D&D 5E Allowing Strength for Bows--unbalanced?

[miburo99]

What do people think about allowing characters to use Strength for attack rolls and damage to bows (specifically Shortbows and Longbows)? Without going too deep into real-world comparison, bows do require a (reasonable) amount of upper-body muscle work to draw and fire correctly. In addition I think it might provide a bit more usefulness for Strength as a stat (given how powerful Dex is in 5E) by providing a better ranged combat option than throwing a bunch of javelins.


Any thoughts? Balance concerns?

 

[Horwath]

I would keed dex as the main stat for bows. It just fits well.

What can be done is put sort of 3.x version of bows that add str bonus to damage if you are strong enough and have strong enough bow.

Lets say that your bow is rated for +2 str mod. Then if you have 14 str or higher you would add +2 damage to your bow shots.

Is it overpowered? maybe but, not many people have high dex and str.

As for attack roll, if you have str lower than 14 in this case, you would do added damage equal to str mod you do have plus disadvantage to attack roll.


Personally, I would even rate the "stock" longbow from PHB as "mighty +0", or if you do not have at least 10 strength you attack with disadvantage.


As for javelins, just treat them as ammunition so their drawing is free action.

 

[RCanine]

I was actually thinking an across-the-board nerf to ranged damage might make sense, both balance-wise and realism-wise. Being at range is just too much useful and safe for the amount of damage they do.

Something like: ranged weapons with the ammunition property don't add your ability modifier to their damage rolls.

In doing that, I'd also increase the damage die size of longbows and heavy crossbows by one, and remove the loading property altogether.

That said, I'd consider giving strength to the damage (but not attack) rolls of bows, since it's true that stronger characters can both draw a bowstring farther and use heavier bows.

 

[miburo99]

Actually to clarify, I didn't mean that Str should replace Dex for bows. Rather that it is another option (sort of like Finesse weapons can use either Str or Dex). The objective is not to make it doubly powerful for characters with Dex and Strength, but rather give Str characters slightly more choices for ranged weapons.

 

[discosoc]

They should probably be better off using throwing weapons, which can take advantage of strength, while they close distance for proper melee attacks. Making too many weapons allow for choosing between strength and dexterity kind of defeats the purpose of even having the two stats as separate in the first place. The low-dex heavy fighter can still use a long bow; it may not be his ideal weapon, but it *is* a viable option when no others exist.

Anyway, the closest I'd go is the way 2nd edition had it, where compound bows had a strength requirement to use, and allowed for up to a +1 or +2 strength bonus to be applied to damage. You still needed dex to aim properly.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What do people think about allowing characters to use Strength for attack rolls and damage to bows (specifically Shortbows and Longbows)? Without going too deep into real-world comparison, bows do require a (reasonable) amount of upper-body muscle work to draw and fire correctly. In addition I think it might provide a bit more usefulness for Strength as a stat (given how powerful Dex is in 5E) by providing a better ranged combat option than throwing a bunch of javelins.

Any thoughts? Balance concerns?

Yuck.

I'd be okay with allowing Str to benefit damage rolls (Strength bows have a long history in D&D including "composite bows" in AD&D) but for to-hit, no way. That's Dex all the way. Unless it's Int instead, actually.

 

[S'mon]

My thinking is just to add high poundage Warbows that key off strength, because you have to be strong to use them effectively. In 5e STR seems underpowered compared to DEX and this would help. As with the Welsh Longbow, I would likely keep these a regional specialty.

Edit: Re to-hit, there's no real reason IMO why STR to-hit for bow is any less realistic than STR to-hit for a melee weapon. In real life both strength and coordination are relevant.

 

[Ganymede81]

As a DM, I'd allow you to add your Strength modifier to hits and damage with a longbow if you opted to hurl the longbow itself at your foes.

 

[jaelis]

What do people think about allowing characters to use Strength for attack rolls and damage to bows (specifically Shortbows and Longbows)? Without going too deep into real-world comparison, bows do require a (reasonable) amount of upper-body muscle work to draw and fire correctly. In addition I think it might provide a bit more usefulness for Strength as a stat (given how powerful Dex is in 5E) by providing a better ranged combat option than throwing a bunch of javelins.


Any thoughts? Balance concerns?

Dex is a good stat, but I don't think strength needs this kind of help. Dex gets decent melee options and the best ranged options, while strength gets the best melee options and decent ranged options. I haven't seen a big movement among my players to drop Str in favor of Dex.

OTOH, if you'd be happy to let Dex apply to greatswords and glaives, then sure, let Str apply to bows as well.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Str for damage makes sense; but Dex to hit.

That would make the concept of the graceful elfin archer a bit of a nonsense though.

What you could do is rule that DAMAGE is finesse, thus:

To hit: Dex (accuracy)
Damage: Str or Dex (raw punch power or beautiful aim hitting the right area)

For heavy bows, you can always go down the minimum Str to wield route and assign a Str score you feel is right.

But that opens up a can of melee worms ("If Mike's PC can't fire a longbow, how the hell does that kobold get to wield a battle axe?").