D&D 5E Composite Long And Shortbow Conversion?

[UngainlyTitan]

Hello!

So, I wanted to add the Composite Longbow and the Composite Shortbow to my games, but I'm finding it a little difficult to convert it over from when I use to play until now. While looking around, I found that the last edition to have it was 3.5, but I don't have the books for it. There are a few things running through my mind on this, but basically, I want to bring these over because I play with a few that want to be able to use them again. I was thinking of just using the short and longbow already there, but reading around, a lot of people either say it really doesn't work, or that it works too well and now I'm confused. What I want to know is:

1. Why did they ever get rid of it from 3.5?
2. Has anyone ever converted it from older editions with any success?
3. Is there a mathematical equation or anything that I could use on older editions to convert weapons, much like monsters?
4. Would having these in the game take away from ranged classes in some way and is that the reason they are gone?

I have a few more questions that are running through my head, but these ones seem to just stick out to me right now. Mainly I just want to bring these back because I feel they added to the variety of ranged weapons, but I don't want to throw anything too out of whack. Any and all help with this is greatly appreciated.

I think that within the granularity of 5e the distinction between composite and non composite is meaningless. The nomenclature used in D&D is also misleading and is a legacy carryover. The real distinction is between hunting bows and war bows. The former represented by short bows and the latter by long bows. Just add in war and hunting composite bows with the same stats as the corresponding bows.
If you want some more distinction maybe replace d8 with 2d4 or d6 with d6+1 or d4+2 or whatever.

 

[Willie the Duck]

There are a few things running through my mind on this, but basically, I want to bring these over because I play with a few that want to be able to use them again.

I think it is worthwhile to remember that the heyday of composite bows* were a decidedly different gameplay loop. All warrior-types needed as much Str and as much Dex as they could get*, everyone made do with what they had**, and pretty much everyone used both bow and sword. Just adding composite bows back into the game won't make the way they interacted with the rest of the game go back to being a thing. That's not really saying anything about this endeavor, I just want to set expectations.
*I'm assuming AD&D for you if you don't have the 3e books
**any weapon that granted a damage bonus did so through Str, you could get your full Dex bonus to AC even in field plate, etc.
*** and gauntlets of ogre power were plentiful and had no attunement slot cost.

Why did they ever get rid of it from 3.5?

The devs aren't always great about answering 'why' questions. However, I would guess that the primary drivers would include:

• Reducing granularity --2 bow types instead of 4, not having to search for a composite bow with the right str-max, etc.
• Removing need for 2-attribute (+con) martials .
• Possibly seeming redundant alongside the basic new feature of dex-based weapons adding dex bonus to damage.

Has anyone ever converted it from older editions with any success?

Many times, with many different implementations, depending on what specific quality you are hoping to encapsulate

Is there a mathematical equation or anything that I could use on older editions to convert weapons, much like monsters?

Much like monsters, trying to apply direct formulaic conversion results in products that, while usable, definitely do not preserve the character/role/nuance the original had in the previous context in the new game's context.

Would having these in the game take away from ranged classes in some way and is that the reason they are gone?

I guess that if 1) composite bows were strictly better than other bows, and 2) that rangers continued to not want/get to run around in plate mail, then it would push bow-rangers into wanting to have both decent Dex and Str in a way they currently aren't pushed. Other than that, I'm not sure who it would negatively affect. I certainly do not think that was the reason for their removal.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think that within the granularity of 5e the distinction between composite and non composite is meaningless.

Yep.
If you are going to worry about composite vs non-composite bows, then you need to start stating out all the swords. Like: gladius, arming, broad, khopesh, sabre, falchion, falcata, kopis, spatha, bastard...

Do different mechanics really add fun to your table? If not, then just rename/re-flavor and move on.