D&D 5E Intoducing mighty composite longbow back into 5E

[Horwath]

There should be stronger longobows that require greater strength to use.

That way str characters might want to use them for higher damage, range and attack rate but with lower accuracy than with throwing weapons. Attack and damage would still be based from dex.


Longbows would have minimum strength rating of 14,18 and 20.

IF you don not have enough strength to use the longbow you suffer disadvantage on attack roll.


Longbow(str rating 14); damage 1d10; range; 190/760ft price; 200gp

Longbow(str rating 18); damage 1d12; range; 230/920ft price; 400gp

Longbow(str rating 20); damage 2d6; range; 250/1000ft price; 500gp,


Bows could be made from more exotic wood, thicker bow limbs, composite of wood, horn and/or steel, dragon bone etc...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I just allow bows to use either Str or Dex for hit and damage. Fits with realism, concept tropes, and gives more character flexibility.

I assume that a character buying or picking a bow will select one with a draw weight suited to them, and that magical bows adjust to their wielder.

 

[Oofta]

Similar to Cap, I simply allow people to purchase bows that have a pull weight that allows people to use their strength instead of dexterity. So if you have a 12 strength, you get a bow that allows for +1 to attack and damage, 14 allows a +2, etc.

Anyone not strong enough to use the bow has disadvantage on attacks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, but your proposal would only mean ranged fire gets even better than it already is. If I understand your proposal correctly, it allows a ranged character to stack a good Strength score on top of a good Dexterity score.

Why would you ever do that for ranged.... but not for melee?!

As a counter proposal, I suggest you drop ability-based damage for ranged fire (that is, no Dex to damage), and then add composite bows that let you utilize great strength for damage.

That is:

regular Longbow: 1d10 damage
composite Longbow 14: 1d10+2 damage if you have Strength 14+
composite Longbow 18: 1d10+4 damage if you have Strength 18+
composite Longbow 22: 1d10+6 damage if you have Strength 22+​

This would refocus the game on melee* while still leaving an out for the odd ranged specialist character to still reach today's levels of damage.

*) and thrown. I would allow thrown weapons to add Strength to damage, no "composite" weaponry needed. Thrown needs all the help it can get, after all.

To avoid spellcasters becoming masters of ranged fire, it would probably be a good idea to limit cantrips from being unlimited as well

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There should be stronger longobows that require greater strength to use.

That way str characters might want to use them for higher damage, range and attack rate but with lower accuracy than with throwing weapons. Attack and damage would still be based from dex.

Longbows would have minimum strength rating of 14,18 and 20.

IF you don not have enough strength to use the longbow you suffer disadvantage on attack roll.


Longbow(str rating 14); damage 1d10; range; 190/760ft price; 200gp

Longbow(str rating 18); damage 1d12; range; 230/920ft price; 400gp

Longbow(str rating 20); damage 2d6; range; 250/1000ft price; 500gp,

Bows could be made from more exotic wood, thicker bow limbs, composite of wood, horn and/or steel, dragon bone etc...

I like this approach a lot. Increasing the damage die lets you model e.g. cataphract bows that do far greater than normal damage, but still let your strong dude be not all that great at hitting things with it. (I'm thinking of Anastasius from the Belisarius series by David Drake/Eric Flint, vs. Valentinian from that same series. Anatasius has a huge bow that punches holes right through people's chests when he hits with it; but Valentinian is quicker, more accurate, and more deadly with his own bow.)

I'm not sure about the precise numbers; I'd probably bump up the Str 20 bow a bit because it's near-identical to the Str 18 one currently; maybe 3d4 would be appropriate so you get a full +1 damage relative to the Str 18 bow, just like every other increment. But I like the approach.

 

[RCanine]

I was just messing around with this mechanic, and my solution was this:

Longbow: 1d4 + str modifier + dex modifier damage; on a crit, add double your strength modifier instead.

