D&D 5E How would changing bows to Str-only change the game?

[Shiroiken]

Real bows require strength to pull and fire.

Real weapons generally use Dex to hit and Str for damage, while armor would be damage reduction. If you want to go down this rabbit hole, you'll eventually end up with a combat system completely different (and much more complicated) than the one we have.

So how would it change D&D if we stopped allowing Dex for bows and mandated Str instead? Just keep Dex for finesse weapons.

It would greatly decrease the value of Dex, which many would approve of. Str fighters would be able to use extra attack for ranged weapons, making them much more versatile in combat (Paladins, for example, would basically have no weakness).

You should also consider all other ranged weapons, and how they should be adjudicated. The sling logically would also require Str, since the amount of momentum you can create would determine the force of impact. Crossbows should remain completely Dex based, since Str really has nothing to do with the attack (arguably you would have variable Str crossbows that require that Str to draw, and use that modifier). Blowgun and Net also seem to primarily be Dex based.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, I've always thought it was odd that strength had nothing to do with using a bow. Nobody is going to do a lot of damage with a bow made for a 10 year old.

I allow strength based bows, and have considered limiting damage based on dexterity but limited to double the strength modifier. Then again, D&D has never been particularly realistic.

I interpreted dex to damage as targeting vital spots, hitting open spot, etc more effective shots vs more powerful ones - so dex to dmg is obvious to me for weapons where that kind of approach is taken.

 

[Horwath]

Real weapons generally use Dex to hit and Str for damage, while armor would be damage reduction. If you want to go down this rabbit hole, you'll eventually end up with a combat system completely different (and much more complicated) than the one we have.

It would greatly decrease the value of Dex, which many would approve of. Str fighters would be able to use extra attack for ranged weapons, making them much more versatile in combat (Paladins, for example, would basically have no weakness).

You should also consider all other ranged weapons, and how they should be adjudicated. The sling logically would also require Str, since the amount of momentum you can create would determine the force of impact. Crossbows should remain completely Dex based, since Str really has nothing to do with the attack (arguably you would have variable Str crossbows that require that Str to draw, and use that modifier). Blowgun and Net also seem to primarily be Dex based.

armor counts as damage reduction only vs blunt weapons and very heavy weapons, and not by much.

For swords, knives, arrows, etc... armor is just like D&D, hit or miss. But it protects vital areas so it can be described as pseudo damage reduction, but higher miss rate on you vs. not defined nature of HPs is in a way also damage reduction.

You cannot penetrate steel armor, maybe some low quality chain mail, but in plate you are nigh immune to swords and bows, unless hit between the plates(high attack roll vs. high AC).

I would rather see minimum str for weapons and use str or dex for attacks for melee weapons and dex for ranged weapons.

I.E.
1d6 bow, min str 8
1d8 bow, min str 10
1d10 bow, min str 14
1d12 bow, min str 18
2d6 bow, min str 20

without min str met, you have disadvantage on attack and deal minimum damage.

 

[CubicsRube]

I would suggest either setting a minimum strength requirement for longbows (say 13) as it represents the minimum strength you need for the draw weight.

Or secondly you could allow str for damage if you don't want to make classes to MAD.

Also, many crossbows didn't need a great deal of strength to load, which was one benefit over bows. Crank loaders for crossbows took time but were supposedly relatively easy to use.

 

[Yardiff]

Hitting the 'vital spot' so dex bonus to damage is added is the argument I hear most for those who don't have a problem with it.
My problem with that reasoning is that 'hitting the vital spot' is what a critical hit is. So dex to damage is stepping all over crits.

'I hit the eye slits every time time when I attack' is another argument for dex to damage, again stepping all over crits.


'Precision attacks is what dex to damage is' steps all over the rogues sneak attack ability and the battlemasters precision maneuver.


My opinion, dex to damage was a mistake.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I would rather see minimum str for weapons and use str or dex for attacks for melee weapons and dex for ranged weapons.

I.E.
1d6 bow, min str 8
1d8 bow, min str 10
1d10 bow, min str 14
1d12 bow, min str 18
2d6 bow, min str 20

without min str met, you have disadvantage on attack and deal minimum damage.

I kind of like this. Would you still add dex to damage?

 

[Henry]

Hitting the 'vital spot' so dex bonus to damage is added is the argument I hear most for those who don't have a problem with it.
My problem with that reasoning is that 'hitting the vital spot' is what a critical hit is. So dex to damage is stepping all over crits.

'I hit the eye slits every time time when I attack' is another argument for dex to damage, again stepping all over crits.

There can't be more than one way to "hit a vital spot?" There's a difference between "landing an arrow in fat or muscle" versus "landing an arrow in or near a joint or groin" versus "landing the arrow in a major artery or in the jaw."

