Do most RPGs get the combat effects of STR & DEX wrong?

[aweigh]

yeah just read the fight scenes in martin's ASOFAI books

 

[Beastro]

It does it's job as a simple stat that makes you hit harder.
I don't really know a real world equivalent for something like that. Hitting without exerting enough force isn't really an issue in fencing if you are able to hold your weapon.

The issues with strength in RPGs is the idea thanks to Makr Twain and others that weapons and armour are so heavy and unweildy that only someone ripped could possibly do anything with them much less pick a two handed sword up or stand up in plate.

Cool. Now link a video of people fighting in full plate armor, actually trying to pierce that armor and kill each other because that's what RPGs (the ones relevant to the discussion anyway) are trying to portray. Whether such fighting is historically accurate is another matter.

Most fight like that resemble a wrestling match more than a stereotypical sword duel.

Still, RPGs probably undervalue STR.

What RPGs and most medieval games undervalue is the attributes of padded armour treating it as a basic beginner level armor and not going into detail about different layers of armor when upgrading.

 

[laclongquan]

After learning a bit about HEMA...

Footwork is massively important in fighting, especially when attacking. Coordination between movements and strikes is vital, and knowing the difference between the different times in fighting is of tremendous value. This all seems to be more related to dexterity than to strength.

More like Agility than Dexterity. It's about the agile mind to note the space, and the agile body to move to the correct space. if you are agile you can avoid attacks, but to block attacks, you need strength. To counter/parry, you need dexterity.

Also, two handed weapons such as longswords or Dane axes need less strength and conditioning to use effectively than sabres or rapiers do, but one handed weapons generally have a better effective reach.

WHat a fucking piece of opinion. An axe need less strength than a sabre and rapier... Sure.

 

[Elex]

but what increase firearms damage? strenght or dex?

 

[34scell]

WHat a fucking piece of opinion. An axe need less strength than a sabre and rapier... Sure.

A rapier is constantly held in front with one hand. The Dane axe is two handed and the head only comes forward to strike, probably only after making an opening with the butt of the weapon.

 

[laclongquan]

If you dont see the stupidity inside your statement, I am too lazy to point out.

Keep going~

 

[Naveen]

Footwork is massively important in fighting, especially when attacking. Coordination between movements and strikes is vital, and knowing the difference between the different times in fighting is of tremendous value. This all seems to be more related to dexterity than to strength.

That's what your level (in most RPGs) measure. You simply get better at running pointy things through people.

Also, off topic slightly but shields are weapons. Especially in viking times when they tended to be the primary weapon to open attacking options when fighting a single opponent, while the sword was there to exploit the gaps that were created by clever use of the shield.

That's true, and I have seen a few attempts to model that but the result is usually a mess as the shield becomes ridiculously overpowered. In any event, RPGs originally draw inspiration from swashbuckling films and novels, which is why they barely bothered to simulate fighting formations and that sort of stuff.

TL;DR I'd say that if anything STR should modify AC and DEX should modify to hit and damage.

Nope, or you'll have the weird situation of clumsy giant who is a ninja and can't be touched (ginormous STR) but sucks at dealing damage (low DEX)

 

[Stoned Ape]

Yes and no. Brute strength is mostly associated with the ability to lift heavy weights, but that is not necessary so. Strength is the result of intra and intermuscular coordination (results in pulling abiltiy of x kg per cm^2) and muscle diameter in cm^2 (which is related to the muscle type and amount of fibres).
With his strength the power lifter is lifting relative slowly heavy weights, while the fighter accelerates his fists or feet or a sword to a certain fast speed to deliver a momentum ( p = m * v ) in a strike to the opponent. Both events result in an Work (W = F * s ( Unit Nm ) ) with a Force (F = kg * m / s^-2).
The amount of Work may be even the same, but the Force is different in both cases.
The muscles are classified into fast twitch (typ 1 and 2) and slow twich muslces fibres. But the same kind of muscles fibres are the main contributer for this kind of Work, because the slow twich are only responsible for sustaining a certain low amount of Work for a very long periode of time. In other words both the fast 100 meter runner and the heavy power lifter require a high percentile amount of fast twitch muscles fibers, while the long distance runner needs more the slow twitch fibres. The muscle diameter is also different on all athlets. The fighter needs a diameter that allows him to punch as fast as possible, but if the diameter is too high or too low then the punch becomes slower. One the other hand the fighter can pull more weight in kg per cm^2 of muscle than a power lifter, while a power lifter has a higher diameter.
The intra and intermuscular coordination is a result of the central nervous system neural adaptation to to the kind of exercise. The neurons of a power lifter need to shoot impulses more often to the the muscle fibers than that of the fighters who needs upon one impuls activate more fibers for a muscle contraction.
The power lifter needs different muscles in an lift attempt at different stages of the movement, while the fighter needs all the muscles involed in the movement nearly at the same time ( very good extreme example is Bruce Lee and his one inch punch ).
I hope that you can now understand what strength is and how it comes about.

