1 1/2 Strength to Bow Damage

[VoxRationis]

Using a powerful bow requires exertion over a large number of muscle groups across the body. So why do bows use just the Strength bonus when claymores use 1.5 the Strength bonus?
What would be different if the bows used the higher damage bonus as well?

[cfalcon]

Bows would do more damage than intended.

[heavyfuel]

Using a powerful bow requires exertion over a large number of muscle groups across the body. So why do bows use just the Strength bonus when claymores use 1.5 the Strength bonus?
What would be different if the bows used the higher damage bonus as well?

It would be different in that archers would do more damage :smalltongue:

The logic behind not getting 1.5 Str is that your off-hand/arm is still, while only the dominant arm applies the strength to the string. In D&D, whenever only the dominant hand is making force, you only get 1.0 Str (Longsword and a shield), and when your off hand is the one making force, you only get 0.5 Str (TWF). The same goes for bows.

[nolongerchaos]

Given the plentiful arguments between RAW and RAI on other topics, I'd say you're not likely to get a definitive answer. That said, I'd hazard a guess that it was designed that way more as balance between options. Take the Longsword for example, you could wield it in two hands to get that nifty 1 1/2 Str to damage, but in in exchange you're sacrificing the ability to use your second hand to hold a shield for extra AC or a second weapon for more attacks. With the Longsword the extra damage is the payoff for choosing two-handing it, and from a fluff/realism perspective it makes sense that with two hands you're swinging it harder so it hits harder. Bows don't really get that luxury, either you wield with two hands or you don't wield one at all, the mechanical sacrifice is wielding the bow in the first place. I suppose if there was a one-handed option with a bow, it'd make sense mechanically to give a bonus to damage for two hands, but it doesn't work that way. If you need some extra Oompf to your attacks with a sword, you attack with two hands and swing harder, but you can't really do much in the way of drawing the string extra hard on a bow, they just don't work that way.

But really it's probably more that archers can't have nice things, maybe even moreso than melee.

[Blackhawk748]

I agree that they should have Str and a half, as a guy who does archery i know how much damage an arrow does, and medieval longbows have some crazy draw pull. IIRC they were base at like 60 or 80 lbs. I pull 45 and thats enough to kill a deer at about 30 yards with a decent hit. So medieval archers were pulling close to double me, i feel that that warrants 1.5 Str.

[heavyfuel]

I agree that they should have Str and a half, as a guy who does archery i know how much damage an arrow does, and medieval longbows have some crazy draw pull. IIRC they were base at like 60 or 80 lbs. I pull 45 and thats enough to kill a deer at about 30 yards with a decent hit. So medieval archers were pulling close to double me, i feel that that warrants 1.5 Str.

I'm pretty sure a decent hit with a properly sharpened longsword would also kill a deer. Bows have the tactical advantage of being ranged and stealthier (at least until the first arrow is shot), and I honestly don't think they deal more damage than a longsword.

[nolongerchaos]

I think it merits reminding that generic D&D bows don't give even give Str to damage. They are accounting for bows with much heavier draws via the Str reqs. on composite bows, which can still only give a bonus up to the Str req which models pretty well how a heavier bow deals more damage. Unfortunately it's generally just not as significant an amount as you'd like.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm pretty sure a decent hit with a properly sharpened longsword would also kill a deer. Bows have the tactical advantage of being ranged and stealthier (at least until the first arrow is shot), and I honestly don't think they deal more damage than a longsword.

That im not denying, but you get Str to the Sword and with the Bow i need to pay more, A LOT more. Personally i think bows should apply up to a +2 Str bonus base, after that you need to pay. Archers are a lot stronger then people think.

That or we could just solve this problem by applying Dex to damage with bows, simply representing your ability to hit important parts.

[heavyfuel]

That im not denying, but you get Str to the Sword and with the Bow i need to pay more, A LOT more. Personally i think bows should apply up to a +2 Str bonus base, after that you need to pay. Archers are a lot stronger then people think.

That or we could just solve this problem by applying Dex to damage with bows, simply representing your ability to hit important parts.

