Wild Question - What if Longbows were Strength Based?

[BoutsofInsanity]

It was just a thought. But what if in 5e I house ruled that Longbows were strength based weapons instead of Dexterity. Kept everything else the same.

It makes sense historically, given how strong you had to be to pull a bow. I'm trying to think of a way that it might break something and I'm having trouble

coming up with how it might. Dexterity is still a god stat with covering a great save, initiative, stealth, acrobatics, and light weapons.

Is it busted?

[nickl_2000]

In every single edition up until now, the aiming of a bow was based on dex. To do extra damage it needed to be a composite bow and was based on strength.

Is it broken? No, not really. It makes the sling and crossbow more useful for dex based characters.

[RogueJK]

Earlier editions had Composite Longbows that received damage bonuses based on your STR modifier. They still used DEX for attack bonus, though.

[Clistenes]

While it would make sense to make the longbow's damage be strength-based, I think its attack should remain dexterity-based. I wouldn't make much sense to have long range aim be strength-based.

Of course, that would make longbows worse options, reliant on two different stats, so most people would just stick to purely dexterity-based longbows...

I guess you could bring back good old 3.5 Composite or Mighty Longbows...

[Sorinth]

While it would make sense to make the longbow's damage be strength-based, I think its attack should remain dexterity-based. I wouldn't make much sense to have long range aim be strength-based.

Of course, that would make longbows worse options, reliant on two different stats, so most people would just stick to purely dexterity-based longbows...

I guess you could bring back good old 3.5 Composite or Mighty Longbows...

Aiming requires a steady hand which is very much strength based activity when using a longbow.

[Dienekes]

While it would make sense to make the longbow's damage be strength-based, I think its attack should remain dexterity-based. I wouldn't make much sense to have long range aim be strength-based.

Of course, that would make longbows worse options, reliant on two different stats, so most people would just stick to purely dexterity-based longbows...

I guess you could bring back good old 3.5 Composite or Mighty Longbows...

I mean it doesn’t really make sense that it’s based on Dex either, as it has nothing to do with agility or your manual dexterity and a lot more to do with being strong enough to hold the 100 lbs across your chest straight and hold it while you aim. And aiming isn’t Dex based since you aim thrown weapons just as well.


But D&D doesn’t model reality. It doesn’t try to. So trying to use real world physics as a defense for how weapons work seems pretty futile.

All that said, no I don’t think Strength longbows would break a game, other than make thrown weapons even less emphasized than they are now. And would give even less incentive for players to engage in melee combat than now. I’d probably make them some weird strength finesse ranged weapon though, since many of those Dexy elves want their bows.

[Clistenes]

Aiming requires a steady hand which is very much strength based activity when using a longbow.

Yeah, but that should be represented as a requirement to be able to use the weapon, rather than as a bonus to attack. If you are strong enough to draw the bow and shoot it properly, further strength shouldn't give you more advantage...

I mean, you have two strong guys, one is able to lift 320 kg and the other can lift 350 kg. Both can draw easily a longbow. Should the stronger one of the two have a noticiably better aim...?

[verbatim]

I think making it Versatile would be a good compromise.

[Clistenes]

I mean it doesn’t really make sense that it’s based on Dex either, as it has nothing to do with agility or your manual dexterity and a lot more to do with being strong enough to hold the 100 lbs across your chest straight and hold it while you aim. And aiming isn’t Dex based since you aim thrown weapons just as well.


D&D abilities are weird, yes. But the point is hand-eye coordination in all forms has been rolled into Dexterity... it doesn't make much sense that being a good acrobat also makes you be a good archer and a good at picking pickets, but that's what the Dexterity package contains...

[nickl_2000]

I think making it Versatile would be a good compromise.

I was debating mentally if the longbow should just be 1d6 damage and versatile and the short 1d4 damage and versatile

[Sorinth]

Yeah, but that should be represented as a requirement to be able to use the weapon, rather than as a bonus to attack. If you are strong enough to draw the bow and shoot it properly, further strength shouldn't give you more advantage...

I mean, you have two strong guys, one is able to lift 320 kg and the other can lift 350 kg. Both can draw easily a longbow. Should the stronger one of the two have a noticiably better aim...?

We can do the same with Dexterity, two equally strong guys and one is much better at hop-scotch, is that guy going to have noticeably better aim?

Keep in mind from the PHB Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, balance. None of those things really relate to aim in a meaningful way.

[MrCharlie]

I've personally always wanted to do some hybrid Str/Dex mod thing with a bunch of weapons, where you add both of them or half of each or something.

That said, if I had to keep it a single stat, I'd use strength. If you look at medieval archers, they were slab muscle, even deformed slab muscle. Knights where the guys who were ideally leaner (not petite-think basketball player). The whole "effeminate archer" thing comes from Victorian etiquette which specified that archery was an acceptable woman's sport.


I think making it Versatile would be a good compromise.
I assume you mean finesse, versatile would let you wield it one-handed.

[Lavaeolus]

The stat that governs perceptiveness, eagle eyes, and so we must assume aiming is, of course, Wisdom. We'll use WIS to hit, STR requirement on the weapon, obviously you'll need DEX for your leathers -- hold on, why is everyone walking out?

[nickl_2000]

The stat that governs perceptiveness, eagle eyes, and so we must assume aiming is, of course, Wisdom. We'll use WIS to hit, STR requirement on the weapon, obviously you'll need DEX for your leathers -- hold on, why is everyone walking out?

Now get Intelligence and Charisma involved in it somehow!

[Snowbluff]

Now get Intelligence and Charisma involved in it somehow!

Intelligence to realize this is a mistake and charisma to beg the DM to stop and constitution to survive him throwing his homebrew rulebook at your. :smalltongue:

[MrCharlie]

Now get Intelligence and Charisma involved in it somehow!
Intelligence would obviously add to your situational timing bonus, which could impact the conditional damage boost from stealth attacks and footing, referred to on tables Z3 and F1 respectively. Charisma would only impact your inspirational roll, as defined by sub-table G2a, but only in bright light.

