Xev's system: How do these energy mechanics sound? (and some HP ideas)

[Xeviat]

Still working on my own system. Attempting something different here, to separate things from d20 and expand my horizons.

First, I am thinking about my energy mechanic. There will be three energy sources that players utilize:

Vitality is for maneuvers, which is generally used for weapon-based combat abilities as well as actions that would conceivably fatigue, such as running, charging, and putting extra effort into attacks. Vitality recovers automatically on a round when you do not spend any Vitality. Vitality is the chief energy of Warriors.

Mana is for spells. All spells cost mana (at-will magic is relegated to wands, staffs, and other implements, as well as minor skill-based magic). It takes an action to recover mana, an action which does nothing otherwise (think of it as focusing to draw mana in from the world around you). Mana is the chief energy of Magi.

Expertise is for tricks, which are skill based abilities. Things like feinting or feats of acrobatics are tricks. Expertise recovers automatically at the start of every round. Expertise is the chief energy of Experts.

I am looking at tracking these energy pools with dice. A goal of the system is to utilize all of the standard D&D polyhedrals, a goal started when my wife said (in response to playing L5R and M&M) she wanted to play with all of her dice. I don't blame her, we have a lot. If tracking them with dice proves problematic (such as requiring unnecessarily large pools of dice from players), then I'll just go with poker chips.

The idea is that all charactes start with 1 point of each Vitality, Mana, and Expertise, and classes gain extra points in the energy that they primarily use (to use D&D names, a Fighter would get extra vitality). There is a penalty for having a pool at 0, meant to limit the use of out-of-nature abilities (it's a magical world, most everyone can use their mana for something, but it's risky to do so). Additionally, characters have a bonus for having their primary resource full, which is meant to make spending your points not always the best option.

I am liking the idea of simply having each level of a class grant 1 point of energy in its chief energy type. This ties into my desire to make a 3 class system of Warrior, Expert, and Mage, and have players start with 3 levels (so you can be a 3, 2/1, or 1/1/1 and have variety of choices; that's 7 choices without getting into optional class abilities).

The last mechanic related to energy is the idea of overspending. Characters could have the option to spend a point and have it count as 2 points; in return, that point cannot be regenerated without a longer rest than is possible in the midst of an encounter (something like a minute rest).

Thoughts?

[Xeviat]

HP

My HP ideas are rather sparse at the moment. The first idea is that I want attacks to be resolved with one roll; you roll to hit, and your roll determines both whether you hit and how well you hit. No more rolling separately for to hit and damage.

But I do want a second roll to be involved. Rather than the attacker making two rolls, or having a general defense roll, I want the onus of defense to be on the defender. I want defending to be a conscious choice. I want the player to decide if they want to try to dodge, block, parry, or simply brace or turn aside. By having players take defensive reactions, I think players will pay more attention to the turn by turn action of the game and feel like they're doing more.

Related to my above energy mechanic, if I end up having higher number pools for Vitality and Mana, I like the idea of high Vitality players using their vitality to make attacks less lethal. In a way, you can preemptively use Vitality to avoid HP damage, while Mana could be used retroactively to cure HP damage. This creates a feelable difference between VP and MP while leaving them comparable.

My only worry about this is that I'm not certain how point pools that are spent both offensively and defensively really work out. Spell slots in D&D can be used offensively or defensively, but I remember not liking having to spend my VP on force powers. Using my proactive vs. retroactive HP defense comparison above, they should be functionally similar.

The idea of spending VP with the smaller pool (if the pool is equal to Warrior Level +1) towards attempting to negate hits doesn't sound bad.

Either way, with having VP used to negate hits, HP can be described as actual physical damage; it can be physical damage so much so that I may call it Wound Points.

[Xeviat]

Ability Scores

I know that I want 4 physical ability scores and 4 mental ability scores, corresponding roughly to Power, Toughness, Finesse, and Quickness. It started off as To hit, Damage, Avoidance, and Endurance (with 4 for physical and 4 for mental), but now I am looking at having singular attack rolls.

