks is a sacred cow and one of the things that defines D&D.

Yes, and the fact that it *is* a sacred cow is indicative of what we're dealing with here. And evidently there are many D&D sacred cows.

I am left with the impression that the style of combat mechanics that you're looking for in a game falls more towards the "simulation" than the abstraction.

More towards simulation, yes, but not so much so that D&D becomes bogged down with rules and tables (as in GURPS or RoleMaster). I believe there's a happy medium, somewhere.

There's a general guideline mentioned in this month's Dragon that if a house rule doesn't improve the game, there's no point in having it. Other than a nebulous assurance that using dex to hit is more realistic, I can't come up with any significant advantages to that system

Truthfully, the whole "Dex instead of (or in addition to) Str for melee attack rolls" is but one thread; yet, as evidenced here, when that thread is pulled out and examined, many other things start coming unravelled.

Hey, on a moderator-y level, it's a fine thing to encourage discussion. It's less cool to approach it with an agenda or an unwillingness to understand other peoples' points of view.

This has become more a debate than a discussion. Clearly, my views on this matter are unpopular here. Now, I am willing and able to understand other people's points of view; but for every point presented by those who disagree with me, in this post, I cannot help but present a counterpoint, since I see flaws and inconsistencies in their logic.

For example, I said: "If deflection were the primary benefit of armor, and not absorbtion, then you could make plate armor out of aluminum and still have pretty much the same benefit."

To which Celebrim replied: "If absorbtion was the primary benefit of armor, then you could make it out of aluminum and it would still have pretty much the same benefit... Absorbtion is more a matter of thickness than type of material."

To this illogical and unscientific statement, I must reply: "If absorbtion is more a matter of thickness than type of material, then 12" of cheddar cheese will stop a greatsword better than a 1/4" of steel, right?"

 

[Azlan]

Come back in house rules a year from now with a detailed rules set that works better and see if that gets a different response than "maybe dnd is wrong?" repeated over and over.

Heh. That's something I had in mind, all along. But I thought I'd test the waters, here, to see what kind of reaction I'd get.



BTW: When 3E D&D first came out, I was surprised by how many DMs and players I met who were so entrenched and enamored with 2nd Edition D&D, they got all riled up and bent out of shape over the release of a radical new set of D&D rules. (Myself, I was excited and receptive about it, from the get-go.)

Truly, people in general are adverse to change and to new, radical ideas.

 

[Azlan]

Weapon selection in fantasy novels and characters is often more of a statement about the character's personality and is only rarely a choice reflecting the actual combat intricacies and differences of the weapons.

Right. It's style over substance. I'm getting that, now. (But, then, I tend to be hard-headed.)

 

[AuraSeer]

Are you actually reading anyone else's posts? Or is this just an improvisational game of Mad Libs you're playing in your head?