Versimillitude that improves the game: Bows using Strength for + to hit and damage

[TheUser]

After some extensive research on medieval weapons the notion that a bow's damage and accuracy is determined by hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes alone is somewhat unrealistic, it is far more grounded in reality that the strength of the character wielding the bow determines hit chance and damage(more on this later).

Rather than suffer the overcomplicated 3rd edition shenanigans of +dex to hit and +strength to damage based on the quality of the bow, I would contend that simply wielding any bow would confer the ability to use strength for +to hit and damage. The bow does not need to be built around a draw strength tailor made for the character; in fact the draw weight on most of the historic longbows is actually rather high; 90-110lbs!

Lacking high strength would still leave the bow operable, but because the character is drawing the bow more slowly or incompletely and having more trouble keeping a steady aim it translates into lower hit/damage bonuses. This also means the converse is true, high strength means drawing the bow occurs more quickly and completely, and aiming is more steady.

Why do bows have such high draw weight benefiting upper body strength? Well essentially it increases the force acting on the arrow upon release, increasing flight velocity and impact. An arrow that flies faster and carries more inertia is not only harder to anticipate/dodge but also stands a higher chance of penetrating the armor of an opponent (be it natural like a dragon's scales or artificial like platemail). In essence, the bow carries more force and travels faster because the draw weight is so high. Bows should really be the weapon of strength based characters and crossbows the weapon of a dexterity based characters. Since crossbows allow the use a foot stirrup or a winch cocker for bolts they rely solely on aim, a bow you gotta have them muscles.


Is this healthy for the balance of the game?
In my humble opinion yes.
Dexterity at the moment is a freaking do everything stat. Do we need to go over the list?
Ranged hit/damage.
Finesse weapons for melee are plentiful and diverse.
+ to AC
+ to initiative
Stealth, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand and even Thieves Tools.
I'm sure I've missed something.


Conversly the ranged options for strength based characters is almost laughable.

Is it so wrong to give strength based characters a ranged weapon option that isn't limited to thrown weapons? In my humble opinion no.


While I'm sure there will be loads of pushback I think its time we all started using strength for bows. It adds versimiltude and healthier game balance.
If you're really hesitant keep dexterity as a bow stat and give players the option for strength as well; a "robust" weapon (like finesse but for ranged).

EDIT: overwhelming opinion combined with solid rationale has swayed me into the bows as finesse weapons category.

Discuss!

[Lunali]

While I'm sure there will be loads of pushback I think its time we all started using strength for bows. It adds versimiltude and healthier game balance.
If you're really hesitant keep dexterity as a bow stat and give players the option for strength as well; a "robust" weapon (like finesse but for ranged).

You don't need to make a new category, finesse on a ranged weapon allows it to use strength, such as in the case of darts. All you need to do is add the finesse property to bows.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it so wrong to give strength based characters a ranged weapon option that isn't limited to thrown weapons? In my humble opinion no. Long Long time ago, I remember when we had a DM who required a 12 or better strength to even use long bow. We also had long composite bows, and short composite bows, that each did one more point of damage. (1d6 +1, 1d8 +1) with about the same range. (Technically, due to how the yew tree comes together to make a long bow, it is sort of like natures version of a composite bow ... )

In this edition, in the interest of removing fiddly bits and generally streamlining game play, that kind of verisimilitude has been left on the cutting room floor.

It's fine. But the game has set a precedent on "you need to be this tall to go on this ride" with armor. You need certain strength scores for certain armors.

Chain mail Str 13
Splint Str 15
Plate Str 15

You could just as easily say "you cannot use a long bow without 12 or 13 Strength" and that takes care of your concern. You still have to hit what you aim at to do effective damage, so leaving the dex hit/dmg is fine.

Here is your new Long Bow Entry

Longbow / 50 gp /1d8 / piercing / 2 lb. / 13 Str / Ammunition /(range 150/600) / heavy, two-handed

[LudicSavant]

Like Lunali says, a little known fact about the Finesse property is that it allows you to use either stat for a weapon. So if you put the property on Ranged, it can use Strength.

[DeTess]

The main problem with this idea is that the main bow-wielder archetype, the ranger, is a dexterity-based class that already has a tertiary stat, so forcing them to also need strength would make them super MAD. Furthermore, the bow is the only proper martial ranged option,a s crossbows can't generally be sued with extra attack, so moving them from Dex to strength removes an important option for dex based characters. As long as you keep dex-bows in your game, I see nothing wrong with strength-bows, however.

[pcamp88]

I think allowing either STR or DEX for bows would be the way to go. Allows the DEX based classes like Rogue and Ranger to still do their thing without being forced to invest in another stat and also opens up good new options for STR based characters.

[RedMage125]

I would argue against verisimilitude as "improving" the game. Previous editions did that, and as you pointed out with 3e, that was sometimes needlessly complicated.

In 2e, for example, there was an optional rule that certain types of armor performed better or worse against certain attack types. Chain mail being 2 points of AC worse against bludgeoning is what always comes to mind.

More verisimilitude? Certainly. More fun? Not necessarily. While some might enjoy the extra level of depth, most prefer mechanics that simplify things like attacks and make the game run more smoothly. AC and HP are both abstractions of how hard it is to get a solid blow on you, and how long you can stay in the fight, respectively.

As far as bows, specifically, I also disagree with you there. 3e had the most simulationist mechanics in that regard. The pull of a bow determines how much damage the arrow can do, more so with modern bows. If myself and an Iron Man competitor both pulled the same compound bow back to full draw, and fired at a target the same distance away, the arrow would penetrate to the same depth. Strength determines how quickly we can each pull to full draw, and how long we can hold it, but the pulleys that create the tension have a set limit on how much force they can exert to propel the arrow.

Accuracy is absolutely about hand-eye coordination, and so DEX serves well there. But damage? That's a factor of the bow. Now, for bows that have a greater tension, those will provide more force (i.e. do more damage). That Iron Man Competitor can certainly pull a bow with a greater draw than I can. A bow with greater pull requires a greater STR to even use. Which 3.xe did. A greater composite longbow (Str +3) requires a +3 STR mod to even pull it back (source: 3.xe PHB). But a person with a 16 STR and a person with a 20 STR will only ever get the same amount of force out of that bow, just like how modern bows work IRL.

It's true that a more "D&D style" bow (without pulleys) can be "overdrawn" by someone with a greater strength, but to simulate that would require some mechanics that most of us don't have time or patience for. Also longer arrows. Don't forget that a standardized length of arrow shaft means a limit on how far back a bow can be drawn. You draw a bow back further than the next guy, and the arrow is no longer properly knocked.

Historically, archers were some of the beefiest guys in the army, but that's because bows of the time (particularly the English Longbow) had very high draw strengths (in D&D terms, they were all "strength bows"). And in mass combat, accuracy wasn't that highly valued, because you only needed to aim more or less at the mass of humanity opposing you, and you had other archers by your side, creating a blanketing rain of death.
But accurately hitting a specific target still required hand-eye coordination. With how D&D combat works, the most accurate simulation would be to go back to the 3.xe model of using DEX to attack, and having damage based of STR, but only if the bow is rated for a higher pull tension.

4e introduced us to the model of using a single attack stat for attack and damage based on class. This was a lot more fun for more people, because it reduced required investment in different Abilities. Is it simulationist to have WIS or CHA modifier to damage? No, but it simplified the rules and made verisimilitude take a back seat to fun, as players (especially new players) could use one stat for all aspects of their attacks.

5e inherited this from 4e. Since ranged attacks are about hand-eye coordination and precision (DEX) for attacking, they use the same stat for damage. Better precision equals more damage would be my guess at the logic of that. Spellcasters, likewise, use the stat that affects their spellcasting and preparation (if relevant) to their attacks, and some subclasses get to add this same stat to damage rolls. Better spellcasting equals more damaging spells.

At some point, we as DMs need to recognize that this is a game, and sometimes, accuracy in verisimilitude is less important than letting the players have fun, make their attacks and resolve their turn, with rules that are easy to digest, and move on to the next person's turn.

[qube]

Is this healthy for the balance of the game? In my humble opinion yes.

Is it so wrong to give strength based characters a ranged weapon option that isn't limited to thrown weapons? In my humble opinion no.

Discuss! I posit you're missing the point entirely.

It really doesn't matter what you think of strength or dexterity. What matters is, how it effects the game.

