Simple changes:
The feat "Deadly Aim" (Use +3 Damage / -1 Penalty)
If using a compound bow with proper Strength increase, use 1.5 x Strength bonus for damage.
So a player with a Strength of 14 (+2 Damage, +3 Damage [two-handed]) would need a compound bow with a (+3 Strength) modifier to take full advantage of their two-handed damage bonus.
Since all bows are two handed weapons they should follow the two handed damage bonus rules.
Bows really don't need the damage buff.
I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
We already have a situation where anyone who doesn't use a bow - outside of a couple very specific builds (halfling slinger, bolt ace, gunslinger) - is vastly behind bow users. This just further punishes people who want to value flavor over power.
Besides the above, the x1.5 STR damage bonus for using two hands was to give a bonus for doing something you might do with one hand, but using two hands is extra muscle so it's extra damage. For example, you can swing a longsword with one hand for x1 STR damage or with two hands for x1.5 STR damage. This translated to 2H weapons and kept the damage bonus.
But bows really are not two handed weapons. They're not listed on the Two Handed Weapons chart. Yep, there is a rule that says you need both hands to wield them, but that doesn't classify them as 2H weapons. Likewise, since with a bow your muscles are working against each other rather than with each other, it's not like using your second arm really ADDS power to the attack. It's simply necessary to use that second arm to even make the bow fire an arrow in the first place.
Logically, the reason for the x1.5 STR modifier is inapplicable to bow use.
So, from a gamist perspective (the reason for the x1.5), it makes no sense to apply it to bows since they're already top of the damage food chain. And from a realist perspective (how the muscles work to add power/damage) it makes no sense to apply the 2H damage bonus to bow because you're not actually adding muscle power by using it with both arms.
We already have a situation where anyone who doesn't use a bow - outside of a couple very specific builds (halfling slinger, bolt ace, gunslinger) - is vastly behind bow users. This just further punishes people who want to value flavor over power.I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
Fine, buff melee too.
Besides the above, the x1.5 STR damage bonus for using two hands was to give a bonus for doing something you might do with one hand, but using two hands is extra muscle so it's extra damage. For example, you can swing a longsword with one hand for x1 STR damage or with two hands for x1.5 STR damage. This translated to 2H weapons and kept the damage bonus.
But bows really are not two handed weapons. They're not listed on the Two Handed Weapons chart. Yep, there is a rule that says you need both hands to wield them, but that doesn't classify them as 2H weapons. Likewise, since with a bow your muscles are working against each other rather than with each other, it's not like using your second arm really ADDS power to the attack. It's simply necessary to use that second arm to even make the bow fire an arrow in the first place.
Logically, the reason for the x1.5 STR modifier is inapplicable to bow use.
So, from a gamist perspective (the reason for the x1.5), it makes no sense to apply it to bows since they're already top of the damage food chain. And from a realist perspective (how the muscles work to add power/damage) it makes no sense to apply the 2H damage bonus to bow because you're not actually adding muscle power by using it with both arms.
I get what your saying, but as a counterpoint...
It's a game with magic, it doesn't have to make sense.
I would love to see non-casting options become viable damage dealers, or even *gasp* better than damaging spells?!?
Too much effort is made to try and keep martials down, I really don't get why all this hatred abounds.
What I've never understood is why you can have bow limbs that reflect the strength of the wielder but not crossbows with similar extra-strong limbs. Mechanically it's the same action that propels the arrow/bolt. It could even use the same price adjustments for the extra STR modifier.
Allowing STR bonus to damage on specially-made crossbows wouldn't completely bring them to the same effectiveness as bows, but it would narrow the gap.
What I've never understood is why you can have bow limbs that reflect the strength of the wielder but not crossbows with similar extra-strong limbs. Mechanically it's the same action that propels the arrow/bolt. It could even use the same price adjustments for the extra STR modifier.
Allowing STR bonus to damage on specially-made crossbows wouldn't completely bring them to the same effectiveness as bows, but it would narrow the gap.
After vehemently disagreeing with this... I now agree.
Boosting weapons damages isn't a bad thing.
I get what your saying, but as a counterpoint...
It's a game with magic, it doesn't have to make sense.
