PDA

View Full Version : Should bows use draw weight as a proxy STR requirement?



Greywander
2022-06-27, 07:06 PM
Over in this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647231-Oversized-equipment-How-much-heavier), I was discussing how much oversized equipment would weigh. We still don't have a conclusive answer, but it seems like it's going to be "a lot". Now, there's a common fantasy trope of heroes so strong that they can use oversized weapons, so I'm actually leaning toward not penalizing players for using oversized weapons so long as they have the carrying capacity to lift them. Or maybe imposing a penalty if e.g. it's over half your carrying capacity. And this would apply to all weapons, regardless of their size.

But what about bows?

It makes sense for a greatsword, since you have to swing it around. Being able to lift the sword without taking a penalty would pretty much be a prerequisite to wielding it properly. But bows are different. Of course you have to lift the bow, but you're not swinging it around. What you are doing is drawing back the bow string. Bows are generally rated according to a draw weight, which is the amount of force required to pull back the string far enough for a normal shot. Draw weight is conveniently given in pounds for most bows.

So what I'm thinking is that different types of bows might have different draw weights, and to be able to wield that bow effectively that draw weight can't exceed your carrying capacity. This is kind of like having a STR requirement, except being a larger creature or having a feature like Powerful Build will factor in, since those increase your carry weight without affecting your STR score. Not sure how it would interact with other equipment you're already carrying, e.g. if carrying more stuff should increase the draw weight you can pull.

Seems typical longbows had a draw weight ranging from 100 to 150 lbs. Shortbows seem more varied, but I'm seeing a lot of 40 and 50 lbs. draw weights. I imagine shortbows could go up to 70 lbs. or so, but I'm not sure. It would be easy if we could just take the short range of the bow and say 1 foot range = 1 lbs. draw weight, but that doesn't seem to work. I'm also not sure if this should apply to other ranged weapons, like crossbows and slings. Probably not, though. Crossbows have kind of always been the ranged weapon of choice for people who didn't have the upper body strength to use a bow.

So in summary, how I might do this is:

Weapons in general can't be used if their weight puts you over your encumbrance.
Melee weapons have disadvantage if their weight is over half your carrying capacity.
Ranged weapons can't be used if their draw weight (if it has one) is over your carrying capacity.
Ranged weapons have disadvantage if their draw weight (if it has one) is over half your carrying capacity.

This probably isn't how the end product will look, but it seems like a good starting point.

I also like how this might push even DEX builds to put a few points into STR so they can use oversized weapons without a penalty. TBH, accessibility to oversized weapons might be one of those things that really makes martials stand out more, even though the actual damage increase has been reduced a lot. Ranged weapons might gain more range, particularly if draw weights also increase with size.

Kane0
2022-06-27, 07:19 PM
Okay, but only if spellcasters require multiple stats to use magic.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 07:20 PM
I do like this idea, I had considered working on something for bows to have a minimum STR anyways because people underestimate just how much strength is required to actually wield one (a penalty to hit and damage would make sense, given the lack of ability to draw far enough to get significant power behind the shot), and I actually did take some inspiration from the mtg set Midnight Hunt for a one shot, having some werewolves carry and wield small-ish ballista as bows basically.

I do try to find ways to use Strength since it's been proven to be a dump stat for a lot of optimizers, since a good argument was even made that THE Strength class, Barbarian, can actually be effective even dumping Strength, which tells me there's a problem there, which brings me back to your post - I definitely do like that idea especially since the powerful build does help there in a fun, flavorful way.

False God
2022-06-27, 07:54 PM
What's the gain here, exactly? Are you just trying to force martials to play by "real world" rules? Is that it?

Greywander
2022-06-27, 08:01 PM
Okay, but only if spellcasters require multiple stats to use magic.
Funnily enough, I might be doing something like that as well. This is part of a bigger overhaul, and the meat of the overhaul, is ripping apart and reassembling the class system, as well as the magic system. I'll need to change how ASIs are gained as well, so that might influence things, too.

But I guess the draw weight question can also be asked more generally, beyond my specific homebrew that I'm working on. In which case, you make a fair point. A good compromise might be for bows to just be finesse weapons.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 08:04 PM
What's the gain here, exactly? Are you just trying to force martials to play by "real world" rules? Is that it?

I can't speak for the OP but his post seems to be not too far off of my own thoughts - that Strength is an underutilized, and underappreciated stat. The idea seems to be to reward a character for not dumping Strength by allowing them to augment their damage through the use of larger, more powerful weapons - if someone wants "real world" rules I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone agrees and has fun with that (Gritty Realism is an option in the DMG for a reason after all), but I don't get the impression that they want to say you have to have something like a minimum of 14 strength to wield a 1d8 longbow. That's a weirdly argumentative post I feel like? The gain seems fairly straight forward at least.

Dr.Samurai
2022-06-27, 08:10 PM
I would be okay with this. My first inclination was "well, real life archers aren't big buff people", but neither are real lfie swordsman. So it doesn't need to track that closely to real world.

I think all weapon combat should be the purview of Strength. In the same way Intelligence is just the "mental stat" that governs all knowledge, arcane magic, clues/riddles, etc., so that someone that is really learned in History can also just be really good at magic, Strength should just govern all physicality.

