Strength and dexterity in RPGs

[PorkyThePaladin]

Same goes for arrows I agree. But you need numbers for it. Your party of 3 archers aren't going to do shit. Crossbows were worse as they are painful to reload if they have any draw weight to matter, they have absolutely shit range,and are pretty much a one shot weapon, they don't have better penetration then arrows.

Well, this guy disagrees, based on the tests he ran: http://fads.blogspot.com/2008/07/long-bow-vs-crossbow.html

"This combo will also blow a hole through 1/8" C1018 plate steel at 80 yards and have enough energy left to bury into a hickory tree upto the socket of the bodkin (about 1.5 inches)" - talking about crossbow (with less poundage than the one in the video above)

"It has the energy to pierce the same plate, but not go through it" - talking about the longbow

That is a bit of a stretch. Human brains don't work like that, you can't calculate moves. There is certainly talent in how to move. The thing is why do you consider it bad design? In the real world you have to train to be effective and breaking that training into individual components is the whole point of abstractions.

I was using the intelligence example to show how abstractions can lead to bad things if left unchecked: intelligence determining strength, agility determining sex appeal, etc. The point is endurance is already covered by stats like Constitution/Stamina/Endurance, so we don't need Strength to cover it again.

Any fictional work where the sword is the primary weapon is complete fucking bullshit. Spears and polearms or get out.

Why is that so outlandish? The sword was typically a sidearm, but still, there were some armies who used it as the main weapon, like the post-Marius reform Romans. More importantly swords are just cool, in a way that polearms will never be (same as six-shooter Colt vs much more effective primary weapon rifles in Wild West), so that's one aspect of realism I am willing to give up. Plus, while weapons like polearms and bows/crossbows were more important in battle, RPGs deal with wandering types, and who would want to haul a huge polearm around.

Also, on the topic of bows/crossbows penetrating plate, as I was googling stuff before, I had a funny revelation. In a way, we might both be right/wrong. We are talking about this in a static way, whereas in reality, bows/crossbows and plate existed over long periods of time and changed. So yes, they penetrated the early plate, which caused the Pope to ban them, but then in an arms race, plate was made stronger, thicker, more shaped to deflect blows, and then they couldn't penetrate it anymore. Then, in the same arms race, the bows and crossbows got bigger and more powerful, newer arrows/bolt-heads were invented, new materials used, and so the race went on and on. Eventually, especially after guns entered the picture, the plate had to be made so thick, it could only be a chestpiece and on cavalry (too heavy for full body coverage) as Draq was talking about. But you can't use those in an RPG, cause the enemy would just shoot you in the nuts.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Right but Mountain already being one of the most feared warriors alive makes a case for size, strength and reach by itself. An extremely skilled fighter beating him in a duel he prepared for for years doesn't negate that.

Not sure GRRM is a certified expert on the medieval combat anyway.

I just posted that as a fantasy example. In real life, Oberyn's character would win much quicker and easier. He would be able to move around the much slower big man with ease, avoiding his slower attacks, poking him to death if unarmored, tiring him out very quickly if armored and then finishing him off. A guy hauling that much weight and muscle and heavy armor on top of that would be out of breath very very quickly. Good video though.

 

[adrix89]

"It has the energy to pierce the same plate, but not go through it" - talking about the longbow

Like he can actually draw a real warbow. Why do you think crossbows were popular in the first? It takes years to handle a proper bow.

RPGs deal with wandering types, and who would want to haul a huge polearm around.

Anyone who hunts creatures bigger then them, and are not stupid and dead yet.

bows/crossbows and plate existed over long periods of time and changed. So yes, they penetrated the early plate

Which is why you try to match the technology to the period. Plate armor was very effective, that's why we had them in the first place.

 

[gaussgunner]

Gunpowder is not the same as modern smokeless powder, its way weaker, certainly no chance for handguns. Muskets could be debatable especially if they aren't rifled and have musket balls, at close range maybe? I would have to see real tests done to judge.

Gunpowder has many limitations, yes. Question is, if you're in expensive hardened steel plate armor and some peasant shoots you in the chest with a cheap smoothbore musket from a distance of 100 yards or less.... do you feel lucky?

