Composite bows, why?

[Elves]

Is there a reason to not just make bows add +str to damage?

It seems like the reason for gating it behind a gp cost that quickly becomes trivial must have been that they felt it made bows overpowered at levels 1-2, which is the meta most of the world is expected to be in. If someone with a longbow does as much damage as someone with a longsword, it becomes +2 AC from a shield vs being able to snipe from 100+ feet away.

Devs clearly felt this was a problem. Do you see it as one? And is it worth the clumsy composite bows rule?

Possible solutions are to lower the base damage die of bows and/or increase shield AC bonus. Or maybe bows add +half str by default, like offhand weapons, with masterwork bows automatically allowing full str to damage.

[Nifft]

Devs clearly felt this was a problem.

Did they say that, or was this just something grandfathered in from a previous edition?

[Elves]

I'm assuming. Since the composite cost is just a way of saying "you can't get this until level 2-3".

[Maat Mons]

I think it was an attempt at realism. If we figured that all prices were intended to enforce balance, we'd have to conclude that Wizards thought water clocks provide a major benefit.

[Elves]

I think it was an attempt at realism. If we figured that all prices were intended to enforce balance, we'd have to conclude that Wizards thought water clocks provide a major benefit.

If it's about realism, isn't strength a major factor in firing a bow?

[Maat Mons]

Yes, but it's possible the designers didn't fully understand that.

[Jay R]

Because a given bow does pretty much the same damage in anybody's hands. A bow with a (significantly) heavier pull costs more.

If the strong man next to me has a bow with a 100 lb. pull, I probably can't draw it at all. When he uses my 34 lb bow, the arrows will have about the same force in his hands as in mine.

I don't know why they decided the specific cost for D&D, but a given bow has a given draw weight (with minor changes based on arm length, and therefore draw length).

This isn't something the developers created. It's just how bows work.

[Clistenes]

I think Composite Bows (and Longbows, and probably all bows...) should have both a minimum strength requirement, and a bonus to damage, which are determined while building the bow: something like "this longbow (str bonus 2) requires strength 14 to be used with proficiency; characters whose strength is under 14 suffer an -2 penalty to attack and damage; its damage is 1d8+2".

BUT you shouldn't receive any extra benefit if your strength is above 14. If your strength is 14 or higher you can draw the string and shoot the bow properly, but pulling the string even harder won't make any difference, it may just break it...

Hence you don't just add your strength bonus to damage while using a bow... if you have strength 16, you use a longbow (str bonus 3), until you raise your strength to 18, and then you buy a new longbow (str bonus 4).

[Nifft]

I think Composite Bows (and Longbows, and probably all bows...) should have both a minimum strength requirement, and a bonus to damage, which are determined while building the bow: something like "this longbow (str bonus 2) requires strength 14 to be used with proficiency; characters whose strength is under 14 suffer an -2 penalty to attack and damage; its damage is 1d8+2".

BUT you shouldn't receive any extra benefit if your strength is above 14. If your strength is 14 or higher you can draw the string and shoot the bow properly, but pulling the string even harder won't make any difference, it may just break it...

Hence you don't just add your strength bonus to damage while using a bow... if you have strength 16, you use a longbow (str bonus 3), until you raise your strength to 18, and then you buy a new longbow (str bonus 4).

A low-draw bow is less physically tiring to use repeatedly if your Str is higher than the draw.

Something about fatigue & exhaustion might be mechanically viable in this space, if the game were structured to include those.

[Falontani]

You know, composite longbows with the str requirement that some of the characters reach would look and be utterly ridiculous

[Elves]

Because a given bow does pretty much the same damage in anybody's hands. A bow with a (significantly) heavier pull costs more.

If the strong man next to me has a bow with a 100 lb. pull, I probably can't draw it at all. When he uses my 34 lb bow, the arrows will have about the same force in his hands as in mine.

I don't know why they decided the specific cost for D&D, but a given bow has a given draw weight (with minor changes based on arm length, and therefore draw length).

This isn't something the developers created. It's just how bows work.
But the heavier one, I have gottoo assume, shoots harder. In a highly simplified game there is a lot to be said for just getting across the idea that strength is involved and not getting finicky.


You know, composite longbows with the str requirement that some of the characters reach would look and be utterly ridiculous

Composite bows are supposed to be recurve bows IIRC, not modern compound bows.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You know, composite longbows with the str requirement that some of the characters reach would look and be utterly ridiculous

Which is why dedicated archers end up wielding exotic bows. If you're stuck in a core-only environment then at bare minimum, I'd expect that the composite bow made for str +5 would be made out of trees and animals far beyond yew and deer sinew like iron wood from arborea and sinews of a manticore or some such.

