Strength versus Dexterity

I use House Rules to correct mistakes. The mistakes are not perceived, they are real. Take for instance: Frostburn.

I was looking through this publication just the other day and came across yet another example of the Writers not understanding their Stats and the Editors not catching, or correcting, the mistake. In Frostburn, they confuse Strength with Dexterity.

What is Strength? Strength is damage, plain and simple. What is Dexterity? Dexterity is "to hit," plain and simple.

When Heracles tries to grab the wily little thief, he misses. That's poor Dexterity. But, what happens when Heracles finally succeeds in grabbing him? The wily little thief is finished. That's Strength. Heracles has a hard time catching the quick little rogue, but, once he does, Heracles deals incredible damage.

The mailed Knight foolishly laughs at d'Artagnan. Why? The Knight knows that d'Artagnan cannot ever pierce all that plate armor. That's poor Strength. But, as I said, the Knight does so foolishly. Why? Because of d'Artagnan's great Dexterity. We all know that d'Artagnan is most definitely going to find – and hit – that one spot where the Knight's armor doesn't fill the tiny gap. Poor Strength, yes, but fantastic Dexterity.

Strength is damage, plain and simple. Dexterity is "to hit," plain and simple.

In Frostburn, I find that they assign the Dire Polar Bear (page 115) a +25 "to hit" with its Claw Attack and a +20 "to hit" with its Bite Attack. The Dire Polar Bear has Strength of 39 and Dexterity of 11.

In Frostburn, I find that they assign the Saber-toothed Tiger (page 118) a +10 "to hit" with its Claw Attack and a +12 "to hit" with its Bite Attack. The Saber-toothed Tiger has Strength of 24 and Dexterity of 14.

So, the animal with the worse Dexterity has a much better chance of hitting its target than the animal with the best Dexterity. This makes sense to you?

The Dire Polar Bear's bite does 3d8+7 points of damage, while the Saber-toothed Tiger's bite does 2d6+7 points of damage.

So, the animal with the worse Dexterity has a much better chance of "hitting" its target than does the animal with the better Dexterity, while at the same time, the animal with the much greater Strength does only a little more damage than the animal with the considerably lesser Strength.

Absolutely nonsensical.

No, I cannot foresee a  time when I will forgo House Rules.