[Clistenes]

We can do the same with Dexterity, two equally strong guys and one is much better at hop-scotch, is that guy going to have noticeably better aim?

Keep in mind from the PHB Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, balance. None of those things really relate to aim in a meaningful way.

Dexterity package includes hand-eye coordination...

Also, if you attach aim to Strength, you end with some weird situations:

How does high strength helps to shoot a crossbow, or even a shortbow with a low draw poundage?

And if shotbows use Dex while longbows use Str, you would have low dexterity high strength characters who can't hit the side of a barn with a shortbow but have amazing aim with a longbow despite both being similar skills..

D&D doesn't model reality, but it should at least pretend it does, otherwise it would be hard to immerse in it...

[strangebloke]

I think there probably should be something other than throwing weapons for strength based characters but I don't think this is the way to do it. Making it all strength really makes the "what is dexterity" question even harder to answer. like should an ogre be good with a longbow?

Just let the str guy carry ballistae to battle and its all good.

[Ralanr]

I was debating mentally if the longbow should just be 1d6 damage and versatile and the short 1d4 damage and versatile

That seems a bit much to cut into it.

[nickl_2000]

That seems a bit much to cut into it.

Ya I know, I wasn't completely happy with it either, but 5e doesn't do the 1d6+1 stuff you got in old versions

[BoutsofInsanity]

Dexterity package includes hand-eye coordination...

Also, if you attach aim to Strength, you end with some weird situations:

How does high strength helps to shoot a crossbow, or even a shortbow with a low draw poundage?

And if shotbows use Dex while longbows use Str, you would have low dexterity high strength characters who can't hit the side of a barn with a shortbow but have amazing aim with a longbow despite both being similar skills..

D&D doesn't model reality, but it should at least pretend it does, otherwise it would be hard to immerse in it...

I definitely think Crossbows, slings, darts, and maybe shortbows should be dexterity based. I'm more concerned am I breaking anything if I were to do this in my game. I've been thinking about Strength versus dexterity and ranged weapons for a while now given the prominence of several threads recently.

And I can't see how it might bust the game at least currently. And there is a bow in one of the adventures that is strength based.

[MrCharlie]

Dexterity package includes hand-eye coordination...

Also, if you attach aim to Strength, you end with some weird situations:

How does high strength helps to shoot a crossbow, or even a shortbow with a low draw poundage?

And if shotbows use Dex while longbows use Str, you would have low dexterity high strength characters who can't hit the side of a barn with a shortbow but have amazing aim with a longbow despite both being similar skills..

D&D doesn't model reality, but it should at least pretend it does, otherwise it would be hard to immerse in it...
The counter-argument is that there are serious differences between bow and crossbow shooting, specifically because the crossbow is a mechanical weapon and the longbow isn't. DnD does not really model crossbows in a believable fashion, let alone a realistic one, but one of the benefits is that it is a lower-skill lower-physique weapon-you don't need to be Beef McSlab to use one, while using a warbow does require you to be able to hit the draw weight. Crossbows and longbows working the same way is silly.

With longbows the justification would be that a high strength lets you draw it back easily enough to control the weapon, and prevent muscle strain from impacting the shot.

Further, if we want to be realistic, a shortbow with low draw weight isn't a weapon. It's a hunting tool. Bows with low draw weights have reduced ranges, penetration, and even accuracy over higher weight bows, so if your draw weight is low enough to be a non-factor you've already compromised the bow fatally as a weapon.

So strength should determine longbow and shortbow usage, but not crossbows. Or bows should be a finesse weapon because that's easier on all parties and impacts the fantasy the less, but crossbows should be DEX only because your strength has basically no impact.

Also, proficiency bonus is probably the best stand in for actual aim.

[Sorinth]

Dexterity package includes hand-eye coordination...

Also, if you attach aim to Strength, you end with some weird situations:

How does high strength helps to shoot a crossbow, or even a shortbow with a low draw poundage?

And if shotbows use Dex while longbows use Str, you would have low dexterity high strength characters who can't hit the side of a barn with a shortbow but have amazing aim with a longbow despite both being similar skills..

D&D doesn't model reality, but it should at least pretend it does, otherwise it would be hard to immerse in it...

Does it?

I can't see anywhere in the PHB or DMG where it mentions dexterity including hand to eye coordination nor would I consider the word Dexterity to cover hand to eye coordination, especially for the purposes of aiming. Frankly hand to eye coordination has just as a strong a case to be Wisdom since in game Wisdom refers to sight which is half the whole hand to eye coordination equation.

And even if Dexterity it is hand to eye coordination then how come throwing a Hand-Axe or Javelin don't require Dexterity. Do those not require less hand-to-eye coordination? Does the guy who lifts 350kg noticeably more accurate throwing an axe then the guy who only lifts 320kg?

In terms of realism it makes much more sense for a stronger person to be more accurate with a Longbow then throwing a Javelin. And if we are going for immersion and the choice is between using Strength or Dexterity, then the Longbow requiring strength is much more immersive then dexterity because using a high strength low dex longbow is possible and the quibble is about accuracy, whereas the low strength high dex longbow user shouldn't even be possible.

[Dienekes]

D&D abilities are weird, yes. But the point is hand-eye coordination in all forms has been rolled into Dexterity... it doesn't make much sense that being a good acrobat also makes you be a good archer and a good at picking pickets, but that's what the Dexterity package contains...

Thrown weapons require hand eye coordination as with most other ranged weapons, and those are Strength based. Honestly, in my (admittedly limited) experience throwing something requires more hand eye coordination than shooting a gun. One assumes a crossbow is comparable to the gun in this context.

Which again, just goes that D&D doesn’t really model anything except D&D.

