I do this, and some of you may disagree, and some may agree. instead of adding strength for a to hit roll, I add that persons dex. The reason why is because I looked up Dexterity definition, and it means precise movement, or good working with the hands. Then I thought: It take precision to slash through armor, not brute force. witch would be a hit, someone bashing a things armor as hard as they can, or hitting a precise location. tell me what you think, and remember to answer the poll.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
One must hit and penetrate the defenses. So either works, kinda the whole reason they have them in the PHB. It doesn't matter how much DEX you have to get an AXE or HAMMER through PLATE.
It's certainly a plausible enough game design to use Dex to hit and Str to do damage, but if you were doing that you'd also want to rework armor (to reduce damage taken), at which point you need to rebalance a whole bunch of other things and you aren't really playing D&D any more.
I do this, and some of you may disagree, and some may agree. instead of adding strength for a to hit roll, I add that persons dex. The reason why is because I looked up Dexterity definition, and it means precise movement, or good working with the hands. Then I thought: It take precision to slash through armor, not brute force. witch would be a hit, someone bashing a things armor as hard as they can, or hitting a precise location. tell me what you think, and remember to answer the poll.
I feel like you're under the impression that all attacks use Strength for their attack roll? If so, this isn't true; it depends on the weapon and type of attack. Ranged attacks are usually Dexterity based, but many melee attacks can be too. Any weapon with the finesse property can use either Strength or Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls.
I’m pretty sure OP understands what the actual rule is. I think they’re asking what people think about this idea as a house rule.
For my part, it’s not a bad idea in a vacuum, but D&D is designed with its rules in mind. Changing fundamental things like this has cascading impacts that will PROBABLY make the game less fun. The whole game needs to be designed with something like this in mind (the Expanse RPG uses different stats for to-hit and damage; I think it works well).
Definitely both. all finesse weapons already can use dexterity, but maybe weapons such as a sickle, handaxe, or longsword should be able to. on the other hand, weapons like, maul, warhammer, mace, and Greatsword should still always use strength
I say both. I stick with the current raw. Keep in mind just cause you are using strength or dexterity as the primary bonus, it doesn't mean your not using the other Stat as well. The barbarian might be super strong and using strength to blast through the opponents defense, but that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have some level of coordination. Or the rouge might be using grace and his high dexterity to slip past the guard, but still hopefully has enough strength to lift and control the weapon.
I think d&d has done the best to make simple what could be a very complicated issue if it went for to much realism.
If you feel you want more 'realism' go look for a 1st Ed table set. Back in the day every weapon reacted differently to every kind of armor, with different bonuses and what not. it was GREAT for realism. It was a pain for actually running combat, which is why it was simplified; and further refined every edition.
If you feel you want more 'realism' go look for a 1st Ed table set. Back in the day every weapon reacted differently to every kind of armor, with different bonuses and what not. it was GREAT for realism. It was a pain for actually running combat, which is why it was simplified; and further refined every edition.
I remember that table, it explained why hammers used to have a low damage dice, as it was the best weapon against plate and better. But it was a pita to use.
Battlesmith or Armorer - attack with Intelligence!
Hexblade - attack with Charisma!
But for the initial question: It's Strength because of balacing, not realism. When casters fully rely on one of their mental stat and ranged attackers fully rely on Dexterity, it's not balanced if melee warriors need to worry about Strenght and Dexterity, in addition to Constitution and often one of the mental stats too, if they are a half-caster. Yes, in a realistic system, melee attack rolls would be based on Dexterity, while damage would be based on strenght. But in that case, casters would need two mental stats and ranged attackers would need a second ability too, possibly Wisdom to check, if they see a far away target well enough. The developers chose balacing and playability over realism and I think it's good choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
DnD is not real life. This is not about realism, it is about game design. This argument has been popping up since first edition.
Sure you would think that having a high dex would help you hit someone with a longsword, but have you ever held a rapier? Or fought with one for any period of time? They are bloody heavy! If you do not have sufficient strength you cannot fight with one, let alone have the power to get past your opponents defences. Or hold your own blade up so they can't get past yours.
How about longbows? Do you know how strong you need to be to draw a longbow? Those things are insane. You need to be very strong to even draw it, let alone to be able to hold it steady enough to aim. It doesn’t matter how high your dex it, if you are not very strong you are not hitting anything.