It's not as if combat in general isn't some blend of strength and finesse. A swordsman is going to use footwork and coordination and reaction time, etc., things generally associated with Dexterity. But in D&D sworsdman use Strength. Similarly, an archer is going to build up all of the muscles in their shoulder and back and core. And a D&D archer that is loosing arrows into monsters with natural armor at insane speeds would need a stronger bow even still. But archers use Dexterity because "aim".

So just make it all Strength. There is no reason to say "some combat is for strong people, and some for agile people". There's no reason for the warrior to be relegated to throwing a handaxe at 20ft because they're just not that good with a bow. It's ridiculous. Casters can mix it up in melee, cast Shield to have higher AC than gods, teleport in and out of danger, use Cone spells for up close combat, and long range spells for distance. Dex-types can do everything in combat, but also use a bow, stealth, win initiative, etc.

Strength-types are like... oh crap, it's far away. I'll switch to a one-handed grip on my sword and use my object interaction to throw my handaxe at Disadvantage due to distance. Well, there goes that handaxe, let me draw another one. Oh, I can't. Only one object interaction. Nuts. Ok, I'll just wait until next turn...

Instead, drop the sword, draw the bow, and start loosing arrows like a boss.

I fully support strength-based archery. Let the dex-types be good at skulking around, stealing stuff, traps, and wearing light armor.

False God
2022-06-27, 08:11 PM
I can't speak for the OP but his post seems to be not too far off of my own thoughts - that Strength is an underutilized, and underappreciated stat. The idea seems to be to reward a character for not dumping Strength by allowing them to augment their damage through the use of larger, more powerful weapons - if someone wants "real world" rules I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone agrees and has fun with that (Gritty Realism is an option in the DMG for a reason after all), but I don't get the impression that they want to say you have to have something like a minimum of 14 strength to wield a 1d8 longbow. That's a weirdly argumentative post I feel like? The gain seems fairly straight forward at least.

Because D&D is generally terrible at replicating the real world, and the "real world" only ever seems to impact martials and make their lives harder.

There are many, many better systems for gritty realism than D&D. They're not perfect, but they're far better suited to the task than D&D ever will be.

The long and short of this exercise, over the various decades I've seen the same argument pop up, are that spellcasters may get minorly inconvenienced, and often not at all, while martials will become substantially more difficult to play. All for a very minor gain.

quindraco
2022-06-27, 08:12 PM
Okay, but only if spellcasters require multiple stats to use magic.

Yeah. Nerfing Dexterity in favor of Strength is good for making Strength better by comparison, but martials need help compared to casters to begin with, so a change like this feels like it would be overall worse for the game because martials would end up suffering relative to casters.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 08:23 PM
Because D&D is generally terrible at replicating the real world, and the "real world" only ever seems to impact martials and make their lives harder.

There are many, many better systems for gritty realism than D&D. They're not perfect, but they're far better suited to the task than D&D ever will be.

The long and short of this exercise, over the various decades I've seen the same argument pop up, are that spellcasters may get minorly inconvenienced, and often not at all, while martials will become substantially more difficult to play. All for a very minor gain.

Well, I do feel the need to point out that OP specifically mentioned using oversized weapons, so I don't think it's about enforcing "real world" rules.

I agree on there being better systems for realism than a game where you can teleport through different planes and go lunch actual deities, but that isn't the point of this, and even if it was, sometimes people just prefer to homebrew some 5e rules instead of having to learn and find people for an entirely new system. I'm lucky that my playgroup is a collection of certifiable nerds who happily delve into multiple games, but not everyone has that variety.

Again I don't think OP wanted to cripple martials anymore than I do. I actually plan on posting a list of shield variants I made, which started with the idea of encouraging Strength builds, so I wanted a variant that offers nice bonuses but requires a solid strength stat, so no wielding a massive tower shield in one hand and a rapier in the other with a -1 Strength modifier, reasonable right? The point of it, like the Strengfh archer build, is providing more reasons to actually increase Strength. As was stated above, Strength should be much more dominant of a stat than it is, I don't personally like that 5 stats regularly get maxed out, and the last one tends to get dumped for optimization, unless someone is doing a very, very specific build.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 08:27 PM
I would be okay with this. My first inclination was "well, real life archers aren't big buff people", but neither are real lfie swordsman. So it doesn't need to track that closely to real world.

I think all weapon combat should be the purview of Strength. In the same way Intelligence is just the "mental stat" that governs all knowledge, arcane magic, clues/riddles, etc., so that someone that is really learned in History can also just be really good at magic, Strength should just govern all physicality.

It's not as if combat in general isn't some blend of strength and finesse. A swordsman is going to use footwork and coordination and reaction time, etc., things generally associated with Dexterity. But in D&D sworsdman use Strength. Similarly, an archer is going to build up all of the muscles in their shoulder and back and core. And a D&D archer that is loosing arrows into monsters with natural armor at insane speeds would need a stronger bow even still. But archers use Dexterity because "aim".

So just make it all Strength. There is no reason to say "some combat is for strong people, and some for agile people". There's no reason for the warrior to be relegated to throwing a handaxe at 20ft because they're just not that good with a bow. It's ridiculous. Casters can mix it up in melee, cast Shield to have higher AC than gods, teleport in and out of danger, use Cone spells for up close combat, and long range spells for distance. Dex-types can do everything in combat, but also use a bow, stealth, win initiative, etc.