[Pex]

Better if it was ST or DX, player choice. It would make life easier for the Paladin and Barbarian who lack strong range attacks, and some Fighters depending on build. No one else would care. I don't think it would break anything.

If you make it ST only Rogues and Rangers will rightfully complain.

[Lunali]

Strength with a longbow is much more about a minimum required value than it actually helping you hit the target. If you are strong enough to pull the string back properly, it takes little to no strength beyond that to aim at a target. Being stronger doesn't really help you in any way.

On the other hand, if you've accepted the premise that dexterity is the stat for aiming things like crossbows and guns, the necessary skill for longbow accuracy is very similar.

If you're insistent on changing the way they work, I would suggest that rather than have them be strength based or make them finesse, instead give them a minimum strength requirement. Likely giving them disadvantage or treating them as a shortbow or something like a thrown dagger if the requirement is not met.

[Leon]

And take away Dex based Ranged combat finally being in one stat... May as well go play the other editions, where it was a struggle to play a Ranged character as well as a melee one could with no effort.

[Carlobrand]

Earlier editions had Composite Longbows that received damage bonuses based on your STR modifier. They still used DEX for attack bonus, though.

That's still how I'd do it, house rule, but it does come with some problems. To get a strength bonus from a bow, you've got to get a bow of your strength. Can't just pick up any old bow and get a strength bonus. That means you are now keeping track of the bow's strength. Fun times.

But wait, there's more. You've got to get arrows spined to match the bow's strength, or else they don't fly right. That means you are now keeping track of your arrows' strength. Not hard, you can get colored fletching or some other trick to make sure you know what arrow goes to what bow, but now you've got another thing you're tracking.

If someone wants to do all that, I'd let him have a bow and some arrows crafted to his strength. The extra punch might be worthwhile to him.

[dafrca]

If someone wants to do all that, I'd let him have a bow and some arrows crafted to his strength. The extra punch might be worthwhile to him.

Do you give a bonus based on their STR bonus or on the STR bonus of the bow?

Say A Bow that was built for STR 16 but my Character has STR 18 which bonus does the character get?

Just curious how you set up your house rule. :smallbiggrin:

[TyGuy]

Yeah, but that should be represented as a requirement to be able to use the weapon, rather than as a bonus to attack. If you are strong enough to draw the bow and shoot it properly, further strength shouldn't give you more advantage...

I mean, you have two strong guys, one is able to lift 320 kg and the other can lift 350 kg. Both can draw easily a longbow. Should the stronger one of the two have a noticiably better aim...?

The stronger person can draw a heavier bow, but the bow doesn't benefit from a "stronger draw" to deliver more power.

If I wanted to complicate things, and I don't, I would make longbows require strength minimums to use, much like heavy armor.

[DarknessEternal]

Just add finesse property to bows. Problem solved.

[Ryton]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, but one of these exists in 5e. Waterdeep: Dragon Heist has an NPC with a unique bow that requires a Str of 18 to wield and uses Str mod for damage (it doesn't specify any changes to Dex to hit).

[Sigreid]

I don't personally think it makes sense to have even damage based on strength since the size of the hole, so to speak is limited. What I could easily see would be bows with different effective and maximum ranges that had minimum strength requirements.

[Ryton]

I don't personally think it makes sense to have even damage based on strength since the size of the hole, so to speak is limited. What I could easily see would be bows with different effective and maximum ranges that had minimum strength requirements.

Draw weight (and strength, by association) greatly impacts arrow penetration and damage caused. There's a reason there's a minimum weight to hunt with bows. If the draw isn't heavy enough (/the archer isn't strong enough), you won't actually be able to kill anything.

[Bobthewizard]

I wouldn't do this as a general rule. Once you start worrying about realism, you need to rebalance everything. Why is hand crossbow a more effective weapon in 5e than a longbow? Historically, a hand crossbow was a novelty item never really used in war. The longbow changed history since it was so much more effective than a crossbow. Should plate armor give better AC vs. slashing weapons than piercing or bludgeoning? Why is a fighter in full plate able to jump, swim, and climb farther and faster than a rogue in leather armor? Just use the rules and fluff them as needed.

However, if you are the DM, and that house rule makes sense for your party, go for it. I wouldn't do it if there were a Dex-based archer in the party. I'd be careful if there were any rogues or rangers. But if giving your one or two strength based characters a longbow won't bother anyone, then go ahead.

[kazaryu]

It was just a thought. But what if in 5e I house ruled that Longbows were strength based weapons instead of Dexterity. Kept everything else the same.

It makes sense historically, given how strong you had to be to pull a bow. I'm trying to think of a way that it might break something and I'm having trouble

coming up with how it might. Dexterity is still a god stat with covering a great save, initiative, stealth, acrobatics, and light weapons.

Is it busted?

so, in answer to your question about it being broken, no. i mean, obviously is hurts the dex-archer archetype, but mechanically speaking what it does is give str based characters a decent long ranged option, and forces dex based characters to invest 2 feats in order to compete with with str based damage. which is still a nerf for dex based characters...but i mean, it basically nerfing them down to where str characters are now.


I wouldn't do this as a general rule. Once you start worrying about realism, you need to rebalance everything. Why is hand crossbow a more effective weapon in 5e than a longbow? Historically, a hand crossbow was a novelty item never really used in war. The longbow changed history since it was so much more effective than a crossbow.
thats a pretty poor comparison, you're comparing DnD combats to war? dude, if you gave DnD soldiers feats. the army wielding longbows with SS and mobile would wipe the floor with the army wielding hand crossbows and taking xbe/SS. This is because in war, a 600 foot range is actually viable, whereas in DnD combats, most of the combat takes place within the 30 foot range of a hand crossbow. obviously crossbows don't really behave realistically regardless. but then again, there are many situations (like cramped dungeons) in which longbows aren't terribly realistic. {Scrubbed}