Thanks, that's interesting and exceedingly applicable to unarmed fighting. When you throw long levers with centres of percussion and mass into the equation it changes things quite a bit. Once you get strong enough to handle your weapon effectively, any additional power offers little benefit. It's more about using leverage and body position to gain advantage than raw power at that point.

Now technique is not so well defined and more difficult to explain so i will be more sloopy. One movement or form of attack requires also and is a technique and several movements combined is also a technique.
The first one needs to be exercises correctly and fast if an window of opportunity is perceived or the defence is necessary. Several movements combined into to a technique have either a goal to open a window of opportunity for a strike or to deliver several strikes after each other.
Now i will quote the awsome statement from Conor McGregor: "Precision beats power and timing beats Speed. These are the fundamentals." Think carefuly about this!
Reaction times is faster than action times, and the cowboy who draws second is mostly faster. But what technique you will use to attack and to defend yourself and how well you execute the technique is based on trainings experience and the central nervous system. Precision and timing is also learned through training like Speed (equates to power). Overall in a duell a good training with a certain amount of strength is better than only with high strength with few or no training. And that is the reason why martial arts are trained and why a boxer will beat a power lifter in a fight.
In DnD 3.5 (DnD 5th has fucked this up) terms this would mean that a 10 Lv fighter with STR 14 is better than a 01 Lv fighter with STR 18.

Also, in most sword fights there's a lot of weapon to weapon contact, far more so than in unarmed martial arts. You can feel what your opponent is doing far more quickly than you can see it. You can also tell how much force he's putting into an attack. If he over commits to his strike, it's possible to redirect the force then strike into the opening that the attack came from more rapidly than he can return his weapon to guard that area. That's why I said using too much strength to power an attack can leave you open.

Also, two handed weapons such as longswords or Dane axes need less strength and conditioning to use effectively than sabres or rapiers do, but one handed weapons generally have a better effective reach.
1 YES and 2 NO! The threat range of a spear can be up to 5 meters, while the sword is up to 3 meters.

Sorry, my initial point was muddy and badly written. I meant to say that given similar weapon lengths, a one handed weapon has a greater effective reach than one carried in two hands. A rapier has a similar length blade to a longsword, up to about 40-odd inches, but because of the fact you hold it in one hand, you gain considerably more reach with it. Longswords have better leverage, though.

The idea is not stupid, but DEX is reserved for the hand eye coodination and skills like balance, slight of hand and etc. And in an DnD fight this represents the ability to pull body parts from the line of attack, therefore you dont get this bonus if you are constrained.

Thanks for your reply, it was an interesting read!

 

[Stoned Ape]

After learning a bit about HEMA...


Also, two handed weapons such as longswords or Dane axes need less strength and conditioning to use effectively than sabres or rapiers do, but one handed weapons generally have a better effective reach.

WHat a fucking piece of opinion. An axe need less strength than a sabre and rapier... Sure.

A two handed sword or axe has (wait for it) two hands on it that allow you to apply leverage onto the weapon. Most two handed weapons don't weigh a lot, otherwise they wouldn't move quickly enough. A Dane axe is a big stick with a narrow axe head on the top, it weighs between 2 and 4 lbs. A two-handed longsword weighs about 2.5lbs. A Zweihander weighs about 3.5-5lbs. All of these have two hands on the hilt and have guards that allow you to recover by holding the mass of the weapon close to your body.

A rapier is not a smallsword, it's a big, heavy thing with a very long blade and a heavy, complex hilt. A rapier weighs about 2.2lbs but is used in one hand, and is held out in front of you in a way that an axe generally isn't, as the rapier isn't used to defend in the same way. Also, some rapier stances are pretty uncomfortable and put far more strain on the knees and hips than the standard longsword stance.