In effect, changing bows to STR, nerfs ranged rogues and rangers.

I do not see a reason, nor you've laid out one, why this change would be - to use your words - healthy for the game. As far as I know,
rogues don't get into OP lists, except for an assassin with very favorable circumstances (and they might as well use daggers, so this fix doesn't change anything
rangers ... sigh ... yeah, no, they need love, not hate

[TheUser]

At some point, we as DMs need to recognize that this is a game, and sometimes, accuracy in verisimilitude is less important than letting the players have fun, make their attacks and resolve their turn, with rules that are easy to digest, and move on to the next person's turn.

I'm confused. Is a simple finesse property allowing for strength to apply to bows +to hit and damage somehow not simple and easy to digest?


I posit you're missing the point entirely.
...

It really doesn't matter what you think of strength or dexterity. What matters is, how it effects the game.

In effect, changing bows to STR, nerfs ranged rogues and rangers.
[/list]

What stops rogues and rangers from using crossbows or slings?

[Wryte]

Finesse weapons are most definitely not "diverse." All finesse weapons are one-hand-only weapons, all but two (the scimitar and the whip) are piercing damage, only one (the rapier) has above a d6 damage die, and the only one with Reach (the whip) is a 1d4 compared to the 1d10 non-Finesse Reach weapons (all of which also function with a popular feat that gives them a bonus action attack that's just as strong as the whip itself).

[stoutstien]

I would argue against verisimilitude as "improving" the game. Previous editions did that, and as you pointed out with 3e, that was sometimes needlessly complicated.

In 2e, for example, there was an optional rule that certain types of armor performed better or worse against certain attack types. Chain mail being 2 points of AC worse against bludgeoning is what always comes to mind.

More verisimilitude? Certainly. More fun? Not necessarily. While some might enjoy the extra level of depth, most prefer mechanics that simplify things like attacks and make the game run more smoothly. AC and HP are both abstractions of how hard it is to get a solid blow on you, and how long you can stay in the fight, respectively.

As far as bows, specifically, I also disagree with you there. 3e had the most simulationist mechanics in that regard. The pull of a bow determines how much damage the arrow can do, more so with modern bows. If myself and an Iron Man competitor both pulled the same compound bow back to full draw, and fired at a target the same distance away, the arrow would penetrate to the same depth. Strength determines how quickly we can each pull to full draw, and how long we can hold it, but the pulleys that create the tension have a set limit on how much force they can exert to propel the arrow.

Accuracy is absolutely about hand-eye coordination, and so DEX serves well there. But damage? That's a factor of the bow. Now, for bows that have a greater tension, those will provide more force (i.e. do more damage). That Iron Man Competitor can certainly pull a bow with a greater draw than I can. A bow with greater pull requires a greater STR to even use. Which 3.xe did. A greater composite longbow (Str +3) requires a +3 STR mod to even pull it back (source: 3.xe PHB). But a person with a 16 STR and a person with a 20 STR will only ever get the same amount of force out of that bow, just like how modern bows work IRL.

It's true that a more "D&D style" bow (without pulleys) can be "overdrawn" by someone with a greater strength, but to simulate that would require some mechanics that most of us don't have time or patience for. Also longer arrows. Don't forget that a standardized length of arrow shaft means a limit on how far back a bow can be drawn. You draw a bow back further than the next guy, and the arrow is no longer properly knocked.

Historically, archers were some of the beefiest guys in the army, but that's because bows of the time (particularly the English Longbow) had very high draw strengths (in D&D terms, they were all "strength bows"). And in mass combat, accuracy wasn't that highly valued, because you only needed to aim more or less at the mass of humanity opposing you, and you had other archers by your side, creating a blanketing rain of death.
But accurately hitting a specific target still required hand-eye coordination. With how D&D combat works, the most accurate simulation would be to go back to the 3.xe model of using DEX to attack, and having damage based of STR, but only if the bow is rated for a higher pull tension.

4e introduced us to the model of using a single attack stat for attack and damage based on class. This was a lot more fun for more people, because it reduced required investment in different Abilities. Is it simulationist to have WIS or CHA modifier to damage? No, but it simplified the rules and made verisimilitude take a back seat to fun, as players (especially new players) could use one stat for all aspects of their attacks.

5e inherited this from 4e. Since ranged attacks are about hand-eye coordination and precision (DEX) for attacking, they use the same stat for damage. Better precision equals more damage would be my guess at the logic of that. Spellcasters, likewise, use the stat that affects their spellcasting and preparation (if relevant) to their attacks, and some subclasses get to add this same stat to damage rolls. Better spellcasting equals more damaging spells.

At some point, we as DMs need to recognize that this is a game, and sometimes, accuracy in verisimilitude is less important than letting the players have fun, make their attacks and resolve their turn, with rules that are easy to digest, and move on to the next person's turn.

this part is off. volley fire wasn't a common tactic due to armor. most welsh longbow men where put on the front line and targets where picks. arrows where not cheap and armor could be beaten with an arrow but only fired directly at them. not to say volley fire wasn't a thing but was usually reserved for a retreat.

the rest is spot on. dnd isn't a simulation. str to crossbow works too due to really high draw weights used

[qube]

What stops rogues and rangers from using crossbows or slings?Nothing. But slings have a lower damage die, and rangers can't use a crossbow effectively from lvl 5+ without a feat.

So both your suggestions are not solutions.

It also begs the question ... if those actually did fix the problem - how does your "fix" doesn't amount to a big "why should I use bows? They are clearly inferiour to [fix]". Everyone would just use [fix] instead of the bow.

With your change, this becomes your dex list:

Ranged hit/damage except for the bow.
Finesse weapons for melee are plentiful and diverse.
+ to AC
+ to initiative
Stealth, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand and even Thieves Tools.
I'm sure I've missed something.
... so, what exactly did it "fix"?


edit: is it that the full plate fighter or barbarian now use bows as ranged weapons? Because that's not versimillitude AT ALL.

[JackPhoenix]

Finesse weapons are most definitely not "diverse." All finesse weapons are one-hand-only weapons, all but two (the scimitar and the whip) are piercing damage, only one (the rapier) has above a d6 damage die, and the only one with Reach (the whip) is a 1d4 compared to the 1d10 non-Finesse Reach weapons (all of which also function with a popular feat that gives them a bonus action attack that's just as strong as the whip itself).

There's also ranged finesse weapon.

And potentially two-handed finesse weapon in the form of the double scimitar, but that's its own can of worms....

[RedMage125]

I'm confused. Is a simple finesse property allowing for strength to apply to bows +to hit and damage somehow not simple and easy to digest?
I thought your goal was verisimilitude?

Hitting the target still requires hand-eye coordination and precision. A centimeter of movement in the hand holding the bow can result in several meters of lateral change in flight path.


this part is off. volley fire wasn't a common tactic due to armor. most welsh longbow men where put on the front line and targets where picks. arrows where not cheap and armor could be beaten with an arrow but only fired directly at them. not to say volley fire wasn't a thing but was usually reserved for a retreat.
Against armored targets, sure. But most peasant conscripts wore lighter armor. And the puncture power of the bow meant that a direct shot wasn't as critical as it was to a foe wearing plate or chain.


the rest is spot on. dnd isn't a simulation. str to crossbow works too due to really high draw weights used
Thanks!

Light crossbows often had a foot stirrup to aid in pull, and heavy ones usually required a winch.

[Ganryu]

This is one of those things where bows being strength would be way, way more sense, but the game isn't balanced towards it, so fixing it just breaks the game. I do agree on logic though. Bows are not 'dainty' weapons.

[LudicSavant]

Bows are not 'dainty' weapons.

https://youtu.be/Jpsi2aGKXPw?t=89

Hrrmmm...!

[Sigreid]

I suppose someone should mention that pretty much all weapons require a healthy combination of strength and dexterity to be used effectively. A combatant with the strength of an ox and the coordination and balance of a drunk 3 year old is not going to be effective with either a bow or a great ax. For game play reasons it's not a bad choice to only make the player develop one of them.

[RedMage125]

I suppose someone should mention that pretty much all weapons require a healthy combination of strength and dexterity to be used effectively. A combatant with the strength of an ox and the coordination and balance of a drunk 3 year old is not going to be effective with either a bow or a great ax. For game play reasons it's not a bad choice to only make the player develop one of them.

This.

