D&D 5E Idea that will most players will hate, but I think addresses a mechanical issue in game

[Kobold Avenger]

I pondered the idea that all melee weapons generally should use DEX for attacks bonus and STR for damage bonus, with Ranged using WIS for damage bonus instead, and Finesse having the option to use WIS for damage bonus instead.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Serious question: why not all? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If this change improves the balance of strength and dex (and I’m not totally convinced it would, but giving this rule the benefit of the doubt), would it not be better to apply it to all weapons? And it’s not like it doesn’t make sense - no matter how bulky a weapon, coordination and agility are going to help you use it more it accurately, and no matter how light and agile the weapon, physical strength is going help put more mechanical force behind your strikes. Just seems like if you’re going to implement a change like this, you might as well implement it across the board.

It would likely have to be across the board, as min-max'ers would choose weapons that bypass this restriction.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you're going for realism, how is adding STR bonus to longbow damage in any way realistic?

Let me explain. Let's say it takes a 12 STR to use a longbow to full capacity - that is, draw it back with no significant effort. How would increased strength do more damage, if both a 12 STR and 18 STR can draw it back fully? Adding STR bonus implies that a higher STR character can draw it back...more fully? Super-fully?

Now adding DEX for damage on a longbow doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes more sense than STR, imo.

Now penalizing for STR makes sense, or you could add a minimum STR, below which involves Disadvantage.

Higher strength would allow you to use a higher draw weight bow. Adding strength to damage is just a simpler (albeit more abstract) way to model this than giving individual bows native damage bonuses and minimum strength requirements.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Higher strength would allow you to use a higher draw weight bow. Adding strength to damage is just a simpler (albeit more abstract) way to model this than giving bows native damage bonuses and minimum strength requirements.

Once again, we face the "complexity vs playability" debate. Personally, I am fine with complex. But I have someone in another thread tell me that it is not really nice of me to refuse to compromise my game to cater to people that can't subtract 1 from a number. I think that is the extreme end of the spectrum, but others have said that dumbing down the game was one of the features of 5e that makes it so popular.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Some weapon attacks require both a modicum of Strength AND Dexterity. In the real world, a top swordsman (not talking fencers), or archer, needs both.
So what happens if I said to my players:

I've had STR produce bonuses to hit and damage for melee, DEX for missile, DEX to attack and STR to damage for thrown. That seems to work most of the time.

Archers ... I see your thought, but with spring based weapons you are either strong enough to skillfully use the weapon or you are not. Being stronger than required doesn't allow you to apply more force through the weapon.

As far as complexity goes, you figure out the bonus and write it down on the sheet. You have d20 + X, d# + Y for each weapon and it doesn't change except for spells and level gains. Shouldn't be that hard.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Your idea is very similiar to how melee and ranged weapons are used in PF2; pretty much no class gets DEX to damage for any weapon (one subclass does, and some people consider it a little too strong of a benefit); you have to use Strength. In fact, only some ranged weapons get that Strength modifier and they're too expensive to have at level 1.

Another thing that helps is probably making it so you need to have a little Strength to use some armours without incurring penalities to Stealth etc; but 5e really does not like static, small modifeirs like minus 1 or plus 1, and Disadvantage would be too great a punishment, so that might be too difficult to adapt.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You could change the range of bows based on the character's Strength Score. Characters with higher Strength could theoretically pull further back and shoot farther.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I've had STR produce bonuses to hit and damage for melee, DEX for missile, DEX to attack and STR to damage for thrown. That seems to work most of the time.

Archers ... I see your thought, but with spring based weapons you are either strong enough to skillfully use the weapon or you are not. Being stronger than required doesn't allow you to apply more force through the weapon.

I think someone beat you to the punch on thresholds on drawing a bow back. It really comes down to abstraction versus realism. I created this thread based on the idea of introducing more realism into the game, as I am not satisfied with the level of abstraction in 5e. But how much abstraction is necessary to make the game playable? That becomes a philosophical question.

 

[Charlaquin]

Once again, we face the "complexity vs playability" debate. Personally, I am fine with complex. But I have someone in another thread tell me that it is not really nice of me to refuse to compromise my game to cater to people that can't subtract 1 from a number. I think that is the extreme end of the spectrum, but others have said that dumbing down the game was one of the features of 5e that makes it so popular.

Eh, just a matter of finding like-minded people to play with. There are players who like complexity and players who don’t.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Your idea is very similiar to how melee and ranged weapons are used in PF2; pretty much no class gets DEX to damage for any weapon (one subclass does, and some people consider it a little too strong of a benefit); you have to use Strength. In fact, only some ranged weapons get that Strength modifier and they're too expensive to have at level 1.

Another thing that helps is probably making it so you need to have a little Strength to use some armours without incurring penalities to Stealth etc; but 5e really does not like static, small modifeirs like minus 1 or plus 1, and Disadvantage would be too great a punishment, so that might be too difficult to adapt.

Yes, I am not a fan of the all or nothing approach of Disadvantage or not wrt to Stealth/Armour. But as with all of this, how much realism is given up for playability? I have stated that I think WOTC has gone too far. Their sales dept says otherwise.