Speed = power.
Good quick, relatively "realistic" example, look at Hermit's fighting style from History's Mightiest Disciple Kenichi.
All about turning your arms into whips by using centrifugal force. Based on real martial arts techniques, though souped up a bit.
He's generally depicted as a relatively lean character, with a physique somewhere between Takeda (a lightweight boxer) and the bulkier members of the ensemble. Still f&$~ing shredded, but visibly leaner muscle, and he doesn't "cheat" like Kenichi and Master Akisame with BS "pink muscle" that has all the explosive power and none of the bulk, so he definitely has less muscle mass, but is just as destructive as anyone.
TL;DR: Simple physics, Kung Fu, and as always, Rule of Cool. They all make sense to me.
For me it makes sense in that I see Strength to damage as pure force, while Dexterity would be the precision to strike a exposed spot.
Strength = cut through the chest and the breastplate. (Even though no actual damage is done to the armour)
Dexterity = stab under the shoulder where the gap in the armour is. (Even though the attack is still rolled against the armoured AC)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought Strength to accuracy was the odd one. Should be Dex gives you + to hit and Strength gives you + to damage.
But as to the original question, Dex to damage I envision as a combination of speed and precision.
Well, previously you could see STR has helping in Hand to Hand combat vs. AC.
STR helped you penetrate the armor with damage. Even if a mace or club or other weapon can't penetrate that chainmail, hit hard enough and it really doesn't matter.
Strength also helps a lot with a smack down on a shield, or knocking it or a parrying weapon out of the way.
When a round and attack represents many different feints and attacks, with that roll representing the chance you have that round to get through the defenses and hit, STR in adding to your ability to overbear their defenses makes more sense I suppose.
Dex could be similar, but it's not going to do much to brute strength your way through someone's armor.
Well, previously you could see STR has helping in Hand to Hand combat vs. AC.
STR helped you penetrate the armor with damage. Even if a mace or club or other weapon can't penetrate that chainmail, hit hard enough and it really doesn't matter.
Strength also helps a lot with a smack down on a shield, or knocking it or a parrying weapon out of the way.
When a round and attack represents many different feints and attacks, with that roll representing the chance you have that round to get through the defenses and hit, STR in adding to your ability to overbear their defenses makes more sense I suppose.
Dex could be similar, but it's not going to do much to brute strength your way through someone's armor.
As stated before, searching for weak spots in the armor is an option.
But using your momentum/speed can result in the same crushing force with less raw muscle requird.
That's basically the whole point of the Janni Style Feats, for instance. Or for a more real-life example, that's the basic principle a Flail works on. Spin it, gain momentum on the heavy cosh end and then slam someone with it. Or a sling for that matter.
Since I'm not on my phone any more, a link to what I was talking about earlier.
Also a good look at an unarmed Barbarian Raging.
STR helped you penetrate the armor with damage. Even if a mace or club or other weapon can't penetrate that chainmail, hit hard enough and it really doesn't matter.
Yes, but that analogy falls apart when the opponent is unarmored.
Furthermore, look at Power Attack - you sacrifice accuracy for damage. I envision this as putting a lot of strength into a swing. That view is supported by the Strength requirement to take Power Attack.
Yes, but that analogy falls apart when the opponent is unarmored.
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.
Ultimately, the combat system is fairly abstract. Trying to look for where the system breaks down as a simulation isn't all that hard - but is it really worth doing so? Are the nods in the general direction of simulation enough for most purposes? Can other subtleties be accomplished with feats, class-based powers, and other exceptions? If so, why pick the nits?
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The truth is, as you say below, that the combat system is abstract. So strength granting a bonus to accuracy can make sense with that understanding.
If that weren't the case, then the argument that "strength allows you to penetrate armor and thus strike the individual wearing the armor" wouldn't always apply, and as such the strength bonus to accuracy wouldn't always apply.
This is in a thread questioning Dex to damage. Obviously some people are cool with it, some people think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, etc. But if we're going to casually examine how Dex could be applied to damage or if it makes sense, I think its fair to question the concept of strength to accuracy.
|
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The truth is, as you say below, that the combat system is abstract. So strength granting a bonus to accuracy can make sense with that understanding.