I have seen weapons demonstrations from a combat theater troupe in Michigan called The Duelists. Saw a guy give a great axe demonstration. Seeing that, most people would call it a finesse weapon. He had one hand on the handle, and the other mid shaft, and he spun it around his body in close, graceful arcs.

Verisimilitude needs to give way to simplicity of rules. Period.

[diplomancer]

Rangers are only dex-based because bows require DEX though. If you are playing a melee ranger it is perfectly fine to put dex at 14 and be done with it.... or even spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency if you begin with an odd strength.

Rogues (especially elven rogues) will hate this, though.

[opaopajr]

I believe the equipment list is goofy and wholly laud your attempts at correction for your homegames. :smallcool:
One day, I may even borrow them. :smallwink:

[some guy]

You don't need to make a new category, finesse on a ranged weapon allows it to use strength, such as in the case of darts. All you need to do is add the finesse property to bows.

Yeah, adding finesse on bows slings is simple and fast (I like it on slings, too).

In my homerules I added a bit more expensive option of strength based ranged weapons (and in the case of slings, a damage die of d6), but I might just change it to the finesse property.

[Joe the Rat]

No, you need Wisdom to hit, to adjucate the arch needed for range, and to account for wind. Strength to damage on a longbow (or composite bow) is fine.

Or if you prefer, use Dex for short range (accuracy, speed), and Wisdom for long range.

But you should also split armor into deflection and damage mitigation while you are at it.

This is simulation.

[mephiztopheleze]

Long time player and occasional real-world archer checking in......

Ever since i started back the late 1980s during 1ed, every DM I've ever played with has allowed bows to add strength bonuses for damage. To Hit depended on the DM.

The reasoning was always Draw Weight. A stronger person can pull back a heavier bow. A heavier bow can launch a heavier arrow at equal or greater speed than a lighter draw weight bow. More mass + Velocity = greater inertia and kinetic force delivered to target.

Most DMs also decreed that the bow had to be specially made by a master bowyer if you wanted the full benefits of that 18/00 strength (1ed mechanic, look it up :P )

From my archery experience, I can tell you that a clean heart-lung shot from a 55lb recurve bow is every bit as deadly as a clean shot from a 70lb compound.

The 70lb bow, however, has more effective range and can deal with not-so-perfect shot placement far better than the 55lb bow. If the arrow hits a rib for example, the heavier compound is more likely to blow through and still be a lethal shot than the recurve. With all of that said, I like to get well within 20m of my target*. Long range, ballistic archery is only effective with volley fire against a large target (like an army in the field, for example).



(*feral pests like pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs and goats mostly for those wondering. I'm Australian and all of those are fair game.)

[GreyBlack]

Long time player and occasional real-world archer checking in......

Ever since i started back the late 1980s during 1ed, every DM I've ever played with has allowed bows to add strength bonuses for damage. To Hit depended on the DM.

The reasoning was always Draw Weight. A stronger person can pull back a heavier bow. A heavier bow can launch a heavier arrow at equal or greater speed than a lighter draw weight bow. More mass + Velocity = greater inertia and kinetic force delivered to target.

Most DMs also decreed that the bow had to be specially made by a master bowyer if you wanted the full benefits of that 18/00 strength (1ed mechanic, look it up :P )

From my archery experience, I can tell you that a clean heart-lung shot from a 55lb recurve bow is every bit as deadly as a clean shot from a 70lb compound.

The 70lb bow, however, has more effective range and can deal with not-so-perfect shot placement far better than the 55lb bow. If the arrow hits a rib for example, the heavier compound is more likely to blow through and still be a lethal shot than the recurve. With all of that said, I like to get well within 20m of my target*. Long range, ballistic archery is only effective with volley fire against a large target (like an army in the field, for example).



(*feral pests like pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs and goats mostly for those wondering. I'm Australian and all of those are fair game.)

In past editions, it did depend. For example, composite bows in 3.x allowed you to add a certain amount of your strength bonus to damage (e.g. a composite longbow (+3) would allow you to add your strength bonus up to +3 to the damage) but would give you penalties if you didn't have a +3 strength modifier. Tbqh, I liked that system even if it would never get implemented in 5e due to the necessary complexity and simulationism inherent in it.

The tldr here is that we'll never add strength to damage in 5e, with a possible exception of a magic item property; for example, Odysseus in the Odyssey had a bow like this.

[R.Shackleford]

The main problem with this idea is that the main bow-wielder archetype, the ranger, is a dexterity-based class that already has a tertiary stat, so forcing them to also need strength would make them super MAD. Furthermore, the bow is the only proper martial ranged option,a s crossbows can't generally be sued with extra attack, so moving them from Dex to strength removes an important option for dex based characters. As long as you keep dex-bows in your game, I see nothing wrong with strength-bows, however.


Ranger works with Strength too.

With this variant, you could make a stranger easily enough.

Besides, rangers are a pretty bad class, I wouldn't drop verisimilitude for such a terrible class.

[qube]

Another thing though ... if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?

You get slashed by someone of 13 or 18 STR - you're both dead. But good reflexes, coordination and speed ... now that makes the difference.

[Witty Username]

this reminds me of a topic of which stats should add to damage, and one conclusion is that for all kinds of melee weapons Str, Dex and Int all have valid reasons for adding to one effectiveness in combat(the discussion was for RPGs in general so those were the only ones being discussed).

As for Str characters adding their Str to bows, I would say the game could handle it. Adding ranged options to Str is about as impactful as making Athletics and Acrobatics interchangeable and most tables already do that.

[qube]

As for Str characters adding their Str to bows, I would say the game could handle it. Adding ranged options to Str is about as impactful as making Athletics and Acrobatics interchangeable and most tables already do that.perhaps - though it still doesn't resolve the Versimillitude. In effect STR characters usually either go for fullplates, or are barbarians. Neither of which are typical archers.

I'd youd go for Versimillitude, I'd
increase the damage die of crossbows but give them a STR requirement to reload
make it so you can throw multiple throwing weapons in one turn with extra attack.
(this in fact has the added benefit of making thr knife thrower more viable)

[Constructman]

Ranger works with Strength too.
Not with Medium armour they don't. They still want at least 14 Dex, and if you're using Point Buy and trying to pump Str as well, one of Con or Wis is going to take the hit, neither of which is a good thing.

Also, if they're bad now, they'd be damn near unplayable if they lost their bows. Are you trying to kill them? Is that your goal, forcing them into the ****tier Dex rapier Fighter slot?

[TheUser]

You'll have to excuse me for overlooking the ranger class *snicker*

I have, however, been completely swayed to the bows as finesse weapons opinion and updated the original post to reflect that. Rangers are safe now.

[Malifice]

Is getting shot in the leg with a 200lb draw bow more deadly than getting shot in the eye with a 50lb draw bow?

Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.

[R.Shackleford]

Is getting shot in the leg with a 200lb draw bow more deadly than getting shot in the eye with a 50lb draw bow?

Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.

That's not how D&D hit points work though.

Until the last hit, they're both as deadly... Meaning they aren't deadly at all. They may both be a glancing blow, tire you out from you dodging, or take away your luck. Hell, it could be that it took away your will to live!

The damage isn't "meat", it's a combi ation of things.

[Kyutaru]

Oh my, Strength-based longbows?

What's next, Intelligence-based crossbows? :smallamused:

[TheUser]

Is getting shot in the leg with a 200lb draw bow more deadly than getting shot in the eye with a 50lb draw bow?

Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.

I harken back to the previous statement that all weapons require some level of movement anticipation and hand eye co-ordination. The other interesting factor that's been conveniently glossed over is that against an armored target a 50lb draw bow has a much slimmer chance of connecting with the leg if it's covered in platemail.

You've compared two opposite extremes as opposed to a fair analysis of what a hitbox for a 50lb draw bow vs a 110lb draw bow might look like. Connecting with the eye of a moving target is more of a critical strike/sharpshooter territory.

A 110lb draw bow to the chest vs a 50lb draw bow to the head/neck. Seems a more fair comparison. The chest is roughly 10x the area of the head. But now you stand a chance of connecting with the heart, the lungs, the abdomen. All essential bodily stuffs and you've overcome the lack of finesse required with brute force.

A 50lb draw bow has to connect with a weakness in the armor (like the back of the knee or inner elbow) the 110lb bow does not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

STR only increases the velocity of the bow if the bow changes. It's a threshold value for each given bow. STR really doesn't influence accuracy much at all either.