My opinion, dex to damage was a mistake.

My experience has been different -- I've seen tons of both melee and ranged characters in 5e games, with no real preference to either. My current group includes one high-dex archer (me), plus one high-dex melee rogue/swashbuckler, one high-str barbarian, and two spellcasters. If there is one thing it has done, it has relieved the pressure players feel to make MAD characters, and the group can keep ability scores lower as a whole.

One thing that used to rub me the wrong way was people running around with 16s to 18s in half their abilities because they felt like they needed it. You can be darned effective with just a high STR or high dex, or high INT/WIS/CHA (if a spellcaster) without needing to feel like you need to make a demigod; all other stats can be in a reasonable range. I see it in the same vein as what WotC did with replacing STR or DEX with the spellcasting attack bonus; now, a wizard doesn't need a high dex for his scorching rays and firebolts, because he uses his INT for the attack roll.

 

[Oofta]

Hitting the 'vital spot' so dex bonus to damage is added is the argument I hear most for those who don't have a problem with it.
My problem with that reasoning is that 'hitting the vital spot' is what a critical hit is. So dex to damage is stepping all over crits.

'I hit the eye slits every time time when I attack' is another argument for dex to damage, again stepping all over crits.


'Precision attacks is what dex to damage is' steps all over the rogues sneak attack ability and the battlemasters precision maneuver.


My opinion, dex to damage was a mistake.

The other problem is the "armor always stops arrows" argument. Yes, well made, expensive armor will stop most arrows. But even cheap, crappy armor will stop an arrow fired from a weak bow. It takes very expensive (and rare) armor to stop an arrow from a heavy pull longbow. While estimates for pull weight for historical longbows vary, it's between 150-200 pounds where pull weight is loosely the amount of weight you can lift with 1 arm as measured at maximum draw.

In addition, other than the eye/throat a lightweight arrow with minimal velocity simply isn't going to do that much damage even if it isn't stopped by armor. Or heavy clothing.

Not to mention that arrows shot with a real longbow is going to have greater range, less arc and far more accuracy. It's been a while since I did archery, but the difference in my accuracy between a kiddie bow and a real composite reasonably heavy draw bow was dramatic.

In the interest of not totally nerfing dex builds, maybe a short bow should be versatile while a longbow should be strength based (or some combo).

Or just ignore it because why should bows be realistic in a game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, I'm always of the opinion of not bothering to put together a set of cohesive rules before the campaign begins and worrying about how this corner case has to be adjudicated if this rule is put in place, or that corner case has to be addressed if that rule is in place. Especially when we have no idea if these corner cases will ever actually come up.

To me, it begins and ends with the player telling me "I'd love for my character to be able to do X"... and then I look to see if it is normally possible by some other class or some other ability or feature. If it is... then the basic premise is balanced and there's no reason not to give it to them. Because essentially the reason they can't currently do it is because the game made a couple of flavor decisions in order to keep all the defaults slightly different from each other. But my game is not the default game, so I don't have to follow those established premises.

Does it really affect anything at all whatsoever to let my barbarian player use a longbow for ranged attacks and damage using STR? No, of course it doesn't. The barbarian does 1d8+3 damage at range. Whoopty-do! The exact kind of ranged damage that every other PC at the table is probably doing. So if that player asks for it... then I'll absolutely let them, because using the longbow is essentially nothing more than a flavor choice when you get down to it. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to create an entire system of STR-based ranged weapon rules beforehand on the off-chance the barbarian player comes to me to say they'd like to have one. A complete waste of time and energy that can easily be replaced by me just thinking at the time the question is broached "Does this PC doing 1d8+3 damage at range matter in the slightest?"

But most importantly... the one thing I won't do is then begin to extrapolate all these ridiculous fantasy PCs that could be created by some other evil genius magical player that would show up at my table and take this special corner case rule I gave to the barbarian player and build some kind of extravagantly overpowered PC out of it that completely unbalances everything. All in an effort to just convince myself that I shouldn't let the barbarian use a longbow. I'm never going to shoot down a player's ideas just because some fantasy dickhead player that doesn't exist could take the idea and blow it up. That's just dumb.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Hitting the 'vital spot' so dex bonus to damage is added is the argument I hear most for those who don't have a problem with it.
My problem with that reasoning is that 'hitting the vital spot' is what a critical hit is. So dex to damage is stepping all over crits.

'I hit the eye slits every time time when I attack' is another argument for dex to damage, again stepping all over crits.


'Precision attacks is what dex to damage is' steps all over the rogues sneak attack ability and the battlemasters precision maneuver.


My opinion, dex to damage was a mistake.

Would replacing dex to damage with expanding the crit range (say range equals 20 minus half your dex bonus [minimum zero]) work? (with some adjustment in case there are any dex-based champions out there).