[Biggus]

Possible solutions are to lower the base damage die of bows and/or increase shield AC bonus.

Not the main point of your thread, but improving shields is a good idea, because shields suck in 3.5. Personally I increase the AC bonus of all shields by 1, and also allow them to apply to touch AC (including any enhancement bonus). Two-handed weapons are still probably better on balance, but at least now you're giving up a meaningful part of your defence by choosing not to have one.

[Ramza00]

Is there a reason to not just make bows add +str to damage?

Seems to me a design goal with translating previous rule editions to newer editions. Do you want your rules needlessly complicated now for that is what 3 previous editions did, or do you want to streamline the rules for this is not the late 1990s when 3.0 edition was being forged at the turn of the year 2000.

[liquidformat]

Because a given bow does pretty much the same damage in anybody's hands. A bow with a (significantly) heavier pull costs more.

If the strong man next to me has a bow with a 100 lb. pull, I probably can't draw it at all. When he uses my 34 lb bow, the arrows will have about the same force in his hands as in mine.

I don't know why they decided the specific cost for D&D, but a given bow has a given draw weight (with minor changes based on arm length, and therefore draw length).

This isn't something the developers created. It's just how bows work.


I think Composite Bows (and Longbows, and probably all bows...) should have both a minimum strength requirement, and a bonus to damage, which are determined while building the bow: something like "this longbow (str bonus 2) requires strength 14 to be used with proficiency; characters whose strength is under 14 suffer an -2 penalty to attack and damage; its damage is 1d8+2".

BUT you shouldn't receive any extra benefit if your strength is above 14. If your strength is 14 or higher you can draw the string and shoot the bow properly, but pulling the string even harder won't make any difference, it may just break it...

Hence you don't just add your strength bonus to damage while using a bow... if you have strength 16, you use a longbow (str bonus 3), until you raise your strength to 18, and then you buy a new longbow (str bonus 4).


I mean the functionality you guys are describing and the functionality of composite bows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#longbowComposite) is pretty much the same, if you don't have the strength requirement of the bow you take a -2 penalty. Granted this should probably be expanded upon because a person with 12 str most likely wouldn't be able to even draw a bow made for 16 str, like you said with a 34lb and 100lb bow. Another factor missing is there is a correlation between draw weight of a bow and the distance it can be shot but that is also dependent on type of bow, I suppose this could be represented by making the number of range increments dependent on the draw weight of the bow. However, in actuality it isn't that dramatic. Then again the range of bows and crossbows in D&D isn't really that realistic anyways...

The real goofy thing is from bower point of view the cost of making a 100lb bow and a 34lb bow often isn't different.


You know, composite longbows with the str requirement that some of the characters reach would look and be utterly ridiculous

Not really we are talking about composite here; you can pretty dramatically change the poundage of a bow by changing the materials you make it from, two different types of wood composite, compared to horn and wood, compared to metal and wood or metal core in a horn bow. This is pretty much how they made different weight crossbows...

[Thane of Fife]

Did they say that, or was this just something grandfathered in from a previous edition?

It's something grandfathered in.

In 1e, the rules say that a bow may allow you to use your strength bonus, but the DM gets to decide if it's more expensive.
In 2e, it says that you can use some amount of strength bonus with a normal bow (it's assumed you just pick one with a heavier draw), but a bow that allows you to use an exceptional strength score (basically >18) costs 3-5 times as much.
In later 2e, they changed this so that any bow that lets you use your strength bonus costs 3-5 times as much.

3e, then, just standardized this so that each +1 strength allowed is an additional multiplier on the cost of the bow (e.g. +1 costs 2x, +2 costs 3x).

[Elves]

So the rule in 2e was that they go up to +4 by default. Sounds like 3e just made it even more complicated then.

[Thane of Fife]

So the rule in 2e was that they go up to +4 by default. Sounds like 3e just made it even more complicated then.

Strength works differently in 2e, so not quite. Strength 17 is only +1 to hit and damage, and warrior-types never have Strength 18 (they get a bonus 'exceptional' strength if they would have 18, which can give them anything from +1 to hit and +3 to damage to +3 to hit and +6 to damage).

So the higher normal strength bonuses in 3e are actually more in line with the kinds of strength bonuses you would have to pay extra for in 2e.

This may have been on their minds when they writing 3e, but I think it's more likely they just went with the later 2e rule where any kind of Strength bow increased the cost.