If that weren't the case, then the argument that "strength allows you to penetrate armor and thus strike the individual wearing the armor" wouldn't always apply, and as such the strength bonus to accuracy wouldn't always apply.
This is in a thread questioning Dex to damage. Obviously some people are cool with it, some people think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, etc. But if we're going to casually examine how Dex could be applied to damage or if it makes sense, I think its fair to question the concept of strength to accuracy.
I agree, dex should have been to hit and str should have been to damage, but we're stuck with what we've been give for the last 30ish years.
For me dex to damage doesn't make sense from the precision aspect as we already have that to explain why thieves get extra damage when they sneak attack.
I'm fine with using dex to damage in our 5e game but it just doesn't make all that much sense to me.
I like Dex to damage because it keeps my Rogue relevant in later stages of the game. When facing monsters without the ability to sneak attack, dealing 1d6+3 is pretty much going to amount to nothing if they have 200 HPs
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The truth is, as you say below, that the combat system is abstract. So strength granting a bonus to accuracy can make sense with that understanding.
If that weren't the case, then the argument that "strength allows you to penetrate armor and thus strike the individual wearing the armor" wouldn't always apply, and as such the strength bonus to accuracy wouldn't always apply.
This is in a thread questioning Dex to damage. Obviously some people are cool with it, some people think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, etc. But if we're going to casually examine how Dex could be applied to damage or if it makes sense, I think its fair to question the concept of strength to accuracy.
I agree, dex should have been to hit and str should have been to damage, but we're stuck with what we've been give for the last 30ish years.
For me dex to damage doesn't make sense from the precision aspect as we already have that to explain why thieves get extra damage when they sneak attack.
I'm fine with using dex to damage in our 5e game but it just doesn't make all that much sense to me.
I take the opposite route: using Strength based attacks and getting sneak attack damage doesn't make sense to me.
Not really, armor isn't the only thing protecting a character. People also block incoming attacks - and a more powerful attack is harder to block or may still cause injury even if partly blocked.Sorry, that doesn't make sense. The truth is, as you say below, that the combat system is abstract. So strength granting a bonus to accuracy can make sense with that understanding.
If that weren't the case, then the argument that "strength allows you to penetrate armor and thus strike the individual wearing the armor" wouldn't always apply, and as such the strength bonus to accuracy wouldn't always apply.
This is in a thread questioning Dex to damage. Obviously some people are cool with it, some people think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, etc. But if we're going to casually examine how Dex could be applied to damage or if it makes sense, I think its fair to question the concept of strength to accuracy.
I agree, dex should have been to hit and str should have been to damage, but we're stuck with what we've been give for the last 30ish years.
For me dex to damage doesn't make sense from the precision aspect as we already have that to explain why thieves get extra damage when they sneak attack.
I'm fine with using dex to damage in our 5e game but it just doesn't make all that much sense to me.
This is my general field of thought too, strength and dexterity should play a role, but alas, that would make things even harder on the martial types who already need multiple good stats.
Course, that's the other thing I don't like about Dex-to-Damage. What Strength builds can dump dex to 7 without obvious and significant side effects to their fighting prowess? Cause, 7 str works just fine for the dex-to-damage guy, they can buy a donkey. Oracles with one of two mysteries don't count, they don't go without dex, they just replace it.
And all of this talk of dex representing "precision" and "skill" has me wondering something else. What do you all think "precision" damage is meant for? And wouldn't skill be represented by things unrelated to physical stats, Base Attack Bonus and sheer levels, for example?
Generally speaking, I believe that Precision damage is having the training and ability to find and exploit particularly vulnerable parts of enemies. Things that do not have vulnerably parts (lots of oozes, for example) are thus unaffected by such a thing, when they're affected as normal by simply hitting them "harder" (i.e. with more Strength).
Oozes are something important to consider when talking about Dex-to-damage. Since the only way to really handle them is to strike with more gusto, spells notwithstanding. The whole "skill" side of things doesn't really hold up with an enemy that can't be forced to leave an opening (ooze AC's max out at what? 5?), or tricked (mindless).
