Speculation on Combat with regards to Stats

[Mint]

Now, before I begin, I want to make it perfectly clear that I realize that what I am about to ask is well outside the design parameters of OSR and BFRPG and, in fact, is firmly in the area of "what about...what if...why isn't..."

I was thinking a lot, recently, about the relation between the given stats and how they relate to the real world and one of the things that bothered me (again) is STR and DEX in combat. As we know STR affects damage and to hit for melee weapons whilst DEX affects initiative and to hit for ranged weapons.

This seems odd to me because, first of all, all ranged weapons with the exception of mechanically based ones have a pull weight which correlate directly with how much damage they can do so why doesn't STR affect ranged weapon damage as well? Second of all, dexterity really has nothing to do with how well you can aim since that particular endeavor is more closely dependent on visual acuity and training.

So, given all that, wouldn't a better combat system be to have STR affect damage only but for both melee and ranged weapons both, have DEX determine how many attacks a character can make over a set number of rounds as well as initiative as it already does, and leave the ability to hit entirely in the hands of the character's level?

[Dimirag]

I won't say "better" but "different". It's and entire different animal

In one of the old games (if not the oldest) only fighters had the attack and AC bonuses as special features.
Your rule would be something like in that old game but with no special fighter benefit. (Don't know your take on DEX + AC)

In other game iteration (or was the same?) No matter your STR your attack and damage bonus ranged from -1 to +1, so even the strongest of non-fighters would not have a big advantage over fighters with lesser STR.
Your rule removes this non-fighter possibly advantage on attack rolls.

Using DEX for attack rates is not unheard of, specially if combined with INIT value + weapon speed.

Some OSR games make use of similar rules, but more commonly using DEX for attack rolls instead of attack rates, some even go to the point of using more than one attribute to calculate the final bonuses.

[Mint]

Yes. Different is probably a better choice of words than better. I was using the word when what I should probably have asked was whether the system I was describing was not, in fact closer to real life than what we have. As for fighters getting a bit underpowered due to the circumstances you pointed out that could be alleviated by a slight tweak in favor of fighters in the AB table. Thanks for the comments Dimirag.

[Dimirag]

I have little to no real fight/combat expertise (although I have minimal Taekwondo and Kungfu training), from my point of view I tend to use (in my games) DEX as the attack bonus. So I can't tell you what is the more "realistic" way.

With the current rules non-fighters have a chance of have a higher AB than fighters at low levels, I've seen 18STR + 18DEX thieves kicking more buts than their companion 11STR 8DEX fighter. Removing the ability bonus levels all characters in that aspect with no need for a modified attack bonus table.

Your motives behind each bonus is, at the least, reasonable:
STR for melee damage bonus: Same as the core rules.
STR for range damage bonus: It could work for muscle based weapons, the more you pull the bow the more potency it gains.
DEX for attack number: The faster you are the more you act continuously.

But the actual mechanics has their "reality based" foundations:
STR for damage: The stronger you are the more potent the blow.
STR for melee attack: Same as above, note that the original combat system was based on a knight vs knight representation and then applied across the board. The stronger the hit the more power that goes through the armor shaking the opponent.
DEX for range attacks: Dexterity also works as hand-eye coordination, precision, etc. So it is easier to apply it to all range attacks that only to some of them.
No STR bonus for ranged damage: Same as above, simplification, instead of adding STR to some attacks it is denied to all.

So, I don't see any of them as more realistic than other.

[Woe]

I've always viewed the STR bonus on to-hit not as "your saber sails under your opponent's attempt at a parry" but rather "your saber ignores your opponent's feeble attempt at a parry, bashing his dagger away and continuing into his ribcage"

There's a oft-used house rule that light weapons can have their attack modified by DEX instead of STR. That would help address part of your concern (nimble attackers get a bonus even if they aren't strong). I recall an 1e supplement (UA maybe?) that allowed for stronger-pull recurve bows, which would give the strength bonus to damage. It wasn't all ranged and was priced more expensively than a regular longbow. It didn't apply to crossbows, compound bows, or shortbows (since they'd break under the strain) -- just longbows.

[Dimirag]

The advanced game uses composite bows that lets you add your STR bonus to damage:
Each +1 to damage cost an extra amount of gold
Only characters with that STR bonus or better can use that bow
The STR bonus is limited to the one provided by the bow.

So, a +2 bow cost say 20% extra gold (10% per +1) and can only be used by characters that have a +2 STR bonus or better, the bow always does a +2 damage not matter the actual bonus his user has.

[Longman]

In my homebrew I have really small melee weapons (like a dagger) use Dex for their attack bonus, and nothing for the damage bonus. I call a short sword or a light mace a medium weapon, and that type of weapon still uses Strength for the attack bonus. (Basically if it has a d6 damage or higher, it has to use Str.)

But I leave Dex bonuses for missile weapons alone, because I think a well aimed (but slightly weaker) shot in the neck will be more effective than a powerful shot that goes straight onto the enemy's armor.

I'm wary of having too many changes to the basic system (Dex = missile attack, Str = melee attack and melee damage), partly because characters that have high stats in both should stand out as being exceptional.

But also, being able to use Dexterity instead of Strength for smaller weapons is the sort of thing a specialist fighter or fighter-thief might work towards at higher level using some kind of Combat Options system. Allowing lower level characters to do that jumps the gun, and you just end up with a bunch of Murphy's rules. (Specifically, thieves will do more damage than fighters overall.)

The more that these options for other character classes become available at 1st level, the more the average 'strong Fighter' gets left behind. In 3.5 / Pathfinder in particular, the basic Fighter class is really the last thing you'd want to be.

[Solomoriah]

One thing to remember is that ability scores are defined by what they do as much as they define what they do.

"Dexterity" in the Real World may not be what gives you good odds of hitting, but in the game world it's the best representative we have of that feature. And remember, the odds of hitting are much more influenced by training (i.e. Attack Bonus) than they are by the ability score; the ability just indicates a natural knack, a relatively small bonus in the grand scheme of things.

[Mint]

True. The AB really comes into play the higher the level which, I suppose, is a realistic outcome as it would represent training eventually overshadowing raw gifts while still maintaining the realistic idea that, if two fighters of equal training were to meet, then the one with the greater raw material or inborn talent would still have a slight edge (IE the better original stats would still play a part if two fighters with the same AB were to meet and duke it out).

Another thing that seems a real can of worms to me is the whole armor thing. We all know that armor basically absorbs damage, it doesn't make it intrinsically harder to hit a person and in fact heavier armor, unless well designed, actually makes a person easier to hit. In reality the person with armor is just as likely to get hit as the person without it, it's just that the person with the armor on will not take as much damage in doing so. So AC should have nothing to do with being hit but it does.

Then I started thinking it through and the mechanics of just how you picture the whole things starts devolving into an exercise in coming up with the correct way to represent stats and skills and next thing I knew I was well on the way to designing my own version of GURPS and I threw up my hands in disgust and went to Amazon and started looking for a basic role playing game to find and...the rest is history.

[Longman]

Then I started thinking it through and the mechanics of just how you picture the whole things starts devolving into an exercise in coming up with the correct way to represent stats and skills and next thing I knew I was well on the way to designing my own version of GURPS...

Yep. Been there, and given up too.

Old school D and D is a simple and pretty effective way of working out combat resolution. Characters hit and miss, they kill things, they get injured, and they die. And if you add in more and more crunchy rules it often ends up meaning that they die less often. Which is less realistic all round.