In terms of realism it makes much more sense for a stronger person to be more accurate with a Longbow then throwing a Javelin. And if we are going for immersion and the choice is between using Strength or Dexterity, then the Longbow requiring strength is much more immersive then dexterity because using a high strength low dex longbow is possible and the quibble is about accuracy, whereas the low strength high dex longbow user shouldn't even be possible.

what i always find interesting about these discussions is that noone takes into account what strength (the ability score) actually represents. obviously you have to have a select group of muscles properly toned to be able to pull a long bow. but you can train those muscles by...pulling back a longbow. can someone explain how doing that would increase carry weight? what about jump distance? If i pull back a longbow several times a day for several years will i suddenly be able to hold my own against an olympic wrestler? no..but do you know what i will be able to do? pull back that longbow.

in short: yes, certain muscles need to be trained in order to actually wield a longbow. But training to wield a longbow, by itself, doesn't justify a generalized increase in strength (specifically strength by the books definition). so, its just as realistic to say that someone specifically trained to be able to fire a longbow, but spent other parts of their training in flexibility and general dex (again, book definition) based activities.

the realism argument is very solidly on the side of either a mix of both, or finesse weapon. Pushing it wholly to one side or the other is entirely arbitrary. Dex is just as realistic as str, because neither adequately covers it alone.

[Bobthewizard]

thats a pretty poor comparison, you're comparing DnD combats to war? dude, if you gave DnD soldiers feats. the army wielding longbows with SS and mobile would wipe the floor with the army wielding hand crossbows and taking xbe/SS. This is because in war, a 600 foot range is actually viable, whereas in DnD combats, most of the combat takes place within the 30 foot range of a hand crossbow. obviously crossbows don't really behave realistically regardless. but then again, there are many situations (like cramped dungeons) in which longbows aren't terribly realistic. regardless, trying to use War as a point of comparison is just..silly.

{Scrubbed}

Second, my point had nothing to with range. Longbows have better rates of fire and better piercing capacity than a hand crossbow. Most of the weapons we use in D&D were weapons of war, and most of this discussion at least implied that analogy, so referring to war is appropriate even if you like other analogies better.

In real life, even in a 30' room, 4 people with longbows would still be more likely to win against 4 people with crossbows, just due to the higher rate of fire and increased damage potential of the longbow.

[Arkhios]

I felt I need to chime in because the argument that "aiming should be dex based" falls apart when you take thrown weapons into account. They can use strength or dexterity by default already. Allowing same for bows wouldn't break a thing. In fact, I would say it made more sense. When you're attacking with crossbows you only need to point and shoot, but drawing the string of a bow is much harder than you might think. It actually takes a fair deal of strength to pull the string and keep it pulled before you let the arrow loose.

So, in short, I'm all in for letting bows be used with strength. For both attack and damage rolls.

[Dienekes]

I wouldn't do this as a general rule. Once you start worrying about realism, you need to rebalance everything. Why is hand crossbow a more effective weapon in 5e than a longbow? Historically, a hand crossbow was a novelty item never really used in war. The longbow changed history since it was so much more effective than a crossbow. Should plate armor give better AC vs. slashing weapons than piercing or bludgeoning? Why is a fighter in full plate able to jump, swim, and climb farther and faster than a rogue in leather armor? Just use the rules and fluff them as needed.


Eh, some of that is pretty much just English propaganda about Agincourt. Truth be told, it’s a fascinating battle, that really demonstrated the weaknesses of heavy cavalry, but it didn’t usher in some new paradigm of warfare. Most of Europe seemed to remain very happy with their crossbows, and used them to win some impressive battles against those famed English longbowmen. People always seem to forget that the Hundred Years War ended with longbowmen being pinned down by crossbow fire, until a heavy cavalry Knight charge wiped them from the field.



This is because in war, a 600 foot range is actually viable, whereas in DnD combats, most of the combat takes place within the 30 foot range of a hand crossbow. obviously crossbows don't really behave realistically regardless. but then again, there are many situations (like cramped dungeons) in which longbows aren't terribly realistic. regardless, trying to use War as a point of comparison is just..silly.

Another oddity of war, is that this statement may not be as true as people assume. Now arrows can shoot longer, definitely. But were they? The evidence indicates probably not often. Because, well, shields work. If you go looking through artwork of the period in battle archers are pretty much always shown giving straight shots, unless they’re attacking up or down fortifications.

It has been estimated that the actual kill distance of a longbow was only about 60 feet, when against someone in armor or effective using a shield. Which is part of why having a strong front line or defensive structures against the enemy charge was so important. Getting the enemy pinned up and not moving while within that kill zone was where the battle could be won.

Now there are examples where we see archers shoot out of this kill range. But it’s usually for tactical advantage rather than an attempt to kill anyone. Again going back to Agincourt, the battle was started by archers rushing forward loosing arrows about as far as they could go on to the French encampment, specifically as a means of getting the French to charge at them.

But that was kind of a unique situation. Usually something like that was the job of catapults and increasingly cannons.

Not longbows technically but a really interesting example of this is the battle of Mohi. The Mongols had a hill outside of the Hungarian camp, which was technically within range (but not the kill range) of their bows. But instead of loosing arrows at them, they waited for hours to move and rebuild their catapults and assaulted the camp that way.

But anyway, again. D&D doesn’t model reality. And if it did, I’m pretty sure most people would think it was doing it wrong.

My favorite example is actually rapiers. A good late medieval/early modern rapier requires more strength to wield than a longsword does in general. But you tell that to a D&D player and they’ll think you’re crazy.

[kazaryu]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Second, my point had nothing to with range. Longbows have better rates of fire and better piercing capacity than a hand crossbow. Most of the weapons we use in D&D were weapons of war, and most of this discussion at least implied that analogy, so referring to war is appropriate even if you like other analogies better.

In real life, even in a 30' room, 4 people with longbows would still be more likely to win against 4 people with crossbows, just due to the higher rate of fire and increased damage potential of the longbow.

