D&D (2024) Thrown weapon and duelling fighting style.

[Charlaquin]

Sure, "elf" and all, but the "bow in the movies" is a short bow:

View attachment 380420

THIS is not a 5-6 foot longbow.

As for the novels, I could not tell you, it has been a long time since I read the novels and in those he could easily be represented as using a longbow.

Regardless, a STR 13 requirement for longbow (heavy weapons in general) makes perfect sense. Anyone who uses such weapons regularly will be "stronger" than your average STR 10 humanoid.

It’s not really the length of a bow that matters but its draw weight. Sure, longer arms can increase a bow’s draw weight, but so can composition and curve. Legolas’s bow looks recurved, so it’s probably heavy for its length.

But, yeah, point is, if you want to use a bow effectively against armored targets, you need one built for a very heavy draw, and therefore need to be very strong to use it. Unfortunately, strength is far more nuanced than D&D accommodates for. The muscles one needs to build to shoot a heavy bow are quite different than the muscles one needs to build to fight with a longsword. Amusingly, I think the important muscles for fencing would be better represented by Dex than Strength, and vice-versa with the important muscles for archery.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just realized that halflings can use longbows now.

And heavy crossbows, and greatswords, greataxes, mauls, glaives, halberds, and pikes. I believe that was the intended effect of changing the Heavy property.

 

[ezo]

In the PHB the longbow is drawn at about 4 in which is about the same as the musket.

Muskets average about 5 ft long. Shorter ones could be 4 ft.

So an adventuring longbow should be at least 4 ft long.

The non-existent greatbow or warbow would be the 6 ft bow

LOL, like I am hardly going to trust the illustrations of the game given the lack of accurate design...?

And muskets could be 6 feet... So even if I gave value to those illustrations (like I ever would... I mean look at most of the weapons and the extreme proportions of the greatsword and warhammer, etc. or the insanely short blowgun--I guess one of the shortest blowguns in existance!), I would just say "fine, it is a 6-foot musket and a 6-bow longbow.

A longbow in D&D has always meant to represent real-world examples, such as the English longbow. It is the "warbow" for D&D--they are not "non-existent" in the game.

I just realized that halflings can use longbows now.

LOL why not!?! Of course they can... 2024 game design rears its silly, ugly head yet again...

It’s not really the length of a bow that matters but its draw weight. Sure, longer arms can increase a bow’s draw weight, but so can composition and curve. Legolas’s bow looks recurved, so it’s probably heavy for its length.

Length for bows directly contributes to maximum draw weight (along with the composition of the bow--the most important factor!).

Recurved design added to the draw weight for shortbows, but longbows don't have as much recurve--if any really hardly at all, since the length and composition created bows with sufficient draw for war.

 

[ezo]

But, yeah, point is, if you want to use a bow effectively against armored targets, you need one built for a very heavy draw, and therefore need to be very strong to use it. Unfortunately, strength is far more nuanced than D&D accommodates for. The muscles one needs to build to shoot a heavy bow are quite different than the muscles one needs to build to fight with a longsword.

True (bolded).

However, the strength one needs for a longbow or longsword, while not identical, overlap a lot.

My simple point is Heavy should simply be a STR 13, not this DEX 13 for ranged crap. The ONLY two heavy ranged weapons are the longbow (which we know requires sufficient STR IRL) and the heavy crossbow (which weighs 18 lbs!!!!). Can you imagine a halfling or gnome using these weapons? One twice as long as the PC is tall and the other roughly half the weight of the PC trying to use it???

No, it is simply just silly gargage IMO.

Amusingly, I think the important muscles for fencing would be better represented by Dex than Strength, and vice-versa with the important muscles for archery.

I think this is one reason why Finesse is a property, to allow the "DEX muscles" to be represented.

 

[Charlaquin]

My simple point is Heavy should simply be a STR 13, not this DEX 13 for ranged crap.

I agree

The ONLY two heavy ranged weapons are the longbow (which we know requires sufficient STR IRL) and the heavy crossbow (which weighs 18 lbs!!!!). Can you imagine a halfling or gnome using these weapons?

Yes, provided they are sufficiently strong, which is why I do prefer the strength 13 requirement for the heavy property over the old “Small characters get disadvantage” version. It’s switching this to 13 Dex for ranged weapons that I dislike.

One twice as long as the PC is tall and the other roughly half the weight of the PC trying to use it???

I’ve always just assumed weapons for Small PCs are built appropriately for their user. This is probably more involved than a simple scaling down - as you noted, shorter bow limbs means lower draw weight, so a “longbow” that was built to be small enough for a halfling to wield would need some degree of composite construction and/or recurve to compensate for its shorter length. Likewise, a gnomish crossbow might have some compound draw mechanism to allow greater power at a smaller size. Melee weapons for small characters might have different weight distribution than their medium sized counterparts to achieve comparable striking force with less leverage. Etc. Since D&D is highly abstracted, it doesn’t get into the nitty gritty details of how small weapons are constructed to accommodate their wielders, but I can suspend my disbelief enough to accept that they work without needing to know the specifics of how.

All that said, gotta be strong to use a heavy bow or crossbow. No two ways about that, they should require 13 strength, not dex. I also think melee and ranged weapons alike should add Dex mod to hit and Str mod to damage.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

And heavy crossbows, and greatswords, greataxes, mauls, glaives, halberds, and pikes. I believe that was the intended effect of changing the Heavy property.

I don't mind the rest (and rather like small people wielding giant objects). With longbows, it's just... you literally need a certain amount of wingspan to draw them.

Ah well, maybe they're using their whole bodies -- no, halflings can be 2 feet tall, that still doesn't...

