This stupid idea (seriously, like Strength needs to be a WORSE stat) has gotten me thinking.
What if we allowed people to key their weapon attacks off of different attributes?
Maybe we could charge a Feat for it, but it'd reflect the different combat styles which allow different ways of using weapons.
Nah, Zen Archery and Melee Training were nice in concept, but the fact that you had to pay a feat just to realize the concept was just annoying to say the least.
Besides, if that were the case, why not just dump Finesse weapons and have Weapon Finesse as a feat?
If you wanted to add some detail, complexity, and differentiation to weapons, you could make which stat you use for attack (and/or damage) a function of the weapon and your proficiency with it.
For instance, if you're not proficient with, say, a mace - a heavy, inelegant weapon - maybe you, by default, attack with it using your STR (straightforward hitting as hard as you can), but if you're proficient, you can choose STR or CON (wearing down enemies, without getting worn down, yourself, using such a heavy weapon) or WIS (conserving your strength until you see the right opportunity). Each weapon could have a different default stat (probaby mostly STR or DEX), but different profficient substitution-stats representing different styles.
Complex, and mostly just channelling players to obvious weapon choices - clerics using maces, dwarves using, hammers, etc - but it's always been tough making weapons interesting.
For example, it makes just as much (if not much more) sense to Heavy Crossbow and Long Bow to strength compared to giving a Katana or Scimitar to Dexterity.
Crossbows don't need Strength for accuracy; I'd say they make more sense keying off Wisdom due to how all they're basically guns that use bolts instead of bullets. Bows certainly need Strength more than Dexterity because bows wouldn't be able to launch arrows at all without sufficient strength to pull the string (and if accuracy would be a concern, then we point again to the stat that actually utilizes perception: Wisdom, although a case of hand-eye coordination for Dexterity might be made).
I think we need to stop having Strength and Dexterity overlap so much... Very Few builds favor having good in both stats.
Honestly I think the problem also sort of extends to the fact that warriors in general need to be good in 3 stats, half-warriors need to be good in 4 stats, while casters in general need just one stat.
The fact that 4E reduced everyone's primary stats to 1-2 stats sort of helped, but there certainly was a backlash regarding that...
I think this also contributes to a bit of the blantness of Weapon system.
My solution would be to do the opposite: ONLY strength goes to damage. Finesse Weapons have only Dex to hit and give them a higher accuracy.
Finesse Fighters would typically rely on other sources of extra damage - Deadly Strike, Sneak Attack, etc. They'd do just fine. Let's say I don't get Dex to damage, and I'm a Fighter with Dex of 18 and a Str of 10. - If I'm using Spring Attack or something, I'm no worse off with this option (better due to the Bonus Finesse To Hit.) - If I'm using Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack, then I suffer a bit of lose, but I'm mostly reliant on my bonus die for damage, which I do a fine job of delivering due to my to-hit bonus. - If I'm a non-martial class, then I'm an accurate, low damage character, like you'd expect.
As an added bonus, if I'm a high Strength character instead, I have a use for Finesse weapons still.
Hmm, could work. Certainly gives incentives for Strength type Rogues too.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Rogue's sneak attack should be entirely based on Intelligence from the hit to the damage.
How does knowing where to strike result in being able to actually strike with precision (dexterity)? The rogue isn't going to think the victim to death. It actually has to use his dex to strike the proper spot.
This is more or less my argument against skills related to physical stats. Being knowledgeable in proper swimming techniques shouldn't be more useful than your physical ability to actually swim. A character would need an 18 strength(+4) to be more physically capable at swimming than somebody who has the knowledge how(+3 for training), but lacks the physical capability to do so(Say, a strength of 10). It seems extremely backwards to me.
I assume training doesn't just imply knowledge, but actual implementation of that knowledge, since you don't spend summer days in the library reading about swimming, but rather actually swimming in the pool complete with physical training to do so.
Which makes me wonder why the overall physique of a person who was trained to swim didn't actually improve in spite of his training. Meh, must've learned how to swim then over the years slacked off in the physical department, resulting in 10 STR but has training, which means he'd still be able to swim, but would have trouble actually performing in any other task.
Hmm, why is someone who doesn't know how to swim even capable of swimming, much less being better at swimming than someone who knows how to swim?
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Rogue's sneak attack should be entirely based on Intelligence from the hit to the damage.
How does knowing where to strike result in being able to actually strike with precision (dexterity)? The rogue isn't going to think the victim to death. It actually has to use his dex to strike the proper spot.
This is more or less my argument against skills related to physical stats. Being knowledgeable in proper swimming techniques shouldn't be more useful than your physical ability to actually swim. A character would need an 18 strength(+4) to be more physically capable at swimming than somebody who has the knowledge how(+3 for training), but lacks the physical capability to do so(Say, a strength of 10). It seems extremely backwards to me.
No, but someone who is knowledgable AND has the physical ability would be better than anyone with only one of the two componants.
Why not take away stat mods to hit AND to damage? Plus take away Dex to AC. (Serious.)
Why not take away all character customization, limit PCs to pre-defined templates and make this game as boring as possible?
Oh yes, because the effect stats have on combat makes characters so interesting and unique! Oh, wait, no, it means that characters of the same class must have very similar stats to be effective!