{Scrubbed}

second: your point was that hand crossbows shouldn't be better than longbows, and you tried to use war to back it up. the implication of your argument was that, in dnd, an army wielding hand crossbows would be more dangerous than one wielding longbows. Thats the only reason to compare it to war. further, you were comparing hand crossbows in general to longbows. a portion of that comparison is the weapons ranges. so yes, your point did involve the ranges. specifically you disregarded the longbows massive range advantage because it doesn't come into play in more dnd combats, while using war to back up your point...a place where the massive range advantage of the longbow would come into play. My entire response to you was about pointing out the inherent flaw in your argument, not to say that your thesis was incorrect. as evidenced by the fact that my own thesis was 'thats a poor comparison' and not 'thats a poor conclusion'.

side note: it doesn't matter if other people mentioned war...they were just as wrong to use it as a point of comparison.

third: in real life, in a 30' room, noone is pulling out a ranged weapon. by the time you have your weapon ready, you'd have someone on top of you. or rather, if you did pull out a ranged weapon, it would be a crossbow, and it would already be loaded. think indiana jones. but seriously...i literally agreed with you that crossbows act unrealistically...what even are you trying to prove with this point? the statement you're responding too wasn't even a claim that crossbows are better irl for close combat. it was just pointing out the fact that even longbows are used in unrealistic scenarios in DnD.



Another oddity of war, is that this statement may not be as true as people assume. Now arrows can shoot longer, definitely. But were they? The evidence indicates probably not often. Because, well, shields work. If you go looking through artwork of the period in battle archers are pretty much always shown giving straight shots, unless they’re attacking up or down fortifications.

It has been estimated that the actual kill distance of a longbow was only about 60 feet, when against someone in armor or effective using a shield. Which is part of why having a strong front line or defensive structures against the enemy charge was so important. Getting the enemy pinned up and not moving while within that kill zone was where the battle could be won.



to be fair, that particular argument was more about the DnD numbers, than irl realism. it was a comparison between a battle between 2 hypothetical DnD armies, and normal DnD combats. Not how IRL armies actually fought.

[Mastikator]

Just add finesse property to bows. Problem solved.

Yes but we're trying to find the most convoluted way of representing realism while maximally inhibiting usefulness in game, we're trying to discourage people from actually playing the game. Adding finesse on bows does the opposite of that. :smallamused:

Serious take: I think letting a PC use their strength for longbows instead of dex adds an adequate option for otherwise melee only characters. It doesn't break anything, it slightly helps characters where they would otherwise feel (and be) useless. Taking away the option of dex characters to use dex on longbows is on the other hand stupid.

[Martin Greywolf]

I have, personally, used pretty much every ranged weapon in DnD, from stones, slings and bows to crossbows and throwing axes. Here's the deal.

Technique matters a lot

Technical skill with a weapon is the determining factor for accuracy, and sometimes for strength of impact. No amount of raw physicality is going to ever be able to compensate for it, and it is the number one factor in ranged weapon use.

You can perhaps already see the problem - if you say that a bow requires hand eye coordination to aim, you are correct, but how important is that when compared to a sling? Or a crossbow? How big is the gulf between the technical skill, how much can physicality or inherent ability enhance it? There is no easy answer for all ranged weapons.

Damage

You can divide ranged weapons into two categories - the one where the user can influence the resulting impact strength, and the ones where the user can not. The former include thrown weapons and the sling, the latter includes crossbows and guns. The bows are somewhere in between - you can overdraw a bow and two different people will shoot the same bow with different strength, but the difference won't be big.

Draw weight

Is not what determines how strong a bow will shoot, it determines how hard it is to draw. Heavier bows tend to shoot stronger, but there is a host of other factors going into it, such as bow efficiency, ammunition weight and shape and so on. An Ottoman recurve can outshoot English warbow by several hundred meters (the ranges are at 600 meters for Ottoman and 400 for warbow, with records being a bit bigger) with about equal draw weights.

How that translates into damage on target, especially with armor involved... well, not directly and not easily.

STR, DEX and CON

So, what ability score to use? For bows, STR determines if you can use a given bow, the damage is set and depends on STR to a degree, albeit more complex bows (e.g. recurves) may be more expensive and more efficient. The accuracy of bows is determined by CON. Yup. Drawing a warbow back is tiring, hard work, and will get your hands shaking potentially after the first two or three shots, and that will be, by far, the determining factor in your accuracy. Even Joe Gibbs, a monster of a bowman who can use 200lbs+ warbows, can't go full steam for more than about a minute with a heavy warbow by his own admission.

The DEX does impact the accuracy, but the long and short of it is, you aim along the arrow, and much like crossbow, the trick is knowing where to point the arrow, there isn't a lot of hand eye coordination necessary.

[Sorinth]

what i always find interesting about these discussions is that noone takes into account what strength (the ability score) actually represents. obviously you have to have a select group of muscles properly toned to be able to pull a long bow. but you can train those muscles by...pulling back a longbow. can someone explain how doing that would increase carry weight? what about jump distance? If i pull back a longbow several times a day for several years will i suddenly be able to hold my own against an olympic wrestler? no..but do you know what i will be able to do? pull back that longbow.

in short: yes, certain muscles need to be trained in order to actually wield a longbow. But training to wield a longbow, by itself, doesn't justify a generalized increase in strength (specifically strength by the books definition). so, its just as realistic to say that someone specifically trained to be able to fire a longbow, but spent other parts of their training in flexibility and general dex (again, book definition) based activities.

the realism argument is very solidly on the side of either a mix of both, or finesse weapon. Pushing it wholly to one side or the other is entirely arbitrary. Dex is just as realistic as str, because neither adequately covers it alone.

Historically the longbowman were among the strongest people out there. So I don't buy the argument that proficiency is a good representation in this case. You wouldn't hold your own against an olympic wrestler because skill matters, but if you train every day with a longbow you will almost certainly become stronger overall and be able to say bench press more weight or punch harder, etc...

