Strength and dexterity in RPGs

[SymbolicFrank]

In most RPGs you need lots of strength if you want to be able to hit someone in melee, while you need a lot of dexterity and/or agility to be able to use a bow or a firearm.

In reality, the primary thing you need to effectively use a bow is strength. Great strength for longbows and composite bows. About 50 kg on average for a bow used in war. And you need to be able to keep it drawn for a bit, so you can aim.

And while you don't need to be strong to fire a gun, strength is still the most important stat for effective gun use in war, as your strength determines how good you can aim, how fast you can re-acquire a target and how effectively you can use sub-machine guns and automatic rifles.

For the effective use of swords, you primarily need a lot of dexterity and agility. Swords aren't all that heavy, they weigh between one and two kilograms. And, while they have a cutting edge, that only works against unarmored enemies. In general, they are used to pierce the weak points, lightning fast. And agility helps to prevent getting stabbed yourself.

The only melee weapon that requires strength is a maul. A hit is surely very destructive, but you leave yourself wide open to counterattack during the (comparatively) long, slow swing. I cannot think of any other melee weapon that requires strength to improve the chance of scoring a hit.

Pole-arm users would mildly benefit from strength for endurance in long-lasting battles. But as individual battles lasted mere seconds and even in large battles with many combatants the actual fighting tended to be over in minutes, that wasn't a concern very often.


Interestingly enough, the same goes for the use of heavy armor as well. A full suit of plate mail weighs less than the backpack of a current infantry soldier, and is distributed around your body. Again, strength is mainly useful to improve the endurance, not during the actual fighting, where dexterity and agility rule.

And last but not least: light armor is often heavily padded boiled leather, which tends to be more stiff and bulky than full plate, and certainly chain mail.

 

[Mustawd]

Why is this in Science? Reported to move to proper forum.

 

[HoboForEternity]

because balancing and gameplay reason.

 

[Bibbimbop]

Impressive autism.

Neither really matters much, and particularly not in pitched battles where you are shoulder-to-shoulder with others and no room to dodge exists. However, strength corresponds somewhat weakly to the real determinant in fights.

Body mass. Whoever has the most weight, generally does win, barring greatly outmatched skill and overall conditioning. This is the reality that imposes weight classes in sports. To the extent that a lighter man can win a fight against heavier opponents, he either throws his lesser weight into his strikes much better than the heavier guy, or deflects the bodyweight behind the opponent's hit rather than tanking it himself, or uses holds to gain biomechanical leverage over the heavier man put into a weak position.

 

[Mustawd]

Body mass. Whoever has the most weight, generally does win, barring greatly outmatched skill and overall conditioning. This is the reality that imposes weight classes in sports. To the extent that a lighter man can win a fight against heavier opponents, he either throws his lesser weight into his strikes much better than the heavier guy, or deflects the bodyweight behind the opponent's hit rather than tanking it himself, or uses holds to gain biomechanical leverage over the heavier man put into a weak position.

In medieval times skill was a huge difference when you were a noble/knight (which meant you got tons of training at a young age) or some big bodied peasant who probably only picked up a weapon a handful of times and didn't know how to properly fight worth a crap.

 

[Kahr]

Dexterity is for archers because of two reasons:
1. women (male attribute strength vs female attribute dexterity/agility)
2. elves (dwarfen attributes strength/constitution vs elven attribute dexterity/agility or intelligence)
Archers are women or elves or elven women.

 

[AMG]

Good designers already fixed this conundrum by making everything depend on Might.

 

[Scruffy]

Why is this in Science? Reported to move to proper forum.

it's a scientific approach to rpgs

Neither really matters much, and particularly not in pitched battles where you are shoulder-to-shoulder with others and no room to dodge exists.

rpgs are never really about that though, the fighting is more "freeform" and varied

 

[Naveen]

Fighting for your life is a whole-body exercise, it's not fencing or sparring with a dummy, it involves bashing, kicking, punching, and just shoving the other guy/orc. Strength is a key factor. Also, don't forget that (good) rpgs are abstract representations of combat (there is a reason D&D named the basic unit of time in combat a 'round' that lasts a whole minute) not simulators of isolated strikes.