Strength-types are like... oh crap, it's far away. I'll switch to a one-handed grip on my sword and use my object interaction to throw my handaxe at Disadvantage due to distance. Well, there goes that handaxe, let me draw another one. Oh, I can't. Only one object interaction. Nuts. Ok, I'll just wait until next turn...

Instead, drop the sword, draw the bow, and start loosing arrows like a boss.

I fully support strength-based archery. Let the dex-types be good at skulking around, stealing stuff, traps, and wearing light armor.

This is exactly what I mean, I fully support being able to go Strength archer, and swapping between weapons - maybe some weapons can apply a small Bonus to hit or to damage, depending on which stat you use? So sure you still have incentive to use Dex for a bow, but there's nothing stopping you from doing exactly as you said, stow the sword and pull out that bow, especially if you deal with a lot of flying enemies that would just kite you otherwise.

False God
2022-06-27, 08:27 PM
Well, I do feel the need to point out that OP specifically mentioned using oversized weapons, so I don't think it's about enforcing "real world" rules.
But their definition of an "oversized weapon" is anything exceeding your encumbrance value. And, again how often is this a problem? Are rogues running around with battle-axes? Swashbuckers with greatswords? You can moderate all of that by what is available within the game.


I agree on there being better systems for realism than a game where you can teleport through different planes and go lunch actual deities, but that isn't the point of this, and even if it was, sometimes people just prefer to homebrew some 5e rules instead of having to learn and find people for an entirely new system. I'm lucky that my playgroup is a collection of certifiable nerds who happily delve into multiple games, but not everyone has that variety.

Again I don't think OP wanted to cripple martials anymore than I do. I actually plan on posting a list of shield variants I made, which started with the idea of encouraging Strength builds, so I wanted a variant that offers nice bonuses but requires a solid strength stat, so no wielding a massive tower shield in one hand and a rapier in the other with a -1 Strength modifier, reasonable right? The point of it, like the Strengfh archer build, is providing more reasons to actually increase Strength. As was stated above, Strength should be much more dominant of a stat than it is, I don't personally like that 5 stats regularly get maxed out, and the last one tends to get dumped for optimization, unless someone is doing a very, very specific build.

5E stats get poorly utilized not because of fiddly elements that can be worked around. They get poorly used because they don't take up their fair share of the game. Minor elements that alter small elements of select weapons won't do that. Players will typically just ignore them and find ways to avoid it.

You want Strength to matter? Find 3 primary areas of the game where strength must be used.

Cikomyr2
2022-06-27, 08:43 PM
Yeah. Nerfing Dexterity in favor of Strength is good for making Strength better by comparison, but martials need help compared to casters to begin with, so a change like this feels like it would be overall worse for the game because martials would end up suffering relative to casters.

If you want to give the martial class an overall buff, then its still a good idea to rebalance dex and str because otherwise dex martials might just be slightly op.

I dont mind discussing rebalancing Dex and Str as long as we agree that this wont fix the overall martial underpower.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 08:45 PM
But their definition of an "oversized weapon" is anything exceeding your encumbrance value. And, again how often is this a problem? Are rogues running around with battle-axes? Swashbuckers with greatswords? You can moderate all of that by what is available within the game.



5E stats get poorly utilized not because of fiddly elements that can be worked around. They get poorly used because they don't take up their fair share of the game. Minor elements that alter small elements of select weapons won't do that. Players will typically just ignore them and find ways to avoid it.

You want Strength to matter? Find 3 primary areas of the game where strength must be used.

Well, maybe I'm just tired but I don't understand a few of your points. Since I have to sleep soon anyway and to avoid this escalating since the tone feels a little weird, I'll just say my piece as I understand it and be done here.

The trade off, as I understand, seems to be using an "oversized" weapon to deal more damage, like 2d8 longbow instead of 1d8, or whatever numbers are being floated around, I don't know.

I...don't understand how the topic came around to a theoretical issue of swashbuckling greatswords? They already have that balance that if you have too low of a strength you hit less often and less hard, since you can't just swap Dex, which rewards AC, unlike Strength that currently gets dumped with no penalty, since even a barbarian could just max Dex and Con, dump Strength, use a Rapier, and reckless attack with 20 AC and +5 to hit without other bonuses.

Find 3 primary areas for strength? I mean, that's part of the post, I think, having Strength be necessary for a martial, even if only in a limited capacity, so there's a comparable downside to letting it go too low, like dumping Dex and having negative initiative, or dumping con and getting no Hp per level - currently no downside to doing so with Strength. So we find ways to encourage players to take Strength like more damage, more AC, abilities that use a Strength score.

Amechra
2022-06-27, 08:47 PM
"well, real life archers aren't big buff people"

Hilariously enough, archery actually requires more strength than a lot of the weapons that D&D says are strength-based. You could make a reasonable argument that most melee weapons should be Dex based, bows (and thrown weapons) should be Strength based, and that crossbows (and guns) should be based off of Wisdom.

Dr.Samurai
2022-06-27, 08:49 PM
@Bardbarian - Reckless Attack requires Strength attacks. I am not convinced by arguments that barbarians can neglect Strength in favor of other ability scores.

I think the point of Greywander's post is to explore giant weapons. That got them thinking about how to explore using exceptionally big or powerful bows, which would be more about the draw strength (see Odysseus) and less about being able to pick it up and carry it around.

I don't think Greywander is attempting to balance martials with casters through this.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-06-27, 08:49 PM
Okay, but only if spellcasters require multiple stats to use magic.