My initial idea on how the scores will operate is by assigning a die to each score: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12. With 8 scores, the default could be the following, with one die assigned to each ability score: 1d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, 1d12. These dice are rolled to determine success, with max rolls exploding (roll max, you roll again); having d4s explode helps put them closer to the other dice, as they will explode more frequently (I may abandon this if it feels weird for one's weaker score to get lucky more often, though it does make one rely upon that luck).

I may have these dice rolled along with a d20 to determine success. Another idea would be to have sustained actions have a target number that needs to be reached, with each roll of the die determining how much success is gained in each round (You're picking a Lock with a rating of 20; you keep rolling to open the lock until you reach 20 points; this would need some mechanic for failure that makes success impossible).

The idea for equipment would be that tools add dice to your roll, but you still only keep the highest. So someone with a d10 Strength, for instance, making an attack with a sword would roll 2d10 and keep the highest. Better equipment could add more dice.

Typing some of these things makes them sound weird, but I'm mostly trying to get them out of my head and get some new opinions on them. Thanks all.

[sparkletwist]

There is a penalty for having a pool at 0, meant to limit the use of out-of-nature abilities (it's a magical world, most everyone can use their mana for something, but it's risky to do so). Additionally, characters have a bonus for having their primary resource full, which is meant to make spending your points not always the best option.

I am liking the idea of simply having each level of a class grant 1 point of energy in its chief energy type. This ties into my desire to make a 3 class system of Warrior, Expert, and Mage, and have players start with 3 levels (so you can be a 3, 2/1, or 1/1/1 and have variety of choices; that's 7 choices without getting into optional class abilities).

I have a few doubts about the workability of this.

For one, is there a penalty if you have 0 out of 0 points in an energy type? If there is, it punishes people who single-class, because they're going to be taking two of the 0-point penalties... and if there isn't, then it punishes people who multi-class, because you can only use one point and then you start taking penalties, where if you didn't bother to invest in that ability at all, you take no punishment. Unless you front-load the abilities, I guess, then there's an advantage to dealing with that, but it's still a little awkward.

A bonus for being at max capacity in your "primary" energy type sort of screws the single-classers, too, because they'll be there less often, given they only have one energy type to use. It also kind of screws mana-users and benefits expertise-users, who seem like they'd always get the bonus depending on when it was handed out, because it refreshes every round no matter what they do.

I also think multi-classing all three energy types could get sort of wonky and fiddly anyway because you now have three distinct resources that you have to manage and they all refresh at different times. It seems like if you're going to work with different resource management systems-- which isn't bad in itself-- you should probably connect them somehow, or just not allow players to be using more than one at a time.

Anyway. About dice, my "quick and dirty" system (which I actually call Q&D because it sounds like D&D) uses a d20 + a certain number of d6s depending on your skill in something. So if you have a skill of 3, you roll d20+3d6. I've used it for a couple of games, and it's currently in use for the Cad Goleor game being run on IRC here. In practice, it's worked pretty well.

Changing the die size instead of changing the dice used could work too, but I'd strongly recommend making the maximum value of a die (n-1)+explode rather than simply n+explode; e.g., rolling an 8 on a d8 gets you a 7 plus whatever you then roll. Otherwise, it's impossible to roll a 4 on d4's, impossible to roll a 6 on d6's, and so on, and that leads to the math getting weird if your target number is one of those impossible values-- on a DC 6 check, you get at least a 6 (and thus succeed) 18.75% of the time using an exploding d4, but only 16.667% of the time on a d6, so you do worse having a better skill.

[Humabout]

I like that requiring Vitality expenditures for combat will necessarily force people to take a realistic approach to combat - one of action and rest.  It will also help differentiate PCs who have high stamina from those who don't.  I use a house rule similar to this in my games, and even with the little extra bookkeeping it introduces, it's easy enough to handle.

As for the attack roll determining the damage, how about this:  Attacker rolls to attack.  Defender rolls to defend.  Margin of success for attacker modified by weapon determines damage inflicted.  Armor either subtracts from this damage (this is probably most logical) or it adds a bonus to Defense Roll (faster option).  Two rolls, minimal math, and should be pretty fast in combat.

