Actually crossbows did change that. Archery took years of training and archers were always considered elite troops, and some ancient empires built their military around them.
Crossbows for personal use changed military warfare because of the ease of use and training. You can train a soldier to use a crossbow in an hour, all they need to do is be strong enough to draw the crossbow through various methods that apply mechanical advantage, winch, lever, the stirrup, etc.
The bow itself then applies greater mechanical advantage then an archer could, firing a bolt that was always heavier then an arrow, sometimes several times heavier, at a greater velocity. The rate of fire was always slower then a skilled archer though.
For mass military use the crossbow is better, it is simple to use , can be mass produced, and has more power for a range. Bolts are smaller, and do not have to be tended to like arrows. For specialist use, the archer is superior in some cases, especially volume of fire.
D&D is about specialists. If the bows stay as they are, or even if you add STR to bows, a Harvey crossbow should probably be 2d8 or 2d10 damage, and have a longer “short range” but the same maximum range as the weight of the bolt held its energy better, the often cited examples being going through a tree at 140 paces or through the armored leg and the horse at 200 paces.
I have always believed that DEX to damage of a ranged weapon should only be at a shorter range, so you can aim at a specific point. Beyond that you can’t be that accurate. I would think maybe 60’ would be appropriate, 12 squares or home plate to pitching mound. This covers most situations so as not to be unfair to dexterity builds. This would be in addition to any STR bonus, more accurate and more powerful should stack. This would also encourage people to not dump Str to were they are so weak they could not even draw their weapons.
