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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

Longbow: 1d4 + str modifier + dex modifier damage

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).

This is also a very cool approach.

 

[RCanine]

@RCanine; your suggestion is OK, but it would make crits with longbow abyssmaly poor.

I left out the crit part for brevity; the str bonus is doubled on crits, allowing crits to scale the same way damage dice do. I updated the original post to include that.

 

[RCanine]

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.

I totally agree with this premise, although I don't think the implementation is perfect. I don't want to overpunish players that want to play Legolas-type characters. Instead, I'd want to encourage them to play like Legolas does: up close and personal. For example, only add dex to damage when within 30ft of the target for weapons with ammunition property.

 

[Horwath]

I totally agree with this premise, although I don't think the implementation is perfect. I don't want to overpunish players that want to play Legolas-type characters. Instead, I'd want to encourage them to play like Legolas does: up close and personal. For example, only add dex to damage when within 30ft of the target for weapons with ammunition property.

I wouldn't get rid of ability bonus to damage. dex increases accuracy with bows, and accuracy does not mean just hitting the target but also hitting it where it matters, that is described by bonus to damage also.



As for range, this is where normally great advantage/disadvantage mechanics breaks down.

I was far more for 3.5e solution in incremental penalties on attack roll.

I.E. longbow could have normal range of 60ft and -1 penalty to attack for every 60ft after; -1 for 61-120ft, -2 for 121-180ft...etc.

maximum could be 20×normal range(1200ft in this case) at -19 penalty to attack.

Sharpshooter feat could reduce range penalties by 5 or 10. Whatever you think is balanced.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Possibly, but I think the range limitations for bows are similar to those of firearms: the arrow may well be able to travel further than the maximum range, but the effective range is much shorter - being your chance of actually hitting anything with enough power.
Although there is a pretty good argument for that range to be based on Str: a more powerful bow sends a faster arrow whose accuracy will be degraded by distance, wind, movement of opponent less. Its a similar justification that I used when allowing bows to use Str to hit.

 

[CapnZapp]

I totally agree with this premise, although I don't think the implementation is perfect.

I've thought about this some more, and concluded that the simplest change is also the most appropriate for a streamlined game like 5E:

Make ranged fire use Strength for damage (not Dexterity).

(Composite bows work fine. It's just too cluttery to match 5E in my opinion. Also, I'm aware you could make a case crossbows should have fixed damage, but I've left that open for the while being)

 

[Horwath]

I've thought about this some more, and concluded that the simplest change is also the most appropriate for a streamlined game like 5E:

Make ranged fire use Strength for damage (not Dexterity).

(Composite bows work fine. It's just too cluttery to match 5E in my opinion. Also, I'm aware you could make a case crossbows should have fixed damage, but I've left that open for the while being)

Dexterity is used for aiming ranged weapons. And better aim means better damage. That is why dex is applied to damage. Strength would be for mighty longbows just a treshold value at which you can use the weapon to the full effect. Nothing more. Because you need full draw of the bow to get perfect balistic for that bow, and any draw after full risks breaking the bow.

 

[CapnZapp]

Dexterity is used for aiming ranged weapons. And better aim means better damage. That is why dex is applied to damage. Strength would be for mighty longbows just a treshold value at which you can use the weapon to the full effect. Nothing more. Because you need full draw of the bow to get perfect balistic for that bow, and any draw after full risks breaking the bow.

You're saying this as if D&D gamers weren't content with Strength-based bow damage for the last four decades...

Go ahead and use composite bows if you prefer. I just realized that's a level of clutter that doesn't jive with how 5E keeps things simple. After all:

In the end it still amounts to the same thing.

 

[RCanine]

I wouldn't get rid of ability bonus to damage. dex increases accuracy with bows, and accuracy does not mean just hitting the target but also hitting it where it matters, that is described by bonus to damage also.

I understand this, and it's why I designed it the way I did. The idea is that you can kill a man with a longbow from 600ft away with a long, arching shot, but olympic archers with way fancier bow technology only compete at 70M; to me that implies there's a much shorter distance beyond which good aim is less of a factor than wind and luck.

30ft was an arbitrary number based on the idea that within 30' you're more or less in melee range, as most melee combatants can walk up to you and stab you from that distance.

 

[Drathon'Tal]

I love the original idea. get me that 20 str. and 20 dex. and Ill be doing 2d6. after all that means that aside from con, you will be a bit more MAD. those who say that longbow already does too much damage. you are wrong. just completely wrong. magic does more damage, sneak attack does more damage. melee does more damage. but a bow having more damage is somehow wrong. female canine, please. longbows should be the top end damage of the ranged damage world. not the piss poor shitpole that anyone can exceed. also In 5e XdX + X should equal double that including the + X not just double the XdX. bring back the 3x 18-20 longbow from 3.5. 'nuff said!!!