In medieval times skill was a huge difference when you were a noble/knight (which meant you got tons of training at a young age) or some big bodied peasant who probably only picked up a weapon a handful of times and didn't know how to properly fight worth a crap.

Well, in D&D terms, that peasant wouldn't even be a warrior so he'd lack the weapon proficiency and would suffer a big penalty fighting with most wepaons (-3 or -4 I think). That proficiency and being a level 1 or 2 warrior is what all those years of training represent. Not even the strongest peasant could compete with that (unless he uses a staff, a rock, or a goat.)

 

[Ninjerk]

In proper medieval warfare do you really need to aim a warbow? Isn't the point to just kind of... tilt it at the right angle and fire in volleys?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Warbow isn't really the same deal as a shortbow you'd expect a thief or ranger to be using. Warbows need to fire huge distances so they can shoot the other guy first; if you're going to be shooting a guy/animal only 30 feet away anyways, you don't need THAT much strength. In those cases what matters much more is aiming at a moving target, which amounts to dexterity/perception, and quickly being able to nock an arrow instead of fumbling around to get one out of the quiver with your sausage fingers and arm that can barely wipe your ass because it's too bulky.

And while it might require little strength to wave a sword around, as soon as there is another guy on the other end trying to force it aside, strength matters a ton. Sure, having better leverage in the first place through skill/dex is better too, but all else being equal, size/strength are going to decide who wins out.

 

[Mustawd]

but all else being equal, size/strength are going to decide who wins out.

I dunno. seeing that when you parry with a sword you don't really need to do a direct parry (i.e. it's a glancing parry that doe snot require as much strength), I would think speed and reaction time would be more important. Kind f the same concept with boxing and parrying.

You can kind of see this in some Huma sparring matches on youtube, which of course are not 100% realistic. But there's always a big difference in speed between a highly skilled participant and one who is not.

 

[Ninjerk]

Strength is important in boxing, too. Perhaps not to the extent that many guys go out of their way to weight train, but I have to think when they start leaning on one another and trying to force an opening that strength starts playing a bigger role than trying to evade a punch.

 

[Mustawd]

Strength is important in boxing, too. Perhaps not to the extent that many guys go out of their way to weight train, but I have to think when they start leaning on one another and trying to force an opening that strength starts playing a bigger role than trying to evade a punch.

True, but clinching matters a lot more when you're trying to slow a fight down and when you're a few rounds in and you're both tired. We're talking about something that can be over in a minute or two, if not seconds. Especially on the battlefield.

If it's a one on one duel, yeah I see your point. Strength will probably take a lot more of a role.

 

[Bibbimbop]

In medieval times skill was a huge difference when you were a noble/knight (which meant you got tons of training at a young age) or some big bodied peasant who probably only picked up a weapon a handful of times and didn't know how to properly fight worth a crap.

Big-bodied yeomen did stout service with their bill-hooks at Crecy and Agincourt against supposedly elite knights. All of the medieval and ancient world was a time when men fought each other as a generally accepted feature of society. Every red-blooded and rough-handed peasant lad was familiar with dishing out the knocks on a rude neighbour or the rival suitor of a comely lass, and murder was often defined as unfair or cowardly killings, not two yeomen deciding to settle their quarrel with quarterstaves or other common farm implements that, oddly enough, resembled the bill-hooks and glaives to which they could be repurposed in war-time. Peasants were not push-overs in the "fighting and brawling their whole lives" department.

 

[Ninjerk]

The strongest man on the battlefield is the one who doesn't get run through with a pike. :D

 

[Damned Registrations]

I dunno. seeing that when you parry with a sword you don't really need to do a direct parry (i.e. it's a glancing parry that doe snot require as much strength), I would think speed and reaction time would be more important.

