D&D 5E Strength bows?

Honestly, 5e should take at least one cue from Pathfinder 2: Make STR the only attribute to apply its modifier to weapon damage. That includes for ranged weapons and finesse weapons. (And crossbows should not apply a modifier to damage at all, create a "mechanical" keyword or something to indicate that.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Legend
Supporter
At very least the hand crossbow, you would think everyone had them and carried them.

Only if they take crossbow expertise and sharpshooter and then insist they can fire both using all their attacks round after round.

Because the only thing more awesome would be this guy:
images (2).jpg

Well, except maybe for this guy
images.jpg
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Odysseus wouldn’t be possible RAW, that’s not right.

I'm not sure I agree in the general sense with the argument that if a famous character from fiction isn't possible RAW, something is wrong with the game. God(s) save me from a game that tries to make every archetype possible.

But, yeah, in this case I wish it had been something that had been addressed. In general I wish Dexterity and Strength were not just two mechanically equal options, where you pick one and dump the other. A character with high Strength AND high Dexterity (c.f. Conan) should be far more dangerous than one who excels in only one or the other.
 

Derren

Hero
I'm not sure I agree in the general sense with the argument that if a famous character from fiction isn't possible RAW, something is wrong with the game. God(s) save me from a game that tries to make every archetype possible.

But, yeah, in this case I wish it had been something that had been addressed. In general I wish Dexterity and Strength were not just two mechanically equal options, where you pick one and dump the other. A character with high Strength AND high Dexterity (c.f. Conan) should be far more dangerous than one who excels in only one or the other.

Its not just about the archetype. Archery simply required strength and years of training, often times since birth as you can see on the remains of longbow archers. Even crossbows didn't change that. You needed a different type of strength to load them but you still needed to be stronger than average even with a winch. Only gunpowder made ranged weapons available for everyone which was the major reason guns displaced bows and not some mythical armor piercing property.
From a game point of view it would not only depower archery build which are currently overperforming but also slightly reduce the importance of DEX which currently simply is too useful and make Str better. And imo more differentiation between ranged weapon types is always welcome.
 

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
I'm not sure I agree in the general sense with the argument that if a famous character from fiction isn't possible RAW, something is wrong with the game. God(s) save me from a game that tries to make every archetype possible.

But, yeah, in this case I wish it had been something that had been addressed. In general I wish Dexterity and Strength were not just two mechanically equal options, where you pick one and dump the other. A character with high Strength AND high Dexterity (c.f. Conan) should be far more dangerous than one who excels in only one or the other.

So then the question becomes how to do that. Some options - have I missed any? Can we add any?
  1. Don't add dexterity to damage, just strength.
  2. Limit damage from dex to double your strength bonus
  3. Don't allow dex to be used for longbows (or heavy crossbows), only strength
  4. Allow strength-based bows that can't be effectively used if you don't have a high enough strength
 

smbakeresq

Explorer
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.
 

Derren

Hero
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.

Learning to shoot accurately with a bow isn't that hard either what made them elite was them being strong enough to pull the bows. That was uncommon and required years of muscle training. That why the British required everyone by law to practice archery.
Crossbows made it better as you could apply different muscles to load the crossbow, especially when you had mechanical help through levers and winches (but such crossbows were hard to build and thus expensive). Still, strength was still the limiting factor and you could not give a peseant a heavy crossbow and expect him to load it.
 

dave2008

Legend
I'm working out the details on an archer I'm building.

I remember in 2e, there were bows that could be built to take advantage of a characters high STR score. I think they had this in 3e as well.

Does this exist in 5e? As I said, I'm working out the details on an archer I'm building, and I'll definitely give him a higher STR if it will affect archery.

Thanks!

RAW no, but ask your DM though. Personally I have removed DEX from damage bonus in my game, so I would be willing to allow STR damage to bow. Might require a special bow though.
 

You know there is nothing in the archery fighting style that requires it to be a bow. It says +2 attack bonus to ranged attack. So have a high strength character that specializes in javelins.
 

Remove ads

Top