Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 779998" data-attributes="member: 1149">Two reasons...first, as you observe, to-hit in DND means not only &quot;hit the spot&quot; but also &quot;got thru the armor.&quot; To retain the basic level of simplicity in what is at its core an ABSTRACT combat system, choosing strength makes sense in that as you progress many more adversaries will have armor style defenses than not.second, from a game design perspective, you want the combat attribute to balance reasonably well since you are charging the same for them. Adding &quot;melee to hit bonus&quot; to dex would push it even further into &quot;best of all stats&quot; than it is now. You could handle this by charging more, but then you run afoul of that simplicity thing.IMX, as it is now, STR and DEX are close to even up balance wise. Were dex to work as you describe, they would have needed to weaken it elsewhere or to charge more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Petrosian, post: 779998, member: 1149"] Two reasons... first, as you observe, to-hit in DND means not only "hit the spot" but also "got thru the armor." To retain the basic level of simplicity in what is at its core an ABSTRACT combat system, choosing strength makes sense in that as you progress many more adversaries will have armor style defenses than not. second, from a game design perspective, you want the combat attribute to balance reasonably well since you are charging the same for them. Adding "melee to hit bonus" to dex would push it even further into "best of all stats" than it is now. You could handle this by charging more, but then you run afoul of that simplicity thing. IMX, as it is now, STR and DEX are close to even up balance wise. Were dex to work as you describe, they would have needed to weaken it elsewhere or to charge more. [/QUOTE]

Verification