I'm also not denying that archers are stronger. I've tried to draw a longbow once, and it made me realize just how strong you need to be for that, and I agree that all longbows (no experience with shortbows) should come with free Mighty +2Str (including associated penalties if you're too weak)

And while adding 1.5 Str to bows won't break them by any means, I don't think it makes much sense.

[Andreaz]

It makes perfect sense, just add it.
It doesn't even shift the damage balance of bows being inferior to melee weapons in damage output anyway.

[ShurikVch]

If you need some extra Oompf to your attacks with a sword, you attack with two hands and swing harder, but you can't really do much in the way of drawing the string extra hard on a bow, they just don't work that way. Except they kinda do
IRL, if draw weight of bow is too high (especially 175+ lb), then carefully aiming it (while fully drawn) is not just too physically difficult, but harmful to bow itself
So, for precise shooting, such bows usually only half-drawn

But what's about full draw?
It were used if:
1) Long range shot by ballistic trajectory
or
2) Heavy armored targets at relatively close range
(In both cases were used heavy arrows)

[Piggy Knowles]

As an aside, the footbow DOES let you get 1.5x Str damage, but only if you grasp it with your feet and draw with both arms.

[Adverb]

That seems pretty reasonable. Considering that you're using dex to hit, a little boost to str-to-damage ain't bad.

[Kaeso]

Isn't archery in general a lost cause in DnD? Crossbows are pretty underpowered too, while historically they allowed an untrained peasant to do what a longbowman had to train for. Crossbow sniper is the only thing that saves DnD crossbows from being utterly useless, and even then that's almost exclusively for rogues.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmmm. I had a 3rd party .pdf around here somewhere with a bunch of interesting alternate rules, feats and a few PrCs for archers. Was it called "Three Arrows for the King?" Hmm. I seem to have misplaced it during my perpetual hardware musical chairs fiasco, so lemme do a bit of googling. It was 3.0, if I remember correctly, but seemed to translate fairly well.

Hmm. Looks like they released an official 3.5 revision and expansion on DriveThruRPG.

Anyway, some of the rules in there were pretty interesting, and gave me some good ideas on my own archer homebrew (still massively WiP due to...well, due to Exalted being a rather big thing to learn). Certainly gave some ideas on how to pump up archery damage potential.

My personal take on it is that archery should be about one-hit kills more than the machine-gun approach that is typically most accessible as one tries to optimize a by-the-book 3e archer. Wider crit ranges, ability to auto-confirm crits times/encounter or something, ability to crit on creatures not normally considered to have "weak spots" (hard to justify that without something Su, but any crit-based thing needs to get around the bizarre propensity of D&D monsters to have no weak spots to speak of). Thus, I am just fine with the idea of 1.5x Str Mod to damage for bows.

[Kaeso]

ability to crit on creatures not normally considered to have "weak spots" (hard to justify that without something Su, but any crit-based thing needs to get around the bizarre propensity of D&D monsters to have no weak spots to speak of). Thus, I am just fine with the idea of 1.5x Str Mod to damage for bows.

I think "weak spots" are just a way to make crit damage and sneak attack more abstract. What is a sneak attack, other than a kidney punch, gouging the eyes, stomping on someone's toes and other such dirty tactics? What is a critical hit, other than precisely landing an arrow in one of the weaker joints? Introducing a weak spot mechanic for archers would be redundant, it already exists.

SA-immune monsters would be monsters with no real weak spots, such as constructs (literally just machines), golems and the undead. A zombie isn't going to react to a kidney punch.

[Knaight]

SA-immune monsters would be monsters with no real weak spots, such as constructs (literally just machines), golems and the undead. A zombie isn't going to react to a kidney punch.

The lack of weak spots here seems rather overstated. Take constructs - actual machines tend to have weak spots. It's entirely common for there to be a gear or a belt or whatever which breaks and renders the mechanism inoperable. Golems have areas that are relatively narrow and easier to break through, as to the undead. A zombie isn't going to react to a kidney punch, but they're also much more susceptible to having an arm cut off than being stuck through the torso.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think "weak spots" are just a way to make crit damage and sneak attack more abstract. What is a sneak attack, other than a kidney punch, gouging the eyes, stomping on someone's toes and other such dirty tactics? What is a critical hit, other than precisely landing an arrow in one of the weaker joints? Introducing a weak spot mechanic for archers would be redundant, it already exists.

