Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phantomK9" data-source="post: 6532044" data-attributes="member: 6790724">@ El MadiI registered to the forum just so I could start posting some of the information that you have already posted in your previous posts. Well done, some very good information.While I'm perfectly fine with the way D&D has abstracted bows into using Dex, as an archaic archery enthusiast, I sometimes wish there were more accurate rules regarding how bows actually worked, especially during the 3e days and how they got so many thing wrong.Mainly I wish they had bow ranges based on STR score. This would be one simple way to bring in STR score without making it absolutely necessary to have a high STR to be an effective archer, leaving the attack and damage bonus as the purview of DEX. So for example a Fighter with a STR 12(+1) and DEX 16(+3) would still have the +3 to attack and damage, but the range of the bow would no longer be the standard 150/600 but rather something like 120/480 (using a calculation of STR score x10/x40). I think this would model the old chin, cheek, jaw, ear standards that were used long ago. But the question would be does this add more complexity that is necessary.Compositing should also make an appearance as treating bows with flexible materials like raw hide or even flexible bone was an extremely common practice during the bows hayday (just ask those Huns and Mongols). Although the exact mechanical benefit would be a bit hard to nail down. I would say possibly just a small boost in damage and a small boost in range. Compositing also made the bow "more durable" which would only matter in things like sundering, so not that big of a deal.I also miss the old 2e way the damage die was based not on the bow but on the type of arrow used. But again, that adds in complexity that I think was purposefully avoided.</blockquote>

Verification