Clearly there was a post-medieval arms race from ca.1400-1900, firearms vs bulletproof armor. Ultimately firearms won on economic grounds, and war turned into IRL popamole. Interesting tradeoffs for a Renaissance period RPG, however.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Just to sum up Porky's points in this thread:

A strength difference between two fighters makes absolutely zero difference at all, until some arbitrary point that never happens between two fighters- then the difference is suddenly so large it decides everything.
People with less strength can use the exact same weapons as people who are stronger, with the exact same level of ease and exertion.
Larger people make less effective combatants, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, I think this guy needs to buy a vowel.

 

[Lhynn]

I think porky may be a midget.

Also he equates size to speed for some reason. When a bigger guy can very easily be faster than a small guy.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Just to sum up Porky's points in this thread:

A strength difference between two fighters makes absolutely zero difference at all, until some arbitrary point that never happens between two fighters- then the difference is suddenly so large it decides everything.
People with less strength can use the exact same weapons as people who are stronger, with the exact same level of ease and exertion.
Larger people make less effective combatants, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, I think this guy needs to buy a vowel.

I guess there is a reason your sig begins with "Stop strawmanning". I didn't say it makes zero difference. Here's what I said:

"Sure, you need to be somewhat in shape and not a couch potato, but you sure as hell don't need to have a lot of strength."
"strength is not as important as people think"
"while grappling does require some strength, it is much more about technique"

All other things being equal, sure strength can make a difference, but it is of much less importance than other things, like technique, speed, and agility. So if you are modelling an RPG system, melee combat success should depend on those things primarily, and then maybe get a slight bonus from high strength in certain situations.

Also, I fail to see these millenia of evidence to the contrary, from the time David slew Goliath to the time Royce Gracie dominated bigger guys in the early UFC, but hey, that's just me.

I think porky may be a midget.

Also he equates size to speed for some reason. When a bigger guy can very easily be faster than a small guy.

I might be Tyrion Porkister. To me, there is a pretty clear relation between size and speed/quickness, not saying there aren't exceptions to it, but on average, smaller people are quicker than larger people, and smaller animals are quicker than larger animals. If you watch sports, that's pretty obvious, a point guard in basketball can run circles around a center, a Wide Receiver in American Football is much faster than a Defensive/Offensive Lineman or a Linebacker. Lightweight boxers can punch at a speed that heavyweights can only dream about.

 

[DraQ]

You can, but by forces bigger than him.

The problem with those forces is that they diminish in availability as you go up in levels - if they don't, then you have level scaling.
Another problem is that if the system is designed so that any threat can be outleveled, then no threat can coerce player to do anything for prolonged period of time. "Anything" here also means things like "strategize" that are prerequisite to good gameplay.

OTOH if any character can be neutralized by throwing numbers at them or enemies from completely different weight category, then you retain both the ability to threaten and coerce the player at arbitrary level (when you can threaten the player without situational advantage) and meaningful gameplay (when the fight is up to player's discretion and it's up to them to find or cook up necessary situational advantage to not get pwnd hard).

Adventuring parties shouldn't be able to fight armies, or fight something like a giant or dragon head on and expect to survive.
Some fish should always stay bigger.

Here is a good video:

Heh, it reminded me of Requiem* and how you got completely limp-wristed and could even lose your weapon if you burned through your stamina.

*

Not truly realistic, by any means, but definitely a big step in the right direction in more ways than one.

Also, regarding stamina, it could be a good replacement for ablative HPs, in many situations, although of course you'd still need proper health and injury mechanics for characters that got actually wounded.

This is pretty obvious stuff, so I am wondering if maybe I didn't state it clearly? With 2 handed swords (longsword, katana, zweihander), the dominant hand is placed next to the top of the hilt, this hand controls the sword. The other hand is placed on the bottom of the hilt, exactly where depends on length of hilt and personal preferences. With swords that have pommels, like longswords, you can place the other hand on the pommel, or next to it. So the way cutting movements work with 2 handers is the dominant hand serves as the pivot around which the sword rotates, and the other hand pulls back to rotate the sword around that pivot (to make the sword tip go faster and generate more power).