(Also, in 2e, there are very few ways to increase damage other than strength bonus, so optimal behavior for a warrior is usually to maximize how many attacks you get, so that you can stack this strength bonus as much as possible. Most of the ways to get multiple attacks per round - two-weapon fighting, ranged weapons, and even just iterative attacks - were nerfed in 3e, probably because they were way too powerful in 2e. I bring this up because you can shoot a bow twice per round in AD&D.)

[Jay R]

You know, composite longbows with the str requirement that some of the characters reach would look and be utterly ridiculous

To some extent, but not as much as you think. The limbs of a real crossbow (the bow part ) are basically a (very) short bow with much more torque than a regular bow.

Build a longbow like the limbs on a crossbow, and you have a longbow for a [I]much stronger archer.

[Tiktakkat]

(Also, in 2e, there are very few ways to increase damage other than strength bonus, so optimal behavior for a warrior is usually to maximize how many attacks you get, so that you can stack this strength bonus as much as possible. Most of the ways to get multiple attacks per round - two-weapon fighting, ranged weapons, and even just iterative attacks - were nerfed in 3e, probably because they were way too powerful in 2e. I bring this up because you can shoot a bow twice per round in AD&D.)

Don't forget darts being thrown three times per round and getting full Strength bonus to damage.
And recall that the reason iteratives became powerful in 2e is because of power creep and the constant expansion of adding levels of proficiency to get more attacks.

It might also be noted that, in a way, they kept the 2/1 ROF in 3E. They just made it a feat called "Rapid Shot" and applied an extra attack penalty to it.


Meanwhile, here is a question:
Do bows need to be able to add Strength bonus to damage?
Perhaps just allowing scaled up bows - short to long to (non-exotic) great bow, with the simple cost difference between the three types being the only difference in damage.

[RexDart]

I think it was an attempt at realism. If we figured that all prices were intended to enforce balance, we'd have to conclude that Wizards thought water clocks provide a major benefit.

I think it's a compromise between real-world realism (Longbowmen started training at 12 and were strong as {Scrubbed}) and fantasy-fiction genre realism (Bows are the weapons used by characters "too weak for melee combat," particularly The Girl.)

[ShurikVch]

Not really we are talking about composite here; you can pretty dramatically change the poundage of a bow by changing the materials you make it from, two different types of wood composite, compared to horn and wood, compared to metal and wood or metal core in a horn bow. This is pretty much how they made different weight crossbows...
IIRR, the highest draw weight IRL was for Indian Steel Bows
I don't remember the exact number, but come on - it was made of bulat steel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulat_steel)

[Max Caysey]

3e, then, just standardized this so that each +1 strength allowed is an additional multiplier on the cost of the bow (e.g. +1 costs 2x, +2 costs 3x).

Im fairly certain its +100gp per point of str, not x2/x3/etc.

[Thane of Fife]

Im fairly certain its +100gp per point of str, not x2/x3/etc.

In the 3e PHB, the costs go 75/150/225 for a composite shortbow and 100/200/300/400/500 for a composite longbow. That's not called out as being x2/x3/etc., but mathematically it's the same.

I don't have a copy of the 3.5 PHB, but the SRD says it's +100/+1 for a longbow or +75/+1 for a shortbow, which is, again, mathematically the same.

But you're right in the sense that it desn't take into consideration other additives to the cost.

[Elves]

fantasy-fiction genre realism (Bows are the weapons used by characters "too weak for melee combat," particularly The Girl.)
Which strikes me as odd given that there's magic to fill that role

[Darg]

I think it's a compromise between real-world realism (Longbowmen started training at 12 and were strong as {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}) and fantasy-fiction genre realism (Bows are the weapons used by characters "too weak for melee combat," particularly The Girl.)

Crossbows are for those too weak for melee combat. All bows add your strength penalty to damage. 6 str? -2 damage.


Which strikes me as odd given that there's magic to fill that role

Not every one is smart, pious, or charismatic enough to be a caster. Remember, D&D is a roleplaying game first. Mechanics come second.

[Duke of Urrel]

The mighty composite bow works just as all heroic bows of fantasy are supposed to work: Only true warriors can use them. Just look at Book 21 of the ODYSSEY. None of the 108 suitors surrounding Penelope could even attach the bowstring to the legendary bow of her absentee husband, Odysseus. Not even his own son could do it. Only the hero himself could string his bow and then immediately shoot an arrow "through a row of axes." How did Odysseus do that? By being REALLY STRONG.

(O.K., depending on how you interpret the phrase "through a row of axes," maybe he had to have a high Dexterity, too. Archers who use mighty composite bows need to excel in at least TWO ability scores.)