DEX increases potential damage smoothly because you can more accurately and reliably hit (or threaten to hit) a particular area.

IMO, the "simulationist" way of doing things would be to have different bows with strength requirements. So a shortbow might have no requirement but a d6 damage die. A longbow might have a 13 strength requirement and have a d8 damage die. A war-bow might have a 15 strength requirement and have a d10 damage die. All would use DEX for ATK and would add DEX to damage though.

But that's a bit fiddly, especially since no other weapons have STR requirements.

[jjordan]

For me it's a simple strength requirement to use a bow and use dexterity for attacks.

[stoutstien]

STR only increases the velocity of the bow if the bow changes. It's a threshold value for each given bow. STR really doesn't influence accuracy much at all either.

DEX increases potential damage smoothly because you can more accurately and reliably hit (or threaten to hit) a particular area.

IMO, the "simulationist" way of doing things would be to have different bows with strength requirements. So a shortbow might have no requirement but a d6 damage die. A longbow might have a 13 strength requirement and have a d8 damage die. A war-bow might have a 15 strength requirement and have a d10 damage die. All would use DEX for ATK and would add DEX to damage though.

But that's a bit fiddly, especially since no other weapons have STR requirements.

I think it was what the heavy tag was trying to achieve.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it was what the heavy tag was trying to achieve.

I see "heavy" as being a misnomer. It's really "awkwardly large" or "requires more size". A STR human can use a longbow without disadvantage. A STR 20 halfling can't.

[Wryte]

I see "heavy" as being a misnomer. It's really "awkwardly large" or "requires more size". A STR human can use a longbow without disadvantage. A STR 20 halfling can't.

I houserule Heavy weapons as requiring a minimum Str score to wield without disadvantage, mirroring the Str requirements for wearing Heavy armor without reduced movement, instead of automatically disadvantaging Small races. My reason for doing so has more to do with locking an entire player size category out of a standard fantasy archetype, but it works for this purpose, too.

The requirement is based on damage die:

1d8 = Str 11 (Longbows)
1d10 = Str 13 (Heavy Crossbows, Polearms)
1d12/2d6 = Str 15 (Great Weapons)

[Navmaxlp]

If we are talking about realism in using a bow, I think it's necessary to mention pull weight stacking. No matter how strong you are there is a point on a bow where "stacking" occurs. The draw weight is usually set to indicate the maximum draw length of the bow. Once you go beyond that draw length there is a point of diminishing returns on the power you can derive from it. So essentially, if you are strong enough to pull the bow to the draw length, you are getting the maximum power out of the bow. If someone else twice as strong as you pulls the bow back to the maximum, they are still getting the same power out of the bow.

It has to do with the curve of the bow and how it bends when you pull the string. Once the near straight piece of wood bends to a certain point, you can't bend it any further by pulling backwards. It's near that point that stacking is reached. It happens quickly too. Beyond that point, in order to gain even minimal gains you would have to add an absurd amount of power to achieve it.

The longer the bow the longer it takes to achieve stacking which makes sense since the string is longer. Short bows over come this by adding the recurve to it. The recurve makes the string attachment points wider when at full draw and allows for a deeper pull and more power with a much smaller, shorter bow.

Dex makes much more sense to me as a to hit since the aiming at a specific target takes more hand eye coordination. Strength might be necessary as a prerequisite to use a specific bow but not as a to hit I wouldn't think.

Compound bows have a let off when you reach the right spot in the cog. If you look at them, the cogs have a flat spot on them. They are usually measured in draw weight/let off weight. So a measurement like 80/20 on a compound bow is a draw weight of 80 lbs and a let off weight of 20. Once you reach the let off, you could hold the bow at full draw all day. That allows for much more accurate aiming.

Just a little info if it helps at all

[Gamer92131]

Sounds like a great way to ruin game balance.

[Hytheter]

STR really doesn't influence accuracy much at all either.

I think the logic is that it's easier to aim if you aren't already straining against the difficulty of drawing the bow and can keep your arms steady.

[Mellack]

STR only increases the velocity of the bow if the bow changes. It's a threshold value for each given bow. STR really doesn't influence accuracy much at all either.

DEX increases potential damage smoothly because you can more accurately and reliably hit (or threaten to hit) a particular area.

IMO, the "simulationist" way of doing things would be to have different bows with strength requirements. So a shortbow might have no requirement but a d6 damage die. A longbow might have a 13 strength requirement and have a d8 damage die. A war-bow might have a 15 strength requirement and have a d10 damage die. All would use DEX for ATK and would add DEX to damage though.

But that's a bit fiddly, especially since no other weapons have STR requirements.

Adding to that, not only would the bows have to be different to actually use the STR, the arrows would also. An arrow designed for a 50# bow would not have the spline strength to be fired from a 100# bow. It could well snap on release or would at least have a very large flex when shot. So you wouldn't be able to fill up your quiver from the goblins you just killed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the logic is that it's easier to aim if you aren't already straining against the difficulty of drawing the bow and can keep your arms steady.

You're not holding at full draw for very long at all. You end up with strongly diminishing returns to STR, well within the simulation accuracy of the system (ie not very accurate). Remember that a STR 10 person can already carry 150 lbs (by default) of gear with no issues--pulling a 60 lb vs 70 lb bow just doesn't matter at that level.


Adding to that, not only would the bows have to be different to actually use the STR, the arrows would also. An arrow designed for a 50# bow would not have the spline strength to be fired from a 100# bow. It could well snap on release or would at least have a very large flex when shot. So you wouldn't be able to fill up your quiver from the goblins you just killed.

Very true. Plus, a stronger bow is generally longer (or differently constructed), so you'd need just plain longer arrows. Totally not worth it.

[MadBear]

Long Long time ago, I remember when we had a DM who required a 12 or better strength to even use long bow. We also had long composite bows, and short composite bows, that each did one more point of damage. (1d6 +1, 1d8 +1) with about the same range. (Technically, due to how the yew tree comes together to make a long bow, it is sort of like natures version of a composite bow ... )

In this edition, in the interest of removing fiddly bits and generally streamlining game play, that kind of verisimilitude has been left on the cutting room floor.

It's fine. But the game has set a precedent on "you need to be this tall to go on this ride" with armor. You need certain strength scores for certain armors.

Chain mail Str 13
Splint Str 15
Plate Str 15

You could just as easily say "you cannot use a long bow without 12 or 13 Strength" and that takes care of your concern. You still have to hit what you aim at to do effective damage, so leaving the dex hit/dmg is fine.

Here is your new Long Bow Entry

If you're gonna change the rules, I think is by far the best solution.

[RedMage125]

No, you need Wisdom to hit, to adjucate the arch needed for range, and to account for wind. Strength to damage on a longbow (or composite bow) is fine.

Or if you prefer, use Dex for short range (accuracy, speed), and Wisdom for long range.

All those calculations would be INT, not WIS. And even if you do the math, you still need to have the precision and physical coordination to put the arrow where you intend.

Incidentally, using WIS would be if you were using instinct and intuition, rather than calculation. The 3.xe feat Zen Archery reflected this.


Another thing though ... if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?
All weapons do require some hand-eye coordination, yes. But melee weapons also depend on STR to swing the 15 lb. Piece of steel fast enough and hard enough to get in a strike. Wielding a sword for more than a few minutes gets tiring FAST.


Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.

100%

The damage the bow deals to a target it hits is a property of the bow itself, getting it there is all DEX.

[qube]

> Another thing though ... if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?

All weapons do require some hand-eye coordination, yes. But melee weapons also depend on STR to swing the 15 lb. Piece of steel fast enough and hard enough to get in a strike. Wielding a sword for more than a few minutes gets tiring FAST.The problem through, is that you EXACTLY prove my point.

Rapiers such as this one (http://www.danelliarmouries.com/index.php/custom-swords/rapiers/196-wallace-c-a533-transitional-rapier-da-rp35) fall straight in the range of the bastard sword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword) (and yes, that links to longswords - that's because, for some reason, the two-hander that can be used as one-hander, that D&D refers to as bastard sword is categoried as longsword IRL, while the D&D longswords would be arming sword IRL).

But bastard swords have the enormous advantage of being wielded with 2 hands - making it even lighter in comparison. Factually, it's the rapier that require more ams strength to use.

(I'll let slide the 15 lb number, as that's so off, I can only presume it's a typo)

[Mellack]

Just to muddy things further, if you are talking about how tiring it is to swing a sword for even a few minutes, that sounds like CON. So shouldn't that stat also be used for swinging?