A couple of links saying the same thing:
https://myarmoury.com/feature_arms_gls.html (scroll to The Strike part)

Of course you wouldn't be doing massive telegraphed strikes and binds would be transient, but a weapon, no matter how well balanced, still has mass, weight and moment of inertia which make it resist your attempts to move it around or even hold it up. If it's a weapon made for average Joe, then it will be a bit too heavy for you if you're a runt, so you will react slower and tire faster even if you have the same amount of stamina (inverse might not necessarily be true - once weapon is light enough to be comfortable it's no longer a big addition to your own body mass you're moving around, so something along the lines of min requirements to avoid penalties might be enough). If it's a weapon custom made for an exceptionally strong guy, an average joe will find it similarly disadvantageous. It's not going to outweigh training (and it shouldn't, strength is general attribute, weapon training is specific), but it will weigh in and may determine the outcome depending on other circumstances.

Well, you can use abstraction to disguise any kind of bad design. Maybe intelligence is actually knowing how to apply your muscles in such a way as to exert most possible force, so that's what strength really is, you see what I am doing there? That's why I like to keep things relatively straightforward.

My interpretation was that intelligence translates to what techniques you use and when (if you, as a player don't have that fine control) so it determines overall effect.
In any case it's not a worse abstraction than one using strength.

Anyone who hunts creatures bigger then them, and are not stupid and dead yet.

Though adventurers would rely on their sidearms proportionally more than armies.

Eventually, especially after guns entered the picture, the plate had to be made so thick, it could only be a chestpiece and on cavalry (too heavy for full body coverage) as Draq was talking about. But you can't use those in an RPG, cause the enemy would just shoot you in the nuts.

But think of the porn mods!

 

[Lhynn]

The problem with those forces is that they diminish in availability as you go up in levels - if they don't, then you have level scaling.

How many times do you plan to play that card anyway?

Another problem is that if the system is designed so that any threat can be outleveled, then no threat can coerce player to do anything for prolonged period of time.

Sure there can be, im fairly certain a party could be coerced by elminster for a long time.

"Anything" here also means things like "strategize" that are prerequisite to good gameplay.

How long is that campaign going to be bro? eventually they have to retire or move on to greater things and retire as players. Theres nothing wrong with able being to outlevel stuff and strategizing for an encounter is almost always about the "here and now" not about the "5 years down the line". So even if they could potentially outlevel every challenge, it still doesnt mean they will when each challenge arrives.

OTOH if any character can be neutralized by throwing numbers at them or enemies from completely different weight category, then you retain both the ability to threaten and coerce the player at arbitrary level (when you can threaten the player without situational advantage) and meaningful gameplay (when the fight is up to player's discretion and it's up to them to find or cook up necessary situational advantage to not get pwnd hard).

I agree with this. But lets not forget just how many ants it would take to bring down a dragon. Sometimes numbers simply dont matter.

Adventuring parties shouldn't be able to fight armies, or fight something like a giant or dragon head on and expect to survive.

Why not? I think that gameplay evolving from having to take precautions and setting up plans to simply being able to face a threat head on is cool. There will always be other threats.

Some fish should always stay bigger.

Sure, but not forever. Its not like your characters start maxed out, the journey is important. And there are no guarantees that youll make it all the way. 99% of the adventurers never reach epic levels, and im talking about adventurers, not population in general. In my campaings few survive past level 6, almost none past level 10. And highest level campaign i DMed had a couple level 17s before the story ended, no more challenges were met and the players did whatever they wanted with the rest of their lives. No world to save, no nation they were interested in conquering (because one was a paladin and the other was a dwarven engineer).

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

 

[Damned Registrations]

I didn't say it makes zero difference. Here's what I said:

Ok, so if the strength disparity between the two combatants is huge enough, sure at some point nothing else will matter. An elephant after all, will beat the shit out of a rabbit, right? But, what does this have to do with anything? I am talking about games, either realistic or fantasy or sci-fi, that are at least to some degree realistic. If you want to play games where you can become 100 times as powerful as a regular human, ok, but do you really think this is a good idea?

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I didn't say it makes zero difference. Here's what I said:

Ok, so if the strength disparity between the two combatants is huge enough, sure at some point nothing else will matter. An elephant after all, will beat the shit out of a rabbit, right? But, what does this have to do with anything? I am talking about games, either realistic or fantasy or sci-fi, that are at least to some degree realistic. If you want to play games where you can become 100 times as powerful as a regular human, ok, but do you really think this is a good idea?

