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

[Celebrim]

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

Only if you accept that absorbtion is a more important quality than deflection, which I don't. Clearly cheddar is very bad at deflecting a blow from a steel greatsword. Could be the fact that cheddar doesn't deflect blows very well, and steel is well steel.

You really don't listen to anyone do you?

BTW, I'd be courious as to how well 12" of cheddar cheese would protect against a cludgel, having dealt with more than a few 12" blocks of cheddar cheese in my day (but never having oppurtunity to try to smash them with a cludgel). Of course, armor of 12" chedder would be impractical due to weight, but then so would armor of 1/4" steel. I'd also like to know whether you'd like to jump off the roof of your house in a suit of chainmail or wearing sofa cushions strapped to your body? How about when someone is trying to stab you with a knife? Or best yet, which would you rather have on your chest when I hit you with a sledgehammer - a 1/4" steel plate, or a 1/16" of steel on top a block of cheedar? Which one do you think is going to absorb the most damage?

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.

Well, arguably, yes. What is your point? That final fantasy is not a good game? That D&D is not a good game? That a game is not a good game uless it is a simulation of medieval combat? I've got some bad news for you. Rolling dice on paper is no more a simulation of medieval combat than cooking an apple pie. And there isn't any game system out there that perfectly models combat. All the PD/DR values of GURPS armor were grapped out of the air just like D&D AC, becuase they made a logical progession, not because anyone was testing them. GURPS takes liberties with the system for simplification just like D20 does. For instance, combining passive defence and active defence into one number for simplicity.

Please, if you want to learn abit about the difficulties of achieving what you want to achieve, I strongly encourage you to read GULLIVER. It is a highly interesting study in a very gifted rules smiths quest to obtain versimulitude in his favorite rules system. It is a beautiful thing to behold. It is also utterly impracticle as a rules system (though he has alot of good ideas worth stealing).

 

[Petrosian]

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

I just cannot resist... on the off chance that you thought the "style over substance" was a derogatory shot...

You should realize, that when trying to take a dramatic fiction and translate it into an interactive entertaining event, "style" IS "substance."

 

[Vanguard]

Above modifications all worked out

As mentioned above, Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty rules provide a well thought out solution to all the above problems. However, his rules make some extra assumptions that you may or may not like.

The PDF of the rules can be found at:
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/srd/sleepingimperium/downloads/GrimNGrittyHitPointRules.pdf

[Sorry, I know it was requested to discuss these kinds of things further in the House Rules section, but it seemed more practical to put it here than to post there and then post here saying, "Look over in the other thread"]

 

[SpikeyFreak]

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.

Nope.

I'm speaking from experience. I had a younger brother growing up who was kind of the nerdy type when he was younger, and I was more of a jock. When he would get mad at me, he couldn't touch me. Literally. That booger wouldn't even get close.

I don't think you understand what's happening when you try to keep someone from touching you. You don't get a shield bonus because you can't just stick your shield in the way. But you can use your weapons and hands to hit the other person on the wrist and foerarms without getting touched. If you are stronger, this is easier. Myabe not to the degree it is in real life, but it a factor.

To use dex instead of str as a modifier to melee attacks would be just as unrealistic. Someone using a longsword who has a 14 dex and a 8 str shouldn't get a bonus to attacks. He wouldn't be strong enough to control the weapon in a way that would provide him with a bonus.

Plus, when you say that armor absorbs damage, and its dumb that this isn't how it is in D&D, you aren't thinking about hip points. One of the things that represent are little nicks and bruises. If you hit a 100HP plate armored warrior and do 10 HP of damage, you may very well just have hit his armor and not him at all. But you've stunned him a little, or gotten the straps holding his armor on to grind into him, or something like that that is more complex than "Ooh, 10 points, I must have sliced him good!"

--Hard Headed Spikey

edit: Hip points are what you get when you wear cool shades at night and drive with you're seat all the way back.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

Azlan said:

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.

Azlan, this is precisely the point. D&D is a web of abstractions, each of which when taken individually can be seen to be erroneous or problematic. But the real question is whether the web taken as a whole provides a playable simulation.

The problem is that while D&D has a very abstract combat system, it tries to give the illusion of being straight-forward "1 roll of the dice = 1 blow" type of system, which it patently is not. This illusion is much more pronounced in 3E with its 6 second rounds & much more tactical rules set. In 1E, with its 1 minute rounds, it was a touch more obvious that everything was an abstraction - although most players never thought of it that way.