I feel like this adequately represents what draw power gives you: a weaker PC would be able to use the bow, but not very well, and weaker PCs would be better off with a short bow.

On the opposite end, it maxes out at 12.5 average damage, which pulls well ahead of the heavy crossbow (10.5), rewarding its heavy stat investment cost. However, a player could achieve an equivalent value to the original longbow with relatively minor stat investment in strength (1d4+2 ~= 1d8).

 

[Horwath]

I like this approach a lot. Increasing the damage die lets you model e.g. cataphract bows that do far greater than normal damage, but still let your strong dude be not all that great at hitting things with it. (I'm thinking of Anastasius from the Belisarius series by David Drake/Eric Flint, vs. Valentinian from that same series. Anatasius has a huge bow that punches holes right through people's chests when he hits with it; but Valentinian is quicker, more accurate, and more deadly with his own bow.)

I'm not sure about the precise numbers; I'd probably bump up the Str 20 bow a bit because it's near-identical to the Str 18 one currently; maybe 3d4 would be appropriate so you get a full +1 damage relative to the Str 18 bow, just like every other increment. But I like the approach.

Personally, I hate the d4. And str 20 bow is just a little stronger than str 18 because it's only 2 str of difference while others are 4 points.

I would also rule that with default longbow you need 10 str to use it correct.
[MENTION=85040]RCanine[/MENTION]; your suggestion is OK, but it would make crits with longbow abyssmaly poor. That is why I went to increased dice instead of static bonus.

Unless we also add a rule that a crit doubles the whole damage, not just the dice part of it.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

THe serpentfolk in the Primeval Thule have composite bows which the players have been taking.

Composite longbow (ranged marial weapon), range 150/600ft, one target, 1d10 piercing damage, minimum STR 12.

It is a ranged weapon, so uses DEX for Attack and Damage. If you are not strong enough to draw the bow, you just can't use it.

 

[pdzoch]

Sorry, but your proposal would only mean ranged fire gets even better than it already is. If I understand your proposal correctly, it allows a ranged character to stack a good Strength score on top of a good Dexterity score.

Why would you ever do that for ranged.... but not for melee?!

As a counter proposal, I suggest you drop ability-based damage for ranged fire (that is, no Dex to damage), and then add composite bows that let you utilize great strength for damage.

That is:

regular Longbow: 1d10 damage
composite Longbow 14: 1d10+2 damage if you have Strength 14+
composite Longbow 18: 1d10+4 damage if you have Strength 18+
composite Longbow 22: 1d10+6 damage if you have Strength 22+
​

This would refocus the game on melee* while still leaving an out for the odd ranged specialist character to still reach today's levels of damage.

*) and thrown. I would allow thrown weapons to add Strength to damage, no "composite" weaponry needed. Thrown needs all the help it can get, after all.

To avoid spellcasters becoming masters of ranged fire, it would probably be a good idea to limit cantrips from being unlimited as well

I second the endorsement of this revision. It is sort of like "finesse" weapons, but for strength instead. It allows strength focused characters to be effective ranged fighters in the way finesse allows dexterity focused characters to be effective melee fighters. I think one way to account for the reduced accuracy is to keep the short normal attack range constant (instead of half max rang), yet allow for longer ranges at disadvantage. Or perhaps with penalty to damage or accuracy at the upper limits of the range. SO:

composite Longbow 14: 1d10+2 damage if you have Strength 14+, range 150/760, -2 over 740
composite Longbow 18: 1d10+4 damage if you have Strength 18+, range 150/920, -2 over 880
composite Longbow 22: 1d10+6 damage if you have Strength 22+, range 150/1000, -2 over 940

 

[phantomK9]

I've always been of the opinion that bows should also use the Strength to determine the range rather than just one set arbitrary range of the bow.

So for example range could be X ft + Y * (Strength Bonus)ft or something along those lines.
Thought being that the further you can pull the bow back the more distance you can get out of it.