Ok, and where in the 2nd quote does it say that strength makes zero difference?

snip

I'll raise you:

 

[Kutulu]

Every person that doesnt have Parkinson has enough dexterity to swing a sword.
History proves that with the fact that random peasants took almost every role in combat.

Neither strength nor dexterity should be a factor in damage done with a weapon, that should be a third skill maybe finesse/skill whatever.

 

[Lhynn]

So strength is the determining factor of damage with fists, but not with a sword or a mace?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Just so we're clear here, something like LotR is pretty much the baseline for a fantasy setting right? The setting that has characters ranging from hobbits to wraiths, trolls, ents and dragons? Strength difference between any two of those has nothing to do with anything? Men should be able to just casually parry the club of a troll because it's all technique anyways? Hobbits can do the same to a human with a claymore? Hobbits and dwarves are totally equal warriors, the fact that the latter are far stronger makes no difference, in fact hobbits should be ruling middle earth by being more agile? I'm sure they'd be totally effective using halberds they can't even lift.

Just because the hema guys don't kill eachother with zweihanders (which they absolutely would if they tried to, blunted or not, that could easily break a neck or smash a skull) doesn't mean fencing swords are more effective. I do not give two shits about modern professional 'fighters'. It's not a fight if you can safely lie on your back because your opponent isn't even allowed to kick you in the head while you're down, let alone smash the shit out of you with the nearest heavy object. Likewise, it's obvious that when you're having 'duels' that disallow the use of anything heavy enough to kill someone by accident, strength isn't going to matter.

Everything in the real world points to stronger/heavier men being more effective fighters. It's why they have weight classes in things like boxing to begin with, and why professional boxers try to GAIN weight after the weigh in, not cut it. It's why nobody sane is going to hire tiny people, old men or women for jobs that require brawling with random people. It's why small warriors winning over large ones are considered legendary (LMFAO at using "David vs Goliath" as a historical reference) instead of the norm. It's why women stand absolutely no chance vs men in hand to hand combat of any kind, even in the same weight class. Stength matters immensely, and men are not even twice as strong as women, on average. Certainly less of a difference between two conditioned athletes of the same weight but different gender than there is between an average dude and an exceptionally strong one of a larger weight class.

I would say that strength is a major factor of damage with a sword as well (basically anything other than a lightsaber really; if there's resistance strength will help push through, twist the weapon, etc.) with the caveat that when a blow is landed properly, it should be fatal or near fatal to begin with, and the location of the hit is the largest factor by far. All the strength in the world won't make a weapon hitting your toes kill you, and conversely, even a total weakling will kill you with a sharp blade even grazing your neck. But it's obviously easier to land hits where you want them when you can overpower your opponent.

 

[Kutulu]

Meh idk i just really hate dexterity, dexterity is basically imaginary BS, it just exists in gaming because people thought Strength is
awesome for Clubs, Axes etc And you needed something else for the more nimble stuff. Dexterity is just something that really does not
exist, if you cant glue together some tiny model you are defective, if you cant swing a sword you are defective.

Bigger means better in weapons, the only reason people favored smaller swords is because you had to wear them...
Its the same reason many murricans carry tiny pistols and dont wear protective vests, the first provides just enought
protection to be practical and the other one is cumbersome and looks funny.
There are no practical sheaths for Polearms, Greatswords or Spears, you have to carry them in your hands.

Matt Easton/Scholagladitoria:
"In an unarmored duel, does a greatsword have an advantage over a longsword, rapier or any other smaller sword?
Yes, in an unarmoured fight, between greatsword, longsword and rapier I would put my money on the greatsword every time.
However, the greatsword is not a fair comparison because it's the size of a polearm. You cannot wear a greatsword "


TINYNESS TRANSLATES INTO FUCKING NOTHING POSITIVE IN COMBAT.

If hobbits existed in any time period that is not now they would be the funny little sex & gardening slave race, because
you picked the shortest straw if you are midget when it comes to fighting.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Just so we're clear here, something like LotR is pretty much the baseline for a fantasy setting right? The setting that has characters ranging from hobbits to wraiths, trolls, ents and dragons? Strength difference between any two of those has nothing to do with anything? Men should be able to just casually parry the club of a troll because it's all technique anyways?