Agreed.

-----

More theoretically, I think this (and the other thread) show the folly of trying to think of ability scores as mapping onto quantifiable, narrow "metrics".

Strength is not a measurement of musculature directly. You can have high DEX and relatively low STR (as in above 8) while still having substantial musculature. It's just wirey strength, not bulky strength. Acrobats are intensely strong, but what they aren't is bulky. And their musculature isn't developed for bulk lifts (compared to a power-lifter). And an offensive lineman (american football) is actually pretty darn fast and fairly nimble. While being massive.

Ability scores are best (IMO) interpreted as approaches and adherence to archetypes.

STR is the Strong Man attribute. Those who have high STR favor[1] approaches based around directly overpowering their foes or obstacles.
DEX is the Quick Man attribute. Those who have high DEX favor precision, stealth, and working around the obstacles rather than going through them directly.
CON is the Tough Man attribute. Those who have high CON favor endurance--outlasting their obstacles.
INT is the Smart Man attribute. Those who have high INT favor out-thinking the obstacles or by finding loopholes.
WIS is the In-Touch Man[2] attribute. Those who have high WIS favor finding the ways to resolve obstacles by seeing the underlying truth.
CHA is the Cool Man attribute. Those who have high CHA favor charming, bamboozling, or otherwise overcoming obstacles by getting someone else to solve them for them...ok, by force of personality and social graces.

So a bowman is going to be strong (real-world definition), but the trope and archetype of the bowman is that it's for those who don't favor close combat[3] and are nimble and evasive. Thus, it belongs with DEX, not STR. Because 5e favors tropes and archetypes over "realism" or "simulation."

[1] for "favor", read "are quite capable of/have the significant option of"
[2] I need a better name for this one, but names are hard.
[3] very frequently in other media, archers are women, and in those media women are notorious for not being physically bulky in general. And those that are fight with melee weapons. And things like Robin Hood (who was no slouch with a quarterstaff, but is depicted as preferring the longbow) play into it--the depictions aren't big bulky people wearing heavy armor. And that's what matters.

Greywander
2022-06-27, 08:51 PM
I would be okay with this. My first inclination was "well, real life archers aren't big buff people",
...Yes they are? Drawing a bow is like using a weight machine. IRL archers, especially longbow archers, are swole.

TBH, bows should probably have just been STR or finesse weapons from the beginning.

I'll have to try a few things to see how the numbers shake out. The showbow should be viable to most characters. Maybe dumping STR would prevent using a shortbow, but I'm not sure yet. The longbow might be a bit more restricted; I might try to tune the numbers so that, say, a 13 STR is all you need. 13 is still above average, maybe a body builder, but not an Olympic athlete, and certainly not a mythical hero.

Anyway, I'll keep this all in mind, as there are a lot of other things that are getting changed. So one tweak to bows won't by itself make things stronger or weaker, it's how everything comes together as a whole.

Willowhelm
2022-06-27, 08:52 PM
I would be okay with this. My first inclination was "well, real life archers aren't big buff people", but neither are real lfie swordsman. So it doesn't need to track that closely to real world.


Uh. I think you might want to check your sources there.

I know it’s a side track but I would love a well thought out system that needed dex for somatic component spells etc. I’d like all classes to be more MAD.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 08:54 PM
Hilariously enough, archery actually requires more strength than a lot of the weapons that D&D says are strength-based. You could make a reasonable argument that most melee weapons should be Dex based, bows (and thrown weapons) should be Strength based, and that crossbows (and guns) should be based off of Wisdom.

That is true, and hilarious. I mean, if you ever watched Arrow, the first step in training was just getting the strength to pull back the bow, since it's not exactly the most frequently trained muscle group, I believe. Even accounting for the fact that it's a tv show based on a comic book, the point does stand - what little I know about archery involves (I believe) using a compound bow to achieve greater pull than you naturally could, not that it makes it easy to draw it back, just easier than it should be. Not that I'm all that knowledgeable anyway.

Bardbarian91
2022-06-27, 09:07 PM
@Bardbarian - Reckless Attack requires Strength attacks. I am not convinced by arguments that barbarians can neglect Strength in favor of other ability scores.

I think the point of Greywander's post is to explore giant weapons. That got them thinking about how to explore using exceptionally big or powerful bows, which would be more about the draw strength (see Odysseus) and less about being able to pick it up and carry it around.

I don't think Greywander is attempting to balance martials with casters through this.

Fair, point on the reckless attack, my brain is a little low on fuel for the night, not that it matters since there are plenty of ways to get advantage, but it still bothers me that the most strength defining class actually can dump strength and still be viable, if not excel.

As to the point of giant weapons, that was something I was entirely in agreement with from the start. And I certainly wasn't the one who brought it up as attempt to balance anything, I know it's hard to balance martials with casters but I do think it follows a lot of the same problem as games like League of Legends, in that while a support can be a very much a necessary role, it's not always one that people want to fill because if isn't dealing massive damage, it's not "good," a mindset I've never liked. I know it doesn't apply to all games or players, but I do think some people try to look at classes wrongly through the same lens, like comparing the ability of a dolphin and a dog to swim - if you only look at things through one perspective, some bias will obviously make one seem better. Martials do need some quality of life buffs, but even outside of homebrew, I don't see a fully geared up fighter being less useful than a wizard, because someone still has to get hit, and the Martial classes are generally geared towards being tanks enough for the damage dealers to do their thing.