I would love to see non-casting options become viable damage dealers, or even *gasp* better than damaging spells?!?
Too much effort is made to try and keep martials down, I really don't get why all this hatred abounds.
Really? Hatred? I would not have expected you to say that about me.
I have no hatred for melee or for martials or for any part of this game. I would love to see all the classes have better balance.
I do not think "it's magic" is a great response for explaining and arbitrary and illogical rule (or house rule) to a non-magical situation. Your basic, wooden, unenchanted longbow is NOT magic, so saying it's OK for it to do illogical things "because magic" is irrelevant.
You want to take every weapon in the game and triple their damage dice and triple their critical power and say "Yeah, weapons really can one-shot your average person, even your average trained soldier" then I would say "Cool houserule, sounds fun". That's a balance issue, and I don't object to a longsword doing enough damage on a single hit to kill a second level warrior or even an average second level fighter. Swords do that (except not so much in Pathfinder, but elsewhere, yeah, they do that).
And if you made that rule, I would be the last one to whine about martials doing more damage than magic missiles and fireballs.
Because that rule would make sense, from a "weapons are deadly" point of view.
This rule about bows does not make sense, gamistly or simulationistly.
I get what your saying, but as a counterpoint...
It's a game with magic, it doesn't have to make sense.
I would love to see non-casting options become viable damage dealers, or even *gasp* better than damaging spells?!?
Too much effort is made to try and keep martials down, I really don't get why all this hatred abounds.
Really? Hatred? I would not have expected you to say that about me.
I have no hatred for melee or for martials or for any part of this game. I would love to see all the classes have better balance.
I do not think "it's magic" is a great response for explaining and arbitrary and illogical rule (or house rule) to a non-magical situation. Your basic, wooden, unenchanted longbow is NOT magic, so saying it's OK for it to do illogical things "because magic" is irrelevant.
You want to take every weapon in the game and triple their damage dice and triple their critical power and say "Yeah, weapons really can one-shot your average person, even your average trained soldier" then I would say "Cool houserule, sounds fun". That's a balance issue, and I don't object to a longsword doing enough damage on a single hit to kill a second level warrior or even an average second level fighter. Swords do that (except not so much in Pathfinder, but elsewhere, yeah, they do that).
And if you made that rule, I would be the last one to whine about martials doing more damage than magic missiles and fireballs.
Because that rule would make sense, from a "weapons are deadly" point of view.
This rule about bows does not make sense, gamistly or simulationistly.
Agreed, sorry if I offended you, it was a generic hatred of martials I was addressing, not intended to be pointed at you.
This is houserules, so I'm not thinking too hard about my responses.
Yes, tripling weapon damages is something I would totally play with, as a player.
I would probably go archer. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bows are two-handed, but you only use one hand to pull the string back. Hence the normal one-handed Strength bonus to damage.
As the OP has posted this in Homebrew/Houserules, I don't think it's our place to tell him he is wrong.
I support the idea of increasing bow damage, perhaps increase melee damage as well to maintain balance?
You've never seen a properly run archer haven't you? If you had, you wouldn't be making that statement.I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
I've PLAYED many archers, as well as GMed them.
At no point was I worried about them affecting game balance. An extra X to damage doesn't mean jack when the other folks in the party can warp reality to suit their whim.
I would suggest boosting melee also if the bows get better, though.
|
hmmmm I never thought martial damage was under powered,sure spells are flashy but there is a big limitation "number of uses per day". The issue is we live in 3 combat encounter world, 3 encounters and rest. Change that to 9 and suddenly marital damage falls in line, change it to 12 and the poor wizard is watching and conserving his flashy fireball for the right time.
As for bow damage it is already nuts if you do the right feat progression . Leave it as it is. I would say no "two handed" bow damage. Just too much...
I get what your saying
You're.
While I don't think archery is a powerful as people make it out to be (it can still be easily shut down just like every other martial option around)... I honestly don't see any reason for implementing this house-rule and don't understand how that would make Pathfinder more enjoyable as a game.
But if it somehow makes you and your friends have more fun... Go for it.
Thanks for the replies... few notes.
* Archery seems to be a third-rail issue, good to know in the future.