Is this realistic? No more realistic than Paul Bunyan and his axe single-handedly smacking down whole forests and creating the Great Plains. The point is that it's COOL.

There is a great old PEANUTS comic strip in which Charlie Brown notices that Schroeder's piano doesn't have any real black keys; they're just painted on in between some of the white keys. "But if the black keys are just painted on, how do you play all those difficult pieces?" he asks. Schroeder answers: "I practice a lot."

Translated into the rules of our game, the little blond kid had a high Charisma score and maximized his Perform (Toy Piano) skill.

[rel]

All this leads to an interesting question:
Why don't crossbows, guns, cannons and the like have an inherent strength bonus.
Their whole purpose is flinging something harder and faster than any human can with the strength of their muscles, why not model that by giving such weapons obnoxious built in strength bonuses?

[Saintheart]

All this leads to an interesting question:
Why don't crossbows, guns, cannons and the like have an inherent strength bonus.
Their whole purpose is flinging something harder and faster than any human can with the strength of their muscles, why not model that by giving such weapons obnoxious built in strength bonuses?

Because likely the devs already factored it in by a combination of a better damage dice and a higher critical threat range and thought that was sufficient. Heavy crossbow is 1d10, 19-20/x2; longbow (composite or not) is 1d8, x3 critical multiplier. Also, better range increment on the crossbow (albeit not by much.) Guns and cannons aren't really meant to be used in a medieval setting mainly because they are quite literally gamechanging unless very heavily abstracted or nerfed as compared with their real-life analogues.

[rel]

Because likely the devs already factored it in by a combination of a better damage dice and a higher critical threat range and thought that was sufficient. Heavy crossbow is 1d10, 19-20/x2; longbow (composite or not) is 1d8, x3 critical multiplier. Also, better range increment on the crossbow (albeit not by much.) Guns and cannons aren't really meant to be used in a medieval setting mainly because they are quite literally gamechanging unless very heavily abstracted or nerfed as compared with their real-life analogues.

Well, then the dev's got the balance wrong.
The light crossbow might occasionally see use in the hands of a wizard but I've never seen anyone use a heavy crossbow.

[Tzardok]

The mighty composite bow works just as all heroic bows of fantasy are supposed to work: Only true warriors can use them. Just look at Book 21 of the ODYSSEY. None of the 108 suitors surrounding Penelope could even attach the bowstring to the legendary bow of her absentee husband, Odysseus. Not even his own son could do it. Only the hero himself could string his bow and then immediately shoot an arrow "through a row of axes." How did Odysseus do that? By being REALLY STRONG.

(O.K., depending on how you interpret the phrase "through a row of axes," maybe he had to have a high Dexterity, too. Archers who use mighty composite bows need to excel in at least TWO ability scores.)
.

The "through a row of axes" refers to holes in the axe heads, which Greek axes apparently had between the blade and the part where the shaft goes.

[Aleolus]

I think Composite Bows (and Longbows, and probably all bows...) should have both a minimum strength requirement, and a bonus to damage, which are determined while building the bow: something like "this longbow (str bonus 2) requires strength 14 to be used with proficiency; characters whose strength is under 14 suffer an -2 penalty to attack and damage; its damage is 1d8+2".

BUT you shouldn't receive any extra benefit if your strength is above 14. If your strength is 14 or higher you can draw the string and shoot the bow properly, but pulling the string even harder won't make any difference, it may just break it...

Hence you don't just add your strength bonus to damage while using a bow... if you have strength 16, you use a longbow (str bonus 3), until you raise your strength to 18, and then you buy a new longbow (str bonus 4).

...This is literally exactly how bows are described as working in the book.



Shortbow

You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a shortbow while mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a shortbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite shortbow (see below) but not a regular shortbow.

Longbow
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below) but not a regular longbow.

So if you have a Str below 10 then you take a penalty using a standard bow, be it long or short. But bonuses can only apply if you use a bow designed for it. Reference the text for composite bows



All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is lower than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a -2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite shortbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite shortbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 75 gp to its cost.

So if you have a Comp Shortbow with a +2 Str bonus, and you only have a Str of 13, you take a -2 to your attack, and only can add 1 to the damage roll instead of the max allowed of 2

[Darg]

All this leads to an interesting question:
Why don't crossbows, guns, cannons and the like have an inherent strength bonus.
Their whole purpose is flinging something harder and faster than any human can with the strength of their muscles, why not model that by giving such weapons obnoxious built in strength bonuses?

They do more base damage and have longer range increments to make up for it. 1d6->1d8|1d8->1d10 for bows to crossbows. Sure, it's only an average of 1 damage, but it is simple vs martial.