TL;DR Its far more physically demanding to use a rapier than a Dane axe.

 

[Stoned Ape]

Yeah, I get that but not all games have to be the same just because convention pushes them that way.

I'd love to find an RPG that tried to simulate combat in a fashion that followed on from what has been learned about medieval martial arts. I think there would definitely be a place for it.

Things like attacks having to not only strike at your opponent but also defend, that gaining and seizing the initiative in a fight being important.

I'd quite like (for example) there to be a footwork skill that would boost both your ability to fight effectively, and for height and weight to actually matter (I realize that the latter set works in Dragon's Dogma but I found that game so tedious in other respects I couldn't get on with it at all).

You should give Exanima a try. Approach it with patience and an open mind though, it takes about half/an hour in the arena before you start getting the hang of it, but once you do you'll love it.

I played it quite a bit early on, but haven't touched it in months.

The physics based combat is really fun, but trying to pull off thrusts feels really clunky and awkward, never could get the hang of them properly!

Footwork and momentum play a huge part in the game, which is really cool, but it sort of feels like trying to control a drunk sometimes!

 

[Elex]

Footwork is massively important in fighting, especially when attacking. Coordination between movements and strikes is vital, and knowing the difference between the different times in fighting is of tremendous value. This all seems to be more related to dexterity than to strength.

That's what your level (in most RPGs) measure. You simply get better at running pointy things through people.

Also, off topic slightly but shields are weapons. Especially in viking times when they tended to be the primary weapon to open attacking options when fighting a single opponent, while the sword was there to exploit the gaps that were created by clever use of the shield.

That's true, and I have seen a few attempts to model that but the result is usually a mess as the shield becomes ridiculously overpowered. In any event, RPGs originally draw inspiration from swashbuckling films and novels, which is why they barely bothered to simulate fighting formations and that sort of stuff.

TL;DR I'd say that if anything STR should modify AC and DEX should modify to hit and damage.

Nope, or you'll have the weird situation of clumsy giant who is a ninja and can't be touched (ginormous STR) but sucks at dealing damage (low DEX)

you forgot about the size vs size modifier!

 

[Stoned Ape]

Cool. Now link a video of people fighting in full plate armor, actually trying to pierce that armor and kill each other because that's what RPGs (the ones relevant to the discussion anyway) are trying to portray. Whether such fighting is historically accurate is another matter.

Fighting in harness 1v1 is more wrestling/grappling. You use a sword more like a staff than anything else. Leverage, balance and footwork are even more important. It's more about pinning your opponent and driving your dagger tip into his face than anything else.

Pollaxes and other weapons with long handles and their mass at the tip are most effective against armour when in melee. Picks and hooked-hammers are especially good. Big Zweihanders can deliver enough force to hurt someone in armour, but they're not going to cut through metal plates. Any sword lighter than them is pretty ineffective unless you half-sword and go for the eyes/joints.

Also, DnD does have initiative, dodge and mobility feats, weapon finesse for dexterity based fighting, even intelligence based fighting. Some other games do str = damage, dex = chance to hit by default too so idk maybe you're just looking for something else?

I think the flaw with DnD is the stats are actually stupid. You probably want an athleticism stat instead of strength for power/speed and a nimbleness/coordination stat for dexterity. Athleticism probably still shouldn't effect damage much, it's where your attack lands that's more important than how powerfully it lands which is the deciding factor, especially when looking for weak points in a part-armoured opponent.

Stamina should be a massively deciding factor in fights, which is where athleticism would be most useful, as the fight went on you'd get a scaling advantage for being fitter/better conditioned.

 

[Stoned Ape]

yeah just read the fight scenes in martin's ASOFAI books

I realise that you're joking, but there are a few decent authors to read who deal with fighting in fantasy books in a relatively realistic but still entertaining fashion.

Miles Cameron (pen name of Christian Cameron the historical fiction author) wrote the Red Knight series which imagines how horrifically destructive fully armoured knights could be against monsters.

He does full harness fighting so knows what he's on about. He also does reenactment camping in harsh weather so can write with authority about surviving severe conditions with limited kit. Really interesting guy.

Ed McDonald's debut novel 'Blackwing' has some really great fight scenes in it, sabre vs rapier and longsword stuff, part-armoured or unarmoured. He also studies HEMA and knows what he's on about.

K.J. Parker has some good stuff, particularly dealing with rapier fighting.

