Game Theory - Dexterity instead of Strength for all Melee Weapons?

[Stellar_Magic]

This is more meant as a debate and comment thread on this, since I've been thinking about the issue.

In most D20 systems melee attacks use the Strength ability score to modify the attack roll. From a purely simulation perspective, this doesn't seem accurate to the skill used to get a melee strike to connect with a target (hand-eye coordinate which is represented with dexterity).

I'm trying to decide whether to make it so all attack rolls use a dex roll for the attack (perhaps melee attacks are penalized for a negative strength modifier), while still using strength for damage rolls. In your opinion, does this work or does it encourage dexterity too much in your view from a game mechanics/theory perspective?

[Just to Browse]

Putting Dex to-hit makes one stat the primary offensive and defensive ability for all attack rolls. That's bad because it makes homogeneous characters. Also Strength-stackers would be pretty much crap especially past level 5-6.

[Tanuki Tales]

Putting Dex to-hit makes one stat the primary offensive and defensive ability for all attack rolls. That's bad because it makes homogeneous characters. Also Strength-stackers would be pretty much crap especially past level 5-6.

Except when they do hit and blow their target into chunk sized bits. :smalltongue:

The To-Hit/AC model is horribly flawed anyways, since one grows at a far greater rate than the other, to the point that AC becomes utterly useless around level 8.

[1pwny]

Yeah. Before we get into to-hit, look at what happens after you hit. Effectively, wearing heavy armor let's you dodge better, but you take no reduced damage. Because AC does nothing for DR. So if I smash you with a club and I hit, it has no relevance whether you were wearing a shirt, or full plate with a tower shield.

[Seerow]

I'd rather remove all attributes from to-hit rolls than see dex as the to-hit stat for everything.

[Logic]

In addition to all the problems address by replies above, I see a big problem with going more simulationist and less game-friendl; you get bogged down in all the additional rules.

D&D isn't perfect, but it is more of a game than a simulator.

(That being said, defense should increase with character level as attack bonus does. Armor should provide AC and/or DR, depending on the type, IMHO.)


I'd rather remove all attributes from to-hit rolls than see dex as the to-hit stat for everything.If I were creating an RPG, I think I would have a d% base system, with the D20 stats values remain the "average" values for player characters. I think I would blend the rules of D20, Dark Heresy, and WoD to meet my design goals.

I know, it sounds convoluted, probably because it is.

[Dienekes]

This is more meant as a debate and comment thread on this, since I've been thinking about the issue.

In most D20 systems melee attacks use the Strength ability score to modify the attack roll. From a purely simulation perspective, this doesn't seem accurate to the skill used to get a melee strike to connect with a target (hand-eye coordinate which is represented with dexterity).

I'm trying to decide whether to make it so all attack rolls use a dex roll for the attack (perhaps melee attacks are penalized for a negative strength modifier), while still using strength for damage rolls. In your opinion, does this work or does it encourage dexterity too much in your view from a game mechanics/theory perspective?

Now, I'm a swordsman, practicing longsword. Now, I am the worst of the worst when it comes to swordsmanship, but I'm going to try and shed light into the attributes and how they do and do not make sense.

There is a hand-eye bit involved in swordsmanship. But a bit more useful, in my mind is the ability to take your sword from rest to going full speed in the rough general idea of where you want it to go. A sort of burst of muscle energy, that is probably best done through Strength. Not the typical how much can a guy lift strength, but it is strength. However, this strange division between Strength and Dexterity is inexact by nature. Simply looking at the skills involved with Dexterity is strange. Tumble is Dex, for example, but actually go look at an Acrobat, specifically their abdominal muscles. It takes unbelievable core strength to pull that off. While something like Swim goes off Strength which is much the same. You don't need to lift much, but you will get incredible core strength if you get good at it. Honestly, for Swim you could probably make a case that it should be base of Constitution just as much as Strength.

That said, far, far more important than either Strength or Dexterity is skill. One of my problems with 5e is the emphasis on attributes over the development of skill in a specific area. Look at old martial arts instructors. Many have bad knees, bad backs, can't even hold their hand steady any longer, and can utterly kick your ass if you got near them.

[Seharvepernfan]

You guys should all check out fantasycraft.

[Ilorin Lorati]

One of my problems with 5e is the emphasis on attributes over the development of skill in a specific area.


Well, really the system ends up at later levels being half innate ability (ability scores, up to +5) and half trained skill (proficiency bonus, up to +6), with a dash of magic. That's more or less the same as 3.5, where on average a full BAB class will be about half skill on their attacks (averaging out the iterative attack bonuses to 12.5) and half innate ability (With a well built, but non-optimized character having about a +12-13 bonus at level 20).