Dr.Samurai
2022-06-27, 09:12 PM
Folks, I would think that “big and buff” would indicate what I mean but apparently archers are all bodybuilder types that look like He-Man and Conan lol.

What I meant is that my initial reaction was that archers don’t look like what I imagine a D&D strength 20 hero to look like. But, as I said, neither do most swordsmen. I support strength based archery as I already said.

Amechra
2022-06-27, 09:23 PM
This is the kinda thing that makes me sad about how D&D handles ability scores.

In my mind, Barbarians are thematically about making up for a lack of skill through sheer power (and quite a bit of bull-headed stubborness). You get through fights by having the strength of a bull and the reflexes of a snake, not because you're a masterful axe-fighter (or whatever). However, the only way you can actually have the ability scores to pull off something like that without dumping your mental ability scores is if you happen to roll really well for your stats.

Mellack
2022-06-27, 10:53 PM
The whole concept of if a weapon is a strength or a dexterity weapon has to be a purely game construct. The very idea that strength and dexterity are completely independent of each other is only based in that it is a game. It makes no sense to me to say that an axe in real life would only depend on strength the same way saying a bow only uses dexterity. So trying to base how the game "should" work on realism is bound to fail.
My suggestion is to look purely at the game. What rule makes the game more fun. What balances out character types better. What is easy to run at the table. Decide what makes it a better game and do that, it doesn't need any more reason to be that way. I feel that overly concerning yourself about realism is just going to make it harder.

Kuu Lightwing
2022-06-28, 05:04 AM
The whole concept of if a weapon is a strength or a dexterity weapon has to be a purely game construct. The very idea that strength and dexterity are completely independent of each other is only based in that it is a game. It makes no sense to me to say that an axe in real life would only depend on strength the same way saying a bow only uses dexterity. So trying to base how the game "should" work on realism is bound to fail.


This. Every now and then people come back to these topics - how Bows actually required a lot of strength, how spears are better weapons than swords, and so on and so on, but I doubt the goal of these design aspects was ever to make it realistic. I would say that shooting 3 times at a target at 200 meters away with very very good accuracy in 6 seconds is probably also not very realistic, especially if we are talking about longbows and especially crossbows, but it's possible in 5e.

Bows using dexterity is a common trope. Yes, it's not historically accurate or realistic, but many like to play into it, so I prefer it to be a thing rather than not to be a thing. There are many examples of things that are not realistic, but are used in fiction because people like them, or because it's a common trope and they expect it to be a thing.

To be honest, on a bit of a broader topic - I have my doubts that historical accuracy is going to be very applicable to typical DnD encounters to begin with. Spears and pikes were the primary weapons, but they were used in formations to fight other formations. What would you use to fight a Beholder or a Dragon? Not sure if spear is the answer. Sword isn't one either, but hey, if we continue this line, we might figure out that ranged weapons are actually overpowered in real life.

As for the game balance, one could argue that ranged options are too strong in the game currently, although I half suspect it's because of Sharpshooter feat. So I don't know if STR bows is what you actually need to look at when considering game balance. In fact, doesn't the "best" build theoretically actually uses hand crossbows instead of bows, so I don't quite think it would solve the problem. I think the culprit here is Sharpshooter feat and Archery fighting style which just breaks the bounded accuracy for whatever reason.

Amnestic
2022-06-28, 05:36 AM
Bows should require strength for drawing, dexterity for aiming, constitution to hold the bowstring taut while its drawn, intelligence for choosing the weakspot, wisdom for spotting the weakspot, and of course charisma so you don't suffer from imposter syndrome mid-shot. Now they're the perfect weapon.

Kane0
2022-06-28, 06:12 AM
Bows should require strength for drawing, dexterity for aiming, constitution to hold the bowstring taut while its drawn, intelligence for choosing the weakspot, wisdom for spotting the weakspot, and of course charisma so you don't suffer from imposter syndrome mid-shot. Now they're the perfect weapon.

Charisma is obviously for the satisfying twang sound and proper camera tracking of the arrow's flight path.

Dienekes
2022-06-28, 07:16 AM
This is the kinda thing that makes me sad about how D&D handles ability scores.

In my mind, Barbarians are thematically about making up for a lack of skill through sheer power (and quite a bit of bull-headed stubborness). You get through fights by having the strength of a bull and the reflexes of a snake, not because you're a masterful axe-fighter (or whatever). However, the only way you can actually have the ability scores to pull off something like that without dumping your mental ability scores is if you happen to roll really well for your stats.


What’s amusing to me, the class supposed to be about naturally being the biggest baddest and toughest actually has lower stats than the class that supposedly is about training and technique over ability from levels 6 to 19. Of course this is entirely because ASIs got tied to feats.

One thing I’ve done on my homebrewed musings was give Barbs restricted stat increases throughout their levels. Essentially, they increase the lowest of their physical ability scores by +2 at certain levels, so they actually do start to feel like paragons of physical prowess.


As to bows and strength and finesse.

I’d have no problem if there were some heavy warbows with a strength requirement. But I think it’s a bit unneeded. 5e is not realistic. It’s actually pretty terrible at modeling how to actually fight or use weapons.

If the goal is realism I’d rather suggest playing a different game. There are some great ones out there with a fairly well developed combat system that does handle realism fairly well.