SA-immune monsters would be monsters with no real weak spots, such as constructs (literally just machines), golems and the undead. A zombie isn't going to react to a kidney punch.

Except that the list of crit-immune stuff in the game is actually quite long, and they tend to show up a lot due to thematic aspects of the genre. If the archer homebrew is crit-based (or precision damage based) and the archer is involved in a long campaign arc involving undead (or elementals, plants, constructs, oozes), then much of the archer's class features are going to be substantially useless. Which defeats the purpose of effective homebrew.

Basically, I don't care if the zombie can be kidney punched or not. But I definitely want a through-and-through hit with an arrow to the skull to be more than just a flesh wound for that zombie. Otherwise the whole quality over quantity archer that I want to design really doesn't seem that great (ineffectual headshots are uncool).

EDIT: I don't mind machine gun-type archers so much (except that splitting is way too important to way too many of the more obvious builds), I just don't want all archers to be the arrow storm type.

[Thanatosia]

Whoever designed D&D subscribed to AnnoyingArrows (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows) pretty much. They should do more damage.

[Andreaz]

My personal take on it is that archery should be about one-hit kills more than the machine-gun approach that is typically most accessible as one tries to optimize a by-the-book 3e archer. Wider crit ranges, ability to auto-confirm crits times/encounter or something, ability to crit on creatures not normally considered to have "weak spots" (hard to justify that without something Su, but any crit-based thing needs to get around the bizarre propensity of D&D monsters to have no weak spots to speak of). Thus, I am just fine with the idea of 1.5x Str Mod to damage for bows.No, it's not. Remember: extraordinary abilities explicity break the laws of reality just as much as SU and SL do.

[Phelix-Mu]

No, it's not. Remember: extraordinary abilities explicity break the laws of reality just as much as SU and SL do.

Indeed, but it is the fluff I wrestle with. Not that that is key to a functional bit of brew, but it really helps with the sell if things are in sync. So, basically, how do I fluff that I am so good with a bow that things that have no weak spots for anyone else that is good at their schtick magically non-magically have a weak spot for me? Are my arrows like bullets, and they blow big holes in things (eh, that does sound cool, but not for everyone), is my sight so keen that I have non-magical Sword of Omens, or what? Why do my arrows do what that rogue cannot?

Crit-immunity negation stands to be a pretty powerful thing, especially if broadly applied. Does it negate item of fortification that grants magical crit immunity? Paired with a class focused on criticals, being able to critical on anything is very big. As it should be: a sniper is an effective and enduring mode of killing an opponent that has been around a very long time. Translating it into game mechanics without making up some bizarre quasi-magical fluff is a bit challenging, though.

If it's actually easy, but I've just totally not realized it yet, please let me know, lol. As I said, this is one of my pet projects (along with collecting monk fixes).:smallsmile:

[VoxRationis]

The lack of weak spots here seems rather overstated. Take constructs - actual machines tend to have weak spots. It's entirely common for there to be a gear or a belt or whatever which breaks and renders the mechanism inoperable. Golems have areas that are relatively narrow and easier to break through, as to the undead. A zombie isn't going to react to a kidney punch, but they're also much more susceptible to having an arm cut off than being stuck through the torso.

Bingo. This has always bothered me. A homogenous concrete sphere has no weak spots; any other construct will either have places under more structural strain due to the shape of the construct or actual parts that are more susceptible to damage. Undead have weak spots too; vampires get staked in the heart, zombies get killed via removing the head or destroying the brain, and the body has joints to attack just as an alive one. The beta version of PF that I have fixed this for sneak attack, but we don't really play with it very much.

[Andreaz]

Indeed, but it is the fluff I wrestle with. Not that that is key to a functional bit of brew, but it really helps with the sell if things are in sync. So, basically, how do I fluff that I am so good with a bow that things that have no weak spots for anyone else that is good at their schtick magically non-magically have a weak spot for me? Are my arrows like bullets, and they blow big holes in things (eh, that does sound cool, but not for everyone), is my sight so keen that I have non-magical Sword of Omens, or what? Why do my arrows do what that rogue cannot?