[Extra Anchovies]

The Mongoose Publishing d20 Conan Role-Playing Game had, I think, a more interesting combat system. All classes had a Dodge Defense progression and a Parry Defense progression, and whenever a character was attacked in melee, they could choose to either dodge or parry (ranged attacks could only be dodged, not parried). If they chose to parry, their AC (which was instead called Defense) would be 10+parry bonus+Str modifier+other stuff (size modifier, circumstance bonuses, etc), and if they chose to dodge, their Defense would be 10+dodge bonus+Dex modifier+other stuff. Shields added to parry defense vs melee or to dodge defense vs ranged. Armor did not increase Defense, but it provided a lot of damage reduction (about twice as much as the UA "armor as damage reduction" variant). Weapon Finesse allowed you to add a foe's armor DR to their Defense in exchange for ignoring the DR entirely if you hit (this represented trying to slip a blade between armor plates, for example). Characters also had fewer hit points at high levels (the amount gained after 10th was only 1-3 hit points, depending on HD size), and magic was much, much less prevalent, but this sort of system might be translatable into core D&D.

[Tanuki Tales]

Strength is the To-Hit stat anyways because when you're trying to beat their AC, the problem is not making actual physical contact with your target, but making sufficient physical contact so that some form of damage is dealt. Unless you fluff it as meaning the blow doesn't connects in the first part, which brings to question why you dodge attacks better in full plate.

-sigh-

Man I hate a lot of the combat rules for 3.X

[Stellar_Magic]

First let me say that I'm glad to see the discussion my comment generated, especially since ability scores are such an abstraction and we're dealing with balance/game theory.

Part of the reason I asked this was because of I'm still working on a D20 system of my own, which had defense and attack progressions that increase by level... (+1 at 1st, +10 at 10th, +20 at 20th and so forth). With this, your attribute scores will only provide about half your combat hit potential at level 5. Considering the rules for skill checks are calibrated so that level 10 is treated as being an 'average' hero - attribute scores only account for about 1/3rd of an average heroic character's combat potential, while training accounts for more of it.

Also in the system, armor bonuses to AC are meant to represent the ability for armor to deflect a blow away from the target... sort of like bouncing a shot in World of Tanks, since it deals no damage. This bonus is fixed, and effectively replaces level bonus to AC, encouraging unarmored combat or the investment in talents or feats to allow a character to use their level bonus to AC. In addition, armor always provides a bonus to damage threshold, and may provide an 'Armor Resistance' bonus that functions like a DR ?/critical hits (modern armor like ballistic vests differs somewhat in that the Armor Resistance is much higher, but ablative... meaning they can only stop perhaps one rifle hit before failing).

I think I'll stick with the strength modifier for now, as it seems to make better sense balance-wise, but I do enjoy seeing the discussion.

[Extra Anchovies]

In regards to your mention of making AC from armor replace AC from class levels, I like. The low-level PCs save up for full plate because those kobolds don't have a chance at getting through it, but at higher levels they're switching to lighter armors to better avoid the dragon's attacks. However, I don't think that armor of any sort should wholly replace class-derived AC; maybe light armor reduces class-based AC to 2/3 of the base, medium armor reduces it to 1/3, and heavy armor eliminates it entirely? Then a character with, say, enchanted light armor will still be harder to damage than a similar-level unarmored character.

[gr8artist]

Scion (an interesting though not mechanically viable game by White Wolf) used Dex for accuracy and Strength for damage. But it also had DR (called Soak) as a base stat equal to like 1/2 Con (stamina, they used). It worked well enough.
We use strength for attack rolls because it's not just accuracy, it's also ability to injure through armor.
Using dex instead would make sense if you made armor grant DR instead of AC, so AC would be only dodging, and swinging harder wouldn't help you hit.

Keep in mind that all this makes the melee mundanes even more MAD than they are, so it's a nerf to them in any case.

[VoxRationis]

On the plus side, Dexterity to hit vs. Strength to hit has a huge advantage in the construction of narratives involving large, clumsy monsters like giants. True, giants technically have attack penalties due to their size, but really, this is completely negated by their numerous HD and high Strength bonus to hit. This really makes it difficult to play the "nimble trickster overcoming the brutish foe" archetype when dealing with them.

[Tanuki Tales]

On the plus side, Dexterity to hit vs. Strength to hit has a huge advantage in the construction of narratives involving large, clumsy monsters like giants. True, giants technically have attack penalties due to their size, but really, this is completely negated by their numerous HD and high Strength bonus to hit. This really makes it difficult to play the "nimble trickster overcoming the brutish foe" archetype when dealing with them.

While not stronger than the giant, those individuals tend to be stronger than members of their own race.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

5e is a bit different from 3e in this regard. First, it uses bounded accuracy to keep AC relatively low (there are no insanely talented fighters and archers with +30 to-hit modifiers). Second, Dexterity is both the to-hit and damage stat for light melee weapons and non-throwing ranged weapons. However, Dexterity weapons uniformly deal less damage than ranged weapons to balance the AC bonus.

From a simulation perspective you could argue that hand-eye coordination is just as important as brute strength. However, you could also argue that the Strength and Dexterity scores are oversimplified and overlap on hand-eye coordination, and which score is higher represents which of the two categories you are better at. There's no conflict on AC, since both agility and reaction time would affect your ability to dodge attacks.