Every other author I've read describes movie choreography instead of swordsmanship. Not that's necessarily a bad thing as it can be entertaining, but it's not authentic and can get very silly.

 

[AdolfSatan]

The physics based combat is really fun, but trying to pull off thrusts feels really clunky and awkward, never could get the hang of them properly!

Footwork and momentum play a huge part in the game, which is really cool, but it sort of feels like trying to control a drunk sometimes!

They polished it quite a bit with the last major updates, and it seems like they're gonna keep up the work on improving it, so in any case it'd be good to keep an eye out towards future releases. There's already a couple of videos on twitch about the upcoming beta patch, but the streamers are unsurprisingly rather retarded.

[

Miles Cameron (pen name of Christian Cameron the historical fiction author) wrote the Red Knight series which imagines how horrifically destructive fully armoured knights could be against monsters.

He does full harness fighting so knows what he's on about. He also does reenactment camping in harsh weather so can write with authority about surviving severe conditions with limited kit. Really interesting guy.

Sounds interesting. How's his prose?

 

[aweigh]

yeah yeah harness this harness that but nobody wrote better sword fights than David Gemmell

 

[Stoned Ape]

Sounds interesting. How's his prose?

Here's a sample, YMMV:

https://www.orbitbooks.net/excerpt/the-red-knight/

 

[Stoned Ape]

yeah yeah harness this harness that but nobody wrote better sword fights than David Gemmell

I enjoy Gemmel as much as anyone. I've read just about everything that he wrote (except that crime novel) and he had a great imagination and feel for drama.

His sword fights were more expressions of emotion than anything else. An unarmoured, untrained Druss hacking down half a dozen soldiers with a wood axe when his wife was kidnapped, for example. Visceral stuff and incredibly enjoyable, but pure movie. Joe Abercrombie's fights are similar and equally fun.

I like McDonald's fight scenes even more, though. It's sort of hard-boiled fantasy horror in style. This is an end of event scene so the prose is quite a bit richer than his lower-action stuff, he seems to emphasise the adrenaline and chaos of a fight pretty well.

"I sought Stannard out.

His sword was bloody; he'd done for some poor bastard already, suffered a light cut to the forearm for it but wasn't slowing down. The look in his eyes said he wanted to kill me. The look in mine said I meant him to suffer before he died.

He came in hard, half technique and half power, the long blade shearing the air. I stepped right, struck across his blade and blasted it from its trajectory. The art of swordsmanship is to flow, to never stop moving, and my counter swung around in a blow aimed at his head. Stannard was fast. He responded instinctively, moving right and cutting at my overhand strike in a mirror of the counter I'd just used. Sparks sprang into the air as the metal struck a chime into the fog. As the blow came back at me I struck across, lateral and high with a thwarting cut and he barely managed to stop me taking my point into his face. His moment of hesitation cost him. I wound his sword down, drove forward and was rewarded with a breathless gasp as a foot of steel punched into his gut.

Six heartbeats, maybe seven, is all that it took. When the fire of hatred is hot, when there's no time for circling and feinting because you fear the sword in your back more than you fear the sword before you, attack is all there is. Stannard looked into my eyes and raised his sword high. No point in defending now, so he sought to cleave me. I may have skewered him, but dying men fight on until they're gone. I threw myself against him, got a nose full of unwashed armpit as I wrapped him in my arms and bore him down. We hit the ground and I rolled away as he continued to flail after me with his sword. He was gracked now, though, down on the floor, too fucked to rise again." (Blackwing; McDonald. 2017)

Reading that, the only thing I'm not sure of is how Stannard managed to raise his sword over his head when Galharrow had his pushed into Stannard's gut, so his arms and blade would have been in the way. I presume that Galharrow stepped backwards and withdrew his sword so that he wouldn't have his weapon trapped when attacked by another combatant, but that line was probably cut in edit due to being low intensity and emotion being the editorial priority over realism in this scene.

 

[AdolfSatan]

https://www.orbitbooks.net/excerpt/the-red-knight/

Oh well, this ranged from underwhelming to cringe material. Why is it that fantasy authors always have to be so shit?

WHat a fucking piece of opinion. An axe need less strength than a sabre and rapier... Sure.

It's actually quite correct. While not on the same level of seriousness as HEMA practitioners, I fuck around with swords and other weapons every now and then, and while I do work out, I'm lean of complexion. Wouldn't have thought so at first either, but I've found out I fare much better when picking double-handed swords: the weight and parrying are easier to manage, and overall I move around much faster.