EDIT: And yes in terms of realism all weapons should have some combination of strength, dexterity and probably even wisdom (As defined in 5e). For simplicity they drop that to 1 stat, fine that stat should be strength for a longbow as it would be both realistic and create a more diverse game.

[Bobthewizard]

first: 'dude' isn't disrespectful...im..not even sure how you got condescension from that. 'silly': would you prefer 'dumb' 'idiotic' 'a poor attempt at seeming intelligent'?

'Dude' and 'silly' are disrespectful. Now you're calling me 'dumb' and idiotic' and again putting arguments in my mouth that I didn't say. These personal attacks don't belong on here.

[MrCharlie]

what i always find interesting about these discussions is that noone takes into account what strength (the ability score) actually represents. obviously you have to have a select group of muscles properly toned to be able to pull a long bow. but you can train those muscles by...pulling back a longbow. can someone explain how doing that would increase carry weight? what about jump distance? If i pull back a longbow several times a day for several years will i suddenly be able to hold my own against an olympic wrestler? no..but do you know what i will be able to do? pull back that longbow.
The muscles needed to fire a warbow are located within the shoulder and arms. So, in fact, bow training does improve general upper body strength, and does help with carrying objects. It does some twisting and lopsided malformation of the body, but my understanding is that this is non-harmful. To put it another way, draw weight is literally just weight lifting, but with a different mechanism of weight.

What doesn't help with upper body strength that much is training with real swords, spears, hammers. Sure, you get strong enough to carry them, but swinging those is also not an Olympic strength test. It's much less of one than drawing a bow, even. You have to remember that the DnD version of big mauls and hammers is entirely ahistorical, and that even warhammers were light and fast weapons to wield. Heck, even plate armor is surprisingly light. A knight got fit, but would not look like a weightlifter. A longbow archer does, particularly in the back and shoulders.

Think the difference between, for melee weapons, a basketball player and a weightlifter. Both are fit, both are generally strong, but the basketball player favors a different physique than the weightlifter.

Doing either type of training does improve your general physique, but longbow training improves the physique closer to what doing strength checks would represent. If anything, your argument is a good case for making all melee weapons dexterity.


I wouldn't do this as a general rule. Once you start worrying about realism, you need to rebalance everything. Why is hand crossbow a more effective weapon in 5e than a longbow? Historically, a hand crossbow was a novelty item never really used in war. The longbow changed history since it was so much more effective than a crossbow. Should plate armor give better AC vs. slashing weapons than piercing or bludgeoning? Why is a fighter in full plate able to jump, swim, and climb farther and faster than a rogue in leather armor?
I mean, hand crossbows need to be rebalanced anyway. In the current gamestate, they are semi-auto pistols, not crossbows, with a corresponding effect on the game.

[Carlobrand]

Do you give a bonus based on their STR bonus or on the STR bonus of the bow?

Say A Bow that was built for STR 16 but my Character has STR 18 which bonus does the character get?

Just curious how you set up your house rule. :smallbiggrin:

Strength bonus based on the bow, and if you don't have the strength for the bow you get minuses to hit and your strength bonus, if any, is based on your own strength. A strength 16 guy trying to draw the strength 18 bow couldn't manage a full draw, gets a -2 penalty to hit.


I felt I need to chime in because the argument that "aiming should be dex based" falls apart when you take thrown weapons into account. They can use strength or dexterity by default already. ...

Aiming should be dex-based. Allowing an accuracy bonus by strength is one of the sillier things the game does. Dex-base the aim, strength-base the damage.


Eh, some of that is pretty much just English propaganda about Agincourt. Truth be told, it’s a fascinating battle, that really demonstrated the weaknesses of heavy cavalry, but it didn’t usher in some new paradigm of warfare. Most of Europe seemed to remain very happy with their crossbows, and used them to win some impressive battles against those famed English longbowmen. People always seem to forget that the Hundred Years War ended with longbowmen being pinned down by crossbow fire, until a heavy cavalry Knight charge wiped them from the field. ...

Oh, where to begin. Okay Agincourt: there was an initial French cavalry attack that was foiled by stakes which held them at bay while the archers shot at them. The main battle however involved French knights on foot. French lost primarily due to poor discipline, in my opinion: the French had a rather large body of archers and crossbowmen and could have used those to wear down the English before starting their assault, but the knights were so eager for glory that this idea was shelved and they instead went with that ridiculous charge on foot through thick mud.

Crossbows: Most of Europe went with crossbow because they didn't have a lot of choice. The English archer force was based on a program of encouraging and even requiring longbow practice from an early age, and only the best of those were recruited for the overseas fights. Europe had no equivalent tradition and instead mostly went with crossbow, which did not require great strength, was easy to teach, and - when adequately supported by infantry and cavalry, and with use of pavises - was really quite effective. Problem was, they were very often poorly supported. There was some use of bow, but the bows weren't of the power of the English longbows - though honestly that wouldn't have made a terrible lot of difference if they'd been adequately trained and properly used. Mostly the French kept losing because they were poorly disciplined and poorly organized. Battle strategy should be based on logic, not pride.

If you're talking about the battle of Castillon, that was more a matter of French introduction of battlefield artillery and poor decisions by the English commander. The French had something like 300 artillery pieces in a prepared defensive position. The English commander paid for his poor decisions with his life, which was fitting.

[Arkhios]

Aiming should be dex-based. Allowing an accuracy bonus by strength is one of the sillier things the game does. Dex-base the aim, strength-base the damage.

When the game already allows a character to use strength to both aim and damage with a ranged attack (thrown weapons) there's little reason to argue any further. It. Does. Not. Break. Anything.

[da newt]

I'd think the only DnD balance issue ST based bows might create is that there are many ways to achieve 20+ ST and only one way I know of to get 22 max Dex.

As for combat realism, DnD doesn't model realistic battle all that well. To attempt that you'd pretty much have to scrap most everything and start over.