[RedMage125]

The problem through, is that you EXACTLY prove my point.

Rapiers such as this one (http://www.danelliarmouries.com/index.php/custom-swords/rapiers/196-wallace-c-a533-transitional-rapier-da-rp35) fall straight in the range of the bastard sword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword) (and yes, that links to longswords - that's because, for some reason, the two-hander that can be used as one-hander, that D&D refers to as bastard sword is categoried as longsword IRL, while the D&D longswords would be arming sword IRL).

But bastard swords have the enormous advantage of being wielded with 2 hands - making it even lighter in comparison. Factually, it's the rapier that require more ams strength to use.

(I'll let slide the 15 lb number, as that's so off, I can only presume it's a typo)

I'm not sure if your point was sarcasm, then. Because I do not think one should use DEX for a broadsword, nor do I agree with using STR for a bow.

Naming conventions of weapons in d&d have been borked for years. You're right about Longsword, of course. But there's a lot more. What D&D calls a rapier, if you look at most pictures, is actually a foil, or sometimes an epee (triangular blade aside, since it'sa 2 dimensional image). Most rapiers had a fairly wide blade, compared to those images, and were only sharpened at the last 6 inches or so. What the 3.5e PHB called a "falchion" was a scimitar, what they called a "scimitar" was a saber (or cutlass). A falcon had a straight back, and the forward, bladed end was curved and thick, looking a lot like a meat cleaver and a sword hybrid.

Even dividing the weight by using both hands, swinging one around for even a few minutes gets tiring, and swinging one hard and fast enough to hurt requires strength for certain.

Note: LOL, not so much a typo, as I got some wires crossed due to hurrying. I was only glancing at the page on the pdf on my phone, and read the GP cost as the weight. Lol, dumb mistake. 15 pound sword, indeed.

[Cikomyr]

I don't think versimitude is the right term. More like realism.

Versimitude is about rules and elements making sense in-setting

[RedMage125]

I don't think versimitude is the right term. More like realism.

Versimitude is about rules and elements making sense in-setting

Or simulationism, which I said a few times.

[darknite]

I've shot a lot of simple bow in my life. Strength is good for pull = velocity. But I'd still keep Dex as the operative stat for accuracy as it is a hand-eye sort of thing. And bows are rated for strength so I wouldn't provide a bonus to damage based on strength, but I'd consider varying bows that require a minimum strength to use that have better damage.

[Mordaedil]

Just make a set of bows that you call "composite bows" and it uses strength for hit and damage and regular bows still use dexterity.

Finito. Fighters and barbarians are happy. Rogues and rangers are happy. No balance issues.

[qube]

I'm not sure if your point was sarcasm, then. Because I do not think one should use DEX for a broadsword, nor do I agree with using STR for a bow.It's not. But it is under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.


What D&D calls a rapier, if you look at most pictures, is actually a foil, or sometimes an epee (triangular blade aside, since it'sa 2 dimensional image).I disagree. Considering the maximum weight for a RL epee is (770gram) (and an average of 300g - 450g, less then a pound), while the foil is even lighter (clocking a maximum weight of 500 grams (about 17.5 ounces)). The RL rapier has an average weight of 1 kg (2.2 lb) .. and the D&D rapiers ? They are stated as 2 lb - exactly the weight one would expect of the rapier.

And looking at the pictures of the weapon & it's crossguard, in the 5E & 4E PHB, those aren't epee's or foils, but rapier crossguards. On the 3.5E PHB rapier... I honestly have no clue what weapon that was. (but with their overstylyised falchion (https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1490386866241.jpg), who knows what they meant)


Most rapiers had a fairly wide blade, compared to those images, and were only sharpened at the last 6 inches or so.... eeeeuh ... you think most rapiers were only sharpened at the last 6 inches? no


Even dividing the weight by using both hands, swinging one around for even a few minutes gets tiring, and swinging one hard and fast enough to hurt requires strength for certain.yeah, but it get less tiring then using a rapier. Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

[Man_Over_Game]

Rather than making a dramatic change to the system, you could just make it a small investment.

Fighting Style:

Power Shot: If you have not attacked this turn, you can spend your Bonus Action to cause attacks you make with a Longbow or Shortbow to have Loading and Finesse until the end of your turn. Additionally, the next attack you make this turn using one of those weapons is made with Advantage.

---------

If you wanted things to be based on accuracy, all crossbows would be simple weapons, all bows would be Martial weapons, polearms would have some kind of deficit for attacking adjacent enemies, and the only weapons with Finesse would be a Rapier or throwing weapons.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I believe the equipment list is goofy and wholly laud your attempts at correction for your homegames. :smallcool:
One day, I may even borrow them. :smallwink:

Yeah, weapons table is a mess.

I've advocated for weapons damage being based on the wielder. Full caster types use d4, druid/cleric use d6, martial and quartercasters d8. 2 Handed? Go up a die level or down a die level and roll 2d.

Then you can call your weapon any thing from wuxia/anime/homebrew you want.

Add whatever adjectives you want. Homebrew whatever you want (sword-bows? please!) Its a fantasy game. Goodgulf the Grey's longish sword does a d4 or d6 2H, maybe with finesse so he can apply DEX. And the game goes on.

[RedMage125]

It's not. But it is under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.

As I said (and many other people with real-world experience in actually shooting a bow or understanding of how they work have supported), using STR for the "to-hit" for a bow does not make sense. The OP was looking to do this out of a sense of verisimilitude (or simulationism), and that just doesn't follow logically. At least with a longsword, one's strength really does have some effect in getting that blade to the target when and where you want it to. Yes, one must not be a clumsy oaf, but bringing the blade to the target requires strength.

A bow, OTOH, is vastly different. STR makes sense for the damage rolls IF the bow is rated as such. Like I said initially, 3.xe actually had the rules for bows that most closely model real-world effects, with different bows rated for different STR modifiers, having those bow REQUIRE that STR modifier at a minimum to even draw the bow, and having that modifier be the max that can be added to the bow's damage. But getting the arrow to the target? That is ENTIRELY precision, as even a minute movement of the hand holding the bow can be a difference of several feet of lateral movement in the arrow's trajectory.

No, using STR for "to-hit" rolls for a bow is not a "better reflection" of how things work IRL.


I disagree. Considering the maximum weight for a RL epee is (770gram) (and an average of 300g - 450g, less then a pound), while the foil is even lighter (clocking a maximum weight of 500 grams (about 17.5 ounces)). The RL rapier has an average weight of 1 kg (2.2 lb) .. and the D&D rapiers ? They are stated as 2 lb - exactly the weight one would expect of the rapier.

And looking at the pictures of the weapon & it's crossguard, in the 5E & 4E PHB, those aren't epee's or foils, but rapier crossguards. On the 3.5E PHB rapier... I honestly have no clue what weapon that was. (but with their overstylyised falchion (https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1490386866241.jpg), who knows what they meant)
I was referring strictly to the pictures, compared to every rapier I have ever seen in a museum (which were earlier rapiers with wider blades), although, now that I look this up, I was not looking at later English rapiers, which had a much narrower blade, less than an inch wide.



... eeeeuh ... you think most rapiers were only sharpened at the last 6 inches? no
Yes.

A rapier's blade was unsuitable for cutting blows, and more than half of the blade closest to the hilt was not sharpened at all. The "last 6 inches" may be understating it by a little, but not much.



yeah, but it get less tiring then using a rapier.
Source?

Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?
You absolutely CAN use STR for a rapier, it's a finesse weapon, after all. In fact, it's the default, due to the baseline RAW for how melee attacks work. And once again, D&D RAW are not meant to be perfect simulationism. A great deal of the are an abstraction meant to give voice to classic tropes of fantasy adventuring. Rapiers are often portrayed in media as elegant weapons that are more about "swish and flourish" than "murder tool". Which is not historically accurate, but it's what the masses expect and what they want from a D&D character wielding one.

The distinction is, that using STR for a bow is neither an accurate depiction of real-world effects, nor does it resonate with classic fantasy archetypes and tropes, in which archers are usually mobile, agile characters wearing lighter armor (Legolas comes to mind most readily). Which is why YOUR argument fails.

[Wryte]

I've advocated for weapons damage being based on the wielder. Full caster types use d4, druid/cleric use d6, martial and quartercasters d8. 2 Handed? Go up a die level or down a die level and roll 2d.

