STR modifier: damage only?

[aspiringlich]

I'm considering limiting the STR modifier to damage rolls only. Here's why: (1) I don't see why being stronger would make you more accurate. Someone who can bench 400 lbs. isn't necessarily better at landing a punch than a weaker guy. However, the guy who can bench 400, if his punch connects, will do a helluva lot more damage than the weaker guy. (2) It would make for more symmetry with the DEX modifier, which only modifies attack rolls. So we would have: STR=melee damage, DEX=ranged attack.

Thoughts?

[kipper]

I assumed the rationale is that a stronger opponent is better at penetrating an enemy's armour/hide/defences and thus gains a "to hit" bonus.

However, having said that I do think that separating "to hit" and "damage" using real-world logic is very difficult at best, as they both have the same net effect in the end (more damage to the opponent).

[aspiringlich]

I assumed the rationale is that a stronger opponent is better at penetrating an enemy's armour/hide/defences and thus gains a "to hit" bonus.

However, having said that I do think that separating "to hit" and "damage" using real-world logic is very difficult at best, as they both have the same net effect in the end (more damage to the opponent).

I agree that being hit and being damaged are (more often than not) two sides of the same coin. But if so, then applying the modifier to both rolls seems to be a kind of double whammy, adding a bonus to the same action twice over.

[petespahn]

I assumed the rationale is that a stronger opponent is better at penetrating an enemy's armour/hide/defences and thus gains a "to hit" bonus.

I think that, plus a stronger person is going to find it easier to control the swing of a weapon than a weaker person.

[jrodman]

Or to overpower the guard of a defender.

[greyarea]

Or to break through armor: to force that spearpoint through chainmail or crumple that helmet with a mace.

That said, if you were my DM and made a damage only rule, I'd be fine with it.