Generally speaking, I believe that Precision damage is having the training and ability to find and exploit particularly vulnerable parts of enemies. Things that do not have vulnerably parts (lots of oozes, for example) are thus unaffected by such a thing, when they're affected as normal by simply hitting them "harder" (i.e. with more Strength).Oozes are something important to consider when talking about Dex-to-damage. Since the only way to really handle them is to strike with more gusto, spells notwithstanding. The whole "skill" side of things doesn't really hold up with an enemy that can't be forced to leave an opening (ooze AC's max out at what? 5?), or tricked (mindless).
The fact that you can harm a gelatinous mass purely with kinetic force at all is already a pretty obvious abstraction.
The fact that you can harm a gelatinous mass purely with kinetic force at all is already a pretty obvious abstraction.Generally speaking, I believe that Precision damage is having the training and ability to find and exploit particularly vulnerable parts of enemies. Things that do not have vulnerably parts (lots of oozes, for example) are thus unaffected by such a thing, when they're affected as normal by simply hitting them "harder" (i.e. with more Strength).Oozes are something important to consider when talking about Dex-to-damage. Since the only way to really handle them is to strike with more gusto, spells notwithstanding. The whole "skill" side of things doesn't really hold up with an enemy that can't be forced to leave an opening (ooze AC's max out at what? 5?), or tricked (mindless).
True, but it's not like they make it easy to do. Some oozes damage the weapon, some split into smaller oozes as you go, etc... It's consistent enough in my eyes with how something like that would function to buy that they work, and in fact die.
Besides, you can harm a gelatinous mass with kinetic force in real life too. Oddly enough, it'll still probably damage your "weapon" of choice. (skip to 1:26 if you don't care about context)
As far as I think dexterity combat should go, I think an effect like weapon finesse is just fine, but to deliver some "oomph" behind it, I think some other non-str effect should be needed. Things like precision damage, or a touch spell. Some sort of rider effect from making contact.
The fact that you can harm a gelatinous mass purely with kinetic force at all is already a pretty obvious abstraction.Generally speaking, I believe that Precision damage is having the training and ability to find and exploit particularly vulnerable parts of enemies. Things that do not have vulnerably parts (lots of oozes, for example) are thus unaffected by such a thing, when they're affected as normal by simply hitting them "harder" (i.e. with more Strength).Oozes are something important to consider when talking about Dex-to-damage. Since the only way to really handle them is to strike with more gusto, spells notwithstanding. The whole "skill" side of things doesn't really hold up with an enemy that can't be forced to leave an opening (ooze AC's max out at what? 5?), or tricked (mindless).True, but it's not like they make it easy to do. Some oozes damage the weapon, some split into smaller oozes as you go, etc... It's consistent enough in my eyes with how something like that would function to buy that they work, and in fact die.
Besides, you can harm a gelatinous mass with kinetic force in real life too. Oddly enough, it'll still probably damage your "weapon" of choice. (skip to 1:26 if you don't care about context)
That mass lacks even a rudimentary sentience and is totally non ambulatory. These are important differences. :P
That mass lacks even a rudimentary sentience and is totally non ambulatory. These are important differences. :PThe fact that you can harm a gelatinous mass purely with kinetic force at all is already a pretty obvious abstraction.Generally speaking, I believe that Precision damage is having the training and ability to find and exploit particularly vulnerable parts of enemies. Things that do not have vulnerably parts (lots of oozes, for example) are thus unaffected by such a thing, when they're affected as normal by simply hitting them "harder" (i.e. with more Strength).Oozes are something important to consider when talking about Dex-to-damage. Since the only way to really handle them is to strike with more gusto, spells notwithstanding. The whole "skill" side of things doesn't really hold up with an enemy that can't be forced to leave an opening (ooze AC's max out at what? 5?), or tricked (mindless).True, but it's not like they make it easy to do. Some oozes damage the weapon, some split into smaller oozes as you go, etc... It's consistent enough in my eyes with how something like that would function to buy that they work, and in fact die.
Besides, you can harm a gelatinous mass with kinetic force in real life too. Oddly enough, it'll still probably damage your "weapon" of choice. (skip to 1:26 if you don't care about context)
Does this look "non ambulatory" to you? If that isn't clearly trying desperately to escape someones grasp, I don't know what is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um... Some of us need to watch more Mythbusters. Balistics gel folks, balistic gel.
Too soon. :P