...

Goodgulf the Grey's longish sword does a d4 or d6 2H, maybe with finesse so he can apply DEX. And the game goes on.

Casters already have worse weapon attacks than martials due to needing to prioritize ability scores elsewhere and not getting class features that buff their attacks, like fighting styles or especially Extra Attack. Casters already virtually never use weapons unless they're doing a gish build, this would just guarantee that they never will at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The distinction is, that using STR for a bow is neither an accurate depiction of real-world effects, nor does it resonate with classic fantasy archetypes and tropes, in which archers are usually mobile, agile characters wearing lighter armor (Legolas comes to mind most readily). Which is why YOUR argument fails.

This is the key part here. 5e does not attempt to simulate anything. It attempts to enable archetypes. Archers are nimble and lightly armored in archetype, so since that requires DEX, archery requires DEX. Big weapons go with either muscle-tanking (barbarians) or heavy armor, so they're STR. Rapiers are associated with swashbucklers/duelists more than knights, so they can use DEX. Etc.

It's all about archetypes. "Real world" concerns only play a role to the degree that they inform the archetypes. Same with monks--they're designed around popular conceptions of kung fu/eastern mysticism, not reality.

[RedMage125]

This is the key part here. 5e does not attempt to simulate anything. It attempts to enable archetypes. Archers are nimble and lightly armored in archetype, so since that requires DEX, archery requires DEX. Big weapons go with either muscle-tanking (barbarians) or heavy armor, so they're STR. Rapiers are associated with swashbucklers/duelists more than knights, so they can use DEX. Etc.

It's all about archetypes. "Real world" concerns only play a role to the degree that they inform the archetypes. Same with monks--they're designed around popular conceptions of kung fu/eastern mysticism, not reality.

Omg, so much this.

It's what I always had to harp on in older editions when people complained about "non lawful barbarians" and "lawful monks". It's not that alignment mechanics were the problem, but that the classes themselves were designed to only reflect fairly narrow archetypes. A Crab Clan Bushi who is a Dead Eyes Berserker, and goes into a state of heightened battle awareness in which he hits harder and can take more punishment, but has such tunnel vision that he is more open to attacks? Totally works as a Lawful (and literate) Barbarian, even in 3.5. But the designers only saw the class as "savage tribal warrior who fronts at the mouth when he rages" type, and the mechanics of the class reflect that.

Sorry for the tangent. But yes, reflecting and giving voice to common and classic tropes of fantasy is the Prime Directive of all the rules of D&D. Way before simulationism.

[GlenSmash!]

The Strength/Dex divide will never make sense from a simulationist perspective. It does however make sense form a Fantasy archetype perspective which is fine.

Still adding Finesse to some ranged weapons won't hurt a thing.

It would also better enable me to play my Longsword/Longbow Aragorn style Ranger. Which is neat.

But I don't mind the 15, 14, 13, 9, 13, 8 Strength based Ranger anyway. Vhuman with Resilient makes him pretty playable. I even like 14, 14, 13, 11, 13, 8 if going Fighter. The extra ASI at 6 helps me catch up.

[Witty Username]

Is getting shot in the leg with a 200lb draw bow more deadly than getting shot in the eye with a 50lb draw bow?

Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.


I would frame it as a shot in the head of a knight wearing a helmet, a low pound bow, a sharp eye and a steady hand can get him in the eye. and he dies. A high pound bow and a strong arm may punch through the helmet, and he dies.


All those calculations would be INT, not WIS. And even if you do the math, you still need to have the precision and physical coordination to put the arrow where you intend.

Incidentally, using WIS would be if you were using instinct and intuition, rather than calculation. The 3.xe feat Zen Archery reflected this.
I think WIS would also be the one you were using if you were trying to guess how a creature is moving to properly lead the shot, like using insight to open up an opponent for sneak attack.


Edit:I think simulationist argument breaks down a bit when armor effects the to-hit instead of the damage, I would say if you can reason that armor would be less effective then it would effect to hit rolls. But I don't care too much about things making sense as much as viability of a concept.

[AnimusBane]

If you are going this way I'd second Wis to hit making more sense as a bow's ability to hit is very much based on your perception. I'd say if you want to go for real world accuracy it would be less +STG to damage and more a bow with a required strength to wield it that adds a set amount of damage.

At that point though you are kind of dropping the simplicity of 5e.

[qube]

> yeah, but it get less tiring then using a rapier.

Source?Me. I've actually trained with both.


Yes.

A rapier's blade was unsuitable for cutting blowsYou're (hopefully) confusing, cutting with hewing (opposite to slicing). While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someon. (linky - lesson in cutting with rapiers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NI2MI3umYE))


> Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

You absolutely CAN use STR for a rapier, it's a finesse weapon, after all. In fact, it's the default, due to the baseline RAW for how melee attacks work..Great. Except, I said:


Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

Yes, you can use strength, but you don't need it. A STR 8 DEX 20 fighter can wield a rapier par exelence. Yet he'll horribly fail with a weapon, that requires less strength ... which, of course, is nonsense.


A great deal of the are an abstraction meant to give voice to classic tropes of fantasy adventuring. Rapiers are often portrayed in media as elegant weapons that are more about "swish and flourish" than "murder tool"
...
The distinction is, that using STR for a bow is neither an accurate depiction of real-world effects, nor does it resonate with classic fantasy archetypes and tropes, in which archers are usually mobile, agile characters wearing lighter armor (Legolas comes to mind most readily). Which is why YOUR argument fails.Cool story, but before you claim my argument fails, it's almost like this guy in post 28 agrees with you - considering he said:


it still doesn't resolve the Versimillitude. In effect STR characters usually either go for fullplates, or are barbarians. Neither of which are typical archers.
~~ me, post 28

it's also the guy who said that the dex-for-longswords argument is


under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.
~~ me, top of the post you quoted

I already noted this in the thread, that I'm personally absolutely against STR bows, but if ... I repeat If ... you're using strength for bows (for damage), because it's "more realistic" - then, by that same line, it's silly to key of weapons that require less strength then other dex weapons, to strength.

If you're going for realism, the less strength a weapon requires, the better the weaker fighter should be able to wield it.

[Constructman]

Keep in mind that a character using the Array or Point Buy and who put an 8 into Strength can still carry up to 120 lbs of stuff on their person, along being able to effectively push/drag an object up to 240 lbs. They don't turn into a pool noodle just because their Strength dips below 10.

[greenstone]

You could just as easily say "you cannot use a long bow without 12 or 13 Strength" and that takes care of your concern. You still have to hit what you aim at to do effective damage, so leaving the dex hit/dmg is fine.
I like this idea.
It also has the value of making crossbows more used.

[MadBear]

I like this idea.
It also has the value of making crossbows more used.

There are 3 things I like about this change above others.

1. It's simple, and that's what this edition is about. There's also precedent for this in the multiclassing rules.

2. It still means that the archer is primarily dexterous, but you can't just dump strength entirely. So now that player has an interesting decision to make regarding what they'll use.

3. It creates a meaningful place for the crossbow to fit in. (Basically, not strong enough to use a bow, but enough dex to make good use of a ranged weapon.)

[qube]

Keep in mind that a character using the Array or Point Buy and who put an 8 into Strength can still carry up to 120 lbs of stuff on their person, along being able to effectively push/drag an object up to 240 lbs. They don't turn into a pool noodle just because their Strength dips below 10.To be fair, My initial example was a STR 4 DEX 20 (as we've got a rapier wielding wizard (that Sword coast elfen fighting type) in my current party - but I changed it to be more inclusive.

Though still, while indeed you're not a pool noodle, That's still a 6 point modifier difference. In both attack and damage.
- a 6 point difference in attack, that's about the difference between attacking & attacking blindly
- a 6 point difference in damage, is the difference between greatsword (avr. 7+X) and punch (avr. 1+X)

[diplomancer]

There are 3 things I like about this change above others.

1. It's simple, and that's what this edition is about. There's also precedent for this in the multiclassing rules.

2. It still means that the archer is primarily dexterous, but you can't just dump strength entirely. So now that player has an interesting decision to make regarding what they'll use.

3. It creates a meaningful place for the crossbow to fit in. (Basically, not strong enough to use a bow, but enough dex to make good use of a ranged weapon.)

Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

[TheUser]

Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

Yeah. I'm not for minimum bow strength requirements; adds more system glut and further complicates and already complicated system.

