More damaging bows and crossbows unbalanced?

[Turanil]

Well, I just read some articles on the medieval war longbow (the "English Longbow"), and on the crossbow. It appeared that they were extremely deadly, and I thought that maybe the damage value they are given in the core rule is too low.

One thing to consider, is that usually no fighter takes weapon specialization with missile weapons, and that contrary to melee weapons, missile weapons don't get bonus to dmg due to high strength. Hence, I thought that maybe augmenting the damage made by bows and crossbows would not ruin game balance. Something like:

-- Light crossbow d8 --> now d10
-- Heavy crossbow d10 --> now 2d6
-- Short bow d6 --> now d8
-- Long bow d8 --> now d10

Opinions? Unforeseen results in implementing this?

 

[Kaodi]

If you up the damage, I'd say change the heavy crossbow to 2d6, making it the ranged equivalent of the greatsword. Mean, mean weapon.

 

[hafrogman]

I think you'd run into problems as soon as a fighter with a high strength took weapon specialization (longbow) and grabbed a composite longbow with a high strength rating.

I've done it before. Fighters make the best archers.

 

[Turanil]

I think you'd run into problems as soon as a fighter with a high strength took weapon specialization (longbow) and grabbed a composite longbow with a high strength rating.

Right, it's a thing to consider. Yet, it wouldn't do more damage than a great-sword (my fighters, rangers, etc., have a tendancy for choosing the greatsword, but they never succeeded to ruin the game that way).

If you up the damage, I'd say change the heavy crossbow to 2d6, making it the ranged equivalent of the greatsword. Mean, mean weapon.

Good idea. I edited the original post.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Also, you don't have that whole double Power Attack damage thing with bows. Unlike greatswords, say.

It looks reasonable to me, but if you want longbows to be "deadly", you're looking at the wrong system (as it stands, even with increased projectile weapon damage).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think its okay to up the damage as long as you shift the balance on the other side of the equation.

I use bows as listed in the discussion of bows article posted here on Enworld along with the following HRs:

The 'bigger dice' option instead of a flat modifier.

Firing a bow is standard action.
Rapid Shot allows two arrows fired as part of the standard action.

A full-round action can be spent firing one arrow. The threat range of this attack is widened 1 point per iterative attack the character normally has.

This alteration means fewer, but much deadlier attacks. In my last campaign a H-Orc character picked up an powerful bow {STR 20} that could deal 1D20-2 damage...just imagine a Crit on that!

{an aside, powerful bows like that don't just lie around, the usually need to be custom made... The one picked up in my game was part of BBEG 'treasure' horde, meaning it had been used against the party first! }

 

[Aus_Snow]

Just another note. EN Publishing's 'Three Arrows for the King' provides an Archer base class, as well as lots of stuff for archery in general. You might want to check it out, if you haven't already.

 

[Stalker0]

If your looking for "realistic" warfare, 1st level dnd is the only place you might find it. At that level, a person's hitpoints are low enough that its often one shot one kill. At that level, a longbow is quite deadly.

 

[Bladesong]

We looked at this a while back and made the following ajustments:
1.) Increased the threat range of both crossbows and the shortbow by 1. Logic was "yes, they have the potential to be quite deadly, but we did not want to completely out distance all other weapons in base damage. Results were that simple weapon use classes increased use of the crossbow and fighters began to more often take the shortbow as a backup missile weapon.
2.) We placed the longbow into the exotic weapon catagory, increased the threat range by 1 (now 19-20) and increased the damage to 2d6. Logic was that historically this weapon was deadly, but it was not real easy to use so putting it into the exotic catagory (or martial for elves) means that only characters really wanting to play a serious archer type would even mess with it. Results were a reduced use of the longbow in general, but an archer was now as effective as a melee fighter. I ran one myself and it has been my favorite character in years.

We have not encountered any negative effects, but I am sure there are players who could probably find a way.

It did fix one thing I always believed was a serious problem, or at least a big pain in the backside; a 10th level fighter would just charge a group of 20 archers figuring he could easily take the damage which is something a real hero would be a fool to try, but not anymore (they definitely think twice about it.)

 

[Quartz]

One of the reasons that bows were so deadly was not because of the individual archer but because there were massed ranks of them. Advancing enemy troops would be met with a hail of arrows.