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

[Scars Unseen]

I mean the keyword could be anything else, here it's just repurposing a keyword that has an understood meaning.

You could simply see the house rule as making ALL weapon STR-based and Finesse being for exceptions, which includes bows.

Crossbow would then be moved to the special cases like the net.

I think when you get to the point where you have to edit the entire equipment table to justify changing the way a single rule is applied, you've either hit the point where the justification for your house rule is thin to the point of translucency or that you need to reassess what it is you want from weapons and just house rule the whole thing.

Frankly, I don't see the justification for the house rule as offered beyond "I want." If we're talking about how strength might apply to bows, I can certainly see an argument being made for damage assuming one were using a bow with heavier draw than normal, but even if one were to apply similar logic to the attack role, I don't see an argument that would convince me that a bow could be just as accurately aimed by someone with low dex as high.

If the goal was "what can I change that let's strength focused characters take the bow as a valid choice," I'd probably offer the following: first, add a weapon property called "strong pull" that allows the character to add either their dex or str to their damage roll, whichever is higher. Second, I'd add to the feat "sharpshooter" the following: "when using a bow with the 'strong pull' property, the character adds their strength modifier to the attack roll in addition to their dex modifier."

It gives a clear benefit, requires some player investment (but gives even more benefit in return), and doesn't make things confusing by ignoring the meaning of words as well as the obvious intent behind them.

 

[Oofta]

I think that when your house rule makes the game less comprehensible, it's a bad house rule. "It doesn't mean anything" doesn't really work when the word means the opposite of what you're trying to make it mean.

I'm not going to create a new keyword if it does exactly the same thing as an existing keyword.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I think when you get to the point where you have to edit the entire equipment table to justify changing the way a single rule is applied, you've either hit the point where the justification for your house rule is thin to the point of translucency or that you need to reassess what it is you want from weapons and just house rule the whole thing.

Frankly, I don't see the justification for the house rule as offered beyond "I want." If we're talking about how strength might apply to bows, I can certainly see an argument being made for damage assuming one were using a bow with heavier draw than normal, but even if one were to apply similar logic to the attack role, I don't see an argument that would convince me that a bow could be just as accurately aimed by someone with low dex as high.

If the goal was "what can I change that let's strength focused characters take the bow as a valid choice," I'd probably offer the following: first, add a weapon property called "strong pull" that allows the character to add either their dex or str to their damage roll, whichever is higher. Second, I'd add to the feat "sharpshooter" the following: "when using a bow with the 'strong pull' property, the character adds their strength modifier to the attack roll in addition to their dex modifier."

It gives a clear benefit, requires some player investment (but gives even more benefit in return), and doesn't make things confusing by ignoring the meaning of words as well as the obvious intent behind them.

I think I am on board with you.
Though I will never get enough players to actually play such a game, I can envision something like this, in the very limited scope of bows:

Short Bows: Dex Bonus to hit, Str bonus added or subtracted from damage, to a max or min of +2 or -2.
Long Bows: Require Min Str of 12 to use. Dex bonus used to hit, Str bonus added to damage (up to a max of 2, sort of like Dex with Breastplate)
Great Bows: Base d12 for damage, has the Reload Feature as per X-Bow. Require Min Str of 14 to use. Dex bonus used to hit, Str bonus added to damage (no limit on max).

Those numbers are up for discussion, as I can see many would never use a Great Bow, even if they had the stats, because of the Reload limitation. We all agree that in the Real World, bows don't gain a Str bonus once a person meets a minimum level of Strength to Draw the string, but I think some abstraction is needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you have the absolute on the wrong side. Not that we cannot have it as part of the expected math, but that we don't need it as part of the expected math. The absolute moved from "you must have it or you suck" to "you don't need it, but may have it and be special" in 5e.

If every PC is required to have +X weapon/implement and +X to AC and saves, that's a problem. Any character without it, who lags behind, is penalized. We saw this in 4e where there was a constant gear treadmill and it was called - rightfully so - videogam-esque.

But if the math doesn't require it then people without it don't lag behind, but the characters that do have it have something special and it feels special. And it doesn't even need to be the same type - the character with +2 Plate will feel super defended while everyone else is okay, while the heroine with the +2 greatsword will love it.

