D&D 5E Strength bows?

[Uchawi]

They should have STR requirements for a lot of weapons, it would make STR more meaningful. It should also add to heavy armor AC.

 

[schnee]

I meant the feat, not the fighter ability.

Archery should +2 to damage, like dueling, not +2 to hit.

But, being a stickler here, Archery +2 IS the fighter ability.
So, you're still comparing a Feat to a Feat + the Fighter archetype ability.

IMO you're right - in that +2 is too much. I agree it should +2 damage (or at most +1 to hit).

 

[Yardiff]

As a pedantic side-note, the axe-heads had holes already in them: the feat of Odysseus was one of accuracy not might. Although the hero was known for being mighty, too!

Your forgetting that the first part of the test was stringing the bow, which most(all people but Odysseus) people could not do.

 

[clearstream]

Your forgetting that the first part of the test was stringing the bow, which most(all people but Odysseus) people could not do.

Stringing, yes that's true. The legend goes into that, but I was responding to...

rumored to have once puncturing holes through a dozen axe heads with ease.

Just pointing out that there was no puncturing involved. Or at least not of axe heads.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No? It would just make it harder for martial classes to be ranged, forcing players into traditional party dichotomies of ranged wizard, fighter tank, healer cleric, etc... It doesn't add anything to the game, it limits the game.

Doesn’t seem to have that effect in our game.

We have DEX as a bonus to hit only for ranged and finesse weapons.

STR as a bonus to hit for melee and thrown weapons, and damage for them too.

We have bows with different draw weights. A bow that requires a STR of 14 grants a bonus to damage of +2 regardless of your STR as long as it’s at least 14. Because the power of the bow doesn’t change.

We don’t find it limiting at all, nor do I think we have anybody that falls into specific roles in combat. Both wizards were in the thick of melee this week, by choice. The ranger and fighter were primarily using ranged weapons, and the two sorcerers were a mix of both.

One of the biggest advantages of ranged weapons is being out of reach of melee combatants. Being 5 or 10% less likely to hit is a reasonable trade off for as long as you can maintain that.

 

[cbwjm]

I think back when this discussion first started I created the composite property for shotbows and longbows. There were three levels equating to strength scores of 15, 17, and 19 and each level increased the die size by 1 step (1d12 became 2d6) and increased the maximum range by 10, 20, or 40%.

Without the required strength you had disadvantage on the attack roll when using them and did not gain the increases.

Boop!

 

[Mephista]

Archery should +2 to damage, like dueling, not +2 to hit. In a bounded accuracy system +2 to hit counts a lot more then +2 to damage. Besides, it’s just crazy that an Archer is more likely to hit a target at 600’ in 3/4 cover behind a wall then any attacker standing next to you. Anyone who takes Archery style is clearly going to take SS also. A human variant fighter at first level who takes SS will start out better than any elf at archery, whose race specializes in bows.

Sometimes I wonder if Wizards actually playtests all the stuff they release. I always thought they should be more open and get more feedback like the UA stuff does.

The game was playtested. The problem is that it was tested to be balanced without feats, and non-feat archers run into a lot of issues with enemies having cover from the melee party members. Melee members are also routinely knocking people prone as part of their modus operandus, which gives them advantage but the archer disadvantage. So, in this case, it actually works. Its the archery feats that cause the problems here, not anything else.

Most games here seem to be taking feats as a default, when that wasn't' what was tested.

 

[Yardiff]

Stringing, yes that's true. The legend goes into that, but I was responding to...



Just pointing out that there was no puncturing involved. Or at least not of axe heads.

I've never read the Odyssey but have seen a movie or two about it. I looked up the Odyssey on Wikipedia and this is what is said about the challenge "string Odysseus' rigid bow and shoot an arrow through twelve axe shafts". Not sure if this is supposed to mean 12 wooden axe handles or what. shrug

 

[Hriston]

That's funny. My Wikipedia distinctly says "axe heads". It's been a long time since I read the Odyssey, but I think the idea is that twelve axe heads were lined up with their shaft-holes facing the contestant, the challenge being to successfully shoot an arrow through each one.

For what it's worth, I've added the following weapons to make "strength bows" available in my games:

Name	Strength	Cost	Damage
Shortbow	Str 13	50 gp	1d8 piercing
Longbow	Str 13	100 gp	1d10 piercing
Shortbow	Str 15	75 gp	1d10 piercing
Longbow	Str 15	150 gp	1d12 piercing

All other properties are the same, including using DEX for attack and damage.

 

[clearstream]

I've never read the Odyssey but have seen a movie or two about it. I looked up the Odyssey on Wikipedia and this is what is said about the challenge "string Odysseus' rigid bow and shoot an arrow through twelve axe shafts". Not sure if this is supposed to mean 12 wooden axe handles or what. shrug

I've read more than one translation and while the wordings vary, it seems like it is either rings in the hafts or holes in the axe heads that are being shot through. I've never read a version that suggests any puncturing (until the fight that comes afterwards.)

That said, I would very much agree with your initial point that the act of might in that contest is the stringing of the bow itself.