 

[ezo]

Yes, provided they are sufficiently strong, which is why I do prefer the strength 13 requirement for the heavy property over the old “Small characters get disadvantage” version. It’s switching this to 13 Dex for ranged weapons that I dislike.

Yep (bolded), horrible choice.

I’ve always just assumed weapons for Small PCs are built appropriately for their user. This is probably more involved than a simple scaling down - as you noted, shorter bow limbs means lower draw weight, so a “longbow” that was built to be small enough for a halfling to wield would need some degree of composite construction and/or recurve to compensate for its shorter length. Likewise, a gnomish crossbow might have some compound draw mechanism to allow greater power at a smaller size. Melee weapons for small characters might have different weight distribution than their medium sized counterparts to achieve comparable striking force with less leverage. Etc. Since D&D is highly abstracted, it doesn’t get into the nitty gritty details of how small weapons are constructed to accommodate their wielders, but I can suspend my disbelief enough to accept that they work without needing to know the specifics of how.

See, I go the other direction. A longsword is a greatsword to small PCs, a shortsword more like an (arming) sword, a daager becomes a shortsword (hello Bilbo Baggins and Sting??).

Frankly, I would just make all "small weapons" one die smaller than the medium weapons. After all, if a "gnomish crossbow" can be made to have greater power at a smaller size, why can't that be applied to a regular crossbow to make it even more powerful??

All that said, gotta be strong to use a heavy bow or crossbow. No two ways about that, they should require 13 strength, not dex. I also think melee and ranged weapons alike should add Dex mod to hit and Str mod to damage.

Yep. 90%. Take the damage away from DEX for ALL weapons and DEX gets knocked down a little bit as a god stat. But I would keep attack bonus for melee weapons to STR (not thrown weapons).

Basically:
Melee -- Str Att, Str Dmg
Thrown -- Dex Att, Str Dmg
Ranged -- Dex Att, Str Dmg
(mechanical) -- Dex Att, NO ability Dmg.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't mind the rest (and rather like small people wielding giant objects). With longbows, it's just... you literally need a certain amount of wingspan to draw them.

Ah well, maybe they're using their whole bodies -- no, halflings can be 2 feet tall, that still doesn't...

As mentioned in another post, I just figure longbows for small characters are built to have similar draw weight to a medium sized longbow while being short enough for the small character to use, for example by being recurved or with a compound mechanism.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, I go the other direction. A longsword is a greatsword to small PCs, a shortsword more like an (arming) sword, a daager becomes a shortsword (hello Bilbo Baggins and Sting??).
Frankly, I would just make all "small weapons" one die smaller than the medium weapons.

3e did that, and it was a huge pain, not to mention the fact that it made all small races suboptimal choices for weapon-wielding classes.

After all, if a "gnomish crossbow" can be made to have greater power at a smaller size, why can't that be applied to a regular crossbow to make it even more powerful??

Maybe the mechanisms don’t scale up well. Most of Leonardo DaVinci’s designs worked fine at model scale but many didn’t work when built life-sized because they were too heavy. Or, maybe it does work at Medium size but is prohibitively expensive to produce commercially, but the PCs could go on an adventure to find a Gnomish engineer to commission for a larger one (priced comparably to a magic item). You are limited only by your own imagination.

Yep. 90%. Take the damage away from DEX for ALL weapons and DEX gets knocked down a little bit as a god stat. But I would keep attack bonus for melee weapons to STR (not thrown weapons).

Basically:
Melee -- Str Att, Str Dmg
Thrown -- Dex Att, Str Dmg
Ranged -- Dex Att, Str Dmg
(mechanical) -- Dex Att, NO ability Dmg.

I’d keep melee weapons Dex to attack because that both keeps the rule consistent (and therefore easy to remember and apply), and IMO more accurate. When it comes to if your attack will find purchase, fine motor control is more important than swing force. Swing force is more relevant when it comes to how severe the impact of the strike is.

 

[ezo]

3e did that, and it was a huge pain, not to mention the fact that it made all small races suboptimal choices for weapon-wielding classes.

Meh... it is only 1 point smaller on average (ex. d8 to d6 is 4.5 to 3.5 average). I am fine with someone 3 feet tall using a smaller version weapon not hitting quite as hard.

Maybe the mechanisms don’t scale up well. Most of Leonardo DaVinci’s designs worked fine at model scale but many didn’t work when built life-sized because they were too heavy. Or, maybe it does work at Medium size but is prohibitively expensive to produce commercially, but the PCs could go on an adventure to find a Gnomish engineer to commission for a larger one (priced comparably to a magic item). You are limited only by your own imagination.

Yeah, those are the standard reasons why something wouldn't scale, but we aren't talking the difference in scale you are with examples of DaVinic's work for instance. My imagination isn't the issue, usually it is my desire for reality LOL.

I’d keep melee weapons Dex to attack because that both keeps the rule consistent (and therefore easy to remember and apply), and IMO more accurate. When it comes to if your attack will find purchase, fine motor control is more important than swing force. Swing force is more relevant when it comes to how severe the impact of the strike is.

IF armor served as damage reduction, I would agree with you! Then DEX works to determine if you actually just make contact with the target.

But it doesn't work that way. The way AC works is armor allows you to "be hit" but the attack was not able to penetrate the armor. High STR allows your attacks a better chance of penetrating the armor--represented by STR attack modifier for melee weapon. You are hitting with greater force, allowing you a better chance of getting past the armor to injure the PC inside. Also, the STR to control your weapon and get it to move where you want it to move to make those strikes is part of the fine motor control. What you are taking about is really more for the concept of Finesse weapons IMO.

However, ultimately, like you mentioned above, STR (and DEX) incorporate so many different aspects, nothing works perfectly. I wouldn't fight against a system that used DEX for attacks and STR for damage, particularly if armor is damage reduction and not AC.