Why is Str used for melee attack rolls instead of Dex?

[Azlan]

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but here goes again...

Why is Str used for melee attack rolls instead of Dex, in D&D?

I can see how Str might help an attacker penetrate heavy armor, thus giving him an attack bonus against a defender wearing that. And I can even see how Str might help an attacker to hit with a heavy and awkward weapon such as a greataxe.

But what about for all other situations? As an extreme example, I can't see how an ogre's huge attack bonus -- mostly derived from his Str -- makes sense when he's trying to hit a wee, nimble halfling wearing light armor or none at all.

Just about every other RPG I've played uses Dex (or some similar attribute) for attack (or "to hit") rolls, regardless of whether the combatants are wielding missile or melee weapons.

In my mind, Dex should give a bonus to *all* attack rolls, and Str should give a bonus to damage with melee weapons, with thrown missile weapons, and with "mighty" missile weapons. And maybe Str should give an additional bonus (which stacks with one's Dex bonus) for attacks against medium and heavy armor; like, half your Str bonus against medium armor, and your full Str bonus against heavy armor. But maybe that's too complicated for 3E D&D?

But, then, if complexity was a major no-no for the designers of 3E D&D, they would've never implemented all those myriad rules for Attacks of Opporunity.

 

[Petrosian]

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.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Why is Str used for attack melee attack rolls instead of Dex?

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but here goes again...

Why is Str used for melee attack rolls instead of Dex, in D&D?

Because "to hit" in D&D really means "to damage". The stronger you are, the more likely you will get a damaging blow through the target's defenses.

Unlike systems like GURPS and others where Dex helps you hit, D&D wraps both the damage-deflecting aspect of armor and the damage-absorbing aspect of armor into the Armor Class.

J

 

[Azlan]

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.

Ah, but as a PC progresses in levels, his Str bonus becomes less and less a factor in his melee attack rolls, and his BAB becomes more and more a factor. So, that assumption is faulty. Really, it's only during a PC's first few levels that his Str bonus is a lead contributing factor in his melee attack rolls -- and it's during those first few levels that opponents are least likely to be the kind wearing the heavier armors (or having the "heavier" natural armors).

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... 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.

Hmm... But isn't Str *already* the "best of all stats" for most combatants? With one stat, you affect both your attack *and* your damage rolls for most all weapons that you wield. I've seen lots of fighter-types PCs who don't even bother with Dex, since Str is so much more worthy.

Besides, the "Max Dex Bonus" rules for wearing armor would help balance things out if Dex was used for all attack rolls.

 

[Crothian]

Hmm... But isn't Str *already* the "best of all stats" for most combatants? With one stat, you affect both your attack *and* your damage rolls for most all weapons that you wield. I've seen lots of fighter-types PCs who don't even bother with Dex, since Str is so much more worthy.

Besides, the "Max Dex Bonus" rules for wearing armor would help balance things out if Dex was used for all attack rolls.

No, Dex is the best stat. AC, reflex saves, best skills, initiative, ranged attacks, attack roll with finessed items....

Plus Max Dex bonus from armor only effects AC, nothing else.

 

[Stalker0]

Considering normal types of weapons (aka longsword, axes, etc) str really is the determination of whether you hit or not. Strength equals more power and more speed. Without str, your ability to weild those weapons is severly penalized, because weilding a longsword for any period of time, and it gets HEAVY!!

I agree that for some weapons like the dagger, it should be based on dex. They do this with the weapon finesse feat, but I think some weapons should always be dex. However, for most weapons I think str is the right stat.

 

[Celebrim]

Crothian's right. Dex is already overloaded with benifits. Str is already too easy to see as a dump stat.

 

[Avatar of the North]

Originally posted by Azlan
Ah, but as a PC progresses in levels, his Str bonus becomes less and less a factor in his melee attack rolls, and his BAB becomes more and more a factor.

From all the games i've been in by 15th level or so that just isn't true.
15 BAB, +8-11 str bonus, +4-5 weapon, +2-5 misc (bardic music, prayer, weapon focus, size, ect). A strength maxed melee combatant can count on having a huge str by level 15. Note that +5 weapon doesn't have to be naturally +5 just a weapon under the effect of Greater Magic Weapon.

Also your position on BAB>str is weakened with Fighter/rogue and Ranger/rogue multiclassed people (or any other full bab/xx% bab multiclasser)

 

[Darklone]

Could someone give some links to old threads about that topic?

Some points:
- Strength is important to control a weapon to hit properly. Pure brutal strength will only break your weapon at the opponents armour. Dex does not help at all without making clean cuts. This does not apply to warhammers and so... but there is strength important to wield it fast enough.
- So called Dex fighters have a hard time when they notice for the first time that the guy in fullplate wielding a twohanded greatsword is not as slow as they thought. Try it.

I've always been a speedfighter in RL, but speed is nothing without appropriate strength. Not brutal strength. But since D&D defines strength as important for climbing and jumping...

 

[Petrosian]

Ah, but as a PC progresses in levels, his Str bonus becomes less and less a factor in his melee attack rolls, and his BAB becomes more and more a factor. So, that assumption is faulty.

No. I did not argue that strength was or was not the biggest contributor. I argued why it was a contributor. As you advance, you encounter more and more creatures with some form of armor or natural armor to get thru. In fact, IMX, after sixth level maybe , there are almost no advaersaries commonly faced who have neiter natural armor or armor bonuses. If your game frequently feature such beasties, I can understand why you would see that strength should not be a significant factor.

Hmm... But isn't Str *already* the "best of all stats" for most combatants? With one stat, you affect both your attack *and* your damage rolls for most all weapons that you wield. I've seen lots of fighter-types PCs who don't even bother with Dex, since Str is so much more worthy.

Practically every "best stat" argument i have ever seen light dex or con as the top. Saves, to hit (ranged), AC, initiative, and plenty of skills usually has dex win out over CON. Strength, with no save based on it and few skills, is easily second or third.

Obviously there are classes which can by design dump even an important stat. For every fighter dumping dex for heavy plate i can spot a half dozen wizards, rogues, and their ilk dropping strength entirely and looking for dex. The many classes for whom str bonus to damage is insignificant wont even think twice about strength but will still see dex as a must.

if in your games these observations do not hold true, then i can understand why you would feel strength is too good.

Besides, the "Max Dex Bonus" rules for wearing armor would help balance things out if Dex was used for all attack rolls.

Actually, my bet is it wouldn't balance squat. All it would do is devalue those armors. A fighter in 100gp chain shirt with an 18 dex is AC18. The fighter with 12 dex in 1000gp+ plate is AC19.

As it stands right now, today, the difference between those two is also expressed by the 12 dex guy having/needing high strength which means he hits more often due to the to hit bonus.

if you remove that difference and make the dex king... then my guess is many a fighter would basically reach the conclusion that the 1000 gold for the +1 was not so hot an idea.

Anyway, you asked for reasons and these are them. If you disagree with them, if your experience shows different results, then its an easy house rule to implement.

Enjoy your games.