See, in my experience if one character has something like that, everyone has to have something similar, which leads to the party outweighing their character level, which leads to the DM having to continually ramp up combat to compensate. I love items too, so I'm not sure how to deal with this other than to put more work on the DM.

 

[Blue]

See, in my experience if one character has something like that, everyone has to have something similar, which leads to the party outweighing their character level, which leads to the DM having to continually ramp up combat to compensate. I love items too, so I'm not sure how to deal with this other than to put more work on the DM.

This isn't ever per se about having magic items. It's about requiring all characters to have magic weapons/implements and magic defenses with pluses, and those pluses growing over time, as they are calculated into the math for being able to hold your own.

With how 5e does it, it doesn't assume bake in that every character will have those 2-3 items per person (some people dual wield, or weapon+cast). So if you have one it's cool and special, not just like what everyone else has. And also not a treadmill that you need to upgrade to a higher plus on schedule to keep up with the expected math. And all of the non-plus items are still available.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This isn't ever per se about having magic items. It's about requiring all characters to have magic weapons/implements and magic defenses with pluses, and those pluses growing over time, as they are calculated into the math for being able to hold your own.

With how 5e does it, it doesn't assume bake in that every character will have those 2-3 items per person (some people dual wield, or weapon+cast). So if you have one it's cool and special, not just like what everyone else has. And also not a treadmill that you need to upgrade to a higher plus on schedule to keep up with the expected math. And all of the non-plus items are still available.

Sure, but if one player has something "cool and special", everybody else is rightfully going to want something special too. And as time goes on and PCs go up in level, they're going to want "more" special things. Sometimes I think DMs are the driving force behind the low or no magic gear idea. PCs generally just want more power, on par with other PCs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's power creep to give strength based PCs a decent option for ranged attacks?

Yes, by definition.
Str characters are better in melee than dex based ones.
But then other people have that backwards and I guess adding finesse to bows does not hurt that much and it makes the choice between dex or str a style. For fairness sake we should also add finesse two handed weapons and better light and medium armor.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Frankly, I don't see the justification for the house rule as offered beyond "I want." If we're talking about how strength might apply to bows, I can certainly see an argument being made for damage assuming one were using a bow with heavier draw than normal, but even if one were to apply similar logic to the attack role, I don't see an argument that would convince me that a bow could be just as accurately aimed by someone with low dex as high.

If the bow is built for your strength, it certainly helps aiming, because the arrow is faster and can be shot in a more streight line. Being dextrous does help too.

But If I were rebalancing bows, I would add point blank range of 30 ft beyond where you don't add modifiers to damage. And with a strong bow, you may use strength to hit and otherwise dex.

 

[Blue]

Sure, but if one player has something "cool and special", everybody else is rightfully going to want something special too.

Yes. And they are going to get it. Everyone gets magic items! It just doesn't need to first be math-adjuster items before they get cool things. This paladin might have a +1 Plate, that Barbarian has Winged Boots, the rogue has a Headband of Intellect that boosts their INT to 19, and the other rogue has a Vicious Rapier, which has no pluses but does bonus damage on a crit as well as counting as a magic weapon for overcoming resistance/immunity.

And as time goes on and PCs go up in level, they're going to want "more" special things. Sometimes I think DMs are the driving force behind the low or no magic gear idea. PCs generally just want more power, on par with other PCs.

And they will get more. There's a great resource in Xanathars (pg 135 I think) showing magic items number by rarity by level range.

Or are you arguing that the only "special" magical items are the ones with plusses?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. And they are going to get it. Everyone gets magic items! It just doesn't need to first be math-adjuster items before they get cool things. This paladin might have a +1 Plate, that Barbarian has Winged Boots, the rogue has a Headband of Intellect that boosts their INT to 19, and the other rogue has a Vicious Rapier, which has no pluses but does bonus damage on a crit as well as counting as a magic weapon for overcoming resistance/immunity.


And they will get more. There's a great resource in Xanathars (pg 135 I think) showing magic items number by rarity by level range.

Or are you arguing that the only "special" magical items are the ones with plusses?

No, although mechanically speaking they are clearly the most obvious. I'm saying all magic items with a mechanical benefit to anything a PC does make that PC more powerful. That needs to be accounted for, and telling people that magic items aren't necessary isn't a good solution for most tables. I've never been in a game where players didn't want magic items. Again, that seems like a DM curated world sort of thing.