[Carlobrand]

When the game already allows a character to use strength to both aim and damage with a ranged attack (thrown weapons) there's little reason to argue any further. It. Does. Not. Break. Anything.

And yet much of this forum is posts about how people would do things differently ... about rules that Do. Not. Break. Anything. Take a chill pill, my little opinion is not going to cause the Powers-that-Be to change the rules you like. Honestly, it doesn't even affect my table - they like the RAW strength rule.

[Arkhios]

And yet much of this forum is posts about how people would do things differently ...

Just because I frequent here doesn't mean I have to share the opinions of the majority.

Honestly, since 5th edition aims for a relatively simplistic rule set, going back to how things were in previous editions is really just that: backward. However, allowing a simple alternative is actually quite characteristic to the current edition. If it also makes sense to some, well, that's a bonus.

[Carlobrand]

...Honestly, since 5th edition aims for a relatively simplistic rule set, going back to how things were in previous editions is really just that: backward. ...

Maybe. Maybe not. The thing I like about D&D is that it has 5 editions now. Pick the one you like, if you like something from an earlier or later edition then work that in, or don't, leaves a lot of room for personal taste. And we all know that tastes vary. I did 1e a couple years ago just for nostalgia.

[PhantomSoul]

Maybe. Maybe not. The thing I like about D&D is that it has 5 editions now. Pick the one you like, if you like something from an earlier or later edition then work that in, or don't, leaves a lot of room for personal taste. And we all know that tastes vary. I did 1e a couple years ago just for nostalgia.

Yeah, with the entire idea of homebrew and optionality and rulings instead of rules and must-work-to-interpret-ambiguity RAW and wholly missing or incomplete lore and the explicit call for DMs and groups to make the game their own, it's basically a game designed around eating in a cafeteria that won't even yell at you for ordering food in or bringing your own lunch

[Pixel_Kitsune]

General rule of thumb, talk to your DM.

Also, general rule of thumb, nothing uses only one stat.

To put that in perspective. I have real life sword training (among other things).

Per 5e rules I can use either my Strength OR my Dexterity to attack and damage with a rapier.

Per real life my Strength applies the force of the blow, my Dexterity lines it up and makes it connect, my Constitution lets me maintain my stance for minutes or hours and not get tired or have my hand slip. My Intelligence lets me remember my training and see where the blade should go, my Wisdom helps me notice gaps and read my opponent. Lastly my Charisma is used to feint and trick them into an opening so I can strike.

I could do this with any action in the game that has a real world mimic. The reality is the game uses a single stat because it makes things easy and allows the game to be built around a balance and set of numbers.

[greenstone]

In every single edition up until now, the aiming of a bow was based on dex. To do extra damage it needed to be a composite bow and was based on strength.

Is it broken? No, not really. It makes the sling and crossbow more useful for dex based characters.

I like the idea of bows either having a minimum STR, or using DEX for Attack rolls and STR for damage rolls.

At the moment, no-one takes crossbows (except for edgelords dual-wielding hand crossbows :smallcool:) and that makes me a bit sad.

[kazaryu]

The muscles needed to fire a warbow are located within the shoulder and arms. So, in fact, bow training does improve general upper body strength, and does help with carrying objects. It does some twisting and lopsided malformation of the body, but my understanding is that this is non-harmful. To put it another way, draw weight is literally just weight lifting, but with a different mechanism of weight. [/qupte] i think i understand where your confusion comes from. none of what i've mentioned has been from a perspective of real world. Yes, obviously, IRL your legs are so vastly stronger than your arms that your arms tend to be what limits your carry weight. and thats why when people need to carry large weights, they use various methods to force the weight to be carried primarily by the legs, not the arms. But in DnD this isn't the case. Carry weight is entirely based on leg strength, since there's no nuance for 'carried in your hands' vs 'carried on your back. so no, in dnd, training with a bow would not increase your carry weight. and in neither the real world nor DnD would it increase jump distance.
[quote]
What doesn't help with upper body strength that much is training with real swords, spears, hammers. Sure, you get strong enough to carry them, but swinging those is also not an Olympic strength test. It's much less of one than drawing a bow, even. You have to remember that the DnD version of big mauls and hammers is entirely ahistorical, and that even warhammers were light and fast weapons to wield. Heck, even plate armor is surprisingly light. A knight got fit, but would not look like a weightlifter. A longbow archer does, particularly in the back and shoulders.

Think the difference between, for melee weapons, a basketball player and a weightlifter. Both are fit, both are generally strong, but the basketball player favors a different physique than the weightlifter. well...most of this isn't super relevant since its a discussion on melee weapon, but i'll disagree with you on one point. 'wielding' a melee weapon is a very different thing than 'swinging' a melee weapon. and while i can understand why you'd relate 'shooting a bow' to 'swinging a weapon' i'd argue that that is a poor comparison simply due to the logistical differences between melee and ranged combat. 'melee' combat actually involves moving your entire body. not necessarily for just swinging your weapon, but also dodging, blocking, bracing. there are many components of melee combat that involve more of your body than just swinging the weapon. whereas ranged combat, if you position well, really...doesn't. it largely is just shooting the bow. So there is a better realism argument for melee combatants needing more generalized strength, and they are certainly more capable of leveraging lower body strength than bowman.That aside, i do agree that in general melee combat would also be excluded by the same argument that i'd previously made. Thats kind of my point. im not trying to argue that str is *unrealistic* as a bow stat. Im saying that its not more realsitic to just use exclusively str. its just as unrealistic, just in a different way.

maybe if i rephrase my thesis it'll help? to put it a different way: its entirely possible to get good at using a bow without improving around half of the things that STR governs in DnD 5e. Therefore, its not 'more' realistic to use str for bows.