I'll do a probabilistic breakdown on your ability dice before commenting on that.  I think your concern of "getting lucky" too often may be an issue, but I want to reserve my judgement until I'm more certain.

I may have these dice rolled along with a d20 to determine success. Another idea would be to have sustained actions have a target number that needs to be reached, with each roll of the die determining how much success is gained in each round (You're picking a Lock with a rating of 20; you keep rolling to open the lock until you reach 20 points; this would need some mechanic for failure that makes success impossible).

Why not just make the person roll repeatedly until they succeed, with each roll taking a certain amount of time determined by the skill, and increasing this time granting a bonus?  For instance, doubling the time grants +1 bonus; x4 grants +2; x8 grants +3, etc. (as an example...figure out what feels right for your game, of course).

The idea for equipment would be that tools add dice to your roll, but you still only keep the highest. So someone with a d10 Strength, for instance, making an attack with a sword would roll 2d10 and keep the highest. Better equipment could add more dice.

What does Strength have to do with aiming a sword?  That's totally a Dexterity/Finesse thing.  Even for big, heavy weapons (which may require minimum amounts of Strength to lift or use effectively).

[Humabout]

Here's some info that might be helpful regarding exploding dice:

Die Type	Average Results
1d4	2.833333
1d6	3.7
1d8	4.642857
1d10	5.611111
1d12	6.590909
1d20	10.552631
1d100	50.51010101

So despite the higher odds of "getting lucky," the lower maximal result persists.  I see this having the odd effect of giving the impression that low skill gives good luck, but in reality luck doesn't do squat to make the attribute produce higher results.  I don't think this is really a good idea.  IMO, one shouldn't get lucky because they suck at something, and when a person does get lucky, it should have a big impact on their success.  I know this sounds like I'm arguing both sides, but that's kind of how the exploding dice feel to me.

[sparkletwist]

Why not just make the person roll repeatedly until they succeed

Any sort of "roll repeatedly until ___" mechanic sounds tedious. Why even bother? It seems like it'd just waste time. I think d20 has "take 20" precisely to avoid this kind of situation.

My own thinking is: you want X to happen, so just have X happen-- and if how long it takes is important, then figure out a mechanic to determine that.

What does Strength have to do with aiming a sword?  That's totally a Dexterity/Finesse thing.  Even for big, heavy weapons (which may require minimum amounts of Strength to lift or use effectively).

Strength has been used as the melee attack stat in d20 systems basically forever. It does this as basically a game balance thing: dexterity is far too powerful if it gets used for melee attacks in addition to all of its other uses. Since it costs the same amount of character resources to increase each of your 6 stats, they all need to be fairly good for something. (Constitution already sort of fails at this, but I digress...)

[Xeviat]

Considering that I'll be separating Dexterity into Dexterity and Agility (one is accuracy, one is avoidance), I'm not worried about having an uber stat. In my initial thoughts, while still looking at a standard d20 angle, I was looking at having the 4 physical ability scores be: +To Hit, +Damage, +HP, +AC. Mentals would be similar; rather than having Con to HP, Con could be DR for physical, and a mental stat would be DR for mental damage.

As I'm liking the idea of having one roll to determine attacks, I'm thinking of having most stats be able to be used for offense. If each stat has a defense and some skills, as an initial idea, then things would be fair; generally speaking, people put their high stat in their offense stat anyway.

As for the actual input:

I have a few doubts about the workability of this.

For one, is there a penalty if you have 0 out of 0 points in an energy type? If there is, it punishes people who single-class, because they're going to be taking two of the 0-point penalties... and if there isn't, then it punishes people who multi-class, because you can only use one point and then you start taking penalties, where if you didn't bother to invest in that ability at all, you take no punishment. Unless you front-load the abilities, I guess, then there's an advantage to dealing with that, but it's still a little awkward.