If the goal is simply putting a limiting factor on using these massive giant bows? That’s fine too. Reasonable even.

Dr.Samurai
2022-06-28, 07:24 AM
@Amnestic/Kane0: That was hilarious :smallsmile:

Re Realism: A reminder that the whole idea was born out of wielding oversized weapons. I don't think Greywander is going for "realism", notwithstanding "heavy things require more strength".

Even still though... the game is already parsing these things out with equipment anyways... ranged weapons vs thrown weapons vs light armor vs medium armor vs heavy armor vs versatile vs finesse etc.

Those all interact with Strength and Dexterity in different ways and we don't complain about "realism". So I see no issue with throwing some dynamics on bows. Strength warriors should be able to use bows as well as their melee weapons, meaning keying them off their primary stat. Literally everyone else can, if they wanted to fight in melee or at range (including spells) with Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Strength fighters have to carry a bandolier of handaxes and javelins and throw them one per turn. The magic items that return to you after each attack are ether cursed or at least Very Rare, if not Legendary. So this is your life...

EDIT: @Dienekes - I just saw your post and was actually thinking of something similar. Barbarians should get some additional ASIs to make the vision of physical paragon come true.

Catullus64
2022-06-28, 08:13 AM
Charisma is obviously for the satisfying twang sound and proper camera tracking of the arrow's flight path.

No weapon attack is truly successful without a one-liner.

CapnWildefyr
2022-06-28, 06:11 PM
Charisma is obviously for the satisfying twang sound and proper camera tracking of the arrow's flight path.

Or the chicken.
http://needcoffee.cachefly.net/html/dvd/images/hspdeux.jpg

The egg is good for breakfast, afterwards.

Rukelnikov
2022-06-29, 01:07 AM
You could go back to 3e, Dex for to hit bonus, Str for damage bonus.

That may be ok as a balancing factor since ranged combat has a lot of benefits over melee. However, it runs contrary to the simplistic design of 5e, and doesn't fix the best ranged attacker*, the Sorlock.

*EDIT: From T3 onwards at least.


You want Strength to matter? Find 3 primary areas of the game where strength must be used.

Must is a word kinda antithetical to roleplaying.

"Very convenient" is good, "must" is not.

Kane0
2022-06-29, 06:48 AM
You could go back to 3e, Dex for to hit bonus, Str for damage bonus.

That may be ok as a balancing factor since ranged combat has a lot of benefits over melee. However, it runs contrary to the simplistic design of 5e, and doesn't fix the best ranged attacker*, the Sorlock.


You could make spell attacks Wis and spell DCs Cha to mirror that?

Amechra
2022-06-29, 09:49 AM
What’s amusing to me, the class supposed to be about naturally being the biggest baddest and toughest actually has lower stats than the class that supposedly is about training and technique over ability from levels 6 to 19. Of course this is entirely because ASIs got tied to feats.

One thing I’ve done on my homebrewed musings was give Barbs restricted stat increases throughout their levels. Essentially, they increase the lowest of their physical ability scores by +2 at certain levels, so they actually do start to feel like paragons of physical prowess.



EDIT: @Dienekes - I just saw your post and was actually thinking of something similar. Barbarians should get some additional ASIs to make the vision of physical paragon come true.

I've toyed with the idea of giving Barbarians +1 to their lowest physical ability score whenever they get an ASI. I could see doing that alongside giving them an additional ASI at 6th level (with your level 6 subclass feature getting shoved back to 7th level).

I mean, ideally I'd want Barbarians (and Monks) to have better starting stats than everyone else, but that's not really something that 5e has mechanical space for.

As for the "how are you going to make spellcasters need multiple stats" conversation... the best place to start would be making it so spell attack rolls aren't based off of their casting stat. I'm thinking Dexterity for melee spell attacks and Wisdom for ranged spell attacks?

Corsair14
2022-06-29, 10:36 AM
I would say yes, but with a caveat. Your standard store bought long bow isnt a strength bow. It is a mass produced hunting bow for your average person say, 60 pounds of pull. As long as the wielder with average strength isnt sitting there holding it pulled back for long periods of time then it wont matter.

Strength bows are more expensive to build with stiffer materials and are built to match a higher strength. A 70 pound bow would be for people with +1 strength bonus and would give that bonus on damage. 80 is +2, 90 is +3 and 100 is +4.

If someone with lower strength tries to use a higher poundage bow than their strength allows by 1 level then they get no dex bonuses. If they use one by more than one level then no dex bonus and they roll with disadvantage.

A high end strength bow would be very expensive.

DirePorcupine
2022-06-29, 11:01 AM
It always did bug me how strength did not feed into bow mechanics in 5th.

sktarq
2022-06-29, 11:49 AM
well you could adapt the old rules for high strength draw bows from 2e.
Basically you can buy bows with a str modifier . These had special prices etc.

Mostly these allowed you to use the str bonus on the damage of the arrow only....but IIRC there were also Dragon articles that expanded it for ranges etc.

May be worth a good dig in old archives.

Dienekes
2022-06-29, 12:33 PM
You could make spell attacks Wis and spell DCs Cha to mirror that?

There was actually a game I played awhile back that did all spells something like that.

Every spell you could learn had a minimum Intelligence to cast it
Your mana was determined by your Wisdom
Casting spells was a skill check, which was Charisma based

Then if you picked certain classes it was condensed a bit.
I think the equivalent of the cleric could learn spells with Wisdom instead of Intelligence
Then there was the wizard that could cast spells using Intelligence instead of Charisma

And I forget what the last one was called, but it determined mana with Charisma instead of Wisdom.