The way I think about it is this, you have the stat "Strength" which measures your physical power, coordination, and how good you are at hitting people with certain types of weapons. You also have a stat "Dexterity" which is another type of strength that measures your physical power, coordination and hitting people with certain other types of weapons.
They both measure power and coordination. The difference is there so you can build different character archetypes. You wanna look like Arnie in Conan the Barbarian, you go high strength. You wanna look like Bruce Lee, you go high dex. It’s not perfect, it’s just game design.
DnD is not real life. This is not about realism, it is about game design. This argument has been popping up since first edition.
Sure you would think that having a high dex would help you hit someone with a longsword, but have you ever held a rapier? Or fought with one for any period of time? They are bloody heavy! If you do not have sufficient strength you cannot fight with one, let alone have the power to get past your opponents defences. Or hold your own blade up so they can't get past yours.
How about longbows? Do you know how strong you need to be to draw a longbow? Those things are insane. You need to be very strong to even draw it, let alone to be able to hold it steady enough to aim. It doesn’t matter how high your dex it, if you are not very strong you are not hitting anything.
The way I think about it is this, you have the stat "Strength" which measures your physical power, coordination, and how good you are at hitting people with certain types of weapons. You also have a stat "Dexterity" which is another type of strength that measures your physical power, coordination and hitting people with certain other types of weapons.
They both measure power and coordination. The difference is there so you can build different character archetypes. You wanna look like Arnie in Conan the Barbarian, you go high strength. You wanna look like Bruce Lee, you go high dex. It’s not perfect, it’s just game design.
Sorry, but I have fenced with a rapier and they are far lighter than any of the other swords on my wall, about 2.5 lbs versus say the Flamberge or Claymore. DEX is far more coordination than STR in RAW and in real life. A longbow does require STR to draw it but STR does not help you to aim properly. An agile fencer angles his attacks to hit gaps in armor, to slide around his opponent's weapons and to move his body out of the way of thrusts.
Sorry, but I have fenced with a rapier and they are far lighter than any of the other swords on my wall, about 2.5 lbs versus say the Flamberge or Claymore. DEX is far more coordination than STR in RAW and in real life. A longbow does require STR to draw it but STR does not help you to aim properly. An agile fencer angles his attacks to hit gaps in armor, to slide around his opponent's weapons and to move his body out of the way of thrusts.
Sure, Dex is coordination, but it takes a certain minimum strength to actually take advantage of it (the realistic, but annoying, option is that you use either Dex or the amount by which your Str exceeds some limit, whichever is worse). A longbow requires sufficient strength to draw it and hold it steady while you aim. The actual secret to fencing weapons vs armor is that they weren't used against people in armor.
Sure, Dex is coordination, but it takes a certain minimum strength to actually take advantage of it (the realistic, but annoying, option is that you use either Dex or the amount by which your Str exceeds some limit, whichever is worse). A longbow requires sufficient strength to draw it and hold it steady while you aim. The actual secret to fencing weapons vs armor is that they weren't used against people in armor.
Yes, they were. Maybe not plate mail, but against chain mail, leather, etc they definitely were. And yes, STR is required for any fighting, but it is also required to do most things like ride a horse. So, should everything be STR?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do this, and some of you may disagree, and some may agree. instead of adding strength for a to hit roll, I add that persons dex. The reason why is because I looked up Dexterity definition, and it means precise movement, or good working with the hands. Then I thought: It take precision to slash through armor, not brute force. witch would be a hit, someone bashing a things armor as hard as they can, or hitting a precise location. tell me what you think, and remember to answer the poll.
Both.
This is already covered in RAW. This is why there are both Strength based weapons and finesse based weapons.
A great axe is completely about strength bashing through defenses, while a rapier is all about precision of striking.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Seconded. It's pretty un-ambiguous.
One must hit and penetrate the defenses. So either works, kinda the whole reason they have them in the PHB. It doesn't matter how much DEX you have to get an AXE or HAMMER through PLATE.
Yup. Clubs, hammers, and axes are strength. Daggers and rapiers (classic fencing) are dexterity. Ranged weapons are dexterity due to needing to aim.
It's certainly a plausible enough game design to use Dex to hit and Str to do damage, but if you were doing that you'd also want to rework armor (to reduce damage taken), at which point you need to rebalance a whole bunch of other things and you aren't really playing D&D any more.
I feel like you're under the impression that all attacks use Strength for their attack roll? If so, this isn't true; it depends on the weapon and type of attack. Ranged attacks are usually Dexterity based, but many melee attacks can be too. Any weapon with the finesse property can use either Strength or Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls.