Crit-immunity negation stands to be a pretty powerful thing, especially if broadly applied. Does it negate item of fortification that grants magical crit immunity? Paired with a class focused on criticals, being able to critical on anything is very big. As it should be: a sniper is an effective and enduring mode of killing an opponent that has been around a very long time. Translating it into game mechanics without making up some bizarre quasi-magical fluff is a bit challenging, though.

If it's actually easy, but I've just totally not realized it yet, please let me know, lol. As I said, this is one of my pet projects (along with collecting monk fixes).:smallsmile:
Internalize that truth! Extraordinary abilities can be blatantly supernatural without being [system term]Supernatural.
They exploit a weakness that "isn't there" the same way supernatural abilities do: because they can.
Fluff it however you want.
"It doesn't have a weakness!"
"Of course it does, you blind fool" / "Everything has a weakness" / "It does if you hit just right" / "What are you, stupid? Everything breaks if you hit hard enough."a



Bingo. This has always bothered me. A homogenous concrete sphere has no weak spots; any other construct will either have places under more structural strain due to the shape of the construct or actual parts that are more susceptible to damage. Undead have weak spots too; vampires get staked in the heart, zombies get killed via removing the head or destroying the brain, and the body has joints to attack just as an alive one. The beta version of PF that I have fixed this for sneak attack, but we don't really play with it very much.You don't need to stick to beta PF. PF is freely available (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/).
And yeah, their logic is sound on that. Only the really amorphous things have blanket crit/sneak immunity.

[Knaight]

Bingo. This has always bothered me. A homogenous concrete sphere has no weak spots; any other construct will either have places under more structural strain due to the shape of the construct or actual parts that are more susceptible to damage. Undead have weak spots too; vampires get staked in the heart, zombies get killed via removing the head or destroying the brain, and the body has joints to attack just as an alive one. The beta version of PF that I have fixed this for sneak attack, but we don't really play with it very much.

Even the homogenous sphere is going to acquire weak spots, though they're likely to be minor enough that they can be neglected.

I do think it makes sense for something like a golem to be more resistant to precision damage than something with internal organs - it's the immunity that takes things a bit too far. Having precision resistance and precision vulnerability would be entirely sensible, though the resistance would likely see heavier use.

[SowZ]

It would be different in that archers would do more damage :smalltongue:

The logic behind not getting 1.5 Str is that your off-hand/arm is still, while only the dominant arm applies the strength to the string. In D&D, whenever only the dominant hand is making force, you only get 1.0 Str (Longsword and a shield), and when your off hand is the one making force, you only get 0.5 Str (TWF). The same goes for bows.

I don't do much archery anymore, but I do off and on. And it doesn't have much to do with your arm strength. Your back is just as important as your arms and your shoulder muscles are even more important. Some great archers have toned but small arms and one massive shoulder muscle. Like a hunchback.

Swinging a three to four pound longsword versus drawing a medieval longbow? It's funny that the swordsman is typically stronger.

[Talya]

EDIT: I don't mind machine gun-type archers so much

Indeed. You occasionally see comments in places like this that the number of attacks people get in a round in D&D at high levels is impossible.

It's not.

In fact, in many cases, I think it's a bit low.

Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI

(If you don't stick around long enough to see the whole thing, she fires off about 1 arrow per second, with accuracy, and on the move. Without magic!)

[Necroticplague]

Of interesting note to the topic is that their actually is a way to get a bow that does 1.5 STR damage. The Bootbow is held with the feet, leaving both hands free (intended for use by flying creatures). If you use both hands to fire it, it does 1.5 STR damage, while firing it with one hand (leaving the other free) only gets you the x1 STR ratio. So it appears to be, for a normal bow, that you only get x1 STR modifier because you're only firing it with one hand, the other is busy holding it.