That having been said most of the thread hasn't pushed for this either.

The idea that you need a casting stat and another stat for types of spells favors casters with large spell lists and ****s on those with small ones since you are further limitting an already limited pool of choices. Let's not get off track and remain focused.

I digress. Slapping "Finesse" on bows is quick, simple and low on system glut that mirrors the real world; with 20 str rocking a 110lb draw bow is effortless, which steadies the aim and since the draw can be heavier the arrow flies faster meaning it inflicts more damage, is harder to dodge and has a higher chance of bypassing armor; less acuity required.

Switching to 50lbs of draw weight the arrow moves slower and doesn't penetrate as well, dodging is easier too, which makes prediction, aim and accuracy far more important. So here you use dex.

Finesse bows or bust.
Giving Strength characters a healthy ranged option that still doesn't include crossbows (arguably the best weapons for feat-based DPR shenanigans) doesn't break the game it just makes strength PC's more viable.

Also for those who want fantasy Barbarian Archers look no further than the Scorpion King movie or the Mongolian Empire for something more real.

[RedMage125]

Me. I've actually trained with both.
That's anecdotal evidence, which clearly makes it true in some cases. Logically, it has everything to do with which muscle groups the individual wielding the weapon has developed more. I'm just not convinced that it's an absolute, that's all.


You're (hopefully) confusing, cutting with hewing (opposite to slicing). While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someon. (linky - lesson in cutting with rapiers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NI2MI3umYE))
You're (hopefully) confusing cutting with laceration. I can hit someone with an entirely blunt baseball bat and draw blood. Or, if you want a closer parallel, a metal ruler which is not sharp at all. A narrow piece of metal striking someone and producing a tear in flesh that bleeds is not necessarily a "cut". And rapier blades are not well suited for actual cutting, if that is more clear.

I can't follow your link on this device right now, so I will let you know right now that I was unable to check on your citation.


Great. Except, I said:


Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

Yes, you can use strength, but you don't need it. A STR 8 DEX 20 fighter can wield a rapier par exelence. Yet he'll horribly fail with a weapon, that requires less strength ... which, of course, is nonsense.

Cool story, but before you claim my argument fails, it's almost like this guy in post 28 agrees with you - considering he said:


it still doesn't resolve the Versimillitude. In effect STR characters usually either go for fullplates, or are barbarians. Neither of which are typical archers.
~~ me, post 28

it's also the guy who said that the dex-for-longswords argument is


under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.
~~ me, top of the post you quoted

I already noted this in the thread, that I'm personally absolutely against STR bows, but if ... I repeat If ... you're using strength for bows (for damage), because it's "more realistic" - then, by that same line, it's silly to key of weapons that require less strength then other dex weapons, to strength.

If you're going for realism, the less strength a weapon requires, the better the weaker fighter should be able to wield it.

If you're against the principle of STR bows, then why are you arguing with me? I reject the premise of the "if" you mention entirely, and so I am not going to engage in a "devil's advocate" debate where I accept that premise and then try and construct an argument against it.

And technically, the only "more realistic" thing I said would be to follow the 3.xe model, which was that extra damage on a bow shot would be a factor of both the bow itself, AND the STR of the wielder. So "C if and only if A and B", because the draw of a bow is the only thing that increases damage and the draw of the bow (not the actual aiming and firing of the arrow) is the only factor that involves STR. But again, that's just my note on what simulationism would look like, I do not favor it. First and foremost, the RAW are abstractions meant to give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes and be streamlined and FUN. To that effect, I say DEX to hit and damage is better.

Even the "Finesse bow" option, to my view, is not a good one. Not if the goal is verisimilitude or simulationism. Using STR to aim a bow doesn't hold water to me.

[deljzc]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

[TheUser]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

Except there are already ranged weapons that use strength to hit off of the same premise as the one I am presenting now..

[diplomancer]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

Why do you hate archers? This is a nerf to all archers with bows and makes crossbow expert almost mandatory.

[qube]

That's anecdotal evidence, which clearly makes it true in some cases. Logically, it has everything to do with which muscle groups the individual wielding the weapon has developed more. I'm just not convinced that it's an absolute, that's all.Nothing is absolute. There bound to be that one time as well, when to hit depends on strength (which, FYI, would be any time you shoot a slow creature with natural armor, where the AC represents toughness of the skin (like the earth elemental or tarrasue) ).

Bottom line
From a mathemetical point of view (2lb/1hand vs 3lb/2hands), you're wrong
From a physical/biological point of view (rapier stances hold their weapon father from their body as range is the name of their game), you're wrong
And from a real life test (which, sure is anecdotal, but is more then what you got), you're wrong
But if you have all the wrong muscles for longsword and all the right muscles for rapier? yeah, sure, you're right. THEN rapier fighting is easier. :smallsigh:

You're (hopefully) confusing cutting with laceration. I can hit someone with an entirely blunt baseball bat and draw blood. Or, if you want a closer parallel, a metal ruler which is not sharp at all. A narrow piece of metal striking someone and producing a tear in flesh that bleeds is not necessarily a "cut". And rapier blades are not well suited for actual cutting, if that is more clear.I can only repeat myself

While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someone.

You want to disagree, cool. Take it up with masters like Ferrara (of who's 5 basic attacks (not even the fancy master strokes, just the starter kit), 2 of them were blows, or Fabris, who talked extensively on types of cuts, and when to trust or cut, or Francesco Alfieri (many of his plays consist of the usage of feinted thrusts which are turned into cuts to the head, arms, and legs)

or Nicoletto Giganti, who said

a gallant man who can thrust, pass, and in addition knows how to counter every sort of pass and feint, but who has difficulty delivering and parrying cuts, should hold himself to know nothing.

Somebody should tell THOSE guys that's "if that is more clear" that cutting with a rapier is like drawing blood with "a metal ruler which is not sharp at all" - they didn't figure it out. They only litterly wrote the book on how to fight with a rapier.


If you're against the principle of STR bows, then why are you arguing with me? I reject the premise of the "if" you mention entirely, and so I am not going to engage in a "devil's advocate" debate where I accept that premise and then try and construct an argument against it. :smallconfused: ORLY? I suggest you go back in read post 46.

Because, that's our first interaction with each other, that's where you start the argument, litterly to this quote


"if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?"

[MadBear]

Why do you hate archers? This is a nerf to all archers with bows and makes crossbow expert almost mandatory.

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

[JNAProductions]

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

They weren't responding to you, they were responding to "Dex to hit and Str to damage".

[diplomancer]

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

It is not as big of a nerf as requiring DEX to hit and STR to damage (that one makes bow archers unplayable, now the only bow archer is the Hexblade), but it is a nerf.

Would you apply the same principles to casters and say you can't cast enchantment spells without 12 CHA? Or that you cannot craft believable illusions without 12 INT?

What does this actually add to the game?

[Willie the Duck]

That's anecdotal evidence,


Source?

I hope you realized that your audience would notice the many definitive statements you have made about the truth of the matter without source or attribution. If you want to require it of others, it would be reasonable to have done so yourself.


Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

In a different game, where no one is in competition with spellcasters (and certainly with hexblades), I would enjoy a game where you had AD&D-style fighters who want to have both Strength and Dexterity, and whom might use longbow and greatsword, or the like. It probably would be more like AD&D you only aren't expected to have high stats in everything, and it's fine to have a 15-18 in either Str or Dex, 10-13 in the other, and can still be decent at other stuff, simply because your stats aren't that huge of a contribution to overall success.

As it stands, the suggested change just makes both rapier/Dex fighters and halberd/Str fighters both use bows... which honestly is not a horrible thing. So I'm not really against this one specific house rule. I just am leery of once again putting more and more simulationist requirements upon the fighters again, while still not making the spellcasters jump through the same hoops.

[opaopajr]

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

:smallsmile: This is a FANTASTIC IDEA, too! A great way to make those schools or rarer spells more interesting. This should be its own topic, filled with ideas.

[Man_Over_Game]

:smallsmile: This is a FANTASTIC IDEA, too! A great way to make those schools or rarer spells more interesting. This should be its own topic, filled with ideas.

There's already a use for those stats in those subclasses, though. An Enchantment Wizard would have a much easier time using the Charm condition if they had a higher Charisma. An Evocation Wizard would have an easier time casting Evocation spells if he wasn't as worried about blowing himself up or having a higher HP pool for Overchannel. An illusionist Wizard needs a higher Intelligence because of the fact that many Illusion spells use a saving throw (highly attribute dependent), as well as Intelligence having a bonus for preparing multiple spells (quantity of spells is more important for utility casters than combat casters).