Interesting system.

Made playing a gish difficult though

PhoenixPhyre
2022-06-29, 01:05 PM
Made playing a gish difficult though

:grumpy-cat: good

Except I'm conflicted as to whether that should be blue or not....

Bohandas
2022-06-29, 01:42 PM
3e and 3.5e already have different draw strengths of bows. Basic bows can be used by anyone but you can get ones that have a strength bonus to damage but require that strength bonus to use.

(Problematically though I don't think you can get the same damage bonus to crossbows under RAW, even though realistically it should be on all of them and available regardless of the strength of the user, since the whole point of a crossbow is to make a bow easier to draw (and keep drawn) via mechanical assistance)

Amechra
2022-06-29, 11:32 PM
:grumpy-cat: good

Except I'm conflicted as to whether that should be blue or not....

The absurd ease with which 5e lets you play a gish makes me equally grumpy, honestly. What's the point of playing a Wizard if you don't look like a Wizard? You didn't spend six years at wizard school to be treated like a non-wizard, thank you very much. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C41o5a6NeNE)

Thinking about it, I'd do the following:


Strength is used for attacks with Heavy weapons... which now include longbows and oversized weapons. You also use Strength for thrown weapons (unless they're Finesse, like daggers) and unarmed strikes.
You use Dexterity for all other melee attacks — this includes melee spell attacks.
You use Wisdom for all other ranged attacks — this includes ranged spell attacks.
Casters base their spells known/prepared off of Intelligence... other than Paladins (half level + Charisma), Rangers (half level + Wisdom), and Sorcerers (level + Constitution).
Clerics are now Charisma-based casters and Druids are now Intelligence-based casters.
Barbarians get to use their class features that care about Strength-based melee attacks with any Strength-based attacks.
A Monk's Martial Arts feature lets them make ranged attacks with Dexterity, melee attacks with Wisdom, and unarmed strikes with either.


This makes casters MAD (but not obnoxiously so), gives each attack stat more of a definite role, and makes it so that melee characters generally have better initiative than ranged characters (meaning that they'll close the gap more quickly). It also stealth-buffs Rangers, because they still get to use their casting stat for ranged spell attacks.

As part of this, I'd make it so that Heavy oversized weapons are basically the Plate-equivalent of weapons — Strength-based characters are expected to get their hands on weapons that most people can't even lift at some point in Tier 2. Maybe you beat up an Ogre for their club — I dunno.

Kane0
2022-06-30, 01:56 AM
It also stealth-buffs Rangers, because they still get to use their casting stat for ranged spell attacks.


What Ranger spells use spell attacks?

Amechra
2022-06-30, 02:44 AM
What Ranger spells use spell attacks?

Steel Wind Strike. Literally just Steel Wind Strike... which is a melee spell attack. Could've sworn that they had other ranged attack spells.

It's still a stealth buff because they can use the same stat for the save DC for Entangling Strike and the attack roll that applies it? Definitely less impressive, though.

Catullus64
2022-06-30, 11:12 AM
Strength is used for attacks with Heavy weapons... which now include longbows and oversized weapons. You also use Strength for thrown weapons (unless they're Finesse, like daggers) and unarmed strikes.
You use Dexterity for all other melee attacks — this includes melee spell attacks.
You use Wisdom for all other ranged attacks — this includes ranged spell attacks.
Casters base their spells known/prepared off of Intelligence... other than Paladins (half level + Charisma), Rangers (half level + Wisdom), and Sorcerers (level + Constitution).
Clerics are now Charisma-based casters and Druids are now Intelligence-based casters.
Barbarians get to use their class features that care about Strength-based melee attacks with any Strength-based attacks.
A Monk's Martial Arts feature lets them make ranged attacks with Dexterity, melee attacks with Wisdom, and unarmed strikes with either.


This makes casters MAD (but not obnoxiously so), gives each attack stat more of a definite role, and makes it so that melee characters generally have better initiative than ranged characters (meaning that they'll close the gap more quickly). It also stealth-buffs Rangers, because they still get to use their casting stat for ranged spell attacks.

I don't really know how well this would run at a table. Its seems to me like it sacrifices quite a lot of simple playability on the altar of simulationism. That said, eroding the dominance of SAD character building does seem like it could open up fun possibilities; there have been games I've enjoyed in the past where every ability score has value in combat for somebody, even if different characters benefit more from some than others.



As part of this, I'd make it so that Heavy oversized weapons are basically the Plate-equivalent of weapons — Strength-based characters are expected to get their hands on weapons that most people can't even lift at some point in Tier 2. Maybe you beat up an Ogre for their club — I dunno.

I laugh a little bit at warriors fighting for coin so they can someday afford the next-level weaponry that is a really big stick.

Amechra
2022-06-30, 07:22 PM
I don't really know how well this would run at a table. Its seems to me like it sacrifices quite a lot of simple playability on the altar of simulationism. That said, eroding the dominance of SAD character building does seem like it could open up fun possibilities; there have been games I've enjoyed in the past where every ability score has value in combat for somebody, even if different characters benefit more from some than others.

At the actual table, it'd boil down to...