For something like a direct thrust sure, but if someone is swinging to cleave between your shoulders and waste, a glancing parry isn't really an option. What you're saying applies more to fencing... which generally goes off dex modifiers in games.

 

[Mangoose]

In most RPGs you need lots of strength if you want to be able to hit someone in melee, while you need a lot of dexterity and/or agility to be able to use a bow or a firearm.

In reality, the primary thing you need to effectively use a bow is strength. Great strength for longbows and composite bows. About 50 kg on average for a bow used in war. And you need to be able to keep it drawn for a bit, so you can aim.

And while you don't need to be strong to fire a gun, strength is still the most important stat for effective gun use in war, as your strength determines how good you can aim, how fast you can re-acquire a target and how effectively you can use sub-machine guns and automatic rifles.

For the effective use of swords, you primarily need a lot of dexterity and agility. Swords aren't all that heavy, they weigh between one and two kilograms. And, while they have a cutting edge, that only works against unarmored enemies. In general, they are used to pierce the weak points, lightning fast. And agility helps to prevent getting stabbed yourself.

The only melee weapon that requires strength is a maul. A hit is surely very destructive, but you leave yourself wide open to counterattack during the (comparatively) long, slow swing. I cannot think of any other melee weapon that requires strength to improve the chance of scoring a hit.

Pole-arm users would mildly benefit from strength for endurance in long-lasting battles. But as individual battles lasted mere seconds and even in large battles with many combatants the actual fighting tended to be over in minutes, that wasn't a concern very often.


Interestingly enough, the same goes for the use of heavy armor as well. A full suit of plate mail weighs less than the backpack of a current infantry soldier, and is distributed around your body. Again, strength is mainly useful to improve the endurance, not during the actual fighting, where dexterity and agility rule.

And last but not least: light armor is often heavily padded boiled leather, which tends to be more stiff and bulky than full plate, and certainly chain mail.

IMO what matters most is (1) skill/training (2) agreed with dexterity/agility but also intelligence, or rather the combination of intelligence + "dexterity" in terms of quick/reactive thinking.

But as individual battles lasted mere seconds

Very true, as in terms of lesser-armored combat it comes down to first strike. In terms of heavier armored combat it can get into grappling type of fighting which I assume would be again skill/training + "intelligence" + "dexterity" + strength.

 

[Mangoose]

I dunno. seeing that when you parry with a sword you don't really need to do a direct parry (i.e. it's a glancing parry that doe snot require as much strength), I would think speed and reaction time would be more important.

For something like a direct thrust sure, but if someone is swinging to cleave between your shoulders and waste, a glancing parry isn't really an option. What you're saying applies more to fencing... which generally goes off dex modifiers in games.

Disagree. A glancing parry or a dodge really is the only option of defense. The point of a glancing parry is redirection. Even a "direct block" is with the intention of redirection. The fundamental "hard block" in eskrima for example is direct block IMMEDIATELY followed by turning the enemy's weapon to the side. And eskrima (and any modern practical martial "art") is not sport fencing, the strikes are direct blows, the stick is meant to teach you to use a barong, and you can compare it to an ASP/baton.

Moreover, a "glancing" parry is way more effective than you'd think, of course complemented by correct footwork. Another example is how boxers fight. Nobody uses their "hands-up" as a direct block. If you want to take a straight without weaving you are always slapping it, no matter how strong. Or the (I forget the name) stance Mayweather uses, he takes enemy straights by simply rolling his body so that it glances off his shoulder. It of course always will hit you and hurt you but it very much nullifies the hit.

Edit: I believe the only "modern" direct block I've seen is knife fighting, where you may block a swing by blocking their forearm with yours. But of course you would do it as early as possible before he can actually achieve velocity. Eskrima if used with two weapons honestly is "spada y daga", which means sword and dagger, which is directly from practical cut-and-thrust weapon art (18th century?) that was imported from the Spanish.