Doing either type of training does improve your general physique, but longbow training improves the physique closer to what doing strength checks would represent. If anything, your argument is a good case for making all melee weapons dexterity.
.
well...sort of. if your goal is to make the game more realistic, then i agree. my goal isn't that. But yes, even melee weapons would use more than just strength if you were to go more simulationist. But this discussion wasn't about melee weapons, so i never really cared to mention them.

Historically the longbowman were among the strongest people out there. longbowman also probably did more training than just shooting the bow. A lot of training that was probably more useful/necessary for overall combat, not just archery. Also 'strongest' is referring to how real people think of strength, not how DnD defines strength. Of course its entirely possible that even by DnD standards the archers were 'among the strongest'. But it wasn't a result of archery training. it was a result of more generalized training that also included archery.
So I don't buy the argument that proficiency is a good representation in this case. You wouldn't hold your own against an olympic wrestler because skill matters, but if you train every day with a longbow you will almost certainly become stronger overall and be able to say bench press more weight or punch harder, etc...
thats not 'stronger overall' thats 'stronger in the upper body'. and in fact, almost exclusively in the upper body. even as low as your lower back/stomach aren't used as much as your arms/shoulders/upper back.



to reiterate my point: im not saying strength is entirely unrealistic. im just saying that its not more realistic.

[Mastikator]

And yet much of this forum is posts about how people would do things differently ... about rules that Do. Not. Break. Anything. Take a chill pill, my little opinion is not going to cause the Powers-that-Be to change the rules you like. Honestly, it doesn't even affect my table - they like the RAW strength rule.

It's not actually how people would do it, it's pure theorycrafting about their understanding of HEMA and how that could translate into D&D mechanics.

[nickl_2000]

I like the idea of bows either having a minimum STR, or using DEX for Attack rolls and STR for damage rolls.

At the moment, no-one takes crossbows (except for edgelords dual-wielding hand crossbows :smallcool:) and that makes me a bit sad.

The light crossbow is the go to ranged weapon for Rogues. May as well get the 1d8 damage instead of the 1d6.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The stronger person can draw a heavier bow, but the bow doesn't benefit from a "stronger draw" to deliver more power.

If I wanted to complicate things, and I don't, I would make longbows require strength minimums to use, much like heavy armor.

This is where I am. It would be part of my rewrite (reduction) of the weapons table. This comes from a persepctive, to quote the great Chuck Yeager, "It's the man, not the machine."

IMO damage done should be based on the wielders class hit die modified with categories. Sure, your wizard can wield a greatsword, but he's not going to hit very hard with it...

[Willie the Duck]

As others have said, many earlier editions did have both Str and Dex contributing to how well you could fight with a longbow (often depending on also spending more on the longbow to add str-damage*. Also that attributes in general are a gamist conceit that maps poorly to reality. Also that D&D combat isn't overly realistic in the first place (especially at the weapon and armor level, where people are carrying pikes outside of formations and so on).
*small side note: original 1974 oD&D did not add to to-hit or damage for strength at all, it simply made you level faster as a fighting man class, and level was seen as your primary avenue towards improved combat capability

My overall take is that D&D does better at mapped genre-emulation than any kind of realism, and that this not being purely realistic is not a problem. There is a conceptual idea of a light and lanky (I'd say 'Errol Flynn Robin Hood,' but that certainly wasn't the first or last) kind of nimble archer character that fits that would be hard to emulate if the game switched to Str-only. That said, there's also the character concept of 'Odysseus, only man who could string Odysseus' bow' that is hard to emulate in 5e, at least assuming point buy or array. For that reason, I might be inclined to make bow finesse (so, either-or for stats) weapons. This does kind of push things back to the 'longbows for all warrior types (since both Str- and Dex- types will want them), crossbows (or maybe shortbows) for everyone else (since they tend not to have longbow proficiency).

[greenstone]

The light crossbow is the go to ranged weapon for Rogues.

Not in any 5E game I have GMed. :smallmad:

The goto weapon for rogues in my games seems to be a longbow ('cause every rogue player picks elf).

[Sindal]

What if longbows were strength based?
I guess people who wanted to pick long bow archers would use strength then and half orc rangers would be a little happier despite being mechanically slower.

Is it worth considering? Perhaps, but no player I've had has ever brought up the question so I'm assuming they have bigger worries.

They're typically more concerned with:
1) how much money can they get out of this situation
2) how many animals can they befriend
3) "who is your monster and what does he do?"

[Sorinth]

Mechanically it's actually logical to have Longbows uses strength only. The weapons have some general rules of thumb based on properties, Finesse, Reach, being Simple all reduce the damage size by 1. Similarly the Loading property increases the damage die size by 1. So having a 1d8 Strength based Longbow and a 1d6 Dex based Shortbow actually makes sense.

Dexterity is a better ability then Strength so you deal less damage, having Reach provides numerous advantages so again less damage. Mechanically it actually all makes sense and there's really no reason for Ranged weapons to not follow those general rules.

Now of course those weapon rules aren't hard and fast, so there are weapons like Rapier or Greatclub that break with those rules. But personally I detest those breaks, for a melee Dex character I feel forced into taking a Rapier when asthetically it makes more sense to use something like a shortsword and it's super annoying to reflavour something into something that already exists just because of balance.

[Witty Username]

Strength builds get another ranged option.
Dexterity builds tend to use crossbow expert, so they are affected little.
Effects are debatable, I would argue minimal.

[Willie the Duck]

Strength builds get another ranged option.
Dexterity builds tend to use crossbow expert, so they are affected little.
Effects are debatable, I would argue minimal.

It gives 2-handed melee strength characters a better fallback (longsword and shield folks are still out of luck given the rules for donning/doffing shields) and maybe a platemail-and-longbow ranged build (assuming you aren't doing an Elven Accuracy setup). Mostly edge cases, excepting post-level 5 barbarians, who really suffer when a single javelin isn't enough (although, let's be honest, most barbarians have a pretty decent Dex along with their great Str, so this only really raises their bow usage by a bit, and doesn't change that rage damage is melee-only).