Only if they exhibit the same reluctance to adapt to reality as you do. If the troll is massively larger than a man, I would imagine they wouldn't fight it in melee, and instead use missile weapons, long spears, siege weapons, traps, etc. That's why we have brains.

Everything in the real world points to stronger/heavier men being more effective fighters.

Sure, but everything in the real world also points to people with better technique as being FAR more effective fighters. So a heavyweight boxer might have some advantages over a middleweight (although the middleweight guy might use his speed advantage to neutralize that, it depends on the specifics), but a really skilled boxer would have MASSIVE advantages over some amateur, that would dwarf any benefits from strength unless the difference in strength was really just huge (which would be kinda silly and unrealistic). And with weapons, this difference in strength would have to be even more dramatic.

I would say that strength is a major factor of damage with a sword as well (basically anything other than a lightsaber really; if there's resistance strength will help push through, twist the weapon, etc.)

You haven't watched that video above, have you? Listen to that guy if you don't believe me, you are not pushing through using your strength, you use body mechanics and technique.

Meh idk i just really hate dexterity, dexterity is basically imaginary BS, it just exists in gaming because people thought Strength is
awesome for Clubs, Axes etc And you needed something else for the more nimble stuff. Dexterity is just something that really does not
exist, if you cant glue together some tiny model you are defective, if you cant swing a sword you are defective.

Well if you combine stuff like dexterity, speed and agility, you get something like athleticism, which I think would make for a good natural talent to have for a warrior.

Bigger means better in weapons, the only reason people favored smaller swords is because you had to wear them...

That's nonsense. There are advantages and disadvantages for every size and it depends on the circumstances. You might have heard of those obscure Romans, who did quite well for themselves with a dagger sized gladius. Many of the people who fought against them, like Gauls, often used much larger weapons, and discovered along the way, that sometimes it's very hard to impossible to use a large weapon in the thick of melee, as you don't have any space to swing it without hitting one of your people. For the same reason, a large weapon might be completely useless in a narrow alley or inside. It all depends on circumstances, and there is a reason why there are so many different historical weapons.

Matt Easton/Scholagladitoria:
"In an unarmored duel, does a greatsword have an advantage over a longsword, rapier or any other smaller sword?
Yes, in an unarmoured fight, between greatsword, longsword and rapier I would put my money on the greatsword every time.
However, the greatsword is not a fair comparison because it's the size of a polearm. You cannot wear a greatsword "

People who do HEMA typically vouch for whatever weapon has longer reach in a duel. That's why they actually state (contrary to popular beliefs) that a spear would win against a sword in those circumstances, and why rapier wins against most swords (longer reach) and since a greatsword is longer than a rapier, whoever has it can strike first and further away. But this is about reach, not strength, and a long spear would be even better than a greatsword for that. Greatswords, btw, weighed between 4 and 7 pounds typically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweihänder), so how much strength do you think a grown man would need to wield that 4-7 pounds with 2 hands effectively?

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I just posted that as a fantasy example. In real life, Oberyn's character would win much quicker and easier. He would be able to move around the much slower big man with ease, avoiding his slower attacks, poking him to death if unarmored, tiring him out very quickly if armored and then finishing him off. A guy hauling that much weight and muscle and heavy armor on top of that would be out of breath very very quickly. Good video though.

I doubt The Mountain would be built that way in real life in the first place, he would have geared his training toward weapon combat instead of boulder lifting or whatever and Oberyn wouldn't be jumping around like a circus performer (and would have still likely worn something better than leather armor). Regardless, my point was that GRRM (rightly or wrongly) still very much subscribes to the big, strong warrior archetype as The Mountain is regarded as a safe bet as they come in the Trial by Combat or on the battlefield.

I think I've read somewhere that The Mountain was based on this guy:

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/bigpier.html

It's why women stand absolutely no chance vs men in hand to hand combat of any kind, even in the same weight class. Stength matters immensely, and men are not even twice as strong as women, on average. Certainly less of a difference between two conditioned athletes of the same weight but different gender than there is between an average dude and an exceptionally strong one of a larger weight class.

That's more of an apple vs oranges comparison. On average, I'd say that the gap between male and female pro athlete in majority of pro sports (full-contact or otherwise) is even bigger than between two fighters of different weight classes.

Even if you take something like tennis for example, a 1000th ranked male pro would have a decent chance against Serena Williams (and she'd barely win a point against top guys).