You mentioned that D&D tended to have armor backwards in reference to its ability to deflect rather than to absorb damage. But you also noted that D&D was backwards in using STR to increase to hit chance. Thus D&D ends up being more-or-less right as a whole, despite the individual elements being "wrong". And so it goes throughout the system.

I recall a similar debate 20 years ago in 1E. I had a player who was appalled that DEX didn't improve his character's chance to hit. Having become proficient in the martial arts, he felt he knew better & wanted me to houserule a change. But I pointed out that the game already DID give a higher DEX character this advantage in combat, albeit in a backwards sort of way. I used the example of 2 characters identical in every way except that 1 had a higher DEX bonus than the other. I pointed out that the character with the higher DEX bonus (& thus better AC) was harder to hit than the other. The player was annoyed that I was pointing out the obvious - until I turned this around on him & noted that this meant that the character with the higher DEX bonus was going to hit his lower DEX bonus (& thus weaker AC) counterpart more often. Thus although the game didn't give the higher DEX bonus character an attack bonus directly, the net result was the same as my player desired. The DEX AC bonus was, in an abstract way, already acting as an attack bonus.

Of course, this kind of abstraction is annoying when you want a real "1 roll = 1 blow" simulation. But most people don't seem to want the complexity that such a system requires. That want something simpler that can give the feel of the "1 roll = 1 blow" system. And this is what D&D does in its own quirky & highly abstract way. One of the reasons for D&D's enduring success seems to be its ability to finesse this issue.

 

[Darklone]

Though I don't really expect Azlan to reply to any of my posts no matter what I say... since that troll prolly thinks I have no idea of what I write... Just one question Azzyboy, why do you post here if you don't really think about or answer to other posts and your opinion was made from stone even before you posted here?

Does it really matter if armour absorbs or deflects in game terms as long as no damage is caused? In many other systems, you hit and don't do damage. The other guy hits and causes no damage.... and so on.

Is it logically to assume that weapons cause more or less damage? No. But it's used in nearly every gamesystem.

Games are about probabilities. And if you would like to talk on with some others here if strength to hit is more or less realistic (which you didn't do till now, you only stated your opinion and that D&D is wrong) than other mechanism to hit... have fun. Preferably with another game.

 

[Piratecat]

This has become more a debate than a discussion. Clearly, my views on this matter are unpopular here.

Err... no. Your views are just fine. Your aggressive attitude may not be making you many allies, though. While you're quick to rebut, you don't acknowledge a number of valid points. That makes this less of a discussion or a debate, and more of a bad repeat of the "Argument Clinic" Python sketch. You asked in the initial post why it wasn't handled this way, many people have given you cogent reasons, but you don't seem to answer any of them. That doesn't impress me much, really.

I'm smiling at your assertions that Dex wouldn't be an uber-stat if armor dex penalties applied to more character mechanics. That's incorrect; the effect of such a rule would be that no one would wear any armor. Most fighters would be like the classic swashbucklers, high dex and light armor. After all, game behavior models itself after the paradigm created by the rules. In the same way that humans became vastly more popular to play in 3e (while elves sunk in popularity), lightly armored fighters would replace heavily armored "tanks."

I guess what has me surprised is that you seem to feel so strongly about such a minor point. I mean really, if the system works so well now, why are you interested in changing it - and if you're already convinced that it should be changed, what do you hope to gain from this debate?

(Hey, Paul Greystroke - best 1st post ever! *grin* Welcome to the boards.)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Against plate armor, a dagger is actually a viable weapon, and is more viable than most one-handed swords. Daggers are small, piercing weapons, which allow you to put considerable momentum behind a thrust and penetrate the armor-- this is even more apparent with punch daggers.

With swords, the massive two-handed swords were not designed to do more damage-- they were designed to increase leverage and reach. Greatswords were typically issued to dirty peasants in padded armor (at best) when they were fielded against knights. Towards the end of the blade, there was often enough force to dent the armor inwards and injure the victim that way. It was also good at knocking an armored man off of his horse, where you could surround him and drop your blade on his head repeatedly until it cracked like a melon.

A good demonstration of Strength representing your melee attack bonus is to pick up a baseball bat one-handed, with your hand near the bottom. Pick a target that will mark easily, and try to hit that target repeatedly. The stronger you are, the more control you will have over the bat and the more accurately you will strike that target. Strength is also used to resist parries and to force your opponent's weapon out of the way, which add to your ability to strike your opponent.