* This is a house rule forum, not your gaming table. Do not take me talking about this optional rule as me punching your baby in the face.
* Those who say Archery uses one-arm strength need to research archery in real life.
* I agree this should also apply to crossbows that have been enhanced for greater strength (not to shoot but to "reload"). Such enhanced crossbows are not currently in the game, but I see no issue with house ruling them.
Various reasons to use this house rule:
* You wish to make enhanced strength bow/xbow damage in line with other two-handed weapons. (Ergo you feel as I do that these are two-handed weapons)
* You feel Archery DPS lags behind other two-handed weapon DPS.
* You dislike the notion that current book damage for archery is a game-design decision. Lowering its damage in trying to balance its ability to damage targets at a distance.
* NPC archers are much more likely to kill players and you like that.
Various reasons not to use this house rule:
* You think Archery damage does not need a buff.
* You dislike house rules in general.
* You like the notion that current book damage for archery is a game-design decision. Lowering its damage in trying to balance its ability to damage targets at a distance.
* Your players already play too many archers and you don't like that.
* NPC archers are much more likely to kill players and you don't like that.
|
Archery is not one arm strength. In fact, an archer using his bow in combat will not just lock his lead arm and pull back, but will push the bow forward as he pulls the string back, speeding up his rate of fire, as well as using nearly all the muscles in his upper body to do so.
Check out the videos of Lars Anderson, the fellow that taught himself ancient archery techniques from a book on Arabic Archery. Also uses some techniques from other ancient cultures (Sarecian, Mongolian, etc).
We already have a situation where anyone who doesn't use a bow - outside of a couple very specific builds (halfling slinger, bolt ace, gunslinger) - is vastly behind bow users. This just further punishes people who want to value flavor over power.I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
Fine, buff melee too.
Slinger - ranged.
Bolt ace - rangedGunslinger - ranged.
Why are you boosting melee to help with the disparity between bows and these other ranged options?
|
|
But he is also a guy who self taught himself in his free time. And he is hitting with enough force to punch through a chain shirt with a hauberk beneath it.
And he isn't a super strong person either, so probably wouldn't be using a bow with much of a Strength rating. And I have no problems with crossbows having an effective Strength. Even saying with the crank to cock it, you wouldn't need to match the xbow's Strength in order to take advantage of it. But in that case, I think that the base damage of the bolt should go down some, to match the smaller sized projectile. Light xbow - 1d4 plus Str, Hvy xbow - 1d6 + Str (minimum +4)
Bows aren't two handed, that's why you can use them and bucklers or wield an offhand weapon when you fire them. You don't need fine manipulation of your right hand to fire a bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
"It's okay if you pour water into your gas tank, because it's not as bad as setting your car on fire!"
"It's okay if you pour water into your gas tank, because it's not as bad as setting your car on fire!"I often wondered WHY they made it this way... 1.5xSTR damage on bows wouldn't break the game the way casters do, so I'm for it.
You have my vote.
On an off topic note: Car engines that run normally on water are great.
|
|
If you want a system where that is the case then make a variety of bows which require more strength to draw the string with a penalty for using it with an inadequate strength rating. So you could have a long bow STR 10, or a Long Bow STR 16, and the damage or damage modifier would then apply because the bow itself is crafted from stiffer wood or different materials.
Longbow, Composite
Description: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular Strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can't effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow.
Please note the bolded section above. A composite longbow is a bow with an inherent strength rating required to properly use it. And it does damage up to equal it Strength rating. If you don't have a high enough Strength to use it, you take a penalty to hit, and don't get the full damage of the weapon (part of which is the Strength bonus).
All I am saying is that you should be able to use a Composite Strength Bow for up to 1.5x your Strength modifier. This would still cost more money, and possibly have to even be custom made. Especially if you have a Str 20 Fighter or Ranger who wants to purchase a Masterwork Composite Longbow with a Strength Rating of +7. Probably hard to find one like that lying around.
And by all means, the same with crossbows. And i think Heavy crossbows should have a minimum Strength rating of 16 or 18, showing why they usually required a crank to cock.
Regardless of what the rest of you think, I do believe I have just found myself a couple of more house rules.
Thank you thread, threader, and threadees alike. Good night.