Sure, but everything in the real world also points to people with better technique as being FAR more effective fighters. So a heavyweight boxer might have some advantages over a middleweight (although the middleweight guy might use his speed advantage to neutralize that, it depends on the specifics), but a really skilled boxer would have MASSIVE advantages over some amateur, that would dwarf any benefits from strength unless the difference in strength was really just huge (which would be kinda silly and unrealistic). And with weapons, this difference in strength would have to be even more dramatic.

Make no mistake, on average a heavyweight boxer (or MMA fighter for that matter) has a definite advantage over fighters of lower weight classes, it's why the term pound for pound exists (because you can't say you're outright better if you dominate a lower weight class). Of course there are exceptions like say BJ Penn having some major success across different weight classes but as a rule if it was an open weight contest the heavyweight division would dominate in boxing/kickboxing and modern MMA.

I agree with the skill/technique being a huge factor (perhaps doubly so with medieval weapons) but that is already (albeit crudely) implemented (via levels and weapon mastery) in your average CRPG given that whenever a level 1 fighter squares off against a say level 10 fighter, he gets pasted even if he's inhumanly strong and his opponent has average strength.

 

[Prime Junta]

I agree with the skill/technique being a huge factor (perhaps doubly so with medieval weapons) but that is still (crudely) implemented in your average CRPG whenever a level 1 fighter squares off against a say level 10 fighter, he gets pasted even if he's inhumanly strong and his opponent has average strength.

Here's your L1-L10 match-up with a weapon. Skip to about 18:25.

So, how much do you reckon inhuman strength would've helped the L1 guy?



Edit: he's actually a good deal better than L1. Would certainly kick the shit out of most of us here.

 

[Damned Registrations]

That's more of an apple vs oranges comparison. On average, I'd say that the gap between male and female pro athlete in majority of pro sports (full-contact or otherwise) is even bigger than between two fighters of different weight classes.

Even if you take something like tennis for example, a 1000th ranked male pro would have a decent chance against Serena Williams (and she'd barely win a point against top guys).

Yeah but I'm just trying to draw a comparison of str alone here. Using DnD, you'd get something along the lines of this for an average character's stats: 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8, with their best scores in appropriate places. So heres average people:

8 Str - scribes, mages, noblemen, wealthy merchants, etc. People who never need to lift anything.
10 str - poor merchants, craftsmen, couriers, etc. Average people. Soldiers with both con and dex above str go here too (Probably a safe bet for most of them, especially those carrying crossbows.)
12 str - farmers, blacksmiths, soldiers with more con or dex
14 str - soldiers wielding particularly heavy weapons like halberds, pikes, zweihanders (yes 7 lbs is hard to lift when it's center of gravity is 5 feet away from yours dumbass), dudes who specialized in lifting heavy shit or otherwise using strength exclusively, like loading seige weapons, hauling a rikshaw, carrying all your shit, etc.
16 str - a local freak, biggest dude in the village, elite guards and gladiators and the like.
18 str - someone so strong they are worthy of being world renowned, you'd expect such a person to be famous for their strength alone. This is where the Mountain is.
20 str - literally beyond natural human limits. The kind of person that remains famous long after dying. Now we're talking Conan or Captain America.

Now, if I roll up a character with 18 or 20 (because I picked a strong race) str, how much of an advantage do you think I should have over an average soldier with 12 strength when we're both level 1, assuming our other stats were equal? I'd say it should be pretty fucking big. 15-20% chance to hit seems perfectly reasonable, along with a decent damage bonus which is mostly overkill for decent weapons anyways, unless you're fighting something unreasonably tough like a bear or something (please, tell me more about how strength doesn't matter because fencing bears will deflect blows and not resist anything.)

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Here's your L1-L10 match-up with a weapon. Skip to about 18:25.

So, how much do you reckon inhuman strength would've helped the L1 guy?



Edit: he's actually a good deal better than L1. Would certainly kick the shit out of most of us here.

That's an interesting video but not sure how it clashes with the point I made? I see character level as an abstraction for skill/technique/experience and it trumps strength advantage in most CRPGs. Say basic DnD, a level 1 fighter with 19 strength (which is inhuman) is still gonna get whooped by a 10th level fighter with 13 strength (which is average).