On a similar topic, though, I did add a Prestige option for Enchantment Wizards using Charisma instead of Intelligence, and Divination Wizards using Wisdom instead of Intelligence. I don't know how I'd feel about Wizards being a MAD class, though.

[RedMage125]

Nothing is absolute. There bound to be that one time as well, when to hit depends on strength (which, FYI, would be any time you shoot a slow creature with natural armor, where the AC represents toughness of the skin (like the earth elemental or tarrasue) ).

Bottom line
From a mathemetical point of view (2lb/1hand vs 3lb/2hands), you're wrong
From a physical/biological point of view (rapier stances hold their weapon father from their body as range is the name of their game), you're wrong
And from a real life test (which, sure is anecdotal, but is more then what you got), you're wrong
But if you have all the wrong muscles for longsword and all the right muscles for rapier? yeah, sure, you're right. THEN rapier fighting is easier. :smallsigh:
I can only repeat myself

While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someone.
Bottom line
You said Bastard Sword, so I was going off the 6 lb weight in the 3.5e PHB, not a 5e Longsword. So that's 1 hand with 2 lbs, and 2 hands with 6.
Stance makes a great deal of sense, and is all about muscle groups. Someone with more forearm strength is going to be able to hold a 2 lb rapier at extension longer than someone with weaker biceps and shoulders can hold that 6 lb sword with arms bent.
I never actually made the claim that Rapier fighting is "easier". You made a claim, couched as objective fact, that was entirely too dependent on subjective factors of the individual involved. Since this was just specifically in regards to what I perceived as you claiming that broadswords/bastard swords should be using DEX, I simply asked you to support a claim about which is "more tiring" (i.e. more likely to require STR over DEX).



You want to disagree, cool. Take it up with masters like Ferrara (of who's 5 basic attacks (not even the fancy master strokes, just the starter kit), 2 of them were blows, or Fabris, who talked extensively on types of cuts, and when to trust or cut, or Francesco Alfieri (many of his plays consist of the usage of feinted thrusts which are turned into cuts to the head, arms, and legs)

or Nicoletto Giganti, who said

a gallant man who can thrust, pass, and in addition knows how to counter every sort of pass and feint, but who has difficulty delivering and parrying cuts, should hold himself to know nothing.

Somebody should tell THOSE guys that's "if that is more clear" that cutting with a rapier is like drawing blood with "a metal ruler which is not sharp at all" - they didn't figure it out. They only litterly wrote the book on how to fight with a rapier.
I don't expect a 17th century swordsman to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration". If you look up any modern analysis of a rapier, they will all say that the blade was not well suited to cutting.


:smallconfused: ORLY? I suggest you go back in read post 46.

Because, that's our first interaction with each other, that's where you start the argument, litterly to this quote


"if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?"

I was under the impression that you were genuinely advocating for using DEX for a broadsword/bastard sword, on the basis of the arguments used in regards to a bow. If that was not the case, you very well could have said so, and left off a great deal of snark. I genuinely meant my response to that as in favor if using STR for non-finesse melee weapons. Since that was not what you were actually advocating, you could have clarified once it was apparent that I was taking your sarcasm as sincerity.

Also, a lot of people of the forum use blue text to indicate sarcasm, so I took anything not color formatted as sincere.

Since it appears you have no interest in ACTUALLY proposing silly rules, and we both agree about what the rules should be, why continue this any further?


I hope you realized that your audience would notice the many definitive statements you have made about the truth of the matter without source or attribution. If you want to require it of others, it would be reasonable to have done so yourself.


On which point did you want reference citation or source attribution? Because a great deal of what I said about game rules reference previous edition PHBs, so you could reference those. How modern compound bows with pulleys have a set amount of force with which to propel an arrow? How about Newton's Laws of Physics? The physical properties of the string returning to an "at rest" state is what propels the arrow forward, and only the amount of force acted on the string to draw it completely acts on the arrow when released. Modern bows have stops to prevent the bow from being drawn back further than the intended amount. And, again, simple physics, if you pull an older bow back a greater distance than the arrow's length, it will not remain knocked. Perhaps you mean what I said to qube regarding rapiers? I'll admit before he really wanted to make it a challenge, I was going off my own knowledge of medieval/renaissance weaponry as a hobby, but I did start going to some websites about the matter once it became relevant, which is why I backed off on the point of the build of the blade, as I was not familiar with English rapiers, which were much thinner than the German and Italian ones I am familiar with. But he didn't contest that point, or ask for citation, so I don't know why you would. I can look them up again if you like.

I asked for a source from him because he made what was almost certainly an unsupportable statement with regards to "how tiring" one activity is vis another. Something entirely subjective, and based more off of any number of subjective factors involved with the individual performing both than physical, measurable qualities of the swords in question. And this was done in what -to my perception- was an attempt to argue in favor of bastard swords using DEX to attack as "increased verisimilitude".

[qube]

I don't expect a 17th century swordsman to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration".well, there are just so, but SO, many things wrong with that we'll have to dagree to disagree and people can judge for themselves if someone who claims this, has any credibility whatsover concerning rapiers.

Also, least relevant, but IMHO most importantly - respect where respect is due.


I don't expect a 17th century swordsman fencing masters to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration".
~~ fixing your quote

Also, a lot of people of the forum use blue text to indicate sarcasm, so I took anything not color formatted as sincere.because it's not sarcasm. It's quite serious. There's a reason I specified "if you use STR for bows" and later clarified it's "under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows". I have no problem working under premisses I happen not to agree with.

[patchyman]

Omg, so much this.

It's what I always had to harp on in older editions when people complained about "non lawful barbarians" and "lawful monks". It's not that alignment mechanics were the problem, but that the classes themselves were designed to only reflect fairly narrow archetypes. A Crab Clan Bushi who is a Dead Eyes Berserker, and goes into a state of heightened battle awareness in which he hits harder and can take more punishment, but has such tunnel vision that he is more open to attacks? Totally works as a Lawful (and literate) Barbarian, even in 3.5. But the designers only saw the class as "savage tribal warrior who fronts at the mouth when he rages" type, and the mechanics of the class reflect that.


You preach the truth, my friend, about something that has bothered me a long time! I bear scars from alignment battles long past.

[Raxxius]

On the whole D&D fails hard with simulating reality.

Bows and Crossbows require strength, Platemail doesn't make you immobile, two handed weapons are easier for weaker people to use, dual wielding is easier for stronger people. Calculating bow arc for a shot is a combination of dex, strength and wisdom.

finesse shouldn't exist, Dex should provide bonus to hit, perception as well (Wis) strength to damage.

but then fighters end up the MADdest of MAD classes.

[diplomancer]

There's already a use for those stats in those subclasses, though. An Enchantment Wizard would have a much easier time using the Charm condition if they had a higher Charisma. An Evocation Wizard would have an easier time casting Evocation spells if he wasn't as worried about blowing himself up or having a higher HP pool for Overchannel. An illusionist Wizard needs a higher Intelligence because of the fact that many Illusion spells use a saving throw (highly attribute dependent), as well as Intelligence having a bonus for preparing multiple spells (quantity of spells is more important for utility casters than combat casters).

On a similar topic, though, I did add a Prestige option for Enchantment Wizards using Charisma instead of Intelligence, and Divination Wizards using Wisdom instead of Intelligence. I don't know how I'd feel about Wizards being a MAD class, though.

Requiring intelligence for Wizards is not a nerf, obviously, but requiring it for Bards is. Create a 12 requirement for Int to make believable illusions and Bards will have a big problem casting them, especially Valor and Sword Bards, which are already quite MAD. Lore Bards would also suffer, but not so badly.

To create a INT requirement to cast illusions makes as much sense as to create a STR requirement for bows. They are both verisimilitude that worsens the game, by making less character concepts viable. On the other hand, adding finesse to bows makes the STRanger and the STRogue more viable, while giving a slight improvement to STR Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians , but not enough to make STR Fighters always better than DEX Fighter. It improves the game (i.e, it does not make any character concept too strong, and it allows a few more character concepts).

[Mordaedil]

Making specific archetypes more MAD than SAD is a big nerf even if you don't normally consider it.

[geetika]

Wow great information