A baseball bat, by the way, fairly closely resembles the weight and balance of a scimitar.

 

[Darklone]

I'm smiling at your assertions that Dex wouldn't be an uber-stat if armor dex penalties applied to more character mechanics. That's incorrect; the effect of such a rule would be that no one would wear any armor.

Piratecat, I disagree (we played like that since a long time). And I have to agree with Azlan that strength is much more important than dex in that case (since you reach the highest AC values for dex mod +1 and heavy armour plus shield). Dex is mostly used for ranged attacks and Reflex saves.
But I have to add that we mostly play in the low level (<level10) and low point buy region (due to some fantastic bad rolling players with 4d6 drop lowest )

(Hey, Paul Greystroke - best 1st post ever! *grin* Welcome to the boards.)

I agree.

About that baseball bat and hitting with all force... doing that with any weapon will probably break the weapon rather than the enemy. E.g. greatswords in Italian museums are weighing 1.5kg at a length of slightly above 1.5m. These weapons are fine if you have to fight against a shield wall with polearm wielding peasants in the second row, but they are very bad to hack with force through armour. But administer a clean cut or rather slash, and the best plate will have problems.

 

[Azlan]

Your views are just fine. Your aggressive attitude may not be making you many allies, though.

"Aggressive"? Maybe so. I'm certainly not passive. But I've been mostly in the defensive mode, here. Many of those with the opposing viewpoint in this matter (and they are, by far, the majority) have not only attacked my ideas incessantly, but have attacked my character as well. I get lots of remarks aimed at me personally (instead of aimed at my ideas) like, "You've probably never [did this or that]... And I know you're not [this or that]," which is meant to imply that, surely, I am not qualified to be taking the stand that I am. Other remarks I'm getting are like, "Aren't you listening?" or "Are you playing games here?", as if I'm doing all this merely for my amusement, like a troll.

While you're quick to rebut, you don't acknowledge a number of valid points. That makes this less of a discussion or a debate, and more of a bad repeat of the "Argument Clinic" Python sketch.

I am not arguing for arguments sake. But I believe in what I am debating here, I have carefully thought all of it over, and I am standing my ground.

That doesn't impress me much, really.

Sorry to hear that. But I don't understand why a moderator/adminstrator here is taking sides in a debate, in the first place. Sure, it's your job to moderate these debates and to keep them from getting out of hand. But for you to get into the debate itself and throw your own opinions in regarding the matter... If I were a moderator/administrator (especially one as well known and popular as you, Piratecat), and if I came across a debate that I felt strongly enough to want to get involved in and offer my opions, I would do so under a different and anonymous user name, if only for the sake of fairness and to maintain the impartiality that is part of the responsbility of being a moderator/administrator.

I'm smiling at your assertions that Dex wouldn't be an uber-stat if armor dex penalties applied to more character mechanics. That's incorrect; the effect of such a rule would be that no one would wear any armor. Most fighters would be like the classic swashbucklers, high dex and light armor. After all, game behavior models itself after the paradigm created by the rules. In the same way that humans became vastly more popular to play in 3e (while elves sunk in popularity), lightly armored fighters would replace heavily armored "tanks."

I disagree. And I could offer yet more rebuttals by picking apart what you've said here and offering counterpoints. But would that mean I'm not listening, that I've refused to hear what you just said, and that I'm completely discounting it?

I guess what has me surprised is that you seem to feel so strongly about such a minor point.

You said yourself that this point is a *sacred cow* and that it's one of the things that *defines* D&D. And many others have agreed that it is a thread that, once pulled out and examined, causes many other things to start becoming unravelled. So, it's not at all a *minor* point, now is it?

(Hey, Paul Greystroke - best 1st post ever! *grin* Welcome to the boards.)

What, Piratecat, you "ata' boy" Greystoke, for all here to see, further showing what side of this debate you're on? I wonder if you would've congradulated Greystoke if, with his well written and well thought out post, he had taken the other side of the debate, the very unpopular one (and the one that you, personally, disagree with)? Yes, Greystoke came up with many valid points, which he did articulate well; but clearly, Greystoke is on the popular side of the "Str for melee attack rolls in D&D" debate; and it's unfair (and, really, unnecessary) for him to be publically congradulated on it by someone with clout on this website.