 

[Beowulf]

Yeah, but what about katans, man?

Are the samurais better than knights?

 

[flushfire]

I think the flaw with DnD is the stats are actually stupid. You probably want an athleticism stat instead of strength for power/speed and a nimbleness/coordination stat for dexterity.

They aren't stupid since 1st, DnD is fantasy and AFAIK it's not trying for the level of realism you're looking for and 2nd, we are talking about games. Like said earlier, most of what you talk about are covered in some form of abstraction. DnD stats work, are easy to understand and mostly make sense, all important in systems designed for games not trying to be sims.

But ok, let's use your stats for fantasy creatures, say an ogre. DnD describes them as being very strong but slow, wielding massive clubs. The "clumsy giant but a ninja" mentioned ITT. According to you it should either have very high AC and do low damage or have low STR and high DEX both of which do not fit the description at all. How about those athleticism and nimbleness stats, when the ogre should be neither?

it's where your attack lands that's more important than how powerfully it lands which is the deciding factor, especially when looking for weak points in a part-armoured opponent.

A massive club wielded by a huge, muscular creature should do lots of damage, whether it hits or not is irrelevant, so that at least works with DnD's implementation. I'd say that it'd be better if chance to hit is tied to Dex instead, so that the ogre being slow, it's attack should be easy to dodge, but what DnD has is better than both of what you are suggesting in this particular case.

 

[vota DC]

All these rpg were made after Dune. Therefore dex is for AC while strenght is for damage and to hit since you need to strike with force but also with slow speed.

 

[Stoned Ape]

But ok, let's use your stats for fantasy creatures, say an ogre. DnD describes them as being very strong but slow, wielding massive clubs. The "clumsy giant but a ninja" mentioned ITT. According to you it should either have very high AC and do low damage or have low STR and high DEX both of which do not fit the description at all. How about those athleticism and nimbleness stats, when the ogre should be neither?

That would have to do with size and weight. The ogre would have really high scores for both. Athleticism and coordination have very little to do with it.

If something is heavy enough then it's impossible to block it. You'd have to avoid it (with athleticism) and try to stay on your feet (with coordination) instead. Saying that, once you get out of the way of something heavy, its momentum will carry it a long way and you can happily step in and cut whatever threw that heavy attack to ribbons.

I'd hate to try to sword fight a rhino, though. Can't see how you'd parry that horn!

A massive club wielded by a huge, muscular creature should do lots of damage, whether it hits or not is irrelevant, so that at least works with DnD's implementation. I'd say that it'd be better if chance to hit is tied to Dex instead, so that the ogre being slow, it's attack should be easy to dodge, but what DnD has is better than both of what you are suggesting in this particular case.

I'm not sure that it is. I'm suggesting that you transfer one set of exceedingly abstract stats for one which is somewhat less so.

Thinking more carefully about it, damage should probably scale with level (skill) as much as with coordination rather than needing feats to boost damage for certain classes only.

Through practice, a swordsman's edge alignment gets better and he will improve his cutting technique, making deeper cuts with less effort.

The whole DnD bonus 'roll to hit' thing is pretty stupid as well if you think about it.

If I have a sword and know I how to swing it, if you're just standing there I'm going to hit you twenty times out of twenty.

Instead, stats should be used to stop you from getting hit, that's the hard part.

 

[Stoned Ape]

All these rpg were made after Dune. Therefore dex is for AC while strenght is for damage and to hit since you need to strike with force but also with slow speed.

That makes perfect sense. I would add one of those cool icon things to the bottom of your post, but I don't know how.

 

[Stoned Ape]

Yeah, but what about katans, man?

Are they samurais better than knights?

It has been scientifically proven that Katanas can cut through tanks and deflect nuclear missiles. Samurai are always invincible due to the purity of their bushido.

 

[anvi]

STR should be close to useless for tanks, because tanks job is to mitigate damage rather than dish it out. STR should not allow characters to hit more often, it should just increase the damage of hits once they land. DEX should increase hit chance, and increase dodge too, so a tank should be high DEX, CON, etc. but not STR, unless they need it to hold heavy armor/weapons. Mostly I'm happy with games if they even have these stats at all. Could be worse, could be Bethesda shit and other modern shit where you barely even get any stats.