"Are you making a melee attack? That's Dexterity-based (unless it's a Heavy weapon — they use Strength)."
"Are you making a ranged attack? That's Wisdom-based (unless it's a Heavy weapon — they use Strength)."
"You want to play a spellcaster? Check your Spellcasting feature to see how many spells you get and what the saving throw DC for your spells is."

I'd argue that that is equally as simple as 5e's system, where...

"Are you making a melee attack? That's Strength-based... unless it's a Finesse weapon, then it can be Dexterity-based. Or if it's a Spell attack — then it depends on which class the spell came from."

Kane0
2022-06-30, 09:34 PM
Either way, more spells that use attack rolls beyond Tier 1 would be nice.

Ashtagon
2022-07-10, 03:06 AM
Personal observations from my time practising archery...

The club I was in had several different types of bow available (some club-owned, some owned by individual members, most of whom were happy to lend their bows for "test shots" with their bow).

The weakest were what we called the "jelly bows". They had a draw weight probably in the realm of 10-20 lb, and it showed. They wouldn't reliably hit anything past a range of about 15 yards, even with a skilled archer, simply because there wasn't enough force behind the arrow. That meant the archer had to "aim high" in order to get the range (literally arching the path of the arrow). Once you're aiming so high you aren't even looking at the target, it's hard to hit a bull's eye. The core idea behind the club having these jelly bows was introductory. In principle, anyone could walk in off the street, and with a few basic instructions, confidently loose an arrow at a (close) target and feel good about themselves having successfully used a bow.

The bow that I eventually bought was a 35 lb draw weight short composite recurve bow. Even at that, I had difficulty stringing it - but not loosing an arrow with it. Yeah I know, weakling, noodle arms, etc. etc. Most of the bows owned by the club were short composite bows, with draw weights ranging from 30 to 50 lb.

There were a couple of compound bows available. These are the ones with pulley mechanisms, and would not ordinarily be available in a D&D campaign. They were invented in the mid-20th century. A campaign that features tinker gnomes or a clockpunk aesthetic could reasonably have them. The initial draw weight is comparable to short composite bows, but this rapidly drops off, and the bow can be held in the "ready" position with almost no effort.

One archer had a long self bow. This one had a draw weight of 110 lb. It was made of a single piece of wood, and the bow looked like a straight stick when strung (unlike the recurve bows, which had the classic bow appearance). When he drew that bow, the bow staff curved. I was able to loose an arrow with it, with some vague sense of accuracy even (could reliably hit the boss at 30 yards), but the bow staff did not bend when I drew it, because I couldn't pull anything close to the bow's draw weight. Apparently, historical self bows for military use had draw weights going as high as 200 lb.

Side rant: Contrary to what 3.x ever said, composite bows are not necessarily more powerful. They were made where the lack of good materials forced their creation, similar to how the poor quality of iron in Japan forced the refolding technique to be developed to compensate. In places where high quality materials and a scientific understanding of their springiness is understood, they can be more powerful, but that isn't really something that happened until the late 19th century. Historically, the availability of high quality materials effectively presented the development of composite techniques, as the results available were already good enough for military and hunting purposes.

So what does it mean for bow effectiveness if you are unable to draw the bow to its rated draw weight? With recurve and decurve bows, being able to draw the bow to its rated draw weight means you can usefully create a simple "crosshair" by sticking a pin into the bow and aiming for the tip of that pin. With your arms locked in the full draw position and aiming with that pin, you can be confident of hitting the target if you know the distance. If you are unable to draw to the full draw weight, you can't make use of such a targeting device. Accuracy will go down. Range will also drop (to be comparable to the strength of bow that you could normally use), as you aren't putting as much energy into the bow. Damage? That's a complicated question in D&D, made more complicated by the fact that hit points don't truly reflect physical damage.

So, yes, it actually does make sense to use STR for bows, but only as high as the "rated Strength" of the bow. So if you had a Strength of 18 but were using a bow with a rated Strength of 12, then your Strength is effectively 12 for the purpose of attack and damage bonuses with that bow. Conversely, if your Strength is less than the rated Strength of the bow, use your actual Strength. (Gritty realists would want to involve Dexterity somehow, but that's just complicating things).

And some terminology, because I'm an archery nerd...


Self: A bow made of a single piece of material.
Composite: A bow made of multiple pieces of material, which are then laminated together. (Purists like to distinguish between historical "composite" bows and modern "laminated" bows).
Takedown: A bow designed to be assembled, typically with a central stock (the "riser") and two arms (the "limbs"). Almost all modern bows are of this type. For obvious reasons, takedown bows cannot be true self bows, even if each limb is made from a single piece of material.



Flat: A bow that when strung, looks essentially like a straight stick. There will be a slight curve, but a casual observer would have to look carefully to notice it. Most traditional English long bows were of this type. (Technically, there is different terminology depending on the cross-section of the bow, but flat/recurve/decurve remains a useful analysis of the different curve types)
Decurve: A bow that has a noticeable curve towards the archer when unstrung, and a more pronounced curve in the same direction when strung. Some examples of this bow type have little or no tension on the string when it is not drawn. These tend to be the weakest type of bow, as the design does not allow the full tensile strength of the bow staff to be used. The archery club's "jelly bows" were of this type.
Recurve: A bow that has a noticeable curve away from the archer when unstrung, and a curve in the opposite direction when strung. The more extreme examples of this are called reflex bows. Almost all modern bows that are not compound bows are of this type.