[heavyfuel]

I don't do much archery anymore, but I do off and on. And it doesn't have much to do with your arm strength. Your back is just as important as your arms and your shoulder muscles are even more important. Some great archers have toned but small arms and one massive shoulder muscle. Like a hunchback.

Swinging a three to four pound longsword versus drawing a medieval longbow? It's funny that the swordsman is typically stronger.

True. My experience with the longbow was a one time thing, so you know better. Only when asked about the logic behind it, I explained in D&D logic, which isn't very logical sometimes, but gets the job done when you don't play the game with a robot DM.

Also, it would be really hard to emulate shoulder strength vs arm strength vs back strength in a game, so it makes sense they'd just simplify it in a single Strength ability.

[Lightlawbliss]

on the rate of fire subject: my normal group semi-solves that by changing rapid shot from only working once in the same full attack to a soft-cap of half your BAB, reductions applied after summing the penalty. This results in lvl 6 (some consider the high end of rl people) to be 5 attacks in 6 seconds without magic at fighter BAB.

on the damage from hitting the right spot: some people fluff power attack as hitting the right place. Unless I'm mistaken, PF has a feat the is PA for bows.

[heavyfuel]

on the rate of fire subject: my normal group semi-solves that by changing rapid shot from only working once in the same full attack to a soft-cap of half your BAB, reductions applied after summing the penalty. This results in lvl 6 (some consider the high end of rl people) to be 5 attacks in 6 seconds without magic at fighter BAB.

on the damage from hitting the right spot: some people fluff power attack as hitting the right place. Unless I'm mistaken, PF has a feat the is PA for bows.

Wait wait wait.

So, at BAB 6 you'd get your regular 2 attacks, and then another 3 attacks because 3 is half the BAB (your mentioned soft cap)

If this is correct, which I hope is not, do you get 14 shots at BAB 20?

[Lightlawbliss]

Wait wait wait.

So, at BAB 6 you'd get your regular 2 attacks, and then another 3 attacks because 3 is half the BAB (your mentioned soft cap)

If this is correct, which I hope is not, do you get 14 shots at BAB 20?

yep, that would be right. 4 from BAB and 10 max from rapid shot. However, the rapid shot would be applying a -20 to hit (in-case my wording was off, I was taking times you can apply the feat, not attacks you gain from the -2) so that would essentially be "spray and prey".

[heavyfuel]

yep, that would be right. 4 from BAB and 10 max from rapid shot. However, the rapid shot would be applying a -20 to hit (in-case my wording was off, I was taking times you can apply the feat, not attacks you gain from the -2) so that would essentially be "spray and prey".

This is so freaking abusable. I'm not even an experienced optimizer, but comboing this with something like Boomerang Daze and the Master Thrower's Weak Spot trick would be have you hitting Touch AC, which is rather easy even with -20, and you'd be forcing 8+ Fortitude Saves against Daze.

Don't even get me started on Woodland Archer and the Splitting Enhancement... That's no longer spray-and-pray, but spray and still hit over 50% of the 28 arrows.

This houserule is so, so broken.

[SowZ]

This is so freaking abusable. I'm not even an experienced optimizer, but comboing this with something like Boomerang Daze and the Master Thrower's Weak Spot trick would be have you hitting Touch AC, which is rather easy even with -20, and you'd be forcing 8+ Fortitude Saves against Daze.

Don't even get me started on Woodland Archer and the Splitting Enhancement... That's no longer spray-and-pray, but spray and still hit over 50% of the 28 arrows.

This houserule is so, so broken.

Dual wield splitting pistol crossbows for added fun! Woo, 32 arrows yee-haw!

[Lightlawbliss]

This is so freaking abusable. I'm not even an experienced optimizer, but combining this with something like Boomerang Daze and the Master Thrower's Weak Spot trick would be have you hitting Touch AC, which is rather easy even with -20, and you'd be forcing 8+ Fortitude Saves against Daze.

Don't even get me started on Woodland Archer and the Splitting Enhancement... That's no longer spray-and-pray, but spray and still hit over 50% of the 28 arrows.

This houserule is so, so broken.

* considers group *
* considers high level monsters *
* considers the fact what your talking about is level 20 *

Might be broken in some groups, not worried with mine.