This part of the idea was when I was thinking of dealing with larger pools. It could work if everyone starts out with 2 points in each pool and then adds to them by class. The idea of spending your last point is supposed to have a penalty; it's something you don't do until the end, when the penalty won't matter, or unless you really need it. You're correct that it will make multiclassing difficult, but this idea also started before the idea of just having three classes (the original idea was to have 2 classes of each type, then 1 class for each dual type and 1 class for three type; each class would have its own mechanics). The penalty at zero with 1 point of each base exists to say that, yes, a warrior can use some mana or some expertise to do things, but there's a heavier cost. I'm also not looking at these being enormously invasive penalties, more just something to let the player feel like they're tired, spent, or have lost their focus. Heck, simply not having access to reactionary abilities could prove to be enough of a penalty itself.

Remember how the energies recover; this penalty should only be suffered for a round, or part of a round. If a Warrior spends their last VP, then next round they can't spend any anyway, so a point recovers (one point, all points, still unsure on recovery). If a Mage spends their last MP, next round they have to spend an action to recover MP. Experts recover theirs at the start of each round, so they will often hold 1 EP in reserve (to use defensively, like for a rolling dodge) so as not to suffer whatever penalty exists for losing one's focus.

As for multiclassers, one's "at max" ability will likely only trigger off of one energy type. Perhaps there will be a "class ability" choice at character creation, with prerequisites for being 3, 2/1, or 1/1/1 (Monk may require 1/1/1, Barbarian or Soldier could require 3 Warrior). This way, MCers wouldn't be sitting ontop of 3 separate bonuses for having their resources at full. Like the 0 penalty, the full bonus exists to make players feel like they're energized.

A bonus for being at max capacity in your "primary" energy type sort of screws the single-classers, too, because they'll be there less often, given they only have one energy type to use. It also kind of screws mana-users and benefits expertise-users, who seem like they'd always get the bonus depending on when it was handed out, because it refreshes every round no matter what they do.

I also think multi-classing all three energy types could get sort of wonky and fiddly anyway because you now have three distinct resources that you have to manage and they all refresh at different times. It seems like if you're going to work with different resource management systems-- which isn't bad in itself-- you should probably connect them somehow, or just not allow players to be using more than one at a time.

Multiclassers will probably be not so tough to deal with. Spending points will likely take actions, and as such it will be difficult to spend too much at once. A Warrior/Mage, for example, may devote some mana to charging heating up their sword, and then primarily rely upon their vitality for maneuvers; if a bunch of minions show up, the Warrior/Mage might find it prudent to blow their mana on dropping an explosion, or something.

That brings up another aside; rather than requiring all abilities to spend points, some may require points to be devoted to them. This seems like a good way to handle duration abilities; rather than tracking the duration of your flight spell, perhaps it works as long as you silo at least 2 MP into it. Just a thought.

Anyway. About dice, my "quick and dirty" system (which I actually call Q&D because it sounds like D&D) uses a d20 + a certain number of d6s depending on your skill in something. So if you have a skill of 3, you roll d20+3d6. I've used it for a couple of games, and it's currently in use for the Cad Goleor game being run on IRC here. In practice, it's worked pretty well.

Changing the die size instead of changing the dice used could work too, but I'd strongly recommend making the maximum value of a die (n-1)+explode rather than simply n+explode; e.g., rolling an 8 on a d8 gets you a 7 plus whatever you then roll. Otherwise, it's impossible to roll a 4 on d4's, impossible to roll a 6 on d6's, and so on, and that leads to the math getting weird if your target number is one of those impossible values-- on a DC 6 check, you get at least a 6 (and thus succeed) 18.75% of the time using an exploding d4, but only 16.667% of the time on a d6, so you do worse having a better skill.

Interesting. I like that idea. I'm curious, though, about the probabilities there. d4 exploding will get a six on a roll of 4+3, or 4+4, or 25% x 50%, or 12.5%. d6 will get it on rolling a 6 and anything else, or 16.66%. Very curious how that works out. Has that proved to be intuitive at your table? Perhaps I could do it in a different direction, and say that the each exploding die suffers a -1 penalty (min 0), so that endless explosions aren't possible. Rolling a string of 4s would then be 4+(3)+(2)+(1) at max.