I’m pretty sure OP understands what the actual rule is. I think they’re asking what people think about this idea as a house rule.
For my part, it’s not a bad idea in a vacuum, but D&D is designed with its rules in mind. Changing fundamental things like this has cascading impacts that will PROBABLY make the game less fun. The whole game needs to be designed with something like this in mind (the Expanse RPG uses different stats for to-hit and damage; I think it works well).
Definitely both. all finesse weapons already can use dexterity, but maybe weapons such as a sickle, handaxe, or longsword should be able to. on the other hand, weapons like, maul, warhammer, mace, and Greatsword should still always use strength
The answer is both, depending wether it's a melee or ranged attac, and if it either use a thrown or finesse weapon.
I say both. I stick with the current raw. Keep in mind just cause you are using strength or dexterity as the primary bonus, it doesn't mean your not using the other Stat as well. The barbarian might be super strong and using strength to blast through the opponents defense, but that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have some level of coordination. Or the rouge might be using grace and his high dexterity to slip past the guard, but still hopefully has enough strength to lift and control the weapon.
I think d&d has done the best to make simple what could be a very complicated issue if it went for to much realism.
5th edition, I go with rules at written.
If you feel you want more 'realism' go look for a 1st Ed table set. Back in the day every weapon reacted differently to every kind of armor, with different bonuses and what not. it was GREAT for realism. It was a pain for actually running combat, which is why it was simplified; and further refined every edition.
I remember that table, it explained why hammers used to have a low damage dice, as it was the best weapon against plate and better. But it was a pita to use.
Battlesmith or Armorer - attack with Intelligence!
Hexblade - attack with Charisma!
But for the initial question: It's Strength because of balacing, not realism. When casters fully rely on one of their mental stat and ranged attackers fully rely on Dexterity, it's not balanced if melee warriors need to worry about Strenght and Dexterity, in addition to Constitution and often one of the mental stats too, if they are a half-caster. Yes, in a realistic system, melee attack rolls would be based on Dexterity, while damage would be based on strenght. But in that case, casters would need two mental stats and ranged attackers would need a second ability too, possibly Wisdom to check, if they see a far away target well enough. The developers chose balacing and playability over realism and I think it's good choice.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Thirded... Hitting someone with a club is STR. Striking with a Rapier is DEX.
Dexterity, it's not even close. Strength has uncommon skill use and few Str-based saves.
But hey, it lets you hit hard.
DnD is not real life. This is not about realism, it is about game design. This argument has been popping up since first edition.
Sure you would think that having a high dex would help you hit someone with a longsword, but have you ever held a rapier? Or fought with one for any period of time? They are bloody heavy! If you do not have sufficient strength you cannot fight with one, let alone have the power to get past your opponents defences. Or hold your own blade up so they can't get past yours.
How about longbows? Do you know how strong you need to be to draw a longbow? Those things are insane. You need to be very strong to even draw it, let alone to be able to hold it steady enough to aim. It doesn’t matter how high your dex it, if you are not very strong you are not hitting anything.
The way I think about it is this, you have the stat "Strength" which measures your physical power, coordination, and how good you are at hitting people with certain types of weapons. You also have a stat "Dexterity" which is another type of strength that measures your physical power, coordination and hitting people with certain other types of weapons.
They both measure power and coordination. The difference is there so you can build different character archetypes. You wanna look like Arnie in Conan the Barbarian, you go high strength. You wanna look like Bruce Lee, you go high dex. It’s not perfect, it’s just game design.
Sorry, but I have fenced with a rapier and they are far lighter than any of the other swords on my wall, about 2.5 lbs versus say the Flamberge or Claymore. DEX is far more coordination than STR in RAW and in real life. A longbow does require STR to draw it but STR does not help you to aim properly. An agile fencer angles his attacks to hit gaps in armor, to slide around his opponent's weapons and to move his body out of the way of thrusts.
Sure, Dex is coordination, but it takes a certain minimum strength to actually take advantage of it (the realistic, but annoying, option is that you use either Dex or the amount by which your Str exceeds some limit, whichever is worse). A longbow requires sufficient strength to draw it and hold it steady while you aim. The actual secret to fencing weapons vs armor is that they weren't used against people in armor.
Yes, they were. Maybe not plate mail, but against chain mail, leather, etc they definitely were. And yes, STR is required for any fighting, but it is also required to do most things like ride a horse. So, should everything be STR?