 

[Mustawd]

Or the (I forget the name) stance Mayweather uses, he takes enemy straights by simply rolling his body so that it glances off his shoulder. It of course always will hit you and hurt you but it very much nullifies the hit.

IIRC Mayweather used a classic counterpunch stance, which really was his specialty.

I agree with a lot of your points, but when you factor in a shield, I think Strength tends to start tipping the scale a bit more in its favor. Trying to use a shield effectively, have good footwork, and swing a weapon, whether that's a sword, axe, mace, etc, requires a certain amount of strength to do it effectively and with force. If we're talking more rapier fencing, then it begins to matter a bit less, and reaction time as well as strategy and skill are almost everything.

 

[Mangoose]

Or the (I forget the name) stance Mayweather uses, he takes enemy straights by simply rolling his body so that it glances off his shoulder. It of course always will hit you and hurt you but it very much nullifies the hit.

IIRC Mayweather used a classic counterpunch stance, which really was his specialty.

I agree with a lot of your points, but when you factor in a shield, I think Strength tends to start tipping the scale a bit more in its favor. Trying to use a shield effectively, have good footwork, and swing a weapon, whether that's a sword, axe, mace, etc, requires a certain amount of strength to do it effectively and with force. If we're talking more rapier fencing, then it begins to matter a bit less, and reaction time as well as strategy and skill are almost everything.

You still always prioritize deflection with a shield. In terms of one-on-one, at least. In the typical Roman formation it's all about attrition really, where the front line will last as long as possible and then be relieved. But a shield is really no different from a weapon in terms of technique, it's just a different type.

Side note on Mayweather, I meant I forgot the actual name of the stance that boxers decided on. They called it a cross stance or something. Mainly I found it interesting because of the specific idea of straights being slipped via the shoulder.

Edit: Well, actually I suppose using an offhand shield does require strength (endurance-type) as it sure is heavier than a dagger or using the offhand as an empty hand.

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

You're all retarded.

Some strength and some agility/dexterity is needed and more of either of those doesn't hurt. Overall strength>>>>>>>agility/dexterity in medieval terms, in early modern times due to existence of weapons like rapiers, agility became more important and that's why you don't see 2 metres tall, 120kg's big boxer-like meatbags fencing each other but instead Olympic fencers are relatively lean(which doesn't in ANY way mean that they have the strength of a nerd who sits in front of his computer whole his life).

 

[Mangoose]

Overall strength>>>>>>>agility/dexterity in medieval terms

Nope,

(A) The strength of a hit comes from correct body technique - Your strength always comes from correct movement of the hips.

(B) You don't need a lot of strength for a fatal hit. Unless we go into heavy vs. heavy, as above, typically turns into grappling.

(C) Because a fight ends in 2-3 seconds. Initiative is most important, really. And luck.

(D) Just because Olympic fencers use those techniques doesn't mean similar techniques were used before. It's logical fallacy to say that a type of technique being used by a specific group = same type of technique isn't used by a different group. Again, like I mentioned, current practical real weapon training is very similar. As in, non-dagger ASP/baton usage, and these are techniques incorporated in law enforcement and military.

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

A - as I've said, basic agility/dexterity is needed, it's obvious to anybody who ever punched somebody else in his stupid face
B - more strength = heavier/longer weapon - see that 16th century pirate who was said to be over 210cm, the sword that's said to be his(because nobody else from this period and this area could be THIS big to carry it) was like 180cm long
C - that depends on whether it's duel, skirmish or battle(in case of actual military actions there's more than just weapon wielding and again strength reigns supreme here, even today)
D - Olympic fencers use techniques typical for all that pointy-stabby rapiers, or more precisely Épée and other similar weapons

 

[Mustawd]

Let's not even involve Olympic fencing in this discussion. a lot of the same skills are needed (agility, speed, reaction time, and overall athleticism), but the "sport" is fundamentally different than any form of fighting.

That being said, strength as a determining factor is truly retarded. It's like saying the bigger gun wins in a firefight. BBut if you can't aim who gives a crap?