[Xeviat]

I like that requiring Vitality expenditures for combat will necessarily force people to take a realistic approach to combat - one of action and rest.  It will also help differentiate PCs who have high stamina from those who don't.  I use a house rule similar to this in my games, and even with the little extra bookkeeping it introduces, it's easy enough to handle.

If I go with pools higher than just a handful (as in a pool rather than a die or a chip pool), I like the idea of being able to create widely differentiated characters. I've always wanted "rope-a-dope" to be a valid strategy. I also really like the idea of the high Stamina character having options; they can spend their points on dealing more damage or dodging more, where the high Agility character naturally dodges more and the high Strength character naturally deals more damage.

As for the attack roll determining the damage, how about this:  Attacker rolls to attack.  Defender rolls to defend.  Margin of success for attacker modified by weapon determines damage inflicted.  Armor either subtracts from this damage (this is probably most logical) or it adds a bonus to Defense Roll (faster option).  Two rolls, minimal math, and should be pretty fast in combat.

Something like that. But I don't want defense rolls to be automatic; I want them to be a conscious decision. It adds ownership to player's actions (and it dovetails nicely into determining attacking unaware or defenseless targets).

I'll do a probabilistic breakdown on your ability dice before commenting on that.  I think your concern of "getting lucky" too often may be an issue, but I want to reserve my judgement until I'm more certain.

I had already seen the numbers, and I got very similar ones to you. I was saying that it simply feels like the unskilled person gets lucky more (25% of the time, I crit!).

Why not just make the person roll repeatedly until they succeed, with each roll taking a certain amount of time determined by the skill, and increasing this time granting a bonus?  For instance, doubling the time grants +1 bonus; x4 grants +2; x8 grants +3, etc. (as an example...figure out what feels right for your game, of course).

Like sparkletwist, I don't like the idea of automated rolling. I'm liking sparkle's suggestion of largely assuming success. While I want failure to exist, I am more and more liking the idea of "failing forward".

For example, you're a thief and you're locked in a cell. You ransack the cell and find a few items to make crude lockpicks. Because of their crude nature, your rolls aren't good and it takes you a long time to pick the lock. You make some noise in the process. When you finally get the lock open, you break the picks and get noticed by the watchman. Now your escape is going to be a chase.

But then again, always assuming success might get boring for more gameist players; it works very well for storytelling players.

What does Strength have to do with aiming a sword?  That's totally a Dexterity/Finesse thing.  Even for big, heavy weapons (which may require minimum amounts of Strength to lift or use effectively).

Like I said in my last post, I'm thinking of letting multiple ability scores contribute to offense. Using Strength to make an attack is where you're simply trying to hit anything as hard as you can; whether you catch a limb, hit center body mass, or the head, your opponent is going to feel it. If I'm swinging a tree, I don't really care where I hit you, just that I make contact. Thus, there could be a difference between Mighty attacks and Finesse attacks (and, hopefully, times when players who aren't strong in one still choose to attempt because of the benefits).

Thanks for the early replies. Don't feel bad for criticising, as this is still preliminary and I'm not married to too much (only that I want to have three different energy sources that recover differently). I'm playing with the idea of having a character type who uses Tricks (Expertise) that are drawn randomly from a list, to represent the chaotic flow of combat; the opportunity to throw sand in someone's eyes, vanish without a trace, or pull off a successful feint don't come up automatically. Just a thought.

[Humabout]

With regard to defenses, they don't have to be mandatory.  Armor worn should probably always protect though.

As for strength's role in combat, I have to insist that strength has nothing to do with aiming anything ever - even a Star Trek ost roundhouse punch.  That is totally a hand eye coordination thing.  That usually falls under whatever passes for dexterity in a system.  It's your call of course.

