Should bows use draw weight as a proxy STR requirement?

[Greywander]

Over in this thread, 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]

Okay, but only if spellcasters require multiple stats to use magic.

[Bardbarian91]

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]

What's the gain here, exactly? Are you just trying to force martials to play by "real world" rules? Is that it?

[Greywander]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

Spoiler: Off-topic musings on Barbarians being the "Strength Class"

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Spoiler: Off-topic musings on Barbarians being the "Strength Class"

Show

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.

Spoiler: tangential topic

Show

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]

@Amnestic/Kane0: That was hilarious

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]

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.