I recently was thinking this, began rereading the PHB to check the rules for reals. Everything is dope until you get to the meat of it, past the equipment section. The combat rules are pretty awful.
#Hellfire Club .... Oh and it's not strictly tabletop but it's played on top of a table haha ha .... ha :/ : Magic The Gathering ! \m/ Peace !
I mean the 20 sided dice (and sometimes You even have to throw 1d100 - my favourite - imagine : scoring a 100 critical hit on that throw .....) !!! xD I would be ecstatic - to say the least ! xD
That's one of the most realistic abstractions in the whole game.
Yeah shouldn't it be dexterity or agility that determines Your chance to hit of all stats !? Come on ! When You're stronger doesn't mean You're supper accurate all of a sudden ! right ? aghhhh .....
Stronger means more central nervous system control, so yes that improves your aiming accuracy.
oh for those not versed in D&D (for reference) there's a chart for stats meaning 25 is Godlike and 0-3 is "a wonder how You even got born in the first place - that's so weak !!" It's a 0-25 scale for stats in D&D
Humanly possible strength for humanoid in D&D is usually 18 and You cannot go above unless you're using some god-like artifacts ot "frost giant's belt of strength", for reference bears usually got 16 and trolls 18 We're talking -2 AC Slash and +2AC Pierce According to well the rules of the 2nd to 3rd edition and than it got all switched up :O ) How come strength give You bonus To Hit is beyond me That's my only beef 
I mean, I gave you a perfectly clear example.Nevertheless aiming with strength is maybe a just basic ability to handle the weapon. (make Your basic swings with it etc. not aiming - that;s a skill !
I always interpreted the To Hit bonus from Strength as reflecting the pushing-and-shoving in melee combat. I used to imagine that only a Critical Hit represented a real hit with the weapon in hand, other damage was the 'war of attrition' between combatants who are desperately trying not to get hit by the weapon. You can imagine a human fighter battling an Orc, there's headbutts and punches and stomping on each other's feet and kneeing each other in the stomach, and throwing each other around. Depending on the character's cultural background, trained warriors would be using the equivalents of Greco-Roman wrestling, judo, Muay Thai or Krav Maga, even while they're fighting with swords and shields in armor.
It is deliberately simplified, yes. I don't think that's necessarily a weakness, though. There's something to be said for a quick system in a tabletop RPG game. I think it depends on how much you want it to be a tactical battle game, and how much you want it to be about the characters and the story. I've played both styles, and enjoyed both. For a campaign that focuses on the details of the fighting, I agree that D&D might be too streamlined.
Yeah You did - it just does not hold up . If for example Your Your blow is strong enough You pierce the armor and do damage - that is the mechanic that does not add up to me I guess.
In the terms of Armor Class mechanics of D&D system I mean - do not think that I am daft !
Well, it's clear as day so I guess I can't help you. Perhaps try it out yourself. Maybe it'll help if you know steroids help with batting averages.
I find that second part a little easier to deal with than some other things: The 'To Hit' roll is not so much "whether you get hit", but "whether you get hurt."
which is counter-intuitive.
Yes, it's not a good system. Almost none of the games I played back in the day had good systems.The bottom line is in D&D it boils down to "To Hit"