Edit: By "crudely" implemented I meant that increase in level/weapon skill usually just amounts to bigger numbers while I'd like it to be handled with more finesse, like in say Gothic games where going from beginner to master in a weapon results in your character visibly handling the weapon differently with more fluid and faster swings (compared to flailing around when he's untrained) instead of just going more DPS route.

 

[Lilura]

So a heavyweight boxer might have some advantages over a middleweight (although the middleweight guy might use his speed advantage to neutralize that, it depends on the specifics)

Is the sphere of boxing not specific enough for you? A pro heavyweight is going to destroy a middleweight to the point of an uppercut from the former knocking the latter off his feet and over the ropes. He'll likely be dead, too. That's why there are weight classes: they were not instituted to protect the heavier guys from the speed and agility of the lighter ones.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I doubt The Mountain would be built that way in real life in the first place, he would have geared his training toward weapon combat instead of boulder lifting or whatever ...

Exactly! Or, in other words, strength is not that important in weapons combat.

I agree with the skill/technique being a huge factor (perhaps doubly so with medieval weapons) but that is already (albeit crudely) implemented (via levels and weapon mastery) in your average CRPG given that whenever a level 1 fighter squares off against a say level 10 fighter, he gets pasted even if he's inhumanly strong and his opponent has average strength.

If a stat is contributing to attack/damage bonuses, it shouldn't be strength, but something like a combination of agility, speed, and dexterity/coordination, with strength more logically being a threshold for weapon use (as it already is in most game systems). So if you don't have strength of say 10, you can't use a longsword in combat, and if you don't have a strength of 12, you can't use a greatsword, but once you meet those requirements, it doesn't give you any bonuses unless in specific situations (like grappling).

Make no mistake, on average a heavyweight boxer (or MMA fighter for that matter) has a definite advantage over fighters of lower weight classes, it's why the term pound for pound exists (because you can't say you're outright better if you dominate a lower weight class). Of course there are exceptions like say BJ Penn having some major success across different weight classes but as a rule if it was an open weight contest the heavyweight division would dominate in boxing/kickboxing and modern MMA.

I know they do, and said as much, but my point is, a middleweight would have a much better chance against a heavyweight than a guy off the street against a professional. In other words, technique >>>>>> strength/size.

"Conan or Captain America."

"fencing bears")

You might be able to imagine a better RPG fighting system if you step away from bad RPG tropes and imagine a game-world where people have regular people strength and fight bears with specialized hunting weapons and don't fence them.

Is the sphere of boxing not specific enough for you? A pro heavyweight is going to destroy a middleweight to the point of an uppercut from the former knocking the latter off his feet and over the ropes. He'll likely be dead, too. That's why there are weight classes: they were not instituted to protect the heavier guys from the speed and agility of the lighter ones.

That's just silly. In early MMA/UFC, there were no weight classes, and I don't recall people dying left and right. What I do recall is a 180 pound guy dominating 230-500 pounds guys with significantly superior technique. Now in boxing and more modern MMA, the difference in technique is much smaller, since they all train the same stuff, so they have to narrow size differences significantly too to make things fair. The reason I said it depends on specifics is because most heavyweights are actually slow and not particularly skilled. Every once in a while there will be a talented superstar like an Ali or a Tyson or a Foreman, but the average heavyweight is nothing like that, and a skilled middleweight might very well be able to utilize his speed and technique advantages to win more points or even win outright.

 

[Lilura]

Early MMA/UFC is not boxing: the specific sphere at hand in relation to which you made a laughable statement.

Heavyweight boxers are not slow and unskilled: that is a misconception made by ignoramuses (big = slow, clumsy & dumb: it's bullshit). A pro heavyweight is just as skilled as a pro middleweight; they work just as hard on their technique and don't gas out like ppl think. A middleweight would stand no chance, all things being equal.

So you found one example of a 180 dominating a few fat slobs in another discipline: big deal, it's not boxing. And it's not Tyson, Foreman or Frazier. I think Tyson's death gaze alone would make a baby faced middleweight quake at the knees.

 

[Kutulu]

Especially since early UFC included MacFitness Karate Teachers out of Buttfuck Alabama without any proveable record.
Early Pride & UFC included literal Jokes, yes like those Sumos are perfect examples of Strength and not FAT....