[Xeviat]

I still say that swinging for the fences sacrifices so much accuracy that you might as well not be aiming. You're just hoping the person is there when the bat is. It sounds like a maneuver. Now, one could argue that a more coordinated person is going to have a better swing, but another person could argue that the stronger person's swing will hurt more when it lands.

I may still need to have a separate stat for To Hit than Damage. Ugh.

[Humabout]

A stronger person's swing will always hurt more.  That is the role of Strength, so I thin we are on the same page there.  Whether or not they hit is a coordination thing.

Is Finesse meant to be the D&D stat DEX?  If so, just use that for To Hit.  STR can modify damage much the same way a weapon would (assuming you use my suggestion above).  Perhaps an undefended attack assumes a DC of 10, in terms of determining damage?

[Xathan]

I really think you're fine leaving To Hit and Strength one and the same, and here's why.

Dex/Finesse, to me, seems to be about fine manipulation; delicately handling an object, manipulating with fine motions, pinpoint accuracy that sort of thing. Strength, on the the other hand, is already about gross manipulation: pushing, pulling, lifting, throwing.

Most medieval weapons, when wielded, are not about fine manipulation. If you're swinging around a broadsword or a club or a claymore, you don't need to be able to pinpoint hit a vital spot. You just need to be able to hit a man-sized target and the weight of the weapon + narrower surface area (edge) + your swing does the rest.

To use myself as an example: I go to the shooting range once a month and a pretty accurate with a handgun, and I fenced for about a year and was modestly good at it. That, to me, indicates I have a higher than average Finesse/Dex. However, if you gave me a battleaxe, I'd be lucky if I could hit anything with it - it's hard enough swinging around a real weighted longsword with any kind of accuracy. With most melee weapons except for what, in DnD terms, come under the category of "finesse weapons", coordination (as in hand-eye coordination) is not going to be the primary determiner of whether or not you hit, it's going to be your ability to control that weapon from start to finish of your swing, and that is more about strength than agility or fine manipulation.

This dovetails nicely into your whole "multiple stats impact combat" idea, which I really like, and prevents you from having to separate Damage and To Hit, which you did not seem thrilled about, and prevents the whole "Dex is GOD" problem sparkletwist mentioned as something that should be avoided - all with an explanation beyond mere balance, at least IMO.

EDIT: That being said, given your MnM 3e roots, going the Agility, Dex, Str, and Fighting route that MnM did would work nicely - that was one of my favorite parts of the newest edition. That and parry and dodge being separate defenses. And expertise.

[Humabout]

Most medieval weapons, when wielded, are not about fine manipulation. If you're swinging around a broadsword...

A broadsword isn't any heavier than a rapier, and they are both balanced about a third of the way down the blade.  They are shaped and used differently because one is for piercing armor and the other is for stabbing civilians, but otherwise, they are the same.

you don't need to be able to pinpoint hit a vital spot.

Yes you do.  thrusting with a broadsword, rapier, claymore, etc. or even swinging a battleaxe doesn't make your target any larger.  You need to control the weapon, aim it precisely and jam it through something the other person finds useful for staying alive.  Still about precision.

You just need to be able to hit a man-sized target and the weight of the weapon + narrower surface area (edge) + your swing does the rest.

By that logic, my cleaver should be as handy as a zweihander.  Both have narrow surface areas and are swung.  This doesn't track.  Also, I can hack at a man-sized target all day, but if I don't hit him somewhere critical, he's not going down quickly.  Somewhere critical is often the head, neck, armpit, back of the thigh, or back of the ankle.  Swung weapons (excluding warhammers and picks) don't penetrate the ribcage to actually hit vital organs that would result in near-instant death (e.g., lung or, preferably, heart).

To use myself as an example: I go to the shooting range once a month and a pretty accurate with a handgun, and I fenced for about a year and was modestly good at it.  That, to me, indicates I have a higher than average Finesse/Dex.

I agree.

However, if you gave me a battleaxe, I'd be lucky if I could hit anything with it - it's hard enough swinging around a real weighted longsword with any kind of accuracy.