At first level, a weapon deals ~3 to ~6 damage, and ability modifiers roughly double that. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is, except that the relative contribution to damage output from ability modifier changes dramatically as base spell damage or deadly strike increases.
There's nothing wrong with letting those contributions be equal, but they seem to have a difficult time of making the math work for that.
Personally, I think they could do something pretty neat if Strength contributed on a per-die basis (maybe half STR mod per die, so only ever +1 or +2), and then each die of deadly strike would include the STR bonus and you could also do something pretty neat where two-handed weapons roll two base dice and thus received twice-half STR mod base (but still only +half mod per deadly strike).
I really think that alot of the problem is that they have an overly broad view on what "Dexterity" entails and an overly narrow view of what Strength entails. As a result, they keep letting Dexterity infringe on Strength. It is as though Dexterity is whining "Why can't I do that too?" and it is given into everytime, but Strength is turned away with a cold shoulder. For example, it makes just as much (if not much more) sense to Heavy Crossbow and Long Bow to strength compared to giving a Katana or Scimitar to Dexterity. We need to look at Strength as a kind of coordination too.
I agree. Too many keep thinking of strength as a body building stat. And while it would cover that given that there are only 6 stats it also can include the idea of fast combat muscle, coordination, body control etc.
An example I like to use is acrobatics. It is always put under dexterity, but other than balance most of what is done is strength related. The ability to launch your body in the air and into a flip isn't about dexterity it is the combination of skill and explosive strength.
Personally I'd define dexterity under a more slow controlled precision and strength as a explosive controlled motion. Sure for game balance you would have finesse weapons, but a lot of the current features under dexterity can easily be shifted under strength.
For example, it makes just as much (if not much more) sense to Heavy Crossbow and Long Bow to strength compared to giving a Katana or Scimitar to Dexterity.
Crossbows don't need Strength for accuracy; I'd say they make more sense keying off Wisdom due to how all they're basically guns that use bolts instead of bullets. Bows certainly need Strength more than Dexterity because bows wouldn't be able to launch arrows at all without sufficient strength to pull the string (and if accuracy would be a concern, then we point again to the stat that actually utilizes perception: Wisdom, although a case of hand-eye coordination for Dexterity might be made).
Yeah, I'm not saying that Crossbows should be Strength, I'm saying that Dex isn't a given for a lot of these things, and I think they go for an overly broad definition of Dex but a narrow definition of Str.
I think we need to stop having Strength and Dexterity overlap so much... Very Few builds favor having good in both stats.
Honestly I think the problem also sort of extends to the fact that warriors in general need to be good in 3 stats, half-warriors need to be good in 4 stats, while casters in general need just one stat.
The fact that 4E reduced everyone's primary stats to 1-2 stats sort of helped, but there certainly was a backlash regarding that...
I'm actually a fan of MAD over SAD. If a class values more than one stat, they you'll see alot more definition.
For example, let's say we had a spell caster that got Con to number of spells per day, Wisdom to number of spells known and Int for DCs. Then, we'd have a lot of different ways you could make this caster. One might have a large selection of situational spells, another focuses on just performing a "blaster" role well, etc. If we have a caster that is all dependant on one stat, Int, then the only difference between casters is which one is better.
So, not really a fan of 4E way. Our goal should not be to make it so that they can find one or two stats that do everything.
I think this also contributes to a bit of the blantness of Weapon system.
My solution would be to do the opposite: ONLY strength goes to damage. Finesse Weapons have only Dex to hit and give them a higher accuracy.
Finesse Fighters would typically rely on other sources of extra damage - Deadly Strike, Sneak Attack, etc. They'd do just fine. Let's say I don't get Dex to damage, and I'm a Fighter with Dex of 18 and a Str of 10. - If I'm using Spring Attack or something, I'm no worse off with this option (better due to the Bonus Finesse To Hit.) - If I'm using Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack, then I suffer a bit of lose, but I'm mostly reliant on my bonus die for damage, which I do a fine job of delivering due to my to-hit bonus. - If I'm a non-martial class, then I'm an accurate, low damage character, like you'd expect.
As an added bonus, if I'm a high Strength character instead, I have a use for Finesse weapons still.
Hmm, could work. Certainly gives incentives for Strength type Rogues too.
Yeah. Especially because it claims that Strength is a good rogue build choice.
I agree. Too many keep thinking of strength as a body building stat. And while it would cover that given that there are only 6 stats it also can include the idea of fast combat muscle, coordination, body control etc.
An example I like to use is acrobatics. It is always put under dexterity, but other than balance most of what is done is strength related. The ability to launch your body in the air and into a flip isn't about dexterity it is the combination of skill and explosive strength.
Personally I'd define dexterity under a more slow controlled precision and strength as a explosive controlled motion. Sure for game balance you would have finesse weapons, but a lot of the current features under dexterity can easily be shifted under strength.
Yeah, I view Strength as a kind of coordination too.
Not sure about your breakdown though. Alot of slow but strong people I know have good coordination with their hands. Sustained force is clearly a strength type deal, and is physically a slow-twitch muscle function. Agility is clearly a dex type deal, and is physically related to fast-twitch muscle functions.
----
I also think that Con needs to not infringe, as some things are listed as Con Saves, when they are against being knocked down by some force...