Both of these require different skills and different training.  I'd be shocked to find that a year of practicing with a 14-oz sport blade at a sport would give you any degree of competency with a 2-pound rapier, let alone a 3- to 4-pound sword or axe.  Hell, you can't whip a rapier to get a point on someone, but if its one of the earlier edged rapiers, you can certainly swing it at him.  Just pray he isn't wearing any armor...

With most melee weapons except for what, in DnD terms, come under the category of "finesse weapons", coordination (as in hand-eye coordination) is not going to be the primary determiner of whether or not you hit, it's going to be your ability to control that weapon from start to finish of your swing, and that is more about strength than agility or fine manipulation.

Your ability to control any weapon will be partially determined by your strength.  I doubt a 2-yr-old could control your foil.  Newbies in my fencing club got tired of holding one en garde after about ten minutes, and I've fought matches that lasted half an hour.  But once you've got enough strength to hold the weapon, you don't rely on that strength to aim anymore than you relied on it to aim your foil at your opponent's torso.  It's just not how it works.

This dovetails nicely into your whole "multiple stats impact combat" idea, which I really like

Using Str to modify damage and determine which weapons you can wield still impacts combat.  More Str means more damage and permits the use of heavier weapons, which are then swung around with Dex.

That and parry and dodge being separate defenses.

Totally agree this should be, if you want that sort of granularity.  I'd toss in blocking with a shield as a separate defense, too.  But again, that sort of thing depends on the level of resolution you want in combat.  I'm guessing you might not want much.

An option that might work is breaking Dex into two types:  (Hand-Eye-)Coordination and Fine Manipulation.  This would prevent the wimpy thief from automatically being godly with a halberd.  Otherwise, if you don't want Dex to be as loaded an attribute as Int, you're looking at either a grossly whacky Str-based aiming system or a To Hit skill.  I won't concede that being stronger makes you better at aiming.  If it did, every Mr. Universe would be the best swordsman of his day.

[sparkletwist]

I won't concede that being stronger makes you better at aiming

Back in the old days of OD&D and AD&D, it made more sense. Remember that to-hit rolls in D&D were and are made against an enemy's "Armor Class," so it was explicitly assumed that a lot of your strikes actually hit, but just clanged harmlessly off the enemy armor. Back then, combat rounds were one minute long, and your roll was to see the result of your combat actions for that entire minute. So you were literally running around and taking swings at the enemy for a full minute, and then you rolled to see if that minute worth of attacks actually did any harm. In addition, back then, your actual skill with the sword wasn't represented by a stat at all and just assumed to be part of your class level and abstracted into your attack roll. The Str bonus was tiny by today's standards and seriously did just reflect the guy being able to hold the sword better and pound away for minutes at a time without wearing himself out.

But anyway. It stopped making nearly as much realistic sense in 3rd edition when they introduced "Base Attack Bonus", the combat round became six seconds, your stats started giving you much higher attack bonuses, AC got all kinds of dodge bonuses, HP got much higher and more abstracted, and stuff. However, grognards were used to Strength adding to melee attacks, and they would have complained (probably pointlessly, but a lot of grognard complaints are pointless, so don't act surprised) about a change. So, the 3e designers realized they wouldn't even have to change it because using Strength to determine if you hit works fine in 3e for game balance purposes, to avoid Dexterity being too good. So the convention stuck around.

Interfering with functional game mechanics-- i.e., having a Dex stat good for a ton of things and a semi-worthless Str, when both cost the same amount of character resources to improve-- just to have things more correct from a "simulationist" standpoint would be kind of a stupid thing to do, so they didn't do that. (As it happens, you can have Dex-based aiming, but it requires light weapons and taking a feat, to balance the "making Dex too good" factor)

I actually basically agree with you about the nomenclature problem, though. In Asura, I named the combined "doing strong things" and "being good at melee" stat (kept that way for game balance purposes!) to Power and described it as having general physical prowess-- in the elementally aligned system of Asura, it's associated with the element of Fire. Players then decide through skill and aspect choices if that makes them Mr. Universe or good with a sword.